Labyrinthvs cantuariensis, or, Doctor Lawd's labyrinth beeing an answer to the late Archbishop of Canterburies relation of a conference between himselfe and Mr. Fisher, etc., wherein the true grounds of the Roman Catholique religion are asserted, the principall controversies betwixt Catholiques and Protestants thoroughly examined, and the Bishops Meandrick windings throughout his whole worke layd open to publique view / by T.C. Carwell, Thomas, 1600-1664. 1658 Approx. 1580 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 223 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2003-01 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A35128 Wing C721 ESTC R20902 12259539 ocm 12259539 57798 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A35128) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 57798) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 911:14) Labyrinthvs cantuariensis, or, Doctor Lawd's labyrinth beeing an answer to the late Archbishop of Canterburies relation of a conference between himselfe and Mr. Fisher, etc., wherein the true grounds of the Roman Catholique religion are asserted, the principall controversies betwixt Catholiques and Protestants thoroughly examined, and the Bishops Meandrick windings throughout his whole worke layd open to publique view / by T.C. Carwell, Thomas, 1600-1664. [10], 415, [16] p. Printed by John Billaine, Paris : 1658. Reproduction of original in Union Theological Seminary Library, New York. Attributed to Thomas Carwell. cf. NUC pre-1956. Errata: p. [15]-[16] Index: p. [2]-[14] Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Laud, William, 1573-1645. -- Relation of the conference between William Laud, late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and Mr. Fisher the Jesuit. Catholic Church -- Relations -- Church of England. 2000-00 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2002-01 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2002-04 TCP Staff (Michigan) Sampled and proofread 2002-04 Mona Logarbo Text and markup reviewed and edited 2002-05 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion LABYRINTHVS CANTVARIENSIS : OR DOCTOR LAWD'S LABYRINTH . BEEING AN ANSVVER TO THE LATE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBVRIES RELATION OF A CONFERENCE BETWEEN HIMSELFE AND Mr. FISHER , ETC. WHEREIN The true grounds of the ROMAN CATHOLIQVE Religion are asserted , the principall Controuersies betvvixt Catholiques and Protestants throughly examined , and the Bishops MEANDRICK vvindings throughout his vvhole vvorke layd open to publique veivv . By T. C. Prepare yee the way of our Lord : make streight the paths of our God. Crooked things shall become streight ; and rough wayes plaine . Isa. 40. 3. 4. PARIS Printed by IOHN BILLAINE 1658. THE AVTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE READER . AS I know my selfe to baue been mou'd with noe other impulse then that of Charity in composing this booke , so doe I coniure the Reader to carry the same minde along with him in the perusing of it . It is a great mistake to thinke , that heate of disputation , for the finding out of truth , is a cooling of Charity . Debates of this kinde are not so much breaches of freindship , as a meanes to vnite vnderstandings in the beleefe of truth . If contentions in Schooles , for interest of ones priuate opinion only , or some worldly glorie , be esteem'd no violation of amity amonge disputants , surely to contend meerly out of zeale to saue soules , cannot be thought inconsistent with Charity . In this contest , our warre is not against the person , but the errours of our neighbour : in which to be silent would in some degree make vs criminal , and responsable to God for our neighbours ruine . If any man wonder , why an answer came forth no sooner , let him consider , that my Lord Bishops booke was publish't not long before the time of our publique distractions , in which it concern'd vs rather to prepare for the next world , then answer books , that defended the Church of England ; which was then in so bleeding a condition , that it might haue been thought as vnhandsome to impugne it , as to fight with a dying Aduersarie . But the heate of the warre beeing ouer , and many of the Prelatique party ( who , together with our selues , did daily entertaine a confidence of the happy return and restauration of our gracious Souereign King Charles the second ) seeming to conclude , that my Lord of Canterburies booke was an impregnable piece , in regard wee had not attempted to assault it , I thought , I should performe a worke acceptable to God , and very satisfactory to the wishes of Catholiques , if I framed an answer , so often called for , by our Aduersaries . In perusall of the Bishops booke I found so many affected Windings , and artificiall meanders , especially in that important controuersie of resoluing our Fayth , ( where he ought chiefly to haue aym'd at perspicuity ) that I could not chuse , but looke vpon it as a Labyrinth ; and haue therfore soe styled it in my answer . I intend not to make my Reader spend time in vnnecessary Preambles ; which I wish him rather to imploy in seeking satisfaction within my booke . I shall therfore in this preface , only take notice of some few things , which the Bishop vrges against vs in his dedicatory Epistle to his late Maiestie of glorious and deare memorie . The Bishop charges Mr. Fisher with downright disloyalty , for publishing , contrary to the Kings express command , the Relations of the Conferences which he had with the Bishop and Doctor White ; because ( sayth he ) Mr. Fisher was charged vpon his allegiance , not to sett out , or publish what passed in some of the conferences , till his Maiestie gaue further licence . To which I answer , his Maiesties command ( even as here sett down by the Bishop ) doth only forbid the publishing of what pass't in some of these conferences : so that , for ought appeares , what pass't in other some might be publisht without further licence . Secondly , 't is auerr'd by A. C. that not Mr. Fisher , but his Aduersaries , first transgress't this precept of his Maiestie by diuulging false reports to the preiudice of Mr. Fisher's person and cause : by reason whereof Mr. Fisher was forced , for the iust and necessary vindication of himselfe and the Catholique cause , to deliuer some copies to his friends . Thirdly , who made most hast in publishing what had passed in these Conferences , appeares likewise out of W. I. from whome the Bishop frames all this charge against Mr. Fisher. Some may ( perhaps ) maruaile ( sayes W.I. ) why these Relations came out so late ; it beeing now long , since the Aduersaries haue giuen out false reports both in speeches and print . So that it seems by this , not Mr. Fisher , but his Aduersaries were the first prouokers both in speeches and print ; and by consequence , the only transgressours of his Maiesties command . Neither are those of Mr. Fishers profession so apt to complayn , and cry out Persecution , without cause ; there beeing then persons of great Authority about the King , inciting his Maiestie to put the penall and sanguinary Laws against vs , in rigorous execution : to say nothing of those , who were then actually persecuted . Nor does the Bishop so much cleere , as contradict himselfe in this particular , while he first sayes ( pag. 11. of his Epistle ) God forbid I should euer offer to persuade a persecution , in any kinde , or practise it in the least : and yet , in the very next lines , adds ; God forbid too , that your Maiestie should lett the laws ( viz. against Catholiques and Catholique Religion ) sleep , forfeare of the name of persecution . If Mr. Fisher and his fellowes doe angle for his Maiesties subiects , as the Relatour pretends , 't is only to bring them the safe to Heauen , and by which only they themselues hope to arriue thither : it is not to draw them into the beleefe of any assertions repugnant to loyaltie and Christian vertue , but such as their Teachers will be euer ready to maintayn , both with their pens and liues . To fish , in this manner , deserues neither hanging , drawing , nor quartering ; but is conformable to the ancient commission , which in the person of the Apostles , these anglers ( as he calls them ) receiued from Christ. Matth. 4. 18. follow mee , and I will make you Fishers of men . Neither doth Mr. Fisher , or any of his profession , allow , or vse any such netts , as the Relatour mentions ( pag. 11. Epist. ) that is , they neither practise , nor hold it lawfull to dissolue oaths of Allegiance , to depose or kill Kings , to blow vp states for the establishing of QUOD VOLUMUS &c. All which , out of his Charity , and professed forbearance towards vs , the Bishop does very kindely infinuate both to his Maiestie and the Reader . But our answer is , wee yeeld to none in all Christian and true allegiance to our Souereign Lord the King ; which wee haue in times of tryall so manifested to the world , that wee hope there are not many , euen amonge our Aduersaries , but are conuinced of our reall fidelitie : and though some perhaps will talke more , and sweare more , yet none vpon all iust occasions will doe more , in defense of his Maiesties sacred Person , rights , and dignity , then those of our profession . This is certain , Roman-Catholiques alone can glorie in this , that whereas in these 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 obserues againe ( Epist. pag. 19. ) that noe one thing hath made conscientious men ( of his party ) more wauering in their mindes , and more apt to be draw'n beside from the Religion professed in the Church of England , then want of of vniforme and decent order &c. therevpon taking occasion to enlarge himselfe on the subiect of ceremonies , shewing their vsefulness and necessity in the publique exercise of Religion ; wherin I haue noe reason to contradict him . Only this I must note by the way , that whereas ( out of indulgence to his ordinary humour ) he taxes the Roman Church with thrusting in many , that are vnnecessary and superstitious , he might haue know'n , that the Councill of Trent it selfe not only inables , but inioynes all particular Bishops in their respectiue Dioceses , and all Archbishops and Metropolitans in their respectiue Prouinces , to reforme what euer they may finde amiss in this kinde . And this his crimination is no more , then was obiected to himselfe by his owne people . Wee shall in due place shew , in what sense it is , wee maintaine , that out of Rome , that is , out of the communion of the Roman-Catholique Church , there is no saluation . At present it may suffize to say , that wee doe not shut vp saluation in such a narrow conclaue as the Bishop would haue his Reader beleeue , when he parallels vs with the Donatists . Wee teach no other doctrine concerning the attainement of saluation , then what hath been held in all ages , in all times and in all places , and is now visibly taught and professed throughout the Christian world ; viz. that out of the true Catholique Church , saluation is not to be expected . Nor doe wee shut Heauen-gates , as the Relatour insinuates , to any that are willing to enter ; prouided , they be willing to enter , and goe that way , which Christ hath appointed . But 't is the Bishop and his party , that doe really shutt Heauen-gates to those who otherwise might enter , euen whilest they pretend to open them . For by teaching the way to Heauen to be wider then it is , and that Saluation may be attained by such meanes , and in such wayes , as according to Gods ordinary Prouidence it cannot , what doe they but putt men into a false way , and in stead of leading them in that straite path to eternall happiness , which the Gospell prescribes , trace out that broad way to them , which leads to death ? I shall close my Preface with an Aduertisement to such , as are apt to quarrel at words , beyond the meaning of those that vse them . The infallible ( which in treating of the Church and Generall Councils I haue had frequent occasion to make vse of ) is cunningly raised by our Aduersaries to so high a pitch of signification , as though it could import no less , then the ascribing of an intrinsecall vnerring power in all things , to those wee account infallible ; which is cleerly to peruert our meaning : wee intending to signifie noe more , when wee say the Church , or Generall Councils are infallible , then that by vertue of Christ's promise they haue neuer erred , nor euer shall in definitions of Fayth . In fine , Good Reader , that thou mayst see and embrace the truth , is the hearty wish of him , that bids thee noe less heartily . Farewell . Labyrinthus Cantuariensis . OR , Dr. LAWD'S LABYRINTH . BEING An Answer to his Lordships Relation of a Conference between Himself and Mr. Fisher , &c. CHAP. I. Stating the Conference between the Bishop and Mr. Fisher , for Satisfaction of a Person of Honour . ARGUMENT . 1. The Introduction . 2. The Bishops Artifice in waving a direct Answer to the Question . 3. His pretended Solutions to certain Authorities referr'd to a fitter place for Answer . 4. His maintaining the Greeks not to have lost the Holy Ghost ; and that they are a true Church . 5. The Modern Greeks in Errour , not the Ancient . 6. why FILIOQUE inserted into the Nicene Creed . 1. THough Dedalus , that ingenious Artificer , might possibly shew no less skill in contriving his Cretan Labyrinth , then did the principall Architect , employ'd by Salomon in building that Magnisicent Temple at Jerusalem ; yet their Labours were of a different nature . For whereas the latter exercis'd his Art in raising a noble , elevated , lightsome Structure ; the former ( Dedalus ) us'd all his Inventive industry in framing a Subterraneous , darksome Prison , with such redoubled Turnings , perplexed Windings , and tortuous Meanders , that who ever entred into it , might indeed wander up and down within its involved and recurring paths , but never be able to get either back , or thorow it . Now alluding to these different Works , we may not unfitly compare the learned Labours of the Fathers , Doctors , and worthy Divines of Gods Church , to this stately Temple of Salomon , being the rich and illustrious Monuments of their Piety , Zeal , and Erudition . Whereas by the Cretan Labyrinth are fitly Symboliz'd the Artificiall , but Pestiferous Works of all Hereticall Authors , who ( forsaking the ever-visible and conspicuous Church of Christ , and known Consent of Christendome ) induce themselves and Followers to believe the novel Fancies of their own Phanatick Brains . These mens Labours are so farre from being lightsome Monuments , that they are rather Labyrinths , or intricate Dungeons for poor seduced Souls ; who being once ingag'd in the perplexities of their intangled flexures , see not the radiant light of Gods Church ; some few onely excepted , whom of his great mercy he is pleas'd to shew the way out , and reduce into his Fold . Now it hath already been shew'n by others , that the Works of many late Protestant Writers of this Nation are of the aforesaid intangling Nature ; and I doubt not , by Gods help , but to evidence , that this their Grand Authors Book I am now about to answer , is very liable to the same Reproach . For , to describe it rightly , it is a Labyrinth most artificially compos'd , with as many abstruse Turnings , ambiguous Windings , and intricate Meanders , as that of Dedalus , and therefore equally inextricable . But a more sure and stronger Clew then Ariadne's , the Line of the Catholique Churches Authority and Tradition , joyn'd with Holy Scripture , hath not onely carried me through it , but by Gods good assistance , enabled me to render it pervious to all , by the Discoveries and Directive Marks I have set on the Leaves , that compose this present Volume . Yet before I descend to particulars , I must advertise the Reader , that I designe not the Defence either of Mr. Fisher or any other Author , further then they deliver the generally received Doctrine of the Catholique Church ; which is that I undertake to maintain . The three leading pages of the Bishops Book contain the occasion of the Conference between himself and Mr. Fisher , viz. for the satisfaction of an Honourable Lady , who having heard it granted ( on the Protestant part ) in a former Conference , that there must be a continuall , visible Company , ever since Christ , teaching unchanged Doctrine , in all points necessary to Salvation , and finding ( it seems ) in her own Reason , that such a Company , or Church , must not be fallible in its Teaching , was in Quest of a Continuall , Visible , and Infallible Church , as not thinking it fit for unlearned persons to judge of particular Doctrinals , but to depend on the judgement of the true Church : which point of Infallibility the Bishop sought to evade , saying , That neither the Jesuit , nor the Lady her self spake very advisedly , if she said , she desired to relie upon an Infallible Church , because an Infallible Church denotes a particular Church , in opposition to some other Particular Church not Infallible . 2. Here already you may observe the Bishop falling to work on his projected Labyrinth , by making its first Crook ; which is apparent to any man that has eyes , even without the help of a Perspective . For though he could not be ignorant , that the Lady sought not any one Particular Infallible Church , in opposition to another Particular Church not Infallible , but some Church , such as might without danger of Errour direct her in all Doctrinall Points of Faith , call it an or the Infallible Church as you please , ( for she had no such Quirks in her head ) yet the Bishop will by no means understand her sincere meaning , but instead of using a charitable endeavour to satisfie her perplexed Conscience , vainly pursues that meer Quibble , on purpose to decline the difficulty of giving her a satisfactory Answer in his own Principles . Neither indeed does that expression ( an Infallible Church ) denote a Particular Church , in opposition to some other Particular Church not Infallible , but positively signifies a Church that never hath , shall , or can erre in Doctrine of Faith , without connotating , or implying any other Church that might erre . Nor can it be pretended , that the Particle a or an is onely appliable to Particulars , seeing the Bishop himself applies it to the whole Church . For , omitting other places , see page 141. where speaking of the whole Militant Church , he sayes , And if she erre in the Foundation , that is , in some one or more Fundamental Points of Faith , then she may be a Church of Christ still . Here sure he cannot mean a Particular Church by this expression A true Church , but the whole Catholique or Universal Church , unless he intended to speak non-sense , viz. That the whole Militant Church is a Particular Church . And what Learned Interpreter ever understood those words of Saint Paul , Ephes. 5. 27. That he might exhibit to himself A glorious Church , &c. of any other , save the Universall Church of Christ ? And seeing the Lady made enquiry after that Church IN WHICH one may , and OUT OF WHICH one cannot attain Salvation , ( as the Bishop sets down the words of Mr. Fisher , page 3. ) it is evident , that really and in effect she sought no other , save the Universall Visible Church of Christ : which A. C. ( to take away all doubt of her meaning ) expresses pag. 1. by saying , that she desired to depend upon the judgement of THE TRUE Church . Why then might not the Lady express her self , as the Bishop himself does in the place above cited , by the Particle a , or an , and yet not speak so improperly , that he must needs mistake her meaning ? The truth is , it was an affected mistake in his Lordship , as any man may easily perceive , that has not lost his discerning faculty . But the Bishop having now entred his hand , and willing to shew his dexterity betimes , immediately redoubles the Crook he had made , while ( to countenance his former trisling with the Lady touching an Infallible Church ) he craftily attacks Bellarmin for maintaining an Infallibility in the Particular Church , or Diocess of Rome , as hoping to make that opinion pass for an Article of Faith among Catholiques ( which it is not ) and by confuting it , to seem to have overthrown the Infallibility of the whole Catholique Church . Now though Bellarmins opinion is , indeed , That the whole Clergy and People of Rome cannot erre in Faith , and desert the Pope , so long as his Chair remains in that City ; yet the Bishop knew very well , that the Catholique Church doth not restraine the Doctrine of her Infallibility to that opinion of Bellarmin : it being sufficient for a Catholique to believe , that there is an Infallibility in the Church , without further obligation to examine , whether the Particular Church of Rome be Infallible , or not . By what has been hitherto faid , a man may easily perceive the candour of the Bishops proceeding , and what he is to expect from him throughout his whole Work ; which will ( I assure you ) for the greater part , be found to correspond with that you have already seen . 3. From the fourth page to the twentieth he goes on disputing against severall Opinions of Bellarmin , ( as whether the Popes Chair may be removed from Rome ; and in case of such Removall , whether that Particular Church may then erre ) which seeing they are but Particular Opinions , I shall not expostulate them with the Bishop , as being no part of the Province I have undertaken . And as to the Authorities here quoted by Bellarmin , out of St. Cyprian , St. Jerom , St. Gregory Nazianzen , &c. in proof of his opinions touching the Particular Church of Rome , seeing they are neither cited by the Cardinal to prove any Articles held de Fide among Catholiques , nor impugned by the Bishop but as insufficient to make good those particular Opinions , ( though he hoped the Reader would make neither of these reflections ) I cannot hold my self oblig'd to take notice of his pretended Solutions , till I finde them brought to evacuate the Infallibility of the Catholique , or Roman Church in its full Latitude , as Catholiques ever mean it , save when they say expresly the Particular Church , or Diocess , of Rome , as here Bellarmin doth . However , I intend to examine them , when I come to treat the Question of the Infallibility of the Universal Church . Where I make no doubt , but I shall clearly evince against his Lordship and the whole party , these particulars following . First , that to draw the word perfidia ( which St. Cyprian useth ) to his own sense , the Bishop leaves out two parts of the Sentence , which he ought necessarily to have expressed . Secondly , that by glossing almost every word of the Text imperfectly alledged , he makes that Father give no more Priviledge to Rome , then what was due to every particular Church , yea to every Orthodox Christian of those times , quite contrary to St. Cyprians intent . Thirdly , how he presses St. Cyprians not being tax'd by the Ancients , for holding a possibility of the Popes teaching Errour in matter of Faith , but never reflects , that he was as little tax'd by them for affixing possibility of Erring to the Universall and Immemorial Tradition of Non-rebaptization , embrac'd and practised against him by the whole Church . Fourthly , I shall shew , that his Lordships Answer to St. Hieromes Authority is meerly Nugatory , making him advertize Ruffinus , that the Apostolicall Faith , first preach'd at Rome , could not in it self be any other , then what it essentially is ; that is , it could not be changed , so long as it remained unchang'd . Fifthly , that he trifles as much in the allegation of St. Gregory Nazianzen . For though that Father useth the word Semper retinet , ( as the Bishop translates him ) and doth not expresly say Semper retinebit ( it ever holds , and not it shall ever hold the true Faith ) speaking of the Roman Church ; yet certainly in this place the word retinet , coming after these other ab antiquis temporibus habet , and having Semper annexed to it , must in all reason be understood to relate to the severall Differences of Time , past , present , and to come . Sixthly , that he wrongfully imposes upon Bellarmin the alledging of St. Cyril and Ruffinus , as holding his opinion about the particular Church of Rome : whereas Bellarmin hath not so much as St. Cyrils name in that whole Chapter ; nor Ruffinus's , but onely when he cites St. Hieromes Apology against him : and when he alledges those two Authors in his third Chapter , he expresses both the places and their words ; but it is to prove another Proposition : and that of St. Cyril is a quite different Text , from what the Relatour thrusts into his Margent . Thus eagerly fights he by Moon-light with his own shadows . Seventhly , that his Lordship confounds two Questions that are distinct , and distinctly treated by Bellarmin , viz. Whether the Pope , when he teaches the whole Church , can erre in matters of Faith ( which is the Proposition Bellarmin defends in the third Chapter , and belongs to the Pope as he is chief Pastour of the Church ) with this , whether the particular Roman Church , that is , the Roman Clergy and People , cannot erre in Faith ; which question Bellarmin treats in the 4 th . Chapter . Lastly , that the Text of Matth. 16. 18. Tu es Petrus ; &c. ( Thou art Peter , &c. ) cannot in the Grammatical and proper sense be applied to the confession of St. Peter , as abstracted from his Person , but onely to his Person , as made , in that occasion , for and in vertue of that Confession , perpetually to endure in him and his Successours , THE ROCK of Christs Church . But of these hereafter . The Bishop having long wandered from the Ladies Question concerning Infallibility , whether to be admitted in any Church or not ? at length in the 20 th . page , removing St. Peters Chair out of his way and from the City of Rome , and disporting himself a while in that particular City , or Diocess , in a kinde of Raillery upon its Infallibility , his Lordship comes to the Greek Church , on occasion of some words spoken by a friend of the Ladies , in defence of that Church . I believe that Friend did a friendly office to the Bishop , in giving him a rise for a new Dispute , and diverting the Lady from pressing him further for a satisfactory answer to her Querie . 4. The question started by this friend was ( as I have already hinted ) about the Faith of the Greek Church , which Mr. Fisher told him , had plainly made a change and taught false Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost ; and that he had heard his Majesty should say , That the Greek Church , having erred against the Holy Ghost , had lost the Holy Ghost . This latter part of Mr. Fishers assertion the Bishop will needs interpret as a disrespect in him towards his King ; whereas in truth he highly honour'd his Majesty , and shew'd the Kings great Learning and Judgement in that point , touching the Holy Ghost . But the Bishop with all his respect and present flattery , is resolved to contradict his Majesty : yet that he might seem to do it but in part , he introduces this distinction , viz. That a particular Church may lose the Holy Ghost two wayes . 1. The one when it loses such special Assistance of that Blessed Spirit , as preserves it from all dangerous errours and sins , and the punishment that is due unto them . 2. The other is , when it loses not onely this Assistance , but all Assistance , to remain any longer a true Church . Now the Bishop denyes the Greek Church to have lost the Assistance of the Holy Ghost in this latter Acception , viz. totally , which would render it no true Church ; but grants it to have lost that special Assistance specified in the first branch of the distinction . But this ( he sayes ) is rather to be called an errour , CIRCA SPIRITVM SANCTVM ( about the Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost ) then an errour CONTRA SPIRITVM SANCTVM ( against the Holy Ghost . ) Thus he minces what he had said before , That the Greek Church did perhaps lose the Holy Ghost , and that they erred against him . But let us see what Arguments his Lordship brings in proof of his Assertion , that the Greek Church continues a true Church , and that their errour is not properly against the Holy Ghost . Here the Bishop makes no great haste , but breathing himself a while , does very prudently prepare his Reader to expect no great matter from him in this kinde . For , dilating very speciously on his own modesty he adds , There is no reason the weight of this whole Cause should rest upon one particular man ; or that the personal defects of any man should press any more then himself . Also that he entred not upon this service , but by command of Supreme Authority ; there being , as he sayes , an hundred abler then himself to maintain the Protestant Cause . This his acknowledgement as I have no reason to blame him for it , so I cannot see , what just cause his Lordship had to censure Mr. Fisher , for thinking so humbly of himself as to confess , there were a thousand better Scholars , then he , to maintain the Catholick Cause . Before we come to the Bishops proofs , I must in the first place entreat the Reader to lend attention to his words , which are these ; I was not so peremptory , viz. as to affirm the Greeks errour was not in a Fundamental . Divers learned men , and some of your own , were of opinion , that ( as the Greeks expressed themselves ) it was a question not simply Fundamentall . I know and acknowledge , that errour of denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son , to be a grievous errour in Divinity . After this he adds as a Theological proof of his own , Since their form of speech is , that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father BY THE SON , and is the Spirit of the Son , without making any difference in the Consubstantiality of the Persons , I dare not deny them to be a TRVE CHVRCH ; though I confess them AN ERRONEOVS Church in this particular . Are not these very specious expressions ? I was not so peremptory . Divers learned men were of opinion . I know and acknowledge that errour to be a grievous errour in Divinity . I dare not deny them to be a true Church . They seem to agree with us . They think a diverse thing from us . But I pass by his trifling , and make way for truth . It is to be considered , that now for many hundred years the whole Latin Church hath decreed and believed it to be a flat Heresie in the Greeks , and they decreed the contrary to be an Heresie in the Latin Church ; and both together condemned the opinion of the Grecians as Heretical in a general Council : how then bears it any shew of probability , what some few of yesterday ( forced to it by an impossibility of otherwise avoiding the strength of Catholick Arguments against them ) affirm , that the matter of this Controversie is so small and inconsiderable , that it is not sufficient to produce an Heresie on either side ? Is not this to make all the Churches of Christendome , for many hundred years , quite blinde , and themselves onely clear and sharp-sighted ? which swelling presumption , what spirit it argues , and whence it proceeds , all those , who have learn't from St. Augustine , that pride is the mother of Heresie , will easily collect . But though this perswasion had not been attested by such clouds of witnesses , Theological Reason is so strong a Foundation to confirm it , that I wonder how rational men could ever be induced to question the truth of it . Is it ( think you ) enough to assert the Divinity , and Consubstantiality , and Personal Distinction of the Holy Ghost ( as the Bishop sayes ) to save from Heresie the denial of his Procession from the Father and the Son as from one Principle ? would not he , that should affirm the Son to be a distinct Person from , and Consubstantial to the Father , but denyed his eternal Generation from him , be an Heretick ? or he , who held the Holy Ghost , distinct from , and Consubstantial to them both , but affirmed his Procession to be from the Son onely , and not from the Father , would he not be highly guilty of Heresie ? It is then most evident , that not onely an errour against the Consubstantiality and Distinction , but against the Origination , Generation , and Procession of the Divine Persons is sufficient mattter of Heresie : which being here most manifestly found , either in the Affirmative maintained by the Latins , or in the Negative embraced by the Greeks , about the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son , there must also be found sufficient matter to constitute the erroneous Tenet Heretical . And seeing Protestants acknowledge with the Bishop here , that the Greeks in this are the erring party , how can they possibly excuse them from Heresie ? 5. But before I fall upon a particular examen of his proofs , we must distinguish between Greeks . Some are Ancient ; other Modern . The Ancient Greeks , though they did indeed , in this question of the Holy Ghosts procession , express themselves sometimes by the word per Filium ( by the Son ) yet the sense they gave them was Confignificative with à Filio ( from the Son. ) Whereas the Modern Greeks , since they rais'd this Dispute against the Latin Church , will not admit that expression à Filio , but per Filium onely , and that too in a sense Dissignificative to à Filio . For they so affert the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father by the Son , that he proceeds from the Father alone , and not from the Son at all : thereby making the words perrFilium to signifie the Medium onely , not the Principle , from which he is Originiz'd as truly as from the Father . And that this is the erroneous perswasion of the Modern Greeks is manifest , not onely by those long Discourses between the Greeks and Latins , set down at large in the a Council of Florence , but by the free acknowledgement of Hieremias late Patriarch of Constantinople , in his Book intituled Censura Orientalis Ecclesiae , cap. 2. where expounding the Belief of the Modern Greek Church , he hath these express words , Spiritum verò Sanctum , Dominum vivificantem , & EX PATRE SOLO procedentem . Now after this distinction of Ancient and Modern Greeks , and their different meanings even under the same expression , it will be seasonable to give solutions to all the Bishops proofs . To the first therefore , however the Bishop labours to excuse the Modern Greeks from a Fundamental errour , he takes a wrong course to effect it , and in stead of excusing them , directly overthrows and condemns them ; nay renders those , whom he endeavours to excuse , incapable of that favourable exposition , which the Authors he alledges in their behalf , have made for some of the Greek Church . For pag. 24. § 9. num . 1. he acknowledges that errour , of denying the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Son , to be a grievous errour in Divinity , and pag. 26. § 9. num . 3. that the Greeks think a diverse thing from the Latins in this point , as I have noted above . Now to prove that these who erre thus grievously , and differ from the Latin Church in re , not in the words onely , but in the thing , do yet not erre Fundamentally , he brings Testimonies from our Authors , who speak of such Grecians , ( even as he cites them ) which erre not at all in the opinion of those alledged Authors , and which differ from the Latin Church onely voce , in words , and not in the thing , or matter of their Doctrine . Thus he cites Durandus . Pluralitas IN VOCE , salvata unitate IN RE , non repugnat unitati Fidei . Magist. Sentent . Dist. 11. Sanè sciendum est , quod licet in presenti Articulo à nobis Graeci VERBO difcordent , tamen SENSU non differunt : and the like sayings are in all the following Authors there cited by the Bishop . But what a strange Medium is this to prove his intent ? He was to prove , that such as were in grievous errour in Divinity , erred not Fundamentally ; and for proof of this he alledges such as have no real errour at all in Divinity . He was to prove , that such as differ in re , in the thing it self , from the Latin Church , about the Procession of the Holy Ghost , erre not Fundamentally : and for proof of this he alledges such as differ onely from us voce , in words , but not in the thing controverted . Is not this strong Logick ? Let his Lordships Defender then prove , from the said Authorities , his Assertion , viz. That those Greeks , who erre grievously in Divinity , and differ in re from the Latin Church , erre not Fundamentally , and he will have done more then my Lord himself has done , or any other ( I presume ) can do . In the mean time every half eye will discover , how inappositely the Relatour hath reasoned hithertó , and brought no Authority at all to make good his Assertion . For the Master of Sentences , he speaks only of such Ancient Authors , as differed onely in voce , in words , and not in Substance from the Latin Church ; or at least who spake not so clearly against it , but that their words might admit some tolerable interpretation . But how proves this , that those of the Greek party say now no more , nor otherwise , then the others did in those Ancienter times ? seeing it is manifest from the Council of Florence , and from Hieremias Patriarch of Constantinople , that their Doctrine cannot admit of that Exposition , which those Authors give to the Doctrine of the Ancient Grecians . For they flatly and in express terms deny , that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son , and understand per Filium ( by the Son ) in that sense which excludes à Filio ( from the Son. ) This difference of times was long since observed by St. Bonaventure in that very place , wherein his Lordship cites him , to wit , in 1. Sentent . dist . 11. quest . 1. art . 1. ad 3 um . & 4 um . His words are these . Ad illud quod objicitur de Damasceno dicendum , quod non est in istâ parte ei assentiendum . Sicut enim intellexi , ipse fuit in tempore , quando orta est contentio . Vnde non est in hoc sustinendus , quia simpliciter fuit Graecus : tamen ipse cautè loquitur . Unde non dicit , quod Spiritus non est a Filio , sed dicit , NON DICIMVS A FILIO ; quia Graeci non confitebantur , nec tamen negabant . Sed modò eorum maledicta progenies addidit ad paternam Dementiam , & dicit , quod non procedit à Filio , nisi temporaliter : & ideo tanquam Haereticos & Schismaticos Romana eos damnat Ecclesia . To that ( sayes he ) which is objected from Damascen it is to be answered , that we are not to assent to him in this particular . For , as I understand , he lived in the time , when this Controversie was sprung up . Wherefore we are not bound to maintain him in this point ; because , absolutely speaking , he was a Grecian : yet himself speaks warily . For , he doth not say , the Holy Ghost is not from the Son , but he saith , we say not from the Son. For the Grecians , as they did not confess , so neither did they deny ( to wit , the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. ) But now their accursed off-spring hath added to the madness of their Fore-fathers , and professeth , that the Holy Ghost doth not at all proceed from the Son , otherwise then Temporally : and therefore the Roman Church condemns them both as Heretiques and Schismatiques . But let us adde a word or two more in particular to his Authorities cited . Durandus his words give onely a general Doctrine , which is most true , viz. That difference IN WORDS is not repugnant to the unity of Faith. The Master of Sentences ( we said but even now ) speaks of those Ancienter Greeks , who spake moderately and warily in this point . Bandinus is cited , but no words of his alledged . St. Bonaventure is quite against his Lordship . For in that very place which he cites , St. Bonaventure brands the Greeks of his time , who had deserted the Roman Church , with the note of a Hereticks and Schismatiques , Now the Bishop uses some cunning , in not giving notice of those precedent words , and thereby perswading his Reader , that St. Bonaventure , by not answering to the Objection pressed by the Greeks , viz. That Salvation might be had without that Article , A PATRE FILIO QUE PROCEDIT ; but onely saying , that such a determination was opportune by reason of the danger , tacitly grants that Salvation may be had without it . And consequently was of opinion , that the Greeks who separated from the Church of Rome in his time , were capable of Salvation , even in that Separation . Whereas it is most manifest in that very Paragraph , that St. Bonaventure ( as is said ) holding them Heretiques and Schismatiques , excluded them from Salvation . And this would have appeared , had not St. Bonaventures former words been concealed by the Bishop . But this is not all the Art he useth in this Citation . He was to prove , that according to St. Bonaventure the Grecians opposite to the Roman Church , notwithstanding their Errour and Separation , were capable of Salvation , even supposing the Declarations and Decrees of the Roman Church in his time against them : and to prove this he alledges an Answer of St. Bonaventure to an Objection about the addition of the word Filioque to the Creed . Now this addition was made before the succeeding Declarations of the Church against the Grecians ; and consequently seeing for many hundred years the Creed was without this addition , it was most evident , that Salvation might be had , and was had without it : nay , even after the addition was made , till the necessity of it was sufficiently declared by the Church , and the point fully defined against the Grecians who opposed it , it was not happily so necessary , but some might be saved without it . But by what reach of Logick will the Bishop be able to prove this Consequence ; St. Bonaventure tacitly grants , that Salvation might be had without that Article , before it was added and decreed by the Church to contain a Point of Christian Faith necessary to Salvation : Ergo St. Bonaventure holds , that even after such decrees were made , Salvation might be had without it ; and even by those who obstinately contradicted the Truth contained in it ? For before it was added , and at the first addition , before the said Declarations , Christians might be excused by ignorance : but after such Declarations were made , those who knew them , as the Greek Church did , could by no ignorance be excused . Jodocus Clictoveus is cited to small purpose . For the question is not , whether quidam ex Graecis ( some of the Grecians ) hold that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Sou ; for that is true even at this day : but whether those , who violently oppose the Church of Rome , that is to say , the Patriarchs , Bishops , Clergy , and people who take part with them ( which we now term the Greek Church ) hold , that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son. Scotus is of as little force as Clictoveus . For the Bishop was to prove from this Author ( as he undertakes ) that the present Greek Church errs not Fundamentally . And to prove this he alledgeth him saying , That the Ancient Greeks differed rather in Words , then in Substance from the Latin Church ; which was not at all touched in the Controversie between them . For all of ours grant , that the Ancient Grecians were guilty of no real errour at all , land so of no Fundamental errour . But how does that excuse the present Greeks from Fundamental errour ? His Lordship should have shew'n this . And Bellarmin is as far from proving the present Greek Church not to erre , as his words point from the time of it . For he speaks of St. John Damascen , who flourished six hundred years before Bellarmin was born , and who spake so warily and moderately in the point , that ( as St. Bonaventure observes ) his words may be taken in a favourable sense , to wit , as not denying , that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son , as the latter Grecians now do , but onely saying non dicimus , we use not to say ex Filio , but rather per Filium , neque affirmando nec negando , formalizing , as 't is evident , at the manner of expression , but not at the thing . Lastly , when the words of Tolet , and of the Lutherans to Hieremias the Patriarch shall be cited , they shall receive answer . Onely this is most certain , that Tolet holds , with all Catholique Doctors , that the Modern Grecians are Hereticks , and so do erre Fundamentally : and the Lutherans oppose Hieremias , who denyes in express terms the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son , as we have already shew'n . His second and Theological Argument is , that since their forme of speech is , that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father by the Son , and is the Spirit of the Son , without making any difference in the Consubstantiality of the Persons , they must be a True Church , though an erroneous one in this particular . Here the Bishop thinks to blinde all the Churches of Christendome with a trifle . He grants , that whoever makes an Inequality between the Holy Ghost and the Son , or denyes the Consubstantiality of the Holy Ghost with the Son , is an Heretique . But he goes not about to shew in Divinity ( though he talks much of it ) how all this can be , viz. That the Holy Ghost should be in all respects Equal and Consubstantial with the Son , unless he proceeded from the Son. This ( it seems ) was matter too deep for his Lordship to wade into , and therefore very dexterously he puts it off as a business of no great moment . And to hide his face from an open profession ( with the Greeks ) against the Holy Ghosts Proceeding from the Son , he first casts a vail over the Readers eyes , giving him a dark expression , that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Son , and then boldly tells him non est aliud , 't is the same to say the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Son , as to say the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son. But I ask his Lordship whether the Modern Greeks say , the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Son ; for he cites none , but St. John Damascen , for it , who is none of the Moderns ? Secondly , whether the Spirit he here sets forth , do truly proceed from the Son ? if not ; then he trades with some other Spirit , and not with the Holy Ghost . What I have hitherto said is , I doubt not , sufficient to undeceive any indifferent Reader , touching the Question in Dispute . Yet to press the point a little harder , I thus argue in form against his Lordship , and that out of his own Concessions . If the Greeks errour be not onely concerning , but against the Holy Ghost , then ( according to the Bishops own Distinction ) they have lost all Assistance of that Blessed Spirit , and are become no True Church . But their errour is not onely concerning , but against the Holy Ghost . Therefore they have lost all the Assistance of that Blessed Spirit , and are become no True Church . The Major , or First Proposition , contains the Bishops own Doctrine : The Minor , or Second Proposition , viz. That the Greeks errour is not onely concerning , but against the Holy Ghost , I thus prove . All errours specially opposite to the particular and personal Procession of the Holy Ghost are ( according to all Divines ) not onely errours concerning , but errours against the Holy Ghost . But the Greeks errour is opposite to the particular and personal Procession of the Holy Ghost , as is already proved . Ergo their errour is not onely concerning , but against the Holy Ghost : whose Assistance therefore they have lost , not onely according to the first , but even latter Branch of the Bishops Distinction ; and consequently remain no True Church . But here the Bishop may seem to have provided against the force of this Argument , by hinting a difference between errours Fundamental and not Fundamental ; which point I shall purposely examine in the following Chapter . In the interim I observe , that his Lordship having been for a while serious , begins now to quibble upon the word Filioque , on occasion of the Popes inserting it into the Creed . And first he grumbles , that the Pope should Adde and Anathematize too . I hope , he will give the Holy Ghost leave to Assist the Church , in adding expressions for the better explication of any Article of Faith : and then the Pope hath leave and command too , to Anathematize all such , as shall not allow the use of such expressions . 6. Now to come to the debate of Filioque , 't is true , that many hundred of years had passed from the time of the Apostles , before Filioque was added to the Nicene Creed , and more since the Declarations and Decrees were sufficiently published : and in all these years Salvation was had in the Church without mention of Filioque . But it is also true , that the Addition of Filioque to the Creed was made many years before the Difference brake out between the Latins and Greeks . So that th' inserting this word Filioque into the Creed was not the first occasion of Schisme . But grudges arising among the Greeks , who had been a large flourishing Church with a number of most learned and zealous Prelates , and held the Articles still , though upon emptier heads : such , quickly fill'd with winde , thinking their swelling places , and great City of Constantinople might hold up against Rome , they began to quarrel , not for places ( that was too mean a Motive for such as look'd so big ) but first they would make it appear they could teach Rome , nay they spyed out Heresies in it , ( the old way of all Hereticks ) and so fell to question the Procession of the Holy Ghost , and must needs have Filioque out of the Creed . To return unto which , after the meaning of the Latin Church was understood , and that the word Filioque lay in the Creed to confess that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Son as truly as from the Father ; and that whoever denyed the Filioque must be supposed to deny the Procession , then it became an Heresie to deny it , and the Church did rightly Anathematize all such denyers . None can be so ignorant as to think the Church , in composing the Creed , intended to thrust in all points of Faith concerning the Trinity ( 't is clear , more may be added yet : ) but when the Church understood that some of her Truant Children began to stumble at a particular point , ( the Holy Ghosts Proceeding from the Son ) then she thought it high time to speak a loud word , that might keep her good Children from falling . Neither is the Roman-Catholick Church justly accusable of Cruelty ( though the Bishop taxes her of it ) because she is quick and sharp against those that fall into Heresie . 'T is not the Libertine Heretick the Church looks so eagerly after , to have him punished ; as a Motherly compassion of her other Children ( yet good ) lest they should come to be infected . If sinners could be bad themselves onely , and not infuse their venome into others , nor give scandal , the Church might possibly have reason to mitigate her severity . But seeing the Bishop brings in St. Peter , with the Keyes at his girdle , to shew his mildness , may not I represent to his Lordship St. Peters proceeding with Ananias and Sapphira , Acts 5. 5 , 10. striking them dead at his Feet for retaining some part of their goods , though they had deliver'd the far greater part of them to St. Peter ? Yea , why may I not joyn St. Paul to him , chastising most severely such untoward children , 1 Cor. 5. 5. 1 Tim. 1. 20 ? Certainly the Church punishes not her Delinquents , to encrease the suffering of such as are to dye , but to strike a terrour into the living , whom fear many times , more then the love of God , keeps from sinning . CHAP. 2. Of Fundamentals , or Necessaries to Salvation . ARGUMENT . 1. The Catholique Tenet concerning Fundamentals , no step to the Roman Greatness . 2. His Lordships different Acceptions of the Term Fundamentall , all strangers to the Question . 3. What must be understood by Fundamentall Points of Faith , in this Debate . 4. His flying from the Formall to the Materiall Object of Faith. 5. The distinction of Points of Faith into Fundamentall and not-Fundamentall , according to Protestan Principles , destroyes it self . 6. No Infallibility in Church-Authority , no Faith. 7. How Fundamentals are said to be an Immoveable Rock . 8. How the Churches Authority renders us certain of Divine Revelations . 9. How Superstructures may become Fundamental ; and how Fundamentals must be known to all . 10. Scotus vindicated from one foul corruption ; and St. Augustin from another . THe Bishop in the end of the ninth § . parting friendly with the Greeks , before he enters into war again with the Roman Church , in the tenth § . he scoureth up his best Defensive weapon , the Point of Fundamentals ; having hitherto given us but a glimpse of it . He tells of Mr. Fisher , that he read a large discourse out of a Printed Book , saying 't was his own ( his Lordship would seem to mistrust it ) written against Dr. white , concerning Fundamentals . The Bishop sayes not what he answer'd to this Discourse , but puts all off with an I do not remember : might he not have call'd to his Chaplain for Mr. Fishers Book , if he had minded an Answer ? But I see him now drawing up his great Artillery of Fundamentals , to attack his Adversary for saying All Points Defined by the Church are Fundamentall ; yet this proves but a Squib : for he presently goes out of the question , to disport himself with a fancy of his own ( a piece of Policy , forsooth , which he hath spied in the Roman Church . ) 1. Rome , sayes he , to shrivel the credit of its Opposers , blasts them all with the name of Heretique and Schismatique , and so by that means grew into Greatnesse . To make good which proceeding this course was taken . The School must maintain , that all Points defined by the Church are thereby Fundamental , necessary to be believed , of the Substance of Faith : and then , saith he , leave active Heads to determine , not what is truest , but what is fittest for them . Now what a weak discourse have we here from a grave Primate of England ! Thinks he all the world is turn'd mad , or Heathen ? No truth left upon earth , but all become Juglers ? Is the whole business of Religion but a Legerdemain to serve the Popes Ambition , a puff of winde ? Is it credible so many learned and Venerable Prelates , and other Holy men , whose eminent Sanctity it hath pleased God to illustrate by the Testimony of glorious Miracles , so many famous Doctors , and Heads of Schools , so many Austere and Religious Persons , as have secluded themselves from all Temporal Concernments , to attend wholly to the Service of God and Salvation of their Souls ; is it credible , I say , that all these were such egregious dissemblers as to prostitute their own Salvation to the Popes Greatness , by determining not what they conceived Truest , but what they esteemed fittest for his Temporal ends ? Such stuff as this might serve sometimes for Pulpit-babble , to deceive the giddy multitude , and to cast a mist before their eyes , that they might not see the Impurity of their own English-Protestant Church , even in its first rise under Henry the eighth , and the People-cheating Policies it was beholding to for its restauration under Queen Elizabeth , as may be seen in History . But who could have imagined his Lordship would betray so great a weakness of Judgement , nay so much want of Charity , as to affirm so groundless , so impossible a slaunder ? But let it pass for one of the Bishops Railleries . Yet I must confess it becomes not one , that would be esteem'd a grave Doctor of the English Church , an alterius orbis Patriarcha , as the Ancient Primates of England have been called . 2. After his Lordship has sported thus a while with all that can be serious upon earth , ( Mans Salvation ) he returns again to the question , Whether all Points Defined by the Church be Fundamental ; and like one that provides for a Retreat , or Subter-fuge , he cuts out a number of ambiguous Distinctions , as so many Turnings and Windings to fly away by , when he shall be put to it . He blames Mr. Fisher for not distinguishing between a Church in general , ( which he supposes cannot erre ) and a general Council , ( which he sayes , he grants not , that it cannot erre . ) Would he have Women and Children come to determine Doctrines ? you will finde , he alwayes perplexes the Question ; he staggers in the delivery of his own judgement : he sayes , he is slow in opposing what is concluded by a Lawful , General , and consenting Authority ( this must needs be a Church in General . ) It seems then sometimes he opposeth it , or staggers at it , as those sometimes do , that go slowly . One while hee 'l take Fundamental for a point necessary to be believed explicitè , as distinguish't from a point that is necessary to be believed onely implicitè . Another while he takes it for a Prime and Native Principle of Faith , as contradistinguish't from what he calls a Superstructure , or Deducible from it . Now he takes Fundamental for a point common to all , and contain'd expresly in the Creed ; then for a point necessary to be known of all in order to Salvation , as distinguish 't from a point necessary onely to some particular mens Salvation : and thus by shifting from one acception to another , he carries on the design of his Labyrinth with so much Art , that the Reader is in great danger to be lost in following him . 3. Having therefore seen the word Fundamental used in so many different senses , we will first deduce , even from the Bishops own Discourse , the right sense , in which for the present we ought to take the word Fundamental . His Lordship and Mr. Fisher fell upon this Dispute about points Fundamental , or Necessary to Salvation , occasionally from what was touched in their Debate concerning the Greek Church : where the Bishop affirmed , that though they had grievously erred in Divinity , yet not in a point Fundamental sufficient to un-church them : which must needs have happened ; had they erred in a point necessary to Salvation . Wherefore the Bishop in his 25 th . page takes it for the same , to put the Greeks out of the Church , and to deny to them Salvation . We have also seen , how in the words lately cited he calls Fundamental what ever is necessarily to be believed . Nor can the Lady be thought to have required satisfaction concerning Fundamentals , in the Bishops sense . For she is to be supposed to have understood , what both Catholiques and Protestants usually mean in this Dispute : and Mr. Fisher , pag. 42. ( even as the Bishop , § 2. pag. 2 , cites his words ) gives an express Advertisement , that by points Fundamental neither he , nor the Lady understood any other , then Points necessary to Salvation , when he sayes thus , in all Fundamental Points , that is , in all Points necessary to Salvation . The question then in Controversie between the Bishop and Mr. Fisher was , Whether all Points defined by the Church were Fundamental , or Necessary to Salvation ; that is , whether all those Truths , which are sufficiently propos'd to any Christian as Defined by the Church for matter of Faith , can be disbelieved by such a Christian without Mortal and Damnable Sin , which unrepented destroyes Salvation ? Now Points may be necessary to Salvation two wayes . The one absolutely , by reason of the matter they contain , which is so Fundamentally necessary in it self , that not onely the disbelief of it , when it is sufficiently propounded by the Church , but the meer want of an express Knowledge , and Belief of it , will hinder Salvation : and those are such Points without the express belief whereof no man can be saved which Divines call necessary necessitate medij : others of this kinde they call necessary necessitate praecepti , which all men are commanded to seek after , and expresly believe ; so that a Culpable Ignorance of them hinders Salvation , although some may be saved with Invincible ignorance of them . And all these are absolutely necessary to be expresly believed , either necessitate medij , or necessitate praecepti , in regard of the matter which they contain . But the rest of the Points of Faith are necessarily to be believed necessitate praecepti , onely conditionally , that is , by all such to whom they are sufficiently propounded as defined by the Church : which necessity proceeds not precisely from the material object , or matter contained in them , but from the formall object , or Divine Authority declared to Christians by the Churches definition . Whether therefore the points in question be necessary in the first manner or no , by reason of their precise matter ; yet if they be necessary by reason of the Divine Authority , or formal object of Divine Revelation sufficiently declared and propounded to us , they will be Points Fundamental , that is necessary to Salvation to be believed ; as we have shewed Fundamental must here be taken . 4. The truth of the question then taken in this sense , is a thing so manifest , that his Lordship not knowing how to deny it with any shew of probability , thought it his onely course to divert it ( according to his ordinary custome ) by turning the Difficulty , which onely proceeded upon a Fundamentality , or necessity , derived from the formall Object , that is , from the Divine Authority revealing that point , to the materiall Object , that is , to the importance of the matter contained in the point revealed ; which is a plain Fallacy , in passing à sensu formali ad materialem . Now I shew , ( the difficulty being understood as it ought to be , of the formall object , whereby points of Faith are manifested to Christians ) That all points defined by the Church as matter of Faith are Fundamentall , that is , necessary to Salvation to be believed by all those to whom they are sufficiently propounded to be so defined , by this Argument . Whosoever refuses to believe any thing sufficiently propounded to him for a Truth revealed from God , commits a sin damnable and destructive of Salvation : But whosoever refuses to believe any point sufficiently propounded to him for defined by the Church , as matter of Faith , refuses to believe a thing sufficiently propounded to him for a Truth revealed from God. Ergo , Whosoever refuses to believe any point sufficiently propounded to him for defined by the Church as matter of Faith , commits a sinne damnable and destructive of Salvation . The Major is evident . For to refuse to believe Gods revelation , is either to give God the lye , or to doubt whether he speak Truth or no. The Minor I prove from this supposition . For , though his Lordship say , he grants it not ; yet for the present he sayes , that though it were supposed he should grant , that the Church , or a lawful General Council , cannot erre , yet this cannot down with him , that all Points even so defined were Fundamental , that is , ( as we have proved ) necessary to Salvation . Supposing therefore , that the Church , and a lawful General Council , be taken in this occasion for the same thing , as he affirms they are , saying in the beginning of num . 3. pag. 27. We distinguish not betwixt the Church in general , and a General Council , which is her representative ; and admitting this he proceeds in his argument . Supposing then that the Church in a General Council cannot erre , I prove the Minor thus . Whosoever refuses to believe that , which is testified to be revealed from God by an Authority which cannot erre , refuses to believe that which is revealed from God : But whosoever refuses to believe that which is defined by the Church as matter of Faith , refuseth to believe that which is testified to be revealed from God by an Authority which cannot erre . Ergo , Whosoever refuseth to believe that which is defined by the Church as matter of Faith , refuseth to believe that which is revealed from God. The Major is evident ex terminis . For , if the Authority , which testifies it is revealed from God , cannot erre , that which it testifies to be so revealed , is so revealed . The Minor is the Bishops supposition , viz. That the Church in a General Council cannot erre , as is proved . Ergo , &c. And this , I hope , will satisfie any ingenuous Reader , that the forementioned Proposition is fully proved , taking Fundamental for necessary to Salvation , as Mr. Fisher took it . Yet to deal freely with the Bishop , even taking Fundamental in a general way , as he in this present Conference mistakes it , for a thing belonging to the Foundation of Religion , it is also manifest , that all Points defined by the Church are Fundamental , by reason of that formal object , or Infallible Authority , propounding them , though not alwayes by reason of the matter which they contain . Whoever deliberately denies , or doubts of any one Point proposed and declared as a Divine Infallible Truth by the Authority of the Catholique Church , cannot for that time give Infallible credit to any other Point , delivered as a Divine , Infallible Truth by the Authority of the same Church . For , whoever gives not Infallible credit to the Authority of the Church in any one Point , cannot give Infallible credit to it in any other ; because it being one and the same authority in all points deferveth one and the same credit in all : And therefore if it deferve not Infallible credit in any one , it deserveth not Infallible credit in any other . Now I subsume . But he that believes no Point at all with a Divine , Infallible Faith for the Authority of the Catholique Church , erres Fundamentally : Ergo , &c. This Subsumptum is evident . For , if he believe none at all , he neither believes God , nor Christ , nor Heaven , nor Hell , &c. with an Infallible , Divine , Christian Faith ; and thereby quite destroys the whole foundation of Religion . And seeing there is no means left to believe any thing with a Divine , Infallible Faith , if the Authority of the Catholique Church be rejected as erroneous , or fallible , ( for who can believe either Creed , or Scripture , or unwritten Tradition , but upon her Authority ? ) It is manifest , that if the Church be disbelieved in any one point , there can be no Infallible Faith of any thing . Where I desire all men seriously to ponder , that the reason , which moveth a man to give Infallible credit to any point declared by the Authority of the Catholique Church , is not the greatness or smallness of the matter , nor the more or less evidence of the Truth , but the promise of Christ , which assures us , that himself and his holy Spirit will alwayes be with the Church to teach it all Truth . So that when the Church declares any thing as matter of Faith , it is not she ( considered onely as a company of men subject to errours ) but God himself to whom we do , and must give Infallible credit , in all matters whatsoever , great and little , evident or most obscure . For , the Infallibility of the credit given to any one Article , proposed as a Divine Truth by the Catholique Church , doth wholly depend upon the Authority of God , speaking in and by the Church . Wherefore he that will deliberately deny , or doubt of any one Article of Faith , may as well do the same of all , yea of the whole Canon of Scripture : Because if you take away the Authority of the Church , we should not admit of that , according to the words of St. Augustin : Ego verò Evangelio non crederem , nisi me Ecclesiae commoveret Authoritas . I would not ( saith he ) believe the Gospel , unless the Authority of the Church mov'd me thereunto . So that he , who obstinately denies any one thing sufficiently declared to him by the Church , can have no supernatural and infallible Faith at all , but opinions of his own , grounded upon some other reason , different from the Divine revelation proposed and applied to him by the Church . Wherefore St. Augustin in his Book De Haeresibus recounteth many Heresies ; some of which seem not to be about any matter of great moment : yet he pronounceth , that whosoever doth obstinately hold any one of these against the known Faith of the Church , is no Catholique Christian . Moreover , St. Gregory Nazianzen tells us , that nihil periculosius his Haereticis esse potest , &c. There can be nothing more perillous then these Heretiques , who with a drop of poison do infect our Lords sincere Faith. Hence it is , that Christ our Saviour saith , ( Matth. 18. 17. ) If he will not hear the Church , let him be to thee as an Heathen and a Publican : As if he should say , let him not be accounted a Childe of the Church , nor consequently of God. Adde to this , that to deny or doubt of any thing made known by the Church to be a Truth revealed by God , is in effect to contradict God and the Church , which Divines in other tearms say , is to give God and the Church the lye , and to oppose and preferre a private mans judgement and will before and against the judgement and will of God and his true Church ; which cannot stand with supernatural Faith in any point whatsoever . Wherefore it is said in St. Athanasius his Creed ( which is approved in the nine and thirty Articles of the pretended English Church ) that whosoever will be saved , it is necessary that he hold the Catholique Faith , — which unless every one hold WHOLE and inviolate , without doubt he shall perish for ever . Neither can the Bishop reply , that all points expressed in St. Athanasius his Creed , are Fundamental in his sense , that is according to the importance of the matter they containe ; for , ( to omit the Article of our Saviours descent into hell , which can be no Fundamental Point in his acception , for Christs Passion , Resurrection , Ascension , &c. may consist without it ) he mentions exprefly the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son , which his Lordship ha's denyed to be a Fundamental Point , as we saw in the former Chapter . The foresaid distinction of material and formal object satisfies his Num. 8. pag. 31 , 32. For , not so much as quoad nos does any point become Fundamental , that is , a prime principle in Faith according to the matter attested , or the material object , which before the definition was onely a Superstructure , or secondary Article . But all the change made by vertue of the Definition is in the Attestation it self , which induces a new obligation of holding it to be a point of Faith ; and the refusing to hold it so both de stroyes Salvation , and overthrows the whole Foundation of our Faith , as is already declared . Let therefore the Reader carry along with him this distinction of objectum materiale & formale , materia attestata & Authoritas attestantis , ( the Matter attested and the Authority attesting it ) and he will easily both discover the fallacies of his Lordships discourse in this main point of controversie , and solve all his difficulties supported by them . And that it may be more apparently perceived , how inapposite his reply is in this whole controversie about Fundamentals , we affirming , that all things defined for Points of Faith by the Church , are made Fundamental onely by reason of the Infallible Attestation of the Church , and he instead of disproving this , labouring onely to prove , that such as were not Fundamental before the Definition , become not Fundamental after in the matter attested , which we hold as much as he can do : replying , I say , in this manner , he proceeds just as if A. C. should assert , that a Crown , an Angel , and a Piece , cut out of the same wedge , are as fine and pure gold one as another , and W. L. should reply and labour much to prove , that the one is of more weight then the other , which was not at all questioned : or as if A. C. should demonstrate , that a Thred , a Gord , and a Cable of twenty ells long a piece , were all three of the same length , and W. L. should reply and demonstrate , that they were not all of the same thickness ; which no man ever affirmed them to be . Some Modern Protestants object , that the Infalliblity of the Church is limited to Fundamental points onely , and not to Superstructures : so that they may reply , this Argument proceeds upon a false supposition , by extending that Infallibity as well to Superstructures as to Fundamentals . To this I answer , that if by Fundamental Points be meant onely such Points as are the prime Articles of Faith , and the first principles of Religion according to the precise matter contained in them , from which all the rest are deduced , and have necessary dependance upon them ; and by super structures onely such Points of Faith as are less principal , and deducible from the other ; if , I say , onely this be understood by Fundamentals and Superstructures , the distinction destroyes it self . For on the one side it supposes that those Superstructures are Points of Faith , as it were of secondary or less principal importance ; and yet supposes , that the Church is not infallible in her Definitions concerning them ; and by that makes it impossible that they should be Points of Faith. This I evidence by this Argument , grounded in my former discourse . Every Point of Faith must be believed by an 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 Masters veracity and authority ; but yet it gives assurance to me that his Master said so : neither believe I , that the thing spoken is morally true , because the Servant tells me his Master said so , but because his Master said it , whom I know to be a man of that credit , that he would not say a thing that were not true ; though I am not certain that his Master said it , save onely because the servant tells me so , whom I know also to be an honest man. 9. But the Bishops difficulty about points Fundamental , when he sayes , that the Churches Definition cannot make Superstructures to become Principles , or Foundations , is easily solved according to my former distinction . The Churches Definition cannot make a Superstructure to become a Foundation quoad materiam , or rem attestatam , ( according to the Thing , or matter attested ) I grant it : for in this sense , neither the Church , nor the Aposties , no nor Christs Definition can make a Superstructure a Foundation : for what they are in themselves they must alwayes be . The Churches Definition cannot make a Superstructure a Foundation , quoad formam , or Authoritatem attestantis ( according to the form , or Authority of the persons attesting , or witnessing that it is a Divine Revelation ) I deny it . For such a Testimony , or Authentical Declaration , makes it both necessary to Salvation ( in which sense onely Fundamental is to be taken in this present Dispute , as I have proved ) and also reductively , or consequently belonging to the Foundation of Religion , according to the Authority of Christ testified to reveal it ; which will be dissolved by the disbelief of it , as is already shewed . When he sayes that every Fundamental point must be known to all , I distinguish in the same manner . Every Fundamental point according to the material object must be known to all , I grant it : every Fundamental point , that is , every point necessary to Salvation to be believed , when it is sufficiently propounded , according to the attestation made by the Church of it , must be known to all , I deny it : and this distinction solves all his other difficulties propounded in this page . 10. Scotus cited by his Lordship , Num. 6. pag. 30. delivers nothing in behalf of his party , but affirms the same thing , which we have already asserted namely , that St. Basil , St. Gregory Nazianzen , and other learned Greeks ; differed not from the Latins , viz. St. Hierome , Augustin , St. Ambrose , &c. but onely in manner of speech ; because otherwise either the Greeks , or the Latins , had been Heretiques . Yet hence it follows not , that Scotus thought they could be Heretiques , unless they denied , or doubted of that , which they had reason to believe was revealed by God. But it onely followes , that if they knew this ( as those learned Greeks had sufficient reason to know it ) they might well be esteemed Heretiques , before any special Declaration of the Church : although it be more clear , that he is an Heretique , who denies to believe that Doctrine , after he confesses that it is defined by the Church . Wherefore Scotus doth well adde , that however it was before , yet ex quo , &c. from the time that the Catholique Church declared it , it is to be held of Faith. Wherefore we deny not , but that a learned man , who oppugnes the Doctrine clearly contained in Scripture , or generally received by the Church , may be accounted an Heretique , before he be AS SUCH condemned by a General Council . But we say , that there are many things , which in themsolves are matters of Faith , yet so obscure , in relation especially to unlearned , and particular persons , that before the Decree of the Church , we are not Heretiques , though we should either doubt of them or deny them : because as yet there appears no sufficient reason , that can oblige us to believe them ; although after the Definition of the Church we ought as well to believe them as any other . Whence it appears likewise that Scotus is much wronged by his Lordship . For first , he would perswade his Reader , that this Authour supposed a real difference between the Ancient Greek and Latin Fathers about the Procession of the Holy Ghost : whereas Scotus , because neither the one nor the other of them can be esteemed Heretiques , declares , that there was no real difference in this point between them : which the Bishop very handsomely leaves out . Verisimile igitur est ( sayes Scotus ) quod non subest dictis verbis contrariis contrariorum Sanctorum Sententia Discors ; It is therefore likely , that there is no disagreeing opinion contained in the contrary words of those contrary Saints : and then proves by a very probable Argument , that it is so . Secondly , as he left out the said words in the midst of the sentence , so ( to induce his Reader to think , that Scotus , ( as he would have him understood in the matter of belief ) should say , that what was not of the substance of Faith before , was made to be of the substance of the Faith by the Churches Definition , and thereby inferres a contradiction in this Authours assertions ) he adds words , and fathers them upon Scotus in another part of the sentence , saying first , that Scotus sayes howsoever it was before : referring his words to the thing controverted , that is to say in his position , whether the point in question were of the substance of Faith , or Fundamental before the Churches Definition , or no ; whereas Scotus speaks not of the Thing , but of the Persons , viz. the Greek and Latin Fathers , as appears by his words , quicquid sit de eis , ( whatsoever may be said of them . ) Now I think he will have much ado to finde any Dictionary , or Grammer , wherien eis signifies it . This done he makes Scotus say ( by adding to his Text ) thus , yet ex quo , from the time that the Catholique Church declared it , it is to be held as of the substance of Faith. Now Scotus has not one word of the substance of Faith , much less of Fundamental , which he imposes presently upon him ; but sayes onely thus , Ex quo Ecclesia declaravit hoc esse tenendum , &c. tenendum est , quòd Spiritus Sanctus procedat ab utroque ; ( since the Church hath so declared , so it must be held . ) Thus he windes his Authours through as many Meanders as he finds subservient to his own turn . Now to clear the difficulty , the former distinction is here also to be used ; that That which was not Fundamental in it self before , becomes not Fundamental in the matter , or thing attested , but onely by reason of the attestation of the Church , obliging to the acceptation of it , and to be embraced as Fundamental , that is necessary to Salvation to be believed as a Divine Truth : and therefore Scotus doth not say , that ex quo , after it was declared by the Church it becomes to be of the substance of Faith , which it was not before , but that it is necessarily to be held , or believed , which necessity was not before . By this Doctrine 't is manifest , that there is no contradiction in Scotus his Discourse ; which his Lordship endeavours to put upon him . Now 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 nothing against the Truth practised in the Church . The Bishop goes on , and endeavours to shew , that St. Augustin speaks of a Foundation of Doctrine in Scripture , because ( immediately before ) he sayes , There was a question moved to St. Cyprian , whether Baptisme was tyed to the eighth day as well as Circumcision ; and no doubt was made then of the beginning of sin : and that out of this thing , about which no question was moved , that question that was made , was answered . And again , That St. Cyprian took that which he gave in answer , from the Foundation of the Church , to confirm a stone that was shaking . But all this proves nothing against us , but for us : because St. Cyprian might answer the question that was made , by that which was granted by all , and questioned by none , although the thing granted and not questioned , were the Doctrine of the Church . For this Doctrine of the Church , or Foundation ( as the Bishop calls it ) might be given in answer to confirm a Stone that was shaking , that is , some particular matter in question : Although whatsoever is taught by the Church may be granted ( without contradicting Catholique Principles ) to be some way or other infolded or contained in Scripture . Wherefore all the Definitions of the Church may be said to be Foundations of Doctrine in Scripture , although many times they be so involved there , that without the Definition of the Church , we could not be bound expresly to believe them : nay , without the Authority of the Church we should not be obliged to believe the Scripture it self , as St. Augustin tells us in the words formerly cited . Ego vero Evangelio non crederem , nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret Authoritas . So that it cannot be doubted , but that St. Augustins judgement was , that all our Faith depended upon the Authority of the Church : and therefore , that he who opposeth himself against this , endeavoureth to shake and destroy the very ground-work and Foundation of all Divine and Supernatural Faith. Now whether the Bishop , or Mr. Fisher hath wronged the Text of St. Augustin we shall presently see . For , first the Bishop sayes , that St. Augustin speaks of a doctrine founded in Scripture , not a Church-Definition . How untrue this is , viz. that St. Augustin speaks , not of the Churches Definition , let St. Augustin himself determine in the very place cited , where speaking of Christs profiting of Children Baptized , he useth these words . Hoc habet Authoritas Matris Ecclesiae , Hoc fundatus veritatis obtinet Canon ; contra hoc robur , contra hunc inexpugnabilem murum quisquis arietat , ipse confringitur . This ( saith he ) hath the Authority of our Mother the Church ; this hath the well founded Canon , or Rule of Truth ; against this invincible Rampart whoever runneth himself , is sure to be broken in pieces . And again , speaking of St. Cyprian he tells us that he will shew , quid senserit de Baptismo parvulorum ; imò quiá semper Ecclesiam sensisse monstraverit . What that Holy Martyr thought of the Baptisme of Infants ; or rather what he demonstrated the Church had alwayes taught concerning it : and many such like places are in this very Sermon . It is therefore manifest , that St. Augustin here speaks of the Churches Definition ; nay and that so fully , that he acknowledges in another place , that the Baptisme of Infants was not to be believed , but because it is an Apostolical Tradition . His words are these . Tom. 3. De Genes . ad literam . lib. 10. cap. 13. Consuetudo Matris Ecclesiae in Baptizandis Parvulis nequaquam spernenda est , neque ullo modo 〈◊〉 deputanda : NEC O M NINO CREDENDA , nisi Apostolica esset Traditio . The custom of our Mother the Church to Baptize Infants is by no means to be despised , or counted in any sort superfluous ; nor yet at all to be believed , if it were not a Tradition of the Apostles . Though therefore St. Cyprian in those few lines , which St. Augustin referres to , doth not expresly mention the Definition of the Church , ( as the Bishop objects ) yet a man would think St. Augustins Authority should be sufficient to assure us , that in those very words , St. Cyprian shews what was the sense and Doctrine of the Church : in the same manner , as when the Bishop himself proposes any Doctrine contained in Scripture 't is true to say , he delivers a Doctrine contained in Scripture , though himself doth not expresly say , at the propounding of it , it is in Scripture . Seeing therefore St. Augustin speaks here of a point , which he sayes was not to be believed , if it were not an Apostolical Tradition , ( which is in effect to say , that it cannot be proved by sole Scripture ) how can he be understood to say , that Scripture is the Foundation of the Church ? But that he may , one way or other , draw St. Augustin to speak , in appearance , for him , he gives a most false Translation of his words . For he translates these words of St. Augustin , ut fundamentum ipsum Ecclesiae , quatere moliatur , thus ; He shall endeavour to shake the Foundation it self , upon which the whole Church is grounded , all in a different letter . Whereas in the Latin Text of St. Augustin there is nothing that answers to any of those words , which the Bishop thrusts into his English , upon which , or whole Church , or is grounded : so that all this latter part is meerly an Addition of his own , and no part of St. Augustins sentence . But such fraudulent dealing was necessary , to give a gloss to his interpretation . For he would make St. Augustin speak of a foundation different from the Churches Authority , no wit the Scriptures , whereupon , sayes he , the Authority of the Church is grounded ; which is farre from St. Augustins meaning . For by Fundamentum ipsum Ecclefea ( the very foundation of the Church ) he means nothing else , but the Church it self , or her Authority ; which is the foundation of Christianity : as when St. Paul sayes , superadificati super fundamentum Apostolorum & Prophetarum , &c. ( being built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets ) he means nothing else , but that we are built upon the Apostles and Prophets as upon a foundation : or as if one should say of a destroyer of the Fundamental Laws of a Nation , Fundamentum ipsum begum quatere molitur ; he endeavours to shake the very foundation of our Laws ; or of one that rejected the Authority of Scripture , fundamentum ipsum Scripturarum quatere molitur , he labours to shake the very Foundation of holy Scripture ; no man would understand him to mean any other Foundation , then what the Laws and the Scriptures themselves are . Now that nothing but this can be the meaning of St. Augustin is evident . For in this very sentence he allows of Disputes held in such things , as are not yet establish't by the full Authority of the Church , ( nondum plenâ Ecclesiae Authoritate firmatis . ) Wherefore all consequence , and coherence of discourse requires , that when he disallows of those disputes , which go so far as to shake the foundation of the Church , he must mean those disputes , which properly and directly question matters fully establish't by the Authority of the Church . His Lordship therefore finding his first solution to fail him , recurrs to a second , much weaker then the first . For granting the Church to be the foundation whereof St. Augustin spake , he denyes it to follow thence , that all points defined by the Church are Fundamental in Faith. But against this I thus argue out of St. Augustin . All those points , the disbelief whereof shakes the Foundation are Fundamental in Faith. But all the points establish't by full Authority of the Church , ( that is , defined by the Church ) are such , as the disbelief of them shakes the foundation . Ergo , all points establish't by full Authority of the Church , that is , Defined by the Church , are Fundamental in Faith. If he distinguish the Major , that they shake some foundation of our Religion , but not every foundation , I disprove him thus . Whoever shakes the foundation , St. Augustin speaks of , ( which is , the Church ) shakes consequentially every foundation of our Religion . This I have above proved ; because nothing can be infallibly believed , when the Churches foundation is shaken . But the denial of points defined by the Church shakes the Foundation St. Augustin speaks of , that is , the Church , as the Bishop now supposes foundation to be taken . Ergo , the disbelief of points defined by the Church shakes every foundation of Religion . His proving that some things are founded , which are not Fundamental in Faith , is very true , ( for St. Pauls Steeple is well founded , yet is no Fundamental point in Faith ) but as little to the present purpose as can be : for , who ever asfirmed , that all things founded , even upon the Authority of the Church , are Fundamental in Faith ? and as little concludes that , which follows about Church Authority . For I have already proved , that the Authority of the Catholique Church in defining matters of Faith , ( whereof onely we now treat ) as it is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost , is either Divine in it felf , to wit , as informed with that Assistance , or so necessary for the giving infallible assent to Divine Revelation , that no man rejecting it , can give an infallible assent to any point of Christian Faith. For seeing upon that Authority only we are infallibly certified , that the Articles of our Faith , are revealed from God ; if in any thing we oppugne the firmness of that Authority , we cannot believe infallibly , that any one of them is revealed from God. Though therefore it were granted , that Church-Definitive Authority were not simply Divine , yet is it so necessary to salvation , that if it be rejected , it destroyes salvation ; which is to be Fundamental in our present debate . CHAP. 3. A Continuation of Fundamentals , or Necessaries to Salvation . ARGUMENT . 1. All Definitions of the Catholique Church concerning Doctrine , Infallible , and by many of the learned held Divine . 2. One Text of St. Augustin shamefully abused three several wayes . 3. NO MANS opinion confuted by his Lordship . Bellarmin miscited . 4. The Pope alwayes included in the Church and Councils . 5. A. C's . words cited by halves . 6. How the Churches Definition is said to be her Foundation . 7. A. C. corrupted the second time . 8. Vincentius Lirinensis falsified thrice at least . 9. Stapleton and Bellarmin good Friends , notwithstanding the Bishops endeavour to make them jarre . IN the first place we grant what is here set down , viz. that Things may be founded upon humane Authority , and be very certain , yet not Fundamental in the Faith : for we say nothing that hath any shadow of contradicting this . But our Assertion is , that those Things are not to be opposed , which are made firm by full Authority of the Church ; because this is ( according to St. Augustin ) to shake the Foundation . Therefore all things made firm by the full Authority , Definition , Declaration , or Determination ( use what tearm you please ) of the Church , are Fundamental , to wit , in respect of the formal object of Gods revelation contained in them , as we have often said . 1. Now concerning what is added , that full Church-Authority , — when it is at full Sea , is not simply Divine , I will not dispute with his Lordship whether it be or no ; because it is sufficient that such Authority be infallible . For if it be infallible , it cannot propose to us any thing as revealed by God , but what is so revealed . So that to dispute against this Authority is in effect to take away all Authority from Gods Revelation ; we having no other absolute certainty , that This or That is revealed by God , but onely the Infallibility of the Church proposing , or attesting it unto us as revealed . Whence also it follows that to doubt , dispute against , or deny any thing that is proposed by the infallible Authority of the Church , is to doubt , dispute against , and deny that , which is Fundamental in Faith. This Discourse may be granted , ( I say ) and yet the Church be denyed to be of Divine Authority ; notwithstanding that Infallible and Divine seem ( to many great Divines ) to be tearms Convertible . And Stapleton ( whom the Bishop cites in the Margin ) is farre from denying it : as would have better appeared , if his words had been fairly cited . For I finde him thus to write . Si quaeratur , quare Ecclesia est veritatis tam certa testis respondemus , quia DEUS PER ILLAM loquitur . If it be asked , why the Church is so certain a witness of Truth , we answer , because God speaks by her . Thus he . Now if God speaks by the Church , certainly she is of Divine Authority . The same doctrine we finde elsewhere taught by him . Deum per Ecclesiam loqui , non ex solo Ecclesiae testimonio , sed ex ipsis maximè Scripturis , & Fidei Symbolo , ex communi omnium Christianorum conceptione certò constat . That God speaks by the Church is most certain , not onely by the Testimony of the Church , but by the Scriptures themselves , the Greed , and the common perswasion of Christians . The Bishop indeed grants thus much to the Church , that no erring Disputant may be endured to shake the Foundation , which the Church in general Councils layes ; yet he adds , that plain Scripture , with evident sense or a full demonstrative Argument , must have room , where a wrangling and erring disputant may not be allowed it . Must have room , that is , must be allowed to shake the Foundation , which the Church in General Councils layes . For that is the necessary sense of his words . An Assertion , truly , worthy of a Protestant Primate . But I shall not here insist upon the manifold inconveniences of it : I onely tell his Lordship at present , that it begs the question , and supposes what never was , nor ever will be proved , viz. that there can be plain Scripture ( in the true sense thereof ) or a full Demonstrative Argument brought against the Definition of a lawfull Generall Council . We deny that any such case can happen , or that the Definitions of a General Council , in points of Faith , can ever be so ill founded . 2. Here therefore ( if we observe it ) the 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 , pag. 65. But why joyns he a wrangling to an erring Disputer ? are these ( think you ) Synonyma's ? I esteem his Lordship an erring Disputer ; yet he had reason to think me uncivil , if I should call him a wrangling Disputer . If they be not of the same signification , why ha's he added , in the exposition of St. Augustins words , the word wrangling , seeing in the sentence here debated , there is neither wrangler , not any thing like it : Oh! I see now ; it is done to distinguish him from such a Disputer , as proceeds solidly and demonstratively against the Definitions of the Catholique Church , when they are ill founded . But where findes he any such Disputer in St. Augustins words , upon whose Authority he grounds his Position ? Seeing that most holy and learned Doctor is so far from judging , that any one can proceed solidly aud demonstratively against the Definitions and Tenets of the Catholique Church and Occumenicall Councils , that he judges him a mad man , who disputes against any thing ; quod Universa Ecclesia senti : ( which is held by the whole Church ; ) and that they have hearts not onely of stone , but even of Devils , who resist so great a manifestation of Truth , as is made by an Oecumenicall Council ; for of that he speaks . 3. After this the Bishop makes mention of one , who should say , That things are Fundamentul in Faith two wayes : one in the matter ; such as are all things in themselves : The other in the manner ; such as are all things , which the Church hath defined and declared to be of Faith. 'T is not set down who it was , that spake thus . But whoever he was I am not bound to defend him ; neither was his speech so proper . He might have said some thing like it , and have hit the mark : viz. That Things are Fundamentall in Faith two wayes one in regard of the material object ; such as are the prime Articles of our Faith , which are expresly to be believed by all . The other in regard of the formal object ; such as are all Things that the Church hath defined to be of Faith : because he that denies his assent to any one of these , when they are sufficiently proposed , does , in effect , deny his assent to the authority and word of God declared to him by the Church ; and this being to take away , or deny , the very formal object of Divine Supernatural Faith , by consequence it destroyes the Foundation of all such Faith in any other point whatsoever . Wherefore let any man , with the Bishop , view as long as he pleases , the Morter wherewith this Foundation is laid , and ( if he consider it rightly ) he will finde it well tempered . Our assertion is , That all points defined by the Church are Fundamental ; because ( according to St. Augustin ) to dispute against any thing settled by full Authority of the Church ( and such are all things defined by her ) is to shake the Foundation . Hence the Relator would inferre , we intend to maintain , that the point there spoken of ( the remission of original sin in the Baptizing of Infants ) was defined ( when St. Augustin wrote this ) by full sentence of a General Council . But I deny , that from urging that place of St. Augustin , we can be concluded to have any such meaning . For by Authority of the Church we mean , ( and not unproperly ) the Church generally practising this Doctrine , and defining it in a National Council confirmed by the Pope . For , this was plena Authoritas Ecclesiae , though not plenissima ; ( full , though not the fullest ) and to dispute against what was so practised and defined , is ( in St. Augustins sense ) to shake the Foundation of the Church , if not wholly to destroy it . Wherefore although one grant what Bellarmin sayes , That the Pelagian Heresie was never condemn'd in an Oecumenical Council , but onely by a National ; yet doubtless whoever should go about to revive that Heresie , would be justly condemn'd without calling a General Council , as one that oppos'd himself against the full Authority of the Church , and did shake its foundation . But the Bishop sayes , Bellarmin was deceived in this business , and that the Pelagian Heresie was condemn'd in the first Ephesine Council , which was Oecumenical . I answer first , 'c is not credible that Bellarmin , who writ so much of Controversie , should not have read that Council : nor can there be any suspicion of his concealing the matter , had he found it there , because it would make nothing against the Catholick Church , but rather for it . However , till the Councils words be brought , I desire to be pardoned , if I suspend my Assent to what the Bishop sayes . Truly I have my self viewed that Council upon this occasion , but cannot finde it there . I fear therefore his Lordship hath been misinformed . But suppose all were there which he pretends , yet would it conclude nothing against Bellarmin ; who onely sayes , that the Pelagian Heresie was never condemn'd in any General Council ; and the Bishop to disprove him , shewes that some , who were infected both with the Pelagian Heresie and Nestorianisme also , were condemned in the Ephesine Council . But how does this contradict Bellarmin ? Certain Pelagians were indeed condemned in the Ephesine Council ; but it was not for Pelagianisme , but Nestorianisme , that they were condemned . Had they been condemned for Pelagianisme , his Lordship had hit the mark , but now he shoots wide . He should have observed , that Bellarmin denyed onely the condemnation of the Heresie , and not of the persons , for holding another Heresie wholly distinct from that of Pelagianisme . 4. As for St. Augustins not mentioning the Pope , when he speaks , in the place before cited , of the full Authority of the Church , ( which the Bishop tearms an inexpiable omisson , if our Doctrine concerning the Popes Authority were true , ) It is easie to answer , there was no need of any special mention of the Pope , in speaking of the Authority of the Church ; because his Authority is alwayes chiefly supposed , as being Head of the whole Church . His Lordships followers might as well quarrel with me , because I many times speak of the Authority of the Church without naming the Pope ; though I do ever , both with that great Doctor and all other Catholiques , acknowledge and understand the Popes Authority compris'd in that of the Church . When my Lord of Canterbury findes in ancient Lawyers and Historians , that such and such things were decreed by Act of Parliament , without any mention of the King , by whose Authority and consent they were decreed , would he not ( think you ) condemn those Authors also of an inexpiable omission ; and thence conclude , that the King in those dayes , had not the prime Authority in Parliament ? and that whatsoever was said to be decreed by Act of Parliament , was not eo ipso understood to be done by Authority of the King. 5. We grant what is urged that it is one thing in nature , and Religion too , to be firme ; and another to be Fundamental . For every thing that is Fundamental is firme ; but every thing that is firme is not Fundamental . Wherefore we distinguisht before in the material 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 all , which do so pertain to Supernatural , Divine , Infallible , Christian Faith ( by which Faith Christ , the onely PRIME FOUNDATION of the Church , doth dwell in our hearts ; and which Faith is so to the Church the Substance , Basis , and Foundation of all good things , which are to be hoped for , ) as that ( being thus confirmed , or made firm , by the Authority of the Church , ) if they are wittingly , willingly , and especicially obstinately denyed , or questioned , all the whole frame , and in a sort the foundation it self of all Supernatural , Divine , Christian Faith is shaken . Thus he . But who sees not , that there is a main difference betwixt these words of A. C. and those which he is made to speak by the Bishop ? for he joyns the words as that to these thereby Christ doth dwell in our hearts : whereas in A. C's . discourse they are joyned to these , if they are wittingly , willingly , and especially obstinately questioned , &c. that of Faith , whereby Christ dwelleth in our hearts , &c. being onely a Parenthesis , added for greater explication , and not belonging to the substance of his discourse , as the Relatour no less corruptly , then cunningly , makes it belong : which is an other Dedalian Turn in this his Labyrinth . Now let us hear the Accusation . First , sayes the Bishop , A C. is mistaken ; because all that pertains to Supernatural , Divine , and Infallible Christian Faith , is not by and by Fundamental in the Faith to all men . But A. C. does not say it is : he speaks onely of those , to whom such points are propos'd , and who deny , or question them , when so propos'd . Although in some sense they may be said Fundamental to all , because all are to believe them implicitely ; and explicitely , all such as have sufficient reason to know , they are declared by the Church . Secondly , A. C. is accus'd for confounding the Object with the Act of Faith. But if his words be rightly penetrated , there will appear no confusion . For A. C. having first named Prime Principles , and then going on with others , which pertained to Supernatural , Infallible , Divine , Christian Faith , it is apparent , he understood by those points , which so appertain , not the Act of Faith it self , but the Object . Wherefore A. C. doth here no more but explicate the nature of the Object by the Act , ( and that onely upon the By , and in a Parenthesis , as appears by his words ) in which there is no Confusion but Clarity : for as the Act of Faith is the Foundation of Hope , Charity , and all other Supernatural Acts ; so is the Object on which Faith is grounded , the Foundation of Faith : and in such a manner as whoever denyes , or questions one point of Faith , doth in effect question all . Now I wonder the Bishop should urge as an Argument the Definition of the Council of Trent , That Orders Collated by the Bishop are not void , though they be given without the consent of the people , or any secular power ; and yet saith , we can produce no Author , that ever acknowledged this Definition to be Fundamental in the Faith. I wonder , I say , he should urge this ; when all Catholique Authors , who maintain , that whatsoever is defined by the Church is Fundamental , do in effect hold , that this Decree is Fundamental . For they all affirm , that this is a lawful General Council confirmed by the Pope ; and therefore of the same Authority to command our Belief , that any other ever was . Wherefore this Argument of the Bishop is not Argumentum ad hominem , as he pretends , but petitio principii . Now if he mean , that this Decree of the Council is no Fundamental point of Faith , according to the precise material Object , it is true , but nothing against us , who have often granted it ; the question being onely about Fundamental points in the formal Object of Faith , as we perpetually inculeate . A. C. further urgeth , That if any one may deny , or doubtfully dispute against any one Determination of the Church , then he may do it against another , and another , and so against all ; since all are made firme to us by one and the same Divine Revelation , sufficiently applyed by one and the same full Authority of the Church : which being weakened in one , cannot be firme in any other . Thus far A. C. And here the Bishop will needs have A. C. to have horrowed this doctrine out of Vincentius Lirinensis , and that he might have acknowledged it . I hope it is no errour against Faith , if he did borrow it , and not acknowledge it ; although two wits may sometimes hit on the same thing , or at least come near it , ( which is all he here allows to A. C. ) without taking it one from another . However , the Doctrine both of A. C. and Vincentius Lirinensis is true . For the same reason that permits not our questioning , or denying , the prime Maximes of Faith , permits not our questioning , or denying any other Doctrine declared by the Church : because ( as I said ) it is not the greatness , or smallness of the matter , that moves us to give firme Assent in points of Faith ; but the Authority of God speaking by the Church . Wherefore all points of Faith whatsoever may be said to be deposited with the Church . For all that the Church doth , even in things of least seeming concernment , is but ut haec 〈◊〉 quae anteà — that the same things may be believed which were before delivered , but now with more light and clearness ; that is to say , now explicitely , before implicitely . So that in either sense , if we give way to every cavilling disputant to deny , or quarrel them , the whole foundation of Faith is shaken . Moreover the Church being Infallible , 't were meerly vain to examine her Decrees ( which the Relatour requires to be done ) to see , if she have not added Novitia veteribus , new Doctrines to the old . For the Holy Ghost ( as hereafter shall be proved ) when we speak of this point ) having promised so to direct her as she cannot erre , will never permit her to declare any thing as matter of Faith , which was not before either expressed , or infolded and implyed in the word of God. 8. But why does the Relator print Catholici dogmatis in great Letters , in this sentence of Lirinensis ? is there any such great mystery in these words ? yes , surely . For ( sayes he ) Vincentius speaks there De Catholico Dogmate , of Catholique Maximes . Well . But though Dogma signified a Maxime , yet surely it cannot signifie Maximes , unless he will here have the singular number signifie the plural , as before he made the plural signifie the singular ; eis , it : But it was for his Lordships purpose to translate it in the plural number ; and that was sufficient : for had he put it in the singular thus , the Catholique Maxime , that is , as he expounds it , the properly Fundamental , and prime Truth deposited in the Church , there would have seem'd to be but one Fundamental point : which would have marr'd his whole designe . Now because he holds , there are many Fundamental points of Faith , Catholicum Dogma , in his Grammar , could signifie nothing less , then Catholique Maximes , that is , properly Prime and Fundamental Points . But in what Author learn't he , that Dogma fignifies only Maximes , were it in the plural number ? Dogma , according to our common English Lexicons , Rider and others , signifies a Decree , or common received opinion , whether in prime , or less principal matters : But as the Grammatical , so the Ecclesiastical signification of this word extends it self to all things establisht in the Church as matters of Faith , whether in Fundamentals , or Superstructures . Thus Scotus calls Transubstantiation Dogma Fidei ; and I would gladly know one Authour , who ever took the word Dogma for onely Fundamental points . And as for Vincentius Lirinensis , first he declares , ( in other places ) that he means by it such Things , as in general belong to Christian Faith without distinction . cap. 23. Vocum ( inquit ) id est , DOGMATUM , rerum , sententiarum novitates . And cap. 28. Crescat ( saith he speaking of the Church ) sed in suo duntaxat genere , in eodem scilicet DOGMATE , eodem sensu , eademque sententia . The like he hath , cap. 24. where he affirms , that the Pelagians erred in dogmate Fidei ; who notwithstanding erred not in a Prime Maxime , but in a Superstructure . And for this place cited by the Bishop , 't is evident that by Catholicum dogma he must understand the whole Complex of all the points of Catholique Faith , whether Fundamental in their matter or not ; whereof if an Heretick deny any one part whatsoever , ( sayes this Authour ) he may by the same rule deny all the rest . Nay , 't is evident that Lirinensis could not understand onely such points as are Fundamental in respect of their matter . For , seeing this Catholicum dogma contains the whole Systeme of the Catholique Faith , and in that Systeme some are Fundamentals , some Superstructures , ( even according to Protestants ) it must necessarily contain both : and Vincentius makes it clear in the instances he gives , that he also understood points not Fundamental in the Protestant sense . For , in the Systeme of Catholique points , which he there enumerates , is contain'd the observation of Easter , decreed by Pope Victor , and afterwards defined in the Council of Nice ; and the not-Rebaptizing of those , who had been Baptiz'd by Heretiques , maintained by Pope Stephen against St. Cyprian and Firmilian , and likewise afterwards confirmed in the same Council . Now what I say of Catholicum Dogma in the first sentence cited out of Lirinensis , I say the same of Depositorum Dogmatum custos in the second . For what rational man can imagine , that no other Christian verities or revealed Doctrines were deposited by our Saviour and the Holy Ghost with the Apostles , and by them with the Church , save onely the Articles of the Creed , wherein are expresly contained all points of Faith , that are Fundamental in respect of their matter , as the Bishop presently affirms ? was not the whole Canon of Holy Scripture , with every chapter , verse , and sentence contained in it , the matter and form of Sacraments , the Hierarchy of the Church , the Baptisme of Infants , the not-Rebaptizing of Heretiques , the perpetual Virginity of the ever Blessed Mother of God , and many other such like points Deposited with the Church by Christ and his Apostles , whereof no one is expresly contain'd in the Creed , nor esteemed Fundamental by Protestants ? Did not ( think you ) the Church perform the Office of a faithful Keeper of all these , as well as of the Articles of our Creed ? and were not those , who pertinaciously erred in these particulars , esteemed throughout all Christendome as Heretiques , above 1200. years ago ? Here then , in his wresting and winding Catholico Dogmate , he gives us no less then a Turn and half in his Canterburian Labyrinth . The Church then ever did , and ever will so keep those sacred Depositums , be they , or be they not , Prime and Fundamental in their matter , as that hoc idem quod antea , what she receives she delivers to all succeeding ages , the very same in Substance , it ever was ; only unfolding what was before wrapp'd up , when any thing comes to be call'd in question by Novellists , whom she judges to impugne , either directly , or indirectly and covertly , the Faith ( that Catholicum Dogma ) which she hath received . Upon which occasions she sometimes declares certain Truths , as necessary to be expresly believ'd by all , to whom that Declaration is sufficiently propounded ; and commands certain errours to be expresly rejected : both which were before believ'd or rejected onely implicitely , to wit , by the Belief of those Known and Receiv'd Divine Truths , in which these other were contain'd , tanquam in radice or in semine , as Vincentius speaks . For the Church is so tenderly careful of every Iota , and Tittle of these Sacred Doctrines ( in whatever matter they consist , great or small , ) which were delivered to her by the Divine Authority of Christ and his Apostles , that she uses all possible industries , not onely to keep unblemished what was clearly and plainly expressed in the Doctrine delivered to her , but whatever else she findes necessary for conserving them in their Primitive integrity and purity . Thus hath she us'd all possible diligence to preserve the Scriptures pure and entire , not onely in the prime Articles of Faith , but in every the least truth delivered in them . Thus from what she had received concerning Christs being both God and Man , yet but one Christ ; she declared against Nestorius that he had but one person ; against Eutyches , that he consisted of two distinct Natures , the Divine and the Humane ; and against the Monothelites , that he had Two Wills : all which particulars , though they were not so fully express'd and reflected on , before those Heresies arose , yet were they virtually and implicitely included in the Doctrine first received , and afterwards became necessary to be expresly believed , by the Declaration of General Councils . I take no notice of the Relatours Translating Disputator errans 〈◊〉 Disputer , and Dogmata Deposita the principles of Faith. Such errata as these , as they may seem ( perhaps ) too minute , so are they too frequent to be reflected on . But when he would have either the Church her self , or some appointed by her , to examine her Decrees , to wit , in matters of Faith ( for of those onely is the controversie ) lest for want of it , she be chang'd in Lupanar errorum , ( a thing so foul he dares not English it ) though I wonder not much that 't is said by him , yet can I not but wonder , that he ventures to father it on Lirinensis , citing a lame sentence of his in the Margin for proof of it : whereas this Authour , in that very place , is so far from entertaining the least thought , or letting fall the least word , importing that the Church should adde Novitia veteribus ( Novelties to Ancient truths ) and consequently alter and corrupt her own Doctrine , that , ( as if he had foreseen such a perversion of his meaning ) at the end of the chapter cited , he seems purposely to explicate his own meaning , and to point out the persons guilty of such practices , in these words . Sed avertat hoc a suorum mentibus Divina pietas , sisque hoc potius IMPIORUM FUROR : ( But God avert ( saith he ) this evil from the mindes of his , and be it rather the fury of the impious to do so ) whoever therefore are so audacious , as to adde Novelties to the Ancient Doctrine of the Church , are judg'd by Vincentius to be impious persons , raging in a fury of madness ; which how justly or truly it can be affirmed of Christs true Church , let any discreet man be judge . But if this be not sufficient to demonstrate , what this Authours opinion was of Christs Church in this particular , take a further Description which he gives of her , cap. 22. Christi vero Ecclesia sedula & cauta Depositorum apud se Dogmatum custos , nihil in iis unquam permutat , NIHIL MINVIT , NIHIL ADDIT : non amputat necessaria , non apponit superflua , non amittit sua , non usurpat aliena : Where we see , in opposition to those impious and furious Adders of Novelties , mentioned in the last words of the precedent chapter , how effectually and fully in the very beginning of this , he clears the Church from that foul aspersion , which the Bishop would cast upon her . But the Church of Christ ( saith he ) as a careful and wise Depositary , or keeper of the Truths committed to her , NEVER CHANGES any thing at all in them , lessens nothing , ADDES NOTHING ; neither cuts away things necessary , nor adjoyns things superfluous ; neither loses what is hers , nor usurps what belongs to others , &c. Words as Diametrically contrary to what the Relatour pretends unto in this passage , viz. suspicion and possibility of the Churches adding NOVITIA VETERIBVS , and of making a change in the Doctrine which she first received from Christ and his Apostles , as any thing can be imagined . But to return to that lame sentence which he cites out of Lirinensis , the very same does clearly shew , that Lirinensis never taught , or imputed to the Church , that she added New Doctrines to the Old. For if she be a Keeper of the Old , and never labour'd in her Councils to do more then preserve id quod antea ( that which was before ) and that Vincentius expresly averres this , how can he in reason be suppos'd to teach , that this very Keeper of old Doctrines , and Rejecter of Novelties , should either corrupt the one , or introduce the other ? nay , the very words the Bishop cites , demonstrate evidently , that the Church cannot ( in this Authors opinion ) be understood to make these Additions . For those who make them , may at length by such Additions come to change the Church in errorum Lupanar . But 't is impossible , the Church should change her self , or do any thing , whereby to be chang'd in errorum Lupanar ; for so she should be no more the Church of Christ : unless he would have Christs Church , while it remains his Church , to be errorum Lupanar ; which 〈◊〉 as Vincentius abhors , so I presume the Bishop himself , would never in terms and directly have admitted . Lastly , the Bishops own exposition of Vincentius his words destroyes this unworthy imputation cast upon the Church . He interprets Dogmata ( as we have seen ) to be the Maximes , or Prime Principles , of Christian Doctrine ; whereof no one part can be rejected , without opening a way to reject another , till the whole be destroyed . Therefore ( to make Lirinensis his discourse uniforme and coherent ; who still goes on in the former matter , and gives not the least hint , that he speaks onely of Fundamentals in the former part of his discourse , when he mentions changes in dogmatibus fidei , and of not Fundamentals , in those Additions of Novelties ) I say , to make this Discourse of Vincentius uniforme and coherent , he must understand the Novitia ( which Vincentius sayes are added Veteribus ) to be added as new principal Maximes to the other principal Maximes of Faith , no less then the Ancient Maximes were . Now such an Addition would be a Fundamental errour , destructive of the Church , as he also grants . Wherefore it is impossible , that the true Church , remaining still the true Church should make any such addition , even according to the Relatours exposition of Vincentius . Whence it appears to what straits this place of Lirinensis put him ; seeing that whilest he labours to avoid one inconvenience , he falls into another , like him , of whom the Poet sings , Incidit in Scyllam cupiens vitare Charybdim , while he endeavours to avoid the Charybdis ( as he accounts it ) of acknowledging ( from thewords and Testimony of Lirinensis ) the Churches Infallibility in not Fundamentals , he runs and splits himself upon the Scylla of making the whole Church erre in points Fundamental . But he is resolv'd to make all seem as fair for himself as he can ; to which end , observe a little how he uses the Text. Ecclesia depositorum apud se Dogmatum Custos . That 's well . His Lordship could neither deny , nor dissemble , but that the Church ( in the judgement of Vincentius ) is a Guardian , or Keeper of the Truths deposited with her . But yet , that it might not appear what kinde of Keeper she is , whether Faithful and Diligent , or Unfaithful and Negligent ; whether apt to admit the Addition of other New and Strange Doctrines , which she received not , or to lose and corrupt any of those which she did receive , he unfairly leaves out the first words of the sentence , which would have cleared the doubt . Sedula & cauta . The Church is a diligent , and wary Keeper of the Truths committed to her charge . She suffers nothing to be lost or embezzel'd either through neglect of duty , or unskilfulness to perform it . In brief , that it might not appear , in how exact a manner the Church executes this office of Depositary and Guardian of Divine Truth , he wraps up all the following words , Nihil in iis unquam permutat , nihil minuit , nihil addit , and the rest which follow , ( in which the Churches singular Care and Faithfulness in this affair is most Emphatically and truly avouched , ) with an &c. a Fatal , but Faithless &c. Whereas Vincentius ( as we heard above out of the words themselves ) directly and positively asserts , that the Church never changes any part of the Doctrine committed to her , addes nothing , diminishes nothing , to wit by any corruptive Addition or Diminution , or by any change , that perverts or destroyes the Truth formerly Deposited with her . The like By-turn he makes in the third Text , cap. 31. where citing it thus abruptly and unintelligibily , Impiorum & turpium errorum Lupanar ; that it might be thought the Church her self makes this Addition of Novelties , he leaves out the word adiiciunt , ( they adde ) that is , Heretiques and Novelists do adde ; for so Vincentius speaketh : he sayes not adiicit , ( she , or the Church addes : ) For they are Heretiques , and not the Catholique Pastours of the Church , who by their Novel Additions labour to pervert and overthrow the True Doctrine of the Church . We grant not unwillingly what the Relatour here asserts , That a whole frame of Building may be shaken , and the Foundation , whereon it is laid , remain firme . So may Hope , Charity , and other vertues be shaken , and 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 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 pleases , then to any severity in the Church of Rome : which is known to be a pious Mother , and never proceeds to Excommunication , but when obstinacy and perverseness enforce her . As to what the Bishop objects , that the Roman Church makes many points to be of necessary belief , which had for many hundred of years passed onely for pious opinions , if his Lordship had assigned any such points in particular , they should have received an answer . The Relatour dislikes Mr. Fisher for saying , The Church of England in her Book of Canons Excommunicates every man , who shall hold any thing contrary to any part of the said Articles , viz , the 39. Articles . But although these were not the precise words of their Canon , yet the Church of England , excommunicating all such , as affirme they cannot with a good Conscience submit unto them ( as 't is manifest she does , by the very Canon which the Bishop cites ) she doth in effect excommunicate all that hold any thing contrary to the said Articles . As for the pretended severity of the Roman Church , we have answer'd it already , and shew'd , that the Freedom and Liberty granted by her enemies , would afford no more prosperity to her , then it hath done to them . 'T is true , the Church of Rome ( as his Lordship takes notice ) imposes her Doctrine , upon the whole world , under pain of Damnation : but it is not in her power to do otherwise : because Christ himself hath commanded her so to do , in these words , Matth. 18. 17. If he will not hear the Church , let him be to thee as a Heathen and Publican . 7. His exceptions here against A. C. are but as so many Meanders . For , first he sayes that the words objected by A. C. are not the words of the Canon . I answer , nor did A. C. affirm they were . Secondly , he addes and perhaps not the sense ; because , privately holding within himself , and boldly and publickly affirming are different things . True. But where doth A. C. mention those , words privately holding within himself ? or where does the Canon say boldly , and publickly affirming , as the Bishop would impose on the Reader ? And as to the sense of the Article , the Bishop himself durst not boldly and publickly affirme , that A. C. missed it ; but sayes onely perhaps he did : and then perhaps he did not . But without all perhaps and peradventure , he gave the genuine sense of the Canon ; seeing 'tis against all reason to imagine , that a man should be held punishable with Excommunication for a meer internal Act. He must mean therefore by the word holding an external Act , which cannot amount to less then Affirming . 8. The question is not , whether the English Congregation , or the Roman Church , be more Severe ; but whether the English Protestants Severity , in Excommunicating those , that affirme any part of the thirty nine Articles to be 〈◊〉 , be not unreasonable ; supposing , she be subject to errour in defining those Articles . For what is it less then unreasonable Tyranny , to cast men out of their Church ( which they esteem a True one ) deliver them up to Satan , and lay Gods and their Churches curse upon them , for affirming that to be erroneous , which ( for ought they know ) may possibly be such indeed ? especially when the Impugner fully perswades himself , that what he affirms to be erroneous in them , is really so . For Excommunication being the most grievous punishment the Church can inflict , must require a Crime proportionable to it . But can any man perswade himself , that to oppose a Doctrine , against which the opposer verily perswades himself , he hath either an evidence from Scripture , or a Demonstrative reason ( in which cases the Bishop grants , that one may , yea ought to oppugne the Churches errours ) can any man , I say , perswade himself that this is a Crime proportionable , or a sufficient cause of Excommunication ? Every just Excommunication therefore , inflicted for the opposing of Doctrine , must necessarily suppose the Doctrine opposed to be infallibly true and absolutely exempt from errour , otherwise the sentence it self would be unreasonable and unjust , as wanting sufficient ground . Whence likewise it follows , that Protestants , while they confess on the one side , that all their thirty nine Articles are not Fundamental points of Faith , ( and by consequence , in their sense and according to their principles , not infallibly true , but subject to errour ) yet on the other side proceed to Excommunication against any , that affirm them , or any part of them , to be superstitious or erroneous , do themselves exercise a greater Tyranny and injustice towards their people , then they can , with any colour or pretence of reason , charge upon the Roman Church : which ( as they well know ) excommunicates no man , but for denying such Doctrine , as is both Infallibly true , and also Fundamental , at least according to the formal Object . As little is it the question , whether the Roman Churches Excommunications be of a much larger extent , then those of the English Protestants ; ( for this argues no more , then that one is the Universal Church , the other not ) but the question is ( as hath been said ) whether Protestants Excommunications be not unreasonable , nay , most enormious , as inflicted by those , who acknowledge themselves fallible , and subject to errour in that very point for which they Excommunicate . Again , as to the larger extent of our excommunications , might not the same have been objected against the excommunications of the Apostles themselves , by any particular Heretical Conventicles in those times , to wit , that their ( pretended ) Excommunications reached no further then the bounds of their own private Congregations , whereas the Apostolical Excommunications extended to the utmost limits of the whole Christian World. What follows ha's been often answered : For we grant , the Scripture is sufficient for some mens Salvation , if we regard the material Object onely , or the chief points of Faith ; because all the Prime Articles of our Faith are expressed in Scripture : which Prime Articles are Fundamental onely in the first sense , so often declared . But hence it follows not that some things not exprest in Scripture , are not Fundamental in the second sense formerly delivered . Amongst these , Tradition must be numbered ; for which we admit Scripture it self . In this truly ( to use his Lordships Rhetorique ) the Fathers are plain , the Schoolmen are not strangeis , and Stapleton ( whom he stiles an angry opposite ) confesses as much . Moreover , where there is any difficulty about the sense of Scripture , or the point to be believed , we are not so to stand to Scripture , as that we refuse to hear the Church appointed by Christ to interpret it , and to declare what ought to be believed . For otherwise there would be no end of Controversies ; every Heretique pretending Scripture , and crying it up as much , as the Bishop or any other of his party can do . Nor can the Church obtrude any thing as Fundamental in the Faith , which is not so in it self ; she being Infallible as shall hereafter be proved ; the Bishop here wrongfully supposing the contrary . Mr. Fisher sayes , 'T is true , That the Church of England grounds her POSITIVE Articles 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 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 , but in them who answer it ill . And truly the question hath done this good , that it hath made the weakness of their cause appear , who have deserted the Catholique Church . Wherefore we will give our Adversary leave to say , that we draw him to it , rather then omit so necessary a Disputation . The Bishop therefore proposeth diverse wayes of proving Scripture to be the word of God , and in the first place falls to attaque our way ; who prove it by the Tradition and Authority of the Church . For he urgeth , that it may be further asked , why he should believe the Churches Tradition . And if it be answered , that we believe it , because the Church is Infallibly governed by the Holy Ghost , he proceeds and demands , how that may appear ? where he thinks , we are brought to those straits , that we must either say , we believe it by special Revelation , which is the private Spirit we object to others , or else must attempt to prove it by Scripture ; which were a vicious Circle : and yet he affirms we all do so . But with his Lordships favour , he conceives amiss ; and I desire his Followers to give us leave hereafter to answer for our selves , and that they would not do it for us . 1. Wherefore to this last demand , ( in which onely there is difficulty , ) viz. How we know the Church to be infallibly governed by the Holy Ghost , we answer , that we prove it first in general , not by the Scripture , but by the Motives of credibility , which belong to the Church : in the same manner as the Infallibility of Moyses and other Prophets , of Christ and his Apostles , was proved ; which was by the Miracles they wrought , and by other Signes of an Infallible Spirit , Direction and Guidance from God , which appeared in them . Whence it is clear , that we incurre no Circle . 'T is true , after we have prov'd the Churches Infallibility by these Signs and Motives , namely by Sanctity of Life , Miracles , Efficacy , Purity , and Excellency of Doctrine , Fulfilling of Prophesies , Succession of lawfully-sent Pastours , Unity , Antiquity , and the very Name of Catholique , &c. I say , after we have prov'd in geneneral her Infallibility by these and the like Motives ; then , having received the Scripture by this Infallible Authority , ( proved , as we see , another way and independently of Scripture ) we may ( and Authours commonly do ) without any shadow of a vicious circle , confirme the same by Scripture : which Scripture-proofs are onely secondary and ex suppositione , not Prime and absolute ; and most usually contain a proof ad hominem , or ex principles concessis against Sectaries , who denying the Infallibility of the Church , and questioning many times , or cavilling about our Motives of Credibility , yet admitting the Divine Authority of Scripture , are more easily convinced by clear Texts of Scripture , then by the other proofs . And in this we do no otherwise , then St. Augustin hath done before us , writing against Heretiques . 2. But because we have often promised to prove the Infallibility of the Church , it will be necessary to insist some what longer upon this point , and declare the matter at large . We say then , that the Church is proved in general to be Infallible , the same way that Moyses with other Prophets , Christ and his Apostles , were first prov'd to be Infallible . For , the Israelites seeing Moyses to be a person very Devout , Milde , Charitable , Chaste , and endowed with the gift of working Miracles , were upon that ground obliged to receive him for a true Prophet , and to believe him Infallible , by acknowledging as true and certain whatever he proposed to them from God. They believed our Lord and Moyses , saith the Scripture . Moreover for the Testimony of Moyses the Israelites believed the Scripture , and other things more clearly ; and in particular concerning Moyses himself , that in the House of God he was most faithful , and that God spake to him mouth to mouth , and the like . The same we may say of Christ our Saviour . For , there appear'd in him so great Sanctity of life , such Grace of speech , and Glory of Miracles , that all , to whom he preached , were bound to acknowledge him for the great Prophet and Messias ; as St. Andrew with the rest of Christs Disciples did , when they said , we have found the Messias . Thus they were bound at first to receive him as Infallible , and afterwards to believe whatsoever he taught them ; as that he was true God and Man , that he was to redeem the world with his blood upon the Cross , &c. Neither can any man justly here reply , that the Disciples and first Christians were obliged thus to receive our Blessed Saviour for the Scripture , which gives Testimony of him . Thus I say , no man can justly reply . For the Gentiles receiv'd not that Scripture ; and yet they were bound to acknowledge Christ , and believe him Infallible . And though some learned Jews might perhaps gather this out of Scripture , yet even without the Scripture the works of Christ were of themselves abundantly sufficient to prove who he was , both to the learned and unlearned . Wherefore our Saviour alwayes referred them to his works , as giving abundant Testimony of him . I have ( said he ) greater Testimony then John ; for the works which the Father hath given me to perfect them , the very works ( which I do ) give Testimony of me , that the Father sent me . The like we finde him saying elsewhere . The works that I do in the Name of my Father give Testimony of me . And , if you will not believe me , believe my works . By these places it appears , that the works of Christ , without Scripture , proved him to be the true Messias and Infallible . This Doctrine is also verified in the Apostles , who receiv'd Commission from Christ to preach every where , and TO CONFIRME THEIR WORDS with Signs that followed : by which signs all their Hearers were bound to submit themselves unto them , and to acknowledge their words for Infallible Oracles of Truth ; as the Apostles themselves testified , Acts 5. 28. Where we finde , that a Controversie arising in those Primitive times among the Christians , the Apostles and Ancients assembled together ; and having first concluded by themselves what was to be held for Truth in the matters controverted , imposed their Decree as Infallible Doctrine , upon all others , in these words , It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and Us , &c. As therefore Moyses , our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles , were prov'd Infallible by their works , signs , and miracles , without Scripture , so is the Church , without help of the same , sufficiently prov'd to be Infallible , by the Motives of Credibility : which being the effects and properties of the Church , do Declare , 〈◊〉 , and Demonstrate her immediately , and the Scriptures onely as they are found in her and acknowledged by her . Wherefore though Heretiques have the Scripture , yet being out of the true Church , they do wholly want these signs of Infallibility : of which see Bellarmin and other Catholique Authours discoursing more at large , De notis Ecclesiae . 'T is sufficient for the present to have declared how Catholiques fall not into a Circle , as his Lordship here pretends they do . For they , primarily and absolutely , prove the Infallibility of the Church by the Motives of 〈◊〉 , and not by Scripture : though afterwards , and as it were secondarily ( as we said before ) they prove it also ( especially to those who admit Scripture , as Protestants do ) by the Scripture it self ; which we acknowledge , with the Relatour , to be a higher proof , ( especially against them ) then the Churches Tradition . Yet we deny , that those other proofs from the Motives of Credibility , can be in reason questionable , ( as he sayes they are ) until we come to Scripture . Neither do any Catholique Authours disagree in this ; because they unanimously teach , that the Motives of Credibility make our Church EVIDENTLY CREDIBLE ; and by consequence she is sufficiently proved to be True by them alone . Now as concerning that Assertion , which the Bishop urges , that the principles of any Conclusion must be of more credit , then the Conclusion it self ; and his inference thereupon , viz. that the Articles of Faith , the Trinity , the Resurrection , and the rest being Conclusions , and the Principles by which they are concluded , being onely Ecclesiastical Tradition , it must needs follow , that the Tradition is more Infallible , then the Articles of Faith , if the Faith , which we have of the Articles , should be finally resolved into the veracity of the Churches Testimony . I answer , the ground of all this Discourse is the Authority of Aristotle , whose words the Bishop thus cites in the Margent . 1. Poster . c. 2. T. 16. Quocirca si 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( propter prima ) scimus & credimus , illa quoque scimus & credimus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( magis ) quia PER ILLA scimus & credimus etiam posteriora . Wherefore ( saith he ) if we know and believe all other things for or by vertue of the First Principles , we know and believe them ( to wit the First Principles themselves ) much more ; because by them we know and believe all other things . In which words we confess , the Philosopher doth very well declare the proceeding of the Understanding , ( or Minde of Man ) when it works naturally and necessarily ; by and from the evidence , or clearness of its Object : but not when it works supernaturally , and produceth supernatural and Free Acts , 〈◊〉 , or at least principally from the Impulse and Inclination of the will ; for in such cases the Maxime holds not , viz. That the Principles of a Conclusion must be of more Credit , then the Conclusion it self . Now the Act of Believing is such an Act ; that is , which the Understanding Elicites , rather by a Voluntary and Free inclination and Consent of the will , then from any Evident Certainty in the Object , whereto it assents . 3. That this may further appear , I distinguish a double proceeding in Probations ; the one is per principia intrinseca , ( by intrinsecal principles ) that is , such as have a necessary , natural connexion with the things proved , and do manifest and lay open the objects themselves . The other is per principia extrinseca ( by extrinsecal Principles ) that is , such as have no natural or necessary connexion with , nor do produce any such evident manifestation of the Thing proved ; but their efficacy , viz. whereby they determine the Understanding to Assent , doth wholly depend on the worth and vertue of that external Principle whereby such Probations are made . And this kinde of proof is called Probatio ab Authoritate ( an Argument from Authority : ) which Authority is nothing , but the veracity , knowledge , and vertue of him , to whom we give assent , when we receive such or such an affirmation from him . Now ( as I said above , ) we our selves either hear immediately what he affirms , and then we assent immediately , and solely for his Authority ; or we hear it mediately from the report of others : who , if of unquestionable credit , we assent that he did affirm it , upon the Authority of the Reporters : yet so as we should not give an undoubted assent to the thing it self , but for the undenyable Authority of the First Deliverer . To apply this doctrine : when we believe any thing with Divine Faith , it proceeds not from any probation per principia intrinseca , from any thing that hath natural connexion , dependence , or inference of , or with the thing believed ; but is purely propter principia extrinseca , for and from extrinsecal principles , to wit , the Authority , Veracity , Goodness , and Knowledge of God affirming it . Now the Prophets and Apostles , assented to what God spake immediately unto them . And the like is Affirmable , in some proportion , of their immediate Hearers . But succeeding Ages had it , ( viz. Gods Revelation ) both from Christ and his Apostles onely mediately , and immediately from their respective Pastours . Now that we may be assured hereof Infallibly , we must have some infallible Testimony to ascertain it unto us ; which can be no other then the Church . 4. Neither will it be necessary , precisely for this reason , to affirm in the Resolution of our Faith , That the Churches Declaration in matters of Faith is absolutely and simply Divine , or that God speaks immediately by her Definitions ; or that our Faith is Resolved into the voice of the Church , as into its formal object : but it is enough to say our Faith is Resolved into Gods Revelations ( whether written or unwritten ) as its formal object : and our Infallible Assurance , that the Things we believe as Gods Revelations , are revealed from him , is Resolved into the Infallibility of the Churches Definitions , teaching us , that they are his Revelations . Seeing therefore our Faith ( in this way of proceeding ) is not resolved into the Churches Authority , as the formal Motive of our Assent , but onely as an assured Testimony , that such and such Articles , as the Church defines to be matters of Faith , are truly revealed from God , ( as she assures us they are , ) it is not necessary , the Churches Testimony should be a new immediate Revelation from God , but onely Supernaturally Infallible , by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost preserving her from all errour , in defining any thing as a point of Christian Faith , that is , as a Truth revealed from God , which is not truly and really so revealed . If then it be demanded , why we believe such Books as are contain'd in the Bible to be the word of God , we answer , because it is a Divine Unwritten Tradition , that they are his word ; and this Divine Tradition is the formal object , whereon our Faith relyes : But if it be further demanded , how we are certain that it is a Divine Tradition , we answer , the certainty we have thereof is from the Infallible Testimony of the Church , teaching us it is such a Tradition . Thus the Articles of our Faith are delivered from God , but kept by the Church ; they spring from God as the Fountain , but run down in a full Stream through the Channel , and within the Banks of the Church : they are sowed by the hand of God , but grow up in the field of the Church : They are spoken by the mouth of God , but we hear them by the voice of the Church , assuring us 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 the Bishop thought this injury not great enough , unless he redoubled it by any additional false Imputation of other two absurdities , which he avers to follow evidently from our doctrine . To the first , viz. That we ascribe as great Authority ( if not greater ) to a part of the Catholique Church as we do to the whole , I answer , there follows no such thing from any Doctrine of ours , but from his Lordships wilfully-mistaken Notion of the Catholique Church ; which he most desperately extends to all that bear the name of Christians , without exception of either Schismatiques or Heretiques , that so he might be sure to include himself within her Pale , and make the Reader absurdly believe , that the Roman Church , taken in her full latitude , is but a 〈◊〉 , or Parcel of the Catholique Church believed in the Creed . This indeed , ( to use his Lordships phrase ) is full of Absurdity in Nature , in Reason , in all things . For , it is to pretend an Addition of Integral parts to a Body already entire in all its Integrals : seeing the Roman Church , taken in the sense it ought to be , as comprising all Christians that are in her Communion , is the sole and whole Catholique Church ; as is evident in Ecclesiastical History , which clearly shews throughout all Ages , that none condemn'd of Heresie or Schisme , by the Roman Church , were ever accounted any part of the Catholique Church . And this I would have prov'd at large , had his Lordship done any more then barely suppos'd the contrary . If any man shall object , that the Bishop charges the absurdity upon us in respect of the Roman Church , that we ascribe as great Authority , ( if not greater ) to a part of it , as we do to the whole , viz. In our General Councils , I answer , that is so far from being an absurdity , that it were absurd to suppose it can be otherwise : which the Objecter himself will clearly fee , when he considers , that the like must needs be granted even in Civil Governments . For instance , the Parliament of England is but a handful of men compar'd with the whole Nation , yet have they greater Authority , in order to the making , or repealing of Laws , then the whole Nation , were they met together in a Body , Men , Women , and Children : which would produce nothing but an absolute confusion . The Application is so easie , I leave it to the Objecter himself to make . The second accusation which the Bishop layes to our charge , is this ; That in our Doctrine concerning the Infallibility of our Church , our proceeding is most unreasonable , in regard we will not have recourse to Texts of Scripture , exposition of Fathers , Propriety of Language , Conference of Places , &c. but argue that the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome is true and Catholique , because she professeth it to be such : which , sayes he , is to prove Idem per Idem . Whereas truly we most willingly embrace , and have frequent recourse to all the Bishops mentioned helps ; and that with much more Candour , then Protestants can with any ground of reason pretend to , considering their manifold wrestings both of Scripture and Fathers , when they either urge them against us , or endeavour to evade their clear Testimonies for us . Neither are we in any danger of committing a Circle , or proving Idem per Idem , because his Lordship sees not how we can possibly winde our selves out . The business is not so insuperably difficult in our Doctrine . For if we be asked , how we know the Church to be Infallible , our last answer is not ( as he feigns ) because she professes her self to be such ; but we know her to be Infallible by the Motives of Credibility , which sufficiently prove her to be such . So the Prophets , Christ and his Apostles were , in their time , known to be Infallible Oracles and Teachers of Truth , by the like signs and Motives : onely this difference there is : that these ( viz. Christ and his Apostles , &c. ) confirming their Doctrine , gave Infallible Testimony , that what they taught , was the Immediate Revelation and Word of God , whereas the Motives , which confirme the Declarations and Authority of the Church , do onely shew , that she Infallibly delivers to us the same Revelations ( I mean the same for sense and substance of Doctrine ) which the other received immediately from God. And that to rest in this manner upon the Authority of the present Church , in the Resolution of our Faith , is not to prove Idem per Idem , ( as the Bishop falsly imputes to us ) I clearly shew by two several Instances , which even those of his party must of necessity allow . 5. The first Instance is of the Church in time of the Apostles . For who sees not , that a Sectary might in those dayes have argued against the Apostolical Church by the very same Method his Lordship here uses against the present Catholique Church ? might he not have taxed those Christians of unreasonable proceeding in their belief , and have set it forth ( as the Bishop does ) thus ? For , if you ask them why they believe the whole Doctrine of the Apostles to be the sole True Catholique Faith , their answer is , because it is agreeable to the Doctrine of Christ. If you ask them how they know it to be so , they will produce the Words , Sentences , and Works of Christ , who taught it . But if you ask a third time , by what means they are assured , that those Testimonies do indeed make for them and their cause , or are really the Testimonies and Doctrine of Christ , they will not then have recourse to those Testimonies ( or doctrine ) but their final answer is , they know it to be so , because the present Apostolique Church doth witness it . And so by consequence prove Idem per Idem . Thus the Sectary . By which it is clear , that the Bishops objection against the present Roman Church ( wherein he would seem to make a discovery of her Corruptions and Politique Interests ) is equally applyable to the Primitive Apostolique Church in its undeniable purity . But at once to answer both the Bishops and Sectaries objection , I affirm , that the prime and precise reason to be given , why we believe the voice of the present Church , witnessing , or giving Assurance of Divine Revelation to us , is neither Scripture , Councils , nor Fathers , no , nor the Oral Doctrine of Christ himself , but the pregnant and convincing Motives of Credibility , which moved both the Primitive Christians and us , in our respective times , to believe the Church . Not that we are necessitated to resolve our Faith into the Motives , as its Formal Object , or ultimate Reason of Assent , ( for that can be no other , then the Divine Authority Revealing ) but as into most certain Inducements , powerfully and prudently inclining our will , to accept the present Church as the Infallible Organ ordained by Divine Authority to teach us the sure way of salvation . The second Instance is ad hominem , against the Bishop , in relation to those Fundamental Truths , wherein he confesses the whole Church neither doth nor can erre . For , suppose a Separatist should thus argue with his Lordship , your Doctrine concerning the Infallibility 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 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. a 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 , b If any clear Testimony were brought out of Scripture against the Church , he would neither believe the Scripture , nor the Church . c 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 , d That the Father is not begotten of any other Person . A third , e 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 , f That those , who are Baptized by Hereticks , are not to be Rebaptized . The fifth , g That Infants are to be baptized . The Sixth , h that Children Baptized are to be numbred amongst the faithful . The seventh , i that the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is to be received fasting . The eighth , k 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 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 , a Inungitur baptizandus more Athletarum , qui stadium jam ingressuri sunt . Spittle is applied to their Ears and Nostrils , as St. Ambrose b 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 c teacheth . But this Ceremony is not us'd at all times , nor in all places , as being not absolutely commanded by the Church . Wherefore d 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. W. I finde not one word , of Tradition being known by its own light , in it . If therefore this Proposition , That a Tradition may be known to be such , ( that is , to be Gods unwritten Word ) by the light it hath in it self , be a matter to be made sport with , ( as the Bishop sayes it is ) we shall not grudge him the mirth he may have found in his own fiction . But before I leave this point , I desire the Reader to consider what the Relatour grants , viz. that the Church now admits of St. James and St. Jude's Epistles , and the Apocalypse , which were not received for divers years , after the rest of the New Testament : Yet would he elsewhere conclude against the Church of Rome , that it had 〈◊〉 in receiving more Books into the Canon , then were received in Ruffinus his time . But if according to him , some Books are now to be admitted without errour for Canonical , which were not alwayes acknowledged to be such , certainly without errour also , and upon the same Authority , some Books may now be received into the Canon , which were not so in Ruffinus his time . But this onely by way of Digression . As for the third way of proving Scripture to be Gods word , to wit , by the Private Spirit , 't is true , the Bishop professes to reject the Phrensie , as he calls it , of Private Revelation , ( except in some extraordinary Circumstances ) both as a thing that would render a man obnoxious to all the whisperings of a seducing Private Spirit , and from whence can be drawn no proof to others , being ( as he sayes ) neither seen , nor felt of any , but him that hath it : Yet concerning this point he delivers himself in such a roving way of discourse , as signifies nothing in effect , to what he would seem to drive at ; and so leaves the Reader wholly unsatisfied , how to prove Scripture to be the Word of God Infallibly , without recourse , at last , to the Private Spirit . Nor was it possible for him to free himself from that Imputation , of recurring to the Private Spirit , against any that should press the business home , notwithstanding his Brags to the contrary , and his Thanks to A. C. whose imperfectly-cited words he would fain improve to a freeing himself from necessity of recurring to the Private Spirit : which is opposite to A. C's meaning , who thus urges against him by name of the Chaplain . The Chaplain therefore , who , as it seems , will not admit Tradition to be in any sort Divine and Infallible , while it introduces the Belief of Scripture to be Divine Books , cannot sufficiently defend the Faith introduced of that point to be Infallible , unless he admit an Infallible Impulsion of the Private Spirit EX PARTE SUBJECTI , without any Infallible sufficiently applied Reason EX PARTE OBJECTI , which he seemeth not , nor hath reason to do , &c. Now I leave it to any Indifferent mans judgement , whether the sense of those words be not this , viz. That the Chaplain , or Bishop , seems indeed to reject the Private Spirit , and hath reason so to do : yet since he admits not Tradition to be in any sort Divine and Infallible , he cannot sufficiently defend the Faith of Scriptures being the Word of God to be Infallible , unless he admit an Infallible Impulsion of the Private Spirit . But this part of A. C.'s Speech his Lordship very prudently supprest , to make way for a perversion of the other part : which taken both together signifie no less then what I have said , That the Bishop professeth to reject the Doctrine of the Private Spirit , yet neither did , nor could prove Scripture to be the Word of God Infallibly , without recourse to Private Revelation . 4. However , the Bishop was so far from avowedly countenancing this opinion , that he chose rather to seem ignorant , then freely confess , that any Protestant did hold it . For he grants no more , then that either some do think , there is no other sufficient Warrant for this , then special Revelations , or the Private Spirit ; or else , that we impose it upon them : and that if they do mean by Faith , Objectum Fidei , ( the object of Faith that is to be believed ) then they are out of the ordinary way . Here you see , how doubtfully the Bishop speaks , either there are some such , or you ( saith he to us ) would have them think so : And if they do mean , &c. As if there could be any doubt in either of these two particulars : Seeing Calvin , that great Doctour of Protestancy , is so positive therein , and delivers that Doctrine so expresly in his Institutions , lib. 1. cap. 7. § 4. a Where he clearly resolves , that to satisfie mens Consciences in this point , viz. in the Belief that Scripture is the Word of God , and to keep them from doubting , we must recurre to the Secret ( or if you will the Private ) Testimony of the Spirit . And § 5. where he professeth , that Holy Scripture gains the credit , ( or certainty ) which it hath with us , from the Testimony of the Spirit . But to come yet closer to the Bishop , Dr. Whitaker , a man that suckt the Church of Englands Milk , as well as his Lordship , writes expresly thus , b Esse enim dicimus , &c. For we affirm ( saith he ) there is a more certain and clear Testimony , by which we are perswaded , that these Books are sacred , to wit , the Internal Testimony of the Holy Ghost . The like he hath cap. 3. ad 3 um . in these words , Qui enim Spiritum Sanctum habent , &c. For they who have the Holy Ghost , and are taught of God , are able to know the voice of God , as one knows his Friend , with whom he hath long and most familiarly conversed , by his voice . Whence it evidently appears , that divers eminent Protestants do in this point , ( to say nothing of the rest ) resolve their Faith into the Private Spirit , notwithstanding the Bishops unwillingness to confess it . To what else he inserts , in treating this point , I say nothing ; because it is not against Catholick Doctrine . I wonder not much to see Natural Reason introduc'd by the Bishop , ( tanquam Saulem inter Prophetas ) as a means sufficient to ground an Infallible Belief , that Scripture is the Word of God : because after a more narrow search I perceeive he was enforc'd to take this fourth way , viz. Natural Reason : which he elsewhere , ( num . 2. pag. 60. ) sayes , must be admitted , though it be but for Pagans and Infidels , who either ( as he affirms ) consider not , or value not any one of the other three , yet must some way or other be Converted , or left without excuse , Rom. 1. Now therefore let us see , how his Lordship goes about either to Convert a Heathen , or leave him without excuse , in case he believe not Scripture , ( as it is now in their Protestant English Canon ) by the light of Natural Reason . And for greater clearness of proceeding let us imagine , that some learned Heathen ( who had read the Bshops Book ) comes to his Lordship to be satisfied in point of Religion ; whose Discourse you have in this ensuing Dialogue . 5. Heathen . 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 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 after Christ , as much reason and ability to finde this light in Scripture , as I can pretend to ? Yet many Books , which seem to me to discover themselves to be the word of God by that divine light which shines in them , sent no such light to their eyes , but were under question amongst them , whether they were the word of God or not , till they were declar'd such by the Catholique Church . And I wonder much , how Protestants receive the Books of the Old Tement upon the Authority of St. Hierome and the Jewish Synagogue , and press no other reason , notwithstanding they hold the Church may deceive us in the whole Canon of Scripture . Further , sayes this discoursing Christian , If one , who hath not yet examin'd the light of Scripture it self , but onely taken it upon the account of Church-Tradition , should deny ( for example ) St. Matthew's Gospel to be the written word of God , he could not , in this opinion , be counted an Heretique , because it was not sufficiently propounded to him to be Gods word . Nay hence it follows , that even our Blessed Saviour , who is Wisdom it self , would have been esteemed by all the world , not a wise Law-giver , but a meer Ignoramus and Impostour . For had he not framed ( think you ) a strange and chimericall Common-wealth , were it alone destitute of a full and absolute power , ( which all other well-ordered Republiques enjoy ) to give an Authentical and unquestionable Declaration , which is the genuine and true Law. Now he comes closer to the matter it self , and examines , how this pretended light should be Infallible and Divine , supposing the Churches Testimony of the Scriptures being Gods word was Humane onely and Fallible . When I came ( discourses he with himself ) first to settle my thoughts to a serious reading of Scripture , I had no more then a fallible Authority recommending Scripture to me . That fallible Authority could be no Foundation , much less a Formall object for a Divine and Infallible assent to rest upon . Therefore before I thus began to read Scripture , I had no Infallible and Divine Faith , that it was the written word of God. The Tradition therefore of the Church to me was no more then a Tradition of wise , prudent , and honest men , who had no such assistance from God , as was sufficient to preserve them from Errour . Suppose therefore , that as the Church might , so she had err'd in testifying some Books of Scripture to be Gods word , which really are not such ; in this supposition I should have them all equally recommended to me as Gods word , by the very same Authority of the Church . Then I fall to reading seriously , and peruse all those which are call'd Canonicall Books in the Bible : shall I ever think , by my diligence in reading to discover , that the light of Gods word shines not in those Books wherein the Church err'd , as it shines in the rest ? Shall I discern Canonicall Books wherein she err'd not , from the not-Canonicall , by the light I finde in them , when the whole Church , and so many thousand learned Bishops , who had read them more studiously and knowingly then I can do , never discern'd any such different light more in the one then in the other ? But put case I were able to discern this difference in Scripture by the sole light of Scripture , what follows ? seeing the Church ha's as universally recommended also very many unwritten Traditions for Apostolicall and Divine , whereof some at least ( as the not-rebaptizing of those who were Baptized by Heretiques , &c. ) are most certainly true , and as properly the word of God in their first delivery from Christ and his Apostles ( which the Bishop confesses ) as Scripture it self ; why can I not , by that light , which shines in a true Apostolicall Tradition , as well distinguish it from a false one , as by the light that shines in a true Book of Canonicall Scripture , distinguish that from a false one : Since God speaks equally in both , why should there not be an equal light shining in both ? Nay , seeing the Church , in the Definition of Superstructures ( wherein his Lordship makes her fallible ) very often defines aright , why may not I finde , by the light which shines in such a definition , that it is a Divine Truth , and distinguish it from that which is not the true voyce of God ? and so take no other guide , or judge , to my self in Divine matters , then onely my own knowledge of God speaking to me ? After this he examines a while , of what perswasion the Holy Fathers were in this matter ; and findes , that a St. Irenaeus , and b St. Augustin in many places , held that the Tradition of the Church is sufficient to found Christian Faith , even without Scripture , and that for some hundreds of years after the Canon of Scripture was written . At length he returns again to your hidden light in Scriptures , and discourses thus ; If the Church be fallible in the Tradition of Scripture , how can I ever be infallibly certain , that she has not err'd de facto , and defin'd some Book to be the word of God , which really is not his word ? These you may imagine , were the thoughts of our perplexed Christian : who wearied out with speculations and reflections , fell in the close upon this result , That either the Church must be Infallible in the Tradition of Scripture , or there is no possible means to be infallibly certain which is Scripture ; nay ( which is more ) whether there be any true Scripture at all , Now we return to his Lordship . Here his Dedalian windings are disintricated , and his Reasons easily solv'd . For first , Church-Tradition appears far from being too weak , by advancing the Proposition I did before , viz. that to give an Infallible Testimony of the Scriptures being the true word of God , it is not necessary , that Church-Tradition should be absolutely Divine . Secondly , I agree with our Antagonist , in the Authority of the Prime Christian Church , that it was absolutely Divine , and yet averre , it is not necessary to the solving of his Arguments , to assert the like Divine Authority in the present Church . 7. When he sayes , that some of our own will not endure , that the often mentioned words of St. Augustin , Ego vero Evangello non crederem , &c. should be understood save of the Church in the time of the Apostles onely , and in proof of this cites Occham in the margent , I ask the Relatour , how can one single Author be aliqui , some of our own in the plurall number ? Had he said onely some one of our own , it might have pass'd ; but to say some of ours , and then cite but one , was to make an extreme narrow passage in his Labyrinth . Should Julian , the Apostata , to lay an aspersion upon the whole Colledge of the Apostles , have said that some of them betray'd their Master , and then have nam'd Judas onely ; and that some others deny'd him , and in proof thereof had cited onely St. Peter : or should a Catholique , to disgrace the Protestant Primacy of Canterbury , say that some of them carried a holy Sister of the Reformed Gospel lockt up in a chest , as a precious Jewel in a Cabinet , about with them , and name Cranmer onely in the Margent ; or should any other Author , to discredit Protestants , affirm that some of them turn'd Turks , and were burnt for such , and cite onely in the margent Bernardinus Ochinus , would not this be esteem'd a Rhetoricall Hyperbole , or rather a most unjust way of writing ? But what if this Singular-Plural sayes no such thing , as the words alledged by the Bishop signifie ? would not this be a notable Turn ? Intelligitur ( so are Occhams words cited by the Bishop in his margent ) SOLUM de Ecclesiâ quae fuit tempore Apostolorum . It , viz. the sentence of St. Augustin , I would not believe the Gospel , &c. is understood ( saith he ) ONELY of the Church which was in the Apostles time . Now in that whole place , which I have perused very diligently , there are neither those cited words , nor any thing like them . What is there then ? marry , the quite contrary . For he sayes expresly , that the Church , whereof St. Augustin speaks in that Sentence , contains not onely the Apostles , and those of their times , but also the Church successively from the times of the Apostles to that very time wherein St. Augustin wrote those words , as Occham himself shews out of another Text of St. Augustin , and affirms , that he understood the Church in the very same sense in this sentence , that he exprest in the other , and so concludes , that c St. Augustins words there are not to be understood of the times of the Apostles onely , quite contradictorily to what his Lordship makes him speak . Is this fair dealing , think you , to juggle in this manner ? what is this but to go about to perswade us , 't is not day , though the Sun shines . That St. Augustins meaning jumps right with Occhams interpretation , 't is evident . For he must speak here of the Church in his time , and not of the Primitive , or Apostolicall Church onely , because he speaks of that Church which said to him , Noli credere Manichaeo ( do not believe Manichaeus ) which if he had affirmed of the Primitive , or Apostolicall Church , had neither been true , nor to the purpose : the Primitive and Apostolicall Church having said no more against Manichaeus , then the Scripture it self said . Moreover , he speaks of that Church , wherein ( as he taught in the former Chapter ) the succession of Bishops from St. Peter to the present time had kept him , &c. but that must needs be the present Church , succeeding the Primitive , and not the Primitive onely . Nay further he sayes , that if any evident place could be alledged out of the Gospel in confirmation of Manichaeus his Doctrine , he would neither believe the Church , nor the Gospel , because both of them should in that case have deceiv'd him : which must necessarily be meant of the present Church , because the Church in the Apostles time had not deceiv'd him in forbidding him to follow Manichaeus . Now though it be a point of Faith , that the Church is Infallible in delivering the Scripture unto us , yet is it not a point of Faith , that her Infallibility is prov'd out of the cited place of Saint Augustin . 'T is sufficient , that it be clear and manifest out of the Text it self . His Lordships objection , That the Tradition of the present Church must be as Infallible , as that of the Primitive , I distinguish . If he means , the one must be as truly and really Infallible quoad substantiam , as the other , I grant it : but if he mean , the one must be as highly and as perfectly Infallible , as the other , quoad modum , I deny it . For the voyce of the Church need not be suppos'd simply Divine , to give an Infallible Testimony of this Tradition , as we have shew'd ; because we need not assert it to be any more then an Authenticall Testimony , preserv'd by the Holy Ghost from Errour . Those two ends alone mentioned by the Relatour , fall short of the end of Tradition ; which not onely induces Infidels , and instructs Novices and weaklings , but founds and establishes Believers , even the greatest Doctors in the Church . St. Augustin was neither Infidell , Novice , Weakling , nor Doubter in the Faith , but the very learnedst of Bishops and Doctors : yet it serv'd him so much , that he would not have believ'd , no nor could believe Scripture without it , as he himself testifies of himself in the place above cited , contr . Epist. Fundament . cap. 5. As concerning Jacobus Almaynus his opinion cited by the Relatour , viz. that we are first and more bound to believe the Church , then the Gospel , it is not altogether true . For though we are first bound to believe the Church non prioritate temporis , sed naturae ( to use Philosophicall tearms ) because the Authority of the Church is the means , by which we are infallibly assur'd that Scripture is the word of God , yet the Authority of the Church being ordain'd to the Scripture as the end and more noble object , it cannot be properly said , that we are more bound to believe the Church , then the Scripture . Touching his and Gersons reading the fore-cited place of St. Augustin , Ego vero Evangelio non crederem , nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret Authoritas ( where for commoveret they read compelleret ) concerning this , I say , I had rather charitably think they had found it so in some copies , then judge with his Lordship , that they did most notoriously falsifie the Text. And I am perswaded , he had the like charitable opinion for Mr. Perkins , who puts credidissem for crederem , and movisset for commoveret . Neither is this Apology of mine for Almaynus and Gerson without ground . For both Occham and Biel , quoted by his Lordship serve themselves of the very same word , compelleret : so that it seems , the School-men of those dayes cited St. Augustin in this manner . And though for my part I preferre commoveret before compelleret , yet in St. Augustins perswasion express'd in that place , it signifies as much as compelleret . For he confesses , that the Authority of the Church not onely mov'd him to believe the Gospel , but commanded him , and so strongly , that it necessitated him to acknowledge the Scriptures for the Divine word of God ; which is as much as compelleret . To the Authors cited in his Margent , I answer , Canus libr. 2. de Locis . cap. 8. treats ( as St. Augustin did ) how one comes to believe , who hath no belief in the Scripture , and resolves , that this must be done by the Authority of the Church ; and that such as reject the Churches Authority , can never believe the Scripture . Hence he consequently asserts sive Infideles , sive in fide Novicii , &c. that Infidels and Novices in the Faith are brought to the belief of Scripture by this means . But here 's the Turn . He cites sive Infideles , sive in fide Novicii lamely , without a Verb , or any full sense , thinking thereby to perswade his Reader , that the Church induces onely such to read Scriptures , by a fallible authority , and that all their Infallible Faith of Scripture streams 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 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 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. 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 they were written , some may , and 't is not unlikely have been saved without any knowledge of Divine Scripture . Such they are , as have alwayes lived among Barbarous Nations , where they have never heard of Divine Scripture : for having invincible ignorance of this , and believing other necessary points sufficiently propounded to them , if they offend not God mortally in other things , they will undoubtedly be saved . Had some ignorant Calvinist cavill'd against this , it had been no great marvell : but I wonder so great a Scholar , and so wise a man , as the Bishop is presum'd to be , should pick so deep a quarrell with nothing And questionless had it been so necessary a point , the Apostles would have inserted the Belief thereof into their Creed . Nay St. Irenaeus and St. Austin ( whom Bellarmin cites ) would have been in as deep an errour , as he . Seeing therefore Bellarmin , and all Catholiques with him , hold that Christians may sufficiently arrive to a Divine Belief of all the Fundamental Mysteries of Faith , without an explicite Belief of Scripture , what errour could he commit in his Assertion ? But it was some secret Project , or other , which made the Bishop here inveigh and argue so hotly against Bellarmin ; and by conjecture , most likely this . Scripture , in his principles , is the Sole soundation of Faith. Therefore none can be saved without express belief of Scripture . I think , I have hit the nail on the head . Let them first convince Bellarmin of this , and then I le confess , he deliver'd a great errour . What he addes asterwards , that being granted , which is among all Christians , that there is a Scripture , is a meer cavill ; the question being not understood onely of Christians . For I urge , is it also granted amongst all Heathens , that there is a Scripture ? What if a Heathen should be brought to believe all that is contained in the Apostles Creed , and being Baptized should dye , before he hear there is any Scripture ; cannot he be saved ? Questionless he may . Bellarmin therefore speaks onely in such rare cases as these . When his Lordship subjoyns , God would never have given a supernatural unnecessary thing , who sayes he would ? May not many supernatural things be necessary for the whole Church , or for many states therein , which are not necessary to salvation for every particular person ? What thinks he of Holy Orders , Vowes , Virginity , & c ? Again , are there not hundreds of Histories , and thousands of Sentences in Scripture , which for every one in the Church to believe expresly is not necessary to salvation ? Who denyes the Scripture to be very necessary in all ages ? The question is , whether it be absolutely and simply necessary for every one to Salvation , to believe expresly , that there is Scripture . The Bishop here imagines , he has given a great defeat to Bellarmin , and that ( as he sayes ) upon Roman grounds , in this his Marginall Syllogisme . That which the Tradition of the present Church delivers as necessary to believe , is omnino necessary to salvation . But that there are Divine Scriptures , the Tradition of the present Church delivers as necessary to believe . Therefore , to believe there are Divine Scriptures , is omnino necessary to Salvation . The fallacy of this Argument lies in the words necessary to believe : there being some Articles of Faith so absolutely necessary to be believ'd , that a man cannot be sav'd without an express belief of them ; which therefore School-Divines call necessary necessitate medii : whereas there are other Articles of Faith , which in some cases 't is enough to believe implicitely , though all men are bound to an explicite belief of them , when they are sufficiently propounded to them by the Church ; and these Divines tearm necessary necessitate praecepti . This distinction suppos'd , I answer thus in form . That which the Tradition of the present Church delivers as necessary necessitate medii , is omnino necessary to salvation , I grant the Major . That which the Tradition of the present Church delivers as necessary to believe necessitate praecepti onely , is omnino , or absolutely necessary to salvation , I deny the Major . To the Minor I apply the very same distinction , and deny the consequence . By which you may easily perceive , that Bellarmin stands firm upon his feet , and with a wet finger wipes off all that the Bishop here layes to his charge . 9. In his number 25. there is much adoe about Hooker and Brierley ; the latter of which the Relatour is pleased to call the Store-house for all Priests , that will be idle and seem well read . Truly persecution hath deprived them of that plenty of Books , which Protestants have ; so that in this respect they have more need of a Store-house ; yet I believe Catholique Priests are as industrious and learned , as Protestant Ministers for the most part ; and daily experience testifies as much . Now concerning Mr. Hookers Authority , which the Bishop affirms to be cited with want of fidelity and integrity by Brierley , I answer , it is not Brierley , but his Lordship , who wants both these in quoting Hookers words . For first , Brierley cites Mr. Hookers words most faithfully , as they stand in the places mentioned by him . Secondly , what he affirms Hooker to acknowledge , viz. that the motive , which assures us that Scripture is the word of God , is the Authority of Gods Church , is likewise true . For that Author first speaks thus , Finally we all believe the Scriptures of God are sacred , and that they proceeded from God : our selves we assure , that we do right well in so believing . We have for this point a demonstration SOUND AND INFALLIBLE . But it is not the word God , &c. as it follows in his words cited by Brierley . Now seeing Hooker affirms , that this sound and infallible Demonstration that Scripture proceeds from God , is not the word of God , or Scripture it self , he must either settle no infallible ground at all ( even in his Lordships principles ) or must say , that the Tradition of the Church is that ground . For seeing he assigns no other save the Authority of man ( which , as the Bishop here acknowledges , is the name he gives to Tradition ) it must necessarily follow , that either we have no infallible ground at all to believe Scripture to be the word of God , or it is Tradition . Now that it is Tradition onely , which is all the ground he puts of believing Scripture to be the word of God , Hooker delivers clearly enough in that place , where he addes these words , Yea ( that which is more ) utterly to infringe the force of MANS AUTHORITY ( that is Tradition ) were to shake the very Fortress of Gods Truth : by which Fortress he means the Scriptures , as the following words declare . Now how can this Fortress be shaken by infringing Mans Authority , were not that Authority esteem'd by him the ground of that Fortress ? And presently after he inferres , Some way therefore , notwithstanding mans infirmity , his Authority may inforce assent . If mans Authority may inforce assent , it must necessarily be the ground of our assent , to assure us ( as Hooker afterward affirms it doth ) that Scripture is the word of God. But now let us see the dextrous Windings the Bishop makes , to turn Hookers words another way . He first would inferre from these words of Hooker , So that unless beside Scripture there were some thing , that might assure , &c. that therefore he excludes not Scripture , though he call for another proof to lead it in , and help in assurance , namely Tradition , supposing that Hooker spake of proving Scripture to be the word of God. But I wonder by what Daedalian art his Lordship discourses thus . Mr. Hookers adversaries ( the Puritans ) had affirmed , that Scripture prov'd it self to be the word of God by its own light and authority . Mr. Hooker asserts it impossible for Scripture to be its own proof . After he had demonstrated this , he tells his Adversaries , that unless besides Scripture there be another proof , &c. Scripture can never be sufficiently evinced to be the word of God. Ergo , sayes the Bishop , he himself ( against himself ) holds Scripture to prove it self ; when every one , that has his eyes open ; may see , that Hookers meaning is , there must be some other thing , different from Scripture , to prove the Scriptures to be Gods word ; and that this manner of expressing himself unless beside Scripture , &c. was occasioned by his adversaries opinion . As if he had said , unless beside Scripture ( which you , Puritans , have ungroundedly put for its own proof ) there be some other , it can never be prov'd sufficiently to be Scripture , because I have demonstrated , that Scripture ( which you falsly suppose to be that proof ) is no such proof at all . But let us hear Mr. Hooker make his Apology for himself in his own words . It is not the word of God , which doth , or possibly can assure us , that we do well to think it is his word . For if any one Book of Scripture did give testimony to all , yet still that Scripture , which giveth credit to the rest , would require another to give credit unto it . Nor could we ever come to any pause , to rest our assurance this way . So that unless beside Scripture there were something , that might assure us that we do well , we could not think we do well , no not in being assured , that Scripture is a sacred and holy Rule of doing well . Hooker . lib. 2. § . 4. Is there any thing here , which proves Scripture to be a ground to it self , that 't is the word of God ? Nay , is not the impossibility hereof clearly asserted ? Is not Hooker in search after an assuring ground , upon which Scripture must stand ? But the Bishop will have this ground ( whether Mr. Hooker will or no ) onely concomitant with Scripture , that is , Church-Tradition onely to lead in and help in assurance , which assurance we get by the sole light of Scripture ; whereas Mr. Hooker will have that assurance , both that Scripture is a rule of living well , and that we do well in holding it to be so , and also that it is the word of God ( as his words now cited declare ) to be precedent to Scripture , and no other then Church-Tradition . If therefore Mr. Hooker be understood to speak of the Scriptures-being proof to it self , that it is the word of God , in his own opinion , he maintains the very same in effect that we say , and the quite contrary to the Bishop , viz. that supposing we are assured by a proof precedent to Scripture , that Scripture is the word of God , this ( I say ) presupposed ) Scripture as by a secondary proof , can confirm its own Authority , viz. either where it teacheth that we are to believe the Church ( which so assures us primarily ) or that it self is the word of God. This Turn being ended he begins another , and that a double one ; and endeavours to shew , that Brierley has shamefully falsified Hooker , in saying that the main proof which Hooker brings to shew that Scripture is the word of God , is the Tradition of the Church . For that Author ( sayes he ) states the question in these words , The Scripture is the ground of our Belief ; the Authority of man , ( that 's the name Hooker gives to Tradition ) is the key , which opens the door of entrance into the knowledge of the Scripture . Now see his Meanders . Hooker ( sayes the Bishop ) affirms , that Scripture is the ground of our Belief . But are those all Hookers words in that Sentence ? No ; for I finde amongst them a therein , which is neatly hidden in a dark corner . Although ( sayes Hooker the Scripture THEREIN be the ground of our Belief . This one concealed word relates to something , which would have quite spoil'd the Bishops market , had it been fairly express'd . What means he by Therein ? The words immediately going before tell us . Whatsoever ( sayes Hooker ) we believe concerning Salvation by Christ , although the Scripture THEREIN be the ground of our Belief . Whence it appears , that Hooker rather excludes Scripture from being a ground of our Belief , concerning that which the Bishop here pretends , viz. that Scripture is the word of God. For the word therein ( which Hooker useth ) is in this place clearly relative and restrictive , and tyes his speech to the particular matter precedent , viz. to all things concerning Salvation by Christ. As if Hooker should say , Good assurance being presupposed , by some antecedent proof , that Scripture is the word of God , Scripture it self may then be a ground of our Belief touching all other things , which concern our Salvation by Christ. How does this place of Hooker , now fully and faithfully cited , favour his Lordship ? There is no man , that has his brains about him , ( to use his own words ) but sees , how little it makes to his purpose . But let us go on . The Authority of man ( sayes Hooker cited by the Bishop ) is the Key , which opens the Door of entrance into the knowledge of the Scripture . What knowledge of Scripture speaks he of ? Let Mr. Hooker be his own Interpreter , and shew what he means by opening the knowledge of Scripture . He speaks thus . The Scriptures do not teach us the things that are of God , unless we did credit men , who have taught us , that the words of Scripture do signifie those things . Stay a while . By this Key therefore , which opens the entrance into the knowledge of Scriptures , is not meant in this place , that Church-Tradition fallibly assures us , that Scripture is the word of God , ( as the Bishop would fain interpret Hooker ) but that it teaches us the meaning of the words of Scripture , and thereby opens to us the knowledge of Scripture . By what hath been said , 't is evident , his Lordship had very little reason to fall so hotly upon Brierley , as to tax him of falsification , as he does num . 25. For Hooker clearly teaching , that besides Scripture we must have the Authority , or Tradition , of the Church , to assure us , that Scripture is Gods word ; and Brierley affirming no more of him then this , I wonder , that for speaking truth he should be thought to deserve so sharp a censure from his Lordship . CHAP. 8. A further discovery of our Adversaries indirect proceedings in the Question . ARGUMENT . 1. The Question declined by the Bishop . 2. 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 , a 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 . For Universal Traditions are recorded in Authours of every succeeding age : and it seems much more incident to have errours slip into writings of so great bulk as is the Bible , which in their Editions pass onely through the hands of particular men , then that there should be errours in publique , Universal , and Immemorial Traditions , which are openly practis'd throughout all Christendome , and taken notice of by every one in all ages . To shew the difference therefore betwixt Scripture and Tradition , not onely in their Originals , but in their successive deliverers from hand to hand , let us compare them together . St. John ( for example ) writes one of his Epistles , and St. Luke his Gospel , to particular persons . These , upon the credit of the persons to whom they were written , were deliver'd as Authentical Apostolical writings to other Christians , and so by degrees came to be publickly deliver'd , that is , made known to the whole Primitive Church , and received by it : And thence in like manner the Church receiv'd and deliver'd them in succeeding ages . On the other side the Apostles ( to descend to some particulars ) observ'd the first day of the week as sacred , in place of the Sabbath , Baptized Infants , used Altars , &c. This in the very prime Institution and practice of it , was not done privately , onely by some one Apostle , or in the presence of one single person onely , but publiquely by all the Apostles , and universally practis'd by all Christians . It was therefore incomparably harder ( morally speaking ) to doubt ( in the beginning ) of these Traditions , then whether Saint John's Epistle , or St. Luke's Gospel were really theirs , or no. Wherefore we see , that many Books of the New Testament were doubted of , for many years , in some particular Churches : whereas all , in all places , accounted these said Traditions , and their like , to be most undoubtedly Apostolical , by the universal uncontradicted practice of them , being deliver'd from age to age under this Notion , as truly and really descending from the Apostles . Here his Lordship supposes A. C's . pen to be troubled and forsake him , insinuating thereby to his Reader , that this trouble proceeds out of some check of Conscience . But under favour , it is not so much A. C's pen , as his own , that is here troubled . For he sets down in a different letter above eight lines , as written by A. C. which notwithstanding were none of his . This indeed hath something of a troubled pen , and peradventure of a troubled conscience also : unless we may rather take it for a piece of art , to make A. C. seem to say , that the Copies of Scripture may be considered as printed by men assisted with Gods Spirit , whereas he onely sayes they may be considered as printed , and by authority of men assisted by Gods Spirit , approved to be true Copies . Was not this a pretty sleight , to blast the credit of his Adversary ? 3. Again , is it not strange to see , how he restrains the Infallible Assistance of the Holy Ghost onely to the Apostles times ? How come Christians then to inferre , from the places cited by A. C. that the Church shall never fall away and perish ? For if the assistance be not to preserve the succeeding Church , at least from some kinde of errours infallibly , it may , notwithstanding all the assistance he allows it here , fall into all kinde of errours one after another ; and so by degrees the whole Church might fall into a general Apostacy , and thereby perish . There must therefore be some kinde of Infallible Assistance in the Apostles Successours , by vertue of these promises . For otherwise how would this Doctrine of his agree with that of other Modern Protestant Authours , who grant , that our Saviour by those Texts promis'd an Infallible Assistance to his visible Church , and her Pastours lawfully assembled in a General Council , in all points belonging to the foundation of Religion ? Nay , how comes he here to take away all Infallible Assistance of the Holy Ghost from the Apostles Successours , and yet grant above , that the present Church is Infallible in all Fundamentals ? Comes not this Infallibility from the Holy Ghost ? and proceeds it not from the said promise of our Saviour ? But what shall we say to an Adversary , that forges what Chimerical Doctrine he pleases , and then fights against it ? He would fain impose upon his Reader , that A. C. in the words cited by him ( num . 28. ) contends , that not onely the Pastours met together in a full Representative of the Church , but severally and apart are each of them Infallible ; which he inveighs against , and presses so far that he would perswade the ignorant , that the Jesuits also have a moneths minde to this Infallibility . Whence draws he , I pray , this consequence ? Forsooth , because A. C. averres , that the Holy Ghost through Christs promise , is to assist infallibly the Successours of the Apostles , the lawfully-sent Pastours and Doctours of the Church in all ages . But what if A. C's words cannot be understood of every Pastour , or Doctour apart ? but rather of Pastours and Doctours lawfully assembled in an Oecumenical Council ? as indeed he doth ; which thus I shew . Every Authour is to be understood to mean by his words , what they will properly bear , and is consonant with the meaning of his other words . Now the whole dispute wherein the Bishop and A. C. were then engag'd , was whether the whole Church might erre in her Tradition of Scripture . So that it was necessary for him to apply the promises of our Saviour to the Pastours of the Church , onely so far , as those Pastours were the Representative Church , and their Tradition the Churches-Tradition . This A. C. signifies expresly by his words immediately before these here cited by his Lordship , which the Relatour handsomely conceals , to make his windings the less perceptible . For A. C. speaks thus . I see no reason , why the like two-fold consideration of the Tradition of the present Church may not be admitted ; especially when as the promise of Christ , and his holy Spirits , continual presence , is not onely to the Apostles , but to their Successours also , the lawfully-sent Pastours and Doctours of the Church in all ages . Where it is evident he took those words as a Medium to prove the Infallibility of the Tradition of the present Church , thereby tying those promises to the Pastours and Doctours of the Church , as they may be said to be the Church , not as they are separate and apart , but as assembled in a full Representative of the Church , that is , a General Council . All therefore that follows , either of the Pope as a private Pastour , or of the Jesuits , &c. is to no purpose , as proceeding meerly from a misunderstanding ( or rather perverting ) of A. C's words . Yet I cannot omit a consequence , which the Bishop will needs extort from the Jesuits meaning , as though he had been in his heart , when he wrote those words . And though A. C. out of his bounty ( sayes he ) is content to extend it to all the lawfully-sent Pastours of the Church , ( where all is handsomely juggled into A. C's Text ) yet his own 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 , a That the Church cannot be adulterated with Heresie . b That what she once hath received from Christ , she ever holds . c That she can never fail . d That her Faith is invincible , even to the very Powers of Hell. e That she is founded by Christ in the Truth for ever . f That all the Heretiques in the world cannot pervert the Tradition of her Doctrine , and the like : which seeing also they limit not to any determinate age , or ages , but extend indefinitely to all , 't is likewise clear that in the judgement of the Fathers , this Assistance was granted and intended by Christ to all the Apostles Successours , in the sense above declared . But whether the Fathers ground their Doctrine in this point , upon this particular Text or no , is little material . 'T is sufficient they acknowledge the thing we contend for , viz. the Prerogative of Infallibility and Immunity from errour , in the Church , and that they generally derive it from our Saviours special Promises unto the Church , and his Presence with it ; which Presence and Promises this Text ( with others of like nature ) do clearly contain , as the Bishop himself acknowledges . Wherefore with far greater reason we return the challenge upon himself , and press the Relatours party to produce any one Father , that ever deny'd the sense of this place to reach to infallible assistance , granted thereby to all the Apostles Successours , in such manner as we maintain it . The like answer of our satisfies his exposition of the third place , ( John 14. 16. ) For what was promis'd there for ever must , in some absolute sense ( so far as is necessary to the preservation of the Church from errour ) be verified in future ages . He frames also an answer to a fourth place , viz. John 16. 13. which speaks of leading the Apostles into all truth . This he restrains to the persons of the Apostles onely . And he needs not tells us so often of simply all : For surely none is so simple as not to know that , without his telling it . But we contend , that in whatsoever sense all truth is to be understood in respect of each Apostle apart , 't is also to be understood in relation to their Successours , assembled in a full Representative of the whole Church . 5. Now one main reason of this difference between the Apostles , and succeeding Pastours of the Church , I take to be this , that every Apostle apart had receiv'd an immediate Power from our Saviour over the whole Church ; so that whatever any one of them taught as Christian Faith , all the Church was oblig'd to believe : and consequently had he err'd in any thing , the whole Church would have been oblig'd to follow and believe that errour . Whereas on the other side , the succeeding Bishops ( generally speaking ) were not to be Pastours of the whole Church , but each of his own respective Diocess ; so that if particular Pastours preach'd any errour in Faith , the whole Church was unconcern'd in it , having no obligation to believe them . But in regard those respective Pastours , when they are assembled in a lawful Representative , or General Council , are in quality of the Pastours of the whole Church , if they should erre , in such a body , the whole Church would be oblig'd to erre with them ; which is against the promises of our Saviour . Hence also it follows in proportion , that the Bishop of Rome , being Pastour of the whole Church , when he teacheth any thing in that quality , viz. as Pastour of the whole Church , and intending to oblige the whole Church by his Definition , cannot ( in the common opinion ) erre , for the same reason . 6. To give also the Fundamentall Reason for this Exposition ; one , and that a certain way to know , when our Saviours words spoken immediately to the Apostles , are to be extended to their Successours in all ages , is this ; that when the necessary good and preservation of the Church requires the performance of Christs words in future ages , no less then it requir'd it in the Apostles times , then we are to understand that his words extend themselves to those ages , unless there be some express limitation added to his words , tying them to the Apostles onely . Thus , when our Saviour commanded his Apostles to Preach , Baptize , Remit sins , Feed their Flocks , &c. Seeing these actions are as necessary for all future ages , as they were in the Apostles time , 't is manifest , they were to reach to all succeedinga ges . Again , in regard he also promised ( John 16. 13. ) to lead the Apostles , by his Holy Spirit , into all truth : and seeing 't is as necessary now , for those who act as Pastours of the whole Church ( as all succeeding Bishops do , when they meet in a lawful Oecumenicall Council ) to be led into all those truths , into which he promis'd to lead the Apostles , for the reason but now alledged , it evidently follows by vertue of our Saviours promise , that they are alwayes and effectually so led . And though it would be boldness ( as the Relatour terms it ) to enlarge that promise , in the fulness of it , beyond the persons of the Apostles , so far as to give to every single succeeding Bishop as Infallible a leading into all truth , as each of the Apostles had ; yet may it without any boldness at all be affirmed , that the succeeding Bishops , assembled as abovesaid , have an infallible leading into all truth , as being then Representative Pastours of the whole Church , to teach and instruct her what she is to believe . St. Austins a words therefore , which the Bishop cites , calling them in a manner Prophetical , are not with the least shadow of reason applyable to us , but to a world of Phanaticks sprung from the stock of Protestancy , and who still pass under the general notion of Protestants . And this I may boldly assert , in regard 't is clear , that the said great Saint and Doctor held the self-same Doctrine we here maintain : while ( for instance ) he accounts our obligation to communicate Fasting , to have proceeded from the Holy Ghost ; of which Will of the Holy Ghost we are not ascertain'd , by any Text of Scripture , but by the Church alone . b 'T is manifest ( sayes he ) that when the Disciples first received the Body and Blood of our Lord , they did not receive Fasting . Must we therefore calumniate the Universall Church for alwayes receiving Fasting ? Since the Holy Ghost was pleased herewith , that in honour of so great a Sacrament , the Body of our Lord should enter into a Christians mouth before any other meat . For this cause this Custom is observ'd throughout the world . I might easily produce several other instances to the same effect , if this one were not sufficient , as I presume it is . 7. Neither hath the Bishop any ground to averre , that this promise of settling the Apostles in all truth , was for the persons of the Apostles onely ; because the Truths , in which the Apostles were settled , were to continue inviolably in the Church . What wise man would go about to raise a stately Building to continue for many ages , and satisfie himself with laying a Foundation to last but for few years ? Our Saviour , the wisest of Architects , is not to be thought to have founded this incomparable Building of the Church upon sand ; which must infallibly have happened , had he not intended to afford his continuall Assistance also to the succeeding Pastours of the Church , to lead them , when assembled in a General Council , into all those Truths , wherein he first settled the Apostles , as Vincentius Lirinensis above attests . c The Church never changes , nor diminishes , nor addes any thing at all , ( nihil unquam ) no she changes nothing : She neither cuts off any thing necessary , nor adjoyns any thing superfluous ; she loses not what is her own , she usurps not what belongs to another , &c. but onely 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 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 a 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 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 a 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 Scripture is Gods Word , from the sole Testimony of the Church . Yet when both partles press this Circle against each other , they alwayes suppose , that Scripture is Infallibly and Divinely believ'd for Gods Word , in some true sense , by means of the Churches Testimony . Otherwise it were as impertinent to press this Question to a Christian , ( why believe you the Scripture to be the Word of God ) that has no further certainty of it , then what is drawn from a probable and humane Testimony of the Church , as if it were propounded to a Heathen , who had onely heard Scripture recommended for Gods Word , by persons very worthy of credit . For both of these were equally to answer , that they deny'd the supposition of an Infallible Belief , since they did not believe ( as Christians take the word Belief ) that it is Gods Word . And then no marvel if there be no Circle committed , when there is no Christian Belief , which both sides presuppose as a ground of this Circle , where ever it is found . When therefore the Relatour speaks of proving Scripture by the Church , unless he mean proving it by a Medium sufficient to assure us infallibly that it is the Word of God , ( which he constantly refuses to grant ) though he fall not into a Circle , yet he falls into a Semi-Circle , that is , a Crooked Turn in his Labyrinth , by mis-stating the question , and bowing it another way , then it ought to be , and alwayes is propounded in this Controversie , as I said above . Wherefore if the Church give onely a humane Testimony to induce 〈◊〉 a fallible assent that Scripture is the Word of God ; and Scripture afterwards by its own light gives me an infallible Certainty , that the Testimony of the Church was true , there could never have been the least ground for wise and learned men to move this difficulty of a vicious Circle one against another ; no more , then when I believe it probable , that to morrow will be a fair day , because Peter tells me so , and after I know certainly that Peter told me true , because I see the next day to be fair , by its own light . His Lordship therefore was either to suppose , that those Beginners and Weaklings he speaks of , have some degree of Divine Faith , that Scripture is the Word of God , by means of the Churches Tradition , antecedently to the reading of Scripture , or he commits the fallacy term'd ex falso supposito , ( of making a false supposition ) and so by avoiding one errour falls into another . For unless he believe infallibly that Scripture is Gods word , upon the Testimony of the Church , as a true Cause and Motive of his Infallible Belief , he doth not answer the question , seeing all that affirm they believe this for the Churches Testimony , understand it so : and if he do , he forsakes his own principles , falls to us , and consequently into that pretended Circle he objects against us , if his objections be of force . His Lordships Resolution of Faith into Prime Apostolical Tradition , we have * above evinced to be impossible , supposing the immediate , or present Church-Tradition to be fallible : but were it possible , we have also evidenced , that it destroys his own grounds , viz. of sole Scriptures-being the Foundation of our belief . When therefore he averres , that we may resolve our Faith into Prime Tradition when it is known to be such , if he means by known ( as he must ) such a knowledge as may suffice to make that Prime Tradition an object of Faith , he wheels quite about to amuse his Reader , and sayes in effect , we may then resolve our Faith into Tradition , when that comes to pass , which himself holds impossible ever to happen . For if Prime Tradition can be onely gather'd by the perpetual succeeding Tradition of the Church , ( as 't is certain it can onely be ) and that Tradition be fallible , ( as the Bishop perpetually contends ) how shall any Prime Tradition be known sufficiently to make it self an object of Faith , since nothing can do that , but an Authority Infallible , 〈◊〉 us Infallibly certain of that Tradition ? Hence he runs two contrary wayes at once ; desirous on the one side to resolve Faith into Prime Tradition , that he may not seem repugnant to the Ancient Fathers ; and yet on the other so willing to be repugnant to us , that by his grounds he makes that Resolution wholly impossible : and to blinde these contrarieties , pretends that Church-Tradition , being not simply Divine , cannot be such as may suffice for a formal object of Faith , whereinto it is to be resolv'd ; when yet he knew full well the difficulty lay not there , and that his Adversaries never affirm'd it was simply Divine , or the formal object of Faith , but spake alwayes warily and reservedly , abstracting from that question as not necessary for the solving of his arguments , or defence of the Catholick Faith against him . Let the Bishops Adherents but confess , that the Testimony and Tradition of the Church is truly infallible , and we for the present shall require no more of them . For that Infallibility suppos'd , we have made it manifest , that Prime Tradition is sufficiently derived to us in quality of the formal object of our Faith , whereon to rest : which in his Lordships principles is impossible to be done . 4. Concerning the Relators endeavor to reconcile the Fathers , whom he conceives to speak sometimes contrary to one another , touching Scripture and Tradition , though he doth not much oblige us in the number of those he brings in favour of our assertion , ( for he names onely two , and one of them somewhat lamely cited with an &c. ) yet surely we are to thank him for his fair and candid exposition of those , he quotes against us . For he professes , that when ever the Fathers speak of relying upon Scripture onely , they are never to be understood with exclusion of Tradition ; wherein doubtless his Lordship delivers a great truth , and nothing contrary to us . But as for his challenge which follows , we cannot but say that 's loud indeed ; but the sound betrayes its emptiness . He will oblige us to shew that the holy Fathers maintain that , which we need not affirm to be held by them . For we never yet said , that our Faith of the Scriptures-being Gods Word is resolved into the Tradition of the present Church , but into Prime Apostolical Tradition ; of which we are infallibly certified by the Tradition of the present Church : it being a condition , or application of Prime Tradition to us . And by this manner of defending our Tenets , we have both gone along with A. C. and those Divines , who affirm the voice of the Church not to be so simply and absolutely Divine , as is the holy Scripture ; and given a full solution to all the Relatours arguments : the most of which suppose us , upon a false ground , necessitated to acknowledge the voice of the Church , to be so absolutely and simply Divine , that our Faith is to rest upon it , as its ultimate Motive and formall Object , which must be no lesse then absolute Divine Authority . But supposing we held our Faith to be so resolv'd , would his Lordship press us to shew those very terms , resolving of Faith , &c. in the Ancient Fathers ; it being a School-term , not used in their times ? It seems he would , by his false citation of St. Austin in these words , Fidei ultima resolutio est in Deum illuminantem . S. Aug. contr . Fund . cap. 14. where there is no such Text to be found ; nor any where else ( I am confident ) in all St. Austin . For us it is sufficient , that the Fathers frequently say , We believe Scripture for Tradition , we would not believe Scripture , unless the Authority of the Church moved us , that Traditions move to piety , no less then Scripture , &c. But since he urges to have our Resolution of Faith shewed him in those terms , in the Fathers , we challenge his Defenders to shew any Father , who saith , that we cannot believe Scripture to be the Word of God , infallibly , for the Churches authority , but must resolve it into the light of Scripture . 5. I come now to his Considerations , and begin with the first point , touching his proving Scripture to be a Principle in Theology , that must be pre-suppos'd without proof , because in all Sciences there are ever some Principles presupposed . I answer first , he confounds Theology , a Discursive Science , with Faith , which is an act of the understanding produced by an Impulse of the will , for Gods Authority revealing , and not deduced by discursive Principles ; and consequently holds no parallel with any Science whatsoever , in this particular . Secondly , I say , I have already answered this matter to the full , chap. 7. num . 7. and chap. 6. num . 5. in the Dialogue : to which places I refer the Reader for further satisfaction . Must we make that a Prime principle in the Resolution of our Faith , which has further principles , and clearer quoad nos to move our assent to them ? He himself acknowledges , that Scripture was ascertained for Gods Word to those of the Apostles times , by the Authority of Prime Apostolical Tradition : how was it then a Principle ? which cannot , ought not to be proved , but must be presupposed by all Christians . Concerning his second point , the difference betwixt Faith and other Sciences we acknowledge . For there the thing assented to remains obscure ; which in Sciences is made clear : and all the difficulty is , to be certifi'd of the Divine Authority , assuring us that Scripture is Gods Word ; of which we cannot be ascertain'd without sufficient Motives , inducing us to give an Infallible Assent to it . But no fallible Motives can produce Certainty . There must be therefore some Infallible Motive to assure us ; and seeing he denies the Church to be it , and we have prov'd that it cannot be the sole light of Scripture , we must have some further light , clearer quoad nos , then God hath reveal'd to us in Scripture : which is plainly contradictory to his Proposition . His third point contains no more in summe , then what I have said above in my first Answer to his first point of Consideration . I shall not therefore quarrel with it . As to his fourth point we grant , that the Incarnation of our Saviour , the Resurrection of the dead , and the like Mysteries cannot finally be resolv'd into the sole Testimony of the Church , ( nor did we ever do it ) but into the Infallible Authority of God , as we have often confessed . In his fifth point recommended to Consideration , there are also divers things , which the Relatour himself should have better considered , before they fell from his pen. For first , he asserts on the one side , that Faith was never held a matter of Evidence ; and that had it been clear , in its own light , to the Hearers of the Apostles , that they were inspir'd in what they preacht and writ , they had apprehended all the Mysteries of Divinity by Knowledge , and not by Faith. Yet on the other side , almost with the same breath , avoucheth , that it appeared clear to the Prophets , and Apostles , that what ever they taught , was Divine and Infallible Truth , and that they had clear Revelation . What is this in effect , ( supposing the Truth of his first Proposition ) but to exclude the Prophets and Apostles from the number of the Faithful , and make them , in that respect , like the Blessed in Heaven , Comprehensores , while they were yet in the way ? Which is manifestly contrary to their own frequent professions , that they walked by Faith , a not by Sight , and that they saw onely per speculum , in aenigmate . Secondly , in point of Miracles he avers , that they are not convincing proofs alone and of themselves . Sure the Bishop thought no proof convincing , but what is actually converting : which is a great mistake . For true Miracles are in themselves convincing proofs , since in themselves they deserve belief , whether they actually convert , or not , and leave the Hearers inexcusable in Gods sight for not believing . Otherwise why should our Blessed Saviour have said , Had I not done among them the works , which no other man did , they had not sinned ; and again , Woe be to thee Corozain , woe be to thee Bethsaida ; for had the Miracles , done amongst you , been wrought in Tyrus and Sidon , they had long since done Pennance in sackcloth and ashes . Likewise , The works , which I do in my Fathers name , bear witness of me : and , though you believe not me , believe my works . Thirdly , the Bishops reasons , brought in disparagement of Miracles , seem as strange as his Doctrine . First ( saith he ) the Apostles Miracles were no convincing proofs alone of the Truth they attested , because ( forsooth ) there may be Counterfeit Miracles ; just as if a man should say , Simon Peters Miracles did not convincingly oblige men to believe , because 〈◊〉 Magus's did not . Secondly , they are not convincing proofs , because even true Miracles may be marks of false Doctrine in the highest degree . Is not this a strange Paradox ? Do not all Divines , even Protestants themselves , confess , that true Miracles are not feasable , but by the special and extraordinary power of God ? That they are Divine Testimonies ? and that by them God sets , as it were , his Hand and Seal to the truth of the Doctrine attested by them ? Say they not 't is Blasphemy to affirm , that God bears witnesse to a Lye ? b See the Margin . It may well suffice therefore to leave our Adversary to the reproof of his own Party . Neither need we take notice of his Scripture-Texts , since they cannot without impiety be understood of any other , then false and feigned Miracles . The sixth Point , concerning the light of Scripture , hath nothing but what is already answered , chap. 7. num . 5 , 6 , and 7. Were Scripture , by its own light , capable of being the Prime , Infallible Motive of our Belief that 't is Gods Word , though it need not be so evident as the Motives of Knowledge , yet at least it must have something in it , to make that Infallible Belief not imprudent : Which in the Relatours Principles is not found . The Flourishes of his seventh Consideration are very handsome ; but the Dilemma in his Consequence flows 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 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 . a 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 b 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 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. which is not de facto false , yet may be false ) and another cui non potest subesse falsum , ( which neither is false , nor can be false ) since all Infallibility is such , cui non potest subesse falsum . To obtain therefore an infallible assurance of Scriptures-being the Word of God , we must of necessity rely upon the never-erring Tradition of Gods Church : all other grounds assignable are uncertain , and consequently insufficient to breed in us supernatural and divine Faith. But enough of this . Yet before I go further , I cannot omit to observe the Bishops earnest endeavour to possess the Reader , that the Scriptures ( both the old and new ) are come down to us so unquestionably by meer humane Authority , that a man may thereby be infallibly assured that they are the word of God , by an acquired Habit of Faith : when he could not be ignorant , that there is hardly any Book of Scripture , which hath not been rejected by some Sect , or other , of Christians , and that several parts , even of the new Testament ( which most concerns us ) were long doubted of by divers of the Fathers and ancient Orthodox Writers , till the Church decided the Controversie . Nay , that their great reformer , Luther himself , admits not for Canonical Scripture the Epistle to the Hebrews , the Epistle of Saint James , the Epistle of Saint Jude , nor any part of the Apocalypse , or Revelation . Call you this candid dealing ? is it not rather to say and unsay ? or indeed to say any thing , in defence of a ruinous Cause ? After this the Relatour , pretending to come close to the particular , sayes , The time was , before this miserable rent in the Church of Christ , that you and wee were all of one belief . I wonder whom he means by that WEE of his before the Rent , seeing the said WEE began with and by that Rent , not made by us , but by those that went out from us , and deserted the Catholique Church and Faith , in which they were bred up ; and so became a WEE by themselves : which before the Rent so made , had no other then a meer Utopian , or Chimerical Being . Yet ( as it seems by his Lordships discourse ) they are pleas'd in fancying themselves Reformers of our Corruptions , while they themselves are the Corrupters . They think themselves safe in holding the Creed , and other common Principles of Belief ; but so did many of the ancient Heretiques , who yet were condemn'd for such by lawfull oecumenical Councills . They glory in ascribing ( as he sayes ) more sufficiency to the Scripture , then is done by us , in that they affirm it to contain all things necessary to Salvation : while by so doing ( in the sense they mean it ) they contradict the Scriptures themselves ; which often sends them to Traditions . Call you this giving honour to the Scritures ? This indeed is not onely enough ; but more then enough , as the Bishop expresses it himself . He tells us , that for begetting and settling a Belief of this Principle , viz. that the Scripture is the Word of God , they go the same way with us , and a better too . He means they go some part of the way with us , and the rest by themselves . But certainly he ought rather to have continued in our way to the end , then for want of a good reason why he left it , to pin this falshood upon us , That we make the present Tradition alwayes an Infallible Word of God unwritten . Apostolicall Traditions we hold for such indeed , since to be written or not-written are conditions meerly accidental to Gods Word : but the Tradition of the present Church , by which we are infallibly ascertain'd of the truth of those Apostolical Traditions as much as of the Scriptures themselves , we oblige not any man to receive it for Gods unwritten Word , as the Bishop would make you believe . Their way ( sayes the Bishop ) is better then ours , because they resolve their Faith ( touching this Principle ) into the written Word : which is , in plain English , that they resolve their Faith of the Scriptures-being Gods Word into no Word of God at all : since there is not any written Word of God to tell them , that this or that Book , or indeed any Book of their whole Bible is the Word of God. They therefore ultimately resolve their Faith of this point into little more then their own fancies ; and consequently have no Divine or Supernatural Faith of this Article at all : which neverthelesse is by them laid for the Basis , or ground-work of their Belief of all other points of Christian Religion . Behold the excellency of their better way then ours : who ultimately resolve our Faith hereof into Gods unwritten Word , viz. the Testimony of the Apostles orally teaching it to the Christians of their own dayes . And of this Apostolical Testimony , Tradition , or unwritten Word of God , all the succeeding Christians of Gods Church , even to this day , have been rendred certain by the Infallible ( I say not Divine ) Testimony , or Tradition of the said Church of Christ. Lastly , the Bishop to close this Dispute , speaks again to that well known place of St. Austin , * Ego vero Evangelio non crederem , nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret authoritas : which he attempts to solve by telling us , that the Verb commovere is not applyable to one Motive alone , but must signifie to move together with other Motives . To this I answer , that he must be a mean Grammarian , who knows not this to be a great mistake , when no plurality of Motives is expressed . Secondly , that in case St. Austins word commoveret were to be taken in the sense the Bishop gives it , viz. to move together with Scripture , yet his Lordship would gain little by it : since his Faith were consequently to be resolv'd into it , as being a Partial Motive of his Faith. Now it cannot be denyed in true Philosophy , that if one partial Motive be fallible , the Act produced by that Motive must of necessity have a mixture of Fallibility in it ; every effect participating the nature of its cause . So even in Logick should a Syllogism have for one of its Premises a Sentence of Scripture , and for the other but a probable Proposition , the Conclusion could be no more then probable . And this Doctrine is according to what St. Austin delivers in the place above cited , when speaking of the Churches Authority he sayes , Quâ infirmatâ , jam nec Evangelio oredere potero , which being weakened , ( or call'd in question ) I shall no longer be able to believe the Gospel it self . Thus , by Gods favour , we are come to the end of this grand Controversie , touching the Resolution of Faith : wherein I have not onely shewn the insufficiency of the several wayes and methods propounded by the Bishop ; but cleared and established our own Catholick way of Resolving Faith. The Infallible Tradition of the present Church is the sole Clew , that guides us through the dark and intricate Meanders of our Adversaries Labyrinth . 'T is the onely expedient , by which we can Infallibly resolve our Faith into its Prime and Formal Object , Gods Revelation . This thred is fastened to the undeniable Motives of Credibility , accompanying and pointing out the true Church : which Motives are the ground , or reason , why we believe the Church to be Infallible independently of Scripture : whereby we avoid even the shadow of a Circle . Now our Adversary , on the other side , though he grants true Christian Faith to be essentially Divine and Infallible , and that Divine Revelation , or Gods Word , is the ultimate Foundation , or Formal Object , of Faith ; as also that we cannot believe with true Divine Faith , unless we have some infallible ground and Authority to assure us of the said Divine Revelation , or Word of God : yet does he not ( 't is therefore to be suppos'd he could not ) shew any such infallible Authority , or ground for his believing Scripture , or any other point of Faith , to be Divine Revelation , or the Word of God. The private Spirit , however mask'd under the title of Grace , hath been found to come far short in that respect : the inbred Light of Scripture it self has been evidenc'd to be too weak and dimme for that purpose . Neither can these defective means , viz. of private Spirit and inbred Light of Scripture , be ever heightened , or improved to that Prerogative , to wit , of giving Infallible assurance , by the Tradition of the present Church , unless that Tradition be granted to be Infallible : which the Bishop absolutely refuses to admit ; and thereby leaves both himself and his own Party , destitute of such an Infallible ground for beleeving Scripture to be Gods Word , as himself confesses necessary for attaining Supernatural and Divine Faith. The consequence I leave to the serious consideration of the judicious Reader . I beseech God he may make benefit of it to his Eternal Felicity . CHAP. X. Of the Universal Church . ARGUMENT . 1. The Ladies Question , what it was , and how diverted by the Bishop . 2. In what sense the Romane Church is stiled THE Church . 3. Every True Church , a right , or Orthodox Church , and why . 4. The Ladies Question , and A. C's miscited . 5. How THE Church , and how Particular Churches , are called Catholique . 6. Why , and in what sense 't is not onely true , but proper , to say the Romane-Catholique Church . 7. The Bishops pretended Solutions of Bellarmins Authorities , referr'd Chap. 1. to a fitter place , here more particularly answered . 1. THe Lady at length cuts off the the thred of his Lordships long Discourse , and by a Quere gives a rise to a new one . Her demand ( according to Mr. Fishers relation ) was , Whether the Bishop would grant the Romane Church to be the right Church ? What was the Bishops answer to this ? He granted that it was . But since ( it seems ) he repented himself for granting so much . For afterwards in his Book he deny'd , that either the Question was askt in this form , or that the Answer was such . Had we the Ladies Question in some Authenticall Autography of her own hand , it would decide this verbal Controversie . However 't is very likely the Lady asked not this Question out of curiosity , since she desired onely to know that which might settle her in point of Religion , being at that time so deeply perplexed as she was . Now what satisfaction would it have given her to know , that the Church of Rome was a particular and true Church , in the precise Essence of a Church , in which she might possibly be saved , if it were neither THE true Church , that is the Catholique Church , out of which she could not be saved ; nor the right Church , in which she might certainly be saved . This onely was her doubt , as appears by the whole Dispute ; this having been inculcated to her by those of the Romane Church : and 't is likely , she fram'd her question according to her doubt . But whatever her words were , she was to be understood to demand this alone , viz. Whether the Romane were not the True , Visible , Infallible Church , out of which none could be saved : for herein she had from the beginning of the Conference desired satisfaction . See Mr. Fishers Relation , pag. 42. wherein it is said , The Lady desired — to have proof brought to shew , which was that Continual , Infallible , Visible Church , in which one may , and out of which one cannot attain Salvation . 2. To our present purpose 't is all one , in which of these terms the Question was demanded . For in the present subject the Romane Church could not be any Church at all , unless it were THE Church , and a right Church . The reason is , because St. Peters Successor being the Bishop of Rome , and Head of the whole Church , ( as I shall fully prove anon ) that must needs be THE Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , if it be any Church at all . In like manner if it were not a right Church , it might be a Synagogue , or Conventicle , but not a True Church of Christ. For that implies a company of men agreeing in the profession of the same Christian Faith , and Communion of the same Sacraments , under the Government of lawfull Pastours ; and chiefly of one Vicar of Christ upon Earth . 'T is evident , this Church can be but One ; and therefore if it be a True Church , it is a Right Church . This notwithstanding hinders not the Universal Church from being divided into many Diocesses ; all which agreeing in the same Faith and Communion of the same Sacraments , and in the acknowledgement of the same Vicar of Christ , make up One and the same Universal Church . But where there is difference in any of these , the Congregation that departs from the abovesaid One Faith , Communion , and Obedience , of necessity ceases to be a Church any longer . Why so ? Because Bonum ex integrâ causâ , malum ex quolibet defectu . 'T is true , THE Church signifies most properly either the whole Catholique Church ; or if it be applied to a particular Church , the Chief Church , and by consequence the Church of Rome ; St. Peter having fixed his Chair to that place , and by that means made his Successor Bishop of Rome . But had St. Peter placed his Chair elsewhere , that Church , where ever it had been , would have been called THE Church , as the Roman Church now is . The Roman Church therefore is stiled THE Church , because 't is the Seat of the Vicar of Christ , and chief Pastour of the Church Universal : yet all other Churches are true , right , and Orthodox Churches of Christ , otherwise they would be no Churches at all . In a word , I would fain see some grave Ancient Father , who ever maintained a Congregation of Christians to be a true Church , and yet held it not to be Orthodox . 3. This being so , all his Lordships subtleties fall to the ground : which suppose , that some Congregation of Christians may remain a True Church , and yet teach false Doctrine in matters of Faith. For how can you call that a True Church , in which men are not taught the way to Heaven , but to eternall perdition ? Such needs must be all false Doctrine in matters of Faith ; because it either teacheth something to be the Word of God , which is not ; or denyes that to be his Word , which is : to erre in this sort is certainly to commit high and mortal offence against the honour and veracity of God ; and consequently the direct way to eternal perdition : yea , whatever Congregation of Christians teaches in this manner , if it be done through malice , they are Seducers ; if through ignorance , they are seduced , and blinde Guides , and so lead the blinde into the same destruction with themselves : to neither of which inconveniences can the whole Church be lyable , if there be Truth in the Promises of Christ. The example then of a man , who may be tearm'd a man , though he be not honest , comes not home to our case . Had the Bishop in lieu of the word Man put Saint , ( which essentially includes both Man and Holiness ) the Parallel would have held better . For the word Church , in our present debate , implies not a simple , or uncompounded term , as that of man , but is a compound of Substance and Accidents together : which Accidents signifie Perfection and Integrity of Condition , and exclude the contrary Defects , viz. Heresie , Schisme , and Errour in Faith. Wherefore , if the Church of Rome be ( as the Relatour feigns it ) so corrupt , as to misuse the Sacraments of Christ , and to make Scripture an imperfect Rule of Faith , when Christ had made it a perfect one , it would be unchurched . This a man may learn even out of the Apostles Creed , by which he professes to believe the Holy Catholique Church . Moreover , St. Athanasius in his Creed teaches , that unless a man keep the whole Catholique Faith entire and inviolate , he shall without all doubt perish . It s undeniable then , no Salvation is to be had , where such false doctrine is taught ; and by consequence no true Church . Again , the Church is the Spouse of Christ , and a pure Virgin ; who loses her Honour by prostituting her self to errour ; much more by forcing all under pain of damnation to believe those very errours for Gods word . To say then , that a Congregation so grosly erroneous and seducing is a true Church , is in effect to say , that Christ hath a Harlot to his Spouse . 4. There is yet much skirmishing about the form of words , in which the Lady asked the question . A. C. averres he is certain , that she desired to know of the Bishop , whether he would grant the Romane Church to be a right Church , because he had particularly spoken with her before , and wisht her to insist upon that point : whereupon his Lordship makes a special reflection with what cunning Adversaries the Clergy of England hath to deal , who prepare their Disciples , and instruct them before hand , upon what points to insist . But this was no cunning , but necessary Prudence and Charity , to wish the Lady to require satisfaction in those points , wherein she had the greatest difficulty , and which it most imported her to understand . Certainly , had any of the Roman Church addressed themselves to the Bishop for satisfaction in matters of Religion , he would never , for fear of being accounted a cunning Disputant , have scrupl'd to instruct them to make the strongest objections he could against the Roman Tenets . But the Bishop goes on , and acquaints the Reader with a perfect Jesuitisme , ( if you believe him ) viz. which measures the Catholique Church by that which is in the City , or Diocess of Rome , and not Rome by the Catholique , as it was in the Primitive times . But this is no Jesuitisme , but rather a Soloecisme against Truth , and a falsifying of the Text. For I finde not those words in A. C. which are cited , viz. The Lady would know , not whether that were the Catholique Church , to which Rome agreed , but whether that were not the Holy Catholique Church , which agreed with Rome . No such Quere as this , was propounded by the Lady , as appears in the former words of A. C. It was all one to her , whether Rome must alwayes agree with the Catholick Church , or the Catholick Church alwayes agree with Rome . Such Punctilio's as these the Lady never dreamt of ; nor were they so much as hinted at by A. C. It was enough for the Ladies satisfaction , to know , whether Rome , and all particular Churches agreeing with her in Doctrine and Communion , or Constantinople , ( if you please ) and those which communicate with her , or the English-Protestant Church , and they who consent with it , be the Catholique Church . Thus that the Jesuits may be thought to have singularities and novelties in their doctrine , finding none of their own , he has endeavour'd to coin one for them ; which he esteems a strange Paradox , though indeed it be none . For put case A. C. had affirm'd , that the Church is styled Catholick by agreeing with Rome , yet had it been no Jesuitism , but a received and known Truth in the Ancient Church . 5. For the better understanding of this we are to note , the word Catholick may be used in three different acceptions , viz. either formally , causally , or by way of participation . Formally the Universal Church , that is the Society of all true particular Churches , united together in one Body , in one Communion , and under one Head , is called Catholick . Causally the Church of Rome is stiled Catholick , because it hath an influence and force to cause Universality in the whole Body of the Catholique Church : to which Universality two things are necessary . One is Multitude , which serves as an Analogical Matter , whereof it consists : for where there is no Multitude , there can be no Universality . The other is in place of Form , viz. Unity : For Multitude without Unity will never make Universality . Take away ( sayes St. Austin ) Unity from Multitude , and it is TURBA , ( a Rout ) but joyn to it Unity , an it becomes POPULUS ( a Community , ) The Roman Church therefore , which as a Centre of Ecclesiastical Communion , infuses this Unity , which is the Form of Universality , into the Catholick Church , and thereby causes in her Universality , may be called Catholick causally , though she be but a particular Church . So he that commands in chief over an whole Army , and makes an unity in that Military Body , is stiled General , though he be but a particular person . Thirdly , every particular Orthodox Church is termed Catholick participativè , by way of participation , because they agree in and participate of the Doctrine and Communion of the Catholique Church . In this sense the Church of Smyrna addresses her Epistle thus . To the Catholick Church of Philomilion , and to all the Catholique Churches , which are spread through the whole world . Thus we see both how properly the Roman Church is called Catholick , and how the Catholick Church it self takes causally the denomination of Universal , or Catholick , from the Romane , considered as the chief particular Church , infusing Unity to all the rest , as having dependance of her , and relation to her . Nay , it was an ordinary practice , in Primitive times , to account those Catholicks , who agreed with the Sea Apostolick ; and this is manifest by many examples . St. 〈◊〉 relates , that his brother Satyrus , going on shore in a certain City of Sardinia , ( where he desired to be baptized ) demanded of the Bishop of that City , a Whether he consented with the Catholick Bishops , that is , ( saith he ) with the Romane Church . And in this sense the Church of Alexandria , b according to St. Hierome , made it her glory to participate of the Romane Faith. And John , Patriarch of Constantinople , wrote thus to Pope Hermisda , c We promise ( saith he ) not to recite in the sacred Mysteries the names of those , who are sever'd from the Communion of the Catholique Church , that is to say , who consent not in all things with the Sea Apostolick . Thus Saint Austin addresses himself to the Donatists , telling them , that the d Succession of the Romane Bishops is the Rock , which the proud Gates of Hell overcome not ; thereby 〈◊〉 , that the very Succession of those Bishops is , in some true sense , the Catholique Church So Optatus Milevitanus , after he had said , e St Peter was head of all the Apostles ; and that he would have been a Sohismatick , who should have erected another Chair against that singular one of St. Peter ; as also , that in that Chair of St. Peter , being but one , unity was to be kept by all , he addes , that with Syricius , then Pope , he himself was united in communion ; f with whom the whole world ( saith he , meaning the whole Catholique Church ) agrees by COMMUNICATORY LETTERS in one Society of Communion . See here , how clearly he makes the union with the Bishop of Rome the measure of the Catholick Church , which the Bishop calls a Jesuitisme : and further proves himself to be in the Catholick Church , g because he was in Communion with the Sea of Peter . St. Herome h professes , the Church is built upon St. Peters Sea , and that whoever eats the Lamb , that is , pretends to believe in Christ , and 〈◊〉 of the Sacraments , out of that House , that is , out of the Communion of that Church , is profane , and an alien ; yea , that he belongs to Antichrist , and not to Christ , whoever consents not with the Successor of St. Peter . St. Fulgentius i stiles the Roman Church , The top of the world ; and Eulalius , Bishop of Syracusa , tells the same Fulgentius , that it would avail him nothing to go into those Countreys , which he desired to visit , because k ( saith he ) the Inhabitants thereof ( certain Religious men ) were sever'd by a faithless Dissention from the Sea of Peter . Lastly , Gratian the Emperour made a Decree , l that the Churches , formerly possessed by Heretiques , should be restored to those Bishops , who were of Pope Damasus his Communion , understanding thereby the Communion of the Catholique Church . The Communion therefore with the Bishop of Rome , in his dayes , was the measure , and distinctive badge , whereby to know who were , and who were not of the Catholique Church . 6. Hence it appears , that what his Lordship is pleas'd to tearm a perfect Jesuitisme in A. C. is a perfect mistake of the Bishop , and a losing himself in his own Labyrinth . Neither is that vulgar exception against Romane Catholick any better . For as all Countreys , how distant soever from one another , under the Command and Obedience of the Roman Emperour , were called the Romane Empire , taken collectively , because the chief Seat of their Emperour was at Rome : So all the Churches subject to the Romane Bishop , are call'd the Romane Church , because their Supream Head and Pastour , under Christ , sits at Rome . And seeing in the Law of Moses the whole Church of the Israelites was properly called the Jewish Church , ( which name strictly taken belong'd onely to the Tribe of Juda ) because the chief City of it appertained to that Tribe , where the High Priest resided and officiated , why may not also the whole Orthodox Christian Church be nam'd the Romane Church , because its Supream Bishop keeps his Residence in the Romane City . The truth is , in all doubts concerning matter of Doctrine , recourse is to be had to St. Peters Successor , who ( at least with a Generall Council ) can infallibly resolve all difficulties . This Infallibility is independent of all places ; insomuch , that as St. Peter had been infallible , though he had never been at Rome ; so though his Successor should leave to reside in that City , yet should he not leave to be Infallible in the manner specified ; and should as well then , as now , judge both the Roman Faith , and the Faith of all other Churches . This I have said to shew , how the Faith of every particular Church is to be examin'd , and prov'd to be Catholique , to wit , by its conformity to the Faith of the Romane Church : concluding nothing , whither the Pope can transferre his Chair from Rome , or not ; and whether the Clergy of Rome can desert him , and the true Faith , or not : for these Questions make nothing to our present purpose . 7. By way of Appendix to this Chapter ( since so fair an occasion is presented us ) it will not be amiss to perform what we promis'd , chap. 1. viz. to examine a little more fully his Lordships pretended Solutions of Bellarmins Authorities ; which the Bishop brings § . 3. num . 3. But my intention is to maintain them so far onely , as they make for the Infallible Authority of the Church , or of the Pope Defining Articles of Faith in a General Council : for we are obliged to no more . The first Authority is out of St. Cyprian , who shall here speak a little fuller , then either the Bishop or Bellarmin cites him ; to the end the force of his words may the better appeare : This holy Martyr writes thus to Cornelius Bish 〈◊〉 of Rome . a Post ista adhuc insuper , Pseudo-episcopo sibi ab Haereticis constituto , navigare audent ad Petri Cathedram , atque ad Ecclesiam principalem , unde unitas Sacerdotalis exorta est ; à Schismaticis & 〈◊〉 literas ferre , nec cogitare eos esse Romanos ( quorum fides , Apostolo praedicante , laudata est ) ad quos perfidia habere non 〈◊〉 accessum . Why calls he St. Peters Chair Ecclesiam principalem , ( the chief Church ) but because 't is the Head , to which all other Churches must be subordinate in matter of Doctrine ? The words following signifie as much , Unde unitas Sacerdotalis exorta est , from which Chair of St. Peter , as it were from its fountain , unity in Priesthood , and consequently unity in Faith is derived . Why brings he the Apostle himself as Panegyrist of the Roman Faith ? Quorum fides , Apostolo praedicante , laudataest . Is it ( forsooth ) because no malicious 〈◊〉 in matter of Trust , or Errour in Fact against the Discipline and Government of the Church , can have access unto them , as the Bishop will needs misinterpret the place ? or rather because no errour in Faith can approach the Sea Apostolique ? Certain it is Perfidia , in this sentence , is Diametrically opposed to the Faith of the Romans immediately before commended by the Apostle , ( which was true Christian Faith ) and consequently it must of necessity be taken for the quite contrary , viz. Misbelief , or Errour in Faith. Hence his other Explication also vanishes into smoak , viz. when he asserts , that 〈◊〉 non potest may be taken Hyperbolically , for non facile potest ; because this interpretation suits not with those high Elogium's , given by St. Cyprian to the Roman Church , as being the Principal Church , the Church whence Unity of Faith and Discipline is derived to all other Christian Churches . Nay this interpretation gives no more Prerogative to the Church of Rome , then to that of Alexandria , or 〈◊〉 , &c. to none of which in those Primitive times Errour in Faith could have easie access . At length , after much ado , he grants perfidia may be taken for Errour in Faith , or for perfidious Misbelievers and Schismaticks , who had betray'd their Faith ; but then he cavils with the word Romanos . This must be limited onely to those Christians , who then lived in Rome ; to whom quatales , as long as they continued such , Errour in Faith could have no access . Is not this a great praise ? As if St. Cyprian should say , St. Peters Sea could not erre , so long as it continued constant in the Truth . What Nationall Church , nay what faithfull Christian then living , might not have challenged as much priviledge as this ? Finally he concludes , St. Cyprian meant no Infallibility in the Roman Church by the sentence alledged , because he himself had some Contrast afterward with Pope Stephen , touching the Rebaptization of those , that were Baptized by Heretiques . But his Lordship should have remembred that common distinction of Divines , whereby they consider the Pope sometimes as a Private Doctour , and sometimes as the Doctour , or Pastour , universall of all Christians : and that St. Cyprian might very well be suppos'd to think the Pope err'd onely in the first sense . For Pope Stephen did not properly define any Doctrine in that contestation , which was between them , but onely commanded that those in Africa should alter nothing that was observed in the ancient practice , about receiving such into the Church as had been Baptized by Heretiques . Nihil innovetur ; nisi quod Traditum est : neither had the Council of Carthage any just cause to mention it as an errour in St Cypirian , for thinking the Pope might erre in quality of a Private Doctour . Again , if this be a good Argument against the Infallibility of Popes , viz. St. Cyprian held Pope Stephen err'd , therefore the Pope may erre in matters of Faith , it will be good consequence also to say , St. Cyprian held Pope Stephen err'd , even whilst he maintain'd an universal immemorial Tradition , receiv'd and practis'd as such by the whole Catholick Church ever since the Apostles ; ergo the Pope may erre , even whilst he follows such an Universal , Immemorial Tradition . By this manner of arguing , not onely the Popes infallible Authority , but the infallible Authority of the most Universal , Immemorial Traditions in the Church will be infring'd , through St. Cyprians erroneous judgement : and if it be plain enough to prove St. Cyprian had no great opinion of the Roman infallibility ( as the Relatour here sayes it is ) it will be also plain enough to prove , St. Cyprian had no great opinion of the infallibility of such an Universal Tradition ; which is altogether absurd . The Bishops exceptions therefore to this Text of St. Cyprian , being of no force , it remains , that his meaning must be this , and no other , viz. that the Sea of St. Peter , which is the principall of all Churches , was so infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost , that no errour in Faith could have access to it , or be admitted by it ; if not as a particular Church ( which is a School-question , and as such disputed here by Bellarmin ) yet at least , as the Head of the Universal Church of Christ , and as the Fountain of Priestly Unity : which St. Cyprian here plainly affirms that Church and Sea to be . The second Authority is out of St Jerome , who speaks in this manner to Ruffinus , Scito Romanam fidem , Apostolica voce laudatam , cjusmodi praestigias non admittere : etiamsi Angelus aliter annunciet , quàm semel praedicatum est , Pauli auctoritate munitam non posse mutari . I will not here dispute , whether Bellarmin by Romanam Fidem means Romanos Fideles , or no : yea I most willingly agree with his Lordship in this , that by Romanam Fidem St. Jerome understands the Catholique Faith of Christ. But by the way 't is worth noting how inconsequently our Adversaries speak ; who usually condemn us for joyning as Synonyma's , Roman and Catholick together , viz. when we say the Roman-Catholick Faith , or the Roman-Catholick Church ; and yet the Bishop has no other way to avoid the force of St. Jeromes words , but by acknowledging , in this place , that the Roman and Catholick is all one . Well then ; be it granted , that in St. Jeromes time the Roman was accounted the Catholique Faith : what will this advantage the Bishop ? Very much , as he imagins at least . For thus he discourses . The Roman being here taken for the Catholique Faith , and the Catholique Faith being uncapable of any change , or of admitting any praestigias , that is , Illusions or Alterations , it will of necessity follow , that Saint Hieromes words evince not the perpetuall unchangeableness of the Faith , as taught and professed in the Church of Rome . Excellent ! But did not his Lordship see , how easily this exposition of his might be blown away ? Can it be thought a thing any way suitable to Saint Hieromes wisdom , to tell Ruffinus ( so great a Scholar as he was known to be ) that the Catholique Faith in abstracto ( in its own precise nature ) can never be any other , then what it is ? knew not Ruffinus , as well as St. Hierome himself , that neither Faith nor any thing else , can change its essence ? would he make St. Hierome so simple , as to perswade Ruffinus , not to go about to undermine the people of Rome , for such a reason as this , because the Catholique Faith , abstracted from those who teach and maintain it , can never be but what it is essentially ? Seeing that notwithstanding any such Immutability , it might easily enough be extirpated out of the hearts of the people of Rome , and the contrary errours admitted , how unalterable soever the Faith in it self be . The unchangeableness therefore of the Catholique Faith in this sense could no way hinder Ruffinus from spreading such Books among the Romans , as might endanger their perversion ; but rather the Immutable Faith of the Sea Apostolique , so highly commended both by the Apostle and St. Hierome ; which is founded upon such a Rock , that even an Angel himself is not able to shake it . The third Authority is taken out of St. Gregory Nazianzen , whose Elogium in behalf of the Roman Church is very Emphatical . Vetus Roma ( sayes he ) ab antiquis temporibus habet rectam fidem , & semper eam retinet , sicut decet urbem , quae toti orbi praesidet , semper de Deo integram 〈◊〉 habere . For the clearing of which passage I say first , the Bishop is not faithful in his Translation of him ; for he leaves out the word Ever in the latter part of the sentence : whereas St. Gregory , speaking of the sound and entire Faith of the Roman Church , sayes that Rome alwayes holds it , as becomes that City , which is Governess over the whole world , to have EVER an entire Faith in and concerning God. Secondly , in his Gloss upon the Sentence he omits the same word again , saying onely it became that City very well to keep the Faith sound and entire . Well ; but how long ? for some years onely , or an age , or two ? doth St. Gregory limit any time ? No : he saith semper , it becomes that city alwayes to hold the true Faith , not onely till St. Gregories time , but for ever , to all posterity . The Bishop indeed sufficiently intimates what he drives at , in those words of his , In St. Gregory Nazianzens time Rome did certainly hold both RECTAM ET INTEGRAM FIDEM ( the right and the entire Faith of Christ ; ) but there is no promise , nor prophesie in St. Gregory , that Rome shall ever do so . I answer , though there be no prophesie , yet there is a sufficient acknowledgement , in those words of St. Gregory , that Rome shall ever do so . For are not these his very words ? Rome ( saith he ) of old hath the right Faith , and alwayes holds it , as becomes the City , which rules over the whole world , to have EVER the entire Faith concerning God. Does he not expresly affirm , Rome had the right Faith of old , and that she alwayes holds it , as becomes such a City to hold the right Faith of God. I put my Argument into form thus . It alwayes becomes that great City to have , and likewise to hold , INTEGRAM FIDEM , the entire Faith of Christ. But St. Gregory here affirms , that Rome alwayes holds the entire Faith , as becomes that great City to have and hold it . Ergo , he affirms , that Rome holds alwayes the entire Faith of Christ , and not for some ages onely , or to St. Gregories time . The Major is his Lordships own words . The Minor is prov'd from St. Gregory's express words , which are , even according to that Translation of them , which the Bishop cites , semper eam retinet , sicut decet urbem , &c. semper de Deo integram fidem habere . He sayes not onely Rome ever holds the true Faith , but that it ever holds it as becomes that City EVER to hold it , which presides over the whole world , that is , with full Authority teaching it , and by continual profession maintaining it in all future ages . The Bishop at length acknowledges a double semper in St. Gregories words , but misplaceth the latter ; with what pure intention let any indifferent man judge . His words are plain ( sayes the Bishop ) semper decet , &c. it alwayes becomes that City to have and hold the entire Faith , &c. Whereas St. Gregory sayes not semper decet ( it alwayes becomes ) but decet , it becomes that City which governs the whole world , alwayes to have the entire Faith of God. Now who sees not a manifest difference betwixt these two Propositions , It alwayes becomes that City to have , and it becomes that City to have alwayes ? even as it is one thing to say , It alwayes becomes a man to keep honest company , and another thing to say , It becomes a man to keep honest company alwayes ; seeing this last implies , that a man must never cease from keeping such company , or never be out of such company . In like manner , 't is one thing to affirm it alwayes becomes Rome to hold the entire Faith ; for this onely signifies , the keeping of the Faith entire , whensoever it is done , is a thing well-becoming the City of Rome : and another thing to say , It becomes that City to keep the entire Faith alwayes ; for that signifies , it must never fail , or cease , to keep it . His Criticizing upon the present Tense of the Verb retinet ( holds , saith he , not shall hold ) is a meer impertinency , derected sufficiently by what we said in the first Chapter . For , to speak nothing of the Tautology he fastens upon St. Gregory , if the Verbs habet and retinet relate to the present , or past , time onely , 't is to be observ'd , St. Gregory sayes not barely it holds ever the true Faith , but it holds it sicut decet , &c. in such manner as becomes that Capital City to hold it , viz. for ever ; which of necessity relates to all future times , and therefore is as much as semper retinebit . From St. Gregory the Bishop passes to , ( or rather , by ) St. Cyrill and Ruffinus , pretending that Bellarmin names indeed these Authors , but neither tells us where , nor cites their words . Truly no small fault ( if not untruly objected ) especially in a man so learned , to amuse his Reader with empty names onely . But surely his Lordship read Bellarmin but superficially , and perhaps with other mens eyes more then his own , when he wrote this . For otherwise how was it possible he should oversee both himself and his Authour so much , as not to perceive , that Bellarmin refers his Reader to the Authorities of St. Cyril and Ruffinus above-mentioned ? St. Cyrils words are clear enough to be seen in Bellarmin , cap. 3. § . 〈◊〉 and the Authority of Ruffinus in the same Chapter , § . Quinto probatur . St. Cyril is quoted apud D. Thomam . in Catenâ . Ruffinus , in exposit . Symbol . But peradventure our Adversary had no great minde to encounter with such pregnant Authorities ; and therefore by a figure , which is call'd Omissio Rhetorica , pass'd them over in silence . St. Cyrill averres , that a according to the promise of our Saviour , ( which is not limited to any time ) the Aposlolical Church of St. Peter remains free from all spot of seducing , and Heretical circumvention , &c. Ruffinus also affirms , b That in the Church of Rome never any 〈◊〉 took its beginning ; and that the ancient Custom ( which where 't is well observ'd , excludes all Innovation in matter of Faith ) is there kept . But the Relatour seems willing to make us amends ; and seeing change is no robbery , he restores Bellarmin another Text of St. Cyril , in lieu of that he took from him , yea ( if we believe his Lordship ) the most pregnant place in all St. Cyril . But it is not his part to finde Authorities for us , but fairly and ingenuously to satisfie those we urge against him . It was not for Bellarmins purpose ( as it seems ) to press that so pregnant place ; nor is it for mine to maintain it . Valeat quantum valere potest . I make no doubt , but they who urge it , will be found able to defend it against all his evasions . The place in Ruffinus he himself findes at last ; but it likes him no better then the other , and much discourse he useth to invalidate the force of it . But our Answer is , Bellarmin brings it onely in favour of his own private opinion , touching the Infallibility of the particular Church of Rome : which being onely matter of probable and disputable opinion , not of Catholique and necessary Belief , as I resolv'd in the beginning not to undertake the defence of any such points , so I hold not my self oblig'd to maintain the proofs of them . I return therefore to his Lordship , who taking his best advantage from St. Cyrils pregnant place , builds the Catholique Church upon the Faith onely , and not upon the Person of St. Peter professing that Faith. But first , this assertion of the Bishop is refuted by the words of St. Cyril himself , who calls the Faith ( upon which he sayes the Church is founded . &c ) inconcussam & firmissimam Discipuli Fidem , ( the invincible and most firm Faith of Christs Disciple ) which words clearly include St. Peters Person with his Faith. For in what sense can the Faith be said to be invincible and most sirm , but onely in relation to the person invincibly and most firmly confessing it ? We our selves do not say the Church is built upon St. Peters Shoulders , but upon his Faith , viz. as 't is constantly and inviolably taught and confessed by his Person , and the person of his Successors , as occasion requires . Secondly , 't is no less contrary to the words of Holy Scripture , Matth. 16. 18. I say unto thee ( Peter ) Thou art A ROCK , and upon THIS ROCK I will build my Church , &c. where 't is plain that by these words This Rock Christ meant no other Rock , then that whereof he made mention in the preceding words Thou art a Rock . For our Saviour spake in the Hebrew ( or Syriack ) Language , Thou art CEPHAS , ( which signifies a Rock ) and upon this CEPHAS , that is , upon this Rock , will I build my Church . The same is in the Greek Translation . For even there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signisies a Rock , as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . And though the Catholique Translators of the New Testament ( who follow the vulgar Latine Translation ) render it thus , Thou art PETER , and upon THIS ROCK will I build my Church ; yet have they noted , that the word Peter signifies a Rock , and that our Blessed Saviour used not two , but one and the same word , to wit , Cephas ( which signifies a Rock ) when he made that promise to Saint Peter . To make this plain by an instance drawn from our own affaires . Suppose Matthew Parker , presently after he was consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury , accompanied with John Scory , Miles Coverdale , William Barlow , Jobn Hodgskins , &c. his Associates and Consecrators ( as Mr. Mason will have have it ) should have addressed themselves to the Queens Presence-Chamber to kiss her hand , and the Queen should have asked them , Quid dicitis vos de Filiâ Henrici octavi , ( what say you of the Daughter of Henry the Eighth ? ) and Matthew Parker , as chief among them , answering according to the then-newly-enacted Belief , Tu es Elizabetha , Supremum Caput Ecclesiae , &c. ( Thou art Elizabeth , Supream Head of the Church of England ) if the Queen thereupon should have return'd him this gracious Answer , Et ego dico tibi , TU ES PRIMAS , & super HUNC PRIMATEM aedificabo Ecclesiam meam , ( And I say to thee Thou art Primate , and upon this Primate I will build my English Church ) had this I say happened , would any one have been so simple , as to doubt whether by hunc Primatem ( this Primate ) she meant any other then Matthew Parker , to whom onely she then spake ? Neither indeed can the words This Rock in Grammatical rigour be referr'd to the Confession of St. Peter . For , that being a remote Antecedent , mention'd onely in the verse before , and Peter ( or Rock ) the immediate , mention'd in one and the same verse with hanc Petram , the words in question , had our Saviour understood by hanc Petram ( This Rock ) not St. Peter himself , but the Confession he made of Christs Divinity , he should not have said super HANC Petram , but super ILLAM Petram , not upon THIS Rock will I build my Church , but upon THAT Rock , viz , thy Confession ; because , I say , that was the remote Antecedent mention'd in the former verse , and was not immediately precedent to those words of our Saviour , Super hanc Petram , &c. Seeing therefore our Saviour sayes not That , but This Rock , he must be understood , according to strict rules of Grammar , by the Demonstrative hanc ( or This ) to mean the immediate , or next Antecedent , viz. St. Peter himself , not that which was further off , viz. his Confession of Christs Divinity . I adde , that if our Saviour had meant St. Peters Confession onely without his Person , he should have used not the Conjunction Copulative And , saying Thou art Peter , AND upon this Rock , &c. but he should have us'd the Conjunction Discretive , or Exceptive , But , saying , Thou art Peter , ( that is a Rock , in name ) BUT upon that Rock of thy Confession will I build my Church . Wherefore seeing our Saviour doth not so speak , but uses the Conjunction Copulative And , he plainly tyes his speech to the Person of St. Peter , to whom onely he spake in the words immediately precedent : and this as necessarily , as the subsequent And in the next following sentence ( AND to thee will I give the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven , &c. ) doth shew the said words , or sentence , to belong to St. Peter onely . Beside , what coherence do you think our Saviours discourse will have , if the beginning and end of it shall be understood of St. Peters person onely , and the middle of a quite different thing ? Touching Ruffinus his Lordship is of opinion , that he neither did , nor could account the Roman Church Infallible , because he reckons up the Canonical Books of Scripture in a different maner , from that which the Church of Rome doth now adayes . And therefore ( sayes he ) either Ruffinus did not think the Church of Rome Infallible ; or else the Church of Rome this day reckons up more Books in the Canon , then heretofore she did . If she do so , then she is changed in a main point of Faith , viz. the Canon of Scripture , and is absolutely convinced not to be Infallible . But this Argument of the Bishop is far from being convincing . For though it should be granted , that the Catholick Church at present declares more Books to be contained in the Canon , then she did in Ruffinus his time , yet this could prove no errour in her ; unless it could be likewise shew'd , ( which I am sure cannot be ) that she condemned those Books then , as not Divine Scripture , or not Canonical , which now she declares to be Divine and Canonical . For as now she defines some Truths , which in former times were left under dispute , without the least shadow of errour : so without errour may she now admit some Books for Canonical and Divine Scripture , which before she left under dispute , that is , so undeclared by her for Canonical , that Christians were not obliged to receive them for such Books ; which now after her Declaration they are obliged to do . What he says here of the Church of Rome will not , I conceive , be found very pressing , viz. that she is driven to a hard strait , for using the Authority of her Adversary ( meaning Ruffinus ) to prove her Infallibility . For , though it should be granted , that Ruffinus was an Adversary of the Romane Church , yea a condemned Adversary , rejected and branded by her , as the Bishop speaks , yet certainly this is so far from driving the Church of Rome to a hard strait , that it evidently argues the truth and uncorruptedness of that Church : which is so clear , that even her Adversaries cannot but confess it . Neither did the Roman Church reject all that Ruffinus writ , even in that Book , wherein he exprest his Heresie ; but onely such parts of it , as were dissonant to the received Doctrine of the Catholique Church . And if one condemned of errour by another , may not be cited in any thing , wherein he favours the party that condemned him , why does the Relatour so often cite our Authours ( whom he condemns of errours in Faith , when they seem to favour him . The Bishop , having examin'd Bellarmins Authorities in the manner you see , returns again to A.C. and the Jesuit , telling us in very positive terms , that no Jesuit , nor any other , is able to prove any particular Church Infallible . But to this I have often answer'd , that it was neither to the Ladies purpose , nor ours , to dispute concerning a particular Infallible Church : it sufficeth , that the Pope is infallible , at least with a General Council : which question , as I have often observ'd , the Relatour wisely declines , and diverts another way , namely to an unnecessary dispute with Bellarmin about the Infallibility of the particular Church , or Diocess of Rome , viz. whether the Roman Clergy can at any time forsake the Pope and his Doctrine , or not : or whether the Chair of St. Peter can be transferred to another place , and the Roman Church upon that account be left subject to errour , as being no longer the Sea Apostolique : both which are matters of that nature , that they do no way engage me to contend with his Lordship about them ; further , then to tell him , that they are nothing at all to his purpose , nor to the satisfaction of the Lady ; and seem to have been thrust into his book onely to fill up some vacant pages , and to avoid the question which he was obliged , but not able , directly to answer . In the same page I observe the Bishop charges the Romane Church with erring in the Worship of Images , in altering Christs Institution in the Blessed Sacrament , by taking away the Cup from the people , and divers other particulars : but because he endeavours not in any sort to prove his charge , I presume I may take liberty to answer in a more convenient place , to wit , where the Bishop disputes formally against them . But his Lordship will not part without another fling at Bellarmin : he thinks he hath spy'd a great inconsistency in some words of the Cardinal : The matter thus . Bellarmin , ( lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 4. § . 2. as the Bishop cites him ) of this Proposition The particular Church of Rome cannot erre in Faith , so long as St. Peters Chair is at Rome , sayes 't is A MOST TRUE Proposition : but presenty after speaking of it , sayes onely PERADVENTURE 'T IS AS TRUE AS THIS , viz. the Pope , when he teacheth the whole Church in matters of Faith , cannot erre . At this the Bishop exclaims , as at a great absurdity of speech . What ( sayes he ) A Proposition MOST TRUE , and yet but PERADVENTURE as true as another ? That 's not possible with him . But soft and fair . What needs so much noise ? Let 's see what grounds the Relatour has for this Criticisme . First , he should have reflected , that in such expressions as this , there is alwayes a latitude of moral sense and meaning to be allow'd , even by common right and custom of speaking . When I say ( for example ) such a man is vir prudentissimus , or vir optimus , ( a most wise , and most honest man ) I am not presently thought to prefer him in those respects before all the men in the world : nor shall I be counted ( I hope ) a lyar , though some other men be found as wise and honest as he . Bellarmin therefore might have been excus'd , with indifferent Judges , for saying what he did , upon no other ground but this . But I shall not here use this plea : let the word Verissima be taken in the strictest rigour of Scholastical sense that can be ; yet may not a Proposition be rightly said most true , viz. in its proper Rank and order of such Propositions , and yet be but peradventure as true , as a Proposition of another and higher rank for certainty , or infallibility of Truth ? 'T is manifest , Bellarmin held his first Proposition , touching the Popes Infallibility when he teaches the whole Church , to be true Veritate fidei , for he holds it to be a proposition of Faith : but this other , touching the Roman Clergies not erring , or not departing from the Popes Doctrine so long as the Sea Apostolique continued there , to be true onely Veritate Theologiae , as other Theological Propositions are True ; which are not Divinely revealed , but meerly by humane Discourse and way of Argument deduced from other Theological Propositions and Principles : whose Truth consequently is never so absolutely infallible , as that of matters of Faith ; but onely more or less certain , according as the Principles , or Propositions , whence we deduce them , are more or less Infallible ; and the Deduction of them from such Principles more or less evident and necessary . What absurdity then was it for Bellarmin to say , this Proposition , viz. of the Roman Clergies never forsaking the Popes Doctrine , &c. is most true , meaning in the quality of a Theological Conclusion , and yet but peradventure as true as that other , viz. of the Popes not erring when he teacheth the whole Church ; which latter Proposition Bellarmin undoubtedly held to be a Proposition of Divine Faith , but did not hold the other to be such ? Truly just as much absurdity , as 't is to say of a little man , that in comparison of a Pygmie he is a tall Fellow , but in comparison of some Yeoman of the Guard he is but a Dwarf . Thus having acquitted my self of what I stood obliged by promise , at the beginning of this Treatise , I return again to the Bishop in pursuit of his present Discourse . CHAP. II. Protestants , Schismatiques . ARGUMENT . 1. No pure Church in the world , since the Apostles time , if the Roman Church , corrupt . 2. Petrus de Alliaco favours not the Bishop . Card. Bellarmin most falsly quoted by him ; Almainus , Cassander , &c. not for him . 3. Schismes and Heresies in Rome , but not in the Roman Church . 4. who made the present Schisme ; Roman-Catholiques , or Protestants . 5. St. Bernards and St. Austins words rightly urged by A. C. and Bellarmins as wrongfully by the Bishop . 6. Protestants , though they will have the Church unerrable in Fundamentals onely , yet can never be brought to give a list of them . 7. Christs Church , by inseparable property , both Caththolique and Holy. THe Relatour is still making personal reflexions upon A. C. Here he will have him troubled again about the form of the Ladies question : but I see no reason he had to be troubled , whether the Lady askt her question by Be , or Was ; because , if the Roman was the right Church , it still is so , seeing no change can be shew'n in her Doctrine . If there have been a change , let it appear , when and in what the change was made . For the same reason also , if it be now the true Church , it was ever so , having alwayes adhered to St. Peters Successor , and the Doctrine by him delivered . 1. But the Relatour asserts , that the Church of Rome was , and was not , a right and Orthodox Church , before Luther made a breach from it . For in the prime times of it , it was a most right and Orthodox Church : but if we look upon the immediate times before Luther , then it was a corrupt and tainted Church . In this , I say , the Relatour begs the question : for the Roman Church remained alwayes the same it was from the beginning ; because , in this dispute , the Roman signifies the Catholique Church , according to that of Dr. Stapleton , Apud veteres pro eodem habita fuit Ecclesia Romana , & Ecclesia Catholica , ( amongst the Ancients , ( saith he , the Roman Church and the Catholique Church were taken for the same . ) We adde , they are now also to be held for the same : and the reason given by Stapleton ( whatever the Bishop thinks ) doth not at all destroy the said Identity . His reason is , quia ejus communio erat evidenter & certissimè cum totâ Catholicâ , because the Communion of the Roman Church was most certainly and evidently with the whole Catholique , and by consequence the whole Catholique with it . Wherefore as the Catholique Church continued ever the same and incorrupt , so did the Roman , which is the same with the Catholique . This A. C. sufficiently express'd , when he mention'd the Roman Church , not onely as it contain'd the City and Diocess of Rome , but all that agreed with it in Doctrine and Communion . For 't is clear , by Roman Church in that sense , he could understand no other but the Catholique . We deny then , that any abuses , or errours , did at any time more corrupt or taint , the Roman Church , then they did the Catholique . Wherefore it seems very strange to hear his Lordship say , that the Roman Church never was , nor ever can be , THE RIGHT , or the HOLY CATHOLIQUE Church . For when it was a right Church ( as he himself grants it once was ) if we take it in A. C's . sense , viz. not onely for that Church , which is within the City , or Diocess of Rome , but for all that agree with it , what difference will he finde betwixt the Holy Catholique Church , and all others agreeing with the Church of Rome ? What he asserts of the immediate times before Luther , or some ages before , that then the Roman Church was a corrupt and tainted Church , and far from being a right Church , sounds very harshly in a Christians ears . For if in all those ages the Roman Church , ( that is , the Church of Rome , and all other Churches agreeing with her ) were wrong , corrupted , and tainted ; and all those likewise that disagreed from her , viz. Hussites , Albigenses , Waldenses , Wickleffists , Greeks , Abyssins , Armenians , &c. had in them corrupt Doctrine , during those ages ( as 't is certain they had , neither could the Relatour deny it ) I say , if the Roman Church was thus corrupt , it follows , that not onely for some time , but for many ages before Luther , yea even up to the Apostles times , there was no one visible Church untainted , incorrupt , right , Orthodox , throughout the whole world . And consequently that during the said ages , every good Christian was in conscience oblig'd , in some point of Christian belief or other , to contradict the Doctrine , and desert the Communion of all visible Churches in the world : since no Church , not confessedly Hereticall , can be shew'n , that did not communicate both in Doctrine and Discipline with the Roman , during all that time . Whence , it would further follow , that Schisme , or Separation from the externall Communion of the whole Church might be not onely lawfull , ( which is contrary to all the Holy Fathers , as Dr. Hammond well proves in his Book of Schisme ) but even necessary ; which is impossible , as being contrary to the very essentiall Predicates of Schisme , which is defined to be a voluntary , or wilfull Departure ( such , as no just cause , or reason , can be given of it ) from the Communion of the whole Church . 2. His great Marginal Note out of Petrus de Alliaco signifies but little . For as it mentions not any false Doctrines taught by the Roman Church , so neither doth it threaten , that any shall be taught by it after his time : but clearly speaks of Schismes and Heresies rais'd against the Church ( not foster'd by her ) in all parts of Christendom . Otherwise we must esteem that learned Cardinal , a man either very ignorant , or very impious , to make the Church it self ( Ecclesiam Dei , as he speaks ) guilty of Schismes and Heresies ; which even in our Adversaries opinion are held to be incompatible with the Church of God , and destructive of it . 'T is certain , Bellarmin acknowledges no errours in Popes , but onely as they were private Doctours : he admits not any errours to have been defined by them by Authority properly Papall , or ex Cathedrâ , for Christs Doctrine , or to be believ'd by the whole Church . And indeed , he even clears them of Errours in the first kinde , so far as to shew , that they did never so much as personally , or in quality of private Doctors , erre , or teach any errour in matter of Faith publiquely defined and admitted for such by the whole Church : which though it be a very pious opinion , yet no man is oblig'd to embrace it as a point of Faith. For Catholique Faith ( in this particular ) onely obliges us to maintain , that the Pope is Infallible , when he defines with a General Council . To what good purpose then does the Relatour ( in his Margin ) pin this following assertion upon Bellarmin , Et Papas quosdam graves errores seminasse in Ecclesiâ Christi , luce clarius est ; there being nothing , like such a Proposition , in the whole Chapter cited by the Bishop ? Almainus speaks not of Errours in Faith at all , ( much less doth he say the Popes taught the whole Church such errours ) but onely of errours , or rather abuses in point of Manners ; which might happen by the bad examples of Popes , or their remissness in the execution of their Pastoral office . But what if some of them should be prov'd to have taught errours in Doctrine , as private men ? that destroyes not the Infallibility of the Church , nor of the Pope , as we maintain it ? no more , then his permitting , or suffering others , through his negligence , to teach such errours . Hence also his Simile of Tares sow'n among Wheat is nothing to the purpose . For if he means by Tares sow'n , false Doctrine publiquely and definitively taught by the Pope , or receiv'd by the Church , in this sense we absolutely deny , that ever any Tares were sow'n , or ever shall be sow'n in the field of Gods Church . But if he mean sow'n onely by private persons , and growing up but for some time , through negligence of particular Pastours , until the Supreme Pastour , either by himself , or assisted with his Council , take due notice of them , and weed them up , 't is a thing we confess , and the Bishop gains nothing by it . No more doth he gain by alledging Cassander , whose credit among Catholiques is so little , that his testimony would be of no great weight , were it positive and home to the purpose ; whereas 't is manifest he speaks doubtfully , and dares not absolutely averre , the Bishops had taught any Superstitions : all he ventures to say is , a that through their covetousness , he was afraid such Superstitions were continued : and even this he ascribes rather to particular and inferiour Bishops , then to the Pope . 3. 'T is true , there have been Schismes at Rome , as it happened in the time of St. Cyprian , when Novatus leaving Africk went to Rome , and there raisd troubles . Yea after him Novatianus proceeded so far , as to cause himself to be made Antipope against Cornelius , and had many followers , by which means a Schisme sprung up : but still a great part stuck to Cornelius , the true Pope . Wherefore , even during the Schisme , as well as before , the Roman Church rightly and truly so called , continued the Catholique , and as incorrupt as ever . And why ? because they that left the Communion of the true Pope , and made the Schisme , corrupted themselves , but not the Roman and Catholique Church , which adhered to him ; and were for the time of their separation , of no Church at all , but of the Synagogue of Satan . Whence it appears , that St. Cyprian could not imploy Caldonius and Fortunatus to bring the Roman Church to the Communion of the Catholique ( as the Bishop pretends ) but onely to reclaim the Schismatiques , and bring those divided Members , which followed Novatian , to their due Obedience to Cornelius their lawful Bishop , and thereby to the unity and communion of the Roman Catholique Church . Still therefore the Roman , or Catholique Church , remained free and exempt from errour , either of Schisme or Heresie ; and so shall ever continue , maugre the malice of Hell , and whatever vain objections to the contrary . 4. A. C. further charges the Relatour to have confes'd , that Protestants had made a Rent , and Division , from the Roman , or Catholique Church ; here the Bishop is not a little nettled , and flatly denies that ever he affirm'd , or thought , that Protestants made it . For my part I think it an unprofitable dispute to question much what was said : it more concerns us to see what could , or can be said in this point . Our Assertion is , That Protestants made this Rent , or Schisme , by their obstinate and pertinacious maintaining erroneous Doctrines , contrary to the Faith of the Roman , or Catholique Church ; by their rejecting the Authority of their lawful Ecclesiastical Superiours , both immediate and mediate ; by aggregating themselves into a Separate body , or company of pretended Christians , independent of any Pastours at all , that were in lawfull and quiet possession of Jurisdiction over them ; by making themselves Pastours and Teachers of others , and administring Sacraments without Authority given them by any , that were lawfully empower'd to give it ; by instituting new Rites and Ceremonies of their own , in matter of Religion , contrary to those anciently receiv'd throughout all Christendom ; by violently excluding and dispossessing other Prelates and Pastours of and from their respective Seas , Cures , and Benefices , and intruding themselves into their places , in every Nation where they could get footing , the said Prelates and Pastours for the most part yet living . These , and the like practices ( not the calling for truth , and redress of abuses , as the Bishop vainly pretends ) we averre to have been the True and Real Causes of Protestants-being thrust out of the Church . For as Almighty God leaves no man , who leaves not him first : so neither doth the Church separate her self from any man , or thrust him from her Communion , who doth not first depart , and separate himself from her , by obstinate adhering to novel opinions contrary to the true Faith , or by his wicked and enormous demeanour , contrary to true Charity , or by both together . The Orthodox therefore did very well in departing from the Arrians , ( as the Relatour notes in the Margin ) because the Arrians were already departed from the Church by their false Doctrine : and we are so far from denying that the sin of Schisme is theirs who depart first , that we charge it upon our Adversaries ; for as the Arrians then departed first from the Church , not the Church from them ; so did the Protestants now of late : and the Faithful did well in both cases to avoid all Communion in matters of Religion , both with the one and the other . Nor does the Bishop vindicate the Protestant party , by saying the cause of Schisme was ours , and that we ( Catholiques ) thrust Protestants from us , because they called for truth and redress of abuses . For , first , there can be no just cause of Schisme ; this has been granted already , even by b Protestants : and to his calling for Truth , &c. I answer , what Heretiques ever yet forsook the Church of God , but pretended truth , and complain'd they were thrust out and hardly dealt with , meerly because they call'd for Truth and redress of Abuses ? But he should have reflected , that the Church of God is styled a City of Truth c , by the Prophet , and a Pillar and Foundation of Truth d by the Apostle ; and by the Fathers e a rich Depository , or Treasury of all Divine and Heavenly Doctrines , or 〈◊〉 : so that to charge her either with the want of Truth , or opposition to the preaching of it , and upon that ground to forsake her Communion ( as Protestants did ) is an inexcusable impiety and presumption . That Woe therefore of Scandal , mentioned by the Bishop , whether Active or Passive , falls most heavily upon his own party , who first took effence without just Cause , and afterwards gave just cause of offence by departing from the Church and making a Schisme . A thing so clear and undeniable , that ( to use the Relatours own expression ) our Adversaries may better defend their cause before a Judge and a Jury , then before an Assembly of learned Divines . After this the Bishop quarrels with A. C. for vindicating the Jesuit . But what 's the subject of their quarrel ? The Jesuit averr'd the Bishop to have said , That Protestants did make the Rent , or Division , from the Roman Church . The Bishop denies he said any such thing . A. C. proves he said it either 〈◊〉 , or aequipollentibus verbis , because the Jesuit writ down his words in fresh memory , and upon special notice taken of the passage . Hereupon the Bishop falls into exclamations and admirations , as if A. C. stood upon the brink of a Contradiction . But I answer , there is not here the least shew of a contradiction . For though his Lordships words were very few , though writ down by the Jesuit in fresh memory , and upon special notice taken , yet might the Jesuit well enough be said to quote them either iisdem , or aequipollentibus verbis . For timorous and tender Consciences think they can never speak with caution enough , for fear of telling a lye . But whether the Bishop said the Protestants did make the Schisme , or the Rent , or a Division , or Breach , 't is not a straw's matter . The words ( 't is true ) are different ; but the sense is the same . Well therefore might the Jesuit be said to relate at least in sense what the Bishop utter'd , without either enterfeiring , or shuffling . His Lordship therefore ought not to have boggled at this , but clearly have granted , That Protestants did depart from the Roman Church , and gat the name of Protestants by Protesting against her ; for this is so apparent , that the whole world acknowledges it : and the Relatour himself cannot deny it without retracting his own words § 20. num . 5. pag. 131. where speaking of Luther he grants he made a breach from it . And 't is a very poor shift to say , Protestants gat not that name by protesting against the Church of Rome , but against her Errours and Superstitions : for who sees not , that this is the common pretext of all Heretiques , when they sever themselves from the Roman Catholique Church ? There is nothing more ordinary with Protestants then to reproach the Roman Church , and belch out virulent execrations against her ; yet all must be understood ( forsooth ) not against the Church , but against her Errours . As if Mr. Fisher and A. C. could be ignorant of this , or stood in need of such a needless Comment , to understand what Protestants mean , when they protest , or use uncivil language against the Church . But ( sayes the Bishop ) if you take the whole Body and Cause of Protestants together , you cannot so easily charge them with departing from the Church . I know not well , what this passage means : but desire to have any either whole Body , or part , of Protestants shew'n , who , by their Professions and practices , did not effectively make a true and real departure from the Roman Church , and in so doing , remained separate from the whole Church . Nor doth it much mend the matter to say ( as he doth in the Margent ) that the Protestation made by his party in the Year 1529. ( from whence they took their name of Protestants ) was not simply against the Roman Church , but against an Edict ( viz. that of Worms ) which commanded the restoring of all things to their former Estate , without any Reformation . For to stand ( as they did ) for Innovation in matters of Religion , and to protest against restoring of things to their former estate , which had been unwarrantably and wickedly alter'd by certain lawless people , without any colour of Authority , was surely in effect to protest against the Roman Church : and seeing the things protested against were points of Faith and Christian piety , wherein the Roman and all other true visible Churches in the world agreed , to protest against them was , with the same breath , to protest against all the particular true visible Churches in the Christian world ; which none but notorious Heretiques , or Schismatiques , use to do . It is not then the word ( Protestation ) that we dislike so much , but the Thing , that is , the Protesting and standing for novel and corrupt Tenets , against the ancient and undefiled Doctrine of the Roman Catholique Church . Besides , 't is worth the noting , that the Relatour here addes a little to his Author , when he sayes , the Edict of Worms was for the restoring of all things to their former estatc without any Reformation at all : as if the Edict had cut off all hopes of Reformation , even in those things which needed it , viz. Abuses in Manners and Discipline : which is most false , and confuted by evidence of fact . For even the Popes themselves alwayes professed reformation in such things to be necessary , and intended by them ; according as it was not long after effectually ordain'd by the Council of Trent . 5. But A. C. ( sayes the Bishop ) goes on and tells us , that though the Church of Rome did thrust Protestants from her by Excommunication , yet they had first divided themselves by obstinate holding and teaching Opinions contrary to the Roman Faith and practice of the Church : which to do , St. Bernard thinks is pride , and St. Austin madness . At this his Lordship takes several exceptions ; and first begins with the supposition of Errors and Superstitions in the Roman Church ; which in my opinion ( saith he ) were the prime cause of the Division , and forced many men to hold and teach contrary to the Roman Faith. To which we answer , that the Bishop of Rome , being St. Peters Successor in the Government of the Church , and Infallible ( at least with a General Council ) it is impossible , that Protestants , or other Sectaries , should ever finde such Errors or Corruptions definitively taught by him , or receiv'd by the Church , as should either warrant them to preach against her Doctrine , or ( in case she refuses to conform to their preaching ) lawfully to forsake her Communion . Secondly , he quarrels with A. C. for styling it the Roman Faith , when he speaks of the general Faith of all Christians . It was wont ( sayes the Bishop ) to be the Christian Faith ; but now all 's Roman with A. C. and the Jesuit . But first , 't is no incongruity of speech to style the Christian , or Catholique Faith , sometimes the Roman . For the Bishop of Rome being Head of the whole Christian , or Catholique Church , the Faith approv'd and taught by him as Head thereof , though it be de facto the general Faith and profession of all Christians , may yet very well be called the Roman Faith : why ? because the Root , Origin , and chief Foundation under Christ , of its beingpreach't and believ'd by Christians , is at Rome . And there is nothing more frequent then Denominations taken à parte digniori . Again , here 's a manifest robbery of part of A. C's . words , for which his Lordship is bound to restitution . A. C. as it were foreseeing this cavil , warily addes to Roman Faith these words , and practice of the Church , which the Relatour , for reasons best known to himself , craftily leaves out , and makes him speak , as if the opinions , by which the Protestants stand divided from the Roman Church , and for which they are excommunicated by her , were onely contrary to the Roman Faith , as Protestants usually understand the word Roman , viz. as contradistinguisht from Catholique , or the Church in general : whereas A. C. to prevent any such mistake , as expresly as he could , said , they were contrary both to the Roman Faith and practice of the Church . But we must excuse our Adversary for this slip , though it be an unhandsome one . For the truth is , he had no other way to hide the guiltiness of his own pen , in styling the Doctrines and practices of the Church , Corruptions and Superstitions . For to have charg'd the whole Church with Superstitions and Corruptions , had been ( perhaps ) a little too bold a check , especially for a person of his Lordships temper , and would have brought him too apparently under the lash of St. Bernards and St. Austins Censures , intimated by A. C. whereas to charge onely the Church of Rome with them , is a thing the modestest man in all that party 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 use his own language ) enterfeires shrewdly . For , speaking of the whole Church Militant , he tells us , if she can erre , either FROM the Foundation , or IN it , she can be no longer Holy , and that Article of the Creed is gone , I BELIEVE THE HOLY CATHOLIQUE CHURCH : yet presently after , speaking of the same Church , he saith , If she erre IN the Foundation , that is , in some one or more Fundamental points of Faith , then she may be a Church of Christ still , but not Holy , but becomes Heretical . These words I say , hang not well together ; for an Heretical Congregation cannot be a Church of Christ , because by pertinacious and obstinate erring , especially against the Fundamental and prime Articles of the Creed , it becomes neither Holy , nor Church of Christ , believing no more any part of Christian Doctrine with Divine and Supernatural Faith , then if it had faln into a general Apostacy from the whole Foundation . 'T is therefore very strange , to hear him say , that if the Church erre in one or more Fundamental points , then she may be a Church of Christ still , though not Holy , but Heretical . Are there two sorts of Christs-Churches upon earth ; one Holy , the other unholy ; one Catholique , the other Heretical ? Is a Church erring in the very Foundation it self , and that in more then one point of it , a Church of Christ still ? what calls he then ( I pray ) the Synagogue of Satan ? Had he so quite forgot , that by the unanimous consent of all Christians , both Ancient and Modern , all Heretical Congregations whatever are esteemed sever'd from the Catholique Church . I adde therefore , and confidently averre , that any errour in Faith whatever , ( much more in and against the Foundation ) pertinaciously defended against the Church , renders the Congregation that maintains it , no Church of Christ. No errours thus defended are to be accounted of mean alloy , or weak tincture ; they are all dyed in grain ; they all remove Holiness from the Assembly , that so erres , and wholly un-Church it . The reason hereof hath been given above , viz. because all such errour , implicitely and virtually at least , either affirms something to be Gods word , which is not ; or denies that to be his word , which is ; it either asserts errour to be Gods word , or Gods word to be an errour : both which , being in so high a degree injurious and derogatory to the Veracity of God , can be no less then Mortal Sins against the vertue of Divine Faith , and by consequence destructive of it : which is also in effect warranted by that saying of our Saviour in the Gofpel , Si Ecclesiam non audierit , &c. If he will not hear the Church , let him be to thee as a Heathen , or a Publican ; that is , account him no Christian , whatever he seems to profess . Hence it appears that A. C's . inference was very reasonable , when he told the Bishop , he might safely grant not onely that Protestants did make the Division , but further , that it was ill done of them , who first made the Separation . I may justly adde , it is likewise ill done of those , who continue in it . For ( as all the Fathers teach , and the most learned a of English Protestants acknowledge ) there neither was , nor ever can be just cause given , for any man , or number of men , particular Church , or Churches , to separate themselves , or continue in Schisme , out of the Communion of the Holy Catholique Church . CHAP. 12. Of keeping Faith with Heretiques . ARGUMENT . 1. That Faith ought to be kept with Heretiques , is the constant Tenet of all Catholique Divines . 2. What kinde of Safe-conduct John Huss had from the Emperour ; and Hierome of Prague from the Council of Constance . 3. The Councils Decree in this business , insincerely cited by the Bishop ; and Simancha egregiously Sophisticated . 4. Neither the Council , nor the Emperour , justly blameable in their proceedings . 5. The absurd partiality of Protestants ; imposing most unequal conditions upon the Church , while they admit not any to be impos'd on themselves . 1. MR. Fisher having in the precedent discourse briefly , yet very justly and truly , charged Protestants with the Crime of Schisme , A. C. prosecutes the matter , and undertakes to justifie and clear the Church's proceedings towards them , from such imputatitions as they usually cast upon her . To this purpose he thinks fit to minde his Adversary , that after this Breach was made , the Church of Rome did invite the Protestants publickly with Safe Conduct to Rome to a General Council , freely to speak what they could for themselves . This passage of A. C. gives the Bishop a new Theme , viz. concerning keeping Faith with Heretiques : a Theme , which ( for the most part ) our Adversaries love to dwell upon , as thinking they have some great advantage against us therein . The Relatour glosses upon A. C's . words , and tells us , this kinde Invitation was onely to bring them within our Net ; that the Conduct granted was Safe for going thither , ( viz. to Rome ) but not for coming thence ; that the Jesuits write and maintain , That Faith given is not to be kept with Heretiques ; that John Huss and Hierome of Prague were burnt for all their Safe Conduct . Thus the Bishop . Beoanus , treating this matter , very well observes , that our Adversaries in this are like the Pharisees of old , who , though they heard from our Saviours own mouth , that they should give to Caesar the things which belong to Caesar , yet had the face , openly before Pilate to accuse him of forbidding Tribute to be given to Caesar. In like manner , we do both privately and publiquely , in word and writing , teach and profess that Faith is to be kept as well with Heretiques as Catholiques , yet our Adversaries , by their clamorous accusations , seem as if they would force us to hold the contrary , whether we will or no. But before I prove that Faith hath been kept with Heretiques , even in those examples which the Bishop alledges , I observe that he himself keeps not Faith with Catholiques , ( at least in his Citations ) otherwise he would not have miscited his Adversaries words : for thus he makes him speak . But A. C. goes on ( saith he ) and tells us , that after this Breach was made , yet the Church of Rome was so kinde and carefull to seek Protestants , that she invited them publiquely with Safe Conduct to Rome , to a General Council , freely to speak what they could for themselves . Whereas the words of A. C. speaking of the Church of Rome's proceeding with Protestants in this case , are onely these ; Which did AT FIRST seek to recall them from their novel Opinions , and AFTER THEIR BREACH did permit , yea invited them publiquely to Rome , to a General Council , &c. In A. C's . words rightly cited the Church of Rome is onely said to seek to recall Protestants from their novel opinions , or errours ; a thing no way liable to cavil : whereas in the Bishops allegation of the words they are so plac'd , and such words of his own added to them , as if the Church of Rome by her seeking had aim'd at nothing else , but how to entrap Protestants : when A. C. not onely meant , but said as plainly as he could , that the Church of Rome did first seek , that is , labour by all the fair means she could , to recall Protestants from their errours , even before there was any publique , or notorious breach made : and then afterwards onely ( that is , when she saw private endeavours would take no effect , but that a publique and formal Schism was made by Protestants ) invited them to a General Council . 'T is true , the Churches inviting of Protestants to a Free and Publique Disputation in a General Council , was ( in the nature of the thing ) a justifiable and lawful seeking of them ; but we say it was not the seeking of them , which A. C. both meant and exprest in this place ; and the Bishop did not well to pervert and misreport his Adversaries words , onely to finde himself matter for an injurious quibble . 2. But to the end the true Doctrine may be fully understood in this point , viz. of Keeping faith with Heretiques , and of punishing after Safe-Conduct given , 't is necessary to know , that a Safe Conduct may be granted two wayes . First jure communi , when 't is given onely against unjust violence , falvâ semper justitiâ , provided alwayes that Justice be not impeached . Secondly , jure speciali , when it secures a man against all violence whatsoever , whether just or unjust , and chiefly in that cause for which it is given . In the former manner a Safe-Conduct was granted by 〈◊〉 the Emperour to John Huss , and by the Council of Constance to Hierome of Prague . In the latter sort the Council of Trent offered Safe-Conduct to the Protestants in Germany : and A. C. tells us , the like was offered by the Roman Church to all Heretiques . No Faith therefore was broken with John Huss ; for a Safe-Conduct was onely given him jure communi , by which Justice was to remain unimpeachable ; since he was onely promis'd to be defended against unjust violence : which was perform'd . Nay he was justly burnt for two reasons . The first is , for being obstinate in his Heresie . The second , for having fled ; which the Emperour had prohibited in his Safe Conduct under pain of death . Wherefore the Emperour , if we rightly consider the matter , did not break faith with John Huss , but John Huss broke faith with the Emperour , by flying against his engagement : and seeing by his Safe-Conduct he could expect no more then to be secur'd against unjust violence , that so he might be brought to a legal Trial , this being made good to him , and he legally convicted of Heresie , he might ( questionless ) be punish'd according to Law , without any breach of faith given by his Safe-Conduct . Hierome of Prague indeed at first abjur'd his Heresie , but falling afterwards into a Relapse , and flying ( as John Huss had done ) was taken and burnt : by which it appears , that faith was also kept with him . For the Safe Conduct granted him by the Council had this express Clause in it , Salvâ semper justitiâ , which sufficiently intimated , that the course of Justice was to proceed against him , notwithstanding his Safe-Conduct . But had the Protestants gone to the Council of Trent , upon the Safe-Conduct granted them by that Council jure speciali , in the second manner , they could not at all have been punish'd under any pretence of Heresie , without manifest breach of Faith ; which all Catholiques hold to be unlawful . The like may be said of the Safe-Conduct offered them for going to Rome . So that his Lordships party may well be esteem'd Crasty Foxes ( to use his own Simile ) but never Wise men , to refuse so fair an offer : which ( I repeat it again , and for proof referre my Reader to the Copy of the Safe * Conduct it self ) was to defend them against all violence whatsoever , and to give them as full and free liberty of coming to and going from the Council , as could be devised , and with an express Proviso , That none of them should be punish'd for any matter , or crime , concerning Religion ; nor any kinde of Authority , or Jurisdiction , used towards them by the Council , or by any other persons with the Councils allowance , or permission , by colour of any Law , Canon , Constitution of Council , Precedent of former times , particularly not of those of the Councils of Constance and Siena . Wherefore ( to say no more ) 't is most unjustly urg'd by the Relatour , that the Conduct offer'd was not as secure for their return , as for their going thither . 3. Touching the Decree of the Council of Constance , 't is evident , the Bishop doth either ignorantly , or maliciously wrong the Council . The words of the Decree are these . Praesens Sancta Synodus — ex quovis SALVQ-CONDUCTU per Imperatorem , Reges , & alios Saeculi Principes Haereticis , vel de Haeresi diffamatis concesso , nullum Fidei Catholicae , vel Jurisdictioni Ecclesiasticae praejudicium generari , vel 〈◊〉 praestari posse , seu debere , declarat , quo minùs dicto . SALVO CONDUCTU non obstante , liceat 〈◊〉 competenti & Ecclesiastico de hujusmodi personarum erroribus inquirere , & aliàs contra eos debitè procedere , eosdemque punire , quantum justitia suadebit , si suos errores revocare pertinacitèr recusaverint , etiamsi de SALVO-CONDUCTU confisi ad locum venerint judicii , aliàs non venturi : nec sic promittentem , cum fecerit quod in ipso est , ex hoc in aliquo remansisse obligatum . In English thus . This present Sacred Synod declareth , that by whatsoever Safe-Conduct granted by the Emperour , Kings , or other Secular Princes to Heretiques , or such as are defamed for Heresie , no prejudice can arise , no impediment can , or ought to be put to the Catholique Faith , or Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction ; but that ( notwithstanding the said Safe-Conduct ) it may be lawful for any competent and Ecclesiastical Judge to enquire into the errours of such persons , and duly other-wayes proceed against them , and punish them so far as Justice shall require , if they shall pertinaciously refuse to revoke their errours ; yea though they come to the place of judgement , relying upon such Safe-Conduct , and would not otherwise come thither : nor doth he , who so promiseth , remain obliged in any thing , having done what lies in him . By this Decree indeed the Council declares , that no Secular Power ( how Sovereign soever ) can hinder the Proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Tribunal in causes of Heresie ; for which there is great reason : and consequently , if the Emperour , or any other Secular Prince , grants a Safe-Conduct , or makes promise of any thing to the prejudice of that Jurisdiction , it shall not hold . The reason is , because 't is a promise made of a thing not pertaining to the Jurisdiction of that Prince , nor wholly in his power to see perform'd . But the Council no where teaches , that Faith , or Safe-Conduct given in Temporal causes properly pertaining to the Princes Jurisdiction , is not to be kept by all , and to all persons of what condition soever , so farre as 't is possible : but rather most clearly insinuates the contrary , in the last clause of this Decree ; where 't is said , That he who so promiseth , shall not remain obliged in any thing , having done what lieth in him . What , I pray , doth this signifie ? Nothing else , but that even in the sense and intention of the Council it self , the person that promises or grants Safe-Conduct in cases not proper for him , is yet in conscience bound to do what lieth in him , that his said promise , or Safe-Conduct , may take effect , and that otherwise manet in aliquo obligatus , he is not altogether free of the Breach of Faith. Had the Relatour therefore not mangled the words of this Council , ( to deceive the Reader ) but set down the Decree fairly and fully as it is , the business had been so clear , that it would scarce have admitted any dispute . Neither could John Huss , being a learned man , a Doctour of Divinity , and writer of some Volumes , be ignorant what the force of a Safe Conduct was , granted by a Secular Prince in a matter so clearly appertaining to Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction ; or not know the difference between a Safe Conduct given jure communi onely , with the clause salvâ justitiâ , and one granted jure speciali . Wherefore the Bishop hath little ground to averre , that he was deceiv'd by the Emperour in this . But put case John Huss were ignorant both of the one and the other , it was his own fault , and could be no impediment to the proceedings of Ecclesiastical Discipline and Justice against him . His Lordship has no better success in the allegation of Simancha , whom he wrongfully cites , as holding absolutely and universally , that Faith is not to be kept with Heretiques ; whereas he teaches it onely in cases , wherein that which is promis'd cannot be lawfully perform'd : And this were as well true , if the promise were made to Catholiques . For as it was unlawful first so to promise , so it is more unlawful to perform such a promise . Hence it is that Simancha hath these words , Veruntamen ( ut Marius Solomonius ait ) promissa contra Christum fides , si praestetur , utique perfidia est . If faith be given against Christ , that is , to the dishonour of God , or contrary to the precepts of true Religion , it were perfidiousness to observe it . Wherefore Simancha's meaning is clearly this , that no private man can be obliged , by vertue of any promise , more to countenance and protect an Heretique , contrary to the law , then he can be oblig'd to do the same to High-way men , or Pyrats ; because such a promise being against the publique good , and forbidden by the law , ( as 't is in Spain , where Simancha wrote , and where the Law strictly obliges all persons to detect Heretiques , as much as it doth Felons and Murtherers ) cannot be observed without sin . Which meaning of his is also further confirm'd , by what he writes afterward , Si tamen fides Haereticis data est à Principe , vel publicâ Potestate , exactè servanda est , &c. But ( saith he ) if Faith be given to Heretiques by the Prince , or by those that have Publique Authority , it must be exactly observed , save onely , when the thing promised is against the Law of God or of Nature . By which it appears , how insincere , or unadvised , the Bishop was in quoting this Author . Nor deals he any better with the Jesuits ; they are likewise accus'd ( in general ) to teach , that Faith given is not to be kept with Heretiques , whereas neither himself , nor all his gang , are able to name one of them for that opinion . 4. But ( if you please ) let us take yet a Turn or two with his Lordship in this part of his Labyrinth . First , John Huss ( sayes he ) and Hierome of Prague were burnt for all their Safe-Conduct ; by which manner of speaking he seems to insinuate , that both their Safe-Conducts were granted jure speciali , viz. to preserve them not onely from unjust violence , but even from process and execution of Justice : which , in that of Hierome of Prague is apparently false ; for the clause Salvâ tamen justitiâ is expresly inserted in it : and till our Adversaries have prov'd the contrary , we must suppose that the like , and no other , was granted to Huss . Secondly , he takes for granted that publique Faith was violated in the persons of those two Delinquents ; which , in relation to Hierome of Prague is notoriously false ; the Council observing most punctually towards him whatever it promised : and for Huss , it promised him no security at all . If what the Emperour promis'd him , were jure speciali , ( which our Adversaries cannot prove ) yet being granted by a Secular Prince in a cause so clearly Ecclesiastical and Spiritual , we have said above , it could not impede the proceeding of that Supreme Ecclesiastical Tribunal : If it were jure communi onely ; to an obstinate Heretique ( as he was ) it signified nothing . But , all men know ( sayes he ) that the Emperour was us'd by the Fathers of the Council to bring Huss thither : which he pretends to prove by a Latin Authority of I know not whom ; for he cites onely Edit . in 16o. and afterwards , ibid. leaving us to guess who his Authour should be : But we will shew his Lordship all the respect we can , and suppose he meant to cite some Authour of Credit . What doth he say ? onely this . Sigismundus Hussum Constantiam vocat , & missis literis , publicâ side cavet . Which no way intimates whether it were done by the Councils instigation , or meerly of his own motion . How then can his Lordship hence prove , any secret Compact between the Emperour and the Council , or any underhand dealing of the Council , by the Emperours means , to bring Huss within their power , by his relying upon an unsufficient caution ? The Bishops Dilemma therefore is easily solv'd , who argues thus . If the Fathers did it in cunning , that the Emperour should give Safe Conduct , which themselves meant not to keep , then they broke Faith. If the Emperour knew they would not keep it , then he himself broke Faith , in giving a Safe Conduct , which he knew to be invalid . This is his Argument . But I answer . Neither did the Council use any such deceitful practice with the Emperour : nor did the Emperour give Huss any Security , but what he thought might be good and effectual ; yea , he did make the Security good , at least to the utmost of his power , that is , so farre as in such a case it either beseem'd or concern'd him to do . We have already told his Lordship , that the Council onely declar'd , that when promise is made by Secular Power to the prejudice of Ecclesiastical Proceedings in causes of Heresie , it is not of force . This is the whole intent of the Council ; and the Relatour is much to blame , for imperfectly citing the Decree , with so many & c's . to dazzle the eyes of his Reader , and make him believe what he pleases . Whereas that which the Council ordains , is not onely of most undeniable right in regard of the Church , but also of evident necessity . For if Temporal Princes may claim a Power , by their Safe-Conducts , or other promises made to Heretiques , to impede and frustrate the Churches lawful and Canonical proceedings in such causes , what will become of Ecclesiastical Authority , Immunity , Liberty , &c. Every Heretique or Sectary , how turbulent and seditious soever , if he can but procure a Safe Conduct , or the word of some Temporal Prince for his Security , shall be exempt from Censure , may preach , write , spread Heresie without check , or controul . Wherefore the Council sayes no more in effect , then is in it self evident , viz. that an inseriour Tribunal cannot hinder the proceedings of a superiour . But enough of this matter . To his Lordships Question , why they should go to Rome to a General Council , and have their freedom of speech , since the Church of Rome is resolved to alter nothing , I answer , Protestants were never invited to a General Council at Rome , to reform the Church , ( that 's a work , to which they can pretend no competent Authoriy ) but they were invited thither to be better instructed , and reclaimed from their errours . The Roman Church is sufficiently authoriz'd by Saint Paul , viz. that though an Angel from heaven should teach otherwayes then shee had taught , he ought not to be believ'd . In like manner the Fathers in the Council of Trent might with good reason be resolv'd firmly to stick to the Doctrine , they had formerly been taught by the Catholique Church , notwithstanding any pretended difficulties , or objections , brought against it , either by Bishops or any other person . 5. His Lordship goes on , and blames both A. C. and F. Campian too , for their boldness , in saying , that no good answer can be given by English Protestants , why they refuse to grant a publique Disputation to Catholicks . The Bishop thinks it a very good Answer , to say , that the Church of England hath no reason to admit of a publique Dispute with us , till we be able to shew it under the Seal , and Powers of Rome , that the Roman Church will submit to a Third , who may be an indifferent Judge between Catholicks and Protestants , or to such a General Council , as is after mentioned . But I would fain know , who this Third , indifferent Judge , should be . If he prove an Heretique , or Schismatique , he will hardly be found indifferent : 't is to be fear'd , he will be partial in the cause . Perchance , he shall be some Atheist , Turk , or Jew : Judges fitly chosen , ( indeed ) to sit upon the Church of God. But would his Lordship ( think you ) have taken it for a satisfactory Answer , if some Brownist , or other Sectary in his time ( upon his Lordships vouchsafing to dispute with them , in hope to reduce them to union and obedience ) should have answered , we will admit a Dispute , provided your Lordship , and the rest of your Prelatical Church of England , will accept of a Third , to be Judge between you and us ? might not the Arrians , ( or any other Ancient Heretiques ) have as well required a Third , to judge between them and Catholiques in Controversies , wherein they differed ? Yea , may not every known Rebel , upon the like pretense , demand a Third , to be Judge between him and the King his Sovereign , and in case of refusal , remain obstinate in his rebellion , even as well as the Protestants do persist in their spiritual Disloyalty to the Vicar of Christ , because a Third person is not accepted to be Judge between him and them ? To what he intimates of a General Council , we say , if it be a lawful one , viz. call'd and approv'd , by the Pope as Head of the Church ( as all lawful General Councils hitherto have been ) we shall never refuse to submit to it , but heartily wish , that all the Relatours party would do the same . CHAP. 13. Protestants , no part of the Church . ARGUMENT . 1. How the Separation of Protestants from the Church was made . 2. Whether the Roman-Catholiques , or They , do imitate the Ten Tribes . 3. The Roman Doctrin concerning the Holy Ghosts Proceeding , &c. more antient then the Bishop pretends . 4. In what cases , Particular Churches may declare Articles of Faith. 5. The word Filioque when added to the Creed ; and why . 6. No Particular Church hath power to reform , what is universally taught and receiv'd . 7. The Protestants Synod at London 1562. neither General , nor Free. 8. Gerson , and all his other proofs , fail the Bishop . 9. Protestants never yet had either true Church , or Council . 1. WE are again told , that Protestants did not depart from the Church of Rome , but were thrust out by her without cause . What the cause of their expulsion was we have already declar'd , and shall not refuse here again briefly to repeat . It was , because by their Heretical doctrine and Schismatical proceedings they had first separated themselves from the Church , and became both unworthy and uncapable ( any longer ) of her Communion . They had raised a new , Separate , and mutinous Faction of pretended Christians , distinct from the one , Catholique , or general , Body of the Church ; They had chosen to themselves new Pastors , independent of any ordinary and lawful Pastours of Christs Church , that were before them . They had instituted new Rites and Ceremonies of religion , fram'd new Liturgies , or Forms of Divine Service ; They had schismatically conven'd in several Synods , or Conventicles , and there broacht new Heretical Confessions of Faith , contrary , not only to the true Catholique Faith , but to the Faith of all particular Churches what ever , existent in the world immediately before they began . Thus , Protestants of themselves first departed from the Churches Doctrine and Communion ; and persisting obstinate in their evil opinions and practises , the Church was forc'd to proceed against them according to the Canons , and by just censure cast them out of her bosom ; lest otherwise by their scandalons division , high disobedience , and pestilent doctrine they might further infect the Flock of Christ , which was committed to her charge . The Bishop denies he ever granted , that Protestants did first depart , otherwise than he had before expressed , § . 21. num . 6. But that is enough : he there acknowledges that an actual separation ( at least ) was made by Protestants : and A. C. here asserts no more . Whether this actual separation were upon a just cause preceding ( as the Relatour pretends ) is a thing to be disputed between A. C. and him : although indeed it be of it self clear enough to any who duly considers it , that Protestants neither had , nor could have , any just cause for such a Separation , as A. C. pag. 55 , 56. and all Catholiques do charge them with . For it was a Separation not onely from the Church of Rome , but ( as Calvin himself , Epist. 14. confesses ) à toto mundo , from the whole Christian world : and such a Separation necessarily involves separation from the True Catholique Church ; from which , as it hath been often urg'd already , even by the confession of Protestants themselves , 't is impossible there should ever be just cause to separate . The Bishop grants , that Corruption in manners onely is no just cause to make a separation from the Church of God , yet cannot forbear to have a fling at the corrupt manners of the Church of Rome , quoting for that purpose Dr. Stapleton . But I wonder our Adversaries take notice of such things . Are they themselves without blame ? Is there no corruption of manners amongst them ? Surely yes ; but passion blindes them , and they are like those who being brought into a most pleasant garden , richly beautified with variety of usefull herbs and odoriferous flowers , should pass over all this , and onely entertain themselves with looking upon some few weeds , which their curious or rather malicious eyes had there spy'd . For they take no notice of the Sanctity and Good life , perspicuous in very many both of the Clergy and Laiety , in the Roman Church . They will not see the great variety of Religious Orders , wherewith the garment of the Church is , as it were , embroidered , ( Astitit Regina à dextris tuis in vestitu deaurato , circumdata varietate , Psal. 44. ver . 10. ) in which so many thousands of both Sexes tye themselves to the Service of God by perpetual Vowes , never to be dissolv'd by their own seeking ; praying , and singing divine Hymnes day and night ; which is a strange unheard of thing amongst Protestants . They tell us of many Popes that have been wicked ; but they never mention , how many of them have been ( undeniably ) men of most holy life and Saint-like conversation ; I mean , not onely those of the Primitive and golden ages , ( wherein no less then thirty ( or more ) successively one after another , for three hundred years together and upwards , were either Martyrs , or glorious Confessors , for the Christian Faith ) but even of late , and in this our Iron Age. The discovery of some few motes darkens not the brightness of the Sun-shine . What if some few Catholique Authors are of opinion , that some of the Popes , as private Doctours , have fallen into Heresie ; though Bellarmin and others deny it , and rather shew the contrary ? What if some others have fallen into other foul Crimes ? was there not , even in the Colledge of the Apostles , one that deny'd , and another that betray'd his Master ? Besides , it may be worth the noting , that amongst Catholiques , though Sins be committed , yet they are seldome maintained ; they are not defended , nor justified as Good Works : whereas among Protestants Darkness it self is called Light , and the greatest of all Sins , viz. Heresie , Scisme , Sacriledge , Rebellion , &c. together with all the bad spawn they leave behinde them , are cry'd up for perfect vertue , zeal , godly Reformation , and what not ? Let our Adversaries therefore still bark , they shall never hinder Sanctity of life from being a mark of the True , that is , of the Roman Church : though our chief quarrel with them for the present , be for endeavouring to brand her with Doctrinal errours ; upon which account they both separate from her Communion , and attempt that horrid work of their deformed Reformation . But in vain do they attempt to reform the Church , of what she can never be guilty . They ought rather to reform themselves , and disclaim those errours , which with Heretical and Schismatical obstinacy they have so long maintain'd against her . 2. But I return to his Lordship , who grounding himself upon the Separation of the ten Tribes , averres , that a particular Church may reform it self . But whether or no , or how this may be done , I referre my Reader to what shall be said hereafter . For the present I onely note , that his Lordship goes upon false grounds . Thus he discourses . Was it not lawful ( sayes he ) for Juda to reform her self , when Israel would not joyn ? Sure it was . First , by this Rhetorical Interrogation and answer he supposes that Juda reform'd her self ; which is false . For Juda being the Orthodox Church , united with her Head , the High Priest , and not tainted with any Doctrinal errours , what need , I pray , was there of her reformation ? His Text out of Osee a , Though Israel transgress , yet let not Juda sin , by which he endeavours to prove that Juda reform'd her self , is rather against , then for him ; because in any indifferent mans judgement these words , Though Israel trangress , yet at least let not Juda sin , have rather this sense , Let not Juda at least fall into Schisme , though Israel does , then the sense following , Let Juda reform her self . Secondly , he supposes that Juda is the Protestant party ; which is also false . For if you be Juda , who , I pray , are the revolted Ten Tribes ? who are of Jeroboams Cabal ? But let us see what a pretty Parallel there is between Juda and you . Juda remain'd in Jerusalem : you left the Catholique Jerusalem , that is Rome , the City of peace , in whose bosom you were brought up . Juda never went to Dan nor Bethel , never made Priests of Baal , never adored golden Calves . You made new Synagogues , to which you resorted ; new and unheard of b Priests , without Altar , or Sacrifice ; and all this by your own authority . Juda was still united with her Spiritual Head , the High-Priest of Jerusalem ; nay with her Temporal Head also , King Roboam : you revolted first from your Spiritual Head , the Pope of Rome , and afterwards cast off also your Loyalty due to Temporal Princes ; as appears in the lamentable Rebellions heretofore in Germany , the Low Countreys , and France . Is not his Lordships Parallel then between Juda and the Protestant party very pat , and much to the purpose ? He would have had far better success , had he compar'd his Schismatical party with the ten revolted Tribes of Israel : for this Parallel comes very home , not only in respect of the people misled , but also in regard of the misleaders , even in England . Jeroboam had no title at all to the Crown of Israel . Queen Elizabeth was declar'd Illègitimate and uncapable to inherit her Fathers Crown by Act of Parliament . Jeroboam out of ungodly Policy , the better to secure his usurp'd Crown , caused the ten Tribes to desert the old and true religion of Juda , which they had ever since their being Gods people , most constantly and universally professed . Queen Elizabeth more out of Policy and Reason of State , then of Conscience , to fasten the Crown of England upon her head , made a Schisme from the Romane Church , abolished the Catholique and True Religion ( which had been professed in England for so many hundred years before ) purposely to ingratiate her self with the common people , which easily inclines to all licentiousness , and utterly disable that party from ever prevailing afterward in Parliament , which formerly had voted against her . Jeroboam , to the end his rebellious party might never return to Jerusalem , and be united with the High-Priest in the true religion , set up a new Synagogue , new Priests , new Sacrifices and new Ceremonies . Queen Elizabeth , to the end her Schismatical party might never piece again with their Spirituall Head , the Pope of Rome , set on foot a new Church , new Bishops , new Pastours , new Liturgies , and new Ceremonies . In fine , Jeroboam stretcht forth his hand against the true Prophet of Juda , and commanded him to be apprehended . Queen Elizabeth stretcht forth her hand not against one onely , but all Priests and all Catholiques ; witness the bloody persecution rais'd against them in her dayes ; when it was made Treason for Priests to come into England , to exercise any Priestly Function , to have any commerce with Rome ; and a capital crime even to hear Mass , or but harbour a Priest. And what I pray , is true piety in Gods sight , if all these be capital offences ? But enough of this Parallel . His Lordship , even during the Schisme of Jeroboam , will yet needs have Israel a True Church . But I answer , They were no true Church , because they rejected the Authority of the High Priest , refused to communicate in the Sacrifices and Worship of God at Jerusalem , and adored the golden Calves of Jeroboam . 'T is true , there were many holy persons , inhabitants of the same Countrey with the rest , who kept themselves undefiled from those Idolatries and Divisions ; who though they were not ( perhaps ) suffered to go up to Jerusalem to worship , yet never consented to go to Dan or Bethel . These we acknowledge , remained parts of the True Church , notwithstanding the Schisme ; as many Catholiques do now continue true members of the Roman Church , though living dispersedly in Heretical Countreys . And the Prophets who were amongst them , were also a part of the True Church at Jerusalem ; for which reason , for the most part the Kings of Israel persecuted them , as Catholiques also now are commonly persecuted by Heathen , Mahumetan , and Heretical Princes . The having-Prophets therefore among them argues the Ten Tribes no more to be parts of the true Church , then it would argue the Protestants in Holland to be parts of the Roman Church , if some Roman Catholique should be found among them having the spirit of Prophesie . But his Lordship will prove by some Texts of Scripture , that the ten Tribes continued a Church , notwithstanding their Schisme and Idolatry . But to that of 〈◊〉 9. 17. I answer first , this Prophet prophesied both against Juda and Israel ; and the word Israel being an Appellative , common to all the seed of Jacob , 't is not certain , he alwayes means by it the ten Schismatical Tribes onely , and not sometimes the Tribe of Juda also . Secondly I say , the Relatours Gloss addes to the Text. God doth not there threaten to cast Israel away in non Ecclesiam , as the Bishop speaks , that is , to un-church them , as if ( forsooth ) before that threatning they had been a true Church : this is the Relatours own voluntary addition , or fiction rather ; but he threatens , simply to deprive them of his wonted protection , to deliver them into their enemies hands , and ( as the very next words shew ) to make them wanderers among the Nations , that should take them captive . To that of 4. Reg. 9. 6. where they are called the people of the Lord , I answer , in a general sense all Abrahams seed according to the flesh are styled the people of God , by reason of that promise of God made to Abraham , Gen. 18. I will be a God to thee , and to thy seed after thee ; but Abraham's seed only according to the spirit , that is , the faithful , make the True Church . To his last Argument , ( which he advanceth as ad hominem ) that Multitude is a note of the Church . I answer , we do not contend that of Christians the greater multitude is an infallible mark of the true Church . There was a time when the Arrians were reported to be more numerous then the Orthodox . 3. The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son as well as from the Father , was a Truth alwayes acknowledg'd in the Church of God , and receiv'd in General Councils , long before the Controversie touching that point arose between the Latins and the Greeks . Witness that Epistle of St. Cyril , Patriarch of Alexandria , which he wrote ( as Bellarmin tells us ) from the Council of Alexandria to that of Ephesus , wherein are these words , Spiritus appellatus est veritatis ; & veritas Christus est : unde & ab isto similiter , sicut & ex Patre procedit . The Holy Ghost ( saith he ) is called the Spirit of Truth , and Christ is the Truth ; whence follows that he proceeds as well from him , as from the Father . Thus he . Now this Epistle of St. Cyril and the Council of Alexandria , as Bellarmin likewise shews , was receiv'd not only by the Council of Ephesus , which was about the year of our Lord 434. but also by four other General Councils held in Greece it self : and consequently the Doctrine of the Holy Ghosts Procession , was a Truth so anciently known in the Church , that it could not well seem a novelty to any , when the express confession of it came to be more frequent and publick in the Latin Church . It matters not much , in what capacity it was promulgated by the Church of Rome , whether as a particular Church , as the Bishop contends , or as Head of the Church Universal , as we think . For either way , it could not but be very lawful for that Church to do it : nor can it help his Lordships cause , which way foever it was done . For supppose a particular Church may ( in some case ) promulgate an Orthodox Truth , not as yet Catholiquely receiv'd or defined by the whole Church ; doth it thence follow that a particular Church ( or Churches ) may repeal and reverse any thing that the whole Church hath already Catholickly and Definitively received ? Surely no. Yet this is his Lordships , and the Protestants case . 4. Hence the Relatours egregious Fallacy is manifest , while from the adding of a Word onely , by some particular Church for Explication of a known , ancient , and generally received b Truth , ( such as was the Procession of the Holy Ghost both from the Father and Son ) he pretends to inferre both these Propositions , viz. That a particular Church may publish any thing that is Catholick , where the whole Church is silent ; and that a particular Church may reform any thing that is not Catholique , where the whole Church is negligent , or will not . For though the former of these Propositions be not so enormious as the latter , because it supposes not any actual errour , contrary to Catholique Doctrine , to be maintained by the whole Church , but onely a Non declaration , or , at most , some negligence to promulgate a Catholick Truth , whereas the other supposes errour , of something uncatholick , to be taught or admitted by the whole Church ; yet are they both utterly Paradoxical and False , and no way to be inferr'd from the example , or practise of the Roman Church in declaring the Holy Ghosts Proceeding from the Son : for that was of a point anciently and generally received in the Church . Much 〈◊〉 can it justifie the Protestants proceedings ; whose Declarations , Promulgations , Confessions , or what ever you will call them , made upon their several pretended reformations , were onely of new and unheard of Doctrines , directly contrary to what the Catholick Church universally held and taught before them for Catholique Truths . For about the year of our Lord 1517. when their pretended Reformations began , was not the Real Presence of our Saviours Body and Blood in the Eucharist , by a true substantial change of Bread and Wine , generally held by the whole Church ? Was not the Real Sacrifice of the Mass then generally believ'd ? Was not Veneration of Holy Images , Invocation of Saints , Purgatory , Praying for the Dead that they might be eased of their pains , and receive the full remission of their sins , generally used and practis'd by all Christians ? Was not Freewill , 〈◊〉 of good Works , and Justification by Charity , or Inherent Grace , and not by Faith onely , universally taught and believ'd in all Churches of Christendom ? Yea even among those who in some few other points dissented from the Pope and the Latin Church ? To what purpose then doth the Bishop urge , that a particular Church may publish any thing , that is Catholique ? this doth not justifie at all his reformation : he should prove , that it may not onely adde , but take away something that is Catholique from the doctrine of the Church : for this the pretended Reformers did , as well in England , as elsewhere . 5. It is not a thing so evident in Antiquity , when or where the word Filioque was added to the Creed , that his Lordship should so so easily take it for granted ( without proof ) that the Roman Church added it , in quality of a particular Church . All that can be gathered from Authours ( so far as I can yet learn ) concerning this point is , that in the Councils of Toledo and Luca assembled against the Hereticks call'd Priscillianists , the word is found inserted in the Creed ; which is suppos'd to have been done upon the Authority of an Epistle they had receiv'd from Pope Leo the first , wherein he affirms the Procession of the Holy Ghost to be both from the Father and Son. I confess a Hugo Eterianus , in his Book written upon this Subject about the year 1100 , affirms that it was added by the Pope in a full Council at Rome : but he names not the Pope . Whether it were , because in his time 't was generally known what Pope it was , I cannot certainly say : but of this I am sure , that by reason of his silence , we now know not with any certainty whom he meant . b Card. Perron directly affirms , that it was first added by an Assembly of French Bishops . But perhaps that may be more probable which Stanislaus Socolovius tells us , in his Latin Translation of the Answer of Hieremias Patriarch of Constantinople to the Lutherans , pag. 8. viz. that the Fathers of the first Council at Constantinople ; ( which is the second General ) sending the Confession of their Faith to Pope Damasus and his Council at Rome , the Pope and Council at Rome approv'd of their said Confession , but yet added , by way of explication , the word Filioque to the Article which concern'd the Holy Ghost ; and this they did , to signifie that the Holy Ghost , as True God proceeded from the Son , and was not made or created by him , as some Heretiques in those times began to teach . Neither doth he affirm this without citation of some credible Authority : adding withall , that this Definition , or Declaration of the Pope , was for some hundreds of years generally admitted and embrac'd by the whole Church , neither Greeks nor Latins dissenting , or taking any exception at the word Filioque , till about the time of the Eighth Synod ; where the Greeks first began publiquely to cavil against it , more out of pride and peevish emulation against the Latins , then for any urgent Reasons , they had to contest it more then their predecessours before them . But of this I need not contend further with his Lordship . 6. To return therefore to our business of Reformation , we grant in effect as great power , as the Bishop himself does , to particular Churches , to National and Provincial Councils , in reforming errours and abuses either of doctrine or practice onely we require , that they proceed with due respect to the chief Pastour of the Church , and have recourse to him in all matters and decrees of Faith , especially when they define , or declare , points not generally known and acknowledg'd to be Catholique Truths . For this even Capellus himself , by the Relatour here cited , requires : and the practise of the Church is evident for it , in the examples of the Milevitan and Carthaginian Councils , which as St. Austin a witnesses , sent their decrees touching Grace , Original Sin in Infants , and other matters against Pelagius , to be confirm'd by the Pope : who was not esteem'd by St. Austin and those Fathers , the Disease of the Church , ( a tearm very unhandsome from an inferiour ) but rather the Physician of it , to whose Care and Government it was committed . Neither do I think it convenient , to stay for a General Council , when the errours and abuses to be redressed are such , as call for speedy remedy , and threaten greater mischief , if they be not timely prevented . When the Gangrene endangers life , we do well to betake our selves to the next Chyrurgeon , that is , a Provincial Council : This in such a case , with the Popes assistance , is acknowledg'd a Physician competent , and able to apply all due remedy to the Churches infirmities : although I confess the most proper Expedient , specially for all matters that concern the Church in general , is an Oecumenical Council . Such as the Council of Trent was ; whatever the Bishop ( without any reason given ) sayes to the contrary : nor can any thing be objected against it , which upon due examination will not be found as easily applyable to all other approved Councils , which the Church hath yet had : so that by disowning this , we should in effect disown all others . But suppose it had not been General ; yet sure it was for Number , Learning , and Authority , far surpassing any National Council , or Synod , which the Protestants , either of England or any other Nation ever had . Wherefore , if their Assemblies , or Synods , so inconsiderable as they were , are yet esteem'd of sufficient Authority to make reformation in matters of Faith , and correct what doctrine they imagin'd erroneous in the Catholique Church , shall not the Council of Trent be as sufficient to assure us , that the said pretended errours are indeed no errours at all , but Divine Truths , and the perpetual universally receiv'd Traditions of Christs Church . 7. But it is yet more strange , that our Adversary should also object want of Freedom to this Council ; seeing that even by the relation of their own partial and malevolent a Historian , it sufficiently appears , that neither the Prelates wanted full liberty of Suffrage , nor the Divines of Disputation , and maintaining their several assertions in the best manner they could . His Lordship had done well to have lookt nearer home , and consider'd how matters were carried in England , much about that time . If the Council of Trent were not a free Council , what was that Protestant Synod of London , Anno 1562. in which the thirty nine Articles , that is , the summe of the Protestant Faith and Religion in England , were fram'd ? Was that a Free Synod ? First , at Trent all the Prelates in Christendome , that could be invited and were concern'd in the Resolutions of that Council , being solemnly call'd , did come , and assist ( either in their persons or proxies ) both at the Deliberations , and Determinations of the Assembly . I adde , that the Protestants themselves were likewise invited , with full security to come and go , if they had pleas'd ; but of this we have spoken already . Whereas at London , to that Synod of English Protestants , not one of the lawfull English Prelates were call'd , or permitted to come ; who yet of all others were most concern'd and ought to have been there present , as well by reason of their Authority and Function , as of their just interest . What speak I of the Prelates ? not so much as one of the English Catholiques ( how numerous soever they were at that time ) were call'd to that Assembly , but all ( both Pastours and people ) were condemn'd together , without being heard , or allow'd to speak one word for themselves . At Trent there were no Bishops illegally depriv'd of their Bishopricks , purposely to cashier their Votes in Council , nor any others included into their places , contrary to the Canons of the Church , purposely to vote down the said Churches established Doctrine and Canons . In England it is notorious , that all the lawful Prelates of that Nation were most illegally and arbitrarily depriv'd of their Bishopricks , for no other end , but to evacuate their Authority in the Nation ; and Lay-Bishops thrust into their places , purposely to vote down and abolish Catholique Religion by some colour of Authority , and seigned shew of a pretended Ecclesiastical Synod . At Trent nothing had been done , or was done , in matter of Religion , by the Pope or any other person , in way of Determination , or New Decree , but by and upon the most unanimous and general resolutions of that Council . In England ( 't is too notorious to be deny'd ) Religion was already chang'd by the Queen and a few meer-lay-persons in Parliament , ( scarce enough to make a legal vote , had the matter been proper for them ) and this Synod of London call'd apparently not to debate matters of Religion , as they ought to be debated in a Free Ecclesiastical Synod , but to serve designs , and to boulster up by their pretended , titular , and usurp'd Authority , what before-hand had most Uncanonically been resolv'd upon by the State. This his Lordship should have a little reflected on , when he objected want of Freedom to the Council of Trent . But it seems , he could more easily see a Mote in another man's eye , then a Beam in his own . 8. Our desire is not , that any man should rather be blinde , then open his owneyes : God forbid ! we would have him onely clear them , to see that Catholiques approve of National , Provincial , and also Diocesan Synods , and onely disapprove of such Assemblies , as Convene and Act contrary to the Canons , in opposition to the chief Pastour of the Church , universally receiv'd Doctrines , and General Councils . The Bishop therefore might very well have spar'd his pains of proving so industriously , that many Reformations have been made by particular Councils : for who denyes it ? Bellarmin a had sufficiently shew'd it already ; who also observes out of St. Austin , that for the Defining of easie things 't is not convenient to trouble all Christian Provinces . b Non omnis Haeresis est talis , ut propter eam debeant vexari omnes provinciae . We deny not , but matters of less moment such as concern Rites and Ceremonies onely , or Abuses in Manners and Discipline , may be reform'd by particular Councils , and that without asking express leave of the Pope : for who knows not , that the Discipline of the Church allows this ? Who knows not , that the Pope is so far from being a hinderance to such Assemblies , that it is no small part of his Apostolical vigilancy for the good of the Church , to encourage and stir up the Bishops of other Nations and Provinces to the frequent holding of them ? But we affirm that in matters of greater moment , which concern the Faith and publique Doctrine of the Church , Sacraments , and whatever else is of Divine Institution , or universal obligation , particular Councils ( if they duly proceed ) attempt nothing without recourse to the Sea Apostolique , and the Popes consent either expresly granted , or justly presum'd . The Bishop indeed all along pretends the contrary , viz. that National and Provincial Councils did reform in matters of Faith and Doctrine , both without and against the Popes consent : and it concerns him so to do ; for without this granted , his Lordship knew well enough , it would be impossible for him to justifie the pretended Reformation of his English Church . But let us examine his proofs . First , Gerson c speaks nothing expresly touching matters of Faith , but onely , that he would have all the States ( or Degrees ) of the Church reform'd ; which may be understood as well of personal abuses or corruption in Manners and Discipline , as in matters of Faith : Besides writing his first-alledg'd Treatise upon this subject de Concilio unius obedientiae , and pleading hard for such a General Council , as should acknowledge one Head , 't is manifest he allow'd of no Schismatical Reformations , nor any thing to be done in that kinde , contrary to the Authority and good liking of the Churches Head. Secondly , the Bishop cites Concilium Romanum sub Sylvestro ; but here the very title confutes his pretence : for the Council was held sub Sylvestro , under the Pope ; therefore not without , or against him . And at the Council of Gangres , Osius was Popes Sylvesters Legate , and the Canons of this Council , as Pope Symmachus , related by Baronius , affirms , were enacted by the Authority of the Sea Apostolique . His third proof is Concilium Carthiginense primum , which was indeed assembled by Gratus Bishop of Carthage , but no new Article Defined in it ; onely the perpetual Tradition of the Church , touching Non-rebaptization , was confirm'd therein , having been defined long before by sundry Popes , and also by the Council of Nice . For this Council therefore of Carthage no man can be so hardy as to deny , but that the Popes consent , if it were not expresly had , yet might be justly presum'd . In the Synod of Aquileia ( which is his fourth proof ) the Bishop himself findes nothing , but only that Palladius and Secundinus were therein condemn'd for embracing the Arian Heresie : which having been already condemn'd by the Council of Nice , and St. Ambrose with other Bishops of Italy being present at Aquileia , who can doubt , but every thing was there done by the Popes Authority and consent ? His fifth proof is the second , otherwise call'd the third , Council of Carthage ; which was so far from being held against the Popes consent , that in the forty eighth Canon 't is expresly resolv'd by the Council , to consult Pope Syricius concerning the matter of that Decree . His sixth proof is the Council of Milevis in Africa , condemning the Heresie of Pelagius . But was not ( I pray ) the Sea Apostolique consulted in that grand affair ? Sure it was . St. Austin above cited will avouch as much . His seventh proof , is the second Council of Aurange which was assembled by means of Felix Bishop of Rome : so far was it from being held without the Popes consent . After this comes the third Council of Toledo ; which was so devoted to the Authority of the Sea of Rome , that in Recognition thereof it decreed , that all Constitutions of Councils , and all the Synodical Epistles of the Roman Bishops should remain in their ancient force and vigour . But what sayes his Reserve , his Master-Allegation , the Fourth Council of Toledo ? just as much as the rest . It added ( sayes the Bishop ) some things to the Creed , which were not expresly deliver'd in former Creeds . So they might well do , for fuller explication of what was implicitely deliver'd before , and in opposition to Heresies already condemn'd by the whole Church . Did it adde any thing contrary to to the common Faith of the Church , or of the Sea Apostolique ? which is the question in hand , and which Protestants did in all their pretended National Pseudo-Synods ? Neither needed the Prelates to ask express leave of the Sea of Rome to convene and determine matters concerning the whole Church , provided it were done with due Subordination to the Sea Apostolique . For that thus a National Synod may proceed , the Council of Milevis a little above cited doth sufficiently declare ; which with the Authority of the Sea Apostolique concurring , condemn'd the Heresie of Pelagius . By such examples as these does our Adversary labour to justifie his Reformed English Church : Thus does he prove , that Provincial and Particular Councils may sometimes make Reformation in matters of Faith and Doctrine , without , yea against the Authority of the Apostolique Sea. Hath he not worthily acquitted himself of his Province think you ? when in all the instances he brings , there is not the least glance , or intimation of any thing done contrary to the Popes Authority , but express mention of it , and of due regard towards it . He urges again , that the Church of Rome added the word Filioque to the Creed : But can any man in his wits think it was done without and against the Popes consent ? Surely the Relatour cannot be thought here to have well minded his matter , or peradventure he perswaded himself , the multitude of his Allegations would serve to hide the impertinency of them . 9. Yet , after so many lost proofs , with a confidence as great , as if they had been all Demonstrations , he asks us the question , And if this was practis'd so often , and in so many places , why may not a National Council of the Church of England do the like ? Truly I know no reason why it may not , provided it be a True National Council , and a True Church of England , ( as those recited were true Churches and Councils ) and provided also that it do no more . But seeing ( as his following words declare ) by the Church of England , he menas the present Protestant Church there , and by National Council either that Pseudo-Synod above-mentioned in the year 1562. or some other like it , I must crave leave of his Lordship to deny his supposition , and tell him the Church of England in that sense , signifies no true Church , neither is such a National Council to be accounted a lawful Synod , duly representative of the true English Church . For is it not notorious , that the persons constituting that pretended Synod in the year 1562. were all manifest usurpers ? Is it not manifest , that they all by force intruded themselves both into the Seas of other lawful Bishops , and into the Cures of other lawful Pastours , quietly and Canonically possessed of them before their said Intrusion ? Can those be accounted a lawful National Council of England , or lawfully to represent the English Church , who never had any lawful , that is , Canonical and Just Vocation , Mission , or Jurisdiction given them to and over the English Nation ? But suppose they had been True Bishops and Pastors of the English Church , and their Assembly a lawful National Council , yet were they so far from doing the like to what the forementioned particular Churches and Councils did , that they acted directly contrary to them . Not one of those Councils condemned any point of Faith , that had been generally believ'd and practis'd in the Church before them , as this Synod of London did : Not one of them contradicted the doctrine of the Roman Church , as this did : None of them convened against the express will of the Bishop of Rome , as this Conventicle did . None of them deny'd the Popes Authority , or attempted to deprive him of it , as these did , so far as 't was in their power . What Parallel then is there between the proceedings of the abovesaid National Synods , or Councils , of Rome , Gangres , Carthage , Aquileia , &c. and the Bishops pretended Synod of Protestants at London in the year 1562. What the Bishops in King Henry the eighths time did , is known and confess'd , not only by Bishop Gardiner afterward in Queen Maries reign , ( who was the learnedst Prelat then in England ) but even by Protestant Authors , to have been extorted from them rather by threats & force , then otherwise , and consequently can be of no great advantage to the Bishop . And yet what they subscrib'd was far out-done by the Synod of 62. For though the Henry-Bishops ( as we may call them for distinction ) seemingly at least renounced the Popes Canonical and acquired Jurisdiction here in England , I mean , that Authority and Jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical matters , which the Pope exercis'd here by vertue of the Canons , Prescription , and other title of humane Right , and gave it to the King , yet they never renounc'd , or depriv'd him of that part of his Authority , which is far more intrinsecal to his office and absolutely of Divine Right ; they never deny'd the Popes Sovereign Power to teach the universal Church , and determine all Controversies of Faith whatsoever with a General Council : nor did they dissent from him in any of those points of Faith , which that Synod of London condemned in the year 1562. That which the King aim'd at , was to get the Power into his hands , and to have those Authorities , Prerogatives , Immunities annexed to his Crown , which the Pope enjoyed , and had exercised here in England time out minde , in Ecclesiastical Causes , that is , in the Goverment and Discipline of the English Church ; and to this the Bishops yielded : but what concern'd the Popes Authority in relation to the whole Catholique Church , for ought appears clearly to the contrary , both the Bishops and the King too , left the Pope in possession of all that he could rightly challenge . I have no more to say to this part of his Paragraph ; onely I observe , that though his Lordship will not acknowledge Heresie or 〈◊〉 to have had place in his pretended Reformation , yet he does not deny but Sacriledge too often reforms Superstition ; which yet he is ready to excuse , telling us it was the Crime of the Reformers , not of the Reformation . But we ask , What induc'd those Reformers to commit Sacriledge , but the novel and impious Maximes of their Reformation ? Was it for any thing else , that they sack't and demolisht so many Monasteries and Religious Houses , alienating their Lands and Revenues , but because by the principles of Reformation they held it Superstition to be a Religious Person , or to live a Monastical life ? Was it for any thing else , that they pluckt down Altars , burnt Images , defac'd the Monuments of the Dead , brake the Church-windows , threw down Crosses , tore the Holy Vestments in pieces , &c. but because they thought them all Instruments of Idolatry and false Worship , as they tearm it ? was it for any thing else , that they possest themselves of Ecclesiastical Benefices , took upon them Spiritual Jurisdictions and Pastoral Charges , by force of Secular Power and Authority , from those that were in lawful and quiet possession of them according to the Canons of the Church , but because according to the Maximes of their new Belief , they held the old Pastours of the Church to be False Teachers , and their Function neither lawful nor of use among Christians ? 'T is clear then , that the Sacrilegious works of the Reformers , and the wicked Tenets of the Reformation , differ onely as the Tree and its Fruit : they are not altogether the same , but yet the one springs connaturally from the other ; the one begets and bears the other , as naturally , as a corrupt Tree bears bad fruit . Nor can his Lordship so easily wash his hands of the guilt , as he seems willing to do , by saying , they are long since gone to God to answer it , as if none could be involv'd in this crime , but onely the first Actors . Are the Successors then Free ? No such matter . Both the sin and the guilt too will be found entail'd upon all that succeed them in the Fruits of their Sacrilegious actings , since they have no better ground , nor title to enjoy them , then those who first acted . But I shall not prosecute this Theam any further . Neither shall I say much to his Memorandum in the end of this Paragraph , where he pretends to minde us of the General Church forced for the most part under the Government of the Roman Sea. By what force I pray ? Is it possible ? or can it enter into the judgement of any reasonable man , in good earnest to believe , that a single Bishop , of no very large Diocess ( if it reacht no further then most Protestants will have it ) should be able , by force to bring into subjection so many large Provinces of Christendom , as confessedly did acknowledge the Popes power , when the pretended Reformation began ? Force implies resistance of the contrary part , and something done against the will and good liking of the party forced . But can his Lordship shew any resistance made by any particular Church or Churches , against that Authority which the Bishop of Rome claim'd and exercis'd confessedly over all the Western Provinces of Christendom , when the Reformers first began their resistances ? Does any Classick Author of present , or precedent times mention , or complain , of any such force 〈◊〉 Rather doth not experience teach us , that , whensoever any Novellist started up and preacht any thing contrary to the Popes Authority , the Bishops of other Provinces were as ready to censure and forbid him , as the Pope himself ? Are not all Eeclesiastical Monuments full of examples in this kinde ? This therefore is as false a calumny , as any , and serves onely to lengthen the list of our Adversaries 〈◊〉 , but false Pasquils . CHAP. 14. Protestants , further convinc'd of Schisme . ARGUMENT . 1. A. C's . Parallel defended . 2. Protestants proceedings against their own eperatists justifie the Churches proceeding against them . 3. No danger in acknowledging the Church Infallible . 4. Points Fundamental , necessary to be determinately known , and why ? 5. The four places of Scripture , for the Churches Infallibility , weigh'd the second time and maintain'd . 6. Why the Church cannot teach errour in matter of Faith. 7. How she becomes Infallible , by vertue of Christs prayer for St. Peter , Luc. 22. 31. 8. The Relatours various Trippings and Windings observ'd . MR. Fisher askt his Lordship , QUO JUDICE doth it appear , that the Church of Rome hath err'd in matters of Faith ? as not thinking it equity , that Protestants in their own cause should be Accusers , Witnesses , and Judges of the Roman Church . The Relatour in answer to this confesseth , that no man in common equity ought to be suffer'd to be Accuser , Witness , and Judge in his own cause . But yet addes , there is as little reason , or equity , that any man who is to be accused , should be the accused , and yet Witness and Judge in his own cause . If the first may hold , ( saith he ) no man shall be innocent : and if the last , 〈◊〉 will be nocent . To this I answer . We have already prov'd the 〈◊〉 Church ( in the sense we understand Roman ) Infallible ; and therefore she ought not to be accus'd for teaching errours . Neither can she submit her self to any Third to be judg'd in this point , both , because there is no such competent Third to be found , as also because it were in effect to give away her own right , yea indeed to destroy her self , by suffering her Authority to be question'd in that , whereon all Certainty of Faith depends : for such is the Catholique Churches Infallibility . 1. Again , I make this demand . Suppose that Nicolas the Deacon , or some other Heretique of the Apostles times , separating themselves from the Apostles , and Christians that adhered to them , should have accus'd them of false doctrine ; and being for such presumption excommunicated by the Apostles , would it have been a just plea , think you , for the said condemned Heretiques , to have pretended , that the Apostles were the party accused , and that they could not be Witnesses and Judges too in their own cause ; but that the trial of their doctrine ought to be resert'd to a Third person ? I suppose no man will be so absurd . I say then , Whatever shall be answer'd in defence of the Apostles proceeding , will be found both proper and sufficient to defend the Church against her Adversaries . For if the Apostles might judge those Heretiques in the Controversies abovesaid , then the persons accused may sometimes , and in some causes , be Judges of those that accuse them : and if the Infallibility of the Apostles judgement , together with the Fullness of their Authority , were a sufficient ground and reason for them to exercise the part and office of Judges in their own cause , seeing both these do still remain in the Church , ( viz. Infallibility of Judgement , and Fullness of Authority ) doubtless the lawful Pastours thereof duly assembled and united with their Head , may lawfully , nay of duty ought to judge the Accusers of their doctrine , whoever they be ; according to that acknowledged Prophesie concerning Christs Church , ( Isa. 54. 17. ) after our Adversaries own Translation , Every tongue that ariseth against thee in judgement ( or that accuses thee of errour ) thou shalt condemn . Protestants indeed , having neither competent Authority , nor so much as pretending to Infallibility in their doctrine , cannot rationally be permitted to be Accusers and Witnesses against the Roman Church ( much less Judges ) in their own cause . Wherefore A.C. addes , that the Church of Rome is the Principal and Mother-Church ; and that therefore , though it be against common equity , that Subjects and Children should be Accusers , Witnesses , Judges , and Executioners against their Prince and Mother in any case , yet it is not absurd , that in some cases the Prince or Mother may accuse , witness , judge , and if need be , execute Justice against unjust and rebellious Subjects , or evil Children . To this the Bishop replies , that for the present he will suppose the Roman Church to be both a Prince and a Mother , that he may not seem to avoid the shock of A. C.'s Argument : but addes withall , that no moderate Prince ever thought it just , or took upon him , to be Accuser , Witness , and Judge , in any case of moment , against his Subjects . I answer , that a Prince , being liable many wayes to errours , and mistakes in judgement , ought in equity to submit to some indifferent Judge , in all matters of personal and private interest , between him and his Subjects ; though in matters of publick concern , as of Treason or the like , where the business is evident , and admits not the delayes of legal Formality , I think it would not be accounted unjust , for the Prince to be Accuser , Witness , and Judge too , againct a Traiterous Subject . However , the Church may lawfully judge her Accusers , because she is Infallible in her decisions of Faith , and hath full Authority finally and absolutely to determine all controversies of that nature . As for Parents the Bishop grants , that while Children are young , they may chastise them without other Accusers or Witnesses then themselves , and the Children are , not withstanding such correction , to give them reverence . But ( saith he ) when Childen are grown up , and come to some full use of reason , there ought to be remedy for them against their Mother , if she forget all good nature , and turn stepdame unto them : which I willingly grant , and leave such injur'd Children , for remedy , to the Magistrate and the Law ; to both which the Children may lawfully appeal , and the Mother ought to submit , as to her Superiours . But the Catholique Church , duly and compleatly represented in a General Council , hath no superiour on earth ; neither is it lawfull for any private Christian or Christians , upon any pretence , to appeal from her to any Third Person , in causes of Faith : the case therefore is not alike . Secondly , I deny the Bishops supposition , viz. that the Roman Church ( taken in the sense we take it ) is or ever can be such a Stepdame to her Children , or so far forget her duty both to God and them , as justly to deserve the Accusations which Protestants ( her undutiful and rebellious sons ) bring against her : and therefore towards them ( as well as towards the rest of her children ) she still retains the rights of a Mother ; and they must not take it ill , if ( as occasion serves ) she exercise towards them some part of her Motherly Authority ; but rather bethink themselves of returning to their Due Obedience , and conforming themselves to that holy Exhortation of St. Peter , which ( for their better content ) I shall give them out of their own Bible , viz. that laying aside all malice , and all guile and hypocrisies , and envies , and evil speakings , as New-born Babes they desire the sincere Milk of the Word , ( that is , the pure uncorrupted Christian Catholique Doctrine ) that they may grow thereby to salvation . 2. But even abstracting from the Churches Infallibility in matters of Faith , her proceedings towards Protestants will be found , upon due examination , most just . For though a Prince , or Parents , may not in all cases be Accusers , witnesses and Judges of their Subjects or Children , because it may possibly be evident , that they tyrannize over them , or treat them injuriously , yet when matter of fact is so evident , that it cannot be deny'd by their respective Children , or Subjects , when laws and custom of the whole Nation do also evidently declare the things criminal , for which they are punish'd , what need is there ( absolutely speaking ) of any further Witness , or Judge , to punish them ? Now this is our case . The things , for which the Roman Church condemns and punishes Protestants , are clearly matter of Fact , viz. preaching and teaching such Doctrine as the Church forbids to be taught , actual disobedience to her Canons , separating themselves from the communion of other Catholique Christians , opposing and contradicting their lawful Pastours in matters concerning Religion , &c. all which are criminal actions , and clearly punishable , not onely by the Canons of the Church , but by the Laws and Constitutions of every Catholique Countrey . No need ( surely ) of Accusers and Witnesses , where the Offence is notorious : Well therefore might the Pastours of the Church ( who were their proper Judges ) proceed to Canonical Sentence against them , seeing ( as I said ) it was notoriously evident , ( and by themselves not deny'd ) that they oppos'd and contradicted , not onely the publique doctrine and belief of all Christians generally throughout the world , but also the Laws , ( both Ecclesiastical and Temporal ) Statutes , Decrees , Customs , and Practises , universally in force in all Nations , where they began their pretended Reformations . When the Separatists of England in Queen Elizabeth's or King James his time , pretended to reform the Protestant Church-Decrees and Customs in England , and call'd for a Judge between the Prelates and them , did the then-Church-Governours scruple to condemn and punish them , though they neither esteem'd themselves Infallible , nor to act by any Infallible Rule ? for their Commission to do this was onely from the King and State ; and their Rule , not the Scripture , ( which the Separatists pretended to as much as themselves ) but either the Book of Common Prayer , or the thirty nine Articles , or the Queens Injunctions , and Book of Canons . Do not their Canons excommunicate all that deliberately oppose any of their said thirty nine Articles ? Did they not , for this reason , ordinarily summon Anabaptists , Brownists , Familists , and other Separatists , to appear at their Spiritual Courts , as they call them ? did they not proceed to sentence of Excommunication , and other Censutes , as the case requit'd , and the Laws of their Church enabled them to do ? Nay , did they not upon this ground oftentimes Excommunicate us Roman Catholicks for refusing to frequent their Churches ? did they not bring us into Sequestrations , Imprisonments , and a thousand other troubles ? Would they hear us , when we appeal'd either to Scripture , Fathers , Church , Councils , or any other third person to be Judge between them and us ? Behold a very just proceeding ! When they fall foul either upon us , or their own Separatists , they are content to be Accusers , Witnesses and Judges ; but when they are call'd to justifie their actings against the Roman Church , then ( forsooth ) 't is an unjust and unreasonable thing : then they call for a Third Person to judge ; not because they are indeed willing to be judged , or regulated , by any authority under heaven , except themselves , but because they know , that a competent Judge between the Roman Church and them , distinct from the Roman Church , is impossible to be found . A. C. therefore had reason to tell the Bishop , that never any competent judge had so censured the Church , as he had done ; and that indeed no power on Earth or in Hell it self , could so far prevail against the 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 a 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 those points are , which he calls simply fundamental , or simply necessary to all mens salvation . Bellarmin , from very good Authority , tells us , that some barbarous and ignorant people have been saved without believing Scripture at all : and if trial were made , I believe it would be found the more common opinion even amongst Protestants themselves , that the Explicite Belief of the Trinity , or Incarnation it self , as the Catholique Faith , and Oecumenical Councils declare it , is not simply necessary to all mens salvation . So that if the Church be exempt from errour onely in such points , the promises of Christ will be brought to little more then nothing ; and the Churches Infallible Authority be shrunk into so narrow a compass , that most of the Hereticks she ever yet condemned , will be found to have been out of her reach , and may require her , if not to reverse , yet at least to review her sentence against them , ( since his Lordship will have it Fallible ) lest ( perhaps ) she might erre in pronouncing it . Neither indeed can any rational man be ever satisfied by hearing onely in general , that the Church cannot erre in matters simply necessary to all mens Salvation , if he be not withall determinately inform'd which are those points . For so long as he knows not what is , or is not , so universally necessary , how can he be assur'd whether the Church may not erre , or hath not err'd in Defining such and such a particular matter ? Let it therefore be first established , either by a determinate Catalogue of such simply necessary and Fundamental points , or by some certain and determinate Rule , whereby we may undoubtedly know them ; otherwise we speak at random . 5. The strength of the places , formerly alledg'd by A. C for the Churches Infallibility in all points of Faith whatever , his Lordship here again endeavours to enervate ; telling us first , that they are known places , and cited by A. C. three several times , and to three several purposes . What matters this ? They lose nothing of their force for being thrice cited by A. C. and more then thrice by Stapleton , Bellarmin , and other Champions of the Catholique Faith , circumstances so requiring it . And does it seem strange to his Lordship , that A. C. should apply them to several purposes ? he should have remembred , how often Scripture it is stiled by the Fathers gladius , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a two-edged sword , which surely cuts-several wayes . Bellarmin , Stapleton , and A. C. following the receiv'd assertion of most Catholiques , viz. that the Pope is Infallible , even without a General Council , when he defines any thing ex Cathedrâ , and with intention to oblige the whole Church , urge the places to that purpose ; as with very great probability they may : yet because some Catholique Divines deny it , the matter it self being not yet clearly De Fide , I shall be content that the said places prove ( at least ) the Infallibility of the Church in general , or of the Pope and a General Council : which in this question are to be accounted all one . For if the Pope and a General Council may erre , the whole Church might erre ; as being oblig'd to follow the Doctrine , and Definitions of such a Council : and if the whole Church be fallible , what infallible certainty can we have of any Tradition ? Wherefore seeing the Infallibility of the Church , Councils , and Tradition , depend so necessarily upon each other , whatever Authorities prove the Infallibility of any one , do in effect and by good consequence prove the same of all the rest . 6. But let us come to the places in particular . The first assures us , that Hell. gates shall never prevail against the Church . Here the Bishop speaks loud , and sends us a challenge . There is no one Father of the Church ( sayes he ) for twelve hundred years after Christ , that ever concluded the Infallibility of the Church out of this place . And here I challenge A. C. and all that party to shew the contrary if they can . St. Austin , had he been more fully cited by the Bishop , would alone have been able to answer this challenge . Let us hear him speak . Ipsa est Ecclesia sancta ( sayes he ) Ecclesia una , Ecclesia vera , Ecclesia Catholica , contra omnes haereses pugnans . Pugnare potest , expugnari tamen non potest . She is the Holy Church , the onely Church , the true Church , the Gatholick Church , WHICH FIGHTS AGAINST ALL HERESIES , ( therefore yields to none , complyes with none ) Fight she may , but she cannot be overcome . All Heresies depart from her , as unprofitable branches cut off from the Vine : But she remains still in her root , in her Vine , in her Charity ; the Gates of Hell shall not overcome her . Thus Saint Austin . Can any man doubt but this holy Doctour in the precedent words , doth in effect teach the Church to be infallible , when he sayes she perpetually fights against all Heresies , or Errours in Faith , and that she can never be over . come by them ? Doth he not clearly prove this truth , by the allegation of this Text in the close of them ? But I shall adde one or two Authorities more , to this purpose . First St. Cyrils ; Secundum hanc promissionem Ecclesia Apostolica Petri , &c. According to this promise ( saith he ) the Church Apostolique of St. Peter abides alwayes immaculate , or free from all spots , of Heretical Circumvention and Errour . The Text hath been cited already . You may observe the like sense in St. Epiphanius . Ipse autem Dominus constituit eum Primum Apostolorum , PETRAM FIRMAM , supra quam , &c. Our Lord ( saith he , speaking of St. Peter ) ordained him chief of the Apostles , A FIRM ROCK , upon which the Church is built , and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her , which Gates of Hell are Heresies and Arch-heretiques . 6. For the better understanding of which Texts 't is necessary to know , that every errour contrary to Divine Faith is Heresie , as St. Austin , and all Divines , generally teach : Wherefore if the Church should teach any thing contrary to what God has reveal'd , she should teach Heresie ; and contradict these Fathers , who all clear the Church from that aspersion , by vertue of this promise of Christ , Matth. 16. 18. The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her , and withall , tacitly at least , acknowledge , that if she did teach Heresie at any time , the Gates of Hell , in that case , would be found to have prevail'd against her . Seeing therefore , every errour in Faith , or against Divine Revelation , is Heresie , and since the Church , in the judgement of these Fathers , grounded upon this promise , cannot teach Heresie , it follows evidently that in the judgement of the same Fathers , she cannot erre in any point of Faith whatever , by vertue of the same promise . How the Infallibility of the Church is gather'd out of the second place hath been shew'd already , and is here confirm'd even by his Lordships own discourse out of St. Leo epist. 91. which is , that Christ in that place , promis'd to be present with his Ministers in all those things , which he committed to their execution . But surely one , and a chief one of those ALL , was to teach Infallibly , the whole doctrine of Christs Gospel . Wherefore Christ is still present with his Ministers inabling them to perform this so important a work , when 't is necessary to be executed ; that is , when the necessities of the Church require some point in controversie among Christians to be determined . Nor will that conclusion hence follow , which his Lordship fears viz. that all the Sermons of every Pastour of the Church would be Infallible : for 't is no wayes necessary that every particular Pastour should be Infallible ; but 't is absolutely necessary , that the Church in general , or a General Council should be Infallible , because otherwise , there would no means be left in the Church , sufficient to determine Controversies of Faith , or prevent the spreading of Schismes and Heresies . To the end my Reader may the better conceive this , he is to understand there are divers degrees of Christs presence and assistance in reference to the Ministers of his Church . All of them cannot challenge all priviledges , but must be content with those , that properly belong to their respective state and condition in the sacred Hierarchy . And yet , as all the said degrees are grounded upon this and the like promises of our Saviour ; so 't is necessary , they be all verify'd , according to the respective necessities of the Church . The Supream Degree we affirm to be that of Infallible Assistance ; and therefore assign it onely to those who have Supream Authority in the Church , and in cases onely of most urgent necessity , for preventing of Heresies and Schismes . In all other cases , and in reference to all other Ministers of the Church , we profess that so long as the Teaching and Governing part of them is continually so assisted by Christ , that it generally leads not his Flock into errour in Faith , nor neglects to teach them the observation of all things Christ commanded , the promise is sufficiently perform'd on Christs part , and St. Leo's words , In omnibus quae Ministris suis commisit exequenda , rightly enough explicated , though every private Pastour become not a Prophet , and every Pulpit an Oracle , as the Relatour vainly surmizes . The third place urged by A. C. is out of St. Luke 22. 32. where Christs prayer for St. Peter is as efficacious as his promise ; both of them implying an Infallibility in the Church , against all errours in Faith whatsoever . The words are these : Simon , Simon , Behold Satan hath required to have you , to sift as wheat . But I have prayed for Thee , that thy Faith fail not : and thou once converted , confirm thy Brethren . 'T is clear , that Christ here prayed , that Faith in the Church might not fail ; either by praying for St. Peter as he was a Figure of the whole Church , ( which is the exposition of the Parisians ) or by praying immediately for St. Peters person , and mediately for the whole Church , which he represented . Aud thus at least , that our Saviour , in that Taxt , prayed for the whole Church , Bellarmin expresly grants in the very beginning of the Chapter cited by the * Bishop . It seems strange therefore , that his Authority should be brought for denial of our Saviours praying here for the Church . The prayer then of Christ extended it self to St. Peter and his Successors ; and by them to the whole Church , according to those words of St. Bernard , Dignum namque arbitror ibi potissimum resarciri damna Fidei , ubi non possit Fides sentire defectum . Cui enim alteri Sedi dictum est aliquando , Ego rogavi pro Te , ut non deficiat fides tua , &c. I think it fitting ( saith he ) that the damages in Faith should be there chiefly repaired , where Faith can suffer no defect . For to what other Chair was it ever said , I have prayed for thee , that thy Faith fail not ? Take therefore which of these Expositions you please , if an Infallible Assistance of Christ be once granted , whereby his Church is sufficiently preserv'd from all errour in Faith , whether that Assistance be immediately intended in this prayer to St. Peter and his Successors , as Supream Teachers of the Church , or to the Church immediately as represented in St. Peter , yet still the Church will be Infallible , by vertue of this prayer of our Saviour . 8. The fourth place named by A. C. is that of St. John , chap. 14. 16. to which he addes a consequent place , John 16. 13. both of them containing another promise of Christ to his Apostles , and in them to his Church , viz. that the Comforter ( the Holy Ghost ) shall come and abide with them for ever , teaching them all things , &c. and guiding them into all Truth . We have already sufficiently explicated these places in proof of the Churches Infallibility : So that our chief labour at present shall be to observe the Bishops various Trippings and Windings in his review of them . First he sayes , these promises , if you apply them to the Church consisting of all Believers , and including the Apostles , are absolute and without any restriction : which certainly is but a loose assertion , taking it in the Bishops sense , which is , that the Apostles were free not onely from all errour , but from all ignorance in Divine Things ; for so his Authour ( a ) Dr. Field speaks whom he cites in the Margin . Were the Apostles not ignorant of any Divine matters ? why then doth St. Paul tell us , 1 Cor. 13. 9. We know in part ? Did the Apostles understand the whole counsel of God concerning mankinde ; why then doth the same Apostle cry out , Rom. 11. 33 , 35. O the depth of the — Wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgements , &c. and who hath known the minde of our Lord ! Secondly , if these promises of Christ be so absolute and without any restriction in regard of the Apostles , to what purpose is that Text of b Theodoret cited in his Margin , which sayes expresly they ought to be limited in regard of them , and that they did not signifie the Apostles should be led simply into all Truth , but into all Truth necessary , or expedient , to Salvation . Thirdly , the Bishop having limited the promises of being taught and led into all Truth , as they relate to the present Church , onely to Truths necessary to Salvation , he is not yet satisfied , but addes another limitation to that , viz. Direction of Scripture . Against this Truth ( saith he , meaning Truth necessary to Salvation ) the whole Catholique Church cannot erre , keeping her self to the Direction of Scripture , as Christ hath appointed her . But I ask what Priviledge then has the Catholique Church in these promises of Christ , more then every private Christian ? Surely with this condition of following the direction of Scripture , there is none of the faithful , but may pretend to be as Infallible as the Church . Fourthly , they must be limited ( sayes he ) to all such Truths , as our Saviour had told them . But the Apostles were taught divers things , of principal concernment in order to Salvation , by the Holy Ghost , even after our Saviours Ascension : had they no promise of Divine Assistance , in the delivery of those Truths ? Thus the promises of Christ come to nothing . But if one should ask some of this Bishops Disciples , how their Master proves , that the promises of Christ are to be limited to Truths necessary to Salvation , they must answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ( Ipse dixit ) just as Pythagoras his Pupils did of old , when they were urg'd to give a Reason of their Masters Philosophy . For where ( I pray ) hath Christ so limited his promises ? where do the Apostles teach us to understand them with such limitation ? Neither do we extend them to Truths wholly unnecessary , or to curious Truths , as the Bishop seems willing to insinuate : No , We tell him , there is a medium , a middle sort of Truths between those which are absolutely necessary for all mens Salvation , and those which are simply unnecessary , or curious . We extend these promises to all Truths of this middle sort , that is , to all such Truths , as the Church findes consonant to Catholique Faith and Piety , and necessary to be defin'd for the preventing of Heresies , Schismes , and Dissentions among Christians . But I pray observe our Adversaries unparallel'd Subtlety in the close of all . Christ ( saith he ) hath promis'd , that the Spirit should lead his Church into all Truth , but he hath no where promis'd , that the Church should follow her leader . What a rare Acumen is here ! Then belike , to lead and to follow are not Relatives in Protestant Logick . But let them take heed ; 't is to be fear'd they will be found Relatives : and that if the Devil chance to lead any of them to Hell for their Heresie and other sins , nothing will help , but they must infallibly follow him . And I wish that all his Lordships party would duly consider this , as often as they interpret Scripture after this manner . CHAP. 15. Of the Roman Churches Authority . ARGUMENT . 1. Whether Protestants , beside reforming themselves , did not condemn the Church of errour in Faith. 2. That St. Peter had a larger and higher Power over the Church of Christ , then the rest of the Apostles . 3. The History , or matter of Fact , touching the Donatists appealing to the Emperor , related ; and how little it advantages the Bishop or his party . 4. St. Gregories Authority concerning the question of Appeals , and the Civil Law , notably wrested by the Bishop . 5. St. Wilfrid , Archbishop of York , twice appealed to Rome , and was twice restor'd to his Bishoprick , by vertue of the Popes Authority . 6. The African Church alwayes in Communion with the Roman 7. St. Peters placing his Sea at Rome , no ground of his Successors Supremacy . 8. Why the Emperours for some time ratified the Popes Election . 9. Inferiour Clerks onely forbidden by the Canons to appeal to Rome . 10. The Pope never accus'd by the Ancients of falsifying the Canons ; and that he might justly cite the Canons of Sardica , as Canons of the Council of Nice . BY the precedent Discourse it appears , that the Bishops main task , for a long time , hath been to prove , that the General Church may erre , and stand in need of Reformation in matters of Faith : this being the thing , which A. C. most constantly denyes . But his Lordship finding the proof of this not so easie , by little and little was fain to slide into another question , concernig the Power particular Churches have to reform themselves , thinking by this to Authorize the pretended Reformation of his particular English Church . To this purpose were his many Allegations of the Councils of Carthage , Rome , Gangres , Toledo , &c. § 24. num . 5. which how they succeeded , the Reader may easily have perceiv'd by our Answers in the precedent Chapter . 1. He goes on with his wonted Art : which is , to alledge his Adversary with not overmuch sincerity . A. C. treating the abovesaid question touching the Power particular Churches have to reform themselves , and not denying , but in some cases particular Churches may reform what is amiss even in matter of Faith , for greater caution , addes these express words , ( pag. 58. ) WHEN THE NEED ( of Reformation ) IS ONELY QUESTIONABLE , particular Pastours and Churches may not condemn others of Errour in Faith. But these words , when the need is onely questionable , the Bishop thinks fit to leave out : to what end , but to have some colour to contradict his Adversary , and abuse his Reader ? Let us now see whether his Lordships party be far from judging and condemning other Churches , as he seems to make them by his simile . A man that lives religiously ( sayes he ) doth not by and by sit in judgement , and condemn with his mouth all prophane livers . But yet while he is silent , his very life condemns them . First of all , Who are these men that live so religiously ? They , who to propagate the Gospel the better marry Wives , contrary to the Canons , and bring ( forsooth ) Scripture for it * Non est bonum esse hominem solum ; and again , † Numquid non habemus potestatem mulierem sororem circumducendi ? Who are these men ( I say ) that live so religiously ? They , who pull down Monasteries both of Religious men and women ; They , who cast Altars to the ground ; They , who partly banish Priests , partly put them to death ; They , who deface the very Tombs of Saints , and will not permit them to rest even after they are dead . These are the men who live so religiously . But who are ( according to his Lordship ) prophane Livers ? They , who stick close to St. Peter and his Successors ; They , who for the Catholique Faith endure most willingly Sequestrations , Imprisonments , Banishments , Death it self ; They , in a word , who suffer Persecution for Righteousness . These , in his Lordships opinion , are Prophane Livers . I return now to the Relatours men , that live so religiously . Do these men never condemn the Catholique Church , but by their vertuous lives , which you have seen ? Surely they condemn her not onely by quite dissonant lives , but also by word of mouth , by their pens , nay by publick and solemn Censures . Witness ( to go no further ) the Protestant Church of England , Artic. 19. where she condemns of errour not onely the Churches of Antioch and Alexandria , but even of Rome it self . Again Rogers in his allowed Analyse and Comment upon the said Article , pronounces that the Church of Rome hath not onely shamefully err'd in matters of Faith , but that the whole visible Church may likewise erre from time to time , and hath err'd in doctrine , as well as conversation . Do they not say , Artic. 21. that General Councils may erre , and have err'd , even in things pertaining to God ? Do they not pronounce of Purgatory , Praying to Saints , Worship of Images and Reliques &c. Artic. 22. of Transubstantiation , Artic. 28. and of the Sacrifice of the Mass , Artic. 31. respectively , that they are fond things , vainly invented by men , contrary to Gods Word , Blasphemous Fables , and dangerous Deceits ? Though it be as clear as the sun at noon-day , that both these and many other points , deny'd and rejected by Protestants , were the doctrine and practise , not onely of the Roman , but of the whole Church near upon a thousand years together , even by the confession of Protestants . Is this onely to reform themselves , and not to condemn other Churches : otherwise then by silence and example ? Do not all other Protestant a Confessions of Faith speak the same language ? Do they not all take upon them , with a more then censorious presumption , to condemn the Doctrine and practise of the Roman Catholique , that is , of the whole true Church of Christ , in the same and divers other contested points ? 2. A. C. therefore well mindes us , that in all matters of difficulty belonging to Faith , particular Churches should have recourse to the Church of Rome , ( as Irenaeus intimates ) which hath a more powerful Principality ; and to her Bishop , who is chief Pastour of the whole Church , as being St. Peters Successour , to whom Christ promis'd the Keyes , Math. 16. for whom he pray'd that his Faith might not fail , Luke 22. and whom he charg'd to Feed and Govern his Flock , John 21. which ( saith A. C. ) he shall never refuse to do in such sort , as that his neglect shall be a just cause for any particular man , or Church , under pretence of Reformation in Manners or Faith , to make a Schisme , or Separation , from the whole General Church . In answer to this the Bishop tells us , the Roman Church hath indeed a more powerful Principality , then any other particular Church , but not from Christ : which is contrary to St. * Austin , or rather to the whole Council of Milevis , who in their Epistle to Innocent the first professe , that the Popes Authority is grounded upon Scripture , and consequently proceeds from Christ. Secondly , he sayes the Patriarchs were all as even , and equal for any Principality of Power , as the Apostles were . But this is first Equivocal , the Apostles themselves were not in all respects equal , or of even Authority . They had a Superiour among them , viz. Saint Peter . 'T is true indeed , except St. Peter , they were are all equal among themselves ; every one of them had equal mission unto , and Jurisdiction over the whole Church , and none of them any Authority preceptive or coercive over another : whereas St. Peter , together with his Authority Apostolical over the whole Church , ( which was common to him with the rest of the Apostles ) had also Jurisdiction and Authority , over the Apostles themselves , as being , in the number of Christs sheep , committed to his charge by our Saviour , John 21. as is clear in all Antiquity . Secondly , 't is contrary to the Council of Nice . In the third Canon whereof , which concerns the Jurisdiction of Patriarchs , the Authority ( or Principality , if you will ) of the Bishop of Rome is made the patern , or model of that Authority and Jurisdiction , which the Patriarchs were to exercise over the Provincial Bishops . The words of the Canon are these . Sicque praeest Patriarcha iis omnibus , qui sub potestate ejus sunt , sicut ille , qui tenet Sedem Romae , CAPUT ESTET PRINCEPS OMNIUM PATRIARCHARUM . The Patriarch ( say they ) is in the same manner over all those , that are under his Authority , as He , who holds the Sea of Rome , is Head and Prince of all the Patriarchs . And in the same Canon the Pope is afterward stiled , Petro similis & Autoritate par , ( resembling Saint Peter , and , his equal in Authority . ) This also the practise of the Church shews ; which is alwayes the best Expositour and Assertour of the Canons . For not onely the Popes Confirmation was required to all new-elected Patriarchs , but it belong'd likewise to him to depose unworthy ones , and restore the unjustly deposed by others . We read of no less then a eight several Patriarchs of Constantinople deposed by the Bishop of Rome . Sixtus the third deposed also Polychronius Bishop of Jerusalem , as his Acts set down in the first Tome of the Councils testifie . On the contrary b Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria , and Paulus Bishop of Constantinople were by Julius the first restored to their respective Seas , having been unjustly expell'd by Hereticks . The same might be said of divers others ; over whom the Pope did exercise the like authority : which he could never have done , upon any other ground , then that of divine Right , and as being generally acknowledg'd St. Peters Successour in the Government of the whole Church . St. Austin therefore said well , c in Romanâ Ecclesiâ semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit Principatus , ( in the Roman Church the Principality of the Apostolique Chair hath alwayes flourisht . ) Here the Bishop will have some other Apostolique Chairs , like this of Rome , viz. equal to it in Authority . But this he does , partly to level the Dignity of the Roman Sea , contrary to St. Austin , and all Antiquity , and partly to make way to some other pretty perversions of the same Father . For we must know , he is now entring upon that main question concerning the Donatists of Africk ; of whose proceedings the whole forecited Epistle of St. Austin treateth : and therefore ( to make our answer to his objections more compendious and clear ) it will not be amiss , in the first place , to state that business by way of Narrative , and matter of Fact onely ; which I shall briefly do out of St. Austin , and Optatus Milevitanus . Thus then it was . 3. The Donatists of Africk finding themselves sharply oppos'd by Caecilianus , Arch-bishop of Carthage and Primate of Africa , by way of revenge d accuse him of having in time of Persecution deliver'd up the Holy Scriptures , with other Sacred Utensils of the Church , into the possession of the Heathens ; which was accounted a most capital crime amongst Christians . They added to their accusation , that he was made Bishop by one guilty of the same crime , viz. by Felix Bishop of Aptung ; and they prosecuted the business so hotly , that by a Synod of seventy African Bishops Caecilian was condemn'd , and outed of his Bishoprick . But he , making no great reckoning of the sentence , as being condemn'd absent and unheard , and knowing himself to be in Communion with the Roman Church , the Donatists are forced to prosecute their charge against him in other Churches beyond Sea. But not daring to appear at Rome , or at least knowing it would be to little purpose , they address themselves to the Emperour e Constantin , and desire him to command their cause to be heard by some Bishops of the Gaules in France , where the Emperour then resided . But the Emperour was so far from favouring them f , that he shew'd a great dislike of their proceedings , telling them g exprefly , that it belong'd not to him , neither durst he act the part of a Judge in a cause of Bishops . Nevertheless knowing very well the turbulent disposition of Schismatiques , and perceiving they meant not to acquiesce in the sentence of any Ecclesiastical Tribunal , to which they were immediately subject , he thought good to take a middle way : which was to send them to Rome , there to be heard and judged by the Pope , to whom the cause did most properly belong ; h but yet to comply a little with the Donatists , he sent along with them some Bishops of the Gaules , in whom they more confided , and whom they had already demanded to be their Judges ; intending that these French Bishops should hear the Donatists cause together with the Pope , and determine therein what they should finde to be right . Neither did Melchiades ( the Pope ) refuse them ; but for the greater solemnity of the judgement and satisfaction of the parties , adjoyned to them i fifteen other Italian Bishops , and so proceeded to the hearing of the Cause . But behold the issue ! After a full hearing of all parties the Donatists were k condemn'd ; Caecilianus , Felix , and some other African Bishops of their party were justifi'd and acquitted . The Schismatiques being thus condemn'd at Rome , and even by those Bishops of the Gaules , whom they had chosen for Judges , by way of Appeal address themselves again to the Emperour ; which the pious Prince took so hainously , that ( as Optatus Milevitanus reports ) he cry'd out against them to this purpose , m O the audacious folly and madness of these men ! See ; They have here exhibited an Appeal ( being themselves Bishops , and in a cause of Bishops ) just as Infidels use to do in their own causes . Nevertheless being at length as it were forced by their n obstinate importunity , he condescends they should be heard once again , not as admitting their appeal , or deporting himself in the business as their competent Judge ; but chiefly for their further conviction o and to inform himself of the cause of Felix Bishop of Aptung , which the Donatists pretended had not been duly heard at Rome . Whereupon a Council of two hundred Bishops was assembled at p Arles , where the Popes Legates were present , as also the three Bishops of the Gaules , and some of the Italian Bishops , who had already pronounced sentence in the cause at Rome . To be short , the Donatists are in this Council likewise q condemn'd , but not quieted ; for with an impudence proper to such people , and to be parallel'd onely with their fellow Schismatiques , they run the third time to the Emperour , and will not be satisfied , unless he condescend to hear them in person . What should the Emperour do ? He had already protested against this , as of it self unlawful , but there was no remedy ; the Schismatiques will not let him rest until he hear them . Wherefore having first r promised to ask the Bishops pardon , he consents to this also ; hears them , and s condemns them with his own mouth . This is the true and real story of the Donatists proceedings ; from whence his Lordship brings several objections against the Popes Supremacy , which we are now to examine . First he would have us observe , that the Roman Prelate came not in , till the Donatists had leave given them by the African Prelates , to be heard by forreign Bishops . But this proves rather the justice and moderation of the Roman Prelate , that he came not in before it was due time , and the matter orderly brought before him . For though the cause did most properly belong to the Popes Cognizance , yet was it first to be heard and decided by the Bishops of the Province , where the cause first sprang up . The Pope was not to meddle with it , otherwise then by way of regular Appeal , unless ( perchance ) he had seen the Provincial Bishops to have neglected it , or been unable effectually to determine it . Secondly , he abuses St. Austin in making him say , that the African Bishops gave the Donatists leave to be heard by forreign Bishops . Whereas there is no such leave mention'd , or insinuated by St. Austin in all that Epistle . What he sayes is onely his own private advise , viz. that if any of them had convincing proofs of ought that was criminal in the Catholique Bishops of Africa , for which they fear'd to communicate with them , they should apply themselves to the Transmarine Bishops , and especially to the Bishop of Rome , and there make their complaints : which is not a dispensing with them to do something , which otherwise they might not do , ( as the Bishop would have it thought ) much less is it a license , or dispensation , given them by the African Bishops sitting in Council ; but onely a private exhortation , and counsel of t St. Austin himself , requiring them to do what according to the Canons was to be done in such a case . His second objection is , that if the Pope had come in without this leave , to judge the Donatists cause , it had been an usurpation in him . But this is grounded partly upon his own false supposition , that such leave was given , and partly upon an affected mistake , or mis-translation of the words usurpare and usurpavit . For 't is evident , in the first part of the sentence St. Austin speaks not in his own person , but in the person of the Donatists , as making an objection to himself in their behalf . u An fortè non debuit , &c. ( the words you have in the margin at large ) Ought not , perchance , Melchiades , Bishop of the Roman Church , with his Colleagues the Transmarine Bishops , to challenge to himself that judgement ? &c. Whereas , the Bishop by his englishing the words makes St. Austin positively say , peradventure Melchiades ought not ( of right ) to have challenged ( or usurp'd ) to himself that judgement : which surely was a notorious winding in his Labyrinth . For it makes that to be a Negative in St. Austins sense , which doubtless in his true meaning was an Affirmative ; and by asking , will you Donatists say he ought not to do this , he by consequence and in effect said , that he ought to do it . For the second part of the Speech , where St. Austin answers the objection , 't is no less clear , that he speaks per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , by way of condescendence to his Adversaries manner of speaking , the better to mollifie them , which is oftentimes practis'd in Rhetorick ; and not as acknowledging , that it could be any real usurpation in the Pope , to take cognizance of such a cause without leave given . And if our Adversaries think not this true , let them tell us , who , but our Saviour Christ and the Canons of the Universal Church , gave the Pope leave to hear and judge the causes of St. Athanasius , and those many other Patriarchs and Bishops of the Church , which most certainly he did both hear and judge effectually , no man ( no not the persons themselves who were interessed and suffer'd by his judgement ) complaining , or accusing him of usurpation . Thirdly , he alledges , that other Bishops were made Judges with the Pope , and that by the Emperours power , which the Pope will now least of all endure . I answer first , the Bishops sent by the Emperour were onely three ; an inconsiderable number to sway the sentence : and the Pope to shew his Authority , that he was not to be prescrib'd by any in this cause , added to these three , fifteen other Bishops of Italy , to be his Colleagues and Assistants in the business . Secondly I answer , the Emperour in sending those Bishops together with the Donatists to Rome , did nothing by way of Authority , or Command , but of Mediation , as using his Interest with the Pope ; which he might do without breach of the Canons . What he did afterward , he openly protested to be in it self unlawful , and not belonging to him ; he did it therefore onely in condescendence to the Donatists importunity , and would have askt the Bishops pardon for it , as x S. Austin witnesses : whose sentence y here lamely cited by the Bishop , is far from proving his intent , viz. that the judgement of this cause was a thing properly belonging to the Emperours Authority . Nor doth it concern us at all , that the Emperour gave sentence in the business ; since being wrought to it by the importunity of the Donatists , he was bound in conscience , to act the part of a just Judge , and pronounce a right sentence : which as he finally did , in condemning these Schismaticks , as we said above , so no doubt it is all St. Austin means by the words alledged . 4. His Deductions from the Civil Law are no better . For first , suppose that an inferiour Prelate could not appeal from the sentence of his Patriarch ; yet when the Patriarchs themselves have differences one with another , must there not according to the rules of good Government , be some higher ordinary Tribunal , where such causes may be heard and determined ? I say Ordinary . For it would be a manifest defect , if that which is the extraordinary High Court of Ecclesiastical Justice , viz. a General Council , should be of necessity assembled for every particular difference between Patriarchs . Secondly , what the Law sayes , is rightly understood , and must be explicated of Inferiour Clerks onely ; who were not ( of ordinary course ) to appeal further then the Patriarch , or the Primate of their Province ; for so the z Council of Africk determines . But 't is even a there acknowledg'd that Bishops had power in their own causes to appeal to Rome . The same explication is to be given to the Text of St. Gregory , viz. that he speaks of Inferiour Clerks , since Bishops were ever accustomed to appeal to the Pope . But I wonder his Lordship would expose to view the following words of St. b Gregory ; Where there is neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch , even Inferiour Clerks , when they appeal , must have their recourse to the Sea Apostolique . Then surely it follows , the Bishop of Romes Jurisdiction is not onely over the Western or Southern Provinces , ( as the Relatour limits it , pag. 168. ) but over the whole Church , whither the Jurisdiction of Metropolitans and Patriarchs never extended . Neither could such Appeals be just , if the Bishop of Rome were not the Lawful Superiour and Judge of all the Bishops of Christendome ; it being confest , that no Juridical Appeal can be made , but from an inferiour to a superiour Judge . To those words of St. Gregory , quae omnium Ecclesiarum Caput est , wherein he intimates the reason , why Appeals should be brought , from all parts of Christendome , to the Sea Apostolique , his Lordship thinks it best to use this evasion . I have said enough to that ( saith he ) in divers parts of this discourse . But in what parts hitherto I cannot finde , though I have us'd some diligence in the search . I could therefore wish he had spoken something to it here , where he had so fair an occasion . I onely say this . If the Roman Sea be the Head of all Churches , ( as St. Gregory sayes it is ) surely it hath Authority over all Churches . His Lordship , as long as he stands upon the Roman ground , stands upon thorns , and therefore makes a step , or rather a leap , from the Church of Rome , to the Church of England ; with whose Encomiums given heretofore by Antiquity , he is much pleas'd . But what those Antient times of Church Government were , wherein Brittain was never subject to the Sea of Rome , we desire should be prov'd , and not meerly said . I should not have envy'd his Lordships happiness ( much less the honour of his Sea ) had he and all his worthy Predecessours ( as he calls them ) since St. Austin , been enobled with the Eminence of Patriarks : yet I see no reason , why a velut Patriarcha , pronounc'd by the Pope by way of Encomium onely , upon a particular occasion , should be of force to make Canterbury a Patriarchal Sea. Similies fall alwayes short of the thing it self . Again it imports little , that there was a Primate in Brittain ; for that onely proves , that inferiour Clerks might not ordinarily appeal from him to Rome : but that Brittain was not subject to the Roman Sea , or that the Brittish Bishops did not ( as ocsion requir'd ) freely and continually appeal to Rome , it doth not prove ; yea the contrary is manifest by all the monuments of the Brittish Church . What ever is meant by the words in Barbarico , cited by his Lordship out of the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Universae , certain it is , that whoever were under the government of the Patriarch of Constantinople , were not exempted from the Authority of the Bishop of Rome ; neither ought the Relatour to suppose it , unless he had first prov'd , that the said Patriarch had been himself legally exempt , or not subject to the Pope : which he neither offers to do , nor can it be done ; nay the contrary is evident . 5. To me truly it seems very strange , his Lordship should be so little acquainted with the Ecclesiastical History of England , as to affirm so confidently , that in ancient times Brittain was never subject to Rome ; meaning in Ecclesiastical matters . For ( to instance in the very business of Appeals ) doth not a Venerable Bede tell us , that in King Egfrids time ( which was about the Year of our Lord 673. ) St. Wilfrid , Archbishop of York , being unjustly depriv'd of his Bishoprick , appeal'd to the Sea Apostolique , was heard by Pope Agatho in the presence of many other Bishops , and by their unanimous Sentence was pronounced innocent ? Was he not restor'd again to his Bishoprick by vertue of that sentence ? Doth not the same Authour affirm , that being the second time expell'd his Sea , he did the second time also appeal to Rome , and was likewise acquitted , upon a full hearing of his cause , in the presence of his adversaries ? Was there not , upon his second return into England , a Synod of Bishops call'd in obedience to the Popes order ; in which , by the general vote of all the good Bishop was again restor'd ? Is this no Evidence of Romes Authority over England in ancient times ? 'T is now almost a thousand yeares since Bede wrote , and doubtless his History is one of the most Authentick we have : he being a most holy and learned man. Again , is it not manifest out of him , that even the Primitive Original Institution of our English Bishopricks was from Rome ? See the Letter of Pope Gregory the first to St. Austin our English Apostle , which Bede reports in these words ; b — Quia nova Anglorum Ecclesia ad omnipotentis Dei gratiam , codem Domino largiente , et Te labor ante , perducta est , &c. Seeing by the goodness of God ( saith he ) and your industry , the new English Church is brought unto the Faith of Christ , we grant to you the use of the PALL ( the proper Badge , or Sign , of Archiepiscopal Dignity ) to wear it when you say MASS : and we condescend , that you ordain twelve Bishops under your Jurisdiction ; yet so , that the Bishop of London be consecrated hereafter by a Synod of his own Bishops , and receive the PALL from this Holy Apostolical Sea , wherein 〈◊〉 , by the Authority of God , do now serve . Our will likewise is , that you send a Bishop to York ; to whom we intend also to give the PALL ( that is , to make him an Archbishop : ) But TO YOU shall be subject , not onely the Bishops you make , and he of York , but all the Bishops of Brittain . Behold here the Original Charter ( as I may say ) of the Primacy of Canterbury ; in this Letter and Mandate of the Pope it is founded : Nor can it with any colour of reason be drawn from other Origin . By vertue of this Grant , have all the succeeding Bishops of that Sea , enjoy'd the Dignity and Authority of Primates in this Nation : which is a thing so out of question , that truly I see not how 't is possible either to excuse the Relatours gross ignorance , if he knew it not ; or his great ingratitude , if knowing it , he would be so unworthy as to belye his own knowledge , and dissemble his obligations to that Pope , who had done so much for the Sea of Canterbury . 6. In the following pages his Lordship spends not a few lines in vain , labouring to prove a Separation of the African Church from that of Rome ; chiefly out of two Instruments , found in several Editions of the Councils , which seem to testifie as much . One is an Epistle , or Supplication rather , which Eulalius Bishop of 〈◊〉 is suppos'd to have written to Pope Boniface the second , in the name of the African Church , desiring a Reconciliation with the Roman , and disclaiming the Separation made between them for many years before . The other is an Epistle of the same Pope Boniface the second to Eulalius Patriarch of Alexandria , wherein he imparts the good news of the African Churches Submission , and Reconciliation with the Roman , and rejoyces with him upon the occasion . But I answer , As the Bishop himself stands not to maintain the Credit of these Epistles ( which he knows to be generally question'd by Catholiques ) nor answer the exceptions , which Baronius and Bellarmin bring against them ; so the use he makes of them is to very little purpose . To the first part of his Dilemma , viz. If the said Instruments be false , then Pope Boniface the second , and his Accomplices at Rome , or some for them , are notorious forgers &c. We deny the consequence ; there is no necessity to affirm , that either Boniface the second , or his Accomplices , were forgers of these pretended Instruments ; but rather the contrary : In regard such a forgery would presently have been discover'd and exclaim'd against ; seeing in that Popes time no such man as Eulalius was Bishop of Alexandria , but one Timotheus , an Heretique , and great opposer of the Roman Church . Neither could the other Eulalius he speaks of , be then a Catholique Bishop of Carthage ; it being a time when there was not one Catholique Bishop in all Africk . As to his closing words or some for them , if he mean they did it by the Popes consent , 't is answer'd under the word Accomplices : but if he intend no more , but that they were forged by some body , 't is very true ; but what will it concern the Roman Sea , if some other feign an Epistle in the Popes name ? Were there not some that feign'd Epistles , and other writings in the Apostles names ? was that the Apostles fault ? or did it bring any just prejudice either to the Authority , or Integrity of their writings ? To the second part , viz. If these Instruments be true , then the Church of Africk did separate from the Roman , and the Separation continued for above a hundred years . I answer , Till it be evinced , that these Instruments are true , we cannot suffer by them : but his Lordship is so far from offering at this , that he doth not so much as positively affirm it . He shews us indeed , several Editions of the Councils , wherein these Instruments are inserted . But it is well known , that the Editions of Councils cited by the Bishop , have many other Apocryphal and unauthentique writings inserted in them besides these . The reason of this may be , because the Compilers of those times did not take upon them to be Censurers of what they found upon ancient Record , but onely to be faithful Publishers of the Records . Whence it is , that as they did not except against these Instruments , ( no more then against others of like nature ) so neither did they expresly approve them ; but meerly publish'd what they found upon Record , leaving the further scrutiny to the learned . But as for the Schismatical Separation of the African Church from the Roman , argued out of the said Instruments , 't is inconsistent with the truth of Story , and confuted by many pregnant and undeniable instances , which prove , that the Africans , notwithstanding the contest in the sixth Council of Carthage touching matter of Appeals , were alwayes in true Catholique Communion with the Roman Church , even during the term of this pretended Separation . Witness , in the first place , St. Austin himself , who though he were present , and subscrib'd ( as 't is most probable ) to that Epistle of the Council of Carthage , which gave all the offence , yet after his death Pope Celestin in his Epistle to the Bishops of France , using many expressions of high commendation , professeth a that he both liv'd and dyid in the Communion of the Roman church Witness likewise b Pope Leo the first , who for some time of the said pretended Separation , had his Legats in . Africk , ordering Ecclesiastical matters there ; and receiv'd Lupicinus an African Bishop appealing unto him . Witness also Eugenius , a Catholique Bishop of Carthage , who in his answer to the 〈◊〉 , requiring a Disputation with him , touching matters of Faith , c 〈◊〉 the Roman Church to be the Head of all Churches , and that he ought not to enter into dispute with any concerning such matters , without first consulting that Church . Witness Fulgentius , another of the most eminent Bishops of the African Church , living also within the said term ; whose testimony is already cited , Chap. 10. § . 5. pag. 131 , 132. Witness the two African Bishops , Restitutus and Octavius , who were present at the Council of Rome , under d Pope Hilarius about the Year 467. and subscrib'd the Canons : one whereof was , That none ought to violate the Constitutions of the Nicen Council , nor the Deorees of the Apostolique Sea. Witness further Pope Gregory himself , e who in several of his Epistles acknowledges the Bishop of Carthage , and other African Bishops , to have been at that time in Communion with him ; yea particularly praises them for their respects to the Sea Apostolique ; and asserts his own right of receiving Appeals from all parts of Christendom , as necessity requires . Witness finally no less then two hundred African Bishops at once , who being banish'd into Sicily for the Catholique Faith , by the Arrian King Gelimer , f Symmachus Papa , ( saith Paulus Diaconus ) UT SUA MEMBRA , suis sumptibus aluit ac fovit liberalissimè ; Pope Symmachus maintain'd them most liberally at his own charge , as members of his own body : which is a convincing argument , that he held them not for Schismatiques . 7. In the next Paragraph , the Bishop by a long discourse founded more upon his own conjectural presumptions , then any thing else , undertakes to shew , how the Popes rose by degrees to that height of Authority , which Protestants cannot endure to see ; in which discourse having first asper'st St. Hierome as being no great friend to Bishops , ( which is both false and injurious to the reputation of so holy a Doctour ) at last he delivers his own assertion , which is , That the very Fountain of Papall Greatness was the Popes residence in the great Imperial City . But we have often shew'd a far different Fountain thereof , viz. the Ordinance of Christ , making St. Peter Head of his Universal Church , in that Text of the Gospel , Tu es Petrus , & super hanc Petram , &c. according to the common Exposition of Fathers ; is it reason then , we should take the Relatours bare word for it without proof ? Well , but Precedency ( saith he ) is one thing , and Authority another ; thereby insinuating that under the reign of Constantin the Bishop of Rome had onely Precedency , or Priority of place in publique Assemblies before other Prelats , by reason of his residence in the Imperial City , without any proper Authority , or Jurisdiction over them . But we have often evidenc'd the contrary . 8. After a slight glance at the Levity of the Eastern , and Arrogancy of the Western Bishops , ( wherein the Pope is no more concern'd then all other Prelats of the West ) he tells us of the Obedience Popes did anciently shew towards the Emperours ; enduring ( saith he ) their Censures and Judgements ; and accepting the ratification of their Election to the Popedom , at the Emperours hands . We confess all this . They endured the Emperours Censures , just in the same manner , as all other oppressed persons are forc'd to endure the judgement of their oppressors . But let all his Lordships party shew us one just judgement , that an Emperour ever pronounced against the Pope . They accepted the ratification of their Election at the Emperours hands : but surely that ( except in some few cases ; where wicked Emperors apparently tyranniz'd over them , and by force compell'd them to do what they pleas'd , contrary to Law and Custom ) was no more then this . The Emperour being duly inform'd , that such or such a person was Canonically chosen Pope , there issued forth of course some Declaration , or other Authentick Act from the Emperour , whereby he gave notice thereof to the principal Judicatures and Prefect ships of the Empire , requiring them , upon all occasions , to acknowledge the said Elected person for Pope . A thing very proper for the Emperour to do , as the state of the Empire then stood , as was also observ'd in the Election of most of the chief Prelats and Officers of the Empire . But his Lordship was much mistaken , if under the notion of ratifying the Popes Election he thought the Emperours had ever any just power to make whom they pleased Pope : never any good Emperour pretended to more , then to see that the Election were Canonical : which , in a matter so highly concerning the peace of the Empire , could not with equity be deny'd them . But had any Emperours refus'd to ratifie the Election of a Pope Canonically chosen , no man but a stranger in Ecclesiastical History , can doubt , but all good Christians would in such case , have adher'd to the said Pope , and not to him the Emperour should have obtruded upon them . We also grant , that so long as the Pope remain'd a Subject of the Empire , this custome continued : but being afterward declar'd free from that subjection , the reason ceased , and the custome with it . See Gratian. Decret . Can. Ego Ludovicus . Dist. 63. & Can. Constitutio , Dist. eâdem where the Emperours themselves renounce it . After this , to prove that the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria were grown so ambitious , that they could hardly contain themselves within the ordinary bounds of their own Jurisdictions , the Relatour cites us three Greek words out of Socrates , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which signifie beyond their Priestly Power , or Office : to which I might well supersede the answer ; since he quotes not the place of his Author ; which , it 's more then probable he industriously omitted . Yet the place ( after some search ) we have found , Lib. 7. Hist. Cap. 11. and must needs say , 't is such a place as clearly shews , not onely that Socrates was an enemy of the Roman Church , and a favourer of Heretiques , ( as divers good Authours charge him ) but that even the Bishop himself was not so great a friend to Truth and Ingenuity as he ought . For certainly the Historian utters the alledged words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meerly out of spleen against the said Patriarchs of Rome and Alexandria , a for not suffering the Novatian Heretiques to exercise publiquely the profession of their Heresie in Catholique Churches : for which how little it became his Lordship first to tax them of pride ; and then to palliate his injurious censure with the testimony of such an Authour , let any man judge . But all 's lawful with some men , that 's done , or spoken against the Roman Church . Billius his observation of the Western Bishops objecting Levity to the Eastern ; and of these retorting Arrogancy to those of the West , proves just as much , as the Testimony of one Adversary against another ; and whether the world by this took notice of the Popes ambition , or not , sure I am , there 's no unbyassed Judgement , but will take notice our Adversary is very destitute of solid proofs , who fills his pages onely with such impertinencies as these . 9. His main design is to overthrow the Popes Supremacy , by shewing it was not lawful to appeal to Rome . But Catholique Authors frame an unanswerable Argument for his Supremacy even from the contrary , thus ; It was ever held lawful to appeal to Rome in Ecclesiastical affairs from all the parts of Christendome : therefore ( say they ) the Pope must needs be Supream Judge in Ecclesiastical matters . This is evidenc'd out of the fourth and seventh Canons of the Council of Sardica , accounted anciently an Appendix of the Council of Nice , and often cited as the same with it . I deny not but some ancient Authors may speak against too frequent appealing to Rome , and declining ordinary Jurisdiction , especially where the crimes were manifest , and all just proceedings towards delinquent parties observ'd : as who doubts , but in Civil causes there may be just ground of complaint against the like appeals , especially , if the Courts , to which the Cause is remov'd by Appeal , be very remote ? but withall , who sees not that such accidental complaints do rather confirm , then weaken , the confess'd Authority and Right of such Superiour Courts , to receive and determine Causes of Appeal ? To prevent , as much as might be , all occasion of Complaints in this kinde , the Council of Sardica provided this expedient , that no Ecclesiasticks under the degree of Bishops should usually be allow'd to appeal to Rome : which may easily serve to reconcile all seeming contradiction in Authours touching this matter . And it must be observ'd , that though the Canons prohibit Priests , and inferiour Clergy-men to appeal out of their own Province , yet they forbid not the Pope to call what causes of theirs he sees necessary , before him : although indeed in the business of Apiarius the Pope , properly speaking , did neither call him out of his own Province to be heard by himself , nor yet admitted his appeal , but remanded him back to his proper Judges , with command they should hear his cause once again , and do him right , in case it were found , that any injustice had been used towards him in the former Sentence . However Bishops were never prohibited the liberty of appealing to Rome , by any Ecclesiastical Canon whatever . 'T is true indeed , the Africans , in their Epistle above-mention'd , thought good , by way of Argument and Deduction , to extend the Canon prohibiting Appeals , even unto Bishops causes : but the general custome of the Church was ever against them , as is manifest by what hath been said . 10. The Fathers in the sixth Council of Carthage petition'd ( I confess ) the Pope not easily to give ear to those , who appeal'd to Rome from Africk , especially where the crimes were manifest . They except also against the manner of proceeding in the case of Apiarius , and some others : in which the Popes Legats , sent into Africk , carried not themselves as Judges , but rather as Patrons and Advocates of the appealers . Wherefore the Prelates at that Council request his Holiness , he would rather please to give power to some in Africk to end such causes , then send from Rome such as should give encouragement to Delinquents , ne fumosum Typhum Saeculi in Ecclesiam Christi videretur inducere ; Lest otherwise ( say they ) his Holiness should seem to introduce the swelling pride , or haughtiness , of the world into the Church of Christ , which ought to be the School and Mistress of Humility . We confess also , that in the times of Pope Zosimus , Boniface the first , and Pope Celestin , there was much searching into the Records of the Nicen Council , to finde the matter of Appeals therein decided . The occasion was this , Pope Zosimus to shew his proceedings in that affair to be not onely just , but Canonical , had , by a little mistake ( the errour , probably , being rather his Secretaries , then his own ) cited the Council of Nice for his Right touching Appeals ; whereas it should have been the Council of Sardica ; in the Canons whereof that Power is clearly allow'd the Pope . Now this Council of Sardica , being rather an Appendix of the Council of Nice then otherwise , and called presently after it ; consisting likewise for the most part of the same Prelates , and assembled for no other end , but to confirm the Faith of the Nicen Council , and supply some Canons necessary for the Discipline of the Church , what matters it , that such a mis-citation , of one Council for another , happened ? or how does it prejudice the Popes right ? Did the African Fathers , or any other Catholique Authour of succeeding ages , ever charge the Pope with falsifying the Canons , upon this account , as Protestants now do ? let them shew this , if they can . CHAP. 16. Of the Title of Vniversal Bishop . ARGUMENT . 1. The Title of Universal Bishop often given by Antiquity to the Bishops of Rome , but never used by them . 2. Though the Bishops of Constantinople assum'd the Title , yet they never conceiv'd it did exempt them from the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome . 3. A double signification of the Term Universal Bishop : the one Grammatical ; the other Metaphorical : and how they differ . 4. St. Gregory condemn'd it onely in the first sense : asserting the second expresly to himself . 5. Phocas gave no new title to Boniface , but onely declar'd , that the Title of Universal Bishop did of right belong to the Pope , and not to the Bishop of Constantinople . 6. St. Irenaeus not rightly translated by the Bishop . 7. Ruffinus corrupts the Nicen Canons , and the Bishop mistakes Ruffinus . 8. The Bishop ( even with Calvins help ) cannot clear himself of the Authority of St. Irenaeus . 9. St. Epiphanius miscited and mistaken by the Bishop . 10. Primacy and Supremacy in the Ecclesiastical sense , all one : and as necessary in the Church of Christ now , as in the Apostles times . AFter many windings , the Bishop leads us at last into a Trite and beaten way , falling upon the Question of John Patriarch of Constantinople , so much censur'd by St. Gregory for assuming the title of Universal Bishop : an objection satisfi'd a hundred times over ; yet though never so clear in it self , the Bishop still endeavours to overshadow it with difficulties , and amuse his Reader . To the end therefore all obscurity may be taken away , and the truth clearly appear , I think it not amiss , in the first place , to set down the whole matter Historically , as I finde it registred in the Monuments of the Church . 1. Know then that the Title of Universal , or Oecumenical , Bishop in Ecclesiastical History , was anciently attributed to the Bishop of Rome . This no man can deny , that reads the Acts of that famous General Council of Chalcedon , where , in a Letter approv'd by the whole Council , and afterward , by order of the Bishops there assembled , inserted into the Acts thereof , the Priests and Deacons of Alexandria , style Pope a Leo , The most Holy , and most Blessed Oecumenical ( or Universal ) Patriarch of great Rome , &c. The National Council of Constantinople did the same to Pope Agapet , calling him their b most holy Lord , the Archbishop of old Rome , and Oecumenical Patriarch , Agapet , &c. John Bishop of Nicopolis , with others , styles Pope Hormisda , c Universi orbis terrarum Patriarcha ; which is , in full sense , the same with Oecumenical . Constantinus Pogonatus the Emperour , in the third Council of Constantinople , ( which is the sixth General ) calls Leo the Second , Oecumenical Pope ; as witness both d Baronius and * Binius . So likewise did Basil the younger , Emperour , with Eustathius Bishop of Constantinople , as appears by the Acts of their e Reconciliation . Yea Balsamon himself , notwithstanding his known rancour against the Roman Sea , is forc'd to acknowledge , that the Greeks had an f ancient custom to style the Bishop of Rome , Oecumenical , or Universal , POPE : nevertheless it cannot be shown they ever made use of this honourable Title ; but rather contented themselves with that of Servus Servorum Dei , as relishing more of Humility and Apostolical meekness . Whereas on the contrary , the Bishops of Constantinople have for many hundreds of years , usurp't it in all their Briefs , Letters , &c. as appears by the Greek g Canon Law it self , viz. in the Titles of Sisinnius , German , Constantin , Alexius , and several other Patriarchs . 2. It is further observable , that the ancient Bishops of Constantinople never intended by this usurped Title to deny the Popes Universal Authority , even over themselves : They never pretended to be either Superiour , or Equal to the Roman Bishop , in regard of Spiritual Jurisdiction ; but onely to be next after , or under him , and above all other Patriarchs . For touching that matter the Emperour Justinian had long since , by an express Law decreed , h that the Bishop of Rome was to be held supream Judge of all Ecclesiastical causes , and Head of all the Prelats of God. And Anthimus , i even while he usurped the Sea of Constantinople , protested obedience to the Bishop of Rome , and wrote to all the other Patriarchs , that he follow'd in all things the Sea Apostolique ; k Menas also , his Competitour , made publique profession in the same Council to do the like , and to obey in every thing the Sea Apostolique . Yea John himself Bishop of Constantinople , even whilst he contended so eagerly for the title of Universal Bishop , neither could , nor durst hinder the Appeal of a certain Priest of Chalcedon , ( a City under the Patriarchal Jurisdiction of Constantinople ) to Pope Gregory : by whom it l was admitted , the Priest righted , and the judgement of that Patriarch , formerly given against him , reversed by the Popes Sentence : which was also accepted as valid by the said Patriarch of Constantinople . I adde , that St. Gregory himself , even whilst he inveigh'd most sharply against the title of Universal Bishop , expresly m avoucheth , that both the Emperour and Bishop of Constantinople professed continually , that the Church of Constantinople was subject to the Sea Apostolique . And whereas some carp at this Epistle of St. Gregory , because it names the Bishop of Constantinople Eusebius , there being ( as they say ) no Bishop of Constantinople of that name in St. Gregories time ; it is answer'd , that n Amularius Fortunatus , an approved Authour , that wrote but two hundred years after St. Gregories time , cites the whole Epistle as Authentique , without the name Eusebius : So that ( the subjection of the Sea of Constantinople to that of Rome , being a thing so confessed in all antiquity ) this will seem but a weak objection . Lastly it may be observ'd , that although the Patriarchs of Constantinople challeng'd the title of Oecumenical , or Universal , yet when either the Pope , or his Legats were with them , at Constantinople or any other City , they usually forebore it , and remitted it wholly to the Pope . This appears by the Subscriptions in the third General Council of Constantinople , under Constantinus Pogonatus , in the next age after St. Gregory : where Pope Agatho is styled Universal ; and the Bishop of Constantinople subscribes himself only , George , by the mercy of God Bishop of Constantinople . 3. Thus we see in brief , how matters have passed de facto concerning the title of Universal Bishop . Now to answer the Relatours Objection we are to take notice , that the term Universal Bishop is capable of two senses ; the one Grammatical , the other Metaphorical . In the Grammatical sense it signifies Bishop of the Universal Church , and of all Churches in particular , even to the exclusion of all others from being properly Bishops ; and consequently displaceable at his pleasure , as being onely his , not Christs Officers , and receiving Authority from him , and not from Christ. In the Metaphorical sense it signifies onely so high and eminent a Dignity above all other Bishops throughout the whole Church , that though he , who is stiled Universal Bishop , hath a real and true Superintendency , Jurisdiction , and Authority over all other Bishops , yet that they be as truly and properly Bishops in their respective Provinces and Diocesses , as he himself . For who doubts , but a meer Diocesan Bishop is as truly a Bishop , and chief Officer of Christ in his Diocess , as an Archbishop , Metropolitan , Primate , or Patriarch , in their several Districts ; though it cannot be deny'd , but every one of these have respectively true Ecclesiastical Authority over him ? The like is visible in the Subordination of different Tribunals in the Commonwealth : where the Inferiour Judge is as truly an Officer of the State , and a Magistrate , as the Superiour ; and yet the Inferiour is subject to the Superiour , and must be content , in case of Appeals , to have both the Causes of his Court , and himself too , judged by the Superiour , when Justice shall require it . 4. This being clear'd , 't is evident , that St. Gregory , when he inveighs against the title of Universal Bishop , takes it in the Literal and Grammatical sense ; in which we confess it contains a capital Errour and grand Heresie , destructive of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy , and Christs Institution ; and therefore not undeservedly censur'd by the Holy Zeal of St. Gregory , as Monstrous , Blasphemous , and in some sort Antichristian . I say , 't is evident out of St. Gregory himself , even in those Epistles cited by the Bishop , that he takes the word in the literal and worst sense , when he declaims so vehemently against it . For he sayes expresly , If there be one who is UNIVERSAL Bishop all the rest are no more Bishops . So that in St. Gregories meaning , whoever assumes to himself the title of Universal , doth not content himself , as all the Stewards of Christs Family ought to do , viz. in being a Servant over his Fellow Servants , but pretends in effect to be himself their Master , and to make them all his own Servants , receiving and holding their respective Charges , not from their true Master , Jesus Christ , but from him . But some perhaps will object . The Bishop of Constantinople did not actually aspire to such a height of pride ; nay 't is scarce credible he either did , or could pretend to make himself the onely Bishop in Christendome , degrading as it were all others from the degree of Bishops . I answer , admit he did not pretend to this ; yet seeing he did so unwarrantably usurp a Title , which in the best sense could not possibly belong to him , but being construed in the other , to which it is very liable , it must needs contain so poysonous and prodigious an Arrogance , that ( what ever his actual pretensions might be ) St. Gregory had just reason both to suspect and smartly rebuke him as aiming thereat . Just as if a Subject of the King of Spain ( for instance ) should contrary to the Kings consent , take upon him the Title of Vice-Roy of Naples , or Sicily , though perhaps he really intended no more , yet doubtlesse he would be soon suspected , nay charged with a trayterous designe of making himself absolute King. But as for the Metaphorical signification of the word , which allows all other inferious Bishops to be true Bishops , and to have true Episcopal Jurisdiction , as Officers ordained by Christ , though subordinate to the Popes Supream Authority , St. Gregory was so far from thinking it Blasphemous , or Antichristian pride , that though indeed he did not claim the Title even in this sense , yet was it the constant practise both of his Predecessors and himself to exercise the substance of it , that is , Universal Jurisdiction and Authority over all other Bishops and Patriarchs throughout the whole Church , when necessity required : and particularly over the Bishops of Constantinople , who were then risen to the Highest Patriarchall Dignity in the Church next the Pope . In those very Epistles , where Saint Gregory so much inveighs against the Title of Universal Bishop , and him that arrogantly assum'd it , 't is manifest , that Pope 〈◊〉 , St. Gregories Predecessour , annull'd the Decree of the Council of Constantinople , wherein this Title had been given to the Bishop of that City . And did not St Gregory himself repeal it again , and threaten to excommunicate John Bishop of Constantinople , in case he desisted not from the usurpation of it ? Ecclesiam 〈◊〉 , ( sayes St. Gregory ) I will use the Churches Authority against him . Another Argument , that St. Gregory takes not the word Universal in the Metaphorical sense , when he calls it Antichristian and Blasphemous , is , that even in the Epistle here cited by the Bishop , he teaches , that the Care and Principality over the whole Church was committed to St. Peter , ( which is all that the Metaphoricall sense of Oecumenicus or Universal contains ) and yet denies he was ever call'd Universal Apostle . He grants likewise , that the High Priest was supream Ecclesiasticall Governour of the whole Jewish Church , yet was not call'd Universal Priest : all which evidently shews , that St. Gregory quarrels not the word in that signification : Why ? because he acknowledges the lawfulness of the thing signified by it . This premised , it will not be hard to answer all the Bishop objects against us in this particular . To his first objection we grant , that according to the Literal sense of the word , ( in which St. Gregory took it ) the assuming such a Title argued so great a pride in the Assumer , as might portend the nearness of Antichrists time . To his second , taking the word Universal in the sense disclaimed by St. Gregory , and the word Monarch in its rigorous propriety , whereby it answers to the literal sense of Oecumenicus , or universalis Episcopus , I deny that there was ever any Vniversal Bishop , or Monarch , over the whole Militaut Church , either for the first 600. years before St. Gregory , or at any time since . For to be a Monarch over the Church in propriety of speech , or such an Vniversal Bishop , is in effect to un-bishop all other Prelates of the Church , and make them onely Officers ad placitum , and Delegates of the said Vniversal Bishop , or Monarch , placeable and displaceable at his sole pleasure , like the Officers of Temporall Monarchs . To what he alledges out of Baronius , of Gregory the seventh his giving the Title of Vniversal to the Bishop of Rome in a Councill about the year 1076. I answer , it signifies no more then this , that anciently the said Title ( still understood in the Metaphorical and lawful sense ) was due to the Bishop of Rome , and to no other : which is undeniably true . Neither are we to think , that those seven and twenty Dictatus Papae , ( as they are call'd ) recounted by Baronius , and objected here by the Bishop , are all matters of Faith , but ( as it were ) a Catalogue , or Abridgement of such Priviledges , as partly by Divine Institution , partly by long Custom and Prescription , partly by Canon , and partly by probable consequences drawn from Principles of Faith , were found agreeable to the Supream Authority of the Roman Bishop . 5. What he sayes of Phocas the Emperour's conferring the Title of Universal Bishop upon Boniface the Third , thereby intimating , that it was never given to Popes before , is most false . For all that Phocas did was but to declare , that the Title in contest did of right belong to the Bishop of Rome onely : which is a sufficient evidence , that before the said Declaration it had been given to the Bishop of Rome . Neither was there of this any question ; all the Dispute was , whether it might not be also extended to the Bishop of Constantinople : and this indeed was declar'd in the Negative by Phocas . Now who seeth not , that 't is a far different thing to declare a Title , or Dignity to be of right due , and another to conferre it de Novo upon any one . If his late Majesty of glorious memory had been pleas'd ( when time was ) to have declar'd W. L. Patriarch of England , we may well suppose , his Lordship would not have granted the Title had been de Novo conferr'd on him ; seeing he has already contended , that long before , viz in Vrban the second 's time , it was given to the Archbishop of Canterbury . But put case Phocas had indeed conferr'd the Title of Vniversal Bishop upon Pope Boniface , as a new Dignity , not formerly belonging to him , yet would it make but little to his Lordships purpose . For we say again , 't is not all one to have a Title conferr'd by another , and to assume , or use it ones self . The Bishop should have prov'd , that Pope Boniface us'd the Title of Vniversal Bishop , in his ordinary style , as the Bishops of Constantinople are prov'd to have done of late times , and as anciently the said John , and Cyriacus his Successour , attempted to do : which was the thing St. Gregory inveigh'd against . The Bishop therefore makes here a fallacious Turn , when he shifts the question from taking to giving , and passeth from ones self to another person . Let it be shewen that Boniface the Third , or any other Popes his Successourss , assum'd this Title , as the Bishops of Constantinople did : for till this be prov'd , it will not follow , that either Pelagius and St. Gregory erred in reproving , and condemning the Bishop of Constantinoples undue assuming that Title to himself , or that Pope Boniface and his Successours did erre , by having it declar'd due to them by another . Why may not the same person be very unwilling to take an extravagant Title upon himself , and yet for good reasons be well content that another give it him ? Who knows not , that anciently the Bishop of Rome was styled Caput Ecclesiae , Custos Vineae , and Vicarius Christi , they being Titles due to his place and Office ; and though the Popes gainsay'd them not , yet Christian Humility ever taught them to forbear the use of such titles themselves . The Relatour here professes to give an Historical account , how the Popes grew under the Emperours , and by degrees attained the heighth they are now at . To which I answer . We deny not , but that in Temporal Power and Authority the Popes grew great by the Patronage of Christian Emperours . But what is this to the purpose ? If he would have said any thing material , he should have prov'd that the Popes rose by the Emperours means to their Spiritual Authority and Jurisdiction over all other Bishops throughout the whole Catholique Church : which is the onely thing they claim jure divino ; and which is so annexed to the Dignity of their Office by Christs Institution , without the least dependance of any Emperours or Secular Powers , that were the Pope depriv'd of all his Temporalties , ( which can never be done by any Secular Power , without committing a most enormous Sacriledge ) and reduc'd to the poverty of St. Peter himself , the first of them ; yet could not his Spiritual Authority suffer the least Diminution by it . Wherefore ( to make short ) it concerns us not to take further notice of his many Historical Criticismes and meer Conjectures upon this subject , unto num . 13. And whereas he again en passant touches upon the Popes Election approv'd and 〈◊〉 by the Emperour , it hath receiv'd a full answer above . 6. His next endeavour is to infringe A. C.'s proof of the Popes Supream Pastoral Authority out of St. Irenaeus . To which purpose , we are told by way of Caveat , how unlikely a man St. Irenaeus was ( being a Gallican Bishop ) to captivate the Liberty of that Church under the Principality of Rome . As if ( forsooth ) the so much talk'd of liberties of the Gallican Church , had been things known , or heard of in St. Irenaeus's time . But Irenaeus ( sayes the Bishop ) reprehended Pope Victor for excommunicating the Asian Churches : citing for this in the margin Euseb . l. 5. c. 25. it should be c. 24. We answer , Eusebius hath not a word importing reprehension , but rather a friendly and seasonable perswasion : his words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. he exhorts him after a handsome manner , as reflecting on the Popes Dignity , and clearly shews , that the Pope had of right some authority over the Asian Bishops : and by consequence over the whole Church . For otherwise it had been very absurd in St. Irenaeus to perswade Pope Victor not to cut off from the Church so many Christian Provinces , had he believ'd ( as Protestants contend he did ) that the Pope had no power at all to cut them off . Just as if a man should entreat the Bishop of Rochester ( for example ) not to excommunicate the Archbishop of York , and all the Bishops of his Province ; over whom he hath not any the least pretence of Jurisdiction . But admit St. Irenaeus had indeed reprov'd Pope Victor for what he did in the case of the Asian Bishops , it being a matter of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction onely , in the exercise whereof 't is not deny'd , but the Pope , through misinformation incident to humane frailty , may sometimes go too far , what does it prove more then that ( possibly ) the Pope proceeded a little too severely , or hastily with those Christians , whose fault did not , in the judgement of St. Irenaeus and some others , deserve so heavy a censure ? But who sees not , that all this rather confirms the Popes power ? Doth St. Irenaeus , or any other beside him , complain of the Popes usurpation in this case ? Do they charge him with taking more upon him , then he had authority to do ? Do they tell him , he had no authority to excommunicate those Asian Bishops , or use any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over them , as Protestants tell him in reference to themselves ? And yet who can doubt but this they would have told him , and with great bitterness too , considering the provocation , had they had just ground to do so , or could have done it without proclaiming themselves ipso facto Schismatiques , and shaking the very Foundation of the Churches Discipline and Unity ? But these are onely his Lordships light Skirmishes : he ventures at last to grapple with the Authority it self , alledg'd by A. C. out of S. Irenaeus ; a whose words , though faithfully cited by him in the Latine , yet in rendring them English , he cunningly windes about in his Labyrinth . For first he translates UNDIQUE round about , as if St. Irenaeus spake onely of those neighbouring Churches round about Rome , and not the Churches throughout the World ; whereas undique as naturally signifies every where and from all parts : witness Thomas Thomasius , where the word undique is thus Englished , from all places , parts , and corners , every where ; which is also seconded by the Greek Lexicons , where these Adverbs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ( which undeniably signifie from all parts universally ) are rendred by the word undique . And that here it must needs signifie every where , or from all parts , is clear from the very scope of St. Irenaeus's discourse ; which was to prove , that the Tradition of the Roman Church was a full Evidence ( plenissima ostensio ) of the Doctrine preach'd by the Apostles all over the world ( in toto mundo . ) And this he evinces from the necessary recourse , which in all doubts of Faith all Churches , or all the Faithful were to have from all parts to the Church of Rome ( propter potentiorem Principalitatem , for her more powerfull Principality ) as to their constant Guide therein ; and by vertue of which recourse all the Faithful every where had alwayes conserv'd the Integrity of Apostolicall Tradition . In quâ semper ab his qui sunt undique conservata est ea , quae est ab Apostolis Traditio . This Argument did Irenaeas use in confutation of the Hevetiques he disputed against in France ; which , taking his words in the True and Genuine sense , was a very pregnant one , and given as a Rule to teach , not onely Heretiques , but all Christians , that the Doctrine or Tradition , of the Roman Church was , as it were , the Touch-stone of all Apostolical Doctrine ; If now we turn the Medal , and look upon this Holy Doctors argument in the sense the Bishop takes his words , we shall finde it speak little more then non-sense . His Lordship , to avoid the Prerogative ascrib'd by St. Irenaeus and all Catholiques to the Roman Church , will needs , ( as I have said ) make undique to signifie no more then round about ; thereby restraining that more powerful Principality St. Irenaeus speaks of , to the Provinces of Italy and Islands about it , as the Patriarchate of the Bishop of Rome , beyond which the power of that Church extended not . In which supposition 〈◊〉 will be found to argue thus against the Heretiques of his time . 'T is necessary that all the Churches , or the Faithful round about Rome , viz. those onely of Italy and the Islands adjacent , which make up the Roman Patriarchate , should have recourse to the Church of Rome , propter potentiorem Principalitatem , that is , for its Bishops precedence of place , or in regard of his Patriarchal Power within the aforesaid Precincts . Therefore the Gnosticks , and other Heretiques in France or any other part of the world , are convinced of Heresie for not having recourse to the Church of Rome . Is not this fine Meandrick Logick , well beseeming so noble a Labyrinth ? But let us observe , how the Relatour deals with the latter part of this Fathers Text , In quâ semper ab his qui sunt undique , conservata est ea , quae est ab Apostolis Traditio ; which he thus translates : In which ( Church ) is conserved that Tradition , which was deliver'd by the Apostles ; and not according to his Authour , who sayes alwayes conserved . The word alwayes was not to appear in English , for fear it might induce some impartial Readers to entertain too worthy an opinion of the Roman Church . Neither did he think it fit to give his Reader the English of these words , ab his qui sunt undique , though inserted among the former , which would too much have opened the Fathers meaning , viz. that not onely the Church of Rome ( as 't is a particular Church ) kept intirely the Apostolical Tradition , but that in it all the Faithful every where did keep the same Apostolical Tradition , by being in unity and Communion with her . Thus you may see to what shifts , and upon what shelves even learned men are often driven by maintaining errour . From the Premises I argue thus . All the Faithful every where must of necessity have recourse to the Church of Rome propter potentiorem Principalitatem , by reason of her more powerful Principality . This is St. Irenaeus his Proposition . But there could be no necessity they all should have recourse to that Church by reason of her more powerful Principality , if her said power exended not to them all . This is evident to reason . Ergo , this more powerful Principality of the Roman Church , must needs extend to all the Faithful every where , and not onely to those of the Suburbicary Churches , or Patriarchal Diocess of Rome , as the Bishop pleads . 7. Little therefore is it to his advantage , what he pretends to shew out of Ruffinus , viz that the extent of the Roman Patriarchate was contain'd within the Islands and Precincts of Italy : since it is inconsistent with the Vote of all Antiquity , and gives St. Irenaeus the lye . Nay it makes her Jurisdiction incomparably less , then any of the other Patriarchal Churches ; yea , of much less extent , then many Metropolitan Churches . To which I add , 't is contrary even to the common compute of Protestants themselves , who often grant the Bishop of Rome to have been Patriarch of the West ; which undeniably contains many vaste Provinces and Nations , beside Italy and the Islands about it . Wherefore , as the Bishop could not altogether deny , but the word Suburbicary was unduly added by Ruffinus in the Translation of the Nicene Canon , so I say 't is necessary to understand it ( unless we will contradict all the world ) not in the Bishops sense , as signifying onely the Churches of Italy , and the Islands thereto belonging , but as generally signifying all Churches and Cities , any way suburdinate to the City of Rome ; which was at that time known , ( as also to this day ) by the name of Urbs , or City , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , by way of excellency ; not as it related to the Prefect , or Governour of Rome , in regard of whose ordinary Jurisdiction , we confess , it commanded onely those few places about it in Italy ; but as it related to the Emperour himself : in which sense the word Suburbicary rightly signifies all Cities , or Churches whatsoever within the Roman Empire ; as the word Romania also anciently signified the whole Imperial Territory , as Card. Perron clearly proves upon this Subject . This exposition of Ruffinus his term Suburbicary wants not ground even in his own Text , who makes , as it were , a contradistinction between Egypt , and the Suburbicary Churches . Now under Egypt he comprehends Lybia , Pentapolis and Ethiopia ; which being without the Precincts of the Empire , were committed to the power and care of the Patriarch of Alexandria : but all Suburbicary Cities , that is , such as were under the City of Rome as it was Imperial , were left under the Bishop of Rome , and he ( by reason of his Seat at Rome ) was still to be their chief Prelat , and to have a more immediate and ordinary care over them , then he had over those other Cities , which were out of the Empire : though as St. Peters Successour he had the universal care of the whole Church , and that full Potentiorem Principalitatem , which St. Irenaeus ascribes unto him . 8. Touching Calvin's conjecture that recourse was therefore had to Rome , because at that time the Roman Church was more constant to the Truth , and less distracted with dangerous opinions , it is wholly inept . For 't is false , that before St. Irenaeus's time , Rome was more constant in the Faith , then the other Churches of Greece and Africk had been , seeing the African Churches were then as free from Heresie as Rome . 9. The Bishop here gives himself a great deal of trouble to wrest from us a Text or two of Epiphanius , touching the Authority of St. Peter and his Successours : wherein though he grants somewhat beyond his wonted reservedness , that St. Peters person is understood in that Text of the Gospel , Super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam , &c. Matth. 16. 18. yet will he by no means be perswaded to extend it any further then his person . But we affirm 't is clear even by the Texts of St. Epiphanius , that this promise made by Christ to St. Peter , is derived to his Successours . For first , after the words a Et Portae inferorum , &c. The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it , this Father immediately addes , Quarum Portarum nomine , Hereses & Haeresewn conditores intelliguntur , by the Gates of Hell Heresies and the Authours of Heresies are understood , that is to say , All Heresies and all Authours of Heresies whatever shall arise : Such indefinite Propositions being equivalent to Universal . True it is , the Bishop omits these last words by his wonted Et caetera . However , since he acknowledges that by the Firm Rock whereon our Saviour , according to Epiphanius , promised to build his Church , St. Peter is personally understood , we shall easily make good our Argument from it , and solve his objections . For he must consequently acknowledge , the Church so founded on St. Peter , as by vertue of that foundation it was to prevail against all Heresies , and Inventors of Heresie that should at any time impugne the Churches Faith ; which could not possibly be verified in case Christs promise were to be limitted to St. Peters person alone . For else why might not Heresies and Heretiques after St. Peters death , prevail against the Church ; yea so far prevail , as utterly to extinguish the true Faith ? Wherefore the Bishops long discourse , by way of Gloss on this and some other Texts of the same Father , concerns us not at all . For it being once granted , that St. Peter was personally to uphold the Church in the profession of the true Faith , ( as its principal Foundation under Christ ) we have our desire . Nevertheless we deny that he hath any ground to limit to St. Peter onely those Elogiums given him by St. Epiphanius , and not allow them extendible to his Successours , so far as they are necessary for their upholding the Church also in the profession of true Faith. Wherefore as St. Peters Authority is ( by the Bishops own confession ) rightly urg'd by Epiphanius to prove the Godhead of the Holy Ghost against the Hereticks that deny'd it , so doubtless by vertue of the same promise and institution of Christ , may and ought the Authority of his Successors be urg'd in time to come , in proof of any other contested Article , or point of Faith. Though therefore we affirm not ( as the Relatour is frequently imposing upon us ) that St. Peter and his Successours are ( by vertue of this Text ) to governe the Church as Princes and Monarchs , yet we say , that by vertue thereof they so govern the Church , as we may securely relie on them in matters of Faith , at least in such as they definitively teach and promulgate to the whole Church . But in the close the Bishop undertakes a strange task . He will prove that Epiphanius , in most express terms , and that twice repeated , makes not St. Peter , but St. James Successour to our Lord in the Principality of his Church . But he every way mistakes . For first in the places he alledges , there 's not a word of the Churches Principality . Secondly he meerly equivocates in the words ante caeteros omnes , which signifie onely priority of time , because St. James was the first of the Apostles , that was ordain'd Bishop of any particular place ; viz. at Jerusalem , ( as both b Eusebius and St. c Hierome witness ) which is call'd Christs Throne , because our Saviour himself had there preach't the Gospel , and was principally and immediately sent thither . Nor is it unusual in ancient Ecclesiastical Writers , to give the title of Christs Throne to any Episcopal Chair , or Seat whatsoever . To the Relatours assertion that we all say , but no man proves , that the Bishop of Rome succeeded in all St. Peters Prerogatives , which are ordinary , and belong'd to him as a Bishop , though not in the extraordinary which belong'd to him as an Apostle . I answer , Bellarmin ( beside many Catholique Divines ) doth not onely say , but prove , that the Pope succeeds St. Peter , not onely in the Prerogatives that belong'd to him as a Bishop , but in all Prerogatives Apostolical ; which were of Ordinary necessity to continue in the Church for its Government , and preservation of the True Faith ; as his Disputations upon this Subject sufficiently shew , to any man that reads him with an unbyassed judgement . For can any thing be more express then these words , lib. 1. De Rom , Pont. cap. 9. Mortuis autem Apostolis , Apostolica Authoritas in solo Petri Successore permansit . When the Apostles were dead , the Authority Apostolical resided onely in St. Peters Successor . Is this to say , the Pope succeeded St. Peter onely in his Episcopal Prerogatives ? I adde , that Bellarmin in the same chapter goes on , shewing the difference between St. Peters Successour , and the Successours of the rest of the Apostles , viz. that they were Bishops onely , and that their Authority reached not to a Jurisdiction over the whole Church , as that of St. Peters Successours did : who were therefore stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the d Apostolical Bishops , and their Sea , the Sea Apostolique , and their Office , The Apostolate . See his words in the Margin : all which he there proves by the Authority of the Ancient Fathers . Wherefore the Bishop 〈◊〉 very largely upon his Readers Credulity , while he quotes Bellarmin for this Assertion , that the Pope succeeds not St. Peter in any Prerogative that belong'd to him as an Apostle . 10. However the Relatour is so kinde to St. Peter , as to allow him a Primacy of Order : but that is not so much as the Fathers allow him . For by his own Confession , Doctor Reinolds against Hart , chap. 5. proves at large , that the Fathers allow St. Peter , and that in the way of Prerogative above the rest of the Apostles , not onely Primacy of Order , but Authority and Principality too ; which surely imply Power : and I would have any man shew us some good Authour of ancient times , in whom either the Latine word Primatus , or the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answering to it , are attributed to any Ecclesiastical person , as signifying onely Precedency in order and place , and not a true Superiour Authority and Jurisdiction over those , in relation to whom such a person is said to have Primacy , or to be Primate . Is not the contrary most evident , viz. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alwayes signifies Preheminence in Authority ? and Primatus more especially Preheminence , or Superiority , in Ecclesiastical Government ? Is the Primate of any Christian Nation no more then one that hath Precedence in place ? Doth that Title signifie no more in England , then that the Arch-bishop of Canterbury ought to have the chief place in the Convocation-House ? Have not all Catholique Authours ( yea and many Protestants too ) ever thought they signified the Supreme Authority of the Bishop of Rome both sufficiently and properly by the word Primatus ? Are there not many Volumes extant on both sides De Primatu Romani Pontificis ? Were their Authors ever tax'd for speaking ambiguously in using that terme ? wherefore if St. Peter had Primacy , he had also Supremacy ; and if his Primacy were Universal over all , his Supremacy was so too : Since they both signifie the same thing ; viz. an eminency of Authority and Power in one above the rest . Again , St. Hierome , speaking of this very subject , saith a Primatus Petro datur , ut Capite constituto ' Schismatis tollatur occasio . Can any man in his wits think , that by Primatus he mean't onely Precedency of Order ? was that sufficient to prevent Schisme ? If therefore a True and Proper Primacy be granted by Protestants to St. Peters Successour also , before and above all other Bishops and Patriarchs of the whole Church , ( as divers of them grant the Fathers did ) it must be also granted , that Supremacy of Power over all Bishops and Patriarchs of the Church is due unto him . Now that Primacy , or Supremacy , of right belongs to St. Peters Successour , no less then to himself , I evince by this following Argument . Whatsoever Power or Jurisdiction was necessary in the Apostles time , for the due Government of the Church in order to prevention of Schismes and procurement of Unity , must à fortiori be necessary in all succeeding ages . But the Power and Jurisdiction of One ( viz. St. Peter , or his Successour ) over all Christians whatsoever ( not excepting even the Apostles themselves ) was necessary in the Apostles time for the due Government of the Church , in order to prevention of Schisms and procurement of Unity . Ergo the Power and Jurisdiction of One ( viz. St. Peter or his Successour ) is à fortiori necessary in all succeeding Ages . The Major , viz. that whatsoever Power and Jurisdiction was necessary in the Apostles time for the due Government of the Church , &c. must needs be necessary in all succeeding Ages , is clear from meer Inspection into those succeeding Ages to this present : where it is visible , by what degrees the great zeal of the Primitive Christians has decay'd and cooled even to this day , to the production of infinite Schismes and Heresies : which must needs , ere this , have overwhelm'd and utterly confounded the Church , had not our Blessed Saviour ( that Divine Law-giver ) laid that original Platform of Church-Government , which was to serve us as a pattern to the end of the world : our Saviour Christ not so much regarding the need of it during the Apostles lives , as the necessity his all-seeing wisdom foresaw would be of it in all future Ages . The Minor is prov'd effectively by the precedent Discourse , where St. Peters Primacy ( that is , as we there shew , his Supremacy over all ) is confest by his Lordship and other Protestants . The Conclusion therefore is undenyable ; viz. that 't is necessary for the Due Government of the Church , that one should be endow'd with Power and Jurisdiction over all Christians in all succeeding ages . Adde hereunto , that so long as the End is but in Acquisition , and not compleatly gained , the Necessary Means to obtain it is alwayes necessary . But the End , in our present case , viz. the Due Government of the Church , the preserving it in the Unity of True Catholick Faith and Christian Charity , is , and ever hath been since the Apostles time , but in Acquisition , and shall not be compleatly gained till the end of the world . Ergo , the Necessary Means , viz. the Supreme Authority of One over All in the Government of the Church , is , hath been , and ever will be necessary to the Worlds End. CHAP. 17. The Popes Authority , asserted and vindicated . ARGUMENT . 1. Our Saviours prayer for St. Peter , extended to his Successours . 2. What it effected for St. Peter , and what for them . 3. PASCE OVES & AGNOS , John 21. 15. 17. a Special charge to St. Peter ; and not common , in all respects , to the rest of the Apostles . 4. A.C. begs not the question , but proves it . 5. The Bishop willingly mistakes him , about the Notion of a General Council . 6. Optatus and St. Austins words , cited nothing to the purpose . 7. The Popes Ancient and undoubted right , to confirm General Councils . 8. The Bishops Lesbian Rule for deciding Controversies , examin'd and shew'n to be vain . 9. The Popes Authority duly acknowledged , sufficient to prevent Schismes and Heresies . 10. The Government of the Church , not purely Monarchical , but Mixt. 11. How the Literae Communicatoriae of the Pope , and other Catholique Bishops , differ'd . 1. THe Bishop himself , in his Answers to the Argument drawn from our Saviours Prayer for St. Peter , Luke 22. 32. ( Ego rogavi pro Te , &c. I have prayed for thee , that thy Faith fail not ) shews the insufficiency of his Evasions a 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 a 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 of Argument to disprove it ; but knowing it to be the sense of all Antiquity , windes about , and falls upon that odious question of Killing and deposing Kings ; wherein , he presum'd , it would be more easie for him to choak his adversary . But it shall not serve his turn . For we say first , he commits a gross fallacy , arguing à negatione speciei ad negationem generis ; which is a new kinde of Logick . For what is it else to inferre the Pope has no Universal Power , or Supremacy at all , over the whole Church , because he hath not such or such a particular power over Christian Kings and Princes ? His Lordship should have remembred , that we were yet upon the question An sit , whether or no the Pope hath an universal Power and Authority over the whole Church ; which till it be fairly determin'd , 't is but to make too much haste , and pervert due order , to fall upon the Question Quid sit , and dispute wherein it consists , and how far it extends ? Secondly we answer , the point of killing Kings is a most false and scandalous Imputation . For what Pope ever kill'd , or gave Command , Warrant , or Authority for the killing of any King ? or what Catholique Author ever taught , that he had power from Christ so to do ? And as for deposing them , I answer , 't is no point of our Faith , that the Pope hath power to do it : and therefore it is no part of my task to dispute it . But what Protestants have both done and justifi'd in the worst of these kindes , is but too fresh in memory . 4. A. C. does not beg the question , when he sayes , The Bishop of Rome shall never refuse to feed and govern the whole Flock of Christ , in such sort , as no particular man , or Church , shall have just cause to make a separation from it ; seeing it is the clear inference of his precedent discourse : it is rather a begging the question in his Lordship to tell us onely , while he ought to prove it , that Protestants have made no Separation from the General Church , but onely from the Church of Rome , and such other Churches , as by adhering to her have hazarded themselves , and do now mis-call themselves THE WHOLE CATHOLIQUE CHURCH . It is also in this case a begging the question , to affirm the Roman-Catholique Church to be in errour : since no man did ever grant his Lordship that she was so ? or hath he any where convinc'd her of errour ? He hath often said it and suppos'd it , I know ; but where he hath prov'd it I know not . 'T is therefore yet to be prov'd that the Roman-Catholique Church hath err'd in any Doctrine , publiquely defined by her . Again we deny , there is any hazard in adhering to the Roman Church , she being the unshaken Rock of Truth , and solely able to shew a continual Succession of lawfully-Sent Pastors and Teachers , from Christ to our present times , who have hitherto taught the same unchanged Doctrine , and shall infallibly , according to Christs promise , continue so teaching it unto the worlds end . From this onely Catholique Church Protestants have unhappily sever'd themselves , as I have already prov'd , a and are through their own fault so absolutely depriv'd of all Communion with her , that they can no more be esteem'd members of this Church , in the condition they now stand , then a wither'd branch can be accounted a part of the Tree from which it was broken . In vain therefore doth the Relatour pretend , that Protestants have not left the Church in her Essence , but in her Errours . The Essence of the Church consists in her Faith , Sacraments , Discipline : In all these ( 't is too manifest to be deny'd ) Protestants have forsaken the Church , yea and perpetually fight against her ; wherefore they have left her in things essential , or pertaining to the life and being of the Church . And yet they have the confidence to call these Essentials , Errours ; which is a bold and erroneous presumption : wherein they imitate no less the old Heretiques in the Primitive times of the Church , viz. the Novatians , Arians , Nestorians , &c. then the Swarms of new Sectaries among themselves . For which of all these did not , or would not , upon occasion plead , they forsook not the Essence of the Church , but her Errours ; they separated not from her Communion , but Corruption ? 5. Well . But after all disputes a man would imagine , that our learned Antagonist would at length submit to a General Council . For first he thus professes , speaking to A. C. What greater , or surer judgement you can have , where sense of Scripture is doubted , then a General Council , I do not see . And immediately after he cites a long Text of A. C's . which speaks to this purpose ; That if all the Pastours of the Church be gather'd together in the Name of Christ , and pray unanimously for the promis'd Assistance of the Holy Ghost , making great and diligent search and examination of the Scriptures and other grounds of Faith , and hearing each Pastour declare what hath been the Ancient Tradition of this Church , shall thereupon Decree some particular point , or matter , to be held for Divine Truth , if the Pastours of the Church ( or General Council ) may erre in such a Decree , what can be firm or certain upon Earth ? In answer to this he both professes , that it seems fair , and also freely grants , that a General Council is the best Judge on Earth for Controversies of Faith , where the sense of Scripture is doubted . This would make a man think the Bishop intended to conform himself to such a Decree . But to the end all the world may see how unwillingly he yields to reason , especially when it comes from an Adversary , he presently again begins to quarrel with A. C. telling us , there was never any such General Council call'd , nor indeed possible to be call'd , as A. C. speaks of , viz. in which all Pastours were gather'd together . As if A. C. were so simple , as by all Pastours to understand Numerically and Individually ALL , that is , every one of them , without exception ; and that a Council could not be thought sufficiently General , nor an Obligatory Decree of Faith be made by it , unless all the Pastours of the Church in this sense were gather'd together : especially he having so clearly declar'd his meaning to the contrary , in defending the Council of Trent to have been a true General Council : where 't is manifest all Pastours whatsoever did not convene ; though there were as many , as had met in some other General Councils , esteem'd even by Protestants for such . And strange it is to see , how long the Relatour skirmishes with meer shadows , and what inferences he makes meerly upon this most salsly-suppos'd , and wholly-improbable sense of A. C's . words . All Pastours then , in that Text of A. C. signifie no more , then all that are requisite , or so many of all as are , in the judgement of Reason and Christian Prudence , duly sufficient to constitute a True and Lawful General Council . If so many , lawfully call'd , be gather'd together , 't is the ALL that A. C. intends : and if these lawfully assembled , pray for the promis'd Assistance of the Holy Ghost , they questionless shall obtain it , seeing our Saviour cannot fail of his word . Another Exception against that cited passage of A. C. is , that he speaking of Points decreed by a General Council , makes Firm , and Infallible to be Synonyma's : But here again the Bishop fails in his observation . A. C. onely tells us , that the Decree of such a General Council was Firm , and Infallible , that is , not onely Firm , but also Infallible . Is this to make them signifie the same thing ? Neither doth he speak so much of what is Infallible in it self , as what is Infallible in order to us . So that , this and the Premises considered , there must needs be some other visible and Infallible Judge , ( viz. a General Council ) beside Scripture , for setling Controversies in the Church , and making all points of Faith not onely Firm , but Infallible . 6. What the Relatour brings in his swelling Margent , out of Optatus and St. Austin , serves onely to amuse his Reader . We grant that Christ did not dye Intestate , but left behinde him a Will ; which was afterwards written . So that in rigour of speech he left onely a Nuncupative Will , which was after deliver'd to the Church , partly by Writing , partly by Tradition . However , we stand not upon the terms , but the thing it self ; and have recourse with St. Austin and Optatus to the Written Word ( or Will ) in matters of Faith. We urge and plead it in almost all matters controverted in Religion between us and them . But we demand , what was to be done by those first Christians , who liv'd before this Will was written , or at least before it was generally receiv'd or known for such ? Again , what are we now to doe , when either this written Word is call'd in question , or the matter in Controversie not so clearly set down therein , as to put a period to contention ? Do the forecited Authours deny , that in such case we must have recourse to Tradition ? Nothing less . Certainly St. Austin believ'd the necessity of Infant-Baptism , the unlawfulness of rebaptizing the duly-Baptiz'd by Heretiques , with many other points , which no man can evidently prove out of the written Word alone : nay the Scripture it self he believ'd for no other reason , then the Authority of the Church and Tradition . Wherefore I cannot sufficiently wonder at those words of his Lordship to A. C. in the Margent , where by way of defiance he tells him , he could shew no Father of the Church , who taught , that Christ ever lest behinde him a NUNCUPATIVE OBLIGATORY WILL. First , what means he by that restrictive expression , a Nuncupative Obligatory Will ? Could any Will , left by our Saviour , whether Nuncupative , or by Writing not be Obligatory ? Secondly , how was it possible , the Bishop should challenge us to prove by the Fathers , that our Saviour left behinde him a Nuncupative Will , since 't is in it self most evident , and undeniable ? Did he leave ( I pray ) any other then a Nuncupative Will ? Was any part of the Gospel written either by himself , or by any other at his command in his life time ? Did he not make his whole Will by word of mouth to his Disciples ? But we shall not insist wholly upon the self-evidence of the thing . Is it not to be shewn out of the Fathers , that Christ left a Nuncupative Obligatory Will ? First , touching the word ( Nuncupative Will ) we hope it will be held sufficient , if we prove the thing , ( viz. an unwritten , yet Obligatory , Declaration of Christs Doctrine ) which is equivalent to a Nuncupative Will. And as to this we say that Bellarmin , and all Catholique Divines , who write of the word of God written and unwritten , do effectually prove it , not onely by the Authority of St. Austin , and the unanimous consent of the Fathers , but even by the very Text of Scripture it self . Does not Saint Paul command us ( 2 Thess. 2. 14. ) TO HOLD FAST THE TRADITIONS we have been taught whether by Word , or Epistle ? Doth not this in effect signifie a Nuncupative Will , and Obligatory ? Does not Saint Irenaeus teach us the same ? Oportet ordinem sequi Traditionis , &c. We must ( saith he ) follow the order of Tradition , which they have deliver'd to us , to whom the Apostles committed the Government of the Churches . Doth he not tell us in the same a Chapter of whole Nations of Christians , even in his time ( which was somewhat above two hundred years after Christ ) who most perfectly believ'd the Christian Faith , though they had not any part of the Scripture to direct them ? Doth not b Tertullian teach the same , together with c Saint Cyprian , d St. Basil , e Epiphanius , f St. Hierome , and divers others ? But we have spoken too much in a matter so evident : let us pass on to that which follows . 7. His next Marginal Exception against A. C. is for requiring the Popes Confirmation to a General Council ; telling us , 't is one of the Roman Novelties , to account that necessary for the validity of a General Council . But surely he is not a little mistaken . For in the first 〈◊〉 Councils , do we not finde the Confirmations of the several Popes , who then sate , clearly acknowledged ? See the Acts and Synodical Epistles of the six first Councils , and Gelasius , epist. 13. ad Episcop . Dardan . Tom. 3. 〈◊〉 . Neither can it rationally be thought , that the Decrees of a Council should be taken for the Decrees of the whole Church Representative , if the consent of the acknowledged chief Pastour and Head of the Church were wanting . And whereas the Relatour brings St. Austin's Authority , to prove , that the Sentence of a General Council is confirm'd by the consent of the whole Church yielding to it , we answer , his Allegation might well have been spar'd ; for we say so too . We acknowledge , the Acceptation of the Universal Church to be an Acoessory and Secondary Confirmation of the Decrees of a General Council ; and as the whole Church Representative ( or a General Council ) cannot erre in defining , so neither can the whole Church Diffusive and Formal erre in accepting and believing whatever is defined . So that ordinarily speaking , we acknowledge a Double Confirmation of the Decrees made by a General Council ; the one , of the Pope , as Head of the Church ; the other , of the Church it self extended throughout the several Provinces of Christendom . But the Popes Confirmation is Primary , Essential , and absolutely necessary ; because without it , what the Council declares neither is , nor can be esteem'd the Act , or Judgement of the whole Church Representative ; the Pope being the chief Member both of Church and Council . The Churches Acceptation is , as I have said , a Confirmation also ; but this is onely Accessory , for the further satisfaction of particular persons , that may haply doubt , either of the Authority , or Proceedings of this or that Council in particular . And there is no other ordinary means to assure private persons throughout the Church , that such or such a Council was lawfully assembled , proceeded duly , voted freely , and was Authentically confirm'd by the chief Bishop , 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 . a Illis temporibus , antequàm 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 , a ( 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 b 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 c 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 against this Monarchical Government ) they rather prove our Assertion , being ordain'd by Sixtus the first , in favour of such Bishops , as were call'd to Rome , or otherwise forc'd to repair thither ; to the end they might without scruple be receiv'd into their own Diocess at their return : having also decreed , that without such Letters Communicatory none , in such case , should be admitted . Now what can more clearly prove , that the Pope had power over all Bishops , and all Diocesses in the Church , then the making of such a Decree ? We deny not ; but the like Literae Communicatoriae were mutually sent from one Patriarch to another . But as for that even , equal , and Brotherly way , whereby the Bishop pretends , that these Letters were sent reciprocally from other Patriarchs and Bishops to the Bishop of Rome , for admitting any into Episcopal , or Priestly Office , that went from them to him ; as I finde nothing of it in Baronius ( who yet handles the matter at large ) so I doubt not , but it is a meer Chimaera . And had the Bishop pleas'd , with all his professed diligence in the search , to have afforded us any instance , in a business of such importance , there would doubtless have appear'd a manifest difference and inequality between them , viz. that those sent to the Pope from other Prelates , were meerly Testimonial , to assure him that the person bringing them , was capable of his Communion : whereas those from the Pope to other Bishops were not onely Testimonial , but Mandatory , or such as enjoyn'd the reception , and restitution of the Bringer , to such place and office in the Church as he pretended to . Witness ( beside many other examples in Ecclesiastical Story ) the case of St. Athanasius , and those other Catholick Bishops , persecuted and expell'd their Seas by the Arrians , and restor'd by vertue of the Popes Letters Communicatory . But , should the Pope voluntarily submit to the Equity of his own Law , that is , not onely allow such Letters to be written from others to him , as he writes to them , but also permit them to be so far of force as equity requires , what would this prejudice his just Authority ? It might argue indeed the Humility of his Spirit ; but could surely be no Argument against his Right , and Power to do otherwise , if he saw cause . CHAP. 18. A Continuation of the Defence of the Popes Authority . ARGUMENT . 1. Gersons Book de auferibilitate Papae proves nothing for the Bishop , or his Party . 2. St. Hierome and Optatus expounded . 3. The Popes Spiritual Sovereignty , not prejudicial to that of Temporal Princes . 4. Bishops , of Divine Institution ; yet Subordinate to the Pope by the Law of Christ. 5. Pope Innocents Simile of the Sun and Moon , in relation to the Spiritual and Civil Government , an usual Allegory . 6. Why the Book of the Law was anciently deliver'd to the Prince . 7. The Pope never pretended to Subject the Emperour to himself in Temporals . 8. The Jesuites unjustly charged by the Bishop . 9. Occham , no competent Judge in the question of the Popes Authority . 10. The Definition of the Council of Florence touching that matter . 1. BUt before we pass any further it will not be amiss to look back , and examine more narrowly the Bishops Marginal Allegations . Gerson , that famous Chancellour of Paris and undoubted Catholique , writ a Book , in troublesome times , intituled De auferibilitate Papae : whence the Relatour concludes , that the Authour was of opinion , the Church might continue in very good being without a Monarchical Head. A strange Illation , and contrary to what Gerson expresly teaches in the very treatise the Bishop cites ! The drift of Gerson's discourse is to shew , how many several wayes the Pope may be taken away , that is , depriv'd of his Office , and cease to be Pope as to his own person , so that the Church pro tempore , till another be chosen , shall be without her visible Head. But he no where teaches , that the Government of the Church settled in a Monarchical way , or rul'd by a Pope lawfully chosen , can be absolutely abolisht by any power on earth : but his judgement is clear , even beyond all dispute , for the contrary . Hear Gersons own words , and you will see to what great purpose , and with what Fidelity our Adversary sometimes alledges Authours . Auferibilis est ( saith he ) aut mutabilis , LEGE STANTE , quaelibet Politia Civilis Monarchica , seu Regalis , ut fiat Aristocratica : at non sic de Ecclesiâ , quae in UNO MONARCHA SUPREMO per universum fundata est à Christo : quia nullam aliam Politiam instituit Christus IMMUTABILITER MONARCHIC AM , & quodammodò Regalem , nisi Ecclesiam . In English thus . Any Civil Monarchy , or Regal Government may be taken away , or changed into an Aristocracy , the Law still continuing in force : But it is not so in the Church ; which was founded by Christ in one Supream Monarch throughout the world : Because Christ instituted no other Government unchangeably Monarchical , and as it were Regal , besides the Church . Can any words be more express in proof of the Authority of one over the whole Church ? And yet ( forsooth ) from the bare title of the Book the Relatour will inferre , that in Gerson's judgement , the Church is not by any Command , or Institution of Christ , Monarchical . 2. Neither hath the Bishop much better success in his Allegation of St. Hierome : who , in his Epistle to Evagrius , enveighing ( as his manner is ) somewhat vehemently against one , that seem'd to preferre Deacons before Priests , proceeds so far in vindication of the dignity and honour of Priesthood , that he almost equalizes it with the office of Bishops ; plainly asserting , that Diocesan Bishops have no more belonging to them jure Divino ( or by the Institution of Christ ) then Priests , save onely the Power of Ordination : that the riches , wealth , and amplitude of their respective Diocesses make not one Bishop greater then another ; but that all Bishops , where ever they be plac'd , are of one and the same merit and degree in regard of Ecclesiastical Priesthood : which ( speaking precisely of the Office , and Power Episcopal in it self ) is very true : for a larger or lesser Diocess makes not one man more or less a Bishop , then another ; St. Austin was as much a Bishop at little Hippo , as Aurelius was at great Carthage : But this is no impediment to the additional , or accessory collation ( whether by divine or humane Institution ) of some special and more eminent Power and Authority upon the Bishop of one Diocess , then of another : as we say there is conferr'd , jure Divino , upon the Bishop of Rome , as he is St. Peters Successour ; and jure Ecclesiastico upon many other Bishops , viz. Archbishops , Metropolitans , Primates , &c. who by the Canons of the Church exercise authority over many Bishops , who in regard of the power meerly Episcopal are equal to them . St. Hierome therefore , when he sayes ubicunque fuerit Episcopus , sive Romae , sive Eugubii , sive Constantinopoli , sive Rhegii , sive Alexandriae , sive Tanis , ejusdem meriti , ejusdem est & sacerdotii , speaks not of the Pope as he is Pope , or in respect of that Supereminent Authority , which belongs to him as Saint Peters Successour , but onely compares him with another private Bishop in respect of meer Character , or power of a Bishop as Bishop onely . And as he doth not de facto speak of the Pope as Successour of St. Peter ; so is it certain , that de jure he could not speak any thing to the prejudice of that part of the Bishop of Rome's Authority , without contradicting and condemning himself , not onely in his Epistle to Pope Damasus already cited , ( where he professeth , that to be out of the Popes Communion is to be an Alien from the Church of Christ ) but also in his Commentaries on the 13. Psalm , where he calls St. Peter , Head of the Church ; and Epist. ad Demetriad . Virg. where he stiles the Pope Successour of the Apostolick Chair ; and speaks to the same purpose in divers other places of his a works . But now the Bishop , to give a home-blow , as he imagin'd , to the Popes Authority over the whole Church , pretends to bring a great and undoubted Rule , given by Optatus ; who tells us , the Church is in the Commonwealth , not the Commonwealth in the Church : whence he positively concludes it impossible , that the Government of the Church should be Monarchical . For ( saith he ) no Emperour , or King , will endure another King within his Dominions to be greater then himself , since the very enduring it makes him that endures it , upon the matter , no Monarch . But the force of this Argument will presently vanish , if we but consider , that these two Kingdoms are of different natures ; the one , Spiritual , the other Temporal ; the one exercis'd onely in such things as concern the Worship of God , and the Eternal Salvation of Souls : the other , in affairs that concern this world alone ; and consequently do not of their own nature hinder , but help one another , where they are rightly administred . Neither must it come under debate , whether the administration of the spiritual Monarchy ought to be endur'd or not , seeing Christ hath so ordain'd it : nor would the Relatour ( I suppose ) have urg'd this argument , had he well reflected on the person of our Saviour ; who ( as the Bishop himself would not deny ) was , whilst he lived on earth , most truly and properly the visible Monarch of the whole Church ( his Kingdom ) whether the Kings of the earth would endure it , or not . Again , is it not in a manner the same thing in regard of Temporal Kings , to have had the Apostles , Universal Governours over all Christians , as if some one had been a Monarch , or chief amongst them ? and yet the Bishop cannot in his own principles deny , but Temporal Kings were bound to endure this , and did actually endure it , without unkinging themselves thereby . Nay , is it not as prejudicial to their Temporal Crowns , Titles , and Prerogatives , to have all their people ( together with themselves ) subject to the decrees of a lawful General Council ( which the Bishop denyes not ) as to be subject to the Decrees of some one chief Bishop ? 3. Lastly , who sees not , that the force of this Argument is utterly broken by the daily experience , we have of the contrary to what our Adversary pretends ? For instance , do not the Two great Christian Kings of France and Spain endure it ? Nay , do's not all the world see , that they do not onely endure it , but maintain the Authority and Government of such a Spiritual Monarch , as we speak of , in the very midst of their Dominions ? and is it not evident , they prosper so well under it , that it would be no less then Dotage to contend , that the enduring it is a Diminution of their Majesty ? Our Adversaries reflection upon this particular by way of Answer , is not onely injurious to those Two great Monarchs , but destructive of his own Argument . For he tells us , the Popes power is of little esteem in the Kingdoms of these Two Catholique Princes further then to serve their own turns of him ; which they do ( saith he ) to their great advantage Thus , what the two great Catholique Princes of Christendom profess to do upon the Account of Faith and Conscience , the Relatour hath the confidence to tell us , they do it meerly on the score of policy , and for temporal ends ; though he plainly contradicts himself in this assertion ; since he told us but just now , the enduring such a Monarchy made him that endur'd it , no Monarch . You see at once both his Civility towards Christian Princes , and his Constancy to himself . Moreover , I wonder the Relatour could not see , that this Argument , The Church is within the Commonwealth , ergo Subordinate unto it , ( had it any force ) would conclude as much against the Aristocratical Government of the Church , for which he so much pleads , as the Monarchical . For how ( I pray ) could the Bishops of so many different Kingdoms and States , when the good of the Church did necessarily require it , Convene in a General Councel , or authoritatively Declare what ought to be believ'd , when matters of Faith were question'd ? or how should they ( otherwise then precariously ) cause their Decisions to be receiv'd through the whole Church , if either there were no Supream Spiritual Governour at all , or he bound , as it were , to ask Princes leave to do what belongs to his Office ? Is not a General Council as much within the Commonwealth , as the Pope ? If therefore the Pope , in the administration of his Office be any way subject de jure to the Authority of Temporal Princes , how can a General Council be absolute and independent of the same Authority , in the execution of theirs ? Thus you see how by impugning the Monarchical Government of Christs Church , he , in effect , overthrows all Church-Government whatsoever , even that which himself would seem to approve . It remains therefore fully prov'd , that the external Government of the Church on earth is Monarchical , not purely and absolutely , but mixed , as hath been already declar'd . Neither do we stile the Pope Monarch of the Church , but the Deputy , or Vicar General of Christ : that is , his Chief Bishop , by whom he governs his Church in chief . He is neither King , nor Lord of the Church , but the Chief-Servant of it , a Steward of Christs Family , yea a Fellow-Servant with other Bishops , to one and the same Master . Yet the Care of the whole Family is committed to him , and but part of it to other Bishops ; who govern by Commission from Christ with him , but under him . 4. This duly consider'd , what the Relatour objects out of the Council of Antioch , St. Cyprian , and Bellarmin , for the power of Bishops , comes just to nothing . For we acknowledge Bishops to have a portion , jure Divino , in the Government of Christs Flock . They are no less Chief Officers of Christ , then the Pope , though not in all respects equal to him , or so absolute , as to govern without dependance on him . And it seems strange , the Bishop should attempt to prove out of Bellarmin , that the Government of the Church Militant is not Monarchical , in the sense often declar'd , because he teaches 't is to be govern'd by Bishops ; since in the place alledg'd , he declares the Government of the Church onely as 't is contradistinct from the government of Temporal Princes ; not as inferiour Bishops are distinguisht from the Supream , or Chief Bishop : that 's another question , and treated by him in another place : it being sufficient to his purpose there to shew , that the Church was to be govern'd by Ecclesiastical , not Temporal Princes ; without disputing whether the said Ecclesiastical Governours were Subordinate , or not , one to another . But the Bishop proceeds in his objections , and tells us the Church Militant remaining spread in many earthly Kingdoms , cannot so well be order'd by one Monarch , as a particular Kingdom may by one King. For how ( saith he ) will this one Supream execute his Office , if the Kings of those several Kingdoms will not give leave ? I answer first , this Difficulty makes as much against the Aristocratical form of Church-Government as the Monarchical . For how will a General Council ( to use his own term ) enter to execute their Office , when the necessities of the Church require such a Convention , if the Kings of those several Kingdoms ( from whence the Prelates are to come ) will not give leave ? Nay how can the Bishops of any one Christian Kingdom meet in Synods , if their respective Sovereigns ( to whom the Relatour will have them subject even in Spirituals ) will not give leave ? 5. As to his Surmize , that we would have one Emperour over all Kings , as well as one Pope over all Bishops , I answer , it was a Chimaera of his own Brain , and as impossible for him to know , as for any of his party to deny with Truth , that we pray for Peace and Unity amongst all Christian Princes , wishing nothing more , then that every one of them may enjoy , and rest satisfied with his own right . But here the Bishop takes occasion to fall foul upon Innocent the Third , because ( forsooth ) comparing the Ecclesiastical and Civil Power to the Two great Lights , the Sun and the Moon , he made the Sun a Symbole of the Ecclesiastical , and the Moon , of the Civil Power ; which the Relatour interprets for us to signifie the Pope and the Emperour . I answer . First , did not men love contention ; there would be no quarrelling about such Conceipts as these ; which are never taken for Argumentative , but meerly Allusive Applications of the Sacred Text touching these Two Powers ; which diversely considered give ground to different Allegories . In times of persecution both the Church , and Pope , may not unfitly be compar'd to the Moon , by reason of their declining condition : but in time of prosperity , if we consider the same Church in relation to the extent and greatness of her Power beyond the Imperial , ( it reaching to all places and persons in the world , professing Christian Faith ) as also in respect of the Dignity of its Object , viz. Things Caelestial ; ( whereas the Object of the Imperial Power are onely the Things of this world ) there 's little question , but the Ecclesiastical Power excells the Imperial , no less then the Soul does the Body , or Eternity the Things of this life . In this regard therefore it could be no just matter of offence , for the Pope to be understood by the Sun , and the Emperour by the Moon . But the Pope ( forsooth ) makes too much odds between his own power and the Emperours , abasing that of the Emperour so far as to make it forty seaven times less then that of the Pope ; which the Bishop proves from the Gloss upon this Decretal . We answer , the Allegory led the Glosser to it ; and that being rather a flourish of wit and pious conceipt , then matter of solid Argument , it was but lost time for our Adversary to make inferences from it , and would be the like in us to answer them . The matter we stand upon is , that the Pope is Supream Pastour of the whole Church . Let our Adversaries disprove this , and not trifle about Allegories . We confess also , that the Emperour is Supream over his Subjects in all Civil affairs : in fuch sort , as neither of these Powers can of right hinder the other , in the due execution of their charge . They are both of them absolute and Independent Powers ; though each in their proper orbe ; the one in Spirituals , the other in Temporals . By which it appears , we are far from depressing the Imperial power lower then God hath made it , as the Relatour most injuriously chargeth us . No , we honour , and very willingly acknowledge the Emperour , in Tertullians style , Hominem à Deo secundum , & solo Deo minorem , viz. in the administration of all Civil affairs ; in which doubtless all persons within his Dominion , ought to be subject to him . Yet does it not belong to the Emperour to order the affairs of the Church , resolve Controversies of Faith , or interpret Scripture in any sense contrary to the judgement and doctrine of the lawful Pastours of the Church : he hath no power to do any thing of this nature : neither shall we ever read , that any of them took upon them to be Supream Governours of the Church , or reform Religion on their own account , without or contrary to the said Pastours . 6. A Book of the Law ( 't is true ) was anciently by Gods special command to be given to the King , Deut. 17. 18. But to what intent was it given ? To govern the Church , by reading it , or expound the sense of the Law , when it happen'd to come in Controversie ? Surely no : It was given him to govern himself and Kingdom by it ; that by reading it he might learn to fear God , and keep his words and statutes , commanded in it , as the Text it self declares . Neither is it to be doubted , but in case of Notorious and Gross Abuses , manifestly contrary to Religion , and connived at by the Pastours of the Church , Christian Princes may both lawfully and piously use their Authority in procuring the said abuses to be effectually redressed by the said Pastours ; as the examples of Ezekias and Josias prove , alledged by the Bishop . But they prove not , that Princes may themselves take upon them the Priests Office , either in whole , or part ; they prove not , that they may reform Religion , in the Substance of it , or enact any thing pertaining thereto by their own Authority , without , or contrary to the Priests consent ; They prove not , that Princes may determine the Controversies of the Law , God having expresly reserv'd them to the Priests judgement , and commanded all to submit to it under pain of death . Nay , point blank to the contrary we read ( 2. Paralip . 26. 20. ) that Osias , though a King , was stricken by God with a sudden Leprosie , for but attempting to usurp the Priests Office : which if it were so unlawful then , must needs now be yet more , by how much the Functions of the Evangelical Priesthood are more Sacred , Spiritual , and participatively Divine , then those of the Mosaical Law. 7. Nor did the Popes ever attempt , or so much as pretend to bring the Emperours under them in Civil affairs , which is another aspersion the Bishop layes upon them . Gregory the Seventh , and Innocent the Third were indeed very prudent men , and worthy Champions of the Church , to assert her just liberties ; but they never endeavour'd to subject the Emperour to themselves in Temporal matters : and it had been more for our Adversaries credit , instead of falsly pretending it to be plain in History that they did so , to have given us at least some one good proof of it . Can any such thing be solidly concluded from the Allegory of the Sun and Moon ? upon which the Relatour so long insists , and makes so many unsignificant reflections , that they would better become a person the Moon had particularly wrought upon , then a Primate of England . 8. The Relatour could not leave his digressive Discourse , without giving a lash to the Jesuites , by willing them to leave their practising to advance the greatness of the Pope and Emperour . But I wonder he could so easily believe , that men of understanding ( as he sticks not to acknowledge Jesuites to be ) should by Vow deprive themselves of the riches and pleasures of this world , with design to make the Pope and Emperour great : especially seeing , that without breach of an Oath peculiar to their Order , they can neither seek , nor so much as accept of any Ecclesiastical preferment , ( as other Church-men and Religious may ) unless by way of Obedience , when expresly thereto commanded by the Pope , under pain of Sin. He skips from the Jesuites to the Friers . A certain Frier at Madrid ( John De Puente by name ) in the Year 1612. printed a Book ; in the Frontispiece whereof he painted the Sun and the Moon , so as they clearly signified the Pope and the King of Spain . ( Here the Scene changes ; 't was just now the Pope and the Emperour . ) There were also divers other Emblematical Phansies added ; by which was intimated ; that his Catholique Majesty should be content to be under the Pope , so he might rule all the world beside . Lastly , for fear the Scutcheons and Devises should not sufficiently discover the Design , the Title of the Book layes all open . 'T is called LA CONVENIENTIA DE LAS DOS MONAR QUIAS CATOLICAS ; in English , The Agreement of the Two Catholique Monarchies , viz. of the Pope and of Spain . To all which the Bishop addes his own particular reflection , that the Book had all manner of License , that a Book could have , For answer to it , we deny not but such a Book was both licensed and printed : but doubtless , who ever peruses the contents of it impartially , will judge it was both licensed and printed rather for its witty conceit , and divertisement for the King and his Courtiers , then for a solid Foundation , whereon to build any serious and Dogmatical Assertion . And as this Spanish Frier stood for his own King , so Campanella ( another Frier ) is objected to have stood as much for the late Dolphin , now King of France , publishing , about the time of his Birth , a certain Eclogue concerning him ; wherein the said Dolphin was promis'd the Universal Monarchy of the world , and all other Princes represented as now more afraid of France then ever before . What such men speak , partly out of Flattery to Princes , ( an Epidemical infirmity , incident to men of all conditions ) and partly as delighted with their own Conceipts , makes nothing at all , to the cause of Religion ; nor can we be thought responsible for any such personal Actions , or Assertions , of private men . 'T is sufficient for us to have prov'd , that the Pope is Universal Pastour of the Church : what the Kings of Spain or France are , or would be , in reference to other Christian Kings and Princes , concerns not us either to know , or examine . 9. But leaving these Digressions , the Relatour does here acknowledge it high time , to return to his Adversary , and think of Answering A. C. s Argument ; which proves , that in the Church , beside the Law Book of the Bible , there must be a living Magistrate and Judge , so assisted by the Holy Ghost , as he may be able rightly to determine all Controversies of Religion , and preserve Unity and Certainty of Faith in the Church . To this he answers in brief , that for determining Controversies in Religion , and preserving Unity and Certainty of Faith , it is not necessary to have one Bishop over the whole Christian Church , more then 't is necessary for determining Civil Differences , and preserving Civil peace and unity among Christians , to have one Emperour over the whole world . To confirm this , the Authority of Occham is cited , saying , that it is not necessary there should be one Governour of the whole Church under Christ ; but 't is sufficient , there be many Bishops , governing divers Provinces , as there are many Kings governing divers Kingdoms . I answer first , that besides that these Dialogues ( which the Bishop here alledges ) are in the Index of forbidden Books , Occham himself is no such unquestionable Authour among Catholiques , that we should think our selves oblig'd to defend what ever he sayes , especially in a question that concerns the Popes Authority ; it being too well known how factiously he sided with an Enemy of the Church . Secondly , had Christ instituted such a Government of his Church , as Occham fancies , viz. a Government consisting of many , not Subordinate to any One , as Head and Supream over them , it would have been requisite , that all those Independent and Coordinate Governours in the Church should have been Infallible : otherwise the Government of the Church would have been little less then a meer Anarchy , without Unity , or Certainty in any thing : which must have destroy'd the very end of Government , and expos'd the whole Body of the Catholique Church ( which yet is and must be One by the Institution of Christ ) to as many Schisms , and varieties of Faith , as there are several Provinces in 〈◊〉 . Experience shews us this Truth in all Countries , where no Infallibility is acknowledg'd . Again , Occham speaking onely de possibili of what our Saviour might have done , had he pleas'd , his doctrine cannot evince any thing in disproof of what we maintain to have been de facto established in Gods Church ; that is , one Universal Pastour appointed by Christ over the whole Flock . 10. Remain it therefore a settled Catholique principle , that the Pope hath power over the whole Church of God , according to the Declaration of the Occumenical Council of Florence , in which both the Greek and Latin Church concurred ; and that to teach the contrary is undoubted Heresie . The words of the Council are these . Definimus Sanctam Apostolicam Sedem , & Romanum Pontificem in Universum orbem tenere Primatum , &c. We define ( saith the Council ) that the Holy Apostolique Sea , and Bishop of Rome have Primacy over the whole world ; and that the said Bishop of Rome is Successour of the Blessed Peter , Prince of the Apostles : that he is also the True Vicar of Christ , and Head of the whole Church , and the Father and Doctour of all Christians ; and that to him , in the person of Blessed Peter , FULL 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 a prov'd ; and that it cannot make the Council illegal is manifest , even from the Bishops own Principles . For he confesseth , that b Apostolical Tradition ( when it can be certainly known for such ) is as truly the word of God , as Scripture it self : and 't is c 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 by himself or his Legates . I grant , Hosius did preside in that Council ; and so did likewise Vitus , and Vincentius Priests of Rome , but I say they all presided as the Popes Legates , and not otherwise . This appears , by their subscribing the Conciliary Decrees in the first place . For , I pray , upon what other title would they have been allow'd to do it ? There were Patriarchs , and many other Bishops of far greater Dignity then Hosius , Vitus , and Vincentius , to whom Precedency in that point must have been given , had not these represented the person of the Roman Bishop . Hence it is , that both a Cedrenus and b Photius confess , that the Pope gave Authority to the Nicen Council by his Legats : which is somewhat more , then barely to Preside in the Protestants sense ; and by what Legats , if not by those abovementioned ? I adde , that in the old Preface to the Council of Sardica , extant in the First Tome of the Councils , it is expresly said , that Hosius was the Popes Legat , and in right of that Legatship presided in the Council . c Hincmarus also , an Ancient Authour , who lived in the time of Carolus Calvus , gives the like Testimony in these words . At the Council of Nice , in the place of Sylvester ( who was then Pope ) Presided Hosius Bishop of Corduba , and Vitus with Vincentius , Priests of the City of Rome . Adde to these the testimony d of Gelasius Cyzicenus , who lived in the very next age after the Council of Nice , above twelve hundred years ago , who witnesseth , that Hosius Bishop of Corduba in Spain , holding the place of the Bishop of great Rome , Sylvester , together with the 〈◊〉 , Vitius and Vincentius , assisted at the Council of Nice . e Lastly , Photius himself , though a Schismatical Greek , and bitter enemy of the Roman Church , witnesseth , he had read this Book of Gelasius , and in it the above cited Testimony ; and thereupon confesses that the said Hosius was Legat for the Bishop of Rome at the Council of Nice . In the second General Council 't is true , Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople was President , and not the Pope , or his Legats . But the reason was , because Pope Damasus having first summon'd that Council to be held at Constantinople , and the Bishops of the Oriental Provinces being accordingly there met , the Pope for some reasons altered his minde , and would have had them come to Rome , to joyn with the Bishops he had there assembled : which the Prelates at Constantinople refusing in a submissive manner , alledged such arguments and just impediments for their excuse , as the Pope remained satisfied with them . So the Council was , upon the matter , held in two places , at Rome by the Pope and Bishops of the West , and at Constantinople by Nectarius , and those of the East , as appears in f Theodoret : who also mentions the Epistles both of the Pope to the Oriental Bishops , and of those again to him , full of mutual respect and amity : So that while he presided in the Council at Rome , and gave Allowance to their Proceedings at Constantinople , and considering the frequent intercourse between them , they were to be lookt on as but one Council in effect , and the Pope to have presibed therein . In the third General Council St. Cyril presided for Pope Celestin , as appears by the Letter the Pope writ to him long before he sent any other Legats to that Council : in which Letter he gives St. Cyril charge to supply his place ; as is testified by a Evagrius , b Prosper , c Photius and divers other d Authours . In the fourth , at Chalcedon , the Bishop himself cannot deny , but the Pope , by his Legats , had the prime place : and that it was as Presidents , appears by the e Epistles both of Pope Leo to the Council , and of the Council to him again . In the fifth Eutychius Bishop of Constantinople , sat ( we confess ) as President ; yet so as he acknowledg'd this priviledge due to Pope Vigilius , and that , in effect , and by Authority , though not in person , he presided there , as those words of Eutychius his Epistle to the Pope declare , ( Petimus , Praesidente nobis vestra Beatitudine , &c. ) which are extant at the end of the Fifth Council . In the sixth and seventh the Bishop grants , the Popes Legats presided ; but addes , that the office of Moderatour in the Assembly was chiefly executed by Tharasius Bishop of Constantinople : which , as to matter of Disputation and management of the Debates of the Synod , we do not deny , ( it being a Greek Council , and Tharasius an eminent Greek Bishop ; ) but as to matter of Authority and Command , all things were order'd by those who were really Presidents of the Assembly , that is , by the Popes Legats . I conclude therefore , that Bellarmin had just ground to say , The Pope hath been possest , full fifteen hundred years , of the right of Presiding in General Councils ; and the Bishop was grosly mistasten in saying the Cardinal gives no proof of it , but onely his bare word ; since in the very place the Bishop cites , he mentions it as prov'd elsewhere ( viz. Ibid. cap 19. ) where the Relatour might have found it , had he pleas'd to have turn'd to it . 3. His third exception is , that the place was not Free , but either in , or too near the Popes Dominions . But certainly Trent is not within the Popes Dominion : and if the Lutherans had reason to require , that the Council should not be held in Italy , where the Pope was thought too prevalent , surely the Pope , and all Catholiques with him might justly demand it should not be held in Germany , where the Lutherans were so potent . Hereupon Bellarmin well observes , that no fitter place , or more void of exceptions could have been found , then Trent , in the Confines of Italy and Germany , had it been left to the arbitrement even of an infidell . As to what he sayes , that all were not call'd , who had Deliberative or Consultative Voices in the Council , he should have told us who they were , that were not call'd , in such manner as was necessary . Must all Bishops and Pastours have been call'd by name ? It appears by the Popes Bull of Summons , that the the Invitation was as general as could be ; nor can it be deny'd , but its publication in all Provinces of Christendome was as general also , as the distractions and troubles of the times would permit . How then can it be said , all were not call'd who had voice in Council ? 4. He goes on to a fourth exception . None had Suffrage in Council , but such as were sworn to the Pope , and Church of Rome , and professed enemies to all , that call'd for Reformation , and a Free Council . I answer , it is no new thing for Bishops to take an Oath of Canonical Obedience to the Pope . S. Gregory mentions it as an Ancient Custome in his time : the objection therefore makes as much against the Ancient General Councils , which Protestants themselves acknowledge , as against this of Trent . However , certain it is , that the Bishops of those Primitive General Councils , were so far ty'd to Rome and the Pope by Faith and Christian Communion , that they were sworn Enemies of all such Heretiques , as then respectively call'd either for Reformation , or such a Free Council , as Protestants now do , viz. that should include all Schismatiques and Heretiques whatsoever , profefsing the name of Christ. Again , the Oath which the Bishops usually take , does not at all deprive them of the liberty of their Suffrage : nay it doth not so much as oblige them not to proceed , and vote even against the Pope himself , if they see just cause ; but onely that they will be obedient to him , so long as he commands things suitable to the will of God , and the Sacred Canons of the Church . Neither were the Protestants otherwise pronounced Heretiques by the Pope , then in pursuance of the Canons of the Church , which required him so to do ; and of the Decrees of General Councils , which had already condemnd their opinions for Heresie . 5. His last exception is against the small number of Bishops , present at the Tridentine Council : and in the first place he mentions the Greeks ; whom he takes to have been unjustly excluded . But I answer first , the Pope by his Bull call'd all that had right to come , making no exclusive mention of any . Secondly , the Greeks by reason of their notorious Schisme , had excluded themselves , and ( perhaps ) durst not venture to come , as knowing , that the Orthodox Bishops at Trent would have withstood their admission : it being confess'd , that no known Heretique or Schismatique , hath right , othertherwise then by special leave , or permission , to sit in Council . Those Greeks , whose names are found among the Subscribers of this Council , were Orthodox Bishops of the Greek Church , not purposely made and sent thither by the Pope , ( as the Relatour surmizes ) but expell'd , and by force kept out of their Seas by those who had wrongfully usurp'd them ; and these assisted at the Council of Trent in their own right , viz. as Catholique Bishops of the Greek Church . Neither needed they any particular sending from the Greeks , as the case then stood , and still continues ; 't is sufficient they were call'd by the Pope , and had right of assisting in the Council , as true Bishops of the Greek Church . We are told again , that in many Sessions of this Council there were scarceten Archbishops present , and not above forty or fifty Bishops ; and for the west nearer home , it reckon'd no more then one English , viz. the Bishop of St. Asaph . I answer , many more were both call'd and expected ; who likewise came long before the end of the Council , and confirm'd by their Suffrage what had passed before their coming : which was sufficient . Concerning those of our Countrey , the Relatour seems not to have been so well vers'd in the Acts of the Council , as he might have been ; otherwise he would have found , beside the Bishop of St. Asaph , Richard Pate Bishop of Worcester present , in the sixth Session of the Council of Trent . He is also said to have been there at the very first opening of the Council ; and is mention'd both in the thirteenth Session , and divers others . As for his Authority , or Right , to sit there , being not sent , or deputed , by the English Church , we answer , such Mission , or Deputation , is not of absolute necessity , but onely of Canonical Provision , when time , and state of the Countries , whence Bishops are sent , will permit : in other cases it sufficeth , they be called by the Pope . Now 't is undeniable , that for some years before the Council ended , the English Bishops that should have sent their Deputies to accompany these forementioned Bishops to the Council , were restrain'd in prison by Queen Elizabeth . The Bishop therefore being so apt to mistake in the Affairs of his own countrey , we cannot give much credit to him , in what he affirms either of France or Spain . It sufficeth , that in diverse Sessions of this Council , many Bishops of both these Nations were present ; and might have been in all the rest , had the particular affairs of their own Countries permitted them . The impediment was not on the Councils part ; and consequently their absence could be no just prejudice to the Authority , Legality , or Liberty of it : and in the latter Sessions ( wherein all that had been formerly Defin'd by the Council , was de novo confirm'd and ratify'd by the unanimous consent of all the Prelats ) 't is manifest the Council was so full , that in number of Bishops it clearly exceeded some of the first four Councils , which even our Adversaries themselves account General . 6. The whole matter therefore duly consider'd , A. C. wanted not reason to tell the Bishop , that nothing could be pretended by him against the Council of Trent , which might not in effect have been as justly objected by the Arians against the Council of Nice . But to this the Bishop will by no means yield ; telling us , the case is not alike between the said Councils , and endeavouring to shew the Disparity in diverse respects . First , saith he , the Bishops of the Nicen Council professed , not to depart from Scripture , but engaged to prove what they defin'd , by many testimonies thereof ; whereas the Council of Trent ( as the Relatour affirms ) concluded many things simply EXTRA , out of all bound of Scripture , leaving both its Letter and sense . I answer , the Arians objected the same to the Nicen Fathers , namely that they concluded things both beside and contrary to Scripture ; they alledged Scripture for their Heresie , they said in effect to the Father 's then , what the Bishop and his party say to us now , we are sure , and we are able to prove , that the Council of ( Nice ) had not Scripture for them . There is therefore no such disparity between them , as the Bishop pretends . The truth is , both these Councils had the Scripture for their rule , and proved by it the Doctrine they Defined ; but neither of them hold it for their onely rule , or so made use of it , as to reject Tradition ; for which the Scripture it self is admitted . In confirmation of which Theodoret expresly sayes , that in condemning the Arian Heresie the Council of Nice grounded it self upon Tradition : not but that many Testimonies of Scripture were rightly urg'd by the Bishops of that Council against Arius , but because Tradition was the principal thing , that was clear and unquestionable on the Councils side ; the Arians , partly by their private and subtle Interpretations eluding the force of many Texts , which Catholiques brought against them , and partly alledging not a few Texts for their own opinion , against the Catholique Doctrine . As to what he addes in the Margent , that the whole Church concluded , that Scripture was against the Arians , and agreeing with the Council of Nice , but that the like consent is not , that Scripture is for the Council of Trent , and against Protestants ; We answer , the like consent of the whole Church , both is , and was , when Protestants first began , that either Scripture or Apostolical Tradition ( which is equivalent to it ) was for the Council of Trent , and against Protestants . Is it not evident ( to go no further back then the Year 1500. ) that 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 credulous Reader , that the Fathers in the Council of Trent were so aw'd by the Popes Authority , or sway'd by his Interest , that either they durst not , or would not open themselves so farre as to speak freely what they thought . What is this but an empty and injurious suspicion , or rather an unworthy accusation of so many grave Prelats assembled in Council ? A little more of Christian charity might have taught his Lordship to frame a far different judgement , and believe , that so many worthy Prelats would not be neglectful of their charge , to the betraying of their conscience : especially seeing the Pope had fully declared his desire , that the matters in Controversie might receive a free and fair Dispute in the Council , in order to a Settlement of the Truth . To put a period therefore to this long and groundless Dream of the Popes strong party , and the Bishops-being over-aw'd in the Council of Trent , I conclude , that seeing none of the Fathers there assembled , no not any of those who liv'd either under the wing of Protestant Princes , or where Liberty of Conscience was allowed , ever sided with Protestants , but constantly and zealously persever'd , even till death , in the Faith and Doctrine they had subscribed in that Council , and shew'd themselves solicitous , that all its Definitions should be Universally held by their people , no Evidence can possibly be given of any Free Consent , or Vote in Council , if this may be call'd in question . 9. Touching HIEREMIAS , Patriarch of Constantinople , you must know , that some Eminent Protestants of the Lutheran Party , about the end of the last Century , endeavour'd to feel the Pulse of the Greek Church , to see if they could there finde any Symptoms of their own Disease . The design was to close with the Greeks , for the better making out of the pretended perpetual Succession of their Church : which Project they so hotly pursu'd , ( though formerly in vain attempted ) that they would not desist , till ( the Patriarch being settled in his Throne ) they had sent to him the summe of their Reformed Belief ; drawn up according to the Augustan Confession , which had been compos'd by Melancthon , and approv'd by their Patriarch , Luther . After a long intercourse of Letters , Answers , and Replyes , mutually continued for some years , and all arguments us'd , that might induce the Patriarch to receive them into his Communion , he could not be courted to so much as the least shew of approving their doctrine ; but did in all his Answers clearly confirm the Tenets of the Roman-Catholique Church , which those Lutherans endeavour'd to overthrow . Insomuch that at last the Patriarch tyred with their importunity , gave them a rebuke for their departure from the Doctrine of the Catholique Church , and desir'd them not to trouble him any more with their writings . All this is more largely related by a Spondanus , out of the writings of those very Protestants , that treated with the Patriarch in the business . Neither can the Censure passed by this Patriarch upon the Lutheran errours be accounted rash or precipitate ; seeing they had a full Hearing by him they had made their address to : who was not onely the chief Patriarch of the Greeks , but a person of that eminent Esteem among them , that his Censure must in reason be taken to declare the sense of the Greek Church . Nor matters it that Catholiques account him a Shismatique : this cannot prejudice his Censure in reference to Protestants . He was such a Schismatique , as they would gladly have made Patron of their Religion . The Bishop therefore , by giving no other Answer to this Patriarchs-proceeding against Protestants , but that he findes not this Censure of Hieremias warranted by any Authority of the Greek Church , shews he had very little to say in opposition to it . Was not this Hieremias chief Patriarch of the Greek Church ? Doth not he write in a style Definitive and peremptory , touching the matters debated between him and Protestants ? Does he not upon all occasions testifie the Doctrine he declares , to be the Doctrine of the Catholique Church , of the Holy Fathers , and of the Sacred Councils ? Did any of the Greek Bishops ever disclaim the said Doctrine , either in whole or part ; as they disclaim'd the Doctrine of one of his successours , whom they depos'd and ejected as an Heretique , because his Tenets savour'd of the Protestant Leaven ? who then can doubt , but what he delivers is the common Belief of the whole Greek Church ? as is likewise in effect acknowledg'd by the Interessed Lutherans themselves , in their Acta Theologorum Wittenbergensium , &c. publisht after the Treaty ended , and more expresly by some b English Writers . Well therefore might A. C. affirm , without making himself a Prophet , that if ever such a Free Council , as the Relatour seem'd to wish , were gather'd out of the East and West Provinces of Christendom , Protestants would doubtless be condemn'd for Heretiques . For this is not to Prophesie , but to discourse , and draw a Certain Conclusion out of Principles morally Evident ; that is to say , if the French , Spanish , and Schismatical Greeks also , in their respective Churches , do teach and profess , as matter of Catholique Faith , Doctrine Diametrally opposite to that of Protestants , no man can doubt but , ( had , or were , they met in a General Council , to declare their said Belief ) they would infallibly condemn Protestantisme , no less then did this Patriarch Hieremias . CHAP. 20. Of the Infallibility and Authority of General Councils . ARGUMENT . 1. The Bishops pretended Forwardness for a General Council , meerly Delusive . 2. His Erring General Council , qualifi'd at most but to unite in Errour against Scripture and Demonstration . 3. The Bishops Remedy against his Council intolerably Erring , instrumental to all Disunion . 4. The Authority of Oecumenical Councils , whence derived . 5. Their Infallibility evidenc'd from the same Texts of Scripture , that prov'd the Church Infallible . 6. The Text , ( Mat. 18. 20. ) Where Two , or Three are gathered together in my Name , &c. Vindicated in proof of the Infallibility of lawful General Councils . 7. The Decrees of Legally-Confirm'd General Councils , in points of Faith , truly styled the Oracles of the Holy Ghost . 8. The whole Church lyable to Errour , if a General Council may Erre , in points of Faith. 9. St. Austins Text , ( lib. 2. De Baptism . cap. 3. ) That General Councils may be amended , the former by the latter , &c. explicated at large . 1. THe Bishop having cast as much dirt as he was able , upon the Council of Trent , wishes in fine , that a lawful General Council were called , to end Controversies . A pure one , you may be sure , if according to his wish : who , bearing himself very confident upon the impossibility of assembling such a Council as he would call General , sayes ( as it were to insinuate an unwillingness on our part to have Controversies ended in so fair a way , as by a General Council ) If you have a most gracious King inclined unto it , how can you acquit your selves , if you do not consent ? As though , forsooth , there were no more requir'd to the assembling of a General Council , then 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 a 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 pretended reforming Council must be one of Equal Authority with the supposed Erring Council that preceded : this being a Condition expresly requir'd by the Bishop . Now since Protestants do not hold all General Councils to be of Equal Authority , who shall determine , or how shall men satisfie themselves , whether the Succeeding Imaginary General Council be of Equal Authority with the precedent ? The Bishop gives us no light in this particular , but leaves us to grope in the dark . But let us indulge so much to our Adversary , as to suppose such a Council met as the Bishop would have , General and of Equal Authority ; yet Maldonats Argument , ( which the Relatour allowes for a shrewd one ) evinces clearly , that by this way we should never have a certain end of Controversies : since to try whether any point of Faith were decreed according to Gods word , there would need another Council , and then another to try that , and so in infinitum . The result of which would be , that our Faith should never have whereon to settle or rest it self . To this the Bishop answers , that no General Council , lawfully called and so proceeding , can be questioned in another , unless Evident Scripture or a Demonstration appear against it ; and therefore we need not fear proceeding IN INFINITUM : which is either as ambiguous as the rest , or inconsonant to his own Doctrine touching a General Council ; which he sayes cannot easily erre in Fundamental Verity . But this is neither to exclude possibility , nor fear of erring , &c. Ergo possibly it may erre in 〈◊〉 . Here the Bishop sayes , I might have returned upon you again , If a General Council , not confirmed by the Pope , may erre ( which you affirm ) to what end , then a General Council ? He tells us , we may say yes , because the Pope , as Head of the Church , cannot erre . Thus the Relatour makes a simple answer for us , and then Triumphs in the Confutation of his own Answer . But let this piece of Disingenuity pass : and let us examine , how uncandidly he imposes both on us and his Reader , while he insinuates to him , that we hold for a point of Catholique Faith , that the Pope alone , as Head of the Church , is unerrable in his Doctrinal Decisions : which is but an opinion of particular Doctours , and no man oblig'd to believe it as a point of Faith. We need not therefore make such a ridiculous answer , as the Bishop does for us , viz. That a General Council is necessary , because the Pope , as Head of the Church , cannot erre : but rather the contrary , That a General Council is needfull , because it is not De fide , or receiv'd for a point of Catholique Faith , that the Pope can decide inerrably without a General Council ; as all Catholiques unanimously believe , he ever does , when he defines with it . What 's now become of his Lordships brag of retorting upon us ? 3. But the Bishop , foreseeing as it were a Volley of Arguments probably to be discharg'd against him upon account of this his Errour-retaining Doctrine , viz. That the Determinations of a General Council erring is to stand in force against Evidence of Scripture or Demonstration to the contrary , till thereupon another Council of Equal Authority reverse it , seeks his defence at last under the Covert of these restrictive expressions , If the Errour be not manifestly against Fundamental Verity , and , unless it ( the Council ) erre manifestly and intolerably . In which cases you may see , the Relatour holds it not unlawful to oppose the determination of a General Council . Now what is this but by seeking to solve one absurdity , to fall into another as great ? viz. to leave not onely his Friends still more in the dark , ( while he neither determines what points of Faith are Fundamental , nor what Errours in particular are manifestly against Fundamental Verity , nor what manifestly intolerable ) but opens a wide gate to all Phanatique and unquiet Spirits ( who never want Evident Scripture for what they fancy ) to exclaim ( as warranted by the Bishop ) against the Church and her Councils for teaching errours manifestly against Fundamental Verity , or manifestly intolerable : in both which cases they may , with the Relatours license , spurn against all Ecclesiastical Authority . By this you may easily discern upon how Sandy a Foundation the Bishop has built up his ruinous Doctrine touching the Determinations of General Councils ; whose Authority he endeavours to Square by the Rule of Civil Courts , never reflecting on the vast Disparity there is between the Government of the Church in matters of Religion , and the Administration of the Civil Affairs of a Kingdom , or Commonwealth . The former is principally exercis'd in Teaching , Declaring , and Authoritatively Attesting Christian Faith , which must of necessity be alwayes one and the same : whereas the chief Object of Civil Government are matters in their own nature variable , and changing according to Circumstances of Time , Person , Place , &c. So that what is prudently resolved and Decreed by a Parliament now , may in a short revolution of time be found inexpedient in reference to the publick good , and necessary to be repealed : which can never happen in Decisions of Faith. The truth of this is evident , even from the Penalties imposed by these different Courts ; the Civil one never inflicting on the infringers any more then a Temporary External punishment , Corporal , or Pecuniary : whereas the Spiritual , viz. a General Council , layes an Eternal Curse on the Dis-believers of their Decisions . Witness the first Four General , acknowledg'd for such by Protestants : which , were they fallible , as the Bishop contends they are , would be the greatest tyranny ( not to say Impiety ) imaginable . Most imprudently therefore did the Bishop , in labouring to Square a General Council by the Rule of Civil Courts , against Catholique Doctrine . 'T is true , some particular Simile may be drawn from Parliaments against him : not , for him . But the Bishop has another help at a dead lift , wherein all pretended Reformers and their Adherents are very deeply concern'd : which is , that National , or Provincial Councils may reform for themselves in case of manifest and intolerable errour , if the whole Church ( upon peaceable and just complaint of this errour ) neglect , or refuse to call a Council and examine it . Sure the Bishop had very ill luck , or a bad cause to maintain , otherwise he could never have spoken so many inter-clashing Ambiguities , in so little a Compass as he does . For first , he leaves us to divine what those Errours are , which we must esteem intolerable . Secondly , he forgets to tell us , whither we should repair to be ascertain'd of the Intolerableness of the Errour ; unless he would have have every man follow herein the Dictate of his own private judgement . Thirdly he dismisseth us uninstructed , how to make a just and peaceable complaint to the whole Church : whither are we to repair to finde the whole Church , or its Representative ; while , as is supposed , there 's no General Council yet in being . Fourthly he leaves us wholly to guess how long we are to expect the whole Churches pleasure in point of calling a Council , till her forbearance therein may be interpreted a Neglect , or Refusal to do it . Fifthly he scores us out no way , how we should go to work to obtain the necessary Concurrence of all Christian Princes , to the actual Assembling of this new model'd Council . It would be too long to point out all the inextricable Difficulties , that attend this uncanonical way of proceeding in Religion , recommended by the Bishop . A Doctrine , so far from being a Remedy against the pretended intolerable failings of a former General Council ( upon supposition of the whole Churches neglect or refusal to call a Council and examin them ) that it is highly instrumental to Division both in Church and State ; giving as good title , if not better , to any new Body of Sectaries to reform Protestantism , when they get power into their hands , as it did to Protestants to reform for themselves , against the whole Church . 4. However the Bishop still goes on , harping upon the same string ; and in lieu of giving us solid Arguments to evince the Truth of what he would perswade , viz. that his opinion touching a General Councils possibility of erring in points of Faith , is most preservative of peace established , or ablest to reduce perfect Unity into the Church . , he falls into a tedious discourse , which he sayes he will adventure into the world but onely in the nature of a Consideration , which yet he divides into many ; entring upon the First with Two very erroneous Suppositions ; which he layes for the foundation of a tottering Superstructure . The one , that the Government of the Church is no further Monarchical , then as Christ is the Head. The other , that all the Power an Oecumenical Council hath to determine , and all the Assistance it hath not to erre in its Determination , it hath it all from the Universal Body of the Church ; because the Representative of a Commonwealth hath no more power , then what it receives from the Body it represents . The first of these , viz. that the Church is not governed by one in chief , under Christ , is a supposition a more then once confuted . To the second , ( which we have already impugned above ) we further answer , that the Power and Assistance , which General Councils have to determine Controversies of Faith , so as not to erre in the Determination , cannot possibly be communicated to them by the Church , but must chiefly proceed from the same Fountain now , it did in the Apostles time , viz. from the Direction of the Holy Ghost : This Spiritual power for the government of the Church , being not of Humane , but Divine Institution : nor proceeding so much from the Natural Wisdome , Knowledge , Vertue , and Abilities of the Ecclesiastical Governours assembled in Council , as from the cooperation * of the Holy Spirit with them . Whereas in a Civil Commonwealth ( which is of Humane Institution ) its representative cannot pretend to any other Power , then what is derived from the said Commonwealth . Secondly , the Bishop considers , that though the Act , that is hammered out by many together , must needs be perfecter , then that which is but the childe of one mans sufficiency , yet this cannot be Infallible , unless it be from some special Assistance of the Holy Ghost . This we no way contradict : but adde , that this special Assistance of the holy Ghost is so far ever afforded to a Lawful General Council , as to render all it s compleated Definitions of Faith , Infallible . 5. Thirdly , he considers , that the Assistance of the Holy Ghost is without errour : that ( sayes he ) is no question ; and as little , that a Council hath it . But the doubt that troubles , is , whether all Assistance of the Holy Ghost be afforded in such an high manner , as to cause all the Definitions of a Council , in matters Fundamental in the Faith and in remote Deductions from it , to be alike Infallible . By this expression alike Infallible , the Bishop seems to grant , that all the Definitions of a General Council , even in Deductions as well as Fundamentals , are Infallible , and onely to doubt whether they be alike Infallible . I see no necessity of graduating Infallibility in the present question ; since any real Infallibility is as much as Catholique Authors assert in all Decisions of Faith , be they Fundamental , or remote Deductions in the Bishops sense : seeing , that as to our obligation of believing them , they are alike Fundamental , as we have prov'd in the second Chapter . Here the Bishop intends to examine the Texts , which he sayes Stapleton rests upon for proof of Infallible Assistance afforded to General Councils , viz. John 16. 13. I will send you the Spirit of Truth , which will lead you into all Truth . And John 14. 16. This Spirit shall abide with you for ever . And Matth. 28. 20. Behold I am with you to the end of the world . Likewise these , which he sayes are added by others , viz. The Founding the Church upon the Rock , against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail , Matth. 16. 18. and Luke 22. 32. Christs Prayer for St. Peter , that his Faith fail not ; and Christs promise , Mat. 18 20. That where two or three are gathered together in his Name , he will be in the midst of them . And that in the Acts , ( chap. 15. 28. ) It seemed good to the Holy Ghost , and to us . A man would imagine these Texts sufficiently clear in themselves , to evince the Truth of the Catholick Assertion touching General Councils ; but the Bishop is partly of another minde , affirming , that no one of them does infer , much less inforce Infallibility . He was loath to say all of them together did not . But let us hear how he quarrels them in particular . To the first , which speaks of leading into all Truth , and that for ever , he answers ALL is not alwayes universally taken in Scripture ; nor is it here simply for All Truth ; but for ALL TRUTH absolutely necessary to Salvation . I reply , neither do we averre , that it is here universally taken , or doth signifie simply all Truth , ( for then it would comprehend all natural Truth , and matter of Fact , which we deny no less then the Bishop ) but that it signifies all Truth necessary for the Apostles and their Successors to know , for the Instruction and Government of the Church , whether expressed , or but infolded in Scripture or Tradition . As to his limiting the words to Truths absolutely necessary to Salvation , we say , this is but gratis dictum , and a meer groundless restriction , depending wholly on the Bishops voluntary assertion , as we have already a shewn . It is also clearly refuted by the Context , ( vers . 12. ) where our Saviour having told his Disciples , he had many things to say to them , which they could not then bear , addes immediately , as it were , by way of Supplement to their present weakness , the forecited words , that when the Spirit of Truth should come , he would guide them into all Truth ; that is , into all those Truths , which Christ had to say to them , and which they were not as yet in a capacity to bear . But can any man imagine , Christ had not already instructed his Apostles touching all points absolutely necessary to Salvation ; especially , considering what himself professeth in his Prayer for them to the Father , John 17. 8 , 14. I have given unto them the words , which thou gavest me , and they have received them , &c , Can those words , in any Protestants opinion , signifie less then all points absolutely necessary to Salvation ? His Lordship here stumbles in the plain way , endeavouring to impose this absurd Disjunctive upon his Reader , viz. that all Truth must either signifie simply All whatsoever , ( matter of Fact , as well as Faith ) or be restrained to Truths absolutely necessary to Salvation , that is , without which no man can in any circumstance be saved : the apparent falsity whereof a man half blinde may perceive ; it being in effect to say , that either All men are wise and learned , or none but Socrates and Plato . To as little purpose is his other limitation , viz. that a Councill is then onely Infallible , when it suffers it self to be led by the Blessed Spirit , by the word of God. By this again it seems that in things absolutely necessary to Salvation a General Council is not absolutely Infallible , but may possibly refuse to be led by the Spirit and Word of God , and consequently fall into Fundamental Errour : in which the Bishop is not constant to himself , professing the contrary , when it makes for his turn : But if it may so erre , what a sad condition might the whole Church be in ; since what a General Council teaches is as obligatory to the whole Church , as what the Parliament enacts is obligatory to the whole Kingdom . His last shift , to evade the force of those words leading into All Truth , is , that the promise of Assistance was neither so absolute , nor in such manner to the whole Church , as it was to the Apostles , nor directly to a Council at all . Who contends it was ? who makes it a question , whether the promised Assistance of the Holy Ghost , were not more absolutely and directly intended to the Apostles then to the Church ; or not more absolutely and directly to the Chureh , then to General Councils ? It sufficeth us , if it were in any sort truly and really intended to them all : and that so it was , the very nature of the promise evinceth : since otherwise , neither the said succeeding Pastours , northe Church of their times , could infallibly decide any arising Controversies , touching the sense of Scriptural Texts , which are not onely ambiguous , but lyable to damnable Interpretations , as the Scripture it self averrs , 2 Pet. 3. 16. much less determine any point of Faith not expresly deliver'd in Scripture , as many are not . But note , that to the closing words of this first Text and that for ever , the Bishop sayes not any thing . The truth is , their clearness is not easily eluded . To the second proof , which is from Matth. 28. 20. Behold I am with you 〈◊〉 , unto the end of the world , the Bishop answers , the Fathers are various in their Exposition and Application of this Text. We grant , they are various in words , but agreeing in sense , and that the same in effect we here plead for . The Fathers , by the Bishops own Confession , understood a presence of Aid and Assistance , to support the weakness of the Apostles and their Successours , against the Difficulties they should finde for preaching Christ. But are Heresies and the perverse maintainers of them , no part of the Difficulties , Christs Ministers meet with in preaching his Gospel ? Sure they are . And if this be the Native sense of the words , as 't is in the Relatours opinion ; it follows necessarily , that the said Ministers , or Preachers of the Gospel have such a presence of Christ promis'd them in this place , as effectually inables them to withstand and overcome those Difficulties ; which , in reason cannot be more conveniently effected , then by a General Council so assisted , Declaring against them . But , sayes our Adversary , few of the Fathers mention Christs presence , in Teaching by the Holy Ghost . What matters that ? The reason is , because this is but one Special kinde of presence : and the Fathers usually in their expositions of Scripture ( unless some particular occasion carries them to the contrary ) content themselves to express the general importance of the Sacred Text , without descending to particulars . And yet some of them ( as even the Bishop himself observes ) do expresly interpret this place of Christs presence in teaching by the Holy Ghost . But they do not extend it ( saith he ) to Infallible Assistance , further then the Succeeding Church keeps to the word of the Apostles , as the Apostles kept to the guidance of the Spirit . No more do we . We confess , the Succeeding Church could not be Infallible , should it depart from , or teach contrary to the word of the Apostles , no more then the Apostles themselves could have been Infallible , had they departed from the guidance of the Spirit . But as the Infallibility of the Apostles consisted in their constant adhering to and following the guidance of that Holy Spirit , in all matters concerning Faith and Religion , so is there , and the Fathers teach , such a presence of Christ with the Succeeding Church , as causeth her in all Definitions of Faith , constantly to adhere to the word of the Apostles , and as need requires , infallibly to expound it : all which we have sufficiently b prov'd : and could it otherwise happen , Christ would not be alwayes found so present with his Church , as to keep her from incurring ruine by erroneous Doctrines ; which this his promise must at least imply . Lastly , whereas Maldonat proves , that this kinde of presence , by Infallible Teaching , is rightly gathered from this Text ; though not expresly signified by it , the Bishop by his mis-translation makes him deny it to be the intention of Christ : which learned Authour does not onely assert the Truth of this Exposition , c but brings in proof of it the testimonies of St. Cyril , St. Leo , and Salvianus . To the Third , Matth. 16. 18. touching the Rock , on which the Church is founded , the Bishop sayes first , he dares not lay any other Foundation , then Christ. We answer , all the Apostles are styl'd Foundations of the Church ; witness St. Paul ( who was one of them ) Eph. 2. 20. Christ indeed was , and is , the Principal Foundation ( the Chief corner stone in the Churches building , as the Apostle there speaks ) yet Ministerially , and by Authority Derived from Christ , not onely the Apostles , but the Successours of the chief of them , St. Peter , may be , and are , in a true sense , Foundations of the Church . Secondly , the Bishop sayes , ( and he does but say it ) that St. Peter , was onely the first in order : whereas the Fathers teach , and we have sufficiently a prov'd , that he was not onely the first in order , but in Authority . Thirdly he tells us , that by the Rock is not meant St. Peters person onely , but the Faith which he professed : and for this ( saith he ) the Fathers come in with a very full consent . I answer , we pretend not to understand by the Rock , 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 , b 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 d 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 a 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 b 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 c 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 , b 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 c Calvin , when he is sober , the the Church had made no departure from the Doctrine of the Apostles . And for d 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 : and that General Councils are at least collaterally and by way of consequence comprehended in it , is evident to reason . For how else can St. Peter be said in his Successours to confirm his Brethren in the Faith , ( which is the following part of the Text ) if the Pope , at least in a General Council , be not Infallible ? the Church Universal being indispensably oblig'd to follow the Doctrine of such a Council . 6. The fifth place is Matth. 18. 20. Where two or three are gathered together in my name , there am I in the midst of them ; the strength of which argument ( as the Bishop well observes ) is not taken from these words alone , but as they are continued with the former : which his Lordship omitting to set down , of necessity we must . They are these . Again I say unto you , that if two of you shall agree on earth , as touching any thing that they shall ask , it shall be done for them of my Father , ver . 19. These 〈◊〉 taken together Bellarmin averres to be a good proof of the Infallibility of General Councils ; the Argument proceeding à minori ad majus , thus . If two or three gathered together in my name do alwayes obtain that which they ask at Gods hands , to wit , Wisdome , and Knowledge of those things which are necessary for them , how much more shall all Bishops gathered together ( in a Council ) alwayes obtain Wisdome and Knowledge , to judge those things which belong to the direction of the whole Church . This indeed is the summe of Bellarmins discourse upon this Text : and I conceive the inference for the Infallibility of General Councils to be so clear , that every intelligent and unbyassed Reader will perceive it at first sight : seeing it can neither be deny'd , that the Pastours of the Church , assembled in a General Council to determine Differences in Christian Faith , are gathered together in the name of Christ ; nor that they do in all due manner beg of God Wisdome , Understanding , and all necessary Assistance , to determine the Controversies aright . However the Bishop makes several exceptions against this Text. His first is , that most of the Fathers understand this place of consent in Prayer . So do we too . Is it not the very ground of our Argument ? Do we pretend , that General Councils are prov'd Infallible from this Text , for any other reason , then because the Prelats in Council assembled do unanimously and duly pray , that God will preserve them from Errour , and because he hath promised to hear their prayers ? His second exception is , that he doubts , the Argument A MINORI AD MAIUS holds onely in Natural and Necessary things , not in things Voluntary , and depending upon promise . I answer without any doubt , that the Argument à minori ad majus holds as well in things promised as natural , where the motive is increased , and neither Power nor Goodness wanting in the Promiser . If therefore God have promised to grant the just and necessary Petitions of two or three assembled in his Name , he does therein impliedly promise à fortiori to grant the Petition of a General Council , when being assembled , they unanimously beg , that they may by the Divine Assistance be preserv'd from Errour in their Dicisions of Faith. Here the motive is greater then in the former case ; the necessities of the whole Church do more forcibly ingage the Power , Love , and Honour of God , then the necessities of a few . By this it appears , that what he averres , that the Argument from the less to the greater , can never follow , but where and so far , as the thing , upon which it is founded , agrees to the less ; makes not any thing against us , since we deny not , but God is ready to grant the just and necessary Petitions in both cases . Thirdly , he tells us ( from St. Chrysostome ) there are diverse other conditions , besides their gathering together in the name of Christ , necessarily requir'd to make the prayers of a Congregation heard . We agree to it ; but must suppose , that a General Council , lawfully assembled , knows what those Conditions are , and also duly observes them , till the contrary be clearly evinced . We also agree with his Lordship , that where more or fewer are gathered together in the Name of Christ , he is in the midst of them , to assist , and grant whatsoever he shall finde fit for them ; and thence inferre , that Christ is alwayes present with the Prelats lawfully assembled in General Councils , to assist , and grant them immunity from errour in their Decisions of Faith ; which he findes not onely fitting , but highly necessary for the Direction and Settlement of his Church . His last evasion is to make our Authours seem to clash one against another , viz. Stapleton and Valentia against Bellarmin . To which I answer , the difference between them is more in words , then sense . For neither Stapleton , nor Valentia denies , but the Infallibility of General Councils confirm'd by the Pope , may by good consequence be collected from this place by an Argument à minori ad majus , as Bellarmin urges : Nay Stapleton himself , even where the Bishop cites him , a expresly acknowledges , that the Council of Chalcedon did rightly use this very Argument to the same purpose , in their Epistle to Pope Leo. Their opinion is , that our Saviour did not primarily and directly intend that particular Infallibility , when he spake those words , nor does Bellarmin affirm he did , but onely that he signified in general , that he would be present with his Church and all faithful people gathered together in his Name , so often and so farre , as their necessities requir'd his presence , they duly imploring it . This ( we confess ) was all our Saviour directly and immediately , signify'd by the words where two or three are gathered together , &c. from which notwithstanding Bellarmin and other Catholique Authors do rightly inferre the Infallibility of General Councils , in the manner declared . Nor does it from this Doctrine follow , that the like Infallibility is extendible to a National , or Provincial Synod , or to two or three private Bishops , gathered together in Christs name , as his Lordship pretends to argue from Valentia . For though Christ promiseth indeed to be present with all , that are gathered together in his name , yet not the like manner of presence with all , or so as promiscuously to grant all Graces to all persons , but to each , according to their peculiar exigencies and necessities : of which there can be none , for the Infallibility we maintain , in any Council , but a General . 7. The sixth and last place alledg'd for the Infallibility of General Councils is that of Acts 15. 28. where the Apostles say of the Council held by them , VISUM EST SPIRITUI SANCTO ET NOBIS , It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost , and to Us , intimating thereby , that the Decrees of General Councils are to be receiv'd by the faithful , not as the Decisions of men , but as the Dictates of the Holy Ghost . The Bishop here tells us , The Apostles might well say it , viz. VISUM EST , &c. for that they had infallibly the Assistance of the Holy Ghost . But he does not finde ( he sayes ) that any General Council since did ever take upon them to say punctually and in express terms , of their Definitions , VISUM EST SPIRITUI SANCTO ET NOBIS ; acknowledging even thereby a great deale of difference ( as hee conceiues ) in the Certainty of those things , which After-generall Councils determined in the Church , and those which were settled by the Apostles , when they sate in Council . I answer , there 's no Essentiall difference between the Certainty of the things determined by the Apostles , and those decided by a Generall Councill , confirm'd by the Roman Bishop . Great difference there is indeed between the Apostles and Succeeding Bishops , in respect of Personall Prerogatiues and graces ; but none at all between the Certainty of what eyther the Apostles by themselues , or succeeding bishops in a lawfull Generall Council assembled , define for Truth : seeing what is completely determin'd therin is no lesse determin'd by Apostolicall Authority , then what was determin'd by the Apostles in that first Council at Hierusalem , And if After-Councils vse not the same Expression punctually and in terms , it is not materiall ; since they doe it in effect , by vniversally enioyning the Beleefe of their Decisions vnder paine of Anathema . And this the Holy fathers well vnderstood , when they averr'd the Decrees of a Generall Council to bee a a most Holy and Diuine Oracle , b a sentence inspir'd by the Holy Ghost , c not to bee 〈◊〉 , d not to bee question'd without errour , e that it is the last sentence that can bee expected in matters of fayth . What the Relatour meanes by alledging Valentia I vnderstand not : that Author cleerly speaking of Councils not yet ratify'd by the Pope . The Bishop therfore hath sayd nothing in disproofe of what Stapleton and Bellarmin affirme , viz. that this passage of Scripture is a proper proofe of the Jnfallibility of Generall Councils : which considered , Dr. Stapleton is so farre from beeing iustly Censurable , for styling the Decrees of Generall Councils Oracles of the Holy Ghost , that his Lp. is rather blameable for pretending such words to bee little short of Blasphemie . Is there any thing more common with the fathers then to giue them such like Attributes ? Does not f St. Athanasius terme the definition of the Nicen Council against Arius , the word of our Lord , which endureth for ever ? Does not St. Cyrill g aboue cited call it likewise a Diuine and most Holy Oracle ? Doth not Constantin the Emperour style the same Definition h a Celestiall mandate ? Doth not St. Gregory ( with the applause of all true Christians ) professe to reuerence the Decrees of the foure first Generall Councils , as hee reuerences i the foure Ghospells ? Doth not k St. Leo , St. Gregory Naziazen , l Pope Nicolas m the first , with others , speake to the same sense ? Bellarmins Argument deduc'd from this Apostolicall Council , as 't was a President to all future Councils oecumenicall , holds good for their Jnfallibility : since otherwise they must haue been ineffectuall as to the principall purpose of calling them , Viz. so to determin Controuersies of fayth , as to put an end to all debates of that nature in the Church : which can never bee effectually done , where Infallibility is not acknowledg'd , as hath been * proued . To what hee obiects , that there is not THE LIKE Jnfallibility in other Councils , where no man Sate , that was inspired , as was in this ( of the Apostles ) where all that sate as iudges were inspired , I answer , 't is sufficient that the whole Body of the Prelats concurring with their Head , in any other lawfull Generall Council , were ioyntly infallible in any kinde of reall infallibility , whether like to the former , or not . So in the Bishops own principles , a Generall Council , or at least the Catholique Church , is infallible in fundamentalls , or Things absolutely necessary to saluation , though hee would not acknowledge any ONE in the Church to haue that prerogatiue of infallibility . As touching Ferus , hee avouches nothing contrary to our doctrine of infallibility ; though his Authority would bee of no greater force , then if hee were none of ours : His Comment vpon the Acts ( which the Bishop here cites ) beeing listed , with most of his other works in a the ROLL of Prohibited Books . Thus haue I gone thorough all the forecited passages of scripture , and in euery one of them solv'd the Bishops obiections for rendring them incompetent proofs of the Infallibility of Generall Councils : which yet I needed not haue done , since what is cleerly prou'd by any one Text of scripture is as vndoubtedly true , as what is prou'd by more . But the Bishop tells us , hee easily grants a Generall Council cannot erre in Things necessary to 〈◊〉 , suffering it selfe to bee led by the spirit of Truth in scripture : wherein hee seems but to trifle , saying no more in effect , then that a Generall Council cannot erre , so long as it doth not erre . This is a very small Prerogatiue , and might bee affirm'd of any kinde of Council , nay of any particular person of how meane capacity soever . The question is , whether a lawfull Generall Council can ever bee presumable to fall into the Bishops hinted disorder of leauing scripture , or defining any thing contrary to its true sense . But to speake truth , there can bee no question of it , as beeing inconsistent with the veracity of Diuine Promises , to permitt the whole Church to erre in any Doctrinall point she finds necessary to define by a Generall Council , for preuenting of schisms , and settling of mens minds in the Truth . To what hee adds , as the Result of his discourse vpon these several Texts . that supposing they promisd Assistance even to Infallibility , yet they are to bee understood of the whole Church principally , and of its Representatiue but by consequent , nor any further then the sayd Representatiue consents and eleaues to that vpon which it is consequent , viz. the Catholique Body of the Church . This , I say , is but a weake cuasion . For seeing the Catholique , or Diffusiue , Body of the Church is bound to beleeue and profess the Doctrine taught by her Representatiue , if the Church Diffusiue haue an Infallible Assistance for her Beleeving , the Council , or Church Representatiue , must also necessarily haue Infallible Assistance in Teaching . To which of these this Assistance is promised principally , is but a vayne speculation , since they both haue it , as beeing absolutely necessary for them both . Here the Bishop falls againe to his Considerations , and wil haue vs to obserue , fourthly , that there is not the like consent , that Generall Councils cannot erre , as there is , thatthe Church in Generall cannot erre from the fayth necessary to Saluation , since in this all agree , but not in the former . J answer , all that haue not deserted , nor adher'd to the Desertors of the Catholique Church , doe vna nimously agree , that a lawfully-call'd and confirm'd Generall Council can no more erre in point of fayth , then the Church in general : and his Lp. was much out in quoting Waldensis for the contrary : hee beeing so great a Champion of the Bishop of Rome's Authority , as to assert his Infallibility in defining ex Cathedra , a euen without a Council , and b Chap. 48. ibidem , teaches , that the particular Roman Church as consisting only of the Pope and his Clergie cannot erre , by reason of that priviledge obtain'd by our Sauiours prayer ( Luke . 22. 32. ) for St. Peter and his successors . What therefore the Bishop cites out of him for his purpose , is nothing to the purpose ; Waldensis meaning only vnlawfull Councils , as appeares by his instancing in no other then the Council of Arimini assembled by an Arian Prefect , vnder an Arian Emperour , and that of Constantinople vnder Justinianus Minor , which Pope Sergius expressly condemned . Whereas the Bishop sayes , it Seems strange to him , this Proposition euen in terms , A GENERALL COVNCIL CANNOT ERRE , should not bee found in any one of the Fathers , J answer , 't is sufficient the full sense of that Proposition is found in them , as wee haue shew'n in theyr Texts aboue-alledged : and it might seeme as strange to mee , that this Proposition ( if it were true ) viz. Generall Councils can erre in definitions of fayth , is not to bee found in any one of the Fathers . Jn the next place hee vrges , that St Austin makes it the Prerogatiue of scripture alone , that whatsoeuer is found written therein , may neither bee doubted nor disputed , whether it bee true or right . But the letters of Bishops may , not only bee disputed , but corrected by Bishops that are more wise and learned then they ; or by Nationall Councills . and Nationall Councils , by Plenary or Generall : and euen Plenary Councils themselues may bee amended , the former , by the latter . Vpon which words of St. Austin the Bishop seems to triumph , telling vs , t' was no news with St. Austin , that a Generall Councill might erre , and therfore inferiour to scripture , which may neither bee doubted nor disputed , where it affirms . And if it bee so ( sayth hee ) with the definition of a Council too , viz. that it may neyther bee doubted nor disputed ; where is then the scriptures Prerogatiue ? J answer , the Relatour does here canere triumphum ante victoriam . for though t is true , that the scriptures haue no small Prerogatiue aboue Councils , ( wherein nothing is of necessity to bee beleev'd as matter of fayth , but the naked Definition it selfe ; whereas in scripture euery thing , euen the least sentence , is to be beleev'd with Diuine fayth ) yet it is cleere , that it cannot bee S. Austins meaning ; that Generall Councils may erre in their Definitions of fayth , by what hee frequently deliuers else where : namely Tom. 7. 〈◊〉 Baptis . contr . Donatist . where hee expressly teacheth , that no doubt ought to bee made of what is by full Decree establisht in a Generall Councill : and lib. 7. cap. 5. where hee makes the Definition of a Generall Council and the consent of the whole Church to bee all one : against which latter hee tells vs also ( Epist. 118. ad Januar. ) t is not only errour , but insolent madness , for any one to dispute . Wherfore , wee must eyther make St. Austin contradict himselfe , or disapproue of our Aduersaries Exposition of this Text. But what is his meaning then , you 'll say ? in what cases may Generall Councils bee sayd to bee amended , the former , by the latter , as this Doctor speaks ? Truly in no other then these , viz. in Matter of fact , in Precepts pertaining to Manners and discipline , or by way of more full and cleere Explication of what had been deliuered by former Councils : which as they are the comon Expositions giuen by Catholique Diuines , of this Text of St. Austin , so are they indeed most agreable to it , and such as without force the very words of the Text , taken intirely , will beare no other . for when doth this Mending happen , in St. Austins opinion ? Cum aliquo rerum Experimento aperitur quod clausum est , et 〈◊〉 quod latebat : then , sayth hee , when by SOME EXPERIMENT of Things , that comes to bee opened which was shut vp and that know'n which did lye hid . Now who is so ignorant as not to know , that Experiment hath not place in matter of vniversall Beleefe , but belongs properly to Matters of fact , and Things intrinsecally vested with the Circumstances of Time , place , Person , &c. from which such points of sayth and Generall Doctrines doc abstract , and are wholly independent of them ? St. Austin therfore cannot in reason bee suppos'd to meane , that Generall Councils may bee amended , the former by the latter , in any thing more , then in matters of fact , precepts of Manners and discipline ; or in the manner of Explication , when by reason of emergent Schismes and 〈◊〉 , t' is Experimentally found necessary for the peace of the Church , that a fuller and more perfect Declaration bee made of some thing already defined by a former Council ; as it happened in the Addition of the word , filioque , to the Creed of the Council of Nice , and in diverse other cases . But wee must heare the Bishops exceptions against Bellarmin and Stapleton , for expounding S. Augustin in the sense wee haue here deliuer'd . Hee sayes first , They are both out , and Bellarmin in a Contradiction , for applying the Amendment S. Austin speaks of , to Rules of Maners and discipline . I answer , the Cardinal is in no Contradiction , though elsewhere hee averrs , a that Generall Councils cannot erre in Precepts of Manners . for this is no good consequence . Generall Coūcils may amend one another in Precepts of māners and discipline , ergo they may erre in such matters . The reason is , because Precepts of Manners and Discipline depend much vpon Circumstances of Time , place , person , &c. which varying , it often so falls out that what at first was prudently iudg'd fit to bee done , becomes afterward vnfitting : and when this happens , t is out of question one Generall Council may bee amended by another , yet neither of them bee iustly tax'd with Errour , they both commanding aright according to different Circumstances . To what hee obiects against this exposition , that St. Austins whole dispute , in this place , is against the errour of St. Cyprian followed by the Donatists ; which was ( sayth hee ) an Errour in fayth , namely , that true Baptisme could not bee giuen by Heretiques , and such as were out of the Church , I answer , this euinces nothing against vs. For though this father takes the occasion of his speech from that errour of St. Cyprian , and makes a Gradation in the writings of Bishops Prouinciall , Nationall , and Generall Councils , yet t is manifest hee speaks in a different stile in the last place , where hee touches on Plenary Councils : cleerly pronuncing , that the writings or private Bishops may bee reprehended , si quid in eis fortè a veritate deuiatum est : so hee affirms , that Prouinciall and Nationall Councils must yeeld to Generall ones : but of these hee only sayes they may bee mended by others , when by some experiment of things , that is opened which was shut vp , and that know'n , which lay hid : which experiment , as wee haue sayd , is only found in matters of fact , precepts of Manners and discipline , which depend on Circumstances , and are therfore in their own nature changeable ; or lastly , when experience shews , that some new arising errours call for a further explanation of some Doctrinall point already defin'd . Nor matters it , that there was no experiment of fact in St. Cyprians case ; seeing St. Austin does not consine his discourse to St Cyprians case only , but by occasion of his , and his Councils errour , lays down generall Doctrine touching the different Authority of the writings of particular Bishops , prouinciall , Nationall , and Generall Councils . And as for Doctor Stapletons reading Conclusum for Clausum , it imports little to the present purpose ; hee b else where reading it Clausum est . The Bishops exposition therfore of St. Austins word , experiment , to bee a further proofe of the question , is groundleess , and contrary to the know'n notion of the word . Nor does it help him that St. Austin in the following chapter ( where hee speaks of Rebaptization ) sayes it was a question tenebris inuoluta : since hee speaks of it as it stood in St. Cyprians time , vndefin'd by a Generall Councill . Adde hereunto , that St. Austin expressly teacheth in the same chapter , that St. Cyprian would certainly haue corrected his opinion , had the point , in his time , been defin'd by a Generall Council : which is another manifest proofe , that neither St. Cyprian nor St Austin were of the Bishops minde in this particular , touching Generall Councils . Hence also is iustified what Stapleton averrs as the Bishop reports him , viz. That if St. Austin speakes of a Cause of fayth , his meaning is , that latter Generall Councills doe mend the former , when they explicate more perfectly that fayth , which lay hid in the Seed of Ancient Doctrine : as for example , when the Council of Ephesus explicated that of Nice , concerning the Diuinity of Christ , the Councill of Chalcedon that of Ephesus , and the Counil of Constance all the Three . This Stapleton speakes by way of Solution to the Argument brought by Protestants from this Text of S. Austin against the infallibility of Generall Councills : and the Relatour disingenuous , as to make his Reader beleeue , that the sayd Stapleton brings it for a proofe ; while hee ridiculously asks , whether it bee not an excellent Conclusion , These Councils taught no Errour , and were only explained ; Therfore no Council can erre in matter of fayth . 'T is I confess , no Excellent conclusion , nor ever intended for such by Stapleton . But 't is so excellent a solution to the Bishops Argument , that it made him giue an Additionall Turn to the rest of his Labyrinth . That St. Austin meant plainly , that euen Plenary Councils might erre in matter of fayth , and ought to bee amended in a latter Council , the Bishop does well to say , I thinke will thus appeare . For in truth hee does but thinke it , as will soone bee manifest . His maine reason why hee thinks so , is taken from St. Austins word emendari , which the Relatour tells us properly supposes for errour and faultiness . J answer , the word emendari is very properly applyable to the taking away of any defect , it beeing deriued from Menda , which as Scaliger himselfe , in his Notes vpon Varro , obserues , comes from the latin Adverb Minus , and * properly signifies any defect whatsoeuer ; and therfore not solely applyable to errour in fayth , but to such defects as I haue mentioned aboue . Stapleton therfore giues not a forced , but the true and proper signification of St. Austins word emendari . And this may serue for a sufficient solution to the rest of his discourse : the word emendari bearing our sense as properly as reprehendi , and ce dere insisted on by the Bishop . To what hee adds , that St. Austin must bee vnderstood to speake of Amendment of errour , because hee teaches it must bee done without Sacrilegious pride , without swelling Arrogancie , and without Contention of Envy , in holy Humility , in Catholique peace , in Christian Charity ; which Cautions the Bishop supposes , necessarily import some Errour , or fault committed by the former Council ; in mending whereof the following Council might , without such Caueats bee apt to insult over the former ; and the former , or their Adherents , to envy , and contest the Proceedings of the latter . I answer , St. Austins admonitions in this kinde relate not in particular to Generall Councils , but to the other seuerall subiects of his whole discourse , viz. Priuate Bishops , Prouinciall and Nationall Councils ; by whome as errour may bee committed , so 't is evident , Pride , Arrogancy , Contention may happen in its emendation , if not religiously avoyded by the am enders . The Bishop proceeds against Bellarmin , telling vs this shift of his is the poorest of all , viz. That St. Austin speaks of vnlawfull Councils . But surely 't is no shift at all in the Cardinal , seeing hee gives that Exposition only ex superabundanti and with a peradventure , as the Relatour himselfe obserues . To what hee brings at last , that it is a meere tricke , which the Ancient Church knew not , and ( as hee thinks ) not beleeu'd at this day by the wise and learned of our own side , to require the Popes Instruction , Approbation , and Confirmation , etc. J answer , wise and learned men will rather thinke , 't is a meere Resuerie in the Relatour thus to contradict the perpetuall know'n practise both of Councils themselues , ( which always * requir'd the Popes Cofirmation ) and of the Church , ( which never accounted them Compleate lawfull Generall Councils without it ) and of Reason it selfe , as I haue * already Shew'n . CHAP. 21. In vvhat manner Generall Councils are Infallible . ARGVMENT . 1. The Bishop falls into vnavoydable Inconueniences , by maintaining , that Generall Councills are fallible . 2. They are Infallible in the Conclusion , or Doctrine defined , though not always so in the Premisses : and the Reason , why . 3. What Difference there is between the present Church , and that of the Apostles . 4. An Explanation of St. Austins Text. ( Lib. de ! Agon . Christian. cap. 30. ) PETRVS PERSONAM ECCLESIAE SVSTINET &c , 5. The Council of Constance , in point of Receiuing vnder one kinde only , not contrary to Christs Institution . 6. No vnreasonableness in the Catholique Doctrine touching Infallibility . 7. The Bishops various and gross Mistakes about the Popes Infallibility , both in reference to Councils , and otherwise . 8. His Misunderstanding of St. Ambrose . 1. THe Bishop labours in his fifth Consideration to avoyd Two Jnconueniences , which must needs follow by supposing errour to bee incident to a Generall Council . The first is , that this supposition layes all open to vncertainties . The second , that it maks way for a whirle winde of the Priuate spirit to come in , and ruffle the Church . Hee thinks hee hath found out a Remedy for this twisted Disease . To the first Inconuenience hee sayes , that Generall Councills as lawfully called and ordered , and lawfully proceeding , are a great and a 〈◊〉 Representation , and cannot erre in matters of fayth , keeping themselues to Gods Rule , and not attempting to make a New of their own : and 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 , 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 't is apparent , hee does it only in a lesse proper , or Analogicall sense , to signifie , that , by vertue of diuine Assistance and direction , such a Conclusion , or Definition , in regard of precise verity , is as infallibly true and certaine , as if it were a Prophecy . Neither is there any Contrariety in this , betweeen Stapleton and Bellarmin : for both agree , that neither Church nor Council doe publish Jmmediate Reuelations ; nor create any New Articles of Fayth , but only declare and vnfold , by their definitions , that doctrine , which Christ and his Apostles in some manner first delivered . Both of them likewise confesse , that whether the Principles , from which the Church , or General Councils , deduce their definition , haue intrinsecall and necessary connexion with the doctrine , defined or noe , yet the Conclusion or definition it selfe , is of infallible verity : the holy Ghost so directing the Council , that it neuer defines any conclusion to bee of fayth , but what is de facto matter reueasd by God , eyther in those Principles from which the Council deduces it , or at least in some other . The Relatours whole Discourse therefore , vpon this subiect of Prophecy , falls of it selfe to the ground , as beeing built vpon a pure ( I had almost sayd a willfull ) mistake , viz , that Stapleton maintaines the Decrees of a Generall Councill to bee Propheticall in a proper sense , which hee does not : and consequently , that it was wholly needless for our aduersary to talke so much of Enthusiasms and tell vs so punctually what Prophecy is , what vision : and that neither of both are to bee gotten with study and Industry . For wee know all this ; and therfore wee doe not style the definitions of Councils Reuelations , or Prophesies , or visions , or the like ; but willingly acknowledge they are the results of much study , and industrie : only wee aerre the study and industrie , which the Prelats in Generall Councils doe vse for the finding out of Truth , is always crowned by God with such success , as infallibly preserues them from errour . Stapleton goes on , and giues vs the reason , why a Generall Councill must necessarily bee infallible in the Conclusion , because that which is determined by the Church , is matter of Fayth , not of Knowledge ; and that therfore the Church proposing it to bee 〈◊〉 , though it vse Meanes , yet it stands not vpon Art , Meanes , or Argument , but the Assistance of the Holy Ghost : else when wee embrace the Conclusion proposed , it would not bee an Assent of Fayth , but an Habit of Knowledge . To this the Bishop replying , seemes to broach a New Doctrine ; namely , that the Assent of Fayth may bee an Habit of Knowledge . To this the replying Bishop seemes to broach a new doctrine namely , that the Assent of Fayth may bee an habit of Knowledg . But surely Diuine Fayth is , according to the Apostle , Hebr. 11. an Argument of things which doe not appeare , to wit , by the same meanes , by which wee giue this assent of Fayth : otherwise our Faith would not bee free , and meritorious . T is true , the same conclusion may bee Fayth to one , and Knowledge to another , ( according to St. Austin , and St. Thomas , cited by the Bishop ) but this must bee vpon different motiues : and therfore Fayth , as Fayth , can neuer bee knowledge ; which is all that Stapleton vrges . The motiues of Credibility then , which wee haue for our Fayth , doe not by euident demonstration shew the truth thereof , though they make it euidently credible : in so much as hee would bee imprudent , who should refuse to giue his assent . So though the Bishop doe truly assert , that the Church in all ages hath been able to stop the mouthes of philosophers , and other great men of reason , when it is at the highest ; yet this is also true , that our sauiour did neuer intend to sett vp a schoole of Knowledge , but of Fayth : and that Councils , in their definitions , relie not , on any demonstratiue reasons , but on the infallible Assistance of the holy Ghost , promised to them . In like manner , the Faythfull ground not themselues on any demonstration proposed to them by the Church , but on Gods Reuelation , obscurely , but certainly , and infallibly applyed to them , by the Church . In the seauenth Consideration , the Relatour takes notice againe of a Querie , that A. C. made to him : viz. if a Generall Council may erre , wherein are wee neerer to vnity by such a Council . But in stead of giuing a punctuall , and direct answer , as hee should haue done , hee falls a fresh vpon certaine new considerations , which hee aduances vpon this subiect ; whether the Protestant opinion , that Generall Councils may erre in defining matters of Fayth , or the Catholique opinion , that they cannot , bee more agreeable to the Church , and more able to preserue and reduce Christian peace : which in effect is little else , but to answer one Querie , by many ; and having brought his reader almost to the port of his Labyrinth ; by a gentle turn , to lead him back againe through all the Meanders thereof : howeuer wee must obserue his Motions . 3. His First Querie , or Consideration is , whether an absolute infallibility bee promised to the present Church , or whether such an infallibility will not serue the turn , as Stapleton acknowledges . I answer ; no doubt but it will Lett Protestants acknowledge but such an Infallibility in the Church , as that worthy Doctour maintaines , and wee shall bee agreed for that matter . But the Truth is , our Aduersarie does here only confound his reader , and wrong the Author hee alledges , by not , declaring sufficiently , in what sense hee speakes . For Stapleton , in the place cited , expressly teaches , that the Apostles were infallible not only in their Decree , or Conclusion , but also in the Meanes , or Arguments ; and this he calls absolute , or exact Infallibility : whereas the present Church is only infallible in the Decree , or Conclusion ; and this also it hath by the Guidance of the Holy Ghost , yet not by a new Immediate Reuelation . Whence it appeares , that this Authour is cleere for the Churches Infallibility , though hee doe not in all respects equall it to that of the Apostles : and consequently , that it is not hee , but the Bishop himselfe , that wriggles in the bussiness , vnworthily endeauouring to draw his Author to a sense no way intended by him . Bellarmin is vsed no better ; whose doctrine is cleere , that in the Decree , or Conclusion , a Generall Council is as certaine : as the scripture ; because both are infallible : and nothing can bee more certain , then what is infallible ; though in other respects scripture has many Preroagtiues aboue Generall Councils ; as , that it is Gods immediate Reuelation ; that there , not only the Conclusion , but Euery thing , is matter of Fayth , &c. which agree not to a Generall Council . 4. Howeuer ( to pass to this second Consideration , or Querie ) wee shall not much quarrel his term of Congruous Infallibility , but rest contented if Protestants will acknowledge such an Infallibility in the present Church , as is congruous , and agreeable to the promises of our sauiour , and to the necessities of the Church ; so , as by vertue of the sayd Infallibility shee may euer bee aseuredly preseru'd in the Beleefe , and Profession of the true Fayth . But the principall thing the Bishop would haue vs consider here , is , that Jnfallibility resides , according to power and Right of Authority , in the whole Church , and in a Generall Council only by power deputed . To which purpose hec cites St. Austin , a Petrus personam Ecclesiae Sustinet ; et huic datae sunt claues , quum Petro datae . Peter ( sayes hee ) beares the person of the Catholique Church ; and to her were the Keyes giuen ; when they were giuen to Peter . I answer , there is a twofold representing , or bearning the person of an other , to bee obseru'd . The one Parabolicall , or by way of meere Figure , and supposition only . Thus Agar ( Abrahams bondwoman ) Galat. 4. 25. 26. represents the nation , or people of the Iewes , yet liuing vnder the bondage of the Mosaicall law : and Mount-Sion , or Hierusalem , the Churh of God. The other , Historicall , and Reall , viz. when the person representing has right , or relation aparterei , in , and towards the thing represented ; by vertue whereof it doth , in the rust , and and necessary interpretation of Reason , beare the person , or stand for the thing represented . Now St. Peter Sustained the person of the Church in this latter sense ; I meane Historicè , non Parabolicè , really , and in verity of fact , not in Figure , or Parabolicall supposition only : hee beeing such a principall , and cheife member of the Church , as did ratione officij virtually , and truly containe in himselfe the fullness of Ecclesiasticall Power : in the same manner , as a King receiues , the keyes of a town , whereof hee takes possession for himselfe , though he representeth the whole kingdome , and receiues the keyes for the good thereof . Thus , Isay St. Peter receiu'd the keyes for himselfe ; as hee was Head of the Church , though that Reception were indeed ordain'd for the good of the whole Church . To receiue a thing in this manner , is not to receiue it in the others right , but in his own , not withstanding it bee finally meant for the good of the other . This is so cleere , euen to common sense , that wee haue no need of turning ouer many Classique Authours to proue it . wherfore the example of an Attorney taking possession of land for a Purchaser , and of one , who hauing a Proxy , receiues a woman with the Ceremonies of Marriage in the name of an other , are not to the purpose ; because in such cases the person of an other is Sustain'd only Parabolicè , or by way of voluntary supposition pro tempore ; as when a Legate receiues the keyes of a town , meerly as substitute , for , and in the name of his King. But in our case the keyes were receiued Historicè , and in way of reall propriety , as by the King himselfe , Head of the Common-wealth , so by St. Peter Head of the Church . This Answer is grounded in St. Austin himselfe , who teaches St. Peters receiuing the souereign Authority of the gouerning the whole Church ( signified hero , by the keyes ) as hee was a Figure of the Church , and represented the person of the Church , to haue been b propter Primatum &c. by reason of the PRIMACY which hee had amongst the Apostles . The like hee hath in c other places . So cleerly does hee explicate his own meaning , and confirm the answer wee haue giuen to the text the Bishop brings . Why therfore doth the Relatour labour in vayne to wrest the Keyes out of St. Peters hands , and to bestow them hee knows not where ? They must remaine where Christ has left them . St Peter , and his successours know best how to vse them , and how to turn them in their proper wards , as the Bishop speaks . In his Third Consideration hee supposes , that though a Generall Council bee granted lyable to errour , yet so long as the whole Catholique Church ( Diffusiue ) bee exempt from it in the Prime Foundations of Fayth , absolutely necessary to saluation , there is still a sufficient Meanes to preserue , and reduce vnity , and to preuent all inconueniences that vsually trouble the Church . One of the greatest inconueniences that can possibly fall vpon the Church , is errour in fayth ; which vpon supposition that a Generall Council may erre in such matters , does vnauoydably befall the whole Church * as wee haue already shew'n ; and that without any hopes of euer beeing certainly cleer'd of it . For as one Generall Council fell into Errour so may an other , and a third , and a fourth , etc. Vnless therfore Generall Councils bee granted infallible in matters of Fayth , where is the Bishops remedy against Jnconueniences ? How shall the Church bee freed from Perplexity ? How shall vnity bee preseru'd , or reducd ? Hee tells vs , the Church , vpon discouery of the errour of a former Council , may represent herselfe in an other body , or Council , and take order for what was concluded amiss . But who shall warrant , that the remedy shall not proue as bad as the disease , or perhaps worse ? who shall secure vs , that the second Council shall rightly condemne the supposed errour of the first ? or ( if it happen so ) shall not broach two other for that one , and thereby bee an occasion of fresh Jnconueniences , Perplexities , Contentions , in , and to the Church ? Againe , how shall the whole Church , vpon euidence found , of the miscarriage of a Generall Council , represent her selfe in an other body ? must euery particular member of the Church first except against the sayd errours , and concurre to the election , and holding of an other Council ? That will neuer happen . For in such a multitude , very many will bee of the same minde with the precedent representatiue of the Church . If not all , but some part only of the Churches members , bee conuinced of the pretended errour , and , would call an other Council to 〈◊〉 it , then not the whole Church in Generall , but only a part of it , should take vpon them to remedy the abuses of a Generall Council : which is absurd . Moreouer , if the power of calling Generall Councils reside only in the whole Church Diffusiuely taken , as the Bishop here supposeth , what likelyhood is there , that there should euer bee such a Council called ; it beeing not to bee done , but by the generall consent of all Christians ; whose interests are so diuided , and for the most part so repugnant to each other , that it cannot bee doubted , but when one Nation , or Countrie , is willing to haue a Generall Council called , some other will bee found as vnwilling . When will all Christians ( thinke you ) agree , that both Protestants , Catholiques , Grecians , Lutherans , and all other Sectaries should meete in Councill , and haue equall power , and libertie to vote there ? which if they haue not ; who can expect , that the excluded party will hold it a Generall Council , and thinke themselues bound to submitt to it ? The Bishop tells vs , that the Church heeretofore vsed to reforme the errours of former Councils by calling , and representing her selfe in a new Councill , and that this is euident in the case at Ariminum , and the second of Ephesus , and in other Councils named by Bellarmin . But , I answer : our dispute is about lawfull Generall Councils , confirm'd by the Pope ; such as neither of these were ; nor any of those other , which Bellarmin mentions in the place e quoted by the Bishop : neither can it bee sayd , that those subsequent Councils , which reformed the errours concluded at Ariminum , and Ephesus , were called by the Authority of the whole Church in generall , but by the Pope , in the same manner , as that of Trent and others were . Hee grants that the Church , though it may erre , hath not only a Pastorall power to teach , and direct , but a Pretorian also , to controule , and censure too , where errours , or crimes , are against points Fundamentall , or of great consequence . Are not the Reall Presence , Purgatory , praying to Saynts , the fiue Sacraments of seauen which Protestants denie , and diuerse other points , wherein they differ from us , and the Church , things of great consequence ? And did not the whole christian Church generally teach , and profess these points , both long before , and at the time of Luthers departure from the Roman Church ? why was it not then in the power of the Church to controule , and censure him , with all his followers , for opposing her Doctrine in the sayd points ? Againe , if wee ought to obey the Church in points Fundamentall , and of great consequence , as the Bishops doctrine here cleerly implies , why must wee not obey her likewise in taking those points to bee Fundamentall , and of great consequence , which shee holds to bee such , and by her definition declares to bee such ? Certainly Heretiques will neuer want reason to iustifie their disobedience to the Church , if allowing her authority to controule , and censure only in points Fundamentall , and of great consequence , wee allow them the liberty to iudge , and determin what points are such , what not . His instance of a mothers authority , viz. that Obedience due to her , is not to bee refused vpon her falling into errour , holds not in the Church , because the authority of a naturall mother is not in order to Beleefe , but to Action : and it does not follow , that because shee hath commanded amiss in one thing , that her child is not to obey her in an other , which it shall not know to bee vnlawfull . But the authority of the Church ouer her children consists , not only in directing them what they are to doe , but in obliging them to beleeue firmly , and without doubt , what euer shee shall esteem necessary to difine ; and propound to them , as matter of Beleefe . Now its impossible , that the vnderstanding ( which can assent to nothing , but what it apprehends to bee true , nor infallibly beleeue , but what it apprehends to bee infallibly true ) should bee mou'd with any respect due to the Church , to beleeue without doubt any defined point , which it did not before , so long as it giues way to this opinion , viz. that shee may , and has defin'd , and also commanded vs to beleeue as a point of Fayth , a thing false in it selfe . As to his citing St. Austins authority in the margent , touching that text of St. Paul Ephes. 4. 27. not hauing Spot , nor wrinckle &c. it maks nothing against vs. For St. Austin doth not deny those words to bee vnderstood of the Church Militant , but only , that they are not to bee vnderstood of her , in the sense giuen them by the Pelagians : my meaning is , hee doth not deny the doctrine of the Catholique Church vniuersally receiu'd , or defin'd as matter of fayth , to bee without Spot of errour ; but hee denies the liues of Christians , euen of the most iust , and perfect in this life , to bee altogether without Spot of sin . Neither doth St. Austin read vs any such lesson as this , that the Church on earth is no freeer from wrinckles in doctrine , and discipline , then it is from Spots in life , and conuersation : but it is the Bishops own voluntary , scandalous , and inconsiderate assertion , if hee speaks of doctrine vniuersally receiu'd , and approu'd by the Church : if only of doctrine , and errours taught by priuate persons , what is it to the purpose ? An other thing considered is , that if wee suppose a Generall Council infallible , and that it proue not so , but that an errour in fayth bee concluded , the same erring opinion , which maks it thinke it selfe infallible , makes the errour of it irreuocable , and so lenues the Church without remedy . I answer : grant false antecedents , and false premisses enough , and what absurdities will not bee consequent , and fill vp the conclusion ? an Anti-scripturist may argue this way against the infallibility euen of the Bible it selfe , in the Bishops own style , thus . This Booke which you call the Bible , and suppose to bee Gods word , immediate Reuelation of Jnfallible Truth in enery thing it sayes , IF IT PROVE NOT SO , but that it were written only by man , and containes errours , THE SAME ERRING OPINION , that makes you thinke 't is Gods word &c. makes all the sayd errours contain'd in it , wholy irreuocable , and of necessity , for euer to bee beleeu'd as Gods word , and Diuine Reuelation . Can any man deny this consequent , granting the Bishops antecedent , if it proue not so ? The inconuenience therfore which the Relatour here obiects , beeing only conditionall , and the condition , vpon which it depends , such , as wee are neuer like to grant , nor our aduersaries to proue , wee pass it by , as signifying else nothing , but how willing his Lordship was to heap vp obiections against vs , though such , as hee , and his party must answer , 5. But how does the Bishop proue , that a Generall Council hath erred ? Thus. Christ ( sayth hee ) instituted the Sacrament of his Body , and Bloud in both kindes . To breake Christs institution is a damnable errour ; this errour was committed by the Council of Constante ; whose words are these , cited , and englished by the a Bishop . LICET CHRISTVS &c. Though Christ instituted this Venerable Sacrament , and gaue it to his Disciples after supper , vnder both kindes of bread , and wine , yet NON OBSTANTE , notwithstanding this , it ought not to bee consecrated after supper ; nor receiued , but fasting . And likewise , that though in the Primitiue Church this Sacrament was receiued by the faythfull , vnder both kindes , yet this custome , that it should bee receiu'd by Laymen , only vnder the kinde of bread , is to bee held for a law , which may not bee refused . And to say this is an vnlawfull custome of receiuing vnder one kinde , is erronious , and they which persist in saying so , are to bee punished , and driuen out , as Heretiques . The force of the obiection depends wholy on the words NON OBSTANTE , which the Bishop conceiues to import , that the Council defin'd receiuing vnder both kindes not to bee necessary , NOTWITHSTANDING that our Sauiour so instituted it , viz. in both kindes . I answer , Bellarmin rightly obserues , that the words non obstante haue no reference to receiuing vnder both kindes , but to the time of receiuing it after supper : which though the Bishop bee not satisfy'd with , but obiects , that the NON OBSTANTE must necessarily ( for ought hee can see ) bee referred to both clauses , in the words following , because both clauses went before it ; and , hath as much force against receiuing vnder both kindes , as against receiuing after supper ; yet , I see no reason , but hee might haue taken it for a full satisfaction . For to mee it seemes cleere ( let the Bishop fancy what hee pleases ) that the non obstante can haue no reference , but to the time of receiuing after supper . For the words that follow a non obstante in any sentence , haue neuer reference to any thing , but what hath some opposition with it . Now to consecrate , and receiue fasting , ( which the Council opposeth to what was done by Christ ) hath no opposition at all with the Apostles receiuing vnder two kindes . For it were an absur'd , and senseless proposition to say : though Christ instituted this Venerable Sacrament , and gaue it to his Disciples vnder both kindes , yet it ought not to bee consecrated after supper , nor receiued but fasting : wherfore the Consecrating , and receiuing fasting ( which is only opposed by the Non obstante to what was done by Christ ) hath not reference to the receiuing vnder both kindes , but only to the receiuing after supper . But the Relatour adds , that the after-words Et similiter ( and likewise ) couple both together in this reference ; as if the Council by saying AND LIKEWISE though in the Primitiue Church this Sacrament was receiued vnder both kindes , yet this custome , that it should bee receiued by Laymen , only vnder the kinde of Bread , is to bee held for a law , which may not bee refused , should signifie , that Laymen ought to receiue the Sacrament vnder one kinde , not only though it bee contrary to Christs institution , but also to the practise of the Primitiue Church . But how will he proue , that this is the signification of the words And likewise ? may not a man say properly , though the Iewes might haue plurality of wiues , yet the Christians may not ? and likewise ; though the Iewes were allowed to desire eye for eye , tooth for tooth , &c. yet notwithstanding the Christians are not ? Here , the words And likewise couple both sentences together , and yet the Notwithstanding of the latter sentence hath no reference to the words of the first part , since it were ridiculous to fay : Though the Iewes might haue plurality of wiues , yet Christians are not allowed to require eye for eye , and tooth for tooth . As the Decrees of the aforesayd Council are not contrary to the institution , and ordination of Christ , so neither is the practise of the Church in receiuing vnder one kinde contrary thereto . To shew that the practise of the Church were contrary to Christs institution , the Bishop should haue made it appeare , that Christ did so institute this Sacrament of his last supper , that hee would not haue one part to bee Sacrament without the other ; or that hee would not haue one part bee taken without the other . Now neither of these two can bee proued . Not that one kinde alone is not sufficient to the Sacrament : for if nothing bee requisite to the essence of a Sacrament , but Matter , forme , and a diuine promise of Grace to those that shall receiue it : the words of Consecration Hoc est corpus meum is a true forme ; the element of bread alone , is a true matter , vsed by our Sauiour . Hee hath also promised Grace to those , that shall receiue his Body vnder the forme of bread , as appeares by these words , Joan. 6. Qui manducat hunc panem , viuet in 〈◊〉 . with what reason therefore can any one deny , that the Body of Christ vnder the forme of bread is a true Sacrament ? Neither can it bee prou'd that Christ commanded Laymen to receiue vnder both kindes . Not by these words , Drinke yee all of this . For if this were a command , and not a Counsell , ( as when hee sayd , if J , your Lord haue washed your feete , you also ought to wash one an others feete , ) it was giuen to the Apostles , who all drunke of the Chalice . Now as it doth not follow , that Laymen are bound to baptize , and preach to all nations , because the Apostles were commanded to doe so ; so neither doth it follow , that Laymen are bound to drinke of the Chalice , because the Apostles were . Nor can this obligation , viz. that Laimen should receiue vnder both kindes , bee inferred out of those other words of our Sauiour ; except you 〈◊〉 my flesh , and drinke my bloud , you shall haue no life in you , Joan. 6. for if this were a precept of receiuing vnder both kindes , and did generally binde all persons without restriction , it would follow , that all children , especially such as haue the vse of reason , are bound to receiue this Sacrament , as well as men , and women ; and that all such children , as dyed without hauing receiu'd it , would bee lyable to eternall damnation . If Protestants themselus therfore doe not extend this command to persons of all ages , notwithstanding that the words haue no restriction more to one age , then to an other , how will they proue from thence , that all Laymen are bound to receiue vnder both kindes ? Beside , wee will shew hereafter , that euen in the Primitiue Church , when the custome was to receiue vnder both kindes , the Sacrament was many times administred vnder one kinde only . 6. But the Relatour pretends wee are vnreasonable , in holding Generall Councils infallible , because ( sayth hee ) no Body collectiue , whensoeuer it assembled it selfe , did euer giue more power to the representing Body of it , then a binding power vpon all particulars , and it selfe ; nor euer did it giue this power otherwise , then with this reseruation in nature , that it would call againe , and reforme , yea , and if need were , abrogate any law , or ordinance vpon iust cause made euident , that the Representing Body had failed in trust , or truth . But this is only to suppose , and take for granted , what hee neuer yet proued , viz. that a Generall Council hath no authority , but what is meerly delegate from the Church vniuersall , which it represents : whereas wee maintaine its authority to bee of diuine institution , and , when lawfully assembled , to act by diuine right , and not meerly by deputation , and consent of the Church , as wee haue also prou'd in the precedent chapter . True it is , the calling of such assemblies was taken vp , and hath for its pattern the example of the Apostles , Acts. 15. yet surely there 's as little doubt to bee made , but the Apostles had both direction , and precept too , for doing it so often as iust occasion requr'd , from Christ himselfe . Though therfore a Generall Council bee the Church representatiue , and doe not meete , or assemble together hic , et nunc , but by order , and deputation from Man , yet it followes no , but the power , and authority by which they act , when they are 〈◊〉 bee from God ; as doubtless it is . Jn the first Council of the Apostles the Body Collectiue , as the Bishop calls it , that is , the People that beleeu'd , did neither send , nor chuse the persons to sit in it ; neither 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 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 , b 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 ; 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 may say , that Christ hath made two promises to his Church ; the one , to assist her souereign Head , and Pastour , so as that , he shall neuer define any thing to be beleeu'd by all the Faythfull , but what is diuine truth . The other , so to assist Generall Councils , or the Representatiues of the Church , that they shall neuer erre in the doctrine they determin . Now those that affirme the Pope alone , or without a Generall Council , to be infallible , as well as Generall Councils , hold these two promises to haue been made by our sauiour : and that when the Pope defines in Generall Councils , his infallibility proceeds from the latter promise , by vertue of which , the definitions of Councils confirm'd by the Pope , would be infallible , although the other promise had not been made : as the Council at Hierusalem would haue been infallible , by vertue of the infallible Assistance , which was promised to euery Representatiue of Christs Church , though each Apostle had not been endowed with that prerogatiue . The Bishop wonders , that they which affirme the Pope cannot erre , doe not affirm likewise that he cannot sinne . But why does he not wonder too , that Christ should giue infallibility in teaching to St. Peter , ( as the Relatour cannot denie but he did ) and yet not preserue him from those defects , for which St. Paul sayth 〈◊〉 was truly reprebensible ? Could not his Lordship obserue , that infallibility in the Head of the Church , would be an effectuall meanes to settle Religion , confirme the Faythfull , suppress Heresies , preuent differences in matter of Fayth &c. seeing none would oppose the doctrine of the Pope , if they held him infallible ? whereas no such good would accrue to the Church , in point of sanctity , though the Pope were impeccable , and held so to be by all Christians . For seeing that Prerogatiue in Christ , whome they hold to be their iudge , and to haue power to condemne them to euerlasting flames , cannot keep them in their duty , much less would the Popes impeccability doe it , though they did all generally beleeue it . Lastly ; as the infallibility of the Pope is in so many respects profitable for the Church , more then his immunity from sin would be : so the Assertours of it doe alledge many probable , and pregnant arguments from scripture , and Ecclesiasticall Writers , to proue it : but for his impeccability none can be alledged . 8. What can be inferred from Pope Liberius his demanding the iudgement of St. Athanasius , I cannot see ; vnless the Relatour had first shew'n , that the Pope did this , after he had pass'd a definition ex 〈◊〉 in the matter . But in his allegation of S. Ambrose he mistaks worst of all . The Bishops intent is , to shew that the Popes definitions in matters of Fayth are fallible , and subiect to errour . why ? because St. Ambrose ( lib. 1. epist. 83. ) 〈◊〉 , that many did aske his opinion , touching the obseruation of Easter , post 〈◊〉 Ecclesiae definitionem , Episcopi quoque Romanae Ecclesiae ( after the definition of the Church of Alexandria , and also of the Bishop of Rome ) whereas the context of St. Ambrose makes it cleere , that he speakes not of any Doctrinall , or 〈◊〉 definitions touching that point , ( which had been long before determined , by the Council of Nice ) but only of such Definitions and Rules for obseruing the precise time , on which Easter day fell , as by the appointment of the Nicen Council the Bishop of Alexandria was yearly to send to the Pope , and the Pope yearly to publish to the rest of the Church . That such Astronomicall ( not Thcologicall ) Definitions were published annually , is manifest from Baronius : and the reason was ; for that , though by the decree of the Councill of Nice , all Christian Churches of Catholique Communion did celebrate Easter , not vpon the Decima quarta mensis primi , or day of the Iewish Pasche , but vpon the day following : yet by reason of the different accompts , or computation of time , through the various ending , and begining of Monthes , it fell out , that all did not celebrate it vpon the same sunday . Wherfore , to remedy this inconuenience , and reduce the obseruation of Easter , as much as might be , to a generall vniformity , it was order'd by the Councill of Nice , that by reason the Egyptians were held to be the most exact , and experienced of all other nations in the calculation of time , the Bishop of 〈◊〉 in Egypt should take care , that the fall of Easter day might be exactly calculated euery yeare , by such , as were most skillfull in that art ; and the calculation sent to the Bishop of Rome so seasonably , as that he might haue time enough to 〈◊〉 notice of it to all other Christian Churches , to the end , that Easter might be obseru'd on the same day , throughout the whole Church . Hence comes the frequent mention of the Cycly , and 〈◊〉 Paschales in antiquity : and of these only St. Ambrose speakes ( as is cleere by the whole epistle cited by the Bishop ) and not of any thing Doctrinall , or Dogmaticall touching the question of Easter , or anything else . The Reader may see , if he please , Baronius . Tom. 3. ad Ann. 325. num . 110. 111. and Petauius de doctrin . Temp. against Scaliger . lib. 2. cap. 57. pag. 205. Also his notes upon Epiphanius , in Heres . Quarto-decimam . Nor will those Prophesies ( as the Bishop calls them ) out of 〈◊〉 amount to any iust proofe of the Popes fallibility , in the sense where in Catholiques deny it , vnless he proue the Popes taught them as matters of Fayth , to the whole Church . Againe , he mistakes by affirming that Pope Alexander the Third , with a Councill of three hundred Archbishops , and Bishops held at Rome , condemn'd Peter Lombard of Heresie ; and that after he had layn vnder that sentence for the space of thirty six yeares , Innocent the Third restor'd him , and condemn'd his accusers . The 〈◊〉 of the historie is only this . After Peter Lombards death , there was obseru'd in some of his writings this proposition , Christus , secundum quod est homo , non est aliquid : which beeing contrary to the Catholique doctrine touching the perfection of Humane Nature in Christ , was indeed condemned by Pope Alexander , as the Bishop tells you ; but was neuer approu'd by Pope Innocent . That which Innocent approu'd , was only the sayd Peter Lombards doctrine concerning the Trinity ; against which , the Abbot 〈◊〉 had written : all which you may read in Baronius , and Spondanus his continuation of him , in the yeares 1164. 1179 , and 1215. Whence it appears , that neither part of the Bishops 〈◊〉 concludes any thing against vs. For neither did Pope Alexander erre in comdemning the sayd Proposition of Lombard , ( notwithstanding the Relatour , 〈◊〉 , and without any reason giuen , reproaches him with errour ) nor yet Pope Innocent in iustifying his doctrine against the Abbot Ioachim : for the ones condemnation , and the others approbation were of seuerall propositions : Alexander condemning a proposition touching the matter of the Incarnation ; which was neuer repeald by Pope Innocent : and Jnnocent approuing his doctrine in the matter of the B. Trinity ; which was neuer condemn'd by Pope Alexander . How sharp-sighted therfore our aduersarie is in his obseruations against vs , appeares by this . But seeing these forked syllogismes ( so Dilommas are sometimes called by Logicians ) are such Currant Coine with his Lordship , it will not ( I hope ) be thought vnreasonable , if wee pay him one , for many . Thus then I argue . Either the Bishop knew his Relation touching Peter Lombard to be false , or he know it not . If he knew it not , his ignorance in a point wherein he would seeme knowing , is hardly excusable , and his temerity , in affirming , without sure ground , such a thing as this , to the scandall of the 〈◊〉 Pastour of the Church , and of a synod of three hundred Bishops and Archbishops by his own confession , altogether blameable . If he knew it to be false , and yet would affirme what he did , where is his honestie ? The like is to be sayd of his 〈◊〉 touching Pope 〈◊〉 , and the eight Generall Council defining against Honorius ; there 's a mistake in it . For neither did Pope Honorius really maintaine the Monothelites Heresie , nor doe wee maintaine but in a question of Fact , ( as this was , viz. whether the sayd Pope had really asserted that Heresie ) both the Pope , and a Generall Council , through Misinformation , or other Jucidents may iudge amiss . The Bishop proceeds , asking vs in the next paragraph to this effect ; that since the doctrine of the Popes infallibility , had been so easie a way , eyther to preuent all diuisions about the Fayth , or to end all controuersies of that nature , whensoeuer they should arise , why this briefe , but most necessary , Proposition THE BISHOP OF ROME CANNOT ERRE IN HIS JUDICJALL DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING THE FAYTH is not to be found in letter , or sense , in any stripture , Council , or Father of the Church ? I answer first , that in the sense , wherein Catholiques maintaine the Popes infallibility to be matter of necessary beleese to all Christians , it is found ( for sense ) both in scripture . Councils , and Fathers , as wee haue already sufficiently proued , in prouing the infallibility of Generall Councils , of which he is the most principall , and most necessary member . Secondly euen in the sense , wherein the Bishop with perpetuall impertinency 〈◊〉 it , viz. as it signifies his personall infallibity without a Generall Council , who knowes not , that the maintainers of that opinion alledge both scriptures , Fathers , and Councils for it ; probably at least , as may be seen in their 〈◊〉 disputations vpon that subiect . To omitt scripture ( wherein wee confess there is no express mention of the Pope , but only of S. Peter , in whose Right the Pope succeeds ) what thinke you of the Council of 〈◊〉 doth not that Council seem to say in effect , that the Pope is infallible , when vpon reading of his 〈◊〉 to them : in 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 Heresie , the 〈◊〉 Assembly of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out with acclamation , a and profess , that St. Peter ( who was infallible ) spake by the mought of Leo , and that the Pope was Interpreter of the Apostles voice ? what thinke you of the Council of 〈◊〉 ? doe not the Fathers in that Council seeme to attribute infallibility to the Pope , when they acknowledge , b that St. Peter was Head , and Foundation of the Church , and that he STILLL 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 causes of Fayth in , and by his successours , the Bishops of 〈◊〉 ? Doth not c St. Hierome seeme to make Pope Damasus infallible when speaking of him , and his particular Sea , he sayes , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &c. vpon this Rocke , J know the Church ( which can 〈◊〉 faile , or fall away from the 〈◊〉 Fayth ) is built ? d Did not St. Austin doe the same , with the whole Council of 〈◊〉 , when beside their own suffrage ( which was but of a particular Prouinciall Council ) they requir'd nothing , but the 〈◊〉 sentence only to the full , and effectuall condemning of the Pelagian Heresie ? doth he not speake also to the same effect : e When he 〈◊〉 , that the succession of the Roman Bishops is that very Rock of the Church , against which the proude Gates of Hell shall neuer preuaile . I might adde f St. Cyprian formerly alledged , as also g St. Leo Pope , h Innocent the first , Pope i Gelasius , St. Gregory , with others : but I feare it would be answered , that they were Popes , and spake partially in their owne cause . Beside , hauing hitherto wholy declined the defence of that assertion , and professed , that it would be sufficient for Protestants , to acknowledge the Pope infallible in , and with Generall Councils only , I haue no obligation to engage further in that business , nor can I thinke it any way expedient , to make the entrance into Catholique Communion , seeme narrower to our aduersaries , then in truth it is , and of necessity must be maintayn'd to be . CHAP. 22. The Bishops vaine endeauour to finde out Errours in Generall Councils confirm'd by the Pope . ARGVMENT . 1. The Councils of Florence and Trent err'd not , in defining the Priests intention to be necessary to the validity of Sacraments . 2. Why the Popes Confirmation is necessary to the definitions of Generall Councils . 3. Transubstantiation no errour ; nor any such late , or new doctrin , as the Relatour pretends without shew of proofe . 4. Communion under one kinde , no errour , but the allowed practice of the Church in Primitiue times . 5. Inuocation of Saynts no errour , but the doctrine , and practice of the Fathers . 6. Not derogatory , eyther to the Merits , or Mediation of Christ our Sauiour . 7. Adoration , or worshiping of Images , as allowed by the doctrine of the Church , neither Idolatrie , nor Errour . 8. Optatus both partially , and impertinently alledg'd by the Bishop . 9. Priuate abuses in this , or any other matter , not iustly imputable to the Church . 10. Cassander ; qualis vir . 11. Llamas , misunderstood by the Relatour . 1. THe Bishop here , and in the Following paragraphs , brings in a fresh charge of errours in matter of Fayth , committed by such Generall Councils , as the Pope confirmed . The first in the endictement , is that of the Priests Jntention , which the Councils of Florence , and Trent ( both of them confirm'd by the Pope ) defin'd to be essentially necessary to the validity of a Sacrament : which the Bishop thinks is an errour . But before he goes about to proue it to be such , he forgets not to tell vs , that the Popes infallibility ( of which wee talke so much ) is a vayne , and vseless thing . Why I pray ? His reason is , for that before the Church , or any particular man , can make vse of it , ( that is , be settled , and confirm'd in the truth by meanes thereof ) he must eyther know , or vpon sure ground , beleeue , that he is infallible . But ( sayes the Bishop ) this can only be beleeu'd of him , as he is St. Peter's Successour , and Bishop of Rome : of which it is impossible , in the Relatours opinion , for the Church , or any particular man , to haue such certaintie , as is sufficient to ground an infallible beleefe . Why ? because the knowledge , and beleefe of this , depends vpon his beeing truly in Orders , truly a Bishop , truly a Priest , truly baptised : none of all which , according to our principles , can be certainly know'n , or beleeued ; because ( forsooth ) the intention of him that administred these Sacraments to the Pope , or made him Bishop , Priest etc. can neuer be certainly know'n : and yet by the doctrine of the Councils of Florence , and Trent , it is of absolute necessity to the validity of euery one of those Sacraments ; so as without it , the Pope were neither Bishop nor Priest. This is the summe of a much longer discourse , which the Relatour makes to this purpose . In answer to which in the first place I obserue , though the Bishop leuels his argument only against the Popes infallibility , yet it hath the same force against the infallibility of the whole Church in points fundamentall . For seeing the whole Church cannot consist of other persons then such as are truly baptised , and that no infallible assurance can be had , that eyther all , or any one in particular is baptised , how is it possible wee should be infallibly sure , that there is such an assembly in the world , as the Bishop calls the Church , that is , a company of true Christians , beleeuing all points fundamentall , or absolutely necessary to saluation , since wee cannot be infallibly sure , that any of them are baptised ? Secondly I answer , that both a Generall Council , and the Pope , when they define any matter of Faith , doe also implicitely define that themselues are infallible , and by consequence , that both the Pope in such case , and also the Bishops that sit in Council , are persons baptised , in holy Orders , and haue all things Essentially necessary for that function , which they then execute . Neither is there any more difficultie in the case of the Pope now , then there was in the time of the Prophets , and Apostles of old : whome all must grant , that with the same breath they defin'd or infallibly declar'd the seuerall articles , and points of doctrine propos'd by them to the faythfull , and their own infallibility in proposing them . Here therefore the Bishops argument hath equall force against all parties , ( his own , as well as ours ) and all must answer as wee doe ; narnely , that it is not necessary first , to beleeue the infallibility of the proposer , to wit , prioritate temporis , or in respect of time ; and afterwards the infallibility of the doctrine he proposeth : but it sufficeth to beleeue it first , prioritate naturae , so as the infallibility of the teacher be presuppos'd to the infallibility of his doctrine , as without which , this latter could not subsist , or be beleeu'd by vs. Thus , wee conceiue , the Relatours Achilles is fall'n ; and truly it may seem much , that in all his discourse he should take no notice of this answer to this obiection , which is commonly giuen by diuines . Was it because he knew it not , or wanted a sufficient replie ? But this is but , as it were , the Prologue to the Play : the Relatours maine business is about the Priests intention ; concerning which he first of all positiuely layes down , that it is not of absolute necessitie to the essence of a Sacrament , so as to make it voyd , though the Priests thoughts should wander from his worke , at the instant of vsing the essentialls of a Sacrament ; yea , or haue in him an actuall intention to scorn the Church . After which he tells vs a story , how learnedly a Neapolitan Bishop in the Council of Trent disputed against the common opinion , viz. which holds the Priests intention to be necessary : himselfe pressing the grand inconuenience , which he thinks would follow , if any such intention were held to be essentially necessary , in these words ; namely that then no man should be able to secure himselfe , upon any doubt , or trouble in his conscience that he hath truly , and really been made 〈◊〉 of any Sacrament whatsoeuer ; no , not of Baptisme : and so by consequence be left in doubt , whether he be a Christian , or no. I shall speake first to his principall assertion , which is , that the Priests intention is not absolutely necessary to the essence , or validity of the Sacrament . If it be not ; I desire a reason of our aduersaries , why wee should not thinke a Priest consecrates the Body of Christ as much at a table , where there is wheaten bread before him , and that eyther by way of disputation , or reading the 26. Chapter of St. Matthew , he pronounces the words Hoc est corpus meum , as he doth at the Altar ? what is here wanting to the essence of a Sacrament , according to the Relatours principles ? Here is the true forme , Hoc est corpus meum . Here is the true matter , wheaten bread . He that pronounces the Forme , is a true Priest : and yet in all mens iudgement Here 's no true Sacrament made . Some thing else therfore is necessary to the essence of a Sacrament beside what is here found : and what can that possibly be , if it be not the intention , which the Church requires ? you will say ( perhaps ) that the outward circumstances at least must shew to the standers by , that the Priest really intends to make a Sacrament . I answer first , if it be not absolutely necessary that such an intention should be had , why is it absolutely necessary , it should be signified ? Secondly J deny that any such externall signification by circumstances , is essentially necessary to a Sacrament . Might not a Catholique Priest , to saue the soule of some dying infant , baptise it ( if he could ) without making any such signification by circumstances ? Might he not vpon pretense that he had skill in Physick , and that it were good for the child to haue it's face often sprinckled with cold water , take occasion himselfe euer and anon , to be sprinkling the childs face , and at one time amongst the rest , to pronounce eyther softly , or by way of discourse , the words Ego te 〈◊〉 &c. with intention to conferre the Sacrament ? and will any man doubt , but that the Priest doing this , out of a reall intention to baptise , the child is really baptis'd , though none of the standers by take notice , by any circumstances , of what that Priest does ? I aske therfore , if in this case a true Sacrament be made , though no circumstances doe outwardly signify , that the Priest intends to make it , why is it not likewise so in the other case , viz. where a Priest hauing due matter ( wheaten bread ) before him , pronounces the 〈◊〉 , or words of Consecration , meerly by way of discourse , or reading ? Can any reason hereof be so much as imagin'd , saue only this , that in the former case the Priest hath a reall intention to make a Sacrament , or to doe what the Church doth , or what Christ did institute to be done , but in the other he hath no such intention ? As for the inconuenience , which the Bishop pretends would follow out of this doctrine , viz. that no man can rest secure , that he hath been really made partaker of any Sacrament , no not of Baptisme it selfe . I answer first , that as to the farre greater part of Christians , the inconuenience follows as much , out of the Bishops principles , as ours ; they cannot be absolutely certaine that they are Baptis'd . For the Bishop himselfe holds , that both matter and 〈◊〉 are essentially necessary , and that without them the Sacrament were voyd . But who sees not , how easie it is for the Priest , especially in Country-Churches , and villages amongst poore ignorant people , and in priuate howses too , when he is call'd to Christen children ready to dye , Jsay , how easie it is for the Priest , if he will be so wicked , to vitiate something pertaining to the Essentialls of Baptisme , without beeing perceiu'd : which if he does , the Baptisme is voyd . Secondly , as to his pretended inconuenience , that then people should not be absolutely , and infallibly certaine , that they are truly Baptis'd , is not Morall assurance , or such , as is lyable to no iust cause of doubting , and suspecting the contrary , sufficient ? or can any man in his witts pretend to more assurance then this , touching his Baptisme ? Such Metaphysicall , and rare cases therfore , as the Relatour seems to put , ought not to trouble sober men , much less to fright them , out of the true beleese of the Church : they only prouing , that wee cannot by ordinary course , without speciall reuelation , haue absolute , and infallible certainty of our Justification , and Saluation ; which is no way contrary to Catholique Fayth , but most consonant to it . As for those wandring Thoughts the Bishop speaks of , wee easily grant , they doe not nullyfy the Sacrament , because they well stand with a virtuall intention , which in the generall doctrine of our diuines is sufficient to the essence of the Sacrament . Virtuall intention is , when the Priest really does operate , or celebrate the Sacrament in vertue of an express intention which he had to doe it , but now , at this , or that instant , hath not , by reason of some distraction of minde , or that his thoughts are vpon some other thing : which wee may illustrate by an example , or two . A Seruant vpon command of his Master vndertakes a iourney . When he first receiues the command , and is bidden to prepare himselfe , no doubt but in obedience to his Master , he hath an express intention to doe what he is commanded ; which probably continues till his first setting out , and some time after . But vpon the roade he meets with frends , lights vpon company , falls into discourse , &c. so that he hath no longer that express intention , vpon the business he goes about , which at first he had ; but yet he still goes on his way , by vertue of his intention to obey his master . A labouring man , that is hir'd to a dayes-worke , whilest he sings , or talks to his fellow-labourers , hath not any express intention of getting money : yet certaine it is , he labours all day in vertue of an intention to get money , though grown so flacke , that he cannot perceiue it . So is it in the administration of Sacraments , and in all other actions of like nature : wee doe not alwayes expresly intend the worke wee doe , ( for that 's morally impossible ) but wee doe alwayes virtually intend it , if euer wee went seriously , and deliberately about it , vntil wee doe expresly , and actually cease , or intend the contrary . For seeing the hand moues not without some impulse of the will , nor the will act at any time without some motiue represented by the vnderstanding , 't is cleere in all these cases , that the motiue , which was first represented to the will , and by which the wil was first of all moued , doth stil remaine , and operate vpon the will , though so obscurely , and vnperceiuedly , by reason of other obiects interuening , that it can hardly be discerned to moue vs. Let the Priest therefore be neuer so much distracted in his thoughts , and wander , at the instant of applying the matter , and forme of the Sacrament ; if he begun the action , not with an intention to deride the Church , but to doe what is vsuall for Christs Ministers to doe in the like occasions , he makes a true Sacrament by virtue of that first intention , though he does not cleerly perceiue it . Now as for the Neapolitan Bishop wee answer , that the most Eminent Sforza Palauicino , late of the Societie of IESVS , and now Cardinal , in his elaborate and learned tomes of the historie of the Council of Trent , obserues , that the Council , in their definition touching the Priests intention in the Sacrament , aym'd only at the condemning of that errour of Luther , which denyes all vertue to the Sacrament , and auerrs it to haue its full effect from the Receiuers Fayth alone ; so farre , as though the whole action were done in mockage , and derision of the Church , yet it should be to him that receiues it , a true Sacrament . This doctrine the Council expresly condemn'd , as indeed it deseru'd , beeing so apparently vnsuitable both to the wisdome of our Sauiour and the Decorum of his Church , contrary to the vniuersall apprehension of the Faythfull , and repugnant to the nature of all other humane actions . But as for Catharinus ( who is the person the Relatour meanes by the Neapolitan Bishop , who as his Lordship sayes , disputed so learnedly against the common opinion , in the Council of Trent , ) the Cardinal aboue mention'd , is cleere of opinion , that the Council decreed nothing against him ; because he deny'd not an intention to be necessary in the Sacrament , but only explicated the thing differently from the common way of schole-men : into which dispute neither the Council of Florence , nor Trent thought it necessary to engage ; but defin'd in generall terms , that in the Minister of the Sacrament , an intention was requir'd faciendi quod facit Ecclesia ( of doing what the Church doth ) which Catharinus did not deny . 2. Thus haue wee ( I hope ) sufficiently answer'd the Bishops first Charge of Errour , against Generall Councils confirm'd by the Pope . Before he brings in the second , he presents the Reader with such a quaint subtletie against the Popes Right to confirme them , and the necessity wee maintaine of their beeing so confirm'd by him , that wee cannot well auoid taking notice of it . Thus then he argues . Noe Councill is confirm'd till it be finished : and when 't is finished , euen before the Popes confirmation be putt to it , eyther it hath erred , or it hath not erred . 〈◊〉 it hath erred , the Pope ought not to confirme it ; and if he doe , 't is a voyd Acte : for no power can make Falsehood Truth . If it hath not erred , then it was true before the Pope confirm'd it : so his Confirmation 〈◊〉 nothing but his own assent . Thus the Relatour . But I answer , wee must distinguish in the business . A Generall Council makes a definition in matter , of Fayth , eyther , with the ioynt consent of the Pope , or without it . By defining with the Popes ioynt consent I vnderstand , that eyther the Pope be personally present in the Council , and concurre with it , ( which happens but seldome ) or that his Legats doe it , following the Popes instruction : in eyther of these cases the definition , of a Generall Council is vnquestionably infallible . By defining without the Popes consent , I meane , when neither the Pope is present , in the Council , nor haue the Legats that are present any instruction from the Sea Apostolique touching the matter ; and by consequence doe not , in this case , so fully represent the chiefe Pastour of the Church , but that this further confirmation is necessary . Jn this therfore , and in all other like cases , 't is necessary , that the Pope doe actually confirme the Decrees of Generall Councils , to make them infallible ; or that it may be infallibly certaine to vs , that such , or such a Generall Council err'd not in any of its definitions concerning matter of Fayth . So that Exclusiuely to the Popes consent or confirmation wee can neuer be infallibly certain which hath happened , till the Pope ioynes , and adds his confirmation to the Decree of the Council . Wee may express the matter in some sort by the kings consent to Acts of Parlament . Le Roy veut , added to a Bill presented from both Howses , makes it a binding Law to the whole kingdome ; which before it , was not . Soe the Popes consent , or confirmation added to the definitions of Generall Councils , makes them articles of Christian Beleefe no longer now to be questioned , much less contradicted by any , but absolutely to be beleeu'd with infallible Fayth . Now this presupposed , wee answer the Relatours argument directly , thus . To the first part of it , if the Councill erred &c. wee agree with him ; the Pope ought not to confirme the Decree : adding more ouer , that it is impossible he should confirme it . And to the second viz. that if it erred not , then the definition was true , before the Pope confirm'd it , wee confess this also , for the Popes confirmation makes not the definition to be true in it selfe , but it makes vs infallibly certaine , that it is true . Gods Reuelation it selfe , towitt of the things deliuer'd in scripture , makes them not to be true in themselues ; for so they are , and were , whether he had reuealed them , or no ; but it makes them infallible truths to vs , or such truths , as both may , and must be infallibly beleeu'd by Christians . So wee say , the doctrine of Generall Councils was true in it selfe before the Popes confirmation , but it was not so sufficiently , and infallibly declar'd , that it could be beleeu'd with an act of true Christian Fayth : that Prerogatiue belonging to Decrees of Generall Councils , only as they include the Head of the Church , and not otherwise . But whereas then the Bishop inferrs , that the Popes confirmation adds nothing , but only his own consent to the Councils decree : wee vtterly deny the consequence ; especially vnderstanding it in the Relatours sense , viz. for no more then the Assent of some other single Bishop or Patriarch . For wee auerre that it is the assent of the Chiefe Pastour of the Church , absolutely necessary to the compleating , and giuing full force to the acts of such Councils ; and also that it 〈◊〉 infallibility , or absolute Certaintie of truth , to all their decrees in matter of Fayth : which surely is more then nothing . 3. Well . But now the Relatour aduances againe with his instances ; to witt , of pretended errours in the doctrine of Generall Councils confirm'd by the Pope : thence concluding against vs , that euen the Popes confirmation doth not make the doctrine of such Councils , infallible . The errour 〈◊〉 obiects , is against the Council of Lateran , confirm'd by Pope Innocent the Third ; where it teacheth that Christ is present by way of Transubstantiation ; which , as the Bishop affirms , was neuer heard of , in the Church before this Council ; nor can it , ( Sayth he ) be prou'd by Scripture , and taken properly , is inconsistent with the grounds of Christian religion . But first , what a strange manner of proceeding is this , to assert a point of so great importance without soluing , or so much as taking notice of the pregnant proofs our Authours bring , both out of scripture , and Fathers , to the contrary of what he so mainly affirmes ? The Relatour should not haue sayd , but prou'd , that Transubstantiation is an errour contrary to scripture , and not consistent with the grounds of Christian Religion : at least he should haue cleer'd his own Assertion , and in some manner , or other haue explain'd , how Transubstantiation may be taken improperly , as his words insinuate . But surely this was a conception of the Bishops , so new and singular , that 't will hardly finde any defendants . Of all the words , which the Church vseth to express her sense of the Mysteries of true Religion , there is none , methinks , less apt to be peruerted to a Metaphoricall , or Figuratiue , sense , then this of Transubstantiation . Wee deny not , but this terme , or word , Transubstantiation , was first publiquely Authoris'd in the sayd Council of 〈◊〉 , as that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( wherby our Sauiours Eternall , and Consubstantiall Deity is signifyed ) was in the Council of Nice , and that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( which in like manner expresses the Mystery of his Diuine Incarnation ) was in the Council of Ephesus . But for the thing it selfe signified by this terme , which is a reall conversion of the substance of bread , into the Body of Christ , and of wine , into his Bloud : 't is cleere enough , that it was euer held for a Diuine Truth . Witness S. a Cyprian ( or at least an Author of those first ages of the Church ) who speaking of the Sacrament of the Eucharist , sayth . This common Bread , CHANG'D JNTO FLESH , AND BLOVD , giueth life : and againe . The Bread which our Lord gaue to his disciples , BEEING CHANG'D , not in its outward forme , or semblance , but in its inward NATVRE , or substance , ( for so the word Nature must , and doth always signifie , when 't is oppos'd to the Accidents , or Qualities , of any thing ) by the Omnipotency of the word IS MADE FLESH . Witness St. Gregory Nyssen . b With good reason doe wee beleeue ( sayth he ) that the Bread ( of the Eucharist ) beeing Sanctifyed by Gods word ( viz. the words of Consecration ) is CHANG'D into the Body OF THE WORD-GOD : and a little after . The nature of the things wee see , beeing TRANSELEMENTED into him . What can here be fignify'd by Transelementation of the nature of the outward Element , but what the Church now stileth Transubstantiation ? Witness S. Cyrill of Hierusalem in these words , c He that changed water into wine by his sole will , ( at Cana in Galilee ) doth he not deserue our Beleefe , that he hath also changed wine into Blou'd ? wherfore let vs receiue , with all assurance of Fayth , the Body , and Bloud of Iesus Christ ; Seeing vnder the SPECIES ( or Forme ) of Bread THE BODY IS GIVEN , and vnder the SPECIES ( or Forme ) , of wine , HIS BLOVD IS GIVEN &c. knowing , and holding for certaine that the bread which wee see , IS NOT BREAD ( though it SEEME TO THE TAST to be Bread ) but THE BODY of Iesus Christ : likewise , that the wine which wee see ( though to the sense it SEEME to be wine ) is NOT WINE for all that , but the Bloud of Iesus Christ. Were it possible for a Catholique to express his own , or the Churches beleefe of this Mystery , in more full , plaine , and effectuall terms ? witness also S. Ambrose , who speaking of the Eucharist rightly consecrated , d sayth . IT IS NO LONGER that which Nature fram'd ( viz. bread , and wine ) but that which the Benediction of Consecration hath made it to be . What 's that , but the Body , and Bloud of Christ ? adding further thus ; you will say ( perhaps ) I see an other thing . Why do you tell me Jreceiue the Body of Iesus Christ ? How many Examples haue wee to proue , that the force of Benediction is greater , then that of Nature ; seeing that by Benediction , euen nature it selfe is often changed ? Againe also . This bread , is bread before the words of the Sacrament : but when Consecration comes , OF BREAD , IT IS MADE THE FLESH OF CHRIST . They that desire to see more testimonies to confirme this truth may finde them in Bellarmin libr. 3. de Eucharist . cap , 20. and in diuerse other * Catholique Authours . Euen the words of scripture it selfe , taken in their proper and literall sense , doe euidently shew , that the only substance which is deliuer'd in this Sacrament , is the Body of Christ , and that the substance of bread is no more there . For as he that pointing to an hogs-head of wine , sayes this is wine , and he that holding vp a purse-full of money , says , this is gold , if he intends to speake truth , must signify , that the only liquour contain'd sub propria forma in the hogs-head , is wine , and all the money in the purse , gold : so our Sauiour Christ , by saying , this is my Body must giue vs to vnderstand , that all the substance contained vnder the accidents he shew'd , was his Body : which could not be true , vnless the substance of bread were changed into Christs Body , or ceased to be in the Sacrament . There 's a great deale of difference between these two propositions : here is gold , and , this is gold . He that holds a handfull of money , of which halfe is gold , and halfe syluer , may truly say , here is gold ; but he cannot truly say , this is gold . So is it in the B. Sacrament . If there were both the substance of bread , and of the Body of Christ in it , wee might truly say , shewing the Sacrament , here is the Body of Christ , or this is bread , and the Body of Christ , but not , this is the Body of Christ. Seeing therfore our Sauiour at this last supper , speaking of the Sacrament , sayd , this is my Body , the meaning of his words must needs be , that in what he then shewed , there was no other substance , but that of his Body : whence it followes , that there was a true conuersion of the substance of the bread ( which ceased to be any longer vnder the species of bread ) into the Body of Christ. 4. An other pretended errourof a Generall Council confirm'd by the Pope , is that of administring the B. Sacrament to the Layty vnder one kinde only : of which wee hauc already spoken what may suffice , in the precedent chapter . Neuertheless to that little which the Relatour adds here , wee answer briefly . The authority of St. Thomas brought by the Bishop , makes rather for vs , then against vs. For he tells vs , 't was a custome prouidently obserued in some Churches , not to giue the Sacrament in forme of wine to the Laity . His words are , Prouidè in quibusdam Ecclesijs obseruatur , vt populo Sanguis non detur . This Prouision was made to auoyd the danger of spilling , and other inconueniences : which likewife mou'd the Council of Constance to make a Generall Decree to the same purpose : although it be certain , that not only in St. Thomas his time , but in all times of the Church , it were both publiquely allowed , and commonly by some practised , euen in Churches , to receiue vnder one kinde only . For otherwise how is it possible , that the Manichees ( who by the principles of their Heresie neuer dranke wine nor communicated vnder the Forme of wine ) should yet finde liberty , and opportunity to Communicate amongst Catholiques in Catholique Churches , without beeing perceiu'd ? as 't is certaine they frequently did in i St. Leo's time and after . Likewife t is euident , that all k Heremites in the wildernefs communicated often vnder one kinde only . So did l trauellers in their iourneyes ; m Sicke persons in their beds , and n others at home in their howses . Lastly o Children in the Church , and little infants at home , in their cradles , in forme of wine only . Wee grant , that in ancient times , when the number of Christians was but small , it was the ordinary custome for all that would , ( the Laity , as well as others ) to receiue the Eucharist in both kindes : but wee auerre , this custome proceeded meerly out of free denotion , and not out of any beleefe , that it was absolutely necessary so to doe , by vertue of Christs precept : or that it was contrary to the substance of Christs institution to doe otherwise . This therfore euinces not that , which the Bishop was obliged to proue ; namely , that receiuing vnder one kinde only , is an errour contrary to the institution and intention of Christ ; but rather the contrary to that is manifest from the practice of the Church , which always , euen in the first fiue , or six hundred years , allowed it publiquely to be taken vnder the forme of bread only , and that , as well in the Church , as out of it : as Bellarmin likewise more largely shews , lib. 4. de Eucharist . cap. 24. Whose authorities the Bishop shoul haue taken notice of , and not thought it sufficient only to say ; this , and that is an errour , and contrary to Christs institution , without shew of proofe . For wee tell him , the vniuersall practice of the Church is a better interpreter of Christs institution , then the Bishop , or any priuate person whatsoeuer : and so wee doubt not , but all sober-minded Christians ( not too much peruerted with Hereticall preiudice ) will in time acknowledge . Howeuer , the Relatour , by his silence as to this particular , giues vs leaue to goe on , and consider his fourth obiected errour , viz. Inuocation of Saynts ; to which he adds a fift also , Adoration , or worship of Images : both of them ( wee confess ) beeing points admitted , and defin'd by the Council of Trent , which the Pope confirm'd . 5. Against the Jnuocation of Saynts he tells vs in the first place , that what the Fathers haue in fauour of it , is only Rhetoricall flourishes for the stirring vp of deuotion , as they thought . Very good . When the Fathers deliuer Propositions soe cleerly for vs , that it is not possible for our aduersaries to wrest them to any contrary sense , then all 's but Rhetorique , and Hyperbolicall straines of 〈◊〉 : but when they speake any thing , that beares some shew against vs , then they are dogmaticall ; that 's positiue Diuinity , and the reall sense of the Fathers . Is not this faire dealing ? But in the meane time , how can it seeme to any that duly considers it , but most extreamely partiall , and strange , to terme so many exhortations , so many plaine , and positiue assertions , so many instances , examples , histories , reports , and the like , which the Fathers frequently vse , and afford in this kinde , ( and that vpon occasions , wherein dogmaticall , and plaine deliuery of Christian doctrine , and truth is expected ) nothing but flourishes of wit , and Rhetorique ? not to say , that such putt-offs as this , serue for nothing else , but to open a gate as it were , and giue a pretense to euery Phanatique Heretique , further to reiect , and despise the authority of the ancient Fathers , whensoeuer they teach contrary to his phansie , vnder coulour , that they deliuer not their reall sense , but only speake 〈◊〉 , or vse flourishes of witt , and Eloquence to stirre vp deuotion . Nor doc I see , how the Fathers could thinke to 〈◊〉 true deuotion in the hearts of their people by vsing outwardly , and commending Prayer to Saynts , if they had thought it to be a thing in it selfe vnlawfull , as Protestants hold it to be . In the second place he vrges authority against the Inuocation of Saynts ; to witt of S. Austin , who speaking of the Christian Sacrifice , hath these words . a Ad quod Sacrificium , suo loco & ordine , homines Dei nominantur ; non tamen a 〈◊〉 , qui Sacrificat , 〈◊〉 . At which Sacrifice ( meaning no other but the Sacrifice of the Mass ; which wee hope the Reader will marke for S. Austins sake ) in their due place , and order ( sayth he ) holy men of God are named , or commemorated , meaning the holy Prelats , and Pastours of the Church , with other Saynts departed ; but they are not inuocated by the Priest that Sacrificeth . I answer , the Fathers meaning is , that the Saynts departed are not inuocated , or called vpon , by way of Sacrifice ; that is , as persons to whome the Sacrifice is offered . For that beeing a worke of Religion due vnto God alone , the Saynts departed are not capable of it . That this only is S. Austins meaning , and not absolutely to deny , that the Saynts departed are in no sort to be invocated , or prayd vnto by the Priest , is very cleere , euen from the place it selfe . For he presently adds these words , as explicating himselfe , and giuing the reason of what he had sayd immediately before . Deo quippe , non illis , Satrificat . For the Priest ( sayth he ) Sacrificeth to God , and not to them ; neither is he their Priest ( that is , to inuocate , or worship them , by oblation of Sacrifice ) but Gods. To the same purpose also he b speaks elsewhere ; and 't is likewise confirm'd by other passages of his works , where he teaches that not only Commemoration is made of the Saynts departed , in time of Sacrifice , ( as he doth , euen in the text * cited by the Beshop ) but that it is done to this particular intent and purpose , viz. that they would pray for vs : which doubtless amounts at least to a virtuall inuocation of them . c Ideo quippe ad ipsam Mensant &c. For this reason ( sayth he ) wee remember , or make mention of them , at the Holy Table , not as wee doe other Faythfull departed , so us to pray for them , but rather , THAT , THEY WOVLD PRAY FOR VS . And againe , d Iniuria est pro Martyre orare , cuius nos debemus orationibus commendari . T is an iniury ( sayth he ) to pray for a Martyr ; to whose prayers wee our selues ought to be recommended . Doth not S. Austin sufficiently signifie by these words , that the prayers by which wee recommend our selues to the Saynts departed , are both lawfull , and also pro fitable ? Nor will it serue the Bishops turn to say : this is yet no formal , and express inuocation , here 's no Ora pro nobis , as the manner now is ; for I answer , that lib. 21. de Ciuit. Dei. cap. 27. there is as much as Ora pro nobis comes to . e S. Austin doth there clearly profess it to be the generall custome of Christians , in theyr recommending themselues to the Saynts , to say , MEMOR ESTO NOSTRI ; which surely no man will contend to signifie less , then ora pro nobis . Adde to this , what he hath further in his sermon vpon St. Stephen . f Let vs therfore recommend our selues ( sayth he ) to the prayers of this Saynt ; seeing he is now farre better heard for those that worthily pray to him . If S. Stephen be heard for those that worthily pray to him ; then to pray to S. Stephen is not a sinfull act , but very profitable . Haue not wee now more reason to thinke the Bishop is mistaken in his construction of St. Austin , then that the Church and Generall Councils are , in recommending this doctrine ? 6. But it is further vrged , that wee pray to God , and desire him to heare our prayers for the merits of Saynts : which the Bishop thinks doth not only make the Saynts Mediatours of Intercession , but euen sharers in the Mediation of Redemption . He tells vs likewise , that such Prayers as these stand ( not without great scandall to Christ , and Christianity ) vsed , and authorised to be vsed in the Missal . I answer first ; our aduersarie might as well haue taken offence at some prayers vsed in scripture ; where , though the word Merits be not expresly mention'd , yet the full sense , and meaning thereof is necessarily implyed and vnderstood , as much , as in those prayers of the Church , which he will seeme so much to stumble at . For example : doth not Salomon , Psalm . 132. pray to God to heare him in effect for the Merits of his Father Dauid deceased , when he sayth Memento , Domine , Dauid et omnis Mansuetudinis eius ? ( Lord , remember DAVID , and all his MEEKENESS , etc. what , J pray you , is this but to desire , that God would remember to Salomons benefitt , and good , not only his own Couenant , and Promise made to Dauid ( as Protestants vainly pretend , without any the least ground from the Text ) but Dauids Pietie and vertue , by which he was acceptable to God ? For which reason also , after some particular instances thereof giuen , he adds againe in his prayer , Propter Dauid seruum tuum , etc. For thy Seruant DAVIDS sake ( as euen the english Protestant Translation reads it ) turn not away the face of thine Anointed . The like was done by Daniel ( Dan. 13. by Moyses also , Hieremias , and other Prophets , praying vnto God , and desiring their petitions might be heard , for Abraham , for Isaack , and for Jsraels sake , and for the sakes of other holy men , who had liu'd before , and been in their times persons acceptable to God. Yea to doe this , was the generall custome of the Primitiue Church , witnessed by St. Austin , in his * Questions vpon Exodus ; where speaking of Moyses his praying , and obtaining pardon of God , for that great sinne of the Israelites in making the golden Calfe , he tells vs , that by such an example wee are put in minde , that when our own Merits depress vs with feare that God doth not loue vs , wee may be encouraged , and holpen BY THE MERITS of those whome he doth loue . a The golden mouth of St. Chrysostome vtters the same truth . Whence wee conclude , 't is no vnwarrantable thing to pray , that God would heare vs for the Merits of saynts ; seeing in effect it is no more , then to acknowledge our own vnworthiness , and to pray to God , that , for the works of the Martyrs , and Confessours our brethren , who were , and are most desirous of our saluation , he would be pleas'd to grant our requests . Wee beleeue , and confess , that Christ alone is our Redeemer ; and that he ( and none but he ) by the iust price of his most precious Bloud hath paid our ransome , and fully satisfy'd the iustice of God for out sins : all that wee desire of the Saynts , eyther when wee mention their merits to God , or simply beg their Intercession with God for vs , is only that they would ioyne with vs in prayer to God , and that God would be pleased , for their sakes , whose works were soe gratefull to him , to bestow on vs the fauours wee aske : but wee still acknowledge that what wee aske is principally to be granted vs for the merits of Christ , according to the Council of Trent ( Sess. 25. ) which defines , that all onr praiers , and requests made to the Saynts , are to be made for , and through his merits : for which reason also wee vsually conclude all our prayers with mention of our Sauiour , in these , or the like words , PER CHRISTVM DOMINVM NOSTRVM . Mow if the Saynts merits , ( or good works ) and their receiuing an Eternall reward for them in Heauen , be not iniurious to the fullness of Christs merits , why should eyther their beeing heard by reason of their sayd works , when they pray to God for vs through Christ , or our desire that they may be heard for them , be thought iniurious to Christs merits ? And if it be no iniury to the force , and vertue of Christs Intercession , that the Saynts doe pray and interceede for vs , through Christs merits , why should it be accounted an iniury to his Passion , that the Saynts merits , ( or Good works ) be held to haue force , to procure good things from God , both for themselues , and vs , yet not otherwise , then through the merits of Christ , and for his sake ? Jn vaine therfore doth the Relatour goe about to peruert the sense of the prayers of the Church in the Missal ; which , with all the Sophistrie he can vse , he shall neuer be able to shew , but to be most consonant to Christian doctrine , and pietie . And where as , Bellarmin is tax'd for calling the Saynts our Redeemers , it is no fault in the Cardinal , but a rashness in the Bishop . For both Bellarmin himselfe professeth , they can only be so called in a large sense , and improper manner of speaking , and confirms his assertion by a like passage of St. Paul , who sayes of himselfe ( 1. Cor. 9 , 23. ) that to all men he became all things , that he might SAVE † some . The Apostle , if he had pleas'd , might as well haue sayd that he might haue REDEEMD some : for that , had been no less agreeable to his meaning : and yet who can deny , but it is euery way as proper to Christ to be a Sauiour , as to be a Redeemer . He taxes the Cardinall likewise for styling the Saynts Numina : which word he will haue always to signifie , eyther God himselfe , or at least the Power of God , or an Oracle of God. Be it so . But in the first place Ifeare , the Relatours information deceiu'd him : for * in the place he cites , there is not the least shadow , or intimation of any such matter ; his whole discourse there , beeing of images , and not of the Saynts . Secondly , what matter were it , if the Cardinal had so called them ? Doth not the Bishop himselfe acknowledge one signification of the word Numina to be the Power of God ? and can it be thought so impious , and vnlawfull to style the Saynts Powers of God , seeing it is vndenyable , that God vseth them as the instruments of his Power , and by them worketh many powerfull , and strange effects ? Are not the Angels for this very reason called Powers of God , and the Gospell it selfe , the Power of God to Saluation ? But this is the Bishops custome , now , and then to haue a fling at Bellarmin , whether he hit , or miss . 7. Against the Adoration of Images the Bishop is very bitter ; so as to tell vs , the Modern Church of Rome is too like Paganisme in the practice of it , and driuen to scarce intellible subtleties in her servants writings , that defend it . The Modern Church of Rome is thus , and thus to blame , sayth the Bishop . But J pray tell vs , wherein doe the Modern , and Ancient Church of Rome differ touching this point ? What does the Council of Trent teach concerning the worship of Jmages , more then the second Council of Nice did ; which was celebrated little less then nine hundred yeares agoe , and therfore ( surely ) not to be accounted Modern ? The Council of Nice , though it decreed that the Jmages of Christ , and his Saynts should be had in veneration , and due reuerence outwardly giuen to them , yet it expresly forbad they should be worshiped with Diuine worship , or such as was proper , and due to God alone . Doth the Council of Trent , or Roman Church now , teach otherwise ? heare , if you please , the Prelats themselues speake in that Council . The Holy Council ( say they ) commands all Bishops , and all others who haue the office , and care of teaching , that they diligently instruct faythfull people , teaching them that the Images of Christ , of the Virgin Mother of God , and of other Saynts , are to be bad and retained , especially in Churches ; and that due honour , and veneration is to be giuen to them : not that one should beleeue any Diuinity to be in them , or Power , for which they are to be worshiped ; or that one should aske any thing of them , or put confidence in them , as anciently the Gentiles did , who placed their hope in Idolls : but because the honour that is done to them , redounds to those , whome they represent . So that by the Images wee kiss , and before which wee vncouer our heads , and prostrate our selues , wee worship Christ , and his Saynts , whose similitudes they are : which doctrine ( say the Fathers abouesayd ) is established by the Decrees of Councils , especially of the second of Nice . And a little after they adde . If it happen at any time that the histories , or passages , of holy Scripture be express'd , or figur'd out in pictures , whensoeuer it may be thought expedient for the vnlearned , lett them be taught , that the Diuinity ( or God himselfe ) is not painted therby , nor can be seen with bodily eyes , nor represented by any colours , or figures . J thought it not amiss to sett down the words of this Council at large ; as beeing sufficient , if duly considered , to stop our aduersaries mouthes , and silence their calumnies against vs for euer , in this particular , without any recourse to subtleties , and nice distinctions , as the Relatour pretends wee are forc'd to doe . For what is here but plaine , and easie ? Behold in the first place , express caution and prohibition , that wee attribute noe kinde of Diuinity to Images , but only worship them with such honour , and veneration , as is due to them . Behold in the second place ; all Bishops , with others that haue the cure of soules vnder them , strictly requir'd to teach the faythfull no more , then this plaine , and secure doctrine : and that they take care to preuent , as much as in them lyeth , what euer danger , or inconuenience may possibly happen to their people , eyther by scandalous practises , or ( perhaps ) curious , and misinterpretable assertions of priuate persons , in the matter of Images . And Protestants ( if they had charity ) would iudge the best , namely , that the Ordinary Pastours of the Church doe themselues , effectually obey the Council herein , and the people , them : and not condemne the whole Church ( Pastours , and people together ) of Paganish Idolatrie , and superstition , vpon meere surmises , as the Relatour more then seems to doe in this place : especially considering , that if neglect , or Disobedience be eyther in Pastours , or people , it is not the Churches , but their own personall fault who are guilty of it ; the Church hauing taken the best , and most sufficient order that shee can , for the right instruction of those that belong to her . 8. Wee acknowledge no less then the Bishop , the Church hath always had great care to avoyd the least resemblance with Paganisme in any thing : and that therfore his Lordship might well note ( as he doth in the Margent ) that the Christians in Optatus his time , were MVCH TROVBLED vpon a false report that some were coming to sett an Jmage vpon their Altar , viz. immediately before the Oblation of the B. Eucharist was to be celebrated thereon . But what kinde of Jmage this was , appears not in any sort by Optatus his text . The Relatour indeed , by his discourse takes it for granted , 't was eyther the Crucifix , or some other Image which the Church of Rome now alloweth ; ( for he brings this passage of Optatus by way of instance to shew , that the ancient Church would not endure that the present Church of Rome alloweth in point of Images . But his supposition is easily denyed . Jn all probability it was eyther some Jdoll ; according to that which Albaspineas obserues in his Notes vpon this place , which is , that some copies read Dei Imaginem ( the Jmage of a God ) or else some common Image of a man , as ( perhaps ) of the Emperour ( for they were the Emperours officers that were bringing it ) or of the Gouernour of the Prouince : which kinde of Images , 't is confess 't the Christians in those times would not endure should be worshiped , nor so much as stand in the place of Gods worship , towit , vpon the Altar , as appeares both by Tertullian in his Apologie for the Christians , and by Eusebius . But that it was any Image of Christ , or of his B. Mother , or of any of the Apostles , or other Saynts , is wholy improbable . For why should Christians be so troubled at them ; seeing 't is well know'n that such Images as these , were in common vse , and veneration too , amongst Christians in the ancient Church ? witness that of Tertullian , Apolog. cap. 16. where the Christians are called , as it were by a common nickname of the Heathens , Crucis Religiosi , as if you would say Cross-worshipers , or Votaries of the Cross ; and that of S. Chrysostome ( Homil. QVOD CHRISTVS EST DEVS ) where he testifies , that in his time the Cross of Christ made a glorious shew vpon the Altar ; with d many other testimonies of antiquity , that might be alledged . So that from this passage of Optatus the Bishop euinces nothing against evther the vse , or that worship of Images , which the Church alloweth . That which he might haue much more rightly obseru'd from the place is , how plainly this Father makes mention of Altars , and of a Sacrifice to be offered thereon , as know'n things , and of confessed beleefe , and practice amongst Christians in his time . Cum Altaria solenniter ponerentur — Et sic Sacrificium offerretur — and a little after , cum viderent DIVINIS SACRIFICIIS nec mutatum quicquam , nec additum — all expressly , and vndenyably mean't of the Sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist , or Mass. But it suited not with the Relatours designe to make any such Remarques . 9. As little are wee concern'd in those authorities of Tertullian , St. Austin , and others , which the Bishop alledges , as finding fault with the making of Feasts at the Oratories of Martyrs ; which seem to him a kinde of Parentalia , or funerall feasts , which the Jdolatrous Gentiles in former times vsed . Wee confess , the Gentiles Parentation was vnlawfull , and Jdolatrous ; because they did therby offer Sacrifice to the Ghosts of the dead , as Tertullian e shews . St. Austin likewise found fault , not without cause , with those Christians , who placed wine , and banquets vpon the 〈◊〉 of the Martyrs , and afterwards rioted , and made themselues drunke with it . Such a custome as this deserv'd to be reprehended : and St. Austin might iustly f ( no doubt ) tell vs , the better Christians did it not . 'T was forbidden likewise by g St. Ambrose , and others , both because it had some resemblance more then was fitting , with that condemned superstition of the Gentiles Parentalia , and also because it gaue occasion of drunkeness ; though it be scarcely imaginable , that those Christians , who vsed it , did intend to offer any Sacrifice to the Martyrs ; but only to haue those things , which they sett vpon their tombes , sanctify'd by God , for the Martyrs merits . Nor did this custome euer preuaile much in the Church ; it beeing at its first coming vp , so generally reprehended by the Catholique Pastours of the Church , that the following ages by little , and little layd it quite down ; so as at present , it seems wholy extirpated , and that for many hundred of yeares last past , neither practice , nor shadow of it can be shew'n in the Church . 10. To his allegation of 〈◊〉 who seems to reprehend the Custome of the Church in the Adoration of Jmages , I answer , that the doctrine of this Authour is not wholy Orthodox . He was a man in his time , that seem'd to a great many to halt , as it were , between God , and Baal , that is , to be neither perfect Catholique , nor profess't Protestant ; and in his works he professedly labours to reconcile Catholique religion with that of Protestants ; but as it must needs happen to all such vndertakers ) with so bad success , that the results of all his study , and endeauours that way , pleas'd neither party . The Bishop will needs haue it thought that he was one of ours , and that he liu'd , and dy'd in our Communion : and wee grant , he made no externall separation from vs , nor was excommunicated , or cast out of the Church , by any sentence , or Excommunication ab homine : but whether or no he might not incurre Excommunication Meritoriously , and so be depriu'd of the Churches Communion Sententiâ iuris , by reason of those many vnsound , and vniustifyable Assertions , which are scatter'd vp , and down his writings , too much in fauour of Heresie , and of the enemies of the Church , is not soe easie to determin . Howeuer he is long since dead ; and charity obliges vs to hope the best of him ; namely that before his death he did effectiuely repent , and reuoke whateuer out of humane frailty , and complyance with the designes of such a Temporall princes as sett him on worke ( some of which b were not altogether vnsuspected themselues to be warping in religion ) he had erroneously , and scandalously deliuer'd to the preiudice of Catholique verity . As to any matter of abuse in this kinde , crept in amongst the ignorant , wee haue already shew'n how carefull the Council of Trent was to prouide against , and preuent all inconueniences that could reasonably be fore seen , or feared . And if , notwithstanding such diligence on the Churches part , there happen something now , and then to be amiss , eyther through the infirmity of some particular persons , or the negligence of others , yet neyther is the doctrine , or practice of the Church iustly to be blam'd for it ; nor yet the pious , and more discrect deuotion of the rest for this reason , to be discountenanced , much less prohibited , or forbiden . Otherwise , for the like pretended reason of Abuse , and Scandall wee might be thought to stand oblig'd to blott out of the 〈◊〉 those words concerning our Saniour , that he sitts at the right hand of God , and diuerse Texts out of the Bible it 〈◊〉 . Why ? because that by them , ignorant and ill-disposed people haue been formerly , and may be still induc'd to thinke , that God the Father is of a Bodily Shape , and hath a right hand , and a left , as men haue ; and likewise to forme to themselues many other false , and dangerous conceptions of God. Abuses of this nature , if any be , and whensoeuer they happen , must be redressed by better instruction and information ; but the pious , and lawfull custome of the Church must not therefore be abolish'd , and quite taken away . 11. As for what Llamas , a Spanish Authour , relates of the people of Asturias , Cantabria , and Gallicia , who were so addicted to their old worm-eaten , and ill-fashioned Images , that when the Bishops of those Prouinces commanded new ones , and bandsomer to be sett vp in their stead , they begg'd euen with teares to haue their old ones still , J confess , there might be some indiscretion in their proceeding : but J see noe ground the Bishop hath to taxe them of 〈◊〉 . For the people did not cry after the Bishops officers , when they remou'd these old Jmages , why doe you take away our Gods , giue vs our Gods againe , or the like , as Jdolaters would haue done , as well as Laban , Genes . 31. 30. when he reprehended Iacob for stealing away his Gods. Beside , what euer was amiss in this kinde ( as the same Authour testifieth ) was by a little intruction of their Pastours quickly amended , though the Bishop ( a man , it seems of very hard beleefe ) will not thinke so . But why should his Lordship make such difficulty to beleeue , what a graue Author reports of his own knowledge ? As to what he further inferrs from the words of Llamas , namely , that the Jmages of Christ , and his Saynts , as they represent their Exemplars , haue Diuinity in them , and that wee may 〈◊〉 things of them , and put trust in them in that regard , my answer is , the Bishop always shews himselfe ouer ready to expound our Authors in the worst sense , euen many times , where there is no rationall pretense . This Author sufficiently shews , he could haue no such meaning as the Bishop imputes to him , what euer his words may seeme to import . For in the very place cited by the Bishop , he cleerly teacheth , that wee ought to worship Jmages * according to the Prescript of the Council of 〈◊〉 and how carefull that Council was , that all might be duly instructed in this matter , and no occasion left , euen for the most ignorant , and weake , to offend by conceiuing , or beleeuing any Diuine Power to be in the Jmages , or by puting trust in them , or crauin any thing of them , appeares by the words of the Council already cited , and by the Relatours own acknowledgement , who stiles the Fathers religiously carefull in that respect . Adde hereunto the Prouiso , which this Author giues in the same chapter ; which is , that wee ought to aske nothing of the Saynts , no not of our B. Lady her selfe , otherwise then by desiring them to beg it for vs at Gods hand : and that to doe otherwise , that is , to aske any thing of them , as if they were Authors of it , or could of themselues alone giue , or grant vs the good things wee aske , were Jdolatrie . Thus therfore , wee hope , this Author ( Llamas ) his intention , and true meaning is cleer'd of what the Bishop imputes to him : but it will not be amiss to take notice also , how weakely the Bishops illation is made out of the sayd Authors words . Because Llamas writes that the Images of Christ are not to be 〈◊〉 as if there were Diuinity in them , as they are materiall things made by art , but only as they represent Christ , and the Saynts , the Relatour inferrs thus : So then belike , according to the Diuinity of this Casuist , a man may worship Images , AND ASKE OF THEM , AND PVT TRVST IN THEM , as they represent Christ , and his Saynts . But what consequence is this ? How does it follow , that wee may aske of Images , and put our trust in them , as they represent Christ , and his Saynts , because wee may worship them , as they represent Christ , and his Saynts ? wee many times loue , and reuerence a picture for the person it represents ; and yet noe body is so foolish , as to aske any thing of it , as it represents that person . Wee shew a 〈◊〉 respect to the chaire of state , and chamber of Presence , for the kings sake : yet wee neither make to them any ciuill inuocation , nor place confidence in them , as they relate to the king . Why therfore must it follow , that wee may call vpon pictures , or Jmages , as they represent our Sauiour , or the Saints , because they may be honour'd , or worshiped , as they doe represent them ? Nor is it less ridiculous , what the Bishop adds in pursuance of his discourse ; namely , his resoluing this proposition of Llamas . The Images of Christ , and the Saynts are to be worshiped , not as if there were any Diuinity , in them , as they are materiall things made by arte , but as they represent Christ and his Saynts , into this other : The Images , of Christ , and his Saynts , as they represent their Exemplars , haue Deity , or Diuinity in them ; making them both to signifie the same thing . For why might he not as well haue resolu'd this proposition ? The kings picture is to be honour'd , not as if there were Souereign Authority in it , as it is a materiall thing made by arte , but as it represents the king , into this other . The kings picture , as it represents its Exemplar , hath Souereign Authority in it . The Bishop here , surely , giues the Reader more cause to suspect his iudgement touching the interpretation of Llamas , then vpon his interpretation of him to taxe our Church of Idolatric . I conclude it therfore most certain , and indubitable , that Llamas , in the wordes cited by the Relatour , intended noe more , then to signifie , that all worship done to Jmages , was Relatiue , and not Absolute ; which is to say , that it was exhibited to them , not for their own , but for their exemplars sake , which they represent : and that wee could be heard in our prayers , and expect releefe , not from the Jmages , but from the Prototypes : which , as it is the plaine doctrine of the Church , declar'd by the Councils of Nice and Trent , so 't is all , that in this question I haue vndertaken to defend . CHAP. 23. Of the Bishops Confession that Saluation may be had in the Roman Church ; and the Consequences therupon . ARGVMENT . 1. The Bishop ( though not willingly ) grants in Express terms ; that some Catholiques may be sau'd ; and in effect , that all . 2. A : 〈◊〉 Argument That ours is the SAFER way because Protestants ( as well as wee ) confess it . SAFE explicated , and defended . 3. Catholiques not iustly tax'd with want of Charity for telling Protestants they cannot be sau'd out of the Communion of the Ro man Church . 4. Nothing to be concluded in fauour of the Bishop against A : 〈◊〉 Maxim , from the agreement of old , betwixt Catholiques and Donatists in point of Baptisme . 5. Catholiques , and Protestants doe not agree in any reall participation of Christ , proper to the Sacrament . 6. what Catholique Authors meane , when they speake of Spiritually-receiuing Christ , and of a Spirituall presence in the Eucbarist . 7. No perill of Schisme , Heresie &c. in Communicating with the Roman Church . 8. The Relatours various windings vpon this subiect , obseru'd . 9. No Parallel , betwixt A : C. argument , and that of Petilian the Donatist . 10. A : C. vniustly tax'd with vntruth By the Bishop . 11. Our aduersaries Remainder of instances consider'd , and satisfy'd . 1. IN this Paragraph the Bishop brings in the Lady asking him , whether shee might be saued in the Roman Fayth : and though by his answer he grants cleerly enough , that there is possibility of Saluation in the Roman Church , yet who those are amongst vs , whome he thinks may be sau'd , is not so cleer . Sometimes he seem's to say , that those only may be saued , who though they erre , yet want sufficient ground , eyther to doubt , or know their errours : as for instance , when he writes ; the ignorant , that cannot discern the errours of the Church , so they hold the foundation , and conforme themselues to a religious life , may be saued . And afterwards ; wee haue not so learned Christ ; as to deny Saluation to some ignorant silly soules , whose humble peaceable Obedience , makes them safe among any part of men , that profess the foundation , Christ. Likewise , there 's no question , but many were saued in corrupted times of the Church , when their Leaders , vnless they repented besore death , were lost . In other places he seemes to intimate , that men may be sau'd in the Roman Church , though the Truth ( by which he meanes the doctrine of Protestants ) be sufficiently proposed to them , but not acknowledged by them : as where he sayth , Protestants indeed confess there is Saluation possible to be attained in the Roman Church ; but yet they say withall , that the errours of that Church are so many , ( and some so great , as weaken the Foundation ) that it is very hard to goe that way to Heauen ; especially to them , that haue had the Truth manifested . Now surely if it be but very hard going that way to Heauen , it is not altogether impossible . Againe , I am willing ( sayth he ) to hope there are many among them , which keep within that Church , ( meaning the Roman ) and yet wish the superstitions abolished , which they know , and which pray to God to forgiue their errours , in what they know not ; and which hold the Foundation sirme , and liue accordingly , and which would haue all things amended that are amiss , were it in their power . And to such I dare not deny a possibility of Saluation , for that which is Christs in them ; though they hazzard themselues extremely by keeping so close to that , which is Superstition , and in the case of Images comes too neere Idolatrie . Item I doe indeed for my part acknowledge a possibility of Saluation in the Roman Church : but so , as that which I grant to Romanists , is not as they are Romanists , but as they are Christians , that is , as they beleeue the Creed , and hold the Foundation , Christ himselfe ; not as they associate themselues wittingly , and willingly to the gross superstitions of the Romish Church . Js not this plainly to confess , that euen those of the Roman Church , who doe willingly , and knowingly associate themselues to the gross superstitions of that Church , may possibly be saued , though not indeed as they doe this , but as they are Christians , and beleeue in the Foundation , Christ ? Lastly , when he asks , as it were in anger , would you haue vs as malicious , or at least as rash , as your selues are to vs , and deny you so much as possibility of Saluation ? Euen Mistaken Charity ( if such it were ) is farre better then none at all . And if the MISTAKEN be ours , the NONE is yours etc. Doth he not cleerly pretend by this to be more Charitable , that is , to grant more to vs Catholiques in this particular of beeing sau'd , then wee doe to them ? Seeing then , that euen wee Catholiques grant possibility of Saluation to those , who ioyne with the Protestant Church , if theyr ignorance be inuincible ; wee cannot but suppose , his pretended charity grants more to vs ; namely , that there is possibility of beeing sau'd to those that ioyne with the Roman Church , though their ignorance be not inuincible and though all , or the chiefe motiues , which Protestants bring ; against vs , be neuer so sufficiently propos'd to them . Now if , on the one side , both Catholiques and Protestants , agree in this , that such as hold all the opinions of our Church , and continue in them till death , notwithstanding their beeing thoroughly acquainted with all the contrary reasons and doctrine of Protestants , may attayne Saluation ; and if , on the other side , all Catholiques , as well those that now are , as the infinite multitude which hath been since a thousand yeares last past , according to Protestants own account and confession , doe deny possibility of beeing sau'd to such as liue , and dye in the Protestant Church , except in case of inuincible ignorance , who can doubt , but that our Church is cleerly the safer way of the two to Saluation ? and therfore in prudence to be embraced , rather then that of Protestants ? 2. But what shall wee say to those Protestants , who grant no more to vs , then wee doe to them in order to Saluation ? How shall those among our Aduersaries be conuinc'd , that the Roman Church and Religion is the safer way to Heauen , who will allow none of our Religion to be in a capacity to Saluation , but such , as are in no capacity of knowing , and vnderstanding their errours ? J might bring many arguments to conuince them in this point ; but for breuity sake J shall confine my selfe to these only , which follow . That Church and Religion is the more safe way to Saluation , in which many are saued according to the principles which are granted on both sides , then an other , in which many are sau'd only according to the principles , or doctrine , of one party ; but very few , or none according to the doctrine of the other . But in the Roman Church , and Religion many are sau'd according to the principles which are granted on both sides , viz. both by Catholiques , and Protestants : and in the Protestant Church many are saued only according to the principles , and doctrine of Protestants , but very few , or none according to the doctrine of Catholiques . Ergo , the Roman Church , and Religion is a safer way to Saluation , then the Church , and religion of Protestants . The Maior I'conceiue none will deny . The Minor I proue thus . In the Catholique Church 't is euident that many , beeing to depart out of this life , doe receiue the Sacrament of Pennance . These , according to the doctrine of the Roman Church , are saued , because by vertue of this Sacrament they receiue the grace of Iustification , wherby of sinners , they are made the sons of God. and Heires of Eternall life : nor can they be deny'd to be sau'd , according to the doctrine of Protestants , seeing they beleeue in Christ their Redeemer , they confide in Gods Goodness and mercy for the pardon of their sins , they truly repent of them , and truly purpose for the future to amend their liues : which is all , that Protestant doctrine requires to make men partakers of Christs sanctifying Grace ; and is also necessarily requir'd by Catholiques , to make them free subiects for the Sacrament of pennance . Who can therfore doubt but that all such persons are saued , both according to the doctrine of Catholiques , and Protestants too ? J say , who can rationally , and with charity doubt , but that Catholiques , generally speaking , beeing taught , that Fayth , Hope , true repentance for sins past , and a purpose of amendment , are necessary to the due receiuing of the Sacrament of pennance , doe not omitt to exercise those acts with all necessary diligence , and sincerity , especially when they are to prepare themselues against that dreadfull passage to Eternity . That they may exercise such acts , if they will , by the help of Gods ordinary Grace , and by exercising them , be effectually sau'd the Bishop himselfe cannot deny , seeing he grants so much to the Donatists themselues , whom he confesses at least to haue been Schismatiques , iustly condemn'd by the Orthodox Church , and in some respects * in greater danger of damnation , then wee Romanists . His words are these . a A plaine bonest Donatist , hauing , as is confessed , true Baptisme , and holding the Foundation , as for ought I know , the Donatists did , and repenting of what euer was sinne in him , and would haue repented of the Schisme , had it been know'n to him , might be saued . Neither will ( J suppose ) any other Protestant deny vs the possibility of exercising such acts ; seeing they all grant , that with involuntary errours , true Fayth and repentanoe may stand ; and haue no sufficient reason to thinke , that our errours at death , are voluntary and willfull ; or that wee doe willfully omitt any thing , that wee beleeue to be necessary for the attaining of Saluation . But now , according to the doctrine of Catholiques , there are very few , or none , among Protestants , that escape damnation , or that are 〈◊〉 , if they liue , and dye out of the Communion of our Church . Not that it is a point of our beleese , that many Protestants shall be damn'd precisely vpon the account of beeing Heretiques , ( because heresie is an obstinate , and willfull errour against Fayth ; and wee cannot easily , much less infallibly determin , whose errours are willfull ) but because there are none , or surely but very few amongst them , but are guilty of mortall sinne against Gods Commandements ; and because the ordinary meanes they vse , and prescribe , is not according to our principles , sufficient to expiate , and blott out such sinne . 'T is well know'n , that though Protestants , to obtaine Saluation , beleeue in Christ , trust in his merits , and repent of their sins , yet they doe it not purely out of a perfect loue of God , so as to hate sin aboue all euills , meerly as it is an offence against the Diuine Maiestie , and to preferre God , and his holy Commandements before our selues , and all other creatures , ( for this is a very hard , and rare act euen amongst the best of Christians ) but at best , vpon inferiour , and lower motiues ( as the manner of most men is to doe ) viz. in consideration of the Beatitude of Heauen , as it is their own particular good , or for the auoyding of the paines of Hell , as it is their particular , and chiefest harme . Now , according to our doctrine , such kinde of repentance as this , is no sufficient remedy to blott out sinne , vnless it be ioyn'd wich the Sacrament of pennance , viz. Confession and Priestly Absolution , &c. which Protestants reiect . J say , without the Sacrament of pennance actually , and duly recoin'd , all Catholiques hold , that neither Fayth , nor Hope , nor any repentance , or sorrow for sinne , can saue vs , but that only which is ioyned with a perfect loue of God , wherby wee are dispos'd to loose all , and suffer all that can be imagin'd , rather then to offend God ; yea though there were indeed neither Heauen to reward vs , nor Hell to punish vs : which beeing a thing so hard to be found , especially 〈◊〉 such , as beleeue a man is iustifyed by Fayth only , it followes euidently , that in our doctrine , very few , or no Protestants are saued . The Conclusion therfore is vndenyable , that our Church is a safer way to Salua ion , then that of Protestants , My second Argument is this . That Church , and Religion which affords all necessary meanes of Saluation , is a safer way to Saluation , then an other which does not . But the Roman Church , and Religion affords all necessary meanes of Saluation ; and the Protestant doth not . Ergo , the Roman Church , and Religion is a safer way to Saluation , then the Church and Religion . of Protestants . The Maior is euident . The Minor consists of two parts ; which I shall proue in order . The First , which is , that the Roman Church , and Religion affords all necessary meanes of Saluation , appeares partly by the confession of Protestants themselues , who acknowledge generally , that in our Church , and Religion are contained all Foundamentall points ; that is , all things absolutely necessary to Saluation : and partly , because it cannot be proued , that any thing is of absolute necessity , in order to Saluation , which is not found in our Churches Communion . The second , that Protestants standing to their owne principles , neither haue , nor can haue things necessary for Saluation , J proue by this one Argument . Jt is certaine that diuine Fayth necessary to Saluation , according to these places of Holy Writt , sine fide impossibile est placere Deo , Hebr. 11. ( without Fayth it is impossible to please God ) Qui non crediderit , condemnabitur . Marc. 16. ( He that beleeueth not , shall be damned . ) 'T is likewise certaine , that this diuine Fayth must be firme , sure , and without doubt , or hesitation : in so much that if an Angel from Heauen should preach the contrary to what wee beleeue , it ought not to be altered , according to that of the Apostle . Galat. 1. 8. Now how is it possible , that Protestants standing to their principles , should haue this firme , Sure , and vndoubting Fayth , concerning any mysterie of Religion ? They will say vpon the Authority of Gods Reuelation , or the written word . But Jaske , how is it possible for them to beleeue any diuine truth firmly , certainly , and infallibly for the Authority of scripture or the written word , vnless they doe first firmly , certainly , and infallibly beleeue , that scripture is the true word of God , and that the sense of the words is such as they vnderstand ? and how can they beleeue this most firmly , and certainly , if they neither are , nor can be infallibly sure , according to their own principles , that the Church erreth not in deliuering such , and such bookes for Canonicall scripture ? or that those passages , vpon which they ground their beleefe , are the very same with the Originall Text ; or in case they vnderstand not the Originalls , that there hath been no errour committed in the Translation of them ? yea doe they not hold principles absolutely inconsistent with this certainty , when they teach , that not only priuate men , but Generall Councils , and euen the whole Church may erre in matters of great consequence ? How can they then be sure , that the words of scripture , for which they beleeue the Diuinity of Christ ( for example ) are to be vnderstood in that sense , in which themselues vnderstand them , and not in the sense , which the Arians put vpon them ? If Generall Councils , and the whole Church , may erre in expounding scripture , what certainty of beleefe can wee haue in this , and in diuerse other like points ? Jf it be answered , that Christs Diuinity is a Fundamentall point , and that in Fundamentall points wee must beleeue the Church ; J reply , this answer satisfies not the difficulty . For J aske , vpon what ground doe wee beleeue it to be a Fundamentall point ? if because the whole Church teaches it to be so , and the whole Church cannot erre in points Fundamentall , I answer , it must first be proued , that the Arians are no part of the whole Church ; for if they be a part of it , the whole Church doth not teach it . To say the Arians are noe part of the whole Church , because they erre in Christs Diuinity , which is a point Fundamentall , is to suppose that for certaine , which is principally in question . That Christs Diuinity therfore is a point Fundamentall , must be prou'd some other way , then by the Authority of the whole Church . If that way be scripture , the former difficultie returns , viz. how a man shall be sure , according to Protestant principles , that scripture is to be vnderstood in the Catholique sense , and not in the sense of Arians . And if it be any other way beside scripture , according to Protestant principles , it will not be infallible , but subiect to errour , and consequently will not be sufficient to ground infallible certainty . 'T is euident therfore , that Protestants , standing to their grounds , cannot beleeue eyther the Trinity , or Christs Diuinity , and Incarnation , or the Redemption of mankinde by his death , or any other mysterie and point of Fayth with that firmeness and certaintie , which is requisite to an Acte of Fayth : nay it followes , that they cannot be altogether sure of these mysteries of Christian Religion , as they are , or may be of things related euen by heathen Historians ; seeing more agree , that those things are true , then that the sense of scripture , in those controuerted points , is such as Protestants vnderstand . These Arguments wee conceiue sufficient to conuince any rationall vnderstanding , that the Roman Church , and Religion is a safer way to saluation , then that of Protestants . Lett vs now take notice of the Bishops answers , and assertions touching this question . 3. Whereas therfore Protestants doe commonly taxe vs for want of Charity , because wee generally deny Saluation to those that are out of our Church , A. C. proued that this denyall , ( besides the threatnings of Christ , and the Holy Fathers denounced against all such , as are not within the Communion of the true Church ) is grounded euen vpon Charity ; it beeing farre more charitable to forewarn a man plainly of a danger , then to let him run into it , through a false security . There is but one true Fayth ( Sayth he ) and one true Church , out of which is no Saluation ; and he that will not heare this Church , lett him be vnto the ( Sayth Christ himselfe ) Matth. 18. 17. as an Heathen and Publican . If Saluation then may be had in our Church , as the Bishop with other Protestants consessed ; and there be noe true Church , nor true Fayth , but one , in , and by which Saluation may be had , ( as is likewise confessed ) it followes , that out of our Church there is noe Saluation to be hoped for , and consequently , that it is no want of Charity in vs to , tell Protestants of this , but rather want of light , and good vnderstanding in them , to thinke our admonition to be vncharitable . The Bishop himselfe confesses , that he , who will not both heare , and obey the Catholique Christian Church yea the particular Church in which he liues too , so farre , as it in necessaries agrees with the vniversall , is in as bad a condition as an Heathen , or a Publican , and perhaps in some respects worse . But he errs very much in the conceite he frames of the Catholique Church that must teach vs : it beeing a thing , according to his description , more like an Jdea platonica , or Chimaera of some phantasticall braine , then a true subsistent assemblie ; or Societie of Christians : a thing as little able to speake , or declare with requisite authority , any certain and vniforme doctrine , or matter to be beleeu'd , as himselfe and his party are vnwilling to hearken to the truth . For by the Catholique Church , in his notion , nothing else is 〈◊〉 vnderstood , but a mixed multitude of all 〈◊〉 and facts of Christians , viz. Greeks , Armenians , Lutherans , Caluinists , Prelaticall , and Presbyterian Protestants , Anabaptists , 〈◊〉 , and what not , beside the Roman Catholiques . But how is it possible , that such a Church as this , should euer instruct , and command vs , what to beleeue ? How shall a man that 〈◊〉 in the 〈◊〉 , or in any other remote part of the world , heare the common voyed of a Church , which speaks by the mouth of so many disagreeing parties ? or how shall a man be sure , that such , and such a doctrine is rightly commanded him by the Catholique Church , taken euen in the Bishops own sense , vnles he be first 〈◊〉 , what the Fayth is , without which it is impossible to be a part of the Catholique Church ? Lastly , how shall he before , that all who profess that Fayth , doe also teach , and command the doctrinal , which in obedience to the Bishops 〈◊〉 Church , he is requir'd to beleeue ? Againe , a if Donatists , for any thing the Bishop 〈◊〉 held the Foundation , ( and consequently were a part of the Catholique Church ) and if errours , that b 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 greatest , and most considerable pair of the Catholique Church what reason could the Apostle haue to shy , that the doctrine of forbidding Marriage , and eating certaine meats , was a doctrine of 〈◊〉 , and that those who held it , should sall from the 〈◊〉 why might not the teachers of such doctrines be a part of the Catholique Church , as well as the Donatists , and those that maintaine other dangerous opinions , which , in the Bishops iudgement , doe Shake , but doe not ouerthrow the Foundation of true Fayth necessary to Saluation ? or if they might be a part of the Catholique Church , notwithstanding their departure from the Fayth by holding of such doctrines , what shall hinder , but the Arians and all other Heretiques whatsoeuer , if they 〈◊〉 the doctrine of Christ , may , notwithstanding their errours and how euer they vnderstand the words of Christ , pretend to be parts of the Catholique Church , whose common voyce wee 〈◊〉 bound to heare , and with all submission to obey 〈◊〉 see here , good Reader , what a Church the Bishop assigns the to heare and follow , vnder paine of beeing in as bad , or perhaps in 〈◊〉 worse condition , then an Heathen and Publican . 4. His Lordship next taske is to impugn the Argument which A. C. brings to proue that the Roman Church and Religion is the safer way to Saluation , because both parties , viz. Catholiques , and Protestants doe agree that Saluation may be had in it , but doe not both of them agree , that it may be had in the Protestant Church , and Religion ? The Bishop brings 〈◊〉 instances to shew , that this Agreement of both parties is no sufficient ground to thinke , that ours is the safer way . His first instance is this . The Baptisme of the Donatists was held true , and valid both by 〈◊〉 Donatists themselnes , and the Orthodox also ; but that of the Orthodox was held true and valid only , by the Orthodox , and not by the Donatists : yet none of vs grant that the Orthodox were bound to embrace the Baptisme of the Donatists as the safer way of the two . How then does it follow , that a man ought to embrace the Roman Church and Religion , as the safer way to heauen , because both parties agree , that in the Roman Church there is possibility of Saluation , but doe not agree there is the like possibility among Prorestants ? This is the Summe and 〈◊〉 of his first instance . To which J answer , that no Orthodox could embrace the 〈◊〉 of the Donatists , as the safer way , but he must committ two sins ; the one of disobedience to the Orthodox Church , which so bad communication with Donatists and all other Heretiques , in diuine Rites , such as the administration of Sacraments is : the other against Fayth , which obliged him to beleeue the Baptisme of the Orthodox to be as safe as the other . Now how could any man be fuyd to take the safer way to Saluation , by embracing the Baptisme of the Donatists for the agreement of both parties touching its validity , when the greatest , and most considerable 〈◊〉 to witt , that of the Orthodox , hold it cannot be done , except in case of necessity , without damnable 〈◊〉 , which dobarrs the soule from heauen 〈◊〉 whereas the case put by vs is quite different from this . For wee suppose Protestants grant a man may line , and dye in the Roman Church ; and that none of his errours shall 〈◊〉 his Saluation . whatsoeuer motiues he may know to the 〈◊〉 . But no 〈◊〉 did euer grant , that a man might with a snse Conscience embrance the donatists Baptisme knowing the 〈◊〉 , reasons , and command of the Orthodox Church to the contrary : or that a man , who had so embrac't the Baptisme of Donatists , might liue , and dye with possibility of Saluation except he acknowledg'd his fault , and repented of his 〈◊〉 . You will say perhaps , that as a man ought not to receiue the Donatists Baptisme , thought valid in the iudgement of both parties , because the Orthodox held it 〈◊〉 , and forbad it vnder paire of sinne ; so 〈◊〉 may a Protestant , who is taught by scripture or otherwise , and is fully persuaded , that the Roman Church and Religion containes many gross errours , contrary to Gods words , embrace the Roman Church and Religion , though both 〈◊〉 great possibility of Saluation in the sayd Church , and Religion J. answer ; and acknowledge , that as a few , 〈◊〉 , or Arian , is not bound to embrace the Orthodox Faith of Christians , so long as he is fully persuaded that its a false and 〈◊〉 beleefe : so neither is a protestant bound to embrace 〈◊〉 Religion , so long as his conscience tells him , that it 〈◊〉 errours and superstitions contrary to Gods word . But J say withall , that as a few , Mahumetan , and 〈◊〉 were bound to alter their iudgement concerning the pretended erroncousness and falsity of the Orthodox Fayth , if sufficient motiues were propounded to him , and that according to the principles of both parties , the Orthodox Fayth were the safer way to Saluation : so likewise a Protestant would be oblig'd to embrace our Religion , if sufficient motiues to alter his present iudgement concerning our pretended errours , were offer'd to him , and that it could be prou'd by the ioynt principles of both Protestants , and Catholiques , that Catholique Religion were the safer way to Saluation . Now that by the ioynt principles , or doctrine both of Catholiques and Protestants , our Religion , or Fayth , is the safer way , wee haue already prou'd in our first Argument : and that Protestants may haue sufficient motiues to alter , and depose their present iudgement touching our pretended errours , whensoeuer they will attend to them , is sufficiently euidenced from hence ; seeing , an infinite multitude of persons , who haue as good naturall witts as themselues , as tender consciences as themselues , haue read , and ponder'd the controuerted passages of scripture as much as themselues , vnderstand all contrary reasons , and obiections , as well as themselues , yet belecue with absolute certainty , as diuine Truths , those very points , which Protestants conceiue to be errours . 5. Tho other instances , which he brings , seeme rather to argue a weakeness in the Relatour's iudgement , then in the Argument he impugns . In the point of the Eucharist ( sayth he ) all sides agree in the Fayth of the Church of England , that in the most Blessed Sacrament the worthie receiuer is by his Fayth made spiritually partaker of the true and reall Bodie and Bloud of Christ , truly and really . — Your Roman Catholiques adde a manner of this his presence , Transubstantiation , which many deny ; and the Lutherans a manner of this presence , Consubstantiation , which more deny . If this Argument be good , then euen for this consent , it is safer Communicating with the Church of England , then with the Roman , and Lutheran : because all agree in this truth , not in any other opinion . Here are many words spent to small purpose . For first , can a man be sayd , in any true sense , to communicate rather with the Church of England , then with the Roman , or Lutheran , only by beleeuing that , where in they all agree ? and yet the Bishops Argument supposes this . But put case by communicating with the Church of England he vnderstands such a beleefe of the English Protestants reall presence , as carries with it an express denyall both of Transubstantiation , and Consubstantiation in the Sacrament ; how is it possible , that a man should be moued to this beleefe , by the common consent of Catholiques , Lutherans , and English Protestants ; seeing only these last agree in this point ? That which the Relatour adds to this , is no less absurd . He cites 〈◊〉 , a Catholique diuine , as teaching , that to beleeue Transubstantiation is not simply necessary to Saluation ; and triumphs therevpon against Catholiques , as if he had ouercome them with their own arms ; asking A. C. what he can say to this ; and seems to admire the force of truth , which was able to draw this confession from an aduersarie . But J answer , what matter is it , though Suarez had really taught it not to be simply necessary to Saluation to beleeue Transubstantiation ? were that sufficient ground to say , that he agreed with Protestants against the determination of the Roman Church ? must he needs thinke that Transubstantiation is an errour , or noc point of Catholique Fayth , because he held it not Simply necessary to Saluation ? very true it is , all Catholiques teach that whatsoeuer is defin'd by the Church , is an article of Fayth , which may neither be doubted of , nor disputed : yet no man thinks 't is simply necessary to Saluation to beleeue euery point so defined , by an express act . A Protestant , versed in scripture , would thinke it a sinne , if he should deny that Moyses his rod was turned into a Serpent : yet , J conceiue , he will hardly say , that it is Simply necessary to Saluation ; or that he is bound , absolutely Speaking , to beleeue it with an express act of Fayth vnder paine of damnation . But the truth is , Suarez , speaks to no such purpose , as the Bishop alledges him . He confesses indeed , that the manner of explicating the change , or conuersion , that is made in the B. Sacrament , which Schoole-men vse , is no necessary part of the doctrine of Fayth in that particular , because it depends vpon Physicall and Metaphylicall principles ; but as for the conuersion it selfe ( or Transubstantiation ) it is most euident , that he holds it for a point of Fayth , which to deny were Heresie . His words are these , in the section immediately precedent to that which the Bishop quotes . a Secundò infero etc. Secondly ( Sayth he ) J inferre , that if a man confess the reall presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament , as also the absense of bread , yet denyes a true conuersion of the substance of bread into the sulstance of Christ Body , he falls into Heresie ; because the Catholique Church hath defined , and doth teach , not only the two first , but also this last . what say you to this , Protestants ; you that looke vpon this Bishop as the pillar of your Church ? was it truth and honestie ( thinke you ) that mou'd him thus to misreport an Author of that worth , that euen himselfe thought not fitt to mention him without * some character of honour ? They that please to consult the Author himselfe , in the e place alledged , will finde that HOC TOTVM does not signify to beleeue Transubstantiation , as the Bishop most falsely and partially renders it , but a farre different thing , as wee haue sayd aboue . His quarrel with Bellarmin is no less impertinent ; whome he censures ( forsooth ) of tediousness , and for making ( as he conceiues ) an intricate , and almost inexplicable discourse aboute an Adductiue conuersion ; a thing , which in the Relatours opinion , neither Diuinity , nor Philosophy euer heard of till then . But let the indifferent reader be Judge . Bellarmin explicates his Adductiue Conuersion thus . As meate is changed into the substance of mans body by meanes of nutrition , and becomes a liuing and animate part of man , not because the soule , which informs it , is de nouo produced in the matter duly prepar'd , but because the same soule , which was in the body before , begins now to be in the new matter ; so by vertue of this Adductiue Conuersion , the bread is turned into the Body of Christ , not as if Christs Body were ( properly speaking ) produced vnder the elements ( for it was preexistent before ; and nothing that is preexistent can in proper sense , be sayd to be produced ) but because it was not there before , and begins now to be vnder the elementary forms , by vertue of Consecration . Lett any man iudge , whether this explication be not farre more intelligible , then what the Bishop himselfe sayes touching the point of reall presence . First of all , he affirms ( with Bishop Ridley , and other Protestants , g cited by him , ) that the true , reall , naturall , and Substantiall Body of Christ , that very Body , which was born of the Virgin , which ascended into Heauen which sitteth on the right hand of God the Father , which shall come from thence to iudge the quick and dead , is truly , really , and Substantially in the B. Sacrament ; and yet for all this , denyes both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation ; that is , in effect , he will haue Christs Body to be really and Substantially in the Sacrament , yet neither with the Substance of bread , nor without it . He will haue Christs Body to be really in Heauen , and really also in very Substance on earth at the same time , and yet stiffly denies , with all Caluinists , that the same Body can by any power be really present in seuerall places at once . Is not this to say in effect , that Christs Body really is only in Heauen , and no where else , and yet to acknowledge , that at the same time it is really in the Sacrament on earth ? But who is able to vnderstand , and reconcile these speeches ? His saying , that Christs Body is receiu'd spiritually by Fayth , by Grace , and the like , is a plaine contradiction to what he had taught before ; seeing by these words are only signified a metaphoricall presence , which in no true sense can be called reall . In my opinion Zuinglius , Peter Martyr , and those of the Sacramentary party , deale faric more candidly in this point , ( who flatly deny and reiect all reall presence , both name and thing ) then the Bishop , and some other Protestants alledged by him , who confess the name , but deny the thing . 6. The Catholique Authors , which the Relatour hath the confidence to bring , in fauour of his Protestant beleefe touching this matter , are grossly eyther misunderstood , or misexpounded by him . For 't is euident , when they speake of spirituall Communion they meane , for the most part , that which is by desire and deuotion only , when for want of opportunity , or some 〈◊〉 reason , wee doe not actually receiue the B. Sacrament , but yet doe vse most of those affections , and deuoute aspirations of heart towards God , and our B. Sauiour , which wee are wont to practise , when wee doe really communicate . Sometimes indeed they discourse of Christs miraculous and ineffable beeing in the Sacrament ; where he is present not like a bodily substance , but rather like a spirit , that is , whole , in the whole consecrated host , and whole , in euery part of it . But sure J am , they neuer say , or thinke , he is there by such a spirituall presence , as Protestants meane ; that is , exclusiue of his truly-reall presence , and by Fayth only ; or that he is not there as truly and really , as he is in heauen , whether wee exercise an act of Fayth , or no. Now when the Bishop insists so much vpon a spirituall participation of the true and reall Body and Bloud of Christ , truly and really by Fayth ; eyther he meanes such a participation as is proper to this Sacrament , and cannot be had saue only in the orall and actuall receiuing of the Sacramentall elements ; or he meanes such a participation of Christs Body and Bloud , as deuoute persons may haue in their soules , whether they receiue those elements corporally , or no. If he meanes this second only , then both parties cannot be sayd to agree in the proper point of Sacramentall participation ; seeing it is now suppos'd to be such , but only a spirituall kinde of receiuing Christ , common to other devoute offices of Christian pietie , as well as to the Sacrament . If he meanes the first , viz. such a participation of Christs Body as is proper only to the Sacrament , and cannot be had , but when the Sacrament is orally and actually receiu'd , to make it appeare that wee agree with Protestants in it , they must first shew what it is , and particularly , that it is something really different and distinct from a deuoute eleuation of heart , remembrance of Christs Passion , trust , and application of his merits , etc. otherwise they relapse into the former difficulty , viz of putting such a participation of Christ , as is not proper to the Sacrament : for certainly none of all those participations of Christ last mentioned , are proper to the Sacrament , but may be exercised at other times , and by other meanes ; as namely , when one eates his common food at the table , when he drinks wine or beere , when he looks vpon a Crucifix , when he prayes , meditates , or the like . But this , neither the Bishop , not any of his partie can shew , standing to Caluin and their own principles ; that is , they cannot shew , what their spirituall participation , or receiuing of Christ , signifies in effect more , then a deuoute eleuation of heart , remembrance of Christs Passion , trust , and application of his merits , or something of like nature , done and performed oftentimes , as really without the Sacrament , as with it : and consequently it can neuer be sayd , that both parties ( viz. Roman-Catholiques , and Protestants ) are of the same sentiment , or doe agree in any reall reception , or participation of Christ , proper to the Sacrament . For all the world knows , the 〈◊〉 participation of Christ in the Sacrament , which Catholiques beleeue signifies a quite different thing from this . 7. Lett vs now consider , what his Lordship has to say to A. C. for his resolute affirming ; there is no perill of any damnable Heresie , Schismo , or other sinne , in resoluing to line and dye in the Roman Church . This the Relatour cannot digest ; therfore he replies , not so neither . For he that lines in the Roman Church with such a resolution , is presum'd to beleene , as that Church beleenes ; and he that doth so , in the Bishops opinion , is guilty , more or less , not only of the schisme , which that Church caused at first by her corruptions , and now continues by her power , but of her damnable opinions too in point of misbeleefe , and of all other sins also ; which the doctrine and misbeleefe of that Church leads him into . He seemes by this plainly to retract what he formerly granted touching possibility of Saluation to Roman Catholiques . For how can they possibly be sau'd , that liue and dye in the guilt of damnable opinions and sins ? or what sort of Catholiques are they , whome the Relatour thinks may possibly be in state of Saluation ? are they such only as doe not beleeue , as that Church ( viz. the Roman ) beleeueth ; but only liue in outward Communion with her , and making only outward shew and feigned profession to beleeue that , which in heart they disbeleeue ? He giues indeed some cause to thinke , that this is his meaning , when he tells vs , how willing he is to hope there are many among vs , which wish the superstitions of the Roman Church abolished , and would haue all things amended that are amiss , if it were in their power , etc. and of such particularly professeth , that he dares not deny them possibility of Saluation . But how could it possibly sinke into a sober mans head to iudge him capable of Saluation , that for temporall and sinister ends only , contrary to knowledge and the light of his own conscience , complies outwardly with superstition and many other sinfull and Jdolatrous practices , all his life long , and deny it to him , who hates all superstition and sin in his very soule , and would not comply with any , if he knew it , but adheres to the doctrine and practices of the Roman Church meerly for conscience sake , and for noe other reason , but because he simply and sincerely beleeues all her doctrine to be true , and consonant to Gods word , and all her allowed customes and obseruances to be pious and holy ? what is this but to say , he is an honest man , that takes his neighbours goods wittingly and willingly from him , knowing them to be his ; and that he is a knaue and deserues to be hang'd , that takes them vnwittingly , and verily beleeuing that they are his own ? Secondly he tells vs , that 't is one thing to liue 〈◊〉 Church , and not to comunicate with it in Schisme , or in any false worship , and an other thing to liue in a Schismaticall Church , and to Communicate with it in the schisme and corruptions , which that Church teacheth ; wee grant it ; beeing our selues , in some sort ; an instance of this truth , whome the Catholique Church permuts , both in England , Germany and other Countries , to liue amonge those she esteems both sehismatiques and Heretiques too , ( though wee thinke , this is not , properly speaking , to liue in a schismaticall Church ) yet she does not permit vs to communicate with them in their shisme . But when he proceeds therevpon to charge the Roman Church with beeing worse and more cruell then the Church of Israell , euen vnder Achab and Jezabel was ( when so many worshiped the calues in Dan and Bethel ) because ( forsooth ) he doth not finde that this doctrine YOV MVST SACRIFICE IN THE HIGH PLACES , or this , YOV MVST NOT SACRIFICE AT THE ONE ALTAR IN HIERVSALEM , was eyther taught by the Priest , or maintained by the Prophets , or enioyned by the Sanedrim — Whereas the Church of Rome ( sayth he ) hath solemnly decreed , her errours , and imposed them vpon men vnder the greatest penalties , yea , and erring , hath decreed withall , that she cannot erre ; wee answer , this is not to argue , as a Logician should , ex concessis or probatis , but rather , vpon false and vnproued suppositions , to bring , in lieu of argument , railing accusation against our superiours ; which the Apostle ( Jude . 8. 9. ) vtterly condemned . Is it sufficient for the Relatour to say , that Transubstantiation , Purgatory , Forbearance of the Cup are improbable opinions , and contrary to the express command of our sauiour ? 8. Againe , what I pray , does our aduersary meane by his Church of Israel vnder Achab and Jezabel , when he says the Church of Rome is worse and more cruell then she ? does he meane the true Church there ? that is , the number of those Faythfull Israelites , which as the scripture testifies of them , neuer boued their knees to Baal ? Jf so , his Lordship surely committs a huge Solecisme , when pretending to aggrauate the crime of the Roman Church , he sayes she was worse and more cruell , then the Church of Israel vnder Achab and Jezabel , as if that Church , at that time , had deseru'd the character of bad or cruell . If he meanes the other part of the Israelites , who were fallen from the true Religion , and worshiped Ieroboams calues , wee wonder vpon what ground he stiles them the Church of Jsrael , seeing manifest Idolaters are no way to be accounted parts of the true Church . But in what respect is the Church of Rome worse then that of Israel in the time of Iezabel ? because ( sayth he ) the Church of Rome hath solemnly decreed her errours , and impos'd them vpon men vnder the greatest penalties , viz. of Excommuncation etc. whereas the Church of Israel did neyther solemnly teach , that men ought to Sacrifice in the high places , nor punish men for going to Sacrifice at the one Altar in Hierusalem . Admitt this were true ; though it be more then the Bishop can proue , seeing Elias complaind in those times , that Gods Altars were throw'n down , and the Prophets persecuted and slaine with the sword , which argues there was no such liberty as the Bishop pretends : admitt , I say , it were true , yet if there be any force in this argument , it concludes more against himselfe , then against the Roman Church . The Bishop grants , that a Generall Council , lawfully called and orderly proceeding , may define errours contrary to scripture , and that in matters euen Fundamentall , and of maine importance to Saluation ; yet he teaches withall , that the decrees of such a Council must stand in force , and binde all particular men at least , to externall obedience , till the whole Church by an other Generall Council , reuerse the definitions of the former . Is not this likewise to be worse then the Church of Jsrael ? Is not this to oblige people to make profession of false doctrine contrary to scripture and euident reason , or demonstration ? yea , is it not to be , in this respect , farre worse then the Church of Rome ? which requires indeed , that all persons doe submitt to the decrees of Generall Councils , but doth not require this as granting Councils to be fallible or subiect to define errour in stead of truth in matters of Fayth ; but as assuredly perswading her selfe that they are , by the speciall assistance of the Holy Ghost , infallible , and cannot define any thing in such cases , but what is truth . Lastly , if inference be to be made from the practice of the Jewish Church it will serue rather to iustisie , then to condemne the proceedings of the Roman . When power resided in the true Prophets of God , and in his true and lawfull Priests , Idolatrie and disobedience to the law of Moyses was seuerely punish'd ; but in corrupted times euery one had libertie to doe what ill he listed . The Roman Church therefore is rather to be commended for her zeale , and imitating the Synagogue in the times of its greatest 〈◊〉 , to witt , by exacting strict obedience to her doctrine lawfully declar'd and established by Generall Councils ; which she also beleeues , and is as well assured , to be according to diuine reuelation , and not repugnant to Gods honour , as the Synagogue was of their doctrine : the Roman Church , I say , is rather to be commended for this , euen from the example of the Iewish Church , then to be tax'd with cruelty , for not symbolizing with the corrupted and Apostatiz'd Synagogue , in giuing promiscuous liberty to all , to beleeue and practise what they list in point of Religion . As for what he auouches concerning Transubstantiation , Purgatorie , and Forbearance of the Cup , that they are improbable opinions , and contrary to Gods word , wee answer , 't is according to his custome to speake without proose ; and therfore wee are not troubled at it . 'T is that , which euery Heretique may say , if he please , ( an Arian , as well as an English Protestant ) the doctrine of the Roman Church is improbable , is contrary to Gods word , where it contradicts their particular Heresie . Nay , is it not a thing , they might as iustly say of the English Church , as of the Roman , viz. that she is in this regard worse and more cruell then the Church of Israel ; that she hath Solemnly decreed improbable opinions , to witt the doctrine of the Trinity , and the Deity of Christ , and to keep of disobedience , how false soeuer her doctrine be , she binds it vp vnder paine of Excommunication ; yea and kindles the fagot too sometimes , when nothing else will serue the turn ? Witness the books of Canons , which inflicts Eccommunication ipso facto vpon any that denyes the 39. Articles of the Church of England ; and the proceedings against seuerall persons , who haue been burn't , hang'd , draw'n , and quarter'd in this nation meerly for Religion , since Protestantisme bore sway here . To false premisses the Bishop ioynes a Conclusion as enigmaticall and ambiguous . This then ( sayth he ) may be enough for vs to leaue Rome , though the old Prophet ( 3. king . 13. 11. ) left not Israel . By leauing Rome 〈◊〉 vnderstands ( surely ) their refusing any longer to adhere to the Roman Church , and to communicate with her in those things , which they account superstitions and errours . But did not both that old Prophet , and also all the true Prophets and people of God , in this sense , 〈◊〉 corrupted Israel , in the time of Aobaband and Jezabel ? did they ioyne ( thinke you ) with the Idolatrous Tribes in the Sacrifices at Dan and Bethel ? 9. The like is to be sayd of the comparison he mak's between A. C. and Petilian the Donatist ; it signifies not much . For who sees not a manifest difference in the case and argument of these two ? Petilian would haue Catholiques refuse and desert the Churches Baptisme , to embrace that of the Donatists , only because Catholiques ( or the Catholique Church ) acknowledg'd the Donatists Baptisme to be in it 〈◊〉 , valid , or true Baptisme , though by reason of their 〈◊〉 the same Church likewise taught it to be 〈◊〉 sinne and inconsistent with Saluation for any Catholique to seeke their Baptisme voluntarily , or to admitt of it otherwise then in case of extreme necessity : whereas A. C. would haue Protestants become Catholiques vpon this ground viz. because , that euen Protestants themselues , at least the most learned , most wise , and most considerable amonge them , Doc grant vs possibility of Saluation , notwithstanding any thing that wee beleeue , or doe . How then can the Bishop ( as he pretends ) answer A. C. iust as St. Austin answered Petilian the Donatist ? That which deceiu'd him is , that he did not well obserue 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 ( say's the Bishop ) the Romanists will not endure ; because St. Thomas , and the schoole generally agree in it , that he went really no further then LIMBVS PATRVM . I answer by denying his proposition . There is no such agreement of parties , as the Bishop pretends ; though the Church of Rome and the Church of England doe ( both ) agree , that our Sauiour descended into hell , yet they doe not ( both ) agree that by hell , eyther in the Creed , or in all places of Scripture where hell is mentioned , is vnderstood the place of the damned . Here therfore our aduersarie cleerly disputes ex falso supposito ; and the argument , in truth , may be much better retorted vpon himselfe , thus . Both parties agree , that Christ descended into hell : but both parties doe not agree , that by hell is vnderstood here the place of the damned ( for the greater and better part of Diuines hold the contrary ) ergo , 't is safer not to beleeue that he descended into the place of the damned , then positiuely to assert it , as some English Protestants doe . His next instance is about the Sacraments beeing receiu'd in both kindes ; and as little to the purpose as the former . For though wee agree that our Sauiour instituted the Sacrament ( that is , made it himselfe , and ordain'd it to be made by his Ministers ) in both kindes ; yet wee neither agree , that he instituted with intention , or gaue any command , that it should be always receiu'd in both kindes , by all the Faythfull : nor doe wee grant possibility of Saluation to any , that out of priuate Hereticall persuasion holds , it ought to be receiu'd by all , or out of contempt of the Churches order to the contrary , doe receiue it in both kindes . Our Sauiour gaue it in one kinde only to the two Disciples at Emmaus ( Lucae . 24. ) as both St. a Austin , St. b Chrysostome , c St. Hierome , d Theophylact , and e others of the Ancients witness : whose example the Church following , alwayes allowed the vse and manner of receiuing this Sacrament , free as to the Faythfull , viz. eyther to receiue it in both kindes , if their deuotion inclin'd them thereto , or only in one , in case they desired no more : till of later times , the custome of receiuing it in forme of bread only , growing more generall , and inconueniences of receiuing it in both kindes multiplying , the Council of Constance totally abrogated the manner of receiuing it in forme of wine , and inioyn'd what is now in vse . Whence likewise it appeares , 't was not iniuriously , ( as the Bishop pretends ) but iustly requir'd of the Bohemians , not to condemne the practice of the Church for receiuing in one kinde , when she dispensed with them to receiue in both . To what he obiects against the doctrine of concomitancy , inuented ( as he sayes ) by St. Thomas of Aquin , and contrary to truth ; for that the Eucharist is a Saerament of Bloud , shed and powred forth , and not of Bloud contained in the Body ; I answer , that howeuer the term it selfe might ( perhaps ) be first vsed by the Angelicall Doctour ; yet the thing thereby signify'd was always the constant doctrine of the Catholique Church ; which euer taught , that by Consecration , vnder each species the entire Sacrament , or whole Christ , was putt ; and therfore vnder each of them , as well the Body as the Bloud , and as well the Bloud as the Body was contain'd : notwithstanding it be certaine , that the precise words , in the Consecration of bread express noe more , then Christs Body ; nor those vsed in the Consecration of the chalice , any more , then Christs Bloud . Wherfore to shew what is in the Sacrament by force of the precise words of Consecration , and what by vertue of naturall connexion , or vnion , Diuines commonly make vse of this distinction , ex vi verborum , and per Concomitantiam . Ex vi verborum , or by vertue of the precise words of Consecration , Christs Body only is vnder the forme of bread , and his Bloud only vnder the forme of wine : but per Concomitantiam , by reason of naturall connexion , or vnion , ( wherby the parts of Christs Humanity are neuer to be diuided one from an other ) the Bloud is vnder the forme of bread also , and his Body vnder the forme of wine , and his foule , and diuinity or Godhead , vnder both . And this the Bishop must grant , if he hold the reall presence ; except he would haue vs thinke , that Christ is dead in the Sacrament , contrary to St. Paul , who plainly tolls vs , Rom. 6. 9. He dyes no more . As for the Priest that consecrates , there is a double necessity for him to receiue vnder both kindes . The first is gathered from Christs words spoken to his Apostles at the institution of this Sacrament , and interpreted to vs by the vniuersall doctrine and practice of the Church . The second , grounded vpon the nature of the thing ; which is not only a Sacrament , to be distributed amonge the Faythfull , but a true , proper , and perfect Sacrifice , representing that vpon the Cross ; where not only Christs Body was Crucifyed , but also his Bloud was shed for vs. And therfore the Priest , who offers this Sacrifice of the Altar , must not only consecrate in both kindes , but receiue in both kindes , to compleate the sacrifice . His third instance is about the Commemoratiue Sacrifice in the Eucharist , wherein he pretends that they and wee agree . But this is false , speaking in the Protestants sense , or of such a Commemoratiue Sacrifice , as excludes that , which is reall and proper . Where did Catholiques euer agree with Protestants , that it was not 〈◊〉 sin in them , to deny the true , reall , and propitiatory Sacrifice of the Eucharist ? or , that they might be saued , acknowledging only such a Commemoratiue Sacrifice in the Eucharist , as they doe ? Lett one only Author of the Roman Church be named , who teaches this ; or that bread broken , and wine powred out ( vnderstanding naturall and substantiall bread and wine , as the Bishop must doe , according to Protestant principles ) were , in true and proper sense , a Commemoratiue Sacrifice amongst Christians . For this were to say in effect , that Christians vnder the Gospell , did really Sacrifice to God naturall bread and wine ; and therby adde another Sacrifice to that of Christs Body : which were a very gross errour . In his fourth about the intention of the Priest in Baptisme , he lapses againe . For what wee agree with Protestants in , wee stand to , as most safe to be done in order to Saluation . Now this is only ( in the present case ) that due matter and forme must necessarily be vsed for the validity of Baptisme . Doe any of vs , or can any man deny , but it is safer in order to Saluation , to vse due matter and forme in the Sacrament of Baptisme , then not to vse them ? The Bishop indeed would gather from hence , that wee must also account due matter and forme sufficient without intention . But this is more then the rule obliges vs to doe . The rule , certainly , bindes A. C. to no more , then to acknowledge the thing , wherein differing parties agree , to be saser then the contrary , or negatiue of it ; which wee doe cleerly in this case . His fifth instance is , that Catholiques and Protestants agree , that in the English Lyturgie there is noe positiue errour : but both parties doe not agree , that there is no errour in the Roman Missal . Therfore , ( says the Bishop ) according to A. Cs. rule , it should be better and more safe to worship God by the English Lyturgie , then by the Roman Missal ; which he is sure wee will not grant . I answer first , all Catholiques doe not agree , that there is no positiue errour in the English Lyturgie ; neither dares the Relatour affirme they doe : but only that some Iesuits confess 't so much in his hearing . Secondly , though they did ; that is , though all Catholiques did grant , there were no positiue errour in the English seruice-booke , yet it followes not , that therfore the English Lyturgie is better , or more safe to be vsed in the seruice of God , then our Missal . Why ? because Catholiques doe not agree , that it is so much as positiuely safe , or consistent with Saluation , to vse it as Protestants doe that is , out of Hereticall persuasion , and with Hereticall contempt of the Roman Missal . For though it containes no positiue errour , yet to vse it out of any such principles , is certainly damnable sin , and destructiue of Saluation . The Arian Creeds contain'd no positiue errour against Fayth ; yet because they did not containe all that was necessarily to be beleeu'd and confessed by Christians , and were sett forth by such as were know'n enemyes of the Catholique Fayth , which was wanting in them , they were always anathematiz'd and condemn'd by the Church , as much as if they had contain'd positiue and express errour . Did Catholiques grant , that those , who both vse the English Lyturgie , and reiect the Roman Missal as Protestants doe , were for all that , in state of Saluation , though they neuer repented , and did sufficiently know the grounds and reasons , why the Church forbids the vse of it , the argument would haue force : but seeing 't is otherwise , our maxime stands yet good , and 't is safer in order to Saluation , to worship God according to the Roman Missal , rather then according to the English seruice-booke ; notwithstanding it were granted ( which wee doe not ) that the English booke contain'd no positiue errour . To his Sixth of the Arians confessing Christ to be of like substance with the Father , and the Catholiques consessing him to be of the same substance , J answer , the Catholiques neuer granted possibility of Saluation to the Arians vpon the account of that Confession , but always withstood and condemn'd it , as an Hereticall , False and impious assertion , taken in their know'n sense , that is , restrictiuely , and as importing no more then like . For in this sense , that Maxime holds good , nullum simile est idem : and to say the son of God was of like substance with the Father in that sense , was plainly to deny him to be true God , and of the same substance with the Father . The like is to be sayd of his seauenth , grounded vpon the agreement of dissenting parties in the Metaphoricall Resurrection of the soule from sinne ; whence the Bishop would gather , that by A. Cs. rule , it should be safest to beleeue only the sayd Metaphoricall Resurrection of the soule , and lett that of the body alone . But most vntruly . For did euer any good Christian allow possibility of Saluation to any that deny'd the Resurrection of the body ? If not , how is this instance within the rule ? which supposeth , that both parties must agree in granting Saluation to one , in his way , or contested opinion . The same Fallacy is apparent in his Eighth and Ninth . For did euer any Catholique Christian allow Saluation to a Turke , or a Jew , in his Religion , because they beleeued one God ; or to a Nestorian Heretique , because he beleeu'd that Christ was true man ? what gross impertinences are these ? But no maruaile . For 't is too apparent , our aduersarie has quite forgotten the rule , and fram'd another thing of it . A. Cs. rule speakes precisely this , andnomore ; viz. that when two parties differ in point of Religion , 't is in prudence safest to take that way , wherein both parties grant Saluation to be obtainable , or to containe nothing in it opposite , or inconsistent with Saluation : whereas the Relatour presents it in an other dress , and makes it speake thus ; viz. that when parties disagree , as abouesayd , 't is safest to resolue a mans Fayth into that , in which the dissenting parties agree , and to beleeue no more then they doe agree in : which is farre from truth , and a thing which neuer came into A. C. s thoughts : and yet vpon this mistake 't is euident to any that will consider them , most of the Bishops instances runne . Tlius all the Relatours examples , duly weighed , are found too light , and discouer'd to be indeed rather amusements , then proofs : A. Cs proposition , that 't is safest in Religion to goe that way , which is confessed by both parties to afford possibility of Saluation , or to containe no damnable sinne in it , remaining in the meane while , a firme and vnshaken truth , notwithstanding all our aduersaries endeauours to vndermine it . If any thing yet be wanting to the due iustifying of it , it shall be declar'd in the following chapter . At present , the Bishop hauing made soe many assaults in vaine , seems to retire , and put himselfe vpon the defensiue ; pleading , he is not out of the Catholique Church ( though out of the Roman ) because the Roman is not the Catholique , but a member of it , as the Church of England ( he sayes ) is : and requiring vs to shew , how one and the same Church can be , in different respects and relations , both a particular , and also the Catholique Church . But I answer , how often hath this been shew'n already , by all Catholique writers , ( had his Lordship been more willing to vnderstand the truth from them , then to cauill about words ) and also by vs in this treatise ? namely , that the Roman Church , as it signifies the Christians of the Diocess , or Prouince of Rome only , is a particular Church ; but as it signifies the Society of all such Christians , as professing the Catholique Fayth , doe acknowledge the Bishop of Rome for St. Peters Successor and Head of the whole Church vnder Christ , so it is ( formally and properly speaking ) not a particular , but the very Catholique and vniuersall Church of Christ ; they beeing all , eyther Hereticall , or Schismaticall Churches ( or both ) that doe not acnowledge this . Our aduersary therfore might flourish as much as he pleas'd , with his vain and feigned Allegorie of an elder and younger sister ; but wee tell his followers , such Rhetorique may serue to palliate , but shall neuer iustifie , nor excuse Schisme . The Roman Church will be found , in the day of account , to haue been , not an elder sister , but a mother ; and such a mother , whose a Law and Authority was not so lightly to haue been forsaken , and reiected by any of her petulant and disobedient Daughters . Nor matters it much , whether Brittains first Conuersion were before St. Peters coming to Rome , or after . He was Pastour of the vniuersall Church , before he settled his seate at Rome : and the Brittish Christians , if any such were before that time , might very well ( at least for ought the Bishop shew's to the contrary ) be instructed by their preachers to beleeue , and acknowledge him for such . CHAP. 24. The conclusion of the point touching the Saluation of Roman Catholiques ; and the Roman Fayth , prou'd to be the same now , that it euer was . ARGVMENT . 1. All Catholiques in possibility of Saluation ; and all Protestant teachers excluded , by the Bishops own grounds . 2. No Church , different in doctrine from the Roman , can be shew'n to haue held all Fundamentall points in all Ages . 3. The Bishops confident pretense to Saluation , vpon the account of his Fayth , rather presumptuous , then well grounded . 4. His pretending to beleeue , as the Primitiue Church and fowre first Generall Councils beleeu'd , disprou'd by instance . 5. Christs descent into LIMBVS PATRVM , the doctrine and worshiping of Images , the publique allowed practice of the Primitiue Church . 6. A. C ' . Interrogatories defended . 7. Protestants , haue not the same Bible with Catholiques , in any true sense . 8. The index expurgatorius , not deuis'd by vs to corrupt the Fathers . 9. Noe disagreement amongst Catholiques , in points defined by the Church . 10. Catholiques haue infallible Fayth of what they beleeue eyther explicitely , or implicitely ; but Protestants , none at all that is infallible . 1. THe Controuersie goes on touching Roman-Catholiques Saluation . The Bishop hauing first yeelded absolutely , that the Lady might be saued in the Roman Fayth , nettled a little ( as it seems ) by Mr. Fishers bidding her marke that , returns smartly vpon him in these words , she may be better saued in it , then you , and bids him marke that too . Well . wee will not interpret this to be any restraining of his former grant , touching the Ladies Saluation , but only an item to his aduersarie to looke to himselfe ; for that , in the Bishops opinion , his case was not so good as the Ladies in order to Saluation . But what is his reason ? because ( for sooth ) any man , that know's so much of the truth , as Mr. Fisher and others of his calling , doe , and yet opposes it , must needs be in greater danger . So that it seems , learning and sufficiency , according to the Bishop , haue such a connexion with Protestant doctrine , that it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 easie matter to haue the one , and not to see the truth of the other . But how false this surmize is , appeares by the experience of so many learned men in the Catholique Church , who are so farre from discouering errours in the Roman Church , and truth in the contrary doctrine of Protestants , that the more learned they are , and the better they vnderstand and weigh the grounds of Controuersies , betwixt the Roman Church and her aduersaries , the more they are confirm'd in the Catholique doctrine . Againe , what likelyhood is there , that by pondering the pretended reasons of Protestants for their Religion , I should euer come to a right and full vnderstanding of Diuine truth's ; seeing it is euident , that following their principles I can be certaine of nothing , that belongs to Diuine Fayth ? For , teaching as they doe , that all particular men , all Generall Councils , and the whole Church of God may erre , what assurance can they giue me , that eyther their Canon of Scripture is true , or that the sense of the words of Scripture , by which they proue their doctrine , is such as they vnderstand ; or that their Church ( which they grant to be fallible ) doth not erre in those points , wherein they disagree from vs. What he asserts afterward , by way of reason why he allowes possibility of Saluation to Roman Catholiques , viz. because they are within the Church , and that no man can be sayd simply to be out of the Church , that is Baptized and holds the Foundation , is a Paradox , and may be prou'd to be false euen from his own grounds . For , seeing he hath often deliuer'd , that by Foundation he vnderstands only such points , as are Prime , Radicall , and Fundamentall in the Fayth , necessary to be know'n and expressly beleeu'd by all Christians , in order to Saluation : and seeing that many Heretiques are Baptized , and hold the Foundation in this sense , what does he but bring into the Fold of the Church , and make Members of Christs Mysticall Body , most of the Heretiques that euer were , and that , euen while they remayne most notoriously and actually diuided from it ? Nor is he content with one absurdity , vnless he adioyne a second . There is no question ( sayth he ) but many ( viz. ignorant Catholiques ) were saued in the corrupted times of the Church , when their Leaders , vnless they repented before their death ( as 't is morally certain , none of them did ) were lost . See here a heauy doome pronounced against all the Roman Doctours in generall . But what ? were they all lost who repented not of those pretended errours , which , as Pastours of the Roman-Catholique Church they taught so many yeares together ? How could that be ? were they not all , euen by the Bishops own principles , members of the true visible Church of Christ , ( notwithstanding those errours ) by reason of their beeing Baptized , and holding the Foundation ? If they neither lost that Fayth , by which they were members of the true Church ; nor can be prou'd to haue taught any false doctrine against their conscience ( by meanes whereof they might fall from Grace ) with what truth , or Charity could the Bishop pronounce such a sentence against them ? He adds , that erroneous Leaders doe then only perish , when they refuse to heare the Churches instruction , or to vse all the meanes they can , to come to the knowledge of truth . But J demand , if no Misleaders but such , doe perish , with what countenance ( conscience J might say ) could the Relatour pass his iudgement of ours , in the manner he doth , that they were lost ? Can it with any colour of equity or truth , be charg'd vpon them , that they refus'd the Churches instruction ? what visible Church was there in the whole world for so many hundred yeares together , by which , had they been neuer so willing , they could be instructed , to teach otherwise , then themselues taught in their respectiue ages ? and what other meanes could they be bound to vse more then they did , to come to the knowledge of truth ? Why should not our aduersarie , in reason , haue rather excus'd these Leaders of the Roman Fayth and Communion , from Heresie , and all other damnable errour , then he does euen St. Cyprian himselfe and his followers ? seeing 't is manifest , these last oppos'd , and contradicted the more generall practice of the whole visible Church ; whereas the Roman Catholique Doctours had alwayes the vniuersall practice of the Church on their side , in the points now controuerted , and for which Protestants condemne them of errour . The truth is , the Bishop is a little intangled here . Something he must say by way of threatning against Catholiques , to keep his own people in awe , and to fright them from becoming Catholiques : but positiuely and determinately what to say , he is scarce prouided . He giues a hint at the difference between Errour and Heresie ; but dares not so much as apply the distinction , for feare he should be forc'd eyther to acquit our Leaders too manifestly , or otherwise pass such a censure vpon them , as he should not be able to maintaine . But the wary Reader will easily discouer by his timorousness and hesitancy here , his vncharitable temerity , and forwardness in the precedent passage . He tells vs likewise , that a teaching Heretique , if he adde Schisme to his Heresie , is lost . Very good . Wee grant it no less willingly then himselfe ; but wonder , his Lordship would not first make it cleere , that our teachers added Schisme and obstinacy to their errours , ( as he is pleased to call them ) before , he gaue sentence vpon their persons , by saying that they were lost . But that which he adds concerning St. Cyprian and his followers , giues a plaine aduantage against him , and his followers ; namely to proue , that all Leaders of Protestant Religion are guilty both of Heresie and Schisme ; and by consequence lyable to damnation , except they repent . St. Cyprian , he sayth , was a maine Leader in the errour of Rebaptization ; yet that the whole Church grants him safe , and his followers only ( that were after him ) in danger of damnation . And why this ? but only because St. Cyprian did not refuse the Churches instruction , did not obstinately and formally oppose the Churches authority ; which had not as yet defined the contrary doctrine . But after the Churches determination , those that followed St. Cyprians errour , and misled the people , were iudged both Heretiques and — Schismatiques , and that iustly too , by the Bishops own confession ; and so , by consequence , were lost without repentance . But is not this a conuincing instance against Luther , Caluin , and all other ringleaders of the Protestant profession ? doth it not euidently proue them also to be both Heretiques and Schismatiques ? did not they refuse to heare the Churches instruction , as much as any of those post-nate followers of St. Cyprian did ? was not the contrary doctrine , to what these Protestant Leaders taught , as much , and as solemnly defined by the Church , as that which was contrary to the errour of rebaptization ? T is euident therfore , if St. Cyprians followers were iustly accounted Heretiques and in danger of damnation , for not hearing the Churches instruction , giuen them by the voyce of a Generall Council , and for teaching contrary to what the Church had solemnly defin'd and declar'd , as by the Bishops own discourse they were ; neyther Luther , nor Caluin , nor any that succeed them in their doctrine and profession , can be iustly acquitted of the like crime . If you answer , the whole Church of Christ condemned the errour of rebaptization ; but the doctrine of Protestants was condemn'd only by the particular Church of Rome , I aske what you meane by the whole Church ? If all such people , and all such particular Churches , as beleeue in Christ , and hold all Fundadamentall points in Protestant sense ; that will comprehend the rebaptisers themselues , or those followers of St. Cyprians errour ; whome the Bishop here confesses to haue been Heretiques . For doubtless they beleeu'd in Christ , and held all points , which according to the Relatours principles , can be accounted Fundamentall , or absolutely necessary to Saluation ; otherwise St. Cyprian himselfe had erred in a point Fundamentall . Therfore the whole Church , in that sense , did not condemne the doctrine of rebaptization . And to say it was the whole Church in any other limited sense , makes it in effect but a particular Church in regard of the Church Catholique ; and also , according to the Bishops doctrine , no less fallible and subiect to errour , in defining vnfundamentall points , ( as this of rebaptization was ) then was the Church which condemned Protestant doctrine , whatsoeuer Church that was . Besides , how often shall wee be forc'd to reminde our aduersaries , that when Luther first began to oppose the Roman Church , the Protestant doctrine concerning Reall Presence , Inuocation of Saynts , Prayer for the dead , two Sacraments only , etc. was contrary to the Generall beleefe of the whole Christian world ; whereof the farre greater part also were such , as professed obedience to the Sea of Rome . 2. The greatest part of his 〈◊〉 . paragraph is taken vp with personall matters , and matters of fact , viz. what A. C. what Doctor White , and the Bishop in their respectiue conferences with Mr. Fisher , sayd ; in which kinde of differences , I shall not interpose . That which I shall obserue here , is , that the Bishop formalizeth without cause vpon those words of A. C. different from the Roman , which he vseth pag. 67. where he tells vs , that Doctor White expressly granted , that he could assign no Church DIFFERENT FROM THE ROMAN which in all ages held all Fundamentall points . The Relatour will not seem to vnderstand , what A. C. meanes by a Church different from the Roman ; whether he meanes different in place , or different in doctrine . whereas if he had perus'd neuer so little Doctor Whites answer , where 't is first reported . pag. 22. he would haue found in express terms different in doctrine , twice ouer for failing . Beside , the very acception wherein A. C. in that place , takes the word Roman Church , towitt , for the whole visible Catholique Church , euinces , that he could not meane any Church different from it in place , seeing the Roman Church in that sense comprehends all places in Christendome , and all particular true Churches throughout the Christian world . Nor can it with truth be auouched , that the Greeke Church hath euer held and taught the Foundation in all ages , as the Bishop pretends ; seeing all , or most of those Primitiue Heresies , Arianisme , Eunomianisme , Nestorianisme , Eutychianisme , etc. haue been anciently embrac'd and professed respectiuely by the Greeke Patriarchs and their Churches at some time or other . Neyther doth euen the present Greeke Church hold and teach it so entirely and soundly , as it ought , euen by the Relatours own * confession , touching their errour about the Procession of the Holy Ghost . Lastly wee haue prou'd , chap. 1. of this treatise , that the Greeks errour in that point is Fundamentall , and sufficient to vnchurch them . By a Church different from the Roman then , the Relatour should haue here vnderstood , without making any scruple about it , a Church different from her , not in place , but in doctrine ; and differing also not in points Fundamentall only , ( which is an other scruple too , as needlessly added ) but in points not Fundamentall also in Protestant sense ; that is , a Church differing from the Roman in any point of doctrine which the Roman Church now teacheth ; or in any of those points , which Protestants reiect , and for which they separate themselues from the Roman Church . This , wee say , was the sense of Mr. Fishers demand to Doctor White ; and consequently must be the sense of Doctor Whites answer and concession to him , viz. that noe Church , differing in any points of doctrine what euer , ( Fundamentall , or Not-Fundamentall ) from the present Roman , could be assign'd , which held in all ages all Fundamentall points . And if our aduersaries like not his answer , wee challendge them againe to shew vs such a Church . Moreouer wee auerre , that from Doctor Whites grant aboue-mentioned , A. C. inference is rightly gathered , namely , that the Roman Church held and taught in all ages , vnchanged Fayth in all Fundamentall points , and did not in any age erre in any point Fundamentall : and that the Bishops Criticisme is much more subtle , then solid ; when , to make good his denyall of it , he distinguishes betwixt the holding vnchanged Fayth in all Fundamentall points , and the Not-erring in any Fundamentall point ; granting the first of these , viz. that the Roman Church hath in all ages held vnchanged Fayth in all such points , to follow out of Doctor Whites concession , but not the second , viz. that she hath not erred in any point Fundamentall . But with what ground , or consonancy to himselfe and truth , lett the Reader iudge . His precense is , that the Church of Rome hath kept the Fayth vnchang'd only in the expression , as he calls it , or bare letter of the Article ; but hath err'd in the exposition , or sense of it . J answer , if she hath err'd in the exposition , and sense of an Article , how can she be truly sayd to haue held it ? Can any man with truth say , that the Arians held the Article of Christs Diuiunity , or the Antitrinitarians , the doctrine of three diuine Persons , because they allow , and hold Scriptures , in which these Mysteries are contain'd ? who euer 〈◊〉 this word hold , in a question of Fayth , to signifie no more then profession , or keeping of the bare letter of the Article , and not the beleefe of the Misterie it selfe in its true sense ? Is it not all one to say , Roman Catholiques hold the doctrine of Transubstantiation , Purgatory , Inuocation of Saynts etc. and to say , they beleeue the sayd doctrines ? Jf then it be true , that the Church of Rome hath euer held all Fundamentall points , 't is likewise true , that she hath euer beleeu'd them : and if she hath euer beleeu'd them all , 't is manifest she hath not err'd in any ; there beeing noe other way ( properly and truly speaking ) wherby a man can erre against an Article of Fayth , but only by disbeleeuing it . If therfore it be granted that the Roman Church held and beleeu'd in all ages all Fundamentall points , it is by necessary consequence likewise granted , that she neuer erred in any such points , how vnwilling soeuer the Bishop is to haue it so . He tells vs indeed ( but his accusation has noe proofe , ) that our Church hath erred grossly , dangerously , nay damnably in the exposition of Fundamentall points ; that in the exposition both of Creeds and Councils , she hath quite changed and lost the sense and meaning of some of them ; lastly that her beauty , in this respect , is but meere painting , as preseruing only the outside , and bare letter of Christs doctrine , but in regard of inward sense and beleefe , beeing neither beautifull nor sound . Thus he . But was euer calumny more falsely and iniuriously aduanc'd ? Let our aduersaries shew , in what one Article of all the three Creeds , the Roman Church hath eyther lost its true sense , or err'd in her exposition of it . Beside , they must likewise shew , how this censure can stand with the Bishops former grant , touching the possibility of Catholiques Saluation . Jf true Fayth in all Fundamentall points be necessary to Saluation ( as 't is certaine none can be sau'd without it ) and that true Fayth consists in the sense and inward beleefe , and not in the bare letter , how can those , which liue and dye in the Roman Churches Communion , beleeuing all things as she teacheth , and noe otherwise , attain Saluation ? 3. The Lady here asks a second question , whether she might be sau'd in the Protestant Fayth ; in answering whereof the parties conferring are againe put into new heats . vpon my soule ( sayes the Bishop ) you may . vpon my soule ( sayes Mr. Fisher ) there is but one sauing Fayth , and that 's the Roman . You see their mutuall confidence ; but which of them is better grounded the Reader must iudge . Mr. Fisher seemes to lay the ground of his , vpon that which cannot be deny'd to be a Fundamentall meanes , and condition also , of Saluation , viz. Catholique Fayth ; which vnless it be entirely and inuiolately professed , saues none : witness St. Athanasius in * his Creed , admitted by Protestants . The Bishop declares the ground of his assertion in these words . To beleeue the Scripture and the Creeds ; to beleeue these in the sense of the Ancient Primitiue Church ; to receiue the fowre great Generall Councils , so much magnifyed by Antiquity ; to beleeue all points of doctrine generally receiu'd by the Church as Fundamentall , is a Fayth , in which to liue and dye cannot but giue Saluation to which he adds ; in all the points of doctrine that are contreuerted between vs , I would faine see any one point maintained by the Church of England , that can be prou'd to depart from the Foundation . This , in fine , is the ground of the Bishops confidence . But I answer , his Lordship failes in two things . The first , that he doth not shew , that such a Fayth as he here mentions , is sufficient to Saluation , notwithstanding whateuer errour , or opinion , may be ioyned with it . The second , that he doth not shew , that at least his English-Protestant Fayth is really and indeed such a Fayth as he here professeth ; that is , in nothing different from the Fayth of the Ancient Primitiue Church , and from the doctrine of those fowre great Generall Councils he speaks 〈◊〉 . For as to the first of the pariculars , did not the Bishop himselfe but euen now affirme , that St. Cyprians followers were lost , without repentance , because they opposed the authority of the Church , which in , and by a Generall Council had declar'd their opinion to be erroneous ? Put case then , that in after-times the whole Church , or a Generall Council of like Authority with that of Nice , should declare some other opinion to be erroneous , which were not sufficiently declar'd to be so , eyther by Scripture , Creeds , or those Fowre first Generall Councils ; were not he that should hold it , after such definitiue declaration of the Church , or Council , in a like damnable condition with those followers of St. Cyprian , though he beleeu'd the Scripture the Creeds , and fowre first Generall Councils ? If not , lett our aduersaries shew , why rebaptizers only should be put into a damnable condition meerly by the authority of the Church , or the Councils definition , and other people , who doe no less resist and contradict like definitions and authority , should not . Doth not the Bishop himselfe in effect teach it to be damnable sinne , to oppose the definition of a Generall Council , when he auerrs , that the decrees of it binde all particulars to obedience , and submission , till the contrary be determined by an other Council of equall authority ; and censures the doing otherwise for a bold fault of daring times , and inconsistent with the Churches peace ? How can this possibly be made good , if to beleeue Scripture and the 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 a 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 . b 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 c 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 Protestants ( to note it only in a word by the way ) haue not the like reason to require any such thing of vs Catholiques , viz. that wee should positiuely and by speciall euidence proue our Fayth to be the same with that of the Primitiue Church ; not that wee are vnable , or vnwilling to doe this in due time and place , but because beeing in full and quiet possession of our Fayth , Religion , Church , and all things pertaining thereto ; by immemoriall Tradition and succession from our ancestours , wee doe vpon that sole ground viz. of quiet possession , iustly * prescribe against our aduersaries ; and our plea must in all Law and equity be admitted for good , till they ( who are our aggressours in this case ) doe by more pregnant and conuincing arguments disproue it and shew , that our possession is not bonafidei , but gain'd by force , or fraude , or some other wrongfull and vnallowed meanes . A Gentleman , that is in quiet possession of an estate receiu'd from his ancestours , is not to be outed of it , because an other say's , and perhaps beleeues , he has a better title to it ; neither is 〈◊〉 in possession to be forc'd to make good his title by producing his euidence , but the other is bound to euict him , and demonstrate that his possession is not good , and to shew by speciall euidence and proofe , that his own clayme is better ; otherwise in stead of gaining an estate , he will get nothing but a checke . In like manner the Lady , beeing in possession of a Fayth , which for many ages together , had been professed by her ancestours , and generally by the whole Christian Church , 't is not the Bishops telling her , that he beleeues the Scriptures and Creeds in the same sense the ancient Church beleeu'd them , that must eyther turn her out of the Church of Rome , or iustly moue her to beleeue , that the Fayth of Protestants is agreeable to that of the Primitiue Church ; but he must make it appeare to be so , by producing euident and cleere testimonies out of all , or the chiefe Doctours of those ancient times ; otherwise his pretended beleefe of any such matter , is to be accounted folly , and his confidence , rashness . I adde , how is it possible for the Bishop to make good what his answer pretends viz. that his English Protestant Fayth is the same with that of the Primitiue Church . English Protestants ( for example ) beleeue the Popes power iure diuino , is no more then of an other ordinary Bishop : but the Primitiue Church accounted him to be the Souereign Bishop of the Church , the Bishop of Bishops , witness d Tertullian ; and this , long before the Canons of the Church , or Imperiall Constitutions had giuen him any authority . The Primitiue Church beleeu'd , that the authority of the Roman and Apostolique Sea , ouer all other Churches and Christians , was not from men , but from our Lord Jesus Christ. Witness the Epistles of e St. Clement , f St. Anaclet , g St. Sixtus the first , h St. Pius the first , i St. Anicet , k St. Victor , with diuerse other Epistles of those ancient Primitiue Popes , and Martyrs of the first ages of the Church : all of them cleerly testifying and asserting the souereign authority of the Bishop of Rome as he is St. Peters Successour , and of the Roman Sea ouer all other Churches and Christians whatsoeuer . So as euen the l Centurists themselues , and all other Protestants neuer so little ver'st in antiquity , are forc'd to confess it . They pretend indeed , that these Epistles are counterfeite , and not the genuine Epistles of these Popes . A weake plea : for , beside what wee haue already sayd in derence of them , 't is certain , that Isidorus Hispalensis , who is an Authour of aboue a thousand yeares antiquity . In his collection of Ecclesiasticall Canons , mentions these Epistles as owned by the Bishops of his time , and professes , that himselfe was specially commanded by a Synod of fowrescore Bishops , to make his collection out of them , as well as out of other Epistles and writings , which Protestants doe not question . Not to vrge , that the Councill called vasense celebrated in St. Leo the firsts time mentions some of them ; and m Rufinus himselfe others , who was contemporary with St. Hierome : nor yet the absolute conformity , in point of doctrine and style , that there is betwixt those Primitiue Epistles , and those of succeeding Popes in the most flourishing ages of the Church : viz. Iulius the first , Pope Damasus , Syricius , Innocentius , Leo , and others , which euen Protestants themselues neyther doe , nor can pretend to be forged ; but only say , that the Popes of those times were arrogant men , and began to take too much vpon them . The Primitiue Church beleeu'd the roote and originall of Heresies to be , n because the whole Fraternity of Christians did not , according to Gods commandement , acknowledge ONE PRIEST AND ONE JUDGE for the time beeing , Vicar of Christ in the Church . The Primitiue Church professed , that for what concerned the correction and consolation of the Faythfull ( to witt , in matter of Religion and Fayth ) the Roman and Apostolique Sea was the bond and mother of all Churches . Witness St. Athanasius and the Bishops of Egypt with him in their o Epistle to Pope Marcus , that the forme and pattern of that Church was to be followed in all things : witness p St. Ambrose and the whole Council of Arles in their Epistle and petition to Pope Julius . The Primitiue Church accounted them all Scismatiques , and sinners 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that sett vp an other Chaire against that one Chaire of St. Peter in the Roman Church . Witness q optatus Mileuitanus , that the Roman Church was that sealed Fountuine and Garden inclosed , to which all must repaire for the waters of life ; that she is the Rock , vpon which the Church is built ; that to be out of her Communion , was to be an Alien from the houshold of God , to be out of the Church , to be as a profane , or vncleane person ( who might not come into the Campe , or Congregation , of Israel : ) in briefe it was to belong , not to Christ , but to Antichrist , witness r St. Hierome . The Bishops of the Primitiue Church , beeing at any time persecuted and uniustly eiected out of their Seas , from all parts and Prouinces of Christendome , had recourse to the Pope and Sea of Rome , as to their proper and lawfull Judge , for iustice and reliefe ; and were likewise by him righted , and for the most part effectually restor'd to their Seas againe . Witness the examples , already alledged , of St. Athanasius and his fellow Bishops eiected by the Arians : also of St. s Chrysostome , t The odoret , and diuerse others . Lastly , not to insist vpon many other particular Acknowledgements of the Popes authority , already mention'd and prou'd in this treatise , the Primitiue Church beleeu'd , that the Principality of the Apostolique Sea had always flourish'tin in the Roman Church , and that by reason there of the Pope had power both to iudge in matters of Fayth , and also finally to decermin the causes of all Bishops whatsoeuer . Witness x St. Austin , the Councils y of sardica , z Ephesus , a Chalcedon , with the Emperour Valentinian himselfe , in his Epistle to Theodosius , 〈◊〉 amonge the preambulatory Epistles of the Council of 〈◊〉 . Here you see a Generall consent of the Fathers of the Primitiue Church for belocning the so much contested Power and Principality of St. Peter and his Successours , ouer the whole Church . Doe the Bishop and his English Protestant Church beleeue this ? Doe they interpret Scripture and the Creeds in this sense ? Againe Protestants deny that there is a Purgatory ; or that the soules of the faythfull departed doe eyther need , or can receiue any kinde of help or benefitt , any kinde of releefe , case of paine , or other consolation from the faythfull liuing . Yet it was the generall beleefe of the ancient Primitiue Church , that they could , and did many of them receiue help and benefitt , after their departure , from the faythfull Liuing ; namely by the Oblation , or Sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist ; by the prayers , alms-deeds , and other offices of Christian pietie , that were done for them ; grounding this their beleefe both vpon Tradition and seuerall texts of Scripture ; as wee shall make further to appeare in the following chapter , where this point is particularly to be treated . How therfore could the Bishop , or how can Protestants pretend , that their Fayth is agreeable to the Primitiue Church , and that they interpret Scripture in the sense of that Church ? 5. But the Relatour , if he cannot make good his own cause , at least he endeauours to shew , that wee Romanists , doe not beleeue Scripture and the Creeds in all points according to that sense , in which the Primitiue Church vnderstood them . The Primitiue Church ( sayth he ) neuer interpreted the descent of Christ into Hell , to be no lower then LIMBVS PATRVM . But how will it be made to appeare , that the Primitiue Church interpreted Christs descent to be as low , as the place , where the reprobate are tormented ? Because it is sayd in the Creeds , that Christ descended into Hell , must wee needs vnderstand that he descended euen to the place of reprobate and damned soules ? Did Iacob meane that place , of punishment , when , expressing his griefe for the supposed death of his sonne Ioseph , Genes . 37. 35. he sayd I will goe down to my sonne , mourning into Hell ? Doth not Caluin himselfe grant in effect what our Church vnderstands by Limbus Patrum , a when he sayth , Let no body wonder , that the holy Fathers , who expected Christs redemption , were shut vp in prison ? Doth not St. Irenaeus , that ancient father , affirme , b that in those three dayes and nights , in which Christ was dead , he remayned with the Patriarchs ; who could not be held to be amonge the damned ? Doth he not likewise teach , that c our Sauiour desoended to them that are vnder the earth , that he might make know'n his coming , and acquaint them , with the remission of sinnes , giuen to all those , that beleeue in him ? Doth not Origen plainly auouch , that d Christ deliuered from the place into which he descended , our first Father Adam ; whome none will auerre to haue been amonge the damned ? and doth he not vnderstand those words of Christ to the good theefe , ( Luc. 23. ) hodie mecum eris in Paradiso ( this day shalt thou be with me in Paradise ) to haue been e verifyed also of all those to whome Christ descended ? Doth not Eusebius 〈◊〉 say f that the soule of Christ , hauing recommended it selfe to the Eternall Father , left the body , and descending into Hell deliuer'd from thence the Fathers ? In a word , doth not St. Hierome by Hell vnderstand Limbus-Patrum , when he sayth , g that before Christ , Abraham was ( apud Inferos ) in Hell , but after Christ , euen the thiefe is in Paradise ? Why therfore should the Bishop so peremptorily deny , that by Hell , into which Christ descended , none of the ancient fathers did vnderstand Limbus Patrum ? But he proceeds . The Primitiue Church ( sayth he ) did not acknowledge a Purgatory in a side part of Hell. But it did acknowledge a Purgatory , which the Bishop denies . Let Protestants but grant there is a Purgatory ; and the Church of Rome will not binde them to place it in a side part of Hell ; this beeing noe article of our beleefe . The Primitiue Church ( says the Bishop ) did not interpret away halfe the Sacrament from Christs institution : neither did it euer interpret Christs institution to be such , as did oblige all Christians , vnder paine of sin , to receiue it in both kindes , as wee haue already prou'd . The Primitiue Church did not make the Priests intention to be of the essence of the Sacrament etc. very true : neither doth our Church make it to be so ; but it was Christ himselfe , that soe ordain'd it , * as wee haue also shew'n . The Primitiue Church beleeu'd no worship to be due to Jmages . But how will it be prou'd they beleeu'd it to be sinne , and vnlawfull to worship them for their Prototypes sake ? Doth not Lactantius in the Primitiue Church , write thus in his Poem de Passione , addressing his speech to a Christian , as then entring into the Church — Flecte genu , lignumque Crucis VENERABILEADORA ? — Doth not St. Basil. ( Epi st . 53. in Iulian. ) reported in the second Council of Nice . Action . 2. profess , that he publiquely adored Jmages ; h and that the honour done to them , redounds to the persons whome they represent ? Doth not St. Ambrose praise the Empress St. Helena i for setting the Cross vpon the head , or crown , of Kings , that it might be adored in them ? and doth not St. Hierome report of her , that hauing at Hierusalem happily found the Cross , vpon which our Sauiour suffered , k she adored it as if she had euen then seen our Lord hanging vpon it ? Doth not St. Chrysostome l likewise exhort Christians to come with feare and deuotion to worship the Cross vpon the aniuersary , or yearly holy * day , on which they were then wont solemnly to performe that duty , as Roman Catholique generally now doe vpon Goodfryday ? Doth not Paulinus m Bishop of Nola mention the like custome in Jtaly ? n and Iustinian the Emperour style the Cross in that very regard adorandam verè , & honorandam Crucem ? To conclude ( omitting diuerse other pregnant instances of the perpetuall vse and veneration also of sacred Images , amonge Christians , related by o Eusebius , p Historia Tripartita , q Nicephorus and others , ) if the Primitiue Church acknowledged no worship to be due to Images , how could the Generall Council , according to the latin translation of it , style them venerabiles , and r profess to giue adoration to them MENTE , SERMONE , SENSV , both in minde , body , and words ? Yea , how could St. Gregory say , non quasi ante Diuinitatem , ante illas prosternimur ? confessing prosternimur , that Christians did vse to bow , or prostrate their bodies before them , but not as vnto the Deity it selfe , or as attributing Diuinity to them . But aboue all how could the second Council of Nice , an assembly of Bishops , for number exceeding the first it selfe , so much celebrated by Christians , and conuen'd from all parts and Prouinces of Christendome , so publiquely auouch it to haue been t a Tradition of the Apostles , to worship Images , if it had not been a thing confessedly practis'd amonge Christians euer since the Apostles times , and with their knowledge and allowance ? Is it credible , that so many Catholique and Orthodox Bishops should conspire to deceiue the world with such a lowde vntruth , if it had been otherwise ? As for Transubstantiation , which is an other point the Relatour pretends the Primitiue Church did not beleeue , wee haue v already shew'n , that what is signifyed by the word , to witt , a true and reall change of the substance of bread into Christs body , was cleerly held and taught by diuerse ancient Fathers of the Primitiue Church . His bare saying , 't is a scandall to both Iew and Gentile and the Church of God , signifies but little . Christ crucifyed was a scandall both to Iew and Gentile ; but yet a true obiect of our Fayth : nor are they the Church , or any part of the true Church , that are scandaliz'd at it , but Infidells and Heretiques , who will be scandaliz'd at any thing , that suites not with their own fancies . As little can he inferre against vs from the difficulty , which Catholique Diuines haue to explicate Transubstantiation . Js not the Mystery of the B. Trinity , in the Bishops own opinion , as inexplicable ; and yet firmly to be beleeu'd ? why then must Transubstantiation be reiected , or disbeleeu'd , meerly vpon that ground , or because 't is hard to be explicated ? Neither was it Transubstantiation precisely , which bred that pretended scandall in Auerroes , but the Reall Presence , x as his words shew , cited by the Bishop . Yet the Relatour himselfe , and his master Caluin too sometimes , make profession to beleeue the Reall Presence . After so many vnaduised assertions , our aduersarie falls at last to quibble vpon those words of A. C. Roman Catholiques cannot be prou'd to depart from the Foundation so farre as Protestants , telling vs , 't is a confession , that Romanists may be prou'd to depart from the Foundation , though not so much , or so farre , as Protestants doe . A doughty inference I promise you . But what gaines he by it ? Doth not the Bishop himselfe ( num . 1. of this very Paragraph ) vse the like speech of vs , when he sayth , you of Rome haue gone further from the Foundation of this one sauing Fayth , then can euer be proued , wee of the Church of England haue done ? If this must not be accounted a Confession that the Church of England hath departed from the Foundation , why must that of A. C. be see interpreted , as the Bishop will haue it ? what euer explication be giuen to the Bishops words , will serue A. C. as well : whose meaning only was , that there cannot be brought any arguments to proue our Churches departing from the Foundation , but more , and better may be brought to proue , that Protestants doe likewise depart from it in more and greater points . It is not to grant , that the arguments which Protestants bring , to proue our departing from the Fonndation , are solid and conuincing , or doe really proue that , for which they are brought . This the Relatour is only willing to suppose for himselfe , and to insinuate ; which A. C. absolutely denyes . And as the Bishop had noe reason to inferre any such Confession , cut of A. 〈◊〉 . words , so had he as little reason to make such a confident demand in behalfe of his Church of England . Let A. C. instance , if he can , in any one point , wherein she hath departed from the Foundation etc. For that was already done to his hand . A. C. had already giuen him this very errour for instance , viz. the Church of Englands denying infallible authority to lawfull Generall Councils ; this beeing in effect to deny infallibility to the whole Church ; and by consequence to subuert the ground of all infallible beleefe in any articles , or points of Fayth whatsoeuer . Nor does it help him to say , there 's a greate deale of difference betwixt a Generall Council , and the whole body of the Catholique Church . For what euer difference may be in other respects , in this , viz. of infallible teaching what is true Christian Fayth , and infallible beleeuing what is so taught , there is no difference betwixt the Catholique Church and a Generall Councill . For if such a Council may erre , the Church hath noe infallible meanes to rectifie that errour , or sufficiently to propose any other point of Catholique doctrine to be infallibly beleeu'd by Christians . His allegation of the second Council of Ephesus for a Generall , or oecumenicall , Council , shewes nothing , but what a desperate cause the Bishop maintaines . That which was neuer styled , or esteem'd by Catholique antiquity , but Praedatoria Synodus , and Latrocinium , not Concilium Ephesinum , a den of Robbers and Free-booters , a Conuention of the most turbulent and seditrous Heretiques , that euer troubled , or dishonoured the Church by their vnlawfull actings , where nothing but secular violence , rage and cruelty bore sway euen to bloud-shed , and murther of the B. Prelate St. Flauianus Bishop of Constantinople ; this his Lordship brings for an example , of a Generall Councils erring . Very worthily indeed , lett his friends make their benefitt of it . Jn the meane time , they may know , that as on the one side wee readily confess it very necessary , the Church should haue remedy against such Councils as this ; so on the other side wee auerre , that the infallibility of Generall Councils truly and rightly so called , is such a Foundation of the Roman , that is , the Christian Catholique Fayth , that without it , wee know not what can be , nor has the Bishop as yet shew'n , how any thing can be certaine in the Fayth . 6. A. C. after this , endeauours by interrogatories to draw from his Aduersarie the confession of truth : in answer whereto , seeing the Bishop repeats much matter already consuted , especially in the 7th . and 8th . Chapters of this treatise , it will oblige vs ( to avoyd tediousness ) to be more briefe in our replie . A. 〈◊〉 . first Querie is , how Protestants , admitting noe insallible rule of Fayth but Scripture only , can be infallibly sure , that they beleeue the same entire Scripture , Creed , and fowre first Generall Councils , in the same incorrupted sense , in which the Primitiue Church beleeu'd them ? The Relatour in answer to him tells vs , that he beleeues Scripture , 1. by Tradition . 2. by other motiues of Credibilliy . 3. by the Light of Scripture it selfe . But first , this is not to make a direct answer to the question ; which is not , whether Scripture can be any way beleeu'd or no , standing to the Bishops principles : but whether , and how he can be infallibly sure of what he does beleeue concerning it . Secondly , 't is vndenyable in the common principles of all Protestants , and prou'd * already , that the two first of these , viz. Tradition and the motiues of Credibility can be no ground to Protestants of infallible Fayth , or assurance , concerning Scripture : and for the third , viz. Light of Scripture it selfe , it is not only petitio principij , a begging of the 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 a 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 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 aboute it , as the Bishop pretends . 13. Purgatory , an Apostolicall Tradition , if St. Austins Rule be good . 14. In what manner of necessary beleefe . 1. BVt lett vs return to A. C. who very charitably , and no less truly mindes the Bishop , that there is but one sauing Fayth , that by his own confession , it was once the Roman , and by iust consequence is so still , because 't is granted , that men may be saued in it : wishing his Lordship therfore well to consider , how wee can hope to haue our soules saued without wee hold entirely this Fayth ; it beeing the Catholique Fayth , which , as St Athanasius in his Creed professeth , VNLESS A MAN HOLD'S ENTIRELY , HE CANNOT BE SAVED . To all which the Relatour tells vs , he hath aboundantly answered before , referring vs to § . 35. num . 1. and § . 38. num . 10. of his Relation . The question is not how aboundantly , but how sufficiently his Lordship answereth : and for that wee also referre our selues to the Readers judgement , vpon our replie there made . What he adds here , that A. Cs. conclusion hath more in it , then is in the premisses , is manifestly vntrue , to any that obserues the force of the argument ; which stands thus . There is but ONE Sauing Fayth ; the Roman was once this sauing Fayth , and by the Bishops confession is still a sauing Fayth : ergo , it is still that one sauing Fayth ; and by consequence is still the Catholique Fayth . This inference , J say , is euident and vndenyable , vnless wee suppose eyther more sauing Fayths then one , or that the one sauing Fayth is not the Catholique : both which are euidently false , and contrary to our aduersaries own confessions . His discourse about Additions pretended to be made by the Council of Trent vnto the Catholique Fayth , imports not much . For eyther the sayd Additions are such , as by reason of them the present Roman Fayth ceases to be a sauing Fayth , or they are not . Jf the first , he contradicts himselfe , hauing already granted that Saluation may be had in the Roman Fayth : if the second , it necessarily followes , that eyther the Roman Fayth is now the one sauing Fayth , or that there are more sauing Fayths then one ; which the Bishop denyes . What he also affirms of the sayd Council of Trent , viz. that it hath added a new Creed to the old , and extraneous things , without the Foundation , etc. is noe more , then what the old Heretiques might as truly , and , no doubt , did as freely , obiect to those ancient Primitiue Councills : and if it be iust and sufficient , in defense of them , to assert , that the Additions they made , were only perfectiue , that is , further and more cleere explications of the Fayth formerly beleeu'd , and not corruptiue of the ancient Primitiue truth , wee thinke it sufficient to make the same answer in behalfe of the present Roman Church , and Council of Trent . 2. Nor doe those words of St. Athanasius sett down in the begining and end of his Creed This is the Catholique Fayth , signify any such thing as the Bishop pretends , viz. that this , and no other doctrine , is Catholique Fayth , this , and no more then is here deliuer'd , is to be beleeu'd etc. I say , St. Athanasius his words admite not of this Gloss. For so wee might , without any breach of the Foundation , reiect in a manner the whole Scripture , with a good part of the Apostles Creed , and all other points of Christian doctrine beside . The Relatour himselfe could not be ignorant , that the non-rebaptising of Heretiques was a point of Catholique Fayth , already in St. Athanasius his time defind by the Councill of Nice ; yet sure he finds noe mention of it in the Athanasian Creed : noe more then he doth , that our Sauiour was conceiued by the Holy Ghost , or born of a Virgin ; not to speake of Remission of sinnes , Baptisme , Eucharist , or any other Sacraments , etc. none of all which beeing expressed in that Creed , will Protestants thinke they may be denyed , without breach of the Catholique Fayth , mean't by St. Athanasius ? To salue the matter in some sort , the Relatour here casts in a Parenthesis in these words , always presupposing the Apostles Creed , as Athanasius did ; meaning that the Apostles Creed presupposed , rhon ( and not otherwise ) this of St. Athanasius is so sufficient , that there needs no other , nor that any thing else should be added to it . But this helps him not at all . For first 't is manifest enough , St. Athanasius supposed many other things , at the composing of his Creed , beside the Creed of the Apostles , viz. the whole Canon of Scripture , the decrees of the Nicen Councill , the vniuersall Traditions of the Church , as matters appertaining to Christian Fayth : all which , are not only supernumerary , but inconsistent with the Bishops assertion , This , and noe other is Catholique Fayth . So that in reason it cannot possibly be thought , this Father mean't to signifie , that his Creed contain'd all necessary points , whatsoeuer , pertaining to Christian beleefe , but only to express what was to be hel'd by Christians in those maine and principall articles touching the B. Trinity , our Sauiours incarnation , etc. which were at that time so much controuerted ; and withall to giue vs a certaine Rule , or Forme of Catholique confession touching those points . Whence also 't is euidently deduced , that as 't was necessary to Saluation for Christians to beleeuo and confess according to the Catholique Fayth ; in the points there specifyed ; so , a paritate rationis , it is likewise necessary they should doe , in all other points and doctrines whatsoeuer . For doubtless , if the Catholique Fayth may be contradicted in any one point , without perill to a mans Saluation , it may be also in an other , and an other , yea in all the rest . A. C. goes on , and endeauours a little further to vnfold the meaning of this great father of the Church ; obseruing , that in his Creed he says , without doubt euery man shall perish , that holds not the Catholique Fayth ENTIRE . that is , in euery point of it , and INVIOLATE , that is , in the right seuse , and for the true formall reason of diuine Reuelation , sufficiently applied to our understanding by the infallible authority of the Catholique Church , proposing to vs by her Pastours , this Reuelation . To which discourse of A.G. the Bishop so farre agrees , as to acknowledge , that he , who hopes for Saluation , must beleeue the Catholique Fayth , whole and entire in euery point : which I note only by the way , as a matter worthy to be seriously reflected vpon , by all his followers . But then he obiects , the word Jnuiolate is not in the Creed , and falls a taxing the latin Translatour with errour , for so rendring St. Athanasius's word ; which , sayth he , is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and ought to be rendred vndefiled . But I feare , the Bishop will here also be found in a mistake , rather then A. C. For first , Baronius shewes , in the yeare of our Lord 340. that St. Athanasius did himselfe compose and publish this Creed first of all in the latin tongue , namely when he presented it , as the confession of his Fayth , to the Pope and a Councill of Bishops held at Rome , whither he had been called , vpon occasion of some things layd to his charge by Heretiques : and with the acts of the sayd Councill was it registred and preseru'd , till in tract of time , it came to be publiquely and generally vsed in the Church . Now , the latin copie reads 〈◊〉 , and anciently euer did so ; lett our Aduersaries shew any thing to the contrary : and 't is euident by the Creed it selfe , that it was not this Fathers intention , to exhorte to good life , or to teach how necessary good works were to Iustification , or Saluation , but only to make a plaine and full Confession of the Catholique Fayth , concerning those two chiefe and grand Mysteries of Christian Religion , viz. of the B. Trinity , and the Incarnation of the sonne of God. 3. What the Relatour's reachis is in affirming , that 't is one thing not to beleeue the Articles of Fayth in the true sense , and an other to force a wrong sense vpon them , intimating , that this only is to violate the Creed , and not the other , I must confess , I doe not well vnderstand . For , supposing I beleeue , that is , giue my assent to the Creed , sure I must beleeue , or giue my assent to it , in some determinate sense , or other . Jf therfore I beleeue it not in the true sense , I must necessarily beleeue it in a false ; and what is that but to offer violence , or put a foreed sense vpon the Creed ? vnless ( perhaps ) he would haue vs thinke the Creed were so composed , as to be equally , or as fairly capable of a false sense , as a true . But this is not the first time our Aduersaries acuteness hath carryed him to inconueniences . It is therfore a naturall and well-grounden inference , and noe straine of A. C. to assume , that Protestants haue not Catholique Fayth , because they keep it not entire and inuiolate , as they ought to doe , and as this Father ( St. Athanasius ) teaches 'tis necessary to Saluation for all men to keep it : which is also further manifest . For if they did beleeue any one Article with true diuine Fayth , they finding the same formall reason in all , viz. diuine Reuelation sufficiently attested and applied by the same meanes to all , by the infallible Authority of the Church , they would as easily beleeue all , as they doe that one , or those few Articles , which they imagine themselues to beleeue . And this our Antagonist will not seeme much to gain say , roundly telling A. C. that himselfe and Protestants doe not beleeue any one Article only , but all the Articles of the Christian Fayth , for the same formall reason in all , namely because they are reuealed , from and by God , and sufficiently applied in his word , and by his Churches ministration . But this is only to hide a false meaning vnder false words . Wee question not , what Protestants may pretend to doe , especially concerning those few points , which they are pleas'd to account Articles of Christian Fayth , to witt , Fundamentalls only ; but what they really doe . Now , that really they doe not beleeue , eyther all the Articles of Christian Fayth , or euen those Fundamentall points , in any sincere sense , for Gods Reuelation , as sufficiently applied by the ministration of the Church , is manifest from their professing , that the Church is fallible and subiect to errour , in all points not-Fundamentall , and euen in the deliuery of Scripture , from whence they pretend to deduce theyr sayd Fundamentalls : consequently , they can in no true sense beleeue any thing , as Catholiques doe , for the same formall reason sufficiently applyed . To beleeue all in this sort , as A. C. requires , and as all Catholiques doe , were in effect to renounce their Heresie , and to admitt as matter of Christian Fayth , whatsoeuer the Catholique Church , in the name and by the Authority of Christ , doth testifie to be such , and require them to receiue and beleeue for such : which the world sees , how vnwilling they are to doe . 4. The like arte he vseth in his answer to A. Cs. obiection ( pag. 70. ) viz. that Protestants , as all Heretiques , doe MAKE CHOICE of what they will , and what they will not beleeue , without relying vpon the infallible Authority of the Catholique Church . He answers first , that Protestants make no choice , because they beleeue all , viz. all Articles of Christian Fayth . But this is both false and equiuocall . False ; because , as was iust now shew'd , they beleeue none with true Christian Fayth , as Catholiques ought ; or for the true formall reason of diuine Reuelation , rightly applied , but only for , and by their owne election . Equiuocall ; because 't is certaine he meanes by Articles of Fayth , only Fundamentall points in Protestant sense : whereas 't is the duty of Catholiques , and the thing by which they are most properly distinguish't from Heretiques , to beleeue all Articles , or points of Christian doctrine whatsoeuer , deliuer'd to them by the Authority of the Church , in the quality of such truths , as she deliuers them . Secondly , he sayes , Protestants ( with himselfe ) doe rely vpon the infallible Authority of Gods word , and the Whole Catholique Church . True , soe farre as they please they doe , but not so farre as they ought ; not entirely , as A. C. requires . And what is this , but to make choice , as all Heretiques doe ? Againe why speakes he not plainly ? If the Bishop mean't really and effectually to cleere himselfe of A. Cs. charge , of doing in this case , as all other Heretiques doe , why does he not say ( as euery Catholique must , and would haue done ) wee rely vpon the infallible Authority of Gods word , and of the Catholique Church , therby acknowledging the Authority of the Catholique Church to be an infallible meanes of applyinge Gods word , or diuine Reuelation to vs. Whereas to ascribe infallibility only to the word of God , and not to the Catholique Church , what is it in effect , but to doe as all Heretiques doe , and tacitly to acknowledge , that really and in truth , he cannot cleere himselfe of the imputation ? Lett our aduersaries know , it is not the bare relying vpon the whole Catholique Church , ( which may be done in some sort , though she be beleeu'd to haue noe more then a meere humane , morall and fallible Authority in proposing matters of Fayth ) but it is the relying vpon the Churches infallible Authority , or vpon the Church , as an infallible meanes of applying diuine Reuelation ; which can only make them infallibly sure both of Scripture and its true sense . A : C. therefore had noe reason to be satisfyed with the Bishops answer , but had iust cause to tell him , that though Protestants in some things beleeue the same verities which Catholiques doe , yet they cannot be sayd to haue the same infallible Fayth which Catholiques haue . But the Bishop here takes hold of some words of A. C. which he pretends to be a confession , that Protestants are good Catholiques , bidding vs marke A.Cs. phrase ; which was , that Protestants in some Articles , beleeue the same truth , which other good Catholiques doe . The Relatour's reason is , because the word other , cannot be so vsed as here it is , but that Protestants as well as wee , must be supposed good Catholiques . J answer , 't is cleere enough , A. C. mean't only this , that Protestants in some things beleeue the same truth with other people , who are good Catholiques ; which is very true , but farre from implying that confession , which the Bishop would inferre from him . Howeuer , I thinke not the matter worth standing vpon . The Bishop himselfe acknowledges A. C. intended 〈◊〉 to call them Catholiques ; and if vnawares some thing slipt from his pen , whereby he might seeme to call them so , what matter is it ? seeing 't is incident , euen to the best Authours sometimes , to lett fall an improper expression . 5. To as little purpose is it for him to tell vs , that next to the infallible Authority of Gods word , Protestants are guided by the Church . For , as wee sayd before , so farre as they please , they are guided by the Church , and where they chinke good , they leaue her . Wee entreate our Adversanes to tell vs , what is this , but to follow their own fancy and the fallible Authority of humane deductions in beleeuing matters of Fayth ? both which the Bishop doth so expressly disclayme in this place . To what A. C. adds , that by the Church of God he vnderstands here men infallibly assisted by the spirit of God in lawfully-called , continued and confirmed Generall Councils , the Relatour answers , according to his wonted dialect , that he makes no doubt , the whole Church of God is infallibly assisted by the spirit of God , so that it cannot by any errour fall away totally from Christ the Foundation . The whole Church cannot doe thus . Surely , his kindeness is great ; and the Catholique Church is much obliged to him for allowing her such a large prerogatiue and portion of infallibility , as that of necessity , some one person or other must still be sound in the Church beleeuing all the Articles of the Creed , or ( if that be too much ) at least all Fundamentall points in Protestant sense . For so longe as but two , or three persons hold all such points , it will be true , that the whole Church is not by any errour totally sallen away from Christ the Foundation . All the lawfull Pastcurs of the Church may , in the Bishops opinion , erre , euery man of them , and fall away , euen from Christ the Foundation , yea draw all their people to Hell with them , without any preiudice to the promises which Christ made to his Church ; if but two , or three poore soules be still found , whome God preserues from such errour , as our Aduersaries call Fundamentall . All is well ; the gates of Hell doe not prevaile ouer Christs Church ; though euery particular Christian , saue only some few in an age , perish by Heresie : the holy Ghost doth not cease to teach the Church all necessary truth , notwithstanding that in all ages and times of the Church , he suffers such an vniuersall deluge of all damning and Soule-destroying errours as this , to ouerspread the whole face of Christendome . 6. This is the infallibility our Aduersary grants the whole But A. Cs. words concerning the holy Ghosts assistance in lawfully-called , continued and confirmed Generall Councils , oblige the Bishop some what further to declare himselfe in that point ; wherein , though wee sufficiently know his minde already , yet it shall not be amiss to heare him speake . He vtterly denies therfore ( and that twice ouer for failing ) that Generall Councils , be they neuer so lawfully called , continued and confirmed , haue any infallible assistance , but may erre in their determinations of Fayth . Whether they can or no , hath been already sufficiently * handled , and the Relatours assertion confuted : so that there is noe necessitie of repeating what hath been sayd . All that I shall desire of the Reader here is , that from this and the former passage of the Bishop , he would take a right measure of his iudgement , and of the iudgement of all his followers , in this maine point concerning the Churches Authority , and to reflect how much they doe in reality attribute to it . They are oftentimes heard indeed to speake faire words , and to profess great respect to the Church and to Councils , especially such as be Generall , and oecumenicall ; pretending at least to refuse none , but for some manifest defect , or faultiness ; as that they were not truly , or fully Generall , or did not obserue legall and warrantable proceeding in their debates , etc. But lett them giue neuer such goodly words , lett them counterfeite Iacobs voyce neuer so much , here 's the touch-stone of their iudgement and inward sense : whatsoeuer they say . this they all hold , Generall Councils , how lawfullysoeuer , and how lawfully and warrantably soeuer proceeding , haue no infallible assistance from God , but may erre , and that vniuersally too , ( for so he meanes , as wee haue * already proued ) that is , in all matters and points whatsoeuer , Fundamentall or Not-Fundamentall . But you will replie , the Bishop grants infallibility to a Generall Council , to witt , de post facto ( as his words are ) after 't is ended and admitted by the whole Church . I answer , this is to giue as much infallibility to a Generall Council , as is due to the meanest Society , or Company of Christians that is . For while they iudge that to be an Article of Christian Fayth , which is so indeed , and receiu'd for such by the whole Church , they are euery one of them , in this sense , infallible , and can noe more be deceiu'd , or deceiue others , in that particular iudgement , then a Generall Council ; or then the thing that is true in it felfe , and also found to be true by the whole Church , can be false . In this indeed the Relatour is iust as liberall now to a Generall Council , as he was formerly to the whole Church , in * granting it not to erre , while it erres not . The truth is , he vainly trifles in the whole business , and dallyes with the Reader by obtruding vpon him a Grammaticall , or at best , but a Logicall notion , or sense of the word infallible , in stead of the Theologicall . For how J pray , or in what sense is a Generall Councill acknowledg'd by the Relatour to be infallible , euen de post facto , after t is ended , and ( as he will haue it ) confirm'd by the Churches acceptance ? Certainly , if you marke it , no otherwise , then euery true Proposition is , or may be sayd to be infallible , that is , hipothetically , and vpon supposition only . For surely no true Proposition , quâ talis , or soe farre as t is suppos'd , or know'n to be true , though but by some one person , can deceiue any man , or possibly be false . Jn this sense 't is a know'n maxime in Logique , Quicquid est , quando est , necesse est esse . Euery thing that is , has an hypotheticall necessity and infallibility of beeing , since it cannot but be , so long as it is . And is it not ( thinke you ) a worthy prerogatiue of the Church , to be thus infallible in her definitions ? Does not the Bishop assigne a very worthie and fitt meanes to apply diuine Reuelation to vs in order to the eliciting an acte , or assent , of diuine infallible Fayth ? Now , that this is all he meanes by allowing Generall Councills to be infallible de post-facto , is euident from his own words , which he giues as the reason of that his concession . For soe ( sayth he ) all truth is , that is , infallible in it selfe , and is to vs , when 't is once know'n to be truth . What , J say , is this , but to proclayme to all the world , that the decisions of Generall Councills are noe more infallible , then any contingent , yet true proposition is , though deliuer'd by a person neuer so much giuing to lying . 7. Finally J adde , that though A. C. speaks of a Councill sett down to deliberate ( as the Bishop vrges ) yet , when he styles it infallible , 't is euident in his principles , that eyther he meanes a compleate and full Councill , including the supreme Pastour of the Church ioyntly with the rest , and voting in Council with the rest of the Prelats , ( in which case his suffrage is a confirmation of their decrees ) or in case the chiefe Pastour be absent A. C. accounts it not a full and and compleate Councill , till his consent be had , and annexed to the votes of the other Prelats . Soe that the Relatour does but mistake A. Cs. meaning , when he talks of a Councill held , or supposed by him to be infallible A PARTE ANTE , when it first sitts down to deliberate etc. Neither doth A. C. vse any cunning at all in the business , but as much plaine dealinge as possible : nor had the Bishop the least cause to suspect , that the words lawfully-called , continued and confirmed were shuffled together by A. C. out of designe to hide his own meaning , or shrowde himselfe from his Aduersary . For are not the words themselues of most plaine and obuious signification ? are they not also of absolute necessity to be vs'd by him , for the full and cleere expression of his meaning in this point ? and doth he not , so often as occasion requires , constantly vse them ( or the like ) to that end , treating vpon this subiect ? what ground , or euen occasion then , could the Relatour haue to obiect cunning and shuffling here ? And yet by the way wee little doubt , but Generall Councils may , in a very true sense , be styl'd insallible euen a parte ante ( as the Bishop speaks ) at their first sitting down , and before any thing is so much as voted or deliberated vpon , by the Prelats ; much less confirm'd by the Pope ; to witt , by vertue of Christs promise ; by which they are sure , in due time , to be led into truth , and preseru'd from errour in the issue and resule of their deliberations , in the manner aboue-declar'd . euen as the whole Catholique Church is sayd by the Bishop to be infallible in Fundamentall points . For as Christ hath promised not to suffer the whole Church to erre in points Fundamentall , so he hath promised , that Generall Councils , consisting of the Head and Prelats of the Catholique Church , shall not erre in their definitions . So that to this infallibility the Churches acceptance is wholy vnnecessary . Nay it is certain , the whole Church disfusiue is soe farre from confirming , in any authoritatiue and proper sense , the decrees of such Councils , as wee in this case and controuersie style oecumenicall , that it selfe ( the Church difsusiue I meane ) is absolutely bound to accept and receiue their desinitions , and cannot without Schisme and sinne refuse to accept them . The following Paragraph is wholy spent in palliating obstinacy in priuate opinion , against the sense and beleefe of the Church , with the title and pretense of Constancy ; which for the most part is taken in a good sense , and held for a vertue : but here it cannot be so : and deliberately to doubt , yea to deny ( if a man please ) the doctrine that is defin'd and declar'd by the Church , to be matter of Christian Fayth , is styl'd a modest proposall of doubts . But wee haue * already sufficiently discouer'd the fraude and impertinency of these pretenses ; and likewise largely treated the whole matter of externall obedience , which the Relatour here againe brings vpon the stage . Wee only desire at present ; to haue some certain and infallible direction , or rule giuen vs , to know , when the resusall to submitt to a Generall Council is out of pride and presumption of a mans own iudgement ( which the Bishop himselfe condemns ) and when ( perhaps ) from better and more honest motiues . Was there euer yet Heretiques so impudent and past shame , as to profess , or auow that he contradicted the doctrine of the Church , or the definitions of Generall Councils , meerly out of pride and presumption of his own iudgement ? Doc they not all pretend euident reason and conuiction of conscience for what they doe ? What is it then , but a masque that may serue all faces , and a plea for all delinquency in matter of Religion , for the Bishop to talke as he doth , of probable grounds , modest Proposalls , without pride and presumption etc ? these beeing things , that all Heretiques pretend alike to , and with equall truth . But as for those words of the Bishop , that a man may not vpon very probable grounds , in an humble and peaceable manner deliberately doubt , yea and vpon demonstratiue grounds constantly deny , euen such definitions , viz. the definitions of Generall Councils in matter of Fayth , yet submitting himselfe and his grounds to the Church , in that , or an other Council , is that , which vntill now , was neuer imposed vpon beleeuers etc. I wonder what sense can be made of them . First , he supposes that a man may haue very probable , yea demonstratiue grounds against the definitions of a Generall Council , and by vertue thereof , be warranted both deliberately to doubt , no otherwise , then euery true Proposition is , or may be sayd to be infallible , that is , hipothetically , and vpon supposition only . For surely no true Proposition , quâ talis , or soe farre as t is suppos'd , or know'n to be true , though but by some one person , can deceiue any man , or possibly be false . Jn this sense 't is a know'n maxime in Logique , Quicquid est , quando est , necesse est esse . Euery thing that is , has an hypotheticall necessity and infallibility of beeing , since it cannot but be , so long as it is . And is it not ( thinke you ) a worthy prerogatiue of the Church , to be thus infallible in her definitions ? Does not the Bishop assigne a very worthie and fitt meanes to apply diuine Reuelation to vs in order to the eliciting an acte , or assent , of diuine infallible Fayth ? Now , that this is all he meanes by allowing Generall Councills to be infallible de post-facto , is euident from his own words , which he giues as the reason of that his concession . For soe ( sayth he ) all truth is , that is , infallible in it selfe , and is to vs , when 't is once know'n to be truth . What , J say , is this , but to proclayme to all the world , that the decisions of Generall Councills are noe more infallible , then any contingent , yet true proposition is , though deliuer'd by a person neuer so much giuing to lying . 7. Finally J adde , that though A. C. speaks of a Councill sett down to deliberate ( as the Bishop vrges ) yet , when he styles it infallible , 't is euident in his principles , that eyther he meanes a compleate and full Councill , including the supreme Pastour of the Church ioyntly with the rest , and voting in Council with the rest of the Prelats , ( in which case his suffrage is a confirmation of their decrees ) or in case the chiefe Pastour be absent A. C. accounts it not a full and and compleate Councill , till his consent be had , and annexed to the votes of the other Prelats . Soe that the Relatour does but mistake A. Cs. meaning , when he talks of a Councill held , or supposed by him to be infallible A PARTE ANTE , when it first sitts down to deliberate etc. Neither doth A. C. vse any cunning at all in the business , but as much plaine dealinge as possible : nor had the Bishop the least cause to suspect , that the words lawfully-called , continued and confirmed were shuffled together by A. C. out of designe to hide his own meaning , or shrowde himselfe from his Aduersary . For are not the words themselues of most plaine and obuious signification ? are they not also of absolute necessity to be vs'd by him , for the full and cleere expression of his meaning in this point ? and doth he not , so often as occasion requires , constantly vse them ( or the like ) to that end , treating vpon this subiect ? what ground , or euen occasion then , could the Relatour haue to obiect cunning and shuffling here ? And yet by the way wee little doubt , but Generall Councils may , in a very true sense , be styl'd insallible euen a parte ante ( as the Bishop speaks ) at their first sitting down , and before any thing is so much as voted or deliberated vpon , by the Prelats ; much less confirm'd by the Pope ; to witt , by vertue of Christs promise ; by which they are sure , in due time , to be led into truth , and preseru'd from errour in the issue and result of their deliberations , in the manner aboue-declar'd . euen as the whole Catholique Church is sayd by the Bishop to be infallible in Fundamentall points . For as Christ hath promised not to suffer the whole Church to erre in points Fundamentall , so he hath promised , that Generall Councils , consisting of the Head and Prelats of the Catholique Church , shall not erre in their definitions . So that to this infallibility the Churches acceptance is wholy vnnecessary . Nay it is certain , the whole Church diffusiue is soe farre from confirming , in any authoritatiue and proper sense , the decrees of such Councils , as wee in this case and controuersie style oecumenicall , that it selfe ( the Church diffusiue I meane ) is absolutely bound to accept and receiue their definitions , and cannot without Schisme and sinne refuse to accept them . The following Paragraph is wholy spent in palliating obstinacy in priuate opinion , against the sense and beleefe of the Church , with the title and pretense of Constancy ; which for the most part is taken in a good sense , and held for a vertue : but here it cannot be so : and deliberately to doubt , yea to deny ( if a man please ) the doctrine that is defin'd and declar'd by the Church , to be matter of Christian Fayth , is styl'd a modest proposall of doubts . But wee haue * already sufficiently discouer'd the fraude and impertinency of these pretenses ; and likewise largely treated the whole matter of externall obedience , which the Relatour here againe brings vpon the stage . Wee only desire at present , to haue some certain and infallible direction , or rule giuen vs , to know , when the resusall to submitt to a Generall Council is out of pride and presumption of a his own iudgement ( which the Bishop himselfe condemns ) and when ( perhaps ) from better and more honest motiues . Was there euer yet Heretiques so impudent and past shame , as to profess , or 〈◊〉 that he contradicted the doctrine of the Church , or the definitions of Generall Councils , meerly out of pride and presumption of his own iudgement ? Doe they not all pretend euident reason and conuiction of conscience for what they doe ? What is it then , but a masque that may serue all faces , and a plea for all delinquency in matter of Religion , for the Bishop to talke as he doth , of probable grounds , modest Proposalls , without pride and presumption etc ? these beeing things , that all Heretiques pretend alike to , and with equall truth . But as for those words of the Bishop , that a man may not vpon very probable grounds , in an humble and peaceable manner deliberately doubt , yea and vpon demonstratiue grounds constantly deny , euen such definitions , viz. the definitions of Generall Councils in matter of Fayth , yet submitting himselfe and his grounds to the Church , in that , or an other Council , is that , which vntill now , was neuer imposed vpon beleeuers etc. I wonder what sense can be made of them . First , he supposes that a man may haue very probable , yea demonstratiue grounds against the definitions of a Generall Council , and by vertue thereof , be warranted both deliberately to doubt , and constantly to deny such definitions ; and yet tells vs , he must submitt both himselfe and grounds to the Church , in that , or an other Council . Eyther his grounds are really such as he speaks of , viz. 〈◊〉 , certaine and demonstratiue , or only seemingly such . If only seeming such , what is it but to giue power to euery Phanatique and presumptuous spirit , to oppose Generall Councills and contradict their definitions , whensoeuer he fancies to himselfe to haue an cuident text , or conuincing argument against them , how foolish and fallacious soeuer it be ? If reall and true demonstrations , how can he that knows them , submitt himselfe and his grounds to a Generall Councill ? Can any thing be more absurd and vnreasonable , then that a true demonstration , and a true iudgement grounded vpon it , should yeeld to a fallible Authority ; such as that of all Generall Councils is suppos'd to be ? Againe , who shall assure vs , that the Generall Councill , to which he submitts , shall not desine the same article , or errour , which was defin'd before . ? In this case , eyther he is bound to beleeue the article de nouo defin'd , or he is not . If he be not bound to beleeue it , why doth the Bishop teach , that notwitstanding a man may constantly deny the definitions of a Generall Councill vpon monstratiue grounds , yet he is bound to submitt himselfe and his grounds to an other Councill ? if it be lawfull for him to oppose the second Councills definition , as well as the first 's , where 's his submission ? If he be bound to beleeue as the second Council defines , 't is euident , he is bound to preferre a fallible Authority before a true demonstration , and know'n to be such : which is not only absurd , but also impossible . 8. As to that text of St. Austin which the Bishop cites againe in his margent , touching the emendation of former Generall Councils by latter , wee haue * already answer'd the obiection taken from it . Jn the next place , he presents vs with a long marginall note , concerning Purgatory and the Councill of Florence ; wherby , from the testimony of Peter Martyr a profess't Aduersary , he would insinuate a doubt , as if the Councill of Florence had not been vnanimous enough in defining the beleefe of Purgatory . Whereas it is most euident , that the Greeks in that Councill , neuer doubted in the least measure , nor deny'd Purgatorie it selfe ( that is , the penall state and condition of some saythfull soules departed this life , before they enioyed God ) but only question'd , whether the fire of Purgatory were materiall and reall fire , or only metaphoricall : wherein the Greeks opinion , who maintain'd the negatiue , viz. that it was not materiall and reall fire , is not at this day held to be against Fayth . But it is beyond admifation strange , what his Lordship asserts afterwards , in contradiction to the Councill of Trent , that scarce any Father , within the first three hundred yeares , euer thought of Purgatory : then which , I thinke there can 〈◊〉 be aduanc'd a greater Paradox . 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 a Father of the first three hundred yeares ? Doth not he teach Purgatory , when , speaking of the publique customes and obseruations of Christians concerning the dead , he sayth , a oblationes pro defunctis annuâ die facimus . ( Wee make offerings in behalfe of the dead , euery yeare vpon the day of their death ) and speaking of what a Christian widow was accustom'd to doe in behalfe of her husband departed , doth he not say , b pro Animâ eius orat ( she prayes for his soule ) et refrigerium adpostulat ei ( and beggs of God refreshment , or ease of his paines for him ? ) et offert annuis diebus dormitionis eius , ( and euery yeare , vpon the day of his death , offers at the Altar for him ? ) Is not this cleerly enough to teach Purgatory ? Is not St. Cyprian a father of the first three hundred yeares ? and doth not he teach Purgatorie , when he sayes d ( speaking of the different states and conditions of the Faythfull departed ) Aliud est , ad veniam stare , aliud ad gloriam peruenire , ( 't is one thing to stay in expectation and hope of pardon , an other thing ( sayth he ) to come presently to glorie ; ) aliud , missum in carcerem non exire inde , donec soluat nouissimum quadrantem , ( T is one thing to be cast into prison , and not to come out thence , till you haue payd the last farthing ) Aliud , statim Fidei et virtutis mercedem accipere ; an other , to receiue presently after our death the reward of our Fayth ; ) lastly ( to take away all pretext of cauilling ) aliud , pro peccatis longo dolore emendari , et PVRGARI DIV IGNE , aliud , peccata omnia passione purgasse : ( 't is one thing ( sayth he ) for a man to be tormented with long paine for his sinnes , to his amendment , and to be purged a great while together with fire ; and an other , to haue purg'd away all his sinnes at once , by Martyrdome , or suffering death for Christs sake . ) Did not St. Cyprian thinke of Purgatorie , when he taught this ? The like is to be sayd of Origen , whose testimonies to this purpose are so plentifull and cleere , that the Bishop himselfe professes to thinke ( though most falsely ) that he was the first founder of Purgatory . See him , Homil. 6. in Exod. Homil. 14. in Leuitic . Homil. 25. in Numer ; and in * other places , but especially in his Commentary vpon St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans lib. 8. cap 11. where he expressly auoucheth , that concerning Purgatory paines ( or the purging state of soules after death ) noc man knows how long they continue , but God only : verum haec ipsa purgatio , quae per poenam ignis adhibetur , quantis temporibus , quantisue saeculis de peccatoribus exigit cruciatus , solus scire potest ille , cui Pater omne iudicium dedit . Christ , the iudge both of quicke and dead ( sayth he ) only knowes , how long time , soules remaine in Purgatory-paines . But that they are purged after death , by such paines , Origen deliuers , as the publique Fayth and beleefe of Christians . 9. Bellarmin therfore doth not more boldly , then truly affirme , yea euidently proue , e that all the Fathers , both Greeke and Latin , did constantly teach Purgatory from the very Apostles times : consequently , that it must be held for an Apostolicall Tradition or nothing can be . T is true , he diuides his proofs out of the Fathers for this point , into two ranks , as the Bishop obserues . In the first he reckons vp such , as affirme prayer for the dead ; because , that doth necessarily inferre Purgatory , what euer the Bishop vainly insinuates to the contrary . For if there were no other place , or condition of beeing , for departed soules , but eyther Heauen or Hell , surely it were a vaine thing to pray for the dead ; especially to pray for the remission of their sinnes , or for their refreshment , ease , rest , relaxation of their paines , as ancients most frequently doe . For the saynts in Heauen haue noe need of such prayers , and the Reprobate in Hell can receiue noe benefitt by them . So that , according to the doctrine and practice of the fathers in this point , 't is necessary to acknowledge a third place , or condition , wherein soules both suffer payne , ( as in Heauen none doe ) and are capable of ease , refreshment , and deliuerance from their paines , as in Hell none are . To this , the Bishop giues a very slight answer . For not beeing able to deny , that the Fathers generally teach it to be good and profitable to pray for the dead , he tells vs , 't is most certaine the ancients had , and gaue other reasons of prayer for the dead , then freeing them out of Purgatory . But I answer , if by other reasons he means such as were exclusiue of Purgatory , and inconsistent with that doctrine , the contrary is most certaine . Jf he means such as were consistent with the beleefe of Purgatorie , what doe they concern vs ? wee doe not conclude Purgatory ( as the Relatour here , and other of our Aduersaries commonly , but very falsely pretend , and impose vpon vs ) from all kinde of prayer sor the dead , absolutely and generally speaking , but from that speciall and particular manner of praying for them , which the Fathers vse ; namely their praying sor the remission of their sinnes , for the releasement of their paines , for their ease , comfort , refreshment , rest , deliuerance , and the like . From such prayers as these , wee conceiue Purgatory is proued ; and that so vndenyably , as the Relatour finding nothing himselfe sufficient to answer , was forc'd to putt vs off , to the late Primate of Armagh's answer to the Jesuits challenge . J haue , at his Lordships command , perused that answer , and must confess , that in the chapter alledged , by many allegations of antiquity the Author shews that , which none of vs deny , viz. that the prayers and commemorations , which the ancient Church vsed for the dead , had reference to more soules , then those only which were in Purgatorie ; namely , to the Patriarchs , Prophets , Apostles , Martyrs , and generally all Saynts departed . Doe any of vs deny this ? doe wee not all acknowledge with * St. Austin , that in respect of the Saynts , or Blessed in Heauen , such commemorations and prayers , as the Primitiue Church vsed for the dead , were thanksgiuings to God sor the glory which the Saynts had obtain'd , and as it were Congratulations with them , vpon that account : but in respect of other Faythfull departed they were Propitiations , that is to say , good offices done , out of intent and desire to make God 〈◊〉 and fauorable to them ? But whereas that answerer of the Iesuit , would by those allegations of his , insinuate to the Reader a conceite , that the Ancients vsed prayer for the dead , only for these two reasons , and noe other , viz. that the body might be glorifyed as well as the soule , and to praise God for the finali happy end of the deceased ( as 't is cleerly his intent to doe ) this wee must needs auouch to be most lowdly vntrue , and soe manifestly contrary to the doctrine and practice of the Fathers , as nothing can be more , The practice of the Fathers is to pray for the soule , and not for the body ; they teach that soules departed want our help , and not their bodies ; and that when wee pray for them , they receiue ease , comfort and refreshment by our prayers ; they teach , that wee obtaine pardon and mercy and deliuerance from paine for them , and that by the help of our prayers , they are brought to eternall rest and happiness . Jn this manner , and to these ends the fathers both commend and practise prayer for the dead , whateuer the Bishop and his Authour most falsely pretend to the contrary . Neyther doe the fathers always , or only praise God , or giue him thanks for the faythfull person departed , much less for his finall happy end , or departure ( of which for the most part they haue noe certainty ) but supplicate God on his behalfe , and deprecate by way of intercession the seuerity of Gods iustice towards him , as wee haue in part shew'n already , and shall further euidence in this following discourse . At present , wee desire the Reader to take notice of what this alledged Authour ( Doctor Vsher ) himselfe professeth , in the very beginning of the chapter , which the Bishop cites . Prayer for the dead ( sayth he ) as it is vsed in the Church of Rome doth necessarily suppose Purgatorie . If it doth , lett our Aduersaries shew , what kinde of prayer for the dead the Roman Church now vseth , which the ancient Church did not vse . Wee maintaine it is the very same ; and consequently , that as the prayers of the present Church of Rome doe , by our Aduersaries own confession , necessarily suppose Purgatorie , so likewise doe those of the Ancients . Againe , is not Dionysius Areopagita an Authour of the first three hundred yeares ? You will say ( perhaps ) no , and call Erasmus , Laurentius Valla , and some few others to witness , that the bookes de Caelesti and de Ecclesiasticâ Hierarchiâ , and de Diuinis Nominibus etc. father'd commonly vpon him , are not the works of that Dionysius conuerted by St. Paul , Acts. 17. 34. as is pretended , but of some other later Authour . I answer , * Catholique diuines haue so largely prou'd the contrary , and so euidenc'd the sayd writings to be the genuine and vndoubted works of that St. Denys mention'd in the Acts , that I suppose , few learned men doe at present , doubt of the matter . Howeuer it may suffice , that the Authour of these bookes is confessedly by all , acknowledg'd for a writer of great Antiquity : and more particularly in our present case , that the now-cited Primate of Armagh ( himselfe a famous Antiquary ) doth profess of him , that a in his writings he takes vpon him the person of St. Pauls Scholar , though for his own part indeed , he holds backe which the rest , and will not expresly acknowledge him for more then an ancient writer . I say then , be it St. Denys the Areopagite , or be it some other Authour of primitiue times doth not this ancient writer in effect teach Purgatory , when describing the customes of primitiue Christians for , and about the dead , b he tells vs , that when the body is made ready for buryall , the venerable Prelate ( or Priest ) comes , and makes a prayer ouer him ; in which he beseeches the diuine Goodness TO FORGIVE the party deceased all THE SINNES he had committed through humane frailty , in his life time , and to place him in the light and country of the liuing etc ? would not both the Archbishop , and Primate haue thought that man a Papist , who should haue made the like prayer for his deceased friend in their hearing ? 10. But lett vs see , how the Bishop endeauours to euade the authorities wee haue already alledged in proofe of Purgatory , together with others ; which Bellarmin brings to the same purpose out of the Fathers . First . Tertullian ( sayth he ) speaks expresly of Hell , not of Purgatory . But this is ( expresly ) a very poore shift : it beeing a know'n thing , that Purgatorie is commonly taken to be a part of Hell , and as it were , an vpper region of it , confining vpon the Hell of the damned ; and therfore not vnusually expressed in ancient writers by the generall name of Infernus , or Hell. Beside , that refreshment , or ease of paine , which the Christians in Tertullians time ( as appeares by his testimony already cited ) begg'd of God for the departed soules , cannot be vnderstood of any soule in Hell , taken in the Bishops strict sense for the Hell of the damned : for there is noe comfort , nor ease to be expected : nor yet can it be vnderstood of any soule in Heauen ; where there is noe paine , nor griefe . Wherfore , of necessity , it must be vnderstood of soules , in some third place , where both paine is suffered , and case , or refreshment may be obtain'd : and that is Purgatory . Secondly , he thinks St. Cyprian speaks not of Purgatory , as wee would haue it , because he mentions a purging to amendment . which cannot be after this life : which certainly is both a frigid reason , and a great mistake in the Bishop : for , as Gold is refined and amended by the furnace , so is a soule in Purgatory refin'd and purg'd from the dross of veniall sinnes , which rendred it less acceptable in the sight of God ; and consequently , she is therby amended , or made better then she was . And J would gladly know , of what place , or condition of soules St. Cyprian should speake , if he meant not to speake of those in Purgatory . For surely there 's noe amendment of any soules in Hell ; nor no suffering of paines , nor purging of soules in Heauen : and yet 't is certaine , he speakes of the state of soules after this life . Origen is granted to haue taught Purgatory ; but withall tax'd with errour concerning that point : which I will not deny . J only say , his adding to the true doctrine of the Church concerning Purgatory , that false opinion of his own , viz. that all , euen the Deuills themselues after a time , shall be saued , can be noe preiudice to the weight of his testimony , in that wherein he neuer was tax'd of errour , but acknowledg'd to haue taught according to the common sense and beleefe of the whole Church . Whatsoeuer Origen taught in other places , certaine it is , c 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 . d 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 , e 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 , viz. eyther by the chastisement of such paines , as they suffer after death , or by the prayers and alms of their friends liuing , and by the oblations of the holy Eucharist . St. Basil teaches the same doctrine with St. Hierome in the place f mentioned by the Bishop , expresly nameing Purgatorie-fire , in allusion to that commonly-alledg'd Text of St. Paul. 1. c. 3. and 't is euident likewise from the context of his discourse . For he speaks of sinnes already in part expiated by confession ( comparing them for that reason to wither'd , or dead , grass ) whose mortall , or eternall guilt , beeing remitted by the Sacrament , 't is out of question they can be noe matter for Hell-fire to feed vpon , but only for that of Purgatory . Whence also he styles this punishment afterwards , not an vtter rficetion , but an expurgation , as by sire . St. Paulinus indeed speaks only of Prayer for the dead ; but seeing he prayes , that such soules departed may be refreshed with the dew of mercy procured by prayer , who can deny , but he meanes Purgatory ? And why is not St. Gregory Nazianzen's a manifest place too ? who exhorting his Auditory to good life and Christian perfection , tells them , g if they goe not that way in this life , they will , peraduenture , be baptized with fire in the next . Who sees not , that he supposes for certaine , that there is , after this life , a place and condition of beeing , wherein soules are baptized , that is , cleansed and purifyed by fire ? For , as to the word fortè ( peraduenture ) which stands in the Bishops way , it relates to the persons only ( viz. his Auditory ) of whom it was really vncertaine to him , whether they should goe to Purgatory , or not ; it beeing possible for them as yet , to escape it ; namely by following good counsell , and applying themselues to perfection of holy-liuing . I say the word fortè ( whick this father vseth ) doth not import vncertainty . or doubtfullness , concerning the place , or state of Purgatory , but only vncertainty of their going thither , to whome St. Gregory then spake . As if I should say to some friend , take heed you doe pennance in time of health ; for if you doe not , 't is a bazard but you will goe to Hell. By this manner of speaking J doc not doubt of Hell ; that is , whether there be such a place or not , but J doubt of my friends condition , and feare his going thither . Nor could St. Gregory indeed speake otherwise , then by peraduenture , in such a case , without a Reuelation . Soe that Bellarmin had no need to omitt the word , out of cunning , as the Bishop pretends . what euer was the cause of its'omission . Lactantius followes ; with whome , what euer the Relatour insinuates to the contrary , Card. Bellarmin hath very good success : For does not Lactantius cleerly affirme of some Christians , that after this life they shall be sharply touched , and as it were singed by fire ? to witt , those , whose sinnes haue soe farre preuailed , that in their life-time they did not doe full and perfect pennance for them ? or can wee thinke he would vse such an expression of those who goe to Hell ; that they shall be only touch't and sing'd by fire ? Doubtless , perstringentur & amburentur are words of too light signification to express the wofull and irreparable condition of those soules , who are wholy plung'd and swallowed vp in an abyss of torment . He speakes therfore without doubt , of such soules , as beeing in the state of grace , doe yet depart this world , before they haue perform'd sufficient pennance for their mortall sinnes committed ; or doe carry with them veniall sinnes not repented of , which of necessity must be purg'd , before they can see God , or enter into the glorie of Heauen . Adde hereunto , that he calls them iustos ( iust persons ) which surely , is no epithite of the damned , or ( to vse the Bishops words ) of such as are for Hell. St. Hilary speaks home too ; for he h auouches such a fire , or afflictiue condition , to be endured after this life , as may expiate soules from sinne ; which cannot be sayd of the fire of Hell ; for that punishes indeed all soules that are cast into it , but expiates none . This authority therfore serues Bellarmins turn very well . For though the proper guilt of mortall sinne ( which is to exclude the soule eternally from the beatificall vision of God ) be always remitted in this life ; yet seeing there ordinarily remaines some temporall punishment to be suffered for such sinnes , eyther here , or in the other life , when this temporall punishment happens to be remitted to any soule after death , ( as oftentimes it doth ) 't is truly sayd , that sins are remitted ; towitt , as they render vs guilty , or obnoxious to such punishment . Beside , i Bellarmin ( with the common opinion of Diuines ) expresly teacheth , that veniall sinnes are remitted in Purgatory : which I doe not wonder our Aduersarie would take noe notice of ; since he could not but see , it did vtterly breake the force of his argument against this text of St. Hilary . Boetius is also for vs ; and though none of the fathers of the Church , yet a Christian Philosopher , and without doubt , in many other respects , so famous and worthy a man , that his testimony cannot but be held competent in any question of ancient Theologie and though he vses the word k Puto , ( which the Bishop fastens vpon ) yet without doubt he meanes eyther the same with Credo ( I beleeue , ) or J am persuaded ) as the word often signifies ; or else , beeing ( as the Relatour obserues ) not long before , a Conuert to Christianity from Paganisme , he vses a word of lasser signification , as not beeing as yet so sufficiently informed how to express himselfe in matters of Christian beleefe . Howeuer 't is patent enough , how resolu'd the Bishop was to cauill vpon this subiect , by the Criticisme he makes . For , if his obseruation be good , that PVTO is no expression for matter of Fayth , Boetius must be thought so meane a Christian , as that he beleeu'd neither Purgatory nor Hell , as matters of Fayth , seeing he vses the same word Puto in reference to them both . 11. The authorities of Theodoret and St. Gregory Nyssen are by the Relatour himfelfe consess't to be pregnant , and to seeme at least , to come home : yet he is resolu'd to shift them of so well as he can . To that of Theodoret he finds nothing to say , but that Bellarmin tooke this Authority vpon trust , and that the words are not to be found in scholijs Graecis , as Dellarmin cites him . 'T is answer'd , * the Cardinall had confess 't thus much before , and told his Reader , that he had not the words immediately out of Theodoret , but from Gagneius , who cites the words in greeke , and from St. Thomas , who in his Tractate against the errour of the Greeks , reports Theodoret , as commenting vpon chap. 3. of St. Pauls first Epistle to the Corinthians in these words : wee beleeue this purging fire , by which soules are purify'd , as gold in the furnace . St. Gregory also ( 't is confess 't ) is cleere for vs , speaking of a fire for purging of soules after this life ; which can be no other , then the fire of Purgatory , which wee assert : in which the effects of mortall sinne , and also veniall sinnes are purged . Neither is it against vs , that this purging fire is sayd by St. Gregory to be a fire that sleeps not , seeing his meaning is , that it goes not out , nor ceaseth to burn , till the soule be perfectly refined by it . Wee confess also , that St. Gregory proues the Resurrection of the bodie by this argument , because 't is fitting , the body which hath been partaker in sinne , should likewise be partaker in punishment . But how does this disproue Purgatorie ? Yes , sayes the Bishop : for this Father teacheth withall , that the soule cannot suffer by fire , but in the body . Jf he meanes naturally and by materiall fire , Weo grant it too ; but supernaturally , and by diuine power so ordaining it , wee auerre , that both Deuills and damned foules doe now suffer by fire in Hell ; though it be not matter of necessary Fayth , to beleeue , that soules in Purgatorie , are now purg'd by materiall fire . It sufficeth , that they suffer reall paines , reall affliction and dolours , whatsoeuer those be , and by what meanes soeuer applyed ; and that by suffering them , they are purged from their sinnes . What the Relatour adds here , concerning diuerse of the ancients , especially of the Greeks , viz. that they were a little too much acquainted with Plato's schoole ; if his meaning be , that they were thereby led into errour , or that they corrupted the Christian doctrine with the opinions of Plato , or any other Paganish Philosophers , 't is a groundless calumny , and extremely iniurious to those worthies . But our Aduersarie seemes not much to care what he imputes to the fathers , soe he may impose vpon his Reader , and make him beleeue , those primitiue and zealous Assertours of Christian verity , against both Philosophers , Heretiques and all enemies whateuer , held against vs in this point , or taught not Purgatorie as a part of Catholique doctrine . 12. But St. Austin has the ill hap to be vs'd worst of all . The Bishop makes him say and vnsay , and wauer in his doctrine touching this matter , as if he had been rather a nouice in the Fayth , then a father of the Church ; thence concluding , that the doctrine of Purgatorie was noe matter of Fayth in St. Austins time : for if it had been such , St. Austin would neuer haue spoken so doubtfully of it . Excellenty concluded ! But I answer , the argument proceeds only vpon a willing mistake of our Aduersarie , and an affected ignorance of St. Austins meaning in the places alledged . That he could not possibly be thought to deny , or doubt of Purgatory , quoad rem , that is , as it signifies a pen all state of faythfull soules departed , from which they are in time deliuered , is so euident , that wee referre it to the iudgement of euery indifferent Reader , after he hath seriously weighed these places ; not to repeate here those other , which Bellarmin cites out of him . a Constat animas purgari post hancvitam &c. ( this the Bishop himselfe also cites ) 't is certaine ( sayth he ) that some soules are purged after this life . If St. Austin held it certaine , how could he be thought to doubt of it ? b neque negandum est etc. Jt is not a thing to be denyed ( sayth he againe ) but the soules of the dead are holpen by the piety of their liuing friends , when the sacrifice of Christs Body is offered for them , or Alms giuen on their behalfe . To the same purpose he writes also lib. 21. de Ciuit. Det. pag. 13. lib. 2. de Genes . contr . Manich. cap. 20. Epist. 64. ad Aurel. Episc. Item in psalm . 37. Lastly , what he sayth Serm. 32. de verb. Apost . Orationibus Sanctae Ecclesiae , et Sacrificio salutari et eleemosynis , quae pro eorum spiritibus erogantur , non est dubitandum mortuos adiuuari etc. wee may not at all doubt ( sayth he ) but the Prayers and Sacrifice , of the Holy Church , with Alms distributed for their soules , doe help the dead , so as to procure , that our Lord deale more mercifully with them , then their sinnes haue deserued ; this beeing a thing , which the vniuersall Church obserues by Tradition from the Fathers . Compare this , good Reader , with that know'n maxime and resolution of St. Austin in his Epistle to Januarius ( that 't is noe better then insolent madness , to question , or dispute that , which the vniuersall Church holds ) and tell mee , if thou can'st possibly thinke , that St. Austin doubted of Purgatorie . The thing he doubted of , was not , whether there were such a state of soules after this life , as wee now style Purgatory , but only , what was the most proper and genuine sense of that place of St. Paul. 1. Cor. 3. 12. 13. etc. siquis superaedificauerit etc. and more particularly , whether the Apostle mean't the afflictions of this life , or those after this life , by this fire he speaks of . He doubted also , and offer'd it to consideration , whether soules departed might not be thought to be in part , tormented , euen after death , with the sense of such griefe as they suffer'd in this life , when they were depriu'd of things , which were most deare to them . Of these wee confess , St. Austin seems in some sort to doubt , but yet so little , that 't is euident , he always allowes it for a good and sound exposition of text abouesayd 1. Cor. 3 : 12. etc. to vnderstand it literally of the paines of the next life , and very * frequently so vnderstands it himselfe , without making any difficulty , or question about it , and without mentioning any other sense . All which , presupposed and well reflected on , it could haue been no hard matter , sure , for the Bishop to haue reconciled all that St. Austin deliuers vpon this subiect , without making him seeme to doubt of that which he teacheth , datâ occasione , no less constantly , then he doth the doctrine of Heauen and Hell : or else to speake contrary to himselfe ; which is neither beseeming , nor soe easily to be imputed to such a person , as this Father was know'n and confessed to be in the Church of God. Nor can I but wonder , seeing the Bishop grants , that St. Austin sometimes asserted Purgatorie , though at other times he left it doubtfull , why the Bishop and his party should make it such a necessary point of their doctrine to deny it ; whereas St. Austin neuer deny'd Purgatory . Whence is deriued to Protestants that light , which St. Austin , and the whole Church of his time , could not see ? They had the word of God then , as well as Protestants can pretend to haue it now ; and were much neerer to the Primitiue and Apostolicall times ; in which , euen by our Aduersaries acknowledgement , there was not that dross of superstition , which they complaine of in latter times . If it were a truth so important to Saluation , and so cleere in Scripture as Protestants now make it ; or the beleese of Purgatory an errour so derogatory to the merits and satisfaction of Christ , as they say it is , how happen'd it , that St. Austin and the Church of his time , could not see both the one and the other ? J must not omitt the Authorities of St. Cyrill of Hierusalem and St. Iobn Chrysostome , though the Bishop does in his answer ; the first of which giues testimony to the doctrine of Purgatory , in these words . c Wee pray ( sayth he ) for those amongst vs , who are departed this life ; beleeuing , that it is GREAT HELP TO THEIR SOVLES , for whome the Oblation of his holy and dreadfull Sacrifice , vpon the Altar , is offered . The second speaks thus . d Jt is not in vaine , that wee make Oblations for the dead ; it is not in vaine , that wee pray and giue Alms for them : doubt not , but there comes much good of it : and more towards the end , lett vs consider ( sayth he ) how great consolations wee may cause to the dead , by these our teares , and giuing of Alms for them , and by our prayers . Againe , e If thy dead Brother be departed with any sinne , ( that is , with sin not so fully repented for , and not so fully expiated by works of Pennance as it ought , and as wee haue often declar'd ) wee ought to the vtmost of our power , to GIVE HIM SVCCOVR by our prayers , supplications and teares ; and by procuring Oblations , ( or Masses ) for him . For it is not in vaine , that in the diuine Mysteries , wee remember the faythfull departed . Wee doe it to the end , they may receiue CONSOLATION ; and what wee doe in this kinde , is ( not any superstitious inuention of man , as the Relatours 139. Articles say it is , but ) the Ordination of the Holy Ghost . 13. What can be sayd more then this , to the full assertion of our Catholique beleefe in this point ? Especially , seeing out Aduersary himselfe grants , concerning St. Gregory and all the fathers after his time , that they vndoubtedly held Purgatory : so that for a thousand yeares and more , he confesses Purgatory was the generall Fayth of Christians . Jt would be considered by indifferent men , whether it be not sarre more likely , to haue been always the Fayth of Christians ; and that our fore-fathers were in truth frighted into the beleefe of it , ( as the Bishop will needs speake ) by noe other meanes , then they were frighted into the beleefe of Hell ; that is , by the Tradition of the Catholique Church , and the preaching of their lawfull Pastours conformably thereto . I conclude therfore , that Purgatory can be noe other then a doctrine of Apostolicall Tradition , if St. Austins Rule be good , lib. 4. de Baptism . cap. 24. which teacheth , that wee iustly hold all things of this nature proceed from the Apostles , if they be taught by the whole Church , and wee finde noe beginning , or first Institution of them in Councils Nationall , Prouinciall , or oecumenicall . Now wee challenge our Aduersaries to shew , when , or in what age the doctrine of Purgatory first began to be taught ; or ( which is all one ) when the doctrine of Praying for the dead , that their sins might be remitted to them , that they might finde mercy , and milder chastisement from God , refreshment , ease of their paines , help , and reast in our Lord etc. first began to be practis'd in the Catholique Church . Neither doth Bellarmins prouing it from Scripture , hinder the point from beeing a Tradition of the Apostles . For does not St. Austin , with Bellarmin and all diuines , not excepting euen Protestants themselues , acknowledge the Baptisme of infants , and doctrine of Originall sinne , and diuerse other points to proceed from Apostolicall Tradition , and yet endeauour to proue them also from Scripture ? much less does the Cardinall contradict himselfe ( as our Aduersary likewise pretends he doth ) by endeaucuring on the one side , to proue Purgatory by nineteene places of Scripture , and yet auerring on the other , that wee finde no beginning of this doctrine . For first , his assertion that wee finde noe beginning of this doctrine , imports noe more , then that noe first Authour of the doctrine of Purgatorie could be found , since the Apostles ; that beeing fully sufficient to his purpose ; which was only to shew , that the beleefe of Purgatory was an Apostolicall Tradition . And yet secondly supposing his speech absolute , that no beginning at all could be found of this doctrine in any age , eyther since the time of the Apostles , or before , yet should he not contradict himselfe , by thinking , or saying it might be prou'd by Scripture . Who doubts , but the doctrine of soules immortality is effectually prou'd out of the Gospell , and the bodies resurrection out of St. Pauls first Epistle to the Corinthians chap. 15 ? Yet will any man pretend , that the first beginning of those doctrines is found in the Gospell , or in St. Pauls Epistles ? was not the immortality of the soule and resurrection of the body beleeu'd by the faythfull before Christs Incarnation ? So that in truth the Relatour committs the grand absurdity himselfe , in arguing ( as he doth ) that if Bellarmin did finde it in Scripture ( to witt , the doctrine of Purgatory ) then he is false in saying , wee finde noe beginning of it . Certainly , to finde a thing to be taught , and to finde the first beginning of its beeing taught , is not all one , in any sober mans iudgement , except it be the Relatours . What he adds touching Alphonsus a Castro's telling vs , the mention of Purgatory in ancient writers is almost none at all , and that it is not beleeu'd by the Grecians to this very day , is in part contrary to himselfe , who hath already confess 't , * that from St. Gregories time , all the Fathers taught , and all Christians ( generally ) beleeu'd Purgatory ; and misunderstood in the whole . For certainly , 't is only of the name ( Purgatory ) and quality of the fire there , that a Castro and some others speake , when they affirme , that few of the ancients beleeu'd Purgatory : it beeing impossible to conceiue , they could be ignorant of what is both generally taught by the Fathers , and was vnanimously , without the least difference , or dispute concluded both by Greeks and Latins , in the Councill of Florence , touching the thing , that is , the penall state of some Faythfull soules departed , after this life . The Bishop might as well haue told vs , that those Authours pronounce the same , touching the Holy Ghosts proceeding from the Father and the Sonne , and of some other points , namely , that there is little mention of them in the ancient Fathers , ( to witt , express and in terminis ) but yet without doubt suppose , those ancient and Orthodox Pastours of the Church did euer teach the sayd points , as to the substance of doctrine and sense . His Lordships assigning Origen to be the first Authour of the doctrine of Purgatorie is a manifest falsity , already disprou'd by the testimonies of Tertullian and St. Cyprian , ancienter then he ; likewise by St. Denys the Areopagite , contempory with the Apostles : to whom wee may adde a St. Clement , an Authour of the same age , cited by Bellarmin : in both which , such prayer for the dead , as doth necessarily inferre Purgatory , is auouch'd to be a Tradition receiu'd from the Apostles , b Tertullian also does the same with St. c 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 two , A. C. could not doubt , but that really it was intended , and must necessarily be included in the sense of those words of the Apostle , how shall they preach etc. no less then the former . J say , that speciall annunciation , or preaching of Christian doctrine , must necessarily be included in the latitude of those words , wherby the Prelats of the Church doe sufficiently applie diuine reuelation to Christian people , for the grounding and eliciting an assent of true diuine Fayth : which , as wee haue often shew'n , cannot be done by any Authority , or meanes , which is not infallible . A. C. therfore takes not the whole , but only the principall part , or one principall kinde of preaching Christs Gospell , when he so glossed vpon St. Pauls words . And well might he so doe ; it beeing that , without which the preaching of all particular Pastours to their particular flocks , would be to little purpose ; for they could preach nothing but vncertainties ; or at best , but probable doctrine . As little cause had his Lordship to taxe A. C. of bragging , because he auerrs , that wee ( Catholiques ) vse to interpret Scripture by vnion , consent of fathers , and definitions of Councils . For , in a iust and true sense , soe wee doe : in as much as wee neuer decline , but alwayes follow that interpretation of Scripture , which hath consent of Fathers , and the definition of Generall Councils . Can Protestants say so much for themselues ? And yet our meaning is not , that noe exposition of Scripture is good , but what hath express consent of Fathers , or the definition of some Generall Councill to backe it : wee doe not deny , but euen priuate persons may discourse vpon Scripture , and declare their iudgement concerning the sense and meaning of it ; prouided , they neither hold , nor obtrude any sense contrary to the common consent of Fathers , or the definitions of Generall Councils , but hold , and doe all things with due submission to the Church . But the Relatour will proue from the authorities of Scotus and Canus , cited in his margent , that the Apostle in this place , speaks not at all of infus'd ( that is , of diuine and infallible Fayth ) but of Fayth acquit a , to witt , by naturall and humane industrie and meanes ; which beeing not infallible , nor requiring any infallible Authoritie in them that preach it , the Bishop thence concludes , that A. C ' . Gloss is not good , but rather that he grossly abuses the text by it . J answer first , the precedent discourse and reason giuen for the gloss , doe sufficiently discharge A. C. of that imputation ; leauing the note of a Precipitate censure vpon his aduersary . Secondly I say , the Bishops information abuses him ; there beeing not one word , or syllable * in Scotus , which denyes infused , that is supernaturall , diuine , true , Christan and infallible Fayth to be vnderstood in that Tex't of the Apostle . T is true , Scotus alledges the words in particular proofe of Fayth acquir'd , viz. of that Fayth , which is gained by hearing of particular Preachers , and depends only on their Authoritie . But yet he there maintaines ( with all Diuines ) an absolute necessity of Fayth infused , or supernaturall ; which , as the Bishop himselfe here proues out of Canus , must rest vpon some infallible motiue ; and consequently requires an infallible preaching to applye it sufficiently to vs : which is all , that A. C ' . gloss imports . Adde hereunto , that acquired Fayth beeing , according to the ordinary course of Gods Prouidence , prerequired and antecedent to Fayth diuine and supernaturall , ( as b Canus likewise here teacheth ) it cannot in any sort be suppos'd to exclude it . Lastly , by an argument a fortiori , 't is euidently concluded , that the text ought to be extended to diuine and infallible Fayth , as well as to humane and acquired . For if wee cannot beleeue , euen with naturall and acquired Fayth , without a Preacher , surely much less can wee beleeue , with infus'd and supernaturall Fayth , without one : still speaking according to ordinary course : which Preacher must also be infallible , eyther in his owne person , as all the Apostles were , or as he deliuers the doctrine , and performes the office , committed to him by an infallible autority ; such as is that of the Church , by whome , euery particular Preacher is deputed to deliuer the doctrine which she holds . I might vrge also the common consent of interpreters , who expound the place of noe other Fayth , but that , by which Christians are iustify'd and sau'd ; which surely , can be noe other , but supernaturall and infused Fayth . And this is most certain , whateuer * Biel , out of his priuate opinion , asserts to the contrary . But wee haue stood longer vpon this subiect , then the small importance of it requires : since neither our , nor A. C ' . doctrine touching the infallibility of Generall Councils , does at all depend vpon this text ; but is sufficiently prou'd by those other * already alledged to that purpose . 3. The Bishop in the next place tells A. C. he has ill lucke in fitting his conclusion to his premisses , and his consequent to his antecedent . The business is , because he seems , from the assistance of the holy Ghost to inferre infallibility . But J answer , our Aduersary hath not much better lucke so often to mistake , and peruert A. C ' . meaning . For certainly , A. C. does not deduce infallibility , eyther of Church , or Councils from any assistance of the holy Ghost whatsoeuer , but from such assistance , as is necessary for them both : and from thence infallibility is rightly and inuincibly concluded , as wee haue often shew'n , by the grand inconueniencies , which otherwise would vnauoydably follow both to Religion and the Church . What therfore he vrges , that the ancient Bishops and Fathers of the Church were assisted by Gods Spirit , and yet not held to be of infallible creditt , is beside the purpose : A. C. making no such inference , as the Relatour by this obiection , supposes him to doe . As for the question which A. C. asks , if a whole Generall Council , defining what is diuine truth , be not of infallible Creditt , what man in the world can be sayd to be infallible , the Bishop seems rather to slight , then satisfie it , when he sayes , I 'le make you a ready answer ; noe man ; no , not the Pope himselfe . No. Lett God and his word be true , and euery man a lyar ; citing Scripture for it . Rom. 3. 4. But what ? cannot Gods word be true , vnless the Pope and Generall Councils be held fallible , and subiect to erre , when they define matters of Fayth ? were not those words of the Apostle true , when both himselfe and all the rest of his Fellow-Apostles , liu'd vpon earth , and were infallible ? And if they were true then , why not also now , though the Pope and Generall Councils be held infallible ? Certainly A. Cs. question deseru'd a better answer then this ; or rather was vnanswerable by the Bishop , without deserting his auowed principles . For thus J argue ex concessis . Jf Generall Councils , defining what is diuine truth , be not of infallible creditt , noe man , nor men in the world , can be sayd to be so : this the Bishop grants . But then , if neither Generall Councils , nor any man in the world , be of infallible creditt , who sees it not to follow , there can be noe infallible creditt amonge men , noe , not in the whole Church , euen in points Fundamentall ? For seeing noe testimony can be of infallible creditt , except it be know'n ; and that it is impossible for any man certainly to know , eyther who those are that make vp the whole Church , in the Bishops sense , or that they doe all of them beleeue and testifie such a point of doctrine to be Fundamentall , and absolutely necessary to saluation , how is it possible for the whole Church , in that sense , to be of infallible creditt , or to giue infallible certainty to any points whatsoeuer , whether Fundamentall , or not Fundamentall , whether absolutely or not-absolutely necessary to Saluation ? To his Aduersaries demand , why a Generall Councill ; if it may erre in defining one diuine truth , may not erre in defining an other , and so in all , the Relatour answers by way of Confession , that it may erre euen in all , to witt , of like nature ; vsing this limited manner of speech ( in all of like nature ) on purpose to auoyd inconueniencies , and that he might , vpon occasion , take the aduantage of his wonted distinction between Fundamentall points . For so presently ( as it were by way of anticipation ) he tells the Reader , that of things not absolutely necessary to Sabuation ( or not-Fundamentall ) there can be noe necessity of infallible certaintie in the whole Church , much less in a Generall Councill ; and consequently , quently , 't is noe matter with him , though a Generall Councill be suppos'd lyable to errour in all such points , as well as in any one . But it sufficeth , that wee haue * already shew'n the contrary both for Church and Councill : namely , that in many cases , it may be absolutely necessary for the Church to haue infallible certaintle of points in their owne nature , not absolutely necessary to saluation ; or ( which is all one ) to haue such points , when brought into controuersie amongst Christians , infallibly defined by a Generall Councill : so as wee need not trouble the Reader here , with repetitions . Nor could it serue his turn , or iustify his assertion from beeing , in the highest degree , iniurious and derogatory to the honour and authority of Generall Councills , though it were otherwise : that is , though wee had not already prou'd a necessity of infalliblydefining , by Generall Councills , all controuerted points of Religion whatsoeuer , whether absolutely , or not-absolutely necessary to Saluation . For 't is certaine enough , the Relatour holds , that Generall Councills may possibly erre euen in points , that are absolutely necessary to Saluation , or Fundamentall , as wee haue heretofore * obseru'd , though he declines somewhat the open profession of such a doctrine . But this suppos'd , lett his adherents tell vs , what does his maxime ( if in one , possibly in all ) proclaime , but that a Generall Councill may , not only fall into errour , in defining some one , or other point of Christian Fayth , but euen totally Apostatize , and define against Christianity it selfe ? A proposition , sufficiently confuted by its own apparent impiety , and which may iustly serue for a second instance of our Aduersaries sincerity , when they profess fo much esteem and reuerence towards Generall Councills . 4. Wee doe not say , that Christ our Sauiour left infallibility in his Church to satisfie eyther contentious , or curious , or presumptuous spirits , as the Bishop would seeme to impose vpon vs : for 't is euident enough , by the experience the world hath of the seuerall sects and Heresies of Protestants , that such kinde of people will be satisfy'd with nothing , but the full swing of their own obstinate and erroneous phansies . Nor will wee , Catholiques , euer desert the confession and defence of it , because such people will not be satisfy'd . But wee tell them , Christ left that legacy to his Church , for these ends , viz. to guide the humble and sober-minded securely and certainly in the right way of Saluation ; he left it also to curbe the contentious , to restraine the curious , and to giue sufficient checke to such presumptuous spirits , as should dare , in matters of such high and difficult nature , as the truths and Mysteries of Religion are , to be wise in their own eyes , and to preferre their priuate phansies before the publique and generall iudgement of the Church , and their own lawfull Ecclesiasticall superious : none of all which ends could be effectually attain'd , or duly prouided for , without the sayd infallibility : which therfore , for the Relatour or any other , out of priuate opinion , to goe aboute to take away from the Church , is without doubt both intolerable presumption and errour ; especially doing it vpon no better grounds and pretense of reason , then he layes down here ; viz. because the Foundation ( that is , in his sense , all Fundamentall and absolutely-necessary doctrine ) is so strongly and plainly layd down in Scripture and the Creed . Stongly and plainly layd down , does he say ? Surely the Bishop when he wrote this , thought little of those swarms of Arian and Socinian Heretiques , who deny such points of Fayth , as he himselfe grants to be Fundamentall . To say those points are so strongly or plainly deliuer'd in Scripture &c. as not to require some other infallible authority , beside Scripture , to support and make good our beleefe of them , must needs argue a very strong preiudice , to any man that duly considers , how those controuersies are handled betwixt the Orthodox and them , and how equally those Heretiques bandy texts with their Aduersaries both wayes ; that is to say , as well vpon the offensiue as defensiue part ; as well by opposing the truth with the pretense and allegation of many Scripture-texts , as by answering and euading what euer is , by their Aduersaries , argued out of Scripture for it , or against them . So as indeed , a modest man ( to borrow a little of his Lordships own style ) may iustly wonder , whither the Bishop would haue vs to runne for infallible certainty in those points , if not to Generall Councill : which yet he will by noe meanes allow vs to doe . 5. But A. C. ( sayes the Bishop ) hath more questions to aske . His next is , how wee can , according to ordinary course , be infallibly assur'd , that a Council erres in one , and not in an other point , when she equally defines both , by one and the same authority , to be diuine truths . This may be thought a shrewd question too ; and the Relatour does a little discouer himselfe nettled by it , in telling vs , that A. C. turns Questionist here , to disturb the business , viz. which his Lordship had with Mr. Fisher , and indeed the Church , as much as he can . Howeuer , he answers the question by distinction , thus . If a Generall Councill erres ( sayes he ) eyther it erres in things absolutely necessary to Saluation , or in things not necessary . If in the first sort , wee may be infallibly assur'd by the Scripture , the Creeds , the fowre first Generalls Councills and the whole Church , where it erres in one , and not in an other point . Jf in the latter sort , 't is not 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 , a 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 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 . This , and very little else ( as the experience of all ages and times shew ) is the fruite that comes to the Church and true Religion , by allowing priuate persons this iudgement of discretion , or liberty to examin the definitions of Generall Councills . Not to vrge , that from this doctrine of the Bishop it necessarily and plainly followes , that the Authority of Generall Councils is of noe greater force , for the settling of our Fayth and the satisfaction of our vnderstanding in matters of Religion , then the testimony and resolution of any priuate man is , or may be . For if J be allowed to examin the grounds of the one as well as of the other , and may ( if in my owne priuate iudgement J thinke J haue iust cause ) as lawfully doubt , and deny the desinitions of the one , as the resolution of the other , wherein doe J attribute more to a Generall Council , then J doe to a priuate person ? Seeing 't is euident , that neither the one , nor the other haue further Authority with mee , or command ouer my vnderstanding , then their seuerall reasons , in my own iudgement , deserue ; and that , if the reasons of a priuate man appeare to mee to be more weighty and conuincing then those of a Generall Council , J am permitted freely and without sinne to embrace the sayd priuate persons opinion , and refuse the doctrine of a Generall Councill . 7. His asserting so confidently , that for things necessary and Fundamentall in the Fayth , wee need noe assistance from other Generall Councills , beside the fowre first , seemes noe less strange , and is sufficiently disprou'd euen by euidence of fact . For hath not the assistance of posteriour Generall Councils , since the fowre first , been really and de facto found necessary for determining matters of Fayth ? what doe our Aduersaries thinke of the fifth Generall Councill , or second of Constantinople ? was it not matter of Fayth , and necessary to Saluation , what this Councill defin'd against the Heresie of Origen and his Adherents ? what thinke they of the sixth , against the Monothelites was not the doctrine and beleefe of two distinct wills in Christ , defin'd by this Councill , in the Bishops opinion , as Fundamentall in the Fayth , as the doctrine and beleefe of two natures , defin'd by that of Chalcedon ? Againe , may not fresh errours arise ? may not some new vnheardof Heresie spring vp , corrupting the Fayth contradicting Fundamentall matters , in Religion ? Jf they doe , shall it not be necessary for the Church , that such errours be condemned by Generall Councils ? The Relatour pretends here that some that some of our own , very honest and learned men ( as he is pleas'd to qualifie them , when it serues his turn ) are of the same opinion with him in this point , citing in proofe hereof , certayn words ( as he pretends ) of Petrus de Alliaco , an ancient Schoole-Author , otherwise know'n by the name of Cardinalis Cameracensis . Vertsstmum esse &c. 'T is most true ; all things ( pertaining to Religion ) are well order'd by the fathers , if they were as well and diligently obserued . But first , here 's a great mistake . The words which the Bishop cites , are not the words of Petrus de Alliaco , nor any part of the booke which he wrote de reformatione Ecclesiae , and presented to the Councill of Constance , but of one Orthuinus Grauius who publish't it , with diuerse other small tractates of that nature , in his fasciculus rerum expetenilarum etc. printed at Basil. 1535. as any man may see that peruses that booke . Secondly , admitting they were , or that Petrus de Aliaco did in his treatise say the same thing in effect , yet were it little to the Bishops purpose . For the Authours meaning is , that those Fathers haue so well ordered all things in respect of the Mysteries which were then opposed by Heretiques , that if they were well obserued , there would be noe need of making new definitions in reference to the same doctrine . But he does not deny , but that vpon new emergent occasions , other Generall Councills may be necessary in the Church : nay the designe of his whole treatise is to shew , that how well soeuer all things had been order'd and determin'd by former Councills , yet by reason of the long Schisme that had been in the Church , and of many Heresies springing vp , the Authority of an other Generall Councill ( to witt , of Constance ) was necessary , as well to determin the controuerted points of Fayth , as to extirpate the Schisme , and all other abuses and disorders in the Church . With what truth then could the Bishop pretend , that Petrus de Aliaco is of the same opinion with him touching the no-necessity of making any new determinations in matter of Fayth by any Generall Councills whatsoeuer , after the fowre first ? And as for * Holkot what euer he may teach concerning Heresie or Infidelity , when the errour is not know'n to be against the definition , or vniuersall Tradition of the Church , yet doubtless , when it is know'n to be so ( and vnder that quality only wee dispute of it with the Bishop ) neither he , nor any other Catholique Authour , will deny it to be formall Heresie or Infidelitie , to hold it . St. e Cyprian , here likewise alledged , speaks cleerly of such matters , as were then vndefined , and were not , till a long while after , defin'd by the Councill of Nice . St. Thomas speaks only deminis f et opinionibus , as his words shew ( of small matters and priuate opinions ) which in no sort concern our present controuersie ; and wherein wee acknowledge ( with the Relatour ) Christian men may differ one from an other without breach of that one sauing Fayth , or Christian charity , necessary to Saluation . But for matters , which the Church hath found necessary , for preuention of Schismes , preseruation of vnity , and for vindicating , or cleering the ancient receiued truth from corruption and errour , once to determine by Generall Councils , how small and vn-fundamentall soeuer the points themselues were in their own nature , wee challenge our Aduersaries to produce one Catholique Authour of good name , ancient or modern , who taught , that Christians might lawfully disfer in such points after their sayd definitions ; or that they might dissent and beleeue contrary to what the Church had defined . This the Relatour should haue shew'n , had he mean't to deale candidly with his Reader , and not meerly to amuse him , by filling his pages with Authorities , cited to noe purpose . 8. Had not the Apostles ( those first-preachers of Christian Fayth to the world ) Reuclation from God , not only of things absolutely-necessary to Saluation , and Fundamentalls in the Relatours sense , but of all other diuine truths belonging to Christian Religion ? and did not they deliuer the one as well as the other for diuine truths to their immediate successours according to that of St. Paul. Acts. 20. 27. I haue kept back NOTHING that was PROFITABLE vnto you — J haue not shunned to declare vnto you ALL THE COVNSELL of God etc. ( as the Protestants translate it ) with command and obligation , that they also should both preach and testifie the same diuine truths to the world , entirely , and without defaulking of any part ? And did they not intend , that the like should be done by continuall succession of Pastours in all ages of the Church for cuer ? And how can the Church performe this , if she hath not sull and equall Authority to attest both the one and the other , and to condemn all errour whatsoeuer contrary to them ? How can she be accounted , in those respects , the Pillar and Foundation of truth , as 't is certain , euen by the exposition of Protestants ; St. Paul doth style her , 1. Tim. 3. 15. or how is she sayd to be a Faythfull Preseruer of that whole DEPOSITVM 1. Tim. 6. 20. committed to her charge , g as the fathers frequently profess and teach her to be ? J say , how is it possible the Church should be accounted , eyther a sure Foundation , Faythfull Depositary , Guardian , or witness of all diuine truth pertaining to Religion ( as she is , by Scripture and all Antiquity generally ) if eyther , through ignorance and ouersight , she her selfe might possibly happen to corrupt it ( as the Bishop with all Protestants supposes she may ) or that she wanted any necessary power and authority to prohibit them that would ? Whereas therfore the Bishop affirms , that want of vnity and peace proceeds too often , euen where Religion is pretended , from men and their humours , rather then from things , and errours to be found in them , J grant it to be very true , in those that will not relie vpon the Churches iudgement and authority , but vpon their own reason and interpretation of Scripture ; which is the practice of Protestants , and all Heretiques before them : and if the Bishops Adherents thinke it to be otherwise , lett them fairly make it appeare , that the disagreement , which is at present 〈◊〉 the English-Protestant and Roman-Catholique Church , proceeded not originally from the bad humours of English men , as much as the disagreement betwixt the Prelaticall and Sectarian parties in the sayd Church of England , proceeds not from the Prelats and their adherents , but meerly from the Sectaries ; who ( it cannot be deny'd ) alledge scripture abundantly , and accuse the English Prelaticall Church of errour and superstition , both in doctrine , discipline and worship , no less then they accuse vs of the same faults . 9. But the Relatour will now giue vs a reason why it cannot be necessary for the Church to haue power , infallibly to determin points not-Fundamentall in Protestant sense , although , euen by his own supposition , they be diuine truths , and theyr opposite errours dangerous to soules . His reason is , because St. Paul tells vs 1. Cor. 11. 19. oportet Hoereses esse &c. ( there must be Heresies ) whence he concludes ; 't is out of doubt , Christ neuer left such an infallible assurance , as is able to preuent them , or such a mastering power in his Church , as is able to ouer-awe them . But J answer , what consequence is here ? There must be , 〈◊〉 there will ( vnauoydably ) be Heresies ; crgo the Church hath not full powre to condemne them , and to vindicate the contrary truth ? To mee the contrary seemes farre more iustly and rightly concluded , viz. that because there will be Heresies euer and anon springing vp , amongst Christians , therefore the Pastours of the Church haue , and ought to haue , all necessary power to obuiate their proceedings ; and to preserue the flocke of Christ in the integrity of true Fayth : which ( as wee haue often shew'n ) cannot be done ; if the Pastours of the Church lawfully assembled in Generall Councills to that purpose , should eyther themselues happen to crre , or to determine the truth , withless then absolute and vnquestionable certainty . But as to the obiection it selfe , the Bishop cleerly mistakes our meaning . When wee say the Church hath power to preuent Schismes and Heresies , it is not mean't , that they shall not be at all , but so as they shall not be without iust controule and censure , so as they shall not so much as seeme lawfully and reasonably to be nor so farre preuaile by theyr beeing , as to peruerte the true doctrine of the Church . Heresies may be ; but the Faythfull members of the Church , hauing due care of themselues , and performing their duty well towards their lawfull Pastours , shall be euer fully secured against their snares , and none deceiued by them at least , not vnto damnation or guilt of mortall sinne , but such as through their own voluntary fault and negligence , suffer themselues to be misted by them . Could his Lordship possibly be ignorant , that the Church susficiently preuents Heresies and Schismes , on her part , when she certainly declares the truth , and rightly determins the matter , about which Christians began to contend , and to be diuided in opinion one from another ; when the duly censures and anathematizeth the contrary errour ? lastly when she vseth all lawfull and practicable meanes within her power to preuent and extirpate them ? This is preuention both necessary , and also sufficient , on the Churches part ; and this beeing done , if the effect follow not , it must not be ascribed to want of any spirituall power and authority in the Church , but only to the incorrigible pride , obstinacy and malice of her rebellious children ; which nothing , but the hand of God , can ouerrule and master . A thing most cleere and manifest in all ciuill Common-wealth's , prudently instituted : wherein , when seditions and rebellions happen to arise , ( and they doe happen sometimes in the very best ) wise men doe not thinke 't is for want of any requisite power and authority in the chiefe Magistrate , or state , to command and compell all men to be obedient to lawes ; but that it proceeds from those vnauoydable distempers , which by corruption and frailtie of humane nature , are incident to mens mindes , and which can neither be foreseen , nor quelled , in an instant , by any power on earth . J adde , that the Relatours obiection ( oportet Haereses esse &c. ) has as much force to proue the Church not infallible , euen in points Fundamentall and absolutely necessary to Saluation ; and would exclude the necessity of any infallible power and authority in the Church , to preuent errours contrary to such points ; which were repugnant euen to the Bishops own assertions . For , the words of St. Paul , ther must be Heresies , are as true of errours contrary to Fundamentall points , as other ; and there will be Heresies , more or less , in all ages , in matters absolutely necessary , as well as in things not necessary . Yea surely , according to the more common principles and opinion of Protestants , such errours only are properly to be esteem'd Heresies , which are contrary to Fundamentall and absolutely necessary points ; in regard they say , that sauing Fayth may consist with all other errours whatsoeuer . So that , if because Heresies must be , or will be , the Bishop will conclude , there is neither infallible certaintie , nor any meanes of infallibbe certainty in the Church for the knowing and determining the truth , in such points as are contested by Heretiques ( as he doth most plainly and euidently pretend to conclude , by his allegation of this text ) he must in consequence also confess , there is noe infailible certainty , nor meanes of infallible certainty , less in the Church , for the teaehing and beleefe of any points at all , euen of the most absolutely and vniuersally necessary . In the close of this Paragraph he taxes those of pride , who will not 〈◊〉 their private iudgements : where , with good conscience , they may and ought . Wee may easily diuine whom he meanes ; but are sure , he could not exempt himselfe and his adherents from the sting of that censure ; though he endeauours it by saying , 't is noe pride , not to submitt to know'n and gross errouts . Very good . But wee aske , what Sect , or company of Heretiques in the world , vses not this plea ? Doe not euen the Artans , Socinians and 〈◊〉 arians themselues vrge it as earnestly against Protestants , as Protestants doe against vs ? So that 〈◊〉 the Relatour pretended that the conuocation of English Prelates and Clergie adherent to them , should 〈◊〉 Dictatours , in the business of Religion , ouer all Christendome beside , and determin vncontroulably what is , what is not to be accounted gross and dangerous errour , I see not what his discourse here signifies . But whereas himselfe obiects errour to three Generall Councills at once , viz. those of Lateran , Constance and Trent , yea such errour , as in his opinion , gaue a greater and more vrgent cause of breaking the vnity of the Church , then any pride of men , wee shall not for the present taxe him with want of modesly : wee only tell his followers , 't is as yet , only saying without prouing ? and they cannot but acknowledge , that in point of morality 't is oftentimes very sufficient and very bonest for a man , barely to deny a crime that is obiected to him ; but it is neuer sufficient , nor euer honest , barely to obiect it . Beside , wee haue much more reason to think , that he ( a priuate Doctour ) is mistaken in his censure , then that those three Generall Councils were deceiued in the matters of Fayth , which they defin'd . 10. His acknowledgement that it is noe worke for his pen to determin how farre the necessary points of soule-sauing Fayth extend , would haue been ingenuous enough , had he not made it intricate and meander-like , by applying it to different persons , but kept it in its absolute nature , viz. what is simply necessary for all in which sense , he hath treated the point all this time . Now sure , it the determining this maine , and ( as I may say ) Cardinall difficulty , be not worke for his pen , neither was it , of any right , worke for his pen to draw vpon himselfe and his party , a necessity of at least beeing call'd vpon , and requir'd to doe it . who counsells them , contrary vnto , and without the example of any Orthodox Christians , to restraine the infallible Authority of the Church in determining controuersies of Religion , to they know not what ? or to such points as they neither doe , nor euer will be able certainly to know and determin ? For as 't is that only , which brings our vnanswerable demand vpon them , so till they haue answer , 〈◊〉 , and cleerly determin'd what those simply , or absolutely necessary points are , in which the Church cannot erre , wee must proclayme , they leaue all Christians , that well consider what , and vpon what grounds they beleeue , vnsatisfy'd , vncertaino , and doubtfull , how farre , or in what matters they are oblig'd , vnder paine of damnation , to beleeue what is declar'd by the Church to be diuine truth : and yet withall teach them , that they neither can with true infallible Fayth , nor ought , nor lawfully may belecue her in all she teacheth , because in much of it , she cyther erres , or is subiect to erre and teach them falsehood , yea gross and dangerous errour , in stead of diuine truth : which if it be iust , or reasonable in our Aduersaries to doe , or tending to any thing else , but to 〈◊〉 and perplex the mindes of all conseientious Christians with inextricable doubts and scruples , 〈◊〉 the indifferent Reader iudge . Nor can he to any purpose help himselfe here , by what St. Thomas and our Authours teach , concerning points , precisely necessary necessitate medij . For neither will the Bishop stand to that scantling . as he calls it ; that is , he will not dare to teach , there are no more Fundamentall points in his sense , then our Diuines teach , there are points necessary necessitate medij : nor is the case alike . For that doctrine hath place only , where inuincible ignorance excuses from further knowledge and from express beleefe ; whereas here both sufficient proposition , and actuall knowledge of all articles defin'd by the Church , is supposed , so as noe Jgnorance can be pleaded in excuse of the partie that erres ; and yet they teach , that of these articles ( all equally , so farre as concerns the Church , defin'd and propounded , ) some may be refused , but all the rest must of necessity , vnder paine of damnation , be beleeu'd with diuine and infallible Fayth ; neuertheless , giuing no certaine rule to know eyther the one , or the other . Is not this , Daedalus-like , to lead men into the midst of a Labyrinth , and there leaue them ? 11. Jn the following Paragraph the Relatour doth little else , but dally with his Reader in the equiuocation of words , Catholique , Roman Church , particular , vniuersall , one , holy , Mother-Church etc. vpon all which he makes a briefe descant at pleasure . But wee answer , much is sayd , nothing prou'd , nor so much as offer'd to be prou'd to any purpose . The Church of Rome , in the sense that wee maintaine , and haue often declar'd , is not only one , but THE ONE Church of Christ. In the sense that wee maintaine , she is holy : all her doctrine , ( defined ) all her Sacraments , all her institutes are holy . and tend to Holiness . In the sense that wee maintaine she is Catholique , or vniuersall , both for extent of Communion and Integrity of doctrine , with continued succession of Pastours . There is no Christian Countrie in the world , where there are not some , that acknowledge the Popes Authority , and profess the Roman Fayth . Nor doth the Roman Church now teach any thing as Fayth , which is contrary to what the Catholique Church hath euer taught . Lastly , wee haue shewed , that euen in the Primitiue Church , or first siue-hundred yeares after Christ , the Faythfull owned subiection to the Roman Church , and a necessity to communicate with her in points of Christian doctrine . Wee acknowledge the Church of Hierusalem is sometimes , by Antiquity , styl'd a Mother-Church , and the Head of all other Churches . But wee say withall , 't is meerly a title of honour and dignity giuen her , probably for this reason , viz. because the first Foundations , as it were of Christian Religion were layd there , by the preaching and Passion of our Sauiour ; and because from thencë , the first sound , and publication of the Gospell was made by the Apostles , to all the Churches of the Gentiles . It was noe title of Authority and power properly so called , as it was in the Roman Church . Jf our Aduersaries thinke it was , let them shew what Authority , or Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall the Church , or Bishop of Hierusalem exercised ouer all other Churches , eyther before it was erected into a Patriarchate , or after ; as wee haue prou'd the Bishop of Romes Ecclesiasticall 〈◊〉 ouer all parts and Prouinces of Christendome . THE LAST CHAPTER . Seuerall other Mistakes of the Bishop with a conclusion of the whole worke . ARGVMENT . 1. St. Cyprians text ( Epist. 45. ad Cornelium ) touching the roote and matrix of the Catholique Church , vindicated from the Bishops peruersions . 2. All Charches ( in St. Cyprians bpiniony ) one , by Communion with that of Rome . 3. Tertullian of the same sentiment with St. Cyprian . 4. The Bishops 〈◊〉 betwixt the Essence and Existence of the Church , not pertinent . 5. His 〈◊〉 touching the Ladies going to Church , so persuaded in conscience as she was , not 〈◊〉 . 6. Going to Protestant Churches in England , neuer held by lawfull Catholiques . 7. The Heretiques badge , viz. pride and presumption of ones proper iudgement , not well putt off by the Bishop . 8. The same charge cannot be retorted vpon Catholiques , in matters of Fayth . 9. Catholiques maintaine the same succession to be a marke of the true Church , which the Fathers did , viz. the ioynt-succession of persons and doctrine . 10. Stapleton not contrary to this , nor to himselfe , whateuer is pretended by the Bishop . 11. Temporary Contestations about the Papacy , no interruption of the Lawfull Succession of Popes . 12. The Bishop standing to his principles , cannot rid himselfe of A. C. Dilemma , viz. of making 〈◊〉 noe iudge at all , or euery man iudge for himselfe , in Controuersies of Fayth . 13. Infallibility , the true Foundation loth of Church and Religion ; with the Authours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Prayer for the 〈◊〉 . THe Bishop hath still a pieque against the Roman Church , beeing euer willing to lessen , as much as in him lyeth , the respect , which good Christians of ancient times , may be thought to haue born towards that Sea. Out of this humour it proceeds , that he will not endure , the Roman Sea should be styled the roote and matrix of the Church Catholique ; but ( to a voyde it ) takes occasion ( euen where he confesses none was giuen him , by his Aduersary ) to make a long discourse of no less , then eight or nine pages in folio , only vpon a text of St. Cyprian : which he calls indeed a difficult place , ( that he might not seeme to want some reason for his tediousness ) but I presume , an indifferent Reader , hauing obseru'd the text , and well weighed the Bishops comment vpon it , will iudge it difficult in no other sense , then that the Relatour found it somewhat a hard matter for him , to disguise and peruert it from its true sense . But a bad cause will plunge the best witts sometimes into difficulties , and J am apt to thinke our Aduersarie , in this digtession , contends more then a little , against what he could not , but in his owne conscience , see to be most probable . 1. For first , as to the truth of the storie , the occasion of writing that Epistle , wherein St. Cyprian is by vs suppos'd to style the Roman Church the ROOTE and MATRIX of the Church Catholique , was not that , which the Relatour setts down , but very different from it . The Relatour tells vs , they were St. Cyprians own letters , aboute which , Cornelius Bishop of Rome expostulated with him , and complain'd , that they were not directed to himselfe ( as of right they ought to haue been ) but to the Roman Clergie ; whereas in truth , St. Cyprian and his Colleagues had taken a resolution , not to write at all to Rome , by reason of the Schisme that was there 〈◊〉 , till they had first heard from their Legate ( the Dishops Caldonius and Fertunatus ) whom they had sent on purpose to Rome , to know the true state of affaires , betwixt Cornelius the lawfull Bishop , and 〈◊〉 the Schismatique . But those letters were written by certain Priests and others of the African Clergie , pertaining to the Diocess of Adrymettium ( where St. Cyprian happened to be at that time ) and in the absence also of the Bishop of the place . This appeares by the very a words of the Epistle it felse : nor does St. Cyprian answer , as the Bishop feignes him to doe ; to witt , as owning , or acknowledging the writing of those Letters himselfe , or that they were sent with his knowledge , but professes , the thing was done out of ignorance of what himselfe and Colleagues had resolued , and only by some in Africke , during the absence of their Bishop . Secondly , as to the words , wherby St. Cyprian professes to Gornelius , that he for his part , did exhort all that sayld out of Africke to Rome , that they should acknowledge and embrace the ROOTE and matrix of the Catholique Church , who can imagin any other thing should be mean't by them , but that he exhorted such people , when they came to Rome , that they should ioyne themselues to the partie and communion of the lawfull Bishop of Rome , because his Communion was the roote and matrix of the Church , and haue nothing to doe with the Schismatiques ? The Bishop would haue vs thinke , he mean't only to exhort them in generall to acknowledge and adhere to the vnity of the Catholique Church , which though wee deny not but it may be , in some sense , term'd the roote and matrix of the Church , yet surely in this place , it can be thought little less then friuolous for St. Cyprian so especially to exhort those trauellers to acknowledge , that vnity is the roote of the Church . Beside , what satisfaction , or iust apologie could St. Cyprian thinke it would be to Cornelius , ( already somewhat offended with him , though by mistake , for not duly acknowledging his Authority ) to tell him , that he exhorted all people that came out of Africke to Rome , that they , should acknowledge vnity to be the roote of the Church , or that they should keep the vnity of the Church in generall , without specifying his communion , or the communion of the lawfull Bishop of Rome in particular ? The acknowledgement then of the roote and matrix of the Church , which St. Cyprian here meanes , and exhorts good Christians to make and constantly stand to , when they came to Rome , hath doubtless something in it more speciall then this ; that is to say , it must relate to that , which euen by St. Cyprians own iudgement b elsewhere deliuer'd , is the roote and matrix of the Churches vnity ; to witt , the lawfull Successour of St. Peter , to whome the Church it selfe owes her vnity , and aboute whome , there was at that time dispute and controuersie , and a doubt rais'd amonge Christians at Rome . So that with very good reason , St. Cyprian might exhort such as sayl'd 〈◊〉 , to adhere to him , and acknowledge him as beeing indeed the roote and matrix of Ecclesiasticall vnity ; as likewise to disown and reiect the partie they should finde auerse to him . This indeed was a conuenient subiect of exhortation , and well worthy of St. Cyprians charitie and zeale ; but that he should exhort them to any thing else in this place , or noe more then the Relatour will seeme to thinke , is wholy incredible . But the Bishop conceiues , it could not be St. Cyprians meaning and intention here , to teach , that the Sea of Rome is the roote and matrix of the Catholique Church . Why ? His reason is , because that there was at this time , an open Schisme at Rome ; two Bishops Cornelius and Nouatian ; two Congregations , which respectiuely attended and obserued them : soe that a perplexed question must needs haue diuided theyr thoughts , which of these two had been the roote and matrix of the Catbolique Church . I answer first , supposing it had been , for a while , really doubtfull to St. Cyprian and those of Africke , which of the two Bishops of Rome ( Cornelius or Nouatianus ) were the right and lawfull Bishop : yet to those that were at Rome , and vnderstood the true and certaine carriage of affaires , touching their respectiue elections , it was not doubtfull ; at Rome , without question , the truth concerning this mater was sufficiently known . Now wee say , St. Cyprians intent , in the words alledged was not ( precisely ) to exhort people to adhere eyther to Cornelius , or Nouatianus , in particular and by name ; but to adhere to him , they should for certaine finde , by the generall report and iudgement of the Faythfull at Rome , to haue been lawfully and Canonically chosen Bishop of that Church , and not to ioyne themselues to him , that was chosen Schismatically . Secondly I answer , 't is not so certain as the Relatour supposes , whether at the writing of this very Epistle , it were really doubtfull to St. Cyprian himselfe , which of the two , Cornelius or Nouatianus , were the true and lawfull Bishop of Rome : yea vnless the Publishers of St. Cyprians Epistles haue by mistake inuerted the order of them , the contrary seemes to be cleere ; because by the 41. 42. 44. all precedent to this alledged by the Bishop , it manifestly appeares , that both St. Cyprian and his Colleagues had been already , by intelligence from Rome , so fully satisfy'd touching the lawfull election of Cornelius , that they both denyed c Communion to the Legats of Nouatian sent into Africke , d and also refus'd to heare their accusations against Cornelius : though in regard of the Nouatian faction in Africke , they thought good to send their Legats to Rome to be more paticularly inform'd of the business , e and did not require the people of their respectiue Prouinces , publiquely to acknowledge Cornelius for Pope , till they had receiu'd the report of theyr own Legats from Rome . Now this suppos'd , what should hinder but St. Cyprian might priuately exhort passengers to Rome , not only to acknowledge the lawfull Bishop of that Church , but euen Cornelius by name , notwithstanding the Schisme , that was by some raised against him . Wherfore , the Bishops following deuise , viz. that St. Cyprian should require all strangers trauelling to Rome , to suspend their Communion there , that is , to communicate neither with Cornelius , nor Nouatianus , till they saw , how the Catholique Church would incline to approue , or disapproue , their respectiue elections ( to speake truth ) is but an ayery fiction ; it beeing by St. Cyprian and his Colleagues presum'd to be euen then sufficiently know'n and certaine at Rome , which of the two was lawfully chosen Bishop : otherwise , to what purpose should they send their Legats out of Africke to be certainly inform'd of the truth touching that matter ? J adde , when , or how could the Catholique Church declare her iudgement in the case so authentically , as to oblige all persons to acquiescence ? would the Bishop haue had all Christian strangers to suspend their communion both from the one and the other , till a Generall Councill had determin'd the controuersie ? or how could a Councill possibly determine it , but by and vpon such grounds , as did already make it vnquestionable at Rome , which of the two was the true Pope ? Wee acknowledge indeed , with Baronius here cited By the Bishop , that St. Cyprian and his Colleagues did for a while suspend their Communion from both parties ; which vpon this occasion they might iustly doe ; yet not separate from the Roman Church , as the Relatour , too hastily inferres . For it was for a while , as it were sede vacante to them in Africke , till they had receiu'd sufficient information who was lawfull Bishop of that Church : which as soone as euer they had obtain'd , they shew'd by their practice , how necessary they held it , to be in Communion with him . St. Cyprian then did very well to exhort all Christians , that had occasion to goe to Rome , to acknowledge and sticke close to the roote and matrix of the Church , that is , not to suffer themselues to be draw'n into Schisme , or to side with the Schismatiques , but Constantly to adhere to the true and lawfull Bishop of the Roman Church . And as this was a proper exhortation for St. Cyprian to make , so was it also a iust and sufficient Apologie for him to Cornelius , as shewing that he did neither disowne the Sea Apostolique , nor slight the true Bishop thereof . Whereas , if wee suppose him to meane only , according to the Bishops exposition of his words , that people should acknowledge and hold the vnity of the Catholique Church in generall , but suspend their Communion both with Nouatian and Cornelius too , till the Church herselfe should determin the controuersie , what respect doth he shew to the Apostolique Sea and its lawfull Bishop , more then he doth to an Hereticall party , and the Schismatique which they followed ? Beside , this imaginary suspension of Communion , till the Catholique Church should declare her approbation or disapprouement of the sayd elections , is cleerly refuted by the very Epistle , which the Bishop cites : wherein , St. Cyprian and his Colleagues profess in esfect , that they did not expect any such declaration of the Church , but that vpon the first report , or answer of their Legats from Rome touching the election passed , letters were presently to be sent , to all the Bishops of Africa , to suspend their Communion noe longer , e but to acknowledge Cornelius the lawfully-elect Bishop of Rome , and his Communion to be the vnion of the Church . 2. By the way , good Reader , I pray , obserue and iudge , whether St. Cyprian doth not here sufficiently expound himselfe , and shew what he meanes by those words roote and matrix of the Catholique Church , when speaking of the Communion of the Pope , he plainly pronounces that it is the vnity of the Church . What is this but to say with vs , and directly contrary to the Relatours Gloss , that it is the roote and matrix of the Church ? For , seeing the forme , or at least the most formall and essentiall propertie of the Church , is vnity in the profession of the true Fayth , if the Popes communion be that , which giues vnity to the Chnrch , and tyes all together in the profession of the true Fayth ( as St. Cyprian here affirmes it to be ) sure , noe man can be so vnreasonable , as to thinke it deserues not to be styled the roote and matrix of the Church . Not to vrge , that in these very Epistles St. Cyprian blames the Schismatiques at Rome , for their endeauouring to create a new Bishop there , against one that was already lawfully elected and ordain'd , vpon this ground , that by so doing , they did , as much as in them lay , procure Ecclesiam alteram institui ( the forming of an other Church ) which , sayth he , nefas est nec licet fieri ( may not in any wise be attempted ) telling them , that their preceedings herein , were contra Institutionis Catholicae vnitatem , ( contrary to that vnity , in which all true Catholique Christians were instructed , by the very principles of Catholique Religion , to hold and maintaine ) that it was contra Sacramentum semel traditum diuinae dispositionis & Catholicae vnitatis ( against that Order or Authority , which God , once for all , appointed in his Church , for the preseruation of Catholique vnity and peace amongst Christians . ) likewise , not to vrge , that in other places also , St. Cyprian doth in effect style the Popes chaire the Center , * from whence Ecclesiasticall vnity is deriued ; that the Primacy was therfore giuen by Christ to St. Peter , that there might be ONE Church and ONE chaire ; and that he cannot be in the Church , who deserts the Chaire of St. Peter . Lastly , not to vrge the confession euen of the Schismatiques themselues ( some of them at least ) voluntarily , yet solemnly made , when they returned to the Popes obedience : h wherby they profess't , that as God is ONE our Lord Iesus Christ ONE ( whome they had lastly confessed in prison ) and the holy Ghost ONE ; so likewise in the Catholique Church , there ought to be acknowledg'd by all , ONE BISHOP viz. the Bishop of the Roman Church , to whose obedience and Communion they then returned . What are all these testimonies but so many euident conuictions and demonstrations of the Relatours huge mistaking , ( not to say any worse ) when he pretends , that by the roote and matrix of the Church , St. Cyprian vnderstands noe more , but the vnity of the Church in generall ? nor are they any whit infringed by what he brings out of St. Cyprians Epistle to Iubaianus written against the Nouatians , who durst rebaptize Catholiques : in which Epistle St. Cyprian hath these words , WEE ARE THE HEAD OF BAPTISME . What makes this against vs ? For first , the Bishop himselfe acknowledges , that by WEE , St. Cyprian doth not vnderstand his own person , or Church precisely , but includes all other particular true Churches , and chiefly the Roman , where Nouatian himselfe was baptized . The Head of Baptisme then in St. Cyprians meaning , are all true Churches , as they stand in due subordination and Communion vnited with the Roman , and not otherwise : which wee willingly grant . But yet it followes not from hence ( as the Bishop would haue it ) that it is all one to be head , or roote of Baptisme , and to be head and roote of the Church . For the whole Church , as one by Communion with the Sea of Rome , may properly enough be styled the head of Baptisme , which signifies noe more , then that the chiefe and ordinary power of baptizing , is in the Catholique Church : but it will neuer be proper to say , the Church is the head and roote of the Church ; for that were to make the whole to be only a principall part ; which is absurd . Now that St. Cyprian did hold all true Churches to be ONE , by Communion with the Roman Bishop and Church , is sufficiently euidenc'd by what is aboue sayd . Nor can he with reason be vnderstood in any other sense , when he speakes those words in the beginning of that period cited by the Bishop , Nos qui Ecclesiae vnius caput et radicem tenemus , etc. For as by Ecclesiae vnius it will not be denyed , but he meanes the Church Catholique , soe by the words caput et radicem ( if wee expound him with conformity to his already cited assertions ) wee cannot possibly vnderstand any thing else , but the Bishop of Rome and his Sea : the one , as head ruling and commanding by Authority : the other , as matrix , by Communion , embracing and comprehending all true Christians , or the whole Catholique Church on earth . Beside this , 't is very obseruable what the Relatour himselfe alledges , and concludes out of an other Epistle of St. Cyprian , viz. that St. Cyprian and the Bishops of Africke sent their Legats to Rome , on purpose to bring the ` Nouatians , that is , the Schismaticall partie there , to the vnity and Communion of the Church vniuersall , but that by reason of the obstinacy and stiffness of those Schismatiques , their labour was lost . Now ( for ought appeares to the contrary by the sayd Epistle ) the reduction of the Nouatians to the Churches vnity ( whereof by the Bishops own confession St. Cyprian there speaks ) was nothing else , but the bringing them to obedience and Communion with Cornelius the lawfull Bishop of Rome , as the Relatour himselfe also intimates : and consequently , it must be acknowledged , there is something in resisting and opposing the lawfull Bishop of Rome , which hath greater contrariety to the vnity of the Church , then there is in resisting and opposing any other particular Bishop . And if it were otherwise , why should all the Churches of Africa esteeme themselues , and the whole Church soe concerned in it ? why should they send Bishops of their own , on purpose to Rome , to reduce the Schismatiques , with so much diligence and care , to the obedience of their lawfull Bishop ? what reason can be giuen of this , but that they foresaw and fear'd , that if a Schisme proceeded there , the whole Church would , in a short time , come to be inuolued in it , and diuided into two seuerall parties , by acknowledging two heads , or Roman Bishops ? When Nouatus sett vp Maiorinus , the first Donatist Bishop , at Carthage , against Caecilian the lawfull Bishop ; and when Meletius and Paulinus had their seuerall parties at Antioch ; likewise , when Anthimus , an Eutychian Heretique , was intruded into the Sea of 〈◊〉 against the Catholique Bishop thereof , there was noe such thing fear'd as breaking the Generall vnity of the Church ; there beeing still a visible and certainly-know'n head of the Church Catholique , viz. the Bishop of Rome , who by his authority , kept all in vnity , and first or last rectify'd and composed those dissentions . But here , of necessity it would haue been otherwise . For the breach of Ecclesiasticall vnity beeing in the very head , fountaine , and roote thereof , would ( vnless preuented ) vnauoydably , in no long time , spread it selfe ouer the whole Church : and thence it was , that the Bishops of Africa thought it necessary , with extraordinary diligence , to make vp the breach there , and reduce the separated parties to vnity . 3. Tertullian ( whome the Relatour also cites ) makes nothing against vs. For he only affirms , that all those many and great Churches founded by the Apostles , are that ONE Church , which is from the Apostles ; and that they are all FIRST ( or primitiue ) Churches , and all of them APOSTOLICALL , because they doe all of them allow and approue ONE VNITY ; that is , ( say wee ) an vnity deriued from one , and center'd in one ; who is no other , but St. Peters lawfull Successor , the Bishop of Rome ; by subordination vnto whome in Fayth and discipline , as vnto the vniuersall Pastour of the Church , all particular Churches are made one , and doe in effect continue one and the same Catholique , Primitiue , and Apostolicall Church , or Churches , which the Apostles first of all founded . So that , till our aduersaries either disproue this gloss , or giue a better , wee shall make no scruple to assert , that in Tertullians iudgement as well as St. Cyprians , Rome ( or the Roman Church ) may well be termed the roote and matrix of all other Churches , because none remaine in the Catholique Church ; but by vnity with Rome and the Bishop thereof . Nor matters it , that Pamelius reckons vp diuerse Churches ( which he calls Originall and Mother-Churches ) before the Roman . For as to the name ( Originall and Mother-Churches ) wee haue giuen the reason of it in the precedent chapter , when wee spake of the Church of Hierusalem : and for the thing , viz. that he reckons . Rome in the last place ( as if therfore the Church of Rome were to be accounted inferiour to those other ) wee answer , his Lordship would neuer haue made this obseruation * twice , had he , first consulted the Master of Ceremonies about it . For he certainly , would haue resolu'd him , that in marshalling dignityes subordinate one to an other ( as the case was here , all the particular Churches mentioned by Pamelius viz. Smyrna , ( Philippi , Corinth , Ephesus , beeing subordinate to Rome ) the Principall , or Souereign is to be ranked in the last place . Doth Pamelius , or Tertullian himselfe , acknowledge the like priuiledges and authority in regard of the whole Church , to belong to those other originall and Mother-Churches , which they doe to the Roman ? As for that irreligious Acte of the Emperour Adrian , ( which the Bishop mentions ) 't is but too much imitated by Protestants . For as he sett vp the Image of Jupiter in the very place where Christ suffered ; and as he profaned Bethlehem with erecting the Temple of Adonis , as thinking to destroy Christian Religion , by laying wast the place where it was first founded ; soe doe our Aduersaries plant all their batteries against Rome : persuading themselues , that if they could beate downe that chiefe fortress of the Catholique Church , they should soone destroy our whole Church . But as that Heathenish Emperour ( Adrian ) did , soe doe these enemyes of God and true Religion ; they labour in vayne . For the Church is inuincible , the gates of Hell it selfe cannot preuaile against her : and a as St. Austin long since obserued , all Heresies whatsoeuer doe indeed goe out of her , beeing cutt off from her , as vnprofitable branches from the vine . But the Church herselfe always remaines in her ROOTE , in own VINE , in her own CHARITY , viz. by remayning always vnited with the Bishop of Rome . Jn the most principall and proper sense then , the Roman Church ( and that only ) is both the rocke and roote of the Church-Catholique , as beeing by institution and appointment of Christ , principally and solely ordain'd to supplie the place , and performe the office both of rocke and roote to all other Churches whatsoeuer ; how be it , in a less principall and limited sense , in reference to particulars only , wee doe not deny , but some other particular Church , or Churches beside the Roman , may sometimes be are the style , that is , be called rocke , or roote . Thus ( for example ) wee confesse St. Austin , cited by the Bishop , styles the Eastern Churches the roote , in regard of the Africans . k Pars Donati non consider at se praecisant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 RADICE Orientalium Ecclesiarum . But the reason is 〈◊〉 , 't was eyther because the Eastern Churches were a larger and more noble part of the Church vniuersall , then the Africans were ; or because the Africans first receiued the Gospell from them , as St. Austin l also testifieth in the same place : and not , that they were such a roote of the whole Catholique Church as Kome was , or in all properties pertaining to a roote , equall to Rome . That 's only the Relatours voluntary supposition and mistaken inference . 4. Nor will his speculation hold , wherby he distinguishes the essence of the Church from its existence ; and makes that vnity which is an attribute of ENS to be the roote and matrix of the Church . For first , in true Philosophy , the essence of a thing is not really 〈◊〉 from its existence . Secondly , because in this sense of his , the Church should rather be the roote and matrix of vnity , then vnity the roote and matrix of the Church : for vnity , as an attribute , flowes from ENS , and not ENS from it : as like wise in naturall Philosophy , all Properties flow from their subiects , and not their subiects from them . Thirdly , what vnity does our Aduersary here speake of , when he tells vs ENS and VNVM , beeing and beeing one , are conuertible ? This is Metaphysicall vnity only ; entitatiue vnity . But is that all the vnity the Bishop acknowledges to be necessary in the Church ? if not , why is that only mention'd here , and no other ? Christians , when they dispute , and teach that the Church is one , vnderstand ( sure ) a further vnity then this ; namely a morall vnity , an vnity of minde and iudgement , touching the verityes of Christian Religion ; and not only an vnity of nature , definition and essence . This therfore was 〈◊〉 to equiuocate , or mistake 〈◊〉 in the business . But wee pass it by , as likewise wee doe the remaynder of the paragraph ; as beeing farc'd only with assertions without proose , or with proofs against no Aduersary . 5. As St. Cyprian ought to be commended for his exhorting those who crauelled to Rome , to acknowledge and maintaine the ROOTE and MATRIX of the Catholique Church , soe did the Jesuit well , to persuade the lady to doe the same . Of whose Counsell , by the report of Mr. 〈◊〉 , she made thus farre good vse , that vpon this and the precedent conferences the rested in iudgement fully satisfy'd of the truth of the Roman Churches Fayth : yet vpon frailtie and feare to offend the king , she yeelded ( for a while ) to goe to Church : for which she was 〈◊〉 very sorry . The Relatour seems willing enough to haue 〈◊〉 all this , if he had know'n how : but not beeing able to doe that , he contents himselfe to 〈◊〉 it as suspicious and 〈◊〉 as he can , 〈◊〉 it were so , or no. He 〈◊〉 not , 〈◊〉 that honourable 〈◊〉 was 〈◊〉 in conscience and iudgement ; nor 〈◊〉 it were feare , or 〈◊〉 , or other 〈◊〉 , that made hor yeeld to goe to Church ; nor how sorry she was for it ; nor , who can testifie that sorrow . The Bishop knowes none of all these particulars . Well ; it is sufficient that others did , and doe know them . Howeuer he confidently tells vs , the lady would more 〈◊〉 be able to answer to God for her coming to Church , then for leauing the Church of England . To which , when A.C. takes modest exception , and only tells him , that he neither doth proue , nor can proue it to be lawfull for one , especinlly so persuaded as the lady was , to goe to the Protestant Church , the Bishop sharply replies , there 's a 〈◊〉 deale of cunning , and as much malice in this passage of A. C. But where , I pray , 〈◊〉 eyther the cunning , or malice of this speech or what does it containe , but plaine reall truth , and 〈◊〉 ? A. C. had prou'd through his whole discourse ( as wee likewise haue 〈◊〉 to doe in this or ours ) and the lady 〈◊〉 that the Protestant Church was not an Orthodox , but 〈◊〉 Church , that it protessed a salfe and corrupt Fayth : so as a man could not communicate with it without making himselfe guilty of Heresie . To 〈◊〉 this , and yet goe to Church were euidently to halt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 two opinions , which in Religion is neuer lawfull 〈◊〉 doe ; It were to serue God and Baall too , though neither of 〈◊〉 well . Lastly , it were to dissemble in that , wherein it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 man , more then in all other matters , to be sincere , and vse 〈◊〉 doubling , 〈◊〉 to walke with integrity and 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 , before God and the world . For as the Scripture sayth , ( 〈◊〉 2. 12. ) fearfull 〈◊〉 fearfull hearts and 〈◊〉 hands , and to the 〈◊〉 that gods TWOE WAYES ; one in outward shew and protession ; and an other , in the inward iudgement of conscience . Is there now any such cunning or 〈◊〉 , to admonish one of 〈◊〉 ? But the Relatour tells vs , he neuer went about to proue , that a Roman-Catholique , beeing and 〈◊〉 such might against his conscience goe to Church . Neither doth A. C. tell him , that he euer 〈◊〉 about to proue it ; but yet in effect he did say it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , when he affirin'd that life lady , beeing so persuaded as the was , by Mr. Fishers report , ( and as the Bishop himselfe 〈◊〉 did , nor could 〈◊〉 her to haue been ) might more eastly 〈◊〉 to God for her coming to the English Protestant Church , then for her going to the Roman : which , though he be pleas'd to 〈◊〉 with the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 ; yet , that afters not the case at all to the 〈◊〉 , who was otherwise persuaded of those things which he calls superstitions and errours nor doth it 〈◊〉 his assertion to plead ( as he doth ) that the Church of England is an 〈◊〉 Church , and that he hath prou'd it so . For , still wee say , the lady was otherwise 〈◊〉 ; she neither did , nor could possibly thinke , beeing thus persuaded in iudgement , that the Church of England was an Orthodox Church , or that the Bishop had sufficiently 〈◊〉 it to be such ; but rather 〈◊〉 the contrary . How then is it possible for the Bishop to make good what he 〈◊〉 , that though the lady were a Roman-Catholique , yet she might more easily answer to God for coming to the Church of England , then by 〈◊〉 English Church to communicate with Rome ? which is as much as to 〈◊〉 , that she might more easily answer to God for coming to a Church , wherein she verily beleeu'd Heresie and false doctrine was taught , then for ioyning her selfe to a Church , whose communion she verily beleeu'd was necessary to Saluation , and wherein she was firmly persuaded , that noe 〈◊〉 doctrine was taught by any publique allowance , nor superstition practised : for all this is necessarily implyed in beeing a Roman-Catholique . Nay , is it not manifestly contrary to his own professions here ? J say the same thing with A. C. viz. that 't is not lawfull for one that is resolued of the truth of the Roman Church , to goe to the Church of England , and in that manner to serue and worship God ; because that were to halt on both sides , to serue two masters , to dissemble with God and the world : and that noe man may outwardly profefs a Religion , in conscience know'n to be false ; 〈◊〉 Scripture for it , Rom. 10. 10. For with the heart man beleeueth to righteousness , and with the mouth he consesseth to Saluation : adding withall that noe man can confess a know'n false Religion to his saluation . Whence I argue . Jf a Roman-Catholique , beeing and continuing such , may not , against his conscience , goe to the Protestant Church ; if it be not lawfull for one , that is resolued of the truth of the Roman Church , to goe to the Church of England , and in that manner to ferue and worship God ; if noe man ought to beleeue Religion after one sort , and practice it after an other ; if it be sinne to dissemble with God and the world in such maine points of Religion , as are in controuersie betwixt Catholiqucs and Protestants , how could the lady ( beeing suppos'd to be a Roman-Catholique ) better answer to God for coming to the English Church , and leauing the Roman , then for continuing to communicate with the Church of Rome ? what sinne could the Bishop thinke she committed by communicating with the Roman Church , if in her heart she were a Roman-Catholique , and apprehended nothing as superstitious and vnlawfull , that was allowed by that Church ; but rather pious and godly ? In this she did nothing contrary to her conscience ; but in going to the Protestant Church , she did that , which was cleerly against her conscience , and by consequence sinned in doing it . Againe , admitt there were errours and superstitions in the Roman Church , as the Bishop will needs suppose , yet how will he proue the lady should be in any sort answerable for them , vnless wee suppose also , that she held them against her conscience , or by holding and practising them , opposed the know'n truth ? which to doe , were contrary not only to all Christian charity , but euen to the 〈◊〉 own maximes , who confesses , that none but God , and a mans selfe , can know , how farre he opposes truth in that manner , and § . 37. num . 1. tells A. C. thus , you are the happier in your errour that you hold nothing against your conscience especially if you speake not against conscience while you say so . But this noe man can know but your selfe . For noe man knowes the thoughts of man , but the spirit of man that is within him . 1. Cor. 2. 11. if now , errours in Religion be not sinne , so long as the person that holds them , opposes not the know'n truth , or holds them not against conscience ; and that by the Bishops own confession also , 't was not possible for him to know , that the lady , by embracing our Fayth and Church , did any thing contrary to her conscience , or oppos'd any truth she knew , vpon what ground could he condemn her of sinne in what she did ; or say ( as in effect he doth ) that she could not so easily answer to God for her doing so , as she might for going to his English-Protestant Church ? wherein , euen by his own grounds , ( beeing suppos'd to be a Roman-Catholique ) she did manifestly committ sinne , in doing against her conscience ( which is always sin , more or less ) in dissembling with God and the world , in matters of so great moment , in halting on both sides , and in beleeuing Religion after one sort , and practising it after an other . 6. As for what concerns Catholique Authours , who may possibly affirm it lawfull , in some cases , and with due limitations , for Catholiques to goe to Protestant-Churches , there doctrine is necessarily restrained vnto such countries and places , in which , going to Protestant-Churches is no distinctiue signe of Religion , that is , where it doth not with any presumption signify , that a man is a Protestant : which falls out otherwise in England . For here it hath always been held a conformity to and with the Protestant Religion professed in England , to goe to Church : and therfore , not allowed by any of our Diuines ; who neuer giue way to the profession of false doctrine . Now , who is more guilty of dissimulation in Religion , which the Bishop charges vpon some of our partie , then the Bishop himselfe ? Doth he not § . 35. punct . 5. professedly allow possibility of Saluation to such Catholiques , as doe both wittingly and knowingly associate themselues , euen to the gross superstitions of the Romish Church , and such as come euen neere to Idolatrie , only because they beleeue the Creed and hold the Foundation ? what is this but to teach it lawfull , at least no sinne excluding Saluation , to ioyne ones selfe outwardly to a superstitious Church , in a superstitious , false , and euen Idolatrous way of worshipping God , contrary to ones knowledge and constience only for some temporall and worldly respects ? and consequently , that men are not alwayes bound to seeme and appeare as they are , but sometimes at least , may haue liberty to weare a masque ? But certainly , that which followes , is a most strange and inconsequent Paradox , if euer any was . Jf the Religion of Protestants ( sayes the Bishop ) be a know'n false Religion , then the Romanists Religion is so too . For their Religion , meaning Catholiques and Protestants , is the same , sayth he : nor doe the Church of Rome and the Protestants sett vp a different Religion , ( for the Christian Religion is the same to both ) but they differ in the same Religion ; and the difference is in certaine gross corruptions , to the very endangering of Saluation , which each side sayes , the other is guilty of . What is this but to heape absurdities one vpon an other ? which of all these propositions is maintainable in any true and proper sense ? The Religion of Catholiques and Protestants is the same . The church of Rome and the Churches of Protestants sett not vp different Religions . Christian Religion is the same both to Catholiques and Protestants : they are of the same Religion , and yet differ in it . First , are wee of the same Religion , because wee agree in some few generall points ? why might he not as well haue sayd , that Arians , and all other Heretiques are of the same Religion with vs. by reason of their agreement with vs in some points of Fayth ? Secondly , is Christian Religion , J meane in the necessary soundness and integrity of it , common both to Catholiques and Protestants ? what Protestant will affirm that it is ? and if it be not , why would the Relatour trifle and abuse his Reader with such vaine and pernicious amphibologie , as he here vseth , in a business of so great importance ? Thirdly , if wee , Catholiques , be of the same Religion with Protestants , how can wee be sayd to differ from them in the same Religion , as the Relatour here expressly sayes wee 〈◊〉 ? can I be of the same 〈◊〉 with my neighbour , and yet differ from him , in the same thing ? surely , if our Religion and that of Protestants be the same , wee are not to be sayd to differ , but to agree in it , vnless our aduersary and his party thinke , they may vary the common sense and notion of words , at their sole pleasure . Beside , those points , about which , vnder the notion of corruptions and errours , the Bishop himselfe acknowledges , that wee doe differ ; eyther they are parts of Chrstian Religion , or they are not . So they be parts of Christian Religion ; seeing by his own confession wee differ in them from Protestants , how is Christian Religion in gross , sayd to be common to vs both ? how is it the same to Catholiques and Protestants ? If they be not parts of Christian Religion , how can wee , by reason of them , be sayd to differ from Protestants in Religion , or in the same Christian Religion ? But , what ( sayes the Bishop ) cannot I proue any superstition , or errour to be in the Roman Church ? none at all ? ( A.C. it seems had told him so . ) now truly I would to God from my heart , this were true , and that the Church of Rome were so happy , and the Catholique Church thereby 〈◊〉 with truth and peace . For J am confident , such truth would soone eyther command peace , or confound peace breakers . But , is there 〈◊〉 superstition in adoration of Images ? None in Inuocation of Saynts ? None in adoration of the Sacrament ? Js there 〈◊〉 errour in breaking Christs own Institution of the Sacrament , by giuing it but in one kinde ? None about Purgatory , and common prayer in an vnknowen tongue ? These and many more are in the Roman Religion , and 't is noe hard worke to proue euery one of these to be errour , or superstition , or both . Wee answer , 't is a harder worke to proue them to be so , then barely to affirme them to be so , otherwise wee are confident , his Lordship would haue been as liberall of his proofs in this kinde , as he is of his 〈◊〉 : for surely , it more imported him to proue , then to accuse . But wee aske , how will his friends , and adherents after him , proue them to be superstitions and errours ? By Scripture only ? who shall be iudge that the places alledged out of Scripture to that purpose , beare the sense , in which Protestants vnderstand rather then that , in which Generall Councills vnderstood them , when they defin'd the recited particulars , as the present Roman Church beleeues and obserues them at this day ? when they haue done all they can , the finall resolution of the business , must , according to Protestants , be reduced to priuate iudgement ; which in such matters as these , according to St. Austin , is most insolent madness . Nor doe J see vpon what ground the Relatour could be so confident , that if the Roman Church were so happy as to teach nothing but truth , to witt in Protestants sense , that is , to agree with Protestants in condemning the worship of Jmages , Jnuocation of Saynts , Adoration of the Sacrament , Purgatory etc. it would so certainly , eyther command peace , or confound peace-breakers , as he imagins . What confusion , I pray , would it be for such people , to disagree from a Church , which proclaymes her owne erroneousness to all the world , by beginning now to teach contrary , not only to her selfe and her own former beleefe , but contrary to the generall beleefe of all Christendome beside , for many hundred of yeares ? would not the very alteration of doctrine ( which in this supposition , the Roman Church must necessarily make ) render it euident to all men , that both her selfe , and the whole Church of Christ with her , may erre , and hath erred , in points of greatest importance concerning the Fayth ? what peace-breakers would be confounded with the authority of a Church so apt to fall into errours and superstitions of such dangerous nature ? Truly for my part , I am soe farre from thinking , such an impossible case as the Bishop here putts , would eyther command peace , or confound peace-breakers , that is , the Authours or Abettours of priuate and contrary opinions in Religion , that I see nothing in the world , more likely to animate and encourage them still to persist in their obstinate refractariness , and to cast off euen all sense of due obedience and reuerence of the Churches authority . 7. But the Bishop beeing so well content ( as he tells vs ) with men's opinion of his weakeness , it will be no hard worke for his friends to excuse his ouer-confidence in this particular , when they please , vpon that ground : only of pride he is not willing to be taxed . For which reason , A. C. hauing told him ( as most iustly he might ) that he could not proue any errour or superstition to be in the Roman Religion , but by presuming with intelerable pride to make himselfe , or some of his fellowes , to be iudge of controuersies ; and taking authority to censure all for superstition and errour , that suites not with their fancies , he complaines , as beeing in this deeply censur'd by A. C. and demands wherein does his pride appeare ? I answer , his own confession sufficiently shewes that , in the very next lines , where he sayes , indeed if I tooke this vpon mee , J were guilty of great pride . This , that is to make himselfe , or some of 〈◊〉 fellowes , iudge of controuersies ; or to endeauour to proue errour and superstition in the Roman Church by taking such authority vpon him , he confesses were great pride . Well . But how does he cleere himselfe of the charge ? How does he conuince the Roman Church of errour and superstition , otherwise then by taking this authority him , and making himselfe or some of his fellows Iudge of Controuersies ? To say only as he does , I absolutely make a lawfull and free Generall Councill iudge of conerouersies , by and according to Scripture , will not serue his turn ; by reason that if he stand to his own principles and the generall practice of Protestants hitherto , none but himselfe and some of his fellowes shall be iudge , whether the Councill be lawfull and free , or not . For , if eyther it consists of such as fauour not their opinions , or will not obserue such conditions , as he and his fellows thinke good to prescribe , though neuer so contrary to the Canons and legall proceedings of former Councils , wee are sure enough , it will neuer be acknowledg'd for free or lawfull , by our Aduersaries . Againe , standing to the Bishops principles , and the common practice of his partie expounding them , who but himselfe and his fellowes shall be iudge , whether a lawfull and free Generall Councill hath defined , or doth define , by and according to Scripture ? Doth not the Relatour himselfe expressly teach § . 38. num 15. that if a Generall Councill shall forget it selfe , and take vpon it to define things not absolutely necessary to be expressly known , and actually beleeu'd by all , neither it , nor the whole Church hath any such infallible assistance but that Christians ( euery priuate Christian he sayes num . 23. ) may vpon iust grounds both deliberately doubt , and constantly deny the definitions of such Councils ? Likewise doth he not tell vs ( Ibidem . num . 24. ) that it is no pride , not to submitt to know'n and gross errours defin'd by Councils ; instancing by name in the Councils of Lateran , Constance , and Trent as hauing made erroneous definitions in matter of Fayth ? what is this in effect but to teach , that noe man is bound to admitt the doctrine defined by Generall Councills , meerly for the Authority of the sayd Councills ? and if not , who sees it not manifestly to fallow , that cuery priuate Christian ( that is , in other terms , himselfe or some of his followes ) is by our Aduersarie made iudge of Controuersies , and allowed to take the Authority vpon them , of censuring all for superstition and errour , that suites not with their priuate iudgement ? which is the thing his Lordship , but euen now , confessed to be great pride . But the Relatour will proue from the testimony of A : C. himselfe , that he is not guilty of pride in this particular , viz. of making himselfe Judge of Controuersies , etc. For why , A : C. taxes him for giuing too much power to Generall Councils , and binding men to a strict Obedience to them , euen in case of errour . Therfore sure ( sayth he ) most innocent I am of the intolerable pride , which he is pleas'd to charge vpon mee . J aske , is this testimony of A : C. true , or not ? If it be not true , how can he from a false testimony inferre his own innocency ? If it be true , viz. that the Bishop by his doctrine , doth really binde men to a strict obedience to the definitions of Generall Councills euen in case of errour , how grossly doth he contradict himselfe when he sayes , ' tir noe pride , not to submitt to know'n and gross errours , euen of Generall Councills ? and teaches , that a priuate man , vpon iust grounds , may both deliberately doubt , and constantly deny the defined doctrines of some Councils ? This surely , is in effect to deny both internall and externall obedience too , to Generall Councils . For if wee may deliberately doubt , where is internall obedience ? If wee may constantly denie , where is the externall ? Doth he not also teach , Ibidem . num . 23. that a priuate Christian may , not only consider and examin the definitions of Generall Councils , both for his own and the Churches satisfaction , but also propose his doubts in opposition to the Councils doctrine , in such manner as the whole Church shall be oblig'd to call an other Generall Councill to consider of the matter etc ? How can this be done without expressing dislike , or shewing some externall disobedience to the precedent Councill ? lett our Aduersarie , if they please , shew how . But wee haue already , chap. 20. and 21. largely treated of this subiect . To as little purpose is it for him to plead , that be submitts his iudgement in all humility to the Scripture , interpreted by the Primitiue Church . But , that this is a false pretense wee haue all along in this treatise demonstrated ; but more particularly , chap. 20. 21. The Bishop proceeds , saying that he submitts vpon new and necessary doubts to the iudgement of a lawfull and free Generall Councill . Fairly spoken . Vpon new and necessary doubts he will submitt ; not otherwise . But wee must know , in the Bishops sense and according to the principles already aduanc'd and resolutely insisted vpon by him , noe doubts are necessary , but such as concern matters Fundamentall in Fayth , that is , as he perpetually explaines himselfe , absolutely necessary to be expressly know'n and beleeu'd by all Christians for Saluation . So that , in all other points of doctrine , eyther determin'd and defin'd already , or hereafter to be determin'd and defin'd by the Church , he does vpon the matter openly profess , that he will not submitt to the iudgement of a Generall Councill but follow his own priuate opinion , though contrary to it . Now what is this , but to take vpon him to be iudge of controuersies , in opposition to Generall Councills , and to censure for superstition and errour what suites not with his priuate fancie ? 8. But our Aduersarie would haue A.C. consider , how iustly all this may be turned vpon himselfe . viz. that be hath nothing to pretend , THERE ARE NOT GROSS ERROVRS AND SVPERSTITIONS in the Roman persuasion ( as he calls it ) vnless by intolerable pride he make himselfe and his partie iudge of Controuersies . But who sees not , this is a most palpable vntruth ? All the world knows , that A. C. and all his party , submitt with most absolute humility of judgement to the desinitions of Generall Councills , and so haue euer done . A. C. makes not himselfe iudge of controuersies betwixt him and his Aduersaries , but a lawfull Generall Councill ; yea all the lawfull Generall Councills , that euer the Church had or esteem'd such . To them he appeales ; to them he stands : lett Protestants doe as much , and the controuersies would not be hard to be ended . So vtterly false it is what the Bishop affirms here , that We will he iudg'd by none but the ` Pope , and a Councill of his ordering . Doe the Relatours Adherents thinke , there was euer a Generall Councill in the Church , well ordered ? lett them name it ; wee stand to its sentence . Neither doe wee require , that any Councill should be of the Popes ordering , further then the Canons of the Church doe allow him , and his Predecessours haue in effect done in all Generall Councills , euen the fowre first . True it is , A. C. and all Catholiques with him , acknowledge noe Councill to be a lawfull ludge of controuersies , vnless it be approu'd and confirm'd by the Pope : but in this there is noe pride . For the right of confirming the decrees of Generall Councills , ( wherein controuersies of Fayth are judged ) hath euer belong'd to St. Peters Successor , as wee haue * already shew'n ; and St. Austin ( Epist 62 ) with the whole Councill of Mileuis , professes it to be grounded on Scripture : yea the Canons of the vniuersall Church doe expressly allow it him ; witness euen a Socrates himselfe , noe very great friend of the Roman Church , b Sozomen , c with others : and in the Generall Councill of Chalcedon ( Action 1. ) Dioscorus , no meaner person then the Patriarch of Alexandria , is for this very reason deny'd the priuiledge of sitting in Councill , because he had presum'd to hold a Generall Councill ( to witt , the predatory , or pretended second Councill of Ephesus ) without the Popes Authority : a thing , which ( as the Fathers there acknowledge ) was neuer lawfull to doe , nor euer done before . ( NVNQVAM LICVIT , NEC VNQVAM FACTVM EST. ) Why therfore shall A. C. be tax'd of pride , if he beleeues the doctrine of the Roman Church to be true , vpon the Authority of Generall Councills confirm'd by the Pope ? who sees not a great deale of difference betwixt him and his Aduersary in this regard ? A. C. in his vnderstanding of Scripture followes the exposition of Generall Councills ; the Bishop relyes vpon no interpretation , but this own ; teaching that Generall Councills may erre in their exposition of Scripture , euen in points Fundamentall and absolutely necessary to Saluation . A. C. acknowledges , he can be infallibly certaine of nothing in matter of Fayth , by the bare letter of Scripture and the light of his own vnderstanding only : the Bishop is confident , that by the letter of Scripture only , and his owne iudgement , he can be infallibly assur'd of all necessary points of Fayth . A. C. is ready to submitt his iudgement to a Generall Councill in any point of doctrine , whatsoeuer seeming reasons , or grounds he may priuately haue to the contrary : the Bishop allowes a man , vpon probable grounds to doubt , and vpon cleerer grounds to deny and oppose the definitions of such a Councill . A.C. thinks it an vngodly presumption to taxe Generall Councills of errour and superstition ; the Bishop makes noc scruple to censure diuerse of them for damnable errours . A. C. holds it altogether vnlawfull for any Christian to dissent from the Catholique Church , in any point of defined doctrine whatsoeuer , great or small ; the Bishop maintaines , that the whole Catholique Church may erre , both grossly and dangerously in all points not Fundamentall , and that all priuate Christians , who vnderstand , or perceiue such errours to be in the Church , may dissent , yea if need be , that is , if the Church will not reforme the sayd errours vpon their admonition , separate from her , as Luther and his followers did , when they first began their reformation . Lett any indifferent person then be iudge , whether that which A.C. charges vpon the Bishop concerning pride , and taking vpon him to be iudge of Controuersies , in opposition to Generall Councills , may be as iustly turned vpon himselfe , as the Relatour here pretends . His next Paragraph only tells vs what was the conclusion of his first-publish't Relation of the conference with Mr. Fisher ; wherein he falls againe to his wonted custome , of charging his Aduersary ( indirectly at least ) with what he does not own . A. C. doth not maintaine the Pope to be infallible in all controuersies of Fayth , otherwise then in and with a Generall Councill ; witness his own words in the end of his answer . I wish ( sayth he ) the Chaplain and his lord , and euery other man carefully to consider , whether it be not more Christian etc. to thinke that the Pope , beeing St. Peters Successour , WITH A GENERALL COVNCILL , should be iudge of Controuersies , and his Pastorall iudgement ( viz. in and with such a Councill ) be accounted infallible , then to make euery man that can read Scripture , an interpreter of Scriptures and decider of Controuersies , euen to the controuling of Generall Councills , or to haue noe iudge in controuersies of Fayth at all . This is the summe of all that A. C. teaches , touching the Popes infallibility : and if the Bishop could really thinke this to be such a brayne-sicke deuice , as he talks of , I doubt it will be thought by some , that his own head was not alwayes in good temper . 9. A. C. to shew , that in matters of Fayth wee ought to submitt our iudgements to such doctours and Pastours , as by a continuall visible succession , haue without interruption or change , brought the Fayth down from Christ and his Apostles to these our dayes , and shall , by vertue of Christs promise , in the like continued succession , so carry it downe to all future generations till the end of the world , makes vse of that text of St. Paul , Ephes. 4. 11. 12. 13. etc. where 't is sayd , that Christ ascending , gaue some to be Apostles , some Prophets , some Euangelists , some Pastours and teachers , for the perfecting of the Saynts , for the worke of the ministery , for the edifying of the Body of Christ , till wee all come , in the vnity of the Fayth , and of the knowledge of the sonne of God , vnto a perfect man etc. 'T is true , some from this place gather the Popes infallibility too , as well as the necessary succession of lawfull Pastours ; because it is intimated , there shall be noe more wanting , in the sacred Hierarchy of the Church , the office of of an Apostle , then the office of a Pastour , or teacher , till the end of the world . Now to the office of an Apostle two things are necessary , viz. infallibility of iudgement in teaching , and power of iurisdiction , or gouernment , ouer the whole Church-Wherfore , seeing ( as they suppose ) 't is manifest from this text , that an Apostleship must always be in the Church , and that noe other Ecclesiasticall Pastour can , with any probable pretense , lay clayme to that office , but only the Bishop of Rome as he is St. Peters successour , they conclude , that the successour of St. Peter must of necessity haue those two 〈◊〉 of Apostleship vested in his person ; that is , he must be infallible in his doctrine and haue iurisdiction ouer the whole Church . So that it could not haue been counted a meere begging the question in A.C. had he alledged this text expressly in proofe of the Popes infallibibility ; which yet the Relatour himselfe cannot affirme that he did . And 't is of it selfe , cleere enough , that A. C. alledges it to proue the continuall succession of Pastours and doctours in the Church , who haue brought down the vnchanged Fayth of Christ , from the Apostles to our dayes : this beeing one part of the proposition he had layd down , and by consequence , was to proue ; and none of his other marginall allegations , viz. Matth. 16. 18. † 18. 18. Luc. 22. 32. looking that way , but only at the infallibility of Generall Councills , or of the Popes Pastorall iudgement in them ; which was the second part . This succession of lawfull Pastours A. C. auerres it apparent in the Church of Rome , and cannot be shew'n in the Protestant Church . The Bishop not beeing able to deny but a continuall succession of lawfull Pastours is rightly concluded from this text , has this only to answer , that 't is not necessary , that this succession should be personall in any one particular Church , Roman or other . Admitt it were not necessary ; what doth this help the Bishop , or his party ? Protestants are farre enough from shewing any succession for themselues , eyther in a particular Church , or in the Church vniuersall . And the scope of A. Cs. argument here , beeing only to exclude , or barre Protestants ( and with them all other Nouellists and Sectaries beside ) from beeing eyther in whole , or in part the true Church of Christ , it serues his turn well enough , that they can shew no such personall continued succession at all : for thence 't is conuinc'd , they are noe part of the true Church ; which 't is confess 't , must haue alwayes such a personall succession of lawfull Pastours , somewhere , or other in some Church , or other , handing downe the vnchanged Fayth of Christ , in all ages , from the Apostles to the end of the world : and if our Aduersaries doe pretend to such a succession , lett them shew it . But then secondly I say , though it appeares not precisely by this text alone , that the abouesayd succession should be personall in any one particular Church , yet seeing 't is certaine , our Sauiour did chiefly radicate and fown'd this succession in him , that was to be the chiefe of these Pastours , ( to witt , St. Peter ) and in the line of those , that were perpetually to succeed him , of necessity it was to be more eminently visible and perpetuall in 〈◊〉 and them , then in any other . Wee confess also , that if St. Peter had continued ( as by his first institution he was ) only vniuersall Pastour of the whole Church , and had not been particular Bishop any one citty , or Diocess , his successours would haue succeeded him only in his vniuersall charge . But seeing besides this , St. Peter was Bishop of Rome , and dyed Bishop of that Sea , and that his successours in the vniuersall Pastourchip haue likewise alwayes hitherto succeeded him in that particular charge , viz. as Bishop of Rome , per accidens at least , and de facto ( though not absolutely and by vertue of any diuine institution ) it comes to pass , that this succession of Pastours is now determined vnto a particular Church , and is as visible , perpetuall , vninterrupted in a particular Church , as it is in the Church vniuersall ; and so must necessarily continue , vntill St. Peters successours shall cease to be Bishops of that particular Church . For till they doe , the Pope wheresoeuer he chances to liue or dye , is still true Bishop of Rome , and by vertue of his beeing so , the succession of lawfull Pastours founded vpon him , is still vninterrupted in the Roman Church . In this then , and in noe other sense , doe wee maintaine the succession of lawfull Pastours to be local or determined to a particular place , or Church . Nor is it by any , thought so absolutely necessary , as that if eyther the citty of Rome should be quite destroyed or wholly possess 't by Jnfidells , or by any other accident made vncapable of beeing any longer the Sea of St. Peters successour , and therevpon the Apostolique Sea be remou'd from thence to some other citty , that therfore the succession it selfe , wherby the Gouernment of the supreme Bishop or Pastour of the Church , is perpetuated , should faile , or be broken off . Neuertheless it cannot be deny'd but the Fathers , ( who in this point looke vpon the principall and adiunct as one thing , that is , vpon the vniuersall Pastourship as connex't , and as it were , fix't to the particular Diocess of Rome ) doe cleerly make the locall and particular succession of the Bishop of Rome , a signe and marke of the true Church . a Witness St Jrenaeus , reckoning vp the Roman Bishops from St. Peter to Pope Eleutherius , who sate in his time , and testifying , that by this succession , all Heretiques are confounded . And if the same Father mentions the like succession in some other Churches of Asia ( as the Relatour vrges ) yet it is with manifest deference to the Church of Rome ; to which , he there professeth , * that all Churches , or the Faythfull from all parts of Christendome , must haue recourse , by reason of its more powerfull principality . b Witness likewise St. Austin , who in confutation of the Donatists opinions and practises , makes a Catalogue of the Roman Bishops from St. Peter to Anastasius , who was St. Austins contemporary , auerring , that same series or succession of Bishops , to be the Rocke , against which the gates of Hell preuaile not ; and finally , by way of reproach , telling them , c that in the whole order of that succession , there was not one Donatist Bishop to be found . Wee might adde , nor any Protestant . Other Fathers you may finde to this purpose d cited by Bellarmin . 'T is true , Vincentius Lirinensis makes noe speciall , or distinct mention of this note of continuall succession ; contenting himselfe only to name Antiquity , vniuersality , consent . But is it not manifestly inuolued in the two first ? at least it cannot but be thought so , as Vincentius explicates himselfe . Lett vs hold ( sayth he ) that which hath been beleeu'd by all , euery where and alwayes . Is not this in effect to teach a continuall succession of Pastours and doctours euer deliuering the same Faith ? without doubt , what is alwayes deliuer'd , must be deliuer'd by continuall succession . But wee are told , the succession mean't by the Father , is not tyed to place , or persons only , but is tyed as well to the verity of doctrine . Who teaches otherwise ? who sayes 't is tyed to place and persons only ? who denyes , but succession of the same , and by consequence , of true doctrine , is requir'd , together with succession of persons ? This Memorandum therfore serues vs only for an occasion to acknowledge , e with Tertullian , that besides the order of Bishops ( which is personall succession ) there is requir'd consanguinitas doctrinae ( conformity of doctrine ) in those persons , to the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles : 't is requir'd , I say , that the doctrine , which succeeding Pastours teach , be allyed in bloud , and of Kin to that , which Christ and his Apostles taught ; as the Relatour also vrges : in so much , as if the doctrine , which succeeding Pastours teach , be strange , that is , contrary to the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles , the succession it selfe will be iudged Alien and strange too , what neereness soeuer of persons is pretended . All this wee willingly confess with Tertullian in the places cited by the Bishop . f Irenaeus likewise teacheth , that wee are to obey those Presbyters ( or Bishops ) who together with the succession of their Bishopriques , haue receiued the grace ( or guift ) of truth ; to which wee subscribe : and for this reason maintaine , that the Greeke Church would want one necessary marke of the true Church , though she could shew a continuall visible succession of persons in her Hierarchy ; because they haue long since erred , and doe still continue in errour against the true Fayth , by denying the procession of the holy Ghost , to be from the Father and the Sonne , as it hath been defin'd in Generall Councills . As for Protestants 'tis manifest , that vpon this account they are excluded from beeing part of the true Church ; seeing 't is confess 't by Protestants , that for neere a thousand yeares before Luther , there was noe visible Church that denyed those points of doctrine , which Protestants now deny , and account damnable errours and superstitions in our Church . And J wonder , how any rationall man can imagin , that in so long a tract of time wherein the pretended errours are sayd to be introduc'd , all those Watchmen , g appointed by God to be vigilant ouer the Church , and not to hold their peace , should be soe dead a-sleepe , as not to take the least notice of them for such ; and Protestants alone , after a a thousand yeares , so much awake , as not only to obserue them , but to breake Communion vpon account thereof . 10 Well . But wee must now help Doctor Stapleton out of the brieres , vpon which ( sayes the Bishop ) he hath torn his credit . The Relatour himselfe acknowledges this Authour for a great Clarke ; but will haue 〈◊〉 beleeue , that to make good the succession to the Roman Church , he is forced to contradict himselfe . Why ? because he first affirms , h that sound doctrine is iudiuisible ( or inseparable ) from true and 〈◊〉 succession ; and presently after tells vs i that a lawfull Pastour may become a Wolfe ; to witt , by teaching Heresie and false doctrine : which if it may happen , the Bishop concludes sound doctrine and lawfull succession are separated : which is contrary to what Stapleton sayd before . But our Doctour needs no such help , as the Bishop imagins ; it is but fairly and rightly vnderstanding him , and the business is done . Doctor Stapleton , when he teaches , that sound doctrine is inseparable from true and lawfull succession , takes succession collectiuely , or for the whole succession of lawfull Pastours in any particular age of the Church : meaning therby , that it can neuer happen , that all the lawfull Pastours of the Church , in any age , should desert sound doctrine , or teach Heresie : he takes it not distributiuely for any particular Pastour , or Pastours of the Church ; all which generally speaking , he knowes very well may erre in their own persons , and desert sound doctrine . Like as when the Bishop himselfe teaches , that the Catholique Church cannot erre in points Fundamentall , he meanes only that the whole Church cannot so erre , but any particular person , or member of the Church , may . Now what contradiction is there betwixt these two propositions , the whole succession of lawfull Pastours cannot be separated from sound doctrine , and some particular Pastours ( that is , part of the whole ) may , and become of Pastours wolues ? truly iust as much , as there is betwixt these ; the whole Church of Christ cannot fall away from the truth ; but euery particular member of the Church may . This worthy Doctour therfore will neuer be forc't ( as the Relatour thinks , and would faine haue it ) to quit the great note of Church-succession , that he may agree with the Fathers : but he will inuincibly and vnanswerably maintaine that , which both the Fathers and himselfe meane by this great note : to witt , a legitimate succession , a succession of Pastours , which hold entire , both the vnity and Fayth of the Church : this beeing the summe and vpshot of all his doctrine touching this point ; namely , that the true Catholique Church is know'n by this , that there is in her a perpetuall succession of lawfully-sent Pastours , deliuering and receiuing the doctrine of Christ one from an other continually , or in all ages : which likewise they are always to be suppos'd to haue done , and to doe , so long as the Church , in no succeeding determinate age , notes any change of doctrine , or publique introduction of nouelty , to hane been made by any of them ; nor that any such change is found recorded by any of those approued Authours , who liued in the respectiue ages of the Church , and in their writings , left report to posterity , of all such publique occurences , both concerning Religion and the Church , as happened in and about their times . Wherfore to accuse the Church of Rome of change in doctrine ( as the Bishop here , and all Protestants doe ) without alleadging such Authentique proofe , what is it , but out their own arbitrary presumption and malice , to pass an vncharitable and rash censure vpon their mother , contrary to all rules of equity , truth , iustice , and Christian pietie ? Till therfore such proofe of change be alledged from sufficient and creditable Records , all prudent and impartiall men will iudge the accusation signifies not much , saue only , that the Church is vnworthily and shamefully wronged by her Aduersaries ; which is no new thing . This then is the haire ( if wee may so speake ) in which the strength of that our English Sampson ( Doctor Stapleton ) lyes : which none of the Philisthims of Gath or Ekron ( eyther Prelaticall , or Presbyterian Aduersaries ) whateuer they may talke , shall be able to cutt off . The promise and power of Christ so defends it , that no Aduersarie powers shall euer preuaile against it . Matth. 16. 18. J meane the continuall vninterrupted succession of lawfull Pastours , teaching the same doctrine of Christ in all ages of the Church without any assignable beginning , since the time of the Apostles . 11. Those pretended Schim's , which the Bishop obiects out of Onuphrius ; ( that is to say , the contestations , which haue sometimes been , touching elections to the Papall dignity , wherby seuerall persons at the same time 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 . Nor doe wee make the infallibility of the Church to depend vpon the Pope alone , as the Relatour perpetually insinuates , but vpon the Pope and a Generall Councill together . So that if this be granted by our Aduersaries , wee shall acquiesce , and require no more of them , because this only is matter of Fayth . 13. But neither the Pope by himselfe alone , nor a Generall Councill with him , doe euer take vpon them to make new articles of Fayth , properly speaking , but only expound and declare to vs what was before Yome way reueal'd , eyther in Scripture , or the vnwritten word . Yet they declare and expound with such absolute authority , that wee are oblig'd vnder paine of eternall damnation , neither to deny , nor question any doctrine of Fayth by them propos'd to be bclceued by vs. This ( vnder Christ ) is the true Foundation of the Catholique Church and Religion . Whosoeuer goes about to lay any other , and to erect superstructures vpon it , will finde in the end , that he layd but a sandy Foundation . and rais'd a tottering edisice , which will one day fall vpon his own head , and crush him to his vtter ruine . Lett this therfore remaine as a settled conclusion , that the Catholique Church is infallible in all her definitions of Fayth ; and that there is noe other way but this to come to that happy meeting of truth and peace , which the Bishop will seeme so much to haue laboured for , in his lifetime . J beseech God , to giue all men light to see this truth , and grace to assent vnto it ; to the end , that by liuing in the militant Church with vnity of Fayth , wee may all come at last to meete in glory in the triumphant Church of Heauen : which wee may hope for by the merits of our Lord and Sauiour Jesus-Christ ; to whome with the Father and the Holy Ghost be all honour and glorie world without end . AMEN . An Alphabetical Table of the most remarkable matters contained in this Book . Apostles . CHrists promises to his Apostles , when extendible to their Successours ; and when not . page 103 The Apostles were first prov'd to be Infallible , not by Scripture , but by their Miracles . page 56 , 57 As necessary for the Church , in some cases , that the Apostles Successors be guided and settled in all Truth , as the Apostles themselves . page 103 , 104 Appeals . The Canons of the Council of Sardica expresly allow Appeals to Rome . page 194 , 195 Appeals to Rome , out of England , anciently practised . page 189 From all parts of Christendom , in St. Gregories time . page 〈◊〉 Councils that restrain them , look onely at the abuse of too frequent and unnecessary Appealing . page 194 What the Council of Carthage desir'd of the Pope , in the matter of Appeals . Ibid. Inferiour Clerks onely , forbidden to Appeal to Rome . page 188 Authority . No Authority meerly Humane , absolutely Infallible . page 123 Nor able , sufficiently to warrant the Scriptures Infallibility . Ibid. Divine Authority , necessary for the Belief of Scriptures Infallibility : and what that is . page 64 , 65 , 69 Authority of the Church , sufficient to ground Infallible Assent . page 75 , 78 , 108 The supream Authority of One over all , as necessary now , as ever . page 207. And will be so to the end of the world . Ibid. Authors , Either misalledg'd , or misinterpreted by our Adversary . page 4 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 22 , 47 , 80 , 81 , 98 , 113 , 118 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 143 , 175 , 187 , 193 , 201 , 202 , 204 , 210 , 218 , 222 , 240 , 248 , 309 , 310 Baptism . INfant-Baptism , not evidently exprest in Scripture , nor demonstratively prov'd from it . page 51 , 52 , 53. Acknowledg'd , for an Appstolical Tradition by St. Austin . p. 26 , 53 , 67 That lawful Baptism may not be reiterated , a Tradition Apostolicall . page 67 Bishops . Not meerly the Popes Vicars , or Substitutes . page . 219 , 224 They govern in their own right , and are , jure divino , Pastours of the Church , no less then the Pope . Ibid. Yet , by the same law of God , under the Pope . Ibid. In what sense it may be said , that all Bishops are equal , or of the same merit and degree in the Ecclesiastical Priesthood . page 222 The Bishop of Canterbury , made Primate of England by the Pope . p. 190 Universal Bishop . The title of Universal , or Oecumenical , Bishop , anciently given to the Popes . page 196 But never assum'd , or us'd , by them . Ibid. Us'd by the Patriarchs of Constantinople , but never lawfully given them . page 196 What the more ancient Patriarchs of that Sea intended by their usurpt title . Ibid. The Sea of Constantinople , alwayes subiect to that of Rome . page 196 , 197 , 198 In what manner Gregory the seventh gave the title of Universal Bishop to his Successors . page 199 Likewise , in what manner Phocas , the Emperor , might be said to give it . Ibid. Catholick . THe several Acceptions of the word Catholick , page 130 Causally the particular Church of Rome is styl'd the Catholick ; and why . Ibid. No such great Paradox , that the Church in general should be styled Catholick , by its agreeing with Rome . Ibid. In what sense 't is both true and proper , to say the Roman-Catholick Church . page 132 Certainty . No absolute Certainty of any thing reveal'd by God , if the Churches Testimony be not Infallible . page 29 , 30 Moral Certainty , even at the highest , not absolutely Infallible . p. 123 Church . The Church cannot erre , and General Councils cannot erre , Synonymous with Catholicks . page 19 , 20 , 177 The Churches Definitions make not Divine Revelation more certain in it self , but more certainly known to us . page 21 , 24 How the Churches Definition may be said to be the Churches Foundation . page 35 Nothing matter of Faith in the Churches Decrees , but the naked Definitions . page 64 What the ground of Church-Definitions in matter of Faith is , and must of necessity ever be . page 230 Roman Church . The Principality of the Roman Church , deriv'd from Christ. p. 183 The Roman Churches Tradition esteem'd of old the onely Touchstone of Apostolical and Orthadox Doctrine . page 202 No peril of Damnation in adhering to the Roman Church . page 212 No Errours , or Abuses , in Religion , at any time , more imputable to the Roman , then to the whole Catholick Church of Christ. page 142 The African Church , alwayes in Communion with the Roman . p. 190 , 191 The Roman Churches Defining of Superstructures , or Non-Fundamental Points , no cause of Schism . page 332 The Roman Church rightly styl'd the Root and Matrix of the Catholique . page 391 , 392 , 393 , 394 , 395 Church of Hierusalem . Why ( with some others ) styled sometimes Mother-Church . p. 389 , 390 , and why Pamelius , in his list of those Churches , might reckon them before the Roman . page 397 Contradictions , Slipt from our Adversaries pen. page 51 , 54 , 70 , 83 , 90 , 99 , 112 , 124 , 146 , 150 , 223 , 249 , 308 , 310 Councils . General and Oecumenical Councils , of how great Authority . page 32 The most proper remedy , for errours and abuses , that concern the whole Church . page 165 National and Provincial Councils determine nothing in matter of Faith , without consulting the Apostolick Sea. page 164 , 166 , 167 , 168 To confirm General Councils , no Novelty , but the Popes ancient Right . page 215 The Churches Acceptation , onely a secondary and accessory Confirmation of them . Ibid. Not absolutely necessary , as the Popes is . Ibid. In what sense it is said , that all Pastours are gathered together in General Councils . page 213 The whole Churches consent , virtually included and effectually declar'd by a General Council . page 216 The Prelates in General Councils assembled , may proceed against the Pope himself , if his crimes be notorious . page 231 , 233 What kinde of Free Council it is , that Protestants call for . page 233 No Conditions , or Rules , for holding a General Council , justly assignable now , which have not been competently observ'd by such former General Councils as Protestants reject . page 240 The Church Universal , indispensably oblig'd to embrace the Doctrine of General Councils . page 250 The Decrees of General Councils , in matters of Faith , to be receiv'd , not as the Decisions of men , but as the Dictates of the Holy Ghost . p. 252 General Councils not of Humane , but Divine , Institution . page 245 No known Heretick , or Schismatick , hath Right to sit in General Councils . page 233 In what Cases General Councils may be amended , the former by the latter . page 255 , 256 , 257 , 258 They are Infallible in the Conclusion , though not in the Means , or Arguments , on which the Conclusion is grounded . page 263 , 264 Infallibility of the Apostles , and succeeding Councils , how they differ . page 265 , 266 The Councils of Arimini , and second of Ephesus , no lawfull Generall Councils . page 268 , 339 The Supposition of a General Councils Erring in one point , renders it liable to Erre in all . page 378 Creed . St. Athanasius his Creed , no absolute Summary of the Catholique Faith. page 350 , 351 No , not even supposing the Creed of the Apostles . Ibid. What the Authours intent was in composing it . Ibid. St. Athanasius first compos'd and publisht it in the Latine Tongue . page 351 Donatists . A Narrative of their proceedings in the business of Cecilianus , their Archbishop and Primate of Africk . page 185 , 186 Donatists , why they addrest themselves to the Emperour Constantine . Ibid. The Emperour openly professes , that the Donatists cause belong'd not to his Cognizance . Ibid. What he did in it , was forc'd from him by importunity . page 185 , 187 He promises to ask pardon of the Bishops , for medling in the Donatists business . page 186 The Donatists thrice condemned . page 185 , 186 Emperour . No secret compact between the Emperor , Sigismund , and the Council of Constance , in the cause of Huss . page 156 No just Sentence ever pronounc'd by an Emperour , against the Pope . p. 192 In what manner the Emperours , for some time , ratisy'd the Popes Election . Ibid. That Custom 〈◊〉 long since by the Emperours themselves . p. 193. The Emperours favour some advantage to the Popes Temporal Interest ; no ground of his Spiritual Authority . page 200 The Surmize of having one Emperour over all Kings , as well as one Pope over all Bishops a meer Chimaera , or fiction . page 225 The Emperour as Supream , over his Subjects , in all Civil Affairs , as the Pope is in matters Spirituall . page 226 The Popes never practis'd to bring the Emperours under them in Civil Affairs . Ibid. No Catholick Emperours , ever took upon them to reform religion , without , or contrary to the Pastours of the Church . Ibid. Errour . In matters of Faith , though not Fundamental , inconsistent with the acknowledg'd Holiness of the Church . page 150 Every Congregation unchurched , that holds Errour in Faith ; and the reason why . page 151 Eucharist . That the holy Eucharist be receiv'd Fasting , is a Tradition Apostolicall . page 67 Receiving it under one kinde , no Errour in Faith. page 207 , 271 Nor contrary to Christs Institution . Ibid. The Non-obstante , in the Council of Constance's Decree touching the Eucharist , to what it refers . page 271 , 272 , 273 The Eucharist under one kinde , a perfect Sacrament , page 271 Frequently receiv'd in Primitive times , under one kinde . page 289 Given by Christ himself in one kinde . page 318 Why necessary , that the Priest , who consecrates , should receive in both kindes . page 319 Excommunication , Never pronounc'd , in the Catholique Church , but where Obstinacy and perverseness inforce it . page 48 Incurr'd ipso facto by all English Protestants , for denying any one of the 39. Articles . page 49 The English Church , more justly censurable for tyranny , in point of Excommunications , then the Roman . page 49 , 50 Faith. Divine and infallible Faith , inconsistent with the denial of any one point sufficiently propounded by the Church . page 17 Faith Implicite , what it imports in Catholique sense . page 20 Implicite Faith , necessary to be had of all Divine Revelations whatsoever : Explicite , onely of what the Church defines , and propounds for such . page 20 The English Protestant Faith , not the Faith of the Primitive Church . page 328 , 329 , 330 , 331 Implicite Faith , not us'd by Catholiques at pleasure . page 346 , 347 Roman Faith. The Consequence of this Argument made good : The Roman Faith was once THE ONE SAVING FAITH ; Ergo , it is so still . p. 340 , 350 Fathers . Catholiques shew all due respect to the Fathers , yet without derogation from the Authority of the present Church . page 60 , 61 The Fathers account none Catholiques , but such as agree with the Roman Church . page 131 Proofs of the Churches Infallibility , from the Fathers . page 102 , 105 , 108. 131 , 137 , 178 Protestants profession to stand to the Fathers , what it signifies . page 208 Fundamental . A word in Religion of various and ambiguous Acception . page 14 How it ought to be taken in the present Dispute . page 14 , 34 , 44 Catholiques allow a distinction of Fundamental and Non-Fundamental points , in some sense . page 15 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 34 , 44 All points defin'd by the Church , and sufficiently known to be so , are Fundamental , that is , not to be doubted of , or deny'd , under pain of damnation . page 15 , 16 , 27 Points not-Fundamental , deposited with the Church by Christ and his Apostles , no less then points Fundamental . page 38 Points Fundamental , necessary to be known in specie , or particularly . page 45 , 176 , 177 , 217 , 243 Government . THe Government of the Church in a Monarchical way , not changeable by any power on earth . page 221 , 222 The difference between the Government of the Church , in matters of Faith and Religion , and the Government of the State in matters of Policy and Civil Concern . page 243 , 244 , 245 Greeks . Their Errour against the Holy Ghosts procession from the Son , properly Heretical . page 6 , 7 King James his censure of the Greek Church . page 5 Ancient Greeks differ'd onely in Words , or manner of speaking , from the Latins ; not in sense . page 7 , 8 , 21 , 22 The Greeks excluded from the Council of Trent , not by the Popes Summons , but by their own Schism page 233 Divers Orthodox Bishops of the Greek Church , present in the Council of Trent . page 233 , 234 Modern Greeks , no True Church . page 10 , 11 The business of Hieremias , the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople . page 238 His Censure of the Lutheran Doctrine , a sufficient Testimony of the sense of the Greek Church . Ibid. He utterly rejected the Lutherans Communion . Ibid. Hell. THe word Hell doth not alwayes signifie the place of the Damned . page 336 Heresies . Even in points Not-Fundamental in Protestants sense , by St. Austin and the Churches account . page 17 Pelagian Heresie , not condemned in the Council of Ephesus . page 33 Nor in any other General Council , acknowledg'd by Protestants . Ibid. Heresie , what it is . page 178 Properly speaking , not within , but without the Church . page 218 Hereticks . Those of former times , as great Pretenders to Scripture , as Protestants . page 50 Faith necessary to be kept with Hereticks , the constant Tenet of all Catholicks . page 152 Jews . THe Jews prov'd the Old Testament to be Gods Word , the same way that we ( Catholicks ) do the New. page 121 They held not the Old Testament for their sole Rule of Faith. page 122 Images . No real difference betwixt the Ancient and the Modern Church of Rome , in point of Images . page 294 The Second Council of Nice expresly forbad the Worship of Images with Latria , or Divine Worship . Ibid. &c. The Definition of the Council of Trent , touching the Worshipping of Images . Ibid. The Church hath done what in her lyeth , to prevent abuses in Image-Worship . Ibid. Images , in common use and veneration amongst Christians , in Primitive Times . page 295 , 296 Index . The Index Expurgatorius justified , against the Bishops Calumnies . page 342 Infallible . The Catholick Church prov'd to be Infallible by the same Means , that Moyses , Christ , and his Apostles were prov'd such . page 55 , 56 , 62 In what sense Catholicks maintain , that the Tradition of the present Church must be as Infallible ; as that of the Primitive and Apostolical . p. 80 No Means to be Infallibly sure of Prime Apostolical Tradition , if the present Church be Fallible . page 83 Necessary for the Church , to have power to determine Infallibly , as well Not-Fundamental , as Fundamental points . page 385 Infallibility . Whence the Infallibility , both of the Catholick Church , and General Councils , proceeds . page 43 The Infallibility of the present Church , prov'd from Scripture . page 101 , 102 , &c. page 177 , 178 , 179 In what manner , the Churches Infallibility in Teaching is rightly infer'd from the Holy Ghosts Assistance . page 375 , 376 Intention . What kinde of Intention in the Priest , is absolutely necessary to the validity of the Sacraments . page 281 , 282 , 283 No real Inconveniencies , following the Catholique Doctrine touching the Priests Intention . page 284 , 285 Judge . Our Adversaries demand of a Third person to be Judge , and Umpire betwixt the Roman Church and Them , nugatory and frivolous . pag. 157 , 171 , 172 , 173 The notorious partiality of English Protestant Prelats , in this case . p. 174 General Councils , by the Bishops own confession , the best Judge on earth , for Controversies of Faith , where the sense of Scripture is doubted . page 213 A visible , supreme , living Judge , to determine Controversies , as necessary in the Church as State. page 219 Legats . NEither Hosius , nor any other person , presided at the Council of Nice , but onely in quality of the Popes Legats . page 231 Why the Pope sent no Legats to the second Council , at Constantinople . page 232 At the Council of Ephesus , St. Cyril presided , as Legat to Pope Celestin. Ibid. The like was at Chalcedon , and other General Councils . Ibid. Limbus Patrum . The Fathers ( generally ) teach Limbus Patrum . page 336 Literae Communicatoriae . The Literae Communicatoriae , by whom first ordain'd , and to what end . page 220 They evidently prove the Popes Authority . Ibid. The difference betwixt Those granted by the Pope , and Those granted by other Catholique Bishops . Ibid. Lyturgie . The English Lyturgie , why unlawful to be us'd by Catholiques . page 319 Manichees . GReat Braggers , and pretenders to Truth , when they most oppos'd it . page 30 Miracles . None ever wrought in confirmation of the present Canon of Scriptures , either Protestant or Catholique . page 109 Miracles rather confirm the Churches Infallibility , then the Scripture's . page 110 They are always sufficiently convincing , though they do not actually convert . page 115 Monarchy . That of the Church , not a pure , but mixt , Monarchy . page 219 , 224 Monarchy , acknowledg'd by Philosophers the most perfect form of Government . page 220 The impugning Monarchical Government of the Church , to what it tends . page 224 Multitude . Catholiques make not Multitude alone , any Infallible Mark of the True Church . page 162 Necessary . POints said to be Necessary to Salvation , in a double sense . p. 15 , 92 Not absolutely necessary to Salvation , to believe Scripture . p. 91 , 92 Nice . No Synod held at Rome , in the time of the Nicen Council . page 237 The Council of Nice of absolute Authority , without the concurrence of any other Council . Ibid. The Council of Sardica , esteem'd anciently but an Appendix of the Council of Nice ; and the reasons why . page 194 , 195 The ( probable ) occasion of Pope Zosimus his citing the Council of Nice for that of Sardica . Ibid. Obedience . NO External Obedience to be given to the Definitions of General Councils , should they manifestly erre against Scripture and Demonstration . page 241 , 242 Object of Faith. Material and Formal , a necessary Distinction . page 15 , 18 What it imports . Ibid. Patriarchs . IN point of Authority , not Equal to the Bishop of Rome . p. 183 , 184 The Bishop of Rome , Head and Prince of all the Patriarchs , by the very Canon of the Council of Nice . Ibid. The Popes Confirmation , requir'd to all new-elected Patriarchs . Ibid. Eight several Patriarchs , depos'd by the Bishop of Rome . Ibid. Other Patriarchs , restor'd to their Seas , by the Popes Authority . Ibid. St. Peter . In what manner St. Peter represented , or bare the person of the whole Church , when he receiv'd the Keyes , Matth. 16. 19. page 266 , 267 Christs whole flock , more absolutely and unlimitedly committed to St. Peter , then to the other Apostles . page 211 Pope . The Popes Authority , alwayes included and suppos'd in that of the Church . pag. 33 The Infallibility of the Pope , not necessarily tyed to the particular Church , or city of Rome . page 132 Catholiques , not oblig'd to maintain the Pope Infallible , save onely with a General Council . page 133 , 143 In what manner the Popes , trewhile , indur'd the Emperours censures . page 192 The Popes Authority duly acknowledg'd , would effectually prevent Heresies , and preserve Unity in the Church . page 218 The Popes Greatness , no effect of Humane Policy . page 13 Nor of his Residence in the Imperial-City . page 192 The Definition of the Council of Florence touching the Popes Authority . page 228 , 229 The Popes Authority , not prejudicial to that of Temporal Princes . p. 223 Pope Alexander the Third and Pope Innocent the Third , not contrary to one another in the cause of Peter Lombard . page 279 Pope Honorius , not really guilty of the Monothelites Heresie . p. 279 , 280 Priest. The judgement of the High Priest and his Sanhedrim , in Controversies concerning the Law , Infallible under the Old Testament . p. 97 , 123 Prescription . Justly pleaded by Catholiques for their Religion ; not so by Protestants . page 333 , 334 Primacy . PRIMATUS and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , what they signifie , especially in Ecclesiastical sense . page 200 Primacy inferrs Supremacy , and belongs to St. Peters Successors , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then to himself . Ibid. Protestants . Neither Scripture , nor any other point of Christian Religion , believ'd by Protestants with Divine Faith. page 125 , 126 , 127 , 352 Their Protestation at Auspurgh , 1529. directly against the Roman Church and her Doctrine . page 146 , 147 To Protest against the Roman Church , in the manner they then did , was to Protest against all True visible Churches in the world . page 147 Protestants are Chusers , in point of Faith , as much as any other Heretiques . page 353 How far Protestants relie upon the Infallible Authority of the whole Church . Ibid. Why unlawful for Catholicks in England , to go to Protestant Churches . page 401 Purgatory . The Council of Florence , unanimous in defining the point of Purgatory . page 358 The Fathers , as well within the first 300. years as after , constantly teach Purgatory . p. 359 , 360 , 361 , 362 , 363 , 364 , 365 , 366 , 367 , 368 , 369 No real difference betwixt praying for the Dead us'd by the Ancients , and praying for the Dead us'd by the Roman Church at present . p. 360 , 361 The Testimonies of the Fathers , in proof of Purgatory , made good . page 358 , &c. ut supra Purgatory , rightly esteem'd an Apostolical Tradition . page 370 Reformation . ALwayes , and professedly intended by the Popes themselves , in what was really needful . p. 147. effected by the Council of Trent . Ibid. The Church of Juda , no pattern of the Protestants Reformation . p. 160 The Parallel for them holds better in the revolted Tribes . page 161 Sacriledge , the natural fruit of Protestant Reformation . page 170 Regicide . No doctrine of Catholicks . page 212 , 348 Resolution of Faith. How Catholiques do necessarily resolve their Faith into the Churches Definition ; and how not . page 58 , 60 , 63. How such and such Books , contain'd in the Bible , are known to be the word of God. page 59 , 122 No vicious Circle incurr'd by Catholiques , in the Resolution of their Faith. page 55 , 62 , 117 , 126 In urging the Circle , both parties must be suppos'd to believe Scripture with Divine and Infallible Faith. page 111 The Bishop , in his Resolution , cannot avoid the Circle . page 64 , 111 Revelation . The Churches Testimony , or Definition , no New , nor Immediate , Revelation from God. page 58 , 65 Divine Revelation , the onely Formal Object , or Motive , of Infallible Faith. page 59 Safe-Conduct . GRanted two wayes ; jure communi , and jure speciali : and how they differ . page 153 The Safe-Conducts , granted to John Huss and Hierome of Prague , were meerly jure communi , and secur'd them onely against unjust violence . Ibid. The Safe-Conduct , granted to Protestants by the Council of Trent , was jure speciali , and as Full and Absolute as themselves could desire , or the Council grant . page 153 , 154 The 〈◊〉 of the Council of Constance , touching Safe-Conducts granted by Temporal Princes , what it intended . page 154 , 156 It contain'd nothing against keeping Faith with Heretiques . Ibid. Salvation , Attainable in the Roman Faith and Church , by our Adversaries own confession . page 300 , 301 , &c. Catholique Doctors , in possibility of Salvation , by the Bishops own grounds . page 323 , 324 The Roman Religion , demonstrated to be a more safe way to Salvation , then that of Protestants . page 301 , 302 , 303 , 307 , 308 Saints . Invocation of Saints , no Errour in Faith. page 290 , 291 The Fathers teach it ex instituto and Dogmatically . Ibid. St. Austin , expresly for it . Ibid. The Saints , Mediatours of Intercession , not of Redemption . pag. 292 The faithful under the old Testament , desir'd to be heard for the merits of Saints , no less then we . Ibid. The Intercession of Saints departed , not derogatory to the Merits , or Intercession , of Christ. page 293 Schisme . Protestants ( not Catholiques ) made the present Schisme , and how . p. 144 , 145 , 146 , 212 Schismes at Rome , not in the Roman Church , properly speaking . p. 144 The true and real causes of Protestants being-Excommunicated by the Roman Church . page 145 , 158 In point of Departure , as well as other Circumstances , the Parallel betwixt them and the Arians holds good . page 145 No just cause assignable for Schisme . page 151 Scripture . Not believ'd to be Divine , but for the Churches Authority . p. 17 , 66 , 67 Scripture alone can be no sufficient ground of Infallible Assent to Superstructures , or non-Fundamental points contained in it . page 19 No means of Infallibly-discerning true Scripture from false , unless the Church be Infallible . page 85 In what cases 't is both lawful and necessary , for Christians , to riquire a proof , that Scripture is Gods word . page 118 Scripture alone , in the Bishops opinion , the whole Foundation of Divine Faith. page 116 In what sense Christians must suppose , or take it for granted , that it is Divine , or Gods word . page 121 What Light the Scripture must have , to shew it self to be Gods Word . page 87 The Belief of Scripture for its own pretended Light , imprudent . p. 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 116 , 125 The Fathers for some hundred years after Christ , 〈◊〉 , saw no such Light. page 70 , 91 No reason can be given , why Catholicks should not see that pretended Light , if there were any such . page 90 The Council of Nice made not Scripture their onely Rule of Faith , in condemning the Arian Heresie . page 125 The Scriptures prerogative above the Church . page 60 , 64 Scripture , in a proper sense , no first principle . p. 51 , 90 , 114 , 118 , 119 Succession . St. James , not Successour to our Lord in the Principality of his Church . page 205 Our Saviours Prayer ( Luc. 22. 32. ) effectually extended both to St. Peter and his Successours . page 208 Lawful Pastours , visibly Succeeding each other , and handing down the same unchanged Doctrine , from Christ to this present time , an infeparable mark of the true Church . page 410 , 411 Sound Doctrine , indivisible from the whole lawful Succession . Ibid. The Popes Succession , not interrupted by Contestations about the Papacy . page 412 , 413 Sunday . That Sunday be kept Holy instead of the Jewish Sabbath , an Apostolical Tradition . page 67 Synods . The Pope , no enemy , or opposer , of National Synods . page 166 Sundry National Synods , impertinently alled'gd by the Bishop , in point of Reformation . page 167 , 168 , 169 Tradition . NOt known , but for and by the Churches Authority . page 17 Traditions unwritten . page 26 , 67 What Traditions are to be accounted truly Apostolical , and the unwritten word of God. page 66 , &c. Universal Tradition ( morally speaking ) less subject to alteration , or vitiating , tiating , then Scripture . page 98 Church-Tradition , a necessary condition of Infallible Belief . page 59 How necessary it is , that the Tradition of the present Church should be Infallible . page 126 Transubstantiation , No errour in Faith. page 287 Not inconsistent with the grounds of Christian Religion . Ibid. The Thing it self , alwayes believ'd by Christians . page 288 Evinc'd from the Text. page 288 , 289 Trent . The Council of Trent , a lawful and free General Council . p. 165 , 229 Nothing to he objected against it , more then against all General Councils . Ibid. The Popes presiding therein , contrary to no Law , Divine , Natural , or Humane ; but his undoubted Right . page 230 , 231 , 232 The Pope , no more the person to be reform'd , at the Council of Trent , then at those of Nice and Chalcedon page 232 The place , as indifferently chosen for all parties , as could be . page 233 The Summons general , and exclusive of none , that had right of Suffrage . Ibid. No Oath taken by the Bishops , but what was Canonical , and of more then a thousand years use in the Church . Ibid. The Summe of it . Ibid. Some English Catholique Bishops , present in that Council . page 234 Want of Deputation from the English Clergy , no just impediment to their Sitting and Voting there . Ibid. For number of Prelates , this Council more Full , then some of the four first . Ibid. The Prelates unanimous , in their consent to all things defined by it . Ibid. No material Disparity betwixt the Council of Trent , and that of Nice . page 234 , 235 , 237 The consent of the Church , at the time of the Council of Trent , as much against Protestants , as at the Council of Nice , against the Arians . page 235 The Italian Bishops no prejudice to the Councils Liberty . page 236 What the Popes Interest was , at the Council of Trent . page 236 , 237 The Bishops there , neither overaw'd , nor byassed by the Popes Interest . page 237 Will , or Testament . CAtholicks in no sense maintain , that Christ dyed Intestate , or without a Will. page 214 FINIS . The Author doth desire the Reader , to correct these following Errata with his Pen. PAge 11. line 48. for the Articles still , read the Miters still : page 16. line 4. for this supposition , read his supposition : p. 18. at these words Some modern Protestants , beginning the Paragraph , adde the figure 5. and p. 19. at these , This I evidence , adde the figure 6. p. 50. l. 23. ending the Paragraph , there wants the interrogative point : Ibid. l. 33. for strangeis , r. strangers : p. 64. l. ult . for standing , r. standing : p. 103. l. 5. for of our , r. of ours : p. 238. l. 38. for Shismatique , r. Schismatique : p. 244. l. 18. for have have , r. have : p. 253. l. 39. for Naziazen , r. Nazianzen : p. 257. l. 5. for cuinces , r. evinces : Ibid. l. 10. for pronuncing , r. pronouncing : p. 259. l. 28. for as lawfully , r. lawfully : p 260. l. 16. for lawfull assembly , r. awful assembly : p. 265 , l. 1 , 2 , 3. deleantur all these following words , To this the replying Bishop seems to broach a new Doctrine , THAT THE ASSENT OF FAITH MAY BE AN HABIT OF KNOWLEDGE : p. 267. l. ult . in the margin , for ch . 8. 2. r. ch . 8. 20. p. 269. l. 18. for difine , r. define : p. 270. l. 3. for enery , r. every : Ibid. l. 12. for else nothing , r. nothing else : Ibid. l. 29. for erronious , r. erroneous : Item l. 12. in the margin , for Laicis , r. à Laicis : p. 271. l. 36 for Sacrament , r. a Sacrament : p. 275. l. 4. for ke , r. he : p. 276. l. 35. for don , r. done : Ibid. l. 44. for notes , r. votes : p. 277. l. 1. for this , r. his : p. 278. l. 35. for day , r. Sunday : Ibid. l. penult . for Cycly , r. Cicli . p. 279. l. 6. for Quarto-decimam , r. Quarto-decimani : Ibid. l. 8. for Avsntinus , r. Aventinus : p. 280. l. 14. for Stripture , r. Scripture : Ibid. l. 33. for mought , r. mouth : Ibid. l. 38. for stilll iveth , r. still liveth : Item . l. & voce ult . for thta , r. that . p. 285. l. 48. for schole-men , r. School-men : p. 287. l. 44. for nonc , r. none : p. 292. l. 13. for Cristianity , r. Christianity : p. 293. l. 12. for our , r. our : Ibid. for the , r. the : Ibid. l. 16. for Mow , r. Now : Item l. 23. for interceede , r. intercede : p. 294. l. 10. for intellible , r. intelligible : Ibid. l. 34. for Images with a full point , read Images with the latter part of a Parenthesis : p. 297. l. 2. in the margin , for 36 , 286 r. 36. pag. 286. Ibid. l. 6. joyn 1564. num . 26. to the words ad Ann. l. 5. p. 298. l. 5. for intruction , r. instruction : p. 299. in the Argument of chap. 23. mend . the pointing , and for confess it . Safe , r. confess it safe : p. 300. at the beginning of the Chapter , adde in the margin § 34. p. 304. l. 5. for Divine Faith necessary , r. Divine Faith is necessary : p. 305. l. 13. for sure , r. so sure : Ibid. l. 31. for the , r. thee : Item l. 38. for in us to , r. in us , to : p. 306. l. 41. for assigns the , r. assigns thee : p. 307. l. 42. for Gods words , r. Gods word : p. 309. l. 30. for Christ body , r. Christs Body : Ibid. l. 42. for tediousness , r. tediousness : p. 313. l. 15. for boued , r. bowed : Ibid. l. 13. for then she , r. then shee : p. 322. l. 9. in the Argument , mend the pointing , and for doctrine , and , r. doctrine ; and : p. 327. l. 12. for Diviunity , r. Divinity : p. 331. l. 19. for therenhile , r. therewhile : Ibid. l. 40. for condem'd , r. condemn'd : Ibid. l. 42. for particular , r. particular : p. 337. l. 27. for aniversary , r. anniversary : Ibid. l. 37. for the General , r. the sixth General : p. 338. l. 45. for Fonndation , r. Foundation : p. 340. l. 22. for infallible assurance , r. fallible assurance : p. 343. l. 1 , 15. for writtings , r. writings : p. 344. l. 31. for I answer , r. In answer : Ibid. l. 46. for in evident , r. inevident : p. 347. l. 15. for tells , r. tell : Ibid. l. 47. for points ; in his , r. points in his : p. 352. l. 20 for well-grounden , r. well-grounded : p. 355. l. 25. for lawfully soever , r. lawful soever : p. 356. l. 20. for giving , r. given : Ibid. l. 28. for and and , r. and : p. 357. l. 30. for Hereticks , r. Heretick : p. 360. l. 5. for Ancients , r. the Ancients : p. 363. l. 6. for plumby , r. plumbi : p. 365. l. 16. for 1 c. 3. r. 1. Cor. c. 3. p. 369. l. 34. for of his holy , r. of this holy : p. 370. l. 16 for nature proceed , r. nature to proceed : Ibid. l. 24. for reast , r. rest : Item l. 45. for souls , r. the souls : p. 371. l. 32. for contempory , r. contemporary : p. 373. l. 25. for dever'd , r. deliver'd : p. 376. l. 46. for Fundamental points , r. Fundamental and not-Fundamental points : p 378. l. 5. for stongly , r. strongly : Ibid. l. 21. for General Council , r , a General Council : p. 380. l. 24 , for treahs , r. treats : p. 382. 1. 5. for man , r. may : p. 388. 1. 2. for sut , r. sit . p. 390. the citation § 38. num . 27. in the margin , must be brought down to the beginning of the Chapter . Ibid. in the Argument , 1. 9. for 〈◊〉 lawful , r. lawful by : p. 397. 1. 42. for her root , r. her own root : Ibid. 1. 43. for in own , r. in her own : p. 399. 1. 25. for Eccles , r. Ecclus : p. 404. 1. 30. for fallow , r. follow : p. 406. 1. 32. for this own , r. his own : p. 409. 1. ult . for universa , r. universality : p. 411. 1. 1. for to the , r. of the : Ibid. 1. 43. for hane , r. have : p. 412. 1. 19. for Schims , r. Schisms . In the Preface , p. 5. 1. 19. for shipt , r. slipt : Ibid. p. 6. 1. 7. for beside , read aside . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A35128-e1390 § 1 , 2. § 3. num . 2. pag. 3. § 18. num . 5 § 3. num . 3. pag. 4. § 3. num . 3. 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , &c. § 3. num . 17. § 5. pag. 21. Ibid ; § 6. pag. 23. § 9. pag. 24. In Florentino . a Concil . Florentin , Sess. 18. pag 686. 690. Sess. 22. pag. 741. Sess. 23. pag. 749. 〈◊〉 propter additionem verbi Filioque eos reputant . Sess. 25. pag. 778. Ibid. num . 2. pag. 2. 5. a Suam Sententiam defendere ausi sunt , & Auctoritati Ecclesiae Romanoe obviare ; & ideo facti sunt Heretici quia negant Fidei veritatem ; & Schismatici quia recesserunt ab Ecclesiae unitate . D. Bonavent . ibidem . § 9. num . 2. pag. 25. § 10. num . 1 pag. 26. Num. 2. pag. 27. Ibidem num . 3. Libr. contr . Epist. Manich. quam vocant Fundament . Tractat. 〈◊〉 Fide. Ibidem num . 6 , 7. pag. 30 , 31. § 10. num . 7 pag. 31 , Ibid. num . 9. pag. 32. Aug. Serm. 14. De verb. Apostoli . in fine . Ibidem . Ibid. Num. 10. pag. 33. § 10. num . 11. pag. 34. D. Aug. loc . cit . Ibidem . Relect. Con. trovers . 4. q. 1. A. 1. Triplicat . cont . Whitak . pag. 1230. Ibidem . * Si ad Evan-gelium me tenes , ego ad eos me teneam , quibus praecipientibus Evangelio credidi ; & his jubentibus tibi omnino non credam . Quod si forte in Evangelio aliquid apertissimum de Maenichaei Apostolatu invenire potueris , infirmabis mibi Catholicorum Authoritatem , qui jubent ut tibi non credam : quâ infirmatâ jam nec Evangelio credere potero ; quia per eos illicredideram : ita nihil apud me valebit , quicquid inde protulerk . Quapropter si nihil manifestum De Manichaei Apostulatu in Evangelio reperitur , Cathocis potius credam quam tibi : si autem inde aliquid manifestum pro Manichaeo 〈◊〉 ; nec illis nec libi . Illis , quia de te mihi mentiti sunt : Tibi autem , qui cam Scripturam mihi profers , cui per illos credideram , qui mihi mentiti , sunt . Aug. contra Epist. Fundament . cap. 4. Nulla 〈◊〉 jam remansit : nimiùm 〈◊〉 , nimium 〈◊〉 sunt hominum corda , quae adhuc 〈◊〉 manifestationi veritatis resistunt . Aug. Tom. 2. Epist. 153. Ibid. num . 13 pag. 35. Lib. de Authorit . Concil . cap. 5. Ibidem . Ibid. pag. 36. Ibid. num . 14 Ibidem . Ibid. pag. 37. Ibidem . Ibidem . num . 15. pag. 38. § 10. num . 10. pag. 38. § 10. num . 15. pag. 39. Ibidem . num . 16. Libr. De verbo Dei non Scripto . cap. 4. Ibidem . pag. 40. § 10. num . 17. pag. 41. § 11. num . 1. pag. 42. Sess. 3. Ibidem . pag. 43 , 44. § 11. num . 1. 2. § 12. num . 1. pag. 44. § 12. num . 3. pag. 45. § 13. num . 1. pag. 47. Ibid. num . 3. pag. 48. § 14. num . 1. pag. 50. Ibidem . Ibid. pag. 51. Ibid. num . 2. Ibid. pag. 52. § 15. num . 1. pag. 52. Ibid. num . 2. pag. 53. Ibid. pag. 55. Ibidem . Ibid pag. 56. Ibidem . Acts 2. 38 , 39. num . 5. pag. 57. Ibid. pag. 58. § 16. num 6. pag. 59. Ibid. num . 20 pag. 60. Exod. 14. 31. Num. 12. 7. John 1. 41. John 5. 36. Joh. 10. 25 , 38. John 14. 11. Mark. 14. 19. Ibid. num . 〈◊〉 pag. 61. Ibidem . Ibidem . Ibidem . pag. 63. 64. Ibid. num . 6. a Ego vero Evangelio non crederem , 〈◊〉 me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret Auctoritas . D. Aug. Tom. 6. cont . Epist. Fundament . cap. 5. b Quod si fortè in Evangelio aliquid apertissimum de Manichxi Apostolatu invenire potueris , infirmabis mihi Catholicorum Auctoritatem qui jubent , ut tibi non credam : quâ infirmatâ jam nec Evangelio credere potero , quia per cos illi credideram . Ibid. c Actibus Apostolorum necesse est me credere , si credo Evangelio : quoniam utramque Scripturam similiter mihi Catholica commendat Auctoritas . Ibidem . d Sicut Patrem in illis libris nusquam Ingenitum legimus , & tamen dicendum esse defenditur . D. Aug. Tom. 2. Epist. 174. e Integrâ fide credendum est , Beatam Mariam , Dci Christi matrem , & Virginem concepisse , & Virginem genuisse , & post partum Virginem permansisse : nec est Blasphemiae 〈◊〉 acquiescendum , qui dixit , Fuit Virgo ante partum , non Virgo post partum . D. Aug. Tom. 3. lib. de Dogmat. Ecclesiast . cap. 69. lib. de Haeresib . Haer. 84. f Quam Consuetudinem , ( scil . non 〈◊〉 Baptismum , &c. ) credo ex Apostolicâ Traditione venientem : Sicut multa non inveniuntur in literis eorum , neque in Conciliis posterorum ; & tamen quia custodiuntur per universam Ecclesiam , non nisi ab ipsis tradita & commendata creduntur . D. Aug. Tom. 7. de Baptism . contr . Donatist . lib. 2. cap. 7. Et iterum . Sed Consuetudo illa , quae opponebatur Cypriano ab corum ( scil . Apostolorum ) Traditione exordium sumpsisse credenda est : Sicut sunt multa , quae universa tenet Ecclesia , & ob hoc ab Apostolis praecepta bene creduntur , qnamvis scripta non inveniantur . Id. Ibidem . lib. 5. cap. 23. g Consuetudo Matris Ecclesiae in Baptizandis Parvulis nequaqnam spernenda est , neque ullo modo superflua deputanda ; nec omnino credenda , 〈◊〉 Apostolica esset Traditio . D. Aug. Tom. 3. de Genef . ad liter . lib. 10. cap. 23. h Ubi ponis Parvulos Baptizatos ? Profecto in numero Credentium . Nam ideo & consuetudine Ecclesiae Antiqua , Canonicâ , Fundatissimâ , Parvuli Baptizati Fideles vocantur . Et si de his quaerimus , iste Infans Christianus est ? Respondetur , Christianus . Catechumenus an Fidelis ? Fidelis , utique à Fide : Fides à Credendo . Inter Credentes igitur Baptizatos Parvulos numerabis ; nec judicare ullo modo aliter audebis , si non vis esse apertus Haereticus . D. Aug. Tom. 10. Serm. 14. de verb. Apostoli . Et iterum . Credunt & Infantes . Unde Credunt ? Quomodo Credunt ? Fide Parentum . Si Fide Parentum purgantur , peccato Parentum polluti 〈◊〉 . Corpus mortis in primis Parentibus generavit eos peccatores : Spiritus vitae in posterioribus Parentibus Regeneravit eos Fideles . Tu das Fidem non respondeuti : & ego peccatum nihil agenti . Id. Ibid. Serm. eodem prope finem . i Et liquidò apparet , quando primum acceperunt Discipuli Corpus & Sanguinem Domini , non cos accepisse jcjunos . Nunquid tamen proptereà calumniandum est universae Ecclesiae , quòd à jejunis semper accipitur . Ex hoc enim placuit Spiritui Sancto , ut in honorem tanti Sacramenti , in os Christiani prius Dominicum Corpus intraret , quam caeteri cibi . Nam ideo per universum orbem mos iste servatur . D. Aug. Tom. 2. Epist. 118. ad Januar. k Dominicum Diem Apostoli & Apostolici viri ideo religiosâ 〈◊〉 habendum sanxerunt , quia in codem Redemptor noster à mortuis resurrexit . D. Aug. Tom. 10. Serm. 215. de Temp. a D. Chrysost . Hom 6. in cap. 2. ad Coloss . b D. Ambros. lib. 1. de Sacram . cap. 1. c D. Gregor . lib. 1. Epist. 41. ad Leandr . d Bellarm. de verb. Dei non script . cap. 9. Ibidem . num . 10. p. 69. Ibidem . pag. 71. Ibidem . pag. 70 . pag . 16. num . 12. num . 12. pag. 74. Ibid. num . 11. pag. 72. a Jam si conscientiis optimè consultum volumus , &c. 〈◊〉 est haec 〈◊〉 , ab arcano Spiritus testimonio . Calvin . 〈◊〉 . lib. 1. cap. 7. § 4. Et iterum . Scripturas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apud nos merentur certitudinem , Spiritus testimonio consequi . Ibid. § 5. b Esse enim dicimus certius & illustrius Testimonium , quo nobis persuadcatur hos libros esse sacros , Testimonium nempe internum Spiritus Sancti . Whitak . Controv. de Script . 〈◊〉 . quaest . 3. cap. 1. Et iterum . Qui enim Spiritum Sanctum habent , & sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ii possunt Dci 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ut quis amicum , quicûm familiarissimè & diutissimè vixerit , ex voce 〈◊〉 agnoscere . Idem cap. 3. 〈◊〉 3. pag. 74. num . 13 pag. 56. num . 15. pag. 74 , 75. num . 13. Pag. 75. lin . 5 §. 16. n. 15. Ibid. n. 14. Ibid. n. 17. Ibid. n. 16. Ibid. n. 18. Ibid. n. 10. §. 16. n. 21. pag. 84. a Quid autem , 〈◊〉 Apostoli quidem Scripturas reliquissent nobis , nonne oportebat ordinem sequi Traditionis , quam tradiderunt iis , quibus committebant Ecclesias . Cui ordinationi assentiunt multae Gentes Barbarorum , qui in Christum credunt , sine chartâ & atramento scriptam habentes salutem , & veterem Traditionem custodientes , Iren. lib. 3. cap. 4. b D. Aug. lib. 1. De Doctrin . Christian. cap. 39. lib. 5. De Baptism . contra Donatist . cap. 24. §. 16. n. 19. Ibidem . c Ubi Ecclesia Catholica Episcopos & populos à 〈◊〉 Apostolorum usque in hodiernum diem sibimet succedentes importat . Et sic accipit nomen Ecclesiae Augustinus , cum asserit , quòd non crederet Evangelio , nisi cum Auihoritas Ecclesiae compelleret . Ista enim Ecclesia Scriptores Evangelii & omnes Apostolos comprehendit , sicut probatum est . Occham . Dial. parte 1. lib. 1. cap. 4. §. 16. n. 21. Chap. 5. num . 4. Ibidem . Ibidem . In Epist. ad Galat. cap. 1. vers . 1. Ibidem . Relect. Contr. 4. q. 1. art . 3. §. 16. n. 20. Ibid. num . 21. Ibidem . Chap. 5. num . 1 , 2. Ibid. n. 23. §. 16. n. 21. Ibid. n. 21. Ibidem . Haec crit vobis directa via , ita ut stulti non 〈◊〉 per cam . Psalm 118. 105. Ibid. n. 21. § 16. n. 20. Ibid. n. 22. Ibid. §. 16. num . 24. Ibid. n. 24. Ibid. n. 〈◊〉 Ibidem . Ibidem . §. 16. n. 26. Ibidem . Ibidem . Ibidem . a Lib. de Spirit . sanct . cap. 17. Ibidem . Ibidem . num . 27. Ibidem . Ibid. n. 28. Matth. 7. 20. Luke 10. 16. Matth. 28. 20. Joan. 14. 16. Ibid. n. 29. * In illis donis quibus salus aliorum 〈◊〉 ( qualia sunt Prophetiae & Interpretationes Sermonum ) Spiritus Sanctus nequaquam semper in praedicatoribus 〈◊〉 . S. Gregor . lib. 2. moral . cap. 29. Ibid. n. 29. a Cyprian de unit . Ecclesiae . b 〈◊〉 Epist. ad Cornel. Cyril . Catech. Mystag . 18. c Ambros. libr. 4. Hexamer . cap 2. Hieronym . in cap. 2. Isa. in cap. 9. Amos. in cap. 48. Ezech. Aug. in Psal. 47. & 101. lib. de agon , Chrislian . cap. 29. d Euscb. Caerasiens . de praeparat . Evangel . lib. 1. cap. 3. Cyrill . Alexandrin . Dial. 4. de Trinitat . e Cyrill . Alexandrin . lib. 5. in Isa. cap. 54. f Chrysostom . in cap. 2. Isa. a Omnes autem insipientissimi Haeretici , qui se Christianos vocari volunt , &c. b Liquido apparet , 〈◊〉 primum acceperunt Discipuli corpus & sanguinem Domini , non eos accepisse jejunos . Nunquid tamen proptereà 〈◊〉 est universae Ecclesiae , quòd à jejunis semper accipitur . Hoc enim placuit Spiritui sancto , ut in honorem tanti Sacramenti , in os Christiani prius 〈◊〉 corpus intraret , quam caeteri cibi . Nam ideò per universum orbem mos iste servatur . Epist. 118. ad Jannar . c Christi verò Ecclesia , sedula & cauta depositorum apud se Dogmatum custos , nihil in iis unquam permutat , nihil minuit , nihil addit ; non amputat necessaria , non apponit superflua ; non amittit sua , non usurpat aliena ; sed omni industriâ hoc unum studet , ut vetera fidelitèr sapienterque tradendo , &c. Num. 31. Ibid. n. 31. Ibidem . Ibidem . Ibid. n. 32. a Quod si ego , sive alius quis vellet exurgentium Haeresum fraudes deprehendere , laqueosque vitare , & in fide sanâ sanus atque integer permanere , duplici modo munire fidem suam Domino adjuvante , deberet . Primò scilicet Divinae legis Authoritate , deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae Traditione . Lirinens . advers . Haeres . lib. 1. cap 1. Ibidem . Ibidem . § 16. n. 32. a Sicut ergo ego credo illum librum esse Manichaei , quoniam ex ipso tempore , que Manichaeus vivebat in carne , per Discipulos 〈◊〉 certâ successione Praepositorum vestrorum ad vestra usque tempora custoditus atque perductus est : sic & istum librum crede esse Matthaei , quem ex illo tempore , quo Matthaeus ipse in carne vixit , non interruptâ serie temporum Ecclesia certâ connexionis successione usque ad tempora ista perduxit . Aug. lib. 28. contr . Faustum , cap. 2. * Chap. 6. num . 1 , 2. Ibid. n. 33. Ibidem . Ibidem . Num. 34. Punct . 1. Punct . 2. Punct . 3. Punct . 4. Punct . 5. a 2 Cor. 5. 7. 1 Cor. 13. 12. Joan. 15. 24. Matth. 11. 21. Joan. 10. 26 , 38. b Nam quis vel cogitet absque Blaspbemiâ , Deum commodaturum suam 〈◊〉 vim vit tutemque mendacio ? Chamier . Tom. 2. Controv. lib. 16. cap. 14. pag. 677. Sigilla sunt verae doctrinae . Calvin . Harm . in Marc. cap. 13. p. 302. Nihil aliud sunt , quam Doctrinae suae 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 . Harm . in Mat. cap. 10. pag. 124. True Miracles we shall hold as Gods Scals of Divine Truth . Bishop Morton , on the Sacrament , lib. 4 cap. 2. §. 2. Punct . 6. Punct . 7. Punct . 8. Punct . 9. Ibidem . §. 17. §. 18. n. 1. Ibidem . Ibid. num . 4. Ibid. num . 5. Homil. 57. in Joan. c. 9. a Quanta audivimus & cognovimus ea : & patres nostri narraverunt 〈◊〉 Non sunt occultata à filiis eorum , in generatione alterâ . Psalm . 77. 3 , 4. &c. b Eruntque , verba haec , quae 〈◊〉 praecipio 〈◊〉 hodie in corde tuo ; & 〈◊〉 ca filiis tuis . Deut. 6. 6 , 7. Cumque interrogaverit te filius tuus 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 , Quid 〈◊〉 volunt Testimonia baeo & 〈◊〉 atque Judicia , quae praecepit ` Dominus Deus noster nobis ? Dices ei , servi cramus Pharaoni in AEgypto , &c. Deut. 6. 20 , 21. Calvin . lib. 4. Instit. c. 1. §. 5. 〈◊〉 . 17. 18. &c. §. 19. n. 1. Ibidem . Ibidem . Ibid. num . 2. Ibidem . Ibid. num . 2. * Contr. Epist. Fund . cap 5. §. 20. n. 1. Ibid. num . 2. Ibid. num . 4. Ibid. num . 4. D. Aug. de verb Dom. sec. Lucam . cap. 26. Euseb. Hist. lib. 4. cap. 5. a Advocavit ad se Episcopum loci , 〈◊〉 est , utrumuam cum Episcopis Catholicis , hoc est , cum Romanâ Ecclesiâ , conveniret . D. Ambros. 〈◊〉 . in obit . fratr . b Sed in scito , &c. Romanam fidem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse participem 〈◊〉 Ecclesia gloriatur . D. Hicronym . cpist . 68. ad Theophil . c Joan. Patriarch . Constant. Epist. ad Hormisdam . 〈◊〉 . 2. Conc. d 〈◊〉 Sacerdotes vel ab ipsâ Sede Petri , & in ordine illo Patrum quis cui successit , videte . Ipsa est Petra , quam non vincunt Superbae Iuferorum 〈◊〉 . D. Aug. in Psalm . contr . 〈◊〉 . Donat. Tom. 7. col . 9. e Igitur negare non 〈◊〉 scire te , in urbe 〈◊〉 Petro primo Cathedram Episcopalem esse collatam ; in quâ sederit omnium Apostolorum Caput , Petrus , &c. in quâ unâ Cathediâ unitas ab omnibus servaretur , ne 〈◊〉 Apostoli singulas sibi quisque defendercnt : ut jam Schismaticus & peccator esset , qui contra singularem Cathedram alteram collocaret . Ergo Cathedrâ 〈◊〉 , quae est prima dc dotibus , sedit prior Petrus . &c. Optat. contr . Parmen . lib. 2. f Damaso ( successit ) Syricius , qui noster est Socius ; cum quo nobis totus orbis commercio 〈◊〉 , in unâ Communionis Societate , concordat . Optat. ibidem . g Cum probatum est , 〈◊〉 esse in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ , apud quos & Symbolum Trinitatis est , & per Cathedram Petri , quae nostra est . Optat. ibid. h Ego 〈◊〉 primum ( PRAEMIUM fortasse rectius ) nisi Christum sequens , Beatitudini tuae , id est , Cathedrae Petri Communione consocior . Super illam Petram 〈◊〉 Ecclesiam scio . Quiounque extra hanc domum Agnum comederit , profanus est — Quiounque tecum non colligit , spargit ; hoc est qui Christi non est , Antichristi est . D. 〈◊〉 . Epist. 57. ad Damasum . Tom. 2. fol , 47. i Romana ( quae mundi cacumen est ) tenot & 〈◊〉 Ecolosia . Fulgent de 〈◊〉 . cap. 11. k Terras , ad quas per gere concupiscis , à Communione beati Petri perfida dissentio separavit . Omnes illi Monachi , quorum praedicatur mirabilis abstinentia non habebunt secum Altaris Sacramenta communia . Quid ergo proderit , &c. Author vit . B. Fulgent . Tom. 6. Biblioth . Patr. fol. 15. l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Theodoret. Hist. Eccles. lib. 5. cap. 2. a Cyprian . Epist. ad Cornel . Edit . Paris . 1648. § 3. num . 5. Hieronym . lib. 3. Apol. contr . Ruffin . Greg. Naziauz in carmin . de vitâ suâ . §. 3. num . 10 Ibidem . Bellarm. 〈◊〉 Rom. Pont lib. 4. cap. 3. a Secundum 〈◊〉 promissionem Ecclesia Apostolica Petri ab omni seductione & Haereticá circumventione manet immaculata , &c. Cyril . apud D. Thom. in Catenâ . b In Ecclesiâ urbis Romae , 〈◊〉 Haeresis ulla sumpsit exordium ; & Mos ibi servatur Antiquus . 〈◊〉 . in expos . Symb. D. Cyril . Alex. Dial. de Trinit . lib. 4. Ibid. n. 12. Ibidem . Ibid. n. 14. num . 15. Ibid. n. 15. §. 20. n. 5. Ibidem . Relect. Controv . 1. q. 5. ar . 3. Treatise of Schism . cap. 1 , 2. Ibidem . a Utinam illi , à quibus , &c. non ipsi harum superstitionum auctores essent , vel certè eas in animis 〈◊〉 minum simpli cium aliquando quaestus 〈◊〉 nutrirent . Cassand Consult . ar . 21. Cyprian . epist. 42 , 52. Cyprian , ubi suprà . Ibid. in margine . n. 4. § 21. n. 1. Ibidem . b See Dr. Hammond above-cited . c Zach. 8. 3. d 1 Tim. 3. 15. e 〈◊〉 . advers . Haeres . lib. 3. cap. 4. Cyrill . Hierosol . Catech. 18. Lactant. lib. 4. cap. 30. Ibid. n. 3. Ibidem . Ibid. n. 4. Serm. 3. de Resurrect . Epist. ad Januar . 118. c. 5. Ibid. n. 5. * Bellar. lib. 3. de 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 . cap. 1. Ibidem . Mat. 16. 18. Mat. 18. 17. Ibidem . a See Dr. Hammond Treatise of Schisme , cap. 1 , 2. §. 21. num . 7 Becan . Tract . de Fide Haeretic . servand . praefat . Becanus ubi suprà q. 6. §. 2. * 'T is extant in the Acts of the Council of Trent . Sess. 16. sub Pio 4. Concil . Constant . 〈◊〉 19. De poenis Art. 46. § 52. Ibid. §. 54. Galat. 1. Ibid. num . 9. Ibidem . Ibid. §. 23. § 24. num . 1. a Si fornicaris tu Israel , non delinquat saltem Juda , Oseae 4. 15. b Sacerdotes de extremis populi , qui non 〈◊〉 de 〈◊〉 Levi. 3 〈◊〉 . 12. 13. 28. Hen. 8. cap. 7. 3. Reg. 13. 1. a Bellarm. lib. 2. de Christo , cap. 23. §. His ergo omissis . Ibid. num . 2. b See Bellarmin , ubi suprà . a Lib. 3. de Process . S. S. cap. 16. b La Repliq . au Roy de la grand . Bretagu . pag 818. cap. Des Traditioons . a D. Aug. Epist. 90 , 91 , 92 , 93. Ibidem n. 3. Ibidem n. 4. a Paulus Suavius ( the Venetian Frier ) his history of the Councill of Trent , twice printed here at London by publique Authority . Ibidem n. 5. a ` Bellarm. lib. 2. de Christo , cap. 28. b D. Aug. epist. 4. ad Bonifac . cap. 12. Ibid. num . 5. c Omnes Ecclesiae status aut in Generali Concilio reformetis , aut in Concillis Provincialibus reformari mandetis . Gerson . 〈◊〉 . Defectuum virorum Ecclesiasticorum par . 1. pag. 209 B. Baron . ad Annum 319. Geunad . de Scrip. Eccl. cap. 86. Ibid. num . 5. Ibidem . Ibidem . Ibidem n. 6. §. 25. num . 1. Ibidem n. 2. 1 Pet. 2. 1 , 2. Ibidem . n. 4. Suprà num . 3. Ibidem . a Nostra sententia est Ecclesiam absosolutè non posse errare , 〈◊〉 in rebus absolutè 〈◊〉 , uec in aliis , quae credenda vel facienda nobis proponit , sive habeantur expressè in 〈◊〉 , five non . Bellar. l. 3. 〈◊〉 Eccl. Mil. c. 14. §. 5. Ibidem . Joan. 16. 13. Ibid. num . 4. Bellar. lib. 3. de Eccl. Milit. cap. 14. §. 25. n. 5. S. Aug. lib. de Symbol . ad 〈◊〉 . cap. 6. apud . D. Thom. in Catenâ hujus loci . Cap. 10. in 〈◊〉 . In Anchorat . Tom. 2. pag. 14. Matth. 28. 20. Ibidem . Ibidem . S. Lco. Epist. 91. * Quae expositio si ita intelligeretur , ut diceret immediatè oratum esse pro Capite Ecclesiae , & 〈◊〉 pro toto corpore , quod per caput representatur , vera esset . Bellarm. l. 4. de Rom. Pont , cap. 3. iuitio . D. Bern. Epist. 190. ad Innocent . Dr. Field lib. 4. de Ecclesiâ , cap. 2. b Neque Divini Prophetae , neque Miralliles Apostoli Omnia praescivêrunt . Quaecunque enim expediebant , 〈◊〉 illis significavit gratia Spiritus . Theod. in 1 Tim. c. 3. v. 14 , 15. Ibidem . n. 5. § 25. n. 7. * Gen. 2. 18. † 1 Cor. 9. 5. See Rogers on the thirty nine Articles . a See the Book call'd Corpus Consessionum , in every Controverted Article . Ibidem . n. 8. Iren. lib. 3. cap. 3. * Arbitramur — adjuvante 〈◊〉 Domini nostri Jesu Christi — Authoritati Sanctitatis tuae de sanctarum Scripturarum Authoritate depromptae , facilius eos , qui 〈◊〉 perversa & 〈◊〉 sentiuns , esse cessuros . D. Aug. epist. 92. Edit . Binii Arabic . a Nicol. Pap. cpist . ad Michael . Imperat . b Zozomen lib. 3. cap. 7. c Aug. epist. 162. Ibid. n. 10. d D. Aug. epist. 162. e Optat. Milev . lib 1. cont . Parmen . f D. Aug. cont . lit . Petil. lib. 2. cap 92. g Aug. epist. 166. h Euseb. Hist. lib. 10. cap. 5. i D. Aug. epist. 166. Optat. Milev . lib. 1. contr . Parmen . k D. Aug. de unic . Baptism . contr . Petil. cap. 16. D. Aug. in Brevic. collat : Carth. part . 3. m Optat. Milevit . lib. 1. n D. Aug. epist. 162. o Epist. Constantin . ad Episc . Cathol . in fine Gestor . in purgat . Caecil . & Felicis . p D. Aug. epist. 60 & 162. & lib. de unic . Baptism . cap. 16. q Epist. Concil . Arelatens . 1. r D. Aug. epist. 162. s D. Aug. in Brevic. Collat. Carthag . parte 3. col . 589 , 590 , 591. § 25. n. 10. t Si aliqui in vobis sunt , qui certa ipsorum crimina ita noverint ut ea facile valeant convincere , & talibus communicare formidant , PERGANT ad fratres nostros Transmarinarum Ecclesiarum Episcopos , & ibi prius de ipsorum factis & contumaciâ conquerantur , quod ad judicium 〈◊〉 Africanorum malè sibi conscii venire noluerunt ; ut ibi illis denuncietur ut veniant , ibique objectis respondeant . D. Aug. epist. 162. u An fortè non debuit Romanae Ecclesiae Melciades Episcopus cum Collegis Transmarinis illud sibi usurpare judicium , quod ab Afris Scptuaginta , ubi primas Tigisitanus praesedit , fuerit terminatum ? Quid quod nec ipse usurpavit : rogatus quippe Imperator Judices misit Episcopos , quicum eo sederent , & de 〈◊〉 illâ causâ quod justum videretur , statuerent . D. Aug. ibidem . x V. Aug. epist. 162. & 166. ubi supra . y Ad cujus curam , de quā rationem 〈◊〉 redditurus est , res illa maximè 〈◊〉 , D. Aug. epist. 162. z Concil . African . Can. 101. a Vt Roman liceat Epscopis provocare ; & ut Clericorum causae apud suarum Provinciarum Episcopos finiantur , jam priore anno , etiam literis uostris ad eundem venerabilis memoriae Zozymum Episcopum datis , infinuari curavimus , &c. Concil . African . epist. ad Bonifac. Pap. to which St. Austin subscribed . b Si dictum fuerit , quod nec Metropolitanum nec Patriarcham habeat , dicendum est , quod à Sede Apostolocâ , quae omnium Ecclesiarum Caput est , causa audienda est . D. Greg. lib. 11. Indict . 6. epist. 54. a Bed. lib 5. Eccles. Hist. cap. 20. b Bed lib. 〈◊〉 Eecl . Hist. cap. 19. §. 25. n. 11. Baron . ad Ann. 419. n. 92 , 93. Bellar. lib. 2. de Rom. Pout . cap. 25. in fin . Baron . ubi suprà . a Celestin. Epist. ad Epise . Gal. b 〈◊〉 Epist. 87. ad Episcop . Mauritan . c Victor . Vticens lib. 2. de persecut . Vandal . d Binius Tom. 3. Conc. Edit . Colon. e D. Greg. lib. 1. epist. 72 , 75. lib. 7. epist. 32. &c. f Paul. , Diac . lib. 17. de Gest. Roman . Ibid. n. 12. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrat. lib. 7. Hist. Cap. 11. § 25. n. 12. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. Concil . Chalced. Act. 3. b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. Concil . Constantinop sub Mena Act. 5. c ap . Baron . Tom 8. ad ann . 595. pag. 90. edit . Rom. d Baron . ad Ann. Cbristi 681. pag. 558. edit . Rom. * Binius Tom. 5. in Conc. 6. Act. 18. edit . 1636. e Glaber . Rodolph . Hist. lib. 4. cap. 1. f Theod. Balsam . lib. 7. g See Jus Canonicum Oriental . lib. 3 h Cod. Justinian . Impress . Paris . Antverp . &c. Tit. 1. l. 7. i Conc. Constantinop . sub Mena. Act. 4. k Conc. Constantinop , ubi suprà . l D. Greg. lib. 5. epist 24. lib. 4. epist. 39. m D. Greg. lib. 7. epist. 63. n Amular . de Divin . Offic. lib. 4. cap. 26. D. Greg. lib 4. 〈◊〉 . 36. lib 7. epist. 69. D. Greg. lib. 4. epist. 76. Ibid. n. 12. Ibidem . §. 25. n. 13. a Ad hanc Ecclesiam , propter potentiorem Principalitatem , necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam , id cst , eos qui sunt undique fideles : in quâ semper ab his qui sunt undique , conservata est ea quae est ab Apostolis Traditio . Iren. lib. 3. cap. 3. §. 25. n. 14. a Ipse autem Dominus constituit cum Primum Apostolorum , Petram firmam super quam Ecclesia Dei aedificata 〈◊〉 ; & Portae Inferorum non praevalebunt adversus illam : Quarum Portarum nomine , &c. D. Epiphan . in Anchorat . Tom. 2. Edit . Petav. pag. 14. 1622. Ibidem . b Euseb. Hist. lib. 2. cap. 22. c D. Hieron-De Script . Eccl. in Jacobo . Ibid. n. 15. §. Respondco Pontificatum . d Nullus enim Episcopus , praeter 〈◊〉 , Sollicitudinem 〈◊〉 unquam omnium Ecclesiarum : Et solus ipse vocatus est 〈◊〉 Pontifex ; & Sedes 〈◊〉 Apostolica simpliciter & per 〈◊〉 ; & munus ejus , 〈◊〉 . Bellarm. ubi . 〈◊〉 . a D. Hieron . lib. 10. cont . Jovinian . §. 25. n. 16. a Bellarm. lib. 4. De Rom. Pont. cap. 3. a Bellarm. lib. 4. de Rom. Pout . cap. 3. 〈◊〉 , ubi suprà . Ibid. n. 17. Ibid. n. 18. a Chap. 13 , 14. § 26. num . 1. Iren. lib. 3. adver . Haeres . cap. 4. a Multae Gentes Barbarorum in Christum credunt , sine Chartâ & Atramento , Scriptam habentes per Spiritum in cordibus salutem , & veterem Traditionem diligenter custodientes . And a little after . Hanc Fidem , qui sine literis , &c. Iren. ubi supra . b Tertullian . de Coron . Milit. cap. 3. & 4. c D. Cyprian . Epist. 63. d D. Basil. lib. 3. de Spirit . Sanct. cap. 27. & 29. e D. Epiphan . Haeres . 61. & 75. Item in Anchorat . f D. Hieron . Dial. contr . Lucif . a D. Aug. lib. 1. De Baptism . cap. 18. Ibid. n. 2. a Indeed the Protestants admit no infallible Means , Rule , or Judge , but onely Scripture , which every man may interpret , as he pleases , and so all shall be uncertain . A. C. pag. 60 Ibidem . n. 3. Ibidem . n. 4. b Tertull. lib. De 〈◊〉 . Milit. lib. 1. cont . Marcion . lib. 2. ad uxor . lib. 〈◊〉 Veland , Virgin. c Contra insurgentes Haereses saepe pugnavi Agraphis , verum non alienis à piâ secundum Scripturam sententiâ . D. Basil. Serm. De Fide. Tom. 2. pag. 153. Ibidem . n. 5. Ibidem . n. 6. 1 Cor. 11. 19. Ibid. n. 8. §. 26. n. 8. Gerson Tract . De Auferibilitat . Papae . Consid. 8. Item . Consid . 20. Auferibilis non est usque ad consummationem saeculi VICARIUS SPON SUS Ecclesiae , quin aliquis Certus & Unicus 〈◊〉 , &c. Hier. Epist. ad Evagrium . a D. Hieronym . in cap 16. Matth. Epist. 54. ad Marcel . & lib. 1. Dial . cont . Lucif . Ibidem . n. 9. Ibidem . Bellarm. lib. 1. De Rom. Pont. cap. 7. Ibid. n. 10. Ibid. n. 11. Ibidem . Tertul. adv . Scapulam . Ibidem . Ibid. n. 12. Ibid. n. 13. §. 27. n. 1. a Chap. 6 , 7 , 14. b Relat. §. 16 n. 20. c Ch. 6. 7. Ibidem . a Cedren . in Compend . Hist. b Photius , in lib. 〈◊〉 7. Synod . c Hincmar . in opusc . 55. cap. 20. d Gelas. Cyzicen . in Prolog . ad Syntag . Conc. Nicen. & in Syntag. Conc. , Nicen. lib. 2. cap. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . e Photius 〈◊〉 Bibliothec. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . f Theod. lib. 5. Hist. cap. 9. 10. a Evagr. lib. 1. cap. 4. b Prosp. in Chronic. c Phot. in lib. de 7. Synod . d Niceph. lib. 14. cap. 24. Liberat. in Breviar . cap. 15. Justinian . in edict . e Leo Epist. 47. Epist. Conc. Chalced. 〈◊〉 Leon. Act. 3. Bellar. lib. 1. de Concil . cap. 21. §. Tertia conditio . Ubi suprà . D. Greg. lib. 10. epist. 31. Ibid. num . 2. §. 28. n. 1. Theod. Hist. lib. 1. cap. 8. §. 29. num . 1 Ibid. num . 2. Ibid. num . 3. Ibidem . Ibid. num . 4. a Spondan . Continuat . Baron . ad Ann. 1574. num . 16. b See Sir Edwin Sands his Europae Speculum . Ross his Pansebia . Brierwoods Enquiries , &c. §. 30. Ibidem . a Bellar. lib. 1. de Concil . cap. 17. §. 2. * Chap. 19. §. 31. §. 32. n. 1. Ibid. num . 〈◊〉 . Ibid. num . 2. Ibidem . Ibid. num . 5. Ibidem . §. 33. Consid. 1. a Chap. 17 , 18. * Note , that we assert not any New Revelations since the Apostles times ; but onely the Assistance of the Holy Spirit , in order to the further Explanation and Clearing of these already deliver'd . Consid. 2. Consid. 3. Num. 1. Ibidem . Ibid. num . 2. a Ch. 14. Ibidem . Ibidem . Consid. 3. num . 3. Ibidem . b Chap. 8. 10. 14. Ibidem . c Maldonat . in cap. 28. Matth. Ibid. num . 4. Ibidem . a Chap. 16. 17. Ibidem . b Bellarm. lib. 1. De Rom. Pont. cap. 10. Concil . cbal . Act. 3. Ibidem . d Chap. 14. a Chap. 2. Ibidem . Ibid. num . 5. b Bellarm. lib. 4. De Rom. Pont. cap. 3. Ibidem . * See Francis. Turrian . Defens . Decretal . c And where as the Relator objects also , that they are falsly alledg'd , the Reader may know , that upon particular inspection , they are found , every one of them , to be truly and faithfully cited by the Cardinal , and rather with omission of something that might have been further urged to his purpose , then otherwise . The Authorities cited are these . Lucii Pap. 〈◊〉 . 1. ad Episc. 〈◊〉 . & Gall. Felic . Pap. epist. ad Benignum Episc. Leo Ser. 3. de Assump . Agathon . Pap epist. ad Imperat. 〈◊〉 read and approv'd in the sixth General Council , Act. 4. & 8. 〈◊〉 1. 〈◊〉 . 8. ad Imperat. Michael . Leo 9 epist. ad Petrum Antiochen . Innocen . 3. epist. ad Episc. 〈◊〉 . All extant in the several Tomes of the Councils , save the last , which may be found Cap. Majores . Extrav . De Baptismo , &c. b Epist. ad 〈◊〉 . Ibidem . c Calvin lib. 4. Insist . cap. 2. §. 3. d Bellarm. de Script . Eccle . Item lib. 2. de Christo , cap. 21. * Chap. 17. Consid. 3. num . 6. Bellarm. lib. 2. de Conc. cap. 2. Ibidem . Ibidem . Ibidem . a Haec tamen Christi verba ad Conciliorum firmitatem 〈◊〉 ò applicarunt Patres Synodi Chalcedonensis , in epistolâ ad Leonem , per Argumentum à minori ad majus . Stapleton Relict . Controv. 6. q. 3. ar . 4. ad tertium . Ibid. num . 7. a D. Cyrill . Lib , 10. de Trin. b S. Leo. Ep. 37. 54. c S. Leo. Ep 50 61. 62. d D. Athanas Ep. ad Epictet . Epiphan . Haeres . 77. e D. Aug. Ep. 162. Ibidem . f D. Athanas. Ep. ad Episc. African . g D. Cyrill . lib. 1. de Trinit . h Euseb. in vita Constan tin lib. 3. i D. Greg. lib. 〈◊〉 Epi. 24. k S. Leo. Epist. 53. 54. l D. Greg. Naz. orat . in D. Athanas. m Epist. ad Michael . Imperat . Ibidem . * Chap. 7. 8. 14. a Ioannis Feri frāciscani opera omnia in Romano Indice prohibita sunt , exceptis Annotationibus et Commentarijs in Matth. et Ioann . Euangelia , et in Ioannis Epistolam primam , Romae recognitis et impressis . Posseuin . Apparat. Sac. pag. 875. Ibidem num . 8. Consid. 4. num . 1. a Ad eiusdē ( Papae ) doctrinam , tanquā ad Infallibilem fidei Regulam , Catholici Episcopi illo tempore suos Aduersatios , Haereticos , coegerunt . Waldens . Tom. 1. Doctrin . fid . lib. 2. cap. 47. b Ego audacter dico in Christi nomine & Christo rogante , Romanam Ecclesiam in Doctrina Christi 〈◊〉 . ( And a litle after ) Quid mirum , si Christo rogante , Romana Ecclesia non potest in 〈◊〉 deficere ; VValdens . vbi suprá . 9 Ibidem D Aug. lib. 2. de Baptism . cap. 3. lib. 1. cap. 7 Ibidem num . 2 , a Bellarm lib. 2. de Concil . cap. 2. Ibidem Ibidem . b Prine . Doctrin . lib. 11. Controv. 6. pag. 381. Ibidem . num . 3. Jbidem . num . 4. * See Marinij Lexicon , in verbo Menda . Ibidem . num . 5. * Chap. 17 * Chap. 17. §. 33. Consid . 5. num . 1. Jbidem . Ibidem num . 2. D. Aug. cont . Ep. fund . c. 5. Ibidem num . 3. Bellarm. de Conc. lib. 2. cap. 8. Ibidem num . 4. Consid. 6. num . 1. Ibidem . num . 2. Ibidem . num . 3. Stapleton . Relect. Contr 4. q. 2. Ibidem num . 3. Ibidem . num . 5. Consid. 7 num . 1. 2 Stapleton . Re lect . Consr. 4. q. 2. Not. 3. Bellarm. lib. 2. de Conc. cap. 12. 〈◊〉 . 3. a D. Aug. lib. de Agon . Christian. cap. 30. b D. Aug. Tom. 8. in psalm . 108. enarrat . 1. c D. Aug. Quaest. ex Nou. Testam . quaest . 75. D. Aug. de verb. dom . serm . 13. Ibidem . num . 4. * chap. 8. 2. Ibidem . e Bellarm. lib. 2. de Conc cap. 16. Ibidem . Ibidem . Ibidem . D. Aug. lib. de Haeresib . Haeres . 88. Ibidem . num 5. a Licet Christus post Caenam instituerit , et suis Discipulis administrauerit sub vtrâque speie panis et vini , hoc Venerabile Sacramentum : tamen , HOC NON OBSTANTE non confici debet post Caenam , nec recipi , nisi a ieiunis ; similiter , quodlicet in Primitiuâ Ecclesiâ Sacramenta reciperentur sub 〈◊〉 specie a 〈◊〉 , tamen haec consuetudo , vt Laicis sub specie panis tantum suscipiatur , habenda est pro lege , quam non licet reprobare : et asserere hane esse 〈◊〉 est erroneum ; et pertinacitèr asserentes sunt arcendi 〈◊〉 Haeretici . Concil . Constant. Sess. 13. Ibidem . num . 6. Hebr. 13. 8. a §. 32. 11. 5. b §. 33. Con sid . 5. 〈◊〉 . 1. Ibidem . num . 7. Ibidem . Ibidem . Ibidem . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . a Conc. Chalced. parte . 2. Act. 2. pag. 228. Item Act. 3. pag. 472. b 〈◊〉 2. Act. 〈◊〉 pag. 234. Edit . Conc. Latin. c D. 〈◊〉 on . Epist. ad Damas . d D. Aug. Ep. 92. e D. Aug. in psalm . contr . Part. Douat . f Fpost . 55. ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . g 〈◊〉 93. h Fpist . ad 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 i Epist. 8. ad 〈◊〉 . Impe rat . k D. Greg. lib. 4. Epist. 52. §. 33. Consi'd 7. num . 11. Parte 1. lib. 9. cap. 6. Ibidem . num 13. Ibidem . a Serm. de 〈◊〉 . Dom. b Orat. Catechet . 37. c Cateches . Mystag . 4. d Lib. 1. de ijs qui Mysterijs initiantur . Cap. 〈◊〉 . Idem . Lib. 4. de Sacram. Cap. 4. * See Gualtierus Chronol . THE FIRST VERITY in euery age . D. Tho. 〈◊〉 parte . q. 80. Art. 12. c. i Serm. 4. do Quadrages . Zozom . Hist. lib. 8 : cap. 5. k D. Basil. Ep. ad Cxsar . Pat. l D. Ambros. orat . in obitu . Fratr . m Euseb. Hist. lib. 6. cap. 36. Paulin. in vit . D. Ambros. n Tertull , lib. 2. ad 〈◊〉 . D. Basilvbi supiá . o D. Cypriau de lapsis . a Aug. lib 22. de Ciuit. Dei. cap. 10. b Quis enim Antistitum , in locis Sanctorum 〈◊〉 , assistens altari , aliquando Dixit , OFFERIMVSTIBI PETRE , PAVLE , CYPRIANE &c. D. Aug. lib. 20. contr . Faust. c. 20. * Quamuis in Memoriam Sacrificet illorum . D. Aug. lib. 22. de Ciuit. Dei. cap. 10. c D. Aug. Tract . 84. in loannem . d D. Aug 〈◊〉 . verb. Apost . Serm. 34. e Quod frequentatur ore Christiano , 〈◊〉 se cuique Sanctorum 〈◊〉 quisque commendat , & 〈◊〉 MEMOR ESTO NOSTRI . D. Aug. lib. 21. de Ciuit. Dei. cap. 27. f D. Aug. Serm. de 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 . Item , his 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 . vpon those words ( chap. . &c. Ibidem . Exod. 32. 13 , Baruch . 3 : 4. Isa. 38 : 3. † 63 : 17. † 65. 8. * Quaest. 149. a Saepe quando non est inventus in praesenti vitâ iustus , PROPTER DEFVNCTORVM VIRTVTEM viuentium miseretur . — vnde 4. Reg 19 : 34. clamat dicens , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 PROPTER ME , ET PROPTER DAVID PVERVM MEVM . D. Chrysost . Homil. 42. in Genes . Item Homil. 27. in 〈◊〉 . Bellarm. lib. 1. de Indulgent . cap. 4. §. 3. † The Protestant Translation . * Bellarm. lib. 2. de Imagin . Sanctor . c. 20. §. 3. Ibidem . Conc. Trident . Sess. 25. Ibidem . Optat. lib 3. cont . Parmen . Albaspin . Obseruat . in lib. 3. Optat. Euseb. Hist. lib. 7. c. 14. Chrysost. Tom. 5. d Euseb. lib. 7. Hist. cap. 14. Sozom. lib. 5. c. 10. Ambros lib. de Incarn . Domc. Sacram . c. 7. Hieron . Epitaph . Paulae Lactāt . 〈◊〉 . de Pass . Dom. e Tertull. lib. de Spectac . cap. 12 f D. lib. 8. de Ciuit. Dei. cap 27. g D Aug. lib 2. Confess . cap. 2. a 〈◊〉 . lib 36. 286. b Spond . 〈◊〉 Barad 〈◊〉 . 1564. num . 〈◊〉 Hiero. 〈◊〉 in Summâ part 3. cap. 3. * Modo a Sacrâ Tridentinâ Synodo , Sets . 25. Explicato . Llamas . 〈◊〉 Suprà . Ibidem . Ibidem . §. 33. num . §. 36. num . Ibidem . §. 35. punct . 5. Ibidem . * §. 35. punct . 5. a Ibidem . A.C. pag. 650 §. 35. num . 20. a Ibidem . punct . 5. b Ibidem . 1. 〈◊〉 4. 3. §. 35. num . 3. §. 35. num 3. a Secundò infero , si quis confiteatur praesentiam corporis Xti , et absentiam panis , neget tamen veram conuersione vnius in aliud , in Haeresim labi : quia Ecclesia . Catholica non solùm duo priora , sed ctiamhoctertium tertium definit ac docet . Suarez . in 3. partem . D. Thomae . disp . 5. quest . 75. Sect. 1. §. vlt. * SVAREZ .... and he a very Learned Aduersary . Relat. Ibid. pag. 287. e Zuarez . vbi suprá . §. 2. Bellarm. lib. 3. de Eucharist . cap. 18. §. Ex his colligimus : et in recgonit . huius loci . g §. 35. num . 3. Ibidem . num 3. Ibidem . punct . 5. Ibidem . Ibidem . 3. King. 19. 18. §. 38. num . 15. Ibidem . §. 34. §. 35. punct . 5 Ibidem . Ibidem . Ibidem . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibidem . 〈◊〉 2. a Aug. lib. 3. de Consens . Euangelist . cap. 25. b Chrysost. Homil. 16. operis imperfect . in Math. c Hieron . in Epitaph . Pa lae . d Theophyl . in cap. 24. Luc. e Hesych . lib. 2. in Leuitic . cap. 9. Beda . in cap. 24. Luc. Ibidem . punct . 3. Ibidem . punct . 4. Ibidem . punct . Ibidem . num . 8. punct . 1. Ibidem . punct . 2. Ibidem . punct 〈◊〉 .4 . Ibidem . num . 9 Ibidem , in margin . See chap. 10. Ibidem . a Prou , 1. 8. § 36. num . 1. Ibidem : Ibidem . Ibidem . 〈◊〉 . §. 37. bidem . num . 4. * Relat. §. 9. pag. 24. Ibidem . num . 5. Ibidem . §. 38. num 1. * Whosoeuer will be Saued , before all things , it is necessary that he hold the CATHOLIQVE FAYTH : Which FAYTH , except euery one doe keep WHOLE and VNDEFILED , with out doubt , he shall perish euerlastingly . See the English Lyturgie . §. 33. num . 5. Athanas. Apol. 2. Relat. 6. Synod . ad 〈◊〉 a D. Aug. Ep. 90. b Innocent . F.p. ad Concil . Carth. qua est 91. inter Ep. D. Aug. Ibidem . Ibidem . c Multa sunt quaenon Fide , quae non sunt absolutè necessaria ad Salutem . Bellarm. lib. 3. de Eccl. Mil. cap. 14 §. Quinto , si 〈◊〉 . Ibidem . Ibidem . num . 2. * See Teriullian's whole booke de prescriptionibus etc. for this . d Tertull. lib. de pudicit . cap. 10. e Epist 1. f Epist. 3. g Ep. 2. h Ep. 1. 2. i Ep. 2. k Epist 1. See Tom 2. Concil . Edit . Bin. l Centur 2. cap. 7. in sine . m Ruffin . praefat in Recognit . Clement . See Magd. Cent. 3. 4. et 5. Item . Caluin . lib 4. Institue . cap. 7. §. 11. n Neque enim aliunde Haereses obortae sunt , aut nata Schismata , quam inde , quod Sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur , nec VNVS in Ecclesiâ ad tempus SACERDOS , ●● ad tempus IVDEX , vice Christi , cogitatus : cui , si secundum magisteria diuina obtemperaret FRATERNITAS VNIVERSA , nemo aduersus . Sacerdotum Collegium quicquam mussitaret , D. Cyprian . Ep. 55. ad Cornel. alias lib. ● . Epist. 3. o D Athanas . Tom 4. p D. Ambros . lib. 3. de Sacram. cap. 3. q Optat. Mileu . lib. 2. contr . Par. men . r Hieron . Ep. ad Damas. s D. Chrysost . Epist. ad innocent t Socrat. lib. 2. cap. , 15 D. Basil. Epist. ad Athanas. x D. Agust . Epist. 162. y Concil . 〈◊〉 . Cau. 4. et 7. z 〈◊〉 ad Caelestinum . a Cone . Cha leed . Act. 1 Ibidem . num . 3. a Caluin . in Psychopanny chia b Iren. lib. 5. cap. 31. c Iren. lib. 4. cap. 45. d Origen . Hom. 15. in Genes . e Idem . ibid. f Euseb. Casar . lib. 4. de Praep. euang . cap. 12. g D. Hieron , Epist. 3. Ibidem . * chap. 22. h D. Basil. lib. de Sp. Sto. cap. 27. i D. Ambros . orat . in obit . Theodosij k D. Hieron . in Epitaph . Paulae . l D. Chrysost . Homil. de Adorat . Crucis . Tom. 5. m Paulin. Epist. 11. ad Seuerū . n Iustiniane in Aushensis . de Monach. Collat. 1. T it 5. o lib. 7. c. 14. p lib. 2. c. 19. q lib. 2. c. 41. r Can. 82. D. Greg. lib , 7. Epist. 53 — ad 〈◊〉 . t Conc. Nicen . 2. Action 7. Ibidem . v Chap. 22. th x Mundum peragraui , et non vidi Soctam deteriorem , aut magis fatuam Christiana , quia Deum , quem colunt , dentibus , deuorant . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . lib. 4. de . Adorat . Eucharist . Ibidem . num . 4. Ibidem . Ibidem . Ibidem . num . 5. * Chap. 7. 8. * §. 16. num . 6. Ibidem . Ibidem . num . 〈◊〉 . Ibidem . §. 38. num . 〈◊〉 . Ibidem . Bellarm. lib. 3. de Instificat . cap. 8. D. Aug. lib. 3. contr . Maximin . cap. 14. a To 〈◊〉 prodijt decretum illud sanctissimum de reparanda totius Christianae Ecclesiae Bibliotheca , quam perditissimi nostrorum temporum Haeretici suis morbis ac 〈◊〉 ita corruperunt , vt nihil aliud quam certissimum eius exilium esset expectondum , nisi TV repentè opem attulisies . Primum enim toto Christianotum orbe conquiri 〈◊〉 doctrinae libros , et publicè exuri 〈◊〉 : deinde EXPVRGARI 〈◊〉 EMACVLARI curasti omnia Catholicorumetlptorum , et PRAECIPVE VETERVM PATRVM scripta , Haeroticorum aetatis nostrae FOECIBVS CONTAMINATA et VENENIS INFECTA , Postremo Catalogum , vel Indicem edi 〈◊〉 Auctorum et Librorum Haeretici nominis &c. Sintus Senens . epist. Ad Pium Quintum . Prefix . Bibliothes . Sunct . Ibidem . num 7. Ibidem . num . 8. §. 38. num . 1. Ibidem . * Sixtus Senens . Biblioth . Sanct. cap. 8. Ibidem . num . 9. * Chap. 2. Ibidem . num . 10. §. 21. num . 5. pag. 141. * Chap. 11. * Chap. 22. 24. * Chap. 21. §. 38. num . 11. Ibidem . Ibidem . Ibidem . num . 12. Baron . ad Ann. 340. num . 〈◊〉 . Ibidem . Ibidem num . 14. Ibidem . Ibidem . num . 14. Ibidem . Ibidem . * Chap. 20. * Chap. 〈◊〉 * Relat. §. 25. num . 5. Ibidem . Ibidem . num . 15. * Chap. 20. Ibidem . Ibidem . Ibidem . num . 15. * Chap. 20. Ibidem . * Chap 10. Ibidem . a Tertull. Iib. de coron . 〈◊〉 . c. 3. b Idem . libr. de monogam . c. 10. d D Cyprian Epist. 52. ad monogam . Ibidem . num . 16. * Hom. 2. in Psalm . 36. Hom. 12. in Ierem. e Bellarm. lib. 10. de Pur. gat . cap. 10. Ibidem . Doct. Vshers answer to the Jesuit . cap. 7. Edit , 1625. * pro valdè bonis gratiarum actiones sunt : pro non valdè malis Propitiationes sunt etc. D. Aug. 〈◊〉 . ad Laurent . cap. 110. * See Bellarm. de Scrip. Ecclesiastic . Baron . Tom. 1. Annal. Delrio's . Vindiciae Areopagita . a Doctor Vshers Answer to tho Iesuit . pag. 248. 249. b Dionys. de Ecclesiast . Hierarch . cap. 7 parte . 3. Ibidem . num . 16. Ibidem . c Homil 6. in Exod. d D. Ambros . in Psalm . 36. Ibidem . * Etsi nō exurimur , tamen vrimur . D. Ambros. ubi supra . D. Ambr. orat . in obit . Theodos. D. Hieton . in cap 66. 〈◊〉 . in fine . e Si 〈◊〉 Origenes omnes rationabiles clearuas dicitnon esle perdendas , et Diabolo tribuit paenitentiam , quid ad nos ? qui Diabolum ac satellites cius omnesque impios et praeuaricatores 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , et Christianos , si in peccato praeuenti fucrint , 〈◊〉 esse post panas . D. Hieron . lib. 1. contr . Pelagian . * Idem in cap. 11. Prou. f D. Basil. in cap 9. Isaia . Epist. 350. g D. Greg. Naz. Orat. 39. in fine . Ibidem . Lactant. lib. 7. cap. 21. h D. Hilar. in illud Psalm 118. concupiuit anima 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &c. i Scripturae et Patres disertè docent post hanc vitam remitti peccata leuia . Bellarm. de Purgat . lib. 1. cap. 14 , §. res . 〈◊〉 . k Nullane supplicia animarum post defunctum morte corpus relinqui l & magna quide ; quorum alia Panali acerbitate , alia Purgatoria clemetia exerceri pute . Boet. lib. 4. de Cousolat . Philosoph . pros . 4. Ibidem . * lib. 1. cap 5. D. Tho : opuse contr . Grae. cos . D. Greg. Nyss. orat . pro Mortuis . Serm. 3. de Resurrect . a D. Aug. de Ciuit. Dei. lib. 21. c. 24. b D. Aug. Enchirid. cap. 110. Epist. 118. c. 5. * D. Aug. in psalm . 37. Item . lib 50. Homiliarum . Hom. 16. c D. Cyrill . Hierosol . Cateches . 5. d D. Chrysost Hom. 〈◊〉 . in Act. e D. Chrysost . Hom. 41. in . 1. ad 〈◊〉 Ibidem . Ibidem . num . 17. Ibidem ; Ibidem . * num . 16. in fine . Ibidem . a lib. 8. Constie . Apost . cap. 47. b Tertull. lib. de Coron . Milit. cap. 3. c Hom. 3. in Epist. ad Philip . §. 38. num . 28 * See chap. 23. Ibidem . num . 17. Ibidem . Ibidem . * Scotus . in 3. sent . D. 23. quaest , vnicâ . b Canus Loc. Theollib 2. cap. 8. §. cui et tersiuni . * Biel. iu 3. sent . Dist. 23. quaest 2. art . 2 Conclus . 1. * Chap. 20. Ibidem , num . 20. Ibidem . Ibidem . num . * Chap 3. 14. * Chap. 20 24 Ibidem . Ibidem . Ibidem . num . 22. * chap. 23 a Epist , ad Dardan . Euseb . lib. 6. c. 14. * Relat. §. 16. num . 6. 7. Ibidem . num . 2. Ibidem . * See Relat. §. 38. num . 15. p. 345. Ibidem . * in 1. Sent. q. 1. ad 4. e lib. 2. Epist. 1. f D. Thom. 2. 2ae . q. 29. a. 〈◊〉 . ad 2. g 〈◊〉 . adu . 〈◊〉 . cap. D. Aug. lib. 1 de Symbol . cap. 6 D Chrysost. Hom. in cap , 2. Isa. D. Cyrill . 〈◊〉 . Catech. 18. Ibidem . Ibidem . num . 24. Ibidem . num . 25. Ibidem . Ibidem . num . 26. 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 . num . 27. D. Cypriam . Epist. 45. ad Cornel alias . lib. 4. Epist 〈◊〉 . a 〈◊〉 et 〈◊〉 in Hadtumettino consistentes , Polycarpo Coepiscopo absente , 〈◊〉 quid nobis in commune placuisse : etc. D. Cyprian . Epist. 45. ad Cornel. b Ad Petri Cathedram , vndè vnitas Sacerdotalis exorta est . D. Cyprian . lib. 1 Epist. 3. Ibidem . c Communione eos nostrâ statim 〈◊〉 esse censuimus . D. Cyprian . Epist. 41. d Grauitati nostrae 〈◊〉 conuenire , 〈◊〉 nostri iam delecti et ordinati ven . 〈◊〉 vltrà famam etc. patiamur . Idem Ibid. e Nam 〈◊〉 erat , vt tu te Episcopum factum esse 〈◊〉 ; 〈◊〉 essetex 〈◊〉 discrepans sactio , cui sopiendae ect Idem , Epist , 42. Ibidem . Baron . ad Ann 154. num . 64. e vt — retēt a per nos veritate , et ad comprobandam Ordina . tionem tuam factâ Authoritate maiore , LITERAE FIERENT , vt te vniuer si Collegae nostri , et Communicationē tuam , id est Catholicae Ecclesiae vni tatem paritèr et charitatem probarent firmitèt et retinerent . D. Cyprian-Epist . 45. ad Cornel. Epist. 44. * Lib. 1. Ep. 4. Item , lib de vmt. Eccl. h Nee ignoramus vnum esse Deum . vnum Christum esse Dominum . quem confessisumus ; vnum Spiritum sanctum : Item VNVM EPISCOPVM INEC CLESIA CATHOLICAESSE DEBERE . Epist Cornel. apud Cypriā . Epist. 46. Ibidem . Ibidem . Ibidem . lib. 2. Epist. Ibidem . Tertull. lib. de praescript . cap. 20. ibidem . * pag. 368. and pag. 371 , in margin . a D. Aug. lib. 1. de Symbol ad Catech . cap. 60 k D. Aug. Epist. 170. l vudeEuangelium in 〈◊〉 venerit . D. Aug. vbi suprâ §. 39. num . 1. Ibidem . 3 Kings . 18 21. Ibidem . Ibidem . num . 〈◊〉 . §. 36. Ibidem . Ibidem . num . 4. Epist 118. Ibidem . Ibidem . Ibidem . Ibide 〈◊〉 . * Chap. 17. a Socrat. 〈◊〉 . lib. 2. cap. 13. 17. lib. 3. 〈◊〉 . 8 , b Sozom. Hist. lib 2. cap 9. c 〈◊〉 , Hist. 〈◊〉 . 2. c. 22 Julius 1. Ipist . ad Ori. ental . Synod Alexand. Epist . ad Felicem . Innocent . 1. Epist. ad Conc. Carthag . Damas. Epist. 4. ad 〈◊〉 . Numid . Gelaf Epist. ad Epise . Dardan . Iustinian . Epist ad Ioā . 2. in Cod. tit . 1. Ibidem . num ? 5. Ibidem . num . 6. 7. A. C. pag. 73. 74. a Iren. lib. 3. cap. 3. Ibidem . * Iren. vbi 〈◊〉 . b D Aug. in psalm . contr . part . Donat. c D. Aug. Epist. 165. d Bellarm. lib. 4. de not . Eccl. cap. 8. Ibidem . num . 8. e Tertull. lib. de 〈◊〉 . cap 32. f Iren. lib. 4. cap. 43. g vpon thy Walls , leru . 〈◊〉 , I haue appointed Watchmen , all the day and all the night ; for euer they shall not hold their peace . Isa. 62. 6. Ibidem . h 〈◊〉 Sana est ab ipsâ 〈◊〉 & legitimâ successione indivulsa Staplet . Relect Contron . 1. Q. 2. 〈◊〉 . 2. notab . 1. i nam e Pastore Lupus sieri potest . Ibid notab . 4. Ibidem . Ibidem . Ibidem . Ibidem . num . 9. Chap. 20. 21. Ibidem . Ibidem . 〈◊〉 . Cor. 1. 27. Ibidem .