only to be Re-baptized who renounced the Baptismal Faith in Father Son and Holy Ghost And the meaning I suppose waâ— that nothing but that exclude Persons out of the Catholic Church and those Hereticks whose Baptism was allow'd were of an inferiour sort and by not disowning their Baptism they shew'd they looked on them only as corrupted Parts of the Church And so did the Councils of Nice and Arles which did not utterly reject Re-baptization but only of those who preserved the Baptismal Faith. It was not therefore the Sense of the Ancient Church that upon every dissension in matters of Faith from the general Doctrine of the Church one Party must be excluded from the Catholic Church and that Title belong to the other But he proceeds That this Presumption cannot be the Cause of Schisms which must happen before the Presumption This is very easily answered For a breach there must be before but the Schism belongs to those who were the true Causes of the Breach If therefore any one Part assumes to it self the right of the whole and requires the owning it from all that joyn in Communion with it this very act makes it justifiable not to separate from the Catholic Church but not to joyn in Communion with that Part on such unreasonable terms Well saith he Suppose the dividing Parts do still continue Parts of the Catholic Whole cannot the Roman-Catholic be that Whole i. e. Suppose there be many Parts why may not one of them be the Whole For still the Roman-Catholic is but a Part though Catholic be the Whole as though the Ocean be the whole yet the British or Gallican or Spanish or Atlantick Ocean is but a Part of the Whole Ocean I am ashamed to pursue so clear a point any farther But he hath one fetch behind still viz. That it is one Faith which makes the Catholic Church one if therefore the Roman Catholic Church be a Part of this Catholic Whole the other Parts must believe as she does or else they cannot be Parts I will endeavour to make this clear to him and so end this Dispute The Church is a Society of Persons who own and profess the Christian Faith Therefore Faith is necessary to the very being of a Church for unless they believe the Christian Doctrine they cannot be the Christian Church This Faith which is necessary to make them Christians is to be embraced by all who are Members of this Church their entrance is by Baptism the Faith is the Creed delivered to those who are to be Baptized which being universally received by Christians that makes the common Bond of Union in the Parts of this great Body and this is the One Faith of the Catholic Church But if he thinks the Roman-Catholic Church can make all its Decisions a Part of this one Faith he is extreamly mistaken As will more fully appear in the following Discourse II. Of the Authority of the Catholic Church THE whole and sole design of the First Paper as the Replier tells me was to evince this Point That all Controversial Pâ—ints of Faith either about Holy Scripture or other Subjects do fall under the Iudgment and Decision of the Church But under Favour that is not the whole Design of it for this implies no more than that the Church may if it pleases decide them but the Desi n is to prove That in all Matters of Faith the Churches Authority is without farther Examination to be submitted to so that all that Christians have to do is but to enquire into Two things 1. Where the Church is 2. Whether the Church hath declared its Judgment or not And several things are objected in the Papers against the not submitting to the Churches Judgment viz. That every one will be his own Iudge which is not allowed in common matters much less in matters of Faith that no such Authority is given to every particular Man by Scripture but the Churches Authority is there established and was owned in the Primitive Church in the Creeds and about the Canonical Books and since the Church had once such a Power there is no reasâ—n to suppose it lost but upon differences happening the Churches Iudgment is to be submitted to This is the whole strength and force of the First Paper and it is about a Subject of the highest Importance both as to the satisfaction of particular Persons and the Peace of the Christian World. And the clearing thes Two Points will go a very great way towards the putting an end to Controversies 1. That in all Disputes we are to search no farther but presently to yield to the Judgment of the Church 2. That the Roman-Catholic Church is that Church How far I am from being satisfied with the latter doth already appear I now set my self to consider the other And here are these things necessary to be debated 1. Whether Christ and his Apostles did establish such a standing Judicature in the Church to which all Christians were bound to submit in matters of Faith 2. Whether the Primitive Church did own such a Judicature And did accordingly govern their Faith 3. Whether it be an unreasonable thing to suppose the contrary viz. That Christ should leave Men to judge for themselves in matters which concern their Salvation according to the Scriptures 1. Whether Christ and his Apostles did establish such a standing Judicature in the Church to put an end to all Controversies which should arise about matters of Faith We do not Question but Christ might have done it if he had pleased and there is no doubt he foresaw all those Inconveniences which are now objected against the want of it But the point before us is Whether Christ who alone could do it hath declared this to be his Will and Pleasure We are then to consider that this being a Point of so great Consequence the Commission for such a Court of Judicature in the Church ought to be delivered in the plainest and clearest Words that may be for otherwise this were to beget Controversies instead of putting an end to them When God under the Law established a Supreme Court of Appeal as to the differences which might arise about the Law he tells them where that Court should fit and commands the People to go up thither and hear their Sentence and submit to it This was a plain and clear declaration of the Will of God and they had no more to do but to go up to the Place which God did chuse viz. Ierusalem And there was never any dispute aftâ—rwards among the Israelites what they were to do when Differences happened for an Appeal lay to the Court of Ierusalem and the Sentence of that Court they were to stand to on pain of Death Our blessed Saviour knew this Constitution among the Jews when he founded his Church and if he had intended any such thing therein he would not have fallen short of the exactness of the Law in the things necessary in
other And thereâ—â—re we must judg more reasonably What follows about the Infallibility promised to the Church hath been answered already As to the Canonical Book I shewed it was no Authoritative Decision by a Power in the Church to make Books Canonical which were not so but a meer giving Testimony in a Matter of Fact in which all parts of the Church are concerned and it depends as other Matters of Fact do on the Skill and Fidelity of the Reporters And so far I own the truly Catholick Church to have Authority in any Testimony delivering down the Books of Scripture but this proves no more Infallibility in the Christian Church as to the Books of the New Testament than it doth in the Jewish Church as to the Books of the Old Testament And thus much of the Authority of the Catholick Church in Matters of Faith. III. Of the Reformation of the Church of England THere are so many Passages in the Papers relating to the Church of England on the Account of her Reformation that I thought it the best Method of proceeding to handle this Subject by itself And there are these things charged upon it either in Terms or by Consequence in the Papers which as I am a Member of this Church I think my self bound to clear for I could nor justifie continuing in her Communion if she were justly liable to these Imputations 1. That she hath made a causless Breach in the Communion of the Catholick Church 2. That she hath been the occasion of a World of Heresies crept into this Nation 3. That she hath not sufficient Authority within her self and yet denies an Appeal to a higher Judicature 4. That she contradicts her own Rule viz. the Holy Scriptures 5. That she subsists only on the Pleasure of the Civil Magistrate All these I shall examine with Care and consider what hath been said in Defence of the Papers upon these Heads As to the charge of causless Breach in the Communion of the Catholick Church it lies in these Words And by what Authority Men separate themselves from that Church Which being spoken with respect to the Members of the Church of England do imply that they have made a Separation from the Communion of the Catholick Church and that they had no sufficient Authority for so doing and therefore are guily of Schism in it To the Question two Answers were given 1. By distinguishing the truly Catholick Church from the Roman Catholick And a Distinction between these being made out which is done in the first part of this Defence It doth not follow that we have made a Breach in the Communion of the Catholick Church because we do not join in Communion with the Roman Catholick This was illustrated by the Example of a prosperous Usurper in a Kingdom who challenges a Title to the whole by gaining a considerable part of it and requires from all the Kings Subjects within his Power to own him to be rightful King whereupon the Question was put Whether refusing to do it were an Act of Rebellion or of Loyalty So in the Church the Popes Authority over it so as to restrain Catholick Communion only to those who own it is not only looked on as an Usurpation by Us but by all the Eastern Churches and is in Truth altering the Terms of Christian Communion from what they were in the truly Catholick and Apostolick Church Therefore since the Conditions required are unreasonable because different from them what Breach hath followed is not to be imputed to those who refuse these Terms but to those who impose them and so the Guilt of it lies upon the Church of Rome and not upon the Church of England This is the Substance of the Answer To which the Replier saith That the Eastern Churches cannot be parts of the Catholick Church because they hold not the Apostolick Doctrine contained in the Creeds and Councils owned by the Church of England This hath been fully answered already But he goes on There were no other Churches then in being but those which were in Communion with the Church of Rome consequently the Church of England going out from them separated her self from the Catholick Apostolick Church And the Defender saith He expects I should shew That truely Catholick and Apostolick Church we held Communion with when we separated from the Roman He desires to know where the men live that people may go to them and learn of them what their Faith is c. In answer to this I say That there is no necessity for us to shew any Church distinct from others which in all things we agreed with because we hold all particular Churches liable to Errors and Corruptions and that the notion of the Catholick Church may take in such Particulars from which we may see reason to dissent But we do not thereby exclude them from being parts of the Catholick Church but we say they are no Infallible Rule to us and therefore we ought to proceed by what the Church hath receiv'd as an Infallible Rule and not by the Communion of other Churches And supposing there were no particular Church we did in all things joyn with the Church of England might Reform it self without separating from the Catholick Apostolick Church For it was then in the Case particular Churches were in after the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia for then the standard of Catholick Communion set up by the Council of Nice was taken down and the setting of it up again was to oppose the Consent of the Christian Church in the most General Council that ever Assembled I do not say this Council obliged men to profess Arrianism but that it took away the Authority of the Nicene Creed in as valid a manner as the Council by its Acts could do it I ask then by what Authority any particular Church could set up the Nicene Faith and if not how it was possible to be restored And I desire to know in what Country the people lived who then owned the Nicene Faith against such a General Council And where were the Churches in being which at that time adhered to it But if in this Case the British Church tho alone was bound notwithstanding such a general consent to Reform it self and to restore the Authority of the Nicene Creed the same Case it is when the Western Church was oppressed and hindered from Reforming Errors and Abuses by the Usurpation and Tyranny of the Papal Faction the Church of England was then obliged to exercise its own Inherent Right in bringing things to the state they were in in the time of the first General Councils In matters of Reformation the main enquiries are whether there be just Occasion and due Authority for it and a certain Rule to proceed by the last and least important Question is what Company we have to joyn with us in it For there is a Natural Right iâ— every Church to preserve its own just Liberties and consequently to throw off such
chief 2. As it holds under it all particular Churches and so he saith The Roman Church only is the Catholic Church And so he makes owning the Roman Church to be Mother and Mistress of all Churches as he there saith to be a necessary condition of Catholic Communion And thus it becomes the Roman Catholic Church But this was a very new notion of the Catholic Church which in the Fathers of the Church was taken in one of these two Senses 1. With Respect to Faith and so Catholic was the same with Sound and of a right Faith in opposition to the notorious Heresies of the First Ages So it was used by Igâ—â—tius against the Heresies of that time which denied Iesus to be Christ therefore saith he Whereever Christ Iesus is there is the Catholic Church After him Polycarp is called by the Church of Smâ—rna Bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna So the Council of Antioch speaking of the deposition of Paâ—lus Samosatenus say They must set another Bishop over the Catholic Church there â—lemens Alexandrinus saith The Catholic Church is ancienter than Heresies that it hath the Unity of the Faith and subsists only in the Truth Pacianus observes That in those Ages the Hereticks went by other Names but the sound Christians were known by the Name of Catholics which had been of very ancient usâ— in the Church though not found in Scripture as Fulgentiâ—s likewise observes But Lactantius takes notice that the Hereticks had gotten the trick of using that Name and then his Rule is to discern the true Catholic Church by the true Religion For he not only saith before That the Catholic Church is to be known by the true Worship of God but when he comes to lay down the Notes of the true Church the first of them is Religion So I find in an old Lactantius printed at Rome A. D. 1470. but for what Reason I know not it is leâ—t out in the latteâ—â— Editions In the Conference between the Donatists and the Catholic Bishops both sides challenged the name of Catholics to themselves and the Roman Judge determined It should belong to them who were found to have Truth on their side Pope Innocent III. in a Council at Rome declares That all the Churches in the World are called one from the Unity of the Catholic Faith. And in the Canon before he mentions the Roman Church as distinct from the Catholic but comprehended under it while it adheres to the Catholic Faith. Which was not then understood to be what the Roman Church declares to be so but what was universally received in the Church from the Apostles times and was delivered in the Creeds to the Persons to be admitted by Baptism into the Catholic Church 2. With respect to Persons and Places And so Catholic was first taken in opposition to the Iewish Confinement of Salvation to themselves and of Gods appointed Worship to one Temple So Ignatius faith The â—hurch is one Body made up of Jews and Gentiles And the Church of Smyrna writes to all the Members of the Catholic Church in all places and the Council of Antioch writes to the whole Catholic Church under Heaven S. Cyril saith The Church is called Catholic from its Universal spreading and teaching the whole Doctrine of Christ to all sorts of Persons Athanasius saith It is called Catholic because it is dispersed over the World. Theophylact saith The Catholic Church is a Body made up of all â—hurches whereof Christ is the Head. And the African Bishops from the first beginning of the Dispute with the Donatists laid great weight upon this That the Catholic Church was to be taken in its largest Extent or else the Promises could not be fulfilled as may be seen in Optatus who saith The Church is called Catholic not only from its having the true Faith but from its being every where dispersed And S. Augustine hath written whole Books to prove it In the Conference with the Donatists the Catholic Bishops and especially S. Augustin plead that they are called Catholics because they hold communion with the whole World of Christians and not with thâ—se only of a particular Title or Denomination For therein they made the Schism of the Donatists consist not barely in a causeless Separation but in confining the Catholic Church to themselves who at best were but a Part of it And because the notion which Innocent III. gives is liable to the same charge it cannot be excused from the same guilt Thus we have found the Author of this Notion of the Roman Catholic Church viz. for such as own the Supremacy of the Church of Rome as he explains it more fully in the same Epistle But yet this Notion of the Catholic Church was not Uniniversally received after Innocent III. For in the Fifteenth Age in the Council of Florence Cardinal Bessarion disputing with the Greeks about the Authority of the Roman Church in making an Addition to the Creed saith That how great soever the Power of the Roman Church be he grants it is less than that of a General Council or the Catholic Church From whence it follows that the Notion of the Catholic Church cannot be taken from owning the Roman Church to be Mistress of all Churches for then the Catholic Church is bound to submit to the Decrees of the Roman Church about Matters of Faith. In the beginning of the same Age the Council of â—onstance met and in the Fourth Session declared That a General ouncil represents the Catholic Church and hath its Power immediately from Christ and that in matters of Faith Unity of the â—hurch and Reformation all Persons even Popes â—hemselves are bound to submit to it And truly it was but necessary for them to take off from the Popes Authority in matters of Faith since they charge Ioh. XXIII with no less than frequent and pertinacious denying the Immortality of the Soul. Was not this Man fit to be an Infallible Head of the Catholic Church and the true Center of Christian Communion Bellarmin saith this Article was not proved but only commonly believed because of the dissoluteness of his Life But this is but a poor defence since this Article stands upon Record against him in all the Editions of the Council of Constance which I have compared even that at Rome said to be collated with Manuscripts And why should so scandalous an Article be suffered to stand unless there were such a consent of Copies that it could not for shame be removed The Doctrine of the Council of Constance was confirmed by the Council of Basil and is to this day maintained by the Clergy of France as appears by their Declaration made A. D. 1682. From whence it follows that the Church is not called Catholic from relation to the Roman Church but to the whole Body of Christians and that the Unity of it is not to be taken from the respect it bears to an
reform abuses and to declare Articles of Religion so as to oblige its Members to Conformity especially since it proceeds by such excellent Rules as the Holy Scriptures the ancient Councils and Universal Tradition And I hope this may pass for a direct Answer The Replier takes another course besides this for he makes use of these two Topicks against the Church of England 1. That the Church of Rome was in possâ—ssion of all those Truths we rejected 2. That we ought to bring positive Texts for our Negative Articles 1. As to the Plea of Possession of all those Truths now question'd by us This were a pleasant thing for us to question them if we owned they were Truths but he means only that he thinks them so Well then how is it their Church was in possession of those Truths Do they become Truths by their possession or only that they were Truths they were then possessed of If so he must first prove them to be Truths or the Possession signifies nothing And that is the point I went upon that no Possession gives a right to Truth but the Church of England had just reason to examine whether these were Truths or not and upon examination finding them to be otherwise it had reason to reject them But to inforce this he saith afterwards That their Church had a thousand years prescription here and that their Religion came into this Nation with Christianity Although according to St. Cyprian's Rule all this prâ—ves no more than the Antiquity of Error unless the proof be made from Scripture yet because this goes a great way with some people I do not only deny the truth of it but shall give evident proof to the contrary For I suppose it will not be questioned that the Religion brought in here by Augustin and his Companions was the Religion of Gregory the Great I shall therefore compare the Doctrine of the Council of Trent with that of Gregory in some remarkable Paticulars and shew the great Difference between them as to these things 1. Scripture and Tradition Council of Trent Gregory the Great DEclares That it receives Traditions with an equal Veneration with Holy Scriptures Sess. 4. AFfirms That all things which edifie and instruct are contained in the Volume of Scriptures in Ezek. Hom. l. 1. cap. 8.  That Gods Mind is to be found in his Words Regist. Epist. l. 4. Ep. 40.  That the Scripture is the Glass of the Elect in Reg. l. 4. c. 10. in Job l. 2. c. 1.  That to be born of God is to love his Will revealed in Scripture in 1 Reg. c. 14  That Preachers are to instruct their People in what they learn out of the Holy Scriptures Greg Sacram in Consecr Episcopi  That the Staves being in the Rings on the sides of the Ark do shew that Teachers should have the holy Scriptures in their hearts that from thence they may presently teach whatever is needful de Cura Pastor l. 2. c. 11. 2. Apochryphal Books The Council of Trent Gregory the Great REckons the Maccabees among the Canonical Books Sess. 4. PLainly rejects them from being Canonical for he excuses taking an Example out of them not being Canonical Moral in Job l. 19. c. 13. 3. Merit of Good Works The Council of Trent Gregory the Great ANathematizes those who deny good Works to be truly meritorious of Grace and Eternal Life Sess. 6. Can. 32. DEnies the most sanctified Persons to procure Divine Wisdom by their Graces in Job l. 18. c. 26.  Affirms that the best Men will find no Merit in their best Actions Moral l. 9. c. 2.  That all human Righteousness will be found unrighteousness if strictly judged Ib. l. 9. c. 11.  That if he should attain to the highest Virture he should obtain eternal Life not by Merits but by Pardon Ib. 4. Auricular Confession The Council of Trent Gregory the Great DEclares secret Confâ—ssion of all sins to be necessary in order to Remission and Absolution by the Priest Sess. 14. c. 6 7 8. SPeaks of no other Confession than what was required in order to the Reconciliation of those who had undergone publick Penance the Custom whereof at Rome is set down in Golasius his Sacramentary p. 63. And Gregory refers to the Custom then used in his Sacramentary p. 225. And there is no Form of Absolution in either of them but by way of Prayer to God which is different from a Sacramental judicial Absolution required by the Council of Trent  He makes no Absolution true but that which follows the judgment of God which he parallels with the loosing of Lazarus after Christ had raised him from the Grave Hom. 26. in Evangel 5. Solitary Masses The Council of Trent Gregory the Great ANathematizes those who say such Masses wherein the Priest only communicates are unlawful and to be abrogated Sess. 22. Can. 8. FOrbids the Priest to ce ebrate alone and saith expresly it ought not to he celebrated by one because the People are to bear their share Greg lib. Capital c. 7. apud Cassandr Liturg. c. 33. Transubstantiation The Council of Trent Gregory the Great DEclares the Body of Christ to be in the Eucharist under the Species of Bread Sess. 13. Cap 1. ASserts the Body of Christ after â—is Resurrection to be palpable i. e. That it may be seen and felt where it is and that he proved this against Eutychius of Constantinople Moral l. 14. c. 31. That asserts only the Species to remain after Consecration ib. c. 4. He frequently declares That our Bodies as well as our Souls are nourished by the Eucharist which cannot be done by more species for no Accidents can produce a Substance Greg. Sacram. 16. Kal. Mart. in Sexages Hebd 3. in Quadrag Fr. 4. 7. Communion in one Kind Council of Trent Gregory the Great DEclares against the necessity of Communion in both kinds Sess. 13. Cap 13. AFfirms it to be the constant practise for the People to receive in both  Sacram. in Quadrag Fr. 3. 6 Kal. Julii ad Compleâ—d Hebd 3. in Quadr. Sabbato Miss Temp. Belli Sexages ad Complend Domin in Ramis Palm VI. Non. Julii ad Complend VIII Kal. Aug. ad Compl. Kalend. Aug. ad Compl.  The like may be observed in Gelasius his Sacramentary who declared it Sacriledg to do otherwise as appears by the known Canon Comperimus De Consecr Dist. 2. who was one of Gregory's Predecessors and not long before him 8. Purgatory Council of Trent Gregory the Great DEclares that there is a Purgatory after this Life out of which Souls may be helped by the Prayers of the faithful Sess. 25. AFfirms That at the time of Death either the good or evil Spirit seizeth upon the Soul and keeps it with it for ever without any change Moral in Job l. 8. c. 8. ed. Basil. c. 9. ed Novae That in the day of death the just goes to Joy and the wicked with the Apostate Angel is
evidently contained therein But I go no further tâ—an the Replier leads me At the Conclusion of the first Paper there was a suggestion As tho the Schism were raised by particular men for their own Advantage It was answered That the Advantage of the Clergy lay plainly on the other side which is yielded by the Replier and yet he would have the Clergy byast What byast against their Interest For that is the point Whether they got ot lost by the Reformation and besides other considerations if there were so much Sacriledg committed by it as is said in one of the Papers it is hard to suppose that they should raise the Schism for their own Advantage I am of the Defenders mind That matter of Interest ought not to be regarded in these things but when that was said to lie at the bottom of the Reformation we had reason to consider on which side lay the greater Advantage The 2d Charge is That the Reformation hath been â—he occasion of a World of Heresies creeping into this Nation With this the 2d Paper begins In answer it was said That either this respects the several Sects of Dissenters from the Religion established by Law and then it seems hard considering aâ— circumstances to charge the Church of England with them or it takes in all that dissent from the Church of Rome and so it is a charge on the whole Church since the Reformation as guilty of Heresie which was a charge I said could never be made good The Defender avoids the charge as to the Church of England but the Replier in plain terms owns it saying That establishment of a Religion by Law cannot protect it from being a Heresie which I readily grant And then he adds Let him defend his own and his work is done The best way to do that is to consider first what Heresie is and that I said was an obstinate opposing some necessary Article of Faith and then how it comes to be in the Power of the Church of Rome to define Heretical Doctrines so as that any Doctrine comes to be Heresie by being contrary to its Definitions He answers By the same way the Church had Power in her General Councils to make Creeds and to Anathematize Heretiâ—ks So that whatever Power the Catholick Church exercised in declaring Matters of Faith he challenges as of Right belonging to the Church of Rome which wholly depends on the first Point already discussed viz. That the Roman and Catholick Church are the same But I shall now wave that and consider Whether if that were allow'd the Church could now have the same Reason to declare the Points in difference to be Heresies as the Primitive Church had the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation of Christ. I am of opinion it cannot and yet if it could that alone is not sufficient to charge Heresie upon us And in making out of both these I shall argue from the Nature of Heresie as it is stated among their best Writers who agree that there are three Things necessary to make up the charge of Heresie 1. The Nature of the Proposition 2. The Authority of the Proponent 3. The obstinacy of the Party 1. The Nature of the Proposition for it is allowed among them that there is a difference between a Proposition Erroneous in Faith and Heretical But for our better understanding this matter I shall set down something very pertinently observed by Aquinas and others 1. Aquinas saith That Faith in us depends upon Divine Revelation not such as is made to any person but that which was made to the Prophets and Apostles which is preserved in the Canonical Books and therefore he saith the proofs from Scripture are necessary and convincing those from other Authorities are but probable Which is a Testimony of great Consequence in this matter for from hence it appears that whatsover Article of Faith is made necessary to be believed must be proved from Scripture and Heresie being an obstinate opposing a necessary Article of Faith there can be no Heresie where the Doctrine is not founded on Scripture And elsewhere he makes the principles of Faith to be the Authorities of the Scripture 2. That all matters of Faith are not equally revealed in Scripture For some he saith are principally designed as the Trinity and Incarnation and these are directly against Faith and to hold the contrary to them especially with obstinacy is Heresie but there are others which are indirectly against Faith from whence something follows which overthrows Faith as for any one to deny that Samuel was the son of Helcanah the consequence would be that the Scripture was false 3. He makes a distinction between those who discern the Repugnancy and continue obstinate and those who do not not intending to maintain any thing contrary to Faith and in this case there may be an erroneous opinion in Faith without Heresie So that an erroneous opinion lies in not attending to the Consequence of that Opinion as against Faith and not maintaining it obstinately But he asserts it to be in the Churches Power to declare such an opinion to be against Faith and then he makes it Heretical to deny it His Instance is about the five Notions of the Trinity and his Conclusion is That it cannot be Heretical in it self to have different Opinions about them but it is very hard to understand how the Church by its declaration can make the holding one or the other opinion to be more or less repugnant to Faith. But then the Reason of Heresie must be resolved into the Authority of the Church of which afterwards yet still Scripture is the Rule by which the Church is to judg 4 That there are some things revealed in Scripture which immediately tend to make mankind happy and those are the Articles of Faith which all men are bound to believe explicitely other things are revealed by accident or secondarily as that Abraham had two Sons that David was the Son of Jesse Now as to these latter points he saith That it is enough to have an inward preparation of mind to believe all that is contained in Scripture and those things in particular as soon as they are known to be there But we believe all persons bound to search the Scriptures that they may know what is contained therein However we gain this point hereby that by their own Doctrine besides the Articles of Faith receiv'd on both sides no other points can become necessary till they be made appear to us to be contained in Scripture otherwise it is sufficient for us to be ready to believe whatever is contained therein And consequently we cannot be charged with Heresie for rejecting them Alphonsus a Castro makes this distinction between Heresie and a Proposition erroneous in Faith That the former is against such a point of Faith as all men are bound to believe but there are some Propositions he saith relating to Faith wherein a man is under no
should tumble down together what would become of us both Never fear that saith he But how should I help fearing of it Have any that he carried thither come back and assured others of the safety of the passage No. But how then Why saith he You are bound to believe what he saith for he affirms that he can do it But saith the Traveller this is very hard I must venture Body and Soul upon his skill and strength and I must take his Word that he hath both This seems very unreasonable to me and therefore I am resolved to take the other course which tho it do not make such big boasts of it self is much more likely to be safe in the conclusion having better Reason on its side and requiring a more constant care of my self to which God hath promis'd more of his Grace and Assistance to secure me from all fatal mistakes of my way Where I mention Doctrines so universally received in the Christian Church from the Apostles times as those in the Creeds The Defender makes a notable Exception As if saith he any part of the universal Christian Doctrine were lost and all had not beâ—n always as universally retained as the Creeds Then I hope all the Points in Controversy between us and them can be proved by as clear and evident a Succession as the Articles of the Creeds If he can do this he will be a â—ampion indeed I desire him to take his choice either Supremacy Transubstantiation Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church or which he pleases I grant all true Christian Doctrine was universally retained as far as the Rule of it was so received but if he means any of those distinguishing points between us and them when he comes to make it out he will be of another mind 3. A third Inconvenience objected in the Papers against the want of an infallible Judg was That Scripture would be interpreted by Fancy which is the same thing as to follow Fancy To this it was answer'd 1. That our Church owns the Creeds Councils Fathers and Primitive Church more frankly than any other Church and therefore cannot be suspected to leave Scripture to be so interpreted The Replier saith We only pretend it and do it not That is to be proved for bare saying it will never convince us But his proof is because if we had done it we had never deserted the Church of Rome and our Answer is we therefore deserted the Communion of that Church because She required owning things from us for which She had no Authority either from Scripture Creeds Councils or Fathers The Defender would have me answer directly Whether it be not the same to follow Fancy as to interpret Scripture by it As tho I were examined at the Catechism which requires all answers to be made by Yea or Nay I said enough to shew the Question doth not concern us for we do not allow Persons to interpret Scripture by Fancy And withal 2. I asked some other Questions to shew That those who pretend to Infallibity may do things as unreasonable as leaving Scripture to be interpreted by Fancy And I have our Saviours example for answering one question with another The Instances I gave were these The Church of Romes assuming to it self the Power of interpreting the Rule which concerns its own Power of interpreting which was to make it Judg in its own Cause and to give it as great Power as if it made the Rule and I further added that Interest is as mischievous an Interpreter of Scripture as Fancy and therefore those who are so much concerned are not to be relied on either in Councils or out The Power of declaring Tradition is as Arbitrary a thing in the Church of Rome as interpreting Scripture by Fancy There being no other Rule allowed by it but the Sense of the present Church The Replier like a fair Adversary gives his answer plainly which consists in two things 1. That their Church gives no Sense of Scripture but what She received from Tradition of the foregoing Church and so he calls it Apostolical Tradition But suppose there happen a Question whether it be so or not must not all be resolved into the Authority of the present Church declaring what is Apostolical Tradition And so it comes all to one 2. He saith Tradition is publick and Fancy is private But I say according to their Rules Tradition is but publick Fancy and so Fancy in particular Persons is a private Tradition but whether publick or private if it be equally Arbitrary the Case is alike The Defender saith All this is besides the Business and therefore slides off as well as he can with some slight touches which deserve no Answer 4. If there be no infallible Judg the Power of deciding matters of Faith will be given to every particular man for which no place can be shewed The Answer was That if by deciding matters of Faith no more be meant but every mans being satisfied of the Reasons why he believes one thing to be true and not another that belongs to every man as he is bound to take care of his Soul and must give an account both to God and Man of the Reason of his Faith. This the Replier saith is bringing every Article of Faith to the Test of ones own Reason whereas Authority is the Correlative of Believing and Reason of Knowledg We do not pretend that every one that believes should be able to judg from meer Principles of Reason of the Credibility of the Doctrine propos'd it is sufficient if he finds it to be of Divine Revelation by being contained in Gods word And it is not the Authority of the Church but of Divine Revelation which Faith bottoms upon the former is no more than an inducement to believe those Books we call Scripture to contain the word of God in them But when we find any Doctrine therein we account that sufficient Reason for believing it The Defender finds no fault with our saying We ought to be satisfied of the Reason why we believe but the Question he puts is Whether there be indeed any Reasons why they should believe besides the Authority of the Church He doth not deny that particular Men ought to judg but the meaning of the Papers he saith is that they ought not to judg unreasonably Then we have no difference for I assure him I never pleaded for mens judging unreasonably The Question then between us is Whether those who do not believe upon the Infallible Authority of the Roman Catholick Church Do judg unreasonably i. e. Whether there be equal Grounds to believe the Roman Catholick Church Infallible as there are to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God We utterly deny the Roman Churches Infallibility to be necessary to our believing the Scripture for we receive that by an Universal Tradition from all the Apostolical Churches which is as clear for this as it is wanting for the