Labyrinthvs cantuariensis, or, Doctor Lawd's labyrinth beeing an answer to the late Archbishop of Canterburies relation of a conference between himselfe and Mr. Fisher, etc., wherein the true grounds of the Roman Catholique religion are asserted, the principall controversies betwixt Catholiques and Protestants thoroughly examined, and the Bishops Meandrick windings throughout his whole worke layd open to publique view / by T.C.

CHAP. 14. Protestants, further convinc'd of Schisme.

ARGUMENT.

1. A. C's. Parallel defended. 2. Protestants proceedings against their own eperatists justifie the Churches proceeding against them. 3. No danger in acknowledging the Church Infallible. 4. Points Funda∣mental, necessary to be determinately known, and why? 5. The four places of Scripture, for the Churches Infallibility, weigh'd the second time and maintain'd. 6. Why the Church cannot teach errour in matter of Faith. 7. How she becomes Infallible, by vertue of Christs prayer for St. Peter, Luc. 22. 31. 8. The Relatours various Trippings and Windings observ'd.

MR. Fisher askt his Lordship, QUO JUDICE doth it ap∣pear, that the Church of Rome hath err'd in matters of Faith? as not thinking it equity, that Protestants in their own cause should be Accusers, Witnesses, and Judges of the Roman Church. The Rela∣tour * 1.1 in answer to this confesseth, that no man in common equity ought to be suffer'd to be Accuser, Witness, and Judge in his own cause. But yet addes, there is as little reason, or equity, that any man who is to be accused, should be the accused, and yet Witness and Judge in his own cause. If the first may hold, (saith he) no man shall be innocent: and if the last, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 will be nocent. To this I answer. We have already prov'd the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Church (in the sense we understand Roman) Infallible; and there∣fore she ought not to be accus'd for teaching errours. Neither can she submit her self to any Third to be judg'd in this point, both, be∣cause there is no such competent Third to be found, as also because it were in effect to give away her own right, yea indeed to destroy her self, by suffering her Authority to be question'd in that, whereon all Certainty of Faith depends: for such is the Catholique Churches Infallibility.

1. Again, I make this demand. Suppose that Nicolas the Deacon, or some other Heretique of the Apostles times, separating themselves from the Apostles, and Christians that adhered to them, should have

accus'd them of false doctrine; and being for such presumption ex∣communicated by the Apostles, would it have been a just plea, think you, for the said condemned Heretiques, to have pretended, that the Apostles were the party accused, and that they could not be Witnesses and Judges too in their own cause; but that the trial of their doctrine ought to be resert'd to a Third person? I suppose no man will be so absurd. I say then, Whatever shall be answer'd in defence of the Apostles proceeding, will be found both proper and sufficient to de∣fend the Church against her Adversaries. For if the Apostles might judge those Heretiques in the Controversies abovesaid, then the per∣sons 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. In∣fallibility of Judgement, and Fullness of Authority) doubtless the lawful Pastours thereof duly assembled and united with their Head, may lawfully, nay of duty ought to judge the Accusers of their do∣ctrine, whoever they be; according to that acknowledged Prophesie concerning Christs Church, (Isa. 54. 17.) after our Adversaries own Translation, Every tongue that ariseth against thee in judgement (or that accuses thee of errour) thou shalt condemn.

Protestants indeed, having neither competent Authority, nor so much as pretending to Infallibility in their doctrine, cannot rationally be permitted to be Accusers and Witnesses against the Roman Church (much less Judges) in their own cause. Wherefore A.C. addes, that the Church of Rome is the Principal and Mother-Church; and that there∣fore, 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 Mo∣ther may accuse, witness, judge, and if need be, execute Justice against un∣just and rebellious Subjects, or evil Children. To this the Bishop re∣plies, that for the present he will suppose the Roman Church to be both a Prince and a Mother, that he may not seem to avoid the shock of A. C.'s Argument: but addes withall, that no moderate Prince ever * 1.2 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 wayes to errours, and mistakes in judgement, ought in equity to submit to some indifferent Judge, in all matters of personal and private interest, between him and his Subjects; though in mat∣ters of publick concern, as of Treason or the like, where the busi∣ness is evident, and admits not the delayes of legal Formality, I think it would not be accounted unjust, for the Prince to be Accuser, Witness, and Judge too, againct a Traiterous Subject. However, the Church may lawfully judge her Accusers, because she is Infallible in her decisions of Faith, and hath full Authority finally and absolute∣ly to determine all controversies of that nature.

As for Parents the Bishop grants, that while Children are young, they may chastise them without other Accusers or Witnesses then them∣selves, and the Children are, not withstanding such correction, to give

them reverence. But (saith he) when Childen are grown up, and come to some full use of reason, there ought to be remedy for them against their Mother, if she forget all good nature, and turn stepdame unto them: which I willingly grant, and leave such injur'd Children, for remedy, to the Magistrate and the Law; to both which the Children may law∣fully appeal, and the Mother ought to submit, as to her Superiours. But the Catholique Church, duly and compleatly represented in a General Council, hath no superiour on earth; neither is it lawfull for any private Christian or Christians, upon any pretence, to appeal from her to any Third Person, in causes of Faith: the case therefore is not alike. Secondly, I deny the Bishops supposition, viz. that the Roman Church (taken in the sense we take it) is or ever can be such a Stepdame to her Children, or so far forget her duty both to God and them, as justly to deserve the Accusations which Protestants (her undu∣tiful 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 * 1.3 (for their better content) I shall give them out of their own Bible, viz. that laying aside all malice, and all guile and hypocrisies, and envies, and evil speakings, as New-born Babes they desire the sincere Milk of the Word, (that is, the pure uncorrupted Christian Catholique Doctrine) that they may grow thereby to salvation.

2. But even abstracting from the Churches Infallibility in matters of Faith, her proceedings towards Protestants will be found, upon due examination, most just. For though a Prince, or Parents, may not in all cases be Accusers, witnesses and Judges of their Subjects or Children, because it may possibly be evident, that they tyrannize over them, or treat them injuriously, yet when matter of fact is so evident, that it cannot be deny'd by their respective Children, or Subjects, when laws and custom of the whole Nation do also evi∣dently declare the things criminal, for which they are punish'd, what need is there (absolutely speaking) of any further Witness, or Judge, to punish them? Now this is our case. The things, for which the Roman Church condemns and punishes Protestants, are clearly matter of Fact, viz. preaching and teaching such Doctrine as the Church forbids to be taught, actual disobedience to her Canons, separating themselves from the communion of other Catholique Christians, op∣posing and contradicting their lawful Pastours in matters concerning Religion, &c. all which are criminal actions, and clearly punishable, not onely by the Canons of the Church, but by the Laws and Con∣stitutions of every Catholique Countrey. No need (surely) of Ac∣cusers and Witnesses, where the Offence is notorious: Well there∣fore might the Pastours of the Church (who were their proper Judges) proceed to Canonical Sentence against them, seeing (as I said) it was notoriously evident, (and by themselves not deny'd) that they oppos'd and contradicted, not onely the publique doctrine and belief of all Christians generally throughout the world, but also

the Laws, (both Ecclesiastical and Temporal) Statutes, Decrees, Cu∣stoms, and Practises, universally in force in all Nations, where they began their pretended Reformations.

When the Separatists of England in Queen Elizabeth's or King James his time, pretended to reform the Protestant Church-Decrees and Customs in England, and call'd for a Judge between the Prelates and them, did the then-Church-Governours scruple to condemn and pu∣nish them, though they neither esteem'd themselves Infallible, nor to act by any Infallible Rule? for their Commission to do this was onely from the King and State; and their Rule, not the Scripture, (which the Separatists pretended to as much as themselves) but either the Book of Common Prayer, or the thirty nine Articles, or the Queens Injunctions, and Book of Canons. Do not their Canons excommunicate all that deliberately oppose any of their said thirty nine Articles? Did they not, for this reason, ordinarily summon Anabaptists, Brownists, Familists, and other Separatists, to appear at their Spiritual Courts, as they call them? did they not proceed to sentence of Excommunication, and other Censutes, as the case re∣quit'd, and the Laws of their Church enabled them to do? Nay, did they not upon this ground oftentimes Excommunicate us Roman Catholicks for refusing to frequent their Churches? did they not bring us into Sequestrations, Imprisonments, and a thousand other troubles? Would they hear us, when we appeal'd either to Scripture, Fathers, Church, Councils, or any other third person to be Judge between them and us? Behold a very just proceeding! When they fall foul either upon us, or their own Separatists, they are content to be Accusers, Witnesses and Judges; but when they are call'd to ju∣stifie their actings against the Roman Church, then (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 regula∣ted, 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 compe∣tent judge had so censured the Church, as he had done; and that indeed no power on Earth or in Hell it self, could so far prevail against the General Church, as to make it erre generally in any one point of Divine Truth; and much less to teach any thing by its full Authority to be mater of Faith, * 1.4 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 onely in particular Churches; citing to this purpose Matth. 16. 18. Luc. 22. 32. John 14. 16. In answer to which the Bishop onely tells us, how unwilling he is, in this troublesome and quarrelling age, to meddle with the erring of the Church in geveral: he addes, though the Church of England professeth, that the Roman Church hath err'd even in matters of Faith, yet of the erring of the Church in general she is modestly silent. It matters not what she sayes, or sayes not, in this; but our question is, what she must say, if she speak consequently either to her principles or practise. For this is certain, that many of those particular points of Faith, which are re∣jected

as errours by the English Protestant Church, were held and taught for points of Faith by all the visible Churches in Christen∣dom, when this pretended Reformation began. If therefore they be dangerous errours (as the Bishop with his English Church professes * 1.5 they are) by good consequence it must follow, that the English Pro∣testant Church holds, that the whole Catholique Church hath er∣red dangerously.

But how unwillingly soever his Lordship seems to meddle with the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Church in general, yet at last he meddles with it, and that very freely too: for in effect he professes she may erre in any point of Faith whatsoever, that is not simply necessary to all mens salvation. Hear his own words in answer to A. C.'s assertion that the General Church could not erre in point of Faith If (saith the Bishop) he means no more then this, viz. that the whole universal Church of Christ cannot universally erre in any point of Faith, simply necessary to all mens Salvati∣on, he fights against no Adversary, but his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 fiction. What is this but tacitely to grant, that the whole Church of Christ may universal∣ly erre in any point of Faith not simply necessary to all mens Salva∣tion? 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 * 1.6 erre in any point of Divine Truth in general, though by sundry consequen∣ces deduced from principles of Faith; especially if she presume to deter∣mine without her proper Guide, the Scripture, as he affirms Bellarmin to say, she may. I answer, When God himself (whose Wisdom is such that he cannot be deceiv'd, and Verasity such that he cannot deceive) speaks by his Organ the Holy Church, that is, by a General Council united with its Head, the Vicar of Christ, what danger is there of Errour?

As concerning Bellarmin, who is falsly accus'd, I wonder the Rela∣tour should not observe a main difference between defining matters, absolutely without Scripture, and defining without express Scripture; which is all that a 1.7 Bellarmin affirms. For though the points defined be not expresly in Scriptures, yet they may be there implicitly, and rightly deduc'd from Scripture. As for example, no man reads the Doctrine of Christs Divinity (as 'tis declar'd by the Council of Nice, and receiv'd for Catholique Faith even by Protestants themselves) expresly in Scri∣pture: it is not there said in express terms, that he is of the same sub∣stance with the Father, or that he is God of God, Light of Light, and True God of True God, &c. and yet who doubts, but the sense of this Do∣ctrine is contain'd in Scripture? and consequently that the Defining of this, and other points of like nature, by the Church, was not done (absolutely speaking) without Scripture. Besides, who knows not that the Scriptures do expresly commend Traditions? Where∣fore, if the Doctrine defin'd for matter of Faith, be according to

Tradition, though it be not express'd in Scripture, yet the Church does not define it without Scripture, but according to Scripture, fol∣lowing therein the Rule, which is given her in Scripture.

But 'tis further urged by the Bishop that A. C. grants the Church * 1.8 may be ignorant of some Divine Truths, which afterwards it may learn by study of Scripture, or otherwise: Therefore in that state of Ignorance she may both erre, and teach her errour; yea and teach that to be Divine Truth, which is not: nay, perhaps teach that as matter of Divine Truth, which is contrary to Divine Truth. He addes to this, that we have as large a promise for the Churches knowing all points of Divine Truth, as A. C. * 1.9 or any Jesuit, can produce for her not erring in any. Thus the Bishop. To which I answer, The Argument, were there any force in it, would conclude as well against the Infallibility of the Apostles, as of the present Catholique Church. For doubtless the Apostles themselves were ignorant of many Divine Truths; though the promise intima∣ted by the Bishop of being taught all truth, John 16. 13. was immedi∣ately 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 onely, when they are not necessary to be known, doth not in∣ferre errour, or possibility of erring in those Truths, when they are necessary to be known. The Apostles (Matth. 10. 19.) were charged not to be Sollicitous beforehand, what they should answer to Kings and Presidents, being brought before them, because it should be given them in that hour what to speak. In like manner (with due proportion) is it now given to their Successours what to answer, that is, what to define in matters of Faith, when ever emergent occasions require it. Secondly, I say, that an ignorant man is of himself subject to errour; but taught and informed by a master that is infallible, he may become infallible. So that his Lordships Argument, from bare ignorance concluding errour, or an absolute possibility of erring, is it self as er∣roneous, as this: A young Scholar, of himself alone is ignorant, and apt to mistake the signification of words; Ergo, he can do no other∣wise then mistake, while his Master stands by him, and teaches him.

4. But the Bishop at last bethinks himself, and puts in a Proviso: Provided alwayes (saith he) that this erring of the Church be not in any * 1.10 point simply Fundamentall: for of such points, even in his own judge∣ment, the whole Church cannot be ignorant, nor erre in them. To which proposition of his Lordship at present we shall return no other an∣swer but this; We desire to know, what those points are, which he calls simply fundamental, or simply necessary to all mens salvation. Bellarmin, from very good Authority, tells us, that some barbarous and * 1.11 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 Be∣lief of the Trinity, or Incarnation it self, as the Catholique Faith, and Oecumenical Councils declare it, is not simply necessary to all mens salvation. So that if the Church be exempt from errour onely

in such points, the promises of Christ will be brought to little more then nothing; and the Churches Infallible Authority be shrunk in∣to so narrow a compass, that most of the Hereticks she ever yet con∣demned, will be found to have been out of her reach, and may re∣quire her, if not to reverse, yet at least to review her sentence against them, (since his Lordship will have it Fallible) lest (perhaps) she might erre in pronouncing it.

Neither indeed can any rational man be ever satisfied by hearing one∣ly in general, that the Church cannot erre in matters simply necessary to all mens Salvation, if he be not withall determinately inform'd which are those points. For so long as he knows not what is, or is not, so universally necessary, how can he be assur'd whether the Church may not erre, or hath not err'd in Defining such and such a particular mat∣ter? Let it therefore be first established, either by a determinate Ca∣talogue of such simply necessary and Fundamental points, or by some certain and determinate Rule, whereby we may undoubtedly know them; otherwise we speak at random.

5. The strength of the places, formerly alledg'd by A. C for the Churches Infallibility in all points of Faith whatever, his Lordship here again endeavours to enervate; telling us first, that they are known * 1.12 places, and cited by A. C. three several times, and to three several purpo∣ses. What matters this? They lose nothing of their force for be∣ing thrice cited by A. C. and more then thrice by Stapleton, Bellarmin, and other Champions of the Catholique Faith, circumstances so re∣quiring it. And does it seem strange to his Lordship, that A. C. should apply them to several purposes? he should have remembred, how often Scripture it is stiled by the Fathers gladius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a two∣edged sword, which surely cuts-several wayes. Bellarmin, Stapleton, and A. C. following the receiv'd assertion of most Catholiques, viz. that the Pope is Infallible, even without a General Council, when he de∣fines any thing ex Cathedrâ, and with intention to oblige the whole Church, urge the places to that purpose; as with very great proba∣bility they may: yet because some Catholique Divines deny it, the matter it self being not yet clearly De Fide, I shall be content that the said places prove (at least) the Infallibility of the Church in ge∣neral, or of the Pope and a General Council: which in this questi∣on are to be accounted all one. For if the Pope and a General Coun∣cil may erre, the whole Church might erre; as being oblig'd to fol∣low the Doctrine, and Definitions of such a Council: and if the whole Church be fallible, what infallible certainty can we have of any Tradition? Wherefore seeing the Infallibility of the Church, Councils, and Tradition, depend so necessarily upon each other, whatever Authorities prove the Infallibility of any one, do in effect and by good consequence prove the same of all the rest.

6. But let us come to the places in particular. The first assures us, that Hell. gates shall never prevail against the Church. Here the Bishop speaks loud, and sends us a challenge. There is no one Father of the Church (sayes he) for twelve hundred years after Christ, that ever concluded the Infallibility of the Church out of this place. And here I challenge A. C. and all that party to shew the contrary if they can.

St. Austin, had he been more fully cited by the Bishop, would a∣lone have been able to answer this challenge. Let us hear him speak. Ipsa est Ecclesia sancta (sayes he) Ecclesia una, Ecclesia vera, Ecclesia Ca∣tholica, * 1.13 contra omnes haereses pugnans. Pugnare potest, expugnari tamen non potest.

She is the Holy Church, the onely Church, the true Church, the Gatholick Church, WHICH FIGHTS AGAINST ALL HERESIES, (therefore yields to none, complyes with none) Fight she may, but she cannot be overcome. All Heresies depart from her, as unprofitable branches cut off from the Vine: But she remains still in her root, in her Vine, in her Charity; the Gates of Hell shall not overcome her.

Thus Saint Austin. Can any man doubt but this holy Doctour in the precedent words, doth in effect teach the Church to be infallible, when he sayes she perpetually fights against all Heresies, or Errours in Faith, and that she can never be over. come by them? Doth he not clearly prove this truth, by the allegati∣on of this Text in the close of them? But I shall adde one or two Authorities more, to this purpose. First St. Cyrils; Secundum hanc promissionem Ecclesia Apostolica Petri, &c. According to this promise * 1.14 (saith he) the Church Apostolique of St. Peter abides alwayes immaculate, or free from all spots, of Heretical Circumvention and Errour. The Text hath been cited already. You may observe the like sense in * 1.15 St. Epiphanius. Ipse autem Dominus constituit eum Primum Apostolo∣rum, * 1.16 PETRAM FIRMAM, supra quam, &c. Our Lord (saith he, speaking of St. Peter) ordained him chief of the Apostles, A FIRM ROCK, upon which the Church is built, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her, which Gates of Hell are Heresies and Arch-here∣tiques.

6. For the better understanding of which Texts 'tis necessary to know, that every errour contrary to Divine Faith is Heresie, as St. Austin, and all Divines, generally teach: Wherefore if the Church should teach any thing contrary to what God has reveal'd, she should teach Heresie; and contradict these Fathers, who all clear the Church from that aspersion, by vertue of this promise of Christ, Matth. 16. 18. The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her, and with∣all, tacitly at least, acknowledge, that if she did teach Heresie at any time, the Gates of Hell, in that case, would be found to have pre∣vail'd against her. Seeing therefore, every errour in Faith, or against Divine Revelation, is Heresie, and since the Church, in the judge∣ment of these Fathers, grounded upon this promise, cannot teach Heresie, it follows evidently that in the judgement of the same Fa∣thers, she cannot erre in any point of Faith whatever, by vertue of the same promise.

How the Infallibility of the Church is gather'd out of the second place hath been shew'd already, and is here confirm'd even by his * 1.17 Lordships own discourse out of St. Leo epist. 91. which is, that Christ in that place, promis'd to be present with his Ministers in all those things, which he committed to their execution. But surely one, and a chief one of those ALL, was to teach Infallibly, the whole doctrine of Christs Gospel. Wherefore Christ is still present with his Ministers inabling them to perform this so important a work, when 'tis ne∣cessary

to be executed; that is, when the necessities of the Church require some point in controversie among Christians to be deter∣mined.

Nor will that conclusion hence follow, which his Lordship fears viz. that all the Sermons of every Pastour of the Church would be Infal∣lible: * 1.18 for 'tis no wayes necessary that every particular Pastour should be Infallible; but 'tis absolutely necessary, that the Church in gene∣ral, or a General Council should be Infallible, because otherwise, there would no means be left in the Church, sufficient to determine Controversies of Faith, or prevent the spreading of Schismes and Heresies.

To the end my Reader may the better conceive this, he is to under∣stand there are divers degrees of Christs presence and assistance in re∣ference to the Ministers of his Church. All of them cannot chal∣lenge all priviledges, but must be content with those, that properly belong to their respective state and condition in the sacred Hierarchy. And yet, as all the said degrees are grounded upon this and the like promises of our Saviour; so 'tis necessary, they be all verify'd, accord∣ing to the respective necessities of the Church. The Supream De∣gree we affirm to be that of Infallible Assistance; and therefore assign it onely to those who have Supream Authority in the Church, and in cases onely of most urgent necessity, for preventing of Heresies and Schismes. In all other cases, and in reference to all other Mini∣sters of the Church, we profess that so long as the Teaching and Go∣verning part of them is continually so assisted by Christ, that it ge∣nerally leads not his Flock into errour in Faith, nor neglects to teach them the observation of all things Christ commanded, the promise is suf∣ficiently perform'd on Christs part, and St. Leo's words, In omnibus * 1.19 quae Ministris suis commisit exequenda, rightly enough explicated, though every private Pastour become not a Prophet, and every Pulpit an Oracle, as the Relatour vainly surmizes.

The third place urged by A. C. is out of St. Luke 22. 32. where Christs prayer for St. Peter is as efficacious as his promise; both of them implying an Infallibility in the Church, against all errours in Faith whatsoever. The words are these: Simon, Simon, Behold Sa∣tan 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 Bre∣thren. '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. Peters person, and mediately for the whole Church, which he represented. Aud thus at least, that our Saviour, in that Taxt, prayed for the whole Church, Bellarmin ex∣presly grants in the very beginning of the Chapter cited by the * 1.20 Bishop. It seems strange there∣fore, that his Authority should be brought for denial of our Saviours praying here for the Church. The prayer then of Christ extended it self to St. Peter and his Successors; and by them to the whole Church, according to those words of St.

Bernard, Dignum namque arbitror ibi potissimum resarciri damna Fidei, * 1.21 ubi non possit Fides sentire defectum. Cui enim alteri Sedi dictum est ali∣quando, Ego rogavi pro Te, ut non deficiat fides tua, &c.

I think it fitting (saith he) that the damages in Faith should be there chiefly repaired, where Faith can suffer no defect. For to what other Chair was it ever said, I have prayed for thee, that thy Faith fail not?

Take therefore which of these Expositions you please, if an Infalli∣ble Assistance of Christ be once granted, whereby his Church is suf∣ficiently preserv'd from all errour in Faith, whether that Assistance be immediately intended in this prayer to St. Peter and his Successors, as Supream Teachers of the Church, or to the Church immediately as represented in St. Peter, yet still the Church will be Infallible, by ver∣tue of this prayer of our Saviour.

8. The fourth place named by A. C. is that of St. John, chap. 14. 16. to which he addes a consequent place, John 16. 13. both of them containing another promise of Christ to his Apostles, and in them to his Church, viz. that the Comforter (the Holy Ghost) shall come and abide with them for ever, teaching them all things, &c. and guiding them into all Truth. We have already sufficiently explicated these places in proof of the Churches Infallibility: So that our chief labour at present shall be to observe the Bishops various Trip∣pings and Windings in his review of them. First he sayes, these promises, if you apply them to the Church consisting of all Believers, and including the Apostles, are absolute and without any restriction: which certainly is but a loose assertion, taking it in the Bishops sense, which is, that the Apostles were free not onely from all errour, but from all * 1.22 ignorance in Divine Things; for so his Authour (a) Dr. Field speaks whom he cites in the Margin. Were the Apostles not ignorant of any Divine matters? why then doth St. Paul tell us, 1 Cor. 13. 9. We know in part? Did the Apostles understand the whole counsel of God concerning mankinde; why then doth the same Apostle cry out, Rom. 11. 33, 35. O the depth of the—Wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgements, &c. and who hath known the minde of our Lord! Secondly, if these promises of Christ be so ab∣solute and without any restriction in regard of the Apostles, to what purpose is that Text of b 1.23 Theodoret cited in his Margin, which sayes expresly they ought to be limited in regard of them, and that they did not signifie the Apostles should be led simply into all Truth, but into all Truth necessary, or expedient, to Salvation. Thirdly, the Bishop having limited the promises of being taught and led into all Truth, as they relate to the present Church, onely to Truths necessary to Salvation, he is not yet satisfied, but addes another limitation to that, viz. Direction of Scripture. Against this Truth (saith he, meaning Truth necessary to Salvation) the whole * 1.24 Catholique Church cannot erre, keeping her self to the Direction of Scri∣pture, as Christ hath appointed her. But I ask what Priviledge then has the Catholique Church in these promises of Christ, more then every private Christian? Surely with this condition of following the di∣rection

of Scripture, there is none of the faithful, but may pretend to be as Infallible as the Church. Fourthly, they must be limited (sayes he) to all such Truths, as our Saviour had told them. But the Apostles were taught divers things, of principal concernment in or∣der to Salvation, by the Holy Ghost, even after our Saviours Ascen∣sion: had they no promise of Divine Assistance, in the delivery of those Truths?

Thus the promises of Christ come to nothing. But if one should ask some of this Bishops Disciples, how their Master proves, that the promises of Christ are to be limited to Truths necessary to Salvation, they must answer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (Ipse dixit) just as Pythagoras his Pupils did of old, when they were urg'd to give a Reason of their Masters Philosophy. For where (I pray) hath Christ so limited his promi∣ses? where do the Apostles teach us to understand them with such limitation? Neither do we extend them to Truths wholly unnecessary, or to curious Truths, as the Bishop seems willing to insinuate: No, We tell him, there is a medium, a middle sort of Truths between those which are absolutely necessary for all mens Salvation, and those which are simply unnecessary, or curious. We extend these promises to all Truths of this middle sort, that is, to all such Truths, as the Church findes consonant to Catholique Faith and Piety, and neces∣sary to be defin'd for the preventing of Heresies, Schismes, and Dis∣sentions among Christians. But I pray observe our Adversaries un∣parallel'd Subtlety in the close of all. Christ (saith he) hath pro∣mis'd, that the Spirit should lead his Church into all Truth, but he hath no where promis'd, that the Church should follow her leader. What a rare Acumen is here! Then belike, to lead and to follow are not Re∣latives in Protestant Logick. But let them take heed; 'tis to be fear'd they will be found Relatives: and that if the Devil chance to lead any of them to Hell for their Heresie and other sins, nothing will help, but they must infallibly follow him. And I wish that all his Lord∣ships party would duly consider this, as often as they interpret Scri∣pture after this manner.

Notes

• * 1.1

  §. 25. num. 1.
• * 1.2

  Ibidem n. 2.
• * 1.3

  1 Pet. 2. 1, 2.
• * 1.4

  Ibidem. n. 4.
• * 1.5

  Suprà num. 3.
• * 1.6

  Ibidem.
• a 1.7

  Nostra sententia est Ecclesiam abso∣solutè non posse errare, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in rebus absolutè 〈◊〉〈◊〉 , uec in aliis, quae credenda vel fa∣cienda nobis proponit, sive habeantur expressè in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 , five non. Bellar. l. 3. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Eccl. Mil. c. 14. §. 5.
• * 1.8

  Ibidem.
• * 1.9

  Joan. 16. 13.
• * 1.10

  Ibid. num. 4.
• * 1.11

  Bellar. lib. 3. de Eccl. Milit. cap. 14.
• * 1.12

  §. 25. n. 5.
• * 1.13

  S. Aug. lib. de Symbol. ad 〈◊〉〈◊〉 . cap. 6.
• * 1.14

  apud. D. Thom. in Catenâ hu∣jus loci.
• * 1.15

  Cap. 10. in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 .
• * 1.16

  In Anchorat. Tom. 2. pag. 14.
• * 1.17

  Matth. 28. 20. Ibidem.
• * 1.18

  Ibidem.
• * 1.19

  S. Lco. Epist. 91.
• * 1.20

  Quae expositio si ita intelligeretur, ut diceret immediatè oratum esse pro Capite Ecclesiae, & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pro toto corpore, quod per caput representatur, vera esset. Bellarm. l. 4. de Rom. Pont, cap. 3. iuitio.
• * 1.21

  D. Bern. Epist. 190. ad Inno∣cent.
• * 1.22

  Dr. Field lib. 4. de Ecclesiâ, cap. 2.
• b 1.23

  Neque Divini Prophetae, neque Miralliles Apostoli Omnia praescivêrunt. Quaecunque enim expediebant, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 illis significavit gratia Spiritus. Theod. in 1 Tim. c. 3. v. 14, 15.
• * 1.24

  Ibidem. n. 5.