The several Testimonies to the contrary of S. Ambrose S. Hierom John Patriarch of Constantiople S. Augustine Optatus c. particularly examined and all found short of proving that the Roman Church is the Catholick Church The several Answers of his Lordship to the Testimonies of S. Cyprian S. Hierom S. Greg. Nazianzen S. Cyril and Ruffinus about the Infallibility of the Church of Rome justified From all which it appears that the making the Roman Church to be the Catholick is a great Novelty and perfect Jesuitism p. 289. CHAP. II. Protestants no Schismaticks Schism a culpable Separation therefore the Question of Schism must be determined by enquiring into the causes of it The plea from the Church of Rome's being once a right Church considered No necessity of assigning the punctual time when errours crept into her An account why the originals of errours seem obscure By Stapletons Confession the Roman and Catholick Church were not the same The falsiâ—y of that assertion manifested that there could be no pure Church since the Apostles times if the Roman Church were corrupt No one particular Church free from corruptions yet no separation from the Catholick Church How far the Catholick Church may be said to erre Men may have distinct communion from any oâ—e particular Church yet not separate from the Catholick Church The Testimony of Petrus de Alliaco vindicated Bellarmin not mis cited Almain full to his Lordships purpose The Romanists guilty of the present Schism and not Protestants In what sense there can be no just cause of Schism and how far that concerns our case Protestants did not depart from the Church of Rome but were thrust out of it The Vindication of the Church of Rome from Schism at last depends upon the two false Principles of her Infallibility and being the Catholick Church The Testimonies of S. Bernard and S Austin not to the purpose The Catalogue of Fundamentals the Churches not erring c. referr'd back to their proper places p. 324. CHAP. III. Of keeping Faith with Hereticks The occasion of this Dispute The reason why this Doctrine is not commonly defended Yet all own such Principles from whence it necessarâ—ly follows The matter of fact as to the Council of Constance and John Hus opened Of the nature of the safe conduct granted him by the Emperour that it was not a general one salvâ justitiâ but particular jure speciali which is largely proved The particulars concerning Hierom of Prague Of the safe-conduct granted by the Council of Trent Of the distinction of Secular and Ecclesiastical Power and that from thence it follows that Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks Simancha and several others fully assert this Doctrine Of the Invitation to the Council of Trent and the good Instructions there and of Publick Disputation p. 343. CHAP. IV. The Reformâ—tion of the Church of England justified The Church of Rome guilty of Schism by unjustly casting Protestants out of Communion The Communion of the Catholâ—ck and particular Churches distinguished No separation of Protestants from the Catholick Church The Devotions of the Church of England and Rome compared Particular Churches Power to reform themselves in case of general Corruption proved The Instance from the Church of Judah vindicated The Church of Rome paralleld with the ten Tribes General Corruptions make Reformation the more necessary Whether those things we condemn as errours were Catholick Tenets at the time of the Reformation The contrary shewed and the dâ—fference of the Church of Rome before and since the Reformation When things may be said to be received as Catholick Doctrines How far particular Churches Power to reform themselves extends His Lordships Instances for the Power of Provincial Councils in matters of 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 Bâ—shops no intruders in Queen Elizabeth's time The justice and modâ—ration of the Church of England in her Reformation The Popes Power here a forcible and fraudulent Usurpation p. 356. CHAP. V. Of the Roman Churches Authority The Question concerning the Church of Rome's Authority entred upon How far our Church in reforming her self condemns the Church of Rome The Pope's equality with other Patriarchs asserted The Arabick Canons of the Nicene Council proved to be supposititious The Polity of the Ancient Church discovered from the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice The Rights of Primats and Metropolitans settled by it The suitableness of the Ecclesiastical to the Civil Government That the Bishop of Rome had then a limitted Jurisdiction within the suburbicary Churches as Primate of the Roman Diocese Of the Cyprian Priviledge that it was not peculiar but common to all Primats of Dioceses Of the Pope's Primacy according to the Canons how far pertinent to our dispute How far the Pope's Confirmation requisite to new elected Patriarchs Of the Synodical and Communicatory Letters The testimonies of Petrus de Marcâ concerning the Pope's Power of confirming and deposing Bishops The Instances brought for it considered The case of Athanasius being restored by Julius truly stated The proceedings of Constantine in the case of the Donatists cleared and the evidence thence against the Pope's Supremacy Of the Appeals of Bishops to Rome how far allowed by the Canons of the Church The great case of Appeals between the Roman and African Bishops discussed That the Appeals of Bishops were prohibited as well as those of the inferiour Clergy C's fraud in citing the Epistle of the African Bishops for acknowledging Appeals to Rome The contrary manifested from the same Epistle to Boniface and the other to Coelestine The exemption of the Ancient Britannick Church from any subjection to the See of Rome asserted The case of Wilfrids Appeal answered The Primacy of England not derived from Gregory's Grant to Augustine the Monk The Ancient Primacy of the Britannick Church not lost upon the Saxon Conversion Of the state of the African Churches after their denying Appeals to Rome The rise of the Pope's Greatness under Christian Emperours Of the Decree of the Sardican Synod in case of Appeals whether ever received by the Church No evidence thence of the Pope's Supremacy Zosimus his forgery in sending the Sardican Canons instead of the Nicene The weakness of the Pleas for it manifested p. 382. CHAP. VI. Of the Title of Universal Bishop In what sense the Title of Vniversal Bishop was taken in Antiquity A threefold acceptation of it as importing 1. A general care over the Christian Churches which is attributed to other Catholick Bishops by Antiquity besides the Bishop of Rome as is largely proved 2. A peculiar dignity over the Churches within the Roman Empire This accounted then Oecumenical thence the Bishops of the seat of the Empire called Oecumenical Bishops and sometimes of other Patriarchal Churches 3. Noting Vniversal Jurisdiction over the whole Church as Head of it so never given
you say The Pope's Confirmation was required to all new elected Patriarchs To that I shall return the full and satisfactory Answer of the late renowned Arch-Bishop of Paris Petrus de Marcâ where he propounds this as an Objection out of Baronius and thus solves it That the confirmation of Patriarchs by the Bishop of Rome was no token of Jurisdiction but only of receiving into Communion and a testimony of his consent to the consecration already performed And this was no more than was done by other Bishops in reference to the Bishop of Rome himself for S. Cyprian writing to Antonianus about the election of Cornelius saith That he was not only chosen by the suffrage of the people and testimony of the Clergy but that his election was confirmed by all their consent May not you then as well say That the Bishop of Carthage had power over the Bishop of Rome because his ordination was confirmed by him and other African Bishops But any one who had understood better than you seem to do the proceedings of the Church in those ages would never have made this an argument of the Pope's Authority over other Patriarchs since as the same Petrus de Marcâ observes It was the custom in those times that not only the Patriarchs but the Roman Bishop himself upon their election were wont to send abroad Letters testifying their ordination to which was added a profession of Faith contained in their Synodical Epistles Upon the receipt of which Communicatory Letters were sent to the person newly ordained to testifie their Communion with him in case there were no just impediment produced So that this was only a matter of Fraternal Communion and importing nothing at all of Jurisdiction but the Bishops of Rome who were ready to make use of all occasions to advance their own Grandeur did in time make use of this for quite other ends than it was primarily intended for in case of any suspicions and jealousies of any thing that might tend to the dis-service of their See they would then deny their Communicatory Letters as Simplicius did in the case of the Patriarch of Alexandria And in that Confirmation of Anatolius by Leo 1. which Baronius so much insists on Leo himself gives a sufficient account of it viz. to manifest that there was but one entire Communion among them throughout the world So that if the Pope's own judgement may be taken this Confirmation of new elected Patriarchs imported nothing of Jurisdiction But in case the Popes did deny their Communicatory Letters that did not presently hinder them from the execution of their office as appears by the instance of Flavianus the Patriarch of Antioch for although three Roman Bishops successively opposed him Damasus Syricius and Anastasius and used great importunity with the Emperour that he might not continue in his place yet because the Churches of the Orient Asia Pontus and Thracia did approve of him and communicate with him he opposed their consent against the Bishops of Rome Upon which and the Emperour 's severe checking them for their pride and contention they at last promised the Emperour that they would lay aside their enmity and acknowledge him So that notwithstanding whatever the Roman Bishops could do against him he was acknowledged for a true Patriarch and at last their consent was given only by renewing Communion with him which certainly is far from being an instance of the Pope's power over the other Patriarchs Whereby we also see What little power he had in deposing them although you tell us That it belonged likewise to him to depose unworthy ones restore the unjustly deposed by others But that the power of deposing Bishops was anciently in Provincial Councils appears sufficiently by the fifth Canon of the Nicene Council and by the practice of the Church both before and after it and it is acknowledged by Petrus de Marcâ that the sole power of deposing Bishops was not in the hands of the Bishop of Rome till about eight hundred years since and refutes the Cardinal Perron for saying otherwise and afterwards largely proves that the Supreme authority of deposing Bishops was still in Provincial Councils and that the Pope had nothing to do in it till the decree of the Sardican Synod in the case of Athanasius which yet he saith did not as is commonly said decree Appeals to be made to Rome but only gave the Bishop of Rome power to Review their actions but still reserving to Provincial Councils that Authority which the Nicene Council had established them in All the power which he then had was only this that he might decree that the matters might be handled over again but not that he had the power himself of deposing or restoring Bishops Which is proved with that clearness and evidence by that excellent Author that I shall refer you to him for it and consider the instances produced by you to the contrary We read say you of no less than eight several Patriarchs of Constantinople deposed by the Bishop of Rome Surely if you had read this your self you would have quoted the place with more care and accuracy than you do for you give us only a blind citation of an Epistle of Pope Nicolaus to the Emperour Michael neither citing the words nor telling us which it is when there are several and those no very short ones neither But however it is well chosen to have a Pope's testimony in his own cause and that such a Pope who was then in contest with the Patriarch of Constantinople and that too so long after the encroachments of the Bishops of Rome it being in the ninth Century and yet for all this this Pope doth not say those words which you would fasten upon him that which he saith is That none of the Bishops of Constantinople or scarce any of them were ejected without the consent of the Bishop of Rome And then instanceth in Maximus Nestorius Accacius Anthimus Sergius Pyrrhus Paulus Petrus but his design in this is only to shew that Ignatius the Patriarch ought not to have been deposed without his consent But what is all this to the Pope's sole power of deposing when even at that time the Pope did not challenge it But supposing the Popes had done it before it doth not follow that it was in their power to do it and that the Canons had given them right to do it but least of all certainly that they had a Divine right for it which never was in the least acknowledged by the Church as to a deposition of Patriarchs which you contend for But besides this you say Sixtus the third deposed Polychronius Bishop of Hierusalem Whereas Sixtus only sent eight persons from a Synod at Rome to Hierusalem who when they came there did not offer to depose Polychronius by vertue of the Popes power but a Synod of seventy or more neighbour Bishops were call'd by whom he was deposed and yet after all
in Antiquity to the Bishop of Rome The ground of the Contest about this Title between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople Of the proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon about the Popes Supremacy Of the Grammatical and Metaphorical sense of this Title Many arguments to prove it impossible that S. Gregory should understand it in the Grammatical sense The great absurdities consequent upon it S. Gregory's Reasons proved to hold against that sense of it which is admitted in the Church of Rome Of Irenaeus his opposition to Victor Victor's excommunicating the Asian Bishops argues no authority he had over them What the more powerful principality in Irenaeus is Ruffinus his Interpretation of the 6. Nicene Canon vindicated The Suburbicary Churches cannot be understood of all the Churches in the Roman Empire The Pope no Infallible Successour of S. Peter nor so acknowledged to be by Epiphanius S. Peter had no Supremacy of Power over the Apostles p. 422. CHAP. VII The Popes Authority not proved from Scripture or Reason The insufficiency of the proofs from Scripture acknowledged by Romanists themselves The impertinency of Luke 22.32 to that purpose No proofs offered for it but the suspected testimonies of Popes in their own cause That no Infallibility can thence come to the Pope as S. Peters Successour confessed and proved by Vigorius and Mr. White The weakness of the evasion of the Popes erring as a private Doctor but not as Pope acknowledged by them Joh. 21.15 proves nothing towards the Popes Supremacy How far the Popes Authority is owned by the Romanists over Kings C's beggings of the Question and tedious repetitions past over The Argument from the necessity of a living Judge considered The Government of the Church not Monarchical but Aristocratical The inconveniencies of Monarchical Government in the Church manifested from reason No evidence that Christ intended to institute such Government in his Church but much against it The Communicatory letters in the primitive Church argued an Aristocracy Gersons testimony from his Book de Auferibilitate Papae explained and vindicated S. Hieroms testimony full against a Monarchy in the Church The inconsistency of the Popes Monarchy with that of temporal Princes The Supremacy of Princes in Ecclesiastical matters asserted by the Scripture and Antiquity as well as the Church of England p. 451. CHAP. VIII Of the Council of Trent The Illegality of it manifested first from the insufficiency of the Rule it proceeded by different from that of the first General Councils and from the Popes Presidency in it The matter of Right concerning it discussed In what cases Superiours may be excepted against as Barties The Pope justly excepted against as a Party and therefore ought not to be Judge The Necessity of a Reformation in the Court of Rome acknowledged by Roman Catholicks The matter of fact enquired into as to the Popes Presidency in General Councils Hosius did not preside in the Nicene Council as the Popes Legat. The Pope had nothing to do in the second General Council Two Councils held at Constantinople within two years these strangely confounded The mistake made evident S. Cyril not President in the third General Council as the Popes Legat. No sufficient evidence of the Popes Presidency in following Councils The justness of the Exception against the place manifested and against the freedom of the Council from the Oath taken by the Bishops to the Pope The form of that Oath in the time of the Council of Trent Protestants not condemned by General Councils The Greeks and others unjustly excluded as Schismaticks The Exception from the small number of Bishops cleared and vindicated A General Council in Antiquiâ—y not so called from the Popes General Summons In what sense a General Council represents the whole Church The vast difference between the proceedings in the Council of Nice and that at Trent The Exception from the number of Italian Bishops justified How far the Greek Church and the Patriarch Hieremias may be said to condemn Protestants with an account of the proceedings between them p. 475. 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 entred 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 Act. 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 place in St. 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 p. 505. CHAP. II. Of the Use and Authority of General Councils The denying the Infallibility of General Councils takes not away their Vse and Authority Of the submission due to them by all particular persons How far external obedience is required in case they erre No violent opposition to he made against them Rare Inconveniencies hinder not the effect of a just power It cannot rationally be supposed that such General Councils as are here meant should often or dangerously erre The true notion of a General Council explained The Freedom requisite in the proceedings of it The Rule it must judge by Great Difference between external obedience and internal assent to the Decrees of Councils This latter unites men in errour not the former As great uncertainties supposing General Councils Infallible as not Not so great certainty requisite for submission as Faith Whether the Romanists Doctrine of the Infallibility of Councils or ours tend more to the Churches peace St. Austin explained The Keyes according to him given to the Church No unremediable inconvenience supposing a General Council erre But errours in Faith are so supposing them Infallible when they are not The Church hath power to reverse the Decrees of General Councils The power of Councils not by Divine Institution The unreasonableness of making the Infallibility of Councils depend on the Popes Confirmation No consent among the Romanists about the subject of Infallibility whether in Pope or Councils No evidence from
But the Greeks say this answer is unsatisfactory on these accounts 1. Because there is no reason to say that Decree doth not forbid the inserting Declarations into the Creed 2. That if it did not forbid that yet there is as little reason to say this was a meer Declaration 1. Because there is no reason to say that the Council did not forbid the inserting Declarations into the Creed For as Bessarion well observes it never was lawful to add new and distinct Articles of Faith from those which are contained in Scripture but the Church only undertook the explication and declaration of the things therein contained and this was only lawful Therefore the Ancient Fathers had full liberty of explaining Articles of Faith and using those explications as they judged most expedient and to place them where they thought good so it were not in Scripture thence they might insert them into the Creed or elsewhere But afterwards i. e. after this decree of the Ephesine Council this liberty was partly taken away and partly continued For it never was or will be unlawful to explain or declare Articles of Faith but to insert those explications into the Creed is now unlawful because forbidden by the decree of a General Council For saith he the Fathers of the third Council observing what great inconveniencies had followed in the Church upon the inlargement of Creeds and that no injury could at all come by the prohibition of any further Additions to be inserted for by that means they should only be bound to believe no more than what those Holy Fathers believed and who dare charge their Faith with imperfection and they did therefore wisely forbid all other expositions of Faith to be inserted into the Creed as he there at large proves And in the progress of that discourse takes off that which Bellarmin looked on as the only satisfactory answer viz. That the prohibition concerned only private persons For saith he It cannot be conceived that the Council should take care about the Declarations of the Creed made by particular persons whereas it alwaies was and is lawful for such to declare their Faith more particularly as appears by the Creed of Charisius received in this Council but this they looked after that the Creed which was commonly received in the Christian Churches and into which men are baptized should receive no alteration at all And to shew what their meaning was though their Council was purposely assembled against Nestorius yet they would not insert 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the Creed And the same decree was observed in the 4 5 6 7. Councils which by their actions did declare this to be the meaning of the Ephesine Council that no Declarations whatsoever should hereafter be inserted into the Creed For if they were meer Declarations there was much less necessity of inferting them into the Creed which was supposed to be a Systeme of the necessary Articles of Faith 2. There was as little reason to say that this Article was a meer Declaration For the Latins pretended that the Article of Filioque was only a further explication of that ex Patre For if so then whosoever doth believe the Procession from the Father doth believe all that is necessary to be believed And therefore certainly it can be no Heresie not to believe the Procession from the Son because that is only supposed to be a Declaration of that from the Father And since you are so ready to charge the Greek Church with Heresie I pray tell us whether this Article be a Declaration or not If not then the Latins were all deceived who pleaded the lawfulness of inserting Filioque on that account and consequently it must be a prohibited Addition If it be then shew us what Heresie lyes in not acknowledging a meer explication when all that is supposed necessary is believed in the substance of the Article Moreover Bessarion rightly distinguisheth between an explication 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore grants that the Filioque might be said to be an explication of something contained in the Creed but not out of any thing contained in the Creed and therefore the Medium being extrinsecal it could not be said to be a meer Declaration For there can be no necessary Argument drawn from the Procession from the Father to inferr the Procession from the Son but it must be proved from some extrinsecal distinct Argument 2. Suppose this to be no prohibited Addition yet what right had the Pope and his Council without the consent of the Eastern Churches to make this Addition to the Creed For the Greeks said whatever authority the Church of Rome had it received by the Canons and its authority was therefore less then that of an Oecumenical Council wherefore it could not justly repeal or act contrary to the decree of a General Council as it did apparently in this case By which means the Latins were driven off from those which they looked on as slighter velitations and took Sanctuary in the Plenitude of the Pope's Power that therefore no Council could prescribe to him there could be no necessity of his calling the Eastern Churches to debate this Addition for he could do it of himself by virtue of his own authority in and over the Church Here Anselm and Bonaventure think to secure themselves and hither they are all driven at last So that we plainly see whatever else is pretended the Pope's usurped Power was that which truly gave occasion to the Schism For it was not the Latins believing the Procession from the Son which made the separation between the Eastern and Western Churches but the Pope's pretending a Power to impose an Article of Faith in the Creed against the decree of a former and without the consent of a present Oecumenical Council If you pretend that there hath been since an Oecumenical Council at Florence which hath declared it by that very answer you justifie the Greeks before that Council and so lay the guilt of the Schism wholly on the Pope who did insert and impose this Article before an Oecumenical Council Thus still it appears the cause of the Schism began at Rome and by the same Argument with which you charge them with Heresie viz. the Council at Florence you vindicate the Greek Church from Schism in all the actions of it before that Council And this might suffice to shew that it was not the levity vanity or ambition of the Greeks which gave the great occasion of the Schism but the Pride Incroachments and Vsurpations of the Church of Rome as might largely be manifested from the history of those times when the Schism began The rise of which ought to be derived from the times of the Constantinopolitan and Chalcedon Councils the second and fourth Oecumenical For the Canons of those Councils decreeing equal Priviledges to Constantinople with those of Rome made the Popes have a continual jealousie upon the Greek Church and watch
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-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
are for he speaks of those things which all Christians who have a care of their Salvation are to avoid of such things as are contrary to all Antiquity and such kind of Dogmata I freely grant the Definitions of your Church to be Your second citation is as happy as the first cap. 28. Crescat saith he speaking of the Church sed in suo duntaxat genere in eodem scilicet Dogmate eodem sensu eâdemque sententiâ An excellent place no doubt to prove it in the Churches power to define new Articles of Faith because the Church must alwaies remain in the same Belief sense and opinion When his words but little foregoing are Profectus sit ille fidei non permutatio which without the help of English Lexicons you would willingly render by leaving out that troublesome Particle non that the best progress in Faith is by adding new Articles though it be as contrary to reason as it is to the sense of Vincentius Lerinensis If Vincentius saith that the Pelagians erred in Dogmate fidei which words neither appear cap. 24. nor 34. he gives this reason for it because they contradict the Vniversal sense of Antiquity and the Catholick Church cap. 34. So that still Vincentius where-ever he speaks of this Dogma fidei speaks in direct opposition to your sense of it for new definitions of the Church in matters of Faith There being scarce any book extant which doth more designedly overthrow this opinion of yours then that of Vincentius doth To shew therefore how much you have wronged his Lordship and what little advantage comes to your cause by your insisting on Vincentius his testimony I shall give a brief account both of his Design and Book The design of it is to shew what wayes one should use to prevent being deceived by such who pretend to discover new matters of Faith and those he assigns to be these two setling ones faith on the Authority of Scripture and the tradition of the Catholick Church But since men would enquire The Canon of Scripture being perfect and abundantly sufficient for all things what need can there be of Ecclesiastical tradition He answers For finding out the true sense of Scripture which is diversly interpreted by Novatianus Photinus Sabellius Donatus Arrius Eunomius Macedonius Apollinaris c. In the following Chapter he tells us what he means by this Ecclesiastical tradition Quod ubique quod semper ab omnibus creditum est that which hath Antiquity Vniversality and Consent joyning in the belief of it And can any new Definitions of the Church pretend to all or any of these He after enquires what is to be done in case a particular Church separates it self from the communion of the Catholick He answers We ought to prefer the health of the whole body before any pestiferous or corrupted member But in case any Novel Contagion should spread over not a part only but endanger the whole Church then saith he a man must adhere to Antiquity which cannot be deceived with a pretence of Novelty But if in Antiquity we find out the errour of two or three particular Persons or City or Province what is then to be done then saith he the Decrees of General Councils are to be preferred But in case there be none then he adds The general consent of the most approved writers of the Church is to be enquired after and what they all with one consent openly frequently constantly held writ and taught that let every man look on himself as bound to believe without hesitation Now then prove but any one of the new Articles of Faith in the Tridentine Confession by these rules of Vincentius and it will appear that you have produced his Testimony to some purpose else nothing will be more strong and forcible against all your pretences than this discourse of Vincentius is which he inlarges by the examples of the Donatists Arrians and others in the following Chapters in which still his scope is to assert Antiquity and condemn all Novelties in matters of Faith under any pretext whatsoever For this ch 12 14. he cites a multitude of Texts of Scripture forbidding our following any other Doctrine but what was delivered by Christ and his Apostles and Anathematizing all such as such as should Preach any other Gospel and concludes that with this remarkable speech It never was never is never will be lawful to propose any thing as matter of Faith to Christian Catholicks besides what they have received And it was is and will be becoming Christians to Anathematize all such who declare any thing but what they have received Do you think this man was not of your minde in the Doctrine of Fundamentals could he do otherwise then believe it in the Churches power to define things necessary to Salvation who would have all those Anathematized who pretend to declare any thing as matter of Faith but what they received as such from their Ancestours And after he hath at large exemplified this in the Photinian Nestorian Apollinarian Heresies and shewed how little the Authority of private Doctors how excellent soever is to be relyed on in matters of faith he concludes again with this Whatsoever the Catholick Church held universally that and that alone is to be held by particular persons And after admires at the madness blindness perverseness of those who are not contented with the once delivered and ancient rule of Faith but are still seeking new things and alwaies are itching to add alter take away some thing of Religion or matter of Faith As though that were not a Heavenly Doctrine which may suffice to be once revealed but an earthly institution which cannot be perfect but by continual correction and amendment Is not this man now a fit person to explain the sense of your Churches new Definitions and Declarations in matters of Faith And have not you hit very right on this sense of Dogma when here he understands by it that Doctrine of Faith which is not capable of any addition or alteration And thus we understand sufficiently what he means by the present controverted place that if men reject any part of the Catholick Doctrine they may as well refuse another and another till at last they reject all By the Catholick Doctrine or Catholicum dogma there he means the same with the Coeleste dogma before and by both of them understands that Doctrine of Faith which was once revealed by God and which is capable of no addition at all having Antiquity Vniversality and Consent going along with it and when you can prove that this Catholicum dogma doth extend beyond those things which his Lordship calls Catholick Maxims or properly Fundamental Truths you will have done something to the purpose which as yet you have failed in And thus we say Vincentius his rule is good though we do not say that he was infallible in the application of it but that he might mention some such things to
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-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
mistake to suppose a Church cannot continue without a vital inherent Principle of Infallibility in her self which must be discovered by Infallible Directions from the Head of it whereas we grant the necessity of an Infallible Foundation of Faith but cannot discern either from Scripture Reason or Antiquity that there must be a living and standing Infallible Judge which must deliver and interpret those Infallible Records to us We grant then Infallibility in the Foundation of Faith we assert the highest Certainty of the Infallibility of that Foundation we declare that the owning of that Infallible Foundation is that which makes men Christians the body of whom we call a Church we further grant that Christ hath left in his Church sufficient means for the preservation of it in Truth and Unity but we deny that ever he promised such an Infallibility to be constantly resident in that Church as was in the Prophets and Apostles and that neither any intention of Christ or any reason in the thing can be manifested why such an Infallibility should be so necessary for the Churches preservation that without it the Wisdom of Christ must be questioned and the Church built on a sandy Foundation Your citation of Vincentius Lyrinensis proves nothing but the Churches constancy in adhering to that Doctrine of Faith which was delivered from the beginning but how that should prove a Constant Infallibility I cannot understand unless it is impossible that there should be any Truth where there is no inherent Infallibility Thus we see what very little success you have in the attempt of proving the Churches continual Infallibility from Scripture From hence you proceed to the consideration of the way How Scripture and Tradition do mutually confirm each other His Lordship grants That they do mutually but not equally confirm the authority either of other For Scripture doth infallibly confirm the authority of Church-Traditions truly so called but Tradition doth but morally and probably confirm the authority of the Scripture This you say is apparently false but endeavour not to make it evident that it is so Only you say A. C. refused already to grant it Et quid tum postea Must every thing be false which A. C. refuses to grant But let us see whether his Similitude makes it out For saith he 't is as a Kings Embassadours word of mouth and his Kings Letters bear mutual witness to each other Just so indeed saith his Lordship For his Kings Letters of Credence under hand and Seal confirm the Embassadours authority infallibly to all that know his Seal and hand But the Embassadours word of mouth confirms his Kings Letters but only probably For else Why are they callâ—d Letters of Credence if they give not him more credit than he gives them To which you make a large Reply 1. That the Kings hand and Seal cannot confirm infallibly to a Forein King who neither knows hand nor Seal the Embassadours authority and therefore this reacheth not the business How we should know infallibly that the Scripture is Gods Word 2. That the primary reason Why the Embassadour is admitted is his own credit to which correspond the motives of Credibility of the Church by which the Letters of Credence are admitted 3. That none can give authority to the Letters of Credence or be infallibly certain of them but such as infallibly know that hand and Seal 4. That none can infallibly know that hand and Seal but such as are certain of the Embassadours sincerity But Doth all this disprove what his Lordship saith That though there be a mutual Testimony yet it is not equal for although the Letters of Credence might be the sooner read and admitted of on the Embassadours Reputation and Sincerity yet still those Letters themselves upon the delivery of them may further and in a higher degree confirm the Prince he is sent to of his authority to act as Embassadour Supposing then that there be a sufficient Testimony that these Letters were sealed by the Secretary of State who did manifest his Sincerity in the highest manner in the sealing of them though a Forein Prince might not know the hand and Seal yet upon such a creditable Testimony he may be assured that they were sealed by the Prince himself But then withall if the Embassadour to assure the Prince offers his own life to attest the truth of his Credentials and the Prince by reading the Letters find something in them which could not be written by any other than that Prince he then hath the highest certainty he can desire This is the case between Tradition and Scripture General Tradition at first makes way for the first admission of Scripture as the general repute of an Embassadours coming doth for his access to the Prince the particular Tradition of the Church is like the Embassadours affirming to the Prince that he hath Letters of Credence with him but then when he enquires into the Certainty of those Letters those Motives of Credibility not which relate to the person of the Embassadour but which evidently prove the sealing of those Letters as the constant Testimony of such who were present at it the Secretaries and Embassadours venturing their lives upon it must confirm him in that and lastly his own reading the Credentials give him the highest Confirmation i. e. The testimony of those who saw the miracles of Christ and his Apostles and confirmed the Truth of their Testimony by their dying for it are the highest inducement to our believing that the Scriptures were sealed by God himself in the miracles wrought and written by his own hand his Spirit infallibly assisting the Apostle but still after all this when in these very Scriptures we read such things as we cannot reasonably suppose could come from any but God himself this doth in the highest degree settle and confirm our Faith Therefore as to the main scope for which this Similitude was used by his Lordship it holds still but your mistake lyes in supposing that the Embassadours reception depended wholly on his own single Testimony and that was enough to make any Prince infallibly certain that his Letters of Credence are true which cannot be unless he knows before-hand that Embassadour to be infallibly true which is impossible to be supposed at his first reception Yet this is plainly your case that the Scriptures are to be infallibly believed on the single Testimony of the present Church which is to make the Embassadour himself give authority to his Letters of Credence and set hand and seal to them Whereas the contrary is most evident to be true But then supposing these Credentials admitted the Prince transacts with the Embassadour according to that power which is conveyed to him therein And thus it is in the present case Not as though a Prince treated every Envoy with equal respect to an Embassadour no more ought any Pastors of the Church be received but according to that power and authority which their Credentials viz. the
general Foundations of Christian Society But if any Society shall pretend a necessity of communion with her because it is impossible this should be done by her this priviledge must in reason be as evident as the common grounds of Christianity are nay much more evident because the belief of Christianity it self doth upon this pretence depend on the knowledge of such Infallibility and the indispensable obligation to communion depends upon it 2. There being a possibility acknowledged that particular Churches may require unreasonable conditions of communion the obligation to communion cannot be absolute and indispensable but only so far as nothing is required destructive to the ends of Christian Society Otherwise men would be bound to destroy that which they believe and to do the most unjust and unreasonable things But the great difficulty lyes in knowing when such things are required and who must be the judge in that case to which I answer 3. Nothing can be more unreasonable then that the Society imposing such conditions of communion should be judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no. If the question only were in matters of peace and conveniency and order the judgement of the Society ought to over-rule the judgements of particular persons but in such cases where great Bodies of Christians judge such things required to be unlawful conditions of communion what justice or reason is there that the party accused should sit Judge in her own cause 4. Where there is sufficient evidence from Scripture reason and tradition that such things which are imposed are unreasonable conditions of Christian communion the not communicating with that Society which requires these things cannot incurr the guilt of Schism Which necessarily follows from the precedent grounds because none can be obliged to communion in such cases and therefore the not communicating is no culpable separation 5. By how much the Societies are greater which are agreed in not communicating with a Church imposing such conditions by how much the power of those who rule those Societies so agreeing is larger by so much the more justifiable is the Reformation of any Church from these abuses and the setling the bonds of Christian communion without them And on those grounds viz. the Church of Romes imposing unlawful conditions of communion it was necessary not to communicate with her and on the Church of Englands power to reform it self by the assistance of the Supream power it was lawful and justifiable not only to redress those abuses but to settle the Church upon its proper and true foundations So that the Church of Romes imposing unlawful conditions of communion is the reason why we do not communicate with her and the Church of Englands power to govern and take care of her self is the reason of our joyning together in the service of God upon the principles of our Reformation On these grounds I doubt not but to make it appear how free the Church of England is from all imputation of Schism These things being thus in general premised we come to consider what those principles are on which you can found so high a charge as that of Schism on the Protestant Churches And having throughly considered your way of management of it I find all that you have to say may be resolved into one of these three grounds 1. That the Roman Church is the true and only Catholick Church 2. That our Churches could have no power or cause to divide in their Communion from her 3. That the Authority of the Roman Church is so great that upon no pretence soever could it be lawful to withdraw from Communion with her I confess if you can make good any one of these three you do something to the purpose but how little ground you have to charge us with Schism from any of these Principles will be the design of this Part at large to manifest I begin then with the first which is the pretence of your Churches being the Catholick Church and here we again enter the lists to see how fairly you deal with your Adversary Mr. Fisher saith That from the Controversie of the resolution of Faith the Lady callâ—d them and desiring to hear whether the Bishop would grant the Roman Church to be the right Church the Bishop saith he granted that it was To which his Lordship answers after a just complaint of the abuse of disputations by mens resolution to hold their own though it be by unworthy means and disparagement of truth that the question was neither asked in that form nor so answered And that there is a great deal of difference especially as Romanists handle the question of the Church between The Church and A Church and there is some between a True Church and a Right Church For The Church may import the only true Church and perhaps the root and ground of the Catholick And this saith he I never did grant of the Roman Church nor ever mean to do But A Church can imply no more then that it is a member of the whole And this I never did saith he nor ever will deny if it fall not absolutely away from Christ. That it is a True Church I granted also but not a Right For Truth only imports the being right perfection in conditions thus a Thief is a true man though not an upright man So a corrupt Church may be true as a Church is a company of men which profess the Faith of Christ and are baptized into his Name but it is not therefore a right Church either in doctrine or manners And this he saith is acknowledged by very learned Protestants before him This is the substance of his Lordships answer to which we must consider what you reply That about the terms of the Ladie 's question you grant to be a verbal Controversie and that whatever her words were she was to be understood to demand this alone viz. Whether the Roman were not the True Visible Infallible Church out of which none can be saved for herein you say she had from the beginning of the Controversie desired satisfaction And in this subject the Roman Church could not be any Church at all unless it were The Church and a Right Church The reason is because St. Peters successour being the Bishop of Rome and Head of the whole Church as you tell us you will prove anon that must needs be the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it be any Church at all And because the Church can be but one if it be a true Church it must be the right Church But all this amounts only to a confident assertion of that which wants evident proof which is that the notion of a Church relates to one as appointed the Head of the whole Church without which it would be no Church at all Which being a thing so hard to be understood and therefore much harder to be proved we must be content to wait your leasure till you shall think fit
with the power of the City the potentior principalitas in Irenaeus which advanced its reputation to the height it was then at What matters of doctrine do you find brought to the Church of Rome to be Infallibly decided there in St. Cyprians time how little did St. Cyprian believe this when he so vehemently opposed the judgement of Stephen Bishop of Rome in the case of rebaptization Doth he write speak or carry himself in that Controversie like one that owned that Church of Rome to be head of all other Churches to which they must be subordinate in matter of doctrine Nay in the very next words St. Cyprian argues against appeals to Rome and is it possible then to think that in these words he should give such an absolute power and authority to it And therefore any one who would reconcile St. Cyprian to himself must by those words of Ecclesia principalis only understand the dignity and eminency and not the power much less the Infallibility of the Church of Rome And no more is implyed in the Second That it is said to be the fountain of Sacerdotal Vnity which some think may probably referr to the Priesthood of the Church of Africk which had its rise from the Church of Rome as appears by Tertullian and others in which sense he might very well say that the Vnity of the Priesthood did spring from thence or if it be taken in a more large and comprehensive sense it can import no more then that the Church of Rome was owned as the Principium Vnitatis which certainly is a very different thing from an infallible judgement in matters of Faith For what connexion is there between Vnity in Government and Infallibility in Faith Suppose the Church of Rome should be owned as the principal Member of the Catholick Church and therefore that the Vnity of the Church should begin there in regard of the dignity of it doth it thence follow that there must be an absolute subordination of all other Churches to it Nothing then can be inferr'd from either of those particulars that by perfidia errour in Faith must be understood taking those two expressions in the most favourable sense that can be put upon them But considering the present state of the Church of Rome at the time when Felicissimus and Fortunatus came thither I am apt to think another interpretation more probable than either of the foregoing For which we must remember that there was a Schism at Rome between Novatianus and Cornelius the former challenging to be Bishop there as well as the latter upon which a great breach was made among them Now these persons going out of Africa to Rome that they might manage their business with the more advantage address themselves to Cornelius and his party upon which St. Cyprian saith Navigare audent ad Petri Cathedram atque ad Ecclesiam principalem unde Vnitas sacerdotalis exorta est thereby expressing their confidence that they not only went to Rome but when they were there they did not presently side with the Schismatical party of the Novatians there but as though they had been true Catholicks they go to Cornelius who being the legal successour of St. Peter in opposition to Novatianus calls his See the chair of St. Peter and the principal Church and the spring of the Vnity of the Priesthood because the contrary party of Novatianus had been the cause of all the Schism and disunion which had been among them And in this sense which seems very agreeable to St. Cyprians words and design we may easily understand what this perfidia was viz. that falseness and perfidious dealing of these persons that although they were Schismaticks themselves yet they were so farr from seeming so at their coming to Rome that as though they had been very good Catholicks they seek to joyn in communion with Cornelius and the Catholick party with him By which we see what little probability there is from those expressions that perfidia must be taken for an errour in Faith But 3. You say To what purpose else doth he mention St. Pauls commendation of their Faith if this perfidia were not immediately opposite to it But then inform us what part of that Apostolical Faith was it which Felicissimus and Fortunatus sought to violate at Rome It is apparent their whole design was to be admitted into communion with the Church of Rome which in all probability is that access here spoken of if therefore this perfidia imported some errour in Faith it must be some errour broached by those particular persons as contrary to the old Roman Faith which was extold by the Apostle And although these persons might be guilty of errours yet the ground of their going to Rome was not upon any matter of Doctrine whereby they sought to corrupt the Church of Rome but in order to the justifying of their Schism by being admitted into the communion of that Church Notwithstanding then any thing you have produced to the contrary there is no necessity of understanding perfidia for an errour in matter of Faith And St. Cyprians mentioning the praise given to the Romans for their Faith by the Apostle was not to shew the opposition between that and the perfidia as an errour in Faith but that being the greatest Elogium of the Church of Rome extant in Scripture he thought it now most convenient to use it the better to engage Cornelius to oppose the proceedings of the Schismaticks there Although withall I suppose St. Cyprian might give him some taste of his old office of a Rhetorician in the allusion between fides and perfidia without ever intending that perfidia should be taken in any other sense then what was proper to the cause in hand You having effected so little in the solution of his Lordships first answer you have little cause to boast in your following words That hence his other explication also vanishes into smoak viz. when he asserts that Perfidia non potest may be taken hyperbolically for non facile potest because this interpretation suits not with those high Elogiums given by St. Cyprian to the Roman Church as being the principal Church the Church whence Vnity of Faith and Discipline is derived to all other Christian Churches If you indeed may have the liberty to interpret St. Cyprians words as you please by adding such things to them of which there is no intimation in what he saith you may make what you please unsuitable to them For although he calls it the principal Church from whence the Vnity of the Priesthood is sprung yet what is this to the Vnity of Faith and Discipline as derived from thence to all other Churches as you would perswade the unwary reader that these were St. Cyprians words which are only your groundless interpretation of them And therefore there is no such improbability in what his Lordship sayes That this may be only a Rhetorical excess of speech in which St. Cyprian may
most part yet living These are your assertions and because you seek not to prove them it shall be sufficient to oppose ours to them Our assertion therefore is that the Church and Court of Rome are guilty of this Schism by obtruding erroneous Doctrines and superstitious practises as the conditions of her Communion by adding such Articles of Faith which are contrary to the plain rule of Faith and repugnant to the sense of the truly Catholick and not the Roman Church by her intolerable incroachments and usurpations upon the liberties and priviledges of particular Churches under a vain pretence of Vniversal Pastourship by forcing men if they would not damn their souls by sinning against their consciences in approving the errours and corruptions of the Roman Church to joyn together for the Solemn Worship of God according to the rule of Scripture and practise of the Primitive Church and suspending Communion with that Church till those abuses and corruptions be redressed In which they neither deny obedience to any Lawful Authority over them nor take to themselves any other Power than the Law of God hath given them receiving their Authority in a constant Succession from the Apostles they institute no Rites and Ceremonies either contrary to or different from the practise of the Primitive Church they neither exclude or dispossess others of their Lawful Power but in case others neglect their office they may be notwithstanding obliged to perform theirs in order to the Churches Reformation Leaving the Supreme Authority of the Kingdome or Nation to order and dispose of such things in the Church which of right appertain unto it And this we assert to be the case of Schism in reference to the Church of England which we shall make good in opposition to your assertions where we meet with any thing that seems to contradict the whole or any part of it These and the like practises of yours to use your own words not any obstinate maintaining any erroneous Doctrines as you vainly pretend we averre to have been the true and real causes of that separation which is made between your Church and Ours And you truly say That Protestants were thrust out of your Church which is an Argument they did not voluntarily forsake the Communion of it and therefore are no Schismaticks but your carriage and practises were such as forced them to joyn together in a distinct Communion from you And it was not we who left your Church but your Church that left her Primitive Faith and Purity in so high a manner as to declare all such excommunicate who will not approve of and joyn in her greatest corruptions though it be sufficiently manifest that they are great recessions from the Faith Piety and Purity of that Roman Church which was planted by the Apostles and had so large a commendation from the Apostolical men of those first ages Since then such errours and corruptions are enforced upon us as conditions of Communion with you by the same reason that the Orthodox did very well in departing from the Arrians because the Arrians were already departed from the Church by their false Doctrine will our separation from you be justified who first departed from the Faith and Purity of the Primitive Church and not only so but thrust out of your Communion all such as would not depart from it as farr as you Having thus considered and retorted your Assertions we come to your Answers Nor say you does the Bishop vindicate the Protestant party by saying The cause of Schism was ours and that we Catholicks thrust Protestants from us because they call'd for truth and redress of abuses For first there can be no just cause of Schism this hath been granted already even by Protestants And so it is by us and the reason is very evident for it for if there be a just cause there can be no Schism and therefore what you intend by this I cannot imagine unless it be to free Protestants from the guilt of Schism because they put the Main of their tryal upon the justice of the cause which moved them to forsake the Communion of your Church or else you would have it taken for granted that ours was a Schism and thence inferr there could be no just cause of it As if a man being accused for taking away the life of one who violently set upon him in the High-way with an intent both to rob and destroy him should plead for himself that this could be no murther in him because there was a sufficient and justifiable cause for what he did that he designed nothing but to go quietly on his road that this person and several others violently set upon him that he intreated them to desist that he sought to avoid them as much as he could but when he saw they were absolutely bent on his ruine he was forced in his own necessary defence to take away the life of that person Would not this with any intelligent Jury be looked on as a just and reasonable Vindication But if so wise a person as your self had been among them you would no doubt have better informed them for you would very gravely have told them All his plea went on a false supposition that he had a just cause for what he did but there could be no just cause for murther Do you not see now how subtil and pertinent your Answer is here by this parallel to it For as in that case all men grant that there can be no just cause for murther because all murther is committed without a just cause and if there be one it ceaseth to be murther So it is here in Schism which being a causeless separation from the Churches Vnity I wonder who ever imagined there could be just cause for it But to rectifie such gross mistakes as these are for the future you would do well to understand that Schism formally taken alwayes imports something criminal in it and there can be no just cause for a sin but besides that there is that which if you understand it you would call the materiality of it which is the separation of one part of the Church from another Now this according to the different grounds and reasons of it becomes lawful or unlawful that is as the reasons do make it necessary or unnecessary For separation is not lawful but when it is necessary now this being capable of such a different nature that it may be good or evil according to its circumstances there can be no absolute judgement passed upon it till all those reasons and circumstances be duely examined and if there be no sufficient grounds for it then it is formally Schism i. e. a culpable separation if there be sufficient cause then there may be a separation but it can be no Schism And because the Vnion of the Catholick Church lyes in Fundamental and necessary truths therefore there can be no separation absolutely from the Catholick Church but what involves in it the
not from hence that Heresie was supposed to dissolve that obligation to obedience which otherwise men lay under And if it doth destroy that Faith which men owe to their Soveraigns in case of Heresie Will it not equally destroy that Faith which Princes promise to their subjects in case of Heresie too For what reason can be given for the one which will not hold for the other also And who were they I pray but those loyal persons the Jesuits who broached fomented and propagated that Doctrine Was not Father Creswell a Jesuit who under the name of Andreas Philopator delivers this excellent Doctrine That the whole School of Divines teach and it is a thing certain and of Faith that any Christian Prince if he manifestly falls off from the Religion of the Catholick Roman Church and endeavours to draw others from it doth by Law of God and man fall from all power and authority and that before the sentence of the Pope and Judge delivered against him and that all his subjects are free from the obligation of any Oath to him of obedience and loyalty and that they may and ought cast such a one out of his power as an Apostate and a Heretick lest he infect others I might mention many more who write after the same nature but I spare you only this one may serve instead of many for he delivers it not only as his own judgement but the consent of the School and as a thing most certain as being of Faith And will you still say That no Jesuits own such principles as That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks For if Heresie doth thus destroy all obligation to obedience in subjects to Heretical Princes Will it not much more in Princes toward heretical subjects because certainly Princes have a greater power and right to command over subjects than subjects over them even in your own case of Heresie Since this therefore is the avowed Doctrine of the Jesuitical School perswade whom you can to believe that you look on an obligation to Faith remaining in a case of Heresie Certainly none who understand your principles and practices will have much cause to rely on your Faith in this particular So much at present of the Jesuits Integrity as to this principle of keeping Faith with Hereticks What you add further about the Council of Constance and John Husse and Hierom of Prague is only serving up the very same matter in somewhat different words for there is nothing contained in them but what hath been sufficiently disproved already for it all depends on the nature of the safe-conduct and the difference of the Secular and Ecclesiastical Power His Lordship very pertinently asks supposing men might go safely to Rome To what purpose is it to go to a General Council thither and use freedom of speech since the Church of Rome is resolved to alter nothing and you very pertinently answer That they were invited thither to be better instructed and reclaimed from their errours But Will no place serve to reclaim them but Rome Can they not be as well instructed elsewhere and by other means than by being summoned to a General Council We had thought the intention of General Councils had been to have had free debates concerning the matters which divide the Church But it seems the Protestants must have been summoned as guilty persons i. e. Hereticks and their Adversaries must have sate as their proper Judges and such who were accused as the great Innovators must have believed themselves Infallible and by your own saying If an Angel from Heaven had come as a Protestant thither he would not have been believed nay it had been well he had escaped so if your power were as great over spirits as over our grosser bodies So I suppose John Husse and Hierom of Prague were invited to Constance to be better instructed and it is well we know by their example what you mean by your good instructions and out of a desire to avoid them care not how little we appear where our Adversaries not only intend to be Judges but resolve beforehand to condemn us whatsoever we say For so you tell us That Rome and the Fathers of Trent were resolved to stick to their own Doctrine which they call Catholick notwithstanding any pretended difficulties or objections brought against it either by Bishops or any other person Your kind invitations then of the Protestants were wonderful expressions of your Churches civility towards them that they might be present to hear themselves condemned and then escape how they could themselves The offer of a publick Disputation his Lordship truly tells you signifies nothing without an indifferent arbitration and the impossibility of agreeing on that renders the other useless and only becomes such Thrasonical persons as Campian was who yet had as little reason as any man to boast of his Atchievements in his disputations When you therefore say His Lordship would have some Atheist Turk or Jew to fit as indifferent persons you shew only your Scurrility and want of understanding For his Lordship only insists on the necessity of that to shew the uselesness of publick Disputations where such cannot be agreed on as in this case And he truly saith This is a good Answer to all such offers that the Kings and Church of England had no reason to admit of a publick Dispute with the English Romish Clergy till they shall be able to shew it under the Seal or Powers of Rome that that Church will submit to a Third who may be an indifferent Judge between us and them or to such a General Council as is after mentioned not such a one as you would have wherein the Pope should sit as Head of the Church for that is to make the greatest Criminal Judge in his own cause And this saith he is an honest and I think a full Answer And without this all Disputation must end in Clamour and therefore the more publick the worse Because as the Clamour is the greater so perhaps will be the Schism too CHAP. IV. The Reformation of the Church of England justified The Church of Rome guilty of Schism by unjustly casting Protestants out of Communion The Communion of the Catholick and particular Churches distinguished No separation of Protestants from the Catholick Church The Devotions of the Church of England and Rome compared Particular Churches Power to reform themselves in case of general Corruption proved The Instance from the Church of Judah vindicated The Church of Rome paralleld with the ten Tribes General Corruptions make Reformation the more necessary Whether those things we condemn as errours were Catholick Tenets at the time of the Reformation The contrary shewed and the difference of the Church of Rome before and since the Reformation When things may be said to be received as Catholick Doctrines How far particular Churches Power to reform themselves extends His Lordships Instances for the Power of Provincial Councils in matters of
I heartily wish had been as orderly and happily pursued as the work was right Christian and good in it self But humane frailty and the heats and distempers of men as well as the cunning of the Devil would not suffer that For even in this sense also the wrath of man doth not accomplish the will of God St. James 1.20 but I have learnt not to reject the good which God hath wrought for any evil which men may fasten upon it Now to this you answer 1. By a fair Concession again that a Provincial Council is the next Chirurgion when a Gangrene endangers life but still the Popes assistance is required For fear the Chirurgion should do too much good of himself you would be sure to have the Pope as Physitian to stand by whom you know too much concerned in the maladies of the Church to give way to an effectual cure 2. But you say further That the most proper expedient is an Oecumenical Council and this you spoil again with saying Such as the Council of Trent was For what you say in vindication of that being General and free we shall consider in the Chapter designed for that purpose What you object against our National Synod 1562. will be fully answered before the end of this which that we may make way for we must proceed to the remainder of these general grounds in which his Lordship proves That when the Vniversal Church will not or for the iniquity of the times cannot obtain and settle a free General Council 't is lawful nay sometimes necessary to reform gross abuses by a National or a Provincial To this you answer in General That you deny not but matters of less moment as concerning rites and ceremonies abuses in manners and discipline may be reformed by particular Councils without express leave of the Pope but that in matters of great moment concerning the Faith and publick Doctrine of the Church Sacraments and whatever else is of Divine Institution or universal obligation particular Councils if they duly proceed attempt nothing without recourse to the Sea Apostolick and the Pope's consent either expresly granted or justly presumed Fair hopes then there are of a cure when the Imposthume gathers in the Head we are indeed by this put into a very good condition for if a small matter hurts a Church she hath her hands at liberty to help her self but if one comes to ravish her her hands are tyed and by no means must she defend her self For in case say you it be any matter of great moment it must be left to the Pope and nothing to be done without his consent no not although the main of the distempers come through him But thanks be to God our Church is not committed to the hands of such a merciless Physitian who first causeth the malady and then forbids the cure we know of no such obligation we have to sleep in St. Peters Church as of old they did in the Temple of Aesculapius in hopes of a cure God hath entrusted every National Church with the care of her own safety and will require of her an account of that power he hath given to that end It will be little comfort to a Church whose members rot for want of a remedy to say The Pope will not give leave or else it might have been cured I wonder where it is that any Christian Church is commanded to wait the Popes good leasure for reforming her self Whence doth he derive this Authority and sole power of reforming Churches But that must be afterwards examined But is it reasonable to suppose that there should be Christian Magistrates and Christian Bishops in Churches and yet these so tyed up that they can do nothing in order to the Churches recovery though the distempers be never so great and dangerous Do we not read in the Apostolical Churches that the Government of them was in themselves without any the least mention of any Oecumenical Pastour over all if any abuses were among them the particular Governours of those Churches are checked and rebuked for it and commanded to exercise their power over offenders and must the encroachments of an usurped and arbitrary power in the Church hinder particular Churches from the exercise of that full power which is committed to the Governours of them Neither is this only a Right granted to a Church as such but we find this power practised and asserted in the history of the Christian Churches from the Apostles times For no sooner did the Bishops of Rome begin to encroach but other Bishops were so mindful of their own priviledges and the Interess of their Churches that they did not yield themselves his Vassals but disputed their rights and withstood his usurpations As hath partly appeared already and will do more afterwards And that particular Churches may reform themselves his Lordship produceth several Testimonies The first is of Gerson who tells us plainly That he will not deny but that the Church may be reformed by parts And that this is necessary and that to effect it Provincial Councils may suffice and in some things Diocesan And again Either you should reform all estates of the Church in a General Council or command them to be reformed in Provincial Councils But all this you say doth not concern matters of Faith but only personal abuses But I pray what ground is there that one should be reformed and not the other Is it not the reason why any reformation is necessary that the Churches purity and safety should be preserved and is not that as much or more endangered by erroneous doctrines then by personal abuses Will not then the parity of reason hold proportionably for one as well as the other that if the Church may be reformed by parts as to lesser abuses then much more certainly as to greater Besides you say Gerson allowed no Schismatical Reformations against the Churches head neither do we plead for any such but then you must shew Who the Churches head is and By what right he comes to be so otherwise the cause of the Schism will fall upon him who pretends to be the head to direct others and is as corrupt a member as any in the body But his Lordship adds This right of Provincial Synods that they might decree in causes of Faith and in cases of Reformation where corruptions had crept into the Sacraments of Christ was practised much above a thousand years ago by many both National and Provincial Synods For which he first instanceth in the Council at Rome under Pope Sylvester An. 324. condemning Photinus and Sabellius whose heresies were of a high nature against the Faith but here you say The very title confutes his pretence for it was held under the Pope and therefore not against him But however whether with the Pope or against him it was no more then a Provincial Synod and this decreed something in matters of Faith though according to your own
Doctrine the Pope could not be Infallible there for you restrain his Infallibility to a General Council and do not assert that it belongs to the particular Church of Rome As well then may any other Provincial Synod determine matters of Faith as that of Rome since that hath no more Infallibility belonging to it as such then any other particular Church hath and the Pope himself you say may erre when he doth not define matters of Faith in a General Council To his Lordships second instance of the Council of Gangra about the same time condemning Eustathius for his condemning marriage as unlawful you answer to the same purpose That Osius was there Pope Sylvester's Legat but what then if the Pope had been there himself he had not been Infallible much less certainly his Legat who could have only a Second-hand Infallibility To the third of the Council of Carthage condemning rebaptization about 348. you grant That it was assembled by Gratus Bishop of Carthage but that no new Article was defined in it but only the perpetual tradition of the Church was confirmed therein Neither do we plead for any power in Provincial Councils to define any new Articles of Faith but only to revive the old and to confirm them in opposition to any Innovations in point of Doctrine and as to this we profess to be guided by the sense of Scripture as interpreted by the unanimous consent of the Fathers and the four first General Councils To the fourth of the Council of Aquileia A. D. 381. condemning Palladius and Secundinus for embracing the Arrian Heresie St. Ambrose being present you answer That they only condemned those who had been condemned already by the Nicene Council and St. Ambrose and other Bishops of Italy being present Who can doubt but every thing was done there by the Popes authority and consent But if they only enforced the decrees of the Council of Nice What need of the Pope's authority to do that And do you think that there were no Provincial Councils in that part of Italy which was particularly distinguished from the suburbicarian Churches under the Bishop of Rome wherein the Pope was not present either by himself or Legats If you think so your thoughts have more of your will then understanding in them But if this Council proceeded according to that of Nice Will it not be as lawful for other Provincial Councils to reform particular Churches as long as they keep to the Decrees not barely of Nice but of the four General Councils which the Church of England looks on as her duty to do In the two following Instances of the second Council of Carthage declaring in behalf of the Trinity and the Milevitan Council about the Pelagian Heresie you say The Bishops of Rome were consulted But what then Were they consulted as the Heads of the Church or only as eminent members of it in regard of their Faith and Piety Prove the former when you are able and as to the latter it depends upon the continuance of that Faith and Piety in them and when once the reason is taken away there can be no necessity of continuing the same resort The same answer will serve for what you say concerning the second Council of Aurange determining the Controversies about Grace and Free-will supposing we grant it assembled by the means of Felix 4. Bishop of Rome as likewise to the third of Toledo We come therefore to that which you call his Lordships reserve and Master-allegation the fourth Council of Toledo which saith he did not only handle matters of Faith for the reformation of that people but even added also something to the Creed which were not expresly delivered in former Creeds Nay the Bishops did not only practise this to condemn Heresies in National and Provincial Synods and so to reform those several places and the Church it self by parts but they did openly challenge this as their right and due and that without any leave asked of the See of Rome For in this fourth Council of Toledo they decree that If there happen a cause of Faith to be setled a general that is a National Synod of all Spain and Gallicia shall be held thereon And this in the year 643. where you see it was then Catholick Doctrine in all Spain that a National Synod might be a competent Judge in a cause of Faith But here still we meet with the same Answer That all this might be done with a due subordination to the See Apostolick but that it doth not hence follow that any thing may be done in Provincial Councils against the authority of it Neither do we plead that any thing may be done against the just authority of the Bishop of Rome or any other Bishop but then you must prove that he had a just authority over the Church of England and that he exercised no power here at the Reformation but what did of right belong to him But the fuller debate of these things must be left to that place where you designedly assert and vindicate the Pope's Authority These things being thus in the general cleared we come to the particular application of them to the case of the Church of England As to which his Lordship say's And if this were practised so often and in so many places Why may not a National Council of the Church of England do the like As she did For she cast off the Pope's usurpation and as much as in her lay restored the King to his right That appears by a Book subscribed by the Bishops in Henry the eighths time And by the Records in the Archbishops office orderly kept and to be seen In the Reformation which came after our Princes had their parts and the Clergy theirs And to these two principally the power and direction for Reformation belongs That our Princes had their parts is manifest by their calling together of the Bishops and others of the Clergy to consider of that which might seem worthy Reformation And the Clergy did their part for being thus call'd together by Regal power they met in the National Synod of sixty two And the Articles there agreed on were afterwards confirmed by acts of State and the Royal assent In this Synod the Positive truths which are delivered are more then the Polemicks So that a meer calumny it is that we profess only a Negative Religion True it is and we must thank Rome for it our Confession must needs contain some Negatives For we cannot but deny that Images are to be adored Nor can we admit maimed Sacraments Nor grant Prayers in an unknown tongue And in a corrupt time or place 't is as necessary in Religion to deny falshood as to assert and vindicate Truth Indeed this latter can hardly be well and sufficiently done but by the former an Affirmative verity being ever included in the Negative to a falshood As for any errour which might fall into this as any other Reformation if
the sad complaints of the usurpations and abuses which were in it and these abundantly delivered by Classical Authors of both the present and precedent times and to use more of your own words all Ecclesiastical Monuments are full of them so that this is no false calumny or bitter Pasquil as you call it but a very plain and evident truth But that there was likewise a great deal of art subtilty and fraud used in the getting keeping and managing the Popes power he hath but a small measure of wit who doth not understand and they as little of honesty who dare not confess it CHAP. V. Of the Roman Churches Authority The Question concerning the Church of Rome's Authority entred upon How far our Church in reforming her self condemns the Church of Rome The Pope's equality with other Patriarchs asserted The Arabick Canons of the Nicene Council proved to be supposititious The Polity of the Ancient Church discovered from the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice The Rights of Primates and Metropolitans settled by it The suitableness of the Ecclesiastical to the Civil Government That the Bishop of Rome had then a limited Jurisdiction within the suburbicary Churches as Primate of the Roman Diocese Of the Cyprian Priviledge that it was not peculiar but common to all Primates of Dioceses Of the Pope's Primacy according to the Canons how far pertinent to our dispute How far the Pope's Confirmation requisite to new elected Patriarchs Of the Synodical and Communicatory Letters The testimonies of Petrus de Marcâ concerning the Pope's Power of confirming and deposing Bishops The Instances brought for it considered The case of Athanasius being restored by Julius truly stated The proceedings of Constantine in the case of the Donatists cleared and the evidence thence against the Pope's Supremacy Of the Appeals of Bishops to Rome how far allowed by the Canons of the Church The great case of Appeals between the Roman and African Bishops discussed That the Appeals of Bishops were prohibited as well as those of the inferiour Clergy C's fraud in citing the Epistle of the African Bishops for acknowledging Appeals to Rome The contrary manifested from the same Epistle to Boniface and the other to Coelestine The exemption of the Ancient Britannick Church from any subjection to the See of Rome asserted The case of Wilfrids Appeal answered The Primacy of England not derived from Gregory's Grant to Augustine the Monk The Ancient Primacy of the Britannick Church not lost upon the Saxon Conversion Of the state of the African Churches after their denying Appeals to Rome The rise of the Pope's Greatness under Christian Emperours Of the Decree of the Sardican Synod in case of Appeals Whether ever received by the Church No evidence thence of the Pope's Supremacy Zosimus his forgery in sending the Sardican Canons instead of the Nicene The weakness of the pleas for it manifested THat which now remains to be discussed in the Question of Schism is concerning the Authority of the Church and Bishop of Rome Whether that be so large and extensive as to bind us to an universal submission so that by renouncing of it we violate the Vnity of the Church and are thereby guilty of Schism But before we come to a particular discussion of that we must cast our eyes back on the precedent Chapter in which the title promiseth us That Protestants should be further convinced of Schism but upon examination of it there appears not so much as the shadow of any new matter but it wholly depends upon principles already refuted and so contains a bare repetition of what hath been abundantly answered in the first part So your first Section hath no more of strength than what lyes in your Churches Infallibility For when you would plead That though the Church of Rome be the accused party yet she may judge in her own cause you do it upon this ground That you had already proved the Roman Church to be infallible and therefore your Church might as well condemn her accusers as the Apostles theirs and that Protestants not pretending Infallibility cannot rationally be permitted to be Accusers and Witnesses against the Roman Church Now What doth all this come to in case your Church be not infallible as we have evidently proved she is not in the first part and that she is so far from it that she hath most grosly erred as we shall prove in the third part Your second Section supposes the matter of fact evident That Protestants did contradict the publick Doctrine and belief of all Christians generally throughout the world which we have lately proved to be an egregious falsity and shall do more afterwards The cause of the Separatists and the Church of England is vastly different Whether wee look on the authority cause or manner of their proceedings and in your other Instances you still beg the Question That your Church is our Mother-Church and therefore we are bound to submit to her judgement though she be the accused party But as to this whole business of Quô Judice nothing can be spoken with more solidity and satisfaction than what his Lordship saith If it be a cause common to both as certain it is here between the Protestant and Roman Church then neither part alone may be Judge if neither alone may judge then either they must be judged by a third which stands indifferent to both and that is the Scripture or if there be a jealousie or a doubt of the sense of the Scripture they must either both repair to the Exposition of the Primitive Church and submit to that or both call and submit to a General Council which shall be lawfully called and fairly and freely held with indifferency to all parties and that must judge the Difference according to Scripture which must be their Rule as well as private mens When you either attempt to shew the unreasonableness of this or substitute any thing more reasonable instead of it you may expect a further Answer to the Question Quô Judice as far as it concerns the difference between your Church or ours The remainder of this whole Chapter is only a repetition of somewhat concerning Fundamentals and a further expatiating in words without the addition of any more strength from reason or authority upon the Churches Infallibility being proved from Scripture which having been throughly considered already and an account given not only of the meaning of those places one excepted which we shall meet with again but of the reason Why the sense of them as to Infallibility should be restrained to the Apostles I find no sufficient motive inducing me to follow you in distrusting the Readers memory and trespassing on his patience so much as to inculcate the same things over and over as you do Passing by therefore the things already handled and leaving the rest if any such thing appear to a more convenient place where these very places of Scripture are again brought upon
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
declaimed against as monstrous and blasphemous if not Antichristian Where by the way either these two Popes Pelagius and S. Gregory erred in this weighty business about an Vniversal Bishop over the whole Church Or if they did not erre Boniface and the rest which after him took it upon them were in their very predecessors judgement Antichristian Before you come to a particular Answer you think it necessary to make a way for it by premising two things 1. That the Title of Vniversal Bishop was anciently attributed to the Bishops of Rome but they never made use of it 2. That the ancient Bishops of Constantinople never intended by this usurped Title to deny the Popes Vniversal Authority even over themselves These two things I shall therefore consider because they tend much to the clearing the main Controversie I begin therefore with the Title of Vniversal Bishop attributed to the Bishop of Rome and before I answer your particular allegations we must more fully consider in what sense that title of Vniversal Bishops was taken in Antiquity and in what manner it was attributed to him For when titles have different senses and those senses evidently made use of by the ancient Writers it is a most unreasonable thing meerly from the title to inferr one determinate sense which is the most contrary to the current of Antiquity The title then of Vniversal Bishop may be conceived to import one of these three things 1. A general care and solicitude over all the Churches of the Christian world 2. A peculiar dignity over the Churches within the Empire 3. Vniversal Jurisdiction over all Churches so that all exercise of it in the Church is derivative from him as Vniversal Pastor and Head of the Church This last is that which you attribute to the Pope and though you find the name of Vniversal Bishop a hundred times over in the records of the Church yet if it be taken in either of the two former senses it makes nothing at all to your purpose Our business is therefore now to shew that this title was used in the Church in the two former senses and that nothing from hence can be inferred for that Oecumenical Pastorship which you say doth of Divine Right belong to the Bishop of Rome I begin with the first as this Title may import a general care and solicitude over all the Christian Churches and I deny not but in this sense this title might be attributed in Antiquity to the Bishop of Rome but then I assert that nothing peculiar to him can be inferred from hence because expressions importing the same care are attributed to other Bishops especially such who were placed in the greater Sees or were active in promoting the Churches interest For which we must consider that power and authority in the Bishops of the Church is given with an immediate respect to the good of the whole Church so that if it were possible that every particular Bishop could take care of the whole Church they have authority enough by their Function to do it But it not only being impossible that every Bishop should do it but it being inconsistent with peace and order that all should undertake it therefore it was necessary that there should be some restraints and bounds set for the more convenient management of that authority which they had From hence came the Original of particular Dioceses that within such a compass they might better exercise that power which they enjoyed As if many lights be placed in a great Room though the intention of every one of these is to give light to the whole Room yet that this might the better be done these lights are conveniently placed in the several parts of it And this is that which S. Cyprian means in that famous expression of his That there is but one Bishoprick in the whole world a part of which is held by every Bishop For the Church in common is designed as the Diocese of all Bishops which is set out into several appartiments for the more advantagious governing of it As a flock of many thousand sheep being committed to the care of many Shepherds these all have an eye to the good of the whole Flock but do not therefore sit altogether in one place to over-see it but every one hath his share to look after for the benefit of the Whole But yet so that upon occasion one of them may extend his care beyond his own division and may be very useful for the whole by counsel and direction Thus we shall find it was in the Primitive Church though every Bishop had his particular Charge yet still they regarded the common good of the whole Church and upon occasion did extend their counsel and advice far beyond their particular Churches and exercised their Functions in other places besides those which the Churches convenience had allotted to them Hence it was that dissentions arising between the Asian and Roman Churches Polycarp comes to Rome and there as Eusebius from Irenaeus tells us He exercised with Anicetus his consent his Episcopal Function For as Valesius observes it cannot be understood as Franciscus Florens would have it of his receiving the Eucharist from Anicetus but something of honour is implied in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas there was nothing but what was common in the other Hence the several Epistles of Ignatius Polycarp Irenaeus and others for the advising confirming and settling Churches Hence Irenaeus concerned himself so much in the business between Victor and the Asian Churches either to prevent or repeal his sentence of Excommunication against them Hence S. Cyprian writes into Spain about the deposing Basilides and Martialis two Apostatizing Bishops and checks Stephen Bishop of Rome for his inconsiderate restoring them Hence Faustus Bishop of Lyons writes to S. Cyprian in the case of Martianus of Arles and he writes to Stephen as being nearer and more concerned in the business of Novatianism for the honour of his predecessors in order to his Deposition yet so as he looks on it as a common cause belonging to them all cui rei nostrum est consulere subvenire frater charissime in which they were all bound to advise and help Hence S. Cyprian writes to the Bishop of Rome as his Brother and Colleague without the least intimation of deriving any Jurisdiction from him but often expressing that charge which was committed to every Bishop which he must look to as mindful of the account he must give to God Hence Nazianzen saith of S. Cyprian That he not only governed the Churches of Carthage and Africa but all the Western parts and even almost all the Eastern Southern and Northern too as far as his fame went Hence Arsenius writes to Athanasius We embrace Peace and Vnity with the Catholick Church over which thou through the Grace of God dost preside Hence Gregory Nazianzen saith of Athanasius That he made Laws for the whole earth Hence
your Head of the Church as if they had been spoken by a Protestant against that Doctrine which you all own What is there in all this that implies that others should be no Bishops but only titular yes they may be as much Bishops as you acknowledge them to be i. e. as to their power of Order but not as to their Jurisdiction For this you say and defend comes from the Head of the Church or else your Monarchical Government in the Church signifies nothing Do not you make the Pope Vniversal Pastor of the Church in as high a sense as any of these expressions carry it And when St. Gregory urges so often That if there be such an Vniversal Bishop if he fails the Church would fail too Do you deny the consequence as to the Pope Doth not Bellarmine tell us when he writes of the Pope he writes de summâ rei Christianae Of the main of all Christianity and surely then the Church must fail if the Popes Supremacy doth And I pray now consider with your self Whether this Answer which you say hath been given a hundred times over can satisfie any reasonable man Nay Doth it not appear to be so absurd and incongruous that it is matter of just admiration that ever it should have been given once and yet you are wonderfully displeased that his Lordship should bring this Objection upon the stage again But Do you think your Answers like your Prayers will do you good by being said so often over Indeed therein they are alike that they are both in an unknown tongue Your Literal sense of Vniversal Bishop being in this case no more intelligible than your Latin-Prayers to a Country Congregation These things being thus clear I have prevented my self in the second Enquiry in that I have proved already that the Reasons which St. Gregory produceth hold against that sense of Vniversal Bishop which you own and contend for as of right belonging to the Bishop of Rome Although it were no difficult matter to prove that according to the most received Opinion in your Church viz. that all Jurisdiction in Bishops is derived from the Pope which opinion you cannot but know is most acceptable at Rome and was so at the Council of Trent that that which you call the Literal sense doth follow your Metaphorical i. e. If the Pope hath Vniversal Jurisdiction as Head of the Church then other Bishops are not properly Bishops nor Christ's Officers but his For what doth their power of order signifie as to the Church without the power of Jurisdiction And therefore if they be taken only in partem solicitudinis and not in plenitudinem potestatis according to the known distinction of the Court of Rome it necessarily follows that they are but the Pope's Officers and are taken just into so much authority as he commits to them and no more And this Bellarmine proves from the very form of the Pope's consecration of Bishops whereby he commits the power of governing the Church to him and the administration of it in spirituals and temporals And you may see by the speech of Father Laynez in the Council of Trent How stoutly he proves that the power of Jurisdiction was given wholly to the Bishop of Rome and that none in the Church besides hath any spark of it but from him that the Bishop of Rome is true and absolute Monarch with full and total power and Jurisdiction and the Church is subject unto him as it was to Christ. And as when his Divine Majesty did govern it it could not be said that any of the faithful had any the least power or Jurisdiction but meer pure and total subjection so it must be said in all perpetuity of time and so understood that the Church is a Sheepfold and a Kingdom And that he is the Only Pastor is plainly proved by the words of Christ when he said He hath other sheep which he will gather together and so one Sheepfold should be made and one Shepherd What think you now of the Literal sense of Vniversal Bishop for the Only Bishop Are not the Only Bishop and the Only Pastor all one Will not all those words of St. Gregory reach this which any of you make use of to prove that he takes it in the worst and Literal sense nay it goes higher For Gregory only argues that from the Title of Vniversal Bishop he must be sole Bishop and others could not be any true Bishops but here it is asserted in plain terms that the Bishop of Rome is the only Pastor and that as much as if Christ himself were here upon earth and therefore if your Literal sense hath any sense at all in it it is much more true of the Bishop of Rome than ever it could be of the Patriarch of Constantinople And therefore I pray think more seriously of what he saith That to agree in that prophane word is to lose the Faith That such a blasphemous name should be far from the hearts of Christians in which by the arrogance of one Bishop the honour of all is taken away Neither will it serve your turn to say which is all that you have to say that this is not the definitive sentence of your Church but that many in your Church hold otherwise That there is power of Jurisdiction properly in Bishops For although these latter are not near the number of the other nor so much in favour with your Church but are looked on as a discontented party as appears by the proceedings in the Council of Trent yet that is not it we are to look after What all in your Church are agreed on but what the Pope challengeth as belonging to himself Was not Father Laynez his Doctrine highly approved at Rome as well as by the Cardinal Legats at Trent and all the Italian party Were not the other party discountenanced and disgraced as much as might be Doth not the Pope arrogate this to himself to be Oecumenical Pastor and the sole Fountain of all Jurisdiction in the Church If so all that ever St. Gregory said against that Title falls most heavily upon the Pope For St. Gregory doth not stand upon what others attributed to him but what he arrogated to himself that therein he was the Prince of Pride the forerunner of Antichrist using a vain new rash foolish proud prophane erroneous wicked hypocritical singular presumptuous blaspemous Name For all these goodly Epithets doth S. Gregory bestow upon it and I believe if he could have thought of more and worse he would as freely have bestowed them If therefore John the Patriarch was said by him to transgress God's Laws violate the Canons dishonour the Church despise his Brethren imitate Lucifer How much more doth this belong to him that not only challengeth to be Oecumenical Patriarch but the sole Pastor of the Church and that all Jurisdiction is derived from him And by this time I hope you see that the Answer you say hath
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
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
What principality do you mean over all Churches But that was the thing in Question So that if you will make Irenaeus speak sense and argue pertinently his meaning can be no other than this If there be such a Tradition left it must be left somewhere among Christians if it be left among them it may be known by enquiry Whether they own any such or no. But because it would be troublesome searching of all Churches we may know their judgement more compendiously there is the Church of Rome near us a famous and ancient Church seated in the chief City of the Empire to which all persons have necessities to go and among them you cannot but suppose but that out of every Church some faithful persons should come and therefore it is very unreasonable to think that the Apostolical Tradition hath not alwaies been preserved there when persons come from all places thither Is not every thing in this account of Irenaeus his words very clear and pertinent to his present dispute But in the sense you give of them they are little to the purpose and very precarious and inconsequent And therefore since the more powerful principality is not that of the Church but of the City since the necessity of recourse thither is not for doubts of Faith but other occasions therefore it by no means follows thence That this Churches power did extend over the faithful every where thus by explaining your Proposition your Conclusion is ashamed of it self and runs away For your argument comes to this If English men from all parts be forced to resort to London then London hath the power over all England or if one should say If some from all Churches in England must resort to London then the Church at London hath power over all the Churches in England and if this consequence be good yours is for it is of the same nature of it the necessity of the resort not lying in the Authority of the Church but in the Dignity of the City the words in all probability in the Greek being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so relate to the dignity of Rome as the Imperial City From whence we proceed to the Vindication of Ruffinus in his Translation of the 6. Canon of the Council of Nice The occasion of which is this His Lordship saith Supposing that the powerful principality be ascribed to the Church of Rome yet it follows not that it should have power over all Churches for this power was confined within its own Patriarchate and Jurisdiction and that saith he was very large containing all the Provinces in the Diocese of Italy in the old sense of the word Diocese which Provinces the Lawyers and others term Suburbicaries There were ten of them the three Islands Sicily Corsica and Sardinia and the other seven upon the firm Land of Italy And this I take it is plain in Ruffinus For he living shortly after the Nicene Council as he did and being of Italy as he was he might very well know the bounds of the Patriarchs Jurisdiction as it was then practised And he sayes expresly that according to the old custom the Roman Patriarchs charge was confined within the limits of the Suburbican Churches To avoid the force of this testimony Cardinal Perron laies load upon Ruffinus For he charges him with passion ignorance and rashness And one piece of his ignorance is that he hath ill translated the Canon of the Council of Nice Now although his Lordship doth not approve of it as a Translation yet he saith Ruffinus living in that time and place was very like well to know and understand the limits and bounds of that Patriarchate of Rome in which he lived This you say is very little to his Lordships advantage since it is inconsistent with the vote of all Antiquity and gives S. Irenaeus the lye but if the former be no truer than the latter it may be very much to his advantage notwithstanding what you have produced to the contrary What the ground is Why the Roman Patriarchate was confined within the Roman Diocese I have already shewed in the precedent Chapter in explication of the Nicene Canon We must now therefore examine the Reasons you bring Why the notion of Suburbicary Churches must be extended beyond the limits his Lordship assigns that of the smalness of Jurisdiction compared with other Patriarchs I have given an account of already viz. from the correspondency of the Ecclesiastical and Civil Government for the Civil Dioceses of the Eastern part of the Empire did extend much farther than the Western did and that was the Reason Why the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria had a larger Metropolitical Jurisdiction than the Bishop of Rome had But you tell us That Suburbicary Churches must be taken as generally signifying all Churches and Cities any waies subordinate to the City of Rome which was at that time known by the name of Urbs or City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of excellency not as it related to the Praefect or Governour of Rome in regard of whose ordinary Jurisdiction we confess it commanded only those few places about it in Italy but as it related to the Emperour himself in which sense the word Suburbicary rightly signifies all Cities or Churches whatsoever within the Roman Empire as the word Romania also anciently signified the whole Imperial Territory as Card. Perron clearly proves upon this subject But this is one instance of what mens wits will do when they are resolved to break through any thing For whoever that had read of the Suburbicary Regions and Provinces in the Code of Theodosius or other parts of the Civil Law as distinguished from other Provinces under the Roman Empire and those in Italy too could ever have imagined that the notion of Suburbicary Churches had been any other than what was correspondent to those Regions and Provinces But let that be granted which Sirmondus so much contends for That the notion of Suburbicary may have different respects and so sometimes be taken for the Churches within the Roman Diocese sometimes for those within the Roman Patriarchate and sometimes for those which are under the Pope as Vniversal Pastor yet How doth it appear that ever Ruffinus took it in any other than the first sense No other Provinces being called Suburbicary but such as were under the Jurisdiction either of the Roman Prefect within a hundred miles of the City within which compass references and appeals were made to him or at the most to the Lieutenant of the Roman Diocese whose Jurisdiction extended to those ten Provinces which his Lordship mentions It is not therefore In what sense words may be taken but in what sense they were taken and what Evidence there is that ever they were so understood Never was any Controversie more ridiculous than that concerning the extent of the Suburbicary Regions or Provinces if Suburbicary were taken in your sense for all the Cities within the Roman
he alledges there 's not a word of the Churches principality 2. That he only implies that he was the first of the Apostles made Bishop of any particular place viz. at Hierusalem which is called Christs Throne as any Episcopal Chair is in ancient Ecclesiastical Writers But whosoever will examine the places in Epiphanius will find much more intended by him than what you will allow For not only he saith that he first had an Episcopal Chair but that our Lord committed to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Throne upon Earth which surely is much more than can be said of any meer Episcopal Chair and I believe you will be much to seek where Hierusalem was ever called Christ's Throne upon earth after his Ascension to Heaven Besides if it were it is the strongest prejudice that may be against the principality of the Roman See if Jerusalem was made by Christ his Throne here And that a principality over the whole Church is intended by Epiphanius seems more clear by that other place which his Lordship cites wherein he not only saith That James was first made Bishop but gives this reason for it because he was the Brother of our Lord and if you observe How Epiphanius brings it in you will say he intended more by it than to make him the first Bishop For he was disputing before How the Kingdom and the Priesthood did both belong to Christ and that Christ had transfused both into his Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but his Throne is established for ever in his holy Church consisting both of his Kingdom and Priesthood both which he communicated to his Church quare Jacobus primus omnium est Episcopus constitutus as Petavius renders it so that he seems to settle James in that principality of the Church which he had given to it and what reason can you have to think but that Christ's Throne in which Epiphanius saith James was settled in the other place is the same with his Throne in the Church which he mentions here And What would you give for so clear a testimony in Antiquity for Christ's settling S. Peter in his Throne at Rome as here is for his placing S. James in it at Jerusalem His Lordship goes on And he still tells us the Bishop of Rome is S. Peter 's successor Well suppose that What then What Why then he succeeded in all S. Peter 's prerogatives which are ordinary and belonged to him as a Bishop though not in the extraordinary which belonged to him as an Apostle For that is it which you all say but no man proves Yes you say Bellarmine hath done it in his disputations on that subject For this you produce a saying of his That when the Apostles were dead the Apostolical Authority remained alone in S. Peter 's successor I see with you still saying and proving are all one But since you referr the Reader to Bellarmine for proofs I shall likewise referr him to the many sufficient Answers which have been given him You argue stoutly afterwards That because Primacy in the modern sense of it implies Supremacy therefore wherever the Fathers attribute a Primacy to Peter among the Apostles they mean his Authority and power over them I see you are resolved to believe that there cannot be one two and three but the first must be Head over all the rest A Primacy of Order his Lordship truly saith was never denied him by Protestants and an Vniversal Supremacy of power was never granted him by the Primitive Christians Prove but in the first place that S. Peter had such a Supremacy of power over the Apostles and all Christian Churches and that this power is conveyed to the Pope you will do something In the mean time we acknowledge as much Primacy Authority and Principality in S. Peter as D. Reynolds proves in the place you cite none of which come near that Supremacy of power which you contend for and we must deny till we see it better proved than it is by you But you offer it from S. Hierom because he saith The Primacy was given to Peter for preventing Schism but a meer precedency of order is not sufficient for that But Doth not S. Hierom in the words immediately before say That the Church is equally built on all the Apostles and that they all receive the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and that the firmness of the Church is equally grounded on them and Can he possibly then mean in the following words any other Primacy but such as is among equals and not any Supremacy of power over them And certainly you think the Apostles very unruly who would not be kept in order by such a Primacy as this is unless a S. Peter's full jurisdiction over them And since it is so evident that S. Hierom can mean no other but such a preheminence as this for preventing Schism you had need have a good art that can deduce from thence a necessity of a Supremacy of power in the Church for that end For say you Whatsoever power or jurisdiction was necessary in the Apostles time for preventing Schisms must à fortiori be necessary in all succeeding ages but still be sure to hold to that power or jurisdiction which was in the Apostles times and we grant you all you can prove from it You still dispute gallantly when you beg the Question and argue as formally as I have met with one when you have supposed that which it most concerned you to prove Which is that God hath appointed a Supremacy of power in one particular person alwaies to continue in the Church for preservation of Faith and Unity in it For if you suppose the Church cannot be governed or Schism prevented without this you may well save your self a labour of proving any further But so far are we from seeing such a Supremacy of power as you challenge to the Pope to be necessary for preventing Schisms that we are sufficiently convinced that the Vsurping of it hath caused one of the greatest ever was in the Christian world CHAP. VII The Popes Authority not proved from Scripture or Reason The insufficiency of the proofs from Scripture acknowledged by Romanists themselves The impertinency of Luk. 22.32 to that purpose No proofs offered for it but the suspected testimonies of Popes in their own cause That no Infallibility can thence come to the Pope as St. Peters successour confessed and proved by Vigorius and Mr. White The weakness of the evasion of the Popes erring as a private Doctor but not as Pope acknowledged by them John 21.15 proves nothing towards the Popes Supremacy How far the Popes Authority is owned by the Romanists over Kings T. C's beggings of the Question and tedious repetitions past over The Argument from the necessity of a living Judge considered The Government of the Church not Monarchical but Aristocratical The inconveniencies of Monarchical Government in the Church manifested from reason No evidence that
the rest are Rebels and Traytors And Is not this just the same Answer which you give here That the Pope is still appointed to keep peace and unity in the Church because all that question his Authority be Hereticks and Schismaticks But as in the former case the surest way to prevent those Consequences were to produce that power and authority which the King had given him and that should be the first thing which should be made evident from authentick records and the clear testimony of the gravest Senatours so if you could produce the Letters Pattents whereby Christ made the Pope the great Lord Chancellour of his Church to determine all Controversies of Faith and shew this attested by the concurrent voice of the Primitive Church who best knew what order Christ took for the Government of his Church this were a way to prevent such persons turning such Hereticks and Schismaticks as you say they are by not submitting themselves to the Popes Authority But for you to pretend that the Popes Authority is necessary to the Churches Vnity and when the Heresies and Schisms of the Church are objected to say That those are all out of the Church is just as if a Shepherd should say That he would keep the whole Flock of sheep within such a Fold and when the better half are shewed him to be out of it he should return this Answer That those were without and not within his Fold and therefore they were none of the Flock that he meant So that his meaning was those that would abide in he could keep in but for those that would not he had nothing to say to them So it is with you the Pope he ends Controversies and keeps the Church at Vnity How so They who do agree are of his Flock and of the Church and those that do not are out of it A Quaker or Anabaptist will keep the Church in Vnity after the same way only the Pope hath the greater number of his side for they will tell you If they were hearkned to the Church should never be in pieces for all those who embrace their Doctrines are of the Church and those who do not are Hereticks and Schismaticks So we see upon your principles What an easie matter it is to be an Infallible Judge and to end all Controversies in the Church that only this must be taken for granted that all who will not own such an infallible Judge are out of the Church and so the Church is at Vnity still how many soever there are who doubt or deny the Popes Authority Thus we easily understand what that excellent harmony is which you cry so much up in your Church that you most gravely say That had not the Pope received from God the power he challenges he could never have been able to preserve that peace and unity in matters of Religion that is found in the Roman Church Of what nature that Unity is we have seen already And surely you have much cause to boast of the Popes faculty of deciding Controversies ever since the late Decree of Pope Innocent in the case of the five Propositions For How readily the Jansenists have submitted since and what Unity there hath been among the dissenting parties in France all the world can bear you witness And whatever you pretend were it not for Policy and Interest the Infallible Chair would soon fall to the ground for it hath so little footing in Scripture or Antiquity that there had need be a watchful eye and strong hand to keep it up But now we are to examine the main proof which is brought for the necessity of this Living and Infallible Judge which lyes in these words of A.C. Every earthly Kingdom when matters cannot be composed by a Parliament which cannot be called upon all occasions hath besides the Law-Books some living Magistrates and Judges and above all one visible King the highest Judge who hath Authority sufficient to end all Controversies and settle Vnity in all Temporal Affairs And Shall we think that Christ the wisest King hath provided in his Kingdom the Church only the Law-Books of holy Scripture and no living visible Judges and above all one chief so assisted by his Spirit as may suffice to end all Controversies for Vnity and Certainty of Faith which can never be if every man may interpret Holy Scripture the Law-Books as he list This his Lordship saith is a very plausible argument with the many but the Foundation of it is but a similitude and if the similitude hold not in the main argument is nothing And so his Lordship at large proves that it is here For whatever further concerns this Controversie concerning the Popes Authority is brought under the examination of this argument which you mangle into several Chapters thereby confounding the Reader that he may not see the coherence or dependence of one thing upon another But having cut off the superfluities of this Chapter already I may with more conveniency reduce all that belongs to this matter within the compass of it And that he may the better apprehend his Lordships scope and design I shall first summ up his Lordships Answers together and then more particularly go about the vindication of them 1. Then his Lordship at large proves that the Militant Church is not properly a Monarchy and therefore the foundation of the similitude is destroyed 2. That supposing it a Kingdom yet the Church Militant is spread in many earthly Kingdoms and cannot well be ordered like one particular Kingdom 3. That the Church of England under one Supreme Governour our Gracious Soveraign hath besides the Law-Book of the Scripture visible Magistrates and Judges Arch-Bishops and Bishops to govern the Church in Truth and Peace 4. That as in particular Kingdoms there are some affairs of greatest Consequence as concerning the Statute Laws which cannot be determined but in Parliament so in the Church the making such Canons which must bind all Christians must belong to a free and lawful General Council Thus I have laid together the substance of his Lordships Answer that the dependence and connexion of things may be better perceived by the intelligent Reader We come now therefore to the first Answer As to which his Lordship saith It is not certain that the whole Church Militant is a Kingdom for they are no mean ones which think our Saviour Christ left the Church-Militant in the hands of the Apostles and their Successours in an Aristocratical or rather a mixt Government and that the Church is not Monarchical otherwise than the Triumphant and Militant make one body under Christ the Head And in this sense indeed and in this only the Church is a most absolute Kingdom And the very expressing of this sense is a full Answer to all the places of Scripture and other arguments brought by Bellarmine to prove that the Church is a Monarchy But the Church being as large as the world Christ thought fittest to govern it Aristocratically
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
from him and the other Patriarchs on this occasion As for your instance of the Popes restoring Athanasius I have sufficiently answered it already and if the Popes letter were never so Mandatory as it was not yet we see it took no effect among the Eastern Bishops and therefore they were of his Lordships mind That the Government of the Church was not Monarchical but Aristocratical I did expect here to have met with the pretended Epistle of Atticus of Constantinople about the manner of making formed letters wherein one Î is said to be for the honour of St. Peter but since you pass it over on this occasion I hope you are convinced of the Forgery of it In the beginning of your next Chapter which because of the coherence of the matter I handle with this you find great fault with his Lordship for a Marginal citation out of Gerson because he supposeth that Gersons judgement was that the Church might continue without a Monarchical head because he writ a Tract de Auferibilitate Papae whereas you say Gersons drift is only to shew how many several waies the Pope may be taken away that is deprived of his office and cease to be Pope as to his own person so that the Church pro tempore till another be chosen shall be without her visible Head But although the truth of what his Lordship proves doth not at all depend upon this Testimony of Gerson which was only a Marginal citation yet since you so boldly accuse him for a false allegation we must further examine how pertinent this Testimony is to that which his Lordship brought it for The sentence to which this Citation of Gerson refers is this For they are no mean ones who think our Saviour Christ left the Church-militant in the hands of the Apostles and their Successours in an Aristocratical or rather a mixt Government and that the Church is not Monarchical otherwise than the Triumphant and Militant make one body under Christ the Head Over against these words that Tract of Gerson de Auferibilitate Papae is cited If therefore so much be contained in that Book as makes good this which his Lordship sayes he is not so much guilty of false alledging Gerson as you are of falsly accusing him To make this clear we must consider what Gersons design was in writing that Book and what his opinion therein is concerning the Churches Government It is well known that his Book was written upon the occasion of the Council of Constance in the time of the great Schism between the three Popes and that the design of it is to make it appear that it was in the power of the Council to depose the Popes and suspend them from all Jurisdiction in the Church Therefore he saith That the Pope may not only lose his office by voluntary cession but that in many cases he may be deprived by the Church or by a General Council representing the Church whether he consent to it or no Nay in the next consideration he saith That he may be deprived by a General Council which is celebrated without his consent or against his will And in the following consideration adds That this may be done not only declaratively but juridically the Question now comes to this Whether a person who asserts these things doth believe the Government of the Militant Church to be Monarchical and not rather Aristocratical and mixt Government And I dare appeal to any mans reason whether that may be accounted a Monarchical Government where he that is Supream may be deposed and deprived of his office in a Juridical manner by a Senate that hath Authority to do these things For it is apparent the Supream power lyes in the Senate and not the Prince and that the Prince is only a Ministerial Head under them And this is plainly Gersons opinion as to the Church although therefore he may allow the supream Ministerial Authority to be in the Pope which is all your Citations prove yet the radical and intrinsecal power lyes in the Church which being represented in a General Council may depose the Pope from his Authority in the Church And the truth is this opinion of Gerson makes the Fundamental power of the Church to be Democratical and that the Supream exercise is by Representatives in a General Council and that the Pope at the highest is but a Ministerial and accountable Head And therefore Spalatensis truly observes That this opinion of Gerson which is the same with that of the Paris Divines of which he speaks doth only in words attribute supream Ecclesiastical jurisdiction to the Pope but in reality it takes it quite away from him And this is the same Doctrine which then prevailed in the Council of Constance and afterwards at Basil as may be seen at large in their Synodical Epistle defended by Richerius Vigorius and others Now let any man of reason judge whether notwithstanding your charge of false citation from some expressions intimating only a Ministerial Headship his Lordship did not very pertinently cite this Tract of Gersons to prove that no mean persons did think the Church Militant not to be Governed by a Monarchical but by an Aristocratical or mixt Government But no sooner is this marginal citation cleared but the charge is renewed about another viz. St. Hierom yet here you dare not charge his Lordship with a false allegation but you are put to your shifts to get off this Testimony as well as you can For St. Hierom saying expresly in his Epistle to Evagrius Vbicunque fuerit Episcopus sive Romae sive Eugubii sive Constantinopoli sive Rhegii c. ejusdem meriti est ejusdem est sacerdotii his Lordship might well inferr That doubtless he thought not of the Roman Bishops Monarchy For what Bishop saith he is of the same merit or the same degree in the Priesthood with the Pope as things are now carried at Rome To this you Answer That he speaks not of the Pope as he is Pope or in respect of that eminent Authority which belongs to him as St. Peters Successour but only compares him with another private Bishop in respect of meer character or power of a Bishop as Bishop only But though this be all which any of your party ever since the Reformation have been able to Answer to this place yet nothing looks more like a meer shift than this doth For had St. Hierom only compared these Bishops together in regard of their order was not Sacerdotium enough to express that by if St. Hierom had said only that all Bishops are ejusdem sacerdotii there might have been some plausible pretence for this distinction but when he adds ejusdem meriti too he wholly precludes the possibility of your evading that way For What doth merit here stand for as distinct from Priesthood if it imports not something besides what belongs to Bishops as Bishops What can merit here signifie but some greater Power
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
exorbitances and capricious humours of any phantastical Spirits which may cry out That the most received truths ever since Christianity was in the world are intolerable errours If you are resolved yet further to ask Who shall be judge what a necessary reason or demonstration is His Lordship tells you I think plain enough from Hooker what is understood by it viz. such as being proposed to any man and understood the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent to it And Do you require any other judge but a mans own reason in this case But you say Others call their arguments demonstrations but let them submit to this way of tryal and they may soon be convinced that they are not Still you say They will not be convinced but will break the peace of the Church supposing they have sufficient evidence for what they say But if men will be unreasonable who can help it Can you with telling them Councils are Infallible I doubt you would hear of more arguments than you could well satisfie against that presently We appeal then to the common reason of mankind Whether it be not a far probable way to end Controversies to perswade men in disputable matters to yield external obedience to the Decrees of a lawful General Council than to tell them they are bound to believe whatever they decree to be infallibly true And therefore you are very much mistaken when you say His Lordship declines the main Question which is of the necessity of submitting to a living Judge or a definitive sentence in case two parties equal for learning and integrity both pretend to equal evidence for what they say for his Lordship doth not deny but that in such a case the submitting to a definitive sentence may be a reasonable way to end the Controversie but then the difference between you lyes in two things 1. That you would bind men to internal assent to the Decrees of a Council as being Infallible but his Lordship saith They bind to external obedience as being the Supremest Judicatory can be expected in the Church 2. You pretend that Councils called and confirmed by the Pope are thus Infallible and our Supreme Judge in matters of Faith his Lordship justly dedies that and sayes That a Free General Council observing the same conditions which the first did is the only equal and indifferent Judge So that the Question is not so much Whether shall be a living Judge as Who shall be he and How far the definitive Sentence binds and What is to be done in case there cannot be a free and indifferent Judge for in this case we say Every Church is bound to regard her own purity and peace and in case of corruptions to proceed to a Reformation of them We now come to the remaining Enquiry which is Whether your Doctrine or ours tends more to the Churches peace For clearing of this his Lordship premises these things by way of Considerations 1. That there is n necessity of any such Infallibility in the Church as was in the Apostles 2. That what Infallibility or Authority belongs to the Church doth primarily reside in the whole body of the Church and not in a General Council 3. That in case a General Council erre the whole Church hath full Authority to represent her self in another Council and so to redress what was amiss either practised or concluded And so upon these principles his Lordship saith Here is a sufficient remedy for what is amiss and yet no infringing any lawful Authority in the Church and yet he grants as the Church of England doth that a General Council may erre But he saith It doth not follow because the Church may erre therefore she may not govern For the Church hath not only a Pastoral Power to teach and direct but a Praetorian also to controll and censure too where errours or crimes are against points fundamental or of great consequence Thus he represents the advantages which follow upon his opinion after which he comes to the disadvantages of yours But we must first consider what you have to object against what his Lordship hath here delivered To the first you say nothing but that Stapleton and Bellarmin attribute more Infallibility to the Church than his Lordship doth which is an excellent way to prove the necessity of it if you had first proved those two Authours Infallible To the second your Answer is more large for his Lordship to confirm what he said That the power and authority given by Christ lyes in the whole Church produces that saying of S. Austin That S. Peter did not receive the Keyes of the Church but as sustaining the person of the Church from whence he proves against Stapleton That it is not to be understood finally only for the good of the Church but that the primary and formal right is in the Church For he that receives a thing in the person of another receives it indeed to his good and use but in his right too To this you answer from Bellarmin That there is a twofold representing or bearing the person of another The one Parabolical and by way of meer figure and supposition only as Agar represented the people of the Jews under bondage of the Law c. The other historical and real viz. when the person representing has right or relation à parte rei in and towards the thing represented by vertue whereof it bears the person of the thing represented Now S. Peter say you sustained the person of the Church in this latter sense really and historically and not parabolically and in figure i. e. he received the Keyes as Head of the Church though that Reception were ordained for the good of the whole Church But Sir our enquiry is not How many waies one may imagine a Representation to be made but What kind of Representation that is which is suitable to S. Austin's meaning That there may be an Allegorical Representation no body denies but I cannot imagine How it can belong to this place or Who ever meant that S. Peter stood here for an Allegory of the Church and therefore the members of your distinction are not apposite For those who assert that S. Peter did sustain the person of the Church in his Lordships sense do yet acknowledge that he did it historicè and not parabolicè as you speak i. e. the donation was really made to him but then the Question is In what right or capacity it was made to him Whether in his personal or representative capacity For these are the two only proper members of a distinction here St. Austin saith not only in that place but in very many others that S. Peter did sustain the person of the Church when Christ said to him I will give thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven Now the Question is In what sense he sustained the person of the Church You say In his own right as Head of the Church We say As
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
do they administer the Sacrament What other words are there to give them a power to do the one distinct from them whereby they pretend a right for the other 3. There is no evidence at all from Antiquity that Hoc facite hath any respect to the Eucharist as a Sacrifice or to the making the Apostles Priests And so much is confessed by Estius viz. that neither is this exposition found in any ancient Writer nor is it suitable to our Saviours purpose For he saith it is not absolutely said Facite but Hoc facite i. e. that which ye see me do do ye likewise So that still by virtue of these words those who do receive authority to administer are bound to follow Christs example and that as he did administer in both kinds to all who were present so ought they to do likewise But there is one Exception yet more left which is the last Reserve viz. that although it be granted to be a command that the Cup should be administred to all yet it is only a positive command binding in the general but yet it is of the nature of all affirmative precepts that though it alwaies binds yet not at all times but only in case of necessity of which necessity the Church is the most competent Judge and therefore if the Church do not think it necessary then the obligation ceases To which I answer 1. That upon this ground it will be in the Churches power to repeal or suspend all divine positive precepts as well as this For the reason of this will hold for all others which is that they do not oblige as they speak ad semper but only semper i. e. not at all times though they never cease to oblige And therefore on this ground for all that I can see the Church may as well repeal the use of Baptism or the Eucharist it self as the communion in both kinds all being of of an equal nature as affirmative precepts But Is it possible to imagine that Christ appointing positive Institutions in his Church and giving precepts and plain directions about them should yet leave it in the power of any men to reverse alter suspend the obligation to the performance of those commands Did not he foresee all cases of necessity when he first appointed these things and if notwithstanding that he makes a plain command for the observance of them What can such a pretended power in the Church signifie but an authority to alter or repeal what she pleases in the Laws of Christ 2. There is a great deal of difference between the nature of the obligation of affirmative precepts and the prohibiting the use of something positively commanded For although positive precepts do not bind at all times yet that reaches only to the thing it self and not to the mode of performance Thus we say That the Eucharist being a positive Institution doth not oblige men at all times to be partakers of it but if on that account any Church should undertake to forbid the celebration of it this were a direct violation of the Law it self and not an Interpretation of it in regard of circumstances And what ever obligation of this nature there is it respects the whole duty But it doth by no means follow that therefore in the celebration the Church may declare what may be used and what not For the manner of performance in case it be performed at all is absolutely commanded it is only the performance in general which is of the nature of a positive precept Thus we say Men are not bound to pray at all times though they be alwaies bound to pray but in case men do pray they are indispensably bound to pray as God hath required them to do it So we say here That men are not bound at all times to administer or receive the Eucharist but in case they do they are indispensably bound to receive it according to Christ's Institution So that this of communion in both kinds relates to the manner of a positive precept and is not a distinct positive precept by it self and therefore is indispensably by any authority of the Church Besides your Church doth not meerly suspend the exercise of this in case of necessity but forbids men the doing it which is a direct and wilful violation of the Institution of Christ. And therefore the Question is not as it is strangely perverted by some of you Whether it be necessary at all times to receive the Cup although even that be true in case of receiving at all but whether it be in the Churches power at all to prohibit the receiving it and this we say and are ready to make good to be a presumptuous violation of the Laws of Christ and an usurping an Authority which may as well extend to all positive Institutions And thus I hope I have made that appear which you say his Lordship should have done viz. that Christ did so institute the Sacrament of his last Supper that he would not have one part to be administred without the other nor one part to be taken without the other The same I might also at large shew from the Reasons of this Institution that they do equally belong to the people as well as the Priests and that those reasons are of a nature as unalterable as the Institution it self whereby I should have shewed the vanity of your distinction of the Eucharist into a Sacrament and a Sacrifice and the absurdity of your Doctrine of Concomitancy but that would be too large for our present design and that which you give me not sufficient ground to enter upon since the obligation is sufficiently cleared from the Institution it self I therefore proceed to shew that the Primitive Church did alwaies understand the Communion in both kinds to be an indispensible part of the Institution of Christ. Which one would think were evident enough from S. Paul in his bringing the Corinthians back to the Primitive Institution as that unalterable Rule which they were to observe For if because of some ill customs which had obtained amongst them he tells them This is not to eat the Lords Supper How much more would he have said so if there had been an mutilation of the parts of it And all along in his discourse he supposes Christs Institution to be the indispensable Rule which they ought to observe That which I have received of the Lord I delivered unto you not certainly to leave it in their power Whether they would observe it or no but to shew them what their duty was and what they ought unalterably to observe Else he would never have told them so much of the danger of unworthy receiving in eating the Bread and drinking the Cup of the Lord unworthily For Can we possibly think that the rudeness of their access to the Lords Table was so great a sin and the violation of his Institution to be none at all The Apostles were such strangers to the Doctrine
the Church may declare matters of Faith The testimony of St. Augustine vindicated Page 44. CHAP. III. The Absurdities of the Romanists Doctrine of Fundamentals The Churches Authority must be Divine if whatever she defines be Fundamental His Lordship and not the Testimony of S. Augustine shamefully abused three several wayes Bellarmin not mis-cited the Pelagian Heresie condemned by the General Council at Ephesus The Popes Authority not implyed in that of Councils The gross Absurdities of the distinction of the Church teaching and representative from the Church taught and diffusive in the Question of Fundamentals The Churches Authority and Testimony in matters of Faith distinguished The Testimony of Vincentius Lirinensis explained and shewed to be directly contrary to the Roman Doctrine of Fundamentals Stapleton and Bellarmin not reconciled by the vain endeavours used to that end Page 79. CHAP. IV. The Protestant Doctrine of Fundamentals vindicated The unreasonableness of demanding a Catalogue of Fundamentals The Creed contains the Fundamentals of Christian Communion The belief of Scripture supposed by it The Dispute concerning the Sense of Christs Descent into Hell and Mr. Rogers his Book confessed by T. C. impertinent With others of the same nature T. C. his fraud in citing his Lordships words Of Papists and Protestants Vnity The Moderation of the Church of England compared with that of Rome Her grounds of Faith justified Infant-Baptism how far proved out of Scripture alone Page 98. CHAP. V. The Romanists way of Resolving Faith The ill consequences of the resolution of Faith by the Churches Infallibility The grand Absurdities of it manifested by its great unreasonableness in many particulars The certain Foundations of Faith unsettled by it as is largely proved The Circle unavoidable by their new attempts The impossibility of proving the Church Infallible by the way that Moses Christ and his Apostles were proved to be so Of the Motives of Credibility and how far they belong to the Church The difference between Science and Faith considered and the new art of mens believing with their wills The Churches Testimony must be according to their principles the formal object of Faith Of their esteem of Fathers Scripture and Councils The rare distinctions concerning the Churches Infallibility discussed How the Church can be Infallible by the assistance of the Holy Ghost yet not divinely Infallible but in a manner and after a sort T.C. applauded for his excellent faculty in contradicting himself Page 109. CHAP. VI. Of the Infallibility of Tradition Of the unwritten Word and the necessary Ingredients of it The Instances for it particularly examined and disproved The Fathers Rule for examining Traditions No unwritten Word the Foundation of Divine Faith In what sense Faith may be said to be Divine Of Tradition being known by its own light and the Canon of the Scripture The â—estimony of the Spirit how far pertinent to this Controversie Of the use of Reason in the resolution of Faith C's Dialogue answered with another between himself and a Sceptick A twofold resolution of Faith into the Doctrine and into the Books Several Objections answered from the Supposition made of a Child brought up without sight of Scripture Christ no Ignoramus nor Impostor though the Church be not Infallible C's Blasphemy in saying otherwise The Testimonies of Irenaeus and S. Augustin examined and retorted Of the nature of Infallible Certainty as to the Canon of Scripture and whereon it is grounded The Testimonies produced by his Lordship vindicated p. 161. CHAP. VII The Protestant Way of resolving Faith Several Principles premised in order to it The distinct Questions set down and their several Resolutions given The Truth of matters of fact the Divinity of the Doctrine and of the Books of Scripture distinctly resolved into their proper grounds Moral Certainty a sufficient Foundation for Faith and yet Christian Religion proved to be infallibly true How Apostolical Tradition made by his Lordship a Foundation of Faith Of the Certainty we have of the Copies of Scripture and the Authority of them S. Augustine's Testimony concerning Church-Authority largely discussed and vindicated Of the private Spirit and the necessity of Grace His Lordship's Way of resolving Faith vindicated How far Scripture may be said to be known by its own Light The several Testimonies of Bellarmine Brierly and Hooker cleared p. 202. CHAP. VIII The Churches Infallibility not proved from Scripture Some general Considerations from the design of proving the Churches Infallibility from Scripture No Infallibility in the High-Priest and his Clergy under the Law if there had been no necessity there should be under the Gospel Of S. Basil's Testimony concerning Traditions Scripture less liable to corruptions than Traditions The great uncertainty of judging Traditions when Apostolical when not The Churches perpetuity being promised in Scripture proves not its Infallibility His Lordship doth not falsifie C's words but T. C. doth his meaning Producing the Jesuits words no traducing their Order C's miserable Apology for them The particular Texts produced for the Churches Infallibility examined No such Infallibility necessary in the Apostles Successours as in Themselves The Similitude of Scripture and Tradition to an Ambassadour and his Credentials rightly stated p. 235. CHAP. IX The Sense of the Fathers in this Controversie The Judgement of Antiquity enquired into especially of the three first Centuries and the reasons for it The several Testimonies of Justin Martyr Athenagoras Tatianus Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus and all the Fathers who writ in vindication of Christian Religion manifested to concurr fully with our way of resolving Faith C's Answers to Vincentius Lyrinensis à Gandavo and the Fathers produced by his Lordship pitifully weak The particulars of his 9th Chapter examined S. Augustine's Testimony vindicated C's nauseous Repetitions sent as Vagrants to their several homes His Lordships Considerations found too heavy for C's Answers In what sense the Scripture may be called a Praecognitum What way the Jews resolved their Faith This Controversie and the first part concluded p. 261 PART II. Of Schism CHAP. I. Of the Universal Church THe Question of Schism explained The nature of it enquired into Several general Principles laid down for clearing the present Controversie Three grounds of the charge of Schism on Protestant Churches by our Authour The first of the Roman Churches being the Catholick Church entred upon How far the Roman Church may be said to be a true Church The distinction of a Church morally and metaphysically true justified The grounds of the Unity of the Catholick Church as to Doctrine and Government Cardinal Perron's distinction of the formal causal and participative Catholick Church examined The true sense of the Catholick Church in Antiquity manifested from S. Cyprian and several cases happening in his time as the Schism of Novatianus at Rome the case of Felicissimus and Fortunatus Several other Instances out of Antiquity to the same purpose by all which it is manifest that the Unity of the Catholick Church had no dependence on the Church of Rome
403 l 12 r Anulinus p 408 l 48 before done blot out not p 416 l 44 for context r contest p 422 l 4 for satisfied r falsified l 38 r Pelagius 2 and Gregory 1. p 433 marg l 8 for â—essime r piissime p 440 l 36 for most r not p 442 l 8 r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 447 l 13 r Alexandria l 24 r elegantissimè p 448 l 19 for him r them p 450 l 19 r unless S. Peter had p 469 l 35 after which insert is p 470 l 6 r Fundavit l 50 for first r fifth p 474 l 13 r conclude p 477 marg r Cusanus p 495 l 16 for conveying r convening p 497 l 42 for used r abused p 503 l 8 for your r their p 506 l 30 blot out are p 507 l 37 for an easie r any p 509 l 33 for it r out p 510 l 48 for he r it p 540 l 30 r denyes l 32 before shâ—ll insert there l 39 after is r no. p 550 l 29 r Spirit l 43 for and r yet p 551 l 19 for he r they l 35 place the comma after then l 43 after know insert not p 5â—6 l 25 for yet r that p 561 l 43 for wâ—ll as r that p 571 marg l ult r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 574 l 48 for mâ—ke r made l 50 for coâ—pus r corporis p 582 l 29 r indispensâ—ble p 589 l 15 r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 595 l 4 r defensiâ—le l 5 r Invocation p 597 l 19 blot out or no p 598 l 5 for appropriation r approbation p 622 l 32 for it r is PART I. Of the Grounds of Faith CHAP. I. The Occasion of the Conference and Defence of the Greek Church T. Cs. Title examined and retorted The Labyrinth found in his Book and Doctrine The occasion of the Conference about the Churches infallibility The rise of the dispute about the Greek Church and the consequences from it The charge of Heresie against the Greek Church examined and she found Not-guilty by the concurrent testimony of Fathers General Councils and Popes Of the Council of Florence and the proceedings there That Council neither General nor Free. The distinction of Ancient and Modern Greeks disproved The debate of the Filioque being inserted into the Creed The time when and the right by which it was done discussed The rise of the Schism between the Eastern and Western Churches mainly occasioned by the Church of Rome THat which is the common subtilty of Male-factors to derive if possible the imputation of that fault on the persons of their Accusers which they are most lyable to be charged with themselves is the great Artifice made use of by you in the Title and Designe of your Book For there being nothing which your Party is more justly accused for than involving and perplexing the grounds of Christian Faith under a pretext of Infallibility in your Church you thought you could not better avoid the odium of it then by a confident recrimination And from hence it is that you call his Lordships Book a Labyrinth and pretend to discover his abstruse turnings ambiguous windings and intricate Meanders as you are pleased to stile them But those who will take the pains to search your Book for the discoveries made in it will find themselves little satisfied but only in these that no cause can be so bad but interessed persons will plead for it and no writing so clear and exact but a perplexed mind will imagine nothing but Meanders in it And if dark passages and intricate windings if obscure sense and perplexed consequences if uncertain wandrings and frequent self-contradictions may make a writing be call'd a Labyrinth I know no Modern Artist who comes so near the skill of the Cretan Artificer as your self Neither is this meerly your own fault but the nature of the cause whose defence you have espoused is such as will not admit of being handled in any other manner For you might assoon hope to perswade a Traveller that his nearest and safest way was through such a Labyrinth as that of Creet as convince us that the best and surest Resolution of our Faith is into your Churches Infallibility And while you give out that all other grounds of Christian Faith are uncertain and yet are put to such miserable shifts in defence of your own instead of establishing the Faith of Christians you expose Christianity it self to the scorn and contempt of Atheists who need nothing more to confirm them in their Infidelity then such a senseless and unreasonable way of proceeding as you make use of for laying the Foundations of Christian Faith Your great Principle being that no Faith can be Divine but what is Infallible and none Infallible but what is built on a Divine and Infallible Testimony and that this Testimony is only that of the present Catholick Church and that Church none but yours and yet after all this you dare not say the Testimony of your Church is Divine but only in a sort and after a manner You pretend that our Faith is vain and uncertain because built only on Moral certainty and Rational evidence and yet you have no other proof for your Churches Infallibility but the motives of credibility You offer to prove the Churches Infallibility independently on Scripture and yet challenge no other Infallibility but what comes by the promise and assistance of the Holy Ghost which depends wholly on the Truth of the Scripture You seek to disparage Scripture on purpose to advance your Churches Authority and yet bring your greatest evidences of the Churches Authority from it By which Authority of the Church you often tell us that Christian Religion can only be proved to be Infallibly true when if but one errour be found in your Church her Infallible Testimony is gone and what becomes then of Christian Religion And all this is managed with a peculiar regard to the Interest of your Church as the only Catholick Church which you can never attempt to prove but upon supposition of the Truth of Christianity the belief of which yet you say depends upon your Churches being the True and Catholick Church These and many other such as these will be found the rare and coherent Principles of your Faith and Doctrine which I have here only given this taste of that the Reader may see with what honour to your self and advantage to your Cause you have bestowed the Title of Labyrinth on his Lordships Book But yet you might be pardonable if rather through the weakness of your Cause than your ill management of it you had brought us into these amazing Labyrinths if you had left us any thing whereby we might hope to be safely directed in our passage through them Whereas you not only endeavour to put men out of the True way but use your greatest industry to keep them from a possibility of returning into it by not only suggesting false Principles to them but
decrying the use of those things which should discover their falsity For although the judgement of sense were that which the Apostles did appeal to that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you although that were the greatest and surest evidence to them of the Resurrection of Christ although Christ himself condemned them for their unbelief and hardness of heart because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen yet according to your Principles men must have a care of relying on the judgement of sense in matters of Faith lest perchance they should not believe that great Affront to humane Nature the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Neither are men only deprived of the judgement of sense but of the concurrent use of Scripture and Reason for these are pretended to be uncertain fallible nay dangerous without the Churches Infallibility So that the short of your grounds of establishing Faith is If we will find our way we must renounce the judgement of sense and reason submit our selves and Scripture to an Infallible Guide and then you tell us we cannot miss of our way when it is impossible for us to know our Guide without the use of those things which we are bid to renounce These things laid together make us admire more at your confidence than invention in making the current title of your Book to be Dr. Lawd's Labyrinth in which it is hard to say whether your immodesty or blindness be the greater But as though you were the only Heroes for asserting the Christian Cause and all others but more subtle betrayers of it you begin your Book with a most ingenious comparison of the learned labours of those of your Church to the stately Temple of Solomon and the artificial but pestiferous works of all Heretical Authors i. e. all but your selves to Labyrinths and intricate Dungeons In which only your discretion is to be commended in placing this at the entrance of your Book for whosoever looks but further into it and compares it with that you pretend to answer will not condemn the choice of your Similitudes but your forgetfulness in misapplying them But it matters not what titles you give to the books of our Authors unless you were better able to confute them and if no other book of any late Protestant Writer hath been any more discovered to be of this intangling nature than this of his Lordship whom you call our grand Author is by you you may very justly say of them as you do in the next words they are very liable to the same Reproach In which we commend your ingenuity that when you had so lately disparaged our Authors and Writings you so suddenly wipe off those Aspersions again by giving them the deserved name of Reproaches When you say his Lordships Book is most artificially composed we have reason to believe so fair a Testimony from a professed Adversary but when notwithstanding this you call it a Labyrinth we can interpret it only as a fair plea for your not being able to answer it And who can blame you for calling that a Labyrinth in which you have so miserably lost your self but in pity to you and justice to the cause I have undertaken I shall endeavour with all kindness and fairness to reduce you out of your strange entanglements into the plain and easie paths of Truth which I doubt not to effect by your own Clew of Scripture and Tradition by which you may soon discover what a Labyrinth you were in your self when you had thought to have made directive Marks as you call them for others to avoid it To omit therefore any further preface I shall wait upon you to particulars the first of which is the Occasion of the Conference which you say was for the satisfaction of an honourable Lady who having heard it granted in a former Conference that there must be a continual visible company ever since Christ teaching unchanged doctrine in all points necessary to salvation and finding it seems in her own reason that such a company or Church must not be fallible in its teaching was in quest of a Continual Visible Infallible Church as not thinking it fit for unlearned persons to judge of particular doctrinals but to depend on the judgement of the true Church The Question then was not concerning a Continual and Visible Church which you acknowledge was granted but concerning such a Church as must be infallible in all she teaches and if she be infallible according to your doctrine of Fundamentals whatever she teaches is necessary to salvation which that Lady thought necessary to be first determined because saith Mr. Fisher It was not for her or any other unlearned persons to take upon them to judge of particulars without depending upon the judgement of the true Church which seeming to allow of some use of our own judgement supposing the Churches Authority you pervert into these words Not thinking it fit to judge c. but to depend c. But let them be as they will unless you gave greater reason for them it is not material which way they pass For his Lordship had returned a sufficient Answer to that pretence which you are content to take no notice of in saying That it is very fit the people should look to the judgement of the Church before they be too busie with particulars But yet neither Scripture nor any good Authority denyes them some moderate use of their own understanding and judgement especially in things familiar and evident which even ordinary capacities may as easily understand as read And therefore some particulars a Christian may judge without depending To which you having nothing to say run post to the business of Infallibility for when it was said The Lady desired to rely on an Infallible Church therein his Lordship says neither the Jesuite nor the Lady her self spake very advisedly For an Infallible Church denotes a particular Church in that it is set in opposition to some other particular Church that is not infallible Here now you begin your discoveries for you tell us he makes this his first crook in his projected Labyrinth which is apparent to any man that has eyes even without the help of a Perspective As seldome as Perspectives are used to discern the turns of Labyrinths nothing is so apparent as that your eyes or your judgement were not very good when you used this expression For I pray what crook or turn is there in that when a Lady demanded an Infallible Church to her guide to say that by that question she supposeth some particular Church as distinct from and opposite to others to be infallible No say you she sought not any one particular Church infallible in opposition to another Church not infallible but some Church such as might without danger of errour direct her in all doctrinal points of Faith Rarely well distinguish'd Not any particular Church but some particular Church For if
Roman Church And from what hath been hitherto said I am so far from suspecting his Lordships candor as you do that I much rather suspect your judgement and that you are not much used to attend to the Consequences of things or else you would not have deserted Bellarmin in defence of so necessary and pertinent a point as the Infallibility of the particular Church of Rome Secondly You answer to his Lordships Discourse concerning Bellarmin's Authorities That you cannot hold your self obliged to take notice of his pretended Solutions till you find them brought to evacuate the Infallibility of the Catholick or the Roman Church in its full latitude as Catholicks ever mean it save when they say the particular Church of Rome But taking it in as full a Latitude as you please I doubt not but to make it appear that the Roman Church is the Roman Church still that is a particular Church as distinct from the Communion of others and therefore neither Catholick nor Infallible which I must refer to the place where you insist upon it which I shall do without the imitation of your Vanity in telling your Reader as far as eighthly and lastly what fine exploits you intend to do there But usually those who brag most of their Valour before-hand shew least in the Combat and thus it will be found with you I shall let you therefore enjoy your self in the pleasant thoughts of your noble intendments till we come to the tryal of them and so come to the present Controversie concerning the Greek Church The Defence of the Greek Church It is none of the least of those Arts which you make use of for the perplexing the Christian Faith to put men upon enquiring after an Infallible Church when yet you have no way to discern which is so much as a true Church but by examining the doctrine of it So that of necessity the rule of Faith and Doctrine must be certainly known before ever any one can with safety depend upon the judgement of any Church For having already proved that there can be no other meaning of the Question concerning the Church as here stated but with relation to some particular Church to whose Communion the party enquiring might joyn and whose judgement might be relyed on we see it presently follows in the debate Which was that Church and it seems as is said already a Friend of the Ladies undertook to defend that the Greek Church was right To which Mr. Fisher answers That the Greek Church had plainly changed and taught false in a point of Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost and after repeats it that it had erred Before I come to examine how you make good the charge you draw up against the poor Greek Church in making it erre fundamentally it is worth our while to consider upon what account this dispute comes in The Inquiry was concerning the True Church on whose judgement one might safely depend in Religion It seems two were propounded to consideration the Greek and the Roman the Greek was rejected because it had erred From whence it follows that the dispute concerning the Truth of Doctrine must necessarily precede that of the Church For by Mr. Fishers confession and your own A Church which hath erred cannot be relyed on therefore men must be satisfied whether a Church hath erred or no before they can judge whether she may be relyed on or no. Which being granted all the whole Fabrick of your Book falls to the ground for then 1. Men must be Infallibly certain of the grounds of Faith antecedently to the testimony of the Church for if they be to judge of a Church by the Doctrine they must in order to such a judgement be certain what that Doctrine is which they must judge of the Church by 2. No Church can be known to be Infallible unless it appear to be so by that Doctrine which they are to examine the truth of the Church by and therefore no Church can be known to be Infallible by the motives of credibility 3. No Church ought to be relyed on as Infallible which may be found guilty of any errour by comparing it with the Doctrine which we are to try it by Therefore you must first prove your Church not to have erred in any particular for if she hath it is impossible she should be Infallible and not think to prove that she hath not erred because she cannot that being the thing in question and must by your dealing with the Greek Church be judged by particulars 4. There must be a certain rule of Faith supposed to have sufficient Authority to decide Controversies without any dependence upon the Church For the matter to be judged is the Church and if the Scripture may and must decide that Why may it not as well all the rest 5. Every mans reason proceeding according to this rule of Faith must be left his Judge in matters of Religion And whatever inconveniencies you can imagine to attend upon this they immediately and necessarily follow from your proceeding with the Greek Church by excluding her because she hath erred which while we are in pursuit of a Church can be determined by nothing but every ones particular reason 6. Then Fundamentals do not depend upon the Churches declaration For you assert the Greek Church to erre fundamentally and that this may be made appear to one who is seeking after a Church Suppose then I inquire as the Lady did after a Church whose judgement I must absolutely depend on and some mention the Greek and others the Roman Church You tell me It cannot be the Greek for that hath erred fundamentally I inquire how you know supposing her to erre that it is a fundamental errour will you answer me because the true Church hath declared it to be a fundamental errour but that was it I was seeking for Which that Church is which may declare what errours are fundamental and what not If you tell me It is yours I may soon tell you You seem to have a greater kindness for your Church then your self and venture to speak any thing for the sake of it Thus we see how finely you have betrayed your whole Cause in your first onset by so rude an attempt upon the Greek Church And truly it was much your concernment to load her as much as you can For though she now wants one of the great marks of your Church which yet you know not how long your Church may enjoy viz. outward splendor and bravery yet you cannot deny but that Church was planted by the Apostles enjoyed a continual Succession from them flourished with a number of the Fathers exceeding that of yours had more of the Councils of greatest credit in it and which is a commendation still to it it retains more purity under its persecutions then your Church with all its external splendour But she hath erred concerning the Holy Ghost and therefore hath lost it A severe censure which his
which the Emperour was fain to take a new course and exclude those from the Councils who were of greatest authority in obstructing his designs but Marcus Ephesius still continued in so great opposition that he publickly charged the Latins opinion with Heresie Notwithstanding all which when it was put to Suffrage Whether the Spirit did proceed from the Son for ten who affirmed it there were seventeen who denyed it which put them yet to more disquietment and new Councils At first the Emperour would vote himself which when the Patriarch kept him from some advised him to remove more of the Dissenters but instead of that they used a more plausible and effectual way the Emperour and Patriarch sent for them severally and some they upbraided with ingratitude others they caressed with all expressions of kindness both by themselves and their Instruments Yet at the last they could get but thirteen Bishops to affirm the Procession from the Son all others being excluded the power of giving Suffrage who were accustomed formerly to give it such as the great Officers of the Church of Constantinople the Coenobiarchs and others but to fill up the number all the Courtiers were called in who made no dispute but did presently what the Emperour would have them do Having dispatched this after this manner the other Controversies concerning the Addition to the Creed unleavened bread in the Eucharist Purgatory Pope's Supremacy the Emperour agreed them privately never so much as communicating them to the Greek Synod Among the Emperours Instruments the Bishop of Mitylene went roundly to work saying openly Let the Pope give me so many Florens to be distributed to whom I think fit and I make no question but to bring them in very readily to subscribe the Vnion which he accordingly effected and the same way was taken with several others by which and other means most of those who were excluded from the Suffrages were at last perswaded to Subscribe This is the short account of the management of those affairs at Florence which are more particularly and largely prosecuted by the Author wherein we see what Clandestine Arts what menaces and insinuations what threats and promises were used to bring the poor Greeks to consent to this pretended Vnion For it afterwards appeared to be no more than pretended for the infinitely greater number of Bishops at home refused it and these very Bishops themselves when they saw what arts were used in it fell ofâ— from it again and the Emperour found himself at last deceived in his great expectations of help from the Latins Must we then acknowledge this for a free and General Council which hath a promise of Infallibility annexed to the definitions of it Shall we from hence pronounce the Greeks Doctrine to be Heretical when for all these proceedings yet at last no more was agreed on than that they did both believe the Procession from the Son without condemning the other opinion as Heretical as you pretend which the Greeks would never have consented to or Anathematizing the persons who denyed it as was usual in former General Councils who did suppose it not enough to have it virtually done by the positive definition but did expresly and formally do it For when this Anathematizing dissenters was propounded among the Greeks by Bessarion of Nice and Isidore of Russia who for their great service to the Pope in this business were made Cardinals it was refused by the rest who were zealous promoters of the Vnion Thus I have at large more out of a design to vindicate the Greek Church than being necessitated to it by any thing you produce shewed that there is no reason from Authority either before or after the Council of Florence to charge the Greek Church with Heresie I now come to the examination of your Theological Reason by which you think you have so evidently proved the Greeks Opinion to be Heresie that you introduce it with confidence in abundance But say you though this perswasion had not been attested by such clouds of witnesses Theological Reason is so strong a Foundation to confirm it that I wonder how rational men could ever be induced to question the truth of it Still you so unadvisedly place your expressions that the sharpest which you use against your adversaries return with more force upon your self For it being so fully cleared that these clouds of witnesses are Fathers Councils and Popes against you What do you else by this expression but exclude them from the number of Rational men because forsooth not acquainted with the depth of your Theological Reason But Is not this to make all the Churches of Christendom for many hundred years quite blind and your self only clear and sharp-sighted Which swelling presumption what Spirit it argues c. You see wee need no other weapons against you but your immediate preceding words What pitty it is that the Fathers and Councils had not been made acquainted with this grand Secret of your Theological Reason but happy we that have it at so cheap a rate but it may be that is it which makes us esteem it no more But such as it is it being Reason and Theological too it deserves the greatest respect that may be if it makes good its title His Lordship had said That since the Greeks notwithstanding this opinion of theirs deny not the equality or Consubstantiality of the Persons in the Trinity he dares not deny them to be a true Church for this opinion though he grants them erronious in it So this you reply Is it think you enough to assert the Divinity and Consubstantiality and personal Distinction of the Holy Ghost as the Bishop sayes to save from Heresie the denyal of his Procession from the Father and the Son as from one Principle But why is it not enough your Theological Reason is that we want to convince us of the contrary That therefore follows Would not he that should affirm the Son to be a distinct person from and Consubstantial to the Father but denyed his eternal Generation from him be an Heretick Or he who held the Holy Ghost distinct from and Consubstantial to them both but affirmed his Procession to be from the Son only and not from the Father be guilty of Heresie It is then most evident that not only an errour against the Consubstantiality and Distinction but against the Origination Generation and Procession of the Divine Persons is sufficient matter of Heresie Your faculty at Clinching your Arguments is much better than of Driving them in For your Conclusion is most evident when your Premises have nothing like evidence in them For 1. He that doth acknowledge the Son to be Consubstantial with the Father and yet a distinct person from him must needs therein acknowledge his Eternal Generation for how he should be the Son of the same nature with God and yet having a distinct Personality as a Son without Eternal Generation is so hard to
you had said before but only this that what was not once necessary to salvation cannot by any after-declaration of the Church be made necessary as shall be abundantly manifested in the Controversie of Fundamentals What follows must be more particularly considered because therein you would fain remove the Article of Filioque from being the cause of the Schism between the Eastern and Western Churches and impute it wholly to the Pride and Ambition of the Eastern Prelates Your words are But it is also true That the addition of Filioque to the Creed was made many years before the difference brake out between the Latins and Greeks so that the inserting this word Filioque into the Creed was not the first occasion of Schism But grudges arising among the Greeks who had been a large flourishing Church with a number of most learned and zealous Prelates and held the Articles still though upon emptier heads such quickly filled with wind thinking their swelling places and great City of Constantinople might hold up against Rome they began to quarrel not for places that was too mean a motive for such as look'd so big but first they would make it appear they could teach Rome nay they spyed out Heresies in it the old way of all Hereticks and so fell to question the Procession of the Holy Ghost and must needs have Filioque out of the Creed These words of yours lay the charge of Schism on the Greeks wholly and therefore in order to our vindication of them from that two things must be enquired into 1. Whether it was in your Churches Power to make the Addition of Filioque to the Creed 2. Whether the Greeks Ambition and Pride were the only cause of the Separation between the Eastern and Western Churches 1. Concerning the addition of Filioque two things must be enquired into 1. When it began and by whom it was added to the Creed 2. Whether they who added it had power so to do and to impose on all others the use of it 1. Concerning the time of this Addition nothing seems more dark in Church-history than the precise and punctual time of it And so much you acknowledge your self elsewhere But it seems it is your concernment to say That the Addition was made before the difference brake out To that I answer if you mean that in some Churches the Procession from the Son was acknowledged before that difference I grant it as is clear by some Councils of Toledo and that the doctrine of the Procession was received in France too about the time of Charls the Great I acknowledge and that it was admitted into the solemn Offices of the Church but that it was added to the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creed to be received by all Churches so that it should not be lawful for any to use that Creed without such Addition that I deny to have been before the Schism but assert it to have been a great occasion of it It is acknowledged that in Spain several Councils of Toledo in their profession of Faith do mention the Procession from the Son but this they delivered only as their own private judgments and not as the publick Creed received by all Churches For Petavius confesseth that in Symbolo ipso nihil adjecerunt they added nothing at all to the Creed And although the custom of singing the Constantinopolitan Creed in the Liturgy seems first to have begun in Spain from whom Petavius supposeth both the French and Germans received it yet even there it appears it was not universally received For the Church of Sevil contented it self still with the Mozarabick Liturgy in which only the bare Nicene Creed was used You tell us indeed That the inserting the Article in the Councils of Toledo is supposed to have been done upon the authority of an Epistle they had received from Pope Leo which though it be not barely supposed but asserted with great confidence by Baronius yet as most other things in him which are brought to advance the Pope's Authority it hath no other ground but his confident assertion There being not the least shadow of proof for it but only that this Leo in a certain Epistle of his to the Spaniards did once upon a time mention that the Son proceeded from the Father Therefore in Spain I grant the Doctrine to be received I deny the Addition to be made to the Constantinopolitan Creed although it be read as added to it in the 8. or 10. Council of Toledo under Reccesuintus A. D. 653. But this was still only the declaration of their own Faith in this Article and no imposing it on others In France that it began to be received in publick Use A. D. 809. must be acknowledged by the proceedings of the Legats from the Council of Aquisgrane to Pope Leo 3. But it appears as clearly that Pope Leo did then condemn the use of it as will be shewed afterwards When it should creep into the Athanasian Creed seems as hard to find out as when first added to the Constantinopolitan but if we believe Pithaeus the whole Creed was of a French Composition there being many Arguments to perswade us it never was made by Athanasius of which in their due place and Vossius adds That it is very probable it was composed about the time of Charls the Great the Controversie being then so rise about the Procession But that seems the less probable because the Article of Filioque is not found in the Ancient Copies of that Creed For Spalatensis saith That in all the Greek Copies he had seen there was only mention made of the Procession from the Father And the Patriarch Cyril saith That not only the Symbol of Athanasius is adulterated among the Latins but that it is proved to be so by the more ancient and genuine Copies But however this be we deny not but the Article of Procession from the Son grew into use especially in the Gallican and Spanish Churches before the Schism broke out between the Eastern and Western Churches but our enquiry is not concerning that but concerning the time when it was so added to the Constantinopolitan Creed that it was required to be used only with that addition For this you tell us That Hugo Eterianus affirms that it was added by the Pope in a full Council at Rome but he names not the Pope So likewise the Latin Divines at the Council of Florence pretended still that it was added by the Pope in a full Council but very carefully forbare the mention of the person or the punctual time But it is your unhappiness if there be divers opinions to be followed to make choice of the most improbable as you do here when you embrace that of Socolovius which is That the Fathers of the first Council at Constantinople sending the Confession of their Faith to Pope Damasus and his Council at Rome the Pope and Council at Rome approved of their said Confession but yet
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
it to be so to be any matter of Faith unless we had better reason for it than we have For say you To refuse to believe God's Revelation is either to give God the lye or to doubt whether he speak truth or no But have you so little wit as not to distinguish between not believing God's Revelation and not believing what is propounded for God's Revelation Must every one who doth not believe every thing that is propounded for God's Revelation presently give God the lye and doubt whether he speak truth or no And are not you then guilty of that fault every time a Quaker or Enthusiast tells you That the Spirit of God within him told him this and that But you said Sufficiently propounded But the Question is What sufficient Proposition is and who must be Judge whether the Proposition be sufficient or no you or the conscience of the person to whom the thing is proposed to be believed If any one indeed that judgeth a Proposition sufficient do notwithstanding question the truth of it he doth interpretatively call God's Veracity into question but not he certainly who thinks not God's Veracity at all concerned in that which you call a sufficient Proposition but he judgeth not to be so Let us now see how you prove your Assumption which is very fairly done from a Supposition which his Lordship denies which is That General Councils cannot erre But say you he adds That though he should grant it yet this cannot down with him that all Points even so defined were Fundamentals I grant those are his words and his reasons follow them For Deductions are not prime and native Principles nor are Superstructures Foundations That which is a Foundation for all cannot be one and another to different Christians in regard of it self for then it could be no common Rule for any nor could the souls of men rest upon a shaking Foundation No if it be a true Foundation it must be common to all and firm under all in which sense the Articles of Christian Faith are Fundamental What now do you prove to destroy this You very strenuously prove That if men believe A General Council cannot erre they believe it cannot erre so far and no further than it cannot erre But if you mean any thing further your meaning is better than your proof for when you would prove that to disbelieve the Churches Definition is to dis-believe God's Revelation and in order to that confound the Church and General Councils together and from the General Council's not erring inferr the former Proposition because what is testified by the Church is testified by an Authority that cannot erre you do not consider that all this while you prove nothing against his Lordship unless you first prove that whatever is testified to be revealed from God is presently Fundamental to all Churches and Christians which his Lordship utterly denies by distinguishing even things which may be testified to be revealed from God into such things as are common to all Christians to be believed by them and such things as vary according to the different respects of Christians But yet further I add that taking Fundamentals in your sense you prove not the thing you intended but only to such as do acknowledge and as far as they do acknowledge that General Councils cannot erre For they who acknowledge them infallible only in Fundamentals do not judge any thing Fundamental by their Decision but judge their Decisions infallible so long as they hold to Fundamentals and so for all that I can see leave themselves Judges when General Councils are infallible and when not and therefore if they go about to testifie any thing as revealed from God which is not Fundamental they do not believe that their testimony cannot erre and so are not bound to believe that it is from God They who believe General Councils absolutely infallible I do verily think do believe General Councils infallible in all they say for that is the substance of all you say But what that is to those who neither do nor can see any reason to believe them infallible in all they say or testifie as revealed from God I neither do nor can possibly understand And if you hope such kind of Arguments can satisfie your ingenuous Reader you suppose him a good-natur'd man in the Greek sense of the phrase But all of a sudden we find you in a very generous strain and are contented to take Fundamentals for Fundamentals which is a huge Concession and his Lordship were he living would take it for a singular favour from you Yet to deal freely with the Bishop say you even taking Fundamentals in a General way as it ought to be taken only here for a thing belonging to the Foundation of Religion and it is a strange Fundamental which hath no respect to the Foundation but they who build downwards must have their Foundations on tops of their houses It is also manifest that all Points defined by the Church are Fundamental by reason of that formal Object or infallible Authority propounding them though not alwaies by reason of the matter which they contain The main proof of which lyes in this That he who doth not believe the Church infallible can believe nothing at all infallibly and therefore no Fundamental of Religion but if he believe any thing upon the Churches Infallibility he must believe all things on the same account of her Infallibility and therefore must believe all equally and so whatever is propounded by the Church is to be believed as Fundamental This you cannot deny to be the force and strength of your verbose and confused way of arguing And therefore I give you a short Answer That I utterly deny the Infallibility of any Church to be in any thing the Foundation of Divine and Infallible Faith as you will find it abundantly proved in the proper place for it in the Controversie of the Resolution of Faith Where it will be largely discussed in what sense Faith may be said to be Divine and Infallible what the proper grounds and reasons of our believing are and how much you impose upon the world in pretending that the Resolution of Faith is into the Catholick Churches Infallibility whereby it will appear to be far from a Fundamental Errour not to believe on the Churches Infallibility and that he who denies it will have no reason to call into Question the Canon of Scripture or the Foundations of all Religion But that you rather by these absurd and unreasonable pretences of yours have done your utmost to shake the true Foundations of Religion and advance nothing but Sceptiscism not to say Atheism in the world These things I take upon me to make good in their proper place and therefore shall not enter the discussion of them here but since this is the main and in truth the only Foundation of your Doctrine of Fundamentals the vanity falshood and absurdity of it cannot be sufficiently
of Athanasius therefore all things defined by the Church are eo nomine necessary to Salvation Other particulars concerning that Creed as to its Antiquity and Authority we may have occasion afterwards more at large to discuss it sufficeth now that nothing is thence produced pertinent to the present Controversie His Lordship in the progress of this Discourse takes away that slight and poor evasion That the Declaration of the Church makes any thing Fundamental quoad nos because that no respect to us can vary the Foundation And that the Churches Declaration can bind us only to peace and external obedience where there is not express letter of Scripture and sense agreed on but it cannot make any thing Fundamental to us that is not so in its own nature For saith he if the Church can so add that it can by a Declaration make a thing to be Fundamental in the Faith that was not then it can take a thing away from the Foundation and make it by declaring not to be Fundamental which all men grant no power of the Church can do For the power of adding any thing contrary and of detracting any thing necessary are alike forbidden and alike denyed Now you say That all this is satisfied by the foresaid distinction of material and formal Object and you desire the Reader to carry along with him this distinction of objectum materiale formale materia attestata authoritas attestantis and he will easily discover the fallacies of his Lordship's Discourse in this main Point of Controversie and solve all his difficulties supported by them No doubt an excellent Amulet to preserve from the infection of reason But it is your great mishap that where you commend it so much it doth you so little service For let your distinction of formal and material Object be supposed as sound and good as I have shewed it in your sense to be false and fallacious yet it doth not reach that part of his Lordship's Discourse which you apply it to For still his reason is conclusive though the necessity only be supposed to arise from the Churches Authority yet if it be in the power of the Church to make any thing necessary which was not why may it not be equally in her power to make something not necessary which was For either the grounds of the necessity of things to Salvation doth depend on the Doctrine of the Gospel as at first declared to the world or it doth not If it doth then it is not in the Churches Power to make any thing necessary which was not made necessary by it if it doth not then the Church may as well pretend to a power to make something not necessary which was as to make something necessary which was not So that your distinction of Formal and Material Object signifies nothing at all here only this is observable that you make the Churches Definition to be the Formal Object of Faith here which you very solemnly contradict afterwards Chap. 5. § 4. And can any thing be more evident from this Discourse of yours than that you make the last resolution of Faith as to the necessity of things to be believed into the Churches Definition as its Formal Object But this distinction with the grounds of it being removed in our former Discourse I shall ease my self and the Reader of any further labour in examining what follows in this Chapter which depends wholly upon it or else run out into the Churches Infallibility the infallible Assent requisite to Faith the Canon of Scripture and our certainty of it or the Authority of General Councils all which shall be fully and particularly examined in their proper places There being nothing said here but what either hath been answered already or will be more at large in a more convenient place The only things remaining then in this Chapter which deserve a further discussion here are the testimonies of Scotus and S. Austin and the Discourses which depend thereon For our better clearing the testimony of Scotus in which you charge his Lordship with falsification we must consider on what account and for what purposes that testimony is produced His Lordship had said before That Fundamentals are a Rock immovable and can never be varied therefore what is Fundamental after the Church hath defined it was Fundamental before the definition and no Decrees of Councils how general soever can alter immovable Verities wherefore if the Church in a Council define any thing the thing defined is not fundamental because the Church hath defined it nor can be made so by the definition of the Church if it be not so in it self For if the Church hath this power she might make a New Article of Faith which the learned among themselves deny For the Articles of Faith cannot increase in substance but only in explication For which he appeals to Bellarmin Nor saith he Is this hard to be further proved out of your own School For Scotus professeth it in this very particular of the Greek Church If there be saith he a true real difference between the Greeks and Latins about the Point of the Procession of the Holy Ghost then either they or we be vere haeretici truly and indeed Hereticks Which he speaks of the old Greeks long before any decision of the Church in this Controversie For he instances in S. Basil and Greg. Nazianzen on one side and S. Jerome Augustine and Ambrose on the other And who dares call any of these Hereticks is his challenge That then which his Lordship proves by this testimony is that the nature of Heresie doth not depend on the Churches Definition but on the Nature of the things for according to Scotus antecedently to the Churches Definition if there had been any real difference between the Greeks and Latins one side of them had been Hereticks To this you answer That hence it follows not that Scotus thought they could be Hereticks unless they denyed or doubted of that which they had reason to believe was revealed by God But it only follows that if they knew this as those learned Greeks had sufficient reason to know it they might well be esteemed Hereticks before any special Declaration of the Church although it be more clear that he is an Heretick who denies to believe that Doctrine after he confesses that it is defined by the Church From which answer of yours several things are to our purpose observable 1. That the Formal Reason of Heresie is denying something supposed to be of Divine Revelation 2. That none can reasonably be accused of Heresie but such as have sufficient reason to believe that which they deny is revealed by God 3. That none can be guilty of Heresie for denying any thing declared by the Church unless they have sufficient reason to believe that whatever is declared by the Church is revealed by God Which unavoidably follows from the former and therefore the Churches Definition cannot
she declares was intus or extra in the nature and verity of the thing or out of it If it were extra without the nature of the thing declared then the Declaration of the thing is false and so far from being Fundamental in the Faith If it were intus within the nature and compass of the thing though not open and apparent to every eye then the Declaration is true but not otherwise Fundamental then the thing is which is declared for that which is intus cannot be larger or deeper than that in which it is if it were it could not be intus Therefore nothing is simply Fundamental because the Church declares it but because it is so in the nature of the thing which the Church declares In answer to this you seem more ingenuous than usual for you acknowledge that his expression is learnedly solid and good but yet you would seem to return some answer to this Argument viz. That although there be no alteration in the nature of the Articles by the Churches Declaration yet this doth not hinder them from becoming Fundamental in that sense in which we dispute i. e. such as cannot be denyed or doubted of under pain of damnation although they were not thus Fundamental before the Declaration as not being so clearly proposed to us as that we were bound to believe them Neither doth this take away any thing from their intus or that Being which they had of themselves but only gives a certainty of their being so and declares that they ought to be so quoad nos as well as quoad se and internally And it is no evasion but a solid distinction that the Declaration of the Church varies not the thing in it self but quoad nos in its respect to us The substance of your Answer lyes in this That though the Church by her Declaration doth not alter the nature of things yet she may and doth our Obligation to believe them so that such things which men might have been saved without believing before when once the Church hath declared them become necessary to be believed in order to Salvation And yet you would not have this called making new Articles of Faith But I pray tell us what you mean by Articles of Faith are not those properly Articles of Faith as distinct from Theological Verities which are necessary to be believed by all If therefore those things which the Church declares were before not necessary and by the Churches Declaration do become necessary than certainly those things which were not Articles of Faith do become Articles of Faith and what then doth the Church by her Declaration but make New Articles of Faith But though you assert the thing you like not the terms because they do not sound so pleasantly to the ears of Christians who believe all Obligation to Faith doth depend upon immediate Divine Revelation Setting aside therefore the terms let us examine the thing to see upon what grounds the Church can make that necessary to us which was not in it self In which case the Obligation not arising from the necessity of the Matter in it self to be believed it is no otherwise intelligible but that it must result from the supposition of some Immediate Revelation For nothing else can bind us to an Internal Assent which you require as necessary to the Churches Definitions but that unless you can shew how any Society of men considered as such have power to oblige all other men to believe what they declare on pain of damnation for not doing it I pray tell me whether the Apostles themselves had power to bind all Christians to the belief of something as necessary which the Spirit of God did not immediately reveal to them to be so If not what power can any Church have to do it without a greater measure of Infallibility than the Apostles ever pretended to For they never attempted to define any thing as necessary which was supposed unnecessary to be believed after the Doctrine of the Gospel was declared to the world Before then you can perswade us to believe that your Church can make any thing necessary which was not so you must prove an Absolute Infallible Divine Assistance of God's Spirit with your Church in whatever she shall attempt to declare or define as matter of Faith As for instance Supposing it not necessary to Salvation in it self to believe the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary how is it possible to conceive after your Churches Definition of it it should become necessary unless it be supposed that there was an Immediate Divine Revelation in that Definition For nothing but Divine Authority commanding our Assent the ground of Faith must be resolved into that now in this case besides the Immediate Assent to the thing declared as a truth there is a distinct Proposition to be believed which is That what was not before necessary to be believed doth now become necessary to be believed by all and shew us either that there is Divine Revelation for this or else excuse us that we cannot give an Internal Assent to it For we have not learnt to give an Assent of Faith to a meer humane Proposition or in our Saviour's words we call no man Master upon Earth so as to promise to believe it in the power of any Church whatsoever to make any thing necessary to be believed which was not so before Hence it appears that your Distinction of in se quoad nos is as insignificant as your pretence of the Churches Power to define matters of Faith is presumptuous and arrogant being the highest degree of Lording it over the Christian world Why your Church may not as well declare something not to be of Faith which before was of Faith as declare something to be of Faith which before was not of Faith it is not easie to apprehend if that thing might be supposed of Faith before without the Churches explicit Declaration For in that case the Church would not so apparently contradict her self for that Contradiction doth not lye in varying the respects of things but in one Declaration contradicting another For otherwise it is as great a contradiction to say That something which was not necessary is become necessary as that a thing which was necessary is become not necessary Therefore if there be a contradiction in one there is in the other If the Contradiction lyes in the Declaration you must say That nothing could be supposed necessary to be believed but what was declared by the Church to be so and as declared by the Church which is a Province as difficult as necessary to be undertaken to rid your hands of this difficulty For otherwise that Answer of yours cannot reach the Objection And now we come to that Testimony of S. Augustine which was produced to prove That all Points defined by the Church are Fundamental Which say It is a thing founded An erring Disputant is to be born with in
other Questions not diligently digested not yet made firm by full Authority of the Church there errour is to be born with but it ought not to proceed so farre that it should labour to shake the Foundation it self of the Church Now to this place his Lordship answers 1. He speaks of a Foundation of Doctrine in Scripture not of a Church-Definition This appears saith he For few lines before he tells us There was a Question moved to S. Cyprian Whether Baptism was concluded to the eighth day as well as Circumcision and no doubt was made then of the beginning of sin and that out of this thing about which no Question was moved that Question that was made was answered And again that S. Cyprian took that which he gave in Answer from the Foundation of the Church to confirm a Stone that was shaking Now S. Cyprian in all the Answer that he gives hath not one word of any Definition of the Church therefore ea res that thing by which he answered was a Foundation of prime and setled Scripture-Doctrine not any Definition of the Church Therefore that which he took out of the Foundation of the Church to fasten the Stone that shook was not Definition of the Church but the Foundation of the Church it self the Scripture upon which it is builded as appeareth in the Milevitane Councils where the Rule by which Pelagius was condemned is the Rule of Scripture Therefore S. Augustine goes on in the same sense that the Disputer is not to be born any longer that shall endeavour to shake the Foundation it self upon which the whole Church is grounded 2. His Lordship answers That granting that the Churches Definition was meant by S. Austin yet it can never follow out of any or all these Circumstances that all Points defined by the Church are Fundamental because this Foundation may be upon Humane Authority and that which follows only is That things are not to be opposed which are made firm by full Authority of the Church but it cannot be thence concluded They are therefore Fundamental in the Faith This is the substance of his Lordships Answer to this place which we must consider what you reply to First you say That it cannot be doubted but that S. Austin 's judgement was that all our Faith depended on the Authority of the Church and therefore that he that opposeth himself against this endeavoureth to shake and destroy the very ground-work of all Divine and Supernatural Faith This is a rare way of silencing Adversaries by telling them That cannot be doubted which others can see no reason at all to believe As in this present case you tell me that cannot be doubted which I utterly deny viz. That S. Austins judgement was that all our Faith depended on the Authority of the Church and if all the proof you have for it be only that well-known place Ego verò Evangelio non crederem c. You shall in time see what an ill choice you made of fixing your proof wholly upon that But whoever is never so little conversant in S. Augustin's way of disputing either against the Donatists Pelagians or Manichees will find very little reason to doubt but that he made the Foundation of Faith to be God's Word and not the Authority of the Church Indeed S. Austin by way of Prescription often makes use of the Churches Authority not where there hath been particular Definitions but Vniversal Consent which he understands by the settlement by full Authority of the Church but this he insists not on as the ground of Faith but to shew the unreasonableness of mens opposing those things which the Vniversal Church was agreed in as in this Controversie here disputed by him concerning Original Sin in Infants Therefore if I understand S. Austin in this place he doth not at all speak concerning what is to be owned as a matter of Faith simply in it self but what the Churches Carriage towards Dissenters is For after that Citation of S. Cyprian at the Conclusion of his Sermon he addresseth himself to the Pelagians as his dissenting Brethren Therefore saith he Let us if possible intreat this of our Brethren That they would no longer call us Hereticks because we might as well call them so if we would but we do not Why was S. Austin so scrupulous of calling the Pelagians Hereticks if he made the Definition of the Church the Foundation of Faith and looked on this Controversie as defined by full Authority of the Church And after speakes of the Churches bearing with them still in order to their instruction though they were gone so far that they were scarce to be born with and that the Church exercised great patience towards them therefore intreats them not to abuse this patience of the Church but to be reformed since they did exhort as Friends and not contend as enemies And so brings in the former words which I thus paraphrase It is a thing to be taken for granted that in disputable Points and such as the Church hath not alwaies been agreed in dissenters may be born with but if direct and full opposition to the clear sense of the Church should still be suffered it would overthrow the very Foundation of the Church it self And that this and no other is the plain and genuine meaning of S. Austin is evident to any one who impartially considers antecedents and consequents and the natural sense of the words themselves Before he spake how far the Church had born with them in the words themselves he tells them They must not expect the Church would alwaies bear with them if they joyned Obstinacy with their Errours for that would ruine the Church if she continually suffered such as violently opposed things contrary to her clearest sense and after tells them This is not expedient for hitherto it may be our patience is not to be found fault withall but we ought likewise to fear lest we be blamed for our negligence Which words immediately follow the former And is not this now a rare consequence If the Church must not alwaies bear with such as oppose her then whatever is defined by the Church is Fundamental For it is most evident S. Austin speaks not of the Churches Power in defining matters of Faith but of the Churches proceeding with obstinate Hereticks And therefore the Foundation spoken of is not the Foundation of her Belief but of her Communion which the continual bearing with such obstinate persons as the Pelagians were would in time overthrow The want of understanding this to be S. Augustine's meaning hath made you spend many words to very little purpose supposing all along that he speaks of the Churches Definition and not her proceedings Your Reply to his Lordships second Answer runs upon the same mistake that he speaks of Shaking the Foundation of Faith whereas I have already shewed that he speaks of no such thing and therefore that as well as the former Answer fall to
the ground together being both built on the same mistaken Foundation CHAP. III. The Absurdities of the Romanists Doctrine of Fundamentals The Churches Authority must be Divine if whatever she defines be Fundamental His Lordship and not the Testimony of S. Augustine shamefully abused three several wayes Bellarmine not mis-cited the Pelagian Heresie condemned by the General Council at Ephesus The Pope's Authority not implyed in that of Councils The gross Absurdities of the distinction of the Church teaching and representative from the Church taught and dissusive in the Question of Fundamentals The Churches Authority and Testimony in matters of Faith distinguished The Testimonies of Vincentius Lerinensis explained and shewed to be directly contrary to the Roman Doctrine of Fundamentals Stapleton and Bellarmine not reconciled by the vain endeavours used to that end THe main Doctrine of Fundamentals being in the foregoing Chapter setled and cleared what remains of that subject will be capable of a quicker dispatch The scope of this Chapter is to assoil those difficulties which your doctrine of Fundamentals is subject to What little footing that hath in the place of S. Augustine was the last thing discussed in the preceding Chapter and therefore must not be repeated here His Lordship urgeth this reason why S. Augustine or any other reasonable man could not believe that whatever is defined by the Church is Fundamental in the Faith because full church-Church-Authority alwaies the time that included the Holy Apostles being past by and not comprehended in it is but Church-Authority and Church-Authority when it is at full Sea is not simply divine therefore the sentence of it not Fundamentall in the Faith To this you very wisely and learnedly answer I will not dispute with his Lordship whether it be or no because it is sufficient that such Authority be infallible For if it be infallible it cannot propose to us any thing as revealed by God but what is so revealed So that to dispute against this Authority is in effect to take away all Authority from divine Revelation we having no other absolute certainty that this or that is revealed by God but only the Infallibility of the Church proposing or attesting it unto us as revealed Whence also it follows that to doubt dispute against or deny any thing that is proposed by the Infallible Authority of the Church is to doubt dispute against and deny that which is Fundamental in Faith His Lordship denies the sentence of the Church to be Fundamental in the Faith because not Divine you dare not say It is Divine but contend that it is Infallible and from that Infallibility inferr That Whosoever denies the Churches Infallibility must deny something Fundamental in the Faith because we can have no other absolute certainty that any thing is revealed by God but only from the Churches Infallibility So that your whole proof rests upon a very rotten and uncertain Foundation viz. that all certainty in matters of Faith doth depend upon the Churches Infallibility the falshood and unreasonableness of which principle will at large be discovered in the succeeding Controversie And if this fails then the denial of the Churches Infallibility doth not inferr the denial of any thing Fundamental in the Faith because men may be certain of all Fundamentals without believing this Infallibility But yet say you There is no necessity of asserting church-Church-Authority to be Divine but only to be infallible in order to the making what she defines to be Fundamental A rare and excellent piece of your old Theological Reason as though any thing could be any further Infallible than it is Divine or any further owned to be Divine than as it is Infallible I pray acquaint us with these rare Arts of distinguishing between an Authority Divine and Infallible when the ground of that Infallibility is the supposition of something properly and simply Divine which is the Infallible Assistance of God's Spirit Is that Assistance Infallible too but not Divine If it be Divine as well as Infallible how comes that Infallibility which flows from it not to be Divine when the cause of it was simply and absolutely so Besides what Infallible Authority is that which makes all its Definitions Fundamental and yet is not in it self Divine From whence comes any thing to be Fundamental You tell us your self as it is known to be revealed by God And can any thing be known to be revealed by God but by an Authority Divine especially on your principles who make all certainty of knowing it to depend on that Churches Authority If so then since the Churches sentence makes things become matters of Faith some things may become matters of Faith which have no Divine Authority for them But this excellent and subtle distinction between Divine and Infallible Authority we shall have occasion to examine afterwards And therefore it is well you tell us Notwithstanding that Infallible and Divine seem to many great Divines to be terms convertible which only acquaints us with thus much that there are some men who understand things better than you do and that to do so is to be a great Divine And if Stapleton be one of these we are not much offended at it and so far we will take the Testimonies which you produce out of him That which next follows depends upon the proof of the Infallibility of General Councils which when you have sufficiently cleared we will believe that there can be no plain Scripture or Evident Reason against any of their Definitions but till then we must believe there may be room for both Your next Section promiseth to shew us a shameful abuse of S. Augustine 's Testimony three several waies But if it appears that not one of those waies will hold then it only follows that so many waies you have abused his Lordship and not he S. Augustine His Lordship having affirmed That plain Scripture with evident sense or a full demonstrative Argument must have room where a wrangling and erring Disputer may not be allowed it And there 's neither of these but may convince the Definition of the Council if it be ill founded Over against these words he cites that sentence of S. Austin Quae quidem si tam manifest a monstratur ut in dubium venire non possit praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus quibus in Catholicâ teneor Ita si aliquid apertissimum in Evangelio c. The plain meaning of which words of S. Augustine is That evident Truth is to be preferred before all Church-Authority Now a threefold Exception you take to his Lordships insisting on this Testimony 1. That S. Austin speaks not either of plain Scripture or evident sense or of a full demonstrative Argument but addressing his speech to the Manicheans he writes thus Apud vos autem ubi nihil horum est quod me invitet ac teneat sola personat veritatis pollicitatio and then follow the words cited by the Bishop quae quidem si
tam manifesta monstratur where it is plain quae which is relative only to Truth and not to Scripture or any thing else A wonderful abuse of S. Austin to make him parallel plain Scripture evident sense or a full Demonstrative Argument with Truth As though if evident Truth were more prevalent with him than all those Arguments which held him in the Catholick Church plain Scripture evident Sense or Demonstrations would not be so too What Truth can be evident if it be not one of these three Do you think there is any other way of manifesting Truth but by Scripture Sense or Demonstration if you have found out other waies oblige the world by communicating them but till then give us leave to think that it is all one to say Manifest Truth as plain Scripture evident Sense or clear Demonstrations But say you He speaks only of that Truth which the Manichees bragged of and promised As though S. Austin would have been perswaded sooner as it came from them than as it was Truth in it self I suppose S. Austin did not think their Testimony sufficient and therefore sayes Quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur c. i. e. If they could make that which they said evident to be Truth he would quit the Church and adhere to them and if this holds against the Manichees will it not on the same reason hold every where else viz. That manifest Truth is not to be quitted on any Authority whatsoever which is all his Lordship asserts But You offer to prove that S. Austin by Truth could not mean plain Scripture But can you prove that by Truth he did not mean Truth whereever he found it whether in Scripture or elsewhere No say you It cannot be meant that by Truth he should mean plain Scripture in opposition to the Definitions of the Catholick Church or General Councils For which you give this Reason because he supposes it impossible that the Doctrine of the Catholick Church should be contrary to Scripture for then men according to S. Austin should not believe infallibly either the one or the other Not the Scriptures because they are received only upon the Authority of the Church nor the Church whose Authority is infringed by the plain Scripture which is brought against her For which you produce a large citation out of S. Austin to that purpose But the Answer to that is easie For S. Austin when he speaks of Church-Authority quâ infirmatâ jam nec Evangelio credere potero he doth not in the least understand it of any Definitions of the Church but of the Vniversal Tradition of the Catholick Church concerning the Scriptures from the time of Christ and his Apostles And what plain Scriptures those are supposable which should contradict such a Tradition as this is is not easie to understand But the case is quite otherwise as to the Churches Definitions for neither doth the Authority of Scripture at all rest upon them and there may be very well supposed some plain Scriptures contrary to the Churches Definitions unless it be proved that the Church is absolutely Infallible and the very proof of that depending on Scripture there must be an appeal made to plain Scripture whether the Churches Definitions may not be contradicted by Scripture When therefore you say This is an impossible Supposition that Scripture should contradict the Churches Definitions like that of the Apostle If an Angel from Heaven teach otherwise let him be accursed Gal. 1. You must prove it as impossible for the Church to deviate from Scripture in any of her Definitions as for an Angel to preach another Gospel which will be the braver attempt because it seems so little befriended either by sense or reason But say you If the Church may be an erring Definer I would gladly know why an erring Disputer may not oppugn her That which you would so gladly know is not very difficult to be resolved by any one who understands the great difference between yielding an Internal Assent to the Definitions of the Church and open opposing them for it only follows from the possibility of the Churches Errour in defining that therefore we ought not to yield an absolute Internal Assent to all her determinations but must examine them by the best measures of Truth in order to our full Assent to them but though the Church may erre it doth not therefore follow that it is lawful in all cases or for all persons to oppugn her Definitions especially if those Definitions be only in order to the Churches Peace but if they be such as require Internal Assent to them then plain Scripture evidence of Sense or clear Reason may be sufficient cause to hinder the submitting to those Definitions 2. You tell us That his Lordship hath abused S. Austin 's Testimony because he speaks not of the Definitions of the Church in matters not Fundamental according to the matter they contain but the Truth mentioned by him was Fundamental in its matter This is the substance of your second Answer which is very rational and prudent being built on this substantial Evidence If S. Austin doth preferr manifest Truth before things supposed Fundamental in the matter then no doubt S. Austin would not preferr manifest Truth before things supposed not-Fundamental in the matter And do not you think this enough to charge his Lordship with shamefully abusing S. Austin But certainly if S. Austin preferred manifest Truth before that which was greater would he not do it before that which was incomparably less If he did it before all those things which kept him in the Catholick Church such as the consent of Nations Miracles Universal Tradition which he mentions before do you think he would have scrupled to have done it as to any particular Definitions of the Church These are therefore very excellent waies of vindicating the Fathers Testimonies from having any thing of sense or reason in them 3. You say He hath abused S. Austin by putting in a wrangling Disputer But I wonder where his Lordship ever sayes that S. Austin mentions any such in the Testimony cited For his words are these But plain Scripture with evident Sense or a full Demonstrative Argument must have room where a wrangling and erring Disputer may not be allowed it And there 's neither of these over against these words he referrs to S. Austin's Testimony and not the foregoing but may convince the Definition of the Council if it be ill founded When you therefore ask Where the wrangling Disputer is to be found had it not been for the help of this Cavil we might have been to seek for him But when you have been enquiring for him at last you cry out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oh! I see now And you are the fittest man to find him out that I know You say This is done to distinguish him from such a Disputer as proceeds solidly and demonstratively against the Definitions of the Church when they are
ill founded which S. Austin is so far from supposing that one may do that he judges him a mad man who disputes against any thing quod universa Ecclesia sentit and that they have hearts not only of Stone but even of Devils who resist so great a manifestation of Truth as is made by an Oecumenical Council for of that he speaks Your design is to prove that S. Austin doth not admit of any plea from Scripture Sense or Reason against any Definitions of the Church for which you first produce that known place in which S. Austin accounts it madness to oppose the universal practices of the Church which will hold for your purpose as far as rites and matters of Faith have any Analogy with each other your latter Testimony seems more to the purpose to all persons who do not examine it and to none else For although you seemed very careful to prevent any examination of the place by a false citation of Epist. 153. for 152. yet that hath not hindered my discovering your fraud in asserting that S. Austin there speaks of an Oecumenical Council For there is not so much as any thing like it in that Epistle I acknowledge those words to be found there which you produce Nulla excusatio jam remansit nimium dura nimium diabolica sunt hominum corda quae adhuc tantae manifestationi veritatis obsistunt But there needs no more to confute the most of your Testimonies out of the Fathers but to mention the occasion of their being produced or the scope and design of the Authors as is most evident in this place For this Epistle is written in the name of Silvanus Valentinus Aurelius Innocentius Maximinus Optatus Augustinus Donatus and other Bishops for satisfaction of the Donatists concerning the proceedings at the Council of Carthage For the Donatist Bishops being therein baffled had dispersed among their Proselytes many false rumours of that Council and of their being circumvented by their Catholick Adversaries To disprove which in this Epistle they first shew the fraud and falsitie of the Donatists and then the Integrity of their own proceedings by the choice of seven persons on either side who should speak in behalf of the rest and seven others as Counsellors to them and four Notaries on either side and four other persons who should keep the Records to prevent all fraud Besides all this every one was to subscribe in his own words that no man might complain that any thing was corrupted afterwards which things being dispersed while the persons themselves lived there was no probability Posterity should be deceived in the report of them And then follow those words That no excuse hath now been left but that their hearts are too hard and diabolical who could gainsay so clear a manifestation of Truth Is it not now a rare consequence from hence to inferr That it is not lawful upon any ground of Scripture Sense or Reason to dispute the Definitions of General Councils Whereas no such thing was ever mentioned as a General Council as appears by the very next words where he sayes expresly it was only a Council of African Bishops and elsewhere S. Austin tells the Donatists that they never durst appeal to a General Council And supposing the Council never so Oecumenical he mentions nothing of the Definitions of it but the manner of its proceedings So that the greatest Truth hereby manifested is your design to abuse his Lordship and the Reader together Since you disown the distinction of things being Fundamental in the matter and in the manner I shall not trouble you with shewing you the weakness of it but it were easie to manifest it as good as that you embrace of the material and formal Object which hath been sufficiently refuted in the precedent chapter and I have no leisure for repetitions His Lordship endeavouring further to shew What little Foundation your Doctrine of Fundamentals hath in the forecited place of S. Augustine urgeth this as an Argument against it That if all Points defined by the Church are therefore Fundamental because that is not to be shaken which is setled by full Authority of the Church then it must follow That the Point there spoken of the remission of Original Sin in the Baptism of Infants was defined when S. Augustine wrote this by a full sentence of a General Council You deny the Consequence for say you By Authority of the Church you mean and not unproperly the Church generally practising this Doctrine and defining it in a National Council confirmed by the Pope For this was plena authoritas Ecclesiae though not plenissima and to dispute against what was so practised and defined is in S. Augustine's sense to shake the Foundation of the Church if not wholly to destroy it It seems a little hard to understand what you mean by the Churches being not unproperly said to practise this Doctrine What did the Church practise the Doctrine of the remission of Original Sin in Infants That a Church should practise a matter of Faith seems a little wonderful but that it should do this and that not unproperly increaseth the admiration And we might think it a peculiar priviledge belonging to your Church but that she is not so much used to practise things more capable of it And can you think it enough to run us down by telling us That the Pope with a National Council hath defined it unless you first prove that the Pope and a National Council have as much authority as a General Council which you pretend to be infallible and if a National Council with the Pope be so too I wonder to what end General Councils are ever call'd since the Infallibility may be had at a much cheaper rate And by the same reason you make National Councils Infallible you may do Provincial if the Pope concurrs with them and by the same reason the Colledge of Cardinals may be Infallible without any of them because of the Pope's concurrence with them And so all this business of Councils is but a formal piece of Pageantry since all the Infallibility they have by this pretence is conferred by the Pope in his concurrence whose Infallibility doth not depend on the presence of a Council and therefore he must be as Infallible without a Council as with it So that at last this Discourse comes to this issue He that shakes the Pope's Infallibility shakes the Foundation of the Church and prove but this to have been S. Augustine's meaning you will highly advance the interest of your cause But whatever S. Austin's meaning be you think your self engaged to vindicate Bellarmine who his Lordship had said was deceived in saying That the Pelagian Heresie was never condemned in an Oecumenical Council but only in Nationals For saith he While the Pelagians stood out impudently against National Councils some of them defended Nestorius which gave occasion to the first Ephesine Council to excommunicate and depose
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
often-mention'd distinction of the Formal and Material Object of Faith the foundation of which having been already removed whatever you offer to build upon it must of necessity fall to the ground but I shall not follow your ill example in making tedious Repetitions and then cry out You are forced to it His Lordship urgeth further from the Romanists Doctrine of Fundamentals That the Churches Definition must be the Churches Foundation His words are Besides whatsoever is Fundamental in the Faith is Fundamental to the Church which is one by the Vnity of Faith Therefore if every thing defined by the Church be Fundamental in the Faith then the Churches Definition is the Churches Foundation And so upon the matter the Church can lay her own Foundation and then the Church must be in absolute and perfect Being before so much as her Foundation is laid To which you answer But what Absurdity is it to grant That the Definition of the Church teaching is the Foundation of the Church taught or the Definition of the Church representative is the Foundation of the Church diffusive I pray inform us whether this Church teaching and representing be the same Church with the Church taught and diffusive or one different from it If it be different it must have a different Foundation and so must be fundamentally different if it be the same then the Church must still lay its own Foundation for whatever becomes Fundamental by the Definition of the Church is I suppose to be believed as necessary i. e. Fundamental by the Church teaching and representing as well as taught and diffusive Unless you think those who decree things to be believed by all in order to salvation do exclude themselves out of that number and therefore though it be necessary for all others to believe it it is still indifferent for them whether they will believe it or no. And therefore were I of your Church I should heartily wish my self of the teaching and representative Church for then others might go to Hell for not believing that which I might chuse whether I would or no. What an excellent invention this is to make the Pope and Cardinals go to Heaven though they be Atheists and Infidels For you tell us we can have no assurance of any matter of Faith but from the Infallibility of your Church this Infallibility lyes not in the taught and diffusive but in the teaching and representative Church and this distinction here supposes that what is made the Foundation of the Church taught is not the Foundation of the Church teaching i. e. what is necessary to Salvation for one is not so for the other for that is your meaning of Fundamentals Now since all things become necessary to be believed by the Church diffusive upon the Authority of the Church representative it necessarily follows from this distinction That nothing at all is necessary to be believed by the Church representative And is not this a rare Church the mean while but what is it which makes it a Church for though it represents and teaches yet it is still call'd a Church teaching and representative If it be a Church something must make it so What can make it so if not the belief of what is necessary to Salvation And if it doth not believe all that is necessary to Salvation the Church diffusive is much more truly a Church than the representative If it doth believe all that is necessary then it must believe its own Definitions because those are supposed to be so and consequently if those be Fundamental the Church must still lay her own Foundation Or else these consequences follow 1. That may be a true Church which doth not believe all things necessary to Salvation 2. The Church teaching is not bound to believe that which she teaches but only the Church taught 3. That may be the same Church which Fundamentally differs from it self 4. When the Church defines a thing to be necessary she doth not believe it to be necessary but it becomes necessary after her Definition For I pray satisfie us as to this Teaching Church when she defines something necessary to be believed in order to Salvation which was not so defined before Doth she at that Instant of her Definition believe that to be necessary to Salvation or doth she not If she doth then it is necessary before her Definition and so the belief of it as necessary cannot depend upon it But if she believes it only to be necessary because she defines it to be so then she cannot believe it to be necessary till she hath defined it and consequently defines that to be necessary which she believes not to be necessary and so defines contrary to her own judgement and belief Let me therefore ask here some more Questions which I doubt you will think troublesome If the Church representative believed that not to be necessary to Salvation which she defined to be necessary to Salvation was she infallible in that belief or no If she was not infallible then at that time what assurance could men have of any matter of Faith since you tell us That must be had from the Churches Infallibility If she were infallible then either in some things only or in all she believed if only in some things we ought to know what she is infallible in and what not lest we deceive our selves in believing her infallible in that in which she is not infallible If in all things then she is infallible in believing that not to be necessary to Salvation which yet she infallibly defines to be necessary to Salvation And so the Church may infallibly define that to be true which at the very moment of that Definition she infallibly believes to be false All these are the just and excellent Consequences of this useful Distinction of yours which you look on as the only happy Expedient whereby to free your self from asserting that the Church by making things Fundamental by her Definitions doth thereby lay her own Foundation But as absurd and unreasonable as this is you would seem to have something to say for it for you tell us That the Pastors in all Ages preserving Christian People from being carried away with every wind of Doctrine are a Foundation to them of constancy in Doctrine Wonderfully subtle it is pity such excellent reasoning should want the ornaments of Mood and Figure but thus it is in them If the Pastors of the Church may be the means of preserving men from errours then the Definition of the Church teaching is the Foundation of the Church taught which in short amounts to this If the Pastors of the Church may be a Foundation of mens constancy in Doctrine then they may be a Foundation of mens inconstancy in Doctrine If this be not that you mean I can make no sense of what you say and if it be let any one else make Sense of it that hath a gift for it For by constancy in
Doctrine is meant the adhering to that Doctrine which God hath revealed as necessary in his Word but by the Definitions of the teaching Church you understand a Power to make more things necessary to the Salvation of all than Christ hath made so that joyn these two together the Consequence is this If the Pastors of the Church may and ought to keep men from believing any other Doctrine then they have power to impose another Doctrine which things are so contradictious to each other that none but one of your faculty would have ventured to have set one to prove the other Therefore when you would prove any thing by this Argument your Medium must be this That the Pastors of the Church are a Foundation of constancy in Doctrine by laying New Foundations of Doctrines by her Definitions which is just as if you would prove That the best way to keep a House entire without any additions is to build another house adjoyning to it But say you further Were not the Apostles in their times who were Ecclesia docens by their Doctrine and Decrees a Foundation to the Church which was taught by them Doth not S. Paul expresly affirm it superaedificati supra Fundamentum Apostolorum c. To which I answer 1. That the Apostles were not therefore said to be the Foundation on which they were built who believed on that Doctrine because by virtue of their Power they could define or decree any thing to be necessary to Salvation which was not so before but because they were the Instruments whereby the things which were necessary to Salvation were conveyed to them And because their Authority by virtue of their Mission and the Power accompanying it was the means whereby they were brought to believe the Doctrin of the Gospel as in it self true But there is a great deal of difference between teaching what is necessary to Salvation and making any thing necessary to Salvation which was before meerly because it is taught by them 2. I grant that those things did become necessary to be believed which the Apostles taught but it was either because the things were in themselves necessary in order to the end declared viz. Man's Salvation or else it was on the account of that evidence which the Apostles gave that they were persons immediately imployed by God to deliver those Doctrines to them But still here is nothing becoming necessary by virtue of a Decree or Definition but by virtue of a Testimony that what they delivered came from God 3. When the Apostles delivered these things the Doctrine of the Gospel was not made known to the world but they were chosen by God and infallibly assisted for that end that they might reveal it to the world And this is certainly a very different case from that when the Doctrine of Salvation is fully revealed and delivered down to us in unquestionable records And therefore if you will prove any thing to your purpose you must prove as great and as divine assistance of the Spirit in the Church representative of all Ages as was in the Apostles in the first Age of the Christian Church 4. When you say from hence That the Apostles as the teaching Church laid the Foundation of the Church taught that can only be understood of those Christians who became a Church by the Apostles preaching the Doctrine of the Gospel to them but this is quite a different thing from laying the Foundation of a Church already in being as your Church taught and diffusive is supposed to be Can you tell us where the Apostles are said to lay further Foundations for Churches already constituted that they made or declared more things necessary to Salvation than were so antecedently to their being a Church But this is your case you pretend a power in your Church representative to make more things necessary to Salvation than were before to a Church already in Being and therefore supposed to believe all things necessary to Salvation You see therefore what a vast disparity there is in the case and how far the Apostles declaring the Doctrine of Christ and thereby founding Churches is from being an Argument that the representative Church may lay the Foundation of the Church diffusive which being a Church already must have its Foundation laid before all new Decrees and Definitions of the teaching Church So that still it unavoidably follows upon your principles That the Church must lay her own Foundation and then the Church must have been in absolute and perfect Being before so much as her Foundation is laid Your weak endeavour of retorting this upon the Bishop because of the Apostles teaching the Church of their Age only shews that you have a good will to say something in behalf of so bad a cause but that you want ability to do it as appears by the Answers already given as to the difference of the Apostles case and yours The subsequent Section which is spent in a weak defence of A. C's words hath the less cause to be particularly examined and besides its whole strength lyes on things sufficiently discussed already viz. the sufficient Proposition of matters of Faith and the Material and Formal Object of it That which follows pretending to something New and which looks like Argumentation must be more distinctly considered Cs. words are That if one may deny or doubtfully dispute against any one Determination of the Church then he may against another and another and so against all since all are made firm to us by one and the same Divine Revelation sufficiently applied by one and the same full Authority of the Church which being weakned in any one cannot be firm in any other To which his Lordship answers 1. That this is understood only of Catholick Maxims which are properly Fundamental by Vincentius Lirinensis from whom this Argument is derived 2. He denies that all Determinations of the Church are made firm to us by one and the same Divine Revelation 3. He denies that all Determinations of the Church are sufficiently applied by one and the same full Authority of the Church Of each of these he gives his reasons the examination and defence of which is all that remains of this Chapter To the first you answer three things for I must digest your Answers for you 1. That there is no evidence that A. C. borrowed this from Vincentius and you give an excellent reason for it because good wits may both hit on the same thing or at least come near it which had it been said of your self had been more unquestionable but to let that pass 2. You tell us That the Doctrine is true whosoever said it For which you give this reason For the same reason which permits not our questioning or denying the prime Maxims of Faith permits not our questioning or denying any other Doctrine declared by the Church because it is not the greatness or smalness of the matter that moves us to give firm Assent
in Points of Faith but the Authority of God speaking by the Church To which I answer that all this runs upon a Supposition false in it self which is That all our Assurance in matters of Faith depends upon the Infallible Authority of the present Church which being granted I would not deny but supposing that Infallibility absolute on the same reason I believe one thing on the Churches Authority I must believe all For the case were the same then as to the Church which we say it is as to the Scriptures he that believes any thing on the account of its being contained in that Book as the Word of God must believe every thing he is convinced to be therein contained whether the matter be in it self small or great because the ground of his belief is the Authority of God revealing those things to us And if therefore you could prove such a Divine Authority constantly resident in the Church for determining all matters of Faith I grant your consequence would hold but that is too great a boon to be had for begging and that is all the way you use for it here If you offer to prove it afterwards our Answers shall be ready to attend you But at present let it suffice to tell you That we believe no Article of Faith at all upon the Churches Infallible Authority and therefore though we deny what the Church proposeth it follows not that we are any more liable to question the truth of any Article any further than the Churches Authority reaches in it i. e. we deny that any thing becomes an Article meerly upon her account But now if you remove the Argument from the present Churches Infallible Authority to the Vniversal Churches Testimony we then tell you That he who questions a clear full universal Tradition of the whole Church from Christ's time to this will by the same reason doubt of all matters of Faith which are conveyed by this Testimony to us But then we must further consider That we are bound by virtue of the Churches Testimony to believe nothing any further than it appears to have been the constant full Vniversal Testimony of the Church from the time of Christ and his Apostles Whatever therefore you can make appear to have been received as a necessary Article of Faith in this manner we embrace it but nothing else and on the other side we say That whoever doubts or denies this Testimony will doubt of all matters of Faith because the ground and rule of Faith the Scriptures is conveyed to us only through this Universal Tradition 3. You answer That his Lordship mistakes Vincentius Lerinensis his meaning and falsifies his testimony thrice at least Whereof the first is in rendring de Catholico dogmate of Catholick Maxims and here a double most dreadful charge is drawn up against his Lordship the first from the accusation of Priscian and the second of no less Authours than Rider and the English Lexicons the first is for translating the Singular Number by the Plural whereas our most Reverend Orbilius himself in the following page tells us that this Catholicum dogma Vincentius speaks of contains the whole Systeme of the Catholick Faith and in that Systeme some are Fundamentals some Superstructures both Plurals yet all these contained in this one singular Dogma but it was his Lordships great mishap not to have his education in the Schools of the Jesuites else he might have escaped the lash for this most unpardonable oversight of rendring verbum multitudinis by our Authours own confession who makes it larger too then his Lordship doth for his Lordship saith it contains only Fundamentals but our Authour Superstructures too by the Plural Number But the second fault is worse then this for saith our Authour very gravely and discreetly with his rod in his hand But in what Authour learnt he that Dogma signifies only Maxims were it in the Plural number Dogma according to our English Lexicons Rider and others signifies a Decree or common received Opinion whether in prime or less principal matters What a learned dispute are we now fallen into But I see you were resolved to put all but Boys and Paedagogues out of all likelyhood of confuting you For those are only the persons among us who deal in Rider and English Lexicons I see now there is some hopes that the orders of the Inquisition may have better Latin then that against Mr. White had since our old Jesuites begin to be so well versed in such Masters of the Latin tongue How low is Infallibility fallen that we must appeal for knowing what dogma fidei is to the definition not of Popes and Councils but of Rider and English Lexicons But it is ill jesting with our Orbilius in so severe a humour that his Grace of Canterbury cannot scape his lash for not consulting Riders Dictionary for the signification of Dogma But our Authour passeth and we must attend him out of his Grammatical into the Theological School and there tells us That the Ecclesiastical signification of Dogma extends it self to all things established in the Church as matters of Faith whether Fundamentals or Superstructures and for this Scotus is cited somewhat a better Authour than Rider who calls Transubstantiation Dogma fidei I begin to believe now that Dogma is a very large word and Fides much larger that can hold so prodigious a thing as Transubstantiation within them But notwithstanding what Rider and Scotus say None so able to explain Vincentius his meaning as Vincentius himself To him therefore at last our Authour appeals and tells us That he declares in other places that he means by Dogma such things as in general belong to Christian Faith without distinction But doth Vincentius any where by Dogma mean any such things which were not judged necessary by the ancient and Primitive Church but become necessary to be believed upon the Churches Definitions Nothing can possibly be imagined more directly contrary to the design of his whole Book then that is when he appeals still for matters to be believed to Antiquity Vniversality and Consent and to be sure all these are required to whatever he means by a Dogma fidei if you therefore can produce any testimonies out of his Book which can be supposed in the least to favour the power of the Church in her new Definitions of matters of Faith you may justly challenge to your self the name of an excellent Invention who can find that in his Book which all other persons find the directly contrary to Your first citation is out of ch 33. not 23. as you quote it or some one else for you where he is explaining what St. Paul means by Prophanas vocum novitates Vocum saith he i. e. Dogmatum rerum sententiarum novitates quae sunt vetustati quae antiquitati contrariae I shall not scruple to grant you that Vincentius by Dogmata here doth mean such things as the Definitions of your Church
whether an Infallible Assent to the Infallibility of your Church can be grounded on those Motives of Credibility If you affirm it then there can be no imaginable necessity to make the Testimony of your Church infallible in order to Divine Faith for you will not I hope deny but that there are at least equal Motives of Credibility to prove the Divine Authority of the Scriptures as the Infallibility of your Church and if so why may not an Infallible Assent be given to the Scriptures upon those Motives of Credibility as well as to your Churches Infallibility If you deny the Assent built upon the Motives of Credibility to be Infallible how can you make the Assent to your Churches Testimony to be infallible when that Infallibility is attempted to be proved only by the Motives of Credibility And therefore it necessarily follows That notwithstanding your bearing it so high under the pretence of Infallibility you leave mens minds much more wavering in their Assent than before in that as shall afterwards appear these very Motives of Credibility do not at all prove the Infallibility of your Church which undoubtedly prove the Truth and Certainty of Christian Religion Thus while by this device you seek to avoid the Circle you destroy the Foundation of your Discourse That there must be an Infallible Assent to the truth of that Proposition That the Scriptures are the Word of God which you call Divine Faith which how can it be infallible when that Infallibility at the highest by your own confession is but evidently credible and so I suppose the Authority of the Scriptures is without your Churches Infallibility And thus you run into the same Absurdities which you would seem to avoid which is the second thing to manifest the unreasonableness of this way for whatever Absurdity you charge us with for believing the Doctrine of Christ upon the Motives of Credibility unavoidably falls upon your selves for believing the Churches Infallibility on the same grounds for if we leave the Foundation of Faith uncertain you do so too if we build a Divine Faith upon Motives of Credibility so do you if we make every ones reason the Judge in the choice of his Religion so must you be forced to do if you understand the consequence of your own principles 1. It is impossible for you to give a better account of Faith by the Infallibility of your Church than we can do without it for if Divine Faith cannot be built upon the Motives proving the Doctrine of Christ what sense or reason is there that it should be built on those Motives which prove your Churches Infallibility so that if we leave the Foundation of Faith uncertain you much more and that I prove by a Rule of much Authority with you by which you use to pervert the weak judgements of such who in your case do not discern the Sophistry of it Which is when you come to deal with persons whom you hope to Proselyte you urge them with this great Principle That Prudence is to be our Guide in the choice of our Religion and that Prudence directs us to chuse the safest way and that it is much safer to make choice of that way which both sides agree Salvation is to be obtained in than of that which the other side utterly denies men can be saved in How far this Rule will hold in the choice of Religion will be examined afterwads but if we take your word that it is a sure Rule I know nothing will be more certainly advantagious to us in on present case For both sides I hope are agreed that there are sufficient Motives of Credibility as to the belief of the Scriptures but we utterly deny that there are any such Motives as to the Infallibility of your Church it then certainly follows That our way is the more eligible and certain and that we lay a surer Foundation for Faith than you do upon your principles for resolving Faith 2. Either you must deny any such thing as that you call Divine Faith or you must assert that it may have no other Foundation than the Motives of Credibility which yet is that you would seem most to avoid by introducing the Infallibility of your Church that the Foundation of Faith may not be uncertain whereas supposing what you desire you must of necessity do that you would seem most fearful of which is making a Divine Faith to rest upon prudential Motives Which I thus prove It is an undoubted Axiom among the great men of your side That whatever is a Foundation for a Divine Faith must itself be believed with a firm certain and infallible Assent Now according to your principles the Infallibility of the Church is the Foundation for Divine Faith and therefore that must be believed with an Assent Infallible It is apparent then an Assent Infallible is required which is that which in other terms you call Divine Faith now when you make it your business to prove the Churches Infallibility upon your prudential Motives I suppose your design is by those proofs to induce men to believe it and if men then do believe it upon those Motives do you not found an Assent Infallible or a Divine Faith upon the Motives of Credibility And by the same reason that you urge against us the necessity of believing the Scriptures to be the Word of God by Divine Faith because it is the ground why we believe the things contained in the Scripture we press on your side the necessity of believing the Infallibility of the Church by a Faith equally Divine because that is to you the only sufficient Foundation of believing the Scriptures or any thing contained in them 3. You make by this way of resolving Faith every man's Reason the only Judge in the choice of his Religion which you are pleased to charge on us as a great Absurdity yet you who have deserved so very ill of Reason are fain to call in her best assistance in a case of the greatest moment viz. On what ground we must believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God You say Because the Church is infallible which delivers them to us but how should we come to know that she is infallible you tell us By the Motives of Credibility very good But must not every ones reason judge whether these Motives be credible or no and whether they belong peculiarly to your Church so as to prove the Infallibility of it as it is distinct from all other societies of Christians in the world You tell us indeed That these Motives make it evidently credible but must we believe it to be so because you say so If so then the ground of believing is not the Credibility of the Motives but of your Testimony and therefore you ought to make it evidently true that whatever you speak is undoubtedly true which whosoever reads your Book will hardly be perswaded to So that of necessity every mans reason must be Judge whether your Church
be infallible or no and thus at last you give Reason the Vmpirage in the choice of Religion And what is there more than this that we contend for If there be then any danger of Scepticism a private spirit or what other inconveniencies you object against our way of judging the truth of Religion by the Vse of Reason it will fall much more heavily upon your selves in this way of believing the Infallibility of the Church on the Motives of Credibility Therefore I assure you it were much more consonant to the principles of your party to tell men The Infallibility of your Church ought to be taken for granted and that men are damned for not believing it though no reason be given for it but only because you say it which is as much as to say the reason of the Point is It must needs be so then thus to expose it to the scorn and contempt of the world by offering to prove it by your Motives of Credibility For unawares you thereby give away the main of your Cause for by the very offer of proving it you make him whom you offer to prove it to judge whether these proofs be sufficient or no and if he be capable to judge of his Guide certainly he may be of his Way too considering that he hath according to us an Infallible Rule to judge of his Way whereas according to you he hath but Prudential Motives in the choice of his Guide Thus by this Opinion of yours you have gained thus much That there is nothing so absurd which you charge upon us but it falls unavoidably upon your own head By this way of resolving Faith you undermine it and leave a sure Foundation for nothing but Scepticism which is the last thing to shew the great unreasonableness of this way of yours that when you are making us believe you are taking the greatest care to make our Religion sure you cancel our best evidences and produce nothing but crackt and broken titles which will not stand any fair tryal at the bar of Reason And that you make the Foundations of Religion uncertain I offer to prove by the reason of the thing for if you require that as necessary for Faith which was never believed to be so when the Doctrine of Faith was revealed if upon the pretence of Infallibility you assert such things which destroy all the rational evidence of Christian Religion and if at last you are far from giving the least satisfactory account concerning this Infallibility of your Church then certainly we may justly charge you with unsetling the Foundations of Religion instead of giving us a certain resolution of Faith 1. You make that necessary to Faith which was not looked on as such when the Doctrine of the Gospel was revealed and what other design can such a pretence seem to have than to expose to contempt that Religion which was not received by a true Divine Faith because it wanted that which is now thought to be the only sure Foundation of Faith viz. the Infallibility of the Church of Rome What then will become of the Faith of all those who received Divine Revelations without the infallible Testimony of any Church at all With what Faith did the Disciples of Christ at the time of his suffering believe the Divine Authority of the Old Testament was it a true Divine Faith or not If it was whereon was it built not certainly on the Infallible Testimony of the Jewish Church which at that time consented to the death of the Messias condemning him as a malefactor and deceiver Or did they believe it because of that great Rational Evidence they had to convince them that those Prophecies came from God If so why may not we believe the Divinity of all the Scriptures on the same grounds and with a Divine Faith too With what Faith did those believe in the Messias who were not personally present at the Miracles which our Saviour wrought but had them conveyed to them by such reports as the woman of Samaria was to the Samaritans Or were all such persons excused from believing meerly because they were not Spectators But by the same reason all those would be excused who never saw our Saviour's miracles or heard his Doctrine or his Apostles But if such persons then were bound to believe I ask On what Testimony was their Faith founded Was the woman of Samaria infallible in reporting the discourse between Christ and her Were all the persons infallible who gave an account to others of what Christ did yet I suppose had it been your own case you would have thought your self bound to have believed Christ to have been the Messias if you had lived at that time and a certain account had been given you of our Saviour's Doctrine and Miracles by men faithful and honest though you had no reason to have believed them infallible I pray Sir answer me would you have thought your self bound to have believed or no If you affirm it as I will suppose you so much a Christian as to say so I pray then tell me Whether persons in those circumstances might not have a true and Divine Faith where there was no infallible Testimony but only Rational Evidence to build it self upon And if those persons might have a Divine Faith upon such evidence as that was may not we much more who have evidence of the same nature indeed but much more extensive universal and convincing than that was And how then can you still assert an infallible Testimony of the conveyers of Divine Revelation to be necessary to a Divine Faith Nay further yet How very few were there in comparison in the first Ages of the Christian Church who received the Doctrine of the Gospel from the mouths of persons infallible And of those who did so what certain evidence have men That all those persons did receive the Doctrine upon the account of the Infallibility of the propounders and not rather upon the Rational Evidence of the Truth of the Doctrine delivered and whether the belief of their Infallibility was absolutely necessary to Faith when the report of the Evidences of the Truth of the Doctrine might raise in them an obligation to believe supposing them not infallible in that delivery of it but that they looked on them as honest men who faithfully related What they had seen and heard And this seems the more probable in that the Apostles themselves in their undoubtedly divine writings do so often appeal to their own sufficiency and integrity without pleading so much their Infallibility S. John saith That which we have seen and heard and handled declare we unto you S. Peter appeals to his being an Eye-witness to make it appear he delivered no cunningly devised fables S. Luke makes this a ground That the things were surely believed because delivered from them who were Eye-witnesses and Ministers of the Word If they insisted so much upon this Rational Evidence and so sparingly on
to prove the Infallibility of the Church and Scripture to You tell us That when you prove the Infallibility of the Church by Scripture you make use only of Arguments ad hominem and argue ex principiis concessis against Sectaries who deny the Infallibility of your Church but admit the Divine Authority of the Scriptures and therefore you may justly use Scripture-arguments against them I grant it but still I say you avoid not the Circle by this subterfuge neither For 1. The question is not Which way you will prove the Infallibility of the Church against those who deny it but which way you resolve your own faith of the Churches Infallibility therefore this signifies nothing at all as to your Question about the resolution of Faith for I suppose you build not that on any thing which your adversary grants or denyes Is there no difference between the way of proving a thing to an adversary and the resolving ones own Faith I question not but you may dispute with him upon Principles he grants and you deny but I should think you no wise man to build your Faith upon such Principles So that this evasion comes not near the business 2. Even in disputing against your Adversaries you cannot avoid the circle which I thus prove You offer to prove to them the Church to be Infallible out of Scripture for this you bring them particular places and think presently to vanquish them with Super hanc Petram Pasce oves Dabo tibi claves but hence ariseth another Question How you come infallibly to know that this is the sense of those places You know your Adversaries presently deny any such thing as Infallibility to be proved out of them And what way have you to assure them this is the sense of them but because your Church which is infallible delivers this to be the sense of them And is not this then a plain circle You are to believe the Church infallible because the Scripture saith so and you are to believe the Scripture saith so because the Church is infallible If this be not still a plain circle you may question whether there be any such figure in Mathematicks 3. I prove you cannot avoid the Circle from your own Confession of the nature of that Infallibility which you say is in the Church For you tell us That the Churches Testimony doth not suppose any new Revelation from God but only a supernatural Assistance of the Holy Ghost preserving her from all errour in defining the Points of Christian Faith By this Assertion you destroy all possibility of avoiding the Circle by the Motives of Credibility for if these had proved an immediate Divine Revelation in the Church I confess you had proved the Churches Infallibility independently on Scripture but when you offer to prove only a Divine Assistance with the Church in delivering former Revelations you cannot and the reason is because you can bring no ground at all why such an Assistance should be necessary in the Church or why it should be expected but from the Promises made in Scripture concerning such an Assistance of God's Spirit to be with the Church and therefore the utmost your Motives of Credibility can pretend to is only to notifie that Church from others which you suppose infallible but still the formal reason of your beleeving this Infallibility cannot be from those Motives but upon those Promises which you suppose to import such an Assistance of the Holy Ghost with the Church which shall secure her from errour So that still the Circle returns upon you For you believe the Scriptures infallible because of the Churches Testimony and you believe the Church infallible because of the Promises in Scripture concerning the Assistance of the Holy Ghost with the Church so as to secure her from all errour And thus I hope I have made good this general Attempt upon your way of resolving Faith by manifesting the great unreasonableness and manifest insufficiency of it I now come to handle the particulars of this Chapter which consists of two things Proofs and Evasions the Proofs you produce for your Churches Infallibility and your Evasions as to those Arguments which are objected by his Lordship Both of these will deserve our Consideration and if it appear that your Proofs are weak and your Evasions silly you will have no great cause to triumph in this Attempt of yours As to your Proofs two things are considerable your Method of proving and the Proofs themselves I begin with the first which you deliver in these words Wherefore as to the last demand in which only there is difficulty viz. How we know the Church to be infallibly governed by the Holy Ghost we answer that we prove it first in general not by the Scripture but by the Motives of Credibility which belong to the Church in the same manner as the Infallibity of Moses and other Prophets of Christ and his Apostles was proved which was by the Miracles they wrought and by other signs of an Infallible Spirit direction and guidance from God which appeared in them Whence it is clear that we incurr no circle That supposing all that true which you said before yet thereby you avoid not the circle I shall take it for granted I have already proved till you better inform me Our business now therefore is to consider which way you prove this Infallibility of your Church which you tell us is not by Scripture for which I commend your ingenuity but by the Motives of Credibility But lest any should think this a weak way of probation you tell us It is in the same manner that the Infallibility of all persons divinely inspired was proved not excepting Christ himself A most heroical and generous Attempt For which the Church of Rome is infinitely obliged to you if you make it good For then it necessarily follows that there is as great danger in not believing the Infallibility of your Church as in not believing Moses and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles For where there is an equal obligation to believe there is an equal sin in not believing and where the sin is equal it stands to reason that the punishment should be so too I suppose you deny not but Where there are equal Motives inducing to believe there results an equal Obligation to Faith because the Grounds obliging to assent can be no other than the Motives inducing to it and if these Motives be as strong and evident for your Churches Infallibility as for that of Moses and Christ men must be as much obliged now to believe your Church infallible as that Moses and Christ were so So that the denial of your Churches Infallibility must needs be accounted by you to be as high a piece of Infidelity as if one should call in question the Infallibility of Christ himself For you assert That you have the same Proofs for the Infallibility of your Church which there were to prove him infallible I
the liberty it indulgeth them in sin here and yet the hopes it gives them of heaven hereafter Our doctrine requires indispensable obedience to all the precepts of Christ Yours tells them those which are the most strict and severe are not precepts but counsels of perfection Ours That there is no hope of Salvation without hearty amendment of life Yours That Pennance is requisite and external satisfaction to the Church and for internals that Contrition is very commendable but if there be not that Attrition will serve the turn Ours Charges men to look to their Salvation in this life because when life is ended their estate is irrecoverable Yours That though men dye in their sins yet they may be relieved by the prayers of the living and that there is hope they may get through Purgatory to Heaven at last So that supposing any persons to own Christianity to be true it is hard to conceive there should be more Artifices imagined to reconcile the Love of the pleasures of sin here with the hopes of Heaven at last than are used by those of your Profession So that if I should suppose my self a Heathen Philosopher and any of your Profession should come and tell me These were the Precepts and these the Promises of Christian Religion but I could believe none of them but by the Infallible proposition of your Church and that I was to know your Church Infallible by that Sanctity of life which was in it when I had throughly considered not only the impieties committed by the great ones of your Religion even in Rome in the first place but the Artifices used to enervate all the Precepts of real Sanctity and so plainly to see what interest and design is carried on under all these disguises I should be insuperably assaulted with the thoughts that those of your Religion who were the Authours of these things were so far from believing your Church Infallible that they really believed neither Christian nor any other Religion in the world So much for that Sanctity of life which is in your Chuch As for your other motives of Vnity Succession Antiquity and the name of Catholick c. they have so little affinity with any pretence of Infallibility and do equally agree to those Churches as the Greek and Abyssine which you are so far from acknowledging Infallible that you will not grant them to be true Churches notwithstanding these Motives that I cannot easily imagine to what end you produced them unless to let us see you had the gift of saying something though nothing to the purpose When you have thus apparently failed in producing any shadow of proof for your Churches Infallibility by these motives of credibility we now come to see how good you are at the defensive part who have been so unhappy in your Attempts Therefore we must consider what arts you use in putting by the force of those arguments which are produced against you by his Lordship After he had urged that question against you How it may appear that your Church is infallibly governed by the Holy Ghost to which we have seen how impossible it is for you to give any satisfactory answer he proceeds to another Argument which lies in these words Besides this is an inviolable ground of reason That the principles of any conclusion must be of more credit then the conclusion it self Therefore if the Articles of Faith the Trinity the Resurrection and the rest be the conclusions and the Principles by which they are proved be only Ecclesiastical Tradition it must needs follow that the tradition of the Church is more infallible then the Articles of Faith if the Faith which we have of the Articles should be finally resolved into the veracity of the Churches Testimony To this your Answer is very considerable 1. You tell us That the ground of all this discourse is the authority of Aristotle cited in the Margent which you repeat after him But I pray Whence learn'd you that this was all the ground of his discourse For his Lordship doth not say that Aristotle saith so and therefore it is so but saies That it is an inviolable ground of reason which words you prudently left out that there might appear some shadow for such a cavil and cites only the concurrent testimony of Aristotle with that evidence of reason which is in it And will you deny this to be an undoubted principle in reason that That which is assumed as the ground and reason why I assent to any thing must be more certain and evident then that is which I assent to on that ground Certainly you must have an art above all other men to make the superstructure stronger then the foundation the particular Problems in Mathematicks more evident then the Postulata the conclusion surer then the Premisses But you think to come off this absurdity 2. By distinguishing between Science and Faith or as you express it between the proceeding of the understanding when it works naturally and necessarily by and from the evidence and clearness of its object and when it works supernaturally and produceth supernatural and free acts meerly or at least principally from the impulse and inclination of the will for in such cases the Maxim holds not viz. That the principles of a Conclusion must be of more credit then the conclusion it self Now the act of believing is such an act that is which the understanding elicites rather by a voluntary and free inclination and consent of the will then from any evident certainty in the object whereto it assents A most judicious and profound discourse to which I know not whether ever I can perswade my will but I am sure I never shall my understanding Lest you should think it is only some impulse of my will which hinders my assent I shall fairly lay down the Reasons which keep me from it 1. That all assent of the understanding is grounded upon evidence 2. That however that evidence proceeds yet the Foundation of assent must be more evident then the thing assented to And these two I suppose will fully reach the scope of your Answer by shewing that your distinction of acts natural and supernatural is both untrue and impertinent 1. That all assent is grounded upon evidence i. e. that no man can assent to any thing meerly because he will but there must be sufficient reason inducing and perswading to that assent You acknowledge this to be true in acts of Knowledge but not of Faith but What do you make to be the genus in your definition of Faith I suppose you will say it is an assent of the mind If it be so the mind cannot be supposed to elicite an act of the same nature in so repugnant a manner to it self that it should assent to any thing without evidence I know what discourses those of your party have concerning the obscurity which is necessary to Faith If you mean obscurity as to the object believed i. e.
the proper actings of my Faculties I may judge such things to have connexions and depâ—ndencies one upon another which really have nothing so And therefore so far your distinction concerning Science and Faith will not hold But 2. If the meaning of this distinction be only this That there is a different proceeding in a demonstration from what there is in an act of Faith I deny it not but suppose it nothing to your purpose For though the evidence be discovered in a different way yet there is in both proportionable evidence to the nature of the Assent When I assent because I know that the thing is true the evidence of the thing it self is the ground of that Assent but when I assent upon the Authority of any person the Credibility of his Testimony is the evidence on which that Assent is grounded Though this latter evidence be of another kind yet it is sufficient for that act of the mind which is built upon it and that Testimony which I establish a firm Assent upon must be as evident in its kind i. e. of Credibility as the evidence of a thing demonstrable in the nature of a Demonstration 3. The main strength of your Answer seems to lye in this That in such an Assent as is built upon Authority as in the case of Faith when we do not immediately hear God speaking but it is conveyed to us by the Testimony of others it is necessary that this Testimony be infallible But good Sir this is not our present Question Whether it be necessary that this Testimony be infallibly conveyed to us but supposing such an infallible Conveyance Whether that infallible Testimony must not be more credible than the matters which are believed upon it But as though never any such thing had been started You give us a long discourse of the different proceeding of Science and Faith but never offer to apply it to the business in hand I must therefore ingenuously commend you for an excellent Art of gliding insensibly away from a business you cannot answer and casting out a great many words not to the purpose that you may seem to touch the matter when you are far enough from it And therefore I say Secondly That however the evidence proceeds in matters of Faith yet whatever is the Foundation of Assent must be more evident than the thing assented to Especially where you suppose the Assent to be infallible and the Testimony infallible which must ascertain it to us This will be plainer by an instance If I ask you Why you believe the Resurrection of the dead your Answer is because of the Authority of him that reveals it The next Question then is Why you believe that God hath revealed it your Answer is Because the Testimony of the Church is infallible which delivers it Whereby it is plain That though your first Answer be from God's Authority yet the last resolution of your Faith is the Infallibility of your Churches Testimony and that being the last resolution that Infallibility must be the Principle on which the belief of the rest depends For according to your Principles though God had revealed it yet if this Revelation were not attested by the infallible Testimony of your Church we should not have sufficient ground to believe it And if without that we can have no sufficient ground to believe then this Principle The Church is infallible must be more credible than the Resurrection of the dead Which was the Absurdity his Lordship charged upon you and you are far from being able to quit your self of The next thing which you busie your self much in answering of is That according to these Principles of resolution of Faith you make the Churches Testimony the formal Object of Faith which you acknowledge your self to be a great Absurdity and therefore make use of many shifts to avoid I shall reduce the substance of your verbose and immethodical Answer into as narrow a compass as I can without defalking any thing of the strength of it You tell us then That our Faith is resolved into God's Revelations whether written or unwritten as its Formal Object and our Infallible Assurance that the things we believe as God's Revelations are revealed from him is resolved into the Infallibility of the Churches Definitions teaching us that they are his Revelations And that the Formal Cause of our Assent in Divine Faith is God's Revelation delivered to the Church without writing but because that is as it were at distance from us it is approximated or immediately applied to us by the infallible Declaration of the present Church Hence it appears our Faith rests only upon God's Revelation as its Formal Object though the Churches Voice be a condition so necessary for its resting thereon that it can never attain that Formal Object without it And lastly you tell us The Churches Authority then being more known to us than the Scriptures may well be some reason of our admitting them yet the Scriptures still retain their prerogative above the Church and thence you distinguish of the certainty of the Object and Subject from all which you conclude That the Churches Definition is not the Formal Object of Faith but that our Faith relyes upon it as an Infallible Witness both of the written and unwritten Word of God which is the Formal Object This is the substance in your long Answer of what hath the face of reason and pertinency Which I come to a close and particular examination of And that you may not say I pass over this important Controversie without a through discussion of it I shall first prove that it necessarily follows from your Principles That the Churches Infallible Testimony must be the Formal Object of Faith And 2. That the Answers you give are far from being satisfactory that it is not 1. That it necessarily follows from your Principles That the Churches Infallible Testimony must be the Formal Object of Faith In order to which we must consider what the scope and design of this Discourse is concerning the Resolution of Faith The Question started by Mr. Fisher in the Conference was How his Lordship knew Scripture to be Scripture or How the Divine Authority of the Scriptures was to be proved To this his Lordship returns a large Answer to which you attempt a Reply in this Chapter and mention this to be the main Question How Scriptures may be known to be the Word of God To this you tell us No satisfactory Answer can be given but from the infallible Testimony of the Church and the great reason given by you in all your discourse is this That this is an Article to be believed with Divine Faith and Divine Faith must be built on an Infallible Testimony The Question then resulting hence is Whether on these Principles you do not make the Infallible Testimony of the Church the Formal Object of Faith You deny and we affirm it but before I come to the particular Evidences of the Cause
you believe the Revelation made by Christ to be Divine Your Answer must be either that your Churches Testimony gives you infallible Assurance of it and then the former Argument returns or else that Christ manifested his Testimony to be infallible and therefore his Revelation Divine because of the Motives of Credibility which accompanied his preaching If this be your Answer as it must be by your former discourse then by the same reason I prove your Churches Testimony to be the Formal Object of Faith because you have endeavoured to prove the Churches Infallibility by the same Motives of Credibility that Moses and Christ proved theirs Either therefore retract all your former discourse or else confess that by the same reason that the Divine Revelation made by Christ is the Formal Object of Faith the infallible Testimony of your Church must be so too For according to your own supposition there are equal Motives of Credibility and therefore equal obligation to believe the Infallibility of one as of the other 3. If the only reason which makes any thing be the Formal Object agrees to the Testimony of your Church then that Testimony must be the Formal Object of Faith to them that believe it Now that which is the only reason which makes any thing to be the Formal Object of Faith is the Supposition that it is infallible For why do you resolve your Faith finally into Divine Revelation Is it not because you suppose God to be infallible in all Revelations of himself and therefore if your Church be infallible as you say it is by the same reason that must be the Formal Object of Faith as if it were by the revelation of God himself But here you think to obviate this objection by some strange distinctions concerning your Infallibility You tell us therefore The Churches Infallibility is not absolutely and simply Divine or that God speaks immediately by her Definitions but only that she is supernaturally infallible by the assistance of the Holy Ghost preserving her from all errour in defining any thing as a point of Christian Faith that is as a Truth revealed from God which is not truly and really so revealed A rare Distinction this You say afterwards The Churches Definition is absolutely infallible but yet this Infallibility is not absolutely and simply Divine I pray tell us What is it then You say It is Supernatural but not Divine and this Supernatural Infallibility by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost securing from all errour but yet not absolutely and precisely Divine I pray tell us What kind of Infallibility that was which the Apostles had in delivering the Doctrine of Christ was that any more than such a Supernatural Infallibility as you fondly arrogate to your Church viz. such a one as might secure them from all errour in defining any thing as a point of Christian Faith which was not so that is as a Truth revealed from God which was not truly and really so revealed And yet I suppose you will not deny but those who lived in the Apostles times might resolve their Faith into that Infallibility which they had as its Formal Object and therefore why not as well into your Churches Infallibility since you pretend to as great Infallibility in your Church as ever was in the Apostles Thus I hope I have shewn it impossible for you not to make the Churches Testimony the Formal Object of Faith since you make it infallible as you do 2. We come now to consider the little evasions and distinctions whereby you hope to get out of this Labyrinth But having so manifestly proved that it follows from your Principles That the Churches Testimony is the Formal Object of Faith all your distinctions fall of themselves for thereby it appears that your Churches Testimony is not meerly a necessary Condition of believing but is the Formal Cause and Reason of it therefore your instance of approximation in natural Causes is nothing to the purpose No more is that of a Commonwealth's practising the same Laws being an Argument that those were its primitive Laws Unless you suppose it impossible 1. That a Common-wealth should ever alter its Laws Or 2. That it should practise contrary to its primitive Laws Or 3. That it should be supernaturally Infallible in judging which are primitive Laws and which not without these Suppositions I say That Instance signifies nothing to the business in hand and when you have proved these true I will give you a further Answer Your Answer to Aristotles Text or rather to that undoubted Maxim of Reason with which the citation of Aristotle concurred hath been considered already Your Answer to the Testimony of Canus is like the rest of your discourse trivial and not to the purpose for Canus doth not only deny the Churches Testimony to be the Formal Object of Faith but the necessity of believing its Testimony to be infallible Non intelligitur necessariò quod credo docenti Ecclesiae tanquam testi infallibili are the very words of the Testimony cited in the Margin of his Lordships Books Your next Section affords us some more words but not one drachm more of reason For How do you prove that the Churches Authority is more known to us than the Scriptures or How can you make it appear that there is any Authority but what is relative to us and therefore the distinction is in it self silly of Authority in se quoad nos For whatever hath Authority hath thereby a respect to some it hath its Authority over And Can any thing be a ground of Faith simply and in it self which is not so towards us For the Formal Object of Faith is that for whose sake we believe and therefore if Divine Revelation be as you say the Formal Object of Faith then it must be more known to us than the Testimony of the Church For that must be more known to us which is the main cause of Believing But if all your meaning be that we must first know what the Church delivers for Scripture before we can judge whether it were divinely revealed or no I grant it to be true but what is this to your Infallibility Will you prove the Infallibility of your Church to be more known to us than that of the Scriptures and on supposition that were true can you then prove that the Scriptures should still retain their prerogative above the Church What your Authors distinguish concerning objective and subjective Certainty pertains not to this place for the worth and dignity of the Scriptures may exceed that of Tradition yet when the knowledge of that worth relyes on that Tradition your esteem of the one must be according to your esteem of the other I will not here enquire Whether the adhesion of the Will can exceed the clearness of the Vnderstanding nor Whether Aristotle was unacquainted with subjective Certainty nor Whether our adhesion to Articles of Faith be stronger than to any Principles evident to natural
Reason For I look upon all these Assertions to serve you in no other capacity than as excursions from the matter in hand and therefore I shall not gratifie you so far as particularly to examine them For all then that hath been yet produced by you his Lordships Argument remains good that according to your Principles the Churches Testimony must be made the Formal Object of Faith and I am the more confirmed in it by the weakness of your evasions and I hope I have now made good those words which you challenge his Lordship for That it were no hard thing to prove it The next Absurdity charged upon you by his Lordship is That all the Authorities of Fathers Councils nay of Scripture too must be finally resolved into the Authority of the present Roman Church And though they would seem to have us believe the Fathers and the Church of old yet they will not have us take their Doctrine from their own writings or the Decrees of Councils because as they say We cannot know by reading them what their meaning was but from the infallible Testimony of the present Roman Church teaching by Tradition And this he tells you is the cunning of this devise To which you answer By what hath been said it appears That there is no device or cunning at all either in taking away any thing due to the Fathers Councils or Scripture or in giving too much to the Tradition of the present Church For we acknowledge all due respect to the Fathers and as much to speak modestly as any of our adversaries party But they must pardon us if we prefer the general interpretation of the present Church before the result of any mans particular Phansie As for Scripture we ever extol it above the Definitions of the Church yet affirm it to be in many places so obscure that we cannot be certain of its true sense without the help of a living infallible Judge to determine and declare it which can be no other than the present Church And what we say of Scripture may with proportion be applied to Ancient General Councils For though we willingly submit to them all yet where they happen to be obscure in matters requiring Determination we seek the assistance and direction of the same living Infallible Rule viz. the Tradition or the Sentence of the present Church The Question is Supposing your Churches Testimony to be infallible without which we can have no Assurance of what Fathers Scriptures and Councils say What Authority remains among you to any or all of these And it is not what respect you tell us you give them for you may as easily speak as believe contradictions but what is really left to them if your Opinion concerning the present Churches Infallibility be true And he that cannot see the cunning of this Device of resolving all into the Authority of the present Roman Church will never understand the interest of your Church but it seems you apprehend it so much as not to seem to do it and have too much cunning to confess it But this must not be so easily passed over this being one of the grand Artifices of your Church to make a great noise with Fathers Scriptures and Councils among those most who understand them least when your selves resolve them all into the present Churches Testimony Which is first to gagge them and then bid them speak First For the Fathers you say You acknowledge all due respect to them but the Question is What kind of respect that is which can be due to them when let them speak their minds never so plainly and agree in what they please and deliver what they will as the Judgement of the Church yet all this can give us no Assurance at all on your Principles unless your Church doth infallibly determine the same way What then do the Fathers signifie with you Doth the Infallibility of your Churches Definition depend on the consent of the Fathers No you tell us She is supernaturally assisted by the Holy Ghost and if so I suppose the judgement of the Fathers is not that which she relyes on But it may be you will say This supernatural Assistance directs the Church to that which was the Judgement of the Fathers in all Ages This were something indeed if it could be proved But then I would never read the Fathers to know what their mind is but aske your Church what they meant And though your Church delivers that as their sense which is as opposite as may be both to their words and judgements yet this is part of the respect due to them not to believe whatever they say themselves but what your Church tells us they say A most compendious way for interpreting Fathers and making them sure not to speak any thing against your Church Therefore I cannot but commend the ingenuity of Cornelius Mussus the Bishop of Bitonto who spake that out which more wary men are contented onely to think Ego ut ingenuè fatear plus uni summo Pontitifici crediderim in his quae mysteria fidei tangunt quà m mille Augustinis Hieronymis Gregoriis That I may deal freely saith he I would sooner believe the Pope in matters of Faith than a thousand Augustines Hieromes and Gregories Bravely said and like a man that did heartily believe the Pope's Infallibility And yet no more than every one will be forced to do that understands the Consequence of his own Principles And therefore Alphonsus à Castro was not to be blamed for preferring an Epistle of Anacletus though counterfeit because Pope before Augustine Hierome or any other however holy or learned These men understood themselves and the interest of their Church And although the rest of them make finer leggs to the Fathers than these do yet when they seem to cross their way and entrench upon their Church they find not much kinder entertainment for them We may guess at the rest by two of them men of great note in their several waies the one for Controversies the other for his Commentaries viz. Bellarmine and Maldonate and let us see when occasion serves how rudely they handle the Fathers If S. Cyprian speaks against Tradition it was saith Bellarmine In defence of his errour and therefore no wonder if he argued after the manner of erroneous persons If he opposeth Stephen the Bishop of Rome in the business of Rebaptization He seemeth saith he To have erred mortally in it If S. Ambrose pronounce Baptism in the name of Christ to be valid without the naming other Persons in the Trinity Bellarmine is not afraid to say That in his judgement his Opinion is false If S. Chrysostome saith That it is better not to be present at the Eucharist than to be present and not receive it I say saith Bellarmine That Chrysostome as at other times went beyond his bounds in saying so If S. Augustine expound a place of Scripture not to his mind
he tells him roundly He did not throughly consider what he said Do not these things argue that due respect they had for the Fathers so long as they think they can make them serve their turns then Who but the Fathers If they appear refractory and will not serve as hewers of wood and drawers of water to them then Who are the Fathers it is the Churches judgement they rely on and not the Fathers And therefore they never want waies themselves of eluding all the Testimonies produced out of them If they cannot say those Testimonies are forged as some of them say it without any shew of reason concerning that part of the Epistle of Epiphanius about the tearing the vail in which an Image was painted at Anablatha And as Bellarmine answers concerning the Author of the imperfect work on Matthew because he saith There is no way to the finding Truth but reading the Scriptures he therefore saith This whole place was inserted by the Arrians as though that had been any part of the Controversie between the Arrians and others If Origen or Cyril on Leviticus saith It is necessary to follow the Scriptures then an Answer is ready That these Homilies are of no great Authority but if these will serve to defend the Apocrypha if they speak of the Obscurity of Scripture if they mention the observation of Lent if they speak of any thing tending to Auricular Confession or Pennance then they are good and authentick enough Thus the price of the Fathers rises and falls according to their Vse like Slaves in the market If yet the Fathers seem to deliver their judgements peremptorily in a matter contrary to the present sense of their Church then either they speak it in the heat of disputation or if not they were contradicted by others as good as they if many of them concurr yet it was but their private judgement not the sense of the Catholick Church which they delivered Still we see the rate the Fathers stand at is their agreement with the present Roman-Church if they differ from this they were Men like others and might be deceived only the Pope is infallible or at least the present Roman-Church For if Hilary Gregory Nyssen Chrysostome Cyril Augustine and others say That Christ when he said Vpon this Rock will I build my Church understood Peter's Confession or himself Nihil magis alienum à sensu Christi cogitari potuit saith Maldonate Nothing could be more incongruous than what they say And in the next words tell us That all the Ancient Writers except Hilary expounded the gates of Hell one way but he gives another sense of them The same liberty he takes in very many other places By which we have a tast of that due respect which you owe to the Fathers which is To value them as far as they concurr with your Church and no more otherwise they are but the results of mens particular phancies and not to be compared with the infallible Judgement of your Church But though it may not be so evident that you give so great respect to the Fathers yet it is notorious what reverence you shew to the sacred Scriptures As for Scripture say you we ever extol it above the Definitions of the Church What ever Do you think we have forgot the brave comparisons which have been made by your Writers to shew the respect you bear to the Scriptures Is it not much for the honour of the Scriptures to be said to have no more Authority than Aesops Fables without the Testimony of the Church Did not those extoll it above the Church who call'd it A Nose of Wax And were not these some of you Doth not Bellarmine profess his high esteem of the Scriptures when he saith That the Scripture is no more to be believed in saying It is from God than Mahomets Alcoran because that saies so too Did not Caranza preferr the Scripture before the Church when he said That the Scripture must be regulated by the Church and not the Church by the Scripture I need not mention Eckius his Evangelium nigrum and Theologia atramentaria Pighius his plumbea Lesbiae regula Valentia his Lapis Offensionis Bellarmin's Commonitorium utile which and many others are remaining Testimonies of that monstruous esteem which those of your party have of the sacred Scriptures But if the esteem you have of the Scriptures be so great Why lock you them up so carefully from the people in an unknown language Is it lest such Jewels should lose their lustre by too often using Why are you so severe against your Proselytes reading them Is it because you would not cast Pearls before Swine But still you extol the Scripture above the Definitions of the Church How is that possible when you tell us The only Authority it hath is from the Churches Testimony For the Authority of it supposeth it to be acknowledged for a Divine Revelation and that you tell us we can have no Assurance of but from your Churches Definition And we had thought that which gave Credit and Authority had been greater than that which received it There can be then little reason to take your word in a case of this nature when your very next words give so palpable a reason to the contrary For you suppose the Scripture unable to express it self to any intent or purpose unless your Church be the Interpreter For the Scripture say you being in many places obscure we cannot be certain of its true sense without the help of a living and infallible Judge to determine and declare it which can be no other than the present Church I answer 1. Your meaning is not so plain but that it wants the interpretation of your Church too For what do you understand by the Scriptures being in many places obscure Is it only that there are some passages which have their difficulties in them But what is this to the purpose unless you could prove that this obscurity is such as hinders it from being a Rule of Faith and Manners If you prove that you do something The Scripture we acknowledge hath its difficulties in it but not such as hinder the great design God intended it for no more than the maculae which are in the Sun hinder it from giving light to the world or some crabbed pieces in our Laws hinder them from being owned as the Laws of the Land 2. Are those places obscure or no which speak of the Churches Infallibility at least such as you produce for it afterwards This is evident that there are no places whose sense is more controverted than theirs Can these then be understood without a living and infallible Judge or no If they may so as we may be certain of their true sense then why not all others which concern the Rule of Faith and manners whose sense is far less disputed than of these If not then we must suppose a living and infallible
Judge before we know whether there is such a one or no For that is the thing enquired after in the meaning of these places and you say We cannot be certain of their sense without him so that we must first suppose the thing to be true and then prove it or else you run back again into your old Labyrinth How know you that God hath promised there shall be such an infallible Judge By such places say you as you produce for it Well but the Scripture being in many places obscure How shall I be certain this is the true sense of them You say because the present Church is the living and infallible Judge to determine and declare it Do not you herein argue like a man that can square Circles 3. In those places whose sense you say is so obscure Where hath God made it necessary for us to have the certain sense of them You can have no pretence for all this for an infallible Judge unless you could make it evident that God hath left no mysteries in his Word but he hath left your Church a Key to unlock them and therefore I hope there is a Clavis Apocalyptica too hanging at your Churches Girdle It is true indeed your Church is happily instrumental in explaining a mystery spoken of in Scripture but not much for your comfort it is a mystery of Iniquity But in good earnest do you think That God hath promised a living and infallible Judge to make us certain of the sense of obscure places in Scripture Then two things will necessarily follow from thence 1. That it must be necessary that all those that believe this infallible Judge must know the certain sense of these obscure places 2. That this infallible Judge must give the certain sense of these places But then Why hath your present Church so neglected her Talent this way that she hath not decided all the Controversies concerning the difficiliora loca Such a Commentary as this were worth inquiring after But yet supposing your Church had done this Could we be more certain of the sense of your Church then we are now of the Scriptures I will suppose your Church so charitable as to put so useful a thing in writing for the general good of the world But all Writings you tell us are obscure and want a living Judge to interpret them and so consequently must that and so in infinitum But 4. All this while it is worth understanding how you preferr the Scripture before the Church when you make the Church the living and infallible Judge to interpret the Scriptures You make the Scripture a deâ—d Letter but your Church is a living Judge you make the sense of Scripture obscure uncertain and therefore giving occasion to all the errours in the world but your Church is infallible to determine all Controversies and yet for all this you preferr the Scripture before the Church It is plain you do not in regard of evidence and certainty and one would have thought these had been the greatest Excellencies of a Rule of Faith Do you preferr it as such before your Church If not you deny it the peculiar property and design of it and therefore whatever else you attribute to it you are guilty of the highest disparagement of it Just as if one should commend a Mathematicians Square for the materials of it or the Excellency of the Figures engraven on it but in the mean time tell him It is oblique crooked uncertain and he cannot draw a straight line by it Do you think he would believe you commended his Square Just so do you commend the Scriptures and can you then imagine that any rational man will believe that you do preferr the Scriptures before the present Church It is next to be considered what respect remains due to general Councils if the present Church be supposed infallible For say you though you willingly submit to them all yet where they happen to be obscure in matters requiring Determination we seek the assistance and direction of the same living infallible Rule viz. the Tradition or the Sentence of the present Church But 1. You say You submit to them all but Do you submit to them all as infallible or no which you must of necessity do or else apparently contradict your self which yet is no novelty for you to do for you spend a great deal of pains to prove general Councils infallible and therefore I hope you own them as infallible your self If you own them to be infallible what need of the sentence of the present Church as to those Decrees which you already acknowledge infallible Or do you really own them no further to be infallible than as they agree with the sentence of the present Church and then I pray What doth the pretended Infallibility of general Councils signifie if your Church give all the Authority to them And what consents with your Church is infallible and what doth not is far from being so 2. You say General Councils may happen to be obscure in matters requiring Determination Do you mean in things decreed by them or not If not it is no wonder if they be obscure in matters they never meddle with therefore I suppose you mean in things determined by them Then I further ask Whether these Decrees of general Councils were the Sentence of the present Church to those who lived in the time of those Councils If they were How could the Sentence of the present Church declare and determine the sense of what is obscure in Scripture if notwithstanding this Determination the Sentence of the Church remains as obscure as the sense of the Scripture If it was not obscure then but is so now Whence comes that obscurity the Sentence of the Council is supposed to be written then that those who were not present at it might understand the Decree of it and it is supposed we have the very same Authentical Decrees of Councils which they had who lived in the several Ages of them How come they then to be more obscure to us than they were to them 3. What do you mean by matters requiring Determination Is it not enough that things be infallibly determined once but they must be determined over again If the former Determination were infallible what need any more or doth the Infallibility cease as soon as the Church ceaseth to be the present Church and then that which comes to be the present Church must convey an Infallibility into it but how comes any thing which was once infallible to lose its Infallibility which is a thing really so obscure that your present Church would do well to help us out in it But if notwithstanding all your pretence of the Infallibility of general Councils nothing is truly to be owned as such but what agrees with the Sentence of the present Church then we plainly see what reverence you shew to all general Councils even as much as the present Church will let you and no more
easie that she can do it without arguments or reasons 5. Are men bound to believe what she so declares without arguments and reasons too If they be shew whence that Obligation comes and when you attempt that you endeavour to shew some argument and reason why they should believe it 6. What do you mean that these arguments reasons and words are not absolutely speaking matters of Faith it should seem then that conditionally they may be so and then shew the difference between them and those in Scripture 7. How is it possible for us to assent to any thing as a matter of Faith if we do not first assent to the arguments reasons and words by which you would perswade us to believe the thing to be declared by the Church and what is declared by the Church is true 8. Whether when you say That in the Scripture every word and tittle is matter of Faith at least implicitely and necessarily to be believed by all that knew it to be a part of Scripture this will not equally hold as to the Church too that every word and tittle is matter of Faith at least implicitely to all that know it to be a part of the Churches Definition And where then lyes the prerogative of Scripture above the Church Besides you tell us The Church hath certain limits and can define nothing but what was either revealed before or hath such connexion with it as it may be rationally and logically deduced from it as appertaining to the Declaration and Defence of that which was before revealed That herein you consult much for the honour of the Scripture above the Church will appear when you have answered these Queries 1. When the belief and sense of Scripture depend according to you upon the Churches Testimony Whether hath more limits the Church or Scripture For whatever is in Scripture must as to us haâ—e its Authority from the Church and therefore your Church sets what bounds she please as to things revealed in Scripture 2. Who shall be Judge whether your Church define nothing but what was revealed before when according to you we can have no assurance as to any Divine Revelation but from the Judgement of your Church 3. When your Church defines things to be matters of Faith which we think are not only not logically and rationally deduced from Scripture but plainly repugnant to it How can we believe that she doth not pretend to reveal something which was not revealed before 4. Is that rational and logical deduction from Scripture sufficient to perswade any rational man or no If not Why use you those terms if it be What need your Churches Definition in a thing that is obvious to any ones reason 5. Must we believe your Church absolutely as to what is rationally and logically deduced from Scripture If so then when she declares her own Infallibility we must believe that to be rationally deduced because she declares it 6. Doth your Church make use of Logick and Reason in her deductions then Why may not every one else unless she hath only the gift of Logick and Reason which I suppose you will say is but in a manner and after a sort Moreover say you The Church hath the receiving and interpreting Scripture for its end and consequently is in that respect inferiour to it But for whose end do you mean the Churches or the Scriptures end If the latter Shew us how any end of Scripture is attained by your Churches interpretation if you mean the Churches end I verily believe you that your Church pretends to the receiving and interpreting Scripture for her own ends and consequently in that respect she makes the Scripture inferiour to her Here again we meet with another piece of your Errantry in attempting to vindicate your Doctrine from the enchantment of another contradiction You say You hold it necessary that we are to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God upon Divine Authority and yet you tell us That the Churches Authority on which we are to believe the Scriptures is but in some sort and after a manner Divine This seems to have a huge resemblance to a Contradiction or else you must say That it is not necessary that we believe the Scriptures on a simply Divine Authority but only on such a one as is in some sort and after a manner Divine For if you make the same Authoririty to be Divine absolutely in your pretence and only after a sort in your Application you reach not the thing you promised If there be not as you say any necessity of defending the Churches Authority to be simply Divine in answering that Question How we know Scripture to be Scripture then there can be no necessity of asserting that we are bound to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God upon Divine Authority Which yet is your assertion before but yet you would fain distinguish between that which is absolutely infallible and divine the Churches Authority you say must be the former but cannot be the latter when yet this Infallibility is as you again tell us By the promised assistance of the Holy Ghost These are fit hedges to keep in Cuckows but none else But as you are still off and on sometimes seeming to go forward and then stepping back again sometimes answering sometimes proving which are great arguments of a disturbed mind or a being in a Labyrinth which you take many steps in but can find no way out of lest you should seem not sufficiently to contradict your self You go about to prove That the Authority teaching Scripture to be the Word of God must be absolutely infallible If you prove that I will undertake to prove it must be simply Divine But let us see however how irrefragably you prove it And the immediate Reason Why the Authority teaching Scripture to be the Word of God must be absolutely infallible is because it is an Article of Christian Faith that all those Books which the Church hath defined for Canonical Scripture are the Word of God and seeing every Article of Faith must be revealed or taught by Divine Authority this also must be revealed and consequently no Authority less than Divine is sufficient to move us to believe it as an Article of Faith But 1. Is it not possible for you to utter so many words without a contradiction Were you not just before distinguishing that Authority which is Divine from that which is absolutely infallible and but in a manner and after a sort Divine And yet here that Authority which you call absolutely infallible in the former part of your Argument in the last you explain it No Authority less than Divine Doth it not then follow that an Authority absolutely infallible is an Authority no less than Divine But to let that pass among the rest of his Brethren 2. Why take you this needless pains to prove that which you say before You and your Adversary are agreed in 3. Supposing you
should meet with some who should question this as it is probable you may do before we part I think it no difficult thing to answer this Argument of yours which in short is Every Article of Faith must be believed upon Divine Authority but that the Scriptures are the Word of God is an Article of Faith To which I answer If by an Article of Faith you mean that we must give an undoubted assent to then I grant that this is an Article of Faith but deny that every such Article must be believed upon Divine Authority if by an Article of Faith you mean something to be believed upon Divine Testimony then I grant that every such Article must be built on Divine Authority but shall desire you to prove that that Faith whereby I believe Scripture to be Scripture must be built on a Divine Testimony For I cannot see how any who say so can free themselves from a Circle and of all persons you have the least reason to say so for you deny the Churches Testimony to be properly Divine and withall the Argument is very easily retorted upon your self For say you Whatsoever is an Article of Faith must be believed on Divine Authority but that the Church is infallible I suppose to you is an Article of Faith Name therefore what Divine Authority the belief of that is built upon But Do not you say the belief of that is built on the Motives of Credibility and I suppose you distinguish them from Divine Authority or else they can do you no service for avoiding the Circle Either therefore deny that your Churches Infallibility is an Article of Faith or else deny it to be necessary that every Article of Faith must be built on Divine Authority and then farewell your old friends the Motives of Credibility or else you see how necessary it is for you if you will vindicate your self from contradiction to answer this Argument and when you have done so you will believe I did not much dread the force of it The rest of that Paragraph is a bare Repetition the fourth or fifth time of your distinction about the Formal Object of Faith and the infallible Assurance of it which is a thing in it self so incongruous and unreasonable that I had thoughts mean enough of you when I met with it first but have much meaner now I meet with it so often for I see as pitiful a shift as it is you have no other to make use of on all occasions His Lordship goes on to prove that since it is confessed between him and his Adversary That we must be able to prove the Scriptures to be the Word of God by some Authority that is absolutely Divine this Authority cannot be that of the Church For the Church consists of men subject to errour and all the parts being all liable to mistaking and fallible the whole cannot possibly be infallible in and of it self and priviledged from being deceived in some things or other To this you answer His Lordship's Argument that the whole may erre because every part may erre is disproved by himself because in Fundamentals he grants the whole Church cannot erre and yet that any particular man may erre even in those points But is it not plain that his Lordship's design is to prove that if all the parts are fallible the Authority of the whole cannot be simply Divine and therefore he saith himself that in Fundamentals in which the Vniversal Church cannot erre her Authority is not Divine because the Church is tyed to the use of means You must therefore prove that when every part is acknowledged fallible the Authority of the whole in propounding any thing to be believed can be infallible in and of it self I cannot therefore understand how the perfection of Infallibility in the proposition of any Object to be believed can be applied to the whole Church when every particular member of it in such a Proposition is supposed to be fallible The Arch-Bishop therefore tells you That there is special immediate Revelation requisite to the very least degree of Divine Authority to avoid which you would fain prove that there may be absolute Infallibility without Divine Authority and immediate Assistance of the Holy Ghost in delivering Objects of Faith without immediate Revelation You tell us therefore Though the Church use means yet she receives not her Infallibility from them but from the Assistance of the Holy Ghost which makes her Definitions truly infallible though they be not new Revelations But How do you prove that any thing but an immediate Divine Revelation can make such a Divine Testimony which is supposed necessary for the belief of Scripture to be Scripture How can you make it appear that there can be Infallibility in the Conclusion where there was not Infallibility in judging of the Truth of the Premises You say By the Assistance of the Holy Ghost But why should you not believe such an Assiance in the one as well as the other If therefore you assert that the Spirit of God doth not assist infallibly in the use of the means but only in the conclusion then it must be an immediate Revelation for what else it should be is not intelligible For I had thought the Revelation had been immediate when somewhat more was discovered than all use of means could attain to therefore the Churches Infallibility must be a meer Enthusiasm No say you Because it only declares what was formerly revealed Though that be a Question among some of your selves yet supposing it to be so it clears not the business For suppose that God had supernaturally assisted the Vnderstanding of any Prophet in declaring a Prophecy which had been revealed before Would not this have been as immediate a Revelation to that Prophet as if it had been a New Prophecy And the case is the same here for though you say the Material Objects of Faith be revealed before yet we cannot know the Formal Object of Faith without your Churches declaration so that on your Principles there cannot lye an Obligation to Faith on us without your Churches Definition and therefore that is as necessary to us as immediate Revelation and to the Church it self when you say The Infallibility proceeds so immediately from God that if the Church should fall into errour that would be ascribed to God as much as in case of Divine Revelation What difference can you make between them For it is not Whether the Object be new or old which makes an immediate Revelation but the immediate Impression of it on the understanding For if the Spirit of God doth immediately discover to any one a thing knowable by natural causes is it any thing the less an immediate Divine Revelation So it must be in things already revealed if the same things be discovered in an immediate infallible manner to the mind of any the Revelation is as immediate as if they had never been revealed before Your last Paragraph affords
us still more evidence of your self-contradicting faculty for which we need no more than lay your words together Your words next before were If the Church should fall into errour it would be as much ascribed to God himself as in case of immediate Divine Revelation but here you add Neither is it necessary for us to affirm that the Definition of the Church is God's immediate Revelation as if the Definition were false God's Revelation must be also such It is enough for us to averr that God's Promise would be infringed as truly it would in that Supposition From which we may learn very useful instructions 1. That God's Promise may he infringed and yet God's Revelation not proved to be false But whence came that Promise Was it not a Divine Revelation if it was undoubtedly such Can such a Promise be false and not God's Revelation 2. That though if the Church erre God must be fallible yet for all this all God's Revelations may remain infallible 3. That though the only ground of Infallibility be the immediate Assistance of the Holy Ghost which gives as great an Infallibility as ever was in Prophets and Apostles yet we must not say That such an Infallibility doth suppose an immediate Revelation 4. That though God's Veracity would be destroyed if the Church should define any thing for a point of Catholick Faith which were not revealed from God which are your next words yet we are not to think if her Definition be false God's Revelation must be also such which are your words foregoing Those are excellent Corollaries to conclude so profound a discourse with And if the Bishop as you say had little reason to accuse you for maintaining a party I am sure I have less to admire you for your seeking Truth and what ever animosity you are led by I hope I have made it evident you are led by very little reason CHAP. VI. Of the Infallibility of Tradition Of the unwritten Word and the necessary Ingredients of it The Instances for it particularly examined and disproved The Fathers Rule for examining Traditions No unwritten Word the Foundation of Divine Faith In what sense Faith may be said to be Divine Of Tradition being known by its own light and the Canon of the Scripture The Testimony of the Spirit how far pertinent to this Controversie Of the use of reason in the resolution of Faith T. C ' s. Dialogue answered with another between himself and a Sceptick A twofold resolution of Faith into the Doctrine and into the Books Several Objections answered from the Supposition made of a Child brought up without sight of Scripture Christ no Ignoramus nor Impostor though the Church be not infallible T. C ' s. Blasphemy in saying otherwise The Testimonies of Irenaeus and S. Augustin examined and retorted Of the nature of infallible Certainty as to the Canon of Scripture and whereon it is grounded The Testimonies produced by his Lordship vindicated YOu begin this Chapter with as much confidence as if you had spoken nothing but Oracles in the foregoing Whether the Bishop or you were more hardly put to it let any indifferent Reader judge If he did as you say tread on the brink of a Circle we have made it appear notwithstanding all your evasions that you are left in the middle of it The reason of his falling on the unwritten Word is not his fear of stooping to the Church to shew it him and finally depend on her Authority but to shew the unreasonableness of your proceedings who talk much of an unwritten Word and are not able to prove any such thing If he will not believe any unwritten Word but what is shewn him delivered by the Prophets and Apostles I think he hath a great deal of reason for such incredulity unless you could shew him some assurance of any unwritten Word that did not come from the Apostles Though he desired not to read unwritten Words in their Books which is a wise Question you ask yet he reasonably requested some certain evidence of what you pretend to be so that he might not have so big a Faith as to swallow into his belief that every thing which his adversary saies is the unwritten Word is so indeed If it be not your desire he should we have the greater hopes of satisfaction from you but if you crave the indifferent Reader 's Patience till he hear reason from you I am afraid his patience will be tyred before you come to it But whatever it is it must be examined Though your discourse concerning this unwritten Word be as the rest are very confused and immethodical yet I conceive the design and substance of it lyes in these particulars as will appear in the examination of them 1. That there is an unwritten Word which must be believed by us containing such doctrinal Traditions as are warranted by the Church for Apostolical 2. That the ground of believing this unwritten Word is from the Infallibility of the Church which defines it to be so 3. That our belief of the Scriptures must be grounded on such an unwritten Word which is warranted by the Church under each of these I shall examine faithfully what belongs to them in your indigested discourse The first of these is taken from your own words where you tell us That our Ensurancer in the main Principle of Faith concerning the Scriptures being the Word of God is Apostolical Tradition and well may it be so for such Tradition declared by the Church is the unwritten Word of God And you after tell us That every Doctrine which any particular person may please to call Tradition is not therefore to be received as God's unwritten Word but such doctrinal Traditions only as are warranted to us by the Church for truly Apostolical which are consequently God's unwritten Word So that these three things are necessary ingredients of this unwritten Word 1. That it must be originally Apostolical and not only so but it must be of Divine Revelation to the Apostles too For otherwise it cannot be God's Word at all and therefore not his unwritten Word I quarrel not at all with you for speaking of an unwritten Word if you could prove it for it is evident to me that God's Word is no more so by being written or printed than if it were not so for the writing adds no Authority to the Word but only is a more certain means of conveying it to us It is therefore God's Word as it proceeds from him and that which is now his written Word was once his unwritten Word but however whatever is God's Word must come from him and since you derive the source of the unwritten Word from the Apostles whatever you call an unwritten Word you must be sure to derive its pedegree down from them So that insisting on that point of time when this was declared and owned for an unwritten Word you must be able to shew that it came from the Apostles otherwise it
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
before conclusions there is little hopes of your being a true Roman Catholick But I must tell you this is not the way You must first believe the Church and then you may believe any thing Scept But would you have me attain Infallible certainty without any reason that is Infallible But because you quarrel with my method I will yield to yours but let me desire to know first What those things are which I must believe upon this Infallibility and then Whether nothing short of this Infallible certainty will serve in order to Faith for if so I must confess my self not only a Sceptick but an Infidel T. C. All objects of Faith must be believed with Infallible certainty and nothing short of that can be true Faith for true Divine Faith must rely on Divine Authority or some Word of God now because you cannot rely on Gods written Word for the Divine Authority of it self you must rely on some Divine unwritten Word which can be no other but what is delivered by the Infallible Testimony of the present Roman Church Scept I was in hopes you intended my cure but now I perceive you aim at making me worse for I never heard so many things uttered in a breath with so great confidence and so little shew of reason that if I were not a Sceptick already I should commence one now You tell me indeed very magisterially that I cannot believe without Infallibility because Faith must rely on a Divine Testimony this Divine Testimony is not in Scripture as you call it but in the Infallibility of your present Roman Church I find my doubts so increase by this discourse of yours that they all croud so to get out I know not how to propose them in order but as well as I can You tell me the ground why you require Infallible certainty is because Faith must rest on Divine Authority and that this Authority must be that of your Church which you say is Infallible these things therefore I desire of you first to shew how your Churches Authority comes to be Divine 2. How her Testimony comes to be Infallible 3. How I may be Infallibly certain of this Infallibility 4. Supposing the Catholick Churches Testimony to be so how such a Sceptick as I am should know your Roman Church to be that Catholick Church T. C. Your first question is How our Churches Authority comes to be Divine I see there is little hopes of doing good on you that ask such questions as these are you ought quietly to submit your Faith to the Church and heartily believe all these things without questioning them for I must tell you such kind of questions have almost ruined us and hath made scrupulous men turn Hereticks and others Atheists but since I hope your questions may go no further then my answers nor be any better understood I must tell you That though we say that it is necessary that Divine Faith must rely on Divine Authority because that seems to promise Infallibility yet when we come to our Churches Testimony we dare not for fear of the Hereticks call it Divine but Infallible and in a manner and after a sort Divine hoping they would never take notice of any Contradiction in it but still we say As far as concerns precise Infallibility it is so truly supernatural and certain that it comes nothing short of the Divinest Testimony but yet this is not Divine though it be by the Testimony of the Holy Ghost and yet is no immediate revelation but still it is so much as if the Church should erre Gods veracity may be called in question assoon as the Churches Scept I took you for a Priest before but now I take you for an absolute conjurer but I confess I like this discourse well for I perceive your Religion is built on such grounds as you never intend should be understood wherein I commend your discretion for these distinctions will doubtless do your work among silly and ignorant people which are a great part of mankind and much the greatest of your Church I am therefore infinitely satisfied with this answer to my first question answer but the rest so and I promise you to be less a Sceptick then ever I was T. C. to your second How her Testimony comes to be Infallible because I perceive you are an understanding person I will acquaint you with our way The Hereticks trouble us with this question above all others for they presently cry out If you know the Scripture to be Infallible by the Church and the Church Infallible by Scripture we run into a Circle and this we know as well as they but do not think fit to let the people know it and therefore we tell them of things being known in themselves and to us between the formal object and the Infallible witness between the principal cause and a condition prerequisite between proving of it to Hereticks and to our selves but I see some of my brethren of late have been much beholding to some things with vizards upon them called Motives of credibility and the generality are so frighted with them that they will rather say they are satisfied then ask any more questions but if they do these do so little in truth belong to our Church that then we storm and sweat and cry out upon them as Atheists and that it is impossible they should believe any Religion who question them and if that doth it not then we patter over the former distinctions as we do our prayers and hope they are both in an unknown tongue Scept Well I see you are the man like to give me satisfaction I pray to your third question How I may be Infallibly certain of this Infallibility T.C. that is a question never asked by Catholicks and if we find any propounding it whom we hoped to proselyte we give them hard words and leave them for because we offer to prove our Infallibility by only motives of credibility they presently ask us Whether our Infallibility be an Article of Faith if it be then they may believe an Article of Faith without Infallible certainty and then what need our Churches Infallibility and then to what end do we quarrel with their Faith for being built on greater motives of credibility which being such untoward questions we see there is no good to be done on them and so leave them but in our Books we are sure to cry out of the fallibility and uncertainty of the Faith of Protestants because they acknowledge their Churches not Infallible and cry up our Church because she pretends to it if they ask How we prove it we seek to confound the state of the question and run out into the necessity of an unwritten Word or bring such motives as hold only for the Primitive and Apostolical Church and make them serve ours too If all this will not do we have other shifts still but it is not yet fit to discover them Scept To your fourth Question and then
I will tell you my judgement How your Church comes to be called or accounted the Catholick Church T. C. For this though it seems strange to the Hereticks how a part should be called or accountd the whole yet to all true Catholicks who must wink hard that they may see the better we make no great difficulty of it for we tell them the Pope is Christs Vicar and it is the head which gives the denomination and so Catholick is nothing else but a name to denote persons who are in our Church and if they question this they thereby are out of the Church and so under damnation But for the sturdy Hereticks who deride our thunderbolts we are put to a greater trouble and are fain to gather all the citations of the Fathers against the poor Donatists and apply them to the Hereticks and what ever they say belongs to the Catholick Church we confidently arrogate it to our selves as though our Church now were the same with the Catholick Church then and chiefly we have the advantage of the Protestants by this that whatever corruptions they charge us with they had the good hap to be almost generally received at the time Luther appeared and upon this we thunder them with the succession and visibility of our Church as the Samaritans were much to blame they did not serve the Israelites so after their return from captivity for they had a continual succession in the same place and a greater visibility than the Israelites under their bondage but yet we had the advantage of them by a larger spread a longer prescription and a fairer shew Scept Sir I am hugely taken with these discourses of yours and easily perceive whatever they that believe Christian Religion to be true think that you are men of wit and parts and understand your Interest I mean your Religion I understand now throughly to what intent it is you say that Those who build their Faith on rational grounds go about to destroy Religion I confess you have taken the only way to reclaim me from any thing of Scepticism I suppose you understand my meaning as I do yours In this discourse I pretend not as you did to deliver his Lordships words and so wrong him by falsly imposing them on him in another sense then he intended them but collect from your former managery of this Controversie what your real sense and meaning is and how excellent a way this is instead of reclaiming Atheists to make them so If I have mistaken your meaning I pray speak more clearly and then we shall think you mean honestly but as long as you walk so much in the dark you will give us leave to suspect your design is either upon our purses or our Religion I now return to your Church-tradition You begin your sixth Section with a fair Supposition and carry it on accordingly which is of a Child brought up in your Church who is commanded to believe the Scriptures and all other Articles of Faith on the Authority of your Church whom you suppose to dye without once looking into the Scriptures Your question is Whether he had saving Faith or no if so then the Churches Authority is a sufficient ground for Infallible Faith if not then he had none at all and consequently could not be saved I answer We pry not into Divine secrets on which account we dare not pronounce of the final condition of such who through ignorance cannot be acquainted with Gods written Word we therefore say that an hearty assent to the Doctrine of the Gospel is the Faith which God requires and if this Faith lead men to obedience to Gods will we assert the sufficiency of it for salvation and not otherwise for Faith is not therefore saving because built on an Infallible ground as you fondly seem to imagine but when it attains its end when it brings men to a hearty obedience to the precepts of the Gospel And if some among you may believe that which is in it self true but upon weak and insufficient grounds as the advantages of education which are much rather the foundation of the Faith of such a one as you speak of then any Infallibility supposed by him in the Church yet such and so great is the goodness of God that if a Faith standing on such grounds do attain its end that is make such a one Universally holy we deny not but God may accept of it for Salvation But still we say such a Faith is so far from being Infallible that it is not built on any sufficient or satisfactory ground for the motive of it is that which may be false as well as true for he that assents to any thing on the Authority of any Church before he doth judge whether her Authority be to be relyed on absolutely or no may believe a falshood assoon as truth upon that Authority and the more he makes this his foundation the more he is in danger of being deceived As suppose a Child brought up in Turky and instructed in that Religion he is told that he must without examination believe Mahomets Alcoran to be Divine and he must neither doubt of this nor of any other Article of Faith universally received among Mahumetans may not such a one as invincibly believe the Authority of the Turkish Church if we may call it so as your Child doth the Authority of your Church Where then lies the difference you see plainly it cannot be in the Motive to Faith for the Authority is supposed equally Infallible in both but it lies in the evidence of truth in one Religion above the other and this requires something more then the Authority of the Church viz. judgement and diligent examination And then Faith is built on a sure ground Remember then that we enquire not what abatements God makes for the prejudices of education in believing or not believing any Religion nor how God intends to deal with them who through age or other invincible prejudices are uncapable of judging the evidence of truth in any Religion but what are the certain grounds of Faith which sober and understanding men may and ought to build their belief of true Religion upon But you proceed and suppose your young Christian to live and apply himself to study and becomes a learned man and then upon the Churches recommendation betakes himself to the reading the Scriptures upon which by the light he discovers in it he finds the Faith he had before was but a humane perswasion and not a Divine Faith and consequently that he had no saving Faith of any Article of Christian belief and so was out of the state of Salvation from whence you say will spring gripes and torture of spirit among Christians And why so What because they discern greater reason to believe then ever they did must they find gripes and torture of spirit I had thought the more light men had found i. e. the more reason for believing the more peace and
contentment they had in their minds And so I verily believe it is but probably your meaning is This Doctrine will cause gripes and torture of spirit in those who have no other foundation of Faith but your Churches authority and never enquire after more If it does so much good may they do them and I verily believe Such doubts may tend more to their satisfaction at last than their present security and a Doctrine which tends to convince the world of the folly and unreasonableness of such a kind of implicite Faith the unsuitableness of it to the nature of Religion in general but more especially the Christian whose great commendation is that it puts men upon so much searching and enquiry into the truth of it would tend more to the good of the Christian world than any of those soft and easie principles which you seek to keep men in obedience by and that I am afraid more to your Church than to Christ. Why then such a Doctrine should cause needless gripes and tortures of spirit I cannot imagine it must certainly be a great confirmation to the mind of any good man to see still further reason for his Faith by which it grows more radicated and confirmed Or would you have a man disquiet himself because he is not still a Child much such a kind of thing this is that a mans mind must be tortured because his Faith grows stronger for we assert that there are degrees in Faith which you who make all Faith Infallible cannot do unless you suppose an Infallible thing may grow more Infallible And if all true Faith be Infallible how can men pray for the increase of Faith unless they pray for the increase of their Infallibility which is a prayer I suppose not many in your Church are allowed to make for then what becomes of your Popes prerogative when not only every one among you is supposed to be Infallible but hopes as well as prayes to be more Infallible which is more then your Pope or your Church dares pretend to But whether Doctrine tends more to inward gripes and tortures of spirit yours or ours let any reasonable man judge for we assert that true Faith is capable of degrees of augmentation but you assert that there is no Divine Faith but what is Infallible when therefore men by reflection upon themselves are so far from finding such an Infallibility in their assent that they combat with many doubts and fears as we see the Apostles did even after the resurrection of Christ you must pronounce that the Apostles when they questioned Christs resurrection from the dead had no Divine Faith at all for it is plain they were far from an Infallible assent to it when Christ upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen Were they Infallible in their assent then or no I hope you will not contradict it so much as to say so or had they no Divine Faith then at all what not S. Peter for whom Christ prayed that his Faith should not fail and from the indesectibility of whose Faith you derive that of the Pope but here you may see what a certain Foundation you have for it when it is so apparent here that S. Peter's Faith did fail and that as to so important an Article of Faith as Christ's own Resurrection for certainly S. Peter was one of the eleven Nay Doth not Christ upbraid them for their unbelief in not believing them that had seen him after he was risen We see then Christ chides them for not resolving their Faith into a humane and moral Testimony If you had been there no doubt you must have told him He was mistaken in the nature of Faith which could rest on nothing but an infallible Testimony and unless he shewed you by sufficient Motives that those persons who saw him risen were infallible for all his haste you were not bound to believe him But whether Christ or you be the more infallible judge you We see our Blessed Saviour requires no more Assent than the nature of the thing will bear nay he upbraids those who will not believe upon Moral and Humane Testimony but you say just the contrary as though you were resolved to contradict him But that is sufficient Argument to all Christians of the falsity and folly of your Doctrine which tends to no other end but to make all considering men Scepticks or Atheists For when you lay it down as a certain Maxim that no Faith can be Divine but what is infallible and they find no such Infallibility in the grounds or the nature of mens Assent What then follows but those worst sort of gripes and tortures such as argue an inward Convulsion of mind and bring men to a greater Question Whether there be any such thing as that you call true Divine Faith in the world You go on with your Catechumen's discourse who must suppose Either that the Church taught that he was to believe Scripture infallible upon her own infallible Testimony or not If so then he reflects that this Church hath plainly deceived him and all others who believed upon that Supposition and so exposed them all to the hazard of eternal damnation and therefore was no True Church but a deceiver From whence say you he gathers that her recommendation of Scripture is as much as nothing and so at last is left to the sole Letter of Scripture and so must gather from thence its Authority or there can be no means left him on the Bishop's own Principles to believe infallibly that Scripture is Divine and the True Word of God This discourse of yours consists of three Absurdities which will follow upon one of your Churches questioning her Infallibity 1. That then your Church will be guilty of Imposture 2. Then the Churches Testimony signifies nothing 3. That then the sole Letter of Scripture must assure men of its Divine Authority For the first I must confess him whom before you supposed a Child to be now grown to years of understanding since he doth so wisely reflect on himself as to your Churches gross Imposture in her pretence of Infallibility and no doubt it is one of the greatest which hath been known in the Christian world which you cannot your self deny supposing that it be not true that she is infallible For Can there be any higher cheat in the world than under a pretence of Infallibility to impose things upon mens Faith which are contrary to the Sense and Reason of mankind to keep them from that inward satisfaction which their souls might find from a serious consideration of the excellent nature of Christian Religion and a diligent practice of it to contradict thereby the very scope of Christianity which courts our esteem by offering it self to the fairest tryal when I say under this pretence Christian Religion is apparently dishonoured the welfare of mens souls hindered and the greatest corruptions
obtruded without possibility of amendment of them excuse your Church from Imposture if you can for my part I cannot nor any one else who throughly considers it For the second it will follow indeed that the Testimony of your Church is as much as nothing as to any infallible Foundation of Faith but yet it may be of great use for conveying Vniversal Tradition to us and so by that delivering the Scripture into our hands as the infallible Rule of Faith To the third it by no means follows that there is nothing but the sole Letter of Scripture left to convince us of the Divine Authority of Scripture I hope the working Miracles fulfilling Prophecies the nature and reasonableness of the Doctrine of Scriptures are all left besides the bare letter of Scripture and these we say are sufficient to make us believe that the Scripture contains the infallible Word of God Now your profound Christian begins to reflect on the Bishops way which is say you That the Testimony of the Church is humane and fallible and that the belief of the Scripture rests upon the Scripture it self But it will be more to our purpose to hear the Bishop deliver his own mind than to hear you so lamely deliver it which in short he summs up thus A man is probably led by the Authority of the present Church as by the first informing inducing perswading means to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God But when he hath studied considered and compared this Word with its self and with other writings with the help of ordinary grace and a mind morally induced and reasonably perswaded by the voice of the Church the Scripture then gives greater and higher Reasons of Credibility to it self than Tradition alone could give And then he that believes resolves his last and full Assent that Scripture is of Divine Authority into internal Arguments found in the Letter it self though found by the help of Tradition without and Grace within This is the substance of his Lordship's Opinion against which we shall now consider what your Discourser hath to object 1. The first is from the case of ignorant and illiterate persons such who either through want of learning could not read the Scripture and examine or else made little use of it because they supposed they might have infallible Faith without it What then becomes of millions of such souls both in former and present times To that I answer Although the Ignorance and carelesness of men in a matter of so great consequence be so great in all ages as is not to be justified because all men ought to endeavour after the highest waies of satisfaction in a matter so nearly concerning them and it is none of the least things to be blamed in your Church that she doth so much countenance this ignorance and neglect of the Scripture yet for such persons who either morally or invincibly are hindered from this capacity of examining Scripture there may be sufficient means for their Faith to be built upon For although such illiterate persons cannot themselves see and read the Scripture yet as many as do believe do receive the Doctrine of it by that sense by which Faith is conveyed that is Hearing and by that means they have so great certainty as excludes all doubting that such Doctrines and such matters of fact are contained in these Books by which they come to the understanding of the nature of this Doctrine and are capable of judging concerning the Divinity of it For the Light spoken of in Scripture is not a Light to the eye but to the mind now the mind is capable of this Light as well by the ear as by the eyes The case then of such honest illiterate persons as are not capable of reading Scripture but diligently and devoutly hear it read to them is much of the same nature with those who heard the Apostles preach this Doctrine before it was writ For whatever was an Argument to such to believe the Apostles in what they spake becomes an Argument to such who hear the same things which are certainly conveyed to us by an unquestionable Tradition So that nothing hinders but such illiterate persons may resolve their Faith into the same Doctrine and Motives which others do only those are conveyed to them by the ear which are conveyed to others by the eyes But if you suppose persons so rude and illiterate as not to understand any thing but that they are to believe as the Church believes do you if you can resolve their Faith for them for my part I cannot and am so far from it that I have no reason to believe they can have any 2. The second thing objected by your discourser is That if the Churches judgement be fallible then much more ones own judgement is fallible And therefore if notwithstanding all the care and pains taken by the Doctors of the Church their perswasion was only humane and fallible What reason hath any particular person to say That he is divinely and infallibly certain by his reading the Scripture that it is Divine Truth But 1. Is there no difference between the Churches Perswasion and the Churches Tradition Doth the Bishop deny but the perswasion of the Doctors of the Church is as infallible as that of any particular person But this he denies that they can derive that Infallibility of the grounds of their Perswasion into their Tradition so as those who are to receive it on their Testimony may be competent Judges of it May we not then suppose their Tradition to be humane and fallible whose perswasion of what they deliver is established on infallible grounds As a Mathematician is demonstratively convinced himself of the Truth of any particular Problem but if he bids another believe it on his Testimony the other thereby hath no demonstrative evidence of the Truth of it but only so great moral evidence as the Testimony of that person carries along with it The case is the same here Suppose those persons in the Church in every Age of it have to themselves infallible evidence of the Divinity of the Scripture yet when they are to deliver this to be believed by others unless their Testimony hath infallible evidence in it men can never have more than humane or moral certainty of it 2. It doth not at all follow that if the Testimony of the Church be fallible no particular person can be infallibly assured of the Divinity of the Scripture unless this assurance did wholly depend upon that Testimony indeed if it did so the Argument would hold but otherwise it doth not at all Now you know the Bishop denies that the Faith of any particular person doth rest upon the judgement of the Church only he saith This may be a Motive and Inducement to men to consider further but that which they rely upon is that rational evidence which appears in the Scripture it self 3. He goes on and argues against this use of
Tradition thus If the Light of the Scripture be insufficient to shew it self unless it be introduced by the recommendation of the Church How came Luther Calvin Zuinglius Husse c. to discover this Light in it seeing they rejected the Authority of all visible Churches in the world c Sure your Discourser was not very profound in this that could not distinguish between the Authority of Vniversal Tradition and the Authority of the present visible Church or between the Testimony of the Church and the Authority of it Shew us where Luther Calvin c. did ever reject the Authority of an uncontrouled Vniversal Tradition such as that here mentioned concerning the Scriptures being the Word of God Shew us where they deny that Vse of the Testimony of those Churches whose Authority in imposing matters of Faith they denied which his Lordship asserts viz. to be a means to introduce men to the knowledge and belief of the Scritures and unless you shew this you do nothing 4. He argues against that Light in Scripture because it is not sufficient to distinguish Canonical Books from such as are not so For saies he Had not the Ancient Primitive Fathers in the first three hundred years as much reason and ability to find this Light in Scripture as any particular person Yet many Books which do appear to us to be God's Word by their Light did not appear to be so to them by it till they were declared such by the Catholick Church I answer 1. Where doth his Lordship ever say or pretend that any person by the Light contained in the Books can distinguish Books that are Canonical from such as are not All that can be discovered as to particular Books in question is the examination of the Doctrine contained in them by the series of that which is in the unquestionable Books for we know that God can never speak contradictions but still this will only serve to exclude such Books as contain things contrary but not to admit all which have no Doctrine contrary to Scripture 2. The reason why the Primitive Fathers questioned any Books that we do not was not because they could not discover that Light in them which we do for neither can we discover so much Light in any particular Book as meerly from thence to say It is Canonical but there was not sufficient evidence then appearing to them that those Copies did proceed from Apostolical persons and this was therefore only an Argument of that commendable care and caution which was in them lest any Book should pass for Canonical which was not really so 3. When the Catholick Church declared any controverted Book to be Canonical Did not the Church then see as much Light in it as we do but that Light which both the Church and we discover is not a discriminating Internal Light but an External Evidence from the sufficiency and validity of Testimony And such we have for the Canonical Books of the Old Testament and therefore you have no cause to quarrel with us for receiving them from the Jewish Synagogue For who I pray are so competent witnesses of what is delivered as they who received it and the Apostle tells us That to the Jews were committed the Oracles of God 5. Hence your discoursing Christian argues That if one take up the Scripture on the account of Tradition then if one should deny S. Matthew 's Gospel to be the written Word of God he could not be accounted an Heretick because it was not sufficiently propounded to him to be God's Word Whether such a person may be accounted a Heretick in your sense or no I am sure he is in S. Paul's because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self-condemned and that for the very contrary reason to what you give because this is sufficiently propounded to him I pray tell me What way you would have such a thing sufficiently propounded as a matter to be believed that this is not propounded in Would you have an unquestionable evidence that this was writ by one of Christ's Apostles called S. Matthew so you have Would you have all the Churches of Christ agreed in this Testimony in all Ages from the Apostles times so you have Would you have it delivered to you by the Testimony of the present Church so you have What then is or can be wanting in order to a Proposition of it to be believed Why forsooth some infallible authoritative sentence of the present Church which shall make this an Object of Faith See what a different mould some mens minds are of from others For my part should I see or hear any Church in the world undertaking such an office as that I should be so far from thinking it more sufficiently propounded by it that I should not scruple to charge it with the greatest presumption and arrogance that may be For on what account can it possibly be a thing credible to me that S. Matthew's Gospel contains God's written Word any further than it is evident that the person who wrote it was one chosen by Christ to deliver the summe of his proceedings as an Apostle to the world And therefore I have no reason to think he would deceive men in what he spake or writ The only Question then is How I should know this is no counterfeit name but that S. Matthew writ it Let us consider what possible means there are to be assured of it I cannot imagine any but these two Either that God should immediately reveal it either to my self or to some Church to propound it to me or else that I am to believe those persons who first received those Copies from his hands by whose means they were dispersed abroad in the world from whence they are conveyed by an unquestionable Tradition down to us Of these two chuse whether you please if the first then particular immediate Revelations are necessary to particular persons to have such an Object of Faith sufficiently propounded to them and then the Church cannot authoritatively pronounce any Books of Scripture to be Canonical without immediate Revelation to her that this Book was written by such a person who was divinely assisted in the writing of it And this you have denied before to belong to the Church If you take up with the second the unquestionable Testimony of all Ages since the Apostles then judge you whether S. Matthew's Gospel be not sufficiently propounded to be believed and consequently Whether any one who should question or deny it be not guilty of the greatest peevishness and obstinacy imaginable From hence we may see with what superfluity of discretion the next words came from you Nay hence it follows that even our blessed Saviour who is Wisdom it self would have been esteemed by all the world not a wise Law-giver but a meer Ignoramus and Impostor For shame man forbear such insolent expressions for the future and repent of these For Must Christ's Wisdom be called in question and he liable to be accounted an
Ignoramus and Impostor if he doth not make your Church infallible I have told you often before how much your Doctrine of Infallibility tends to Atheism and now you speak out For the meaning of your words plainly is If God hath not entrusted your Church with a full and absolute power to declare what is his will and what not Christ was an Ignoramus and Impostor For that is the substance of your next words For had he not framed think you a strange and Chimerical Common-wealth were it alone destitute of a full and absolute power to give an authentical and unquestionable declaration which is the true and genuine Law Now it is evident from all your discourse foregoing you only plead for this full and absolute power in your Church and judge you then what the consequence is to all those who cannot see any shadow of reason for this your pretended Infallibility neither more nor less than that Christ is liable to be accounted by all the world an Ignoramus and Impostor Nay that they are fools who account him not so if they do not believe this present Infallibility of your Church for it is apparent say you that he hath ordered his Common-wealth worse than ever any one did And now let any that consider what pitiful silly proofs you have produced for this present Infallibility nay such that I am confident that you cannot think your self you have in the least measure proved it then judge what thoughts of Christ you are forced to entertain your self upon your own Argument viz. as of an Ignoramus and Impostor Hath not your Infallibility lead you now a fine dance Is not this the way to make Faith certain and to reclaim Atheists I had thought it had been enough for your Canonists to have charged Christ with indiscretion if he had not left a Vicar on earth but now it seems the profound Philosophers learned Divines and expert Historians for such a one you told us your discoursing Christian was supposed by you to be in whose name these words are spoken do charge Christ with folly and imposture if he hath not made your Church infallible For shift it off as you can you cannot deny but that must be the aim of these words for you are proving the necessity of an infallible Declaration by the present Church in order to a sufficient Proposition of the Scripture to be believed and it is notorious you never pretend that any Church hath any share in this Infallibility but your own And therefore the consequence unavoidably follows that since there can be no sufficient Proposition that the Scripture is to be believed without this infallible Testimony since no Church pretends to this Infallibility but yours since without such provision for the Church Christ would have been esteemed by all the world not a wise Law-giver but a meer Ignoramus and Impostor What then follows but that if your Church be not infallible He must be accounted so And if you dread not these consequences I hope all Christians do and have never the better thoughts of your Infallibility for them 6. Let us see how he comes closer to the matter it self and examines how this Light should be Infallible and Divine supposing the Churches Testimony to be humane and fallible The substance of which is this If the Church may erre we may suppose she hath erred in testifying some Books to be God's Word in that case Books that were not God's Word would be equally recommended with those that were And that it would be impossible for any particular person by reading them to distinguish the one from the other To which I answer 1. It is all one with you to suppose a Church fallible and suppose that she hath erred To put a case of a like nature The Testimony of all mankind is fallible May you therefore suppose that all mankind hath erred in something they are agreed in The Testimony of all those persons who have seen Rome is fallible May I therefore question whether they were not all deceived But of this afterwards 2. When you speak of the Church erring Do you mean the Church in every Age since Christ's Coming concerning all the Books of Scripture or the present Church concerning only some Books of Scripture If you suppose the Church of all Ages should be deceived you must suppose some who were infallible should be deceived those were the Apostles in writing and delivering their Books to the Churches of their time or else you must suppose all the Apostolical Churches deceived in taking those Books to have come from the Apostles which did not And is not this a congruous Supposition Well then if it be unreasonable to suppose the Apostolical Churches deceived and impossible to imagine the Apostles deceived in saying They writ what they did not Where then must such an universal-errour as this come in Or Is it not equally unreasonable to suppose all the Christian Churches in the world should be deceived without any questioning of such a deceit supposing but the goodness and common providence of God in preserving such records and the moral industry used by Christians in a matter of such importance It is therefore a very absurd and unreasonable thing to imagine That all the Churches of Christ in all Ages should erre in receiving all the Books of Scripture Let us then see as to the present Churches erring as to particular Books 1. Either the Records of former Ages are left to judge by or no If they be as certainly they are we thereby see a way to correct the errour of the present Church by appealing to these records of the Church in former times if they be not left how could any of these Books be derived from Apostolical Tradition when we have no means to trace such a Tradition by 2. Supposing only some Books questioned or that the present Church erres only in some particular Books then it appears that there remains a far greater number of such Books whose Authority we have no reason at all to question and by comparing the other with these we may easily prevent any very dangerous errour for if they contain any Doctrine contrary to the former we have no reason to believe them if they do not there can be no very dangerous errour in admitting them Thus you see how easily this errour is prevented supposing the Churches testimony not only fallible but that it also should actually erre in delivering some Books for Canonical which are not so but supposing a Church pretends to be Infallible and is believed to be so and yet doth actually erre in delivering the Canon of Scripture what remedy is there then for while we look on the Churches testimony as fallible there is scope and liberty left for enquiry and further satisfaction but if it be looked on as Infallible all that believe it to be so are left under an impossibility of escaping that errour which she is guilty of And the more dangerous such
places did live in the exercise of their Religion without them But what is there in all this to inferr that not the Scriptures but the Infallibility of the Church is the foundation of Faith Doth St. Augustine suppose that men may have Faith Hope and Charity without believing or that men may believe without the Scriptures when in the precedent Chapter he hath this remarkable expression concerning Faith That it will soon stumble if the Authority of the sacred Scriptures be weakned and doth not this imply that Faith stands on the Authority of the Scriptures as its proper foundation But this were pardonable if the very design of all that Treatise did not so evidently refute all your pretensions as nothing can do it more effectually For can you possibly perswade any reasonable man to think that St. Augustine dreamt of any such thing as the Infallible Testimony of the present Church to be the ground of Faith who when he purposely discourseth concerning the Christian Doctrine the principles of it and the best means to understand it never so much as mentions any such thing but on the contrary directs to no other but those you call Moral and Fallible means For understanding the principles of Christian Doctrine he shews us the several natures of things some to be enjoyed some to be used and others both that the main thing we are to enjoy is God and therefore begins with him as our last end in whom our happiness lies and then shews the means to come to this enjoyment of God by explaining the principles of Faith and the efficacy of it In his second Book he shews how we may come to the sense of Scripture and first discovers the nature of signs which represent things and of letters which are signs of words and since there are diversities of tongues how necessary the translation of Scripture is into them a good citation for you to justifie your Bibles and Prayers in an unknown language with and then shews what great reason there was why there should be some doubtful and obscure places left in Scripture to conquer our pride by industry and to keep the understanding from nauseating which commonly slights things that are easily understood Then shews what preparation and disposition of soul is requisite for Divine wisdome and so comes to the understanding the Scriptures for which first is requisite a serious and diligent reading of them in order to which he must carefully distinguish such as are Canonical from such as are not and for judging of these he never so much as mentions much less sends us to the Infallible Testimony of the Roman Church but bids us follow the Authority of the most Catholick Churches among which those are which are worthy to be call'd Apostolical See's and had Epistles sent to them What Authority then had the Church of Rome to judge of Canonical Scriptures more then Ephesus Philippi Thessalonica c. To be sure then St. Augustin was not of our Discourser's mind as to the judgement of Canonical Books and why should he send men to those Churches which received the Epistles but that there they were like to meet with greater satisfaction as to the authenticalness of the Copies of those Epistles After this he gives directions for understanding hard places First by diligent reading and remembring the plainest places for in them saith he are found all those things which contain matters of Faith and Practice An excellent citation for you for several purposes especially when you would prove the obscurity of Scripture the necessity of an Infallible Judge or your Doctrine of Fundamentals out of St. Augustin And then bids them compare obscure and easie places together to understand the proprieties of words to get knowledge in the Tongues to compare Versions Antecedents and Consequents to be skil'd in all humane Arts and Sciences these and several other instructions to the same purpose are the scope of his following Books Would any one now but T. C. have ventured so unluckily upon this Treatise of St. Augustin above all others to prove the Infallibility of the Churches Testimony as necessary to Faith by Could any Protestant have delivered his mind more punctually and plainly than he doth And can you or any one else that doth but look into that Book imagine that St. Augustin ever imagined that any such thing should ever be thought of in the world as that the Testimony of the Church of Rome must be owned as the Infallible foundation of Faith and the Infallible Interpreter of Scripture But this it is to converse with the Fathers only by retail as they are delivered out in parcels to you with directions upon them what use they are for by Bellarmin and such Artists as himself This is instead of quoting the Fathers to challenge them and you see they are not afraid to appear though to your shame and confusion But for all this you have a Reserve in St. Augustin still let us see what quotation that is which lies so in Ambuscado behind the hedges and is so loath to come out There is good reason for so much reservedness for when we come to search we find only bushes instead of Souldiers I have throughly examined the place you referr us to and cannot meet any thing the least pertinent to your purpose unless the question of the Lawfulness of Hereticks Baptism prove your Churches Testimony to be Infallible But it may be it is but a venial mistake of a Chapter or two forward or backward and there we may find it Which when I look into I cannot but suspect that some Protestant had trepanned you into this Book and place of St. Augustine there being scarce any Book or place in him more begirt with Arguments against you than this is I was at first fearful you had quoted Fathers at a peradventure but upon my further considering the place I soon rectified that mistake I will therefore reckon you up some of the most probable Citations out of St. Augustins Books of Baptism against the Donatists and choose which of them you please to prove the necessity of an Infallible Testimony of the present Church as a foundation of Faith by I suppose that you intended is in the Chapter but one following where St. Augustine Cites that passage of Cyprian That we ought to recurre to the fountain i. e. to Apostolical Tradition and thence derive the channel into our own times this saith St. Augustin is the best and without doubt to be done No doubt you think you owe me great thanks for finding out so apposite a place for you so near that you intended but before we have done with it you will see what little reason you have to thank me for it The place you see is cited by St. Augustin out of Cyprian in whose Epistle it is to Pompeius against Stephanus Bishop of Rome we therefore consider that it was Stephen who pleaded custom and tradition to
part of the world should be so grosly deceived in a matter of such moment especially supposing a Divine Providence then I freely and heartily assert We have such a kind of rational Infallibility or rather the highest degree of actual Certainty concerning the Truth of the Canon of Scripture and that the Catholick Church hath not de facto erred in defining it Thus I have followed your discoursing Christian through all his doubts and perplexities and upon the result can find no ground at all either of doubting concerning the Scripture or of believing the Testimony of your Church or any to be an infallible ground of Faith Your next passage is to tell us how his Lordships Dedalian windings as you finely call them are disintricated A happy man you are at squaring Circles and getting out of Labyrinths And thus it appears in the present case For when his Lordship had said That the Tradition of the Church is too weak because that is not absolutely Divine you repeat over your already exploded Proposition that there may be an infallible Testimony which is not absolutely Divine which when I have your faculty of writing things which neither you nor any one else can understand I may admit of but till then I must humbly beg your pardon as not being able to assent to any thing which I cannot understand and have no reason to believe And withall contrary to your second Answer it appears That if the Testimony of the Primitive were absolutely Divine because infallible the Testimony of the present Church must be absolutely Divine if it be infallible The rest of this Chapter is spent in the examining some by-citations of men of your own side chiefly and therefore it is very little material as to the truth or falshood of the present Controversie yet because you seem to triumph so much assoon as you are off the main business I shall briefly return an Answer to the substance of what you say His Lordship having asserted the Tradition of the Primitive Apostolical Church to be Divine and that the Church of England doth embrace that as much as any Church whatsoever withall adds That when S. Augustine said I would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Catholick Church moved me some of your own will not endure should be understood save of the Church in the time of the Apostles only and some of the Church in general not excluding after Ages but sure to include Christ and his Apostles In your Answer to this you insult strangely over his Lordship in two things First That he should say Some and mention but one in his Margent 2. That that One doth not say what he cites out of him To the first I answer you might easily observe the use his Lordship makes of his Margent is not so much to bring clear and distinct proofs of what he writes in his Book but what hath some reference to what he there saies and therefore it was no absurdity for him to say in his Book indefinitely some and yet in his Margent only to mention Occham For when his Lordship writ that no doubt his mind was upon others who asserted the same thing though he did not load his Margent with them And that you may see I have reason for what I say I hope you will not suppose his Lordship unacquainted with the Testimonies of those of your side who do in terms assert this That I may therefore free you from all kind of suspicion What think you of Gerson when speaking of the greater Authority of the Primitive Church than of the present he adds And by this means we come to understand what S. Augustine said I would not believe the Gospel c. For there saith he he takes the Church for the Primitive Congregation of Believers who saw and heard Christ and were witnesses of what he did Is not this Testimony plain enough for you But besides this we have another as evident in whom are those very words which his Lordship by a lapse of memory attributes to Occham For Durandus plainly sayes That for what concerns the approbation of Scripture by the Church it is understood only of the Church which was in the Apostles times who were filled with the Holy Spirit and withall saw the Miracles of Christ and heard his Doctrine and on that account were convenient witnesses of all which Christ did or taught that by their Testimony the Scripture containing the actions and speeches of Christ might receive approbation Do you yet desire a Testimony more express and full than this is of one who doth understand the Church exclusively of all successive to the Apostles when he had just before produced that known Testimony of S. Augustine You see then the Bishop had some reason to say Some of your Church asserted this to be S. Augustine 's meaning and therefore your Instances of some where but one is meant are both impertinent and scurrilous For where it is evidently known there was but one it were a Soloecism to say some as to say that some of the Apostles betrayed Christ when it is known that none but Judas did it But if I should say that some Jesuits had writ for the killing of Kings and in the Margent should cite Mariana no person conversant in their writings would think it a Soloecism for though I produce him for a remarkable Instance yet that doth not imply that I have none else to produce but only that the mentioning of one might shew I was not without proof of what I said For your impudent oblique slander on the memory of that excellent Prelate Arch-Bishop Cranmer when you say If a Catholick to disgrace the Protestant Primacy of Canterbury should say Some of them carried a holy Sister lockt up in a Chest about with them and name Cranmer only in the Margent His memory is infinitely above your slyest detractions and withall when you are about such a piece of Criticism I pray tell me what doth some of them relate to Is Primacy the name of some men Just as if one should disgrace the See of Rome and say Some of them have been Atheists Magicians debauched c. Though I confess it were a great injury in this case to cite but one in the Margent unless in pity to the Reader yet you may sooner vindicate some of them from a Soloecism in Language when the See of Rome went before than any of them from those Soloecisms in manners which your own Authours have complained of But say you What if this singular-plural say no such thing as the words alledged by the Bishop signifie I have already granted it to have been a very venial mistake of memory in his Lordship of Occham for Durandus in whom those very words are which are in the Margent of his Lordships Book as appears in the Testimony already produced I acknowledge therefore that Occham in that place of his Dialogues doth speak
that but only the concurrent Testimonies of some Schoolmen who must be confessed to be excellent Criticks and well versed in ancient M.SS. unless where they met with a little Greek or some hard Latin words and among whom the mistake of one would pass current for want of examining Copies let the Reader therefore judge whether Judgement be more probable But I think it not worth while to say more about it In your vindication of the Authority of Canus you make use of a very silly piece of Sophistry for say you Though he make Infidels and Novices in the Faith to be convinced by the Authority of the Church yet you say It doth not follow that he makes the said Authority a fallible but a certain and sure way to make them believe it But 1. The Question is Whether Canus doth understand that place of S. Augustine of Infidels and Novices or no 2. Suppose he sayes It is a sure way Doth it therefore follow that it is an infallible way Is nothing certain but what is infallible I hope you are certain that the Church of Rome is the Cacholick Church but Are you infallible that she is so If you advance all certainty to Infallibility or bring down all Infallibility to Certainty every Christian is as infallible as your Church is For I make no question but that every good Christian is certain of the Grounds and Principles of his Religion The same thing you return upon again after to little purpose you multiply words about Canus and Stapleton's Testimonies For say you because S. Augustine speaks of a sure way therefore he must mean an infallible way as though what was not supernaturally infallible was presently unsure I pray tell me Are you sure that two and two make four Yet I hope you will not say You are supernaturally infallible that they do so I hope you are sure there is a Pope at Rome and a goodly Colledge of Cardinals there but Are you infallible in this It is not then certainly the same to deny a thing to be infallible and to make it unsure And you are either very weak or very wilful in saying so In what sense this so much controverted place of S. Augustine is to be understood will be afterwards discussed and whether it be intended wholly for Infidels or no only I shall take notice now how in the last words of this Chapter you would again inferr Infallibility from undoubted certainty For say you the Church in S. Augustine's time esteemed her self undoubtedly certain that the Gospel was the infallible Word of God for otherwise she might be deceived her self and deceive others in commanding them to believe that to be God's Word which was only the word of man But What is it you would inferr from all this For we believe the Church as undoubtedly certain as may be that the Scriptures are God's Word yet we are far enough from believing that her Testimony now is supernaturally infallible CHAP. VII The Protestant Way of resolving Faith Several Principles premised in order to it The distinct Questions set down and their several Resolution given The Truth of matters of fact the Divinity of the Doctrine and of the Books of Scripture distinctly resolved into their proper grounds Moral Certainty a sufficient Foundation for Faith and yet Christian Religion proved to be infallibly True How Apostolical Tradition made by his Lordship a Foundation of Faith Of the certainty we have of the Copies of Scripture and the Authority of them S. Augustine's Testimony concerning Church-Authority largely discussed and vindicated Of the private Spirit and the necessity of Grace His Lordship's Way of resolving Faith vindicated How far Scripture may be said to be known by its own Light The several Testimonies of Bellarmine Brierly and Hooker cleared HAving thus far followed you through all your intricacies and windings and shewed with what diligence and subtilty you would juggle men out of their Faith under a pretence of Infallibility it will be necessary for the vindicating our Doctrine and the clearing this important Controversie with all evidence and perspicuity to lay down those certain grounds which we build our Faith upon And although it be one of the greatest of your Modern Artifices to perswade the world that Protestants have no certain grounds of Faith at all yet I doubt not but to make it evident that the way taken by the most judicious and considerative Protestants is as satisfactory and reasonable as I have already made it appear that yours is unreasonable and ridiculous Which I shall the rather do because through the want of a clear and distinct apprehension of the true way of resolving Faith no Controversie in Religion hath been more obscure and involved than this hath been Therefore for our more distinct method of proceeding I shall first endeavour to prevent misunderstanding by premising several things which are necessary for a through opening the state of the Controversie and then come to the resolution of it The things then I would premise are these following 1. That we enquire not after the reason why we assent to what is divinely revealed but after the reason why we believe any thing to be a Divine Revelation Therefore when men speak of the last resolution of Faith into the Veracity of God revealing they speak that which is undoubtedly true but it reacheth not our present enquiry I freely grant that the ultimate reason why any thing is believed is upon the Testimony of him from whom it comes and the greater the knowledge and fidelity is of him whose Testimony I believe the stronger my Assent is supposing I have sufficient evidence that it is his Testimony But that is our present Question for it being taken for granted among all Christians that God's Testimony is absolutely infallible there can no dispute arise concerning the ground of resolving Faith supposing God's Revelation to be sufficiently known For no one questions but God's Veracity however discovered is a sufficient ground for Faith but all the Question is How we come to know wherein this Veracity of God doth discover it self or what those things are which are immediately revealed by him Therefore to tell us that the resolution of Faith is into Gods Infallible Testimony without shewing on what account this testimony is to be beleeved to be from God is to tell us that which no one doubts of and to escape that which is the main question For in case Isaac should have denyed submission to his Fathers will when he went to be sacrificed till he could be satisfied concerning the lawfulness of that action which his Father went about Do you think it had been satisfactory to him if Abraham had told him that God had power to relax his own Laws and therefore he need not question the lawfulness of the action might not Isaac have presently answered That he did not question that what God commanded was lawful but that he desired was some evidence that he had
is so great integrity and incorruption in those Copies we have that we cannot but therein take notice of a peculiar hand of Divine Providence in preserving these authentick records of our Religion so safe to our dayes But it is time now to return to you You would therefore perswade us That we have no ground of certainty as to the Copies of Scripture but comparing them with the Apostles Autographa but I hope our former discourse hath given you a sufficient account of our certainty without seeing the Apostles own hands But I pray what certainty then had the Jews after the Captivity of their Copies of the Law yet I cannot think you will deny them any ground of certainty in the time of Christ that they had the true Copies both of the Law and the Prophets and I hope you will not make the Sanhedrin which condemned our Saviour to death to have given them their only Infallible certainty concerning it If therefore the Jews might be certain without Infallibility why may not we for if the Oracles of God were committed to the Jews then they are to the Christians now You yet further urge That there can be no certainty concerning the Autographa's of the Apostles but by tradition And may not every universal tradition be carried up as clearly at least to the Apostles times as the Scriptures by most credible Authours who wrote in their respective succeeding ages I answer We grant there can be no certainty as to the Copies of Scripture but from tradition and if you can name any of those great things in Controversie between us which you will undertake to prove to be as universal a tradition as that of the Scriptures you and I shall not differ as to the belief of it But think not to fob us off with the tradition of the present Church instead of the Church of all ages with the tradition of your Church instead of the Catholick with the ambiguous testimonies of two or three of the Fathers instead of the universal consent of the Church since the Apostles times If I should once see you prove the Infallibility of your Church the Popes Supremacy Invocation of Saints Veneration of Images the necessity of Coelibate in the Clergy a punitive Purgatory the lawfulness of communicating in one kind the expediency of the Scriptures and Prayers being in an unknown tongue the sacrifice of the Mass Transubstantiation to name no moâ—e by as unquestionable and universal a tradition as that whereby we receive the Scriptures I shall extoll you for the only person that ever did any thing considerable on your side and I shall willingly yield my self up as a Trophey to your brave attempts Either then for ever forbear to mention any such things as Vniversal Tradition among you as to any things besides Scriptures which carry a necessity with them of being believed or practised or once for all undertake this task and manifest it as to the things in Controversie between us Your next Paragraph besides what hath been already discussed in this Chapter concerning Apostolical tradition of Scripture empties it self into the old mare mortuum of the formal object and Infallible application of Faith which I cannot think my self so much at leasure to follow you into so often as you fall into it When once you bring any thing that hath but the least resemblance of reason more than before I shall afresh consider it but not till then What next follows concerning resolving Faith into prime Apostolical Tradition infallibly without the Infallibility of the present Church hath been already prevented by telling you that his Lordship doth not say That the infallible Resolution of Faith is into that Apostolical Tradition but into the Doctrine which is conveyed in the Books of Scripture from the Apostles times down to us by an unquestionable Tradition Your stale Objection That then we should want Divine Certainty hath been over and over answered and so hath your next Paragraph That if the Church be not infallible we cannot be infallibly certain that Scripture is Gods Word and so the remainder concerning Canonical Books It is an easie matter to write great Books after that rate to swell up your discourses with needless repetitions but it is the misery that attends a bad cause and a bad stomach to have unconcocted things brought up so often till we nauseate them Your next offer is at the Vindication of the noted place of S. Austin I would not believe the Gospel c. which you say cannot rationally be understood of Novices Weaklings and Doubters in the Faith This being then the place at every turn objected by you and having before reserved the discussion of it to this place I shall here particularly and throughly consider the meaning of it In order to which three things must be enquired into 1. What the Controversie was which St. Austin was there discussing of 2. What that Church was which St. Austin was moved by the Authority of 3. In what way and manner that Churches Authority did perswade him 1. Nothing seems more necessary for understanding the meaning of this place than a true state of the Controversie which S. Austin was disputing of and yet nothing less spoke to on either side than this hath been We are therefore to consider that when Manes or Manichaeus began to appear in the world to broach that strange and absurd Doctrine of his in the Christian world which he had received from Terebinthus or Buddas as he from Scythianus who if we belieue Epiphanius went to Jerusalem in the Apostles times to enquire into the Doctrine of Christianity and dispute with the Christians about his Opinions but easily foreseeing what little entertainment so strange a complexion of absurdities would find in the Christian world as long as the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists were received every where with that esteem and veneration Two waies he or his more cunning Disciples bethought themselves of whereby to lessen the authority of those writings and so make way for the Doctrine of Manichaeus One was to disparage the Credulity of Christians because the Catholick Church insisted so much on the necessity of Faith whereas they pretended they would desire men to believe nothing but what they gave them sufficient reason for But all this while since the Christians thought they had evident reason for believing the Scriptures and consequently none to believe the Doctrine which did oppose them therefore they found it necessary to go further and to charge those Copies of Scripture with falsifications and corruptions which were generally received among Christians But these are fully delivered by S. Austin in his Book de utilitate credendi as will appear to any one who looks into it but the latter is that which I aim at this he therefore taxeth them for That with a great deal of impudence or to speak mildly with much weakness they charged the Scriptures to be corrupted and yet
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
contain the Gospel in them for it is plain he speaks of them and not the Doctrine abstractly considered should have wanted that consent of the Catholick Church that it had not been delivered down by a constant succession of all Ages from the Apostles and were not received among the Christian Churches but started out from a few persons who differ from all Christian Churches as this Apostleship of Manichaeus did he might justly question the Truth of them And this I take to be truest and most natural account of these so much controverted words of S. Austin by which sense the other two Questions are easily answered for it is plain S. Austin means not the judgement of the present Church but of the Catholick Church in the most comprehensive sense as taking in all ages and places or in Vincentius his words Succession Vniversality and Consent and it further appears that the influence which this Authority hath is sufficient to induce Assent to the thing attested in all persons who consider it in what age capacity or condition soever And therefore if in this sense you extend it beyond Novices and Weaklings I shall not oppose you in it but it cannot be denied that it is intended chiefly for doubters in the Faith because the design of it is to give men satisfaction as to the reason why they ought to believe But neither you nor any of those you call Catholick Authours will ever be able to prove that S. Austin by these words ever dreamt of any infallible Authority in the present Church as might be abundantly proved from the chapter foregoing where he gives an account of his being in the Catholick Church from the Consent of People and Nations from that Authority which was begun by miracles nourished by hope increased by charity confirmed by continuance which certainly are not the expressions of one who resolved his Faith into the infallible Testimony of the present Church And the whole scope and design of his Book de utilitate credendi doth evidently refute any such apprehension as might be easily manifested were it not too large a subject for this place where we only examine the meaning of S. Austin in another Book The substance of which is that That speech of his doth not contain a resolution of his Faith as to the Divinity of Christs Doctrine but the resolution of it as to the Truth and authenticalness of the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists which we acknowledge to be into the Testimony of the Catholick Church in the most large and comprehensive sense The next thing we come to consider is an Absurdity you charge on his Lordship viz. That if the infallible Authority of the Church be not admitted in the Resolution he must have recourse to the private Spirit which you say though he would seem to exclude from the state of the Question yet he falls into it under the specious title of Grace so that he only changeth the words but admits the same thing for which you cite p. 83 84. That therein his Lordship should averr that where others used to say They were infallibly resolved that Scripture was Gods Word by the Testimony of the Spirit within them that he hath the same assurance by Grace Whether you be not herein guilty of abusing his Lordship by a plain perverting of his meaning will be best seen by producing his words A man saith he is probably led by the Authority of the present Church as by the first informing inducing perswading means to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God But when he hath studied considered and compared this Word with it self and with other writings with the help of ordinary Grace and a mind morally induced and reasonably perswaded by the Voice of the Church the Scripture then gives greater and higher reasons of Credibility to it self than Tradition alone could give And then he that believes resolves his last and full assent that Scripture is of Divine Authority into internal arguments found in the letter it self though found by the help and direction of Tradition without and Grace within Had you not a great mind to calumniate who could pick out of these words That the Bishop resolved his Faith into Grace Can any thing be more plain than the contrary is from them when in the most perspicuous terms he says that the last Resolution of Faith is into internal arguments and only supposeth Tradition and Grace as necessary helps for the finding them Might you not then as well have said That his Lordship notwithstanding his zeal against the Infallibility of Tradition is fain to resolve his Faith into it at last as well as say that he doth it into Grace for he joyns these two together But Is it not possible to assert the Vse and Necessity of Grace in order to Faith but the last Resolution of it must be into it Do not all your Divines as well as ours suppose and prove the Necessity of Grace in order to believing and Are they not equally guilty of having recourse to the private Spirit Do you really think your self that there is any thing of Divine Grace in Faith or no If there be free your Self then from the private Spirit and you do his Lordship For shame then forbear such pitiful calumnies which if they have any truth in them You are as much concerned as Your adversary in it You would next perswade us That the Relator never comes near the main difficulty which say you is if the Church be supposed fallible in the Tradition of Scripture how it shall be certainly known whether de facto she now errs not in her delivery of it If this be your grand difficulty it is sufficiently assoiled already having largely answered this Question in terminis in the preceding Chapter You ask further What they are to do who are unresolved which is the true Church as though it were necessary for men to know which is the true Church before they can believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God but when we assert the tradition of the Church to be necessary for believing the Scriptures we do not thereby understand the particular Tradition of any particular Church whose judgement they must rely on but the Vniversal Tradition of all Christians though this must be first made known in some particular Society by the means of some particular persons though their authority doth not oblige us to believe but only are the means whereby men come acquainted with that Vniversal Tradition And therefore your following discourse concerning the knowing the true Church by its motives is superseded for we mean no other Church than the Community of Christians in this Controversie and if you ask me By what motives I come to be certain which is a Community of Christians and which of Mahumetans and how one should be known from another I can soon resolve you But we are so far from making it necessary to know which particular society
of the Sun doth on the organs of sight and therefore that common speech that Light doth discover it self as well as other things is in this sense improperly applied to the Understanding for whatever is discovered to the mind in a discursive manner as all Objects of Faith are must have some antecedent evidence to it self which must be the ground of the act of assent That therefore which is called the Divine Light of Scripture is I suppose that rational evidence which is contained in the Books of Scripture whereby any reasonable man may be perswaded that these Books are of Divine Authority Now that herein I say nothing beyond or besides his Lordships meaning and intention will appear by his own discourse on this subject For 1. His Lordship designedly disproves that Opinion that Scripture should be fully and sufficiently known as by Divine and Infallible Testimony lumine proprio by the resplendency of that Light which it hath in it self only and by the witness that it can so give to it self Because as there is no place in Scripture that tells us such Books containing such and such particulars are the Canon and Infallible Will of God so if there were any such place that could be no sufficient proof for a man may justly ask another Book to bear witness to that and so in infinitum Again this inbred Light of Scripture is a thing coincident with Scripture it self and so the Principles and the Conclusion in this kind of proof should be entirely the same which cannot be Besides if this inward Light were so clear how could there have been any variety among the ancient Believers touching the authority of S. James and S. Judes Epistles and the Apocalypse c. For certainly the Light which is in the Scripture was the same then which now it is On these reasons then we see his Lordship not only disclaims but disproves such knowing the Scripture meerly by the Light within Two things then I hence inferr which will be very necessary to clear his Lordships meaning 1. That he no where attributes such an inward Light to Scripture that by it self it can discover that these Books are from God 2. That where his Lordship mentions this Light most he supposeth Tradition antecedent to it as appears by his whole discourse From whence I gather this to have been the plainest account of his way of resolving Faith as I have already intimated viz. that the resolution of Faith may be considered two waies into the Books and into the Doctrine contained in them The resolution into the Books must of necessity suppose Tradition and rely upon it and this kind of resolution of Faith cannot be into any self-evidence or internal Light but supposing the Books owned on the account of Tradition if the Question be concerning the Divinity of the Doctrine then he asserts that the resolution of this is into the Divine Light of Scripture i. e. into that rational evidence which we find of the Divinity of it in these Books which are owned on the account of Tradition And that this is his Lordships meaning appears 2. By his own Testimony who was best able to explain himself for when he goes about to confirm his Opinion by the Testimonies of the Fathers he tells us This was the way which the ancient Church ever used namely Tradition or Ecclesiastical Authority first and then all other arguments but especially internal from the Scripture it self And for this first instanceth in S. Augustine who saith he gives four proofs all internal to the Scripture it self which are First The Miracles Secondly That there is nothing carnal in the Doctrine Thirdly Fulfilling of Prophecies Fourthly The efficacy of it for conversion of the world All these we see he instanceth in as internal arguments and therefore make up that which he calls Divine Light So that all that he means by this Light of Scripture is only that rational evidence of the Divinity of the Doctrine which may be discovered in it or deduced from it Having thus explained his Lordships meaning it will be no matter of difficulty to return an Answer to the particulars by you alledged 1. You say That when Scripture is said to be a Light by the Royal Prophet it is to be understood in this sense Because after we have once received it from the infallible Authority of the Church it teacheth what we are to do and believe But 1. Doth not the Scripture sufficiently teach what we are to do and believe supposing it not received on the infallible Authority of the Church doth that add any thing to the Light of Scripture Or do you suppose the necessity of infallibly believing it on the Churches Authority before one can discern what it teacheth us to do and believe 2. What ground have you in the least to imagine that David ever believed the Scripture on the infallible authority of the Church That he doth suppose it to be Gods Word when he saith It is a Light to his feet I deny not but that he should suppose it to be so because the Church did infallibly tell him it was so is a most ungrounded Assertion Had he not sufficient evidence that the Law was from God by those many unquestionable and stupendous Miracles which attended the delivery of it Was not the whole constitution and government of the Jewish Nation an impregnable argument that those things were true which were recorded in their Books Did ever the Jewish Sanhedrin High Priest or others arrogate to themselves any infallible Testimony in delivering the Books of Moses to the people The most you can suppose of a ground of certainty among them was from that Sacred Record of the Book of the Law which was kept in the Ark And how could they know that was Authentick but from the same Tradition which conveyed the Miracles of Moses to them So that nothing like any infallible Authority of a Church was looked on by them as necessary to believe the Law to have been from God 3. Supposing it from tradition unquestionable that the Law was from God those incomparable directions which were in it might be a great confirmation to David's Faith that it was his Word Which is that he intends in these words Thy Word is a light to my feet c. to shew that excellency and perspicuity which was in his Word that it gave him the best directions for ordering his conversation And this is all which his Lordship means that to those who by the advantage of Tradition have already venerable thoughts of Scripture the serious conversing with it doth highly advance them and establish their belief of it as that Faith is thereby clinched which was driven in by education And therefore when he saith That Light discovers its self as well as other things he presently adds not till there hath been a preparing instruction what Light it is Thus he saith the Tradition of the Church is the first moral motive
to belief But the belief it self that Scripture is the Word of God rests upon Scripture when a man finds it to answer and exceed that which the Church gave in Testimony For this his Lordship cites Origen who though much nearer the prime Tradition than we are yet being to prove that the Scriptures were inspired from God he saith De hoc assignabimus ex ipsis Scripturis Divinis quae nos competentèr moverint c. We will mention those things out of the sacred Scriptures which have perswaded us c. To this you answer Though Origen prove by the Scriptures themselves that they were inspired from God yet doth he never avow that this could be proved out of them unless they were received by the infallible Authority of the Church Which Answer is very unreasonable For 1. It might be justly expected that his Lordship had produced an express Testimony to his purpose out of Origen you should have brought some other as clear for his believing Scripture on the Churches Infallibility which you are so far from that you would put us to prove a Negative But if you will deal fairly and as you ought to do produce your Testimonies out of him and the rest of the Fathers concerning your Churches Infallibility Till then excuse us if we take their express words and leave you to gather Infallibility out of their latent meanings 2. What doth your Infallibility conduce to the believing Scriptures for themselves For you say The Scriptures cannot be proved by themselves to be Gods Word unless they were received by the infallible Authority of the Church it seems then if they be so received they may be proved by themselves to be Gods Word Are those proofs by themselves sufficient for Faith or no If not they are very slender proofs if they be What need your Churches Infallibility Unless you will suppose no man can discern those proofs without your Churches Testimony and then they are not proofs by themselves but from your Churches Infallibility which may serve for one accession more to the heap of your Contradictions His Lordship asserting the last resolution of Faith to be into simply Divine Authority cites that speech of Henr. à Gandavo That in the Primitive Church when the Apostles themselves spake they did believe principally for the sake of God and not the Apostles from whence he inferrs If where the Apostles themselves spake the last resolution of Faith was into God and not into themselves on their own account much more shall it now be into God and not the present Church and into the writings of the Apostles than into the words of their successors made up into Tradition All that you answer is That this argument must be solved by the Bishop as well as you because he hath granted the authority of the Apostles was Divine as well as you Was there ever a more senseless Answer Doth Gandavo deny the Apostles authority to have been Divine Nay Doth he not imply it when he saith Men did not believe for the Apostles sakes but for Gods who spake by them As S. Paul said You received our word not as the word of men but as it is indeed the Word of God How the Bishop should be concerned to answer this is beyond my skill to imagine If Origen speaks to such as believed the Scriptures to be the Word of God so doth the Bishop too viz. on the account of Tradition and Education If Origen endeavoured by those proofs to confirm and settle their Faith that is all the Bishop aims at that a Faith taken up on the Churches Tradition may be settled and confirmed by the internal arguments of Scripture But how you should from this discourse assert That the Authority of the Church must be infallible in delivering the Scripture is again beyond my reach neither can I possibly think what should bear the face of Premises to such a Conclusion Unless it be if Origen assert That the Scriptures may be believed for themselves if Gandavo saith That the resolution of Faith must be into God himself then the Churches Authority must be infallible but it appears already that the premises are true and what then remains but therefore c. which may indeed be listed among your rare argumentations for Infallibility 2. That Scripture cannot manifest it self to be an infallible Light the proof of which is the design of your following discourse Wherein you first quarrel with the Bishop for his arguing from the Scriptures being a Light for thence you say it will only follow that the Scripture manifests it self to be a Light which you grant but that it should manifest it self to be an infallible Light you deny for say you unless he could shew that there are no other Lights save the Word of God and such as are infallible he can never make good his consequence For in Seneca Plutarch Aristotle you read many Lights and those manifest themselves to be Lights but they do not therefore manifest themselves to be infallible Lights The substance of your argument lyes in this The Scripture discovers the Being of God so doth the Talmud and Alcoran as well as it the Scripture delivers abundance of moral instructions but these may be found in multitudes of other Books both of Christians and Jews and Heathens and as we do not thence inferr that these Books are infallible so neither can we that the Scriptures are This is the utmost of sense or reason which I can extract out of your discourse which reduced into Form will come to this If the Scriptures contain nothing in them but what may be found in other Books that are not infallible then the Scriptures cannot shew themselves to be infallible but the antecedent is true and therefore the consequent I could wish you would have taken a little more pains in proving that which must be your assumption viz. That Scripture contains nothing in it but what may be seen in Seneca Plutarch Aristotle the Talmud Alcoran and other Books of Jews and Heathens These are rare things to assert among Christians without offering at any more proof of them than you do which lyes in this Syllogism If Scripture contain some things which may be seen in these Books then it contains nothing but what may be seen in these Books but the Scripture contains some things which may be seen in other Books viz. the existence of God and moral instructions therefore it contains nothing but what is in them And Do you really think that you have now proved that there is nothing in Scripture that can shew it self to be infallible because some things are common to other writings Would you not take it very ill that any should say that you had no more brains than a Horse or a creature of a like nature because they have sense and motion as well as you Yet this is the very same argument whereby you would prove that the Scriptures cannot shew
on other grounds is gratis dictum unless you can prove from the Fathers that they did believe the Scriptures infallibly on other grounds Which when you shall think fit to attempt I make no question to answer but in the mean time to a crude assertion it is enough to oppose a bare denyal Your following absurdities concerning the private Spirit infallible assurance Apostolical tradition have been frequently examin'd already Only what you say that you read esteem nay very highly reverence the Scripture is but Protestatio contra factum as may appear by your former expressions and therefore can have no force at all with wise men who judge by things and not by bare words 3. You say That if there were such sufficient light in Scripture to shew it self you should see it as well as we seeing you read it as diligently and esteem it as highly as we do What! You esteem the Scripture as highly as we who say that the Scripture appears no more of it self to be Gods Word than distinction of colours to a blind man You who but in the page before had said there was no more light in Scripture to discover it self than in Seneca Plutarch Aristotle nay as to some things than the Talmud and Alcoran You who say that notwithstanding the Scriptures Christ would have been esteemed an Ignoramus and Impostor if your Church be not Infallible Are you the man who esteem as highly of the Scriptures as we do May we not therefore justly return you your own language and say that if you do not see this light in Scripture it is because your eyes are perverse your understanding unsanctified which instead of discovering such Divine light in Scripture as to make you love and adore it can have the confidence to utter such expressions which tend so highly to the disparagement of it But did not his Lordship give before a sufficient answer to this objection by saying 1. That the light is sufficient in it self but it doth not follow that it must be evident to every one that looks into it for the blindness or perversness of mens minds may keep them from the discovery of it 2. He saith This light is not so full a light as that of the first Principles as that the whole is greater than the part that the same thing cannot be and not be at the same time And yet such is your sincerity you would seem at first to perswade the Reader of the contrary in your next Paragraph but at last you grant that he denies it to be evidently known as one of the Principles of the first sort For you with your wonted subtilty distinguish Principles known of themselves into such as are either evidently and such as are probably known of themselves i. e. Principles known of themselves are either such as are known of themselves or such as are not for what is but probably known is not certainly known of it self but by that probable argument which causeth assent to it But when you deny that the Scripture is so much as one of the second sort of principles and say expresly That of it self it appears not so much as probably to be more the Word of God than some other Book that is not truly such were you not so used to Contradictions I would desire you to reconcile this expression with what you said a little before of your high Esteem and Reverence of the Scriptures 3. The Bishop saith That when he speaks of this light in Scripture he only means it of such a light as is of force to breed Faith that it is the Word of God not to make a perfect knowledge Now Faith of whatsoever it is this or other principle is an evidence as well as knowledge and the belief is firmer than any knowledge can be because it rests upon Divine authority which cannot deceive whereas knowledge or at least he that thinks he knows is not ever certain in deductions from Principles but the Evidence is not so clear Now God doth not require a full demonstrative knowledge in us that the Scripture is his Word and therefore in his Providence hath kindled in it no light for that but he requires our Faith of it and such a certain demonstration as may fit that Now what answer do you return to all this Why forsooth We must have certainty nay an Infallible certainty nay such an Infallible certainty as is built on the Infallible Authority of the Church yet such an Infallible Authority as can be proved only by motives of credibility which is a new kind of Climax in Rhetorick viz. a ladder standing with both ends upon ground at the same time All the answer I shall therefore now give it is that your Faith then is certain Infallibly certain and yet built on but probable motives and therefore on your own principles must be also uncertain very uncertain nay undoubtedly and Infallibly uncertain What again follows concerning Canonical Books and the private Spirit I must send them as Constables do vagrants to the place from whence they came and there they shall meet with a sufficient Answer The remainder of this Chapter consists of a tedious vindication of Bellarmine and Brierely which being of little consequence to the main business I shall return the shorter answer I shall not quarrel much with you about the interpretation of those words of Bellarmine in the sense you give them viz. if they be understood of absolute necessity not of all Christians and only in rare cases that it is not necessary to believe that there is Scripture on supposition that the Doctrine of Scripture could be sufficiently conveyed to the minds of any without it as in the case of the Barbarous Nations mentioned by Irenaeus But for you who make the tradition of the present Church Infallible and at the least the Infallible conveyer of the formal object of Faith I do not see how you can avoid making it as absolutely necessary to be believed as any other object of Faith unless your Church hath some other way of conveying objects of Faith than by propounding the Scripture infallibly to us If therefore men are bound to believe things absolutely necessary to salvation because contained in that Book which the Church delivers to be the Infallible Word of God I cannot possibly see but the belief of the Scripture on the Churches Infallible Testimony must be as necessary necessitate medii as any thing contained in it As for the Citation of Hooker by Brierely Whether it be falsified or no will best be seen by producing the scope and design of that worthy Authour in the Testimonies cited out of him Upon an impartial view of which in the several places referred to I cannot but say that if Brierely's design was to shew that Hooker made the authority of the Church that into which Faith is lastly resolved he doth evidently contradict Mr. Hookers design and is therefore guilty of unfaithful
not of falsifying Hookers words yet of perverting his meaning let the Impartial Reader judge CHAP. VIII The Churches Infallibility not proved from Scripture Some general considerations from the design of proving the Churches Infallibility from Scripture No Infallibility in the High-Priest and his Clergy under the Law if there had been no necessity there should be under the Gospel Of St. Basils Testimony concerning Traditions Scripture less lyable to corruption than Traditions The great uncertainty of judging Traditions when Apostolical when not The Churches perpetuity being promised in Scripture proves not its Infallibility His Lordship doth not falsifie C's words but T. C. doth his meaning Producing the Jesuits words no traducing their Order C's miserable Apology for them The particular texts produced for the Churches Infallibility examined No such Infallibility necessary in the Apostles Successours as in Themselves The similitude of Scripture and Tradition to an Ambassadour and his Credentials rightly stated THE main design of this Chapter being to prove the Infallibility of the Church from the Testimonies of Scripture before I come to a particular discussion of the matters contained in it I shall make some general Observations on the scope and design of it which may give more light to the particulars to be handled in it 1. That the Infallibility you challenge to the Church is such as must suppose a promise extant of it in Scripture Which is evident from the words of A. C. which you own to his Lordship That if he would consider the Tradition of the Church not only as it is the Tradition of a company of fallible men in which sense the Authority of it is humane and fallible but as the Tradition of a company of men assisted by Christ and his Holy Spirit in that sense he might easily find it more than an Introduction indeed as much as would amount to an Infallible Motive Whence I inferr that in order to the Churches Testimony being an Infallible Motive to Faith it must be believed that this company of men which make the Church are assisted by Christ and his Holy Spirit Now I demand Supposing there were no Scripture extant the belief of which you said before in defence of Bellarmine was not necessary to salvation by what means could you prove such an Infallible Assistance of the Holy Spirit in the Catholick Church in order to the perswading an Infidel to believe Could you to one that neither believes Christ nor the Holy Ghost prove evidently that your Church had an assistance of both these You tell him that he cannot believe that there is a Christ or a Holy Ghost unless he believes first your Church to be Infallible and yet he cannot believe your Church to be Infallible unless he believes there are such things as Christ and the Holy Ghost for that Infallibility by your own confession doth suppose the peculiar assistance of both these And can any one believe their assistance before he believes they are If you say as you do By the motives of credibility you will prove your Church Infallible But setting aside the absurdity of that which I have fully discovered already Is it possible for you to prove your Church Infallible unless antecedently to the belief of your Churches Infallibility You can prove to an Infidel the truth of these things 1. That the names of Christ and the Holy Ghost are no Chimerical Fancies and Ideas but that they do import something real otherwise an Infidel would speedily tell you these names imported nothing but some kind of Magical spells which could keep men from errour as long as they carried them about with them That as well might Mahomet or any other Impostor pretend an infallible assistance from some Tutelar Angels with hard Arabick names as you of Christ and the Holy Ghost unless you can make it appear to him that really there are such Beings as Christ and the Holy Ghost and when you have proved it to him and he be upon your proof inclinable to believe it you are bound to tell him by your Doctrine that for all these proofs he can only fancy there are such Beings but he cannot really believe them unless he first believes your Church infallible And when he tells you He cannot according to your own Doctrine believe that Infallibility unless he believes the other first Would he not cry out upon you as either lamentable Fools that did not understand what you said or egregious Impostors that play fast and loose with him bidding him believe first one thing and then another till at last he may justly tell you that in this manner he cannot be perswaded to believe any thing at all 2. Supposing he should get through this and believe that there were such Beings as Christ and the Holy Ghost he may justly ask you 1. Whether they be nothing else but such a kind of Intellectus Agens as the Arabick Philosophers imagined some kind of Being which did assist the understanding in conception You answer him No but they are real distinct personalities of the same nature and essence with God himself then he asks 2. Whence doth this appear for these being such grand difficulties you had need of some very clear evidence of them If you send him to Scripture he asks you To what end for the belief of that must suppose the Truth of the thing in Question that your Church is infallible in delivery of this Scripture for Divine Revelation But he further demands 3. Whence comes that Church which you call Infallible to have this Assistance of both these Do they assist all kind of men to make them infallible You answer No. But Do they assist though not all men separately yet all societies of men conjunctly You answer No. Do they assist all men only in Religious actions of what Religion soever they are of Still you answer No. Do they assist then all men of the Christian Religion in their societies No. Do they assist all those among the Christians who say they have this Assistance No. Do they thus assist all Churches to keep them from errour No. Whom is it then that they do thus infallibly assist You answer The Church But what Church do you mean The Catholick Church But which is this Catholick Church for I hear there are as great Controversies about that as any thing You must answer confidently That Church which is in the Roman Communion is the true Catholick Church Have then all in that Communion this Infallible Assistance No. Have all the Bishops in this Communion it No. Have all these Bishops this Assistance when they meet together Yes say you undoubtedly if the Pope be their Head and confirm their Acts. Then it should seem to me that this Infallible Assistance is in the Pope and he it is whom you call the Catholick Church But surely he is a very big man then is he not But say you These are Controversies which are not necessary for you to know it sufficeth
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
that you deny not the truth of what is therein contained for otherwise the want of Authority in themselves the ambiguity of them the impossibility of knowing the sense of them without Tradition are the very same arguments which with the greatest pomp and ostentation are produced by you against the Scriptures being the Rule whereby to judge of Controversies Which we have no more cause to wonder at than Irenaeus had in the Valentinians because from them we produce our greatest arguments against your fond opinions Now when the Valentinians pretended their great rule was on oral Tradition which was conveyed from the Apostles down to them to this Irenaeus opposeth the constant Tradition of the Apostolical Churches which in a continued succession was preserved from the Apostles times which was the same every where among all the Churches which every one who desired it might easily be satisfied about because they could number them who by the Apostles were appointed Bishops in Churches and their successors unto our own times who taught no such thing nor ever knew any such thing as they madly fancy to themselves We see then his appeal to Tradition was only in a matter of fact Whether ever any such thing as their opinion which was not contained in Scripture was delivered to them by the Apostles or no i. e. Whether the Apostles left any oral Traditions in the Churches which should be the rule to interpret Scriptures by or no And the whole design of Irenaeus is to prove the contrary by an appeal to all the Apostolical Churches and particularly by appealing to the Roman Church because of its due fame and celebrity in that Age wherein Irenaeus lived So that Irenaeus appealed to the then Roman Church even when he speaks highest in the honour of it for somewhat which is fundamentally contrary to the pretensions of the now Roman Church He then appealed to it for an evidence against such oral Traditions which were pretended to be left by the Apostles as a rule to understand Scripture by and were it not for this same pretence now what will become of the Authority of the present Roman Church After he hath thus manifested by recourse to the Apostolical Churches that there was no such Tradition left among them it was very reasonable to inferr that there was none such at all for they could not imagine if the Apostles had designed any such Tradition but they would have communicated it to those famous Churches which were planted by them and it was absurd to suppose that those Churches who could so easily derive their succession from the Apostles should in so short a time have lost the memory of so rich a treasure deposited with them as that was pretended to be from whence he sufficiently refutes that unreasonable imagination of the Valentinians Which having done he proceeds to settle those firm grounds on which the Christians believed in one God the Father and in one Lord Jesus Christ which he doth by removing the only Objection which the Adversaries had against them For when the Christians declared the main reason into which they resolved their Faith as to these principles was Because no other God or Christ were revealed in Scripture but them whom they believed the Valentinians answered this could not be a sufficient foundation for their Faith on this account because many things were delivered in Scripture not according to the truth of the things but the judgment and opinion of the persons they were spoken to This therefore being such a pretence as would destroy any firm resolution of Faith into Scripture and must necessarily place it in Tradition Irenaeus concerns himself much to demonstrate the contrary by an ostension as he calls it that Christ and the Apostles did all along speak according to truth and not according to the opinion of their auditours which is the entire subject of the fifth Chapter of his third Book Which he proves first of Christ because he was Truth it self and it would be very contrary to his nature to speak of things otherwise then they were when the very design of his coming was to direct men in the way of Truth The Apostles were persons who professed to declare truth to the world and as light cannot communicate with darkness so neither could truth be blended with so much falshood as that opinion supposeth in them And therefore neither our Lord nor his Apostles could be supposed to mean any other God or Christ then whom they declared For this saith he were rather to increase their ignorance and confirm them in it then to cure them of it and therefore that Law was true which pronounced a curse on every one who led a blind man out of his way And the Apostles being sent for the recovery of the lost sight of the blind cannot be supposed to speak to men according to their present opinion but according to the manifestation of truth For what Physitian intending to cure a Patient will do according to his Patients desire and not rather what will be best for him From whence he concludes Since the design of Christ and his Apostles was not to flatter but to cure mens souls it follows that they did not speak to them according to their former opinion but according to truth without all hypocrisie and dissimulation From whence it follows that if Christ and his Apostles did speak according to truth there is then need of no Oral Tradition for our understanding Scripture and consequently the resolution of our Faith as to God and Christ and proportionably as to other objects to be believed is not into any Tradition pretending to be derived from the Apostles but into the Scriptures themselves which by this discourse evidently appears to have been the judgement of Irenaeus The next which follows is Clemens of Alexandria who flourished A. D. 196. whom St. Hierome accounted the most learned of all the writers of the Church and therefore cannot be supposed ignorant in so necessary a part of the Christian Doctrine as the Resolution of Faith is And if his judgement may be taken the Scriptures are the only certain Foundation of Faith for in his Admonition to the Gentiles after he hath with a great deal of excellent learning derided the Heathen Superstitions when he comes to give an account of the Christians Faith he begins it with this pregnant Testimony to our purpose For saith he the Sacred Oracles affording us the most manifest grounds of Divine worship are the Foundation of Truth And so goes on in a high commendation of the Scripture as the most compendious directions for happiness the best Institutions for government of life the most free from all vain ornaments that they raise mens souls up out of wickedness yielding the most excellent remedies disswading from the greatest deceit and most clearly incouraging to a foreseen happiness with more of the same nature And when after he perswades men with so much Rhetorick and
man How much beyond the Valentinians and Basilidians would Clemens have accounted so great a madness who so plainly asserts the Scriptures to be proved by themselves and that not casually or in the heat of argument But lest we should not throughly apprehend his meaning repeats it again in the same page 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfectly demonstrating the Scriptures by themselves And are not all these Testimonies of such persons so near the Apostolical times sufficient to acquaint us what the grounds of the Resolution of Faith were in the Christian Church when all of them do so unanimously fix on the Scripture and not so much as mention the Infallible Testimonies of any Church much less the Roman Much more might be cited out of this excellent Authour to the same purpose particularly where he refutes the Valentinians who deserted the Scriptures and pleaded Tradition but the Testimonies already produced are so plain that it will be to no purpose to produce any more It were easie to continue an account of the same grounds of Faith through the succeeding Writers of the Christian Church who have designedly writ on that subject in vindication of Christian Religion which they unanimously prove to be Divine chiefly by these Arguments from the undoubted Miracles which were wrought by Christ and his Apostles from the exact fulfilling of Prophecies and the admirable propagation of the Christian Doctrine all which are particularly insisted on by Origen against Celsus by Tertullian in his Apologetick adversus Scapulam and elsewhere by Minucius Felix Arnobius and Lactantius not to mention Eusebius in his Books of preparation and Cyril's Answer to Julian and others But having elsewhere more fully and largely considered that subject I rather chuse to referr the Reader to what hath been there handled already than to tire his patience with either repeating the same or adding more Testimonies to the same purpose Only that which is most pertinent to our present purpose I shall here add Whether is it credible that those persons who fully understood the Doctrine of Christianity who were themselves rational and inquisitive men and writ for the satisfaction not only of subtle adversaries but of doubting and staggering Christians should so unanimously agree in insisting on the evidence of matter of fact for the truth of the thing delivered in Scripture and the fore-mentioned Arguments for the Divinity of the Doctrine therein delivered had it not been the judgement of the Church they lived in that the resolution of Faith was into those grounds on which they insisted And is it again credible that any of them should believe the Testimony of the Church to be necessary as infallible in order to a Divine Faith and that without it the Scriptures could not be believed as Divine and yet in all their disputes with the Gentiles concerning the Doctrine of Christianity and with several Hereticks as the Marcionists c. concerning the Books of Scripture upon no occasion should mention this grand Palladium of Faith viz. the Infallibility of the present Church And lastly Is it credible that when in our modern Controversies men do evidently maintain faction and interest more than the common Principles of Christianity that he must be blinder than one that can see no distinction of colours that doth not discern on what account this Infallibility is now pretended Is it I say credible that a Doctrine pretended so necessary for our believing Scriptures with Divine Faith should be so concealed when it ought for the honour and interest of Christianity to have been most divulged Which now only in these last and worst times is challenged by an usurping party in the Church as left by Christ himself when no other evidence can be given of it but what was common to all ages of the Church as belonging to such a party under the pretence of the Catholick Church which doth so apparently use it only to uphold her pretended Authority and so makes it serve to the worst ends and the most unworthy designs Having thus far considered what the judgement of those Fathers was concerning the resolution of Faith who lived nearest the Apostolical times I should now come to consider what you can produce out of Antiquity for your Churches Infallibility or more generally for any infallible Testimony supposed in the Catholick Church whatever that be in order to a Foundation for Divine Faith But you very prudently avoid the Testimonies of Antiquity in so necessary a subject as this is for those Testimonies mentioned in the foregoing Chapter in explication of Matth. 28.20 takeing them as you have in so loose and careless a manner produced them make nothing at all for the Churches Infallible Testimonie but only assert that which is not denied that there shall alwaies be a Christian Church in the world Our only remaining task then as to this is to examine in what way you seek to enervate the Testimonies produced by his Lordship out of Antiquity which you do in the latter part of Chap. 8. His Lordship had truly said That this method and manner of proving the Scripture to be the Word of God which he useth is the same which the ancient Church ever held namely Tradition or Ecclesiastical Authority first and then all other arguments but especially internal from the Scripture it self For which he cites first The Church in S. Augustine 's time He was no enemy to Church-Tradition saith his Lorship yet when he would prove that the Authour of the Scripture and so of the whole knowledge of Divinity as it is supernatural is God in Christ he takes this as the all-sufficient way and gives four proofs all internal to the Scripture 1. The Miracles 2. That there is nothing carnal in the Doctrine 3. That there hath been such performance of it 4. That by such a Doctrine of Humility the whole world almost hath been converted And whereas ad muniendam fidem for the defending of the Faith and keeping it entire there are two things requisite Scripture and Church-Tradition Vincent Lyrinens places authority of Scriptures first and then Tradition And since it is apparent that Tradition is first in order of time it must necessarily follow that Scripture is first in order of nature that is the chief upon which Faith rests and resolves it self To this after you have needlesly explained his Lordships opinion in this Controversie you begin to answer thus He cites first Vincentius Lyrinensis l. 1. c. 1. who makes our Faith to be confirmed both by Scripture and Tradition of the Catholick Church But Are not you like to be trusted in citing Fathers who doubly falsifie a Testimony of your adversaries when you may be so easily disproved For 1. You tell us he cites that first which he produceth last 2. You cite that as produced by him for the Foundation of Faith which he expresly cites for the preservation of the Doctrine of Faith so he tells you ad muniendam fidem
c. Can any thing be more plain and obvious to any one who looks into that discourse of Vincentius than that he makes it not his business to give an account of the general Foundations of Faith as to the Scriptures being Gods Word but of the particular Doctrines of Faith in opposition to the Heresies which arise in the Church So that all that he speaks concerning Scripture is not about the authority but the sense and interpretation of it If therefore I should grant you that he speaks of Christian and Divine Faith What is this to your purpose unless you could prove that he speaks of that Divine Faith whereby we believe the Scripture to be the Word of God But yet your argument is very good to prove that he speaks not of any humane fallible perswasion but true Christian Divine Faith for he opposes it to Heresie and calls it sound Faith and his Faith It seems then whatever Faith is sound for the matter of it is presently Christian Divine and Infallible and so whosoever believes any thing which is materially true in opposition to Heresies needs never fear as long as he doth so for according to you he hath Christian and Infallible Faith but what if the Devils Faith be as sound as any Catholicks ' Must it therefore be Divine Faith No it may be you will answer because he wants the formal object of Faith and doth not believe on the account of your Churches Infallibility I verily believe you for he knows the jugglings of it too much to believe it infallible But take Vincentius in what sense you please that is evident in him which his Lordship produced him for that for the preserving Faith entire he places authority of Scripture first and then Tradition unless you will serve his Testimony as you do his Lordships because it makes for your purpose say He mentions Tradition first and then Scripture but say you He sayes Tradition doth as truly confirm Divine Faith as Scripture though Scripture doth it in a higher manner If you did but consider either what kind of Tradition or what kind of Faith Vincentius insists on you could not possibly think his words any thing to your purpose For he speaks not of any Tradition infallibly attested to us without which you pretend there can be no Divine Faith but of such an Vniversal Tradition which depends wholly upon Antiquity Vniversality and Consent and never so much as mentions much less pretends to any thing of Infallibility So that if you grant such a kind of Tradition doth as truly confirm Faith as the Scripture then you must grant no necessity of an Infallible Testimony to assure us of that Tradition for Vincentius speaks of such a kind of Tradition as hath no connexion with Infallibility For if Vincentius had ever in the least thought of any such thing so great and zealous an opposer of Heresies would not have left out that which had been more to his purpose than all that he had said For wise men who have throughly considered of Vincentius his way though in general they cannot but approve of it so far as to think it highly improbable that there should be Antiquity Vniversality and Consent against the true and genuine sense of Scripture yet when they consider this way of Vincentius with all those cautions restrictions and limitations set down by him ◠1. c. 39. they are apt to think that he hath put men to a wild-goose-chase to finde out any thing according to his Rules and that S. Augustine spake a great deal more to the purpose when he spake concerning all the Writers of the Church That although they had never so much learning and sanctity he did not think it true because they thought so but because they perswaded him to believe it true either from the Authority of Scripture or some probable Reason If therefore S. Austin's Authority be not sunk so low as that of the Monk of Lerins we have very little reason to think that Tradition can as truly confirm Faith to us as the Scriptures supposing that to have been the meaning of Vincentius Which yet is not reasonable to imagine since Vincentius himself grants that in case of inveterate Heresie or Schism either the sole Authority of Scripture is to be used or at most the determinations of General Councils nay and in all cases doth suppose that the Canon of Scripture is perfect and is abundantly sufficient of it self for all things Can you yet therefore suppose that Vincentius did think that Tradition did as truly confirm our Faith as the Scripture Which is your assertion and the only thing whereby you pretend that the Bishop hath misconstrued Vincentius but whether be more guilty of it I leave to impartial judgement The next Testimony you consider is that of Henricus à Gandavo For his Lordship had said That the School had confessed this was the way ever For which he cites the Testimony of that Schoolman That daily with them that are without Christ enters by the woman i. e. the Church and they believe by that fame which she gives alluding to the story of the woman of Samaria But when they come to hear Christ himself they believe His words before the words of the woman For when they have once found Christ they do more believe his words in Scripture than they do the Church which testifies of him because then propter illam for the Scripture they believe the Church And if the Church should speak contrary to the Scripture they would not believe it Thus saith his Lordship the School taught then No that did it not say you But let us see how rarely you prove it For you say he speaks all this of a supernatural and Divine Faith to be given both to the Scriptures and the Church Gandavensis certainly is much obliged to you who venture to speak such great Absurdities for his sake for if he be understood in both places of Divine and Infallible Faith these rare consequences follow 1. That the first beginning of Faith is equal to the highest degree of it for when he speaks of the Church he speaks of Christs entring by that which can be meant of nothing else but the first step to Faith as is plain in the parallel case of the woman of Samaria but if this were Divine and Infallible it must be equal to the highest degree for that I suppose can be but Divine and Infallible unless you can find out degrees in Infallibility By this Rule you make him that is but over the threshold as much in the house as he that is sate down to the Table a plant at its first peeping out of the earth to be as tall as at its full growth and the Samaritans as firmly to believe in Christ at the first mention of him by the Woman as when they saw and heard him 2. By this you make an Infallible Faith to be built on a Fallible
this tedious Controversie But this containing very little new in it and therefore deserves not to be handled apart will on that account admit of a quicker dispatch In which the first Section begins with S. Austin's Testimony which should have been considered before and now it comes out with the same Answer attending it which was given so lately concerning primary and infallible and secondary and probable Motives of Faith the vanity of which is sufficiently discovered Whereas in your Margent you bring an example of such a probable Motive viz. when S. Austin saith to Faustus That as constant Tradition was sufficient for him to believe that that Epistle was Manichaeus his which went under his name so the same Tradition was sufficient to him to prove the Gospel was S. Matthew 's which was so universally received for his ever since the writing of it I am so far from thinking this a meer probable Motive that it is the highest evidence the matter is capable of and so S. Austin thought Your paralleling the saying of Waldensis That if the Church should speak any thing contrary to Scripture he would not believe her with another which you pretend to be S. Austin's If the Scripture should speak any thing contrary to the Church we could not believe that neither and then saying that both proceed on an impossible supposition must imply that it is an equal impossibility for the Church to deliver any thing contrary to the Doctrine of Scripture as for the Scripture to contradict it self for to say The Scripture should contradict the Church signifies nothing because the Being of the Church is founded on the Doctrine of Scripture All that S. Austin saith in the place you referr us to comes to no more than this If the Church were found deceived in the Writings of Scripture then there could be no ground of any firm assent to them And is this I pray a fit parallel for that speech of Waldensis Is this to say If the Scripture speak any thing against the Church it is not to be believed In your next Sect. N. 2 3. you fall from Parallels to Circles and Semicircles as you call them in which you only shew us your faculty of mumbling the same things over and over concerning his Lordships mistating the Question about Infallible and Divine Faith Apostolical Tradition the formal Object of Faith which I must out of charity to the Readers patience beg him to look back for the several Answers if he thinks any thing needs it for I am now quite tired with these Repetitions there being not one word added here but what hath been answered already But lest thâ—se should not enough tire us the next Sect. N. 4. consists of the old puff-paste of ultimate Motive and formal Object of the Infallibility which is not simply Divine and others of a like nature whose vanity hath been detected in the very entrance into this Controversie It seems you had a great mind to give the Bishop a blow when you reach as far as from p. 103 to p. 115. to do it and yet fall short of it at last for though you charge him with a false citation of S. Austin for these words fidei ultima resolutio est in Deum illuminantem yet in that Chapter though not the words yet the sense is there extant when he gives that account of Christian Faith That it comes not by the authority of men but from God himself confirming and inlightening our mind Is not here a plain resolution of Faith in Deum illuminantem And therefore your charge of false citation and your confident denial That there is any such Text to be found either there or any where else in all S. Augustine argue you are not careful what you say so you may but throw dirt in your adversaries face though we may easily know from whence it comes by the foulness of your fingers And for your other challenge of producing any Testimony of the Fathers which saith That we must resolve our Faith of Scripture into the Light of Scriptures I hope the Testimonies I have in this Chapter mentioned may teach you a little more modesty and for the other part of it That we cannot believe the Scripture infallibly for the Churches authority as far as a Negative can be proved I dare appeal to the judgement of any one Whether it be possible to believe that the Fathers judged the Certainty much less Infallibility of Christian Faith did depend on the Churches Infallible Testimony and yet never upon the most just occasion do so much as mention it but rather speak very much to the contrary His Lordship having thus at large delivered his mind in this important Controversie to make what he had said the more portable summs up the substance of it in several Considerations Which being only a recapitulation of what hath been fully discussed already will need the shorter Vindication in some brief strictures where you unjustly quarrel with them To his 1. That it seems reasonable that since all Sciences suppose Principles Theology should be allowed some too the chiefest of which is That the Scriptures are of Divine Authority your Answer is considerable viz. that he confounds Theology a discoursive Science with Faith which is an act of the Vnderstanding produced by an Impulse of the Will c. But not to examine what hath been already handled of the power of the Will in the act of Faith it is plain when his Lordship speaks of Theology he means Theology and not Faith and the intent of this Consideration was to shew the unreasonableness of starting this Question in a Theological Dispute about the Church In your Answer to the second you say That Fallible Motives cannot produce Certainty which if you would prove you would do more to the purpose than you have done yet and by this argument I could not be certain whether you had done it or no unless you brought some Infallible Motives to prove it The third you pass over The fourth you grant though not very consistently with what you elsewhere say As to what you say in answer to the fifth concerning Miracles I agree with you in it having elsewhere sufficiently declared my self as to them For the sixth you referr to your former Answer and so do I to the reply to it In the seventh his Lordship proves the necessity of some revelation from God rationally and strongly and thence inferrs That either there never was any such Revelation or that the Scripture is that Revelation and that 's it we Christians labour to make good against all Atheism Prophaneness and Infidelity To which you have two Exceptions 1. That this cannot be proved by the meer Light of Scripture which His Lordship never pretended to 2. That he leaves out the Word only which was the cause of the whole Controversie What between Christians and Atheists For of that Controversie he there speaks but since
you are so fond of your unwritten Revelations pray prove the necessity of them as strongly against Atheists as his Lordship hath done the necessity of a written one In the last Consideration he musters up all the several arguments whereby men may be perswaded that this Revelation is contained in those Books we call the Scripture as the Tradition of the Church the Testimony of former Ages the consent of times the Harmony of Prophets and the Prophecies fulfilled the success of the Doctrine the constancy of it the spiritual nature and efficacy of it and lastly the inward light and excellency of the Text it self which with a great deal of Rhetorick is there set forth But to all this you say no more than what hath been abundantly disproved viz. That all these only justifie our belief when it is received as the ancients received it upon the Infallible Authority of Church-Tradition but never otherwise Whereas we have proved that the ancients received it only on the same grounds which are here mentioned and therefore certainly are sufficient not only to justifie our Faith but to perswade us to believe Your argument against what his Lordship saith of the necessity of the Spirit 's assistance with these Motives and the Light of Scripture for producing Divine Faith will equally hold against all those of your own side who hold the necessity of Gods Spirit for believing the Churches Infallibility and against all such of both sides who hold any necessity of Divine Grace for then you must say that either that Grace is not necessary in order to salvation or that those who want it are neither truly Christians nor capable of salvation And how horridly soever these consequences sound in the ears of the unlearned they can sound no worse than those multitudes of Scriptures do which tell men That without true Divine Faith and real Grace they are under eternal condemnation But it may be that the unlearned may not be affrighted with such sentences as those are you think it a great deal better to let them hear little or nothing of the Scripture and to let them be continually entertained with the sweet and melodious voice of the Church No doubt you thought your next argument had done the business effectually For say you to make them more sensible of the foulness of this errour viz. the danger of such who do not savingly believe Let them consider that when young and unlearned Christians are taught to say their Creed and profess their belief of the Articles contained in it before they read Scripture they are taught to lye and profess to do that which they neither do nor can do in his Tenet An excellent argument against making Children say their Creed but Will not the same hold against all publick using of the Creed because it is unquestionable but there are some who do not savingly or divinely believe it Nay Will it not much more hold against any in your Church saying their Creed at all unless they first believe your Church to be Infallible which is very well known that all do not For then according to you they do but lye and profess to do that which they neither do nor can do without the Churches Infallible Testimony And therefore you must begin a new work of Catechizing the members of your Church to know whether they believe the Churches Infallibility before they can say their Creed Unless you solve it among your selves by saying It is not a formal lye but only an aequivocation which many of you say is lawful in case of danger as you see apparently this is But if the aequivocation be said only to lye in the word Believe you might easily discern the weakness of your argument through it For if some may truly believe what they do not savingly believe there is no lye certainly told in saying They do believe as far as they do which is by a firm assent to the Truth of all the Articles of Faith by that which is call'd an historical or dogmatical Faith where there may be no saving Faith But that because Children are taught as a short systeme of the Articles of Faith to say their Creed we must be convinced of the foulness of our errour is an apparent evidence that either you apprehended our understandings to be very weak or that you sufficiently discover your own to be so The only quarrel which you have with his Lordships Synthetical way is That he confounds his Reader with multiplicity of arguments and weakens the authority of the Church without which if you may be believed he might tire himself and others but never be able to make a clear resolution of Faith How clear an account you have given of Faith in your Analytical way by the Authority of the Church hath been sufficiently laid open to you but I wonder not that you quarrel with multiplicity of arguments there being nothing which doth really weaken the authority of your Church so much as they do and they are men certainly of your temper who will be soon tired with too much reason What follows concerning the captiousness of the Question as first propounded and the vicious Circle you would free your selves of by the Motives of Credibility deserve no further answer Only when you would make A. C. go your way and both together prove the Church Infallible independently on Scripture you did not certainly consider that it is an Infallibility by Promise which you challenge and for that end in the precedent Chapter were those places of Scripture produced by A. C. and urged by you All that I shall return by way of Answer to your tedious discourse concerning Scriptures being a Principle supposed among Christians the main of it depending on the circumstances of the dispute between his Lordship and Mr. Fisher shall be in these following particulars 1. That in all Controversies among Christians whose decision depends upon the authority of Scripture the Scripture must be supposed as granted to be of Divine Authority by both parties 2. That in that Question Whether the Scripture contains all necessary things of Faith that necessity must be supposed to relate to the things which depend upon Scripture and therefore implies it believed on other grounds that this Scripture is of Divine Revelation For the Question is Whether God hath consigned his Will so fully to us in this Revelation of himself that nothing necessary to be believed is left out of it For men then to say That this is left out of it viz. to believe that this is a Divine Revelation is an unreasonable Cavil it being supposed in the very Question that it is so 3. That in this sense the Scripture may be said to be a supposed Principle because it hath a different way of probation from particular objects of Faith revealed in Scripture For to a rational Enquirer who seems to doubt of the Truth of Scriptures it is equally absurd to give him any
to prove it When you therefore tell us afterwards That the Vniversal Church supposes the acknowledgement of the same Vicar of Christ and that those Dioceses which agree in this acknowledgement as well as in the same Faith and communion of the same Sacraments make up one and the same Vniversal Church When you further add That the Roman Church is therefore stiled the Church because it is the seat of the Vicar of Christ and chief Pastor of the Church Vniversal I can only say to all these confident affirmations that if you had sat in the chair your self you could not have said more or proved less It is not therefore in what sense words may be taken by you for who questions but you may abuse words but in what sense they ought to be taken You may call the Bishop of Rome the Vicar of Christ but before you can expect our submission to him you must prove that he is so you may call the Roman Church The Church if you please among your selves but if by that you would perswade us there can be no Church but that you would do an office of kindness to offer a little at some small proof of it i. e. as much as the cause and your abilities will afford And what if the Ancients by a true Church did mean an Orthodox Church I know but one of these things will follow from it either that they took a true Church for one morally and not metaphysically true or that if your Church be not an Orthodox Church it can be none at all From hence you proceed to quarrel with his Lordship for saying That may be a true Church which is not a right Church which is all the thanks he hath for his kindness to you for say you how can you call that a true Church in which men are not taught the way to Heaven but to eternal perdition Which is as much as to ask How you can call that man a true man that hath a Leprosie upon him But if you had considered what his Lordship had said you would never have made such an objection For his Lordship doth not speak of the soundness of a Church but of the metaphysical entity of it For he saith It is true in that sense as ens and verum Being and True are convertible one with another and every thing that hath a Being is truly that Being which it is in truth of substance But say you how can that be a true Church which teacheth the way to eternal perdition by some false Doctrine in matter of Faith because it either teacheth something to be the Word of God which is not or denies that to be his Word which is to err in this sort is certainly to commit high and mortal offence against the honour and veracity of God and consequently the direct way to eternal perdition An excellent discourse to prove that no man can be saved that is not Infallible for if he be not Infallible he may either teach something to be Gods Word which is not or deny that to be his Word that is either of which being a mortal offence against the honour and veracity of God it is impossible any man that is not Infallible should be saved either then we must put off that humanity which exposes us to errour or pronounce it impossible for any men to be saved or else assert that there may be errour where Gods veracity is not denyed And if so then not only men severally but a Society of men may propound that for truth which is not and yet not mortally offend against Gods veracity supposing that Society of men doth believe though falsly that this is therefore true because revealed by God In which case that Church may be a true Church in one sense though an erroneous Church in another true as there is a possibility of salvation in it erroneous as delivering that for truth which is not so But here is a great deal of difference between a Church acknowledging her self fallible and that which doth not For suppose a Church propose something erroneous to be believed if she doth not arrogate Infallibility to her self in that proposal but requires men to search and examine her doctrine by the Word of God the danger is nothing so great to the persons in her communion but when a Church pretends to be Infallible and teacheth errours that Church requiring those errours to be believed upon her Authority without particular examination of the Doctrines proposed is chargeable with a higher offence against the honour and veracity of God and doth as much as in her lies in your expression teach men the way to eternal perdition And of all sorts of blind guides it is most dangerous following such who pretend to be Infallible in their blindness and it is a great miracle if such do not fall past recovery The more therefore you aggravate the danger of errour the worse still you make the condition of your Church where men are bound to believe the Church Infallible when she proposeth the most dangerous errours When you say The whole Church is not lyable to these inconveniencies of seducing or being seduced if you mean as you speak of that which is truly the whole Church of Christ you are to seek for an Adversary in it if you mean the Roman Church you are either seduced or endeavour to seduce in saying so when neither that is or can be the whole Church neither is it free from believing or proposing errours as will appear afterwards You quarrel with his Lordship again for his Similitude of a man that may be termed a man and not be honest and say it comes not home to the case But we must see how well you have fitted it Instead of a man you would have a Saint put and then you say the Parallel would have held much better But certainly then you mean only such Saints as Rome takes upon her to Canonize for the Question was of one that might be a man and not be honest Will you say the same of your Saint too If instead of Saint you had put his Holiness in there are some in the world would not have quarrelled with you for it But you are an excellent man at paralleling cases His Lordship was speaking of the Metaphysical Truth of a Church being consistent with moral corruptions for which he instanced in a thiefs being truly a man though not an honest man now you to mend the matter make choice of moral Integrity being consistent with Metaphysical Truth which is of a Saint and a man And Doth not this now come home to our case That which follows to shew the incongruity of his Lordships Similitude would much more shew your wit if it were capable of tolerable sense For you say the word Church in our present debate implies not a simple or uncompounded term as that of man but is a compound of substance and accidents together We had
and punctual then this testimony of Cyprian is to overthrow that sense of the Catholick Church which you contend for How farr were Cyprian and the African Bishops from making Rome the center of Ecclesiastical communion when they looked on appeals thither as very unjust and unreasonable What acknowledgement and dependence was there on the Church of Rome in those who looked on themselves as having a portion of Christs flock committed to them of which they were to give an account to God alone And I pray what excellent persons were those who undervalued the Authority of the African Bishops and ran to Rome St. Cyprian tells us they were pauci desperati perditi and translate these with as much advantage to your cause as you can So fatal hath it been to Rome even from its first foundation to be a receptacle for such persons And is not this a great credit to your cause that such persons who were ejected out of communion for their crimes at home did make their resort to Rome and the more pious and stout any Bishops were the more they defended their own priviledges in opposition to the encroachments of the Roman Sec. Which was apt to take advantage from such Renegado's as these were by degrees to get more power into her hands and lift up her head above her fellow-Churches But lest you should think that St. Cyprian only spake these things in an heat out of his opposition to these persons and his desire to crush them you shall see what his judgement was concerning the same things when he purposely discourseth of them For in his Book of the Vnity of the Church he useth that expression which destroyes all your subordinate union in the Church which is Episcopatus unus est cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur They who consider and understand the importance of that speech will find nothing more destructive to your doctrine of the Catholick Church then that is For when he makes the Vniversal Government of the Church to be but one Episcopal office and that committed in the several parts of it with full power to particular Bishops can any be so senseless to imagine that he should ever think the Government of the Church in General to depend on any one particular Church as chief over the rest And that the former words do really import such a full power in particular Bishops over that part of the flock which is committed to them appears from the true importance of the phrase insolidum a phrase taken out of the Civil Law where great difference is made between an obligation in partem and in solidum and so proportionable between a tenure in partem and in solidum those things were held in solidum which were held in full right and power without payments and acknowledgements But where the usus-fructus belonged to another it was not held in solidum So that when St. Cyprian saith that every part belonging to each Bishop was held in solidum he therein imports that full right and power which every Bishop hath over his charge and in this speech he compares the Government of the Church to an estate held by several Freeholders in which every one hath a full right to that share which belongs to him Whereas according to your principles the Government of the Church is like a Mannor or Lordship in which the several inhabitants hold at the best but by Copy from the Lord and you would fain have it at the will of your Lord too But thus farr we see St. Cyprian was from your modern notion of the Catholick Church that he looks on the Vnity of it as depending on the consent of the Catholick Bishops and Churches under their full power and not deriving that Vnity from any particular Church as the head and fountain of it And therefore in the former Schism at Rome about Cornelius and Novatianus St. Cyprian imployed two of his colleagues thither Caldonius and Fortunatus that not only by the Letters they carried but by their presence and Counsel they should do their utmost endeavour to bring the members of that divided body to the unity of the Catholick Church Which is certainly a very different thing from the Catholick Churche's deriving its Vnity from the particular Church of Rome Many other instances of a like nature might be produced out of the Reports of St. Cyprians times but these are sufficient to evidence how far the Vnity of the Catholick Church was then from depending on the Church of Rome But lest we should seem to insist only on St. Cyprians testimony it were easie to multiply examples in this kind which I shall but touch at some of and proceed If the Church of Rome then had been looked on as the center of Ecclesiastical communion is it possible to conceive that the excommunications of the Church of Rome should be slighted as they were by Polycrates for which St. Hierome commends him as a man of courage that Stephen should be opposed as he was by Cyprian and Firmilian in a way so reflecting on the Authority of the Roman Church that appeals to Rome should be so severely prohibited by the African Bishops that causes should be determined by so many Canons to be heard in their proper Dioceses that when the right of appeals was challenged by the Bishops of Rome it was wholly upon the account of the imaginary Nicene Canons that when Julius undertook by his sole power to absolve Athanasius the Oriental Bishops opposed it as irregular on that account at the Council at Antioch that when afterwards Paulus Marcellus and Lucius repaired to Rome to Julius and he seeks to restore them the Eastern Bishops wonder at his offering to restore them who were excommunicated by themselves and that as when Novatus was excommunicated at Rome they opposed it not so neither ought he to oppose their proceedings against these persons What account can be given of these passages if the Vnity of the Catholick Church had depended on the particular Church of Rome Besides while the Church of Rome continued regular we find she looked on her self as much obliged to observe the excommunications made by other Churches as others were to observe hers As in the case of Marcion who being excommunicated by his Father the Bishop of Sinope in Pontus and by no means prevailing with his Father for his admission into the Church again resorts to Rome and with great earnestness begs admission there where he received this answer That they could not do it without the command of his Father for there is one Faith and one consent and we cannot contradict our worthy brother your Father This shews the Vnity of the Catholick Church to proceed upon other grounds than the causal influence of the Church of Rome when the consent of the Church did oblige the Church of Rome not to repeal the excommunication of a particular Bishop Upon which ground it was that Synesius
proceeded so high in the letters of excommunication against Andronicus that he forbids all the Churches upon earth to receive him into their communion And withall adds That if any should contemn his Church because it was of a little City and should receive those who were condemned by it as though it were not necessary to obey so poor a Church he lets them know that they make a Schism in that Church which Christ would have to be one We see here on what equal terms the communion of the Catholick Church then stood when so small a Church as that of Ptolemais could so farr oblige by her act the Catholick Church that they should be guilty of Schism who admitted them to communion whom she had cast out of it If Synesius had believed the Church of Rome to have been the center of Ecclesiastical communion had it not been good manners nay duty in him to have asked first the pleasure of the Church of Rome in this case before he had passed so full and definitive a sentence as this was But the wise and great men of those ages were utterly strangers to these rare distinctions of a causal formal and participative Catholick Church It is true indeed they did then speak honourably of the Church of Rome in their age as a principal member of the Catholick Church and having advantages above other Churches by its being fixed in the seat of the Empire on which account her communion was much desired by other persons But still we find the persons most apt to extoll her Authority were such as were most obnoxious who not being able to hold any reputation in their own Churches where their crimes and scandals were sufficiently known ran presently to Rome which was ready still to take their part thereby to inhance her power as is most evident in the many disputes which arise upon such accounts between the Roman and African Bishops But these things we shall have occasion to discuss more particularly afterwards At the present it may be sufficient by these few of very many examples which might be produced to have made it appear that it was farr from being a known and received truth in the ancient Church that the Church of Rome was the center of Ecclesiastical communion or that the Church was call'd Catholick from the union with her and dependence upon her But we must now consider what strenuous proofs you produce for so confident an affirmation your instances therefore being the most pregnant to your purpose which you could find in Antiquity must be particularly examined your first is of St. Ambrose relating that his brother Satyrus going on shore in a certain City of Sardinia where he desired to be Baptized demanded of the Bishop of that City whether he consented with the Catholick Bishops that is saith he with the Roman Church These words I grant to be in St. Ambrose but whosoever throughly considers them will find how little they make for your purpose For which it will be sufficient to look on the following words which tell us that at that time there was a Schism in the Church and Sardinia was the chief seat of it For Lucifer Caralitanus had newly separated himself from the Church and had left Societies there which joyned in his Schism For Caralis was the Metropolis of Sardinia and it appears by St. Hierome that the Luciferians confined the Church only to Sardinia which is the cause of that expression of his That Christ did not come meerly for the sake of the Sardinians So that those Luciferians were much like the Donatists confining the Church only to their own number Now there being such a Schism at that time in Sardinia what did Satyrus any more then enquire whether the Bishop of the place he resorted to was guilty of this Schism or no But say you he made that the tryal whether he was a Catholick or no by asking whether he agreed with the Church of Rome To which I answer that there was very great reason for his particular instancing in the Church of Rome 1. Because Satyrus was originally of the Church of Rome himself for Paulinus in the life of S. Ambrose Satyrus his brother speaking of him after his consecration to be Bishop say's Ad urbem Romam hoc est ad natale solum perrexit He went to Rome i. e. to the place of his birth now Satyrus being originally a Roman what wonder is it that he should particularly enquire of the Roman Church As suppose one of the Gallican Church of Arles or Vienna should have been cast upon shore in another Island belonging to France at the same time and understanding there was a Schism in the place should particularly enquire whether they agreed with the Catholick Bishops i. e. with the Church of Arles or Vienna Could you hence inferr that either of these were the center of Ecclesiastical communion and if not from hence how can you from the other Or suppose in the time of the Donatists Schism in Africk a stranger coming accidentally thither and desiring communion with the Christians of that City he was in should enquire of the Bishop of the City whether he communicated with the Catholick Bishops i. e. with the Church of Hippo or Carthage Could you hence inferr that Hippo was causally the Catholick Church and if not with what reason can you do it from so parallel a case 2. Because Sardinia did belong to the Metropolitan Province of the Church of Rome it being one of the Suburbicarian Provinces under the jurisdiction of the Roman Lieutenant and consequently one of the Suburbicarian Churches appertaining to the Metropolitan power of the Bishop of Rome and therefore it was but reason to ask whether the Churches in Sardinia did agree with their Mother Church or no. But all this is very farr from implying that the Vnity of the Catholick Church comes from the particular Church of Rome on this account because at that time when the Vnity of the Catholick Church was preserved by that continual correspondence between the parts of it by the formed letters and otherwise who ever was known to have communion with any one particular Church which communicated with the rest had thereby communion with the Catholick Church So that on that account the question might as well have been asked of the Churches of Milan Agobio or any other in Italy as of the Church of Rome For whosoever communicated with any of them did communicate with the Catholick Church as well as those who did communicate with the Church of Rome So that your first instance will prove no more the Church of Rome to be the fountain and center of Ecclesiastical communion then any other particular Church Your second is from St. Hieromes saying That the Church of Alexandria made it her glory to participate of the Roman Faith But doth it hence follow that the Church of Alexandria was therefore Catholick because she participated of
Church i. e. who consent not in all things with the See Apostolick But lest these words being thus inserted by the Pope himself should be interpreted to the disadvantage of other Churches and particularly that of Constantinople The Patriarch makes a Preface to that Subscription by way of Protestation wherein after declaring the reception of the Popes letters and congratulating the hopes of Vnion he manifests his own desire of peace and his willingness to refuse the communion of all Hereticks For saith he I look on those most holy Churches of your elder and our new Rome as both making but one Church And after declaring his assent to the decrees of the four General Councils he adds That those who opposed them he judged fallen off à Sanct â Dei generali Apostolicâ Ecclesiâ from the holy Catholick and Apostolick Church Now when the Patriarch was thus careful to explain himself so as to assert that the Church of Rome and that of Constantinople made but one Church when he adds what he means by the Catholick Church viz. the truely General and Apostolical Church inferr as much from Hormisda's words as you will I am sure you can do little to your purpose from the Patriarchs taking them in the sense he explains himself in by this Protestation So that the meaning of them is only this that as he judged the Church of Rome a member of the Catholick Church whose Vnity required that those who were out of communion in one Church should be so with the rest so he consented to acknowledge them justly excommunicated whom the Church of Rome would have to be so So that hence nothing ariseth to your purpose more then will equally advance the authority of any other particular Church whose excommunications did oblige the whole Church as we have seen already in the case of Sinope and Ptolemais You proceed to another Testimony of St. Austin addressing himself to the Donatists telling them That the succession of the Roman Bishops is the rock which the proud gates of Hell overcome not thereby insinuating that the very succession of those Bishops is in some true sense the Catholick Church But from whence doth it appear that the succession of the Roman Bishops is the Rock here spoken of For St. Austin was there arguing against the Donatists and shewing them the danger of being separated from the unity of the Catholick Church that if they were cut off from the vine they would wither and be in danger to be cast into the fire and therefore exhorts them to come and be planted into the vine it being a grief to them to see them cut off Now in order to this he brings in the former words to acquaint them with the way whereby they might better understand the Catholick Church which could not in reason be confined to their own age but must be derived from the Apostles So that his counsel is of the same nature with that of Tertullian and Irenaeus who put men upon a diligent search into the successions of the Apostolical Churches But now when by this search they have found out the Catholick Church he tells them That is the Rock which the proud gates of hell cannot overcome For so elsewhere St. Austin calls the Catholick Church a Rock as he calls it likewise a House and a City in several places of these disputations against the Donatists As here before he calls it the Vine from whence all who are cut off wither and dye But what is all this to the particular Church of Rome which none of the Disputes with the Donatists at all concerned As is fully manifest from the whole management of that Controversie in which though he was so much put upon shewing what and where the Catholick Church was yet he never once expressed any such thing as that the Church was called Catholick from any relation to the Church of Rome but still mentions it as a particular Church which with other Churches made up one Catholick Church So in his Commentaries on the 44. Psalm Behold Rome saith he behold Carthage behold several other Cities these are Kings daughters and have delighted the King in his honour but they all make up but one Queen How incongruous had this expression been had St. Austin believed the Roman Church to be so much above all others that the ground why any others were called Catholick was from their union with her and therefore he must according to your principles have saluted the Church of Rome as the Queen of all the rest and made other particular Churches but as her daughters and hand-maids But St. Austin knew of no such difference but looked on all particular Churches whether at Rome Carthage or elsewhere as making up but one Catholick Church And to the same purpose he frequently speaks when he sayes That the Church is call'd One in regard of her Vnity and Many in regard from the several Societies of Christians abroad in the world When he calls the several Churches members of that one Church which is spread all over the world without setting any note of discrimination upon one above all the rest When he reckons the Roman Corinthian Galatian Ephesian Churches together and that all these and the Churches propagated from them do conspire in one Vniversal Church But the places are so many to this purpose in him that it would look too much like ostentation to offer to prove a matter so evident to all that read any thing in him And is it possible then for you to think That St. Austin made the succession of Bishops at Rome in any sense the Catholick Church You might as well say that he made the Church spread all over the world a particular Church as that he made any particular Church whether at Rome or elsewhere for he makes no difference to be in any sense the Vniversal Church But that which you seem to lay the greatest force on is the testimony of Optatus Milevitanus Who say you after he had said that St. Peter was head of all the Apostles and that he would have been a Schismatick who should have erected another chair against that singular one of St. Peter as also that in that chair of St. Peter being but one Vnity was to be kept by all he adds that with Syricius then Pope he himself was united in communion with whom the whole world saith he meaning the whole Catholick Church agrees by communicatory letters in one Society of communion See here say you how clearly he makes the union with the Bishop of Rome the measure of the Catholick Church which the Bishop calls a Jesuitism and further proves himself to be in the Catholick Church because he was in communion with the See of St. Peter For our better understanding the meaning of these words of Optatus we must consider the state of the Controversie between Optatus and Parmenianus by which it will appear how
was to shew that their Church from which the Donatists separated was the true Catholick Church which he proves from their communion with all the Apostolical Churches which had a clear and distinct succession from the Apostles their planters And because of the Vicinity and Fame of Rome and the easier knowing the succession there he instanceth in that in the first place and then proceeds to the rest of them But withall to shew the Vnity of all these Apostolical Churches when he had mentioned Siricius as the present Bishop of Rome he adds That all the world agreed with him in the entercourse of the formed Letters not thereby intimating any supremacy of that Church above others but to shew that that succession he instanceth in at Rome was of the Catholick Church because the whole Christian world did agree in Communion with him that was the Bishop there And when he speaks of one chair it is plain he means it of the particular Church of Rome because every Apostolical Church had an Apostolical Chair belonging to it So Tertullian expresly That in all the Apostolical Churches there were their Chairs still remaining And Eusebius particularly mentions the Apostolical Throne or Chair at Hierusalem as others do that of Mark at Alexandria and of the rest elsewhere Nothing then can possibly be inferred from these words of Optatus concerning the Church of Rome but what would equally hold for any other Apostolical Church and how much that is let the Reader judge And how much soever it be it will be very little for your advantage who pretend to something peculiar to the Church of Rome above all other Churches From Optatus you proceed or rather return to S. Hierom who say you professes the Church is built upon S. Peter 's See and that whoever eats the Lamb that is pretends to believe in Christ and partakes of the Sacraments out of that house that is out of the communion of that Church is prophane and an Alien yea that he belongs to Antichrist and not to Christ whoever consents not with the successor of S. Peter This Testimony sounds big and high at first and I shall not impute these expressions either to S. Hierome's heat or his flattery although it looks the more suspicious because at that time he had so great a pique against the Eastern Bishops and that these words are contained in a complemental address to Damasus But setting aside what advantages might be gained on that account to weaken the force of this Testimony if we consider the occasion or nature of these expressions we shall find that they reach not the purpose you design them for We must therefore consider that at the time of the writing this Epistle S. Hierom seems to be in a great perplexity what to do in that division which was then in the Church of Antioch concerning Paulinus Vitalis and Miletius but besides this Schism it seems S. Hierom suspected some remainders of Arrianism to be still among them from their demanding of him Whether he acknowledged three distinct hypostases in the Trinity Now S. Hierom by hypostasis understands the essence as many of the Greek Fathers did and thence the Sardian Council defined That there was but one hypostasis of the Father Son and Spirit and therefore he suspects that when they require of him the acknowledgement of three hypostases they might design to entrap him and unawares betray him into Arrianism And therefore argues stifly in the remainder of that Epistle that hypostasis properly signifies essence and nothing else and from thence urgeth the inconvenience of admitting the terms of three hypostases Now S. Hierom being thus set upon by these Eastern Bishops he keeps off from communion with them and adviseth with the Aegyptian Confessors and follows them at present but having received his Baptism in the Church of Rome and being looked on as a Roman where he was he thought it necessary to address himself to Pope Damasus to know what he should do in this case And the rather because if S. Hierom had consented with them they would have looked on it as an evidence of the agreement of the Roman Church with them Therefore he so earnestly and importunately writes to Damasus concerning it as being originally part of his charge having been baptized in that Church But say you whatever the occasion of the words were Is it not plain that he makes the Church to be built on S. Peter's See and that whosoever is out of the communion of that Church is an Alien and belongs to Antichrist To that therefore I answer 1. That he doth not say that the Catholick Church is built on the particular Church of Rome for it is not super hanc Petram as referring to the Cathedra immediately preceding but super illam and therefore it is not improbably supposed by some that the Rock here referrs to Christ. And although Erasmus doth imagine that some particular priviledge and dignity did belong to Rome above other Churches from this place which is not the thing we contend about yet withall he sayes that by the Rock we must not understand Rome for that may degenerate but we must understand that Faith which Peter professed And it is a much easier matter for Marianus Victorius to tell him he lyes as he doth here in plain terms than to be able to confute what he saith And that the rather because he begins his discourse in that manner Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens whereby he attributes the supreme power and infallible judgement in the Church only to Christ. For as for your learned correction of praemium for primum though you follow Cardinal Perron in it yet it is without any probability at all it being contrary to all the MSS. used by Erasmus Victorius Gravius Possevin and others and hath no authority to vouch it but only Gratian who is condemned by your own Writers for a falsifier and corrupter of Authours 2. I answer when S. Hierom pronounces those Aliens and prophane who are out of the communion of the Church either it belongs not to the particular Church of Rome or if it doth it makes not much for your purpose 1. There is no certainty that he there speaks of the particular Church of Rome but that he rather speaks of the true Vniversal Church for it is plain he speaks of that Church which is built upon the Rock now by your own confession that cannot be the Church of Rome for that you suppose to be the Rock it self viz. the See of Peter and therefore the Church built upon it must be the Vniversal Church And that this must be his meaning appears from his plain words for he saith Vpon that Rock the Church is built and whosoever eats the Lamb without this house is prophane he cannot certainly mean Whosoever eats without the Rock but without the house built upon it so that the house in the latter clause
considering them any further than hath been done already in the very entrance into this Conference And here you tell us You now come to perform your Promise viz. to examine more fully his Lordships pretended solutions as you call them of Bellarmine 's authorities in behalf of the Infallibility of the Church of Rome But for all your boasting at first what great things you would do you seem a little fearful of engaging too far and therefore are resolved only to maintain them in general as they make for the Infallible Authority of the Church or of the Pope defining Articles of Faith in a General Council But as far as you dare go I shall attend your motions and doubt not to make it evident that none of these authorities have any reference to that sense which you only offer to maintain them in and that though they had yet no such thing as Infallibility can be proved out of them The first authority is out of S. Cyprian's Letter to Cornelius Bishop of Rome whose words I am contented should be recited as fully as may be In which he chargeth Felicissimus and Fortunatus with their complices that having set up a Bishop against him at Carthage they sail to the chair of Peter and the principal Church from whence the sacerdotal Vnity had its rise and carry Letters from prophane and Schismatical persons not considering that the Romans whose Faith was commended by the Apostle were such to whom perfidiousness could not have access Now the meaning of this place you would have to be this and no other viz. that the See of S. Peter which is the principal of all Churches was so infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost that no errour in Faith could have access to it or be admitted by it if not as a particular Church yet at least as the Head of the Vniversal Church of Christ and as the Fountain of Priestly Vnity which S. Cyprian here expresly affirms that Church and See to be This you summe up at last as the most which can be made of this Testimony and which is indeed far more in all particulars than it can amount to Which will appear by particular examinations of what you return in answer to his Lordship Three things his Lordship answers to this place 1. That perfidia can hardly stand here for errour in Faith and if so then this can make nothing for Infallibility 2. That supposing it granted to signifie errour in Faith and Doctrine yet it belongs not to the Romans absolutely but with a respect to those first Romans whose Faith was commended by the Apostle 3. That it seems to be rather a Rhetorical insinuation than a dogmatical assertion And that S. Cyprian could not be supposed to assert herein the Popes Infallibility appears by the contracts between him and the Bishops of Rome This is the short of his Lordships answers to this place to which we must consider what you reply 1. His Lordship sayes That perfidia can hardly stand for errour in Faith or misbelief but it properly signifies malicious falshood in matter of trust and action not error in Faith but in fact against the discipline and Government of the Church And to make this interpretation appear the more probable his Lordship gives an account of the story which was the occasion of writing that Epistle which is this as his Lordship reports it from Binius and Baronius In the year 255. there was a Council in Carthage in the cause of two Schismaticks Felicissimus and Novatian about restoring of them to the communion of the Church which had lapsed in time of danger from Christianity to Idolatry Felicissimus would admit all even without penance and Novatian would admit none no not after penance The Fathers 42 in number went as Truth led them between both extreams To this Council came Privatus a known Heretick but was not admitted because he was formerly excommunicated and often condemned Hereupon he gathers his Complices together and chooses one Fortunatus who was formerly condemned as well as himself Bishop of Carthage and set him up against St. Cyprian This done Felicissimus and his Fellows haste to Rome with letters testimonial from their own party and pretend that 25 Bishops concurred with them and their desire was to be received into the communion of the Roman Church and to have their new Bishop acknowledged Cornelius then Pope though their haste had now prevented St. Cyprians letters having formerly heard from him both of them and their Schism in Africk would neither hear them nor receive their letters They grew insolent and furious the ordinary way that Schismaticks take Vpon this Cornelius writes to St. Cyprian and St. Cyprian in this Epistle gives Cornelius thanks for refusing these African fugitives declares their Schism and wickedness at large and encourages him and all Bishops to maintain the Ecclesiastical Discipline and censures against any the boldest threatnings of wicked Schismaticks This being the story his Lordship sayes He would fain know why perfidia all circumstances considered may not stand here in its proper sense for cunning and perfidious dealing which these men having practised at Carthage thought now to obtrude upon the Bishop of Rome also but that he was wary enough not to be over-reached by busie Schismaticks This demand of his Lordship seeming very just and reasonable we are bound to consider what reasons you give why perfidia must be understood for errour in Faith and not in the sense here mentioned Why calls he say you St. Peters chair Ecclesiam principalem the chief Church but because it is the head to which all other Churches must be subordinate in matter of doctrine the words following signifie as much Unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est from which chair of St. Peter as it were from its fountain unity in Priesthood and consequently unity in Faith is derived Why brings he the Apostle as Panegyrist of the Roman Faith Is it forsooth because no malicious falshood in matter of trust or errour in fact against the Discipline and Government of the Church can have access unto them as the Bishop will needs misinterpret the place or rather because no errour in Faith can approach the See Apostolick Certain it is perfidia in this sense is diametrically opposed to the Faith of the Romans immediately before commended by the Apostle which was true Christian Faith and consequently it must of necessity be taken for the quite contrary viz. misbelief or errour in Faith Three Arguments in these words you produce why perfidia must be understood of errour in Faith 1. Because the Church of Rome is called the chief Church but is it not possible it should be called so in any other sense but as the head of all other Churches in matter of doctrine Is it not sufficiently clear from Antiquity that there were other accounts of calling the Church of Rome the chief or principal Church as the eminency of it joyned
Cyprian The second Authority is out of St. Hierome whose words are The Roman Faith commended by the Apostle admits not such praestigiae deceits and delusions into it though an Angel should Preach it otherwise than it was Preached at first being armed and fenced by St. Pauls Authority it cannot be changed Here you tell us You willingly agree with his Lordship that by Romanam fidem St. Hierom understands the Catholick Faith of Christ and so you concur with him against Bellarmine that it cannot be understood of the particular Church of Rome But by the way you charge your Adversaries with great inconsequence that in this place they make Roman and Catholick to be the same and yet usually condemn you for joyning as Synonyma 's Roman and Catholick together A wonderful want of judgement as though the Roman Faith might not be the Catholick Faith then and yet the Catholick Faith not be the Roman Faith now The former speech only affirms that the Faith at Rome was truly Catholick the latter implyes that no Faith can be Catholick but what agrees with Rome and think you there is no difference between these two But you say further That this Catholick Faith must not here be taken abstractly that so it cannot be changed for Ruffinus was not ignorant of that but that it must be understood of the immutable Faith of the See Apostolick so highly commended by the Apostle and St. Hierom which is founded upon such a rock that even an Angel himself is not able to shake it But St. Hierom speaking this with a reference to that Faith he supposeth the Apostle commended in them although the Apostle doth not so much commend the Catholickness or soundness of their Faith as the act of believing in them and therefore whatever is drawn from thence whether by St. Hierome or any else can have no force in it for if he should infeâ— the immutability of the Faith of the Church of Rome from so apparently weak a foundation there can be no greater strength in his testimony than there is in the ground on which it is built and if there be any force in this Argument the Church of Thessalonica will be as Infallible as Rome for her Faith is commended rather in a more ample manner by the Apostle then that of Rome is St. Hierome I say referring to that Faith he supposes the Apostle commended in them must only be understood of the unchangeableness of that first Faith which appears by the mention of an Angel from Heaven Preaching otherwise Which certainly cannot with any tolerable sense be meant thus that St. Hierome supposed it beyond the power of an Angel from Heaven to alter the Faith of the Roman Church For in the very same Apology he expresseth his great fears lest the Faith of the Romans should be corrupted by the Books of Ruffinus But say you What is this then to Ruffinus who knew as well as St. Hierom that Faith could not change its essence However though St. Hierome should here speak of the Primitive and Apostolical Faith which was then received at Rome that this could receive no alteration yet this was very pertinent to be told Ruffinus because St. Hierome charges him with an endeavour to subvert the Faith not meerly at Rome but in all other places by publishing the Books of Origen with an Encomiastick Preface to them and therefore the telling him The Catholick Faith would admit of no alteration which was received at Rome as elsewhere might be an Argument to discourage him from any attempts of that nature And the main charge against Ruffinus is not an endeavour to subvert meerly the people of Rome but the Latin Church by his translation and therefore these words ought to be taken in their greatest latitude and so imply not at all any Infallibility in the Roman See The remaining Testimonies of Gregory Nazianzene Cyril and Ruffinus as appears to any one who reads them only import that the Roman Church had to their time preserved the Catholick Faith but they do not assert it impossible it should ever do otherwise or that she is an Infallible preserver of it and none of their Testimonies are so proper to the Church of Rome but they would equally hold for any other Apostolical Churches at that time Gregory Nazianzene indeed sayes That it would become the Church of Rome to hold the entire Faith alwayes and would it not become any other Church to do so to doth this import that she shall Infallibly do it or rather that it is her duty to do it And if these then be such pregnant Authorities with you it is a sign there is little or nothing to be found in Antiquity for your purpose But before we end this Chapter we are called to a new task on occasion of a Testimony of St. Cyril produced by his Lordship in stead of that in Bellarmin which appeared not in that Chapter where his Name is mentioned In which he asserts That the foundation and firmness which the Church of Christ hath is placed not in or upon the person much less the Successour of St. Peter but upon the Faith which by Gods Spirit in him he so firmly professed which saith his Lordship is the common received opinion both of the ancient Fathers and of the Protestants Vpon this Rock that is upon this Faith will I build my Church On which occasion you run presently out into that large common place concerning Tu es Petrus and super hanc Petram and although I should grant all that you so earnestly contend for viz. That these words are not spoken of St. Peters Confession but of his Person I know no advantage which will accrue to your cause by it For although very many of the Fathers understand this place of St. Peters Confession as containing in it the ground and Foundation of Christian Religion Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God which therefore may well be said to be the Rock on which Christ would build his Church and although it were no matter of difficulty to defend this interpretation from all exceptions yet because I think it not improbable the words running by way of address to St. Peter that something peculiar to him is contained in them I shall not contend with you about that But then if you say that the meaning of St. Peters being the Rock is The constant Infallibility in Faith which was derived from St. Peter to the Church of Rome as you seem to suggest you must remember you have a new task to make good and it is not saying That St. Peter was meant by the Rock will come within some leagues of doing it I pass therefore by that discourse as a thing we are not much concerned in for it is brought in by his Lordship as the last thing out of that testimony of Cyril but you were contented to let go the other more material Observations that you might more
made good but since you are so cautious as not to think your self obliged to do it I commend your discretion in it and proceed I cannot see that his Lordship is guilty of a false quotation of Bellarmin for that saying Et Papas quosdam graves errores seminâsse in Ecclesiâ Christi luce clarius est for he doth not seem at all to Cite Bellarmin for it but having Cited the place just before where he endeavours to vindicate the Popes from all errours he adds this expression as directly contrary to his design that though he had endeavoured so much to clear them from errours yet that they had sown some grievous errours in the Church was as clear as the day and as it immediately follows is proved by Jac. Almain c. And therefore it was only your own oscitancy which made you set it in the Contents of your Chapter that Cardinal Bellarmin was most falsly quoted by him But that falseness which with so much confidence you charge his Lordship with rebounds with greater force on your self when you say That Almain speaks not of errours in Faith at all but only of errours or rather abuses in point of manners whereas he not only asserts but largely proves That the Pope may err not only personally but judicially and in the same Chapter brings that remarkable Instance of the evident contradiction between the definitions of Pope Nicolaus 3. and John 22. And Platina tells us that John 22. declared them to be Hereticks who held according to the former definition And Is this only concerning some abuses abuses in point of manners and not concerning errours in Faith that Almain speaks You might as well say so of Lyra who said That many Popes have Apostatized from the Faith of Cusanus who saith That both in a direct and collateral line several Popes have fallen into Heresie of Alphonsus à Castro who saith That the best friends of the Popes believe they may err in Faith of Carranza who sayes No one questions but the Pope may be an Heretick of Canus who sayes It is not to be denyed but that the chief Bishop may be an Heretick and that there are examples of it You might as well I say affirm that all these spake only of abuses in Manners and not errours in Faith as you do of Almain Neither will your other subterfuge serve your turn That they taught errours in Doctrine as private men for Alphonsus à Castro expresly affirms in the case of Pope Coelestine about the dissolution of Marriage in case of Heresie That it cannot be said that he erred through negligence and as a private person and not as Pope For saith he this definition is extant in the decretals and he had seen it himself Although the contrary to this were afterwards defined not only by Pope Innocent 3. but by the Council of Trent And hence it appears whatever you pretend to the contrary That there may be tares sown in the Church of Rome not only by private persons but by the publick hands of the Popes too if they themselves may be believed who else do most Infallibly contradict each other But whether these errours came in at first through negligence or publick definitions is not so material to our purpose for which it is sufficient to prove that the Church of Rome may be tainted and corrupted which may be done one way as well as the other As Corn-fields may be over-run with tares though no one went purposely to sow them there And so much is acknowledged by Cassander when he speaks of the superstitious practises used in your Church That those who should have redressed those abuses were if not the Authours yet the incouragers of them for their own advantage by which means errours and corruptions may soon grow to a great height in a Church though they were never sown by publick definitions And when you disparage Cassanders Testimony by telling us how little his credit is among Catholicks you thereby let us see how much your Church is over-run with corruptions when none among you can speak against them but they presently forfeit their reputation The case of the Schism at Rome between Cornelius and Novatianus and the imployment of Caldonius and Fortunatus from St. Cyprian thither doth belong to the former Chapter where it hath been fully discoursed of already and must not be repeated here Only thence we see that Rome is as capable of a Schism within her own bowels as any other Church is which is abundantly attested by the multitudes of Schisms which happened afterwards between the Bishops of that See But this being insisted on by his Lordship in the former Controversie of the Catholick Church doth not refer to this Chapter wherein the causes of our separation should be enquired into Which at last you come to and passing by the verbal dispute between A.C. and his Lordship about what was spoken at the Conference you tell us It more concerns you to see what could or can be said in this point You draw up therefore a large and formal charge of Schism against us in your following words Our assertion say you is but good Sir it is not what you assert but what you prove It were an easie matter for us to draw up a far larger Bill against your Church and tell you our assertion is that you are the greatest Schismaticks in the world Would you look on it as sufficiently proved because we asserted it I pray think the same of us for we are not apt to think our selves guilty of Schism at all the more because you tell us what your assertion is if this be your way of dealing with us your first assertion had need be That you are Infallible but still that had need be more then asserted for unless it be Infallibly proved we should not believe it But however we must see what your assertion is that we may at least understand from you the state of the present Controversie Your assertion therefore is that Protestants made this rent or Schism by their obstinate and pertinacious maintaining erroneous Doctrines contrary to the Faith of the Roman or Catholick Church by their rejecting the Authority of their lawful Ecclesiastical Superiours both immediate and mediate by aggregating themselves into a separate body or company of pretended Christians independent of any Pastours at all that were in lawful and quiet possession of jurisdiction over them by making themselves Pastours and Teachers of others and administring Sacraments without Authority given them by any that were lawfully impowerâ—d to give it by instituting new rites and ceremonies of their own in matter of Religion contrary to those anciently received throughout all Christendome by violently excluding and dispossessing other Prelates and Pastours of and from their respective See's Cures and Benefices and intruding themselves into their places in every Nation where they could get footing the said Prelates and Pastours for the
which needed Reformation And although it be plainly affirmed that Judah kept not the commands of the Lord their God but walked in the statutes of Israel which they had made yet you who it seems knew Judah's Innocency better than God or the Prophets did say very magisterially That as long as she was united with her Head the High-Priest What need I pray was there of her Reformation And this being the case of Judah I may easily grant you That Judah is not the Protestant party but that of the Roman Church i. e. while Judah was under her corruptions and yet you say She needed no Reformation she is the fittest parallel you could think of for your Church but we pretend to no parallel between Judah and the Protestant party in not needing a Reformation but in her power to reform her self Which we say still that she had though Israel would not joyn with her by virtue of these words of the Prophet Though Israel transgress yet let not Judah sin thereby manifesting that though the greatest part was degenerated in the ten Tribes yet Judah might prevent the same in her self by reforming those abuses which were crept among them And therefore the sense of those words Let not Judah sin must in this case imply a power to reform her self If therefore we speak of Judah degenerated we grant the parallel lyes wholly between Judah and the Church of Rome for although there were great corruptions in Judah and as great in your Church yet with the same reason you say That neither needed Reformation But if we speak of Judah reforming her self under Hezekiah then we say The parallel lyes between Judah and the Protestant party whatever you say to the contrary But you shrewdly ask If you be Judah Who I pray are the revolted ten Tribes Who are of Jeroboams Cabal Even they who set up the Calves at Dan and Bethel Such who worship Images instead of the true God though they intend them only as Symbols of the Divine Presence for no more did Jeroboam and the Israelites intend by their Calves and there is no pretence which you use to justifie your selves from Idolatry but will excuse Jeroboam and the ten Tribes from it If the Protestant party then be Judah it is easie finding out the revolted ten Tribes and Jeroboams Cabal the Court of Rome answering to this as the Church of Rome doth to the other But we cannot be Judah because we left the Catholick Jerusalem that is Rome the City of Peace By whom I pray was Rome christened The Catholick Jerusalem For if we consider the worship there used and the politick ends of it it much more looks like Samaria or Dan and Bethel If Rome be our Catholick Jerusalem shew us When God made choice of that for the peculiar place of his Worship Where we are commanded to resort thither for Divine Worship When God placed his Name there as he did of old in Jerusalem When you have shewed us these things we may think the worse of our selves for leaving Rome but not before And let the world judge Whether it be more likely one should meet with the worship of Golden Calves at Rome or among the Protestants It is you who have found out new Sacrifices new Objects of Worship new Rites and Ceremonies in it new Altars and consequently new Priests too and yet for all this you must be orthodox Judah which needed no Reformation And who I pray do in point of obedience most resemble the ten Tribes Have not you set up a spiritual Jeroboam as a new Head of the Church in opposition to the Son of David And that you may advance the Interest of this spiritual Head you raise his authority far above that of Kings and Temporal Princes whom you ought to be subject to declaring it in his power to excommunicate depose and absolve subjects from obedience to them And therefore is not the parallel between the ten Tribes and the Church of Rome very pat and much to the purpose But when you would seem to return this upon us by a false and scurrilous parallel between Jeroboam and that excellent Princess Queen Elizabeth in the Reformation of the Church of England you only betray the badness of your cause which makes detractions so necessary to maintain it For as her title to the Crown was undoubted so her proceedings in the Reformation were such as are warranted by the Law of God and the Nation and her carriage in her reign towards Jesuits and Priests no other than what the apparent necessity of her own and her Kingdoms preservation put her upon But if she must be accounted like Jeroboam for banishing Priests and Jesuits often convicted of treasonable practices upon pain of death if they were found in England What must we think of the Catholick Jerusalem the City of Peace that sweet and gentle Mother the Church of Rome that hath carried her self so peaceably towards those who have dissented from her Witness the blood of so many hundred thousands which she hath imbrued her hands in meerly for opposing her doctrines and superstitions witness that excellent School of Humanity the Inquisition and the easie Lessons she teaches those who come under her discipline there witness the proceedings in England in the daies of Queen Mary and then let any judge if the parallel must be carried by cruelty towards dissenters which of their two Reigns came the nearest that of Jeroboam The only true words then that you say are but enough of this parallel and more than enough too of such impudent slanders against the memory of that famous Queen But your Church would have been more unlike the ten Tribes if there had not been a lying Prophet there You dispute very manfully against his Lordship for asserting That Israel remained a Church after the separation between Judah and the ten Tribes and yet after you have spent many words about it you yield all that he asserts when you say That in a general sense they were called the people of God as they were Abrahams seed according to the flesh by reason of the promise made to Abraham I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee And what is there more than this that his Lordship contends for for he never dreamt that the ten Tribes were Abraham's seed according to the Spirit but only sayes That there was salvation for those thousands that had not bowed their knees to Baal which cannot be in the ordinary way where there is no Church And if as you say Abrahams seed only according to the Spirit i. e. the faithful make the true Church then it follows Where there were so many faithful there must needs be a true Church And thus for any thing you have said to the contrary his Lordships argument from the case of Judah holds for every particular Churches power to reform it self when the General will not reform His Lordship further argues
imposed those things which had been before only the errours of particular persons as the Catholick Doctrines of that Church and the necessary conditions of Communion with her 3. I may answer yet further That it is not enough to prove any Doctrine to be Catholick that it was generally received by Christian Churches in any one Age but it must be made appear to have been so received from the Apostles times So that if we should grant that these Doctrines were owned for Catholick not only by the Church of Rome but all other Christian Churches so far as it can be discerned by their Communion yet this doth not prove these Doctrines so owned to be truly Catholick unless you can first prove that all the Christian Churches of one Age can never believe a Doctrine to be Catholick which is not so You see therefore your task increases further upon you for it is not enough to say That A. D. 1517. such and such Doctrines were looked on as Catholick and therefore they were so but that for 1517. years successively from the Apostles to that time they were judged to be so and then we shall more easily believe you When you will therefore prove Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass Image-worship Invocation of Saints or any other of the good Doctrines mentioned by you in a constant tradition from the Apostles times to have been looked on as Catholick Doctrines you may then say That Protestants in denying these did take away something Catholick from the Doctrine of the Church but till that time these Answers may abundantly suffice We now come closer to the business of the Reformation but before we examine the particulars of it the general grounds on which it proceeded must somewhat further be cleared which his Lordship tells you are built upon the power of particular Churches reforming themselves in case the whole Church is negligent or will not to which you say That you grant in effect as great power as the Bishop himself does to particular Churches to National and Provincial Councils in reforming errours and abuses either of doctrine or practice only we require that they proceed with due respect to the chief Pastor of the Church and have recourse to him in all matters and decrees of Faith especially when they define or declare points not generally known and acknowledged to be Catholick Truths What you grant in effect at first you in effect deny again afterwards For the Question is about Reformation of such errours and abuses as may come from the Church of Rome and when you grant a power to reform only in case the Pope consent you grant no power to reform at all For the experience of the world hath sufficiently taught us How little his consent is to be expected in any thing of Reformation For his Lordship truly saith in Answer to Capellus who denies particular Churches any power of making Canons of Faith without consulting the Roman See That as Capellus can never prove that the Roman See must be consulted with before any Reformation be made So it is as certain that were it proved and practised we should have no Reformation For it would be long enough before the Church should be cured if that See alone should be her Physitian which in truth is her disease Now to this you say That even Capellus himself requires this as though Capellus were not the man whom his Lordship answers as to this very thing But besides you say The practise of the Church is evident for it in the examples of the Milevitan and Carthaginian Councils which as St. Austin witnesseth sent their decrees touching Grace Original sin in Infants and other matters against Pelagius to be confirmed by the Pope but what is all this to the business of Reformation that nothing of that nature is to be attempted without the Popes consent That these Councils did by Julius an African Bishop communicate their decrees to Pope Innocent Who denyes but what is it you would thence infer to your purpose for the utmost which can be drawn hence is that they desired the Pope to contribute his assistance in condemning Pelagius and Coelestius by adding the authority of the Apostolical See to their decrees that so by the consent of the Church that growing Heresie might the more easily be suppressed And who denyes but at that time the Roman Church had great reputation which is all that Authority implyes and by that means might be more serviceable in preventing the growth of Pelagianism if it did concur with the African Councils in condemning that Doctrine But because they communicated their decrees to Pope Innocent desiring his consent with them that therefore no reformation should be attempted in the Church without the consent of the Pope is a very far-fetched inference and unhappily drawn from those African Fathers who so stoutly opposed Zosimus Innocents Successour in the case of Appeals about the business of Apiarius Did they think you look on themselves as obliged to do nothing in the reforming the Church without the Popes authority who would by no means yield to those encroachments of power which Zosimus would have usurped over them Nay it appears that till the African Fathers had better informed him Zosimus did not a little favour Coelestius himself and in case he had gone on so to do do you think they would have thought themselves ever the less obliged to reform their Churches from the Pelagian Heresie which began to spread among them And in this time of the Controversie between Zosimus and them though they carried it with all fairness towards the Roman See yet they were still careful to preserve and defend their own priviledges and in case the Pope should then have challenged that power over them which he hath done since no doubt they would not have struck at calling such incroachments The disease of the Church without any unhandsomness or incivility and would have been far from looking on him as the only Physitian of it To that pretence That things should have been born with till the time of a General Council his Lordship answers First 't is true a General Council free and entire would have been the best remedy and most able for a Gangrene that had spread so far and eaten so deep into Christianity But what should we have suffered this Gangrene to endanger life and all rather then be cured in time by a Physitian of weaker knowledge and a less able hand Secondly we live to see since if we had stayed and expected a General Council what manner of one we should have had if any For that at Trent was neither General nor free And for the errours which Rome had contracted it confirmed them it cured them not And yet I much doubt whether ever that Council such as it was would have been call'd if some Provincial and National Synods under Supreme and Regal power had not first set upon this great work of Reformation which
or fifteen Bishops then living in England For the Sees of Salisbury and Oxford fell vacant A. 1557. and were not supplied in the time of Queen Mary Hereford Bristow Bangor were vacant by the death of the several Bishops some weeks before Queen Mary Canterbury by the death of Cardinal Pool the same day with the Queen Norwich and Gloucester a few weeks after her and so likewise Rochester Worcester and S. Asaph became vacant by the voluntary exile of Pates and Goldwell the Bishops thereof so that but fifteen Bishops were then living and remaining in England And Were all those who supplied these vacant Sees Intruders A strange kind of Intrusion into dead mens places So then this circumstance is notoriously false That they All by force intruded themselves into the Sees of other lawful Bishops But let us see Whether the other are more justly charged with a forcible Intrusion into the Sees of the other Bishops For which we must consider what the proceedings were in reference to them It appears then that in the first year of the Queen the Oath of Supremacy formed and enjoyned in the time of Henry 8. was in the first Parliament of Queen Elizabeth revived for the better securing the Queen of the Fidelity of her subjects but yet it was so revived that several considerable passages in the Act concerning it were upon mature deliberation mitigated both as to the Queens title which was not Supreme Head but Supreme Governour a title which Queen Mary had used before as appears by an Act passed in the third Session of Parliament in her time and likewise as to the penalty for whereas the Stat. 28. Hen. 8. c. 10. was so very severe That whosoever did extol the authority of the Bishop of Rome was for the first offence within the compass of a Praemunire and for refusing to take the Oath was guilty of Treason it passed now in Elizabeth's time only with this penalty That such who refused it should be excluded such places of honour and profit as they held in the Church or Common-wealth and that such as should maintain or defend the authority preheminence power or jurisdiction Spiritual or Ecclesiastical of any forein Prince Prelate Person State or Potentate whatsoever should be three times convicted before he suffered the pains of death Upon the expiring of the Parliament Commissioners were appointed to require the Bishops to take the Oath of Supremacy according to the Law made to that purpose which being tendred to them they all Kitchin of Landaffe only excepted unanimously refused it although they had taken it before as Priests or Bishops in the Reign of Henry 8. or Edward 6. But whether by some secret intimations from Rome or their own obstinacy they were resolved rather to undergo the penalty of the Law than to take it now and accordingly before the end of that year they were deprived of their Bishopricks So that the Question about the Intrusion of those Bishops who came into their Sees depends upon the legality of the deprivation of these And certainly whosoever considers their former carriage towards the Queen in refusing to assist at her Coronation and some of them threatning to excommunicate her instead of disputing at Westminster as they had solemnly engaged to do joyned with this contumacy in refusing the Oath will find that these persons did not unjustly suffer this deprivation For which I need not run out into the Princes power over Ecclesiastical persons for you have given a sufficient reason for it your self in that acknowledgement of yours That the Bishops and the King too meaning King Henry left the Pope in possession of all he could rightly challenge If this be true that notwithstanding the Stat. 28. Hen. 8. notwithstanding the Oath of Supremacy then taken the Pope might injoy all that belonged to him of Divine Right he might then do the same notwithstanding this Oath in Elizabeth's time which was only reviving the former with some mitigation and what could it be then else but obstinacy and contumacy in them to refuse it And therefore the plea which you make for those whom you call the Henry-Bishops will sufficiently condemn these present Bishops whom we now speak of For if those Bishops only renounced the Popes Canonical and acquired Jurisdiction here in England as you say i. e. that Authority and Jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical matters which the Pope exercised here by virtue of the Canons Prescription and other titles of humane right and gave it to the King yet they never renounced or deprived him of that part of his authority which is far more intrinsecal to his office and of Divine Right they never denied the Popes Soveraign Power to teach the Vniversal Church and determine all Controversies of Faith whatsoever in a General Council If these things I say be true which you confidently assert the more inexcusable were these Bishops for refusing that Oath of Supremacy which they had not only taken in Henry's time but which by your own confession takes away nothing of the Pope's Authority in relation to the whole Catholick Church And by this means their obstinacy appeared so great as might justly deserve a deprivation It being certainly in the Power of the King and Bishops to assert their own rights in opposition to any Canons or Prescriptions whatsoever of meerly humane right So that by your own confession the more excusable the Henry-Bishops were as you call them the less excusable the Mary-Bishops were as to follow you we must call them in refusing the Oath of Supremacy when tendred to them Was it lawful then in Henry's time to take this Oath or not If not then King Henry's Bishops are infinitely to blame for taking it and you for defending them If it was lawful then why not in Elizabeth's time Had she not as much reason to impose it as her Father Had she not as much power to do it When one of the chief refusers Heath Arch-Bishop of York and then L. Chancellour of England did upon the first notice of the death of Queen Mary declare to the House of Commons That the succession of the Crown did of right belong to the Princess Elizabeth whose title they conceived to be free from all legal Questions this could be then no plea at all for them So that if any persons through the greatest obstinacy might be deprived by a Prince of their Ecclesiastical preferments these might and when you can prove that in no case a Prince hath power to deprive Ecclesiastical persons you will say more to your purpose than yet you have done But till you have done that it remains clear that these Bishops were justly deprived and if so What was to be done with their vacant Sees Must they be kept vacant still or such be put into them who were guilty of the same fault with themselves in refusing the Oath when tendred to them If not such then it was necessary that other fit persons should be legally
consecrated and invested in them And so they were the places being supplied by worthy persons the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury being consecrated by a Canonical number of Edward-Bishops and the rest duly consecrated by other hands And for all this Must all these persons be intruders and intrude themselves by force and that into the places of other lawful Bishops When so many Sees were actually vacant and the rest by due form of Law into which other Bishops were elected and legally consecrated notwithstanding the putid Fable of the Nags-Head ordination which hath so often and so evidently been disproved that I am glad to find you have so much modesty as not to mention it These Bishops being thus legally invested in their places To whom did the care and Government of the English Church belong to these or to those who were justly deprived If to these Were not they then the due representatives of the English Church in a National Synod who with those of the lower House of Convocation make up a true National Council And if so it belonged to them as such to consider what appertained to the Faith and Government of the Church of England For they undertook not to prescribe to the whole world that they leave to the Bishop and Church of Rome not as legally belonging to them but arrogantly usurped by them but to draw up Articles of Religion which should be owned by all such who enjoyed any place of Trust in the Church of England So that in all this they were neither intruders neither did they act any thing beyond their place and authority But you would seem to quarrel with their Vocation Mission and Jurisdiction as though it were not lawful i. e. Canonical and Just all these are your own words and they are but words for not one syllable like a proof is suggested I tell you then not to spend time in a needless vindication of the Vocation of the Bishops and Pastors of the Church of England when you give us no reason to question it that by the same arguments that you can prove that you have any lawful Bishops and Pastors in your Church it will appear that we have too And that our Vocation and Mission is far more consonant to the Apostolical and Primitive Church than yours is But the main quarrel is still behind which is that Supposing they had been true Bishops and Pastors of the English Church and their Assembly a lawful National Council yet you say They were so far from doing the like that other Provincial Councils had done that they acted directly contrary to them which charge lyes in these things 1. Condemning points of Faith that had been generally believed and practised in the Church before them This you know we deny and you barely affirm it and I have shewed some reason of our denial already and shall do more when we come to particulars 2. In contradicting the Doctrine of the Roman Church A great Heresie indeed but never yet condemned in any General Council 3. In convening against the express Will of the Church of Rome We shall then think that a fault when you prove it belongs to that only to summon all Councils General National and Provincial 4. In denying the Popes Authority or attempting to deprive him of it if you speak of his usurped Authority you must prove it a fault to deprive him of it i. e. to withdraw our selves from obedience to it for that is all the deprivation can be here understood If you mean Just Authority shew wherein it lyes whence he had it by what means he came into it in the Church of England and if you can make it appear that he had a just claim it will be easie proving them guilty of a fault who disowned it But Whether it were a fault in them or no I am sure it is one in you to lay such things and so many to our charge and not offering to give evidence for one of them But I must consider the Infallibility of your Church lyes in dictating and not proving Thus then for any thing which you so much as seem to say to the contrary the proceedings of the Reformation were very regular and just being built on sufficient grounds managed in a legal manner and carried on with due moderation Which are the highest commendations can be given to a work of Reformation and do with the greatest right belong to the Church of England of any Church in the Christian world There remains nothing now which you object against our Reformation but some faults of the Reformers as to which his Lordship had already said If any such be found they are the crimes of the persons and not of the Reformation and they are long since gone to God to answer it to whom I leave them Which Answer so full of justice and modesty one would have thought should have been sufficient for any reasonable man but you are not satisfied with it For you will have those faults to come from the principles of the Reformation and that they did not belong to the persons of the Reformers but are entailed on their Successors But a short Answer will suffice for both these shew us What avowed principles of the Church of England tend to any real Sacriledge before you charge any thing of that nature as flowing from the Maxims of the Reformation And if you can prove the Successors of the Reformers to continue in any Sacrilegious Actions let those plead for them who will I shall not but leave them as his Lordship did to answer such things to God As to the Memorandum which his Lordship concludes this discourse with That he spake at that time of the General Church as it was for the most part forced under the Government of the Roman See not doubting but that as the Vniversal Catholick Church would have reformed her self had she been in all parts freed of the Roman Yoke so while she was for the most in these Western parts under that Yoke the Church of Rome was if not the only yet the chief hinderance of Reformation You answer with some stomach By what force I pray Is it possible or Can it enter into the judgement of any reasonable man that a single Bishop of no very large Diocese should be able by force to bring into subjection so many large Provinces of Christendom as confessedly did acknowledge the Popes Power when the pretended Reformation began But What reasonable man can imagine that a single Bishop indeed of no very large Diocese if kept within his bounds should in progress of time extend his power so far as the Pope did but by one of these two means force or fraud And since you seem to be so much displeased at the former I pray take the latter or rather the conjunction of both together For that there was force used appears by the manifold resistance which was made to the encroachments of the Popes power and
the stage in the Questions of the Pope's Authority and Infallibility of General Councils I come to your following Chapter in which you enter upon the Vindication of the Roman Churches Authority 2. That which his Lordship hath long insisted on and evidently proved is The Right which particular Churches have to reform themselves when the General Church cannot for impediments or will not for negligence do it And your Answers to his proofs have had their weakness sufficiently laid open the only thing here objected further is Whether in so doing particular Churches do not condemn others of Errours in Faith To which his Lordship answers That to reform themselves and to condemn others are two different works unless it fall out so that by reforming themselves they do by consequence condemn any other that is guilty in that point in which they reform themselves and so far to judge and condemn others is not only lawful but necessary A man that lives Religiously doth not by and by sit in judgement and condemn with his mouth all prophane livers but yet while he is silent his very life condemns them To what end his Lordship produceth this Instance any one may easily understand but you abuse it as though his Lordship had said That Protestants only by their Religious lives do condemn your Church and upon this run out into a strange declamation about Who the men are that live so Religiously They who to propagate the Gospel the better marry wives contrary to the Canons and bring Scripture for it Yes surely much more then they who to propagate your Church enjoy Concubines for which if they can bring some Canons of your Church I am sure they can bring no Scripture for it They who pull down Monasteries both of Religious men and women I see you are still as loth to part them as they are to be parted themselves but if all their lives be no more Religious then the most of them have been the pulling of them down might be a greater act of Religion then living in them They who cast Altars to the ground More certainly then they who worshipped them They who partly banish Priests and partly put them to death Or they who commit treasons and do things worthy of death But you are doubtless very Religious and tender-hearted men whose consciences would never suffer you to banish or put any to death for the sake of Religion no not in Queen Maries time here in England They who deface the very Tombs of Saints and will not permit them to rest even when they are dead Or they who profess to worship dead Saints and martyr living ones with Fire and Faggot If this be your religious living none who know what Religion means will be much taken with it I shall easily grant that you stick close to the Pope but are therein far enough from the Doctrine or life of St. Peter If any of you have endured Sequestrations Imprisonments Death it self I am sure it was not for any good you did not for the Catholick Faith but if you will for some Catholick Treasons such as would have enwrapt a whole Nation in misery If this be your suffering persecution for righteousness sake you will have little cause to rejoyce in your Fellow-sufferers But if you had not a mind to calumniate us and provoke us to speak sad truths of you all this might have been spared for his Lordship only chose this Instance to shew that a Church or person may be condemned consequentially which was not intentionally But you say Our Church hath formally condemned yours by publick and solemn censures in the 39. Articles Doth his Lordship deny that our Church in order to our own reformation hath condemned many things which your Church holds No but that our Churches main intention was to reform it self but considering the corruption and degeneracy of your Church she could not do it without consequentially condemning yours and that she did justly in so doing we are ready on all occasions to justifie But his Lordship asks If one particular Church may not judge or condemn another What must then be done where particulars need reformation To which his Adversary gives a plain Answer That particular Churches must in that case as Irenaeus intimateth have recourse to the Church of Rome which hath more powerful principality and to her Bishop who is the chief Pastour of the whole Church as being St. Peters Successour c. This is the rise and occasion of the present Controversie To this his Lordship Answers That it is most true indeed the Church of Rome hath had and hath yet more powerful Principality then any other particular Church But she hath not this power from Christ. The Roman Patriarch by Ecclesiastical constitutions might perhaps have a Primacy of order but for principality of power the Patriarchs were as even as equal as the Apostles were before them The truth is this more powerful Principality the Roman Bishops got under the Emperours after they became Christian and they used the matter so that they grew big enough to oppose nay to depose the Emperours by the same power which they had given them And after this other particular Churches especially here in the West submitted themselves to them for Succour and Protections sake And this was one main cause that swel'd Rome into this more powerful Principality and not any right given by Christ to make that Prelate Pastour of the whole Church To this you Answer That to say that the Roman Churches Principality is not from Christ is contrary to St. Austin and the whole Milevitan Council who in their Epistle to Innocent the first profess that the Popes Authority is grounded upon Scripture and consequently proceeds from Christ. But whoever seriously reads and throughly considers that Epistle will find no such thing as that you aim at there For the scope of the Epistle is to perswade Pope Innocent to appear against Coelestius and Pelagius to that end they give first an account of their Doctrine shewing how pernicious and contrary to Scripture it was after which they tell him that Pelagius being at Jerusalem was like to do a great deal of mischief there but that many of the Brethren opposed him and especially St. Hierom. But we say they do suppose that through the mercy of our Lord Christ assisting you those which hold such perverse and pernicious principles may more easily yield by your Authority drawn out of Scripture Where they do not in the least dream of his Authority as Vniversal Pastor being grounded on Scripture but of his appearing against the Pelagians with his Authority drawn out of Scripture that is to that Authority which he had in the Church by the reputation of the Roman See the Authority of the Scripture being added which was so clear against the Pelagians or both these going together were the most probable way to suppress their Doctrine And it hath been sufficiently proved
by others by very many instances of the writers about that Age that Authoritas was no more then Rescriptum as particularly appears by many passages in Leo's Epistles in which sense no more is expressed by this than that by the Pope's Answer to the Council drawn out of the Authority of Scripture the Pelagians might more probably be suppressed But what is this to an Vniversal Pastorship given by Christ to him any otherwise then to those who sat in any other Apostolical Sees But your great quarrel is against his Lordship for making all the Patriarchs even and equal as to Principality of power and when he saith Equal as the Apostles were you say that is aequivocal for though the Apostles had equal jurisdiction over the whole Church yet St. Peter alone had jurisdiction over the Apostles but this is neither proved from John 21. nor is it at all clear in Antiquity as will appear when we come to that Subject But this assertion of the equality of Protestants is so destructive to your pretensions in behalf of the Church of Rome that you set your self more particularly to disprove it which you offer to do by two things 1. By a Canon of the Nicene Council 2. By the practise of the ancient Church You begin with the first of them and tell us That 't is contrary to the Council of Nice In the third Canon whereof which concerns the jurisdiction of Patriarchs the Authority or Principality if you will of the Bishop of Rome is made the Pattern and Model of that Authority and Jurisdiction which Patriarchs were to exercise over the Provincial Bishops The words of the Canon are these Sicque praeest Patriarcha iis omnibus qui sub ejus potestate sunt sicut ille qui tenet sedem Romae caput est princeps omnium Patriarcharum The Patriarch say they is in the same manner over all those that are under his Authority as he who holds the See of Rome is head and Prince of the Patriarchs And in the same Canon the Pope is afterwards styled Petro similis Authoritate par resembling St. Peter and his equal in Authority These are big words indeed and to your purpose if ever any such thing had been decreed by the Council of Nice but I shall evidently prove that this Canon is supposititious and a notorious piece of Forgery Which forgery is much increased by you when you tell us these words are contained in the third Canon of the Council of Nice Which in the Greek Editions of the Canons by du Tillet and the Codex Canonum by Justellus and all other extant in the Latin versions of Dionysius Exiguus and Isidore Mercator is wholly against the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. such kind of women which Clergy men took into their houses neither as wives or Concubines but under a pretext of piety In the Arabick Edition of the Nicene Canons set out by Alphonsus Pisanus the third Canon is against the ordination either of Neophyti or criminal persons and so likewise in that of Turrianus So that in no Edition whether Arabick or other is this the third Canon of the Council of Nice and therefore you were guilty either of great ignorance and negligence in saying so or of notorious fraud and imposture if you knew it to be otherwise and yet said it that the unwary reader might believe this Canon to be within the 20. which are the only genuine Canons of the Council of Nice Indeed such a Canon there is in these Arabick Editions but it is so far from being the third that in the Editions both of Pisanus and Turrianus it is the thirty ninth and in it I grant those words are but yet you will have little reason to rejoyce in them when I have proved as I doubt not to do that this whole farrago of Arabick Canons is a meer forgery and that I shall prove both from the true number of the Nicene Canons and the incongruity of many things in the Arabick Canons with the State and Polity of the Church at that time In those Editions set out by Pisanus and Turrianus from the Copy which they say was brought by Baptista Romanus from the Patriarch of Alexandria there are no fewer then eighty Canons whereas the Nicene Council never passed above 20. Which if it appear true that will sufficiently discover the Forgery and Supposititiousness of these Arabick Canons Now that there were no more then twenty genuine Canons of the Council of Nice I thus prove First from Theodoret who after he had given an account of the proceedings in the Council against the Arrians he saith That the Fathers met in Council again and passed twenty Canons relating to the Churches Polity and Gelasius Gricenus whom Alphonsus Pisanus set forth with his Latin version recounts no more then twenty Canons the same number is asserted by Nicephorus Callistus and we need not trouble our selves with reciting the testimonies of more Greek Authors since Binius himself confesseth that all the Greeks say there were no more then twenty Canons then determined But although certainly the Greeks were the most competent Judges in this case yet the Latins themselves did not allow of more For although Ruffinus makes twenty two yet that is not by the addition of any more Canons but by splitting two into four And if we believe Pope Stephen in Gratian the Roman Church did allow of no more then twenty And in that Epitome of the Canons which Pope Hadrian sent to Charles the Great for the Government of the Western Churches A.D. 773. the same number of the Nicene Canons appears still And in a M S. of Hincmarus Rhemensis against Hincmarus Laudunensis this is not only asserted but at large contended for that there were no more Canons determined at Nice then those twenty which we now have from the testimonies of the Tripartite history Ruffinus the Carthaginian Council the Epistles of Cyril of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople and the twelfth action of the Council of Chalcedon So that if both Greeks and Latins say true there could be no more then twenty genuine Canons of the Council of Nice which may be yet further proved by two things viz. the proceedings of the African Fathers in the case of Zosimus about the Nicene Canons and the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Vniversae both which yield an abundant testimony to our purpose If ever there was a just occasion given for an early and exact search into the authentick Canons of the Council of Nice it was certainly in that grand Debate between the African Fathers and the Roman Bishops in the case of Appeals For Zosimus challenging not only a right of Appeals to himself but a power of dispatching Legats unto the African Churches to hear causes there and all this by vertue of a Canon in the Nicene Council and this being delivered to them in Council by Faustinus Philippus and Asellus whom
Zosimus sent into Africa to negotiate this affair no sooner did they hear this but they were startled and amazed at it that such a thing should be challenged by vertue of a Canon in the Council of Nice which they had never heard of before Upon this they declare themselves willing to yield to what should appear to be determined by the Nicene Canons thence they propound that a more exact search might be made into the authentical Copies of them for they profess no such thing at all to appear in all the Greek copies which they had among them although Caecilianus the Bishop of Carthage were present in the Council of Nice and brought home those Copies which were preserved in the Church of Africa For in all the subscriptions of the Nicene Council whether Arabick or others the name of Caecilian appears now Caecilian was immediate Predecessor in Carthage to Aurelius who presided in that Council wherein these things were debated And there it is expresly said There were but twenty Canons But in order to further satisfaction they decree that a message should be sent on purpose to Constantinople Antioch and Alexandria to find out the authentick Copies of the Nicene Canons and after a most diligent search no more Canons could be found then what the African Fathers had before And thence in the Epistle of Atticus of Constantinople written to the Council of Carthage he acquaints them that he according to their desire had sent them the true and compleat Canons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Nicene Council And to the same purpose Cyril the Patriarch of Alexandria mentioning their desires of having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most true and authentick copies out of the Archives of that Church so he tells them he had sent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most faithful copies of the authentick Synod of Nice Now if there had been any ground in the world for Turrianus his conjecture that the Nicene Canons were translated into Arabick by Alexander who was present at the Council for the Benefit of those in Pentapolis or Aegypt who only understood that language and that before the Nicene Canons were burnt of which Athanasius complains who was more likely to have found out these Arabick Canons then Cyril the Patriarch of Alexandria upon this occasion especially when the full and authentick Copies were so extreamly desired And since no such thing at all appeared then upon the most diligent inquiry What can be more evident then that these eighty Arabick Canons are the imposture of some latter age Besides if these Canons had been genuine and authentick what imaginable reason can be given why they were not inserted in the Codex Canonum as the other twenty were For as Jacobus Leschasserius well observes we are not to imagine that the Ancient Church was governed at Randome by loose and dispersed Canons whereby it had been an easie matter to have foisted in false and supposititious Canons but that there was a certain body and collection of them digested into an exact order so that none could add to or take away any thing from it and whatever Canons were not contained in this body had no power or force at all in the Church And that there was such a Codex Canonum that learned Person hath abundantly proved from the Council of Chalcedon which hath many passages referring to it so that there is now no question made but that which Justellus published is the true collection of those Canons of the Vniversal Church which were inserted into the Codex in which we find but only the twenty Canons of the Nicene Council and that there could possibly be no more appears by the number of the Canons as they are reckoned in the Council of Chalcedon From whence it follows that only these twenty Canons were ever own'd by the Vniversal Church for had the Fathers of the Church known of so many other Canons of the Nicene Council as surely at least the Patriarchs of Alexandria could not be ignorant of them if there had been any such can we possibly think that those who had so great a Veneration for the Nicene Council should have left the far greater part of the Canons of it out of the Code of the Churches Canons I am not ignorant of what is objected by Binius Bellarmin and others to prove that there were more then twenty Canons of the Council of Nice but those proofs either depend upon things as supposititious as the Arabick Canons themselves such as the Epistles of Julius and Athanasius ad Marcum or else they only prove that several other things were determined by the Nicene Council as concerning the celebration of Easter rebaptizing Hereticks and such like which might be by the Acts of the Council without putting them into the Canons as Baronius confesseth but there cannot be any evidence brought of any Canon which concerned the Churches Polity for about that Theodoret and Nicephorus tell us the Canons were made which was not among these twenty So that it appears that these Arabick Canons are a meer forgery of later times there being no evidence at all that they were known to the Church in all the time of the four General Councils and therefore Baronius notwithstanding the pretences of Pisanus and Turrianus from the Alexandrian Copy and that out of Marcellus his Library yet since these Canons were unknown in the Controversie of the African Church about the Nicene Canons leaves the Patronage of them to such as might be able to defend them And Spondanus in his contraction of him though in his marginal note he saith Baronius was sometimes more inclinable to the inlarged number of the Nicene Canons yet he relates it as his positive opinion that he rejected all but the twenty whether Arabick or other as spurious and supposititious You see then what a fair choice you have made of the third Canon of the Council of Nice to prove the superiority of the Pope over other Patriarchs by when neither is it the third Canon nor any Canon at all of the Council of Nice but a spurious figment like those of Isidore Mercator who thought all would pass for gold which made for the Interess of the Church of Rome But were there not such a strong and pregnant evidence from authority to make it appear that these Canons were supposititious yet the incongruity of them with the state of the Church at that time would abundantly manifest it if we had time to compare many of those Canons with it But that which is most material to our purpose concerning the equality of the Patriarchs your following words will put us upon a further enquiry into This also say you viz. That the Pope was head and Prince of all the Patriarchs the practise of the Church shews which is alwayes the best expositor and assertor of the Canons For not only the Popes confirmation was required to all new elected Patriarchs
but it belonged likewise to him to depose unworthy ones and restore the unjustly deposed by others We read of no less then eight several Patriarchs of Constantinople deposed by the Bishop of Rome Sixtus the third deposed also Polychronius Bishop of Hierusalem as his Acts set down in the first Tome of the Councils testifie On the contrary Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria and Paulus Bishop of Constantinople were by Julius the first restored to their respective Sees having been unjustly expelled by Hereticks The same might be said of divers others over whom the Pope did exercise the like authority which he could never have done upon any other ground then that of Divine Right and as being generally acknowledged St. Peters Successour in the Government of the whole Church Three things I shall return you in Answer to this Discourse 1. That the practise of the Church doth not shew any such inequality as you contend for between the Pope and other Patriarchs 2. That no such practise of the Church can be proved from the instances by you brought And therefore lastly It by no means follows that the Pope exercised any such authority by Divine right or was acknowledged to be St. Peters Successour in the Government of the whole Church I begin with the practice of the ancient Church which is so far from being an evidence of such an inequality of Patriarchs as that you contend for that nothing doth more confirm that which his Lordship saith concerning the equality of them then that doth For which we appeal to that famous testimony to this purpose in the sixth Canon of the Nicene Council Let ancient customes prevail according to which let the Bishop of Alexandria have power over them who are in Aegypt Libya and Pentapolis because this was likewise the custome for the Bishop of Rome And accordingly in Antioch and other Provinces let the priviledges be preserved to the Churches Which Canon is the more remarkable because it is the first that ever was made by the ancient Church for regulating the rights and priviledges of Churches over each other which there was like to be now more contest about not only by reason of the Churches liberty under Constantine but because of the new disposition of the Empire by him which was made not long before the sitting of the Council of Nice But the particular occasion of this Canon is generally supposed to be this Meletius an ambitious Bishop in Aegypt much about the time that Arrius broached his Heresie at Alexandria takes upon him to ordain Bishops and others in Aegypt without the consent of the Bishop of Alexandria This case being brought before the Nicene Fathers they pronounce these ordinations null depose Meletius and to prevent the like practises for the future do by this Canon confirm the ancient customs of that nature in the Church so that the Bishop of Alexandria should enjoy as full right and power over the Provinces of Aegypt Libya and Pentapolis as the Bishop of Rome had over those subject to him as likewise Antioch and other Churches should enjoy their former priviledges Where we plainly see that the ground of this extent of power is not attributed to any Divine right of the Bishop of Rome or any other Metropolitan but to the ancient custome of the Church whereby it had obtained that such Churches that were deduced as it were so many colonies from the Mother-Church should retain so much respect to and dependence upon her as not to receive any Bishop into them without the consent of that Bishop who governed in the Metropolis Which was the prime reason of the subordination of those lesser Churches to the Metropolis And this custome being drawn down from the first plantation of Churches and likewise much conducing to the preserving of unity in them these Nicene Fathers saw no reason to alter it but much to confirm it For otherwise there might have been continual bandying and opposition of lesser Bishops and Churches against the greater and therefore the Discipline and Vnity of the Church did call for this subordination which could not be better determined then by the ancient custome which had obtained in the several Churches It being found most convenient that the Churches in their subordination should be most agreeable to the civil disposition of the Empire And therefore for our better understanding the force and effect of this Nicene Canon we must cast our eye a little upon the civil disposition of the Roman Empire by Constantine then lately altered from the former disposition of it under Augustus and Adrian He therefore distributed the administration of the Government of the Roman Empire under four Praefecti Praetorio but for the more convenient management of it the whole body of the Empire was cast into several Jurisdictions containing many Provinces within them which were in the Law call'd Dioeceses over every one of which there was appointed a Vicarius or Lieutenant to one of the Praefecti Praetorio whose residence was in the chief City of the Diocese where the Praetorium was and justice was administred to all within that Diocese and thither appeals were made Under these were those Proconsuls or Correctores who ruled in the particular Provinces and had their residence in the Metropolis of it under whom were the particular Magistrates of every City now according to this disposition of the Empire the Western part of it contained in it seven of these Dioceses as under the Praefectus Praetorio Galliarum was the Diocese of Gaul which contained seventeen Provinces the Diocese of Britain which contained five afterwards but three in Constantines time the Diocese of Spain seven Under the praefectus Praetorio Italiae was the Diocese of Africa which had six Provinces the Diocese of Italy whose seat was Milan 7. the Diocese of Rome 10. Under the Praefectus Praetorio Illyrici was the Diocese of Illyricum in which were seventeen Provinces In the Eastern Division were the Diocese of Thrace which had six Provinces the Diocese of Pontus 11. and so the Diocese of Asia the Oriental properly so called wherein Antioch was 15. all which were under the Praefectus Praetorio Orientis the Aegyptian Diocese which had six Provinces was under the Praefectus Augustalis in the time of Theodosius the elder Illyricum was divided into two Dioceses the Eastern whose Metropolis was Thessalonica and had eleven Provinces the Western whose Metropolis was Syrmium and had six Provinces According to this division of the Empire we may better understand the Affairs and Government of the Church which was model'd much after the same way unless where Ancient custom or the Emperour's edict did cause any variation For as the Cities had their Bishops so the Provinces had their Arch-Bishops and the Dioceses their Primates whose Jurisdiction extended as far as the Diocese did and as the Conventus Juridici were kept in the chief City of the Diocese for matters of Civil Judicature so the chief Ecclesiastical
the lawfulness of his doing it because he was thereto appointed by the Emperour But when you say St. Austin gives this answer only per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of condescension to his adversaries way of speaking you would do well to prove elsewhere from St. Austin that when he lay's aside his Rhetorick he ever speaks otherwise but that it would have been an Vsurpation in the Pope to challenge to himself the hearing of those causes which had been determined by African Bishops But what St. Augustines judgement as well as the other African Fathers was in this point abundantly appears from the Controversies between them and the Bishop of Rome in the case of Appeals It sufficiently appears already That neither our Saviour nor the Canons of the Vniversal Church gave the Pope leave to hear and judge the causes of St. Athanasius and other Patriarchs and Bishops of the Church and therefore you were put to your shifts when you run thither for security But that which follows is notoriously false That when he did so interpose no man no not the persons themselves who were interessed and suffered by his judgement complained or accused him of usurpation when in the case of Athanasius it is so vehemently pleaded by the Eastern Bishops that the Pope had nothing at all to do in it but they might as well call in Question what was done at Rome as he what was done at Antioch Nay name us any one cause in that age of the Church where the Pope did offer to meddle in matters determined by other Bishops which he was not opposed in and the persons concern'd did not complain and accuse him of meddling with what he had no right to which are but other words for Vsurpation You say The Bishops whom the Emperour sent as Judges with the Pope were an inconsiderable number to sway the sentence It seems three to one are with you an inconsiderable number But say you The Pope to shew his authority added fifteen other Bishops of Italy to be his Colleagues and Assistants in the business Either these fifteen Bishops were properly Judges in the cause or only assistants for better management and speedier dispatch if they were Judges how prove you that Constantine did not appoint them if they were only assistants and suffragans to the Bishop of Rome as is most probable except Merocles Bishop of Milan what authority did the Pope shew in calling his Suffragans to his assistance in a matter of that nature which required so much examination of Witnesses But the Pope had more effectually shewn his authority if he had refused the Bishops whom Constantine sent and told him he medled with that which did not concern him to appoint any Judges at all in a matter of Ecclesiastical Cognisance and that it was an unsufferable presumption in him to offer to send three underling Bishops to sit with him in deciding Controversies as though he were not the Vniversal Pastour of the Church himself to whom alone by Divine right all such things did belong Such language as this would have become the Head of the Church and in that indeed he had shewn his authority But for him sneakingly to admit other Bishops as joynt-commissioners forsooth with him and that by the Emperours appointment too What did he else but betray the rights of his See and expose his Infallible Headship to great contempt Do you think that Pope Hildebrand or any of his Successours would have done this No they understood their power far better then so and the Emperour should have known his own for offering such an Affront to his Holiness And if his Bay-leaves did not secure him the Thunder-bolts of Excommunication might have lighted on him to his prejudice For shame then never say That Pope Miltiades shewed his authority but rather give him over among those good Bishops of Rome but bad Popes who knew better how to suffer Martyrdom then assert the Authority of the Roman See I pray imagine but Paul 5. or any other of our stout-spirited Popes in Miltiades his place Would they have taken such things at Constantines hands as poor Miltiades did and for all that we see was very well contented too and thought he did but his duty in doing what the Emperour bid him Would they have been contented to have had a cause once passed the Infallible judgement of the Roman See to be resumed again and handled in another Council as though there could be any suspicion that all things were not rightly carried there and that after all this too the Emperour should undertake to give the final decision to it would these things have been born with by any of our Infallible Heads of the Church But good Miltiades must be excused he went as far as his knowledge carried him and thought he might do good service to the Church in what he did and that was it he looked at more then the grandeur of his See The good Bishops then were just crept out of the Flames of persecution and they thought it a great matter that they had liberty themselves and did not much concern themselves about those Vsurpations which the Pride and Ease of the following ages gave occasion for They were sorry to see a Church that had survived the cruel Flames of Dioclesians persecution so suddenly to feel new ones in her own bowels that a Church whose constitution was so strong as to endure Martyrdomes should no sooner be at ease but she begins to putrifie and to be fly-blown with heats and divisions among her members and that her own Children should rake in those wounds which the violence of her professed enemies had caused in her and therefore these good Bishops used their care and industry to close them up and rather rejoyced they had so good an Emperour who would concern himself so much in healing the Churches breaches then dispute his Authority or disobey his Commands And if Constantine doth express himself unwilling to engage himself to meddle in a business concerning the Bishops of the Church it was out of his tender respect to those Bishops who had manifested their piety and sincerity so much in their late persecutions and not from any Question of his own Authority in it For that he after sufficiently asserted not only in his own actions but when the case of Felix of Aptung was thought not sufficiently scanned at Rome in appointing about four months after the judgement at Rome Aelianus the Proconsul of Africa to examine the case of Felix the Bishop of Aptung who had ordained Caecilian To this the Donatists pleaded That a Bishop ought not to be tryed by Proconsular judgement to which St. Austin Answers That it was not his own seeking but the Emperours appointing to whose care and charge that business did chiefly belong of which he must give an account to God And can it now enter into any head but yours that for all this the Emperour looked on the judgement
Nice For if this be taken care for as to the Inferiour Clergy and Laity How much more would it have it to be observed in Bishops that so they who are in their own Province suspended from communion be not hastily or unduly admitted by your Holiness Let your Holiness also reject the wicked refuges of Priests and Inferiour Clerks for no Canon of the Fathers hath taken that from the Church of Africk and the decrees of Nice hath subjected both the Inferiour Clergy and Bishops io their Metropolitans For they have most wisely and justly provided that every business be determined in the place where it begun and that the Grace of the Holy Spirit will not be wanting to every Province that so equity may be prudently discovered and constantly held by Christ's Priests Especially seeing that it is lawful to every one if he be offended to appeal to the Council of the Province or even to an Vniversal Council Vnless perhaps some body believe that God can inspire to every one of us the justice of examination of a cause and refuse it to a multitude of Bishops assembled in Council Or How can a judgement made beyond the Sea be valid to which the persons of necessary witnesses cannot be brought by reason of the infirmity of their sex and age or of many other intervening impediments For this sending of men to us from your Holiness we do not find commanded by any Synod of the Fathers And as for that which you did long since send to us by Faustinus our Fellow-Bishop as belonging to the Council of Nice we could not find it in the truest Copies of the Council sent by holy Cyril our Colleague Bishop of Alexandria and by the venerable Atticus Bishop of Constantinople which also we sent to your predecessor Boniface of happy memory by Innocent a Presbyter and Marcellus a Deacon Take heed also of sending to us any of your Clerks for executors to those who desire it lest we seem to bring the swelling pride of the world into the Church of Christ which beareth the light of simplicity and the brightness of humility before them that desire to see God And concerning our Brother Faustinus Apiarius being now for his wickedness cast out of the Church of Christ we are confident that our brotherly love continuing through the goodness and moderation of your Holiness Africa shall no more be troubled with him Thus I have at large produced this noble Monument of the prudence courage and simplicity of the African Fathers enough to put any reasonable man out of the fond conceit of an Vniversal Pastorship of the Bishop of Rome I wonder not that Baronius saith There are some hard things in this Epistle that Perron sweats and toils so much to so little purpose to enervate the force of it for as long as the records of it last we have an impregnable Bulwark against the Vsurpations of the Church of Rome And methinks you might blush for shame to produce those African Fathers as determining the Appeals of Bishops to Rome who with as much evidence and reason as courage and resolution did finally oppose it What can be said more convincingly against these Appeals than is here urged by them That they have neither authority from Councils nor any Foundation in Justice and Equity that God's presence was as well in Africk as Rome no doubt then they never imagined any Infallibility there that the proceedings of the Roman Bishop were so far from the simplicity and humility of the Gospel that they tended only to nourish swelling pride and secular ambition in the Church That the Pope had no authority to send Legats to hear causes and they hoped they should be no more troubled with such as Faustinus was All these things are so evident in this testimony that it were a disparagement to it to offer more at large to explain them I hope then this will make you sensible of the injury you have done the African Fathers by saying that they determined the causes of Bishops might be heard at Rome Your Answer to the place of S. Gregory which his Lordship produceth concerning Appeals viz. that the Patriarch is to put a final end to those causes which come before him by Appeal from Bishops and Arch-Bishops is the very same that it speaks only of the Inferiour Clergy and therefore is taken off already But you wonder his Lordship should expose to view the following words of S. Gregory where there is neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch of that Diocese there they are to have recourse to the See Apostolick as being the Head of all Churches Then surely it follows say you the Bishop of Rome 's Jurisdiction is not only over the Western and Southern Provinces but over the whole Church whither the Jurisdiction of Patriarchs and Metropolitans never extended See how well you make good the common saying That Ignorance is the cause of Admiration for Wherefore should you wonder at his Lordships producing these words if you had either understood or considered the abundant Answers which he gives to them 1. That if there be a Metropolitan or a Patriarch in those Churches his judgement is final and there ought to be no Appeal to Rome 2. It is as plain that in those ancient times of Church-Government Britain was never subject to the See of Rome of which afterwards 3. It will be hard for any man to prove that there were any Churches then in the world which were not under some either Patriarch or Metropolitan 4. If any such were 't is gratis dictum and impossible to be proved that all such Churches where-ever seated in the world were obliged to depend on Rome And Do you still wonder why his Lordship produces these words I may more justly wonder why you return no Answer to what his Lordship here sayes But still the Caput omnium Ecclesiarum sticks with you if his Lordship hath not particularly spoken to that it was because his whole discourse was sufficient to a man of ordinary capacity to let him see that no more could be meant by it but some preheminence of that Church above others in regard of order and dignity but no such thing as Vniversal Power and Jurisdiction was to be deduced from it And if Gregory understood more by it as his Lordship saith 'T is gratis dictum and Gregory himself was not a person to be believed in his own cause But now as you express it his Lordship takes a leap from the Church of Rome to the Church of England No neither his Lordship nor we take a leap from thence hither but you are the men who leap over the Alps from the Church of England to that of Rome We plead as his Lordship doth truly That in the ancient times of the Church Britain was never subject to the See of Rome but being one of the Western Dioceses of the Empire it had a Primate of its own This you say his Lordship should
their rights and liberties and thereupon gave present notice to Caelestine to forbear sending his Officers amongst them lest he should seem to induce the swelling pride of the World into the Church of Christ. And this is said to have amounted into a formal separation from the Church of Rome and to have continued for the space of somewhat more then one hundred years For which his Lordship produceth two publick instruments extant among the ancient Councils the one an Epistle from Boniface 2. in whose time the reconciliation to Rome is said to be made by Eulalius then Bishop of Carthage but the separation instigante Diabolo by the Temptation of the Devil The other is an exemplar precum or Copy of the Petition of the same Eulalius in which he damns and curses all those his Predecessours which went against the Church of Rome Now his Lordship urges from hence Either these Instruments are true or false If they be false then Boniface 2. and his Accomplices at Rome or some for them are notorious forgers and that of Records of great consequence to the Government and peace of the whole Church of Christ and to the perpetual Infamy of that See and all this foolishly and to no purpose On the other side if these instruments be true then 't is manifest that the Church of Africk separated from the Church of Rome which separation was either unjust or just if unjust then St. Austin Eugenius Fulgentius and all those Bishops and other Martyrs which suffered in the Vandalike persecution dyed in actual and unrepented Schism and out of the Church If it were just then is it far more lawful for the Church of England by a National Council to cast off the Popes Vsurpation as she did than it was for the African Church to separate because then the African Church excepted only against the Pride of Rome in case of Appeals and two other Canons less material but the Church of England excepts besides this grievance against many corruptions in Doctrine with which Rome at that time was not tainted And St. Austin and those other famous men durst not thus have separated from Rome had the Pope had that powerful Principality over the whole Church of Christ and that by Christs own Ordinance and Institution as A. C. pretends he had This is the substance of his Lordships discourse to which we must consider what Answer you return Which in short is That you dare not assert the credit of those two Instruments but are very willing to think them forgeries but you say the Schismatical separation of the African Church from the Roman is inconsistent with the truth of story and confuted by many pregnant and undeniable instances which prove that the Africans notwithstanding the context in the sixth Council of Carthage touching matter of Appeals were alwayes in true Catholick Communion with the Roman Church even during the term of this pretended separation For which you produce the Testimony of Pope Caelestine concerning St. Austin the proceeding of Pope Leo in the case of Lupicinus the Testimonies of Eugenius Fulgentius Gregory and the presence of some African Bishops at Rome To all which I Answer that either the African Fathers did persist in the decree of the Council of Carthage or they did not if they did persist in it and no separation followed then the casting off the Vsurpations of the Roman See cannot incur the guilt of Schism for these African Bishops did that and it seems continued still in the Roman Communion by which it is evident that the Roman Church was not so far degenerated then as afterwards or that the Authority of those persons was so great in the Church that the Roman Bishops durst not openly break with them which is a sufficient account of what Caelestine saith concerning St. Austin that he lived and dyed in the Communion of the Roman Church If you say the reason why they were in Communion with the Roman Church was because they did not persist you must prove it by better instances then you have here brought for some of them are sufficient proofs of the contrary As appears by the case of Lupicinus an African Bishop appealing to Leo who indeed was willing enough to receive him but what of that Did not the African Bishops of Mauritania Caesariensis excommunicate him notwithstanding that appeal and ordained another in his place and therefore the Pope very fairly sends him back to be tryed by the Bishops of his Province Which instance as it argues the Popes willingness to have brought up Appeals among them so it shews the continuance of their stoutness in opposing them And even Pope Gregory so long after though in his time the business of Appeals was much promoted at Rome yet he dares not challenge them from the Bishops of Africa but yields to them the enjoyment of those priviledges which they said they had enjoyed from the Apostles times And the testimonies of Eugenius and Fulgentius imply nothing of subjection to Rome but a Praeeminence which that Church had above all others which it might have without the other as London may I hope be the Head-City of England and yet all other Cities not express subjection to it But if after that Council of Carthage the Bishops of Rome did by degrees encroach upon the liberties of the African Churches there is this sufficient account to be given of it that as the Roman Bishops were alwayes watchful to take advantages to inhance their power and that especially when other Churches were in a suffering condition so a fit opportunity fell out for them to do it in Africa For not long after that Council of Carthage fell out that dismal persecution of the African Churches by the irruption of the Vandals in which all the Catholick Bishops were banished out of Africa or lived under great sufferings and by a strict edict of Gensericus no new Bishops were suffered to be ordained in the places of the former This now was a fair opportunity for the Bishop of Rome to advance his Authority among the suffering Bishops St. Peters pretended Successour loving to fish in troubled waters and it being fatal to Rome from the first Foundation of it to advance her self by the ruins of other places But we are call'd off from the ruins of other Churches to observe the methods whereby the Popes grew great under the Emperours which his Lordship gives an account of from Constantines time to Charles the Great about five hundred years which begins thus So soon as the Emperours became Christian the Church began to be put in better order For the calling and Authority of Bishops over the Inferiour Clergy that was a thing of known use and benefit for preservation of Vnity and Peace in the Church Which was confessed by St. Hierom himself and so settled in mens minds from the very Infancy of the Church that it had not been to that time contradicted by any The only difficulty then
the Canons of Sardica 3. Why not at all mentioned in them 1. How comes the Pope's Supremacy if of Divine Right to depend at all upon the Canons of the Church We had thought it had been much more to your purpose not to have mentioned any Canons at all of the Church about it but to have produced evidences that this was constantly acknowledged as of Divine Institution But we must bear with you in not producing that which is not to be found For nothing can be more apparent than that when the Popes began to pierk up they pleaded nothing but some Canons of the Church for what they did as Julius to the Oriental Bishops Zosimus to the African and so others If it had been ever thought then that this Supremacy was of Divine Right What senseless men were these to make use of the worst pleas and never mention the best For supposing they had such a Supremacy granted them by the Canons of the Church Doth not this imply that their authority did depend upon the Churches grant and what the Church might give for her own conveniency she might take it away when she saw it abused to her apparent prejudice And therefore if they had thought that God had commanded all Churches to be subject to them it was weakly done of them to plead nothing but the Canons of the Church for it 2. Why no sooner than the Canons of Sardica Was the Church of Rome without her Supremacy till that time Will no Canons of the Church evidence it before them When this Council was not held till eleven years after the death of Constantine Had the Pope no right of Appeals till it was decreed here Yes Zosimus pleads the Nicene Canons for it But upon what grounds will appear suddenly 3. Why is not the Pope's Supremacy mentioned as the ground of these Appeals then Certainly those Western Bishops who made those Canons should have only recognized the Divine Right of the Pope's Supremacy and not made a Canon in such a manner as they do that would make any one be confident they never knew the Popes Supremacy For their decree runs thus That in case any Bishop thought himself unjustly condemned if it seem good to you let us honour the memory of Peter the Apostle that it be written by those who have judged the cause to Julius the Bishop of Rome and if it seem good let the judgement be renewed and let them appoint such as may take cognizance of it Were these men mad to make such a Canon as this if they believed the Popes Supremacy of Divine Institution What a dwindling expression is that for the Head of the Church to call him Bishop of Rome only when a matter concerning his Supremacy is decreeing And why to Julius Bishop of Rome I pray Had it not been better to S. Peter's successor whosoever he be so it would have been no doubt if they had intended a Divine or Vniversal Right And why for the honour of S. Peter 's memory Had it not been more becoming them to have said out of obedience to Christ's Commands which made him Head of the Church And all this come in with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it please you What if it please you Whether the Pope should be Vniversal Pastor or no If it please you Whether the Church should be built super hanc Petram or no If it please you Whether the Bishop of Rome succeeds S. Peter or no Are these the men that give such evidence for the Popes Supremacy You had better by far never mention them for if that was the Lesson they had to say never any Boyes at School said their Lesson worse than they do They wanted such as you among them to have penned their Canon for them and no doubt it had run in a better strain For as much as our Lord and Saviour did appoint S. Peter Head of the Church and the Bishop of Rome to succed him as Christ's Vicar upon earth these are to let you know that he hath an absolute power by Divine Right over all persons and causes and that men are bound to obey him upon pain of eternal damnation This had been something like if you could have found in some Canons of the Church but to produce a poor sneaking If it please you What do you else but betray the Majesty and Grandeur of your Church And yet after all this no such thing as absolute Appeals to Rome are decreed here neither but only that the Bishop of Rome should have power to review the case and in case it was thought necessary that other persons should be appointed to examine it But How much a Review differs from an Appeal and that nothing but a power to review cases is here given to the Bishop of Rome are fully manifested by Petrus de Marcâ to whom I again referr you So that we see from hence you have very comfortable evidence for the Pope's Supremacy 2. Suppose it had been decreed here you had not gained much by it Because notwithstanding this decree it was far from being acknowledged by the Vniversal Church Which I prove from hence That the Sardican Canons were not received by the Church Nothing can be more evident than that these Canons were not so much as known by the African Bishops when Pope Zosimus fraudulently sent them under the name of the Nicene Canons insomuch that Cusanus questions Whether ever any such thing were determined by the Sardican Synod or no And it appears by S. Austin that the Council of Sardica was of no great credit in Africa for when Fortunius the Donatist-Bishop would prove that the Sardican Synod had written to some of their party because one Donatus was mentioned in it S. Austin tells him It was a Synod of Arrians by which it seems very improbable that they had ever received the decrees of the Western but only of the Eastern part of it which adjourned to Philippopolis Neither was this ever acknowledged for an Oecumenical Council for although it was intended for such by the Emperours Constans and Constantius yet but 70. of the Eastern Bishops appeared to 300. of the Western and those Eastern Bishops soon withdrew from the other and decreed things directly contrary to the other So that Balsamon and Zonaras as well as the elder Greeks say The decrees of it can at most only bind the Western Churches and the arrogating of this power of reviewing causes decided by the Eastern Churches by Western Bishops was apparently the cause of the divisions between them the Eastern and Western Churches being after this divided by the Alpes Succiae between Illyricum and Thracia And although Hilary and Epiphanius expresly call this a Western Council yet it was a long time before the Canons of it were received in the Western Church Which is supposed to be the reason Why Zosimus would not mention the Sardican but called them the Nicene Canons which forgery was
sufficiently detected by the African Bishops And it is the worst of all excuses to lay the blame of it as you do on the Pope's Secretary for Do you think Pope Zosimus was so careless of his business as not to look over the Commonitorium which Faustinus carried with him Do you think Faustinus would not have corrected the fault when the African Bishops boggled so at it What made him so unwilling that they should send into the East to examine the Nicene Canons but intreated them to leave the business wholly with the Pope if he were not conscious of some forgery in the business But you say as a further plea in Zosimus his excuse That the Council of Sardica was an Appendix to the Nicene Council rather than otherwise An excellent Appendix made at two and twenty years distance from the other and called by other Emperours consisting of many other persons and assembled upon a quite different occasion If this had been an Appendix to the Nicene Council How comes that to have but twenty Canons How came Atticus and Cyrillus not to send these with the other How come all the Copies of Councils and Canons to distinguish them How came they not to be contained in the Code of Canons produced in the Council of Chalcedon in the cause of Bassianus and Stephanus If this were the same Council because some of the same things were determined How comes that in Trullo not to be the same with the 6. Oecumenical How comes the Council of Antioch not to be an Appendix to the Council of Nice if this was when it was celebrated before this and the Canons of it inserted in the Code of Canons owned by the Council of Chalcedon So that by all the shifts and arts you can use you cannot excuse Zosimus from Imposture in sending these Sardican under the name of the Nicene Canons And on what account the Pope satisfied the Canons then is apparent enough viz. for the advancing the Interess of his See and this the African Fathers did as easily discern afterwards as we do now But by this we see What good Foundations the Pope's claim of Supremacy had then and what arts not to say frauds they were beholding to for setting it up even as great as they have since made use of to maintain it CHAP. VI. Of the Title of Universal Bishop In what sense the Title of Vniversal Bishop was taken in Antiquity A threefold acceptation of it as importing 1. A general care over the Christian Churches which is attributed to other Catholick Bishops by Antiquity besides the Bishop of Rome as is largely proved 2. A peculiar dignity over the Churches within the Roman Empire This accounted then Oecumenical thence the Bishops of the seat of the Empire called Oecumenical Bishops and sometimes of other Patriarchal Churches 3. Nothing Vniversal Jurisdiction over the whole Church as Head of it so never given in Antiquity to the Bishop of Rome The ground of the Contest about this Title between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople Of the proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon about the Popes Supremacy Of the Grammatical and Metaphorical sense of this Title Many arguments to prove it impossible that S. Gregory should understand it in the Grammatical sense The great absurdities consequent upon it S. Gregory's Reasons proved to hold against that sense of it which is admitted in the Church of Rome Of Irenaeus his opposition to Victor's excommunicating the Asian Bishops argues no authority he had over them What the more powerful principality in Irenaeus is Ruffinus his Interpretation of the 6. Nicene Canon vindicated The Suburbicary Churches cannot be understood of all the Churches in the Roman Empire The Pope no Infallible successor of S. Peter nor so acknowledged to be by Epiphanius S. Peter had no Supremacy of Power over the Apostles HIs Lordship having undertaken to give an account How the Popes rose by degrees to their Greatness under the Christian Emperours in prosecution of that necessarily falls upon the Title of Vniversal Bishop affected by John the Patriarch of Constantinople and condemned by Pelagius 1. and Gregory 2. This you call a trite and beaten way because I suppose the truth is so plain and evident in it but withall you tell us This Objection hath been satisfied a hundred times over if you had said the same Answer had been repeated so often over you had said true but if you say that it hath been satisfied once you say more than you are able to defend as will evidently appear by your very unsatisfactory Answer which at last you give to it So that if none of your party have been any wiser than your self in this matter I am so far from being satisfied with what they say that I can only pitty those persons whose interest swayes their understandings so much or at least their expressions as to make them say any thing that seems to be for their purpose though in it self never so senseless or unreasonable And I can scarce hold my self from saying with the Oratour when a like Objection to this was offered him because multitudes had said so Quasi verò quidquam sit tam valdè quà m nihil sapere vulgare That truth and reason are the greatest Novelties in the world For seriously Were it possible for men of common understanding to rest satisfied with such pitiful shifts as you are fain to make if they would but use any freedom in enquiring and any liberty of judging when they had done But when once men have given not to say sold away the exercise of their free reason by addicting themselves to a particular interest there can scarce any thing be imagined so absurd but it passeth currently from one to another because they are bound to receive all blindfold and in the same manner to deliver it to others By which means it is an easie matter for the greatest nonsense and contradictions to be said a hundred times over And Whether it be not so in the present case is that we are now to enquire into And for the same ends which you propose to your self viz. that all obscurity may be taken away and the truth clearly appear I shall in the first place set down What his Lordship saith and then distinctly examine What you reply in Answer to it Thus then his Lordship proceeds About this time brake out the ambition of John Patriarch of Constantinople affecting to be Vniversal Bishop He was countenanced in this by Mauricius the Emperour but sowrely opposed by Pelagius and S. Gregory Insomuch that S. Gregory plainly sayes That this Pride of his shews that the times of Antichrist were near So as yet and this was near upon the point of six hundred years after Christ there was no Vniversal Bishop no one Monarch over the whole Militant Church But Mauricius being deposed and murthered by Phocas Phocas conferred upon Boniface the third that very Honour which two of his predecessors had
and Gregory yield shrewd matter of suspicion what the main ground of their quarrel against the Patriarchs of Constantinople was For before the Emperours stood up for the honour of Constantinople as being the seat of their Empire and Rome began to sink the Empire decaying there but now there was a fit time to do something for the honour of the Roman See Cyriacus was in disgrace with the Tyrant Phocas and no such time as now to fall in with him and caresse him and we see Gregory did it prety well for a Saint but he lived not to enjoy the benefit of it but Boniface did however After the Patriarchate of Constantinople was erected the Popes had a double game to play to advance themselves and depress that which it was very hard for them to do because all the Eastern Bishops as well as the Emperour favoured it But after equal priviledges were decreed to the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Bishop of Rome by the Council of Constantinople they could no longer dissemble their choler but had no such occasion ministred to them to express it as after the Canon of the Council of Chalcedon wherein were present 630 Bishops which confirmed the former For then Leo fumes and frets and writes to Martianus and Pulcheria to Anatolius and the Bishops of the East but still pretends that he stood up for the priviledges of the other Patriarchs and the Nicene Canons and what not but one might easily discern what it was that pinched him viz. the equalling the Patriarch of Constantinople with himself Which it is apparent he suspected before by the instructions he gave his Legats Paschasinus and Lucentius to be sure to oppose whatever was proposed in the Council concerning the Primacy of that See And accordingly they did and complained that the Canon was surreptitiously made Which they were hugely overseen in doing while the Council sat for upon this the whole matter is reviewed the Judges scan the business the Bishops protest there were no practises used that they all voluntarily consented to it and all this in the presence of the Roman Legats How comes it then to pass that this should not be a regular and Conciliar action Were not the Bishops at age to understand their own priviledges Did not the Bishop of Antioch know his own interest as well as Pope Leo Must he be supposed more able to understand the Nicene Canons then these 630 Bishops Why then was not this Canon as regular as any other Why forsooth The Pope did not consent to it So true is that sharp censure of Ludovicus Vives that those are accounted lawful Canons and Councils which make for their interest but others are no more esteemed then a company of tattling Gossips But what made the Pope so angry at this Canon of the Council of Chalcedon He pretends the honour of the Nicene Canons the preserving the priviledges of other Patriarchs But Binius hath told us the true reason of it because they say that the Primacy of Rome came by its being the seat of the Empire and therefore not by Divine right and since Constantinople was become the seat of the Empire too therefore the Patriarch there should enjoy equal priviledges with the Bishop of Rome If Rome had continued still the sole seat of the Empire this reason would not have been quarrelled at but now Rome sinking and Constantinople rising this must not be endured but all the arts and devices possible must be used to keep it under And this is the true account of the pique which the Bishops of Rome had to the Patriarchs of Constantinople From whence we may easily guess how probable it is that this Council of Chalcedon did acknowledge the Pope Oecumenical Bishop in any other sense then they contended the Patriarch of Constantinople was so too And the same answer will serve for all your following Instances For as you pretend that the Council of Constantinople sub Menna did call Pope Agapetus Oecumenical Patriarch so it is most certain that it call'd Mennas the Patriarch of Constantinople so too And which is more Adrian 1. in his Epistle to Tharasius of Constantinople in the second Nicene Council calls him Vniversal Bishop If therefore the Greek Emperours and Balsamon call the Pope so they import nothing peculiar to him in it because it is most evident they call'd their own Patriarch so likewise So that you find little advantage to your cause from this first thing which you premise viz. that the Pope was anciently call'd Vniversal Bishop But you say further 2. That the Bishops of Constantinople never intended to deny by this usurped title the Popes Vniversal Authority even over themselves This is ambiguous unless it be further explained what you mean by Vniversal Authority for it may either note some kind of prae-eminence and dignity which the Bishop of Rome had as the chief Patriarch and who on that account had great Authority in the Church and this your instances prove that the Patriarchs of Constantinople did acknowledge to belong to the Pope but if by Vniversal Authority be meant Vniversal Jurisdiction over the Church as appointed the head of it by Christ then not one of your instances comes near the shadow of a proof for it Thus having considered what you premise we come to your Answer it self For which you tell us We are to take notice that the term Vniversal Bishop is capable of two senses the one Grammatical the other Metaphorical In the Grammatical sense it signifies Bishop of the Vniversal Church and of all Churches in particular even to the exclusion of all others from being properly Bishops and consequently displaceable at his pleasure as being only his not Christs officers and receiving authority from him and not from Christ. In the Metaphorical sense it signifies only so high and eminent a dignity above all other Bishops throughout the whole Church that though he who is stiled Vniversal Bishop hath a true and real Superintendency Jurisdiction and Authority over all other Bishops yet that they be as truly and properly Bishops in their respective Provinces and Dioceses as he himself This being clear'd say you 't is evident that St. Gregory when he inveighs against the title of Vniversal Bishop takes it in the literal and Grammatical sense which you very faintly endeavour to prove out of him as I shall make it presently appear This being then the substance of that Answer which you say hath been given a hundred times over must now once for all pass a strict and severe examination Which it shall receive in these two Enquiries 1. Whether it be possible to conceive that St. Gregory should take Vniversal Bishop in the literal and Grammatical sense 2. Whether all the Arguments which he useth against that title do not hold against that Vniversal Jurisdiction which you attribute to the Pope as Head of the Church 1. Whether it be possible to conceive that St. Gregory
been given a hundred times over is so pitifully weak absurd and ridiculous that you might have been ashamed to have produced it once and much more to repeat it without saying any more for it than you do For your other discourse depends wholly upon it and all that being taken away the rest doth fall to the ground with it We must now therefore return to his Lordships discourse in which he goes on to give an account of the rise of the Pope's Greatness As yet saith he The right of Election or ratification of the Pope continued in the Emperour but then the Lombards grew so great in Italy and the Empire was so infested with Saracens and such changes happened in all parts of the world as that neither for the present the homage of the Pope was useful for the Emperour nor the protection of the Emperour available for the Pope By this means the Bishop of Rome was left to play his own game by himself A thing which as it pleased him well enough so both he and his Successors made great advantage by it For being grown to that Eminence by the Emperour and the greatness of that City and place of his aboad he found himself the more free the greater the Tempest was that beat upon the other And then first he set himself to alienate the hearts of the Italians from the Emperour Next he opposed himself against him And about A. D. 710. Pope Constantine 1. did also first of all openly confront Philippicus the Emperour in defence of Images as Onuphrius tells us After him Gregory 2. and the 3. did the same by Leo Isaurus By this time the Lombards began to pinch very close and to vex on all sides not Italy only but Rome also This drives the Pope to seek a new Patron And very fitly he meets with Charls Martell in France that famous warrior against the Sarazens Him he implores in defence of the Church against the Lombards This address seems very advisedly taken at least it proves very fortunate to them both For in short time it dissolved the Kingdom of the Lombards in Italy which had then stood two hundred and four years which was the Popes security And it brought the Crown of France into the house of Charls and shortly after the Western Empire And now began the Pope to be great indeed For by the bounty of Pepin Son of Charls that which was taken from the Lombards was given to the Pope So that now of a Bishop he became a Temporal Prince But when Charls the Great had set up the Western Empire then he resumed the ancient and original power of the Emperour to govern the Church to call Councils to order Papal Elections And this power continued in his posterity For this right of the Emperour was in force and use in Gregory the seventh's time Who was confirmed in the Popedom by Henry the fourth whom he afterward deposed And it might have continued longer if the succeeding Emperours had had abilities enough to secure or vindicate their own Right But the Pope keeping a strong Council about him and meeting with some weak Princes and they oft-times distracted with great and dangerous warrs grew stronger till he got the better So this is enough to shew How the Popes climed up by the Emperours till they over-topt them which is all I said before and have now proved And this was about the year 1073. Yet was it carried in succeeding times with great changes of fortune and different success The Emperour sometimes plucking from the Pope and the Pope from the Emperour winning and losing ground as their spirits abilities aids and opportunities were till at the last the Pope settled himself upon the grounds laid by Gregory 7. in the great power which he now uses in and over these parts of the Christian world To all this you return a short Answer in these words We deny not but that in Temporal power and Authority the Popes grew great by the Patronage of Christian Emperours But what is this to the purpose If he would have said any thing material he should have proved that the Popes rose by the Emperours means to their Spiritual Authority and Jurisdiction over all other Bishops throughout the whole Catholick Church which is the only thing they claim jure divino and which is so annexed to the dignity of their office by Christ's institution that were the Pope deprived of all his Temporalties yet could not his Spiritual Authority suffer the least diminution by it But 1. Doth his Lordships discourse only contain an account of the Popes temporal greatness by the Patronage of Christian Emperours Doth he not plainly shew How the Popes got their power by rebelling and contesting with the Emperours themselves How they assumed to themselves a power to depose Emperours and Do they claim these things jure Divino too 2. What you say of the Popes Spiritual Authority will then hold good when it is well proved but bare asserting it will never do it We must therefore have patience till you have leisure to attempt it But in the mean time we must consider How you vindicate the famous place of Irenaeus concerning as you say the Pope's Supreme Pastoral Authority from his Lordships interpretation Yet before we come to the Authority it self there are some light skirmishes as you call them to be passed through and those are concerning Irenaeus himself For his Lordship saith That his Adversarie is much scanted of ancient proof if Irenaeus stand alone besides Irenaeus was a Bishop of the Gallican Church and a very unlikely man to captivate the liberty of that Church under the more powerful principality of Rome And how can we have better evidence of his judgement touching that principality then the actions of his life When Pope Victor excommunicated the Asian Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all at a blow was not Irenaeus the chief man that reprehended him for it A very unmeet and undutiful thing sure it had been in Irenaeus in deeds to tax him of rashness and inconsiderateness whom in words A. C. would have to be acknowledged by him the Supreme and Infallible Pastour of the Vniversal Church To which you Answer 1. To the liberty of the Gallican Church As if forsooth the so much talked of liberties of the Gallican Church had been things known or heard of in St. Irenaeus his time as though there were no difference between not captivating the Liberty of that Church to Rome and asserting the Liberties of the Gallican Church in her obedience to Rome yet these two must be confounded by you to render his Lordships Answer ridiculous which yet is as sound and rational as your cavil is vain and impertinent But this you pass over and fix 2. Vpon his reprehending Pope Victor where you say that Eusebius hath not a word importing reprehension but rather a friendly and seasonable perswasion his words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Christ intended to institute such Government in his Church but much against it The Communicatory letters in the primitive Church argued an Aristocracy Gersons Testimony from his Book de Auferibilitate Papae explained and vindicated St. Hieromes Testimony full against a Monarchy in the Church The inconsistency of the Popes Monarchy with that of Temporal Princes The Supremacy of Princes in Ecclesiastical matters asserted by the Scripture and Antiquity as well as the Church of England WE are now come to the places of Scripture insisted on for the proof of the Popes Authority which you have been so often and successfully beaten out of by so many powerful assaults of our Writers that it is matter of admiration that you should yet think to find any shelter there For those which you yet account Fortresses and Bulwarks for your cause have not only been triumphed over by your Adversaries but have been slighted by the wisest of your party and deserted as most untenable places As I shall make it appear to you in the progress of this dispute In which I shall not barely shew the palpable weakness of your pretended proofs but bring unanswerable arguments against them from persons of your own Communion For the force of that reason by which the Protestants have prevailed over you in this dispute hath been so great that it hath brought over some of the learnedst of your party not only to an acknowledgement of the insufficiency of these proofs but to a zealous opposition against that very Doctrine which you attempt to prove by them But such is the fate of a sinking cause that it catcheth hold of any thing to save it self though it be the Anchor of the ship which makes it sink the sooner Thus it will appear to be in these baffled Proofs which you only bring into the Field to shew what streights you are in for help and no sooner appear there but they fall off to the conquering side and help only to promote your ruine But since they are in the place where Arguments should be we must in civility consider them as if they were so The first place then is Luke 22.32 I have pray'd for thee that thy faith fail not What would a Philosopher think were he chosen as Vmpire between us as once one was between Origen and his Adversaries to hear this place produced to prove the Popes Authority and Infallibility And when a reason is demanded of so strange an Inference from a promise of recovery to St. Peter to an impossibility of falling in the Pope nothing else produced but the forged Epistles of some Popes and the partial Testimonies of others in their own cause Could he think otherwise but that these men loved their cause dearly and would fain prove it if they could tell how but since there was neither evidence in reason or more indifferent writers in it yet to let them see how confident they were of the Popes Infallibility they would produce their Infallible Testimonies to prove they were Infallible For we ask What evidence is there that the priviledge obtained for St. Peter whatever it is must descend to his Successours if to his Successours whether to all his Successours or only to some if only to some why to those at Rome more then at Antioch or any other place if to them at Rome why it must be understood of a Doctrinal and not a saving Faith as it was in St. Peter if of Doctrinal why not absolutely but only conditionally if they teach the Church For all these and several other enquiries of this nature we are told It must be so understood but if you ask Why all the Answer we can get is Because seven Popes at one time or other said so But at this you grow very angry and tell us 1. That Bellarmine besides these gives several pregnant reasons from the Text it self What were it worth to have a sight of them If you had thought them so pregnant you are not so sparing of taking out of Bellarmine but you would have given them us over again Bellarmins excellent proofs are two or three sine Dubio's Sine dubio saith he hic Dominus speciale aliquid Petro impetravit And who denies it but we grant it was so special to him that it never came to his Successours and again Sine dubio ipsis praecipuè debeat esse nota suae sedis auctoritas speaking of the Popes Testimonies for themselves Without all doubt they knew best their own Authority They were wonderfully to blame else but all the difficulty is to perswade others to believe them sine dubio when they speak in their own Cause And for that I can find no pregnant reason in him at all Well but we have a third sine dubio yet which may be more to the purpose than either of the other two For Bellarmin distinguishes of two priviledges which Christ obtained for St. Peter the first is That himself should never lose the true Faith though he were tempted of the Devil and this his Lordship grants that it was the special grace which Christs prayer obtained that notwithstanding Satans sifting him and his threefold denyal of his Master he should not fall into a final Apostacy The second priviledge is That he as Bishop should not be able to teach any thing against the Faith sive ut in sede ejus nunquam inveniretur qui doceret contra veram fidem or that there should be none found in his See who should do it Is not here an excellent conjunction disjunctive in this Sive Or that he should not do it himself or that his Successours should not do it Doth not this want pregnant proofs and we have them in the next words The first of these it may be very modestly did not descend to his Successours but secundum sine Dubio manavit ad posteros sive successores the second without all doubt did descend to his Successours Are not these pregnant reasons three sine dubio's given us by Cardinal Bellarmin For when he comes to confirm this last sine dubio he produces nothing but those Testimonies which his Lordship excepts against as not fit to be Judges in their own Cause If these then be Bellarmins pregnant reasons out of the Text no wonder that his Lordship was not pleased to Answer them But yet you are displeased that his Lordship should think that Popes were interessed persons in their own Cause No no all that ever sat in that See were such holy meek humble self-denying men that they would not for a world let a word fall to exalt their own Authority in the Church And we are mightily to blame to think otherwise of them Is it possible to think that Felix 1 and Lucius 1 should speak for their own interest though the Epistles under their names be such notorious counterfeits that all sober men among you are ashamed of them Is it possible that Leo 1. should do it who was so humble a
by divers rather than by one Vice-Roy And I believe saith he this is true For so it was governed for the first three hundred years and somewhat better the Bishops of those times carrying the whole business of admitting any new consecrated Bishops or others to or rejecting them from their Communion And this his Lordship saith He hath carefully examined for the first six hundred years even to and within the time of S. Gregory the Great Now to this you answer 1. That though A. C. urgeth the argument in a similitude of a Kingdom only yet it is of force in any other kind of settled Government as in a Common-wealth But by this A. C. seems a great deal the wiser man for he knew what he did when he instanced in in a Kingdom for he foresaw that this only would tend to his purpose concerning the Popes Supremacy but though there be the same necessity of some Supreme Power in a Common-wealth yet that would do him no good at all for all that could be inferred thence would be the necessity of a General Council And by this you may see How little your similitude will hold any other way than A.C. put it Therefore 2. You answer That the Government of the Church is not a pure but a mixt Monarchy i. e. the Supream Government of the Church is clearly Monarchical you confess yet Bishops within their respective Dioceses and Jurisdictions are spiritual Princes also that is chief Pastors and Governours of such a part of the Church in their own right How far this latter is consonant to your principles I have already examined but the former is that we dispute now concerning the Supreme Government of the Church Whether that be Monarchical or no and this is that which his Lordship denies and for all that I see we may continue to do so too for any argument you bring to the contrary Although you produce your Achilles in the next paragraph viz. that since the Government of one in chief is by all Philosophers acknowledged for the most perfect What wonder is it that Christ our Saviour thought it fitter to govern the Church by one Vice-Roy than Aristocratically or by many as he would have it But Are you sure Christ asked the Philosophers opinions in establishing a Government in the Church The Philosophers judged truly that of all Forms of Civil Government Monarchy was the best i. e. most conducing to the ends of Civil Government for the excellency of such things must be measured by their respect to the ends Now if we apply this to the Church we must not measure it by such ends as we fancy to our selves or such as are only the ends of meer Civil Societies but all must be considered with a respect to the chief design of him who first instituted a Church And from thence we must draw our Inferences as to what may tend most to the Peace and Vnity of it Now it appearing to be the great design of Christ that mankind should be brought to eternal Happiness we cannot argue from hence as to the necessity of any manner of Government unless one of them hath in it self a greater tendency to this than another hath For in Civil Governments the whole design of the Society is the Civil Peace of it but it is otherwise in the Church the main end of it is to order things with the greatest conveniency for a future life Now this being the main end of this Society and no manner of Government having in it self a greater tendency to this than other It was in the power of the Legislator to appoint what Government he pleased himself But when we consider that he intended this Church of his should be spread all over the world and this to be his immediate errand he sent his Apostles upon to preach to every creature and to plant Churches in the most remote and distant places from each other we can have the least ground to fancy he should appoint an Vniversal Monarchy in his Church of any Government whatsoever For if we will take that boldness you put us upon to enquire What form is fittest for a Society dispersed into all parts of the world and that are not bound upon their being Christians to live nearer Rome than Mexico or Japan Could any one imagine it would be to appoint one Vice-Roy to superintend his Church at such a place as Rome is Suppose all the East and West-Indies consisted of Christian Churches What advantage in order to the Government of those Churches could the Popes Authority be What Heresies and Schisms might be among them before his Holiness could be acquainted with them These are therefore very slender and narrow Conceptions concerning Christs Institution of a Government over his Catholick Church as though he should only have regard to these few adjacent parts of Europe without any respect to the good of the whole Church But since we see Christ designed such a Church which might be in most remote and distant places from each other and yet at such a distance might equally promote the main ends wherefore they became Churches it is very unreasonable to think he should appoint one Vice-Roy to be Head over them all For which let us suppose that Europe might be as the Eastern Churches have been over-run with the Turkish Power and only some few suffering Christians left here and the Pope much in the same condition with the Patriarch of Constantinople But on the other side that Christianity should largely spread it self in China and the East Indies and the Christian Church flourish in America Could any Philosopher think that fixing a Monarchy at Rome or elsewhere were the best way to Govern the Catholick Church which consists of all these Christian Societies For that is certainly the best Government which is suited to all conditions of that Society which it is intended for now it is apparent the Christian Church was intended to be so Catholick that no one Vice-Roy can be supposed able to look to the Government of it If Christ had intended meerly such a Church which should have consisted of such persons which lay here near about Rome and no others the supposition of such a Monarchy in the Church would not have been altogether so incongruous though liable to very many inconveniencies but when he intended his Religion for the universal good of the world and that in all parts of it without obliging them to live near each other it is one of the most unreasonable suppositions in the world that he should set up a Monarchical Government over his Catholich Church in such a place as Rome is But now if we suppose only an Aristocratical Government in the Church under Christ as the alone Supreme Head nothing can be more suitable to the nature of the Church or the large extent of it than that is For where-ever a Church is there may be Bishops to govern it and other Officers of the Church
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
Authority and Jurisdiction given by Christ to one Bishop above another St. Hierom was not so sensless as not to see that the Bishops of Rome Constantinople and Alexandria had greater Authority and larger Jurisdiction in the Church then the petty Bishops of Eugubium Rhegium and Tanis but all this he knew well enough came by the custom of the Church that one Bishop should have larger power in the Church then another But saith he if you come to urge us with what ought to be practised in the Church then saith he Orbis major est urbe it is no one City as that of Rome which he particularly instanceth in which can prescribe to the whole world For saith he all Bishops are of equal merit and the same Priesthood wheresoever they are whether at Rome or elsewhere So that it is plain to all but such as wilfully blind themselves that St. Hierom speaks not of that which you call the Character of Bishops but of the Authority of them for that very word he useth immediately before Si authoritas quaeritur orbis major est urbe And where do you ever find merit applyed to the Bishops Character They who say It is understood of the merit of good life make St. Hierom speak non-sense For are all Bishops of the same merit of good life But we need not go out of Rome for the proper importance of merit here For in the third Roman Synod under Symmachus that very word is used concerning Authority and Principality in the Church ejus sedi primum Petri Apostoli meritum sive principatus deinde Conciliorum venerandorum authoritas c. where Binius confesseth an account is given of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome the first ground of which St. Peters merit or principality apply now but this sense to S. Hierom and he may be very easily understood All Bishops are ejusdem meriti sive principatus of the same merit Dignity or Authority in the Church But you say he speaks not of the Pope as he is Pope good reason for it for St. Hierom knew no such Supremacy in the Pope as he now challengeth And can you think if St. Hierom had believed such an authority in the Pope as you do he would ever have used such words as these are to compare him with the poor Bishop of Agobio in Merit and Priesthood I cannot perswade my self you can think so only something must be said for the cause you have undertaken to defend And since Bellarmine and such great men had gone before you you could not believe there were any absurdity in saying as they did Still you say He doth not speak of that Authority which belongs to the Bishop of Rome as S. Peter 's Successor But if you would but read a little further you might see that S. Hierom speaks of all Bishops whether at Rome or Eugubium c. as equally the Apostles Successors For it is neither saith he riches or poverty which makes Bishops higher or lower Caeterùm omnes Apostolorum successores sunt but they are all the Apostles Successors therefore he speaks of them with relation to that Authority which they derived from the Apostles And never had there been greater necessity for him to speak of the Popes succeeding S. Peter in the Supremacy over the Church than here if he had known any such thing but he must be excused he was ignorant of it No that he could not be say you again for he speaks of it elsewhere and therefore he must be so understood there as that he neither contradict nor condemn himself But if the Epistle to Damasus be all your evidence for it a sufficient account hath been given of that already therefore you add more and bid us go find them out to see Whether they make for the purpose or no. I am sure your first doth not out of his Commentary on the 13. Psalm because it only speaks of S. Peters being Head of the Church and not of the the Popes and that may import only dignity and preheminence without authority and jurisdiction besides that Commentary on the Psalms is rejected as spurious by Erasmus Sixtus Senensis and many others among your selves Your second ad Demetriadem Virginem is much less to your purpose for that only speaks of Innocentius coming after Anastasius at Rome qui Apostolicae Cathedrae supradicti viri successor filius est Who succeeded him in the Apostolical Chair But Do you not know that there were many Apostolical Chairs besides that of Rome and had every one of them supreme authority over the Church of God What that should be on the 16. of S. Matthew I cannot imagine unless it be that S. Peter is called Princeps Apostolorum which honour we deny him not or that he saith Aedificabo Ecâ—lesiam meam super te But how these things concern the Popes Authority unless you had further enlightened us I cannot understand That ep 54. ad Marcellam is of the same nature with the last for the words which I suppose you mean are Petrus super quem Dominus fundaâ—it Ecclesiam and if you see what Erasmus saith upon that place you will have little cause to boast much of it Your last place is l. 1. Cont. Lucifer which I suppose to be that commonly cited thence Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet but there even Marianus Victorius will tell you it is understood of every ordinary Bishop Thus I have taken the pains to search those places you nakedly refer us to in S. Hierom and find him far enough from the least danger of contradicting or condemning himself as to any thing which is here spoken by him So that we see S. Hierom remains a sufficient testimony against the Popes Monarchical Government of the Church His Lordship further argues against this Monarchy in the Church from the great and undoubted Rule given by Optatus that wheresoever there is a Church there the Church is in the Common-wealth and not the Common-wealth in the Church And so also the Church was in the Roman Empire Now from this ground saith his Lordship I argue thus If the Church be within the Empire or other Kingdom 't is impossible the Government of the Church should be Monarchical For no Emperour or King will endure another King within his Dominion that shall be greater than himself since the very enduring it makes him that endures it upon the matter no Monarch Your answer to this is That these two Kingdoms are of different natures the one spiritual the other temporal the one exercised only in such things as concern the worship of God and the Eternal Salvation of souls the other in affairs that concern this world only Surely you would perswade us we had never heard of much less read Bellarmin's first Book de Pontifice about the Popes Temporal Power which was fain to get license for the other four to pass at Rome and although he minces
Civil Power hath a right to meddle in Ecclesiastical matters And though you express never so much honour to civil authority yet still you limit it to the administration meerly of civil affairs and how far that is is well enough known You tell us plainly That it doth not belong to the Emperour to order the affairs of the Church But why do you not answer the Reasons and Instances which his Lordship brings to the contrary Yet you yield That in case of notorious and gross abuses manifestly contrary to Religion and connived at by the Pastors of the Church Christian Princes may lawfully and piously use their Authority in procuring the said abuses to be effectually redressed by the said Pastors as the examples of Ezekias and Josias prove But in case the High-Priest would not have yielded to such a reformation Might not those Princes by the assistance of other Priests have effected it This is the case you were to speak to For whereas you fly out and say That Princes may not take the Priests office upon them Whom do you dispute against in that Not his Lordship certainly nor any of the Church of England who never said they might though they have been most injuriously calumniated as though they did That which we assert is That Princes may enact Laws concerning Religion and reform abuses in Divine Worship but we do not say they may take the Pastoral office upon them and therefore you say no more in that than we do our selves But when you say They may not reform Religion in the substance of it I cannot well tell How to understand you If you mean not so reform Religion as to take away any of the substance that is a Reformation to purpose but if you bring it ad hypothesin we utterly deny that any of the substance of Religion was taken away upon our Churches Reformation If you mean not reform abuses which go under the name of the substance of Religion that will be to make the most unsufferable abuses the most incurable But when you add That nothing must be enacted pertaining to Religion by their own Authority without or contrary to the Priests consent the High-Priest I suppose you mean shew us Where the Kings of Israel were bound not to reform in case the High-Priest did not consent and if you could do this you must prove such a High-Priest now and that Princes are bound to wait his leisure for reforming abuses in Religion when his pretended Authority is upheld by maintaining them As for your commendations of Pope Hildebrand and Innocent the Third for very prudent men and worthy Champions of your Church we see What prudence is with you and what a worthy Church you have But it is still an excellent evasion That they never endeavoured to subject the Emperour to themselves in temporal matters no nor Alexander the Third neither when he trod upon the Emperours neck But the proceedings of these Popes with the Emperours as likewise Adrian 4. Lucius 3. and others are so gross that it had been more for your Interest with Christian Princes to disown them than to go about to palliate them with such frivolous distinctions that his Vnderstanding must be as blind as his Obedience that doth not see thorough them You are much concerned that his Lordship should seem to give a lash to those mortified self-denying men the Jesuits in bidding them leave their practising to advance the greatness of the Pope and Emperour for Who could believe they should deprive themselves of the riches and pleasures of the world upon such designs Undoubtedly you are one of the number for I never heard that any other Order among you did ever give them half so good words but condemned them as much for their practising as we do our selves And What holy men they are and what excellent Casuistical Divinity about both the riches and pleasures of the world if we did not otherwise know the Mysteries of Jesuitism would sufficiently discover To what his Lordship saith further That there is no necessity of one Supreme Living Judge to keep the Church in peace and unity but that the several Bishops under their Soveraign Princes are sufficient in order to it you only say That he quotes Occham for it But Doth he nothing else but quote Occham Why do you not answer to the thing and not barely to Occham You have very good reason for it for you have little to say to the thing it self but for Occham you have enough to tell him in his ear 1. That he is in the Index of forbidden Books a good testimony for the man's honesty 2. That he sided with the Emperour a crime beyond an Index Expurgatorius at Rome 3. That if there were such a Government as Occham supposes all those Governours must be Infallible or else there would be meer Anarchy in the Church And Why not as well in the State without Infallibility there You say For want of this Infallibility those Countries where it is not acknowledged are in Schisms And we say The pretence of this Infallibity hath caused the greatest of them 4. You say Occham speaks only de possibili of what might have been if our Saviour had pleased but Occhamsayes There is no necessity there should be one chief Governour under Christ and we say You can never prove that Christ hath appointed that there shall be one and therefore this is more than disputing a bare possibility But now as though all your beggings the Question had been arguments all your sayings proofs and all your proofs demonstrations with as much authority as if you were in Cathedrâ you conculde Remain it therefore a settled Catholick Principle that the Pope hath power over the whole Church of God But you leave out something which should be at the end of it among all those who can believe things as strongly without reason as with it And for the greater solemnity of the Sentence you give it in the words of the Oecumenical Council at Florence And I must needs say You have fitted them very well for that was just as much an Oecumenical Council as the Pope is Oecumenical Pastor but that neither the one nor the other is so I have sufficiently proved already CHAP. VIII Of the Council of Trent The Illegality of it manifested first from the insufficiency of the Rule it proceeded by different from that of the first General Councils and from the Popes Presidency in it The matter of Right concerning it discussed In what Cases Superiours may be excepted against as Parties The Pope justly excepted against as a Party and therefore ought not to be Judge The Necessity of a Reformation in the Court of Rome acknowledged by Roman Catholicks The matter of fact enquired into as to the Popes Presidency in General Councils Hosius did not preside in the Nicene Council as the Popes Legat. The Pope had nothing to do in the second General Council Two Councils held at Constantinople
soever For still I hope the Head must be over the members and you say it will bring the Church to confusion if any shall except against their Superiours as parties You must therefore absolutely and roundly assert that it is impossible that the Superiours in the Church may be guilty of any errour or corruption or that if they be they must never be called to an account for it or else that it may be just in some cases to except against them as parties And if in some cases then the question comes to this whether the present be some of those cases or no and here if you make those Superiours Judges again what you granted before comes to nothing This will be more clear by a parallel case Suppose the setting up the Calves at Dan and Bethel had been done without such an open separation as that of Jeroboam was but that the people had sensibly declined from the worship of God at Hierusalem and had agreed to assemble at those places the High-Priest and the Priests and Levites having deserted Hierusalem and approving this alteration of Gods worship But although this might continue for many years yet some of the Inferiour Priests and others of the people reading the Book of the Law they find the worship of God much altered from what it ought to be which they publish and declare to others and bring many of the people to be of their mind but the High-Priest and his Clergy foreseeing how much it will be to their prejudice to bring things into their due order they resolutely oppose it I pray tell me now what were to be done in this case Must the people stand wholly to the judgement of those Superiour Priests who have declared themselves to be utterly averse from any Reformation And if a Council be called is it reasonable or just that he should sit as President in it because he pretends to be the Head over the members and that if Superiours be once accused as parties all order and peace is gone Is there any way left or no whereby the Church of Israel might be reformed Yes say you by a General Council but Must it be such a General Council wherein the High-Priest sits as President and all who sit with him sworn to do nothing against him Is this a Free and General Council likely to reform these things And is it not all the Justice in the world that such a Council should be truly Free and General and those freely heard who complain of these as great corruptions and that before the most equal and indifferent Judges or in case such cannot be assembled that by the Assistance of the civil power the Church may be reformed by its parts so that still these parts be willing to give an account of what they do before any Free and General Council where the main party accused sits not as President in it But what then may you say will you allow all Inferiours to proceed to a Reformation in case the Superiours do not presently consent No but men ought first to exhibit their complaints of abuses and the reasons against them to those who are actually the Superiours of the Church and that with all due reverence to Authority but if notwithstanding this they declare themselves willful and obstinate in defence of those things by the concurrence of the Supream power they may lawfully and justly proceed to a Reformation Well but you say all this comes not to your case for the Pope was not justly accusable of any crime for you deny not but that other Bishops in Council may proceed against the Pope himself if the case do necessarily require it as if he be a Heretick If you will then grant that in some cases as in that of Heresie the Pope may be excepted against as a Party you destroy all that ever you say besides For when the Pope is accused for Heresie in a Council Who must sit as President in that Council the Pope himself or not If the Pope must sit as President for the Head you say still must be over the members Do you think he will ever be condemned for Heresie if he hath the supream management of the Council If he may not sit as President then by the same reason he ought not to do it when he is accused of errour or Vsurpation but the other Bishops of the Church met together by the Assistance of Christian Princes in a Free and General Council ought to be Judges in that case as well as the former And this is no more then is agreeable to the Doctrine and practise of the Councils of Constance and Basil for if they had suffered the Popes to have been Presidents in them or have had that power over them which the Popes had in the Council of Trent Do you think they could have done so to the present Popes as they did But the Popes were grown wiser afterwards they had these examples fresh in their memory and therefore they were resolved never to be ridden by General Councils more And thence came that continual opposition to all proposals of the Emperour for a General Council till necessity put the Pope upon yielding to it thence came the resolution at Rome not to venture any more Councils in Germany for that place breathed too much freedome for the Popes interest though this were most vehemently desired by both the Emperour and German Princes and Bishops Thence when a Council must be call'd he summons it first at Mantua then at Vicenza and when none would come thither at last he yields it should be at Trent a most inconvenient place for the Germans to come to when they were there though all art possible was used to prevent the mention of any thing of Reformation yet sometimes some free words breaking out troubled the Legats who dispatch notice of it to Rome and receive instructions what to do yet all could not prevent their fears and jealousies lest something concerning the Popes Interest should be discussed upon which to make all sure they translate the Council to Bononia and leave the Emperour's bishops to blow their fingers at Trent And when upon the Emperour and King of France's Protestations the Pope saw a necessity of removing it back to Trent again though any fair pretence would have been taken to have dissolved the Council yet since that could not be the greatest care must be used to spin out the time in hopes of some occurrence happening which might give a plausible pretext for breaking it up But to be sure nothing must pass but what was privately dispatched to Rome and approved there first a good sure way to prevent any mischief and thence the Holy Ghost came in a Portmantue once or twice a week as the common by-word was then But when notwithstanding all this the grand points of the Residence and power of Bishops were so hotly debated by the Spanish Bishops What arts were used to divert them when that
be amiss in Doctrine of Faith However since it belonged to the Council to reform those abuses the Pope as an interessed person ought not to have presided there had it not been his intention to have prevented any real Reformation For all the Decrees of the Council to that purpose were meerly delusory and nothing of Reformation followed upon them and the most important things to that end could never pass the Council And if we gain this that the Pope ought not to be Judge where himself is concerned as to the Reformation of abuses your former assertion will make the other follow viz. that in case of Heresie other Bishops may in Council proceed against the Pope and by the same reason when any errours in Faith are charged upon him or those who joyn in Communion with him that such ought to be debated in a full and free Council where no one concerned may preside to over-aw the rest But such Presidents should be appointed as were in former General Councils to whom it belonged to manage the debates of the Council without any such Power and Jurisdiction over them as the Pope pretended to have over all those assembled at Trent And thus it appears that what his Lordship said was just and true That it is contrary to all Law Divine Natural and Humane that the Pope should be chief Judge in his own Cause Your instances of Pope Leo at the Council of Chalcedon and Alexander at the Council of Nice will be considered in their due place Which that we may come to we must examine the matter of fact as to the Popes presidency in General Councils His Lordship denying that the Pope did preside in the Council of Nice either by himself or Legats because Hosius was the President of it You Answer That Hosius did preside in that Council and so did likewise Vitus and Vincentius Priests of Rome but you say they all presided as the Popes Legats and not otherwise This you say appears by their subscribing the Conciliary Decrees in the first place of which no other account can be given and because Cedrenus and Photius confess that the Pope gave authority to this Council by his Legats and in the old preface to the Council of Sardica it is said expresly that Hosius was the Popes Legat and the same acknowledged by Hincmarus and Gelasius Cyzicenus whom you prove that Photius had read These being then all the Evidences you produce for the Popes Presidency at the Nicene Council we are obliged to afford them a particular consideration Your first argument which Bellarmin and Baronius likewise insist on is the order of subscription because the name of Hosius is set first but if we mark it this argument supposeth that which it should prove For thus it proceeds Hosius subscribed first and therefore he was the Roman Legat Hosius was the Roman Legat and therefore he subscribed first For it supposeth that the first Subscription did of right belong only to the Roman Legat which we may as well deny by an argument just like it Vitus and Vincentius did not subscribe first and therefore the Roman Legats did not subscribe first But you ask Why then did Hosius subscribe before the Patriarchs and other Bishops of greater dignity than himself I answer Because Hosius was President of the Council and not they But if you ask Why they chose him President before others the Nicene Fathers must answer you and not I. But you say Cedrenus and Photius confess That the Pope gave Authority to the Nicene Council by his Legats but How comes that to prove that Hosius was one of those Legats Photius I am sure in his Book of the seven Synods first published in Greek by Justellus out of the Sedan Library sayes no such thing but only mentions the two Presbyters who were there the Roman-Bishops Legats And Cedrenus only mentions the Roman Legats amongst those who were chief in that Council reckoning up the several Patriarchs Your old preface to the Sardican Synod supposed of Dionysius Exiguus is no competent testimony being of a later Author and a Roman too And Hincmarus is much younger than he and therefore neither of their testimonies hath any force against the ancient Writers neither hath that of Gelasius Cyzicenus who lived under Basiliscus A. D. 476. And that you may not think I do you wrong to deprive you of his testimony you may see How freely Baronius passeth his censure upon those Acts under the name of Nicene Council Sed ut liberè dicam somnia puto haec omnia that I may speak freely I account them no better than dreams And gives this very good reason for it because ever since the time of that Council all persons have been so extremely desirous of the Acts of that Council and yet could never obtain them But that which comes in the rear transcends all the rest which is That Photius though a Schismatical Greek and bitter enemy of the Roman Church witnesseth he had read this Book of Gelasius and in it the above-cited testimony And I pray What follows from thence I hope Photius had read many other Books in that excellent collection of his Bibliotheca besides this and Will you say that Photius believed all that he there saith he had read No but you say That thereupon he confesses that the said Hosius was Legat for the Bishop of Rome at the Council of Nice But you would have done well to have told us Where this Confession is extant for you seem to insinuate as though it were in the same place where he mentions the reading this Book of Gelasius but he only saith That Gelasius affirms it adding nothing at all of his own judgement and in his Book of the seven Synods where he declares his own mind he only mentions Vitus and Vincentius as the Legats of the Roman See And brings in Hosius afterwards not joyning him with Vitus and Vincentius but with Alexander of Constantinople and Sylvester and Julius of Rome and Alexander and Athanasius of Alexandria whom he makes the Chief in the Council For if Photius had intended to have made Hosius one of the Popes Legats there was all the reason in the world he should have set him before Vitus and Vincentius who were only Presbyters And that the Pope had no other Legats there but these two Presbyters we have the consent of all the ancient Ecclesiastical Historians Eusebius mentioning the absence of the Roman Bishop because of his Age adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His Presbyters being present supplied his place so Theodoret the Bishop of Rome could not be present 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but he sent two Presbyters with power to give his assent not to preside over the Council To the same purpose Sozomen Nicephorus Zonaras speak And it is very strange not one of all these Historians should mention this if Hosius had presided there as Legat of the Bishop of Rome and much
prevent or heal them Who then would not run into the bosom of such a Church as this with whom there is nothing but what is Infallible Who but Scepticks Hereticks and Schismaticks would keep out of her communion for what is there men can desire more in a Church then she hath where every thing is so Infallible Faith is Infallible Tradition Infallible the Church Infallible the Pope Infallible General Councils Infallible and what not But who are there that more cheat and deceive the world then those Mountebanks who pretend to the most Infallible cures For what is wanting in truth and reality must be helped out with the greater confidence and so we shall find it to be in these Infallible pretenders who fall short in nothing more then where they lay the highest claim to Infallibility Thus we have already manifested that none have more weakened Faith then such who have given out that they only could make it Infallibly certain none have brought more errours then that Church which arrogates to her self that she is Infallible it now remains that we discover that nothing is further from promoting the Churches peace then this present pretence of the Infallibility of General Councils For the ending of Controversies was the occasion of this dispute but this dispute it self hath caused more And will do so as long as men desire to see reason for what they do For it cannot be expected that men should yield their judgements up to the decrees of every such combination of men as shall call it self a General Council unless it be evidently proved that it is impossible they should erre in those decrees Where there be no other wayes found out for the ending some great Controversies of the Church but by a free and General Council all wise men will value the Churches peace so far as not to oppose the determinations of it it being the highest Court of Appeal which the Church hath But there is a great deal of difference between a submission for peace sake in those things which are not contrary to the Fundamentals of Faith and the assent of the mind to all the Decrees of such a Council as in themselves are Infallible For supposing them subject to errour yet if that errour be not such as doth over-weigh the peace of the Church the authority of it may be so great as to bind men to a submission to them But where they challenge an internal assent by vertue of such decrees there must be first proved an impossibility of erring in them before any can look on themselves as obliged to give it And while men contend about this that which was mainly aimed at is lost by these contentions which is the Vnity and Peace of the Church For it is a most fond and unreasonable thing to suppose there may not be as great divisions in the world about the wayes to end Controversies as any other Nay it is apparent that the greatest Controversies this day in the Christian world are upon this Subject It is not therefore any high challenge of Infallibility in any Person or Council which must put an end to Controversies for nothing but truth and reason can ever do it and the more men pretend to unreasonable wayes of deciding them instead of ending one they beget many For the higher the pretences are the more all wise men are apt to suspect them and to require the more clear and pregnant evidence for what they say and if they fail in that they have reason to question their Integrity much more then if they had contented themselves with more moderate claims For it is not saying Councils are infallible will make men yield the sooner to their determinations unless you first convince their reason by proving that they are so But if you aim at nothing but the Churches peace you might save your selves this labour perswade men to be meek and humble sober and rational and I dare promise you the Church shall be more at quiet than if you could prove all the Councils in the world to be Infallible For will that ever put a stop to the contentious Spirits of men will that alter their tempers or make them delight in those things which are contrary to them No you only offer to apply that Physick to the foreheads of men which should be taken inwards if you would endeavour to promote true piety and a Christian Spirit in the world that would tend more to the Churches peace then all your contests about the Infallibility of General Councils But since you are resolved to contend the nature of my task requires me to follow you which I shall more chearfully do because in pretence at least it is for peace sake This is then the first of those particular Controversies which this last part is designed for the handling of and which in the consequence of it brings in many of those particular errours which we charge your Church with In handling of which I must as I have hitherto done confine my self to those lines you have drawn for me to direct my course by Only in this first to prevent that confusion and tediousness which your discourse is subject to I find it necessary to alter the method somewhat For there being two distinct Questions treated of viz. Whether General Councils be Infallible and supposing them not Infallible How far they are to be submitted to You have intermixed these two so together that it will easily puzzle the Reader to see which of them it is you discourse of And although I must confess his Lordship hath gone before you in it as his occasion of entring into it required yet now the points coming to be more fully examined it will be the most natural and easie method to handle them apart and to begin first with that of Infallibility for the other supposing the denial of it it ought to follow the reasons which are given for that denial But although I thus transpose your method I assure you it is not with an intention to skip over any thing material but I shall readily resume the debate of it in its proper place In your entrance into this dispute you give us very little hopes of any great advantage is like to come by it because upon your principles it is impossible we should agree about the requisites to a General Council for his Lordship wishing that a lawful General Council were called to end Controversies you presently say A pure one to be sure if according to his wish Yes too pure a great deal for you to be willing to be tryed by And when his Lordship professes That an easie General General Council shall satisfie him that is lawfully called continued and ended according to the same course and under the same conditions which General Councils observed in the Primitive Church You say It is too general to be Ingenuous you mean such a Council would be too General for your purpose for you are resolved in
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
less de fide because it is contradicted by some since it is founded on the promises of Christ concerning the Church Since therefore the Pope himself is but Filius Ecclesiae and the Church is Sponsa Christi they say It is unreasonable that the Son of the Church should not be subject to the Spouse of Christ. If therefore these promises concerning the Church inferr an Infallibility in it and that Infallibility be in a General Council as representing the Church it follows thence that Councils must be in themselves Infallible whether confirmed by the Pope or no. And we may see how little this Opinion of Infallibility of General Councils is like to stand between them by the Answers which are given by those of the other party who makâ—â—he Popes Confirmation necessary to the Infallibility of the Council For Canus expresly saith That the Council is said to be Infallible in no other sense than the Church is i. e. in those things wherein all agreed and not the major part Bellarmin likes not this For saith he if the major part of the Council erre the Council must of necessity erre for that which properly belongs to the Council is Passing judgement in matter of Faith or making Decrees now if that were not the lawful Decree of the Council which is made by the major part there never could be a lawful Decree for none passes without some dissenting and therefore he denies that the Council doth fully represent the Church without the Pope So that on both sides we see how pregnant these proofs are for the Councils Infallibility when one saith That if they be understood of the Church the Councils Infallibility doth not want the Popes Confirmation the other to make the Popes Confirmation necessary denies such an absolute representation of the Church in the Council If then the Council doth represent the Church it is Infallible although not confirmed by the Pope if it doth not then the promises made to the Church cannot belong to the General Council Thus I have shewed you how far these places concerning as you say the Infallibility of the Church are from proving the Infallibility of General Councils But though these general places concerning the Church may not so clearly prove the Infallibility of General Councils yet you say There are some particular places to this purpose Which are Mat. 18.20 and Act. 15.28 Which not having been handled already I must follow you more closely in the examination of them The first place is Mat. 18.20 Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them The substance of the argument from this place his Lordship thus repeats from Bellarmin The strength of the argument is not taken from these words alone but as they are continued with the former and that the argument is drawn à minori ad majus from the less to the greater thus If two or three gathered in my name do alwaies obtain that which they ask at Gods hands viz. wisdom and knowledge of those things which are necessary for them How much more shall all the Bishops gathered together in Council alwaies obtain wisdom and knowledge to judge those things which belong to the direction of the whole Church To which his Lordship answers That there is very little strength in these words either considered alone being generally interpreted by the Fathers of consent in prayer or with the argument à minori ad majus 1. Because though that argument hold in natural or necessary things yet not in voluntary or promised things or things which depend upon their institution 2. Because it follows not but where and so far as the thing upon which the argument is founded agrees to the less Now this Infallibility doth not belong to the lesser Congregation and therefore cannot be inferred as to the greater 3. Because it depends upon conditions here supposed of being gathered together in the name of Christ and therefore supposing Infallibility promised these conditions here implied must be known before such a Congregation can be known to be Infallible 4. Because Christs promise of presence in the midst of them is only to grant what he shall find to be fit for them not infallibly whatsoever they shall think fit to ask for themselves 5. Because Gregory de Valentiâ and Stapleton confess that this place doth not properly belong to prove an Infallible certainty of any sentence in which more agree in the name of Christ but to the efficacy of consent for obtaining that which more shall pray for in the name of Christ if at least that be for their souls health For else it would hence follow that not only the definition of a General Council but even of a Provincial nay of two or three Bishops gathered together is valid and that without the Popes consent The utmost I can make of your reply to these Answers lyes in this That you grant that primarily and directly our Saviour doth not intend that particular Infallibility and this is that which Gregory and Stapleton assert but only that he signified in general that he would be present with his Church and all faithful people gathered together in his name so often and so far as their necessities required his presence they duly imploring it But yet the argument holds for the Infallibility of General Councils and not National or Provincial because the necessities of the Church require one and not the other and that it will follow à minori ad majus in things promised as well as natural where the motive is increased and neither goodness nor power wanting in the promiser But all this depends on a false supposition viz. that there is a necessity of Infallibility to continue in the Church and that all persons are bound to believe the Decrees of the Councils to be the Infallible Oracles of truth but we say neither of these are necessary in the Church and therefore you have no ground to extend this promise of Christs presence to the Infallibility of Councils For you are not to extend the power and goodness of Christ as far as you shall judge fitting but as far only as he hath promised to extend it For otherwise it would be far more for the peace and unity of the Church if every particular Congregation had this Infallibility than if only General Councils had it Because by that means many disputes about the authority calling and proceedings of General Councils would be prevented Nay it might be extended much further for by this argument from the goodness and power of Christ you might for all that I can see inferr with more force that every true Christian should be Infallible and so there be no need of any Councils at all For whatever argument you can produce why Christ's goodness should extend to make Councils Infallible it will much more hold as to the other for the peace and unity of the Church would be far better secured
decretal Epistles must be still justified but he that doth not see the reasons of these proceedings wants a greater Index Expurgatorius for his brains than ever they did for their Books We return therefore to our present subject and having manifested how far the Infallibility of General Councils is from being grounded on the veracity of Divine promises as you pretend without ground we now proceed to the consent of the Church as to this subject which his Lordship speaks to in the next Consideration Which is That all agree that the Church in general can never err from the Faith necessary to salvation but there is not the like consent that General Councils cannot err Whether Waldensis asserting that General Councils may err speak of such Councils as are accounted unlawful or no is not much material since as his Lordship sayes The Fathers having to do with so many Hereticks and so many of them opposing Church authority did never in the condemnation of those Hereticks utter this proposition That a General Council cannot err And supposing that no General Council had erred in any matter of moment to this day which will not be found true yet this would not have followed that it is therefore Infallible and cannot err And to shew that St. Augustin puts a manifest difference between the rules of Scripture and the definitions of men he produceth that noted place in him wherein he so fully asserts the prerogative of Scripture above all the writings of men or definitions of Councils Which because it will be often refer'd to I have cited at large in the margin but his Lordship gives the sum of it in these words That whatsoever is found written in Scripture may neither be doubted nor disputed whether it be true or right But the letters of Bishops may not only be disputed but corrected by Bishops that are more learned and wise then they or by National Councils and National Councils by Plenary or General And even Plenary Councils themselves may be amended the former by the latter From whence he inferrs That it seems it was no news with St. Austin that a General Council might err and therefore be inferiour to the Scripture which may neither be doubted nor disputed where it affirms And if it be so with the definition of a Council too where is then the Scriptures Prerogative But his Lordship adds That there is much shifting about this place but it cannot be wraft off And therefore undertakes punctually to answer all the evasions of Stapleton and Bellarmin who have taken most pains about it But before you come to particular answers you are resolved to make your way through them by a more desperate attempt which is to prove that it cannot be St. Austins meaning in this place that general Councils may err in their definitions of Faith because then St. Austin must contradict himself because he delivers the contrary in other places This is indeed to the purpose if you go through with your undertaking but we must examine the places The first is l. 1. c. 7. de baptism c. Donatist where you say he expresly teacheth that no doubt ought to be made of what is by full decree established in a General Council But here a great doubt may justly be made Whether ever you searched this place or no for if you had you would have had little heart to produce it to this purpose For St. Augustin is there giving an account why he would not insist upon any humane authorities but bring certain evidence out of Scripture for what he said and the reason he gives for it is because in the former times of the Church before the Schism of Donatus brake forth the Bishops and particular Councils did differ from each other about the Question in hand viz. rebaptizing Hereticks untill that by a General Council of the whole world that which was most soundly held etiam remotis dubitationibus firmaretur was confirmed the disputes being taken away The utmost that can be drawn hence is that when this Controversie was decided by a General Council the disputes were ended among the Catholick Bishops But by what arts can you hence draw that St. Austin thought the Council Infallible in its definitions When the business came to be argued in a free Council by the dissenting parties and they more fully understood each other and agreed upon one sentence St. Austin sayes the former doubts were taken off that is the reasons and Scriptures produced on the other side satisfied them but he doth not say that no doubt is to be made of what is by full Decree established in a General Council but that no doubts were made after it But if you say There could be no agreement unless the Councils definition were supposed Infallible you speak that which is contrary to the sense and experience of the world and even of that general Council where this decree is supposed by Bellarmin to be made viz. the Council of Nice For Will you say the Council was Infallible in deciding the time of keeping Easter because after that Council the Asian Bishops submitted to the custom of other Churches Is there no way imaginable to convince men but by Infallibility If there be their doubts may be taken away by a General Council and yet that Council not be supposed Infallible For if St. Augustin had meant so nothing had been more pertinent then to have insisted on the decree of that Council and yet he there leaves it and calls all arguments of that nature humane arguments and therefore saith ex Evangelio profero certa documenta I bring certain evidences out of the Gospel Which words doubtless he would never have so immediately subjoyned to his former concerning a General Council if he had judged it Infallible or its decrees as certain as the Scripture In your second place l. 7. c. 5. there is nothing hath any shadow of pertinency to your purpose that which I suppose you may mean is l. 5. c. 17. where what he said before was decreed by a General Council he after saith was the judgement of the Holy Catholick Church from whence you may indeed infer that the Catholick Church did approve that decree of the Council but how it proves it Infallible I cannot understand Your last place is one sufficiently known to be far enough from your purpose Ep. 118. ad Januar. where he saith In case of indifferent rites it is insolent madness to oppose the whole Church but you are an excellent disputant who can hence infer that therefore General Councils are Infallible in their definitions in matters of Faith For any thing then you have brought to the contrary St. Austin is far enough from the least danger of contradicting himself But if you could prove that he were of your mind that the definitions of Councils are Infallible as well as the Scriptures never did any man more expresly contradict himself then St. Augustin must do in a multitude
of plain places wherein he saith That no other writing is Infallible but the Scripture That only according to them he judged freely of all other writings and that because he could yield an undoubted assent to none but them That there is no other writing wherein humane infirmities are not discovered but in them that men are at liberty to believe or not believe any thing besides the Scripture Can any man who sayes these things be reasonably supposed to assert that the decrees of General Councils are as certain as the Scripture is You see then what little advantage you have gained by this attempt of offering to make St. Austin contradict himself if in this place he should be supposed to assert that General Councils may err which he doth plainly enough to any but those who are resolved not to understand him This prejudice being therefore removed we come to the particular evasions of this place which you thus sum up in order to the defence of them That when he saith Former General Councils may be amended by the latter it is only to be understood in matters of fact in precepts pertaining to manners and discipline or by way of more full and clear explication of what had been delivered by former Councils To both these his Lordship offers very just exceptions To the first that it is to be understood of precepts of manners and discipline he saith 1. That Bellarmin contradicts himself because he had said before that General Councils cannot err in precepts of manners No say you this is no contradiction because these depend much upon circumstances of time place person c. which varying it often so falls out that what at first was prudently judged fit to be done becomes afterwards unfitting and in this case one General Council may be amended by another and yet neither charged with errour But do you suppose the mean while that St. Austin spake pertinently to this business or no If he did he can be understood only of such a precept as that relating to the baptism of Hereticks Suppose then one Council should decree Hereticks to be baptized and another afterwards correct this and say They should not Will you say that neither of these were in an errour So that your Answer is wholly impertinent to the scope of St. Austins discourse And so his Lordship saith This whole Answer is concerning precepts of manners for St. Austin disputes against the errour of St. Cyprian followed by the Donatists which was an errour in Faith namely that true Baptism could not be given by Hereticks and such as were out of the Church But you say St. Austin doth not confine his discourse to St. Cyprians case only but by occasion of his and his Councils errour he layes down general doctrine touching the different authority of the writings of particular Bishops Provincial National and General Councils Although I should grant you this it will make little for your purpose for St. Austins main design is to set the Authority of Scripture far above all these and that in point of Certainty and Infallibility and this being his main scope whatsoever he sayes of any of these it is certain his purpose is to shew that all of them fall short of the Sacred Scripture as to our yielding assent to them For these in the first place are set by themselves as only being Infallible and deserving an undoubted assent to all that is contained in them which being supposed he proceeds to shew what the extent is of all other authority besides this For the writings of Bishops saith he they are so far from deserving such an assent as we give to the Scriptures that they may be corrected by others or by National Councils and National Councils by Plenary and Plenary may be amended the former by the latter In all which gradations two things must be repeated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as running through the whole Discourse which are 1. The difference of all these from the Scripture in regard of our yielding assent to them for that is it which he begins with that we are not in the least to doubt whether any thing contained therein be true or no and then comes the other in by way of immediate Antithesis but the writings of Bishops c. and although there be a gradation in all these yet all of them are therein different from Scripture that whatsoever is found there may neither be doubted nor disputed but the writings of Bishops may be doubted or disputed of because they may be corrected by other Bishops or Councils And those National Councils may be because they may be corrected by General and even these General Councils cannot require such an undoubted assent as the Scripture doth because the former may be amended by the latter So that if you take the scope of S. Austin's discourse in this place whether he speaks generally or particularly nothing can be more evident than that he puts this difference between the Scriptures and all other writings or Councils that the one may not at all be doubted or disputed of but the other may and the common reason of all is because none are so Infallible but they may be corrected by something besides themselves which cannot be in any sense said of the Scripture 2. Although Saint Austin adds that clause Si quid in eis fortè à veritate deviatum est If they have erred from the truth only where he speaks of the writings of Bishops yet the series of his discourse implies that it should be understood in what follows too that as the writings of Bishops may be corrected by Councils if they have erred so National Councils may be corrected by General if they have erred and so former General Councils by latter on the same supposition still that they have erred For as the errours was supposed to be the ground of correction in the former it must be likewise of amendment here And whatever is not so perfect but that it may be amended cannot be supposed Infallible for if the persons had been Infallible who had made those Decrees in General Councils they would have prevented any necessity of further amendments by succeeding Councils So that take amendment in what sense you will either for supplying defects or correcting errours it is destructive to your pretence that the Decrees of General Councils are Infallible and as certain as the Scripture Which is so repugnant to the scope of this speech of S. Austin as nothing can be more Your Criticism then from the signification of emendare from menda and menda from minus and so importing only the taking away any defect yields you no relief at all for that defect which is supposed in General Councils which needs that emendation doth sufficiently argue there was no Infallible Assistance of the Spirit of God in the Decrees of those Councils For where Gods Spirit assists infallibly it leaves no such defects as are
it is to say It is Infallible and not Infallible at the same time and about the same thing and in the same manner For What is drawing a Conclusion but a discerning that truth which results from the connexion of the premises together for that which is concluded hath all its truth depending upon the evidence of the premises otherwise it is a simple Proposition and not a Conclusion If you had then said That the Spirit of God did immediately reveal to the Council the truth of what was to be decreed you had spoken that which might have been understood though not believed but this you durst not say for fear of the charge of Enthusiasms and new Revelations but when you say The Council must use means and make Syllogisms as other fallible creatures do but then it is Infallible in the drawing the Conclusion from the premises though it be fallible in the connexion of those premises is an unparalleld piece of profound non-sense For suppose the matter the Council was to determine was the Popes Infallibility in order to the proving this you say The Council must use all arguments tending to prove it there comes in Christ's Prayer for S. Peter that his Faith should not fail and that this must be extended to his Successors thence the argument is formed Whomsoever Christ prayed for that his Faith should not fail is Infallible but Christ prayed for the Pope that his Faith should not fail therefore he is Infallible Now you say The Council is fallible in the use of the means for this Conclusion i. e. it may not infallibly believe the truth of the major or minor Proposition but yet it may infallibly deduce thence the Conclusion though all the strength of the Conclusion depends upon the truth of the premises You must therefore either assert that the Decrees of Councils are immediately revealed as Divine Oraclâ—s or else that they are fallible Conclusions drawn from fallible premises And were it not for a little shame because of your charging others with immediate Revelations I doubt not but you would assert the former which you must of necessity do if you will maintain the Infallibility of General Councils for if there be any infirmity in the use of the premises it must of necessity be in the Conclusion too But suppose you mean an Infallible Assent to the matter of the Conclusion though it be fallibly deduced you are as far to seek as ever for Whereon must that Assent be grounded It must be either upon the truth of the premises or something immediately revealed If on the truth of the premises the Assent can be no stronger than the grounds are on which it is built if on something revealed it must needs be still an immediate Revelation But I forget my self all this while to urge you thus with absurdities consequent from reason for in answer to his Lordship you grant That it is a thing altogether unknown in nature and art too that fallible principles can either as Father or Mother beget or bring forth an Infallible Conclusion for when his Lordship had objected this you return him this Answer That this is a false supposition of the Bishop for the Conclusion is not so much the child of those premises i. e. it is not the Conclusion as the fruit of the Holy Ghost directing and guiding the Council to produce an Infallible Conclusion whatever the premises be true or false certain or uncertain all is a case This is necessary for the peace and unity of the Church to believe Contradictions and therefore not to be denied unless an impossibility be shewed therein I doubt believing contradictions is accounted no impossibility with you But I hope no man will attaque Gods Omnipotency and deprive him of the power of doing this Is it come to that at last Whatever you assert that is repugnant to the common reason of mankind and involves contradictions in it that you call for Gods Omnipotency to help you in Thus Transubstantiation must be believed because God is Omnipotent and that men may believe any thing though not grounded on Scripture and repugnant to Reason because God is Omnipotent We acknowledge God's Omnipotency as much as you but we dare not put it to such servile uses to make good any absurd imaginations of our brains If you had said It was possible for God to enlighten the minds of the Bishops in a General Council either to discern infallibly the truth of the premises or immediately to reveal the truth of the Conclusion you had spoken intelligible falshoods But to say that God permits them to be fallible in the use of the means and in drawing the Conclusion from them but to be Infallible in the Conclusion it self without any immediate Revelation and then to challenge Gods Omnipotency for it I know not whether it be a greater dishonour to God or reproach to humane understanding And if such incongruities as these are do not discover that you are miserably hampered as his Lordship saith in this argument I know not what will But we must proceed to discover more of them two things his Lordship very rationally objects against Stapletons assertion That the Council is discursive in the use of the means but prophetical in delivering the Conclusion 1. That since this is not according to principles of nature and reason there must be some supernatural Authority which must deliver this truth which saith he must be the Scripture For if you fly to immediate Revelations the Enthusiasm must be yours But the Scriptures which are brought in the very exposition of all the Primitive Church neither say it nor enforce it Therefore Scripture warrants not your prophecy in the Conclusion Neither can the Tradition Produce one Father who sayes This is an Vniversal Tradition of the Church that her definitions in a General Council are prophetical and by immediate Revelation Produce any one Father that sayes it of his own authority that he thinks so To all this you very gravely say nothing and we can shrewdly guess at the reason of it 2. His Lordship proves That it is a repugnancy to say That the Council is prophetical in the Conclusion and discursive in the use of the means for no Prophet in that which he delivered from God as Infallible truth was ever discursive at all in the use of the means Nay saith he make it but probable in the ordinary course of prophecy and I hope you go no higher nor will I offer at Gods absolute power but his Lordship was deceived in you for you run to Gods Omnipotency that that which is discursive in the means can be prophetical in the Conclusion and you shall be my great Apollo for ever And this he shews is contrary to what your own Authours deliver concerning the nature and kinds of prophecy and that none of them were by discourse To this you answer That both Stapleton and you deny that the Church is simply prophetical
supposing the Church at the same freedom from particular Interesses that it was then and so great a number of Bishops assembled together we look on it to be so great and awful a Representation that its determinations ought not to be opposed by any factious or turbulent Spirits And in case some Bishops be not present from some Churches whether Eastern or Western yet if upon the publishing those Decrees they be universally accepted that doth ex post-facto make the Council truly Occumenical By this you see what we mean by a General Council And for the calling of it though we say it should be by the consent of the chief Patriarchs yet the right and custom of the ancient Church clearly carries it that it ought to be summoned by the authority of Christian Princes for nothing can be more evident to such who will not shut their eyes against the clearest evidence than that the first General Councils before the Pope had got the better of the Emperours were summoned by the Emperours command and authority and since the division of the Empire into so many Kingdoms and Principalities the consent of Christian Princes is necessary on the same grounds Neither ought it only to be a General Council and lawfully called but lawfully ordered too viz. that no Prelate challenge himself such a Presidency not in but over the Council that his Instructions must be looked on as the only Chart they must steer their course by and that nothing be debated but proponentibus Legatis as it was at Trent for these things take away utterly that Freedom which is necessary for a General Council And therefore his Lordship justly requires 2. That the Council do proceed lawfully which it cannot do if it be over-awed as the second Ephesine was by Dioscorus and his party or if practices be used as at Ariminum but there must be the greatest freedom in debates no canvasing for votes but every one suffered to deliver his judgement without prejudice or partiality that those who give their judegements deliver their reasons before and not only appear in Pontificalibus to give their Placet That the Bishops present be men of unquestionable abilities and generally presumed to be well acquainted with the matters to be debated there For otherwise nothing would be more easie than for the more subtil men under ambiguous expressions and fair pretences to bring over a great number of the rest to them who want either judgement or learning enough to discern their designs And this is supposed to be the case of the Council at Ariminum where the Occidental Bishops for want of learning were over-reached by the subtilty of the Arrian party 3. His Lordship supposes That this Council keeps it self to Gods Rule and not attempt to make a new one of their own For in so doing they commit an errour in the first Concoction which will be incorrigible afterwards And this is not only reasonable but just and necessary because nothing can be a Rule of Faith but what is of immediate divine Revelation and this hath been the practice of the first General Councils which never owned or proceeded by any other Rule of Faith but this These things being supposed May we not justly say That an erring determination of such a Council so proceeding is a rare case Since we believe that God will not deny to any particular person who doth sincerely seek it the knowledge of his truth much less may we think he will do it to such an awful Representation of the Church when assembled together purposely for finding out that truth which may be of so great consequence to the Christian world For both the truth of Gods promises the goodness of God to his people and his peculiar care of his Church seem highly concerned that such a Council should not be guilty of any notorious errour But because we deny not but such a Council is fallible therefore we grant the case may be put that such a Council may erre and the Question is What is to be done then Whether every particular person may oppose such a determination or submit till another Council reverse the Decrees of it His Lordship asserts the latter and so we come to the effect of such an erring Decree which was the third thing to be spoken to As to which these things must be considered 1. That he doth not assert that men are bound to believe the truth of that Decree but not openly to oppose it For so he speaks expresly of external obedience and at least so far as it consists in silence patience and forbearance yielded to it And therefore you are greatly deceived when with such confidence you assert That this obliges all the members of the Church to unity in errour for that is only consequent upon your principle that the Decrees of General Councils are to be believed by an internal Assent for this indeed would necessarily oblige them to unity in errour but the most that is consequent on his Lordships Opinion is that in such cases wherein a General Council hath erred men ought rather to be silent for a time as to some truth than to break the Churches peace In the mean time he doth not deny but that men may be bound to follow their own judgements in the discovery of truth nay and they may use all means consistent with the Churches peace to promote that truth for he allows that just complaints may be made to the Church for reversing the decrees of the former Council and this cannot be without discovering the errour of that Council And I hope this liberty of dissent and just complaint is sufficient to keep all the members of the Church from being united in Errour And I pray Sir What cause is there now for such hideous out-cryes that this is such a strange and impious Doctrine against Scripture Antiquity and solid Reason which appears for all that I can see very just and reasonable taking it in the way which he explains himself in But whereas you object That this will keep men in errour to the worlds end because such a Council is morally impossible it is easie to shew you that if the rectifying Council be impossible the General erring Council is equally impossible therefore there is no danger coming that way neither And that such General Councils are grown such morally impossible things we may in a great measure thank your Church for it which hates as much such a true rectifying Council as you call it as the Court of Rome does a thorow Reformation For all your design is to perswade men that those only are General Councils which have the Popes Summons and wherein he rules and in effect does all and to perswade men to believe the Decrees of such Councils is the most effectual way in the world to unite men in the belief of errours to the worlds end For as long as the Popes Interest can carry it to be sure all rectifying Councils shall be
a publick person representing the Church not parabolically for that is no sustaining the person at all but really and historically And that S. Austin means As a publick person appears by the other expressions in the places cited that he did universam significare Ecclesiam signifie the whole Church and that those things which are spoken of Peter Non habent illustrem intellectum nisi cum referuntur ad Ecclesiam cujus ille agnoscitur in figurâ gestâsse personam Have no clear sense but when they are referred to the Church whose person he did bear Can you say this of a King who receives the Keyes of a Town whereof he takes possession for himself though it be for the good of the Kingdom that he signifies the whole Kingdom in it and that it cannot have any clear sense but when it is applied to the Kingdom which he represents No this cannot be for the King takes possession in his own full right and it is not the possession but the administration which is referred properly to the good of the Kingdom But this might be properly said of a Duke of Venice that he takes possession of a Town in the person of the State and that the proper sense is that the State took possession and he only representing it So that the full right lyes in the body of the State but he as chief member represents the whole And this is that which S. Austin means when he saith That S. Peter represented the Church propter primatum for the Primacy which he had amongst the Apostles i e. such a Primacy of order whereby he was fittest to represent the whole Church For it is impossible to conceive that he should mean that S. Peter should receive this as Head of the Church when you acknowledge that he was not Head of the Church till after the Keyes were given him For you say The performance of Christ's Promise in making him Head of the Church was not till after his resurrection But Will you say the Church had no power of the Keyes till then and then only finally too and not formally What became then of the power of the Keyes at S. Peters death if only formally in him and not in the Church What becomes of them at the death of every Pope Will you say as Bellarmin doth that Christ takes them and gives them to his Successour But he must be sure to wait till the Cardinals agree To whom he must give them Nothing then could be further from S. Austin's meaning than that S. Peter received the Keyes as Head of the Church and so that he represented the Church only finally whereas his expressions carry it that he means the formal right of them was conveyed to the Church and that S. Peter was only a publick person to receive them in the name of the Church But whatever S. Austin's meaning was the strength of his Lordships assertion doth not stand or fall with that for there are arguments sufficient besides to prove that the Authority for governing the Church was not committed formally to S. Peter much less to any pretended successour but that it primarily and formally resides in the whole body of the Church And were that the thing to be here disputed you must not think to take it for granted that if the Keyes were given personally to S. Peter by them was meant the Supreme Authority of governing the Church exclusively of the other Apostles To the third Consideration you answer That in case a General Council erre there can be no redress for errour in Faith for if one Council may erre so may another and a third and a fourth c. This indeed is very suitable to your Doctrine from the beginning that a man can be certain of nothing but what it is impossible should be otherwise I hope you are certain your self you do not erre but I suppose you do not think it impossible you should So although we do not think it impossible a Council should erre yet we may be certain it doth not and supposing it should we do not say It is impossible that a Council should not erre so that another Council may correct the errour of the former And doubtless men may be certain of it too if as his Lordship saith plain Scripture and evident demonstration be brought against the former errour But these are strange Doctrines that because a Council may erre therefore a Council can never afford remedy against inconveniences For one great inconvenience is the breaking the Churches peace that is remedied by the Councils Authority another is errour in Faith that may be remedied by another Council No say you for that may erre too but Doth it follow that it must erre or Is it probable that it should erre if the former errour be so discovered and the Council so proceed as his Lordship supposes For your other difficulty about the calling another General Council I have answered it already when I shewed what we meant by a General Council and when it was lawfully call'd When you after add That the Church never represented her self in another Council but where the former Council was unlawful and instance in the Councils of Ariminum and Ephesus you say the same which his Lordship doth for these Councils were therefore accounted unlawful because erroneous and factious and he never asserts the necessity of calling a new Council but in those two cases But if you would have us account none such but whom you do you must excuse us till we see greater reason for it then we do yet and so likewise for what follows that the Councils which rectified the errours of those were called by the Popes authority as that of Trent and others were which to speak mildly is a gross untruth You urge from his Lordships granting That the Church hath a Praetorian power to controul and censure too where errours or crimes are against points Fundamental or of great consequence that therefore he and all Protestants are justly censured by the Roman Church for opposing those Doctrines which are with her Fundamental and of great consequence But still there is no difference with you between the Roman Church and the Catholick between Papal Councils and Free and General between what she judges Fundamental and what all are bound to judge so If you prove then that we are bound to rely only on the judgement of your Church your consequence is good but otherwise it is tyed with a rope of sand and therefore we do not fear the lashes of it And the same fault runs through your subsequent discourse in which you suppose the Church Infallible in all she propounds which you know is constantly denyed and hath been at large disproved in our first Part. For the ground of your resolution of Faith being removed I see the Fabrick of your Church falls down with it For take but away your pretence of Infallibility and your confounding the Catholick and Roman
Church all the rest moulders as not being able to stand without them But that is still your way if any thing be said of the Catholick Church we must presently understand it of yours so that it cannot be said in any sense that the Church is without spot or wrinkle but by you it must be understood presently of the Doctrine of the Roman Catholick Church universally received as a matter of Faith but till you prove not only your two former assertions but that St. Austin understood those words ever in that sense your vindication of that place in him concerning it will appear utterly impertinent to your purpose And his Lordships assertion may still stand good That the Church on earth is not any freer from wrinkles in Doctrine and Discipline then she is from spots in life and Conversation Having thus vindicated his Lordships way from the objections you raised against it we must now consider how well you vindicate your own from the unreasonableness he charges it with in several particulars 1. That if we suppose a General Council Infallible and it prove not so but that an errour in Faith be concluded the same erring opinion which makes it think it self Infallible makes the errour of it irrevocable and so leaves the Church without remedy To this you Answer Grant false antecedents and false premises enow and what absurdities will not be consequent and fill up the conclusion But you clearly mistake the present business which is not Whether Councils be Infallible or no but Whether opinion be lyable to greater Inconveniencies that which asserts that they may or that they cannot err Will you have your supposition of the Infallibility of Councils taken for a first principle or a thing as true as the Scriptures So you would seem indeed by the supposing the Scriptures not to be Gods Word which you subjoyn as the parallel to the supposing General Councils fallible But will you say the one is as evident and built on as good reason and as much agreed on among Christians as the other is I suppose you will not and therefore it was very absurd unreasonable to say Supposing the Word of God were not so errours would be irrevocable as if General Councils were supposed Infallible and proved not so But this is a Question you grant to be disputable among Christians and will you not give us leave to make a supposition that it may prove not so You must consider we are now enquiring into the conveniencies of these two opinions and in that case it is necessary to make such suppositions And let any reasonable man judge what opinion can be more pernicious to the Church then yours is supposing it not to be true for then it will be necessary for men to assent to the grossest errours as the most Divine and Infallible truths and there can be no remedy imagin'd for the redress of them If then the Inconvenience of admitting it be so great men had need look well to the grounds on which it is built And I cannot see any reason men can have to admit any Infallible proponent in matters of Faith to the Church but on as great and as clear evidence as the Prophets and Apostles had that they were sent from God For the danger may be as great to believe that to be Infallible which is not as not to believe that to be Infallible which is for the believing an errour to be a Divine truth may be as dangerous to the souls of men as the not believing something which is really revealed by God But to be sure those who see no reason to believe a General Council to be Infallible cannot be obliged to assent to errours propounded by it but such who believe it Infallible must what ever the errours be swallow them down without questioning the truth of them And it argues how conscious you are of the falseness of your principles that you are so loath to have them examined or so much as a supposition made that they should not prove true Whereas truth alwayes invites men to the most accurate search into it We see the Apostles bid men search whether the things they spake were true or no and those are most commended who did it most and I hope men were as much bound to believe them Infallible as General Councils But we see how unreasonable you are you would obtrude such things upon mens Faith which must lead them into unavoidable errours if false and yet not allow men the liberty of examination whether they be true or no. But such proceedings are so far from advancing your cause that nothing can more prejudice it among rational and inquisitive men His Lordship for the clearing this proceeds to an Instance of an errour defined by one of your General Councils viz. Communion in one kind but that we shall reserve the discussion of to the ensuing Chapter which is purposely allotted for the discovery of those errours which have been defined by such as you call General Councils Therefore I proceed 2. His Lordship saith Your opinion is yet more unreasonable because no Body-collective whensoever it assembled it self did ever give more power to the representing body of it then a binding power upon it self and all particulars nor ever did it give this power otherwise then with this reservation in nature that it would call again and reform and if need were abrogate any Law or ordinance upon just cause made evident that the representing Body had failed in trust or truth And this power no Body-collective ecclesiastical or civil can put out of it self or give away to a Parliament or Council or call it what you will that represents it To this again you Answer This is only to suppose and take for granted that a General Council hath no Authority but what is meerly delegate from the Church Vniversal which it represents I grant this is supposed in it and this is all which the nature of a representative body doth imply if you say there is more then that you are bound to prove it Yes say you We maintain its Authority to be of Divine Institution and when lawfully assembled to act by Divine right and not meerly by deputation and consent of the Church But if all the proof you have for it be only that which you refer us to in the precedent Chapter the palpable weakness of it for any such purpose hath been there fully laid open His Lordship saith That the power which a Council hath to order settle and define differences arising concerning Faith it hath not by any Immediate Institution from Christ but it was prudently taken up by the Church from the Apostles example So that to hold Councils to this end is apparent Apostolical Tradition written but the power which Councils have is from the whole Catholick Church whose members they are and the Churches power from God You say True it is the calling such
infallibly believe and practise as the precedent up to Christs time did but because we can produce clear evidence that some things are delivered by the present Church which must be brought in by some age since the time of Christ. For which I shall refer you to what I have said already concerning Communion in one kind Invocation of Saints and Worship of Images In all which I have proved evidently that they were not in use in some ages of the Christian Church and it is as evident that these are delivered by the present Church and therefore this principle must needs be false For by these things it appears that one age of the Church may differ in practise or opinion from another and therefore this oral tradition cannot be infallible And yet this is the only way whereby a prescription may be allowed for this offers to give a sufficient title if it could be made good But bare possession in matters of Religion is a most sensless plea and which would justifie Heathenism and Mahumetism as well as your Church 2. It were worth knowing What you mean by full and quiet possession of your Faith Religion and Church which you say you were in Either you mean that you did believe the Doctrines of your Church your selves or that we were bound to believe them too If you mean only the former you are in as full possession of them as ever for I suppose all in your Church do believe them if you intend by this possession that we ought to believe them because you did this is a prescription indeed but without any ground or reason For even Tertullian whom you cite for prescribing against Hereticks sayes That nothing can be prescribed against truth Non spatium temporum non patrocinia personarum non privilegium regionum Neither length of time nor authority of persons nor priviledge of places If you say It was truth you were in possession of that is the thing to be proved and if you can make that appear we will not disturb your possession at all But you must be sure to prove it by something else besides your quiet and full possession unless you can prove it impossible that you should be possessed of falshoods But we have evidently shewn the contrary already And if we examine a little further what this possession is we shall see what an excellent right it gives you to prescribe by You were possessed of your Faith Religion and Church i. e. you did believe the Roman Church Infallible you believed the Popes Supremacy Transubstantiation Purgatory c. And what then Do you not believe them still Yes doubtless But What is your quarrel with us then Do we hinder you the Possession of them No but we ought to believe them too But Why so because you are in possession of them What Must we then believe whatever you do whether it be true or false If this be the meaning of your Possession you ought well to prove it or else we shall call it Vsurpation For it is a most ridiculous thing for you to talk of Possession when the Question is Whether there be any such things in the world or no as those you say you are possessed of We deny your Churches Infallibility the Popes Supremacy Purgatory c. You must first prove there are such things in rerum naturâ as Purgatory Transubstantiation c. before you can say you are possessed of them You must convince us that your Church is Infallible and that the Pope was made Head of the Church by Christ and then we will grant you are in full possession of them but not before So that you see the Question is not concerning the manner of Possession but of the things themselves which you call your Faith Religion and Church in opposition to ours and therefore it is impossible to plead Prescription where there never was any Possession at all And therefore you clearly mistake when you call us The Aggressors for you are plainly the Imposers in this case and quarrel with us for not believing what you would have us and therefore you are bound to prove and not we So that there is nothing you could challenge any Possession of in the Church of England but some Authority which the Pope had which you elsewhere confess he might he deprived of as he was in King Henry 's time and which we offer to prove that he was not Possessor bonae fidei of but that he came to it by fraud and violence and was deprived of it by a legal Power Thus I have fully examined your Argument from Possession because it presents us with something which had not been discussed before But having taken a view of all that remains I find that it consists of a bare Repetition of the Controversies before discussed especially concerning the certainty and grounds of Faith the Infallibility of the Church and General Councils and the Authority of the Roman Church So that if you had not an excellent faculty of saying most where there is least occasion I should wonder at your design in spending several Chapters in giving the same things under other words Unless it were an ambition of answering every clause in his Lordships Book which carried you to it though you only gave over and over what you had said in many places before Which is a piece of vanity I neither envy you for nor shall I strive to imitate you in having made it my endeavour to lay those grounds in the handling each Controversie that there should not need any such fruitless repetitions as you here give us His Lordship though he complains much of it was forced by his Adversaries importunity to return the same Answers in effect which had been given before by him in the proper places but whosoever compares what his Lordship saith with what you pretend to answer will find no necessity at all of my undergoing the same tedious and wearisome task Instead therefore of a particular Answer I shall give only some general strictures on what remains of these subjects where there is any appearance of difficulty and conclude all with the examination of your Defence of Purgatory that being a subject which hath not yet come under our enquiry Your main business is to perswade us that yours is the only saving Faith which you prove by this The saving Faith is but one yours is confessed by us to be a saving Faith still therefore yours is the only saving Faith But if you had considered on what that confession depends you could have made no Argument at all of it for when we say that your Faith is saving we mean no more but this that you have so much of the common truths of Christianity among you that there is a possibility for men to be saved in your Church but Doth this imply that yours is a saving Faith in that sense wherein it is said There is but one saving Faith for in that
Church because that was the root and matrix of the Catholick Church his advice had signified nothing for the Question was not between the Church of Rome and other Churches in which case it might have been pertinent to have said they should adhere to the Church of Rome because that was the root c. But when the difference was at Rome it self between two Bishops there this reason had been wholly impertinent for the only reason proper in this case must be such as must discriminate the one party from the other which this could not do because it was equally challenged by them both And had belonged to one as well as the other in case Novatianus had proved the lawful Bishop and not Cornelius And therefore the sense of Cyprian's words must be such as might give direction which party to joyn with at Rome on which account they cannot import any priviledge of the Church of Rome over other Churches but only contain this advice that they should hold to the Vnity of the Catholick Church and communicate only with that party which did it This reason is so clear and evident to me that this place cannot be understood of any priviledge of the Church of Rome above other Churches that if there were nothing else to induce me to believe it this were so pregnant that I could not resist the force of it But besides this his Lordship proves that elsewhere S. Cyprian speaks in his own person with other Catholick Bishops nos qui Ecclesiae unius caput radicem tenemus we who hold the head and root of one Church by which it appears he could not make the Church of Rome the root and matrix of the Catholick this being understood of the Vnity and Society of the Catholick Church without relation to the Church of Rome and S. Cyprian writes to Cornelius that they had sent Caldonius and Fortunatus to reduce the Church of Rome to the Vnity and Communion of the Catholick Church and because no particular Church can be the root of the Catholick and if any were Jerusalem might more pretend to it than Rome and because S. Cyprian and his Brethren durst not have suspended their communion at all if they had looked on the Church of Rome as the root and matrix of the Catholick as Baronius confesses they did all which things are largely insisted on by his Lordship and do all confirm that hereby was not meant any Authority or Priviledge of the Church of Rome above other Apostolical Churches which in respect of the lesser Churches which came from them are called Matrices Ecclesiae by Tertullian and others But you are still so very unreasonable that though no more be said of the Church of Rome than might be said of any other Apostolical Church yet because it is said of the Church of Rome it must import some huge Authority which if it had been said of any other would have been interpreted by your selves into nothing For so do you deal with us here for because it is said that they who joyned with Cornelius did preserve the Unity of the Catholick Church therefore it must needs be understood that the Roman Church is the root of the Catholick But he must have a very mean understanding that can be swayed by such trifles as these are For Was there not a Catholick and Schismatical party then at Rome and if they who joyned with Novatianus did separate from the Catholick Church then they who were in communion with Cornelius must preserve the Vnity of it And Would not this Argment as well prove the Catholick party at Carthage to be the root and matrix of the Catholick Church as well as at Rome But such kind of things must they deal with who are resolved to maintain a cause and yet are destitute of better means to do it with So that I cannot find any thing in all your Answer but what would equally hold for any other Church at that time which was so divided as Rome was considering the great care that then was used to preserve the Vnity of the Catholick Church And what particularly S. Cyprian's apprehension was concerning the Nature and Vnity of the Catholick Church we have at large discoursed already to which place we referr the Reader if he desires any further satisfaction Your whole N. 5. depends on personal matters concerning the satisfaction of the Lady's conscience but if you would thence inferr That she did well to desert the Protestant Communion you must prove that it can be no sin to follow the dictates of an erroneous conscience For such we say it was in her and you denying it all this discourse signifies nothing but depends on the truth of the matters in controversie between us But you most notoriously impose on his Lordship when because he asserts the possibility of Salvation of some in your Church you would make him say That it is no sin to joyn with your Church You might as well say Because he hopes some who have committed Adultery may be saved therefore it is no sin to commit Adultery So that while you are charging him falsly for allowing dissimulation you do that which is more in saying that which you cannot but know to be a great untruth If our Religion be not the same with yours as you eagerly contend it is not let it suffice to tell you that our Religion is Christianity let yours be what it will And if it please you better to have a name wholly distinct from us yours shall be called the Roman Religion and ours the Christian. If you judge us of another Religion from yours because we do not believe all that you do we may judge you to have a different Religion from the Christian because you impose more by your own confession to be believed as necessary in order to Salvation than ever Christ or the Apostles did And certainly the main of any Religion consists in those things which are necessary to be believed in it in order to eternal happiness In your following discourse you are so far from giving us any hopes of peace with your Church that you plainly give us the reason why it is vain to expect or desire it which is that if your Church should recede from any thing it would appear she had erred and if that appears farewell Infallibility and then if that be once gone you think all is gone And while you maintain it we are so far from hoping any peace with you that the Peace of Christendom may still be joyned in the Dutchmans Sign with the quadrature of the circle and the Philosophers Stone for the sign of the three hopelesse things How far we are bound to submit to General Councils hath been so fully cleared already that I need not go about here to vindicate his Lordships Opinion from falsity or contradiction both which you unreasonably charge it with and that still from no wiser a
refreshment by our Prayers and that they obtain pardon and mercy and deliverance from pain for them and that by the help of our Prayers they are brought to eternal rest and happiness But all this falls short of your purpose unless you can prove that any of them either believed or prayed that any such ease and refreshment were obtained by the Prayers of the Living before the day of Resurrection That they prayed That God would have mercy upon them in that day we deny not which implies ease comfort refreshment pardon deliverance from pain and eternal happiness but then all this referrs not to any purgatory-pains which they had undergone before but those eternal pains which their sins deserved if God should deal in justice with them We grant then that supplications and intercessions were used in the Church for the Dead but we say They did respect by the intention of the Church the day of judgement and Gods final justification of them by his sentence at that day For the Scriptures as my Lord Primate truly saith every where do point out that great day to us as the day wherein mercy and forgiveness rest and refreshing joy and gladness redemption and salvation rewards and Crowns shall be bestowed upon all Gods Children 2 Tim. 1.16.18 1 Cor. 1.8 Act. 3.19 2 Thes. 1.6 7. Phil. 2.19 1 Thes. 2.16 1 Pet. 1.5 1 Cor. 5.5 Ephes. 4.30 Luk. 21.28 2 Tim. 4.8 Luk. 14.14 From whence it is no improbable deduction that even the souls of good men do not enjoy their full and compleat felicity till the great day not that they either sleep or undergo any Purgatory pains but that they are at rest from their labours and in a blessed condition but still waiting with a solicitous expectation for the glorious Coming of Christ that they may then receive the reward prepared for them before the beginning of the world But Whether those souls be in Heaven as it notes a place and not a state whether the degrees of their happiness be proportionable till the great day to the degrees of grace which they had when they left the world are Questions of more curiosity than necessity to be resolved But as long as the Scripture doth insist so much on the proceedings of the great day both as to rewards and punishments we do not condemn the practice of the Ancient Church in those prayers which did thus respect the day of Resurrection If any of the Fathers had any particular Opinions concerning the state of the Dead and of the benefit which came to them by the Prayers of the Living we are no more concerned to defend them than you are to defend those whom you acknowledge to hold that no souls did enjoy the beatifical vision before the day of judgement against whom Bellarmin and others dispute at large Since you therefore confess your selves that some of the greatest of the Fathers did for many ages hold erroneous Opinions crncerning the state of the Dead With what reason can you press us with the Testimonies of those whom you refuse your selves And since they had so many different Opinions concerning the state of souls it seems strange that none of them at least till S. Augustin's time should hit upon such a state of Purgation whereby they might be freed from pains before the day of judgement And yet we find not one of them which did so much as dream of that Purgatory which you call the upper Region of Hell or of any punishment which they who dyed in favour with God should undergo between death and judgement out of which they might be delivered by the Prayers of the Living Many of them indeed supposed that souls were kept in secret receptacles but they were far from asserting that they underwent at all any pains equal to the damned much less that any souls were translated thence to glory upon the intercessions made for them others supposed that the souls of all good men were at last to pass thorow the fire of conflagration at the day of judgement others that the souls of wicked men might either escape or have their torments mitigated but all this while your Purgatory was unthought of and was not conceived till afterwards through the ignorance and superstition of some countenanced by pretended apparitions and visions of souls departed till at last it grew to be one of the favourite-Opinions of the Roman Church From whence it may easily appear how very much you were deceived when you would inferre because Prayer for the Dead as it is now used in the Roman Church doth necessarily suppose Purgatory therefore it must do so in the Ancient Church for although we should grant the same Prayers to be still used yet since they are used for a quite different intent that may be supposed by you which was not at all supposed by them nor could be inferred from what they did And yet it is plain that in some cases you have changed the Prayers for the Saints into Prayers to them For whereas in the old Gregorian Sacramentary it was Grant unto us O Lord that this oblation may profit the soul of thy servant Leo in the latter Books it is turned into this Grant unto us O Lord that by the intercession of thy servant Leo this oblation may profit us From whence you may see that your Prayers are changed from what they were For the Ancient Church prayed universally for all Saints and Martyrs but you think it a disparagement to them to pray for them and therefore from your kind of Prayers for the Dead we may well say that Purgatory is supposed but we cannot possibly inferr it from those Prayers which were made for such who if any were supposed in a state of Bliss and happiness And that the intention of your Church is quite different from the Ancient we now come more fully to make manifest because none of them did believe that Doctrine of Purgatory which you assert But herein we must follow your footsteps and consider the many authorities which you produce out of Bellarmin and undertake to vindicate in behalf of Purgatory to which I give this general Answer That some Authours are counterfeit and the places supposititious of those that are true some speak only of Commemoration of the Dead and Oblations made for them others respect the day of Resurrection and the fire of Conflagration others the purging of the wicked others only of a purgation in this life but none of them all speak of any Purgatory pains of those who dye in favour with God which they undergo as the temporal punishment of sin from whence they may be delivered by the Prayers of the Living which is the only thing you should prove from them And this I come to make appear by the examination of the particulars as they occurr in order The first you begin with is Dionysius Areopagita and Is not he say you an Authour of the first three hundred years As
to Salvation and that this is owned by the Church of England This is the substance of the Argument which being resolved into its parts will consist of these Propositions 1. That some things owned not to be Fundamental in the matter are yet acknowledged in the Creed of Athanasius to be necessary to Salvation 2. That the reason why these things do become necessary is because the Church hath defined them to be so 3. That this is acknowledged by the Church of England And therefore by parity of reason whatever is defined by the Church must be necessary to Salvation But every one of these Propositions being ambiguous the clear stating of them will be the best way of solving the difficulty which seems to lye in the present Argument And the main Ambiguity lyes in the meaning of that necessity to Salvation which is implied in the Athanasian Creed as to the Articles therein contained for there being different grounds and reasons upon which things may be supposed necessary there can be no just consequence made from the general owning a necessity of the belief of some things to the making those things necessary to be believed upon one particular account of it For the necessity of believing things to Salvation may arise from one of these three grounds 1. The Supposition that the matter to be believed is in it self necessary this makes it necessary to all those persons who are of that perswasion and on this ground it is plain that the main Articles of the Athanasian Creed are generally supposed necessary viz. those concerning the Trinity in Vnity the Incarnation Resurrection and Eternal Life c. Now these being supposed to be necessary from the Matter any Church may own them under this degree of necessity in that expression used in several places of the Athanasian Creed Whosoever will be saved it is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith which Catholick Faith is c. But then we are to consider that this is only a Declaration of the sense of that Church what things she owns as necessary and what not And this Declaration doth not oblige the conscience of particular persons any further than as the Articles of that Church are required to be owned as the conditions of Communion with her i. e. where the degree of necessity is not declared nor expresly owned by a Church but left in general terms no man is bound to believe the things judged as necessary with any particular kind of necessity exclusive of others but only that the Church in General may use that Creed supposed necessary and that the Use of that Creed is a lawful condition of that Churches Communion 2. The belief of a thing may be supposed necessary because of the clear Conviction of mens understandings that though the matters be not in themselves necessary yet being revealed by God they must be explicitly believed but then the necessity of this Belief doth extend no further than the clearness of that Conviction doth As suppose it inserted into a Creed that the Article of the Descent must be understood according to the sense of the Scriptures this doth oblige no man to any further necessity of belief of the sense of the Article then he is convinced that it is the sense of the Scriptures And the case is the same when the Article is expressed only in general terms which are known to be capable of very different senses when none of which are expressed no particular sense can be said to be necessary to Salvation to particular persons but only that sense in general which all must agree in who own it and the particulars are left to the Convictions of mens understandings upon the use of the best means of satisfaction So that he that believes fully that the meaning of this Article from Scripture is that Christ's soul did locally descend to Hell it is necessary for him to believe so upon such Conviction but he that sees no more necessary to be believed by it but that Christ's soul was during his Body's lying in the Grave in a state of Separation from it how can you prove it necessary to Salvation for him to believe any more than this And the case is the same as to all Modes of Existence and particular explications of Articles in themselves owned as of the different Subsistencies in the Trinity the manner of the Hypostatical Vnion of the two Natures in Christ's Person supposing the Doctrines themselves believed what reason can there be to assert it necessary to Salvavation to all persons to believe them under such a sense if the Article may be it self believed without it any further than as things under those explications are manifested to such persons to be necessary to be believed As Leo 3. defined in the Article of the Holy Ghost's Procession from the Son To such who by reason of capacity and apprehension could attain to the Knowledge of it it was necessary to be believed but not by others as appears in our former Discourse on that Subject Therefore from hence we see another account why things may become necessary to be believed and owned as such besides the matter and the Churches Definition These things may be said to be necessary to be believed by such who believe the Churches Proposition to be sufficient though it be not as suppose any member of the Greek Church should believe their Church infallible it is necessary for such a one to believe whatever is propounded by that Church though you suppose that judgement of his to be false in it self because you say the Greek Church is not infallible So that from hence it appears that the necessity arising from the Churches Definition doth depend upon the Conviction that whatever the Church defines is necessary to be believed And where that is not received as an antecedent principle the other cannot be supposed By this opening the several grounds of necessity your difficulty concerning the Athanasian Creed comes to nothing For granting that the Church of England doth own and approve the Creed going under the name of Athanasius and supposing that her Vse of the Creed doth extend to the owning of those expressions which import the necessity of believing the things therein contained in order to Salvation yet this doth not reach to your purpose unless you prove that the Church of England doth own that necessity purely on the account of the Churches Definition of those things which are not Fundamental which it is very unreasonable to imagine it being directly contrary to her sense in her nineteenth and twentieth Articles And thence that supposed necessity of the belief of the Articles of the Athanasian Creed must according to the sense of the Church of England be resolved either into the necessity of the Matters or into that necessity which supposeth clear Convictions that the things therein contained are of Divine Revelation From hence then it cannot at all follow because the Church of England owns the Creed
laudando praecipere by commending them to be such instruct them that such indeed they ought to be to whom perfidiousness should not get access And for this he instanceth in such another Rhetorical expression of Synesius to Theophilus of Alexandria wherein he tells him that he ought to esteem what his Throne should determine as an Oracle or Divine Law And certainly this comes nearer Infallibility than that of St. Cyprian doth But what inconveniency there should be that St. Cyprian by this interpretation should give no more prerogative to the Church of Rome than to that of Alexandria or Antioch I cannot easily imagine till you prove some greater Infallibility attributed then to the Church of Rome than was to other Apostolical Churches which as yet we are to seek for But at length you tell us after much ado he grants perfidia may be taken for errour in Faith or for perfidious misbelievers and Schismaticks who had betrayed their Faith but then say you he cavils with the word Romanos This must be limited only to those Christians who then lived in Rome to whom quà tales as long as they continued such errour in Faith could not have access What you say his Lordship doth at length and after much ado he did freely and willingly but that you might have occasion for those words you altered the course of his answers and put the second in the last place But still you have the unhappiness to misunderstand him For although he grants that perfidia may relate to errour in Faith yet as it is here used it is not understood of it abstractly but concretely for perfidious misbelievers i. e. such perfidious persons excommunicated out of other Churches were not likely to get access at Rome or to find admittance into their communion And in this sense it is plain that St. Cyprian did not intend by these words to exempt the Romans from possibility of errour but to brand his adversaries with a title due to their merit calling them perfidious i. e. such as had betrayed or perverted the Faith When you therefore ask is not this great praise I suppose none but your self would make a question of it viz. that the Church of Rome had then so great purity as not to admit such perfidious misbelievers into her communion And it were well if the present Church of Rome were capable of the same praise But when you add It is as if St. Cyprian should say St. Peters See could not erre so long as it continued constant in the truth you wilfully misunderstand his Lordships meaning who speaks of the persons and not meerly of their errours but however is it not a commendation to say that the Church of Rome consisted of such persons then who adhered to the Apostolical Faith and therefore errour could not have access to them And I look on it as so great a commendation that I heartily wish it could be verified of your Church now Neither is this any such Identical proposition as that you produce but only a declaration of their present constancy and inferring thence how unlikely it was that errours should be admitted by them His Lordship to make it plain that St. Cyprian had no meaning to assert the unerring Infallibility of either Pope or Church of Rome insists on the contest which after happened between St. Cyprian and Pope Stephen upon which he saith expresly That Pope Stephen did not only maintain an errour but the very cause of Hereticks and that against Christians and the very Church of God And after this he chargeth him with obstinacy and presumption And I hope this is plain enough saith his Lordship to shew that St. Cyprian had no great opinion of the Roman Infallibility To this you answer With a famous distinction of the Popes erring as a private Doctor and as the Vniversal Pastor and that St. Cyprian might very well be supposed to think the Pope erred only in the first sense Not to spend time in rifling this distinction of the Popes erring personally but not judicially or as a private Doctor but not as Vniversal Pastor which it were an easie matter to do by manifesting the incongruity of it and the absurdities consequent upon it in case that doctrine which the Pope erres in comes to be judicially decided by him It is sufficient for us at present to shew that this distinction cannot relieve you in our present case For your Doctors tell us the Pope then erres personally and as a private Doctor when he erres only in his own judgement without obliging others to believe what he judges to be true but then he erres judicially and as Vniversal Pastor when he declares his judgement so as to oblige others to receive it as true Now can any thing be more evident then that St. Cyprian judged Pope Stephen to erre in this latter and not in the former sense For doth he not absolutely and severely declare himself against St. Cyprians opinion condemning it as an errour and an innovation But say you He did not properly define any doctrine in that contestation but said nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum But was not that the question what was traditum and what not for Cyprian and his party denyed it to be a tradition which Stephen asserted was so and doth he not therefore undertake to define something in this cause But say you If this argument hold good against the Infallibility of Popes viz. that St. Cyprian held Pope Stephen erred therefore the Pope may erre in matters of Faith it will be a good consequence also to say St. Cyprian held Pope Stephen erred even whilst he maintained an universal immemorial tradition therefore the Pope may erre whilst he follows such a tradition I answer 1. Who besides you would not have seen that the question was not Whether the Pope was Infallible or no but whether St. Cyprian judged him to be Infallible or no for if it appear that St. Cyprian did not judge him Infallible then those former words cannot be interpreted to such a sense as doth imply Infallibility 2. No doubt if the Pope may err in other things he may err when he thinks he follows an universal immemorial tradition not that he doth err when he doth really follow such a one but he may err in judging that to be an universal immemorial tradition which is not and this was the case between St. Cyprian and Pope Stephen the Pope pretended to follow an universal tradition St. Cyprian judgeth him to err in it and that it was not so And is it not plain still notwithstanding these frivolous pretences that St. Cyprian had no opinion at all of the Popes Infallibility in any sense and therefore out of honour to him you are bound to interpret his former words to some other sense then that of any Infallibility in the Church of Rome Thus all his Lordships answers standing good you have gained no great matter by this first testimony of St.
And the oppression of the Church of Rome he further adds is the great cause of all the errours in that part of the Church which is under the Roman Jurisdiction And for the Protestants they have made no separation from the General Church properly so called but their Separation is only from the Church of Rome and such other Churches as by adhering to her have hazarded themselves and do now miscall themselves the whole Catholick Church Nay even here the Protestants have not left the Church of Rome in her essence but in her errours not in the things which constitute a Church but only in such abuses and corruptions as work towards the dissolution of a Church Let now any indifferent Reader be judge Whether his Lordship or A. C. be the more guilty in begging the Question For all the Answer you can give is That his Lordship begs it in saying that the Roman Church is not the whole Catholick Church and that the Roman Catholick Church may be in an errour but the former we have proved already and I doubt not but the latter will be as evident as the other before our task be ended But as though it were not possible for you to be guilty of begging the Question after you have said that the Roman Church cannot erre you give this as the reason for it Because she is the unshaken Rock of Truth and that she hath the sole continual succession of lawfully-sent Pastors and Teachers who have taught the same unchanged Doctrine and shall infallibly continue so teaching it to the worlds end Now Who dares call this Begging the Question No it must not be called so in you it shall be only Taking it for granted Which we have seen hath been your practice all along especially when we charge your Church with errourâ— for then you cry out presently What your Church erre No you defie the language What the Spouse of Christ the Catholick Church erre that is impossible What the unshaken Rock of Truth to sink into errours the Infallible Church be deceived she that hath never taught any thing but Truth be charged with falshood she that not only never did erre but it is impossible nay utterly impossible nay so impossible that it cannot be imagined that ever she should erre This is the summ of all your arguments which no doubt sound high to all such who know not what confident begging the Question means or out of modesty are loath to charge you with it Much to the same purpose do you go on to prove that Protestants have separated not from the errours but the essence of your Church And if that be true which you say That those things which we call Errours are essential to your Church we are the more sorry for it for we are sure and when you please will prove it that they are not cannot be essential to a true Church and if they be to yours the case is so much the worse with you when your distempers are in your vitals and your errours essential to your Churches Constitution What other things you have here are the bare repetitions of what we have often had before in the Chapters you refer us to And here we may thank you for some ease you give us in the far greatest remaining part of this Chapter which consists of tedious repetitions of such things which have been largely discussed in the First part where they were purposely and designedly handled as that concerning Traditions chap. 6. that concerning necessaries to salvation chap. 2 3 4. that concerning the Scriptures being an Infallible Rule throughout the Controversie of Resolution of Faith and that which concerns the Infallibility of General Councils we shall have occasion at large to handle afterwards and if there be any thing material here which you omit there it shall be fully considered But I know no obligation lying upon me to answer things as often as you repeat them especially since your gift is so good that way It is sufficient that I know not of any material passage which hath not received an Answer in its proper place That which is most pertinent to our present purpose is that which concerns the necessity of a Living Judge besides the Scriptures for ending Controversies of Faith As to which his Lordship saith That supposing there were such a one and the Pope were he yet that is not sufficient against the malice of the Devil and impious men to keep the Church at all times from renting even in the Doctrine of Faith or to soder the Rents which are made For oportet esse Haereses 1 Cor. 11.19 Heresies there will be and Heresies there properly cannot be but in the Doctrine of Faith To this you answer That Heresies are not within but without the Church and the Rents which stand in need of sodering are not found among the true members of the Church who continue still united in the Faith and due obedience to their Head but in those who have deserted the true Church and either made or adhered to Schismatical and Heretical Congregations A most excellent Answer His Lordship sayes If Christ had appointed an Infallible Judge besides the Scripture certainly it should have been for preventing Heresies and sodering the Rents of the Church So it is say you for if there be any Heresies it is nothing to him they are out of the Church and if there be any Schisms they are among those who are divided from him That is he is an Infallible Judge only thus far in condemning all such for Hereticks and Schismaticks who do not own him And his only way of preventing Heresies and Schisms is the making this the only tryal of them that whatever questions his Authority is Heresie and whatever separation be made from him is Schism Just as Absalom pretended that there was no Judge appointed to hear and determine causes and that the Laws were not sufficient without one and therefore he would do it himself so doth the Pope by Christ he pretends that he hath not taken care sufficient for deciding Controversies in Faith therefore there is a necessity in order to the Churches Vnity he should take it upon himself But now if we suppose in the former case of Absalom that he had pretended he could infallibly end all the Controversies in Israel and keep all in peace and unity and yet abundance of Controversies to arise among them by what right and power he took that office upon him and many of them cry out upon it as an Vsurpation and a disparagement to the Laws and Government of his Father David and upon this some of the wiser Israelites should have asked him Whether this were the way to end all Controversies and keep the Nation in peace Would it not have been a satisfactory Answer for him to have said Yes no doubt it is the only way For only they that acknowledge my power are the Kings lawful subjects and all