gross a Forgery and confess St. Augustin never thought of the Decretal Epistles but of the Canonical Scriptures but yet they 〈◊〉 itle stand for good Canon Law. In the Controversy about the Church with the Donatists St. Augustin's constant appeal is to the Scripâ—â— and he sets aside not only particular Doctors hut the preteâ—â— to Miracles and the Definitions of Councils He doth not therefore appeal to Scripture because â—hey 〈◊〉 about the Church but because he looked on the Testimonies of Scripture as clear enough to decide the point as he often declares And he calls the plain Testimonies of Scripture the support and strength of their Cause If he then thought that Scripture alone could put an end to such a Controversy as that no doubt he thought so as to any other But we need not mention his thoughts for he declares as much whether it be about Christ or his Church or any matter of Faith he makes Scripture so far the Rule that he denouncess Anathema against those who deliver any other Doctrine than what is contained in them Nor doth he direct to any Church Authority to manifest the Sense of Scripture but leaves all Mankind to judg of it and even the Donatists themselves whom he opposed The same way he takes with Maximinus the Arian He desires all other Authorities may be laid aside and only those of Scripture and Reason used To what purpose unless he thought the Scripture sufficient to end the Controversy Against Faustus the Manichean he saith The Excellency of the Canonical Scripture is such as to be placed in a Threne far above all other Writings to which every faithful and pious Mind ought to submit All other Writings are to be tried by them but there is no doubt to be made of whatever we find in them The same method he uses with the Pâ—lagians an advises them to yeild to the Authority of Scripture which can neither deceive nor be deceived This Controversy saith he requires a Judg les Christ judg let us hear him speak Let the Apostle judg with him for Christ speaks in his Apostle And in another place Let St. John sit judg between us And in general he saith We ought to Acquiesce in the Authority of Scripture and when any Controversy arises it ought to be quietly ended by Proofs brought from thence But St. Augustin is the Man whom the Defender produces against me because against the Manicheans he saith he believed the Scripture for the sake of the Church and to bring any proof out of Scripture against the Church does weaken that Authority upon which he believed the Scripture and so he could believe neither The meaning wherof is this St. Augustin was reduced from being a Manichean to the Catholick Church by many Arguments and by the Authority of the Church delivering the Books of Scripture he embraced the Gospel which before he did not Now saith he You would make use of this Gospel to prove Manichaeus an Apostle I can by no means yield to this way Why so Do not you believe it to be Gospel Yes saith he but the same reason which moved me to embrace this Gospel moved me to reject Manichaeus and therefore I have no reason to allow a Testimony out of it for Manichaeus Not that St. Augustine seared any proof that could be brought from thence but he begins with general Topicks as Tertullian did against the Hereticks of his time before he came to close with them And such was this which he here produces For in case Manichaeus his Name had been in the Gospel as an Apostle of Christs appointing this Argument of St. Augustine had not been sufficient For there might be sufficient reason from the Churches Authority to embrace the Gospel and yet if the Scripture had been plain he ought to have believed Manichaeus his Apostleship though the Church disowned it As I will prove by an undeniable Instance Suppose a Jewish Proselyte to have argued just after the same manner against Jesus being the Messias the Apostles go about to prove that he was so by the Testimony of the Prophets No saith he I can allow no such Argument because the same Authority of the Jewish Church which perswaded me to believe the Prophets doth likewise perswade me not to believe Jesus to be the Messias If it be so far from holding in this case neither can it in the other For it proceeds upon a very feeble Supposition that no Church can deliver a Book for Canonical but it must judg aright concerning all things relating to it Which unavoidably makes the Jewish Church infallible at the same time it condemned Christ as a Deceiver But this was only a witty velitation in St. Augustine used by Rhetoricians before he entered into the Merits of the Cause And it is very hard when such sayings shall at every turn be quoted against his more mature and well weighed judgment What noise is there made in the world with that one saying of his I should not believe the Gospel unless the Authority os the Cathelick Church moved me And the Defender brings it to prove the Church more visible than Scripture Whereas he means no more by it but that the authority of the Church was greater to him than that of Manichaeus For he had been swayed by his authority to reject the Gospel and now he rejects that authority and believes the Catholick Church rather than him And this doth not make the Churches authority greater than Scripture but more visible than that of Manichaeus But if St. Augustin's Testimony here be allowed to extend farther yet it implies no more than that the constant universal Tradition of the Scripture by the Catholick Church makes it appear credible to us What can be deduced hence as to the Churches Infallibility in interpreting Scripture or the Roman Churches authority in delivering it The Arrian Controversie gave a great disturbance to the Christian Church and no less a man than the Emperour Constantine thought there was no such way to put an end to it as to search the Scriptures about it As he declared to the Council of Nice at their meeting as Theodoret saith It is true he spake to the Guides of the Church assembled in Council but his words are remarkable viz. That the Books of Scripture do plainly instruct us what we are to believe concerning the Deity if we search them with peaceable minds Methinks Bellarmine bestows no great Complement on Constantine for this saying when he saith He was a great Emperour but no greaâ— Doctor This had been indeed sawcy and scurrilous in others but it was no doubt good manners in him St. Hilary commends his Son Constantius because he would have this Controversie ended by the Scriptures and he desires to be heard by him about the sense of the Scriptures concerning it which he was ready to shew not from new Writings but from Gods Word Athanasius seems to
Quiet where there is not a Supreme Judg from whom there can be no Appeal The Answer was That the natural Consequence was then that every National Church ought to have the Supreme Power within it self But how comes Appeals to a Foreign Jurisdiction to tend to the Peace and Quiet of a Church The Defender saith That a National to the whole Church is but as a Shire to a Kingdom and a very natural and consistent Consequence it is that every Shire should have a King. One would think by such an Answer this Defender is a mighty Stranger to the ancient Polity of the Church Did he never hear of the Power of Metropolitans being setled by the Council of Nice for governing the Churches and calling Provincial Synods Did he never hear of many other Canons relating to the Power and Frequency of Provincial Synods Did he never hear of the Decrees of the Council of Ephesus forbidding all Incroachments on the ancient Rights of Churches Did he never hear that Provincial Councils have declared Matters of Faith without so much as advising with the Bishop of Rome As the African Councils did in the Pelagian Controversy and the Councils of Tolcdo in the Case of Arianism which reformed the Spanish Churches and made Canons by their own Authority which were confirmed by their Kings Reccaredus and Sisenandus Did he never hear that it was good Doctrine among Catholâ—ck Divines That particular Churches might take upon them to declare the true Catholick Faith And if so they must judg what is so Did he never hear that in a divided State of the Church Errors and Abuses may be reformed by particular Churches And that this was owned and defended by great Men in the Church of Rome if he did not he was very much unprovided for the handling such a Controversy if he did know these things he ought not to have spoken with so much contempt of the Power of Particular or National Churches And to assert their Authority is very far from being like setting up a King in every Shire for this were the highest Dilloyalty to the King who hath a just and unquestionable Authority over all the Shires Let him prove that the Pope hath such a Monarchy over all particular Churches before he make such a Parallel again But the way he takes is rather like making the Imperial Crown of this Realm to be in subjection to a Foreign Power because the Roman Emperors once had Dominion here and therefore this Kingdom could never recover its own Rights But he saith A Foreign Jurisdiction is hardly sense with respect to the Church for â—oris is out and unless the ultimate Jurisdiction be out of the Church it cannot be said to be foreign This is a shameful begging of the Question that what they call the Roman Catholick Church is the Catholick Church for if it be not which I hope I have sufficiently shewn then the pretended and usurped Jurisdiction of the Roman Church over the Church of England is a Foreign Jurisdiction He adds That it is impossible to re-settle the Church among us without that which we call Foreign Jurisdiction because Dissentions in matters of Religion cannot otherwise be removed But suppose this Foreign Jurisdiction be the occasion of these Dissentions some maintaining 〈◊〉 others asserting the Rights of our Church against it Is not 〈◊〉 â—oreign Jurisdiction like to put an end to it Yes certainly For if all Parties submit there will be no longer disputing But our Question as yet is whether this be reasonable or not I complained of the Inconvenience of Appeals to a Foreign Jurisdiction He gives us a smart Answer and saith That holds no comparison with the Inconvenience of Heresy As tho it were so plain a thing that we are guilty of Heresy that it needed no manner of proof Alas what need a Man prove that it is day when the sun shines We are just as much guilty of Heresy as the good Bishop was who for denying the Antipodes was condemned by Pope Zachâ—â—y But it is a comfortable thing in a Charge of Heresy to find it no better proved He saith I mistook the matter of Appeals and that it was not understood with respect to Causes but to matters of Doctrine and Worship An Appeal must reâ—ate to a Superiour Authority and a constant Appeal to a standing Authority and whatever the pretence be the Court of Rome will challenge Supreme Jurisdiction where-ever the Pope is owned as Head of the Church And then all those Consequences will follow I mentioned before If other kind of Appeals were meant in the Papers yet they must relate to an Authority Superiour to our Church which we could wish had been more fully expressed that we might have known to whom the Appeal was to be made whether to a free General Council which we never disowned or to the Popes Authority which we yet see no cause to make our Appeals to especially as to what concerns his own Jurisdiction He pleads That Supream Power must be Judg in its own Cause for no Authority ought to be set up against the King supposing a Question be started about his Prerogative I answer This is a Case extreamly different for in matters of Prerogative the King 's Supream Power is not the Question for his Right to the Imperial Crown is and ought to be out of dispute but all the Question that can be started must relate only to the Exercise of his Power in some particular Cases where former Laws made by the King's Consent are supposed to limit it which the Courts of Judicature take Cognizance of and so are a kind of Legal Arbitrators between the King and his People But in the Case before us the Jurisdiction it self and the Right to exercise any such Authority is the very thing in Question And I desire this Gentleman to resolve me whether in the late times of Usurpation this had 〈◊〉 been good Doctrine that those who enjoy or pretend to Supream Power are to be Judges in their own Case If so then it had been impossible for Men to have justified their Loyalty to the Royal Family then very unjustly put out of possession If not then there may be a pretence to Supream Authority where it is by no means allowable for the Pretender to Judg in his own Cause As to his Appeal to the Catholick Church we by no means reject it provided he mean the Church truly Catholick as it comprehends the Apostolical Church in the first place and then all other Christian Churches which from the Apostles times have delivered down the Catholick Doctrine and Worship which they received from them But if he means that which is called a Catholick Church but is neither Catholick nor Apostolical we beg his pardon if we allow no Appeal to it since its Errors and Corruptions are the great and just Cause of our Complaints He runs into a long Discourse about Church-Security and his design is
the adding German to it restrains the sense of Ocean to it within certain bounds and excludes many parts of the great Ocean which are without those limits Just so it is in adding Roman to Catholic Catholic alone comprehends all the Parts of the Church but Roman added to it confines the Sense of it to those who embrace the Faith received in the Roman Communion and this excludes all other Parts of the Catholic Church and so makes a Part to be the Whole 2. I objected farther that if this had been the Catholic Church meant in the Creeds this limitation ought to have been expressed in the Creeds and put to Persons to be baptized which being never done in the Roman Church it self I thence inferr'd that it did not believe it self to be the one Catholic Church which we profess to believe in the Creeds Here the Author of the Reply answers that Catholic and Roman Catholic were in the Language of Antiquity one and the same thing and this point being never called in Question in the time when the Creeds were published there was no occasion to put Roman into the Creeds no more than of putting in Consubstantial with the Father till it was denied This were a substantial way of answering the Difficulty if it would in any measure hold But I shall now prove just the Contrary to have been the Sense of Authority by plain and undeniable Instances in matters of fact in most of the Ages of the Christian Church from the very next to the Apostolical down to the Council of Trent To which I shall only premise this which I think no Roman Catholic will deny me viz. that the Roman Catholic Church doth imply Obedience to the Bishop of Rome as Supream visible Head of the Church under Christ. For Bellarmin and others make not only Faith and Sacraments necessary to the Being of the Church but submission to lâ—wful Pastors and especially to the Pope as Christ's only Vicar upon Earth and he placeth the Essential Unity of the Catholic Church in the Conjunction of the members under Christ and hâ—s Vicar as Head of the Church And from hence he excludes Schismaticks out of the Catholic Church though they have Unity of Faith and Sacraments and Hope and Spirit And the Roman Catechism makes Union with the Pope as visible Head of the Church necessary to the Unity of the Catholiâ— Church And the Proofs I bring shall not be from short or doubtful sentences but from remarkable passages and notorious Acts of the Church In the First Age of the Church the name Catholic was as little known as the Authority of the Roman Church it not being once found in the Apostolical Writings for the Inscriptions of the Catholic Epistles are of latter times And if they were allowed to be Apostolical they would be far from proving any thing to this purpose since the Roman Church is never mentioned in these Epistles unless under the name of Babylon and I suppose they would not like the Title of the Catholic Babylonish Church But in all the directions of the Apostles concerning Unity of Faith there is not one which gives the least intimation that the Roman Church in any sense was to be the Rule or Standard of Faith or Communion In the Second Age we find two remarkable Instances that the Communion of the Catholic Church was not to be taken from Conjunction with the Bishop of Rome as Head of it The first is from the Bishop of Rome's approving the Prophecies of Montanus Prisca and Maximilla This would hardly appear credible if Tertullian had not expresly affirmed it and he farther saith that had it not been for Praxeas a Heretick he had taken them into the Communion of the Catholic Church and he prevailed with him to revoke his communicatory Letters already past What a Case had the Catholic Church been in at this time if the Bishop of Rome had been look'd on as the Centre of Catholic Communion and if he had not been better informed by Praxeas a Heretick The second in the same Age is when Victor took upon him to excommunicate the Eastern Bishops for not celebrating Easter at the same time they did at Rome If now the Eastern Bishops did own the Roman-Catholic and Catholic Church to be the same they must shew it at such a time by their regard to the Pope's sentence as Head of the Catholic Church but they owned no such Authority he had over them and instead of it Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus with a Council of Bishops joyning with him about A. D. 197 wrote a smart Epistle to Victor wherein they let him know they would go on in their way notwithstanding his threats and that it was better to obey God than Man. From whence it is observable That they followed their own judgment against the Pope's and that they believed the Pope required things of them so contrary to the Will of God that they resolved to disobey him And his requiring their compliance was no Argument of his Authority but of his Usâ—rpation In the Third Age happen'd a famous contest between Stephen Bishop of Rome and the Eastern and African Bishops about Re-baptizing Hereticks I meddle not now with the Controversie it self but with the Sense of those Bishops upon occasion of it as to the Roman-Catholic Church The Bishop of Rome did at least threaten to Excommunicate the African Bishops And if Firmilian may be believed he did actually Excommunicate the Asian Bishops How did these Primitive Bishops behave themselves under this Sentence They charge Stephen with Insolence Folly Contempt of his Brethren and breaking the Peace of the Catholic Church and cutting himself off from the Unity of it The words are abscindere se à Charitatis unitate alienum se per omnia fratribus facere Now I desire to know whether these Bishops believed the necessary conjunction of Roman and Catholic together And whether Bishop of Rome were thought to be the Centre of Communion in the Catholic Church It is plain they made him the Cause of the Schism and thought themselves never the less in the Catholic Church for being out of the Roman Communion In the Fourth Age the Government and Subordination of the Catholic Church was established in the Council of Nice according to ancient Custom but we read not a word of the Roman Catholic Church there or any Priviledge or Authority the Bishop of Rome had but within his own Province and such as the Bishops of Antioch and Alexandria had in theirs And when the Bishop of Rome in that Age interposed to restore some Bishops cast out of Communion by the Eastern Bishops they declared against it as a violation of the Rules of the Catholic Church and this became the Occasion of the first Breach between the Eastern and Western Churches In the same Age Liberius Bishop of Rome joyned with the Eastern Bishops in casting Athanasius out of the Catholic Church and
subscribed the Arian Confession of Faith as both Hilary and S Ierome witness and it appears from his Seventh Epistle and the old Lesson in the Roman Breviary 19 Kal. Sept. which hath been since expunged for telling Tales In the Fifth Age happened a greater breach â—etween the Bishops of Rome and the Eastern Churches For Acacius the Bishop of Constantinople not complying with what the Bishops of Rome desired from him was solemnly excommunicated by Feâ—â— III. But notwithstanding this the Emperour and Eastern bishops continued still in his Communion and they complained that the proceedings against him were against the Rules of the Church and savoured of great Pride as appears by the Epistles of Gelâ—sius who succeeded Felix And upon this a notorious Scâ—â— happened which the Eastern Churches charged the Church of Rome with and believed themselves to be still in the Communion oâ— the Catholic Church In the Sixth Age Vigilius Bishop of Rome gives an undeniable evidence of the difference between Communion with the Catholic Church and with the Bishop of Rome When he went to Constantinople upon Iustinian's Summons about the three Chapters not only the Church of Rome but that of Africa Sardinia Istria Iâ—â—yricum and others earnestly entreated him not to consent to the condemning them accordingly when he came to Constantinople he was so warm and zealous in the Cause that he forthwith excommunicates the Patriarch and his adherents among whom the Empress her self was one But soon after he was so much mollified that he not only took off his Sentence but privately agreed with the Emperour to condemn the Three Chapters Which was discovered to the Western Churches by Rusticus and Sebastiâ—nus who were then with him Whereupon they cried out upon him for prevaricating and betraying the Council of Chalcedon and the African Bishops not only condemned his Judgment but excommunicated him and all that consented to it and so did the Bishops of Illyricum Which Schism continued many years as appears by the Epistles of Pelagius II. and Gregory Vigilius finding how the matter was resented in the Western Churches yields to a General Council which the Emperour Summon'd at Constantinople in the mean time he publishes an Edict against the Three Chapters Vigilius to recover his Credit with the Western Bishops denounces Excommunication against those that yielded to it but the Greeks despised his Censure and immediately went to celebrate Divine Offices When the Council sate he refused to come which they regarded not but went on and condemned the Three Chapters without him but when the Council was ended he complied with it as now appears from the Authentic Acts lately published Let any Man now judge whether Communion with the Bishop of Rome were then looked on aâ— a necessary condition of being in the Catholic Church either by the Eastern or Western Churches In the Seventh Age there is a necessity to make a Distinction between the Communion with the Bishop of Rome and with the Catholic Church because Honorius then Bishop of Rome is condemned by the Sixth General Council for contradicting the Apostolical Doctrine and the Definitions of Councils and for following the false Doctrines of Hereticks And the same Judgment is confirmed by the Seventh and Eighth Councils which are received for General in the Church of Rome And Leo Iâ— in his Epistle to the Emperour wherein he confirms the Sixth Council expresly Anathematizes his Predecessor Honorius for no less thaâ— betraying the Catholic Faith. And in the Profession of Faith made by every new Bishop of Rome extant in the Diurnus Honorius is Anathematized by name Was it then the Roman Catholic Church which joyned in Communion with Honorius In the Eighth Age the Bishop of Rome approved the Second Council of Nice but notwithstanding the Western Churches stifly opposed it as contrary to Faith which they could not have done if at that time the Pope had been looked on as the Head and Center of Catholic Communion In the Ninth Age happened the great breach between the two Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople which in consequence engaged the Eastern and Western Churches against each other And although the restoring of Photius after the death of Ignatius seemed to put an end to it yet the difference increased chieâ—ly upon two points that of Iurisdiction and the Addition to the Creed made by the Western Church which the Council under Photius did Anathematize and the whole Greek Church with the Four Patriarchs joyned in it as arguing Imperfection in the Creed and the Tradition of their Fore-fathers And upon these two Points this Schism began although Photius did charge the Latin Church with other things which made Nicolaus I. to employ the best Pens they had to defend the Latins against the Greeks One of which was Ratramnus lately â—ublished who lived at that time and it is observable in him That he supposes both to be still Parts of the Catholic Church and he often distinguishes the Latin Church or the whole Roman Communion from the Catholic Church which he saith was extended from the East to the West from the North to the South In the Eleventh Age this Schism brake forth with greater violence in the time of Leo IX and Michael Cerularius Patriarch of Constantinople To the former occasions of difference a new one was added never mention'd in Photius his time viz. the use of unleavened Bread in the Sacrament by the Latin Church Of this with other things Michael Cerularius complained the Pope sends Three Nuntio's to Constantinople who behaved themselves rudely and insolently towards the Patriarch as he shews in his Epistles to the Patriarch of Antioch published lately by Coâ—elerius there he declares he would not treat with them about Religion without the other Patriarchs upon which they pronounced them obstinate and proceeded to Excommunicate the whole Greek Church for not complying with them And the Patriarch returned the kindness and Anathematized them The Form of the Anathema against the Greeks is printed with Humbertus and the short of it is whosoever contradicts the Roman See is to be excluded Catholic Communion and be made Anathema Maranatha This was plain dealing but it was the Eleventh Age before things came to this height And yet in that very Anathema one of the Reasons assigned was because the Greeks like the Donatists conâ—â—ned the Catholic Church to themselves In the Thirteenth Age Innocent III. writes to the Greek Emperour to bring the Greeks back to the Unity of the Church the Patriarch of Constantinople writes back again to know what he meant by it and how he could call the Roman Church the One Catholic Church since Christians made but one Flock under their several Pastors Christ himself being Head over all The Pope answers The Church is called Catholic two ways 1. As it consists of all particular Churches and so he grants the Roman Church is not the Catholic Church but a part of it though the
chief 2. As it holds under it all particular Churches and so he saith The Roman Church only is the Catholic Church And so he makes owning the Roman Church to be Mother and Mistress of all Churches as he there saith to be a necessary condition of Catholic Communion And thus it becomes the Roman Catholic Church But this was a very new notion of the Catholic Church which in the Fathers of the Church was taken in one of these two Senses 1. With Respect to Faith and so Catholic was the same with Sound and of a right Faith in opposition to the notorious Heresies of the First Ages So it was used by Igâ—â—tius against the Heresies of that time which denied Iesus to be Christ therefore saith he Whereever Christ Iesus is there is the Catholic Church After him Polycarp is called by the Church of Smâ—rna Bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna So the Council of Antioch speaking of the deposition of Paâ—lus Samosatenus say They must set another Bishop over the Catholic Church there â—lemens Alexandrinus saith The Catholic Church is ancienter than Heresies that it hath the Unity of the Faith and subsists only in the Truth Pacianus observes That in those Ages the Hereticks went by other Names but the sound Christians were known by the Name of Catholics which had been of very ancient usâ— in the Church though not found in Scripture as Fulgentiâ—s likewise observes But Lactantius takes notice that the Hereticks had gotten the trick of using that Name and then his Rule is to discern the true Catholic Church by the true Religion For he not only saith before That the Catholic Church is to be known by the true Worship of God but when he comes to lay down the Notes of the true Church the first of them is Religion So I find in an old Lactantius printed at Rome A. D. 1470. but for what Reason I know not it is leâ—t out in the latteâ—â— Editions In the Conference between the Donatists and the Catholic Bishops both sides challenged the name of Catholics to themselves and the Roman Judge determined It should belong to them who were found to have Truth on their side Pope Innocent III. in a Council at Rome declares That all the Churches in the World are called one from the Unity of the Catholic Faith. And in the Canon before he mentions the Roman Church as distinct from the Catholic but comprehended under it while it adheres to the Catholic Faith. Which was not then understood to be what the Roman Church declares to be so but what was universally received in the Church from the Apostles times and was delivered in the Creeds to the Persons to be admitted by Baptism into the Catholic Church 2. With respect to Persons and Places And so Catholic was first taken in opposition to the Iewish Confinement of Salvation to themselves and of Gods appointed Worship to one Temple So Ignatius faith The â—hurch is one Body made up of Jews and Gentiles And the Church of Smyrna writes to all the Members of the Catholic Church in all places and the Council of Antioch writes to the whole Catholic Church under Heaven S. Cyril saith The Church is called Catholic from its Universal spreading and teaching the whole Doctrine of Christ to all sorts of Persons Athanasius saith It is called Catholic because it is dispersed over the World. Theophylact saith The Catholic Church is a Body made up of all â—hurches whereof Christ is the Head. And the African Bishops from the first beginning of the Dispute with the Donatists laid great weight upon this That the Catholic Church was to be taken in its largest Extent or else the Promises could not be fulfilled as may be seen in Optatus who saith The Church is called Catholic not only from its having the true Faith but from its being every where dispersed And S. Augustine hath written whole Books to prove it In the Conference with the Donatists the Catholic Bishops and especially S. Augustin plead that they are called Catholics because they hold communion with the whole World of Christians and not with thâ—se only of a particular Title or Denomination For therein they made the Schism of the Donatists consist not barely in a causeless Separation but in confining the Catholic Church to themselves who at best were but a Part of it And because the notion which Innocent III. gives is liable to the same charge it cannot be excused from the same guilt Thus we have found the Author of this Notion of the Roman Catholic Church viz. for such as own the Supremacy of the Church of Rome as he explains it more fully in the same Epistle But yet this Notion of the Catholic Church was not Uniniversally received after Innocent III. For in the Fifteenth Age in the Council of Florence Cardinal Bessarion disputing with the Greeks about the Authority of the Roman Church in making an Addition to the Creed saith That how great soever the Power of the Roman Church be he grants it is less than that of a General Council or the Catholic Church From whence it follows that the Notion of the Catholic Church cannot be taken from owning the Roman Church to be Mistress of all Churches for then the Catholic Church is bound to submit to the Decrees of the Roman Church about Matters of Faith. In the beginning of the same Age the Council of â—onstance met and in the Fourth Session declared That a General ouncil represents the Catholic Church and hath its Power immediately from Christ and that in matters of Faith Unity of the â—hurch and Reformation all Persons even Popes â—hemselves are bound to submit to it And truly it was but necessary for them to take off from the Popes Authority in matters of Faith since they charge Ioh. XXIII with no less than frequent and pertinacious denying the Immortality of the Soul. Was not this Man fit to be an Infallible Head of the Catholic Church and the true Center of Christian Communion Bellarmin saith this Article was not proved but only commonly believed because of the dissoluteness of his Life But this is but a poor defence since this Article stands upon Record against him in all the Editions of the Council of Constance which I have compared even that at Rome said to be collated with Manuscripts And why should so scandalous an Article be suffered to stand unless there were such a consent of Copies that it could not for shame be removed The Doctrine of the Council of Constance was confirmed by the Council of Basil and is to this day maintained by the Clergy of France as appears by their Declaration made A. D. 1682. From whence it follows that the Church is not called Catholic from relation to the Roman Church but to the whole Body of Christians and that the Unity of it is not to be taken from the respect it bears to an
only to be Re-baptized who renounced the Baptismal Faith in Father Son and Holy Ghost And the meaning I suppose waâ— that nothing but that exclude Persons out of the Catholic Church and those Hereticks whose Baptism was allow'd were of an inferiour sort and by not disowning their Baptism they shew'd they looked on them only as corrupted Parts of the Church And so did the Councils of Nice and Arles which did not utterly reject Re-baptization but only of those who preserved the Baptismal Faith. It was not therefore the Sense of the Ancient Church that upon every dissension in matters of Faith from the general Doctrine of the Church one Party must be excluded from the Catholic Church and that Title belong to the other But he proceeds That this Presumption cannot be the Cause of Schisms which must happen before the Presumption This is very easily answered For a breach there must be before but the Schism belongs to those who were the true Causes of the Breach If therefore any one Part assumes to it self the right of the whole and requires the owning it from all that joyn in Communion with it this very act makes it justifiable not to separate from the Catholic Church but not to joyn in Communion with that Part on such unreasonable terms Well saith he Suppose the dividing Parts do still continue Parts of the Catholic Whole cannot the Roman-Catholic be that Whole i. e. Suppose there be many Parts why may not one of them be the Whole For still the Roman-Catholic is but a Part though Catholic be the Whole as though the Ocean be the whole yet the British or Gallican or Spanish or Atlantick Ocean is but a Part of the Whole Ocean I am ashamed to pursue so clear a point any farther But he hath one fetch behind still viz. That it is one Faith which makes the Catholic Church one if therefore the Roman Catholic Church be a Part of this Catholic Whole the other Parts must believe as she does or else they cannot be Parts I will endeavour to make this clear to him and so end this Dispute The Church is a Society of Persons who own and profess the Christian Faith Therefore Faith is necessary to the very being of a Church for unless they believe the Christian Doctrine they cannot be the Christian Church This Faith which is necessary to make them Christians is to be embraced by all who are Members of this Church their entrance is by Baptism the Faith is the Creed delivered to those who are to be Baptized which being universally received by Christians that makes the common Bond of Union in the Parts of this great Body and this is the One Faith of the Catholic Church But if he thinks the Roman-Catholic Church can make all its Decisions a Part of this one Faith he is extreamly mistaken As will more fully appear in the following Discourse II. Of the Authority of the Catholic Church THE whole and sole design of the First Paper as the Replier tells me was to evince this Point That all Controversial Pâ—ints of Faith either about Holy Scripture or other Subjects do fall under the Iudgment and Decision of the Church But under Favour that is not the whole Design of it for this implies no more than that the Church may if it pleases decide them but the Desi n is to prove That in all Matters of Faith the Churches Authority is without farther Examination to be submitted to so that all that Christians have to do is but to enquire into Two things 1. Where the Church is 2. Whether the Church hath declared its Judgment or not And several things are objected in the Papers against the not submitting to the Churches Judgment viz. That every one will be his own Iudge which is not allowed in common matters much less in matters of Faith that no such Authority is given to every particular Man by Scripture but the Churches Authority is there established and was owned in the Primitive Church in the Creeds and about the Canonical Books and since the Church had once such a Power there is no reasâ—n to suppose it lost but upon differences happening the Churches Iudgment is to be submitted to This is the whole strength and force of the First Paper and it is about a Subject of the highest Importance both as to the satisfaction of particular Persons and the Peace of the Christian World. And the clearing thes Two Points will go a very great way towards the putting an end to Controversies 1. That in all Disputes we are to search no farther but presently to yield to the Judgment of the Church 2. That the Roman-Catholic Church is that Church How far I am from being satisfied with the latter doth already appear I now set my self to consider the other And here are these things necessary to be debated 1. Whether Christ and his Apostles did establish such a standing Judicature in the Church to which all Christians were bound to submit in matters of Faith 2. Whether the Primitive Church did own such a Judicature And did accordingly govern their Faith 3. Whether it be an unreasonable thing to suppose the contrary viz. That Christ should leave Men to judge for themselves in matters which concern their Salvation according to the Scriptures 1. Whether Christ and his Apostles did establish such a standing Judicature in the Church to put an end to all Controversies which should arise about matters of Faith We do not Question but Christ might have done it if he had pleased and there is no doubt he foresaw all those Inconveniences which are now objected against the want of it But the point before us is Whether Christ who alone could do it hath declared this to be his Will and Pleasure We are then to consider that this being a Point of so great Consequence the Commission for such a Court of Judicature in the Church ought to be delivered in the plainest and clearest Words that may be for otherwise this were to beget Controversies instead of putting an end to them When God under the Law established a Supreme Court of Appeal as to the differences which might arise about the Law he tells them where that Court should fit and commands the People to go up thither and hear their Sentence and submit to it This was a plain and clear declaration of the Will of God and they had no more to do but to go up to the Place which God did chuse viz. Ierusalem And there was never any dispute aftâ—rwards among the Israelites what they were to do when Differences happened for an Appeal lay to the Court of Ierusalem and the Sentence of that Court they were to stand to on pain of Death Our blessed Saviour knew this Constitution among the Jews when he founded his Church and if he had intended any such thing therein he would not have fallen short of the exactness of the Law in the things necessary in
make shipwrack of that Faith which makes her a true Church But other kind of Errors cannot overthrow her being I urged farther That notwithstanding the pretence to Infallibility they allow the Church may err in matters of Practice of the highest importance as about Deposing Princes and Absolving Subjects from their Allegiance but not about the least matter of Faith which made it very suspicious to be rather a politick device than a thing they really believed Here the Defender I fear wilfully mistakes my meaning for he argues as if he thought I were proving That the Church of Rome hath defined the Deposing Doctrine as a matter of Faith and great pains he takes to prove it hath not And all to no purpose For I insisted only that in this point they confessed their Church had grosly erred as to a matter of Practice though it had not expresly declared it as an Article of Faith. I desire him to speak out hath it not erred notoriously as to Practice in this matter Whether they have made any such Declaration or not as to oblige all others of their Communion to embrace the Doctrine it is undeniably true that their Popes and Councils have owned it and acted according to it to the mighty disturbance of the Peace of the Christian World. Now the question I put was this Since it is granted they have so notoriously erred in matters of Practice why should any believe them Infallible in Points of Faith i. e. that so many Popes so many Councils should act upon this principle as believing it to be true and yet preserve their Infallibility in not declaring it to be true This I confess is an extraordinary thing and the Defender seems in earnest to think they were kept from it by an over-ruling assistance of the Divine Spirit Which is just as if a Man were set upon in the Road by some pretending to be his Friends who should take from him all that he had and afterwards he should admire the Providence of God that these Men should not declare it lawful to do it It is granted that so many Popes did great Mischief to the World and especially to Christian Princes by acting according to this Doctrine and that they actually owned it in Councils and made Canons on purpose for it but yet an over-ruling Assistance kept them from making it a Point of Faith. They declared their own belief by their Practice and Canons they required the observance of them under pain of being cut off from the Church if they did it not and Gregory VII saith They cut themselves off who question this Power but they were deceived notoriously deceived in this matter yet they might be Infallible still Did not these Popes declare that to be Christs Doctrine which is not But not Authoritatively What I pray doth this mean Did they not declare this Power by vertue of the Authority given them by Christ over the Church And declare those Excommunicate who did not obey their Sentence Is not this proceeding Authoritatively Suppose the Popes had in the same manner declared that Hereticks should be Re-baptized i. e. made Canons for it and required the observance of them I desire to know whether this had not been Authoritative declaring it though they affixed no Anathema to those who held the contrary Is it possible for any Man to believe that if there were such a thing as Infallibility in the Guides of the Church that Christ would suffer them to run into such pernicious Errors and in such an Authoritative manner and yet make good his Promise of keeping them from Error by not suffering them to define this Doctrine as an Article of Faith But this will appear to be a very slender Evasion if Men will reflect on the nature of the matter it self for it is about the exercise of the Pope's Power over Princes and can it be supposed that since they challenged it they would ever suffer it to be debated in Councils but they would still have it pass as an inseparable Right of their Supremacy derived from S. Peter And all that they would allow in this Case is a bare Recognition and that was made in the Councils of Lyons and Lateran And the Deposing Power in the Church was sufficiently owned in the Councils of Constance and Trent But there are two sorts of Articles of Faith to be considered in the Church of Rome 1. Some are defined with an Anathema against Dissenters and so we do not say the Deposing Power is made an Article of Faith. 2. Some are received upon the common Grounds of Faith though not expresly declared And whatever Doctrine being denied would overthrow them may be justly look'd on as a Presumptive Article of Faith. As the denying the Deposing Power must charge the Church of Rome Representative and Virtual with such acts as are utterly inconsistent with the Promises of Divine Assistance supposed to be made to it Therefore all those who sincerely believe those Promises to belong to the Church of Rome so taken must in consequence believe so many Popes and Councils could not be so grosly mistaken in the Ground of their Actings And I find those who do now most contend that this Doctrine was never defined do yet yield that both Popes and Councils believed it to be true and acted accordingly But if nothing will be allowed to be points of Faith but what passes under the Decision of Councils approved by the Pope as such I pray tell me which of the General Councils determined the Popes Supremacy as a Point of Faith Where was the Roman Catholic Churches Infallibility defined Are these Points of Faith with you or not If they be then there may be Points of Faith among you which never passed any Conciliar Definitions or such Authoritative Declaration as the Defender means 2. I now come to consider the Sense of the Primitive Church about this matter of an Infallible Judge of Controversies Which I am obliged to do not only because it is said in the Papers That the Church exercised this Power after the Apostles but because the Defender brings Tertullian as rejecting the Scripture from being a sufficient Rule for Controversies and S. Augustine as setting up the Authority of the Church above the Scripture in matters of Proof But I confess two lame sayings of Fathers make no great impression on me I am for searching the sense of the Primitive Church in so weighty a Point as this after another manner but as briefly as may be i. e. by the general Sense of the Fathers of the first Ages about the Controversies then on foot that I may not deceive my self or others in a matter of this Consequence The point is Whether according to the sense of the Primitive Church when any Controversie about Faith doth arise a Person be bound to submit to the Churches Sentence as Infallible or he be required to make use of the best means he can to judge concerning it taking
they took upon them to define other matters for which they had no Colour in Scripture as the 2d Council of Nice did which was the first that went upon Tradition and then the Christian Church did not shew such Respect to them as was most apparent in the Case of this Council of Nice which was universally rejected in these Western parts Rome excepted as appears by the Council of Franâ—ford and the unexceptionable Testimonies of Eghinardus Hincmarus and others Would this have been a sufficient Argument against Charlemaign and the Western Bishops that they joyned in the Plea of the Ancient Hereticks and none were ever condemned by the Church but they made such complaints against the Proceedings of Councils as they did It is certain that Leo Armenus in the East as well as Charles and the Western Church rejected that Council as contrary to Scripture which shews that neither in the East or West did they think themselves so tied up by Definitions of Councils proceeding in such a manner but that they were at full Liberty to examin and if they saw Cause to reject such Definitions While Councils did declare that they intended to make use of no other Rule but Scripture and to deliver only the Sense of the Catholick Church from the beginning a great regard was to be shew'd to them but when they set up another Rule the Christian Church had just Reason not to submit to their Decrees And to say This is the Plea of all Hereticks is just as if an innocent Person might not be allowed to plead not Guilty because the greatest Malefactors do the same There must be some certain Rules whereby to proceed in this matter and this is the first We fix upon That they proceed as the Ancient Councils did according to Scriptures 2. The Ancient Hereticks were condemned by such Councils as did represent the Universal Church after another manner than the Council of Trent did I do not say There was ever such a General Council as did fully represent the Universal Church which could not be done without Provincial Councils summon'd bâ—â—ore in all parts of Christendom and the Deâ—â—egation from them of such Persons as were to deliver their Sense â—n the matter of Faith to be debated in the General Council and I have Reason to question whether this were ever done But however there is a very great difference in the Ancient Councils from the modern as to this point of Representing for in them there was the Consent of all the Patriarchs and a general Summons for the Bishops from all parts to appear But in the Modern Councils four Patriarchs and the Bishops under them have been excluded and the 5th hath Summon'd the Bishops under him to meet together and then hath called this a General Council Which is just as if in the time of the Heptarchy the King of Mercia should assemble the States under him and call the Convention of them The Parliament of England Thus in the Council of Trent the Pope Summons the Bishops that owned his Supremacy and had taken Oaths to him to meet together and would have this pass for a General Council When the Council met and Cardinal Hosius was appointed President in it Stanistaus Orechovius a warm and zealous Romanist writes to Hosius That it would very much conduce to their Reputation and Interest if the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch were Summon'd to the Council because the Greeks and Armenians depended upon them And he could not understand how the Catholick Church could be Represented without them nor how the Council could be called Oecumenical To which Hosivs Replied That the Pope being Oecumenical Patriarch a Council called by him was an Oecumenical Council Now this we say is extreamly different from the Notion of an Oecumenical Council in the Ancient times and overthrows the Rights of other Churches as they were setled by the Four General Councils and therefore the Case is very different as to being condemnd by General Councils and by the late Conventions assembled by the Popes Authority 3. Themselves allow that some Councils may be and ought to be rejected and therefore all our business is to enquire whether we may not with as much Reason reject some Councils as they do others They reject the Council of Ariminum which together with that of Sâ—leucia which sat at the same time make up the most General Council we read of in Church-History For Bellarmin owns that there were 600. Bishops in the Western part of it So that there were many more Bishops assembled than were in the Council of Nice there was no Exception against the Summons or the Bishops present and yet the Authority of this Council is rejected because it was too much influenced by Constantius and his Agents The 2d Council of Ephesus wanted no just Summons no presence of Patriarchs or number of Bishops yet this is rejected because its Proceedings were too Violent The Councils of Constantinople against Images are rejected because but one Patriarch was present in either of them Now I desire to know whether it be not as lawful to except against other Councils as against these supposing the Reasons to be the same and greater Evidence to be given in these latter Times of the Truth of the Allegations Besides we find they are divided in the Church of Rome concerning their latter Councils Some say The Councils of Pisa Constance and Basil were true General Councils and that the Council of Lateran under Leo X. was not so others say That the former have not the Authority of General Councils but the latter hath Some say That there have been 18. General Councils so the Roman Editors of the Councils and others but a great number of these are rejected by others who allow but 8. of the number viz. those wherein the Eastern and Western Bishops met And so the Councils of Lateran and Trent besides others are cut off What becomes then of the Articles of Faith defined by those Councils For they cannot be received on the account of their Authority However we find this Objection lies equally against them as against us For do not both these differing Parties side with the Ancient Hereticks as much as we do For they except against the Supreme Judicature in the Church and decline the Judgment of these Councils as much as those Hereticks did the Councils of their own Times These are therefore but ordinary Tâ—picks which may be reasonble or not as they are applied 2. It was answer'd That the way proposed doth not hinder mens believing as they please i. e. without sufficient Reason for their Faith several Instances were given As believing the Roman Church to be the Catholick without any colour of Scripture Reason or Antiquity as is now fully shew'd in the foregoing Discourse believing against the most convincing Evidence of their own Senses Believing the lawfulness of the Worship of Images can be reconciled with Gods forbidding it the Communion in
other And thereâ—â—re we must judg more reasonably What follows about the Infallibility promised to the Church hath been answered already As to the Canonical Book I shewed it was no Authoritative Decision by a Power in the Church to make Books Canonical which were not so but a meer giving Testimony in a Matter of Fact in which all parts of the Church are concerned and it depends as other Matters of Fact do on the Skill and Fidelity of the Reporters And so far I own the truly Catholick Church to have Authority in any Testimony delivering down the Books of Scripture but this proves no more Infallibility in the Christian Church as to the Books of the New Testament than it doth in the Jewish Church as to the Books of the Old Testament And thus much of the Authority of the Catholick Church in Matters of Faith. III. Of the Reformation of the Church of England THere are so many Passages in the Papers relating to the Church of England on the Account of her Reformation that I thought it the best Method of proceeding to handle this Subject by itself And there are these things charged upon it either in Terms or by Consequence in the Papers which as I am a Member of this Church I think my self bound to clear for I could nor justifie continuing in her Communion if she were justly liable to these Imputations 1. That she hath made a causless Breach in the Communion of the Catholick Church 2. That she hath been the occasion of a World of Heresies crept into this Nation 3. That she hath not sufficient Authority within her self and yet denies an Appeal to a higher Judicature 4. That she contradicts her own Rule viz. the Holy Scriptures 5. That she subsists only on the Pleasure of the Civil Magistrate All these I shall examine with Care and consider what hath been said in Defence of the Papers upon these Heads As to the charge of causless Breach in the Communion of the Catholick Church it lies in these Words And by what Authority Men separate themselves from that Church Which being spoken with respect to the Members of the Church of England do imply that they have made a Separation from the Communion of the Catholick Church and that they had no sufficient Authority for so doing and therefore are guily of Schism in it To the Question two Answers were given 1. By distinguishing the truly Catholick Church from the Roman Catholick And a Distinction between these being made out which is done in the first part of this Defence It doth not follow that we have made a Breach in the Communion of the Catholick Church because we do not join in Communion with the Roman Catholick This was illustrated by the Example of a prosperous Usurper in a Kingdom who challenges a Title to the whole by gaining a considerable part of it and requires from all the Kings Subjects within his Power to own him to be rightful King whereupon the Question was put Whether refusing to do it were an Act of Rebellion or of Loyalty So in the Church the Popes Authority over it so as to restrain Catholick Communion only to those who own it is not only looked on as an Usurpation by Us but by all the Eastern Churches and is in Truth altering the Terms of Christian Communion from what they were in the truly Catholick and Apostolick Church Therefore since the Conditions required are unreasonable because different from them what Breach hath followed is not to be imputed to those who refuse these Terms but to those who impose them and so the Guilt of it lies upon the Church of Rome and not upon the Church of England This is the Substance of the Answer To which the Replier saith That the Eastern Churches cannot be parts of the Catholick Church because they hold not the Apostolick Doctrine contained in the Creeds and Councils owned by the Church of England This hath been fully answered already But he goes on There were no other Churches then in being but those which were in Communion with the Church of Rome consequently the Church of England going out from them separated her self from the Catholick Apostolick Church And the Defender saith He expects I should shew That truely Catholick and Apostolick Church we held Communion with when we separated from the Roman He desires to know where the men live that people may go to them and learn of them what their Faith is c. In answer to this I say That there is no necessity for us to shew any Church distinct from others which in all things we agreed with because we hold all particular Churches liable to Errors and Corruptions and that the notion of the Catholick Church may take in such Particulars from which we may see reason to dissent But we do not thereby exclude them from being parts of the Catholick Church but we say they are no Infallible Rule to us and therefore we ought to proceed by what the Church hath receiv'd as an Infallible Rule and not by the Communion of other Churches And supposing there were no particular Church we did in all things joyn with the Church of England might Reform it self without separating from the Catholick Apostolick Church For it was then in the Case particular Churches were in after the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia for then the standard of Catholick Communion set up by the Council of Nice was taken down and the setting of it up again was to oppose the Consent of the Christian Church in the most General Council that ever Assembled I do not say this Council obliged men to profess Arrianism but that it took away the Authority of the Nicene Creed in as valid a manner as the Council by its Acts could do it I ask then by what Authority any particular Church could set up the Nicene Faith and if not how it was possible to be restored And I desire to know in what Country the people lived who then owned the Nicene Faith against such a General Council And where were the Churches in being which at that time adhered to it But if in this Case the British Church tho alone was bound notwithstanding such a general consent to Reform it self and to restore the Authority of the Nicene Creed the same Case it is when the Western Church was oppressed and hindered from Reforming Errors and Abuses by the Usurpation and Tyranny of the Papal Faction the Church of England was then obliged to exercise its own Inherent Right in bringing things to the state they were in in the time of the first General Councils In matters of Reformation the main enquiries are whether there be just Occasion and due Authority for it and a certain Rule to proceed by the last and least important Question is what Company we have to joyn with us in it For there is a Natural Right iâ— every Church to preserve its own just Liberties and consequently to throw off such
hath as much Authority over our Church as the Rulers of it have over the Members Which ought not to have been supposed but substantially proved since the Weight of the Cause depends upon it But I see nothing like a Proof produced 2. That the Sectaries have as much reason to reject the Terms of Communion required by our Church as our Church had to reject those of the Church of Rome But this is as far from being proved as the other 2. The Defender desires to be instructed how such an Authority can be in a Church without Infallibility I hope he believes there may be Authority without Infallibility or else how shall Fathers govern their Children But not in the Church Why so Have not Bishops out of Councils Authority to rule their Diocesses Have they not a Provincial Synods Authority to make Canons tho they be not Infallible What then is the meaning of this He tells us soon after To say a Church is Fallible is to say she may be deceived There is no doubt of that And if she may be deceived her self they may be deceived who follow her And if a Church pretends to be Infallible which is not she certainly deceives those that follow her and that without Remedy But all this sort of Reasoning proceeds upon a false Suggestion viz. That our Faith must be grounded on the Chuach's Authority as the formal Reason of it Which he knows is utterly denied by us and ought to have been proved We declare the Ground of our Faith is the Word of God not interpreted by Fancy but by the Consent of the whole Christian Church from the Apostles Times This is our Bottom or if you will the Rock on which our Church is built This is far more firm and durable than a pretence to Infallibility which is like a desperate Remedy which Men never run to but when they see nothing else will help them Had the Church of Rome been able to defend her Innovations by Reason or Antiquity she had never thought of Infallibility It is a much better expedient to keep Men in Error than to keep them from it and tends more to save the Authority of a sinking Church than the Souls of Men. But he will not let the Church's Infallibility go thus For he pretends to prove that if we take that away we make Christianity the most unreasonable Thing in Nature nay absolutely impossible What! whether God hath promised to make the Church Infallible or not We understand those who offer to prove the Church Infallible by Scripture but these Scientifical Men despise such beaten Roads and when they offer to demonstrate fall short of the others Probabilities As will appear by examining his Argument Faith requires an assent to a thing as absolutely true but a fallible Authority cannot oblige me to a thing as absolutely true and therefore this would be an Effect without a Cause a down-right Impossibility a flat Contradiction I will match his Argument with another Faith is not an Assent to a thing as absolutely true upon less than a Divine Testimony but the Church's Testimony is not Divine and therefore to believe upon the Church's Testimony is an Effect without a Cause a down-right Impossibility a flat Contradiction Let him set one of these against the other and see who makes Faith unreasonable or impossible But I will clear this Matter in few words I grant that Faith is an Assent to a thing as absolutely true and that what is absolutely true is impossible to be false I grant that a meer fallible Authority is not sufficient to produce an Act of Faith. But here I distinguish the Infallible Authority of God revealing into which my Faith is resolved as into the formal Reason of it from the Authority of the Church conveying that Revelation which is only the Means by which this Revelation comes to be known to us As when a Man swears by the Bible there is a difference between the Contents of that Book by which he swears and the Officers putting the Book into his hands 3. The Church of England is blamed for allowing no Liberty of Appeals to a higher Judicature The Question is Whether this makes her no true Church or not to have any just Authority over her own Members The Replier saith She makes her self the last Tribunal of Spiritual Doctrine I know not where she hath done so since we own the Authority of Free and truly General Councils as the Supreme Tribunal of the Church upon Earth And accordingly receive the four first which even S. Gregory the Great distinguished from those that followed as to their Authority and Veneration The Defender had a good mind to cut off the Church of England from being a Church because she hath renounced Communion with the Church of Rome but his heart failed him And I hope he will think better of it when he sees cause to prove a little more effectually that the Church of Rome in its largest extent is the Catholick Church He argues That there must be such an Authority in a Church which may give a final Sentence conclusive to the Parties as the Judges do Temporal Differences But is it necessary for all Churches to have such a Power then there must be as many Supreme Courts as there are Churches If not we desire to know where the Supreme Court is and who appointed it And where Christ hath ever promised to his Church a Power to end Controversies when they arise as effectually as Judges do Temporal Differences For the freest and most General Councils yet assembled have not been so happy and those we look on as the most Venerable Authority to decide Differences in the Church But still our Church wants sufficient Authority in his Opinion Doth it want Authority to govern its own Members To Reform Abuses in a divided State of the Catholick Church To cast off an usurped Power as it was judged by the Clergy in Convocation who yet concurred in other things with the Church of Rome I pray what Authority had the Gallican Church so lately to declare against the Pope's Infallibility and to reduce him in that respect to the Case of an ordinary Bishop If Absolute Obedience be due to him as Head of the Church what Authority have the Temporal Princes in other Countries sometimes to forbid sometimes to restrain and limit the Pope's Bulls This at least shews that there may be just Authority to examine and restrain the Pope's Power And I see no Reason why the several Churches of Christendom may not act as well against the Pretence of the Pope's Authority as the Gallican Church hath done against his Infallibility especially since this Gentleman hath told us that Authority without Infallibility signifies nothing And those who think they may examine and reject his Dictates may do the same by his Authority the one being as liable as the other It was said in the Papers That no Country can subsist in
a man such St. Augustins opinion is reported by Aquinus as the Reason of his Judgment that is adopted into the Body of the Canon-law and therefore that ought to be the Standard according to which they are to pronounce a Person obstinate If Men do not wiâ—h Diligence and Caution seek after Truth and are not willing to embrace it when they find it then they are to be accounted Hereticks for being obstinate But St. Augustin goes no further however Suarez would seem to agree with him But it is worth the while to consider his Doctrine about it 1. He affirms That it is not enough for one to be ready to submit to Gods Word either written or unwritten but the Submission must be with respect to the Church as proposing both to us 2. That those who believe any Doctrine because their Judgment tells them it is the sense of Scripture if they therein follow their own Judgment and not the sense of the Church they are guilty of such an Oâ—stinacy as makes Hereticks 3 That it doth not excuse â—f he be willing to believe the Church if he â—â—es Reasons and Arguments to move him for this he saith is not to believe the Churches Authority as Divine but after a human manner which may consist with Obstinacy against the Church as a Rule of Faith. 4 That it is not yet necessary in order to this Obstinacy to believe the Church to have Infallible Authority for then those must be excused from heretical Obstinacy who denied it but it is sufficient that the Church is proposed as a true Church whose Authority he is bound to submit to The short of all this matter is If a Man resolve to believe as the Church believes a very small thing will excuse him from Heresy but if not nothing according to Suarez will do it unless it be Ignorance as to the Churches proposing And this is the modern notion of Heresy which appears to me to be very unreasonable on these accounts 1. Suppose a Person have a general Disposition of mind to believe whatever is sufficiently proposed to him as revealed by God and believes sincerely whatever he knows to be contained in Scripture I would sain know whether this Disposition of mind do not really excuse him from heretical Obstinacy And yet this is very consistent with doubting whether the Church be accounted as the Proponent of matters of Faith. 2. Is it necessary in order to heretical Obstinacy that the Person believes the Proponent to be Infallible or not If it be then none can be convinced of heretical Obstinacy but such as reject the Churches Authority when they believe it Infallible and then none of us can be charged with it for we do not believe the Churches Infallibility If it be not necessary then the Churches Infallibility is not necessary to Faith for iâ— order to Heretical Obstinacy he must be convinced of resisting that which was necessary in order to Faâ—â—h from whence it will follow that the Churches Infallibility is noâ— equired as the Ground of Faith. 3 Suppose a Person thinks himself bound in Conscience to believe those Guides which God by his Providence hath set over him and he believes to be sincere and honest and these tell him there is no ground to believe on the Churches Authority as being sounded neither in Scripture nor Antiquity nor Reason is not he excused hereby from Heretical Obstinacy 4. Suppose he declares himself ready to believe the Churches Authority if it be sufficiently proposed to him i. e. with such Reasons and Arguments as are proper to convince him but after all he declares that he cannot see any such And yet Aquinas affirms No man can believe unless he sees Reason why he should 〈◊〉 How then can a man be liable to Heretical Obstinacy because he only refuses to believe when he sees no Reason to believe 5. Suppose he doth believe that which the Church proposes not meerly upon its Authority but upon the Reasons which the Church offers why must this man be liable to Heretical Obstinacy for believing upon the Churches Reasons What a wonderful nice thing is Heresie made It seems by this rare Doctrine it doth not excuse from Heresie to believe even Truth it self if it be upon grounds of Reason which the Church it self gives But it must be taken meerly from the Churches Authority and yet that very Authority must be believed on the grounds of Reason or the Motives of Gredibility 6. Suppose a Person hath used the best means he could to find out his Obligation to believe on the Churches Authority and after all he cannot find any such thing what Obligation is he under to enquire farther and from whence doth it arise And if he be not under any how can he be guilty of Herecial Obstinacy who is under no Obligation to search any farther For Obstinacy must suppose resisting some Obligation 7. Suppose he be willing to believe on the Churches Authority if that Church be made appear to him to be the One Catholick Church of Christ but when he comes to examine this he finds that he must exclude very great and considerable Parts of the Catholick Church to reduce the Authority of the Catholick Church to that of the Roman Communion how can it then be Heretical Obstinacy not to suppose a Part to be the Whole 8. Suppose he hath overcome this yet if he should mistake about the Seat of Infallibility is he not still as liable to the charge of Heretical Obstinacy because the true Reason of it is that such a Person rejects that which God hath chosen as the proper means to propound matters of Faith to us But if he should be mistaken in the true Proponent he is in as much danger of Heretical Obstinacy still As suppose a man takes a General Council as representing the Catholick Church to be the only true Proponent of Faith and therefore rejects the Authority of the Pope in this matter I desire to know whether this be Heretical Obstinacy or not If not then rejecting the true Proponent doth not make any liable to it If it doth then there is Heretical Obstinacy in the Church of Rome as well as out of it And so much in Answer to the Repliers Charge of Heresie on the Church of England 3. The next Charge relates to the Insufficient Authority of the Church of England and that on these Accounts 1. In that it leaves every man to judge for himself 2. Because she dares not use the true Arguments against Sects for fear of their being turned upon her self 3. Because she denies an Appeal to an higher Judicature 1. It is urged in the Papers That among us every man thinks himself as competent a Judg of Scripture as the very Apostles It was answer'd That every man among us doth not pretend to an Infallible Spirit but all yield the Apostles had it And by being a Judg of Scripture if no more be meant than that
from the proceeding of the rest of Mankind that for my part I must be content rather to grope in the darkness of common Reason than be directed by the Light of this invisible Sun-shine The Defender here comes in with his Dish and his Stand which are Metaphors somewhat too mean for such a Subject and are apt to turn one's Stomach more than Repetition The Question is Whether those who allow the use of our Judgments in the choice of a Church have Reason to find fault with it in other thingâ— because the Difficulties about an Infallible Church are as great as about any other Point in Religion The Replier again saith The Church is a Noon-day Light. Then what Cimmerians are we Tully questioned Whether some God or Nature or the Situation of the Place hindred a whole Nation that they could never see the Sun But our Modern Geographers put an end to this Dispute telling us there are no People in the World who cannot see the Sun at some time or other And we are apt to think if there were such a Sun-shine of the Churches Infallibility we should be able to discern it unless the Light of it may be thought to dazle oâ—â— Eyes for we are as willing to find it as they but the Disâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it are such as we cannot conquer And there need no Telescopes to find out the Sun. But the Defender will not yield that there are any suâ—â— Difficulties about the Church's Infallibility for he hath but oâ—â— thing to mind and that no Difficulty neither where or which the Church is I hope when he hath considered the former Discourses he will not think it so easy a matter to find out the Church he talketh of viz. One Infallible Catholick Church But the Difficulties about Scripture are greater as about the Canon Translation and Sense of it The Question proceeds upon a Person who in earnest desires to satisfy himself in this Matter Whether in order to his Salvation he must follow the Directions of Scripture or the Church And I doubt not to make it appear that the Difficulties are greater about the Church than the Scripture That which deceives Persons is that they rather consider the Difficulties after the Choice than before It is very true those who trust the Church have no more to do afterward but to believe and do as she directs for they are to examine no farther whether it be true or false right or wrong Vertue or Vice which is commanded the Church is to be obey'd But those who follow the Scripture must not only read and weigh and consider it well but when Doubts arise must make fresh Applications to their Rule and use the best Means for understanding it by Prayer Meditation and the Assistance of Spiritual Guides And this is far more agreeable to the Design of the Christian Religion as it was taught by Christ and his Apostles But the Difficulties of the Choice are now to be consider'd and let us consider what those are about the Church and then compare them with those about the Scripture If I choose a Church for my Infallible Guide in the Way to Heaven to which the Promises of Christ do belong then there are these Difficulties both which I think impossible for my mind to get over 1. I must exclude all other Churches in the Christian World from any share in these Promises And either I must condemn them without hearing them or examining the Grounds of their Exclusion or I must be satisfied with the Reason of it which I cannot be till I am certain that Church hath justly shut out all other Churches and challenged the Promises to her self alone 2. I must be satisfied that Christ did intend one standing Visible Church to be my Director in the Way to Heaven And for this purpose I must examine all the places of Scripture produced to that end and be Judg of the clearness and evidence of them i. e. I must conquer the Difficulties about the Scripture as to Canon Translation and Sense before I can be satisfied that I am to make choice of a Church 3. There is yet a harder Point to get over Suppose a Church must be chosen why the Church of Rome rather than any other What is there in the Promises of Christ which direct me to chuse that Church and no other Suppose I were born in Greece and there I was told I must â—huse a Church for my Guide to Heavâ—n If it must be so I will chuse our own Greek Church No it must be the Church of Rome What Reason or Colour is there for it Is it said so in Scripture No not expresly But what Consequence from Scripture will make me do it There are Promises made to the Church What then Were not our Churches planted by the Apostles Have not we had a constant Succession of Bishop in them Have we not four Patriarchs in our Communion and you but one For what imaginable Reason then should you exclude our Churâ—â—es from any share in the Promises of Christ But now as to the Scripture we are to consider 1. That no more is necessary as to particular Persons than knowing the things necessary to their Salvation which are easy to be known and are clearly revealed in Scripture if S. Chrysostom and S. Augustine may be bâ—lieved 2. That what Difficulties are objected about the Scripture must be all of them resolved by him that believes the Church as is already observed but the Difficulties about the Church's Infallibility do not concern him that relies on Scripture 3. That the general Consent of the Christian Church is of far greater Advantage for the satisfaction of a Man's Mind than the Authority of any one Church as about the Integrity of the Copies and the Canon of Scripture 4. As to Translations the Unlearned in all Churches must trust to those that are Learned for the particular examination of them but in general a private Person may be satisfied by these Conâ—â—derations 1. That Men will not go about to deceive others in a Matter wherein so many are concerned and in which it is so easy to discover any wilful Fraud 2. That since the Divisions of Christendom there are Parties still at watch to discover the Faults committed by each other in a Work of so publick a Nature 3. That where a Translation hath been review'd with great care after several Attempts there is still greater Security as to the goodness of it And this is the Case of the present Translation of our Church which was with wonderful care review'd and compared with the Original Languages by the particular Direction of K. James I. and therefore deserves to be esteemed above such a Translation which was never made out of the Original as to the Old Testament nor ever review'd and corrected by it Which is the Case of the Vulgar Latin and of such Translations which are made from it I had said that the Scripâ—ure may be a
Rule without the Church but the Church cannot without the Scriptures The Replier like a fair Adversary mentions that which looks like an Objection viz. That there was a Church before the Scriptures were written and some Ages were passed before the Canon of Scripture was made and owned by the Church To which I Answer That when I said the Church cannot be a Rule without the Scripture it was upon the supposition that the Canon of Scripture had been long since owned by the Church and that the Church derives its Infallibility from the Promises contaiâ—ed in the Scripture But the Defender goes another way to work for saith he The Scriptures I say may be a Rule without the Church that is without Faithful for a Congregation of them is a Church What! in the Sense now before us as it is taken for a Guide Is every Congregation of the Faithful a Church in this Sense Then well-fare the Independents And this me-thinks makes Infallibility sink very low I do not say There could be no Church before Scripture nor that they had then no Rule of Faith nor that the Church depends on writing these are but mean Objections but I â—ill say That where a Church challenges her Authority by the Scripture it can signify nothing without it Which is so plain that I need not multiply words about it As to his Church-Security we have considered it enough already but it would make one mistrust a Security which is so often offered I said that suppose Infallibility be found in Scripture there is yet a harder Point to get over viz. how the Promises relating to the Church in general came to be appropriated to the Church of Rome From hence he insers That I have at last found the Promises of Infallibility to the Church there Is not this a rare Consequence Suppose I should say I know a Book of Controversy in the World that hath very little of true Reasoning in it but if it were to be found there it doth not reach to the Point in hand Doth this imply that I affirmed in the latter part what I denied before Is this finding out true Reasoning in the latter Period which was not to be found in the former There may be true Reasoning when it is not to the purpose So there might be Infallibility and yet the Church of Rome not concerned in it Suppose the Church of Jerusalem as the Mother Church might be Infallible by the Promises of Scripture what would this be to the Church of Rome But I never said or thought that there were any Promises of Infallibility made to any Church in Scripture Proâ—ises of Divine Assistance and Indefectibility I grant are made to the Church in general but these are quite of another Nature from Promises of Infallibility in delivering Matters of Faith in all Ages Yet if this were granted the Church of Rome as it takes in all of her Communion hath no more reason to challenge it to her self than Europe hath to be called the Face of the whole Earth As to his Sandy Foundation I tell him in short He that builds his Faith on the Word of God builds on a Rock and all other things will be found but Sandy Foundations 4. The next thing laid to our Charge is That we draw our Arguments from Implications and far-fetch'd Interpretations at the same time that we deny plain and positive words In Answer to this 1. It was shew'd that in many of the Points in Difference we have express words of Scripture for us As against the Worship of Images and giving Divine Worship to any but God and for giving the Eucharist in both kinds and praying in a Language we understand The Defender would have me produce the very Words to shew that the Scripture saith No to what their Church saith I or contrariwise He talked much before that we give the same Answer the old Hereticks did and now I think he hath matched them Shew us say they in Terms the direct contrary to our Propositions where the Son was said to be Consubstantial to the Father or the Holy Ghost was a Divine Person or the Blessed Virgin the Mother of God or that there are two Natures in Christ after the Union Will Reason and Consequences signify nothing when founded on the Word of God But I need not this answer for I assirm that the words of the first and second Commandment of the Institution of the Sacrament Drink ye all of this of S. Paul 14. of the first Epistle to the Corinthians against Publick Service in an unknown Tongue are so plain and evident that there is no Command of Scripture but may be avoided and turned another way as well as these And herein we go not upon our own Fancies but we have the concurrent Sense of the Christian Church in the best and most Primitive Ages in every one of the Points here mentioned And whether we are right as to the sense of the second Commandment and as to Divine Worship in general as to Christ's Institution amounting to a Command as to St. Paul 's Discourse Which the Replier insists upon next to the Scripture it self and the Force contained therein we appeal to the Primitive Church as the most indifferent Arbitrator between us 2. I answered That where words seem plain and positive they may have a Metaphorical or Figurative Sense as when God hath Eyes and Ears c. given him and the Rock was Christ. And so in the Words This is my Body it was a Sacramental Expression as the other was and the other words are figurative when the Cup is said to be the New Testament in his Blood and St. Paul notwithstanding those words called it Bread after Consecration Here the Defender will not bite the Light being too clear for him but descants upon denying plain words and so runs clear off from the Point which seemed to be chiefly meant by the Paper But the Replier is a generous Adversary and attacks what stands before him He endeavours to shew a Difference between God's having Eyes and Eaâ—s c. and those words This is my Body as to the receding from the literal Sense because saith he there is an implication of impossibility in the one but not in the other But withal he grants that if by This be meant the Bread it would have implied an equal impossibility I am very glad to see this Point brought to so fair an Issue For if I do not prove by the general Consent of the Fathers both of the Greek and Latin Churches that by This the Bread is meant I dare promise to become hiâ— Prosclyâ—â— 5. The last Thing objected is That our Church sâ—bsists only on the Pleasure of the Civil Magistrate who may turn the Church which way he pleases To this it was answered 1. That the Rule of our Religion is unalterable being the Word of God tho the Exercise of it be under the Regulation