to find a Pastor for instruction or the receiving of a Sacrament in necessity And did not the chief Pastors expose themselves and so became Martyrs the first thirty three all one after another 2. If it be an Errable Church Visible or Invisible 't is as good as no Church to Christians for what I have said and shall say hereafter If a particular Church or Parish Pastor and People should be all the Week dispers'd here and there about their business would they be said to be an Invisible Church all the Week and onely Visible when they meet on Sunday Is it not enough that they can find one another on Week dayes in a necessity But truly 't is not enough to make a true Church Visible or Invisible if they have not among them true Doctrine as might full out in Protestants supposition of the Churches fallibility To show we can't prove the Infallibility of the Church from St. Pauls saying the Church is the Pilla rand Ground of Truth 1 Timot. 3. v. 15. He explains that passage thus The Church is the Pillar of Truth saies he because the providence of God will not permit all her Children to fall and Err but will always stirr up some to oppose Superstition Idolatry and Error Answer Either those who will always oppose Error and Superstition will be Members of the R. Church or not If they be Members of Her She will always oppose Error as when my Hand Writes I am said to Write and since we know our Saviour has foretold Iohn 14. v. 16. and c. 16. v. 13. That he will always direct Her by his Spirit of Truth 't will be impossible for Her by a consequential Impotency to Err. Likewise 't is impossible to compose a perpetual direction of the Spirit of God with Error If these Opposers of Error are a Church a part I ask whether that Church as distinct from the Roman be Fallible or Infallible If Infallible we have what we demand viz. That the teaching Church of God is Infallible If Fallible then the Church in as much as she opposes Herself to Error may Err which is absurd The Inference is proven thus In as much as she is distinct from the Roman Church she opposes Error and in as much as she is distinct from the Roman Church she is Fallible or may Err. Then in as much as she is distinct from the R. Church she opposing Error may Err. SECT IV 'T is not necessary the Infallibility of the Church be defin'd in a General Council yet it is in General Councils defin'd by a practical definition TO that he asks us in what General Council is defined the Infallibility of General Councils I Answer Asking him mutually first in what Parliament or Act of Parliament is it found declar'd that a Parliament hath a Power to make Acts oblidging the People If he thinks this Question Impertinent and that it would be Impertinent for a Parliament or an Assembly of Men if they were not otherways impowr'd to Assemble and make an Act by which they will have all to submit and acknowledge that they have a Power to oblige the People I desire him to Reason the same way of the Infallibity of a General Council and know that it has not ' its Infallibility from its saying we are Infallible but from God who has been pleas'd to declare it to us by Apostolical Tradition and in the Holy Scriptures also to those who read them with the Light which they have received from the Church of CHRIST As a Parliament then is fore-impowr'd to make Acts and acknowledg'd as such by the People afore they set themselves to make any so is the General Council acknowledged by all the Faithful to have a promise from God of not Erring in their Declaration of an Article of Faith afore they set themselves to declare it or by their Explication of a Truth to take away the Cloud that hindred us to see it I Ans Secondly that it is defin'd in all General approv'd Councils as much as it was necessary by a practical definition or their excercis'd power issu'd out by them in their oblidging Decrees always submissively receiv'd by the Faithful If you say some have refused to receive them my answer is they ceas'd from that time to be number'd among the Faithful Does not a King sufficiently declare himself to be King when he uses the Authority of a King in raising Armies and disbanding them calling a Parliament adjurning proroging or disolving it at his pleasure At last our Adversary brings a strong piece viz. that the General Councils are so farr from pretending to be Infallible Judges of controversial debates that in a set form of prayer appointed to be said atter every Council they pray that God would spare their Ignorance and pardon their Errors Ans I can't light upon this prayer Shall I come as good speed in seeking it as I did with Maximian the Arian Bishop He quots de ordin Cele Con. I desire him to write the Title of the Book at length or rather tell me at the end of what Council this prayer is found Since it is to be said after every Council would not the Council of Trent have it This Council which hath set down things so exactly would it have omitted this But now these Errors are either in matters given out to the People for Articles of Faith or not If not they make nothing against us If these Errors be in matters of Faith I ask are they invincible Errors or vincible if they are Invincible they are not Sinful and so need no pardon If they are vincible it is either by their diligence in using more means to discover the Truth or by an extraordinary assistance of God For this extraordinary assistance it is not in their power to have it and depends only of God For the other if they find themselves not to have us'd all necessary means let them use those they have omitted afore they publish their Decrees for what a simplicity and Impudence would it be to continue in the Error I can avoid and ask pardon for it and so having done what lay in them they will not stand guilty afore God nor in a need of pardon Rather say if some passage be found which may seem to have that sence that in the fore discussion of questions some fear themselves to have been too much wedded as is Natural to Man to their own Opinion these desire God to spare their Ignorance not having upheld their Opinion out of Malice and pardon their fault in this that they were not it may be so humble and deferent to others as they should have been If you say provincial Councils anatematize those who reject their decisions as well as General Councils and so no Argument can be taken from thence for the General Council's Infallibility I Answer Provincial Councils anathematize c. absolutly as the General Councils do I deny conditionally and with submission to
of Judgement So a drunken Man Dying tho' he is not Damned for what proceeds from Drunkeness for a Blasphemy uttered in that time yet he may be damned for the Sin which brought him to this distemper of his Reason Neither flatter your self with an invincible Error proceeding from knowledge there is no such an Error of Judgement is an Ignorance of Truth and therefore that Error proceeds from Ignorance and not from knowledge A Fool upholding his Opinion against a number of Wise Men thinks this his Opinion proceeds from his knowledge which others have not and that he speaks with a great deal of sense In the mean while the Wise Men present pitty him seeing all he sayes is but non-sense and that all this Discourse in which he runs out proceeds from his Ignorance So that what he esteems in himself to be Light is truely Darkness CHAP. III. Our Adversary's Negative Proofs for the Salvation of Protestants Refuted SECT I. Formal Protestants are Schismaticks AFter our Adversary had endeavoured tho' as I hope you have sufficiently seen in vain to prove positively that Protestants may be sav'd in his second Sect. pag. 43. His aim is here to prove the same negatively i.e. that in their Religion there is no hinderance of Salvation Two things only as he Imagins may hinder from Salvation Schism and Heresie But Protestants are free from both then they have no hinderance of Salvation as he concluds Schism saies he is a separation from the true Church and the true Church is that of primative Christians We grant all this But Protestants do not differ from the primative Christians this we deny And this which he should have chiefly proven and one which lyes the whole force of debate between him and us he passes over and slips away saying it has been proven by others This way of proving is indeed a new method but not infallible For why shall I believe him that others have done that which he with all their Light given him and his own dar'd not undertake to do himself Since he then could not prove that Protestants do not differ from the primative Christians I will not content my self to say that others have proven that they do differ but I will prove it to him I suppose that Christians in the third age I go no farther then the bounds he allows me did not differ from the second nor the second from the first in their rule of Faith and this supposed I say Protestants now have not the same Rule of Faith which Christians had in the first three Ages then they differ from them The Rule of Faith among those primative Christians was the Holy Scripture as interpreted by Christ the Apostles and their Successors not the Scripture as interpreted by every private Mans best understanding which is the Rule now among Protestants refusing to submit to any Counsel or Synods interpretation of a passage of Scripture if their Judgment stand against it The Disciples of Christ englightn'd as they were did not understand the Scriptures before Christ opened 'em to them and St. Peter Vicar of Christ in that function explaining the Scripture to those of his time told them it did not belong to any private Man to Interpret it 2 Petr. 1 v. 20 and Instanced that many had wrested or miss-Interpreted St. Pauls Words to their own Destruction 2 Petr. 3. v. 16. CHRIST said to Peter feed my Sheep not with Bread but with Doctrine As I cannot Feed that Child who willfully refuses to open his Mouth to receive the Food I offer him no more could Peter Feed those Christians with Doctrine had they refused to open their Ears and to bear it with submission Those Christians then wisely submited to Peter and their followers to his Sucessors being of an equal power to Instruct them for Christ promising to be with his Apostles to the end of the World did not mean with their Persons only who were not to exceed a hundred Years but also with those of their Lawful Successors And so the perpetual Custome of the Church hath been to have recourse in Controversies of Religion to the Sea of Rome it being necessary as St. Ireneus said in the 2. Age for all Churches to have their recourse to her Next to prove to me that the Protestants do not differ from the Primative Christians you must not only say but show me that your whole Church not only some private men takes the Scripture in the same sense their whole Church or leading Church took it in Show me some General Counsel of yours or a Body of Pastors to which you all unanimously submit and then I will understand what your Church holds otherwayes not And because you will not submit to any such Body I can never understand how you agree with the Christians of primative times Neither send me to your professions of Faith â—oâ— first in these all Protestants do not agree We agree say you in Fundamentals I ask what are the Fundamentals in which you agree with all other Protestant Churches Here you are at a stand And I also For if you don't assign me them how shall I know that in them precisely you all agree Beside most of the Articles of those Professions are meer Negatives of Catholick Articles unknown as you say not I to the primitive Christians and I say if they did not know those our Articles neither had they a knowledge of the Negations of them which is posterior to the knowledge of the things of which they are Negations And so not knowing those your Articles they did not in them agree with you But Romanists say you cannot say that they agree with the Christians who liv'd in the first three Ages because they have brought in many Novelties unheard of to them As the Invocations of Saints Adoration of the Holy Host Veneration of Pictures and the Popes power in order to teach us what we ought to believe for if you mean of the deposing power you know tho' some Catholicks hold it none is bound to believe it since the Church hath not defin'd it Ans You say we have brought in Novelties but you don't prove it But I say if those our Tenets you call novelties were not heard of in the first three ages neither were the denyals of them for the denyal is alwayes posterior to the knowledge of the thing deny'd these then denyals brought iâ— by you and believed by you with Divine Faith are Novelties brought in by you and consequently by them you differ from the primitive Christians Do not you believe for Example as an Article of Faith that there is no Transubstantiation If not then we Catholicks who believe Transubstantiation believe nothing contrary to Divine Faith And so of all the rest And by this means you will be found Guilty of Schism for leaving us You say its certain that standing to the Fundamentals we are Guilty of a Superstruction I ask once again what these Fundamentals of Christianity
the R. Church there has appeared publickly and visibly to whole Nations Men of such Sanctity of Life with the Gifts of Miracles that after their decease their Lives and Miracles done both afore and after their Death having been first severely examin'd and discus'd and then approv'd they were after this Examination declared Saints and as such are for the present Honour'd by the whole Catholick Church If you say what is said of those Saints and their Miracles is but Fabulous Then I ask you if a Iew would say the same to you of our Saviours Miracles How would you convince him For as he denyes the Divinity of CHRIST so he denyes also the New Testament to be the Word of God Laying then aside Divine Revelation had Men at that time more Humane Authority to believe CHRIST's Miracles then we have now to believe the approv'd Miracles of our Saints From all I have said I infer First If the R. Church notwithstanding all these marks be not the true Church of CHRIST he has no true Visible Church upon Earth since there cannot be more clear and Visible Marks of the true Church then these I have brought Secondly I infer that if the Iews seeing some Prophet's Sanctity of Life and Miracles were most reasonably perswaded and convinc'd that GOD directed them by his Spirit and spoke by their Mouths to others We must of necessity believe that the Roman Church is directed by the Spirit of GOD and that He speaks by Her to us Since whatsomever motif you 'l find for that perswasion in a single Prophet you will find it in an higher Degree in the whole Body of the Church Now to make use of our rational faculty in order to see if you have any appearance of a Church among you 't is not enough for you to say that the Protestant Church has the true Worship of God You must bring such proofs as I have brought for the R. Church to prove it This you have never done nor will ever do But to come nigher to you I ask by what motive you can perswade me that Luther and Calvin your first Reformers were mov'd and directed by the Spirit of God in all their oppositions to the Roman Church Can it be imagined that God would have taken from a whole visible Church which had those marks I spoke of the true sense and meaning of the word and given it to Men who leaving the Altar and their Vow of Chastity prostituted themselves becoming the slaves of a shamful and Sacrilegious Passion As to that our Adversary saies the Roman Church Imposes many weighty burdens on her Children beyond what God Commands he is mightily deceiv'd for God commanding us to Worship and obey him he Commands us implicitly to make use of the means most convenient to perform these two duties Now the Church by her Commands does also but show us the fittest means to perform the perfect observation of Gods explicit Command and oblidges us to make use of them and consequently properly speaking there is no new burden impos'd upon us SECT II. Saint Pauls saying whatsomever is Sold in the Shambles c. 1 Cor. 10. v. 24.25.27 makes nothing against our abstinence from Flesh upon forbidden dayes OUr great Defender of the rights and dues of the senses having told us in the Eucharist what the sight claims to now he will not have the Taste depriv'd of its satisfaction Telling us Pag. 107. 't was a liberty and priviledge of the primitive Church as St. Paul witnesses to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 10. that whatsoever is Sold in the Shambless c. we may Eat Answer St. Paul 1 Cor. 10. Having terrified the Christians from Eating with the Gentils in their Solemnities a part of what was offer'd to the Idol because by this Eating they seem'd to approve the Oblation of that Flesh made to the Devil he told them nevertheless that they should not be scrupulous to Buy what they found in the Shambles nor to Eat what was set down before them to Eat at Common Tables out of those Solemnities altho' perchance those Meats had been offer'd to Idols viz. because they being Ignorant of it did not give occasion to think they approv'd that Oblation to the Idol in which onely the Sin was But if it fell out that one should tell them that such a Meat had been offerd to the Idol then he forbid them to Eat of it v. 28. for fear of scandalizing that Person Is not here something refused to Eat altho' it be set down afore me to be Eaten and altho' the thing be good in it self ond belonging to God Was not the forbidden fruit good in it self and yet was it Lawful for Adam to Eat it then with Thanks-giving when God had forbidden it no more is it Lawful to us to Eat Flesh which is good in it self on Fasting dayes because it is then forbidden by the Church of God which God will have us hear as himself Luke 10. v. 16. Who hears you hears me Has not the Church of England taken away that priveledge too when she commands to abstain from Flesh in Lent or at least from Eating a sull Meal till after noon or towards the Evening on their dayes of Humiliation When there is no Danger then of offending God neither by my approbation of an offering to the Devil or Scandalizing my Neighbour St. Paul sayes I may Eat Flesh tho' offer'd to the Devil From that antecedent is this a good Inference then when I know I offend God by Transgressing the Command of his Church and by Scandal of my Neighbour I may Eat Flesh because it is good in it self and at another time may be Eaten with Thanks-giving St. Paul then bids Christians not to scruple to buy or Eat Meat upon a fear that it may be 't was offer'd to Idols because that reason did not make it unlawful to Eat so I was not told of it But he bids not Eat it if it be unlawful upon an other accompt viz. because forbidden on certain dayes by the Church Now to show how pleasing a thing to God and advantageous to our Souls our Fasting is remember that Moses having fasted forty Dayes and forty Nights in the Mountain obtain'd the Favour to see God Face to Face Exod. 24. chap. did not Achab make use of Sack-Cloath and Fasting for the expiation of his Sins 1 Regum 28. did not David after he heard from Nathan that God had Forgiving him his Sin say that his knees were weak through Fasting 2 Sam. 12. chap. Were not Divine Mysteries reveal'd to Daniel after he had Fasted and was he not Favour'd with a Miraculons Dinner by the means of an Angel Daniel 14. In the New Testament did not Christ Fast forty Dayes and forty Nights and so teach us how to overcome the Temptations of the Devil Matth. 4. did not he tell his Disciples that a certain kind of Devils was not cast out but by Prayer and Fasting Math. 17. Our
Scripturae Neither am I bound to the Council of Nice nor you to that of Arimini neither ought you to stand to the Authority of this nor I to the Authority of that Let us set matter to matter cause to cause reason to reason the thing is to be examin'd by the Authority of Scripture How ever I explain the passage without difficulty Thus St. Agustin seeing that the Authority of the Council of Nice was of no force with the Arian who rely'd upon no other Council but that of Arimini To draw him out of his hole he provok'd to an Authority common to both viz. to that of the Holy Scripture And this is common in the Schools for Men to lay aside their private priaciples and argue from one which is agree'd on by both parties The sense then of St. Augustin if this passage be his may be this neither am I so tyed to the Council of Nice nor you to that of Arimini that we may not make use of another principle which is common to both SECT II. 'T is an Article of Faith that General approv'd Councils are Infallible AN Article of Faith saies our Adversary must either be clearly contained in Scripture or defin'd by some General Council But that the Decisions of General Conneils are Infallible is neither clearly contained in Scripture nor defin'd by a General Council Therefore 't is not an Act of Faith sayes he that the Decisions of General Councils are Infallible He demands in what Book Chapter and Verse of Scripture or in what General Council this Article is contained Answer First either he Argues out of Protestant or Catholick Principles If out of Protestant Principles then he added ill the second part of his disjunctive since 't is of no weight with them If out of Catholick Principles he oversaw himself in bringing the first part of his disjunctive because 't is deny'd by Catholicks For we deny that it is requir'd that an Act of Faith be clearly set down in Scripture nay that all our Articles be contain'd there or in General Councils either since these two are not our adequat and total Rule of Faith but are compleated in the being of our Rule by Apostolical Tradition which enters in and assures us with equal Authority Wherefore I first deny the Major which failing the whole Argument concludes nothing 2. Giving not granting the Major I deny the Minor and say that Article of Faith is clearly contained in the same Scriptures in which its clearly contained according to Protestants that their General Synods do not Err in the Decision of Controversies arising among them for if as they think it is elearly proven by those passages that their Synods do not Err because they are directed by the Holy Ghost I say it s clearly proven by the same that our General Councils cannot Err because they are directed by the Holy Ghost a possibiliiy of Erring being as repugnant to the Holy Ghost as an Actual Error And by this their acknowledging that their General Synod may Err tho it does not Err they discard their Synod of Authority and disown themselves to be that Body of Pastors which CHRIST conserv's in his Church that hearing them we may not waver like Children and be carried away with every Wind of Doctrine Ephes 4. v. 11. and 14. For if I believe the Body of my Teachers to be fallible I fear and waver in my believe of what they have said and taught me For possibili posito in actu nullum sequitur impossibile There 's no impossibility or absurdity if that which is possible be brought to an Actual Being and so CHRIST would be disappointed in the aim he had when Ephes 4. He made some Pastors in his Church that we might not waver 3. I prove our assertion thus 'T is an Article of Faith to believe the Mystery of the most Blessed Trinity because it s clearly set down in Scripture according to Protestants as all other things necessary to Salvation But that a General approved Council or the teaching Church is Infallible is as clearly set down in Scripture as appears by many passages of the same for Math. 18. v. 17. God sends us to the Church for instruction and threatens us there with Damnation or the punishment of an Ethnick if we do not harken to Her and consequently tells us that she is Infallible for his Goodness woul dnot oblidge me under pain of Damnation to hear a Church which might lead me wrong Who hears you hears me saies CHRIST to his Disciples going to preach Luc. 10. but who hears CHRIST is infallibly sure to be well instructed then also he is infallibly sure who is instructed by the Church St. Paul saies that Christ made some Pastors as I said above Ephes 4. v. 1. Why That now we be not Children wavering and carried about with every wind of Doctrine Hence we inferr that they are Infallible in what they teach us in matter of Faith for if I thought them fallible I might still waver which would make void the aim of CHRIST in giving us those Pastors and Teachers that we might not waver Then 't is an Article of Faith to believe that a General approv'd Council or the Teaching Church is Infallible If our Adversary still deny this I desire him to quote to me as clear passages out of Scripture to prove the most Blessed Trinity as I have brought for the Infallibility of a General Council or the Teaching Church And since I am confident he cannot he has as much Reason to believe the Infallibility of the Church as an Article of Faith as he has to believe the Mystery of the most B. Trinity to be one SECT III. The Infallibility of a General approv'd Council proven by some other passages of Scripture and our Adversary's explication of them exploded I Ask in the case of General approv'd Councils Erring would not the Gates of Hell prevail against the Church contrary to CHRISTS promise Math. 16. v. 18. For all are not Doctors according to St. Paul 1 Cor. 12. v. 29. The Teachable Church is bound to hear the Teaching Church otherways how are these bound to teach them or feed them with Doctrine as CHRIST commanded the Church when he said to Peter Feed my Sheep Iohn 21. v. 15 16 17. if they are not bound to receive the Food they give them Now if they hearken to them teaching by their fallibility Erronious Doctrine the Blind leads the Blind and so both fall in the Ditch Math. 15. v. 14. or runs Headlong to Hell And does not thus Hell prevail against them And what an Interpretation The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it is this of our Adversary That the Church of CHRIST will remain altho' Invisible notwithstanding the Persecution of Tyrants as in the primitive Church after the Death of CHRIST 1. Who saies the primitive Church after the Death of CHRIST was Invisible Did not the Faithfull then know one another and where