are absolutely and indispensably necessary to all persons to whom God's Word is revealed Thus much may suffice concerning what is necessary to be believed by particular persons considered as such But this controversie never need break Christian Societies in that sense but the great difficulty lyes in the other part of it which is most commonly strangely confounded with the former viz. What things are necessary to be owned in order to Church-Societies or Ecclesiastical Communion For which we must consider that the combination of Christian Societies oâ— that which we call the Catholick Church doth subsist upon the belief of what is necessary to Salvation For the very notion of a Christian Church doth imply the belief of all those things which are necessary in order to the end of Christian Religion which is mens eternal Happiness From whence three things must be taken notice of 1. That the very being of a Church doth suppose the necessity of what is required to be believed in order to Salvation For else there could not be such a thing as a Church imagined which is only a combination of men together upon the belief of such a Doctrine as necessary to Salvation and for the performance of those acts of Worship which are suitable thereto Therefore to assert the Church to have power to make things necessary to Salvation is not only absurd but destructive to the Being of that Church For when it offer'd to define any thing to be necessary which was not so before was it a Church or no If it was a Church it believed all things necessary if it believed all things necessary before it Defined how comes it to make more things necessary by its Definition But of this more afterwards 2. Whatever Church owns those things which are antecedently necessary to the Being of a Church cannot so long cease to be a true Church Because it retains that which is the Foundation of the Being of the Catholick Church Here we must distinguish those things in the Catholick Church which give its Being from those things which are the proper Acts of it as the Catholick Church As to this latter the solemn Worship of God in the way prescribed by him is necessary in order to which there must be supposed lawful Officers set in the Church and Sacraments duly administred but these I say are rather the Exercise of the Communion of the Catholick Church than that which gives its Being which is the belief of that Religion whereon its Subsistence and Vnity depends and as long as a Church retains this it keeps its Being though the Integrity and Perfection of it depends upon the due exercise of all acts of Communion in it 3. The Vnion of the Catholick Church depends upon the agreement of it in making the Foundations of its Being to be the grounds of its Communion For the Vnity being intended to preserve the Being there can be no reason given why the bonds of Vnion should extend beyond the Foundation of its Being which is the owning the things necessary to the Salvation of all From whence it necessarily follows that whatsoever Church imposeth the belief of other things as necessary to Salvation which were not so antecedently necessary to the Being of the Catholick Church doth as much as in it lyes break the Vnity of it and those Churches who desire to preserve its Vnity are bound thereby not to have communion with it so long as it doth so Of what great consequence these principles are to the true understanding the Distance between our Church and yours if you see not now you may feel afterwards These things being premised I come to that which is the main subject of the present Dispute which is What those things are which ought to be owned by all Christian-Societies as necessary to Salvation on which the Being of the Catholick Church depends If we can find any sure footing for the Definition of these we shall thereby find what the necessary conditions of Ecclesiastical Communion are and consequently where the proper cause of Schism lyes in transgressing those bounds and what Foundations may be laid for the Peace of the Christian world Which being of so vast importance would require a larger discussion than this place will admit of but so far as is pertinent to our present subject I shall enquire into it and give an account of my thoughts in these Propositions 1. Nothing ought to be owned as necessary to Salvation by Christian-Societies but such things which by the judgement of all those Societies are antecedently necessary to the Being of the Catholick Church For no reason can be assigned as I said before why the Bonds of Union should be extended beyond that which is the Churches Foundation neither can there any reason be given why any thing else should be judged necessary to the Churches Communion but what all those Churches who do not manifestly dissent from the Catholick Church of the first Ages are agreed in as necessary to be believed by all this will be further explained afterwards Only I add here when I speak of the necessary conditions of Ecclesiastical Communion I speak of such things which must be owned as Necessary Articles of Faith and not of any other Agreements for the Churches Peace I deny not therefore but that in case of great Divisions in the Christian world and any National Churches reforming it self that Church may declare its sense of those abuses in Articles of Religion and require of men a Subscription to them but then we are to consider that there is a great deal of difference between the owning some Propositions in order to Peace and the believing of them as necessary Articles of Faith And this is clearly the state of the difference between the Church of Rome and the Church of England The Church of Rome imposeth new Articles of Faith to be believed as necessary to Salvation as appears by the formerly cited Bull of Pius 4. Which Articles contain in them the Justification of those things which are most excepted against by other Churches and by her imposing these as the conditions of her Communion she makes it necessary for other Churches who would preserve the Vnity of the Catholick Church upon her true Foundations to forbear her Communion But the Church of England makes no Articles of Faith but such as have the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Christian world of all ages and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self and in other things she requires Subscription to them not as Articles of Faith but as Inferiour Truths which she expects a submission to in order to her Peace and Tranquillity So the late learned L. Primate of Ireland often expresseth the sense of the Church of England as to her thirty nine Articles Neither doth the Church of England saith he define any of these Questions as necessary to be believed either necessitate medii or necessitate praecepti which is much less but only bindeth
breaches so farr from closing that supposing the same grounds to continue a reconciliation seems to humane reason impossible An evidence of which is that those persons who either out of a generous desire of seeing the wounds of the Christian world healed or out of some private interest or design have made it their business to propound terms of reconciliation between the divided parties have been equally rejected by those parties they have professed themselves the members of For whether any of the Roman Communion have ingenuously confessed the great corruptions crept into that Church and desired a reformation of them or any of the Protestant Communion have endeavoured to excuse palliate or plead for the corruptions of the Roman Church we find how little incouragement they have had for such undertakings from that Church whose Communion they have professed to retain The distance then being so great as it is it is a very necessary enquiry what the cause of it is and where the main fault lies and it being acknowledged that there is a possibility that corruptions may get into a Christian Church and it being impossible to prove that Christianity obligeth men to communicate with a Church in all those corruptions its Communion may be tainted with it seems evident to reason that the cause of the breach must lye there where the corruptions are owned and imposed as conditions of Communion For can any one imagine it should be a fault in any to keep off from Communion where they are so far from being obliged to it that they have an obligation to the contrary from the prinples of their common Christianity and where men are bound not to communicate it is impossible to prove their not communicating to be Schism For there can be no Schism but where there is an obligation to communion Schism being nothing else but a willful violation of the bonds of Christian Communion and therefore when ever you would prove the Protestants guilty of Schism you must do it by proving they were bound to communicate with your Church in those things which they are Protestants for disowning of Or that there is so absolute and unlimited an obligation to continue in the Society of your Church that no conditions can be so hard but we are bound rather to submit to them than not joyn in Communion with you But we who look on the nature of a Christian Society in general the Foundations of its constitution the ends and designs of it cannot think our selves obliged to Communion in those things which undermine those Foundations and contradict those ends This being a matter of so vast consequence in order to the settling mens minds in the present disputes of the Christian world before I come to particulars I shall lay down those general principles which may manifest how free Protestants are from all imputation of Schism Schism then importing a violation of that Communion which we are obliged to the most natural way for understanding what Schism is is to enquire what the Foundations are of Christian Communion and how far the bonds of it do extend Now the Foundations of Christian Communion in general depend upon the acknowledgement of the truth of Christian Religion For that Religion which Christ came to deliver to the world being supposed true is the reason why any look on themselves as obliged to profess it which obligation extending to all persons who have the same grounds to believe the truth of it thence ariseth the ground of Society in this profession which is a common obligation on several persons joyning together in some acts of common concernment to them The truth then of Christian Religion being acknowledged by several persons they find in this Religion some actions which are to be performed by several persons in Society with each other From whence ariseth that more immediate obligation to Christian Society in all those who profess themselves Christians and the whole number of these who own the truth of Christian Religion and are thereby obliged to joyn in Society with each other is that which we call the Catholick Church But although there be such a relation to each other in all Christians as to make them one common Society yet for the performance of particular acts of communion there must be lesser Societies wherein persons may joyn together in the actions belonging to them But still the obligation to communion in these lesser is the same with that which constitutes the great body of Christians which is the owning Christianity as the only true Religion and way to eternal Happiness And therefore those lesser Societies cannot in justice make the necessary conditions of communion narrower than those which belong to the Catholick Church i. e. those things which declare men Christians ought to capacitate them for communion with Christians But here we are to consider that as to be a Christian supposeth mens owning the Christian Religion to be true so the conveyance of that Religion being to us now in those Books we call the Scriptures there must be an acknowledgement of them as the indispensable rule of Faith and manners which is That these Books are the great Charter of the Christian Society according to which it must be governed These things being premised as the foundation in general of Christian Society we shall the better understand how far the obligation to communion in it doth extend For which it must be considered that the grounds of continuance in Communion must be suitable and proportionable to the first reason of entering into it No man being obliged by vertue of his being in a Society to agree in any thing which tends to the apparent ruine of that Society but he is obliged to the contrary from the general grounds of his first admission into it His primary obligation being to preserve the honour and interest of it and to joyn in acts of it so far as they tend to it Now the main end of the Christian Society being the promotion of Gods honour and the salvation of mens souls the primary obligation of men entering into it is the advancement of these ends to joyn in all acts of it so far as they tend to these ends but if any thing come to be required directly repugnant to these ends those men of whom such things are required are bound not to communicate in those lesser Societies where such things are imposed but to preserve their communion with the Catholick Society of Christians But these general discourses seeming more obscure it will be necessary for the better subserviency of them to our design to deduce them into particulars Setting then aside the Catholick Society of Christians we come to enquire how far men are bound to communicate with any lesser Society how extensive so ever it may pretend its communion to be 1. There is no Society of Christians of any one Communion but may impose some things to be believed or practised which may be repugnant to the
Reformation vindicated The particular case of the Church of England discussed The proceedings in our Reformation defended The Church of England a true Church The National Synod 1562. a lawful Synod The Bishops no intruders in Queen Elizabeths time The justice and moderation of the Church of England in her Reformation The Popes Power here a forcible fraudulent usurpation HAving thus far examined your Doctrine of keeping Faith with Hereticks we now return to the main business concerning Schism And his Lordship saying That there is difference between departure out of the Church and causeless thrusting from you and therefore denying that it is in your power to thrust us out of the Church You answer by a Concession That we were thrust out from the Church of Rome but that it was not without cause Which that you might not seem to say gratis you pretend to assign the causes of our expulsion So that by your own confession the present division or separation lyes at the Church of Rome's door if it be not made evident that there were most just and sufficient reasons for her casting the Protestants out of her communion If therefore the Church of Rome did thrust the Protestants from her communion for doing nothing but what became them as members of the Catholick Church then that must be the Schismatical party and not the Protestants For supposing any Church though pretending to be never so Catholick doth restrain her communion within such narrow and unjust bounds that she declares such excommunicate who do not approve all such errours in doctrine and corruptions in practice which the Communion of such a Church may be liable to the cause of that division which follows falls upon that Church which exacts those conditions from the members of her Communion That i◠when the errours and corruptions are such as are dangerous to salvation For in this case that Church hath first divided her self from the Catholick Church for the Communion of that lying open and free to all upon the necessary conditions of Christian Communion whatever Church takes upon her to limit and inclose the bounds of the Catholick becomes thereby divided from the Communion of the Catholick Church and all such who disown such an unjust inclosure do not so much divide from the Communion of that Church so inclosing as return to the Communion of the Primitive and Vniversal Church The Catholick Church therefore lyes open and free like a Common-Field to all Inhabitants now if any particular number of these Inhabitants should agree together to enclose part of it without consent of the rest and not to admit any others to their right of Common without consenting to it which of these two parties those who deny to yield their consent or such who deny their rights if they will not are guilty of the violation of the publick and common rights of the place Now this is plainly the case between the Church of Rome and Ours the Communion of the Catholick Church lyes open to all such who own the Fundamentals of Christian Faith and are willing to joyn in the profession of them Now to these your Church adds many particular Doctrines which have no foundation in Scripture or the consent of the Primitive Church these and many superstitious practises are enjoyned by her as conditions of her Communion so that all those are debarred any right of Communion with her who will not approve of them by which it appears your Church is guilty of the first violation of the Vnion of the Catholick and whatever number of men are deprived of your Communion for not consenting to your usurpations do not divide themselves from you any further than you have first separated your selves from the Catholick Church And when your Church by this act is already separated from the Communion of the Catholick Church the disowning of those things wherein your Church is become Schismatical cannot certainly be any culpable separation For whatever is so must be from a Church so far as it is Catholick but in our case it is from a Church so far only as it is not Catholick i. e. so far as it hath divided her self from the Belief and Communion of the Vniversal Church But herein a great mistake is committed by you when you measure the Communion of the Catholick Church by the judgement of all or most of the particular Churches of such an Age which supposes that the Church of some one particular Age must of necessity be preserved from all errours and corruptions which there is no reason or necessity at all to assert and that is all the ground you have for saying That the separation of Protestants was not only from the Church of Rome but as Calvin confesseth à toto mundo from the whole Christian world and such a separation necessarily involves separation from the true Catholick Church Now to this we answer two things 1. That we have not separated from the whole Christian World in any thing wherein the whole Christian World is agreed but to disagree from the particular Churches of the Christian World in such things wherein those Churches differ among themselves is not to separate from the Christian World but to disagree in some things from such particular Churches As I hope you will not say That man is divided from all mankind who doth in some feature or other differ from any one particular man but although he doth so he doth not differ from any in those things which are common to all for that were to differ from all but when he only differs from one in the colour of his eyes from another in his complexion another in the air of his countenance and so in other things this man though he should differ from every particular man in the world in something or other yet is a man still as well as any because he agrees with them in that in which they all agree which is Humane nature and differs only in those things wherein they differ from each other And therefore from the disagreement of the Protestants from any one particular Church it by no means follows that they separated from the whole Christian World and therefore from the true Catholick Church 2. The Communion of the Catholick Church is not to be measured by the particular opinions and practices of all or any particular Churches but by such things which are the proper Foundations of the Catholick Church For there can be no separation from the true Catholick Church but in such things wherein it is Catholick now it is not Catholick in any thing but what properly relates to its Being and Constitution For whatever else there is however universal it may be is extrinsecal to the nature and notion of the Catholick Church and therefore supposing a separation from the Church in what is so extrinsecal and accidental it is no proper separation from the Catholick Church As for Instance supposing all men were agreed that some particular
collected the opinions of Nestorius out of his own Writings should never make any mention at all of this no not when they produce his opinion concerning the Spirit of God Why was it not then condemned and Anathematized as one of his Heresies why did not the Oriental Bishops when they subscribed to the deposition of Nestorius and the election of Maximianus at Constantinople and sent a Confession of their Faith to Cyril at Alexandria by Paulus Emesenus mention this among the rest of their agreement with the Orthodox Bishops Yet in that extant both in Cyril's works and in the third part of the Council at Ephesus there is not the least intimation of it And therefore the learned Jesuit Sirmondus in the life of Theodoret prefixed by him to the first Tome of his works which he set forth vindicates Theodoret from all suspition of Nestorianism and imputes all the troubles which he fell into on that account to the violence of Dioscorus the successor of Cyril at Alexandria who being a great Patron of the Eutychians thought to revenge himself on Theodoret by blasting his reputation as a Nestorian There is not then any shew of probability that this opinion in Theodoret was condemned as a piece of Nestorianism which certainly the whole Greek Church could not have been ignorant of from that time to this But though that piece of Theodoret against Anathema's were condemned in succeeding Councils yet that might be for the defence of other things which they judged bordered too near on Nestorianism or because they would not have any monument remain of that discord between the Oriental Bishops and the Ephesine Council which Theodosius doth so much and so heartily lament in his excellent Epistle to Johannes Antiochenus about a reconciliation between him and Cyril after the banishment of Nestorius and the choice of Maximianus Thus we see one who in a divided and busie time ventured upon the absolute denyal of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son not as a bare errour but as impious and blasphemous yet was far from being condemned for Heretical himself for saying so by those Fathers who were the most zealous defenders of the true Apostolical Faith And if these things considered together do not make it appear that the Fathers did not make the denyal of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son to be a Heresie I know not what can be made plain from them But I know whatever the Fathers say you are of Cornelius Mussus his mind who heartily professed that he preferred the judgement of one Pope before a thousand Augustines and Hieroms but what if the Popes should prove of the same mind with the Fathers how then can this be accounted an Heresie And that they were exactly of the same mind might be made appear by the several Epistles of Vigilius and Agatho in confirmation of the Faith established in the four first General Councils in which it was determined that all necessaries were already in the Creed and that there needed no further additions to it both which are produced and insisted on by the Greeks in the fifth Session at Ferrara But I pass by them and come to more particular testimonies of Popes and that either in Councils or upon a reference to them from Councils The first time we read of this Controversie in the Western Churches was about A. D. 767. in the time of Constantinus Copronymus upon which in the time of Pepin King of France there was a Synod held at Gentilly near Paris for determining a Controversie between the Greeks and Latins about the Trinity as appears by the several testimonies of Ado and Rhegino in their Chronicles produced by Pithaeus Petavius and others but little more is left of that Convention besides the bare mention of it but it seems the ashes were only raked over these coals then which about two and fourty years after A.D. 809. broke out into a greater flame for as appears by the testimonies of the same Ado and Adelmus or Ademarus a Synod was held at Aquisgrane about this very question Whether the Spirit did proceed from the Son as well as the Father which question they say was started by one John a Monk of Hierusalem which Monk Pithaeus supposeth to be Johannes Damascenus who after Theodoret most expresly denyed the Procession from the Son but whether it was he or any other it seems from that Council called by Charls the Great there were several Legats called Apocrisiarij dispatched to Rome to know the judgment of the present Pope Leo 3. concerning this Controversie the Legats were Bernarius Jesse and Adalhardus the two former the Bishops of Worms and Amiens the latter the Abbot of Corbey But Petavius herein betrayes either his fraud or inadvertency that he will by no means admit that these came to the Pope to know his judgement concerning the Procession it self but only concerning the Addition of the Filioque to the Creed which now began to be used in the Gallican Churches with that Addition But although I grant that the main of their business was concerning the Addition of Filioque by the same token that Leo condemned it as will appear afterwards yet that brought on the discourse concerning the Doctrine it self of the Procession from the Son For in the Acts of Smaragdus which were sent to Charls the Great giving an account of this Controversie which are published both by Baronius and Sirmondus it appears that when they urge the Pope for his consent to the addition of Filioque they make use of this Argument That it was a matter of Faith and therefore none should be ignorant of it upon which they ask the Pope this Question Whether if any one doth not know or doth not believe this Article he could be saved To which the Pope returns this wise and cautious Answer Whosoever by the subtilty of his wit can reach to the knowledge of it and knowing it will not believe it he cannot be saved For there are many things of which this is one which being the deeper mysteries of Faith to the knowledge of which many can attain but many others cannot being hindred either through want of age or capacity and therefore as we said before he that can and will not shall not be saved I pray Sir do me the Favour to let me know your judgement whether this Pope were Infallible or no or will you acknowledge that he was quite beside the Cushion that is not in Cathedrâ when he spake it What not then when Solemn Legats were dispatched from a Council purposely to know his judgement in a matter of Controversie which the Church was divided about If so the Pope shall never be in Cathedrâ but when you will have him or if he were there you will surely say he did not act very Apostolically when he spake these words For can any thing be more plain then that the Pope determins this
added by way of explication the word Filioque to the Article which concerned the Holy Ghost and this they did to signifie that the Holy Ghost as true God proceeded from the Son and was not made or created by him as some Hereticks in those times began to teach Neither doth he say you affirm this without citation of some credible authority I could wish you had produced it not only for our satisfaction but of the more learned men of your own side who look on this as an improbable fiction Bellarmin produceth many Arguments against it saying That no mention is made of it in the Councils or Theodoret's History who particularly relates the Letters of the Council to Damasus and his to the Council that Leo 3. caused the Constantinopolitan Creed to be inscribed in a silver Table without that Addition that the third Council of Toledo used the Creed without that Addition that the Greeks did not begin this Controversie till A. D. 600. And how could they possibly charge the Latins with breaking the Canons of the third Oecumenical when according to this opinion it was added in the second Petavius is so great a friend to your opinion that in plain terms he calls it ridiculous and abundantly confutes that imagination of its being inserted because of the Heresie of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Manuel Calecas calls it who with Aristinus are all those worshipful Authorities which this opinion stands on But setting aside the contrary Authorities to these any one who is any thing versed in this Controversie must needs esteem this the most improbable account that can be given of this Addition For if this were true how little did the Latins at the Council at Florence understand their business when if they could have produced such an Addition before the Ephesine Council all the Greeks objections had come to nothing If this were true how little did Leo 3. consult his own or his predecessors honour who disswaded the Legats of the Council at Aquisgrane from continuing in the Creed that Addition of Filioque for when after a great deal of discourse concerning the Article and the Addition the Legats at last tell him That they perceived his pleasure was that it should be taken out of the Creed and so every one left to his liberty His answer is So it is certainly determined by me and I would perswade you by all means to assent to it And to manifest this to be his constant judgment he caused the Constantinopolitan Creed without the Addition of Filioque to be inscribed in a greater silver Tablet and placed publickly in the Church to be read of all as appears by the testimony of Photius and Peter Lombard that so all both Greeks and Latins might see that nothing was added to the Creed Had not this now been a strange action of his if this Addition had been so long before in the time of Damasus Nothing then can be more evident than that in this Leo's time no such Addition was made to the Creed Therefore it seems most probable which the famous Antoninus delivers that this Addition was made by Pope Nicolaus 1. For when he relates he causes why Photius excommunicated him he mentions that in the first place That he had made an Addition to the Creed by making the Spirit to proceed from the Son and therefore had fallen under the sentence of the third Oecumenical Council which prohibited such Additions to be made To which P. Pithaeus subscribes likewise and Petavius seems not to dissent the only thing which is pretended against it is that Andreas Colossensis in the Council at Ferrara saith That though Photius was a known and bitter enemy of the Latin Church yet he never objected this Addition against Nicolaus or Adrian but how strangely overseen Andreas was in these words sufficiently appears by Photius his Encyclical Epistle wherein he doth in terms object this against the Latins as appears by the words already produced So that although you would willingly have set this Addition far enough off from the Schism yet you see how improbable a fiction you produce for it and withall you see that this Addition by the consent of your own most learned and impartial Writers falls just upon the time when the Schism broke out viz. in the time of Nicolaus and Photius and therefore now judge you whether these words were so long added before the Schism that they could give no occasion to it 2. The next thing to be considered is Whether they who added it had power so to do Two things the Greeks insist on to shew that it was not done by sufficient authority 1. Because all such Additions were directly prohibited by the Ephesine Council 2. That supposing them not prohibited yet the Pope had no power to add to the Creed without the consent of the Eastern Churches 1. That such Additions were severely prohibited by the Ephesine Council the Sanction of which Council to this purpose hath been already produced and is extant both in the Acts of the Ephesine and Florentine Councils in which latter it is insisted on as the Foundation of the Greek's Arguments against the Addition of Filioque by Marcus Ephesius and the reason he there gives of such a Sanction made by the Council at Ephesus is that after the Nicene Council in several Provincial Councils there were above thirty several Expositions made of the Nicene Creed upon which the second Oecumenical Council made a further explication of it explaining those things which belonged to the Divinity of the Spirit and the Incarnation of Christ and because they did not prohibit any Additions the Nestorians easily depraved the Nicene Creed inserting their own opinions into it as appears by the confession of Faith exhibited to the Council by Charisius which being read in the Council and the Fathers thereby understanding how easily after this rate New Creeds might be continually made in the Church they severely prohibited any further Additions to be made to the Creed And therefore although they decreed in that Council the Virgin Mary to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in opposition to Nestorius yet they never offered to insert it into the Creed although they apprehended it necessary to explain the Oeconomy of our Saviour's Incarnation And that which much confirms the meaning of the Decree to be the absolute prohibition of all kind of Additions to the Creed is the Epistle of S. Cyril of Alexandria to Johannes Antiochenus wherein reciting this decree of the Council he adds these words as the explication of it We neither permit our selves or others to change one word or syllable of what is herein contained speaking of the Nicene Creed which Epistle was read and approved in the fourth Oecumenical Council To this the Latins answered them that which is still answered in the same case viz. That this Article of Filioque was only a declaration and not a prohibited Addition
rest of the Points of Faith are necessary to be believed necessitate praecepti only conditionally that is to 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 of Divine Authority declared to Christians by the Churches Definition Whether therefore the Points in question be necessary in the first manner or no by reason of their precise matter yet if they be necessary by reason of the Divine Authority or Formal object of Divine Revelation sufficiently declared and propounded to us they will be Points Fundamental that is necessary to Salvation to be believed as we have shewed Fundamental must here be taken These words of yours containing the full state of the question in your own terms and being the substance of all you say on this Controversie I have recited at large that you may not complain your meaning is mistaken in them You assert then that besides that necessity which ariseth from the matter of things to be believed and from th◠absolute Command of God there is another necessity conditionally upon the Churches Definition but supposing that Definition the thing so propounded becomes as necessary to Salvation as what is necessary from the matter for in all hypothetical propositions the supposition being in act the matter becomes necessary For unless you speak of such a necessity as becomes as universally obligatory on supposition of the Churches Definition as that which ariseth from the matter or absolute command you are guilty of the greatest tergiversation and perverting the state of the Question For otherwise that cannot be said to be fundamental or necessary to Salvation in the sense of this Question which is not generally necessary to Salvation to all Christians For no man was ever so silly as to imagine that the Question of Fundamentals with a respect to whole Churches as it is here taken can be understood in any other sense than as the matter call'd Fundamental or Necessary must be equally fundamental and necessary to all persons And that this must be your meaning appears by the rise of the Controversie which concerns the whole Greek Church which you exclude from being a Church because she erres fundamentally and that she errres fundamentally because the Church hath defined it to be an errour So that what the Church determines as matter of Faith is as necessary to be believed in order to Salvation as that which is necessary from the matter or from an absolute Command For otherwise the Greek Church might not be in a Fundamental Errour notwithstanding the Churches Definition the ground of this Errour being Fundamental not being derived from the matter or absolute Command but from the Churches Definition If therefore the denial of what the Church defines doth exclude from Salvation the necessity and obligation must be equal to that which ariseth from the matter to be believed And if the Church defines any particulars to be explicitly believed as necessary to Salvation not only the not disbelieving them but the not explicit believing them will be as destructive to Salvation as if the matter of the things themselves were necessary or that it were absolutely commanded for in those cases you say the not explicit believing is that which damns and so on your principles it will do here when the explicit belief is the thing defined by the Church This will be more plain by an Instance It is notoriously known that at the shutting up of the Council of Trent a Confession of Faith was drawn up and confirmed by the Bull of Pius 4. A. D. 1564. and that ut unius ejusdem fidei professio uniformitèr ab omnibus exhibeatur That the Profession of one and the same Faith may be made known to all and declared uniformally by all In which Confession after the enumeration of the Articles contained in the Ancient Creed there are many others added concerning Traditions Seven Sacraments the Decrees of the Council of Trent as to Original sin and Justification The Sacrifice of the Mass Transubstantiation Communion in one kind Purgatory Invocation of Saints Worship of Images Indulgences the Pope's Supremacy c. All which are required to be believed with an equal assent to the former as absolutely necessary to Salvation and necessary Conditions of Catholick Communion For thus it ends Hanc veram Catholicam Fidem extra quam nemo salvus esse potest quam in praesenti sponte profiteor veraciter teneo eandem integram inviolatam usque ad extremum vitae spiritum c. This true Catholick Faith without which none can be saved which at present I profess and truly hold and will do whole and undefiled to my lives end c. Judge you now whether an equal explicit Faith be not here required to the Definitions of the Church as to the Articles of the Creed and if so there must be an equal necessity in order to Salvation of believing both of them it being here so expresly declared that these Definitions are Integral Parts of that Catholick Faith without which there is no Salvation And what could be more said of those things whose matter or absolute precept do make them necessary This Confession of Faith therefore gives us the truest state of the present Question in these particulars 1. That the Definitions of the Church are to be believed to be as necessary to Salvation as the Articles of the Ancient Creed without the belief of which no Salvation is to be expected 2. That the explicit Belief of these Definitions as necessary to Salvation may be required in order to Catholick Communion and that they are to be believed of all as such because they are defined by the Church So that the Question is not What is so required by the Churches Definition declared and propounded to us that it ought not to be dis-believed without mortal and damnable sin which unrepented destroyes Salvation as you stated it for this seems only to respect the Faith of particular persons who are to believe according as the Proposition may be judged sufficient but the true state of the Question is Whether any Definitions of the Church may be believed as Necessary Articles of Faith and whether they may be imposed on others to be believed as such so that they may be excluded Catholick Communion if they do not For this is really the true state of the Question between your Church and ours ever since the Council of Trent and as to it thus stated as it ought to be I do most readily joyn issue with you For the clearing of which important Question on which the main cause of our being separated from your Communion depends these three things will be necessary to be exactly discussed 1. What the Grounds are on which any thing doth become necessary to Salvation 2. Whether any thing whose matter is not necessary and is not required by an
that it were a needless task to repeat them who so unanimously assert the sufficiency unalterableness and perfection of that Faith which is contained in the Creed making it the summe of all necessary Doctrines the Foundation of the Catholick Faith and of the Church the first and sole Confession of Evangelical Doctrine Of all which and many more expressions to the same purpose produced not only by our Writers but by yours too no tolerable sense can be made without asserting that whatever was judged necessary to be believed by all by the Catholick Church of that Age they lived in or before them was therein contained Besides what account can be given why any such Summaries of Faith should at all be made either by Apostles or Apostolical persons but only for that end that necessary Articles of Faith might be reduced into such a compass as might become portable to the weakest capacities If the rise of Creeds were as most probable it was from the things propounded to the Catechumens to be believed in order to Baptism can we reasonably think that any thing judged necessary to be believed should be left out If the Apostolical Creed be a summary comprehension of that Form of sound Doctrine which the Apostles delivered to all Christians at their first conversion as it is generally supposed either we must think the Apostles unfaithful in their work or the Creed an unfaithful account of their Doctrine or that such things which were supposed universally necessary to be believed are therein comprehended Which is sufficient for my purpose that nothing ought to be looked on as a necessary Article of Faith or was so esteemed by the Catholick Church which is not contained in the Ancient Creeds 2. Nothing ought to be judged a necessary Article of Faith but what was universally believed by the Catholick Church to be delivered as such by Christ or his Apostles So that it is not the judgement but the testimony of the Catholick Church which must be relyed on and that testimony only when universal as delivering what was once infallibly delivered by Christ or his Apostles From whence it follows that any one who will undertake to make out any thing as a necessary Article of Faith by Catholick Tradition meerly must do these things 1. He must make it appear to be universally embraced at all times and in all places by such who were members of the Catholick Church 2. That none ever opposed it but he was presently disowned as no member of the Catholick Church because opposing something necessary to Salvation 3. That it be delivered by all those Writers of the Church who give an account of the Faith of Christians or what was delivered by Christ and his Apostles to the Church 4. That it was not barely looked on as necessary to be believed by such as might be convinced it was of Divine Revelation but that it was deliver'd with a necessity of its being explicitly believed by all 5. That what is deliver'd by the consent of the Writers of the Catholick Church was undoubtedly the Consent of the Church of those ages 6. That all those Writers agree not only in the Belief of the thing it self but of the Necessity of it to all Christians 7. That no Writers or Fathers of succeeding Ages can be supposed to alter in the belief either of the matters believed before or the necessity of them 8. That no oppositions of Hereticks or heats of Contention could make them judge any Article so opposed to be more necessary than it was judged before that Contention or they themselves would have judged it had it not been so opposed 9. That when they affirm many Traditions to be Apostolical which yet varied in several Churches they could not affirm any Doctrine to be Apostolical which they were not universally agreed in 10. That when they so plainly assert the sufficiency of the Scriptures as a Rule of Faith they did yet believe something necessary to Salvation which was not contained therein When you or any one else will undertake to make good these conditions I shall then begin to believe that something may be made appear to be a necessary Article of Faith which is not clearly revealed in Scripture but not before but till then this Negative will suffice that nothing ought to be embraced as the judgement of the Church concerning a necessary Article of Faith but what appears to be clearly revealed in Scriture and universally embraced by the Catholick Church of all Ages 3. Nothing ought to be looked on as a necessary Article of Faith by the judgement of the Catholick Church the denyal of which was not universally opposed and condemned as Heresie For otherwise the Catholick Church was very little sensible of the honour of Christian Faith if it suffered dissenters in necessary things without putting a mark of dishonour upon them Therefore we may conclude that whatever was patiently born with in such as dissented from the generality of Christians especially if considerable persons in the Church were the authors or fomenters of such opinions however true the contrary Doctrine was supposed to be yet it was not supposed necessary because then the opposers would have been condemned of Heresie by some open act of the Catholick Church But if beyond these Negatives we would enquire what was positively believed as necessary to Salvation by the Catholick Church we shall hardly find any better way than by the Articles of the Ancient Creeds and the universal opposition of any new Doctrine on its firsts appearance and the condemning the broachers of it for Heresie in Oecumenical Councils with the continual disapprobation of those Doctrines by the Christian Churches of all Ages As is clear in the cases of Arrius and Pelagius For it seems very reasonable to judge that since the necessary Articles of Faith were all delivered by the Apostles to the Catholick Church since the foundation of that Church lyes in the belief of those things which are necessary that nothing should be delivered contrary to any necessary Article of Faith but the Church by some evident act must declare its dislike of it and its resolution thereby to adhere to that necessary Doctrine which was once delivered to the Saints And withall it seems reasonable that because Art and Subtilty may be used by such who seek to pervert the Catholick Doctrine and to wrest the plain places of Scripture which deliver it so far from their proper meaning that very few ordinary capacities may be able to clear themselves of such mists as are cast before their eyes the sense of the Catholick Church in succeeding ages may be a very useful way for us to embrace the true sense of Scripture especially in the great Articles of the Christian Faith As for instance in the Doctrine of the Deity of Christ or the Trinity though the subtilty of such Modern Hereticks who oppose either of these may so far prevail on persons either not of sufficient
What a case then were we in if the Pope were Christ's Vicar in Heaven as he pretends to be on Earth but it is our comfort he is neither so nor so Thus we see what repugnancy there is both to Scirpture and Reason in this strange Doctrine of your Churches Definitions making things necessary to Salvation which were not so before I should now proceed to shew how repugnant this Doctrine is to the unanimous consent of Antiquity but I find my self prevented in that by the late Writings of one of your own Communion and if you will believe him in his Epistle Dedicatory which I much question the present Popes most humble Servant our Countryman Mr. Thomas White Whose whole Book call'd his Tabulae Suffragiales is purposely designed against this fond and absurd Opinion nay he goes so high as to assert the Opinion of the Pope's Personal Infallibility not only to be Heretical but Archi-heretical and that the propagating of this Doctrine is in its kind a most grievous sin It cannot but much rejoyce us to see that men of wit and parts begin to discover the intolerable arrogance of such pretences and that such men as D. Holden and Mr. White are in many things come so near the Protestant Principles and that since they quit the Plea of Infallibility and relye on Vniversal Tradition we are in hopes that the same reason and ingenuity which carried these persons thus far will carry others who go on the same principles so much farther as to see how impossible it is to make good the points in Controversie between us upon the Principle of Vniversal Tradition Which the Bigots of your Church are sufficiently sensible of and therefore like the Man at Athens when your Hands are cut off you are resolved to hold this Infallibility with your Teeth and so that Gentleman finds by the proceedings of the Court of Rome against him for that and his other pieces But this should not have been taken notice of lest we should seem to see as who doth not that is not stark blind what growing Divisions and Animosities there are among your selves both at home and in foreign parts and yet all this while the poor silly people must be told that there is nothing but Division out of your Church and nothing but Harmony and Musick in it but such as is made of Discords And that about this present Controversie for the forenamed Gentleman in his Epistle to the present Pope tells him plainly That it is found true by frequent Experience That there is no defending the Catholick Faith against the subtilties of his Heretical Countrymen without the principles of that Book which was condemned at Rome And what those principles are we may easily see by this Book which is writ in defence of the former Wherein he largely proves that the Church hath no power to make New Articles of Faith which he proves both from Scripture Reason and Authority this last is that I shall referr the Reader to him for for in his second Table as he calls it he proves from the testimonies of Origen Basil Chrysostom Cyril Irenaeus Tertullian Pope Stephen Hierom Theophylact Augustine Vincentius Lerinensis and several others nay the testimonies he sayes to this purpose are so many that whole Libraries must be transcribed to produce them all And afterwards more largely proves That the Faith of the Church lyes in a continued succession from the Apostles both from Scripture and Reason and abundance of Church-Authorities in his 4 5 and 6. Tables and through the rest of his Book disproves the Infallibility of Councils and Pope And can you think all this is answered by an Index Expurgatorius or by publishing a false-Latin Order of the inquisition at Rome whereby his Books are prohibited and his Opinions condemned as heretical erronious in Faith rash scandalous seditious and what not It seems then it is grown at last de fide that the Pope is infallible and never more like to do so than in this age for the same person gives us this character of it in his Purgation of himself to the Cardinals of the Inquisition saying That their Eminencies by the unhappiness of the present Age in which Knowledge is banished out of the Schools and the Doctrines of Faith and Theological Truths are judged by most voices fell it seems upon some ignorant and arrogant Consultors who hand over head condemn those Propositions which upon their oaths they could not tell whether they were true or false If these be your proceedings at Rome happy we that have nothing to do with such Infallible Ignorance This is the Age your Religion were like to thrive in if Ignorance were as predominant elsewhere as it seems it is at Rome But I leave this and return 3. The last thing is Whether the Church hath Power by any Proposition or Definition to make any thing become necessary to Salvation and to be believed as such which was not so before But this is already answered by the foregoing Discourse for if the necessity of the things to be believed must be supposed antecedently to the Churches Being if that which was not before necessary cannot by any act whatsoever afterwards become necessary then it unavoidably follows That the Church neither hath nor can have any such power Other things which relate to this we shall have occasion to discuss in following your steps which having thus far cleared this important Controversie I betake my self to And we are highly obliged to you for the rare Divertisements you give us in your excellent way of managing Controversies Had my Lord of Canterbury been living What an excellent entertainment would your Confutation of his Book have afforded him But since so pleasant a Province is fallen to my share I must learn to command my self in the management of it and therefore where you present us with any thing which deserves a serious Answer for truth and the causes sake you shall be sure to have it In the first place you charge his Lordship with a Fallacy and that is because when he was to speak of Fundamentals he did not speak of that which was not Fundamental But say you He turns 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 Men seldom suspect those faults in others which they find not strong inclinations to in themselves had you not been conscious of a notorious Fallacy in this distinction of Formal and Material Object as here applyed by you you would never have suspected any such Sophistry in his Lordship's Discourse I pray consider what kind of Fundamentals those are which the Question proceeds on viz. such as are necessary to be owned as such by
make any Hereticks but such as have reason to believe that she cannot erre in her Definitions From whence Protestants will be in less danger of Heresie than Papists till you give us more sufficient reasons to prove that whatever the Church declares is certainly revealed by God And although you tell us Men may be accounted Hereticks before they are condemned as such by General Councils if they oppose the Doctrine clearly contained in Scripture or generally received by the Church yet you tell us not what the measures are whereby we ought to judge what things are thus clearly contained in Scripture or universally received whether the Churches judgement must be taken or every man 's own judgement if the former the ground of Heresie lyes still in the Churches Definition contrary to what Scotus affirms if the latter then no one can be an Heretick but he that opposeth that which he is or may be convinced is clearly contained in Scripture or generally received by the Church If that which he is convinced then no man is an Heretick but he that goes against his present judgement and so there will be few Hereticks in the world If that which he may be convinced of it must be understood either in his own judgement or yours if in his own judgement then a Heretick is one who dissents to things rashly without using means to inform himself if in yours why may not he say You may as well be convinced of the truth of that which he believes as he be convinced of the truth of that which you believe and so you may be a Heretick to him by the same reason that he is to you But you say further That there are many things which in themselves 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 Hereticks 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 But it is impossible to understand how there can be such things which men might safely not believe but upon the Definition of the Church they are bound to believe them necessarily unless it be clear to them that the Church hath power to make obscure things plain and unnecessary things to become necessary For suppose one of these obscure things be this very Power of the Church in defining such things while this remains so obscure you tell me I may doubt or disbelieve it without Heresie and while I do so I may certainly doubt or disbelieve all she declares But by what means shall this thing become clear must it be by the Churches defining it But that very Power of defining is the thing in question and therefore cannot be cleared by it And if there be any thing then so obscure that men may without sin doubt of it or disbelieve it certainly the Churches Power in defining matters of Faith is such it being not capable by any act of the Church of being made so clear as to oblige men to believe it But we must see how his Lordship hath wronged the Testimony of Scotus For first say you He would perswade 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 declares that there was no real difference between them But doth his Lordship say there was doth he not expresly cite Scotus his testimony in an hypothetical manner If there be a true real difference c. and it is evident from Scotus his words that he supposeth If the difference had been real that either the Greeks or Latins were truly Hereticks And therefore you are guilty of a much greater injury to his Lordship than he was to Scotus Again you say He wrongs him in saying That after the Churches Definition it becomes of the substance of Faith Now say you Scotus hath not one word of the substance of Faith much less of Fundamental which he imposes presently upon him but sayes only thus Ex quo Ecclesia declaravit hoc esse tenendum c. tenendum est quod Spiritus Sanctus procedat ab utroque Since the Church hath so declared so it must be held Sure you never expect to be believed but by a very implicit Faith for if one doth but offer to search an Author your Jugling becomes notorious Had you the confidence to say That Scotus has not one word of the substance of Faith I pray who made that c. for you in the sentence If you did it your self you abuse your Readers if another did it for you he abused you For that very c. leaves out those words sicut de substantia fidei and try if you can render that otherwise than as of the substance of Faith to manifest your Forgery the whole place is cited in the Margin Is this your fidelity in quoting Authors even when you charge others with wronging them It may be you will say yet That Scotus doth not say it is to be held sicut de substantia fidei though it be declared by the Church to be so held But what means then the ex quo if men's Faith must not be guided by the Churches Declaration for if it be therefore to be believed necessarily because declared by the Church it must be believed as it is declared by the Church If therefore the Church declares that it is to be held as of the substance of Faith it ought to be held so by such as are bound to believe it on the Churches Declaration Besides you will not say but that it was to be believed before now what alteration is caused by the Declaration of the Church but this That which was before to be believed simply and in it self is now to be believed on the account of the Churches Declaration as of the substance of Faith And thus it is impossible to relieve your self with your old shift of Material and Formal Object which you betake your self to Thus still we see you are that most unhappy person who never begin a charge against your adversary but it falls back most unevitably upon your self who so readily make use of forgeries to prove others guilty of them Upon Scotus his mentioning the Churches Declaration his Lordship inquires What this Declaration is and how far it extends For which his Lordship saith The Master teacheth and his Scholars too that every thing which belongs to the Exposition or Declaration of another intus est is not another contrary thing but is contained within the bowels and nature of that which is interpreted from which if the Declaration depart it is faulty and erronious because instead of declaring it gives another and contrary sense Therefore when the Church declares any thing in Council either that which
them To which you answer 1. It is not credible that Bellarmine who writ so much of Controversie should not have read that Council nor can there be any suspicion of his conâ—ealing the matter had he found it there c. and therefore you suspend your Assent till the Council's words be produced 2. You tell us That it is not enough to prove that Pelagianism was condemned by a General Council because some who were Pelagians were but say you They were condemned not for Pelagianism but Nestorianism and therefore his Lordship shoots wide of the mark Your Argument from Bellarmine will have no great force with them who see no reason to admire his fidelity and they who enquire into the matter of fact in the present debate will have cause to suspect it The short account whereof is this After that Julianus Florus Orontius Fabius and others had been deposed and banished in the Western Churches for the Pelagian Heresie they fly to Constantinople and shroud themselves under the protection of Nestorius the Patriarch there who secretly favoured them and writ several Letters to Pope Celestine in behalf of them who is supposed to have received his Doctrine of the person of Christ from the Pelagians But when he saw that no good was to be done by these Letters but by the daily spreading of Nestorianism the Emperour was forced to summon a Council at Ephesus A. D. 431. The Pelagians accompany Nestorius thither and joyn with Johannes Antiochenus and his party in opposition to the Synod But the Council understanding the proceedings which had been in the Western Churches against the Pelagians ratifies and confirms their deposition as appears by the Synodal Epistle of the Council to Pope Celestine which is extant in the Acts of the Ephesine Council and in the Epistles of Cyril of Alexandria And besides this some of the Canons of that Council do equally concern Celestius and Nestorius the first Canon decreeing as well the favourers of Celestius as Nestorius to be excommunicate and the fourth dereeing the Deposition of all such who should embrace either of them And therefore it is truly said by Jansenius that the Pelagian Heresie and the Bishops who favoured it were again condemned by an Oecumenical Council And thence Prosper in the Epitaph of the Nestorian and Pelagian Heresies as he makes the Nestorian only an Off-spring of the Pelagian so he makes both of them to fall and be condemned together From whence it appears that the Pelagians were not condemned in the Ephesine Council meerly for Nestorianism but for their proper and peculiar sentiments the former deposition of them being ratified by the Council and a new Canon made to that purpose for the future And now let the Reader judge whether his Lordship or Bellarmine were herein the more mistaken His Lordship adds If this Heresie were condemned only by a National Council then the full Authority of the Church here is no more than the full Authority of this Church of Africk And I hope saith he That Authority doth doth not make all Points defined by it to be Fundamental You will say Yes if that Council be confirmed by the Pope And then I must ever wonder why S. Augustine should say The full Authority of the Church and not bestow one word upon the Pope by whose Authority only that Council as all other have their fulness of Authority in your judgement An inexpiable Omission if this Doctrine concerning the Pope were true To this you answer That there was no need of any special mention of the Pope in speaking of the Authority of the Church because his Authority is alwaies chiefly supposed as being Head of the whole Church But by whom was this supposed by you or by S. Augustine Can you prove that S. Austin or any of the African Fathers did ever suppose any such thing that the Pope being Head of the Church his Authority is chiefly supposed in the Acts of National Councils Where was the supposal of this Authority in the Dispute between the African Fathers and the Popes in the case of Appeals These are suppositions only to be obtruded upon ignorant Novices and such who look no further into Antiquity than the Implicit Faith in their Priests will give them leave But what a stranger to all true Antiquity this supposition of the Pope's being Head of the Church is we shall see abundantly when we come to the Controversie of the Pope's Authority Yet granting the Supposition true than which nothing can be more false when the main strength lyes not in the bare Definition of a National Council which you grant of it self hath not full Authority but in the confirmation of that Decision by the Pope which makes that Authority full which was not so before Was it not necessary to declare that the Pope did concurr to the giving it full Authority which without it could not be had You do not say That all National Councils have this full Authority not being confirmed by the Pope if therefore S. Augustine designed to shew that Council to have full Authority the only way to prove it was to produce the Pope's Confirmation of it which cannot therefore be otherwise looked on than as an inexpiable Omission if your Doctrine be true for he left out that which was only pertinent and material to the business Your parallel between S. Austin and your self which is a very worthy one in leaving out the mention of the Pope's Authority when it is understood will then hold when you produce as great evidence that S. Austin was a Jesuit as we have from your principles that you are When you give as manifest proof that the Pope's Power is necessary to all Definitions of Councils as there is in our Laws for our Kings assenting to Acts of Parliament we may give you leave to parallel the Omission of the express mention of one with the other If the Definitions of Ancient Councils did run in the name of Pope and Council as our Acts of Parliament in the name of the King and both Houses we might easily say the Authority of them came from the Pope as of these from the King but there is nothing of that nature but much of the contrary as will appear in due time When you therefore prove that the Pope's Power is implied though it be not mentioned you must prove it by some evident Confession that no Authority of a Council was full unless the Pope concurred with it else you may as well say That the great Mogul hath no full Authority to decree any thing without the Pope's consent for I dare say There is no denial of it in any of his Laws And yet that is more than can be said here for we have sufficient testimony from the records of that age That the Pope's Authority was not supposed necessary to Councils from his being Head of the Church What follows p. 34. n. 5 6. depends wholly upon the
have had Antiquity Vniversality and Consent which had not so such as the business of not rebaptizing Hereticks and the observation of Easter which you instance in And withall we add though nothing is to be admitted for matter of Faith which wants those three marks yet some things may have all three of them and yet be no matters of Faith at all and therefore not at all pertinent to this question Such as those things are which you insist on as deposita dogmata which doubtless is a rare way of probation viz. to shew that by dogmata deposita Vincentius means some articles of Faith which are not Fundamental in the matter of them and for that make choice of such instances which are no matters of faith at all but either ritual traditions or matters of order such as the form and matter of Sacraments the Hierarchy of the Church Paedobaptism not rebaptizing Hereticks the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary For that of the Canon of Scripture it will be elsewhere considered as likewise those other Church-traditions How the Church should still keep hoc idem quod antea as you confess she ought and yet make some things necessary to be believed by all which before her declaration were not so is somewhat hard to conceive and yet both these you assert together Is that which is necessary to be believed by all the same with that which was not necessary to be so believed if the same measure of Faith will not serve after which would have done before is there not an alteration made Yes you grant as to our believing but not as to the thing for that is the same it was But do you in the mean time consider what kind of thing that is which you speak of which is a thing propounded to be believed and considered in no other respect but as it is revealed by God in order to our believing it now when the same thing which was required only to be believed implicitely i. e. not at all necessarily is now propounded to be believed expresly and necessarily the Fundamental nature of it as an object of Faith is altered For that which you call implicite Faith doth really imply as to all those things to be believed implicitely that there is an indifferency whether they be believed or no nothing being necessary to be believed but what is propounded to be expresly believed Which being so Can it be imagined there should be a greater alteration in a matter of Faith then from its being indifferent whether it were believed or no to become necessary to be expresly believed by all in order to Salvation And where there is such an alteration as this in the thing to be believed who can without the help of a very commodious implicite Faith believe that still this is hoc idem quod antea the very same as a matter of Faith which it was before Though the Church were careful to preserve every Iota and tittle of Sacred Doctrines yet I hope it follows not that every Iota and tittle is of as much consequence and as necessary to be believed as the main substance of Christian Doctrine Although when any Doctrine was violently opposed in the Church she might declare her owning it by some overt act yet thence it doth not follow that the internal assent to every thing so declared is as necessary as to that proposition that Jesus is the Son of God the belief of which the Scripture tells us was the main design of the writing of Scripture That General Councils rightly proceeding may be great helps to the Faith of Christians I know none that deny but that by vertue of their definitions any thing becomes necessary to be believed which was not so before remains yet to be proved You much wonder his Lordship should father that saying on Vincentius That If new Doctrines be added to the old the Church which is Sacrarium veritatis the repository of verity may be changed in Lupanar errorum which his Lordship saith he is loth to English for you tell us That Vincentius is so far from entertaining the least thought of it that he presently adds Deus avertat God forbid it should be so A stout Inference Just as if one should say The Church of Rome may be in time overspread with the Mahumetan Religion but God forbid it should be so Were he not an excellent Disputer who should hence inferr it impossible ever to be so What you add out of Vincentius only proves that he did not believe it was so in his time but doth not in the least prove that he believed it impossible that ever it should be so afterwards but notwithstanding all that you say it is evident enough that Vincentius believed it a very supposable Case by that question he puts elsewhere What if any new contagion doth not only endeavour to defile a part only but the whole Church in which he saith we are to adhere to antiquity If you answer he speaks only of an endeavour it is soon replyed That he speaks of such an endeavour as puts men to dispute a question what they are to do in such a Case and he resolves at that time they are not to adhere to the judgement of the present Church but to that of Antiquity which is all we desire in that Case viz. That the present Church may so far add to matters of Faith that we can in no reason be obliged to rely only upon her judgement Wherein we are to consider the Question is not of that you call the diffusive but the representative Church all which may be overspread and yet but a part of the other but yet if that Church whose judgement you say only is to be relyed on may be so infected it is all one as to those who are to be guided by her judgement whether the other be or no. For here eadem est ratio non entis non apparentis because it is not the reality but the manifestation which is the ground of mens relying on the Churches judgement So that if as to all outward appearance and all judicial acts of the Church she may recede from the ancient Faith and add novitia veteribus whether all particular persons in it do so or no all ground of relying on the judgement of that Church is thereby taken away Whether it be the Church her self or Hereticks in the Church which make these additions is very little material if these Hereticks who add these new articles of Faith may carry themselves so cunningly as to get to themselves the reputation of the Catholick Church and so that which ought to have been Sacrarium veritatis may become impiorum turpium errorum Lupanar which your Church is concerned not to have Englished but by the help of Rider and other good Authours of yours it is no hard matter to come to understand it And thus we see how much you have abused his Lordship
believed as Fundamental when once the Church hath determined them 5. The Church of England prescribes only to her own Children and by those Articles provides but for her own peaceable consent in those Doctrines of Truth But the Church of Rome severely imposes her Doctrine upon the whole world under pain of damnation To all these very considerable Instances of our Churches Moderation your Answer is The Question is not Whether the English Congregation or the Roman Church be more severe but Whether the English Protestants Severity be not unreasonable supposing she be subject to errour in defining those Articles For after many words to the same i. e. little purpose the reason you give for it is That every just Excommunication inflicted for opposing of Doctrine must necessarily suppose the Doctrine opposed to be infallibly true and absolutely exempt from errour otherwise the Sentence it self would be unreasonable and unjust as wanting sufficient ground From whence you charge Protestants with greater Tyranny and Injustice towards their people than they can with any colour or pretence of reason charge upon the Roman Church which excommunicates no man but for denying such Doctrine as is both infallibly True and also Fundamental at least as to its formal Object This is the strength of all you say which will be reduced to this short Question Whether the proceedings of that Church be more unreasonable which excommunicates such as openly oppose her Doctrine supposing her Fallible or of that Church which excommunicates all who will not believe whatever she defines to be Infallibly true This is the true State of the Controversie which must be judged by the resolving another Question Whether it be not a more unreasonable Vsurpation to bind men upon pain of damnation hereafter and excommunication here to believe every thing Infallible which a Church defines or to bind men to peace to a Churches Determinations reserving to men the liberty of their judgements on pain of Excommunication if they violate that peace For it is plain on the one side where a Church pretends Infallibility the Excommunication is directed against the persons for refusing to give Internal Assent to what she defines But where a Church doth not pretend to that the Excommunication respects wholly that Overt Act whereby the Churches Peace is broken And if a Church be bound to look to her own Peace no doubt she hath power to excommunicate such as openly violate the bonds of it which is only an Act of Caution in a Church to preserve her self in Vnity but where it is given out that the Church is Infallible the Excommunication must be so much the more unreasonable because it is against those Internal Acts of the mind over which the Church as such hath no direct power And thus I hope you see how much more just and reasonable the proceedings of our Church are then of yours and that eo nomine because she pretends to be infallible and ours doth not His Lordship shews further in Vindication of the Church of England and her grounds of Faith that the Church of England grounded her Positive Articles upon Scripture and her Negative do refute there where the thing affirmed by them is not affirmed by Scripture nor directly to be concluded out of it And this he saith is the main principle of all Protestants that Scripture is sufficient to Salvation and contains in it all things necessary to it The Fathers are plain the Schoolmen not strangers in it And Stapleton himself confesses as much Nay and you dare not deny it as to all material Objects of Faith and your formal here signifies nothing And when A. C. saith That the Church of England grounded her Positive Articles upon Scripture if themselves may be Judges in their own cause His Lordship answers We are contented to be judged by the joynt and constant belief of the Fathers which lived within the first four or five hundred years after Christ when the Church was at the best and by the Councils held within those times and to submit to them in all those Points of Doctrine This Offer you grant to be very fair and you do for your selves promise the same and say You will make it good upon all occasions Which we shall have tryal of before the end of this Book To what his Lordship saith concerning the Negative Articles That they refute where the thing affirmed by them is either not affirmed in Scripture or not directly to be concluded out of it A. C. replies That the Baptism of Infants is not expresly at least not evidently affirmed in Scripture nor directly at least not demonstratively concluded out of it Here two things his Lordship answers 1. To the Expression 2. To the thing 1. To the Expression That he is no way satisfied with A. C. his addition not expresly at least not evidently for saith he What means he If he speak of the lâ—tter of Scripture then whatsoever is expresly is evidently in the Scripture and so his addition is in vain If he speak of the meaning of Scripture then his addition is cunning For many things are expresly in Scripture which yet in their meaning are not evidently there And as little satisfied his Lordship declares himself with that other nor directly at least not demonstratively because many things are directly concluded which are not demonstratively To the first you answer That a Point may be exprest yet not evidently exprest otherwise there could be no doubt concerning what were exprest in Scripture since men never question things that are evident Now say you the Baptism of Infants must not only â—e exprest but evidently exprest to prove it sufficiently i. e. undeniably by Scripture alone But the Question being concerning matters of Doctrine and not meer words those things are expresly affirmed which are evidently and no other For it is one thing for words to be expresly in Scripture and another for Doctrines to be so For these latter are no further expresly affirmed there than as there is evidence that the meaning of such words doth contain such a Doctiine in them As to take your own Instance This is my Body we grant the words to be express but we deny that which he had then in his hands was his real Body for his hands were part of his real Body Now we do not say That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is expresly but not evidently contained here for we say The Doctrine is not there at all but only that those are the express words This is my Body as it is in other figurative expressions in Scripture But that which causeth this litigation about words is That you look upon that which is evident and undeniable to be all one whereas there may be sufficient evidence where all men are not perswaded by it And so you would put his Lordship to prove out of Scripture Infant-Baptism evidently and demonstratively i. e. undeniably whereas his Lordship supposeth it
that the matters to be believed are not so clear to us as demonstrations I will not gainsay it but if you mean obscurity or want of evidence as to the reason inducing me to believe I utterly deny any such obscurity to belong to Faith or to be consistent with it For God doth not require us to believe any thing without sufficient grounds for our believing it and those grounds do bear a proportionable evidence to the nature of that assent which he requires If he requires an Infallible assent he gives Infallible grounds if he requires a firm and certain assent he gives firm and certain grounds if he requires only a probable assent he gives only probable evidence But still such as the nature of the assent is such is the evidence he gives for it To make this plainer by an Instance That Christ was the true Messias he requires an assent built upon Infallible grounds and therefore God gave such Infallible evidence of it by the Miracles which he wrought That these Miracles were once really done he requires our firm assent and therefore gives certain evidence by an Universal and uncontrouled tradition but whether St. Paul or any other Apostolical person were Authour of the Epistle to the Hebrews he requires only an assent built on the most probable grounds and therefore he hath given us no more for it But still as the assent is so the evidence must be For Faith being an act of the mind whose nature is to judge according to reason we cannot suppose any act of it to proceed in a brutish manner by a meer impulse of the will I deny not but the will may be said to have some kind of influence upon the understanding both in furthering and hindering assent but it is not by any command it hath over the mind in its acts but as it can divert the mind from or incline it to the searching into the evidence of the things Therefore when we commonly say Facile credimus quae volumus and so on the contrary it is not because of the wills immediate power upon the understanding but as the desire of a thing makes us inquisitive after it so the dislike of it makes us unwilling to hear the reasons for it and ready to entertain any pretence against it Thus I grant the will may have power upon the mind as to the eliciting the act of Faith not that I can assent to a thing as true because I desire it to be true but this inclination of the will removes those impediments which would obstruct my discovery of the evidence which is in it You havs certainly a mind of another mould then others have that can believe thing which do not appear credible to you yet such a kind of Faith as this is very necessary for your Churches Infallibility and for that your discourse of believing by the impulse of the will is very proper and seasonable But other persons may think it an Imperfection in their minds that they cannot believe any thing any further than it appears credible that is that they can go no further than they have legs nor see when their eyes are shut or the room dark But it may be you will tell me All this discourse proceeds on supposition that Faith were a natural act of the mind but you speak of a supernatural Faith It may be so but I hope you speak not of an irrational Faith which must believe things beyond the evidence of their Credibility Faith whether natural or supernatural acquired or infused is still an act of the mind and let it have but what belongs to it as such and call it what you will I deny not a peculiar Operation of Grace in the eliciting the Act of Divine Faith but still I say The manner whereby it is wrought must be agreeable to the nature of the Vnderstanding and by discovering the Credibility which is in the Objects of Faith If you say The Assent is infused I must say The Evidence is first infused for as Christ when he healed the blind did not make them see Objects which did not appear visible so neither doth the Spirit of God in planting Faith make men discern Objects which do not appear credible and the stronger the Assent is the greater is the Evidence and Credibility of the Object And can you call then that any free inevident Assent which goes no further than the Object appears credible It cannot be then any Act of the Will but meerly of the Mind which yields assent to any Object propounded as credible to it So that in what way and manner Assent is required in that same manner doth God give proportionable evidence I deny not but that Assent is required to Objects inevident to sense and reason but then I say The Assent is not required to what is obscure and inevident but to what is evident to us and therefore credible In the Incarnation of the Son of God the manner of the Hypostatical Vnion is to us inevident but then God doth not require our Assent to the Manner but to the Truth of the thing it self Where-ever God requires us to believe any thing as True he gives us evidence that it is so where-ever it appears the thing is inevident we may lawfully suspend our Assent and for all that I know it is our duty so to do But yet you have not done with this profound discourse For you very learnedly distinguish a double proceeding in probations the one is per principia intrinseca which you very well English by intrinsecal Principles i. e. such as have a necessary natural connexion with the things proved and do manifest and lay open the objects themselves the other is per principia extrinseca by extrinsecal Principles that is such as have no natural or necessary connexion with nor do produce any such evident manifestation of the things proved but their efficacy viz. whereby they determine the understanding to assent doth wholly depend on the worth and vertue of that external Principle whereby such probations are made This you apply to Knowledge and Faith that as Knowledge proceeds in the former way so Faith doth in the latter which depends purely upon extrinsecal Principles viz. the Authority Veracity Goodness and Knowledge of God affirming it which was immediately known to the Prophets and Apostles but mediately to us which howâ—ver must be infallibly conveyed to us which can only be by the testimony of the Church This is the substance of your third Section to which I answer 1. That all Certainty in the acts of the Mind whether in Knowledge or Faith must equally suppose the Truth of some extrinsecal Principles viz. the veracity and goodness of God for otherwise we cannot certainly judge of those you call Principia intrinseca to know what things have necessary and natural connexion with the things proved For unless I suppose that God is so True and Good as not to suffer me to be deceived in
which supposing it never so great is not shewed to the Councils but to your Church For the reason of that Reverence cannot be resolved into the Councils but into that Church for whose sake you reverence them And thus it evidently appears That the cunning of this device is wholly your own and notwithstanding these miserable shifts you do finally resolve all Authorities of the Fathers Councils and Scriptures into the Authority of the present Roman-Church which was the thing to be proved The first Absurdity consequent from hence which the Arch-Bishop chargeth your party with is That by this means they ascribe as great Authority if not greater to a part of the Catholick Church as to the whole which we believe in our Creed and which is the Societie of all Christians And this is full of Absurdity in nature in reason in all things that any part should be of equal worth power credit or authority with the whole Here you deny the Consequence which you say depends upon his Lordships wilfully mistaken Notion of the Catholick Church which he saith Is the Church we believe in our Creed and is the Society of all Christians which you call a most desperate extension of the Church because thereby forsooth it will appear that a part is not so great as the whole viz. that the Roman-Church in her full latitude is but a piece or parcel of the Catholick Church believed in our Creed Is this all the desperate Absurdity which follows from his Lordships Answer I pray shew it to have any thing tending to an Absurdity in it And though you confidently tell us That the Roman-Church taken as comprizing all Christians that are in her Communion is the sole and whole Catholick Church yet I will contentedly put the whole issue of the cause upon the proof of this one Proposition that the Roman-Church in its largest sense is the sole and whole Catholick Church or that the present Roman-Church is a sound member of the Catholick Church Your evidence from Ecclesiastical History is such as I fear not to follow you in but I beseech you have a care of treading too near the Apostles heels That any were accounted Catholicks meerly for their Communion with the Roman-Church or that any were condemned for Heresie or Schism purely for their dissent from it prove it when you please I shall be ready God willing to attend your Motions But it is alwaies your faculty when a thing needs proving most to tell us what you could have done This you say You would have proved at large if his Lordship had any more than supposed the contrary But your Readers will think that his Supposition being grounded on such a Maxim of Reason as that mentioned by him it had been your present business to have proved it but I commend your prudence in adjourning it and I suppose you will do it as the Court of Areopagus used to do hard causes in diem longissimum It is apparent the Bishop speaks not of a part of the Church by representation of the whole which is an objection no body but your self would here have fancied and therefore your Instance of a Parliament is nothing to the purpose unless you will suppose that Councils in the Church do represent in such a manner as Parliaments in England do and that their decision is obligatory in the same way as Acts of Parliament are if you believe this to be good Doctrine I will be content to take the Objecters place and make the Application The next Absurdity laid to your charge is as you summe it up That in your Doctrine concerning the Infallibility of your Church your proceeding is most unreasonable in regard you will not have recourse to Texts of Scripture exposition of Fathers propriety of Language Conference of Places Antecedents and Consequents c. but argue that the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome is true and Catholick because she professeth it to be such which saith he is to prove idem per idem To this you answer That as to all those helps you use them with much more candour than Protestants do And why so Because of their manifold wrestings of Scriptures and Fathers Let the handling the Controversies of this Book be the evidence between us in this case and any indifferent Reader be the Judge You tell us You use all these helps but to what purpose do you use them Do you by them prove the Infallibility of your Church If not the same Absurdity lyes at your door still of proving idem per idem No that you do not you say But how doth it appear Thanks to these mute persons the good Motives of Credibility which come in again at a dead lift but do no more service than before I pray cure the wounds they have received already before you rally them again or else I assure you what strength they have left they will employ it against your selves You suppose no doubt your Coleworts good you give them us so often over but I neither like proving nor eating idem per idem But yet we have two Auxiliaries more in the field call'd Instances The design of your first Instance is to shew That if your Church be guilty of proving idem per idem the Apostolical Church was so too For you tell us That a Sectary might in the Apostles times have argued against the Apostolical Church by the very same method his Lordship here uses against the present Catholick Church For if you ask the Christians then Why they believe the whole Doctrine of the Apostles to be the sole true Catholick 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 or their cause or are really the Testimonies and Doctrine of Christ they will not then have recourse to those Testimonies or Doctrine but their Answer is They know it to be so because the present Apostolick Church doth witness it And so by consequence prove idem per idem Thus the Sectary I know not whether your faculty be better at framing Questions or Answers to them I am sure it is extraordinary at both Is it not enough to be in a Circle your selves but you must needs bring the Apostles into it too at least if you may have the management of their Doctrine you would do it The short Answer to all this is That the ground why the Christians did assent to the Apostles Doctrine as true was because God gave sufficient evidence that their Testimony was infallible in such things where such Infallibility was requisite For you had told us before That the Apostles did confirm their words with signs that followed by which signs all their hearers were bound to submit themselves unto
cannot be owned as an Apostolical Tradition 2. That what you call an unwritten Word must be something doctrinal so you call them your self doctrinal Traditions i. e. such as contain in them somewhat dogmatical or necessary to be believed by us and thence it was this Controversie rose from the Dispute concerning the sufficiency of the Scriptures as a Rule of Faith Whether that contained all God's Word or all matters to be believed or no or Whether there were not some Objects of Faith which were never written but conveyed by Tradition 3. That what is thus doctrinal must be declared by the Church to be an Apostolical Tradition which you in terms assert According then to these Rules we come to examine the Evidences by you produced for such an unwritten Word For which you first produce several Instances out of S. Austin of such things which were in his time judged to be such i. e. doctrinal Traditions derived from the Apostles and have ever since been conserved and esteemed such in the whole Church of Christ. The first you instance in is that we now treat That Scripture is the Word of God for which you propose the known place wherein he affirms he should not believe the Gospel but for the Authority of the Church moving him thereto But this proves nothing to your purpose unless you make it appear that the Authority of the Church could not move him to believe the Gospel unless that Authority be supposed to be an unwritten Word For I will suppose that S. Austin or any other rational man might be sufficiently induced to believe the Gospel on the account of the Churches Authority not as delivering any doctrinal Tradition in the nature of an unwritten Word but as attesting that Vniversal Tradition which had been among all Christians concerning it Which Universal Tradition is nothing else but a conveying down to us the judgement of sense and reason in the present case For the Primitive Christians being best able to judge as to what Authentick Writings came from the Apostles not by any unwritten Word but by the use of all moral means it cannot reasonably be supposed that the successive Christians should imbezzle these Authentick Records and substitute others in the place of them When therefore Manichaeus pretended the Authenticalness of some other writings besides those then owned by the Church S. Austin did no more than any reasonable man would do in the like case viz. appeal to the Vniversal Tradition of the Catholick Church upon the account of which he saies He was induced to believe the Gospel it self i. e. not so much the Doctrine as the Books containing it But of this more largely elsewhere I can hardly excuse you from a falsification of S. Austin's meaning in the ensuing words which you thus render If any clear Testimony were brought out of Scripture against the Church he would neither believe the Scripture nor the Church whereas it appears by the words cited in your own Margin his meaning is only this If you can find saith he something very plain in the Gospel concerning the Apostleship of Manichaeus you will thereby weaken the Authority of those Catholicks who bid me that I should not believe you whose Authority being weakned neither can I believe the Gospel because through them I believed it Is here any like what you said or at least would seem to have apprehended to be his meaning which is plainly this If against the consent of all those Copies which the Catholick Christians received those Copies should be found truer which have in them something of the Apostleship of Manichaeus this must needs weaken much the Authority of the Catholick Church in its Tradition whom he adhered to against the Manichees and their Authority being thus weakned his Faith as to the Scriptures delivered by them must needs be much weakned too To give you an Instance of a like nature The Mahumetans pretend that in the Scripture there was anciently express mention of their Prophet Mahomet but that the Christians out of hatred of their Religion have erased all those places which spake of him Suppose now a Christian should say If he should find in the Gospel express mention of Mahomet's being a Prophet it would much weaken the Authority of the whole Christian Church which being so weakned it must of necessity weaken the Faith of all those who have believed our present Copies Authentick upon the account of the Christian Churches Authority Is not this plainly the case S. Austin speaks of and Is it any more than any man's reason will tell him Not that the Churches Authority is to be relyed on as judicially or infallibly but as rationally delivering such an Universal Tradition to us And might not S. Austin on the same reason as well believe the Acts of the Apostles as the Gospel when they were both equally delivered by the same Universal Tradition What you have gained then to your purpose from these three citations out of S. Austin in your first Instance I cannot easily imagine Your second Tradition is That the Father is not begotten of any other person S. Austin's words are Sicut Patrem in illis libris nusquam Ingenitum legimus tamen dicendum esse defenditur We never read in the Scriptures that the Father is unbegotten and yet it is defended that we must say so And had they not good reason with them to say so who believed that he was the Father by way of exclusion of such a kind of Generation as the Eternal Son of God is supposed to have But Must this be an Instance of a doctrinal Tradition containing some Object of Faith distinct from Scripture Could any one whoever believed the Doctrine of the Trinity as revealed in Scripture believe or imagine any other that though it be not in express terms set down in Scripture yet no one that hath any conceptions of the Father but this is implied in them If it be therefore a Tradition because it is not expresly in Scripture Why may not Trinity Hypostasis Person Consubstantiality be all unwritten Traditions as well as this You will say Because though the words be not there yet the sense is and I pray take the same Answer for this of the Father's being unbegotten Your third is Of the perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary This indeed S. Austin saith is to be believed fide integra but he saith not divinâ but Do you therefore make this a doctrinal Tradition and an unwritten Word If you make it a doctrinal Tradition you must shew us what Article of Faith is contained in it that it was not looked on as an unwritten Word will appear by the disputations of those Fathers who writ most eagerly about it who make it their design to prove it out of Scripture Those who did most zealously appear against the Opinion of Helvidius were S. Hierom and S. Ambrose of the Latin Church S. Austin only mentions it in
could not at so small a distance of time prove any corruption by any Copies which were extant For saith he if they should say They would not embrace their writings because they were written by such who were not careful of writing Truth their evasion would be more sâ—y and their errour more pardonable But thus it seems they did by the Acts of the Apostles utterly denying them to contain matter of Truth in them and the reason was very obvious for it because that Book gives so clear an account of the sending the Spirit upon the Apostles which the Manichees pretended was to be only accomplished in the person of Manichaeus And both before and after S. Austin mentions it as their common speech That before the time of Manichaeus there had been corrupters of the sacred Books who had mixed several things of their own with what was written by the Apostles And this they laid upon the Judaizing Christians because their great pique was against the Old Testament and probably some further reason might be from the Nazarene Gospel wherein many things were inserted by such as did Judaize The same thing St. Austin chargeth them with when he gives an account of their Heresie And this likewise appears by the management of the dispute between S. Austin and Faustus who was much the subtillest man among them Faustus acknowledged no more to be Gospel than what contained the Doctrine delivered by our Saviour and therefore denied the Genealogies to be any part of the Gospel and afterwards disputes against it both in S. Matthew and S. Luke And after this S. Austin notes it as their usual custom when they could not avoid a Testimony of Scripture to deny it Thus we see what kind of persons these were and what their pretences were which S. Austin disputes against They embraced so much of Scripture as pleased them and no more To this therefore S. Austin returns these very substantial Answers That if such proceedings might be admitted the Divine Authority of any Books could signifie nothing at all for the convincing of errours That it was much more reasonable either with the Pagans to deny the whole Bible or with the Jews to deny the New Testament than thus to acknowledge in general the Books Divine and to quarrel with such particular passages as pinched them most that if there were any suspicion of corruption they ought to produce more true Copies and more ancient Books than theirs or else be judged by the Original Languages with many other things to the same purpose To apply this now to the present place in dispute S. Austin in that Book against the Epistle of Manichaeus begins with the Preface to it which is made in imitation of the Apostles strain and begins thus Manichaeus Apostolus Jesu Christi providentià Dei Patris c. To this S. Austin saith he believes no such thing as that Manichaeus was an Apostle of Jesus Christ and hopes they will not be angry with him for it for he had learned of them not to believe without reason And therefore desires them to prove it It may be saith he one of you may read me the Gospel and thence perswade me to believe it But what if you should meet with one who when you read the Gospel should say to you I do not believe it But I should not believe the Gospel if the Authority of the Church did not move me Whom therefore I obey in saying Believe the Gospel should I not obey in saying Believe not Manichaeus The Question we see is concerning the proving the Apostleship of Manichaeus which cannot in it self be proved but from some Records which must specifie such an Apostleship of his and to any one who should question the authenticalness of those Records it can only be proved by the testimony and consent of the Catholick Church without which S. Austin professeth he should never have believed the Gospel i. e. that these were the only true and undoubted Records which are left us of the Doctrine and actions of Christ. And he had very good reason to say so for otherwise the authority of those Books should be questioned every time any one such as Manichaeus should pretend himself an Apostle which Controversies there can be no other way of deciding but by the Testimony of the Church which hath received and embraced these Copies from the time of their first publishing And that this was S. Austin's meaning will appear by several parallel places in his disputes against the Manichees For in the same chapter speaking concerning the Acts of the Apostles Which Book saith he I must believe as well as the Gospel because the same Catholick Authority commends both i. e. The same Testimony of the Vniversal Church which delivers the Gospel as the authentick writings of the Evangelists doth likewise deliver the Acts of the Apostles for an authentick writing of one of the same Evangelists So that there can be no reason to believe the one and not the other So when he disputes against Faustus who denied the truth of some things in S. Paul's Epistles he bids him shew a truer Copy than that the Catholick Church received which Copy if he should produce he desires to know how he would prove it to be truer to one that should deny it What would you do saith he Whither would you turn your self What Original of your Book could you shew What Antiquity what Testimony of a succession of persons from the time of the writing of it But on the contrary What huge advantage the Catholicks have who by a constant succession of Bishops in the Apostolical Sees and by the consent of so many people have the Authority of the Church confirmed to them for the clearing the validity of its Testimony concerning the Records of Scripture And after laies down Rules for the trying of Copies where there appears any difference between them viz. by comparing them with the Copies of other Countries from whence the Doctrine originally came and if those Copies vary too the more Copies should be preferred before the fewer the ancienter before the latter If yet any uncertainty remains the original Language must be consulted This is in case a Question ariseth among the acknowledged authentical Copies of the Catholick Church in which case we see he never sends men to the infallible Testimony of the Church for certainty as to the Truth of the Copies but if the Question be Whether any writing it self be authentical or no then it stands to the greatest reason that the Testimony of the Catholick Church should be relyed on which by reason of its large spread and continual Succession from the very time of those writings cannot but give the most indubitable Testimony concerning the authenticalness of the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists And were it not for this Testimony S. Austin might justly say He should not believe the Gospel i. e. Suppose those writings which
that the Catholick Church is the subject of Infallibility But I had thought nothing could have been more necessary than to have known this But I proceed then How comes this Catholick Church to have this Infallible Assistance Cannot I suppose that Christ and the Holy Spirit may exist without giving this Assistance cannot I suppose that Christian Religion may be in the world without such an Infallibility Is this Assistance therefore a necessary or a free Act A free Act. If a free Act then for all you know Your Catholick Church may not be so assisted No you reply you are sure it is so assisted But Whence can you be sure of an arbitrary thing unless the Authours of this Assistance have engaged themselves by Promise to give your Catholick Church that Infallible Assistance Yes that they have you reply and then produce Luk. 10.16 Mat. 28.20 Joh. 14.16 But although our Infidel might ask some untoward Questions still as How you are sure these are Divine Promises when the knowledge that they are Divine must suppose the thing to be true which you would prove out of them viz. that your Church is infallible Supposing them Divine how are you sure That and no other is the meaning of them when from such places you prove that your Church is the only Infallible Interpreter of Scripture But I let pass these and other Questions and satisfie my self with this That it is impossible for you to prove such an Infallible Assistance of Christ and the Holy Spirit unless you produce some express Promise for it 2. This being impossible it necessarily follows That the only Motives of Credibility which can prove your Church Infallible must be such as do antecedently prove these Promises to be Divine This is so plain and evident a Consectary from the former that it were an affront upon humane understanding to go about to prove it For if the Infallibility doth depend upon the Promise nothing can prove that Infallibility but what doth prove that Promise to be True and Divine True or else not to be believed Divine or else not to be relyed on for such an Assistance none else being able to make a promise of it but the Authour of it As therefore my right to an estate as given by Will depends wholly upon the Truth and Validity of that Will which I must first prove before I can challenge any right to it So your pretence of Infallibility must solely depend upon the Promises which you challenge it by By which it appears that your attempting to prove the Infallibility of your Church by Motives of Credibility antecedent to and independent on the Scripture is vain ridiculous and destructive to that very Infallibility which you pretend to Which being by a free Assistance of Christ and his Spirit must wholly depend on the proof of the Promise made of it For if you prove no Promise all your Motives of Credibility prove nothing at all as I have at large demonstrated before and shall not follow you in needless repetitions 3. No right to any priviledge can be challenged by virtue of a free Promise made to particular persons unless it be evident that the intention of the Promiser was that it should equally extend to them and others For the Promise being free and the Priviledge such as carries no necessity at all along with it in order to the great ends of Christian Religion it is intolerable Arrogance and Presumption to challenge it without manifest evidence that the design of it was for them as well as the persons to whom it was made Indeed in such Promises which are built on common and general grounds containing things agreeable to all Christians it is but reasonable to inferr the universal extent of that Promise to all such as are in the like condition Hence the Apostle inferrs from the particular Promise made to Joshua I will never leave thee nor forsake thee the effect of it upon all believers Although had not the Apostle done it before us it may seem questionable on what ground we could have done it unless from the general reason of of it and the unbounded nature of Divine Goodness in things necessary for the Good of his People But in things arbitrary and such as contain special Priviledge in them to challenge a right to a Promise of the same Priviledge without equal evidence of the descent of it as the first Grant is great presumption and a challenge of the Promisor for partiality if he doth not make it good Because the pretence of the right of the Priviledge goes upon this ground that it is as much due to the Successor as to the Original Grantee 4. Nothing can be more unreasonable than to challenge a right to a Priviledge by virtue of such a Promise which was granted upon quite different considerations from the grounds on which that right is challenged Thus I shall after make it evident that the Promise of an Infallible Assistance of the Holy Ghost had a peculiar respect to the Apostles present employment and the first state of the Church that it was not made upon reasons common to all ages viz. for the Government of the Church deciding Controversies Foundation of Faith all which Ends may be sufficiently attained without them But above all it seems very unreasonable that a Promise made to persons in one office must be applied in the same manner to persons in a quite different office that a Promise made to each of them separate must be equally applied to others only as in Council that a Promise made implying Divine Assistance must be equally applied to such who dare not say that Assistance is Divine but infallible and after a sort Divine that a Promise made of immediate Divine Revelation and enabling the persons who enjoyed the Priviledge of it to work miracles to attest their Testimony to be infallible should be equally applied to such as dare not challenge a Divine Revelation nor ever did work a miracle to attest such an Infallible Assistance Yet all this is done by you in your endeavour of fetching the Infallibility of your Church out of those Promises of the assistance of Christ and his Spirit which were made to the Apostles These general Considerations do sufficiently enervate the force of your whole Chapter which yet I come particularly to consider His Lordship tells A. C. That in the second sense of Church-Tradition he cannot find that the Tradition of the present Church is of Divine and Infallible Authority till A. C. can prove that this company of men the Roman Prelates and Clergy he means are so fully so clearly so permanently assisted by Christ and his Spirit as may reach to Infallibility much less to a Divine Infallibilility in this or any other Principle which they teach In answer to this you tell us That the Bishop declines the Question by withdrawing his Reader from the thesis to the hypothesis from the Church to the Church of Rome But
one Visible Church free from errours and corruptions What if we should say in our own times What if in elder times For that which is possible to be may be supposed actually in any time If it be possible for one particular Church to fall into errours and corruptions Why is it not for another unless some particular priviledge of Infallibility be pretended but that is not our present Question if it be possible for every particular Church to fall into errour Why may not that possibility come into act in one Age as well as several Is there any promise that there shall be a succession and course of erring in Churches that one Church must erre for one age and another for the next but that it shall never fall out that by any means whatsoever they shall erre together If there be no such promise to the contrary the reason of the thing will hold that they may all erre at the same time No say you for then it would follow that the Catholick Church might erre To that I answer 1. Either you mean by that that all societies in the Christian world may concurr in the same errour or else that several of them may have several errours and this latter is it only which you prove for you do not suppose that the Romanists Hussites Albigenses c. were all guilty of the same errours but that these several societies were guilty of several errours and therefore from hence it follows not that they may all concurr in the same errour which is the only way to prove that the Church as Catholick may erre for otherwise you only prove that the several particular Churches which make up the Catholick may fall into errour 2. Supposing all these Churches should agree in one errour which is more than you have proved or it may be can have you proved that they concurr in such an errour which destroies the Being of the Catholick Church For you would do well to evince that the Church is secured from any but such errours which destroy its Being for the means of proving That the Catholick Church cannot erre are built on the promises of its perpetuity now those can only prove that the Church is secured from Fundamental errours for those are such only which destroy its Being And so his Lordship tells you That the whole Church cannot universally erre in the Doctrine of Faith is most true and granted by divers Protestants so you will but understand it s not erring in absolute Fundamental Doctrines and this he proves from that promise of Christ That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it So that the Catholick Churche's not erring and the perpetuity of the Catholick Church do with us mean the same thing For his Lordship grants That she may erre in superstructures and deductions and other By and Vnnecessary truths if her curiosity or other weakness carry her beyond or cause her to fall short of her Rule There is then a great difference between saying That the Catholick Church cannot erre which is no more than to say That there shall be alwaies a Catholick Church and saying That there must be alwaies some one Visible Church which must be free from all errour and corruption For this we deny and you produce no reason at all to prove it Granting that all particular Churches whether of Romanists Greeks or others are subject to errours and corruptions we assert no more of them than you grant your selves that any particular Church is subject to for the only ground why you would have your Church exempt from errour is the supposing her not to be a particular but the Catholick Church which implies that if she were only a particular Church as she is no more she might be subject to errours as well as other Churches And what incongruity then there is in asserting that there may be no one Visible Church of any particular denomination free from all errour and corruption I cannot understand But further you say If there were no one Visible Church then free from errour it follows 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 throughout the whole world Not to meddle with the truth of the thing Whether there were so or no the consequence is that we are now to examine that if it were so in Luthers time it must be so even up to the Apostles times The proof of which depends upon the impossibility of a Churches degeneracy in Faith or Manners and so supposeth the thing in question that there must be some one Visible Church absolutely exempt from all impossibility of errour For otherwise that might be true in one age which might not in another For although we say that particular Churches may erre and be corrupt we do not say that it is necessary they should alwaies be so For in some ages particular Churches may be free from errour and corruption and yet in another age be overspread with them And thus we assert it to have been with the Roman Church for his Lordship saith In the prime times it was a most right and orthodox Church but in the immediate times before Luther or in some ages before that it was a corrupt and tainted Church And so in those times in which it was right those might be heretical who did not communicate with it not meerly because they did not communicate with it but because in not communicating with a right and orthodox Church they shewed themselves guilty of some errour or corruption We see then there is no connexion in the world in the parts of your consequence That if it were so at one time it must be so alwaies if in the time of Luther it must be so even up to the Apostles times 3. From hence you say it will follow That it will be necessary to separate from the external communion of the whole Church I answer there can be no separation from the whole Church but in such things wherein the Vnity of the whole Church lyes for separation is a violation of some Vnion now when men separate from the errours of all particular Churches they do not separate from the whole because those things which one separates from those particular Churches for are not such as make all them put together to be the whole or Catholick Church This must be somewhat further explained There are two things considerable in all particular Churches those things which belong to it as a Church and those things which belong to it as a particular Church Those things which belong to it as a Church are the common ligaments or grounds of union between all particular Churches which taken together make up the Catholick Church Those things which belong to it as a particular Church are such as it may retain the essence of a Church without Now I say Whosoever separates from any particular Church much more from
formal guilt of Schism it being impossible any person should have just cause to disown the Churches Communion for any thing whose belief is necessary to salvation And whosoever doth so thereby makes himself no member of the Church because the Church subsists on the belief of Fundamental truths But in all such cases wherein a division may be made and yet the several persons divided retain the essentials of a Christian Church the separation which may be among any such must be determined according to the causes of it For it being possible of one side that men may out of capricious humours and fancies renounce the Communion of a Church which requires nothing but what is just and reasonable and it being possible on the other side that a Church calling her self Catholick may so far degenerate in Faith and practise as not only to be guilty of great errours and corruptions but to impose them as conditions of Communion with her it is necessary where there is a manifest separation to enquire into the reasons and grounds of it and to determine the nature of it according to the justice of the cause which is pleaded for it And this I hope may help you a little better to understand what is meant by such who say There can be no just cause of Schism and how little this makes for your purpose But you go on and I must follow And to his calling for truth c. I Answer What Hereticks ever yet forsook the Church of God but pretended truth and complain'd they were thrust out and hardly dealt with meerly because they call'd for truth and redress of abuses And I pray what Church was ever so guilty of errours and corruptions but would call those Hereticks and Schismaticks who found fault with her Doctrine or separated from her Communion It is true Hereticks pretend truth and Schismaticks abuses but is it possible there should be errours and corruptions in a Churches Communion or is it not if not prove but that of your Church and the cause is at an end if it be we are to examine whether the charge be true or no. For although Hereticks may pretend truth and others be deceived in judging of it yet doubtless there is a real difference between truth and errour If you would never have men quarrel with any Doctrine of your Church because Hereticks have pretended truth would not the same reason hold why men should never enquire after Truth Reason or Religion because men have pretended to them all which have not had them It is therefore a most senseless cavil to say we have no reason to call for truth because Hereticks have done so and on the same grounds you must not be call'd Catholicks because Hereticks have been call'd so But those who have been Hereticks were first proved to be so by making it appear that was a certain truth which they denyed do you the same by us prove those which we call errours in your Church to be part of the Catholick and Apostolick Faith prove those we account corruptions to be parts of Divine worship and we will give you leave to call us Hereticks and Schismaticks but not before But say you He should have reflected that the Church of God is stiled a City of Truth by the Prophet and so it may be and yet your Church be a fortress of Errour And a pillar and foundation of Truth by the Apostle but what is this to the Church of Romes being so And by the Fathers a rich depository or Treasury of all Divine and Heavenly Doctrines so it was in the sense the Fathers took the Church in for the truly Catholick Christian Church And we may use the same expressions still of the Church as the Prophets Apostles and Fathers did and nevertheless charge your Church justly with the want of truth and opposition to the preaching of it and on that ground justly forsake her Communion which is so far from being inexcusable impiety and presumption that it was only the performance of a necessary Christian duty And therefore that Woe of scandal his Lordship mentioned still returns upon your party who gave such just cause of offence to the Christian world and making it necessary for all such as aimed at the purity of the Christian Church to leave your Communion when it could not be enjoyed without making shipwrack both of Faith and a good Conscience And this is so clear and undeniable to follow you still in your own language that we dare appeal for a tryal of our cause to any Assembly of learned Divines or what Judge and Jury you please provided they be not some of the parties accused and because you are so willing to have Learned Divines I hope you will believe the last Pope Innocent so far as not to mention the Pope and Cardinals What follows in Vindication of A. C. from enterfeiring and shuffling in his words because timorous and tender consciences think they can never speak with caution enough for fear of telling a lye will have the force of a demonstration being spoken of and by a Jesuite among all those who know what mortal haters they are of any thing that looks like a lye or aequivocation And what reason there is that of all persons in the world they should be judged men of timorous and tender consciences But whatever the words were which passed you justifie A. C. in saying That the Protestants did depart from the Church of Rome and got the Name of Protestants by protesting against her For this say you is so apparent that the whole world acknowledgeth it If you mean that the Communion of Protestants is distinct from yours Whoever made scruple of confessing it But because in those terms of departing leaving forsaking your Communion you would seem to imply that it was a voluntary act and done without any necessary cause enforcing it therefore his Lordship denyes that Protestants did depart for saith he departure is voluntary so was not theirs But because it is so hard a matter to explain the nature of that separation between your Church and Ours especially in the beginning of it without using those terms or some like them as when his Lordship saith that Luther made a breach from it It is sufficient that we declare that by none of these expressions we mean any causeless separation but only such acts as were necessarily consequential to the imposing your errours and corruptions as conditions of Communion with your Church To the latter part his Lordship answers That the Protestants did not get that name by Protesting against the Church of Rome but by Protesting and that when nothing else would serve against her errours and superstitions Do you but remove them from the Church of Rome our Protestation is ended and our Separation too This you think will be answered with our old put off That it is the common pretext of all Hereticks when they sever themselves from the Roman Catholick
Church If your Church indeed were what she is not the Catholick Church we might be what we are not Hereticks but think it not enough to prove us Hereticks that you call us so unless you will likewise take it for granted that the Pope is Antichrist and your Church the Whore of Babylon because they are as often and as confidently call'd so And if your Church be truly so as she is shrewdly suspected to be Do you think she and all her followers would not as confidently call such as dissented from her Hereticks and the using those expressions of her virulent execrations against her as you do now supposing her not to be so What therefore would belong to your Church supposing her as bad as any Protestants imagine her to be cannot certainly help to perswade us that she is not so bad as she is When you say still That Protestants did really depart from the Roman Church and in so doing remained separate from the whole Church you very fairly beg the thing in dispute and think us uncivil for denying it You know not what that passage means That the Protestants did not voluntarily depart taking their whole body and cause together since there is no obscurity in the expression but a defect elsewhere I can only say That his Lordship was not bound to find you an Vnderstanding as oft as you want it But it were an easie matter to help you for it is plain that he speaks those words to distinguish the common cause of Protestants from the heats and irregularities of some particular persons whom he did not intend to justifie such as he saith Were either peevish or ignorantly zealous And if you distinguish the sense of your Church from the judgements of particular persons I hope it may be as lawful for us to distinguish the body and cause of Protestants from the inconsiderate actings of any particular men All that which follows about the name of Protestants which his Lordship saith Took its rise not from protesting simply against the Roman Church but against the Edict at Worms which was for the restoring all things to their former state without any reformation is so plain and evident that nothing but a mind to cavil and to give us the same things over and over could have made you stay longer upon it For what else means your talk of Innovation in matters of Religion which we say was caused by you and protesting against the Roman Church and consequently against all particular Visible Churches in the world and that which none but Hereticks and Schismaticks used to do Do you think these passages are so hard that we cannot know what they mean unless we have them so often over But they are not so hard to be understood as to be believed and that the rather because we see you had rather say them often than prove them once If the Popes professed Reformation necessary as to many abuses I hope they are not all Schismaticks who call for the redress of abuses in your Church But if all the Reformation we are to expect of them be that which you say was effectually ordained by the Council of Trent if there had not been an Edict at Worms there were the Decrees of that Council which would have made a Protestation necessary Although we think your Church needs Reformation in Manners and Discipline as much as any in the world yet those are not the abuses mainly insisted on by the Protestants as the grounds of their Separation and therefore his Lordship ought to be understood of a Reformation as to the errours and corruptions of the Roman Church and doubtless that Edict of Worms which was for the restoring all things to their former state did cut off all hopes of any such Reformation as was necessary for the Protestants to return to the Roman Communion And whatever you say till you have proved the contrary better than as yet it is done it will appear that they are the Protestants who stand for the ancient and undefiled Doctrine of the Catholick Church against the novel and corrupt Tenets of the Roman Church And such kind of Protestation no true Christian who measures his being Catholick by better grounds than communion with the Church of Rome will ever have cause to be ashamed of But A. C. saith his Lordship goes on and will needs have it that the Protestants were the cause of the Schism For saith he though the Church of Rome did thrust them 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 S. Bernard thinks is pride S. Austin madness At this his Lordship takes many and just exceptions 1. That holding and teaching was not the prime cause neither but the corruptions and superstitions of Rome which forced many men to hold and teach the contrary So the prime cause was theirs still Now to this your Answer is very considerable That the Bishop of Rome being S. 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 errours or corruptions difinitively taught by him or received by the Church as should either warrant them to preach against her Doctrine or lawfully to forsake her communion We say Your Church hath erred you say It is impossible she should we offer you evident proofs of her errours you say She is Infallible we say It is impossible that Church should be Infallible which we can make appear hath been deceived you tell us again It is impossible she should be deceived for let Hereticks say what they will she is Infallible And if this be not a satisfactory way of answering let the world judge But having already pulled down that Babel of Infallibility this Answer falls to the ground with it and to use your phrase The truth is all that you have in effect to say for your Church is that she is Infallible and the Catholick Church and by this means you think to cast the Schism upon us and these things are great enough indeed if you could but make any shew of proof for them but not being able to do that you do in effect as much as if a man in a high feaver should go about to demonstrate it was impossible for him to be sick which the more he takes pains to do the more evident his distemper is to all who hear him And it is shrewdly to be suspected if your errours had not been great and palpable you would have contented your selves with some thing short of Infallibility But as the case is with your Church I must confess it is your greatest wisdom to talk most of Infallibility for if you can but meet with any weak enough to swallow that all other things go down without dispute but if men are left at liberty to
and by an Epistle of Pelagius 1. A. D. 555. it appears that the Bishops of Aquileia and Milan were wont to ordain each other which though he would have believed was only to save charges in going to Rome yet as that learned and ingenuous person Petrus de Marcâ observes the true reason of it was because Milan was the Head of the Italick Diocese as appears by the Council of Aquileia and therefore the ordination of the Bishop of Aquileia did of right belong to the Bishop of Milan and the ordination of the Bishop of Milan did belong to him of Aquileia as the chief Metropolitan of the general Synod of the Italick Diocese Although afterwards the Bishops of Rome got it so far into their hands that their consent was necessary for such an ordination yet that was only when they began more openly to encroach upon the liberties of other Churches But as the same learned Author goes on those Provinces which lay out of Italy did undoubtedly ordain their own Metropolitans without the authority or consent of the Bishop of Rome which he there largely proves of the African Spanish and French Churches It follows then from the scope of the Nicene Canon and the practice of the Church that the Bishop of Rome had a limited Jurisdiction as the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch and other Primates had 2. That what Churches did enjoy priviledges before had them confirmed by this Canon as not to be altered For it makes provision against any such alteration by ordaining that the ancient Customs should be in force still And accordingly we find it decreed in the second Canon of the Constantinopolitan Council That the same limits of Dioceses should be observed which were decreed in the Council of Nice and that none should intrude to do any thing in the Dioceses of others And by the earnest and vehement Epistles of Pope Leo to Anatolius we see the main thing he had to plead against the advancement of the Patriarch of Constantinople was that by this means the most sacred Decrees of the Council of Nice would be violated We see then that those priviledges which belonged to Churches then ought still to be inviolably observed so that those Churches which then had Primates and Metropolitans of their own might plead their own right by virtue of the Nicene Canon So we find it decreed in that Council of Ephesus in the famous case of the Cyprian Bishops for their Metropolitan being dead Troilus the Bishop of Constance the Bishop of Antioch pretended that it belonged to him to ordain their Metropolitan because Cyprus was within the civil Jurisdiction of the Diocese of Antioch upon this the Cyprian Bishops make their complaint to the General Council at Ephesus and ground it upon that ancient custom which the Niccne Canon insists on viz. that their Metropolitan had been exempt from the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Antioch and was ordained by a Synod of Cyprian Bishops which priviledge was not only confirmed to them by the Ephesine Council but a general decree passed That the rights of every Province should be preserved whole and inviolate which it had of old according to ancient custom Which was not a decree made meerly in favour of the Cyprian Bishops but a common asserting the rights of Metropolitans that they should be held inviolate Now therefore it appears that all the Churches then were far from being under one of the three Patriarchs of Rome Antioch or Alexandria for not only the three Dioceses of Pontus Asia and Thracia were exempt although afterwards they voluntarily submitted to the Patriarch of Constantinople but likewise all those Churches which were in distinct Dioceses from these had Primates of their own who were independent upon any other Upon which account it hath not only been justly pleaded in behalf of the Britannick Churches that they are exempt from the Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop but it is ingenuously confessed by Father Barns That the Britannick Church might plead the Cyprian priviledge that it was subject to no Patriarch And although this priviledge was taken away by force and tumult yet being restored by the consent of the Kingdom in Henry 8. time and quietly enjoyed since it ought to be retained for peace sake without prejudice of Catholicism and the brand of Schism If so certainly it can be no Schism to withdraw from the usurped Authority of the Roman Church But these things have been more largely insisted on by others and therefore I pass them over 3. From thence it follows that there was then an equality not only among the Patriarchs whose name came not up till some time after the Council of Nice but among the several Primates of Dioceses all enjoying equal power and authority over their respective Dioceses without subordination to each other But here it is vehemently pleaded by some who yet are no Friends to the unlimited power of the Roman Bishop That it is hardly conceivable that he should have no other power in the Church but meerly as Head of the Roman Diocese and that it appears by the Acts of the Church he had a regular preheminence above others in ordering the Affairs of the Church To which I answer 1. If this be granted it is nothing at all to that Vniversal Pastorship over the Church which our Adversaries contend for as due by divine right and acknowledged to be so by consent of the Church Let the Bishop of Rome then quit his former plea and insist only on this and we shall speedily return an Answer and shew How far this Canonical Primacy did extend But as long as he challengeth a Supremacy upon other grounds he forfeits this right whatever it is which comes by the Canons of the Church 2. What meerly comes by the Canons of the Church cannot bind the Church to an absolute submission in case that authority be abused to the Churches apparent prejudice For the Church can never give away her Power to secure her self against whatever incroachments tend to the injury of it This power then may be rescinded by the parts of the Church when it tends to the mischief of it 3. This Canonical preheminence is not the main thing we dispute with the Church of Rome let her reform her self from all those errours and corruptions which are in her communion and reduce the Church to the primitive purity and simplicity of Faith and Worship and then see if we will quarrel with the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome according to the Canons or any regular preheminence in him meerly in order to the Churches Peace and Unity But this is not the case between us and them they challenge an unlimited power and that by divine right and nothing else will satisfie them but this although there be neither any ground in Scripture for it nor any evidence of it in the practice of the Ancient Church But however we must see what you produce for it First
S. Basil writes to him That he had care of all the Churches as of his own and in the same Epistle calls him The Head and chief over all Hence S. Chrysostome in the praise of Eustathius the Patriarch of Antioch saith That he was instructed by the Divine Spirit that he was not only to have care of that Church over which he was set but of the whole Church throughout the world Hence came the great endeavours of Theophilus and Cyril Patriarchs of Alexandria of Eusebius Vercellensis Hilarius Pictaviensis and several others for rooting out of Heresies not confining themselves to those Provinces allotted to them but extending their care over other Churches Hence came frequent ordinations of persons out of their own Dioceses as of Paulinus at Antioch by Lucifer Caralitanus of many Bishops in Syria and Mesopotamia by Eusebius Samosatenus and of a Presbyter at Bethleem by Epiphanius who when he was quarrel'd at by John of Hierusalem for it he defends his action by this saying That In Sacerdotio Dei nulla est diversitas i. e. where-ever a Bishop was he might exercise his power as such although the Churches prudence had set limits to their ordinary Jurisdiction From these things then we see that a general care and solicitude of the Vniversal Church doth belong to every Bishop and that some of them have been expresly said to have had the care of the whole Church which in other terms is to say They were Vniversal Bishops So that from this sense of the Title you gain nothing to your purpose though the care of the Vniversal Church be attributed to the Bishop of Rome though he acts and calls Councils and orders other things out of his own Province yet all this proves not the Supremacy you intend for this is no more than other Bishops did whom you will not acknowledge to be Heads of the Church or Vniversal Bishops in that sense 2. An Vniversal Bishop denotes a peculiar dignity over the Churches within the Roman Empire For which two things will be sufficient to manifest it 1. That the Roman Empire was then accounted Vniversal 2. That some Bishops in the Great Churches were on that account called Oecumenical or Vniversal Bishops 1. That the Roman Empire was then accounted Vniversal for which multitudes of testimonies might be cited in which orbis Romanus and orbis humanus were looked on as Synonymous thence Trebellius Pollio in Macrianus qui ex diversis partibus orbis Romani restituant and as Salmasius witnesseth in those writers of the Imperial History most of the ancient M S S. for orbis Romanus have orbis humanus for as he saith Eâ gloriâ fuerunt Romani ut totum orbem suum vocarent hinc orbis Romanus passim apud auctores reperitur pro universo orbe thence they called the Roman people omnium gentium victorem and from hence Ammianus Marcellinus calls Rome caput mundi the head of the world and the Roman Senate Asylum mundi totius the Sanctuary for the whole world thence Spartianus saith of Severus orbem terrarum Romamque despexit when as Casaubon observes he speaks only of the Roman Provinces And from hence whatever was out of the Roman Empire was called Barbaria thence the rura vicina Barbariae in Lampridius for the Marches which lay next to the enemies Country thence Marcellinus visus est in Barbarico miles and in the Imperial Constitutions as Justellus observes Barbari vocantur quicunque Imperio Romano non parebant all were called barbarous out of the Roman Empire and in the same sense barbaricum is used in the 58. Canon of the African Code and in the 206. Canon of the Code of the Vniversal Church that the Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. out of the Roman Empire should be ordained by the Patriarch of Constantinople Now since the Roman Empire was called orbis Romanus and in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as appears in that Augusius Luk. 2.1 is said to tax 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole world which could be only the Roman Empire and the famine in the same is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 11.28 it is no wonder if these Bishops who enjoyed the greatest dignity in the Roman Empire were called Oecumenical and those Councils so too which consisted of the Bishops within those bounds I come therefore to the second thing That some Bishops in the Great Churches in the Roman Empire were called Oecumenical as that relates to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. the Roman Empire For which we may consider the primary ground of the advancement of the Patriarch of Constantinople was the greatness of the City as is undeniably manifest by the proceedings of the Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon about him wherein it was decreed since that was New-Rome that it should enjoy equal priviledges with the old And in all probability the ground of the Patriarch of Constantinople's usurping the title of Oecumenical Patriarch was but to correspond with the greatness of his City which at the time of the contest between Pope Gregory and him was in a better condition than Rome it self being the seat of the Empire and therefore he thought it suitable thereto to be called Oecumenical Patriarch But besides this peculiarity of Constantinople it was no unusual thing for the Bishop of the Patriarchal Churches to have expressions given them tantamount to the title of Vniversal Bishop in any sense but that of the Vniversal Jurisdiction which I shall prove as to the three Patriarchs of Alexandria Antioch and Constantinople First Of Alexandria So Greg. Nazianzen saith of Athanasius being made Bishop there he had the Government of that people committed to him which is as much as to say of the whole world and John of Hierusalem writing to Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria saith That he had the care of all the Churches And St. Basil writes to Athanasius about the establishing of Meletius as Patriarch of Antioch that so he might govern as it were the whole body of the Church But most clear and full to that purpose is the testimony of Theodoret concerning Nestorius being made Patriarch of Constantinople He was intrusted with the Government of the Catholick Church of the Orthodox at Constantinople and thereby of the whole world What work would you make with so illustrious a testimony in Antiquity for the Bishop of Rome as this is for the Patriarch of Constantinople Use therefore and interpret but these testimonies as kindly as you do any for the Roman See and will you not find as large a power over the Church attributed to the other Patriarchs as you do to the Bishop of Rome What is it then you would infer from the title of Vniversal Bishop being attributed to him Will the very title do more then what is signified by it Or must it of necessity import something more when given to the Bishop of Rome
But all this proceeds from want of understanding the Discipline of the Church at that time for excommunication did not imply any such authoritative act of throwing men out of the Communion of the whole Church but only a declaring that they would not admit such persons to communion with themselves And therefore might be done by equals to equals and sometimes by Inferiours to Superiours In equals it is apparent by Johannes Antiochenus in the Ephesine Council excommunicating Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria and I suppose you will not acknowledge it may be done by Inferiours if we can produce any examples of Popes being excommunicated and what say you then to the African Bishops excommunicating Pope Vigilius as Victor Tununensis an African Bishop himself relates it Will you say now that Victors excommunicating the Asian Churches argued his authority over them when another Victor tells us that the African Bishops solemnly excommunicated the Pope himself And I hope you will not deny but the Bishop of Rochester might as well excommunicate the Archbishop of York as these Africans excommunicate the Bishop of Rome What say you to the expunging the name of Felix Bishop of Rome out of the Diptychs of the Church by Acacius the Patriarch of Constantinople What say you to Hilary's Anathema against Pope Liberius If these excommunications did not argue just power and authority over the persons excommunicated neither could Pope Victors do it For it is apparent by the practise of the Church that excommunication argued no such superiority in the persons who did it but all the force of it lay in the sense of the Church for by whomsoever the sentence was pronounced if all other Churches observed it as most commonly they did while the Vnity of the Church continued then they were out of the Communion of the Catholick Church if not then it was only the particular declaration of those persons or Churches who did it And in this case the validity of the Popes excommunication of the Asian Bishops depended upon the acceptance of it by other Churches which most consenting to it he could not throw them out of the communion of the whole Church but only declare that if they came to Rome he would not admit them to communion with him And therefore Ruffinus well renders that place in Eusebius out of Irenaeus his Epistle to Victor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by these words Nunquam tamen ob hoc repulsi sunt ab Ecclesiae societate aut venientes ab illis partibus non sunt suscepti so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may as well signifie not to receive as to cast out for the Churches not receiving is her casting out Thus I hope it is evident that his Lordship hath received no injury by these lighter skirmishes We now follow you into hotter service For you say he ventures at last to grapple with the Authority it self alleadged by A. C. out of St. Irenaeus where in the first place you wink and strike and let your blows fall besides him for fear he should return them or some one for him You quarrel with his translation of the Authority cited by him but that the ground of this quarrel may be understood we must first enquire what his Lordship hath to say for himself The place of Irenaeus is To this Church he speaks of Rome propter potentiorem principalitatem for the more powerful Principality of it 't is necessary that every Church that is the faithful undique round about should have recourse Now for this his Lordship saith there was very great reason in Irenaeus his time that upon any difference arising in the faith Omnes undique Fideles all the faithful or if you will all the Churches round about should have recourse that is resort to Rome being the Imperial City and so a Church of more powerful Principality then any other at that time in those parts of the world But this his Lordship saith will not exalt Rome to be Head of the Church Vniversal Here your blood rises and you begin a most furious encounter with his Lordship for translating undique round about as if say you St. Irenaeus spake 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 parts places and corners every where Can you blame me now if I seek for a retreat into some strong-hold or if you will some more powerful Principality when I see so dreadful a Charge begun with Thomas Thomasius in the Front You had routed us once before with Rider and other English Lexicons but it seems Rider had done service enough that time now that venerable person Thomas Thomasius must be upon duty and do his share for the Catholick Cause You somewhere complain how much Catholicks are straitned for want of Books Would any one believe you that find you so well stored with Thomas Thomasius Rider and other English Lexicons You would sure give us some cause of suspition that there is some Jesuits School taught in England and that you are the learned Master of it by your being so conversant in these worthy Authours But although the Authority of Th. Thomasius signifie very little with us yet that of the Greek Lexicons might do much more if we had the original Greek of Irenaeus instead of his barbarous Latin Interpreter For now it is uncertain what word Irenaeus used and so it is but a very uncertain conjecture which can be drawn from the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unless we knew which of them was the genuine word in the Greek of Irenaeus But you say all of them undeniably signifie from all parts Vniversally and that because they are rendred by the word undique So that this will make an excellent proof undique must signifie from all parts because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do signifie so in Greek and that these do undeniably signifie so much appears because they are rendred by undique And I grant they are so for in the old Glossary which goes under the name of Cyril undique is rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and â—ully than whom we cannot possibly desire a better Authour in this case renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by undique For in his Book de Finibus he translates that of Epicurus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by undique complerentur voluptatibus and so he renders that passage in Plato's Timaeus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by undique aequabilem although as Hen. Stephanus notes that be rather the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but still there is some difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek Authours notes ex omni parte terrae but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only ex quâvis parte so that
to over-see the lesser parts of it and all joyn to promote the Peace and Unity of it which they may with the more ease do if no one challenge to be Supreme Head to whom belongs the chief care of the Church For by this means they cannot with that power and authority redress abuses and preserve the Churches Purity and Peace which otherwise they might have done So that considering barely the nature of things nothing seems more repugnant to the end for which Christ instituted a Catholick Church than such a Monarchy as you imagine and nothing more suitable than an Aristocracy considering that Christian Churches may be much dispersed abroad and that where they are they are incorporated into that Civil Society in which they live according to the known saying of Optatus Ecclesia est in republicâ c. and therefore such a Monarchy would be unsuitable to the civil Governments in which those Churches may be For it were easie to demonstrate that such a Monarchy as you challenge in the Church is the most inconvenient Government for it take the Church in what way or sense you please Whether as to its own peace and order or to its spreading into other Churches or to the respect it must have to the civil Government it lives under And if we would more largely enquire into these things we might easily find that those which you look on as the great ends wherefore Christ should institute such a Monarchical Government in his Church are things unsuitable to the nature of a Christian Church and which Christ as far as we can judge did never intend to take care that they should never be which are freedom from all kind of Controversies and absolute submission of Judgement to the decrees of an Infallible Judge We no where find such a state of a Christian Church described or promised where men shall all be of one mind only that peace and brotherly love be continued is that all Christians are bound to much less certainly that this Vnity should be by a submission of our understandings to an Infallible Judge of whom we read nothing in that Book which perswades us to be Christians and without which freedom of our understandings which this pretended Infallibility would deprive us of we could never have been judicious and rational Christians But granting that wise men have thought Monarchy the best Government in it self What is this to the proving what Government Christ hath appointed in his Church For that is the best Government for the Church not which Philosophers and Politicians have thought best but which our Saviour hath appointed in his Word For he certainly knew best what would suit with the conveniencies of his Church And these are bold and insolent disputes wherein those of your side argue That Christ must have instituted a Monarchy in his Church because all Philosophers have judged That the most perfect Government I need not tell you what these speeches imply Christ to be if he doth not follow the Philosophers judgement Will you give him leave to judge what is fittest for his Church himself or do you think he hath not wisdom enough to do it unless the Philosophers instruct him Let us therefore appeal to his Laws to see what Government he hath there appointed And now I shall deal more closely with you You tell me therein Christ hath appointed this Monarchical Government But I may be nearer your mind when you will Answer me these following Questions When and where did any wise Legislator appoint a matter of so vast concernment to the good of the Society as the Supreme Government of it and express no more of it in his Laws than Christ hath done of this Monarchical Government of the Church Is there not particular care taken in all Laws about that to express the rights of Soveraignty to hinder Vsurpations to bind all to obedience to determine the way of Succession by descent or election And hath Christ instituted a Monarchy in his Church and said nothing of all these things When the utmost you can pretend to are some ambiguous places which you must have the power of Interpreting your selves or they signifie nothing to your purpose So that none of the Fathers or the Primitive Church for several Centuries could find out such mysteries in super hanc Petram dabo tibi Claves and pasce oves as you have done If such a Monarchy had been appointed in the Church what should we have had more frequent mention of in the Records of the Church than of this Where do we meet with any Histories that write the affairs of Kingdoms for some hundred of years and never mention any Royal Acts of the Kings of them If St. Peters being at Rome had setled the Monarchy of the Church there what more famous act could have been mentioned in all Antiquity then that What notice would have been taken by other Churches of him whom he had left his Successour What addresses would have been made to him by the Bishops of other Churches What testimonies of obedience and submission what appeals and resort thither And it is wonderful strange that the Histories of the Church should be silent in these grand Affairs when they report many minute things even during the hottest times of persecution Did the Christians conspire together in those times not to let their posterity know Who had the Supream Government of the Church then Or were they afraid the Heathen Emperours should be jealous of the Popes if they had understood their great Authority But then methinks they should have carried it however among themselves with all reverence and submission to the Pope and not openly oppose him assoon as ever he began to exercise any Authority as in the case of Victor and the Asian Bishops But of all things it seems most strange and unaccountable to me that Christ should have instituted such a Monarchy in his Church and none of the Apostles mention any thing of it in any of the Epistles which they writ in which are several things concerning the Peace and Government of the Church nay when there were Schisms and divisions in the Church and that on the account of their Teachers among whom Cephas was one by that very name on which Christ said he would build his Church and yet no mention of respect more to him then to any other no intimation of what power St. Peter had for the Government of the Church as the Head and Monarch of it no references at all made to him by any of the divided parties of the Church at that time no mention at all of any such power given him in the Epistles written by him but he writes just as any other Apostle did with great expressions of humility and as if he foresaw what Vsurpations would be in the Church he forbids any Lording it over Gods heritage and calls Christ the chief Pastour of the Church And this he doth in an Epistle not writ
to the Catholick Church which had been most proper for him if Head of the Church but only to the dispersed Jews in some particular Provinces Can any one then imagine he should be Monarch of the Church and no act of his as such recorded at all of him but carrying himself with all humility not fixing himself as Head of the Church in any Chair but going up and down from one place to another as the rest of the Apostles for promoting the Gospel of Christ To conclude all Is it possible to conceive there should be a Monarch appointed by Christ in the Church and yet the Apostle when he reckons up those offices which Christ had set in the Church speak not one word of him he mentions Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastours and Teachers but the chief of all is omitted and he to whom the care of all the rest is committed and in whose Authority the welfare peace and unity of the Church is secured These things to me seem so incredible that till you have satisfied my mind in these Questions I must needs judge this pretended Monarchy in the Church to be one of the greatest Figments ever were in the Christian world And thus I have at large considered your Argument from Reason Why there should be such a Monarchy in the Church which I have the rather done because it is one of the great things in dispute between us and because the most plausible Argument brought for it is The necessity of it in order to the Churches peace which Monarchy being the best of Governments would the most tend to promote To return now to his Lordship He brings an evidence out of Antiquity against the acknowledgement of any such Monarchy in the Church from the literae communicatoriae which certified from one great Patriarch to another Who were fit or unfit to be admitted to their Communion upon any occasion of repairing from one See to another And these were sent mutually and as freely in the same manner from Rome to the other Patriarchs as from them to it Out of which saith his Lordship I think this will follow most directly that the Church-Government then was Aristocratical For had the Bishop of Rome been then accounted sole Monarch of the Church and been put into the definition of the Church as he is now by Bellarmin all these communicatory Letters should have been directed from him to the rest as whose admittance ought to be a rule for all to communicate but not from others to him at least not in that even equal brotherly way as now they appear to be written For it is no way probable the Bishops of Rome which even then sought their own greatness too much would have submitted to the other Patriarchs voluntarily had not the very course of the Church put it upon them To this you Answer That these literae communicatoriae do rather prove our assertion being ordained by Sixtus 1 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 But that these letters should be sent from other Bishops to Rome in such an even equal and brotherly way you say is one of his Lordships Chimaera's But this difference or inequality you pretend to be in them that those to the Pope were meerly Testimonial those from him were Mandatory witness say you the case of St. Athanasius and other Bishops restored by the Popes communicatory letters But supposing them equal you say it only shewed the Popes humility and ought to be no prejudice to his just authority and his right and power to do otherwise if he saw cause But all this depends upon a meer fiction viz. That these communicatory letters were ordained by Sixtus 1 in favour of such Bishops as were called to Rome than which nothing can be more improbable But I do not say that this is a Chimaera of your own Brains for you follow Baronius in it for which he produceth no other evidence but the Authour of the lives of the Popes but Binius adds that which seems to have been the first ground of it which is the second decretal Epistle of Sixtus 1 in which that Decree is extant But whosoever considers the notorious forgery of those decretal Epistles as will be more manifested where you contend for them on which account they are slighted by Card. Perron and in many places by Baronius himself will find little cause to triumph in this Epistle of Sixtus 1. And whoever reflects on the state of those times in which Sixtus lived will find it improbable enough that the Pope should take to himself so much Authority to summon Bishops to him and to order that none should be admitted without Communicatory letters from him It is not here a place to enquire into the several sorts of those letters which passed among the Bishops of the Primitive Church whether the Canonical Pacifical Ecclesiastical and Communicatory were all one and what difference there was between the Communicatory letters granted to Travellers in order to their Communion with forrain Churches and those letters which were sent from one Patriarch to another But this is sufficiently evident that those letters which were the tessera hospitalitatis as Tertullian calls it the Pass-port for Communion in forrain Churches had no more respect to the Bishop of Rome than to any other Catholick Bishop Therefore the Council of Antioch passeth two Canons concerning them one That no Traveller should be received without them another That none but Bishops should give them And that all Bishops did equally grant them to all places appears by that passage in St. Austin in his Epistle to Eusebius and the other Donatists relating the conference he had with Fortunius a Bishop of that party wherein St. Austin asked him Whether he could give communicatory letters whither he pleased for by that means it might be easily determined whether he had communion with the whole Catholick Church or no. From whence it follows that any Catholick Bishop might without any respect to the Bishop of Rome grant Communicatory letters to all forrain Churches And the enjoying of that Communion which was consequent upon these letters is all that Optatus means in that known saying of his that they had Communion with Siricius at Rome commercio formatarum by the use of these communicatory letters But besides these there were other letters which every Patriarch sent to the rest upon his first installment which were call'd their Synodical Epistles and these contained the profession of their Faith and the answers to them did denote their Communion with them Since therefore these were sent to all the Patriarchs indifferently and not barely to the Bishop of Rome there appears no difference at all in the letters sent to or
would not do How they bait them in Council by the flouting Italians what private Cabals were kept by the Legats what dispatching and posting to Rome what numbers of jolly Italians are made Bishops and sent away to over-vote them And when the French-Bishops were come what Spies did they keep upon them what bones were thrown to divide the French and Spanish Bishops what caressing the Cardinal of Lorrain to bring him off by the Court of Rome And when any others durst speak freely what checks and frowns and disgraces did they meet with And all this to keep the Pope safe who was still in bodily fear till the Council was ended to his mind and then what rejoycing that they had cheated the world so that that which was intended to clip the wings of the Court of Rome had confirmed and advanced the Interest of it This was truly the Head 's presiding over the members for all the life and motion they had proceeded from the Influence of their Head the Pope Call you this Presiding in a Council It is rather riding of it that by the spurring some and bridling others they may go just as the Pope would have them And that this is a true account of it appears notwithstanding whatever your Cardinal Palavicino hath been able to object against the impartial history of it whose two volumes pretended in Answer to it consist of so many impertinencies and hath so very little material in it that a Roman Catholick himself hath declared to the world that he hath done more disservice to the Church of Rome by his Answer then ever Father Paul did by his History By whom his two great Books are compared to those Night-birds that make a great shew but are all Feathers and very little Flesh. This then being the way of management of things at Trent judge you or any reasonable man Whether the Protestants have not just cause to except against the Presidentship which the Pope had in that Council and name you any General Council that was truly accounted so where ever he had any thing like it The particulars you mention will be considered afterwards But you say All this was because the Pope was not justly accusable of any crime but what must involve not only the Council but the whole Church as much as himself If so there was the greater reason that he should leave it to the Church in a Free Council to have impartially debated things without his acting and interposing so much as he did But the Pope was wiser then to think so he knew there were many things in the Court of Rome which many other Bishops struck at as well as the Protestants and that they desired a Reformation of Abuses as well as the other especially the German French and Spanish Bishops Nay it is strange to see how much interest or prejudice blinds men that they will not acknowledge now that there was any such need of Reformation when Pope Adrian 6 confessed at the Dyet at Norimberg A.D. 1522. by Cheregatus his Legat that the Popes themselves had been the fountain and cause of all those evils in the Church In these remarkable words part of which have been cited already on another occasion Scimus in hâc sancta Sede aliquot jam annis multa abominanda fuisse abusus in Spiritualibus excessus in mandatis omnia denique in perversum mutata Nec mirum si aegritudo à capite in membra à summis Pontificibus in alios praelatos descenderit Omnes nos sc. praelati Ecclesiastici declinavimus unusquisque in viâ—s suas nec fuit jamdiu qui faceret bonum non fuit usque ad unum Quamobrem necesse est ut omnes demus gloriam Deo humiliemus animas nostras ei videat unusquisque nostrûm unde exciderit se potius quilibet judicet quà m à Deo in virga furoris sui judicari velit Qua in re quod ad nos pertinet polliceberis Nos omnem operam adhibituros ut primum Curia haec unde forte omne hoc malum processit reformetur ut sicut inde corruptio in omnes inferiores emanavit ita ab eadem sanitas reformatio omnium emanet Ad quod procurandum nos tanto arctius obligatos reputamus quando universum mundum hujusmodi reformationem avidiùs desiderare videmus Can you now for shame say There was no need of Reformation at that time and that the Popes were no more concerned then the whole Church The whole Church was indeed concerned to see the Court of Rome reformed and we see the Pope confesseth that all the world desired a Reformation Doth not he ingenuously acknowledge That many abominable things had been for many years in the Holy See and very holy it was the mean time that all things were out of order That the distemper had fallen from the Head to the members from the Popes to other Prelates that they had all gone out of the way that for a long time there had been none that did good no not one That therefore it was necessary that all should give glory to God and humble their souls and every one see whence he was fallen and judge himself rather then be judged by God in the rod of his fury Wherefore saith he to his Legat thou shalt promise for us that we will use our utmost endeavour that this Court from whence all the mischief hath proceeded may be reformed that as the corruption hath flowed from thence unto inferiours so the health and reformation of all may come from thence too And we look on our selves as the more obliged to procure this because we see the whole world doth earnestly desire such a Reformation Whom must we now believe the Pope or you the Pope ingenuously and Christianly bemoaning the corruptions that had been in Popes themselves and from them had spread to others or you who basely and untruly flatter the Popes as though they needed no Reformation but what concerned the Council and Church as well as them And the Pope gives you the true reason of it Because the corruptions had been so great at Rome that from thence they had spread over all others And can you think now that the Pope was not justly accused of any crime but that he might sit as President and manage the affairs of the Council as though there had been no need at all of any Reformation But I remember an observation of Baronius that the providence of God was so great in watching over the Roman Seâ— that the Popes who were unfit to Govern it seldom continued long in it which he makes upon Siricius his favour to Ruffinus and such a Pope was this Adrian accounted this confession of his being very distastful at Rome he continued not long after it But yet I know you have another Answer ready at hand That all this concerned only some abuses in manners and management of affairs but nothing confessed to
by Martian and Valentinian And this is so clear that Bellarmine in his Recognitions confesseth his mistake about the Constantinopolitan Council being called by the Letters of Pope Damasus and acknowledges that to be true which I at large proved before That the Synodical Epistle was not sent by the General Council but by another the year after If then the calling of Councils belongs not of right to the Pope it is not his summoning which can make a General Council without mission and deputation from those Churches whom they are to represent And any other sense of a General Council is contrary to the sense of Antiquity and is forced and unreasonable in it self For it must be either absolutely general or by representation none ever imagined yet an absolutely General Council and therefore it must be so called as it doth represent if so then there is a necessity of such a deputation But here a Question might arise Whether those Deputies of Churches have power by their own votes to oblige the Churches they are sent from by conveying in a General Council or else only as they carry with them the sense of those Churches whom they represent and this latter seems more agreeable to the nature of a truly General Council whose acts must oblige the whole Church For that can only be said to be the act of the whole Church which is done by the Bishops delivering the sense of all particular Churches and it is not easie to understand How the Vniversal Church can be obliged any other way unless it be proved that General Councils are instituted by some positive Law of Christ so that what is done by the Bishops in them must oblige the Catholick Church and then we must find out not only the Institution it self but the way and manner how General Councils should be called of which the Scripture is wholly silent And therefore there is no reason that there should be any other General Council imagined but by such a representation and in order to this the consent of all those Churches must be known by the particular Bishops before they can concurr with others so as to make a General Council The most suitable way then to a General Council is that the Summons of them being published by the consent of Christian Princes every Prince may call together a National Synod in which the matters to be debated in the Council are to be discussed and the sense of that Synod fully declared which those Bishops who are appointed by it to go to the General Council are to carry with them and there to declare the sense of their particular Church and what all these Bishops so assembled do all agree in as the sense of the whole Church may be called the decree of a General Council Or in case some great impediment happen that such Bishops cannot assemble from all Churches but a very considerable number appearing and declaring themselves which upon the first notice of it is universally received by all particular Churches that may ex post-facto be called a General Council as it was with the first four Oecumenical Councils And yet that in them there was such a deputation as this is appears by that expression in the Synodical Epistle of the Bishops of Constantinople before mentioned for in that they give this account Why they could not do what the Western Bishops desired because they brought not with them the consent of the Bishops who remained at home to that purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And concerning this only Council viz. at Constantinople have we brought the consent of those Bishops which remain in the Provinces So that they looked on the consent of the other Bishops to be necessary as well as their own But now if we examine your Council of Trent by this Rule How far is it from any appearance of a General Council What Bishops were there sent from the most of Christian Churches Those that did appear What equality and proportion was there among them For Voices in General Councils ought not to go by the number of Bishops but by the number of Churches so that if six were sent from the Church of England or France delivering the sense of that Church they come from they have equal Votes with the greatest number of Italian Bishops But here lay the great imposture of that Council first that the Councils being general depended upon the Popes general Summons though never so few Bishops appeared next that the Decrees of the Council were to be carried by most Voices and the Bishops to give their bare placet these things being thus laid when there was any fear that businesses would not go right it was but the Legats using some art in delaying it and sending intelligence to Rome and forty Bishops are made together and posted to Trent to help out the number of voices and thus it was in the case of the Institution and Residence of Bishops And this is that you call a General Council 2. To your other That what was wanting in number at first was made up at last when all former Decrees were confirmed by a full number of Bishops it is soon replied That this is as all the rest of the proceedings of that Council was but a meer Artifice For it appears by the History of that Council that in the last Session under Pius 4. a Proposition was made that all the Decrees under Paul and Julius should be approved which was opposed because they said it would be a derogation to the Authority of the Council of those times if it should seem that the things then done had need of a new confirmation of the Fathers and would shew that this and that was not all one because none can confirm his own things But upon the French Bishops earnest insisting upon it it was determined simply to read them and no more And Do you call this a confirming and ratifying them de novo So that for all appears by this last Session the Authority of those Decrees must as far as concerns the Council depend upon the number of the Bishops then present which was but very small certainly for a General Council there being not so many in most of the Sessions as were in the Donatists Council in Africa so far were they from the number of the ancient General Councils But here comes your grand Objection in the way That nothing is pretended by us against the Council of Trent which might not have been in effect as justly objected by the Arrians against the Council of Nice But Is not there easily discernable a vast disparity between these two which way soever we conceive them The one called by the Emperour who in person sate in the Council to prevent all disorders and clancular actions the other by the Pope who presided in it by his Legats and ordered all things by his directions In that of Nice the Arrian Bishops were as freely admitted to debate as
the Catholick Church with them and there was the greater hopes of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Since neither part did agree with the Bishop of old Rome or the Church which joynes with him but both oppose the evil customs and abuses which come by him which bears the same date with the Patriarchs first Answer to the Tubing Divines May 15. 1576. And the Patriarch in his letter heartily wishes an union and conjunction between them From hence we may easily gather how true both those things were viz. That the intent of their writing was to be admitted into the communion of the Greek Church and that the Patriarch did not in the least approve their Doctrine but confirmed the Tenets of the Roman Catholick Church But we must look further into the writings themselves to see how far they agreed and wherein they differed It appears then that the Patriarch did profess his consent with them in these things besides the Articles of the Creed and the satisfaction of Christ and other more general points viz. That the Sacrament was to be received in both kinds that the use of marriage was not to be absolutely forbidden the Clergy though their custom is that they must be married before they take Orders besides the grand Articles of the Popes Supremacy and the Roman Churches Infallibility Doth he that joyns with them in these things not in the least approve their Doctrine but confirm the Tenets of the Roman Catholick Church But withall it must be confessed that besides that common Article of the Procession of the Spirit wherein he disputes most earnestly there are five others in which they dissented from each other about Free will justification by Faith the number of Sacraments Invocation of Saints and Monastick life and about these the remaining disputes were In some of which it is easie to discern how far the right state of the question was from being apprehended which the Lutheran Divines perceiving sent him a larger and fuller explication of their mind in a body of Divinity in Greek but the Patriarchs troubles coming on Cantacuzenus deposing him too and other businesses taking him off upon his restauration he breaks off the Conference between them But although he differed from them in these things yet he was far enough from rebuking them for departing from the Roman Church although he was desirous they should have joyned with them in the approbation of such things as were in use among themselves And in those things in which he seems to plead for some practises in use in the Roman Church yet there are many considerable circumstances about them wherein they differ from the Church of Rome as hath been manifested by many others As in the Article of Invocation of Saints the Patriarch saith They do not properly Invocate Saints but God for neither Peter nor Paul do hear us upon which ground it is impossible to maintain the Romish Doctrine of Invocation of Saints And in most of the other the main difference lies in the want of a true State of the Questions between them But is this any such great matter of admiration that the Patriarch upon the first sight of their confession should declare his dissent from them in these things It is well enough known how much Barbarism had crept into the Greek Church after their being subdued by the Turks the means of Instruction being taken from them and it being very rare at that time to have any Sermons at all in so much that one of your Calogeri being more learned then the rest and preaching there in Lent was thereby under great suspicion and at last was by the Patriarch himself sent out of the way It is therefore more to be wondered they should preserve so much of the Doctrine of Faith entire as they have done then that any corrupt practises should prevail amongst them The most then which you can make of the judgement of the Patriarch Hieremias is that in some things he was opposite to the Protestants as in others to the Church of Rome But what would you have said if any Patriarch of Constantinople had declared his consent so fully with the Church of Rome as the Patriarch Cyril did afterwards with the Protestants who on that account suffered so much by the practises of the Jesuits of whom he complains in his Epistle to Vtenbogard And although a Faction was raised against him by Parthenius who succeeded him yet another Parthenius succeeding him stood up in vindication of him Since therefore such different opinions have been among them about the present Controversies of the Christian world and there being no declared Confession of their Faith which is owned by the whole Greek Church as to these things there can be no confident pronouncing what their judgement is as to all our differences till they have further declared themselves PART III. Of Particular Controversies CHAP. I. Of the Infallibility of General Councils How far this tends to the ending Controversies Two distinct Questions concerning the Infallibility and Authority of General Councils The first entered upon with the state of the Question That there can be no certainty of faith that General Councils are infallible nor that the particular decrees of any of them are so which are largely proved Pighius his Arguments against the Divine Institution of General Councils The places of Scripture considered which are brought for the Churches infallibility and that these cannot prove that General Councils are so Matth. 18.20 Acts 15.28 particularly answered The sense of the Fathers in their high expressions of the decrees of Councils No consent of the Church as to their infallibility The place of St. Austin about the amendment of former General Councils by latter at large vindicated No other places in S. Austin prove them infallible but many to the contrary General Councils cannot be infallible in the conclusion if not in the use of the means No such infallibility without as immediate a revelation as the Prophets and Apostles had taking Infallibility not for an absolute unerring power but such as comes by a promise of Divine Assistance preserving from errour No obligation to internal assent but from immediate Divine Authority Of the consistency of Faith and reason in things propounded to be believed The suitableness of the contrary Doctrine to the Romanists principles IF high pretences and large promises were the only things which we ought to value any Church for there were none comparable to the Church of Rome For there can be nothing imagined amiss in the Christian world but if we believe the bills her Factours set up she hath an Infallible cure for it If any enquire into the grounds of Religion they tell us that her testimony only can give them Infallible Certainty if any are afraid of mistaking in opinions they have the only Infallible Judge of Controversies to go to if any complain of the rents and divisions of the Christian world they have Infallible Councils either to
time viz. the direction of the Holy Ghost this spiritual power not being of humane but divine Institution and not proceeding so much from the abilities of the persons as from the co-operation of the Holy Spirit with them To which I reply that all this had need be more then thus barely asserted it being confessed by your selves as his Lordship shews that a General Council is a representative of the whole Church you ought to have shewed us the Divine Institution of this Representative and the promises made to it under that notion or else we may still say with his Lordship That all the power and assistance it hath is by vertue of that body which it represents But I need not in this urge the Arguments of Protestants against you for in this as in most other Controversies we have enough from those of your own party to oppose against these affirmations of yours For Albertus Pighius not only asserts but proves that General Councils are not of divine but humane institution arising from a dictate of right reason that matters of doubt may be better debated by many prudent and experienced persons then by a few So that as the supream authority for administration of affairs belongs to one so it is most agreeable to right reason that debates should be by many This he proves at large that nothing but humane reason is the foundation of Councils in the Church for saith he In Scripturis Canonicis nullum de iis verbum est nec ex Apostolorum institutione speciale quicquam de illis accepit illa primitiva Christi Ecclesia There is not a word of them in Scripture neither did the primitive Church receive any particular order from the Apostles concerning them which he from thence proves because in all the time of the primitive Church till the Nicene Council there is no mention at all of them And at that time it did not receive any new revelation concerning the celebrating General Councils but the Emperour Constantines zeal for the peace of the Church was the first cause and original of them From whence he concludes that they have no supernatural or divine Institution sed prorsus humanam but altogether humane for they are saith he The invention of Constantine sometimes useful but not at all necessary This man speaks intelligibly and not like those who jumble Pope and Council together to make something Infallible between them For he sayes It is the better way by far to go immediately to the Apostolical See and consult that as the Infallible Oracle in all doubts of Faith And very honestly tells us That he believes Constantine was ignorant of that priviledge of the Holy See when he first instituted General Councils Than which nothing could be spoken truer If you have then nothing more to say for the Divine Institution of General Councils then what you have acquainted us with it would be much more wisedom in you to contend with Pighius for the Popes Infallibility and let that of General Councils shift for it self His Lordships second Consideration you admit of viz. That though the Act which is hammered out by many together must needs be perfecter then that which is but the child of one mans sufficiency yet this cannot be Infallible unless it be from some special assistance of the Holy Ghost Therefore omitting your very impertinent addition to this consideration viz. So as to make its Decrees Infallible which is the thing in question We proceed to the third which is That the Assistance of the Holy Ghost is without errour which saith 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 a 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 From this last expression you would very subtilly infer contrary to his Lordships design That he granted General Councils to be Infallible in deductions as well as fundamentals but not to be alike Infallible whereas it is plain his Lordship means no more by alike Infallible then Whether the assistance be alike in both to make them Infallible And this you might easily perceive but it would have prevented your cavil about a graduated Infallibility which I know none assert but your self This Consideration brings on the main of the battel in those texts of Scripture which are most insisted on to prove the Infallibility of General Councils viz. John 16.13 I will send you the Spirit of Truth and he shall lead you into all Truth John 14.16 This Spirit shall abide with you for ever Matth. 28.20 Behold I am with you to the end of the world Matth. 16.18 The founding of the Church upon the Rock against which the gates of hell shall not prevail Luke 22.32 Christs prayer for St. Peter that his Faith should not fail Matth. 18.20 Where two or three are gathered together in my Name I will be in the midst of them Acts 15.28 It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us All which places except the two last have been already examined as far as concerns any promise of Infallibility in the questions concerning the Churches and the Popes Infallibility and there being no reason at all given why any Infallibility at all is promised by them to the Church after the Apostles times it may seem wholly needless to bestow a particular consideration again upon all of them For it is evident in those places all your drift and design is only to prove a promise of Infallibility in the Church and to the Councils only by vertue of that But having at large before shewed that no such thing can be inferred from these or any other places that which is built upon it is wholly taken away too For the only pretence that you have why Councils should be proved hence Infallible is because the Church hath Infallibility promised by these texts which must be very well proved and much better then you have done either here or elsewhere before the other can be deduced from hence And yet supposing I should grant that Infallibility was promised to the Church I see no such necessary consequence from thence that General Councils must be Infallible unless you can prove from Scripture that the Infallibility of the Church is meant of the Church representative and not diffusive which is a new task which you have not yet undertaken For it is not enough to say That the body of the Church is bound to believe and profess the doctrine taught by the representative and therefore the representative must be Infallible unless you could first prove that there is a necessity of some continued Infallible teaching by the Church representative which I despair of ever seeing done I am so far therefore from thinking as you do That these texts are sufficiently clear in themselves to prove
the Infallibility of General Councils that I believe a Philosopher might hear them repeated a hundred times over without ever imagining any such thing as a General Council much less concluding thence that they are Infallible But because you again cavil with another expression of his Lordships in that he saith That no one of them doth infer much less inforce Infallibility from whence you not infer but inforce this consequence that he was loath to say all of them together did not I shall therefore give you his Lordships Answer from all of them together Which is likewise sufficient for every one of them And for all the places together saith he weigh them with indifferency and either they speak of the Church including the Apostles as all of them do and then all grant the voyce of the Church is Gods voyce Divine and Infallible Or else they are general unlimited and appliable to private assemblies as well as General Councils which none grant to be Infallible but some mad Enthusiasts Or else they are limited not simply to all truth but all necessary to salvation in which I shall easily grant a General Council cannot err suffering it self to be led by this Spirit of Truth in Scripture and not taking upon it to lead both the Scripture and the Spirit For suppose these places or any other did promise assistance even to Infallibility yet they granted it not to every General Council but to the Catholick body of the Church it self and if it be in the whole Church principally then is it in a General Council but by consequent as the Council represents the whole And that which belongs to a thing by consequent doth not otherwise nor longer belong unto it then it consents and cleaves to that upon which it is a consequent And therefore a General Council hath not this assistance but as it keeps to the whole Church and Spouse of Christ whose it is to hear his Word and determine by it And therefore if a General Council will go out of the Churches way it may easily go without the Churches truth Which words of his contain so full an Answer to all these places together that till that be taken off there is no necessity at all to descend to the particular places especially those which are acknowledged by your selves to speak primarily of the Churches Infallibility Yet for your satisfaction more than any intelligent Readers I shall add somewhat further to shew the impertinency of the former places and then consider the force of the two last which have not yet been handled 1. There can be nothing drawn from promises made to the diffusive body for the benefit of the representative unless the maker of those promises did institute that representation Therefore supposing that Infallibility were by these promises bestowed upon the Catholick Church yet you cannot thence inferr that it belongs to a General Council unless you prove that Christ did appoint a General Council to represent the Church and in that representation to be Infallible For this Infallibility coming meerly by promise it belongs only to those to whom the promise is made and in that capacity in which it is made to it For Spiritual gifts are not bequeathable to Heirs nor can be made over to Assigns if the Church be promised Infallibility she cannot pass away the gift of it to her Assigns in a General Council unless that power of devolution be contained in the Original Grant For she can give no more then is in her power to bestow but this Infallibility being out of her disposal the utmost that can be given to a General Council is a power to oblige the Church by the acts of it which falls much short of Infallibility Besides this representation of the Church by a General Council is a thing not so evident from whence it should come that from a promise made to one it must necessarily be understood of the other For as Pighius sayes It cannot be demonstrated from Theological grounds that a General Council which is so far from being the whole Church that it is not a thousandth part of it should represent the whole Church For either saith he it hath this from Christ or from the Church but they cannot produce one tittle from Scripture where Christ hath conveyed over the power and authority of the whole Church to a hundred or two hundred Bishops If they say It is from the Church there are two things to be shewed first that it is done and secondly that it is de jure or ought to be so done First it can never be shewed that such a thing ever was done by the Vniversal Church for if it were it must either be by some formal act of the Church or by a tacit consent It could not be by any formal act of the Church For then there must be some such act of the Vniversal Church preceding the being of any General Council for by that act they receive their Commission to appear in behalf of the Vniversal Church And this could not be done in a General Council because that is not pretended to be the whole Church but only to represent it and therefore it must have this power to represent the Church by something antecedent to its being Else it would only arrogate this power to it self without any act of the Church in order to it Now that the Vniversal Church did ever agree in any such act is utterly impossible to be demonstrated either that it could be or that it was Yet such a delegation to a General Council must be supposed in order to its representation of the whole Church and this delegation must not only be before the first General Council but for all that I can see before every one For how can the Church by its act in one age bind the Church in all ages succeeding to the acts of those several Councils which shall be chosen afterwards If it be said That such a formal act is not necessary but the tacit consent of the whole Church is sufficient for it then such a consent of the Church must be made evident by which they did devolve over the power of the whole Church to such a representative And all those must consent in that act whose power the Council pretends to have and so it cannot be sufficient to say That those who choose Bishops for the Council do it for then they could only represent those who chose them and so their authority will fall much short of that of the whole Church But suppose such a thing were done by the whole Church of which no footsteps at all appear we must further enquire by what right or authority this is done for the authority of the Church being given it by Christ it cannot be given from it self without his commission for doing it Which if we stay till it can be produced in this case we may stay long enough before we see any such Infallible
Representative of the Vniversal Church The utmost then that can be supposed in this case is that the parts of the Church may voluntarily consent to accept of the decrees of such a Council and by that voluntary act or by the Supream authority injoyning it such decrees may become obligatory But what is this to an Infallibility in the Council because it represents the whole Church For neither is there evidence enough for such a representation neither if there were could any priviledge of that nature belong to the representative body because of any promise made to the diffusive body of the Church 2. What belongs to the representative body of the Church by vertue of a promise made to the diffusive can in no other sense be understood of the representative then as it belongs to the diffusive Because no further right can be derived from any then they had themselves Therefore supposing a promise of Infallibility made to the Church it is necessary to know in what way and manner that promise belongs to it for in no other way and manner can it belong to the Council which represents it If therefore the Churches Infallibility lyes only in Fundamentals the Councils Infallibility can extend no further If the Churches Infallibility doth not imply that all the Church or the major part should be Infallible but that though the major part err yet all the Church shall not then neither can it be true of a General Council that all or the major part should be Infallible but only that there should be no such General Council wherein all the Bishops should erre But then this is utterly destructive to the Infallibility of the Decrees of General Councils for those must pass by the major part of the Votes Which Canus one of the acutest of our adversaries was sensible of and grants that the major part in a General Council may erre and the lesser part hold the truth but then he saith That the Pope is not bound to follow the major part Which is expresly to take away any pretext of Infallibility from the Decrees of the Council and place it wholly in the Pope And Why may not then the Pope and a Provincial Council be as Infallible as the Pope and the lesser part of a General Council What then do the promises of Infallibility to the Council signifie if the major part may definitively erre And therefore Bellarmin likes not this Answer as being too plain and open but gives another as destructive to the Councils Infallibility as this is Which is that in case the major part doth resist the better in a General Council as in that of Ariminum and the second at Ephesus yet that it cannot conquer it How so Doth it not conquer it when the Decrees are passed by the major part No saith he for these Decrees are afterwards made void Very good But then I suppose in the Council the major part did conquer although not after But by whom are they made void By him to whom it belongs to confirm his Brethren saith Bellarmin Well but the skill is to know who that is in this case who can reverse the Decree of the representative body of the Church under the plea of confirming his Brethren If it be the Pope Who reversed the Decrees of the Council of Sirmium to which the Pope subscribed And for that of Ariminum and Selencia Hilary did more to reverse it than ever the Pope did Therefore others say It is in the Churches power to make void the Decrees of General Councils as she did the Decrees of the Arrian Councils If so then we plainly see the Infallibility doth not lye in the representative but in the diffusive body of the Church still if that hath the power to avoid and repeal the Decrees of General Councils So that all the Infallibility of Councils is meerly probationary and stands to the good liking and consent of the dâ—ffusive body of the Church By which means the Decrees of a Provincial Council being accepted by the Church are as Infallible as of a General But in all these waies there is no proper Infallibility at all in the major part of a General Council but it wholly lyes either in the Pope or in the diffusive body of the Church still 3. If these places which mention a promise of Infallibility to the Church must imply the Infallibility of General Councils as the Churches representative then it will thence follow that the Decrees of General Councils are Infallible whether the Pope confirm them or no. For the Infallibility is not promised at all mediante Papâ but virtute Ecclesiae for if they be infallible as representing the Church they are Infallible whether there be any Pope or no for the Pope doth not make them more represent the Church than they did before And this is very well understood and proved by those who from these promises to the Church and from that Infallibility consequent upon it by their adversaries confession to a General Council do inferr the Councils Authority to be above the Popes Which is a just and necessary consequence from this assertion That the priviledges of the Vniversal Church are by vertue of its representation in a General Council Which Doctrine was asserted by the Councils of Constance and Basil and by the Sorbonne Doctors till their being Jesuited of late Who have therefore asserted that it might be as lawful to call in question the Decrees of the Council of Trent as of those two Councils And whereas their adversaries object That this is not de fide they answer It is impossible but that it should be de fide since it is decreed by General Councils For say they Were the Fathers at Constance and Basil acted by any other Spirit than those at Nicaea and Ephesus Why may not then the Council of Trent be opposed as well as them For if there be any difference they had much the advantage In the Council of Constance say they two Popes were present all the Cardinals two Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch and the Emperour himself and the Legats of all Christian Princes and besides all this it was confirmed by Pope Martin and the Acts of Confirmation extant in the 45. Session And so the Council of Basil was begun according to the Decrees of the Councils of Constance and Pisa and by vertue of the Bulls of Martin and Eugenius and the Popes Legats were presidents in it So that if General Councils be Infallible it must be de fide Catholicâ that their Authority is above the Pope's And if so their Infallibility cannot depend upon his Confirmation Now if we search into the grounds on which they build this power of General Councils independently on the Pope we shall find they derive it wholly from those places of Scripture which speak so much concerning the Church and Councils as is agreed on both sides And therefore Aeneas Sylvius afterwards Pius 2. sayes That is not the
assemblies was taken up and hath for its pattern the example of the Apostles Act. 15. yet surely there is little doubt to be made but the Apostles had both direction and precept too for doing it so often as just occasion required from Christ himself The whole force of which Answer lyes in those well placed words Surely there is little doubt to be made for as to any thing of reason you never offer at it Just such another of Bellarmins Sine dubio's comes after Though a General Council be the Church representative and do not meet or assemble together hic nunc but by order and deputation from man yet it follows not but the power and authority by which they act when they are met may be from God as doubtless it is Can any man have the face to question Whether the Authority of General Councils be of Divine Institution or no when you say Yes surely there is no doubt to be made of it doubtless it is We do not question as you would seem to imply afterwards Whether the people or the Pastours have right to send to General Councils but what ground you have to assert that General Councils are an immediate Divine Institution But I must needs say I never saw any thing affirmed oftener and offered to be proved less then that is here and yet as though you had done it invincibly you triumphantly proceed General Councils then are a principal and necessary part of that Ecclesiastical Hierarchy which Christ instituted for the Government of his Church and not an humane Expedient only taken up by the Church her self meerly upon prudential considerations as the Bishop will needs conceive It strangely puzzles me to find out any thing that Particle then relates to and after all my search can find nothing but surely without doubt and doubtless I pray Sir think not so meanly of us that we should take these for Arguments or Demonstrations Deal fairly with us and if we fall by the force of reason we yield our selves up to you But you are very much deceived if you think these things are taken for proofs with us we can easily discern the weakness of your cause through the most confident affirmations If you had brought any Law of Christ appointing that General Councils should be in the Church any Apostolical precept prescribing or giving directions concerning them you had done something but not so much as to offer at a proof and yet conclude it as confidently as if it were impossible to resist the force of your Demonstrations is an evidence that either you know your cause to be weak or suppose us to be so Much such another discourse is that which follows wherein you pretend to give a reason Why what is defined by one Council in point of Doctrine cannot be reversed by another Which is because the true Christian Faith is ex natura rei unchangeable that it admits not of yea and nay but only yea that it is alwayes the same that it must stand without alteration for ever nay that it is to be invariable and admit no change All these expressions we have in one Paragraph and for all that I see are the greatest strength of it But what is it you mean by all this Do you think we could not understand what you meant by the unchangeableness of Christian Faith without so many diversified expressions of it And what follows now from all this That one Council cannot repeal the Decrees of another How so was not the Faith of Christ as unchangeable in the time of the Arrian Councils as it is now and yet then one Council repealed the Decrees of others in point of Doctrine and yet by that nothing was derogated from the Institution or honour of Christ by such a reversing those Decrees Though the Faith i. e. The Doctrine of Christ be alwayes the same Doth it thence follow then men shall alwayes believe all this unalterable Doctrine If so how came Arrianism to overspread the Church How came six hundred Bishops at the Council of Ariminum to be deceived in a Doctrine of Faith by your own confession It is therefore a profound mistake to infer from the fallibility of General Councils the alteration of the Faith of Christ. The Faith of Christ is founded on a surer bottom then the Decrees of Councils though all men are lyars God is true and Christ the same yesterday to day and for ever But of this more afterwards You would seem to argue more pertinently in the following pages against his Lordships opinion for you say He sayes and unsayes the same and what he seems to attribute to General Councils in one proposition he takes away in another That which his Lordship sayes is That the definitions of a General Council are binding to all particulars and it self but yet so that they cannot bind the whole Church from calling again and in the after-calls upon just cause to order and if need be to abrogate former acts And after adds And because the whole Church can meet no other way the Council shall remain the Supream external living temporary Ecclesiastical Judge of all Controversies Only the whole Church and she alone hath power when Scripture or Demonstration is found and peaceably tendered to her to represent her self again in a new Council and in it to order what was amiss Now we must consider what we find contradictious and repugnant to themselves in these words Three things if I mistake not the main of this charge may be reduced to 1. That men should be bound to that which Scripture and Demonstration be against But this is very easily answered for his Lordship doth not say Men are bound to believe it but not so to oppose it as to break the peace of the Church by it 2. That another Council cannot be call'd without opposition to the other this his Lordship prevented by supposing that the just reasons against the decrees of the former Council ought to be peaceably tendred to the Church but no boisterous opposition to be made against it 3. To what purpose should another Council be call'd if the whole Church be satisfied that there is Scripture and Demonstration against the decrees of the former But 1. His Lordship supposes there may Scripture and Demonstration be where the whole Church is not satisfied and therefore there may be necessity of calling another Council 2. That the Council may free all those who may suppose themselves still bound not to oppose the former errour 3. That no erroneous Decree of a Council may remain unrepealed in the Church that so no erroneous person may challenge such a Decree of a Council as a ground for his opposition to the Doctrine of the Church And where now lyes any such appearance of contradiction in his Lordships words 3. The last thing his Lordship chargeth your way with unreasonableness in is That you do not only make the definition of a General Council
this pretence That we are to believe the Pope and Council Infallible because implicitly they define themselves to be so Than which one could hardly meet with a more absurd Answer from the highest Enthusiast for he can tell you as boldly that he hath the Spirit of God because he hath it and just so much you say and no more Pope and Council are Infallible because they are Infallible But I must pity you I know you would not willingly have run into these absurdities but it was your hard fortune to maintain a bad cause and you could not possibly help it for the straights you were in were so great that you must venture thorow some great absurdity to get out of them But all the pity I have for you is gone when I read your next words Thus we conceive the Relator's Achilles is fallen How fallen If he be it is only with Antaeus to rise the stronger But I assure you so far was he from falling by any force of your Answer that he stands more impregnably than ever having not so much as a heel left that you can wound him in And if you have nothing more to say than what you here give us in answer to this argument which you tell us is the common Answer of Divines I am so far from wondring that his Lordship took no notice of it that I shall only wonder at the weakness of your judgement or largeness of your Faith that can so contentedly swallow such grand absurdities If this be but as you say the Prologue to the Play I doubt you will find but a sad Catastrophe in it The main business you tell us is about the Priests intention concerning which he positively layes 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 What now have you to shew to the contrary If the Priests intention be not absolutely necessary to the essence or validity of a Sacrament you desire a reason of your 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 eieither 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 since here is the true form Hoc est corpus meum the true matter Wheaten Bread and he that pronounces the form is a true Priest and yet in all mens judgement here 's no true Sacrament made Something else therefore is requisite to the essence of a Sacrament and What can that possibly be if it be not the intention which the Church requires Since your request is reasonable I shall endeavour your satisfaction and the rather because it tends to the full clearing the business in hand To your Enquiry then I answer That the Institution of Christ requiring such a solemnity for the administration of it and such a disposition in the Church for the receiving it and the performance of such acts in order to the administration by the dispenser of it these do sufficiently distinguish the Lords Supper from all other actions what matter form or person soever be there Were not in the Apostles times the assembling of the people together for this end and the solemn performance of the acts of administration sufficient to discriminate the Lords Supper from reading the 26. of Matthew by an Apostle at the Table when there was Bread and Wine upon it And I must confess I cannot but wonder that you should be so much to seek as not to know the one from the other unless you knew the Priests intention But I consider your Question was not made for Apostolical times but for private Masses wherein the Priest may mumble over the words of Consecration to himself and none else be the wiser or better for what he saith or doth Here it was indeed very requisite you should make the Priests intention necessary to discriminate this action from that you mentioned but where-ever the Lords Supper is duly administred according to the Primitive Institution the solemnity of the action and circumstances do so far individuate it as sufficiently to difference it from any other formalities whatsoever And so it is in conferring Orders Is there not enough do you think in the solemnity of the action with the preceding circumstances and the Bishops laying on of his hands with the using the words proper to that occasion to difference it from the Bishops casual laying his hands on the head of a man and in the mean time reading perchance the words of ordination We assert then that no further intention is at all necessary to the essence of a Sacrament but what is discoverable by the outward action Which being of that nature which may difference it self by reason of peculiar circumstances from others there is no imaginable necessity to have recourse to the private intention of the Priest for satisfaction But see how unreasonable you are herein for you would make that to be necessary to distinguish a Sacramental action from any other which it is impossible any man should be acquainted with For if I had no other way to distinguish in the case you mention but the Priests intention I must be as much to seek as ever unless I cerrainly knew what the Priests intention was which if you have an art of being acquainted with I pretend not to it Is it then necessary to distinguish the one from the other or not If not To what end is your Question If it be To what purpose is the Priests intention when I cannot know it But you would seem to object against the circumstances discriminating a Sacramental action 1. If the circumstances do shew to the standers by that the Priest really intends to make a Sacrament and this signification be necessary then the Priests intention is necessary or else Why is it necessary it should be signified I answer The circumstances are not intended to signifie the Priests intention any further than that intention is discoverable by the actions themselves so that it is not any inward intention which is thereby signified but only such an intention as the outward action imports which is the celebration of the blessed Sacrament So it is not the Priests intending to make a Sacrament as you phrasify it but his intending to celebrate it i. e. not such an intention as is unitive of matter and form as your Schools speak in this case but such as relates to the external action But against this you urge 2. That such external signification is not at all necessary for say you Might not a Catholick Priest to save the soul of some dying Infant baptize it if he could without any such signification by circumstances
therefore they sung at the Burial Return my soul to thy rest for the Lord hath dealt bountifully with thee And this he proves likewise from the Ancient Liturgies wherein prayers are made for all Saints Patriarchs Prophets Apostles Martyrs and others And S. Ambrose after he had said That Valentinian and Gratian were both blessed and enjoyed the pleasures of everlasting life and yet subjoyns his Orizons for them Thus he prayes for Theodosius of whom he had said That he enjoyes everlasting light and continual tranquillity And so for his Brother Satyrus when he had pronounced of him before That he had entred into the Kingdom of Heaven The same doth Gregory Nazianzen for his Brother Caesarius Now Is it possible you should think that Prayer for the Dead as used in the the Ancient Church doth necessarily inferr Purgatory when they who made these Prayers did suppose the persons they made them for to be at rest and in joy and in the Kingdom of Heaven And I hope that is a different state from that of Purgatory Therefore you see it is not barely proved that some different accounts are given of Prayer for the Dead but such as are exclusive of it and those such as appear from the eldest times of the Church when such Prayers were used Now having thus shewed for whom these Prayers were made he proceeds to shew of what kinds they were whereof he saith some were Eucharistical for the blessed estate of the party deceased others deprecatory and petitory that God would forgive him his sins keep him from Hell and place him in the Kingdom of Heaven which though at first well meant were turned to an ill use afterwards when these intercessions began once to be applied not only to the good but evil livers also unto whom by the first Institution they were never intended And he at large proves by very many examples that the primary Intention of the Church in her supplications for the Dead was That the whole man not the soul separated only might receive publick remission of sins and a solemn acquittal in the judgement of that great Day and so obtain both a full escape from all the consequences of sin and a perfect consummation of bliss and happiness And of this nature he shews afterwards were the Prayers of the Church used in Epiphanius his time which Aërius was condemned for rejecting of and he plainly proves that the Church of Rome comes nearer the Opinion of Aërius than they would seem to do For they agree with Aërius in rejecting that kind of praying and offering for the Dead which was used in the Church at that time which was for such as were believed to be in bliss For since the Romanists say That without the supposition of Purgatory Prayer for the Dead would be unprofitable and at that time the souls they prayed for are supposed to be already in bliss therefore they do as much condemn those Prayers for the Dead which were then used as Aërius did And it is very strange if the releasing of souls out of Purgatory had been any ground then of praying for the Dead that Epiphanius among all his far-fetcht Reasons should never assign that which you think to be the only proper ground of such Prayers Thus we see what was the general Intention of the Church in those Prayers which were made for the Dead and how far this was from inferring Purgatory But besides this there were several particular Opinions among the Ancient Fathers touching the place and condition of souls separated from their bodies and according to the several apprehensions which they had thereof they made different interpretations and applications of the Vse of praying for the Dead whose particular intentions and devotions in that kind must of necessity therefore be distinguished from the general intention of the whole Church Thus there were two Opinions much in vogue among many of the Fathers viz. of souls being kept in secret receptacles till the day of resurrection and the purging of them in the fire of conflagration at the day of judgement of which Opinion were not only S. Augustin but Origen Lactantius S. Hilary S. Ambrose and others Now according to these Opinions they interpreted the Vse of praying for the Dead And thence S. Augustin saith That the oblations and alms usually offered in the Church for all the Dead that received Baptism were thanksgivings for such as were very good propitiations for such as were not very bad but as for such as were very evil although they were no helps of the Dead yet were they some kind of consolations of the Living but this was only a private exposition of the Churches meaning in her Prayers because it is not to be found in the writings of the former Fathers and because it suiteth not well with the general practice of the Church which it intendeth to interpret For it is somewhat too harsh an interpretation to imagine that one and the same act of praying should be a petition for some and for others only a thanksgiving Some other private Opinions there were besides these as that of Theophylact That God did not alwaies cast grievous sinners into Hell but that the Prayers of the Church might keep them from being cast into Hell another That an augmentation of Glory might be procured for the Saints and either a total deliverance or a diminution of torment at least obtained for the wicked to which S. Chrysostom and others incline Besides there were different Opinions concerning the benefit which the Dead received by the Prayers of the Living For the Authour of the Questions and Answers in Justin Martyrs work 's Gregory Nazianzen Theodoret Diodorus Tarsensis and S. Hierom all conclude that there is no release to the expected for the sins of those who were dead But others supposed the Dead might receive profit by the Prayers of the Living either for be remission of their sins or the ceasing of their punishment but they were not agreed as to the nature of the sins which might be pardoned or the manner of the benefit which they received whether their punishment were only lessened or at last extinguished And Stephanus Gobarus in Photius tells us That though some held these things yet the true sentence of the Church was That none at all was freed from punishment But that still this was a Question in the Church Whether the Dead received profit by the Prayers of the Living that learned Authour more at large proves but my design is only to give a very brief extract of his discourse that you may from thence see how far by the Intention of the Church in praying for the Dead you are from gathering the necessary belief of Purgatory And by this a full Answer is given to what you object concerning the practice of the Fathers to pray for the soul and not the body and that when we pray for them they receive ease comfort and
can desire that they are infallibly conveyed to us 1. If the Doctrine of Christ be True and Divine then all the Promises be made were accomplished Now that was one of the greatest That his Spirit should lead his Apostles into all Truth Can we then reasonably think that if the Apostles had such an infallible Assistance of the Spirit of God with them in what they spake in a transitory way to them who heard them that they should want it in the delivering those Records to the Church which were to be the standing monuments of this Doctrine to all Ages and Generations If Christ's Doctrine therefore be True the Apostles had an infallible Assistance of God's Spirit if they had so in delivering the Doctrine of Christ by preaching nothing can be more unreasonable than to imagine such should want it who were employed to give an account to the world of the nature of this Doctrine and of the Miracles which accompanied Christ and his Apostles So that it will appear an absurd thing to assert that the Doctrine of Christ is Divine and to question whether we have the infallible Records of it It is not pertinent to our Question in what way the Spirit of God assisted them that wrote Whether by immediate suggestion of all such things which might be sufficiently known without it and whether in some things which were not of concernment it might not leave them to their own judgement as in that place When they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs when no doubt God's Spirit knew infallibly whether it was but thought not fit to reveal it whether in some lighter circumstances the Writers were subject to any inadvertencies the negative of which is more piously credible whether meer historical passages needed the same infallible Assistance that Prophetical and Doctrinal these things I say are not necessary to be resolved it being sufficient in order to Faith that the Doctrine we are to believe as it was infallibly delivered to the world by the preaching of Christ and his Apostles so it is infallibly conveyed to us in the Books of Scripture 2. Because these Books were owned for Divine by those Persons and Ages who were most competent Judges Whether they were so or no. For the Age of the Apostles was sufficiently able to judge whether those things which are said to be spoken by Christ or written by the Apostles were really so or no. And we can have no reason at all to question but what was delivered by them was infallibly true Now from that first Age we derive our knowledge concerning the Authority of these Books which being conveyed to us in the most unquestionable and universal Tradition we can have no reason in the world to doubt and therefore the greatest reason firmly to assent that the Books we call the Scripture are the infallible Records of the Word of God And thus much may suffice in general concerning the Protestant Way of resolving Faith I now return to the examination of what you give us by way of answer to his Lordship's discourse The first Assault you make upon his Lordship is for making Apostolical Tradition a ground of Faith but because your peculiar excellency lyes in the involving plain things the best service I can do is to lay things open as they are by which means we shall easily discern where the truth lyes I shall therefore first shew how far his Lordship makes Apostolical Tradition a ground of Faith and then consider what you have to object against it In that Section which your Margent referrs to all that he sayes of it is That the Voice and Tradition of that Church which included in it Apostles Disciples and such as had immediate Revelation from Heaven was Divine and the Word of God from them is of like validity written or delivered And as to this Tradition he saith there is abundance of Certainty in it self but how far it is evident to us shall after appear At the end of the next n. 21. he saith That there is double Authority and both Divine that confirms Scripture to be the Word of God Tradition of the Apostles delivering it and the internal worth and argument in the Scripture obvious to a soul prepared by the present Churches Tradition and Gods Grace But n. 23. he saith That this Apostolical Tradition is not the sole and only means to prove Scripture Divine but the moral perswasion reason and force of the present Church is ground enough for any one to read the Scripture and esteem reverently of it And this once done the Scripture hath then In and home-arguments enough to put a soul that hath but ordinary Grace out of doubt that the Scripture is the Word of God infallible and Divine I suppose his Lordships meaning may be comprized in these particulars 1. That to those who lived in the Apostolical times the Tradition of Scripture by those who had an infallible Testimony was a sufficient ground of their believing it infallibly true 2. That though the conveyance of that Tradition to us be not infallible yet it may be sufficient to raise in us a high esteem and veneration for the Scripture 3. That those who have this esteem for the Scripture by a through studying and consideration of it may undoubtedly believe that Scripture is the Divine and Infallible Word of God This I take to be the substance of his Lordships discourse We now come to examine what you object against him Your first demand is How comes Apostolical Primitive Tradition to work upon us if the present Church be fallible Which I shall answer by another How come the decrees of Councils to work upon you if the reporters of those Decrees be fallible If you say It is sufficient that the Decree it self be infallible but it is not necessary that the reporter of those Decrees should be so The same I say concerning the Apostolical Tradition of Scripture though it were infallible in their Testimony yet it is not necessary that the conveyance of it to us should be infallible And if you think your self bound to believe the Decrees of General Councils as infallible though fallibly conveyed to you Why may not we say the same concerning Apostolical Tradition Whereby you may see though Tradition be fallible yet the matter conveyed by it may have its proper effect upon us Your next Inquiry if I understand it is to this sense Whether Apostolical Tradition be not then as credible as the Scriptures I answer freely supposing it equally evident what was delivered by the Apostles to the Church by word or writing hath equal Credibility You attempt to prove That there is equal evidence because the Scripture is only known by the Tradition of the Church to be the same that was recommended by the Apostolical Church which you have likewise for Apostolical Tradition But 1. Do you mean the same Apostolical Tradition here or no which the Arch-Bishop
speaks of i. e. that act of the Apostles whereby they delivered the Doctrine of Christ upon their Testimony to the world If you mean this Tradition for my part I do not understand it as any thing really distinct from the Tradition of the Scripture it self For although I grant that the Apostles did deliver that Doctrine by Word as well as Writing yet if that Tradition by Word had been judged sufficient I much question whether we had ever had any written Records at all But because of the speedy decay of an oral Tradition if there had been no standing Records it pleased God in his infinite Wisdom and Goodness to stir up some fit persons to digest those things summarily into writing which otherwise would have been exposed to several corruptions in a short time For we see presently in the Church notwithstanding this how suddenly the Gnosticks Valentinians Manichees and others did pretend some secret Tradition of Christ or his Apostles distinct from their writings When therefore you can produce as certain evidence any Apostolical Tradition distinct from Scripture as we can do that the Books of Scripture were delivered by the Apostles to the Church you may then be hearkened to but not be before 2. We have other waies to judge of the Identity of the Copies of Scripture which we have with those delivered by the Primitive Church besides the Testimony of the present Church And the judgement of the present Church considered meerly as such can be no argument to secure any man concerning the integrity and incorruption of the Books of Scripture We do therefore justly appeal to the ancient Copies and M. SS which confirm the incorruption of ours But say you What infallible Certainty have we of them besides Church Tradition Very wisely said in several respects as though no Certainty less than infallible could serve mens turn as to ancient Copies of Scripture and as though your Church could give men Infallible certainty which Copy's were ancient and which were not But for our parts we should not be at all nearer any certainty much less Infallibility concerning the authenticalness of any ancient Copy's because your Church declared it self for them neither can we imagine it at all necessary in the examination of ancient Copy's to have any Infallible certainty at all of them For as well you may pretend it as to any other Authours when all that we look after in such Copy's is only that evidence which things of that nature are capable of But you make his Lordship give as wise an answer to this question of yours They may be examined and approved by the authentical Autographa's of the very Apostles Where is it that this answer is given by his Lordship If you may be allowed to make questions and answers too no doubt the one will be as wise as the other But I suppose you thought nothing could be said pertinent in this case but what you make his Lordship say and then by the unreasonableness of that answer because none of these Autographa's are supposed extant and because if they were so all men could not be Infallibly certain of them you think you have sufficient advantage against your adversary because thereby it would appear there can be no certainty of Scripture but from the authority of your Church To which because it may seem to carry on your great design of rendring Religion uncertain I shall return a particular answer 1. Supposing we could have no certainty concerning the Copy's of Scripture but from Tradition this doth not at all advantage your cause unless you could prove that no other Tradition but that of your Church can give us any certainty of it Give me leave then to make this supposition That God might not have given this supernatural assistance to your Church which you pretend makes it Infallible Whether men through the Vniversal consent of persons of the Christian Church in all Ages might not have been undoubtedly certain That the Scripture we have was the same delivered by the Apostles i. e. Whether a matter of fact in which the whole Christian world was so deeply engaged that not only their credit but their interest was highly concerned in it could not be attested by them in a credible manner Which is as much as to ask Whether the whole Christian world was not at once besotted and infatuated in â—he grossest manner so as to suffer the records of those things which concerned their eternal welfare to be imbezeled falsified or corrupted so as to mistake them for Apostolical writings which were nothing so If it be not then credible that the Christian world should be so monstrously imposed upon and so grosly deceived then certainly the Vniversal Tradition of the Society may yield unquestionable evidence to any inquisitive person as to the integrity and incorruption of the body of Scriptures And if it may yield such evidence why doth it not so when we see this was the very case of the Christian world in all Ages Some writings were delivered to the Church of the Age they lived in by the Apostles these writings were so delivered as that the Christians understood they were of things of more concernment to them than the whole world was these writings were then received embraced and publickly read these writings were preserved by them so sacred and inviolable that it was accounted a crime of the highest nature to deliver the Copy's of them into the hands of the Heathen persecutors these writings were still owned by them as Divine and the rule and standard of Faith these were appealed to in all disputes among them these were preserved from the attempts of Hereticks vindicated from the assaults of the most learned Infidels transcribed into the Books of the most diligent Christians transmitted from one Generation to another as the most sacred depositum of Heaven And yet is it possible to suppose that these writings should be extorted out of their hands by violence abused under their eyes by fraud or suffered to be lost by negligence Yet no other way can be imagined why any should suspect the Books of Scripture which we have are not the same with those delivered by the Apostles All which are such unreasonable suppositions that they could hardly enter into any head but yours or such whose cause you manage in these disputes the most profligate Atheists or most unreasonable Scepticks If then we entertain but mean and ordinary thoughts of the Christians of all Ages if we look upon them as silly men abused into a Religion by fraud and imposture yet we cannot doubt but that these persons were careful to preserve the records of that Religion because they were so diligent in the study of it so venturous for it such enemies to the corrupters of it so industrious in propagating the knowledge of it to their friends and Posterity Do you think our Nation did ever want an Infallible Testimony to preserve the Magna Charta supposing no authentick
c. he exhorts him after a handsome manner as reflecting on the Popes dignity and clearly shews that the Pope had of right some Authority over the Asian Bishops and by consequence over the whole Church For otherwise it had been very absurd in St. Irenaeus to perswade Pope Victor not to cut off from the Church so many Christian Provinces had he believed as Protestant contends 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 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 I Answer that if you say that Eusebius hath not a word importing reprehension it is a sign you have not read what Eusebius saith For doth not he expresly say That the Epistle of some of the Bishops are yet remaining in which they do severely rebuke him Among whom saith he Irenaeus was one c. It seems Irenaeus was one of those Bishops who did so sharply reprehend him but it may be you would render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 kissing his Holiness feet or exhorting him after a handsome manner and indeed if they did it sharply they did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suitably enough to what Victor deserved for his rash and inconsiderate proceedings in this business But withall to let you see how well these proceedings of his were resented in the Christian world Eusebius tells us before That Victor by his letters did declare those of the Eastern Churches to be excommunicate and he presently adds But this did no wayes please all the Bishops wherefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they countermanded him that he might mind the things of peace and unity and brotherly love And will you still render that word too by exhorting him after a handsome manner when even Christopherson renders it by magnoperè adhortabantur Valesius by ex adverso hortati sunt and although these seem not to come up to the full emphasis of the word yet surely they imply somewhat of vehemency and earnestness in their perswading him as well as their being hugely dissatisfied with what Victor did I grant that these persons did reflect as you say on the Pope but not as you would have it on his dignity but on his rashness and indiscretion that should go about to cast the Asian Churches out of Communion for such a trifle as that was in Controversie between them But you are the happiest man at making inferences that I have met with for because Irenaeus in the name of the Gallican Bishops writes to Victor not to proceed so rashly in this action thence you infer that the Pope had of right some Authority over the Asian Bishops and by consequence over the whole Church Might you not every jot as well inferr that when a man in passion is ready to kill those that stand about him whoever perswades him not to do it doth suppose he might lawfully have done it if he would But if those Bishops had so venerable an esteem as you would perswade us they had then of the Bishop of Rome How come they to dispute his actions in so high a manner as they did If they had looked on him as Vniversal Pastor of the Church it had more become them to sit still and be quiet then severely to reprehend him who was alone able to judge what was fit to be done and what not in those cases If the Pope had call'd them to Council to have known their advise it might have been their duty to have given it him in the most humble and submissive manner that might be But for them to intrude themselves into such an office as to advise the Head of the Church what to do in a matter peculiarly concerning him as though he did not know what was fit to be done himself methinks you should not imagine that these men did act 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as became them in doing it Could they possibly in any thing more declare how little they thought it necessary for all Churches to conform to that of Rome when they plead for dissenters in such a matter which the Pope had absolutely declared himself about And how durst any of them slight the thunderbolts which the Pope threatned them with Yet not only Polycrates and the Asian Bishops who joyned with him profess themselves not at all affrighted at them but the other Churches looked not on themselves as obliged to forsake their communion on that account If this be such an evidence of the Popes power in one sense I am sure it is a greater evidence of his weakness in another It seems the Head of the Church began betimes to be troubled with the fumes of passion and it is a little unhappy that the first Instance of his Authority should meet with so little regard in the Christian world If the Pope did begin to assume so early you see it was not very well liked of by the Bishops of other Churches But it seems he had a mind to try his power and the weight of his Arm but for all his haste he was fain to withdraw it very patiently again Valesius thinks that he never went so far as to excommunicate the Asian Bishops at all but the noise of his threatning to do it being heard by them it seems the very preparing of his thunderbolts amazed the world Irenaeus having call'd a Synod of the Bishops of Gaul together doth in their name write that Letter in Eusebius to Victor to disswade him from it and that it wrought so effectually with him that he gave it over And this he endeavours to prove 1. Because Eusebius saith he only endeavour'd to do it But Cardinal Perron supposeth Eusebius had a worse meaning then so in it i. e. that though the Pope did declare them excommunicate yet it took no effect because other Bishops continued still in communion with them and therefore he calls Eusebius an Arrian and an enemy to the Church of Rome when yet all the records of this story are derived from him 2. Because the Epistles of Irenaeus tend to perswade him not to cut them off whereas if they had been excommunicate it would have been rather to have restored them to Communion and that Photius saith that Irenaeus writ many letters to Victor to prevent their excommunication But because Eusebius saith expresly That he did by letters pronounce them out of the Communion of the Church the common opinion seems more probable and so Socrates understands it but still I am to seek for such an Argument of the acknowledgement of the Popes Authority then as you would draw from it Yes say you because they do not tell him He had no Authority to do what he did which they would have done if they could without proclaiming themselves Schismaticks ipso facto and shaking the very Foundation of the Churches Discipline and Vnity