one of these three Answers 1. That it is a Principle to be supposed for though it be supposed as to the particular debate depending on Scripture yet it is fond and absurd to say It must be supposed when it is the thing in question 2. That it is known meerly by its own Light for the person I have to deal with supposing himself equally capable to judge of Reason and Evidence as my self it doth but betray the weakness of my cause or my inability to manage it to pretend that to be evident which it is much more evident that he doth not think so and it is only to tell him my Vnderstanding must rule his and that whatever appears to me to have Light in it self ought likewise so appear to him 3. It is as absurd as either of the other two to say That you will prove to a rational Enquirer the Scripture to be Gods Word by an unwritten Word of God For 1. His Enquiry is Whether there be any Word of God or no you prove there is because there is for that is all you prove by your unwritten Word He denies or at least questions Whether there be any and particularly instanceth in Scripture you think to end the Question by telling him He must believe it to be so because there is another Word of God which attests it which instead of ending the first Question begets a great many more For 2. He will be more to seek concerning this unwritten Word than before because he might use his Reason in judging concerning the written Word but cannot as to this unwritten it being only told him There is such a thing but he knows not what it is how far it extends who must deliver it what evidence this hath beyond the other that it comes from God that it must be used as an argument to prove it with If you send him to the Infallibility of the Church you must either presume him of a very weak Vnderstanding or else he would easily discern your perfect jugling in this the veins of which I have discovered throughout this discourse There remains nothing then but Reason a Principle common to us both by which I must prove that the Scriptures are from God which Reason partly makes use of the Churches Tradition not in any notion of Infallibility but meerly as built on Principles common to humane nature and partly uses those other arguments which prove by the greatest rational evidence that the Doctrine contained in Scripture was from God and if this were all the meaning of saying The Scriptures are a Principle supposed because of a different way of proving them from particular objects of Faith you can have no reason to deny it The next thing his Lordship insists on is That the Jews never had nor can have any other proof that the Old Testament is the Word of God than we have of the New In your Answer to which I grant that which you contend for That the Tradition of Scriptures among them was by their immediate Ancestors as well as others I grant That their Faith was not a Scientifical Knowledge but a firm perfect assurance only but understand not what you mean by saying That otherwise it would not be meritorious but am as far to seek as ever for any Infallibility in the Jewish Church which should in every age be the ground of believing the Books of the Old Testament to be divinely inspired And if you will prove a constant succession of Prophets from Moses till our Saviour's appearing which you seem willing to believe you would do something towards it but for your permanent Infallible Authority in the High Priest and his Clergy I have already shewed it to be a groundless if not a wilful mistake What remains concerning the nature of Infallibility which at last his Lordship makes to be no more than that which excludes all possibility of doubting and therefore grants that an Infallible Assurance may be had by Ecclesiastical and Humane proof and how far that is requisite to Faith concerning moral Certainty and what Assurance may be had by it concerning the Canon of Scripture Apostolical Tradition the unwritten Word S. Austin 's Testimony about the Church they are all points so fully discussed before that out of pity to the Reader I must referr him to their several places which when he hath throughly considered I will give him leave to summ up the several victories you have obtained in the management of it which will be much more honourable for you than for your self to do it as you do most triumphantly in the end of this Controversie concerning the Resolution of Faith And although I have not been much surprized with your attempts yet I shall heartily conclude this great Debate with your last words in it The Consequence I leave to the serious consideration of the Judicious Reader I beseech God he may make benefit of it to his eternal felicity 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 entered 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 Vnity 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 St. 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 dependance on the Church of Rome The several testimonies to the contrary of St. Ambrose St. Hierome John Patriarch of Constantinople St. 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 St. Cyprian St. Hierom St. Greg. Nazianzene St. Cyril and Ruffinus about the infallibility of the Church of Rome justified From all which it appears that the making the roman-Roman-Church to be the Catholick is a great Novelty and perfect Jesuitism SInce so great and considerable parts of the Christian Church have in these last ages been divided in communion from each other the great contest and enquiry hath been which party stands guilty of the cause of the present distance and separation For both sides retain still so much of their common Christianity as to acknowledge that no Religion doth so strictly oblige the owners of it to peace and unity as the Christian Religion doth and yet notwithstanding this we finde these
and fully in these words T is too true indeed that there is a miserable rent in the Church and I make no question but the best men do most bemoan it nor is he a Christian that would not have Vnity might he have it with Truth But I never said nor thought that the Protestants made this rent The cause of the Schism is yours for you thrust us from you because we call'd for truth and redress of abuses For a Schism must needs be theirs whose the cause of it is The woe runs full out of the mouth of Christ ever against him that gives the offence not against him that takes it ever And in the Margent shewing that a separation may sometimes be necessary he instanceth in the orthodox departing from the communion of the Arrians upon which he sayes It cannot be that a man should do well in making a Schism There may be therefore a necessary separation which yet incurrs not the guilt of Schism and that is when Doctrines are taught contrary to the Catholick Faith And after saith The Protestants did not depart for departure is voluntary so was not theirs I say not theirs taking their whole body and cause together For that some among them were peevish and some ignorantly zealous is neither to be doubted nor is there danger in confessing it Your body is not so perfect I wot well but that many amongst you are as pettish and as ignorantly zealous as any of ours You must not suffer for these nor we for those nor should the Church of Christ for either And when A. C. saith That though the Church of Rome did thrust the Protestants from her by excommunication yet they had first divided themselves by obstinate holding and teaching Opinions contrary to the Roman Faith His Lordship answers So then in his Opinion Excommunication on their part was not the prime cause of this division but the holding and teaching of contrary Opinions Why but then in my opinion saith he that holding and teaching was not the prime cause neither but the corruptions and superstitions of Rome which forced many men to hold and teach the contrary So the prime cause was theirs still And A. C. telling him That he said that it was ill done of those who first made the separation He answers That though he remembred not that he said those words yet withall adds If I did not say it then I do say it now and most true it is That it was ill done of those whoere they were who first made the separation But then A. C. must not understand me of Actual only but of Causal separation For as I said before the Schism is theirs whose the cause of it is and he makes the separation that gives the first just cause of it not he that makes an actual separation upon a just cause preceding And this is so evident a Truth that A. C. cannot deny it for he sayes it is most true These passages I have laid together that the Reader may clearly understand the full state of this great Controversie concerning Schism the upshot of which is that it is agreed between both parties that all separation from communion with a Church doth not involve in it the guilt of Schism but only such a separation as hath no sufficient cause or ground for it So that the Question comes to this Whether your Church were not guilty of such errours and corruptions as gave sufficient cause for such a separation The Question being thus stated we now come to consider how you make good your part in it Your first pretence is if reduced into argument for you seem to have a particular pique against a close way of disputing That your Church is a right and orthodox Church and therefore could never give any just cause of separation from it For the Lady asked as A. C. would have it Whether the Roman Church was not the right Church not be not but was not that is relating to the times before the breach was made Now his Lordship tells him That as to the terms he might take his choice For the Church of Rome neither is nor was the right Church as the Lady desired to hear A particular Church it is and was and in some times right and in some times wrong but the right Church or the Holy Catholick Church it never was nor ever can be And therefore was not such before Luther and others left it or were thrust from it A particular Church it was but then A. C. is not distinct enough here neither For the Church of Rome both was and was not a right or orthodox Church before Luther made a breach from it For the word ante before may look upon Rome and that Church a great way off or long before and then in the prime times of it it was a most right and orthodox Church But it may look also nearer home and upon the immediate times before Luther or some ages before that and then in those times Rome was a corrupt and tainted Church far from being Right And yet both these times before Luther made his breach And so he concludes that Section with this clause That the Roman Church which was once right is now become wrong by embracing superstition and errour And what say you now to all this Two things you have to return in answer to it or at least to these two all that you say may be reduced 1. That if the Roman Church was right once it is so still 2. That if the Roman Church were wrong before Luther the Catholick Church was so too These two containing all that is said in this case must be more particularly discussed 1. That if the Roman was the right Church it still is so seeing no change can be shewn in her Doctrine If there have been a change let it appear when and in what the change was made Thus you say but you know his Lordship never granted that the Roman Church ever was the right Church in the sense you take those words for the true Catholick Church that it was once a right particular Church he acknowledged and as such was afterwards tainted with errours and corruptions If so you desire to know what these were and when they came in to the former I shall reserve an Answer till I come to the third part of my task where you shall have an account of them to the latter the time when these came in because this is so much insisted on by your party I shall return you an Answer in this place And that I shall do in these following Propositions 1. Nothing can be more unreasonable than to deny that errours and corruptions have come into a Church meerly because the punctual time of their coming in cannot be assigned For Will any one question the birth of an Infant because he cannot know the time of his conception Will any one deny there are tares in the field because
down the punctual time of their first on-set The distempers of your Church are Hectical I wish not in that respect that they are seldome fully discovered till they be incurable 2. You answer That if your Church hath erred the Catholick Church hath done so too for which you say two things 1. That in this dispute the Roman Church and the Catholick Church are all one 2. That then there was no one visible Church untainted uncorrupt right orthodox throughout the whole world 1. You learnedly tell us That the Roman and Catholick Church are all one in this dispute and most discreetly tell his Lordship That he beggs the Question in supposing the contrary but you know whose arts those are to charge their neighbours with that they were sure to be told of themselves if the other had spoke first But very worthily you prove this from D. Stapleton who offers to confirm his assertion by that which overthrows yours He sayes That amongst the Ancients the Roman Church and the Catholick Church were taken for the same and his reason is because the communion of the Roman Church was most certainly and evidently with the whole Catholick And Can any thing then be more plain than that the Roman and Catholick Church were not the same For Can any thing be the measure of it self If it were therefore Catholick because agreeing with the Catholick Church then it was not causally the Catholick Church but only by way of communion and participation If I should say That a man and a living-creature are the same and should give this reason for it Because man agrees in every thing with the nature of a living creature doth this imply that the formal notion of man and a living-creature are the same or only that man partakes so much of the properties of a living creature that he may well receive the denomination So it is here with the Roman Church that might well be called Catholick by the Ancients because it did partake of the properties of the Catholick Church but not as though the formal Reason of a Churches being Catholick came from partaking of communion with the Roman Church as you assert wherein you are diametrically opposite to Stapleton for he makes the reason why the Roman Church was Catholick to be Because it had communion with the Catholick Church By which it is evident that the notion of the Catholick Church was much larger than that of the Roman Church Besides Stapleton only saith That the Ancients thought so and surely they thought so only of the Roman Church of their own time which might then have certain communion with the Catholick Church and yet not have so in the next age ensuing therefore though the Catholick Church continue ever the same and incorrupt it will by no means follow that the Roman Church must do so too Whatever A. C. or you understand by the Catholick Church is not as you elsewhere phrase it a straws matter unless you proved better than you have done that the proper notion of the Holy Catholick Church is the same with those who agree with the Church of Rome in Doctrine and Communion Which is your fundamental mistake and a thing you would fain have taken for granted without the least shadow of a solid proof But there may be more force in your second Answer That if the Roman Church were wrong and corrupted it follows that not only for some time but for many ages before Luther yea even up to the Apostles times there was no one visible Church untainted uncorrupt right orthodox throughout the whole world It were worth our while to know what you mean by no one Visible Church Do you think there are or may be more Visible Churches than one taking the Visible Church in its proper sense for the Catholick Visible Church If this be your meaning in general how unhappily soever it be expressed viz. that then it follows there could be no Visible Church at all with whom we might have communion I see not how it is proved by what you bring But if this be all you aim at for no further your arguments will carry you that there was no one Visible Church untainted i. e. no one Church of a distinct communion from other Churches altogether free from errour I see no such dangerous consequence in the owning it But if it were so when Luther began to oppose the corruptions of the Church of Rome How doth it follow that it must be so even up to the Apostles times But we ought to see how you prove your assertion For if in all those Ages the Roman Church were wrong corrupted and tainted and all those likewise that disagreed from her viz. Hussites Albigenses Waldenses Wicklevites Greeks Abyssins Armenians c. had in them corrupt Doctrine during those ages as 't is certain they had neither could the Relator deny it I say If the Roman Church was thus corrupt it follows that not only for some time but for many ages before Luther yea even up to the Apostles times there was no one Visible Church untainted incorrupt right and orthodox throughout the whole world And consequently that during the said ages every good Christian was in conscience obliged in some point of Christian belief or other to contradict the Doctrine and desert the communion of all Visible Churches in the world c. Whence it would further follow that Schism or separation from the external communion of the whole Church might be not only lawful but even necessary which is impossible as being contrary to the very essential predicates of Schism which is defined to be A voluntary or wilful departure such as no just cause or reason can be given of it from the communion of the whole Church Three things this discourse of yours may be resolved into 1. That if in Luthers time the Roman Church was corrupt then there was no one Visible Church uncorrupt 2. That if so it follows that there was none uncorrupt even up to the Apostles times 3. That if there were no one Visible Church uncorrupt then it was necessary to separate from the external communion of the whole Church To every one of these I shall return a peculiar and distinct Answer To the first I say That the utmost you can prove from hence is That there was no one Church of any distinct communion from others which was free from all errours And what great absurdity is there in saying so Unless you could prove that there must be some one Church in all ages of the world which must be free from all kind or possibility of errour And when you have done this I shall acknowledge it absurd to say the contrary but otherwise that very supposition seems to have the greater absurdity in it because it restrains the utmost supposable priviledges of the truly Catholick Church to a particular Church of some one denomination What then if we grant that in Luthers time there was no
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
formal guilt of Schism it being impossible any person should have just cause to disown the Churches Communion for any thing whose belief is necessary to salvation And whosoever doth so thereby makes himself no member of the Church because the Church subsists on the belief of Fundamental truths But in all such cases wherein a division may be made and yet the several persons divided retain the essentials of a Christian Church the separation which may be among any such must be determined according to the causes of it For it being possible of one side that men may out of capricious humours and fancies renounce the Communion of a Church which requires nothing but what is just and reasonable and it being possible on the other side that a Church calling her self Catholick may so far degenerate in Faith and practise as not only to be guilty of great errours and corruptions but to impose them as conditions of Communion with her it is necessary where there is a manifest separation to enquire into the reasons and grounds of it and to determine the nature of it according to the justice of the cause which is pleaded for it And this I hope may help you a little better to understand what is meant by such who say There can be no just cause of Schism and how little this makes for your purpose But you go on and I must follow And to his calling for truth c. I Answer What Hereticks ever yet forsook the Church of God but pretended truth and complain'd they were thrust out and hardly dealt with meerly because they call'd for truth and redress of abuses And I pray what Church was ever so guilty of errours and corruptions but would call those Hereticks and Schismaticks who found fault with her Doctrine or separated from her Communion It is true Hereticks pretend truth and Schismaticks abuses but is it possible there should be errours and corruptions in a Churches Communion or is it not if not prove but that of your Church and the cause is at an end if it be we are to examine whether the charge be true or no. For although Hereticks may pretend truth and others be deceived in judging of it yet doubtless there is a real difference between truth and errour If you would never have men quarrel with any Doctrine of your Church because Hereticks have pretended truth would not the same reason hold why men should never enquire after Truth Reason or Religion because men have pretended to them all which have not had them It is therefore a most senseless cavil to say we have no reason to call for truth because Hereticks have done so and on the same grounds you must not be call'd Catholicks because Hereticks have been call'd so But those who have been Hereticks were first proved to be so by making it appear that was a certain truth which they denyed do you the same by us prove those which we call errours in your Church to be part of the Catholick and Apostolick Faith prove those we account corruptions to be parts of Divine worship and we will give you leave to call us Hereticks and Schismaticks but not before But say you He should have reflected that the Church of God is stiled a City of Truth by the Prophet and so it may be and yet your Church be a fortress of Errour And a pillar and foundation of Truth by the Apostle but what is this to the Church of Romes being so And by the Fathers a rich depository or Treasury of all Divine and Heavenly Doctrines so it was in the sense the Fathers took the Church in for the truly Catholick Christian Church And we may use the same expressions still of the Church as the Prophets Apostles and Fathers did and nevertheless charge your Church justly with the want of truth and opposition to the preaching of it and on that ground justly forsake her Communion which is so far from being inexcusable impiety and presumption that it was only the performance of a necessary Christian duty And therefore that Woe of scandal his Lordship mentioned still returns upon your party who gave such just cause of offence to the Christian world and making it necessary for all such as aimed at the purity of the Christian Church to leave your Communion when it could not be enjoyed without making shipwrack both of Faith and a good Conscience And this is so clear and undeniable to follow you still in your own language that we dare appeal for a tryal of our cause to any Assembly of learned Divines or what Judge and Jury you please provided they be not some of the parties accused and because you are so willing to have Learned Divines I hope you will believe the last Pope Innocent so far as not to mention the Pope and Cardinals What follows in Vindication of A. C. from enterfeiring and shuffling in his words because timorous and tender consciences think they can never speak with caution enough for fear of telling a lye will have the force of a demonstration being spoken of and by a Jesuite among all those who know what mortal haters they are of any thing that looks like a lye or aequivocation And what reason there is that of all persons in the world they should be judged men of timorous and tender consciences But whatever the words were which passed you justifie A. C. in saying That the Protestants did depart from the Church of Rome and got the Name of Protestants by protesting against her For this say you is so apparent that the whole world acknowledgeth it If you mean that the Communion of Protestants is distinct from yours Whoever made scruple of confessing it But because in those terms of departing leaving forsaking your Communion you would seem to imply that it was a voluntary act and done without any necessary cause enforcing it therefore his Lordship denyes that Protestants did depart for saith he departure is voluntary so was not theirs But because it is so hard a matter to explain the nature of that separation between your Church and Ours especially in the beginning of it without using those terms or some like them as when his Lordship saith that Luther made a breach from it It is sufficient that we declare that by none of these expressions we mean any causeless separation but only such acts as were necessarily consequential to the imposing your errours and corruptions as conditions of Communion with your Church To the latter part his Lordship answers That the Protestants did not get that name by Protesting against the Church of Rome but by Protesting and that when nothing else would serve against her errours and superstitions Do you but remove them from the Church of Rome our Protestation is ended and our Separation too This you think will be answered with our old put off That it is the common pretext of all Hereticks when they sever themselves from the Roman Catholick
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
Reformation vindicated The particular case of the Church of England discussed The proceedings in our Reformation defended The Church of England a true Church The National Synod 1562. a lawful Synod The Bishops no intruders in Queen Elizabeths time The justice and moderation of the Church of England in her Reformation The Popes Power here a forcible fraudulent usurpation HAving thus far examined your Doctrine of keeping Faith with Hereticks we now return to the main business concerning Schism And his Lordship saying That there is difference between departure out of the Church and causeless thrusting from you and therefore denying that it is in your power to thrust us out of the Church You answer by a Concession That we were thrust out from the Church of Rome but that it was not without cause Which that you might not seem to say gratis you pretend to assign the causes of our expulsion So that by your own confession the present division or separation lyes at the Church of Rome's door if it be not made evident that there were most just and sufficient reasons for her casting the Protestants out of her communion If therefore the Church of Rome did thrust the Protestants from her communion for doing nothing but what became them as members of the Catholick Church then that must be the Schismatical party and not the Protestants For supposing any Church though pretending to be never so Catholick doth restrain her communion within such narrow and unjust bounds that she declares such excommunicate who do not approve all such errours in doctrine and corruptions in practice which the Communion of such a Church may be liable to the cause of that division which follows falls upon that Church which exacts those conditions from the members of her Communion That i◠when the errours and corruptions are such as are dangerous to salvation For in this case that Church hath first divided her self from the Catholick Church for the Communion of that lying open and free to all upon the necessary conditions of Christian Communion whatever Church takes upon her to limit and inclose the bounds of the Catholick becomes thereby divided from the Communion of the Catholick Church and all such who disown such an unjust inclosure do not so much divide from the Communion of that Church so inclosing as return to the Communion of the Primitive and Vniversal Church The Catholick Church therefore lyes open and free like a Common-Field to all Inhabitants now if any particular number of these Inhabitants should agree together to enclose part of it without consent of the rest and not to admit any others to their right of Common without consenting to it which of these two parties those who deny to yield their consent or such who deny their rights if they will not are guilty of the violation of the publick and common rights of the place Now this is plainly the case between the Church of Rome and Ours the Communion of the Catholick Church lyes open to all such who own the Fundamentals of Christian Faith and are willing to joyn in the profession of them Now to these your Church adds many particular Doctrines which have no foundation in Scripture or the consent of the Primitive Church these and many superstitious practises are enjoyned by her as conditions of her Communion so that all those are debarred any right of Communion with her who will not approve of them by which it appears your Church is guilty of the first violation of the Vnion of the Catholick and whatever number of men are deprived of your Communion for not consenting to your usurpations do not divide themselves from you any further than you have first separated your selves from the Catholick Church And when your Church by this act is already separated from the Communion of the Catholick Church the disowning of those things wherein your Church is become Schismatical cannot certainly be any culpable separation For whatever is so must be from a Church so far as it is Catholick but in our case it is from a Church so far only as it is not Catholick i. e. so far as it hath divided her self from the Belief and Communion of the Vniversal Church But herein a great mistake is committed by you when you measure the Communion of the Catholick Church by the judgement of all or most of the particular Churches of such an Age which supposes that the Church of some one particular Age must of necessity be preserved from all errours and corruptions which there is no reason or necessity at all to assert and that is all the ground you have for saying That the separation of Protestants was not only from the Church of Rome but as Calvin confesseth à toto mundo from the whole Christian world and such a separation necessarily involves separation from the true Catholick Church Now to this we answer two things 1. That we have not separated from the whole Christian World in any thing wherein the whole Christian World is agreed but to disagree from the particular Churches of the Christian World in such things wherein those Churches differ among themselves is not to separate from the Christian World but to disagree in some things from such particular Churches As I hope you will not say That man is divided from all mankind who doth in some feature or other differ from any one particular man but although he doth so he doth not differ from any in those things which are common to all for that were to differ from all but when he only differs from one in the colour of his eyes from another in his complexion another in the air of his countenance and so in other things this man though he should differ from every particular man in the world in something or other yet is a man still as well as any because he agrees with them in that in which they all agree which is Humane nature and differs only in those things wherein they differ from each other And therefore from the disagreement of the Protestants from any one particular Church it by no means follows that they separated from the whole Christian World and therefore from the true Catholick Church 2. The Communion of the Catholick Church is not to be measured by the particular opinions and practices of all or any particular Churches but by such things which are the proper Foundations of the Catholick Church For there can be no separation from the true Catholick Church but in such things wherein it is Catholick now it is not Catholick in any thing but what properly relates to its Being and Constitution For whatever else there is however universal it may be is extrinsecal to the nature and notion of the Catholick Church and therefore supposing a separation from the Church in what is so extrinsecal and accidental it is no proper separation from the Catholick Church As for Instance supposing all men were agreed that some particular
habit should be worn all over the world will you say That any number of men who found this habit extremely inconvenient for them and therefore should disuse it did on that account separate from humane nature and ceased to be men by it Such is the case of any particular Churches laying aside some customes or ceremonies which in some one age of the Church or more the greatest part of Christian Churches were agreed in the practice of for although this general practice should make men more diligent in enquiry and careful in what they did yet if such a Church having power to govern it self see reason to alter it it doth not separate from the Communion of the Catholick Church therein and therefore doth not cease to be a Church For there is no culpable separation from the Church Catholick but what relates to it properly as Catholick now that doth not relate to it as Catholick which it may be Catholick without now certainly you cannot have so little reason as to assert that the Church cannot be Catholick without such extrinsecal and accidental agreements And from hence it follows That no Church can be charged with a separation from the true Catholick Church but what may be proved to separate it self in some thing necessary to the Being of the Catholick Church and so long as it doth not separate as to these essentials it cannot cease to be a true member of the Catholick Church If you would therefore prove that the Church of England upon the Reformation is separated from the true Catholick Church you must not think it enough to say which as weakly as commonly is said That no one particular Church can be named which in all things agreed with it for that only proves that she differed from particular Churches in such things wherein they differed from each other but that she is divided from all Christian Churches in such things wherein they are all agreed and which are essential to the Being of the Catholick Church when you have proved this you may expect a further Answer This then can be no cause why your Church should expel the Protestants out of her Communion but it shews us sufficient cause to believe that your Church had separated her self from the Communion of the Catholick For which we must further consider that although nothing separates a Church properly from the Catholick but what is contrary to the Being of it yet a Church may separate her self from the Communion of the Catholick by taking upon her to make such things the necessary conditions of her Communion which never were the conditions of Communion with the Catholick Church As for Instance Though we should grant Adoration of the Eucharist Invocation of Saints and Veneration of Images to be only superstitious practices taken up without sufficient grounds in the Church yet since it appears that the Communion of the Catholick Church was free for many hundred years without approving or using these things that Church which shall not only publickly use but enjoyn such things upon pain of excommunication from the Church doth as much as in her lyes draw the bounds of Catholick Communion within her self and so divides her self from the true Catholick Church For whatever confines must likewise divide the Church for by that confinement a separation is made between the part confined and the other which separation must be made by the party so limiting Christian Communion As it was in the case of the Donatists who were therefore justly charged with Schism because they confined the Catholick Church within their own bounds And if any other Church doth the same which they did it must be liable to the same charge which they were The summ then of this discourse is That the Being of the Catholick Church lyes in Essentials that for a particular Church to disagree from all other particular Churches in some extrinsecal and accidental things is not to separate from the Catholick Church so as to cease to be a Church but still whatever Church makes such extrinsecal things the necessary conditions of Communion so as to cast men out of the Church who yield not to them is Schismatical in so doing for it thereby divides it self from the Catholick Church and the separation from it is so far from being Schism that being cast out of that Church on those terms only returns them to the Communion of the Catholick Church On which grounds it will appear that yours is the Schismatical Church and not ours For although before this imposing humour came into particular Churches Schism was defined by the Fathers and others to be a voluntary departure out of the Church yet that cannot in reason be understood of any particular but the true Catholick Church for not only persons but Churches may depart from the Catholick Church and in such cases not those who depart from the Communion of such Churches but those Churches which departed from the Catholick are guilty of the Schism These things I thought necessary to be further explained not only to shew how false that imputation is of our Churches departing from the true Catholick Church but with what great reason we charge your Church with departing from the Communion of it and therefore not those whom you thrust out of Communion but your Church so thrusting them out is apparently guilty of the present Schism But still you say Your Church had sufficient cause for the expulsion of Protestants out of her Communion and for this you barely repeat your former assertions and offer not at the proof of one of them as though you intended to carry your cause by the frequent repeating your Declaration But Sir it is the proof of what you say that we expect from you and not the bare telling us That Protestants are Schismaticks because they are Schismacicks When you will be at leisure to prove that the Protestants were guilty of Heretical Doctrine or Schismatical proceedings that they raised a new separate and mutinous faction of pretended Christians distinct from the one Catholick body of the Church by chusing new Pastors instituting new rites and ceremonies not in their power to do by Schismatical convening in several Synods and there broaching new heretical Confessions of Faith when I say You shall think good to prove all or any one of these you shall receive so full an Answer as will make it evident that the Protestants did not depart from the Catholick Churches Doctrine and Communion but that the Church of Rome is departed thence first by imposing erroneous Doctrines and superstitious practices as conditions of Communion and then by thrusting out all such as would not consent to them His Lordship disputing the terms on which a Separation in the Church may be lawful saith That corruption in manners only is no sufficient cause to make a separation in the Church And saith he This is as ingenuously confessed for you as by me For if corruption in manners were a
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 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
are absolutely and indispensably necessary to all persons to whom God's Word is revealed Thus much may suffice concerning what is necessary to be believed by particular persons considered as such But this controversie never need break Christian Societies in that sense but the great difficulty lyes in the other part of it which is most commonly strangely confounded with the former viz. What things are necessary to be owned in order to Church-Societies or Ecclesiastical Communion For which we must consider that the combination of Christian Societies oâ— that which we call the Catholick Church doth subsist upon the belief of what is necessary to Salvation For the very notion of a Christian Church doth imply the belief of all those things which are necessary in order to the end of Christian Religion which is mens eternal Happiness From whence three things must be taken notice of 1. That the very being of a Church doth suppose the necessity of what is required to be believed in order to Salvation For else there could not be such a thing as a Church imagined which is only a combination of men together upon the belief of such a Doctrine as necessary to Salvation and for the performance of those acts of Worship which are suitable thereto Therefore to assert the Church to have power to make things necessary to Salvation is not only absurd but destructive to the Being of that Church For when it offer'd to define any thing to be necessary which was not so before was it a Church or no If it was a Church it believed all things necessary if it believed all things necessary before it Defined how comes it to make more things necessary by its Definition But of this more afterwards 2. Whatever Church owns those things which are antecedently necessary to the Being of a Church cannot so long cease to be a true Church Because it retains that which is the Foundation of the Being of the Catholick Church Here we must distinguish those things in the Catholick Church which give its Being from those things which are the proper Acts of it as the Catholick Church As to this latter the solemn Worship of God in the way prescribed by him is necessary in order to which there must be supposed lawful Officers set in the Church and Sacraments duly administred but these I say are rather the Exercise of the Communion of the Catholick Church than that which gives its Being which is the belief of that Religion whereon its Subsistence and Vnity depends and as long as a Church retains this it keeps its Being though the Integrity and Perfection of it depends upon the due exercise of all acts of Communion in it 3. The Vnion of the Catholick Church depends upon the agreement of it in making the Foundations of its Being to be the grounds of its Communion For the Vnity being intended to preserve the Being there can be no reason given why the bonds of Vnion should extend beyond the Foundation of its Being which is the owning the things necessary to the Salvation of all From whence it necessarily follows that whatsoever Church imposeth the belief of other things as necessary to Salvation which were not so antecedently necessary to the Being of the Catholick Church doth as much as in it lyes break the Vnity of it and those Churches who desire to preserve its Vnity are bound thereby not to have communion with it so long as it doth so Of what great consequence these principles are to the true understanding the Distance between our Church and yours if you see not now you may feel afterwards These things being premised I come to that which is the main subject of the present Dispute which is What those things are which ought to be owned by all Christian-Societies as necessary to Salvation on which the Being of the Catholick Church depends If we can find any sure footing for the Definition of these we shall thereby find what the necessary conditions of Ecclesiastical Communion are and consequently where the proper cause of Schism lyes in transgressing those bounds and what Foundations may be laid for the Peace of the Christian world Which being of so vast importance would require a larger discussion than this place will admit of but so far as is pertinent to our present subject I shall enquire into it and give an account of my thoughts in these Propositions 1. Nothing ought to be owned as necessary to Salvation by Christian-Societies but such things which by the judgement of all those Societies are antecedently necessary to the Being of the Catholick Church For no reason can be assigned as I said before why the Bonds of Union should be extended beyond that which is the Churches Foundation neither can there any reason be given why any thing else should be judged necessary to the Churches Communion but what all those Churches who do not manifestly dissent from the Catholick Church of the first Ages are agreed in as necessary to be believed by all this will be further explained afterwards Only I add here when I speak of the necessary conditions of Ecclesiastical Communion I speak of such things which must be owned as Necessary Articles of Faith and not of any other Agreements for the Churches Peace I deny not therefore but that in case of great Divisions in the Christian world and any National Churches reforming it self that Church may declare its sense of those abuses in Articles of Religion and require of men a Subscription to them but then we are to consider that there is a great deal of difference between the owning some Propositions in order to Peace and the believing of them as necessary Articles of Faith And this is clearly the state of the difference between the Church of Rome and the Church of England The Church of Rome imposeth new Articles of Faith to be believed as necessary to Salvation as appears by the formerly cited Bull of Pius 4. Which Articles contain in them the Justification of those things which are most excepted against by other Churches and by her imposing these as the conditions of her Communion she makes it necessary for other Churches who would preserve the Vnity of the Catholick Church upon her true Foundations to forbear her Communion But the Church of England makes no Articles of Faith but such as have the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Christian world of all ages and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self and in other things she requires Subscription to them not as Articles of Faith but as Inferiour Truths which she expects a submission to in order to her Peace and Tranquillity So the late learned L. Primate of Ireland often expresseth the sense of the Church of England as to her thirty nine Articles Neither doth the Church of England saith he define any of these Questions as necessary to be believed either necessitate medii or necessitate praecepti which is much less but only bindeth
which supposing it never so great is not shewed to the Councils but to your Church For the reason of that Reverence cannot be resolved into the Councils but into that Church for whose sake you reverence them And thus it evidently appears That the cunning of this device is wholly your own and notwithstanding these miserable shifts you do finally resolve all Authorities of the Fathers Councils and Scriptures into the Authority of the present Roman-Church which was the thing to be proved The first Absurdity consequent from hence which the Arch-Bishop chargeth your party with is That by this means they ascribe as great Authority if not greater to a part of the Catholick Church as to the whole which we believe in our Creed and which is the Societie of all Christians And this is full of Absurdity in nature in reason in all things that any part should be of equal worth power credit or authority with the whole Here you deny the Consequence which you say depends upon his Lordships wilfully mistaken Notion of the Catholick Church which he saith Is the Church we believe in our Creed and is the Society of all Christians which you call a most desperate extension of the Church because thereby forsooth it will appear that a part is not so great as the whole viz. that the Roman-Church in her full latitude is but a piece or parcel of the Catholick Church believed in our Creed Is this all the desperate Absurdity which follows from his Lordships Answer I pray shew it to have any thing tending to an Absurdity in it And though you confidently tell us That the roman-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-Roman-Church in its largest sense is the sole and whole Catholick Church or that the present roman-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
breaches so farr from closing that supposing the same grounds to continue a reconciliation seems to humane reason impossible An evidence of which is that those persons who either out of a generous desire of seeing the wounds of the Christian world healed or out of some private interest or design have made it their business to propound terms of reconciliation between the divided parties have been equally rejected by those parties they have professed themselves the members of For whether any of the Roman Communion have ingenuously confessed the great corruptions crept into that Church and desired a reformation of them or any of the Protestant Communion have endeavoured to excuse palliate or plead for the corruptions of the Roman Church we find how little incouragement they have had for such undertakings from that Church whose Communion they have professed to retain The distance then being so great as it is it is a very necessary enquiry what the cause of it is and where the main fault lies and it being acknowledged that there is a possibility that corruptions may get into a Christian Church and it being impossible to prove that Christianity obligeth men to communicate with a Church in all those corruptions its Communion may be tainted with it seems evident to reason that the cause of the breach must lye there where the corruptions are owned and imposed as conditions of Communion For can any one imagine it should be a fault in any to keep off from Communion where they are so far from being obliged to it that they have an obligation to the contrary from the prinples of their common Christianity and where men are bound not to communicate it is impossible to prove their not communicating to be Schism For there can be no Schism but where there is an obligation to communion Schism being nothing else but a willful violation of the bonds of Christian Communion and therefore when ever you would prove the Protestants guilty of Schism you must do it by proving they were bound to communicate with your Church in those things which they are Protestants for disowning of Or that there is so absolute and unlimited an obligation to continue in the Society of your Church that no conditions can be so hard but we are bound rather to submit to them than not joyn in Communion with you But we who look on the nature of a Christian Society in general the Foundations of its constitution the ends and designs of it cannot think our selves obliged to Communion in those things which undermine those Foundations and contradict those ends This being a matter of so vast consequence in order to the settling mens minds in the present disputes of the Christian world before I come to particulars I shall lay down those general principles which may manifest how free Protestants are from all imputation of Schism Schism then importing a violation of that Communion which we are obliged to the most natural way for understanding what Schism is is to enquire what the Foundations are of Christian Communion and how far the bonds of it do extend Now the Foundations of Christian Communion in general depend upon the acknowledgement of the truth of Christian Religion For that Religion which Christ came to deliver to the world being supposed true is the reason why any look on themselves as obliged to profess it which obligation extending to all persons who have the same grounds to believe the truth of it thence ariseth the ground of Society in this profession which is a common obligation on several persons joyning together in some acts of common concernment to them The truth then of Christian Religion being acknowledged by several persons they find in this Religion some actions which are to be performed by several persons in Society with each other From whence ariseth that more immediate obligation to Christian Society in all those who profess themselves Christians and the whole number of these who own the truth of Christian Religion and are thereby obliged to joyn in Society with each other is that which we call the Catholick Church But although there be such a relation to each other in all Christians as to make them one common Society yet for the performance of particular acts of communion there must be lesser Societies wherein persons may joyn together in the actions belonging to them But still the obligation to communion in these lesser is the same with that which constitutes the great body of Christians which is the owning Christianity as the only true Religion and way to eternal Happiness And therefore those lesser Societies cannot in justice make the necessary conditions of communion narrower than those which belong to the Catholick Church i. e. those things which declare men Christians ought to capacitate them for communion with Christians But here we are to consider that as to be a Christian supposeth mens owning the Christian Religion to be true so the conveyance of that Religion being to us now in those Books we call the Scriptures there must be an acknowledgement of them as the indispensable rule of Faith and manners which is That these Books are the great Charter of the Christian Society according to which it must be governed These things being premised as the foundation in general of Christian Society we shall the better understand how far the obligation to communion in it doth extend For which it must be considered that the grounds of continuance in Communion must be suitable and proportionable to the first reason of entering into it No man being obliged by vertue of his being in a Society to agree in any thing which tends to the apparent ruine of that Society but he is obliged to the contrary from the general grounds of his first admission into it His primary obligation being to preserve the honour and interest of it and to joyn in acts of it so far as they tend to it Now the main end of the Christian Society being the promotion of Gods honour and the salvation of mens souls the primary obligation of men entering into it is the advancement of these ends to joyn in all acts of it so far as they tend to these ends but if any thing come to be required directly repugnant to these ends those men of whom such things are required are bound not to communicate in those lesser Societies where such things are imposed but to preserve their communion with the Catholick Society of Christians But these general discourses seeming more obscure it will be necessary for the better subserviency of them to our design to deduce them into particulars Setting then aside the Catholick Society of Christians we come to enquire how far men are bound to communicate with any lesser Society how extensive so ever it may pretend its communion to be 1. There is no Society of Christians of any one Communion but may impose some things to be believed or practised which may be repugnant to the
freely expatiate super hanc â—etram Touching Ruffinus I grant his Lordship is of opinion That he neither did nor could account the Roman Church Infallible for which he gives this reason For if he had so esteemed of it he would not have dissented from it in so main a point as is the Canon of Scripture as he plainly doth For reckoning up the Canonical Books he most manifestly dissents from the Roman Church Therefore either Ruffinus did not think the Church of Rome was Infallible or else the Church of Rome at this day reckons up more Books within the Canon than heretofore she did If she do then she is changed in a main point of Faith the Canon of Scripture and is absolutely convinced not to be Infallible for if she were right in her reckoning then she is wrong now and if she be right now she was wrong then and if she do not reckon now more then she did when Ruffinus lived then he reckons fewer than she and so dissents from her which doubtless he durst not have done had he thought her judgement Infallible Yea and he sets this mark upon his dissent besides that he reckons up the Books of the Canon just so and no otherwise then as he received them out of the Monuments of the fore-Fathers and out of which the assertions of our Faith are to be taken Now what have you to say to this strong and nervous Discourse of his Lordship Why forsooth this argument of the Bishop is far from being convincing And why so For say you though it should be granted that the Catholick Church the Roman you mean at present declares more books to be contained in the Canon than she did in Ruffinus his time yet this could be no errour in her That is strange that the Church should declare the Canon to be compleat then without these books and now not to be and yet neither time be in an errour No say you unless it be shewed which I am sure cannot be that she condemned those books then as not Divine Scripture or not Canonical which now she declares to be Divine or Canonical Excellent good still that which you are sure cannot be shewed is obvious to any one that hath eyes in his head For I only ask you Whether the Church of Rome did declare any Canon or no in that age If not according to your principles those who lived in that age could have no Divine Faith as to the Scripture if she did declare the Canon of Scripture without these Books did she not thereby condemn these Books to be not Canonical For you say that all are bound to take her judgement what is in the Canon and what not if therefore she did not put them into the Canon did she not leave them out of the Canon or Can you find any medium between being put in and being left out Yes say you these Books were left then under dispute with whom were they under dispute with the Church of Rome or not If with her was she not Infallible the mean while when so great a matter as the Canon of Scripture was under dispute with her But this whole business concerning the Canon of Scripture is largely discussed already only here it is sufficient to shew how you are pent in on every side so that there is no possibility of getting out As to the strait his Lordship takes notice of that the Church of Rome is driven to in borrowing a testimony for her Infallibility from one whom she branded with Heresie in that very Book from whence this testimony is taken You answer That it evidently argues the truth and uncorruptedness of that Church which is so clear that even her Adversaries cannot but confess it But if they confess it no better then Ruffinus doth she will have little cause to applaud her self for her Integrity in that respect And although a Testimony may be taken from persons suspected in some things yet it argues those have but very few friends who are fain to make use of their enemies to bear witness for them What follows concerning a particular Church being Infallible because you disown it although not consonantly to the principles of your party as was shewed in the occasion of the Conference I pass by The errours of the Church of Rome which his Lordship mentions but you say proves not you shall find abundantly proved before our task is over Your vindication of Bellarmin from inconsistency in saying A proposition is most true and yet but peradventure as true as another is so fine and subtil that it were an injury to the Reader to deprive him of the pleasure of perusing it And yet when all is done a Proposition very false might be as true as this which Bellarmin speaks of viz. That the Pope when he teacheth the whole Church in matters of Faith cannot erre And thus I have cleared that there can be no ground of an imputation of Schism on our Church from hence that the Roman Church is the Catholick Church which acception of the Catholick Church I have manifested to be as great a stranger to Antiquity as it is an enemy to Reason And that the calling the Roman Church the Catholick Church is as his Lordship truly saith a meer Novelty and perfect Jesuitism 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 Stapleton's confession the Roman and Catholick Church were not the same The falsity 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 one 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 BEfore I come to examine the particulars of this Chapter it will be necessary to see what the state of the Controversie was concerning Schism between his Lordship and his Adversary His Lordship delivers his sense clearly
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
Church If your Church indeed were what she is not the Catholick Church we might be what we are not Hereticks but think it not enough to prove us Hereticks that you call us so unless you will likewise take it for granted that the Pope is Antichrist and your Church the Whore of Babylon because they are as often and as confidently call'd so And if your Church be truly so as she is shrewdly suspected to be Do you think she and all her followers would not as confidently call such as dissented from her Hereticks and the using those expressions of her virulent execrations against her as you do now supposing her not to be so What therefore would belong to your Church supposing her as bad as any Protestants imagine her to be cannot certainly help to perswade us that she is not so bad as she is When you say still That Protestants did really depart from the Roman Church and in so doing remained separate from the whole Church you very fairly beg the thing in dispute and think us uncivil for denying it You know not what that passage means That the Protestants did not voluntarily depart taking their whole body and cause together since there is no obscurity in the expression but a defect elsewhere I can only say That his Lordship was not bound to find you an Vnderstanding as oft as you want it But it were an easie matter to help you for it is plain that he speaks those words to distinguish the common cause of Protestants from the heats and irregularities of some particular persons whom he did not intend to justifie such as he saith Were either peevish or ignorantly zealous And if you distinguish the sense of your Church from the judgements of particular persons I hope it may be as lawful for us to distinguish the body and cause of Protestants from the inconsiderate actings of any particular men All that which follows about the name of Protestants which his Lordship saith Took its rise not from protesting simply against the Roman Church but against the Edict at Worms which was for the restoring all things to their former state without any reformation is so plain and evident that nothing but a mind to cavil and to give us the same things over and over could have made you stay longer upon it For what else means your talk of Innovation in matters of Religion which we say was caused by you and protesting against the Roman Church and consequently against all particular Visible Churches in the world and that which none but Hereticks and Schismaticks used to do Do you think these passages are so hard that we cannot know what they mean unless we have them so often over But they are not so hard to be understood as to be believed and that the rather because we see you had rather say them often than prove them once If the Popes professed Reformation necessary as to many abuses I hope they are not all Schismaticks who call for the redress of abuses in your Church But if all the Reformation we are to expect of them be that which you say was effectually ordained by the Council of Trent if there had not been an Edict at Worms there were the Decrees of that Council which would have made a Protestation necessary Although we think your Church needs Reformation in Manners and Discipline as much as any in the world yet those are not the abuses mainly insisted on by the Protestants as the grounds of their Separation and therefore his Lordship ought to be understood of a Reformation as to the errours and corruptions of the Roman Church and doubtless that Edict of Worms which was for the restoring all things to their former state did cut off all hopes of any such Reformation as was necessary for the Protestants to return to the Roman Communion And whatever you say till you have proved the contrary better than as yet it is done it will appear that they are the Protestants who stand for the ancient and undefiled Doctrine of the Catholick Church against the novel and corrupt Tenets of the Roman Church And such kind of Protestation no true Christian who measures his being Catholick by better grounds than communion with the Church of Rome will ever have cause to be ashamed of But A. C. saith his Lordship goes on and will needs have it that the Protestants were the cause of the Schism For saith he though the Church of Rome did thrust them from her by excommunication yet they had first divided themselves by obstinate holding and teaching Opinions contrary to the Roman Faith and practice of the Church which to do S. Bernard thinks is pride S. Austin madness At this his Lordship takes many and just exceptions 1. That holding and teaching was not the prime cause neither but the corruptions and superstitions of Rome which forced many men to hold and teach the contrary So the prime cause was theirs still Now to this your Answer is very considerable That the Bishop of Rome being S. Peter 's successor in the Government of the Church and Infallible at least with a General Council it is impossible that Protestants or other Sectaries should ever find such errours or corruptions difinitively taught by him or received by the Church as should either warrant them to preach against her Doctrine or lawfully to forsake her communion We say Your Church hath erred you say It is impossible she should we offer you evident proofs of her errours you say She is Infallible we say It is impossible that Church should be Infallible which we can make appear hath been deceived you tell us again It is impossible she should be deceived for let Hereticks say what they will she is Infallible And if this be not a satisfactory way of answering let the world judge But having already pulled down that Babel of Infallibility this Answer falls to the ground with it and to use your phrase The truth is all that you have in effect to say for your Church is that she is Infallible and the Catholick Church and by this means you think to cast the Schism upon us and these things are great enough indeed if you could but make any shew of proof for them but not being able to do that you do in effect as much as if a man in a high feaver should go about to demonstrate it was impossible for him to be sick which the more he takes pains to do the more evident his distemper is to all who hear him And it is shrewdly to be suspected if your errours had not been great and palpable you would have contented your selves with some thing short of Infallibility But as the case is with your Church I must confess it is your greatest wisdom to talk most of Infallibility for if you can but meet with any weak enough to swallow that all other things go down without dispute but if men are left at liberty to
just cause of actual separation of one Church from another in that Catholick body of Christ the Church of Rome hath given as great cause as any since as Stapleton grants there is scarce any sin that can be thought on by man Heresie only excepted with which that Sea hath not been fouly stained especially from eight hundred years after Christ. And he need not except Heresie into which Biel grants it possible the Bishops of the Sea may fall And Stella and Almain grant it freely that some of them did fall and so ceased to be Heads of the Church and left Christ God be thanked at that time of his Vicars defection to look to his Cure himself But you tell us The discovery of some few motes darkens not the brightness of the Sunshine I wonder what you account Beams if the Sins of your Popes and others be but motes with you We grant that the Sun himself hath his Maculae but they are such as do not Eclipse his Light we find the Maculae in your Church but we are to seek for the bright Sunshine Or Doth it lye in the service of your Religious Votaries For that is the great part of the conspicuous Piety of your Church which you instance in But Is this indeed the bright Sunshine of your Church that there are so many thousand of both Sexes you do well to joyn them together who tye themselves by perpetual vows never to be dissolved by their own seeking and therefore doubtless pleasing to God whether they are able to keep them or no and these pray if they understand what they say and sing Divine Hymns day and night which makes the Sunshine the brighter which you say is a strange and unheard of thing among Protestants What that men and women though not in Cloysters pray and sing Hymns to God no surely For as the Devotion of our Churches is more grave and solemn so it is likewise more pious and intelligible You pray and sing but how Let Erasmus speak who understood your praying and singing well Cantiuncularum clamorum murmurum ac bomborum ubique plus satis est si quid ista delectant Superos Do you think those Prayers and Hymns are pleasing to God which lye more in the throat than the heart And such who have been wise and devout men among your selves have been the least admirers of your mimical uncouth and superstitious devotions but have rather condemned them as vain ludicrous things and wondered as Erasmus said what they thought of Christ who imagined he could be pleased with them Quid sentiunt obsecro de Christo qui putant eum ejusmodi cantiunculis delectari Are these then the glorious parts of your Devotions your Prayers and Hymns But they pray and sing Divine Hymns day and night If this be the only excellency of your Devotion How much are you out-done by the ancient Psalliani and Euchitae that spent all their time in prayer and yet were accounted Hereticks for their pains Still you pray and sing but to whom to Saints and Angels often to the Virgin Mary with great devotion and most solemn invocations but to God himself very sparingly in comparison If this then be the warm Sunshine of your Devotions we had rather use such wherein we may be sure of Gods blessing which we cannot be in such Prayers and Hymns which attribute those honours to his creatures which belong wholly to himself But you not only sing and pray but can be very idle too and the number of those men must be called Religious Orders and the Garment of the Church is said by you to be imbroidered by the variety of them and for this Psalm 44.10 is very luckily quoted And are those indeed the ornaments of your Church which were become such sinks of wickedness that those of your Church who had any modesty left were ashamed of them and call'd loud for a Reformation Those were indeed such Gardens wherein it were more worth looking for useful or odoriferous flowers as you express it than for Diogenes to find out an honest man in his croud of Citizens Therefore not to dispute with you the first Institutions of Monastick life nor how commendable the nature of it is nor the conveniencies of it where there are no indispensable vows the main things we blame in them are the restraints of mens liberties whatever circumstances they are in the great degeneracy of them in all respects from their Primitive Institutions the great snares which the consciences of such as are engaged in them are almost continually exposed to the unusefulness of them in their multitudes to the Christian world the general unserviceableness of the persons who live in them the great debaucheries which they are subject to and often over-run with and if these then be the greatest Ornaments of your Churches Garments it is an easie matter to espy the spots which she hath upon her What you add concerning the good lives of Papists and bad of Protestants if taken universally iâ— as unjust as uncharitable if indefinitely it shews only that not thâ— particular lives of men on either side but the tendency of the Doctrine to promote or hinder the sanctity of them is here to be regarded And to that you speak afterwards but in a most false and virulent manner when you say That though sins be committed among you they are not defended or justified as good works whereas among Protestants Darkness it self is called Light and the greatest of all sins viz. Heresie Schism Sacriledge Rebellion c. together with all the bad spawn they leave behind them are cryed up for perfect Virtue Zeal good Reformation and what not I doubt not but you would be ready to defend and justifie this open Raillery of yours and call it a good work notwithstanding what you said before If we had a mind to follow you in such things How easie a matter were it to rip up all the frauds impostures villanies of all sorts and kinds which have been committed by those who have sate in your Infallible Chair and charge them all on your Church with much more justice than you do the miscarriages of any under the name of Protestants For the Protestant Churches disown such persons and condemn those practices with the greatest indignation whereas you excuse palliate and plead for the lives of the Popes as much as you dare and not out-face the Sun at Noon which hath laid open their Villanies Where do the Principles of Protestants incourage or plead for Heresie Schism Sacriledge Rebellion c. much less cry them up as Heroicall actions Doth not the Church of England disown and disclaim such things to the uttermost Have not her sufferings made it appear how great a hater she is of Heresies Schisms Sacriledge and Rebellion Did she ever cry up those for Martyrs who died in Gun-powder treasons Did she ever teach it lawful to disobey Heretical Princes and to take away their lives
Yet these things have been done by you and the doers of them not condemned but rather fomented and incouraged as zealous promoters of the Holy See and most devout Sons of the Church of Rome Cease therefore to charge the guilt of persons disowned by the Church of England upon her when you are unwilling to hear of the faults of those persons among your selves whom you dare not disown I mean your Popes and Jesuits Leaving therefore these unbecoming Railleries of yours and that which occasioneth them viz. corruption of manners we come to consider that which is more pertinent to our purpose viz. errours in Doctrine which his Lordship truly assigned as the ground of the Reformation and not only that there were doctrinal errours in your Church but that some of the errours of the Roman Church were dangerous to salvation For it is not every light errour in disputable Doctrine and points of curious speculation that can be a just cause of separation in that admirable body of Christ which is his Church or of one member of it from another But that there are errours in Doctrine and some of them such as most manifestly endanger salvation in the Church of Rome is evident to them that will not shut their eyes The proof his Lordship saith runs through the particular points and so is too long for this discourse Now to this you manfully answer That in vain do they attempt to reform the Church of what she can never be guilty Which if it depends on your Churches Infallibility which is largely disproved already must needs fall to the ground with it And it is an excellent Answer when a Church is charged actually with erring to say She doth not erre because she cannot Which is all that you give us here But if you prove it no better than you have done the Heretical and Schismatical obstinacy is like to be found in that Church which in her errours challenges Infallibility The Question now comes to this Whether errours being supposed in the Doctrine and corruptions in the Communion of a Church when the General Church would not reform it was not lawful for particular Churches to reform themselves To this his Lordship answers affirmatively in these words Is it then such a strange thing that a particular Church may reform it self if the general will not I had thought and do so still that in point of Reformation of either Manners or Doctrine it is lawful for the Church since Christ to do as the Church before Christ did and might do The Church before Christ consisted of Jews and Proselytes This Church came to have a separation upon a most ungodly Policy of Jeroboams so that it never pieced together again To a Common Council to reform all they would not come Was it not lawful for Judah to reform her self when Israel would not joyn Sure it was or else the Prophet deceives me that sayes expresly Though Israel transgress yet let not Judah sin And S. Hierom expounds it of this very particular sin of Heresie and Errour in Religion After which he proves That Israel during this Separation was a true Church which we shall insist on when we have considered what Answer you return to his Lordships Argument which lyes in these two things First That Judah did not reform her self Secondly That Judah is not the Protestant party as his Lordship supposeth it to be First You say Judah did not reform her self For Juda being the orthodox Church united with her Head the High Priest and not tainted with any Doctrinal errours What need was there of her Reformation And so the meaning of that place Though Israel transgress yet let not Juda sin is rather against than for him because the sense is rather Let not Juda fall into Schism though Israel does than let Judah reform her self But if it appears that Judah had corruptions crept into her as well as Israel had though not so great and universal then it follows that by these words Judah had power to reform her self And the antecedent is clear to any one who takes the pains to read the Scripture and compare the places in it more than it seems you do For Doth not this very Prophet check Judah as well as Israel for transgressing Gods Covenant Doth he not say That God had a Controversie with Judah and would punish Jacob according to his waies And for all this Was there no need of Reformation in the Church of Judah Indeed in one place it is said That Judah ruleth with God and is faithful with his Saints but then that is to be understood of Judah when she had reformed her self in the daies of Hezekiah for surely you will not say That Judah did not stand in need of Reformation when Hezekiah began his Reign for it is said of him That he removed the high places and brake the Images and cut down the groves And were not these things which wanted Reformation think you If we consider the times of those three Kings before Hezekiah in which Hosea prophesied we shall see what need there was of Reformation among them and those were Vzziah Jotham and Ahaz of the time of Vzziah called Azariah in the Book of Kings it is said That the high places were not removed but the people sacrificed and burnt Incense still on the high places the same is affirmed of the time of Jotham in the same Chapter so that though these Princes were good themselves yet there were many corruptions still among the people But of Ahaz it is said expresly That he walked in the way of the Kings of Israel and he sacrificed and burnt Incense in the high places and on the hills and under everygreen tree Chuse now which of these three you please for it is most improbable those words considering the long time of Hosea's Prophecy should be spoken in the time of Hezekiah the last of the four Kings he prophesied under And will you tell us again That the Church of Judah needed no Reformation But you offer at a reason for it Because she was united with her Head the High-Priest at Hierusalem So then belike as long as Judah and the High-Priest were united she could be guilty of no Doctrinal Errours No not although she should pronounce Christ a blasphemer and condemn him to be crucified as a malefactor for then certainly Judah and the High-Priest were united But I know you will say You spake this of the time before the Messias was come And was it then true that as long as Judah was united with her Head the High-Priest there was no need of Reformation What think you then of the time of Ahaz when Vzziah the Priest built an Altar at the command of Ahaz according to the pattern of the Altar of Damascus contrary to Gods express Law yet according to you as long as Judah was united with her Head the High-Priest there was nothing
but his Lordship objects a shrewd Consequence from this Universal Pastourship that this brings the necks of Princes under the Roman Pride And if Kings be meant his Lordship saith yet the command is pasce feed them but deponere or occidere to depose or kill them is not pascere in any sense Lanii id est non Pastoris that 's the Butchers not the Shepheards part This you call his Lordships winding about and falling upon that odious Question of killing and deposing Kings An odious Question indeed whether we consider the grounds or the effects and consequents of it But yet you would seem to clear your selves from the odium of it First By saying that it is a gross fallacy to argue a negatione speciei ad negationem generis which is a new kind of Logick It is indeed for it is of your own coyning for his Lordship argues ab affirmatione generis ad affirmationem speciei and I hope this is no new Logick unless you think he that saith He hath power over all living creatures hath not thereby power over men too His Lordship therefore doth not argue against the Popes Vniversal Supremacy from the denyal of that but deduces that as a consequence from your assertion and explication of what you mean by Sheep and Lambs But this is but a sleight Answer in comparison of what follows Secondly we answer That the point of Killing Kings is a most false and scandalous Imputation scandalous enough indeed if false and though your Popes have not given express warrant for the doing it yet it is sufficiently known How the Pope in Consistory could not contain his joy when it was done in the case of Henry 3. of France And it hath been sufficiently confessed and lamented by persons of your own communion How much the Doctrine of the Jesuits hath encouraged those Assassinations of those two successive Henryes of France Will you or dare you vindicate the Doctrines of Mariana and others which do not obscurely deliver their judgement as to that very thing of Killing Haeretical Princes But if we should grant you this That the Pope may not command to kill What say you to that of deposing Princes which seldome falls much short of the other As to this you dare not cry It is a false and scandalous imputation as you did to the other but you answer 'T is no point of your Faith that the Pope hath power to do it and therefore you say it is no part of your task to dispute it Is this all the security Princes have from you that it is no point of your Faith that the Pope hath power to do it Is it not well enough known that there are many things which are held undoubtedly by the greatest part of your Church which yet you say are no points of Faith And yet in this you are directly contradicted by one who knew what were points of Faith among you as well as you and that was Father Creswell whose testimony I have cited already and he saith expresly Certum est de fide It is a thing certain and of Faith that the subjects of an Haeretical Prince are not only freed from Allegiance but are bound ex hominum Christianorum dominatu ejicere to cast him out of his power which certainly is more than the deposing of him And Sanders plainly enough saith That a King that will not submit to the Popes Authority is by no means to be suffered but his subjects ought to do their utmost endeavour that another may be placed in his room Indeed he saith not as the other doth That this is de fide but that is the only reserve you have when a Doctrine is odious and infamous to the world to cry out It is not de side when yet it may be as firmly believed among you as any that you account de fide And if you believe the Duke of Alva in his Manifesto at the siege of Pampelona when the Pope had deposed the King of Navarre to whom that City belonged he saith That it is not doubted but the Pope had power to depose Heretical Princes And if you had been of another opinion you ought to have declared your self more fully than you do If you had said that indeed some were of that opinion but you abhorred and detested it you had spoken to the purpose but when you use only that pitiful evasion That it is not of Faith c. you sufficiently shew What your judgement is but that you dare not publickly own it It seems you remember what was said by your Masters in reference to Emanuel SÃ Non fuit opus ad ista descendere There was no need to meddle with those things It seems if there had been there was no hurt in the Doctrine but only that it was unseasonable I pray God keep us from that time when you shall think it needful to declare your selves in this point But you conclude this with a most unworthy and scandalous reflection on Protestants in these words But what Protestants have both done and justified in the worst of these kinds is but too fresh in memory But Were those the practices and principles of Protestants Were they not abhorred and detested in the highest manner by all true Protestants both at home and abroad It will be well if you can clear some of your selves from having too much a hand in promoting both those principles and practices I suppose you cannot but have heard Who it was is said to have expressed so much joy at the time of that horrid execution What counsels and machinations are said to have been among some devoted Sons of the Church of Rome abroad about that time Therefore clear your selves more than yet you have done of those imputations before you charge that guilt on Protestants which they express the highest abhorrence of And let the names of such who either publickly or privately abett or justifie such horrid actions be under a continual Anathema to all Generations After all this discourse about the Popes Authority A. C. brings it at last home to the business of Schism For he saith The Bishop of Rome shall never refuse to feed and govern the whole Flock in such sort as that neither particular man nor Church shall have just cause under pretence of Reformation in manners of Faith to make a separation from the whole Church This his Lordship saith by A. C 's favour is meer begging the Question For this is the very thing which the Protestants charge upon him namely that he hath governed if not the whole yet so much of the Church as he hath been able to bring under his power so as that he hath given too just cause of the present continued Separation And as the corruptions in the Doctrine of Faith in the Church of Rome were the cause of the first Separation so are they at this present day the cause why the Separation continues
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
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
E Typographiâ prodeat opus istud cui Titulus A Rational Account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion being a Vindication of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury's Relation of a Conference c. from the Pretended Answer by T. C. Humfr. London 2. Novemb. 1664. A Rational Account OF THE GROUNDS OF Protestant Religion BEING A VINDICATION OF THE Lord Archbishop of Canterbury's RELATION Of a CONFERENCE c. From the pretended ANSWER by T. C. Wherein the true GROUNDS of FAITH are cleared and the False discovered the CHURCH of ENGLAND Vindicated from the imputation of Schism and the most important particular Controversies between Us and Those of the Church of ROME throughly examined By EDWARD STILLINGFLEET B. D. LONDON Printed by Rob. White for Henry Mortlock at the Sign of the Phoenix in St. Pauls Church-yard near the little North-door 1665. TO HIS MOST Sacred Majesty CHARLES II. By the Grace of God King of Great Britain France and Ireland Defender of the Faith c. Most Gracious Soveraign SInce that great Miracle of Divine Providence in your Majesties most happy restauration we have seen those who before triumphed over the Church of England as dead as much expressing their envy at her resurrection Neither could it otherwise be expected but that so sudden a recovery of her former lustre would open the mouths of her weak but contentious Adversaries who see her shine in a Firmament so much above them But it is a part of her present Felicity that they are ashamed of that insulting Question What is become of your Church now and are driven back to their old impertinency Where was your Church before Luther They might as well alter the date of it and ask Where she was before your Majesties restauration For as she only suffered an Eclipse in the late confusions no more did she though of a longer stay in the times before the Reformation And it was her great Honour that she was not awakened out of it as of old they fancied by the beating of drums or the rude clamours of the people but as she Gradually regained her light so it was with the Influence of Supream Authority Which hath caused so close an union and combination of Interests between them that the Church of England and the Royal Family have like Hippocrates his Twins both wept and rejoyc'd together And nothing doth more argue the excellent constitution of our Church than that therein the purity of Christian Doctrine is joyned with the most hearty Acknowledgment of your Majesties Power and Supremacy So that the Loyalty of the members of it can neither be suspected of private Interest or of depending on the pleasure of a Forreign Bishop but is inlaid in the very Foundations of our Reformation Which stands on those two Grand Principles of Religion and Government The giving to God the things that are God's and to Caesar the things that are Caesar's And as long as these two remain unshaken we need not fear the continuance and flourishing of the Reformed Church of England and your Majesties Interest in the members of it Which it is hard to conceive those can have any zeal for who are the busie Factours among us for promoting so opposite an Interess as that of the Church of Rome For what a contradiction is it to suppose it consistent with your Majesties Honour and Interess to rob your Imperial Crown of one of the richest Jewels of it to expose Your Royal Scepter to the mercy of a Forreign Prelat to have another Supreme Head acknowledged within Your Dominions and thereby to cut off the dependence of a considerable part of the Nation wholly from Your Self and to exhaust the Nation of an Infinite Mass of Treasure meerly to support the Grandeur of the See of Rome They who can make men believe that these things tend to Your Majesties Service think they have gained thereby a considerable step to their Religion which is by baffling mens reason and perswading them to believe contradictions But if notwithstanding the received principles of their Church any have continued Faithful in their Loyalty to Your Majesty we have much more cause to attribute it to their Love to their King and Country than to their Religion We deny not but there may be such rare tempers which may conquer the malignity of poison but it would be a dangerous Inference from thence that it ought not to be accounted hurtful to humane nature If any such have been truly Loyal may they continue so and their number increase and since therein they so much come off from themselves we hope they may yet come nearer to us whose Religion tends as much to the settling the only sure Foundations of Loyalty as theirs doth to the weakning of them And were this the only Controversie between us there need not many Books be written to perswade men of the Truth of it But if these men may be believed we can as little please God on the principles of our Church as they Your Majesty on the principles of theirs A strange Assertion and impossible to be entertain'd by any but those who think there is no such way to please God as to renounce the judgement of Sense and Reason And then indeed we freely confess there are none so likely to do it as themselves With whom men are equally bound to believe the greatest repugnancies to sense and reason with the most Fundamental Verities of Christian Faith As though no Faith could carry men to Heaven but that which can not only remove but swallow Mountains Yet these are the persons who pretend to make our Faith Infallible while they undermine the Foundations of it as they advance Charity by denying Salvation to all but themselves and promote true Piety by their gross Superstitions By all which they have been guilty of debauching Christianity in so high a measure that it cannot but heartily grieve those who honour it as the most excellent Religion in the World to see its beauty so much clouded by the Errours and Superstitions of the Roman Church That these are great as well as sad truths is the design of the ensuing Book to discover Which I humbly present to Your Majesties hands both as it is a Defence of that Cause wherein Your Majesties Interess is so highly concern'd and of that Book which Your Royal Father of most Glorious Memory so highly honoured not only by his own perusal and approbation but by the commendation of it to his Dearest Children On which account I am more encouraged to hope for your Majesties acceptance of this because it appears under the Shadow as well as for the Defence of so great a Name And since God hath blessed Your Majesty with so happy and rare a mixture of Power and Sweetness of Temper May they be still imployed in the Love and Defence of our Reformed Church which is the hearty prayer of Your Majesties most Loyal and Obedient Subject E. STILLINGFLEET THE PREFACE TO THE READER IT
is now about a twelvemonth since there appeared to the world a Book under the Title of Dr. Lawd's Labyrinth but with the usual sincerity of those persons pretended to be Printed some years before It is not the business of this Preface to enquire Why if Printed then it remained so long unpublished but to acquaint the Reader with the scope and design of that Book and of this which comes forth as a Reply to it There are three things mainly in dispute between us and those of the Church of Rome viz. Whether they or we give the more satisfactory account of the Grounds of Faith Whether their Church or ours be guilty of the charge of Schism And Whether their Church be justly accused by us of introducing many Errours and Superstitions In the handling of these all our present Debate consists and therefore for the greater Advantage of the Reader I have distributed the whole into three distinct parts which I thought more commodious than carrying it on in one continued discourse And lest our Adversaries should complain that we still proceed in a destructive way I have not only endeavoured to lay open the palpable weakness of their Cause but to give a rational account of our own Doctrine in opposition to theirs Which I have especially done in the great Controversie of the Resolution of Faith as being the most difficult and important of any other I hope the Reader will have no cause to blame me for false or impertinent Allegations of the Fathers since it hath been so much my business to discover the fraud of our Adversaries in that particular which I have chiefly done from the scope and design of those very Books out of which their testimonies are produced In many of the particular Differences I have made use of several of their late Writers against themselves both to let them see how much Popery begins to grow weary of it self and how unjustly they condemn us for denying those things which the moderate and rational men of their own side disown and dispute against as well as we and chiefly to undeceive the world as to their great pretence of Unity among themselves Since their Divisions are grown to so great a height both at home and in foreign parts that the dissenting parties mutually charge each other with Heresie and that about their great Foundation of Faith viz. the Popes Infallibility The Jansenists in France and a growing party in England charging the Jesuits with Heresie in asserting it as they do them with the same for denying it As to my self I only declare that I have with freedom and impartiality enquired into the Reasons on both sides and no interest hath kept me from letting that side of the ballance fall where I saw the greater weight of reason In which respect I have been so far from dissembling the force of any of our Adversaries Arguments that if I could add greater weight to them I have done it being as unwilling to abuse my self as the world And therefore I have not only consulted their greatest Authours especially the three famous Cardinals Baronius Bellarmin and Perron but the chiefest of those who under the name of Conciliators have put the fairest Varnish on the Doctrine of that Church However I have kept close to my Adversary and followed him through all his windings from which I return with this satisfaction to my self that I have vindicated his Lordship and Truth together As to the style and way of writing I use all that I have to say is that my design hath been to joyn clearness of Expression with evidence of Reason What success I have had in it must be left to the Readers judgement I only desire him to lay aside prejudice as much in judging as I have done in writing otherwise I despair of his doing me right and of my doing him good For though reason be tractable and ingenuous yet prejudice and interest are invincible things Having done thus much by way of Preface I shall not detain thee longer by a particular Answer to the impertinencies of our Authours Preface since there is nothing contained therein but what is abundantly answered in a more proper place And I cannot think it reasonable to abuse so much the Readers Appetite as to give him a tedious Preface to cloy his stomach If any after perusal of the whole shall think fit to return an Answer if they do it fairly and rationally they shall receive the same civility if with clamour and impertinency I only let them know I have not leisure enough to kill Flyes though they make a troublesome noise If any service be done to God or the Church by this present work next to that Divine Assistance through which I have done it thou owest it to those great Pillars of our Church by whose command and encouragement I undertook it Who the Authour was of the Book I answer I have been the less solicitous to enquire because I would not betray the weakness of my cause by mixing personal matters in debates of so great importance And whether he be now living or dead I suppose our Adversaries cannot think it at all material unless they judge that their Cause doth live and dye with him THE CONTENTS 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 Page 1. CHAP. II. Of Fundamentals in General The Popish Tenet concerning Fundamentals a meer step to the Roman Greatness The Question about Fundamentals stated An enquiry into the nature of them What are Fundamentals in order to particular persons and what to be owned as such in order to Ecclesiastical Communion The Prudence and Moderation of the Church of England in defining Articles of Faith What judged Fundamental by the Catholick Church No new Articles of Faith can become necessary The Churches power in propounding matters of Faith examined What is a sufficient Proposition Of the Athanasian Creed and its being owned by the Church of England In what sense the Articles of it are necessary to Salvation Of the distinction of the material and formal object of Faith as to Fundamentals His Lordship's integrity and T. C. his forgery in the testimony of Scotus Of Heresie and how far
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
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
asserting that Doctrine which they may be Infallibly guilty of Heresie for not asserting at another I know very well that Marinus who succeeded John 8. at Rome condemned his Predecessors acts and Photius together for he was before imployed both by Nicolaus and Adrian in the excommunicating and condemning Photius but what this proves I understand not any further then that still one Pope may Infallibly contradict another or that a Pope without a Council shall be more Infallible then with one or lastly which is the grand Arcanum Imperii those Popes and those Decrees which are for the present interest of the Church of Rome must be owned as Infallible but for the rest the best Art must be used to blast them that may be And for this you want not your many tricks and devices to accuse Authors of Forgery cry out on them for Hereticks rail out of measure when you have nothing else to say or if after all this Testimonies stand of force against you then nothing is left but Excogitato commento detorquere in alium sensum to find out some trick to wrest them to another sense as the Authors of the Belgick Index Expurgatorius professed in the case of Bertram But for all men who think it not lawful to say any thing in a bad Cause this may certainly be sufficient to shew that if Fathers and Councils may be relyed on if Popes and Councils be Infallible that was not accounted an Heresie by them which you condemn for such in the Greek Church Having thus discovered that this opinion you condemn for Heresie in the Greek Church was otherwise esteemed both by Fathers Oecumenical Councils and Popes I come to that which you seem to rely on for making it Heretical viz. That the Greeks and Latins both together condemned it for Heretical in the General Council at Florence Although it might be worth our while to inquire how far any General Council can either make or declare that to be a necessary Article of Faith which was determined to be otherwise by former General Councils But omitting that at present which we may have a fitter occasion to discuss in the question of fundamentals and the Infallibility of General Councils I therefore come to examine the matter of fact in the Florentine Council concerning the determination of this opinion there as Heretical Wherein if we consider the time in which and the occasion upon which this Council was call'd if we consider the way of the managery of it the Arts whereby the Greeks were drawn to this consent the manner of proposing the Decrees of it or the acceptance which it found in the Greek Church upon none of these respects we shall have cause to look upon it as a free and General Council determining that opinion as Heretical which you say was so determined here In all which we must profess how much we are obliged to that faithful and impartial account of all the proceedings relating to this Council written by Sylvester Sguropulus one present at the most secret negotiations of it transcribed out of the MS in the King of France his Library by Claudius Sarravius and first published for the general good of the world by our learned Dean of Wells It appears then that which gave the first rise to the thoughts of union between the Greek and Latin Churches was the miserable condition which the Greek Empire was now reduced to by the incursions of the Turks and Saracens For it seems for thirty years before that an Embassadour was sent to Rome from Manuel Palaeologus to negotiate the business of the union from the time of the Patriarch Nilus and Pope Vrban there had been no entercourse at all between the Popes and Patriarchs but now upon this address made to them by the Greeks the Popes caress them with all imaginable kindness feed them high with Promises engage their utmost to promote this union well knowing with what advantage to themselves it might be managed in this Critical juncture of their affairs For now Amurath 2. having subdued Peloponnesus had advanced almost to the walls of Constantinople and therefore when the Pope sent one to the Emperour and Patriarch to appoint a day for the Council they told him they could not then have leisure to think of Councils and if they had by reason of the fury of the Wars the Bishops could not be assembled together to make a full Council But it seems the state of affairs grew worse still with them and the Dead-Palsy of Manuel Pelaeologus was but an Embleme of a worse in the State the Empire being brought daily into greater dangers Which put Johannes Palaeologus upon further thoughts how any help or relief might be had from the West in this extremity But they might easily understand the terms of that Vnion from the Speech of the Cardinals to the Emperours Legats That the Roman Church was the Mother and the Eastern only the Daughter and therefore it was but fit that the Daughter should submit to the Mother That for their parts they would not leave the decision of this Controversie to multitudes of voices it seems then they had high thoughts of the Infallibility of General Councils but three should be chosen on either side who being apart by themselves should invoke God and whatever he should reveal unto them that all should consent to For he that hath said that Where two or three are gathered together in his Name he would be in the midst of them he that made the Ass to speak the Cardinal 's own Argument would not fail of letting them know his Will Infallibly which was to be received from them by all others There may be then a much readier way for Infallibility than by Pope and Councils But if nothing else would satisfie but a Council it must be in Italy contrary to the Popes promise before that it should be at Constantinople but when they urged the vastness of the expense and unsuitableness of it to their present necessities rather then a matter likely to be so much for the advantage of the See of Rome should not go forward the Pope proffers to advance a considerable sum of money for the defraying the charges of the Greeks both in coming to and abiding at the Council Which those who understand not the intrigues of that Court would have thought had been far better spent in a present supply of the Greek Emperour the better to have enabled him to defend the Christian Churches from the invasion of their enemies But any one who looks into the management of things will easily discern upon what grounds the Pope chose rather a dilatory proceeding drawing the Emperour and so many Bishops from Greece into Italy at that time and all the while to feed them with rich Promises of Assistance upon condition that the Vnion was accomplished but at last after two years attendance for so long the Council continued at Ferrara and Florence the poor Emperour was
understand that I must confess that whoever asserts the one and deny's the other is so far from Theological Reason that I think he hath no common reason in him Is this then think you a parallel case with the Procession of the Spirit from the Son which may be supposed Consubstantial to Father and Son and a distinct person from both without any Connotation of respect to the Personality of the Son as a principle of Spiration 2. He that should affirm the Procession of the Spirit only from the Son and not the Father would speak much more absurdly than the Greeks do for thereby he would destroy the Father's being the fountain or principle of Origination as to the distinct Hypostases of Son and Spirit he would plainly and directly thwart the Creed of the second General Council and which is more than would speak directly against express words of Scripture which say The Spirit proceeds from the Father which by the consent of the Christian Church hath been interpreted of the Eternal Procession And by this time I hope you begin to have better thoughts of rational men than to make such a wonder at their questioning the Greeks Heresie but if this be your Theological Reason one scruple of common reason goes far beyond it We have had a fair proof of your skill at charging we shall now see how good you are at standing your ground Your main defence lyes in a distinction which ruines you for you think to ward off all the citations his Lordship produceth against you out of the Schoolmen and others that the Greeks and Latins agree with each other in eandem fidei sententiam upon the same sentence of Faith but differ only in words by saying That the Greeks must be distinguished into Ancient and Modern The Ancient you say expressed themselves per filium but they meant thereby à filio whereas the Modern Greeks will not admit that expression à filio but per filium only and that too in a sense dissignificative to à filio This is the substance of all the answer you give both in general and to the particular authorities for several pages The disproof therefore of this distinction must by your own Confession make all those testimonies stand good against you which I shall do by two things 1. By shewing that the Ancient Greeks did assert as much as the Modern do in this Controversie 2. That those who speak expresly of the Modern Greeks do deny their difference from us in any matter of Faith 1. That the Ancient Greeks did assert as much as the Modern do By the Ancient Greeks we must here understand those who writ before the Schoolmen whose testimonies you would answer by this distinction Now nothing can be more clear than that those Greeks who writ before them did as peremptorily deny the Procession from the Son as any of the Modern Greeks do We have already produced the testimony of Theodoret who accounts the contrary opinion blasphemous and impious and that of Photius who so largely and vehemently disputes against the Procession from the Son To whom I shall add two more of great reputation not only in the Greek but in the Latin Church and those are Theophylact and Damascen Theophylact whether he lived in the time of Photius about 870 as the common opinion is or more probably in the time of Michael Cerularius as great an adversary as Photius to the Latins about 1070. yet was long enough before the Schoolmen for Peter Lombard flourished A. D. 1145. and Thomas and Bonaventure about 1260. So that in this respect he must be one of the Ancient Greeks He therefore delivers his opinion as expresly as may be in his Commentaries on St. John and that not as his own private opinion but as the common sense of the Greek Church for there taking occasion to speak how the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son For the Latins saith he apprehend it amiss and mistaking it say That the Spirit proceeds from the Son But we answer That it is one thing to say The Spirit is the Spirit of the Son which we assert and another that it proceeds from the Son which we deny for it hath no testimony of Scripture for it and then we must bring in two principles the Father and the Son And withall adds that when Christ breathed the Spirit on his Disciples it is not to be understood personally but in regard of the gift of remission of sins after which he briefly and comprehensively sets down the opinion of the Greek Church Believe thou that the Spirit doth proceed from the Father but is given to men by the Son and let this be the Rule of sound doctrine to thee And what now do the Modern Greeks say more than Theophylact did or what do they say less for they acknowledge that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son as well as he To the same purpose Damascen who lived between the 6. and 7. Synod about A. D. 730. in the time of Leo Isaurus delivers the sense of the Greek Church in his time concerning this Article It must be considered saith he That we assert not the Father to be from any but that he is said to be the Father of the Son We say not that the Son is a proper cause neither the Father but we say the Son is from the Father and of the Father The Holy Spirit we say is from the Father and of the Father but we say not the Spirit is from the Son but we call him the Spirit of the Son And we confess that by the Son the Spirit is manifested and given to us These words are so plain that the Patriarch Hieremias producing them saith Nothing can be more clear and evident than these words are But the Philosopher who was so much pleased to see the Ass mumble his thistles could not take much less contentment to see how the Schoolmen handle this testimony of Damascen For being very loath that so zealous an assertor of Images should in any thing seem opposite to the Church of Rome they very handsomly and with wonderful subtilty bring him off by admiring the wisdom and caution he useth in these words So your own St. Bonaventure whose testimony youthink so considerable as to produce at large Tamen ipse cautè loquitur unde non dicit quod Spiriâ—us non est à filio sed dicit non dicimus à filio which you put in great letters the more to be taken notice of But I pray What was it which Damascen was there delivering of was it not the sense of the Greek Church concerning the Persons of the Trinity and how could he otherwise have expressed it than by non dicimus but if this must argue what Bonaventure and you would have from it for this is the only testimony you give of your distinction of Ancient and Modern Greeks will it not as well hold for the other
all opportunities to disgrace it and infringe the liberties of it Thence came the rage of Leo against Anatolius the Patriarch of Constantinople in the time of Martianus thence the feud between Simplicius and Felix 3. of Rome and Acacius of Constantinople for defending the Priviledges of his See in opposition to the Pope's insomuch that Felix fairly excommunicates him because he would not submit to the Pope's tryal in the case of the Patriarch of Alexandria which continued so long that Euphemius who succeeded Acacius though he excommunited Petrus Moggus of Alexandria yet could not be received into the Communion of the Roman Church by Felix because he would not expunge the name of Acacius out of the Diptychs of the Church and afterwards Gelasius refused it on the same grounds which Euphemius still denying to do the Schism continued And although afterwards the Emperour Anastasius and the Greek Church desired the making up of this difference yet no other terms of communion would be accepted by Hormisdas without the expunging the name of Acacius So implacably were they bent against the very memory of Acacius for defending the Priviledge of his See that they would rather continue that lamentable Schism than not avenge themselves upon him and consequently make all future Patriarchs fearful of opposing the Pope's Authority If we look yet further we shall still find the ambition of the Popes to have caused all the disturbance in the Greek Churches although some of the Patriarchs of Constantinople cannot be excused from the same faults In the time of the second Council at Nice Pope Adrian not only contends for the enlargement of his Jurisdiction but threatens to pronounce them Hereticks who did not consent to it which makes Petrus de Marcâ say That he supposeth that the first time ever any were charged with Heresie on such an account The same pretence we find still in all the Schisms which after happened as that in the time of Photius that afterward in the time of Michael Cerularius and in the successive ages still the terms of communion were Submission to the Church of Rome and acknowledgledging the supremacy of that See which the Greeks did then and do still constantly deny so that it was not the Greeks Levity but the Romanists ambition and usurpation which gave occasion to that fearful Schism But for all this It must still be lawful for your Church to add and Anathematize too which his Lordship thought a little unreasonable but it seems you do not For say you The Church did rightly Anathematize all such denyers why so Because the meaning of the Latin Church being understood by the Addition of Filioque and that whosoever denyed must be supposed to deny the Procession then it became Heresie to deny it and the Church did rightly Anathematize all such denyers So you say indeed but you would do well 1. To shew that the understanding the meaning of the Latin Church is sufficient to make the denyers of what she affirms to be Hereticks 2. How any one that denies the Filioque must be supposed to deny the Procession if you mean the Procession à Filio you speak very wisely but prove nothing for some might grant the Procession and yet deny the lawfulness of your Churches adding to the Creed 3. All this while we are to seek how the Latin Church can make any thing to be a Heresie which was not so before And therefore if your Anathema's have no better grounds the Greeks need not much fear the effects of them That your Church on any occasion is apt enough to speak loud words we may very easily believe but whether she had just cause to speak so big in this cause is the thing in question and we have already manifested the contrary His Lordship sayes It ought to be no easie thing to condemn a man of Heresie in foundation of Faith much less a Church least of all so ample and large a Church as the Greek especially so as to make them no Church Heaven Gates were not so easily shut against multitudes when S. Peter wore the Keyes at his own Girdle To this you answer Neither is the Roman-Catholick Church justly accusable of cruelty though the Bishop taxes her of it because she is quick and sharp against those that fall into Heresie But if she hath power to pronounce whom she please Hereticks and on what account she please as Hadrian I. in case of his Patrimony and then it be commendable in her to deal with them as Hereticks it must needs be dangerous opposing her in any thing for such who dread her Anathema's But his Lordship was not speaking of what was to be done in case of notorious Heresie but what tenderness ought to be used in condemning men for Heresie and much more in condemning whole Churches for it on such slender accounts as you do the Greek Church You should shew When S. Peter or any of the Apostles did exclude Churches from communion for denying such Articles as that you charge the Greek Church with And it would be worth your enquiry why those in the Corinthian Church who at least questioned the Resurrection those in the Galatian and other Churches who asserted the Necessity of the Ceremonial Law under the Gospel both which errours are by the Apostle said to be of so dangerous a nature are not Anathematized presently by the Apostle and thrown out of the Church at least to prevent the infection of other Christians if not for the good of the Libertine Hereticks as you speak Your mentioning S. Peters proceeding with Ananias and Sapphira must be acknowledged a very fit resemblance for your Churches dealing with Hereticks only they whom you are pleased to account Hereticks have cause to rejoyce that since your Churches good will is so much discovered she hath not the same miraculous Power For then she would be sure to have few left to oppose her But do you really think Anania's and Sapphira's fault was no greater than that of the Greek Church that you produce this instance and do you think the Church enjoyes still the same power over offenders which S. Peter then had If not to what purpose do you mention such things here unless to let us see that it is want of some thing else besides will which makes you suffer any whom you call Hereticks to live That S. Paul chastised his untoward Children indeed you tell us from 1 Cor 5.5 1 Tim. 1.20 but if you bring this to any purpose you must make the Greeks Errour as bad as Incest or a denying the Faith and when you have done so you may hear of a further answer On what account your Church punisheth Delinquents will be then necessary to be shewed when you have a little further cleared what Power your Church hath to make Delinquents in such cases as you condemn the Greek Church for But as long as your Church is Accuser Witness and Judge too you must never
expect that your Anathema's will be accounted any other than bruta fulmina noise and no more CHAP. 2. Of Fundamentals in General The Popish Tenet concerning Fundamentals a meer step to the Roman Greatness The Question about Fundamentals stated An enquiry into the nature of them What are Fundamentals in order to particular persons and what to be owned as such in order to Ecclesiastical Communion The Prudence and Moderation of the Church of England in defining Articles of Faith What judged Fundamental by the Catholick Church No new Articles of Faith can become necessary The Churches Power in propounding matters of Faith examined What is a sufficient Proposition Of the Athanasian Creed and its being owned by the Church of England In what sense the Articles of it are necessary to Salvation Of the distinction of the material and formal object of Faith as to Fundamentals His Lordship's integrity and T. C's forgery in the testimony of Scotus Of Heresie and how far the Church may declare matters of Faith The testimony of S. Augustine vindicated THe Greek Church appearing not guilty of Heresie by any evidence of Scripture Reason or the Consent of the Primitive Church nothing is left to make good the charge but that the Church of Rome hath defin'd it to be so which Pretence at first view carrying the greatest partiality and unreasonableness in it great care is taken that the partiality be not discovered by not openly mentioning the Church of Rome but the Church in General as though it were impossible to conceive any other Church but that at Rome and for the unreasonableness of it it must be confidently asserted That all Points defin'd by the Church are Fundamental So to be sure the Greek Church will never escape the charge of Heresie For this end Mr. Fisher in the Conference acknowledgeth that when his Lordship had denyed the errour of the Greek Church to be Fundamental he was forced to repeat what he had formerly brought against Dr. White concerning Points Fundamental The reason of which was that easily perceiving that it was impossible to stand their ground in their charge on the Greek Church upon other terms he is forced to take Sanctuary in the Churches Definition and if that will not make it good there is nothing else remaining to do it And this is the cause of the following Dispute concerning Fundamentals wheren the main thing undertaken is the proof that the formal reason of Fundamentals is to be taken from the Definition of the present Church but as this must be confessed to be the main Fundamental of the Church of Rome for which yet the thing being manifest no Definition of that Church is necessary so withall I doubt not but it will be made evident in the progress of this discourse that never was there any pretence more partial absurd and tyrannical than this is Which his Lordship takes notice of in these words which deserve a repetition It was not the least means by which Rome grew to her Greatness to blast every opposer she had with the name of Heretick or Schismatick for this served to shrivel the credit of the persons And the persons once brought into Contempt and Ignominy all the good they desired in the Church fell to dust for want of creditable persons to back and support it To make this proceeding good in these latter years this course it seems was taken The School that must maintain and so they do that all Points defin'd by the Church are thereby Fundamental necessary to be believed of the substance of Faith and that though it be determined quite extra Scripturam And then leave the wise and active Heads to take order that there be strength enough ready to determine what is fittest for them To this you answer with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You call it a Squib a Fancy a weak Discourse one of the Bishop's Railleries and what not It seems it pinched you hard you cry out so Tragically But it is very certain you are more impatient to have your Politicks than your Errours discovered and if you have any Curses more dreadful than others they are sure to light on those who discover the intrigues of your Designs For if once men come to discern how much more of Artifice and cunning than of Truth and Religion there is in the managing the Interest of your Church they would not easily think the way to Heaven can lye among so many foldings of the old Serpent And this is not to think as you tragically speak That all the world is turn'd mad or Heathen for thanks be to God as Catholique as your Church is it must be a huge Catachresis to take it for all the world neither do we think your Church mad but very wise and Politick in these pretences and that still you are resolved to shew that though other Churches may be more Children of Light than yours ignorance being so much in favour with you yet yours is Wiser in its Generation But how the pretending of your Church to Infallibility and power to define Fundamentals should make us imagine all the world Heathen is not easie to conceive unless you are conscious to your self that such pretences as these are are the way to make it so But we must see still how your Cothurnus fits you No truth left upon earth but all become Juglers See what it is to be true Catholiques that if they juggle all the world must do so too as though totus mundus exercet histrioniam were Latin for the Infallibility of the Church of Rome But have you indeed such a Monopoly of Truth that if your party prove Juglers there will be no truth left upon earth if you had said none unsophisticated yet even that had been a great Truth left upon earth still But I shall cut you short in what follows of your Declamation by telling you that though your Harangue were ten times longer than it is and your exclamations louder and your Authorities better than of your Prelates Miracles Doctors Heads of Schools austere and religious persons in English Monks and Friers yet all these would not one jot perswade us contrary to common sense and the large experience of the world That Religion is not made by you an Instrument to advance the Pope's Ambition and that the Church is but a more plausible name whereby to maintain the Court of Rome And we need not go from our present subject for a proof of it I will not charge this upon all persons of your Communion for all of them do not believe the State-Principles of your Church and others are kept as much as may be from all waies of discovering the great Designs of it and therefore there may be so much innocency and simplicity in some as may keep them from prostituting their Salvation to the Pope's Greatness but this is no plea on behalf of those who have the managery of those Designs who if they do not
judgement or not sufficiently versed in the Scriptures as at present to make them acknowledge the places are not so clear as they imagined them to be yet they being alwaies otherwise interpreted by the Catholick Church or the Christian Societies of all ages layes this potent prejudice against all such attempts as not to believe such interpretations true till they give a just account why if the belief of these Doctrines were not necessary the Christians of all ages from the Apostles times did so unanimously agree in them that when any began first to oppose them they were declared and condemned for Hereticks for their pains So that the Church of England doth very piously declare her consent with the Ancient Catholick Church in not admitting any thing to be delivered as the sense of Scripture which is contrary to the consent of the Catholick Church in the four first ages Not as though the sense of the Catholick Church were pretended to be any infallible Rule of interpreting Scripture in all things which concern the Rule of Faith but that it is a sufficient Prescription against any thing which can be alledged out of Scripture that if it appear contrary to the sense of the Catholick Church from the beginning it ought not to be looked on as the true meaning of the Scripture All this security is built upon this strong presumption that nothing contrary to the necessary Articles of Faith should he held by the Catholick Church whose very being depends upon the belief of those things which are necessary to Salvation As long therefore as the Church might appear to be truly Catholick by those correspondencies which were maintained between the several parts of it that what was refused by one was so by all so long this unanimous and uncontradicted sense of the Catholick Church ought to have a great sway upon the minds of such who yet profess themselves members of the Catholick Church From whence it follows that such Doctrines may well be judged destructive to the Rule of Faith which were so unanimously condemned by the Catholick Church within that time And thus much may suffice for the first Inquiry viz. What things are to be esteemed necessary either in order to Salvation or in order to Ecclesiastical Communion 2. Whether any thing which was not necessary to Salvation may by any means whatsoever afterwards become necessary so that the not believing it becomes damnable and unrepented destroyes Salvation We suppose the Question to proceed on such things as could not antecedently to such an act whereby they now become necessary be esteemed to be so either from the matter or from any express command For you in terms assert a necessity of believing distinct from the matter and absolute command and hath the Churches Definition for its formal object which makes the necessity of our Faith continually to depend upon the Churches Definition but this strange kind of Ambulatory Faith I shall now shew to be repugnant to the design of Christ and his Apostles in making known Christian Religion and to all evidence of Reason and directly contrary to the plain and uncontradicted sense of the Primitive and Catholick Church 1. It is contrary to the design of Christ and his Apostles in making known the Christian Religion to the world For if the design of Christ was to declare whatever was necessary to the Salvation of mankind if the Apostles were sent abroad for this very end then either they were very unfaithful in discharge of their trust or else they taught all things necessary for their Salvation and if they did so how can any thing become necessary which they did never teach Was it not the great Promise concerning the Messias that at his coming the Earth should be full of the Knowledge of the Lord as the Waters cover the Sea that then they shall all be taught of God Was not this the just expectation of the people concerning him That when he came he would tell them all things Doth not he tell his Disciples That all things I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you And for all this is there something still remaining necessary to Salvation which neither he nor his Disciples did ever make known to the world Doth not he promise Life and Salvation to all such as believe and obey his Doctrine And can any thing be necessary for eternal life which he never declared or did he only promise it to the men of that Age and Generation and leave others to the mercy of the Churches Definitions If this be so we have sad cause to lament our condition upon whom these heavy loyns of the Church are fallen how happy had we been if we had lived in Christs or the Apostles times for then we might have been saved though we had never believed the Pope's Supremacy or Transubstantiation or Invocation of Saints or Worshipping Images but now the case is altered these Milstones are now hung about our necks and how we shall swim to Heaven with them who knows How strangely mistaken was our Saviour when he said Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed For much more blessed certainly were they who did see him and believe in him for then he would undertake for their Salvation but now it seems we are out of his reach and turned over to the Merciless Infallibility of the present Church When Christ told his Disciples His yoke was easie and burden light he little thought what Power he had left in the Church to lay on so much load as might cripple mens belief were it not for a good reserve in a corner call'd Implicit Faith When he sent the Apostles to teach all that he commanded them he must be understood so that the Church hath power to teach more if she pleases and though the Apostles poor men were bound up by this commission and S. Peter himself too yet his Infallible Successors have a Paramount Priviledge beyond them all Though the Spirit was promised to the Apostles to lead them into all Truth yet there must be no incongruity in saying They understood not some necessary Truths for how should they when never revealed as Transubstantiation Supremacy c. Because though they never dreamt of such things yet the Infallible Church hath done it since for them and to say truth though the Apostles names were put into the promise yet they were but Feoffees in trust for the Church and the benefit comes to the Church by them For they were only Tutors to the Church in its minority teaching it some poor Rudiments of Christ and Heaven of Faith and Obedience c. But the great and Divine Mysteries of the seven Sacraments Indulgences Worship of Images Sacrifice of the Mass c. were not fit to be made known till the Church were at age her self and knew how to declare her own mind When S. Paul speaks so much of the great Mysteries hidden from Ages and Generations but
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
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
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
believe them this Divine Testimor is never pretended to be contained in the Creed but that it is only a summary Collection of the most necessary Points which God hath revealed and therefore something else must be supposed as the ground and formal reason why we assent to the truth of those things therein contained So that the Creed must suppose the Scripture as the main and only Foundation of believing the matters of Faith therein contained But say you If all the Scripture be included in the Creed there appears no great reason of scruple why the same should not be said of Traditions and other Points especially of that for which we admit Scripture it self But do you make no difference between the Scripture being supposed as the ground of Faith and all Scripture being contained in the Creed And doth not his Lordship tell you That though some Articles may be Fundamental which are infolded in the Creed it would not follow that therefore some unwritten Traditions were Fundamental for though they may have Authority and use in the Church as Apostolical yet are they not Fundamental in the Faith And as for that Tradition That the Books of Holy Scripture are Divine and Infallible in every part he promises to handle it when he comes to the proper place for it And there we shall readily attend what you have to object to what his Lordship saith about it But yet you say His Lordship doth not answer the Question as far as it was necessary to be answered we say he doth No say you For the Question arising concerning the Greek Churches errour whether it were Fundamental or no Mr. Fisher demanded of the Bishop What Points he would account Fundamental to which he answers That all Points contained in the Creed are such but yet not only they and therefore this was no direct Answer to the Question for though the Greeks errour was not against the Creed yet it may be against some other Fundamental Article not contained in the Creed This you call fine shuffling To which I answer That when his Lordship speaks of its not being Fundamentum unicum in that sense to exclude all things not contained in the Creed from being Fundamental he spake it with an immediate respect to the belief of Scripture as an Infallible Rule of Faith For saith he The truth is I said and say still That all the Points of the Apostles Creed as they are there expressed are Fundamental And herein I say no more than some of your best learned have said before me But I never said or meant that they only are Fundamental that they are Fundamentum unicum is the Council of Trent's 't is not mine Mine is That the belief of Scripture to be the Word of God and Infallible is an equal or rather a preceding Principle of Faith with or to the whole body of the Creed Now what reason can you have to call this shuffling unless you will rank the Greeks errour equal with the denying the Scripture to be the Word of God otherwise his Lordship's Answer is as full and pertinent as your cavil is vain and trifling His Lordship adds That this agrees with one of your own great Masters Albertus Magnus who is not far from the Proposition in terminis To which your Exceptions are so pitiful that I shall answer them without reciting them for he that supposeth the sense of Scripture joyned with the Articles of Faith to be the Rule of Faith as Albertus doth must certainly suppose the belief of the Scripture as the Word of God else how is it possible its sense should be the Rule of Faith Again it is not enough for you to say That he believed other Articles of Faith besides these in the Creed but that he made them a Rule of Faith together with the sense of Scripture 3. All this while here is not one word of Tradition as the ground on which these Articles of Faith were to be believed If this therefore be your way of answering I know none will contend with you for fine shuffling What follows concerning the right sense of the Article of the Descent of Christ into Hell since you say You will not much trouble your self about it as being not Fundamental either in his Lordships sense or ours I look on that expression as sufficient to excuse me from undertaking so needless a trouble as the examining the several senses of it since you acknowledge That no one determinate sense is Fundamental and therefore not pertinent to our business Much less is that which follows concerning Mr. Rogers his Book and Authority in which and that which depends upon it I shall only give you your own words for an Answer That truly I conceive it of small importance to spend much time upon this subject and shall not so far contradict my judgement as to do that which I think when it is done is to very little purpose Of the same nature is that of Catharinus for it signifies nothing to us whether you account him an Heretick or no who know Men are not one jot more or less Heretick for your accounting them to be so or not You call the Bishop your good friend in saying That all Protestants do agree with the Church of England in the main Exceptions which they joyntly take against the Roman Church as appears by their several Confessions For say you by their agreeing in this but in little or nothing else they sufficiently shew themselves enemies to the true Church which is one and only one by Vnity of Doctrine from whence they must needs be judged to depart by reason of their Divisions As good a friend as you say his Lordship was to you in that saying of his I am sure you ill requite him for his Kindness by so palpable a falsification of his words and abuse of his meaning And all that Friendship you pretend lyes only in your leaving out that part of the Sentence which takes away all that you build on the rest For where doth his Lordship say That the Protestants only agree in their main Exceptions against the Roman Church and not in their Doctrines Nay doth he not expresly say That they agree in the chiefest Doctrines as well as main Exceptions which they take against the Church of Rome as appears by their several Confessions But you very conveniently to your purpose and with a fraud suitable to your Cause leave out the first part of agreement in the chiefest Doctrines and mention only the latter lest your Declamation should be spoiled as to your Unity and our Disagreements But we see by this by what means you would perswade men of both by Arts and Devices fit only to deceive such who look only on the appearance and outside of things and yet even there he that sees not your growing Divisions is a great stranger to the Christian world Your great Argument of the Vnity of your party because
believed as Fundamental when once the Church hath determined them 5. The Church of England prescribes only to her own Children and by those Articles provides but for her own peaceable consent in those Doctrines of Truth But the Church of Rome severely imposes her Doctrine upon the whole world under pain of damnation To all these very considerable Instances of our Churches Moderation your Answer is The Question is not Whether the English Congregation or the Roman Church be more severe but Whether the English Protestants Severity be not unreasonable supposing she be subject to errour in defining those Articles For after many words to the same i. e. little purpose the reason you give for it is That every just Excommunication inflicted for opposing of Doctrine must necessarily suppose the Doctrine opposed to be infallibly true and absolutely exempt from errour otherwise the Sentence it self would be unreasonable and unjust as wanting sufficient ground From whence you charge Protestants with greater Tyranny and Injustice towards their people than they can with any colour or pretence of reason charge upon the Roman Church which excommunicates no man but for denying such Doctrine as is both infallibly True and also Fundamental at least as to its formal Object This is the strength of all you say which will be reduced to this short Question Whether the proceedings of that Church be more unreasonable which excommunicates such as openly oppose her Doctrine supposing her Fallible or of that Church which excommunicates all who will not believe whatever she defines to be Infallibly true This is the true State of the Controversie which must be judged by the resolving another Question Whether it be not a more unreasonable Vsurpation to bind men upon pain of damnation hereafter and excommunication here to believe every thing Infallible which a Church defines or to bind men to peace to a Churches Determinations reserving to men the liberty of their judgements on pain of Excommunication if they violate that peace For it is plain on the one side where a Church pretends Infallibility the Excommunication is directed against the persons for refusing to give Internal Assent to what she defines But where a Church doth not pretend to that the Excommunication respects wholly that Overt Act whereby the Churches Peace is broken And if a Church be bound to look to her own Peace no doubt she hath power to excommunicate such as openly violate the bonds of it which is only an Act of Caution in a Church to preserve her self in Vnity but where it is given out that the Church is Infallible the Excommunication must be so much the more unreasonable because it is against those Internal Acts of the mind over which the Church as such hath no direct power And thus I hope you see how much more just and reasonable the proceedings of our Church are then of yours and that eo nomine because she pretends to be infallible and ours doth not His Lordship shews further in Vindication of the Church of England and her grounds of Faith that the Church of England grounded her Positive Articles upon Scripture and her Negative do refute there where the thing affirmed by them is not affirmed by Scripture nor directly to be concluded out of it And this he saith is the main principle of all Protestants that Scripture is sufficient to Salvation and contains in it all things necessary to it The Fathers are plain the Schoolmen not strangers in it And Stapleton himself confesses as much Nay and you dare not deny it as to all material Objects of Faith and your formal here signifies nothing And when A. C. saith That the Church of England grounded her Positive Articles upon Scripture if themselves may be Judges in their own cause His Lordship answers We are contented to be judged by the joynt and constant belief of the Fathers which lived within the first four or five hundred years after Christ when the Church was at the best and by the Councils held within those times and to submit to them in all those Points of Doctrine This Offer you grant to be very fair and you do for your selves promise the same and say You will make it good upon all occasions Which we shall have tryal of before the end of this Book To what his Lordship saith concerning the Negative Articles That they refute where the thing affirmed by them is either not affirmed in Scripture or not directly to be concluded out of it A. C. replies That the Baptism of Infants is not expresly at least not evidently affirmed in Scripture nor directly at least not demonstratively concluded out of it Here two things his Lordship answers 1. To the Expression 2. To the thing 1. To the Expression That he is no way satisfied with A. C. his addition not expresly at least not evidently for saith he What means he If he speak of the lâ—tter of Scripture then whatsoever is expresly is evidently in the Scripture and so his addition is in vain If he speak of the meaning of Scripture then his addition is cunning For many things are expresly in Scripture which yet in their meaning are not evidently there And as little satisfied his Lordship declares himself with that other nor directly at least not demonstratively because many things are directly concluded which are not demonstratively To the first you answer That a Point may be exprest yet not evidently exprest otherwise there could be no doubt concerning what were exprest in Scripture since men never question things that are evident Now say you the Baptism of Infants must not only â—e exprest but evidently exprest to prove it sufficiently i. e. undeniably by Scripture alone But the Question being concerning matters of Doctrine and not meer words those things are expresly affirmed which are evidently and no other For it is one thing for words to be expresly in Scripture and another for Doctrines to be so For these latter are no further expresly affirmed there than as there is evidence that the meaning of such words doth contain such a Doctiine in them As to take your own Instance This is my Body we grant the words to be express but we deny that which he had then in his hands was his real Body for his hands were part of his real Body Now we do not say That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is expresly but not evidently contained here for we say The Doctrine is not there at all but only that those are the express words This is my Body as it is in other figurative expressions in Scripture But that which causeth this litigation about words is That you look upon that which is evident and undeniable to be all one whereas there may be sufficient evidence where all men are not perswaded by it And so you would put his Lordship to prove out of Scripture Infant-Baptism evidently and demonstratively i. e. undeniably whereas his Lordship supposeth it
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 HE that hath a mind to betray an excellent Cause may more advantagiously do it by bringing weak and insufficient Evidences for it then by the greatest heat and vigour of Opposition against it For there cannot possibly be any greater prejudice done to a weighty and important truth then to perswade men to believe it on such grounds which are if not absolutely false yet much more disputable then the thing it self For hereby the minds of men are taken off from the native evidence which the truth enquired after offers to them and build their assent upon the certainty of the medium's suggested as the only grounds to establish a firm assent upon By which means when upon severe enquiry the falsity and insufficiency of those grounds is discovered the person so discovering lyes under a dangerous temptation of calling into question the truth of that which he finds he assented to upon grounds apparently weak and insufficient And the more refined and subtle the speculations are the more sublime and mysterious the matters believed the greater still the danger of Scepticism is upon a discovery of the unsoundness of those principles which such things were believed upon Especially if the more confident and Magisterial party of those who profess the belief of such things do with the greatest heat decry all other wayes as uncertain and obtrude these principles upon the world as the only sure foundation for the belief of them It was anciently a great question among the Philosophers whether there were any certainty in the principles of knowledge or supposing certainty in things whether there were any undoubted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rules to obtain this certainty of knowledge by If then any one Sect of Philosophers should have undertaken to prove the certainty that was in knowledge upon this account because whatever their Sect or Party delivered was infallibly true they had not only shamefully beg'd the thing in dispute but made it much more lyable to question then before Because every errour discovered in that Sect would not only prove the fondness and arrogance of their pretence of being Infallible but would to all such as believed the certainty of things on the authority of their Sect be an argument to disprove all certainty of knowledge when they once discovered the errours of those whose authority they relyed upon Just such is the case of the Church of Rome in this present Controversie concerning the Resolution of Faith The question is What the certain grounds of our assent are to the principles and rule of Christian Religion the Romanists pretend that there can be no ground of True and Divine Faith at all but the Infallible testimony of Their Church let then any rational man judge whether this be not the most compendious way to overthrow the belief of Christianity in the world For our assent must be wholly suspended upon that supposed Infallibility which when once it falls as it unavoidably doth upon the discovery of the least errour in the doctrine of that Church what becomes then of the belief of Christianity which was built upon that as it s only sure foundation So that it is hardly imaginable there could be any design more really destructive to Christianity or that hath a greater tendency to Atheism then the modern pretence of Infallibility and the Jesuits way of resolving Faith Which was the reason why his Lordship was so unwilling to engage in that Controversie How we know the Scriptures to be the Word of God not out of any distrust he had of solving it upon Protestant Principles as you vainly suggest nor out of any fears of being left himself in that Labyrinth which after all your endeavours you have lost your self and your cause in as appears by your attempting this way and that way to get out and at last standing in the very middle of that circle you thought your self out of If his Lordship thought this more a question of curiosity then necessity it was because out of his great Charity he supposed them to be Christians he had to deal with But if his charity were therein deceived you shall see how able we are to make good the grounds of our Religion against all Adversaries whether Papists or others And so far is the answering of this question from making the weakness of our cause appear that I doubt not but to make it evident that our cause stands upon the same grounds which our common Christianity doth and that we are Protestants by the same reason that we are Christians And on the other side that you are so far from giving any true grounds of Christian Faith that nothing will more advance the highest Scepticism and Irreligion then such Principles as you insist on for resolving Faith The true reason then why the Archbishop declared any unwillingness to enter upon this dispute was not the least apprehension how insuperably hard the resolution of this question was as you pretend but because of the great mischief your Party had done in starting such questions you could not resolve with any satisfaction to the common reason of mankind and that you run your selves into such a Circle in which you conjure up more Spirits then ever you are able to lay by giving those advantages to Infidelity which all your Sophistry can never answer on those principles you go upon That this was the true ground of his Lordship's seeming averseness from this Controversie appears by his plain words where he tells you at first of the danger of mens being disputed into infidelity by the Circle between Scripture and Tradition and by his expressing his sense of the great harm you have done by the starting of that question among Christians How we know the Scriptures to be the Word of God But although in this respect he might be said to be drawn into it yet lest you should think his averseness argued any consciousness of his own inability to answer it you may see how closely he follows it with what care and accuracy he handles it with what strength of reason and evidence he hath discovered the weakness of your way which he hath done with that success that he hath put you to miserable shifts to avoid the force of his arguments as will appear afterwards I am therefore fully of his mind that it is a matter of such consequence it deserves to be
sifted were it for no other end but to lay open the juglings and impostures of your way of resolving Faith Which we now come more closely to the discovery of for as you tell us The Bishop propounding diverse wayes of resolving the Question first falls to the attaquing your way who prove it by Tradition and authority of the Church And his first onset is so successful that it makes you visibly recoyle and withdraw your self into so untenable a Shelter as exposeth you to all the attempts which any adversary would desire to make upon you For whereas you are charged by his Lordship with running into the most absurd kind of argumentation viz. by proving the Scriptures infallible by Tradition and that Tradition infallible by Scripture you think to escape that Circle by telling us That you prove not the Churches Infallibility by the Scripture but by the motives of credibility belonging to the Church This then being your main principle which your following discourse is built upon and in your judgement the only probable way to avoid the Circle that you may not think I am afraid of encountering you in your greatest strength I dare put the issue of the cause upon this Promise that besides the weak proofs you bring for the thing it self which shall after be considered if this way of yours be not chargeable with all the absurdities such an attempt is capable of I will be content to acknowledge what you say to be true which is That your way of resolving Faith hath no difficulty at all and that ours is insuperably hard which I think are as hard terms as can be imposed upon me Now there are two grand Absurdities which any vindication of an Opinion are subject to first If it be manifestly unreasonable and 2. If supposing it true it doth not effect what it was intended for now these two I undertake to make good against this way of your resolving Faith that it is guilty of the highest unreasonableness and that supposing it true you are in a circle as much as before 1. First I begin with the unreasonableness of it which is so great that I know not whether I may abstain from calling it ridiculous but that I may not seem to follow you in asserting confidently and proving weakly it will be necessary throughly to examine the grounds on which your opinion stands and then raise our batteries against it Three grand principles your discourse relyes upon which are your postulata in order to the resolving Faith 1. That it is necessary to the believing the Scriptures to be the Word of God with a Divine Faith that it be built on the infallible testimony of the Church 2. That your Church is that Catholick Church whose testimony is Infallible 3. That this Infallibility is to be known and assented to upon the motives of credibility These three I suppose if your confused discourse were reduced to method would be freely acknowledged by your self to be the Principles on which your resolution of Faith depends And although I am sufficiently assured of the falseness of your two first Principles as will appear in the sequel of this discourse yet that which I have now particularly undertaken is the unreasonableness of resolving Faith upon these Principles taken together viz. That the Infallible Testimony of your Church is the only Foundation for Divine Faith and that this Infallibility can be known only by the Motives of Credibility If then in this way of resolving Faith you require Assent beyond all proportion of evidence if you run into the same Absurdities you would seem to avoid if you leave men more uncertain in their Religion than you found them you cannot certainly excuse this way from unreasonableness and each of these I undertake to make good against this way of yours whereby you would assure men of the Truth and Divinity of the Scriptures 1. An Assent is hereby required beyond all proportion or degree of evidence for you require an Infallible Assent only upon Probable grounds which is as much as requiring Infallibility in the conclusion where the premises are only probable Now that you require an Assent Infallible to the nature of Faith appears by the whole series of your Discourse for to this very end you require Infallibility in the Testimony of your Church because otherwise you say Our Faith would be uncertain it is plain then you require an Infallible Assent in Faith and it is as plain that this Assent according to you can be built only upon probable grounds for you acknowledge the motives of Credibility to be no more than such yet those are all the grounds you give why the Church should be believed Infallible If you say That which makes the Assent Infallible is that Infallibility which is in the Churches Testimony I reply That this is a most unreasonable thing to go about to establish an Infallible Assent meerly because the Testimony is supposed to be in it self Infallible For Assent is not according to the Objective Certitude of things but the evidence of them to our Vnderstandings For is it possible to assent to the truth of a Demonstration in a demonstrative manner because any Mathematician tells one The thing is demonstrable for in that case the Assent is not according to the Evidence of the thing but according to the opinion such a person hath of him who tells him It is demonstrable Nay supposing that person infallible in saying so yet if the other hath no means to be infallibly assured that he is so such a ones Assent is as doubtful as if he were not infallible Therefore supposing the Testimony of your Church to be really infallible yet since the Means of believing it are but probable and prudential the Assent cannot be according to the nature of the Testimony considered in it self but according to the reasons which induce me to believe such a Testimony infallible And in all such cases where I believe one thing for the sake of another my Assent to the Object believed is according to my Assent to the Medium on which I believe it for by the means of that the other is conveyed to our minds As our sight is not according to the light in the body of the Sun but that which presseth upon our Organs of sense So that supposing your Churches Testimony to be in it self infallible if one may be deceived in judging whether your Church be infallible or no one may be deceived in such things which he believes upon that supposed Infallibility It being an impossibility that the Assent to the matters of Faith should rise higher or stand firmer than the Assent to the Testimony is upon which those things are believed Now that one may be deceived according to your own principles in judging whether the Church be Infallible appears by this That you have no other means to prove the Infallibility of your Church but only probable and prudential Motives For I desire to know
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 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
some generall postulata must be laid down which by the very state of the Controversie must be acknowledged by you which are 1. That the Question in dispute is not concerning the Formal Object of all things divinely revealed but concerning the believing this to be a particular Divine Revelation For it is obvious to any one that considers what vast difference there is between those two Questions Why you believe that to be True which God hath revealed the plain and easie resolution of this is into the veracity and infallibility of God in all his Revelations But it is quite another Question when I ask Why you believe this to have been a True Divine Revelation Or that such particular Books contain the Word of God And it is apparent by the whole process of the the Dispute that the Question is not concerning the first but the second of these two 2. That the Question is not concerning any kind of perswasion as to this Divine Revelation but concerning that which you call Divine Faith 3. That this Divine Faith must be resolved into some Testimony supposed infallible These three are things agreed on between both parties as appears by the whole management of this Controversie Only you suppose this Infallible Testimony to be the Church which your Adversary denies and saith It will follow from thence that you make your Churches Testimony the Formal Object of Faith which I thus prove 1. That which is the only Ground and Foundation whereon a Divine Faith is built must be the Formal Object of Faith but the Infallible Testimony of your Church is the only Foundation whereon Faith is built By the Formal Object of Faith I suppose you and I mean the same thing which is the Foundation whereon the Certainty of the Assent is grounded or the principal Objective Cause of Faith viz. not every account that may be given Why men believe but that which is the only Certain Foundation to establish a Divine Faith upon Now let any one but consider what the Question is and what your resolution is and then judge Whether you make not the Churches Testimony the Formal Object The Question is How we know the Scriptures to be the Word of God which in other terms is What the ground is why I assent to the Doctrine contained in Scripture as a Divine Revelation You say The Testimony of the Scripture it self cannot be that ground You say The Testimony of the Spirit cannot be it You say A Moral Certainty cannot be it because then it is not Divine Faith What then is the reason why you believe it Do you not over and over say It is because of the infallible Testimony of the Church which gives us unquestionable assurance that this was a Divine Revelation and yet for all this this Testimony is not the Formal Object of this Divine Faith The most charitable apprehension I can have of you when you write things so inconsistent is either that you understand not or consider not what you write of but take what hath been said in such cases by men of your own party and right or wrong that serves for an Answer But for all this you tell us confidently That your Faith is not resolved into the voice of the Church as into its Formal Object but it is enough to say Our Faith is resolved into God's Revelations whether written or unwritten as its Formal Object and our infallible assurance that the things we believe are Divine Revelations is resolved into the Infallibility of the Churches Definitions These are excellent Notions if they would hang together But 1. We enquire not what is enough to say in such a case but what ground you have for saying what you do You have enough to say upon many subjects in this Book or else your Book would never have swell'd to the bulk it hath but you have generally very little reason for what you say 2. Is that infallible Assurance that the things we believe as God's Revelations are revealed from him a thing call'd Faith or no If it be as I hope you will not deny it then by your own Confession Faith is resolved into the Churches Testimony as its Formal Object for you say This Infallible Assurance is resolved into the Infallibility of the Churches Definitions teaching us that they are his Revelations These are your own words And do you yet deny this Testimony of the Church to be the Formal Object of this infallible Assurance 3. What is it you mean when you say That Faith is resolved into God's Revelations as its Formal Object Is it that the reason why we believe is Because God hath revealed these things to us But that you know is not the matter at all in question but How we come to assent to such a Doctrine as a Divine Revelation Answer me punctually to it Can you possibly resolve your Faith into any thing else as its Formal Object If you can I pray do us the favour to name it If you resolve this Faith as you seem to express your mind into Divine Revelation as its Formal Object Shew us where that Revelation is extant for which you believe Scripture to be the Word of God Is it the Scripture it self or a Revelation distinct from it If you say It is the Scripture it self then you must make the infallible Testimony of your Church needless for then we may have infallible Assurance that the things we believe are Divine Revelations without your Churches Testimony or Definitions Then what is become of the unwritten Tradition you mention in these words If then it be demanded Why we believe such Books as are contained in the Bible to be the Word of God we answer Because it is a divine unwritten Tradition that they are his Word and this Divine Tradition is the Formal Object whereon our Faith relyes Well then our last resolution of Faith is into this Divine unwritten Tradition But whence come you to know that this Tradition is Divine Into what Revelation is the belief of that finally resolved Doth it appear to be so by it self and then why may not the Scripture or hath it some other Revelation and Divine Tradition to attest it And then the same Question returns concerning that and so in infinitum or else of necessity you must acknowledge one of these two things Either that some Divine Revelation may sufficiently manifest it self without any infallible Testimony of your Church Or else that this infallible Testimony must be the Formal Object of Faith Of these two chuse which you please 2. I prove that you must make the Churches Testimony the Formal Object of Faith because either you must make it so or you must deny Divine Revelation to be the Formal Object of Faith because the reason is equal for both I demand then How you resolve your Belief of the Truth of the Doctrine of Christ you tell me into Divine Revelation as its Formal Object I ask yet further Why
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
them and to acknowledge their words for infallible Oracles of Truth Was not here then sufficient ground for assent in the Primitive Christians to the Apostles Doctrine Not as you weakly imagine because the Doctrine of the Apostles was suitable to the Doctrine of Christ for the ground why they assented to the Doctrine of Christ was because of the Testimony of the Apostles And therefore to say They believed the Doctrine of the Apostles because it was agreeable to the Doctrine of Christ and then that they believed the Doctrine of Christ because it was suitable to the Testimony of the Apostles is a Circle fit for none but your self and that silly person of your own moulding whom you call the Sectary It were worth considering too How the works of Christ could prove the Doctrine of the Apostles suitable to his own I had thought Christs works had proved his own Testimony to be true and not the Apostles Doctrine to be consonant to his The works of Christ shew us the reason why he was to be believed in what he delivered and did not the works of the Apostles do so too What need then any rational person enquire further why the Apostles Doctrine was to be believed Was it not on the same account that the Doctrine of Christ was to be believed But say you How should you know their Doctrine was the same What do you want an infallible Testimony for this too or do you believe that God can contradict himself or that Christ should send such to deliver his Doctrine to the world and attest it with miracles who should falsifie and corrupt it Now you will say I am come over to you and answer as you do that the Apostles Testimony was to be believed because of the pregnant and convincing Motives of Credibility This I grant but must be excused as to what follows That these same Motives moved the Primitive Christians and us in our respective times to believe the Church Prove but that and I yield the cause But till then I pray give us leave to believe that still you prove idem per idem and your Answers are like your Proofs for this we have had often already and have sufficiently examined before as likewise your other Coccysm about the Formal Object of Faith and certain inducements to accept the Churches Infallibility which I shall not think worth repeating till you think what I have said against it before worth answering Your second Instance is ad hominem whereby you would prove That if he acknowledge the Church infallible in Fundamentals he must prove idem per idem as much as you do For say you if he be demanded a reason why he believes such Points as he calls Fundamental his Answer is because they are agreeable to the Doctrine of Christ. If he be asked How he knows them to be so he will no doubt produce the words sentences and works of Christ who taught the said Fundamental Points But if he be asked a third time By what means he is assured that these Testimonies do make for him then he will not have recourse to the words themselves i. e. to the Bible but his final Answer will be He knows them to be so and that they do make for him because the present Church doth infallibly witness so much from Tradition and according to Tradition which is say you to prove idem per idem as much as we Things are not alwaies just as you would have them If we allow you to make both Objections and Answers for us no doubt you are guilty of no Absurdity so great but we shall be equally guilty of it But it is the nature both of your Religion and Arguments not to be able to stand a Tryal but however they must undergo it I say then that granting the Church infallible in the belief of Fundamentals it doth not follow that we must prove idem per idem as you do For when we ask you Why you believe your Doctrine to be the sole Catholick Faith your final Answer is because your Church is infallible which is answering by the very thing in Question for you have no other way to judge of the Catholick Faith but by the Infallibility of your Church but when you ask us Why we believe such an Article to be Fundamental as for Instance That Christ will give Eternal Life to them that obey him we answer not because the Church which is infallible in Fundamentals delivers it to be so which were answering idem per idem but we appeal to that common reason which is in mankind Whether if the Doctrine of Christ be true this can be other than a Fundamental Article of it it being that without which the whole design of Christian Religion comes to nothing Therefore you much mistake when you think we resolve our Faith of Fundamentals into the Church as the infallible Witness of them for though the Church may be infallible in the belief of all things Fundamental for otherwise it were not a Church if it did not believe them it doth not thence necessarily follow That the Church must infallibly witness what is Fundamental and what not It is sufficient that the Church doth deliver from the consent of universal Tradition that infallible Rule of Faith which to be sure contains all things Fundamental in it though she never meddle with the deciding what Points are Fundamental and what not If you therefore ask me Why I believe any Point supposed Fundamental I answer By all the evidence which assures me that the Doctrine containing that Point is of Divine Revelation If you aske me How I know that this Point is part of that Doctrine I appeal to the common sense and reason of the world as to things plainly Fundamental and therefore by this means your third Question is prevented How I know this to be the meaning of those words for I suppose no one that can tell that two and two make four can question but if the Doctrine of Christ be true the belief of it is necessary to Salvation which is it we mean by Fundamental Either therefore prove it necessary that the Church must infallibly witness what is Fundamental and what not and that we must rely on such a Testimony in the belief of Fundamentals or you prove nothing at all to your purpose no more than your convincing Motives of Credibility which were they made into a grand Sallad would know the way to the Table they are served so often up But I have found them so dry and insipid already I have no encouragement to venture on them any more But still you are deservedly afraid we should not think worthily enough of your Churches Infallibility You therefore tell us very wisely that this Infallibility is not a thing that is not infallible For say you Which Infallibility must come from the Holy Ghost and be more than humane or moral and therefore must be truly supernatural c. It
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
of the Catholick Church of all Ages comprehending the Apostles and Evangelists in it and in this sense he saith that place of S. Augustine is to be understood But what advantage this is to your cause I cannot imagine For what if the Catholick Church be taken in that comprehensive sense to include not only the Apostles but the Church successively from their times Doth it hence follow That it is not day though the Sun shines Or rather Doth it not follow That you are not so quick-sighted as you would seem to be And Whether his Lordship or you come nearer the meaning of Occham's words let any one judge For they who speak of the Church in that comprehensive sense do only suppose the Infallibility to have been in the Primitive Apostolical Church but the successive Church to be only the chanel of conveyance of that Testimony down to us and so they say no more than we do Thus Driedo expounds that place of S. Augustine who understands it of the Catholick Church which was from the beginning of the Christian Faith increasing according to the course of succession of Bishops to these times which Church comprehends in it the Colledge of Apostles Do you think that these men did believe a present Infallibility in the Church If so To what end are they so careful to carry it so high as the Apostles Whereas on your Principle we can have no Assurance concerning any thing that the Apostles did or said but only for the Infallibility of the present Church You must therefore understand the present Church exclusively of the Apostolical Church and therefore if S. Augustine be understood in their sense he is far enough from serving your purposes But say you It is evident that S. Augustine must speak of the Church in his time because he speaks of that Church which said to him Noli credere Manichaeo which was not true of the Apostolical Church But Why might not the Apostolical Church be a reason to S. Augustine not to believe Manichaeus because he found no footsteps of his Doctrine in the Records of that Church Again suppose he means the present Church Doth he mean the infallible Testimony of the present Church Might not the Testimony of the Church supposing it fallible be sufficient for what S. Augustine saith of it I doubt it not And you seem to have no great confidence in this Testimony your self when you add That though it be a point of Faith to believe that the Church is infallible in delivering Scripture to us yet it is not a point of Faith that her Infallibility is proved out of the cited place of S. Augustine But when you say it is sufficient that it be clear and manifest out of the Text it self what Text do you mean S. Augustines or the Scriptures If S. Augustines you would do well to shew by what engines you force Infallibility out of his words if the Scriptures What becomes of our good Motives of Credibility When his Lordship objects That according to your Principles the Tradition of the present Church must be as infallible as that of the Primitive you very learnedly distinguish That if he means the one must be as truly and really infallible quoad substantiam as the other you grant it But if he mean the one must be as highly and perfectly infallible as the other quoad modum you deny it Very good still It seems there are higher and lower degrees in Infallibility I pray tell us What that is which is more than infallible The present Church you say is infallible but not so highly and perfectly infallible therefore there must be degrees in Infallibility and since the lowest degree is infallible that which is highly infallible must be more than infallible Again What difference is there between the substance and the mode in Infallibility I had thought the substance of Infallibility had layn in the mode and I should rather think Infallibility it self to be a mode of Apprehension then talk of substances and modes in it But it may be you mean such kind of modes of Infallibility as absolute and hypothetical If you do so explain your self by them and that we may better understand your meaning shew us whether the Church be at all capable of absolute Infallibility if not What difference there is in degrees between the hypothetical Infallibility of the present and Primitive Church supposing both infallible in delivering their Testimony and no otherwise For you yet again add Of the Churches Testimony being infallible but not simply Divine but it is the infallible Testimony of a desperate cause to have but one bad shift and to use it so often Because you would be apt to say That upon his Lordships rejecting the Infallibility of Tradition he left no use at all of it He therefore tells you Notwithstanding that it is serviceable for very good ends that it induces Infidels to the reading and consideration of Scripture and that it instructs novices and doubters in the Faith which two ends you say fall short of the end of Tradition For say you it founds and establishes Believers even the greatest Doctors of the Church for which you cite again this same place of S. Augustine But did not his Lordship tell you that some of your own understood that very place either of Novices or Infidels For which besides the Testimony of some of your own party he adds this reason because the words immediately before are If thou find one qui Evangelio nondum credit which did not yet believe the Gospel What wouldst thou do to make him believe Ego vero non c. To which you very prudently say nothing Concerning Almayn's Opinion That we are first and more bound to believe the Church than the Scripture you would seem in terms to disavow it though very faintly it is not altogether true and hope to salve it by a distinction of priority of time and nature and you acknowledge That in priority of nature we are first bound to believe the Church and I suppose in priority of time too if we believe the Scripture for the Churches sake Yet you would not have it said That we are more bound to believe the Church than Scripture but it is not what you would have properly said but what follows from that antecedent which Jacobus Almayn puts It is certain saith he that we are bound to believe all things contained in the Sacred Canon upon that account alone because the Church believes them therefore we are first and more bound to believe the Church than the Scripture which is so evident a consequence that nothing but shame would make you deny it Touching Almayn's and Gerson's reading compelleret for commoveret his Lordship saith That Almayn falsifies the Text notoriously you say No but you had rather charitably think they both read it so in some Copies his Lordship produceth a very ancient M.S. for the common reading you none at all for
speaks of i. e. that act of the Apostles whereby they delivered the Doctrine of Christ upon their Testimony to the world If you mean this Tradition for my part I do not understand it as any thing really distinct from the Tradition of the Scripture it self For although I grant that the Apostles did deliver that Doctrine by Word as well as Writing yet if that Tradition by Word had been judged sufficient I much question whether we had ever had any written Records at all But because of the speedy decay of an oral Tradition if there had been no standing Records it pleased God in his infinite Wisdom and Goodness to stir up some fit persons to digest those things summarily into writing which otherwise would have been exposed to several corruptions in a short time For we see presently in the Church notwithstanding this how suddenly the Gnosticks Valentinians Manichees and others did pretend some secret Tradition of Christ or his Apostles distinct from their writings When therefore you can produce as certain evidence any Apostolical Tradition distinct from Scripture as we can do that the Books of Scripture were delivered by the Apostles to the Church you may then be hearkened to but not be before 2. We have other waies to judge of the Identity of the Copies of Scripture which we have with those delivered by the Primitive Church besides the Testimony of the present Church And the judgement of the present Church considered meerly as such can be no argument to secure any man concerning the integrity and incorruption of the Books of Scripture We do therefore justly appeal to the ancient Copies and M. SS which confirm the incorruption of ours But say you What infallible Certainty have we of them besides Church Tradition Very wisely said in several respects as though no Certainty less than infallible could serve mens turn as to ancient Copies of Scripture and as though your Church could give men Infallible certainty which Copy's were ancient and which were not But for our parts we should not be at all nearer any certainty much less Infallibility concerning the authenticalness of any ancient Copy's because your Church declared it self for them neither can we imagine it at all necessary in the examination of ancient Copy's to have any Infallible certainty at all of them For as well you may pretend it as to any other Authours when all that we look after in such Copy's is only that evidence which things of that nature are capable of But you make his Lordship give as wise an answer to this question of yours They may be examined and approved by the authentical Autographa's of the very Apostles Where is it that this answer is given by his Lordship If you may be allowed to make questions and answers too no doubt the one will be as wise as the other But I suppose you thought nothing could be said pertinent in this case but what you make his Lordship say and then by the unreasonableness of that answer because none of these Autographa's are supposed extant and because if they were so all men could not be Infallibly certain of them you think you have sufficient advantage against your adversary because thereby it would appear there can be no certainty of Scripture but from the authority of your Church To which because it may seem to carry on your great design of rendring Religion uncertain I shall return a particular answer 1. Supposing we could have no certainty concerning the Copy's of Scripture but from Tradition this doth not at all advantage your cause unless you could prove that no other Tradition but that of your Church can give us any certainty of it Give me leave then to make this supposition That God might not have given this supernatural assistance to your Church which you pretend makes it Infallible Whether men through the Vniversal consent of persons of the Christian Church in all Ages might not have been undoubtedly certain That the Scripture we have was the same delivered by the Apostles i. e. Whether a matter of fact in which the whole Christian world was so deeply engaged that not only their credit but their interest was highly concerned in it could not be attested by them in a credible manner Which is as much as to ask Whether the whole Christian world was not at once besotted and infatuated in â—he grossest manner so as to suffer the records of those things which concerned their eternal welfare to be imbezeled falsified or corrupted so as to mistake them for Apostolical writings which were nothing so If it be not then credible that the Christian world should be so monstrously imposed upon and so grosly deceived then certainly the Vniversal Tradition of the Society may yield unquestionable evidence to any inquisitive person as to the integrity and incorruption of the body of Scriptures And if it may yield such evidence why doth it not so when we see this was the very case of the Christian world in all Ages Some writings were delivered to the Church of the Age they lived in by the Apostles these writings were so delivered as that the Christians understood they were of things of more concernment to them than the whole world was these writings were then received embraced and publickly read these writings were preserved by them so sacred and inviolable that it was accounted a crime of the highest nature to deliver the Copy's of them into the hands of the Heathen persecutors these writings were still owned by them as Divine and the rule and standard of Faith these were appealed to in all disputes among them these were preserved from the attempts of Hereticks vindicated from the assaults of the most learned Infidels transcribed into the Books of the most diligent Christians transmitted from one Generation to another as the most sacred depositum of Heaven And yet is it possible to suppose that these writings should be extorted out of their hands by violence abused under their eyes by fraud or suffered to be lost by negligence Yet no other way can be imagined why any should suspect the Books of Scripture which we have are not the same with those delivered by the Apostles All which are such unreasonable suppositions that they could hardly enter into any head but yours or such whose cause you manage in these disputes the most profligate Atheists or most unreasonable Scepticks If then we entertain but mean and ordinary thoughts of the Christians of all Ages if we look upon them as silly men abused into a Religion by fraud and imposture yet we cannot doubt but that these persons were careful to preserve the records of that Religion because they were so diligent in the study of it so venturous for it such enemies to the corrupters of it so industrious in propagating the knowledge of it to their friends and Posterity Do you think our Nation did ever want an Infallible Testimony to preserve the Magna Charta supposing no authentick
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
representing his meaning For where he doth most fully and largely express himself he useth these words which for clearing his meaning must be fully produced Scripture teacheth all supernaturally revealed truth without the knowledge whereof salvation cannot be attained The main principle whereon the belief of all things therein contained dependeth is that the Scriptures are the Oracles of God himself This in it self we cannot say is evident For then all men that hear it would acknowledge it in heart as they do when they hear that every whole is more than any part of that whole because this in it self is evident The other we know that all do not acknowledge it when they hear it There must be therefore some former knowledge presupposed which doth herein assure the hearts of all believers Scripture teacheth us that saving truth which God hath discovered to the world by Revelation and it presumeth us taught otherwise that it self is Divine and Sacred The question then being by what means we are taught this some answer That to learn it we have no other way then only Tradition As namely that so we believe because both we from our predecessours and they from theirs have so received But is this enough That which all mens experience teacheth them may not in any wise be denyed And by experience we all know that the first Motive leading men so to esteem of the Scripture is the Authority of Gods Church For when we know the whole Church of God hath that opinion of the Scripture we judge it even at the first an impudent thing for any man bred and brought up in the Church to be of a contrary mind without cause Afterwards the more we bestow our labour in reading or hearing the mysteries thereof the more we find that the thing it self doth answer our receiv'd opinion concerning it So that the former inducement prevailing somewhat with us before doth now much more prevail when the very thing hath ministred farther reason Can any thing be more plain if mens meaning may be gathered from their words especially when purposely they treat of a subject than that Hooker makes the Authority of the Church the primary inducement to Faith and that rational evidence which discovers it self in the Doctrine revealed to be that which it is finally resolved into For as his Lordship saith on this very place of Hooker The resolution of Faith ever settles upon the farthest reason it can not upon the first inducement By this place then where this worthy Authour most clearly and fully delivers his judgement we ought in reason to interpret all other occasional and incidental passages on the same subject So in that other place For whatsoever we believe concerning salvation by Christ although the Scripture be therein the ground of our belief yet the authority of man is if we mark it the key which openeth the door of entrance into the knowledge of the Scriptures I will not dispute whether here he speaks concerning the knowledge of Scripture to be Scripture or concerning the natural sense and meaning of Scripture suppose I should grant you the latter it would make little for your purpose for when he adds The Scripture doth not teach us the things that are of God unless we did credit men who have taught us that the words of Scripture do signifie those things You need not here bid us stay a while For his sense is plain and obvious viz. that men cannot come to the natural sense and importance of the words used in Scripture unless they rely on the authority of men for the signification of those words He speaks not here then at all concerning Church-Tradition properly taken but meerly of the authority of man which he contends must in many cases be relyed on particularly in that of the sense and meaning of the words which occurr in Scripture Therefore with his Lordships leave and yours too I do not think that in this place Hooker by the authority of man doth understand Church-Tradition but if I may so call it Humane-Tradition viz. that which acquainteth us with the force and signification of words in use When therefore you prove that it is Tradition only which is all the ground he puts of believing Scripture to be the Word of God from those words of his That utterly to infringe the force and strength of mans testimony were to shake the very Fortress of Gods truth Now say you How can that Fortress the Scripture be shaken were not that authority esteemed by him the ground of that Fortress That may very easily be shewn viz. by calling in question the truth of humane testimony in general for he plainly speaks of such a kind of humane testimony as that is whereby we know there is such a City as Rome that such and such were Popes of Rome wherein the ground of our perswasion can be nothing else but humane testimony now take away the credit and validity of this testimony the very Fortress of truth must needs be shaken for we could never be certain that there were such persons as Moses the Prophets Christ and his Apostles in the world we could never be certain of the meaning of any thing written by them But how farr is this from the final resolution of Faith into Church-Tradition But the place you lay the greatest force on is that which you first cite out of him Finally we all believe that the Scriptures of God are sacred and that they have proceeded from God our selves we assure that we do right well in so believing We have for this a demonstration sound and Infallible But it is not the Word of God which doth or can possibly assure us that we do well to think it his Word From hence you inferr That either he must settle no Infallible ground at all or must say that the Tradition of the Church is that ground No Infallible ground in your sense I grant it but well enough in his own for all the difficulty lies in understanding what he means by Infallible which he takes not in your sense for a supernatural but only for a rational Infallibility not such a one as excludes possibility of deception but all reasonable doubting In which sense he saith of such things as are capable only of moral certainty That the Testimony of man will stand as a ground of Infallible assurance and presently instanceth in these That there is such a City of Rome that Pius 5. was Pope there c. So afterwards he saith That the mind of man desireth evermore to know the truth according to the most Infallible certainty which the nature of things can yield by which it is plain that the utmost certainty which things are capable of is with him Infallible certainty and so a sound and Infallible ground of Faith is a certain ground which we all assert may be had without your Churches Infallible Testimony Whether therefore Brierely and you are not guilty if
Is it not sufficiently known to all persons who deal in this Controversie what you mean by the Catholick Church in this Controversie that it shall not be lawful for his Lordship in a Parenthesis to shew where you place this Infallibility but he must be charged with declining the Question This only shews a desire to cavil at little things when you were unable to answer greater Besides in the way you take of proving the Churches Infallibility by the Motives of Credibility there is a necessity even in this Controversie of declaring what that Catholick Church is which must be known by these Motives and therefore you have no cause to look upon this as running away from the Question That A. C. after a long and silent attention did meerly through the heat of his zeal become earnest in this business to do his Adversary good I must believe it because you tell me so though I see no great Motive of Credibility for it And on that account did desire him to consider the Tradition of the Church as of a Company of men infallibly assisted For such assistance you say is necessary as well to have sufficient assurance of the true Canon of Holy Scripture as to come to the true meaning and interpretation thereof But this is as easily denied as said We wait therefore for your proofs That which only seems here intended for that end is That when the Relator had said The Prophets under the Old Testament and the Apostles under the New had such an Infallible Divine Assistance but neither the High Priest with his Clergy in the Old nor any Company of Prelates or Priests in the New since the Apostles ever had it To this you reply That the like assistance with the Prophets and Apostles the High Priest with his Clergy had in the Old Testament as we gather out of Deut. 17.8 c. Where in doubts the people were bound not only to have recourse to the High Priest and his Clergy but to submit and stand to their judgement Much more then ought we to think that there is such an obligation in the New Testament which could not stand without Infallibility Witness the infinite dissentions and divisions in Points of Faith amongst all the different Christians that deny it Two things the force of this argument lyes in 1. That there was Infallibility in the High Priest and his Clergy under the Law 2. That if there were so then there ought to be so now Both these must be considered 1. That there was Infallibility in the High Priest and his Clergy under the Law which you prove from Deut. 17.8 Because there the people were not only to have recourse to them but to submit and stand to their judgement This argument in form is this Where there is to be not only a recourse but an obligation to submission there must be Infallibility but there were both these among the Jews as to the High Priest and his Clergy ergo You may see how forcible this argument is in a like case Where there is to be not only a recourse in matters of difficulty but an obligation to submit and stand to their judgement there must be Infallibility but to the Parliament of England there ought to be not only a recourse in matters of difficulty but a submission to their judgement therefore the Parliament of England is as infallible as the High Priest and Clergy under the Law by the very argument by you produced The same will hold for all Courts of Justice But Can you by no means distinguish between an obligation to submission and an obligation in conscience to assent to what is determined as infallibly true Is every person in all judiciary Cases where submission is required bound to believe the Judges sentence infallible If so we need not go over the Alps for Infallibility we may have it much cheaper at home But I suppose you will reply The case is very different because in the Text by you produced 1. Not Civil Matters but Religious are spoken of 2. That not any Civil Magistrates but the High Priest and his Clergy are the Judges mentioned 3. That not every kind of Judgement but an Infallible Judgement is there set down But if every one of these be false you will see what little advantage comes to your cause by this Testimony which I shall in order demonstrate 1. That this place speaks not of Religious Causes as such but of Civil Causes i. e. not of matters of Doctrine to be decided as true or false but matters of Justice to be determined as to right and wrong Not but that some things concerning the Ecclesiastical Polity of the Nation might be there decided for it was impossible in a Nation whose Laws depended on their Religion to separate the one from the other But that the Judgement given there did not determine the truth and falshood of things so as to oblige mens consciences to believe them but did so peremptorily decide them that the persons concerned were bound to acquiesce in that determination For the proof of this one would think the very reading of the place were sufficient If there arise a matter too hard for thee in Judgement between blood and blood between plea and plea and between stroke and stroke being matters of controversies within thy gates then shalt thou arise and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall chuse c. Which words are so generally expressed on purpose to take in all manner of controversies which might rise among them whether civil criminal or ceremonial And herein God makes provision against any rupture which might be among them upon any emergent Controversie by establishing a Court of Appeals to which all such causes should be brought in which the lesser Courts could not agree For that seems to be the main scope of the words by the following expression of Controversies within thy gates by which it seems evident that the Controversies were such as could come to no resolution in those inferiour Courts which sate in the Gates of the Cities by which it appears that these could be no momentous Controversies of Religion which never came under the cognizance of those inferiour and subordinate Courts By these words then God doth erect a Supreme Court of Judicature among them to which they might appeal not only in case of injury but in case of difficulty and those lesser Courts as well as particular persons were to submit to the Decree of the great Sanhedrin sitting in the place which God should chuse which was Shilo first and Hierusalem after And thence Maimonides so often saith That the establishment and coagmentation of all the Israelites did depend upon this place for hereby God set up such a Tribunal to which the last Resort should be made and from whose determinations there should remain no further appeal And according to the Tradition of the Jews these appeals were to be gradual i. e.
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
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
thought Man had been a compound of substance and accidents as well as a Church Or Did you mean some transubstantiated man that had accidents without substance But as his Lordship spake of a true real man who yet might want moral Integrity so he supposed there might be a true real Church as to the essential parts of it which yet might be in other respects a corrupted and defiled Church But when you add That the notion of a Church implies Integrity and Perfection of Conditions still you betray your weak or wilful mistakes of a Church morally for Metaphysically true If you will prove it impossible for a Church to retain its Being that hath any errours in Doctrine or corruptions in Practice you will do something to the purpose but when you have done it see what you get by it for then we shall not so much as acknowledge your Church to be Metaphysically a true Church If his Lordship therefore be so charitable as to say That because your Church receives the Scripture as a Rule of Faith though but as a partial and imperfect Rule and both the Sacraments as Instrumental causes and seals of Grace though they add more and misuse these it cannot but be a true Church in essence And you on the other side say If it doth misuse the Sacraments and make the Scripture an imperfect Rule of Faith it would be unchurched Let the Reader judge whether his Lordships charity for or your own Testimony against your Church be built on better grounds What follows concerning the Holy Catholick Church in the Apostles Creed the entire Catholick Faith in the Athanasian Creed the Churches being the Spouse of Christ and a pure Virgin are all things as true in themselves as your Church is little concerned in them The truly Catholick Church being quite another thing from that which goes under the name of the Roman Catholick Church and this latter may prostitute her self to errour while the other remains a pure Virgin and it is only your saying That yours only is the Catholick Church which is in effect to say That Christ hath a Harlot to his Spouse as you speak To omit that which you call A further skirmishing about the form of words and whether it savoured more of prudence and charity or cunning in the Jesuite to instruct the Lady what Questions she should ask we come to that which is the main subject of this chapter viz. Whether the Church be stiled Catholick by its agreeing with Rome which you say was a received and known Truth in the Ancient Church but is so far from being in the least true that his Lordship deservedly calls it A perfect Jesuitism For saith he in all the Primitive times of the Church a Man or a Family or a National Church were accounted right and orthodox as they agreed with the Catholick Church but the Catholick was never then measured or judged by Man Family or Nation But now in the Jesuits new School the One Holy Catholick Church must be measured by that which is in the Diocese or City of Rome or of them which agreed with it and not Rome by the Catholick So upon the matter belike the Christian Faith was committed to the custody of the Roman not of the Catholick Church and a man cannot agree with the Catholick Church of Christ in this new doctrine of A. C. unless he agree with the Church of Rome but if he agree with that all is safe and he is as orthodox as he need be To which you seem to answer at first by some slight tergiversations as though this did not follow from A. C 's words and that the Lady did not trouble her self with such punctilio's as those of the agreement of the Catholick Church with Rome or Romes agreeing with the Catholick Church but at last you take heart and affirm stoutly That the Church is stiled Catholick from its agreement with Rome and that this is no Jesuitism but a received and known Truth in the Ancient Church In these terms then I fix my self and this present dispute as containing the proper state of the Controversie concerning the Catholick Church And if you can make it appear that the Church is stiled Catholick by agreeing with Rome and that this was a received Truth in the Ancient Church then you may very plausibly charge us with Schism in our separation from Rome but if the contrary be made evident by your own pretence we are freed from that charge Now in the handling this Controversie you first explain your terms and then produce your Testimonies In the explication of your terms you tell us The word Catholick may be used in three different Acceptions viz. either formally causally or by way of participation Formally the Vniversal Church i. e. the society of all true particular Churches united together in one body in one Communion under one Head is called Catholick Causally the Church of Rome is stiled Catholick because it hath an influence and force to cause Vniversality in the whole body of the Church Catholick to which two things are necessary Multitude and Vnity The Roman Church therefore which as a Center of Ecclesiastical Communion infuses this Vnity which is the form of Vniversality into the Catholick Church and thereby causes in her Vniversality may be called Catholick causally though she be but a particular Church As he that commands a whole Army is stiled General though he be but a particular person Thirdly every particular orthodox Church is termed Catholick participative by way of participation because they agree in and participate of the Doctrine and Communion of the Catholick Church For which you bring the instance of the Church of Smyrna writing to the Catholick Church of Philomilion c. Thus we see say you both how properly the Roman Church is called Catholick and how the Catholick Church it self takes causally the denomination of Vniversal or Catholick from the Roman considered as the chief particular Church infusing Vnity to all the rest as having dependence of her and relation to her Thus I have recited your words that we may fully understand your meaning the substance of which is couched in your last words That the reason why any Church was accounted Catholick was from its Vnion with the Church of Rome But if it appear that this sense of the Catholick Church is wholly a stranger to Antiquity That the Catholick Church was so call'd upon farr different accounts than those mentioned by you If the Church of Rome had no other relation to the Catholick Church but as a member of it as other Churches were then all this discourse of yours comes to nothing and that is it which I now undertake to prove Now the Vnity of the Catholick Church lying in two things the Doctrine and the Government of it if in neither of these it had any dependence of the Church of Rome then certainly it could not be call'd Catholick causally from the
Church of Rome First the Church was called Catholick from the Vniversal spread of its Doctrine and the agreement of all particular Churches in it So Irenaeus derives the Vnity of the Church spread abroad over the world from the Vnity of that Faith which was Universally received and from thence saith That the Church is but as one house and having one soul and heart and speaks as with one mouth Nothing can be more plain then that Irenaeus makes the consent in Doctrine to be the ground of Vnity in the Catholick Church And that he did not suppose this consent to arise from the Church of Rome appears from what he saith before That this Faith was received in the Church so universally spread from the Apostles and their Disciples Which must be understood of that universal diffusion of it by the first Preachers of it in the world the continuance of which Doctrine was the ground of the Vnity in the Catholick Church To the same purpose Tertullian gives an account of the Churches Vnity by the adhering to that Doctrine which was first preached by the Apostles who having first delivered it in Judea and planted Churches there went abroad and declared the same to other Nations and setled Churches in Cities from whence other Churches have the same Doctrine propagated to them which are therefore call'd Apostolical Churches as the off-spring of those which were founded by them Therefore so many and so great Churches are all that one prime Apostolical Church from whence all others come And thus they are all prime and Apostolical in regard of their Vnity as long as there is that communication of that title of Brotherhood and common mark of peace and hospitality Wherein we see that which made Churches in Tertullians sense Apostolical is the embracing and continuing in that Doctrine which was first delivered by the Apostles and thus Churches though remote from the Apostolical times may have the denomination of Apostolical from their consent in Doctrine with those which were founded by them But here is not the least intimation of any centre of Ecclesiastical communion infusing unity into the Catholick Church for this unity ariseth from that Doctrine which was declared in and propagated by all the Apostolical Churches So likewise Theodoret speaks That there is one Church throughout the world and therefore we pray for the Holy One Catholick and Apostolick Church extended from one end of the earth to the other Which saith he is divided by Cities and Towns and Villages so that there are infinite and innumerable Churches in the Islands and Continent but all these are reduced to one being united in the agreement of the same true doctrine So Constantine in his Epistle to the Bishops who were absent from the Council of Nice saith That our Saviour would have one Catholick Church whose members though dispersed in many several places yet are nourished by the same Spirit which is the Will of God In all which and many other places which might be produced to the same purpose we see a quite different account given of the unity of the Catholick Church from that which you mention as the cause of it we find the Church call'd Catholick in regard of its large extent in the world as is apparent besides these testimonies from the Controversies between St. Austin and the Donatists and the unity of that Catholick Church not placed in the least respect to the Church of Rome but in the consent in the Apostolical Doctrine in all those Churches which concurred as members to make up this Catholick Church So that the formal reason of any particular Churches having the denomination of Catholick must come not from any communion with the Church of Rome but from the owning the Catholick and Apostolick Faith and joyning in communion with those Churches which did own and acknowledge it And therefore we find that the symbol of communion in the ancient communicatory letters never lay in the acknowledgement of Christs Vicar on earth or communion with the Church of Rome but in such things which were common to all Apostolical Churches And therefore the Church of Rome could not be then accounted the center of Ecclesiastical communion as you speak after Cardinal Perron from whom you have Verbatim transcribed all your former discourse This being therefore the utmost which that great witt of your Church was able to plead in behalf of its being the Catholick Church it deserves to be further considered We come therefore to that kind of unity in the Catholick Church which depends on the Government of it and this is that which is pretended as the ground of the Roman Churches being the Catholick Church because though as Cardinal Perron says she be in her own Being particular yet she may be call'd Catholick causally as the center and beginning of Ecclesiastical communion infusing unity which is the form of universality into the Catholick Church This therefore must be more narrowly searched into to see if this were a known and received truth in the ancient Church Which is so far from it that we find no such causal influence from the Church of Rome then owned or asserted but that the Catholick Church was a whole consisting of homogeneal parts without any such subordination or dependence as the contrary supposition implies This is by none more fully asserted than by such who have with the greatest zeal and industry stood up for the unity of the Catholick Church The first of whom is St. Cyprian in whose time and writings there are very remarkable cases occurring to clear upon what terms the unity of the Catholick Church did then stand The first I begin with is the case which arose in the Church about the Schism of Novatianus which will give us the fuller discovery of the grounds of unity in the Catholick Church because the first rise of this Schism was in Rome it self For Novatus coming to Rome in a discontent from Africa falls in with Novatianus which two names the Greek writers of the Church commonly confound who being likewise under discontent at the election of Cornelius to be Bishop of Rome was ready to joyn with the other in fomenting a Schism For which they made this their pretext That Cornelius had admitted such to communion who had lapsed in the persecution of Decius which tended to the overthrow of the Churches purity upon this Novatianus gets himself ordained by three Bishops Bishop of Rome in opposition to Cornelius the fame of which Schism being spread abroad there was great making of parties on both sides Cyprian and the Churches of Africa after full inquiry into it declare for Cornelius so did Dionysius of Alexandria and the Churches there but Fabius of Antioch with the Churches of Pontus and Cilicia suspend and rather encline to Novatianus for some time till they were after more fully satisfied by Dionysius of Alexandria Now here is a case wherein the grounds of unity in the
Catholick Church may be easily discerned which it is plain from the proceedings in it were as in all such emergent cases what should be determined and agreed on by the consent of the Catholick Church i. e. of those Churches which all consented in the same Catholick Faith and therefore made up one Catholick Church Now if the Church of Rome had been the center of Ecclesiastical communion and had infused Catholick unity into the Church at this time what way or possibility had there been for restoring the Churches unity Neither was the appeal made to forraign Churches meerly because Rome it self was divided and so the Controversie could not be ended there but it appears from the whole story of the proceedings that this was looked on as the proper means for preserving the unity of the Catholick Church at that time when the Faith and communion of the Apostolical Churches were so fully known and distinguished from all others These things will more fully appear from St. Cyprians Epistle to Antonianus upon the occasion of this Schism Who it seems at first adhered to Cornelius and with him to the Catholick Church not as though his joyning with Cornelius was the cause of his being with the Catholick Church but because in joyning with him he joyned with the Catholick Church which declared for him but it seems afterwards by some Letters of Novatianus he began to stagger and desires Cyprian to give him an account what Heresie Novatianus broached and what the reason was why Cornelius communicated with the lapsed persons As to which particulars he endeavours to satisfie him and withall to give an account why they joyned with Cornelius in opposition to Novatianus and what the practise of the Church was as to lapsed persons and on what reasons it was built wherein he tells him That though some of their own Bishops had formerly denyed communion to lapsed persons yet they did not recede from the Vnity of the Catholick Church or communion of their Fellowships because by them they were admitted For saith he the bond of concord remaining and the communion of the Catholick Church continuing every Bishop orders and disposeth his own actions as one that must give an account of his design to God Doth St. Cyprian here speak like one that believed the Church of Rome to be the center of Ecclesiastical communion or that the unity of the Church lay in acknowledging the Pope to be Christs Vicar or in dependence on the Church of Rome when every Bishop is left to himself and God in all such things which he may do and yet hold communion with the Catholick Church And therefore afterwards he tells us That there is one Church divided into many members throughout the world and one Episcopal office spread abroad by the consenting multitude of many Bishops If this Church be one in this sense and the whole Government of the Church but as one Bishoprick as all the Bishops unanimously consent in the management of it then here is not the least foundation for the Catholick Churches taking its denomination causally from the Roman Church and much less for the Bishops having dependence on her or relation to her Since the care and government of the Church by these words of Cyprian appears to be equally committed to all the Bishops of the Catholick Church And from thence it was that in this Epistle we read that St. Cyprian writ to the Church of Rome after the death of Fabianus to advise them what to do in the case of lapsed persons which letters of his were sent through the world which Rigaltius well observes did arise from that unity of Ecclesiastical discipline whereby Cyprian not doubting but the care of all Churches was upon him dispatched these letters to the Clergy at Rome from whence they were sent through the Catholick Church as an evidence that there was but one Episcopal office in the whole Church part of which was committed in full power to every Bishop Thus we see a quite different account given of the unity of the Catholick Church than what you from Cardinal Perron would perswade us of It being an easie matter for men of wit and parts especially such as that great Cardinal was master of to coyn distinctions to make the most absurd things seem plausible but yet when they come to be examined they are found to have no other bottom but the invention of that person who coined them And that it is so as to this distinction of the formal causal and participative Catholick Church will be further evident from another case which happened in St. Cyprians time which was this Felicissimus and Fortunatus being cast out of communion by a Synod of African Bishops when they saw they could do little good in Africa run over to Rome and bring letters to Cornelius the Bishop there misrepresenting the whole business of their being ejected out of the Church on purpose to perswade Cornelius to admit them into communion Who at first being unwilling to hearken to them was at last by their threats and menaces brought to receive their letters Upon which St. Cyprian writes an Epistle to Cornelius wherein he tells him That if the threats of such profligate persons should relax the Churches discipline all the power and strength of it would be soon taken away that the ground of all Schism and Heresie arises from disobedience to the Bishop Certainly he doth not mean the Bishop of Rome but every Bishop in the Catholick Church for it was not Cornelius but Cyprian and the African Bishops who were disobeyed upon which he falls upon the matter of their appeal to a forraign Church and after some fair commendations of the Church of Rome the meaning of which will be afterwards examined he very sharply condemns these appeals to forraign Churches as unreasonable unjust and dishonourable to those Bishops whose sentence they appealed from For What cause saith he could these persons have of coming and declaring against their Bishops For either they are pleased in what they have done and continue in their wickedness or if they are displeased at it and recede from it they know whither to return For since it is decreed by us all and it is a thing just and reasonable in it self that every ones cause be heard where the fault was committed and every Pastour hath a part of the flock committed to him which he is to rule and govern as being to give an account of it to God it is requisite that those whom we rule over ought not to run about and break the concord of Bishops by their headdiness and subtilty but there to defend their cause where they may have accusers and witnesses of their faults Vnless it be that to a few desperate and profligate persons the authority of the Bishops of Africa seems less to them who have already sate in judgement upon them and solemnly condemned them lately for their crimes Can any thing be more express
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
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
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
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.
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
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-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
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
this Binius himself condemns those Acts which report this story for spurious there being a manifest repugnancy in the time of them and no such person as Polychronius ever mentioned by the Ecclesiastical Historians of that time and other fabulous Narrations inserted in them Yet these are your goodly proofs of the Popes power to depose Patriarchs But we must see whether you have any better success in proving his power to restore such as were deposed for which you only instance in Athanasius and Paulus restored by Julius whose case must be further examined which in short is this Athanasius being condemned by the Synods of Tyre and Antioch goes to Rome where he and Paulus are received into Communion by Julius who would not accept of the Decree of the Eastern Bishops which was sent after him to Rome For Pope Julius did not formally offer to restore Athanasius to his Church but only owned and received him into Communion as Bishop of Alexandria and that because he looked on the proceedings as unjust in his condemnation And all that Julius himself pleads for is not a power to depose or restore Patriarchs himself but only that such things ought not to have been done without communicating those proceedings to him which the Vnity of the Church might require And therefore Petrus de Marca saith that Baronius Bellarmin and Perron are all strangely out in this story when they would infer That the causes of the Eastern Bishops upon appeal were to be judged by the Bishop of Rome whereas all that Julius pleads for is that such things should not be done by the Eastern Bishops alone which concerned the deposition of so great a person in the Church as the Patriarch of Alexandria but that there ought to be a Council both of the Eastern and Western Bishops on which account afterwards the Sardican Synod was call'd But when we consider with what heat and stomack this was received by the Eastern Bishops how they absolutely deny that the Western Bishops had any more to do with their proceedings then they had with theirs when they say that the Pope by this usurpation was the cause of all the mischief that followed we see what an excellent instance you have made choice of to prove the Popes power of restoring Bishops by Divine right and that this was acknowledged by the whole Church The next thing to be considered is that speech of St. Augustine That in the Church of Rome there did alwayes flourish the Principality of an Apostolick chair As to which his Lordship saith That neither was the word Principatus so great nor the Bishops of those times so little as that Principes and Principatus are not commonly given them both by the Greek and Latin Fathers of this great and learnedst age of the Church made up of the fourth and fift hundred years alwayes understanding Principatus of their spiritual power and within the limits of their several jurisdictions which perhaps now and then they did occasionally exceed And there is not one word in St. Augustine that this Principality of the Apostolick chair in the Church of Rome was then or ought to be now exercised over the whole Church of Christ as Bellarmin insinuates there and as A. C. would have it here To all this you say nothing to purpose but only tell us That the Bishop by this makes way to some other pretty perversions as you call them of the same Father For we must know say you that he is entering upon that main Question concerning the Donatists of Africk and he is so indeed and that not only for clearing the meaning of St. Augustine in the present Epistle but of the whole Controversie to which a great light will be given by a true account of those proceedings Thus then his Lordship goes on And to prove that St. Augustine did not intend by Principatus here to give the Roman Bishop any power out of his own limits which God knows were far short of the whole Church I shall make it most manifest out of the same Epistle For afterwards saith St. Augustine when the pertinacy of the Donatists could not be restrained by the African Bishops only they gave them leave to be heard by forraign Bishops And after that he hath these words And yet peradventure Melciades the Bishop of the Roman Church with his Colleagues the transmarine Bishops non debuit ought not to usurp to himself this judgement which was determin'd by seventy African Bishops Tigisitanus sitting Primate And what will you say if he did not usurp this power for the Emperour being desired sent Bishops Judges which should sit with him and determine what was just upon the whole cause In which passage saith his Lordship there are very many things observable As first That the Roman Prelate came not in till there was leave for them to go to Transmarine Bishops Secondly That if the Pope had come in without this leave it had been an Vsurpation Thirdly That when he did thus come in not by his own Authority but by Leave there were other Bishops made Judges with him Fourthly That these other Bishops were appointed and sent by the Emperour and his power that which the Pope least of all will endure Lastly Lest the Pope and his Adherents should say this was an Vsurpation in the Emperour St. Austin tells us a little before in the same Epistle still that this doth chiefly belong ad curam ejus to the Emperours care and charge and that he is to give an account to God for it And Melciades did sit and judge the business with all Christian Prudence and Moderation So at this time the Roman Prelate was not received as Pastour of the whole Church say A. C. what he please nor had he Supremacy over the other Patriarchs In order to the better shaping your Answer to this Discourse you pretend to give us a true Narrative of the Donatists proceedings by the same figure that Lucians Book is inscribed De vera historia There are several things therefore to be taken notice of in your Narrative before we come to your particular Answers whose strength depends upon the matters of fact First You give no satisfactory account at all Why if the Popes Vniversal Pastourship had been then owned the first appeal on both sides was not made to the Bishop of Rome for in so great a Schism as that was between the different parties of Caecilian and Majorinus To whom should they have directly gone but to Melchiades then Bishop of Rome How comes it to pass that there is no mention at all of his judgement by either party till Constantine had appointed him to be one of the Judges St. Austin indeed pleads in behalf of Caecilian why he would not be judged by the African Synod of LXX Bishops that there were thousands of his Colleagues on the other side the Sea whom he might be tryed by But why not by the Bishop
of Rome alone if the Vniversal Pastorship did belong to him But your Narrative gives us a rare account why the Donatists did not go to the Pope before they went to the Emperour viz. That they durst not appear there or else knew it would be to little purpose But by what Arguments do you prove they durst not appear there before when we see they went readily thither after the Emperour had appointed Rome for the place where their cause was to be heard if they thought it were to so little purpose For we see the Donatists never except against the place at all or the person of the Bishop of Rome but upon the command of Constantine made known to them by Analinus the Proconsul of Africa ten of their party go to Rome to negotiate their affairs before the Delegates This is but therefore a very lame account why the first appeal should be to the Emperour and not to the Pope if he had been then known to be the Vniversal Pastour of the Church But say you further The Emperour disliked their proceedings and told them expresly That it belonged not to him neither durst he act the part of a Judge in a cause of Bishops But on what grounds he durst not do it we may easily judge by his undertaking it at last and passing a final judgement in this cause himself after the Councils at Rome at Arles could not put an end to it If Constantine had judged it unlawful could their importunity have excused it and could it be any other then unlawful if the Pope were the Vniversal Pastour of the Church Do you think it would be accounted a sufficient plea among you now for any Prince to assume to himself the judgement of any cause already determin'd by the Pope because of the importunity of the persons concerned in it Indeed Constantine did at first prudently wave the business himself and that I suppose the rather because the Donatists in their Petition had intreated that some of the Bishops of Gaul might umpire the business either because that was then the place of the Emperours residence or else that Gaul under Constantius had escaped the late persecution and therefore were not lyable to the suspicion of those crimes whereof Caecilian and Felix of Aptung were accused But however though Constantine did not sit as Judge himself he appointed Marinus Rheticius and Maternus to joyn with Melchiades the Bishop of Rome in the determining this case But this he did you say to comply with the Donatists What to joyn other Bishops with the Head of the Church in equal power for deciding Controversies and all this meerly to comply with the Schismatical Donatists was this think you becoming one who believed the Popes Vniversal Pastourship by Divine Right Well fare then the Answer of others who love to speak plain truths and impute all these proceedings to Constantines Ignorance of his duty being yet but a Catechumen in Christian Religion and therefore did he knew not what But methinks the Vniversal Pastour or some of those nineteen Bishops who sat at Rome in this business or of those two hundred whom you say met afterwards at Arles about it should have a little better instructed him in his duty and not let him go so far on in it as from delegating Judges to hear it and among them the Head of the Church to resume it afterwards himself both to hear and determine it If the Emperour had as you say protested against this as in it self unlawful would none of the Bishops hinder him from doing it But where doth Constantine profess against it as in it self unlawful if so no circumstances no importunities could ever make it lawful Unless you think the importunity of Josephs Mistress would have made adultery no sin in him If Constantine said he would ask the Bishops pardon in it that might be as looking on them as the more competent Judges but not thinking it unlawful in it self for him to do as you say Well but you tell us It was rather the justice and moderation of the Roman Prelate that he came not in before it was due time and the matter orderly brought before him I am very much of your mind in this and if all Popes since Melchiades had used the same justice and moderation to have staid till things had been orderly brought to them and not usurped upon the priviledges of other Churches things had been in a far better condition in the Christian world then they are Had there been none but such as Melchiades who shewed so much Christian prudence and moderation in the management of this business that great Schism which your Church hath caused by her arrogant pretences might have been prevented But how come you to know that this case did properly belong to the Popes cognizance who told you this to be sure not the Emperour Constantine who in his Epistle to Miltiades extant in Eusebius intimates no such thing but only writes to him as one delegated to hear that cause with the other Bishops and gives him Instructions in order to it Do the Donatists or their Adversaries mention any such thing Doth the Pope himself ever express or intimate it It seems he wanted your information much at that time Or it may be like the late Pope Innocent in the case of the five propositions he might say he was bred no Divine and therefore might the less understand his duty But can it possibly enter into your head that this case came to the Pope at last by way of regular appeal as you seem to assert afterwards Is this the way of appeals to go to the Emperour and Petition him to appoint Judges to hear the case If the case of appeals must be determined from these proceedings to be sure the last resort will be to the Emperour himself as well as the first appeal Whether the African Bishops gave leave to the Donatists to be heard by forraign Bishops or they took it themselves is not much material because the Schism was so great at home that there was no likelihood of any ending the Controversie by standing to a fair arbitration among themselves And therefore there seemed a necessity on both sides of referring the business to some unconcerned persons who might hear the Allegations and judge indifferently between them And no other way did the nineteen Bishops at Rome proceed with them but as indifferent Arbitrators and therefore the Witnesses and Allegations on both sides were brought before them but we read of no power at all challenged absolutely to bind the persons to the judgement of the Church of Rome as the final judgement in the case The Question Whether the Pope had usurped this power or no depends not upon the Donatists Question Whether Melchiades ought to have undertaken the judgement of that cause which had been already determined by a Synod of LXX Bishops in Africk But upon St. Augustines Answer who justifies
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
of this cause as a thing not belonging to his Authority They who can believe such things as these and notwithstanding all the circumstances of this story can think the Popes Vniversal Pastourship was then owned the most I can say of them is that they are in a fair way to believe Transubstantiation there being nothing so improbable but upon equal grounds they may judge it true That the Pope had no Supremacy over other Patriarchs his Lordship saith That were all other Records of Antiquity silent the Civil Law is proof enough And that 's a Monument of the Primitive Church The Text there is A Patriarchâ non datur appellatio From a Patriarch there lyes no appeal No appeal Therefore every Patriarch was alike Supreme in his own Patriarchate Therefore the Pope then had no Supremacy over the whole Church Therefore certainly not then received as universal Pastor Two things you answer to this 1. That this reacheth not the difference between Patriarchs themselves who must have some higher ordinary Tribunal where such causes may be heard and determined Very well argued against the Pope's power of judging for in case of a difference between him and the other Patriarchs who must decide the difference Himself no doubt But still it is your way to beg that you can never prove for you herein suppose the Pope to be above all Patriarchs which you know is the thing in dispute Or Do you suppose it very possible that other Patriarchs may quarrel and fall out among themselves but that the Popes are alwaies such mild and good men that it is impossible any should fall out with them or they with others that still they must stand by as unconcerned in all the quarrels of the Christian world and be ready to receive complaints from all places If therefore a General Council must not be the Judge in this case I pray name somewhat else more agreeable to reason and the practice of the Church But you answer 2. What the Law saith is rightly understood and must be explicated of inferiour Clerks only who were not of ordinary course to appeal further than the Patriarch or the Primate of their Province For so the Council of Africk determines But 't is even there acknowledged that Bishops had power in their own causes to appeal to Rome This answer of yours necessarily leads us to the debates of the great case of appeals to Rome as it was managed between the African Bishops and the Bishops of Rome by which we shall easily discover the weakness of your answer and the most palpable fraud of your citation by which we may see What an excellent cause you have to manage which cannot be defended but by such frauds as here you make use of and hope to impose upon your Reader by Your Answer therefore in the general is That the Laws concerning appeals did only concern inferiour Clergy-men but that Bishops were allowed to appeal to Rome even by the Council of Africk which not only decreed it but acknowledged it in an Epistle to Pope Boniface And therefore for our through understanding the truth in this case those proceedings of the African Church must be briefly explained and truly represented Two occasions the Churches of Africa had to determine in the case of Appeals to Rome the first in the Milevitan the second in the Carthaginian Councils in both which we have several things very considerable to our purpose In the Milevitan Council they decree That whosoever would appeal beyond the Sea should not be received into Communion by any in Africa which decree is supposed by some to be occasioned by Coelestius having recourse to Pope Zosimus after he had been condemned in Africa No doubt those prudent Bishops began to be quickly sensible of the monstrous inconvenience which would speedily follow upon the permission of such appeals to Rome for by that means they should never preserve any discipline in their Churches but every person who was called in Question for any crimes would slight the Bishops of those Churches and presently appeal to Rome To prevent which mischief they make that excellent Canon which allows only liberty of appealing to the Councils of Africa or to the Primates of their Province but absolutely forbids all forein appeals All the difficulty is Whether this Canon only concerned the Inferiour Clergy as you say and which is all that the greatest of your side have said in it or Whether it doth not take away all appeals of Bishops too For which we need no more than produce the Canon it self as it is extant in the authentick collection of the Canons of the African Church In which is an express clause declaring that the same thing had been often determined in the case of Bishops Which because it strikes home therefore Perron and others have no other shift but to say That this clause was not in the original Milevitan Canons but was inserted afterwards But why do not they who assert such bold things produce the true authentick Copy of these Milevitan Canons that we may see What is genuine and what not But suppose we should grant that this clause was inserted afterwards it will be rather for the advantage than prejudice of our cause For which we must consider that in the time of Aurelius Bishop of Carthage there had been very many Councils celebrated there no fewer than seventeen Justellus and others reckon But a general Council meeting at Carthage A. D. 419. which was about three years after that Milevitan Council which was held 416. as appears by the Answer of Innocentius to it A. D. 417. at the end of the first Session they reviewed the Canons of those lesser Councils and out of them all composed that Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Africanae as Justellus at large proves in the preface to his edition of it So that if this clause were inserted it must be inserted then for it is well known that the case of Appeals was then at large debated and by that means it received a more general authority by passing in this African Council And hence it was that this Canon passed with this clause into the Greek Churches for Balsamon and Zonaras both acknowledge it and not only they but many ancient Latin Copies had it too and is so received and pleaded by the Council of Rhemes as Hincmarus and others have already proved But Gracian hath helped it well out for he hath added a brave Antidote at the end of it by putting to it a very useful clause Nisi forte Romanam Sedem appellaverit by which the Canon makes excellent sense that none shall appeal to Rome unless they do appeal to Rome for none who have any understanding of the state of those Churches at that time do make the least Question but the intent of the Canon was to prohibit appeals to Rome but then say they They were only the appeals of the Inferiour Clergy which were to be ended
by the Bishops of their own Province But this Answer is very unreasonable on these accounts 1. If Appeals do of right belong to the Bishop of Rome as Vniversal Pastor of the Church then Why not the Appeals of the Inferiour Clergy as well as Bishops Indeed if Appeals were challenged only by virtue of the Canons and those Canons limit one and not the other as the most eager pleaders for Appeals in that age pleaded only the Canons of the Church for them then there might be some reason Why one should be restrained and not the other but if they belong to him by Divine Right then all Appeals must necessarily belong to him 2. If Appeals belong to the Pope as Vniversal Pastor then no Council or persons had any thing to do to determine who should appeal and who not For this were an usurping of the Pope's priviledge for he to whom only the right of Appeals belongs can determine Who should appeal and who not and where and by whom those Controversies should be ended So that the very act of the Council in offering to limit Appeals implies that they did not believe any such Vniversal Pastorship in the Pope for had they not done so they would have waited his judgement and not offered to have determined such things themselves 3. The Appeals of the upper and inferiour Clergy cannot be supposed to be separate from each other For the Appeal of a Presbyter doth suppose the impeachment of the Bishop for some wrong done to him as in the case of Apiarius accusing Vrban the Bishop of Sicca for excommunicating him So that the Bishop becomes a party in the Appeal of a Presbyter And if Appeals be allowed to the Bishop it is supposed to be in his favour for clearing of his right the better and if it be denied to the Presbyter it would savour too much of injustice and partiality 4. The reason of the Canon extends to one as well as the other which must be supposed to prevent all those troubles and inconveniencies which would arise from the liberty of Appeals to Rome and would not these come as well by the Appeals of Bishops as of Inferiour Clergy Nay Doth not the Canon insist on that that no Appeals should be made from the Council of Bishops or the Primates of Africa but in case of Bishops Appeals this would be done as well as the other and therefore they are equally against the reason and design of the Canon 5. The case of Presbyters may be as great and considerable as that of Bishops and as much requiring the judgement of the Vniversal Pastor of the Church As for instance that very case which probably gave occasion to the Milevitan Canon viz. the going of Coelestius to Rome being condemned of Heresie in Africa Now What greater cause could there be made an Appeal to Rome in than in so great a matter of Faith as that was about the necessity of Grace And therefore Petrus de Marcá proves at large against Perron that in the Epistle of Innocent to Victricius where it is said That the greater causes must be referred to the Apostolick See is not to be understood only of the causes of Bishops but may referr to the causes of Presbyters too i. e. when they either concern matter of Faith or some doubtful piece of Church-discipline 6. The Pope notwithstanding this Canon looked on himself as no more hindred from receiving the Appeals of Presbyters than those of Bishops If therefore any difference had been made by any act of the Church surely the Pope would have remanded Presbyters back to their own Provinces again but instead of that we see he received the Appeal of Apiarius But for this a rare Answer is given viz. that though the Presbyters were forbidden to appeal yet the Pope was not forbidden to receive them if they did appeal But to what purpose then were such prohibitions made if the Pope might by his open incouragement of them upon their Appeals to him make them not value such Canons at all for they knew if they could but get to Rome they should be received for all them Notwithstanding all which hath been said you tell us That in the Council of Africk it was acknowledged that Bishops had power in their own cause to appeal to Rome for which you cite in your Margent part of an Epistle of the Council to Boniface But with what honesty and integrity you do this will appear by the story Apiarius then appealing to Zosimus he sends over Faustinus to Africa to negotiate the business of Appeals and to restore Apiarius for which he pleads the Nicene Canons an account of which will be given afterwards the Fathers all protest they could find no such thing there but they agree to send Deputies into the East to fetch the true Canons thence as hath been related already in the mean time Zosimus dyes and Boniface succeeds him but for the better satisfaction of the Pope the Council of Carthage dispatch away a Letter to Boniface to give him an account of their proceedings in which Epistle extant in the African Code of Canons after they have given an account of the business of Apiarius they proceed to the instructions which Faustinus brought with him to Africa the chief of which is that concerning Appeals to be made to Rome and then follow those words which you quote in which they say That in a Letter written the year before to Zosimus they had granted liberty to Bishops to appeal to Rome and that therein they had intimated so much to him Thus far you are right but there is usually some mystery couched in your c. for you know very well where to cut off sentences for had you added but the next words they had spoiled all your foregoing there being contained in them the full reason of what went before viz. that because the Pope pretended that the Appeals of Bishops were contained in the Nicene Canons they were contented to yield that it should be so till the true Canons were produced And is this now all their acknowledgement that Bishops might in their own causes appeal to Rome when they made only a Provisional decree What should be done till the matter came to a resolution But if you will throughly understand what their final judgement was in this business I pray read their excellent Epistle to Pope Celestine who succeeded Boniface after they had received the Nicene Canons out of the East Which being so excellent a Monument of Antiquity and giving so great light to our present Controversie I shall at large recite and render it so far as concerns this business After our bounden duty of Salutation we earnestly beseech you that hereafter you admit not so easily to your ears those that come from hence and that you admit no more into communion those whom we have cast out for your Reverence will easily perceive that this is forbid by the Council of
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
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
man that he contended with 630. Bishops of the Council of Chalcedon about the Primacy of his See and whose Epistles breathe so much of self-denyal in all the contests he had about it And although Pope Agatho and the rest be of later standing when the Popes did begin a little more openly to take upon them yet Can the Protestants think that these men were byassed with their proper Interest Are not these weak pretences for them to reject their Authority upon For your part you say you could never understand this proceeding of Protestants The more a great deal is the pitty and if we could help your understanding and not endanger our own we would willingly do it Well but though Bellarmins pregnant reasons prove so abortive and though the Popes Authorities should not be taken yet his Lordship must needs wrong Bellarmin in saying That he doth upon the matter confess that there is not one Father in the Church disinteressed in the Cause who understands this Text as Bellarmin doth before Theophylact. And the reason is because though Bellarmin cite no more yet there might be more for all that for must he needs confcss there are no more Authours citable in any subject but what he cites himself As though Bellarmin were wont to leave out any authorities which made for his purpose especially in so weighty a subject as this Do you think he was so weak a person to run to Popes Authorities if he could have found any other and when he produces no more is it not a plain confession he found no more to his purpose But I am weary of such great Impertinencies and would fain meet with some thing of matter that might hold up the Readers patience as well as mine All that ever I can meet with that hath any thing of tendency that way is That this priviledge of the Indeficiency of St. Peters Faith doth not belong to him as an Apostle but rather as he was Prince of the Apostles and appointed to be Christs Vicar on earth after him Very handsomely begg'd again but where is the proof for all this Have you no Popes stand ready again to attest the truth of it For none else that have any reason would ever say it did St. Peter deny Christ as Prince of the Apostles Indeed it was then much for his honour that the Captain should fly from his colours first and Christs Vicar upon earth should the most need to have his Faith pray'd for that it should not fail I had thought St. Peter had been head of the Apostles and not Simon if Christ had spoke to him as his Vicar he would sure have call'd him Peter Peter and not Simon Simon But it seems he did not attend that Peter was the Rock on which his Church must be built or else he minded it so much that he thought that name improper when he mentions his falling You have therefore stoutly and unanswerably not proved but demonstrated that these words were spoken of St. Peter not as an Apostle but as Christs Vicar upon earth But suppose it were so what is this to those who pretend to be his Successours Yes very much For say you Whatever our Saviour intended should descend by vertue of that prayer of his did effectively so descend You might have put one of Bellarmins sine dubio's to this For Whoever was so sensless as to question that But you confess It is a very disputable question Whether every thing which Christ by his prayer intended and obtained for St. Peter was likewise intended by him to descend to St. Peters Successours Yet that some special priviledge was to descend to them is you say manifest by Bellarmins Authorities and Reasons If from nothing else I dare confidently say no man in his wits will believe it manifest And what that is neither you nor any one else can either prove or understand Yes say you it is that none of his Successours should ever so farr fall from the Faith as to teach Heresie in Pontificalibus or as you speak with Bellarmine any thing contrary to Faith tanquam Pontifex i. e. in vertue of that Authority which they were to have in the Church as St. Peters Successours Here then we fix a while to see this proved but our expectation is again frustrated For instead of proofs we meet with the old Mumpsimus of the Popes erring as private Doctor but not as Pastour of the Church A distinction so ridiculous that many among your selves deride it as will appear presently And therefore put in your tanquam Pontifex as long as you please you will gain no great matter by it When you can prove that Christ did intend in that one prayer some part of the Gift personally and absolutely to St. Peter and another part conditionally to his Successours I will grant it no absurdity to say that perhaps some part of the Gift did not belong to either of them But these are such strange fetches out of a plain Scripture that those may admire your subtilty who cannot be convinced by your reason Yet to let you see that these things are not so clear as you would have them I shall bring you some Arguments out of your own Writers against your interpretation of this place and I pray Answer them at your leasure Vigorius therefore proves that this place cannot be understood of St. Peter and his Successours that their Faith should not fail for then saith he 1. The Canons had decreed to no purpose that a Pope might be deposed in case of Heresie for those that suppose that he may fall into Heresie do doubtless suppose that his Faith fails Now here is a witness against you from your own Church and that out of your Canons too and that is better worth then twenty Testimonies of Popes for you 2. If this were understood of St. Peters Successours they who succeeded him at Antioch would enjoy this priviledge as well as those at Rome for they are saith he as well St. Peters Successours as the other And saith he if they understand this of one and not of the other totis faucibus se deridendos propinarent they expose themselves to contempt and laughter 3. If this were true of St. Peters Successours at Rome then the decrees of one Pope could not be revoked by the other because it is impossible they should erre in making those decrees But it is not Vigorius alone who hath shewed the weakness of your Arguments from this place for our learned Countryman Mr. White hath more fully and largely discovered the weakness of all your pretences from Scripture Fathers and Reason concerning the Popes succeeding St. Peter in his Infallibility And particularly as to this place he saith that either it concerns the present danger St. Peter was in or else doth represent what was to be afterwards in the Church and that it doth primarily and directly relate to St. Peters imminent tentation all the circumstances perswade us
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
the matter as much as may be and much more than Baronius and others did who pleaded downright for the Popes Temporal Power yet he must be a very weak Prince who doth not see how far that indirect and reductive power may extend when the Pope himself is to be Judge What comes under it and what not And What may not come under it when deposing of Princes shall be reduced under that you call The Worship of God and absolving subjects from their obedience tend to promote their Eternal Salvation But if the Pope may be Judge What temporal things are in ordine ad spiritualia and bring them under his power in that respect Why may not the Prince be Judge what spiritual things are in ordine ad temporalia and use his power over them in that respect too But in the mean time Is not a Kingdom like to be at peace then If the Pope challenged no other authority but what Christ or the Apostles had his Government might be admitted as well as that authority which they had but What do you think of us the mean while when you would perswade us that the Popes Power is no other than what Christ or the Apostles had you must certainly think us such persons as the Moon hath wrought particularly upon as you after very civilly speak concerning his Lordship Your instance from the Kings of France and Spain his Lordship had sufficiently answered by telling you That he that is not blind may see if he will of what little value the Popes Power is in those Kingdoms further than to serve their own turns of him which they do to their great advantage And when you would have this to be upon the account of Faith and Conscience Let the Pope exercise his power apparently against their Interest and then see on what account they profess obedience to him But as long as they can manage such pretences for their advantage and admit so much of it and no more they may very well endure it and his Lordship be far enough from contradicting himself When you would urge the same inconvenience against the Aristocratical Government of the Church you suppose that Aristocratical Government wholly Independent on and not subordinate to the Civil Government whereas his Lordship and the Church of England assert the Kings Supremacy in Government over all both persons and causes Ecclesiastical And therefore this nothing concerns us And if from what hath gone before it must as you say remain therefore fully proved that the external Government of the Church on earth is Monarchical It may for all that I see remain as fully proved that you are now the man who enjoy this Monarchical Power over the Church And whatever you stile the Pope Whether the Deputy or Vicar General of Christ or Servus servorum or what you will it is all one to us as long as we know his meaning whatever fair words you give him As though men would take it one jot the better to have one usurp and Tyrannize over them because he doth not call himself King or Prince but their humble servant Is it not by so much the greater Tyranny to have such kind of Ecclesiastical Saturnalia when the servus servorum must under that name tyrannize over the whole world We have already at large shewed How destructive this pretended Supremacy is to that Government of the Church by Bishops which his Lordship proves from the ancient Canons and Fathers of the Church doth of right belong to them viz. from several Canons of the Councils of Antioch and Nice and the testimonies of S. Augustine and S. Cyprian To all this you only say That you allow the Bishops their portion in the Government of Christs Flock But it is but a very small portion of what belongs to them if all their Jurisdiction must be derived from the Pope which I have shewed before to be the most current Opinion in your Church And I dare say you will not dispute the contrary His Lordship was well enough aware to what purpose Bellarmine acknowledged that the Government of the Church was ever in the Bishops for he himself saith It was to exclude temporal Princes but then he desires A. C. to take notice of that when Secular Princes are to be excluded then it shall be pretended that Bishops have power to govern but when it comes to sharing stakes between them and the Pope then hands off they have nothing to do any further than the Pope gives them leave What follows concerning the impossibility of a right executing of this Monarchy in the Church hath been already discussed of and you answer nothing at all to it that hath any face of pertinency for when you say it will hold as well against the Aristocratical Form I have plainly enough shewed you the contrary That which follows about the design of an Vniversal Monarchy in the State as well as the Church about Pope Innocent 's making the Pope to be the Sun and the Emperour the Moon the Spanish Friers two Scutchions Campanella 's Eclogue since you will not stand to defend them I shall willingly pass them over But what concerns the Supremacy of the Civil Power is more to our purpose and must be considered His Lordship therefore saith That every soul was to be subject to the higher power Rom. 13.1 And the higher Power there mentioned is the Temporal And the ancient Fathers come in with a full consent that every soul comprehends all without exception All spiritual men even to the highest Bishop even in spiritual causes too so the Foundations of Faith and good Manners be not shaken And where they are shaken there ought to be prayer and patience there ought not to be opposition by force Nay Emperours and Kings are custodes utriusque Tabulae They to whom the custody and preservation of both Tables of the Law for worship to God and duty to man are committed A Book of the Law was by Gods own command in Moses his time to be given to the King Deut. 17.18 And the Kings under the Law but still according to it did proceed to necessary Reformation in Church-businesses and therein commanded the very Priests themselves as appears in the Acts of Hezekiah and Josiah who yet were never censured to this day for usurping the High-Priests office Nay and the greatest Emperours for the Churches honour Theodosius the elder and Justinian and Charls the Great and divers others did not only meddle now and then but enact Laws to the great settlement and encrease of Religion in their several times Now to this again you answer That the civil and spiritual are both absolute and independent powers though each in their proper Orb the one in spirituals the other in temporals But What is this to that which his Lordship proves That there can be no such absolute independent spiritual power both because all are bound to obey the Civil Power and because the
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 Antiquity 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 HAving thus far considered the several grounds on which you lay the charge of Schism upon us and shewed at large the weakness and insufficiency of them we should now have proceeded to the last part of our task but that the great Palladium of the present Roman Church viz. the Council of Trent must be examined to see whether it be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or no whether it came from Heaven or was only the contrivance of some cunning Artificers And the famous Bishop of Bitonto in the Sermon made at the opening the Council of Trent hath given us some ground to conjecture its original by his comparing it so ominously to the Trojan-horse Although therefore that the pretences may be high and great that it was made Divina Palladis arte the Spirit of God being said to be present in it and concurring with it yet they who search further will find as much of Artifice in contriving and deceit in the managing the one as the other And although the Cardinal Palavicino uses all his art to bring this Similitude off without reflecting on the honour of the Council yet that Bishop who in that Sermon pleaded so much That the Spirit of God would open the mouths of the Council as he did once those of Balaam and Caiaphas was himself in this expression an illustrious Instance of the truth of what he said For he spake as true in this as if he had been High-Priest himself that year But as if you really believed your self the truth of that Bishops Doctrine That whatever spirit was within them yet being met in Council the Spirit of God would infallibly inspire them you set your self to a serious vindication of the proceedings of that Council and not only so but triumph in it as that which will bring the cause to a speedy Issue And therefore we must particularly enquire into all the pretences you bring to justifie the lawfulness and freedom of that Council but to keep to the Bishops Metaphor Accipe nunc Danaûm Insidias crimine ab uno Disce omnes And when we have thorowly searched this great Engine of your Church we shall have little reason to believe that ever it fell from Heaven His Lordship then having spoken of the usefulness of free General Councils for making some Laws which concern the whole Church His Adversary thinks presently to give him a Choak-pear by telling him That the Council of Trent was a General Council and that had already judged the Protestants to hold errours This you call Laying the Axe to the Root of the Tree that Tree you mean out of which the Popes Infallible Chair was cut for the management of this dispute about the Council of Trent will redound very little to the honour of your Church or Cause But you do well to add That his Lordship was not taken unprovided for he truly answered That the Council of Trent was neither a Legal nor a General Council Both these we undertake to make good in opposition to what you bring by way of answer to his Lordships Exceptions to them That which we begin with is That it was not a Legal Council which his Lordship proves First Because that Council maintained publickly that it is lawful for them to conclude any Controversie and make it to be de Fide and so in your judgement fundamental though it have not a written word for its warrant nay so much as a probable testimony from Scripture The force of his Lordships argument I suppose lyes in this that the Decrees of that Council cannot be such as should bind us to an assent to them because according to their own principles those Decrees may have no foundation in Scripture And that the only legal proceeding in General Councils is to decree according to the Scriptures Now to this you answer That the meaning of the Council or Catholick Authours is not that the Council may make whatever they please matter of Faith but only that which is expressed or involved in the Word of God written or unwritten and this you confess is defined by the Council of Trent in these terms that in matters of Faith we are to rely not only upon Scripture but also on Tradition which Doctrine you say is true and that you have already proved it And I may as well say It is false for I have already answered all your pretended proofs But it is one thing Whether the Doctrine be true or no and another Whether the Council did proceed legally in defining things upon this principle For upon your grounds you are bound to believe it true because the Council hath defined it to be so But if you will undertake to justifie the proceedings of the Council as legal you must make it appear that this was the Rule which General Councils have alwaies acted by in defining any thing to be matter of Faith But if this appear to be false and that you cannot instance in any true General Council which did look on this as a sufficient ground to proceed upon then though the thing may since that Decree be believed as true yet that Council did not proceed legally in defining upon such grounds Name us therefore What Council did ever offer to determine a matter of Faith meerly upon Tradition In the four first General Councils it is well known What authority was given to the Scripture in their definitions and I hope you will not say That any thing they defined had no other ground but Tradition But suppose you could prove this it is not enough for your purpose unless you can make it appear that those Fathers in making such Decrees did acknowledge they had no ground in Scripture for them For if you should prove that really there was no foundation but Tradition yet all that you can inferr thence is That those Fathers were deceived in judging they had other grounds when they had not But still if they made Scripture their Rule and
looked on nothing else as a Foundation for their definitions but the written word of God then the Council of Trent did not proceed legally in offering to define matters of Faith on such grounds which were not acknowledged by the Primitive Church to be sufficient Foundation for such Definitions Cardinal Cusanus at large gives an account of the method of proceeding in the Ancient General Councils and therein tells us not only that the Word of God was placed in the middle among those who sate in Council but gives this as the only Rule of their proceeding quòd secundum testimonia Scripturarum decrevit Synodus that they decreed according to the testimonies of Scripture Now if another Council shall go according to a different Rule from what the Church hath esteemed the only true and adaequate Foundation for definition of Faith that Council breaks the inviolable Laws of Councils and therefore its proceedings cannot be legal As for Instance Supposing a Parliament not to have power to make new Laws but to declare only what is Law and what not for that is all you pretend to as to General Councils and that all other former Parliaments have all along professed this to be their Rule viz. that they search into the body of the Laws and if any thing be controverted Whether it be a Law or no they make a diligent search into it and examine all circumstances concerning it for their own satisfaction and according to the evidence they find of its being contained in this body of Laws they declare themselves but many things growing much in use among a prevailing party which have no colour of being in the written Laws but yet tend much to the Interest of that party and these being opposed by such who stand up for the ancient and known Laws the other are forced to make use of as good an Expedient as they can to preserve their interest and credit together To which end they pack together a company of such who are most concerned to maintain the things in Question and among these the great Innovator sits as President among them and suffers none to come there but such as are obliged by Oath to speak nothing against his Interest and these when met together seeing how unable they are to manage their business according to former Precedents the first thing they do is to declare That customs and usages have as much the force of Laws among them as any contained in the body of them and having established this their Rule according to it they decree all the matters in difference to be true and real Laws Would any man say That these men proceeded legally who first make the Foundation they are to go on contrary to all former Precedents and then define according to that Yet this in all particulars is exactly the case of the Council of Trent but the last part is that we are now about that they should contrary to the proceedings of all General Councils in matters of Faith first make their Rule and then bind all men to all those Decrees which are made according to it And therefore though the Council of Trent may be thought to act wisely in advancing Traditions to an equality with Scripture in the first place yet he must have a great deal of confidence and little judgement who say's that in decreeing matters of Faith from Tradition it acted legally i. e. according to the rules of the undoubted General Councils I cannot therefore say whether you have more of the one or less of the other when you tell us without offering to prove it That the Council did not proceed in a different manner from other lawful General Councils whil'st she grounded her definitions partly on Scripture partly on Tradition even in matters not deducible by any particular or Logical Inference from Scripture The absurdity of which Doctrine in it self I have at large discovered already in our discourse of the Resolution of Faith where it is shewed in what sense his Lordship say's That Apostolical Tradition is the Word of God But that this was a legal way of proceeding in the Council of Trent to define matters of Faith by such Traditions as have no ground in Scripture had need be better proved than by your bare Affirmation And if that be a Tradition too I am sure it is one that is neither contained in nor deducible from the Scripture 2. His Lordship justly excepts against the Council of Trent from the Popes sitting as President in it For saith he Is that Council legal where the Pope the chief person to be reformed shall sit President in it and be chief Judge in his own cause against all Law Divine Natural and Humane To this you return an Answer both to the matter of Right and the matter of Fact To the matter of Right you say That the Pope not being justly accusable of any crime but such as must involve not only the Council but the whole Church as well as himself the Protestants had no just cause to quarrel with the Popes presiding in it Nay that it is conformable to all Law Divine Natural and Humane that the Head should preside over the members and to give Novellists liberty to decline the Popes judgement or the judgement of any other their lawful Superiours upon pretence of their being parties is in effect to exempt absolutely such people from all legal censure and to grant there is no sufficient means effectually to govern the Church or condemn Heresie Schism and other offences against Religion But is it not unanswerable on the other side that this plea of yours makes it impossible that the errours and corruptions of a Church should be reformed in case the Governours of the Church do abett and maintain them If you say That it is not possible the Governours of the Church should do so we have nothing but your bare word for it and reason and experience manifest the contrary In case then there be a vehement presumption at least in a considerable party of the Church that the Church is much degenerated and needs reformation but those who call themselves the lawful Superiours of the Church utterly oppose it What is to be done in this case must the Church continue as it did meerly because the Superiours make themselves parties Nay suppose that which you would call Idolatry be in the Church and the Pope and a Council of his packing declare for it must there be no endeavours of a Reformation but by them who pronounce all Hereticks who oppose them But you say The Head must preside over the members an excellent Argument to defend all usurpations both in Church and State for doubtless they who are in power will call themselves the Heads of all others if that will secure them from any danger But this will exempt them from all legal censure so will your principles all Governours of the Church though guilty of Heresie Blasphemy Idolatry or what crime
more that Hosius should not subscribe first in that capacity but only as Bishop of Corduba for the Popes Legats do not use to be so forgetful of their place and honour It seems then very plain that the Pope had no manner of Presidency at the Council ef Nice We come therefore to following Councils You grant That in the second General Council Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople was President and not the Pope or his Legats But the reason you say was because Pope Damasus having first summoned that Council to be held at Constantinople and the Bishops of the Oriental Provinces being accordingly there met the Pope for some reasons altered his mind and would have had them come to Rome to joyn with the Bishops he had there assembled which the Prelates at Constantinople refusing in a submissive manner alledged such arguments as the Pope remained satisfied with them So the Council you say was upon the matter held in two places at Rome and Constantinople So that while the Pope presided in the Council at Rome and gave allowance to their proceedings at Constantinople and that by reason of their entercourse they were looked on but as one Council in effect and the Pope to have presided therein In all this you discover How much you take up things upon trust and utter them with great confidence when they seem for your purpose although they are built upon notorious mistakes in Ecclesiastical History as I shall make it plain to you this Answer of yours is For neither was the General Council at Constantinople ever in the least summoned by the Pope neither did it â—it at the same time that the Council at Rome under Damasus did neither were any Letters sent from that Council to the Pope and therefore certainly Pope Damasus could not in any sense be said to preside there These things I know make you wonder at first but I shall undertake to make it appear How much your great Masters I need not name them to you have abused your credulity in this story We are to know then that the Emperour Theodosius having been newly admitted into a share of the Empire by Gratian and the Eastern parts of it being allotted to him he considering what a deplorable condition the Churches of those parts were in by reason of the factions and heresies which were among them judges it the best expedient to call a Council at Constantinople to see if there were any hopes to bring the Church to any peace For this purpose 150. Bishops meet from the several Provinces at Constantinople who condemn Macedonius publish a new Creed make several Canons accept of Gregory Nazianzen's resignation of the See of Constantinople chuse Nectarius in his room and on the death of Meletius at Antioch elect Flavianus to succeed him make a Synodical Epistle to the Emperour Theodosius giving him an account of their proceedings and so dissolve This is the short of the narration of it in Theodoret Socrates and Sozomen But as soon as the report of their actions was come into the Western parts great discontents are taken at their proceedings especially at the election of Flavianus to the See at Antioch because the Church of Rome had declared it self in favour of Paulinus at Antioch during the life of Meletius and therefore by no means would they now yield to the succession of Flavianus Upon this Damasus sollicits the Emperour Gratian for a General Council that the cause might be heard and that the Eastern Bishops might meet too he sends other Letters to Theodosius to the same purpose upon the intimation of which the Eastern Bishops who either were detained at Constantinople by several occurrences there or were sent again out of their Provinces thither assemble together and write a Synodical Epistle to Damasus Ambrosius Britton Valerian c. wherein they give an account Why they could not come to Rome because the Eastern Churches could not in so divided and busie a time be left destitute of their Bishops and therefore they desire to be excused but however they had sent Cyriacus Eusebius and Priscianus as their Legats thither This excuse the Emperour Theodosius accepted of and Damasus and his Council were fain to rest satisfied with it only some of Paulinus his party met him there as Epiphanius and S. Hierom although S. Hierom being no Bishop could only shew his good will and take that opportunity of returning to Rome What this Council did under Damasus we are to seek for both Baronius and Binius confess that the Acts of that Council are wholly lost only Baronius thinks that the condemnation of Apollinaris and Timotheus which Theodoret mentions to have been done before and that Paulinus was restored to the See of Antioch by this Council which seems the more probable in that Paulinus the next year returns to Antioch and because the Bishops of Rome afterward took his part and defended his successour against Flavianus in the See of Antioch This being the true account of those proceedings let now any indifferent person judge Whether you were not much put to it when you are fain to confound two Councils held at several times on several occasions on purpose to blind the Reader and to make him believe that Pope Damasus had somewhat to do in calling and presiding in the General Council at Constantinople because he requested the meeting of the Bishops again the year after the General Council And the truth of this is so plain that Baronius and Binius confess the difference of these two Councils both as to the times and occasions of them Baronius placeth the Oecumenical Council at Constantinople A. D. 381. Eucherius and Syagrius being COSS. in May but the other Council at Constantinople he placeth the year after A. D. 382. Syagrius and Antonius COSS. at which time likewise the Council at Rome sate And so Binius reckons this Council as a second Council at Constantinople under Damasus and in all things concerning the times of this and the former follows Baronius exactly So much are the two great Cardinals Bellarmin and Perron mistaken when they would have the Council at Constantinople called Oecumenical on this account because there was a Council at Rome sitting under Damasus at the same time approving what was done at Constantinople Whereas the occasion of the Council at Rome was given by some of the last Acts of the Oecumenical Council viz. the election of Flavianus But that this could not be that those two Councils at Rome and Constantinople should sit together at the same time and on the same account appears by the Synodical Epistle of the Council the year following sent to Damasus which is exemplified both in Binius and Baronius and is originally extant in Theodoret. Although Binius placeth it at the end of the Oecumenical Council but Baronius much more fairly in the next year as being the Act of the second Council Now there are two things in that
time viz. the direction of the Holy Ghost this spiritual power not being of humane but divine Institution and not proceeding so much from the abilities of the persons as from the co-operation of the Holy Spirit with them To which I reply that all this had need be more then thus barely asserted it being confessed by your selves as his Lordship shews that a General Council is a representative of the whole Church you ought to have shewed us the Divine Institution of this Representative and the promises made to it under that notion or else we may still say with his Lordship That all the power and assistance it hath is by vertue of that body which it represents But I need not in this urge the Arguments of Protestants against you for in this as in most other Controversies we have enough from those of your own party to oppose against these affirmations of yours For Albertus Pighius not only asserts but proves that General Councils are not of divine but humane institution arising from a dictate of right reason that matters of doubt may be better debated by many prudent and experienced persons then by a few So that as the supream authority for administration of affairs belongs to one so it is most agreeable to right reason that debates should be by many This he proves at large that nothing but humane reason is the foundation of Councils in the Church for saith he In Scripturis Canonicis nullum de iis verbum est nec ex Apostolorum institutione speciale quicquam de illis accepit illa primitiva Christi Ecclesia There is not a word of them in Scripture neither did the primitive Church receive any particular order from the Apostles concerning them which he from thence proves because in all the time of the primitive Church till the Nicene Council there is no mention at all of them And at that time it did not receive any new revelation concerning the celebrating General Councils but the Emperour Constantines zeal for the peace of the Church was the first cause and original of them From whence he concludes that they have no supernatural or divine Institution sed prorsus humanam but altogether humane for they are saith he The invention of Constantine sometimes useful but not at all necessary This man speaks intelligibly and not like those who jumble Pope and Council together to make something Infallible between them For he sayes It is the better way by far to go immediately to the Apostolical See and consult that as the Infallible Oracle in all doubts of Faith And very honestly tells us That he believes Constantine was ignorant of that priviledge of the Holy See when he first instituted General Councils Than which nothing could be spoken truer If you have then nothing more to say for the Divine Institution of General Councils then what you have acquainted us with it would be much more wisedom in you to contend with Pighius for the Popes Infallibility and let that of General Councils shift for it self His Lordships second Consideration you admit of viz. That though the Act which is hammered out by many together must needs be perfecter then that which is but the child of one mans sufficiency yet this cannot be Infallible unless it be from some special assistance of the Holy Ghost Therefore omitting your very impertinent addition to this consideration viz. So as to make its Decrees Infallible which is the thing in question We proceed to the third which is That the Assistance of the Holy Ghost is without errour which saith he is no question and as little that a Council hath it But the doubt that troubles is whether all assistance of the Holy Ghost be afforded in such a high manner as to cause all the definitions of a Council in matters fundamental in the Faith and in remote deductions from it to be alike Infallible From this last expression you would very subtilly infer contrary to his Lordships design That he granted General Councils to be Infallible in deductions as well as fundamentals but not to be alike Infallible whereas it is plain his Lordship means no more by alike Infallible then Whether the assistance be alike in both to make them Infallible And this you might easily perceive but it would have prevented your cavil about a graduated Infallibility which I know none assert but your self This Consideration brings on the main of the battel in those texts of Scripture which are most insisted on to prove the Infallibility of General Councils viz. John 16.13 I will send you the Spirit of Truth and he shall lead you into all Truth John 14.16 This Spirit shall abide with you for ever Matth. 28.20 Behold I am with you to the end of the world Matth. 16.18 The founding of the Church upon the Rock against which the gates of hell shall not prevail Luke 22.32 Christs prayer for St. Peter that his Faith should not fail Matth. 18.20 Where two or three are gathered together in my Name I will be in the midst of them Acts 15.28 It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us All which places except the two last have been already examined as far as concerns any promise of Infallibility in the questions concerning the Churches and the Popes Infallibility and there being no reason at all given why any Infallibility at all is promised by them to the Church after the Apostles times it may seem wholly needless to bestow a particular consideration again upon all of them For it is evident in those places all your drift and design is only to prove a promise of Infallibility in the Church and to the Councils only by vertue of that But having at large before shewed that no such thing can be inferred from these or any other places that which is built upon it is wholly taken away too For the only pretence that you have why Councils should be proved hence Infallible is because the Church hath Infallibility promised by these texts which must be very well proved and much better then you have done either here or elsewhere before the other can be deduced from hence And yet supposing I should grant that Infallibility was promised to the Church I see no such necessary consequence from thence that General Councils must be Infallible unless you can prove from Scripture that the Infallibility of the Church is meant of the Church representative and not diffusive which is a new task which you have not yet undertaken For it is not enough to say That the body of the Church is bound to believe and profess the doctrine taught by the representative and therefore the representative must be Infallible unless you could first prove that there is a necessity of some continued Infallible teaching by the Church representative which I despair of ever seeing done I am so far therefore from thinking as you do That these texts are sufficiently clear in themselves to prove
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
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
specie panis vini Indeed in the late editions of the Councils by Binius a complaint is supposed to be made concerning the celebrating the Sacrament after Supper by some which he seems to take out of Cochlaeus as appears by his notes but in the Instrument it self nothing appears of that nature and since the Decree contains nothing against that custom as well as the other it seems probable that this was made use of the better to bring on the other But whether it were so or no is not very much material for however the Council confessing that Christ did so administer it and that it was the custom of the Primitive Church their prohibiting of it doth in its own nature imply a non obstante to the Institution of Christ. But this is that you stiffly deny in saying That neither the Decree of the Council nor the practise of the Church in administring under one kind is contrary to the Institution and ordination of Christ. For say you to shew this the Bishop should have made it appear that Christ did so institute this Sacrament of his last supper that he would not have one part to be administred without the other or that he would not have one part to be taken without the other And it cannot be proved that Laymen are bound to receive in both kinds from those words Drink ye all of this For if this were a command and not a Counsel it was given to the Apostles who all drunk of the Chalice So that the state of the Question is this Whether the Primitive Institution be universally obligatory to all Christians or no For you suppose that either it was only a Counsel or else it had particular reference to the Apostles For the clearing therefore of this Question there are but two wayes whereby we can judge of the obligatory nature of such Institutions either by an express declaration of the will of the first Institutor or by the Vniversal sense of the Church concerning the nature of that Institution And if these two appear evident in this present case you will have no cause to question but the communion in one kind is a violation of the Institution of Christ. There are two wayes whereby we may judge what the will of the Legislator is First by an express positive command Secondly by an unalterable reason on which the Institution is founded Now that both these are clear in the case of Communion in both kinds I now come to manifest First by a positive command For although we grant a difference between an Institution and a command in this respect that the Institution properly respects the thing and a command the person and that an Institution barely considered as such doth not bind all persons to the observance of it as we say Matrimony is Instituted by God but do not thence assert that all persons are bound to it but yet take an Institution as it referrs to persons and so it is aequipollent with a command And so Christs Instituting that all who believe should be baptized is of the nature of a command to that purpose But here is a great difference to be made between such things as were done at the Institution and such things as were Instituted to be done afterwards Thus Christ washed his Disciples feet administred after Supper and only to twelve but it doth not follow that these circumstances must be still observed because though they were done then at that celebration yet Christ doth not Institute or appoint the doing of them when ever that Sacrament should be administred afterwards For we are to consider that though there were some things peculiar to the first Institution yet the main of it was intended for the Church in all following times Or else we must make the celebration of the Eucharist it self to be a meer arbitrary thing Which if it be not there must lye an obligation on men for the participation of it now this obligation must suppose a Law and therefore we have gained this that the Institution of the Eucharist doth imply a command for its observation in the Church So that this action of Christ was not meerly a matter of Counsel but there is something in it perpetually obligatory Because it was not a peculiar rite appropriated to the present time but intended for the future ages of the Church This being proved in the General that there is a perpetually obligatory command implyed in the Institution we are now to enquire How far this command extends Whether it extended only to the Apostles or else to all believers That it was administred then to the Apostles only is granted but the Question is In what capacity it was administred to them Whether only as Apostles or as Believers and that must be judged by the intention of the Institution Whether it were of that nature as to respect their Apostolical office or else some thing which would be common with them to all other Believers to the worlds end If it were only and wholly proper to the Apostles there can be no reason given why the Institution of the Sacrament should continue after their times neither could any other but the Apostles have any right either to administer or to receive it It follows then that this Sacrament was not instituted meerly for the Apostles if not for them meerly then what was contained in the Institution doth concern others as well as them Now there are four things commanded in the Institution Take eat drink ye all of this and This do in remembrance of me If the Institution doth not meerly respect the Apostles as such but others also then some of these things at least must extend to others too considered as Believers And if some why not all of them Were the Apostles considered as Believers when they were bid to take and eat and as Apostles when Christ said drink ye all of this What reasonable pretext can be imagin'd for such a groundless fancy If they were not considered as Believers when Christ said take eat by what right can any Believers take and eat if they were then so were they likewise afterwards when Christ said to them Drink ye all of this As far therefore as I can possibly see you must either admit the people to drinking all of this or else deprive them of their right of taking and eating And if you did speak consistently you must say that the peoples being admitted at all to the Eucharist is an act of favour and indulgence in the Church but not necessary by any command of Christ the Eucharist being administred to the Apostles and not the people and therefore it being indulgence to admit them at all it is in the Churches power to admit as far and to what she pleases This is the only rational way I can imagine whereby you may defend the excluding the people from the Cup But this you dare not say and therefore are put to the weakest shifts
now Where it was God repealed the second Commandment or What there was in it typical and ceremonial that it must cease to oblige at Christ's coming or What Reasons it was built on which were only proper to the Jews and cannot extend to the Christians too and Why Relative Worship and the helps for memory and devotion would not as well have justified the use and worship of Images before Christ as after And why the same reasons from the danger of Idolatry low conceptions of God and what other reasons you will give of that prohibition then may not hold as well still These and many other things if you would have vindicated the practice of your Church you ought to have insisted on But since you omit them wholly and think to put us off with repeating the decree of the Council of Trent you only shew the weakness of your cause and of those unintelligible subtilties which are used to defend it To what his Lordship saith That in Optatus his time the Christians were much troubled upon but a false report that an Image was to be placed upon the Altar What would they have done if Adoration had been commanded You answer That it was either some Idol or common Image of a Man or of the Emperour or the Governour of the Province or something or other but you cannot tell what But if it had been any of all these How easie had it been for them to have vindicated themselves by saying That if it had been the Image of Christ or some Saints they would then have worshipped it but they could not otherwise But we see it was not because it was such or such an Image that the displeasure was taken but that it was any at all and this was then justly looked on as a strange thing being so contrary to the practice of the Christian Church from Christ's time till that This you deny and say That the Images of Christ and the Saints were in common use and veneration too amongst Christians in the Ancient Church How is it possible to deal with you that dare with so much confidence obtrude such notorious falsities upon the world There being scarce any thing imaginable in which there are more express testimonies for so many ages together then against the use or veneration of Images in the Ancient Church With what scorn and contempt do the Primitive Christians reject the use of Images and that not in regard of an absolute but a relative Worship If you had read the discourses of the Christians in the Primitive times such as Clemens Alexandrinus Origen against Celsus Tertullian Minutius Felix Arnobius Lactantius Athanasius Eusebius S. Augustin where they dispute against the Heathens not meerly for worshipping Idols but for any worship of Images though meerly as they are signs or symbols of the proper objects of worship you could not possibly have uttered so gross a falshood as that foregoing unless you were resolved to offer violence to your conscience in it If you think the Council of Trent brings off all this by saying Men must not believe there is any Divinity in Images and that it was the worship which arose from such an apprehension which the Father 's disputed against I assure you you are greatly deceived For there is no such difference between the Heathens apprehensions and yours as to the worship of Images as you imagine Who is such a fool saith Celsus to think that these are gods and not the bare Images of them You are greatly mistaken saith the Heathen in Arnobius if you think that we worship the Images for gods no we worship the gods by and through them and therefore saith That the Ancients were not ignorant that the Images had neither sense nor divinity in them but only that the rude and ignorant people wanted such things to put them in mind of the gods What is there more than this that you have to plead for the Vse of them Non ipsa timemus simulachra say the Heathens in Lactantius sed eos ad quorum imaginem ficta quorum nominibus consecrata sunt We worship not the Images but them to whom they are consecrated which in your language is They give them not an absolute but a relative Worship Nec simulachrum nec Daemonium colo sed per effigiâ—m corporalem ejus rei signum intuâ—or quam colere debeo saith the Heathen in S. Augustin I neither worship the Image nor the Daemon in it but only by that visible representation I am put in mind of that which I ought to worship If you say This was not the common sense of them but only some more subtle men asserted this because they could not defend their gross Idolatries otherwise the very same is most true of your selves your distinctions are such which the people are not capable of in the worship they give and they only serve to answer those who dislike so palpable an imitation of Heathenism as is in the worship of Images And it will be hard to find that any Heathens had any higher thoughts of their Images or used greater acts of worship towards them than the people of your Church do For Are not miraculous operations among you ascribed to Images of Saints And what greater testimony of Divinity can be supposed in them Do not they fall down in the most devout manner to them and make the most formal addresses before them and that not meerly with a respect to what is represented but with a worship belonging to the Images themselves And What more than this did ever the Heathens do So that those Fathers who so much condemned that use and veneration of Images which was among the Heathens must needs be understood to condemn as much that in your Church too And thence Eusebius ascribes the setting up the Statue at Paneas to a Heathen custom thence Epiphanius rent the vail at Anablatha wherein the Image of Christ or some Saint was drawn thence the Council of Elvira in Spain forbids the placing of pictures in Churches lest that which is worshipped or adored should be painted on walls thence S. Augustin condemns the worshippers of pictures thence the very Art of Painting was condemned in the Ancient Church as appears by Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullian and after all this Is it possible to believe what you say viz. That Images were in common use and veneration too in the Ancient Church But surely we shall have some evident proof for so bold an assertion It were well if there were any thing looked like it For all that you produce is only that in Tertullian 's time the Christians were abused with the nick-name of Crucis Religiosi and that in Chrysostom 's time the Cross made a glorious shew upon the Altar And Are not these invincible proofs for the veneration of Images in the Ancient Church But Why do you not as well say The Christians worshipped an Asses Head the Sun
besotted on their old worm-eaten Images that when they were to have new ones in their rooms they begg'd with tears to have their old ones still But although you grant these people guilty of indiscretion yet by no means of Idolatry because they did not call them their gods If you think none were Idolaters but such as did believe their Images to be gods I doubt you may find the number of Atheists as great as that of Idolaters in the world But if we may guess at peoples apprehensions by their actions these seemed as much to believe them to be gods as any Heathens you can instance in Your vindication of Llamas from saying That the Images of Christ and the Saints as they represent their exemplars have Deity or Divinity in them as it is undertaken somewhat fearfully because you say you hope to clear his meaning whatever his words seem to import so at last it stands on the sandy foundation of relative and absolute Worship which being taken away that and your Images fall together I conclude this subject with his Lordships wish That men of learning would not strain their wits to spoil the truth and rent the Peace of the Church of Christ by such dangerous such superstitious vanities For better they are not but they may be worse And I fear are so CHAP. IV. Of the possibility of Salvation in the Roman Church Protestants Concessions ought not to be any ground to preferr the Communion of the Church of Rome How far those Concessions extend The uncharitableness of Romanists if they yield not the same to us The weakness of the Arguments to prove the Roman Church the safer way to salvation on Protestant Principles The dangerous Doctrines of Romanists about the easiness of salvation by the Sacrament of Pennance The case parall'eld be-between the Donatists and Romanists in denying salvation to all but themselves and the advantages equal from their adversaries Concessions The advantage of the Protestants if that be the safest way which both parties are agreed in manifested and vindicated in several particulars The Principle it self at large shewed to be a meer contingent Proposition and such as may lead to Heresie and Infidelity The case of the Leaders in the Roman Church and others distinguished The Errours and Superstitions of the Roman Church make its communion very dangerous in order to Salvation THe main thing which now remains to be discussed is Whether the Communion of your Church or ours be rather to be chosen in order to salvation For that being the great end of our Faith the tendency to the promotion of that ought to be the Rule by which we should embrace or continue in the society of any Church And since the regard men ought to have of their eternal welfare doth oblige them to make choice of the best means in order to it the bare remote possibility of salvation in any Church ought to have no force or consideration at all in the determining their choice in a matter of so great importance As supposing a Pilot at Sea whose only desire is to bring his ship safe into his desired Port should be told that there are two passages homewards the one free and open in which there is no danger the other amidst many Rocks and Shelves in which yet there is a possibility of escaping Would not he be accounted a very weak man that should chuse this latter way meerly because it is possible he may escape and neglect the other in which there is no danger of miscarrying So it is here in our present case the Protestants confess there is a possibility for some to escape in the Communion of the Roman Church but it is as men may escape with their lives in a shipwrack but they undertake to make it evident there can be no danger if they observe the principles of Protestant Religion VVould it not be madness in any then to neglect this and make choice of the other meerly because Protestants agree with you that there is a possibility of salvation for some in the Roman Church Yet this is the great Argument you make use of whereby to Proselyte such persons who want judgement enough to discern the weakness and sophistry of it That therefore we are now to enquire into is Whether your Communion or ours be more eligible upon principles of reason and prudence in order to Salvation And two things are insisted on in behalf of your Church first That Protestants grant the possibility of salvation in your Church but you deny it in ours and therefore yours is the safer way Secondly That the Faith of Protestants doth not stand upon those sure grounds which your Faith doth As to the first there are two things to be considered 1. How far we grant a possibility of salvation to those in your Church 2. What can be infer'd from that Concession in the choice of Religion The occasion of entering upon this debate was the Lady's Query Whether she might be saved in the Roman Faith to which his Lordship answers in General that the ignorant that could not discern the errours of that Church so they held the Foundation and conformed themselves to a religious life might be saved and more particularly to the Lady that it must needs go harder with her even in point of salvation because she had been brought to understand very much for one of her condition in these Controverted causes of Religion And a person that comes to know much had need carefully bethink himself that he oppose not known truth against the Church that made him a Christian for salvation may be in the Church of Rome and they not find it that make surest of it And after he explains himself more fully That might be saved grants but a possibility no sure or safe way to salvation the possibility I think saith he cannot be denyed to the ignorants especially because they hold the Foundation and cannot survey the Building And the Foundation can deceive no man that rests upon it But a secure way they cannot go that hold with such corruptions when they know them Now whether it be wisdom in such a point as salvation is to forsake a Church in the which the ground of salvation is firm to follow a Church in which it is but possible one may be saved but very probable he may do worse if he look not well to the Foundation judge ye So that still his Lordship asserts the Protestants way to be the only safe way to salvation and that in the Church of Rome there is only a limited possibility of it which is such that he say's A. C. or his fellows can take little comfort in For as he after declares himself Many Protestants indeed confess there is salvation possible to be attained in the Roman Church but yet they say withall that the errours of that Church are so many and some so great as weaken the Foundation that it is very
this you call The Doctrine of Catholicks The Doctrine rather of a proud tyrannical and uncharitable faction of men who that they might gain Proselytes to themselves shew how little they are themselves the Proselytes of Christ. But you offer us a reason for it Because all Catholicks hold that neither Faith nor Hope nor any Repentance can save us but that only which is joyned with a perfect Love of God without the Sacrament of Pennance actually and duely received and because Protestants reject this they cannot be saved But you are not at all the less excusable because you assert such Doctrines from whence such uncharitableness follows but the dreadful consequence of such Doctrines ought rather to make you question the truth of them For can any one who knows and understands Christianity ever believe that although he had a most hearty repentance for sin and a most sincere love to God he should eternally perish because he did not confess his sins to a Priest and receive absolution from him I can hardly perswade my self that you can believe such things but that only such Doctrines are necessary to be taught to maintain the Priests authority and to fright men into that pick-lock of conscience the useful practise of Auricular Confession To what purpose are all the promises of grace and mercy through Christ upon the sincerity of our turning to him if after all this the effect depends upon that Sacrament of Pennance of which no precept is given us by Christ much less any necessity of it asserted in order to eternal Salvation If this then be all your ground of condemning Protestants they may rejoyce in this That your reasons are as weak as your malice strong But it would be more fit for you to enquire Whether such who live and dye in such a height of uncharitableness whether with or without the Sacrament of Pennance can be in any capacity of eternal Salvation For that is a plain violation of the Laws of Christ this other even among your selves a disputable Institution of Christ and by many said not to be at all of that necessity which you suppose it to be For neither Medina nor Maldonate even since the Council of Trent dare affirm the denyal of your Sacrament of Pennance to be Heresie and must then the souls of all Protestants be sent to hell for want of that which it is questionable whether it were Instituted by Christ or no. But if this Sacrament of Pennance be so necessary to Salvation that they cannot be saved who want it What becomes then of all the Primitive Church which was utterly a stranger to your Sacrament of Pennance as shall be manifested when you desire it what becomes of the Greek Church which as peremptorily denies the necessity of it as Protestants do Both which you may find confessed and proved by Father Barns and many testimonies of your own Authours are brought by him against the Divine Institution and necessity of it Who very ingenuously confesses That by the Law of Christ such a one by the sentence of very many Catholicks may be pronounced absolved before God who manifests the truth of his Faith and Charity although he discovers not a word of the number or weight of his sins What unreasonable as well as uncharitable men are you then to assert That no Protestants can escape damnation for want of that which so many among your selves make unnecessary for the pardon of sin But it is just with God that those who are so ready to condemn others should be condemned by themselves and if your Consciences do not condemn you here your Sentence may be the greater in another world Your second Argument against Protestants is Because they want certainty of Faith by denying the Infallibility of Church and Councils but this hath been so throughly sifted already that I suppose none who have read the preceding discourses will have the least cause to stick at this and therefore we proceed to the Vindication of your censures from being guilty of the want of Charity For you are the men who would have us thank God when you condemn us to hell that we escape so and are angry with us that we do not believe that you most entirely love us when you judge us to eternal flames For you say that your denyal of Salvation to us is grounded even upon Charity If it be so you are the most charitable people in the world for you deny Salvation to all but your selves and some Heathens But say you If Salvation may be had in your Church as Protestants confess and there be no true Church or Faith but one it follows that out of your Church there is no Salvation to be had To which his Lordship had fully answered by saying T is true there is but one true Faith and but one true Church but that one both Faith and Church is the Catholick Christian not the particular Roman So that this passage is a meer begging the question and then threatning upon it without all reason or charity And all your declamations about the way of knowing the Doctrine of the Catholick Church have been spoiled by what hath been said already upon that subject We come therefore to that which is the proper business of this Chapter which is to examine the strength of that Inference which is drawn from the Protestants concession of the possibility of Salvation in your Church viz. That thence it follows that the Roman Church and Religion is the safer way to Salvation Two things his Lordship observes the force of this Argument lyes in the one directly expressed viz. The consent of both parties of the possibility of Salvation in the Roman Church the other upon the By viz. That we cannot be saved because we are out of the Church And of these two he speaks in order First he begins with the confession as to which his Answer lyes in three things 1. That this was the way of the Donatists of old and would hold as well for them as the Church of Rome 2. That if the principle on which this Argument proceeds be true it will be more for the advantage of Protestants then of your Church 3. That the principle it self is a contingent Proposition and may justifie the greatest Heresies in the world By this methodizing his Lordships discourse we shall the better discern the strength of your Answers to the several particulars of it In the first place he shews How parallel this is with the proceedings of the Donatists for both parts granted that baptism was true among the Donatists but the Donatists denyed it to be true baptism among the Catholick Christians and therefore on this principle the Donatists side is the surer side if that principle be true That it is the safest taking that way which the differing parties agree on To this you Answer nothing but what will still return upon your selves and discover the
adversary confesses or differing parties agree in is no Metaphysical Principle but a bare contingent Proposition and may be true or false as the matter is to which it is applied and so of no necessary truth in it self nor able to lead in the Conclusion Because consent of disagreeing parties is neither Rule nor Proof of Truth For Herod and Pilate disagreeing parties enough yet agreed against Truth it self But Truth rather is or should be the Rule to frame if not to force agreement And to prove this further his Lordship shews That if this Principle hold good that 't is safest to believe as the dissenting parties agree or as the adverse party confesses a man must be an Heretick in the highest degree if not an Infidel For 1. In the Question between the Orthodox and Arrian concerning the Consubstantiality of the Son of God with the Father The Orthodox confessed that which the Arrians asserted viz. that Christ was of a like nature with his Father but they added more viz. that he was of the same nature Therefore upon this Principle it would be safest holding with the Arrians 2. In the Question about the Resurrection the dissenting parties agree that there ought to be a Resurrection from sin to the state of grace and that this Resurrection only is meant in divers passages of Scripture together with the life of the soul which they are content to say is Immortal but they deny any Resurrection of the body after death And therefore if this Principle be true it will be safest to deny the Article of the Resurrection 3. In the great Dispute about the Vnity of the Godhead all dissenting parties Jew Turk and Christian and all sects of Christians agree in this that there is but one God and so by virtue of this Principle men will be bound to deny the Trinity 4. In the Article of the Divinity of Christ The dissenting parties agree fully and clearly that Christ is man but the Hereticks deny him to be God if it be therefore safest to go by the consent of dissenting parties or the confession of adversaries it will be safest believing that Christ is a meer man and not God From whence his Lordship most evidently proves That this Rule To resolve a mans Faith into that in which the dissenting parties agree or which the adverse party confesses is a meer contingent Proposition and is as often false as true And false in as great if not greater matters than those in which it is true And where it is true you dare not govern your selves by it the Church of Rome condemning those things which that Rule proves And his Lordship justly admires that while you talk of Certainty nay of Infallibility you are driven to make use of such poor shifts as these which have no Certainty at all of Truth in them but inferr Falshood and Truth alike And yet for this also men will be so weak or so wilful as to be seduced by you But now it is time to take notice what Answer you return to these pregnant Instances which his Lordship uses and you think to take off all this by one General Answer viz. That the Rule speaks this precisely and no more viz. that when two parties differ in point of Religion 't is in prudence safest to take that way wherein both parties grant Salvation to be obtainable but in the former Instances Salvation was not allowed by the Orthodox to the dissenters But how poor an Evasion this is will be very easily discovered For 1. If that Principle be true it must be built on that which his Lordship disproves viz. That when two parties disagree it is safest believing that which both consent in For let any reasonable man judge on what account I ought to make choice of your Religion you say Because both parties are agreed that men may be saved in your Church well then I ask Why I ought to believe that which both parties are agreed in Doth it not necessarily resolve it self into this Principle That it is safest believing that which both parties consent in For if this be not safest Why should I be more inclined by their consent than otherwise So that if you let go this you let go the only foundation on which that Principle stands For if the consenting parties may agree in a falshood What evidence can I have but that this is one of those falshoods they may agree in And therefore it is far from being the safest way to venture upon that which the dissenting parties agree in And because Salvation is a matter of the highest moment if the Principle will not hold as to matter of particular Opinion much less certainly in the most weighty affair of mens eternal Salvation And it ought to be a safe Principle indeed which men should venture their souls upon and not so uncertain Topical an Argument as this is So that it is so far from being a matter of prudence to make choice of Religion on such a Principle that no man can be guilty of greater weakness or imprudence than by doing so 2. If this Principle should be limited only to a possibility of Salvation yet as to that it is easie to discover how false and uncertain a principle it is because it it generally the nature of Sects to be uncharitable and to deny Salvation to all but themselves Whereas the Orthodox Christians in all ages have hoped the best of those who were mis-led among them and on this ground it would still be safer to be on the Sectaries than the Churches side You have therefore gained an excellent Principle for the advantage of your Church which if it hold for you will hold as well for the most uncharitable Sectaries that are in the world Nay we may go somewhat further and What think you if Heathenism it self will be proved the safest way to Salvation For many of you agree with them That many of them might be saved without any explicite knowledge of Christ but they deny you can be saved by it If then this Principle be found farewel the Church of Rome and welcome Philosophy If you say They are only some among you who assert the possibility of the Salvation of Heathens you know the very same Answer will hold as to us for you confess That many Protestants grant no more to you than you do to them in order to Salvation If you say That Heathens may be saved only on supposition of a general Repentance that is all that any of us say as to you So that if the Argument will hold one way it must the other too and it argues you are very much to seek for proofs when you make use of this to perswade men to be of your Church And you have no cause to triumph in the Conversion of such who suffer themselves to be imposed on by so palpable a piece of Sophistry as this is But your way is to deal with the weakest
Proposition it is understood of all those common fundamental Truths which the Christian Church of all ages hath been agreed in And the saying There is but one saving Faith is of the same sense with the saying There is but one true Religion in the world The substance of what you would inferr from the saying of Athanasius his Creed Which if a man keeps whole and inviolate as you would have it is this That a man is equally bound to believe every Article of Faith But you cannot mean that it is simply necessary to do it for that you disclaim elsewhere by your distinction of things necessary from the matter and the formal reason of Faith and therefore it can only be meant of such to whom those objects of Faith are sufficiently proposed and so far we acknowledge it too that it is necessary to Salvation for every man to believe that which he is convinced to be an object of Faith For otherwise such persons must call in question God's Veracity but if you would hence make it necessary to believe all that your Church proposes for matter of Faith you must prove that whatever your Church delivers is as infallibly true as if God himself spake and when you can perswade us of this we shall believe whatever is propounded by her When you say We cannot believe all Articles of Faith on the same formal reason because we deny the Churches Infallibility it is apparent that you make the Churches testimony the formal reason of Faith and that you are bound to prove the Church absolutely Infallible before we can believe any thing on her account Neither doth it follow Because we deny that therefore we pick and chuse our Faith for we believe all without reservation which you or any man can convince us was ever revealed by God As to what at large occurrs here again about the Infallibility of Councils there is nothing but what hath been sufficiently answered on that subject and so reserving the Question of Purgatory which is here brought in by his Lordship as a further Instance of the errours of General Councils I pass on to the two last Chapters In which we meet again with the objected inconveniencies from questioning the Infallibility of the Church and Councils That then Faith would be uncertain and private persons might judge of Councils and if they may erre in one they may erre in all as fresh as if they had never been heard of before Only the Argument from Rom. 10.15 That because none can preach except they be sent therefore the present Church is Infallible is both new and excellent on which account I let it pass If your Church with all her Infallibility can do no more as you confess in reference to Heresies but only secure the faithful members of the Church who have due care of themselves and perform their duty well towards their lawful Pastors you have little cause to boast of the great priviledge of it and as little reason to contend for the necessity of it since so much is done without it and on surer grounds by the Scriptures and the use of other means which fall short of Infallibility In the beginning of your last Chapter we have a large dispute concerning S. Cyprian's meaning in his 45. Epistle to Cornelius where he speaks of the root and matrix of the Catholick Church viz. Whether by that the Roman Church be understood or no His Lordship saith Not and gives many reasons for it you maintain the contrary but the business may be soon decided upon a true state of the occasion of writing that Epistle Which in short was this It seems Letters had been sent in the name of Polycarp Bishop of the Colony of Adrumyttium directed to Cornelius at Rome but Cyprian and Liberalis coming thither and acquainting the Clergy there with the resolution of the African Bishops to suspend communion either with Cornelius or Novatianus till the return of Caldonius and Fortunatus who were sent on purpose to give an account of the proceedings there the Clergy of Adrumyttium upon this writing to Rome direct their Letters not to Cornelius but to the Roman Clergy Which Cornelius being it seems informed by some as though it were done by S. Cyprian's Counsel takes offence at and writes to Cyprian about it Who gives him in this Epistle the account of it that it was only done that there might be no dissent among themselves upon this difference at Rome and that they only suspended their sentence till the return of Caldonius and Fortunatus who might either bring them word that all was composed at Rome or else satisfie them Who was the lawfully ordained Bishop And therefore as soon as they understood that Cornelius was the lawful Bishop they unanimously declare for him and order all Letters to be sent to him and that his communion should be embraced This is the substance of that Epistle But it seems Cornelius was moved at S. Cyprian's suspending himself as though it were done out of dis-favour to him which Cyprian to clear himself of tells him That his design was only to preserve the Vnity of the Catholick Church For saith he we gave this advice to all those who the mean time had occasion to sail to Rome ut Ecclesiae Catholicae radicem matricem agnoscerent tenerent that they would acknowledge and hold to the root and matrix of the Catholick Church by which his Lordship understands the Vnity of the Church Catholick you the particular Church of Rome But it is apparent the meaning of this Counsel was to prevent their participation in the Schism So that if upon their coming to Rome the Schismatical party was evidently known from the other which they might I grant soon understand there by the circumstances of affairs they should joyn themselves with that part which preserved the Vnity of the Catholick Church Which I take to be the true meaning of S. Cyprian But in case the matter should prove disputable at Rome and the matter be referred to other Churches then by virtue of this advice they were bound to suspend their communion with either party till the Catholick Church had declared it self By this account of the business all your Arguments come to nothing for they only prove that which I grant viz. That in case it appeared at Rome Which was the Catholick party they were to communicate with it but this was not because the Catholick party at Rome was the root and matrix of the Catholick Church for on that account the party of Novatianus might have been so too if Novatianus had been lawful Bishop but their holding to the root of the Catholick Church would oblige them to communicate only with that part which did preserve the Vnity of it For the Controversie now at Rome was between two parties both challenging an equal right and therefore if S. Cyprian had only advised them to communicate with the Roman
ground than not being able to distinguish between the submission of Obedience and Faith For his Lordship saith It may be our duty not to oppose General Councils in case they erre and yet it may be no pride not to believe known and gross errours of General Councils and I pray What shadow of a contradiction is here And if it be pride in us not to believe gross errours imposed on us Is it not much more intolerable in them who offer to impose them What Authority the Pope hath either to order or confirm Councils it is not here a place to enter upon again since it hath been so largely discoursed of in so many places But you force me though not to the repetition of matter yet to the repeating my saying that I will not oftener than I should but only to shew how little you deserve any further answer There is nothing now remaining to the end of your Book which hath not been over and over even in these last Chapters but only a long discourse touching Succession which you shew your self of how little importance it is when after you have endeavoured at large to prove the necessity of personal Succession you grant That it is not sufficient without succession of Doctrine too And on that account you deny the Greek Church to have a true Succession And in vindication of Stapleton you say All the Succession which he and you contend for is a Succession of Pastors which hold entire both the Vnity and the Faith of the Church So that it comes to this at last that you are bound to prove a continual Succession of all that which you call the Faith of your Church in every age from the Apostles times if you would have us believe that Doctrine or own your Church for the true Church of Christ. And therefore I conclude these general Answers with his Lordships words If A. C. T. C. or any Jesuit can prove that by a visible continued Succession from Christ or his Apostles to this day either Transubstantiation in the Eucharist or the Eucharist in one kind or Purgatory or Worship of Images or the Intention of the Priest of necessity in Baptism or the Power of the Pope over a General Council or his Infallibility with or without it or his Power to depose Princes or the publick Prayers of the Church in an unknown tongue with divers other points have been so taught I for my part will give the Cause CHAP. VI. The Sense of the Fathers concerning Purgatory The Advantage which comes to the Church of Rome by the Doctrine of Purgatory thence the boldness of our Adversaries in contending for it The Sense of the Roman Church concerning Purgatory explained The Controversie between the Greek and Latin Church concerning it The Difference in the Church of Rome about Purgatory Some general Considerations about the Sense of the Fathers as to its being an Article of Faith The Doubtfulness and Vncertainty of the Fathers Judgments in this particular manifested by S. Austin the first who seemed to assert a Purgation before the day of Judgement Prayer for the Dead used in the Ancient Church doth not inferr Purgatory The Primate of Armagh vindicated from our Adversaries Calumnies The general Intention of the Church distinguished from the private Opinions of particular persons The Prayers of the Church respected the day of Judgement The Testimonies of the Fathers in behalf of Purgatory examined particularly of the pretended Dionysius Tertullian S. Cyprian Origen S. Ambrose S. Hierom S. Basil Nazianzen Lactantius Hilary Gregory Nyssen c. And not one of them asserts the Purgatory of the Church of Rome S. Austin doth not contradict himself about it The Doctrine of Purgatory no elder than Gregory 1. and built on Credâ—lity and Superstition The Churches Infallibility made at last the Foundation of the belief of Purgatory The Falsity of that Principle and the whole concluded THese general Answers being dispatched there remains only now this Question concerning Purgatory to be discussed Which being the great Diana of your Church no wonder you are so much displeased at his Lordship for speaking against it for by that means your craft is in danger to be set at nought There being no Opinion in your Church which brings in a more constant revenue by Masses for the dead and Indulgencies besides Casualties and Deodands by dying persons or their friends in hopes of a speedier release out of the pains of Purgatory So that if this Opinion were once out of Countenance in the world you would lose one of the best Arts you have of upholding the Grandeur of your Church For then farewel Indulgences and years of Jubilee farewel all those rich Donations which are given by those at their death who hope by that means to get the sooner out of the Suburbs of Hell to a place of rest and happiness For What Engine could possibly be better contrived to extort the largest gifts from those whose riches were as great as their sins than to perswade them that by that means they would be sooner delivered out of the Flames of Purgatory and need not doubt but they should come to Heaven at last And Would not they be accounted great Fools that would not live as they pleased in this world as long as they could buy themselves out of the pains of another And by this means your Church hath not only eaten but grown fat by the sins of the people it being truly observed by Spalatensis That the Doctrine of Purgatory hath been that which hath most inriched the Church of Rome which he gives as the reason of the most zealous contending for that Doctrine among those of your party who find so much advantage by it And we might easily believe there was something extraordinary in it when you tell us It is therefore firmly to be believed by all Catholicks that there is a Purgatory yea we are as much bound to believe it as we are bound to believe for Instance the Trinity or Incarnation it self because since it is defined by the Church we cannot lawfully or without sin and peril of damnation deny or question this doctrine We had need then look to our selves who look on this Doctrine as a meer figment that hath no foundation at all either in Scripture Reason or Tradition of the Primitive Church but much more had you need to look to your selves who dare with so much confidence obtrude so destructive a Doctine to a Christian life without any evidence of the truth of it to be believed as much as the Trinity or Incarnation it self which expressions take them in the mildest sense you can give them carry a most insufferable boldness with them But these are not all the bold words which you utter on this Subject for you say elsewhere That Bellarmin doth not more boldly than truly affirm yea evidently prove that all the Fathers both Greek and Latin did constantly teach Purgatory
might satisfie for the temporary punishment of sin and be translated out of that state to the Kingdom of Heaven And thence although in the Bull of Vnion published by Eugenius 4. at the concluding the Florentine Council no more was concluded than that those penitents who departed this life before they had satisfied for their former sins by worthy fruits of pennance should have their souls purged after death poenis purgatoriis with purgatory punishments yet Marcus Eugenicus utterly refused to subscribe it thus which certainly he would never have done if all the Controversie had been only Whether the fire were real or metaphorical And the whole Greek Church utterly refused those terms of union and therefore Alphonsus à Castro recounts the denying Purgatory among the errours of the Greeks The Greeks indeed do not believe that any souls enjoy the beatifical Vision before the day of Judgement and on that account they allow of prayer for the dead notwith any respect to a deliverance of souls out of purgatory but to the participation of their happiness at the great Day But there is a great deal of difference between this Opinion and that of your Church for they believe all souls of believers to be in expectation of the final Judgement but without any temporary punishment for sin or any release from that punishment by the prayers of the living which your Church asserts and is the proper state of the Question concerning Purgatory Which is not Whether there be any middle state wherein the souls of the Faithful may continue in expectation of the final consummation of their happiness at the great day nor Whether it be lawful in that sense for the Church on earth to pray for departed souls in order to their final justification at the day of Judgment or in St. Pauls language That God would have mercy on them in that day but Whether there be such a state wherein the souls of men undergo a temporary punishment for sin the guilt being pardoned out of which they may be released by the prayers of the living and translated from Purgatory to the Kingdom of Heaven before the day of Resurrection This is the true state of the Question between us and the Church of Rome and now we come to examine Whether your Doctrine concerning Purgatory be either an Article of Faith or Apostolical Tradition which how confidently so ever you may assert we shall find your confidence built on very little reason Which we may the easier believe since there are so many among your selves who do not think themselves obliged to own this Doctrine of your Church concerning Purgatory Nay we have not only the confession of several of your party that your Doctrine of Purgatory was not known in the Primitive Church as Alphonsus à Castro Roffensis Polydore c. and of others that it cannot be sufficiently proved from Scripture as Petrus â Soto Perionius Bulenger whose testimonies are produced by others but there are some persons of note among you who have expresly denied the Doctrine it self and confuted the pretended reasons which are given for it Petrus Picherellus saith There is no fuel to be found in Scripture either to kindle or maintain the fire of Purgatory and which afterwards he largely disproves in his excellent Discourse de Missâ Father Barns acknowledges That the punishment of souls in Purgatory is a thing which lyes meerly in humane opinion which cannot be firmly deduced from Scriptures Fathers or Councils Yea saith he with submission to better judgements the opposite opinion seems more agreeable to them But later then these you cannot but know Who it is here at home that hath not only pull'd down the superstructure but raced the very Foundations of your Doctrine of Purgatory in his discourse de medio Animarum statu wherein he professedly disproves the Doctrine of your Church though he is loath to own it to be so in this particular and shews at large that it hath no foundation at all either in Scripture Antiquity or Reason But if your Doctrine of Purgatory be to be believed as an Article of Faith and Apostolical Tradition if any be How come these differences among your selves about it How comes that Authour not to be answered and his reasons satisfied But if you be not agreed among your selves What this Article of Faith is you are most unreasonable men to tell us We are as much bound to believe it as the Trinity or Incarnation We ask you What it is we are bound to believe You tell us according to the sense of your Church The punishment of souls in a future state out of which they may be delivered by the prayers of the Faithful and translated into the Kingdom of Heaven Another he denies all this and saith We are in effect only bound to believe That faithful souls do not enjoy their full happiness till the resurrection and that there is no deliverance at all out of any state in which mens souls are after death till the day of Judgement and that the prayers of the Church only respect that Day but that the former Doctrine is so far from being an Article of Faith that it is contrary to Scripture Antiquity and Reason If such a state of expectation wherein faithful souls are at rest but according to different degrees of grace which they had at their departure hence and look for the day of Resurrection when they shall have a perfect consummation of their bliss were all the Purgatory which your Church asserted the breach might be far nearer closing as to this Article than now it is For although we find some particular persons ready to give a fair and tolerable sense of your Doctrine herein yet we cannot be ignorant that the General apprehension and sense of your Church is directly contrary and those persons who have discovered the freedom of their judgements as to this and other particulars know how much it concerns them to keep a due distance from Rome if they would preserve the freedom of their persons But you are not one of those that hath cause for any such fears for what ever Bellarmin saith you are ready to swear to it and accordingly set your self to the defence of Purgatory upon his principles which are far more suitable to the Doctrine of your Church than to Scripture or Antiquity But because this Controversie is not managed between his Lordship and you about the sense of the Scripture but the Fathers concerning it I must therefore enquire Whether your Doctrine of Purgatory were ever owned by the Fathers as an Article of Faith or Apostolical Tradition And that I may the more fully clear it before I come to examine your proofs for it I shall lay down some general considerations 1. Nothing ought to be looked on as an Article of Faith among the Fathers but what they declare that they believe on the account of Divine Revelation As to all other things which
he ever speak so concerning the Trinity or the Incarnation of Christ which you parallel with Purgatory What would men have thought of him if he had said of either of those Articles It is not incredible they may be true and it may be enquired into whether they be or no Whatever then St. Austins private opinion was we see he delivers it modestly and doubtfully not obtruding it as an Article of Faith or Apostolical Tradition if any be And the very same he repeats in his Answer to the first Question of Dulcitius so that this was all that ever he asserted as to this Controversie What you offer to the contrary from other places of St. Austin shall be considered in its due place 4. Where any of the Fathers build any Doctrine upon the sense of doubtful places of Scripture we have no further reason to believe that Doctrine then we have to believe that it is the meaning of those places So that in this case the enquiry is taken off from the judgement of the Fathers and fixed upon the sense of the Scriptures which they and we both rely upon For since they pretend themselves to no greater evidence of the truth of the Doctrine then such places do afford it is the greatest reason that the argument to perswade us be not the testimony of the Father but the evidence of the place it self Unless it be evident some other way that there was an universal Tradition in the Church from the Apostles times concerning it and that the only design of the Father was to apply some particular place to it But then such a Tradition must be cleared from something else besides the sense of some ambiguous places of Scripture and that Tradition manifested to be Vniversal both as to time and place These things being premised I now come particularly to examine the evidence you bring That all the Fathers both Greek and Latin did constantly teach Purgatory from the Apostles times and consequently that it must be held for an Apostolical Tradition or nothing can be And as you follow Bellarmin in your way of proving it so must I follow you and he divides his proofs you say into two ranks First Such who affirm prayer for the dead 2. Such who in the successive ages of the Church did expresly affirm Purgatory First with those who affirm prayer for the dead Which you say doth necessarily infer Purgatory whatever the Bishop vainly insinuates to the contrary The Question then between us is Whether that prayer for the dead which was used in the ancient Church doth necessarily inferr that Purgatory was then acknowledged This you affirm for say you If there were no other place or condition of being for departed souls but either Heaven or Hell surely it were a vain thing to pray for the dead especially to pray for the remission of their sins or for their refreshment ease rest relaxation of their pains as Ancients most frequently do From whence you add that Purgatory is so undenyably proved that the Relator finding nothing himself sufficient to Answer was forced to put us off to the late Primate of Armagh 's Answer to the Jesuits Challenge Which you say You have perused and find only there that the Authour proves that which none of you deny viz. That the prayers and commemorations used for the dead had reference to more souls than those in Purgatory But you attempt to prove That the nature and kind of those prayers do imply that they were intended for other ends than meerly that the body might be glorified as well as the soul and to praise God for the final happy end of the deceased Whereas that Answerer of the Jesuite would you say by his allegations insinuate to the Reader a conceit that it was used only for those two reasons and no other Which you say you must needs avouch to be most loudly untrue and so manifestly contrary to the Doctrine and practise of the Fathers as nothing can be more A high charge against two most Reverend and learned Primates together against the one as not being able to Answer and therefore turning it off to the other against the other for publishing most loud untruths instead of giving a true account of the grounds of the Churches practise It seems you thought it not honour enough to overcome one unless you led the other in triumph also but you do neither of them but only in your own fancy and imagination And never had you less cause to give out such big words then here unless it were to amuse the spectatours that they might not see how you fall before them For it was not the least distrust of his sufficiency to Answer which made his Lordship to put it oft to the Primate of Armagh but because he was prevented in it by him Who as he truly saith had very learnedly and at large set down other reasons which the Ancients gave for prayer for the dead without any intention to free them from Purgatory Which are not only different from but inconsistent with the belief of Purgatory for the clearing of which and vindicating my Lord Primate from your calumnies rather then answers it will be necessary to give a brief account of his Discourse on that subject He tells us therefore at first That we are here prudently to distinguish the Original institution of the Church from the private opinions of particular Doctors which waded further herein then the general intendment of the Church did give them warrant Now he evidently proves that the memorials oblations and prayers made for the dead at the beginning had reference to such as rested from their labours and not unto any souls which were thought to be tormented in that Vtopian Purgatory whereof there was no news stirring in those dayes This he gathers first by the practise of the ancient Christians laid down by the Authour of the Commentaries on Job who saith The memorials of the Saints were observed as a memorial of rest to the souls departed and that they therein rejoyced for their refreshing St. Cyprian saith they offered Sacrifices for them whom he acknowledgeth to have received of the Lord Palms and Crowns and in the Authour of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy the party deceased is described by him to have departed this life replenished with Divine joy as now not fearing any change to worse being come unto the end of all his labours and publickly pronounced to be a happy man and admitted into the society of the Saints and yet the Bishop prayes that God would forgive him all his sins he had committed through humane infirmity and bring him into the light and band of the living into the bosoms of Abraham Isaac and Jacob into the place from whence pain and sorrow and sighing flyeth And Saint Chrysostom shews that the funeral Ordinances of the Church were appointed to admonish the living that the parties deceased were in a state of joy and not of grief and