LABYRINTHUS CANTVARIENSIS: OR DOCTOR LAWED'S LABYRINTH.  
BEING AN ANSWER TO THE LATE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURIES RELATION OF A CONFERENCE BETWEEN HIMSELF AND Mr. FISHER, ETC. WHEREIN The true grounds of the ROMAN CATHOLIQVE Religion are asserted, the principal Controversies betwixt Catholics and Protestants throughly examined, and the Bishops MEANDRICK windings throughout his whole work laid open to public view.  
By T. C.  
Prepare ye the way of our Lord: make straight the paths of our God.  
Crooked things shall become straight; and rough ways plain.  Isa. 40. 3. 4. 
PARISH Printed by JOHN BILLAINE 1658.   

THE AVTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE READER.  
AS I know myself to haue been moved with no other impulse then that of Charity in composing this book, so do I conjure the Reader to carry the same mind along with him in the perusing of it. It is a great mistake to think, that heat of disputation, for the finding out of truth, is a cooling of Charity. Debates of this kind are not so much breaches of friendship, as a means to unite understandings in the belief of truth. If contentions in Schools, for interest of ones private opinion only, or some worldly glory, be esteemed no violation of amity among disputants, surely to contend merely out of zeal to save souls, cannot be thought inconsistent with Charity. In this contest, our war is not against the person, but the errors of our neighbour: in which to be silent would in some degree make us criminal, and responsable to God for our neighbour's ruin.  
If any man wonder, why an answer came forth no sooner, let him consider, that my Lord Bishop's book was published not long before the time of our public distractions, in which it concerned us 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 have been thought as unhandsome to impugn it, as to fight with a dying Adversary. But the heat of the war being over, and many of the Prelatique party (who, together with ourselves, did daily entertain a confidence of the happy return and restauration of our gracious Sovereign King Charles the second) seeming to conclude, that my Lord of Canterbury's book was an impregnable piece, in regard we had not attempted to assault it, I thought, I should perform a work acceptable to God, and very satisfactory to the wishes of Catholics, if I framed an answer, so often called for, by our Adversaries.  
In perusal of the Bishop's book I found so many affected Windings, and artificial meanders, especially in that important controversy of resolving our Faith, (where he ought chiefly to have aimed at perspicuity) that I could not choose, but look upon it as a Labyrinth; and have therefore so styled it in my answer.  
I intent not to make my Reader spend time in unnecessary Preambles; which I wish him rather to employ in seeking satisfaction within my book. I shall therefore in this preface, only take notice of some few things, which the Bishop urges against us in his dedicatory Epistle to his late Majesty of glorious and dear memory.  
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 (saith he) Mr. Fisher was charged upon his allegiance, not to set out, or publish what passed in some of the conferences, till his Majesty gave further licence. To which I answer, his Majesty's command (even as here set down by the Bishop) doth only forbid the publishing of what passed in some of these conferences: so that, for aught appears, what passed in other some might be published without further licence. Secondly, 'tis averred by A. C. that not Mr. Fisher, but his Adversaries, first transgressed this precept of his Majesty by diuulging false reports to the prejudice of Mr. Fisher's person and cause: by reason whereof Mr. Fisher was forced, for the just and necessary vindication of himself and the Catholic cause, to deliver some copies to his friends. Thirdly, who made most haste in publishing what had passed in these Conferences, appears likewise out of W. I. from whom the Bishop frames all this charge against Mr. Fisher. Some may (perhaps) marvel (says W.I.) why these Relations came out so late; it being now long, since the Adversaries have given out false reports both in speeches and print. So that it seems by this, not Mr. Fisher, but his Adversaries were the first provokers both in speeches and print; and by consequence, the only transgressors of his Majesty's command.  
Neither are those of Mr. Fisher's profession so apt to complayn, and cry out Persecution, without cause; there being then persons of great Authority about the King, inciting his Majesty to put the penal and sanguinary Laws against us, in rigorous execution: to say nothing of those, who were then actually persecuted. Nor does the Bishop so much clear, as contradict himself in this particular, while he first says (pag. 11. of his Epistle) God forbid I should ever offer to persuade a persecution, in any kind, or practise it in the least: and yet, in the very next lines, adds; God forbid too, that your Majesty should let the laws (viz. against Catholics and Catholic Religion) sleep, forfeare of the name of persecution.  
If Mr. Fisher and his fellows do angle for his Majesty's subjects, as the Relatour pretends, 'tis only to bring them the safe to Heaven, and by which only they themselves hope to arrive thither: it is not to draw them into the belief of any assertions repugnant to loyalty and Christian virtue, but such as their Teachers will be ever ready to maintain, both with their pens and lives. To fish, in this manner, deserves 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) received from Christ. Matth. 4. 18. follow me, and I will make you Fishers of men.  
Neither doth Mr. Fisher, or any of his profession, allow, or use any such nets, as the Relatour mentions (pag. 11. Epist.) that is, they neither practise, nor hold it lawful to dissolve oaths of Allegiance, to depose or kill Kings, to blow up states for the establishing of QUOD VOLUMUS etc. All which, out of his Charity, and professed forbearance towards us, the Bishop does very kindly insinuate both to his Majesty and the Reader. But our answer is, we yield to none in all Christian and true allegiance to our Sovereign Lord the King; which we have in times of trial so manifested to the world, that we hope there are not many, even among our Adversaries, but are convinced of our real fidelity: and though some perhaps will talk more, and swear more, yet none upon all just occasions will do more, in defence of his Majesty's sacred Person, rights, and dignity, than those of our profession. This is certain, Roman-Catholiques alone can glory in this, that whereas in these late unhappy times, some of all other Religions in England, opposed either his sacred Majesty that now is, or his Royal Father, they only have been, all and ever Faithful to them both: thereby showing, that the doctrine of Allegiance to their lawful Soureigns is a necessary point of their belief, and a part of that duty, which not only interest and ends, but Religion and conscience obliges them to pay.  
The Relatour would have us observe, that the Church of England is between two factions, as between two millstones, like to be growned to powder. (pag. 15. Epist.) meaning by one of these, Catholics; for whom alone, I have undertaken to plead. The Bishop here seems to complain of persecution himself, as well as we; but with far less reason, as is evident: seeing we Catholics, (if we were so ill minded) have no other instruments to persecute withal, but our tongues and our pens; which draw no blood, and in the use whereof, I presume no indifferent man, well considering what hath passed both from the pulpits and presses of our Adversaries, will think, that in any thing, they fall short of us, either for lowdness, or passion.  
'Tis no such idle Query, as the Relatour would have 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 have any Protestants as yet, been able to show a visible Church in the world, before Luther's time, professing the doctrine, which distinguishes them from us? 'Tis true, they have been often called upon to this purpose; but have ever any of them done it? was the question ever answered categorically? or otherwise then by tergiversation, and shifting it off with ambiguioyes of their own fiction? as the Relatour himself (for example) here doth, by telling us, their Church was there where ours is now; one and the same Church still; no doubt of that; one in substance, but not one in condition of state, etc. Is this to answer categorically? we do not inquire whether or Noah, or in what feigned sense, theirs and ours may be said to be one and the same Church: the following treatise doth sufficiently confute that pretence: But our enquiry is, whether there were a Ptotestant Church before Luther's 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 errors and superstitions of our Church, and believing the doctrine, which Protestants now believe and hold in opposition to our Church. This, neither the Bishop nor any body else, was ever able to prove. We Catholics, therefore do 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 Luther's 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, than what is merely fictitious and arbitrary, and whereby, all Heretics whatsoever may, if they will, pretend to be one and the same Church with the Catholic. Nor is it possible for Protestants to confute them; seeing they can bring no convincing argument to prove, that such errors are more destructive of the Foundation, than those which they account damnable and to shake the very Foundation of Christian Religion. Who knows not that we Catholics, differ from Protestants in the Sacraments; which certainly are of the substance of Religion, if any thing be; and by our Adversaries own principles, and definition of a Church pertain to the Church's essence? We differ from them in the matter of Sacrifice; which they reject, but we hold and believe to be the most principal and solemn action of all that pertains to Religious worship. We differ from them also in many other points of main concernment to the honour of God and Salvation of souls. They charge us, and we them errors directly derogatory to God's honour, directly contrary to divine Revelation, directly contrary to the institution and ordinance of Christ and repugnant to Salvation. How then are we one and the same Church? or how can Protestants pretend to become members of the Catholic Church, 〈◊〉 s they maintain principles, or articles of doctrine of such high concernment in Religion, contrary to the belief of the whole Catholic Church, in so many ages before Luther?  
What he lays to our charge (Epist. pag. 17.) of crying up the Church above Scripture, and that so farrae, as to endanger the belief of it with a great part of men, will be abundantly shown in the following discourse, to be a calumny of the greatest magnitude. At present we only protest against it as such, and aver with himself, that the Scripture, where it is plain, should guide the Church; and the Church, where there is doubt, or difficulty, should expound Scripture. Only to that Proviso which he adds, touching the Church's exposition of Scripture, viz. that she may reuise what in any case hath slipped from her, we cannot allow it, till we certainly know his meaning. For if by revising what hath shipped from her he meant to intimate (as 'tis most probable he did) that the Church should err in any thing she defines to be believed, 'tis his own error to affirm it, as we shall prove hereafter: if any thing else, we meddle not with it.  
Whereas he observes (Epist. pag. 18.) that many rigid Professo urs have turned Roman Catholics, and in that turn, have been more jesuited than any other: and that such Romanists as have changed from them, have for the most part, quite leapt over the mean, and been as rigid the other way; to the first part of his observation I assent; reason itself teaching it to be true. For the streams of that zeal, which formerly wrought extravagantly in them, by reason of their ignorance and error, being now cleared and turned the right way, make the Professors of it still fervorous for that, which is good, and no less vehemently averted from what they know to be ill. But of the second part I cannot approve; it being so contrary to all experience; which shows, that the desertours of our Religion seldom become so zealous in the contrary way, as the Relatour pretends: nay reason itself is against it. For, commonly speaking, the motives of their turn are either the preservation of their estates, the obtaining of some other worldly and temporal ends, or lastly some voluptuous pleasure, of which in the way of Catholic Religion they find themselves debarred. And hereof this is an assured Argument, that when these motives cease, (as at the hour death they all do) many of them, through the mercy of God, return from whence they had departed. Whereas on the other side, I never yet heard of the man, who professing the Catholic Faith in time of health, desired in sickness to die a Protestant.  
The Relatour observes again (Epist. pag. 19) that no one thing hath made conscientious men (of his party) more wavering in their minds, and more apt to be drawn beside from the Religion professed in the Church of England, then want of of uniform and decent order etc. thereupon taking occasion to enlarge himself on the subject of ceremonies, showing their usefulness and necessity in the public exercise of Religion; wherein I have no 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 unnecessary and superstitious, he might have known, that the Council of Trent itself not only enables, but enjoins all particular Bishops in their respective Dioceses, and all Archbishops and Metropolitans in their respective Provinces, to reform what ever they may find amiss in this kind. And this his crimination is no more, than was objected to himself by his own people.  
We shall in due place show, in what sense it is, we maintain, that out of Rome, that is, out of the communion of the Roman-Catholique Church, there is no salvation. At present it may suffice to say, that we do not shut up salvation in such a narrow conclave as the Bishop would have his Reader believe, when he parallels us with the Donatists. We teach no other doctrine concerning the attainment of salvation, than 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 Catholic Church, salvation is not to be expected. Nor do we shut Heaven-gates, as the Relatour insinuates, to any that are willing to enter; provided, they be willing to enter, and go that way, which Christ hath appointed. But 'tis the Bishop and his party, that do really shut Heaven-gates to those who otherwise might enter, even whilst they pretend to open them. For by teaching the way to Heaven to be wider than it is, and that Salvation may be attained by such means, and in such ways, as according to God's ordinary Providence it cannot, what do they but put men into a false way, and in stead of leading them in that straight path to eternal happiness, which the Gospel prescribes, trace out that broad way to them, which leads to death?  
I shall close my Preface with an Advertisement to such, as are apt to quarrel at words, beyond the meaning of those that use them. The infallible (which in treating of the Church and General Councils I have had frequent occasion to make use of) is cunningly raised by our Adversaries to so high a pitch of signification, as though it could import no less, than the ascribing of an intrinsical unerring power in all things, to those we account infallible; which is clearly to pervert our meaning: we intending to signify no more, when we say the Church, or General Councils are infallible, then that by virtue of Christ's promise they have never erred, nor ever shall in definitions of Faith.  
In fine, Good Reader, that thou mayst see and embrace the truth, is the hearty wish of him, that bids thee no less heartily.  
Farewell.   

Labyrinthus Cantuariensis. OR, Dr. LAWED'S LABYRINTH. BEING An Answer to his Lordship's Relation of a Conference between Himself and Mr. Fisher, etc.  

CHAP. I. Stating the Conference between the Bishop and Mr. Fisher, for Satisfaction of a Person of Honour.  
ARGUMENT.  
1. The Introduction. 2. The Bishop's Artifice in waving a direct Answer to the Question. 3. His pretended Solutions to certain Authorities referred 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 Error, not the Ancient. 6. why FILIOQUE inserted into the Nicene Creed.  
1. THough Dedalus, that ingenious Artificer, might possibly show no less skill in contriving his Cretan Labyrinth, than did the principal Architect, employed by Solomon in building that Magnisicent Temple at Jerusalem; yet their Labours were of a different nature. For whereas the latter exercised his Art in raising a noble, elevated, lightsome Structure; the former (Dedalus) used all his Inventive industry in framing a Subterraneous, darksome Prison, with such redoubled Turnings, perplexed Windings, and tortuous Meanders, that who ever entered into it, might indeed wander up and down within its involved and recurring paths, but never be able to get either back, or thorough it.  
Now alluding to these different Works, we may not unfitly compare the learned Labours of the Fathers, Doctors, and worthy Divines of God's Church, to this stately Temple of Solomon, being the rich and illustrious Monuments of their Piety, Zeal, and Erudition. Whereas by the Cretan Labyrinth are fitly Symbolised the Artificial, but Pestiferous Works of all Heretical Authors, who (forsaking the ever-visible and conspicuous Church of Christ, and known Consent of Christendom) induce themselves and Followers to believe the novel Fancies of their own Fanatic Brains. These men's Labours are so far from being lightsome Monuments, that they are rather Labyrinths, or intricate Dungeons for poor seduced Souls; who being once engaged in the perplexities of their entangled flexures, see not the radiant light of God's Church; some few only excepted, whom of his great mercy he is pleased to show the way out, and reduce into his Fold.  
Now it hath already been shown by others, that the Works of many late Protestant Writers of this Nation are of the aforesaid intangling Nature; and I doubt not, by God's help, but to evidence, that this their Grand Author's 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 composed, 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 than Ariadne's, the Line of the Catholic Church's Authority and Tradition, joined with Holy Scripture, hath not only carried me through it, but by God's 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 design not the Defence either of Mr. Fisher or any other Author, further than they deliver the generally received Doctrine of the Catholic Church; which is that I undertake to maintain.  
The three leading pages of the Bishop's Book contain the occasion of the Conference between himself and Mr. Fisher, viz. for the satisfaction 
§ 1, 2.  of an Honourable Lady, who having heard it granted (on the Protestant part) in a former Conference, that there must be a continual, 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 Continual, 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 herself spoke very advisedly, if she said, she desired to rely 
§ 3. num. 2. pag. 3.  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 Error direct her in all Doctrinal 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 satisfy her perplexed Conscience, vainly pursues that mere 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 err in Doctrine of Faith, without connotating, or implying any other Church that might err. Nor can it be pretended, that the Particle a or an is only 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 
§ 18. num. 5  Militant Church, he says, And if she err in the Foundation, that is, in some one or more Fundamental Points of Faith, than 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 Catholic or Universal Church, unless he intended to speak nonsense, 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, etc. of any other, save the Universal 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 Universal 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 herself, 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 entered his hand, and willing to show 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 
§ 3. num. 3. pag. 4.  Infallibility in the Particular Church, or Diocese of Rome, as hoping to make that opinion pass for an Article of Faith among Catholics (which it is not) and by confuting it, to seem to have overthrown the Infallibility of the whole Catholic Church. Now though Beauties' opinion is, indeed, That the whole Clergy and People of Rome cannot err in Faith, and desert the Pope, so long as his Chair remains in that City; yet the Bishop knew very well, that the Catholic Church doth not restrain the Doctrine of her Infallibility to that opinion of Bellarmin: it being sufficient for a Catholic 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 
§ 3. num. 3. 4, 5, 6, 7, etc.  several Opinions of Bellarmin, (as whether the Pope's Chair may be removed from Rome; and in case of such Removal, whether that Particular Church may then err) 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, etc. 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 Catholics, 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 myself obliged to take notice of his pretended Solutions, till I find them brought to evacuate the Infallibility of the Catholic, or Roman Church in its full Latitude, as Catholics ever mean it, save when they say expressly the Particular Church, or Diocese, of Rome, as here Bellarmin doth. However, I intent 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 glozing almost every word of the Text imperfectly alleged, he makes that Father give no more Privilege to Rome, than 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 taxed by the Ancients, for holding a possibility of the Pope's teaching Error in matter of Faith, but never reflects, that he was as little taxed by them for affixing possibility of Erring to the Universal and Immemorial Tradition of Non-rebaptization, embraced and practised against him by the whole Church. Fourthly, I shall show, that his Lordships Answer to St. Hieromes Authority is merely Nugatory, making him advertise Ruffinus, that the Apostolical Faith, first preached at Rome, could not in itself be any other, than what it essentially is; that is, it could not be changed, so long as it remained unchanged. 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 expressly 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 several Differences of Time, past, present, and to come. Sixthly, that he wrongfully imposes upon Bellarmin the alleging 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', but only when he citys St. Hieromes Apology against him: and when he alleges 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 Margin. Thus eagerly fights he by Moonlight 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 err in matters of Faith (which is the Proposition Bellarmin defends in the third Chapter, and belongs to the Pope as he is chief Pastor of the Church) with this, whether the particular Roman Church, that is, the Roman Clergy and People, cannot err in Faith; which question Bellarmin treats in the 4 th'. Chapter. Lastly, that the Text of Matth. 16. 18. Tu es Petrus; etc. (Thou art Peter, etc.) cannot in the Grammatical and proper sense be applied to the confession of St. Peter, as abstracted from his Person, but only to his Person, as made, in that occasion, for and in virtue of that Confession, perpetually to endure in him and his Successors, THE ROCK of Christ's 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. Peter's Chair out of his way and 
§ 3. num. 17.  from the City of Rome, and disporting himself a while in that particular City, or Diocese, in a kind 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 Query.  
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. Fisher's assertion the Bishop will needs interpret as a disrespect in him towards his King; whereas in truth he highly honoured his Majesty, and showed the King's 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, 
§ 5. pag. 21.  viz. That a particular Church may lose the Holy Ghost two ways. 1. The one when it loses such special Assistance of that Blessed Spirit, as preserves it from all dangerous errors and sins, and the punishment that is due unto them. 2. The other is, when it loses not only this Assistance, but all Assistance, to remain any longer a true Church.  
Now the Bishop denies 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 says) is rather to be called an error, CIRCA SPIRITUM SANCTUM (about the Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost) than an error CONTRA SPIRITUM SANCTUM (against the Holy Ghost.) Thus he minces what he had said before, That the Greek Church did perhaps lose the 
Ibid;  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 error 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 kind. For, dilating very speciously on his own modesty he adds, There is no reason 
§ 6. pag. 23.  the weight of this whole Cause should rest upon one particular man; or that the personal defects of any man should press any more than himself. Also that he entered not upon this service, but by command of Supreme Authority; there being, as he says, an hundred abler than 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, than he, to maintain the Catholic Cause.  
Before we come to the Bishop's proofs, I must in the first place entreat the Reader to lend attention to his words, which are these; I was not 
§ 9 pag. 24.  so peremptory, viz. as to affirm the Greeks error 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 Fundamental. I know and acknowledge, that error of denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, to be a grievous error 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 TRUE CHURCH; though I confess them AN ERRONEOUS 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 error to be a grievous error in Divinity. I dare not deny them to be a true Church. They seem to agree with us. They think a divers 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 Heresy in the Greeks, and they decreed the contrary to be an Heresy in the Latin Church; and both together condemned the opinion of the Grecians as Heretical in a general Council: 
In Florentino.  how then bears it any show of probability, what some few of yesterday (forced to it by an impossibility of otherwise avoiding the strength of Catholic Arguments against them) affirm, that the matter of this Controversy is so small and inconsiderable, that it is not sufficient to produce an Heresy on either side? Is not this to make all the Churches of Christendom, for many hundred years, quite blind, and themselves only clear and sharp-sighted? which swelling presumption, what spirit it argues, and whence it proceeds, all those, who have learned from St. Augustine, that pride is the mother of Heresy, will easily collect.  
But though this persuasion 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 says) to save from Heresy 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 denied his eternal Generation from him, be an Heretic? or he, who held the Holy Ghost, distinct from, and Consubstantial to them both, but affirmed his Procession to be from the Son only, and not from the Father, would he not be highly guilty of Heresy? It is then most evident, that not only an error against the Consubstantiality and Distinction, but against the Origination, Generation, and Procession of the Divine Persons is sufficient matter of Heresy: 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 Heresy?  
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 raised this Dispute against the Latin Church, will not admit that expression à Filio, but per Filium only, 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 signify the Medium only, not the Principle, from which he is Originized as truly as from the Father. And that this is the erroneous persuasion of the Modern Greeks is manifest, not only by those long Discourses between the Greeks and Latins, set down at large in the 
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.  Council of Florence, but by the free acknowledgement of Hieremias late Patriarch of Constantinople, in his Book entitled 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 Bishop's proofs. To the first therefore, however the Bishop labours to excuse the Modern Greeks from a Fundamental 
Ibid. num. 2. pag. 2. 5.  error, 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 alleges in their behalf, have made for some of the Greek Church. For pag. 24. § 9 num. 1. he acknowledges that error, of denying the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Son, to be a grievous error in Divinity, and pag. 26. § 9 num. 3. that the Greeks think a divers thing from the Latins in this point, as I have noted above. Now to prove that these who err thus grievously, and differ from the Latin Church in re, not in the words only, but in the thing, do yet not err Fundamentally, he brings Testimonies from our Authors, who speak of such Grecians, (even as he citys them) which err not at all in the opinion of those alleged Authors, and which differ from the Latin Church only voce, in words, and not in the thing, or matter of their Doctrine.  
Thus he citys 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 error in Divinity, erred not Fundamentally; and for proof of this he alleges such as have no real error at all in Divinity. He was to prove, that such as differ in re, in the thing itself, from the Latin Church, about the Procession of the Holy Ghost, err not Fundamentally: and for proof of this he alleges such as differ only from us voce, in words, but not in the thing controverted. Is not this strong Logic? Let his Lordship's Defender then prove, from the said Authorities, his Assertion, viz. That those Greeks, who err grievously in Divinity, and differ in re from the Latin Church, err not Fundamentally, and he will have done more than 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 only in voce, in words, and not in Substance from the Latin Church; or at lest who spoke 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, than 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 citys him, to wit, in 1. Sentent. didst 11. quest. 1. art. 1. ad 3 'em. & 4 'em. 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 DICIMUS 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 (says 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 Controversy 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 offspring hath added to the madness of their Forefathers, 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 Heretics and Schismatics.  
But let us add a word or two more in particular to his Authorities cited. Durandus his words give only 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 spoke moderately and warily in this point. Bandinus is cited, but no words of his alleged. St. Bonaventure is quite against his Lordship. For in that very place which he citys, St. Bonaventure brands the Greeks of his time, who had deserted the Roman Church, with the note of 
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.  Heretics and Schismatics, Now the Bishop uses some cunning, in not giving notice of those precedent words, and thereby persuading 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 only 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 Heretics and Schismatics, 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 Error 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 alleges 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 Logic 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 Patriarches, 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 allegeth 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 Controversy between them. For all of ours grant, that the Ancient Grecians were guilty of no real error at all, land so of no Fundamental error. But how does that excuse the present Greeks from Fundamental error? His Lordship should have shown this. And Bellarmin is as far from proving the present Greek Church not to err, 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 spoke 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 only saying non dicimus, we use not to say ex Filio, but rather per Filium, neque affirmando nec negando, formalizing, as 'tis 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. Only this is most certain, that Tolet holds, with all Catholic Doctors, that the Modern Grecians are Heretics, and so do err Fundamentally: and the Lutherans oppose Hieremias, who denies in express terms the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, as we have already shown.  
His second and Theological Argument is, that 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, they must be a True Church, though an erroneous one in this particular. Here the Bishop thinks to blind all the Churches of Christendom with a trifle. He grants, that whoever makes an Inequality between the Holy Ghost and the Son, or denies the Consubstantiality of the Holy Ghost with the Son, is an Heretic. But he goes not about to show 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, 'tis 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 citys 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 error be not only concerning, but against the Holy Ghost, than (according to the Bishops own Distinction) they have lost all Assistance of that Blessed Spirit, and are become no True Church.  
But their error is not only 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 error is not only concerning, but against the Holy Ghost, I thus prove.  
All errors specially opposite to the particular and personal Procession of the Holy Ghost are (according to all Divines) not only errors concerning, but errors against the Holy Ghost.  
But the Greeks error is opposite to the particular and personal Procession of the Holy Ghost, as is already proved.  
Ergo their error is not only concerning, but against the Holy Ghost: whose Assistance therefore they have lost, not only according to the first, but even latter Branch of the Bishop's 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 errors 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 Pope's inserting it into the Creed. And first he grumbles, that the Pope should Add and Anathematise too. I hope, 
§ 9 num. 2. pag. 25.  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 Anathematise all such, as shall not allow the use of such expressions.  
6. Now to come to the debate of Filioque, 'tis 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 broke out between the Latins and Greeks. So that th' inserting this word Filioque into the Creed was not the first occasion of Schism. 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 filled with wind, 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 looked so big) but first they would make it appear they could teach Rome, nay they spied out Heresies in it, (the old way of all Heretics) 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 denied the Filioque must be supposed to deny the Procession, than it became an Heresy to deny it, and the Church did rightly Anathematise all such deniers. 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 ('tis 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) than 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 Heresy. 'Tis not the Libertine Heretic 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 only, and not infuse their venom 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 Keys at his girdle, to show his mildness, may not I represent to his Lordship St. Peter's 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 delivered the far greater part of them to St. Peter? Yea, why may I not join 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 increase the suffering of such as are to die, but to strike a terror into the living, whom fear many times, more than the love of God, keeps from sinning.   

CHAP. 2. Of Fundamentals, or Necessaries to Salvation.  
ARGUMENT.  
1. The Catholic Tenet concerning Fundamentals, no step to the Roman Greatness. 2. His Lordship's different Acceptions of the Term Fundamental, all strangers to the Question. 3. What must be understood by Fundamental Points of Faith, in this Debate. 4. His flying from the Formal to the Material Object of Faith. 5. The distinction of Points of Faith into Fundamental and not-fundamental, according to Protestan Principles, destroys itself. 6. No Infallibility in Church-Authority, no Faith. 7. How Fundamentals are said to be an immovable Rock. 8. How the Church's 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 
§ 10. num. 1 pag. 26.  Book, saying 'twas his own (his Lordship would seem to mistrust it) written against Dr. white, concerning Fundamentals. The Bishop says not what he answered to this Discourse, but puts all off with an I do not remember: might he not have called to his Chaplain for Mr. Fisher's 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 Fundamental; 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, says he, to shrivel the credit of its Opposers, blasts them all 
Num. 2. pag. 27.  with the name of Heretic and Schismatique, and so by that means grew into Greatness. 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 turned mad, or Heathen? No truth left upon earth, but all become Jugglers? Is the whole business of Religion but a Legerdemain to serve the Pope's Ambition, a puff of wind? 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 Pope's 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 slander? But let it pass for one of the Bishops Railleries'. Yet I must confess it becomes not one, that would be esteemed 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, (Man's 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 err) 
Ibidem num. 3.  and a general Council, (which he says, he grants not, that it cannot err.) Would he have Women and Children come to determine Doctrines? you will find, he always perplexes the Question; he staggers in the delivery of his own judgement: he says, 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 he'll take Fundamental for a point necessary to be believed explicitè, as distinguished from a point that is necessary to be believed only implicitè. Another while he takes it for a Prime and Native Principle of Faith, as contradistinguished from what he calls a Superstructure, or Deducible from it. Now he takes Fundamental for a point common to all, and contained expressly in the Creed; then for a point necessary to be known of all in order to Salvation, as distinguish't from a point necessary only to some particular men's 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 Bishop's sense. For she is to be supposed to have understood, what both Catholics and Protestants usually mean in this Dispute: and Mr. Fisher, pag. 42. (even as the Bishop, § 2. pag. 2, citys 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 says thus, in all Fundamental Points, that is, in all Points necessary to Salvation. The question then in Controversy 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 proposed 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 destroys Salvation?  
Now Points may be necessary to Salvation two ways. The one absolutely, by reason of the matter they contain, which is so Fundamentally necessary in itself, that not only the disbelief of it, when it is sufficiently propounded by the Church, but the mere 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 kind they call necessary necessitate praecepti, which all men are commanded to seek after, and expressly 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 expressly 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, only 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 formal object, or Divine Authority declared to Christians by the Church's 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 showed 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 show of probability, thought it his only course to divert it (according to his ordinary custom) by turning the Difficulty, which only proceeded upon a Fundamentality, or necessity, derived from the formal Object, that is, from the Divine Authority revealing that point, to the material 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 show, (the difficulty being understood as it ought to be, of the formal object, whereby points of Faith are manifested to Christians) That all points defined by the Church as matter of Faith are Fundamental, 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 sin damnable and destructive of Salvation.  
The Major is evident. For to refuse to believe God's revelation, is either to give God the lie, 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 says, that though it were supposed he should grant, that the Church, or a lawful General Council, cannot err, 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 err, I prove the Minor thus.  
Whosoever refuses to believe that, which is testified to be revealed from God by an Authority which cannot err, 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 err.  
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 err, that which it testifies to be so revealed, is so revealed. The Minor is the Bishop's supposition, viz. That the Church in a General Council cannot err, as is proved. Ergo, etc.  
And this, I hope, will satisfy 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 always 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 Catholic 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 Catholic Church, errs Fundamentally: Ergo, etc. This Subsumptum is evident. For, if he believe none at all, he neither believes God, nor Christ, nor Heaven, nor Hell, etc. 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 Catholic 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 Catholic 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 always 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 only as a company of men subject to errors) 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 Catholic 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 
Libr. contr. Epist. Manich. quam vocant Fundament.  non crederem, nisi me Ecclesiae commoveret Authoritas. I would not (saith he) believe the Gospel, unless the Authority of the Church moved 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 Catholic Christian. Moreover, St. Gregory Nazianzen tells us, that nihil periculosius 
Tractat. 〈◊〉 Fide.  his Haereticis esse potest, etc. There can be nothing more perilous than these Heretics, 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 Child of the Church, nor consequently of God.  
Add 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 terms say, is to give God and the Church the lie, and to oppose and prefer a private man's 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 Catholic Faith,— which unless every one hold WHOLE and inviolate, without doubt he shall perish for ever. Neither can the Bishop reply, 
Ibidem num. 6, 7. pag. 30, 31.  that all points expressed in St. Athanasius his Creed, are Fundamental in his sense, that is according to the importance of the matter they contain; for, (to omit the Article of our Saviour's descent into hell, which can be no Fundamental Point in his acception, for Christ's Passion, Resurrection, Ascension, etc. may consist without it) he mentions expressly the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, which his Lordship has denied 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 only a Superstructure, or secondary Article. But all the change made by virtue of the Definition is in the Attestation itself, 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 Lordship's discourse in this main point of controversy, and solve all his difficulties supported by them.  
And that it may be more apparently perceived, how inapposite his reply is in this whole controversy about Fundamentals, we affirming, that all things defined for Points of Faith by the Church, are made Fundamental only by reason of the Infallible Attestation of the Church, and he instead of disproving this, labouring only 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 than the other, which was not at all questioned: or as if A. C. should demonstrate, that a Thread, a Gored, and a Cable of twenty els 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 only, and not to Superstructures: so that they may reply, this Argument proceeds upon a false supposition, by extending that Infallibility as well to Superstructures as to Fundamentals. To this I answer, that if by Fundamental Points be meant only 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 dependence upon them; and by super structures only such Points of Faith as are less principal, and deducible from the other; if, I say, only this be understood by Fundamentals and Superstructures, the distinction destroys itself. 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 show hereafter, that we can have no infallible certainty that any canon of Scripture is the word of God, but only by the authority of the Catholic 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 err in that declaration. Thirdly, seeing (as we shall prove hereafter) many superstructures, are not expressly, and some not at all contained in Scripture, how can we believe them with an infallible assent, if the Church can err in the definition of them? And this shall serve for the present to remove this objection, as Implicatory and Chimerical in itself; 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 implicitly, or whether they may be out of Scripture (though not so entirely, as perchance he would infer them to be) but deduced from thence, or making for the clearer explication of that which is contained in Scripture; concerning this, I say, Catholic 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 only 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 err in defining matters of Faith, as when we say, A General Council cannot err 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 Pastors of the Church assembled together, when they may write in Capital Letters, what was written by the Primitive Church, as we read in Holy Writ, IT HATH SEEMED GOOD UNTO THE HOLY GHOST AND TO US, Acts 15. 28.  
Now to come a little closer to the point, we find his Lordship to say, (pag. 28.) That although he should grant, that a General Council cannot err, 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 Catholic 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 reductiuè, 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 find 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 immovable, 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 expressly. Wherefore Implicit Faith of all may be said to be Fundamental; but Explicite Faith of that which is only now defined is not required before the Definition. Therefore the Christian (to use the Bishop's phrase) hath whereon to rest, as not being bound to believe more expressly, then is declared by the Church to be revealed from God. Therefore the Church makes not the Implicit Faith Fundamental, but the Explicite Faith it maketh Fundamental. When I say Implicit, I mean not a point so implicitly 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 Church's 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 Explicitly.  
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 always to oblige them to believe them explicitly, who are bound to it, when they know them to be revealed from God by the Church's Definition. And by this time I hope, you find that Bellarmin speaks truth, and wrongs not the Catholic Church.  
For in those places he only says, 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 than is the revelation of God, who is Truth itself. 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 err in it: which is all we either say, or need to say. For though the Church makes the Divine revelation no certainer than it is in itself, 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 Master's 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 only because the servant tells me so, whom I know also to be an honest man.  
9 But the Bishop's difficulty about points Fundamental, when he says, that the Church's Definition cannot make Superstructures to become Principles, or Foundations, is easily solved according to my former distinction. The Church's 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 Apostles, no nor Christ's Definition can make a Superstructure a Foundation: for what they are in themselves they must always be. The Church's 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 only 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 showed.  
When he says 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, etc. but only in manner of speech; because otherwise either the Greeks, or the Latins, had been Heretics. Yet hence it follows not, that Scotus thought they could be Heretics, unless they denied, or doubted of that, which they had reason to believe was revealed by God. But it only follows, that if they knew this (as those learned Greeks had sufficient reason to know it) they might well be esteemed Heretics, before any special Declaration of the Church: although it be more clear, that he is an Heretic, who denies to believe that Doctrine, after he confesses that it is defined by the Church. Wherefore Scotus doth well add, that however it was before, yet ex quo, etc. from the time that the Catholic 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 Heretic, 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 Heretics, 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 persuade his Reader, that this Author 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 Heretics, declares, that there was no real difference in this point between them: which the Bishop very handsomely leaves out. Verisimile igitur est (says 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 Church's Definition, and thereby infers a contradiction in this Authors assertions) he adds words, and fathers them upon Scotus in another part of the sentence, saying first, that Scotus says 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 Church's 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 eyes, (whatsoever may be said of them.) Now I think he will have much ado to find any Dictionary, or Grammar, wherien eye signifies it.  
This done he makes Scotus say (by adding to his Text) thus, yet ex quo, from the time that the Catholic 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 says only thus, Ex quo Ecclesia declaravit hoc esse tenendum, etc. tenendum est, quòd Spiritus Sanctus procedat ab utroque; (since the Church hath so declared, so it must be held.) Thus he winds his Authors 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 itself before, becomes not Fundamental in the matter, or thing attested, but only 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 'tis 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, etc. out of which the Bishop would infer, that Scotus makes for his party, Because every thing which belongs to the exposition, or Declaration 
§ 10. num. 7 pag. 31,  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, than the Declaration of the Thing is false; and so far from being Fundamental in the Faith. If it were INTUS, within the compass and nature of the thing (though not open and apparent to every eye) than the Declaration is true, but not otherwise Fundamental, than the thing is which is Declared. For that which is INTUS cannot be larger and deeper, then that in which it is. If it were, it could not be INTUS. 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 denied 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 only 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 itself, but quoad nos in its respect to us. For though he says 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 bind us, not only 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 infer, that if the Church can make any thing to be in this sense Fundamental in the Faith, that was not, than it can take away something from the Foundation, and make it to be declared not to be Fundamental. This, I say, he cannot infer: 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 error. 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 herself, as in the Two former. Wherefore Vincentius Lirinensis says very well, (as the Relator citys 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 Lordship's Book, have said something: and that which, I hope, will abundantly satisfy any judicious Reader. 
Ibid. num. 9 pag. 32.   
It remains now, that we return to Mr. Fisher; who (as his Lordship says) endeavoured to prove the Doctrine we have delivered, out of 
Aug. Serm. 14. De verb. Apostoli. in fine.  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 error 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. 
Ibidem.  First, he says, 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 impugn the Doctrine of the Church, whether it be expressly 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 (says 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 sin 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 show, that St. Augustin 
Ibid. Num. 10. pag. 33.  speaks of a Foundation of Doctrine in Scripture, because (immediately before) he says, There was a question moved to St. Cyprian, whether Baptism was tied 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 Catholic Principles) to be some way or other enfolded 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 expressly to believe them: nay, without the Authority of the Church we should not be obliged to believe the Scripture itself, 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 groundwork 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 says, 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 Church's Definition, let St. Augustin himself determine in the very place cited, where speaking of Christ's profiting of Children Baptised, 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 show, quid senserit de Baptismo parvulorum; imò quiá semper Ecclesiam sensisse monstraverit. What that Holy Martyr thought of the Baptism of Infants; or rather what he demonstrated the Church had always taught concerning it: and many such like places are in this very Sermon.  
It is therefore manifest, that St. Augustin here speaks of the Church's Definition; nay and that so fully, that he acknowledges in another place, that the Baptism 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 Baptise 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 refers to, doth not expressly 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 shows what was the sense and Doctrine of the Church: in the same manner, as when the Bishop himself proposes any Doctrine contained in Scripture 'tis true to say, he delivers a Doctrine contained in Scripture, though himself doth not expressly say, at the propounding of it, it is in Scripture. Seeing therefore St. Augustin speaks here of a point, which he says 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 itself, 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 merely 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 Church's Authority, no wit the Scriptures, whereupon, says he, the Authority of the Church is grounded; which is far from St. Augustins' meaning. For by Fundamentum ipsum Ecclefea (the very foundation of the Church) he means nothing else, but the Church itself, or her Authority; which is the foundation of Christianity: as when St. Paul says, superadificati super fundamentum Apostolorum & Prophetarum, etc. (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, than 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 established 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 established by the Authority of the Church.  
His Lordship therefore finding his first solution to fail him, recurrs to a second, much weaker than the first. For granting the Church to be the foundation whereof St. Augustin spoke, he denies 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 established 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 established 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 Church's 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. Paul's 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 Catholic Church in defining matters of Faith, (whereof only we now treat) as it is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost, is either Divine in it self, 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 oppugn 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 destroys 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 Catholic Church concerning Doctrine, Infallible, and by many of the learned held Divine. 2. One Text of St. Augustin shamefully abused three several ways. 3. NO MAN'S opinion confuted by his Lordship. Bellarmin miscited. 4. The Pope always included in the Church and Councils. 5. A. C's. words cited by halves. 6. How the Church's 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 Bishop's endeavour to make them jar.  
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 
§ 10. num. 11. pag. 34.  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. 
D. Aug. loc. cit.  Therefore all things made firm by the full Authority, Definition, Declaration, or Determination (use what term you please) of the Church, are Fundamental, to wit, in respect of the formal object of God's revelation contained in them, as we have often said.  
1. Now concerning what is added, that full Church-Authority,— when 
Ibidem.  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 God's Revelation; we having no other absolute certainty, that This or That is revealed by God, but only 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 denied to be of Divine Authority; notwithstanding that Infallible and Divine seem (to many great Divines) to be terms Convertible. And Stapleton (whom the Bishop citys in the Margin) is far from denying it: as would have better appeared, if his words had been fairly cited. For I find him thus to write. Si quaeratur, quare Ecclesia est veritatis tam certa testis respondemus, 
Relect. Con. trovers. 4. q. 1. A. 1.  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 find elsewhere taught by him. Deum per Ecclesiam loqui, non ex solo Ecclesiae 
Triplicat. cont. Whitak. pag. 1230.  testimonio, sed ex ipsis maximè Scriptures, & Fidei Symbolo, ex communi omnium Christianorum conceptione certò constat. That God speaks by the Church is most certain, not only by the Testimony of the Church, but by the Scriptures themselves, the 'Greed, and the common persuasion of Christians.  
The Bishop indeed grants thus much to the Church, that no erring 
Ibidem.  Disputant may be endured to shake the Foundation, which the Church in general Councils lays; 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 lays. 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 only 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 lawful General 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 Margin 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 showed 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 Catholic 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, etc. 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, etc. But with you (saith St. Augustin to the abovesaid Heretics) who have nothing at all of those Things, which may invite and hold me, only 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 preferred, etc. where it is plain, Quae, (which) is relative only to Truth, and not to Scripture, or any thing else. Nay it is Relative only to that Truth (in this place) which the Manichees bragged of and promised: which was so far from being plain Scripture, etc. that it was no other, than what was contained in that Epistle of Manichaeus, entitled 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 Catholic Church, or a General Council, and that it were a possible case for the Definitions of the Catholic 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 persuasion, and proves, that no clear place of Scripture can be produced 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 Catholic 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. 
* Si ad Evan-gelium me tenes, ego ad eos me teneam, quibus praecipientibus Evangelio credidi; & his jubentibus tibi omnino non credam. Quod si fort 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 proffers, cui per illos credideram, qui mihi mentiti, sunt. Aug. contra Epist. Fundament. cap. 4.  Not the Scriptures; because he receives them only 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 'tis 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 alleged words, (quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur, etc.) only ex suppositione impossibili, in the same manner as St. Paul speaketh, Gal. 1. Si Angelus de caelo, etc. If an Angel from heaven teach otherwise, than 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 Church's Authority and Doctrine, then plain Scripture.  
The Relatours' supposition than 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 says, Though an Angel from Heaven should denounce unto you, otherwise than 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 oppugn it; so long at least, as he is so far from seeing his error, that he is fully persuaded he errs not, and that the Church errs in Defining against him; as those Heretics were persuaded, against whom St. Augustin disputes in this place.  
His second winding is, that he labours to prove from the forecited 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 Church's 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 Catholic Church, and become a professed enemy of her (as he once had been) in adhering to Manichaeus his Doctrine, if plain and undeniable 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 err Fundamentally, and so become no Church; which is clearly against his Lordship, pag. 65.  
But why joins 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 has 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 Catholic Church, when they are ill founded. But where finds 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 and demonstratively against the Definitions and Tenets of the Catholic Church and Occumenicall Councils, that he judges him a mad man, who disputes against any 
Nulla 〈◊〉 jam remansit: nimiùm 〈◊〉, nimium 〈◊〉 sunt hominum corda, quae adhuc 〈◊〉 manifestationi veritatis resistunt. Aug. Tom. 2. Epist. 153.  thing; quod Universa Ecclesia senti: (which is held by the whole Church;) and that they have hearts not only of stone, but even of Devils, who resist so great a manifestation of Truth, as is made by an Ecumenical 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 ways: 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. 'Tis not set down who it was, that spoke 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 Fundamental in Faith two ways one in regard of the material object; such as are the prime Articles of our Faith, which are expressly 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 destroys the Foundation of all such Faith in any other point whatsoever.  
Wherefore let any man, with the Bishop, view as long as he pleases, 
Ibid. num. 13 pag. 35.  the Mortar wherewith this Foundation is laid, and (if he consider it rightly) he will find 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 infer, we intent to maintain, that the point there spoken of (the remission of original sin in the Baptising 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 says, That the Pelagian Heresy was never condemned in an Ecumenical 
Lib. de Authorit. Concil. cap. 5.  Council, but only by a National; yet doubtless whoever should go about to revive that Heresy, would be justly condemned without calling a General Council, as one that opposed himself against the full Authority of the Church, and did shake its foundation. But the Bishop says, Bellarmin was deceived in this business, and that the Pelagian 
Ibidem.  Heresy was condemned in the first Ephesine Council, which was Ecumenical. I answer first, 'tis not credible that Bellarmin, who writ so much of Controversy, 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 Catholic 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 says. Truly I have myself viewed that Council upon this occasion, but cannot find 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 only says, that the Pelagian Heresy was never condemned in any General Council; and the Bishop to disprove him, shows that some, who were infected both with the Pelagian Heresy 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 denied only the condemnation of the Heresy, and not of the persons, for holding another Heresy 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 terms an inexpiable omisson, if our Doctrine concerning the 
Ibid. pag. 36.  Pope's Authority were true,) It is easy 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 always chiefly supposed, as being Head of the whole Church. His Lordship's 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 Catholics, acknowledge and understand the Pope's Authority comprised in that of the Church. When my Lord of Canterbury finds 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 days, 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 
Ibid. num. 14  too, to be firm; and another to be Fundamental. For every thing that is Fundamental is firm; but every thing that is firm is not Fundamental. Wherefore we distinguished before in the material object of Faith Fundamentals from not Fundamentals. In this sense a Superstructure may be said to be exceeding firm, and close joined 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 firm, ergo all points defined are Fundamental: but thus. All points defined are made firm by the full Authority of the Church, ergo all points defined are Fundamental. And his reason is, because when any thing is made firm by the full Authority of the Church, it is so firm, that it cannot be denied 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, than the Church's Definition is the Church's 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 mind 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 ourselves, (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 expressly known and believed by all, than 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 itself 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 expressly 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 expressly: 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 Catholics 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. 
Ibidem.  to this, That the Church's Definition is the Church's 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 Pastors in all ages preserving Christian people from being carried away with every wind 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 expressly affirm it? Superaedificati supra fundamentum Apostolorum, etc. Did not the Bishop just now (pag. 34.) except the Apostles, as having in their Definitions more Authority than 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 says, 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, than the Church's Definition (in the Apostles time) is the Church's 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 destroys his own Positions by his own Arguments? And whatever may be answered for him, will satisfy 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 ensuing 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, found'st 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 find blamed 
Ibid. pag. 37.  for these words, That not only 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, etc. 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 only 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 only 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 denied, or questioned, all the whole frame, and in a sort the foundation itself 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 joins the words as that to these thereby Christ doth dwell in our hearts: whereas in A. C's. discourse they are joined to these, if they are wittingly, willingly, and especially obstinately questioned, etc. that of Faith, whereby Christ dwelleth in our hearts, etc. being only 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, says 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 only of those, to whom such points are proposed, and who deny, or question them, when so proposed. Although in some sense they may be said Fundamental to all, because all are to believe them implicitly; and explicitly, all such as have sufficient reason to know, they are declared by the Church. Secondly, A. C. is accused 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 itself, but the Object. Wherefore A. C. doth here no more but explicate the nature of the Object by the Act, (and that only 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 denies, or questions one point of Faith, doth in effect question all.  
Now I wonder the Bishop should urge as an Argument the Definition 
Ibidem.  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 Catholic 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 only 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 
Ibidem. num. 15. pag. 38.  dispute against any one Determination of the Church, than he may do it against another, and another, and so against all; since all are made firm to us by one and the same Divine Revelation, sufficiently applied by one and the same full Authority of the Church: which being weakened in one, cannot be firm in any other. Thus far A. C. And here the Bishop will needs have A. C. to have harrowed this doctrine out of Vincentius Lirinensis, and that he might have acknowledged it. I hope it is no error 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 Maxims 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 firm 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 explicitly, before implicitly. 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, 'twere merely 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 err, will never permit her to declare any thing as matter of Faith, which was not before either expressed, or enfolded and employed 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 (says he) Vincentius speaks there De Catholico Dogmate, of Catholic Maxims. Well. But though Dogma signified a Maxim, yet surely it cannot signify Maxims, unless he will here have the singular number signify the plural, as before he made the plural signify the singular; eyes, it: But it was for his Lordship's purpose to translate it in the plural number; and that was sufficient: for had he put it in the singular thus, the Catholic Maxim, that is, as he expounds it, the properly Fundamental, and prime Truth deposited in the Church, there would have seemed to be but one Fundamental point: which would have marred his whole design. Now because he holds, there are many Fundamental points of Faith, Catholicum Dogma, in his Grammar, could signify nothing less, than Catholic Maxims, that is, properly Prime and Fundamental Points. But in what Author learned he, that Dogma signifies only Maxims, 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 itself to all things established in the Church as matters of Faith, whether in Fundamentals, or Superstructures. Thus Scotus calls Transubstantiation Dogma Fidei; and I would gladly know one Author, who ever took the word Dogma for only 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) said 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 Maxim, but in a Superstructure.  
And for this place cited by the Bishop, 'tis evident that by Catholicum dogma he must understand the whole Complex of all the points of Catholic Faith, whether Fundamental in their matter or not; whereof if an Heretic deny any one part whatsoever, (says this Author) he may by the same rule deny all the rest. Nay, 'tis evident that Lirinensis could not understand only such points as are Fundamental in respect of their matter. For, seeing this Catholicum dogma contains the whole Systeme of the Catholic 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 Catholic points, which he there enumerates, is contained 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 Baptised by Heretics, 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 only the Articles of the Creed, wherein are expressly 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 Baptism of Infants, the not-Rebaptizing of Heretics, 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 expressly contained 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 Christendom as Heretics, above 1200. years ago? Here then, in his wresting and winding Catholico Dogmate, he gives us no less than 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 wrapped up, when any thing comes to be called in question by novelists, whom she judges to impugn, 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 expressly believed by all, to whom that Declaration is sufficiently propounded; and commands certain errors to be expressly rejected: both which were before believed or rejected only implicitly, to wit, by the Belief of those Known and Received Divine Truths, in which these other were contained, tanquam in radice or in semine, as Vincentius speaks.  
For the Church is so tenderly careful of every jota, 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 only to keep unblemished what was clearly and plainly expressed in the Doctrine delivered to her, but whatever else she finds necessary for conserving them in their Primitive integrity and purity. Thus hath she used all possible diligence to preserve the Scriptures pure and entire, not only in the prime Articles of Faith, but in every the least truth delivered in them. Thus from what she had received concerning Christ's 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 expressed and reflected on, before those Heresies arose, yet were they virtually and implicitly included in the Doctrine first received, and afterwards became necessary to be expressly believed, by the Declaration of General Councils.  
I take no notice of the Relatours' Translating Disputator errans 〈◊〉 
§ 10. num. 10. pag. 38.  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 herself, or some appointed by her, to examine her Decrees, to wit, in matters of Faith (for of those only is the controversy) lest for want of it, she be changed in Lupanar errorum, (a thing so foul he dares not English it) though I wonder not much that 'tis 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 Author, in that very place, is so far from entertaining the least thought, or letting fall the least word, importing that the Church should add 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 minds of his, and be it rather the fury of the impious to do so) whoever therefore are so audacious, as to add Novelties to the Ancient Doctrine of the Church, are judged by Vincentius to be impious persons, raging in a fury of madness; which how justly or truly it can be affirmed of Christ's true Church, let any discreet man be judge.  
But if this be not sufficient to demonstrate, what this Authors opinion was of Christ's 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, ADDS NOTHING; neither cuts away things necessary, nor adjoins things superfluous; neither loses what is hers, nor usurps what belongs to others, etc. Words as Diametrically contrary to what the Relatour pretends unto in this passage, viz. suspicion and possibility of the Churches adding NOVITIA VETERIBUS, 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 citys out of Lirinensis, the very same does clearly show, 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 laboured in her Councils to do more than preserve id quod antea (that which was before) and that Vincentius expressly avers this, how can he in reason be supposed 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 citys, demonstrate evidently, that the Church cannot (in this Author's 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 'tis impossible, the Church should change herself, or do any thing, whereby to be changed in errorum Lupanar; for so she should be no more the Church of Christ: unless he would have Christ's 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 destroys this unworthy imputation cast upon the Church. He interprets Dogmata (as we have seen) to be the Maxims, 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 uniform and coherent; who still goes on in the former matter, and gives not the least hint, that he speaks only 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 uniform and coherent, he must understand the Novitia (which Vincentius says are added Veteribus) to be added as new principal Maxims to the other principal Maxims of Faith, no less than the Ancient Maxims were. Now such an Addition would be a Fundamental error, 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 whilst 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 Church's Infallibility in not Fundamentals, he runs and splits himself upon the Scylla of making the whole Church err in points Fundamental.  
But he is resolved 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 kind 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 embezzeled 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 etc. a Fatal, but Faithless etc. 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, adds nothing, diminishes nothing, to wit by any corruptive Addition or Diminution, or by any change, that perverts or destroys 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 herself makes this Addition of Novelties, he leaves out the word adiiciunt, (they add) that is, Heretics and Novelists do add; for so Vincentius speaketh: he says not adiicit, (she, or the Church adds:) For they are Heretics, and not the Catholic Pastors 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 
§ 10. num. 15. pag. 39  whole frame of Building may be shaken, and the Foundation, whereon it is laid, remain firm. So may Hope, Charity, and other virtues be shaken, and yet Faith, which is the Foundation of all our Supernatural Building remain firm. But if one part of the Foundation be shaken, the whole groundwork will be but in a tottering condition, and (as A. C. says) in a certain manner shaken. By which kind of speech, I conceive he only 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 God's Revelation, and for that reason, rendering ourselves, at the same time, uncapable of believing any thing else with Supernatural and Divine Faith.  
9 His Lordship must be pardoned, if he descent from A.C's. Assertion, 
Ibidem. num. 16.  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 says, 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 affirm, 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 find his words to be only these, We ought not to deny our Assent in matters of Faith, though we have them only by Tradition, or the Decisions of the Church against Heretics, and not confirmed 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 expressly contained in Scripture: which questionless may very well stand with Beauties' Doctrine, that nothing can be believed with Divine Faith, unless it be either contained in the word of God, or drawn from thence by evident consequence. For, that Bellarmin by the word of God understands, not only Gods written, but his not-written word also, or Tradition, is manifest; because he makes all our Faith, even of Scripture itself, to be grounded upon it, as is clear, by his very words. Itaque hoc Dogma 〈◊〉 necessarium, 
Libr. De verbo Dei non Scripto. cap. 4.  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 Maxim, viz. that there is any Divine Scripture at all, cannot sufficiently be had by Scripture alone: Wherefore, seeing Faith relies 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 only be believed 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 revealed by the word of God either written or unwritten, nor is evidently deduced 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 only of the written word, is very strange. For Bellarmin (says 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 only, and Bellarmin of both the written and unwritten word; which he calls the complete word of God. Secondly, Bellarmin was not to affirm, 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 only to declare and explain those already delivered.  
His Lordship cannot believe, that all Determinations of the Church 
Ibidem. pag. 40.  are sufficiently applied by one and the same full Authority of the Church. For the Authority of the Church, (saith he) though it be of the same fullness in regard of itself, and of the power it commits to General Councils lawfully called; yet it is not always of the same fullness of knowledge and sufficiency, nor of the same fullness of Conscience and Integrity, etc. 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 only from the promised Assistance of the Holy Ghost; which is of the same power in weaker and stronger Instruments, as it appeared by the Apostles; who being of themselves persons altogether ignorant of Divine matters, yet by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost became not only 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 than 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, etc. our Saviour himself pronounceth, Matth. 23. 2. Upon the Chair 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 
§ 10. num. 17. pag. 41.  Scripture are not alike Fundamental in the Faith. But this is answered 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 believed by all, and known expressly of all: others not Fundamental, that is, not of necessity to be known and believed expressly by all. In this sense (I say) we agree with his Lordship and his party, touching the Distinction of Fundamentals and not-Fundamentals. Our only controversy is, whether there be in the Catholic 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 denied or doubted of. For in this they hold the Affirmative; we the Negative.  
The reason why we have no occasion in this Controversy, to treat this distinction in any sense, save this, is, because it relates only 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 whilst they expressly know them to be so defined; because, say they, those Councils may err in such Definitions, by reason the matter they contain is not-Fundamental. Wherefore we neither say, nor intent to show it Sub Anulo Piscator is (which are his Lordship's terms) that 'tis as necessary to believe St. Peter and St. Andrew were made Fishers of men, as that Christ died 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 find 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 showed 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, than 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 defence of Mr. Rogers. 5. Catharinus might err, but was no Heretic. 6. How Protestants agree. 7. A. C. mutilated the second time, in favour of the English Canons. 8. English Protestants excommunicate Catholics, as much as Catholics them. 9 Some Things contained in Scripture expressly, not evidently: Some Truths deduced from Scripture directly, not demonstratively. 10. Baptism 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. 'TWas a very pertinent question, which Mr. Fisher afterwards 
§ 11. num. 1. pag. 42.  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 desired 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 only Foundation, 
Sess. 3.  it containing the Prime points of our Faith, which all are obliged to know, and expressly believe? yet I hope his Lordship's followers will not grant, that we may question, or deny, every thing that is not expressed in the Creed: and yet this must be done, if the Creed only be held for Fundamental in the sense the question was propounded in.  
If they should reply, that not only those points are Fundamental which are expressed in the Creed, but those also which are there enfolded, by this means they may (as the Bishop speaks) lap up in the Creed all 
Ibidem. pag. 43, 44.  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 itself. For this would not make the fold much larger than it was before; and if it did, yet I see no hurt in it.  
But let us briefly reflect, how well the Bishop's Answer satisfies the question propounded by Mr. Fisher. The matter proceeded thus. The 
§ 11. num. 1. 2.  Jesuit had said, that the Greek Church was not right, because it held an error concerning the Holy Ghost. The Bishop confessed, that what the Greeks held in that point was an error, 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 error 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 divers 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 only 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 contained in the Apostles Creed, he would not assign them in particular. Wherefore, though the Greeks error 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 citys Albertus Magnus in these words, Regula 〈◊〉 Concors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Articulis Fidei, etc. (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 only 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, than 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 Christ's Descending into Hell. But the Bishop will needs have the English Church resolved in this point. I will not much trouble myself about it, as being not Fundamental, either in his Lordship's 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 busy in Crucifying this Article.  
As for Catholics (upon whom the Bishop would lay the same 
§ 12. num. 1. pag. 44.  charge) they all believe it as it lies in the Creed, and is proposed by the Church. But it being not defined by the Church, whether we have this Article from Tradition only, 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 only. 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 only 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 Catholic 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 Terror, Confusion, and Punishment towards the Bad. And though they should differ in their opinions more than 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 Controversy amongst us will end in a quiet calm. 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 
§ 12. num. 3. pag. 45.  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 Catholics profess to do the same: so that the question can only be touching the sense of the words as they lie in the Creed, and the sense of the Primitive Church concerning them.  
Now as for Stapletons' affirming, That the Scripture is silent in the 
§ 13. num. 1. pag. 47.  point of Christ's descending into Hell, and in mentioning that there is a Catholic and Apostolic Church, suppose we should grant, that Christ's Descent into Hell were not expressed in Scripture, yet his Lordship's 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 Catholic 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 alleged, 'tis evident his meaning was only to deny, that the words Catholic and Apostolic were expressly 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 Lordship's facetious discourse here, upon Stapleton and some Texts of Scripture, may rather be taken for a jest to please his own humour, then for an Argument against us.  
This Incidental quarrel with Stapleton being over, the Bishop fiercely 
Ibid. num. 3. pag. 48.  again falls to expostulate both with Mr. Fisher and A. C. for citing Mr. Roger's Authority for the Doctrine of the Church of England. But with how little reason, it appears by the very Title of Mr. Rogers' Book; which, as the Bishop himself acknowledges, runs thus, The Catholic 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 Bishop's Disagreement with Master Rogers, or the pretended variance between Vega and Soto touching men's certain assurance of Justification or Salvation: which jar is denied by Bellarmin, who citys 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 error, yet he is not accusable of Heresy, as not being obstinate in his mistake.  
6. The Bishop is our good friend in saying, that all Protestants (he 
§ 14. num. 1. pag. 50.  might have added, all other professed enemies of the Catholic Church) do agree with the Church of. England in the main exceptions, which they jointly 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 show themselves enemies to the true Church; which is one, (and only one) by unity of Doctrine; from whence they must needs be judged to depart, by reason of their Divisions. Now that our Authors disagree not in Faith, we have showed a little before. The Relatour doth much perplex himself about the Catholic 
Ibidem.  Churches pronouncing Anathema: But this is not done so easily as he imagined. For this Anathema falls only upon such as obstinately oppose the Catholic 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 find in our own Church; and those sad Dissensions and Disorders most apparent in theirs. Wherefore I believe, that reason will rather ascribe the troubles of Christendom, 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 
Ibid. pag. 51.  objects, that the Roman Church makes many points to be of necessary belief, which had for many hundred of years passed only 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 
Ibid. num. 2.  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 affirm they cannot with a good Conscience submit unto them (as 'tis manifest she does, by the very Canon which the Bishop citys) 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 answered it already, and showed, that the Freedom and Liberty granted by her enemies, would afford no more prosperity to her, than it hath done to them. 'Tis true, the Church of Rome (as his Lordship takes notice) imposes her Doctrine, 
Ibid. pag. 52.  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 says 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 adds and perhaps not the sense; because, privately holding within himself, and boldly and publicly 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 publicly affirming, as the Bishop would impose on the Reader? And as to the sense of the Article, the Bishop himself durst not boldly and publicly affirm, that A. C. miss it; but says only 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 mere internal Act. He must mean therefore by the word holding an external Act, which cannot amount to less than Affirming.  
8. The question is not, whether the English Congregation, or the Roman Church, be more Severe; but whether the English Protestant's Severity, in Excommunicating those, that affirm any part of the thirty nine Articles to be 〈◊〉, be not unreasonable; supposing, she be subject to error in defining those Articles. For what is it less than 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 Church's curse upon them, for affirming that to be erroneous, which (for aught they know) may possibly be such indeed? especially when the Impugner fully persuades 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 persuade himself, that to oppose a Doctrine, against which the opposer verily persuades himself, he hath either an evidence from Scripture, or a Demonstrative reason (in which cases the Bishop grants, that one may, yea ought to oppugn the Church's errors) can any man, I say, persuade 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 error, otherwise the sentence itself 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 error) 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, than 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, than 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 Protestant's Excommunications be not unreasonable, nay, most enormous, as inflicted by those, who acknowledge themselves fallible, and subject to error 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 than the bounds of their own private Congregations, whereas the Apostolical Excommunications extended to the utmost limits of the whole Christian World.  
What follows has been often answered: For we grant, the Scripture 
§ 15. num. 1. pag. 52.  is sufficient for some men's Salvation, if we regard the material Object only, or the chief points of Faith; because all the Prime Articles of our Faith are expressed in Scripture: which Prime Articles are Fundamental only in the first sense, so often declared. But hence it follows not that some things not expressed in Scripture, are not Fundamental in the second sense formerly delivered. Amongst these, Tradition must be numbered; for which we admit Scripture itself. In this truly (to use his Lordship's Rhetoric) the Fathers are plain, the Schoolmen are not strangeiss, and Stapleton (whom he styles 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 Heretic 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, 
Ibid. num. 2. pag. 53.  which is not so in itself; she being Infallible as shall hereafter be proved; the Bishop here wrongfully supposing the contrary. Mr. Fisher says, 'Tis true, That the Church of England grounds her POSITIVE Articles upon Scripture, that is, 'tis 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 joint 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 says) 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 ourselves) as Solemnly promise the same, and will make it good upon all occasions.  
9 But to show 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 expressly (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 expressed, and yet not evidently expressed. Otherwise there could never be any doubt concerning what were expressed in Scripture: since men never question things that are evident. Now the Baptism of Infants must not only be expressed, but evidently expressed, to prove it sufficiently (that is undeniably) by Scripture alone. For, if it be there expressed only probably, it may be probably denied to be expressed: and so Disputations can never have an end out of the Scriptures expression alone. For the same reason he adds, that Infant-Baptisme is not (at least demonstratively) concluded out of Scripture: because if it be proved directly yet only probably (as was said) it may probably be denied: and so we shall find no more end here then in the former Dispute. Wherefore our Adversaries cannot in reason mislike this addition of evidently expressed and demonstratively concluded; because without this we shall never have an end of Disputations. This was it, made Mr. Fisher add those words; though the Bishop knew full well, that there are many things in good Logic concluded directly, which are not concluded Demonstratively, as he well shows: But he is much out, nay contradicts himself in what he urges, That whatsoever is by direct consequence proved out of Scripture, is Demonstratively 
Ibid. pag. 55.  and Scientifically proved. For, first he supposes Scripture to be a prime principle in Christian Religion, that is, such a principles as has no dependence on any other to declare it such infallibly to Christian people; which he knows all Catholics 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 only be evidently expressed, 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 expressed in Scripture, and the other neither in Scripture, nor evident to natural reason, but only probable: For, (as Logicians speaks) Conclusio sequitur debiliorem partem, The Conclusion always 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 
Ibidem.  other Sciences; which prove not all things Demonstratively, but many things only Topically, or probably.  
To illustrate this doctrine a little further by instances. First, that a Thing may be expressly in Scripture, and yet not evidently expressed, even according to some Protestants. Our Saviour says, (Mat. 26. etc.) This is my Body: where he affirms expressly that what he had then in his hands was his Body; and yet (according to the Zwinglians) this is no evident expression to signify his real Body: for if that were evidently expressed by these words, no man, that believes Scripture, could deny it, as those Heretics do. For, 'tis impossible to deny an evidence. Thus again, Mark 16. 16. it is expressed, Qui crediderit & Baptizatus fuerit, Salvus erit: yet is it not evidently expressed, that every one, who believes and is Baptised, shall be saved; because many are Baptised 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, etc. is profitable, etc. (2 Tim. 3. 16.) But St. James his Epistle is Scripture Divinely inspired: Ergo it is profitable, etc. This consequence is directly deduced, in perfect form, 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 unbaptised 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 only historically certain: so that the consequence is deduced directly, but not Demonstratively.  
10. His Lordship's first Demonstration therefore, of the necessity of 
Ibid pag. 56.  Baptism 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 only of such as can be born again. Now none can be born again, save those who were dead in sin: wherefore Infants having no sin at all, (as Pelagians hold) cannot be born again, and consequently must not be Baptised: insomuch that this Text is so far from proving against such Anabaptists, that Infants must be Baptised, that it rather proves the contrary.  
His second, That Infants ought to be baptised, (which he says is very 
Ibidem.  near an expression in Scripture itself,) hath nothing in it at all either of an expression, or demonstration. For to omit, that the word children signifies 
Acts 2. 38, 39  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 itself confutes him. For, if the promise be made to their Children, (which is, that they amend their lives, and be Baptised, 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 Baptism; as if nothing but Baptism had been exacted by the Apostle in that place, when he expressly requires amendment of life, as well as Baptism.  
11. Notwithstanding all this, I would not have it thought, I intent to weaken the Argument out of John 3. for proving the Baptism of Infants: for I have only endeavoured to show, that it cannot be demonstratively proved out of that Text of Scripture alone against a perverse Heretic. We must therefore embrace St. Augustins' counsel 
num. 5. pag. 57  (cited by his Lordship) who fayes, The custom of our Mother the Church in Baptising 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 expressly asfirmeth, that the point of Baptising Infants were not at all to be believed, 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. 'Tis true, this Father having first learned the abovesaid Doctrine from Tradition, proves it, or rather confirms it, out of Scripture; and so do other Catholic Authors. But all these proofs would be far from Demonstrations, were it not for Tradition. Writing against Pelagius, he applies that saying of our Saviour 
Ibid. pag. 58.  (Matth. 10. 14.) Suffer little ones to come unto me, to the Baptising of Infants; yet no man ever brought this place for a Demonstration, or a Text evidently proving of itself without Tradition, that Infants ought to be Baptised. For, those our Saviour spoke of came not unto him to be Baptised, but to receive his Benediction. And 'tis clear, that he spoke of the Children of the Jews, who were either circumcised 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 itself intimates, nolite prohibere eos (forbid them not.)  
For, as I have said, we grant that Tradition being supposed, this point is provable out of Scripture. Wherefore 'tis 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 only 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 expressly and evidently all things necessary in particular.  
12. I prove my Assertion, that Infant-Baptisme must be believed by Divine Faith, as 'tis an Apostolical Tradition, that is, considered purely as delivered orally by the Apostles, whether it can be proved by Scripture, or no. My Argument is ad hominem, against the Bishop thus. He grants expressly (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 itself. Ergo, Baptism of Infants, considered only 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 only such Traditions as are not at all written, are God's 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 says, (pag. 52.) that the Scriptures only are the Foundation of Faith, it must be acknowledged, that he speaks contrary to what he says, pag. 57 That Baptism 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 only the Scriptures, but Apostolical Tradition also, as contradistinguisht from Scripture, will be a foundation of Faith. If he should reply that when he says 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, God's Revelation.   

CHAP. 5. Of the Resolution of Faith.  
ARGUMENT.  
1. No vicious Circle incurred by Catholics in their Resolution of Faith. 2. The Church proved Infallible by the same way, that Moses, Christ and his Apostles were proved to be so. 3. The Difference between Principles of Science and Faith. 4. No Necessity, that the Church's Definitions should be held the formal object of Faith; but only an Infallible Application of the Formal Object to us. 5. His Lordship's Argument disproved by Instances.  
HAving ended our large discourse of Fundamentals, drawn out 
§ 16. num 6. pag. 59  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, etc. These are believed to be the word of God, though not proved so out of any place of Scripture, but only 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 Catholic 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 kind of Argumentation, which the Schools call Circulus vitiosus, the blame lies 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 Catholic Church. Wherefore we will give our Adversary leave to say, that we draw him to it, rather than omit so necessary a Disputation.  
The Bishop therefore proposeth divers ways of proving Scripture 
Ibid. num. 20 pag. 60.  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 Church's 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 Lordship's favour, he conceives amiss; and I desire his Followers to give us leave hereafter to answer for ourselves, and that they would not do it for us.  
1. Wherefore to this last demand, (in which only 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 Moses and other Prophets, of Christ and his Apostles, was proved; which was by the Miracles they wrought, and by other Signs of an Infallible Spirit, Direction and Guidance from God, which appeared in them. Whence it is clear, that we incur no Circle. 'Tis true, after we have proved the Church's Infallibility by these Signs and Motives, namely by Sanctity of Life, Miracles, Efficacy, Purity, and Excellency of Doctrine, Fulfilling of Prophecies, Succession of lawfully-sent Pastors, Unity, Antiquity, and the very Name of Catholic, etc. I say, after we have proved 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 Authors commonly do) without any shadow of a vicious circle, confirm the same by Scripture: which Scripture-proofs are only 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 Heretics.  
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 Moses with other Prophets, Christ and his Apostles, were first proved to be Infallible. For, the Israelites seeing Moses to be a person very Devout, Mild, 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 Moses, saith 
Exod. 14. 31.  the Scripture.  
Moreover for the Testimony of Moses the Israelites believed the Scripture, and other things more clearly; and in particular concerning Moses himself, that in the House of God he was most faithful, and that God spoke to him mouth to mouth, and the like. The same we may say of 
Num. 12. 7.  Christ our Saviour. For, there appeared 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 Christ's Disciples did, when they said, we have found the Messias. Thus they were bound at first to receive 
John 1. 41.  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, etc.  
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 received 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 always referred them to his works, as giving abundant Testimony of him. I have (said he) greater Testimony 
John 5. 36.  than 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 find him saying elsewhere. The works that I do in 
Joh. 10. 25, 38.  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 
John 14. 11.  Christ, without Scripture, proved him to be the true Messias and Infallible.  
This Doctrine is also verified in the Apostles, who received Commission from Christ to preach every where, and TO CONFIRM THEIR WORDS with Signs that followed: by which signs all their Hearers were 
Mark. 14. 19  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 find, that a Controversy 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, etc.  
As therefore Moses, our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles, were proved Infallible by their works, signs, and miracles, without Scripture, so is the Church, without help of the same, sufficiently proved 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 only as they are found in her and acknowledged by her. Wherefore though Heretics have the Scripture, yet being out of the true Church, they do wholly want these signs of Infallibility: of which see Bellarmin and other Catholic Authors discoursing more at large, De notis Ecclesiae. 'Tis sufficient for the present to have declared how Catholics fall not into a Circle, as 
Ibid. num. 〈◊〉 pag. 61.  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 itself; which we acknowledge, with the Relatour, to be a higher proof, (especially against them) than the Church's Tradition. Yet we deny, that those other proofs from the Motives of Credibility, can be in reason questionable, (as he says they are) until we come to Scripture. Neither do any Catholic Authors 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 
Ibidem.  the principles of any Conclusion must be of more credit, than the Conclusion itself; 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 only Ecclesiastical Tradition, it must needs follow, that the Tradition is more Infallible, than the Articles of Faith, if the Faith, which we have of the Articles, should be finally resolved into the veracity of the Church's Testimony. I answer, the ground of all this Discourse 
Ibidem.  is the Authority of Aristotle, whose words the Bishop thus citys in the Margin. 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 virtue 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 Mind 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 Maxim holds not, viz. That the Principles of a Conclusion must be of more Credit, than the Conclusion itself. 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 extrinsical 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 virtue of that external Principle whereby such Probations are made. And this kind of proof is called Probatio ab Authoritate (an Argument from Authority:) which Authority is nothing, but the veracity, knowledge, and virtue of him, to whom we give assent, when we receive such or such an affirmation from him. Now (as I said above,) we ourselves 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 itself, but for the undeniable 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 extrinsical principles, to wit, the Authority, Veracity, Goodness, and Knowledge of God affirming it. Now the Prophets and Apostles, assented to what God spoke immediately unto them. And the like is Affirmable, in some proportion, of their immediate Hearers. But succeeding Ages had it, (viz. God's Revelation) both from Christ and his Apostles only mediately, and immediately from their respective Pastors. Now that we may be assured hereof Infallibly, we must have some infallible Testimony to ascertain it unto us; which can be no other than the Church.  
4. Neither will it be necessary, precisely for this reason, to affirm in the Resolution of our Faith, That the Church's 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 God's Revelations (whether written or unwritten) as its formal object: and our Infallible Assurance, that the Things we believe as God's Revelations, are revealed from him, is Resolved into the Infallibility of the Church's Definitions, teaching us, that they are his Revelations. Seeing therefore our Faith (in this way of proceeding) is not resolved into the Church's Authority, as the formal Motive of our Assent, but only 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 Church's Testimony should be a new immediate Revelation from God, but only Supernaturally Infallible, by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost preserving her from all error, 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 contained 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 relies: 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 spoke them; which we could never elevate our hearts to believe with Divine Faith, but by the Testimony of God's Church, which gives us a full assurance of his Revelation.  
Thus than 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, than what she defines as revealed 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 only formal object into which they resolve their Faith; and the Church's Assurance the ground to persuade them that it is infallibly a Divine Revelation, or Tradition. The Church's 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 itself no cause, but an application only of the efficient cause to the subject, on which it works; seeing nothing can work immediately on what is distant from it.  
Thus God's Revelations delivered to the Church without writing were, and are, the only 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 applied 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 Commonwealth, by still maintaining, practising, and approving the Laws enacted in its first Institution, makes them as much observed and esteemed by the people, in all succeeding Ages, for their Primitive Laws, as they were by those who lived in the time of their first Institution.  
Hence it appears our Faith rests only upon Gods immediate Revelation as its formal object; though the Church's voice be a condition so necessary for its resting thereon, that it can never attain that formal object without it. By which Discourse the Bishop's Argument is solved, 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 itself, 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 only affirms, what I have here confessed, viz. That our Faith is not resolved 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 only teaches them, with Infallible Certainty, to be Canonical, or the undoubted Word of God, etc. the very same thing, with what I here maintain.  
The Church's Authority then being more known unto us, than 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, than the mere Tradition of the Church. Whence it is likewise, that our Authors 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 kind 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 firm 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 itself of so much greater Worth and Dignity than the Churches mere Tradition, doth worthily more draw our affection, than the other; notwithstanding the other be more known to us, and the Cause of our admitting his.  
Thus we have shown, that we hold not the Church's 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 ('tis true) relies 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 Catholic Church, we profess to believe not only the Things which she teacheth, but the Church herself so teaching, as an Infallible witness: and the contrary we shall never believe, till it be proved 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 prefer the general Interpretation of the present Church before the result of any man's particular Fancy. As for Scripture, we ever extol 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 than the Present Church. And what we say of Scripture, may with proportion be applied 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 often intimated, 'tis evident, the cunning of the Device the Bishop speaks of, is none of ours, but his own, while he falsely 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 God's word, 
 or Divine Revelation; though we must of necessity repair to the Catholic 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 Catholic Church as we do to the whole, I answer, there follows no such thing from any Doctrine of ours, but from his Lordship's wilfully-mistaken Notion of the Catholic Church; which he most desperately extends to all that bear the name of Christians, without exception of either Schismatics or Heretics, 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 Catholic Church believed in the Creed. This indeed, (to use his Lordship's 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 Catholic Church; as is evident in Ecclesiastical History, which clearly shows throughout all Ages, that none condemned of Heresy or Schism, by the Roman Church, were ever accounted any part of the Catholic Church. And this I would have proved at large, had his Lordship done any more than barely supposed 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 compared with the whole Nation, yet have they greater Authority, in order to the making, or repealing of Laws, than 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 easy, I leave it to the Objecter himself to make.  
The second accusation which the Bishop lays 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, etc. but argue that the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome is true and Catholic, because she professeth it to be such: which, says 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, than Protestants can with any ground of reason pretend to, considering their manifold wrest 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 
Ibidem. pag. 63. 64.  Idem per Idem, because his Lordship sees not how we can possibly wind ourselves 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 herself 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: only this difference there is: that these (viz. Christ and his Apostles, etc.) confirming their Doctrine, gave Infallible Testimony, that what they taught, was the Immediate Revelation and Word of God, whereas the Motives, which confirm the Declarations and Authority of the Church, do only show, 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 falsely imputes to us) I clearly show 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 days have argued against the Apostolical Church by the very same Method his Lordship here uses against the present Catholic 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 Catholic 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 Apostolic Church doth witness it. And so by consequence prove Idem per Idem. Thus the Sectary.  
By which it is clear, that the Bishop's objection against the present Roman Church (wherein he would seem to make a discovery of her Corruptions and Politic Interests) is equally appliable to the Primitive Apostolic 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, than 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 err. 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, 'tis evident, the Bishop's party has no other way to avoid a Circle, but by answering, they believe the Scriptures, Councils, etc. by reason of the Convincing Motives of Credibility, powerfully inducing and inclining the will to accept the Present Church, as the Infallible Organ, Ordained by Divine Authority to teach us. Which Infallibility must come from the Holy Ghost, and be more than 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 error 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 error, 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, ordained 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. 'Tis 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. God's 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, 'tis not necessary, that it be esteemed or styled absolutely Divine, as the Bishop would have it: yet as 
Ibid. num. 6.  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 itself; 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 inferior to that of Scripture. For first, the Holy Scripture hath a larger extent of Truth; because there not only every reason, but every word and tittle is matter of Faith, at least implicitly, and necessarily to be believed 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 only the Thing Declared to be such. Besides, the Church has certain limits, and can Define nothing, but what was either Revealed 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 inferior 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 only said by Catholic 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 itself in point of Certainty and Infallibility, but only to show the Prerogatives of Scripture above the Definitions of the Church.  
Add, 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 Church's 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 Revealed, or taught by Divine Authority, this also must be so revealed; and consequently no Authority less than Divine, is sufficient to move us to believe it as an Article of Faith. Now it is to be remembered, (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 itself be absolutely Divine, or no. Neither can there be shown 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 Lordship's Argument, (that the whole may err, because every part may err) is disproved by himself; because in Fundamentals he grants the whole Church cannot err, and yet that any particular man may err, 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 Church's Infallibility, though she be so tied 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 only Declarations of what was formerly Revealed. For, as the immediate Revelation itself 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 Error would be ascribed to God: So in the Definitions of the Church, if she should fall into Error, it would likewise be ascribed to God himself.  
Neither is it necessary for us to affirm, that the Definition of the Church is God's immediate Revelation; as, if the Definition were false, God's Revelation must be also such: It is enough for us to aver, that Gods promise would be infringed; 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 Catholic Faith, which were not Revealed from God, it would imply a destruction of God's veracity, and make him deny himself. All which Doctrine is so well grounded on Christ's Promise, assuring us he will always 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, than Reason.   

CHAP. 6. No unquestionable Assurance of Apostolical 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 delivered 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 than 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. Occam, 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 find 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 forced to come stooping to the Church to show it him, and finally depend on her Authority. But being loath to trust her, he grows so wary, that he'll admit no unwritten word, but what is shown him delivered by the Prophets and Apostles. Would he read it in their Books? Now if you harken to his Discourse, he presently cries out, he cannot swallow into his belief that every thing which his Adversary says 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 Doctor, may please to call Tradition, is therefore to be received as God's unwritten Word; but such Doctrinal Traditions only, as are warranted to us by the Church for truly Apostolical; which are consequently God's unwritten word. Of which kind 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 Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, 〈◊〉 me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret Auctoritas. D. Aug. Tom. 6. cont. Epist. Fundament. cap. 5.  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 says, 
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 eos illi credideram. Ibid.  If any clear Testimony were brought out of Scripture against the Church, he would neither believe the Scripture, nor the Church. 
c Actibus Apostolorum necesse est me credere, si credo Evangelio: quoniam utramque Scripturam similiter mihi Catholica commendat Auctoritas. Ibidem.  Nay, that he as much believed the Acts of the Apostles, as the Gospel itself, because the same Authority of the Church assured him both of the one & the other.  
A second Tradition is, 
d Sicut Patrem in illis libris nusquam Ingenitum legimus, & tamen dicendum esse defenditur. D. Aug. Tom. 2. Epist. 174.  That the Father is not begotten of any other Person.  
A third, 
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.  that the blessed Virgin Mary was, and remained always 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 Heretics.  
The fourth, 
f Quam Consuetudinem, (scil. non 〈◊〉 Baptismum, etc.) 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.  That those, who are Baptised by Heretics, are not to be Rebaptised.  
The fifth, 
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 litter. lib. 10. cap. 23.  That Infants are to be baptised.  
The Sixth, 
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 & Infants. 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.  that Children Baptised are to be numbered amongst the faithful.  
The seventh, 
i Et liquidò apparet, quando primum acceperunt Discipuli Corpus & Sanguinem Domini, non eos 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.  that the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is to be received fasting.  
The eighth, 
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.  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 Falsehood; so his Lordship here feeds his humour, and obtrudes many. He makes Bellarmin, and all Catholic Doctors 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, ask, if they be Convertible Terms; and than whether any Word of God be unwritten, etc. 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 'tis 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 'tis clear, there are some Traditions, which are not Gods unwritten word. Nevertheless Bellarmin, A. C. and all Catholics agree against the Bishop, that we believe by Divine Faith that Scripture is God's Word, and that there is no other Word of God to assure us of this point, but the Tradition delivered 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 practice divers Ecclesiastical Traditions, but neither in quality of God's 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 delivered over to the Church, for aught 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 delivered 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 wherever Christ held his peace, and that his words are not registered, no man may dare without rashness to say they were THESE or THESE, his Lordship must give me leave to tell him, I must bind 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 registered; 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 only speaks against determining of a man's 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 delivered over to the Church, and therefore never esteemed Tradition: As there are many Traditions, according to Bellarmin, which we cannot own for God's 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 Baptism, of which the Relatour here speaketh. For the party to be baptised is Anointed, to signify, that like a Wrestler he is to enter the list. So St. Chrysostom, 
a D. Chrysost. Hom 6. in cap. 2. ad Coloss.  Inungitur baptizandus more Athletarum, qui stadium jam ingressuri sunt. spital is applied to their Ears and Nostrils, as St. Ambrose 
b D. Ambros. lib. 1. de Sacram. cap. 1.  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 blind man: Wherefore these Ceremonies are conformable to Scripture. Three Dippings were used in Baptism to signify the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity; or our Saviour's remaining for three days in the Sepulchre, as St. Gregory 
c D. Gregor. lib. 1. Epist. 41. ad Leandr.  teacheth. But this Ceremony is not used at all times, nor in all places, as being not absolutely commanded by the Church. Wherefore 
d Bellarm. de verb. Dei non script. cap. 9  Bellarmin (who proveth the Ceremonies used in Baptism to be Apostolical Traditions) says 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 than 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 rely 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 find no firm ground whereon to rest his foot: as will appear both by the other ways 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 
Ibidem. num. 10. p. 69.  Testimony, lumine proprio, by the sole resplendency of the light it hath in itself, and by the witness it can so give to itself; 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 God's Word by its own light, as much as himself or any of his party can do, yet, as it were to justify the more my late accusation of his obtruding Falsehoods 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 God's 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 Catholics hold it ridiculous, to believe, that either Scripture or Tradition is discernible for God's 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 signify, that Tradition is discernible 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 
Ibidem. pag. 71.  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 shows itself to be Infallibly assisted, etc. 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. 'Tis therefore clear, that A. C's Intention is only 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 find 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 itself, be a matter to be made sport with, (as the Bishop says 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. 
Ibidem. pag. 70. pag. 16. num. 12.  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, than were received in Ruffinus his time. But if according to him, some Books are now to be admitted without error for Canonical, which were not always acknowledged to be such, certainly without error 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 only by way of Digression.  
As for the third way of proving Scripture to be God's word, to wit, by the Private Spirit, 'tis true, the Bishop professes to reject the Frenzy, 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 whisper of a seducing Private Spirit, and from whence can be 
num. 12. pag. 74.  drawn no proof to others, being (as he says) 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 
Ibid.  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, etc. Now I leave it to any Indifferent man's 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 suppressed, to make way for a perversion of the other part: which taken both together signify no less than 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 
num. 11. pag. 72.  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) than 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, etc. As if there could be any doubt in either of these two particulars: Seeing Calvin, that great Doctor of Protestancy, is so positive therein, and delivers that Doctrine so expressly in his Institutions, lib. 1. cap. 7. § 4. 
a Jam si conscientiis optimè consultum volumus, etc. 〈◊〉 est haec 〈◊〉, ab arcano Spiritus testimonio. Calvin. 〈◊〉. lib. 1. cap. 7. § 4. Et iterum. Scripturas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apud nos merentur certitudinem, Spiritus testimonio consequi. Ibid. § 5.  Where he clearly resolves, that to satisfy men's 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 sucked the Church of England's Milk, as well as his Lordship, writes expressly thus, 
b Esse enim dicimus certius & illustrius Testimonium, quo nobis persuadcatur hos libros esse sacros, Testimonium nempe internum Spiritus Sancti. Whitak. Controu. de Script. 〈◊〉. quaest. 3. cap. 1. Et iterum. Qui enim Spiritum Sanctum habent, & sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, two possunt Dci 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ut quis amicum, quicûm familiarissimè & diutissimè vixerit, ex voce 〈◊〉 agnoscere. Idem cap. 3. 〈◊〉 3.  Esse enim dicimus, etc. For we affirm (saith he) there is a more certain and clear Testimony, by which we are persuaded, that these Books are sacred, to wit, the Internal Testimony of the Holy Ghost. The like he hath cap. 3. ad 3 'em. in these words, Qui enim Spiritum Sanctum habent, etc. 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 Bishop's unwillingness to confess it. To what else he inserts, in treating this point, I say nothing; because it is not against Catholic Doctrine.  
I wonder not much to see Natural Reason introduced by the Bishop, (tanquam Saulem inter Prophetas) as a means sufficient to ground an Infallible 
pag. 74. num. 13  Belief, that Scripture is the Word of God: because after a more narrow search I perceive he was enforced to take this fourth way, viz. Natural Reason: which he elsewhere, (num. 2. pag. 60.) says, 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 versed in your Christian Principles, I am uncapable of accepting of any, save what can be evidenced 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, etc. 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 Authors, 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 God's word, in such manner as you believe it.  
Bish. Surely, you have not employed the Talon 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 
pag. 56. num. 15.  Soul.  
Heath. But yet your Faith is above Reason, and your Grace above a Reasonable Creature; so that by Reason's light I can reach neither of them: nor can my reason without Grace (say you) see my 
pag. 74, 75. num. 13.  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 
Pag. 75. lin. 5  Grace. I understand nothing of that; and believe as little. Unless therefore you satisfy me, that your Bible can justly challenge an infallible belief of its being God's word, by conviction of natural Reason, my search is at a stand.  
Bish. Though you will have Grace utterly excluded from the 
§. 16. n. 15.  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 'tis strengthened abundantly with Probable Arguments, even from the light of Nature itself.  
Heath. A man cannot be infallibly certain of what is strengthened with but probable Arguments: since that which is but probably true, may be also said to be but probably false. Wherefore I fear Natural 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, 
Ibid. n. 14.  that Christian Religion, which rests upon the Authority of this Book, stands on surer grounds of Nature and Reason, than any thing in the world, which any Infidel, or mere 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, than another man's; since 'tis 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 Natural Reason too: for otherwise it will never work me into an infallible belief of it.  
Bish. This Canon of Scripture, the Container of Christ's Law, is, 
Ibid. n. 17.  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 Church's Authority, received them for God's undoubted word? The Authors by you cited in your Book, aver not their reception of them for God's 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 God's Infallible Truth.  
Bish. Nay, it is not impossible to prove it, even by Reason, a 
Ibid. n. 16.  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. 'Tis an apparent Principle with those of your persuasion, 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 only true God: Therefore.  
Heath. Therefore what? By what kind of Logic can you infer, even out of your own premises (which yet I might well question) that therefore the Scripture is God's 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 God's word, since there you find 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 grossly from the known Rules of Logic, 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 mere petitio principii, I know not what is.  
Bish. I perceive you are wilful and self-conceited: for otherwise you would have been wrought upon by what you have heard. However I shall add this more, that if in all Sciences there be some 
Ibid. n. 18.  Principles, which cannot be proved; if even in the Mathematics, 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 inferior 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 find your Lordship so disingenuous, as not only to contradict yourself, by unsaying all that you had said before by way of proof upon the Account of Natural Reason, but to put so gross a fallacy upon me: That because Natural Sciences admit some Principles without proof, as being so clear in themselves, that there needs no more than the bare apprehension of their terms; therefore in Reason the Bible must be supposed for God's 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 Natural 
Ibid. n. 10.  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 exercised 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 God's word, by conviction of Nature all Reason. This was my opinion of your Bible before I met you; and I am now more confirmed in it by your Lordship's discourse: of whom I take my leave.  
By this Interlocutory Discourse of the Bishop with the Heathen, (wherein I have not wronged him, by either falsely imposing on him, or dissembling the force of his Arguments) a man may easily discern, how irrational 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 'tis 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, received 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 Church's Authority he sufficiently believed the Scriptures to be the word of God. Ergo, the Church's 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 Church's 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 only a humane persuasion, 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 supposed 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, than he reflects, that this Church has plainly deceived him: and if she have deceived him in assuming that Infallibility to herself, and teaching him that by resting upon her Authority he had saving Faith, when he had nothing but humane and uncertain persuasion, she had deceived all her other Subjects as well as himself, and consequently exposed them all to the hazard of eternal 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 voice 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 Bishop's principles) infallibly that Scripture is Divine and the true word of God.  
If the Church teach him only, that her testimony of Scripture is no more than Humane and Fallible, but that the Belief itself that Scripture is God's word rests upon sole Scripture, as his Lordship speaks, 
§. 16. n. 21. pag. 84.  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 moral and fallible persuasion only, 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, only Humane and Fallible, how then can I rationally believe, that my single persuasion of its being the word of God, is Divine and Infallible? The Bishops, Pastors, and Doctors of the Church have both 〈◊〉 and understood it upon the Testimony of former Tradition, and thereby discovered its Divine Authority much more fully and exactly, than I alone am able to do. If therefore notwithstanding all their labour and exactness, their persuasion concerning Scriptures being God's word, was only 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 show itself, unless first introduced by the recommendation of the Church, how came Luther, Calvin, Zuinglius, Huss, Wickless, etc. 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 (says he) the Ancient Primitive Fathers in the first three hundred years after Christ, as much reason and ability to find 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 declared such by the Catholic 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, says this discoursing Christian, If one, who hath not yet examined the light of Scripture itself, but only 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 Heretic, because it was not sufficiently propounded to him to be God's word. Nay hence it follows, that even our Blessed Saviour, who is Wisdom itself, would have been esteemed by all the world, not a wise Lawgiver, but a mere Ignoramus and Impostor. For had he not framed (think you) a strange and chimerical Commonwealth, were it alone destitute of a full and absolute power, (which all other well-ordered Republics enjoy) to give an Authentical and unquestionable Declaration, which is the genuine and true Law.  
Now he comes closer to the matter itself, and examines, how this pretended light should be Infallible and Divine, supposing the Church's Testimony of the Scriptures being God's word was Humane only and Fallible. When I came (discourses he with himself) first to settle my thoughts to a serious reading of Scripture, I had no more than a fallible Authority recommending Scripture to me. That fallible Authority could be no Foundation, much less a Formal 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 than a Tradition of wise, prudent, and honest men, who had no such assistance from God, as was sufficient to preserve them from Error. Suppose therefore, that as the Church might, so she had erred in testifying some Books of Scripture to be God's word, which really are not such; in this supposition I should have them all equally recommended to me as God's word, by the very same Authority of the Church. Then I fall to reading seriously, and peruse all those which are called Canonical Books in the Bible: shall I ever think, by my diligence in reading to discover, that the light of God's word shines not in those Books wherein the Church erred, as it shines in the rest? Shall I discern Canonical Books wherein she erred not, from the not-Canonicall, by the light I find 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 discerned 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 has as universally recommended also very many unwritten Traditions for Apostolical and Divine, whereof some at least (as the not-rebaptizing of those who were Baptised by Heretics, etc.) 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 itself; why can I not, by that light, which shines in a true Apostolical Tradition, as well distinguish it from a false one, as by the light that shines in a true Book of Canonical 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 find, 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 voice of God? and so take no other guide, or judge, to myself in Divine matters, then only my own knowledge of God speaking to me?  
After this he examines a while, of what persuasion the Holy Fathers were in this matter; and finds, that 
a Quid autem, 〈◊〉 Apostoli quidem Scripturas reliquissent nobis, nun 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.  St. Irenaeus, and 
b D. Aug. lib. 1. De Doctrine. Christian. cap. 39 lib. 5. De Baptism. contra Donatist. cap. 24.  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 erred de facto, and defined 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 
§. 16. n. 19  easily solved. 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 aver, it is not necessary to the solving of his Arguments, to assert the like Divine Authority in the present Church.  
7. When he says, that some of our own will not endure, that the 
Ibidem.  often mentioned words of St. Augustin, Ego vero Evangello non crederem, etc. should be understood save of the Church in the time of the Apostles only, and in proof of this citys Occam in the margin, I ask the Relatour, how can one single Author be aliqui, some of our own in the plural number? Had he said only some one of our own, it might have passed; 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 College of the Apostles, have said that some of them betrayed their Master, and then have named Judas only; and that some others denied him, and in proof thereof had cited only St. Peter: or should a Catholic, to disgrace the Protestant Primacy of Canterbury, say that some of them carried a holy Sister of the Reformed Gospel locked up in a chest, as a precious Jewel in a Cabinet, about with them, and name Cranmer only in the Margin; or should any other Author, to discredit Protestants, affirm that some of them turned Turks, and were burnt for such, and cite only in the margin Bernardinus Ochinus, would not this be esteemed a Rhetorical Hyperbole, or rather a most unjust way of writing?  
But what if this Singular-Plural says no such thing, as the words alleged by the Bishop signify? would not this be a notable Turn? Intelligitur (so are Occhams words cited by the Bishop in his margin) SOLUM de Ecclesiâ quae fuit tempore Apostolorum. It, viz. the sentence of St. Augustin, I would not believe the Gospel, etc. is understood (saith he) ONLY 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 says expressly, that the Church, whereof St. Augustin speaks in that Sentence, contains not only 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 Occam himself shows out of another Text of St. Augustin, and affirms, that he understood the Church in the very same sense in this sentence, that he expressed in the other, and so concludes, that 
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. Occam. Dial. part 1. lib. 1. cap. 4.  St. Augustins' words there are not to be understood of the times of the Apostles only, 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 persuade us, 'tis not day, though the Sun shines. That St. Augustins' meaning jumps right with Occhams interpretation, 'tis evident. For he must speak here of the Church in his time, and not of the Primitive, or Apostolical Church only, 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 Apostolical Church, had neither been true, nor to the purpose: the Primitive and Apostolical Church having said no more against Manichaeus, than the Scripture itself 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, etc. but that must needs be the present Church, succeeding the Primitive, and not the Primitive only. Nay further he says, that if any evident place could be alleged 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 deceived him: which must necessarily be meant of the present Church, because the Church in the Apostles time had not deceived 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 proved out of the cited place of Saint Augustin. 'Tis sufficient, that it be clear and manifest out of the Text itself.  
His Lordship's objection, That the Tradition of the present Church 
§. 16. n. 21.  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 voice of the Church need not be supposed simply Divine, to give an Infallible 
Chap. 5. num. 4.  Testimony of this Tradition, as we have showed; because we need not assert it to be any more than an Authentical Testimony, preserved by the Holy Ghost from Error.  
Those two ends alone mentioned by the Relatour, fall short of 
Ibidem.  the end of Tradition; which not only induces Infidels, and instructs Novices and weaklings, but found'st and establishes Believers, even the greatest Doctors in the Church. St. Augustin was neither Infidel, Novice, Weakling, nor Doubter in the Faith, but the very learnedst of Bishops and Doctors: yet it served him so much, that he would not have believed, 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, 
Ibidem.  viz. that we are first and more bound to believe the Church, than the Gospel, it is not altogether true. For though we are first bound to believe the Church non prioritate temporis, sed naturae (to use Philosophical terms) because the Authority of the Church is the means, by which we are infallibly assured that Scripture is the word of God, yet the Authority of the Church being ordained to the Scripture as the end and more noble object, it cannot be properly said, that we are more bound to believe the Church, than the Scripture.  
Touching his and Gersons reading the forecited 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 falsify the Text. And I am persuaded, he had the like charitable opinion for Mr. Perkins, who puts credidissem for crederem, and 
In Epist. ad Galat. cap. 1. vers. 1.  movisset for commoveret. Neither is this Apology of mine for Almaynus and Gerson without ground. For both Occam and Biel, quoted by his Lordship serve themselves of the very same word, compelleret: so that it seems, the Schoolmen of those days cited St. Augustin in this manner. And though for my part I prefer commoveret before compelleret, yet in St. Augustins' persuasion expressed in that place, it signifies as much as compelleret. For he confesses, that the Authority of the Church not only moved 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 Margin, I answer, Canus libr. 2. de 
Ibidem.  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 Church's Authority, can never believe the Scripture. Hence he consequently asserts sive Infideles, sive in fide Novicii, etc. that Infidels and Novices in the Faith are brought to the belief of Scripture by this means. But here's the Turn. He citys sive Infideles, sive in fide Novicii lamely, without a Verb, or any full sense, thinking thereby to persuade his Reader, that the Church induces only 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 appeared most clearly, that Canus makes Infidels and Novices in Faith so convinced 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 (convinced) 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 Church's Authority.  
Again, by this citing of Nominatives without Verbs, he puts off, by a nimble Turn, the esteem that Infideles & Novicii make of the Church's Authority in regard of Scripture: sive Infideles, sive in fide Novicii, ad sacras literas ingrediantur, the Church's 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 itself, from being a sure and infallible way of entering into the Scriptures, that is, of beginning to believe them expressly 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 Doctors of the Church believe Scriptures upon this sole Authority, as a certain and infallible foundation, yet only 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 
Relect. Contr. 4. q. 1. art. 3.  only avers, that nothing can be proved 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 Bishop's assertion, who makes the Authority of the Church in this case to be but fallible and unsure. Neither doth this great Doctor any where affirm, that this way of Church authority is only for Infidels, (as the Bishop's explication of him seems to insinuate) but both affirms and proves, that neither Infidels nor Believers can be any other way convinced. When therefore his Lordship citys St. Augustins' Text, Quibus ergo obtemper avi dicentibus CREDIT EVANGELIO, etc. (Whom therefore I have obeyed, saying, BELIEVE THE GOSPEL, etc.) 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 God's Church, but only at his first Conversion from Infidelity. For certainly his meaning was, that he had, and did always, even till that instant from his first Conversion, obey that command of the Church.  
One thing (I am sure) may be far better inferred from those words, against the Relatour, than this was against us. For St. Augustin says not, Quibus obtemperavi dicentibus, LEGITE EVANGELIUM, vel INSPICITE EVANGELIUM, etc. whom I obeyed saying, Read the Gospel, or pursue the Gospel) but Credit Evangelio, (believe the Gospel.) The Church commanded St. Augustin to believe the Gospel. Ergo, The Church in St. Augustins' time esteemed herself 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 deceived herself, 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 only the word of man.   

CHAP. 7. The prosecution of the former Question.  
ARGUMENT.  
1. No means sufficient, in the Bishop's Principles, to be assured what Tradition is Apostolical, or what Scripture Divine. 2. St. Augustins' Text concerning Church-Authority, examined. 3. That the Bishop yields at last to the Private Spirit, masked under the title of Grace. 4. His way of Resolving Faith, demonstrated to fail. 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 endeavoured with all the engines of his wit, to shake the Infallible Authority of the present Catholic Church; but in vain. Let's now see, whether he can build better than he destroys. The ground on which he builds our Faith is Primitive Apostolical Tradition. I demand, how comes Apostolical 
§. 16. n. 20.  Primitive Tradition to work upon us, if the present Church be fallible? or why cannot we as well, being induced and prepared by the voice of the Church (if fallible) believe with Divine Faith, and rest upon Apostolical Tradition as a Formal Object, for itself, as believe the Scriptures for themselves? If it be answered, we have no other certainty, that the Church now delivers that Primitive Tradition which the Apostles delivered but the voice 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 Apostolical Tradition, but the Voice and perpetual Testimony of the Church. Yes (says 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 (replies his Lordship) be examined and approved 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 Authentical Autographa's, but by Tradition? Fourthly, may not every Universal 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 says there's a double Authority, etc. he mean 
Ibid. num. 21.  only, that in the Apostles time Christians had a double Authority to believe Scripture, viz. Tradition and Scripture itself, 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, 
Ibidem.  that confirms Scripture to be the word of God, he means that we have now both Apostolical Tradition and Scripture itself, as two Authorities, and each containing, the Formal Object of Faith, to believe Scripture to be the word of God: which is also suitable to his words §. 16. num. 22. We resolve, (saith he, meaning Faith) into Prime Tradition Apostolical and Scriptures itself; 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 only 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 
Chap. 5. num. 1, 2.  we are now both agreed, that it is not necessary to say, the Faith of Scripture is resolved into the Tradition of the present Church as its Formal Object, or Prime Motive, etc. but the only substantial 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, 'tis Fallible. Grant us once, that the Tradition of the Church is Infallible, and the controversy in this is ended.  
How our Antagonist can resolve his Faith (as here he speaks) into 
Ibid. n. 23.  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 showing how we can know infallibly that Apostolical 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 satisfy the difficulty, as I have proved, but serves only 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 Apostolical Tradition, we are left without all Divine certainty whether Scripture itself be the Infallible word of God, or no.  
That the Authority then of the present Church is Infallible, may be thus sufficiently proved. We cannot be infallibly certain that Scripture is the word of God, unless the Authority of the present Church be Infallible. For we acknowledge many Books for Canonical Scripture, which Protestants admit not; and they now hold some for such, which have not been always approved for such. And those Books of Scripture which Protestants have, are said by Catholics to be corrupted. Others also cry up some Books for Canonical Scripture, which both Catholics and Protestants disallow. If therefore the Church can err 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 only (as his Lordship would have it) to work upon the minds of 
§. 16. n. 21.  unbelievers, to move them to read and consider the Scripture, or among Novices, Weaklings, and Doubters of Faith, to instruct and confirm 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, etc. 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, than 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 only 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 ways deducible out of those words cited by the Bishop §. 16. num. 21. If thou shouldst find 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 shows, how neither Infidels, nor Christians had reason to believe the Apostleship of Manicheus: Not Infidels; because Manichaeus proves this only 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 says (pag. 82.) he urged at the Conference, unless it were, because he did not then remember it.  
As for the Catholic 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 forementioned place of St. Austin is of force for Infidels, Novices, and those who deny, or doubt of Scripture, yet they aver 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 err, he can have no infallible certainty that Scripture is God's word. If you tell him, the Church, though subject to error, is yet of authority enough to make him esteem the Scripture, and read it diligently, and that then he will find such an inbred light in it, as will assure him infallibly that 'tis the word of God; he will reply, he hath done what you require, and yet finds no more inbred light in those Books, which Protestants receive for Canonical, than he doth in others which Catholics admit, but Protestants reject as Apocryphal; no, no more than he doth in other counterfeit pieces, disapproved both by Catholics 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 used to say they were infallibly resolved that Scripture was the word of God, by the testimony of the Spirit within them, his Lordship pag. 83, 84. avers, that he hath the same assurance by Grace: so holding the same thing with the Calvinists in this particular, he only 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 delivered by the Church, finds them still to correspond with the Church's recommendation (that is, to be the word of God) by the inbred light that is in them; which is a very Artificial 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 error 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 the facto she now errs not in her delivery of it? And seeing either Theirs, or Ours must err, who is such a Lynceus, that by the sole light of Scripture, upon the recommendation of our respective Churches, can discover which errs in the number and designation of Canonical Books, and which doth not?  
Neither can it be gathered by his discourse, what they are to do, who are unresolved which is the true Church, and go about, as most of our late Sectaries do, to find 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 find out the true Scriptures by their sole light, or by the private Spirit, or lastly by the light of natural Reason; which are all equally against our Adversary.  
Should he say, they are first to find 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 Catholic Church; and consequently may have divine and saving Faith: which being supposed, 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) than 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 Logic evinces not the truth of that, for 
Ibid. n. 21.  which it is brought; since there is not any such Analogy between Logic and Church-Tradition, as he labours to persuade his Reader. For though Logic ('tis true) does help, as he says, to open a man's understanding, and prepares him to be able to demonstrate a Truth, viz. in Natural Sciences, wherewith it hath a kind of connexion; they all depending on Natural Reason: yet Church-Tradition cannot so qualify the understanding, as to enable it to see the Scripture to be God's 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 find him. And for the Scriptures themselves they appear no more to be the word of God, than the Stars to be of a certain determinate number, or the distinction of colours to a blind man. Wherefore if the Church may err in this point, yea and hath erred according to the Doctrine of Protestants, (because we hold many Books for Canonical Scripture, which they reject as Apocryphal) 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 rational 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 urged in the interpretation of Scripture. For Protestants hold, that the Church may err, yea and hath erred in this, and not only 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 finds 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 satisfy such a man without the Infallible Authority of the Church; unless you will betake yourself to the Private Spirit, which in other respects would bring you into as great straits, and make way for all Heretics 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, 
Ibidem.  Logic, Study, Comparison of Scripture with itself and other writings, Ordinary Grace, a mind morally induced and reasonably persuaded by the voice of the Church, etc. that he scarce makes any one capable to perceive this Scripture-light, and consequently attain the formal object of Faith, (without which no true Faith can subsist, or be found in any person) save only men of extraordinary parts and learning; which is a very obscure passage indeed in this his Labyrinth, much darker, than our Saviour ever made the way to heaven: for that is a way so 
Haec crit vobis directa via, ita ut stulti non 〈◊〉 per cam.  plain and open, that even fools cannot err 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 only 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 show itself 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, 'tis a manifest sign, that 'tis not the light of certainty, and consequently needs some other light to certify us that Scripture is the word of God. For seeing this certainty is not such, as makes the thing revealed evident, but only certifies itself to be a Divine Revelation, or the word of God, if our Faith can rest hereupon, it must make itself so certain, that to whomsoever it is sufficiently propounded, 'tis no less sin to descent from it, than it was to descent from the voice of Christ, or his Apostles, in those to whom their Authority was sufficiently propounded.  
Scripture therefore must either show its Divine Authority as clearly by itself (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 itself to be the word of God, so far as to induce an obligation of not dissenting from it. Again, as Christ and his Apostles showed 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 condemn not only 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 Bishop's Doctrine) that Scripture gives not so great and high Reasons of Credibility to itself, 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. 'Tis true, the Scripture is said by the Royal Prophet to be a Light; because after we have once received 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 
Psalm 118. 105.  light to my feet: so that he first believed the Scripture to be the word of God, and then said it was a light, etc. But without this Authority 'tis neither lumen manifestativum sui, nec alterius (neither a light that evidences itself, 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 inspired from God, yet he doth never avow, that this could be proved out of them, unless they were received by the Infallible Authority of the Church. And Henricus a Gandavo quoted by his Lordship, for affirming, that Christians in the Primitive Church did 
Ibid. n. 21.  principally believe for the Authority of God, and not of the Apostles, means only, that Christians were not moved to believe for any humane Authority of the Apostles, but for the Authority of God speaking by them. So that this argument must be solved 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 citys 
§ 16. n. 20.  in the Margin, speaks to such as believed that Scriptures were the word of God: whom by those proofs out of Scripture he endeavoured to confirm and settle in their Faith, by showing how Scripture itself testified as much. We may therefore assert, that 'tis not any humane, or fallible Authority of the Church, that moves us to embrace the Scripture as the Infallible word of God, but the voice of God speaking by the Church, or the Authority of God declared to us infallibly by the present Church. And this Infallible Authority is no less requisite to the knowledge of the first Apostolical Tradition of the Scriptures, than it is to know the Scripture itself.  
But I find another handsome Turn or two, in this discourse of the Bishop. He undertook to evince, that the Scripture hath such light in itself, that being introduced by the Tradition of the Church, it can show itself 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 only other things, but also itself, by itself, to be a light. Ergo, it can manifest itself 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, 'tis able to manifest itself to be a light. I grant that too. Ergo, it can manifest itself to be an infallible light, or the undoubted word of God: That I deny; and this (which was the only thing to be proved) he never so much as goes about to prove. For unless he could show, 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 itself to be a light: Ergo, it manifests itself 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 find (for example) a candle lighted in a room; it is a light, and enlightens all the room, and shows itself to be a light by its own light: but it shows not by that light, who lighted it. I see some good sentence written on a wall; it manifests itself by itself to be good; but it manifests not whether it were written by Man, Angel, or God himself; this must be evinced some other way. Thus the words, and sentences in Scripture are lights, and show 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 conceived and expressed, not only by God, but by good Men, or Angels, it follows not (as he would have it) they show themselves to be lights by their own light; Ergo, they show themselves to be Gods-lights, or Infallible lights produced by none but God himself.  
We have made, I hope, a pretty good progress through this Meander. But no looner is one passed over, but we fall into another. He was to prove that Scripture has light enough in itself to give Divine Infallible proof that 'tis the word of God, so as our Faith may rest upon that light as on its proper formal object: and to evince this he citys (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 itself, before it be believed infallibly to be God's word. This he was to infer from it: but how proves he this consequence, which is the only difficulty? He doth it thus, or no way at all. The Fathers, who precedently to the reading of Scripture believed infallibly that Scripture was the word of God, proved by Scripture that it was such; Ergo, those; who believe not infallibly that Scripture is God's word, may evince by Scripture that 'tis the word of God. Is not this a strong inference?  
The difficulties occurring in this his Lordship's Doctrine (though 
Ibid. n. 22.  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 named in the state of the question. For if the Church may err, yea and hath erred (according to Protestants) in this point, how can we have Infallible assurance, either of the Prime Apostolical Tradition, or of the Scripture itself? 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 says 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 resolved before, and makes one part of his Resolution impossible. Yet could he derive infallibly the Resolution of his Faith into Prime Apostolical Tradition, he would quite undo what he said before, that Scripture is the only foundation of our Faith, and not Tradition. Thus he turns quite opposite ways in his Labyrinth.  
7. Here therefore to aver, 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 than only to allow it in general. For if there be sufficient light in Scripture to show itself, 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 blind 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 challenged by every Heretic, for the admitting of what Books he pleaseth into the Canon, and for giving whatsoever Glosses and Interpretations upon them, as shall occur 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 than 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 child; from which 'tis probably concluded, that Katherine (for example) loves her child; by this argument. Every mother loves her child: But Katherine is a mother; Therefore Katherine loves her child. Now if we speak of principles of the first kind, the Relatour grants, that Scripture is no such principle; and 'tis manifest in itself that it is not; otherwise all men would agree which is the word of God, as all agree in those Metaphysical Principles abovenamed. Neither is the Scripture a Principle of the second sort; for of itself it appears not so much as probably to be more the word of God, than 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 show.  
But if we betake ourselves 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 God's word. For as the Signs and Motives, which accompanied the Apostles, proved them to be Infallible; so the Motives of Credibility prove the True Church to be Infallible: insomuch that we can no more err in taking the Scripture from the Church, than the Christians of the Primitive Church could err 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 only in aenigmate, enigmatically and darkly; so is ours.  
Will the Bishop then account the greatest part, or rather all the Fathers, 
Ibid. §. 16. num. 24.  either blind, 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, blind, when you of the newfound Church first began, who discovered no such Infallible and Divine light in Scripture, as could evince itself to be the word of God, to such as before believed it not to be so, with Divine certainty? Or will Protestants be content, that we, upon this their own principle, account them all blind, 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 than 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 enlightened, 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 〈◊〉, 
Ibid. n. 24.  and unable to stand upon his own ground, for teaching (lib. 3. De Ecclesia, cap. 14.) that 'tis not altogether necessary to salvation to believe any Divine Scriptures; I wonder he should make such Sallies and Skirmishes against that, which in itself hath no shadow of difficulty; it being, as Bellarmin asserts it, a truth so evident, that the Bishop himself could not have denied 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, 'tis 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 'tis not unlikely have been saved without any knowledge of Divine Scripture. Such they are, as have always 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 cavilled against this, it had been no great marvel: but I wonder so great a Scholar, and so wise a man, as the Bishop is presumed to be, should pick so deep a quarrel 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 citys) would have been in as deep an error, as he. Seeing therefore Bellarmin, and all Catholics with him, hold that Christians may sufficiently arrive to a Divine Belief of all the Fundamental Mysteries of Faith, without an explicit Belief of Scripture, what error 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'll confess, he delivered a great error.  
What he adds asterwards, that being granted, which is among all Christians, that there is a Scripture, is a mere cavil; the question being not understood only 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 Baptised should die, before he hear there is any Scripture; cannot he be saved? Questionless he may. Bellarmin therefore speaks only in such rare cases as these. When his Lordship subjoins, God would never have given a supernatural unnecessary thing, who says 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, Vows, Virginity, & c? Again, are there not hundreds of Histories, and thousands of Sentences in Scripture, which for every one in the Church to believe expressly is not necessary to salvation? Who denies 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 expressly, that there is Scripture.  
The Bishop here imagines, he has given a great defeat to Bellarmin, and that (as he says) upon Roman grounds, in this his Marginal Syllogism.  
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 believed, that a man cannot be saved 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 'tis enough to believe implicitly, though all men are bound to an explicit belief of them, when they are sufficiently propounded to them by the Church; and these Divines term necessary necessitate praecepti. This distinction supposed, 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 only, 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 lays to his charge.  
9 In his number 25. there is much ado about Hooker and Brierley; 
Ibid. n. 〈◊〉  the latter of which the Relatour is pleased to call the Storehouse 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 Storehouse; yet I believe Catholic Priests are as industrious and learned, as Protestant Ministers for the most part; and daily experience testifies as much.  
Now concerning Mr. hooker's 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 hooker's words. For first, Brierley citys Mr. hooker's 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 God's 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: ourselves 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, etc. 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 itself, he must either settle no infallible ground at all (even in his Lordship's 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 only, 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 adds these words, Yea (that which is more) utterly to infringe the force of MAN'S AUTHORITY (that is Tradition) were to shake the very Fortress of God's Truth: by which Fortress he means the Scriptures, as the following words declare. Now how can this Fortress be shaken by infringing Man's Authority, were not that Authority esteemed by him the ground of that Fortress? And presently after he infers, Some way therefore, notwithstanding man's infirmity, his Authority may enforce assent. If man's Authority may enforce 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 hooker's words another way. He first would infer from these words of Hooker, So that unless beside Scripture there were some thing, that might assure, etc. 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 spoke of proving Scripture to be the word of God. But I wonder by what Daedalian art his Lordship discourses thus. Mr. hooker's adversaries (the Puritans) had affirmed, that Scripture proved itself 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, etc. Scripture can never be sufficiently evinced to be the word of God. Ergo, says the Bishop, he himself (against himself) holds Scripture to prove itself; when every one, that has his eyes open; may see, that hooker's meaning is, there must be some other thing, different from Scripture, to prove the Scriptures to be God's word; and that this manner of expressing himself unless beside Scripture, etc. 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 proved sufficiently to be Scripture, because I have demonstrated, that Scripture (which you falsely 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 itself, that 'tis 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) only concomitant with Scripture, that is, Church-Tradition only 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 than Church-Tradition. If therefore Mr. Hooker be understood to speak of the Scriptures-being proof to itself, 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 itself is the word of God.  
This Turn being ended he begins another, and that a double one; and endeavours to show, that Brierley has shamefully falsified Hooker, in saying that the main proof which Hooker brings to show that Scripture is the word of God, is the Tradition of the Church. For that Author (says 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 (says the Bishop) affirms, that Scripture is the ground of our Belief. But are those all hooker's words in that Sentence? No; for I find amongst them a therein, which is neatly hidden in a dark corner. Although (says Hooker the Scripture THEREIN be the ground of our Belief. This one concealed word relates to something, which would have quite spoiled the Bishop's market, had it been fairly expressed. What means he by Therein? The words immediately going before tell us. Whatsoever (says 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 ties 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 itself 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 
Ibidem.  him, (to use his own words) but sees, how little it makes to his purpose.  
But let us go on. The Authority of man (says Hooker cited by the Bishop) is the Key, which opens the Door of entrance into the knowledge of 
Ibidem.  the Scripture. What knowledge of Scripture speaks he of? Let Mr. Hooker be his own Interpreter, and show 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 signify 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, 'tis 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 God's 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 Universal 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 Church's Infallibility, maintained. 5. Why each Apostle, Infallible; and not each Bishop. 6. Christ's promises to his Apostles, when to be extended to their Successors. 7. Not the Apostles only, but their Successors also, settled in all Truths. 8. The Scripture, the Church, and her Motives of Credibility, not unfitly compared to a King's Word, his Ambassadors, 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 
§. 16. n. 26.  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 Catholic Church, yet here he abstracts from that question, and means no more than he plainly asserts, viz. that the Tradition of the Catholic Church is Infallible, etc. But whether theirs, or ours, or some other Congregation of Christians be the Catholic Church, that's another question; of which A. C. affirms nothing in this place: yet the Relatour (as if he were somewhat nettled) is pleased to say, that after a long 
Ibidem.  silence he thrusts himself in again, and desires the Bishop to consider the Tradition of the Church, not only 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 find it to be Infallible.  
Truly, in my opinion, A. C. deserved no rough language for his respects to the Bishop, in being so long and silently attentive to his discourse; though at length, through zeal 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 only 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 
Ibidem.  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. etc. where, in doubts, the people were bound, not only to have recourse to the High Priest, and his Clergy, but to submit and stand to their judgement. Much more than ought we to think, that there is such an obligation in the New Testament; which could not stand without Infallibility. Witness the infinite dissensions 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, 
Ibidem.  whither will these men go? For they go no further than Christ himself leads them, by promises made unto them in the places of holy Scripture, which shall be set down 〈◊〉. And the Pastors of the Catholic 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 showed before.  
Touching what he writes of Divine Infallibility, we have already declared, that 'tis sufficient to our present purpose to assert Church-Tradition to be Infallible; whether it be simply Divine, or no, is another question, to be determined 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 acknowledged, that 'tis 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 Catholic Church, or no; but whether that, which is the Catholic 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 errors here, whilst we are in dispute about another question, is wholly out of season.  
His answer to St. Basils' Text, 
a Lib. de Spirit. sanct. cap. 17.  Parem vim habent ad pietatem, 
Ibidem.  (that unwritten Traditions have equal force to stir up piety, with the written word) is very deficient. First, 'tis 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 only from the stile, (which yet others far more ancient, and better acquainted with St. Basils' stile, than 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 itself so to be the Touchstone of Apostolical Tradition, as that Scripture must therefore needs be of greater force, and superior dignity, then that of Tradition. For the Bishop himself grants Prime Apostolical Tradition to be equally divine with Scripture: and yet 'tis 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, etc. which do not signify such Traditions, as we now treat of, viz. Traditions primely Apostolical, delivered from hand to hand, in all succeeding ages, by the universal and constant Tradition of the Church, and conveyed as such unto us by the Tradition of the present Church.  
2. A. C. urging the present Copies of Scripture, etc. presses the Relatour very hard, as I have already showed. Now I add, 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 
Ibidem. num. 27.  known, then true Tradition, because the one is written, and not the other, is not consequent. For Universal Traditions are recorded in Authors of every succeeding age: and it seems much more incident to have errors slip into writings of so great bulk as is the Bible, which in their Editions pass only through the hands of particular men, then that there should be errors in public, Universal, and Immemorial Traditions, which are openly practised throughout all Christendom, and taken notice of by every one in all ages.  
To show the difference therefore betwixt Scripture and Tradition, not only 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 delivered as Authentical Apostolical writings to other Christians, and so by degrees came to be publicly delivered, that is, made known to the whole Primitive Church, and received by it: And thence in like manner the Church received and delivered them in succeeding ages. On the other side the Apostles (to descend to some particulars) observed the first day of the week as sacred, in place of the Sabbath, Baptised Infants, used Altars, etc. This in the very prime Institution and practice of it, was not done privately, only by some one Apostle, or in the presence of one single person only, but publicly by all the Apostles, and universally practised 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 delivered 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 
Ibidem.  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 God's Spirit, whereas he only says they may be considered as printed, and by authority of men assisted by God's 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 only to the Apostles times? How come Christians then to infer, 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 kind of errors infallibly, it may, notwithstanding all the assistance he allows it here, fall into all kind of errors one after another; and so by degrees the whole Church might fall into a general Apostasy, and thereby perish. There must therefore be some kind of Infallible Assistance in the Apostles Successors, by virtue of these promises. For otherwise how would this Doctrine of his agree with that of other Modern Protestant Authors, who grant, that our Saviour by those Texts promised an Infallible Assistance to his visible Church, and her Pastors 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 Successors, 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 only the Pastors 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 persuade the ignorant, that the Jesuits also have a month's mind to this Infallibility. Whence draws he, I pray, this consequence? Forsooth, because A. C. avers, that the Holy Ghost through Christ's promise, is to assist infallibly the Successors of the Apostles, the lawfully-sent Pastors and Doctors of the Church in all ages. But what if A. C's words cannot be understood of every Pastor, or Doctor apart? but rather of Pastors and Doctors lawfully assembled in an Ecumenical Council? as indeed he doth; which thus I show.  
Every Author 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 engaged, was whether the whole Church might err in her Tradition of Scripture. So that it was necessary for him to apply the promises of our Saviour to the Pastors of the Church, only so far, as those Pastors were the Representative Church, and their Tradition the Churches-Tradition. This A. C. signifies expressly 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 twofold 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 only to the Apostles, but to their Successors also, the lawfully-sent Pastors and Doctors 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 Pastors and Doctors 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 Pastor, or of the Jesuits, etc. is to no purpose, as proceeding merely 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 (says he) is content 
Ibid. n. 28.  to extend it to all the lawfully-sent Pastors 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 Pastors of the Church must chiefly mean (and that without all question, or dispute) those of his own Society? When 'tis well known, there are scarce two Pastors 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 Pastors, when they neither were Pastors, nor could be, unless he will suppose likewise they would break their vow made to Almighty God (for by Pastors, the Apostles Successors, are meant Bishops) never to admit any such dignity without express command of the Pope. But how proves the Bishop the jesuits persuade themselves they are Infallible? Rabbi Casaubon, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, must help him out. An Apologist (says Casaubon) avers, 'tis impossible for a jesuit to err. Who is this Anonymus Apologist? A jesuit, or a Minister? For an Apologist and a Jesuit are no more convertible terms, than a jesuit and a Minister. How shall we know then, whether this nameless Apologist was a jesuit or a Minister personating a Jesuit? The Gospel will tell us; Ex fructibus corum cognoscetis eos. Is it possible 
Matth. 7. 20.  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, 'tis 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 Controversy; yet are they not therefore of less force.  
The first is in St. Luke; where Christ saith, He that heareth you, 
Luke 10. 16.  heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me, etc.  
The second in St. Matthew; where Christ tells us, I am with you always 
Matth. 28. 20.  unto the end of the world.  
The third is in St. John; where 'tis written, The Comforter, the 
Joan. 14. 16.  Holy Ghost, shall abide with you for ever.  
To the first of these passages, viz, Luke 10. 16. alleged by A. C. the Bishop answers, that those who hear the Successors of the Apostles 
Ibid. n. 29.  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 Saviour's 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 than 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 says, 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 expressly and immediately to the Apostles themselves) the Apostles were neither to be heard, when they preached other things, than 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 ourselves must acknowledge a difference in applying this Text to the Apostles and their Successors, (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 Pastors) I answer first, the difference alleged by us is so clear and unquestionable, that our very Adversaries agree with us in it. Secondly, 'tis manifest by experience itself, that many Pastors, even of very eminent authority in the Church, have not only erred, but invented and maintained Heresies. Thirdly, we have the universal Tradition and consent in all ages, that all Pastors apart are not Infallible. Fourthly, we have plain Scripture for it; Acts 20. 30. where the Apostle says, that even from amongst themselves, that is, from amongst the Pastors 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 Christ's 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 received persuasion amongst us) preserve that Infallibility in one Supreme Pastor of the Church, the Bishop of Rome, successively, which they continue neither in one, nor in all the Pastors of the Church assembled together. Let those therefore of his Lordship's party bring as strong reasons for the Bishop's 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 always, 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 always, etc. to the whole Church Representative, not to every Pastor apart: whereby St. 
* In illis donis quibus salus aliorum 〈◊〉 (qualia sunt Prophetiae & Interpretationes Sermonum) Spiritus Sanctus nequaquam semper in praedicatoribus 〈◊〉. S. Gregor. lib. 2. moral. cap. 29.  Gregory's Text is no ways against us; for he speaks of Preachers taken severally and apart. We say also, with Rhabanus Maurus, that Christ in his holy Spirit is always present with his Church diffusive, in communicating his Graces unto it: But that supposes, at least denies not a conjunctive Infallibility of the Pastors, as a necessary Foundation and support of the Church diffusive. Whence it appears how vain the Bishop's challenge is, whereby he urges us to show any one Father 
Ibid. n. 29.  of the Church, that extends the sense of this place of Scripture to Divine and Infallible Assistance, granted thereby to all the Aposties' Successors. For as to Divine Assistance, we have all along proved it not to be necessary: but as to Infallible Assistance, in regard of the whole Church, 'tis clear, that the Fathers, in effect, do attribute such a Prerogative to the Church, viz. that Christ doth assist and preserve her from error; in as much as they teach, 
a Cyprian de unit. Ecclesiae.  That the Church cannot be adulterated with Heresy. 
b 〈◊〉 Epist. ad Cornel. Cyril. Catech. Mystag. 18.  That what she once hath received from Christ, she ever holds. 
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 agone, Chrislian. cap. 29.  That she can never fail. 
d Euscb. Caerasiens. de praeparat. Evangel. lib. 1. cap. 3. Cyrill. Alexandrin. Dial. 4. de Trinitat.  That her Faith is invincible, even to the very Powers of Hell. 
e Cyrill. Alexandrin. lib. 5. in Isa. cap. 54.  That she is founded by Christ in the Truth for ever. 
f Chrysostom. in cap. 2. Isa.  That all the Heretics 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, 'tis likewise clear that in the judgement of the Fathers, this Assistance was granted and intended by Christ to all the Apostles Successors, in the sense above declared. But whether the Father's ground their Doctrine in this point, upon this particular Text or no, is little material. 'Tis sufficient they acknowledge the thing we contend for, viz. the Prerogative of Infallibility and Immunity from error, in the Church, and that they generally derive it from our Saviour's 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 denied the sense of this place to reach to infallible assistance, granted thereby to all the Apostles Successors, 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 promised there for ever must, in some absolute sense (so far as is necessary to the preservation of the Church from error) 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 only. 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, 'tis also to be understood in relation to their Successors, assembled in a full Representative of the whole Church.  
5. Now one main reason of this difference between the Apostles, and succeeding Pastors of the Church, I take to be this, that every Apostle apart had received 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 obliged to believe: and consequently had he erred in any thing, the whole Church would have been obliged to follow and believe that error. Whereas on the other side, the succeeding Bishops (generally speaking) were not to be Pastors of the whole Church, but each of his own respective Diocese; so that if particular Pastors preached any error in Faith, the whole Church was unconcerned in it, having no obligation to believe them.  
But in regard those respective Pastors, when they are assembled in a lawful Representative, or General Council, are in quality of the Pastors of the whole Church, if they should err, in such a body, the whole Church would be obliged to err with them; which is against the promises of our Saviour. Hence also it follows in proportion, that the Bishop of Rome, being Pastor of the whole Church, when he teacheth any thing in that quality, viz. as Pastor of the whole Church, and intending to oblige the whole Church by his Definition, cannot (in the common opinion) err, for the same reason.  
6. To give also the Fundamental Reason for this Exposition; one, and that a certain way to know, when our Saviour's words spoken immediately to the Apostles, are to be extended to their Successors in all ages, is this; that when the necessary good and preservation of the Church requires the performance of Christ's words in future ages, no less than it required it in the Apostles times, than 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 only. Thus, when our Saviour commanded his Apostles to Preach, Baptise, Remit sins, Feed their Flocks, etc. Seeing these actions are as necessary for all future ages, as they were in the Apostles time, 'tis manifest, they were to reach to all succeeding ages. Again, in regard he also promised (John 16. 13.) to lead the Apostles, by his Holy Spirit, into all truth: and seeing 'tis as necessary now, for those who act as Pastors of the whole Church (as all succeeding Bishops do, when they meet in a lawful Ecumenical Council) to be led into all those truths, into which he promised to lead the Apostles, for the reason but now alleged, it evidently follows by virtue of our Saviour's promise, that they are always and effectually so led. And though it would be boldness (as the Relatour terms it) to enlarge that promise, in the fullness 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 Pastors of the whole Church, to teach and instruct her what she is to believe.  
St. Augustine's 
a Omnes autem insipientissimi Haeretici, qui se Christianos vocari volunt, etc.  words therefore, which the Bishop citys, calling them in a manner Prophetical, are not with the least shadow of reason appliable to us, but to a world of fanatics sprung from the stock of Protestancy, and who still pass under the general notion of Protestants. And this I may boldly assert, in regard 'tis clear, that the said great Saint and Doctor held the selfsame 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 ascertained, by any Text of Scripture, but by the Church alone. 
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.  'Tis manifest (says he) that when the Disciples first received the Body and Blood of our Lord, they did not receive Fasting. Must we therefore calumniate the Universal Church for always 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 observed 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 aver, that this promise of settling the Apostles in all truth, was for the persons of the Apostles only; 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 satisfy 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 continual Assistance also to the succeeding Pastors 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 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, etc.  The Church never changes, nor diminishes, nor adds any thing at all, (nihil unquam) no she changes nothing: She neither cuts off any thing necessary, nor adjoins any thing superfluous; she loses not what is her own, she usurps not what belongs to another, etc. but only polishes and perfects what was begun before.  
He tells us next, he will grant to A. C. that Tradition and Scripture, 
Num. 31.  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 kindly done. But what if A. C. will not be so good natured as to grant so much? What would the Relatour do in that case? Call you this answering, or rather making Meanders? He'll 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 refused 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 
Ibid. n. 31.  Ambassador, he says, that the King's Letters confirm the Ambassadors Authority infallibly, and the Ambassador's word probably only. But to whom do those Letters confirm it infallibly? To all that know the Seal and hand, says the Bishop. That's pretty. Suppose then he go to a Foreign King, who neither knows Seal nor Hand; how will those Letters confirm infallibly the Ambassador's 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 God's Word; and this is neatly put off by a dexterous Turn. 'Tis true, the King's Letters may give some moral Testimony to purchase credit to the Ambassador, supposing, that he who gives himself out for an Ambassador, 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 King's Letters are Letters of Credence, because they are written in the usual form of such Letters, and delivered 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 received as Ambassador without those Letters. Where we see (to fit this instance to our present purpose) that the first Motive, inducing the Foreign King to receive either the Person, or the Letters, are those reasons, whereby the King is persuaded the Ambassador 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 herself in her Prelates to be Christ's Ambassador, we receive her as such, and give credit to what she says or does; next she producing also Christ's Letters of Credence, the holy Scriptures, which affirm that her Prelates are his Ambassadors, we are yet further confirmed 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 only 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 Ambassador's 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 God's Ambassador, 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 Ambassador's sincerity, who brought them? otherwise there can be no Infallibility of his Embassy. How many ways are there of counterfeiting both Seal and Hand? Nay, how many ways of obtaining them surreptitiously? May not the Ambassador 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 stomaches 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, (says the Bishop) this is too high a 
Ibidem.  great deal; no Legate 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 says too much a great deal. Where, I beseech him, doth A. C. say in the forecited words, that a Legate is of as great credit, as the King himself. I'm sure in his words there is no such sentence. He avers indeed, that we may give credit to those Legates, as to Christ the King himself; but he says not that we may give as much, or as high credit to the one as to the other. This was the Bishops Turn only. 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 Saviour's death, whether he would have doubted of the truth of the Apostles doctrine, any more than 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 affirmed as much, when he said, He that hears you, hears me, Luke 10. 16.  
Next he tells us, that A. C. says, that company of men, which delivers 
Ibidem.  the present Church's 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 played the Divine and Rhetorician both at once? What means this Rhetorical repetition thrice together? But the worst is, A. C's words are misapplyed, 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 Church's Tradition: and then says, their Divine Authority and credit is so great, that 'tis 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 'tis delivered from a company of men assisted by the Holy Ghost, speaks thus, He would find no difficulty in that respect to account the Authority of Church-Tradition to be Infallible, and consequently not only able to be an Introduction, but also an Infallible motive, or reason, or at least a condition EX PARTE OBJECTI, to make both itself 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 referred 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, itself, (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 only Infallible Authority.  
Our Apology for A. C. being ended, let us see how his Lordship goes about to prove Scripture to be God's Word. For the better understanding whereof, 'tis necessary to know what he is to prove. He tells us, that this his Method and manner of proving Scripture to be the 
Ibid. n. 32.  Word of God, is the same, which the Ancient Church ever held, etc. Now his Lordship's Method and manner of proving this includes two particulars. The first that Church-Tradition is only a humane, moral, and fallible inducement, able only to found a moral persuasion that Scripture is the Word of God; but insufficient to convey infallibly to us the Apostolical Tradition of the Scriptures-being. God's word: whence he concludes, that before the reading of Scripture we cannot, in virtue of that Apostolical Tradition thus conveyed 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, found'st a Divine Faith that it is the Word of God, when we frame a high Moral esteem of it, and are induced to read it as a thing most likely to be God's 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 itself, we have not Divine Faith, but only a Moral persuasion, by Church-Tradition, that it is the Word of God.  
He citys first Vincentius 
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.  Lirinensis, (lib. 1. cap. 1.) who makes our Faith to be confirmed both by Scripture and Tradition of the Catholic Church. The Faith he here speaks of is not any humane, fallible persuasion, but true, Christian, and Divine Faith; for he opposes it to Heresy, and calls it Sound Faith, and his Faith, (Fidem suam, the Faith of a Christian) nay, he says the Tradition of the Catholic 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 says expressly, 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 mere humane fallible persuasion, but by Divine Faith only. A Gandavo goes on. Plus verbis Christi in Scriptures credit, quam Ecclesiae testificanti; ergo credit Ecclesiae. He believes the Church; but how can he believe without Faith? A little after à Gandavo says, 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 adds a third manner of giving credit to others, Post istas studiosis viris, non sub poenâ 
Ibidem.  perfidiae, sed proterviae. After these two, viz. Scriptures and Church-Definitions, he says 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 error in Faith, (if we descent from them) but under pain of pertinacious pride, in preferring ourselves before them.  
Seeing therefore he adds this limitation to the third kind of belief only, he tacitly grants, that if we contradict either Scripture, or Church, it is sub poenâ perfidiae, under pain of Infidelity, and not of Proterviousness only. Ergo, he accounts the Definitions of the Church sufficient to assure us infallibly of Divine Truths; otherwise it would not be Infidelity, Error in Faith, or Heresy, to contradict them. Lastly, à Gandavo is cited in these words, Quod autem credimus 
Ibidem.  posterioribus, etc. 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, preached by the former Pastors, are not changed by their Successors; 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 found'st only a probable humane persuasion that Scripture is God's Word, rather evince the quite contrary.  
The second point to be concluded is, that Scripture, thus led in by the Church, proves itself Infallibly and Divinely, by its internal 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 show that Scripture is the Word of God. But first, do they always bring these proofs to such as had no Divine Faith before of Scriptures-being God's 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, persuasive only to such as believed Scripture to be God's Word precedently to them? Thirdly, do they use only such proofs, as are wholly internal to Scripture itself? All these conditions must be made good, to make a full proof for his purpose, out of them.  
Now touching the two first conditions, 'tis 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 external. 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 contained 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 proved to be God's 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 alleged, 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. Persuade 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 received 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 proved, 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 itself, upon which our Faith must rest, and yet deny the same privilege to the Church? Seeing it cannot be denied, but that every one of these Motives are much more immediately and clearly appliable to the Church, then to Scripture. For first, Miracles have most copiously and familiarly confirmed the Authority and lawful Mission of the Pastors. Secondly, the Doctrine of God's true Church hath nothing of Carnal in it. The Performance, or verifying of this Doctrine, is only found in the Members of the Church. Lastly, it is the Church that hath preached 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 Church's Infallibility, he argues mainly for it?   

CHAP. 9 An End of the Controversy touching the Resolution of Faith.  
ARGUMENT.  
1. St. Augustine's words explicated. 2. The Bishop cannot avoid the Circle, without mis-stating the Question. 3. He waves the difficulty. 4. St. Cyril, and St. Augustine's 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 learned 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 God's 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. 'Tis now high time to put a Period to this Controversy touching the Church's 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. Augustine's proving Scripture, by an internal Argument 
§ 16. n. 32.  (lib. 13. cap. 5. contr. Faust.) makes little for the Bishop's 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 only Secondary and probable, yea sometimes purely conjectural, in this kind. See an example of this in the 
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.  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. Augustine's expressions proceed ex suppositione impossibili; and are wholly like that of St. Paul, (Gal. 1.) If an Angel from heaven preach any thing, otherwise than 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 believed with Divine Faith by virtue of the Church's Testimony and Tradition, what answer can be made to this Question, Why believe you infallibly that Scripture is God's Word? If he say, for the Tradition of the Church, it will not serve: seeing he is supposed to have no Divine Faith, that Scripture is God's Word, from the sole Testimony of the Church. Yet when both partles press this Circle against each other, they always suppose, that Scripture is Infallibly and Divinely believed for God's Word, in some true sense, by means of the Church's 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, than what is drawn from a probable and humane Testimony of the Church, as if it were propounded to a Heathen, who had only heard Scripture recommended for God's Word, by persons very worthy of credit. For both of these were equally to answer, that they denied the supposition of an Infallible Belief, since they did not believe (as Christians take the word Belief) that it is God's 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 Semicircle, that is, a Crooked Turn in his Labyrinth, by mis-stating the question, and bowing it another way, than it ought to be, and always is propounded in this Controversy, as I said above. Wherefore if the Church give only 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, than 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 Church's Tradition, antecedently to the reading of Scripture, or he commits the fallacy termed ex falso supposito, (of making a false supposition) and so by avoiding one error falls into another. For unless he believe infallibly that Scripture is God's 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 Church's 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 Lordship's Resolution of Faith into Prime Apostolical Tradition, we have 
* Chap. 6. num. 1, 2.  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 avers, that we may resolve our Faith into Prime Tradition when it is 
Ibid. n. 33.  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 says 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 only gathered by the perpetual succeeding Tradition of the Church, (as 'tis certain it can only be) and that Tradition be fallible, (as the Bishop perpetually contends) how shall any Prime Tradition be known sufficiently to make itself an object of Faith, since nothing can do that, but an Authority Infallible, 〈◊〉 us Infallibly certain of that Tradition?  
Hence he runs two contrary ways 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 blind 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 resolved; when yet he knew full well the difficulty lay not there, and that his Adversaries never affirmed it was simply Divine, or the formal object of Faith, but spoke always warily and reservedly, abstracting from that question as not necessary for the solving of his arguments, or defence of the Catholic Faith against him. Let the Bishop's 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 supposed, 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 Lordship's principles is impossible to be done.  
4. Concerning the Relators endeavour 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 only 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 only, 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 betrays its emptiness. He will oblige us to show 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 God's 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 formal Object, which must be no less than absolute Divine Authority.  
But supposing we held our Faith to be so resolved, would his Lordship press us to show those very terms, resolving of Faith, etc. 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. 
Ibidem.  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 than Scripture, etc. But since he urges to have our Resolution of Faith showed him in those terms, in the Fathers, we challenge his Defenders to show any Father, who saith, that we cannot believe Scripture to be the Word of God, infallibly, for the Church's 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 presupposed without proof, because in all Sciences there are 
Ibidem. Num. 34. Punct. 1.  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 God's 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 God's 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 
Punct. 2.  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 certified of the Divine Authority, assuring us that Scripture is God's Word; of which we cannot be ascertained 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 proved that it cannot be the sole light of Scripture, we must have some further light, clearer quoad nos, then God hath revealed to us in Scripture: which is plainly contradictory to his Proposition.  
His third point contains no more in sum, than what I have said 
Punct. 3.  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, 
Punct. 4.  the Resurrection of the dead, and the like Mysteries cannot finally be resolved 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 
Punct. 5.  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 inspired in what they preached 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 2 Cor. 5. 7. 1 Cor. 13. 12.  not by Sight, and that they saw only 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 God's sight for not believing. Otherwise why should our Blessed Saviour have said, Had I not done among them 
Joan. 15. 24.  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, 
Matth. 11. 21.  done amongst you, been wrought in Tyrus and Sidon, they had long since done Penance in sackcloth and ashes. Likewise, The works, which I do in my Father's name, bear witness of me: and, though you believe not me, 
Joan. 10. 26, 38.  believe my works.  
Thirdly, the Bishop's 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 Peter's Miracles did not convincingly oblige men to believe, because 〈◊〉 Magus' 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 'tis Blasphemy to affirm, that God bears witness to a Lie? 
b Nam quis vel cogitet absque Blaspbemiâ, Deum commodaturum suam 〈◊〉 vim vit tutemque mendacio? Chamier. Tom. 2. Controu. 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 God's Scals of Divine Truth. Bishop Morton, on the Sacrament, lib. 4 cap. 2. §. 2.  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 
Punct. 6.  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 'tis God's 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; 
Punct. 7.  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 evidenced 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 denied that Scripture is God's Revelation, supposing he hath made Revelations, so that in proving this he hurts not his Adversary: but his Province was to prove that Scripture only was God's Revelation. Why then omits he here the word only, which caused the whole Controversy?  
His last Consideration is a dark Meander. For the Motives of Credibility 
Punct. 8.  he there musters up, preceding the light of Scripture, are indeed of force to justify one's Belief that Scripture is God's Word, when 'tis received, as the Ancients did receive it, upon the Infallible Authority of Church-Tradition; but never otherways. 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, persuade; but whether he doth well in teaching, that Scripture ought to be believed with Divine Faith, for its only inbred light, as the formal Object. And in this opinion I would gladly know, how the recounted Motives can justify 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 justify 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, 
Punct. 9  (for all the rest in this page is a mere repetition of what hath been already answered) viz. that being arrived to the Light of the Text itself, and meeting with the Spirit of God, etc. 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 itself, have no divine nor infallible proof of its being God's 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 error, 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 lie, and profess to do that, which they neither do, nor can do in his Tenet: and consequently, since it is unlawful to lie, (and much more in matters of Religion, then in others) it will also follow, that it is unlawful for any one to teach unlearned persons their Creed, and as unlawful 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 Lordship's good intention in having proceeded in a Synthetical way, to build up the Truth for the Benefit of the 
Ibidem.  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 tyre 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 only, or besides them, unwritten Traditions, were the Foundation of our Faith; the Bishop maintained the first, and A. C. the second. Now A. C. could not more directly, nor efficaciously overthrow his Lordship's Tenet, then by proving, that the Assurance we have even of Scriptures themselves relies 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 proved ineffectual; because both A. C. and our other Authors, 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 Church's Infallibility is founded upon the Testimony of Scripture, and the Scriptures Infallibility upon the Testimony of the Church: the contrary whereof I have sufficiently delivered 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 showing it to be evidently credible in itself; as the like motives made this point evidently credible to the Faithful heretofore, that the Prophets and Apostles were Infallible. And 'tis 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 mind thus, That the Books of 
§. 17.  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 tacitly, that the Scriptures are delivered to us by the Infallible Authority of the Church. Wherefore in this assertion that Scripture only is the Foundation of Faith, he contradicts what he ought to have presupposed, viz. that Scripture was held to be God's 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 contained in Scripture; yet against one that denies the necessity of Tradition, we require a proof of Scripture itself, as knowing he could not have any other good ground of supposing Scripture to be God's 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 entering, or doubting in Faith, and those who pretend to be grown up in Faith, and yet impugn 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 moved Bellarmin and A. C. to demand, how Scripture could be proved the Word of God: for they were forced to it by their Adversaries denying the Necessity of Tradition. And the advantage is to yourselves; that by this Medium (which Protestant's 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 
§. 18. n. 1.  the Gordian knot of Mr. Fisher's Arguments) brags he set him to his Book again. But I am confident, it was rather the not untying this knot, that moved him to repeat what he had writ before. For this repetition showed clearly, the Bishop said no more than what Dr. White had said before him; and consequently that Mr. Fisher's words spoken to the Doctor, were sufficient to solve all the Bishop had said. Wherefore as the Bishop did actum agere, (do only what was done by the Doctor 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 acquaint 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 Heretics suppose with Catholics, 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 (says he) praemittenda est Controversia de VERBO DEI, etc. even as our Adversary citys him; he says not the 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 
Ibidem.  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, 'tis presupposed only 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 Controversy, where the Question was about the Priority of Tradition, in order of Principles before Scripture) yet Scripture is then to be presupposed only 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 Extreme Unction were a Sacrament, in this Dispute 'tis 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 aught 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 Sunshine; but then we settle not for our direction upon the first opening of the Morning-light, but upon the Sun itself. 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 only upon the brightness of Scripture itself. But I demand, how knows the Relatour, this Light is rather a Beam then a Dream, by which he is deceived by the watchful Enemy of Mankind, who transforms himself into an Angel of Light? 'Tis true, the Scripture is called a Light; but 'tis like a Candle in a dark Lantern; or the Sun under a Cloud, in regard of all those, who deny the Infallibility of the Church, and appears in full light only to them who acknowledge it.  
After some flourishes the Bishop minds us, that there is less light in Principles of Faith, than 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 only 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 wilful 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 Bishop's Doctrine.  
A. C. therefore mistook not at all, but pressed home his Argument in this manner: which the Bishop solves not by saying, he confesseth 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 only, but such a one, as we may rely upon for an Infallible Testimony in the Resolution of Faith. Nay I add, 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 supposed that Scripture is the Word of God, it must also, at least implicitly, be supposed as proved 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, merely 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 Controversy betwixt them, Scripture was not to be supposed, as a Principle, to be God's Word. For the Question than agitated was not, Whether Scriptures contain in them all things necessary to Salvation, there being no mention of that, but only whether the Creed contained all Fundamental Points? And the immediate occasion of Mr. Fisher's demanding this Question, was this answer of the Bishop, viz. That the Scriptures only, 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, etc. These are believed (says Mr. Fisher) to be Scripture, yet not proved out of any place of Scripture. Now 'tis manifest, that in this Debate Mr. Fisher had Logically right to demand this Question, it being a direct Medium and Argument to infringe the Bishop's 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 only 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 supposed 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 
Ibid. num. 4.  strictest sense. But behold his reason. Scripture is a praecognitum, because 'tis 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 God's 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, than the Tradition of the Church.  
Having laboured 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 draws a conclusion quite contrary to his Premises, namely, that Scripture is to be supposed God's word, and needs no precedent proof. If it needs no proof, why does his Lordship endeavour to prove it by such a strange kind of Argument? Had he indeed said, Scriptures being proved by another principle to be the word of God, must be supposed 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 proved by a further principle, and on the other to maintain, that it needs not be proved at all, cannot but seem a strange Vertigo to any Logical head. As to his conclusion in these words, And therefore now to be supposed (at least by all Christians) that the Scripture is the word of God, I answer, if he means by now to be supposed for God's word as proved such by Apostolical Tradition 'tis most true: but if he mean 'tis to be supposed the word of God, without any precedent proof in order to us, it's all out of joint, and his answer contrary to his own principles.  
11. Touching the Jews, they had the like proof for the Old Testaments-being the word of God, that we have for the New. For 
Ibid. num. 5.  theirs was delivered by Moses 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 
Homil. 57 in Joan. c. 9  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 myself.  
Now the Jews, who lived many hundred years after Moses and the Prophets, did not, could not hear them immediately, therefore Moses 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 delivered what they had received 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 only, that made them know it, as the Relatour would insinuate. This is most clearly signified, Psalm. 
a Quanta audivimus & cognovimus ea: & patres nostri narraverunt 〈◊〉 Non sunt occultata à filiis eorum, in generatione alterâ. Psalm. 77. 3, 4. etc.  77. ver. 3. etc. 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 Eruntque, verba haec, quae 〈◊〉 praecipio 〈◊〉 hodie in cord 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, etc. Deut. 6. 20, 21.  Deut. 6. ver. 6, 7, 20. viz. that fathers should instruct their children concerning the great Works and Mercies of God, etc.  
As to what the Bishop observes touching the word Knowledge, which is attributed to the Jews by holy Scripture, as also by St. chrysostom in the place above cited, it imports not evident, or Scientifical Knowledge properly so called, but a firm and perfect assurance only; otherwise our Faith would neither be free, nor meritorious. His distinction therefore betwixt hearing and knowing is but a slender one, both because the Royal Prophet intimates, that the succeeding ages know the prodigious works of God by hearing them from their immediate Ancestors (Psalms 77. 6.) and because they that heard Moses, 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 last, because his Lordship himself asserts, that Scripture is known (in this sense) to be the word of God, by hearing from the mouths of the Apostles.  
Now to aver, that they resolved their Faith higher and into a more inward principle, than 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 only an Infallible Application to us of the Prime Divine Tradition concerning Scriptures, for which prime Tradition only we believe Scripture to be the word of God, as for the formal motive of our Belief. To his Quere therefore touching the Jews proceeding in the like controversy, I answer, when it shall be shown, that any of the Jews held the Old Testament for their sole rule of Faith, to the exclusion of Tradition, I shall then be ready to show what the Bishop here demands, viz, that in controversies of Religion one Jew put another to prove, that the Old Testament was God's word.  
But to return to their resolution of Faith, certain it is, they had always, at least very often, Prophets amongst them: insomuch that Calvin himself confesseth, that God promised to provide, there should 
Calvin. lib. 4. Instit. c. 1. §. 5.  never be wanting a Prophet in Israel. Moreover besides these, 'tis 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, 
〈◊〉. 17. 18. etc.  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 persuade us the contrary.  
12. Mr. Fisher is here brought in (as he was once before) for averring, 
§. 19 n. 1.  that no other answer could be made of the Scriptures-being God's 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 liable 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 'tis fallible, can never produce an infallible assurance is, because all certainty grounded upon sole Authority, can be no greater, than the Authority that grounds it. Since therefore (according to the Relator) all humane Authority is absolutely fallible, 'tis impossible it should ground in us an infallible certainty. This Doctrine is expressly delivered by the Bishop, §. 16. num. 6. where speaking of the Scriptures he saith, If they be warranted unto us by any Authority LESS THAN DIVINE, than all things contained in them (which have no greater assurance than the Scripture, in which they are contained) are not objects of Divine Belief, which once granted, will enforce 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 infallibility, 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 error. Thus he. No humane testimony therefore (in the Bishop's 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 God's 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 Lordship's discourses.  
Nor will it serve his turn to say (as he doth) that by infallible assurance 
Ibidem.  may be understood no more, then that the thing believed is true, and truth, QUA TALIS, cannot be false. For however he plays with the word infallible, yet that cannot touch assurance. For the infallibility he there talks of is only in the object, and that in sensu composito too, viz. only 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 Bishop's sense of infallibility, there is no true proposition (how contingent and uncertain soever in itself) of which we might not be said to be infallibly certain. So (for example) should I say merely 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 extremely 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 the 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 God's 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 Bishop's earnest endeavour to possess the Reader, that the Scriptures (both the old and new) are come down to us so unquestionably by mere humane Authority, that a man may thereby be 
Ibidem.  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 Controversy. 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 Judas, 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? 
Ibid. num. 2.   
After this the Relatour, pretending to come close to the particular, says, The time was, before this miserable rent in the Church of Christ, that you and we were all of one belief. I wonder whom he means by that WE of his before the Rent, seeing the said WE began with and by that Rent, not made by us, but by those that went out from us, and deserted the Catholic Church and Faith, in which they were bred up; and so became a WE by themselves: which before the Rent so made, had no other than a mere Utopian, or Chimerical Being. Yet (as it seems by his Lordship's discourse) they are pleased 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 Heretics, who yet were condemned for such by lawful ecumenical Councils. They glory in ascribing (as he says) 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 Scriptures? This indeed is not only enough; but more then enough, as the 
Ibidem.  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 falsehood upon us, That we make the present Tradition always an Infallible Word of God unwritten. Apostolical Traditions we hold for such indeed, since to be written or not-written are conditions merely accidental to God's Word: but the Tradition of the present Church, by which we are infallibly ascertained of the truth of those Apostolical Traditions as much as of the Scriptures themselves, we oblige not any man to receive it for God's unwritten Word, as the Bishop would make you believe.  
Their way (says the Bishop) is better than ours, because they resolve 
Ibid. num. 2.  their Faith (touching this Principle) into the written Word: which is, in plain English, that they resolve their Faith of the Scriptures-being God's 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 than their own fancies; and consequently have no Divine or Supernatural Faith of this Article at all: which nevertheless is by them laid for the Basis, or groundwork of their Belief of all other points of Christian Religion. Behold the excellency of their better way than ours: who ultimately resolve our Faith hereof into God's unwritten Word, viz. the Testimony of the Apostles orally teaching it to the Christians of their own days. And of this Apostolical Testimony, Tradition, or unwritten Word of God, all the succeeding Christians of God's Church, even to this day, have been rendered 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, 
* Contr. Epist. Fund. cap 5.  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 appliable to one Motive alone, but must signify 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. Augustine's 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 resolved into it, as being a Partial Motive of his Faith. Now it cannot be denied 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 Logic 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 than probable. And this Doctrine is according to what St. Austin delivers in the place above cited, when speaking of the Church's Authority he says, Quâ infirmatâ, jam nec Evangelio oredere potero, which being weakened, (or called in question) I shall no longer be able to believe the Gospel itself.  
Thus, by God's favour, we are come to the end of this grand Controversy, touching the Resolution of Faith: wherein I have not only shown the insufficiency of the several ways and methods propounded by the Bishop; but cleared and established our own Catholic 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. 'Tis the only expedient, by which we can Infallibly resolve our Faith into its Prime and Formal Object, God's Revelation. This thread 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 God's 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 ('tis therefore to be supposed he could not) show 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 masked under the title of Grace, hath been found to come far short in that respect: the inbred Light of Scripture itself has been evidenced to be too weak and dim 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 believing Scripture to be God's 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 Lady's Question, what it was, and how diverted by the Bishop. 2. In what sense the Roman Church is styled THE Church. 3. Every True Church, a right, or Orthodox Church, and why. 4. The Lady's Question, and A. C's miscited. 5. How THE Church, and how Particular Churches, are called Catholic. 6. Why, and in what sense 'tis not only true, but proper, to say the Romane-Catholique Church. 7. The Bishop's pretended Solutions of Beauties' Authorities, referred Chap. 1. to a fitter place, here more particularly answered.  
1. THe Lady at length cuts off the the thread of his Lordship's long Discourse, and by a Quere giveth a rise to a new one. Her demand (according to Mr. Fisher's relation) was, Whether the Bishop 
§. 20. n. 1.  would grant the Roman Church to be the right Church? What was the Bishop's 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 denied, that either the Question was asked in this form, or that the Answer was such.  
Had we the Ladies Question in some Authentical Autography of her own hand, it would decide this verbal Controversy. However 'tis very likely the Lady asked not this Question out of curiosity, since she desired only 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 Catholic Church, out of which she could not be saved; nor the right Church, in which she might certainly be saved. This only was her doubt, as appears by the whole Dispute; this having been inculcated to her by those of the Roman Church: and 'tis likely, she framed her question according to her doubt. But whatever her words were, she was to be understood to demand this alone, viz. Whether the Roman 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. Fisher's Relation, pag. 42. wherein it is said, The Lady desired— to have proof brought to show, which was that Continual, Infallible, Visible Church, in which one may, and out of which one cannot attain Salvation.  
2. To our present purpose 'tis all one, in which of these terms the Question was demanded. For in the present subject the Roman Church could not be any Church at all, unless it were THE Church, and a right Church. The reason is, because St. Peter's 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 lawful Pastors; and chiefly of one Vicar of Christ upon Earth. 'Tis 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 Dioceses; 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.  
'Tis true, THE Church signifies most properly either the whole Catholic 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 styled THE Church, because 'tis the Seat of the Vicar of Christ, and chief Pastor 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 Lordship's 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 eternal 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 denies that to be his Word, which is: to err 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 blind Guides, and so lead the blind into the same destruction with themselves: to neither of which inconveniences can the whole Church be liable, if there be Truth in the Promises of Christ.  
The example then of a man, who may be termed a man, though 
Ibid. num. 2.  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 signify Perfection and Integrity of Condition, and exclude the contrary Defects, viz. Heresy, Schism, and Error 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 Catholic Church. Moreover, St. Athanasius in his Creed teaches, that unless a man keep the whole Catholic 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 herself to error; much more by forcing all under pain of damnation to believe those very errors for God's word. To say then, that a Congregation so grossly 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. avers he is certain, that she desired to know of the Bishop, whether he would grant the Roman Church to be a right Church, because he had particularly spoken with her before, and wished her to insist upon that point: whereupon his Lordship makes a special reflection with what cunning Adversaries the Clergy 
Ibid. num. 4.  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 scrupled 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 
Ibid. num. 4.  Jesuitism, (if you believe him) viz. which measures the Catholic Church by that which is in the City, or Diocese of Rome, and not Rome by the Catholic, as it was in the Primitive times. But this is no Jesuitism, but rather a Solecism against Truth, and a falsifying of the Text. For I find not those words in A. C. which are cited, viz. The Lady would know, not whether that were the Catholic Church, to which Rome agreed, but whether that were not the Holy Catholic 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 always agree with the Catholic Church, or the Catholic Church always agree with Rome. Such Punctilios as these the Lady never dreamt of; nor were they so much as hinted at by A. C. It was enough for the Lady's 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 Catholic Church. Thus that the Jesuits may be thought to have singularities and novelties in their doctrine, finding none of their own, he has endeavoured to coin one for them; which he esteems a strange Paradox, though indeed it be none. For put case A. C. had affirmed, that the Church is styled Catholic 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 Catholic 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 Catholic. Causally the Church of Rome is styled Catholic, because it hath an influence and force to cause Universality in the whole Body of the Catholic 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 (says St. Austin) 
D. Aug. de verb Dom. sec. Lucam. cap. 26.  Unity from Multitude, and it is TURBA, (a Rout) but join 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 Catholic Church, and thereby causes in her Universality, may be called Catholic 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 styled General, though he be but a particular person. Thirdly, every particular Orthodox Church is termed Catholic participatiuè, by way of participation, because they agree in and participate of the Doctrine and Communion of the Catholic Church. In this sense the Church of Smyrna addresses her Epistle thus. To the Catholic Church of Philomilion, and to all the Catholic Churches, which are 
Euseb. Hist. lib. 4. cap. 5.  spread through the whole world.  
Thus we see both how properly the Roman Church is called Catholic, and how the Catholic Church itself takes causally the denomination of Universal, or Catholic, from the Roman, considered as the chief particular Church, infusing Unity to all the rest, as having dependence of her, and relation to her. Nay, it was an ordinary practice, in Primitive times, to account those Catholics, who agreed with the Sea Apostolic; 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 baptised) demanded of the Bishop of that City, 
a Advocavit ad se Episcopum loci, 〈◊〉 est, utrumuam cum Episcopis Catholicis, hoc est, cum Romanâ Ecclesiâ, conveniret. D. Ambros. 〈◊〉. in obit. fratr.  Whether he consented with the Catholic Bishops, that is, (saith he) with the Roman Church. And in this sense the Church of Alexandria, 
b Sed in scito, etc. Romanam fidem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse participem 〈◊〉 Ecclesia gloriatur. D. Hicronym. cpist. 68 ad Theophil.  according to St. Hierome, made it her glory to participate of the Roman Faith. And John, Patriarch of Constantinople, wrote thus to Pope Hermisda, 
c Joan. Patriarch. Constant. Epist. ad Hormisdam. 〈◊〉. 2. Conc.  We promise (saith he) not to recite in the sacred Mysteries the names of those, who are severed from the Communion of the Catholic Church, that is to say, who consent not in all things with the Sea Apostolic.  
Thus Saint Austin addresses himself to the Donatists, telling them, that the 
d 〈◊〉 Sacerdotes vel ab ipsâ Sede Petri, & in ordine illo Patrum quis cui successit, videte. Ipsa est Petra, quam non vincunt Superbae juferorum 〈◊〉. D. Aug. in Psalm. contr. 〈◊〉. Donat. Tom. 7. col. 9  Succession of the Roman 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 Catholic Church So Optatus Milevitanus, after he had said, 
e Igitur negare non 〈◊〉 scire te, in urbe 〈◊〉 Petro primo Cathedram Episcopalem esse collatam; in quâ sederit omnium Apostolorum Caput, Petrus, etc. 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 de dotibus, sedit prior Petrus. etc. Optat. contr. Parmen. lib. 2.  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 adds, that with Syricius, than Pope, he himself was united in communion; 
f Damaso (successit) Syricius, qui noster est Socius; cum quo nobis totus orbis commercio 〈◊〉, in unâ Communionis Societate, concordat. Optat. ibidem.  with whom the whole world (saith he, meaning the whole Catholic 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 Catholic Church, which the Bishop calls a Jesuitism: and further proves himself to be in the Catholic Church, 
g Cum probatum est, 〈◊〉 esse in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ, apud quos & Symbolum Trinitatis est, & per Cathedram Petri, quae nostra est. Optat. ibid.  because he was in Communion with the Sea of Peter.  
St. Herome 
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.  professes, the Church is built upon St. Peter's 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 Romana (quae mundi cacumen est) tenot & 〈◊〉 Ecolosia. Fulgent de 〈◊〉. cap. 11.  styles the Roman Church, The top of the world; and Eulalius, Bishop of Syracuse, tells the same Fulgentius, that it would avail him nothing to go into those Country's, which he desired to visit, because 
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, etc. Author vit. B. Fulgent. Tom. 6. Biblioth. Patr. fol. 15.  (saith he) the Inhabitants thereof (certain Religious men) were severed by a faithless Dissension from the Sea of Peter.  
Lastly, Gratian the Emperor made a Decree, 
l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theodoret. Hist. Eccles. lib. 5. cap. 2.  that the Churches, formerly possessed by Heretics, should be restored to those Bishops, who were of Pope Damasus his Communion, understanding thereby the Communion of the Catholic Church. The Communion therefore with the Bishop of Rome, in his days, was the measure, and distinctive badge, whereby to know who were, and who were not of the Catholic Church.  
6. Hence it appears, that what his Lordship is pleased to term a perfect Jesuitism in A. C. is a perfect mistake of the Bishop, and a losing himself in his own Labyrinth. Neither is that vulgar exception against Roman Catholic any better. For as all Countries, how distant soever from one another, under the Command and Obedience of the Roman Emperor, were called the Roman Empire, taken collectively, because the chief Seat of their Emperor was at Rome: So all the Church's subject to the Roman Bishop, are called the Roman Church, because their Supreme Head and Pastor, 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 belonged only 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 named the Roman Church, because its Supreme Bishop keeps his Residence in the Roman City.  
The truth is, in all doubts concerning matter of Doctrine, recourse is to be had to St. Peter's Successor, who (at least with a General 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 show, how the Faith of every particular Church is to be examined, and proved to be Catholic, to wit, by its conformity to the Faith of the Roman Church: concluding nothing, whither the Pope can transfer 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 promised, chap. 1. viz. to examine a little more fully his Lordship's pretended Solutions of Beauties' Authorities; which the Bishop brings §. 3. num. 3. But my intention is to maintain them so far only, 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 citys him; to the end the force of his words may the better appear: This holy Martyr writes thus to Cornelius Bish 〈◊〉 of Rome. 
a Cyprian. Epist. ad Cornel. Edit. Paris. 1648.  Post ista adhuc insuper, Pseudoepiscopo sibi ab Haereticis constituto, navigare audent ad Petri Cathedram, atque ad Ecclesiam principalem, unde unitas Sacerdotalis exorta est; à Schismaticis & 〈◊〉 literas far, nec cogitare eos esse Romanos (quorum fides, Apostolo praedicante, laudata est) ad quos perfidia habere non 〈◊〉 accessum. Why calls he St. Peter's Chair Ecclesiam principalem, (the chief Church) but because 'tis the Head, to which all other Churches must be subordinate in matter of Doctrine? The words following signify 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 Error 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 error in Faith can approach the Sea Apostolic? 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 Error in Faith.  
Hence his other Explication also vanishes into smoke, 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 〈◊〉, etc. to none of which in those Primitive times Error in Faith could have easy access.  
At length, after much ado, he grants perfidia may be taken for Error in Faith, or for perfidious Misbelievers and Schismatics, who had 
§ 3. num. 5.  betrayed their Faith; but then he cavils with the word Romanos. This must be limited only to those Christians, who then lived in Rome; to whom quatales, as long as they continued such, Error in Faith could have no access. Is not this a great praise? As if St. Cyprian should say, St. Peter's Sea could not err, so long as it continued constant in the Truth. What national Church, nay what faithful Christian then living, might not have challenged as much privilege as this?  
Finally he concludes, St. Cyprian meant no Infallibility in the Roman Church by the sentence alleged, because he himself had some Contrast afterward with Pope Stephen, touching the Rebaptisation of those, that were Baptised by Heretics. But his Lordship should have remembered that common distinction of Divines, whereby they consider the Pope sometimes as a Private Doctor, and sometimes as the Doctor, or Pastor, universal of all Christians: and that St. Cyprian might very well be supposed to think the Pope erred only in the first sense. For Pope Stephen did not properly define any Doctrine in that contestation, which was between them, but only commanded that those in Africa should alter nothing that was observed in the ancient practice, about receiving such into the Church as had been Baptised by Heretics. Nihil innovetur; nisi quod Traditum est: neither had the Council of Carthage any just cause to mention it as an error in St Cypirian, for thinking the Pope might err in quality of a Private Doctor.  
Again, if this be a good Argument against the Infallibility of Popes, viz. St. Cyprian held Pope Stephen erred, therefore the Pope may err in matters of Faith, it will be good consequence also to say, St. Cyprian held Pope Stephen erred, even whilst he maintained an universal immemorial Tradition, received and practised as such by the whole Catholic Church ever since the Apostles; ergo the Pope may err, even whilst he follows such an Universal, Immemorial Tradition. By this manner of arguing, not only the Pope's infallible Authority, but the infallible Authority of the most Universal, Immemorial Traditions in the Church will be infringed, 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 says 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 Bishop's 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 principal of all Churches, was so infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost, that no error 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, 
Hieronym. lib. 3. Apol. contr. Ruffin.  cjusmodi praestigias non admittere: etiamsi Angelus aliter annunciet, quam 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 Catholic Faith of Christ. But by the way 'tis worth noting how inconsequently our Adversaries speak; who usually condemn us for joining as Synonyma's, Roman and Catholic 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 Catholic is all one.  
Well then; be it granted, that in St. Jeromes time the Roman was accounted the Catholic Faith: what will this advantage the Bishop? Very much, as he imagines at least. For thus he discourses. The Roman being here taken for the Catholic Faith, and the Catholic 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 perpetual 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 Catholic Faith in abstracto (in its own precise nature) can never be any other, than 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 persuade Ruffinus, not to go about to undermine the people of Rome, for such a reason as this, because the Catholic 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 errors admitted, how unalterable soever the Faith in itself be. The unchangeableness therefore of the Catholic 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 Apostolic, 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 
Greg. Naziauz in carmin. de vitâ suâ.  Roma (says 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, says that Rome always 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 only it became that City very well to keep the Faith sound and entire. Well; but how long? for some years only, or an age, or two? doth St. Gregory limit any time? No: he saith semper, it becomes that city always to hold the true Faith, not only till St. Gregory's 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 
§. 3. num. 10  hold both RECTAM ET INTEGRAM FIDEM (the right and the entire Faith of Christ;) but there is no promise, nor prophesy in St. Gregory, that Rome shall ever do so. I answer, though there be no prophecy, 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 always holds it, as becomes the City, which rules over the whole world, to have EVER the entire Faith concerning God. Does he not expressly affirm, Rome had the right Faith of old, and that she always holds it, as becomes such a City to hold the right Faith of God. I put my Argument into form thus.  
It always becomes that great City to have, and likewise to hold, INTEGRAM FIDEM, the entire Faith of Christ.  
But St. Gregory here affirms, that Rome always holds the entire Faith, as becomes that great City to have and hold it.  
Ergo, he affirms, that Rome holds always the entire Faith of Christ, and not for some ages only, or to St. Gregory's time.  
The Major is his Lordships own words. The Minor is proved from St. Gregory's express words, which are, even according to that Translation of them, which the Bishop citys, semper eam retinet, sicut decet urbem, etc. semper de Deo integram fidem habere. He says not only 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. Gregory's words, but misplaceth the latter; with what pure intention let any indifferent man judge. His words are plain (says the Bishop) semper 
Ibidem.  decet, etc. it always becomes that City to have and hold the entire Faith, etc. Whereas St. Gregory says not semper decet (it always becomes) but decet, it becomes that City which governs the whole world, always to have the entire Faith of God. Now who sees not a manifest difference betwixt these two Propositions, It always becomes that City to have, and it becomes that City to have always? even as it is one thing to say, It always becomes a man to keep honest company, and another thing to say, It becomes a man to keep honest company always; seeing this last implies, that a man must never cease from keeping such company, or never be out of such company. In like manner, 'tis one thing to affirm it always becomes Rome to hold the entire Faith; for this only 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 always; for that signifies, it must never fail, or cease, to keep it.  
His Criticising upon the present Tense of the Verb retinet (holds, saith he, not shall hold) is a mere 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 only, 'tis to be observed, St. Gregory says not barely it holds ever the true Faith, but it holds it sicut decet, etc. 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 citys their words. Truly no small fault (if not untruly objected) especially in a man so learned, to amuse his Reader with empty names only. But surely his Lordship read Bellarmin but superficially, and perhaps with other men's eyes more than his own, when he wrote this. For otherwise how was it possible he should oversee both himself and his Author so much, as not 
Bellarm. 〈◊〉 Rom. Pont lib. 4. cap. 3.  to perceive, that Bellarmin refers his Reader to the Authorities of St. Cyril and Ruffinus abovementioned? 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 mind to encounter with such pregnant Authorities; and therefore by a figure, which is called Omissio Rhetorica, passed them over in silence. St. Cyrill avers, that 
a Secundum 〈◊〉 promissionem Ecclesia Apostolica Petri ab omni seductione & Haereticá circumventione manet immaculata, etc. Cyril. apud D. Thom. in Catenâ.  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, etc. Ruffinus also affirms, 
b In Ecclesiâ urbis Romae, 〈◊〉 Haeresis ulla sumpsit exordium; & Mos ibi servatur Antiquus. 〈◊〉. in expos. Symb.  That in the Church of Rome never any 〈◊〉 took its beginning; and that the ancient Custom (which where 'tis well observed, 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 find Authorities for us, but fairly and ingenuously to satisfy those we urge against him. It was not for Beauties' 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 finds at last; but it likes him no better than the other, and much discourse he useth to invalidate the force of it. But our Answer is, Bellarmin brings it only in favour of his own private opinion, touching the Infallibility of the particular Church of Rome: which being only matter of probable and disputable opinion, not of Catholic and necessary Belief, as I resolved in the beginning not to undertake the defence of any such points, so I hold not myself obliged to maintain the proofs of them.  
I return therefore to his Lordship, who taking his best advantage from St. Cyrils' pregnant place, builds the Catholic Church upon 
D. Cyril. Alex. Dial. de Trinit. lib. 4.  the Faith only, 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 says the Church is founded. &c) inconcussam & firmissimam Discipuli Fidem, (the invincible and most firm Faith of Christ's Disciple) which words clearly include St. Peter's Person with his Faith. For in what sense can the Faith be said to be invincible and most sirm, but only in relation to the person invincibly and most firmly confessing it? We ourselves do not say the Church is built upon St. Peter's Shoulders, but upon his Faith, viz. as 'tis constantly and inviolably taught and confessed by his Person, and the person of his Successors, as occasion requires. Secondly, 'tis 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, etc. where 'tis 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 spoke 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 Catholic Translators of the New Testament (who follow the vulgar Latin 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 affairs. Suppose Matthew Parker, presently after he was consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury, accompanied with John Scory, Miles Coverdale, William Barlow, Jobn Hodgskins, etc. his Associates and Consecrators (as Mr. Mason will have have it) should have addressed themselves to the Queen's 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, etc. (Thou art Elizabeth, Supreme Head of the Church of England) if the Queen thereupon should have returned 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 only she then spoke?  
Neither indeed can the words This Rock in Grammatical rigour be referred to the Confession of St. Peter. For, that being a remote Antecedent, mentioned only in the verse before, and Peter (or Rock) the immediate, mentioned 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 Christ's 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 mentioned in the former verse, and was not immediately precedent to those words of our Saviour, Super hanc Petram, etc. Seeing therefore our Saviour says 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 Christ's Divinity.  
I add, that if our Saviour had meant St. Peter's Confession only without his Person, he should have used not the Conjunction Copulative And, saying Thou art Peter, AND upon this Rock, etc. but he should have used 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 ties his speech to the Person of St. Peter, to whom only he spoke 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 Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, etc.) doth show the said words, or sentence, to belong to St. Peter only. Beside, what coherence do you think our Saviour's discourse will have, if the beginning and end of it shall be understood of St. Peter's person only, and the middle of a quite different thing?  
Touching Ruffinus his Lordship is of opinion, that he neither did, 
Ibid. n. 12.  nor could account the Roman Church Infallible, because he reckons up the Canonical Books of Scripture in a different manner, from that which the Church of Rome doth now adays. And therefore (says 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, than heretofore she did. If she do so, than 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 Catholic Church at present declares more Books to be contained in the Canon, than she did in Ruffinus his time, yet this could prove no error in her; unless it could be likewise showed, (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 error: so without error 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 
Ibidem.  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 Roman 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 expressed his Heresy; but only such parts of it, as were dissonant to the received Doctrine of the Catholic Church. And if one condemned of error 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 Authors (whom he condemns of errors in Faith, when they seem to favour him.  
The Bishop, having examined Beauties Authorities in the manner you see, returns again to A.C. and the Jesuit, telling us in very positive 
Ibid. n. 14.  terms, that no Jesuit, nor any other, is able to prove any particular Church Infallible. But to this I have often answered, that it was neither to the Lady's 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 observed, the Relatour wisely declines, and diverts another way, namely to an unnecessary dispute with Bellarmin about the Infallibility of the particular Church, or Diocese 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 error, as being no longer the Sea Apostolic: 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 only 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 Roman Church with erring in the Worship of Images, in altering Christ's Institution in the 
num. 15.  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 spied a great inconsistency in some words of the Cardinal: The matter thus. Bellarmin, (lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 4. §. 2. as the Bishop citys him) of this Proposition The particular Church of Rome cannot err in Faith, so long as St. Peter's Chair is at Rome, says 'tis A MOST TRUE Proposition: but presenty after speaking of it, says only PERADVENTURE 'TIS AS TRUE AS THIS, viz. the Pope, when he teacheth the whole Church in matters of Faith, cannot err. At this the Bishop exclaims, as at a great absurdity of speech. What (says he) A Proposition MOST TRUE, and yet 
Ibid. n. 15.  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 Criticism. First, he should have reflected, that in such expressions as this, there is always a latitude of moral sense and meaning to be allowed, 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 liar, though some other men be found as wise and honest as he. Bellarmin therefore might have been excused, 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? 'Tis manifest, Bellarmin held his first Proposition, touching the Pope's 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 Pope's Doctrine so long as the Sea Apostolic continued there, to be true only Veritate Theologiae, as other Theological Propositions are True; which are not Divinely revealed, but merely 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 only 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 Pope's Doctrine, etc. 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 'tis to say of a little man, that in comparison of a pygmy he is a tall Fellow, but in comparison of some Yeoman of the Guard he is but a Dwarf.  
Thus having acquitted myself 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, Schismatics.  
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 falsely quoted by him; Almainus, Cassander, etc. not for him. 3. Schisms and Heresies in Rome, but not in the Roman Church. 4. who made the present Schism; Roman-Catholiques, or Protestants. 5. St. Bernard's and St. Augustine's words rightly urged by A. C. and Beauties as wrongfully by the Bishop. 6. Protestants, though they will have the Church unerrable in Fundamentals only, yet can never be brought to give a list of them. 7. Christ's Church, by inseparable property, both Caththolique and Holy.  
THe Relatour is still making personal reflections upon A. C. Here he will have him troubled again about the form of the Lady's question: 
§. 20. n. 5.  but I see no reason he had to be troubled, whether the Lady asked her question by Be, or Was; because, if the Roman was the right Church, it still is so, seeing no change can be shown 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 always adhered to St. Peter's Successor, and the Doctrine by him delivered.  
1. But the Relatour asserts, that the Church of Rome was, and 
Ibidem.  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, than it was a corrupt and tainted Church. In this, I say, the Relatour begs the question: for the Roman Church remained always the same it was from the beginning; because, in this dispute, the Roman signifies the Catholic Church, according to that of Dr. Stapleton, Apud veteres 
Relect. Controv. 1. q. 5. ar. 3.  pro eodem habita fuit Ecclesia Romana, & Ecclesia Catholica, (amongst the Ancients, (saith he, the Roman Church and the Catholic Church were taken for the same.) We add, 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 Catholic, and by consequence the whole Catholic with it. Wherefore as the Catholic Church continued ever the same and incorrupt, so did the Roman, which is the same with the Catholic.  
This A. C. sufficiently expressed, when he mentioned the Roman Church, not only as it contained the City and Diocese of Rome, but all that agreed with it in Doctrine and Communion. For 'tis clear, by Roman Church in that sense, he could understand no other but the Catholic. We deny then, that any abuses, or errors, did at any time more corrupt or taint, the Roman Church, than they did the Catholic. 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 CATHOLIC 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 only for that Church, which is within the City, or Diocese of Rome, but for all that agree with it, what difference will he find betwixt the Holy Catholic 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, etc. had in them corrupt Doctrine, during those ages (as 'tis certain they had, neither could the Relatour deny it) I say, if the Roman Church was thus corrupt, it follows, that not only 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 obliged, 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 Heretical, can be shown, that did not communicate both in Doctrine and Discipline with the Roman, during all that time. Whence, it would further follow, that Schism, or Separation from the external Communion of the whole Church might be not only lawful, (which is contrary to all the Holy Fathers, as Dr. Hammond well proves in his Book of 
Treatise of Schism. cap. 1, 2.  Schism) but even necessary; which is impossible, as being contrary to the very essential Predicates of Schism, which is defined to be a voluntary, or wilful 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 Schisms and Heresies raised against the Church (not fostered 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 itself (Ecclesiam Dei, as he speaks) guilty of Schisms and Heresies; which even in our Adversaries opinion are held to be incompatible with the Church of God, and destructive of it.  
'Tis certain, Bellarmin acknowledges no errors in Popes, but only as they were private Doctors: he admits not any errors to have been defined by them by Authority properly Papal, or ex Cathedrâ, for Christ's Doctrine, or to be believed by the whole Church. And indeed, he even clears them of Errors in the first kind, so far as to show, that they did never so much as personally, or in quality of private Doctors, err, or teach any error in matter of Faith publicly defined and admitted for such by the whole Church: which though it be a very pious opinion, yet no man is obliged to embrace it as a point of Faith. For Catholic Faith (in this particular) only obliges us to maintain, that the Pope is Infallible, when he defines with a General Council. To what good purpose than 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 Errors in Faith at all, (much less doth he 
Ibidem.  say the Popes taught the whole Church such errors) but only of errors, 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 proved to have taught errors in Doctrine, as private men? that destroys not the Infallibility of the Church, nor of the Pope, as we maintain it? no more, than his permitting, or suffering others, through his negligence, to teach such errors.  
Hence also his Simile of Tares sown among Wheat is nothing to the purpose. For if he means by Tares sown, false Doctrine publicly and definitively taught by the Pope, or received by the Church, in this sense we absolutely deny, that ever any Tares were sown, or ever shall be sown in the field of God's Church. But if he mean sown only by private persons, and growing up but for some time, through negligence of particular Pastors, until the Supreme Pastor, either by himself, or assisted with his Council, take due notice of them, and weed them up, 'tis a thing we confess, and the Bishop gains nothing by it. No more doth he gain by alleging Cassander, whose credit among Catholics is so little, that his testimony would be of no great weight, were it positive and home to the purpose; whereas 'tis manifest he speaks doubtfully, and dares not absolutely aver, the Bishops had taught any Superstitions: all he ventures to say is, 
a Utinam illi, à quibus, etc. non ipsi harum superstitionum auctores essent, vel certè eas in animis 〈◊〉 minum simpli cium aliquando quaestus 〈◊〉 nutrirent. Cassand Consult. ar. 21.  that through their covetousness, he was afraid such Superstitions were continued: and even this he ascribes rather to particular and inferior Bishops, then to the Pope.  
3. 'Tis true, there have been Schisms at Rome, as it happened in the time of St. Cyprian, when Novatus leaving afric went to Rome, and there raised troubles. Yea after him Novatianus proceeded so far, as to cause himself to be made Antipope against Cornelius, and 
Cyprian. epist. 42, 52.  had many followers, by which means a Schism sprung up: but still a great part stuck to Cornelius, the true Pope. Wherefore, even during the Schism, as well as before, the Roman Church rightly and truly so called, continued the Catholic, and as incorrupt as ever. And why? because they that left the Communion of the true Pope, and made the Schism, corrupted themselves, but not the Roman and Catholic 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 employ Caldonius 
Cyprian, ubi suprà.  and Fortunatus to bring the Roman Church to the Communion of the Catholic (as the Bishop pretends) but only to reclaim the 
Ibid. in margin. n. 4.  Schismatics, 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 Catholic Church. Still therefore the Roman, or Catholic Church, remained free and exempt from error, either of Schism or Heresy; 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 confessed, that Protestants 
§ 21. n. 1.  had made a Rent, and Division, from the Roman, or Catholic Church; here the Bishop is not a little nettled, and flatly denies that ever he affirmed, 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 Schism, by their obstinate and pertinacious maintaining erroneous Doctrines, contrary to the Faith of the Roman, or Catholic Church; by their rejecting the Authority of their lawful Ecclesiastical Superiors, both immediate and mediate; by aggregating themselves into a Separate body, or company of pretended Christians, independent of any Pastors at all, that were in lawful and quiet possession of Jurisdiction over them; by making themselves Pastors and Teachers of others, and administering Sacraments without Authority given them by any, that were lawfully empowered to give it; by instituting new Rites and Ceremonies of their own, in matter of Religion, contrary to those anciently received throughout all Christendom; by violently excluding and dispossessing other Prelates and Pastors 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 Pastors 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 aver 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 herself 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 
Ibidem.  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 Schism 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 Schism was ours, and that we (Catholics) thrust Protestant's from us, because they called for truth and redress of abuses. For, first, there can be no just cause of Schism; this has been granted already, even by 
b See Dr. Hammond above-cited.  Protestants: and to his calling for Truth, etc. I answer, what Heretics ever yet forsook the Church of God, but pretended truth, and complained they were thrust out and hardly dealt with, merely because they called for Truth and redress of Abuses? But he should have reflected, that the Church of God is styled a City of Truth 
c Zach. 8. 3. , by the Prophet, and a Pillar and Foundation of Truth 
d 1 Tim. 3. 15.  by the Apostle; and by the Fathers 
e 〈◊〉. advers. Haeres. lib. 3. cap. 4. Cyrill. Hierosol. Catech. 18. Lactant. lib. 4. cap. 30.  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 offence without just Cause, and afterwards gave just cause of offence by departing from the Church and making a Schism. 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 averred 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 show of a contradiction. For though his Lordship's 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 lie. But whether the Bishop said the Protestants did make the Schism, or the Rent, or a Division, or Breach, 'tis not a straw's matter. The words ('tis 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 uttered, 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 got 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 'tis a very poor shift to say, Protestants got not that name by protesting against the Church of Rome, but against her Errors and Superstitions: for who sees not, that this is the common pretext of all Heretics, when they sever themselves from the Roman Catholic 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 Errors. 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 (says the Bishop) if 
Ibid. n. 3.  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 shown, 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 Margin) 
Ibidem.  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 altered 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 Heretics, or Schismatics, 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 Catholic Church. Besides, 'tis worth the noting, that the Relatour here adds a little to his Author, when he says, 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 always professed reformation in such things to be necessary, and intended by them; according as it was not long after effectually ordained by the Council of Trent.  
5. But A. C. (says the Bishop) goes on and tells us, that though the 
Ibid. n. 4.  Church of Rome did thrust Protestant's 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. Peter's 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 find such Errors or Corruptions definitively taught by him, or received 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 (says the Bishop) to be the Christian Faith; but now all's Roman with A. C. and the Jesuit. But first, 'tis no incongruity of speech to style the Christian, or Catholic Faith, sometimes the Roman. For the Bishop of Rome being Head of the whole Christian, or Catholic Church, the Faith approved 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 beingpreached and believed by Christians, is at Rome. And there is nothing more frequent than 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 adds 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 only contrary to the Roman Faith, as Protestants usually understand the word Roman, viz. as contradistinguisht from Catholic, or the Church in general: whereas A. C. to prevent any such mistake, as expressly 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 charged the whole Church with Superstitions and Corruptions, had been (perhaps) a little too bold a check, especially for a person of his Lordship's temper, and would have brought him too apparently under the lash of St. Bernard's and St. Augustine's Censures, intimated by A. C. whereas to charge only the Church of Rome with them, is a thing the modestest man in all that party finds 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, etc. 
Serm. 3. de Resurrect.  What greater pride can there be, then for one man to prefer his judgement before the whole Congregation, as if he alone had the Spirit of God? meant only that particular Congregation, to which he was then preaching; yet is his saying not unaptly applied by A. C. to our present purpose, by an Argument à minore ad majus, to show the more exorbitant pride of those, who prefer their private fanatic opinions, before the judgement of the whole Catholic Church. This certainly Protestant's did by their Solemn Protestation, and obstinate maintaining their private opinions. What the Relatour adds, That it is one thing for a private man to prefer 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 Catholic 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 proposed their Doubts modestly to the Church? surely not: and whoever says so, will easily be convinced 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 proposal 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 Catholic 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 aught to be to be done, which is 
Epist. ad Januar. 118. c. 5.  usually held and done by the whole Church. The Bishop first excepts, that there is not a word of the Roman Church, but only of the Catholic: yet having often shown, that the Roman Church, and the Catholic 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 says, A. C. applies this Text of St. Austin to the Roman Faith, whereas 'tis 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 always some point, or matter of faith involved in every universally-practised Rite and Ceremony of the Church. Wherefore a pertinacious defending of any point whatsoever contrary to what the Catholic Church teacheth, is by St. Austin termed 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 Controversy, 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 Catholic or Roman Church, in the sense often explicated, cannot err, A. C. doth well infer, that there can be no just cause to make a divorce, or Schism, from it. The Relatour grants, that the whole Church 
Ibid. n. 5.  cannot universally err in absolute fundamental Doctrine; and blames Bellarmin for needlessly busying himself to prove, that the visible Church can never fall into Heresy. But I answer, Beauties' labour was not needless, since Protestants grant not the Church exempt from all Errors, save only 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 only to the Invisible Church; whereas he proves 〈◊〉 of the Visible: and though the Bishop in the Margin endeavours to show, they hold the same also of the Visible Church, yet this only proves, that Protestants contradict one another, which we deny not; and Bellarmin likewise observes it 
* Bellar. lib. 3. the 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. cap. 1.  elsewhere: yea Calvin himself here cited by the Bishop, when he saith, the Church cannot err, adds this restriction, if she do not propose Doctrine besides the Scripture: So that if she do, it seems according to him, she may err.  
But I must confess I have often desired, and do yet much long to know, which are Doctrines absolutely Fundamental and necessary to all men's salvation, according to the opinion of Protestants. I believe scarce any man will be able to set them down. Our Tenet is, that the Catholic Church is Infallible in all points of Faith, and that whatever is sufficiently proposed to us by the Catholic 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 err 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) always 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 
Ibidem.  consists as much, if not more, in the Verity of the Faith, as in the Integrity of Manners, etc. 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 
Mat. 16. 18.  no more liable to error, through curiosity or weakness, than was the Primitive; nor the Vicar of Christ (with a General Council) more subject to err, upon that account, than 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 err, 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 CATHOLIC CHURCH: yet presently after, speaking of the same Church, he saith, If she err IN the Foundation, that is, in some one or more Fundamental points of Faith, than 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 fallen into a general Apostasy from the whole Foundation. 'Tis therefore very strange, to hear him say, that if the Church err in one or more Fundamental points, than 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 Catholic, the other Heretical? Is a Church erring in the very Foundation itself, and that in more than 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 severed from the Catholic Church.  
I add therefore, and confidently aver, that any error 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 errors thus defended are to be accounted of mean alloy, or weak tincture; they are all died in grain; they all remove Holiness from the Assembly, that so errs, and wholly un-Church it. The reason hereof hath been given above, viz. because all such error, implicitly and virtually at least, either affirms something to be God's word, which is not; or denies that to be his word, which is; it either asserts error to be God's word, or God's word to be an error: both which, being in so high a degree injurious and derogatory to the Veracity of God, can be no less than Mortal Sins against the virtue 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, etc. 
Mat. 18. 17.  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 
Ibidem.  he told the Bishop, he might safely grant not only that Protestants did make the Division, but further, that it was ill done of them, who first made the Separation. I may justly add, it is likewise ill done of those, who continue in it. For (as all the Fathers teach, and the most learned 
a See Dr. Hammond Treatise of Schism, cap. 1, 2.  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 Schism, out of the Communion of the Holy Catholic Church.   

CHAP. 12. Of keeping Faith with Heretics.  
ARGUMENT.  
1. That Faith ought to be kept with Heretics, is the constant Tenet of all Catholic Divines. 2. What kind of Safe-conduct John Huss had from the Emperor; 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 Emperor, justly unblamable in their proceedings. 5. The absurd partiality of Protestants; imposing most unequal conditions upon the Church, while they admit not any to be imposed on themselves.  
1. MR. Fisher having in the precedent discourse briefly, yet very justly and truly, charged Protestants with the Crime of Schism, A. C. prosecutes the matter, and undertakes to justify and clear the Church's proceedings towards them, from such imputatitions as they usually cast upon her. To this purpose he thinks fit to mind his Adversary, that after this Breach was made, the Church 
§. 21. num. 7  of Rome did invite the Protestants publicly 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 Heretics: 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 kind Invitation was only 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 Heretics; that John Huss and Hierome of Prague were burnt for all their Safe Conduct. Thus the Bishop. Beoanus, treating this matter, 
Becan. Tract. de Fide Heretic. servand. praefat.  very well observes, that our Adversaries in this are like the Pharisees of old, who, though they heard from our Saviour's 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 publicly, in word and writing, teach and profess that Faith is to be kept as well with Heretics as Catholics, 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 Heretics, even in those examples which the Bishop alleges, I observe that he himself keeps not Faith with Catholics, (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 kind and careful to seek Protestants, that she invited them publicly 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 only these; Which did AT FIRST seek to recall them from their novel Opinions, and AFTER THEIR BREACH did permit, yea invited them publicly to Rome, to a General Council, etc. In A. C's. words rightly cited the Church of Rome is only said to seek to recall Protestants from their novel opinions, or errors; a thing no way liable to cavil: whereas in the Bishop's allegation of the words they are so placed, and such words of his own added to them, as if the Church of Rome by her seeking had aimed at nothing else, but how to entrap Protestants: when A. C. not only 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 errors, even before there was any public, or notorious breach made: and then afterwards only (that is, when she saw private endeavours would take no effect, but that a public and formal Schism was made by Protestants) invited them to a General Council. 'Tis true, the Churches inviting of Protestants to a Free and Public 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 expressed in this place; and the Bishop did not well to pervert and misreport his Adversaries words, only to find 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 Heretics, and of punishing after Safe-Conduct given, 'tis necessary to know, that a Safe Conduct may be granted two ways. First jure communi, when 'tis given only against unjust violence, faluâ semper justitiâ, provided always that 
Becanus ubi suprà q. 6. §. 2.  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 Emperor 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 Heretics. No Faith therefore was broken with John Huss; for a Safe-Conduct was only given him jure communi, by which Justice was to remain unimpeachable; since he was only promised to be defended against unjust violence: which was performed. Nay he was justly burnt for two reasons. The first is, for being obstinate in his Heresy. The second, for having fled; which the Emperor had prohibited in his Safe Conduct under pain of death. Wherefore the Emperor, if we rightly consider the matter, did not break faith with John Huss, but John Huss broke faith with the Emperor, by flying against his engagement: and seeing by his Safe-Conduct he could expect no more then to be secured against unjust violence, that so he might be brought to a legal Trial, this being made good to him, and he legally convicted of Heresy, he might (questionless) be punished according to Law, without any breach of faith given by his Safe-Conduct.  
Hierome of Prague indeed at first abjured his Heresy, 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, Saluâ 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 punished under any pretence of Heresy, without manifest breach of Faith; which all Catholics hold to be unlawful. The like may be said of the Safe-Conduct offered them for going to Rome. So that his Lordship's party may well be esteemed 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 refer my Reader to the Copy of the Safe 
* 'Tis extant in the Acts of the Council of Trent. Sess. 16. sub Pio 4.  Conduct itself) 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 punished for any matter, or crime, concerning Religion; nor any kind 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 Sienna. Wherefore (to say no more) 'tis most unjustly urged by the Relatour, that the Conduct offered was not as secure for their return, as for their going thither.  
3. Touching the Decree of the Council of Constance, 'tis evident, the Bishop doth either ignorantly, or maliciously wrong the Council. The words of the Decree are these. Praesens Sancta Synodus 
Concil. Constant. 〈◊〉 19 — 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, & alias contra eos debitè procedere, eosdemque punire, quantum justitia suadebit, si suos errores revocare pertinacitèr recusaverint, etiamsi de SALVO-CONDUCTU confisi ad locum venerint judicii, alias 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 Emperor, Kings, or other Secular Princes to Heretics, or such as are defamed for Heresy, no prejudice can arise, no impediment can, or aught to be put to the Catholic Faith, or Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction; but that (notwithstanding the said Safe-Conduct) it may be lawful for any competent and Ecclesiastical Judge to inquire into the errors of such persons, and duly otherways proceed against them, and punish them so far as Justice shall require, if they shall pertinaciously refuse to revoke their errors; 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 Heresy; for which there is great reason: and consequently, if the Emperor, 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 'tis a promise made of a thing not pertaining to the Jurisdiction of that Prince, nor wholly in his power to see performed. But the Council no where teaches, that Faith, or Safe-Conduct given in Temporal causes properly pertaining to the Prince's Jurisdiction, is not to be kept by all, and to all persons of what condition soever, so far as 'tis possible: but rather most clearly insinuates the contrary, in the last clause of this Decree; where 'tis said, That he who so promiseth, shall not remain obliged in any thing, having done what lieth in him. What, I pray, doth this signify? Nothing else, but that even in the sense and intention of the Council itself, 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 Doctor 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 only, with the clause saluâ justitiâ, and one granted jure speciali. Wherefore the Bishop hath little ground to aver, that he was deceived by the Emperor 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 citys, as holding absolutely and universally, that Faith is not to be kept with Heretics; whereas he teaches it only in cases, wherein that which is promised cannot be lawfully performed: And this were as well true, if the promise were made to Catholics. 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, 
De poenis Art. 46. § 52.  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 virtue of any promise, more to countenance and protect an Heretic, contrary to the law, than he can be obliged to do the same to Highway men, or Pirates; because such a promise being against the public good, and forbidden by the law, (as 'tis in Spain, where Simancha wrote, and where the Law strictly obliges all persons to detect Heretics, as much as it doth Felons and Murderers) cannot be observed without sin. Which meaning of his is also further confirmed, by what he writes afterward, Si tamen fides Haereticis data est à Principe, vel publicâ Potestate, 
Ibid. §. 54.  exactè servanda est, etc. But (saith he) if Faith be given to Heretics by the Prince, or by those that have Public Authority, it must be exactly observed, save only, 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 accused (in general) to teach, that Faith given is not to be kept with Heretics, 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 (says 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 only from unjust violence, but even from process and execution of Justice: which, in that of Hierome of Prague is apparently false; for the clause Saluâ tamen justitiâ is expressly inserted in it: and till our Adversaries have proved the contrary, we must suppose that the like, and no other, was granted to Huss. Secondly, he takes for granted that public 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 Emperor promised 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 only; to an obstinate Heretic (as he was) it signified nothing.  
But, all men know (says he) that the Emperor was used 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 citys only Edit. in 16ᵒ. and afterwards, ibid. leaving us to guests who his Author should be: But we will show his Lordship all the respect we can, and suppose he meant to cite some Author of Credit. What doth he say? only this. Sigismundus Hussum Constantiam vocat, & missis literis, publicâ side cavet. Which no way intimates whether it were done by the Councils instigation, or merely of his own motion. How then can his Lordship hence prove, any secret Compact between the Emperor and the Council, or any underhand dealing of the Council, by the Emperor's means, to bring Huss within their power, by his relying upon an unsufficient caution? The Bishop's Dilemma therefore is easily solved, who argues thus. If the Fathers did it in cunning, that the Emperor should give Safe Conduct, which themselves meant not to keep, than they broke Faith. If the Emperor knew they would not keep it, than 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 Emperor: nor did the Emperor 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 far as in such a case it either beseemed or concerned him to do.  
We have already told his Lordship, that the Council only declared, that when promise is made by Secular Power to the prejudice of Ecclesiastical Proceedings in causes of Heresy, 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 only 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 Heretics, to impede and frustrate the Churches lawful and Canonical proceedings in such causes, what will become of Ecclesiastical Authority, Immunity, Liberty, etc. Every Heretic 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 Heresy without check, or control. Wherefore the Council says no more in effect, then is in itself evident, viz. that an inseriour Tribunal cannot hinder the proceedings of a superior. But enough of this matter.  
To his Lordship's 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 errors. The Roman Church is sufficiently authorised by Saint Paul, viz. that 
Galat. 1.  though an Angel from heaven should teach otherways then she had taught, he ought not to be believed. In like manner the Fathers in the Council of Trent might with good reason be resolved firmly to stick to the Doctrine, they had formerly been taught by the Catholic 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 
Ibid. num. 9  too, for their boldness, in saying, that no good answer can be given by English Protestants, why they refuse to grant a public Disputation to Catholics. The Bishop thinks it a very good Answer, to say, that the Church of England hath no reason to admit of a public Dispute with us, till we be able to show it under the Seal, and Powers of Rome, that the Roman Church will submit to a Third, who may be an indifferent Judge between Catholics 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 Heretic, or schismatic, he will hardly be found indifferent: 'tis to be feared, 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 Lordship's 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 Heretics) have as well required a Third, to judge between them and Catholics in Controversies, wherein they differed? Yea, may not every known Rebel, upon the like pretence, 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. called and approved, 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 Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghosts Proceeding, etc. more ancient than 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 received. 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 declared, 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, Catholic, or general, Body of the Church; They had chosen to themselves new Pastors, independent of any ordinary and lawful Pastors of Christ's Church, that were before them. They had instituted new Rites and Ceremonies of religion, framed new Liturgies, or Forms of Divine Service; They had schismatically convened in several Synods, or Conventicles, and there broached new Heretical Confessions of Faith, contrary, not only to the true Catholic 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 Church's Doctrine and Communion; and persisting obstinate in their evil opinions and practices, the Church was forced 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 itself 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 Catholics do charge them with. For it was a Separation not only 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 Catholic Church; from which, as it hath been often urged already, even by the confession of Protestants themselves, 'tis impossible there should ever be just cause to separate.  
The Bishop grants, that Corruption in manners only is no just cause to 
Ibidem.  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 blinds them, and they are like those who being brought into a most pleasant garden, richly beautified with variety of useful herbs and odoriferous flowers, should pass over all this, and only entertain themselves with looking upon some few weeds, which their curious or rather malicious eyes had there spied. 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 tie themselves to the Service of God by perpetual Vows, never to be dissolved by their own seeking; praying, and singing divine Hymns 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 Saintlike conversation; I mean, not only those of the Primitive and golden ages, (wherein no less than 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 Sunshine. What if some few Catholic Authors are of opinion, that some of the Popes, as private Doctors, have fallen into Heresy; though Bellarmin and others deny it, and rather show the contrary? What if some others have fallen into other foul Crimes? was there not, even in the College of the Apostles, one that denied, and another that betrayed his Master? Besides, it may be worth the noting, that amongst Catholics, though Sins be committed, yet they are seldom maintained; they are not defended, nor justified as Good Works: whereas among Protestants Darkness itself is called Light, and the greatest of all Sins, viz. Heresy, Schism, Sacrilege, Rebellion, etc. together with all the bad spawn they leave behind them, are cried up for perfect virtue, 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 errors; upon which account they 
Ibid. §. 23.  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 errors, which with Heretical and Schismatical obstinacy they have so long maintained against her.  
2. But I return to his Lordship, who grounding himself upon the Separation of the ten Tribes, avers, that a particular Church may reform itself. But whether or no, or how this may be done, I refer my Reader to what shall be said hereafter. For the present I only note, that his Lordship goes upon false grounds. Thus he discourses. Was it not lawful (says he) for Juda to reform herself, when Israel 
§ 24. num. 1.  would not join? Sure it was. First, by this Rhetorical Interrogation and answer he supposes that Juda reformed herself; which is false. For Juda being the Orthodox Church, united with her Head, the High Priest, and not tainted with any Doctrinal errors, what need, I pray, was there of her reformation? His Text out of Osee 
a Si fornicaris tu Israel, non delinquat saltem Juda, Oseae 4. 15. , Though Israel transgress, yet let not Juda sin, by which he endeavours to prove that Juda reformed herself, is rather against, then for him; because in any indifferent man's judgement these words, Though Israel transgress, yet at least let not Juda sin, have rather this sense, Let not Juda at least fall into Schism, though Israel does, than the sense following, Let Juda reform herself. 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 remained in Jerusalem: you left the Catholic 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 Sacerdotes de extremis populi, qui non 〈◊〉 de 〈◊〉 Levi. 3 〈◊〉. 12. 13.  Priests, without Altar, or Sacrifice; and all this by your own authority. Juda was still united with her Spiritual Head, the Highpriest 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 Countries, and France. Is not his Lordship's Parallel then between Juda and the Protestant party very pat, and much to the purpose?  
He would have had far better success, had he compared 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 declared Illègitimate and uncapable to inherit her Father's Crown by Act of Parliament. 
28. Hen. 8. cap. 7.  Jeroboam out of ungodly Policy, the better to secure his usurped Crown, caused the ten Tribes to desert the old and true religion of Juda, which they had ever since their being God's 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 Schism from the Roman Church, abolished the Catholic and True Religion (which had been professed in England for so many hundred years before) purposely to ingratiate herself 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 Highpriest 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 Spiritual Head, the Pope of Rome, set on foot a new Church, new Bishops, new Pastors, new Liturgies, and new Ceremonies. In fine, Jeroboam stretched forth his hand against the true 
3. Reg. 13. 1.  Prophet of Juda, and commanded him to be apprehended. Queen Elizabeth stretched forth her hand not against one only, but all Priests and all Catholics; witness the bloody persecution raised against them in her days; 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 God's sight, if all these be capital offences? But enough of this Parallel.  
His Lordship, even during the Schism 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. 'Tis true, there were many holy persons, inhabitants of the same Country 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 Schism; as many Catholics do now continue true members of the Roman Church, though living dispersedly in Heretical Country's. 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 Catholics also now are commonly persecuted by Heathen, Mahometan, and Heretical Princes. The having-Prophets therefore among them argues the Ten Tribes no more to be parts of the true Church, than it would argue the Protestants in Holland to be parts of the Roman Church, if some Roman Catholic should be found among them having the spirit of Prophecy.  
But his Lordship will prove by some Texts of Scripture, that the ten Tribes continued a Church, notwithstanding their Schism 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, 'tis not certain, he always means by it the ten Schismatical Tribes only, and not sometimes the Tribe of Juda also. Secondly I say, the Relatours' Gloss adds 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 threatening 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 wont protection, to deliver them into their enemy's hands, and (as the very next words show) 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 Abraham's 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 than the Orthodox.  
3. The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son as well as from the Father, was a Truth always acknowledged in the Church of God, and received in General Councils, long before the Controversy 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 
a Bellarm. lib. 2. de Christo, cap. 23. §. His ergo omissis.  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 shows, was received 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 itself: 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 public 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 
Ibid. num. 2.  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 Lordship's cause, which way foever it was done. For supppose a particular Church may (in some case) promulgate an Orthodox Truth, not as yet catholicly received 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 only, by some particular Church for Explication of a known, ancient, and generally received 
b See Bellarmin, ubi suprà.  Truth, (such as was the Procession of the Holy Ghost both from the Father and Son) he pretends to infer both these Propositions, viz. That a particular Church may publish any thing that is Catholic, where the whole Church is silent; and that a particular Church may reform any thing that is not Catholic, where the whole Church is negligent, or will not. For though the former of these Propositions be not so enormous as the latter, because it supposes not any actual error, contrary to Catholic Doctrine, to be maintained by the whole Church, but only a Non declaration, or, at most, some negligence to promulgate a Catholic Truth, whereas the other supposes error, 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 inferred 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 justify the Protestants proceedings; whose Declarations, Promulgations, Confessions, or what ever you will call them, made upon their several pretended reformations, were only of new and unheard of Doctrines, directly contrary to what the Catholic Church universally held and taught before them for Catholic Truths.  
For about the year of our Lord 1517. when their pretended Reformations began, was not the Real Presence of our Saviour's 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 believed? 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 practised by all Christians? Was not Freewill, 〈◊〉 of good Works, and Justification by Charity, or Inherent Grace, and not by Faith only, universally taught and believed 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 Catholic? this doth not justify at all his reformation: he should prove, that it may not only add, but take away something that is Catholic 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 Authors (so far as I can yet learn) concerning this point is, that in the Councils of Toledo and Luca assembled against the Heretics called Priscillianists, the word is found inserted in the Creed; which is supposed to have been done upon the Authority of an Epistle they had received 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 Lib. 3. de Process. S. S. cap. 16.  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 'twas 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 La Repliq. au Roy de la grand. Bretagu. pag 818. cap. Des Traditioons.  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 approved of their said Confession, but yet added, by way of explication, the word Filioque to the Article which concerned the Holy Ghost; and this they did, to signify that the Holy Ghost, as True God proceeded from the Son, and was not made or created by him, as some Heretics in those times began to teach. Neither doth he affirm this without citation of some credible Authority: adding withal, that this Definition, or Declaration of the Pope, was for some hundreds of years generally admitted and embraced 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 publicly 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 than their predecessors 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 errors and abuses either of doctrine or practice only we require, that they proceed with due respect to the chief Pastor 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 acknowledged to be Catholic Truths. For this even Capellus himself, by the Relatour here cited, requires: and the practice of the Church is evident for it, in the examples of the Milevitan and Carthaginian Councils, which as St. Austin 
a D. Aug. Epist. 90, 91, 92, 93.  witnesses, sent their decrees touching Grace, Original Sin in Infants, and other matters against Pelagius, to be confirmed by the Pope: who was not esteemed by St. Austin and those Fathers, the Disease of the Church, (a term very 
Ibidem n. 3.  unhandsome from an inferior) 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 errors 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 ourselves to the next Chirurgeon, that is, a Provincial Council: This in such a case, with the Pope's assistance, is acknowledged a Physician competent, and able to apply all due remedy to the Church's infirmities: although I confess the most proper Expedient, specially for all matters that concern the Church in general, is an Ecumenical Council. Such as the Council of Trent was; whatever the Bishop (without 
Ibidem n. 4.  any reason given) says to the contrary: nor can any thing be objected against it, which upon due examination will not be found as easily appliable 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 esteemed of sufficient Authority to make reformation in matters of Faith, and correct what doctrine they imagined erroneous in the Catholic Church, shall not the Council of Trent be as sufficient to assure us, that the said pretended errors are indeed no errors at all, but Divine Truths, and the perpetual universally received Traditions of Christ's 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 Paulus Suavius (the Venetian Friar) his history of the Council of Trent, twice printed here at London by public Authority.  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 looked nearer home, and considered 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 sum of the Protestant Faith and Religion in England, were framed? Was that a Free Synod? First, at Trent all the Prelates in Christendom, that could be invited and were concerned in the Resolutions of that Council, being solemnly called, did come, and assist (either in their persons or proxies) both at the Deliberations, and Determinations of the Assembly. I add, that the Protestants themselves were likewise invited, with full security to come and go, if they had pleased; but of this we have spoken already. Whereas at London, to that Synod of English Protestants, not one of the lawful English Prelates were called, or permitted to come; who yet of all others were most concerned 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 Catholics (how numerous soever they were at that time) were called to that Assembly, but all (both Pastors and people) were condemned together, without being heard, or allowed to speak one word for themselves.  
At Trent there were no Bishops illegally deprived of their Bishoprics, 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 deprived of their Bishoprics, 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 Catholic Religion by some colour of Authority, and feigned show 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 ('tis too notorious to be denied) Religion was already changed by the Queen and a few meer-lay-people in Parliament, (scarce enough to make a legal vote, had the matter been proper for them) and this Synod of London called apparently not to debate matters of Religion, as they ought to be debated in a Free Ecclesiastical Synod, but to serve designs, and to bolster up by their pretended, titular, and usurped Authority, what beforehand had most Uncanonically been resolved 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, than a Beam in his own.  
8. Our desire is not, that any man should rather be blind, then open 
Ibidem n. 5.  his owneyes: God forbid! we would have him only clear them, to see that Catholics approve of National, Provincial, and also Diocesan Synods, and only disapprove of such Assemblies, as Convene and Act contrary to the Canons, in opposition to the chief Pastor of the Church, universally received Doctrines, and General Councils. The Bishop therefore might very well have spared his pains of proving so industriously, that many Reformations have been made by particular Councils: for who denies it? Bellarmin 
a ` Bellarm. lib. 2. de Christo, cap. 28.  had sufficiently showed it already; who also observes out of St. Austin, that for the Defining of easy things 'tis not convenient to trouble all Christian Provinces. 
b D. Aug. epist. 4. add Bonifac. cap. 12.  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 only, or Abuses in Manners and Discipline, may be reformed by particular Councils, and that without ask 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 hindrance 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 public 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 Apostolic, and the Pope's consent either expressly granted, or justly presumed.  
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 Pope's consent: and it concerns him so to do; for without this granted, his Lordship knew well enough, it would be impossible for him to justify the pretended Reformation of his English Church. But let us examine his proofs. 
Ibid. num. 5.  First, Gerson 
c Omnes Ecclesiae status aut in Generali Concilio reformetis, aut in Concillis Provincialibus reformari mandetis. Gerson. 〈◊〉. Defectuum virorum Ecclesiasticorum par. 1. pag. 209 B.  speaks nothing expressly touching matters of Faith, but only, that he would have all the States (or Degrees) of the Church reformed; which may be understood as well of personal abuses or corruption in Manners and Discipline, as in matters of Faith: Besides writing his first-alledged Treatise upon this subject de Concilio unius obedientiae, and pleading hard for such a General Council, as should acknowledge one Head, 'tis manifest he allowed of no Schismatical Reformations, nor any thing to be done in that kind, contrary to the Authority and good liking of the Churches Head. Secondly, the Bishop citys 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 Pope's Sylvesters Legate, and the Canons of this Council, as Pope 
Baron. ad Annum 319.  Symmachus, related by Baronius, affirms, were enacted by the Authority of the Sea Apostolic.  
His third proof is Concilium Carthiginense primum, which was indeed assembled by Gratus Bishop of Carthage, but no new Article Defined in it; only the perpetual Tradition of the Church, touching Non-rebaptization, was confirmed 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 Pope's consent, if it were not expressly had, yet might be justly presumed. In the Synod of Aquileia (which is his fourth proof) the Bishop himself finds nothing, but only that Palladius and Secundinus were therein condemned for embracing the Arian Heresy: which having been already condemned 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 Pope's Authority and consent? His fifth proof is the second, otherwise called the third, Council of Carthage; which was so far from being held against the Pope's consent, that in the forty eighth Canon 'tis expressly resolved 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 Heresy of Pelagius. But was not (I pray) the Sea Apostolic 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 
Geunad. de Scrip. Eccl. cap. 86.  of Rome: so far was it from being held without the Pope's 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 says his Reserve, his Master-Allegation, the Fourth Council of Toledo? just as much as the rest. It added (says the Bishop) some things to the Creed, which were not expressly delivered in former Creeds. So they might well do, for fuller explication of what was implicitly delivered before, and in opposition to Heresies already condemned by the whole Church. Did it add any thing contrary to to the common Faith of the Church, or of the Sea Apostolic? 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 Apostolic. 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 Apostolic concurring, condemned the Heresy of Pelagius. By such examples as these does our Adversary labour to justify 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 Apostolic 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 Pope's 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 Pope's consent? Surely the Relatour cannot be thought here to have well minded his matter, or peradventure he persuaded 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 
Ibid. num. 5.  was practised 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 abovementioned 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 Pastors, 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 believed and practised 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 denied the Pope's Authority, or attempted to deprive him of it, as these did, so far as 'twas in their power. What Parallel then is there between the proceedings of the abovesaid National Synods, or Councils, of Rome, Gangres, Carthage, Aquileia, etc. and the Bishop's pretended Synod of Protestants at London in the year 1562.  
What the Bishops in King Henry the eighths' time did, is known 
Ibidem.  and confessed, not only by Bishop Gardiner afterward in Queen Mary's reign, (who was the learnedst Prelate 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 subscribed was far outdone by the Synod of 62. For though the Henry-Bishops (as we may call them for distinction) seemingly at least renounced the Pope's Canonical and acquired Jurisdiction here in England, I mean, that Authority and Jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical matters, which the Pope exercised here by virtue of the Canons, Prescription, and other title of humane Right, and gave it to the King, yet they never renounced, or deprived him of that part of his Authority, which is far more intrinsical to his office and absolutely of Divine Right; they never denied the Pope's Sovereign Power to teach the universal Church, and determine all Controversies of Faith whatsoever with a General Council: nor did they descent from him in any of those points of Faith, which that Synod of London condemned in the year 1562. That which the King aimed 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 mind, in Ecclesiastical Causes, that is, in the Government and Discipline of the English Church; and to this the Bishops yielded: but what concerned the Pope's Authority in relation to the whole Catholic Church, for aught 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; only I observe, that though his Lordship will not acknowledge Heresy or 〈◊〉 to have had place in his pretended Reformation, yet he does not deny but Sacrilege too often reforms Superstition; which yet he is 
Ibidem.  ready to excuse, telling us it was the Crime of the Reformers, not of the Reformation. But we ask, What induced those Reformers to commit Sacrilege, but the novel and impious Maxims of their Reformation? Was it for any thing else, that they sacked and demolished 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 plucked down Altars, burnt Images, defaced the Monuments of the Dead, broke the Church-windows, threw down Crosses, tore the Holy Vestments in pieces, etc. but because they thought them all Instruments of Idolatry and false Worship, as they term it? was it for any thing else, that they possessed 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 Maxims of their new Belief, they held the old Pastors of the Church to be False Teachers, and their Function neither lawful nor of use among Christians? 'Tis clear then, that the Sacrilegious works of the Reformers, and the wicked Tenets of the Reformation, differ only 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 involved in this crime, but only the first Actors. Are the Successors then Free? No such matter. Both the sin and the guilt too will be found entailed upon all that succeed them in the Fruits of their Sacrilegious actings, since they have no better ground, nor title to enjoy them, than those who first acted. But I shall not prosecute this Theme any further.  
Neither shall I say much to his Memorandum in the end of this Paragraph, where he pretends to mind us of the General Church forced for 
Ibidem n. 6.  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 Diocese (if it reached no further than most Protestant's will have it) should be able, by force to bring into subjection so many large Provinces of Christendom, as confessedly did acknowledge the Pope's 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 show any resistance made by any particular Church or Churches, against that Authority which the Bishop of Rome claimed and exercised confessedly over all the Western Provinces of Christendom, when the Reformers first began their resistances? Does any Classic Author of present, or precedent times mention, or complain, of any such force 〈◊〉 Rather doth not experience teach us, that, whensoever any novelist started up and preached any thing contrary to the Pope's 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 kind? This therefore is as false a calumny, as any, and serves only to lengthen the list of our Adversaries 〈◊〉, but false Pasquil's.   

CHAP. 14. Protestants, further convinced of Schism.  
ARGUMENT.  
1. A. C's. Parallel defended. 2. Protestants proceedings against their own eperatists justify 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 Church's Infallibility, weighed the second time and maintained. 6. Why the Church cannot teach error in matter of Faith. 7. How she becomes Infallible, by virtue of Christ's prayer for St. Peter, Luc. 22. 31. 8. The Relatours various Trip and Windings observed.  
MR. Fisher asked his Lordship, QUO JUDICE doth it appear, that the Church of Rome hath erred 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 
§. 25. num. 1.  in answer to this confesseth, that no man in common equity ought to be suffered to be Accuser, Witness, and Judge in his own cause. But yet adds, 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 proved the 〈◊〉 Church (in the sense we understand Roman) Infallible; and therefore she ought not to be accused for teaching errors. Neither can she submit herself to any Third to be judged 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 herself, by suffering her Authority to be questioned in that, whereon all Certainty of Faith depends: for such is the Catholic Church's Infallibility.  
1. Again, I make this demand. Suppose that Nicolas the Deacon, or some other Heretic of the Apostles times, separating themselves from the Apostles, and Christians that adhered to them, should have accused 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 Heretics, 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 reserted to a Third person? I suppose no man will be so absurd. I say then, Whatever shall be answered 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 Heretics in the Controversies abovesaid, than 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 Pastors 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 Prophecy concerning Christ's Church, (Isa. 54. 17.) after our Adversaries own Translation, Every tongue that ariseth against thee in judgement (or that accuses thee of error) 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. adds, 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 adds withal, that no moderate Prince ever 
Ibidem n. 2.  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 ways to errors, and mistakes in judgement, aught 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 public concern, as of Treason or the like, where the business is evident, and admits not the delays of legal Formality, I think it would not be accounted unjust, for the Prince to be Accuser, Witness, and Judge too, againct a Traitorous 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 than 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 injured 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 Superiors. But the Catholic Church, duly and completely represented in a General Council, hath no superior on earth; neither is it lawful 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 Bishop's 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 Protestant's (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 
1 Pet. 2. 1, 2.  (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 Newborn Babes they desire the sincere Milk of the Word, (that is, the pure uncorrupted Christian Catholic Doctrine) that they may grow thereby to salvation.  
2. But even abstracting from the Church's 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 denied 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 punished, 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 Catholic Christians, opposing and contradicting their lawful Pastors in matters concerning Religion, etc. all which are criminal actions, and clearly punishable, not only by the Canons of the Church, but by the Laws and Constitutions of every Catholic Country. No need (surely) of Accusers and Witnesses, where the Offence is notorious: Well therefore might the Pastors 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 denied) that they opposed and contradicted, not only the public doctrine and belief of all Christians generally throughout the world, but also the Laws, (both Ecclesiastical and Temporal) Statutes, Decrees, Customs, and Practices, 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 called for a Judge between the Prelates and them, did the then-Church-Governours scruple to condemn and punish them, though they neither esteemed themselves Infallible, nor to act by any Infallible Rule? for their Commission to do this was only 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 Queen's 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 requited, and the Laws of their Church enabled them to do? Nay, did they not upon this ground oftentimes Excommunicate us Roman Catholics 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 appealed 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 called to justify their actings against the Roman Church, than (forsooth) 'tis 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 itself, could so far prevail against the General Church, as to make it err generally in any one point of Divine Truth; and much less to teach any thing by its full Authority to be mater of Faith, 
Ibidem. n. 4.  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 only in particular Churches; citing to this purpose Matth. 16. 18. Luc. 22. 32. John 14. 16. In answer to which the Bishop only tells us, how unwilling he is, in this troublesome and quarrelling age, to meddle with the erring of the Church in geveral: he adds, though the Church of England professeth, that the Roman Church hath erred even in matters of Faith, yet of the erring of the Church in general she is modestly silent. It matters not what she says, or says 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 errors 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 errors (as the Bishop with his English Church professes 
Suprà num. 3.  they are) by good consequence it must follow, that the English Protestant Church holds, that the whole Catholic 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 err in any point of Faith whatsoever, that is not simply necessary to all men's salvation. Hear his own words in answer to A. C.'s assertion that the General Church could not err in point of Faith If (saith the Bishop) he means no more than this, viz. that the whole universal Church of Christ cannot universally err in any point of Faith, simply necessary to all men's Salvation, he fights against no Adversary, but his 〈◊〉 fiction. What is this but tacitly to grant, that the whole Church of Christ may universally err in any point of Faith not simply necessary to all men's 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 
Ibidem.  err 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 deceived, 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 Error?  
As concerning Bellarmin, who is falsely accused, 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 Nostra sententia est Ecclesiam absosolutè non posse errare, 〈◊〉 in rebus absolutè 〈◊〉, vec in aliis, quae credenda vel facienda nobis proponit, sive habeantur expressè in 〈◊〉, five non. Bellar. l. 3. 〈◊〉 Eccl. Mil. c. 14. §. 5.  Bellarmin affirms. For though the points defined be not expressly in Scriptures, yet they may be there implicitly, and rightly deduced from Scripture. As for example, no man reads the Doctrine of Christ's Divinity (as 'tis declared by the Council of Nice, and received for Catholic Faith even by Protestants themselves) expressly 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, etc. and yet who doubts, but the sense of this Doctrine is contained 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 expressly commend Traditions? Wherefore, if the Doctrine defined for matter of Faith, be according to Tradition, though it be not expressed 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 'tis further urged by the Bishop that A. C. grants the Church 
Ibidem.  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 err, and teach her error; 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 adds to this, that we have as large a promise for the Churches knowing all points of Divine Truth, as A. C. 
Joan. 16. 13.  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 Catholic 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 'tis 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 only, when they are not necessary to be known, doth not infer error, or possibility of erring in those Truths, when they are necessary to be known. The Apostles (Matth. 10. 19) were charged not to be Solicitous beforehand, what they should answer to Kings and Precedents, 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 Successors 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 error; but taught and informed by a master that is infallible, he may become infallible. So that his Lordship's Argument, from bare ignorance concluding error, or an absolute possibility of erring, is itself 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 always (saith he) that this erring of the Church be not in any 
Ibid. num. 4.  point simply Fundamental: for of such points, even in his own judgement, the whole Church cannot be ignorant, nor err 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 men's salvation. Bellarmin, from very good Authority, tells us, that some barbarous and 
Bellar. lib. 3. de Eccl. Milit. cap. 14.  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 itself, as the Catholic Faith, and Ecumenical Councils declare it, is not simply necessary to all men's salvation. So that if the Church be exempt from error only in such points, the promises of Christ will be brought to little more than nothing; and the Churches Infallible Authority be shrunk into so narrow a compass, that most of the Heretics 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 err in pronouncing it.  
Neither indeed can any rational man be ever satisfied by hearing only in general, that the Church cannot err in matters simply necessary to all men's Salvation, if he be not withal determinately informed which are those points. For so long as he knows not what is, or is not, so universally necessary, how can he be assured whether the Church may not err, or hath not erred 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 alleged by A. C for the Church's Infallibility in all points of Faith whatever, his Lordship here again endeavours to enervate; telling us first, that they are known 
§. 25. n. 5.  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 than thrice by Stapleton, Bellarmin, and other Champions of the Catholic 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 remembered, how often Scripture it is styled by the Fathers gladius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a two-edged sword, which surely cuts-several ways. Bellarmin, Stapleton, and A. C. following the received assertion of most Catholics, 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 Catholic Divines deny it, the matter itself 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 err, the whole Church might err; as being obliged 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 (says 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 show 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 (says he) Ecclesia una, Ecclesia vera, Ecclesia Catholica, 
S. Aug. lib. de Symbol. ad 〈◊〉. cap. 6.  contra omnes haereses pugnans. Pugnare potest, expugnari tamen non potest. She is the Holy Church, the only 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 Doctor in the precedent words, doth in effect teach the Church to be infallible, when he says she perpetually fights against all Heresies, or Errors 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 add one or two Authorities more, to this purpose. First St. Cyrils; Secundum hanc promissionem Ecclesia Apostolica Petri, etc. According to this promise 
apud. D. Thom. in Catenâ hujus loci.  (saith he) the Church Apostolic of St. Peter abides always immaculate, or free from all spots, of Heretical Circumvention and Error. The Text hath been cited already. You may observe the like sense in 
Cap. 10. in 〈◊〉.  St. Epiphanius. Ipse autem Dominus constituit eum Primum Apostolorum, 
In Anchorat. Tom. 2. pag. 14.  PETRAM FIRMAM, supra quam, etc. 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 'tis necessary to know, that every error contrary to Divine Faith is Heresy, as St. Austin, and all Divines, generally teach: Wherefore if the Church should teach any thing contrary to what God has revealed, she should teach Heresy; and contradict these Fathers, who all clear the Church from that aspersion, by virtue of this promise of Christ, Matth. 16. 18. The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her, and withal, tacitly at least, acknowledge, that if she did teach Heresy at any time, the Gates of Hell, in that case, would be found to have prevailed against her. Seeing therefore, every error in Faith, or against Divine Revelation, is Heresy, and since the Church, in the judgement of these Fathers, grounded upon this promise, cannot teach Heresy, it follows evidently that in the judgement of the same Fathers, she cannot err in any point of Faith whatever, by virtue of the same promise.  
How the Infallibility of the Church is gathered out of the second place hath been showed already, and is here confirmed even by his 
Matth. 28. 20. Ibidem.  Lordships own discourse out of St. Leo epist. 91. which is, that Christ in that place, promised 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 Christ's Gospel. Wherefore Christ is still present with his Ministers enabling them to perform this so important a work, when 'tis necessary to be executed; that is, when the necessities of the Church require some point in controversy among Christians to be determined.  
Nor will that conclusion hence follow, which his Lordship fears viz. that all the Sermons of every Pastor of the Church would be Infallible: 
Ibidem.  for 'tis no ways necessary that every particular Pastor should be Infallible; but 'tis 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 Schisms and Heresies.  
To the end my Reader may the better conceive this, he is to understand there are divers degrees of Christ's presence and assistance in reference to the Ministers of his Church. All of them cannot challenge all privileges, 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 'tis necessary, they be all verified, according to the respective necessities of the Church. The Supreme Degree we affirm to be that of Infallible Assistance; and therefore assign it only to those who have Supreme Authority in the Church, and in cases only of most urgent necessity, for preventing of Heresies and Schisms. 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 error in Faith, nor neglects to teach them the observation of all things Christ commanded, the promise is sufficiently performed on Christ's part, and St. Leo's words, In omnibus 
S. Lco. Epist. 91.  quae Ministris suis commisit exequenda, rightly enough explicated, though every private Pastor 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 Christ's prayer for St. Peter is as efficacious as his promise; both of them implying an Infallibility in the Church, against all errors 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. 'Tis 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. Peter's person, and mediately for the whole Church, which he represented. And thus at least, that our Saviour, in that Taxed, prayed for the whole Church, Bellarmin expressly grants in the very beginning of the Chapter cited by the 
* 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. ivitio.  Bishop. It seems strange therefore, that his Authority should be brought for denial of our Saviour's praying here for the Church. The prayer then of Christ extended itself 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, 
D. Bern. Epist. 190. ad Innocent.  ubi non possit Fides sentire defectum. Cui enim alteri Sedi dictum est aliquando, Ego rogavi pro Te, ut non deficiat fides tua, etc. 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 preserved from all error in Faith, whether that Assistance be immediately intended in this prayer to St. Peter and his Successors, as Supreme Teachers of the Church, or to the Church immediately as represented in St. Peter, yet still the Church will be Infallible, by virtue 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 adds 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, etc. and guiding them into all Truth. We have already sufficiently explicated these places in proof of the Church's Infallibility: So that our chief labour at present shall be to observe the Bishop's various Trip and Windings in his review of them. First he says, 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 Bishop's sense, which is, that the Apostles were free not only from all error, but from all 
Dr. Field lib. 4. de Ecclesiâ, cap. 2.  ignorance in Divine Things; for so his Author (a) Dr. Field speaks whom he citys 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 mankind; 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, etc. and who hath known the mind 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 Neque Divini Prophetae, neque Miralliles Apostoli Omnia praesciuêrunt. Quaecunque enim expediebant, 〈◊〉 illis significavit gratia Spiritus. Theod. in 1 Tim. c. 3. v. 14, 15.  Theodoret cited in his Margin, which says expressly they ought to be limited in regard of them, and that they did not signify 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, only to Truth's necessary to Salvation, he is not yet satisfied, but adds another limitation to that, viz. Direction of Scripture. Against this Truth (saith he, meaning Truth necessary to Salvation) the whole 
Ibidem. n. 5.  Catholic Church cannot err, keeping herself to the Direction of Scripture, as Christ hath appointed her. But I ask what Privilege then has the Catholic Church in these promises of Christ, more than 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 (says 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 Saviour's 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 Bishop's Disciples, how their Master proves, that the promises of Christ are to be limited to Truth's necessary to Salvation, they must answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (Ipse dixit) just as Pythagoras his Pupils did of old, when they were urged to give a Reason of their Master's 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 men's 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 finds consonant to Catholic Faith and Piety, and necessary to be defined for the preventing of Heresies, Schisms, and Dissensions among Christians. But I pray observe our Adversaries unparallelled Subtlety in the close of all. Christ (saith he) hath promised, that the Spirit should lead his Church into all Truth, but he hath no where promised, 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 Logic. But let them take heed; 'tis to be feared they will be found Relatives: and that if the Devil chance to lead any of them to Hell for their Heresy and other sins, nothing will help, but they must infallibly follow him. And I wish that all his Lordship's 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 error in Faith. 2. That St. Peter had a larger and higher Power over the Church of Christ, than 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. Gregory's 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 restored to his Bishopric, by virtue of the Pope's Authority. 6. The African Church always in Communion with the Roman 7. St. Peter's placing his Sea at Rome, no ground of his Successors Supremacy. 8. Why the Emperors for some time ratified the Pope's Election. 9 Inferior Clerks only forbidden by the Canons to appeal to Rome. 10. The Pope never accused 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 Bishop's main task, for a long time, hath been to prove, that the General Church may err, and stand in need of Reformation in matters of Faith: this being 
§ 25. n. 7.  the thing, which A. C. most constantly denies. But his Lordship finding the proof of this not so easy, by little and little was fain to slide into another question, concerning the Power particular Churches have to reform themselves, thinking by this to Authorise the pretended Reformation of his particular English Church. To this purpose were his many Allegations of the Councils of Carthage, Rome, Gangres, Toledo, etc. § 24. num. 5. which how they succeeded, the Reader may easily have perceived by our Answers in the precedent Chapter.  
1. He goes on with his wont Art: which is, to allege 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, adds these express words, (pag. 58.) WHEN THE NEED (of Reformation) IS ONLY QUESTIONABLE, particular Pastors and Churches may not condemn others of Error in Faith. But these words, when the need is only 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 Lordship's party be far from judging and condemning other Churches, as he seems to make them by his simile. A man that lives religiously (says he) doth not by and by sit in judgement, and condemn with his mouth all profane 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 
* Gen. 2. 18.  Non est bonum esse hominem solum; and again, 
† 1 Cor. 9 5.  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) profane Livers? They, who stick close to St. Peter and his Successors; They, who for the Catholic Faith endure most willingly Sequestrations, Imprisonments, Banishments, Death itself; They, in a word, who suffer Persecution for Righteousness. These, in his Lordship's opinion, are Profane Livers.  
I return now to the Relatours men, that live so religiously. Do these men never condemn the Catholic Church, but by their virtuous lives, which you have seen? Surely they condemn her not only by quite dissonant lives, but also by word of mouth, by their pens, nay by public and solemn Censures. Witness (to go no further) the Protestant Church of England, Artic. 19 where she condemns of error not only the Churches of Antioch and Alexandria, but even of Rome itself. Again Rogers in his allowed Analyse and 
See Rogers on the thirty nine Articles.  Comment upon the said Article, pronounces that the Church of Rome hath not only shamefully erred in matters of Faith, but that the whole visible Church may likewise err from time to time, and hath erred in doctrine, as well as conversation. Do they not say, Artic. 21. that General Councils may err, and have erred, even in things pertaining to God? Do they not pronounce of Purgatory, Praying to Saints, Worship of Images and Relics etc. 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 God's Word, Blasphemous Fables, and dangerous Deceits? Though it be as clear as the sun at noonday, that both these and many other points, denied and rejected by Protestants, were the doctrine and practice, not only of the Roman, but of the whole Church near upon a thousand years together, even by the confession of Protestants. Is this only to reform themselves, and not to condemn other Churches: otherwise then by silence and example? Do not all other Protestant 
a See the Book called Corpus Consessionum, in every Controverted Article.  Confessions of Faith speak the same language? Do they not all take upon them, with a more than censorious presumption, to condemn the Doctrine and practice of the Roman Catholic, that is, of the whole true Church of Christ, in the same and divers other contested points?  
2. A. C. therefore well minds us, that in all matters of difficulty 
Ibidem. n. 8.  belonging to Faith, particular Churches should have recourse to the Church of Rome, (as Irenaeus intimates) which hath a more powerful Principality; 
Iren. lib. 3. cap. 3.  and to her Bishop, who is chief Pastor of the whole Church, as being St. Peter's Successor, to whom Christ promised the Keys, Math. 16. for whom he prayed that his Faith might not fail, Luke 22. and whom he charged 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 Schism, or Separation, from the whole General Church. In answer to this the Bishop tells us, the Roman Church hath indeed a more powerful Principality, than any other particular Church, but not from Christ: which is contrary to St. 
* 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.  Austin, or rather to the whole Council of Milevis, who in their Epistle to Innocent the first profess, that the Pope's Authority is grounded upon Scripture, and consequently proceeds from Christ. Secondly, he says the Patriarches 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 Superior among them, viz. Saint Peter. 'Tis 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 Christ's sheep, committed to his charge by our Saviour, John 21. as is clear in all Antiquity.  
Secondly, 'tis contrary to the Council of Nice. In the third Canon 
Edit. Binii Arabic.  whereof, which concerns the Jurisdiction of Patriarches, the Authority (or Principality, if you will) of the Bishop of Rome is made the pattern, or model of that Authority and Jurisdiction, which the Patriarches 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 Patriarches. And in the same Canon the Pope is afterward styled, Petro similis & Autoritate par, (resembling Saint Peter, and, his equal in Authority.) This also the practice of the Church shows; which is always the best expositor and Assertour of the Canons. For not only the Pope's Confirmation was required to all new-elected Patriarches, but it belonged likewise to him to depose unworthy ones, and restore the unjustly deposed by others. We read of no less than 
a Nicol. Pap. cpist. ad Michael. Imperat.  eight several Patriarches 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 testify. On the contrary 
b Zozomen lib. 3. cap. 7.  Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria, and Paulus Bishop of Constantinople were by Julius the first restored to their respective Seas, having been unjustly expelled by Heretics. 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 acknowledged St. Peter's Successor in the Government of the whole Church.  
St. Austin therefore said well, 
c Aug. epist. 162.  in Romanâ Ecclesiâ semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit Principatus, (in the Roman Church the Principality of the Apostolic Chair hath always flourished.) Here the Bishop will have some other Apostolic Chairs, like this of Rome, viz. equal 
Ibid. n. 10.  to it in Authority. But this he does, partly to levelly 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 entering upon that main question concerning the Donatists of afric; 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 only; which I shall briefly do out of St. Austin, and Optatus Milevitanus. Thus than it was.  
3. The Donatists of afric finding themselves sharply opposed by Caecilianus, Archbishop of Carthage and Primate of Africa, by way of revenge 
d D. Aug. epist. 162.  accuse him of having in time of Persecution delivered 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 condemned, and outed of his Bishopric. But he, making no great reckoning of the sentence, as being condemned 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 Emperor 
e Optat. Milev. lib 1. cont. Parmen.  Constantin, and desire him to command their cause to be heard by some Bishops of the Gauls in France, where the Emperor then resided. But the Emperor was so far from favouring them 
f D. Aug. cont. lit. Petil. lib. 2. cap 92. , that he showed a great dislike of their proceedings, telling them 
g Aug. epist. 166.  expressly, that it belonged 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 Schismatics, 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 Euseb. Hist. lib. 10. cap. 5.  but yet to comply a little with the Donatists, he sent along with them some Bishops of the Gauls, 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 find to be right. Neither did Melchiades (the Pope) refuse them; but for the greater solemnity of the judgement and satisfaction of the parties, adjoined to them 
i D. Aug. epist. 166. Optat. Milev. lib. 1. contr. Parmen.  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 D. Aug. de unic. Baptism. contr. Petil. cap. 16. D. Aug. in Brevic. collat: Carth. part. 3.  condemned; Caecilianus, Felix, and some other African Bishops of their party were justified and acquitted.  
The Schismatics being thus condemned at Rome, and even by those Bishops of the Gauls, whom they had chosen for Judges, by way of Appeal address themselves again to the Emperor; which the pious Prince took so heinously, that (as Optatus Milevitanus reports) he cried out against them to this purpose, 
m Optat. Milevit. lib. 1.  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 D. Aug. epist. 162.  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 Epist. Constantin. ad Episc. Cathol. in fine Gestor. in purgat. Caecil. & Felicis.  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 D. Aug. epist. 60 & 162. & lib. de unic. Baptism. cap. 16.  Arles, where the Pope's Legates were present, as also the three Bishops of the Gauls, 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 Epist. Concil. Arelatens. 1.  condemned, but not quieted; for with an impudence proper to such people, and to be paralleled only with their fellow Schismatics, they run the third time to the Emperor, and will not be satisfied, unless he condescend to hear them in person. What should the Emperor do? He had already protested against this, as of itself unlawful, but there was no remedy; the Schismatics will not let him rest until he hear them. Wherefore having first 
r D. Aug. epist. 162.  promised to ask the Bishop's pardon, he consents to this also; hears them, and 
s D. Aug. in Brevic. Collat. Carthag. parte 3. col. 589, 590, 591.  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 Pope's 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 foreign 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 Pope's 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 
§ 25. n. 10.  Donatists leave to be heard by foreign Bishops. Whereas there is no such leave mentioned, or insinuated by St. Austin in all that Epistle. What he says is only his own private advice, viz. that if any of them had convincing proofs of aught that was criminal in the Catholic Bishops of Africa, for which they feared 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 licence, or dispensation, given them by the African Bishops sitting in Council; but only a private exhortation, and counsel of 
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.  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 mistranslation of the words usurpare and usurpavit. For 'tis 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 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.  An fortè non debuit, etc. (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? etc. Whereas, the Bishop by his englishing the words makes St. Austin positively say, peradventure Melchiades ought not (of right) to have challenged (or usurped) to himself that judgement: which surely was a notorious winding in his Labyrinth. For it makes that to be a Negative in St. Augustine's sense, which doubtless in his true meaning was an Affirmative; and by ask, 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, 'tis no less clear, that he speaks per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by way of condescendence to his Adversaries manner of speaking, the better to mollify them, which is oftentimes practised in Rhetoric; 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 Patriarches 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 suffered by his judgement) complaining, or accusing him of usurpation.  
Thirdly, he alleges, that other Bishops were made Judges with the Pope, and that by the Emperor's power, which the Pope will now lest of all endure. I answer first, the Bishops sent by the Emperor were only three; an inconsiderable number to sway the sentence: and the Pope to show his Authority, that he was not to be prescribed 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 Emperor 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 itself unlawful, and not belonging to him; he did it therefore only in condescendence to the Donatists' importunity, and would have asked the Bishop's pardon for it, as 
x V. Aug. epist. 162. & 166. ubi supra.  S. Austin witnesses: whose sentence 
y Ad cujus curam, de quam rationem 〈◊〉 redditurus est, res illa maximè 〈◊〉, D. Aug. epist. 162.  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 Emperor's Authority. Nor doth it concern us at all, that the Emperor 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 Schismatics, as we said above, so no doubt it is all St. Austin means by the words alleged.  
4. His Deductions from the Civil Law are no better. For first, suppose that an inferior Prelate could not appeal from the sentence of his Patriarch; yet when the Patriarches 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 Patriarches. Secondly, what the Law says, is rightly understood, and must be explicated of Inferior Clerks only; who were not (of ordinary course) to appeal further than the Patriarch, or the Primate of their Province; for so the 
z Concil. African. Can. 101.  Council of afric determines. But 'tis even 
a Vt Roman liceat Epscopis provocare; & ut Clericorum causae apud suarum Provinciarum Episcopos finiantur, jam priore anno, etiam literis vostris ad eundem venerabilis memoriae Zozymum Episcopum datis, infinuari curavimus, etc. Concil. African. epist. ad Bonifac. Pap. to which St. Austin subscribed.  there acknowledged 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 Inferior 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 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.  Gregory; Where there is neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch, even Inferior Clerks, when they appeal, must have their recourse to the Sea Apostolic. Then surely it follows, the Bishop of Rome's Jurisdiction is not only over the Western or Southern Provinces, (as the Relatour limits it, pag. 168.) but over the whole Church, whither the Jurisdiction of Metropolitans and Patriarches never extended. Neither could such Appeals be just, if the Bishop of Rome were not the Lawful Superior and Judge of all the Bishops of Christendom; it being confessed, that no Juridical Appeal can be made, but from an inferior to a superior 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 Christendom, to the Sea Apostolic, 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 find, though I have used some diligence in the search. I could therefore wish he had spoken something to it here, where he had so fair an occasion. I only say this. If the Roman Sea be the Head of all Churches, (as St. Gregory says 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 pleased. But what those Ancient times of Church Government were, wherein Britain was never subject to the Sea of Rome, we desire should be proved, and not merely said.  
I should not have envied his Lordship's happiness (much less the honour of his Sea) had he and all his worthy Predecessors (as he calls them) since St. Austin, been ennobled with the Eminence of Patriarches: yet I see no reason, why a velut Patriarcha, pronounced by the Pope by way of Encomium only, upon a particular occasion, should be of force to make Canterbury a Patriarchal Sea. Similes fall always short of the thing itself. Again it imports little, that there was a Primate in Britain; for that only proves, that inferior Clerks might not ordinarily appeal from him to Rome: but that Britain was not subject to the Roman Sea, or that the British Bishops did not (as ocsion required) freely and continually appeal to Rome, it doth not prove; yea the contrary is manifest by all the monuments of the British 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 proved, 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 Britain was never subject to Rome; meaning in Ecclesiastical matters. For (to instance in the very business of Appeals) doth not 
a Bed. lib 5. Eccles. Hist. cap. 20.  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 deprived of his Bishopric, appealed to the Sea Apostolic, was heard by Pope Agatho in the presence of many other Bishops, and by their unanimous Sentence was pronounced innocent? Was he not restored again to his Bishopric by virtue of that sentence? Doth not the same Author affirm, that being the second time expelled 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 called in obedience to the Pope's order; in which, by the general vote of all the good Bishop was again restored? Is this no Evidence of Rome's Authority over England in ancient times? 'Tis now almost a thousand years since Bede wrote, and doubtless his History is one of the most Authentic 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 Bishoprics was from Rome? See the Letter of Pope Gregory the first to St. Austin our English Apostle, which Bede reports in these words; 
b Bed lib. 〈◊〉 Eecl. Hist. cap. 19 — Quia nova Anglorum Ecclesia ad omnipotentis Dei gratiam, codem Domino largiente, et Te labor ante, perducta est, etc. 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 intent also to give the PALL (that is, to make him an Archbishop:) But TO YOU shall be subject, not only the Bishops you make, and he of York, but all the Bishops of Britain. 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 virtue of this Grant, have all the succeeding Bishops of that Sea, enjoyed the Dignity and Authority of Primates in this Nation: which is a thing so out of question, that truly I see not how 'tis 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 belie 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 
§. 25. n. 11.  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 testify as much. One is an Epistle, or Supplication rather, which Eulalius Bishop of 〈◊〉 is supposed 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 rejoices 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 questioned by Catholics) nor answer the exceptions, which Baronius and Bellarmin bring against them; so the 
Baron. ad Ann. 419. n. 92, 93. Bellar. lib. 2. de Rom. Pout. cap. 25. in fin.  use he makes of them is to very little purpose.  
To the first part of his Dilemma, viz. If the said Instruments be false, than Pope Boniface the second, and his Accomplices at Rome, or some for them, are notorious forgers etc. 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 discovered and exclaimed against; seeing in that Pope's time no such man as Eulalius was Bishop of Alexandria, but one Timotheus, an Heretic, 
Baron. ubi suprà.  and great opposer of the Roman Church. Neither could the other Eulalius he speaks of, be then a Catholic Bishop of Carthage; it being a time when there was not one Catholic Bishop in all Africa.  
As to his closing words or some for them, if he mean they did it by the Pope's consent, 'tis answered under the word Accomplices: but if he intent no more, but that they were forged by some body, 'tis very true; but what will it concern the Roman Sea, if some other feign an Epistle in the Pope's name? Were there not some that feigned 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, than the Church of afric 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 shows 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 only 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 expressly approve them; but merely published 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, 'tis 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 always in true Catholic 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 subscribed (as 'tis 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 Celestin. Epist. ad Epise. Gal.  that he both lived and dyid in the Communion of the Roman church Witness likewise 
b 〈◊〉 Epist. 87. ad Episcop. Mauritan.  Pope Leo the first, who for some time of the said pretended Separation, had his Legates in. afric, ordering Ecclesiastical matters there; and received Lupicinus an African Bishop appealing unto him. Witness also Eugenius, a Catholic Bishop of Carthage, who in his answer to the 〈◊〉, requiring a Disputation with him, touching matters of Faith, 
c Victor. Vticens lib. 2. de persecut. Vandal.  〈◊〉 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 Binius Tom. 3. Conc. Edit. Colon.  Pope Hilarius about the Year 467. and subscribed the Canons: one whereof was, That none ought to violate the Constitutions of the Nicen Council, nor the Deorees of the Apostolic Sea. Witness further Pope Gregory himself, 
e D. Greg. lib. 1. epist. 72, 75. lib. 7. epist. 32. etc.  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 Apostolic; and asserts his own right of receiving Appeals from all parts of Christendom, as necessity requires. Witness finally no less than two hundred African Bishops at once, who being banished into Sicily for the Catholic Faith, by the Arrian King Gelimer, 
f Paul., Diac. lib. 17. de Gest. Roman.  Symmachus Papa, (saith Paulus Diaconus) UT SUA MEMBRA, suis sumptibus aluit ac fovit liberalissimè; Pope Symmachus maintained them most liberally at his own charge, as members of his own body: which is a convincing argument, that he held them not for Schismatics.  
7. In the next Paragraph, the Bishop by a long discourse founded more upon his own conjectural presumptions, than any thing else, undertakes to show, how the Pope's rose by degrees to that height of Authority, 
Ibid. n. 12.  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 Doctor) at last he delivers his own assertion, which is, That the very Fountain of Papal Greatness was the Pope's residence in the great Imperial City. But we have often showed 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, etc. 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 only Precedency, or Priority of place in public Assemblies before other Prelates, by reason of his residence in the Imperial City, without any proper Authority, or Jurisdiction over them. But we have often evidenced 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 concerned than all other Prelates of the West) he tells us of the Obedience Popes did anciently show towards the Emperors; enduring (saith he) their Censures and Judgements; and accepting the ratification of their Election to the Popedom, at the Emperor's hands. We confess all this. They endured the Emperor's Censures, just in the same manner, as all other oppressed persons are forced to endure the judgement of their oppressors. But let all his Lordship's party show us one just judgement, that an Emperor ever pronounced against the Pope. They accepted the ratification of their Election at the Emperor's hands: but surely that (except in some few cases; where wicked Emperors apparently tyrannised over them, and by force compelled them to do what they pleased, contrary to Law and Custom) was no more than this. The Emperor being duly informed, that such or such a person was Canonically chosen Pope, there issued forth of course some Declaration, or other Authentic Act from the Emperor, whereby he gave notice thereof to the principal Judicatures and Perfect ships of the Empire, requiring them, upon all occasions, to acknowledge the said Elected person for Pope. A thing very proper for the Emperor to do, as the state of the Empire then stood, as was also observed in the Election of most of the chief Prelates and Officers of the Empire. But his Lordship was much mistaken, if under the notion of ratifying the Pope's Election he thought the Emperors had ever any just power to make whom they pleased Pope: never any good Emperor 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 denied them. But had any Emperors refused to ratify 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 adhered to the said Pope, and not to him the Emperor should have obtruded upon them. We also grant, that so long as the Pope remained a Subject of the Empire, this custom continued: but being afterward declared free from that subjection, the reason ceased, and the custom with it. See Gratian. Decret. Can. Ego Ludovicus. Dist. 63. & Can. Constitutio, Dist. eâdem where the Emperors 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 citys us three Greek words out of Socrates, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signify 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 than probable he industriously omitted. Yet the place (after some search) we have found, Lib. 7. Hist. Cap. 11. and must needs say, 'tis such a place as clearly shows, not only that Socrates was an enemy of the Roman Church, and a favourer of Heretics, (as divers good Authors 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 alleged words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 merely out of spleen against the said Patriarches of Rome and Alexandria, 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrat. lib. 7. Hist. Cap. 11.  for not suffering the Novatian Heretics to exercise publicly the profession of their Heresy in Catholic 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 Author, 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 Pope's ambition, or not, sure I am, there's no unbiased Judgement, but will take notice our Adversary is very destitute of solid proofs, who fills his pages only with such impertinencies as these.  
9 His main design is to overthrow the Pope's Supremacy, by showing it was not lawful to appeal to Rome. But Catholic 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 Christendom: therefore (say they) the Pope must needs be Supreme Judge in Ecclesiastical matters.  
This is evidenced 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 observed: 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 removed by Appeal, be very remote? but withal, who sees not that such accidental complaints do rather confirm, then weaken, the confessed Authority and Right of such Superior Courts, to receive and determine Causes of Appeal?  
To prevent, as much as might be, all occasion of Complaints in this kind, the Council of Sardica provided this expedient, that no ecclesiastics under the degree of Bishops should usually be allowed to appeal to Rome: which may easily serve to reconcile all seeming contradiction in Authors touching this matter. And it must be observed, that though the Canons prohibit Priests, and inferior Clergymen 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. 'Tis true indeed, the Africans, in their Epistle abovementioned, thought good, by way of Argument and Deduction, to extend the Canon prohibiting Appeals, even unto Bishop's causes: but the general custom of the Church was ever against them, as is manifest by what hath been said.  
10. The Fathers in the sixth Council of Carthage petitioned (I confess) the Pope not easily to give ear to those, who appealed to Rome from afric, 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 Pope's Legates, sent into afric, 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 afric 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 find the matter of Appeals therein decided. The occasion was this, Pope Zosimus to show his proceedings in that affair to be not only just, but Canonical, had, by a little mistake (the error, probably, being rather his Secretaries, than 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 allowed 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 Pope's right? Did the African Fathers, or any other Catholic Author of succeeding ages, ever charge the Pope with falsifying the Canons, upon this account, as Protestants now do? let them show this, if they can.   

CHAP. 16. Of the Title of Universal 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 assumed the Title, yet they never conceived 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 condemned it only in the first sense: asserting the second expressly to himself. 5. Phocas gave no new title to Boniface, but only declared, 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 calvin's 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 censured by St. Gregory for assuming the title of Universal Bishop: an objection satisfied a hundred times over; yet 
§ 25. n. 12.  though never so clear in itself, 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 find it registered in the Monuments of the Church.  
1. Know then that the Title of Universal, or Ecumenical, 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 approved 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Concil. Chalced. Act. 3.  Leo, The most Holy, and most Blessed Ecumenical (or Universal) Patriarch of great Rome, etc. The National Council of Constantinople did the same to Pope Agapet, calling him their 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Concil. Constantinop sub Mena Act. 5.  most holy Lord, the Archbishop of old Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch, Agapet, etc. John Bishop of Nicopolis, with others, styles Pope Hormisda, 
c ap. Baron. Tom 8. add ann. 595. pag. 90. edit. Rom.  Universi orbis terrarum Patriarcha; which is, in full sense, the same with Ecumenical. Constantinus Pogonatus the Emperor, in the third Council of Constantinople, (which is the sixth General) calls Leo the Second, Ecumenical Pope; as witness both 
d Baron. ad Ann. Cbristi 681. pag. 558. edit. Rom.  Baronius and 
* Binius Tom. 5. in Conc. 6. Act. 18. edit. 1636.  Binius. So likewise did Basil the younger, Emperor, with Eustathius Bishop of Constantinople, as appears by the Acts of their 
e Glaber. Rodolph. Hist. lib. 4. cap. 1.  Reconciliation. Yea Balsamon himself, notwithstanding his known rancour against the Roman Sea, is forced to acknowledge, that the Greeks had an 
f Theod. Balsam. lib. 7.  ancient custom to style the Bishop of Rome, Ecumenical, 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, usurped it in all their Briefs, Letters, etc. as appears by the Greek 
g See Jus Canonicum Oriental. lib. 3  Canon Law itself, viz. in the Titles of Sisinnius, German, Constantin, Alexius, and several other Patriarches.  
2. It is further observable, that the ancient Bishops of Constantinople never intended by this usurped Title to deny the Pope's Universal Authority, even over themselves: They never pretended to be either Superior, or Equal to the Roman Bishop, in regard of Spiritual Jurisdiction; but only to be next after, or under him, and above all other Patriarches. For touching that matter the Emperor Justinian had long since, by an express Law decreed, 
h Cod. Justinian. Impress. Paris. Antverp. etc. Tit. 1. l. 7.  that the Bishop of Rome was to be held supreme Judge of all Ecclesiastical causes, and Head of all the Prelates of God. And Anthimus, 
i Conc. Constantinop. sub Mena. Act. 4.  even while he usurped the Sea of Constantinople, protested obedience to the Bishop of Rome, and wrote to all the other Patriarches, that he followed in all things the Sea Apostolic; 
k Conc. Constantinop, ubi suprà.  Menas also, his Competitour, made public profession in the same Council to do the like, and to obey in every thing the Sea Apostolic. 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 D. Greg. lib. 5. epist 24. lib. 4. epist. 39  was admitted, the Priest righted, and the judgement of that Patriarch, formerly given against him, reversed by the Pope's Sentence: which was also accepted as valid by the said Patriarch of Constantinople.  
I add, that St. Gregory himself, even whilst he inveighed most sharply against the title of Universal Bishop, expressly 
m D. Greg. lib. 7. epist. 63.  avoucheth, that both the Emperor and Bishop of Constantinople professed continually, that the Church of Constantinople was subject to the Sea Apostolic. 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. Gregory's time; it is answered, that 
n Amular. de Divin. Offic. lib. 4. cap. 26.  Amularius Fortunatus, an approved Author, that wrote but two hundred years after St. Gregory's time, citys the whole Epistle as Authentic, 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 observed, that although the Patriarches of Constantinople challenged the title of Ecumenical, or Universal, yet when either the Pope, or his Legates 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 only his, not Christ's Officers, and receiving Authority from him, and not from Christ. In the Metaphorical sense it signifies only so high and eminent a Dignity above all other Bishops throughout the whole Church, that though he, who is styled 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 Dioceses, as he himself. For who doubts, but a mere Diocesan Bishop is as truly a Bishop, and chief Officer of Christ in his Diocese, as an Archbishop, Metropolitan, Primate, or Patriarch, in their several Districts; though it cannot be denied, 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 Inferior Judge is as truly an Officer of the State, and a Magistrate, as the Superior; and yet the Inferior is subject to the Superior, and must be content, in case of Appeals, to have both the Causes of his Court, and himself too, judged by the Superior, when Justice shall require it.  
4. This being cleared, 'tis 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 Error and grand Heresy, destructive of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and Christ's Institution; and therefore not undeservedly censured by the Holy Zeal of St. Gregory, as Monstrous, Blasphemous, and in some sort Antichristian. I say, 'tis 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 says expressly, If there be one who is UNIVERSAL Bishop 
D. Greg. lib 4. 〈◊〉. 36. lib 7. epist. 69.  all the rest are no more Bishops. So that in St. Gregory's meaning, whoever assumes to himself the title of Universal, doth not content himself, as all the Stewards of Christ's 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 'tis scarce credible he either did, or could pretend to make himself the only Bishop in Christendom, 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 poisonous 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 King's consent, take upon him the Title of Viceroy of Naples, or Sicily, though perhaps he really intended no more, yet doubtless he would be soon suspected, nay charged with a traitorous design of making himself absolute King. But as for the Metaphorical signification of the word, which allows all other inferiors Bishops to be true Bishops, and to have true Episcopal Jurisdiction, as Officers ordained by Christ, though subordinate to the Pope's Supreme 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 practice both of his Predecessors and himself to exercise the substance of it, that is, Universal Jurisdiction and Authority over all other Bishops and Patriarches throughout the whole Church, when necessity required: and particularly over the Bishops of Constantinople, who were then risen to the Highest patriarchal 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 assumed it, 'tis manifest, that Pope 〈◊〉, St. Gregory's Predecessor, annulled 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 〈◊〉, (says St. Gregory) 
D. Greg. lib. 4. epist. 76.  I will use the Church's 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 Metaphorical sense of Oecumenicus or Universal contains) and yet denies he was ever called Universal Apostle. He grants likewise, that the High Priest was supreme Ecclesiastical Governor of the whole Jewish Church, yet was not called Universal Priest: all which evidently shows, 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 
Ibid. n. 12.  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 Universal 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 Universal Bishop, is in effect to un-bishop all other Prelates of the Church, and make them only Officers ad placitum, and Delegates of the said Universal Bishop, or Monarch, placeable and displaceable at his sole pleasure, like the Officers of Temporal Monarches.  
To what he alleges out of Baronius, of Gregory the seventh his giving the Title of Universal to the Bishop of Rome in a Council about the year 1076. I answer, it signifies no more than 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 called) recounted by Baronius, and objected here by the Bishop, are all matters of Faith, but (as it were) a Catalogue, or Abridgement of such Privileges, 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 Supreme Authority of the Roman Bishop.  
5. What he says of Phocas the Emperor'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 only: 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 declared in the Negative by Phocas. Now who seeth not, that 'tis a far different thing to declare a Title, or Dignity to be of right due, and another to confer it de Novo upon any one. If his late Majesty of glorious memory had been pleased (when time was) to have declared W. L. Patriarch of England, we may well suppose, his Lordship would not have granted the Title had been de Novo conferred on him; seeing he has already contended, that long before, viz in urban the second's time, it was given to the Archbishop of Canterbury.  
But put case Phocas had indeed conferred the Title of Universal Bishop upon Pope Boniface, as a new Dignity, not formerly belonging to him, yet would it make but little to his Lordship's purpose. For we say again, 'tis not all one to have a Title conferred by another, and to assume, or use it ones self. The Bishop should have proved, that Pope Boniface used the Title of Universal Bishop, in his ordinary style, as the Bishops of Constantinople are proved to have done of late times, and as anciently the said John, and Cyriacus his Successor, attempted to do: which was the thing St. Gregory inveighed against. The Bishop therefore makes here a fallacious Turn, when he shifts the question from taking to giving, and passeth from one's self to another person. Let it be shown that Boniface the Third, or any other Popes his Successourss, assumed this Title, as the Bishops of Constantinople did: for till this be proved, 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 Successors did err, by having it declared 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 gainsayed 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 
Ibidem.  Popes grew under the Emperors, and by degrees attained the height 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 Emperors. But what is this to the purpose? If he would have said any thing material, he should have proved that the Pope's rose by the Emperor's means to their Spiritual Authority and Jurisdiction over all other Bishops throughout the whole Catholic Church: which is the only thing they claim jure divino; and which is so annexed to the Dignity of their Office by Christ's Institution, without the least dependence of any Emperors or Secular Powers, that were the Pope deprived of all his Temporalties, (which can never be done by any Secular Power, without committing a most enormous Sacrilege) and reduced 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 Criticisms and mere Conjectures upon this subject, unto num. 13. And whereas he again en passant touches upon the Pope's Election approved and 〈◊〉 by the Emperor, it hath received a full answer above.  
6. His next endeavour is to infringe A. C.'s proof of the Pope's Supreme 
§. 25. n. 13.  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 talked of liberties of the Gallican Church, had been things known, or heard of in St. Irenaeus' time. But Irenaeus (says 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 persuasion: his words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. he exhorts him after a handsome manner, as reflecting on the Pope's Dignity, and clearly shows, 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 persuade Pope Victor not to cut off from the Church so many Christian Provinces, had he believed (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 reproved Pope Victor for what he did in the case of the Asian Bishops, it being a matter of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction only, in the exercise whereof 'tis not denied, but the Pope, through misinformation incident to humane frailty, may sometimes go too far, what does it prove more than 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 Pope's power? Doth St. Irenaeus, or any other beside him, complain of the Pope's usurpation in this case? Do they charge him with taking more upon him, than 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 Schismatics, and shaking the very Foundation of the Church's Discipline and Unity?  
But these are only his Lordship's light Skirmishes: he ventures at last to grapple with the Authority itself, alleged by A. C. out of S. Irenaeus; 
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.  whose words, though faithfully cited by him in the Latin, yet in rendering them English, he cunningly winds about in his Labyrinth. For first he translates UNDIQUE round about, as if St. Irenaeus spoke only 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 signify from all parts universally) are rendered by the word undique. And that here it must needs signify every where, or from all parts, is clear from the very scope of St. Irenaeus' discourse; which was to prove, that the Tradition of the Roman Church was a full Evidence (plenissima ostensio) of the Doctrine preached 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 powerful Principality) as to their constant Guide therein; and by virtue of which recourse all the Faithful every where had always conserved the Integrity of Apostolical 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 only Heretics, but all Christians, that the Doctrine or Tradition, of the Roman Church was, as it were, the Touchstone of all Apostolical Doctrine; If now we turn the Medal, and look upon this Holy Doctor's argument in the sense the Bishop takes his words, we shall find it speak little more than nonsense. His Lordship, to avoid the Prerogative ascribed by St. Irenaeus and all Catholics to the Roman Church, will needs, (as I have said) make undique to signify 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 Heretics of his time.  
'Tis necessary that all the Churches, or the Faithful round about Rome, viz. those only 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 Bishop's precedence of place, or in regard of his Patriarchal Power within the aforesaid Precincts.  
Therefore the Gnostics, and other Heretics in France or any other part of the world, are convinced of Heresy for not having recourse to the Church of Rome. Is not this fine Meandrick Logic, well beseeming so noble a Labyrinth?  
But let us observe, how the Relatour deals with the latter part of this Father's 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 delivered by the Apostles; and not according to his Author, who says always conserved. The word always 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 Father's meaning, viz. that not only the Church of Rome (as 'tis a particular Church) kept entirely 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 error.  
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 only to those of the Suburbicary Churches, or Patriarchal Diocese of Rome, as the Bishop pleads.  
7. Little therefore is it to his advantage, what he pretends to show out of Ruffinus, viz that the extent of the Roman Patriarchate was contained within the Islands and Precincts of Italy: since it is inconsistent with the Vote of all Antiquity, and gives St. Irenaeus the lie. Nay it makes her Jurisdiction incomparably less, than any of the other Patriarchal Churches; yea, of much less extent, than many Metropolitan Churches. To which I add, 'tis 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 vast 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 'tis necessary to understand it (unless we will contradict all the world) not in the Bishop's sense, as signifying only 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 Perfect, or Governor of Rome, in regard of whose ordinary Jurisdiction, we confess, it commanded only those few places about it in Italy; but as it related to the Emperor 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 Prelate, and to have a more immediate and ordinary care over them, than he had over those other Cities, which were out of the Empire: though as St. Peter's Successor 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 'tis false, that before St. Irenaeus' time, Rome was more constant in the Faith, than the other Churches of Greece and afric had been, seeing the African Churches were then as free from Heresy as Rome.  
9 The Bishop here gives himself a great deal of trouble to wrest 
§. 25. n. 14.  from us a Text or two of Epiphanius, touching the Authority of St. Peter and his Successors: wherein though he grants somewhat beyond his wont reservedness, that St. Peter's person is understood in that Text of the Gospel, Super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam, etc. Matth. 16. 18. yet will he by no means be persuaded to extend it any further than his person. But we affirm 'tis clear even by the Texts of St. Epiphanius, that this promise made by Christ to St. Peter, is derived to his Successors. For first, after the words 
a Ipse autem Dominus constituit cum Primum Apostolorum, Petram firmam super quam Ecclesia Dei aedificata 〈◊〉; & Portae Inferorum non praevalebunt adversus illam: Quarum Portarum nomine, etc. D. Epiphan. in Anchorat. Tom. 2. Edit. Petau. pag. 14. 1622.  Et Portae inferorum, etc. The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it, this Father immediately adds, Quarum Portarum nomine, Hereses & Haeresewn conditores intelliguntur, by the Gates of Hell Heresies and the Authors of Heresies are understood, that is to say, All Heresies and all Authors of Heresies whatever shall arise: Such indefinite Propositions being equivalent to Universal. True it is, the Bishop omits these last words by his wont 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 virtue of that foundation it was to prevail against all Heresies, and Inventors of Heresy that should at any time impugn the Church's Faith; which could not possibly be verified in case Christ's promise were to be limited to St. Peter's person alone. For else why might not Heresies and Heretics after St. Peter's 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 only those Eulogiums given him by St. Epiphanius, and not allow them extendible to his Successors, so far as they are necessary for their upholding the Church also in the profession of true Faith. Wherefore as St. Peter's Authority is (by the Bishops own confession) rightly urged by Epiphanius to prove the Godhead of the Holy Ghost against the Heretics that denied it, so doubtless by virtue of the same promise and institution of Christ, may and aught the Authority of his Successors be urged 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 Successors are (by virtue of this Text) to govern the Church as Princes and Monarches, yet we say, that by virtue thereof they so govern the Church, as we may securely rely 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, 
Ibidem.  makes not St. Peter, but St. James Successor to our Lord in the Principality of his Church. But he every way mistakes. For first in the places he alleges, there's not a word of the Church's Principality. Secondly he merely equivocates in the words ante caeteros omnes, which signify only priority of time, because St. James was the first of the Apostles, that was ordained Bishop of any particular place; viz. at Jerusalem, (as both 
b Euseb. Hist. lib. 2. cap. 22.  Eusebius and St. 
c D. Hieron-De Script. Eccl. in Jacobo.  Hierome witness) which is called Christ's Throne, because our Saviour himself had there preached the Gospel, and was principally and immediately sent thither. Nor is it unusual in ancient Ecclesiastical Writers, to give the title of Christ's Throne to any Episcopal Chair, or Seat whatsoever.  
To the Relatours' assertion that we all say, but no man proves, that 
Ibid. n. 15.  the Bishop of Rome succeeded in all St. Peter's Prerogatives, which are ordinary, and belonged to him as a Bishop, though not in the extraordinary which belonged to him as an Apostle. I answer, Bellarmin (beside many Catholic Divines) doth not only say, but prove, that the Pope succeeds St. Peter, not only in the Prerogatives that belonged 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 show, to any man that reads him with an unbiased judgement. 
§. Respondco Pontificatum.  For can any thing be more express than these words, lib. 1. De Rome, Pont. cap. 9 Mortuis autem Apostolis, Apostolica Authoritas in solo Petri Successore permansit. When the Apostles were dead, the Authority Apostolical resided only in St. Peter's Successor. Is this to say, the Pope succeeded St. Peter only in his Episcopal Prerogatives? I add, that Bellarmin in the same chapter goes on, showing the difference between St. Peter's Successor, and the Successors of the rest of the Apostles, viz. that they were Bishops only, and that their Authority reached not to a Jurisdiction over the whole Church, as that of St. Peter's Successors did: who were therefore styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 
d Nullus enim Episcopus, praeter 〈◊〉, Sollicitudinem 〈◊〉 unquam omnium Ecclesiarum: Et solus ipse vocatus est 〈◊〉 Pontifex; & Sedes 〈◊〉 Apostolica simpliciter & per 〈◊〉; & munus ejus, 〈◊〉. Bellarm. ubi. 〈◊〉.  Apostolical Bishops, and their Sea, the Sea Apostolic, 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 belonged to him as an Apostle.  
10. However the Relatour is so kind 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 only Primacy of Order, but Authority and Principality too; which surely imply Power: and I would have any man show us some good Author of ancient times, in whom either the Latin word Primatus, or the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answering to it, are attributed to any Ecclesiastical person, as signifying only Precedency in order and place, and not a true Superior 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 always signifies Pre-eminence in Authority? and Primatus more especially Pre-eminence, or Superiority, in Ecclesiastical Government? Is the Primate of any Christian Nation no more than one that hath Precedence in place? Doth that Title signify no more in England, then that the Archbishop of Canterbury ought to have the chief place in the Convocation-House? Have not all Catholic Authors (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 taxed for speaking ambiguously in using that term? 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 signify 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 D. Hieron. lib. 10. cont. Jovinian.  Primatus Petro datur, ut Capite constituto ' Schismatis tollatur occasio. Can any man in his wits think, that by Primatus he meant only Precedency of Order? was that sufficient to prevent Schism? If therefore a True and Proper Primacy be granted by Protestants to St. Peter's Successor also, before and above all other Bishops and Patriarches 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 Patriarches of the Church is due unto him. Now that Primacy, or Supremacy, of right belongs to St. Peter's Successor, 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 Schisms 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 Successor) 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 Successor) 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, etc. must needs be necessary in all succeeding Ages, is clear from mere Inspection into those succeeding Ages to this present: where it is visible, by what degrees the great zeal of the Primitive Christians has decayed and cooled even to this day, to the production of infinite Schisms and Heresies: which must needs, ere this, have overwhelmed and utterly confounded the Church, had not our Blessed Saviour (that Divine Lawgiver) 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 allseeing wisdom foresaw would be of it in all future Ages.  
The Minor is proved effectively by the precedent Discourse, where St. Peter's Primacy (that is, as we there show, his Supremacy over all) is confessed by his Lordship and other Protestants.  
The Conclusion therefore is undeniable; viz. that 'tis necessary for the Due Government of the Church, that one should be endowed with Power and Jurisdiction over all Christians in all succeeding ages.  
Add hereunto, that so long as the End is but in Acquisition, and not completely gained, the Necessary Means to obtain it is always necessary. But the End, in our present case, viz. the Due Government of the Church, the preserving it in the Unity of True Catholic Faith and Christian Charity, is, and ever hath been since the Apostles time, but in Acquisition, and shall not be completely 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 Pope's Authority, asserted and vindicated.  
ARGUMENT.  
1. Our Saviour's prayer for St. Peter, extended to his Successors. 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. Augustine's words, cited nothing to the purpose. 7. The Pope's Ancient and undoubted right, to confirm General Councils. 8. The Bishop's Lesbian Rule for deciding Controversies, examined and shown to be vain. 9 The Pope's Authority duly acknowledged, sufficient to prevent Schisms and Heresies. 10. The Government of the Church, not purely Monarchical, but Mixt. 11. How the Literae Communicatoriae of the Pope, and other Catholic Bishops, differed.  
1. THe Bishop himself, in his Answers to the Argument drawn 
§. 25. n. 16.  from our Saviour's Prayer for St. Peter, Luke 22. 32. (Ego rogavi pro Te, etc. I have prayed for thee, that thy Faith fail not) shows the insufficiency of his Evasions 
a Bellarm. lib. 4. De Rom. Pont. cap. 3.  Card. Bellarmin, by the Testimony of seven Popes, (most of them very Ancient) proves, that our Saviour by that Prayer obtained, both for St. Peter and his Successors, this privilege, namely, that they should never teach the Church any thing contrary to True Faith. What says the Bishop to this? As for St. Peter himself he tells us, it will be easily granted, that such a privilege was obtained for him: but that it should be obtained, or intended for his Successors 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; for he gives several pregnant reasons for his Assertion, drawn from the Text itself, had the Bishop been pleased 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 Confessor, about the year 337.) and Leo the first, (a most Holy Pope, as all Antiquity acknowledged, about the year 440.) would dare pervert and misalledge Scripture, only 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 public professions to stand to the Father's Authority, of the first Five or Six hundred years; yet when such Fathers are alleged, fly presently back, and reject their Authority upon such weak pretences 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 only him, but all the Fathers in the sixth General Council, (where the Epistle of this Pope was read and approved) who could much better judge, whether his words were written out of proper Interest, than the Relatour, or any of his party. The other Three, 'tis confessed, are of somewhat a later standing; yet the latest of them flourished above four hundred years since: and we desire to know, what Author of good repute ever taxed any of them as byassed with proper interest, when they published, that St Peter does in his Successors still teach the Church, and confirm his Brethren in the True Faith, by virtue 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 Authors citable in any subject, but what he citys himself? Certainly though Beauties' 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 confessed as much, as the Bishop desired, what follows? only this, that till Theophylacts time, none had given so full an Exposition of those words, Ego rogavi pro Te, etc. 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 shows in other Chapters.  
The force therefore of Beauties' proof out of Theophylact is this: If our Saviour's prayer was to have a special effect in St. Peter, because he was to be the Church's 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 Successors. Neither doth this privilege of the Indeficiency of St. Peter's 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 Christ's Vicar on earth after him.  
2. To what he adds touching the two Effects, or Privileges, our Saviour's prayer obtained for St. Peter, and their descending to his Successors, I answer, Whatever our Saviour intended should descend by virtue of that prayer of his, did effectively so descend. But I confess 'tis a disputable question, whether every thing, which Christ by this prayer intended and obtained for St. Peter, was likewise intended by him to descend to St. Peter's Successors. That some special privilege (both intended and obtained (by this prayer) was to descend to them is manifest, both by the Authorities and Reasons brought 
a Bellarm. lib. 4. de Rom. Pout. cap. 3.  by Bellarmin in proof thereof; and this Privilege was, that none of St. Peter's Successors should ever so far fall from the Faith, as to teach Heresy, or any thing contrary to Faith tanquam Pontifex (as the Cardinal's words are) that is, in virtue of that Authority which they were to have in the Church as his Successors.  
His Lordship quarrels this Privilege, and says, 'tis not out of all doubt, though Bellarmin affirms it is. And why so? Because many learned men have affirmed the contrary, and challenged many Popes for teaching Heresy. I ask, what learned men does he mean? his own, or ours? If his own, 'tis no marvel they challenge those of teaching Heresy, from whose subjection they have revolted, and whose persons (to justify their unjust revolt) they daily load with bitter invectives and opprobrious appellations. If ours, What Teaching does he mean? Is it teaching only in quality of a private Doctor? This is not the question here; this belongs to the first Privilege Bellarmin says, our Saviour obtained for St. Peter by his prayer, viz. of not personally erring against Faith. If he mean Public Teaching, as Doctor and Pastor of the whole Church, what Catholic Divines ever taught, that the Pope can in this quality teach Heresy? Some haply will reply, Many Catholic Divines hold, that the Pope without a General Council may err, though he teach ex Cathedrâ, or as Doctor 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 err, 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 Doctor 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 far to the Pope's 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 Controversy with them touching that point.  
But by the By, I cannot dissemble a sly Turn the Relatour here makes to disguise Beauties words. Bellarmin, speaking of the second 
〈◊〉, ubi suprà.  Privilege, obtained by this Prayer of Christ for St. Peter and his Successors, expressly says, it was ut ipse TANQUAM PONTIFEX non posset, etc. 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 only 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 only as Pastor, or Doctor of the whole Church: which was much to his Lordship's 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 Bishop's pure liberality) obtained by this prayer for St. Peter, did belong to his Successors, and afterwards say, perhaps some part of it did not belong to them. For what does this signify more, then that the one was not so absolutely certain as the other; though he really believed that both parts of the Gift did belong to them, and strongly disputes for that his opinion. May not a learned Author 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 Privilege must belong to St. Peter's Successors, because they both stand upon the same foot, the validity of our Saviour's prayer. For I answer, the validity of our Saviour's prayer depends on his intention. What therefore can be certainly proved to have been intended by our Saviour to St. Peter's Successors, we may be certain shall be extended to them: but what can be shown only probably intended to them, we can be only probably persuaded does belong to them, and may therefore (as Bellarmin doth) say, perhaps it does not belong to them. What absurdity is there in this?  
3. The Text Pasce Oves & Agnos, John 21. 15, 16, 17. comes 
Ibid. n. 17.  next to be examined: wherein our Daedalus winds to and fro to find a plausible evasion: but all will not do. Feed my Sheep— and my Lambs, that is, says A. C. Christ's whole Flock. But at this the Bishop bids soft and fair. It is only his Sheep and his Lambs. As if Sheep and Lambs were not Christ's 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 find no mention, Matth. 28. or Matth. 10. either of Sheep or Lambs. Those mentioned Matth. 28. (Euntes ergo docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine Patris, & Filii, & Spiritus sancti) were not yet brought to Christ's fold, they were as yet unbaptised 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 only of such as were actually Christ's Sheep or Lambs, that is, actually his Flock, so the question is only, whether all such were nor by our Saviour in this Text committed to St. Peter's charge and government, and collectively speaking, to him only. We say, the words themselves being so absolutely and indefinitely pronounced, without restriction or limitation to any part of Christ's Sheep, must according to the rules of right Interpretation, be understood generally and indefinitely of all that were Christ's Sheep and Lambs, that is, of all Christians whatsoever. Till therefore it be evidenced from some other place of Scripture, as clear as this of St. John, that the other Apostles had the feeding of all Christ's 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 Christ's sheep as any others) were excepted out of St. Peter's charge, it must of necessity be granted, both that all Christ's Sheep, even the Apostles themselves were in some sort, to be fed, that is, governed as Christ's Sheep ought to be, by St. Peter, and also that A. C's Gloss, expounding Sheep and Lambs to be Christ's 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, winds about, and falls upon that odious question of Killing and deposing Kings; wherein, he presumed, it would be more easy for him to choke 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 kind of Logic. For what is it else to infer 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 remembered, 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 determined, 'tis 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 kill Kings is a most false and scandalous Imputation. For what Pope ever killed, or gave Command, Warrant, or Authority for the kill of any King? or what Catholic Author ever taught, that he had power from Christ so to do? And as for deposing them, I answer, 'tis 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 justified in the worst of these kinds, is but too fresh in memory.  
4. A. C. does not beg the question, when he says, The Bishop of 
Ibid. n. 18.  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 only, while he ought to prove it, that Protestants have made no Separation from the General Church, but only from the Church of Rome, and such other Churches, as by adhering to her have hazarded themselves, and do now miscall themselves THE WHOLE CATHOLIC CHURCH. It is also in this case a begging the question, to affirm the Roman-Catholique Church to be in error: since no man did ever grant his Lordship that she was so? or hath he any where convinced her of error? He hath often said it and supposed it, I know; but where he hath proved it I know not. 'Tis therefore yet to be proved that the Roman-Catholique Church hath erred in any Doctrine, publicly 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 show 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 Christ's promise, continue so teaching it unto the world's end.  
From this only Catholic Church Protestants have unhappily severed themselves, as I have already proved, 
a Chap. 13, 14.  and are through their own fault so absolutely deprived of all Communion with her, that they can no more be esteemed members of this Church, in the condition they now stand, than a withered 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 Errors. The Essence of the Church consists in her Faith, Sacraments, Discipline: In all these ('tis too manifest to be denied) Protestant's 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, Errors; which is a bold and erroneous presumption: wherein they imitate no less the old Heretics in the Primitive times of the Church, viz. the Novatians, Arians, Nestorians, etc. 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 Errors; 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 
§ 26. num. 1.  judgement you can have, where sense of Scripture is doubted, than a General Council, I do not see. And immediately after he citys a long Text of A. C's. which speaks to this purpose; That if all the Pastors of the Church be gathered together in the Name of Christ, and pray unanimously for the promised Assistance of the Holy Ghost, making great and diligent search and examination of the Scriptures and other grounds of Faith, and hearing each Pastor 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 Pastors of the Church (or General Council) may err 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 called, nor indeed possible to be called, as A. C. speaks of, viz. in which all Pastors were gathered together. As if A. C. were so simple, as by all Pastors 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 Pastors of the Church in this sense were gathered together: especially he having so clearly declared his meaning to the contrary, in defending the Council of Trent to have been a true General Council: where 'tis manifest all Pastors whatsoever did not convene; though there were as many, as had met in some other General Councils, esteemed even by Protestants for such. And strange it is to see, how long the Relatour skirmishes with mere shadows, and what inferences he makes merely upon this most salsly-supposed, and wholly-improbable sense of A. C's. words. All Pastors then, in that Text of A. C. signify no more, than 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 called, be gathered together, 'tis the ALL that A. C. intends: and if these lawfully assembled, pray for the promised 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. only tells us, that the Decree of such a General Council was Firm, and Infallible, that is, not only Firm, but also Infallible. Is this to make them signify the same thing? Neither doth he speak so much of what is Infallible in itself, 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 settling Controversies in the Church, and making all points of Faith not only Firm, but Infallible.  
6. What the Relatour brings in his swelling Margin, out of Optatus and St. Austin, serves only to amuse his Reader. We grant that Christ did not die Intestate, but left behind him a Will; which was afterwards written. So that in rigour of speech he left only a Nuncupative Will, which was after delivered to the Church, partly by Writing, partly by Tradition. However, we stand not upon the terms, but the thing itself; 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 lived before this Will was written, or at least before it was generally received or known for such? Again, what are we now to do, when either this written Word is called in question, or the matter in Controversy not so clearly set down therein, as to put a period to contention? Do the forecited Authors deny, that in such case we must have recourse to Tradition? Nothing less.  
Certainly St. Austin believed the necessity of Infant-Baptism, the unlawfulness of rebaptising the duly-baptized by Heretics, with many other points, which no man can evidently prove out of the written Word alone: nay the Scripture itself he believed for no other reason, than the Authority of the Church and Tradition. Wherefore I cannot sufficiently wonder at those words of his Lordship to A. C. in the Margin, where by way of defiance he tells him, he could show no Father of the Church, who taught, that Christ ever lest behind 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 behind him a Nuncupative Will, since 'tis in itself most evident, and undeniable? Did he leave (I pray) any other than 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 shown 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 Christ's Doctrine) which is equivalent to a Nuncupative Will. And as to this we say that Bellarmin, and all Catholic Divines, who write of the word of God written and unwritten, do effectually prove it, not only by the Authority of St. Austin, and the unanimous consent of the Fathers, but even by the very Text of Scripture itself. 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 signify a Nuncupative Will, and Obligatory? Does not Saint Irenaeus teach us the same? Oportet ordinem sequi Traditionis, etc. We 
Iren. lib. 3. adver. Haeres. cap. 4.  must (saith he) follow the order of Tradition, which they have delivered to us, to whom the Apostles committed the Government of the Churches. Doth he not tell us in the same 
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, etc. Iren. ubi supra.  Chapter of whole Nations of Christians, even in his time (which was somewhat above two hundred years after Christ) who most perfectly believed the Christian Faith, though they had not any part of the Scripture to direct them? Doth not 
b Tertullian. de Coron. Milit. cap. 3. & 4.  Tertullian teach the same, together with 
c D. Cyprian. Epist. 63.  Saint Cyprian, 
d D. Basil. lib. 3. de Spirit. Sanct. cap. 27. & 29.  St. Basil, 
e D. Epiphan. Haeres. 61. & 75. Item in Anchorat.  Epiphanius, 
f D. Hieron. Dial. contr. Lucif.  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 Pope's Confirmation to a General Council; telling us, 'tis 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 find the Confirmations of the several Popes, who then sat, 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 Pastor 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 confirmed by the consent of the whole Church yielding to it, we answer, his Allegation might well have been spared; 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 err in defining, so neither can the whole Church Diffusive and Formal err 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 itself extended throughout the several Provinces of Christendom. But the Pope's Confirmation is Primary, Essential, and absolutely necessary; because without it, what the Council declares neither is, nor can be esteemed the Act, or Judgement of the whole Church Representative; the Pope being the chief Member both of Church and Council. The Church's Acceptation is, as I have said, a Confirmation also; but this is only Accessary, 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 confirmed by the chief Bishop, but this, viz. that its Decrees are universally received 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 confirmed by the Pope, are obligatory without it, and antecedently to it.  
But what if St. Austin say no such thing as the Bishop citys him for, viz. to prove that 'tis the consent of the whole Church Diffusive, that confirms the Decrees of General Councils, and not the Pope's Authority. His words are these. 
a D. Aug. lib. 1. De Baptism. cap. 18.  Illis temporibus, antequàm Plenarij Concilij Sententiâ, quid in hâc re sequendum esset, totius Ecclesiae consensio confirmasset, visum est ei, etc. where 'tis evident, the Father speaking of St. Cyprians error, the whole drift of his speech is to tell us, it was the more excusable in him, because he defended it only 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 confirmed by the consent of the whole Church yielding to it, and not otherwise, as the Bishop will needs persuade us? Surely no. To conclude therefore, we think, the Bishop could not well have more effectually justified 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 determine matters of Controversy by the sentence of a General Council; in which the whole Church's consent is both virtually included, and effectually declared.  
8. The Bishop is not yet well pleased with A. C. but goes on in his 
Ibid. n. 2.  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. urged and proved, by what reasons he could, the necessity of the Pope's Authority for ending Controversies in Faith; that being the point his Adversary most especially denied? 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 called, will not be of one mind. 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, (says the Bishop) He hath, left an Infallible Rule, the Scripture. But this Answer A. C. foreseeing, prevented by his following words, 
a Indeed the Protestants admit no infallible Means, Rule, or Judge, but only Scripture, which every man may interpret, as he pleases, and so all shall be uncertain. A. C. pag. 60  (had the Relatour pleased to set them down) which show the inconvenience of admitting that Rule, as Protestants admit it; since it renders all matters of Faith uncertain. What says 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 adds 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 
Ibidem. n. 3.  amongst Christians; and about things not necessary there ought not to be contention to a Separation; and therefore no matter how uncertain and undetermined they be.  
But surely here the Bishop went too far, and lost himself in his own Labyrinth. For if by matters necessary to Salvation he understands only such as are of absolute necessity to be expressly known and believed 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 Catholic Church, which hath ever obliged her Children, under pain of Anathema, to separate themselves from thousands of Sectaries and Heretics, (as namely from the Montanists, the Quartodecimani, the Rebaptizers, Monothelites, Pelagians, Semi-Pelagians, Vigilantians, Iconoclasts, and the like) who held all those foresaid necessary matters, and erred only in such, as were not absolutely and universally necessary to be expressly known, and believed by all Christians whatsoever.  
But if by necessaries to salvation, he mean any of those, which Divines term necessary, necessitate praecepti, he should have assigned them in particular: for till that be done, such General Answers as the Bishop here gives, signify 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 proved at large (Chap. 2. and in other places) that 'tis necessary to salvation to believe whatever is sufficiently proposed to us by the Church, whether clearly contained 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 delivered in Scripture.  
The Holy Scripture alone is not qualified for such a Rule of Faith as the Bishop would make us believe it is. For though it may be granted 
Ibidem. n. 4.  to be certain and Infallible in itself, yet is it not so in order to us, nor so much as known to us for God's 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 Counsels. 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 acknowledged it already upon sundry occasions, will now say so too: it is the principal, not the only Rule. He adores the fullness 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 Heretic, that the world, or matter whereof this world consists, was not eternal, but created by God in time. Again 'tis no way probable that Tertullian here extends the Fullness of Scripture so far as to exclude all unwritten Tradition, which in other parts of his 
b Tertull. lib. De 〈◊〉. Milit. lib. 1. cont. Martion. lib. 2. ad uxor. lib. 〈◊〉 Veland, Virgin.  works, he maintains more expressly, than many other of the Fathers. What's the Subject of his whole Book De praescriptionibus, but to show that Heretics 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 error 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 Contra insurgentes Haereses saepe pugnavi Agraphis, verum non alienis à piâ secundum Scripturam sententiâ. D. Basil. Serm. De Fide. Tom. 2. pag. 153.  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 Bishop's conceit upon 
Ibidem. n. 5.  Gedeon's Fleece, we aver, that Scripture hath not only Dew upon it, but water in it, and that enough, not only for a Lamb to wade thorough, 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 only Infallible Rule: which is contrary to the common belief of all true Christians, contrary to express Scripture, and the constant judgement and practice of the Church in all ages; and according to the example of none but confessed and condemned Heretics.  
9 But the Bishop tells us, that though the Pope should be granted 
Ibidem. n. 6.  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 solder the rents which are made. His 
1 Cor. 11. 19  reason is, because oportet Haereses esse, etc. 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 secured from such Rents by the Authority of its chief Pastor, where 'tis duly acknowledged. The malice of the Devil and impious men, by inventing Heresies, hurt not the Church, but themselves and their Adherents, who by their Heresy and Schism make a divorce from the Church, that is, either sever themselves, or are justly cut off from her for their errors; 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 adhered to Schismatical and Heretical Congregations.  
And herein truly, if passion did not too much blind us, experience would tell us, that had not the Pope received from God the power he challenges, of Governing the Church as Supreme 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 Professors of that Religion) or to have subsisted thus long, had his pretention to it been grounded on mere 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 acknowledged 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 composed 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 Supreme Magistrate and Judge) to determine emergent Controversies, and preserve peace in Temporal affairs: and thence à paritate rationis, or rather à fortiori infers, 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 arguments nothing. The Similitude upon which A. C. grounds his discourse, is, that the whole Militant Church is a Kingdom; which the Bishop denies, telling us, they are no mean ones, who think our Saviour Christ left the Church Militant in the Hands of the Apostles and their Successors, in an Aristocratical, or mixed Government. But I answer, though A. C. urges the Argument in the Similitude of a Kingdom only, yet is it of force in any other kind of settled Government. In a Commonwealth, beside the Law-Books, 'tis requisite, there be a living Judge, or Judges, invested with Supreme Authority to determine all matters in difference amongst the people.  
What the Relatour brings against the Monarchy of the Militant Church, shows only, that it is not a pure, but a mixed 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 virtue of the Monarch's Authority, and merely as his Substitutes. A mixed Monarchy is that, in which one indeed is Supreme, 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 Supreme Government of the Church is clearly Monarchical. Seeing the Pope, as Vicar of Christ, and St. Peter's Successor, hath a Supreme Authority over the whole Church: yet is not his Monarchy pure, but mixed; because Bishops, within their respective Dioceses and Jurisdictions, are Spiritual Princes also, that is, Chief Pastors and Governors of such a part of the Church, in their own right, and not merely 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 Bishopric, 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 pleased to term him) then Aristocratically, or by many, as he would have it? And as for the Literae Communicatoriae, 
Ibid. n. 8.  (which himself alleges against this Monarchical Government) they rather prove our Assertion, being ordained by Sixtus the first, in favour of such Bishops, as were called to Rome, or otherwise forced to repair thither; to the end they might without scruple be received into their own Diocese 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 Dioceses in the Church, than 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 Patriarches and Bishops to the Bishop of Rome, for admitting any into Episcopal, or Priestly Office, that went from them to him; as I find nothing of it in Baronius (who yet handles the matter at large) so I doubt not, but it is a mere Chimaera. And had the Bishop pleased, with all his professed diligence in the search, to have afforded us any instance, in a business of such importance, there would doubtless have appeared a manifest difference and inequality between them, viz. that those sent to the Pope from other Prelates, were merely Testimonial, to assure him that the person bringing them, was capable of his Communion: whereas those from the Pope to other Bishops were not only Testimonial, but Mandatory, or such as enjoined 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 Catholic Bishops, persecuted and expelled their Seas by the Arrians, and restored by virtue of the Pope's Letters Communicatory. But, should the Pope voluntarily submit to the Equity of his own Law, that is, not only 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 Pope's Authority.  
ARGUMENT.  
1. Gersons Book de auferibilitate Papae proves nothing for the Bishop, or his Party. 2. St. Hierome and Optatus expounded. 3. The Pope's 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 delivered to the Prince. 7. The Pope never pretended to Subject the Emperor to himself in Temporals. 8. The Jesuits unjustly charged by the Bishop. 9 Occam, no competent Judge in the question of the Pope's 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, 
§. 26. n. 8.  and examine more narrowly the Bishop's Marginal Allegations. Gerson, that famous Chancellor of Paris and undoubted Catholic, writ a Book, in troublesome times, entitled De auferibilitate Papae: whence the Relatour concludes, that the Author was of opinion, the Church might continue in very good being without a Monarchical Head. A strange Illation, and contrary to what Gerson expressly teaches in the very treatise the Bishop citys! The drift of Gerson's discourse is to show, how many several ways the Pope may be taken away, that is, deprived 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 ruled by a Pope lawfully chosen, can be absolutely abolished 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 alleges Authors. Auferibilis est (saith he) aut mutabilis, LEGE STANTE, quaelibet 
Gerson Tract. De Auferibilitat. Papae. Consid. 8.  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 
Item. Consid. 20.  IMMUTABILITER MONARCHIC AM, & quodammodò Regalem, nisi Ecclesiam. In English thus. Any 
Auferibilis non est usque ad consummationem saeculi VICARIUS SPON SUS Ecclesiae, quin aliquis Certus & Unicus 〈◊〉, etc.  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 Supreme 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 infer, 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 seemed to prefer 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) than Priests, save only the Power of Ordination: that the riches, wealth, and amplitude of their respective Dioceses make not one Bishop greater than another; but that all Bishops, where ever they be placed, are of one and the same merit and degree in regard of Ecclesiastical Priesthood: which (speaking precisely of the Office, and Power Episcopal in itself) is very true: for a larger or lesser Diocese makes not one man more or less a Bishop, than 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 accessary collation (whether by divine or humane Institution) of some special and more eminent Power and Authority upon the Bishop of one Diocese, then of another: as we say there is conferred, jure Divino, upon the Bishop of Rome, as he is St. Peter's Successor; and jure Ecclesiastico upon many other Bishops, viz. Archbishops, Metropolitans, Primates, etc. who by the Canons of the Church exercise authority over many Bishops, who in regard of the power merely Episcopal are equal to them. St. Hierome therefore, when he says ubicunque fuerit Episcopus, sive Romae, sive Eugubii, sive Constantinopoli, sive Rhegii, 
Hier. Epist. ad Evagrium.  sive Alexandria, 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 Peter's Successor, but only compares him with another private Bishop in respect of mere Character, or power of a Bishop as Bishop only. And as he doth not the facto speak of the Pope as Successor of St. Peter; so is it certain, that the 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 only in his Epistle to Pope Damasus already cited, (where he professeth, that to be out of the Pope's Communion is to be an Alien from the Church of Christ) but also in his Commentaries on the 13. Psalms, where he calls St. Peter, Head of the Church; and Epist. ad Demetriad. Virg. where he styles the Pope Successor of the Apostolic Chair; and speaks to the same purpose in divers other places of his 
a D. Hieronym. in cap 16. Matth. Epist. 54. ad Marcel. & lib. 1. Dial. cont. Lucif.  works.  
But now the Bishop, to give a home-blow, as he imagined, to the Pope's Authority over the whole Church, pretends to bring a great and undoubted Rule, given by Optatus; who tells us, the Church is in 
Ibidem. n. 9  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 Emperor, or King, will endure another King within his Dominions to be greater than 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 exercised only 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 administered. Neither must it come under debate, whether the administration of the spiritual Monarchy ought to be endured or not, seeing Christ hath so ordained it: nor would the Relatour (I suppose) have urged 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 Governors 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 denies 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, does not all the world see, that they do not only 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 than 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 only injurious to those Two great Monarches, but destructive of his own Argument. For he tells us, the Pope's power is of little esteem in the Kingdoms of these Two Catholic Princes further 
Ibidem.  than to serve their own turns of him; which they do (saith he) to their great advantage Thus, what the two great Catholic Princes of Christendom profess to do upon the Account of Faith and Conscience, the Relatour hath the confidence to tell us, they do it merely 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 endured 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 Council, or authoritatively Declare what ought to be believed, when matters of Faith were questioned? or how should they (otherwise then precariously) cause their Decisions to be received through the whole Church, if either there were no Supreme Spiritual Governor 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 Christ's Church, he, in effect, overthrows all Church-Government whatsoever, even that which himself would seem to approve.  
It remains therefore fully proved, that the external Government of the Church on earth is Monarchical, not purely and absolutely, but mixed, as hath been already declared. Neither do we style 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 Christ's 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 considered, 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 Christ's Flock. They are no less Chief Officers of Christ, than the Pope, though not in all respects equal to him, or so absolute, as to govern without dependence 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 declared, because 
Bellarm. lib. 1. De Rom. Pont. cap. 7.  he teaches 'tis to be governed by Bishops; since in the place alleged, he declares the Government of the Church only as 'tis contradistinct from the government of Temporal Princes; not as inferior Bishops are distinguished from the Supreme, or Chief Bishop: that's another question, and treated by him in another place: it being sufficient to his purpose there to show, that the Church was to be governed by Ecclesiastical, not Temporal Princes; without disputing whether the said Ecclesiastical Governors 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 ordered by one Monarch, as a particular Kingdom may by one King. For how (saith he) will this one Supreme execute his Office, if the 
Ibid. n. 10.  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 Surmise, that we would have one Emperor over all 
Ibid. n. 11.  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 Symbol of the Ecclesiastical, and the Moon, of the Civil Power; which the Relatour interprets for us to signify the Pope and the Emperor. I answer. First, did not men love contention; there would be no quarrelling about such Conceits as these; which are never taken for Argumentative, but merely 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 compared 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 Celestial; (whereas the Object of the Imperial Power are only the Things of this world) there's little question, but the Ecclesiastical Power excels the Imperial, no less than 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 Emperor by the Moon.  
But the Pope (forsooth) makes too much odds between his own power and the Emperors, abasing that of the Emperor so far as to make it forty seven times less than 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 conceit, than 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 Supreme Pastor of the whole Church. Let our Adversaries disprove this, and not trifle about Allegories. We confess also, that the Emperor is Supreme 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 orb; the one in Spirituals, the other in Temporals. By which it appears, we are far from depressing the Imperial power lower than God hath made it, as the Relatour most injuriously chargeth us. No, we honour, and very willingly acknowledge the Emperor, in Tertullia's style, Hominem 
Ibidem. Tertul. adv. Scapulam.  à Deo secundum, & solo Deo minorem, viz. in the administration of all Civil affairs; in which doubtless all persons within his Dominion, aught to be subject to him. Yet does it not belong to the Emperor 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 Pastors 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 Supreme Governors of the Church, or reform Religion on their own account, without or contrary to the said Pastors.  
6. A Book of the Law ('tis true) was anciently by God's 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 happened to come in Controversy? 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 itself declares.  
Neither is it to be doubted, but in case of Notorious and Gross Abuses, manifestly contrary to Religion, and connived at by the Pastors 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 Pastors; as the examples of Ezekias and Josias prove, alleged by the Bishop. But they prove not, that Princes may themselves take upon them the Priest's 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 Priest's consent; They prove not, that Princes may determine the Controversies of the Law, God having expressly reserved them to the Priest's 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 Leprosy, for but attempting to usurp the Priest's 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, than those of the Mosaical Law.  
7. Nor did the Popes ever attempt, or so much as pretend to bring the Emperors under them in Civil affairs, which is another aspersion the Bishop lays upon them. Gregory the Seventh, and Innocent 
Ibidem.  the Third were indeed very prudent men, and worthy Champions of the Church, to assert her just liberties; but they never endeavoured to subject the Emperor to themselves in Temporal matters: and it had been more for our Adversaries credit, instead of falsely 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, than a Primate of England.  
8. The Relatour could not leave his digressive Discourse, without giving a lash to the Jesuits, by willing them to leave their practising to advance the greatness of the Pope and Emperor. But I wonder he could so easily believe, that men of understanding (as he sticks not to acknowledge Jesuits to be) should by Vow deprive themselves of the riches and pleasures of this world, with design to make the Pope and Emperor 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 Churchmen and Religious may) unless by way of Obedience, when expressly thereto commanded by the Pope, under pain of Sin.  
He skips from the Jesuits to the Friars. A certain Friar at Madrid 
Ibid. n. 12.  (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; 'twas just now the Pope and the Emperor.) There were also divers other Emblematical Fancies added; by which was intimated; that his Catholic 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 lays all open. 'Tis called LA CONVENIENTIA DE LAS DOES MONAR QUIAS' CATOLICAS'; in English, The Agreement of the Two Catholic Monarchies, viz. of the Pope and of Spain. To all which the Bishop adds his own particular reflection, that the Book had all manner of Licence, that a Book could have, For answer to it, we deny not but such a Book was both licenced and printed: but doubtless, who ever peruses the contents of it impartially, will judge it was both licenced 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 Friar stood for his own King, so Campanella (another Friar) 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 promised 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 Conceits, 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. 'Tis sufficient for us to have proved, that the Pope is Universal Pastor 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 
Ibid. n. 13.  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 than 'tis necessary for determining Civil Differences, and preserving Civil peace and unity among Christians, to have one Emperor over the whole world. To confirm this, the Authority of Occam is cited, saying, that it is not necessary there should be one Governor of the whole Church under Christ; but 'tis 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 alleges) are in the Index of forbidden Books, Occam himself is no such unquestionable Author among Catholics, that we should think ourselves obliged to defend what ever he says, especially in a question that concerns the Pope's 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 Occam fancies, viz. a Government consisting of many, not Subordinate to any One, as Head and Supreme over them, it would have been requisite, that all those Independent and Coordinate Governors in the Church should have been Infallible: otherwise the Government of the Church would have been little less than a mere Anarchy, without Unity, or Certainty in any thing: which must have destroyed the very end of Government, and exposed the whole Body of the Catholic 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 shows us this Truth in all Countries, where no Infallibility is acknowledged.  
Again, Occam speaking only de possibili of what our Saviour might have done, had he pleased, his doctrine cannot evince any thing in disproof of what we maintain to have been de facto established in God's Church; that is, one Universal Pastor appointed by Christ over the whole Flock.  
10. Remain it therefore a settled Catholic principle, that the Pope hath power over the whole Church of God, according to the Declaration of the Ecumenical Council of Florence, in which both the Greek and Latin Church concurred; and that to teach the contrary is undoubted Heresy. The words of the Council are these. Definimus Sanctam Apostolicam Sedem, & Romanum Pontificem in Universum orbem tenere Primatum, etc. We define (saith the Council) that the Holy Apostolic Sea, and Bishop of Rome have Primacy over the whole world; and that the said Bishop of Rome is Successor 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 Doctor 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 'tis likewise contained in the Acts of other Ecumenical Councils, and in the Sacred Canons. So that Occam, or any other, that seem to oppose this, if they be Catholics, must be understood to speak only de possibili, of what Christ our Saviour might have done, if he had pleased; or to mean only, that the Pope doth not govern the Church in such an absolute Monarchical way, as that he alone is the only Governor 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 Pope's Presiding therein, necessary, and of Ancient Right. 3. The Place itself, indifferent for all parties. 4. No Oath taken by the Bishops, but what the Ancient Canons prescribed, 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, 
§. 27. n. 1.  as if he meant to submit to their Determinations, occasioned A. C. to tell him, that a General Council (viz. that of Trent) had already judged the Protestants, to hold errors. 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 Catholics, 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, than were present at some other Councils, confessedly General. But let us hear the Bishop's exceptions against this Council.  
His first exception is, that the Abettors of this Council maintain publicly, that 'tis lawful for them to conclude any Controversy, and make it DE FIDE, and so in our judgement FUNDAMENTAL, though it be not contained in Scripture, nor so much as probably deduced thence; and for this opinion Doctor Stapleton is cited in the Margin. I answer, No Catholic Author 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 only that which is expressed or involved in the word of God, written, or unwritten, that is Tradition: And this indeed is defined by the very Council of Trent, in these terms, that in matters of Faith we are to rely not only upon Scripture, but also on Tradition. Now that this doctrine is true, hath been already 
a Chap. 6, 7, 14.  proved; and that it cannot make the Council illegal is manifest, even from the Bishops own Principles. For he confesseth, that 
b Relat. §. 16 n. 20.  Apostolical Tradition (when it can be certainly known for such) is as truly the word of God, as Scripture itself: and 'tis 
c Ch. 6. 7.  certainly known to be such by the Tradition, or Definition of the Church, as hath been likewise heretofore proved, 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 Ecumenical 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 reformed) 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 'tis esteemed by all parties a Lawful and Authentical Council. Nor can it be proved, that the Pope was more the person to be reformed at Trent, then at Chalcedon. 'Tis true, the persons condemned by both these Councils pretended, that (excepting only themselves) the whole Church, and chiefly the Pope erred, and by consequence were to be reformed: but as the former complained without ground, in the opinion of all but themselves, so did the latter, and so do all their Adherents. Alexander, Patriarch of Alexandria, was esteemed a great Party, and Delinquent, by the Arrians, for having acted so zealously in defence of the Catholic Faith against their Master, Arius: Yet he sat a chief Judge with the other Bishops, and had both a Prime place, and Vote in the first Council of Nice, where their Heresy was condemned. Saint Cyril presided in the Third General Council, though by the Nestorian Heretics there condemned, he were counted a Party.  
Add to this, that in the abovementioned Council of Chalcedon the cause was very particular between Pope Leo, and Dioscorus; and yet not only the Legates of the said Pope presided in the Council, during the whole agitation of the business, but the condemnation of Dioscorus was even framed by Pope Leo, and approved 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 reformed. 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 Heretic. Protestants therefore have no just cause to quarrel the Pope's presiding in Councils, especially so long as he is not justly accusable of any crime, but such, as must involve not only the Council, but the whole Church, as much as himself; as 'tis evident he was not, when he presided in the Council of Trent. 'Tis not therefore contrary, but conformable to all Law, Divine, Natural, and Humane, that the Head should preside over the Members; and to give novelists liberty to Decline the Pope's judgement, or the judgement of any other their lawful Superiors, upon 〈◊〉 of their being parties, or by them accused of error, 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 Heresy, Schism, and other offences against Religion?  
But the Bishop, in his large Margin, denies as well matter of 
Ibidem.  Fact, as matter of Right, in this question of the Pope's presiding in General Councils: telling us, that in the First Council of Nice, Hosius was Precedent, 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 Pope's 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 allowed to do it? There were Patriarches, and many other Bishops of far greater Dignity than 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 Cedrens. in Compend. Hist.  Cedrenus and 
b Photius, in lib. 〈◊〉 7. Synod.  Photius confess, that the Pope gave Authority to the Nicen Council by his Legates: which is somewhat more, then barely to Preside in the Protestants sense; and by what Legates, if not by those abovementioned? I add, that in the old Preface to the Council of Sardica, extant in the First Tome of the Councils, it is expressly said, that Hosius was the Pope's Legate, and in right of that Legatship presided in the Council. 
c Hincmar. in opusc. 55. cap. 20.  Hincmarus also, an Ancient Author, 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. Add to these the testimony 
d Gelas. Cyzicen. in Prologue. ad Syntag. Conc. Nicen. & in Syntag. Conc., Nicen. lib. 2. cap. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  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 Photius 〈◊〉 Bibliothec. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  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 Legate for the Bishop of Rome at the Council of Nice.  
In the second General Council 'tis true, Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople was Precedent, and not the Pope, or his Legates. But the reason was, because Pope Damasus having first summoned 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 mind, and would have had them come to Rome, to join with the Bishops he had there assembled: which the Prelates at Constantinople refusing in a submissive manner, alleged 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 Theod. lib. 5. Hist. cap. 9 10.  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 looked 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 Legates to that Council: in which Letter he gives St. Cyril charge to supply his place; as is testified by 
a Evagr. lib. 1. cap. 4.  Evagrius, 
b Prosp. in Chronic.  Prosper, 
c Phot. in lib. de 7. Synod.  Photius and divers other 
d Niceph. lib. 14. cap. 24. Liberat. in Breviar. cap. 15. Justinian. in edict.  Authors. In the fourth, at Chalcedon, the Bishop himself cannot deny, but the Pope, by his Legates, had the prime place: and that it was as Precedents, appears by the 
e Leo Epist. 47. Epist. Conc. Chalced. 〈◊〉 Leon. Act. 3.  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 Precedent; yet so as he acknowledged this privilege 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, etc.) which are extant at the end of the Fifth Council. In the sixth and seventh the Bishop grants, the Pope's Legates presided; but adds, that the office of Moderator 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 ordered by those who were really Precedents of the Assembly, that is, by the Pope's Legates. I conclude therefore, that Bellarmin had just ground to say, The Pope 
Bellar. lib. 1. de Concil. cap. 21. §. Tertia conditio.  hath been possessed, full fifteen hundred years, of the right of Presiding in General Councils; and the Bishop was grossly mistasten in saying the Cardinal gives no proof of it, but only his bare word; since in the very place the Bishop citys, he mentions it as proved elsewhere (viz. Ibid. cap 19) where the Relatour might have found it, had he pleased to have turned to it.  
3. His third exception is, that the place was not Free, but either in, or too near the Pope's Dominions. But certainly Trent is not within the Pope's 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 Catholics with him might justly demand it should not be held in Germany, where the Lutherans 
Ubi suprà.  were so potent. Hereupon Bellarmin well observes, that no fitter place, or more void of exceptions could have been found, than Trent, in the Confines of Italy and Germany, had it been left to the arbitrement even of an infidel. As to what he says, that all were not called, who had Deliberative or Consultative Voices in the Council, he should have told us who they were, that were not called, in such manner as was necessary. Must all Bishops and Pastors have been called by name? It appears by the Pope's Bull of Summons, that the the Invitation was as general as could be; nor can it be denied, but its publication in all Provinces of Christendom was as general also, as the distractions and troubles of the times would permit. How then can it be said, all were not called 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 called 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 Custom in his 
D. Greg. lib. 10. epist. 31.  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 tied to Rome and the Pope by Faith and Christian Communion, that they were sworn Enemies of all such Heretics, as then respectively called either for Reformation, or such a Free Council, as Protestants now do, viz. that should include all Schismatics and Heretics 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 only 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 Heretics 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 condemned their opinions for Heresy.  
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 called all that had right to come, 
Ibid. num. 2.  making no exclusive mention of any. Secondly, the Greeks by reason of their notorious Schism, 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 confessed, that no known Heretic 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 expelled, and by force kept out of their Seas by those who had wrongfully usurped them; and these assisted at the Council of Trent in their own right, viz. as Catholic Bishops of the Greek Church. Neither needed they any particular sending from the Greeks, as the case then stood, and still continues; 'tis sufficient they were called 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 reckoned no more than one English, viz. the Bishop of St. Asaph. I answer, many more were both called and expected; who likewise came long before the end of the Council, and confirmed by their Suffrage what had passed before their coming: which was sufficient. Concerning those of our Country, the Relatour seems not to have been so well versed 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 mentioned 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 only 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 'tis 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 restrained in prison by Queen Elizabeth. The Bishop therefore being so apt to mistake in the Affairs of his own country, we cannot give much credit to him, in what he affirms either of France or Spain. It sufficeth, that in divers 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 Defined by the Council, was the novo confirmed and ratified by the unanimous consent of all the Prelates) 'tis 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 considered, A. C. wanted not 
§. 28. n. 1.  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 show the Disparity in divers respects. First, saith he, the Bishops of the Nicen Council professed, not to depart from Scripture, but engaged to prove what they defined, 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 alleged Scripture for their Heresy, 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 only rule, or so made use of it, as to reject Tradition; for which the Scripture itself is admitted. In confirmation of which Theodoret expressly 
Theod. Hist. lib. 1. cap. 8.  says, that in condemning the Arian Heresy the Council of Nice grounded itself upon Tradition: not but that many Testimonies of Scripture were rightly urged 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 Catholics brought against them, and partly alleging not a few Texts for their own opinion, against the Catholic Doctrine.  
As to what he adds in the Margin, 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 Relics, believed Purgatory, the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Holy Eucharist, and generally acknowledged all other Sacraments, declared 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 denied 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 defined to be Heretical? Had they Scripture for the condemnation of the Quartodecimani and Rebaptizers; both which the said Council condemned together with the Arians? If our Adversaries cannot show 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 
§. 29. num. 1  know the Pope's 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 Pope's corrupt Design, 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 Ands, in that whereon he grounds an Accusation of so great importance, but have sufficiently proved, that there was the facto an extraordinary creation of Supernumerary and merely Titular Bishops, made about that time, and sent to the Council to serve the Pope's 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 disproven by the very Argument he brings to assert it, viz. the multitude of Italian Prelates. For who knows not, that the Italians are more divided in point of Interest and Dependence, than any other Nation in Christendom, by reason of the many Sovereign Principalities and States, into which Italy is divided? Though therefore we should surmise, that the Italian Prelates 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 Prince's 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 esteem it considerable.  
To what the Relatour says touching the number of Bishops in the 
Ibid. num. 2.  said Council, that there were in it a hundred and four Italian Bishops, more than of all the rest of Christendom. 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 does it prejudice our cause? 'Tis manifest, the far greater number of Italian Bishops were of the Domions of other Princes, and had not the least shadow of any Temporal Dependence on the Pope; and consequently no stricter tye upon them, to serve his Interests, than all the rest of the Bishops in that Council. The reason, why there might be more Bishops of Italy, than other places, is evident, in regard that Country was in a far more quiet condition, then either Germany or France; which at that time, were both infected with Heresy, and imbroiled in Civil Wars; so that the chief Pastors 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 add, that there are more Bishoprics in Italy, then in any Nation of Christendom, 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 
Ibid. num. 3.  Trent, which was not common to him, with all the Bishops in that Council; nay indeed, with all the Catholic Bishops of Christendom? Was it not the Interest of all the Bishops in Christendom (except those of the new stamp) to keep Heresy out of their respective Dioceses 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 sat at Nice, 
Ibidem.  Pope Sylvester held a Council at Rome, in which he, with two hundred seventy five Bishops of the West, confirmed the Nicen Creed, and Anathematised 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 happened, that this was done de facto in confirmation of the Nicen Definitions, yet had they not been of less Authority without such an Accessary Assembly, provided the Pope had ratified 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 Council of Nice, (as the Relatour, to amuse his Reader, pretends) but after it, as the Acts themselves testify. 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 received by the whole Catholic Church; which was a confirmation incomparably greater than that of two hundred seventy five Bishops: and the same Faith hath been far more constantly held ever since; none of the Catholic Provinces of Christendom, represented in that Council, ever deserting the Faith there declared: whereas many Provinces either in whole or part, deserted the Faith defined at Nice, and embraced the Arrian Heresy.  
8. Here, for want of solid reasons, the Bishop falls again to his surmizes; 
Ibid. num. 4.  by which he would fain insinuate to his credulous Reader, that the Fathers in the Council of Trent were so awed by the Pope's Authority, or swayed by his Interest, that either they durst not, or would not open themselves so far 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 Prelates 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 Prelates 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 Controversy 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 Pope's strong party, and the Bishops-being overawed in the Council of Trent, I conclude, that seeing none of the Fathers there assembled, no not any of those who lived either under the wing of Protestant Princes, or where Liberty of Conscience was allowed, ever sided with Protestants, but constantly and zealously persevered, even till death, in the Faith and Doctrine they had subscribed in that Council, and showed 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 called 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, endeavoured to feel the Pulse of the Greek Church, to see if they could there find 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 pursued, (though formerly in vain attempted) that they would not desist, till (the Patriarch being settled in his Throne) they had sent to him the sum of their Reformed Belief; drawn up according to the Augustan Confession, which had been composed by Melancthon, and approved by their Patriarch, Luther. After a long intercourse of Letters, Answers, and Replies, mutually continued for some years, and all arguments used, that might induce the Patriarch to receive them into his Communion, he could not be courted to so much as the least show of approving their doctrine; but did in all his Answers clearly confirm the Tenets of the Roman-Catholique Church, which those Lutherans endeavoured to overthrow. Insomuch that at last the Patriarch tired with their importunity, gave them a rebuke for their departure from the Doctrine of the Catholic Church, and desired them not to trouble him any more with their writings. All this is more largely related by 
a Spondan. Continuat. Baron. ad Ann. 1574. num. 16.  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 errors be accounted rash or precipitate; seeing they had a full Hearing by him they had made their address to: who was not only 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 Catholics account him a Shismatique: this cannot prejudice his Censure in reference to Protestants. He was such a schismatic, 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 finds not this Censure of Hieremias warranted by any Authority of the Greek Church, shows 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 testify the Doctrine he declares, to be the Doctrine of the Catholic 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 disclaimed the Doctrine of one of his successors, whom they deposed and ejected as an Heretic, because his Tenets savoured 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 acknowledged by the Interessed Lutherans themselves, in their Acta Theologorum Wittenbergensium, etc. published after the Treaty ended, and more expressly by some 
b See Sir Edwin Sands his Europae Speculum.  English Writers.  
Well therefore might A. C. affirm, without making himself a Prophet, that if ever such a Free Council, as the Relatour seemed to wish, were gathered out of the East and West Provinces of Christendom, 
Ross his Pansebia. Brierwoods' Inquiries, etc.  Protestants would doubtless be condemned for Heretics. For this is not to Prophesy, 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 Catholic 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 than did this Patriarch Hieremias.   

CHAP. 20. Of the Infallibility and Authority of General Councils.  
ARGUMENT.  
1. The Bishop's pretended Forwardness for a General Council, merely Delusive. 2. His Erring General Council, qualified at most but to unite in Error against Scripture and Demonstration. 3. The Bishop's Remedy against his Council intolerably Erring, instrumental to all Disunion. 4. The Authority of Ecumenical Councils, whence derived. 5. Their Infallibility evidenced from the same Texts of Scripture, that proved the Church Infallible. 6. The Text, (Mat. 18. 20.) Where Two, or Three are gathered together in my Name, etc. Vindicated in proof of the Infallibility of lawful General Councils. 7. The Decrees of Legally-confirmed General Councils, in points of Faith, truly styled the Oracles of the Holy Ghost. 8. The whole Church liable to Error, if a General Council may Err, in points of Faith. 9 St. Augustine's Text, (lib. 2. De Baptism. cap. 3.) That General Councils may be amended, the former by the latter, etc. explicated at large.  
1. THe Bishop having cast as much dirt as he was able, upon the 
§. 30.  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, says (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 yourselves, if you do not consent? As though, forsooth, there were no more required to the assembling of a General Council, than the King's inclination, and the English Catholics consent. Is not this a gross delusion?  
He tells us for a wonder, That A. C. marvels, what kind of General Council he would have, and what Rules observed in it, that were Morally like to make an End of Controversies, better than our Catholic General Councils. Was this to express any backwardness to a lawful 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 observed 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 satisfy him, that 
Ibidem.  is called, continued; and ended according to the same course, and under the same conditions, which General Councils observed 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 final End of our Controversies: seeing Catholics 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 only to deceive the Reader) citys he 
a Bellar. lib. 1. de Concil. cap. 17. §. 2.  the Latin Text of Bellarmin in his Margin, as though he concurred with him in the requisite conditions of a General Council: whereas by those conditions are clearly excluded all Excommunicated Bishops, Heretics and Schismatics, 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, than the Pope must be the Summoner of it, or at least the Emperor with the Pope's 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 
* Chap. 19  shown) presided. To call therefore for a General Council, in the Protestants sense, is a mere nothing, an empty name to amuse silly people with: since, morally speaking, 'tis impossible there should ever be such a General Council, as they fancy to themselves, viz. an Ecumenical Council, that should consist as well of Schismatics, Heretics, and Desertors of the Catholic Church, as of true Catholic 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 Outlaws 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 Outlaws and Desertors of the Catholic Church, that maintain many anciently condemned Heresies, should be admitted to Sat 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 allowed to be his own Judge?  
2. Here Mr. Fisher, to show the Bishop, to how little purpose he called for a General Council, asked him, Whether he thought a General 
§. 31.  Council might err, viz. in its Decisions and Determinations of Faith. To which the Relatour having answered in the Affirmative, that it might err, Mr. Fisher thus further Queried. If a General Council may err, what nearer are we to Unity, after a General Council hath determined. What the Bishop replied 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 Query.  
Whether (says he) a General Council may err or not is a question of 
§. 32. n. 1.  great consequence in the Church of Christ. To say it cannot err, leaves the Church without remedy against an error once determined. To say it can err, seems to expose the members of the Church to an uncertainty and wavering in Faith, to make unquiet Spirits not only 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 merely to say it without good proof, that a General Council cannot err, may leave the Church indeed without remedy against an error: But to say it cannot err, and prove it too, both from Reason, Authority, and God's Word, as Catholics do, is so far from leaving the Church without remedy against an error; 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 err does not only 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 men's fancies.  
Now to Mr. Fishers second Query, wherein are we nearer to Unity, if a 
Ibid. num. 〈◊〉.  General Council may err, 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 error 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 advanced without Authority either of God's Word, or of Antiquity, nay contrary to all solid Reason; that men should be tied up by an Erring Conciliary Decision in points of Divine Truth, against Evidence of Scripture, or a Demonstration of the Error? For till thereupon another Council of Equal Authority reverse it, the error 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 Error, against Scripture and Demonstration, during their whole lives, or rather to the world's end; since such an Utopian rectifying Council as the Bishop here fancies, is morally impossible ever to be had, as I have already shown.  
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 expressly required by the Bishop. Now since Protestants do not hold all General Councils to be of Equal Authority, who shall determine, or how shall men satisfy 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 allows for 
Ibid. num. 2.  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 God's 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 itself. 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 says cannot easily err in Fundamental Verity. But this is neither to exclude possibility, nor fear of erring, etc. Ergo possibly it may err in 〈◊〉.  
Here the Bishop says, I might have returned upon you again, If a General Council, not confirmed by the Pope, may err (which you affirm) 
Ibidem.  to what end, than a General Council? He tells us, we may say yes, because the Pope, as Head of the Church, cannot err. 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 Catholic Faith, that the Pope alone, as Head of the Church, is unerrable in his Doctrinal Decisions: which is but an opinion of particular Doctors, and no man obliged 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 err: but rather the contrary, That a General Council is needful, because it is not De fide, or received for a point of Catholic Faith, that the Pope can decide inerrably without a General Council; as all Catholics unanimously believe, he ever does, when he defines with it. What's now become of his Lordship's brag of retorting upon us?  
3. But the Bishop, foreseeing as it were a Volley of Arguments probably to be discharged 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 Error be not manifestly against 
Ibid. num. 5.  Fundamental Verity, and, unless it (the Council) err 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 only his Friends still more in the dark, (while he neither determines what points of Faith are Fundamental, nor what Errors 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 errors manifestly against Fundamental Verity, or manifestly intolerable: in both which cases they may, with the Relatours' licence, 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 exercised in Teaching, Declaring, and Authoritatively Attesting Christian Faith, which must of necessity be always 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, etc. 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 public 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 than a Temporary External punishment, Corporal, or Pecuniary: whereas the Spiritual, viz. a General Council, lays an Eternal Curse on the Dis-believers of their Decisions. Witness the first Four General, acknowledged 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 Catholic Doctrine. 'Tis 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 concerned: which is, that National, or Provincial Councils may reform for themselves in case of manifest and intolerable error, if the whole Church (upon peaceable 
Ibidem.  and just complaint of this error) 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 Errors are, which we must esteem intolerable. Secondly, he forgets to tell us, whither we should repair to be ascertained of the Intolerableness of the Error; 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 find the whole Church, or its Representative; while, as is supposed, there's no General Council yet in being. Fourthly he leaves us wholly to guests how long we are to expect the whole Church's 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 modelled 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 Church's neglect or refusal to call a Council and examine 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 persuade, 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 
§. 33.  into a tedious discourse, which he says he will adventure into the world but only in the nature of a Consideration, which yet he divides into many; entering upon the First with Two very erroneous Suppositions; which he lays 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 Ecumenical 
Consid. 1.  Council hath to determine, and all the Assistance it hath not to err in its Determination, it hath it all from the Universal Body of the Church; because the Representative of a Commonwealth hath no more power, than 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 Chap. 17, 18.  more than 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 err 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 Wisdom, Knowledge, Virtue, and Abilities of the Ecclesiastical Governors assembled in Council, as from the cooperation 
* Note, that we assert not any New Revelations since the Apostles times; but only the Assistance of the Holy Spirit, in order to the further Explanation and Clearing of these already delivered.  of the Holy Spirit with them. Whereas in a Civil Commonwealth (which is of Humane Institution) its representative cannot pretend to any other Power, than what is derived from the said Commonwealth.  
Secondly, the Bishop considers, that though the Act, that is hammered 
Consid. 2.  out by many together, must needs be perfecter, then that which is but the child of one man's sufficiency, yet this cannot be Infallible, unless it be from some special Assistance of the Holy Ghost. This we no way contradict: but add, that this special Assistance of the holy Ghost is so far ever afforded to a Lawful General Council, as to render all it's completed Definitions of Faith, Infallible.  
5. Thirdly, he considers, that the Assistance of the Holy Ghost is 
Consid. 3. Num. 1.  without error: that (says 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 only 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 Catholic Authors assert in all Decisions of Faith, be they Fundamental, or remote Deductions in the Bishop's sense: seeing, that as to our obligation of believing them, they are alike Fundamental, as we have proved in the second Chapter.  
Here the Bishop intends to examine the Texts, which he says Stapleton rests upon for proof of Infallible Assistance afforded to General 
Ibidem.  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 says 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. Christ's Prayer for St. Peter, that his Faith fail not; and Christ's 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 Catholic Assertion touching General Councils; but the Bishop is partly of another mind, affirming, that no one of them does infer, much less enforce 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 
Ibid. num. 2.  ever, he answers ALL is not always 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 aver, that it is here universally taken, or doth signify simply all Truth, (for then it would comprehend all natural Truth, and matter of Fact, which we deny no less than 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 enfolded 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 mere groundless restriction, depending wholly on the Bishop's voluntary assertion, as we have already 
a Ch. 14.  shown. 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, adds 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, signify less than 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 signify 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 blind 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 Council is then only Infallible, when it suffers itself to be led by the Blessed Spirit, by 
Ibidem.  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 Error: in which the Bishop is not constant to himself, professing the contrary, when it makes for his turn: But if it may so err, 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 
Ibidem.  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 Pastors, north Church of their times, could infallibly decide any arising Controversies, touching the sense of Scriptural Texts, which are not only ambiguous, but liable to damnable Interpretations, as the Scripture itself averrs, 2 Pet. 3. 16. much less determine any point of Faith not expressly delivered in Scripture, as many are not.  
But note, that to the closing words of this first Text and that for ever, the Bishop says 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 
Consid. 3. num. 3.  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 Successors, against the Difficulties they should find for preaching Christ. But are Heresies and the perverse maintainers of them, no part of the Difficulties, Christ's Ministers meet with in preaching his Gospel? Sure they are. And if this be the Native sense of the words, as 'tis in the Relatours' opinion; it follows necessarily, that the said Ministers, or Preachers of the Gospel have such a presence of Christ promised them in this place, as effectually enables 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, says our Adversary, few of the Father's mention Christ's presence, 
Ibidem.  in Teaching by the Holy Ghost. What matters that? The reason is, because this is but one Special kind 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 expressly interpret this place of Christ's presence in teaching by the Holy Ghost. But they do not extend it (saith he) to Infallible Assistance, further than 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 than 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 Chap. 8. 10. 14.  proved: and could it otherwise happen, Christ would not be always found so present with his Church, as to keep her from incurring ruin by erroneous Doctrines; which this his promise must at least imply.  
Lastly, whereas Maldonat proves, that this kind of presence, by Infallible Teaching, is rightly gathered from this Text; though not expressly signified by it, the Bishop by his mistranslation makes him 
Ibidem.  deny it to be the intention of Christ: which learned Author does not only assert the Truth of this Exposition, 
c Maldonat. in cap. 28. Matth.  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 says first, he dares not lay any other 
Ibid. num. 4.  Foundation, than Christ. We answer, all the Apostles are styled 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 Church's building, as the Apostle there speaks) yet Ministerially, and by Authority Derived from Christ, not only the Apostles, but the Successors of the chief of them, St. Peter, may be, and are, in a true sense, Foundations of the Church. Secondly, the Bishop says, (and he does but say it) that St. Peter, 
Ibidem.  was only the first in order: whereas the Fathers teach, and we have sufficiently 
a Chap. 16. 17.  proved, that he was not only the first in order, but in Authority.  
Thirdly he tells us, that by the Rock is not meant St. Peter's person 
Ibidem.  only, 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. Peter's person only, but his Faith conjoined 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. Peter's Faith, 
b Bellarm. lib. 1. De Rom. Pont. cap. 10.  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 
Concil. cbal. Act. 3.  Catholic 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 
Ibidem.  falling away from the Foundation, we have already 
d Chap. 14.  fully proved the Contrary, both by the Testimony of the Fathers, and Solid Reason; showing, that if any Error in Faith could be admitted by the Catholic Church, the Gates of Hell might in such case be absolutely said to have prevailed against her, contrary to this promise of Christ. And how Bellarmin here cited by the Bishop, is to be understood, when he says, there are many things DE FIDE, which are not necessary to salvation, is already 
a Chap. 2.  shown: where we also proved, that every error in Faith contrary to what is propounded by the Church, is Fundamental. But the Relatour, (as if his own word were a sufficient proof) tells us finally, that the promise of this stable Edification 
Ibidem.  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 Successors, as the Fathers above mentioned show; though for the good of the Church, viz. her preservation from error in Faith: which morally could not be effected, if a General Council, lawfully called and confirmed by St. Peter's Successor, be not Infallible, or exempt from error 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 than it builds upon Christ, that is, upon the Doctrine Christ delivered, the Rules he gave, and the Promises he made to his Apostles and their Successors, 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 Christ's prayer for St. Peter, that his 
Ibid. num. 5.  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 Bellarm. lib. 4. De Rom. Pont. cap. 3.  Beauties' 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 'tis sufficient to observe the contradiction involved in this pretended Native sense of Christ's prayer. Christ, according to the Bishop, obtained 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 obtained 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 
Ibidem.  hence in the Pope, or in his Chair, or in the Roman Sea, or in a General Council though the Pope be Precedent, I find no Ancient Father that dare adventure it. I answer, 'tis no wonder that they do not finde, who are unwilling to see. Bellarmin citys (and that out of 
* See Francis. Turrian. Defence. Decretal.  Authentic Records, whatever the Bishop mutters against them as 
c And where as the Relator objects also, that they are falsely alleged, 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, than 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 approved 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, etc.  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 adventured 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 jealousy of challenging, either through ignorance or ambition, more than of right belonged to their office. Nay the Church of Rome was so confessedly Orthodox in their days, that even Dr. Heylin (a man bitter against Catholics) 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 adventured, as it were, to ground the Infallibility we plead for, upon this Text, 
b Epist. ad 〈◊〉.  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 Rhetoric; an easy 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 Heretic, whom he sought to reduce into the bosom of the Catholic Church, who can imagine he intended to compliment 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 
Ibidem.  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 lib. 4. Insist. cap. 2. §. 3.  Calvin, when he is sober, the the Church had made no departure from the Doctrine of the Apostles. And for 
d Bellarm. de Script. Eccle. Item lib. 2. de Christo, cap. 21.  Theophylact, he being a Greek Bishop, and of the forwardest in siding against the Latin Church, and in taxing her of Error touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost, it cannot be rationally imagined, 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 Catholic Christians in that particular. As to the Gloss upon the Canon Law, I answer it speaks only of the Pope in his personal capacity, as a private Doctor; in which quality it is not denied, but he may possibly err, even in Faith.  
Hence may easily be perceived, how unsatisfactorily the Bishop endeavours to elude the force of this Text concerning Christ's prayer for St. Peter: which I have 
* Chap. 17.  already proved to be extended to his Successors: 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 Successors 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 obliged to follow the Doctrine of such a Council.  
6. The fifth place is Matth. 18. 20. Where two or three are gathered 
Consid. 3. num. 6.  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 avers to be a good proof 
Bellarm. lib. 2. de Conc. cap. 2.  of the Infallibility of General Councils; the Argument proceeding à minori ad majus, thus. If two or three gathered together in my name do always obtain that which they ask at God's hands, to wit, Wisdom, and Knowledge of those things which are necessary for them, how much more shall all Bishops gathered together (in a Council) always obtain Wisdom and Knowledge, to judge those things which belong to the direction of the whole Church.  
This indeed is the sum of Beauties' discourse upon this Text: and I conceive the inference for the Infallibility of General Councils to be so clear, that every intelligent and unbiased Reader will perceive it at first sight: seeing it can neither be denied, that the Pastors 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 Wisdom, 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 
Ibidem.  Prayer. So do we too. Is it not the very ground of our Argument? Do we pretend, that General Councils are proved Infallible from this Text, for any other reason, then because the Prelates in Council assembled do unanimously and duly pray, that God will preserve them from Error, and because he hath promised to hear their prayers?  
His second exception is, that he doubts, the Argument A MINORI AD MAIUS holds only in Natural and Necessary things, not in 
Ibidem.  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 preserved from Error in their Dicisions of Faith. Here the motive is greater than in the former case; the necessities of the whole Church do more forcibly engage the Power, Love, and Honour of God, than the necessities of a few. By this it appears, that what he avers, 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. chrysostom) there are divers other conditions, besides their gathering together in the name of Christ, necessarily required 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 
Ibidem.  of them, to assist, and grant whatsoever he shall find fit for them; and thence infer, that Christ is always present with the Prelates lawfully assembled in General Councils, to assist, and grant them immunity from error in their Decisions of Faith; which he finds not only fitting, but highly necessary for the Direction and Settlement of his Church.  
His last evasion is to make our Authors seem to clash one against another, viz. Stapleton and Valentia against Bellarmin. To which I answer, the difference between them is more in words, than sense. For neither Stapleton, nor Valentia denies, but the Infallibility of General Councils confirmed 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 citys him, 
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. Controu. 6. q. 3. ar. 4. ad tertium.  expressly 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 spoke those words, nor does Bellarmin affirm he did, but only 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 far, as their necessities required his presence, they duly imploring it.  
This (we confess) was all our Saviour directly and immediately, signified by the words where two or three are gathered together, etc. from which notwithstanding Bellarmin and other Catholic Authors do rightly infer 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 Christ's 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 alleged for the Infallibility of General 
Ibid. num. 7.  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 received 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, etc. for that they had infallibly the Assistance of the Holy Ghost. But he does not find (he says) 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 deal of difference (as he conceives) in the Certainty of those things, which After-generall Councils determined in the Church, and those which were settled by the Apostles, when they sat in Council.  
I answer, there's no Essential difference between the Certainty of the things determined by the Apostles, and those decided by a General Council, confirmed by the Roman Bishop. Great difference there is indeed between the Apostles and Succeeding Bishops, in respect of Personal Prerogatives and graces; but none at all between the Certainty of what either the Apostles by themselves, or succeeding bishops in a lawful General Council assembled, define for Truth: seeing what is completely determined therein is no less determined by Apostolical Authority, than what was determined by the Apostles in that first Council at Jerusalem, And if After-Councils use not the same Expression punctually and in terms, it is not material; since they do it in effect, by universally enjoining the Belief of their Decisions under pain of Anathema. And this the Holy fathers well understood, when they averred the Decrees of a General Council to be 
a D. Cyrill. Lib, 10. de Trin.  a most Holy and Divine Oracle, 
b S. Leo. Ep. 37. 54.  a sentence inspired by the Holy Ghost, 
c S. Leo. Ep 50 61. 62.  not to be 〈◊〉, 
d D. Athanas Ep. ad Epictet. Epiphan. Haeres. 77.  not to be questioned without error, 
e D. Aug. Ep. 162.  that it is the last sentence that can be expected in matters of faith.  
What the Relatour means by alleging Valentia I understand not: that Author clearly speaking of Councils not yet ratified by the Pope. The Bishop therefore hath said nothing in disproof of 
Ibidem.  what Stapleton and Bellarmin affirm, viz. that this passage of Scripture is a proper proof of the Jnfallibility of General Councils: which considered, Dr. Stapleton is so far from being justly Censurable, for styling the Decrees of General Councils Oracles of the Holy Ghost, that his Lp. is rather unblamable for pretending such words to be little short of Blasphemy. Is there any thing more common with the fathers then to give them such like Attributes? Does not 
f D. Athanas. Ep. ad Episc. African.  St. Athanasius term the definition of the Nicen Council against Arius, the word of our Lord, which endureth for ever? Does not St. cyril 
g D. Cyrill. lib. 1. de Trinit.  above cited call it likewise a Divine and most Holy Oracle? Doth not Constantin the Emperor style the same Definition 
h Euseb. in vita Constan tin lib. 3.  a Celestial mandate? Doth not St. Gregory (with the applause of all true Christians) profess to reverence the Decrees of the four first General Councils, as he reverences 
i D. Greg. lib. 〈◊〉 Epi. 24.  the four gospels? Doth not 
k S. Leo. Epist. 53. 54.  St. Leo, St. Gregory Naziazen, 
l D. Greg. Naz. orat. in D. Athanas.  Pope Nicolas 
m Epist. ad Michael. Imperat.  the first, with others, speak to the same sense?  
Beauties' Argument deduced from this Apostolical Council, as 'twas a Precedent to all future Councils ecumenical, holds good for their Jnfallibility: since otherwise they must have been ineffectual as to the principal purpose of calling them, Viz. so to determine Controversies of faith, as to put an end to all debates 
Ibidem.  of that nature in the Church: which can never be effectually done, where Infallibility is not acknowledged, as hath been 
* Chap. 7. 8. 14.  proved.  
To what he objects, that there is not THE LIKE Jnfallibility in other Councils, where no man Sat, that was inspired, as was in this (of the Apostles) where all that sat as judges were inspired, I answer, 'tis sufficient that the whole Body of the Prelates concurring with their Head, in any other lawful General Council, were jointly infallible in any kind of real infallibility, whether like to the former, or not. So in the Bishops own principles, a General Council, or at least the Catholic Church, is infallible in fundamentals, or Things absolutely necessary to salvation, though he would not acknowledge any ONE in the Church to have that prerogative of infallibility. As touching Ferus, he avouches nothing contrary to our doctrine of infallibility; though his Authority would be of no greater force, then if he were none of ours: His Comment upon the Acts (which the Bishop here citys) being listed, with most of his other works in 
a joannis Feri franciscani opera omnia in Romano Indice prohibita sunt, exceptis Annotationibus et Commentarijs in Matth. et joann. Euangelia, et in joannis Epistolam primam, Romae recognitis et impressis. Possevin. Apparat. Sac. pag. 875.  the ROLL of Prohibited Books.  
Thus have I gone through all the forecited passages of scripture, and in every one of them solved the Bishop's objections for rendering them incompetent proofs of the Infallibility of General Councils: which yet I needed not have done, since what is clearly proved by any one Text of scripture is as undoubtedly true, as what is proved by more. But the Bishop tells us, he easily grants a General Council cannot err in Things necessary to 〈◊〉, suffering 
Ibidem num. 8.  itself to be led by the spirit of Truth in scripture: wherein he seems but to trifle, saying no more in effect, then that a General Council cannot err, so long as it doth not err. This is a very small Prerogative, and might be affirmed of any kind of Council, nay of any particular person of how mean capacity soever. The question is, whether a lawful General Council can ever be presumable to fall into the Bishop's hinted disorder of leaving scripture, or defining any thing contrary to its true sense. But to speak truth, there can be no question of it, as being inconsistent with the veracity of Divine Promises, to permit the whole Church to err in any Doctrinal point she finds necessary to define by a General Council, for preventing of schisms, and settling of men's minds in the Truth.  
To what he adds, as the Result of his discourse upon these several Texts. that supposing they promised Assistance even to Infallibility, yet they are to be understood of the whole Church principally, and of its Representative but by consequent, nor any further than the said Representative consents and eleaves to that upon which it is consequent, viz. the Catholic Body of the Church. This, I say, is but a weak cuasion. For seeing the Catholic, or Diffusive, Body of the Church is bound to believe and profess the Doctrine taught by her Representative, if the Church Diffusive have an Infallible Assistance for her Believing, the Council, or Church Representative, must also necessarily have Infallible Assistance in Teaching. To which of these this Assistance is promised principally, is but a vain speculation, since they both have it, as being absolutely necessary for them both.  
Here the Bishop falls again to his Considerations, and will have 
Consid. 4. num. 1.  us to observe, fourthly, that there is not the like consent, that General Councils cannot err, as there is, thatthe Church in General cannot err from the faith necessary to Salvation, since in this all agree, but not in the former. I answer, all that have not deserted, nor adhered to the Desertors of the Catholic Church, do una nimously agree, that a lawfully-called and confirmed General Council can no more err in point of faith, than the Church in general: and his Lp. was much out in quoting Waldensis for the contrary: he being so great a Champion of the Bishop of Rome's Authority, as to assert his Infallibility in defining ex Cathedra, 
a Ad eiusdem (Papae) doctrinam, tanquam ad Infallibilem fidei Regulam, Catholici Episcopi illo tempore suos Aduersatios, Haereticos, coegerunt. Waldens. Tom. 1. Doctrine. fid. lib. 2. cap. 47.  even without a Council, and 
b Ego audacter dico in Christi nomine & Christo rogante, Romanam Ecclesiam in Doctrina Christi 〈◊〉. (And a little after) Quid mirum, si Christo rogante, Romana Ecclesia non potest in 〈◊〉 deficere; Waldens. ubi suprá.  Chap. 48. ibidem, teaches, that the particular Roman Church as consisting only of the Pope and his Clergy cannot err, by reason of that privilege obtained by our Saviour's prayer (Luke. 22. 32.) for St. Peter and his successors. What therefore the Bishop citys out of him for his purpose, is nothing to the purpose; Waldensis meaning only unlawful Councils, as appears by his instancing in no other than the Council of Arimini assembled by an Arian Perfect, under an Arian Emperor, and that of Constantinople under Justinianus Minor, which Pope Sergius expressly condemned.  
Whereas the Bishop says, it Seems strange to him, this Proposition even in terms, A GENERAL COUNCIL CANNOT ERR, should not be found in any one of the Fathers, I answer, 'tis sufficient the full sense of that Proposition is found in them, as we have shown in their Texts above-alledged: and it might seem as strange to me, that this Proposition (if it were true) viz. General Councils can err in definitions of faith, is not to be found in any one of the Fathers.  
In the next place he urges, that St Austin makes it the Prerogative 
9 Ibidem  of scripture alone, that whatsoever is found written therein, may neither be doubted nor disputed, whether it be true or right. But the letters of Bishops may, not only be disputed, but corrected by Bishops 
D Aug. lib. 2. de Baptism. cap. 3.  that are more wise and learned than they; or by national Councils. and national Councils, by Plenary or General: and even Plenary Councils themselves may be amended, the former, by the latter. Upon which words of St. Austin the Bishop seems to triumph, telling us, 'twas no news with St. Austin, that a General Council might err, and therefore inferior to scripture, which may neither be doubted nor disputed, where it affirms. And if it be so (saith he) with the definition of a Council too, viz. that it may neither be doubted nor disputed; where is then the scriptures Prerogative? I answer, the Relatour does here canere triumphum ante victoriam. for though 'tis true, that the scriptures have no small Prerogative above Councils, (wherein nothing is of necessity to be believed as matter of faith, but the naked Definition itself; whereas in scripture every thing, even the least sentence, is to be believed with Divine faith) yet it is clear, that it cannot be S. Augustine's meaning; that General Councils may err in their Definitions of faith, by what he frequently delivers else where: namely Tom. 7. 〈◊〉 Baptis. contr. Donatist. where he expressly teacheth, that no doubt ought to be made of what is by full Decree established in a General 
lib. 1. cap. 7  Council: and lib. 7. cap. 5. where he makes the Definition of a General Council and the consent of the whole Church to be all one: against which latter he tells us also (Epist. 118. ad Januar.) 'tis not only error, but insolent madness, for any one to dispute.  
Wherefore, we must either make St. Austin contradict himself, or disapprove of our Adversary's Exposition of this Text. But what is his meaning then, you'll say? in what cases may General Councils be said to be amended, the former, by the latter, as this Doctor speaks? Truly in no other than these, viz. in Matter of fact, in Precepts pertaining to Manners and discipline, or by way of more full and clear Explication of what had been delivered by former Councils: which as they are the common Expositions given by Catholic Divines, of this Text of St. Austin, so are they indeed most agreeable to it, and such as without force the very words of the Text, taken entirely, will bear no other. for when doth this Mending happen, in St. Augustine's opinion? Cum aliquo rerum Experimento aperitur quod clausum est, et 〈◊〉 quod latebat: then, saith he, when by SOME EXPERIMENT of Things, that comes to be opened which was shut up and that known which did lie hid. Now who is so ignorant as not to know, that Experiment hath not place in matter of universal Belief, but belongs properly to Matters of fact, and Things intrinsically vested with the Circumstances of Time, place, Person, etc. from which such points of saith and General Doctrines doc abstract, and are wholly independent of them? St. Austin therefore cannot in reason be supposed to mean, that General Councils may be 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 Schisms and 〈◊〉, 'tis Experimentally found necessary for the peace of the Church, that a fuller and more perfect Declaration be made of some thing already defined by a former Council; as it happened in the Addition 
Ibidem num. 2,  of the word, filioque, to the Creed of the Council of Nice, and in divers other cases.  
But we must hear the Bishop's exceptions against Bellarmin and Stapleton, for expounding S. Augustin in the sense we have here delivered. He says first, They are both out, and Bellarmin in a Contradiction, for applying the Amendment S. Austin speaks of, to Rules of Manners and discipline. I answer, the Cardinal is in no Contradiction, though elsewhere he averrs, 
a Bellarm lib. 2. de Concil. cap. 2.  that General Councils cannot err in Precepts of Manners. for this is no good consequence. General Councils may amend one another in Precepts of manners and discipline, ergo they may err in such matters. The reason is, because Precepts of Manners and Discipline depend much upon Circumstances of Time, place, person, etc. which varying, it often so falls out that what at first was prudently judged fit to be done, becomes afterward unfitting: and when this happens, 'tis out of question one General Council may be amended by another, yet neither of them be justly taxed with Error, they both commanding aright 
Ibidem  according to different Circumstances.  
To what he objects against this exposition, that St. Augustine's whole dispute, in this place, is against the error of St. Cyprian followed by the Donatists; which was (saith he) an Error in faith, namely, that true Baptism could not be given by Heretics, and 
Ibidem.  such as were out of the Church, I answer, this evinces nothing against us. For though this father takes the occasion of his speech from that error of St. Cyprian, and makes a Gradation in the writings of Bishops Provincial, national, and General Councils, yet 'tis manifest he speaks in a different stile in the last place, where he touches on Plenary Councils: clearly pronuncing, that the writings or private Bishops may be reprehended, si quid in eyes fortè a veritate deviatum est: so he affirms, that Provincial and national Councils must yield to General ones: but of these he only says they may be mended by others, when by some experiment of things, that is opened which was shut up, and that known, which lay hid: which experiment, as we have said, is only found in matters of fact, precepts of Manners and discipline, which depend on Circumstances, and are therefore in their own nature changeable; or lastly, when experience shows, that some new arising errors call for a further explanation of some Doctrinal point already defined.  
Nor matters it, that there was no experiment of fact in St. Cyprians case; seeing St. Austin does not confine his discourse to St Cyprians case only, but by occasion of his, and his Councils error, lays down general Doctrine touching the different Authority of the writings of particular Bishops, provincial, national, and General Councils. And as for Doctor Stapletons' reading Conclusum for Clausum, it imports little to the present purpose; he 
b Prine. Doctrine. lib. 11. Controu. 6. pag. 381.  else where reading it Clausum est. The Bishop's exposition therefore of St. Augustine's word, experiment, to be a further proof of the question, is groundleess, and contrary to the known notion of the word. Nor does it help him that St. Austin in the following chapter (where he speaks of Rebaptisation) says it was a question tenebris involuta: since he speaks of it as it stood in St. Cyprians time, vndefin'd by a General Council. Add hereunto, that St. Austin expressly teacheth in the same chapter, that St. Cyprian would certainly have corrected his opinion, had the point, in his time, been defined by a General Council: which is another manifest proof, that neither St. Cyprian nor St Austin were of the Bishop's mind in this particular, touching General Councils.  
Hence also is justified what Stapleton averrs as the Bishop reports him, viz. That if St. Austin speaks of a Cause of faith, his 
Ibidem. num. 3.  meaning is, that latter General Councils do mend the former, when they explicate more perfectly that faith, which lay hid in the Seed of Ancient Doctrine: as for example, when the Council of Ephesus explicated that of Nice, concerning the Divinity of Christ, the Council of Chalcedon that of Ephesus, and the Counil of Constance all the Three. This Stapleton speaks by way of Solution to the Argument brought by Protestants from this Text of S. Austin against the infallibility of General Councils: and the Relatour disingenuous, as to make his Reader believe, that the said Stapleton brings it for a proof; while he ridiculously asks, whether it be not an excellent Conclusion, These Councils taught no Error, and were only explained; Therefore no Council can err in matter of faith. 'Tis I confess, no Excellent conclusion, nor ever intended for such by Stapleton. But 'tis so excellent a solution to the Bishop's Argument, that it made him give an Additionall Turn to the rest of his Labyrinth.  
That St. Austin meant plainly, that even Plenary Councils might err in matter of faith, and aught to be amended in a latter Council, 
Jbidem. num. 4.  the Bishop does well to say, I think will thus appear. For in truth he does but think it, as will soon be manifest.  
His main reason why he thinks so, is taken from St. Augustine's word emendari, which the Relatour tells us properly supposes for error and faultiness. I answer, the word emendari is very properly appliable to the taking away of any defect, it being derived from Menda, which as Scaliger himself, in his Notes upon Varro, observes, comes from the latin Adverb Minus, and 
* See Marinij Lexicon, in verbo Menda.  properly signifies any defect whatsoever; and therefore not solely appliable to error in faith, but to such defects as I have mentioned above. Stapleton therefore gives not a forced, but the true and proper signification of St. Augustine's word emendari. And this may serve for a sufficient solution to the rest of his discourse: the word emendari 
Ibidem. num. 5.  bearing our sense as properly as reprehendi, and ce dear insisted on by the Bishop.  
To what he adds, that St. Austin must be understood to speak of Amendment of error, because he teaches it must be done without Sacrilegious pride, without swelling Arrogancy, and without Contention of Envy, in holy Humility, in Catholic peace, in Christian Charity; which Cautions the Bishop supposes, necessarily import some Error, or fault committed by the former Council; in mending whereof the following Council might, without such Caveats be apt to insult over the former; and the former, or their Adherents, to envy, and contest the Proceedings of the latter. I answer, St. Augustine's admonitions in this kind relate not in particular to General Councils, but to the other several subjects of his whole discourse, viz. Private Bishops, Provincial and national Councils; by whom as error may be committed, so 'tis evident, Pride, Arrogancy, Contention may happen in its emendation, if not religiously avoided by the am enders.  
The Bishop proceeds against Bellarmin, telling us this shift of his is the poorest of all, viz. That St. Austin speaks of unlawful Councils. But surely 'tis no shift at all in the Cardinal, seeing he gives that Exposition only ex superabundanti and with a peradventure, as the Relatour himself observes. To what he brings at last, that it is a mere trick, which the Ancient Church knew not, and (as he thinks) not believed at this day by the wise and learned of our own side, to require the Pope's Instruction, Approbation, and Confirmation, etc. I answer, wise and learned men will rather think, 'tis a mere Resuerie in the Relatour thus to contradict the perpetual known practice both of Councils themselves, (which always 
* Chap. 17  required the Pope's Cofirmation) and of the Church, (which never accounted them Complete lawful General Councils without it) and of Reason itself, as I have 
* Chap. 17.  already Shown.   

CHAP. 21. In what manner General Councils are Infallible.  
ARGUMENT.  
1. The Bishop falls into unavoidable Inconveniences, by maintaining, that General Councils are fallible. 2. They are Infallible in the Conclusion, or Doctrine defined, though not always so in the Premises: and the Reason, why. 3. What Difference there is between the present Church, and that of the Apostles. 4. An Explanation of St. Augustine's Text. (Lib. de! Agon. Christian. cap. 30.) PETRUS PERSONAM ECCLESIAE SUSTINET &c, 5. The Council of Constance, in point of Receiving under one kind only, not contrary to Christ's Institution. 6. No unreasonableness in the Catholic Doctrine touching Infallibility. 7. The Bishop's various and gross Mistakes about the Pope's Infallibility, both in reference to Councils, and otherwise. 8. His Misunderstanding of St. Ambrose.  
1. THe Bishop labours in his fifth Consideration to avoid Two Jnconueniences, which must needs follow by supposing error to be incident to a General Council. The first is, that this supposition lays all open to uncertainties. The second, that it makes way 
§. 33. Consid. 5. num. 1.  for a whirl wind of the Private spirit to come in, and ruffle the Church. He thinks he hath found out a Remedy for this twisted Disease. To the first Inconvenience he says, that General Councils as lawfully called and ordered, and lawfully proceeding, are a great and a 〈◊〉 Representation, and cannot err in matters of faith, keeping themselves to God's Rule, and not attempting to make a New of their own: and that they are with all submission to be observed by every Christian, where scripture or evident demonstration comes not against them. But who sees not, that this Remedy is as bad as the Disease? A General Council is an awful Representation, if it be lawfully called, and ordered, and proceeds lawfully: but he set's not down the Marks, whereby we may know, whether it be lawfuIly called, ordered, and proceeds lawfully, or not. Neither does he tell us who shall be judge of those Marks. A General Council, says he, cannot err in matters of faith, keeping themselves to God's Rule. But this is both ambig vous, and unsatisfactory. For if he mean, that a Council cannot err so long as it teaches nothing contrary to the word of God, what greater Prerogatlue does he give to the Representative of God's Church then belongs to any private Doctor, who cannot err so long as he follows, and cleaves to this unerrable Rule? If his meaning be, that a General Council cannot err, if it considers the testimonies of holy writ, and define any thing according to the sense in which they understand those testimonies, how can they be taxed of error, seeing it cannot be denied, but General Councils, in defining many points contrary to Protestant Doctrine, did conformetheir definitions to the sense in which (upon serious examination) they understood 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 judgement of those grave Prelates as Ancient, as the word of God. To whom then ought we to submit? To him that is a priuate Doctor, and averrs it to be New: or to that lawful Assembly, which asserts it to be Ancient?  
He tells us next, that General Councils are to be observed by cuery Christian with all submission, where scripture, and evident demonstration come not against them. But who shall judge, I pray, whether scripture or Demonstration make 〈◊〉 against them, or not? Does not every Heretic, that spurns against the Church; pretend that the scripture he urges, is evident, and his Reason a demonstration? you will reply, that the Bishop does not mean by a demonstrative argument, such an one, as appears so, only to a private spirit, but such as being proposed to any man, and understood, the mind cannot choose but inwardly assent unto it. If this be so how can Protestants be excused, who deny many points defined by General Councils? Many learned and understanding men of our religion have read the places of Scripture alleged by Protestants against us, and have diligently pondered all the Reasons and pretended evidences their adversaries bring; and yet they are so far from being convinced in judgement, that they evidently oppose the belief of those points Defined, that they are persuaded of the contrary wherefore their arguments are not, evident in themselves, but only seem so to their private Spirits: and therefore all Christians, according to the Bishop's rule, aught to submit to those Councils in the belief of the said points. Nor will it serve the turn to say, that there was neverany General Council, besides the four first, wherein nothing was defined contrary to Truth. For hence will follow, that a Council cannot be known to be General, but by the Truth of their Doctrine; nor their doctrine to be true, but by the testimony of scripture: whence will be deduced that we ought to believe nothing for the Authority of a Council, but that we ourselves are the sole judges, whether the Definitions of Councils be agreeable to God's word, or not. If you allow other Councils to have been also General, and yet to have falsely taught any of those points, which Catholics now hold contrary to Protestants, you must either grant that scripture, or demonstration comes not evidently against them, or aver, that all learned and understanding Catholics, that have perused their objections, are conuineed in judgement, that what themselves hold, is either 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 he applies to the second 〈◊〉, it is as ineffectual as the first. The reason he brings, why the supposition 
Jbidem.  of fallibility in General Councils does not make way for the whirlwind of the Private spirit, is, because Private spirits are too giddy, to rest upon scripture, and too heady and shallow to be acquainted with Demonstrative Arguments. But this is contrary to experience. For which of all those, that are taxed to give way to the private spirit, refuse to rest upon the word of God? Do the Presbyterians in England decline Testimonies of scripture, when they Dispute with the Prelatists, against Episcopacy, and other points? Do the Caluinists fly from scripture, when they contend with the Lutherans in Germany against Consubstantiation and ubiquity? or with the Arminians in Holland about Predestination, universal Grace, free will, perseverance & c? would the Bishop make us believe, that all maintainers of the Private spirit are so void of understanding, as not to be capable of a demonstrative Argument? must they needs be deprived of the light of reason, because they think fit to follow the Dictamen of their own reason in what they believe? or that they cannot comprehend any demonstration in Euclid because they give way to their private spirit in the understanding of scripture? The Bishop esteems them giddy, Shallow, insufficient, and uncapable of a demonstrative Argument, or of a right understanding of the word of God: yet they, and their followers are of a different persuasion. They take themselves to be, and are reputed by many others, to be persons of strong reason, sharp judgement, deep insight in what belongs to scripture: and upon this presumption they will take upon them to call in question whatever suits not with their private fancy. Now to think that their private spirit is sufficiently opposed, by saying, they are all fools, and uncapable of reason, is in my opinion to be void of judgement, and to deserve the like Censure. 
Ibidem num. 2.   
But what shall we say to the Authority of S. Austin, who would have true demonstrations every where to take place; and professes, that a Truth so clearly demonstrated, that it cannot be questioned, is to be preferred before all those motives, by which 
D. Aug. cont. Ep. fund. c. 5.  a man is held in the Catholic Church? I answer, his words are only conditional, and signify, that in case any true and cuident demonstrations could be brought against the motives, that kept him in the Church, they must take place in our understanding, in regard the assent, which ariseth from those motives, is voluntary, and free; where as, that which would arise from such Demonstrative Arguments, would be so clear and necessary, that we could no more prevent it, than our assent to this Principle, The whole is greater than the part. But hence it follows no more, that the Church can define what is cuidently contradicted, cyther by scripture, or demonstration, then that an Angel may feel, taste, hear, because this Proposition is true, An Angel would seel, taste, or hear, if he had a body, a tongue, or corporal ears.  
But to what purpose, does the Bishop go about, to show, that Councils are not to be our judges in points that are clearly taught by reason or scripture? we shall never have recourse to Councils, to know, whether the whole be greater than the part; nor whether Jsaac had two sons, jacob 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 evident demonstration. The Controversy which the Bishop should have resolved is this, whether in case one party pretend, and verily believe, they have clear scripture, and demonstration for what they say; and the other, consisting of men at least equal, if not superior, to them, in point of learning, understanding, Moral Honesty, Prudence, and all other helps conducing to right judgement, shall affirm the contrary, whether in this case there be not an absolute necessity of a living, and infallible judge, to end the Controversy; and whether all Christians ought not to submit to that judge, notwithstanding any reasons, or seeming evidences to the contrary?  
'tis strange the Bishop should think Bellarmin to grant, that a private man may lawfully descent from a General Council, by 
Ibidem num. 3.  reason of some manifest and intolerable error. The Cardinal asserts indeed, that inferiors may not judge superiors, whether they proceed lawfully, or not, unless it manifestly appear, that an 
Bellarm. de Conc. lib. 2. cap. 8.  intolerable error is committed by them. But there he speaks of the Council of the jews, which condemned our saviour, and in condemning him, committed an intolerable error. And in that very place he teaches, that the Council of the Jews, wherein the High Priest presided, could not err in matters of faith, before the coming of the Messias? but that after his birth they might, according to divers Prophecies he there alleges; adding, that at the very time when the Council was liable to error, subjects' were to submit to their superiors, viz. the people to their Council, unless it manifestly appeared, that an intolerable error had been committed by them. But how can the Relatour infer from thence, that such an error may be committed by our General Councils, since the Cardinal expressly teaches in that very book, that our General Councils cannot possibly err in their definitions of faith?  
The Bishop's next quarrel is with Doctor Stapleton, for teaching, 
Ibidem num. 4.  that the voice of the Church, in determining Controversies of faith in General Councils, is Divine? telling us, that the Proposition stick's in his throat, as if the Doctor had felt some check in the uttering of it. Why? because (forsooth) by way of explicating himself, Stapleton adds, that it is not simply, but in a manner, divine. Is this to retract, in any sort, what he had said? who sees not rather, that 'tis only to speak with that necessary caution which the cause requires, and which the cavilling disposition of Heretics doth particularly oblige us to? This Proposition, The voice of the Church, determining in General Councils, is in a manner divine, is doubtless not only most true in itself, but also most consonant to Catholic grounds; to wit, as expressing, that it is not God's immediate revelation but only an infallible means of applying immediate revelation to us.  
His next objection against the said Doctor is Blasphemy, viz. for aucrring that the Church is the foundation of faith in a higher kind, than scripture. I answer, that I have diligently sought for the words alleged, in Stapletons' works, and cannot find them. The Bishop quotes Relect. Contr. 4. quest. 4. art. 3. but that question hath no article at all in it. 'Tis true, in the fifth question he teaches, that the Church is more known to us, than scripture; and that it is the means of applying to us both scripture, and all things else that we believe. But this is neither Blasphemy, nor Contradiction to his own grounds. However, should any such proposition be found in Stapleton, I am not bound to maintain it, seeing I have only engaged to defend the received Doctrine of the Catholic Church; which no ways depends upon any such assertion, as is here laid to Stapletons' charge.  
2. In the sixth Consideration the Relatour argues to this purpose: if a General Council be infallible, the infallibility of it is either in the Conclusion alone, or in the Means that prove it alone 
Consid. 6. num. 1.  (that is to say in the Premises) or in both together. But the Council (saith he) is neither infallible in the Conclusion alone, nor in the Means (or premises) alone, nor yet in both together: ergo, 'tis, not infallible at all. We desire to be brief; and therefore, not standing to consider the reasons, why he thinks 'tis not infallible in the Means, we answer 'tis infallible in the Conclusion, that is, in the Doctrine defined, though it be not infallible in the means, or arguments upon which it proceeded to the definition. The reason is, because the one, viz. that the Conclusion, or defined Doctrine of a General Council, should be infallibly true is necessary for the due government of the Church; But the other, viz. that there should be infallibility also in the Means, or in the disquisition about the matter, before it comes to be defined, is not necessary: and it is a known maxim Deus non deficit in necessarijs, nec abundat in superfluis; which holds good in Theology, as well, as in Nature. God is not wanting in the supply of necessaries, noris he profuse in affording things superfluous.  
To this our Adversary replies, that 'tis a thing altogether unknown in nature, and art too, that fallible Principles can, either as father, or mother, beget, or bring forth an infallible Conclusion. But this is a false 
Ibidem. num. 2.  supposition of the Bishop, for the Conclusion is not so much the child of those principles, as the fruit of the Holy Ghost, directing and guiding the Council to produce an infallible Conclusion, what ever the premises may be. This is necessary for the peace, and unity of the Church, and therefore not to be denied, unless an impossibility can be showed therein. But I hope no man will attack God's Omnipotency, and deprive him of the power of doing this. Hence it appears how vainly the Relatour fancies to himself, that Stapleton and all Catholics are miserably hampered in this Argument, whereas they all easily answer it, as we have done.  
What he says next is a mere perversion of Stapletons' meaning; 
Ibidem. num. 3.  who never teaches that the Church is Simply Prophetical either in the Premises or Conclusion, but rather the quite contrary, as the Relator might have seen, (if he had pleased) in the place he citys. 'tis true, he uses the word Prophetical sometimes, speaking 
Stapleton. Relect. Contr 4. q. 2.  of the Conclusion, or Definition of a General Council: but 'tis apparent, he does it only in a less proper, or Analogical sense, to signify, that, by virtue of divine Assistance and direction, such a Conclusion, or Definition, in regard of precise verity, is as infallibly true and certain, as if it were a Prophecy.  
Neither is there any Contrariety in this, between Stapleton and Bellarmin: for both agree, that neither Church nor Council do publish Jmmediate Revelations; nor create any New Articles of Faith, but only declare and unfold, by their definitions, that doctrine, which Christ and his Apostles in some manner first delivered. Both of them likewise confess, that whether the Principles, from which the Church, or General Councils, deduce their definition, have intrinsecall and necessary connexion with the doctrine, defined or Noah, yet the Conclusion or definition itself, is of infallible verity: the holy Ghost so directing the Council, that it never defines any conclusion to be of faith, but what is de facto matter reveasd by God, either in those Principles from which the Council deduces it, or at least in some other.  
The Relatours whole Discourse therefore, upon this subject of Prophecy, falls of itself to the ground, as being built upon a pure (I had almost said a wilful) mistake, viz, that Stapleton maintains the Decrees of a General Council to be Prophetical in a proper sense, which he does not: and consequently, that it was wholly needless for our adversary to talk so much of Enthusiasms and tell us so punctually what Prophecy is, what vision: and that neither of both are to be gotten with study and Industry. For we know all this; and therefore we do not style the definitions of Councils Revelations, or Prophecies, or visions, or the like; but willingly acknowledge they are the results of much study, and industry: only we aerre the study and industry, which the Prelates in General Councils do use for the finding out of Truth, is always crowned by God with such success, as infallibly preserves them from error.  
Stapleton goes on, and gives us the reason, why a General 
Ibidem num. 3.  Council must necessarily be infallible in the Conclusion, because that which is determined by the Church, is matter of Faith, not of Knowledge; and that therefore the Church proposing it to be 〈◊〉, though it use Means, yet it stands not upon Art, Means, or Argument, but the Assistance of the Holy Ghost: else when we embrace the Conclusion proposed, it would not be an Assent of Faith, but an Habit of Knowledge. To this the Bishop replying, seems to broach a New Doctrine; namely, that the Assent of Faith may be an Habit of Knowledge. To this the replying Bishop seems to broach a new doctrine namely, that the Assent of Faith may be an habit of Knowledge. But surely Divine Faith is, according to the Apostle, Hebr. 11. an Argument of things which do not appear, to wit, by the same means, by which we give this assent of Faith: otherwise our Faith would not be free, and meritorious. 'tis true, the same conclusion may be Faith to one, and Knowledge to another, (according to St. Austin, and St. Thomas, cited by the Bishop) but this must be upon different motives: and therefore faith, as Faith, can never be knowledge; which is all that Stapleton urges. The motives of Credibility then, which we have for our Faith, do not by evident demonstration show the truth thereof, though they make it evidently credible: in so much as he would be imprudent, who should refuse to give his assent. So though the Bishop do truly assert, that the Church in all ages hath been able 
Ibidem. num. 5.  to stop the mouths of philosophers, and other great men of reason, when it is at the highest; yet this is also true, that our saviour did never intend to set up a school of Knowledge, but of Faith: and that Councils, in their definitions, rely not, on any demonstrative reasons, but on the infallible Assistance of the holy Ghost, promised to them. In like manner, the Faithful ground not themselves on any demonstration proposed to them by the Church, but on God's Revelation, obscurely, but certainly, and infallibly applied to them, by the Church. 
Consid. 7 num. 1. 2   
In the seaventh Consideration, the Relatour takes notice again of a Query, that A. C. made to him: viz. if a General Council may err, wherein are we nearer to unity by such a Council. But in stead of giving a punctual, and direct answer, as he should have done, he falls a fresh upon certain new considerations, which he advances upon this subject; whether the Protestant opinion, that General Councils may err in defining matters of Faith, or the Catholic opinion, that they cannot, be more agreeable to the Church, and more able to preserve and reduce Christian peace: which in effect is little else, but to answer one Query, by many; and having brought his reader almost to the port of his Labyrinth; by a gentle turn, to lead him back again through all the Meanders thereof: however we must observe his Motions.  
3. His First Query, or Consideration is, whether an absolute infallibility be promised to the present Church, or whether such an infallibility will not serve the turn, as Stapleton acknowledges. I answer; no doubt but it will Let Protestant's acknowledge but such an Infallibility in the Church, as that worthy Doctor maintains, and we shall be agreed for that matter. But the Truth is, our 
Stapleton. Re lect. Consr. 4. q. 2. Not. 3.  Adversary does here only confound his reader, and wrong the Author he alleges, by not, declaring sufficiently, in what sense he speaks. For Stapleton, in the place cited, expressly teaches, that the Apostles were infallible not only in their Decree, or Conclusion, but also in the Means, 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 Revelation. Whence it appears, that this Author is clear for the Church's Infallibility, though he do not in all respects equal it to that of the Apostles: and consequently, that it is not he, but the Bishop himself, that wriggles in the bussiness, unworthily endeavouring to draw his Author to a sense no way intended by him. 
Bellarm. lib. 2. de Conc. cap. 12.   
Bellarmin is used no better; whose doctrine is clear, that in the Decree, or Conclusion, a General Council is as certain: as the scripture; because both are infallible: and nothing can be more certain, than what is infallible; though in other respects scripture has many Preroagtives above General Councils; as, that it is Gods immediate Revelation; that there, not only the Conclusion, but Every thing, is matter of Faith, etc. which agree not to a General Council.  
4. However (to pass to this second Consideration, or Query) 
〈◊〉. 3.  we 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 saviour, and to the necessities of the Church; so, as by virtue of the said Infallibility she may ever be aseuredly preserved in the Belief, and Profession of the true Faith. But the principal thing the Bishop would have us consider here, is, that Jnfallibility resides, according to power and Right of Authority, in the whole Church, and in a General Council only by power deputed. To which purpose hec citys St. Austin, 
a D. Aug. lib. de Agon. Christian. cap. 30.  Petrus personam Ecclesiae Sustinet; et huic datae sunt claves, quum Petro datae. Peter (says he) bears the person of the Catholic Church; and to her were the Keys given; when they were given to Peter. I answer, there is a twofold representing, or bearning the person of an other, to be observed. The one parabolical, or by way of mere Figure, and supposition only. Thus Agar (Abraham's bondwoman) Galat. 4. 25. 26. represents the nation, or people of the jews, yet living under the bondage of the Mosaical law: and Mount-Sion, or Jerusalem, the Church of God. The other, Historical, and Real, viz. when the person representing has right, or relation aparterei, in, and towards the thing represented; by virtue whereof it doth, in the rust, and and necessary interpretation of Reason, bear the person, or stand for the thing represented. Now St. Peter Sustained the person of the Church in this latter sense; I mean Historicè, non Parabolicè, really, and in verity of fact, not in Figure, or parabolical supposition only: he being such a principal, and chief member of the Church, as did ratione officij virtually, and truly contain in himself the fullness of Ecclesiastical Power: in the same manner, as a King receives, the keys of a town, whereof he takes possession for himself, though he representeth the whole kingdom, and receives the keys for the good thereof. Thus, Isay St. Peter received the keys for himself; as he was Head of the Church, though that Reception were indeed ordained for the good of the whole Church.  
To receive a thing in this manner, is not to receive it in the others right, but in his own, not withstanding it be finally meant for the good of the other. This is so clear, even to common sense, that we have no need of turning over many Classic Authors to prove it. wherefore the example of an Attorney taking possession of land for a Purchaser, and of one, who having a Proxy, receives 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 Sustained only Parabolicè, or by way of voluntary supposition pro tempore; as when a Legate receives the keys of a town, merely as substitute, for, and in the name of his King. But in our case the keys were received Historicè, and in way of real propriety, as by the King himself, Head of the Commonwealth, so by St. Peter Head of the Church.  
This Answer is grounded in St. Austin himself, who teaches St. Peter's receiving the sovereign Authority of the governing the whole Church (signified hero, by the keys) as he was a Figure of the Church, and represented the person of the Church, to have been 
b D. Aug. Tom. 8. in psalm. 108. enarrat. 1.  propter Primatum etc. by reason of the PRIMACY which he had amongst the Apostles. The like he hath in 
c D. Aug. Quaest ex Nou. Testam. quaest. 75. D. Aug. de verb. dom. serm. 13.  other places. So clearly does he explicate his own meaning, and confirm the answer we have given to the text the Bishop brings. Why therefore doth the Relatour labour in vain to wrest the Keys out of St. Peter's hands, and to bestow them he knows not where? They must remain where Christ has left them. St Peter, and his successors know best how to use them, and how to turn them in their proper wards, as the Bishop speaks.  
In his Third Consideration he supposes, that though a General Council be granted liable to error, yet so long as the whole Catholic 
Ibidem. num. 4.  Church (Diffusive) be exempt from it in the Prime Foundations of Faith, absolutely necessary to salvation, there is still a sufficient Means to preserve, and reduce unity, and to prevent all inconveniences that usually trouble the Church. One of the greatest inconveniences that can possibly fall upon the Church, is error in faith; which upon supposition that a General Council may err in such matters, does avoidable befall the whole Church 
* chap. 8. 2.  as we have already shown; and that without any hopes of ever being certainly cleared of it. For as one General Council fell into Error so may an other, and a third, and a fourth, etc. Unless therefore General Councils be granted infallible in matters of Faith, where is the Bishop's remedy against Jnconueniences? How shall the Church be freed from Perplexity? How shall unity be preserved, or reducd? He tells us, the Church, upon discovery of the error of a former Council, may represent herself in an other body, or Council, and take order for what was concluded amiss. But who shall warrant, that the remedy shall not prove as bad as the disease, or perhaps worse? who shall secure us, that the second Council shall rightly condemn the supposed error of the first? or (if it happen so) shall not broach two other for that one, and thereby be an occasion of fresh Jnconueniences, Perplexities, Contentions, in, and to the Church?  
Again, how shall the whole Church, upon evidence found, of the miscarriage of a General Council, represent herself in an other body? must every particular member of the Church first except against the said errors, and concur to the election, and holding of an other Council? That will never happen. For in such a multitude, very many will be of the same mind with the precedent representative of the Church. If not all, but some part only of the Church's members, be convinced of the pretended error, and, would call an other Council to 〈◊〉 it, than not the whole Church in General, but only a part of it, should take upon them to remedy the abuses of a General Council: which is absurd. Moreover, if the power of calling General Councils reside only in the whole Church Diffusively taken, as the Bishop here supposeth, what likelihood is there, that there should ever be such a Council called; it being not to be done, but by the general consent of all Christians; whose interests are so divided, and for the most part so repugnant to each other, that it cannot be doubted, but when one Nation, or Country, is willing to have a General Council called, some other will be found as unwilling. When will all Christians (think you) agree, that both Protestants, Catholics, Grecians, Lutherans, and all other Sectaries should meet in Council, and have equal power, and liberty to vote there? which if they have not; who can expect, that the excluded party will hold it a General Council, and think themselves bound to submit to it?  
The Bishop tells us, that the Church heretofore used to reform 
Ibidem.  the errors of former Councils by calling, and representing herself in a new Council, and that this is evident in the case at Ariminum, and the second of Ephesus, and in other Councils named by Bellarmin. But, I answer: our dispute is about lawful General Councils, confirmed by the Pope; such as neither of these were; nor any of those other, which Bellarmin mentions in the place 
e Bellarm. lib. 2. de Conc cap. 16.  quoted by the Bishop: neither can it be said, that those subsequent Councils, which reform the errors concluded at Ariminum, and Ephesus, were called by the Authority of the whole Church in general, but by the Pope, in the same manner, as that of Trent and others were.  
He grants that the Church, though it may err, hath not 
Ibidem.  only a Pastoral power to teach, and direct, but a Praetorian also, to control, and censure too, where errors, or crimes, are against points Fundamental, or of great consequence. Are not the Real Presence, Purgatory, praying to Saints, the five Sacraments of seven which Protestants deny, and divers 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 Luther's departure from the Roman Church? why was it not then in the power of the Church to control, and censure him, with all his followers, for opposing her Doctrine in the said points? Again, if we ought to obey the Church in points Fundamental, and of great consequence, as the Bishop's doctrine here clearly implies, why must we not obey her likewise in taking those points to be Fundamental, and of great consequence, which she holds to be such, and by her definition declares to be such? Certainly Heretics will never want reason to justify their disobedience to the Church, if allowing her authority to control, and censure only in points Fundamental, and of great consequence, we allow them the liberty to judge, and determine what points are such, what not. 
Ibidem.   
His instance of a mother's authority, viz. that Obedience due to her, is not to be refused upon her falling into error, holds not in the Church, because the authority of a natural mother is not in order to Belief, but to Action: and it does not follow, that because she hath commanded amiss in one thing, that her child is not to obey her in an other, which it shall not know to be unlawful. But the authority of the Church over her children consists, not only in directing them what they are to do, but in obliging them to believe firmly, and without doubt, what ever she shall esteem necessary to difine; and propound to them, as matter of Belief. Now its impossible, that the understanding (which can assent to nothing, but what it apprehends to be true, nor infallibly believe, but what it apprehends to be infallibly true) should be moved with any respect due to the Church, to believe without doubt any defined point, which it did not before, so long as it gives way to this opinion, viz. that she may, and has defined, and also commanded us to believe as a point of Faith, a thing false in itself. 
Ibidem.   
As to his citing St. Augustine's authority in the margin, touching that text of St. Paul Ephes. 4. 27. not having Spot, nor wrinkle 
D. Aug. lib. de Haeresib. Haeres. 88  etc. it makes nothing against us. For St. Austin doth not deny those words to be understood of the Church Militant, but only, that they are not to be understood of her, in the sense given them by the Pelagians: my meaning is, he doth not deny the doctrine of the Catholic Church universally received, or defined as matter of faith, to be without Spot of error; but he denies the lives of Christians, even of the most just, and perfect in this life, to be altogether without Spot of sin. Neither doth St. Austin read us any such lesson as this, that the Church on earth is no frecer from wrinkles in doctrine, and discipline, than it is from Spots in life, and conversation: but it is the Bishops own voluntary, scandalous, and inconsiderate assertion, if he speaks of doctrine universally received, and approved by the Church: if only of doctrine, and errors taught by private persons, what is it to the purpose?  
An other thing considered is, that if we suppose a General 
Ibidem. num 5.  Council infallible, and that it prove not so, but that an error in faith be concluded, the same erring opinion, which makes it think itself infallible, makes the error of it irrevocable, and so lenues the Church without remedy. I answer: grant false antecedents, and false premises enough, and what absurdities will not be consequent, and fill up the conclusion? an Anti-scripturist may argue this way against the infallibility even of the Bible itself, in the Bishops own style, thus. This Book which you call the Bible, and suppose to be God's word, immediate Revelation of Jnfallible Truth in enery thing it says, IF IT PROVE NOT SO, but that it were written only by man, and contains errors, THE SAME ERRING OPINION, that makes you think 'tis God's word etc. makes all the said errors contained in it, wholly irrevocable, and of necessity, for ever to be believed as God's word, and Divine Revelation. Can any man deny this consequent, granting the Bishop's antecedent, if it prove not so? The inconvenience therefore which the Relatour here objects, being only conditional, and the condition, upon which it depends, such, as we are never like to grant, nor our adversaries to prove, we pass it by, as signifying else nothing, but how willing his Lordship was to heap up objections against us, though such, as he, and his party must answer,  
5. But how does the Bishop prove, that a General Council hath erred? Thus. Christ (saith he) instituted the Sacrament of his Body, and Blood in both kinds. To break Christ's institution is a damnable error; this error was committed by the Council of Constante; whose words are these, cited, and englished by the 
a Licet Christus post Caenam instituerit, et suis Discipulis administraverit sub utrâque 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, ut 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.  Bishop. LICET CHRISTUS etc. Though Christ instituted this Venerable Sacrament, and gave it to his Disciples after supper, under both kinds of bread, and wine, yet NON OBSTANTE, notwithstanding this, it ought not to be consecrated after supper; nor received, but fasting. And likewise, that though in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was received by the faithful, under both kinds, yet this custom, that it should be received by Laymen, only under the kind of bread, is to be held for a law, which may not be refused. And to say this is an unlawful custom of receiving under one kind, is erroneous, and they which persist in saying so, are to be punished, and driven out, as Heretics. The force of the objection depends wholly on the words NON OBSTANTE, which the Bishop conceives to import, that the Council defined receiving under both kinds not to be necessary, NOTWITHSTANDING that our Saviour so instituted it, viz. in both kinds. I answer, Bellarmin rightly observes, that the words non obstante have no reference to receiving under both kinds, but to the time of receiving it after supper: which though the Bishop be not satisfied with, but objects, that the NON OBSTANTE must necessarily (for aught he can see) be referred to both clauses, in the words following, because both clauses went before it; and, hath as much force against receiving under both kinds, as against receiving after supper; yet, I see no reason, but he might have taken it for a full satisfaction. For to me it seems clear (let the Bishop fancy what he pleases) that the non obstante can have no reference, but to the time of receiving after supper. For the words that follow a non obstante in any sentence, have never reference to any thing, but what hath some opposition with it. Now to consecrate, and receive fasting, (which the Council opposeth to what was done by Christ) hath no opposition at all with the Apostles receiving under two kinds. For it were an absurd, and senseless proposition to say: though Christ instituted this Venerable Sacrament, and gave it to his Disciples under both kinds, yet it ought not to be consecrated after supper, nor received but fasting: wherefore the Consecrating, and receiving fasting (which is only opposed by the Non obstante to what was done by Christ) hath not reference to the receiving under both kinds, but only to the receiving after supper.  
But the Relatour adds, that the afterwords Et similiter (and likewise) couple both together in this reference; as if the Council by saying AND LIKEWISE though in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was received under both kinds, yet this custom, that it should be received by Laymen, only under the kind of Bread, is to be held for a law, which may not be refused, should signify, that Laymen ought to receive the Sacrament under one kind, not only though it be contrary to Christ's institution, but also to the practice of the Primitive Church. But how will he prove, that this is the signification of the words And likewise? may not a man say properly, though the jews might have plurality of wives, yet the Christians may not? and likewise; though the jews were allowed to desire eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc. 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 faith: Though the jews might have plurality of wives, yet Christians are not allowed to require eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.  
As the Decrees of the aforesaid Council are not contrary to the institution, and ordination of Christ, so neither is the practice of the Church in receiving under one kind contrary thereto. To show that the practice of the Church were contrary to Christ's institution, the Bishop should have made it appear, that Christ did so institute this Sacrament of his last supper, that he would not have one part to be Sacrament without the other; or that he would not have one part be taken without the other. Now neither of these two can be proved. Not that one kind alone is not sufficient to the Sacrament: for if nothing be requisite to the essence of a Sacrament, but Matter, form, and a divine promise of Grace to those that shall receive it: the words of Consecration Hoc est corpus meum is a true form; the element of bread alone, is a true matter, used by our Saviour. He hath also promised Grace to those, that shall receive his Body under the form of bread, as appears by these words, Joan. 6. Qui manducat hunc panem, vivet in 〈◊〉. with what reason therefore can any one deny, that the Body of Christ under the form of bread is a true Sacrament? Neither can it be proved that Christ commanded Laymen to receive under both kinds. Not by these words, Drink ye all of this. For if this were a command, and not a Counsel, (as when he said, if I, your Lord have washed your feet, you also aught to wash one an others feet,) it was given to the Apostles, who all drunk of the Chalice. Now as it doth not follow, that Laymen are bound to baptise, and preach to all nations, because the Apostles were commanded to do so; so neither doth it follow, that Laymen are bound to drink of the Chalice, because the Apostles were.  
Nor can this obligation, viz. that Laymen should receive under both kinds, be inferred out of those other words of our Saviour; except you 〈◊〉 my flesh, and drink my blood, you shall have no life in you, Joan. 6. for if this were a precept of receiving under both kinds, and did generally bind all persons without restriction, it would follow, that all children, especially such as have the use of reason, are bound to receive this Sacrament, as well as men, and women; and that all such children, as died without having received it, would be liable to eternal damnation. If Protestants themselves therefore do not extend this command to persons of all ages, notwithstanding that the words have no restriction more to one age, then to an other, how will they prove from thence, that all Laymen are bound to receive under both kinds? Beside, we will show hereafter, that even in the Primitive Church, when the custom was to receive under both kinds, the Sacrament was many times administered under one kind only.  
6. But the Relatour pretends we are unreasonable, in holding 
Ibidem. num. 6.  General Councils infallible, because (saith he) no Body collective, whensoever it assembled itself, did ever give more power to the representing Body of it, than a binding power upon all particulars, and itself; nor ever did it give this power otherwise, then with this reservation in nature, that it would call again, and reform, yea, and if need were, abrogate any law, or ordinance upon just cause made evident, that the Representing Body had failed in trust, or truth. But this is only to suppose, and take for granted, what he never yet proved, viz. that a General Council hath no authority, but what is merely delegate from the Church universal, which it represents: whereas we maintain its authority to be of divine institution, and, when lawfully assembled, to act by divine right, and not merely by deputation, and consent of the Church, as we have also proved in the precedent chapter. True it is, the call of such assemblies was taken up, and hath for its pattern the example of the Apostles, Acts. 15. yet surely there's as little doubt to be made, but the Apostles had both direction, and precept too, for doing it so often as just occasion requred, from Christ himself. Though therefore a General Council be the Church representative, and do not meet, or assemble together hic, et nunc, but by order, and deputation from Man, yet it follows no, but the power, and authority by which they act, when they are 〈◊〉 be from God; as doubtless it is. In the first Council of the Apostles the Body Collective, as the Bishop calls it, that is, the People that believed, did neither send, nor choose the persons to sit in it; neither was their consent asked, whether a Council should be convened, or not; but the Apostles concluded this amongst themselves, as being a particular, and special branch of that Power they had received from Christ, for the Government of the Church. Neither at this day, is their consent, or concurrence any more required de iure to the convening of such assemblies, than it was in the Apostles time; but the Pastors of the Church do act, and determine all things pertaining to this affair, solely amongst themselves, without requiring the People's consent.  
General Councils than are a principal, and necessary part of that Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, which Christ instituted for the Government of his Church, and not an human Expedient only, brought in, or taken up by the Church herself merely upon prudential considerations, as the Bishop will needs conceive: and their Power being wholly from above, as the Church Diffusive properly speaking, gives it not; so neither can she take it away, or annul any thing in point of doctrine, which the Pastors in such Councils assembled, shall by full authority decree. I said, in point of doctrine; because that is ex natura rei unchangeable. The Gospel of Christ and true Christian Faith (which General Councils are by Christ's Institution appointed to teach) admits not of yea, and nay, now the Affirmative, than the Negative, (as the Bishop 
Hebr. 13. 8.  by his correcting, and abrogating Power, left to After-Councils would have us belccue) but only yea. It is always the same, if once declared, and settled by those, who have the authority, and assistance from God, that is requisite thereto, (as Councils have, even by the Relatours own confession here.) It must stand, and be professed without alteration, or abrogation, for ever. His pretence therefore of the Churches representing herself again, and by a new Council taking order for what was decreed amiss, signifies nothing in this case, save only, that our adversary holds still to his first, and false supposition, that General Councils may err; which was never yet granted him, nor can we grant it, without offering violence to the nature, and property of true Christian Faith, which is to be invariable, and to admit no change, not without derogating both from the institution, and honour of Christ. For a General Council being of divine institution, and even in the Bishops own style, and profession, the Supreme, external, Living, Ecclesiastical judge of all Controversies in Faith; if any error contrary to true Faith, could be incident to the definition of such a Council, what Certainty, or unchangeableness, could there be in the Faith it sefle? or how can it be thought not to reflect upon Christ's honour, to have instituted in his Church no other Power to correct, and repeal the errors of such a Council, but what is liable to the same, or the like error 〈◊〉.  
The Bishop himself, in this Paragraph) attributes such power, authority, and high prerogatives to General Councils, that I see not how they can stand with the possibility of error 〈◊〉 calling in question any point of doctrine defined by them. First he tells us; a Council hath power to order, settle, and define differences arisen, concerning Faith. Then, that a Council, lawfully called, and proceeding orderly, and concluding according to the Rule, the 〈◊〉; the whole Church cannot but approve the Council. That the decrees of it shall bind all particulars, and itself. Lastly, that because the whole Church can meet no other way, the Council shall remain the Supreme, external, Living, Temporary, Ecclesiastical judge of all Controversies. Does he not now plainly destroy these prerogatives, and contradict himself, when speaking of such a Council, he saith presently after, only the whole Church, and she alone, hath power, when scripture, or demonstration is found and peaceably tendered to her, to represent herself again in a new Council, and in it, to order what was amiss? 
a §. 32. 11. 5.  A while since he granted, that the definitions of a General Council were to be held and observed, till such evident scripture, and demonstration were brought against them, 
b §. 33. Con sid. 5. 〈◊〉. 1.  as being proposed, and understood, the mind of man cannot choose but assent to it. But here he supposeth, the whole Church is made acquainted with evident scripture, and demonstration against the definitions of a former Council: and yet, by his own doctrine but a few lines above, all particulars are bound to stand to those definitions, till such time as an other Council of equal authority, called by the whole Church, hath ordered, and amended, what was decreed amiss in the former.  
Again: how can the whole Church, when scripture, and demonstration is found contrary to a former Council, represent herself in a new one, to order by it what was formerly defined amiss, but she must clearly understand, that what was determined by the former Council was false, and erroneous? upon this supposition 〈◊〉. Either the said former Councils false, and erroneous definitions are still binding, or they are not: if they are binding, it would be sin to believe the contrary, or at least outwardly to oppose the said definitions. Now let any body 〈◊〉, how its possible for the whole Church to call an other Council to reform those errors of the first, but it must outwardly show some dislike of them, and thereby declare in effect the doctrine of the precedent Council to be false, and consequently oppose its decrees, even while they are supposed to bind.  
If you answer they are binding to particulars, not to the whole Church, I reply; it is impossible the whole Church should ever 〈◊〉 agree to represent herself in an other Council, to reform the 〈◊〉 of the precedent, but that very many, nay almost all particulars must 〈◊〉, and also 〈◊〉 those errors, before the whole Church 〈◊〉, and declare them. If therefore the definitions of the precedent Council, though 〈◊〉, bind all particulars, till an 〈◊〉 Council lawfully called reverse 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 commit sin, by some kind of 〈◊〉 opposition, or not conforming themselves, where they were as yet bound to yield obedience? And how, I 〈◊〉, had the former Council power to settle and define differences of saith, and to bind all particulars, if 〈◊〉, and every particular person (as the case now supposeth) may lawfully think, and profess, that for ought kee knows, both scripture, and demonstration may be brought against it; and that in case they be, the errors of the precedent Council ought to be reform by calling an other?  
Again I ask; to what purpose should there be an other Council called to reform the errors of a former? For either the whole Church hath evident scripture, or demonstrations against the definitions of the former Council, or it hath not. If it hath not, the Church herself commits sin, in the Bishops own principles, by imputing error to the precedent Council; whose definitions according to him, must stand in force, and be obeyed by all particulars, and consequently by the whole Church, till evident scripture, or demonstration be brought against them. If it hath, than the whole Church cannot but clearly perceive the said errors of the former Council, and know them to be such: and then, what need of an After-Council? what good can it do? shall it be called to declare that, which every man sees already? or to define that, about which there is no controversy, nor can be any, so long as men continue in their right minds, and do but consider what they say or think?  
You will say, a Council ought to be called in this case, to abrogate the law, or definition, of the precedent Council which erred. I answer, that supposes the definition of the said precedent Council to be still in force, which is false: first, because it is unreasonable we should be bound to believe anything as matter of Faith, solely upon the authority of a Council that is liable to error, both against scripture, and demonstration. Secondly, because 'tis more unreasonable we should be bound to believe what we clearly see to be error, and contrary both to scripture, and demonstration: and yet in no other case, but this, even by the Bishop's leave, can the whole Church call an other Council to reverse the decrees of the former. Thirdly, because, as it did not bind the whole Church from professing her dislike of the errors defined, and calling an other to 〈◊〉 the same 〈◊〉 so did it not oblige the particulars not to profess outwardly a disbeleefe, or doubt thereof. Wherefore it is evident that his Lordship upon this subject says, and unsays the same; and what he seems to attribute to General Councils in one proposition, he takes away in an other.  
The Bishop pretends the Catholic opinion touching infallibility 
Ibidem. num. 7.  to be yet more unreasonable; because we make not only the definitions of a General Council, but the sentence of the Pope also, infallible. For a General Council, saith he, may err with us, if the Pope confirm it not. So upon the matter, the infallibility we contend for, rests not in the representative Body the Council, nor in the whole Body the Church, but in the Head thereof the Pope of Rome: and if this be so, to what end (saith he) so much trouble for a General Council? and wherein are we nearer to unity, if the Pope confirm it not? we answer first, the Bishop stumbles at the threshold: a General Council is not held by us, to be infallible at all, unless it involve the Pope, or his confirmation: and by consequence here are not two distinct infallibilityes for our adversary to compare together, viz. of the Council, and the Pope, but One infallibility only, to wit of the Pope presiding in, and confirming the votes of a General Council, or (if you will) a General Council confirmed by the Pope. Secondly, we confess there are two opinions taught in 〈◊〉 schcoles concerning the Pope's infallibility. The first, and the more con men is, that the Pope, even without a General Council, is infallible in his definitions of Faith, when he teaches the whole Church. The second is, that he is not infallible in his definitions, saue only when he defines in, and with a General Council. Now had the Bishop (as he 〈◊〉 to have done) taken due notice of this second opinion, and proceeded in the point accordingly, these Doctors would quickly have satissyed his objection, 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 jointly 〈◊〉 both, and is the prerogative of both, not separately considered, but as united, and making up the complete representative of the Church. But the Bishop sound it more for his turn to pass by this opinion in deep silence, framing his argument wholly against the other, as if it were the opinion of all Catholic Doctors. But of this we have said enough, having prosesled at the beginning, that we intended not to meddle much with any matters of private dispute, or opinion. Wherefore I shall briefly pass ouer, what his Lordship hath further, touching this matter, and only correct some 〈◊〉 of his.  
7. His first is, that if the Pope be infallible, than the Council is called; but only in 〈◊〉, to hear the Pope give his sentence in 
Ibidem.  more state. I answer 〈◊〉, that the 〈◊〉 hath the same force against the Council called in the 〈◊〉 time, viz. that 'twas con only to hear St. Peter 〈◊〉 his sentence in more state; in regard it will not be denied, but St. Peter's definition alone, had been as infallible, and as much binding, as that of the whole Council. Secondly I answer more directly; this follows not with any the least shadow of consequence, in their opinion, who hold the Pope to be fallible out of a General Council, as is manifest: and in the other opinion 'tis easily answered. For seeing the Pope, when ever he defines matters of Faith ought to proceed maturely, and use all means morally 〈◊〉 to find out the truth, and seeing that the deliberations, and notes of a General Council are the most proper, and efficacious in that kind, it follows evidently enough, to all unprejudiced, and impartial judgements, that the Council is called really to help, and 〈◊〉 the Pope in that most important affair, and which equally concerns the whole Church: also, that the advice of the Council in such cases is, not only a profitable, and fit, but (speaking in a moral sense) a Necessary medium to this Holiness, whereby to make a full inspection into the matters he is to define.  
Nor doth this any way infringe what Doctor Stapleton, here alleged by the Bishop, affirms according to his own principles: viz. that the Pope acquires no new power, or authority, or certainty of judgement by being joined to the Council. For though he acquires no new power, authority, or certainty of judgement (which in this Doctors opinion he hath, whether he be with, or without a Council) yet he may acquire some thing, which doth connaturally work, and conduce to the due exercise of that power, authority, and certainty of judgement; to wit counsel, advice, and convenient information touching the matters in Controversy. The like is to be said to that of Cardinal Bellarmin, when he asserts, that the firmeness of a Council (to which the Relatour adds of his own, Infallibility) comes from the Pope only. For he intends to show how the matter passes in regard of us, who are assured no other way, of the firmeness of the Councils definition, then by the Pope's confirmation alone.  
You will object, that if the Pope be infallible without the Council, and the Council, subject to error without the Pope, it must needs follow, that all the infallibility of General Councils proceeds from the Pope only; not partly from the Pope, and partly from the Council. I answer, the Assertors of that opinion may say, that Christ hath made two promises to his Church; the one, to assist her sovereign Head, and Pastor, so as that, he shall never define any thing to be believed by all the Faithful, but what is divine truth. The other, so to assist General Councils, or the Representatives of the Church, that they shall never err in the doctrine they determine. Now those that affirm the Pope alone, or without a General Council, to be infallible, as well as General Councils, hold these two promises to have been made by our saviour: and that when the Pope defines in General Councils, his infallibility proceeds from the latter promise, by virtue of which, the definitions of Councils confirmed by the Pope, would be infallible, although the other promise had not been made: as the Council at Jerusalem would have been infallible, by virtue of the infallible Assistance, which was promised to every Representative of Christ's Church, though each Apostle had not been endowed with that prerogative.  
The Bishop wonders, that they which affirm the Pope cannot err, do not affirm likewise that he cannot sin. But why does he not wonder too, that Christ should give infallibility in teaching to St. Peter, (as the Relatour cannot deny but he did) and yet not preserve him from those defects, for which St. Paul saith 〈◊〉 was truly reprebensible? Could not his Lordship observe, that infallibility in the Head of the Church, would be an effectual means to settle Religion, confirm the Faithful, suppress Heresies, prevent differences in matter of Faith etc. 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 Prerogative in Christ, whom they hold to be their judge, and to have power to condemn them to everlasting flames, cannot keep them in their duty, much less would the Pope's impeccability do it, though they did all generally believe it. Last; as the infallibility of the Pope is in so many respects profitable for the Church, more than his immunity from sin would be: so the Assertors of it do allege many probable, and pregnant arguments from scripture, and Ecclesiastical Writers, to prove it: but for his impeccability none can be alleged.  
8. What can be inferred from Pope Liberius his demanding the judgement of St. Athanasius, I cannot see; unless the Relatour had first shown, that the Pope did this, after he had passed a definition ex 〈◊〉 in the matter. But in his allegation of S. Ambrose he mistaks worst of all. The Bishop's intent is, to show that the Pope's definitions in matters of Faith are fallible, and 
Ibidem.  subject to error. why? because St. Ambrose (lib. 1. epist. 83.) 〈◊〉, that many did ask his opinion, touching the observation 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 clear, that he speaks not of any Doctrinal, or 〈◊〉 definitions touching that point, (which had been long before determined, by the Council of Nice) but only of such Definitions and Rules for observing 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 Astronomical (not Thcologicall) Definitions were published annually, is manifest from Baronius: and the reason was; for that, though by the decree of the Council of Nice, all Christian Churches of Catholic Communion did celebrate Easter, not upon the Decima quarta mensis primi, or day of the jewish Pasche, but upon the day following: yet by reason of the different accounts, or computation of time, through the various ending, and beginning of Months, it fell out, that all did not celebrate it upon the same sunday. Wherefore, to remedy this inconvenience, and reduce the observation of Easter, as much as might be, to a general uniformity, it was ordered by the Council 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 every year, by such, as were most skilful in that art; and the calculation sent to the Bishop of Rome so seasonably, as that he might have time enough to 〈◊〉 notice of it to all other Christian Churches, to the end, that Easter might be observed 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 speaks (as is clear by the whole epistle cited by the Bishop) and not of any thing Doctrinal, or Dogmatic 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 Petavius de doctrine. Temp. against Scaliger. lib. 2. cap. 57 pag. 205. Also his notes upon Epiphanius, in Heres. Quarto-decimam.  
Nor will those Prophecies (as the Bishop calls them) out of 〈◊〉 amount to any just proof of the Pope's fallibility, in the sense where in Catholics deny it, unless he prove the Popes taught them as matters of Faith, to the whole Church.  
Again, he mistakes by affirming that Pope Alexander the Third, with a Council of three hundred Archbishops, and Bishops 
Ibidem.  held at Rome, condemned Peter Lombard of Heresy; and that after he had lain under that sentence for the space of thirty six years, Innocent the Third restored him, and condemned his accusers. The 〈◊〉 of the history is only this. After Peter Lombard's death, there was observed in some of his writings this proposition, Christus, secundum quod est homo, non est aliquid: which being contrary to the Catholic doctrine touching the perfection of Humane Nature in Christ, was indeed condemned by Pope Alexander, as the Bishop tells you; but was never approved by Pope Innocent. That which Innocent approved, was only the said Peter Lombard's 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 years 1164. 1179, and 1215. Whence it appears, that neither part of the Bishop's 〈◊〉 concludes any thing against us. For neither did Pope Alexander err in comdemning the said Proposition of Lombard, (notwithstanding the Relatour, 〈◊〉, and without any reason given, reproaches him with error) nor yet Pope Innocent in justifying his doctrine against the Abbot joachim: for the ones condemnation, and the others approbation were of several propositions: Alexander condemning a proposition touching the matter of the Incarnation; which was never repealed by Pope Innocent: and Jnnocent approving his doctrine in the matter of the B. Trinity; which was never condemned by Pope Alexander.  
How sharp-sighted therefore our adversary is in his observations against us, appears by this. But seeing these forked syllogisms 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  (so Dilommas are sometimes called by Logicians) are such Currant Coin with his Lordship, it will not (I hope) be thought unreasonable, if we pay him one, for many. Thus than 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 seem knowing, is hardly excusable, and his temerity, in affirming, without sure ground, such a thing as this, to the scandal of the 〈◊〉 Pastor of the Church, and of a synod of three hundred Bishops and Archbishops by his own confession, altogether unblamable. If he knew it to be false, and yet would affirm what he did, where is his honesty?  
The like is to be said of his 〈◊〉 touching Pope 〈◊〉, and the eight General Council defining against Honorius; there's a mistake in it. For neither did Pope Honorius really maintain the Monothelites Heresy, nor do we maintain but in a question of Fact, (as this was, viz. whether the said Pope had really asserted that Heresy) both the Pope, and a General Council, through Misinformation, or other Jucidents may judge amiss.  
The Bishop proceeds, ask us in the next paragraph to this effect; that since the doctrine of the Pope's infallibility, had been so easy a way, either to prevent all divisions about the Faith, or to end all controversies of that nature, whensoever they should arise, why this brief, but most necessary, Proposition THE BISHOP OF ROME CANNOT ERR IN HIS JUDICJALL DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING THE FAITH 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 Catholics maintain the Pope's infallibility to be matter of necessary beleese to all Christians, it is found (for sense) both in scripture. Councils, and Fathers, as we have already sufficiently proved, in proving the infallibility of General Councils, of which he is the most principal, and most necessary member.  
Secondly even in the sense, wherein the Bishop with perpetual impertinency 〈◊〉 it, viz. as it signifies his personal infallibility without a General Council, who knows not, that the maintainers of that opinion allege both scriptures, Fathers, and Councils for it; probably at least, as may be seen in their 〈◊〉 disputations upon that subject. To omit scripture (wherein we confess there is no express mention of the Pope, but only of S. Peter, in whose Right the Pope succeeds) what think you of the Council of 〈◊〉 doth not that Council seem to say in effect, that the Pope is infallible, when upon reading of his 〈◊〉 to them: in 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 Heresy, the 〈◊〉 Assembly of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out with acclamation, 
a Conc. Chalced. part. 2. Act. 2. pag. 228. Item Act. 3. pag. 472.  and profess, that St. Peter (who was infallible) spoke by the might of Leo, and that the Pope was Interpreter of the Apostles voice? what think you of the Council of 〈◊〉? do not the Fathers in that Council seem to attribute infallibility to the Pope, when they acknowledge, 
b 〈◊〉 2. Act. 〈◊〉 pag. 234. Edit. Conc. Latin.  that St. Peter was Head, and Foundation of the Church, and that he STILLL 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 causes of Faith in, and by his successors, the Bishops of 〈◊〉?  
Doth not 
c D. 〈◊〉 on. Epist. add Damas'.  St. Hierome seem to make Pope Damasus infallible when speaking of him, and his particular Sea, he says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. upon this Rock, I know the Church (which can 〈◊〉 fail, or fall away from the 〈◊〉 Faith) is built? 
d D. Aug. Ep. 92.  Did not St. Austin do the same, with the whole Council of 〈◊〉, when beside their own suffrage (which was but of a particular Provincial Council) they required nothing, but the 〈◊〉 sentence only to the full, and effectual condemning of the Pelagian Heresy? doth he not speak also to the same effect: 
e D. Aug. in psalm. contr. Part. Dovat.  When he 〈◊〉, that the succession of the Roman Bishops is that very Rock of the Church, against which the proud Gates of Hell shall never prevail. I might add 
f Fpost. 55. ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  St. Cyprian formerly alleged, as also 
g 〈◊〉 93.  St. Leo Pope, 
h Fpist. ad 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉  Innocent the first, Pope 
i Epist. 8. ad 〈◊〉. Imp rat.  Gelasius, St. Gregory, with others: but I fear it would be answered, that they were Popes, and spoke partially in their own cause. Beside, having hitherto wholly declined the defence of that assertion, and professed, that it would be sufficient for Protestants, to acknowledge the Pope infallible in, and with General Councils only, I have no obligation to engage further 
k D. Greg. lib. 4. Epist. 52.  in that business, nor can I think it any way expedient, to make the entrance into Catholic Communion, seem narrower to our adversaries, then in truth it is, and of necessity must be maintained to be.   

CHAP. 22. The Bishop's vain endeavour to find out Errors in General Councils confirmed by the Pope.  
ARGUMENT.  
1. The Councils of Florence and Trent erred not, in defining the Priest's intention to be necessary to the validity of Sacraments. 2. Why the Pope's Confirmation is necessary to the definitions of General Councils. 3. Transubstantiation no error; nor any such late, or new doctrine, as the Relatour pretends without show of proof. 4. Communion under one kind, no error, but the allowed practice of the Church in Primitive times. 5. Invocation of Saints no error, but the doctrine, and practice of the Fathers. 6. Not derogatory, either to the Merits, or Mediation of Christ our Saviour. 7. Adoration, or worshipping of Images, as allowed by the doctrine of the Church, neither Idolatry, nor Error. 8. Optatus both partially, and impertinently alleged by the Bishop. 9 Private abuses in this, or any other matter, not justly 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 errors in matter of Faith, committed by such General Councils, as the Pope confirmed. The first in the endictement, is that of the Priest's Jntention, which the Councils of Florence, and Trent (both of them confirmed 
§. 33. Consied 7. num. 11.  by the Pope) defined to be essentially necessary to the validity of a Sacrament: which the Bishop thinks is an error. But before he goes about to prove it to be such, he forgets not to tell us, that the Pope's infallibility (of which we talk so much) is a vain, and useless thing. Why I pray? His reason is, for that before the Church, or any particular man, can make use of it, (that is, be settled, and confirmed in the truth by means thereof) he must either know, or upon sure ground, believe, that he is infallible. But (says the Bishop) this can only be believed of him, as he is St. Peter's Successor, and Bishop of Rome: of which it is impossible, in the Relatours' opinion, for the Church, or any particular man, to have such certainty, as is sufficient to ground an infallible belief. Why? because the knowledge, and belief of this, depends upon his being truly in Orders, truly a Bishop, truly a Priest, truly baptised: none of all which, according to our principles, can be certainly known, or believed; because (forsooth) the intention of him that administered these Sacraments to the Pope, or made him Bishop, Priest etc. can never be certainly known: and yet by the doctrine of the Councils of Florence, and Trent, it is of absolute necessity to the validity of every one of those Sacraments; so as without it, the Pope were neither Bishop nor Priest. This is the sum of a much longer discourse, which the Relatour makes to this purpose.  
In answer to which in the first place I observe, though the Bishop levels his argument only against the Pope's infallibility, yet it hath the same force against the infallibility of the whole Church in points fundamental. For seeing the whole Church cannot consist of other persons than such as are truly baptised, and that no infallible assurance can be had, that either all, or any one in particular is baptised, how is it possible we 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, believing all points fundamental, or absolutely necessary to salvation, since we cannot be infallibly sure, that any of them are baptised? Secondly I answer, that both a General Council, and the Pope, when they define any matter of Faith, do also implicitly define that themselves 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 have all things Essentially necessary for that function, which they then execute. Neither is there any more difficulty in the case of the Pope now, then there was in the time of the Prophets, and Apostles of old: whom all must grant, that with the same breath they defined or infallibly declared the several articles, and points of doctrine proposed by them to the faithful, and their own infallibility in proposing them.  
Here therefore the Bishop's argument hath equal force against all parties, (his own, as well as ours) and all must answer as we do; narnely, that it is not necessary first, to believe 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 believe it first, prioritate naturae, so as the infallibility of the teacher be presupposed to the infallibility of his doctrine, as without which, this latter could not subsist, or be believed by us. Thus, we conceive, the Relatours Achilles is fallen; and truly it may seem much, that in all his discourse he should take no notice of this answer to this objection, which is commonly given by divines. Was it because he knew it not, or wanted a sufficient reply?  
But this is but, as it were, the Prologue to the Play: the Relatours main business is about the Priest's intention; concerning which he first of all positively lays down, that it is not of absolute necessity to the essence of a Sacrament, so as to make it void, though the Priests thoughts should wander from his work, at the instant of using the essentials of a Sacrament; yea, or have in him an actual intention to scorn the Church. After which he tells us a story, how learnedly a Neapolitan Bishop in the Council of Trent disputed against the common opinion, viz. which holds the Priest's intention to be necessary: himself pressing the grand inconvenience, 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 himself, upon any doubt, or trouble in his conscience that he hath truly, and really been made 〈◊〉 of any Sacrament whatsoever; no, not of Baptism: and so by consequence be left in doubt, whether he be a Christian, or no. I shall speak first to his principal assertion, which is, that the Priest's intention is not absolutely necessary to the essence, or validity of the Sacrament.  
If it be not; I desire a reason of our adversaries, why we should not think a Priest consecrates the Body of Christ as much at a table, where there is wheaten bread before him, and that either 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 form, Hoc est corpus meum. Here is the true matter, wheaten bread. He that pronounces the Form, is a true Priest: and yet in all men's judgement Here's no true Sacrament made. Some thing else therefore 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 show 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 I deny that any such external signification by circumstances, is essentially necessary to a Sacrament. Might not a Catholic Priest, to save the soul of some dying infant, baptise it (if he could) without making any such signification by circumstances? Might he not upon pretence that he had skill in Physic, and that it were good for the child to have its face often sprinkled with cold water, take occasion himself ever and anon, to be sprinkling the child's face, and at one time amongst the rest, to pronounce either softly, or by way of discourse, the words Ego te 〈◊〉 etc. with intention to confer the Sacrament? and will any man doubt, but that the Priest doing this, out of a real intention to baptise, the child is really baptised, though none of the standers by take notice, by any circumstances, of what that Priest does?  
I ask therefore, if in this case a true Sacrament be made, though no circumstances do outwardly signify, that the Priest intends to make it, why is it not likewise so in the other case, viz. where a Priest having due matter (wheaten bread) before him, pronounces the 〈◊〉, or words of Consecration, merely by way of discourse, or reading? Can any reason hereof be so much as imagined, save only this, that in the former case the Priest hath a real intention to make a Sacrament, or to do what the Church doth, or what Christ did institute to be done, but in the other he hath no such intention?  
As for the inconvenience, 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 Baptism itself. I answer first, that as to the far greater part of Christians, the inconvenience follows as much, out of the Bishop's principles, as ours; they cannot be absolutely certain that they are Baptised. For the Bishop himself holds, that both matter and 〈◊〉 are essentially necessary, and that without them the Sacrament were void. But who sees not, how easy it is for the Priest, especially in Country-Churches, and villages amongst poor ignorant people, and in private houses too, when he is called to Christian children ready to die, Jsay, how easy it is for the Priest, if he will be so wicked, to vitiate something pertaining to the Essentials of Baptism, without being perceived: which if he does, the Baptism is void. Secondly, as to his pretended inconvenience, that then people should not be absolutely, and infallibly certain, that they are truly Baptised, is not Moral assurance, or such, as is liable to no just cause of doubting, and suspecting the contrary, sufficient? or can any man in his wits pretend to more assurance than this, touching his Baptism? Such Metaphysical, and rare cases therefore, 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 proving, that we cannot by ordinary course, without special revelation, have absolute, and infallible certainty of our Justification, and Salvation; which is no way contrary to Catholic Faith, but most consonant to it.  
As for those wand'ring Thoughts the Bishop speaks of, we easily grant, they do not nullyfy the Sacrament, because they well stand with a virtual intention, which in the general doctrine of our divines is sufficient to the essence of the Sacrament. Virtual intention is, when the Priest really does operate, or celebrate the Sacrament in virtue of an express intention which he had to do it, but now, at this, or that instant, hath not, by reason of some distraction of mind, or that his thoughts are upon some other thing: which we may illustrate by an example, or two. A Servant upon command of his Master undertakes a journey. When he first receives the command, and is bidden to prepare himself, no doubt but in obedience to his Master, he hath an express intention to do what he is commanded; which probably continues till his first setting out, and some time after. But upon the road he meets with friends, lights upon company, falls into discourse, etc. so that he hath no longer that express intention, upon the business he goes about, which at first he had; but yet he still goes on his way, by virtue of his intention to obey his master. A labouring man, that is hired to a dayes-worke, whilst he sings, or talks to his fellow-labourers, hath not any express intention of getting money: yet certain it is, he labours all day in virtue of an intention to get money, though grown so slack, that he cannot perceive it. So is it in the administration of Sacraments, and in all other actions of like nature: we do not always expressly intend the work we do, (for that's morally impossible) but we do always virtually intent it, if ever we went seriously, and deliberately about it, until we do expressly, and actually cease, or intent the contrary. For seeing the hand moves not without some impulse of the will, nor the will act at any time without some motive represented by the understanding, 'tis clear in all these cases, that the motive, which was first represented to the will, and by which the will was first of all moved, doth still remain, and operate upon the will, though so obscurely, and unperceivedly, by reason of other objects intervening, that it can hardly be discerned to move us.  
Let the Priest therefore be never so much distracted in his thoughts, and wander, at the instant of applying the matter, and form of the Sacrament; if he begun the action, not with an intention to deride the Church, but to do what is usual for Christ's Ministers to do in the like occasions, he makes a true Sacrament by virtue of that first intention, though he does not clearly perceive it. Now as for the Neapolitan Bishop we answer, that the most Eminent Sforza Palavicino, late of the Society of JESUS, and 
Parte 1. lib. 9 cap. 6.  now Cardinal, in his elaborate and learned tomes of the history of the Council of Trent, observes, that the Council, in their definition touching the Priest's intention in the Sacrament, aimed only at the condemning of that error of Luther, which denies all virtue to the Sacrament, and auerrs it to have its full effect from the Receivers Faith alone; so far, as though the whole action were done in mockage, and derision of the Church, yet it should be to him that receives it, a true Sacrament. This doctrine the Council expressly condemned, as indeed it deserved, being so apparently unsuitable both to the wisdom of our Saviour and the Decorum of his Church, contrary to the universal apprehension of the Faithful, and repugnant to the nature of all other humane actions.  
But as for Catharinus (who is the person the Relatour means by the Neapolitan Bishop, who as his Lordship says, disputed so learnedly against the common opinion, in the Council of Trent,) the Cardinal above mentioned, is clear of opinion, that the Council decreed nothing against him; because he denied not an intention to be necessary in the Sacrament, but only explicated the thing differently from the common way of schoolmen: into which dispute neither the Council of Florence, nor Trent thought it necessary to engage; but defined in general terms, that in the Minister of the Sacrament, an intention was required faciendi quod facit Ecclesia (of doing what the Church doth) which Catharinus did not deny.  
2. Thus have we (I hope) sufficiently answered the Bishop's first Charge of Error, against General Councils confirmed by the Pope. Before he brings in the second, he presents the Reader with such a acquaint subtlety against the Pope's Right to confirm them, and the necessity we maintain of their being so confirmed by him, that we cannot well avoid taking notice of it. Thus than he argues. No Council is confirmed till it be finished: and when 'tis 
Ibidem. num 13.  finished, even before the Pope's confirmation be put to it, either it hath erred, or it hath not erred. 〈◊〉 it hath erred, the Pope ought not to confirm it; and if he do, 'tis a void Act: for no power can make Falsehood Truth. If it hath not erred, than it was true before the Pope confirmed it: so his Confirmation 〈◊〉 nothing but his own assent. Thus the Relatour. But I answer, we must distinguish in the business. A General Council makes a definition in matter, of Faith, either, with the joint consent of the Pope, or without it. By defining with the Pope's joint consent I understand, that either the Pope be personally present in the Council, and concur with it, (which happens but seldom) or that his Legates do it, following the Pope's instruction: in either of these cases the definition, of a General Council is unquestionably infallible. By defining without the Pope's consent, I mean, when neither the Pope is present, in the Council, nor have the Legates that are present any instruction from the Sea Apostolic touching the matter; and by consequence do not, in this case, so fully represent the chief Pastor of the Church, but that this further confirmation is necessary. In this therefore, and in all other like cases, 'tis necessary, that the Pope do actually confirm the Decrees of General Councils, to make them infallible; or that it may be infallibly certain to us, that such, or such a General Council erred not in any of its definitions concerning matter of Faith.  
So that Exclusively to the Pope's consent or confirmation we can never be infallibly certain which hath happened, till the Pope joins, and adds his confirmation to the Decree of the Council. We may express the matter in some sort by the king's consent to Acts of Parliament. Le Roy veut, added to a Bill presented from both Houses, makes it a binding Law to the whole kingdom; which before it, was not. So the Pope's consent, or confirmation added to the definitions of General Councils, makes them articles of Christian Belief no longer now to be questioned, much less contradicted by any, but absolutely to be believed with infallible Faith. Now this presupposed, we answer the Relatours' argument directly, thus.  
To the first part of it, if the Council erred etc. we agree with him; the Pope ought not to confirm the Decree: adding more over, that it is impossible he should confirm it. And to the second viz. that if it erred not, than the definition was true, before the Pope confirmed it, we confess this also, for the Pope's confirmation makes not the definition to be true in itself, but it makes us infallibly certain, that it is true. God's Revelation itself, towitt of the things delivered in scripture, makes them not to be true in themselves; for so they are, and were, whether he had revealed them, or no; but it makes them infallible truths to us, or such truths, as both may, and must be infallibly believed by Christians. So we say, the doctrine of General Councils was true in itself before the Pope's confirmation, but it was not so sufficiently, and infallibly declared, that it could be believed with an act of true Christian Faith: that Prerogative belonging to Decrees of General Councils, only as they include the Head of the Church, and not otherwise. But whereas then the Bishop infers, that the Pope's confirmation adds nothing, but only his own consent to the Councils decree: we utterly deny the consequence; especially understanding it in the Relatours' sense, viz. for no more than the Assent of some other single Bishop or Patriarch. For we aver that it is the assent of the Chief Pastor of the Church, absolutely necessary to the completing, and giving full force to the acts of such Councils; and also that it 〈◊〉 infallibility, or absolute Certainty of truth, to all their decrees in matter of Faith: which surely is more than nothing.  
3. Well. But now the Relatour advances again with his instances; to wit, of pretended errors in the doctrine of General Councils confirmed by the Pope: thence concluding against us, that even the Pope's confirmation doth not make the doctrine of such Councils, infallible. The error 〈◊〉 objects, is against the 
Ibidem.  Council of Lateran, confirmed by Pope Innocent the Third; where it teacheth that Christ is present by way of Transubstantiation; which, as the Bishop affirms, was never heard of, in the Church before this Council; nor can it, (Saith he) be proved 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 Authors bring, both out of scripture, and Fathers, to the contrary of what he so mainly affirms? The Relatour should not have said, but proved, that Transubstantiation is an error contrary to scripture, and not consistent with the grounds of Christian Religion: at least he should have cleared his own Assertion, and in some manner, or other have explained, how Transubstantiation may be taken improperly, as his words insinuate. But surely this was a conception of the Bishops, so new and singular, that 'twill hardly find any defendants. Of all the words, which the Church useth to express her sense of the Mysteries of true Religion, there is none, methinks, less apt to be perverted to a Metaphorical, or Figurative, sense, than this of Transubstantiation.  
We deny not, but this term, or word, Transubstantiation, was first publicly Authorised in the said Council of 〈◊〉, as that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (whereby our Saviour's Eternal, and Consubstantial Deity is signified) was in the Council of Nice, and that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which in like manner expresses the Mystery of his Divine Incarnation) was in the Council of Ephesus. But for the thing itself signified by this term, which is a real conversion of the substance of bread, into the Body of Christ, and of wine, into his Blood: 'tis clear enough, that it was ever held for a Divine Truth. Witness S. 
a Serm. de 〈◊〉. Dom.  Cyprian (or at least an Author of those first ages of the Church) who speaking of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, saith. This common Bread, CHANGED INTO FLESH, AND BLOOD, giveth life: and again. The Bread which our Lord gave to his disciples, BEING CHANGED, not in its outward form, or semblance, but in its inward NATURE, or substance, (for so the word Nature must, and doth always signify, when 'tis opposed to the Accidents, or Qualities, of any thing) by the Omnipotency of the word IS MADE FLESH. Witness St. Gregory Nyssen. 
b Orat. Catechet. 37.  With good reason do we believe (saith he) that the Bread (of the Eucharist) being Sanctified by God's word (viz. the words of Consecration) is CHANGED into the Body OF THE WORD-GOD: and a little after. The nature of the things we see, being TRANSELEMENTED into him. What can here be signify'd by Transelementation of the nature of the outward Element, but what the Church now styleth Transubstantiation?  
Witness S. Cyrill of Jerusalem in these words, 
c Cateches. Mystag. 4.  He that changed water into wine by his sole will, (at Cana in Galilee) doth he not deserve our Belief, that he hath also changed wine into Bloued? wherefore let us receive, with all assurance of Faith, the Body, and Blood of jesus Christ; Seeing under the SPECIES (or Form) of Bread THE BODY IS GIVEN, and under the SPECIES (or Form), of wine, HIS BLOOD IS GIVEN etc. knowing, and holding for certain that the bread which we see, IS NOT BREAD (though it SEEM TO THE TASTE to be Bread) but THE BODY of jesus Christ: likewise, that the wine which we see (though to the sense it SEEM to be wine) is NOT WINE for all that, but the Blood of jesus Christ. Were it possible for a Catholic to express his own, or the Church's belief of this Mystery, in more full, plain, and effectual terms? witness also S. Ambrose, who speaking of the Eucharist rightly consecrated, 
d Lib. 1. de iis qui Mysterijs initiantur. Cap. 〈◊〉.  saith. IT IS NO LONGER that which Nature framed (viz. bread, and wine) but that which the Benediction of Consecration hath made it to be. What's that, but the Body, and Blood of Christ? adding further thus; you will say (perhaps) I see an other thing. Why do you tell me Jreceive the Body of jesus Christ? How many Examples have we to prove, that the 
Idem. Lib. 4. de Sacram. Cap. 4.  force of Benediction is greater, then that of Nature; seeing that by Benediction, even nature itself is often changed? Again 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 confirm this truth may find them in Bellarmin libr. 3. the Eucharist. cap, 20. and in divers other 
* See Gualtierus Chronol. THE FIRST VERITY in every age.  Catholic Authors. Even the words of scripture itself, taken in their proper and literal sense, do evidently show, that the only substance which is delivered 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 hogshead of wine, says this is wine, and he that holding up a purse-full of money, says, this is gold, if he intends to speak truth, must signify, that the only liquor contained sub propria forma in the hogshead, is wine, and all the money in the purse, gold: so our Saviour Christ, by saying, this is my Body must give us to understand, that all the substance contained under the accidents he showed, was his Body: which could not be true, unless the substance of bread were changed into Christ's Body, or ceased to be in the Sacrament. There's a great deal of difference between these two propositions: here is gold, and, this is gold. He that holds a handful of money, of which half is gold, and half silver, 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, we might truly say, showing 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 therefore our Saviour at this last supper, speaking of the Sacrament, said, this is my Body, the meaning of his words must needs be, that in what he then showed, there was no other substance, but that of his Body: whence it follows, that there was a true conversion of the substance of the bread (which ceased to be any longer under the species of bread) into the Body of Christ.  
4. An other pretended errourof a General Council confirmed by the Pope, is that of administering the B. Sacrament to the Laity under one kind only: of which we have already spoken what may suffice, in the precedent chapter. Nevertheless to that little which the Relatour adds here, we answer briefly. The authority of St. Thomas brought by the Bishop, makes rather for us, then against us. For he tells us, 'twas a custom providently observed in some Churches, not to give the Sacrament in form of wine to the Laity. His words are, Providè in quibusdam Ecclesijs obseruatur, ut populo 
D. Tho. 〈◊〉 part. q. 80. Art. 12. c.  Sanguis non detur. This Provision was made to avoid the danger of spilling, and other inconveniences: which likewife moved the Council of Constance to make a General 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 publicly allowed, and commonly by some practised, even in Churches, to receive under one kind only. For otherwise how is it possible, that the Manichees (who by the principles of their Heresy never drank wine nor communicated under the Form of wine) should yet find liberty, and opportunity to Communicate amongst Catholics in Catholic Churches, without being perceived? as 'tis certain they frequently did in 
i Serm. 4. do Quadrages. Zozom. Hist. lib. 8: cap. 5.  St. Leo's time and after. Likewife 'tis evident, that all 
k D. Basil. Ep. ad Cxsar. Pat.  Heremites in the wildernefs communicated often under one kind only. So did 
l D. Ambros. orat. in obitu. Fratr.  travellers in their journeys; 
m Euseb. Hist. lib. 6. cap. 36. Paulin. in vit. D. Ambros.  Sick persons in their beds, and 
n Tertull, lib. 2. ad 〈◊〉. D. Basilubi supiá.  others at home in their houses. Lastly 
o D. Cypriau de lapsis.  Children in the Church, and little infants at home, in their cradles, in form of wine only.  
We grant, that in ancient times, when the number of Christians was but small, it was the ordinary custom for all that would, (the Laity, as well as others) to receive the Eucharist in both kinds: but we aver, this custom proceeded merely out of free denotion, and not out of any belief, that it was absolutely necessary so to do, by virtue of Christ's precept: or that it was contrary to the substance of Christ's institution to do otherwise. This therefore evinces not that, which the Bishop was obliged to prove; namely, that receiving under one kind only, is an error contrary to the institution and intention of Christ; but rather the contrary to that is manifest from the practice of the Church, which always, even in the first five, or six hundred years, allowed it publicly to be taken under the form of bread only, and that, as well in the Church, as out of it: as Bellarmin likewise more largely shows, lib. 4. the Eucharist. cap. 24. Whose authorities the Bishop shoul have taken notice of, and not thought it sufficient only to say; this, and that is an error, and contrary to Christ's institution, without show of proof. For we tell him, the universal practice of the Church is a better interpreter of Christ's institution, than the Bishop, or any private person whatsoever: and so we doubt not, but all sober-minded christian's (not too much perverted with Heretical prejudice) will in time acknowledge. However, the Relatour, by his silence as to this particular, gives us leave to go on, and consider his fourth objected error, viz. Invocation of Saints; to which he adds a fifth also, Adoration, or worship of Images: both of them (we confess) being points admitted, and defined by the Council of Trent, which the Pope confirmed.  
5. Against the Jnuocation of Saints he tells us in the first place, that what the Fathers have in favour of it, is only Rhetorical flourishes for the stirring up of devotion, as they thought. Very good. When the Fathers deliver Propositions so clearly for us, that it is not possible for our adversaries to wrest them to any contrary sense, then all's but Rhetoric, and Hyperbolical strains of 〈◊〉: but when they speak any thing, that bears some show against us, than they are dogmatic; that's positive Divinity, and the real sense of the Fathers. Is not this fair dealing? But in the mean time, how can it seem to any that duly considers it, but most extremely partial, and strange, to term so many exhortations, so many plain, and positive assertions, so many instances, examples, histories, reports, and the like, which the Fathers frequently use, and afford in this kind, (and that upon occasions, wherein dogmatic, and plain delivery of Christian doctrine, and truth is expected) nothing but flourishes of wit, and Rhetoric? not to say, that such putt-offs as this, serve for nothing else, but to open a gate as it were, and give a pretence to every Phanatique Heretic, further to reject, and despise the authority of the ancient Fathers, whensoever they teach contrary to his fancy, under colour, that they deliver not their real sense, but only speak 〈◊〉, or use flourishes of wit, and Eloquence to stir up devotion. Nor doc I see, how the Fathers could think to 〈◊〉 true devotion in the hearts of their people by using outwardly, and commending Prayer to Saints, if they had thought it to be a thing in itself unlawful, as Protestants hold it to be.  
In the second place he urges authority against the Invocation of Saints; to wit of S. Austin, who speaking of the Christian Sacrifice, hath these words. 
a Aug. lib 22. de Civit. Dei. cap. 10.  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 we hope the Reader will mark for S. Augustine's sake) in their due place, and order (saith he) holy men of God are named, or commemorated, meaning the holy Prelates, and Pastors of the Church, with other Saints departed; but they are not invocated by the Priest that Sacrificeth. I answer, the Father's meaning is, that the Saints departed are not invocated, or called upon, by way of Sacrifice; that is, as persons to whom the Sacrifice is offered. For that being a work of Religion due unto God alone, the Saints departed are not capable of it. That this only is S. Augustine's meaning, and not absolutely to deny, that the Saints departed are in no sort to be invocated, or prayed unto by the Priest, is very clear, even from the place itself. For he presently adds these words, as explicating himself, and giving the reason of what he had said immediately before. Deo quip, non illis, Satrificat. For the Priest (saith he) Sacrificeth to God, and not to them; neither is he their Priest (that is, to invocate, or worship them, by oblation of Sacrifice) but Gods. To the same purpose also he 
b Quis enim Antistitum, in locis Sanctorum 〈◊〉, assistens altari, aliquando Dixit, OFFERIMUSTIBI PETRE, PAUL, CYPRIAN etc. D. Aug. lib. 20. contr. Faust. c. 20.  speaks elsewhere; and 'tis likewise confirmed by other passages of his works, where he teaches that not only Commemoration is made of the Saints departed, in time of Sacrifice, (as he doth, even in the text 
* Quamuis in Memoriam Sacrificet illorum. D. Aug. lib. 22. de Civit. Dei. cap. 10.  cited by the Beshop) but that it is done to this particular intent and purpose, viz. that they would pray for us: which doubtless amounts at least to a virtual invocation of them. 
c D. Aug. Tract. 84. in loannem.  Ideo quippe ad ipsam Mensant etc. For this reason (saith he) we remember, or make mention of them, at the Holy Table, not as we do other Faithful departed, so us to pray for them, but rather, THAT, THEY WOULD PRAY FOR US. And again, 
d D. Aug 〈◊〉. verb. Apost. Serm. 34.  Iniuria est pro Martyre orare, cuius nos debemus orationibus commendari. 'tis an injury (saith he) to pray for a Martyr; to whose prayers we ourselves ought to be recommended. Doth not S. Austin sufficiently signify by these words, that the prayers by which we recommend ourselves to the Saints departed, are both lawful, and also pro fitable?  
Nor will it serve the Bishops turn to say: this is yet no formal, and express invocation, here's no Ora pro nobis, as the manner now is; for I answer, that lib. 21. de Civit. Dei. cap. 27. there is as much as Ora pro nobis comes to. 
e Quod frequentatur ore Christiano, 〈◊〉 se cuique Sanctorum 〈◊〉 quisque commendat, & 〈◊〉 MEMOR ESTO NOSTRI. D. Aug. lib. 21. de Civit. Dei. cap. 27.  S. Austin doth there clearly profess it to be the general custom of Christians, in their recommending themselves to the Saints, to say, MEMOR ESTO NOSTRI; which surely no man will contend to signify less, then ora pro nobis. Add to this, what he hath further in his sermon upon St. Stephen. 
f D. Aug. Serm. de 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. Item, his 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. upon those words (chap. . etc.  Let us therefore recommend ourselves (saith he) to the prayers of this Saint; seeing he is now far 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 sinful act, but very profitable. Have not we now more reason to think the Bishop is mistaken in his construction of St. Austin, then that the Church and General Councils are, in recommending this doctrine?  
6. But it is further urged, that we pray to God, and desire him 
Ibidem.  to hear our prayers for the merits of Saints: which the Bishop thinks doth not only make the Saints Mediators of Intercession, but even sharers in the Mediation of Redemption. He tells us likewise, that such Prayers as these stand (not without great scandal to Christ, and Christianity) used, and authorised to be used in the Missal. I answer first; our adversary might as well have taken offence at some prayers used in scripture; where, though the word Merits be not expressly mentioned, yet the full sense, and meaning thereof is necessarily employed and understood, as much, as in those prayers of the Church, which he will seem so much to stumble at. For example: doth not Solomon, Psalm. 132. pray to God to hear him in effect for the Merits of his Father David deceased, when he saith Memento, Domine, David et omnis Mansuetudinis eius? (Lord, remember DAVID, and all his MEEKENESS, etc. what, I pray you, is this but to desire, that God would remember to Salomon's benefit, and good, not only his own Covenant, and Promise made to David (as Protestant's vainly pretend, without 
Exod. 32. 13, Baruch. 3: 4. Isa. 38: 3. † 63: 17. † 65. 8.  any the least ground from the Text) but David's Piety and virtue, by which he was acceptable to God? For which reason also, after some particular instances thereof given, he adds again in his prayer, Propter Dauid seruum tuum, etc. For thy Servant DAVID'S sake (as even the english Protestant Translation reads it) turn not away the face of thine Anointed. The like was done by Daniel (Dan. 13. by Moses also, Hieremias, and other Prophets, praying unto God, and desiring their petitions might be heard, for Abraham, for Isaac, and for Jsraels' sake, and for the sakes of other holy men, who had lived before, and been in their times persons acceptable to God.  
Yea to do this, was the general custom of the Primitive Church, witnessed by St. Austin, in his 
* Quaest 149.  Questions upon Exodus; where speaking of Moses his praying, and obtaining pardon of God, for that great sin of the Israelites in making the golden Calf, he tells us, that by such an example we are put in mind, that when our own Merits depress us with fear that God doth not love us, we may be encouraged, and holpen BY THE MERITS of those whom he doth love. 
a Saepe quando non est inventus in praesenti vitâ iustus, PROPTER DEFVNCTORVM VIRTUTEM viventium miseretur.— unde 4. Reg 19: 34. clamat dicens, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 PROPTER ME, ET PROPTER DAVID PVERUM MEUM. D. Chrysost. Homil. 42. in Genes. Item Homil. 27. in 〈◊〉.  The golden mouth of St. chrysostom utters the same truth. Whence we conclude, 'tis no unwarrantable thing to pray, that God would hear us for the Merits of saints; seeing in effect it is no more, then to acknowledge our own unworthiness, and to pray to God, that, for the works of the Martyrs, and Confessors our brethren, who were, and are most desirous of our salvation, he would be pleased to grant our requests. We believe, and confess, that Christ alone is our Redeemer; and that he (and none but he) by the just price of his most precious Blood hath paid our ransom, and fully satisfied the justice of God for out sins: all that we desire of the Saints, either when we mention their merits to God, or simply beg their Intercession with God for us, is only that they would join with us in prayer to God, and that God would be pleased, for their sakes, whose works were so grateful to him, to bestow on us the favours we ask: but we still acknowledge that what we ask is principally to be granted us for the merits of Christ, according to the Council of Trent (Sess. 25.) which defines, that all our prayers, and requests made to the Saints, are to be made for, and through his merits: for which reason also we usually conclude all our prayers with mention of our Saviour, in these, or the like words, PER CHRISTUM DOMINUM NOSTRUM.  
Mow if the Saints merits, (or good works) and their receiving an Eternal reward for them in Heaven, be not injurious to the fullness of Christ's merits, why should either their being heard by reason of their said works, when they pray to God for us through Christ, or our desire that they may be heard for them, be thought injurious to Christ's merits? And if it be no injury to the force, and virtue of Christ's Intercession, that the Saints do pray and intercede for us, through Christ's merits, why should it be accounted an injury to his Passion, that the Saints merits, (or Good works) be held to have force, to procure good things from God, both for themselves, and us, yet not otherwise, then through the merits of Christ, and for his sake?  
In vain therefore doth the Relatour go about to pervert the sense of the prayers of the Church in the Missal; which, with all the Sophistry he can use, he shall never be able to show, but 
Bellarm. lib. 1. de Indulgent. cap. 4. §. 3.  to be most consonant to Christian doctrine, and piety. And where as, Bellarmin is taxed for calling the Saints our Redeemers, it is no fault in the Cardinal, but a rashness in the Bishop. For both Bellarmin himself 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 says of himself (1. Cor. 9, 23.) that to all men he became all things, that he might SAVE 
† The Protestant Translation.  some. The Apostle, if he had pleased, might as well have said that he might have REDEEMED some: for that, had been no less agreeable to his meaning: and yet who can deny, but it is every way as proper to Christ to be a Saviour, as to be a Redeemer.  
He taxes the Cardinal likewise for styling the Saints Numina: which word he will have always to signify, either God himself, or at least the Power of God, or an Oracle of God. Be it so. But in the first place Ifeare, the Relatours' information deceived him: for 
* Bellarm. lib. 2. de Imagine. Sanctor. c. 20. §. 3.  in the place he citys, there is not the least shadow, or intimation of any such matter; his whole discourse there, being of images, and not of the Saints. Secondly, what matter were it, if the Cardinal had so called them? Doth not the Bishop himself acknowledge one signification of the word Numina to be the Power of God? and can it be thought so impious, and unlawful to style the Saints Powers of God, seeing it is undeniable, that God useth them as the instruments of his Power, and by them worketh many powerful, and strange effects? Are not the Angels for this very reason called Powers of God, and the Gospel itself, the Power of God to Salvation? But this is the Bishop's custom, now, and then to have a fling at Bellarmin, whether he hit, or miss.  
7. Against the Adoration of Images the Bishop is very bitter; so as to tell us, the Modern Church of Rome is too like Paganism in the practice of it, and driven to scarce intellible subtleties in her servants 
Ibidem.  writings, that defend it. The Modern Church of Rome is thus, and thus to blame, saith the Bishop. But I pray tell us, wherein do the Modern, and Ancient Church of Rome differ touching this point? What does the Council of Trent teach concerning the worship of Jmages, more than the second Council of Nice did; which was celebrated little less than nine hundred years ago, and therefore (surely) not to be accounted Modern? The Council of Nice, though it decreed that the Jmages of Christ, and his Saints should be had in veneration, and due reverence outwardly given to them, yet it expressly forbade they should be worshipped with Divine worship, or such as was proper, and due to God alone. Doth the Council of Trent, or Roman Church now, teach otherwise? hear, if you please, the Prelates themselves speak in that Council.  
The Holy Council (say they) commands all Bishops, and all others 
Conc. Trident. Sess. 25.  who have the office, and care of teaching, that they diligently instruct faithful people, teaching them that the Images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of other Saints, are to be bad and retained, especially in Churches; and that due honour, and veneration is to be given to them: not that one should believe any Divinity to be in them, or Power, for which they are to be worshipped; or that one should ask any thing of them, or put confidence in them, as anciently the Gentiles did, who placed their hope in Idols: but because the honour that is done to them, redounds to those, whom they represent. So that by the Images we kiss, and before which we uncover our heads, and prostrate ourselves, we worship Christ, and his Saints, whose similitudes they are: which doctrine (say the Father's abovesaid) is established by the Decrees of Councils, especially of the second of Nice. And a little after they add. If it happen at any time that the histories, or passages, of holy Scripture be expressed, or figured out in pictures, whensoever it may be thought expedient for the unlearned, let them be taught, that the Divinity (or God himself) is not painted thereby, nor can be seen with bodily eyes, nor represented by any colours, or figures.  
I thought it not amiss to set down the words of this Council at large; as being sufficient, if duly considered, to stop our adversary's mouths, and silence their calumnies against us for ever, in this particular, without any recourse to subtleties, and nice distinctions, as the Relatour pretends we are forced to do. For what is here but plain, and easy? Behold in the first place, express caution and prohibition, that we attribute no kind of Divinity 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 have the cure of souls under them, strictly required to teach the faithful no more, than this plain, and secure doctrine: and that they take care to prevent, as much as in them lieth, what ever danger, or inconvenience may possibly happen to their people, either by scandalous practices, or (perhaps) curious, and misinterpretable assertions of private persons, in the matter of Images. And Protestants (if they had charity) would judge the best, namely, that the Ordinary Pastors of the Church do themselves, effectually obey the Council herein, and the people, them: and not condemn the whole Church (Pastors, and people together) of Paganish Idolatry, and superstition, upon mere surmises, as the Relatour more than seems to do in this place: especially considering, that if neglect, or Disobedience be either in Pastors, or people, it is not the Churches, but their own personal fault who are guilty of it; the Church having taken the best, and most sufficient order that she can, for the right instruction of those that belong to her.  
8. We acknowledge no less than the Bishop, the Church hath always had great care to avoid the least resemblance with Paganism in any thing: and that therefore his Lordship might 
Ibidem.  well note (as he doth in the Margin) that the Christians in Optatus his time, were MUCH TROUBLED upon a false report that 
Optat. lib 3. cont. Parmen.  some were coming to set an Image upon their Altar, viz. immediately before the Oblation of the B. Eucharist was to be celebrated thereon. But what kind of Image this was, appears not in any sort by Optatus his text. The Relatour indeed, by his discourse takes it for granted, 'twas either 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 show, that the ancient Church would not endure that the present Church of Rome alloweth in point of Images. But his supposition is easily denied. In all probability it was either some jdol; according to that which Albaspineas observes in his Notes upon this place, which is, that 
Albaspin. Obseruat. in lib. 3. Optat.  some copies read Dei Imaginem (the Image of a God) or else some common Image of a man, as (perhaps) of the Emperor (for they were the Emperor's officers that were bringing it) or of the Governor of the Province: which kind of Images, 'tis confess't the Christians in those times would not endure should be worshipped, nor so much as stand in the place of God's worship, towit, upon the Altar, as appears both by Tertullian in his Apology for the Christians, and by Eusebius.  
But that it was any Image of Christ, or of his B. Mother, 
Euseb. Hist. lib. 7. c. 14.  or of any of the Apostles, or other Saints, is wholly improbable. For why should Christians be so troubled at them; seeing 'tis well known that such Images as these, were in common use, 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. chrysostom (Homil. QVOD CHRISTVS EST DEUS) where he testifies, that in his time the Cross of 
Chrysost. Tom. 5.  Christ made a glorious show upon the Altar; with 
d Euseb. lib. 7. Hist. cap. 14. Sozom. lib. 5. c. 10. Ambros lib. de Incarn. Domc. Sacram. c. 7. Hieron. Epitaph. Paulae Lactant. 〈◊〉. de Pass. Dom.  many other testimonies of antiquity, that might be alleged. So that from this passage of Optatus the Bishop evinces nothing against euther the use, or that worship of Images, which the Church alloweth. That which he might have much more rightly observed from the place is, how plainly this Father makes mention of Altars, and of a Sacrifice to be offered thereon, as known things, and of confessed belief, 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 undeniably meant of the Sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist, or Mass. But it suited not with the Relatours design to make any such remarks.  
9 As little are we concerned in those authorities of Tertullian, St. Austin, and others, which the Bishop alleges, as finding fault with the making of Feasts at the Oratories of Martyrs; which seem to him a kind of Parentalia, or funeral feasts, which the Jdolatrous Gentiles in former times used. We confess, the Gentiles Parentation was unlawful, and Jdolatrous; because they did thereby offer Sacrifice to the Ghosts of the dead, as Tertullian 
e Tertull. lib. de Spectac. cap. 12  shows. St. Austin likewise found fault, not without cause, with those Christians, who placed wine, and banquets upon the 〈◊〉 of the Martyrs, and afterwards rioted, and made themselves drunk with it. Such a custom as this deserved to be reprehended: and St. Austin might justly 
f D. lib. 8. de Civit. Dei. cap 27.  (no doubt) tell us, the better Christians did it not. 'Twas forbidden likewise by 
g D Aug. lib 2. Confess. cap. 2.  St. Ambrose, and others, both because it had some resemblance more than was fitting, with that condemned superstition of the Gentiles Parentalia, and also because it gave occasion of drunkeness; though it be scarcely imaginable, that those Christians, who used it, did intend to offer any Sacrifice to the Martyrs; but only to have those things, which they set upon their tombs, sanctified by God, for the Martyr's merits. Nor did this custom ever prevail much in the Church; it being at its first coming up, so generally reprehended by the Catholic Pastors of the Church, that the following ages by little, and little laid it quite down; so as at present, it seems wholly extirpated, and that for many hundred of years last passed, neither practice, nor shadow of it can be shown in the Church.  
10. To his allegation of 〈◊〉 who seems to reprehend the Custom of the Church in the Adoration of Jmages, I answer, that the doctrine of this Author is not wholly Orthodox. He was a man in his time, that seemed to a great many to halt, as it were, between God, and Baal, that is, to be neither perfect Catholic, nor professed Protestant; and in his works he professedly labours to reconcile Catholic religion with that of Protestants; but as it must needs happen to all such undertakers) with so bad success, that the results of all his study, and endeavours that way, pleased neither party. The Bishop will needs have it thought that he was one of ours, and that he lived, and died in our Communion: and we grant, he made no external separation from us, nor was excommunicated, or cast out of the Church, by any sentence, or Excommunication ab homine: but whether or no he might not incur Excommunication Meritoriously, and so be deprived of the Church's Communion Sententiâ iuris, by reason of those many unsound, and uniustifyable Assertions, which are scattered up, and down his writings, too much in favour of Heresy, and of the enemies of the Church, is not so easy to determine. However he is long since dead; and charity obliges us to hope the best of him; namely that before his death he did effectively repent, and revoke whatever out of humane frailty, and compliance with the designs of such 
a 〈◊〉. lib 36. 286.  Temporal princes as set him on work (some of which 
b Spond. 〈◊〉 Barad 〈◊〉.  were not altogether unsuspected themselves to be warping in religion) he had erroneously, and scandalously delivered to the prejudice of Catholic verity.  
As to any matter of abuse in this kind, crept in amongst the ignorant, we have already shown how careful the Council of 
1564. num. 〈◊〉  Trent was to provide against, and prevent all inconveniences that could reasonably be fore seen, or feared. And if, notwithstanding such diligence on the Church's part, there happen something now, and then to be amiss, either through the infirmity of some particular persons, or the negligence of others, yet neither is the doctrine, or practice of the Church justly to be blamed for it; nor yet the pious, and more discrect devotion of the rest for this reason, to be discountenanced, much less prohibited, or forbidden. Otherwise, for the like pretended reason of Abuse, and Scandal we might be thought to stand obliged to blot out of the 〈◊〉 those words concerning our saviour, that he sits at the right hand of God, and divers Texts out of the Bible it 〈◊〉. Why? because that by them, ignorant and ill-disposed people have been formerly, and may be still induced to think, that God the Father is of a Bodily Shape, and hath a right hand, and a left, as men have; and likewise to form to themselves many other false, and dangerous conceptions of God. Abuses of this nature, if any be, and whensoever they happen, must be redressed by better instruction and information; but the pious, and lawful custom of the Church must not therefore be abolished, and quite taken away.  
11. As for what Llamas, a Spanish Author, relates of the people of Asturias, Cantabria, and Gallicia, who were so addicted 
Hiero. 〈◊〉 in Summâ part 3. cap. 3.  to their old wormeaten, and ill-fashioned Images, that when the Bishops of those Provinces commanded new ones, and bandsomer to be set up in their stead, they begged even with tears to have their old ones still, I confess, there might be some indiscretion in their proceeding: but I see no ground the Bishop hath to tax them of 〈◊〉. For the people did not cry after the Bishop's officers, when they removed these old Jmages, why do you take away our Gods, give us our Gods again, or the like, as Jdolaters would have done, as well as Laban, Genes. 31. 30. when he reprehended jacob for stealing away his Gods. Beside, what ever was amiss in this kind (as the same Author testifieth) was by a little intruction of their Pastors quickly amended, though the Bishop (a man, it seems of very hard belief) will not think so. But why should his Lordship make such difficulty to believe, what a grave Author reports of his own knowledge?  
As to what he further infers from the words of Llamas, namely, that the Jmages of Christ, and his Saints, as they represent their Exemplars, have Divinity in them, and that we may 〈◊〉 things of them, and put trust in them in that regard, my answer is, the Bishop always shows himself over ready to expound our Authors in the worst sense, even many times, where there is no rational pretence. This Author sufficiently shows, he could have no such meaning as the Bishop imputes to him, what ever his words may seem to import. For in the very place cited by the Bishop, he clearly teacheth, that we ought to worship Jmages 
* Modo a Sacrâ Tridentinâ Synodo, Sets. 25. Explicato. Llamas. 〈◊〉 Suprà.  according to the Prescript of the Council of 〈◊〉 and how careful that Council was, that all might be duly instructed in this matter, and no occasion left, even for the most ignorant, and weak, to offend by conceiving, or believing any Divine Power to be in the Jmages, or by putting trust in them, or cravin any thing of them, appears by the words of the Council already cited, and by the Relatours own acknowledgement, who styles the Fathers religiously careful in that respect.  
Add hereunto the Proviso, which this Author gives in the 
Ibidem.  same chapter; which is, that we ought to ask nothing of the Saints, no not of our B. Lady herself, otherwise then by desiring them to beg it for us at God's hand: and that to do otherwise, that is, to ask any thing of them, as if they were Authors of it, or could of themselves alone give, or grant us the good things we ask, were idolatry. Thus therefore, we hope, this Author (Llamas) his intention, and true meaning is cleared of what the Bishop imputes to him: but it will not be amiss to take notice also, how weakly the Bishop's illation is made out of the said Authors words. Because Llamas writes that the Images of Christ are not to be 〈◊〉 as if there were Divinity in them, as they are material things made by art, but only as they represent Christ, and the Saints, the Relatour infers thus: So then belike, according to the Divinity of this Casuist, a man may worship Images, AND ASK OF THEM, AND PUT TRVST IN THEM, as they represent Christ, and his Saints. But what consequence is this? How does it follow, that we may ask of Images, and put our trust in them, as they represent Christ, and his Saints, because we may worship them, as they represent Christ, and his Saints? we many times love, and reverence a picture for the person it represents; and yet no body is so foolish, as to ask any thing of it, as it represents that person. We show a 〈◊〉 respect to the chair of state, and chamber of Presence, for the king's sake: yet we neither make to them any civil invocation, nor place confidence in them, as they relate to the king. Why therefore must it follow, that we may call upon pictures, or Jmages, as they represent our Saviour, or the Saints, because they may be honoured, or worshipped, as they do represent them?  
Nor is it less ridiculous, what the Bishop adds in pursuance of his discourse; namely, his resolving this proposition of Llamas. The Images of Christ, and the Saints are to be worshipped, not as if there were any Divinity, in them, as they are material things made by art, but as they represent Christ and his Saints, into this other: The Images, of Christ, and his Saints, as they represent their Exemplars, have Deity, or Divinity in them; making them both to signify the same thing. For why might he not as well have resolved this proposition? The king's picture is to be honoured, not as if there were Sovereign Authority in it, as it is a material thing made by art, but as it represents the king, into this other. The king's picture, as it represents its Exemplar, hath Sovereign Authority in it. The Bishop here, surely, gives the Reader more cause to suspect his judgement touching the interpretation of Llamas, then upon his interpretation of him to tax our Church of Idolatry.  
I conclude it therefore most certain, and indubitable, that Llamas, in the words cited by the Relatour, intended no more, then to signify, that all worship done to Jmages, was Relative, 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 we could be heard in our prayers, and expect relief, not from the Jmages, but from the Prototypes: which, as it is the plain doctrine of the Church, declared by the Councils of Nice and Trent, so 'tis all, that in this question I have undertaken to defend.   

CHAP. 23. Of the Bishop's Confession that Salvation may be had in the Roman Church; and the Consequences thereupon.  
ARGUMENT.  
1. The Bishop (though not willingly) grants in Express terms; that some Catholics may be saved; and in effect, that all. 2. A: 〈◊〉 Argument That ours is the SAFER way because Protestants (as well as we) confess it. SAFE explicated, and defended. 3. Catholics not justly taxed with want of Charity for telling Protestants they cannot be saved out of the Communion of the Ro man Church. 4. Nothing to be concluded in favour of the Bishop against A: 〈◊〉 Maxim, from the agreement of old, betwixt Catholics and Donatists in point of Baptism. 5. Catholics, and Protestants do not agree in any real participation of Christ, proper to the Sacrament. 6. what Catholic Authors mean, when they speak of Spiritually-receiving Christ, and of a Spiritual presence in the Eucbarist. 7. No peril of Schism, Heresy etc. in Communicating with the Roman Church. 8. The Relatours various windings upon this subject, observed. 9 No Parallel, betwixt A: C. argument, and that of Petilian the Donatist. 10. A: C. unjustly taxed with untruth By the Bishop. 11. Our adversary's Remainder of instances considered, and satisfied.  
1. IN this Paragraph the Bishop brings in the Lady ask him, whether she might be saved in the Roman Faith: and though by his answer he grants clearly enough, that there is possibility of Salvation in the Roman Church, yet who those are amongst us, whom he thinks may be saved, is not so clear. Sometimes he seems to say, that those only may be saved, who though they err, yet want sufficient ground, either to doubt, or 
Ibidem.  know their errors: as for instance, when he writes; the ignorant, that cannot discern the errors of the Church, so they hold the foundation, and conform themselves to a religious life, may be saved. And afterwards; we have not so learned Christ; as to deny Salvation to some ignorant silly souls, whose humble peaceable Obedience, makes 
§. 33. num.  them safe among any part of men, that profess the foundation, Christ. Likewise, there's no question, but many were saved in corrupted times of the Church, when their Leaders, unless they repented before death, 
§. 36. num.  were lost. In other places he seems to intimate, that men may be saved in the Roman Church, though the Truth (by which he means the doctrine of Protestants) be sufficiently proposed to them, but not acknowledged by them: as where he saith, Protestants indeed confess there is Salvation possible to be attained in the Roman Church; but yet they say withal, that the errors of that Church are so many, 
Ibidem.  (and some so great, as weaken the Foundation) that it is very hard to go that way to Heaven; especially to them, that have had the Truth manifested. Now surely if it be but very hard going that way to Heaven, it is 
§. 35. punct. 5.  not altogether impossible. Again, I am willing (saith 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 forgive their errors, in what they know not; and which hold the Foundation sirme, and live accordingly, and which would have all things amended that are amiss, were it in their power. And to such I dare not deny a possibility of Salvation, for that which is Christ's in them; though they hazard themselves extremely by keeping so close to that, which is Superstition, and in the case of Images comes too near Idolatry. Item I do indeed for 
Ibidem.  my part acknowledge a possibility of Salvation 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 believe the Creed, and hold the Foundation, Christ himself; not as they associate themselves wittingly, and willingly to the gross superstitions of the Romish Church. Is not this plainly to confess, that even those of the Roman Church, who do willingly, and knowingly associate themselves to the gross superstitions of that Church, may possibly be saved, though not indeed as they do this, but as they are Christians, and believe in the Foundation, Christ? Lastly, when he asks, as it were in anger, would you have us as malicious, or at least as rash, as yourselves are to us, and deny you so much as possibility of Salvation? Even Mistaken Charity (if such it were) is far better than none at all. And if the MISTAKEN be ours, the NONE is yours etc. Doth he not clearly pretend by this to be more Charitable, that is, to grant more to us Catholics in this particular of being saved, than we do to them? Seeing then, that even we Catholics grant possibility of Salvation to those, who join with the Protestant Church, if their ignorance be invincible; we cannot but suppose, his pretended charity grants more to us; namely, that there is possibility of being saved to those that join with the Roman Church, though their ignorance be not invincible and though all, or the chief motives, which Protestants bring; against us, be never so sufficiently proposed to them.  
Now if, on the one side, both Catholics and Protestants, agree in this, that such as hold all the opinions of our Church, and continue in them till death, notwithstanding their being thoroughly acquainted with all the contrary reasons and doctrine of Protestants, may attain Salvation; and if, on the other side, all Catholics, as well those that now are, as the infinite multitude which hath been since a thousand years' last passed, according to Protestant's own account and confession, do deny possibility of being saved to such as live, and die in the Protestant Church, except in case of invincible ignorance, who can doubt, but that our Church is clearly the safer way of the two to Salvation? and therefore in prudence to be embraced, rather than that of Protestants?  
2. But what shall we say to those Protestants, who grant no more to us, than we do to them in order to Salvation? How shall those among our Adversaries be convinced, that the Roman Church and Religion is the safer way to Heaven, who will allow none of our Religion to be in a capacity to Salvation, but such, as are in no capacity of knowing, and understanding their errors? I might bring many arguments to convince them in this point; but for brevity sake I shall confine myself to these only, which follow.  
That Church and Religion is the more safe way to Salvation, in which many are saved according to the principles which are granted on both sides, than an other, in which many are saved 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 saved according to the principles which are granted on both sides, viz. both by Catholics, and Protestants: and in the Protestant Church many are saved only according to the principles, and doctrine of Protestants, but very few, or none according to the doctrine of Catholics.  
Ergo, the Roman Church, and Religion is a safer way to Salvation, than the Church, and religion of Protestants.  
The Mayor I'conceiue none will deny. The Minor I prove thus. In the Catholic Church 'tis evident that many, being to depart out of this life, do receive the Sacrament of Penance. These, according to the doctrine of the Roman Church, are saved, because by virtue of this Sacrament they receive the grace of justification, whereby of sinners, they are made the sons of God. and Heirs of Eternal life: nor can they be denied to be saved, according to the doctrine of Protestants, seeing they believe in Christ their Redeemer, they confide in God's Goodness and mercy for the pardon of their sins, they truly repent of them, and truly purpose for the future to amend their lives: which is all, that Protestant doctrine requires to make men partakers of Christ's sanctifying Grace; and is also necessarily required by Catholics, to make them free subjects for the Sacrament of penance. Who can therefore doubt but that all such persons are saved, both according to the doctrine of Catholics, and Protestants too? I say, who can rationally, and with charity doubt, but that Catholics, generally speaking, being taught, that Faith, Hope, true repentance for sins past, and a purpose of amendment, are necessary to the due receiving of the Sacrament of penance, do not omit to exercise those acts with all necessary diligence, and sincerity, especially when they are to prepare themselves against that dreadful passage to Eternity.  
That they may exercise such acts, if they will, by the help of God's ordinary Grace, and by exercising them, be effectually saved the Bishop himself cannot deny, seeing he grants so much to the Donatists themselves, whom he confesses at least to have been Schismatics, justly condemned by the Orthodox Church, and in some respects 
* §. 35. punct. 5.  in greater danger of damnation, than we Romanists. His words are these. 
a Ibidem.  A plain bonest Donatist, having, as is confessed, true Baptism, and holding the Foundation, as for aught I know, the Donatists did, and repenting of what ever was sin in him, and would have repent of the Schism, had it been known to him, might be saved. Neither will (I suppose) any other Protestant deny us the possibility of exercising such acts; seeing they all grant, that with involuntary errors, true Faith and repentanoe may stand; and have no sufficient reason to think, that our errors at death, are voluntary and wilful; or that we do wilfully omit any thing, that we believe to be necessary for the attaining of Salvation.  
But now, according to the doctrine of Catholics, there are very few, or none, among Protestants, that escape damnation, or that are 〈◊〉, if they live, and die out of the Communion of our Church. Not that it is a point of our beleese, that many Protestants shall be damned precisely upon the account of being Heretics, (because heresy is an obstinate, and wilful error against Faith; and we cannot easily, much less infallibly determine, whose errors are wilful) but because there are none, or surely but very few amongst them, but are guilty of mortal sin against God's Commandments; and because the ordinary means they use, and prescribe, is not according to our principles, sufficient to expiate, and blot out such sin. 'Tis well known, that though Protestants, to obtain Salvation, believe in Christ, trust in his merits, and repent of their sins, yet they do it not purely out of a perfect love of God, so as to hate sin above all evils, merely as it is an offence against the Divine Majesty, and to prefer God, and his holy Commandments before ourselves, and all other creatures, (for this is a very hard, and rare act even amongst the best of Christians) but at best, upon inferior, and lower motives (as the manner of most men is to do) viz. in consideration of the Beatitude of Heaven, as it is their own particular good, or for the avoiding of the pains of Hell, as it is their particular, and chiefest harm.  
Now, according to our doctrine, such kind of repentance as this, is no sufficient remedy to blot out sin, unless it be joined which the Sacrament of penance, viz. Confession and Priestly Absolution, etc. which Protestants reject. I say, without the Sacrament of penance actually, and duly recoined, all Catholics hold, that neither Faith, nor Hope, nor any repentance, or sorrow for sin, can save us, but that only which is joined with a perfect love of God, whereby we are disposed to lose all, and suffer all that can be imagined, rather than to offend God; yea though there were indeed neither Heaven to reward us, nor Hell to punish us: which being a thing so hard to be found, especially 〈◊〉 such, as believe a man is justified by Faith only, it follows evidently, that in our doctrine, very few, or no Protestants are saved. The Conclusion therefore is undeniable, 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 means of Salvation, is a safer way to Salvation, than an other which does not.  
But the Roman Church, and Religion affords all necessary means of Salvation; and the Protestant doth not.  
Ergo, the Roman Church, and Religion is a safer way to Salvation, than the Church and Religion. of Protestants.  
The Mayor is evident. The Minor consists of two parts; which I shall prove in order.  
The First, which is, that the Roman Church, and Religion affords all necessary means of Salvation, appears partly by the confession of Protestants themselves, who acknowledge generally, that in our Church, and Religion are contained all Foundamentall points; that is, all things absolutely necessary to Salvation: and partly, because it cannot be proved, that any thing is of absolute necessity, in order to Salvation, which is not found in our Church's Communion. The second, that Protestants standing to their own principles, neither have, nor can have things necessary for Salvation, I prove by this one Argument.  
It is certain that divine Faith necessary to Salvation, according to these places of Holy Writ, sine fide impossibile est placere Deo, Hebr. 11. (without Faith it is impossible to please God) Qui non crediderit, condemnabitur. Marc. 16. (He that believeth not, shall be damned.) 'Tis likewise certain, that this divine Faith must be firm, sure, and without doubt, or hesitation: in so much that if an Angel from Heaven should preach the contrary to what we believe, 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 have this firm, Sure, and undoubting Faith, concerning any mystery of Religion? They will say upon the Authority of God's Revelation, or the written word. But Jaske, how is it possible for them to believe any divine truth firmly, certainly, and infallibly for the Authority of scripture or the written word, unless they do first firmly, certainly, and infallibly believe, that scripture is the true word of God, and that the sense of the words is such as they understand? and how can they believe 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 delivering such, and such books for Canonical scripture? or that those passages, upon which they ground their belief, are the very same with the Original Text; or in case they understand not the Originals, that there hath been no error committed in the Translation of them? yea do they not hold principles absolutely inconsistent with this certainty, when they teach, that not only private men, but General Councils, and even the whole Church may err in matters of great consequence? How can they then be sure, that the words of scripture, for which they believe the Divinity of Christ (for example) are to be understood in that sense, in which themselves understand them, and not in the sense, which the Arians put upon them? If General Councils, and the whole Church, may err in expounding scripture, what certainty of belief can we have in this, and in divers other like points?  
If it be answered, that Christ's Divinity is a Fundamental point, and that in Fundamental points we must believe the Church; I reply, this answer satisfies not the difficulty. For I ask, upon what ground do we believe it to be a Fundamental point? if because the whole Church teaches it to be so, and the whole Church cannot err in points Fundamental, I answer, it must first be proved, 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 no part of the whole Church, because they err in Christ's Divinity, which is a point Fundamental, is to suppose that for certain, which is principally in question. That Christ's Divinity therefore is a point Fundamental, must be proved some other way, then by the Authority of the whole Church. If that way be scripture, the former difficulty returns, viz. how a man shall be sure, according to Protestant principles, that scripture is to be understood in the Catholic 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 subject to error, and consequently will not be sufficient to ground infallible certainty. 'Tis evident therefore, that Protestants, standing to their grounds, cannot believe either the Trinity, or Christ's Divinity, and Incarnation, or the Redemption of mankind by his death, or any other mystery and point of Faith with that firmeness and certainty, which is requisite to an Act of Faith: nay it follows, that they cannot be altogether sure of these mysteries of Christian Religion, as they are, or may be of things related even by heathen Historians; seeing more agreed, that those things are true, then that the sense of scripture, in those controverted points, is such as Protestants understand.  
These Arguments we conceive sufficient to convince any rational understanding, that the Roman Church, and Religion is a safer way to salvation, then that of Protestants. Let us now take notice of the Bishop's answers, and assertions touching this question.  
3. Whereas therefore Protestants do commonly tax us for want of Charity, because we generally deny Salvation to those that are out of our Church, A. C. proved that this denial, (besides the threatenings of Christ, and the Holy Fathers denounced against all such, as are not within the Communion of the true Church) is grounded even upon Charity; it being far 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 Faith (Saith he) 
A.C. pag. 650  and one true Church, out of which is no Salvation; and he that will not hear this Church, let him be unto the (Saith Christ himself) Matth. 18. 17. as an Heathen and Publican. If Salvation than may be had in our Church, as the Bishop with other Protestants confessed; and there be no true Church, nor true Faith, but one, in, and by which Salvation may be had, (as is likewise confessed) it follows, that out of our Church there is no Salvation to be hoped for, and consequently, that it is no want of Charity in us to, tell Protestants of this, but rather want of light, and good understanding in them, to think our admonition to be uncharitable. The Bishop himself confesses, that he, who will not 
§. 35. num. 20.  both hear, and obey the Catholic Christian Church yea the particular Church in which he lives too, so far, as it in necessaries agrees with the universal, 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 conceit he frames of the Catholic Church that must teach us: it being a thing, according to his description, more like an Jdea platonica, or Chimaera of some fantastical brain, than a true subsistent assembly; or Society of Christians: a thing as little able to speak, or declare with requisite authority, any certain and uniform doctrine, or matter to be believed, as himself and his party are unwilling to hearken to the truth. For by the Catholic Church, in his notion, nothing else is 〈◊〉 understood, but a mixed multitude of all 〈◊〉 and facts of Christians, viz. Greeks, Armenians, Lutherans, Caluinists, Prelatical, and Presbyterian Protestants, Anabaptists, 〈◊〉, and what not, beside the Roman Catholics. But how is it possible, that such a Church as this, should ever instruct, and command us, what to believe? How shall a man that 〈◊〉 in the 〈◊〉, or in any other remote part of the world, hear the common void 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 Catholic Church, taken even in the Bishops own sense, unless he be first 〈◊〉, what the Faith is, without which it is impossible to be a part of the Catholic Church? Lastly, how shall he before, that all who profess that Faith, do also teach, and command the doctrinal, which in obedience to the Bishop's 〈◊〉 Church, he is required to believe?  
Again, 
a Ibidem. punct. 5.  if Donatists, for any thing the Bishop 〈◊〉 held the Foundation, (and consequently were a part of the Catholic Church) and if errors, that 
b Ibidem.  come too near 〈◊〉 are 〈◊〉 repugnant to the word of God, and do shake the very foundation of Christian belief (as the Relatour pretends our opinions do) may be found in that which is (〈◊〉) the greatest, and most considerable pair of the Catholic Church what reason could the Apostle have to shy, that the doctrine of forbidding Marriage, and eating certain 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 
1. 〈◊〉 4. 3.  Catholic Church, as well as the Donatists, and those that maintain other dangerous opinions, which, in the Bishop's judgement, do Shake, but do not overthrow the Foundation of true Faith necessary to Salvation? or if they might be a part of the Catholic Church, notwithstanding their departure from the Faith by holding of such doctrines, what shall hinder, but the Arians and all other Heretics whatsoever, if they 〈◊〉 the doctrine of Christ, may, notwithstanding their errors and how ever they understand the words of Christ, pretend to be parts of the Catholic Church, whose common voice we 〈◊〉 bound to hear, and with all submission to obey 〈◊〉 see here, good Reader, what a Church the Bishop assigns the to hear and follow, under pain of being in as bad, or perhaps in 〈◊〉 worse condition, than an Heathen and Publican.  
4. His Lordship next task is to impugn the Argument which A. C. brings to prove that the Roman Church and Religion is 
§. 35. num. 3.  the safer way to Salvation, because both parties, viz. Catholics, and Protestants do agree that Salvation may be had in it, but do not both of them agree, that it may be had in the Protestant Church, and Religion? The Bishop brings 〈◊〉 instances to show, that this Agreement of both parties is no sufficient ground to think, that ours is the safer way. His first instance is this. The Baptism of the Donatists was held true, and valid both by 〈◊〉 Donatists themselves, 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 us grant that the Orthodox were bound to embrace the Baptism 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 heaven, because both parties agree, that in the Roman Church there is possibility of Salvation, but do not agree there is the like possibility among Prorestants? This is the Sum and 〈◊〉 of his first instance.  
To which I answer, that no Orthodox could embrace the 〈◊〉 of the Donatists, as the safer way, but he must commit two sins; the one of disobedience to the Orthodox Church, which so bad communication with Donatists and all other Heretics, in divine Rites, such as the administration of Sacraments is: the other against Faith, which obliged him to believe the Baptism of the Orthodox to be as safe as the other. Now how could any man be fuyd to take the safer way to Salvation, by embracing the Baptism of the Donatists for the agreement of both parties touching its validity, when the greatest, and most considerable 〈◊〉 to wit, that of the Orthodox, hold it cannot be done, except in case of necessity, without damnable 〈◊〉, which dobarrs the soul from heaven 〈◊〉 whereas the case put by us is quite different from this. For we suppose Protestants grant a man may line, and die in the Roman Church; and that none of his errors shall 〈◊〉 his Salvation. whatsoever motives he may know to the 〈◊〉. But no 〈◊〉 did ever grant, that a man might with a snse Conscience embrace the donatists' Baptism knowing the 〈◊〉, reasons, and command of the Orthodox Church to the contrary: or that a man, who had so embraced the Baptism of Donatists, might live, and die with possibility of Salvation except he acknowledged his fault, and repent of his 〈◊〉.  
You will say perhaps, that as a man ought not to receive the Donatists' Baptism, thought valid in the judgement of both parties, because the Orthodox held it 〈◊〉, and forbade it under pair of sin; so 〈◊〉 may a Protestant, who is taught by scripture or otherwise, and is fully persuaded, that the Roman Church and Religion contains many gross errors, contrary to God's words, embrace the Roman Church and Religion, though both 〈◊〉 great possibility of Salvation in the said 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 〈◊〉 belief: so neither is a protestant bound to embrace 〈◊〉 Religion, so long as his conscience tells him, that it 〈◊〉 errors and superstitions contrary to God's word. But I say withal, that as a few, Mahometan, and 〈◊〉 were bound to alter their judgement concerning the pretended erroncousness and falsity of the Orthodox Faith, if sufficient motives were propounded to him, and that according to the principles of both parties, the Orthodox faith were the safer way to Salvation: so likewise a Protestant would be obliged to embrace our Religion, if sufficient motives to alter his present judgement concerning our pretended errors, were offered to him, and that it could be proved by the joint principles of both Protestants, and Catholics, that Catholic Religion were the safer way to Salvation. Now that by the joint principles, or doctrine both of Catholics and Protestants, our Religion, or Faith, is the safer way, we have already proved in our first Argument: and that Protestants may have sufficient motives to alter, and depose their present judgement touching our pretended errors, whensoever they will attend to them, is sufficiently evidenced from hence; seeing, an infinite multitude of persons, who have as good natural wits as themselves, as tender consciences as themselves, have read, and pondered the controverted passages of scripture as much as themselves, understand all contrary reasons, and objections, as well as themselves, yet believe with absolute certainty, as divine Truths, those very points, which Protestants conceive to be errors.  
5. Tho other instances, which he brings, seem rather to argue a weakeness in the Relatour's judgement, then in the Argument he impugns. In the point of the Eucharist (saith he) all sides agree in the Faith of the Church of England, that in the most Blessed Sacrament the worthy receiver is by his Faith made spiritually partaker of the true and real Body and Blood of Christ, truly and really.— Your Roman Catholics add a manner of this his presence, 
§. 35. num 3.  Transubstantiation, which many deny; and the Lutherans a manner of this presence, Consubstantiation, which more deny. If this Argument be good, then even 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 said, in any true sense, to communicate rather with the Church of England, then with the Roman, or Lutheran, only by believing that, where in they all agree? and yet the Bishop's Argument supposes this. But put case by communicating with the Church of England he understands such a belief of the English Protestants real presence, as carries with it an express denial both of Transubstantiation, and Consubstantiation in the Sacrament; how is it possible, that a man should be moved to this belief, by the common consent of Catholics, Lutherans, and English Protestants; seeing only these last agree in this point?  
That which the Relatour adds to this, is no less absurd. He citys 〈◊〉, a Catholic divine, as teaching, that to believe Transubstantiation is not simply necessary to Salvation; and triumphs thereupon against Catholics, as if he had overcome them with their own arms; ask 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 adversary. But I answer, what matter is it, though Suarez had really taught it not to be simply necessary to Salvation to believe Transubstantiation? were that sufficient ground to say, that he agreed with Protestants against the determination of the Roman Church? must he needs think that Transubstantiation is an error, or not point of Catholic Faith, because he held it not Simply necessary to Salvation? very true it is, all Catholics teach that whatsoever is defined by the Church, is an article of Faith, which may neither be doubted of, nor disputed: yet no man thinks 'tis simply necessary to Salvation to believe every point so defined, by an express act.  
A Protestant, versed in scripture, would think it a sin, if he should deny that Moses his rod was turned into a Serpent: yet, I conceive, he will hardly say, that it is Simply necessary to Salvation; or that he is bound, absolutely Speaking, to believe it with an express act of Faith under pain of damnation. But the truth is, Suarez, speaks to no such purpose, as the Bishop alleges him. He confesses indeed, that the manner of explicating the change, or conversion, that is made in the B. Sacrament, which Schoolmen use, is no necessary part of the doctrine of Faith in that particular, because it depends upon Physical and Metaphylicall principles; but as for the conversion itself (or Transubstantiation) it is most evident, that he holds it for a point of Faith, which to deny were Heresy. His words are these, in the section immediately precedent to that which the Bishop quotes. 
a Secundò infero, si quis confiteatur praesentiam corporis Xti, et absentiam panis, neget tamen veram conuersione unius 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. §. ult.  Secundò infero etc. Secondly (Saith he) I infer, that if a man confess the real presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, as also the absense of bread, yet denies a true conversion of the substance of bread into the sulstance of Christ Body, he falls into Heresy; because the Catholic Church hath defined, and doth teach, not only the two first, but also this last. what say you to this, Protestants; you that look upon this Bishop as the pillar of your Church? was it truth and honesty (think you) that moved him thus to misreport an Author of that worth, that even himself thought not fit to mention him without 
* SVAREZ .... and he a very Learned Adversary. Relat. Ibid. pag. 287.  some character of honour? They that please to consult the Author himself, in the 
e Zuarez. ubi suprá. §. 2.  place alleged, will find that HOC TOTUM does not signify to believe Transubstantiation, as the Bishop most falsely and partially renders it, but a far different thing, as we have said above.  
His quarrel with Bellarmin is no less impertinent; whom he censures (forsooth) of tediousness, and for making (as he conceives) an intricate, and almost inexplicable discourse about an Adductive conversion; a thing, which in the Relatours' opinion, neither Divinity, nor Philosophy ever heard of till then. But let the 
Bellarm. lib. 3. de Eucharist. cap. 18. §. Ex his colligimus: et in recgonit. huius loci.  indifferent reader be Judge. Bellarmin explicates his Adductive Conversion thus. As meat is changed into the substance of man's body by means of nutrition, and becomes a living and animate part of man, not because the soul, which informs it, is de novo produced in the matter duly prepared, but because the same soul, which was in the body before, begins now to be in the new matter; so by virtue of this Adductive Conversion, the bread is turned into the Body of Christ, not as if Christ's Body were (properly speaking) produced under the elements (for it was preexistent before; and nothing that is preexistent can in proper sense, be said to be produced) but because it was not there before, and begins now to be under the elementary forms, by virtue of Consecration. Let any man judge, whether this explication be not far more intelligible, than what the Bishop himself says touching the point of real presence.  
First of all, he affirms (with Bishop Ridley, and other Protestants, 
g §. 35. num. 3.  cited by him,) that the true, real, natural, and Substantial Body of Christ, that very Body, which was born of the Virgin, which ascended into Heaven which sitteth on the right hand of God the Father, which shall come from thence to judge the quick and dead, is truly, really, and Substantially in the B. Sacrament; and yet for all this, denies both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation; that is, in effect, he will have Christ's Body to be really and Substantially in the Sacrament, yet neither with the Substance of bread, nor without it. He will have Christ's Body to be really in Heaven, 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 several places at once. Is not this to say in effect, that Christ's Body really is only in Heaven, 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 understand, and reconcile these speeches? His saying, that Christ's Body is received spiritually by Faith, by Grace, and the like, is a plain contradiction to what he had taught before; seeing by these words are only signified a metaphorical presence, which in no true sense can be called real. In my opinion Zuinglius, Peter Martyr, and those of the Sacramentary party, deal faric more candidly in this point, (who flatly deny and reject all real presence, both name and thing) than the Bishop, and some other Protestants alleged by him, who confess the name, but deny the thing.  
6. The Catholic Authors, which the Relatour hath the confidence to bring, in favour of his Protestant belief touching this matter, are grossly either misunderstood, or misexpounded 
Ibidem. num 3.  by him. For 'tis evident, when they speak of spiritual Communion they mean, for the most part, that which is by desire and devotion only, when for want of opportunity, or some 〈◊〉 reason, we do not actually receive the B. Sacrament, but yet do use most of those affections, and devoute aspirations of heart towards God, and our B. Saviour, which we are wont to practise, when we do really communicate. Sometimes indeed they discourse of Christ's miraculous and ineffable being 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 every part of it. But sure I am, they never say, or think, he is there by such a spiritual presence, as Protestants means; that is, exclusive of his truly-reall presence, and by Faith only; or that he is not there as truly and really, as he is in heaven, whether we exercise an act of Faith, or no.  
Now when the Bishop insists so much upon a spiritual participation of the true and real Body and Blood of Christ, truly and really by Faith; either he means such a participation as is proper to this Sacrament, and cannot be had save only in the oral and actual receiving of the Sacramental elements; or he means such a participation of Christ's Body and Blood, as devoute persons may have in their souls, whether they receive those elements corporally, or no. If he means this second only, than both parties cannot be said to agree in the proper point of Sacramental participation; seeing it is now supposed to be such, but only a spiritual kind of receiving Christ, common to other devoute offices of Christian piety, as well as to the Sacrament. If he means the first, viz. such a participation of Christ's Body as is proper only to the Sacrament, and cannot be had, but when the Sacrament is orally and actually received, to make it appear that we agree with Protestants in it, they must first show what it is, and particularly, that it is something really different and distinct from a devoute elevation of heart, remembrance of Christ's 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 means; as namely, when one eats his common food at the table, when he drinks wine or beer, when he looks upon a Crucifix, when he prays, meditates, or the like.  
But this, neither the Bishop, not any of his party can show, standing to Calvin and their own principles; that is, they cannot show, what their spiritual participation, or receiving of Christ, signifies in effect more, than a devoute elevation of heart, remembrance of Christ's 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 never be said, that both parties (viz. Roman-Catholiques, and Protestants) are of the same sentiment, or do agree in any real reception, or participation of Christ, proper to the Sacrament. For all the world knows, the 〈◊〉 participation of Christ in the Sacrament, which Catholics believe signifies a quite different thing from this.  
7. Let us now consider, what his Lordship has to say to A. C. for his resolute affirming; there is no peril of any damnable Heresy, Schismo, or other sin, in resolving to line and die in the Roman Church. This the Relatour cannot digest; therefore he replies, 
Ibidem. punct. 5.  not so neither. For he that lines in the Roman Church with such a resolution, is presumed to beleeue, as that Church beleenes; and he that doth so, in the Bishop's opinion, is guilty, more or less, not only of the schism, which that Church caused at first by her corruptions, and now continues by her power, but of her damnable opinions too in point of misbelief, and of all other sins also; which the doctrine and misbelief of that Church leads him into. He seems by this plainly to retract what he formerly granted touching possibility of Salvation to Roman Catholics. For how can they possibly be saved, that live and die in the guilt of damnable opinions and sins? or what sort of Catholics are they, whom the Relatour thinks may possibly be in state of Salvation? are they such only as do not believe, as that Church (viz. the Roman) believeth; but only live in outward Communion with her, and making only outward show and feigned profession to believe that, which in heart they disbeleeve? He gives indeed some cause to think, that this is his meaning, when he tells us, how willing he is to hope there are many among us, which wish the superstitions of the Roman Church abolished, and would have all things amended that are amiss, if it were in their power, etc. and of such particularly professeth, 
Ibidem.  that he dares not deny them possibility of Salvation. But how could it possibly sink into a sober man's head to judge him capable of Salvation, that for temporal and sinister ends only, contrary to knowledge and the light of his own conscience, complies outwardly with superstition and many other sinful and Jdolatrous practices, all his life long, and deny it to him, who hates all superstition and sin in his very soul, and would not comply with any, if he knew it, but adheres to the doctrine and practices of the Roman Church merely for conscience sake, and for no other reason, but because he simply and sincerely believes all her doctrine to be true, and consonant to God's word, and all her allowed customs and observances to be pious and holy? what is this but to say, he is an honest man, that takes his neighbour's goods wittingly and willingly from him, knowing them to be his; and that he is a knave and deserves to be hanged, that takes them unwittingly, and verily believing that they are his own?  
Secondly he tells us, that 'tis one thing to live 〈◊〉 Church, and not to communicate with it in Schism, or in any false 
Ibidem.  worship, and an other thing to live in a Schismatical Church, and to Communicate with it in the schism and corruptions, which that Church teacheth; we grant it; being ourselves, in some sort; an instance of this truth, whom the Catholic Church permuts, both in England, Germany and other Countries, to live among those she esteems both sehismatiques and Heretics too, (though we think, this is not, properly speaking, to live in a schismatical Church) yet she does not permit us to communicate with them in their shisme. But when he proceeds thereupon to charge the Roman Church with being worse and more cruel than the Church of Israel, even under Achab and Jezabel was (when so many worshipped the calves in Dan and Bethel) because (forsooth) he doth not find that this doctrine YOU MU SACRIFICE IN THE HIGH PLACES, or this, YOU MU NOT SACRIFICE AT THE ONE ALTAR IN JERUSALEM, was either taught by the Priest, or maintained by the Prophets, or enjoined by the Sanedrim — Whereas the Church of Rome (saith he) hath solemnly decreed, her errors, and imposed them upon men under the greatest penalties, yea, and erring, hath decreed withal, that she cannot err; we answer, this is not to argue, as a Logician should, ex concessis or probatis, but rather, upon false and vnproued suppositions, to bring, in lieu of argument, railing accusation against our superiors; which the Apostle (Judas. 8. 9) utterly 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 saviour?  
8. Again, what I pray, does our adversary mean by his Church of Israel under Achab and Jezabel, when he says the Church of Rome is worse and more cruel than she? does he mean the true Church there? that is, the number of those Faithful Israelites, 
3. King. 19 18.  which as the scripture testifies of them, never boved their knees to Baal? If so, his Lordship surely commits a huge Solecism, when pretending to aggravate the crime of the Roman Church, he says she was worse and more cruel, than the Church of Israel under Achab and Jezabel, as if that Church, at that time, had deserved the character of bad or cruel. If he means the other part of the Israelites, who were fallen from the true Religion, and worshipped jeroboams calves, we wonder upon what ground he styles 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 than that of Israel in the time of jezabel? because (saith he) the Church of Rome hath solemnly decreed her errors, and imposed them upon men under the greatest penalties, viz. of Excommuncation etc. whereas the Church of Israel did neither solemnly teach, that men ought to Sacrifice in the high places, nor punish men for going to Sacrifice at the one Altar in Jerusalem. Admit this were true; though it be more than the Bishop can prove, seeing Elias complained in those times, that God's Altars were thrown down, and the Prophets persecuted and slain with the sword, which argues there was no such liberty as the Bishop pretends: admit, I say, it were true, yet if there be any force in this argument, it concludes more against himself, then against the Roman Church. The Bishop grants, that a General Council, lawfully called and orderly proceeding, may define errors contrary to scripture, and that in matters even Fundamental, and of main importance to Salvation; yet he 
§. 38. num. 15.  teaches withal, that the decrees of such a Council must stand in force, and bind all particular men at least, to external obedience, till the whole Church by an other General Council, reverse the definitions of the former. Is not this likewise to be worse than the Church of Jsrael? Is not this to oblige people to make profession of false doctrine contrary to scripture and evident reason, or demonstration? yea, is it not to be, in this respect, far worse than the Church of Rome? which requires indeed, that all persons do submit to the decrees of General Councils, but doth not require this as granting Councils to be fallible or subject to define error in stead of truth in matters of Faith; but as assuredly persuading herself that they are, by the special 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 serve rather to justify, then to condemn the proceedings of the Roman. When power resided in the true Prophets of God, and in his true and lawful Priests, Idolatry and disobedience to the law of Moses was severely punished; but in corrupted times every one had liberty to do what ill he listed. The Roman Church therefore is rather to be commended for her zeal, and imitating the Synagogue in the times of its greatest 〈◊〉, to wit, by exacting strict obedience to her doctrine lawfully declared and established by General Councils; which she also believes, and is as well assured, to be according to divine revelation, and not repugnant to God's honour, as the Synagogue was of their doctrine: the Roman Church, I say, is rather to be commended for this, even from the example of the jewish Church, then to be taxed with cruelty, for not symbolising with the corrupted and Apostatised Synagogue, in giving promiscuous liberty to all, to believe and practise what they list in point of Religion.  
As for what he avouches concerning Transubstantiation, Purgatory, and Forbearance of the Cup, that they are improbable opinions, and contrary to God's word, we answer, 'tis according to his custom to speak without prose; and therefore we are not troubled at it. 'Tis that, which every Heretic may say, if he please, (an Arian, as well as an English Protestant) the doctrine of the Roman Church is improbable, is contrary to God's word, where it contradicts their particular Heresy. Nay, is it not a thing, they might as justly say of the English Church, as of the Roman, viz. that she is in this regard worse and more cruel than the Church of Israel; that she hath Solemnly decreed improbable opinions, to wit the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Deity of Christ, and to keep of disobedience, how false soever her doctrine be, she binds it up under pain of Excommunication; yea and kindles the faggot too sometimes, when nothing else will serve the turn? Witness the books of Canons, which inflicts Eccommunication ipso facto upon any that denies the 39 Articles of the Church of England; and the proceedings against several persons, who have been burnt, hanged, drawn, and quartered in this nation merely for Religion, since Protestantisme bore sway here.  
To false premises the Bishop joins a Conclusion as enigmatical and ambiguous. This then (saith he) may be enough for us to leave Rome, though the old Prophet (3. king. 13. 11.) left not Israel. By leaving Rome 〈◊〉 understands (surely) their refusing any longer to adhere to the Roman Church, and to communicate with her in those things, which they account superstitions and errors. 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 join (think you) with the Idolatrous Tribes in the Sacrifices at Dan and Bethel?  
9 The like is to be said of the comparison he makes between A. C. and Petilian the Donatist; it signifies not much. For who 
Ibidem.  sees not a manifest difference in the case and argument of these two? Petilian would have Catholics refuse and desert the Church's Baptism, to embrace that of the Donatists, only because Catholics (or the Catholic Church) acknowledged the Donatists' Baptism to be in it 〈◊〉, valid, or true Baptism, though by reason of their 〈◊〉 the same Church likewise taught it to be 〈◊〉 sin and inconsistent with Salvation for any Catholic to seek their Baptism voluntarily, or to admit of it otherwise then in case of extreme necessity: whereas A. C. would have Protestant's become Catholics upon this ground viz. because, that even Protestants themselves, at least the most learned, most wise, and most considerable among them, Doc grant us possibility of Salvation, notwithstanding any thing that we believe, or do. How then can the Bishop (as he pretends) answer A. C. just as St. Austin answered Petilian the Donatist? That which deceived him is, that he did not well observe the force of A. Cs. maxim, viz. that 'tis safest in order to Salvation to take that way which both parties agree in; which imports not any agreement whatsoever, indefinitely speaking, but determinately and specially such an agreement, or an agreement, so far betwixt adverse parties concerning such a point, or thing, as to acknowledge the belief, or doing of it doth not destroy Salvation, or doth not hinder the parties being saved that does it. Had due notice been taken of this, it would have saved him the trouble of bringing this, and so many other instances, to no purpose; of which more in due place. In the mean time, we conceive 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 grows into choler, taking A. C. of a most 〈◊〉 untruth, and such, as an ingenuous man would not have spoken, for no other reason but for saying, there is confessedly noe peril of damnation by living and dying in the Roman Church. I answer, whatever the Bishop granted, or granted not, in express terms to A. C. touching this matter, 'tis certain, that from what he doth confess, it really and necessarily follows, that there is no peril of damnation per se loquendo, or precisely, by living and dying in the Roman Church. For first, as to the ignorant which hold the pretended errors of our Church, but cannot 
§. 34.  discern them, those he professedly exempts from peril of damnation, if they conform themselves to a religious life. Secondly, he grants that such others of the Roman Church, as do even 〈◊〉 and knowingly associate themselves to the gross superstitions of the Romish 
§. 35. punct. 5  Church, if they hold the Foundation Christ, and live accordingly, are not to be denied Salvation. Whence I argue. If, according to the Bishop's 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 voluntary, nor involuntary superstition excludes a Papist from possibility of being saved, it is no loud untruth, nor indeed so much as a mistake; to say, that in the Roman Church there is confessedly noe peril of damnation, in the sense abovesaid, that is, merely by living and dying in that Communion.  
What he adds after this of some among us, who wish the superstitions abolished which they know, and pray to God to forgive their errors in what they know not, and would have all things amended that are amiss, were it in their power, if he means, that such persons should know any superstitions taught and allowed by the Church as duties of Religion, or that they would have any thing amended in the Churches public Authorised doctrine, he mistakes very much in supposing such persons to belong to our Church and Communion; it being contrary to Catholic Faith to believe, that any such errors, or uperstitions can be taught by the Church; and he might as well suppose (if he had pleased) that those are Protestants, who go to Church, and join with Protestants in exterior service, only to save their estates, or for some other temporal ends, though they hold the Protestant Tenets, contrary to the doctrine of the Roman Church, for no better than Heresies, and would, if it were in their power, much more willingly hear Mass then common prayer, when they go to Church. Neither can he be a Catholic, who prays to God to forgive his errors, in any matter or point defined by the Church: for that implies a belief, or doubt, that the Church may have erred in defining some doctrine of Faith; which, according to us, is absolutely inconsistent which true Faith: no more than (we presume) he could have been thought a Christian, or Protestant in the Bishop's opinion, who should ask God forgiveness for believing some thing delivered in Canonical scripture.  
In answer to A. Cs. Assertion, whereby he prefers, both for number and worth, those who deny there is any peril of damnation by living 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 divides it, and endeavours to show, that number alone, is no sufficient ground of truth. Who says it is? Not A. C. I am sure; who as clearly as he could, joined both together, worth to number, as a necessary supplement, and concludes what he intends, jointly from them both. Now this term (worth) comprehending, not only eminency of power and authority, but also of virtue, learning, zeal, prudence, sanctity, etc. can any man doubt, but those, who have the greater number and worth on their side, are in all prudence to be thought rather in the truth, than those who have incomparably less, or indeed nothing at all in comparison of them? His long marginal allegations therefore (which mention number only) serve to no purpose, but to amuse. And yet neither doth A. C. nor any of us say, that our Faith rests upon the number or worth of men (as the Bishop will needs insinuate) but upon God's infallible veracity and authority: number and worth of men being only motives of credibility, to induce, and direct us prudently to determine, to which of the two parties we are to give credit, when they teach us contrary doctrines.  
A. C. thought it so evident a thing, that those of the Catholic 
Ibidem.  belief, in the points controverted betwixt us and Protestants, do incomparably exceed those of the contrary party, as the Bishop would never have called for a proof of it; as indeed it needs none. For if we compare those spread over the whole face of Christendom for the last thousand years (a space of time commonly granted us by our adversaries) who believed, as we believe, and never dreamt of any peril, either of schism, Heresy, or sin, by living and dying in the Roman Church, with those few, that since yesterday as it were, began to descent from us, and pretend there was peril of schism etc. by living and dying in the said Church, we shall find these, in worth and number just nothing in regard of the other. So that in truth, the Relatour 
Ibidem.  himself (had he well considered it) should have blushed at his own extravagant objection (you have not yet proved your party more worthy for life or learning, than the Protestants) and not bid his adversary blush for speaking the truth. For in this case who sees not, that all true Christians, who for a thousand years together lived in the world, were, and are of our party?  
II. But let us consider what other instances the Bishop brings to impugn A. Cs. maxim, that 'tis safest to follow that way in Religion, in which the differing parties agree there is possibility of Salvation. His first is taken from the article of our Saviour's descent 
Ibidem. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  into hell. The Church of Rome (saith he) and the Church of England (dissenting parties) do agree, that our Saviour descended into hell, and that hell is the place of the damned. Therefore, according to A. Cs. rule, it should be safest to believe that our Saviour descended into the place of the damned. But this (says the Bishop) the Romanists will not endure; because St. Thomas, and the school generally agree in it, that he went really no further than LIMBUS PATRUM. 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 do (both) agree, that our Saviour descended into hell, yet they do not (both) agree that by hell, either in the Creed, or in all places of Scripture where hell is mentioned, is understood the place of the damned. Here therefore our adversary clearly disputes ex falso supposito; and the argument, in truth, may be much better retorted upon himself, thus. Both parties agree, that Christ descended into hell: but both parties do not agree, that by hell is understood here the place of the damned (for the greater and better part of Divines hold the contrary) ergo, 'tis safer not to believe that he descended into the place of the damned, then positively to assert it, as some English Protestants do.  
His next instance is about the Sacraments being received in both kinds; and as little to the purpose as the former. For though we agree that our Saviour instituted the Sacrament 
Ibidem. 〈◊〉 2.  (that is, made it himself, and ordained it to be made by his Ministers) in both kinds; yet we neither agree, that he instituted with intention, or gave any command, that it should be always received in both kinds, by all the Faithful: nor do we grant possibility of Salvation to any, that out of private Heretical persuasion holds, it ought to be received by all, or out of contempt of the Church's order to the contrary, do receive it in both kinds. Our Saviour gave it in one kind only to the two Disciples at Emmaus (Lucae. 24.) as both St. 
a Aug. lib. 3. de Consens. Evangelist. cap. 25.  Austin, St. 
b Chrysost. Homil. 16. operis imperfect. in Math.  chrysostom, 
c Hieron. in Epitaph. Pa lae.  St. Hierome, 
d Theophyl. in cap. 24. Luc.  Theophylact, and 
e Hesych. lib. 2. in Levitic. cap. 9 Beda. in cap. 24. Luc.  others of the Ancients witness: whose example the Church following, always allowed the use and manner of receiving this Sacrament, free as to the Faithful, viz. either to receive it in both kinds, if their devotion inclined them thereto, or only in one, in case they desired no more: till of later times, the custom of receiving it in form of bread only, growing more general, and inconveniences of receiving it in both kinds multiplying, the Council of Constance totally abrogated the manner of receiving it in form of wine, and enjoined what is now in use. Whence likewise it appears, 'twas not injuriously, (as the Bishop pretends) but justly required of the Bohemians, not to condemn the practice of the Church for receiving in one kind, when she dispensed with them to receive in both.  
To what he objects against the doctrine of concomitancy, invented (as he says) by St. Thomas of Aquin, and contrary to truth; for that the Eucharist is a Saerament of Blood, shed and poured forth, and not of Blood contained in the Body; I answer, that however the term itself might (perhaps) be first used by the Angelical Doctor; yet the thing thereby signified was always the constant doctrine of the Catholic Church; which ever taught, that by Consecration, under each species the entire Sacrament, or whole Christ, was put; and therefore under each of them, as well the Body as the Blood, and as well the Blood as the Body was contained: notwithstanding it be certain, that the precise words, in the Consecration of bread express no more, than Christ's Body; nor those used in the Consecration of the chalice, any more, than Christ's Blood. Wherefore to show what is in the Sacrament by force of the precise words of Consecration, and what by virtue of natural connexion, or union, Divines commonly make use of this distinction, ex vi verborum, and per Concomitantiam. Ex vi verborum, or by virtue of the precise words of Consecration, Christ's Body only is under the form of bread, and his Blood only under the form of wine: but per Concomitantiam, by reason of natural connexion, or union, (whereby the parts of Christ's Humanity are never to be divided one from an other) the Blood is under the form of bread also, and his Body under the form of wine, and his foul, and divinity or Godhead, under both. And this the Bishop must grant, if he hold the real presence; except he would have us think, that Christ is dead in the Sacrament, contrary to St. Paul, who plainly tolls us, Rom. 6. 9 He dies no more. As for the Priest that consecrates, there is a double necessity for him to receive under both kinds. The first is gathered from Christ's words spoken to his Apostles at the institution of this Sacrament, and interpreted to us by the universal doctrine and practice of the Church. The second, grounded upon the nature of the thing; which is not only a Sacrament, to be distributed among the Faithful, but a true, proper, and perfect Sacrifice, representing that upon the Cross; where not only Christ's Body was crucified, but also his Blood was shed for us. And therefore the Priest, who offers this Sacrifice of the Altar, must not only consecrate in both kinds, but receive in both kinds, to complete the sacrifice.  
His third instance is about the Commemorative Sacrifice in 
Ibidem. punct. 3.  the Eucharist, wherein he pretends that they and we agree. But this is false, speaking in the Protestants sense, or of such a Commemorative Sacrifice, as excludes that, which is real and proper. Where did Catholics ever agree with Protestants, that it was not 〈◊〉 sin in them, to deny the true, real, and propitiatory Sacrifice of the Eucharist? or, that they might be saved, acknowledging only such a Commemorative Sacrifice in the Eucharist, as they do? Let one only Author of the Roman Church be named, who teaches this; or that bread broken, and wine poured out (understanding natural and substantial bread and wine, as the Bishop must do, according to Protestant principles) were, in true and proper sense, a Commemorative Sacrifice amongst Christians. For this were to say in effect, that Christians under the Gospel, did really Sacrifice to God natural bread and wine; and thereby add another Sacrifice to that of Christ's Body: which were a very gross error.  
In his fourth about the intention of the Priest in Baptism, 
Ibidem. punct. 4.  he lapses again. For what we agree with Protestants in, we stand to, as most safe to be done in order to Salvation. Now this is only (in the present case) that due matter and form must necessarily be used for the validity of Baptism. Do any of us, or can any man deny, but it is safer in order to Salvation, to use due matter and form in the Sacrament of Baptism, than not to use them? The Bishop indeed would gather from hence, that we must also account due matter and form sufficient without intention. But this is more than the rule obliges us to do. The rule, 
Ibidem. punct.  certainly, binds A. C. to no more, then to acknowledge the thing, wherein differing parties agree, to be saser than the contrary, or negative of it; which we do clearly in this case.  
His fifth instance is, that Catholics and Protestants agree, that in the English liturgy there is no positive error: but both parties do not agree, that there is no error in the Roman Missal. Therefore, (says the Bishop) according to A. Cs. rule, it should be better and more safe to worship God by the English liturgy, then by the Roman Missal; which he is sure we will not grant. I answer first, all Catholics do not agree, that there is no positive error in the English liturgy; neither dares the Relatour affirm they do: but only that some jesuits confess't so much in his hearing. Secondly, though they did; that is, though all Catholics did grant, there were no positive error in the English service-book, yet it follows not, that therefore the English liturgy is better, or more safe to be used in the service of God, than our Missal. Why? because Catholics do not agree, that it is so much as positively safe, or consistent with Salvation, to use it as Protestants do that is, out of Heretical persuasion, and with Heretical contempt of the Roman Missal. For though it contains no positive error, yet to use it out of any such principles, is certainly damnable sin, and destructive of Salvation. The Arian Creeds contained no positive error against Faith; yet because they did not contain all that was necessarily to be believed and confessed by Christians, and were set forth by such as were known enemies of the Catholic Faith, which was wanting in them, they were always anathematised and condemned by the Church, as much as if they had contained positive and express error. Did Catholics grant, that those, who both use the English liturgy, and reject the Roman Missal as Protestants do, were for all that, in state of Salvation, though they never repented, and did sufficiently know the grounds and reasons, why the Church forbids the use of it, the argument would have force: but seeing 'tis otherwise, our maxim stands yet good, and 'tis safer in order to Salvation, to worship God according to the Roman Missal, rather than according to the English service-book; notwithstanding it were granted (which we do not) that the English book contained no positive error.  
To his Sixth of the Arians confessing Christ to be of like 
Ibidem. num. 8. punct. 1.  substance with the Father, and the Catholics confessing him to be of the same substance, I answer, the Catholics never granted possibility of Salvation to the Arians upon the account of that Confession, but always withstood and condemned it, as an Heretical, False and impious assertion, taken in their known sense, that is, restrictively, and as importing no more than like. For in this sense, that Maxim 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 said of his seaventh, grounded upon the agreement of dissenting parties in the Metaphorical Resurrection 
Ibidem. punct. 2.  of the soul from sin; whence the Bishop would gather, that by A. Cs. rule, it should be safest to believe only the said Metaphorical Resurrection of the soul, and let that of the body alone. But most untruly. For did ever any good Christian allow possibility of Salvation to any that denied the Resurrection of the body? If not, how is this instance within the rule? which supposeth, that both parties must agree in granting Salvation to one, in his way, or contested opinion.  
The same Fallacy is apparent in his Eighth and Ninth. For 
Ibidem. punct 〈◊〉 .4.  did ever any Catholic Christian allow Salvation to a Turk, or a Jew, in his Religion, because they believed one God; or to a Nestorian Heretic, because he believed that Christ was true man? what gross impertinences are these? But no marvel. For 'tis too apparent, our adversary has quite forgotten the rule, and framed another thing of it. A. Cs. rule speaks precisely this, andnomore; viz. that when two parties differ in point of Religion, 'tis in prudence safest to take that way, wherein both parties grant Salvation to be obtainable, or to contain nothing in it opposite, or inconsistent with Salvation: whereas the Relatour presents it in an other dress, and makes it speak thus; viz. that when parties disagree, as abovesaid, 'tis safest to resolve a man's Faith into that, in which the dissenting parties agree, and to believe no more than they do agree in: which is far from truth, and a thing which never came into A. C. s thoughts: and yet upon this mistake 'tis evident to any that will consider them, most of the Bishop's instances run.  
Tlius all the Relatours examples, duly weighed, are found too light, and discovered to be indeed rather amusements, than proofs: A. Cs' proposition, that 'tis safest in Religion to go that way, which is confessed by both parties to afford possibility of Salvation, or to contain no damnable sin in it, remaining in the mean while, a firm and vnshaken truth, notwithstanding all our adversary's endeavours to undermine it. If any thing yet be wanting to the due justifying of it, it shall be declared in the following chapter. At present, the Bishop having made so many assaults in vain, seems to retire, and put himself upon the defensive; 
Ibidem. num. 9  pleading, he is not out of the Catholic Church (though out of the Roman) because the Roman is not the Catholic, but a member of it, as the Church of England (he says) is: and requiring us to 
Ibidem, in margin.  show, how one and the same Church can be, in different respects and relations, both a particular, and also the Catholic Church. But I answer, how often hath this been shown already, by all Catholic writers, (had his Lordship been more willing to understand 
See chap. 10.  the truth from them, then to cavil about words) and also by us in this treatise? namely, that the Roman Church, as it signifies the Christians of the Diocese, or Province of Rome only, is a particular Church; but as it signifies the Society of all such Christians, as professing the Catholic Faith, do acknowledge the Bishop of Rome for St. Peter's Successor and Head of the whole Church under Christ, so it is (formally and properly speaking) not a particular, but the very Catholic and universal Church of Christ; they being all, either Heretical, or Schismatical Churches (or both) that do not acnowledge this.  
Our adversary therefore might flourish as much as he pleased, with his vain and feigned Allegory of an elder and younger sister; 
Ibidem.  but we tell his followers, such Rhetoric may serve to palliate, but shall never justify, nor excuse Schism. The Roman Church will be found, in the day of account, to have been, not an elder sister, but a mother; and such a mother, whose 
a Prou, 1. 8.  Law and Authority was not so lightly to have been forsaken, and rejected by any of her petulant and disobedient Daughters. Nor matters it much, whether Britain's first Conversion were before St. Peter's coming to Rome, or after. He was Pastor of the universal Church, before he settled his seat at Rome: and the British Christians, if any such were before that time, might very well (at least for aught the Bishop shows to the contrary) be instructed by their preachers to believe, and acknowledge him for such.   

CHAP. 24. The conclusion of the point touching the Salvation of Roman Catholics; and the Roman Faith, proved to be the same now, that it ever was.  
ARGUMENT.  
1. All Catholics in possibility of Salvation; and all Protestant teachers excluded, by the Bishops own grounds. 2. No Church, different in doctrine from the Roman, can be shown to have held all Fundamental points in all Ages. 3. The Bishop's confident pretence to Salvation, upon the account of his Faith, rather presumptuous, then well grounded. 4. His pretending to believe, as the Primitive Church and four first General Councils believed, disproved by instance. 5. Christ's descent into LIMBUS PATRUM, the doctrine and worshipping of Images, the public allowed practice of the Primitive Church. 6. A. C '. Interrogatories defended. 7. Protestants, have not the same Bible with Catholics, in any true sense. 8. The index expurgatorius, not devised by us to corrupt the Fathers. 9 No disagreement amongst Catholics, in points defined by the Church. 10. Catholics have infallible Faith of what they believe either explicitly, or implicitly; but Protestants, none at all that is infallible.  
1. THe Controversy goes on touching Roman-Catholiques Salvation. The Bishop having first yielded 
§ 36. num. 1.  absolutely, that the Lady might be saved in the Roman Faith, nettled a little (as it seems) by Mr. Fishers bidding her mark that, returns smartly upon him in these words, she may be better saved in it, than you, and bids him mark that too. Well. we will not interpret this to be any restraining of his former grant, touching the Lady's Salvation, but only an item to his adversary to look to himself; for that, in the Bishop's opinion, his case was not so good as the Ladies in order to Salvation. But what is his reason? because (for sooth) any man, that knows so much of the truth, as Mr. Fisher and others of his calling, do, and yet opposes it, must needs be in greater danger. So that it seems, learning and sufficiency, according to the Bishop, have such a connexion with Protestant doctrine, that it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 easy matter to have the one, and not to see the truth of the other. But how false this surmise is, appears by the experience of so many learned men in the Catholic Church, who are so far from discovering errors in the Roman Church, and truth in the contrary doctrine of Protestants, that the more learned they are, and the better they understand and weigh the grounds of Controversies, betwixt the Roman Church and her adversaries, the more they are confirmed in the Catholic doctrine.  
Again, what likelihood is there, that by pondering the pretended reasons of Protestants for their Religion, I should ever come to a right and full understanding of Divine truth's; seeing it is evident, that following their principles I can be certain of nothing, that belongs to Divine Faith? For, teaching as they do, that all particular men, all General Councils, and the whole Church of God may err, what assurance can they give me, that either their Canon of Scripture is true, or that the sense of the words of Scripture, by which they prove their doctrine, is such as they understand; or that their Church (which they grant to be fallible) doth not err in those points, wherein they disagree from us. 
Ibidem:   
What he asserts afterward, by way of reason why he allows possibility of Salvation to Roman Catholics, viz. because they are within the Church, and that no man can be said simply to be out of the Church, that is Baptised and holds the Foundation, is a Paradox, and may be proved to be false even from his own grounds. For, seeing he hath often delivered, that by Foundation he understands only such points, as are Prime, Radical, and Fundamental in the Faith, necessary to be known and expressly believed by all Christians, in order to Salvation: and seeing that many Heretics are Baptised, and hold the Foundation in this sense, what does he but bring into the Fold of the Church, and make Members of Christ's Mystical Body, most of the Heretics that ever were, and that, even while they remain most notoriously and actually divided from it?  
Nor is he content with one absurdity, unless he adjoin a second. 
Ibidem.  There is no question (saith he) but many (viz. ignorant Catholics) were saved in the corrupted times of the Church, when their Leaders, unless they repented before their death (as 'tis morally certain, none of them did) were lost. See here a heavy doom pronounced against all the Roman Doctors in general. But what? were they all lost who repented not of those pretended errors, which, as Pastors of the Roman-Catholique Church they taught so many years together? How could that be? were they not all, even by the Bishops own principles, members of the true visible Church of Christ, (notwithstanding those errors) by reason of their being Baptised, and holding the Foundation? If they neither lost that Faith, by which they were members of the true Church; nor can be proved to have taught any false doctrine against their conscience (by means 
Ibidem.  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 do then only perish, when they refuse to hear the Church's instruction, or to use all the means they can, to come to the knowledge of truth. But I demand, if no Misleaders but such, do perish, with what countenance (conscience I might say) could the Relatour pass his judgement of ours, in the manner he doth, that they were lost? Can it with any colour of equity or truth, be charged upon them, that they refused the Church's instruction? what visible Church was there in the whole world for so many hundred years together, by which, had they been never so willing, they could be instructed, to teach otherwise, than themselves taught in their respective ages? and what other means could they be bound to use more than they did, to come to the knowledge of truth?  
Why should not our adversary, in reason, have rather excused 
〈◊〉.  these Leaders of the Roman Faith and Communion, from Heresy, and all other damnable error, than he does even St. Cyprian himself and his followers? seeing 'tis manifest, these last opposed, and contradicted the more general practice of the whole visible Church; whereas the Roman Catholic Doctors had always the universal practice of the Church on their side, in the points now controverted, and for which Protestants condemn them of error. The truth is, the Bishop is a little entangled here. Something he must say by way of threatening against Catholics, to keep his own people in awe, and to fright them from becoming Catholics: but positively and determinately what to say, he is scarce provided. He gives a hint at the difference between Error and Heresy; but dares not so much as apply the distinction, for fear he should be forced either to acquit our Leaders too manifestly, or otherwise pass such a censure upon them, as he should not be able to maintain. But the wary Reader will easily discover by his timorousness and hesitancy here, his uncharitable temerity, and forwardness in the precedent passage.  
He tells us likewise, that a teaching Heretic, if he add Schism to his Heresy, is lost. Very good. We grant it no less willingly then himself; but wonder, his Lordship would not first make it clear, that our teachers added Schism and obstinacy to their errors, (as he is pleased to call them) before, he gave sentence upon their persons, by saying that they were lost. But that which he adds concerning St. Cyprian and his followers, gives a plain advantage against him, and his followers; namely to prove, that all Leaders of Protestant Religion are guilty both of Heresy and Schism; and by consequence liable to damnation, except they repent. St. Cyprian, he saith, was a main Leader in the error of Rebaptisation; 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 Church's instruction, did not obstinately and formally oppose the Church's authority; which had not as yet defined the contrary doctrine. But after the Church's determination, those that followed St. Cyprians error, and misled the people, were judged both Heretics and— Schismatics, and that justly too, by the Bishops own confession; and so, by consequence, were lost without repentance.  
But is not this a convincing instance against Luther, Calvin, and all other ringleaders of the Protestant profession? doth it not evidently prove them also to be both Heretics and Schismatics? did not they refuse to hear the Church's 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 error of rebaptisation? 'tis evident therefore, if St. Cyprians followers were justly accounted Heretics and in danger of damnation, for not hearing the Church's instruction, given them by the voice of a General Council, and for teaching contrary to what the Church had solemnly defined and declared, as by the Bishops own discourse they were; neither Luther, nor Calvin, nor any that succeed them in their doctrine and profession, can be justly acquitted of the like crime.  
If you answer, the whole Church of Christ condemned the error of rebaptisation; but the doctrine of Protestants was condemned only by the particular Church of Rome, I ask what you mean by the whole Church? If all such people, and all such particular Churches, as believe in Christ, and hold all Fundadamentall points in Protestant sense; that will comprehend the rebaptisers themselves, or those followers of St. Cyprians error; whom the Bishop here confesses to have been Heretics. For doubtless they believed in Christ, and held all points, which according to the Relatours principles, can be accounted Fundamental, or absolutely necessary to Salvation; otherwise St. Cyprian himself had erred in a point Fundamental. Therefore the whole Church, in that sense, did not condemn the doctrine of rebaptisation. 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 Catholic; and also, according to the Bishop's doctrine, no less fallible and subject to error, in defining unfundamentall points, (as this of rebaptisation was) then was the Church which condemned Protestant doctrine, whatsoever Church that was. Besides, how often shall we be forced to remind our adversaries, that when Luther first began to oppose the Roman Church, the Protestant doctrine concerning Real Presence, Invocation of Saints, Prayer for the dead, two Sacraments only, etc. was contrary to the General belief of the whole Christian world; whereof the far greater part also were such, as professed obedience to the Sea of Rome.  
2. The greatest part of his 〈◊〉. paragraph is taken up 
§. 37.  with personal matters, and matters of fact, viz. what A. C. what Doctor White, and the Bishop in their respective conferences with Mr. Fisher, said; in which kind of differences, I shall not interpose. That which I shall observe here, is, that the Bishop formalizeth without cause upon those words of A. C. different from the Roman, which he useth pag. 67. where he tells us, that Doctor White expressly granted, that he could assign no Church DIFFERENT FROM THE ROMAN which in all ages held all Fundamental points. The Relatour will not seem to understand, what A. C. 
bidem. num. 4.  means by a Church different from the Roman; whether he means different in place, or different in doctrine. whereas if he had perused never so little Doctor Whites answer, where 'tis first reported. pag. 22. he would have found in express terms different in doctrine, twice over for failing. Beside, the very acception wherein A. C. in that place, takes the word Roman Church, towitt, for the whole visible Catholic Church, evinces, that he could not mean any Church different from it in place, seeing the Roman Church in that sense comprehends all places in Christendom, and all particular true Churches throughout the Christian world.  
Nor can it with truth be avouched, that the Greek Church hath ever held and taught the Foundation in all ages, as the Bishop pretends; seeing all, or most of those Primitive Heresies, Arianisme, Eunomianisme, Nestorianisme, Eutychianisme, etc. have been anciently embraced and professed respectively by the Greek Patriarches and their Churches at some time or other. Neither doth even the present Greek Church hold and teach it so entirely and sound, as it ought, even by the Relatours own 
* Relat. §. 9 pag. 24.  confession, touching their error about the Procession of the Holy Ghost. Lastly we have proved, chap. 1. of this treatise, that the Greeks error in that point is Fundamental, and sufficient to unchurch them.  
By a Church different from the Roman then, the Relatour should have here understood, without making any scruple about it, a Church different from her, not in place, but in doctrine; and differing also not in points Fundamental only, (which is an other scruple too, as needlessly added) but in points not Fundamental 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 reject, and for which they separate themselves from the Roman Church. This, we 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 no Church, differing in any points of doctrine what ever, (Fundamental, or not-fundamental) from the present Roman, could be assigned, which held in all ages all Fundamental points. And if our adversaries like not his answer, we challenge them again to show us such a Church.  
Moreover we aver, that from Doctor Whites grant abovementioned, 
Ibidem. num. 5.  A. C. inference is rightly gathered, namely, that the Roman Church held and taught in all ages, unchanged Faith in all Fundamental points, and did not in any age err in any point Fundamental: and that the Bishop's Criticism is much more subtle, then solid; when, to make good his denial of it, he distinguishes betwixt the holding unchanged Faith in all Fundamental points, and the Not-erring in any Fundamental point; granting the first of these, viz. that the Roman Church hath in all ages held unchanged Faith in all such points, to follow out of Doctor Whites concession, but not the second, viz. that she hath not erred in any point Fundamental. But with what ground, or consonancy to himself and truth, let the Reader judge.  
His precense is, that the Church of Rome hath kept the Faith unchanged only in the expression, as he calls it, or bare letter of the Article; but hath erred in the exposition, or sense of it. I answer, if she hath erred in the exposition, and sense of an Article, how can she be truly said to have held it? Can any man with truth say, that the Arians held the Article of Christ's Diviunity, or the Antitrinitarians, the doctrine of three divine Persons, because they allow, and hold Scriptures, in which these Mysteries are contained? who ever 〈◊〉 this word hold, in a question of Faith, to signify no more than profession, or keeping of the bare letter of the Article, and not the belief of the Mystery itself in its true sense? Is it not all one to say, Roman Catholics hold the doctrine of Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Invocation of Saints etc. and to say, they believe the said doctrines? If then it be true, that the Church of Rome hath ever held all Fundamental points, 'tis likewise true, that she hath ever believed them: and if she hath ever believed them all, 'tis manifest she hath not erred in any; there being no other way (properly and truly speaking) whereby a man can err against an Article of Faith, but only by disbeleeving it.  
If therefore it be granted that the Roman Church held and believed in all ages all Fundamental points, it is by necessary 
Ibidem.  consequence likewise granted, that she never erred in any such points, how unwilling soever the Bishop is to have it so. He tells us indeed (but his accusation has no proof,) that our Church hath erred grossly, dangerously, nay damnably in the exposition of Fundamental 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 mere painting, as preserving only the outside, and bare letter of Christ's doctrine, but in regard of inward sense and belief, being neither beautiful nor sound. Thus he. But was ever calumny more falsely and injuriously advanced? Let our adversary's show, in what one Article of all the three Creeds, the Roman Church hath either lost its true sense, or erred in her exposition of it. Beside, they must likewise show, how this censure can stand with the Bishop's former grant, touching the possibility of Catholics Salvation. If true Faith in all Fundamental points be necessary to Salvation (as 'tis certain none can be saved without it) and that true Faith consists in the sense and inward belief, and not in the bare letter, how can those, which live and die in the Roman Churches Communion, believing all things as she teacheth, and no otherwise, attain Salvation?  
3. The Lady here asks a second question, whether she might be saved in the Protestant Faith; in answering whereof the parties conferring are again put into new heats. upon my soul (says the Bishop) you may. upon my soul (says Mr. Fisher) there is 
§. 38. num 1.  but one saving Faith, and that's the Roman. You see their mutual confidence; but which of them is better grounded the Reader must judge. Mr. Fisher seems to lay the ground of his, upon that which cannot be denied to be a Fundamental means, and condition also, of Salvation, viz. Catholic Faith; which unless it be entirely and inviolately professed, saves none: witness St. Athanasius in 
* Whosoever will be Saved, before all things, it is necessary that he hold the CATHOLIQVE FAITH: Which FAITH, except every one do keep WHOLE and UNDEFILED, with out doubt, he shall perish everlastingly. See the English liturgy.  his Creed, admitted by Protestants. The Bishop declares the ground of his assertion in these words. To believe the Scripture and the Creeds; to believe these in the sense of the Ancient Primitive Church; to receive the four great General Councils, so much magnifyed by Antiquity; to believe all points of doctrine generally received by the Church as Fundamental, is a Faith, in which to live and dye cannot but give Salvation to which he adds; in all the points of doctrine that are contreverted between us, I would fain see any one point maintained by the Church of England, that can be proved to depart from the Foundation. This, in fine, is the ground of the Bishop's confidence.  
But I answer, his Lordship fails in two things. The first, that he doth not show, that such a Faith as he here mentions, is sufficient to Salvation, notwithstanding whatever error, or opinion, may be joined with it. The second, that he doth not show, that at least his English-Protestant Faith is really and indeed such a Faith as he here professeth; that is, in nothing different from the Faith of the Ancient Primitive Church, and from the doctrine of those four great General Councils he speaks 〈◊〉. For as to the first of the pariculars, did not the Bishop himself but even now affirm, that St. Cyprians followers were lost, without repentance, because they opposed the authority of the Church, which in, and by a General Council had declared their opinion to be erroneous? Put case then, that in aftertimes the whole Church, or a General Council of like Authority with that of Nice, should declare some other opinion to be erroneous, which were not sufficiently declared to be so, either by Scripture, Creeds, or those Four first General Councils; were not he that should hold it, after such definitive declaration of the Church, or Council, in a like damnable condition with those followers of St. Cyprian, though he believed the Scripture the Creeds, and four first General Councils? If not, let our adversary's show, why rebaptizers only should be put into a damnable condition merely by the authority of the Church, or the Councils definition, and other people, who do no less resist and contradict like definitions and authority, should not.  
Doth not the Bishop himself in effect teach it to be damnable sin, to oppose the definition of a General Council, when he auerrs, that the decrees of it bind all particulars to obedience, and submission, till the contrary be determined by an other Council of equal authority; and censures the doing otherwise for a bold fault of daring times, and inconsistent with the Church's peace? How can this possibly be made good, if to believe Scripture and 
§. 33. num. 5.  the Creeds in the sense of the Primitive Church, with all Fundamental points generally held for such and to receive the four first General Councils only, and no more, be a Faith, in which to live and die, cannot but give Salvation? Did our Saviour mean the Primitive Church only, or only the four first General Councils and no others, when he said, Matth. 18. 17. He that doth not hear the Church, let him be unto thee, as an Heathen and Publican? And if it be to be understood (as without doubt it is) of the Church and General Councils in all ages, how could the Bishop, how can Protestants think themselves secure, only by believing the four first Councils, and the Church of Primitive times, if they oppose and contradict others, or contemn the authority of the true Catholic Church of Christ, that now is?  
And for the second, viz. that the English-Protestant Faith is not really and indeed such a Faith, as the Bishop here professeth, will appear upon examination, thus. You believe, say you Protestants, the Scripture and the Creeds; and you believe them in the sense of the Primitive Church. I ask first, do you mean all Scripture, or only a part of it? if part of it only, how can your Faith be thought such as cannot but give Salvation; seeing for aught you know, there may be damnable error and sin, in rejecting the other part? If you mean all Scripture, you profess more than you are able to make good; seeing you refuse many books of Scripture, that were held Canonical by very many in the Primitive Church, and admit for Canonical, divers others that were, for some time, doubted of, and not reckoned for any part of the Canon, by many ancient Fathers of the Primitive Church, more than those were, which for that reason chiefly, you account Apocrypha.  
4. You pretend to believe both Scripture and Creeds in the sense of the Primitive Church. But when will this be proved? we bring divers testimonies from the Fathers and Doctors of those ancient times, understanding and interpreting Scripture in a sense wholly agreeable to us, and contrary to your doctrine. Must all our allegations be esteemed apocryphal, and counterfeit, or misunderstood, because they impugn your reformed belief? must nothing be thought rightly alleged, but what suits with your opinions? you pretend conformity with the four first General Councils too: but the proceedings of those Councils clearly show the quite contrary. The Council of Nice beseecheth Pope Sylvester to confirm their decrees. Do Protestants acknowledge the like authority in the Pope? The great St. Athanasius, 
Athanas. Apol. 2.  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. Do not the Fathers of the 
Relat. 6. Synod. ad 〈◊〉  Council of Chalcedon, by one common voice profess, that St. Peter spoke by the mouth of Leo; that the said Pope Leo endowed with the authority of St. Peter, deposed Dioscorus? Do they not call him the universal Bishop the universal Patriarch, the Bishop of the universal Church? Do they not term him the Interpreter of St. Peter's voice to all the world? Do they not acknowledge him their Head, and themselves his members, and consets, that the custody, or keeping, of Christ's vineyard (which is the whole Church) was by our Saviour committed to him? Is this the dialect, or belief, of English Protestants?  
Did not likewise the 
a D. Aug. Ep. 90.  whole Council of Carthage desire Jnnocentius the first, Bishop of Rome, to confirm what they had decreed against the Pelagian Heresy, with the authority of the Sea Apostolic, pro tuenda Salute multorum etc. for the saving of many, and for correcting the perverse wickedness of some? and did they not with all reverence and submission receive the Pope's answer, sent to them in these words. 
b Innocent. F.p. ad Concil. Carth. qua est 91. inter Ep. D. Aug.  In requirendis hisce rebus etc. you have made it appear (saith he) not only by using all diligence, (as is required of a true and Catholic Council) in examining matters of that concernment, but also in referring your debates to our judgement and approbation, how sound your Faith is, and that you are mindful to observe 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 Apostolic Sea; wherein we all desire to follow the Apostle, from whom both the office of Episcopacy and all the authority of that name is derived: and following him, we cannot be ignorant, both how to condemn what is ill, and also to approve that which is praiseworthy. oYou do well therefore, and as it becometh Priests, to observe the customs of the ancient Fathers, which they grounded not upon humane, but divine authority, that nothing should be finally determined in remote Provinces, without the knowledge of this Sea; by whose full authority the sentence given, if it were found to be just, might be confirmed; this (Sea) being the proper Fountain, from which the pure and uncorrupted waters of truth were to stream to all the rest of the Churches. Will English Protestant's consent to this?  
Do not the Prelates in the Council of Ephesus, hear, with like attention and approbation, Philip the Priest, one of the Pope's Legates to that Council, avouching publicly in full Council, the authority of St. Peter's Successor in these words, no body doubts (saith 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 FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH, received from our Lord Jesus Christ the Keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and that to this day he still lives in his Successors, and determines causes of Faith, and shall ever continue so to do? With what confidence then could the Bishop pretend, that Protestants conform themselves to the doctrine of the four first General Councils? Those Councils submit their definitions and decrees to the Bishop of Rome; Protestants disclaim from him, as from an enemy of Christ's Gospel. Those Councils acknowledge him universal Pastor, and Head of the Church; Protestants cry out against him, as an Usurper, and Tyrant over the Church. Those Councils confess him St. Peter's Successor, who was Prince and Chief of the Apostles; Protestants call him, and esteem him Antichrist. The Councils, own his authority over the whole Church, as proceeding from Christ; Protestants allow him no more power, by divine right, than they allow to every ordinary Bishop. Lastly, these Councils, with all submission profess, that the Pope was their Head, and themselves his members; Protestants give us, in contempt and derision, the nickname of. Papists for doing the same; that is, for owning subjection to the Pope and Sea of Rome.  
I might instance in many other points, wherein Protestants disagree from the four first General Councils; but I pass them over, to take notice of what follows. There is (saith the Bishop) but one saving Faith. But then every thing, which you call DE FIDE (of Faith) because some Council or other hath defined it, is not such a breach from that one saving Faith, as that he which expressly believes it not, nay as that he which believes the contrary, is 
Ibidem.  excluded from Salvation; so his disobedience therenhile offer no violence to the peace of the Church, nor the charity that ought to be amongst Christians. We do not say that every thing is de Fide, that some Council, or other, indefinitely speaking, be it general or particular, hash defined; but that every thing is de fide, which is defined by a Lawful General Council. And for this, how contemptuously soever he is pleased to speak of it, (because some Council or other hath defined it) we challenge all his adherents to show, what one General Council (acknowledged for such either by themselves, or us) did ever define any point of doctrine, which they did not require all Christians to hold and believe as matter of Faith, after it was so defined: as likewise to show, how 'tis possible for Christians to disbeleeve what such a General Council hath defined, without making themselves guilty of that sentence of our Saviour, Matth. 18. 17. He that will not hear the Church, let 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 Salvation, seeing that by the Bishops own doctrine the decrees of all General Councils are binding, till they be reversed by an other Council of like authority? why did he account it damnable sin to adhere to the condemned error of St. Cyprian, after it was condemned by a General Council; seeing 'tis manifest, disobedience in that particular did of itself, neither offer more violence to the peace of the Church, nor to the charity that ought to be amongst Christians, than disobedience in points determined by other General Councils, is apt to do, and hath ever done, as experience witnesseth? So that in truth, to suppose a disobedience to General 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 think, that rebellion may consist with the peace of the state, and that to cast of obedience to superiors is not to contemn their authority.  
We do not deny but there is a Latitude in the Faith, as 
Ibidem.  the Bishop speaks; that is, all things pertaining to the doctrine of Faith are not necessary to be expressly known and believed by all persons in order to Salvation; and this 
c Multa sunt quaenon Fide, quae non sunt absolutè necessaria ad Salutem. Bellarm. lib. 3. de Eccl. Mil. cap. 14 §. Quinto, si 〈◊〉.  Bellarmin's authority cited by the Bishop rightly proves. But it follows not from hence, that any man may deny, or doubt of any point whatsoever, that he knows is defined and proposed by the Church to be believed, as the Bishop and all Protestants do. It is not in itself absolutely necessary to Salvation, to know or expressly believe many things reported in Scripture; as for Example, that judas hanged himself, that St. Paul was thrice beaten with rods, that he left his cloak at Troas etc. but yet, for any man to deny, or doubt of these, knowing them to be testified in Scripture, I do not doubt, but even Protestants themselves will acknowledge to be a great sin, and without repentance inconsistent with Salvation. In like manner, though it be not absolutely necessary to know, or believe expressly all verities defined by the Church, (as Bellarmin truly teaches) yet it may be, and is absolutely necessary not to disbeleeve, or doubt of any one point that is known to be so defined.  
As for our adversaries being sure, that our peremptory establishing so many things, that are remote deductions from the Foundation, to be believed as matters of Faith, hath, with other 
Ibidem.  errors, lost the peace and unity of the Church, 'tis but a partial and groundless faney, which all Heretics and Schismatics will plead as well as himself; when they are put to it, and may with as much right. Was there not more disturbance and tumults in the Church, during those Primitive ages, by reason of Arianism, Pelagianisme, Manicheisme, and other Heresies that then raged, then there was for many hundred of years together before Luther began? in which time nevertheless either all, or most of the points now contested by Protestants, were as fully defined by the Church, and as generally believed by Christians, as now they are. With what truth, or conscience than can it be said, that the defining, or establishing such points have 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 knows, it is not for such points as Protestants do now condemn in the Roman Church, but for such errors as they themselves, for the most part, do as much condemn in the Greeks, as the Roman Church doth. 'Tis evident, the Greek Church consents with the Roman, in all the chief points of controversy betwixt the Roman Church and Protestants: and this general peace of the Church might still have continued, had not the pride, arrogancy, and temerity of Protestant Predicants first opened the gap to dissension, by reviving and setting on foot condemned Heresies, and by cooperating to so many other wicked, Schismatical and unchristian disorders, under pretence of reformation and obedience to the Gospel.  
A: C. tells his adversary, it is not sufficient to beget a confidence in this case, to say we believe the Scriptures and the Creeds, in the same sense which the ancient Primitive Church believed them. What says the Bishop to this? He confesses 'tis most true, (to wit, that 
Ibidem. num. 2.  which A. C. told him) if he ' did only SAY so, and did not believe as he said. But (saith he) if we do say it, you are bound in charity to believe us, unless you can prove the contrary. For I know no other proof to men, of any point of Faith, but confession of it and subscription to it! I reply, the Bishop's 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 we believe Scripture etc. meant, that beside verbal profession and giving it under his hand, that he doth believe so and so, he should prove it by solid and convincing arguments, that the sense in which he believes the Scripture and the Creeds, is the same with that, in which the ancient Primitive Church believed them? for otherwise, he can neither be sufficiently assured himself, nor can he give sufficient assurance there of to others.  
Just reason, I faith, had A. C. to demand this of the Bishop namely, that he should prove his Faith to be agreeable to that of the Primitive Church, obsignatis tabulis as they say, that is, by special undeniable evidence, and not think it sufficient only to profess and affirm it to be so. But Protestants (to note it only in a word by the way) have not the like reason to require any such thing of us Catholics, viz. that we should positively and by special evidence prove our Faith to be the same with that of the Primitive Church; not that we are unable, or unwilling to do this in due time and place, but because being in full and quiet possession of our Faith, Religion, Church, and all things pertaining thereto; by immemorial Tradition and succession from our ancestors, we do upon that sole ground viz. of quiet possession, justly 
* See Teriullian's whole book de prescriptionibus etc. for this.  prescribe against our adversaries; and our plea must in all Law and equity be admitted for good, till they (who are our aggressours in this case) do by more pregnant and convincing arguments disprove it and show, that our possession is not bonafidei, but gained by force, or fraud, or some other wrongful and unallowed means.  
A Gentleman, that is in quiet possession of an estate received from his ancestors, is not to be outed of it, because an other says, and perhaps believes, he has a better title to it; neither is 〈◊〉 in possession to be forced to make good his title by producing his evidence, but the other is bound to evict him, and demonstrate that his possession is not good, and to show by special evidence and proof, that his own claim is better; otherwise in stead of gaining an estate, he will get nothing but a check. In like manner the Lady, being in possession of a Faith, which for many ages together, had been professed by her ancestors, and generally by the whole Christian Church, 'tis not the Bishops telling her, that he believes the Scriptures and Creeds in the same sense the ancient Church believed them, that must either turn her out of the Church of Rome, or justly move her to believe, that the Faith of Protestants is agreeable to that of the Primitive Church; but he must make it appear to be so, by producing evident and clear testimonies out of all, or the chief Doctors of those ancient times; otherwise his pretended belief of any such matter, is to be accounted folly, and his confidence, rashness.  
I add, how is it possible for the Bishop to make good what his answer pretends viz. that his English Protestant Faith is the same with that of the Primitive Church. English Protestant's (for example) believe the Pope's power iure divino, is no more than of an other ordinary Bishop: but the Primitive Church accounted him to be the Sovereign Bishop of the Church, the Bishop of Bishops, witness 
d Tertull. lib. de pudicit. cap. 10.  Tertullian; and this, long before the Canons of the Church, or Imperial Constitutions had given him any authority. The Primitive Church believed, that the authority of the Roman and Apostolic Sea, over all other Churches and Christians, was not from men, but from our Lord Jesus Christ. Witness the Epistles of 
e Epist 1.  St. Clement, 
f Epist. 3.  St. Anaclet, 
g Ep. 2.  St. Sixtus the first, 
h Ep. 1. 2.  St. Pius the first, 
i Ep. 2.  St. Anicet, 
k Epist 1. See Tom 2. Concil. Edit. Bin.  St. Victor, with divers other Epistles of those ancient Primitive Popes, and Martyrs of the first ages of the Church: all of them clearly testifying and asserting the sovereign authority of the Bishop of Rome as he is St. Peter's Successor, and of the Roman Sea over all other Churches and Christians whatsoever. So as even the 
l Centur 2. cap. 7. in sine.  Centurists themselves, and all other Protestants never so little verest in antiquity, are forced to confess it. They pretend indeed, that these Epistles are counterfeit, and not the genuine Epistles of these Popes. A weak plea: for, beside what we have already said in derence of them, 'tis certain, that Isidorus Hispalensis, who is an Author of above a thousand years' antiquity. In his collection of Ecclesiastical Canons, mentions these Epistles as owned by the Bishops of his time, and professes, that himself 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 do not question. Not to urge, that the Council called vasense celebrated in St. Leo the firsts time mentions some of them; and 
m Ruffin. praefat in Recognit. Clement.  Rufinus himself others, who was contemporary with St. Hierome: nor yet the absolute conformity, in point of doctrine and style, that there is betwixt those Primitive Epistles, and those of succeeding Popes in the most flourishing ages of the Church: viz. julius the first, Pope Damasus, Syricius, 
See Magd. Cent. 3. 4. et 5. Item. Calvin. lib 4. Institue. cap. 7. §. 11.  Innocentius, Leo, and others, which even Protestant's themselves neither do, nor can pretend to be forged; but only say, that the Popes of those times were arrogant men, and began to take too much upon them.  
The Primitive Church believed the root and original of Heresies to be, 
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 JUDEX, vice Christi, cogitatus: cui, si secundum magisteria divina obtemperaret FRATERNITAS VNIVERSA, nemo adversus. Sacerdotum Collegium quicquam mussitaret, D. Cyprian. Ep. 55. ad Cornel. alias lib. ●. Epist. 3.  because the whole Fraternity of Christians did not, according to God's commandment, acknowledge ONE PRIEST AND ONE JUDGE for the time being, Vicar of Christ in the Church. The Primitive Church professed, that for what concerned the correction and consolation of the Faithful (to wit, in matter of Religion and Faith) the Roman and Apostolic Sea was the bond and mother of all Churches. Witness St. Athanasius and the Bishops of Egypt with him in their 
o D Athanas. Tom 4.  Epistle to Pope Marcus, that the form and pattern of that Church was to be followed in all things: witness 
p D. Ambros. lib. 3. de Sacram. cap. 3.  St. Ambrose and the whole Council of Arles in their Epistle and petition to Pope Julius. The Primitive Church accounted them all schismatic, and sinners 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that set up an other Chair against that one Chair of St. Peter in the Roman Church. Witness 
q Optat. Mileu. lib. 2. contr. Par. men.  optatus Milevitanus, that the Roman Church was that sealed Fountuine and Garden enclosed, to which all must repair for the waters of life; that she is the Rock, upon which the Church is built; that to be out of her Communion, was to be an Alien from the household of God, to be out of the Church, to be as a profane, or unclean person (who might not come into the Camp, or Congregation, of Israel:) in brief it was to belong, not to Christ, but to Antichrist, witness 
r Hieron. Ep. ad Damas.  St. Hierome. The Bishops of the Primitive Church, being at any time persecuted and unjustly ejected out of their Seas, from all parts and Provinces of Christendom, had recourse to the Pope and Sea of Rome, as to their proper and lawful Judge, for justice and relief; and were likewise by him righted, and for the most part effectually restored to their Seas again. Witness the examples, already alleged, of St. Athanasius and his fellow Bishops ejected by the Arians: also of St. 
s D. Chrysost. Epist. add innocent  chrysostom, 
t Socrat. lib. 2. cap., 15 D. Basil. Epist. ad Athanas.  The odoret, and divers others. Lastly, not to insist upon many other particular Acknowledgements of the Pope's authority, already mentioned and proved in this treatise, the Primitive Church believed, that the Principality of the Apostolic Sea had always flourish'tin in the Roman Church, and that by reason there of the Pope had power both to judge in matters of Faith, and also finally to decermin the causes of all Bishops whatsoever. Witness 
x D. Agust. Epist. 162.  St. Austin, the Councils 
y Concil. 〈◊〉. Cau. 4. et 7.  of sardica, 
z 〈◊〉 ad Caelestinum.  Ephesus, 
a Cone. Cha lead. Act. 1  Chalcedon, with the Emperor Valentinian himself, in his Epistle to Theodosius, 〈◊〉 among the preambulatory Epistles of the Council of 〈◊〉.  
Here you see a General consent of the Fathers of the Primitive Church for belocning the so much contested Power and Principality of St. Peter and his Successors, over the whole Church. Do the Bishop and his English Protestant Church believe this? Do they interpret Scripture and the Creeds in this sense? Again Protestants deny that there is a Purgatory; or that the souls of the faithful departed do either need, or can receive any kind of help or benefit, any kind of relief, case of pain, or other consolation from the faithful living. Yet it was the general belief of the ancient Primitive Church, that they could, and did many of them receive help and benefit, after their departure, from the faithful Living; namely by the Oblation, or Sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist; by the prayers, alms-deeds, and other offices of Christian piety, that were done for them; grounding this their belief both upon Tradition and several texts of Scripture; as we shall make further to appear in the following chapter, where this point is particularly to be treated. How therefore could the Bishop, or how can Protestants pretend, that their Faith is agreeable to the Primitive 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 endeavours to show, that we Romanists, do not believe Scripture and the Creeds in all points according to that sense, in which the Primitive Church understood them. The Primitive Church (saith he) never interpreted the descent of Christ into Hell, to be no lower than LIMBUS PATRUM. But how will it be made to appear, that the Primitive Church interpreted 
Ibidem. num. 3.  Christ's descent to be as low, as the place, where the reprobate are tormented? Because it is said in the Creeds, that Christ descended into Hell, must we needs understand that he descended even to the place of reprobate and damned souls? Did jacob mean that place, of punishment, when, expressing his grief for the supposed death of his son joseph, Genes. 37. 35. he said I will go down to my son, mourning into Hell? Doth not Calvin himself grant in effect what our Church understands by Limbus Patrum, 
a Calvin. in Psychopanny chia  when he saith, Let no body wonder, that the holy Fathers, who expected Christ's redemption, were shut up in prison? Doth not St. Irenaeus, that ancient father, affirm, 
b Iren. lib. 5. cap. 31.  that in those three days and nights, in which Christ was dead, he remained with the Patriarches; who could not be held to be among the damned? Doth he not likewise teach, that 
c Iren. lib. 4. cap. 45.  our Saviour desoended to them that are under the earth, that he might make known his coming, and acquaint them, with the remission of sins, given to all those, that believe in him? Doth not Origen plainly avouch, that 
d Origen. Hom. 15. in Genes.  Christ delivered from the place into which he descended, our first Father Adam; whom none will aver to have been among the damned? and doth he not understand those words of Christ to the good thief, (Luc. 23.) hodie mecum eris in Paradiso (this day shalt thou be with me in Paradise) to have been 
e Idem. ibid.  verified also of all those to whom Christ descended? Doth not Eusebius 〈◊〉 say 
f Euseb. Caesar. lib. 4. de Praep. euang. cap. 12.  that the soul of Christ, having recommended itself to the Eternal Father, left the body, and descending into Hell delivered from thence the Fathers? In a word, doth not St. Hierome by Hell understand Limbus-Patrum, when he saith, 
g D. Hieron, Epist. 3.  that before Christ, Abraham was (apud Inferos) in Hell, but after Christ, even the thief is in Paradise? Why therefore should the Bishop so peremptorily deny, that by Hell, into which Christ descended, none of the ancient fathers did understand Limbus Patrum?  
But he proceeds. The Primitive Church (saith he) did not acknowledge a Purgatory in a side part of Hell. But it did acknowledge 
Ibidem.  a Purgatory, which the Bishop denies. Let Protestants but grant there is a Purgatory; and the Church of Rome will not bind them to place it in a side part of Hell; this being no article of our belief. The Primitive Church (says the Bishop) did not interpret away half the Sacrament from Christ's institution: neither did it ever interpret Christ's institution to be such, as did oblige all Christians, under pain of sin, to receive it in both kinds, as we have already proved. The Primitive Church did not make the Priest's 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 himself, that so ordained it, 
* chap. 22.  as we have also shown. The Primitive Church believed no worship to be due to Jmages. But how will it be proved they believed it to be sin, and unlawful to worship them for their Prototypes sake? Doth not Lactantius in the Primitive Church, write thus in his Poem the Passione, addressing his speech to a Christian, as then entering into the Church— Flecte genu, lignumque Crucis VENERABILEADORA?— Doth not St. Basil. (Epi st. 53. in julian.) reported in the second Council of Nice. Action. 2. profess, that he publicly adored Jmages; 
h D. Basil. lib. de Sp. Sto. cap. 27.  and that the honour done to them, redounds to the persons whom they represent? Doth not St. Ambrose praise the Empress St. Helena 
i D. Ambros. orat. in obit. Theodosij  for setting the Cross upon the head, or crown, of Kings, that it might be adored in them? and doth not St. Hierome report of her, that having at Jerusalem happily found the Cross, upon which our Saviour suffered, 
k D. Hieron. in Epitaph. Paulae.  she adored it as if she had even then seen our Lord hanging upon it? Doth not St. chrysostom 
l D. Chrysost. Homil. de Adorat. Crucis. Tom. 5.  likewise exhort Christians to come with fear and devotion to worship the Cross upon the aniversary, or yearly holy * day, on which they were then wont solemnly to perform that duty, as Roman Catholic generally now do upon Goodfryday? Doth not Paulinus 
m Paulin. Epist. 11. ad Severun.  Bishop of Nola mention the like custom in Italy? 
n justiniane in Aushensis. de Monach. Collat. 1. 'tis 5.  and justinian the Emperor style the Cross in that very regard adorandam verè, & honorandam Crucem? To conclude (omitting divers other pregnant instances of the perpetual use and veneration also of sacred Images, among Christians, related by 
o lib. 7. c. 14.  Eusebius, 
p lib. 2. c. 19  Historia Tripartita, 
q lib. 2. c. 41.  Nicephorus and others,) if the Primitive Church acknowledged no worship to be due to Images, how could the General Council, according to the latin translation of it, style them venerabiles, and 
r Can. 82.  profess to give adoration to them MENTE, SERMONE, SENSV, both in mind, body, and words? Yea, how could St. Gregory say, non quasi ante 
D. Greg. lib, 7. Epist. 53— ad 〈◊〉.  Divinitatem, ante illas prosternimur? confessing prosternimur, that Christians did use to bow, or prostrate their bodies before them, but not as unto the Deity itself, or as attributing Divinity to them. But above all how could the second Council of Nice, an assembly of Bishops, for number exceeding the first itself, so much celebrated by Christians, and conuened from all parts and Provinces of Christendom, so publicly avouch it to have been 
t Conc. Nicen. 2. Action 7.  a Tradition of the Apostles, to worship Images, if it had not been a thing confessedly practised among Christians ever since the Apostles times, and with their knowledge and allowance? Is it credible, that so many Catholic and Orthodox Bishops should conspire to deceive the world with such a loud untruth, if it had been otherwise?  
As for Transubstantiation, which is an other point the Relatour pretends the Primitive Church did not believe, we have 
Ibidem.  
v Chap. 22. th'  already shown, that what is signified by the word, to wit, a true and real change of the substance of bread into Christ's body, was clearly held and taught by divers ancient Fathers of the Primitive Church. His bare saying, 'tis a scandal to both jew and Gentile and the Church of God, signifies but little. Christ crucified was a scandal both to jew and Gentile; but yet a true object of our Faith: nor are they the Church, or any part of the true Church, that are scandalised at it, but Infidels and Heretics, who will be scandalised at any thing, that suits not with their own fancies. As little can he infer against us from the difficulty, which Catholic Divines have to explicate Transubstantiation. Is not the Mystery of the B. Trinity, in the Bishops own opinion, as inexplicable; and yet firmly to be believed? why then must Transubstantiation be rejected, or disbeleeued, merely upon that ground, or because 'tis hard to be explicated? Neither was it Transubstantiation precisely, which bred that pretended scandal in Auerroes, but the Real Presence, 
x Mundum peragravi, et non vidi Soctam deteriorem, aut magis fatuam Christiana, quia Deum, quem colunt, dentibus, devorant. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. lib. 4. de. Adorat. Eucharist.  as his words show, cited by the Bishop. Yet the Relatour himself, and his master Calvin too sometimes, make profession to believe the Real Presence.  
After so many unadvised assertions, our adversary falls at last to quibble upon those words of A. C. Roman Catholics cannot be proved to depart from the Foundation so far as Protestants, telling us, 'tis a confession, that Romanists may be proved to depart from the Foundation, though not so much, or so far, as Protestants do. A doughty inference I promise you. But what gains he by it? Doth not the Bishop himself (num. 1. of this very Paragraph) use the like speech of us, when he saith, you of Rome have gone 
Ibidem. num. 4.  further from the Foundation of this one saving Faith, then can ever be proved, we of the Church of England have 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 have it? what ever explication be given to the Bishop's words, will serve A. C. as well: whose meaning only was, that there cannot be brought any arguments to prove our Churches departing from the Foundation, but more, and better may be brought to prove, that Protestants do likewise depart from it in more and greater points. It is not to grant, that the arguments which Protestants bring, to prove our departing from the foundation, are solid and convincing, or do really prove that, for which they are brought. This the Relatour is only willing to suppose for himself, and to insinuate; which A. C. absolutely denies.  
And as the Bishop had no reason to infer any such Confession, 
Ibidem.  cut of A. 〈◊〉. words, so had he as little reason to make such a confident demand in behalf 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 given him this very error for instance, viz. the Church of England's denying infallible authority to lawful General Councils; this being in effect to deny infallibility to the whole Church; and by consequence to subvert the ground of all infallible belief in any articles, or points of Faith whatsoever. Nor does it help him to say, there's a great deal of difference betwixt a General Council, and the whole body of the Catholic Church. For what ever difference may be in other respects, in this, viz. of infallible teaching what is true Christian Faith, and infallible believing what is so taught, there is no difference betwixt the Catholic Church and a General Council. For if such a Council may err, the Church hath no infallible means to rectify that error, or sufficiently to propose any other point of Catholic doctrine to be infallibly believed by Christians.  
His allegation of the second Council of Ephesus for a General, or ecumenical, Council, shows nothing, but what a desperate cause the Bishop maintains. That which was never styled, 
Ibidem.  or esteemed by Catholic antiquity, but Praedatoria Synodus, and Latrocinium, not Concilium Ephesinum, a den of Robbers and Freebooters, a Convention of the most turbulent and seditrous Heretics, that ever troubled, or dishonoured the Church by their unlawful actings, where nothing but secular violence, rage and cruelty bore sway even to bloodshed, and murder of the B. Prelate St. Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople; this his Lordship brings for an example, of a General Councils erring. Very worthily indeed, let his friends make their benefit of it. In the mean time, they may know, that as on the one side we readily confess it very necessary, the Church should have remedy against such Councils as this; so on the other side we aver, that the infallibility of General Councils truly and rightly so called, is such a Foundation of the Roman, that is, the Christian Catholic Faith, that without it, we know not what can be, nor has the Bishop as yet shown, how any thing can be certain in the Faith.  
6. A. C. after this, endeavours by interrogatories to draw from his Adversary the confession of truth: in answer whereto, seeing the Bishop repeats much matter already confuted, especially in the 7th. and 8th. Chapters of this treatise, it will oblige us (to avoid tediousness) to be more brief in our reply. A. 〈◊〉. first Query is, how Protestants, admitting no insallible rule of Faith but Scripture only, can be infallibly sure, that they believe 
Ibidem. num. 5.  the same entire Scripture, Creed, and four first General Councils, in the same incorrupted sense, in which the Primitive Church believed them? The Relatour in answer to him tells us, that he believes Scripture, 1. by Tradition. 2. by other motives of Credibilliy. 3. by the Light of Scripture itself. But first, this is not to make a direct answer to the question; which is not, whether Scripture can be any way believed or no, standing to the Bishop's principles: but whether, and how he can be infallibly sure of what he does believe concerning it. Secondly, 'tis undeniable in the common principles of all Protestants, and proved 
* Chap. 7. 8.  already, that the two first of these, viz. Tradition and the motives of Credibility can be no ground to Protestants of infallible Faith, or assurance, concerning Scripture: and for the third, viz. Light of Scripture itself, it is not only petitio principij, a begging of the question (for none of us ever yet granted him, that there was such light) but also contrary to experience: there being no man, that merely by reading such books as are called Canonical and others that are accounted Apocryphal, can come to know which are Canonical, which not; as may appear by the example, not only of such as were never taught the maxims of Christian Religion, but also of many Christians, who though they be able to read, yet being never taught which books were Apocryphal, which not, know them not by reading.  
Whence it follows likewise, that all the ensuing discourse, which the Bishop makes, touching his infallible belief of Scripture, falls to nothing; seeing what he lays as its principal Foundation, apparently sinks under the weight. For a meerly-humane and infallible assurance will never support an infallible Faith of Scripture, as 
* §. 16. num. 6.  even our Adversary himself grants. Nor can he, in any better sort, make good, what he affirm's concerning the Creed and four first General Councils; namely, that he believes them infallibly in their true incorrupted sense, and knows that he believes them so in points necessary to Salvation. 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, have not been corrupted, how can he have infallibility in the true sense of them, and their conformity to Scripture? He pretends indeed to be sure, that he believes Scripture, and the Creed, in the same incorrupted sense, in which the Primitrue Church believed 
Ibidem.  them, because he crosseth not in his beleese any thing delevered by the Primitive Church; and this again he is sure of, because he takes the belief of the Primitive Church, as it is expressed and delivered by the Councils and ancient Fathers of those times. But how true this is, and how sincerely he takes the belief of the Primitive Church, as it is expressed by Fathers and Councils, may appear to any, that duly considers, by the testimonies, we have already alleged against him upon several occasions, out of the Councils and Fathers, particularly in this very Chapter, and shall yet further allege in those which follow.  
A. C. asks again, what text of Scripture assures us, that Protestants now living, do believe all this (to wit, the Scriptures, 
Ibidem. num. 〈◊〉.  Creed; and four first General Councils in their incorrupted sense) or that all this (viz. all that Protestants take to be the true sense of Scripture, Creeds, and four first General Councils) is expressed in those particular Bibles, or in the Acts of Councils, or writings of the Primitive Fathers, which are now in the Protestants bands: and at this, his Lordship will needs seem to wonder. But let them wonder that will. The Query will ever be found both rational and pertinent, notwithstanding such wondering. For can any man deny but this is a good consequence: Protestants admit Scripture to be the only infallible rule of Faith; therefore they cannot believe infallibly all this above mentioned, without some particular text, or texts of Sripture to be showed for it? And had not A. C. just cause to ask, 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 
Ibidem.  (I hope) sufficiently evidenced to a reasonable Adversary, that it can be found in none. But (saith he) it is not necessary that this should be showed by any particular text, because 'tis made plain before, how we believe Scripture to be Scripture, and by divine and infallible Faith too; and yet we can show no particular text for it. But how (we pray) was this made plain? He told us indeed that he believed the entire Scripture, first by the Tradition of the Church, then by other credible motives, lastly by the light of Scripture it self. But the two first of these are, by his own confession of no infallible authority; and the third in effect no more than the Private spirit, as we have often demonstrated to him.  
But admit the Bishop were sure, that the Primitive Church expounded Scripture in the same sense as Protestants believe 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 
§. 38. num. 〈◊〉.  by the Primitive Church, can never deceive me? Did Christ promise infallibility to the Primitive Church, and not to the succeeding Church? and if no such infallibility be promised, or signified in Scripture, how can he be certain, they could not err, or deceive him in their expositions?  
7. The Bishop tells us, they have the same Bible with us: but I see not how this can be affirmed with any truth. For Protestants 
Ibidem.  both leave out many books, which we esteem part of our Bible; and those which they have with us, are corrupted both in Originals and Translations. Neither do they admit and receive the Bible upon the same motive, or reason, that we do. We admit it for the infallible authority of the Church, propounding it to us as a divine book: which infallible authority Protestants deny, and by consequence, seeing they assign no other in lieu of it, cannot in reason be so infallibly sure of their Bible, as we are of ours. Much less could the Bishop justly say, that all is expressed in their Bibles, that is in ours, upon this ground only, because all Fundamental points are as provable without the Apocrypha, as with it. For who sees not, that the same may be affirmed with exclusion of divers other books admitted into the Protestants Canon, no less than ours; for example, the Epistle of St. jude, the two last Epistles of St. john, the Epistle to Philemon, the books of Ester, Ruth, Paralipomena, yea perhaps all, or very many of the small Prophets? it being scarce credible the Relatour, or any other Protestant should maintain, there were any Fundamental points of Faith (in their sense) to be proved out of those books, which cannot be proved out of any other books, or parts of Scripture. So that if this reason were good, an Heretic that rejects, upon the matter, one 〈◊〉 or one third part of the old and new Testament, shall yet be allowed to pretend, that he has the same Bible with Catholics, and delivered to him by the same hands, and that all is expressed in his, that is in the Catholic Bible. Sure with very much truth and modesty.  
We agree with Bellarmin, that all matters of Faith, speaking properly, are revealed only by the word of God Written or unwritten: 
Bellarm. lib. 3. de Instificat. cap. 8.  but we aver, that they are infallibly declared and testified to us to be so reueaied, by the authority of the Church, or General Councils. Nor doth St. Augustine's text against Maximinus the Arian, any way cross, or prejudice our 〈◊〉: although it be manifest, 
D. Aug. lib. 3. contr. Maximin. cap. 14.  he speaks there 〈◊〉 by way of condescension, and voluntary yielding to his adversary, and not as forced there to by any necessity of reason. St. Austin knew, that Maximinus refused (though very unjustly) the Council of Nice, as much as himself did that of Arimini. 〈◊〉, that he might dispute effectually with him, he thought fit for the present to wave the argument taken from the authority of Councils, and to urge 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 'tis evident he used other reasons against him, (beside Scripture) founded upon, and deduced from such maxims of Christian religion, as were not disowned by his Adversary. And might not (I pray) any Catholic 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 urge you with the Councils of Lateran, or Trent, I will convince you of error by Scripture only, yea by your own Bible etc. might not, I say, a Catholic, in some case, speak 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 Faith?  
8. The Index Expurgatorius, I confess, is through misunderstanding, such a common stumbling-blocke with all sorts of Protestants, that we do not much wonder, the Bishop himself should trip at it, as he doth here, obliquely and by way of insinuation at least, accusing us of having expunged some things out of the true and authentical writings of the Fathers. A heavy charge, doubtless; but our comfort is, no less injuriously imputed, then heavy. For how does he prove it? What authors, or places of authors, does he allege thus expunged by us? why named he not the Index, in which such expunctions are registered? why cited he not some of his purer and more authentic Copies, different from ours, and where those texts, are restored, or standing upon record, which our Indices are pretended to have expunged? How came 〈◊〉 to find out the true, genuine, and authentical thenticall writings of the Fathers, if they were not so extant and preserved amongst us, and by us? 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 allege out of Sixtus Senensis his Epistle to Pope Pius Quintus, whoever observes it well, will find it really to speak the clean contrary to what the Bishop would seem to prove by it; and directly to accuse, not us, but Protestants, of corrupting the works of the Fathers. The Reader may see the whole text here in 
a To 〈◊〉 prodijt decretum illud sanctissimum de reparanda totius Christianae Ecclesiae Bibliotheca, quam perditissimi nostrorum temporum Haeretici suis morbis ac 〈◊〉 ita corruperunt, ut 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 EXPURGARI 〈◊〉 EMACULARI curasti omnia Catholicorumetlptorum, et PRAECIPVE VETERUM PATRVM scripta, Haeroticorum aetatis nostrae FOECIBUS CONTAMINATA et VENENIS INFECTA, Postremo Catalogum, vel Indicem edi 〈◊〉 Auctorum et Librorum Haeretici nominis etc. Sintus Senens. epist. Ad Pium Quintum. Prefix. Bibliothes. Sunct.  the margin at large (whereof the Bishop thought not good to give us so much as one word, but only to make use of the author's name) and thereby clearly perceive, that it was not to purge the ancient texts of the Father's writings, but only the false readings, spurious notes, commentaries, and interpretations of Heretics, upon their said writings and texts, that the Index Expurgatorius was commanded to be made by the authority of Pius Quintus, while he was yet Cardinal and Precedent of the holy Inquisition: not to speak of their alike false and corrupt translations of them; which were also forbidden. I say therefore, let all our Jndices expurgatorij pass the sorutiny even of our most rigid adversaries; and let them show us, if they can, wherein any authentical writings of the ancient Fathers have been either purged, or clipped by us, or any thing of the text altered in point of reading, but upon iustifyable and avowed reason; namely, the authority of some more ancient and better copy: and if they cannot, let them here after, for shame at least, be silent, and object the Index expurgatorius no more.  
A. C. asks further, whether Protestants be infallibly sure, that 
Ibidem. num 7.  they rightly understand the sense of all that is expressed in their books, according to that which was understood by the Primitive Church, and the Fathers that were present at the four first General Councils; and for this the Bishop finds great fault with him, as ask the same thing over and over again. We answer first, his Lordship might see by this, how earnest A. C. was for a direct and punctual answer to his Query. Secondly, the Relatour should have reflected, that as yet A. C. had received no satisfactory answer to the demand; and till satisfaction be given in such cases, 'tis consonant enough to the rules of arguing, to repeat and urge the demand: and to do otherwise, were but to run from one thing to an other without end, and never sift out the certain truth in any question whatsoever.  
The truth is, the Query is such, that it will be matter of everiasting vexation to all that follow, or go about to defend the Bishop's assertions: it being evidently impossible to give a satisfactory answer to it, without having recourse to the infallible authority of the Church, as we Catholics do, when the like demand is made to us by our Adversaries. The Relatour indeed, out of his wont liberality in this kind, is pleased to call it a dry shift: but the reason he gives is no better, than a gross mistake. For the Church's authority does not always beget an implicit Faith, as the Relatour thinks, but very often an explicit one: to wit, when either the definition itself expounds to me the sense of Scripture, or that Church-Tradition concerning it, is so clear, that it needs not the definition, or declaration of a Council, to make it certainly known.  
Whersore seeing General Councils, by reason of their already-proued infallibility, are always to be presumed to speak in that sense, which is agreeable to the doctrine of Christ; and that the universal tradition of the present Church is also an infallible witness of that doctrine, we Catholics do evidently show, according to our grounds, how we are infallibly sure, that we understand the texts of our Bible's conformably to the sense of those four first General Councils, and of the Primitive Church of their times. For why? the sense of the Primitive Church is necessarily involved in that of the Councils; and if there happens to be obscurity in the words of any Councils, by being 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; however the words themselves may (perhaps) be wrested to it: by consequence we are infallibly sure, that we understand Scripture in the same sense now, which the said General Councils and Primitive Church anciently did; to wit, 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 Fundamental, and necessary to be expressly known by all, 
Ibidem. num. 8.  were so accounted in the Primitive Church, the Bishop would seem at last to tell us which points are Fundamental, and were esteemed such in the Primitive Church. A question hitherto often asked in vain; and which himself once plainly declined the answering, * as 
§. 38. num. 1.  being no work for his pen. But let us hear what he says upon second thoughts. Fundamentals (saith he) so accounted by the Primitive Church, are but the Creed, and some sew, and those immediate deductions from it. But this leaves us 〈◊〉 in the dark. Who shall resolve which those sew and immediate deductions are? And what does he mean by immediate deductions? only such as 〈◊〉 in themselves evident and necessary? If so, it were in effect to deny both the Divinity and Incarnation of Christ, to be Fundamental points. If in evident and only probable, who shall infallibly assure us, that the deduction is true and certain? what shall we think of Scripture? Is not that a Fundamental point in the Relatours' belief? can any man be saved that rejects Scripture, provided he admits the Creed and some few immediate deductions from it?  
Nay we are told, that even the immediate deductions themselves, are not formally Fundamental for all men, but only for such 
Ibidem.  as are able to make and understand them; and that for others 'tis enough, if they do not obstinately and Schismatically refuse them, after they are once revealed. But had not prejudice troubled his eyesight, our Adversary might easily have seen as much reason, to say 'Tis Fundamental in the Faith, not to question, or deny Schismatically and obstinately any thing at all, that is sufficiently proposed to us as revealed by God. Let him cite what he can out of the Fathers, he shall never prove, that a man cannot fall from the true faith by an act of disbeleefe, so long as he believes the Articles of the Creed: seeing the Apostle teaches, that some fall from the Faith by forbidding Marriage and certain meats as absolutely unlawful: and many have been condemned for Heretics in those ancient times, who never opposed the Creed. Now if a man may believe the Creed, and yet be damned for Heresy and mis-belcefe in other matters, how can Protestants assure themselves of Salvation, or be accounted Orthodox Christians, merely, by this pretended conformity with the Primitive Church in the belief of the Creed; unless it could be proved withal, that they held no other unlawful doctrine? But certain it is, that to deny Purgatory, the Pope's Supremacy, and divers other points, as Protestants do, is most unlawful and was so held by the Primitive Church.  
9 As for Tertullian, Ruffinus, St. Irenaeus and St. Basil here alleged by the Bishop, they neither severally, nor all together, make an infallible authority, to assure Protestants, that all and only those points which they account Fundamental, were so esteemed by the Primitive Church: which yet was the only thing, that A. C. in his Interrogatory required him to show. The doctrine by us delivered, stands very well with the resolution of Occam here cited, that it is not in the power of the Church, or Council, to make new Articles of Faith. For the Church never took upon her to do this, but only to declare infallibly what was expressed or involved either in Scripture, or the word of God not-written, viz. Tradition. And 'tis a mere untruth to affirm, that Catholics agree not in this, that all points determined by the Church are Fundamental, in the sense declared. For neither Sixtus Senensis, nor any other Catholic did ever doubt, or make scruple of those books of holy Scripture, which they acknowledged to have been defined by the Church for Canonical: they only question some other books, concerning which we have not had as yet the resolution of any General Council; such as are the third and fourth of Maccabees, the third and fourth of Esdras, the prayer of Manasses etc.  
'Tis true, Sixtus Senensis hath something about those chapters of the book of Ester, which Protestants count ` Apocryphal, whereby he may be thought not to hold them for Canonical Scripture, even after the decree of the Council of Trent, But the reason was, because he judged, that the decree of the Council touching Canonical Scriptures, did not comprehend those loose uncertain pieces, as he calls them. Beside, his opinion therein was both singular and disallowed, as may appear even by the book itself; where, 
* Sixtus Senens. Biblioth. Sanct. cap. 8.  over against the place, whence the Bishop takes his objection, there stands printed in the margin this note, or censure. Non est haec Sententia Sixti probanda, cum repugnet sess. 4. Concilij Tridentini, quam ipse detorquet, ne videatur ei repugnare. This opinion of Sixtus, (says 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 seem to be contrary to it. The edition of Sixtus Senensis his book, where this Censure is found, is that of Paris 1610. in folio: which 'tis hardly credible that the Bishop himself should not have seen; and if he had seen and did know it, with what conscience, or ingenuity towards his Reader, could he make the objection?  
To what he saith touching Pope Leo the tenths defining in the last Council of Lateran, that the Pope is above a General Council, I answer, our Adversaries know, that those Catholic Authors that hold the negative, do likewise deny, that the point was there defined as a matter of Faith, but only, that by way of Canonical, or Ecclesiastical Constitution, it was declared, that the right of calling, translating from one place to another, and likewise dissolving of General Councils, did entirely and solely belong to the Bishop of Rome Successor to St. Peter: those being the things, which had been formerly contested by the Councils of Constance and Basil against the Pope. likewise the said Authors deny, that the last Council of Lateran was a full General Council. 
Ibidem. num. 9   
After so many questions (none of which as yet have been sufficiently answered) A. C. infers, that his Adversary had need seek out some other infallible rule, or means, by which he may know these things infallibly; or else, that he hath no reason to be so confident, as to adventure his soul upon it, that one may be saved, living and dying in the Protestant Faith. What says the Relatour to this? His answer is, that if he cannot be confident for his soul upon Scripture, and the Primitive Church expounding and declaring it, he will be confident upon no other. But this is still to beg the question. For the difficulty is, how he comes infallibly to know Scripture, and the exposition of the Primitive Church? or that the Primitive Church did not err in her exposition? without certain knowledge of which, his confidence in this case, cannot be well grounded. He might more truly and ingenuously have answered, if I cannot be confdent for my soul upon the Scripture and exposition of the Primitive Church, received and interpreted according to my own private sense and judgement, I will be confident upon no other. For, this in effect he doth say; and with truth can say no more, standing to his own principles.  
10. The implicit Faith of Catholics (at which the Relatour again glanceth) in points they are obliged to know only implicitly, gives them sufficient infallibility in their Faith; but hath no place in this present debate. For we now treat only 
* Chap. 2.  of such points as are Fundamental quoad rem attestatam, (as we have formerly distinguished them) that is, according to the importance of the matter they contain; such as are the prime, radical Articles of our Faith, which every one is obliged, necessitate medij or praecepti, to know expressly: in so much, that where ignorance of these points is culpable, and through our own default, we are so far from thinking, that implicit Faith can be sufficient for the attaining of Salvation, that we teach the clean contrary: asserting likewise, that in those of the first kind, viz. which are necessary by necessity of means, even invincible ignorance will not serve the turn. So little cause in truth had the Bishop to tells us by way of Irony and scoff, that a Roman-Catholique may use implicit Faith at pleasure. As to his carping at the word know, used by A. C. the Relatour should have known, that his adversary takes it not in the most proper sense, for demonstrative, or scientifical knowledge (as some speak) but only for certain assurance, and for infallible belief, as it is frequently taken by others.  
But as for Protestants, standing to the Bishop's grounds, it is impossible they should have infallible Faith, either explicit, or implicit of any thing they bleeve; because the authority of the Church, being, in his opinion, fallible, they can never 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 either by the Church, or any private man, is agreeable to the true sense of the holy Ghost. Now, so long as he is not infallibly certain of this, it may happen (for aught he knows to the contrary) that some of them may prove not to be God's word: and seeing the Church's authority attests them all alike, he may (if he please) conceive a like fear of every one of them.  
What he further adds in this page (viz. 337.) is only matter of references, to what himself hath formerly delivered: so as I think it also sufficient to refer my reader to what I have 
Ibidem. num. 10.  answered in those places, viz. §. 25. num. 3. §. 33. Consid. 3. num. 1. §. 21. num 1. But I cannot sufficiently wonder to hear him affirm here, that he holds the authority of the Catholic Church as infallible, as A. C. does. This surely must be accounted a Paradox, or nothing can be justly taken for such. For is not the greatest part of this comerence spent in debating the difference between himself and A. C. touching the extent of the Church's infallibility? and doth not the Bishop all along professedly sustain, and endeavour to prove, that she is fallible both in the delivery of Scriptures, and in the defining of all points; in his opinion, not-fundamental? and also in her Traditions, even immemorial and universal? And doth not A. C. in direct opposition to him, maintain and assert the Church's infallibility in all these?  
But I wonder yet more at the proof he brings for this assertion; to wit, his referring us to §. 21. num. 5. of his own book. For there (pag. 139.) he expressly limits the Church's infallibility to absolute Fundamental doctrines; which A. C. never doth: and in the progress of his discourse, explicating the said infallibility even in Fundamentals too, he falls so low, and attributes so small a portion thereof to the Church, that he brings it down at last to this pitiful state; and if she err (saith he) in some ONE, or MORE Fundamental points, she may be a Church of Christ still, but not holy etc. Is this to acknowledge the 
§. 21. num. 5. pag. 141.  Catholic Church as infallible as A. C. doth? not to urge here the dangerous consequence, and also involved implicancy of the assertion itself; 
* Chap. 11.  which I have already noted in my answer to that place.  
The rest of this Paragraph is spent only in repeating objections, which have been more than once sufficiently answered, viz. concerning Transubstantiation, Communion under one kind etc. wherein we cannot think our selves obliged to follow our Adversary's example; but rather to remit the Reader to the 
* Chap. 22. 24.  places, where we have already given satisfaction touching those matters. As little notice shall we take of his objecting again to us 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 mortal to us. We hope, our demeanour in these late dismal distracted times of trial, hath sufficiently cleared us from all such aspersions in the judgement of indifferent persons: nay indeed in the opinion of our greatest enemies. For, who knows not, that under the late usurping powers, the greatest crime laid to our charge was our Loyalty and Fidelity to our Sovereign? in so much as 'twas held by all that party, a thing almost impossible, for a man to be a professed Catholic and not a Cavalier too. But to this objection we have likewise 
* Chap. 21.  already spoken what may suffice. To sum up all in brief, we utterly renounce all doctrine and opinions whatsoever, prejudicial unto, or destructive of that loyal obedience and Fidelity, which is due to all Sovereign Princes and Magistrates. And if any thing of that nature hath (perchance) dropped from the pen of any of ours, we own it not, but censure it deeply, prohibit it strictly, and in case it be obstinately maintained, punish it severely, and lastly command all books to be corrected, that contain any such doctrine.   

CHAP. 25. A further prosecution of the point, touching the unchangedness of the Roman Faith, with a defence of Purgatory.  
ARGUMENT.  
1. A. C. Argument, that the Roman Faith is still the ONE SAVING, CATHOLIQVE Faith, made good. 2. The words of St. Athanasius his Creed, Quam nisi quisque INTEGRAM JNVIOLATAMQVE seruaverit etc. vindicated from the Bishop's Gloss. 3. The Bishops distinguishing betwixt not-beleeving the Creed in its true sense, and forcing a wrong sense upon it, vain and impertinent. 4. Protestants are choosers in point of belief, no less than all other Heretics. 5. They are not guided by the Church, further than they please themselves. 6. Church-infallibility, to what it amounts, according to the Bishop's measure. 7. In what sense General Councils may be said to be infallible even a part antè, or at first sitting down. 8. All the ancient Fathers (generally speaking) believed Purgatory. 9 Prayer for dead, as used by the ancients, necessarily infers Purgatory. 10. The Relatour labours in vain to avoid the Authorities of the Fathers in this point. 11. St. Gregory Nyssen and Theodoret, even by his own confession, clear for Purgatory. 12. St. Austin, not wavering about it, as the Bishop pretends. 13. Purgatory, an Apostolical Tradition, if St. Augustine's Rule be good. 14. In what manner of necessary belief.  
1. But let us return to A. C. who very charitably, and no less truly minds the Bishop, that there is but one saving Faith, that by his own confession, it was once the Roman, and by just consequence is so still, because 'tis granted, that men may be saved in it: wishing his Lordship therefore well to consider, how we can hope to have our souls saved without we 
§. 38. num. 11.  hold entirely this Faith; it being the Catholic Faith, which, as St Athanasius in his Creed professeth, UNLESS A MAN HOLDS ENTIRELY, HE CANNOT BE SAVED. To all which the Relatour tells us, he hath abundantly answered before, referring us to §. 35. num. 1. and §. 38. num. 10. of his Relation. The question is not how abundantly, but how sufficiently his Lordship answereth: and for that we also refer ourselves to the Readers judgement, upon our reply there made. What he adds here, that A. Cs. conclusion hath more in it, then is in the premises, is manifestly untrue, to any that observes the force of the argument; which stands thus. There is but ONE Saving Faith; the Roman was once this saving Faith, and by the Bishop's confession is still a saving Faith: ergo, it is still that one saving Faith; and by consequence is still the Catholic Faith. This inference, I say, is evident and undeniable, unless we suppose either more saving Faiths than one, or that the one saving Faith is not the Catholic: both which are evidently false, and contrary to our adversaries own confessions.  
His discourse about Additions pretended to be made by the Council of Trent unto the Catholic Faith, imports not much. For either the said Additions are such, as by reason of them the present Roman Faith ceases to be a saving Faith, or they are not. If the first, he contradicts himself, having already granted that Salvation may be had in the Roman Faith: if the second, it necessarily follows, that either the Roman Faith is now the one saving Faith, or that there are more saving Faiths then one; which the Bishop denies. What he also affirms of the said Council of Trent, viz. that it hath added a new Creed to the old, and extraneous things, without the Foundation, etc. is no more, than what the old Heretics might as truly, and, no doubt, did as freely, object to those ancient Primitive Councils: and if it be just and sufficient, in defence of them, to assert, that the Additions they made, were only perfective, that is, further and more clear explications of the Faith formerly believed, and not corruptive of the ancient Primitive truth, we think it sufficient to make the same answer in behalf of the present Roman Church, and Council of Trent.  
2. Nor do those words of St. Athanasius set down in the beginning and end of his Creed This is the Catholic Faith, signify any such thing as the Bishop pretends, viz. that this, and no other doctrine, is Catholic Faith, this, and no more than is here 
Ibidem.  delivered, is to be believed etc. I say, St. Athanasius his words admite not of this Gloss. For so we might, without any breach of the Foundation, reject in a manner the whole Scripture, with a good part of the Apostles Creed, and all other points of Christian doctrine beside. The Relatour himself could not be ignorant, that the non-rebaptising of Heretics was a point of Catholic Faith, already in St. Athanasius his time defined by the Council of Nice; yet sure he finds no mention of it in the Athanasian Creed: no more than he doth, that our Saviour was conceived by the Holy Ghost, or born of a Virgin; not to speak of Remission of sins, Baptism, Eucharist, or any other Sacraments, etc. none of all which being expressed in that Creed, will Protestants think they may be denied, without breach of the Catholic Faith, meant by St. Athanasius?  
To salve the matter in some sort, the Relatour here casts in 
Ibidem.  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 'tis 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 Council, the universal Traditions of the Church, as matters appertaining to Christian Faith: all which, are not only supernumerary, but inconsistent with the Bishop's assertion, This, and no other is Catholic Faith. So that in reason it cannot possibly be thought, this Father meant to signify, that his Creed contained all necessary points, whatsoever, pertaining to Christian belief, but only to express what was to be held by Christians in those main and principal articles touching the B. Trinity, our Saviour's incarnation, etc. which were at that time so much controverted; and withal to give us a certain Rule, or Form of Catholic confession touching those points. Whence also 'tis evidently deduced, that as 'twas necessary to Salvation for Christians to beleevo and confess according to the Catholic Faith; in the points there specified; so, a paritate rationis, it is likewise necessary they should do, in all other points and doctrines whatsoever. For doubtless, if the Catholic Faith may be contradicted in any one point, without peril to a man's Salvation, it may be also in an other, and an other, yea in all the rest.  
A. C. goes on, and endeavours a little further to unfold the meaning of this great father of the Church; observing, that in his 
Ibidem. num. 12.  Creed he says, without doubt every man shall perish, that holds not the Catholic Faith ENTIRE. that is, in every point of it, and INVIOLATE, that is, in the right seuse, and for the true formal reason of divine Revelation, sufficiently applied to our understanding by the infallible authority of the Catholic Church, proposing to us by her Pastors, this Revelation. To which discourse of A.G. the Bishop so far agrees, as to acknowledge, that he, who hopes for Salvation, must believe the Catholic Faith, whole and entire in every point: which I note only by the way, as a matter worthy to be seriously reflected upon, by all his followers. But then he objects, the word Jnuiolate is not in the Creed, and falls a taxing the latin Translator with error, for so rendering St. Athanasius' word; which, saith he, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and aught to be rendered undefiled. But I fear, the Bishop will here also be found in a 
Baron. ad Ann. 340. num. 〈◊〉.  mistake, rather then A. C. For first, Baronius shows, in the year of our Lord 340. that St. Athanasius did himself compose and publish this Creed first of all in the latin tongue, namely when he presented it, as the confession of his Faith, to the Pope and a Council of Bishops held at Rome, whither he had been called, upon occasion of some things laid to his charge by Heretics: and with the acts of the said Council was it registered and preserved, till in tract of time, it came to be publicly and generally used in the Church. Now, the latin copy reads 〈◊〉, and anciently ever did so; let our Adversaries show any thing to the contrary: and 'tis evident by the Creed itself, that it was not this Father's intention, to exhort to good life, or to teach how necessary good works were to justification, or Salvation, but only to make a plain and full Confession of the Catholic Faith, concerning those two chief and grand Mysteries of Christian Religion, viz. of the B. Trinity, and the Incarnation of the son of God.  
3. What the Relatour's reachis is in affirming, that 'tis one thing not to believe the Articles of Faith in the true sense, and an other to force a wrong sense upon them, intimating, that 
Ibidem.  this only is to violate the Creed, and not the other, I must confess, I do not well understand. For, supposing I believe, that is, give my assent to the Creed, sure I must believe, or give my assent to it, in some determinate sense, or other. If therefore I believe it not in the true sense, I must necessarily believe it in a false; and what is that but to offer violence, or put a foreed sense upon the Creed? unless (perhaps) he would have us think 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 Adversary's acuteness hath carried him to inconveniences. It is therefore a natural and well-grounden inference, and no strain of A. C. to assume, that Protestants have not Catholic Faith, because they keep it not entire and inviolate, as they ought to do, and as this Father (St. Athanasius) teaches 'tis necessary to Salvation for all men to keep it: which is also further manifest. For if they did believe any one Article with true divine Faith, they finding the same formal reason in all, viz. divine Revelation sufficiently attested and applied by the same means to all, by the infallible Authority of the Church, they would as easily believe all, as they do that one, or those few Articles, which they imagine themselves to believe.  
And this our Antagonist will not seem much to gain say, roundly telling A. C. that himself and Protestants do not believe any one Article only, but all the Articles of the Christian Faith, for the same 
Ibidem num. 14.  formal reason in all, namely because they are revealed, from and by God, and sufficiently applied in his word, and by his Church's ministration. But this is only to hide a false meaning under false words. We question not, what Protestants may pretend to do, especially concerning those few points, which they are pleased to account Articles of Christian Faith, to wit, Fundamentals only; but what they really do. Now, that really they do not believe, either all the Articles of Christian Faith, or even those Fundamental points, in any sincere sense, for God's Revelation, as sufficiently applied by the ministration of the Church, is manifest from their professing, that the Church is fallible and subject to error, in all points not-fundamental, and even in the delivery of Scripture, from whence they pretend to deduce their said Fundamentals: consequently, they can in no true sense believe any thing, as Catholics do, for the same formal reason sufficiently applied. To believe all in this sort, as A. C. requires, and as all Catholics do, were in effect to renounce their Heresy, and to admit as matter of Christian Faith, whatsoever the Catholic Church, in the name and by the Authority of Christ, doth testify to be such, and require them to receive and believe for such: which the world sees, how unwilling they are to do.  
4. The like art he useth in his answer to A. Cs. objection (pag. 70.) viz. that Protestants, as all Heretics, do MAKE CHOICE of what they will, and what they will not believe, without relying upon the infallible Authority of the Catholic Church. He answers first, that 
Ibidem.  Protestants make no choice, because they believe all, viz. all Articles of Christian Faith. But this is both false and equivocal. False; because, as was just now showed, they believe none with true Christian Faith, as Catholics ought; or for the true formal reason of divine Revelation, rightly applied, but only for, and by their own election. Equivocal; because 'tis certain he means by Articles of Faith, only Fundamental points in Protestant sense: whereas 'tis the duty of Catholics, and the thing by which they are most properly distinguished from Heretics, to believe all Articles, or points of Christian doctrine whatsoever, delivered to them by the Authority of the Church, in the quality of such truths, as she delivers them.  
Secondly, he says, Protestant's (with himself) do rely upon the infallible Authority of God's word, and the Whole Catholic Church. True, so far as they please they do, but not so far as they ought; not entirely, as A. C. requires. And what is this, but to make choice, as all Heretics do? Again why speaks he not plainly? If the Bishop meant really and effectually to clear himself of A. Cs. charge, of doing in this case, as all other Heretics do, why does he not say (as every Catholic must, and would have done) we rely upon the infallible Authority of God's word, and of the Catholic Church, thereby acknowledging the Authority of the Catholic Church to be an infallible means of applying God's word, or divine Revelation to us. Whereas to ascribe infallibility only to the word of God, and not to the Catholic Church, what is it in effect, but to do as all Heretics do, and tacitly to acknowledge, that really and in truth, he cannot clear himself of the imputation? Let our adversaries know, it is not the bare relying upon the whole Catholic Church, (which may be done in some sort, though she be believed to have no more than a mere humane, moral and fallible Authority in proposing matters of Faith) but it is the relying upon the Churches infallible Authority, or upon the Church, as an infallible means of applying divine Revelation; which can only make them infallibly sure both of Scripture and its true sense.  
A: C. therefore had no reason to be satisfied with the Bishop's answer, but had just cause to tell him, that though Protestants in some things believe the same verities which Catholics do, yet they cannot be said to have the same infallible Faith which Catholics have. But the Bishop here takes hold of some words of A. C. which he pretends to be a confession, that Protestants are good Catholics, bidding us mark A.Cs. phrase; which was, that Protestants in some Articles, believe the same truth, which other good Catholics do. The Relatour's reason is, because 
Ibidem. num. 14.  the word other, cannot be so used as here it is, but that Protestants as well as we, must be supposed good Catholics. I answer, 'tis clear enough, A. C. meant only this, that Protestants in some things believe the same truth with other people, who are good Catholics; which is very true, but far from implying that confession, which the Bishop would infer from him. However, I think not the matter worth standing upon. The Bishop himself acknowledges A. C. intended 〈◊〉 to call them Catholics; and if unawares some thing slipped from his pen, whereby he might seem to call them so, what matter is it? seeing 'tis incident, even to the best Authors sometimes, to let fall an improper expression.  
5. To as little purpose is it for him to tell us, that next to the infallible Authority of God's word, Protestants are guided by the 
Ibidem.  Church. For, as we said before, so far as they please, they are guided by the Church, and where they chink good, they leave her. We entreat our Adversanes to tell us, what is this, but to follow their own fancy and the fallible Authority of humane deductions in believing matters of Faith? both which the Bishop doth so expressly disclaim in this place. To what A. C. adds, that by the Church of God he understands here men infallibly assisted by the spirit of God in lawfully-called, continued and confirmed General Councils, the Relatour answers, according to his wont 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 error fall away totally from Christ the Foundation. The whole Church cannot do thus. Surely, his kindness is great; and the Catholic Church is much obliged to him for allowing her such a large prerogative and portion of infallibility, as that of necessity, some one person or other must still be sound in the Church believing all the Articles of the Creed, or (if that be too much) at least all Fundamental points in Protestant sense. For so long as but two, or three persons hold all such points, it will be true, that the whole Church is not by any error totally fallen away from Christ the Foundation. All the lawful Pastcurs of the Church may, in the Bishop's opinion, err, every man of them, and fall away, even from Christ the Foundation, yea draw all their people to Hell with them, without any prejudice to the promises which Christ made to his Church; if but two, or three poor souls be still found, whom God preserves from such error, as our Adversaries call Fundamental. All is well; the gates of Hell do not prevail over Christ's Church; though every particular Christian, save only some few in an age, perish by Heresy: 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 universal deluge of all damning and Soule-destroying errors as this, to overspread the whole face of Christendom.  
6. This is the infallibility our Adversary grants the whole But A. Cs. words concerning the holy Ghosts assistance in lawfully-called, continued and confirmed General Councils, oblige the Bishop some what further to declare himself in that point; 
Ibidem.  wherein, though we sufficiently know his mind already, yet it shall not be amiss to hear him speak. He utterly denies therefore (and that twice over for failing) that General Councils, be they never so lawfully called, continued and confirmed, have any infallible assistance, but may err in their determinations of Faith. Whether they can or no, hath been already sufficiently 
* Chap. 20.  handled, and the Relatours' assertion confuted: so that there is no necessity of repeating what hath been said. 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 judgement, and of the judgement of all his followers, in this main point concerning the Church's Authority, and to reflect how much they do in reality attribute to it. They are oftentimes heard indeed to speak fair words, and to profess great respect to the Church and to Councils, especially such as be General, and ecumenical; pretending at least to refuse none, but for some manifest defect, or faultiness; as that they were not truly, or fully General, or did not observe legal and warrantable proceeding in their debates, etc. But let them give never such goodly words, let them counterfeit Jacob's voice never so much, here's the touchstone of their judgement and inward sense: whatsoever they say. this they all hold, General Councils, how lawfullysoever, and how lawfully and warrantably soever proceeding, have no infallible assistance from God, but may err, and that universally too, (for so he means, as we have 
* Chap. 〈◊〉  already proved) that is, in all matters and points whatsoever, Fundamental or not-fundamental.  
But you will reply, the Bishop grants infallibility to a General Council, to wit, de post facto (as his words are) after 'tis ended and admitted by the whole Church. I answer, this is to give as much infallibility to a General Council, as is due to the meanest Society, or Company of Christians that is. For while they judge that to be an Article of Christian Faith, which is so indeed, and received for such by the whole Church, they are every one of them, in this sense, infallible, and can no more be deceived, or deceive others, in that particular judgement, than a General Council; or then the thing that is true in it self, and also found to be true by the whole Church, can be false. In this indeed the Relatour is just as liberal now to a General Council, as he was formerly to the whole Church, in 
* Relat. §. 25. num. 5.  granting it not to err, while it errs not.  
The truth is, he vainly trifles in the whole business, and dallies with the Reader by obtruding upon him a Grammatical, or at best, but a Logical notion, or sense of the word infallible, in stead of the Theological. For how I pray, or in what sense is a General Council acknowledged by the Relatour to be infallible, even the post facto, after 'tis ended, and (as he will have it) confirmed by the Church's acceptance? Certainly, if you mark it, no otherwise, than every true Proposition is, or may be said to be infallible, that is, hipothetically, and upon supposition only. For surely no true Proposition, quâ talis, or so far as 'tis supposed, or known to be true, though but by some one person, can deceive any man, or possibly be false. In this sense 'tis a known maxim in Logic, Quicquid est, quando est, necesse est esse. Every thing that is, has an hypothetical necessity and infallibility of being, since it cannot but be, so long as it is. And is it not (think you) a worthy prerogative of the Church, to be thus infallible in her definitions? Does not the Bishop assign a very worthy and fit means to apply divine Revelation to us in order to the eliciting an act, or assent, of divine infallible Faith? Now, that this is all he means by allowing General Councils to be infallible de post-facto, is evident from his own words, which he gives as the reason of that his concession. For so (saith he) all truth is, that is, infallible in itself, and is to us, when 'tis once known to be truth. What, I say, is this, but to proclaim to all the world, that the decisions of General Councils are no more infallible, than any contingent, yet true proposition is, though delivered by a person never so much giving to lying.  
7. Finally I add, that though A. C. speaks of a Council set down to deliberate (as the Bishop urges) yet, when he styles it infallible, 
Ibidem.  'tis evident in his principles, that either he means a complete and full Council, including the supreme Pastor of the Church jointly with the rest, and voting in Council with the rest of the Prelates, (in which case his suffrage is a confirmation of their decrees) or in case the chief Pastor be absent A. C. accounts it not a full and and complete Council, till his consent be had, and annexed to the votes of the other Prelates. So that the Relatour does but mistake A. Cs. meaning, when he talks of a Council held, or supposed by him to be infallible A PARTE ANTE, when it first sits down to deliberate etc. Neither doth A. C. use any cunning at all in the business, but as much plain dealing 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 design to hide his own meaning, or shroud himself from his Adversary. For are not the words themselves of most plain and obvious signification? are they not also of absolute necessity to be used by him, for the full and clear expression of his meaning in this point? and doth he not, so often as occasion requires, constantly use them (or the like) to that end, treating upon this subject? what ground, or even occasion then, could the Relatour have to object cunning and shuffling here?  
And yet by the way we little doubt, but General Councils may, in a very true sense, be styled insallible even a part ante (as the Bishop speaks) at their first sitting down, and before any thing is so much as voted or deliberated upon, by the Prelates; much less confirmed by the Pope; to wit, by virtue of Christ's promise; by which they are sure, in due time, to be led into truth, and preserved from error in the issue and resule of their deliberations, in the manner aboue-declared. even as the whole Catholic Church is said by the Bishop to be infallible in Fundamental points. For as Christ hath promised not to suffer the whole Church to err in points Fundamental, so he hath promised, that General Councils, consisting of the Head and Prelates of the Catholic Church, shall not err in their definitions. So that to this infallibility the Church's acceptance is wholly unnecessary. Nay it is certain, the whole Church disfusive is so far from confirming, in any authoritative and proper sense, the decrees of such Councils, as we in this case and controversy style ecumenical, that itself (the Church difsusive I mean) is absolutely bound to accept and receive their desinitions, and cannot without Schism and sin refuse to accept them.  
The following Paragraph is wholly spent in palliating obstinacy 
Ibidem. num. 15.  in private opinion, against the sense and belief of the Church, with the title and pretence of Constancy; which for the most part is taken in a good sense, and held for a virtue: but here it cannot be so: and deliberately to doubt, yea to deny (if a man please) the doctrine that is defined and declared by the Church, to be matter of Christian Faith, is styled a modest proposal of doubts. But we have 
* Chap. 20.  already sufficiently discovered the fraud and impertinency of these pretences; and likewise largely treated the whole matter of external obedience, which the Relatour here again brings upon the stage. We only desire at present; to have some certain and infallible direction, or rule given us, to know, when the refusal to submit to a General Council is out of pride and presumption of a man's own judgement (which the Bishop himself condemns) and when (perhaps) from better and more honest motives. Was there ever yet Heretics so impudent and past shame, as to profess, or avow that he contradicted the doctrine of the Church, or the definitions of General Councils, merely out of pride and presumption of his own judgement? Doc they not all pretend evident reason and conviction of conscience for what they do? What is it then, but a mask that may serve all faces, and a plea for all delinquency in matter of Religion, for the Bishop to talk as he doth, of probable grounds, modest Proposals, without pride and presumption etc? these being things, that all Heretics pretend alike to, and with equal truth.  
But as for those words of the Bishop, that a man may not upon very probable grounds, in an humble and peaceable manner deliberately doubt, yea and upon demonstrative grounds constantly deny, 
Ibidem.  even such definitions, viz. the definitions of General Councils in matter of Faith, yet submitting himself and his grounds to the Church, in that, or an other Council, is that, which until now, was never imposed upon believers etc. I wonder what sense can be made of them. First, he supposes that a man may have very probable, yea demonstrative grounds against the definitions of a General Council, and by virtue thereof, be warranted both deliberately to doubt, no otherwise, than every true Proposition is, or may be said to be infallible, that is, hipothetically, and upon supposition only. For surely no true Proposition, quâ talis, or so far as 'tis supposed, or known to be true, though but by some one person, can deceive any man, or possibly be false. In this sense 'tis a known maxim in Logic, Quicquid est, quando est, necesse est esse. Every thing that is, has an hypothetical necessity and infallibility of being, since it cannot but be, so long as it is. And is it not (think you) a worthy prerogative of the Church, to be thus infallible in her definitions? Does not the Bishop assign a very worthy and fit means to apply divine Revelation to us in order to the eliciting an act, or assent, of divine infallible Faith? Now, that this is all he means by allowing General Councils to be infallible de post-facto, is evident from his own words, which he gives as the reason of that his concession. For so (saith he) all truth is, that is, infallible in itself, and is to us, when 'tis once known to be truth. What, I say, is this, but to proclaim to all the world, that the decisions of General Councils are no more infallible, than any contingent, yet true proposition is, though delivered by a person never so much giving to lying.  
7. Finally I add, that though A. C. speaks of a Council set down to deliberate (as the Bishop urges) yet, when he styles it infallible, 
Ibidem.  'tis evident in his principles, that either he means a complete and full Council, including the supreme Pastor of the Church jointly with the rest, and voting in Council with the rest of the Prelates, (in which case his suffrage is a confirmation of their decrees) or in case the chief Pastor be absent A. C. accounts it not a full and and complete Council, till his consent be had, and annexed to the votes of the other Prelates. So that the Relatour does but mistake A. Cs. meaning, when he talks of a Council held, or supposed by him to be infallible A PARTE ANTE, when it first sits down to deliberate etc. Neither doth A. C. use any cunning at all in the business, but as much plain dealing 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 design to hide his own meaning, or shroud himself from his Adversary. For are not the words themselves of most plain and obvious signification? are they not also of absolute necessity to be used by him, for the full and clear expression of his meaning in this point? and doth he not, so often as occasion requires, constantly use them (or the like) to that end, treating upon this subject? what ground, or even occasion then, could the Relatour have to object cunning and shuffling here?  
And yet by the way we little doubt, but General Councils may, in a very true sense, be styled insallible even a part ante (as the Bishop speaks) at their first sitting down, and before any thing is so much as voted or deliberated upon, by the Prelates; much less confirmed by the Pope; to wit, by virtue of Christ's promise; by which they are sure, in due time, to be led into truth, and preserved from error in the issue and result of their deliberations, in the manner aboue-declared. even as the whole Catholic Church is said by the Bishop to be infallible in Fundamental points. For as Christ hath promised not to suffer the whole Church to err in points Fundamental, so he hath promised, that General Councils, consisting of the Head and Prelates of the Catholic Church, shall not err in their definitions. So that to this infallibility the Church's acceptance is wholly unnecessary. Nay it is certain, the whole Church diffusive is so far from confirming, in any authoritative and proper sense, the decrees of such Councils, as we in this case and controversy style ecumenical, that itself (the Church diffusive I mean) is absolutely bound to accept and receive their definitions, and cannot without Schism and sin refuse to accept them.  
The following Paragraph is wholly spent in palliating obstinacy 
Ibidem. num. 15.  in private opinion, against the sense and belief of the Church, with the title and pretence of Constancy; which for the most part is taken in a good sense, and held for a virtue: but here it cannot be so: and deliberately to doubt, yea to deny (if a man please) the doctrine that is defined and declared by the Church, to be matter of Christian Faith, is styled a modest proposal of doubts. But we have 
* Chap. 20.  already sufficiently discovered the fraud and impertinency of these pretences; and likewise largely treated the whole matter of external obedience, which the Relatour here again brings upon the stage. We only desire at present, to have some certain and infallible direction, or rule given us, to know, when the refusal to submit to a General Council is out of pride and presumption of a his own judgement (which the Bishop himself condemns) and when (perhaps) from better and more honest motives. Was there ever yet Heretics so impudent and past shame, as to profess, or 〈◊〉 that he contradicted the doctrine of the Church, or the definitions of General Councils, merely out of pride and presumption of his own judgement? Do they not all pretend evident reason and conviction of conscience for what they do? What is it then, but a mask that may serve all faces, and a plea for all delinquency in matter of Religion, for the Bishop to talk as he doth, of probable grounds, modest Proposals, without pride and presumption etc? these being things, that all Heretics pretend alike to, and with equal truth.  
But as for those words of the Bishop, that a man may not upon very probable grounds, in an humble and peaceable manner deliberately doubt, yea and upon demonstrative grounds constantly deny, 
Ibidem.  even such definitions, viz. the definitions of General Councils in matter of Faith, yet submitting himself and his grounds to the Church, in that, or an other Council, is that, which until now, was never imposed upon believers etc. I wonder what sense can be made of them. First, he supposes that a man may have very probable, yea demonstrative grounds against the definitions of a General Council, and by virtue thereof, be warranted both deliberately to doubt, and constantly to deny such definitions; and yet tells us, he must submit both himself and grounds to the Church, in that, or an other Council. Either his grounds are really such as he speaks of, viz. 〈◊〉, certain and demonstrative, or only seemingly such. If only seeming such, what is it but to give power to every Phanatique and presumptuous spirit, to oppose General Councils and contradict their definitions, whensoever he fancies to himself to have an cuident text, or convincing argument against them, how foolish and fallacious soever it be? If real and true demonstrations, how can he that knows them, submit himself and his grounds to a General Council? Can any thing be more absurd and unreasonable, then that a true demonstration, and a true judgement grounded upon it, should yield to a fallible Authority; such as that of all General Councils is supposed to be? Again, who shall assure us, that the General Council, to which he submitts, shall not desine the same article, or error, which was defined before.? In this case, either he is bound to believe the article de novo defined, or he is not. If he be not bound to believe it, why doth the Bishop teach, that notwitstanding a man may constantly deny the definitions of a General Council upon monstrative grounds, yet he is bound to submit himself and his grounds to an other Council? if it be lawful for him to oppose the second Councils definition, as well as the first's, where's his submission? If he be bound to believe as the second Council defines, 'tis evident, he is bound to prefer a fallible Authority before a true demonstration, and known to be such: which is not only absurd, but also impossible.  
8. As to that text of St. Austin which the Bishop citys again in his margin, touching the emendation of former General Councils by latter, we have 
* Chap 10.  already answered the objection taken from it. In the next place, he presents us with a long marginal note, concerning Purgatory and the Council of Florence; whereby, from the testimony of Peter Martyr a professed Adversary, he would insinuate a doubt, as if the Council of Florence had not been unanimous enough in defining the belief of Purgatory. Whereas it is most evident, that the Greeks in that Council, never doubted in the least measure, nor denied Purgatory itself (that is, the penal state and condition of some faithful souls departed this life, before they enjoyed God) but only questioned, whether the fire of Purgatory were material and real fire, or only metaphorical: wherein the Greeks opinion, who maintained the negative, viz. that it was not material and real fire, is not at this day held to be against Faith. But it is beyond admifation strange, what his Lordship asserts afterwards, in contradiction to the Council of Trent, that scarce any Father, within the first three hundred years, ever thought of Purgatory: than 
Ibidem.  which, I think there can 〈◊〉 be advanced a greater Paradox.  
〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 a Father of the first three hundred years? Doth not he teach Purgatory, when, speaking of the public customs and observations of Christians concerning the dead, he saith, 
a Tertull. jib. de coron. 〈◊〉. c. 3.  oblationes pro defunctis annuâ die facimus. (We make offerings in behalf of the dead, every year upon the day of their death) and speaking of what a Christian widow was accustomed to do in behalf of her husband departed, doth he not say, 
b Idem. libr. de monogam. c. 10.  pro Animâ eius orat (she prays for his soul) et refrigerium adpostulat ei (and begs of God refreshment, or ease of his pains for him?) et offert annuis diebus dormitionis eius, (and every year, upon the day of his death, offers at the Altar for him?) Is not this clearly enough to teach Purgatory?  
Is not St. Cyprian a father of the first three hundred years? and doth not he teach Purgatory, when he says 
d D Cyprian Epist. 52. ad monogam.  (speaking of the different states and conditions of the Faithful departed) Aliud est, ad veniam stare, aliud ad gloriam pervenire, ('tis one thing to stay in expectation and hope of pardon, an other thing (saith he) to come presently to glory;) aliud, missum in carcerem non exire inde, donec soluat novissimum quadrantem, ('tis one thing to be cast into prison, and not to come out thence, till you have paid the last farthing) Aliud, statim Fidei et virtutis mercedem accipere; an other, to receive presently after our death the reward of our Faith;) lastly (to take away all pretext of cavilling) aliud, pro peccatis longo dolore emendari, et PURGARI DIV IGNE, aliud, peccata omnia passione purgasse: ('tis one thing (saith he) for a man to be tormented with long pain for his sins, to his amendment, and to be purged a great while together with fire; and an other, to have purged away all his sins at once, by Martyrdom, or suffering death for Christ's sake.) Did not St. Cyprian think of Purgatory, when he taught this?  
The like is to be said of Origen, whose testimonies to this purpose are so plentiful and clear, that the Bishop himself 
Ibidem. num. 16.  professes to think (though most falsely) that he was the first founder of Purgatory. See him, Homil. 6. in Exod. Homil. 14. in Levitic. Homil. 25. in Numer; and in 
* Hom. 2. in Psalm. 36. Hom. 12. in jerem.  other places, but especially in his Commentary upon St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans lib. 8. cap 11. where he expressly avoucheth, that concerning Purgatory pains (or the purging state of souls after death) not 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 judge both of quick and dead (saith he) only knows, how long time, souls remain in Purgatory-paines. But that they are purged after death, by such pains, Origen delivers, as the public Faith and belief of Christians.  
9 Bellarmin therefore doth not more boldly, then truly affirm, yea evidently prove, 
e Bellarm. lib. 10. de Pur. got. cap. 10.  that all the Fathers, both Greek and Latin, did constantly teach Purgatory from the very Apostles times: consequently, that it must be held for an Apostolical Tradition or nothing can be. 'tis true, he divides his proofs out of the Fathers for this point, into two ranks, as the Bishop observes. In the first he reckons up such, as affirm prayer for the dead; because, that doth necessarily infer Purgatory, what ever the Bishop vainly insinuates to the contrary. For if there were no other place, or condition of being, for departed souls, but either Heaven or Hell, surely it were a vain thing to pray for the dead; especially to pray for the remission of their sins, or for their refreshment, ease, rest, relaxation of their pains, as ancients most frequently do. For the saints in Heaven have no need of such prayers, and the Reprobate in Hell can receive no benefit by them. So that, according to the doctrine and practice of the fathers in this point, 'tis necessary to acknowledge a third place, or condition, wherein souls both suffer pain, (as in Heaven none do) and are capable of ease, refreshment, and deliverance from their pains, as in Hell none are.  
To this, the Bishop gives a very slight answer. For not being able to deny, that the Fathers generally teach it to be good and profitable to pray for the dead, he tells us, 'tis most certain the ancients had, and gave 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 exclusive of Purgatory, and inconsistent with that doctrine, the contrary is most certain. If he means such as were consistent with the belief of Purgatory, what do they concern us? we do not conclude Purgatory (as the Relatour here, and other of our Adversaries commonly, but very falsely pretend, and impose upon us) from all kind of prayer sor the dead, absolutely and generally speaking, but from that special and particular manner of praying for them, which the Father's use; namely their praying sor the remission of their sins, for the releasement of their pains, for their ease, comfort, refreshment, rest, deliverance, and the like. From such prayers as these, we conceive Purgatory is proved; and that so undeniably, as the Relatour finding nothing himself sufficient to answer, was forced to put us off, to the late Primate of Armagh's answer to the Jesuits challenge. 
Ibidem.   
I have, at his Lordship's command, perused that answer, and must confess, that in the chapter alleged, by many allegations of antiquity the Author shows that, which none of us deny, viz. that the prayers and commemorations, which the ancient Church 
Doct. Ushers answer to the Jesuit. cap. 7. Edit, 1625.  used for the dead, had reference to more souls, than those only which were in Purgatory; namely, to the Patriarches, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, and generally all Saints departed. Do any of us deny this? do we not all acknowledge with 
* pro valdè bonis gratiarum actiones sunt: pro non valdè malis Propitiationes sunt etc. D. Aug. 〈◊〉. ad Laurent. cap. 110.  St. Austin, that in respect of the Saints, or Blessed in Heaven, such commemorations and prayers, as the Primitive Church used for the dead, were thanksgivings to God sor the glory which the Saints had obtained, and as it were Congratulations with them, upon that account: but in respect of other Faithful departed they were Propitiations, that is to say, good offices done, out of intent and desire to make God 〈◊〉 and favourable to them? But whereas that answerer of the jesuit, would by those allegations of his, insinuate to the Reader a conceit, that the Ancients used prayer for the dead, only for these two reasons, and no other, viz. that the body might be glorified as well as the soul, and to praise God for the finali happy end of the deceased (as 'tis clearly his intent to do) this we must needs avouch to be most loudly untrue, and so 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 soul, and not for the body; they teach that souls departed want our help, and not their bodies; and that when we pray for them, they receive ease, comfort and refreshment by our prayers; they teach, that we obtain pardon and mercy and deliverance from pain for them, and that by the help of our prayers, they are brought to eternal rest and happiness. In this manner, and to these ends the fathers both commend and practise prayer for the dead, whatever the Bishop and his Author most falsely pretend to the contrary. Neither do the fathers always, or only praise God, or give him thanks for the faithful person departed, much less for his final happy end, or departure (of which for the most part they have no certainty) but supplicate God on his behalf, and deprecate by way of intercession the severity of God's justice towards him, as we have in part shown already, and shall further evidence in this following discourse. At present, we desire the Reader to take notice of what this alleged Author (Doctor Usher) himself professeth, in the very beginning of the chapter, which the Bishop citys. Prayer for the dead (saith he) as it is used in the Church of Rome doth necessarily suppose Purgatory. If it doth, let our Adversary's show, what kind of prayer for the dead the Roman Church now useth, which the ancient Church did not use. We maintain it is the very same; and consequently, that as the prayers of the present Church of Rome do, by our Adversaries own confession, necessarily suppose Purgatory, so likewise do those of the Ancients.  
Again, is not Dionysius Areopagita an Author of the first three hundred years? You will say (perhaps) no, and call Erasmus, Laurentius Valla, and some few others to witness, that the books de Caelesti and de Ecclesiasticâ Hierarchiâ, and de Divinis Nominibus etc. fathered commonly upon him, are not the works of that Dionysius converted by St. Paul, Acts. 17. 34. as is pretended, but of some other later Author. I answer, 
* See Bellarm. de Scrip. Ecclesiastic. Baron. Tom. 1. Annal. Delrio's. Vindiciae Areopagita.  Catholic divines have so largely proved the contrary, and so evidenced the said writings to be the genuine and undoubted works of that St. Denys mentioned in the Acts, that I suppose, few learned men do at present, doubt of the matter. However it may suffice, that the Author of these books is confessedly by all, acknowledged for a writer of great Antiquity: and more particularly in our present case, that the now-cited Primate of Armagh (himself a famous Antiquary) doth profess of him, that 
a Doctor Ushers Answer to though jesuit. pag. 248. 249.  in his writings he takes upon him the person of St. Paul's Scholar, though for his own part indeed, he holds back which the rest, and will not expressly acknowledge him for more than an ancient writer. I say then, be it St. Denys the Areopagite, or be it some other Author of primitive times doth not this ancient writer in effect teach Purgatory, when describing the customs of primitive Christians for, and about the dead, 
b Dionys. de Ecclesiast. Hierarch. cap. 7 part. 3.  he tells us, that when the body is made ready for burial, the venerable Prelate (or Priest) comes, and makes a prayer over him; in which he beseeches the divine Goodness TO FORGIVE the party deceased all THE SINS he had committed through humane frailty, in his life time, and to place him in the light and country of the living etc? would not both the Archbishop, and Primate have thought that man a Papist, who should have made the like prayer for his deceased friend in their hearing?  
10. But let us see, how the Bishop endeavours to evade the 
Ibidem. num. 16.  authorities we have already alleged in proof of Purgatory, together with others; which Bellarmin brings to the same purpose out of the Fathers. First. Tertullian (saith he) speaks expressly of Hell, not of Purgatory. But this is (expressly) a very poor shift: it being a known thing, that Purgatory is commonly taken to be a part of Hell, and as it were, an upper region of it, confining upon the Hell of the damned; and therefore not unusually expressed in ancient writers by the general name of Infernus, or Hell. Beside, that refreshment, or ease of pain, which the Christians in Tertullia's time (as appears by his testimony already cited) begged of God for the departed souls, cannot be understood of any soul in Hell, taken in the Bishop's strict sense for the Hell of the damned: for there is no comfort, nor ease to be expected: nor yet can it be understood of any soul in Heaven; where there is no pain, nor grief. Wherefore, of necessity, it must be understood of souls, in some third place, where both pain is suffered, and case, or refreshment may be obtained: and that is Purgatory.  
Secondly, he thinks St. Cyprian speaks not of Purgatory, as 
Ibidem.  we would have 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 soul in Purgatory refined and purged from the dross of venial sins, which rendered it less acceptable in the sight of God; and consequently, she is thereby amended, or made better than she was. And I would gladly know, of what place, or condition of souls St. Cyprian should speak, if he meant not to speak of those in Purgatory. For surely there's no amendment of any souls in Hell; nor no suffering of pains, nor purging of souls in Heaven: and yet 'tis certain, he speaks of the state of souls after this life.  
Origen is granted to have taught Purgatory; but withal taxed with error concerning that point: which I will not deny. I only say, his adding to the true doctrine of the Church concerning Purgatory, that false opinion of his own, viz. that all, even the Devils themselves after a time, shall be saved, can be no prejudice to the weight of his testimony, in that wherein he never was taxed of error, but acknowledged to have taught according to the common sense and belief of the whole Church. Whatsoever Origen taught in other places, certain it is, 
c Homil 6. in Exod.  in the place alleged by Bellarmin, he teaches no such Heresy; speaking there only of souls being expiated from light and venial sins, which do not deserve Hell, or damnation eternal. These he styles aliquid de specie plumby; they are in Faithful souls as a mixture of lead, or some base metal in gold: souls are defiled by them. And then, putting a difference betwixt those souls, which have much gold, and but small quantity of lead, and such as have much lead, and but little gold, he says of them both, that they shall, after this life, be purged by fire, more or less, for a longer or shorter time of pain, according as they had more or less lead, that is, vice and sin to be purged in them: but for others, viz. such as be all lead and have no gold, that is, no true merit of virtue and grace in them, they (saith Origen) shall sink down into the bottomless pit for ever. This is the sum of his discourse in that place: and can any thing be spoken more clearly for Purgatory?  
In the fourth and fifth ages, Bellarmin brings more plenty of authorities; and the Relatour is pleased to call these, the great and learned ages of the Church: therefore, surely the less subject to be seduced and led away from the truth, by any private false doctrine of Heretics. 
d D. Ambros. in Psalm. 36.  St. Ambrose is plain enough for Purgatory: for, speaking of what happens to the dead after this life, he says, some shall be saved as by fire; alluding manifestly to those words of St. Paul 1. Cor. 3. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer detriment; but he himself shall be saved, yet so, AS BY FIRE. But the words in St. Ambrose (AS by fire) at which the Bishop will seem to stumble and pretend difficulty, relate not so much to the thing, or fire itself, as if St. Ambrose meant not 
Ibidem.  true fire, or that it were not truly and really to be passed through, save only in way of similitude, or figure: but it relates to the person; to wit, of him that does pass through it; signifying, that those who are cleansed after this life, are not burnt up, 
* Etsi non exurimur, tamen urimur. D. Ambros. ubi supra.  and quite destroyed by fire (as those in Hell are, over whom that fire prevails for ever) but only that they suffer detriment for a while; like him, that passes through fire, and in his passage hath his hair and garments singed. Thus, I say it is, that St. Ambrose teaches, some are saved quasi per ignem (as by fire.)  
I add, that suppose St. Ambrose by his quasi per ignem did not intend to signify true and material fire, but only Metaphorical, as pains analogical to fire, yet it will not thence follow, that he intended not to signify Purgatory: since it is not yet declared by the Church to be matter of necessary belief, that souls in Purgatory are tormented by fire in that sense, but only that they endure pains and dolours there, by which they are purged, and which for their extremity are not unfittly, according to Scripture phrase, expressed and signified by fire; what ever the means, or immediate instrument be, by which God inflicts them. See Concil. Florentin. in lit. union: likewise St. Ambrose, in his oration upon the death of that good Emperor Theodosius, where he prays for his soul in these words, give REST to thy Servant Theodosius,— that REST, which thou hast 
D. Ambr. orat. in obit. Theodos.  prepared for thy saints; and professes out of great affection to him, that he would never leave so praying, day nor night, till by his prayers and tears he had brought him to the place, whither his merits called him, to the holy mountain, where is life everlasting. If you object, that St. Ambrose, in this very oration, professes to believe, that Theodosius was already in heaven, I answer, out of his charity he might hope so, knowing how good a Christian that Emperor was; yet not being certain of it, he held it necessary (as we see) and agreeable to Christian piety, to pray for him: which clearly rather confums, than overthrows the doctrine of Purgatory.  
St. Hierome also is nce less plain for a purging fire after this life; yea so expressly, 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 
D. Hieton. in cap 66. 〈◊〉. in fine.  Egyptidns) are drowned therein and perish eternally. As for the word arbitramur which the Relatour catches at, as if St. Hierome thereby delivered only his own private, and but conjectural opinion and not any matter of Christian belief, we answer, arbiramur doth not always signify opinion, or doubt, but simply a man's sense, or judgement in whatsoever matter, or question propounded, as every common Lexicon might have informed him. Does the word signify no more than mere opinion, in that text of St. Paul Philip. 2. non rapinam ARBITRATVS est, esse se aequalem Deo etc? And would not the Bishop (think you) have been shrewdly put to it, to find a proof for iustificationby Payth been only, should that of Rom. 3. 28. have been wrested from him in this manner, St. Paul is here only at his ARBITRAMUR, WE THINK, that a man is iustisyed by Faith without the works of the Law? he delivers not a point of Faith, but only his private opinion, leaving it sree for other men to think otherwise if they see cause.  
However the Reader shall do well, to take a little notice of the Bishops doubling here. He makes a show of answering the texts, which Bellarmin brings, out of the fathers, to prove 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 fit. Can any reason be conceived of 〈◊〉 proceeding, but only that he found the omitted places too hot for him, and not capable of any colourable perverting? Let the Reader judge in part by this one of St Hierome, which to that end is here presented in the margin, verbatim, as it stood (and should have been answered) in Bellarmin, 
e Si 〈◊〉 Origenes omnes rationabiles clearuas dicitnon esle perdendas, et Diabolo tribuit paenitentiam, quid ad nos? qui Diabolum ac satellites cius omnesque impios et praevaricatores 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, et Christianos, si in peccato praeventi fucrint, 〈◊〉 esse post panas. D. Hieron. lib. 1. contr. Pelagian.  si autem Origenes etc. what is it to us (saith St. Hierome) if Origen teach, that all reasonable creatures whatsoever, shall be saved at last, and that even the Devil shall come to repentance; seeing we hold no such matter, but confess, that the Devil and his Ministers are damned for ever, and that all wicked impenitent sinners shall likewise eternally perish, and that such Christians only as ARE PREVENTED IN SIN, that is, die before they have done full and perfect penance for the sins, of which they had truly repent, shall be sived after a time of punishment. To which we may add, what he saith in his Commentaries 
* Idem in cap. 11. Prou.  upon the Proverbs, where he plainly avoucheth, that the faithful after death, may be absolved from light sins, in which they died, viz. either by the chastisement of such pains, as they suffer after death, or by the prayers and alms of their friends living, and by the oblations of the holy Eucharist.  
St. Basil teaches the same doctrine with St. Hierome in the place 
f D. Basil. in cap 9 Isaia.  mentioned by the Bishop, expressly nameing Purgatorie-fire, in allusion to that commonly-alledged Text of St. Paul. 1. c. 3. and 'tis evident likewise from the context of his discourse. For he speaks of sins already in part expiated by confession (comparing them for that reason to withered, or dead, grass) whose mortal, or eternal guilt, being remitted by the Sacrament, 'tis out of question they can be no matter for Hell-fire to feed upon, but only for that of Purgatory. Whence also he styles this punishment afterwards, not an utter rficetion, but an expurgation, 
Epist. 350.  as by sire. St. Paulinus indeed speaks only of Prayer for the dead; but seeing he prays, that such souls departed may be refreshed with the dew of mercy procured by prayer, who can deny, but he means 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 D. Greg. Naz. Orat. 39 in fine.  if they go not that way in this life, they will, peradventure, be baptised with fire in the next. Who sees not, that he supposes for certain, that there is, after this life, a place and condition of being, wherein souls are baptised, that is, cleansed and purified by fire? For, as to the word fortè (peradventure) which stands in the Bishop's way, it relates to the persons only (viz. his Auditory) of whom it was really uncertain to him, whether they should go to Purgatory, or not; it being possible for them as yet, to escape it; namely by following good counsel, and applying themselves to perfection of holy-living. I say the word fortè (whick this father useth) doth not import uncertainty. or doubtfulness, concerning the place, or state of Purgatory, but only uncertainty of their going thither, to whom St. Gregory then spoke. As if I should say to some friend, take heed you do penance in time of health; for if you do not, 'tis a bazard but you will go to Hell. By this manner of speaking I doc not doubt of Hell; that is, whether there be such a place or not, but I doubt of my friend's condition, and fear his going thither. Nor could St. Gregory indeed speak otherwise, then by peradventure, in such a case, without a Revelation. So that Bellarmin had no need to omit the word, out of cunning, as the Bishop pretends. what ever was the cause of its'omission.  
Lactantius follows; with whom, what ever the Relatour insinuates to the contrary, Card. Bellarmin hath very good success: For does not Lactantius clearly affirm of some Christians, 
Ibidem.  that after this life they shall be sharply touched, and as it were singed by fire? to wit, those, whose sins have so far prevailed, 
Lactant. lib. 7. cap. 21.  that in their life-time they did not do full and perfect penance for them? or can we think he would use such an expression of those who go to Hell; that they shall be only touched and singed by fire? Doubtless, perstringentur & amburentur are words of too light signification to express the woeful and irreparable condition of those souls, who are wholly plunged and swallowed up in an abyss of torment. He speaks therefore without doubt, of such souls, as being in the state of grace, do yet depart this world, before they have performed sufficient penance for their mortal sins committed; or do carry with them venial sins not repent of, which of necessity must be purged, before they can see God, or enter into the glory of Heaven. Add hereunto, that he calls them iustos (just persons) which surely, is no epithet of the damned, or (to use the Bishop's words) of such as are for Hell.  
St. Hilary speaks home too; for he 
h D. Hilar. in illud Psalm 118. concupivit anima 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  avouches such a fire, or afflictive condition, to be endured after this life, as may expiate souls from sin; which cannot be said of the fire of Hell; for that punishes indeed all souls that are cast into it, but expiates none. This authority therefore serves Beauties turn very well. For though the proper guilt of mortal sin (which is to exclude the soul eternally from the beatifical vision of God) be always remitted in this life; yet seeing there ordinarily remains some temporal punishment to be suffered for such sins, either here, or in the other life, when this temporal punishment happens to be remitted to any soul after death, (as oftentimes it doth) 'tis truly said, that sins are remitted; towitt, as they render us guilty, or obnoxious to such punishment. Beside, 
i Scripturae et Patres disertè docent post hanc vitam remitti peccata levia. Bellarm. de Purgat. lib. 1. cap. 14, §. res. 〈◊〉.  Bellarmin (with the common opinion of Divines) expressly teacheth, that venial sins are remitted in Purgatory: which I do not wonder our Adversary would take no notice of; since he could not but see, it did utterly break the force of his argument against this text of St. Hilary.  
Boetius is also for us; 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 Theology and though he uses the word 
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.  Puto, (which the Bishop fastens upon) yet without doubt he means either the same with Credo (I believe,) or I am persuaded) as the word often signifies; or else, being (as the Relatour observes) not long before, a Convert to Christianity from Paganism, he uses a word of lasser signification, as not being as yet so sufficiently informed how to express himself in matters of Christian belief. However 'tis patent enough, how resolved the Bishop was to cavil upon this subject, by the Criticism he makes. For, if his observation be good, that PUTO is no expression for matter of Faith, Boetius must be thought so mean a Christian, as that he believed neither Purgatory nor Hell, as matters of Faith, seeing he uses the same word Puto in reference to them both.  
11. The authorities of Theodoret and St. Gregory Nyssen are 
Ibidem.  by the Relatour himfelfe confess't to be pregnant, and to seem at least, to come home: yet he is resolved to shift them of so well as he can. To that of Theodoret he finds nothing to say, but that Bellarmin took this Authority upon trust, and that the words are not to be found in scholijs Graecis, as Dellarmin citys him. 'Tis answered, 
* lib. 1. cap 5.  the Cardinal had confess't thus much before, and told his Reader, that he had not the words immediately out of Theodoret, but from Gagneius, who citys the words in greek, and from St. Thomas, who in his Tractate against the error of the Greeks, 
D. Tho: opuse contr. Grae. cos.  reports Theodoret, as commenting upon chap. 3. of St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians in these words: we believe this purging fire, by which souls are purified, as gold in the furnace.  
St. Gregory also ('tis confess't) is clear for us, speaking of a 
D. Greg. Nyss. orat. pro Mortuis.  fire for purging of souls after this life; which can be no other, than the fire of Purgatory, which we assert: in which the effects of mortal sin, and also venial sins are purged. Neither is it against us, that this purging fire is said 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 soul be perfectly refined by it. We confess also, that St. Gregory proves the Resurrection of the body 
Serm. 3. de Resurrect.  by this argument, because 'tis fitting, the body which hath been partaker in sin, should likewise be partaker in punishment. But how does this disprove Purgatory? Yes, says the Bishop: for this Father teacheth withal, that the soul cannot suffer by fire, but in the body. If he means naturally and by material fire, Weo grant it too; but supernaturally, and by divine power so ordaining it, we aver, that both Devils and damned fowls do now suffer by fire in Hell; though it be not matter of necessary Faith, to believe, that souls in Purgatory, are now purged by material fire. It sufficeth, that they suffer real pains, real affliction and dolours, whatsoever those be, and by what means soever applied; and that by suffering them, they are purged from their sins.  
What the Relatour adds here, concerning divers of the ancients, especially of the Greeks, viz. that they were a little too much acquainted with Plato's school; if his meaning be, that they were thereby led into error, or that they corrupted the Christian doctrine with the opinions of Plato, or any other Paganish Philosophers, 'tis a groundless calumny, and extremely injurious to those worthies. But our Adversary seems not much to care what he imputes to the fathers, so he may impose upon his Reader, and make him believe, those primitive and zealous Assertors of Christian verity, against both Philosophers, Heretics and all enemies whatever, held against us in this point, or taught not Purgatory as a part of Catholic doctrine.  
12. But St. Austin has the ill hap to be used worst of all. The Bishop makes him say and unsay, and waver in his doctrine touching this matter, as if he had been rather a novice in the Faith, than a father of the Church; thence concluding, that the doctrine of Purgatory was no matter of Faith in St. Augustine's time: for if it had been such, St. Austin would never have spoken so doubtfully of it. Excellenty concluded! But I answer, the argument proceeds only upon a willing mistake of our Adversary, and an affected ignorance of St. Augustine's meaning in the places alleged. 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 faithful souls departed, from which they are in time delivered, is so evident, that we refer it to the judgement of every indifferent Reader, after he hath seriously weighed these places; not to repeat here those other, which Bellarmin citys out of him. 
a D. Aug. de Civit. Dei. lib. 21. c. 24.  Constat animas purgari post hancvitam etc. (this the Bishop himself also citys) 'tis certain (saith he) that some souls are purged after this life. If St. Austin held it certain, how could he be thought to doubt of it? 
b D. Aug. Enchirid. cap. 110.  neque negandum est etc. It is not a thing to be denied (saith he again) but the souls of the dead are holpen by the piety of their living friends, when the sacrifice of Christ's Body is offered for them, or Alms given on their behalf. To the same purpose he writes also lib. 21. de Civit. Det. pag. 13. lib. 2. de Genes. contr. Manich. cap. 20. Epist. 64. ad Aurel. Episc. Item in psalm. 37. Lastly, what he saith Serm. 32. de verb. Apost. Orationibus Sanctae Ecclesiae, et Sacrificio salutari et eleemosynis, quae pro eorum spiritibus erogantur, non est dubitandum mortuos adiwari etc. we may not at all doubt (saith he) but the Prayers and Sacrifice, of the Holy Church, with Alms distributed for their souls, do help the dead, so as to procure, that our Lord deal more mercifully with them, than their sins have deserved; this being a thing, which the universal Church observes by Tradition from the Fathers.  
Compare this, good Reader, with that known maxim and resolution of St. Austin in his Epistle to Januarius (that 'tis 
Epist. 118. c. 5.  no better then insolent madness, to question, or dispute that, which the universal Church holds) and tell me, if thou canst possibly think, that St. Austin doubted of Purgatory. The thing he doubted of, was not, whether there were such a state of souls after this life, as we 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 superaedificaverit etc. and more particularly, whether the Apostle meant the afflictions of this life, or those after this life, by this fire he speaks of. He doubted also, and offered it to consideration, whether souls departed might not be thought to be in part, tormented, even after death, with the sense of such grief as they suffered in this life, when they were deprived of things, which were most dear to them. Of these we confess, St. Austin seems in some sort to doubt, but yet so little, that 'tis evident, he always allows it for a good and sound exposition of text abovesaid 1. Cor. 3: 12. etc. to understand it literally of the pains of the next life, and very 
* D. Aug. in psalm. 37. Item. lib 50. Homiliarum. Hom. 16.  frequently so understands it himself, without making any difficulty, or question about it, and without mentioning any other sense.  
All which, presupposed and well reflected on, it could have been no hard matter, sure, for the Bishop to have reconciled all that St. Austin delivers upon this subject, without making him seem to doubt of that which he teacheth, datâ occasione, no less constantly, than he doth the doctrine of Heaven and Hell: or else to speak contrary to himself; which is neither beseeming, nor so easily to be imputed to such a person, as this Father was known and confessed to be in the Church of God. Nor can I but wonder, seeing the Bishop grants, that St. Austin sometimes asserted Purgatory, though at other times he left it doubtful, why the Bishop and his party should make it such a necessary point of their doctrine to deny it; whereas St. Austin never denied Purgatory. Whence is derived 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 have it now; and were much nearer to the Primitive and Apostolical times; in which, even by our Adversary's acknowledgement, there was not that dross of superstition, which they complain of in latter times. If it were a truth so important to Salvation, and so clear in Scripture as Protestants now make it; or the beleese of Purgatory an error so derogatory to the merits and satisfaction of Christ, as they say it is, how happened it, that St. Austin and the Church of his time, could not see both the one and the other?  
I must not omit the Authorities of St. Cyrill of Jerusalem and St. jobn chrysostom, though the Bishop does in his answer; the first of which gives testimony to the doctrine of Purgatory, in these words. 
c D. Cyrill. Hierosol. Cateches. 5.  We pray (saith he) for those amongst us, who are departed this life; believing, that it is GREAT HELP TO THEIR SOULS, for whom the Oblation of his holy and dreadful Sacrifice, upon the Altar, is offered. The second speaks thus. 
d D. Chrysost Hom. 〈◊〉. in Act.  It is not in vain, that we make Oblations for the dead; it is not in vain, that we pray and give Alms for them: doubt not, but there comes much good of it: and more towards the end, let us consider (saith he) how great consolations we may cause to the dead, by these our tears, and giving of Alms for them, and by our prayers. Again, 
e D. Chrysost. Hom. 41. in. 1. ad 〈◊〉  If thy dead Brother be departed with any sin, (that is, with sin not so fully repent for, and not so fully expiated by works of Penance as it ought, and as we have often declared) we ought to the utmost of our power, to GIVE HIM SUCCOUR by our prayers, supplications and tears; and by procuring Oblations, (or Masses) for him. For it is not in vain, that in the divine Mysteries, we remember the faithful departed. We do it to the end, they may receive CONSOLATION; and what we do in this kind, is (not any superstitious invention of man, as the Relatours 139. Articles say it is, but) the Ordination of the Holy Ghost.  
13. What can be said more than this, to the full assertion of our Catholic belief in this point? Especially, seeing out Adversary himself grants, concerning St. Gregory and all the fathers after his time, that they undoubtedly held Purgatory: so 
Ibidem.  that for a thousand years and more, he confesses Purgatory was the general Faith of Christians. It would be considered by indifferent men, whether it be not far more likely, to have been always the Faith of Christians; and that our forefathers were in truth frighted into the belief of it, (as the Bishop will needs speak) by no other means, than they were frighted into the belief of Hell; that is, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church, and the preaching of their lawful Pastors conformably thereto. I conclude therefore, that Purgatory can be no other than a doctrine of Apostolical Tradition, if St. Augustine's Rule be good, lib. 4. the Baptism. cap. 24. which teacheth, that we justly hold all things of this nature proceed from the Apostles, if they be taught by the whole Church, and we find no beginning, or first Institution of them in Councils national, Provincial, or ecumenical. Now we challenge our Adversaries to show, 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 find mercy, and milder chastisement from God, refreshment, ease of their pains, help, and rest in our Lord etc. first began to be practised in the Catholic Church.  
Neither doth Beauties' proving it from Scripture, hinder the point from being a Tradition of the Apostles. For does not St. Austin, with Bellarmin and all divines, not excepting even Protestants themselves, acknowledge the Baptism of infants, and doctrine of Original sin, and divers other points to proceed from Apostolical Tradition, and yet endeavour to prove 
Ibidem. num. 17.  them also from Scripture? much less does the Cardinal contradict himself (as our Adversary likewise pretends he doth) by endeaucuring on the one side, to prove Purgatory by nineteen places of Scripture, and yet averring on the other, that we find no beginning of this doctrine. For first, his assertion that we find no beginning of this doctrine, imports no more, then that no first Author of the doctrine of Purgatory could be found, since the Apostles; that being fully sufficient to his purpose; which was only to show, that the belief of Purgatory was an Apostolical Tradition. And yet secondly supposing his speech absolute, that no beginning at all could be found of this doctrine in any age, either since the time of the Apostles, or before, yet should he not contradict himself, by thinking, or saying it might be proved by Scripture. Who doubts, but the doctrine of soul's immortality is effectually proved out of the Gospel, and the body's resurrection out of St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians chap. 15? Yet will any man pretend, that the first beginning of those doctrines is found in the Gospel, or in St. Paul's Epistles? was not the immortality of the soul and resurrection of the body believed by the faithful before Christ's Incarnation? So that in truth the Relatour commits the grand absurdity himself, in arguing (as he doth) that if Bellarmin did find it in Scripture (to wit, the 
Ibidem;  doctrine of Purgatory) than he is false in saying, we find no beginning of it. Certainly, to find a thing to be taught, and to find the first beginning of its being taught, is not all one, in any sober man's judgement, except it be the Relatours. 
Ibidem.   
What he adds touching Alphonsus a Castro's telling us, the mention of Purgatory in ancient writers is almost none at all, and that it is not believed by the Grecians to this very day, is in part contrary to himself, who hath already confess't, 
* num. 16. in fine.  that from St. Gregory's time, all the Fathers taught, and all Christians (generally) believed Purgatory; and misunderstood in the whole. For certainly, 'tis only of the name (Purgatory) and quality of the fire there, that a Castro and some others speak, when they affirm, that few of the ancients believed Purgatory: it being impossible to conceive, they could be ignorant of what is both generally taught by the Fathers, and was unanimously, without the least difference, or dispute concluded both by Greeks and Latins, in the Council of Florence, touching the thing, that is, the penal state of some Faithful souls departed, after this life. The Bishop might as well have told us, that those Authors pronounce the same, touching the Holy Ghosts proceeding from the Father and the Son, and of some other points, namely, that there is little mention of them in the ancient Fathers, (to wit, express and in terminis) but yet without doubt suppose, those ancient and Orthodox Pastors of the Church did ever teach the said points, as to the substance of doctrine and sense. 
Ibidem.   
His Lordship's assigning Origen to be the first Author of the doctrine of Purgatory is a manifest falsity, already disproved by the testimonies of Tertullian and St. Cyprian, ancienter than he; likewise by St. Denys the Areopagite, contempory with the Apostles: to whom we may add 
a lib. 8. Constie. Apost. cap. 47.  St. Clement, an Author of the same age, cited by Bellarmin: in both which, such prayer for the dead, as doth necessarily infer Purgatory, is avouched to be a Tradition received from the Apostles, 
b Tertull. lib. de Coron. Milit. cap. 3.  Tertullian also does the same with St. 
c Hom. 3. in Epist. ad Philip.  chrysostom: yea once again we challenge our Adversaries to nominate, if they can, any one ancient Father, or Christian writer, that ever noted this an error, or private doctrine in Origen, that he taught Purgatory, or that in any sort intimates him to have been the Author, or inventor of it: and yet the world knows, origen's errors and private opinions were diligently noted by Antiquity. But this, 'tis sure enough, our Adversaries can never do: and therefore let no man think it unreasonable in us, that we still confidently presume and assert, that this doctrine hath no beginning assignable, and consequently, according to St. Augustine's rule above mentioned, is to be thought an Apostolical Tradition.  
14. It is therefore firmly to be believed by all Catholics; that there is a Purgatory; yea we are as much bound to believe it, as we are bound to believe (for instance) the Trinity, of Incarnation itself; if by this manner of speaking be meant only, that we can no more lawfully, or without sin and peril of damnation, deny, or question this doctrine; being once known by the Church's definition, to be revealed by God, and pertaining to the Catholic Faith, than we may deny, or question the said Articles of the Trinity and Incarnation: though we confess, there is not the same necessity, or obligation, for all men, to know the one, as the other, or to have explicit belief of one, as of the other. Nor can I doubt, but the Bishop himself would have confessed, in the sense above mentioned, that we are as much bound not to disbeleeve any thing, even of least moment, contained in Scripture, when we know it to be there contained, as to believe the said Articles: and as this is far from being esteemed blasphemy, by any good Christians, so is the other, if rightly understood.   

CHAP. 26. The infallible certainty of Christian Faith, confessed, yet subverted by the Bishop.  
ARGUMENT.  
1. Why no matter of doctrine defined by General Councils, may be deliberately denied, or doubted of. 2. A. C. doth not teach, that every Catholic Priest in the Roman Church, able to preach, is infallible. 3. Jnfallibility in teaching, how rightly inferred by him from the Holy Ghosts Assistance. 4. To what intent our Janiour left the Prerogative of infallibility in his Church. 5. No certain means, in our Adversary's principles, to be assured, that a General Council, erring in one point, does not err in all. 6. The Relatour, by allowing private persons to examine the definitions of General Councils, allows them in effect to judge and censure them. 7. Posteriour Councils, no less necessary for the infallible determination of controverted points of Faith, than the four first. 8. Infallible assurance, requisite in superstructures, as well as points Fundamental. 9 The insufficiency of the Relatours' reason to the contrary: 10. No help for him, from St. Thomas and our Authors, touching the extent of necessary points. 11. His nugatory descanting upon words.  
1. THus much for Purgatory. 'Tis time now, that we return again to A. C. who gives his Adversary a why no man may deliberately doubt of, much less deny any thing defined by a General Council viz. because every such doubt is a breach from the one saving Faith, in that it takes away infallible credit from the Church: so as the divine revelation, being not sufficiently applied, it cannot, according to the ordinary course of 
§. 38. num. 28  God's Providence, breed infallible Faith in us. In answer whereto the Bishop insists wholly upon principles already confuted; viz. that deliberately to doubt and deny what is defined by General Councils, doth not take away infallible credit from the whole Church; the contrary whereof we have often shown in this 
* See chap. 23.  Treatise. Likewise he tells us, the credit of the Catholic Church is safe, so long as she is held infallible in things absolutely necessary to Salvation: which absolutely necessary things neither himself, nor any body else, could ever yet resolve us, what they are, or how to know them. And beside, seeing he teaches, that all points absolutely necessary to Salvation are plainly set down in the Creed and Scripture, how is it possible we should have need of the infallible Authority of the Church, now or hereafter, to believe any such points of Faith? Again, if the whole Church may err in points not absolutely necessary to Salvation, no reason can be given, but it may also err in delivering and interpreting any particular texts of Scripture, which contain matter, or doctrine not absolutely necessary: which supposed, it necessarily follows, that we cannot believe with certain, infallible and divine Faith, any thing deuered in Scripture itself, save only a very few points; to wit, the chief and Fundamental Mysteries of our belief. Lastly, seeing the whole Church consists of all particular members, which can never 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 Salvation: how is it possible we should be moved by their Authority (as the Bishop here supposeth) to believe all, or any points of Faith absolutely necessary to Salvation? 
Ibidem. num. 17.   
2. The Relatours next work is to carp at the gloss, which A. C. gives to those words of St. Paul, Rom. 10. 15. how shall they preach etc. that is, saith A. C. how shall they preach infallibly. By which manner of speaking yet, he does not mean (whatever the Bishop imputes to him) to make every Priest in the Church of Rome, that hath learning enough to preach, an infallible Preacher. He was not ignorant, that the native and immediate sense of those words, compared and joined with the foregoing, how shall men believe unless they hear etc. is only to signify, that for the Propagation of the Gospel, 'tis necessary there should be Preachers, and that no man ought to take that office upon him unless he be sent, that is, ordained and called by Almighty God. He was not so simple as to think every private Preacher infallible. You will say then, why does he comment upon the words how shall they preach etc? thus; how shall they preach INFALLIBLY, unless they be sent from God, and infallibly assisted by his Spirit? I answer, the reason hereof was, because the word preach (which the Apostle useth) doth not signify sermons only, but absolutely, the announcing, or publication of divine doctrine, by all such as are lawfully appointed to publish it, and in what manner soever it is necessary for believers, that it be published and announced to them.  
Now, there being (confessedly) a twofold annunciation, or manner of publishing divine doctrine to Christians; the one private and merely ministerial, which is performed by private and particular Pastors to their particular and respective flocks; the other public and authoritative, viz. of the Pastors of the whole Church assembled together in General Councils: and this latter, in regard of the public and universal benefit 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 than the former. I say, that special annunciation, or preaching of Christian doctrine, must necessarily be included in the latitude of those words, whereby the Prelates of the Church do sufficiently apply divine revelation to Christian people, for the grounding and eliciting an assent of true divine Faith: which, as we have often shown, cannot be done by any Authority, or means, which is not infallible. A. C. therefore takes not the whole, but only the principal part, or one principal kind of preaching Christ's Gospel, when he so glossed upon St. Paul's words. And well might he so do; it being that, without which the preaching of all particular Pastors to their particular flocks, would be to little purpose; for they could preach nothing but uncertainties; or at best, but probable 
Ibidem.  doctrine.  
As little cause had his Lordship to tax A. C. of bragging, because he auerrs, that we (Catholics) use to interpret Scripture by union, consent of fathers, and definitions of Councils. For, in a just and true sense, so we do: in as much as we never decline, but always follow that interpretation of Scripture, which hath consent of Fathers, and the definition of General Councils. Can Protestants say so much for themselves? And yet our meaning is not, that no exposition of Scripture is good, but what hath express consent of Fathers, or the definition of some General Council to back it: we do not deny, but even private persons may discourse upon Scripture, and declare their judgement concerning the sense and meaning of it; provided, they neither hold, nor obtrude any sense contrary to the common consent of Fathers, or the definitions of General Councils, but hold, and do all things with due submission to the Church.  
But the Relatour will prove from the authorities of Scotus and Canus, cited in his margin, that the Apostle in this place, speaks not at all of infused (that is, of divine and infallible Faith) but 
Ibidem.  of Faith acquit a, to wit, by natural and humane industry and means; which being not infallible, nor requiring any infallible Authority 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. I answer first, the precedent discourse and reason given for the gloss, do sufficiently discharge A. C. of that imputation; leaving the note of a Precipitate censure upon his adversary. Secondly I say, the Bishops information abuses him; there being not one word, or syllable 
* Scotus. in 3. sent. D. 23. quaest, unicâ.  in Scotus, which denies infused, that is supernatural, divine, true, Christian and infallible Faith to be understood in that Texed of the Apostle. 'tis true, Scotus alleges the words in particular proof of Faith acquired, viz. of that Faith, which is gained by hearing of particular Preachers, and depends only on their Authority. But yet he there maintains (with all Divines) an absolute necessity of Faith infused, or supernatural; which, as the Bishop himself here proves out of Canus, must rest upon some infallible motive; and consequently requires an infallible preaching to apply it sufficiently to us: which is all, that A. C '. gloss imports. Add hereunto, that acquired Faith being, according to the ordinary course of God's Providence, prerequired and antecedent to Faith divine and supernatural, (as 
b Canus Loc. Theollib 2. cap. 8. §. cui et tersiuni.  Canus likewise here teacheth) it cannot in any sort be supposed to exclude it.  
Lastly, by an argument a fortiori, 'tis evidently concluded, that the text ought to be extended to divine and infallible Faith, as well as to humane and acquired. For if we cannot believe, even with natural and acquired Faith, without a Preacher, surely much less can we believe, with infused and supernatural Faith, without one: still speaking according to ordinary course: which Preacher must also be infallible, either in his own person, as all the Apostles were, or as he delivers the doctrine, and performs the office, committed to him by an infallible authority; such as is that of the Church, by whom, every particular Preacher is deputed to deliver the doctrine which she holds. I might urge also the common consent of interpreters, who expound the place of no other Faith, but that, by which Christians are iustify'd and saved; which surely, can be no other, but supernatural and infused Faith. And this is most certain, whatever 
* Biel. in 3. sent. Dist. 23. quaest 2. art. 2 Conclus. 1.  Biel, out of his private opinion, asserts to the contrary. But we have stood longer upon this subject, than the small importance of it requires: since neither our, nor A. C '. doctrine touching the infallibility of General Councils, does at all depend upon this text; but is sufficiently proved by those other 
* Chap. 20.  already alleged to that purpose.  
3. The Bishop in the next place tells A. C. he has ill luck in 
Ibidem, num. 20.  fitting his conclusion to his premises, and his consequent to his antecedent. The business is, because he seems, from the assistance of the holy Ghost to infer infallibility. But I answer, our Adversary hath not much better luck so often to mistake, and pervert A. C '. meaning. For certainly, A. C. does not deduce infallibility, either of Church, or Councils from any assistance of the holy Ghost whatsoever, but from such assistance, as is necessary for them both: and from thence infallibility is rightly and invincibly concluded, as we have often shown, by the grand inconueniencies, which otherwise would avoidable follow both to Religion and the Church. What therefore he urges, that the ancient Bishops and Fathers of the Church were assisted by God's Spirit, and yet not held to be of infallible credit, is beside the purpose: A. C. making no such inference, as the Relatour by this objection, supposes him to do.  
As for the question which A. C. asks, if a whole General Council, defining what is divine truth, be not of infallible Credit, what man in the world can be said to be infallible, the 
Ibidem.  Bishop seems rather to slight, then satisfy it, when he says, J'll make you a ready answer; no man; no, not the Pope himself. No. Let God and his word be true, and every man a liar; citing Scripture for it. Rom. 3. 4. But what? cannot God's word be true, unless the Pope and General Councils be held fallible, and subject to err, when they define matters of Faith? were not those words of the Apostle true, when both himself and all the rest of his Fellow-Apostles, lived upon earth, and were infallible? And if they were true then, why not also now, though the Pope and General Councils be held infallible? Certainly A. Cs. question deserved a better answer than this; or rather was unanswerable by the Bishop, without deserting his avowed principles. For thus I argue ex concessis. If General Councils, defining what is divine truth, be not of infallible credit, no man, nor men in the world, can be said to be so: this the Bishop grants. But then, if neither General Councils, nor any man in the world, be of infallible credit, who sees it not to follow, there can be no infallible credit among men, Noah, not in the whole Church, even in points Fundamental? For seeing no testimony can be of infallible credit, except it be known; and that it is impossible for any man certainly to know, either who those are that make up the whole Church, in the Bishop's sense, or that they do all of them believe and testify such a point of doctrine to be Fundamental, and absolutely necessary to salvation, how is it possible for the whole Church, in that sense, to be of infallible credit, or to give infallible certainty to any points whatsoever, whether Fundamental, or not Fundamental, whether absolutely or not-absolutely necessary to Salvation?  
To his Adversary's demand, why a General Council; if it may err in defining one divine truth, may not err in defining an other, 
Ibidem. num.  and so in all, the Relatour answers by way of Confession, that it may err even in all, to wit, of like nature; using this limited manner of speech (in all of like nature) on purpose to avoid inconueniencies, and that he might, upon occasion, take the advantage of his wont distinction between Fundamental 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-fundamental) there can be no necessity of infallible certainty in the whole Church, much less in a General Council; and consequently, quently, 'tis no matter with him, though a General Council be supposed liable to error in all such points, as well as in any one. But it sufficeth, that we have 
* Chap 3. 14.  already shown the contrary both for Church and Council: namely, that in many cases, it may be absolutely necessary for the Church to have infallible certaintle of points in their own nature, not absolutely necessary to salvation; or (which is all one) to have such points, when brought into controversy amongst Christians, infallibly defined by a General Council: so as we need not trouble the Reader here, with repetitions.  
Nor could it serve his turn, or justify his assertion from being, in the highest degree, injurious and derogatory to the honour and authority of General Councils, though it were otherwise: that is, though we had not already proved a necessity of infalliblydefining, by General Councils, all controverted points of Religion whatsoever, whether absolutely, or not-absolutely necessary to Salvation. For 'tis certain enough, the Relatour holds, that General Councils may possibly err even in points, that are absolutely necessary to Salvation, or Fundamental, as we have heretofore 
* Chap. 20 24  observed, though he declines somewhat the open profession of such a doctrine. But this supposed, let his adherents tell us, what does his maxim (if in one, possibly in all) proclaim, but that a General Council may, not only fall into error, in defining some one, or other point of Christian Faith, but even totally Apostatise, and define against Christianity itself? A proposition, sufficiently confuted by its own apparent impiety, and which may justly serve for a second instance of our Adversary's sincerity, when they profess foe much esteem and reverence towards General Councils.  
4. We do not say, that Christ our Saviour left infallibility in 
Ibidem.  his Church to satisfy either contentious, or curious, or presumptuous spirits, as the Bishop would seem to impose upon us: for 'tis evident enough, by the experience the world hath of the several sects and Heresies of Protestants, that such kind of people will be satisfied with nothing, but the full swing of their own obstinate and erroneous fancies. Nor will we, Catholics, ever desert the confession and defence of it, because such people will not be satisfied. But we 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 Salvation; he left it also to curb the contentious, to restrain the curious, and to give sufficient check 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 prefer their private fancies before the public and general judgement of the Church, and their own lawful Ecclesiastical superious: none of all which ends could be effectually attained, or duly provided for, without the said infallibility: which therefore, for the Relatour or any other, out of private opinion, to go about to take away from the Church, is without doubt both intolerable presumption and error; especially doing it upon no better grounds and pretence of reason, than he lays down here; viz. because the Foundation (that is, in his sense, all Fundamental and absolutely-necessary doctrine) is so strongly and plainly laid down 
Ibidem.  in Scripture and the Creed. Stongly and plainly laid down, does he say? Surely the Bishop when he wrote this, thought little of those swarms of Arian and Socinian Heretics, who deny such points of Faith, as he himself grants to be Fundamental. To say those points are so strongly or plainly delivered in Scripture etc. as not to require some other infallible authority, beside Scripture, to support and make good our belief of them, must needs argue a very strong prejudice, to any man that duly considers, how those controversies are handled betwixt the Orthodox and them, and how equally those Heretics bandy texts with their Adversaries both ways; that is to say, as well upon the offensive as defensive part; as well by opposing the truth with the pretence and allegation of many Scripture-texts, as by answering and evading what ever is, by their Adversaries, 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 justly wonder, whither the Bishop would have us to run for infallible certainty in those points, if not to General Council: which yet he will by no means allow us to do.  
5. But A. C. (says the Bishop) hath more questions to ask. His next is, how we can, according to ordinary course, be infallibly assured, that a Council errs in one, and not in an other point, when she equally defines both, by one and the same authority, to be divine truths. This may be thought a shrewd question too; and the Relatour 
Ibidem. num. 22.  does a little discover himself nettled by it, in telling us, 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. However, he answers the question by distinction, thus. If a General Council errs (says he) either it errs in things absolutely necessary to Salvation, or in things not necessary. If in the first sort, we may be infallibly assured by the Scripture, the Creeds, the four first Generals Councils and the whole Church, where it errs in one, and not in an other point. If in the latter sort, 'tis not requisite, in his opinion, we should have any infallible assurance at all, viz. whether the Council errs, or errs not in such points, or in which of them she does, and in which she does not err. Where first good Reader, observe (what I hinted above) the Bishop doth not deny, but a General Council may err in things absolutely necessary to Salvation, seeing he here prescribes thee a rule, how to know infallibly when such a Council does err in such matters, and when not; to wit Scripture, the Creeds, the four first General Councils, and consent of the whole Church.  
But I ask, why doth he refer us to the four first General Councils and the whole Church, to know, when a General Council errs in things necessary to Salvation, and when not? Fyther the four first General Councils were infallible in their definitions, or no: if infallible, why are not other Councils also infallible, seeing Christ hath not made promise of infallibility to one General Council more than to an other? If not infallible, how can I by their authority be infallibly assured, that an after-Generall Council hath erred, or doth err in some things absolutely necessary to Salvation? Again, what does he mean by the whole Church, by whose authority he pretends we may be infallibly sure when a General Council erreth in things absolutely necessary? If all particular persons that hold the Fundamentals, where shall I find them? what means can I possibly use, to be certainly assured of their testimony? If only the generality of all particular Churches, they are no more the Whole Church than a General Council is; seeing all believers make up the true Church of Christ. Neither can I, by the consent of the Whole Church only, be infallibly assured whether some after-Councills definition be erroneous in matters Fundamental. For seeing the essence of the Church, according to the Bishop, consists in the belief of such points as he terms Fundamental, unless I know beforehand all Fundamentals, how can I know what particular Churches, or Assemblies of Christians, do constitute the Whole Church? How can I be certain, but that some particular Church, whose judgement I refuse, may by believing the point controverted as truly Fundamental, be a part of the whole Church; and some others, whose testimony I embrace, may by not-beleeving the said point, be no part of the Church whose consent I seek?  
I demand secondly, how does this rule of the Bishop hold good, The Scripture, Creeds, four first General Councils, and the whole Church shall infallibly assure me, when after-Councills err in defining Fundament all points? Does the Scripture, Creeds, four first General Councils etc. particularly tell us, or give us any certain and infallible rule, by which we may know, when it is Fundamental error to contradict what they teach, and when it is not? or to know what and how much of the doctrine they contain, is absolutely necessary to Salvation, and all the rest only expedient and profitable? If they do, we request some of the Relatours friends to be so charitable to us, as to show us that rule, or direct us where to find it: for as yet, we Catholics, never heard of such a thing. If they do not, how is it possible for us to be infallibly assured by them, when a posteriour Council errs in one point, and not in an other, when it defines both of them for divine truth by one, and the same authority equally?  
The Relatours answer therefore, as to the first part of his disiunctive (which concerns General Councils erring in points Fundamental) is so manifestly unsatisfactory, that it may be justly wondered, how he could think it should give satisfaction to that Query of A. C. And as to what he affirms in the latter part, viz. that 'tis not requisite to have infallible assurance in points not absolutely necessary to Salvation, our answer is, we have 
* chap. 23  fully proved the contrary. We only demand here, whether the determinate belief, that such and such books (for example the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of St. james, St. jude, etc.) are divine Scripture, or the word of God, be in the list of the Bishop's absolutely-necessaryes, or not? He could not have said they are, without condemning a very great part of Orthodox Christians, for three or four hundred years after Christ, 
a Epist, ad Dardan. Euseb. lib. 6. c. 14.  if St. Hierome and others say true: and yet 'tis certain the Relatour does not only assert, but earnestly endeavour 
* Relat. §. 16. num. 6. 7.  to prove, that we ought to have insallible assurance of this point. Seeing therefore the Bishop pretends, infallibly to believe, that these books of Scripture are the true word of God; and that he cannot believe this, but for the Authority of the Church some ages after the Apostles, either he must grant, that our infallible belief may be grounded upon an authority merely fallible (which is absurd, and often denied by himself) or that the Church is infallible even in points not absolutely necessary to Salvation.  
His next period contains only a long and captious discourse touching the words one and the same authority, used by A. C. in framing his demand to the Bishop; it being evident to any man, not unwilling to see, that when his Adversary supposed a Council, according to the Relatours' opinion, to define both truth and error, by one and the same authority equally, he meant precisely the authority of the Council, abstracting from any other, whether of Scripture, Tradition, consent of Fathers, or the like. It is clear, I say, from the subject about which A. C. treahs, that his meaning could be no other than this, viz. that the said Council, in the supposed case, intended to define, and did actually define both the pretended fall article and the true one with full conciliary authority, and did as much exact the infallible belief of that as this, by virtue of the power they had from Christ to determine such matters, and the obligation that is upon Christians to receive and submit to their determinations, in such cases, under pain of Anathema. Now let our Adversaries if they can, show us how 'tis possible to be infallibly assured, that a Council erring in one, doth not err 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 assured, that a General Council erred not in defining that there is Original sin, as well as in defining that there is a Purgatory; as well in defining that the Apocalypse is divine Scripture, as that the Books of Maccabees are: and once again we ask them, in case a General Council defines any point of doctrine, verily judging it to be agreeable to Scripture, how can our Adversaries 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 Prelates of the Church?  
To tell us therefore (and dispute the matter so 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 give either ground, or power, to define truth and error, what is it but to trifle tediously? For we neither say, nor suppose, any such thing. So as the Bishop by his discourse here, merely labours to declare ignotunt per ignotius: it being a thing wholly unknown to us, yea impossible for us to know infallibly and certainly, when the Council defines matters equally, by and according to the Authorities of Scripture, or the whole Church, but by the Councils own Act; that is, by her definition so expressed and framed, as there can be no just cause to doubt, but that she defined, or presum d herself 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 object cunning and falsity to A. C. in this business.  
Our Adversary here again runs from the mark. A. C. 
Ibidem. num. 2.  in giving the reason of his former demand, speaks of examining only, and not of judging, as his words show. If we leave this (saith he, meaning the erring and not-erring of a General Council, in the points which the Bishop supposes she defines fallibly) to be EXAMINEED by every private man, the examination not being infallible, will need to be examined by an other, and that by an other. Without end, or ever coming to infallible certainty etc. The. Bishop answers, that he hath 〈◊〉 us the way, how an erring Council may be rectified, and the peace of the Church either preserved or restored, etc. viz. §. 32. num 5. §. 33. consid. 7. num. 4. of his Relation: and we have likewise shown all his pretended ways to be devicus, and not to lead to the end he aims at. But does he there, or any where else, show, how we may be infallibly assured, that a Council erring in one point, does not also err in the other, in the case above mentioned; which is the only thing his Adversary here urges him withal? does he show, that A. Cs. objected process in infinitum can be avoided by any private and fallible examination of the Councils decrees? or does he prescribe any other means of examining them, but what is, in his own opinion, fallible at least, though (perhaps) not private?  
First, he assigns Scripture for a way to examine a Councils definition: but how can the examiner be sure the Scripture bears that sense, in which he understands it, and not that, in which the Council understands it? Secondly, he assigns the four first General Councils: but how can he be sure, that their Authority in defining is such, as every one ought to obey, and not that of after-Councils? Thirdly, he assigns the Creeds, as containing all things necessary and Fundamental in the Faith: but does he mean all of them? all the three, Apostolical, Nicen, Athanasian? By his words it seems he doth, for he makes no difference betwixt them; and in reason 'tis necessary he should, seeing 'tis evident, the Apostles Creed alone, will not serve the turn: it making no express mention of the Divinity of Christ, and of the holy Ghost, nor of the Mystery of the Trinity, Jncarnation etc. which yet we confidently presume are (all of them) Fundamental points in the Bishop's Creed.  
But then we ask, how come these latter Creeds (the Nicen and Athanasian) to be infallible; seeing their Authors, in the composing of them, were fallible and subject to error, in the Relatours' opinion? How can they be a ground of infallible certainty to me, if possibly in themselves they man be false? which, though it cannot be said, or suspected of the Apostles, (nor, by consequence, of their Creed, as it was composed and published by them) yet we make a Query, what infallible Authority assured the Bishop, or assurs us now, that the Creed which we have at present, and commonly call the Apostles Creed, is really the same, which the Apostles first composed? or that we have it entire and unchanged? Tradition, or the Church, by the Relatours grounds, must not be pretended here; seeing they are (both of them) fallible with him, and may deceive us. It follows then, even from his own principles, that he neither hath, nor can have infallible certainty for his believing the Creeds: and as for the four first General Councils, the Relatour must needs have less pretence of reason to allege them for a ground of infallible certainty in believing; seeing in all his book he never acknowledges, nor with consonancy to his own doctrine could acknowledge, Councils to be infallible, even in Fundamentals. Where is then his infallible certainty, for that one Faith necessary to Salvation? 
Ibidem.   
6. How far the Relatour speaks truth, when he says, be gives no way to any private man to be judge of a General Council, let any man judge, that considers his doctrine. Liberty to examine even the definitions of General Councils, if they see just cause, he does expressly grant to private persons; yea and some kind of judgement too, he allows 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 we not fear foam poison under the gilded pill of his Lordship's distinction? This judgement of discretion (as he calls it) especially if common experience and practice may expound it, what does it signify less, than a power assumed by every private person, not only to examine the validity of such reasons and grounds, as confirm the defined article, but 
* See Relat. §. 38. num. 15. p. 345.  constantly to deny both it and them, if his private spirit, or discretion tells him, that he hath better reasons for the contrary, or that the Councils definition is an error? Has not this always been the way and method of Heretics? To what end do they, at any time, put themselves upon this scrutiny of examining the definitions of General Councils? was it ever for any other reason, but to see, whether they could find a flaw in them? which, when they persuaded themselves to have once spied, did they not presently, in their own vain hearts, fall to despise the Council (which they supposed to err) as ignorant and overseen in their proper business? did they not usually thereupon pretend scruple presently and tenderness of conscience, in lieu of necessary obedience and submission? Did they not forthwith imagine themselves enlightened persons; and soon after that, obliged in conscience to impart their pretended lights to other people, and under a pretence of informing weaker brethren, draw them to the like discreet examining of the Churches defined and generally received doctrine with themselves? Is not this the known course of the humour? Is not this Satan's method, by degrees to usher in public and general defections from the Authority both of General Councils, and all the Lawful Pastors and Governors of the Church? See in effect the whole benefit of the Bishop's goodly device. This, and very little else (as the experience of all ages and times show) is the fruit that comes to the Church and true Religion, by allowing private persons this judgement of discretion, or liberty to examine the definitions of General Councils.  
Not to urge, that from this doctrine of the Bishop it necessarily and plainly follows, that the Authority of General Councils is of no greater force, for the settling of our Faith and the satisfaction of our understanding in matters of Religion, than the testimony and resolution of any private man is, or may be. For if I be allowed to examine the grounds of the one as well as of the other, and may (if in my own private judgement I think I have just cause) as lawfully doubt, and deny the desinitions of the one, as the resolution of the other, wherein do I attribute more to a General Council, than I do to a private person? Seeing 'tis evident, that neither the one, nor the other have further Authority with me, or command over my understanding, than their several reasons, in my own judgement, deserve; and that, if the reasons of a private man appear to me to be more weighty and convincing then those of a General Council, I am permitted freely and without sin to embrace the said private persons opinion, and refuse the doctrine of a General 
Ibidem.  Council.  
7. His asserting so confidently, that for things necessary and Fundamental in the Faith, we need no assistance from other General Councils, beside the four first, seems no less strange, and is sufficiently disproved even by evidence of fact. For hath not the assistance of posteriour General Councils, since the four first, been really and the facto found necessary for determining matters of Faith? what do our Adversaries think of the fifth General Council, or second of Constantinople? was it not matter of Faith, and necessary to Salvation, what this Council defined against the Heresy of Origen and his Adherents? what think they of the sixth, against the Monothelites was not the doctrine and belief of two distinct wills in Christ, defined by this Council, in the Bishop's opinion, as Fundamental in the Faith, as the doctrine and belief of two natures, defined by that of Chalcedon?  
Again, may not fresh errors arise? may not some new unheardof Heresy spring up, corrupting the Faith contradicting Fundamental matters, in Religion? If they do, shall it not be necessary for the Church, that such errors be condemned by General Councils? The Relatour pretends here that some that some of our own, very honest and learned men (as he is pleased to qualify them, when it serves his turn) are of the same opinion with him in this point, citing in proof hereof, certain words (as he pretends) of Petrus de Alliaco, an ancient Schoole-Author, otherwise known by the name of Cardinalis Cameracensis. Vertsstmum esse etc. 'Tis most true; all things (pertaining to Religion) are well ordered by the fathers, if they were as well and diligently observed. But first, here's a great mistake. The words which the Bishop citys, are not the words of Petrus de Alliaco, nor any part of the book which he wrote de reformatione Ecclesiae, and presented to the Council of Constance, but of one Orthuinus Gravius who published it, with divers other small tractates of that nature, in his fasciculus rerum expetenilarum etc. printed at Basil. 1535. as any man may see that peruses that book.  
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 Bishop's purpose. For the Authors meaning is, that those Fathers have so well ordered all things in respect of the Mysteries which were then opposed by Heretics, that if they were well observed, there would be no need of making new definitions in reference to the same doctrine. But he does not deny, but that upon new emergent occasions, other General Councils may be necessary in the Church: nay the design of his whole treatise is to show, that how well soever all things had been ordered and determined by former Councils, yet by reason of the long Schism that had been in the Church, and of many Heresies springing up, the Authority of an other General Council (to wit, of Constance) was necessary, as well to determine the controverted points of Faith, as to extirpate the Schism, 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 Faith by any General Councils whatsoever, after the four first? And as for 
* in 1. Sent. q. 1. ad 4.  Holkot what ever he may teach concerning Heresy or Infidelity, when the error is not known to be against the definition, or universal Tradition of the Church, yet doubtless, when it is known to be so (and under that quality only we dispute of it with the Bishop) neither he, nor any other Catholic Author, will deny it to be formal Heresy or Infidelity, to hold it.  
St. 
e lib. 2. Epist. 1.  Cyprian, here likewise alleged, speaks clearly of such matters, as were then vndefined, and were not, till a long while after, defined by the Council of Nice. St. Thomas speaks only deminis 
f D. Thom. 2. 2ae. q. 29. a. 〈◊〉. ad 2.  et opinionibus, as his words show (of small matters and private opinions) which in no sort concern our present controversy; and wherein we acknowledge (with the Relatour) Christian men may differ one from an other without breach of that one saving Faith, or Christian charity, necessary to Salvation. But for matters, which the Church hath found necessary, for prevention of Schisms, preservation of unity, and for vindicating, or clearing the ancient received truth from corruption and error, once to determine by General Councils, how small and unfundamentall soever the points themselves were in their own nature, we challenge our Adversaries to produce one Catholic Author of good name, ancient or modern, who taught, that Christians might lawfully disfer in such points after their said definitions; or that they might descent and believe contrary to what the Church had defined. This the Relatour should have shown, had he meant to deal candidly with his Reader, and not merely to amuse him, by filling his pages with Authorities, cited to no purpose.  
8. Had not the Apostles (those first-preachers of Christian Faith to the world) Reuclation from God, not only of things absolutely-necessary to Salvation, and Fundamentals in the Relatours' sense, but of all other divine truths belonging to Christian Religion? and did not they deliver the one as well as the other for divine truths to their immediate successors according to that of St. Paul. Acts. 20. 27. I have kept back NOTHING that was PROFITABLE unto you— I have not shunned to declare unto you ALL THE COUNSELL of God etc. (as the Protestants translate it) with command and obligation, that they also should both preach and testify the same divine truths to the world, entirely, and without defaulking of any part? And did they not intend, that the like should be done by continual succession of Pastors in all ages of the Church for euer? And how can the Church perform this, if she hath not full and equal Authority to attest both the one and the other, and to condemn all error whatsoever contrary to them? How can she be accounted, in those respects, the Pillar and Foundation of truth, as 'tis certain, even by the exposition of Protestants; St. Paul doth style her, 1. Tim. 3. 15. or how is she said to be a Faithful Preserver of that whole DEPOSITUM 1. Tim. 6. 20. committed to her charge, 
g 〈◊〉. adu. 〈◊〉. cap. D. Aug. lib. 1 de Symbol. cap. 6 D Chrysost. Hom. in cap, 2. Isa. D. Cyrill. 〈◊〉. Catech. 18.  as the fathers frequently profess and teach her to be? I say, how is it possible the Church should be accounted, either a sure Foundation, Faithful Depositary, Guardian, or witness of all divine truth pertaining to Religion (as she is, by Scripture and all Antiquity generally) if either, through ignorance and oversight, she herself 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 therefore the Bishop affirms, that want of unity and peace proceeds too often, even where Religion is pretended, from men and their humours, rather than from things, and errors to be found in them, I grant it to be very true, in those that will not rely 
Ibidem.  upon the Church's judgement and authority, but upon their own reason and interpretation of Scripture; which is the practice of Protestants, and all Heretics before them: and if the Bishop's Adherents think it to be otherwise, let them fairly make it appear, 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 Prelatical and Sectarian parties in the said Church of England, proceeds not from the Prelates and their adherents, but merely from the Sectaries; who (it cannot be denied) allege scripture abundantly, and accuse the English Prelatical Church of error and superstition, both in doctrine, discipline and worship, no less than they accuse us of the same faults.  
9 But the Relatour will now give us a reason why it cannot 
Ibidem. num. 24.  be necessary for the Church to have power, infallibly to determine points not-fundamental in Protestant sense, although, even by his own supposition, they be divine truths, and their opposite errors dangerous to souls. His reason is, because St. Paul tells us 1. Cor. 11. 19 oportet Hoereses esse etc. (there must be Heresies) whence he concludes; 'tis out of doubt, Christ never left such an infallible assurance, as is able to prevent them, or such a mastering power in his Church, as is able to over-awe them. But I answer, what consequence is here? There must be, 〈◊〉 there will (avoidable) be Heresies; crgo the Church hath not full power to condemn them, and to vindicate the contrary truth? To me the contrary seems far more justly and rightly concluded, viz. that because there will be Heresies ever and anon springing up, amongst Christians, therefore the Pastors of the Church have, and aught to have, all necessary power to obuiate their proceedings; and to preserve the flock of Christ in the integrity of true Faith: which (as we have often shown) cannot be done; if the Pastors of the Church lawfully assembled in General Councils to that purpose, should either themselves happen to crre, or to determine the truth, withless then absolute and unquestionable certainty.  
But as to the objection itself, the Bishop clearly mistakes our meaning. When we say the Church hath power to prevent Schisms and Heresies, it is not meant, that they shall not be at all, but so as they shall not be without just control and censure, so as they shall not so much as seem lawfully and reasonably to be nor so far prevail by their being, as to pervert the true doctrine of the Church. Heresies may be; but the Faithful members of the Church, having due care of themselves, and performing their duty well towards their lawful Pastors, shall be ever fully secured against their snares, and none deceived by them at least, not unto damnation or guilt of mortal sin, but such as through their own voluntary fault and negligence, suffer themselves to be misted by them. Could his Lordship possibly be ignorant, that the Church susficiently prevents Heresies and Schisms, on her part, when she certainly declares the truth, and rightly determins the matter, about which Christians began to contend, and to be divided in opinion one from another; when the duly censures and anathematizeth the contrary error? lastly when she useth all lawful and practicable means within her power to prevent and extirpate them? This is prevention both necessary, and also sufficient, on the Church's part; and this being done, if the effect follow not, it must not be ascribed to want of any spiritual 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 overrule and master.  
A thing most clear and manifest in all civil Commonwealth's, prudently instituted: wherein, when seditions and rebellions happen to arise, (and they do happen sometimes in the very best) wise men do not think 'tis for want of any requisite power and authority in the chief Magistrate, or state, to command and compel all men to be obedient to laws; but that it proceeds from those unavoidable distempers, which by corruption and frailty of humane nature, are incident to men's minds, and which can neither be foreseen, nor quelled, in an instant, by any power on earth.  
I add, that the Relatours' objection (oportet Haereses esse etc.) has as much force to prove the Church not infallible, even in points Fundamental and absolutely necessary to Salvation; and would exclude the necessity of any infallible power and authority in the Church, to prevent errors contrary to such points; which were repugnant even to the Bishops own assertions. For, the words of St. Paul, there must be Heresies, are as true of errors contrary to Fundamental 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 errors only are properly to be esteemed Heresies, which are contrary to Fundamental and absolutely necessary points; in regard they say, that saving Faith may consist with all other errors whatsoever. So that, if because Heresies must be, or will be, the Bishop will conclude, there is neither infallible certainty, nor any means of infallibbe certainty in the Church for the knowing and determining the truth, in such points as are contested by Heretics (as he doth most plainly and evidently pretend to conclude, by his allegation of this text) he must in consequence also confess, there is no infailible certainty, nor means of infallible certainty, less in the Church, for the teaehing and belief of any points at all, even of the most absolutely and universally necessary.  
In the close of this Paragraph he taxes those of pride, who will not 〈◊〉 their private judgements: where, with good conscience, they may and aught. We may easily divine whom he means; but are sure, he could not exempt himself and his adherents from the sting of that censure; though he endeavours it by saying, 'tis no pride, not to submit to known and gross errouts. Very good. But we ask, what Sect, or company of Heretics in the world, uses not this plea? Do not even the Artans, Socinians and 〈◊〉 arians themselves urge it as earnestly against Protestants, as Protestants do against us? So that 〈◊〉 the Relatour pretended that the convocation of English Prelates and Clergy adherent to them, should 〈◊〉 Dictatours, in the business of Religion, over all Christendom beside, and determine uncontroulably what is, what is not to be accounted gross and dangerous error, I see not what his discourse here signifies.  
But whereas himself objects error to three General Councils at once, viz. those of Lateran, Constance and Trent, yea such error, as in his opinion, gave a greater and more urgent cause of breaking the unity of the Church, than any pride of men, we shall not for the present tax him with want of modesly: we only tell his followers, 'tis as yet, only saying without proving? and they cannot but acknowledge, that in point of morality 'tis oftentimes very sufficient and very bonest for a man, barely to deny a crime that is objected to him; but it is never sufficient, nor ever honest, barely to object it. Beside, we have much more reason to think, that he (a private Doctor) is mistaken in his censure, then that those three General Councils were deceived in the matters of Faith, which they defined.  
10. His acknowledgement that it is no work for his pen to 
Ibidem. num. 25.  determine how far the necessary points of soule-saving Faith extend, would have 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 main, and (as I may say) Cardinal difficulty, be not work for his pen, neither was it, of any right, work for his pen to draw upon himself and his party, a necessity of at least being called upon, and required to do it. who counsels them, contrary unto, and without the example of any Orthodox Christians, to restrain the infallible Authority of the Church in determining controversies of Religion, to they know not what? or to such points as they neither do, nor ever will be able certainly to know and determine? For as 'tis that only, which brings our unanswerable demand upon them, so till they have answer, 〈◊〉, and clearly determined what those simply, or absolutely necessary points are, in which the Church cannot err, we must proclaim, they leave all Christians, that well consider what, and upon what grounds they believe, vnsatisfyed, uncertaino, and doubtful, how far, or in what matters they are obliged, under pain of damnation, to believe what is declared by the Church to be divine truth: and yet withal teach them, that they neither can with true infallible Faith, nor aught, nor lawfully may believe her in all she teacheth, because in much of it, she cyther errs, or is subject to err and teach them falsehood, yea gross and dangerous error, in stead of divine truth: which if it be just, or reasonable in our Adversaries to do, or tending to any thing else, but to 〈◊〉 and perplex the minds of all conseientious Christians with inextricable doubts and scruples, 〈◊〉 the indifferent Reader judge.  
Nor can he to any purpose help himself here, by what St. Thomas 
Ibidem.  and our Authors 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 Fundamental points in his sense, than our Divines teach, there are points necessary necessitate medij: nor is the case alike. For that doctrine hath place only, where invincible ignorance excuses from further knowledge and from express belief; whereas here both sufficient proposition, and actual knowledge of all articles defined by the Church, is supposed, so as no Ignorance can be pleaded in excuse of the party that errs; and yet they teach, that of these articles (all equally, so far as concerns the Church, defined and propounded,) some may be refused, but all the rest must of necessity, under pain of damnation, be believed with divine and infallible Faith; nevertheless, giving no certain rule to know either the one, or the other. Is not this, Daedalus-like, to lead men into the midst of a Labyrinth, and there leave them?  
11. In the following Paragraph the Relatour doth little else, but dally with his Reader in the equivocation of words, Catholic, Roman Church, particular, universal, one, holy, Mother-Church 
Ibidem. num. 26.  etc. upon all which he makes a brief descant at pleasure. But we answer, much is said, nothing proved, nor so much as offered to be proved to any purpose. The Church of Rome, in the sense that we maintain, and have often declared, is not only one, but THE ONE Church of Christ. In the sense that we maintain, she is holy: all her doctrine, (defined) all her Sacraments, all her institutes are holy. and tend to Holiness. In the sense that we maintain she is Catholic, or universal, both for extent of Communion and Integrity of doctrine, with continued succession of Pastors. There is no Christian Country in the world, where there are not some, that acknowledge the Pope's Authority, and profess the Roman Faith. Nor doth the Roman Church now teach any thing as Faith, which is contrary to what the Catholic Church hath ever taught. Lastly, we have showed, that even in the Primitive Church, or first sive-hundred years after Christ, the Faithful owned subjection to the Roman Church, and a necessity to communicate with her in points of Christian doctrine.  
We acknowledge the Church of Jerusalem is sometimes, by Antiquity, styled a Mother-Church, and the Head of all other Churches. But we say withal, 'tis merely a title of honour and dignity given her, probably for this reason, viz. because the first Foundations, as it were of Christian Religion were laid there, by the preaching and Passion of our Saviour; and because from thencë, the first sound, and publication of the Gospel was made by the Apostles, to all the Churches of the Gentiles. It was no title of Authority and power properly so called, as it was in the Roman Church. If our Adversaries think it was, let them show what Authority, or jurisdiction Ecclesiastical the Church, or Bishop of Jerusalem exercised over all other Churches, either before it was erected into a Patriarchate, or after; as we have proved the Bishop of Rome's Ecclesiastical 〈◊〉 over all parts and Provinces of Christendom.   

THE LAST CHAPTER. Several other Mistakes of the Bishop with a conclusion of the whole work.  
ARGUMENT.  
1. St. Cyprians text (Epist. 45. ad Cornelium) touching the root and matrix of the Catholic Church, vindicated from 
〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. num. 27.  the Bishop's perversions. 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 Bishop's 〈◊〉 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, never held by lawful Catholics. 7. The Heretics badge, viz. pride and presumption of ones proper judgement, not well put off by the Bishop. 8. The same charge cannot be retorted upon Catholics, in matters of Faith. 9 Catholics maintain the same succession to be a mark of the true Church, which the Fathers did, viz. the joint-succession of persons and doctrine. 10. Stapleton not contrary to this, nor to himself, whatever is pretended by the Bishop. 11. Temporary Contestations about the Papacy, no interruption of the Lawful Succession of Popes. 12. The Bishop standing to his principles, cannot rid himself of A. C. Dilemma, viz. of making 〈◊〉 no judge at all, or every man judge for himself, in Controversies of Faith. 13. Infallibility, the true Foundation loath of Church and Religion; with the Authors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Prayer for the 〈◊〉.  
THe Bishop hath still a pieque against the Roman Church, being ever willing to lessen, as much as in him lieth, the respect, which good Christians of ancient times, may be thought to have born towards that Sea. Out of this humour it proceeds, that he will not endure, the Roman Sea should be styled the root and matrix of the Church Catholic; but (to a void it) takes occasion (even where he confesses none was given him, by his Adversary) to make a long discourse of no less, than eight or nine pages in folio, only upon a text of St. Cyprian: which he calls indeed a difficult place, (that he might not seem to want some reason for his tediousness) but I presume, an indifferent Reader, having observed the text, and well weighed the Bishop's comment upon it, will judge it difficult in no other sense, then that the Relatour found it somewhat a hard matter for him, to disguise and pervert it from its true sense. But a bad cause will plunge the best wits sometimes into difficulties, and I am apt to think our Adversary, in this digtession, contends more than a little, against what he could not, but in his own conscience, see to be most probable.  
1. For first, as to the truth of the story, the occasion of writing that Epistle, wherein St. Cyprian is by us supposed to 
D. Cypriam. Epist. 45. ad Cornel alias. lib. 4. Epist 〈◊〉.  style the Roman Church the ROOT and MATRIX of the Church Catholic, was not that, which the Relatour sets down, but very different from it. The Relatour tells us, they were St. Cyprians own letters, about which, Cornelius Bishop of Rome expostulated with him, and complained, that they were not directed to himself (as of right they ought to have been) but to the Roman Clergy; whereas in truth, St. Cyprian and his Colleagues had taken a resolution, not to write at all to Rome, by reason of the Schism 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 affairs, betwixt Cornelius the lawful Bishop, and 〈◊〉 the schismatic. But those letters were written by certain Priests and others of the African Clergy, pertaining to the Diocese of Adrymettium (where St. Cyprian happened to be at that time) and in the absence also of the Bishop of the place. This appears by the very 
a 〈◊〉 et 〈◊〉 in Hadtumettino consistentes, Polycarpo Coepiscopo absent, 〈◊〉 quid nobis in common placuisse: etc. D. Cyprian. Epist. 45. ad Cornel.  words of the Epistle it felse: nor does St. Cyprian answer, as the Bishop feigns him to do; to wit, as owning, or acknowledging the writing of those Letters himself, or that they were sent with his knowledge, but professes, the thing was done out of ignorance of what himself and Colleagues had resolved, and only by some in Africa, during the absence of their Bishop.  
Secondly, as to the words, whereby St. Cyprian professes to Gornelius, that he for his part, did exhort all that sailed out of Africa to Rome, that they should acknowledge and embrace the ROOT and matrix of the Catholic Church, who can imagine any other thing should be meant by them, but that he exhorted such people, when they came to Rome, that they should join themselves to the party and communion of the lawful Bishop of Rome, because his Communion was the root and matrix of the Church, and have nothing to do with the Schismatics? The Bishop would have us think, he meant only to exhort them in general to acknowledge and adhere to the unity of the Catholic Church, which though we deny not but it may be, in some sense, termed the root and matrix of the Church, yet surely in this place, it can be thought little less than frivolous for St. Cyprian so especially to exhort those travellers to acknowledge, that unity is the root of the Church. Beside, what satisfaction, or just apology could St. Cyprian think 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 Africa to Rome, that they, should acknowledge unity to be the root of the Church, or that they should keep the unity of the Church in general, without specifying his communion, or the communion of the lawful Bishop of Rome in particular?  
The acknowledgement then of the root and matrix of the Church, which St. Cyprian here means, and exhorts good Christians to make and constantly stand to, when they came to Rome, hath doubtless something in it more special than this; that is to say, it must relate to that, which even by St. Cyprians own judgement 
b Ad Petri Cathedram, undè unitas Sacerdotalis exorta est. D. Cyprian. lib. 1 Epist. 3.  elsewhere delivered, is the root and matrix of the Church's unity; to wit, the lawful Successor of St. Peter, to whom the Church itself owes her unity, and about whom, there was at that time dispute and controversy, and a doubt raised among Christians at Rome. So that with very good reason, St. Cyprian might exhort such as sailed 〈◊〉, to adhere to him, and acknowledge him as being indeed the root and matrix of Ecclesiastical unity; as likewise to disown and reject the party they should find averse to him. This indeed was a convenient subject of exhortation, and well worthy of St. Cyprians charity and zeal; but that he should exhort them to any thing else in this place, or no more than the Relatour will seem to think, is wholly incredible.  
But the Bishop conceives, it could not be St. Cyprians meaning and intention here, to teach, that the Sea of Rome is 
Ibidem.  the root and matrix of the Catholic Church. Why? His reason is, because that there was at this time, an open Schism at Rome; two Bishops Cornelius and Novatian; two Congregations, which respectively attended and observed them: so that a perplexed question must needs have divided their thoughts, which of these two had been the root and matrix of the Catbolique Church. I answer first, supposing it had been, for a while, really doubtful to St. Cyprian and those of Africa, which of the two Bishops of Rome (Cornelius or Novatianus) were the right and lawful Bishop: yet to those that were at Rome, and understood the true and certain carriage of affairs, touching their respective elections, it was not doubtful; at Rome, without question, the truth concerning this mater was sufficiently known. Now we say, St. Cyprians intent, in the words alleged was not (precisely) to exhort people to adhere either to Cornelius, or Novatianus, in particular and by name; but to adhere to him, they should for certain find, by the general report and judgement of the Faithful at Rome, to have been lawfully and Canonically chosen Bishop of that Church, and not to join themselves to him, that was chosen Schismatically.  
Secondly I answer, 'tis not so certain as the Relatour supposes, whether at the writing of this very Epistle, it were really doubtful to St. Cyprian himself, which of the two, Cornelius or Novatianus, were the true and lawful Bishop of Rome: yea unless the Publishers of St. Cyprians Epistles have by mistake inverted the order of them, the contrary seems to be clear; because by the 41. 42. 44. all precedent to this alleged by the Bishop, it manifestly appears, that both St. Cyprian and his Colleagues had been already, by intelligence from Rome, so fully satisfied touching the lawful election of Cornelius, that they both denied 
c Communione eos nostrâ statim 〈◊〉 esse censuimus. D. Cyprian. Epist. 41.  Communion to the Legates of Novatian sent into Africa, 
d Gravitati nostrae 〈◊〉 convenire, 〈◊〉 nostri iam delecti et ordinati ven. 〈◊〉 ultrà famam etc. patiamur. Idem Ibid.  and also refused to hear their accusations against Cornelius: though in regard of the Novatian faction in Africa, they thought good to send their Legates to Rome to be more paticularly informed of the business, 
e Name 〈◊〉 erat, ut tu te Episcopum factum esse 〈◊〉; 〈◊〉 essetex 〈◊〉 discrepans sactio, cui sopiendae ect Idem, Epist, 42.  and did not require the people of their respective Provinces, publicly to acknowledge Cornelius for Pope, till they had received the report of their own Legates from Rome. Now this supposed, what should hinder but St. Cyprian might privately exhort passengers to Rome, not only to acknowledge the lawful Bishop of that Church, but even Cornelius by name, notwithstanding the Schism, that was by some raised against him.  
Wherefore, the Bishops following device, viz. that St. Cyprian should require all strangers travelling to Rome, to suspend their Communion there, that is, to communicate neither with Cornelius, nor Novatianus, till they saw, how the Catholic Church would incline to approve, or disapprove, their respective elections (to speak truth) is but an eyrie fiction; it being by St. Cyprian and his Colleagues presumed to be even then sufficiently known and certain at Rome, which of the two was lawfully chosen Bishop: otherwise, to what purpose should they send their Legates out of Africa to be certainly informed of the truth touching that matter? I add, when, or how could the Catholic Church declare her judgement in the case so authentically, as to oblige all persons to acquiescence? would the Bishop have had all Christian strangers to suspend their communion both from the one and the other, till a General Council had determined the controversy? or how could a Council possibly determine it, but by and upon such 
Ibidem.  grounds, as did already make it unquestionable at Rome, which of the two was the true Pope?  
We acknowledge indeed, with Baronius here cited By the 
Baron. ad Ann 154. num. 64.  Bishop, that St. Cyprian and his Colleagues did for a while suspend their Communion from both parties; which upon this occasion they might justly do; yet not separate from the Roman Church, as the Relatour, too hastily infers. For it was for a while, as it were sede vacant to them in Africa, till they had received sufficient information who was lawful Bishop of that Church: which as soon as ever they had obtained, they showed 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 go to Rome, to acknowledge and stick close to the root and matrix of the Church, that is, not to suffer themselves to be drawn into Schism, or to side with the Schismatics, but Constantly to adhere to the true and lawful Bishop of the Roman Church. And as this was a proper exhortation for St. Cyprian to make, so was it also a just and sufficient Apology for him to Cornelius, as showing that he did neither disowne the Sea Apostolic, nor slight the true Bishop thereof. Whereas, if we suppose him to mean only, according to the Bishop's exposition of his words, that people should acknowledge and hold the unity of the Catholic Church in general, but suspend their Communion both with Novatian and Cornelius too, till the Church herself should determine the controversy, what respect doth he show to the Apostolic Sea and its lawful Bishop, more than he doth to an Heretical party, and the Schismatique which they followed?  
Beside, this imaginary suspension of Communion, till the Catholic Church should declare her approbation or disapprovement of the said elections, is clearly refuted by the very Epistle, which the Bishop citys: wherein, St. Cyprian and his Colleagues profess in esfect, that they did not expect any such declaration of the Church, but that upon the first report, or answer of their Legates from Rome touching the election passed, letters were presently to be sent, to all the Bishops of Africa, to suspend their Communion no longer, 
e ut— retent a per nos veritate, et ad comprobandam Ordina. tionem tuam factâ Authoritate maiore, LITERAE FIERENT, ut te vniuer si Collegae nostri, et Communicationem tuam, id est Catholicae Ecclesiae uni tatem paritèr et charitatem probarent firmitèt et retinerent. D. Cyprian-Epist. 45. ad Cornel.  but to acknowledge Cornelius the lawfully-elect Bishop of Rome, and his Communion to be the union of the Church.  
2. By the way, good Reader, I pray, observe and judge, whether St. Cyprian doth not here sufficiently expound himself, and show what he means by those words root and matrix of the Catholic Church, when speaking of the Communion of the Pope, he plainly pronounces that it is the unity of the Church. What is this but to say with us, and directly contrary to the Relatours' Gloss, that it is the root and matrix of the Church? For, seeing the form, or at least the most formal and essential property of the Church, is unity in the profession of the true Faith, if the Pope's communion be that, which gives unity to the Church, and ties all together in the profession of the true Faith (as St. Cyprian here affirms it to be) sure, no man can be so unreasonable, as to think it deserves not to be styled the root and matrix of the Church. Not to urge, that in these very Epistles St. Cyprian blames the Schismatics at Rome, for their endeavouring to create a new Bishop there, against one that was already lawfully elected and ordained, upon this ground, that by so doing, they did, as much as in them lay, procure Ecclesiam alteram institui (the forming 
Epist. 44.  of an other Church) which, saith he, nefas est nec licet fieri (may not in any wise be attempted) telling them, that their precedings herein, were contra Institutionis Catholicae unitatem, (contrary to that unity, in which all true Catholic Christians were instructed, by the very principles of Catholic Religion, to hold and maintain) that it was contra Sacramentum semel traditum divinae dispositionis & Catholicae unitatis (against that Order or Authority, which God, once for all, appointed in his Church, for the preservation of Catholic unity and peace amongst Christians.) likewise, not to urge, that in other places also, St. Cyprian doth in effect style the Pope's chair the Centre, 
* Lib. 1. Ep. 4. Item, lib de umt. Eccl.  from whence Ecclesiastical unity is derived; that the Primacy was therefore given by Christ to St. Peter, that there might be ONE Church and ONE chair; and that he cannot be in the Church, who deserts the Chair of St. Peter. Lastly, not to urge the confession even of the Schismatics themselves (some of them at least) voluntarily, yet solemnly made, when they returned to the Pope's obedience: 
h Ne ignoramus unum esse Deum. unum Christum esse Dominum. quem confessisumus; unum Spiritum sanctum: Item VNUM EPISCOPUM INEC CLESIA CATHOLICAESSE DEBERE. Epist Cornel. apud Cyprian. Epist. 46. Ibidem.  whereby they professed, that as God is ONE our Lord jesus Christ ONE (whom they had lastly confessed in prison) and the holy Ghost ONE; so likewise in the Catholic Church, there ought to be acknowledged 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 evident convictions and demonstrations of the Relatours huge mistaking, (not to say any worse) when he pretends, that by the root and matrix of the Church, St. Cyprian understands no more, but the unity of the Church in general? nor are they any whit infringed by what he brings out of St. Cyprians Epistle to jubaianus written against the Novatians, who durst rebaptize Catholics: in which Epistle St. Cyprian hath these words, WE ARE THE HEAD OF BAPTISM. What makes this against us? For first, the Bishop himself acknowledges, that by WE, St. Cyprian doth not understand his own person, or Church precisely, but includes all other particular true Churches, and chiefly the Roman, where Novatian himself was baptised. The Head of Baptism then in St. Cyprians meaning, are all true Churches, as they stand in due subordination and Communion united with the Roman, and not otherwise: which we willingly grant. But yet it follows not from hence (as the Bishop would have it) that it is all one to be head, or root of Baptism, and to be head and root of the Church. For the whole Church, as one by Communion with the Sea of Rome, may properly enough be styled the head of Baptism, which signifies no more, then that the chief and ordinary power of baptising, is in the Catholic Church: but it will never be proper to say, the Church is the head and root of the Church; for that were to make the whole to be only a principal 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 evidenced by what is above said. Nor can he with reason be 
Ibidem.  understood in any other sense, when he speaks those words in the beginning of that period cited by the Bishop, Nos qui Ecclesiae unius caput et radicem tenemus, etc. For as by Ecclesiae unius it will not be denied, but he means the Church Catholic, so by the words caput et radicem (if we expound him with conformity to his already cited assertions) we cannot possibly understand 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 Catholic Church on earth.  
Beside this, 'tis very observable what the Relatour himself alleges, and concludes out of an other Epistle of St. Cyprian, viz. that St. Cyprian and the Bishops of Africa sent their Legates to 
Ibidem.  Rome, on purpose to bring the ` Novatians, that is, the Schismatical 
lib. 2. Epist.  party there, to the unity and Communion of the Church universal, but that by reason of the obstinacy and stiffness of those Schismatics, their labour was lost. Now (for aught appears to the contrary by the said Epistle) the reduction of the Novatians to the Church's unity (whereof by the Bishops own confession St. Cyprian there speaks) was nothing else, but the bringing them to obedience and Communion with Cornelius the lawful Bishop of Rome, as the Relatour himself also intimates: and consequently, it must be acknowledged, there is something in resisting and opposing the lawful Bishop of Rome, which hath greater contrariety to the unity of the Church, than there is in resisting and opposing any other particular Bishop.  
And if it were otherwise, why should all the Churches of Africa esteem themselves, and the whole Church so concerned in it? why should they send Bishops of their own, on purpose to Rome, to reduce the Schismatics, with so much diligence and care, to the obedience of their lawful Bishop? what reason can be given of this, but that they foresaw and feared, that if a Schism proceeded there, the whole Church would, in a short time, come to be involved in it, and divided into two several parties, by acknowledging two heads, or Roman Bishops? When Novatus set up Maiorinus, the first Donatist Bishop, at Carthage, against Caecilian the lawful Bishop; and when Meletius and Paulinus had their several parties at Antioch; likewise, when Anthimus, an Eutychian Heretic, was intruded into the Sea of 〈◊〉 against the Catholic Bishop thereof, there was no such thing feared as breaking the General unity of the Church; there being still a visible and certainly-know'n head of the Church Catholic, viz. the Bishop of Rome, who by his authority, kept all in unity, and first or last rectified and composed those dissensions. But here, of necessity it would have been otherwise. For the breach of Ecclesiastical unity being in the very head, fountain, and root thereof, would (unless prevented) avoidable, in no long time, spread itself over the whole Church: and thence it was, that the Bishops of Africa thought it necessary, with extraordinary diligence, to make up the breach there, and reduce the separated parties to unity.  
3. Tertullian (whom the Relatour also citys) makes nothing against us. For he only affirms, that all those many and great 
Ibidem.  Churches founded by the Apostles, are that ONE Church, which is from the Apostles; and that they are all FIRST (or primitive) 
Tertull. lib. de prescript. cap. 20.  Churches, and all of them APOSTOLICAL, because they do all of them allow and approve ONE UNITY; that is, (say we) an unity derived from one, and centred in one; who is no other, but St. Peter's lawful Successor, the Bishop of Rome; by subordination unto whom in Faith and discipline, as unto the universal Pastor of the Church, all particular Churches are made one, and do in effect continue one and the same Catholic, Primitive, and Apostolical Church, or Churches, which the Apostles first of all founded. So that, till our adversaries either disprove this gloss, or give a better, we shall make no scruple to assert, that in Tertullia's judgement as well as St. Cyprians, Rome (or the Roman Church) may well be termed the root and matrix of all other Churches, because none remain in the Catholic Church; but by unity with Rome and the Bishop thereof.  
Nor matters it, that Pamelius reckons up divers Churches 
ibidem.  (which he calls Original and Mother-Churches) before the Roman. For as to the name (Original and Mother-Churches) we have given the reason of it in the precedent chapter, when we spoke of the Church of Jerusalem: and for the thing, viz. that he reckons. Rome in the last place (as if therefore the Church of Rome were to be accounted inferior to those other) we answer, his Lordship would never have made this observation 
* pag. 368. and pag. 371, in margin.  twice, had he, first consulted the Master of Ceremonies about it. For he certainly, would have resolved him, that in marshalling dignities subordinate one to an other (as the case was here, all the particular Churches mentioned by Pamelius viz. Smyrna, (Philippi, Corinth, Ephesus, being subordinate to Rome) the Principal, or Sovereign is to be ranked in the last place. Doth Pamelius, or Tertullian himself, acknowledge the like privileges and authority in regard of the whole Church, to belong to those other original and Mother-Churches, which they do to the Roman?  
As for that irreligious Act of the Emperor Adrian, (which the Bishop mentions) 'tis but too much imitated by Protestants. For as he set up 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 waist the place where it was first founded; so do our Adversaries plant all their batteries against Rome: persuading themselves, that if they could beat down that chief fortress of the Catholic Church, they should soon destroy our whole Church. But as that Heathenish Emperor (Adrian) did, so do these enemies of God and true Religion; they labour in vain. For the Church is invincible, the gates of Hell itself cannot prevail against her: and 
a D. Aug. lib. 1. de Symbol ad Catech. cap. 60  as St. Austin long since observed, all Heresies whatsoever do indeed go out of her, being cut off from her, as unprofitable branches from the vine. But the Church herself always remains in her ROOT, in own VINE, in her own CHARITY, viz. by remaining always united with the Bishop of Rome.  
In the most principal and proper sense then, the Roman Church (and that only) is both the rock and root of the Church-Catholique, as being by institution and appointment of Christ, principally and solely ordained to supply the place, and perform the office both of rock and root to all other Churches whatsoever; how be it, in a less principal and limited sense, in reference to particulars only, we do not deny, but some other particular Church, or Churches beside the Roman, may sometimes be are the style, that is, be called rock, or root. Thus (for example) we confess St. Austin, cited by the Bishop, styles the Eastern Churches the root, in regard of the Africans. 
k D. Aug. Epist. 170.  Pars Donati non consider at se praecisant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 RADICE Orientalium Ecclesiarum. But the reason is 〈◊〉, 'twas either because the Eastern Churches were a larger and more noble part of the Church universal, than the Africans were; or because the Africans first received the Gospel from them, as St. Austin 
l vudeEuangelium in 〈◊〉 venerit. D. Aug. ubi suprâ  also testifieth in the same place: and not, that they were such a root of the whole Catholic Church as Kome was, or in all properties pertaining to a root, equal to Rome. That's only the Relatours voluntary supposition and mistaken inference.  
4. Nor will his speculation hold, whereby he distinguishes the essence of the Church from its existence; and makes that unity which is an attribute of ENS to be the root 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 root and matrix of unity, than unity the root and matrix of the Church: for unity, as an attribute, flows from ENS, and not ENS from it: as like wise in natural Philosophy, all Properties flow from their subjects, and not their subjects from them. Thirdly, what unity does our Adversary here speak of, when he tells us ENS and VNUM, being and being one, are convertible? This is Metaphysical unity only; entitative unity. But is that all the unity the Bishop acknowledges to be necessary in the Church? if not, why is that only mentioned here, and no other? Christians, when they dispute, and teach that the Church is one, understand (sure) a further unity than this; namely a moral unity, an unity of mind and judgement, touching the verityes of Christian Religion; and not only an unity of nature, definition and essence. This therefore was 〈◊〉 to equivocate, or mistake 〈◊〉 in the business. But we pass it by, as likewise we do the remainder of the paragraph; as being farced only with assertions without prose, or with proofs against no Adversary.  
5. As St. Cyprian ought to be commended for his exhorting those who cravelled to Rome, to acknowledge and maintain the ROOT and MATRIX of the Catholic Church, so did the Jesuit well, to persuade the lady to do the same. Of whose Counsel, 
§. 39 num. 1.  by the report of Mr. 〈◊〉, she made thus far good use, that upon this and the precedent conferences the rested in judgement fully satisfied of the truth of the Roman Churches Faith: yet upon frailty and fear to offend the king, she yielded (for a while) to go to Church: for which she was 〈◊〉 very sorry. The Relatour seems willing enough to have 〈◊〉 all this, if he had known how: but not being able to do that, he contents himself to 〈◊〉 it as suspicious and 〈◊〉 as he can, 〈◊〉 it were so, or no. He 〈◊〉 not, 〈◊〉 that honourable 〈◊〉 was 〈◊〉 in conscience and judgement; nor 〈◊〉 it were fear, or 〈◊〉, or other 〈◊〉, that made hor yield to go to Church; nor how sorry she was for it; nor, who can testify that sorrow. The Bishop knows none of all these particulars. Well; it is sufficient that others did, and do know them. However he confidently tells us, the lady would more 〈◊〉 be able to answer to God for her coming to Church, then for leaving the Church of England. To which, when A.C. takes modest exception, and only tells him, that he neither doth prove, nor can prove it to be lawful for one, especinlly so persuaded as the lady was, to go to the Protestant Church, the Bishop sharply replies, there's a 〈◊〉 deal of cunning, and as much malice in this passage of A. C. But where, I pray, 〈◊〉 either the cunning, or malice of this speech or what does it contain, but plain real truth, and 〈◊〉? 
Ibidem.  A. C. had proved through his whole discourse (as we likewise have 〈◊〉 to do in this or ours) and the lady 〈◊〉 that the Protestant Church was not an Orthodox, but 〈◊〉 Church, that it protessed a self and corrupt Faith: so as a man could not communicate with it without making himself guilty of Heresy. To 〈◊〉 this, and yet go to Church were evidently to halt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 two opinions, which in Religion is never 
3 Kings. 18 21.  lawful 〈◊〉 do; It were to serve God and Baal too, though neither of 〈◊〉 well. Lastly, it were to dissemble in that, wherein it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 man, more than in all other matters, to be sincere, and use 〈◊〉 doubling, 〈◊〉 to walk with integrity and 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉, before God and the world. For as the Scripture saith, (〈◊〉 2. 12.) fearful 〈◊〉 fearful hearts and 〈◊〉 hands, and to the 〈◊〉 that gods TWOE WAYS; one in outward show and protession; and an other, in the inward judgement of conscience. Is there now any such cunning or 〈◊〉, to admonish one of 〈◊〉?  
But the Relatour tells us, he never went about to prove, that a Roman-Catholique, being and 〈◊〉 such might against his conscience go to Church. Neither doth A. C. tell him, that he ever 〈◊〉 about to prove it; but yet in effect he did say it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when he affirined that life lady, being so persuaded as the was, by Mr. Fisher's report, (and as the Bishop himself 〈◊〉 did, nor could 〈◊〉 her to have 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 pleased 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 errors nor doth it 〈◊〉 his assertion to plead (as he doth) that the Church of England is an 〈◊〉 Church, and that he hath proved it so. For, still we say, the lady was otherwise 〈◊〉; she neither did, nor could possibly think, being thus persuaded in judgement, 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 
Ibidem.  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 believed Heresy and false doctrine was taught, then for joining herself to a Church, whose communion she verily believed was necessary to Salvation, and wherein she was firmly persuaded, that no 〈◊〉 doctrine was taught by any public allowance, nor superstition practised: for all this is necessarily employed in being a Roman-Catholique.  
Nay, is it not manifestly contrary to his own professions here? I say the same thing with A. C. viz. that 'tis not lawful for 
Ibidem. num. 〈◊〉.  one that is resolved of the truth of the Roman Church, to go to the Church of England, and in that manner to serve and worship God; because that were to halt on both sides, to serve two masters, to dissemble with God and the world: and that no man may outwardly profefs a Religion, in conscience known to be false; 〈◊〉 Scripture for it, Rom. 10. 10. For with the heart man believeth to righteousness, and with the mouth he confesseth to Salvation: adding withal that no man can confess a known false Religion to his salvation. Whence I argue. If a Roman-Catholique, being and continuing such, may not, against his conscience, go to the Protestant Church; if it be not lawful for one, that is resolved of the truth of the Roman Church, to go to the Church of England, and in that manner to serve and worship God; if no man ought to believe Religion after one sort, and practise it after an other; if it be sin to dissemble with God and the world in such main points of Religion, as are in controversy betwixt Catholiqucs and Protestants, how could the lady (being supposed to be a Roman-Catholique) better answer to God for coming to the English Church, and leaving the Roman, then for continuing to communicate with the Church of Rome? what sin could the Bishop think she committed by communicating with the Roman Church, if in her heart she were a Roman-Catholique, and apprehended nothing as superstitious and unlawful, 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 clearly against her conscience, and by consequence sinned in doing it.  
Again, admit there were errors and superstitions in the Roman Church, as the Bishop will needs suppose, yet how will he prove the lady should be in any sort answerable for them, unless we suppose also, that she held them against her conscience, or by holding and practising them, opposed the known truth? which to do, were contrary not only to all Christian charity, but even to the 〈◊〉 own maxims, who confesses, that none but God, and a man's self, can know, how far he opposes truth in that manner, and §. 37. num. 1. tells A. C. thus, you are the happier 
§. 36.  in your error that you hold nothing against your conscience especially if you speak not against conscience while you say so. But this no man can know but yourself. For no man knows the thoughts of man, but the spirit of man that is within him. 1. Cor. 2. 11. if now, errors in Religion be not sin, so long as the person that holds them, opposes not the known truth, or holds them not against conscience; and that by the Bishops own confession also, 'twas not possible for him to know, that the lady, by embracing our Faith and Church, did any thing contrary to her conscience, or opposed any truth she knew, upon what ground could he condemn her of sin 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, even by his own grounds, (being supposed to be a Roman-Catholique) she did manifestly commit sin, 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 believing Religion after one sort, and practising it after an other. 
Ibidem.   
6. As for what concerns Catholic Authors, who may possibly affirm it lawful, in some cases, and with due limitations, for Catholics to go to Protestant-Churches, there doctrine is necessarily restrained unto such countries and places, in which, going to Protestant-Churches is no distinctive sign 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 go to Church: and therefore, not allowed by any of our Divines; who never give way to the profession of false doctrine. Now, who is more guilty of dissimulation in Religion, which the Bishop charges upon some of our party, than the Bishop himself? Doth he not §. 35. punct. 5. professedly allow possibility of Salvation to such Catholics, as do both wittingly and knowingly associate themselves, even to the gross superstitions of the Romish Church, and such as come even near to Idolatry, only because they believe the Creed and hold the Foundation? what is this but to teach it lawful, at lest no sin excluding Salvation, to join one's self outwardly to a superstitious Church, in a superstitious, false, and even Idolatrous way of worshipping God, contrary to ones knowledge and constience only for some temporal and worldly respects? and consequently, that men are not always bound to seem and appear as they are, but sometimes at least, may have liberty to wear a mask?  
But certainly, that which follows, is a most strange and inconsequent Paradox, if ever any was. If the Religion of Protestants (says the Bishop) be a known false Religion, than the Romanists Religion is so too. For their Religion, meaning Catholics and Protestants, is the same, saith he: nor do the Church of Rome and the Protestants set up a different Religion, (for the Christian Religion is the same to both) but they differ in the same Religion; and the difference is in certain gross corruptions, to the very endangering of Salvation, which each side says, the other is guilty of. What is this but to heap absurdities one upon an other? which of all these propositions is maintainable in any true and proper sense? The Religion of Catholics and Protestants is the same. The church of Rome and the Churches of Protestants set not up different Religions. Christian Religion is the same both to Catholics and Protestants: they are of the same Religion, and yet differ in it. First, are we of the same Religion, because we agree in some few general points? why might he not as well have said, that Arians, and all other Heretics are of the same Religion with us. by reason of their agreement with us in some points of Faith? Secondly, is Christian Religion, I mean in the necessary soundness and integrity of it, common both to Catholics 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 vain and pernicious amphibology, as he here useth, in a business of so great importance? Thirdly, if we, Catholics, be of the same Religion with Protestants, how can we be said to differ from them in the same Religion, as the Relatour here expressly says we 〈◊〉? 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, we are not to be said to differ, but to agree in it, unless our adversary and his party think, they may vary the common sense and notion of words, at their sole pleasure. Beside, those points, about which, under the notion of corruptions and errors, the Bishop himself acknowledges, that we do differ; either they are parts of Chrstian Religion, or they are not. So they be parts of Christian Religion; seeing by his own confession we differ in them from Protestants, how is Christian Religion in gross, said to be common to us both? how is it the same to Catholics and Protestants? If they be not parts of Christian Religion, how can we, by reason of them, be said to differ from Protestants in Religion, or in the same Christian Religion?  
But, what (says the Bishop) cannot I prove any superstition, or 
Ibidem. num. 4.  error 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 Catholic Church thereby 〈◊〉 with truth and peace. For I am confident, such truth would soon either command peace, or confound peace breakers. But, is there 〈◊〉 superstition in adoration of Images? None in Invocation of Saints? None in adoration of the Sacrament? Is there 〈◊〉 error in breaking Christ's own Institution of the Sacrament, by giving it but in one kind? None about Purgatory, and common prayer in an unknowen tongue? These and many more are in the Roman Religion, and 'tis no hard work to prove every one of these to be error, or superstition, or both. We answer, 'tis a harder work to prove them to be so, then barely to affirm them to be so, otherwise we are confident, his Lordship would have been as liberal of his proofs in this kind, as he is of his 〈◊〉: for surely, it more imported him to prove, then to accuse. But we ask, how will his friends, and adherents after him, prove them to be superstitions and errors? By Scripture only? who shall be judge that the places alleged out of Scripture to that purpose, bear the sense, in which Protestants understand rather than that, in which General Councils understood them, when they defined the recited particulars, as the present Roman Church believes and observes them at this day? when they have done all they can, the final resolution of the business, must, according to Protestants, be reduced to private judgement; which in such matters as these, according to St. Austin, is most insolent madness.  
Nor do I see upon what ground the Relatour could be so 
Epist 118.  confident, that if the Roman Church were so happy as to teach nothing but truth, to wit in Protestants sense, that is, to agree with 
Ibidem.  Protestants in condemning the worship of Jmages, Jnuocation of Saints, Adoration of the Sacrament, Purgatory etc. it would so certainly, either command peace, or confound peace-breakers, as he imagines. What confusion, I pray, would it be for such people, to disagree from a Church, which proclaims her own erroneousness to all the world, by beginning now to teach contrary, not only to herself and her own former belief, but contrary to the general belief of all Christendom beside, for many hundred of years? would not the very alteration of doctrine (which in this supposition, the Roman Church must necessarily make) render it evident to all men, that both herself, and the whole Church of Christ with her, may err, and hath erred, in points of greatest importance concerning the Faith? what peace-breakers would be confounded with the authority of a Church so apt to fall into errors and superstitions of such dangerous nature? Truly for my part, I am so far from thinking, such an impossible case as the Bishop here puts, would either command peace, or confound peace-breakers, that is, the Authors or Abettors of private 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 even all sense of due obedience and reverence of the Church's authority.  
7. But the Bishop being so well content (as he tells us) with 
Ibidem.  men's opinion of his weakeness, it will be no hard work for his friends to excuse his over-confidence in this particular, when they please, upon that ground: only of pride he is not willing to be taxed. For which reason, A. C. having told him (as most justly he might) that he could not prove any error or superstition to be in the Roman Religion, but by presuming with intelerable pride to make himself, or some of his fellows, to be judge of controversies; and taking authority to censure all for superstition and error, that suits not with their fancies, he complains, as being in this deeply censured by A. C. and demands wherein does his pride appear? I answer, his own confession sufficiently shows that, in the very next lines, where he says, indeed if I took this upon me, I were guilty of great pride. This, that is to make himself, or some of 〈◊〉 fellows, judge of controversies; or to endeavour to prove error and superstition in the Roman Church by taking such authority upon him, he confesses were great pride. Well. But how does he clear himself of the charge? How does he convince the Roman Church of error and superstition, otherwise then by taking this authority him, and making himself or some of his fellows judge of Controversies? To say only as he does, I absolutely make a lawful and free General Council judge of coneroversies, by and according to Scripture, will not serve his turn; by reason that if he stand to his own principles and the general practice of Protestants hitherto, none but himself and some of his fellows shall be judge, whether the Council be lawful and free, or not. For, if either it consists of such as favour not their opinions, or will not observe such conditions, as he and his fellows think good to prescribe, though never so contrary to the Canons and legal proceedings of former Councils, we are sure enough, it will never be acknowledged for free or lawful, by our Adversaries.  
Again, standing to the Bishop's principles, and the common practice of his party expounding them, who but himself and his fellows shall be judge, whether a lawful and free General Council hath defined, or doth define, by and according to Scripture? Doth not the Relatour himself expressly teach §. 38. num 15. that if a General Council shall forget itself, and take upon it to define things not absolutely necessary to be expressly known, and actually believed by all, neither it, nor the whole Church hath any such infallible assistance but that Christians (every private Christian he says num. 23.) may upon just grounds both deliberately doubt, and constantly deny the definitions of such Councils? Likewise doth he not tell us (Ibidem. num. 24.) that it is no pride, not to submit to known and gross errors defined by Councils; instancing by name in the Councils of Lateran, Constance, and Trent as having made erroneous definitions in matter of Faith? what is this in effect but to teach, that no man is bound to admit the doctrine defined by General Councils, merely for the Authority of the said Councils? and if not, who sees it not manifestly to fallow, that cuery private Christian (that is, in other terms, himself or some of his follows) is by our Adversary made judge of Controversies, and allowed to take the Authority upon them, of censuring all for superstition and error, that suits not with their private judgement? which is the thing his Lordship, but even now, confessed to be great pride.  
But the Relatour will prove from the testimony of A: C. himself, that he is not guilty of pride in this particular, viz. of making himself Judge of Controversies, etc. For why, A: C. 
Ibidem.  taxes him for giving too much power to General Councils, and binding men to a strict Obedience to them, even in case of error. Therefore sure (saith he) most innocent I am of the intolerable pride, which he is pleased to charge upon me. I ask, is this testimony of A: C. true, or not? If it be not true, how can he from a false testimony infer his own innocency? If it be true, viz. that the Bishop by his doctrine, doth really bind men to a strict obedience to the definitions of General Councils even in case of error, how grossly doth he contradict himself when he says, ‛ tir no pride, not to submit to known and gross errors, even of General Councils? and teaches, that a private man, upon just grounds, may both deliberately doubt, and constantly deny the defined doctrines of some Councils? This surely, is in effect to deny both internal and external obedience too, to General Councils. For if we may deliberately doubt, where is internal obedience? If we may constantly deny, where is the external? Doth he not also teach, Ibidem. num. 23. that a private Christian may, not only consider and examine the definitions of General Councils, both for his own and the Church's satisfaction, but also propose his doubts in opposition to the Councils doctrine, in such manner as the whole Church shall be obliged to call an other General Council to consider of the matter etc? How can this be done without expressing dislike, or showing some external disobedience to the precedent Council? let our Adversary, if they please, show how. But we have already, chap. 20. and 21. largely treated of this subject.  
To as little purpose is it for him to plead, that be submitts his judgement in all humility to the Scripture, interpreted by the Primitive Church. But, that this is a false pretence we have all along in this treatise demonstrated; but more particularly, chap. 20. 21. The Bishop proceeds, saying that he submitts upon new and necessary doubts to the judgement of a lawful and free General Council. Fairly spoken. Upon new and necessary doubts he will submit; not otherwise. But we must know, in the Bishop's sense and according to the principles already advanced and resolutely insisted upon by him, no doubts are necessary, but such as concern matters Fundamental in Faith, that is, as he perpetually explains himself, absolutely necessary to be expressly known and believed by all Christians for Salvation. So that, in all other points of doctrine, either determined and defined already, or hereafter to be determined and defined by the Church, he does upon the matter openly profess, that he will not submit to the judgement of a General Council but follow his own private opinion, though contrary to it. Now what is this, but to take upon him to be judge of controversies, in opposition to General Councils, and to censure for superstition and error what suits not with his private fancy?  
8. But our Adversary would have A.C. consider, how justly all this may be turned upon himself. viz. that be hath nothing to 
Ibide 〈◊〉.  pretend, THERE ARE NOT GROSS ERRORS AND SUPERSTITIONS in the Roman persuasion (as he calls it) unless by intolerable pride he make himself and his party judge of Controversies. But who sees not, this is a most palpable untruth? All the world knows, that A. C. and all his party, submit with most absolute humility of judgement to the desinitions of General Councils, and so have ever done. A. C. makes not himself judge of controversies betwixt him and his Adversaries, but a lawful General Council; yea all the lawful General Councils, that ever the Church had or esteemed such. To them he appeals; to them he stands: let Protestants do as much, and the controversies would not be hard to be ended. So utterly false it is what the Bishop affirms here, that We will he judged by none but the ` Pope, and a Council of his ordering. Do the Relatours Adherents think, there was ever a General Council in the Church, well ordered? let them name it; we stand to its sentence. Neither do we require, that any Council should be of the Pope's ordering, further than the Canons of the Church do allow him, and his Predecessors have in effect done in all General Councils, even the four first. True it is, A. C. and all Catholics with him, acknowledge no Council to be a lawful Iudge of controversies, unless it be approved and confirmed by the Pope: but in this there is no pride. For the right of confirming the decrees of General Councils, (wherein controversies of Faith are judged) hath ever belonged to St. Peter's Successor, as we have 
* Chap. 17.  already shown; and St. Austin (Epist 62) with the whole Council of Milevis, professes it to be grounded on Scripture: yea the Canons of the universal Church do expressly allow it him; witness even 
a Socrat. 〈◊〉. lib. 2. cap. 13. 17. lib. 3. 〈◊〉. 8,  Socrates himself, no very great friend of the Roman Church, 
b Sozom. Hist. lib 2. cap 9  Sozomen, 
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. justinian. Epist ad joan. 2. in Cod. tit. 1.  with others: and in the General Council of Chalcedon (Action 1.) Dioscorus, no meaner person than the Patriarch of Alexandria, is for this very reason denied the privilege of sitting in Council, because he had presumed to hold a General Council (to wit, the predatory, or pretended second Council of Ephesus) without the Pope's Authority: a thing, which (as the Fathers there acknowledge) was never lawful to do, nor ever done before. (NUNQVAM LICVIT, NEC VNQVAM FACTUM EST.)  
Why therefore shall A. C. be taxed of pride, if he believes the doctrine of the Roman Church to be true, upon the Authority of General Councils confirmed by the Pope? who sees not a great deal of difference betwixt him and his Adversary in this regard? A. C. in his understanding of Scripture follows the exposition of General Councils; the Bishop relies upon no interpretation, but this own; teaching that General Councils may err in their exposition of Scripture, even in points Fundamental and absolutely necessary to Salvation. A. C. acknowledges, he can be infallibly certain of nothing in matter of Faith, by the bare letter of Scripture and the light of his own understanding only: the Bishop is confident, that by the letter of Scripture only, and his own judgement, he can be infallibly assured of all necessary points of Faith. A. C. is ready to submit his judgement to a General Council in any point of doctrine, whatsoever seeming reasons, or grounds he may privately have to the contrary: the Bishop allows a man, upon probable grounds to doubt, and upon clearer grounds to deny and oppose the definitions of such a Council. A.C. thinks it an ungodly presumption to tax General Councils of error and superstition; the Bishop makes not scruple to censure divers of them for damnable errors. A. C. holds it altogether unlawful for any Christian to descent from the Catholic Church, in any point of defined doctrine whatsoever, great or small; the Bishop maintains, that the whole Catholic Church may err, both grossly and dangerously in all points not Fundamental, and that all private Christians, who understand, or perceive such errors to be in the Church, may descent, yea if need be, that is, if the Church will not reform the said errors upon their admonition, separate from her, as Luther and his followers did, when they first began their reformation. Let any indifferent person then be judge, whether that which A.C. charges upon the Bishop concerning pride, and taking upon him to be judge of Controversies, in opposition to General Councils, may be as justly turned upon himself, as the Relatour here pretends.  
His next Paragraph only tells us what was the conclusion of his first-published Relation of the conference with Mr. Fisher; wherein he falls again to his wont custom, of charging his Adversary 
Ibidem. numb? 5.  (indirectly at least) with what he does not own. A. C. doth not maintain the Pope to be infallible in all controversies of Faith, otherwise then in and with a General Council; witness his own words in the end of his answer. I wish (saith he) the Chaplain and his lord, and every other man carefully to consider, whether it be not more Christian etc. to think that the Pope, being St. Peter's Successor, WITH A GENERAL COUNCILL, should be judge of Controversies, and his Pastoral judgement (viz. in and with such a Council) be accounted infallible, then to make every man that can read Scripture, an interpreter of Scriptures and decider of Controversies, even to the controlling of General Councils, or to have no judge in controversies of Faith at all. This is the sum of all that A. C. teaches, touching the Pope's infallibility: and if the Bishop could really think this to be such a brayne-sicke device, as he talks of, I doubt it will be thought by some, that his own head was not always in good temper.  
9 A. C. to show, that in matters of Faith we ought to submit our judgements to such doctors and Pastors, as by a continual visible succession, have without interruption or change, 
Ibidem. num. 6. 7.  brought the Faith down from Christ and his Apostles to these our days, and shall, by virtue of Christ's promise, in the like continued succession, so carry it down to all future generations till the end of the world, makes use of that text of St. Paul, Ephes. 4. 11. 12. 13. etc. where 'tis said, that Christ ascending, gave some to be Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the Body of Christ, till we all come, in the unity of the Faith, and of the knowledge of the son of God, unto a perfect man etc. 'Tis true, some from this place gather the Pope's infallibility too, as well as the necessary succession of lawful Pastors; because it is intimated, there shall be no more wanting, in the sacred Hierarchy of the Church, the office of of an Apostle, than the office of a Pastor, or teacher, till the end of the world. Now to the office of an Apostle two things are necessary, viz. infallibility of judgement in teaching, and power of jurisdiction, or government, over the whole Church-Wherfore, seeing (as they suppose) 'tis manifest from this text, that an Apostleship must always be in the Church, and that no other Ecclesiastical Pastor can, with any probable pretence, lay claim to that office, but only the Bishop of Rome as he is St. Peter's successor, they conclude, that the successor of St. Peter must of necessity have those two 〈◊〉 of Apostleship vested in his person; that is, he must be infallible in his doctrine and have jurisdiction over the whole Church. So that it could not have been counted a mere begging the question in A.C. had he alleged this text expressly in proof of the Pope's infallibibility; which yet the Relatour himself cannot affirm that he did.  
And 'tis of itself, clear enough, that A. C. alleges it to prove the continual succession of Pastors and doctors in the Church, who have brought down the unchanged Faith of Christ, from the Apostles to our days: this being one part of the proposition he had laid down, and by consequence, was to prove; and none of his other marginal allegations, viz. Matth. 
A. C. pag. 73. 74.  16. 18. † 18. 18. Luc. 22. 32. looking that way, but only at the infallibility of General Councils, or of the Pope's Pastoral judgement in them; which was the second part. This succession of lawful Pastors A. C. avers it apparent in the Church of Rome, and cannot be shown in the Protestant Church. The Bishop not being able to deny but a continual succession of lawful Pastors is rightly concluded from this text, has this only to answer, that 'tis not necessary, that this succession should be personal in any one particular Church, Roman or other. Admit it were not necessary; what doth this help the Bishop, or his party? Protestants are far enough from showing any succession for themselves, either in a particular Church, or in the Church universal. And the scope of A. Cs. argument here, being only to exclude, or bar Protestant's (and with them all other Novellists and Sectaries beside) from being either in whole, or in part the true Church of Christ, it serves his turn well enough, that they can show no such personal continued succession at all: for thence 'tis convinced, they are no part of the true Church; which 'tis confess't, must have always such a personal succession of lawful Pastors, somewhere, or other in some Church, or other, handing down the unchanged Faith of Christ, in all ages, from the Apostles to the end of the world: and if our Adversaries do pretend to such a succession, let them show it.  
But than secondly I say, though it appears not precisely by this text alone, that the abovesaid succession should be personal in any one particular Church, yet seeing 'tis certain, our Saviour did chiefly radicate and fown'd this succession in him, that was to be the chief of these Pastors, (to wit, St. Peter) and in the line of those, that were perpetually to succeed him, of necessity it was to be more eminently visible and perpetual in 〈◊〉 and them, then in any other. We confess also, that if St. Peter had continued (as by his first institution he was) only universal Pastor of the whole Church, and had not been particular Bishop any one city, or Diocese, his successors would have succeeded him only in his universal charge. But seeing besides this, St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, and died Bishop of that Sea, and that his successors in the universal Pastourchip have likewise always hitherto succeeded him in that particular charge, viz. as Bishop of Rome, per accidens at least, and de facto (though not absolutely and by virtue of any divine institution) it comes to pass, that this succession of Pastors is now determined unto a particular Church, and is as visible, perpetual, vninterrupted in a particular Church, as it is in the Church universal; and so must necessarily continue, until St. Peter's successors shall cease to be Bishops of that particular Church. For till they do, the Pope wheresoever he chances to live or die, is still true Bishop of Rome, and by virtue of his being so, the succession of lawful Pastors founded upon him, is still vninterrupted in the Roman Church.  
In this then, and in no other sense, do we maintain the succession of lawful Pastors to be local or determined to a particular place, or Church. Nor is it by any, thought so absolutely necessary, as that if either the city of Rome should be quite destroyed or wholly possess't by Jnfidells, or by any other accident made uncapable of being any longer the Sea of St. Peter's successor, and thereupon the Apostolic Sea be removed from thence to some other city, that therefore the succession itself, whereby the Government of the supreme Bishop or Pastor of the Church, is perpetuated, should fail, or be broken off. Nevertheless it cannot be denied but the Fathers, (who in this point look upon the principal and adjunct as one thing, that is, upon the universal Pastourship as connexed, and as it were, fixed to the particular Diocese of Rome) do clearly make the local and particular succession of the Bishop of Rome, a sign and mark of the true Church. 
a Iren. lib. 3. cap. 3.  Witness St Jrenaeus, reckoning up the Roman Bishops from St. Peter to Pope Eleutherius, who sat in his time, and testifying, that by this succession, all Heretics are confounded. And if the same Father mentions the like succession in some other Churches of Asia (as the Relatour urges) yet it is 
Ibidem.  with manifest deference to the Church of Rome; to which, he there professeth, 
* Iren. ubi 〈◊〉.  that all Churches, or the Faithful from all parts of Christendom, must have recourse, by reason of its more powerful principality. 
b D Aug. in psalm. contr. part. Donat.  Witness likewise St. Austin, who in confutation of the Donatists' opinions and practices, makes a Catalogue of the Roman Bishops from St. Peter to Anastasius, who was St. Augustine's contemporary, averring, that same series or succession of Bishops, to be the Rock, against which the gates of Hell prevail not; and finally, by way of reproach, telling them, 
c D. Aug. Epist. 165.  that in the whole order of that succession, there was not one Donatist Bishop to be found. We might add, nor any Protestant. Other Fathers you may find to this purpose 
d Bellarm. lib. 4. de not. Eccl. cap. 8.  cited by Bellarmin. 'Tis true, Vincentius Lirinensis makes no special, or distinct mention of this note of continual succession; contenting himself only to name Antiquity, universality, consent. But is it not manifestly involved in the two first? at least it cannot but be thought so, as Vincentius explicates himself. Let us hold (saith he) that which hath been believed by all, every where and always. Is not this in effect to teach a continual succession of Pastors and doctors ever delivering the same Faith? without doubt, what is always delivered, must be delivered by continual succession.  
But we are told, the succession meant by the Father, is not tied to place, or persons only, but is tied as well to the verity of doctrine. Who teaches otherwise? who says 'tis tied to place and 
Ibidem. num. 8.  persons only? who denies, but succession of the same, and by consequence, of true doctrine, is required, together with succession of persons? This Memorandum therefore serves us only for an occasion to acknowledge, 
e Tertull. lib. de 〈◊〉. cap 32.  with Tertullian, that besides the order of Bishops (which is personal succession) there is required consanguinitas doctrinae (conformity of doctrine) in those persons, to the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles: 'tis required, I say, that the doctrine, which succeeding Pastors teach, be allied in blood, and of Kin to that, which Christ and his Apostles taught; as the Relatour also urges: in so much, as if the doctrine, which succeeding Pastors teach, be strange, that is, contrary to the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, the succession itself will be judged Alien and strange too, what neereness soever of persons is pretended. All this we willingly confess with Tertullian in the places cited by the Bishop. 
f Iren. lib. 4. cap. 43.  Irenaeus likewise teacheth, that we are to obey those Presbyters (or Bishops) who together with the succession of their Bishopriques, have received the grace (or gift) of truth; to which we subscribe: and for this reason maintain, that the Greek Church would want one necessary mark of the true Church, though she could show a continual visible succession of persons in her Hierarchy; because they have long since erred, and do still continue in error against the true Faith, by denying the procession of the holy Ghost, to be from the Father and the Son, as it hath been defined in General Councils.  
As for Protestants 'tis manifest, that upon this account they are excluded from being part of the true Church; seeing 'tis confess't by Protestants, that for near a thousand years before Luther, there was no visible Church that denied those points of doctrine, which Protestants now deny, and account damnable errors and superstitions in our Church. And I wonder, how any rational man can imagine, that in so long a tract of time wherein the pretended errors are said to be introduced, all those Watchmen, 
g upon thy Walls, leru. 〈◊〉, I have appointed Watchmen, all the day and all the night; for ever they shall not hold their peace. Isa. 62. 6.  appointed by God to be vigilant over the Church, and not to hold their peace, should be so dead asleep, as not to take the least notice of them for such; and Protestants alone, after a a thousand years, so much awake, as not only to observe them, but to break Communion upon account thereof.  
10 Well. But we must now help Doctor Stapleton out of the brieres, upon which (says the Bishop) he hath torn his credit. The 
Ibidem.  Relatour himself acknowledges this Author for a great Clerk; but will have 〈◊〉 believe, that to make good the succession to the Roman Church, he is forced to contradict himself. Why? because he first affirms, 
h 〈◊〉 Sana est ab ipsâ 〈◊〉 & legitimâ successione indivulsa Staplet. Relect Contron. 1. Q. 2. 〈◊〉. 2. notab. 1.  that sound doctrine is iudivisible (or inseparable) from true and 〈◊〉 succession; and presently after tells us 
i nam e Pastore Lupus sieri potest. Ibid notab. 4.  that a lawful Pastor may become a Wolf; to wit, by teaching Heresy and false doctrine: which if it may happen, the Bishop concludes sound doctrine and lawful succession are separated: which is contrary to what Stapleton said before. But our Doctor needs no such help, as the Bishop imagines; it is but fairly and rightly understanding him, and the business is done. Doctor Stapleton, when he teaches, that sound doctrine is inseparable from true and lawful succession, takes succession collectively, or for the whole succession of lawful Pastors in any particular age of the Church: meaning thereby, that it can never happen, that all the lawful Pastors of the Church, in any age, should desert sound doctrine, or teach Heresy: he takes it not distributively for any particular Pastor, or Pastors of the Church; all which generally speaking, he knows very well may err in their own persons, and desert sound doctrine. Like as when the Bishop himself teaches, that the Catholic Church cannot err in points Fundamental, he means only that the whole Church cannot so err, but any particular person, or member of the Church, may. Now what contradiction is there betwixt these two propositions, the whole succession of lawful Pastors cannot be separated from sound doctrine, and some particular Pastors (that is, part of the whole) may, and become of Pastors' wolves? truly just as much, as there is betwixt these; the whole Church of Christ cannot fall away from the truth; but every particular member of the Church may.  
This worthy Doctor therefore will never be forced (as the Relatour thinks, and would fain have it) to quit the great note of Church-succession, that he may agree with the Fathers: but he will invincibly and unanswerably maintain that, which both the Fathers and himself mean by this great note: to wit, a legitimate succession, a succession of Pastors, which hold entire, both the unity and Faith of the Church: this being the sum and upshot of all his doctrine touching this point; namely, that the true Catholic Church is known by this, that there is in her a perpetual succession of lawfully-sent Pastors, delivering and receiving the doctrine of Christ one from an other continually, or in all ages: which likewise they are always to be supposed to have done, and to do, so long as the Church, in no succeeding determinate age, notes any change of doctrine, or public introduction of novelty, to have been made by any of them; nor that any such change is found recorded by any of those approved Authors, who lived in the respective ages of the Church, and in their writings, left report to posterity, of all such public occurences, both concerning Religion and the Church, as happened in and about their times. Wherefore to accuse the Church of Rome of change in doctrine (as the Bishop here, and all Protestants do) without alleging such Authentic proof, what is it, but out their own arbitrary presumption and malice, to pass an uncharitable and rash censure upon their mother, contrary to all rules of equity, truth, justice, and Christian piety? Till therefore such proof of change be alleged from sufficient and creditable Records, all prudent and impartial men will judge the accusation signifies not much, save only, that the Church is unworthily and shamefully wronged by her Adversaries; which is no new thing.  
This then is the hair (if we may so speak) in which the 
Ibidem.  strength of that our English Samson (Doctor Stapleton) lies: which none of the Philisthims of Gath or Ekron (either Prelatical, or Presbyterian Adversaries) whatever they may talk, shall be able to cut off. The promise and power of Christ so defends it, that no Adversary powers shall ever prevail against it. Matth. 16. 18. I mean the continual vninterrupted succession of lawful Pastors, 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 objects out 
Ibidem.  of Onuphrius; (that is to say, the contestations, which have sometimes been, touching elections to the Papal dignity, whereby several persons at the same time have pretended to be Pope,) neither hinder, nor make void the legitimate and necessary succession of the Roman Church, as Doctor Stapleton maintains it. For first, even when differences did happen, there was for the most part a lawful Pope presently chosen upon 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 Schism (if any were) it lay only on their part, who wilfully opposed the lawful Pope after he was sufficiently declared. Secondly, when it so happened, that either a lawful Pope was not presently chosen, or that it was not certainly known, which of the pretending parties was the lawful Pope, yet neither in this case was the succession itself evacuated (as any man in reason may see) but only suspended for a while, or the evidence thereof, as to the person succeeding, pro tempore obstructed. For either by death, or by session and resignation of the pretendants themselves, or by deprivation of those, whose elections were notoriously illegitimate, or by some other lawful and Canonical means, first or last, the right of election to the Apostolic dignity, was always cleared of doubt, and legally settled upon one person; whom thereupon the whole Church presently acknowledged for true Pope.  
And as for the Interregnum, as we may call it, or the time, that such Contestations about the Popedom lasted, though it were an unhappy state of the Church to be so divided within itself, yet for the most part, there was no formal Schism on either part. For neither did the Anti-popes' themselves, properly speaking, separate from the Catholic, or Roman Church, so as to deny its Authority, but only contested, for a time, with the person of that was lawful Pope, and upon a presumption, at least pretended, that themselves were Pope, and not he. And though there had been formal Schism on their part, yet seeing there was none on his part that was true Pope, what man can be so unreasonable as to think that the fault of pretenders could prejudice the lawful succession of him that was rightly chosen? Now our Adversaries (we hope) know, that the line of succession is continued, not by the Anti-popes', but by the true Popes. To which we may add, 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 several provinces of Christendom, to acknowledge either the one, or the other pretendant for true Pope; so it was lawful for them to acknowledge him for such, whom they did bonâ fide and prudently judge to have been lawfully chosen. 
Ibidem.   
The superstitions he talks of, in the end of this Paragraph, are 〈◊〉 laid to our charge; and though they were even justly charged upon us, yet seeing by his own principles and profession, they are not inconsistent with true Faith necessary to salvation, 'tis evident, they cannot be urged by him, as an Argument to intringe and nullify the perpetual succession of Pastors in the Roman Church.  
12. To A. C. friendly and serious advice, that his Lordship 
Ibidem. num. 9  would consider carefully, whether it be not more Christian, and less brainsick, to think that St. Peter's successor together with a General Council, should be an infallible judge of controversies in matters of Faith, then to make every man, that can but read Scripture, an interpreter of it and a decider of Controversies, or to have no judge at all in such matters, the Bishop answers, that he hath considered all this carefully, and finds himself no way chargeable with the inconveniencies which A. C. specifies, of making every private man judge of Controversies and a Controller of General Councils; or else of admitting no judge at all to determine such Controversies. His reason is, because he admits Scripture interpreted by the Primitive Church, and a lawful and free General Council, determining, according to them, to judge of Controversies; and holds, that no private man whatsoever may be judge of these. But here the Bishop himself is in the briers. For tell me, I pray, how does this doctrine (no private man whatsoever may be judge of these) consist, with what he professedly avows * elsewhere, as we have often 
Chap. 20. 21.  seen, that private Christians may upon just grounds, both deliberately doubt, and constantly deny the definitions even of General Councils? and that if they err grossly and dangerously (as in his opinion they may, and have done) 'tis no pride to refuse submission to them? Is not this to make private men judges of these things; that is to say, whether or no General Councils do determine according to Scripture and the Primitive Church? A thing, which the world sees, all Protestants do take upon them to judge; and the Bishop himself as freely as any, notwithstanding his great, but feigned profession here, to the contrary; and utter disclaiming from that desiunctive imputation of either a private judge, or no judge. In the very next line he openly professes he cannot swallow this proposition, that the Pope with a General Council 
Ibidem.  should be judge. Yet the Primitive Church did, not only swallow this proposition, but also very well relish it; witness its willing and absolute submission to the sour first General Councils, confirm'd by the Pope, as judges of those grand and Fundamental Controversies, that were then agitated; and allowing no private man to examine and consider their definitions, whether they were consonant unto Scripture or not. He should have done well to have told us, what other judge but this (the Pope with a General Council) in Controversies of Faith the Church hath had? what other judge but this ever was, or indeed can be acknowledged for such matters? And thersore, if this judge be not admitted, and that absolutely by us, 'tis certain, either no judge at all will be found to end these Controversies, or in the final devolution of the business, every private man will be made judge.  
The Relatour (had he pleased) might have found a sufficient answer in Bellarmin, to the matter he brings out of AEneas Silvius, 
Ibidem.  otherwise called Pope Pius the second: namely, that he retracted, in his maturer age and upon better consideration, what he had formerly, as it were in his youth, out of heat of contention, and upon presumption of Scholastical learning, written upon the subject of the Pope's Authority in reference to General Councils. Neither can the mere want of learning (which the Bishop here objects to some Popes) be any sufficient prejudice 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 themselves, and many worthy Bishops in the Primitive Church, were persons of no great learning; and 'tis the counsel and wisdom of God, for the most part, to choose the weak things of this world, to confound the strong, and the foolish things of this world to confound the wise. Nor do we make the infallibility of the Church to depend upon the Pope alone, as the Relatour perpetually insinuates, but upon 
〈◊〉. Cor. 1. 27.  the Pope and a General Council together. So that if this be granted by our Adversaries, we shall acquiesce, and require no more of them, because this only is matter of Faith.  
13. But neither the Pope by himself alone, nor a General Council with him, do ever take upon them to make new articles of Faith, properly speaking, but only expound and declare to us what was before Yome way revealed, either in Scripture, or the unwritten word. Yet they declare and expound with such absolute authority, that we are obliged under pain of eternal damnation, neither to deny, nor question any doctrine of Faith by them proposed to be bclceved by us. This (under Christ) is the true Foundation of the Catholic Church and Religion. Whosoever goes about to lay any other, and to erect superstructures upon it, will find in the end, that he laid but a sandy Foundation. and raised a tottering edisice, which will one day fall upon his own head, and crush him to his utter ruin.  
Let this therefore remain as a settled conclusion, that the 
Ibidem.  Catholic Church is infallible in all her definitions of Faith; and that there is no other way but this to come to that happy meeting of truth and peace, which the Bishop will seem so much to have laboured for, in his life-time. I beseech God, to give all men light to see this truth, and grace to assent unto it; to the end, that by living in the militant Church with unity of Faith, we may all come at last to meet in glory in the triumphant Church of Heaven: which we may hope for by the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus-Christ; to whom with the Father and the Holy Ghost be all honour and glory 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 Successors; and when not. 
page 103  The Apostles were first proved 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 expressly allow Appeals to Rome. 
page 194, 195  Appeals to Rome, out of England, anciently practised. 
page 189  From all parts of Christendom, in St. Gregory's time. 
page 〈◊〉  Councils that restrain them, look only at the abuse of too frequent and unnecessary Appealing. 
page 194  What the Council of Carthage desired of the Pope, in the matter of Appeals. 
Ibid.  Inferior Clerks only, forbidden to Appeal to Rome. 
page 188    

Authority.  
No Authority merely 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 supreme 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 expressed in Scripture, nor demonstratively proved from it. 
page 51, 52, 53.  Acknowledged, for an Appstolical Tradition by St. Austin. 
p. 26, 53, 67  That lawful Baptism may not be reiterated, a Tradition Apostolical. 
page 67    

Bishops.  
Not merely the Pope's Vicars, or Substitutes. 
page. 219, 224  They govern in their own right, and are, jure divino, Pastors of the Church, no less than 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 Ecumenical, Bishop, anciently given to the Popes. 
page 196  But never assumed, or used, by them. 
Ibid.  Used by the Patriarches of Constantinople, but never lawfully given them. 
page 196  What the more ancient Patriarches of that Sea intended by their usurped title. 
Ibid.  The Sea of Constantinople, always subject 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.    

Catholic.  
THe several Acceptions of the word Catholic, 
page 130  Causally the particular Church of Rome is styled the Catholic; and why. 
Ibid.  No such great Paradox, that the Church in general should be styled Catholic, by its agreeing with Rome. 
Ibid.  In what sense 'tis both true and proper, to say the Roman-Catholick Church. 
page 132    

Certainty.  
No absolute Certainty of any thing revealed by God, if the Church's Testimony be not Infallible. 
page 29, 30  Moral Certainty, even at the highest, not absolutely Infallible. 
p. 123    

Church.  
The Church cannot err, and General Councils cannot err, Synonymous with Catholics. 
page 19, 20, 177  The Churches Definitions make not Divine Revelation more certain in itself, but more certainly known to us. 
page 21, 24  How the Church's Definition may be said to be the Church's Foundation. 
page 35  Nothing matter of Faith in the Church's 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, derived from Christ. 
p. 183  The Roman Churches Tradition esteemed of old the only Touchstone of Apostolical and Orthadox Doctrine. 
page 202  No peril of Damnation in adhering to the Roman Church. 
page 212  No Errors, or Abuses, in Religion, at any time, more imputable to the Roman, then to the whole Catholic Church of Christ. 
page 142  The African Church, always 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 styled the Root and Matrix of the Catholic. 
page 391, 392, 393, 394, 395    

Church of Jerusalem.  
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,  
Slipped from our Adversaries pen. 
page 51, 54, 70, 83, 90, 99, 112, 124, 146, 150, 223, 249, 308, 310    

Councils.  
General and Ecumenical Councils, of how great Authority. 
page 32  The most proper remedy, for errors and abuses, that concern the whole Church. 
page 165  National and Provincial Councils determine nothing in matter of Faith, without consulting the Apostolic Sea. 
page 164, 166, 167, 168  To confirm General Councils, no Novelty, but the Pope's ancient Right. 
page 215  The Church's Acceptation, only a secondary and accessary Confirmation of them. 
Ibid.  Not absolutely necessary, as the Pope's is. 
Ibid.  In what sense it is said, that all Pastors are gathered together in General Councils. 
page 213  The whole Church's consent, virtually included and effectually declared 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 kind 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 observed by such former General Councils as Protestants reject. 
page 240  The Church Universal, indispensably obliged to embrace the Doctrine of General Councils. 
page 250  The Decrees of General Councils, in matters of Faith, to be received, 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 Heretic, or Schismatic, 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 lawful General Councils. 
page 268, 339  The Supposition of a General Councils Erring in one point, renders it liable to Err in all. 
page 378    

Creed.  
St. Athanasius his Creed, no absolute Summary of the Catholic Faith. 
page 350, 351  No, not even supposing the Creed of the Apostles. 
Ibid.  What the Authors intent was in composing it. 
Ibid.  St. Athanasius first composed and published it in the Latin Tongue. 
page 351    

Donatists.  
A Narrative of their proceedings in the business of Cecilianus, their Archbishop and Primate of afric. 
page 185, 186  Donatists, why they addressed themselves to the Emperor Constantine. 
Ibid.  The Emperor openly professes, that the Donatists' cause belonged not to his Cognizance. 
Ibid.  What he did in it, was forced from him by importunity. 
page 185, 187  He promises to ask pardon of the Bishops, for meddling in the Donatists' business. 
page 186  The Donatists thrice condemned. 
page 185, 186    

Emperor.  
No secret compact between the Emperor, Sigismond, and the Council of Constance, in the cause of Huss. 
page 156  No just Sentence ever pronounced by an Emperor, against the Pope. 
p. 192  In what manner the Emperors, for some time, ratisyed the Pope's Election. 
Ibid.  That Custom 〈◊〉 long since by the Emperors themselves. 
p. 193.  The Emperor's favour some advantage to the Pope's Temporal Interest; no ground of his Spiritual Authority. 
page 200  The Surmise of having one Emperor over all Kings, as well as one Pope over all Bishops a mere Chimaera, or fiction. 
page 225  The Emperor as Supreme, over his Subjects, in all Civil Affairs, as the Pope is in matters Spiritual. 
page 226  The Popes never practised to bring the Emperors under them in Civil Affairs. 
Ibid.  No Catholic Emperors, ever took upon them to reform religion, without, or contrary to the Pastors of the Church. 
Ibid.    

Error.  
In matters of Faith, though not Fundamental, inconsistent with the acknowledged Holiness of the Church. 
page 150  Every Congregation unchurched, that holds Error in Faith; and the reason why. 
page 151    

Eucharist.  
That the holy Eucharist be received Fasting, is a Tradition Apostolical. 
page 67  Receiving it under one kind, no Error in Faith. 
page 207, 271  Nor contrary to Christ's 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 kind, a perfect Sacrament, 
page 271  Frequently received in Primitive times, under one kind. 
page 289  Given by Christ himself in one kind. 
page 318  Why necessary, that the Priest, who consecrates, should receive in both kinds. 
page 319    

Excommunication,  
Never pronounced, in the Catholic Church, but where Obstinacy and perverseness enforce it. 
page 48  Incurred 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, than 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 Implicit, what it imports in Catholic sense. 
page 20  Implicit Faith, necessary to be had of all Divine Revelations whatsoever: Explicite, only 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  Implicit Faith, not used by Catholics 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.  
Catholics show all due respect to the Fathers, yet without derogation from the Authority of the present Church. 
page 60, 61  The Fathers account none Catholics, but such as agree with the Roman Church. 
page 131  Proofs of the Church's 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  Catholics allow a distinction of Fundamental and Non-Fundamental points, in some sense. 
page 15, 20, 21, 23, 34, 44  All points defined by the Church, and sufficiently known to be so, are Fundamental, that is, not to be doubted of, or denied, under pain of damnation. 
page 15, 16, 27  Points not-Fundamental, deposited with the Church by Christ and his Apostles, no less than 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 Error 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 differed only 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 Pope's 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 always signify the place of the Damned. 
page 336    

Heresies.  
Even in points Not-Fundamental in Protestants sense, by St. Austin and the Church's account. 
page 17  Pelagian Heresy, not condemned in the Council of Ephesus. 
page 33  Nor in any other General Council, acknowledged by Protestants. 
Ibid.  Heresy, what it is. 
page 178  Properly speaking, not within, but without the Church. 
page 218    

Heretics.  
Those of former times, as great Pretenders to Scripture, as Protestants. 
page 50  Faith necessary to be kept with Heretics, the constant Tenet of all Catholics. 
page 152    

Jews.  
THe Jews proved the Old Testament to be God's Word, the same way that we (Catholics) 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 expressly forbade the Worship of Images with Latria, or Divine Worship. 
Ibid. etc.  The Definition of the Council of Trent, touching the Worshipping of Images. 
Ibid.  The Church hath done what in her lieth, 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 Bishop's Calumnies. 
page 342    

Infallible.  
The Catholic Church proved to be Infallible by the same Means, that Moses, Christ, and his Apostles were proved such. 
page 55, 56, 62  In what sense Catholics 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 Catholic Church, and General Councils, proceeds. 
page 43  The Infallibility of the present Church, proved from Scripture. 
page 101, 102, etc. page 177, 178, 179  In what manner, the Church's Infallibility in Teaching is rightly inferred from the Holy Ghosts Assistance. 
page 375, 376    

Intention.  
What kind of Intention in the Priest, is absolutely necessary to the validity of the Sacraments. 
page 281, 282, 283  No real Inconveniencies, following the Catholic Doctrine touching the Priest's 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 Prelates, 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    

Legates.  
NEither Hosius, nor any other person, presided at the Council of Nice, but only in quality of the Pope's Legates. 
page 231  Why the Pope sent no Legates to the second Council, at Constantinople. 
page 232  At the Council of Ephesus, St. Cyril presided, as Legate 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 ordained, and to what end. 
page 220  They evidently prove the Pope's Authority. 
Ibid.  The difference betwixt Those granted by the Pope, and Those granted by other Catholic Bishops. 
Ibid.    

liturgy.  
The English liturgy, why unlawful to be used by Catholics. 
page 319    

Manichees.  
GReat Bragger's, and pretenders to Truth, when they most opposed it. 
page 30    

Miracles.  
None ever wrought in confirmation of the present Canon of Scriptures, either Protestant or Catholic. 
page 109  Miracles rather confirm the Church's Infallibility, than 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 mixed, Monarchy. 
page 219, 224  Monarchy, acknowledged by Philosophers the most perfect form of Government. 
page 220  The impugning Monarchical Government of the Church, to what it tends. 
page 224    

Multitude.  
Catholics 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, esteemed 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 err against Scripture and Demonstration. 
page 241, 242    

Object of Faith.  
Material and Formal, a necessary Distinction. 
page 15, 18  What it imports. 
Ibid.    

Patriarches.  
IN point of Authority, not Equal to the Bishop of Rome. 
p. 183, 184  The Bishop of Rome, Head and Prince of all the Patriarches, by the very Canon of the Council of Nice. 
Ibid.  The Pope's Confirmation, required to all new-elected Patriarches. 
Ibid.  Eight several Patriarches, deposed by the Bishop of Rome. 
Ibid.  Other Patriarches, restored to their Seas, by the Pope's Authority. 
Ibid.    

St. Peter.  
In what manner St. Peter represented, or bore the person of the whole Church, when he received the Keys, Matth. 16. 19 
page 266, 267  Christ's whole flock, more absolutely and unlimitedly committed to St. Peter, then to the other Apostles. 
page 211    

Pope.  
The Pope's Authority, always included and supposed in that of the Church. 
pag. 33  The Infallibility of the Pope, not necessarily tied to the particular Church, or city of Rome. 
page 132  Catholics, not obliged to maintain the Pope Infallible, save only with a General Council. 
page 133, 143  In what manner the Popes, trewhile, endured the Emperor's censures. 
page 192  The Pope's Authority duly acknowledged, would effectually prevent Heresies, and preserve Unity in the Church. 
page 218  The Pope's 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 Pope's Authority. 
page 228, 229  The Pope's 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 Heresy. 
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 Catholics for their Religion; not so by Protestants. 
page 333, 334    

Primacy.  
PRIMATUS and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what they signify, especially in Ecclesiastical sense. 
page 200  Primacy infers Supremacy, and belongs to St. Peter's Successors, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then to himself. 
Ibid.    

Protestants.  
Neither Scripture, nor any other point of Christian Religion, believed 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 Choosers, in point of Faith, as much as any other Heretics. 
page 353  How far Protestants rely upon the Infallible Authority of the whole Church. 
Ibid.  Why unlawful for Catholics 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 used by the Ancients, and praying for the Dead used by the Roman Church at present. 
p. 360, 361  The Testimonies of the Fathers, in proof of Purgatory, made good. 
page 358, etc. ut supra  Purgatory, rightly esteemed an Apostolical Tradition. 
page 370    

Reformation.  
Always, 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  Sacrilege, the natural fruit of Protestant Reformation. 
page 170    

Regicide.  
No doctrine of Catholics. 
page 212, 348    

Resolution of Faith.  
How Catholics do necessarily resolve their Faith into the Church's Definition; and how not. 
page 58, 60, 63.  How such and such Books, contained in the Bible, are known to be the word of God. 
page 59, 122  No vicious Circle incurred by Catholics, in the Resolution of their Faith. 
page 55, 62, 117, 126  In urging the Circle, both parties must be supposed to believe Scripture with Divine and Infallible Faith. 
page 111  The Bishop, in his Resolution, cannot avoid the Circle. 
page 64, 111    

Revelation.  
The Church's Testimony, or Definition, no New, nor Immediate, Revelation from God. 
page 58, 65  Divine Revelation, the only Formal Object, or Motive, of Infallible Faith. 
page 59    

Safe-Conduct.  
GRanted two ways; jure communi, and jure speciali: and how they differ. 
page 153  The Safe-Conducts, granted to John Huss and Hierome of Prague, were merely jure communi, and secured them only 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 contained nothing against keeping Faith with Heretics. 
Ibid.    

Salvation,  
Attainable in the Roman Faith and Church, by our Adversaries own confession. 
page 300, 301, etc.  Catholic 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 Error in Faith. 
page 290, 291  The Fathers teach it ex instituto and Dogmatically. 
Ibid.  St. Austin, expressly for it. 
Ibid.  The Saints, Mediators of Intercession, not of Redemption. 
pag. 292  The faithful under the old Testament, desired to be heard for the merits of Saints, no less than we. 
Ibid.  The Intercession of Saints departed, not derogatory to the Merits, or Intercession, of Christ. 
page 293    

Schism.  
Protestants (not Catholics) made the present Schism, and how. 
p. 144, 145, 146, 212  Schisms 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 Schism. 
page 151    

Scripture.  
Not believed to be Divine, but for the Church's 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 mean of Infallibly-discerning true Scripture from false, unless the Church be Infallible. 
page 85  In what cases 'tis both lawful and necessary, for Christians, to riquire a proof, that Scripture is God's word. 
page 118  Scripture alone, in the Bishop's 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 God's word. 
page 121  What Light the Scripture must have, to show itself to be God's 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 Catholics should not see that pretended Light, if there were any such. 
page 90  The Council of Nice made not Scripture their only Rule of Faith, in condemning the Arian Heresy. 
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 Successor to our Lord in the Principality of his Church. 
page 205  Our Saviour's Prayer (Luc. 22. 32.) effectually extended both to St. Peter and his Successors. 
page 208  Lawful Pastors, 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 Pope's 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 Church's Authority. 
page 17  Traditions unwritten. 
page 26, 67  What Traditions are to be accounted truly Apostolical, and the unwritten word of God. 
page 66, etc.  Universal Tradition (morally speaking) less subject to alteration, or vitiating, tiating, than 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 error in Faith. 
page 287  Not inconsistent with the grounds of Christian Religion. 
Ibid.  The Thing itself, always believed by Christians. 
page 288  Evinced 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 than against all General Councils. 
Ibid.  The Pope's 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 reformed, 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 than a thousand years' use in the Church. 
Ibid.  The Sum of it. 
Ibid.  Some English Catholic 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, than 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 Pope's Interest was, at the Council of Trent. 
page 236, 237  The Bishops there, neither overawed, nor biased by the Pope's Interest. 
page 237    

Will, or Testament.  
CAtholicks in no sense maintain, that Christ died 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 Mitres still: page 16. line 4. for this supposition, read his supposition: p. 18. at these words Some modern Protestants, beginning the Paragraph, add the figure 5. and p. 19 at these, This I evidence, add the figure 6. p. 50. l. 23. ending the Paragraph, there wants the interrogative point: Ibid. l. 33. for strangeiss, 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. schismatic: 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 lawful 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 erroneous, 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. Quartodecimani: Ibid. l. 8. for Ausntinus, r. Aventinus: p. 280. l. 14. for Stripture, r. Scripture: Ibid. l. 33. for might, r. mouth: Ibid. l. 38. for stilll iveth, r. still liveth: Item. l. & voce ult. for thta, r. that. p. 285. l. 48. for schoolmen, r. Schoolmen: 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 intercede, 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. join 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, add 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 God's words, r. God's word: p. 309. l. 30. for Christ body, r. Christ's Body: Ibid. l. 42. for tediousness, r. tediousness: p. 313. l. 15. for boved, r. bowed: Ibid. l. 13. for then she, r. then she: 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 condemned, r. condemned: 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 foundation, r. Foundation: p. 340. l. 22. for infallible assurance, r. fallible assurance: p. 343. l. 1, 15. for writings, 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 Heretics, r. Heretic: 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 rest, r. rest: Item l. 45. for souls, r. the souls: p. 371. l. 32. for contempory, r. contemporary: p. 373. l. 25. for devered, r. delivered: 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 have, r. have: p. 412. 1. 19 for Schims', r. Schisms. In the Preface, p. 5. 1. 19 for shipped, r. slipped: Ibid. p. 6. 1. 7. for beside, read aside.