Scripture Reason or Antiquity for the Popes personal Infallibility p. 533. CHAP. III. Of the errours of pretended General Councils The erroneous Doctrine of the Church of Rome in making the Priests intention necessary to the essence of Sacraments That Principle destructive to all certainty of Faith upon our Authours grounds The absurdity of asserting That Councils define themselves to be Infallible Sacramental actions sufficiently distinguished from others without the Priests Intention Of the moral assurance of the Priests Intention and the insufficiency of a meer virtual Intention The Popes confirmation of Councils supposeth personal Infallibility Transubstantiation an errour decreed by Pope and Council The repugnancy of it to the grounds of Faith The Testimonies brought for it out of Antiquity examin'd at large and shewed to be far from proving Transubstantiation Communion in one kind a violation of Christs Institution The Decree of the Council of Constance implyes a non obstante to it The unalterable nature of Christs Institution cleared The several Evasions considered and answered No publick Communion in one kind for a thousand years after Christ. The indispensableness of Christs Institution owned by the Primitive Church Of Invocation of Saints and the Rhetorical expressions of the Fathers which gave occasion to it No footsteps of the Invocation of Saints in the three first Centuries nor precept or example in Scripture as our Adversaries confess Evidences against Invocation of Saints from the Christians Answers to the Heathens The worship of Spirits and Heroes among the Heathens justifiable on the same grounds that Invocation of Saints is in the Church of Rome Commemoration of the Saints without Invocation in S. Austins time Invocation of Saints as practised in the Church of Rome a derogation to the merits of Christ. Of the worship of Images and the near approach to Pagan Idolatry therein No Vse or Veneration of Images in the Primitive Church The Church of Rome justly chargeable with the abuses committed in the worship of Images Page 554. CHAP. IV. Of the possibility of Salvation in the Roman Church Protestants Concessions ought not to be any ground to prefer the Communion of the Church of Rome How far those Concessions extend The uncharitableness of Romanists if they yield not the same to us The weakness of the Arguments to prove the Roman Church the safer way to Salvation on Protestant principles The dangerous Doctrines of Romanists about the easiness of salvation by the Sacrament of Pennance The case parallel'd between the Donatists and Romanists in denying salvation to all but themselves and the advantages equal from their adversaries Concessions The advantage of the Protestants if that be the safest way which both parties are agreed in manifested and vindicated in several particulars The Principle it self at large shewed to be a meer contingent Proposition and such as may lead to Heresie and Infidelity The case of the Leaders in the Roman Church and others distinguished The Errours and Superstitions of the Roman Church make its communion very dangerous in order to Salvation Page 611. CHAP. V. The Safety of the Protestant Faith The sufficiency of the Protestant Faith to Salvation manifested by disproving the Cavils against it C's tedious Repâ—titions passed over The Argument from Possession at large consider'd No Prescription allowable where the Law hath antecedently determined the right Of the Infallibility of Oral Tradition That contrary to the received Doctrine of the Roman Church and in it self unreasonable The Grounds of it examined The ridiculousness of the Plea of bare Possession discovered General Answers returned to the remaining Chapters consisting wholly of things already discussed The place of S. Cyprian to Cornelius particularly vindicated The proof of Succession of Doctrine lyes on the Romanists by their own principles Page 625. CHAP. VI. The Sense of the Fathers concerning Purgatory The Advantage which comes to the Church of Rome by the Doctrine of Purgatory thence the boldness of our Adversaries in contending for it The Sense of the Roman Church concerning Purgatory explained The Controversie between the Greek and Latin Church concerning it The Difference in the Church of Rome about Purgatory Some general Considerations about the Sense of the Fathers as to its being an Article of Faith The Doubtfulness and Vncertainty of the Fathers Judgements in this particular manifested by S. Austin the first who seemed to assert a Purgation before the day of Judgement Prayer for the Dead used in the Ancient Church doth not inferr Purgatory The Primate of Armagh vindicated from our Adversaries Calumnies The general Intention of the Church distinguished from the private Opinions of particular persons The Prayers of the Church respected the day of Judgement The Testimonies of the Fathers in behalf of Purgatory examined particularly of the pretended Dionysius Tertullian S. Cyprian Origen S. Ambrose S. Hierom S. Basil Nazianzen Lactantius Hilary Gregory Nyssen c. And not one of them asserts the Purgatory of the Church of Rome S. Austin doth not contradict himself about it The Doctrine of Purgatory no elder than Gregory 1. and built on Credulity and Superstition The Churches Infallibility made at last the Foundation of the belief of Purgatory The Falsity of that Principle and the whole concluded Page 636. Errata sic corrige PAge 21 l 12 for which r them p 37 marg for Baron an 405. r 447. p 48 l 38 for uniformally r uniformly p 64 l 29 for That r What. p 68 l 1 for Sceptiscism r Scepticism p 73 l 46 for dissents r assents p 101 l 3 between you and say insert to p 103 l 14 after men insert were p 116 l 34 blot out not before a good p 125 l 37 for Montallo r Montalto p 12â— l 16 for Valentius r Valentia p 128 l 39 r Infallibility p 159 l 26 r Assistance p 178 l 14 blot out bâ—t before probablâ— false p 184 l penult for it r Christ. p 210 l 42 before any insert for p 211 l 39 for of the r of this p 215 l 8 after Sixtine insert and. p 218 l 30 for it r them p 219 marg l penult r vetâ—stiores p 230 l 15 r generality p 235 l 43 blot out but before setting p 243 l 21 r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 263 l 25 blot out where l 41 blot out and p 267 l 17 r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 274 l 26 r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 marg 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 297 l 21 22 r communication of peace title of Brotherhood and common mark of Hospitality p 304 marg l 10 r Mastrucam p 308 l 30 for from r of p 312 l 5 r Sardican p 315 l 38 for contracts r contrasts p 326 l 46 for interrupted r uninterrupted p 340 l 33 for now r not p 344 l 34 for reply r rely l 45 r Ecclesiastical p 378 l 12 r And in the first of her reign of c. p 389 l 47 for Protestants r Patriarchs p 390 l 44 for Gâ—icenus r Cyzicenus p
first occasion to the Reformation If then these were not Catholickly received a particular Church might without Schism reject them and so the Church of England is sufficiently vindicated from Schism by your self as to these points here mentioned which you willingly omitted because you could not but know how far they were from being universally received in all Churches in Christendom 2. As to those things which you insist on you give no sufficient evidence at all that they were received by the whole Church as Catholick Doctrines For so far it is from appearing that these were held as Catholick Doctrines by all Churches in the Christian world for then you do most unreasonably condemn the Greek and Abyssine Churches c. for Heresie or Schism if they owned all Catholick Doctrines and they must do so if they agreed with your Church in all these things which are the only Doctrines you mention as Catholick in opposition to such whom you condemn for Heresie or Schism and if the agreement of all Churches be the measure of what is Catholick then those Doctrines cannot be so which those great Churches differ from you in by your own argument but so far is it I say from appearing that these were held so by all Churches in Christendom that you cannot prove they were so held in the Church of Rome her self before the Reformation The Church of Rome I take here in the largest sense as it takes in all such who were the visible members of her Communion Now I hope you will not say that such Doctrines are received as Catholick Doctrines which are imbraced only by a party in your Church another party opposing it both which still remain members of your Communion for whatever is received as a Catholick Doctrine according to you is so received that those who deny or doubt of it do thereby become no members of the visible Communion of that Church which is by the Churches so declaring her self in those points that she admits none to her Communion but upon the acknowledgement of them Now Will you say This was the case of your Church as to these Doctrines at the beginning of the Reformation Were Transubstantiation real Sacrifice of the Mass Veneration of Images Invocation of Saints Purgatory c. so defined then by your Church to be Articles of Faith that whoever did not assent to them was declared excommunicate and cast out of your Church If not it is impossible upon your own grounds to prove that these were universally held and believed as Catholick Doctrines of your Church I do not say As truly Catholick Doctrines in themselves for whatever your Church defines concerning them they are not more or less so in themselves for your Churches definition but I say you cannot assert that these were held by your Church to be Catholick Doctrines till they were defined to be such For according to your principles that which differenceth a Catholick Doctrine from a particular Opinion is the Churches Definition before then the Church had passed a definition in these points they could not be held as Catholick Doctrines To make this somewhat clearer because it is necessary for undeceiving those who are told as you tell us here That at the Reformation we rejected such things which were universally owned for Catholick Doctrines which is so far from being true that it is impossible they should be owned for such by the Church of Rome upon your own principles For I pray tell us Are there not several sorts of Opinions among you at this day none of which are pretended to be Catholick Doctrines and this you constantly tell us when we object to you your dissentions about them As for Instance the Popes personal Infallibility the Superiority of Pope over General Councils the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin the Disputes about Praedestination c. when we tell you of your differences in these points you answer That these hinder not the Vnity of the Church because these are only in matters of Opinion and that it is not de fide that men should hold either way When we demand the reason of this difference concerning these things your Answer is That the Church hath defined some things to be believed and not others that what the Church hath defined is to be looked on as Catholick Doctrine and the denyers of it are guilty of Heresie but where the Church hath not defined those are not Catholick Doctrines but only at best but pious Opinions and men may be good Catholicks and yet differ about them I pray tell me Is this your Doctrine or is it not If not there may be Hereticks within your Church as well as without if it be your Doctrine apply it to the matters in hand Were these things defined by the Church at the beginning of the Reformation If they were produce those Definitions for all those things which you say were owned as Catholick Doctrines then that we may see that at least in the judgement of your Church they were accounted so Tell us when and where those Doctrines were defined before the Council of Trent and I hope you will not say that was before the beginning of the Reformation If then there were no such definitions concerning them they could not by your Church be accounted as Catholick Doctrines at the most they could be but only pious Opinions as that of the Popes Infallibility among you is and consequently men might be Catholicks still though they disputed or denied them And how then come the Protestants to be accounted Hereticks in their Reformation if upon your own principles those things which they denied were then no Catholick Doctrines Though you should therefore prove more than you have done That these points of Doctrine were generally received at the time of the Reformation yet that by no means proves that they were Catholick Doctrines unless you make it impossible that meer Opinions should be generally received in your Church For if any thing may be generally received in the nature of an Opinion you cannot prove from the bare general reception that it was a Catholick Doctrine unless you would attempt to prove it by the notion under which it was received Whether as an Opinion or a Catholick Doctrine But then you must remember to prove these things 1. That all those who did receive it received it under that notion as for instance In any one of those Articles by you mentioned Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints c. you must first prove That all who were in your Churche's Communion did believe those things which it is impossible for you to do unless you could prove that none could be of your Church unless they believed them which is again impossible to be done unless your Church had so defined those things that they ceased to be members of it who did not believe them Thus we see your first task is rendred impossible viz. to know Whether all in your Church held these Doctrines or no
but suppose you knew this it falls short of your purpose unless you can prove that all those who held these things did not hold them as bare Opinions but as Catholick Doctrines and this is again as impossible as the former for How can you tell whether they judged these things to be so unless you knew what their Rule was whereby they judged of Catholick Doctrines If you knew their Rule How can you tell Whether they made a right Vse of it or no or Whether they made any Use at all of it or Whether they did not take up such Opinions by prejudice education the judgement of others and several other waies without examining of what nature or importance the things were If you think you have a certain Rule to judge of Catholick Doctrines by you must prove that they had the same Rule and looked upon it as such too otherwise they might not use it for those ends nor be governed at all by it When you will therefore prove any Doctrines to be Catholick by being generally received you must remember what brave impossibilities you have undertaken But suppose you could master this too and prove that men generally received these as Catholick Doctrines yet before you can prove that these are Catholick Doctrines from thence you have a further task yet upon you which is to prove it impossible that these men should be out in their judgement concerning the nature of an Opinion and that they could not look on any thing as a Catholick Doctrine but what was really so For if they may be mistaken in their judgement we are as far to seek as ever for knowing what are Catholick Doctrines and what not You must therefore prove the judgement of all these persons infallible concerning what are Catholick Doctrines and what not And by that time the Pope will return you little thanks for your pains in making every member of your Church as infallible as himself If it be then so impossible to prove that these were received as Catholick Doctrines either from any definition of your Church or from the general reception of them among the members of it you see what little reason you had to say That the Protestants at the beginning of the Reformation did take away something that was Catholick from the Doctrine of the Church Which is notoriously false and inconsistent with your own principles If we should therefore grant that Transubstantiation Purgatory c. were generally owned in your Church at the time of the Reformation the utmost you can prove is only that they were owned as particular Doctrines by particular men but not that they were owned as the Catholick Doctrines of your Church And therefore we deny not but that party and faction in your Church which owned and contended for these had got the upper-hand of the other before the time of the Reformation so that those who doubted of or denied them durst not appear so publickly as their adversaries did but they were but a party and a faction still and there were many outward members of your Church who groaned under the abuses and tyrannies of the prevailing faction and call'd loud for a Reformation As appeared not only by the open testimonies of some against such Doctrines the sad complaint of others for want of Reformation but by the general sense of the necessity of it at the time when it was set upon the great applause it met with among all persons who allowed themselves liberty to enquire into things the general consent of the main bodies of those who set about reforming themselves in the main Articles of Christian Doctrine and unanimous opposition to those erroneous Opinions which you call Catholick Doctrines So that these were not at the time of the Reformation so much as the owned Catholick Doctrines of the Roman Church but the Opinions of a prevailing Faction in it and therefore the disowning them is no rejecting any thing Catholick but rejecting the opinions and practices of a tyrannical and usurping Faction There must be then a great deal of difference put between the State and Doctrine of the Church of Rome before the beginning of the Reformation and since especially since the Council of Trent For then these Doctrines were owned by a Faction but yet there might have been communion with that Church without believing them to be Catholick Doctrines and no doubt many pious souls went to Heaven without believing any of these things viz. such who believed and improved the common principles of Christianity without regarding the erroneous Doctrines or superstitious Practices of those among whom they lived but upon the first stirrings towards a Reformation the Court of Rome was so far from reforming the abuses which were complained of that they sought to inforce them with the greatest severity upon all persons thundering out Excommunications against all such who should question or dispute them By which means those who might have lived peaceably before within the external Communion of that Church without consenting to the errours of it are now forced out of it unless they would approve of such things which their consciences detested in comparison with the peace of which they accounted not their lives to be dear to them as many thousands of them made it appear in several Countries This is the true and just account of the state of things at the beginning of the Reformation but afterwards when through the necessity of the Pope's affairs a Council was summoned and all the arts imaginable were made use of to steer that grand affair for the Interess of the Court of Rome a new scene of affairs appears in the Christian world those Doctrines which before were owned only by particular men are defined by Pope and Council to be the Catholick Doctrines of the Roman Church and all those Anathematized who will not own them By which means the Roman Church is become it self that party and faction which only prevailed in it before but with reluctancy and opposition and now none are looked on as members of that Church but such as own the definitions of that Council in point of Doctrine Which makes it vastly to differ from what it was before as to the terms of its Communion and the state of the persons who remain in it who can neither enjoy that freedom in judgement which they might use before nor yet can pretend those excuses for not knowing the errours and corruptions of that Church which might have prevented obstinacy in them before So that upon the whole it appears that the Protestants in the beginning of the Reformation were so far from taking away any thing that was received as a Catholick Doctrine by all Christian Churches that they did not reject any thing which could be looked on as the Catholick Doctrine of the Church of Rome and consequently that the Protestants were so far from a wilful separation from the Church of Rome that they were driven out by a prevalent Faction which
cannot erre in his judicial determinations concerning Faith is not to be found either in letter or sense in any Scripture in any Council or in any Father of the Church for the full space of a thousand years and more after Christ To this you answer 1. That in the sense wherein Catholicks maintain the Popes Infallibility to be a matter of necessary belief to all Christians it is found for sense both in Scripture Councils and Fathers as you say you have proved in proving the Infallibility of General Councils of which he is the most principal and necessary member So then when we enquire for the Infallibility of General Councils we are sent to the Pope for his Confirmation to make them so but when we enquire for the Popes Infallibility we are sent back again to the Councils for the proof of it And they are hugely to blame if they give not an ample testimony to the Pope since he can do them as good a turn But between them both we see the greatest reason to believe neither the one nor the other to be Infallible But 2. You would offer at something too for his personal Infallibility in which I highly commend your prudence that you say You will omit Scripture and you might as well have omitted all that follows since you say only That the testimonies you have produced seem to do it in effect and at last say That it is an Assertion you have wholly declined the maintaining of and judge it expedient to do so still And you may very well do so if there be no better proofs for it than those you have produced but however we must examine them Doth not the Council of Chalcedon seem to say in effect that the Pope is Infallible when upon the reading of his Epistle to them in condemnation of the Eutychian Heresie the whole Assembly of Prelates cry out with acclamation and profess that S. Peter who was Infallible spake by the mouth of Leo and that the Pope was interpreter of the Apostles voice You do well to use those cautious expressions of seeming to say in effect for it would be a very hard matter to imagine any such thing as the Popes Infallibility in the highest expressions used by the Council of Chalcedon For after the reading of Leo's Epistle against Eutyches and many testimonies of the Fathers to the same purpose the Council begins their acclamations with these words This is the Faith of the Fathers this is the Faith of the Apostles all who are orthodox hold thus And after it follows Peter by Leo hath thus spoken the Apostles have taught thus Which are all the words there extant to that purpose And Is not this a stout argument for the Popes personal Infallibility For What else do they mean but only that Leo who succeeded in the Apostolical See of S. Peter at Rome did concurr in Faith with S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles But Do they say that it was impossible that Leo should erre or that his judgement was Infallible or only that he owned that Doctrine which was Divine and Apostolical And the Council of Ephesus your next testimony hath much less than this even nothing at all For the Council speaks not concerning S. Peter or the Pope in the place by you cited only one of the Popes officious Legats Philip begins very formally with S. Peter's being Prince and Head of the Apostles c. and that he to this day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lives in his successours and passeth judgement Is it not a very good Inference from hence that the Council acknowledged the Popes personal Infallibility because one of the Popes Legats did assert in the Council that S. Peter lived and judged by the Pope And yet Might not this be done without his personal Infallibility in regard of his succession in that See which was founded by S. Peter But you are very hard driven when you are fain to take up with the Sentence of a Roman Priest instead of a General Council and any judgement in matters of Faith instead of Infallibility Your other testimonies of S. Hierom S. Augustine and S. Cyprian have been largely examined already and for the remaining testimonies of four Popes you justly fear it would be answered that they were Popes and spake partially in their own cause And you give us no antidote against these fears but conclude very warily That you had hitherto declined the defence of that Assertion and professed that it would be sufficient for Protestants to acknowledge the Pope Infallible in and with General Councils only But as we see no reason to believe General Councils at all Infallible whether with or without the Pope so neither can we see but if the Infallibility of the Council depends on the Popes Confirmation you are bound to defend the Popes personal Infallibility as the main Bulwark of your Church CHAP. III. Of the errours of pretended General Councils The erroneous Doctrine of the Church of Rome in making the Priests intention necessary to the essence of Sacraments That principle destructive to all certainty of Faith upon our Authours grounds The absurdity of asserting that Councils define themselves to be Infallible Sacramental actions sufficiently distinguished from others without the Priests Intention Of the moral assurance of the Priests Intention and the insufficiency of a meer virtual Intention The Popes confirmation of Councils supposeth personal Infallibility Transubstantiation an errour decreed by Pope and Council The repugnancy of it to the grounds of Faith The Testimonies brought for it out of Antiquity examin'd at large and shewed to be far from proving Transubstantiation Communion in one kind a violation of Christs Institution The Decree of the Council of Constance implyes a non obstante to it The unalterable nature of Christs Institution cleared The several evasions considered and answered No publick Communion in one kind for a thousand years after Christ. The indispensableness of Christs Institution owned by the Primitive Church Of Invocation of Saints and the Rhetorical expressions of the Fathers which gave occâ—sion to it No footsteps of the Invocation of Saints in the three first Centuries nor precept or example in Scripture as our Adversaries confess Evidences against Invocation of Saints from the Christians Answers to the Heathens The worship of Spirits and Heroes among the Heathens justifiable on the same grounds that Invocation of Saints is in the Church of Rome Commemoration of the Saints without Invocation in S. Augustins time Invocation of Saints as practised in the Church of Rome a derogation to the merits of Christ. Of the worship of Images and the near approach to Pagan Idolatry therein No Vse or Veneration of Images in the Primitive Church The Church of Rome justly chargeable with the abuses committed in the worship of Images ALthough nothing can be more unreasonable then to pretend that Church Person or Council to be Infallible which we can prove to have actually
ground than not being able to distinguish between the submission of Obedience and Faith For his Lordship saith It may be our duty not to oppose General Councils in case they erre and yet it may be no pride not to believe known and gross errours of General Councils and I pray What shadow of a contradiction is here And if it be pride in us not to believe gross errours imposed on us Is it not much more intolerable in them who offer to impose them What Authority the Pope hath either to order or confirm Councils it is not here a place to enter upon again since it hath been so largely discoursed of in so many places But you force me though not to the repetition of matter yet to the repeating my saying that I will not oftener than I should but only to shew how little you deserve any further answer There is nothing now remaining to the end of your Book which hath not been over and over even in these last Chapters but only a long discourse touching Succession which you shew your self of how little importance it is when after you have endeavoured at large to prove the necessity of personal Succession you grant That it is not sufficient without succession of Doctrine too And on that account you deny the Greek Church to have a true Succession And in vindication of Stapleton you say All the Succession which he and you contend for is a Succession of Pastors which hold entire both the Vnity and the Faith of the Church So that it comes to this at last that you are bound to prove a continual Succession of all that which you call the Faith of your Church in every age from the Apostles times if you would have us believe that Doctrine or own your Church for the true Church of Christ. And therefore I conclude these general Answers with his Lordships words If A. C. T. C. or any Jesuit can prove that by a visible continued Succession from Christ or his Apostles to this day either Transubstantiation in the Eucharist or the Eucharist in one kind or Purgatory or Worship of Images or the Intention of the Priest of necessity in Baptism or the Power of the Pope over a General Council or his Infallibility with or without it or his Power to depose Princes or the publick Prayers of the Church in an unknown tongue with divers other points have been so taught I for my part will give the Cause CHAP. VI. The Sense of the Fathers concerning Purgatory The Advantage which comes to the Church of Rome by the Doctrine of Purgatory thence the boldness of our Adversaries in contending for it The Sense of the Roman Church concerning Purgatory explained The Controversie between the Greek and Latin Church concerning it The Difference in the Church of Rome about Purgatory Some general Considerations about the Sense of the Fathers as to its being an Article of Faith The Doubtfulness and Vncertainty of the Fathers Judgments in this particular manifested by S. Austin the first who seemed to assert a Purgation before the day of Judgement Prayer for the Dead used in the Ancient Church doth not inferr Purgatory The Primate of Armagh vindicated from our Adversaries Calumnies The general Intention of the Church distinguished from the private Opinions of particular persons The Prayers of the Church respected the day of Judgement The Testimonies of the Fathers in behalf of Purgatory examined particularly of the pretended Dionysius Tertullian S. Cyprian Origen S. Ambrose S. Hierom S. Basil Nazianzen Lactantius Hilary Gregory Nyssen c. And not one of them asserts the Purgatory of the Church of Rome S. Austin doth not contradict himself about it The Doctrine of Purgatory no elder than Gregory 1. and built on Credâ—lity and Superstition The Churches Infallibility made at last the Foundation of the belief of Purgatory The Falsity of that Principle and the whole concluded THese general Answers being dispatched there remains only now this Question concerning Purgatory to be discussed Which being the great Diana of your Church no wonder you are so much displeased at his Lordship for speaking against it for by that means your craft is in danger to be set at nought There being no Opinion in your Church which brings in a more constant revenue by Masses for the dead and Indulgencies besides Casualties and Deodands by dying persons or their friends in hopes of a speedier release out of the pains of Purgatory So that if this Opinion were once out of Countenance in the world you would lose one of the best Arts you have of upholding the Grandeur of your Church For then farewel Indulgences and years of Jubilee farewel all those rich Donations which are given by those at their death who hope by that means to get the sooner out of the Suburbs of Hell to a place of rest and happiness For What Engine could possibly be better contrived to extort the largest gifts from those whose riches were as great as their sins than to perswade them that by that means they would be sooner delivered out of the Flames of Purgatory and need not doubt but they should come to Heaven at last And Would not they be accounted great Fools that would not live as they pleased in this world as long as they could buy themselves out of the pains of another And by this means your Church hath not only eaten but grown fat by the sins of the people it being truly observed by Spalatensis That the Doctrine of Purgatory hath been that which hath most inriched the Church of Rome which he gives as the reason of the most zealous contending for that Doctrine among those of your party who find so much advantage by it And we might easily believe there was something extraordinary in it when you tell us It is therefore firmly to be believed by all Catholicks that there is a Purgatory yea we are as much bound to believe it as we are bound to believe for Instance the Trinity or Incarnation it self because since it is defined by the Church we cannot lawfully or without sin and peril of damnation deny or question this doctrine We had need then look to our selves who look on this Doctrine as a meer figment that hath no foundation at all either in Scripture Reason or Tradition of the Primitive Church but much more had you need to look to your selves who dare with so much confidence obtrude so destructive a Doctine to a Christian life without any evidence of the truth of it to be believed as much as the Trinity or Incarnation it self which expressions take them in the mildest sense you can give them carry a most insufferable boldness with them But these are not all the bold words which you utter on this Subject for you say elsewhere That Bellarmin doth not more boldly than truly affirm yea evidently prove that all the Fathers both Greek and Latin did constantly teach Purgatory
the Church may declare matters of Faith The testimony of St. Augustine vindicated Page 44. CHAP. III. The Absurdities of the Romanists Doctrine of Fundamentals The Churches Authority must be Divine if whatever she defines be Fundamental His Lordship and not the Testimony of S. Augustine shamefully abused three several wayes Bellarmin not mis-cited the Pelagian Heresie condemned by the General Council at Ephesus The Popes Authority not implyed in that of Councils The gross Absurdities of the distinction of the Church teaching and representative from the Church taught and diffusive in the Question of Fundamentals The Churches Authority and Testimony in matters of Faith distinguished The Testimony of Vincentius Lirinensis explained and shewed to be directly contrary to the Roman Doctrine of Fundamentals Stapleton and Bellarmin not reconciled by the vain endeavours used to that end Page 79. CHAP. IV. The Protestant Doctrine of Fundamentals vindicated The unreasonableness of demanding a Catalogue of Fundamentals The Creed contains the Fundamentals of Christian Communion The belief of Scripture supposed by it The Dispute concerning the Sense of Christs Descent into Hell and Mr. Rogers his Book confessed by T. C. impertinent With others of the same nature T. C. his fraud in citing his Lordships words Of Papists and Protestants Vnity The Moderation of the Church of England compared with that of Rome Her grounds of Faith justified Infant-Baptism how far proved out of Scripture alone Page 98. CHAP. V. The Romanists way of Resolving Faith The ill consequences of the resolution of Faith by the Churches Infallibility The grand Absurdities of it manifested by its great unreasonableness in many particulars The certain Foundations of Faith unsettled by it as is largely proved The Circle unavoidable by their new attempts The impossibility of proving the Church Infallible by the way that Moses Christ and his Apostles were proved to be so Of the Motives of Credibility and how far they belong to the Church The difference between Science and Faith considered and the new art of mens believing with their wills The Churches Testimony must be according to their principles the formal object of Faith Of their esteem of Fathers Scripture and Councils The rare distinctions concerning the Churches Infallibility discussed How the Church can be Infallible by the assistance of the Holy Ghost yet not divinely Infallible but in a manner and after a sort T.C. applauded for his excellent faculty in contradicting himself Page 109. CHAP. VI. Of the Infallibility of Tradition Of the unwritten Word and the necessary Ingredients of it The Instances for it particularly examined and disproved The Fathers Rule for examining Traditions No unwritten Word the Foundation of Divine Faith In what sense Faith may be said to be Divine Of Tradition being known by its own light and the Canon of the Scripture The â—estimony of the Spirit how far pertinent to this Controversie Of the use of Reason in the resolution of Faith C's Dialogue answered with another between himself and a Sceptick A twofold resolution of Faith into the Doctrine and into the Books Several Objections answered from the Supposition made of a Child brought up without sight of Scripture Christ no Ignoramus nor Impostor though the Church be not Infallible C's Blasphemy in saying otherwise The Testimonies of Irenaeus and S. Augustin examined and retorted Of the nature of Infallible Certainty as to the Canon of Scripture and whereon it is grounded The Testimonies produced by his Lordship vindicated p. 161. CHAP. VII The Protestant Way of resolving Faith Several Principles premised in order to it The distinct Questions set down and their several Resolutions given The Truth of matters of fact the Divinity of the Doctrine and of the Books of Scripture distinctly resolved into their proper grounds Moral Certainty a sufficient Foundation for Faith and yet Christian Religion proved to be infallibly true How Apostolical Tradition made by his Lordship a Foundation of Faith Of the Certainty we have of the Copies of Scripture and the Authority of them S. Augustine's Testimony concerning Church-Authority largely discussed and vindicated Of the private Spirit and the necessity of Grace His Lordship's Way of resolving Faith vindicated How far Scripture may be said to be known by its own Light The several Testimonies of Bellarmine Brierly and Hooker cleared p. 202. CHAP. VIII The Churches Infallibility not proved from Scripture Some general Considerations from the design of proving the Churches Infallibility from Scripture No Infallibility in the High-Priest and his Clergy under the Law if there had been no necessity there should be under the Gospel Of S. Basil's Testimony concerning Traditions Scripture less liable to corruptions than Traditions The great uncertainty of judging Traditions when Apostolical when not The Churches perpetuity being promised in Scripture proves not its Infallibility His Lordship doth not falsifie C's words but T. C. doth his meaning Producing the Jesuits words no traducing their Order C's miserable Apology for them The particular Texts produced for the Churches Infallibility examined No such Infallibility necessary in the Apostles Successours as in Themselves The Similitude of Scripture and Tradition to an Ambassadour and his Credentials rightly stated p. 235. CHAP. IX The Sense of the Fathers in this Controversie The Judgement of Antiquity enquired into especially of the three first Centuries and the reasons for it The several Testimonies of Justin Martyr Athenagoras Tatianus Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus and all the Fathers who writ in vindication of Christian Religion manifested to concurr fully with our way of resolving Faith C's Answers to Vincentius Lyrinensis à Gandavo and the Fathers produced by his Lordship pitifully weak The particulars of his 9th Chapter examined S. Augustine's Testimony vindicated C's nauseous Repetitions sent as Vagrants to their several homes His Lordships Considerations found too heavy for C's Answers In what sense the Scripture may be called a Praecognitum What way the Jews resolved their Faith This Controversie and the first part concluded p. 261 PART II. Of Schism CHAP. I. Of the Universal Church THe Question of Schism explained The nature of it enquired into Several general Principles laid down for clearing the present Controversie Three grounds of the charge of Schism on Protestant Churches by our Authour The first of the Roman Churches being the Catholick Church entred upon How far the Roman Church may be said to be a true Church The distinction of a Church morally and metaphysically true justified The grounds of the Unity of the Catholick Church as to Doctrine and Government Cardinal Perron's distinction of the formal causal and participative Catholick Church examined The true sense of the Catholick Church in Antiquity manifested from S. Cyprian and several cases happening in his time as the Schism of Novatianus at Rome the case of Felicissimus and Fortunatus Several other Instances out of Antiquity to the same purpose by all which it is manifest that the Unity of the Catholick Church had no dependence on the Church of Rome
The several Testimonies to the contrary of S. Ambrose S. Hierom John Patriarch of Constantiople S. Augustine Optatus c. particularly examined and all found short of proving that the Roman Church is the Catholick Church The several Answers of his Lordship to the Testimonies of S. Cyprian S. Hierom S. Greg. Nazianzen S. Cyril and Ruffinus about the Infallibility of the Church of Rome justified From all which it appears that the making the Roman Church to be the Catholick is a great Novelty and perfect Jesuitism p. 289. CHAP. II. Protestants no Schismaticks Schism a culpable Separation therefore the Question of Schism must be determined by enquiring into the causes of it The plea from the Church of Rome's being once a right Church considered No necessity of assigning the punctual time when errours crept into her An account why the originals of errours seem obscure By Stapletons Confession the Roman and Catholick Church were not the same The falsiâ—y of that assertion manifested that there could be no pure Church since the Apostles times if the Roman Church were corrupt No one particular Church free from corruptions yet no separation from the Catholick Church How far the Catholick Church may be said to erre Men may have distinct communion from any oâ—e particular Church yet not separate from the Catholick Church The Testimony of Petrus de Alliaco vindicated Bellarmin not mis cited Almain full to his Lordships purpose The Romanists guilty of the present Schism and not Protestants In what sense there can be no just cause of Schism and how far that concerns our case Protestants did not depart from the Church of Rome but were thrust out of it The Vindication of the Church of Rome from Schism at last depends upon the two false Principles of her Infallibility and being the Catholick Church The Testimonies of S. Bernard and S Austin not to the purpose The Catalogue of Fundamentals the Churches not erring c. referr'd back to their proper places p. 324. CHAP. III. Of keeping Faith with Hereticks The occasion of this Dispute The reason why this Doctrine is not commonly defended Yet all own such Principles from whence it necessarâ—ly follows The matter of fact as to the Council of Constance and John Hus opened Of the nature of the safe conduct granted him by the Emperour that it was not a general one salvâ justitiâ but particular jure speciali which is largely proved The particulars concerning Hierom of Prague Of the safe-conduct granted by the Council of Trent Of the distinction of Secular and Ecclesiastical Power and that from thence it follows that Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks Simancha and several others fully assert this Doctrine Of the Invitation to the Council of Trent and the good Instructions there and of Publick Disputation p. 343. CHAP. IV. The Reformâ—tion of the Church of England justified The Church of Rome guilty of Schism by unjustly casting Protestants out of Communion The Communion of the Catholâ—ck and particular Churches distinguished No separation of Protestants from the Catholick Church The Devotions of the Church of England and Rome compared Particular Churches Power to reform themselves in case of general Corruption proved The Instance from the Church of Judah vindicated The Church of Rome paralleld with the ten Tribes General Corruptions make Reformation the more necessary Whether those things we condemn as errours were Catholick Tenets at the time of the Reformation The contrary shewed and the dâ—fference of the Church of Rome before and since the Reformation When things may be said to be received as Catholick Doctrines How far particular Churches Power to reform themselves extends His Lordships Instances for the Power of Provincial Councils in matters of Reformation vindicated The particular case of the Church of England discussed The proceedings in our Reformation defended The Church of England a true Church The National Synod 1562. a lawful Synod The Bâ—shops no intruders in Queen Elizabeth's time The justice and modâ—ration of the Church of England in her Reformation The Popes Power here a forcible and fraudulent Usurpation p. 356. CHAP. V. Of the Roman Churches Authority The Question concerning the Church of Rome's Authority entred upon How far our Church in reforming her self condemns the Church of Rome The Pope's equality with other Patriarchs asserted The Arabick Canons of the Nicene Council proved to be supposititious The Polity of the Ancient Church discovered from the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice The Rights of Primats and Metropolitans settled by it The suitableness of the Ecclesiastical to the Civil Government That the Bishop of Rome had then a limitted Jurisdiction within the suburbicary Churches as Primate of the Roman Diocese Of the Cyprian Priviledge that it was not peculiar but common to all Primats of Dioceses Of the Pope's Primacy according to the Canons how far pertinent to our dispute How far the Pope's Confirmation requisite to new elected Patriarchs Of the Synodical and Communicatory Letters The testimonies of Petrus de Marcâ concerning the Pope's Power of confirming and deposing Bishops The Instances brought for it considered The case of Athanasius being restored by Julius truly stated The proceedings of Constantine in the case of the Donatists cleared and the evidence thence against the Pope's Supremacy Of the Appeals of Bishops to Rome how far allowed by the Canons of the Church The great case of Appeals between the Roman and African Bishops discussed That the Appeals of Bishops were prohibited as well as those of the inferiour Clergy C's fraud in citing the Epistle of the African Bishops for acknowledging Appeals to Rome The contrary manifested from the same Epistle to Boniface and the other to Coelestine The exemption of the Ancient Britannick Church from any subjection to the See of Rome asserted The case of Wilfrids Appeal answered The Primacy of England not derived from Gregory's Grant to Augustine the Monk The Ancient Primacy of the Britannick Church not lost upon the Saxon Conversion Of the state of the African Churches after their denying Appeals to Rome The rise of the Pope's Greatness under Christian Emperours Of the Decree of the Sardican Synod in case of Appeals whether ever received by the Church No evidence thence of the Pope's Supremacy Zosimus his forgery in sending the Sardican Canons instead of the Nicene The weakness of the Pleas for it manifested p. 382. CHAP. VI. Of the Title of Universal Bishop In what sense the Title of Vniversal Bishop was taken in Antiquity A threefold acceptation of it as importing 1. A general care over the Christian Churches which is attributed to other Catholick Bishops by Antiquity besides the Bishop of Rome as is largely proved 2. A peculiar dignity over the Churches within the Roman Empire This accounted then Oecumenical thence the Bishops of the seat of the Empire called Oecumenical Bishops and sometimes of other Patriarchal Churches 3. Noting Vniversal Jurisdiction over the whole Church as Head of it so never given
judgement or not sufficiently versed in the Scriptures as at present to make them acknowledge the places are not so clear as they imagined them to be yet they being alwaies otherwise interpreted by the Catholick Church or the Christian Societies of all ages layes this potent prejudice against all such attempts as not to believe such interpretations true till they give a just account why if the belief of these Doctrines were not necessary the Christians of all ages from the Apostles times did so unanimously agree in them that when any began first to oppose them they were declared and condemned for Hereticks for their pains So that the Church of England doth very piously declare her consent with the Ancient Catholick Church in not admitting any thing to be delivered as the sense of Scripture which is contrary to the consent of the Catholick Church in the four first ages Not as though the sense of the Catholick Church were pretended to be any infallible Rule of interpreting Scripture in all things which concern the Rule of Faith but that it is a sufficient Prescription against any thing which can be alledged out of Scripture that if it appear contrary to the sense of the Catholick Church from the beginning it ought not to be looked on as the true meaning of the Scripture All this security is built upon this strong presumption that nothing contrary to the necessary Articles of Faith should he held by the Catholick Church whose very being depends upon the belief of those things which are necessary to Salvation As long therefore as the Church might appear to be truly Catholick by those correspondencies which were maintained between the several parts of it that what was refused by one was so by all so long this unanimous and uncontradicted sense of the Catholick Church ought to have a great sway upon the minds of such who yet profess themselves members of the Catholick Church From whence it follows that such Doctrines may well be judged destructive to the Rule of Faith which were so unanimously condemned by the Catholick Church within that time And thus much may suffice for the first Inquiry viz. What things are to be esteemed necessary either in order to Salvation or in order to Ecclesiastical Communion 2. Whether any thing which was not necessary to Salvation may by any means whatsoever afterwards become necessary so that the not believing it becomes damnable and unrepented destroyes Salvation We suppose the Question to proceed on such things as could not antecedently to such an act whereby they now become necessary be esteemed to be so either from the matter or from any express command For you in terms assert a necessity of believing distinct from the matter and absolute command and hath the Churches Definition for its formal object which makes the necessity of our Faith continually to depend upon the Churches Definition but this strange kind of Ambulatory Faith I shall now shew to be repugnant to the design of Christ and his Apostles in making known Christian Religion and to all evidence of Reason and directly contrary to the plain and uncontradicted sense of the Primitive and Catholick Church 1. It is contrary to the design of Christ and his Apostles in making known the Christian Religion to the world For if the design of Christ was to declare whatever was necessary to the Salvation of mankind if the Apostles were sent abroad for this very end then either they were very unfaithful in discharge of their trust or else they taught all things necessary for their Salvation and if they did so how can any thing become necessary which they did never teach Was it not the great Promise concerning the Messias that at his coming the Earth should be full of the Knowledge of the Lord as the Waters cover the Sea that then they shall all be taught of God Was not this the just expectation of the people concerning him That when he came he would tell them all things Doth not he tell his Disciples That all things I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you And for all this is there something still remaining necessary to Salvation which neither he nor his Disciples did ever make known to the world Doth not he promise Life and Salvation to all such as believe and obey his Doctrine And can any thing be necessary for eternal life which he never declared or did he only promise it to the men of that Age and Generation and leave others to the mercy of the Churches Definitions If this be so we have sad cause to lament our condition upon whom these heavy loyns of the Church are fallen how happy had we been if we had lived in Christs or the Apostles times for then we might have been saved though we had never believed the Pope's Supremacy or Transubstantiation or Invocation of Saints or Worshipping Images but now the case is altered these Milstones are now hung about our necks and how we shall swim to Heaven with them who knows How strangely mistaken was our Saviour when he said Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed For much more blessed certainly were they who did see him and believe in him for then he would undertake for their Salvation but now it seems we are out of his reach and turned over to the Merciless Infallibility of the present Church When Christ told his Disciples His yoke was easie and burden light he little thought what Power he had left in the Church to lay on so much load as might cripple mens belief were it not for a good reserve in a corner call'd Implicit Faith When he sent the Apostles to teach all that he commanded them he must be understood so that the Church hath power to teach more if she pleases and though the Apostles poor men were bound up by this commission and S. Peter himself too yet his Infallible Successors have a Paramount Priviledge beyond them all Though the Spirit was promised to the Apostles to lead them into all Truth yet there must be no incongruity in saying They understood not some necessary Truths for how should they when never revealed as Transubstantiation Supremacy c. Because though they never dreamt of such things yet the Infallible Church hath done it since for them and to say truth though the Apostles names were put into the promise yet they were but Feoffees in trust for the Church and the benefit comes to the Church by them For they were only Tutors to the Church in its minority teaching it some poor Rudiments of Christ and Heaven of Faith and Obedience c. But the great and Divine Mysteries of the seven Sacraments Indulgences Worship of Images Sacrifice of the Mass c. were not fit to be made known till the Church were at age her self and knew how to declare her own mind When S. Paul speaks so much of the great Mysteries hidden from Ages and Generations but
whatever the private Opinions of men are they are ready to submit their judgements to the censure and determination of the Church if it be good will hold as well or better for our Unity as yours because all men are willing to submit their judgements to Scripture which is agreed on all sides to be Infallible If you say That it cannot be known what Scripture determines but it may be easily what the Church defines It is easily answered that the event shews it to be far otherwise for how many Disputes are there concerning the Power of determining matters of Faith to whom it belongs in what way it must be managed whether parties ought to be heard in matters of Doctrine what the meaning of the Decrees are when they are made which raise as many Divisions as were before them as appears by the Decrees of the Council of Trent and the latter of Pope Innocent relating to the five Propositions So that upon the whole it appears setting aside force and fraud which are excellent principles of Christian Vnity we are upon as fair terms of Vnion as you are among your selves You tell us That your Church doth Anathematize only such persons as are obstinate but who are they whom she accounts obstinate even all who dissent from her in any punctilio And therefore this is a singular piece of Moderation in your Church And you believe the troubles of Christendom rather come from too great freedom taken in matters of Faith than from any severity in the Church of Rome The truth is you have excellent waies of ending Controversies much like perswading men to put out their Eyes to end the Disputes about the nature of Colours and if they will not hearken to such prudent counsel they are pronounced obstinate and perverse for offering to keep their Eyes in their Heads And if men will not say that White is Black when your Church bids them do it these men are the troublers of Israel and the fomenters of the Discords of the Christian world But if your Church had kept to the primitive simplicity and moderation and not offered to define matters of Faith the occasion of most of the Controversies of the Christian world had been taken away Believe what you will and speak what you list there are none who consider what they believe or speak but easily discover whence the great Dissentions of the Christian world have risen viz. from the Ambition and Vsurpation of the Church of Rome which hath not been contented to have introduced many silly Superstitions into the publick exercise of Devotion but when any of these came to be discovered thought it her best course to defend her corruptions with greater by inforcing men to the belief of them and thereby rendring a Separation from her Communion unavoidable by all those who sought to retrieve the Piety and Devotion of the Primitive Church And yet this must be call'd Schism and the persons attempting it Hereticks by that same Pious and tender-hearted Mother of yours who loves her Children so dearly that if they do but desire any reformation of abuses she takes all possible care they shall complain no more As though the only way to prevent quarrelling in the world were to cut out peoples Tongues and cut off their Arms Such a kind of Vnity hath your Church shewed her self very desirous of where ever power and conveniency have met for the carrying it on But I hope you will give us leave not to envy the Vnity of those who therefore agree in the Church because as soon as they do in the least differ from it they are pronounced not to be of it for opposing the determinations of it And yet notwithstanding the violence and fraud used in your Church to preserve its Vnity the world is alarm'd with the noise of its Dissentions and the increase of the differing parties who manage their Contests with great heats and animosities against each other under all the great pretences of your Vnity I cannot but therefore judge it a very prudent expression of his Lordship That as the Church of England is not such a Shrew to her Children as to deny her blessing or denounce an Anathema against them if some peaceably dissent in some particulars remoter from the Foundation So if the Church of Rome since she grew to her greatness had not been so fierce in this course and too particular in determining too many things and making them matters of necessary belief which had gone for many hundred of years before only for things of pious Opinion Christendom I perswade my self had been in happier Peace at this day then I doubt we shall ever live to see it And it is an excellent reason you give why the Church of Rome doth impose her Doctrine on the whole world under pain of damnation because it is not in her power to do otherwise There is little hopes then of amendment in her if she thinks so But you tell us Christ hath commanded her to do it What hath he commanded her to do to add to his Doctrine by making things necessary which he never made to be so Is it in that place where he bids the Apostles to teach all that he commanded them that he gives power to the Church to teach more than he commanded But this is a new kind of Supererogation to make more Articles of Faith than ever men required to make Where still is this Command extant in Scripture Not sure any where but in that most apposite place produced to that and all other good purposes which have nothing else to prove them even Dic Ecclesiae If he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as a Heathen and a Publican therefore the Church of Rome is commanded by Christ to impose her Doctrine on the whole Church upon pain of damnation Sure you will pronounce men obstinate that dare in the least question this after so irrefragable a demonstration of it And you may well cry Scripture is not fit to decide Controversies when you consider the lame Consequences you above all men derive from it His Lordship shews the Moderation of the Church of England even in that Canon which A. C. looks on as the most severe where she pronounces Excommunication on such as affirm that the Articles are in any part superstitious or erronious c. by these things 1. That it is not meant of mens private judgements but of what they boldly and publickly affirm 2. That it is one thing to hold contrary to some part of an Article and anotherp ositively to affirm That the Articles in any part are superstitious or erronious 3. The Church of England doth this only for thirty nine Articles but the Church of Rome doth it for above a hundred in matter of Doctrine 4. The Church of England never declared That every one of her Articles are Fundamental in the Faith but the Church of Rome requires that all be
believed as Fundamental when once the Church hath determined them 5. The Church of England prescribes only to her own Children and by those Articles provides but for her own peaceable consent in those Doctrines of Truth But the Church of Rome severely imposes her Doctrine upon the whole world under pain of damnation To all these very considerable Instances of our Churches Moderation your Answer is The Question is not Whether the English Congregation or the Roman Church be more severe but Whether the English Protestants Severity be not unreasonable supposing she be subject to errour in defining those Articles For after many words to the same i. e. little purpose the reason you give for it is That every just Excommunication inflicted for opposing of Doctrine must necessarily suppose the Doctrine opposed to be infallibly true and absolutely exempt from errour otherwise the Sentence it self would be unreasonable and unjust as wanting sufficient ground From whence you charge Protestants with greater Tyranny and Injustice towards their people than they can with any colour or pretence of reason charge upon the Roman Church which excommunicates no man but for denying such Doctrine as is both infallibly True and also Fundamental at least as to its formal Object This is the strength of all you say which will be reduced to this short Question Whether the proceedings of that Church be more unreasonable which excommunicates such as openly oppose her Doctrine supposing her Fallible or of that Church which excommunicates all who will not believe whatever she defines to be Infallibly true This is the true State of the Controversie which must be judged by the resolving another Question Whether it be not a more unreasonable Vsurpation to bind men upon pain of damnation hereafter and excommunication here to believe every thing Infallible which a Church defines or to bind men to peace to a Churches Determinations reserving to men the liberty of their judgements on pain of Excommunication if they violate that peace For it is plain on the one side where a Church pretends Infallibility the Excommunication is directed against the persons for refusing to give Internal Assent to what she defines But where a Church doth not pretend to that the Excommunication respects wholly that Overt Act whereby the Churches Peace is broken And if a Church be bound to look to her own Peace no doubt she hath power to excommunicate such as openly violate the bonds of it which is only an Act of Caution in a Church to preserve her self in Vnity but where it is given out that the Church is Infallible the Excommunication must be so much the more unreasonable because it is against those Internal Acts of the mind over which the Church as such hath no direct power And thus I hope you see how much more just and reasonable the proceedings of our Church are then of yours and that eo nomine because she pretends to be infallible and ours doth not His Lordship shews further in Vindication of the Church of England and her grounds of Faith that the Church of England grounded her Positive Articles upon Scripture and her Negative do refute there where the thing affirmed by them is not affirmed by Scripture nor directly to be concluded out of it And this he saith is the main principle of all Protestants that Scripture is sufficient to Salvation and contains in it all things necessary to it The Fathers are plain the Schoolmen not strangers in it And Stapleton himself confesses as much Nay and you dare not deny it as to all material Objects of Faith and your formal here signifies nothing And when A. C. saith That the Church of England grounded her Positive Articles upon Scripture if themselves may be Judges in their own cause His Lordship answers We are contented to be judged by the joynt and constant belief of the Fathers which lived within the first four or five hundred years after Christ when the Church was at the best and by the Councils held within those times and to submit to them in all those Points of Doctrine This Offer you grant to be very fair and you do for your selves promise the same and say You will make it good upon all occasions Which we shall have tryal of before the end of this Book To what his Lordship saith concerning the Negative Articles That they refute where the thing affirmed by them is either not affirmed in Scripture or not directly to be concluded out of it A. C. replies That the Baptism of Infants is not expresly at least not evidently affirmed in Scripture nor directly at least not demonstratively concluded out of it Here two things his Lordship answers 1. To the Expression 2. To the thing 1. To the Expression That he is no way satisfied with A. C. his addition not expresly at least not evidently for saith he What means he If he speak of the lâ—tter of Scripture then whatsoever is expresly is evidently in the Scripture and so his addition is in vain If he speak of the meaning of Scripture then his addition is cunning For many things are expresly in Scripture which yet in their meaning are not evidently there And as little satisfied his Lordship declares himself with that other nor directly at least not demonstratively because many things are directly concluded which are not demonstratively To the first you answer That a Point may be exprest yet not evidently exprest otherwise there could be no doubt concerning what were exprest in Scripture since men never question things that are evident Now say you the Baptism of Infants must not only â—e exprest but evidently exprest to prove it sufficiently i. e. undeniably by Scripture alone But the Question being concerning matters of Doctrine and not meer words those things are expresly affirmed which are evidently and no other For it is one thing for words to be expresly in Scripture and another for Doctrines to be so For these latter are no further expresly affirmed there than as there is evidence that the meaning of such words doth contain such a Doctiine in them As to take your own Instance This is my Body we grant the words to be express but we deny that which he had then in his hands was his real Body for his hands were part of his real Body Now we do not say That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is expresly but not evidently contained here for we say The Doctrine is not there at all but only that those are the express words This is my Body as it is in other figurative expressions in Scripture But that which causeth this litigation about words is That you look upon that which is evident and undeniable to be all one whereas there may be sufficient evidence where all men are not perswaded by it And so you would put his Lordship to prove out of Scripture Infant-Baptism evidently and demonstratively i. e. undeniably whereas his Lordship supposeth it
their own Infallibility certainly they thought the one afforded not a good foundation for Faith though the other after believing it might highly advance it And therefore I suggest not these things in the least to question the Infallibility of the Apostles but to let us see that even at that time when there was a certainly infallible Testimony yet that is not urged as the only Foundation for Faith but Rational Evidence produced even by those persons who were thus infallible If we descend lower in the Christian Church or walk abroad to view the several Plantations of the Churches at that time Where do we read or meet with the least intimation of an infallible Testimony of the Catholick Church so call'd from its Communion with that of Rome What infallible Testimony of that Church had the poor Brittains to believe on or those Barbarians mentioned in Irenaeus who yet believed without a written word What mention do we meet with in all the ancient Apologeticks of Christians wherein they give so large an account of the grounds of Christian Faith of the modern method for resolving Faith Nay what one ancient Father or Council give the least countenance to this pretended Infallibility much less make it the only sure Foundation of Faith as you do Nay how very few are there among your selves who believe it and yet think themselves never the worse Christians for it If then your Doctrine be true what becomes of the Faith of all these persons mentioned Upon your principles their Faith could not be a true and Divine Faith that is Let them all think they believed the Doctrine of Christ never so heartily and obeyed it never so conscientiously yet because they did not believe it on the Infallibility of your Church their Faith was but a kind of guilded and splendid Infidelity and none of them Christians because not Jesuits And doth not this principle then fairly advance Christianity in the world when the belief of it comes to be setled on Foundations never heard of in the best and purest times of it nay such Foundations as for want of their believing them their Faith must be all in vain and Christ dyed in vain for them 2. You assert such things upon the pretence of Infallibility which destroy all the rational evidence of Christian Religion And what greater disservice could you possibly do to it than by taking away all the proper grounds of certainty of it And instead of building it super hanc Petram upon the Rock of Infallibility you do it only upon a Quick-sand which swallows up the Edifice and sucks in the Foundations of it You would have men to believe the Infallibility of your Church that their Faith might stand upon sure grounds and yet if men believe this Infallibility of your Church you require such things to be believed upon it which destroy all kind of certainty in Religion And that I prove by some of those principles which are received among you upon the account of the Churches Infallibility 1. That the judgement of Sense is not to be relyed on in matters of Faith This is the great Principle upon which the Doctrine of Transubstantiation stands in your Church and this is all the most considerative men among you have to say when all those Contradictions are offered to them which that Doctrine is so big of both to the judgement of sense and reason viz. That though it seem so contradictory yet because the Church which is infallible delivers it they are bound not to question it If this Principle then be true That the judgement of sense is not to be relyed on in matters which sense is capable of judging of it will be impossible for any one to give any satisfactory account of the grand Foundations of Christian Faith For if we carefully examine the grounds of Certainty in Christian Religion we find the great appeal made to the judgement of Sense That which we have seen and heard and handled If then the judgement of Sense must not be taken in a proper object at due distance and in such a thing wherein all mens Senses are equally Judges I pray tell me what assurance the Apostles could have or any from them of any miracles which Christ wrought of any Doctrine which he preached especially because in his miracles there was something above nature in which case men are more apt to suspect Impostures than in things which are the continual Objects of Sense as in the case of Transubstantiation Wherein if men are not bound to rely on the judgement of Sense you must say that our Faculties are so made that they may be imposed upon in the proper Objects of them and if so farewell all Certainty not only in Religion but in all things else in the world For what assurance can I have of the knowledge of any thing if I find that my Faculties not only may be but I am bound to believe that they actually are deceived in a thing that is as proper an Object of sense as any in the world And if a thing which the judgement of all mankind those excepted who have given away their sense and reason in this present case doth unanimously concurr in may be false What evidence can we have when any thing is true For if a thing so plain and evident to our Senses may be false viz. That what I and all other men see is bread what ground of certainty can we have but that which my Senses and all other mens judge to be false may be true For by this means you take away the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both of Sense and Reason in things and consequently all things are equally true and false to us and thence it follows That Truth and Falshood are but Fancies that our Faculties have no means to difference the one from the other that in things we all agree in as proper objects of Sense we not only may be but are deceived and then farewell Sense Reason and Religion together For I pray Tell me what Assurance could the Apostles have of the Resurrection of Christ's Individual Body from the grave but the Judgement of Sense What waies did he use to convince them that he was not a Spectre or Apparition but by an appeal to their Senses by what means did he reclaim Thomas from his Infidelity but by bidding him make use of his Senses If Thomas had believed Transubstantiation he would easily have answered our Saviours Argument and told him If there were not a productive yet there might be an Adductive Transmutation of some other person into him And the Disciples might all have said It was true there were the accidents of Christ's Body the external shape and figure of it but for all they could discern there might be some Invisible Spirit under those external accidents of shape and therefore they must desire to be excused from believing it to be his Body for Hoc est corpus meum had told them already
is so great integrity and incorruption in those Copies we have that we cannot but therein take notice of a peculiar hand of Divine Providence in preserving these authentick records of our Religion so safe to our dayes But it is time now to return to you You would therefore perswade us That we have no ground of certainty as to the Copies of Scripture but comparing them with the Apostles Autographa but I hope our former discourse hath given you a sufficient account of our certainty without seeing the Apostles own hands But I pray what certainty then had the Jews after the Captivity of their Copies of the Law yet I cannot think you will deny them any ground of certainty in the time of Christ that they had the true Copies both of the Law and the Prophets and I hope you will not make the Sanhedrin which condemned our Saviour to death to have given them their only Infallible certainty concerning it If therefore the Jews might be certain without Infallibility why may not we for if the Oracles of God were committed to the Jews then they are to the Christians now You yet further urge That there can be no certainty concerning the Autographa's of the Apostles but by tradition And may not every universal tradition be carried up as clearly at least to the Apostles times as the Scriptures by most credible Authours who wrote in their respective succeeding ages I answer We grant there can be no certainty as to the Copies of Scripture but from tradition and if you can name any of those great things in Controversie between us which you will undertake to prove to be as universal a tradition as that of the Scriptures you and I shall not differ as to the belief of it But think not to fob us off with the tradition of the present Church instead of the Church of all ages with the tradition of your Church instead of the Catholick with the ambiguous testimonies of two or three of the Fathers instead of the universal consent of the Church since the Apostles times If I should once see you prove the Infallibility of your Church the Popes Supremacy Invocation of Saints Veneration of Images the necessity of Coelibate in the Clergy a punitive Purgatory the lawfulness of communicating in one kind the expediency of the Scriptures and Prayers being in an unknown tongue the sacrifice of the Mass Transubstantiation to name no moâ—e by as unquestionable and universal a tradition as that whereby we receive the Scriptures I shall extoll you for the only person that ever did any thing considerable on your side and I shall willingly yield my self up as a Trophey to your brave attempts Either then for ever forbear to mention any such things as Vniversal Tradition among you as to any things besides Scriptures which carry a necessity with them of being believed or practised or once for all undertake this task and manifest it as to the things in Controversie between us Your next Paragraph besides what hath been already discussed in this Chapter concerning Apostolical tradition of Scripture empties it self into the old mare mortuum of the formal object and Infallible application of Faith which I cannot think my self so much at leasure to follow you into so often as you fall into it When once you bring any thing that hath but the least resemblance of reason more than before I shall afresh consider it but not till then What next follows concerning resolving Faith into prime Apostolical Tradition infallibly without the Infallibility of the present Church hath been already prevented by telling you that his Lordship doth not say That the infallible Resolution of Faith is into that Apostolical Tradition but into the Doctrine which is conveyed in the Books of Scripture from the Apostles times down to us by an unquestionable Tradition Your stale Objection That then we should want Divine Certainty hath been over and over answered and so hath your next Paragraph That if the Church be not infallible we cannot be infallibly certain that Scripture is Gods Word and so the remainder concerning Canonical Books It is an easie matter to write great Books after that rate to swell up your discourses with needless repetitions but it is the misery that attends a bad cause and a bad stomach to have unconcocted things brought up so often till we nauseate them Your next offer is at the Vindication of the noted place of S. Austin I would not believe the Gospel c. which you say cannot rationally be understood of Novices Weaklings and Doubters in the Faith This being then the place at every turn objected by you and having before reserved the discussion of it to this place I shall here particularly and throughly consider the meaning of it In order to which three things must be enquired into 1. What the Controversie was which St. Austin was there discussing of 2. What that Church was which St. Austin was moved by the Authority of 3. In what way and manner that Churches Authority did perswade him 1. Nothing seems more necessary for understanding the meaning of this place than a true state of the Controversie which S. Austin was disputing of and yet nothing less spoke to on either side than this hath been We are therefore to consider that when Manes or Manichaeus began to appear in the world to broach that strange and absurd Doctrine of his in the Christian world which he had received from Terebinthus or Buddas as he from Scythianus who if we belieue Epiphanius went to Jerusalem in the Apostles times to enquire into the Doctrine of Christianity and dispute with the Christians about his Opinions but easily foreseeing what little entertainment so strange a complexion of absurdities would find in the Christian world as long as the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists were received every where with that esteem and veneration Two waies he or his more cunning Disciples bethought themselves of whereby to lessen the authority of those writings and so make way for the Doctrine of Manichaeus One was to disparage the Credulity of Christians because the Catholick Church insisted so much on the necessity of Faith whereas they pretended they would desire men to believe nothing but what they gave them sufficient reason for But all this while since the Christians thought they had evident reason for believing the Scriptures and consequently none to believe the Doctrine which did oppose them therefore they found it necessary to go further and to charge those Copies of Scripture with falsifications and corruptions which were generally received among Christians But these are fully delivered by S. Austin in his Book de utilitate credendi as will appear to any one who looks into it but the latter is that which I aim at this he therefore taxeth them for That with a great deal of impudence or to speak mildly with much weakness they charged the Scriptures to be corrupted and yet
one of these three Answers 1. That it is a Principle to be supposed for though it be supposed as to the particular debate depending on Scripture yet it is fond and absurd to say It must be supposed when it is the thing in question 2. That it is known meerly by its own Light for the person I have to deal with supposing himself equally capable to judge of Reason and Evidence as my self it doth but betray the weakness of my cause or my inability to manage it to pretend that to be evident which it is much more evident that he doth not think so and it is only to tell him my Vnderstanding must rule his and that whatever appears to me to have Light in it self ought likewise so appear to him 3. It is as absurd as either of the other two to say That you will prove to a rational Enquirer the Scripture to be Gods Word by an unwritten Word of God For 1. His Enquiry is Whether there be any Word of God or no you prove there is because there is for that is all you prove by your unwritten Word He denies or at least questions Whether there be any and particularly instanceth in Scripture you think to end the Question by telling him He must believe it to be so because there is another Word of God which attests it which instead of ending the first Question begets a great many more For 2. He will be more to seek concerning this unwritten Word than before because he might use his Reason in judging concerning the written Word but cannot as to this unwritten it being only told him There is such a thing but he knows not what it is how far it extends who must deliver it what evidence this hath beyond the other that it comes from God that it must be used as an argument to prove it with If you send him to the Infallibility of the Church you must either presume him of a very weak Vnderstanding or else he would easily discern your perfect jugling in this the veins of which I have discovered throughout this discourse There remains nothing then but Reason a Principle common to us both by which I must prove that the Scriptures are from God which Reason partly makes use of the Churches Tradition not in any notion of Infallibility but meerly as built on Principles common to humane nature and partly uses those other arguments which prove by the greatest rational evidence that the Doctrine contained in Scripture was from God and if this were all the meaning of saying The Scriptures are a Principle supposed because of a different way of proving them from particular objects of Faith you can have no reason to deny it The next thing his Lordship insists on is That the Jews never had nor can have any other proof that the Old Testament is the Word of God than we have of the New In your Answer to which I grant that which you contend for That the Tradition of Scriptures among them was by their immediate Ancestors as well as others I grant That their Faith was not a Scientifical Knowledge but a firm perfect assurance only but understand not what you mean by saying That otherwise it would not be meritorious but am as far to seek as ever for any Infallibility in the Jewish Church which should in every age be the ground of believing the Books of the Old Testament to be divinely inspired And if you will prove a constant succession of Prophets from Moses till our Saviour's appearing which you seem willing to believe you would do something towards it but for your permanent Infallible Authority in the High Priest and his Clergy I have already shewed it to be a groundless if not a wilful mistake What remains concerning the nature of Infallibility which at last his Lordship makes to be no more than that which excludes all possibility of doubting and therefore grants that an Infallible Assurance may be had by Ecclesiastical and Humane proof and how far that is requisite to Faith concerning moral Certainty and what Assurance may be had by it concerning the Canon of Scripture Apostolical Tradition the unwritten Word S. Austin 's Testimony about the Church they are all points so fully discussed before that out of pity to the Reader I must referr him to their several places which when he hath throughly considered I will give him leave to summ up the several victories you have obtained in the management of it which will be much more honourable for you than for your self to do it as you do most triumphantly in the end of this Controversie concerning the Resolution of Faith And although I have not been much surprized with your attempts yet I shall heartily conclude this great Debate with your last words in it The Consequence I leave to the serious consideration of the Judicious Reader I beseech God he may make benefit of it to his eternal felicity PART II. Of Schism CHAP. I. Of the Universal Church The Question of Schism explained The nature of it enquired into Several general Principles laid down for clearing the present Controversie Three grounds of the charge of Schism on Protestant Churches by our Authour The first of the Roman Churches being the Catholick Church entered upon How far the Roman Church may be said to be a true Church The distinction of a Church morally and metaphysically true justified The grounds of the Vnity of the Catholick Church as to Doctrine and Government Cardinal Perron's distinction of the formal causal and participative Catholick Church examined The true sense of the Catholick Church in Antiquity manifested from St. Cyprian and several cases happening in his time as the Schism of Novatianus at Rome the case of Felicissimus and Fortunatus Several other Instances out of Antiquity to the same purpose by all which it is manifest that the unity of the Catholick Church had no dependance on the Church of Rome The several testimonies to the contrary of St. Ambrose St. Hierome John Patriarch of Constantinople St. Augustine Optatus c. particularly examined and all found short of proving that the Roman Church is the Catholick Church The several Answers of his Lordship to the testimonies of St. Cyprian St. Hierom St. Greg. Nazianzene St. Cyril and Ruffinus about the infallibility of the Church of Rome justified From all which it appears that the making the Roman-Church to be the Catholick is a great Novelty and perfect Jesuitism SInce so great and considerable parts of the Christian Church have in these last ages been divided in communion from each other the great contest and enquiry hath been which party stands guilty of the cause of the present distance and separation For both sides retain still so much of their common Christianity as to acknowledge that no Religion doth so strictly oblige the owners of it to peace and unity as the Christian Religion doth and yet notwithstanding this we finde these
thought Man had been a compound of substance and accidents as well as a Church Or Did you mean some transubstantiated man that had accidents without substance But as his Lordship spake of a true real man who yet might want moral Integrity so he supposed there might be a true real Church as to the essential parts of it which yet might be in other respects a corrupted and defiled Church But when you add That the notion of a Church implies Integrity and Perfection of Conditions still you betray your weak or wilful mistakes of a Church morally for Metaphysically true If you will prove it impossible for a Church to retain its Being that hath any errours in Doctrine or corruptions in Practice you will do something to the purpose but when you have done it see what you get by it for then we shall not so much as acknowledge your Church to be Metaphysically a true Church If his Lordship therefore be so charitable as to say That because your Church receives the Scripture as a Rule of Faith though but as a partial and imperfect Rule and both the Sacraments as Instrumental causes and seals of Grace though they add more and misuse these it cannot but be a true Church in essence And you on the other side say If it doth misuse the Sacraments and make the Scripture an imperfect Rule of Faith it would be unchurched Let the Reader judge whether his Lordships charity for or your own Testimony against your Church be built on better grounds What follows concerning the Holy Catholick Church in the Apostles Creed the entire Catholick Faith in the Athanasian Creed the Churches being the Spouse of Christ and a pure Virgin are all things as true in themselves as your Church is little concerned in them The truly Catholick Church being quite another thing from that which goes under the name of the Roman Catholick Church and this latter may prostitute her self to errour while the other remains a pure Virgin and it is only your saying That yours only is the Catholick Church which is in effect to say That Christ hath a Harlot to his Spouse as you speak To omit that which you call A further skirmishing about the form of words and whether it savoured more of prudence and charity or cunning in the Jesuite to instruct the Lady what Questions she should ask we come to that which is the main subject of this chapter viz. Whether the Church be stiled Catholick by its agreeing with Rome which you say was a received and known Truth in the Ancient Church but is so far from being in the least true that his Lordship deservedly calls it A perfect Jesuitism For saith he in all the Primitive times of the Church a Man or a Family or a National Church were accounted right and orthodox as they agreed with the Catholick Church but the Catholick was never then measured or judged by Man Family or Nation But now in the Jesuits new School the One Holy Catholick Church must be measured by that which is in the Diocese or City of Rome or of them which agreed with it and not Rome by the Catholick So upon the matter belike the Christian Faith was committed to the custody of the Roman not of the Catholick Church and a man cannot agree with the Catholick Church of Christ in this new doctrine of A. C. unless he agree with the Church of Rome but if he agree with that all is safe and he is as orthodox as he need be To which you seem to answer at first by some slight tergiversations as though this did not follow from A. C 's words and that the Lady did not trouble her self with such punctilio's as those of the agreement of the Catholick Church with Rome or Romes agreeing with the Catholick Church but at last you take heart and affirm stoutly That the Church is stiled Catholick from its agreement with Rome and that this is no Jesuitism but a received and known Truth in the Ancient Church In these terms then I fix my self and this present dispute as containing the proper state of the Controversie concerning the Catholick Church And if you can make it appear that the Church is stiled Catholick by agreeing with Rome and that this was a received Truth in the Ancient Church then you may very plausibly charge us with Schism in our separation from Rome but if the contrary be made evident by your own pretence we are freed from that charge Now in the handling this Controversie you first explain your terms and then produce your Testimonies In the explication of your terms you tell us The word Catholick may be used in three different Acceptions viz. either formally causally or by way of participation Formally the Vniversal Church i. e. the society of all true particular Churches united together in one body in one Communion under one Head is called Catholick Causally the Church of Rome is stiled Catholick because it hath an influence and force to cause Vniversality in the whole body of the Church Catholick to which two things are necessary Multitude and Vnity The Roman Church therefore which as a Center of Ecclesiastical Communion infuses this Vnity which is the form of Vniversality into the Catholick Church and thereby causes in her Vniversality may be called Catholick causally though she be but a particular Church As he that commands a whole Army is stiled General though he be but a particular person Thirdly every particular orthodox Church is termed Catholick participative by way of participation because they agree in and participate of the Doctrine and Communion of the Catholick Church For which you bring the instance of the Church of Smyrna writing to the Catholick Church of Philomilion c. Thus we see say you both how properly the Roman Church is called Catholick and how the Catholick Church it self takes causally the denomination of Vniversal or Catholick from the Roman considered as the chief particular Church infusing Vnity to all the rest as having dependence of her and relation to her Thus I have recited your words that we may fully understand your meaning the substance of which is couched in your last words That the reason why any Church was accounted Catholick was from its Vnion with the Church of Rome But if it appear that this sense of the Catholick Church is wholly a stranger to Antiquity That the Catholick Church was so call'd upon farr different accounts than those mentioned by you If the Church of Rome had no other relation to the Catholick Church but as a member of it as other Churches were then all this discourse of yours comes to nothing and that is it which I now undertake to prove Now the Vnity of the Catholick Church lying in two things the Doctrine and the Government of it if in neither of these it had any dependence of the Church of Rome then certainly it could not be call'd Catholick causally from the
Church of Rome First the Church was called Catholick from the Vniversal spread of its Doctrine and the agreement of all particular Churches in it So Irenaeus derives the Vnity of the Church spread abroad over the world from the Vnity of that Faith which was Universally received and from thence saith That the Church is but as one house and having one soul and heart and speaks as with one mouth Nothing can be more plain then that Irenaeus makes the consent in Doctrine to be the ground of Vnity in the Catholick Church And that he did not suppose this consent to arise from the Church of Rome appears from what he saith before That this Faith was received in the Church so universally spread from the Apostles and their Disciples Which must be understood of that universal diffusion of it by the first Preachers of it in the world the continuance of which Doctrine was the ground of the Vnity in the Catholick Church To the same purpose Tertullian gives an account of the Churches Vnity by the adhering to that Doctrine which was first preached by the Apostles who having first delivered it in Judea and planted Churches there went abroad and declared the same to other Nations and setled Churches in Cities from whence other Churches have the same Doctrine propagated to them which are therefore call'd Apostolical Churches as the off-spring of those which were founded by them Therefore so many and so great Churches are all that one prime Apostolical Church from whence all others come And thus they are all prime and Apostolical in regard of their Vnity as long as there is that communication of that title of Brotherhood and common mark of peace and hospitality Wherein we see that which made Churches in Tertullians sense Apostolical is the embracing and continuing in that Doctrine which was first delivered by the Apostles and thus Churches though remote from the Apostolical times may have the denomination of Apostolical from their consent in Doctrine with those which were founded by them But here is not the least intimation of any centre of Ecclesiastical communion infusing unity into the Catholick Church for this unity ariseth from that Doctrine which was declared in and propagated by all the Apostolical Churches So likewise Theodoret speaks That there is one Church throughout the world and therefore we pray for the Holy One Catholick and Apostolick Church extended from one end of the earth to the other Which saith he is divided by Cities and Towns and Villages so that there are infinite and innumerable Churches in the Islands and Continent but all these are reduced to one being united in the agreement of the same true doctrine So Constantine in his Epistle to the Bishops who were absent from the Council of Nice saith That our Saviour would have one Catholick Church whose members though dispersed in many several places yet are nourished by the same Spirit which is the Will of God In all which and many other places which might be produced to the same purpose we see a quite different account given of the unity of the Catholick Church from that which you mention as the cause of it we find the Church call'd Catholick in regard of its large extent in the world as is apparent besides these testimonies from the Controversies between St. Austin and the Donatists and the unity of that Catholick Church not placed in the least respect to the Church of Rome but in the consent in the Apostolical Doctrine in all those Churches which concurred as members to make up this Catholick Church So that the formal reason of any particular Churches having the denomination of Catholick must come not from any communion with the Church of Rome but from the owning the Catholick and Apostolick Faith and joyning in communion with those Churches which did own and acknowledge it And therefore we find that the symbol of communion in the ancient communicatory letters never lay in the acknowledgement of Christs Vicar on earth or communion with the Church of Rome but in such things which were common to all Apostolical Churches And therefore the Church of Rome could not be then accounted the center of Ecclesiastical communion as you speak after Cardinal Perron from whom you have Verbatim transcribed all your former discourse This being therefore the utmost which that great witt of your Church was able to plead in behalf of its being the Catholick Church it deserves to be further considered We come therefore to that kind of unity in the Catholick Church which depends on the Government of it and this is that which is pretended as the ground of the Roman Churches being the Catholick Church because though as Cardinal Perron says she be in her own Being particular yet she may be call'd Catholick causally as the center and beginning of Ecclesiastical communion infusing unity which is the form of universality into the Catholick Church This therefore must be more narrowly searched into to see if this were a known and received truth in the ancient Church Which is so far from it that we find no such causal influence from the Church of Rome then owned or asserted but that the Catholick Church was a whole consisting of homogeneal parts without any such subordination or dependence as the contrary supposition implies This is by none more fully asserted than by such who have with the greatest zeal and industry stood up for the unity of the Catholick Church The first of whom is St. Cyprian in whose time and writings there are very remarkable cases occurring to clear upon what terms the unity of the Catholick Church did then stand The first I begin with is the case which arose in the Church about the Schism of Novatianus which will give us the fuller discovery of the grounds of unity in the Catholick Church because the first rise of this Schism was in Rome it self For Novatus coming to Rome in a discontent from Africa falls in with Novatianus which two names the Greek writers of the Church commonly confound who being likewise under discontent at the election of Cornelius to be Bishop of Rome was ready to joyn with the other in fomenting a Schism For which they made this their pretext That Cornelius had admitted such to communion who had lapsed in the persecution of Decius which tended to the overthrow of the Churches purity upon this Novatianus gets himself ordained by three Bishops Bishop of Rome in opposition to Cornelius the fame of which Schism being spread abroad there was great making of parties on both sides Cyprian and the Churches of Africa after full inquiry into it declare for Cornelius so did Dionysius of Alexandria and the Churches there but Fabius of Antioch with the Churches of Pontus and Cilicia suspend and rather encline to Novatianus for some time till they were after more fully satisfied by Dionysius of Alexandria Now here is a case wherein the grounds of unity in the
considering them any further than hath been done already in the very entrance into this Conference And here you tell us You now come to perform your Promise viz. to examine more fully his Lordships pretended solutions as you call them of Bellarmine 's authorities in behalf of the Infallibility of the Church of Rome But for all your boasting at first what great things you would do you seem a little fearful of engaging too far and therefore are resolved only to maintain them in general as they make for the Infallible Authority of the Church or of the Pope defining Articles of Faith in a General Council But as far as you dare go I shall attend your motions and doubt not to make it evident that none of these authorities have any reference to that sense which you only offer to maintain them in and that though they had yet no such thing as Infallibility can be proved out of them The first authority is out of S. Cyprian's Letter to Cornelius Bishop of Rome whose words I am contented should be recited as fully as may be In which he chargeth Felicissimus and Fortunatus with their complices that having set up a Bishop against him at Carthage they sail to the chair of Peter and the principal Church from whence the sacerdotal Vnity had its rise and carry Letters from prophane and Schismatical persons not considering that the Romans whose Faith was commended by the Apostle were such to whom perfidiousness could not have access Now the meaning of this place you would have to be this and no other viz. that the See of S. Peter which is the principal of all Churches was so infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost that no errour in Faith could have access to it or be admitted by it if not as a particular Church yet at least as the Head of the Vniversal Church of Christ and as the Fountain of Priestly Vnity which S. Cyprian here expresly affirms that Church and See to be This you summe up at last as the most which can be made of this Testimony and which is indeed far more in all particulars than it can amount to Which will appear by particular examinations of what you return in answer to his Lordship Three things his Lordship answers to this place 1. That perfidia can hardly stand here for errour in Faith and if so then this can make nothing for Infallibility 2. That supposing it granted to signifie errour in Faith and Doctrine yet it belongs not to the Romans absolutely but with a respect to those first Romans whose Faith was commended by the Apostle 3. That it seems to be rather a Rhetorical insinuation than a dogmatical assertion And that S. Cyprian could not be supposed to assert herein the Popes Infallibility appears by the contracts between him and the Bishops of Rome This is the short of his Lordships answers to this place to which we must consider what you reply 1. His Lordship sayes That perfidia can hardly stand for errour in Faith or misbelief but it properly signifies malicious falshood in matter of trust and action not error in Faith but in fact against the discipline and Government of the Church And to make this interpretation appear the more probable his Lordship gives an account of the story which was the occasion of writing that Epistle which is this as his Lordship reports it from Binius and Baronius In the year 255. there was a Council in Carthage in the cause of two Schismaticks Felicissimus and Novatian about restoring of them to the communion of the Church which had lapsed in time of danger from Christianity to Idolatry Felicissimus would admit all even without penance and Novatian would admit none no not after penance The Fathers 42 in number went as Truth led them between both extreams To this Council came Privatus a known Heretick but was not admitted because he was formerly excommunicated and often condemned Hereupon he gathers his Complices together and chooses one Fortunatus who was formerly condemned as well as himself Bishop of Carthage and set him up against St. Cyprian This done Felicissimus and his Fellows haste to Rome with letters testimonial from their own party and pretend that 25 Bishops concurred with them and their desire was to be received into the communion of the Roman Church and to have their new Bishop acknowledged Cornelius then Pope though their haste had now prevented St. Cyprians letters having formerly heard from him both of them and their Schism in Africk would neither hear them nor receive their letters They grew insolent and furious the ordinary way that Schismaticks take Vpon this Cornelius writes to St. Cyprian and St. Cyprian in this Epistle gives Cornelius thanks for refusing these African fugitives declares their Schism and wickedness at large and encourages him and all Bishops to maintain the Ecclesiastical Discipline and censures against any the boldest threatnings of wicked Schismaticks This being the story his Lordship sayes He would fain know why perfidia all circumstances considered may not stand here in its proper sense for cunning and perfidious dealing which these men having practised at Carthage thought now to obtrude upon the Bishop of Rome also but that he was wary enough not to be over-reached by busie Schismaticks This demand of his Lordship seeming very just and reasonable we are bound to consider what reasons you give why perfidia must be understood for errour in Faith and not in the sense here mentioned Why calls he say you St. Peters chair Ecclesiam principalem the chief Church but because it is the head to which all other Churches must be subordinate in matter of doctrine the words following signifie as much Unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est from which chair of St. Peter as it were from its fountain unity in Priesthood and consequently unity in Faith is derived Why brings he the Apostle as Panegyrist of the Roman Faith Is it forsooth because no malicious falshood in matter of trust or errour in fact against the Discipline and Government of the Church can have access unto them as the Bishop will needs misinterpret the place or rather because no errour in Faith can approach the See Apostolick Certain it is perfidia in this sense is diametrically opposed to the Faith of the Romans immediately before commended by the Apostle which was true Christian Faith and consequently it must of necessity be taken for the quite contrary viz. misbelief or errour in Faith Three Arguments in these words you produce why perfidia must be understood of errour in Faith 1. Because the Church of Rome is called the chief Church but is it not possible it should be called so in any other sense but as the head of all other Churches in matter of doctrine Is it not sufficiently clear from Antiquity that there were other accounts of calling the Church of Rome the chief or principal Church as the eminency of it joyned
with the power of the City the potentior principalitas in Irenaeus which advanced its reputation to the height it was then at What matters of doctrine do you find brought to the Church of Rome to be Infallibly decided there in St. Cyprians time how little did St. Cyprian believe this when he so vehemently opposed the judgement of Stephen Bishop of Rome in the case of rebaptization Doth he write speak or carry himself in that Controversie like one that owned that Church of Rome to be head of all other Churches to which they must be subordinate in matter of doctrine Nay in the very next words St. Cyprian argues against appeals to Rome and is it possible then to think that in these words he should give such an absolute power and authority to it And therefore any one who would reconcile St. Cyprian to himself must by those words of Ecclesia principalis only understand the dignity and eminency and not the power much less the Infallibility of the Church of Rome And no more is implyed in the Second That it is said to be the fountain of Sacerdotal Vnity which some think may probably referr to the Priesthood of the Church of Africk which had its rise from the Church of Rome as appears by Tertullian and others in which sense he might very well say that the Vnity of the Priesthood did spring from thence or if it be taken in a more large and comprehensive sense it can import no more then that the Church of Rome was owned as the Principium Vnitatis which certainly is a very different thing from an infallible judgement in matters of Faith For what connexion is there between Vnity in Government and Infallibility in Faith Suppose the Church of Rome should be owned as the principal Member of the Catholick Church and therefore that the Vnity of the Church should begin there in regard of the dignity of it doth it thence follow that there must be an absolute subordination of all other Churches to it Nothing then can be inferr'd from either of those particulars that by perfidia errour in Faith must be understood taking those two expressions in the most favourable sense that can be put upon them But considering the present state of the Church of Rome at the time when Felicissimus and Fortunatus came thither I am apt to think another interpretation more probable than either of the foregoing For which we must remember that there was a Schism at Rome between Novatianus and Cornelius the former challenging to be Bishop there as well as the latter upon which a great breach was made among them Now these persons going out of Africa to Rome that they might manage their business with the more advantage address themselves to Cornelius and his party upon which St. Cyprian saith Navigare audent ad Petri Cathedram atque ad Ecclesiam principalem unde Vnitas sacerdotalis exorta est thereby expressing their confidence that they not only went to Rome but when they were there they did not presently side with the Schismatical party of the Novatians there but as though they had been true Catholicks they go to Cornelius who being the legal successour of St. Peter in opposition to Novatianus calls his See the chair of St. Peter and the principal Church and the spring of the Vnity of the Priesthood because the contrary party of Novatianus had been the cause of all the Schism and disunion which had been among them And in this sense which seems very agreeable to St. Cyprians words and design we may easily understand what this perfidia was viz. that falseness and perfidious dealing of these persons that although they were Schismaticks themselves yet they were so farr from seeming so at their coming to Rome that as though they had been very good Catholicks they seek to joyn in communion with Cornelius and the Catholick party with him By which we see what little probability there is from those expressions that perfidia must be taken for an errour in Faith But 3. You say To what purpose else doth he mention St. Pauls commendation of their Faith if this perfidia were not immediately opposite to it But then inform us what part of that Apostolical Faith was it which Felicissimus and Fortunatus sought to violate at Rome It is apparent their whole design was to be admitted into communion with the Church of Rome which in all probability is that access here spoken of if therefore this perfidia imported some errour in Faith it must be some errour broached by those particular persons as contrary to the old Roman Faith which was extold by the Apostle And although these persons might be guilty of errours yet the ground of their going to Rome was not upon any matter of Doctrine whereby they sought to corrupt the Church of Rome but in order to the justifying of their Schism by being admitted into the communion of that Church Notwithstanding then any thing you have produced to the contrary there is no necessity of understanding perfidia for an errour in matter of Faith And St. Cyprians mentioning the praise given to the Romans for their Faith by the Apostle was not to shew the opposition between that and the perfidia as an errour in Faith but that being the greatest Elogium of the Church of Rome extant in Scripture he thought it now most convenient to use it the better to engage Cornelius to oppose the proceedings of the Schismaticks there Although withall I suppose St. Cyprian might give him some taste of his old office of a Rhetorician in the allusion between fides and perfidia without ever intending that perfidia should be taken in any other sense then what was proper to the cause in hand You having effected so little in the solution of his Lordships first answer you have little cause to boast in your following words That hence his other explication also vanishes into smoak viz. when he asserts that Perfidia non potest may be taken hyperbolically for non facile potest because this interpretation suits not with those high Elogiums given by St. Cyprian to the Roman Church as being the principal Church the Church whence Vnity of Faith and Discipline is derived to all other Christian Churches If you indeed may have the liberty to interpret St. Cyprians words as you please by adding such things to them of which there is no intimation in what he saith you may make what you please unsuitable to them For although he calls it the principal Church from whence the Vnity of the Priesthood is sprung yet what is this to the Vnity of Faith and Discipline as derived from thence to all other Churches as you would perswade the unwary reader that these were St. Cyprians words which are only your groundless interpretation of them And therefore there is no such improbability in what his Lordship sayes That this may be only a Rhetorical excess of speech in which St. Cyprian may
he did not see them sown and our Saviour hath told us That the time of sowing tares by the enemy was when the men were asleep So we say The errours and corruptions of your Church came in in a time of great Ignorance when little notice was taken of them and few records preserved of those times and all the passages of them Since Learning and Religion commonly decay and flourish together How is it possible there should be as exact an account given of the decay of Religion as of the flourishing of it Besides Are there not many things you judge errours and corruptions your selves which you can give no account when they first entred into the Church As the necessity of communicating Infants name us the person who first broached that Doctrine and the time in which it was first received in the Church That no souls of men departed shall see God till the day of resurrection is I suppose with you an errour yet it would puzzle you to find out the first Authour of it So for the rebaptizing Hereticks and many things of a like nature it is easier to shew when they appeared publickly than when they first came into the Church And as evident is it in the decay of the primitive Discipline of the Church the altering the orders of penitents and the rites belonging to them the leaving of the communicatory Letters between Churches and many other customes of the Church grown into disuse and yet I suppose you will not presume to name the persons who first altered the former orders of the Church and methinks this is as reasonable as the naming the punctual time when other corruptions came in If you say the primitive Discipline decayed gradually and insensibly so say I that the Churches corruptions came in as the other went out in the same gradual and insensible manner and if you cannot name the precise time of the one it is not reasonable you should expect the other from us 2. We may have sufficient reason to judge what are errours and corruptions in a Church though we cannot fix on the time when they came in Which is by comparing them with that Rule of Faith which is delivered down by an interrupted tradition to us and with the practice of the first Ages of the Christian Church What is apparently contrary to either of these we have reason to reject though we cannot determine when it first came in For as long as these are our certain standards it matters not who first departed from them as long as we see that they have departed But when we own an absolute and infallible Rule of Faith and manners to question Whether any thing contrary to it be an errour or no because we cannot tell when it first began would be as if the Aegyptians when they saw their Land overflowed by the Nile should question Whether it were so or no because they could not find out the head of Nilus 3. They who assert their Doctrines and Practices to be Apostolical are bound to shew the continued succession of them from the Apostles times And if they fail in this upon their own principles they must be errours and corruptions though the punctual time of their first obtaining in the Church cannot be set down Since therefore you affirm you are bound to prove If you say The judgement of your Church being infallible you need prove no more than that I answer you must prove that this Infallibility then hath been ever received in the Church but if there be not the least footstep of it in the records of the ancient Church we justly look on this as an errour of the first magnitude though we cannot tell you the minute of its first rising 4. We have sufficient evidence from your selves that many Doctrines and Practices are owned by you which are of no great antiquity in the Christian Church Thus by the confession of Scotus Transubstantiation is no elder than the Council of Lateran Purgatory not much heard of in the primitive Church by the acknowledgement of Bishop Fisher Communion in one kind confessed by most to be contrary to the primitive practice and institution Prayer in an unknown tongue can be no elder than the general disuse of the Latin tongue in the Roman Provinces And so for many others for which we have the confessions of your own party but I need not insist upon that since your very Doctrine of the Churches power to declare matters of Faith may make things necessary in one Age which were not in a foregoing and in that case sure it is no great difficulty to tell you when some things of School-points became necessary Doctrines but then the Question goes off from the time to the matter Whether any thing declared by your Church can be an errour but of that enough hath been said already 5. There may be a sufficient account given why the beginnings of errours and corruptions in your Church have been so obscure because they came not in all of a sudden but some at one time some at another because they rise gradually as is apparent in Invocation of Saints and Worship of Images because many of those things which ended in great corruptions were taken up at first out of good designs to win more upon the Gentile world because many things were at first practised freely which afterwards were urged as necessary because Barbarism came into the Church along with these corruptions because many who gave occasion to them were persons of great esteem in their age and others strove to follow their example more than the Rule because the state of the Church did very much alter from it self in several ages which altered mens apprehensions and judgements of things in regard of their suitableness and necessity because those persons who brought in and contended for these things were the persons chiefly in power then in the Church which hindered their being cast out of communion as others had been because a long time most of these errours and corruptions were but the private opinions and practices of a faction though then the more prevalent in the Church and therefore not so vehemently opposed in the first rise of them as when this imposthumated matter was grown to a head and then there was a necessity of lancing it These and several other reasons might be given why the first originals of errours and corruptions in your Church cannot with so much clearness be manifested as that they were errours and corruptions Although such who would take the pains to travel in an argument of that nature might with very great probability trace the most both of your errours and corruptions to the time and age when they were first publickly owned and received But thus much may here suffice as to your demand That if your Church be not the same she was we should mention the time when the change was made As though Chronical distempers could not be known unless we could set
down the punctual time of their first on-set The distempers of your Church are Hectical I wish not in that respect that they are seldome fully discovered till they be incurable 2. You answer That if your Church hath erred the Catholick Church hath done so too for which you say two things 1. That in this dispute the Roman Church and the Catholick Church are all one 2. That then there was no one visible Church untainted uncorrupt right orthodox throughout the whole world 1. You learnedly tell us That the Roman and Catholick Church are all one in this dispute and most discreetly tell his Lordship That he beggs the Question in supposing the contrary but you know whose arts those are to charge their neighbours with that they were sure to be told of themselves if the other had spoke first But very worthily you prove this from D. Stapleton who offers to confirm his assertion by that which overthrows yours He sayes That amongst the Ancients the Roman Church and the Catholick Church were taken for the same and his reason is because the communion of the Roman Church was most certainly and evidently with the whole Catholick And Can any thing then be more plain than that the Roman and Catholick Church were not the same For Can any thing be the measure of it self If it were therefore Catholick because agreeing with the Catholick Church then it was not causally the Catholick Church but only by way of communion and participation If I should say That a man and a living-creature are the same and should give this reason for it Because man agrees in every thing with the nature of a living creature doth this imply that the formal notion of man and a living-creature are the same or only that man partakes so much of the properties of a living creature that he may well receive the denomination So it is here with the Roman Church that might well be called Catholick by the Ancients because it did partake of the properties of the Catholick Church but not as though the formal Reason of a Churches being Catholick came from partaking of communion with the Roman Church as you assert wherein you are diametrically opposite to Stapleton for he makes the reason why the Roman Church was Catholick to be Because it had communion with the Catholick Church By which it is evident that the notion of the Catholick Church was much larger than that of the Roman Church Besides Stapleton only saith That the Ancients thought so and surely they thought so only of the Roman Church of their own time which might then have certain communion with the Catholick Church and yet not have so in the next age ensuing therefore though the Catholick Church continue ever the same and incorrupt it will by no means follow that the Roman Church must do so too Whatever A. C. or you understand by the Catholick Church is not as you elsewhere phrase it a straws matter unless you proved better than you have done that the proper notion of the Holy Catholick Church is the same with those who agree with the Church of Rome in Doctrine and Communion Which is your fundamental mistake and a thing you would fain have taken for granted without the least shadow of a solid proof But there may be more force in your second Answer That if the Roman Church were wrong and corrupted it follows that not only for some time but for many ages before Luther yea even up to the Apostles times there was no one visible Church untainted uncorrupt right orthodox throughout the whole world It were worth our while to know what you mean by no one Visible Church Do you think there are or may be more Visible Churches than one taking the Visible Church in its proper sense for the Catholick Visible Church If this be your meaning in general how unhappily soever it be expressed viz. that then it follows there could be no Visible Church at all with whom we might have communion I see not how it is proved by what you bring But if this be all you aim at for no further your arguments will carry you that there was no one Visible Church untainted i. e. no one Church of a distinct communion from other Churches altogether free from errour I see no such dangerous consequence in the owning it But if it were so when Luther began to oppose the corruptions of the Church of Rome How doth it follow that it must be so even up to the Apostles times But we ought to see how you prove your assertion For if in all those Ages the Roman Church were wrong corrupted and tainted and all those likewise that disagreed from her viz. Hussites Albigenses Waldenses Wicklevites Greeks Abyssins Armenians c. had in them corrupt Doctrine during those ages as 't is certain they had neither could the Relator deny it I say If the Roman Church was thus corrupt it follows that not only for some time but for many ages before Luther yea even up to the Apostles times there was no one Visible Church untainted incorrupt right and orthodox throughout the whole world And consequently that during the said ages every good Christian was in conscience obliged in some point of Christian belief or other to contradict the Doctrine and desert the communion of all Visible Churches in the world c. Whence it would further follow that Schism or separation from the external communion of the whole Church might be not only lawful but even necessary which is impossible as being contrary to the very essential predicates of Schism which is defined to be A voluntary or wilful departure such as no just cause or reason can be given of it from the communion of the whole Church Three things this discourse of yours may be resolved into 1. That if in Luthers time the Roman Church was corrupt then there was no one Visible Church uncorrupt 2. That if so it follows that there was none uncorrupt even up to the Apostles times 3. That if there were no one Visible Church uncorrupt then it was necessary to separate from the external communion of the whole Church To every one of these I shall return a peculiar and distinct Answer To the first I say That the utmost you can prove from hence is That there was no one Church of any distinct communion from others which was free from all errours And what great absurdity is there in saying so Unless you could prove that there must be some one Church in all ages of the world which must be free from all kind or possibility of errour And when you have done this I shall acknowledge it absurd to say the contrary but otherwise that very supposition seems to have the greater absurdity in it because it restrains the utmost supposable priviledges of the truly Catholick Church to a particular Church of some one denomination What then if we grant that in Luthers time there was no
most part yet living These are your assertions and because you seek not to prove them it shall be sufficient to oppose ours to them Our assertion therefore is that the Church and Court of Rome are guilty of this Schism by obtruding erroneous Doctrines and superstitious practises as the conditions of her Communion by adding such Articles of Faith which are contrary to the plain rule of Faith and repugnant to the sense of the truly Catholick and not the Roman Church by her intolerable incroachments and usurpations upon the liberties and priviledges of particular Churches under a vain pretence of Vniversal Pastourship by forcing men if they would not damn their souls by sinning against their consciences in approving the errours and corruptions of the Roman Church to joyn together for the Solemn Worship of God according to the rule of Scripture and practise of the Primitive Church and suspending Communion with that Church till those abuses and corruptions be redressed In which they neither deny obedience to any Lawful Authority over them nor take to themselves any other Power than the Law of God hath given them receiving their Authority in a constant Succession from the Apostles they institute no Rites and Ceremonies either contrary to or different from the practise of the Primitive Church they neither exclude or dispossess others of their Lawful Power but in case others neglect their office they may be notwithstanding obliged to perform theirs in order to the Churches Reformation Leaving the Supreme Authority of the Kingdome or Nation to order and dispose of such things in the Church which of right appertain unto it And this we assert to be the case of Schism in reference to the Church of England which we shall make good in opposition to your assertions where we meet with any thing that seems to contradict the whole or any part of it These and the like practises of yours to use your own words not any obstinate maintaining any erroneous Doctrines as you vainly pretend we averre to have been the true and real causes of that separation which is made between your Church and Ours And you truly say That Protestants were thrust out of your Church which is an Argument they did not voluntarily forsake the Communion of it and therefore are no Schismaticks but your carriage and practises were such as forced them to joyn together in a distinct Communion from you And it was not we who left your Church but your Church that left her Primitive Faith and Purity in so high a manner as to declare all such excommunicate who will not approve of and joyn in her greatest corruptions though it be sufficiently manifest that they are great recessions from the Faith Piety and Purity of that Roman Church which was planted by the Apostles and had so large a commendation from the Apostolical men of those first ages Since then such errours and corruptions are enforced upon us as conditions of Communion with you by the same reason that the Orthodox did very well in departing from the Arrians because the Arrians were already departed from the Church by their false Doctrine will our separation from you be justified who first departed from the Faith and Purity of the Primitive Church and not only so but thrust out of your Communion all such as would not depart from it as farr as you Having thus considered and retorted your Assertions we come to your Answers Nor say you does the Bishop vindicate the Protestant party by saying The cause of Schism was ours and that we Catholicks thrust Protestants from us because they call'd for truth and redress of abuses For first there can be no just cause of Schism this hath been granted already even by Protestants And so it is by us and the reason is very evident for it for if there be a just cause there can be no Schism and therefore what you intend by this I cannot imagine unless it be to free Protestants from the guilt of Schism because they put the Main of their tryal upon the justice of the cause which moved them to forsake the Communion of your Church or else you would have it taken for granted that ours was a Schism and thence inferr there could be no just cause of it As if a man being accused for taking away the life of one who violently set upon him in the High-way with an intent both to rob and destroy him should plead for himself that this could be no murther in him because there was a sufficient and justifiable cause for what he did that he designed nothing but to go quietly on his road that this person and several others violently set upon him that he intreated them to desist that he sought to avoid them as much as he could but when he saw they were absolutely bent on his ruine he was forced in his own necessary defence to take away the life of that person Would not this with any intelligent Jury be looked on as a just and reasonable Vindication But if so wise a person as your self had been among them you would no doubt have better informed them for you would very gravely have told them All his plea went on a false supposition that he had a just cause for what he did but there could be no just cause for murther Do you not see now how subtil and pertinent your Answer is here by this parallel to it For as in that case all men grant that there can be no just cause for murther because all murther is committed without a just cause and if there be one it ceaseth to be murther So it is here in Schism which being a causeless separation from the Churches Vnity I wonder who ever imagined there could be just cause for it But to rectifie such gross mistakes as these are for the future you would do well to understand that Schism formally taken alwayes imports something criminal in it and there can be no just cause for a sin but besides that there is that which if you understand it you would call the materiality of it which is the separation of one part of the Church from another Now this according to the different grounds and reasons of it becomes lawful or unlawful that is as the reasons do make it necessary or unnecessary For separation is not lawful but when it is necessary now this being capable of such a different nature that it may be good or evil according to its circumstances there can be no absolute judgement passed upon it till all those reasons and circumstances be duely examined and if there be no sufficient grounds for it then it is formally Schism i. e. a culpable separation if there be sufficient cause then there may be a separation but it can be no Schism And because the Vnion of the Catholick Church lyes in Fundamental and necessary truths therefore there can be no separation absolutely from the Catholick Church but what involves in it the
formal guilt of Schism it being impossible any person should have just cause to disown the Churches Communion for any thing whose belief is necessary to salvation And whosoever doth so thereby makes himself no member of the Church because the Church subsists on the belief of Fundamental truths But in all such cases wherein a division may be made and yet the several persons divided retain the essentials of a Christian Church the separation which may be among any such must be determined according to the causes of it For it being possible of one side that men may out of capricious humours and fancies renounce the Communion of a Church which requires nothing but what is just and reasonable and it being possible on the other side that a Church calling her self Catholick may so far degenerate in Faith and practise as not only to be guilty of great errours and corruptions but to impose them as conditions of Communion with her it is necessary where there is a manifest separation to enquire into the reasons and grounds of it and to determine the nature of it according to the justice of the cause which is pleaded for it And this I hope may help you a little better to understand what is meant by such who say There can be no just cause of Schism and how little this makes for your purpose But you go on and I must follow And to his calling for truth c. I Answer What Hereticks ever yet forsook the Church of God but pretended truth and complain'd they were thrust out and hardly dealt with meerly because they call'd for truth and redress of abuses And I pray what Church was ever so guilty of errours and corruptions but would call those Hereticks and Schismaticks who found fault with her Doctrine or separated from her Communion It is true Hereticks pretend truth and Schismaticks abuses but is it possible there should be errours and corruptions in a Churches Communion or is it not if not prove but that of your Church and the cause is at an end if it be we are to examine whether the charge be true or no. For although Hereticks may pretend truth and others be deceived in judging of it yet doubtless there is a real difference between truth and errour If you would never have men quarrel with any Doctrine of your Church because Hereticks have pretended truth would not the same reason hold why men should never enquire after Truth Reason or Religion because men have pretended to them all which have not had them It is therefore a most senseless cavil to say we have no reason to call for truth because Hereticks have done so and on the same grounds you must not be call'd Catholicks because Hereticks have been call'd so But those who have been Hereticks were first proved to be so by making it appear that was a certain truth which they denyed do you the same by us prove those which we call errours in your Church to be part of the Catholick and Apostolick Faith prove those we account corruptions to be parts of Divine worship and we will give you leave to call us Hereticks and Schismaticks but not before But say you He should have reflected that the Church of God is stiled a City of Truth by the Prophet and so it may be and yet your Church be a fortress of Errour And a pillar and foundation of Truth by the Apostle but what is this to the Church of Romes being so And by the Fathers a rich depository or Treasury of all Divine and Heavenly Doctrines so it was in the sense the Fathers took the Church in for the truly Catholick Christian Church And we may use the same expressions still of the Church as the Prophets Apostles and Fathers did and nevertheless charge your Church justly with the want of truth and opposition to the preaching of it and on that ground justly forsake her Communion which is so far from being inexcusable impiety and presumption that it was only the performance of a necessary Christian duty And therefore that Woe of scandal his Lordship mentioned still returns upon your party who gave such just cause of offence to the Christian world and making it necessary for all such as aimed at the purity of the Christian Church to leave your Communion when it could not be enjoyed without making shipwrack both of Faith and a good Conscience And this is so clear and undeniable to follow you still in your own language that we dare appeal for a tryal of our cause to any Assembly of learned Divines or what Judge and Jury you please provided they be not some of the parties accused and because you are so willing to have Learned Divines I hope you will believe the last Pope Innocent so far as not to mention the Pope and Cardinals What follows in Vindication of A. C. from enterfeiring and shuffling in his words because timorous and tender consciences think they can never speak with caution enough for fear of telling a lye will have the force of a demonstration being spoken of and by a Jesuite among all those who know what mortal haters they are of any thing that looks like a lye or aequivocation And what reason there is that of all persons in the world they should be judged men of timorous and tender consciences But whatever the words were which passed you justifie A. C. in saying That the Protestants did depart from the Church of Rome and got the Name of Protestants by protesting against her For this say you is so apparent that the whole world acknowledgeth it If you mean that the Communion of Protestants is distinct from yours Whoever made scruple of confessing it But because in those terms of departing leaving forsaking your Communion you would seem to imply that it was a voluntary act and done without any necessary cause enforcing it therefore his Lordship denyes that Protestants did depart for saith he departure is voluntary so was not theirs But because it is so hard a matter to explain the nature of that separation between your Church and Ours especially in the beginning of it without using those terms or some like them as when his Lordship saith that Luther made a breach from it It is sufficient that we declare that by none of these expressions we mean any causeless separation but only such acts as were necessarily consequential to the imposing your errours and corruptions as conditions of Communion with your Church To the latter part his Lordship answers That the Protestants did not get that name by Protesting against the Church of Rome but by Protesting and that when nothing else would serve against her errours and superstitions Do you but remove them from the Church of Rome our Protestation is ended and our Separation too This you think will be answered with our old put off That it is the common pretext of all Hereticks when they sever themselves from the Roman Catholick
Church If your Church indeed were what she is not the Catholick Church we might be what we are not Hereticks but think it not enough to prove us Hereticks that you call us so unless you will likewise take it for granted that the Pope is Antichrist and your Church the Whore of Babylon because they are as often and as confidently call'd so And if your Church be truly so as she is shrewdly suspected to be Do you think she and all her followers would not as confidently call such as dissented from her Hereticks and the using those expressions of her virulent execrations against her as you do now supposing her not to be so What therefore would belong to your Church supposing her as bad as any Protestants imagine her to be cannot certainly help to perswade us that she is not so bad as she is When you say still That Protestants did really depart from the Roman Church and in so doing remained separate from the whole Church you very fairly beg the thing in dispute and think us uncivil for denying it You know not what that passage means That the Protestants did not voluntarily depart taking their whole body and cause together since there is no obscurity in the expression but a defect elsewhere I can only say That his Lordship was not bound to find you an Vnderstanding as oft as you want it But it were an easie matter to help you for it is plain that he speaks those words to distinguish the common cause of Protestants from the heats and irregularities of some particular persons whom he did not intend to justifie such as he saith Were either peevish or ignorantly zealous And if you distinguish the sense of your Church from the judgements of particular persons I hope it may be as lawful for us to distinguish the body and cause of Protestants from the inconsiderate actings of any particular men All that which follows about the name of Protestants which his Lordship saith Took its rise not from protesting simply against the Roman Church but against the Edict at Worms which was for the restoring all things to their former state without any reformation is so plain and evident that nothing but a mind to cavil and to give us the same things over and over could have made you stay longer upon it For what else means your talk of Innovation in matters of Religion which we say was caused by you and protesting against the Roman Church and consequently against all particular Visible Churches in the world and that which none but Hereticks and Schismaticks used to do Do you think these passages are so hard that we cannot know what they mean unless we have them so often over But they are not so hard to be understood as to be believed and that the rather because we see you had rather say them often than prove them once If the Popes professed Reformation necessary as to many abuses I hope they are not all Schismaticks who call for the redress of abuses in your Church But if all the Reformation we are to expect of them be that which you say was effectually ordained by the Council of Trent if there had not been an Edict at Worms there were the Decrees of that Council which would have made a Protestation necessary Although we think your Church needs Reformation in Manners and Discipline as much as any in the world yet those are not the abuses mainly insisted on by the Protestants as the grounds of their Separation and therefore his Lordship ought to be understood of a Reformation as to the errours and corruptions of the Roman Church and doubtless that Edict of Worms which was for the restoring all things to their former state did cut off all hopes of any such Reformation as was necessary for the Protestants to return to the Roman Communion And whatever you say till you have proved the contrary better than as yet it is done it will appear that they are the Protestants who stand for the ancient and undefiled Doctrine of the Catholick Church against the novel and corrupt Tenets of the Roman Church And such kind of Protestation no true Christian who measures his being Catholick by better grounds than communion with the Church of Rome will ever have cause to be ashamed of But A. C. saith his Lordship goes on and will needs have it that the Protestants were the cause of the Schism For saith he though the Church of Rome did thrust them from her by excommunication yet they had first divided themselves by obstinate holding and teaching Opinions contrary to the Roman Faith and practice of the Church which to do S. Bernard thinks is pride S. Austin madness At this his Lordship takes many and just exceptions 1. That holding and teaching was not the prime cause neither but the corruptions and superstitions of Rome which forced many men to hold and teach the contrary So the prime cause was theirs still Now to this your Answer is very considerable That the Bishop of Rome being S. Peter 's successor in the Government of the Church and Infallible at least with a General Council it is impossible that Protestants or other Sectaries should ever find such errours or corruptions difinitively taught by him or received by the Church as should either warrant them to preach against her Doctrine or lawfully to forsake her communion We say Your Church hath erred you say It is impossible she should we offer you evident proofs of her errours you say She is Infallible we say It is impossible that Church should be Infallible which we can make appear hath been deceived you tell us again It is impossible she should be deceived for let Hereticks say what they will she is Infallible And if this be not a satisfactory way of answering let the world judge But having already pulled down that Babel of Infallibility this Answer falls to the ground with it and to use your phrase The truth is all that you have in effect to say for your Church is that she is Infallible and the Catholick Church and by this means you think to cast the Schism upon us and these things are great enough indeed if you could but make any shew of proof for them but not being able to do that you do in effect as much as if a man in a high feaver should go about to demonstrate it was impossible for him to be sick which the more he takes pains to do the more evident his distemper is to all who hear him And it is shrewdly to be suspected if your errours had not been great and palpable you would have contented your selves with some thing short of Infallibility But as the case is with your Church I must confess it is your greatest wisdom to talk most of Infallibility for if you can but meet with any weak enough to swallow that all other things go down without dispute but if men are left at liberty to
there Roman nor Catholick for he speaks of things done and to be done and not for things believed or to be believed 4. A right sober man may without the least touch of insolency or madness dispute a business of Religion with the Roman either Church or Prelate as all men know Irenaeus did with Victor Now to all this you reply That the argument still holds à minori ad majus and reaches to every person that in any matter whatsoever obstinately opposes himself against the Church of God And is not this an excellent way of arguing from the less to the greater to argue from a rite or ceremony observed by the Universal Church to a matter of Faith determined by the Roman Church This is à minori ad majus with a witness But your Reason is as good as your Answer which is because there was alwaies some point or matter of Faith involved in every Vniversally practised rite or ceremony of the Church I pray Sir then Tell us what the matter of Faith was which lay in the offering on Maundy-Thursday in morning or after supper and by whom this point of Faith was determined and and how far it is obligatory and whether it be not sinful heretical and damnable so much as modestly to doubt of it For all this you told us belongs to all matters of Faith determined by the Catholick Church What remains of this Chapter need not hold us long for C's illation from the Catholick Churches not erring that therefore it cannot be lawful to separate from the Roman Church is absurd and illogical and depends on that gross mistake that the Roman and Catholick Church are all one which we have abundantly disproved in the precedent Chapter What follows concerning the Catholick Churches not erring and how far that extends concerning the Catalogue of Fundamentals and any errours admitted in the Church being destructive to its Being because derogatory to Gods Veracity have been so amply discussed in their proper places that I find no temptation from any new arguments here suggested to resume the debate of them There being then nothing material which hath not been handled already I here conclude this Chapter CHAP. III. Of keeping Faith with Hereticks The occasion of this Dispute The reason why this Doctrine is not commonly defended Yet all own such Principles from whence it necessarily follows The matter of fact as to the Council of Constance and John Hus opened Of the nature of the safe-conduct granted him by the Emperour that it was not a general one salvâ justitiâ but particular jure speciali which is largely proved The particulars concerning Hierom of Prague Of the safe-conduct granted by the Council of Trent Of the distinction of Secular and Ecclesiastical Power and that from thence it follows that Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks Simancha and several others fully assert this Doctrine Of the Invitation to the Council of Trent and the good Instructions there and of Publick Disputation A. C's Endeavour not only to charge Protestants with the guilt of Schism but to justifie and clear the proceedings of the Church of Rome towards them hath led us into a new dispute how far she is to be trusted in the greatest promises which are made to such whom she accounts Hereticks Which is occasioned by these words of his That after this breach was made the Church of Rome was so kind and careful to seek the Protestants that she invited them publickly with safe conduct to Rome to a General Council freely to speak what they could for themselves Or if we take his words as you give them us the sense is the same to our purpose and therefore you impertinently cavil with his Lordship for not keeping Faith with A.C. Which did at first seek to recall them from their Novel Opinions and after their breach did permit yea invite them publickly to Rome to a General Council c. Upon which his Lordship sayes Indeed I think the Church of Rome did carefully seek the Protestants but I doubt it was to bring them within their net And she invited them to Rome A very safe place if you mark it for them to come to just as the Lion in the Apologue invited the Fox to his own Den. Yea but there was safe-conduct offered too Yes conduct perhaps but not safe or safe perhaps for going thither but none for coming thence Vestigia nulla retrorsum Yea but it should have been to a General Council Perhaps so But was the conduct safe that was given to a Council which they call General to some others before them No sure John Hus and Jerom of Prague burnt for all their safe conduct And so long as the Jesuits write and maintain That Faith given is not to be kept with Hereticks And the Church of Rome leaves this lewd Doctrine uncensured as it hath hitherto done and no exception put in of force and violence A. C. shall pardon us that we come not to Rome nor within the reach of Roman Power what freedom of speech soever he promised us For to what end freedom of speech on their part since they are resolved to alter nothing And to what end freedom of speech on our part if after speech hath been free life shall not This you call a Theme which for the most part our Adversaries love to dwell upon as thinking they have some great advantage against us therein And Can you blame them for insisting much on that which their lives are concerned in and it will appear in the prosecution of this subject that we have this great advantage against you that we are come to understand your arts so well as not so easily to be catched by your perfidious subtilties And as we understand your practices better than to rely on your promises of this nature so we are not so ignorant of the intrigues of your proceedings as to suppose that commonly and openly you should defend this Position That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks For thereby you would lose the intent and design of it for none would be so silly as to venture themselves into the hands of such who openly profess They are not bound to keep Faith with them For Do you think that Father Fulgentio would ever have gone to Rome on the safe-conduct most solemnly given by Paul 5. if he had understood beforehand with what perfidiousness he should have been dealt with there and all under this pretext That safe-conduct was given for his coming hither but not for his going thence Is this the Faith of the Apostolical See Is this the Catholick and Roman Faith If so the Roman Faith before ever it was Christian was much more infallible than this that never was acquainted with such a perfidious Infallibility Well then might his Lordship say The conduct might be safe for going thither but not for coming thence Vestigia nulla retrorsum And so Fulgentio to his sorrow found it
not from hence that Heresie was supposed to dissolve that obligation to obedience which otherwise men lay under And if it doth destroy that Faith which men owe to their Soveraigns in case of Heresie Will it not equally destroy that Faith which Princes promise to their subjects in case of Heresie too For what reason can be given for the one which will not hold for the other also And who were they I pray but those loyal persons the Jesuits who broached fomented and propagated that Doctrine Was not Father Creswell a Jesuit who under the name of Andreas Philopator delivers this excellent Doctrine That the whole School of Divines teach and it is a thing certain and of Faith that any Christian Prince if he manifestly falls off from the Religion of the Catholick Roman Church and endeavours to draw others from it doth by Law of God and man fall from all power and authority and that before the sentence of the Pope and Judge delivered against him and that all his subjects are free from the obligation of any Oath to him of obedience and loyalty and that they may and ought cast such a one out of his power as an Apostate and a Heretick lest he infect others I might mention many more who write after the same nature but I spare you only this one may serve instead of many for he delivers it not only as his own judgement but the consent of the School and as a thing most certain as being of Faith And will you still say That no Jesuits own such principles as That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks For if Heresie doth thus destroy all obligation to obedience in subjects to Heretical Princes Will it not much more in Princes toward heretical subjects because certainly Princes have a greater power and right to command over subjects than subjects over them even in your own case of Heresie Since this therefore is the avowed Doctrine of the Jesuitical School perswade whom you can to believe that you look on an obligation to Faith remaining in a case of Heresie Certainly none who understand your principles and practices will have much cause to rely on your Faith in this particular So much at present of the Jesuits Integrity as to this principle of keeping Faith with Hereticks What you add further about the Council of Constance and John Husse and Hierom of Prague is only serving up the very same matter in somewhat different words for there is nothing contained in them but what hath been sufficiently disproved already for it all depends on the nature of the safe-conduct and the difference of the Secular and Ecclesiastical Power His Lordship very pertinently asks supposing men might go safely to Rome To what purpose is it to go to a General Council thither and use freedom of speech since the Church of Rome is resolved to alter nothing and you very pertinently answer That they were invited thither to be better instructed and reclaimed from their errours But Will no place serve to reclaim them but Rome Can they not be as well instructed elsewhere and by other means than by being summoned to a General Council We had thought the intention of General Councils had been to have had free debates concerning the matters which divide the Church But it seems the Protestants must have been summoned as guilty persons i. e. Hereticks and their Adversaries must have sate as their proper Judges and such who were accused as the great Innovators must have believed themselves Infallible and by your own saying If an Angel from Heaven had come as a Protestant thither he would not have been believed nay it had been well he had escaped so if your power were as great over spirits as over our grosser bodies So I suppose John Husse and Hierom of Prague were invited to Constance to be better instructed and it is well we know by their example what you mean by your good instructions and out of a desire to avoid them care not how little we appear where our Adversaries not only intend to be Judges but resolve beforehand to condemn us whatsoever we say For so you tell us That Rome and the Fathers of Trent were resolved to stick to their own Doctrine which they call Catholick notwithstanding any pretended difficulties or objections brought against it either by Bishops or any other person Your kind invitations then of the Protestants were wonderful expressions of your Churches civility towards them that they might be present to hear themselves condemned and then escape how they could themselves The offer of a publick Disputation his Lordship truly tells you signifies nothing without an indifferent arbitration and the impossibility of agreeing on that renders the other useless and only becomes such Thrasonical persons as Campian was who yet had as little reason as any man to boast of his Atchievements in his disputations When you therefore say His Lordship would have some Atheist Turk or Jew to fit as indifferent persons you shew only your Scurrility and want of understanding For his Lordship only insists on the necessity of that to shew the uselesness of publick Disputations where such cannot be agreed on as in this case And he truly saith This is a good Answer to all such offers that the Kings and Church of England had no reason to admit of a publick Dispute with the English Romish Clergy till they shall be able to shew it under the Seal or Powers of Rome that that Church will submit to a Third who may be an indifferent Judge between us and them or to such a General Council as is after mentioned not such a one as you would have wherein the Pope should sit as Head of the Church for that is to make the greatest Criminal Judge in his own cause And this saith he is an honest and I think a full Answer And without this all Disputation must end in Clamour and therefore the more publick the worse Because as the Clamour is the greater so perhaps will be the Schism too CHAP. IV. The Reformation of the Church of England justified The Church of Rome guilty of Schism by unjustly casting Protestants out of Communion The Communion of the Catholick and particular Churches distinguished No separation of Protestants from the Catholick Church The Devotions of the Church of England and Rome compared Particular Churches Power to reform themselves in case of general Corruption proved The Instance from the Church of Judah vindicated The Church of Rome paralleld with the ten Tribes General Corruptions make Reformation the more necessary Whether those things we condemn as errours were Catholick Tenets at the time of the Reformation The contrary shewed and the difference of the Church of Rome before and since the Reformation When things may be said to be received as Catholick Doctrines How far particular Churches Power to reform themselves extends His Lordships Instances for the Power of Provincial Councils in matters of
Reformation vindicated The particular case of the Church of England discussed The proceedings in our Reformation defended The Church of England a true Church The National Synod 1562. a lawful Synod The Bishops no intruders in Queen Elizabeths time The justice and moderation of the Church of England in her Reformation The Popes Power here a forcible fraudulent usurpation HAving thus far examined your Doctrine of keeping Faith with Hereticks we now return to the main business concerning Schism And his Lordship saying That there is difference between departure out of the Church and causeless thrusting from you and therefore denying that it is in your power to thrust us out of the Church You answer by a Concession That we were thrust out from the Church of Rome but that it was not without cause Which that you might not seem to say gratis you pretend to assign the causes of our expulsion So that by your own confession the present division or separation lyes at the Church of Rome's door if it be not made evident that there were most just and sufficient reasons for her casting the Protestants out of her communion If therefore the Church of Rome did thrust the Protestants from her communion for doing nothing but what became them as members of the Catholick Church then that must be the Schismatical party and not the Protestants For supposing any Church though pretending to be never so Catholick doth restrain her communion within such narrow and unjust bounds that she declares such excommunicate who do not approve all such errours in doctrine and corruptions in practice which the Communion of such a Church may be liable to the cause of that division which follows falls upon that Church which exacts those conditions from the members of her Communion That i◠when the errours and corruptions are such as are dangerous to salvation For in this case that Church hath first divided her self from the Catholick Church for the Communion of that lying open and free to all upon the necessary conditions of Christian Communion whatever Church takes upon her to limit and inclose the bounds of the Catholick becomes thereby divided from the Communion of the Catholick Church and all such who disown such an unjust inclosure do not so much divide from the Communion of that Church so inclosing as return to the Communion of the Primitive and Vniversal Church The Catholick Church therefore lyes open and free like a Common-Field to all Inhabitants now if any particular number of these Inhabitants should agree together to enclose part of it without consent of the rest and not to admit any others to their right of Common without consenting to it which of these two parties those who deny to yield their consent or such who deny their rights if they will not are guilty of the violation of the publick and common rights of the place Now this is plainly the case between the Church of Rome and Ours the Communion of the Catholick Church lyes open to all such who own the Fundamentals of Christian Faith and are willing to joyn in the profession of them Now to these your Church adds many particular Doctrines which have no foundation in Scripture or the consent of the Primitive Church these and many superstitious practises are enjoyned by her as conditions of her Communion so that all those are debarred any right of Communion with her who will not approve of them by which it appears your Church is guilty of the first violation of the Vnion of the Catholick and whatever number of men are deprived of your Communion for not consenting to your usurpations do not divide themselves from you any further than you have first separated your selves from the Catholick Church And when your Church by this act is already separated from the Communion of the Catholick Church the disowning of those things wherein your Church is become Schismatical cannot certainly be any culpable separation For whatever is so must be from a Church so far as it is Catholick but in our case it is from a Church so far only as it is not Catholick i. e. so far as it hath divided her self from the Belief and Communion of the Vniversal Church But herein a great mistake is committed by you when you measure the Communion of the Catholick Church by the judgement of all or most of the particular Churches of such an Age which supposes that the Church of some one particular Age must of necessity be preserved from all errours and corruptions which there is no reason or necessity at all to assert and that is all the ground you have for saying That the separation of Protestants was not only from the Church of Rome but as Calvin confesseth à toto mundo from the whole Christian world and such a separation necessarily involves separation from the true Catholick Church Now to this we answer two things 1. That we have not separated from the whole Christian World in any thing wherein the whole Christian World is agreed but to disagree from the particular Churches of the Christian World in such things wherein those Churches differ among themselves is not to separate from the Christian World but to disagree in some things from such particular Churches As I hope you will not say That man is divided from all mankind who doth in some feature or other differ from any one particular man but although he doth so he doth not differ from any in those things which are common to all for that were to differ from all but when he only differs from one in the colour of his eyes from another in his complexion another in the air of his countenance and so in other things this man though he should differ from every particular man in the world in something or other yet is a man still as well as any because he agrees with them in that in which they all agree which is Humane nature and differs only in those things wherein they differ from each other And therefore from the disagreement of the Protestants from any one particular Church it by no means follows that they separated from the whole Christian World and therefore from the true Catholick Church 2. The Communion of the Catholick Church is not to be measured by the particular opinions and practices of all or any particular Churches but by such things which are the proper Foundations of the Catholick Church For there can be no separation from the true Catholick Church but in such things wherein it is Catholick now it is not Catholick in any thing but what properly relates to its Being and Constitution For whatever else there is however universal it may be is extrinsecal to the nature and notion of the Catholick Church and therefore supposing a separation from the Church in what is so extrinsecal and accidental it is no proper separation from the Catholick Church As for Instance supposing all men were agreed that some particular
habit should be worn all over the world will you say That any number of men who found this habit extremely inconvenient for them and therefore should disuse it did on that account separate from humane nature and ceased to be men by it Such is the case of any particular Churches laying aside some customes or ceremonies which in some one age of the Church or more the greatest part of Christian Churches were agreed in the practice of for although this general practice should make men more diligent in enquiry and careful in what they did yet if such a Church having power to govern it self see reason to alter it it doth not separate from the Communion of the Catholick Church therein and therefore doth not cease to be a Church For there is no culpable separation from the Church Catholick but what relates to it properly as Catholick now that doth not relate to it as Catholick which it may be Catholick without now certainly you cannot have so little reason as to assert that the Church cannot be Catholick without such extrinsecal and accidental agreements And from hence it follows That no Church can be charged with a separation from the true Catholick Church but what may be proved to separate it self in some thing necessary to the Being of the Catholick Church and so long as it doth not separate as to these essentials it cannot cease to be a true member of the Catholick Church If you would therefore prove that the Church of England upon the Reformation is separated from the true Catholick Church you must not think it enough to say which as weakly as commonly is said That no one particular Church can be named which in all things agreed with it for that only proves that she differed from particular Churches in such things wherein they differed from each other but that she is divided from all Christian Churches in such things wherein they are all agreed and which are essential to the Being of the Catholick Church when you have proved this you may expect a further Answer This then can be no cause why your Church should expel the Protestants out of her Communion but it shews us sufficient cause to believe that your Church had separated her self from the Communion of the Catholick For which we must further consider that although nothing separates a Church properly from the Catholick but what is contrary to the Being of it yet a Church may separate her self from the Communion of the Catholick by taking upon her to make such things the necessary conditions of her Communion which never were the conditions of Communion with the Catholick Church As for Instance Though we should grant Adoration of the Eucharist Invocation of Saints and Veneration of Images to be only superstitious practices taken up without sufficient grounds in the Church yet since it appears that the Communion of the Catholick Church was free for many hundred years without approving or using these things that Church which shall not only publickly use but enjoyn such things upon pain of excommunication from the Church doth as much as in her lyes draw the bounds of Catholick Communion within her self and so divides her self from the true Catholick Church For whatever confines must likewise divide the Church for by that confinement a separation is made between the part confined and the other which separation must be made by the party so limiting Christian Communion As it was in the case of the Donatists who were therefore justly charged with Schism because they confined the Catholick Church within their own bounds And if any other Church doth the same which they did it must be liable to the same charge which they were The summ then of this discourse is That the Being of the Catholick Church lyes in Essentials that for a particular Church to disagree from all other particular Churches in some extrinsecal and accidental things is not to separate from the Catholick Church so as to cease to be a Church but still whatever Church makes such extrinsecal things the necessary conditions of Communion so as to cast men out of the Church who yield not to them is Schismatical in so doing for it thereby divides it self from the Catholick Church and the separation from it is so far from being Schism that being cast out of that Church on those terms only returns them to the Communion of the Catholick Church On which grounds it will appear that yours is the Schismatical Church and not ours For although before this imposing humour came into particular Churches Schism was defined by the Fathers and others to be a voluntary departure out of the Church yet that cannot in reason be understood of any particular but the true Catholick Church for not only persons but Churches may depart from the Catholick Church and in such cases not those who depart from the Communion of such Churches but those Churches which departed from the Catholick are guilty of the Schism These things I thought necessary to be further explained not only to shew how false that imputation is of our Churches departing from the true Catholick Church but with what great reason we charge your Church with departing from the Communion of it and therefore not those whom you thrust out of Communion but your Church so thrusting them out is apparently guilty of the present Schism But still you say Your Church had sufficient cause for the expulsion of Protestants out of her Communion and for this you barely repeat your former assertions and offer not at the proof of one of them as though you intended to carry your cause by the frequent repeating your Declaration But Sir it is the proof of what you say that we expect from you and not the bare telling us That Protestants are Schismaticks because they are Schismacicks When you will be at leisure to prove that the Protestants were guilty of Heretical Doctrine or Schismatical proceedings that they raised a new separate and mutinous faction of pretended Christians distinct from the one Catholick body of the Church by chusing new Pastors instituting new rites and ceremonies not in their power to do by Schismatical convening in several Synods and there broaching new heretical Confessions of Faith when I say You shall think good to prove all or any one of these you shall receive so full an Answer as will make it evident that the Protestants did not depart from the Catholick Churches Doctrine and Communion but that the Church of Rome is departed thence first by imposing erroneous Doctrines and superstitious practices as conditions of Communion and then by thrusting out all such as would not consent to them His Lordship disputing the terms on which a Separation in the Church may be lawful saith That corruption in manners only is no sufficient cause to make a separation in the Church And saith he This is as ingenuously confessed for you as by me For if corruption in manners were a
imposed those things which had been before only the errours of particular persons as the Catholick Doctrines of that Church and the necessary conditions of Communion with her 3. I may answer yet further That it is not enough to prove any Doctrine to be Catholick that it was generally received by Christian Churches in any one Age but it must be made appear to have been so received from the Apostles times So that if we should grant that these Doctrines were owned for Catholick not only by the Church of Rome but all other Christian Churches so far as it can be discerned by their Communion yet this doth not prove these Doctrines so owned to be truly Catholick unless you can first prove that all the Christian Churches of one Age can never believe a Doctrine to be Catholick which is not so You see therefore your task increases further upon you for it is not enough to say That A. D. 1517. such and such Doctrines were looked on as Catholick and therefore they were so but that for 1517. years successively from the Apostles to that time they were judged to be so and then we shall more easily believe you When you will therefore prove Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass Image-worship Invocation of Saints or any other of the good Doctrines mentioned by you in a constant tradition from the Apostles times to have been looked on as Catholick Doctrines you may then say That Protestants in denying these did take away something Catholick from the Doctrine of the Church but till that time these Answers may abundantly suffice We now come closer to the business of the Reformation but before we examine the particulars of it the general grounds on which it proceeded must somewhat further be cleared which his Lordship tells you are built upon the power of particular Churches reforming themselves in case the whole Church is negligent or will not to which you say That you grant in effect as great power as the Bishop himself does to particular Churches to National and Provincial Councils in reforming errours and abuses either of doctrine or practice only we require that they proceed with due respect to the chief Pastor of the Church and have recourse to him in all matters and decrees of Faith especially when they define or declare points not generally known and acknowledged to be Catholick Truths What you grant in effect at first you in effect deny again afterwards For the Question is about Reformation of such errours and abuses as may come from the Church of Rome and when you grant a power to reform only in case the Pope consent you grant no power to reform at all For the experience of the world hath sufficiently taught us How little his consent is to be expected in any thing of Reformation For his Lordship truly saith in Answer to Capellus who denies particular Churches any power of making Canons of Faith without consulting the Roman See That as Capellus can never prove that the Roman See must be consulted with before any Reformation be made So it is as certain that were it proved and practised we should have no Reformation For it would be long enough before the Church should be cured if that See alone should be her Physitian which in truth is her disease Now to this you say That even Capellus himself requires this as though Capellus were not the man whom his Lordship answers as to this very thing But besides you say The practise of the Church is evident for it in the examples of the Milevitan and Carthaginian Councils which as St. Austin witnesseth sent their decrees touching Grace Original sin in Infants and other matters against Pelagius to be confirmed by the Pope but what is all this to the business of Reformation that nothing of that nature is to be attempted without the Popes consent That these Councils did by Julius an African Bishop communicate their decrees to Pope Innocent Who denyes but what is it you would thence infer to your purpose for the utmost which can be drawn hence is that they desired the Pope to contribute his assistance in condemning Pelagius and Coelestius by adding the authority of the Apostolical See to their decrees that so by the consent of the Church that growing Heresie might the more easily be suppressed And who denyes but at that time the Roman Church had great reputation which is all that Authority implyes and by that means might be more serviceable in preventing the growth of Pelagianism if it did concur with the African Councils in condemning that Doctrine But because they communicated their decrees to Pope Innocent desiring his consent with them that therefore no reformation should be attempted in the Church without the consent of the Pope is a very far-fetched inference and unhappily drawn from those African Fathers who so stoutly opposed Zosimus Innocents Successour in the case of Appeals about the business of Apiarius Did they think you look on themselves as obliged to do nothing in the reforming the Church without the Popes authority who would by no means yield to those encroachments of power which Zosimus would have usurped over them Nay it appears that till the African Fathers had better informed him Zosimus did not a little favour Coelestius himself and in case he had gone on so to do do you think they would have thought themselves ever the less obliged to reform their Churches from the Pelagian Heresie which began to spread among them And in this time of the Controversie between Zosimus and them though they carried it with all fairness towards the Roman See yet they were still careful to preserve and defend their own priviledges and in case the Pope should then have challenged that power over them which he hath done since no doubt they would not have struck at calling such incroachments The disease of the Church without any unhandsomness or incivility and would have been far from looking on him as the only Physitian of it To that pretence That things should have been born with till the time of a General Council his Lordship answers First 't is true a General Council free and entire would have been the best remedy and most able for a Gangrene that had spread so far and eaten so deep into Christianity But what should we have suffered this Gangrene to endanger life and all rather then be cured in time by a Physitian of weaker knowledge and a less able hand Secondly we live to see since if we had stayed and expected a General Council what manner of one we should have had if any For that at Trent was neither General nor free And for the errours which Rome had contracted it confirmed them it cured them not And yet I much doubt whether ever that Council such as it was would have been call'd if some Provincial and National Synods under Supreme and Regal power had not first set upon this great work of Reformation which
their rights and liberties and thereupon gave present notice to Caelestine to forbear sending his Officers amongst them lest he should seem to induce the swelling pride of the World into the Church of Christ. And this is said to have amounted into a formal separation from the Church of Rome and to have continued for the space of somewhat more then one hundred years For which his Lordship produceth two publick instruments extant among the ancient Councils the one an Epistle from Boniface 2. in whose time the reconciliation to Rome is said to be made by Eulalius then Bishop of Carthage but the separation instigante Diabolo by the Temptation of the Devil The other is an exemplar precum or Copy of the Petition of the same Eulalius in which he damns and curses all those his Predecessours which went against the Church of Rome Now his Lordship urges from hence Either these Instruments are true or false If they be false then Boniface 2. and his Accomplices at Rome or some for them are notorious forgers and that of Records of great consequence to the Government and peace of the whole Church of Christ and to the perpetual Infamy of that See and all this foolishly and to no purpose On the other side if these instruments be true then 't is manifest that the Church of Africk separated from the Church of Rome which separation was either unjust or just if unjust then St. Austin Eugenius Fulgentius and all those Bishops and other Martyrs which suffered in the Vandalike persecution dyed in actual and unrepented Schism and out of the Church If it were just then is it far more lawful for the Church of England by a National Council to cast off the Popes Vsurpation as she did than it was for the African Church to separate because then the African Church excepted only against the Pride of Rome in case of Appeals and two other Canons less material but the Church of England excepts besides this grievance against many corruptions in Doctrine with which Rome at that time was not tainted And St. Austin and those other famous men durst not thus have separated from Rome had the Pope had that powerful Principality over the whole Church of Christ and that by Christs own Ordinance and Institution as A. C. pretends he had This is the substance of his Lordships discourse to which we must consider what Answer you return Which in short is That you dare not assert the credit of those two Instruments but are very willing to think them forgeries but you say the Schismatical separation of the African Church from the Roman is inconsistent with the truth of story and confuted by many pregnant and undeniable instances which prove that the Africans notwithstanding the context in the sixth Council of Carthage touching matter of Appeals were alwayes in true Catholick Communion with the Roman Church even during the term of this pretended separation For which you produce the Testimony of Pope Caelestine concerning St. Austin the proceeding of Pope Leo in the case of Lupicinus the Testimonies of Eugenius Fulgentius Gregory and the presence of some African Bishops at Rome To all which I Answer that either the African Fathers did persist in the decree of the Council of Carthage or they did not if they did persist in it and no separation followed then the casting off the Vsurpations of the Roman See cannot incur the guilt of Schism for these African Bishops did that and it seems continued still in the Roman Communion by which it is evident that the Roman Church was not so far degenerated then as afterwards or that the Authority of those persons was so great in the Church that the Roman Bishops durst not openly break with them which is a sufficient account of what Caelestine saith concerning St. Austin that he lived and dyed in the Communion of the Roman Church If you say the reason why they were in Communion with the Roman Church was because they did not persist you must prove it by better instances then you have here brought for some of them are sufficient proofs of the contrary As appears by the case of Lupicinus an African Bishop appealing to Leo who indeed was willing enough to receive him but what of that Did not the African Bishops of Mauritania Caesariensis excommunicate him notwithstanding that appeal and ordained another in his place and therefore the Pope very fairly sends him back to be tryed by the Bishops of his Province Which instance as it argues the Popes willingness to have brought up Appeals among them so it shews the continuance of their stoutness in opposing them And even Pope Gregory so long after though in his time the business of Appeals was much promoted at Rome yet he dares not challenge them from the Bishops of Africa but yields to them the enjoyment of those priviledges which they said they had enjoyed from the Apostles times And the testimonies of Eugenius and Fulgentius imply nothing of subjection to Rome but a Praeeminence which that Church had above all others which it might have without the other as London may I hope be the Head-City of England and yet all other Cities not express subjection to it But if after that Council of Carthage the Bishops of Rome did by degrees encroach upon the liberties of the African Churches there is this sufficient account to be given of it that as the Roman Bishops were alwayes watchful to take advantages to inhance their power and that especially when other Churches were in a suffering condition so a fit opportunity fell out for them to do it in Africa For not long after that Council of Carthage fell out that dismal persecution of the African Churches by the irruption of the Vandals in which all the Catholick Bishops were banished out of Africa or lived under great sufferings and by a strict edict of Gensericus no new Bishops were suffered to be ordained in the places of the former This now was a fair opportunity for the Bishop of Rome to advance his Authority among the suffering Bishops St. Peters pretended Successour loving to fish in troubled waters and it being fatal to Rome from the first Foundation of it to advance her self by the ruins of other places But we are call'd off from the ruins of other Churches to observe the methods whereby the Popes grew great under the Emperours which his Lordship gives an account of from Constantines time to Charles the Great about five hundred years which begins thus So soon as the Emperours became Christian the Church began to be put in better order For the calling and Authority of Bishops over the Inferiour Clergy that was a thing of known use and benefit for preservation of Vnity and Peace in the Church Which was confessed by St. Hierom himself and so settled in mens minds from the very Infancy of the Church that it had not been to that time contradicted by any The only difficulty then
your Head of the Church as if they had been spoken by a Protestant against that Doctrine which you all own What is there in all this that implies that others should be no Bishops but only titular yes they may be as much Bishops as you acknowledge them to be i. e. as to their power of Order but not as to their Jurisdiction For this you say and defend comes from the Head of the Church or else your Monarchical Government in the Church signifies nothing Do not you make the Pope Vniversal Pastor of the Church in as high a sense as any of these expressions carry it And when St. Gregory urges so often That if there be such an Vniversal Bishop if he fails the Church would fail too Do you deny the consequence as to the Pope Doth not Bellarmine tell us when he writes of the Pope he writes de summâ rei Christianae Of the main of all Christianity and surely then the Church must fail if the Popes Supremacy doth And I pray now consider with your self Whether this Answer which you say hath been given a hundred times over can satisfie any reasonable man Nay Doth it not appear to be so absurd and incongruous that it is matter of just admiration that ever it should have been given once and yet you are wonderfully displeased that his Lordship should bring this Objection upon the stage again But Do you think your Answers like your Prayers will do you good by being said so often over Indeed therein they are alike that they are both in an unknown tongue Your Literal sense of Vniversal Bishop being in this case no more intelligible than your Latin-Prayers to a Country Congregation These things being thus clear I have prevented my self in the second Enquiry in that I have proved already that the Reasons which St. Gregory produceth hold against that sense of Vniversal Bishop which you own and contend for as of right belonging to the Bishop of Rome Although it were no difficult matter to prove that according to the most received Opinion in your Church viz. that all Jurisdiction in Bishops is derived from the Pope which opinion you cannot but know is most acceptable at Rome and was so at the Council of Trent that that which you call the Literal sense doth follow your Metaphorical i. e. If the Pope hath Vniversal Jurisdiction as Head of the Church then other Bishops are not properly Bishops nor Christ's Officers but his For what doth their power of order signifie as to the Church without the power of Jurisdiction And therefore if they be taken only in partem solicitudinis and not in plenitudinem potestatis according to the known distinction of the Court of Rome it necessarily follows that they are but the Pope's Officers and are taken just into so much authority as he commits to them and no more And this Bellarmine proves from the very form of the Pope's consecration of Bishops whereby he commits the power of governing the Church to him and the administration of it in spirituals and temporals And you may see by the speech of Father Laynez in the Council of Trent How stoutly he proves that the power of Jurisdiction was given wholly to the Bishop of Rome and that none in the Church besides hath any spark of it but from him that the Bishop of Rome is true and absolute Monarch with full and total power and Jurisdiction and the Church is subject unto him as it was to Christ. And as when his Divine Majesty did govern it it could not be said that any of the faithful had any the least power or Jurisdiction but meer pure and total subjection so it must be said in all perpetuity of time and so understood that the Church is a Sheepfold and a Kingdom And that he is the Only Pastor is plainly proved by the words of Christ when he said He hath other sheep which he will gather together and so one Sheepfold should be made and one Shepherd What think you now of the Literal sense of Vniversal Bishop for the Only Bishop Are not the Only Bishop and the Only Pastor all one Will not all those words of St. Gregory reach this which any of you make use of to prove that he takes it in the worst and Literal sense nay it goes higher For Gregory only argues that from the Title of Vniversal Bishop he must be sole Bishop and others could not be any true Bishops but here it is asserted in plain terms that the Bishop of Rome is the only Pastor and that as much as if Christ himself were here upon earth and therefore if your Literal sense hath any sense at all in it it is much more true of the Bishop of Rome than ever it could be of the Patriarch of Constantinople And therefore I pray think more seriously of what he saith That to agree in that prophane word is to lose the Faith That such a blasphemous name should be far from the hearts of Christians in which by the arrogance of one Bishop the honour of all is taken away Neither will it serve your turn to say which is all that you have to say that this is not the definitive sentence of your Church but that many in your Church hold otherwise That there is power of Jurisdiction properly in Bishops For although these latter are not near the number of the other nor so much in favour with your Church but are looked on as a discontented party as appears by the proceedings in the Council of Trent yet that is not it we are to look after What all in your Church are agreed on but what the Pope challengeth as belonging to himself Was not Father Laynez his Doctrine highly approved at Rome as well as by the Cardinal Legats at Trent and all the Italian party Were not the other party discountenanced and disgraced as much as might be Doth not the Pope arrogate this to himself to be Oecumenical Pastor and the sole Fountain of all Jurisdiction in the Church If so all that ever St. Gregory said against that Title falls most heavily upon the Pope For St. Gregory doth not stand upon what others attributed to him but what he arrogated to himself that therein he was the Prince of Pride the forerunner of Antichrist using a vain new rash foolish proud prophane erroneous wicked hypocritical singular presumptuous blaspemous Name For all these goodly Epithets doth S. Gregory bestow upon it and I believe if he could have thought of more and worse he would as freely have bestowed them If therefore John the Patriarch was said by him to transgress God's Laws violate the Canons dishonour the Church despise his Brethren imitate Lucifer How much more doth this belong to him that not only challengeth to be Oecumenical Patriarch but the sole Pastor of the Church and that all Jurisdiction is derived from him And by this time I hope you see that the Answer you say hath
the one signifies Vniversally the other indefinitely undique relating properly to the circumference as undique aequalis on all sides it is equal so that qui sunt undique fideles are those which lye upon all quarters round about And so it doth not imply that all persons were bound to come but that from all quarters some did come as Herodian speaks of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it was very populous and did receive them which came from all parts which doth very fitly explain the sense of Irenaeus that to Rome being the Imperial City men came from all quarters But the sense of this will be more fully understood by a parallel expression in the ninth Canon of the Council of Antioch in which it is decreed that the Metropolitan should have the care of all the Bishops in his Province 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because all persons who have business from all parts resort to the Metropolis here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the very same with the undique convenire in Irenaeus so that it relates not to any Obligation on Churches to resort thither but that being the Seat of the Empire all believers from all parts did make their recourse thither Which is most fully expressed by Leo speaking of S. Peter's coming to Rome Cujus nationis homines in hâc Vrbe non essent aut quae uspiam gentes ignorarent quod Roma didicisset And so if I grant you that it extends to all parts I know not what advantages you will get by it for Irenaeus his design is to shew that there was no such secret Tradition left by the Apostles as the Valentinians pretended And for this he appeals to the Church of Rome which being seated in the Imperial City to which Believers from all parts did resort it is impossible to conceive that the Apostles should have left such a Tradition and it not to be heard of there which is the plain genuine meaning of Irenaeus his words Not as you weakly imagine That all Churches in all doubts of Faith were bound to have their recourse thither as to their constant guide therein For Irenaeus was not disputing What was to be done by Christians in doubts of Faith but was enquiring into a matter of fact viz. Whether any such Tradition were ever left in the Church or no and therefore nothing could be more pertinent or convincing than appealing to that Church to which Christians resorted from all parts for it could not be conceived but if the Apostles had left such a Tradition any where it would be heard of at Rome And you most notoriously pervert the meaning of Irenaeus when you would make the force of his argument to lye in the necessity of all Christians resorting to Rome because the Doctrine or Tradition of the Roman Church was as it were the touchstone of all Apostolical Doctrine But I suppose you deal in some English Logicians as well as English Lexicons and therefore I must submit both to your Grammar and Logick but your ingenuity is as great as your reason for you first pervert his Lordships meaning and then make him dispute ridiculously that you might come out with your triumphant language Is not this fine Meandrick Logick well beseeming so noble a Labyrinth Whereas his Lordships reasoning is so plain and clear that none but such a one as had a Labyrinth in his brains could have imagined any Meanders in it As appears by what I have said already in the explication of the meaning of Irenaeus But that I may see the strength of your Logick out of this place of Irenaeus I will translate undique and semper as fully as you would have me and give you the words at large in which by those who come from all places the Apostolical Tradition is alwaies conserved What is it you inferr hence From the Premises you argue thus All the faithful every where must of necessity have recourse to the Church of Rome by reason of her more powerful principality This is S. Irenaeus his proposition But there could be no necessity they all should have recourse to that Church by reason of her more powerful principality if her said power extended not to them all This is evident to reason Ergo this more powerful principality of the Roman Church must needs extend to all the faithful every where and not only to those of the Suburbicary Churches or Patriarchal Diocese of Rome as the Bishop pleads Now I see you are a man at arms and know not only how to grapple with his Lordship but with Irenaeus to boot But we must first see How Irenaeus himself argues that we may the better understand the force of what you deduce from him The Question as I have told you already was Whether the Apostles left any such Tradition in the Church as the Valentinians pretended Irenaeus proves they did not because if there had been any such the Apostolical Churches would certainly have preserved the memory of it but because it would be too tedious to insist on the succession of all Churches he therefore makes choice of the most famous the Church of Rome in which the Apostolical Tradition had been derived by a succession of Bishops down to his own time and by this saith he we confound all those who through vain glory or blindness do gather any such thing For saith he to this Church for the more powerful principality all Churches do make resort i. e. the believers from all parts in which by those who come from all parts the Apostolical Tradition is alwaies preserved We must now see How Irenaeus argues according to your sense of his words If all the faithful every where must of necessity have recourse to the Church of Rome for her more powerful principality then there is no secret Tradition left by the Apostles But Where lyes the connexion between these two What had the Valentinians to do with the power of the Church of Rome over other Churches That was not the business they disputed their Question was Whether there were no such Tradition as they pretended And Rome might have never so great power over all Churches and yet have this secret Tradition too For now we see when she pretends to the greatest power nay to Infallibility she pretends the highest to Traditions Where then lyes the force of Irenaeus his argument Was it in this that the Valentinians did acknowledge the Infallibility of the Church of Rome then in Traditions This were indeed to the purpose if it could be proved Or Doth Irenaeus go about to prove this first But by what argument doth he prove it so that the Valentinians might be convinced by it Yes say you he saith That all the faithful must of necessity have recourse to the Church of Rome This is your way of proving indeed to take things for granted but How doth this necessity appear because say you she hath the more powerful principality But
but his Lordship objects a shrewd Consequence from this Universal Pastourship that this brings the necks of Princes under the Roman Pride And if Kings be meant his Lordship saith yet the command is pasce feed them but deponere or occidere to depose or kill them is not pascere in any sense Lanii id est non Pastoris that 's the Butchers not the Shepheards part This you call his Lordships winding about and falling upon that odious Question of killing and deposing Kings An odious Question indeed whether we consider the grounds or the effects and consequents of it But yet you would seem to clear your selves from the odium of it First By saying that it is a gross fallacy to argue a negatione speciei ad negationem generis which is a new kind of Logick It is indeed for it is of your own coyning for his Lordship argues ab affirmatione generis ad affirmationem speciei and I hope this is no new Logick unless you think he that saith He hath power over all living creatures hath not thereby power over men too His Lordship therefore doth not argue against the Popes Vniversal Supremacy from the denyal of that but deduces that as a consequence from your assertion and explication of what you mean by Sheep and Lambs But this is but a sleight Answer in comparison of what follows Secondly we answer That the point of Killing Kings is a most false and scandalous Imputation scandalous enough indeed if false and though your Popes have not given express warrant for the doing it yet it is sufficiently known How the Pope in Consistory could not contain his joy when it was done in the case of Henry 3. of France And it hath been sufficiently confessed and lamented by persons of your own communion How much the Doctrine of the Jesuits hath encouraged those Assassinations of those two successive Henryes of France Will you or dare you vindicate the Doctrines of Mariana and others which do not obscurely deliver their judgement as to that very thing of Killing Haeretical Princes But if we should grant you this That the Pope may not command to kill What say you to that of deposing Princes which seldome falls much short of the other As to this you dare not cry It is a false and scandalous imputation as you did to the other but you answer 'T is no point of your Faith that the Pope hath power to do it and therefore you say it is no part of your task to dispute it Is this all the security Princes have from you that it is no point of your Faith that the Pope hath power to do it Is it not well enough known that there are many things which are held undoubtedly by the greatest part of your Church which yet you say are no points of Faith And yet in this you are directly contradicted by one who knew what were points of Faith among you as well as you and that was Father Creswell whose testimony I have cited already and he saith expresly Certum est de fide It is a thing certain and of Faith that the subjects of an Haeretical Prince are not only freed from Allegiance but are bound ex hominum Christianorum dominatu ejicere to cast him out of his power which certainly is more than the deposing of him And Sanders plainly enough saith That a King that will not submit to the Popes Authority is by no means to be suffered but his subjects ought to do their utmost endeavour that another may be placed in his room Indeed he saith not as the other doth That this is de fide but that is the only reserve you have when a Doctrine is odious and infamous to the world to cry out It is not de side when yet it may be as firmly believed among you as any that you account de fide And if you believe the Duke of Alva in his Manifesto at the siege of Pampelona when the Pope had deposed the King of Navarre to whom that City belonged he saith That it is not doubted but the Pope had power to depose Heretical Princes And if you had been of another opinion you ought to have declared your self more fully than you do If you had said that indeed some were of that opinion but you abhorred and detested it you had spoken to the purpose but when you use only that pitiful evasion That it is not of Faith c. you sufficiently shew What your judgement is but that you dare not publickly own it It seems you remember what was said by your Masters in reference to Emanuel SÃ Non fuit opus ad ista descendere There was no need to meddle with those things It seems if there had been there was no hurt in the Doctrine but only that it was unseasonable I pray God keep us from that time when you shall think it needful to declare your selves in this point But you conclude this with a most unworthy and scandalous reflection on Protestants in these words But what Protestants have both done and justified in the worst of these kinds is but too fresh in memory But Were those the practices and principles of Protestants Were they not abhorred and detested in the highest manner by all true Protestants both at home and abroad It will be well if you can clear some of your selves from having too much a hand in promoting both those principles and practices I suppose you cannot but have heard Who it was is said to have expressed so much joy at the time of that horrid execution What counsels and machinations are said to have been among some devoted Sons of the Church of Rome abroad about that time Therefore clear your selves more than yet you have done of those imputations before you charge that guilt on Protestants which they express the highest abhorrence of And let the names of such who either publickly or privately abett or justifie such horrid actions be under a continual Anathema to all Generations After all this discourse about the Popes Authority A. C. brings it at last home to the business of Schism For he saith The Bishop of Rome shall never refuse to feed and govern the whole Flock in such sort as that neither particular man nor Church shall have just cause under pretence of Reformation in manners of Faith to make a separation from the whole Church This his Lordship saith by A. C 's favour is meer begging the Question For this is the very thing which the Protestants charge upon him namely that he hath governed if not the whole yet so much of the Church as he hath been able to bring under his power so as that he hath given too just cause of the present continued Separation And as the corruptions in the Doctrine of Faith in the Church of Rome were the cause of the first Separation so are they at this present day the cause why the Separation continues
And the oppression of the Church of Rome he further adds is the great cause of all the errours in that part of the Church which is under the Roman Jurisdiction And for the Protestants they have made no separation from the General Church properly so called but their Separation is only from the Church of Rome and such other Churches as by adhering to her have hazarded themselves and do now miscall themselves the whole Catholick Church Nay even here the Protestants have not left the Church of Rome in her essence but in her errours not in the things which constitute a Church but only in such abuses and corruptions as work towards the dissolution of a Church Let now any indifferent Reader be judge Whether his Lordship or A. C. be the more guilty in begging the Question For all the Answer you can give is That his Lordship begs it in saying that the Roman Church is not the whole Catholick Church and that the Roman Catholick Church may be in an errour but the former we have proved already and I doubt not but the latter will be as evident as the other before our task be ended But as though it were not possible for you to be guilty of begging the Question after you have said that the Roman Church cannot erre you give this as the reason for it Because she is the unshaken Rock of Truth and that she hath the sole continual succession of lawfully-sent Pastors and Teachers who have taught the same unchanged Doctrine and shall infallibly continue so teaching it to the worlds end Now Who dares call this Begging the Question No it must not be called so in you it shall be only Taking it for granted Which we have seen hath been your practice all along especially when we charge your Church with errourâ— for then you cry out presently What your Church erre No you defie the language What the Spouse of Christ the Catholick Church erre that is impossible What the unshaken Rock of Truth to sink into errours the Infallible Church be deceived she that hath never taught any thing but Truth be charged with falshood she that not only never did erre but it is impossible nay utterly impossible nay so impossible that it cannot be imagined that ever she should erre This is the summ of all your arguments which no doubt sound high to all such who know not what confident begging the Question means or out of modesty are loath to charge you with it Much to the same purpose do you go on to prove that Protestants have separated not from the errours but the essence of your Church And if that be true which you say That those things which we call Errours are essential to your Church we are the more sorry for it for we are sure and when you please will prove it that they are not cannot be essential to a true Church and if they be to yours the case is so much the worse with you when your distempers are in your vitals and your errours essential to your Churches Constitution What other things you have here are the bare repetitions of what we have often had before in the Chapters you refer us to And here we may thank you for some ease you give us in the far greatest remaining part of this Chapter which consists of tedious repetitions of such things which have been largely discussed in the First part where they were purposely and designedly handled as that concerning Traditions chap. 6. that concerning necessaries to salvation chap. 2 3 4. that concerning the Scriptures being an Infallible Rule throughout the Controversie of Resolution of Faith and that which concerns the Infallibility of General Councils we shall have occasion at large to handle afterwards and if there be any thing material here which you omit there it shall be fully considered But I know no obligation lying upon me to answer things as often as you repeat them especially since your gift is so good that way It is sufficient that I know not of any material passage which hath not received an Answer in its proper place That which is most pertinent to our present purpose is that which concerns the necessity of a Living Judge besides the Scriptures for ending Controversies of Faith As to which his Lordship saith That supposing there were such a one and the Pope were he yet that is not sufficient against the malice of the Devil and impious men to keep the Church at all times from renting even in the Doctrine of Faith or to soder the Rents which are made For oportet esse Haereses 1 Cor. 11.19 Heresies there will be and Heresies there properly cannot be but in the Doctrine of Faith To this you answer That Heresies are not within but without the Church and the Rents which stand in need of sodering are not found among the true members of the Church who continue still united in the Faith and due obedience to their Head but in those who have deserted the true Church and either made or adhered to Schismatical and Heretical Congregations A most excellent Answer His Lordship sayes If Christ had appointed an Infallible Judge besides the Scripture certainly it should have been for preventing Heresies and sodering the Rents of the Church So it is say you for if there be any Heresies it is nothing to him they are out of the Church and if there be any Schisms they are among those who are divided from him That is he is an Infallible Judge only thus far in condemning all such for Hereticks and Schismaticks who do not own him And his only way of preventing Heresies and Schisms is the making this the only tryal of them that whatever questions his Authority is Heresie and whatever separation be made from him is Schism Just as Absalom pretended that there was no Judge appointed to hear and determine causes and that the Laws were not sufficient without one and therefore he would do it himself so doth the Pope by Christ he pretends that he hath not taken care sufficient for deciding Controversies in Faith therefore there is a necessity in order to the Churches Vnity he should take it upon himself But now if we suppose in the former case of Absalom that he had pretended he could infallibly end all the Controversies in Israel and keep all in peace and unity and yet abundance of Controversies to arise among them by what right and power he took that office upon him and many of them cry out upon it as an Vsurpation and a disparagement to the Laws and Government of his Father David and upon this some of the wiser Israelites should have asked him Whether this were the way to end all Controversies and keep the Nation in peace Would it not have been a satisfactory Answer for him to have said Yes no doubt it is the only way For only they that acknowledge my power are the Kings lawful subjects and all
yet the best your cause would bear And the greater you say the number of Bishopricks is in Italy the more friends I hope the Pope must make by disposing them and Could they do the Pope better service than to help him in this grand business at Trent wherein they sought to outvy each other by promoting the Popes Interest But not only the Protestants complained of this but the Emperour and other Princes and all impartial men in Germany France nay and in some part of Italy too But here his Lordship encounters an Objection of Bellarmine viz. that in the Council of Nice there were as few Bishops of the West present as were of the East at Trent and manifestly shews the great disparity between the the two Councils 1. Because it is not a meer disparity in number which he insists on but with it the Popes carriage to be sure of a major part but neither the Greek Church in general nor any Patriarch of the East had any private interest to look to in the Council at Nice 2. It was not so much a disparity between the Eastern and Western Bishops but that there were so many more Italians and Bishops obnoxious to the Popes Power than of all Germany France Spain and of all other parts of the West besides 3. Even in the comparison of those two Councils as to Eastern and Western Bishops there is this remarkable difference that Pope Sylvester with 275. Bishops confirmed the Council at Nice but the Council at Trent was never confirmed by any Council of Eastern Bishops To the two first of these you Answer with your best property silence Only you would fain perswade some silly people if there be any so weak in the world that enquire into such things That the Pope had no private interest at Trent but what was common to him with other Bishops You should have done well to have commended the excellency of an implicite Faith before you had uttered a thing so contrary to the sense of the whole Christian World To the third you confess It is some disparity but nothing to the purpose because if the Pope himself had ratified them the Council would have had as much Authority as by that accessory Assembly The more to blame was the Pope a great deal for putting so many Bishops to so needless a trouble But you say further This Council was not held just at the same time But Binius tells you it was held assoon as might be after the notice of what was done at Nice shew us the like of the Eastern Bishops at any time and we will not quarrel with you because it was not at the same time Though these Answers may pass for want of better they come not near your last which is a prodigious one the sense of it being That the Doctrine of Faith defined by the Council of Trent was more universally received in the Church then that of the Council of Nice For that of Trent you say was universally received by the whole Catholick Church and hath been more constantly held ever since whereas many Provinces either in whole or in part deserted the Faith defined at Nice and embraced the Arrian Heresie It seems then the twelve good Articles of Trent have been more generally received by the Catholick Church then the eternal existence of the Son of God and consequently that you are more bound to believe the Doctrine of Purgatory or Transubstantiation then that the Son is of the same substance with the Father For your grounds of Faith being resolved into the Churches Infallibility you cannot believe that which hath been so much questioned in the Church so firmly as that which hath been universally believed and constantly held But the universal reception of the Doctrine of the Council of Trent by the whole Catholick Church is so intolerable a falshood that you would scarce have vented it unless it were your design to write for the Whetstone To C's objection That neither French nor Spanish nor Schismatical Greeks did agree with the Protestants in those points which were defined by the Council his Lordship Answers That there can be no certainty who did agree and who not or who might have agreed before the Council ended because they were not admitted to a fair and free dispute And it may be too some Decrees would have been more favourable to them had not the care of the Popes Interest made them sowrer Here you complain of his Lordships falling again to his Surmizes of the Bishops being over-awed by the Popes Authority in the Council which you call an empty and injurious suspicion an unworthy accusation and arguing the want of Christian charity But usually when you storm the most you are the most guilty For if you call this an empty suspicion c. you charge many more with it besides his Lordship and those the greatest of your own Communion what meant else the frequent Protestations of the French and Spanish Ambassadours in which they often declared that as things were managed the Council was not Free What meant those words of the Emperour Ferdinand in his Letters to the Legats and the Pope That the Liberty of the Council was impeached chiefly by three causes one because every thing was first consulted of at Rome another because the Legats had assumed to themselves only the liberty of proposing which ought to be common to all the third because of the practises which some Prelats interested in the Greatness of the Court of Rome did make The French Ambassadour Monsieur de Lansac writ to the King his Master That the Pope was so much Master of this Council that his Pensioners whatsoever the Emperours or we do remonstrate to them will do but what they list Several of the like nature might easily be produced so that it is not his Lordship only is guilty of this want of charity as you call it but all impartial persons who were most acquainted with the Affairs of that Council Whose judgement is certainly much more to be taken then such who have sworn to defend it But you have an excellent Argument to prove the Council Free because the Bishops of the Council continued in the Faith and Doctrine of it as long as they lived And had they not good reason so to do when they were sworn before hand to defend the Pope and having secured him from danger of reformation by the Council and subscribed the Decrees of it they were as much bound to defend their own acts And although it is well enough known what practises were used to bring off the French and Spanish Bishops yet when they were brought off what a shame would it have been for them to have revolted from their own Subscriptions But what is this to that General freedom which was desired by the Roman Catholick Princes for Reformation of the Court of Rome and by Protestants both of the Court and Church Was the Council any thing
the Catholick Church with them and there was the greater hopes of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Since neither part did agree with the Bishop of old Rome or the Church which joynes with him but both oppose the evil customs and abuses which come by him which bears the same date with the Patriarchs first Answer to the Tubing Divines May 15. 1576. And the Patriarch in his letter heartily wishes an union and conjunction between them From hence we may easily gather how true both those things were viz. That the intent of their writing was to be admitted into the communion of the Greek Church and that the Patriarch did not in the least approve their Doctrine but confirmed the Tenets of the Roman Catholick Church But we must look further into the writings themselves to see how far they agreed and wherein they differed It appears then that the Patriarch did profess his consent with them in these things besides the Articles of the Creed and the satisfaction of Christ and other more general points viz. That the Sacrament was to be received in both kinds that the use of marriage was not to be absolutely forbidden the Clergy though their custom is that they must be married before they take Orders besides the grand Articles of the Popes Supremacy and the Roman Churches Infallibility Doth he that joyns with them in these things not in the least approve their Doctrine but confirm the Tenets of the Roman Catholick Church But withall it must be confessed that besides that common Article of the Procession of the Spirit wherein he disputes most earnestly there are five others in which they dissented from each other about Free will justification by Faith the number of Sacraments Invocation of Saints and Monastick life and about these the remaining disputes were In some of which it is easie to discern how far the right state of the question was from being apprehended which the Lutheran Divines perceiving sent him a larger and fuller explication of their mind in a body of Divinity in Greek but the Patriarchs troubles coming on Cantacuzenus deposing him too and other businesses taking him off upon his restauration he breaks off the Conference between them But although he differed from them in these things yet he was far enough from rebuking them for departing from the Roman Church although he was desirous they should have joyned with them in the approbation of such things as were in use among themselves And in those things in which he seems to plead for some practises in use in the Roman Church yet there are many considerable circumstances about them wherein they differ from the Church of Rome as hath been manifested by many others As in the Article of Invocation of Saints the Patriarch saith They do not properly Invocate Saints but God for neither Peter nor Paul do hear us upon which ground it is impossible to maintain the Romish Doctrine of Invocation of Saints And in most of the other the main difference lies in the want of a true State of the Questions between them But is this any such great matter of admiration that the Patriarch upon the first sight of their confession should declare his dissent from them in these things It is well enough known how much Barbarism had crept into the Greek Church after their being subdued by the Turks the means of Instruction being taken from them and it being very rare at that time to have any Sermons at all in so much that one of your Calogeri being more learned then the rest and preaching there in Lent was thereby under great suspicion and at last was by the Patriarch himself sent out of the way It is therefore more to be wondered they should preserve so much of the Doctrine of Faith entire as they have done then that any corrupt practises should prevail amongst them The most then which you can make of the judgement of the Patriarch Hieremias is that in some things he was opposite to the Protestants as in others to the Church of Rome But what would you have said if any Patriarch of Constantinople had declared his consent so fully with the Church of Rome as the Patriarch Cyril did afterwards with the Protestants who on that account suffered so much by the practises of the Jesuits of whom he complains in his Epistle to Vtenbogard And although a Faction was raised against him by Parthenius who succeeded him yet another Parthenius succeeding him stood up in vindication of him Since therefore such different opinions have been among them about the present Controversies of the Christian world and there being no declared Confession of their Faith which is owned by the whole Greek Church as to these things there can be no confident pronouncing what their judgement is as to all our differences till they have further declared themselves PART III. Of Particular Controversies CHAP. I. Of the Infallibility of General Councils How far this tends to the ending Controversies Two distinct Questions concerning the Infallibility and Authority of General Councils The first entered upon with the state of the Question That there can be no certainty of faith that General Councils are infallible nor that the particular decrees of any of them are so which are largely proved Pighius his Arguments against the Divine Institution of General Councils The places of Scripture considered which are brought for the Churches infallibility and that these cannot prove that General Councils are so Matth. 18.20 Acts 15.28 particularly answered The sense of the Fathers in their high expressions of the decrees of Councils No consent of the Church as to their infallibility The place of St. Austin about the amendment of former General Councils by latter at large vindicated No other places in S. Austin prove them infallible but many to the contrary General Councils cannot be infallible in the conclusion if not in the use of the means No such infallibility without as immediate a revelation as the Prophets and Apostles had taking Infallibility not for an absolute unerring power but such as comes by a promise of Divine Assistance preserving from errour No obligation to internal assent but from immediate Divine Authority Of the consistency of Faith and reason in things propounded to be believed The suitableness of the contrary Doctrine to the Romanists principles IF high pretences and large promises were the only things which we ought to value any Church for there were none comparable to the Church of Rome For there can be nothing imagined amiss in the Christian world but if we believe the bills her Factours set up she hath an Infallible cure for it If any enquire into the grounds of Religion they tell us that her testimony only can give them Infallible Certainty if any are afraid of mistaking in opinions they have the only Infallible Judge of Controversies to go to if any complain of the rents and divisions of the Christian world they have Infallible Councils either to
am sure you are hard put to it to return any satisfactory Answer to it For you distinguish of the Popes joynt-consent and of his actual Confirmation in case say you the Pope either in person or by his Legats concurr with the Council then the definition is unquestionably Infallible but in case he doth not then the actual Confirmation is necessary but in case the Council erre the Pope ought not and it is impossible he should confirm it but if he doth not erre you grant it is true before the Pope confirms it but his Confirmation makes us infallibly certain that it is true This is the full force of your Answer which by no means takes off the difficulty as will appear 1. That by reason of the Pope's rare appearance in General Councils never in any that are unquestioned by the Greek and Latin Churches that of his joynt-consent cannot serve you neither doth the presence of his Legats suffice for it is determined by Bellarmin and proved by many reasons that though the Pope's Legats consent yet if they have not the express sentence of the Pope the Council may erre notwithstanding So that still the Popes actual Confirmation is supposed necessary and that after the definitions of the Council are passed And this is the case which his Lordship speaks to and for your answer to that I say 2. That in plain terms you assert the Popes personal Infallibility which you disowned the defence of before for you say In case the Council erre not only the Pope ought not to confirm it but that it is impossible he should Which What is it other than to assert that the Pope shall never erre though the Council may Neither is it sufficient to say That he shall never erre in confirming the Decrees of a Council for in this case the Council is supposed actually to erre already so that nothing of Infallibility can be at all supposed in the Council and if the Pope be not considered in his personal capacity he might erre as well as the Council From whence it follows since you suppose that a Council may erre but not the Pope that you really judge the Council not to be Infallible but the Pope only 3. When you say That if the Council erred not the Popes Confirmation doth not make the definition true but makes us infallibly certain that it is true I enquire further Whereon this Infallible Certainty depends on a promise made to the Council or to the Pope not to the Council for that you grant may erre but it is impossible the Pope should confirm it therefore still it is some promise of the Popes Infallibility which makes men Infallibly certain of the truth of what the Council decrees 4. To what purpose then are all those promises and proofs of Scripture which you produced concerning the Councils Infallibility if notwithstanding them a General Council may err Only the Pope shall never confirm it and although it do not err yet we cannot be Infallibly certain of it but by the Popes confirmation And let any reasonable man judge whether a promise of the Popes Infallibility though there be none at all concerning Councils be not sufficient for all this So that upon these principles you take away the least degree of necessity of any Infallibility in Councils and resolve all into the Popes Infallibility For to what purpose are they Infallible if we cannot be certain that any thing which they decree is true but by the Popes confirmation But that the Popes confirmation cannot make the Decrees of those you account General Councils Infallible nor us Infallibly Certain of the truth of them his Lordship proves by another evidence in matter of fact viz. That the Pope hath erred by teaching in and by the Council of Lateran confirmed by Innocent 3. that Christ is present in the Sacrament by way of Transubstantiation Which his Lordship saith was never heard of in the Primitive Church nor till the Council of Lateran nor can it be proved out of Scripture and taken properly cannot stand with the grounds of Christian Religion This you call a strange kind of proceeding to assert a point of so great importance without solving or so much as taking notice of the pregnant proofs your Authours bring both out of Scripture and Fathers to the contrary of what he mainly affirms How pregnant those proofs are we must examine afterwards but his Lordship might justly leave it to those who assert so strange a Doctrine to produce their evidence for it Especially since it is confessed by so many among your selves That it could not be sufficiently proved either from Scripture or Fathers to bind men to the belief of it till the Church had defined it in the Council of Lateran Since the more moderate and learned men among your selves Bishop Tonstall for one have looked on that definition as a rash and inconsiderate action Since the English Jesuits confessed that the Fathers did not meddle with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Since Suarez confesseth that the names used by the Fathers are more accommodated to an accidental change Since Father Barns acknowledgeth that Transubstantiation is not the Faith of the Church and that Scripture and Fathers may be sufficiently expounded of a Supernatural presence of the body of Christ without any change in the substance of the Elements For which he produces a large Catalogue of Fathers and others Since therefore we have such confessions of your own side What need his Lordship in a Controversie so throughly sifted as this hath been bring all the Testimonies of both sides which had been so often and so punctually examin'd by others At least you say he should have cleared how Transubstantiation may be taken improperly whereas of all the words which the Church useth there is none methinks less apt to a Metaphorical and figurative sense then this of Transubstantiation By which I see you are a man who would really seem to believe Transubstantiation and are afraid of nothing but that it should not be impossible enough for you to believe it For his Lordship was only afraid that though the word it self were gross enough yet some of the more refined and subtle wits might transubstantiate the word it self and leave only the accidents of it behind by taking it in a spiritual sense as Bellarmin confesses those words of St. Bernard In Sacramento exhiberi nobis veram carnis substantiam sed spiritualitèr non carnalitèr have a true sense but adds that the word spiritualitèr must not be too often used and the Council of Trent would seem to provide an evasion by Sacramentaliter and his Lordship not well knowing what they would have by such expressions therefore he saith properly taken it cannot stand with the grounds of Christian Religion And for all those expressions Bellarmin as well as the Council take it in as gross a manner as you can desire and I think the Physitian who wanted impossibilities
we believe that the Bread being sanctified by God's Word is changed into the body of the Word of God and a little after The nature of the things we see being trans-elemented into him I might here tell you What Exceptions are taken against this book as not being genuine not only by Protestants as Fronto Ducaeus would have it because of these expressions but by others too But I will not insist on this because I see no sufficient reason to question the Authority of it yet I know not how you can excuse it from some interpolations since he therein mentions Severus an heretical Acephalist who lived not till after Gregory's time yet for the main of the book I say as Casaubon doth that it is Opus planè eximium si paucos navos excipias An excellent piece in the general and becoming its Authour some few escapes excepted And the design of it being to shew that Christian Religion hath nothing absurd or unreasonable in it it would be very strange that he should assert so absurd and unreasonable a Doctrine as Transubstantiation is But there is nothing tending to that in the places cited but only the use of those two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the main force of all you say depends upon them So that if we can give a good account of them without any Transubstantiation there remains no difficulty at all in these words of Gregory Nyssen For we deny not that there is a change in the elements after Consecration but we say It is a sacramental and you That it is a substantial change and this you offer to prove from these two words here used in reference to the Eucharist The argument commonly formed by your Authours from the first words is Whatsoever is changed is not what it was before which we readily grant so far as the change is but still it remains to be proved that the substance is changed in it self But it were easie to shew that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in multitudes of places of the Fathers is used for an accidental and relative change and Gregory Nyssen himself very frequently uses the word where it is capable of no other sense as when he saith Of the shining of Moses his face that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a change to that which was more glorious and when he affirms the souls of men by the Doctrine of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be changed into that which is more divine And in this same Catechetical Oration he uses it several times to the same purpose about the change which shall be in glorified bodies and the change of mens souls by Regeneration But I need not insist more on this since I produced before the confession of Suarez that such expressions are more accommodated to an accidental mutation Neither is there any more strength in the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though Suarez thinks this comes nearer the matter and you confidently say What can here be signified by trans-elementation of the nature of the outward element but that which the Church now stiles Transubstantiation I will therefore shew you what else is signified by that word which Gregory used which cannot be properly rendred trans-elementation for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not come from the Noune 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but from the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Greeks expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as you may see in Suidas and others So that it imports not a substantial but an accidental change too and in that sense Gregory Nyssen uses it to express Regeneration by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who are trans-elemented by Regeneration Would you say those who are transubstantiated by it So that neither of these Testimonies import any more than that there is a sacramental change in the elements after Consecration by which believers are made partakers of the body and blood of Christ which is no more than we assert and falls far short of your Doctrine of Transubstantiation Your third Testimony is of S. Cyril of Hierusalem which you would make us believe is so full and clear that no Catholick could express his own or the Churches belief of this mystery in more full plain and effectual terms Neither shall I here stand to dispute the reasons on which those Mystagogical discourses under his name are questioned but proceed to the consideration of the Testimony it self Which lyes in these words He that changed water into wine by his sole will at Cana in Galilee doth he not deserve our belief that he hath also changed wine into blood Wherefore let us receive with all assurance of Faith the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Seeing under the species of bread the body is given and under the species of wine his blood is given c. knowing and holding for certain that the bread which we see is not bread though it seem to the tast to be bread but the body of Jesus Christ likewise that the wine which we see though to the sense it seem to be wine is not wine for all that but the blood of Jesus Christ. This testimony you have patched together out of several places in that Oration very warily leaving out that which would sufficiently clear the meaning of S. Cyril in the words you cite out of him For it is evident that his design is to perswade the Catechumens from whom the mysterious presence of Christs body in the Sacrament was wont to be concealed that the bread and wine were not meer common elements but that they were designed for a greater and higher use to exhibit the body and blood of Christ to believers And therefore he saith expresly Do not consider them as meer bread and wine for they are the body and blood of Christ according to his own words By which it is plain he speaks of the body and blood of Christ as sacramentally and not corporeally present for he doth not oppose the body and blood of Christ to the substance of bread and wine but to meer bread and wine i. e. that they should not look on the bread and wine as naked signs but as signa efficacia and that there is a real presence of Christ in and with them to the souls of believers And this is it which he saith That they ought not to make a question of since Christ said This is my body and this is my blood For if he could by his will turn the water into wine Shall we not believe him that he can change his wine into his blood And after adds That under the symbols of bread and wine the body and blood of Christ is given that thou mayest be a partaker both of his body and blood You render this under the species or form of bread and wine in Cyril it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
weakness of your Argument For the crimes of Schism and unsoundness of Faith are still as chargeable upon you though we may grant a possibility of Salvation to some in your Church And I cannot possibly discern any difference between the judgment of the Catholicks concerning the Donatists and ours concerning you for if they judged the Donatists way very dangerous because of their uncharitableness to all others so do we of yours but if they notwithstanding that hoped that the misled people among them might be saved that is as much as we dare say concerning you And you very much mistake if you think the contrary For his Lordship no where saith as you would seem to impose upon him That a man may live and dye in the Roman Church and that none of his errours shall hinder salvation whatsoever motives he may know to the contrary But on the other side he plainly saith That he that lives in the Roman Church with a resolution to live and dye in it is presumed to believe as that Church believes And he that doth so I will not say is as guilty but guilty he is more or less of the Schism which that Church first caused by her corruptions and now continues by them and her power together And of all her damnable opinions too and all other sins also which the Doctrine and mis-belief of that Church leads him into Judge you now I pray Whether we think otherwise of those in your Church than the Orthodox did of the Donatists So that if the Argument doth hold for you it would as well have held for them too And therefore his Lordship well inferrs That this Principle That where two parties are dissenting it is safest believing that in which both parties agree or which the adversary confesses may lead men by your own confession into known and damnable Schism and Heresie for such you say the Donatists were guilty of And such his Lordship saith there is great danger of in your Church too for saith he in this present case there 's peril great peril of damnable both Schism and Heresie and other sins by living and dying in the Roman Faith tainted with so many superstitions as at this day it is and their tyranny to boot I pray now bethink your self What difference is there between the Orthodox judgement of the Donatists and ours concerning your Church And therefore the comparison between Petilian the Donatist and his Lordships adversary holds good still for all your Answer depends upon a mistake of Protestants granting a possibility of Salvation as I have already shewed you And in what way soever you limit this agreement you cannot possibly avoid but that it would equally hold as to the Donatists too for the concession was then as great in order to Salvation as it is now But you say Whether he asserts it or no it must needs follow from the Bishops Principles that there can be no peril of damnation by living and dying in the Roman Church because he professedly exempts the Ignorant and grants as much of those who do wittingly and knowingly associate themselves to the gross superstitions of the Roman Church if they hold the Foundation Christ and live accordingly From whence you argue That if neither voluntary nor involuntary superstition can hinder from Salvation then there is confessedly no peril of damnation in your Church And yet his Lordship saith All Protestants unanimously agree in this That there is great peril of damnation for any man to live and dye in the Roman Perswasion And therefore saith he that is a most notorious slander where you say that they which affirm this peril of damnation are contradicted by their own more learned Brethren By which we see the unjustice of your proceeding in offering to wrest his Lordships words contrary to his express meaning and since all your Argument depends upon your adversaries confession you ought to take that confession in the most clear and perspicuous terms and to understand all obscure expressions suitably to their often declared sense Which if you had attended to you would never have undertaken to prove that this Lordship grants that there is no peril of damnation in your Church which he so often disavows and calls it a most notorious slander and a most loud untruth which no ingenuous man would ever have said And even of those persons whom he speaks most favourably of he saith That although they wish for the abolishing the superstitions in use yet all he grants them is a possibility of Salvation but with extreme hazard to themselves by keeping close to that which is superstition and comes so near Idolatry Are these then such expressions which import no peril of damnation in the Roman Church And therefore when he speaks of the possibility of the Salvation of such who associate themselves wittingly and knowingly to the gross superstitions of the Romish Church he declares sufficiently that he means it not of those who do in heart approve of them but only of such who though they are convinced they are gross superstitions yet think they may communicate with those who use them as long as they do not approve of them Which errour of theirs though he looks on it as dangerous yet not as wholly destructive of Salvation But since your Answer to this is That he mistakes very much in supposing such persons to belong to your Church and Communion you are not aware How much thereby you take off from the Protestants Confession since those whom we contend for a possibility of Salvation for are such only whom you deny to be of your Churches Communion and so the Argument signifies much less by your confession than it did before Thus we see how this Argument upon the same terms you manage it against us would have held as well in the behalf of the Donatists against the Communion of the Catholick Church For what other impertinencies you mix here and there it is time now to pass them over since the main grounds of them have been so fully handled before We therefore proceed to the second Answer his Lordship gives to this Argument viz. That if the Principle on which it stands doth hold it makes more for the advantage of Protestants than against them For if that be safest which both parties are agreed in then 1. You are bound to believe with us in the point of the Eucharist For all sides agree in the Faith of the Church of England that in the most blessed Sacrament the worthy Receiver is by his Faith made spiritually partaker of the true and real body and blood of Christ truly and really and of all the benefits of his passion Your Roman Catholicks add a manner of this presence Transubstantiation which many deny and the Lutherans Consubstantiation which more deny If this Argument be good then even for this consent it is safer communicating with the Church of England than with the
infallibly believe and practise as the precedent up to Christs time did but because we can produce clear evidence that some things are delivered by the present Church which must be brought in by some age since the time of Christ. For which I shall refer you to what I have said already concerning Communion in one kind Invocation of Saints and Worship of Images In all which I have proved evidently that they were not in use in some ages of the Christian Church and it is as evident that these are delivered by the present Church and therefore this principle must needs be false For by these things it appears that one age of the Church may differ in practise or opinion from another and therefore this oral tradition cannot be infallible And yet this is the only way whereby a prescription may be allowed for this offers to give a sufficient title if it could be made good But bare possession in matters of Religion is a most sensless plea and which would justifie Heathenism and Mahumetism as well as your Church 2. It were worth knowing What you mean by full and quiet possession of your Faith Religion and Church which you say you were in Either you mean that you did believe the Doctrines of your Church your selves or that we were bound to believe them too If you mean only the former you are in as full possession of them as ever for I suppose all in your Church do believe them if you intend by this possession that we ought to believe them because you did this is a prescription indeed but without any ground or reason For even Tertullian whom you cite for prescribing against Hereticks sayes That nothing can be prescribed against truth Non spatium temporum non patrocinia personarum non privilegium regionum Neither length of time nor authority of persons nor priviledge of places If you say It was truth you were in possession of that is the thing to be proved and if you can make that appear we will not disturb your possession at all But you must be sure to prove it by something else besides your quiet and full possession unless you can prove it impossible that you should be possessed of falshoods But we have evidently shewn the contrary already And if we examine a little further what this possession is we shall see what an excellent right it gives you to prescribe by You were possessed of your Faith Religion and Church i. e. you did believe the Roman Church Infallible you believed the Popes Supremacy Transubstantiation Purgatory c. And what then Do you not believe them still Yes doubtless But What is your quarrel with us then Do we hinder you the Possession of them No but we ought to believe them too But Why so because you are in possession of them What Must we then believe whatever you do whether it be true or false If this be the meaning of your Possession you ought well to prove it or else we shall call it Vsurpation For it is a most ridiculous thing for you to talk of Possession when the Question is Whether there be any such things in the world or no as those you say you are possessed of We deny your Churches Infallibility the Popes Supremacy Purgatory c. You must first prove there are such things in rerum naturâ as Purgatory Transubstantiation c. before you can say you are possessed of them You must convince us that your Church is Infallible and that the Pope was made Head of the Church by Christ and then we will grant you are in full possession of them but not before So that you see the Question is not concerning the manner of Possession but of the things themselves which you call your Faith Religion and Church in opposition to ours and therefore it is impossible to plead Prescription where there never was any Possession at all And therefore you clearly mistake when you call us The Aggressors for you are plainly the Imposers in this case and quarrel with us for not believing what you would have us and therefore you are bound to prove and not we So that there is nothing you could challenge any Possession of in the Church of England but some Authority which the Pope had which you elsewhere confess he might he deprived of as he was in King Henry 's time and which we offer to prove that he was not Possessor bonae fidei of but that he came to it by fraud and violence and was deprived of it by a legal Power Thus I have fully examined your Argument from Possession because it presents us with something which had not been discussed before But having taken a view of all that remains I find that it consists of a bare Repetition of the Controversies before discussed especially concerning the certainty and grounds of Faith the Infallibility of the Church and General Councils and the Authority of the Roman Church So that if you had not an excellent faculty of saying most where there is least occasion I should wonder at your design in spending several Chapters in giving the same things under other words Unless it were an ambition of answering every clause in his Lordships Book which carried you to it though you only gave over and over what you had said in many places before Which is a piece of vanity I neither envy you for nor shall I strive to imitate you in having made it my endeavour to lay those grounds in the handling each Controversie that there should not need any such fruitless repetitions as you here give us His Lordship though he complains much of it was forced by his Adversaries importunity to return the same Answers in effect which had been given before by him in the proper places but whosoever compares what his Lordship saith with what you pretend to answer will find no necessity at all of my undergoing the same tedious and wearisome task Instead therefore of a particular Answer I shall give only some general strictures on what remains of these subjects where there is any appearance of difficulty and conclude all with the examination of your Defence of Purgatory that being a subject which hath not yet come under our enquiry Your main business is to perswade us that yours is the only saving Faith which you prove by this The saving Faith is but one yours is confessed by us to be a saving Faith still therefore yours is the only saving Faith But if you had considered on what that confession depends you could have made no Argument at all of it for when we say that your Faith is saving we mean no more but this that you have so much of the common truths of Christianity among you that there is a possibility for men to be saved in your Church but Doth this imply that yours is a saving Faith in that sense wherein it is said There is but one saving Faith for in that
is now about a twelvemonth since there appeared to the world a Book under the Title of Dr. Lawd's Labyrinth but with the usual sincerity of those persons pretended to be Printed some years before It is not the business of this Preface to enquire Why if Printed then it remained so long unpublished but to acquaint the Reader with the scope and design of that Book and of this which comes forth as a Reply to it There are three things mainly in dispute between us and those of the Church of Rome viz. Whether they or we give the more satisfactory account of the Grounds of Faith Whether their Church or ours be guilty of the charge of Schism And Whether their Church be justly accused by us of introducing many Errours and Superstitions In the handling of these all our present Debate consists and therefore for the greater Advantage of the Reader I have distributed the whole into three distinct parts which I thought more commodious than carrying it on in one continued discourse And lest our Adversaries should complain that we still proceed in a destructive way I have not only endeavoured to lay open the palpable weakness of their Cause but to give a rational account of our own Doctrine in opposition to theirs Which I have especially done in the great Controversie of the Resolution of Faith as being the most difficult and important of any other I hope the Reader will have no cause to blame me for false or impertinent Allegations of the Fathers since it hath been so much my business to discover the fraud of our Adversaries in that particular which I have chiefly done from the scope and design of those very Books out of which their testimonies are produced In many of the particular Differences I have made use of several of their late Writers against themselves both to let them see how much Popery begins to grow weary of it self and how unjustly they condemn us for denying those things which the moderate and rational men of their own side disown and dispute against as well as we and chiefly to undeceive the world as to their great pretence of Unity among themselves Since their Divisions are grown to so great a height both at home and in foreign parts that the dissenting parties mutually charge each other with Heresie and that about their great Foundation of Faith viz. the Popes Infallibility The Jansenists in France and a growing party in England charging the Jesuits with Heresie in asserting it as they do them with the same for denying it As to my self I only declare that I have with freedom and impartiality enquired into the Reasons on both sides and no interest hath kept me from letting that side of the ballance fall where I saw the greater weight of reason In which respect I have been so far from dissembling the force of any of our Adversaries Arguments that if I could add greater weight to them I have done it being as unwilling to abuse my self as the world And therefore I have not only consulted their greatest Authours especially the three famous Cardinals Baronius Bellarmin and Perron but the chiefest of those who under the name of Conciliators have put the fairest Varnish on the Doctrine of that Church However I have kept close to my Adversary and followed him through all his windings from which I return with this satisfaction to my self that I have vindicated his Lordship and Truth together As to the style and way of writing I use all that I have to say is that my design hath been to joyn clearness of Expression with evidence of Reason What success I have had in it must be left to the Readers judgement I only desire him to lay aside prejudice as much in judging as I have done in writing otherwise I despair of his doing me right and of my doing him good For though reason be tractable and ingenuous yet prejudice and interest are invincible things Having done thus much by way of Preface I shall not detain thee longer by a particular Answer to the impertinencies of our Authours Preface since there is nothing contained therein but what is abundantly answered in a more proper place And I cannot think it reasonable to abuse so much the Readers Appetite as to give him a tedious Preface to cloy his stomach If any after perusal of the whole shall think fit to return an Answer if they do it fairly and rationally they shall receive the same civility if with clamour and impertinency I only let them know I have not leisure enough to kill Flyes though they make a troublesome noise If any service be done to God or the Church by this present work next to that Divine Assistance through which I have done it thou owest it to those great Pillars of our Church by whose command and encouragement I undertook it Who the Authour was of the Book I answer I have been the less solicitous to enquire because I would not betray the weakness of my cause by mixing personal matters in debates of so great importance And whether he be now living or dead I suppose our Adversaries cannot think it at all material unless they judge that their Cause doth live and dye with him THE CONTENTS PART I. Of the Grounds of Faith CHAP. I. The Occasion of the Conference and Defence of the Greek Church T. Cs. Title examined and retorted The Labyrinth found in his Book and Doctrine The occasion of the Conference about the Churches Infallibility The rise of the dispute about the Greek Church and the consequences from it The Charge of Heresie against the Greek Church examined and she found Not-guilty by the concurrent testimony of Fathers General Councils and Popes Of the Council of Florence and the proceedings there That Council neither General nor Free. The distinction of Ancient and Modern Greeks disproved The debate of the Filioque being inserted into the Creed The time when and the right by which it was done discussed The rise of the Schism between the Eastern and Western Churches mainly occasioned by the Church of Rome Page 1. CHAP. II. Of Fundamentals in General The Popish Tenet concerning Fundamentals a meer step to the Roman Greatness The Question about Fundamentals stated An enquiry into the nature of them What are Fundamentals in order to particular persons and what to be owned as such in order to Ecclesiastical Communion The Prudence and Moderation of the Church of England in defining Articles of Faith What judged Fundamental by the Catholick Church No new Articles of Faith can become necessary The Churches power in propounding matters of Faith examined What is a sufficient Proposition Of the Athanasian Creed and its being owned by the Church of England In what sense the Articles of it are necessary to Salvation Of the distinction of the material and formal object of Faith as to Fundamentals His Lordship's integrity and T. C. his forgery in the testimony of Scotus Of Heresie and how far
in Antiquity to the Bishop of Rome The ground of the Contest about this Title between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople Of the proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon about the Popes Supremacy Of the Grammatical and Metaphorical sense of this Title Many arguments to prove it impossible that S. Gregory should understand it in the Grammatical sense The great absurdities consequent upon it S. Gregory's Reasons proved to hold against that sense of it which is admitted in the Church of Rome Of Irenaeus his opposition to Victor Victor's excommunicating the Asian Bishops argues no authority he had over them What the more powerful principality in Irenaeus is Ruffinus his Interpretation of the 6. Nicene Canon vindicated The Suburbicary Churches cannot be understood of all the Churches in the Roman Empire The Pope no Infallible Successour of S. Peter nor so acknowledged to be by Epiphanius S. Peter had no Supremacy of Power over the Apostles p. 422. CHAP. VII The Popes Authority not proved from Scripture or Reason The insufficiency of the proofs from Scripture acknowledged by Romanists themselves The impertinency of Luke 22.32 to that purpose No proofs offered for it but the suspected testimonies of Popes in their own cause That no Infallibility can thence come to the Pope as S. Peters Successour confessed and proved by Vigorius and Mr. White The weakness of the evasion of the Popes erring as a private Doctor but not as Pope acknowledged by them Joh. 21.15 proves nothing towards the Popes Supremacy How far the Popes Authority is owned by the Romanists over Kings C's beggings of the Question and tedious repetitions past over The Argument from the necessity of a living Judge considered The Government of the Church not Monarchical but Aristocratical The inconveniencies of Monarchical Government in the Church manifested from reason No evidence that Christ intended to institute such Government in his Church but much against it The Communicatory letters in the primitive Church argued an Aristocracy Gersons testimony from his Book de Auferibilitate Papae explained and vindicated S. Hieroms testimony full against a Monarchy in the Church The inconsistency of the Popes Monarchy with that of temporal Princes The Supremacy of Princes in Ecclesiastical matters asserted by the Scripture and Antiquity as well as the Church of England p. 451. CHAP. VIII Of the Council of Trent The Illegality of it manifested first from the insufficiency of the Rule it proceeded by different from that of the first General Councils and from the Popes Presidency in it The matter of Right concerning it discussed In what cases Superiours may be excepted against as Barties The Pope justly excepted against as a Party and therefore ought not to be Judge The Necessity of a Reformation in the Court of Rome acknowledged by Roman Catholicks The matter of fact enquired into as to the Popes Presidency in General Councils Hosius did not preside in the Nicene Council as the Popes Legat. The Pope had nothing to do in the second General Council Two Councils held at Constantinople within two years these strangely confounded The mistake made evident S. Cyril not President in the third General Council as the Popes Legat. No sufficient evidence of the Popes Presidency in following Councils The justness of the Exception against the place manifested and against the freedom of the Council from the Oath taken by the Bishops to the Pope The form of that Oath in the time of the Council of Trent Protestants not condemned by General Councils The Greeks and others unjustly excluded as Schismaticks The Exception from the small number of Bishops cleared and vindicated A General Council in Antiquiâ—y not so called from the Popes General Summons In what sense a General Council represents the whole Church The vast difference between the proceedings in the Council of Nice and that at Trent The Exception from the number of Italian Bishops justified How far the Greek Church and the Patriarch Hieremias may be said to condemn Protestants with an account of the proceedings between them p. 475. PART III. Of Particular Controversies CHAP. I. Of the Infallibility of General Councils HOw far this tends to the ending Controversies Two distinct Questions concerning the Infallibility and Authority of General Councils The first entred upon with the state of the Question That there can be no certainty of faith that General Councils are Infallible nor that the particular decrees of any of them are so which are largely proved Pighius his Arguments against the Divine Institution of General Councils The places of Scripture considered which are brought for the Churches Infallibility and that these cannot prove that General Councils are so Matth. 18.20 Act. 15.28 particularly answered The sense of the Fathers in their high expressions of the Decrees of Councils No consent of the Church as to their Infallibility The place of St. Austin about the amendment of former General Councils by latter at large vindicated No other place in St. Austin prove them Infallible but many to the contrary General Councils cannot be Infallible in the conclusion if not in the use of the means No such Infallibility without as immediate a Revelation as the Prophets and Apostles had taking Infallibility not for an absolute unerring Power but such as comes by a promise of Divine Assistance preserving from errour No obligation to internal assent but from immediate Divine Authority Of the consistency of Faith and Reason in things propounded to be believed The suitableness of the contrary Doctrine to the Romanists principles p. 505. CHAP. II. Of the Use and Authority of General Councils The denying the Infallibility of General Councils takes not away their Vse and Authority Of the submission due to them by all particular persons How far external obedience is required in case they erre No violent opposition to he made against them Rare Inconveniencies hinder not the effect of a just power It cannot rationally be supposed that such General Councils as are here meant should often or dangerously erre The true notion of a General Council explained The Freedom requisite in the proceedings of it The Rule it must judge by Great Difference between external obedience and internal assent to the Decrees of Councils This latter unites men in errour not the former As great uncertainties supposing General Councils Infallible as not Not so great certainty requisite for submission as Faith Whether the Romanists Doctrine of the Infallibility of Councils or ours tend more to the Churches peace St. Austin explained The Keyes according to him given to the Church No unremediable inconvenience supposing a General Council erre But errours in Faith are so supposing them Infallible when they are not The Church hath power to reverse the Decrees of General Councils The power of Councils not by Divine Institution The unreasonableness of making the Infallibility of Councils depend on the Popes Confirmation No consent among the Romanists about the subject of Infallibility whether in Pope or Councils No evidence from
403 l 12 r Anulinus p 408 l 48 before done blot out not p 416 l 44 for context r contest p 422 l 4 for satisfied r falsified l 38 r Pelagius 2 and Gregory 1. p 433 marg l 8 for â—essime r piissime p 440 l 36 for most r not p 442 l 8 r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 447 l 13 r Alexandria l 24 r elegantissimè p 448 l 19 for him r them p 450 l 19 r unless S. Peter had p 469 l 35 after which insert is p 470 l 6 r Fundavit l 50 for first r fifth p 474 l 13 r conclude p 477 marg r Cusanus p 495 l 16 for conveying r convening p 497 l 42 for used r abused p 503 l 8 for your r their p 506 l 30 blot out are p 507 l 37 for an easie r any p 509 l 33 for it r out p 510 l 48 for he r it p 540 l 30 r denyes l 32 before shâ—ll insert there l 39 after is r no. p 550 l 29 r Spirit l 43 for and r yet p 551 l 19 for he r they l 35 place the comma after then l 43 after know insert not p 5â—6 l 25 for yet r that p 561 l 43 for wâ—ll as r that p 571 marg l ult r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 574 l 48 for mâ—ke r made l 50 for coâ—pus r corporis p 582 l 29 r indispensâ—ble p 589 l 15 r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 595 l 4 r defensiâ—le l 5 r Invocation p 597 l 19 blot out or no p 598 l 5 for appropriation r approbation p 622 l 32 for it r is PART I. Of the Grounds of Faith CHAP. I. The Occasion of the Conference and Defence of the Greek Church T. Cs. Title examined and retorted The Labyrinth found in his Book and Doctrine The occasion of the Conference about the Churches infallibility The rise of the dispute about the Greek Church and the consequences from it The charge of Heresie against the Greek Church examined and she found Not-guilty by the concurrent testimony of Fathers General Councils and Popes Of the Council of Florence and the proceedings there That Council neither General nor Free. The distinction of Ancient and Modern Greeks disproved The debate of the Filioque being inserted into the Creed The time when and the right by which it was done discussed The rise of the Schism between the Eastern and Western Churches mainly occasioned by the Church of Rome THat which is the common subtilty of Male-factors to derive if possible the imputation of that fault on the persons of their Accusers which they are most lyable to be charged with themselves is the great Artifice made use of by you in the Title and Designe of your Book For there being nothing which your Party is more justly accused for than involving and perplexing the grounds of Christian Faith under a pretext of Infallibility in your Church you thought you could not better avoid the odium of it then by a confident recrimination And from hence it is that you call his Lordships Book a Labyrinth and pretend to discover his abstruse turnings ambiguous windings and intricate Meanders as you are pleased to stile them But those who will take the pains to search your Book for the discoveries made in it will find themselves little satisfied but only in these that no cause can be so bad but interessed persons will plead for it and no writing so clear and exact but a perplexed mind will imagine nothing but Meanders in it And if dark passages and intricate windings if obscure sense and perplexed consequences if uncertain wandrings and frequent self-contradictions may make a writing be call'd a Labyrinth I know no Modern Artist who comes so near the skill of the Cretan Artificer as your self Neither is this meerly your own fault but the nature of the cause whose defence you have espoused is such as will not admit of being handled in any other manner For you might assoon hope to perswade a Traveller that his nearest and safest way was through such a Labyrinth as that of Creet as convince us that the best and surest Resolution of our Faith is into your Churches Infallibility And while you give out that all other grounds of Christian Faith are uncertain and yet are put to such miserable shifts in defence of your own instead of establishing the Faith of Christians you expose Christianity it self to the scorn and contempt of Atheists who need nothing more to confirm them in their Infidelity then such a senseless and unreasonable way of proceeding as you make use of for laying the Foundations of Christian Faith Your great Principle being that no Faith can be Divine but what is Infallible and none Infallible but what is built on a Divine and Infallible Testimony and that this Testimony is only that of the present Catholick Church and that Church none but yours and yet after all this you dare not say the Testimony of your Church is Divine but only in a sort and after a manner You pretend that our Faith is vain and uncertain because built only on Moral certainty and Rational evidence and yet you have no other proof for your Churches Infallibility but the motives of credibility You offer to prove the Churches Infallibility independently on Scripture and yet challenge no other Infallibility but what comes by the promise and assistance of the Holy Ghost which depends wholly on the Truth of the Scripture You seek to disparage Scripture on purpose to advance your Churches Authority and yet bring your greatest evidences of the Churches Authority from it By which Authority of the Church you often tell us that Christian Religion can only be proved to be Infallibly true when if but one errour be found in your Church her Infallible Testimony is gone and what becomes then of Christian Religion And all this is managed with a peculiar regard to the Interest of your Church as the only Catholick Church which you can never attempt to prove but upon supposition of the Truth of Christianity the belief of which yet you say depends upon your Churches being the True and Catholick Church These and many other such as these will be found the rare and coherent Principles of your Faith and Doctrine which I have here only given this taste of that the Reader may see with what honour to your self and advantage to your Cause you have bestowed the Title of Labyrinth on his Lordships Book But yet you might be pardonable if rather through the weakness of your Cause than your ill management of it you had brought us into these amazing Labyrinths if you had left us any thing whereby we might hope to be safely directed in our passage through them Whereas you not only endeavour to put men out of the True way but use your greatest industry to keep them from a possibility of returning into it by not only suggesting false Principles to them but
decrying the use of those things which should discover their falsity For although the judgement of sense were that which the Apostles did appeal to that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you although that were the greatest and surest evidence to them of the Resurrection of Christ although Christ himself condemned them for their unbelief and hardness of heart because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen yet according to your Principles men must have a care of relying on the judgement of sense in matters of Faith lest perchance they should not believe that great Affront to humane Nature the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Neither are men only deprived of the judgement of sense but of the concurrent use of Scripture and Reason for these are pretended to be uncertain fallible nay dangerous without the Churches Infallibility So that the short of your grounds of establishing Faith is If we will find our way we must renounce the judgement of sense and reason submit our selves and Scripture to an Infallible Guide and then you tell us we cannot miss of our way when it is impossible for us to know our Guide without the use of those things which we are bid to renounce These things laid together make us admire more at your confidence than invention in making the current title of your Book to be Dr. Lawd's Labyrinth in which it is hard to say whether your immodesty or blindness be the greater But as though you were the only Heroes for asserting the Christian Cause and all others but more subtle betrayers of it you begin your Book with a most ingenious comparison of the learned labours of those of your Church to the stately Temple of Solomon and the artificial but pestiferous works of all Heretical Authors i. e. all but your selves to Labyrinths and intricate Dungeons In which only your discretion is to be commended in placing this at the entrance of your Book for whosoever looks but further into it and compares it with that you pretend to answer will not condemn the choice of your Similitudes but your forgetfulness in misapplying them But it matters not what titles you give to the books of our Authors unless you were better able to confute them and if no other book of any late Protestant Writer hath been any more discovered to be of this intangling nature than this of his Lordship whom you call our grand Author is by you you may very justly say of them as you do in the next words they are very liable to the same Reproach In which we commend your ingenuity that when you had so lately disparaged our Authors and Writings you so suddenly wipe off those Aspersions again by giving them the deserved name of Reproaches When you say his Lordships Book is most artificially composed we have reason to believe so fair a Testimony from a professed Adversary but when notwithstanding this you call it a Labyrinth we can interpret it only as a fair plea for your not being able to answer it And who can blame you for calling that a Labyrinth in which you have so miserably lost your self but in pity to you and justice to the cause I have undertaken I shall endeavour with all kindness and fairness to reduce you out of your strange entanglements into the plain and easie paths of Truth which I doubt not to effect by your own Clew of Scripture and Tradition by which you may soon discover what a Labyrinth you were in your self when you had thought to have made directive Marks as you call them for others to avoid it To omit therefore any further preface I shall wait upon you to particulars the first of which is the Occasion of the Conference which you say was for the satisfaction of an honourable Lady who having heard it granted in a former Conference that there must be a continual visible company ever since Christ teaching unchanged doctrine in all points necessary to salvation and finding it seems in her own reason that such a company or Church must not be fallible in its teaching was in quest of a Continual Visible Infallible Church as not thinking it fit for unlearned persons to judge of particular doctrinals but to depend on the judgement of the true Church The Question then was not concerning a Continual and Visible Church which you acknowledge was granted but concerning such a Church as must be infallible in all she teaches and if she be infallible according to your doctrine of Fundamentals whatever she teaches is necessary to salvation which that Lady thought necessary to be first determined because saith Mr. Fisher It was not for her or any other unlearned persons to take upon them to judge of particulars without depending upon the judgement of the true Church which seeming to allow of some use of our own judgement supposing the Churches Authority you pervert into these words Not thinking it fit to judge c. but to depend c. But let them be as they will unless you gave greater reason for them it is not material which way they pass For his Lordship had returned a sufficient Answer to that pretence which you are content to take no notice of in saying That it is very fit the people should look to the judgement of the Church before they be too busie with particulars But yet neither Scripture nor any good Authority denyes them some moderate use of their own understanding and judgement especially in things familiar and evident which even ordinary capacities may as easily understand as read And therefore some particulars a Christian may judge without depending To which you having nothing to say run post to the business of Infallibility for when it was said The Lady desired to rely on an Infallible Church therein his Lordship says neither the Jesuite nor the Lady her self spake very advisedly For an Infallible Church denotes a particular Church in that it is set in opposition to some other particular Church that is not infallible Here now you begin your discoveries for you tell us he makes this his first crook in his projected Labyrinth which is apparent to any man that has eyes even without the help of a Perspective As seldome as Perspectives are used to discern the turns of Labyrinths nothing is so apparent as that your eyes or your judgement were not very good when you used this expression For I pray what crook or turn is there in that when a Lady demanded an Infallible Church to her guide to say that by that question she supposeth some particular Church as distinct from and opposite to others to be infallible No say you she sought not any one particular Church infallible in opposition to another Church not infallible but some Church such as might without danger of errour direct her in all doctrinal points of Faith Rarely well distinguish'd Not any particular Church but some particular Church For if
she enquired after some Church which without danger of errour might direct her in all doctrinal points of Faith doth she not thereby imply that some other Church might bring her into danger of errour under pretence of directing her in matters of Faith and if this be some particular fallible Church the other must be some particular infallible Church And is it possible to conceive some Church that may erre in directing and some other that may not erre without some particular Church being taken in opposition to some other Church But you would fain perswade us that the force of his Lordships Argument rests wholly upon the importance of the particle a or an which cannot be applyed but to particulars which you very learnedly disprove whereas the main strength of what his Lordship says depends upon the nature of the question and the manner of proposing it For the Lady enquiring after such a Church whose judgement she might relye on as to the matters in dispute in the Christian world must mean such a Church whose communion must be known as distinct from other Churches which are not infallible for otherwise she might be deceived still And if you give a pertinent answer to her question you must shew her some such Church as an Infallible Guide which can be no other in this case but some particular Church considered as distinct from others For a general answer concerning the Infallibility of the Catholick Church without shewing how the Infallible judgement of that Church may be known can by no means reach the case in hand which doth not meerly respect an Infallibility in the subject but such an infallibility as may be a sufficient guide in all doctrinal points of Faith When you say therefore she meant no other then the Vniversal visible Church of Christ you must tell us how the Vniversal visible Church can become such an Infallible guide in the matters in Controversie between those Churches which yet are members of that Vniversal visible Church For the notion of the Vniversal Church not being in its nature confined to any one of these parties but all of them concurring to the making of it up can no more be an Infallible guide in the matters in difference then the common notion of Animal can direct us in judging what Beings are sensitive and what rational Therefore though you would fain deceive the world under a pretence of the Catholick Church yet nothing can be more evident then that in the question what Church must be a guide in Doctrinal points of Faith it must be understood of some Church as distinct from other Churches which ought not to be relyed on as infallible guides But the subtilty of this is that when you challenge Infallibility to your Church we should not apprehend her as a particular Church but as the true Catholick Church which is a thing so every way absurd and unreasonable that you had need use the greatest Artifice's to disguise it which yet can deceive none but such as are resolved to be deceived by them For any one who had his eyes in his head might discern without a Perspective as you speak that Churches of several and distinct Communions from each other were placed in competition for Infallibility For Mr. Fisher's next words are The Question was Which was that Church Do you think he means Which was that Vniversal visible Church Certainly not for the nature of the Question supposes several Churches now I think you do not believe there are several Vniversal visible Churches And it immediately follows A Friend of the Ladies would needs defend that not only the Roman but the Greek Church was right to which Mr. Fisher answers That the Greek Church had erred in matter of doctrine Can any thing be more plain then that this Question doth relate to Churches considered severally and as under distinct Communions and Denominations And therefore notwithstanding your pittiful pretences to the contrary this Question can be no otherwise understood then as his Lordship said of some particular Infallible Church in opposition to some other particular Church which is not Infallible And if you judge this an affected mistake as you call it your discerning faculty will be as lyable to Question as your Churches Infallibility That you might seem to avoid the better the force of his Lordships following discourse against Bellarmine about the Infallibility of the particular Church of Rome you first tell us That it is sufficient for a Catholick to believe that there is an Infallibility in the Church without further obligation to examine whether the particular Church of Rome be infallible or no. Which is an egregious piece of Sophistry For put case a man believes the Catholick Church of all Ages Infallible but not of any one particular Age since the Apostles times suppose a man believe the Catholick Church of the present Age Infallible but not of any one particular Communion but as it takes in those common truths wherein they are all agreed will you say this is sufficient for a Catholick to believe without obligation to examine further If you will speak it out and I dare say you shall not have much thanks at Rome when you have done it But the mysterie is If a man believes the Roman Church only to be the Catholick Church it is no matter whether he enquires whether the Catholick Church be only at Rome or no. It is not the place but the communion of the Roman Church which is now enquired after in the question of Infallibility although I cannot see but those places out of the Fathers which are produced to prove the Roman Church Infallible will hold for the continuance of that Infallibility in that particular place of Rome For St. Cyprian saith expresly of the Romans that they are such to whom Perfidia what ever be meant by it cannot have access St. Jerome saith The Roman Faith admits no deceits into it Gregory Nazianzene that Rome retains the ancient Faith Not that I think any of these places do in the least import the Infallibility of the Roman Church as will be shewed in its proper place but that on supposition that Infallibility were implyed in them they would hold for the Infallibility of the particular Roman Church And therefore Bellarmin understood what he did when he produced these places to that purpose especially the Apostolical See remaining at Rome as he supposeth himself in this part of the Question which he there discusseth Either therefore you must assert that which his Lordship learnedly proves viz. That no such thing as Infallibility is intended by any of these Citations or else that it must extend to the particular Roman Church And when you deny this to be an Article of Faith among Catholicks that the particular Roman Church the Apostolical See remaining there is Infallible prove at your leasure from any of these Citations that the Church within the Roman Communion is Infallible and not the particular
Roman Church And from what hath been hitherto said I am so far from suspecting his Lordships candor as you do that I much rather suspect your judgement and that you are not much used to attend to the Consequences of things or else you would not have deserted Bellarmin in defence of so necessary and pertinent a point as the Infallibility of the particular Church of Rome Secondly You answer to his Lordships Discourse concerning Bellarmin's Authorities That you cannot hold your self obliged to take notice of his pretended Solutions till you find them brought to evacuate the Infallibility of the Catholick or the Roman Church in its full latitude as Catholicks ever mean it save when they say the particular Church of Rome But taking it in as full a Latitude as you please I doubt not but to make it appear that the Roman Church is the Roman Church still that is a particular Church as distinct from the Communion of others and therefore neither Catholick nor Infallible which I must refer to the place where you insist upon it which I shall do without the imitation of your Vanity in telling your Reader as far as eighthly and lastly what fine exploits you intend to do there But usually those who brag most of their Valour before-hand shew least in the Combat and thus it will be found with you I shall let you therefore enjoy your self in the pleasant thoughts of your noble intendments till we come to the tryal of them and so come to the present Controversie concerning the Greek Church The Defence of the Greek Church It is none of the least of those Arts which you make use of for the perplexing the Christian Faith to put men upon enquiring after an Infallible Church when yet you have no way to discern which is so much as a true Church but by examining the doctrine of it So that of necessity the rule of Faith and Doctrine must be certainly known before ever any one can with safety depend upon the judgement of any Church For having already proved that there can be no other meaning of the Question concerning the Church as here stated but with relation to some particular Church to whose Communion the party enquiring might joyn and whose judgement might be relyed on we see it presently follows in the debate Which was that Church and it seems as is said already a Friend of the Ladies undertook to defend that the Greek Church was right To which Mr. Fisher answers That the Greek Church had plainly changed and taught false in a point of Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost and after repeats it that it had erred Before I come to examine how you make good the charge you draw up against the poor Greek Church in making it erre fundamentally it is worth our while to consider upon what account this dispute comes in The Inquiry was concerning the True Church on whose judgement one might safely depend in Religion It seems two were propounded to consideration the Greek and the Roman the Greek was rejected because it had erred From whence it follows that the dispute concerning the Truth of Doctrine must necessarily precede that of the Church For by Mr. Fishers confession and your own A Church which hath erred cannot be relyed on therefore men must be satisfied whether a Church hath erred or no before they can judge whether she may be relyed on or no. Which being granted all the whole Fabrick of your Book falls to the ground for then 1. Men must be Infallibly certain of the grounds of Faith antecedently to the testimony of the Church for if they be to judge of a Church by the Doctrine they must in order to such a judgement be certain what that Doctrine is which they must judge of the Church by 2. No Church can be known to be Infallible unless it appear to be so by that Doctrine which they are to examine the truth of the Church by and therefore no Church can be known to be Infallible by the motives of credibility 3. No Church ought to be relyed on as Infallible which may be found guilty of any errour by comparing it with the Doctrine which we are to try it by Therefore you must first prove your Church not to have erred in any particular for if she hath it is impossible she should be Infallible and not think to prove that she hath not erred because she cannot that being the thing in question and must by your dealing with the Greek Church be judged by particulars 4. There must be a certain rule of Faith supposed to have sufficient Authority to decide Controversies without any dependence upon the Church For the matter to be judged is the Church and if the Scripture may and must decide that Why may it not as well all the rest 5. Every mans reason proceeding according to this rule of Faith must be left his Judge in matters of Religion And whatever inconveniencies you can imagine to attend upon this they immediately and necessarily follow from your proceeding with the Greek Church by excluding her because she hath erred which while we are in pursuit of a Church can be determined by nothing but every ones particular reason 6. Then Fundamentals do not depend upon the Churches declaration For you assert the Greek Church to erre fundamentally and that this may be made appear to one who is seeking after a Church Suppose then I inquire as the Lady did after a Church whose judgement I must absolutely depend on and some mention the Greek and others the Roman Church You tell me It cannot be the Greek for that hath erred fundamentally I inquire how you know supposing her to erre that it is a fundamental errour will you answer me because the true Church hath declared it to be a fundamental errour but that was it I was seeking for Which that Church is which may declare what errours are fundamental and what not If you tell me It is yours I may soon tell you You seem to have a greater kindness for your Church then your self and venture to speak any thing for the sake of it Thus we see how finely you have betrayed your whole Cause in your first onset by so rude an attempt upon the Greek Church And truly it was much your concernment to load her as much as you can For though she now wants one of the great marks of your Church which yet you know not how long your Church may enjoy viz. outward splendor and bravery yet you cannot deny but that Church was planted by the Apostles enjoyed a continual Succession from them flourished with a number of the Fathers exceeding that of yours had more of the Councils of greatest credit in it and which is a commendation still to it it retains more purity under its persecutions then your Church with all its external splendour But she hath erred concerning the Holy Ghost and therefore hath lost it A severe censure which his
you had said before but only this that what was not once necessary to salvation cannot by any after-declaration of the Church be made necessary as shall be abundantly manifested in the Controversie of Fundamentals What follows must be more particularly considered because therein you would fain remove the Article of Filioque from being the cause of the Schism between the Eastern and Western Churches and impute it wholly to the Pride and Ambition of the Eastern Prelates Your words are But it is also true That the addition of Filioque to the Creed was made many years before the difference brake out between the Latins and Greeks so that the inserting this word Filioque into the Creed was not the first occasion of Schism But grudges arising among the Greeks who had been a large flourishing Church with a number of most learned and zealous Prelates and held the Articles still though upon emptier heads such quickly filled with wind thinking their swelling places and great City of Constantinople might hold up against Rome they began to quarrel not for places that was too mean a motive for such as look'd so big but first they would make it appear they could teach Rome nay they spyed out Heresies in it the old way of all Hereticks and so fell to question the Procession of the Holy Ghost and must needs have Filioque out of the Creed These words of yours lay the charge of Schism on the Greeks wholly and therefore in order to our vindication of them from that two things must be enquired into 1. Whether it was in your Churches Power to make the Addition of Filioque to the Creed 2. Whether the Greeks Ambition and Pride were the only cause of the Separation between the Eastern and Western Churches 1. Concerning the addition of Filioque two things must be enquired into 1. When it began and by whom it was added to the Creed 2. Whether they who added it had power so to do and to impose on all others the use of it 1. Concerning the time of this Addition nothing seems more dark in Church-history than the precise and punctual time of it And so much you acknowledge your self elsewhere But it seems it is your concernment to say That the Addition was made before the difference brake out To that I answer if you mean that in some Churches the Procession from the Son was acknowledged before that difference I grant it as is clear by some Councils of Toledo and that the doctrine of the Procession was received in France too about the time of Charls the Great I acknowledge and that it was admitted into the solemn Offices of the Church but that it was added to the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creed to be received by all Churches so that it should not be lawful for any to use that Creed without such Addition that I deny to have been before the Schism but assert it to have been a great occasion of it It is acknowledged that in Spain several Councils of Toledo in their profession of Faith do mention the Procession from the Son but this they delivered only as their own private judgments and not as the publick Creed received by all Churches For Petavius confesseth that in Symbolo ipso nihil adjecerunt they added nothing at all to the Creed And although the custom of singing the Constantinopolitan Creed in the Liturgy seems first to have begun in Spain from whom Petavius supposeth both the French and Germans received it yet even there it appears it was not universally received For the Church of Sevil contented it self still with the Mozarabick Liturgy in which only the bare Nicene Creed was used You tell us indeed That the inserting the Article in the Councils of Toledo is supposed to have been done upon the authority of an Epistle they had received from Pope Leo which though it be not barely supposed but asserted with great confidence by Baronius yet as most other things in him which are brought to advance the Pope's Authority it hath no other ground but his confident assertion There being not the least shadow of proof for it but only that this Leo in a certain Epistle of his to the Spaniards did once upon a time mention that the Son proceeded from the Father Therefore in Spain I grant the Doctrine to be received I deny the Addition to be made to the Constantinopolitan Creed although it be read as added to it in the 8. or 10. Council of Toledo under Reccesuintus A. D. 653. But this was still only the declaration of their own Faith in this Article and no imposing it on others In France that it began to be received in publick Use A. D. 809. must be acknowledged by the proceedings of the Legats from the Council of Aquisgrane to Pope Leo 3. But it appears as clearly that Pope Leo did then condemn the use of it as will be shewed afterwards When it should creep into the Athanasian Creed seems as hard to find out as when first added to the Constantinopolitan but if we believe Pithaeus the whole Creed was of a French Composition there being many Arguments to perswade us it never was made by Athanasius of which in their due place and Vossius adds That it is very probable it was composed about the time of Charls the Great the Controversie being then so rise about the Procession But that seems the less probable because the Article of Filioque is not found in the Ancient Copies of that Creed For Spalatensis saith That in all the Greek Copies he had seen there was only mention made of the Procession from the Father And the Patriarch Cyril saith That not only the Symbol of Athanasius is adulterated among the Latins but that it is proved to be so by the more ancient and genuine Copies But however this be we deny not but the Article of Procession from the Son grew into use especially in the Gallican and Spanish Churches before the Schism broke out between the Eastern and Western Churches but our enquiry is not concerning that but concerning the time when it was so added to the Constantinopolitan Creed that it was required to be used only with that addition For this you tell us That Hugo Eterianus affirms that it was added by the Pope in a full Council at Rome but he names not the Pope So likewise the Latin Divines at the Council of Florence pretended still that it was added by the Pope in a full Council but very carefully forbare the mention of the person or the punctual time But it is your unhappiness if there be divers opinions to be followed to make choice of the most improbable as you do here when you embrace that of Socolovius which is That the Fathers of the first Council at Constantinople sending the Confession of their Faith to Pope Damasus and his Council at Rome the Pope and Council at Rome approved of their said Confession but yet
absolute Command can by any means whatsoever afterwards become necessary 3. Whether the Church hath power by any Proposition or Definition to make any thing become necessary to Salvation and to be believed as such which was not so before These three I suppose you cannot deny but will take in all that is considerable in this Controversie Which I shall with the more care examine because nothing tends more to the peace of the Christian World than a through and clear discussion of it and nothing causeth more the Schisms and Divisions of it than the want of a right and due conception of it 1. What the Grounds are on which any thing doth become necessary to Salvation For our better understanding of which we must consider two things 1. What things are necessary to the Salvation of men as such or considered in their single and private capacities 2. What things are necessary to be owned in order to Salvation by Christian Societies or as the bonds and conditions of Ecclesiastical Communion The want of understanding this distinction of the necessity of things hath caused most of the perplexities and confusion in this Controversie of Fundamentals 1. What those things are which are necessary to the Salvation of particular persons But that we make all as clear as possible in a matter of so great intricacy two things again must be inquired into 1. What the Ground is why any thing becomes necessary to be believed in order to Salvation 2. What the Measure and Extent is of those things which are to be believed by particular persons as necessary to Salvation 1. What the Ground or Foundation is on which things become necessary to be believed by particular persons And that which is the true ground of the necessity why any thing is to be believed is the proper ratio of a Fundamental Article For I suppose it a much clearer notion of Fundamentals to understand them not as Principles from whence Deductions may be drawn of Theological Truths but in regard of that immediate respect which they have to mens Salvation Those things therefore which are necessary to be explicitly believed by particular persons are Fundamentals in order to their Salvation Now all belief in this case supposing Divine Revelation nothing can be imagined to be necessary to be believed but what may be certainly known to be of Divine Revelation But when we consider that besides the general reason of believing what God hath revealed we must either suppose that all things are of equal necessity which are revealed in order to the general end of this Revelation or that some things therein contained are expresly necessary to the end and other things to be believed on the general account of Faith so far as they are known to be of Divine Revelation Now from hence ariseth a twofold necessity of things to be believed the first more general and large the second more particular and absolute The first depends upon the formal reason of Faith the second on the particular end of Divine Revelation That which depends on the formal reason of that Assent we call Faith is that which supposeth Divine Veracity or the impossibility of Gods deceiving us in any thing revealed by Him now this extends to all things whatsoever which are supposed by men to be of Divine Revelation For though men may mistake in the matter yet the reason of Assent holding under that mistake they are bound necessarily to believe whatever is supposed by them to be Divine Revelation Here lyes no difficulty in the ground of Faith but all the care is to be used in the search into the matters which are to be believed on the account of this Revelation But here we are to consider that the only thing which is in general and absolutely necessary to Salvation is the general act of Faith viz. Believing whatever God reveals to be true else God's Veracity would be call'd in question but particular objects cannot be said on this account to be absolutely and universally necessary but only so far as there are sufficient convictions that those particulars are of Divine Revelation And the more general and extensive the means of conviction are the more large and universal is the obligation to Faith As that the Scriptures contain in them the Word of God is a matter of more universal obligation than particular things therein revealed because the belief of the one depends upon the acknowledgement of the other And withall supposing it believed that the matters contained in Scripture are of Divine Revelation yet all things are not equally clear to all capacities that they are therein contained Which is a sufficient ground for us to say It was not God's intention that all things contained in his Word should be believed with the same degree of necessity by all persons And therefore though the general reason of Faith depends on Gods Veracity yet the particular obligation to the belief of particular things as revealed by God depends on the means whereby we may be assured that such things are revealed by him which means admitting of so great Variety as to the circumstances and capacities of particular persons there can be no general Rule set down what things are necessary to be believed by all particular persons For those who have greater means of knowledge a larger capacity and clearer proposal are bound to believe more things explicitly than those who want all these or have a lower degree of them In which case it is an unreasonable thing to say that such a one who dis-believes any thing propounded to him as a matter of Faith doth presently call in question God's Veracity for he may as firmly believe that as any in general and yet may have ground to question whether God's Veracity be at all concerned in that which is propounded to him as a matter of Faith because he sees no reason to believe that this was ever revealed by God And by this a clear answer is given to that Question which you propose Whether all those Truths which are sufficiently proposed to any Christian as defined by the Church for matter of Faith can be dis-believed by such a Christian without mortal and damnable sin which unrepented destroyes Salvation To which the answer is easie upon the grounds here assigned for this question concerning particular persons and particular objects of Faith the resolution of it doth depend upon the sufficiency of the means to convince such a person that whatever is propounded as Defined by the Church for a matter of Faith is certainly and truly so For to instance in any one of those new Articles of Faith Transubstantiation or the Pope's Supremacy c. you tell me These are necessary to be believed or at least cannot be dis-believed without sin which is all one in this case supposing clear conviction for then what cannot be dis-believed without sin must be explicitly believed I desire to know the grounds why they may not you tell me These
are absolutely and indispensably necessary to all persons to whom God's Word is revealed Thus much may suffice concerning what is necessary to be believed by particular persons considered as such But this controversie never need break Christian Societies in that sense but the great difficulty lyes in the other part of it which is most commonly strangely confounded with the former viz. What things are necessary to be owned in order to Church-Societies or Ecclesiastical Communion For which we must consider that the combination of Christian Societies oâ— that which we call the Catholick Church doth subsist upon the belief of what is necessary to Salvation For the very notion of a Christian Church doth imply the belief of all those things which are necessary in order to the end of Christian Religion which is mens eternal Happiness From whence three things must be taken notice of 1. That the very being of a Church doth suppose the necessity of what is required to be believed in order to Salvation For else there could not be such a thing as a Church imagined which is only a combination of men together upon the belief of such a Doctrine as necessary to Salvation and for the performance of those acts of Worship which are suitable thereto Therefore to assert the Church to have power to make things necessary to Salvation is not only absurd but destructive to the Being of that Church For when it offer'd to define any thing to be necessary which was not so before was it a Church or no If it was a Church it believed all things necessary if it believed all things necessary before it Defined how comes it to make more things necessary by its Definition But of this more afterwards 2. Whatever Church owns those things which are antecedently necessary to the Being of a Church cannot so long cease to be a true Church Because it retains that which is the Foundation of the Being of the Catholick Church Here we must distinguish those things in the Catholick Church which give its Being from those things which are the proper Acts of it as the Catholick Church As to this latter the solemn Worship of God in the way prescribed by him is necessary in order to which there must be supposed lawful Officers set in the Church and Sacraments duly administred but these I say are rather the Exercise of the Communion of the Catholick Church than that which gives its Being which is the belief of that Religion whereon its Subsistence and Vnity depends and as long as a Church retains this it keeps its Being though the Integrity and Perfection of it depends upon the due exercise of all acts of Communion in it 3. The Vnion of the Catholick Church depends upon the agreement of it in making the Foundations of its Being to be the grounds of its Communion For the Vnity being intended to preserve the Being there can be no reason given why the bonds of Vnion should extend beyond the Foundation of its Being which is the owning the things necessary to the Salvation of all From whence it necessarily follows that whatsoever Church imposeth the belief of other things as necessary to Salvation which were not so antecedently necessary to the Being of the Catholick Church doth as much as in it lyes break the Vnity of it and those Churches who desire to preserve its Vnity are bound thereby not to have communion with it so long as it doth so Of what great consequence these principles are to the true understanding the Distance between our Church and yours if you see not now you may feel afterwards These things being premised I come to that which is the main subject of the present Dispute which is What those things are which ought to be owned by all Christian-Societies as necessary to Salvation on which the Being of the Catholick Church depends If we can find any sure footing for the Definition of these we shall thereby find what the necessary conditions of Ecclesiastical Communion are and consequently where the proper cause of Schism lyes in transgressing those bounds and what Foundations may be laid for the Peace of the Christian world Which being of so vast importance would require a larger discussion than this place will admit of but so far as is pertinent to our present subject I shall enquire into it and give an account of my thoughts in these Propositions 1. Nothing ought to be owned as necessary to Salvation by Christian-Societies but such things which by the judgement of all those Societies are antecedently necessary to the Being of the Catholick Church For no reason can be assigned as I said before why the Bonds of Union should be extended beyond that which is the Churches Foundation neither can there any reason be given why any thing else should be judged necessary to the Churches Communion but what all those Churches who do not manifestly dissent from the Catholick Church of the first Ages are agreed in as necessary to be believed by all this will be further explained afterwards Only I add here when I speak of the necessary conditions of Ecclesiastical Communion I speak of such things which must be owned as Necessary Articles of Faith and not of any other Agreements for the Churches Peace I deny not therefore but that in case of great Divisions in the Christian world and any National Churches reforming it self that Church may declare its sense of those abuses in Articles of Religion and require of men a Subscription to them but then we are to consider that there is a great deal of difference between the owning some Propositions in order to Peace and the believing of them as necessary Articles of Faith And this is clearly the state of the difference between the Church of Rome and the Church of England The Church of Rome imposeth new Articles of Faith to be believed as necessary to Salvation as appears by the formerly cited Bull of Pius 4. Which Articles contain in them the Justification of those things which are most excepted against by other Churches and by her imposing these as the conditions of her Communion she makes it necessary for other Churches who would preserve the Vnity of the Catholick Church upon her true Foundations to forbear her Communion But the Church of England makes no Articles of Faith but such as have the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Christian world of all ages and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self and in other things she requires Subscription to them not as Articles of Faith but as Inferiour Truths which she expects a submission to in order to her Peace and Tranquillity So the late learned L. Primate of Ireland often expresseth the sense of the Church of England as to her thirty nine Articles Neither doth the Church of England saith he define any of these Questions as necessary to be believed either necessitate medii or necessitate praecepti which is much less but only bindeth
her Sons for Peace sake not to oppose them And in another place more fully We do not suffer any man to reject the thirty nine Articles of the Church of England at his pleasure yet neither do we look upon them as Essentials of Saving Faith or Legacies of Christ and his Apostles but in a mean as pious Opinions fitted for the preservation of Vnity neither do we oblige any man to believe them but only not to contradict them By which we see what a vast difference there is between those things which are required by the Church of England in order to Peace and those which are imposed by the Church of Rome as part of that Faith extra quam non est salus without belief of which there is no Salvation In which she hath as much violated the Vnity of the Catholick Church as the Church of England by her Prudence and Moderation hath studied to preserve it 2. Nothing ought to be imposed as a necessary Article of Faith to be believed by all but what may be evidently propounded to all persons as a thing which God did require the explicit belief of It being impossible to make any thing appear a necessary Article of Faith but what may not only be evidently proved to be revealed by God but that God doth oblige all men to the belief of it in order to Salvation And therefore none of those things whose obligation doth depend on variety of Circumstances ought in reason be made the Bonds of that Communion which cannot take notice of that variety as to mens conditions and capacities There are many things in Christian Religion which whosoever believes the truth of it cannot but easily discern to be necessary in order to the profession and practice of it in most of which the common sense and reason of mankind is agreed Not only the Existence of a Deity the clear discovery of the Wisdom Goodness and Power of God with his Providence over the world and the Immortality of Souls being therein most evidently revealed but the way and manner of the restitution of mens souls by Faith in Jesus Christ as our only Saviour and Obedience to his Commands is so fully laid down in the clearest terms that no rational man who considers the nature of Christian Religion but must assert the profession of all these things to be necessary to all such who own Christian Religion to be true But there are many other things in Christian Religion which are neither so clearly revealed in the Scriptures nor unanimously assented to in any age of the Christian Church and why any such things should be made the conditions of that Communion in the Catholick Church whose very being depends only on necessary things would puzzle a Philosopher to understand As if none should be accounted Mathematicians but such as could square circles and none Naturalists but such as could demonstrate whether quantity were infinitely divisible or no much so it is if none should be accounted members of the Catholick Church but such as own the truth and necessity of some at least as disputable Points as any in Religion Let therefore any Romanist tell me whether the Pope's Supremacy be as clear in Scripture as that Christ is Saviour of the world whether Purgatory be as plain as Eternal Life Transubstantiation as evident as that the Eucharist ought to be administred whether Invocation of Saints be as manifest as the Adoration of God the Doctrine of Indulgences as Repentance from dead works and if there be so great a clearness in the Revelation of the one and so far from it as to the other let them give any just account why the belief of the one is made as necessary to Salvation as the other is Certainly such who take in things at least so disputable as all these are and enforce the belief of them in order to their Communion cannot otherwise be thought but to have a design to exclude a great part of the Christian world from their Communion and to do so and then cry out of them as Schismaticks is the most unreasonable proceedings in the world 3. Nothing ought to be required as a necessary Article of Faith but what hath been believed and received for such by the Catholick Church of all Ages For since necessary Articles of Faith are supposed to be so antecedently to the Being of the Catholick Church since the Catholick Church doth suppose the continual acknowledgement of such things as are necessary to be believed it is but just and reasonable to admit nothing as necessary but what appears to have been so universally received Thence it is that Antiquity Vniversality and Consent are so much insisted on by Vincentius Lerinensis in order to the proving any thing to be a necessary Article of Faith But the great difficulty of this lyes in finding out what was received for a necessary Article of Faith and what was not by the Catholick Church which being a subject as necessary as seldom spoken to I shall not leave it untouched although I must premise that Rule to be much more useful in discovering what was not looked on as a necessary Article of Faith than what was and therefore I begin with that first 1. It is sufficient evidence that was not looked on as a necessary Article of Faith which was not admitted into the Ancient Creeds Whether all those Declarations which were inserted in the enlargements of the Apostolical Creed by the Councils of Nice and Constantinople and in that Creed which goes under the name of Athanasius were really judged by the Catholick Church of all Ages to be necessary to Salvation is not here my business to enquire but there seems to be a great deal of reason for the Negative that what was not inserted in the Ancient Creeds was not by them judged necessary to be believed by all Christians I know it is said by some of your party That the Apostolical Creed did only contain those Articles which were necessary to be believed in opposition to the present Heresies which were then in the Church As though the necessity of believing in Christians came only by an Antiperistasis of the opposition of Hereticks And if there had been no Hereticks to have denyed God's being the Creatour and Christ's being the Saviour it had not been necessary to have believed either of them so explicitly as now we do But when we speak of all things necessary to be believed by all I mean not that all circumstances of things contained in those Creeds are necessary to be believed in order to Salvation but that all those things which were judged as necessary to be believed by all were therein inserted will appear to any one who either considers the expressions of the Ancients concerning the Creeds then in Use or the primary reason why such Summaries of Faith were ever made in the Christian Church The testimonies of the Fathers to this purpose are so well known in this subject
that it were a needless task to repeat them who so unanimously assert the sufficiency unalterableness and perfection of that Faith which is contained in the Creed making it the summe of all necessary Doctrines the Foundation of the Catholick Faith and of the Church the first and sole Confession of Evangelical Doctrine Of all which and many more expressions to the same purpose produced not only by our Writers but by yours too no tolerable sense can be made without asserting that whatever was judged necessary to be believed by all by the Catholick Church of that Age they lived in or before them was therein contained Besides what account can be given why any such Summaries of Faith should at all be made either by Apostles or Apostolical persons but only for that end that necessary Articles of Faith might be reduced into such a compass as might become portable to the weakest capacities If the rise of Creeds were as most probable it was from the things propounded to the Catechumens to be believed in order to Baptism can we reasonably think that any thing judged necessary to be believed should be left out If the Apostolical Creed be a summary comprehension of that Form of sound Doctrine which the Apostles delivered to all Christians at their first conversion as it is generally supposed either we must think the Apostles unfaithful in their work or the Creed an unfaithful account of their Doctrine or that such things which were supposed universally necessary to be believed are therein comprehended Which is sufficient for my purpose that nothing ought to be looked on as a necessary Article of Faith or was so esteemed by the Catholick Church which is not contained in the Ancient Creeds 2. Nothing ought to be judged a necessary Article of Faith but what was universally believed by the Catholick Church to be delivered as such by Christ or his Apostles So that it is not the judgement but the testimony of the Catholick Church which must be relyed on and that testimony only when universal as delivering what was once infallibly delivered by Christ or his Apostles From whence it follows that any one who will undertake to make out any thing as a necessary Article of Faith by Catholick Tradition meerly must do these things 1. He must make it appear to be universally embraced at all times and in all places by such who were members of the Catholick Church 2. That none ever opposed it but he was presently disowned as no member of the Catholick Church because opposing something necessary to Salvation 3. That it be delivered by all those Writers of the Church who give an account of the Faith of Christians or what was delivered by Christ and his Apostles to the Church 4. That it was not barely looked on as necessary to be believed by such as might be convinced it was of Divine Revelation but that it was deliver'd with a necessity of its being explicitly believed by all 5. That what is deliver'd by the consent of the Writers of the Catholick Church was undoubtedly the Consent of the Church of those ages 6. That all those Writers agree not only in the Belief of the thing it self but of the Necessity of it to all Christians 7. That no Writers or Fathers of succeeding Ages can be supposed to alter in the belief either of the matters believed before or the necessity of them 8. That no oppositions of Hereticks or heats of Contention could make them judge any Article so opposed to be more necessary than it was judged before that Contention or they themselves would have judged it had it not been so opposed 9. That when they affirm many Traditions to be Apostolical which yet varied in several Churches they could not affirm any Doctrine to be Apostolical which they were not universally agreed in 10. That when they so plainly assert the sufficiency of the Scriptures as a Rule of Faith they did yet believe something necessary to Salvation which was not contained therein When you or any one else will undertake to make good these conditions I shall then begin to believe that something may be made appear to be a necessary Article of Faith which is not clearly revealed in Scripture but not before but till then this Negative will suffice that nothing ought to be embraced as the judgement of the Church concerning a necessary Article of Faith but what appears to be clearly revealed in Scriture and universally embraced by the Catholick Church of all Ages 3. Nothing ought to be looked on as a necessary Article of Faith by the judgement of the Catholick Church the denyal of which was not universally opposed and condemned as Heresie For otherwise the Catholick Church was very little sensible of the honour of Christian Faith if it suffered dissenters in necessary things without putting a mark of dishonour upon them Therefore we may conclude that whatever was patiently born with in such as dissented from the generality of Christians especially if considerable persons in the Church were the authors or fomenters of such opinions however true the contrary Doctrine was supposed to be yet it was not supposed necessary because then the opposers would have been condemned of Heresie by some open act of the Catholick Church But if beyond these Negatives we would enquire what was positively believed as necessary to Salvation by the Catholick Church we shall hardly find any better way than by the Articles of the Ancient Creeds and the universal opposition of any new Doctrine on its firsts appearance and the condemning the broachers of it for Heresie in Oecumenical Councils with the continual disapprobation of those Doctrines by the Christian Churches of all Ages As is clear in the cases of Arrius and Pelagius For it seems very reasonable to judge that since the necessary Articles of Faith were all delivered by the Apostles to the Catholick Church since the foundation of that Church lyes in the belief of those things which are necessary that nothing should be delivered contrary to any necessary Article of Faith but the Church by some evident act must declare its dislike of it and its resolution thereby to adhere to that necessary Doctrine which was once delivered to the Saints And withall it seems reasonable that because Art and Subtilty may be used by such who seek to pervert the Catholick Doctrine and to wrest the plain places of Scripture which deliver it so far from their proper meaning that very few ordinary capacities may be able to clear themselves of such mists as are cast before their eyes the sense of the Catholick Church in succeeding ages may be a very useful way for us to embrace the true sense of Scripture especially in the great Articles of the Christian Faith As for instance in the Doctrine of the Deity of Christ or the Trinity though the subtilty of such Modern Hereticks who oppose either of these may so far prevail on persons either not of sufficient
now made known it must be understood with a reference to those silly people who lived in that Age but there were greater Mysteries than these which neither Christ nor any of his Apostles were ever acquainted with as Purgatory and those before mentioned for these were reserved as the Churches Portion when her Infallibility-ship should come to Age. S. Paul honest man spake as he thought when he told not the common people but the Bishops of the Church That he had not shunned to declare unto them all the Counsel of God but if he had lived to our Age he would have heard of this mistake with both ears and if he had not sworn the contrary he must have been contented to have been call'd Schismatick and Heretick a thousand times over These are all the just and rare consequences of your Churches blessed Infallibility and Power of Defining things necessary which were not so in Christ or his Apostles times But the greatest knack of all is yet behind for men are bound to believe all the Doctrines of your Church to be Apostolical and yet that your Church hath power to make things necessary to be believed which were not so in the Apostolical times Yes say you They were Doctrines then but not so necessary as now because they had not the Churches Definition It seems at last the Apostles knew them but did not understand the worth of them else no doubt they were such charitable souls they would have declared them to the world Blessed S. Paul who was continually employed in teaching and instructing men in the way to Salvation could he have held back any thing that had tended to it when he sayes He kept back nothing that was profitable to them but shewed them and taught them publickly and from house to house testifying to the Jews and also to the Greeks Repentance towards God and Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ What not one word of the necessary Points all this while nothing of the Church of Rome nor Christ's Vicar on Earth and his Infallibility How slily and cunningly did S. Paul and the rest of the Apostles carrie it if they had believed these things never let one word drop from their mouths or pens concerning them and instead of that speak so and write so that one that believes them honest would swear they never heard of them In what another kind of strain would S. Paul have writ to the Church of Rome if he had had but any inckling of the Chair of Infallibility being placed there How soon would he have blotted out the whole 14. Chapter of his Epistle to the Corinthians if he had known his Holiness his pleasure about serving God in an unknown tongue How well might he have spared saying That a Bishop should be the Husband of one Wife if he had known de jure divino he must have none at all At what another rate would he have discoursed of the Eucharist had he believed Transubstantiation Sacrifice of the Mass Communion under one kind What course would he have taken with the Schismatical Corinthians that were divided like other Churches if he had known the Infallible Judge of Controversie If he had but understood the danger of reading Scriptures he might have spared his exhortations to the people of the Word of God dwelling richly in them and filled his Epistles with Pater Nosters and Ave Mary's or given good directions about them But he must be pardoned he was ignorant of these things as well as we only S. Paul never heard of them and we do not believe them because neither he nor his Brethren ever revealed them to us though they were the Stewards of the Mysteries of God and they tell us themselves That it is requisite such should be faithful which we cannot understand how they could be if they knew these deep Mysteries but never discovered them that we can learn But if they knew them not I pray from whence is it your Church learns them By immediate inspiration no as bold as you are you dare not challenge that but whence then come you to know them to be necessary infallibly forsooth But whence comes this Infallibility must there not be a peculiar Revelation to discover that to be necessary which was never discovered to be so before But if discovered before and declared before the things were as necessary before your Churches Definition as after and therefore your Churches Definition adds nothing of necessity to them If neither discovered nor declared you must have particular Revelation for them and then work miracles and we will believe you but not otherwise but before you do it consider what S. Paul hath said concerning an Angel from Heaven preaching another Gospel let him be accursed and what can be more preaching another Gospel than making other things necessary to Salvation than Christ or his Apostles did and think then what your Church hath deserved for all her Definitions concerning Articles of Faith or things necessary to be believed in order to Salvation But yet further you say That these things were declared by the Apostles but they need a further Declaration now And why so shew us the Apostle's Declaration and it sufficeth us we shall not believe them one jot the more for your additional Definition And it is surely a sign you did not think the Apostles Declaration sufficient or else you would never pretend to new ones Perhaps you will tell us It was to their Age but not to ours why not as well as the other necessary Articles of Faith contained in Scripture I know your Answer is We can know no necessary Article of Faith at all but from your Church So then we have brought all into a narrow compass and instead of new Definitions of the Church concerning necessary things we can know nothing at all to be necessary to be believed but from your Church This is high but the higher it is the better Foundation it had need stand on which we shall throughly search into in the Controversie of the resolution of Faith to which we referr it and return If there were once a Declaration but still there needs another What is become of that Declaration was it lost in its passage down to us how then was that present Church infallible which lost a Declaration in matter of Faith was it necessary to be believed in the intermediate Age or no if it was then it was not lost and then what need a new Declaration if not then a thing once necessary to Salvation may be not necessary to Salvation and become necessary to Salvation again But still we have cause to envy their happiness who lived in the Age when they might be saved without believing these things for the case goes hard with us for you tell us Unless we believe them necessary we cannot be saved and our consciences tell us that if we did profess to believe them necessary when we do not and cannot we cannot be saved
What a case then were we in if the Pope were Christ's Vicar in Heaven as he pretends to be on Earth but it is our comfort he is neither so nor so Thus we see what repugnancy there is both to Scirpture and Reason in this strange Doctrine of your Churches Definitions making things necessary to Salvation which were not so before I should now proceed to shew how repugnant this Doctrine is to the unanimous consent of Antiquity but I find my self prevented in that by the late Writings of one of your own Communion and if you will believe him in his Epistle Dedicatory which I much question the present Popes most humble Servant our Countryman Mr. Thomas White Whose whole Book call'd his Tabulae Suffragiales is purposely designed against this fond and absurd Opinion nay he goes so high as to assert the Opinion of the Pope's Personal Infallibility not only to be Heretical but Archi-heretical and that the propagating of this Doctrine is in its kind a most grievous sin It cannot but much rejoyce us to see that men of wit and parts begin to discover the intolerable arrogance of such pretences and that such men as D. Holden and Mr. White are in many things come so near the Protestant Principles and that since they quit the Plea of Infallibility and relye on Vniversal Tradition we are in hopes that the same reason and ingenuity which carried these persons thus far will carry others who go on the same principles so much farther as to see how impossible it is to make good the points in Controversie between us upon the Principle of Vniversal Tradition Which the Bigots of your Church are sufficiently sensible of and therefore like the Man at Athens when your Hands are cut off you are resolved to hold this Infallibility with your Teeth and so that Gentleman finds by the proceedings of the Court of Rome against him for that and his other pieces But this should not have been taken notice of lest we should seem to see as who doth not that is not stark blind what growing Divisions and Animosities there are among your selves both at home and in foreign parts and yet all this while the poor silly people must be told that there is nothing but Division out of your Church and nothing but Harmony and Musick in it but such as is made of Discords And that about this present Controversie for the forenamed Gentleman in his Epistle to the present Pope tells him plainly That it is found true by frequent Experience That there is no defending the Catholick Faith against the subtilties of his Heretical Countrymen without the principles of that Book which was condemned at Rome And what those principles are we may easily see by this Book which is writ in defence of the former Wherein he largely proves that the Church hath no power to make New Articles of Faith which he proves both from Scripture Reason and Authority this last is that I shall referr the Reader to him for for in his second Table as he calls it he proves from the testimonies of Origen Basil Chrysostom Cyril Irenaeus Tertullian Pope Stephen Hierom Theophylact Augustine Vincentius Lerinensis and several others nay the testimonies he sayes to this purpose are so many that whole Libraries must be transcribed to produce them all And afterwards more largely proves That the Faith of the Church lyes in a continued succession from the Apostles both from Scripture and Reason and abundance of Church-Authorities in his 4 5 and 6. Tables and through the rest of his Book disproves the Infallibility of Councils and Pope And can you think all this is answered by an Index Expurgatorius or by publishing a false-Latin Order of the inquisition at Rome whereby his Books are prohibited and his Opinions condemned as heretical erronious in Faith rash scandalous seditious and what not It seems then it is grown at last de fide that the Pope is infallible and never more like to do so than in this age for the same person gives us this character of it in his Purgation of himself to the Cardinals of the Inquisition saying That their Eminencies by the unhappiness of the present Age in which Knowledge is banished out of the Schools and the Doctrines of Faith and Theological Truths are judged by most voices fell it seems upon some ignorant and arrogant Consultors who hand over head condemn those Propositions which upon their oaths they could not tell whether they were true or false If these be your proceedings at Rome happy we that have nothing to do with such Infallible Ignorance This is the Age your Religion were like to thrive in if Ignorance were as predominant elsewhere as it seems it is at Rome But I leave this and return 3. The last thing is Whether the Church hath Power by any Proposition or Definition to make any thing become necessary to Salvation and to be believed as such which was not so before But this is already answered by the foregoing Discourse for if the necessity of the things to be believed must be supposed antecedently to the Churches Being if that which was not before necessary cannot by any act whatsoever afterwards become necessary then it unavoidably follows That the Church neither hath nor can have any such power Other things which relate to this we shall have occasion to discuss in following your steps which having thus far cleared this important Controversie I betake my self to And we are highly obliged to you for the rare Divertisements you give us in your excellent way of managing Controversies Had my Lord of Canterbury been living What an excellent entertainment would your Confutation of his Book have afforded him But since so pleasant a Province is fallen to my share I must learn to command my self in the management of it and therefore where you present us with any thing which deserves a serious Answer for truth and the causes sake you shall be sure to have it In the first place you charge his Lordship with a Fallacy and that is because when he was to speak of Fundamentals he did not speak of that which was not Fundamental But say you He turns the difficulty which only proceeded upon a Fundamentality or Necessity derived from the formal Object that is from the Divine Authority revealing that Point to the Material Object that is to the importance of the Matter contained in the Point revealed which is a plain Fallacy in passing à sensu formali ad materialem Men seldom suspect those faults in others which they find not strong inclinations to in themselves had you not been conscious of a notorious Fallacy in this distinction of Formal and Material Object as here applyed by you you would never have suspected any such Sophistry in his Lordship's Discourse I pray consider what kind of Fundamentals those are which the Question proceeds on viz. such as are necessary to be owned as such by
of Athanasius therefore all things defined by the Church are eo nomine necessary to Salvation Other particulars concerning that Creed as to its Antiquity and Authority we may have occasion afterwards more at large to discuss it sufficeth now that nothing is thence produced pertinent to the present Controversie His Lordship in the progress of this Discourse takes away that slight and poor evasion That the Declaration of the Church makes any thing Fundamental quoad nos because that no respect to us can vary the Foundation And that the Churches Declaration can bind us only to peace and external obedience where there is not express letter of Scripture and sense agreed on but it cannot make any thing Fundamental to us that is not so in its own nature For saith he if the Church can so add that it can by a Declaration make a thing to be Fundamental in the Faith that was not then it can take a thing away from the Foundation and make it by declaring not to be Fundamental which all men grant no power of the Church can do For the power of adding any thing contrary and of detracting any thing necessary are alike forbidden and alike denyed Now you say That all this is satisfied by the foresaid distinction of material and formal Object and you desire the Reader to carry along with him this distinction of objectum materiale formale materia attestata authoritas attestantis and he will easily discover the fallacies of his Lordship's Discourse in this main Point of Controversie and solve all his difficulties supported by them No doubt an excellent Amulet to preserve from the infection of reason But it is your great mishap that where you commend it so much it doth you so little service For let your distinction of formal and material Object be supposed as sound and good as I have shewed it in your sense to be false and fallacious yet it doth not reach that part of his Lordship's Discourse which you apply it to For still his reason is conclusive though the necessity only be supposed to arise from the Churches Authority yet if it be in the power of the Church to make any thing necessary which was not why may it not be equally in her power to make something not necessary which was For either the grounds of the necessity of things to Salvation doth depend on the Doctrine of the Gospel as at first declared to the world or it doth not If it doth then it is not in the Churches Power to make any thing necessary which was not made necessary by it if it doth not then the Church may as well pretend to a power to make something not necessary which was as to make something necessary which was not So that your distinction of Formal and Material Object signifies nothing at all here only this is observable that you make the Churches Definition to be the Formal Object of Faith here which you very solemnly contradict afterwards Chap. 5. § 4. And can any thing be more evident from this Discourse of yours than that you make the last resolution of Faith as to the necessity of things to be believed into the Churches Definition as its Formal Object But this distinction with the grounds of it being removed in our former Discourse I shall ease my self and the Reader of any further labour in examining what follows in this Chapter which depends wholly upon it or else run out into the Churches Infallibility the infallible Assent requisite to Faith the Canon of Scripture and our certainty of it or the Authority of General Councils all which shall be fully and particularly examined in their proper places There being nothing said here but what either hath been answered already or will be more at large in a more convenient place The only things remaining then in this Chapter which deserve a further discussion here are the testimonies of Scotus and S. Austin and the Discourses which depend thereon For our better clearing the testimony of Scotus in which you charge his Lordship with falsification we must consider on what account and for what purposes that testimony is produced His Lordship had said before That Fundamentals are a Rock immovable and can never be varied therefore what is Fundamental after the Church hath defined it was Fundamental before the definition and no Decrees of Councils how general soever can alter immovable Verities wherefore if the Church in a Council define any thing the thing defined is not fundamental because the Church hath defined it nor can be made so by the definition of the Church if it be not so in it self For if the Church hath this power she might make a New Article of Faith which the learned among themselves deny For the Articles of Faith cannot increase in substance but only in explication For which he appeals to Bellarmin Nor saith he Is this hard to be further proved out of your own School For Scotus professeth it in this very particular of the Greek Church If there be saith he a true real difference between the Greeks and Latins about the Point of the Procession of the Holy Ghost then either they or we be vere haeretici truly and indeed Hereticks Which he speaks of the old Greeks long before any decision of the Church in this Controversie For he instances in S. Basil and Greg. Nazianzen on one side and S. Jerome Augustine and Ambrose on the other And who dares call any of these Hereticks is his challenge That then which his Lordship proves by this testimony is that the nature of Heresie doth not depend on the Churches Definition but on the Nature of the things for according to Scotus antecedently to the Churches Definition if there had been any real difference between the Greeks and Latins one side of them had been Hereticks To this you answer That hence it follows not that Scotus thought they could be Hereticks unless they denyed or doubted of that which they had reason to believe was revealed by God But it only follows that if they knew this as those learned Greeks had sufficient reason to know it they might well be esteemed Hereticks before any special Declaration of the Church although it be more clear that he is an Heretick who denies to believe that Doctrine after he confesses that it is defined by the Church From which answer of yours several things are to our purpose observable 1. That the Formal Reason of Heresie is denying something supposed to be of Divine Revelation 2. That none can reasonably be accused of Heresie but such as have sufficient reason to believe that which they deny is revealed by God 3. That none can be guilty of Heresie for denying any thing declared by the Church unless they have sufficient reason to believe that whatever is declared by the Church is revealed by God Which unavoidably follows from the former and therefore the Churches Definition cannot
make any Hereticks but such as have reason to believe that she cannot erre in her Definitions From whence Protestants will be in less danger of Heresie than Papists till you give us more sufficient reasons to prove that whatever the Church declares is certainly revealed by God And although you tell us Men may be accounted Hereticks before they are condemned as such by General Councils if they oppose the Doctrine clearly contained in Scripture or generally received by the Church yet you tell us not what the measures are whereby we ought to judge what things are thus clearly contained in Scripture or universally received whether the Churches judgement must be taken or every man 's own judgement if the former the ground of Heresie lyes still in the Churches Definition contrary to what Scotus affirms if the latter then no one can be an Heretick but he that opposeth that which he is or may be convinced is clearly contained in Scripture or generally received by the Church If that which he is convinced then no man is an Heretick but he that goes against his present judgement and so there will be few Hereticks in the world If that which he may be convinced of it must be understood either in his own judgement or yours if in his own judgement then a Heretick is one who dissents to things rashly without using means to inform himself if in yours why may not he say You may as well be convinced of the truth of that which he believes as he be convinced of the truth of that which you believe and so you may be a Heretick to him by the same reason that he is to you But you say further That there are many things which in themselves are matters of Faith yet so obscure in relation especially to unlearned and particular persons that before the decree of the Church we are not Hereticks though we should either doubt of them or deny them because as yet there appears no sufficient reason that can oblige us to believe them although after the Definition of the Church we ought as well to believe them as any other But it is impossible to understand how there can be such things which men might safely not believe but upon the Definition of the Church they are bound to believe them necessarily unless it be clear to them that the Church hath power to make obscure things plain and unnecessary things to become necessary For suppose one of these obscure things be this very Power of the Church in defining such things while this remains so obscure you tell me I may doubt or disbelieve it without Heresie and while I do so I may certainly doubt or disbelieve all she declares But by what means shall this thing become clear must it be by the Churches defining it But that very Power of defining is the thing in question and therefore cannot be cleared by it And if there be any thing then so obscure that men may without sin doubt of it or disbelieve it certainly the Churches Power in defining matters of Faith is such it being not capable by any act of the Church of being made so clear as to oblige men to believe it But we must see how his Lordship hath wronged the Testimony of Scotus For first say you He would perswade his Reader that this Author supposed a real difference between the Ancient Greek and Latin Fathers about the Procession of the Holy Ghost whereas Scotus declares that there was no real difference between them But doth his Lordship say there was doth he not expresly cite Scotus his testimony in an hypothetical manner If there be a true real difference c. and it is evident from Scotus his words that he supposeth If the difference had been real that either the Greeks or Latins were truly Hereticks And therefore you are guilty of a much greater injury to his Lordship than he was to Scotus Again you say He wrongs him in saying That after the Churches Definition it becomes of the substance of Faith Now say you Scotus hath not one word of the substance of Faith much less of Fundamental which he imposes presently upon him but sayes only thus Ex quo Ecclesia declaravit hoc esse tenendum c. tenendum est quod Spiritus Sanctus procedat ab utroque Since the Church hath so declared so it must be held Sure you never expect to be believed but by a very implicit Faith for if one doth but offer to search an Author your Jugling becomes notorious Had you the confidence to say That Scotus has not one word of the substance of Faith I pray who made that c. for you in the sentence If you did it your self you abuse your Readers if another did it for you he abused you For that very c. leaves out those words sicut de substantia fidei and try if you can render that otherwise than as of the substance of Faith to manifest your Forgery the whole place is cited in the Margin Is this your fidelity in quoting Authors even when you charge others with wronging them It may be you will say yet That Scotus doth not say it is to be held sicut de substantia fidei though it be declared by the Church to be so held But what means then the ex quo if men's Faith must not be guided by the Churches Declaration for if it be therefore to be believed necessarily because declared by the Church it must be believed as it is declared by the Church If therefore the Church declares that it is to be held as of the substance of Faith it ought to be held so by such as are bound to believe it on the Churches Declaration Besides you will not say but that it was to be believed before now what alteration is caused by the Declaration of the Church but this That which was before to be believed simply and in it self is now to be believed on the account of the Churches Declaration as of the substance of Faith And thus it is impossible to relieve your self with your old shift of Material and Formal Object which you betake your self to Thus still we see you are that most unhappy person who never begin a charge against your adversary but it falls back most unevitably upon your self who so readily make use of forgeries to prove others guilty of them Upon Scotus his mentioning the Churches Declaration his Lordship inquires What this Declaration is and how far it extends For which his Lordship saith The Master teacheth and his Scholars too that every thing which belongs to the Exposition or Declaration of another intus est is not another contrary thing but is contained within the bowels and nature of that which is interpreted from which if the Declaration depart it is faulty and erronious because instead of declaring it gives another and contrary sense Therefore when the Church declares any thing in Council either that which
she declares was intus or extra in the nature and verity of the thing or out of it If it were extra without the nature of the thing declared then the Declaration of the thing is false and so far from being Fundamental in the Faith If it were intus within the nature and compass of the thing though not open and apparent to every eye then the Declaration is true but not otherwise Fundamental then the thing is which is declared for that which is intus cannot be larger or deeper than that in which it is if it were it could not be intus Therefore nothing is simply Fundamental because the Church declares it but because it is so in the nature of the thing which the Church declares In answer to this you seem more ingenuous than usual for you acknowledge that his expression is learnedly solid and good but yet you would seem to return some answer to this Argument viz. That although there be no alteration in the nature of the Articles by the Churches Declaration yet this doth not hinder them from becoming Fundamental in that sense in which we dispute i. e. such as cannot be denyed or doubted of under pain of damnation although they were not thus Fundamental before the Declaration as not being so clearly proposed to us as that we were bound to believe them Neither doth this take away any thing from their intus or that Being which they had of themselves but only gives a certainty of their being so and declares that they ought to be so quoad nos as well as quoad se and internally And it is no evasion but a solid distinction that the Declaration of the Church varies not the thing in it self but quoad nos in its respect to us The substance of your Answer lyes in this That though the Church by her Declaration doth not alter the nature of things yet she may and doth our Obligation to believe them so that such things which men might have been saved without believing before when once the Church hath declared them become necessary to be believed in order to Salvation And yet you would not have this called making new Articles of Faith But I pray tell us what you mean by Articles of Faith are not those properly Articles of Faith as distinct from Theological Verities which are necessary to be believed by all If therefore those things which the Church declares were before not necessary and by the Churches Declaration do become necessary than certainly those things which were not Articles of Faith do become Articles of Faith and what then doth the Church by her Declaration but make New Articles of Faith But though you assert the thing you like not the terms because they do not sound so pleasantly to the ears of Christians who believe all Obligation to Faith doth depend upon immediate Divine Revelation Setting aside therefore the terms let us examine the thing to see upon what grounds the Church can make that necessary to us which was not in it self In which case the Obligation not arising from the necessity of the Matter in it self to be believed it is no otherwise intelligible but that it must result from the supposition of some Immediate Revelation For nothing else can bind us to an Internal Assent which you require as necessary to the Churches Definitions but that unless you can shew how any Society of men considered as such have power to oblige all other men to believe what they declare on pain of damnation for not doing it I pray tell me whether the Apostles themselves had power to bind all Christians to the belief of something as necessary which the Spirit of God did not immediately reveal to them to be so If not what power can any Church have to do it without a greater measure of Infallibility than the Apostles ever pretended to For they never attempted to define any thing as necessary which was supposed unnecessary to be believed after the Doctrine of the Gospel was declared to the world Before then you can perswade us to believe that your Church can make any thing necessary which was not so you must prove an Absolute Infallible Divine Assistance of God's Spirit with your Church in whatever she shall attempt to declare or define as matter of Faith As for instance Supposing it not necessary to Salvation in it self to believe the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary how is it possible to conceive after your Churches Definition of it it should become necessary unless it be supposed that there was an Immediate Divine Revelation in that Definition For nothing but Divine Authority commanding our Assent the ground of Faith must be resolved into that now in this case besides the Immediate Assent to the thing declared as a truth there is a distinct Proposition to be believed which is That what was not before necessary to be believed doth now become necessary to be believed by all and shew us either that there is Divine Revelation for this or else excuse us that we cannot give an Internal Assent to it For we have not learnt to give an Assent of Faith to a meer humane Proposition or in our Saviour's words we call no man Master upon Earth so as to promise to believe it in the power of any Church whatsoever to make any thing necessary to be believed which was not so before Hence it appears that your Distinction of in se quoad nos is as insignificant as your pretence of the Churches Power to define matters of Faith is presumptuous and arrogant being the highest degree of Lording it over the Christian world Why your Church may not as well declare something not to be of Faith which before was of Faith as declare something to be of Faith which before was not of Faith it is not easie to apprehend if that thing might be supposed of Faith before without the Churches explicit Declaration For in that case the Church would not so apparently contradict her self for that Contradiction doth not lye in varying the respects of things but in one Declaration contradicting another For otherwise it is as great a contradiction to say That something which was not necessary is become necessary as that a thing which was necessary is become not necessary Therefore if there be a contradiction in one there is in the other If the Contradiction lyes in the Declaration you must say That nothing could be supposed necessary to be believed but what was declared by the Church to be so and as declared by the Church which is a Province as difficult as necessary to be undertaken to rid your hands of this difficulty For otherwise that Answer of yours cannot reach the Objection And now we come to that Testimony of S. Augustine which was produced to prove That all Points defined by the Church are Fundamental Which say It is a thing founded An erring Disputant is to be born with in
other Questions not diligently digested not yet made firm by full Authority of the Church there errour is to be born with but it ought not to proceed so farre that it should labour to shake the Foundation it self of the Church Now to this place his Lordship answers 1. He speaks of a Foundation of Doctrine in Scripture not of a Church-Definition This appears saith he For few lines before he tells us There was a Question moved to S. Cyprian Whether Baptism was concluded to the eighth day as well as Circumcision and no doubt was made then of the beginning of sin and that out of this thing about which no Question was moved that Question that was made was answered And again that S. Cyprian took that which he gave in Answer from the Foundation of the Church to confirm a Stone that was shaking Now S. Cyprian in all the Answer that he gives hath not one word of any Definition of the Church therefore ea res that thing by which he answered was a Foundation of prime and setled scripture-Scripture-Doctrine not any Definition of the Church Therefore that which he took out of the Foundation of the Church to fasten the Stone that shook was not Definition of the Church but the Foundation of the Church it self the Scripture upon which it is builded as appeareth in the Milevitane Councils where the Rule by which Pelagius was condemned is the Rule of Scripture Therefore S. Augustine goes on in the same sense that the Disputer is not to be born any longer that shall endeavour to shake the Foundation it self upon which the whole Church is grounded 2. His Lordship answers That granting that the Churches Definition was meant by S. Austin yet it can never follow out of any or all these Circumstances that all Points defined by the Church are Fundamental because this Foundation may be upon Humane Authority and that which follows only is That things are not to be opposed which are made firm by full Authority of the Church but it cannot be thence concluded They are therefore Fundamental in the Faith This is the substance of his Lordships Answer to this place which we must consider what you reply to First you say That it cannot be doubted but that S. Austin 's judgement was that all our Faith depended on the Authority of the Church and therefore that he that opposeth himself against this endeavoureth to shake and destroy the very ground-work of all Divine and Supernatural Faith This is a rare way of silencing Adversaries by telling them That cannot be doubted which others can see no reason at all to believe As in this present case you tell me that cannot be doubted which I utterly deny viz. That S. Austins judgement was that all our Faith depended on the Authority of the Church and if all the proof you have for it be only that well-known place Ego verò Evangelio non crederem c. You shall in time see what an ill choice you made of fixing your proof wholly upon that But whoever is never so little conversant in S. Augustin's way of disputing either against the Donatists Pelagians or Manichees will find very little reason to doubt but that he made the Foundation of Faith to be God's Word and not the Authority of the Church Indeed S. Austin by way of Prescription often makes use of the Churches Authority not where there hath been particular Definitions but Vniversal Consent which he understands by the settlement by full Authority of the Church but this he insists not on as the ground of Faith but to shew the unreasonableness of mens opposing those things which the Vniversal Church was agreed in as in this Controversie here disputed by him concerning Original Sin in Infants Therefore if I understand S. Austin in this place he doth not at all speak concerning what is to be owned as a matter of Faith simply in it self but what the Churches Carriage towards Dissenters is For after that Citation of S. Cyprian at the Conclusion of his Sermon he addresseth himself to the Pelagians as his dissenting Brethren Therefore saith he Let us if possible intreat this of our Brethren That they would no longer call us Hereticks because we might as well call them so if we would but we do not Why was S. Austin so scrupulous of calling the Pelagians Hereticks if he made the Definition of the Church the Foundation of Faith and looked on this Controversie as defined by full Authority of the Church And after speakes of the Churches bearing with them still in order to their instruction though they were gone so far that they were scarce to be born with and that the Church exercised great patience towards them therefore intreats them not to abuse this patience of the Church but to be reformed since they did exhort as Friends and not contend as enemies And so brings in the former words which I thus paraphrase It is a thing to be taken for granted that in disputable Points and such as the Church hath not alwaies been agreed in dissenters may be born with but if direct and full opposition to the clear sense of the Church should still be suffered it would overthrow the very Foundation of the Church it self And that this and no other is the plain and genuine meaning of S. Austin is evident to any one who impartially considers antecedents and consequents and the natural sense of the words themselves Before he spake how far the Church had born with them in the words themselves he tells them They must not expect the Church would alwaies bear with them if they joyned Obstinacy with their Errours for that would ruine the Church if she continually suffered such as violently opposed things contrary to her clearest sense and after tells them This is not expedient for hitherto it may be our patience is not to be found fault withall but we ought likewise to fear lest we be blamed for our negligence Which words immediately follow the former And is not this now a rare consequence If the Church must not alwaies bear with such as oppose her then whatever is defined by the Church is Fundamental For it is most evident S. Austin speaks not of the Churches Power in defining matters of Faith but of the Churches proceeding with obstinate Hereticks And therefore the Foundation spoken of is not the Foundation of her Belief but of her Communion which the continual bearing with such obstinate persons as the Pelagians were would in time overthrow The want of understanding this to be S. Augustine's meaning hath made you spend many words to very little purpose supposing all along that he speaks of the Churches Definition and not her proceedings Your Reply to his Lordships second Answer runs upon the same mistake that he speaks of Shaking the Foundation of Faith whereas I have already shewed that he speaks of no such thing and therefore that as well as the former Answer fall to
the ground together being both built on the same mistaken Foundation CHAP. III. The Absurdities of the Romanists Doctrine of Fundamentals The Churches Authority must be Divine if whatever she defines be Fundamental His Lordship and not the Testimony of S. Augustine shamefully abused three several wayes Bellarmine not mis-cited the Pelagian Heresie condemned by the General Council at Ephesus The Pope's Authority not implyed in that of Councils The gross Absurdities of the distinction of the Church teaching and representative from the Church taught and dissusive in the Question of Fundamentals The Churches Authority and Testimony in matters of Faith distinguished The Testimonies of Vincentius Lerinensis explained and shewed to be directly contrary to the Roman Doctrine of Fundamentals Stapleton and Bellarmine not reconciled by the vain endeavours used to that end THe main Doctrine of Fundamentals being in the foregoing Chapter setled and cleared what remains of that subject will be capable of a quicker dispatch The scope of this Chapter is to assoil those difficulties which your doctrine of Fundamentals is subject to What little footing that hath in the place of S. Augustine was the last thing discussed in the preceding Chapter and therefore must not be repeated here His Lordship urgeth this reason why S. Augustine or any other reasonable man could not believe that whatever is defined by the Church is Fundamental in the Faith because full Church-Authority alwaies the time that included the Holy Apostles being past by and not comprehended in it is but Church-Authority and Church-Authority when it is at full Sea is not simply divine therefore the sentence of it not Fundamentall in the Faith To this you very wisely and learnedly answer I will not dispute with his Lordship whether it be or no because it is sufficient that such Authority be infallible For if it be infallible it cannot propose to us any thing as revealed by God but what is so revealed So that to dispute against this Authority is in effect to take away all Authority from divine Revelation we having no other absolute certainty that this or that is revealed by God but only the Infallibility of the Church proposing or attesting it unto us as revealed Whence also it follows that to doubt dispute against or deny any thing that is proposed by the Infallible Authority of the Church is to doubt dispute against and deny that which is Fundamental in Faith His Lordship denies the sentence of the Church to be Fundamental in the Faith because not Divine you dare not say It is Divine but contend that it is Infallible and from that Infallibility inferr That Whosoever denies the Churches Infallibility must deny something Fundamental in the Faith because we can have no other absolute certainty that any thing is revealed by God but only from the Churches Infallibility So that your whole proof rests upon a very rotten and uncertain Foundation viz. that all certainty in matters of Faith doth depend upon the Churches Infallibility the falshood and unreasonableness of which principle will at large be discovered in the succeeding Controversie And if this fails then the denial of the Churches Infallibility doth not inferr the denial of any thing Fundamental in the Faith because men may be certain of all Fundamentals without believing this Infallibility But yet say you There is no necessity of asserting Church-Authority to be Divine but only to be infallible in order to the making what she defines to be Fundamental A rare and excellent piece of your old Theological Reason as though any thing could be any further Infallible than it is Divine or any further owned to be Divine than as it is Infallible I pray acquaint us with these rare Arts of distinguishing between an Authority Divine and Infallible when the ground of that Infallibility is the supposition of something properly and simply Divine which is the Infallible Assistance of God's Spirit Is that Assistance Infallible too but not Divine If it be Divine as well as Infallible how comes that Infallibility which flows from it not to be Divine when the cause of it was simply and absolutely so Besides what Infallible Authority is that which makes all its Definitions Fundamental and yet is not in it self Divine From whence comes any thing to be Fundamental You tell us your self as it is known to be revealed by God And can any thing be known to be revealed by God but by an Authority Divine especially on your principles who make all certainty of knowing it to depend on that Churches Authority If so then since the Churches sentence makes things become matters of Faith some things may become matters of Faith which have no Divine Authority for them But this excellent and subtle distinction between Divine and Infallible Authority we shall have occasion to examine afterwards And therefore it is well you tell us Notwithstanding that Infallible and Divine seem to many great Divines to be terms convertible which only acquaints us with thus much that there are some men who understand things better than you do and that to do so is to be a great Divine And if Stapleton be one of these we are not much offended at it and so far we will take the Testimonies which you produce out of him That which next follows depends upon the proof of the Infallibility of General Councils which when you have sufficiently cleared we will believe that there can be no plain Scripture or Evident Reason against any of their Definitions but till then we must believe there may be room for both Your next Section promiseth to shew us a shameful abuse of S. Augustine 's Testimony three several waies But if it appears that not one of those waies will hold then it only follows that so many waies you have abused his Lordship and not he S. Augustine His Lordship having affirmed That plain Scripture with evident sense or a full demonstrative Argument must have room where a wrangling and erring Disputer may not be allowed it And there 's neither of these but may convince the Definition of the Council if it be ill founded Over against these words he cites that sentence of S. Austin Quae quidem si tam manifest a monstratur ut in dubium venire non possit praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus quibus in Catholicâ teneor Ita si aliquid apertissimum in Evangelio c. The plain meaning of which words of S. Augustine is That evident Truth is to be preferred before all Church-Authority Now a threefold Exception you take to his Lordships insisting on this Testimony 1. That S. Austin speaks not either of plain Scripture or evident sense or of a full demonstrative Argument but addressing his speech to the Manicheans he writes thus Apud vos autem ubi nihil horum est quod me invitet ac teneat sola personat veritatis pollicitatio and then follow the words cited by the Bishop quae quidem si
tam manifesta monstratur where it is plain quae which is relative only to Truth and not to Scripture or any thing else A wonderful abuse of S. Austin to make him parallel plain Scripture evident sense or a full Demonstrative Argument with Truth As though if evident Truth were more prevalent with him than all those Arguments which held him in the Catholick Church plain Scripture evident Sense or Demonstrations would not be so too What Truth can be evident if it be not one of these three Do you think there is any other way of manifesting Truth but by Scripture Sense or Demonstration if you have found out other waies oblige the world by communicating them but till then give us leave to think that it is all one to say Manifest Truth as plain Scripture evident Sense or clear Demonstrations But say you He speaks only of that Truth which the Manichees bragged of and promised As though S. Austin would have been perswaded sooner as it came from them than as it was Truth in it self I suppose S. Austin did not think their Testimony sufficient and therefore sayes Quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur c. i. e. If they could make that which they said evident to be Truth he would quit the Church and adhere to them and if this holds against the Manichees will it not on the same reason hold every where else viz. That manifest Truth is not to be quitted on any Authority whatsoever which is all his Lordship asserts But You offer to prove that S. Austin by Truth could not mean plain Scripture But can you prove that by Truth he did not mean Truth whereever he found it whether in Scripture or elsewhere No say you It cannot be meant that by Truth he should mean plain Scripture in opposition to the Definitions of the Catholick Church or General Councils For which you give this Reason because he supposes it impossible that the Doctrine of the Catholick Church should be contrary to Scripture for then men according to S. Austin should not believe infallibly either the one or the other Not the Scriptures because they are received only upon the Authority of the Church nor the Church whose Authority is infringed by the plain Scripture which is brought against her For which you produce a large citation out of S. Austin to that purpose But the Answer to that is easie For S. Austin when he speaks of Church-Authority quâ infirmatâ jam nec Evangelio credere potero he doth not in the least understand it of any Definitions of the Church but of the Vniversal Tradition of the Catholick Church concerning the Scriptures from the time of Christ and his Apostles And what plain Scriptures those are supposable which should contradict such a Tradition as this is is not easie to understand But the case is quite otherwise as to the Churches Definitions for neither doth the Authority of Scripture at all rest upon them and there may be very well supposed some plain Scriptures contrary to the Churches Definitions unless it be proved that the Church is absolutely Infallible and the very proof of that depending on Scripture there must be an appeal made to plain Scripture whether the Churches Definitions may not be contradicted by Scripture When therefore you say This is an impossible Supposition that Scripture should contradict the Churches Definitions like that of the Apostle If an Angel from Heaven teach otherwise let him be accursed Gal. 1. You must prove it as impossible for the Church to deviate from Scripture in any of her Definitions as for an Angel to preach another Gospel which will be the braver attempt because it seems so little befriended either by sense or reason But say you If the Church may be an erring Definer I would gladly know why an erring Disputer may not oppugn her That which you would so gladly know is not very difficult to be resolved by any one who understands the great difference between yielding an Internal Assent to the Definitions of the Church and open opposing them for it only follows from the possibility of the Churches Errour in defining that therefore we ought not to yield an absolute Internal Assent to all her determinations but must examine them by the best measures of Truth in order to our full Assent to them but though the Church may erre it doth not therefore follow that it is lawful in all cases or for all persons to oppugn her Definitions especially if those Definitions be only in order to the Churches Peace but if they be such as require Internal Assent to them then plain Scripture evidence of Sense or clear Reason may be sufficient cause to hinder the submitting to those Definitions 2. You tell us That his Lordship hath abused S. Austin 's Testimony because he speaks not of the Definitions of the Church in matters not Fundamental according to the matter they contain but the Truth mentioned by him was Fundamental in its matter This is the substance of your second Answer which is very rational and prudent being built on this substantial Evidence If S. Austin doth preferr manifest Truth before things supposed Fundamental in the matter then no doubt S. Austin would not preferr manifest Truth before things supposed not-Fundamental in the matter And do not you think this enough to charge his Lordship with shamefully abusing S. Austin But certainly if S. Austin preferred manifest Truth before that which was greater would he not do it before that which was incomparably less If he did it before all those things which kept him in the Catholick Church such as the consent of Nations Miracles Universal Tradition which he mentions before do you think he would have scrupled to have done it as to any particular Definitions of the Church These are therefore very excellent waies of vindicating the Fathers Testimonies from having any thing of sense or reason in them 3. You say He hath abused S. Austin by putting in a wrangling Disputer But I wonder where his Lordship ever sayes that S. Austin mentions any such in the Testimony cited For his words are these But plain Scripture with evident Sense or a full Demonstrative Argument must have room where a wrangling and erring Disputer may not be allowed it And there 's neither of these over against these words he referrs to S. Austin's Testimony and not the foregoing but may convince the Definition of the Council if it be ill founded When you therefore ask Where the wrangling Disputer is to be found had it not been for the help of this Cavil we might have been to seek for him But when you have been enquiring for him at last you cry out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oh! I see now And you are the fittest man to find him out that I know You say This is done to distinguish him from such a Disputer as proceeds solidly and demonstratively against the Definitions of the Church when they are
ill founded which S. Austin is so far from supposing that one may do that he judges him a mad man who disputes against any thing quod universa Ecclesia sentit and that they have hearts not only of Stone but even of Devils who resist so great a manifestation of Truth as is made by an Oecumenical Council for of that he speaks Your design is to prove that S. Austin doth not admit of any plea from Scripture Sense or Reason against any Definitions of the Church for which you first produce that known place in which S. Austin accounts it madness to oppose the universal practices of the Church which will hold for your purpose as far as rites and matters of Faith have any Analogy with each other your latter Testimony seems more to the purpose to all persons who do not examine it and to none else For although you seemed very careful to prevent any examination of the place by a false citation of Epist. 153. for 152. yet that hath not hindered my discovering your fraud in asserting that S. Austin there speaks of an Oecumenical Council For there is not so much as any thing like it in that Epistle I acknowledge those words to be found there which you produce Nulla excusatio jam remansit nimium dura nimium diabolica sunt hominum corda quae adhuc tantae manifestationi veritatis obsistunt But there needs no more to confute the most of your Testimonies out of the Fathers but to mention the occasion of their being produced or the scope and design of the Authors as is most evident in this place For this Epistle is written in the name of Silvanus Valentinus Aurelius Innocentius Maximinus Optatus Augustinus Donatus and other Bishops for satisfaction of the Donatists concerning the proceedings at the Council of Carthage For the Donatist Bishops being therein baffled had dispersed among their Proselytes many false rumours of that Council and of their being circumvented by their Catholick Adversaries To disprove which in this Epistle they first shew the fraud and falsitie of the Donatists and then the Integrity of their own proceedings by the choice of seven persons on either side who should speak in behalf of the rest and seven others as Counsellors to them and four Notaries on either side and four other persons who should keep the Records to prevent all fraud Besides all this every one was to subscribe in his own words that no man might complain that any thing was corrupted afterwards which things being dispersed while the persons themselves lived there was no probability Posterity should be deceived in the report of them And then follow those words That no excuse hath now been left but that their hearts are too hard and diabolical who could gainsay so clear a manifestation of Truth Is it not now a rare consequence from hence to inferr That it is not lawful upon any ground of Scripture Sense or Reason to dispute the Definitions of General Councils Whereas no such thing was ever mentioned as a General Council as appears by the very next words where he sayes expresly it was only a Council of African Bishops and elsewhere S. Austin tells the Donatists that they never durst appeal to a General Council And supposing the Council never so Oecumenical he mentions nothing of the Definitions of it but the manner of its proceedings So that the greatest Truth hereby manifested is your design to abuse his Lordship and the Reader together Since you disown the distinction of things being Fundamental in the matter and in the manner I shall not trouble you with shewing you the weakness of it but it were easie to manifest it as good as that you embrace of the material and formal Object which hath been sufficiently refuted in the precedent chapter and I have no leisure for repetitions His Lordship endeavouring further to shew What little Foundation your Doctrine of Fundamentals hath in the forecited place of S. Augustine urgeth this as an Argument against it That if all Points defined by the Church are therefore Fundamental because that is not to be shaken which is setled by full Authority of the Church then it must follow That the Point there spoken of the remission of Original Sin in the Baptism of Infants was defined when S. Augustine wrote this by a full sentence of a General Council You deny the Consequence for say you By Authority of the Church you mean and not unproperly the Church generally practising this Doctrine and defining it in a National Council confirmed by the Pope For this was plena authoritas Ecclesiae though not plenissima and to dispute against what was so practised and defined is in S. Augustine's sense to shake the Foundation of the Church if not wholly to destroy it It seems a little hard to understand what you mean by the Churches being not unproperly said to practise this Doctrine What did the Church practise the Doctrine of the remission of Original Sin in Infants That a Church should practise a matter of Faith seems a little wonderful but that it should do this and that not unproperly increaseth the admiration And we might think it a peculiar priviledge belonging to your Church but that she is not so much used to practise things more capable of it And can you think it enough to run us down by telling us That the Pope with a National Council hath defined it unless you first prove that the Pope and a National Council have as much authority as a General Council which you pretend to be infallible and if a National Council with the Pope be so too I wonder to what end General Councils are ever call'd since the Infallibility may be had at a much cheaper rate And by the same reason you make National Councils Infallible you may do Provincial if the Pope concurrs with them and by the same reason the Colledge of Cardinals may be Infallible without any of them because of the Pope's concurrence with them And so all this business of Councils is but a formal piece of Pageantry since all the Infallibility they have by this pretence is conferred by the Pope in his concurrence whose Infallibility doth not depend on the presence of a Council and therefore he must be as Infallible without a Council as with it So that at last this Discourse comes to this issue He that shakes the Pope's Infallibility shakes the Foundation of the Church and prove but this to have been S. Augustine's meaning you will highly advance the interest of your cause But whatever S. Austin's meaning be you think your self engaged to vindicate Bellarmine who his Lordship had said was deceived in saying That the Pelagian Heresie was never condemned in an Oecumenical Council but only in Nationals For saith he While the Pelagians stood out impudently against National Councils some of them defended Nestorius which gave occasion to the first Ephesine Council to excommunicate and depose
them To which you answer 1. It is not credible that Bellarmine who writ so much of Controversie should not have read that Council nor can there be any suspicion of his conâ—ealing the matter had he found it there c. and therefore you suspend your Assent till the Council's words be produced 2. You tell us That it is not enough to prove that Pelagianism was condemned by a General Council because some who were Pelagians were but say you They were condemned not for Pelagianism but Nestorianism and therefore his Lordship shoots wide of the mark Your Argument from Bellarmine will have no great force with them who see no reason to admire his fidelity and they who enquire into the matter of fact in the present debate will have cause to suspect it The short account whereof is this After that Julianus Florus Orontius Fabius and others had been deposed and banished in the Western Churches for the Pelagian Heresie they fly to Constantinople and shroud themselves under the protection of Nestorius the Patriarch there who secretly favoured them and writ several Letters to Pope Celestine in behalf of them who is supposed to have received his Doctrine of the person of Christ from the Pelagians But when he saw that no good was to be done by these Letters but by the daily spreading of Nestorianism the Emperour was forced to summon a Council at Ephesus A. D. 431. The Pelagians accompany Nestorius thither and joyn with Johannes Antiochenus and his party in opposition to the Synod But the Council understanding the proceedings which had been in the Western Churches against the Pelagians ratifies and confirms their deposition as appears by the Synodal Epistle of the Council to Pope Celestine which is extant in the Acts of the Ephesine Council and in the Epistles of Cyril of Alexandria And besides this some of the Canons of that Council do equally concern Celestius and Nestorius the first Canon decreeing as well the favourers of Celestius as Nestorius to be excommunicate and the fourth dereeing the Deposition of all such who should embrace either of them And therefore it is truly said by Jansenius that the Pelagian Heresie and the Bishops who favoured it were again condemned by an Oecumenical Council And thence Prosper in the Epitaph of the Nestorian and Pelagian Heresies as he makes the Nestorian only an Off-spring of the Pelagian so he makes both of them to fall and be condemned together From whence it appears that the Pelagians were not condemned in the Ephesine Council meerly for Nestorianism but for their proper and peculiar sentiments the former deposition of them being ratified by the Council and a new Canon made to that purpose for the future And now let the Reader judge whether his Lordship or Bellarmine were herein the more mistaken His Lordship adds If this Heresie were condemned only by a National Council then the full Authority of the Church here is no more than the full Authority of this Church of Africk And I hope saith he That Authority doth doth not make all Points defined by it to be Fundamental You will say Yes if that Council be confirmed by the Pope And then I must ever wonder why S. Augustine should say The full Authority of the Church and not bestow one word upon the Pope by whose Authority only that Council as all other have their fulness of Authority in your judgement An inexpiable Omission if this Doctrine concerning the Pope were true To this you answer That there was no need of any special mention of the Pope in speaking of the Authority of the Church because his Authority is alwaies chiefly supposed as being Head of the whole Church But by whom was this supposed by you or by S. Augustine Can you prove that S. Austin or any of the African Fathers did ever suppose any such thing that the Pope being Head of the Church his Authority is chiefly supposed in the Acts of National Councils Where was the supposal of this Authority in the Dispute between the African Fathers and the Popes in the case of Appeals These are suppositions only to be obtruded upon ignorant Novices and such who look no further into Antiquity than the Implicit Faith in their Priests will give them leave But what a stranger to all true Antiquity this supposition of the Pope's being Head of the Church is we shall see abundantly when we come to the Controversie of the Pope's Authority Yet granting the Supposition true than which nothing can be more false when the main strength lyes not in the bare Definition of a National Council which you grant of it self hath not full Authority but in the confirmation of that Decision by the Pope which makes that Authority full which was not so before Was it not necessary to declare that the Pope did concurr to the giving it full Authority which without it could not be had You do not say That all National Councils have this full Authority not being confirmed by the Pope if therefore S. Augustine designed to shew that Council to have full Authority the only way to prove it was to produce the Pope's Confirmation of it which cannot therefore be otherwise looked on than as an inexpiable Omission if your Doctrine be true for he left out that which was only pertinent and material to the business Your parallel between S. Austin and your self which is a very worthy one in leaving out the mention of the Pope's Authority when it is understood will then hold when you produce as great evidence that S. Austin was a Jesuit as we have from your principles that you are When you give as manifest proof that the Pope's Power is necessary to all Definitions of Councils as there is in our Laws for our Kings assenting to Acts of Parliament we may give you leave to parallel the Omission of the express mention of one with the other If the Definitions of Ancient Councils did run in the name of Pope and Council as our Acts of Parliament in the name of the King and both Houses we might easily say the Authority of them came from the Pope as of these from the King but there is nothing of that nature but much of the contrary as will appear in due time When you therefore prove that the Pope's Power is implied though it be not mentioned you must prove it by some evident Confession that no Authority of a Council was full unless the Pope concurred with it else you may as well say That the great Mogul hath no full Authority to decree any thing without the Pope's consent for I dare say There is no denial of it in any of his Laws And yet that is more than can be said here for we have sufficient testimony from the records of that age That the Pope's Authority was not supposed necessary to Councils from his being Head of the Church What follows p. 34. n. 5 6. depends wholly upon the
often-mention'd distinction of the Formal and Material Object of Faith the foundation of which having been already removed whatever you offer to build upon it must of necessity fall to the ground but I shall not follow your ill example in making tedious Repetitions and then cry out You are forced to it His Lordship urgeth further from the Romanists Doctrine of Fundamentals That the Churches Definition must be the Churches Foundation His words are Besides whatsoever is Fundamental in the Faith is Fundamental to the Church which is one by the Vnity of Faith Therefore if every thing defined by the Church be Fundamental in the Faith then the Churches Definition is the Churches Foundation And so upon the matter the Church can lay her own Foundation and then the Church must be in absolute and perfect Being before so much as her Foundation is laid To which you answer But what Absurdity is it to grant That the Definition of the Church teaching is the Foundation of the Church taught or the Definition of the Church representative is the Foundation of the Church diffusive I pray inform us whether this Church teaching and representing be the same Church with the Church taught and diffusive or one different from it If it be different it must have a different Foundation and so must be fundamentally different if it be the same then the Church must still lay its own Foundation for whatever becomes Fundamental by the Definition of the Church is I suppose to be believed as necessary i. e. Fundamental by the Church teaching and representing as well as taught and diffusive Unless you think those who decree things to be believed by all in order to salvation do exclude themselves out of that number and therefore though it be necessary for all others to believe it it is still indifferent for them whether they will believe it or no. And therefore were I of your Church I should heartily wish my self of the teaching and representative Church for then others might go to Hell for not believing that which I might chuse whether I would or no. What an excellent invention this is to make the Pope and Cardinals go to Heaven though they be Atheists and Infidels For you tell us we can have no assurance of any matter of Faith but from the Infallibility of your Church this Infallibility lyes not in the taught and diffusive but in the teaching and representative Church and this distinction here supposes that what is made the Foundation of the Church taught is not the Foundation of the Church teaching i. e. what is necessary to Salvation for one is not so for the other for that is your meaning of Fundamentals Now since all things become necessary to be believed by the Church diffusive upon the Authority of the Church representative it necessarily follows from this distinction That nothing at all is necessary to be believed by the Church representative And is not this a rare Church the mean while but what is it which makes it a Church for though it represents and teaches yet it is still call'd a Church teaching and representative If it be a Church something must make it so What can make it so if not the belief of what is necessary to Salvation And if it doth not believe all that is necessary to Salvation the Church diffusive is much more truly a Church than the representative If it doth believe all that is necessary then it must believe its own Definitions because those are supposed to be so and consequently if those be Fundamental the Church must still lay her own Foundation Or else these consequences follow 1. That may be a true Church which doth not believe all things necessary to Salvation 2. The Church teaching is not bound to believe that which she teaches but only the Church taught 3. That may be the same Church which Fundamentally differs from it self 4. When the Church defines a thing to be necessary she doth not believe it to be necessary but it becomes necessary after her Definition For I pray satisfie us as to this Teaching Church when she defines something necessary to be believed in order to Salvation which was not so defined before Doth she at that Instant of her Definition believe that to be necessary to Salvation or doth she not If she doth then it is necessary before her Definition and so the belief of it as necessary cannot depend upon it But if she believes it only to be necessary because she defines it to be so then she cannot believe it to be necessary till she hath defined it and consequently defines that to be necessary which she believes not to be necessary and so defines contrary to her own judgement and belief Let me therefore ask here some more Questions which I doubt you will think troublesome If the Church representative believed that not to be necessary to Salvation which she defined to be necessary to Salvation was she infallible in that belief or no If she was not infallible then at that time what assurance could men have of any matter of Faith since you tell us That must be had from the Churches Infallibility If she were infallible then either in some things only or in all she believed if only in some things we ought to know what she is infallible in and what not lest we deceive our selves in believing her infallible in that in which she is not infallible If in all things then she is infallible in believing that not to be necessary to Salvation which yet she infallibly defines to be necessary to Salvation And so the Church may infallibly define that to be true which at the very moment of that Definition she infallibly believes to be false All these are the just and excellent Consequences of this useful Distinction of yours which you look on as the only happy Expedient whereby to free your self from asserting that the Church by making things Fundamental by her Definitions doth thereby lay her own Foundation But as absurd and unreasonable as this is you would seem to have something to say for it for you tell us That the Pastors in all Ages preserving Christian People from being carried away with every wind of Doctrine are a Foundation to them of constancy in Doctrine Wonderfully subtle it is pity such excellent reasoning should want the ornaments of Mood and Figure but thus it is in them If the Pastors of the Church may be the means of preserving men from errours then the Definition of the Church teaching is the Foundation of the Church taught which in short amounts to this If the Pastors of the Church may be a Foundation of mens constancy in Doctrine then they may be a Foundation of mens inconstancy in Doctrine If this be not that you mean I can make no sense of what you say and if it be let any one else make Sense of it that hath a gift for it For by constancy in
Doctrine is meant the adhering to that Doctrine which God hath revealed as necessary in his Word but by the Definitions of the teaching Church you understand a Power to make more things necessary to the Salvation of all than Christ hath made so that joyn these two together the Consequence is this If the Pastors of the Church may and ought to keep men from believing any other Doctrine then they have power to impose another Doctrine which things are so contradictious to each other that none but one of your faculty would have ventured to have set one to prove the other Therefore when you would prove any thing by this Argument your Medium must be this That the Pastors of the Church are a Foundation of constancy in Doctrine by laying New Foundations of Doctrines by her Definitions which is just as if you would prove That the best way to keep a House entire without any additions is to build another house adjoyning to it But say you further Were not the Apostles in their times who were Ecclesia docens by their Doctrine and Decrees a Foundation to the Church which was taught by them Doth not S. Paul expresly affirm it superaedificati supra Fundamentum Apostolorum c. To which I answer 1. That the Apostles were not therefore said to be the Foundation on which they were built who believed on that Doctrine because by virtue of their Power they could define or decree any thing to be necessary to Salvation which was not so before but because they were the Instruments whereby the things which were necessary to Salvation were conveyed to them And because their Authority by virtue of their Mission and the Power accompanying it was the means whereby they were brought to believe the Doctrin of the Gospel as in it self true But there is a great deal of difference between teaching what is necessary to Salvation and making any thing necessary to Salvation which was before meerly because it is taught by them 2. I grant that those things did become necessary to be believed which the Apostles taught but it was either because the things were in themselves necessary in order to the end declared viz. Man's Salvation or else it was on the account of that evidence which the Apostles gave that they were persons immediately imployed by God to deliver those Doctrines to them But still here is nothing becoming necessary by virtue of a Decree or Definition but by virtue of a Testimony that what they delivered came from God 3. When the Apostles delivered these things the Doctrine of the Gospel was not made known to the world but they were chosen by God and infallibly assisted for that end that they might reveal it to the world And this is certainly a very different case from that when the Doctrine of Salvation is fully revealed and delivered down to us in unquestionable records And therefore if you will prove any thing to your purpose you must prove as great and as divine assistance of the Spirit in the Church representative of all Ages as was in the Apostles in the first Age of the Christian Church 4. When you say from hence That the Apostles as the teaching Church laid the Foundation of the Church taught that can only be understood of those Christians who became a Church by the Apostles preaching the Doctrine of the Gospel to them but this is quite a different thing from laying the Foundation of a Church already in being as your Church taught and diffusive is supposed to be Can you tell us where the Apostles are said to lay further Foundations for Churches already constituted that they made or declared more things necessary to Salvation than were so antecedently to their being a Church But this is your case you pretend a power in your Church representative to make more things necessary to Salvation than were before to a Church already in Being and therefore supposed to believe all things necessary to Salvation You see therefore what a vast disparity there is in the case and how far the Apostles declaring the Doctrine of Christ and thereby founding Churches is from being an Argument that the representative Church may lay the Foundation of the Church diffusive which being a Church already must have its Foundation laid before all new Decrees and Definitions of the teaching Church So that still it unavoidably follows upon your principles That the Church must lay her own Foundation and then the Church must have been in absolute and perfect Being before so much as her Foundation is laid Your weak endeavour of retorting this upon the Bishop because of the Apostles teaching the Church of their Age only shews that you have a good will to say something in behalf of so bad a cause but that you want ability to do it as appears by the Answers already given as to the difference of the Apostles case and yours The subsequent Section which is spent in a weak defence of A. C's words hath the less cause to be particularly examined and besides its whole strength lyes on things sufficiently discussed already viz. the sufficient Proposition of matters of Faith and the Material and Formal Object of it That which follows pretending to something New and which looks like Argumentation must be more distinctly considered Cs. words are That if one may deny or doubtfully dispute against any one Determination of the Church then he may against another and another and so against all since all are made firm to us by one and the same Divine Revelation sufficiently applied by one and the same full Authority of the Church which being weakned in any one cannot be firm in any other To which his Lordship answers 1. That this is understood only of Catholick Maxims which are properly Fundamental by Vincentius Lirinensis from whom this Argument is derived 2. He denies that all Determinations of the Church are made firm to us by one and the same Divine Revelation 3. He denies that all Determinations of the Church are sufficiently applied by one and the same full Authority of the Church Of each of these he gives his reasons the examination and defence of which is all that remains of this Chapter To the first you answer three things for I must digest your Answers for you 1. That there is no evidence that A. C. borrowed this from Vincentius and you give an excellent reason for it because good wits may both hit on the same thing or at least come near it which had it been said of your self had been more unquestionable but to let that pass 2. You tell us That the Doctrine is true whosoever said it For which you give this reason For the same reason which permits not our questioning or denying the prime Maxims of Faith permits not our questioning or denying any other Doctrine declared by the Church because it is not the greatness or smalness of the matter that moves us to give firm Assent
in Points of Faith but the Authority of God speaking by the Church To which I answer that all this runs upon a Supposition false in it self which is That all our Assurance in matters of Faith depends upon the Infallible Authority of the present Church which being granted I would not deny but supposing that Infallibility absolute on the same reason I believe one thing on the Churches Authority I must believe all For the case were the same then as to the Church which we say it is as to the Scriptures he that believes any thing on the account of its being contained in that Book as the Word of God must believe every thing he is convinced to be therein contained whether the matter be in it self small or great because the ground of his belief is the Authority of God revealing those things to us And if therefore you could prove such a Divine Authority constantly resident in the Church for determining all matters of Faith I grant your consequence would hold but that is too great a boon to be had for begging and that is all the way you use for it here If you offer to prove it afterwards our Answers shall be ready to attend you But at present let it suffice to tell you That we believe no Article of Faith at all upon the Churches Infallible Authority and therefore though we deny what the Church proposeth it follows not that we are any more liable to question the truth of any Article any further than the Churches Authority reaches in it i. e. we deny that any thing becomes an Article meerly upon her account But now if you remove the Argument from the present Churches Infallible Authority to the Vniversal Churches Testimony we then tell you That he who questions a clear full universal Tradition of the whole Church from Christ's time to this will by the same reason doubt of all matters of Faith which are conveyed by this Testimony to us But then we must further consider That we are bound by virtue of the Churches Testimony to believe nothing any further than it appears to have been the constant full Vniversal Testimony of the Church from the time of Christ and his Apostles Whatever therefore you can make appear to have been received as a necessary Article of Faith in this manner we embrace it but nothing else and on the other side we say That whoever doubts or denies this Testimony will doubt of all matters of Faith because the ground and rule of Faith the Scriptures is conveyed to us only through this Universal Tradition 3. You answer That his Lordship mistakes Vincentius Lerinensis his meaning and falsifies his testimony thrice at least Whereof the first is in rendring de Catholico dogmate of Catholick Maxims and here a double most dreadful charge is drawn up against his Lordship the first from the accusation of Priscian and the second of no less Authours than Rider and the English Lexicons the first is for translating the Singular Number by the Plural whereas our most Reverend Orbilius himself in the following page tells us that this Catholicum dogma Vincentius speaks of contains the whole Systeme of the Catholick Faith and in that Systeme some are Fundamentals some Superstructures both Plurals yet all these contained in this one singular Dogma but it was his Lordships great mishap not to have his education in the Schools of the Jesuites else he might have escaped the lash for this most unpardonable oversight of rendring verbum multitudinis by our Authours own confession who makes it larger too then his Lordship doth for his Lordship saith it contains only Fundamentals but our Authour Superstructures too by the Plural Number But the second fault is worse then this for saith our Authour very gravely and discreetly with his rod in his hand But in what Authour learnt he that Dogma signifies only Maxims were it in the Plural number Dogma according to our English Lexicons Rider and others signifies a Decree or common received Opinion whether in prime or less principal matters What a learned dispute are we now fallen into But I see you were resolved to put all but Boys and Paedagogues out of all likelyhood of confuting you For those are only the persons among us who deal in Rider and English Lexicons I see now there is some hopes that the orders of the Inquisition may have better Latin then that against Mr. White had since our old Jesuites begin to be so well versed in such Masters of the Latin tongue How low is Infallibility fallen that we must appeal for knowing what dogma fidei is to the definition not of Popes and Councils but of Rider and English Lexicons But it is ill jesting with our Orbilius in so severe a humour that his Grace of Canterbury cannot scape his lash for not consulting Riders Dictionary for the signification of Dogma But our Authour passeth and we must attend him out of his Grammatical into the Theological School and there tells us That the Ecclesiastical signification of Dogma extends it self to all things established in the Church as matters of Faith whether Fundamentals or Superstructures and for this Scotus is cited somewhat a better Authour than Rider who calls Transubstantiation Dogma fidei I begin to believe now that Dogma is a very large word and Fides much larger that can hold so prodigious a thing as Transubstantiation within them But notwithstanding what Rider and Scotus say None so able to explain Vincentius his meaning as Vincentius himself To him therefore at last our Authour appeals and tells us That he declares in other places that he means by Dogma such things as in general belong to Christian Faith without distinction But doth Vincentius any where by Dogma mean any such things which were not judged necessary by the ancient and Primitive Church but become necessary to be believed upon the Churches Definitions Nothing can possibly be imagined more directly contrary to the design of his whole Book then that is when he appeals still for matters to be believed to Antiquity Vniversality and Consent and to be sure all these are required to whatever he means by a Dogma fidei if you therefore can produce any testimonies out of his Book which can be supposed in the least to favour the power of the Church in her new Definitions of matters of Faith you may justly challenge to your self the name of an excellent Invention who can find that in his Book which all other persons find the directly contrary to Your first citation is out of ch 33. not 23. as you quote it or some one else for you where he is explaining what St. Paul means by Prophanas vocum novitates Vocum saith he i. e. Dogmatum rerum sententiarum novitates quae sunt vetustati quae antiquitati contrariae I shall not scruple to grant you that Vincentius by Dogmata here doth mean such things as the Definitions of your Church
are for he speaks of those things which all Christians who have a care of their Salvation are to avoid of such things as are contrary to all Antiquity and such kind of Dogmata I freely grant the Definitions of your Church to be Your second citation is as happy as the first cap. 28. Crescat saith he speaking of the Church sed in suo duntaxat genere in eodem scilicet Dogmate eodem sensu eâdemque sententiâ An excellent place no doubt to prove it in the Churches power to define new Articles of Faith because the Church must alwaies remain in the same Belief sense and opinion When his words but little foregoing are Profectus sit ille fidei non permutatio which without the help of English Lexicons you would willingly render by leaving out that troublesome Particle non that the best progress in Faith is by adding new Articles though it be as contrary to reason as it is to the sense of Vincentius Lerinensis If Vincentius saith that the Pelagians erred in Dogmate fidei which words neither appear cap. 24. nor 34. he gives this reason for it because they contradict the Vniversal sense of Antiquity and the Catholick Church cap. 34. So that still Vincentius where-ever he speaks of this Dogma fidei speaks in direct opposition to your sense of it for new definitions of the Church in matters of Faith There being scarce any book extant which doth more designedly overthrow this opinion of yours then that of Vincentius doth To shew therefore how much you have wronged his Lordship and what little advantage comes to your cause by your insisting on Vincentius his testimony I shall give a brief account both of his Design and Book The design of it is to shew what wayes one should use to prevent being deceived by such who pretend to discover new matters of Faith and those he assigns to be these two setling ones faith on the Authority of Scripture and the tradition of the Catholick Church But since men would enquire The Canon of Scripture being perfect and abundantly sufficient for all things what need can there be of Ecclesiastical tradition He answers For finding out the true sense of Scripture which is diversly interpreted by Novatianus Photinus Sabellius Donatus Arrius Eunomius Macedonius Apollinaris c. In the following Chapter he tells us what he means by this Ecclesiastical tradition Quod ubique quod semper ab omnibus creditum est that which hath Antiquity Vniversality and Consent joyning in the belief of it And can any new Definitions of the Church pretend to all or any of these He after enquires what is to be done in case a particular Church separates it self from the communion of the Catholick He answers We ought to prefer the health of the whole body before any pestiferous or corrupted member But in case any Novel Contagion should spread over not a part only but endanger the whole Church then saith he a man must adhere to Antiquity which cannot be deceived with a pretence of Novelty But if in Antiquity we find out the errour of two or three particular Persons or City or Province what is then to be done then saith he the Decrees of General Councils are to be preferred But in case there be none then he adds The general consent of the most approved writers of the Church is to be enquired after and what they all with one consent openly frequently constantly held writ and taught that let every man look on himself as bound to believe without hesitation Now then prove but any one of the new Articles of Faith in the Tridentine Confession by these rules of Vincentius and it will appear that you have produced his Testimony to some purpose else nothing will be more strong and forcible against all your pretences than this discourse of Vincentius is which he inlarges by the examples of the Donatists Arrians and others in the following Chapters in which still his scope is to assert Antiquity and condemn all Novelties in matters of Faith under any pretext whatsoever For this ch 12 14. he cites a multitude of Texts of Scripture forbidding our following any other Doctrine but what was delivered by Christ and his Apostles and Anathematizing all such as such as should Preach any other Gospel and concludes that with this remarkable speech It never was never is never will be lawful to propose any thing as matter of Faith to Christian Catholicks besides what they have received And it was is and will be becoming Christians to Anathematize all such who declare any thing but what they have received Do you think this man was not of your minde in the Doctrine of Fundamentals could he do otherwise then believe it in the Churches power to define things necessary to Salvation who would have all those Anathematized who pretend to declare any thing as matter of Faith but what they received as such from their Ancestours And after he hath at large exemplified this in the Photinian Nestorian Apollinarian Heresies and shewed how little the Authority of private Doctors how excellent soever is to be relyed on in matters of faith he concludes again with this Whatsoever the Catholick Church held universally that and that alone is to be held by particular persons And after admires at the madness blindness perverseness of those who are not contented with the once delivered and ancient rule of Faith but are still seeking new things and alwaies are itching to add alter take away some thing of Religion or matter of Faith As though that were not a Heavenly Doctrine which may suffice to be once revealed but an earthly institution which cannot be perfect but by continual correction and amendment Is not this man now a fit person to explain the sense of your Churches new Definitions and Declarations in matters of Faith And have not you hit very right on this sense of Dogma when here he understands by it that Doctrine of Faith which is not capable of any addition or alteration And thus we understand sufficiently what he means by the present controverted place that if men reject any part of the Catholick Doctrine they may as well refuse another and another till at last they reject all By the Catholick Doctrine or Catholicum dogma there he means the same with the Coeleste dogma before and by both of them understands that Doctrine of Faith which was once revealed by God and which is capable of no addition at all having Antiquity Vniversality and Consent going along with it and when you can prove that this Catholicum dogma doth extend beyond those things which his Lordship calls Catholick Maxims or properly Fundamental Truths you will have done something to the purpose which as yet you have failed in And thus we say Vincentius his rule is good though we do not say that he was infallible in the application of it but that he might mention some such things to
have had Antiquity Vniversality and Consent which had not so such as the business of not rebaptizing Hereticks and the observation of Easter which you instance in And withall we add though nothing is to be admitted for matter of Faith which wants those three marks yet some things may have all three of them and yet be no matters of Faith at all and therefore not at all pertinent to this question Such as those things are which you insist on as deposita dogmata which doubtless is a rare way of probation viz. to shew that by dogmata deposita Vincentius means some articles of Faith which are not Fundamental in the matter of them and for that make choice of such instances which are no matters of faith at all but either ritual traditions or matters of order such as the form and matter of Sacraments the Hierarchy of the Church Paedobaptism not rebaptizing Hereticks the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary For that of the Canon of Scripture it will be elsewhere considered as likewise those other Church-traditions How the Church should still keep hoc idem quod antea as you confess she ought and yet make some things necessary to be believed by all which before her declaration were not so is somewhat hard to conceive and yet both these you assert together Is that which is necessary to be believed by all the same with that which was not necessary to be so believed if the same measure of Faith will not serve after which would have done before is there not an alteration made Yes you grant as to our believing but not as to the thing for that is the same it was But do you in the mean time consider what kind of thing that is which you speak of which is a thing propounded to be believed and considered in no other respect but as it is revealed by God in order to our believing it now when the same thing which was required only to be believed implicitely i. e. not at all necessarily is now propounded to be believed expresly and necessarily the Fundamental nature of it as an object of Faith is altered For that which you call implicite Faith doth really imply as to all those things to be believed implicitely that there is an indifferency whether they be believed or no nothing being necessary to be believed but what is propounded to be expresly believed Which being so Can it be imagined there should be a greater alteration in a matter of Faith then from its being indifferent whether it were believed or no to become necessary to be expresly believed by all in order to Salvation And where there is such an alteration as this in the thing to be believed who can without the help of a very commodious implicite Faith believe that still this is hoc idem quod antea the very same as a matter of Faith which it was before Though the Church were careful to preserve every Iota and tittle of Sacred Doctrines yet I hope it follows not that every Iota and tittle is of as much consequence and as necessary to be believed as the main substance of Christian Doctrine Although when any Doctrine was violently opposed in the Church she might declare her owning it by some overt act yet thence it doth not follow that the internal assent to every thing so declared is as necessary as to that proposition that Jesus is the Son of God the belief of which the Scripture tells us was the main design of the writing of Scripture That General Councils rightly proceeding may be great helps to the Faith of Christians I know none that deny but that by vertue of their definitions any thing becomes necessary to be believed which was not so before remains yet to be proved You much wonder his Lordship should father that saying on Vincentius That If new Doctrines be added to the old the Church which is Sacrarium veritatis the repository of verity may be changed in Lupanar errorum which his Lordship saith he is loth to English for you tell us That Vincentius is so far from entertaining the least thought of it that he presently adds Deus avertat God forbid it should be so A stout Inference Just as if one should say The Church of Rome may be in time overspread with the Mahumetan Religion but God forbid it should be so Were he not an excellent Disputer who should hence inferr it impossible ever to be so What you add out of Vincentius only proves that he did not believe it was so in his time but doth not in the least prove that he believed it impossible that ever it should be so afterwards but notwithstanding all that you say it is evident enough that Vincentius believed it a very supposable Case by that question he puts elsewhere What if any new contagion doth not only endeavour to defile a part only but the whole Church in which he saith we are to adhere to antiquity If you answer he speaks only of an endeavour it is soon replyed That he speaks of such an endeavour as puts men to dispute a question what they are to do in such a Case and he resolves at that time they are not to adhere to the judgement of the present Church but to that of Antiquity which is all we desire in that Case viz. That the present Church may so far add to matters of Faith that we can in no reason be obliged to rely only upon her judgement Wherein we are to consider the Question is not of that you call the diffusive but the representative Church all which may be overspread and yet but a part of the other but yet if that Church whose judgement you say only is to be relyed on may be so infected it is all one as to those who are to be guided by her judgement whether the other be or no. For here eadem est ratio non entis non apparentis because it is not the reality but the manifestation which is the ground of mens relying on the Churches judgement So that if as to all outward appearance and all judicial acts of the Church she may recede from the ancient Faith and add novitia veteribus whether all particular persons in it do so or no all ground of relying on the judgement of that Church is thereby taken away Whether it be the Church her self or Hereticks in the Church which make these additions is very little material if these Hereticks who add these new articles of Faith may carry themselves so cunningly as to get to themselves the reputation of the Catholick Church and so that which ought to have been Sacrarium veritatis may become impiorum turpium errorum Lupanar which your Church is concerned not to have Englished but by the help of Rider and other good Authours of yours it is no hard matter to come to understand it And thus we see how much you have abused his Lordship
believe them this Divine Testimor is never pretended to be contained in the Creed but that it is only a summary Collection of the most necessary Points which God hath revealed and therefore something else must be supposed as the ground and formal reason why we assent to the truth of those things therein contained So that the Creed must suppose the Scripture as the main and only Foundation of believing the matters of Faith therein contained But say you If all the Scripture be included in the Creed there appears no great reason of scruple why the same should not be said of Traditions and other Points especially of that for which we admit Scripture it self But do you make no difference between the Scripture being supposed as the ground of Faith and all Scripture being contained in the Creed And doth not his Lordship tell you That though some Articles may be Fundamental which are infolded in the Creed it would not follow that therefore some unwritten Traditions were Fundamental for though they may have Authority and use in the Church as Apostolical yet are they not Fundamental in the Faith And as for that Tradition That the Books of Holy Scripture are Divine and Infallible in every part he promises to handle it when he comes to the proper place for it And there we shall readily attend what you have to object to what his Lordship saith about it But yet you say His Lordship doth not answer the Question as far as it was necessary to be answered we say he doth No say you For the Question arising concerning the Greek Churches errour whether it were Fundamental or no Mr. Fisher demanded of the Bishop What Points he would account Fundamental to which he answers That all Points contained in the Creed are such but yet not only they and therefore this was no direct Answer to the Question for though the Greeks errour was not against the Creed yet it may be against some other Fundamental Article not contained in the Creed This you call fine shuffling To which I answer That when his Lordship speaks of its not being Fundamentum unicum in that sense to exclude all things not contained in the Creed from being Fundamental he spake it with an immediate respect to the belief of Scripture as an Infallible Rule of Faith For saith he The truth is I said and say still That all the Points of the Apostles Creed as they are there expressed are Fundamental And herein I say no more than some of your best learned have said before me But I never said or meant that they only are Fundamental that they are Fundamentum unicum is the Council of Trent's 't is not mine Mine is That the belief of Scripture to be the Word of God and Infallible is an equal or rather a preceding Principle of Faith with or to the whole body of the Creed Now what reason can you have to call this shuffling unless you will rank the Greeks errour equal with the denying the Scripture to be the Word of God otherwise his Lordship's Answer is as full and pertinent as your cavil is vain and trifling His Lordship adds That this agrees with one of your own great Masters Albertus Magnus who is not far from the Proposition in terminis To which your Exceptions are so pitiful that I shall answer them without reciting them for he that supposeth the sense of Scripture joyned with the Articles of Faith to be the Rule of Faith as Albertus doth must certainly suppose the belief of the Scripture as the Word of God else how is it possible its sense should be the Rule of Faith Again it is not enough for you to say That he believed other Articles of Faith besides these in the Creed but that he made them a Rule of Faith together with the sense of Scripture 3. All this while here is not one word of Tradition as the ground on which these Articles of Faith were to be believed If this therefore be your way of answering I know none will contend with you for fine shuffling What follows concerning the right sense of the Article of the Descent of Christ into Hell since you say You will not much trouble your self about it as being not Fundamental either in his Lordships sense or ours I look on that expression as sufficient to excuse me from undertaking so needless a trouble as the examining the several senses of it since you acknowledge That no one determinate sense is Fundamental and therefore not pertinent to our business Much less is that which follows concerning Mr. Rogers his Book and Authority in which and that which depends upon it I shall only give you your own words for an Answer That truly I conceive it of small importance to spend much time upon this subject and shall not so far contradict my judgement as to do that which I think when it is done is to very little purpose Of the same nature is that of Catharinus for it signifies nothing to us whether you account him an Heretick or no who know Men are not one jot more or less Heretick for your accounting them to be so or not You call the Bishop your good friend in saying That all Protestants do agree with the Church of England in the main Exceptions which they joyntly take against the Roman Church as appears by their several Confessions For say you by their agreeing in this but in little or nothing else they sufficiently shew themselves enemies to the true Church which is one and only one by Vnity of Doctrine from whence they must needs be judged to depart by reason of their Divisions As good a friend as you say his Lordship was to you in that saying of his I am sure you ill requite him for his Kindness by so palpable a falsification of his words and abuse of his meaning And all that Friendship you pretend lyes only in your leaving out that part of the Sentence which takes away all that you build on the rest For where doth his Lordship say That the Protestants only agree in their main Exceptions against the Roman Church and not in their Doctrines Nay doth he not expresly say That they agree in the chiefest Doctrines as well as main Exceptions which they take against the Church of Rome as appears by their several Confessions But you very conveniently to your purpose and with a fraud suitable to your Cause leave out the first part of agreement in the chiefest Doctrines and mention only the latter lest your Declamation should be spoiled as to your Unity and our Disagreements But we see by this by what means you would perswade men of both by Arts and Devices fit only to deceive such who look only on the appearance and outside of things and yet even there he that sees not your growing Divisions is a great stranger to the Christian world Your great Argument of the Vnity of your party because
enough for his purpose to prove it by such sufficient evidence as may convince any reasonable man And this was all his Lordship meant when he said That our Negative Articles do refute where the thing is not affirmed in Scripture or not directly concluded out of it And if you will stand to the strict sense of these words you will be forced to prove all those Doctrines of your Church which ours denies to be true so evidently and demonstratively i. e. undeniably as you would put him upon for the proof of Infant-Baptism To leave therefore this verbal dispute and come to the thing His Lordship saith That it may be concluded directly out of Scripture That Infants ought to be baptized c. For which he insists on two places of Scriture Joh. 3.8 Except a man be born again of Water and of the Spirit c. which being interpreted according to the sense of the Fathers and the Ancient Church and as your own party acknowledge it ought to be interpreted do evidently assert Infant-Baptism By which your exception of a Pelagian Anabaptist who denies Original sin and from thence saith That Infants cannot be born again is taken away for the same Tradition of the Ancient Church which from hence inferrs the Baptism of Infants doth it upon that ground because they are guilty of Original sin as you might have seen by his Lordship's Citations to that purpose The other place he insists on is Act. 2.38 39. which by the acknowledgement of Ferus and Salmeron holds for Infant-Baptism But when you say That you would not weaken the Argument from Joh. 3. for Infant-Baptism because you only would shew that it cannot be proved demonstratively from Scripture alone against a perverse Heretick You seem not much to consider what those perverse Hereticks as you call them hold as to Infant-Baptism which is not meerly that Infant-Baptism is not commanded in Scripture but that it is a thing unlawful as being a perverting of the Institution of Christ as to the subject of Baptism For the main Question between us and the Antipaedobaptists is not concerning an absolute and express command for Baptizing Infants but whether our Blessed Saviour hath not by a positive Precept so determined the subject of Baptism viz. adult persons professing the Faith that the alteration of the subject viz. in Baptizing Infants be not a deviation from and perversion of the Institution of Christ in a substantial part of it or in short thus whether our Saviour hath so determined the subject of Baptism as to exclude Infants And although the question being thus stated the proof ought to lye on those who affirm it yet taking in only the help of Scripture and reason it were no difficult matter to prove directly and evidently that Infants are so far from being excluded Baptism by the Institution of Christ that there are as many grounds as are necessary to a matter of that nature to prove that the Baptizing them is suitable to the Institution of Christ and agreeable to the state of the Church under the Gospel For if there were any ground to exclude them it must be either the incapacity of the subject or some express precept and Institution of our Saviour But neither of these can be supposed to do it 1. Not incapacity as to the ends of Baptism for clearing which these two things must be premised 1. That the rule and measure as to the use and capacity of Divine Institutions is to be fetched from the end of them For this was the ground of the Circumcision of the Proselytes under the Law and this was the way the Apostles did interpret Christs Commission for Baptizing all Nations as to the capacity of the subjects of it Acts 10.47 Can any man forbid water that these should not be Baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we where the question was concerning the subject of Baptism For it might be made evident that the Apostles at first did interpret their Commission of Baptizing all Nations only of the Jews of all Nations for after that St. Peter looked on the Gentiles as unclean and the Disciples at Jerusalem charged St. Peter with it as a great fault for going in to men uncircumcised Acts 11.3 Therefore we see when the question was concerning the subject of Baptism the only Argument is drawn from the design and ends of it that they who were capable of the thing signified ought not to be denyed the use of the sign And thus by a parity of reason built on equal grounds those who are capable of the great things represented in Baptism and confirmed by it viz. Gods pardoning grace and acceptation to eternal life ought not to be denyed the external sign which is Baptism it self And therefore 2. Where there is a capacity as to the main ends of an Institution an incapacity as to some ends doth not exclude from it As is most evident in the Baptism of our Blessed Saviour in whom was a greater incapacity as to the main ends of Baptism then possibly can be in Infants for his Baptism could not at all be for the remission of sins Now we see although there were but one end and that a very general one mentioned That he might fulfill all righteousness Matth. 3.15 yet we see that was sufficient to perswade John to Baptize him Whereby we see evidently in this practise of our Saviour built on a general and common ground that a capacity as to one end of a positive Institution is sufficient to make such a practice lawful and in some cases a duty These two general Principles being laid down it were easie to shew 1. That what incapacity there is in Infants is not destructive of the main ends of Baptism which is chiefly thought to be the incapacity of understanding the nature or ends of the Institution and if that exclude it must either be that it is a thing repugnant to reason that any Divine Institution should be applyed to persons uncapable of understanding the nature and ends of it which would highly reflect on the wisdome of God in appointing Circumcision for Children eight dayes old who were certainly as uncapable of understanding the ends of that as our Children are of Baptism or else that there is some peculiarity in the Institution of Baptism which must exclude them from it under the Gospel which that there is not will appear presently 2. That there is a capacity in Infants as to the main ends of Baptism which have either an aspect from God to us in regard of its Institution or from us to God in regard of our undertaking it Now the chief ends of a Divine Institution as such are such as respect Gods Intention in it towards us in which respect it is properly a sign but as it respects God from us it is properly a Ceremony betokening our profession and restipulation towards God Now the ends of it as a sign are to represent
were proved to be so Of the Motives of Credibility and how far they belong to the Church The difference between Science and Faith considered and the new art of mens believing with their wills The Churches testimony must be according to their principles the formal object of Faith Of their esteem of Fathers Scripture and Councils The rare distinctions concerning the Churches infallibility discussed How the Church can be Infallible by the assistance of the Holy Ghost yet not divinely Infallible but in a manner and after a sort T. C. applauded for his excellent faculty in contradicting himself HE that hath a mind to betray an excellent Cause may more advantagiously do it by bringing weak and insufficient Evidences for it then by the greatest heat and vigour of Opposition against it For there cannot possibly be any greater prejudice done to a weighty and important truth then to perswade men to believe it on such grounds which are if not absolutely false yet much more disputable then the thing it self For hereby the minds of men are taken off from the native evidence which the truth enquired after offers to them and build their assent upon the certainty of the medium's suggested as the only grounds to establish a firm assent upon By which means when upon severe enquiry the falsity and insufficiency of those grounds is discovered the person so discovering lyes under a dangerous temptation of calling into question the truth of that which he finds he assented to upon grounds apparently weak and insufficient And the more refined and subtle the speculations are the more sublime and mysterious the matters believed the greater still the danger of Scepticism is upon a discovery of the unsoundness of those principles which such things were believed upon Especially if the more confident and Magisterial party of those who profess the belief of such things do with the greatest heat decry all other wayes as uncertain and obtrude these principles upon the world as the only sure foundation for the belief of them It was anciently a great question among the Philosophers whether there were any certainty in the principles of knowledge or supposing certainty in things whether there were any undoubted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rules to obtain this certainty of knowledge by If then any one Sect of Philosophers should have undertaken to prove the certainty that was in knowledge upon this account because whatever their Sect or Party delivered was infallibly true they had not only shamefully beg'd the thing in dispute but made it much more lyable to question then before Because every errour discovered in that Sect would not only prove the fondness and arrogance of their pretence of being Infallible but would to all such as believed the certainty of things on the authority of their Sect be an argument to disprove all certainty of knowledge when they once discovered the errours of those whose authority they relyed upon Just such is the case of the Church of Rome in this present Controversie concerning the Resolution of Faith The question is What the certain grounds of our assent are to the principles and rule of Christian Religion the Romanists pretend that there can be no ground of True and Divine Faith at all but the Infallible testimony of Their Church let then any rational man judge whether this be not the most compendious way to overthrow the belief of Christianity in the world For our assent must be wholly suspended upon that supposed Infallibility which when once it falls as it unavoidably doth upon the discovery of the least errour in the doctrine of that Church what becomes then of the belief of Christianity which was built upon that as it s only sure foundation So that it is hardly imaginable there could be any design more really destructive to Christianity or that hath a greater tendency to Atheism then the modern pretence of Infallibility and the Jesuits way of resolving Faith Which was the reason why his Lordship was so unwilling to engage in that Controversie How we know the Scriptures to be the Word of God not out of any distrust he had of solving it upon Protestant Principles as you vainly suggest nor out of any fears of being left himself in that Labyrinth which after all your endeavours you have lost your self and your cause in as appears by your attempting this way and that way to get out and at last standing in the very middle of that circle you thought your self out of If his Lordship thought this more a question of curiosity then necessity it was because out of his great Charity he supposed them to be Christians he had to deal with But if his charity were therein deceived you shall see how able we are to make good the grounds of our Religion against all Adversaries whether Papists or others And so far is the answering of this question from making the weakness of our cause appear that I doubt not but to make it evident that our cause stands upon the same grounds which our common Christianity doth and that we are Protestants by the same reason that we are Christians And on the other side that you are so far from giving any true grounds of Christian Faith that nothing will more advance the highest Scepticism and Irreligion then such Principles as you insist on for resolving Faith The true reason then why the Archbishop declared any unwillingness to enter upon this dispute was not the least apprehension how insuperably hard the resolution of this question was as you pretend but because of the great mischief your Party had done in starting such questions you could not resolve with any satisfaction to the common reason of mankind and that you run your selves into such a Circle in which you conjure up more Spirits then ever you are able to lay by giving those advantages to Infidelity which all your Sophistry can never answer on those principles you go upon That this was the true ground of his Lordship's seeming averseness from this Controversie appears by his plain words where he tells you at first of the danger of mens being disputed into infidelity by the Circle between Scripture and Tradition and by his expressing his sense of the great harm you have done by the starting of that question among Christians How we know the Scriptures to be the Word of God But although in this respect he might be said to be drawn into it yet lest you should think his averseness argued any consciousness of his own inability to answer it you may see how closely he follows it with what care and accuracy he handles it with what strength of reason and evidence he hath discovered the weakness of your way which he hath done with that success that he hath put you to miserable shifts to avoid the force of his arguments as will appear afterwards I am therefore fully of his mind that it is a matter of such consequence it deserves to be
whether an Infallible Assent to the Infallibility of your Church can be grounded on those Motives of Credibility If you affirm it then there can be no imaginable necessity to make the Testimony of your Church infallible in order to Divine Faith for you will not I hope deny but that there are at least equal Motives of Credibility to prove the Divine Authority of the Scriptures as the Infallibility of your Church and if so why may not an Infallible Assent be given to the Scriptures upon those Motives of Credibility as well as to your Churches Infallibility If you deny the Assent built upon the Motives of Credibility to be Infallible how can you make the Assent to your Churches Testimony to be infallible when that Infallibility is attempted to be proved only by the Motives of Credibility And therefore it necessarily follows That notwithstanding your bearing it so high under the pretence of Infallibility you leave mens minds much more wavering in their Assent than before in that as shall afterwards appear these very Motives of Credibility do not at all prove the Infallibility of your Church which undoubtedly prove the Truth and Certainty of Christian Religion Thus while by this device you seek to avoid the Circle you destroy the Foundation of your Discourse That there must be an Infallible Assent to the truth of that Proposition That the Scriptures are the Word of God which you call Divine Faith which how can it be infallible when that Infallibility at the highest by your own confession is but evidently credible and so I suppose the Authority of the Scriptures is without your Churches Infallibility And thus you run into the same Absurdities which you would seem to avoid which is the second thing to manifest the unreasonableness of this way for whatever Absurdity you charge us with for believing the Doctrine of Christ upon the Motives of Credibility unavoidably falls upon your selves for believing the Churches Infallibility on the same grounds for if we leave the Foundation of Faith uncertain you do so too if we build a Divine Faith upon Motives of Credibility so do you if we make every ones reason the Judge in the choice of his Religion so must you be forced to do if you understand the consequence of your own principles 1. It is impossible for you to give a better account of Faith by the Infallibility of your Church than we can do without it for if Divine Faith cannot be built upon the Motives proving the Doctrine of Christ what sense or reason is there that it should be built on those Motives which prove your Churches Infallibility so that if we leave the Foundation of Faith uncertain you much more and that I prove by a Rule of much Authority with you by which you use to pervert the weak judgements of such who in your case do not discern the Sophistry of it Which is when you come to deal with persons whom you hope to Proselyte you urge them with this great Principle That Prudence is to be our Guide in the choice of our Religion and that Prudence directs us to chuse the safest way and that it is much safer to make choice of that way which both sides agree Salvation is to be obtained in than of that which the other side utterly denies men can be saved in How far this Rule will hold in the choice of Religion will be examined afterwads but if we take your word that it is a sure Rule I know nothing will be more certainly advantagious to us in on present case For both sides I hope are agreed that there are sufficient Motives of Credibility as to the belief of the Scriptures but we utterly deny that there are any such Motives as to the Infallibility of your Church it then certainly follows That our way is the more eligible and certain and that we lay a surer Foundation for Faith than you do upon your principles for resolving Faith 2. Either you must deny any such thing as that you call Divine Faith or you must assert that it may have no other Foundation than the Motives of Credibility which yet is that you would seem most to avoid by introducing the Infallibility of your Church that the Foundation of Faith may not be uncertain whereas supposing what you desire you must of necessity do that you would seem most fearful of which is making a Divine Faith to rest upon prudential Motives Which I thus prove It is an undoubted Axiom among the great men of your side That whatever is a Foundation for a Divine Faith must itself be believed with a firm certain and infallible Assent Now according to your principles the Infallibility of the Church is the Foundation for Divine Faith and therefore that must be believed with an Assent Infallible It is apparent then an Assent Infallible is required which is that which in other terms you call Divine Faith now when you make it your business to prove the Churches Infallibility upon your prudential Motives I suppose your design is by those proofs to induce men to believe it and if men then do believe it upon those Motives do you not found an Assent Infallible or a Divine Faith upon the Motives of Credibility And by the same reason that you urge against us the necessity of believing the Scriptures to be the Word of God by Divine Faith because it is the ground why we believe the things contained in the Scripture we press on your side the necessity of believing the Infallibility of the Church by a Faith equally Divine because that is to you the only sufficient Foundation of believing the Scriptures or any thing contained in them 3. You make by this way of resolving Faith every man's Reason the only Judge in the choice of his Religion which you are pleased to charge on us as a great Absurdity yet you who have deserved so very ill of Reason are fain to call in her best assistance in a case of the greatest moment viz. On what ground we must believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God You say Because the Church is infallible which delivers them to us but how should we come to know that she is infallible you tell us By the Motives of Credibility very good But must not every ones reason judge whether these Motives be credible or no and whether they belong peculiarly to your Church so as to prove the Infallibility of it as it is distinct from all other societies of Christians in the world You tell us indeed That these Motives make it evidently credible but must we believe it to be so because you say so If so then the ground of believing is not the Credibility of the Motives but of your Testimony and therefore you ought to make it evidently true that whatever you speak is undoubtedly true which whosoever reads your Book will hardly be perswaded to So that of necessity every mans reason must be Judge whether your Church
be infallible or no and thus at last you give Reason the Vmpirage in the choice of Religion And what is there more than this that we contend for If there be then any danger of Scepticism a private spirit or what other inconveniencies you object against our way of judging the truth of Religion by the Vse of Reason it will fall much more heavily upon your selves in this way of believing the Infallibility of the Church on the Motives of Credibility Therefore I assure you it were much more consonant to the principles of your party to tell men The Infallibility of your Church ought to be taken for granted and that men are damned for not believing it though no reason be given for it but only because you say it which is as much as to say the reason of the Point is It must needs be so then thus to expose it to the scorn and contempt of the world by offering to prove it by your Motives of Credibility For unawares you thereby give away the main of your Cause for by the very offer of proving it you make him whom you offer to prove it to judge whether these proofs be sufficient or no and if he be capable to judge of his Guide certainly he may be of his Way too considering that he hath according to us an Infallible Rule to judge of his Way whereas according to you he hath but Prudential Motives in the choice of his Guide Thus by this Opinion of yours you have gained thus much That there is nothing so absurd which you charge upon us but it falls unavoidably upon your own head By this way of resolving Faith you undermine it and leave a sure Foundation for nothing but Scepticism which is the last thing to shew the great unreasonableness of this way of yours that when you are making us believe you are taking the greatest care to make our Religion sure you cancel our best evidences and produce nothing but crackt and broken titles which will not stand any fair tryal at the bar of Reason And that you make the Foundations of Religion uncertain I offer to prove by the reason of the thing for if you require that as necessary for Faith which was never believed to be so when the Doctrine of Faith was revealed if upon the pretence of Infallibility you assert such things which destroy all the rational evidence of Christian Religion and if at last you are far from giving the least satisfactory account concerning this Infallibility of your Church then certainly we may justly charge you with unsetling the Foundations of Religion instead of giving us a certain resolution of Faith 1. You make that necessary to Faith which was not looked on as such when the Doctrine of the Gospel was revealed and what other design can such a pretence seem to have than to expose to contempt that Religion which was not received by a true Divine Faith because it wanted that which is now thought to be the only sure Foundation of Faith viz. the Infallibility of the Church of Rome What then will become of the Faith of all those who received Divine Revelations without the infallible Testimony of any Church at all With what Faith did the Disciples of Christ at the time of his suffering believe the Divine Authority of the Old Testament was it a true Divine Faith or not If it was whereon was it built not certainly on the Infallible Testimony of the Jewish Church which at that time consented to the death of the Messias condemning him as a malefactor and deceiver Or did they believe it because of that great Rational Evidence they had to convince them that those Prophecies came from God If so why may not we believe the Divinity of all the Scriptures on the same grounds and with a Divine Faith too With what Faith did those believe in the Messias who were not personally present at the Miracles which our Saviour wrought but had them conveyed to them by such reports as the woman of Samaria was to the Samaritans Or were all such persons excused from believing meerly because they were not Spectators But by the same reason all those would be excused who never saw our Saviour's miracles or heard his Doctrine or his Apostles But if such persons then were bound to believe I ask On what Testimony was their Faith founded Was the woman of Samaria infallible in reporting the discourse between Christ and her Were all the persons infallible who gave an account to others of what Christ did yet I suppose had it been your own case you would have thought your self bound to have believed Christ to have been the Messias if you had lived at that time and a certain account had been given you of our Saviour's Doctrine and Miracles by men faithful and honest though you had no reason to have believed them infallible I pray Sir answer me would you have thought your self bound to have believed or no If you affirm it as I will suppose you so much a Christian as to say so I pray then tell me Whether persons in those circumstances might not have a true and Divine Faith where there was no infallible Testimony but only Rational Evidence to build it self upon And if those persons might have a Divine Faith upon such evidence as that was may not we much more who have evidence of the same nature indeed but much more extensive universal and convincing than that was And how then can you still assert an infallible Testimony of the conveyers of Divine Revelation to be necessary to a Divine Faith Nay further yet How very few were there in comparison in the first Ages of the Christian Church who received the Doctrine of the Gospel from the mouths of persons infallible And of those who did so what certain evidence have men That all those persons did receive the Doctrine upon the account of the Infallibility of the propounders and not rather upon the Rational Evidence of the Truth of the Doctrine delivered and whether the belief of their Infallibility was absolutely necessary to Faith when the report of the Evidences of the Truth of the Doctrine might raise in them an obligation to believe supposing them not infallible in that delivery of it but that they looked on them as honest men who faithfully related What they had seen and heard And this seems the more probable in that the Apostles themselves in their undoubtedly divine writings do so often appeal to their own sufficiency and integrity without pleading so much their Infallibility S. John saith That which we have seen and heard and handled declare we unto you S. Peter appeals to his being an Eye-witness to make it appear he delivered no cunningly devised fables S. Luke makes this a ground That the things were surely believed because delivered from them who were Eye-witnesses and Ministers of the Word If they insisted so much upon this Rational Evidence and so sparingly on
That the external accidents might remain where the substance was changed Now therefore when the Assurance of Christian Religion came from the judgement of the Senses of those who were Eye-witnesses of the Miracles and the Resurrection of Christ if the Senses of men may be so grosly deceived in the proper Objects of them in the case of Transubstantiation what assurance could they themselves have who were Eye-witnesses of them and how much less assurance can we have who have all our Evidence from the certainty of their report So that it appears upon the whole that take away the certainty of the judgement of Sense you destroy all Certainty in Religion for Tradition only conveys to us now what was originally grounded upon the judgement of Sense and delivers to us in an undoubted manner that which the Apostles saw and heard And do not you then give a very good account of Religion by the Infallibility of your Church when if I believe your Church to be infallible I must by vertue of that Infallibility believe something to be true which if it be true there can be no certainty at all of the Truth of Christian Religion 2. Another principle is That we can have no certainty of any of the grounds of Faith but from the Infallibility of your present Church Whereby you do these two things 1. Destroy the obligation to Faith which ariseth from the rational evidence of Christian Religion 2. Put the whole stress of the truth of Christianity upon the proofs of your Churches Infallibility by which things any one may easily see what tendency your doctrine of resolving Faith hath and how much it designs the overthrow of Christianity 1. You destroy the obligation to Faith from the rational evidence of Christian Religion by telling men as you do expresly in the very Title of your next Chapter That there can be no unquestionable assurance of Apostolical Tradition but for the infallible authority of the present Church If so then men cannot have any unquestionable assurance that there was such a Person as Christ in the world that he wrought such great miracles for confirmation of his Doctrine that he dyed and rose again it seems we can have no assurance of these things if the present Church be not Infallible And if we can have no assurance of them what obligation can lye upon us to believe them for assurance of the matters of fact which are the foundations of Faith is necessary in order to the obligation to believe I mean such an assurance as matters of fact are capable of for no higher can be required then the nature of things will bear And what a strange assertion then is this that matters of fact cannot be conveyed to us in an unquestionable manner unless the present Church stamp her Infallibility upon them Cannot we have an unquestionable assurance that there were such persons as Caesar and Pompey and that they did such and such things without some infallible testimony if we may in such things why not in other matters of fact which infinitely more concern the world to know then whatever Caesar or Pompey did But this will be more at large examined afterwards I only now take notice of the consequence of this principle and how fairly it destroyes all rational evidence of the truth of our Religion which whosoever takes away will be by force of reason a Sceptick in the first place and an Infidel in the second Neither is the danger meerly in destroying the rational evidence of Religion but 2. In putting the whole weight of Religion upon the proofs of the present Churches infallibility which whosoever considers how silly and weak they are cannot sufficiently wonder at the design of those men who put the most excellent Religion in the world and which is built upon the highest and truest reason to such a strange kind of Ordeal tryal that if she pass not through this St. Winifreds needle her innocency must be suspected and her truth condemned So that whosoever questions the truth of this kind of Purgation will have a greater suspition of a juggle and imposture if she be acquitted then if she had never submitted to such a tryal And when we come to examine the proofs brought for this Infallibility it will then further appear what uncertainty in Religion men are betrayed to under this confident pretext of Infallibility Thus we see what Scepticism in Religion the principles owned upon the account of Infallibility do bring men to 3. When you have brought men to this that the only sure ground of Faith is the Infallibility of your Church you are not able to give them any satisfactory account at all concerning it but plunge them into greater uncertainties then ever they were in before For you can neither satisfie them what that Church is which you suppose Infallible what in that Church is the proper subject of this Infallibility what kind of Infallibility this is nor how we should know when the Church doth decide Infallibly and when not and yet every one of these questions is no less then absolutely necessary to be resolved in order to the satisfaction of mens minds as to the foundation of their Faith 1. You cannot satisfie men What that Church is which you suppose to be Infallible Certainly if you had a design to give men a certain foundation for their Faith you would not be so shy of discovering what it is you understand by that Church which you would have Infallible if you had meant honestly the first thing you should have done was to have prevented all mistakes concerning the meaning of the Church when you know what various significations it hath not only in Scripture but among your selves Whether you mean the Church essential representative or vertual for every one of these upon occasion you make use of and it was never more necessary to have explained them then in this place and yet you with wonderful care and industry avoid any intimation of what you mean by that Church which you would prove Infallible When you plead so earnestly for the Churches Infallibility I pray tell us what you mean by the Church do you intend the truly Catholick and Vniversal Church which comprehends in it all such as own and profess the Doctrine of Christ in which sense it was well said by Abulensis Ecclesia universalis nunquam errat quia nunquam tota errat The universal Church never erres because the whole Church is never deceived Or do you mean by your Catholick Church some particular part of it to which you apply the name of Catholick not for Vniversality of extent but soundness of Doctrine then it will be necessary yet further to shew what part of the Church that is by what right and title that hath engrossed the name of Catholick so as to exclude other Societies of Christians from it and whether you must not first prove the absolute integrity and soundness of her Doctrine before
Infallibility cannot be de fide because not determined neither For if the Determination of the Church be necessary to make any thing de fide it must by the same reason be necessary to make your Churches Infallibility de fide and I suppose you will not readily instance in any decree of the Catholick Church where the Testimony of your Church is determined to be infallible And yet one would imagine that if there were such a necessity in order to Faith of the Infallible Testimony of your Church there would be an equal necessity of believing this Infallibility on the same Testimony or if one may believe one Article especially so important a one as that without any precedent infallible Testimony why not any other nay why not all the rest Thus you still see how uncertainties grow upon us when we search into your account of Faith 3. You are not certain neither What kind of Infallibility this is For you offer to prove the Church infallible by the same way that Moses Christ and his Apostles were proved infallible A very fair Offer if you could make it good but then we were in hopes you would have proved such a kind of Infallibility as they had you tell us No for your Infallibility is Supernatural but not Divine that it is precise Infallibility but not absolute that it is not by immediate Revelation but by immediate Assistance of the Holy Ghost Something you would have but you cannot tell what an Infallibility in the Conclusion without any in the Vse of means an Infallibility by immediate Assistance of the Holy Ghost yet but in a sort Divine an Infallibility yielding nothing to Scripture in point of Supernaturality and Certainty yet nothing so infallible as Scripture Are not these brave things to make wise men certain in their Religion with that they are to believe the Scriptures upon a Testimony infallible yet not infallible divine yet not divine and therefore certain but not certain true but not true But of the silliness of these Distinctions afterwards But can you think to perswade wise or rational men to believe their Religion on such terms as these are Had they no other evidence than what you give them would they not be shrewdly tempted to reject all Religion as a meer Imposture as no doubt your Doctrine of Infallibility is A strange kind of Talisman which secures your Pope from a possibility of erring but still he must be under the certain direction of his Stars for if he be not in Cathedrâ this Telesm doth him no good at all It were heartily to be wished if he should once happen to be in Cathedrâ he would infallibly determine what it was to be in Cathedrâ for ever after for it would ease mens minds of a great many troublesome scruples which they cannot without some infallible Determination get themselves quit of But still we are bound to believe your Church infallible But I pray whence comes this Infallibility Comes it from Heaven or is it of Men From Heaven no doubt you say for it is by a promise of the Holy Ghost This were something if it were proved but yet you maintain this Infallibility in such a manner that none that read the Scriptures could ever think it were promised there For there they alwaies read That the Spirit of Truth is a Spirit of Holiness and never dwells in those who are carnal or wicked men but you tell us That let the lives of Popes be what they will they have no promise to secure them from being wicked but the Spirit of God doth by immediate Assistance secure them from being fallible But I pray Which of these two is not only more contrary to Scripture but to Humane Nature Wickedness or Fallibility This latter so consequent upon the imperfection of our understandings that till we put off the one we can hardly be freed from the other but Wickedness is that which the whole design of Christian Religion is against and administers the highest Motives and the greatest Assistance for the conquest of and can it then be thought suitable to such a Doctrine that the Divine Spirit should like Mahomet's Dove be alwaies ready to whisper in the ear of the most profligate person if it be but his fortune to sit in Cathedrá Such a kind of Infallibility as this I assure you will never prevail with any such persons who understand Christian Religion to believe the Doctrine of it upon such pretences as yours are 4. Supposing you could tell men intelligibly and suitably to the Doctrine of Christianity What kind of Infallibility this is yet if you cannot satisfie them When your Church doth define infallibly you leave them still in the same Labyrinth without any clue to direct them out of it But if we consider what things are necessary to be believed before we can believe any definition of your Church infallible how impossible it is to be infallibly assured of any such definition of your Church sure you cannot blame us for crying out of the Labyrinth you have brought us into 1. How many things in Christian Religion are to be believed before we can imagine any such thing as an infallible Testimony of your Church And if the Infallibility of that be the ground of Faith on what account must those things be believed which are antecedent to the belief of such an infallible Testimony Now that many things and some of them far from being clear are to be believed antecedently to an infallible Testimony will appear if we do but consider what they commonly mean by that Church which they suppose infallible and what must be supposed that this Infallibility be the Rule of Faith By the Church they tell you they mean the Catholick Church but lest you should think them too honest in saying so at next word it is the Roman-Catholick Church just as if one should say the German-Vniversal Emperour But lest you should think at least they meant the Roman Church of all Ages and think you might have some relief from the Primitive Roman Church they will soon rectifie your mistakes by telling you it is the present Roman-Church they mean but if it be the present Roman-Church it may be you would be willing to hear the judgement of all the honest men in that Church and that you hope many of the people and learned men not in Orders may speak their minds freely To prevent that they tell you they mean only the representative Church But still the Bishops who make up this representative Church may in their several Synods complain of abuses and rectifie miscarriages therefore they understand not Bishops by themselves or particular Synods but met together in General Councils But yet if the Councils were truly Oecumenical there might be some hopes of redress But for that they are sure for they allow none to be members of the General Councils which are in Schism or Heresie and their own Church is to be Judge what
Society of Men joyning together in the Profession of Christian Religion but these Men must presently be infallible in whatever they deliver as the Sense of their Society Their visible Profession of Christian Religion makes them a True Church but cannot men seem to profess our Religion unless they have a visible Infallible Head to guide them Is Infallibility the Soul of a Church which gives it its Being I mean a present Infallibility continually actuating and informing the Body of it Cannot a man be known to be a True Man unless he be inspired Nor a Church distinguished from other Societies but by a Spirit of Infallibility The truth is Let Bellarmine multiply his fifteen Notes of the Church to fifteen hundred if he please nay let it pretend to what Infallibility it please if any Society of men challenging the name of Church to it self do destroy the end of its Constitution or hold any thing directly contrary to the Foundation of its Institution all other Notes in the world can never make it a True Church So that the only certain Note of a True Church is its Agreement with the primary Foundation of it in that Doctrine which was Infallible and attested by Miracles undoubtedly Divine That which holds the Doctrine of Christ is the Christian Church and the nearer any Society comes to that the purer it is the more it is distant from it the more impure and no man who honours the Christian Religion can be bound to communicate with the Impurities of such a Church let it bear it never so high under the pretence of Infallibility If you boast never so much of your Vnity Succession Antiquity the name of Catholick c. if your Doctrine be repugnant to what was originally delivered by the Founder of the Christian Church your Society is not the True Christian Church But suppose it were and that it were known so to be by such Notes as these are Can you not conceive a Church should be consonant to the Doctrine of Christ but it must be it self infallible in deciding Controversies Cannot you imagine a Society consisting of all True Christians in the world should be made up of such persons who all firmly believe that Doctrine infallible which Christ delivered but yet judge themselves all fallible and dare not usurp that royal prerogative of Heaven in prescribing infallibly in matters questioned but leave all to judge according to the Pandects of the Divine Laws because each member of this Society is bound to take care of his soul and of all things that tend thereto Is such an Idea of a Christian Church a thing unreasonable inconsistent or contrary to any Law of its Foundation or rather is it not a very true and just representation of that Society of men which our blessed Saviour instituted as a Church in the world 2. Do you mean That these Motives should prove the Christian Church at large infallible or your present particular universal Church of Rome For some of your Motives seem to respect the one and the rest the other Notion of it When you mention miracles efficacy purity and excellency of Doctrine fulfilling of Prophecies do you really intend these for the proof of your present Roman-Churches Infallibility as that is distinct from all other Churches of Christians in the world If you do as you must if you speak to the purpose shew us what miracles efficacy purity and excellency of Doctrine there are in your Church beyond and beside all other Churches in the world What fulfilling of Prophecies among you which makes your Church infallible Is it the Prophecy That your Church shall be infallible that is fulfilled Shew then to us where that Prophecy is and how it appears to be fulfilled Is it because your Church pretends to be infallible I do heartily acknowledge some Prophecies are therein fulfilled but such as your Church hath little ground to be proud of their accomplishment But to all impartial Christians the accomplishment of those Prophecies which speak of the degenerate state of the Church as they are a great Confirmation of the Infallibility of the Divine Revealer of them when they see it so remarkably in the signatures of your Church so they are far from being any motive of credibility to them to prove your Church to be Infallible Unless it be meant that the state of your Church is an infallible evidence that those Prophesies are fulfilled But I pray why should fulfilling of Prophesies make your Church Infallible I had rather thought if you could have proved your Church to have been Prophetical it had been more to your purpose And if your Popes in Cathedrâ had foretold future events which by their coming to pass had evidenced to the world they had a true spirit of Prophesie then indeed you had said something towards Infallibility But that the meer fulfilling of Prophesies owned Divine by all Christians should prove your Church Infallible is such a motive of Credibility concerning that Infallibility that it proves nothing but by this consequence If Christ were Infallible then your Church is Or do you mean because some Prophesies concerning your Church are fulfilled therefore your Church is Infallible by the same reason I hope you will not deny but that Antichrist is Infallible for when ever he did doth or shall appear no doubt there will be fulfilling of Prophesies and those very clear ones too And therefore Antichrist and your Pope may go together for Infallibility But it may be yet you have some other motives besides fulfilling Prophesies and those are miracles now you speak indeed to the purpose But yet still we poor Infidels because out of your Church desire a little satisfaction concerning them too 1. We very reasonably desire That he in your Church who pretends most to infallibility should do these miracles himself For that was alwayes the way in Scripture for them whose testimony was to be believed Infallible to be the workers of those miracles which should induce men to believe such an Infallibility Do you think the Israelites would have believed Moses Infallible if any ordinary Israelite had wrought those miracles which he did unless you would suppose that those miracles were purposely wrought to have attested that Moses was Infallible But yet God thought it much more fit that Moses himself should be the instrument of doing them and so it was with our Blessed Saviour Let then your Church produce the several miracles wrought by your Popes to attest their Infallibility or if you believe Pope and Council the subject of Infallibility produce the miracles to prove that God was alwayes so just and reasonable as not to expect the belief of any Infallibility without such evidences given for it as might perswade men to believe it and you acknowledge That independently on Scripture there can be no such proof of Infallibility as Miracles and you require it from us to believe the present Church Infallible where then are your present miracles
wrought to attest this Infallibility For as long as you require such an assent to the present Churches Infallibility it is necessary on your own grounds that the present Church should alwayes work miracles in order to the proving this Infallibility 2. We desire such miracles as may sufficiently convince the Infidels as to this point of your Infallibility For that was alwayes the way used in Scripture The intention of miracles was to perswade those who did not believe Would Pharaoh or the Aegyptians have believed Moses if all his miracles had been wrought in a corner where none but Israelites had been present Would the Jews have believed in Christ if he had not come in publick among them and wrought such frequent publick and uncontrouled miracles that his greatest enemies durst not deny them If you would then have us believe your present Churches Infallibility let your Pope or at least your Priests come and do such kind of miracles among us which may bear the examination of inquisitive men and then try whether we will not believe your Infallibility but till then excuse us Think not we are of such easie Faith that the pretended growing out of a Leg in Spain or any of your famous miracles wrought by your Priests in Italy will perswade us to believe your Church Infallible It is alwayes observed your miracles are most talked on where people are most ignorant and therefore most apt to be deceived Your Priests like the Devils in the Primitive times can do no feats when their opposers are by It is an easie thing for a stump to grow a Leg in its passage from Spain hither for Fama crescit eundo such things are most believed where circumstances are least capable of examination And the juglings and impostures of your Priests have been so notorious in this kind that their pretences to miracles have made more Infidels then Catholicks by making men more apt to question whether ever there were any real miracles done then believe the truth of yours Very likely then it is that you should perswade the world your Church is Infallible because of the miracles wrought in it 3. What discrimination do you put between those lying wonders which you are foretold shall be wrought at the coming of Antichrist and those pretended miracles which are wrought among you Convince us by sufficient evidence that the things which seem most confirmed by your miracles viz. Invocation of Saints is a thing consonant to the doctrine established by the undoubted miracles of Christ and his Apostles If it be contrary to it either you must prove that doctrine false or if you admit it true you prove your miracles to be false because contrary to a doctrine established by miracles undoubtedly Divine And God can never be supposed to attest with miracles the truth of doctrines contrary to each other And thence the wisest of your Church are so far from insisting on this of miracles for a motive of credibility concerning your Churches Infallibility that they leave it out from being a note of the Church because Hereticks as they say may as to all outward appearance work as great miracles as the best Catholicks And therefore Bellarmin saith No man can have an absolute certainty concerning the truth of miracles because the Devil though he cannot work true miracles can work as to appearance the greatest Therefore since the confirmation of Christian Religion by miracles undoubtedly Divine there can be no relyance on the tryal of miracles for the truth of any doctrine for those very miracles and doctrine must be judged according to that rule of Faith which was confirmed by Divine miracles Thus we have examined those motives which seem most to prove Infallibility and shewn how little they agree to the present Churches Infallibility 3. As to the other motives what evidence do you produce That where-ever they are the Church is Infallible and that these do infallibly belong to your Church for both these must be made evident or you do nothing Now these motives are Sanctity of life Succession Vnity Antiquity and the very name of Catholick c. How hard is it to conceive the connexion between these and infallibility Nay they are so far from it that it hath been abundantly proved against your party that these are no certain notes of the true Church which is a Controversie I shall not now discuss And if the Church cannot be proved to be true by them much less certainly will it be proved to be Infallible But suppose all this is your Church so remarkable for Sanctity of life that it should be a motive for your Infallibility Have your Popes been indeed such Holy men that we may not question but they were moved by the Holy Ghost when they spake Certainly you have some other way to know it then all Histories both of friends and enemies and the constant fame of the world which hath then much abused us with stories quite of another nature Or is the state of your Church so pure and holy that it must shew it self Infallible by that But whom will you be judged by in this case I desire you not to stand to the verdict of your Adversaries Will you believe men of your own Communion pray read what sad complaints are made of the degenerate state of your Church by Petrarch Mantuan Clemangis Espencaeus Erasmus Cassander and several others and judge you whether we have not reason to cry up the Sanctity of your Church But these it may be you will say were discontented persons Will you believe then your Cardinals And if ever you will believe them it should certainly be when they meet to advise concerning the state of your Church and was not this the expression of the Colledge of chosen Cardinals for reformation of the Church under Paul 3. Per nos inquimus per nos nomen Christi blasphematur apud gentes Is not this a great evidence of your Sanctity If you will not believe the Cardinals you will not certainly question the judgement of him whom you would fain have to be Infallible the Pope himself And these are the words of Adrian 6. in his Instructions to his Legat at the diet of Norimberg A. D. 1522. Scimus in hâc Sede aliquot jam annis multa abominanda fuisse abusus in Spiritualibus excessus in mandatis omnia denique in perversum mutata If ever Pope was Infallible he was in saying so and he could not but be in Cathedrâ when he said it You see then what evidence you have from your selves concerning that Sanctity of life which is in your Church But it may be still you do not mean real Sanctity but that the doctrine of your Church tends more to promote it then that of any other Church I heartily wish the quite contrary could not be too truly said of it and it is well known that one of your great Artifices whereby you perswade great Persons to your Religion is
the liberty it indulgeth them in sin here and yet the hopes it gives them of heaven hereafter Our doctrine requires indispensable obedience to all the precepts of Christ Yours tells them those which are the most strict and severe are not precepts but counsels of perfection Ours That there is no hope of Salvation without hearty amendment of life Yours That Pennance is requisite and external satisfaction to the Church and for internals that Contrition is very commendable but if there be not that Attrition will serve the turn Ours Charges men to look to their Salvation in this life because when life is ended their estate is irrecoverable Yours That though men dye in their sins yet they may be relieved by the prayers of the living and that there is hope they may get through Purgatory to Heaven at last So that supposing any persons to own Christianity to be true it is hard to conceive there should be more Artifices imagined to reconcile the Love of the pleasures of sin here with the hopes of Heaven at last than are used by those of your Profession So that if I should suppose my self a Heathen Philosopher and any of your Profession should come and tell me These were the Precepts and these the Promises of Christian Religion but I could believe none of them but by the Infallible proposition of your Church and that I was to know your Church Infallible by that Sanctity of life which was in it when I had throughly considered not only the impieties committed by the great ones of your Religion even in Rome in the first place but the Artifices used to enervate all the Precepts of real Sanctity and so plainly to see what interest and design is carried on under all these disguises I should be insuperably assaulted with the thoughts that those of your Religion who were the Authours of these things were so far from believing your Church Infallible that they really believed neither Christian nor any other Religion in the world So much for that Sanctity of life which is in your Chuch As for your other motives of Vnity Succession Antiquity and the name of Catholick c. they have so little affinity with any pretence of Infallibility and do equally agree to those Churches as the Greek and Abyssine which you are so far from acknowledging Infallible that you will not grant them to be true Churches notwithstanding these Motives that I cannot easily imagine to what end you produced them unless to let us see you had the gift of saying something though nothing to the purpose When you have thus apparently failed in producing any shadow of proof for your Churches Infallibility by these motives of credibility we now come to see how good you are at the defensive part who have been so unhappy in your Attempts Therefore we must consider what arts you use in putting by the force of those arguments which are produced against you by his Lordship After he had urged that question against you How it may appear that your Church is infallibly governed by the Holy Ghost to which we have seen how impossible it is for you to give any satisfactory answer he proceeds to another Argument which lies in these words Besides this is an inviolable ground of reason That the principles of any conclusion must be of more credit then the conclusion it self Therefore if the Articles of Faith the Trinity the Resurrection and the rest be the conclusions and the Principles by which they are proved be only Ecclesiastical Tradition it must needs follow that the tradition of the Church is more infallible then the Articles of Faith if the Faith which we have of the Articles should be finally resolved into the veracity of the Churches Testimony To this your Answer is very considerable 1. You tell us That the ground of all this discourse is the authority of Aristotle cited in the Margent which you repeat after him But I pray Whence learn'd you that this was all the ground of his discourse For his Lordship doth not say that Aristotle saith so and therefore it is so but saies That it is an inviolable ground of reason which words you prudently left out that there might appear some shadow for such a cavil and cites only the concurrent testimony of Aristotle with that evidence of reason which is in it And will you deny this to be an undoubted principle in reason that That which is assumed as the ground and reason why I assent to any thing must be more certain and evident then that is which I assent to on that ground Certainly you must have an art above all other men to make the superstructure stronger then the foundation the particular Problems in Mathematicks more evident then the Postulata the conclusion surer then the Premisses But you think to come off this absurdity 2. By distinguishing between Science and Faith or as you express it between the proceeding of the understanding when it works naturally and necessarily by and from the evidence and clearness of its object and when it works supernaturally and produceth supernatural and free acts meerly or at least principally from the impulse and inclination of the will for in such cases the Maxim holds not viz. That the principles of a Conclusion must be of more credit then the conclusion it self Now the act of believing is such an act that is which the understanding elicites rather by a voluntary and free inclination and consent of the will then from any evident certainty in the object whereto it assents A most judicious and profound discourse to which I know not whether ever I can perswade my will but I am sure I never shall my understanding Lest you should think it is only some impulse of my will which hinders my assent I shall fairly lay down the Reasons which keep me from it 1. That all assent of the understanding is grounded upon evidence 2. That however that evidence proceeds yet the Foundation of assent must be more evident then the thing assented to And these two I suppose will fully reach the scope of your Answer by shewing that your distinction of acts natural and supernatural is both untrue and impertinent 1. That all assent is grounded upon evidence i. e. that no man can assent to any thing meerly because he will but there must be sufficient reason inducing and perswading to that assent You acknowledge this to be true in acts of Knowledge but not of Faith but What do you make to be the genus in your definition of Faith I suppose you will say it is an assent of the mind If it be so the mind cannot be supposed to elicite an act of the same nature in so repugnant a manner to it self that it should assent to any thing without evidence I know what discourses those of your party have concerning the obscurity which is necessary to Faith If you mean obscurity as to the object believed i. e.
you believe the Revelation made by Christ to be Divine Your Answer must be either that your Churches Testimony gives you infallible Assurance of it and then the former Argument returns or else that Christ manifested his Testimony to be infallible and therefore his Revelation Divine because of the Motives of Credibility which accompanied his preaching If this be your Answer as it must be by your former discourse then by the same reason I prove your Churches Testimony to be the Formal Object of Faith because you have endeavoured to prove the Churches Infallibility by the same Motives of Credibility that Moses and Christ proved theirs Either therefore retract all your former discourse or else confess that by the same reason that the Divine Revelation made by Christ is the Formal Object of Faith the infallible Testimony of your Church must be so too For according to your own supposition there are equal Motives of Credibility and therefore equal obligation to believe the Infallibility of one as of the other 3. If the only reason which makes any thing be the Formal Object agrees to the Testimony of your Church then that Testimony must be the Formal Object of Faith to them that believe it Now that which is the only reason which makes any thing to be the Formal Object of Faith is the Supposition that it is infallible For why do you resolve your Faith finally into Divine Revelation Is it not because you suppose God to be infallible in all Revelations of himself and therefore if your Church be infallible as you say it is by the same reason that must be the Formal Object of Faith as if it were by the revelation of God himself But here you think to obviate this objection by some strange distinctions concerning your Infallibility You tell us therefore The Churches Infallibility is not absolutely and simply Divine or that God speaks immediately by her Definitions but only that she is supernaturally infallible by the assistance of the Holy Ghost preserving her from all errour in defining any thing as a point of Christian Faith that is as a Truth revealed from God which is not truly and really so revealed A rare Distinction this You say afterwards The Churches Definition is absolutely infallible but yet this Infallibility is not absolutely and simply Divine I pray tell us What is it then You say It is Supernatural but not Divine and this Supernatural Infallibility by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost securing from all errour but yet not absolutely and precisely Divine I pray tell us What kind of Infallibility that was which the Apostles had in delivering the Doctrine of Christ was that any more than such a Supernatural Infallibility as you fondly arrogate to your Church viz. such a one as might secure them from all errour in defining any thing as a point of Christian Faith which was not so that is as a Truth revealed from God which was not truly and really so revealed And yet I suppose you will not deny but those who lived in the Apostles times might resolve their Faith into that Infallibility which they had as its Formal Object and therefore why not as well into your Churches Infallibility since you pretend to as great Infallibility in your Church as ever was in the Apostles Thus I hope I have shewn it impossible for you not to make the Churches Testimony the Formal Object of Faith since you make it infallible as you do 2. We come now to consider the little evasions and distinctions whereby you hope to get out of this Labyrinth But having so manifestly proved that it follows from your Principles That the Churches Testimony is the Formal Object of Faith all your distinctions fall of themselves for thereby it appears that your Churches Testimony is not meerly a necessary Condition of believing but is the Formal Cause and Reason of it therefore your instance of approximation in natural Causes is nothing to the purpose No more is that of a Commonwealth's practising the same Laws being an Argument that those were its primitive Laws Unless you suppose it impossible 1. That a Common-wealth should ever alter its Laws Or 2. That it should practise contrary to its primitive Laws Or 3. That it should be supernaturally Infallible in judging which are primitive Laws and which not without these Suppositions I say That Instance signifies nothing to the business in hand and when you have proved these true I will give you a further Answer Your Answer to Aristotles Text or rather to that undoubted Maxim of Reason with which the citation of Aristotle concurred hath been considered already Your Answer to the Testimony of Canus is like the rest of your discourse trivial and not to the purpose for Canus doth not only deny the Churches Testimony to be the Formal Object of Faith but the necessity of believing its Testimony to be infallible Non intelligitur necessariò quod credo docenti Ecclesiae tanquam testi infallibili are the very words of the Testimony cited in the Margin of his Lordships Books Your next Section affords us some more words but not one drachm more of reason For How do you prove that the Churches Authority is more known to us than the Scriptures or How can you make it appear that there is any Authority but what is relative to us and therefore the distinction is in it self silly of Authority in se quoad nos For whatever hath Authority hath thereby a respect to some it hath its Authority over And Can any thing be a ground of Faith simply and in it self which is not so towards us For the Formal Object of Faith is that for whose sake we believe and therefore if Divine Revelation be as you say the Formal Object of Faith then it must be more known to us than the Testimony of the Church For that must be more known to us which is the main cause of Believing But if all your meaning be that we must first know what the Church delivers for Scripture before we can judge whether it were divinely revealed or no I grant it to be true but what is this to your Infallibility Will you prove the Infallibility of your Church to be more known to us than that of the Scriptures and on supposition that were true can you then prove that the Scriptures should still retain their prerogative above the Church What your Authors distinguish concerning objective and subjective Certainty pertains not to this place for the worth and dignity of the Scriptures may exceed that of Tradition yet when the knowledge of that worth relyes on that Tradition your esteem of the one must be according to your esteem of the other I will not here enquire Whether the adhesion of the Will can exceed the clearness of the Vnderstanding nor Whether Aristotle was unacquainted with subjective Certainty nor Whether our adhesion to Articles of Faith be stronger than to any Principles evident to natural
Reason For I look upon all these Assertions to serve you in no other capacity than as excursions from the matter in hand and therefore I shall not gratifie you so far as particularly to examine them For all then that hath been yet produced by you his Lordships Argument remains good that according to your Principles the Churches Testimony must be made the Formal Object of Faith and I am the more confirmed in it by the weakness of your evasions and I hope I have now made good those words which you challenge his Lordship for That it were no hard thing to prove it The next Absurdity charged upon you by his Lordship is That all the Authorities of Fathers Councils nay of Scripture too must be finally resolved into the Authority of the present Roman Church And though they would seem to have us believe the Fathers and the Church of old yet they will not have us take their Doctrine from their own writings or the Decrees of Councils because as they say We cannot know by reading them what their meaning was but from the infallible Testimony of the present Roman Church teaching by Tradition And this he tells you is the cunning of this devise To which you answer By what hath been said it appears That there is no device or cunning at all either in taking away any thing due to the Fathers Councils or Scripture or in giving too much to the Tradition of the present Church For we acknowledge all due respect to the Fathers and as much to speak modestly as any of our adversaries party But they must pardon us if we prefer the general interpretation of the present Church before the result of any mans particular Phansie As for Scripture we ever extol it above the Definitions of the Church yet affirm it to be in many places so obscure that we cannot be certain of its true sense without the help of a living infallible Judge to determine and declare it which can be no other than the present Church And what we say of Scripture may with proportion be applied to Ancient General Councils For though we willingly submit to them all yet where they happen to be obscure in matters requiring Determination we seek the assistance and direction of the same living Infallible Rule viz. the Tradition or the Sentence of the present Church The Question is Supposing your Churches Testimony to be infallible without which we can have no Assurance of what Fathers Scriptures and Councils say What Authority remains among you to any or all of these And it is not what respect you tell us you give them for you may as easily speak as believe contradictions but what is really left to them if your Opinion concerning the present Churches Infallibility be true And he that cannot see the cunning of this Device of resolving all into the Authority of the present Roman Church will never understand the interest of your Church but it seems you apprehend it so much as not to seem to do it and have too much cunning to confess it But this must not be so easily passed over this being one of the grand Artifices of your Church to make a great noise with Fathers Scriptures and Councils among those most who understand them least when your selves resolve them all into the present Churches Testimony Which is first to gagge them and then bid them speak First For the Fathers you say You acknowledge all due respect to them but the Question is What kind of respect that is which can be due to them when let them speak their minds never so plainly and agree in what they please and deliver what they will as the Judgement of the Church yet all this can give us no Assurance at all on your Principles unless your Church doth infallibly determine the same way What then do the Fathers signifie with you Doth the Infallibility of your Churches Definition depend on the consent of the Fathers No you tell us She is supernaturally assisted by the Holy Ghost and if so I suppose the judgement of the Fathers is not that which she relyes on But it may be you will say This supernatural Assistance directs the Church to that which was the Judgement of the Fathers in all Ages This were something indeed if it could be proved But then I would never read the Fathers to know what their mind is but aske your Church what they meant And though your Church delivers that as their sense which is as opposite as may be both to their words and judgements yet this is part of the respect due to them not to believe whatever they say themselves but what your Church tells us they say A most compendious way for interpreting Fathers and making them sure not to speak any thing against your Church Therefore I cannot but commend the ingenuity of Cornelius Mussus the Bishop of Bitonto who spake that out which more wary men are contented onely to think Ego ut ingenuè fatear plus uni summo Pontitifici crediderim in his quae mysteria fidei tangunt quà m mille Augustinis Hieronymis Gregoriis That I may deal freely saith he I would sooner believe the Pope in matters of Faith than a thousand Augustines Hieromes and Gregories Bravely said and like a man that did heartily believe the Pope's Infallibility And yet no more than every one will be forced to do that understands the Consequence of his own Principles And therefore Alphonsus à Castro was not to be blamed for preferring an Epistle of Anacletus though counterfeit because Pope before Augustine Hierome or any other however holy or learned These men understood themselves and the interest of their Church And although the rest of them make finer leggs to the Fathers than these do yet when they seem to cross their way and entrench upon their Church they find not much kinder entertainment for them We may guess at the rest by two of them men of great note in their several waies the one for Controversies the other for his Commentaries viz. Bellarmine and Maldonate and let us see when occasion serves how rudely they handle the Fathers If S. Cyprian speaks against Tradition it was saith Bellarmine In defence of his errour and therefore no wonder if he argued after the manner of erroneous persons If he opposeth Stephen the Bishop of Rome in the business of Rebaptization He seemeth saith he To have erred mortally in it If S. Ambrose pronounce Baptism in the name of Christ to be valid without the naming other Persons in the Trinity Bellarmine is not afraid to say That in his judgement his Opinion is false If S. Chrysostome saith That it is better not to be present at the Eucharist than to be present and not receive it I say saith Bellarmine That Chrysostome as at other times went beyond his bounds in saying so If S. Augustine expound a place of Scripture not to his mind
which supposing it never so great is not shewed to the Councils but to your Church For the reason of that Reverence cannot be resolved into the Councils but into that Church for whose sake you reverence them And thus it evidently appears That the cunning of this device is wholly your own and notwithstanding these miserable shifts you do finally resolve all Authorities of the Fathers Councils and Scriptures into the Authority of the present Roman-Church which was the thing to be proved The first Absurdity consequent from hence which the Arch-Bishop chargeth your party with is That by this means they ascribe as great Authority if not greater to a part of the Catholick Church as to the whole which we believe in our Creed and which is the Societie of all Christians And this is full of Absurdity in nature in reason in all things that any part should be of equal worth power credit or authority with the whole Here you deny the Consequence which you say depends upon his Lordships wilfully mistaken Notion of the Catholick Church which he saith Is the Church we believe in our Creed and is the Society of all Christians which you call a most desperate extension of the Church because thereby forsooth it will appear that a part is not so great as the whole viz. that the Roman-Church in her full latitude is but a piece or parcel of the Catholick Church believed in our Creed Is this all the desperate Absurdity which follows from his Lordships Answer I pray shew it to have any thing tending to an Absurdity in it And though you confidently tell us That the Roman-Church taken as comprizing all Christians that are in her Communion is the sole and whole Catholick Church yet I will contentedly put the whole issue of the cause upon the proof of this one Proposition that the Roman-Church in its largest sense is the sole and whole Catholick Church or that the present Roman-Church is a sound member of the Catholick Church Your evidence from Ecclesiastical History is such as I fear not to follow you in but I beseech you have a care of treading too near the Apostles heels That any were accounted Catholicks meerly for their Communion with the Roman-Church or that any were condemned for Heresie or Schism purely for their dissent from it prove it when you please I shall be ready God willing to attend your Motions But it is alwaies your faculty when a thing needs proving most to tell us what you could have done This you say You would have proved at large if his Lordship had any more than supposed the contrary But your Readers will think that his Supposition being grounded on such a Maxim of Reason as that mentioned by him it had been your present business to have proved it but I commend your prudence in adjourning it and I suppose you will do it as the Court of Areopagus used to do hard causes in diem longissimum It is apparent the Bishop speaks not of a part of the Church by representation of the whole which is an objection no body but your self would here have fancied and therefore your Instance of a Parliament is nothing to the purpose unless you will suppose that Councils in the Church do represent in such a manner as Parliaments in England do and that their decision is obligatory in the same way as Acts of Parliament are if you believe this to be good Doctrine I will be content to take the Objecters place and make the Application The next Absurdity laid to your charge is as you summe it up That in your Doctrine concerning the Infallibility of your Church your proceeding is most unreasonable in regard you will not have recourse to Texts of Scripture exposition of Fathers propriety of Language Conference of Places Antecedents and Consequents c. but argue that the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome is true and Catholick because she professeth it to be such which saith he is to prove idem per idem To this you answer That as to all those helps you use them with much more candour than Protestants do And why so Because of their manifold wrestings of Scriptures and Fathers Let the handling the Controversies of this Book be the evidence between us in this case and any indifferent Reader be the Judge You tell us You use all these helps but to what purpose do you use them Do you by them prove the Infallibility of your Church If not the same Absurdity lyes at your door still of proving idem per idem No that you do not you say But how doth it appear Thanks to these mute persons the good Motives of Credibility which come in again at a dead lift but do no more service than before I pray cure the wounds they have received already before you rally them again or else I assure you what strength they have left they will employ it against your selves You suppose no doubt your Coleworts good you give them us so often over but I neither like proving nor eating idem per idem But yet we have two Auxiliaries more in the field call'd Instances The design of your first Instance is to shew That if your Church be guilty of proving idem per idem the Apostolical Church was so too For you tell us That a Sectary might in the Apostles times have argued against the Apostolical Church by the very same method his Lordship here uses against the present Catholick Church For if you ask the Christians then Why they believe the whole Doctrine of the Apostles to be the sole true Catholick Faith their Answer is Because it is agreeable to the Doctrine of Christ. If you ask them How they know it to be so they will produce the words sentences and works of Christ who taught it But if you ask a third time By what means they are assured that those Testimonies do indeed make for them or their cause or are really the Testimonies and Doctrine of Christ they will not then have recourse to those Testimonies or Doctrine but their Answer is They know it to be so because the present Apostolick Church doth witness it And so by consequence prove idem per idem Thus the Sectary I know not whether your faculty be better at framing Questions or Answers to them I am sure it is extraordinary at both Is it not enough to be in a Circle your selves but you must needs bring the Apostles into it too at least if you may have the management of their Doctrine you would do it The short Answer to all this is That the ground why the Christians did assent to the Apostles Doctrine as true was because God gave sufficient evidence that their Testimony was infallible in such things where such Infallibility was requisite For you had told us before That the Apostles did confirm their words with signs that followed by which signs all their hearers were bound to submit themselves unto
them and to acknowledge their words for infallible Oracles of Truth Was not here then sufficient ground for assent in the Primitive Christians to the Apostles Doctrine Not as you weakly imagine because the Doctrine of the Apostles was suitable to the Doctrine of Christ for the ground why they assented to the Doctrine of Christ was because of the Testimony of the Apostles And therefore to say They believed the Doctrine of the Apostles because it was agreeable to the Doctrine of Christ and then that they believed the Doctrine of Christ because it was suitable to the Testimony of the Apostles is a Circle fit for none but your self and that silly person of your own moulding whom you call the Sectary It were worth considering too How the works of Christ could prove the Doctrine of the Apostles suitable to his own I had thought Christs works had proved his own Testimony to be true and not the Apostles Doctrine to be consonant to his The works of Christ shew us the reason why he was to be believed in what he delivered and did not the works of the Apostles do so too What need then any rational person enquire further why the Apostles Doctrine was to be believed Was it not on the same account that the Doctrine of Christ was to be believed But say you How should you know their Doctrine was the same What do you want an infallible Testimony for this too or do you believe that God can contradict himself or that Christ should send such to deliver his Doctrine to the world and attest it with miracles who should falsifie and corrupt it Now you will say I am come over to you and answer as you do that the Apostles Testimony was to be believed because of the pregnant and convincing Motives of Credibility This I grant but must be excused as to what follows That these same Motives moved the Primitive Christians and us in our respective times to believe the Church Prove but that and I yield the cause But till then I pray give us leave to believe that still you prove idem per idem and your Answers are like your Proofs for this we have had often already and have sufficiently examined before as likewise your other Coccysm about the Formal Object of Faith and certain inducements to accept the Churches Infallibility which I shall not think worth repeating till you think what I have said against it before worth answering Your second Instance is ad hominem whereby you would prove That if he acknowledge the Church infallible in Fundamentals he must prove idem per idem as much as you do For say you if he be demanded a reason why he believes such Points as he calls Fundamental his Answer is because they are agreeable to the Doctrine of Christ. If he be asked How he knows them to be so he will no doubt produce the words sentences and works of Christ who taught the said Fundamental Points But if he be asked a third time By what means he is assured that these Testimonies do make for him then he will not have recourse to the words themselves i. e. to the Bible but his final Answer will be He knows them to be so and that they do make for him because the present Church doth infallibly witness so much from Tradition and according to Tradition which is say you to prove idem per idem as much as we Things are not alwaies just as you would have them If we allow you to make both Objections and Answers for us no doubt you are guilty of no Absurdity so great but we shall be equally guilty of it But it is the nature both of your Religion and Arguments not to be able to stand a Tryal but however they must undergo it I say then that granting the Church infallible in the belief of Fundamentals it doth not follow that we must prove idem per idem as you do For when we ask you Why you believe your Doctrine to be the sole Catholick Faith your final Answer is because your Church is infallible which is answering by the very thing in Question for you have no other way to judge of the Catholick Faith but by the Infallibility of your Church but when you ask us Why we believe such an Article to be Fundamental as for Instance That Christ will give Eternal Life to them that obey him we answer not because the Church which is infallible in Fundamentals delivers it to be so which were answering idem per idem but we appeal to that common reason which is in mankind Whether if the Doctrine of Christ be true this can be other than a Fundamental Article of it it being that without which the whole design of Christian Religion comes to nothing Therefore you much mistake when you think we resolve our Faith of Fundamentals into the Church as the infallible Witness of them for though the Church may be infallible in the belief of all things Fundamental for otherwise it were not a Church if it did not believe them it doth not thence necessarily follow That the Church must infallibly witness what is Fundamental and what not It is sufficient that the Church doth deliver from the consent of universal Tradition that infallible Rule of Faith which to be sure contains all things Fundamental in it though she never meddle with the deciding what Points are Fundamental and what not If you therefore ask me Why I believe any Point supposed Fundamental I answer By all the evidence which assures me that the Doctrine containing that Point is of Divine Revelation If you aske me How I know that this Point is part of that Doctrine I appeal to the common sense and reason of the world as to things plainly Fundamental and therefore by this means your third Question is prevented How I know this to be the meaning of those words for I suppose no one that can tell that two and two make four can question but if the Doctrine of Christ be true the belief of it is necessary to Salvation which is it we mean by Fundamental Either therefore prove it necessary that the Church must infallibly witness what is Fundamental and what not and that we must rely on such a Testimony in the belief of Fundamentals or you prove nothing at all to your purpose no more than your convincing Motives of Credibility which were they made into a grand Sallad would know the way to the Table they are served so often up But I have found them so dry and insipid already I have no encouragement to venture on them any more But still you are deservedly afraid we should not think worthily enough of your Churches Infallibility You therefore tell us very wisely that this Infallibility is not a thing that is not infallible For say you Which Infallibility must come from the Holy Ghost and be more than humane or moral and therefore must be truly supernatural c. It
easie that she can do it without arguments or reasons 5. Are men bound to believe what she so declares without arguments and reasons too If they be shew whence that Obligation comes and when you attempt that you endeavour to shew some argument and reason why they should believe it 6. What do you mean that these arguments reasons and words are not absolutely speaking matters of Faith it should seem then that conditionally they may be so and then shew the difference between them and those in Scripture 7. How is it possible for us to assent to any thing as a matter of Faith if we do not first assent to the arguments reasons and words by which you would perswade us to believe the thing to be declared by the Church and what is declared by the Church is true 8. Whether when you say That in the Scripture every word and tittle is matter of Faith at least implicitely and necessarily to be believed by all that knew it to be a part of Scripture this will not equally hold as to the Church too that every word and tittle is matter of Faith at least implicitely to all that know it to be a part of the Churches Definition And where then lyes the prerogative of Scripture above the Church Besides you tell us The Church hath certain limits and can define nothing but what was either revealed before or hath such connexion with it as it may be rationally and logically deduced from it as appertaining to the Declaration and Defence of that which was before revealed That herein you consult much for the honour of the Scripture above the Church will appear when you have answered these Queries 1. When the belief and sense of Scripture depend according to you upon the Churches Testimony Whether hath more limits the Church or Scripture For whatever is in Scripture must as to us haâ—e its Authority from the Church and therefore your Church sets what bounds she please as to things revealed in Scripture 2. Who shall be Judge whether your Church define nothing but what was revealed before when according to you we can have no assurance as to any Divine Revelation but from the Judgement of your Church 3. When your Church defines things to be matters of Faith which we think are not only not logically and rationally deduced from Scripture but plainly repugnant to it How can we believe that she doth not pretend to reveal something which was not revealed before 4. Is that rational and logical deduction from Scripture sufficient to perswade any rational man or no If not Why use you those terms if it be What need your Churches Definition in a thing that is obvious to any ones reason 5. Must we believe your Church absolutely as to what is rationally and logically deduced from Scripture If so then when she declares her own Infallibility we must believe that to be rationally deduced because she declares it 6. Doth your Church make use of Logick and Reason in her deductions then Why may not every one else unless she hath only the gift of Logick and Reason which I suppose you will say is but in a manner and after a sort Moreover say you The Church hath the receiving and interpreting Scripture for its end and consequently is in that respect inferiour to it But for whose end do you mean the Churches or the Scriptures end If the latter Shew us how any end of Scripture is attained by your Churches interpretation if you mean the Churches end I verily believe you that your Church pretends to the receiving and interpreting Scripture for her own ends and consequently in that respect she makes the Scripture inferiour to her Here again we meet with another piece of your Errantry in attempting to vindicate your Doctrine from the enchantment of another contradiction You say You hold it necessary that we are to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God upon Divine Authority and yet you tell us That the Churches Authority on which we are to believe the Scriptures is but in some sort and after a manner Divine This seems to have a huge resemblance to a Contradiction or else you must say That it is not necessary that we believe the Scriptures on a simply Divine Authority but only on such a one as is in some sort and after a manner Divine For if you make the same Authoririty to be Divine absolutely in your pretence and only after a sort in your Application you reach not the thing you promised If there be not as you say any necessity of defending the Churches Authority to be simply Divine in answering that Question How we know Scripture to be Scripture then there can be no necessity of asserting that we are bound to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God upon Divine Authority Which yet is your assertion before but yet you would fain distinguish between that which is absolutely infallible and divine the Churches Authority you say must be the former but cannot be the latter when yet this Infallibility is as you again tell us By the promised assistance of the Holy Ghost These are fit hedges to keep in Cuckows but none else But as you are still off and on sometimes seeming to go forward and then stepping back again sometimes answering sometimes proving which are great arguments of a disturbed mind or a being in a Labyrinth which you take many steps in but can find no way out of lest you should seem not sufficiently to contradict your self You go about to prove That the Authority teaching Scripture to be the Word of God must be absolutely infallible If you prove that I will undertake to prove it must be simply Divine But let us see however how irrefragably you prove it And the immediate Reason Why the Authority teaching Scripture to be the Word of God must be absolutely infallible is because it is an Article of Christian Faith that all those Books which the Church hath defined for Canonical Scripture are the Word of God and seeing every Article of Faith must be revealed or taught by Divine Authority this also must be revealed and consequently no Authority less than Divine is sufficient to move us to believe it as an Article of Faith But 1. Is it not possible for you to utter so many words without a contradiction Were you not just before distinguishing that Authority which is Divine from that which is absolutely infallible and but in a manner and after a sort Divine And yet here that Authority which you call absolutely infallible in the former part of your Argument in the last you explain it No Authority less than Divine Doth it not then follow that an Authority absolutely infallible is an Authority no less than Divine But to let that pass among the rest of his Brethren 2. Why take you this needless pains to prove that which you say before You and your Adversary are agreed in 3. Supposing you
us still more evidence of your self-contradicting faculty for which we need no more than lay your words together Your words next before were If the Church should fall into errour it would be as much ascribed to God himself as in case of immediate Divine Revelation but here you add Neither is it necessary for us to affirm that the Definition of the Church is God's immediate Revelation as if the Definition were false God's Revelation must be also such It is enough for us to averr that God's Promise would be infringed as truly it would in that Supposition From which we may learn very useful instructions 1. That God's Promise may he infringed and yet God's Revelation not proved to be false But whence came that Promise Was it not a Divine Revelation if it was undoubtedly such Can such a Promise be false and not God's Revelation 2. That though if the Church erre God must be fallible yet for all this all God's Revelations may remain infallible 3. That though the only ground of Infallibility be the immediate Assistance of the Holy Ghost which gives as great an Infallibility as ever was in Prophets and Apostles yet we must not say That such an Infallibility doth suppose an immediate Revelation 4. That though God's Veracity would be destroyed if the Church should define any thing for a point of Catholick Faith which were not revealed from God which are your next words yet we are not to think if her Definition be false God's Revelation must be also such which are your words foregoing Those are excellent Corollaries to conclude so profound a discourse with And if the Bishop as you say had little reason to accuse you for maintaining a party I am sure I have less to admire you for your seeking Truth and what ever animosity you are led by I hope I have made it evident you are led by very little reason CHAP. VI. Of the Infallibility of Tradition Of the unwritten Word and the necessary Ingredients of it The Instances for it particularly examined and disproved The Fathers Rule for examining Traditions No unwritten Word the Foundation of Divine Faith In what sense Faith may be said to be Divine Of Tradition being known by its own light and the Canon of the Scripture The Testimony of the Spirit how far pertinent to this Controversie Of the use of reason in the resolution of Faith T. C ' s. Dialogue answered with another between himself and a Sceptick A twofold resolution of Faith into the Doctrine and into the Books Several Objections answered from the Supposition made of a Child brought up without sight of Scripture Christ no Ignoramus nor Impostor though the Church be not infallible T. C ' s. Blasphemy in saying otherwise The Testimonies of Irenaeus and S. Augustin examined and retorted Of the nature of infallible Certainty as to the Canon of Scripture and whereon it is grounded The Testimonies produced by his Lordship vindicated YOu begin this Chapter with as much confidence as if you had spoken nothing but Oracles in the foregoing Whether the Bishop or you were more hardly put to it let any indifferent Reader judge If he did as you say tread on the brink of a Circle we have made it appear notwithstanding all your evasions that you are left in the middle of it The reason of his falling on the unwritten Word is not his fear of stooping to the Church to shew it him and finally depend on her Authority but to shew the unreasonableness of your proceedings who talk much of an unwritten Word and are not able to prove any such thing If he will not believe any unwritten Word but what is shewn him delivered by the Prophets and Apostles I think he hath a great deal of reason for such incredulity unless you could shew him some assurance of any unwritten Word that did not come from the Apostles Though he desired not to read unwritten Words in their Books which is a wise Question you ask yet he reasonably requested some certain evidence of what you pretend to be so that he might not have so big a Faith as to swallow into his belief that every thing which his adversary saies is the unwritten Word is so indeed If it be not your desire he should we have the greater hopes of satisfaction from you but if you crave the indifferent Reader 's Patience till he hear reason from you I am afraid his patience will be tyred before you come to it But whatever it is it must be examined Though your discourse concerning this unwritten Word be as the rest are very confused and immethodical yet I conceive the design and substance of it lyes in these particulars as will appear in the examination of them 1. That there is an unwritten Word which must be believed by us containing such doctrinal Traditions as are warranted by the Church for Apostolical 2. That the ground of believing this unwritten Word is from the Infallibility of the Church which defines it to be so 3. That our belief of the Scriptures must be grounded on such an unwritten Word which is warranted by the Church under each of these I shall examine faithfully what belongs to them in your indigested discourse The first of these is taken from your own words where you tell us That our Ensurancer in the main Principle of Faith concerning the Scriptures being the Word of God is Apostolical Tradition and well may it be so for such Tradition declared by the Church is the unwritten Word of God And you after tell us That every Doctrine which any particular person may please to call Tradition is not therefore to be received as God's unwritten Word but such doctrinal Traditions only as are warranted to us by the Church for truly Apostolical which are consequently God's unwritten Word So that these three things are necessary ingredients of this unwritten Word 1. That it must be originally Apostolical and not only so but it must be of Divine Revelation to the Apostles too For otherwise it cannot be God's Word at all and therefore not his unwritten Word I quarrel not at all with you for speaking of an unwritten Word if you could prove it for it is evident to me that God's Word is no more so by being written or printed than if it were not so for the writing adds no Authority to the Word but only is a more certain means of conveying it to us It is therefore God's Word as it proceeds from him and that which is now his written Word was once his unwritten Word but however whatever is God's Word must come from him and since you derive the source of the unwritten Word from the Apostles whatever you call an unwritten Word you must be sure to derive its pedegree down from them So that insisting on that point of time when this was declared and owned for an unwritten Word you must be able to shew that it came from the Apostles otherwise it
cannot be owned as an Apostolical Tradition 2. That what you call an unwritten Word must be something doctrinal so you call them your self doctrinal Traditions i. e. such as contain in them somewhat dogmatical or necessary to be believed by us and thence it was this Controversie rose from the Dispute concerning the sufficiency of the Scriptures as a Rule of Faith Whether that contained all God's Word or all matters to be believed or no or Whether there were not some Objects of Faith which were never written but conveyed by Tradition 3. That what is thus doctrinal must be declared by the Church to be an Apostolical Tradition which you in terms assert According then to these Rules we come to examine the Evidences by you produced for such an unwritten Word For which you first produce several Instances out of S. Austin of such things which were in his time judged to be such i. e. doctrinal Traditions derived from the Apostles and have ever since been conserved and esteemed such in the whole Church of Christ. The first you instance in is that we now treat That Scripture is the Word of God for which you propose the known place wherein he affirms he should not believe the Gospel but for the Authority of the Church moving him thereto But this proves nothing to your purpose unless you make it appear that the Authority of the Church could not move him to believe the Gospel unless that Authority be supposed to be an unwritten Word For I will suppose that S. Austin or any other rational man might be sufficiently induced to believe the Gospel on the account of the Churches Authority not as delivering any doctrinal Tradition in the nature of an unwritten Word but as attesting that Vniversal Tradition which had been among all Christians concerning it Which Universal Tradition is nothing else but a conveying down to us the judgement of sense and reason in the present case For the Primitive Christians being best able to judge as to what Authentick Writings came from the Apostles not by any unwritten Word but by the use of all moral means it cannot reasonably be supposed that the successive Christians should imbezzle these Authentick Records and substitute others in the place of them When therefore Manichaeus pretended the Authenticalness of some other writings besides those then owned by the Church S. Austin did no more than any reasonable man would do in the like case viz. appeal to the Vniversal Tradition of the Catholick Church upon the account of which he saies He was induced to believe the Gospel it self i. e. not so much the Doctrine as the Books containing it But of this more largely elsewhere I can hardly excuse you from a falsification of S. Austin's meaning in the ensuing words which you thus render If any clear Testimony were brought out of Scripture against the Church he would neither believe the Scripture nor the Church whereas it appears by the words cited in your own Margin his meaning is only this If you can find saith he something very plain in the Gospel concerning the Apostleship of Manichaeus you will thereby weaken the Authority of those Catholicks who bid me that I should not believe you whose Authority being weakned neither can I believe the Gospel because through them I believed it Is here any like what you said or at least would seem to have apprehended to be his meaning which is plainly this If against the consent of all those Copies which the Catholick Christians received those Copies should be found truer which have in them something of the Apostleship of Manichaeus this must needs weaken much the Authority of the Catholick Church in its Tradition whom he adhered to against the Manichees and their Authority being thus weakned his Faith as to the Scriptures delivered by them must needs be much weakned too To give you an Instance of a like nature The Mahumetans pretend that in the Scripture there was anciently express mention of their Prophet Mahomet but that the Christians out of hatred of their Religion have erased all those places which spake of him Suppose now a Christian should say If he should find in the Gospel express mention of Mahomet's being a Prophet it would much weaken the Authority of the whole Christian Church which being so weakned it must of necessity weaken the Faith of all those who have believed our present Copies Authentick upon the account of the Christian Churches Authority Is not this plainly the case S. Austin speaks of and Is it any more than any man's reason will tell him Not that the Churches Authority is to be relyed on as judicially or infallibly but as rationally delivering such an Universal Tradition to us And might not S. Austin on the same reason as well believe the Acts of the Apostles as the Gospel when they were both equally delivered by the same Universal Tradition What you have gained then to your purpose from these three citations out of S. Austin in your first Instance I cannot easily imagine Your second Tradition is That the Father is not begotten of any other person S. Austin's words are Sicut Patrem in illis libris nusquam Ingenitum legimus tamen dicendum esse defenditur We never read in the Scriptures that the Father is unbegotten and yet it is defended that we must say so And had they not good reason with them to say so who believed that he was the Father by way of exclusion of such a kind of Generation as the Eternal Son of God is supposed to have But Must this be an Instance of a doctrinal Tradition containing some Object of Faith distinct from Scripture Could any one whoever believed the Doctrine of the Trinity as revealed in Scripture believe or imagine any other that though it be not in express terms set down in Scripture yet no one that hath any conceptions of the Father but this is implied in them If it be therefore a Tradition because it is not expresly in Scripture Why may not Trinity Hypostasis Person Consubstantiality be all unwritten Traditions as well as this You will say Because though the words be not there yet the sense is and I pray take the same Answer for this of the Father's being unbegotten Your third is Of the perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary This indeed S. Austin saith is to be believed fide integra but he saith not divinâ but Do you therefore make this a doctrinal Tradition and an unwritten Word If you make it a doctrinal Tradition you must shew us what Article of Faith is contained in it that it was not looked on as an unwritten Word will appear by the disputations of those Fathers who writ most eagerly about it who make it their design to prove it out of Scripture Those who did most zealously appear against the Opinion of Helvidius were S. Hierom and S. Ambrose of the Latin Church S. Austin only mentions it in
report of such men whom I can make it appear could have no interest in deceiving you A. I can see no reason to the contrary Will you then believe such men who lost their lives to make it appear that their Testimony was true A. Yes Will you believe such things wherein persons of several Ages Professions Nations Religions Interests are all agreed that they were so A. Yes if it be only to believe a matter of fact on their Testimony I can see no ground to question it That is all I desire of you and therefore you must believe that there was in the world such a person as Jesus Christ who dyed and rose again and while he lived wrought great miracles to confirm his Doctrine with and that he sent out Apostles to preach this Doctrine in the world who likewise did work many miracles and that some of these persons the better to preserve and convey this Doctrine did write the substance of all that Christ either did or spake and withall penned several Epistles to those Churches which were planted by them These are all matters of fact and therefore on your former Principle you are to believe them There are then but two Scruples left Supposing all this true yet this doth not prove the Doctrine Divine nor the Scriptures which convey it to be infallible To which I answer 1. Can you question Whether that Doctrine be Divine when the person who declared it to the world was so divine and extraordinary a person not only in his conversation but in those frequent and unparalleld Miracles which he wrought in the sight and face of his enemies who after his death did rise again and converse with his Disciples who gave evidence of their fidelity in the Testimony they gave of it by laying down their lives to attest the Truth of it Again Can you question the Divinity of that Doctrine which tended so apparently to the destruction of sin and wickedness and the power of the evil Spirit in the world For we cannot think he would quit his possession willingly out of the bodies and souls of men that therefore which threw him out of both must be not only a Doctrine directly contrary to his interest but infinitely exceeding him in power And that can be no less than Divine But still you will say Is it not besides all this necessary to believe these very Books you call the Scripture to be divinely inspired and how should I know that To that I answer 1. That which God chiefly requires from you is the belief of the Truth and Divinity of the Doctrine for that is the Faith which will bring you to obedience which is the thing God aims at 2. If you believe the Doctrine to be True and Divine you cannot reasonably question the Infallibility of the Scriptures For in that you read that not only Christ did miracles but his Apostles too and therefore their Testimony whether writing or speaking was equally infallible all that you want evidence for is that such persons writ these Books and that being a matter of fact was sufficiently proved and acknowledged before Thus you see if we take a right method and not jumble things confusedly together as you do what a satisfactory account may be given to any inquisitive person first of the Reasonableness next of the Truth and lastly of the Divinity both of the Doctrine and the Books containing it which we call the Scripture Let us now again see How you make the Bishop and Heathen dispute The substance of which is That you make your Heathen desire no less than infallible evidence that the Bible is God's VVord by conviction of natural reason whereas his Lordship attempts only to make the Authority of Scriptures appear by such Arguments as unbelievers themselves could not but think reasonable if they weighed them with indifferency For though saith he this Truth That Scripture is the VVord of God is not so demonstratively evident à priori as to inforce assent yet it is strengthened so abundantly with probable Arguments both from the Light of Nature it self and Humane Testimony that he must be very wilful and self-conceited that shall dare to suspect it And sure any reasonable man in the world would think it sufficient to deal with an adversary upon such terms But saies your Heathen A man cannot be infallibly certain of what is strengthened with but probable Arguments since that which is but probably true may also be said to be but probably false Which being a thing so often objected against us by your party must be somewhat further explained How far Infallibility may be admitted in our belief may partly be perceived by what hath been said already and what shall be said more afterwards That there is and ought to be the highest degree of actual Certainty I assert as much as you But say you The very Arguments being but probable destroy it To which I answer by explaining the meaning of probable Arguments in this case whereby are not understood such kind of Probabilities which cannot raise a firm Assent in which sense we say That which is probable to be is probable not to be but by Probabilities are only meant such kind of rational Evidence which may yield a sufficient foundation for a firm Assent but yet notwithstanding which an obstinate person may deny Assent As for Instance if you were to dispute with an Atheist concerning the Existence of a Deity which he denies and should proceed with you just as your Heathen doth with the Bishop Sir All that Religion you talk of is built only upon the belief of a God but I cannot be infallibly convinced by natural reason that there is such a one You presently tell him that there is so much evidence for a Deity from the works of nature the consent of all people c. that he can have no reason to question it But still he replies None of these are demonstrations for notwithstanding I have considered these I believe the contrary but demonstrations would make me infallibly certain these then are no more but probable Arguments and therefore since it is but probably true it may be probably false How then will you satisfie such a person Can you do it any otherwise than by saying that we have as great Evidence as the nature of the thing will bear and it is unreasonable to require more Unless you will tell him it is to no purpose to believe a God unless he believe it infallibly and there being no infallible Arguments in nature he must believe it on the Infallibility of your Church And do you not think this were an excellent way to confute Atheists But when we speak of probable Arguments we mean not such as are apt to leave the mind in suspence whether the thing be true or no but only such as are not proper and rigid demonstrations or infallible Testimony but the highest Evidence which the nature of the thing will bear
and therefore may cause an undoubted Certainty of Assent As it is in all matters of fact for Will you say that it is as probable that there is not such a place as Rome as that there is because the only Argument you have to be convinced of it is but in it self a probability which is the fame and report of people It is a piece therefore of great weakness of judgement to say That there can be no certain Assent where there is a meer possibility of being deceived For there is no kind of Assent in the humane understanding as to the existence of any thing but there is a possibility of deception in it Will you say because it is possible all mens senses may deceive them therefore there can be no certainty of any object of sense And as well may you say it as destroy any certainty of Assent in Religion where you suppose a possibility of being deceived But if I be not much deceived though I suppose you will account it a grand Paradox an Assent may be as firm and certain upon moral grounds as upon a demonstration that is when the matter is capable of no more than moral grounds For the reason why we suspend Assent is the unproportionateness of the evidence to the matter to be proved So when the matter is capable of more evidence than is produced and I know it to be so my understanding cannot firmly assent on such evidence but when the matter is capable of no more than moral evidence and I know it I may as firmly assent to the Truth of such a thing as to the Truth of a clearer thing upon clearer evidence Thus I may as firmly assent that there are such places as the East and West-Indies upon the constant report of men as that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles I say not the evidence is the same but that the Assent may be as firm You cannot then destroy the certainty of Assent which is required to Christian Religion by telling men that the Arguments they rely on are but moral Arguments And by this you may see there may be a degree far beyond probability in the Assent where the Arguments in themselves considered may be called probable or rather that Moral certainty may be a most firm rational and undoubted certainty Your following discourse between the Bishop and Heathen run upon the former mistake as though his intention were to prove first the Bible to be God's Infallible Word before he would prove Christian Religion to be true which I have already shewed you is a mistake which appears sufficiently by his own words of proving the Christian Religion to stand upon surer grounds than any other Religion not only than that one which the Heathen believed but any other in the world and therefore your Objection is answered that for all this a third Religion may be truer than both Your remaining discourse proves nothing at all but on the former Supposition and therefore supposing his intention be to prove Christianity to be True and Divine his Argument from the power of it over the Devil follows plainly enough And when he mentions the evidence of it out of Scripture he doth not suppose the belief of it as an infallible Word of God but only as of any other history and therefore is far from such a petitio principii as you imagine That which the Bishop saith may reasonably be supposed as a Principle in Divinity as there are postulata in other Sciences is not the Infallibility of the Doctrine or Revelation but the Credibility of both in order to further Conviction concerning their Infallibility for unless the Credibility of it be first assumed as a Principle men will not use the means in order to conviction of its Infallibility And in this sense he doth not contradict himself nor unsay what he had said before and that this was his sense appears by the last words of that discourse That a meer natural man may be thus far convinced that the Text of God is a very credible Text. Thus we see how much notwithstanding your protestation to the contrary You have wronged the Bishop both by falsly imposing on him and dissembling the force of his Argument And how unjust that imputation is That if his Doctrine had been held in the Primitive Church it would have laid the world under an impossibility of being converted to Christianity whereas I have shewed how consonant his way is as I explained it both to reason and the proceedings of the Primitive Christians in the conversion of learned Heathens But since you will needs set the Bishop to convert a learned Heathen I will see what an excellent faculty you have according to your Principles of satisfying an Atheist or a Sceptick in Religion whom for your sake I will suppose more desirous of satisfaction than commonly such persons are Let us see then how he accosts you Scept Sir I understand by a great Book of yours that you have only taken the right course to convince such persons as my self who are a little doubtful concerning the received Principles of Religion in the world for the wisest I have conversed with of those who own those things do offer only to prove them by Reason and Arguments which I understand you decry as a way to make all men such as I am but that you have an excellent recipe for men under my distemper for you promise them no less then Infallible certainty in all things you require them to believe which is a thing I have been so long seeking for and have yet so unhappily mist of that I cannot but rejoyce in meeting with such a healing Priest who offers nothing short of Infallibility in all matters of Religion T. C. Sir I question not but before you and I part I shall cure those distorted joynts of your mind and instead of being a Sceptick make you a sound Catholick For indeed it is true what you say That those who would convince you by reason do but offer to make you more a Sceptick than you are at least you can have no Divine Faith at all upon such principles but if you will follow my counsel I doubt not but to make you Infallibly certain in the things we require you to believe Scept I see then there is hope of a cure for me but I pray tell me what that is I must be Infallibly certain of and by what means I shall attain it I would therefore in the first place be Infallibly certain of the being of God and the immortality of souls for these I take to be the principles of all Religion T. C. You take a wrong method you should first enquire after the means of this Infallible certainty for when once you have got that it will make you Infallibly certain of what ever you desire but as long as you use still so much reason as to demand Infallible certainty in principles
contentment they had in their minds And so I verily believe it is but probably your meaning is This Doctrine will cause gripes and torture of spirit in those who have no other foundation of Faith but your Churches authority and never enquire after more If it does so much good may they do them and I verily believe Such doubts may tend more to their satisfaction at last than their present security and a Doctrine which tends to convince the world of the folly and unreasonableness of such a kind of implicite Faith the unsuitableness of it to the nature of Religion in general but more especially the Christian whose great commendation is that it puts men upon so much searching and enquiry into the truth of it would tend more to the good of the Christian world than any of those soft and easie principles which you seek to keep men in obedience by and that I am afraid more to your Church than to Christ. Why then such a Doctrine should cause needless gripes and tortures of spirit I cannot imagine it must certainly be a great confirmation to the mind of any good man to see still further reason for his Faith by which it grows more radicated and confirmed Or would you have a man disquiet himself because he is not still a Child much such a kind of thing this is that a mans mind must be tortured because his Faith grows stronger for we assert that there are degrees in Faith which you who make all Faith Infallible cannot do unless you suppose an Infallible thing may grow more Infallible And if all true Faith be Infallible how can men pray for the increase of Faith unless they pray for the increase of their Infallibility which is a prayer I suppose not many in your Church are allowed to make for then what becomes of your Popes prerogative when not only every one among you is supposed to be Infallible but hopes as well as prayes to be more Infallible which is more then your Pope or your Church dares pretend to But whether Doctrine tends more to inward gripes and tortures of spirit yours or ours let any reasonable man judge for we assert that true Faith is capable of degrees of augmentation but you assert that there is no Divine Faith but what is Infallible when therefore men by reflection upon themselves are so far from finding such an Infallibility in their assent that they combat with many doubts and fears as we see the Apostles did even after the resurrection of Christ you must pronounce that the Apostles when they questioned Christs resurrection from the dead had no Divine Faith at all for it is plain they were far from an Infallible assent to it when Christ upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen Were they Infallible in their assent then or no I hope you will not contradict it so much as to say so or had they no Divine Faith then at all what not S. Peter for whom Christ prayed that his Faith should not fail and from the indesectibility of whose Faith you derive that of the Pope but here you may see what a certain Foundation you have for it when it is so apparent here that S. Peter's Faith did fail and that as to so important an Article of Faith as Christ's own Resurrection for certainly S. Peter was one of the eleven Nay Doth not Christ upbraid them for their unbelief in not believing them that had seen him after he was risen We see then Christ chides them for not resolving their Faith into a humane and moral Testimony If you had been there no doubt you must have told him He was mistaken in the nature of Faith which could rest on nothing but an infallible Testimony and unless he shewed you by sufficient Motives that those persons who saw him risen were infallible for all his haste you were not bound to believe him But whether Christ or you be the more infallible judge you We see our Blessed Saviour requires no more Assent than the nature of the thing will bear nay he upbraids those who will not believe upon Moral and Humane Testimony but you say just the contrary as though you were resolved to contradict him But that is sufficient Argument to all Christians of the falsity and folly of your Doctrine which tends to no other end but to make all considering men Scepticks or Atheists For when you lay it down as a certain Maxim that no Faith can be Divine but what is infallible and they find no such Infallibility in the grounds or the nature of mens Assent What then follows but those worst sort of gripes and tortures such as argue an inward Convulsion of mind and bring men to a greater Question Whether there be any such thing as that you call true Divine Faith in the world You go on with your Catechumen's discourse who must suppose Either that the Church taught that he was to believe Scripture infallible upon her own infallible Testimony or not If so then he reflects that this Church hath plainly deceived him and all others who believed upon that Supposition and so exposed them all to the hazard of eternal damnation and therefore was no True Church but a deceiver From whence say you he gathers that her recommendation of Scripture is as much as nothing and so at last is left to the sole Letter of Scripture and so must gather from thence its Authority or there can be no means left him on the Bishop's own Principles to believe infallibly that Scripture is Divine and the True Word of God This discourse of yours consists of three Absurdities which will follow upon one of your Churches questioning her Infallibity 1. That then your Church will be guilty of Imposture 2. Then the Churches Testimony signifies nothing 3. That then the sole Letter of Scripture must assure men of its Divine Authority For the first I must confess him whom before you supposed a Child to be now grown to years of understanding since he doth so wisely reflect on himself as to your Churches gross Imposture in her pretence of Infallibility and no doubt it is one of the greatest which hath been known in the Christian world which you cannot your self deny supposing that it be not true that she is infallible For Can there be any higher cheat in the world than under a pretence of Infallibility to impose things upon mens Faith which are contrary to the Sense and Reason of mankind to keep them from that inward satisfaction which their souls might find from a serious consideration of the excellent nature of Christian Religion and a diligent practice of it to contradict thereby the very scope of Christianity which courts our esteem by offering it self to the fairest tryal when I say under this pretence Christian Religion is apparently dishonoured the welfare of mens souls hindered and the greatest corruptions
obtruded without possibility of amendment of them excuse your Church from Imposture if you can for my part I cannot nor any one else who throughly considers it For the second it will follow indeed that the Testimony of your Church is as much as nothing as to any infallible Foundation of Faith but yet it may be of great use for conveying Vniversal Tradition to us and so by that delivering the Scripture into our hands as the infallible Rule of Faith To the third it by no means follows that there is nothing but the sole Letter of Scripture left to convince us of the Divine Authority of Scripture I hope the working Miracles fulfilling Prophecies the nature and reasonableness of the Doctrine of Scriptures are all left besides the bare letter of Scripture and these we say are sufficient to make us believe that the Scripture contains the infallible Word of God Now your profound Christian begins to reflect on the Bishops way which is say you That the Testimony of the Church is humane and fallible and that the belief of the Scripture rests upon the Scripture it self But it will be more to our purpose to hear the Bishop deliver his own mind than to hear you so lamely deliver it which in short he summs up thus A man is probably led by the Authority of the present Church as by the first informing inducing perswading means to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God But when he hath studied considered and compared this Word with its self and with other writings with the help of ordinary grace and a mind morally induced and reasonably perswaded by the voice of the Church the Scripture then gives greater and higher Reasons of Credibility to it self than Tradition alone could give And then he that believes resolves his last and full Assent that Scripture is of Divine Authority into internal Arguments found in the Letter it self though found by the help of Tradition without and Grace within This is the substance of his Lordship's Opinion against which we shall now consider what your Discourser hath to object 1. The first is from the case of ignorant and illiterate persons such who either through want of learning could not read the Scripture and examine or else made little use of it because they supposed they might have infallible Faith without it What then becomes of millions of such souls both in former and present times To that I answer Although the Ignorance and carelesness of men in a matter of so great consequence be so great in all ages as is not to be justified because all men ought to endeavour after the highest waies of satisfaction in a matter so nearly concerning them and it is none of the least things to be blamed in your Church that she doth so much countenance this ignorance and neglect of the Scripture yet for such persons who either morally or invincibly are hindered from this capacity of examining Scripture there may be sufficient means for their Faith to be built upon For although such illiterate persons cannot themselves see and read the Scripture yet as many as do believe do receive the Doctrine of it by that sense by which Faith is conveyed that is Hearing and by that means they have so great certainty as excludes all doubting that such Doctrines and such matters of fact are contained in these Books by which they come to the understanding of the nature of this Doctrine and are capable of judging concerning the Divinity of it For the Light spoken of in Scripture is not a Light to the eye but to the mind now the mind is capable of this Light as well by the ear as by the eyes The case then of such honest illiterate persons as are not capable of reading Scripture but diligently and devoutly hear it read to them is much of the same nature with those who heard the Apostles preach this Doctrine before it was writ For whatever was an Argument to such to believe the Apostles in what they spake becomes an Argument to such who hear the same things which are certainly conveyed to us by an unquestionable Tradition So that nothing hinders but such illiterate persons may resolve their Faith into the same Doctrine and Motives which others do only those are conveyed to them by the ear which are conveyed to others by the eyes But if you suppose persons so rude and illiterate as not to understand any thing but that they are to believe as the Church believes do you if you can resolve their Faith for them for my part I cannot and am so far from it that I have no reason to believe they can have any 2. The second thing objected by your discourser is That if the Churches judgement be fallible then much more ones own judgement is fallible And therefore if notwithstanding all the care and pains taken by the Doctors of the Church their perswasion was only humane and fallible What reason hath any particular person to say That he is divinely and infallibly certain by his reading the Scripture that it is Divine Truth But 1. Is there no difference between the Churches Perswasion and the Churches Tradition Doth the Bishop deny but the perswasion of the Doctors of the Church is as infallible as that of any particular person But this he denies that they can derive that Infallibility of the grounds of their Perswasion into their Tradition so as those who are to receive it on their Testimony may be competent Judges of it May we not then suppose their Tradition to be humane and fallible whose perswasion of what they deliver is established on infallible grounds As a Mathematician is demonstratively convinced himself of the Truth of any particular Problem but if he bids another believe it on his Testimony the other thereby hath no demonstrative evidence of the Truth of it but only so great moral evidence as the Testimony of that person carries along with it The case is the same here Suppose those persons in the Church in every Age of it have to themselves infallible evidence of the Divinity of the Scripture yet when they are to deliver this to be believed by others unless their Testimony hath infallible evidence in it men can never have more than humane or moral certainty of it 2. It doth not at all follow that if the Testimony of the Church be fallible no particular person can be infallibly assured of the Divinity of the Scripture unless this assurance did wholly depend upon that Testimony indeed if it did so the Argument would hold but otherwise it doth not at all Now you know the Bishop denies that the Faith of any particular person doth rest upon the judgement of the Church only he saith This may be a Motive and Inducement to men to consider further but that which they rely upon is that rational evidence which appears in the Scripture it self 3. He goes on and argues against this use of
Ignoramus and Impostor if he doth not make your Church infallible I have told you often before how much your Doctrine of Infallibility tends to Atheism and now you speak out For the meaning of your words plainly is If God hath not entrusted your Church with a full and absolute power to declare what is his will and what not Christ was an Ignoramus and Impostor For that is the substance of your next words For had he not framed think you a strange and Chimerical Common-wealth were it alone destitute of a full and absolute power to give an authentical and unquestionable declaration which is the true and genuine Law Now it is evident from all your discourse foregoing you only plead for this full and absolute power in your Church and judge you then what the consequence is to all those who cannot see any shadow of reason for this your pretended Infallibility neither more nor less than that Christ is liable to be accounted by all the world an Ignoramus and Impostor Nay that they are fools who account him not so if they do not believe this present Infallibility of your Church for it is apparent say you that he hath ordered his Common-wealth worse than ever any one did And now let any that consider what pitiful silly proofs you have produced for this present Infallibility nay such that I am confident that you cannot think your self you have in the least measure proved it then judge what thoughts of Christ you are forced to entertain your self upon your own Argument viz. as of an Ignoramus and Impostor Hath not your Infallibility lead you now a fine dance Is not this the way to make Faith certain and to reclaim Atheists I had thought it had been enough for your Canonists to have charged Christ with indiscretion if he had not left a Vicar on earth but now it seems the profound Philosophers learned Divines and expert Historians for such a one you told us your discoursing Christian was supposed by you to be in whose name these words are spoken do charge Christ with folly and imposture if he hath not made your Church infallible For shift it off as you can you cannot deny but that must be the aim of these words for you are proving the necessity of an infallible Declaration by the present Church in order to a sufficient Proposition of the Scripture to be believed and it is notorious you never pretend that any Church hath any share in this Infallibility but your own And therefore the consequence unavoidably follows that since there can be no sufficient Proposition that the Scripture is to be believed without this infallible Testimony since no Church pretends to this Infallibility but yours since without such provision for the Church Christ would have been esteemed by all the world not a wise Law-giver but a meer Ignoramus and Impostor What then follows but that if your Church be not infallible He must be accounted so And if you dread not these consequences I hope all Christians do and have never the better thoughts of your Infallibility for them 6. Let us see how he comes closer to the matter it self and examines how this Light should be Infallible and Divine supposing the Churches Testimony to be humane and fallible The substance of which is this If the Church may erre we may suppose she hath erred in testifying some Books to be God's Word in that case Books that were not God's Word would be equally recommended with those that were And that it would be impossible for any particular person by reading them to distinguish the one from the other To which I answer 1. It is all one with you to suppose a Church fallible and suppose that she hath erred To put a case of a like nature The Testimony of all mankind is fallible May you therefore suppose that all mankind hath erred in something they are agreed in The Testimony of all those persons who have seen Rome is fallible May I therefore question whether they were not all deceived But of this afterwards 2. When you speak of the Church erring Do you mean the Church in every Age since Christ's Coming concerning all the Books of Scripture or the present Church concerning only some Books of Scripture If you suppose the Church of all Ages should be deceived you must suppose some who were infallible should be deceived those were the Apostles in writing and delivering their Books to the Churches of their time or else you must suppose all the Apostolical Churches deceived in taking those Books to have come from the Apostles which did not And is not this a congruous Supposition Well then if it be unreasonable to suppose the Apostolical Churches deceived and impossible to imagine the Apostles deceived in saying They writ what they did not Where then must such an universal-errour as this come in Or Is it not equally unreasonable to suppose all the Christian Churches in the world should be deceived without any questioning of such a deceit supposing but the goodness and common providence of God in preserving such records and the moral industry used by Christians in a matter of such importance It is therefore a very absurd and unreasonable thing to imagine That all the Churches of Christ in all Ages should erre in receiving all the Books of Scripture Let us then see as to the present Churches erring as to particular Books 1. Either the Records of former Ages are left to judge by or no If they be as certainly they are we thereby see a way to correct the errour of the present Church by appealing to these records of the Church in former times if they be not left how could any of these Books be derived from Apostolical Tradition when we have no means to trace such a Tradition by 2. Supposing only some Books questioned or that the present Church erres only in some particular Books then it appears that there remains a far greater number of such Books whose Authority we have no reason at all to question and by comparing the other with these we may easily prevent any very dangerous errour for if they contain any Doctrine contrary to the former we have no reason to believe them if they do not there can be no very dangerous errour in admitting them Thus you see how easily this errour is prevented supposing the Churches testimony not only fallible but that it also should actually erre in delivering some Books for Canonical which are not so but supposing a Church pretends to be Infallible and is believed to be so and yet doth actually erre in delivering the Canon of Scripture what remedy is there then for while we look on the Churches testimony as fallible there is scope and liberty left for enquiry and further satisfaction but if it be looked on as Infallible all that believe it to be so are left under an impossibility of escaping that errour which she is guilty of And the more dangerous such
which Cyprian replies Whence comes this Tradition doth it descend from the Lords Authority or from the Commands and Epistles of the Apostles for those things are to be done which are there written And again If it be commanded in the Gospel or the Epistles and Acts of the Apostles then let this holy Tradition be observed We see then what St. Cyprian meant by his Apostolical Tradition not one Infallibly attested by the present Church but that is clearly derived from Scripture as its fountain and therefore brings in the foregoing words on purpose to correct the errours of Traditions that As when channels are diverted to a wrong course we must have recourse to the fountain so we must in all pretended Traditions of the Church run up to the Scriptures as the fountain-head And whereas Bellarmins only shift to avoid this place of Cyprian is by saying that Cyprian argued more errantium i. e. could not defend one errour but by another see how different the judgements of St. Augustine and Bellarmin are about it for St. Augustin is so far from blaming it in him that he saith Optimum est sine dubitatione faciendum i. e. It was the best and most prudent course to prevent errours And in another place where he mentions that saying of Cyprian It is in vain for them to object Custom who are overcome by Reason as though custom were greater than truth or as though that were not to be followed in spiritual things which is revealed by the Holy Ghost This saith St. Augustin is evidently true because reason and truth is to be preferred before custom He doth not charge these sayings on him as Bellarmin doth as part of his errours but acknowledgeth them and disputes against his opinion out of those principles And when before the Donatists objected the authority of St. Cyprian in the point of Rebaptization What kind of answer doth St. Augustine give them the very same that any Protestant would give Who knows not that the sacred Canonical Scripture of the Old and New Testament is contained within certain bounds and ought so far to be prefer'd before the succeeding writings of Bishops that of that alone we are not to doubt or call in question any thing therein written whether it be true and right or no. But as he saith in the following words All the writings since the confirmation of the Canon of Scripture are lyable to dispute and even Councils themselves to be examined and amended by Councils Think you then that St. Augustin ever thought of a present Infallibility in the Church or if he did he expressed it in as odd a manner as ever I read How easily might he have stopt the mouths of the Donatists with that one pretence of Infallibility How impertinently doth he dispute through all those Books if he had believed any such thing It were easie to multiply the Citations out of other Books of St. Austin to shew how much he attributed to Scripture as the only rule of Faith and consequently how farr from believing your Doctrine of Infallibility But these may suffice to shew how unhappily you light on these Books of St. Augustine for the proof of your opinion out of the Fathers The last thing your Discourser objects against his Lordships way is If the Church be fallible in the Tradition of Scripture how can I ever be Infallibly certain that she hath not erred de facto and defined some Book to be the Word of God which really is not his Word To which I answer If you mean by Infallible certainty such a certainty as must have some Infallible Testimony for the ground of it you beg the question for I deny any such Infallible Testimony to be at all requisite for our believing the Canon of Scripture and therefore you object that as an inconvenience which I apprehend to be none at all For I do not think it any absurdity to say that I cannot believe upon some Infallible Testimony that the Church hath not erred in defining the Canon of Scripture If by Infallible certainty you mean such a certainty as absolutely excludes a possibility of deception you would do well first to shew how congruous this is to humane nature in this present state before you make such a certainty so necessary for any act of humane understanding But if by Infallible certainty you mean only such as excludes all possibility of reasonable doubting upon the consideration of the validity and sufficiency of that Testimony I am to believe the Canon of Scripture upon then I assert that upon making the Churches Testimony to be fallible it doth not at all follow but that I may have so great a certainty as excludes the possibility of all reasonable doubting concerning the Canon of Scripture For when I suppose the Churches Testimony fallible I do not thereby understand as though there were as great reason to suspect her deceived as not nay I say there can be no reason to suspect her deceived but by that I understand only this that the Church hath not any supernatural Infallibility given her in delivering such a Testimony or that such Infallibility must be the foundation of believing the thing so delivered For whether I suppose your particular Church of Rome or the Catholick Church to be supernaturally Infallible in her Traditions there will be the same difficulty returning and an equal impossibility of vindicating our Faith from the entanglements of a Circle For still the question unavoidably returns From whence I believe such a supernatural Infallibility in the Church For in that it is supernatural it must suppose some promise on which it depends that promise must be somewhere extant and that can be no where but in Scripture therefore when I am asked Why I believe the Canon of the Scripture to be true if I answer Because the Tradition of the Catholick Church is Infallible the question presently returns Since humane nature is in it self fallible whence comes the Church to have this Infallibility If I answer By the assistance of Gods spirit I am presently asked Since no man by the light of nature and meer reason can be assured of this how know you that you are not deceived in believing such an assistance If to this I answer Because God who is Infallible hath made this promise in his Word I am driven again to the first question How I know this to be Gods Word and must answer it as before Upon the infallible Testimony of the Catholick Church Thus we see how impossible it is to avoid a Circle in the supposition of a supernatural Infallibility in the Churches Tradition But if no more be meant but a kind of rational Infallibility though those terms be not very proper i. e. so great evidence as if I question it I may upon equal grounds question every thing which mankind yields the firmest Assent to because I cannot imagine that so great a part of the wisest and most considerative
part of the world should be so grosly deceived in a matter of such moment especially supposing a Divine Providence then I freely and heartily assert We have such a kind of rational Infallibility or rather the highest degree of actual Certainty concerning the Truth of the Canon of Scripture and that the Catholick Church hath not de facto erred in defining it Thus I have followed your discoursing Christian through all his doubts and perplexities and upon the result can find no ground at all either of doubting concerning the Scripture or of believing the Testimony of your Church or any to be an infallible ground of Faith Your next passage is to tell us how his Lordships Dedalian windings as you finely call them are disintricated A happy man you are at squaring Circles and getting out of Labyrinths And thus it appears in the present case For when his Lordship had said That the Tradition of the Church is too weak because that is not absolutely Divine you repeat over your already exploded Proposition that there may be an infallible Testimony which is not absolutely Divine which when I have your faculty of writing things which neither you nor any one else can understand I may admit of but till then I must humbly beg your pardon as not being able to assent to any thing which I cannot understand and have no reason to believe And withall contrary to your second Answer it appears That if the Testimony of the Primitive were absolutely Divine because infallible the Testimony of the present Church must be absolutely Divine if it be infallible The rest of this Chapter is spent in the examining some by-citations of men of your own side chiefly and therefore it is very little material as to the truth or falshood of the present Controversie yet because you seem to triumph so much assoon as you are off the main business I shall briefly return an Answer to the substance of what you say His Lordship having asserted the Tradition of the Primitive Apostolical Church to be Divine and that the Church of England doth embrace that as much as any Church whatsoever withall adds That when S. Augustine said I would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Catholick Church moved me some of your own will not endure should be understood save of the Church in the time of the Apostles only and some of the Church in general not excluding after Ages but sure to include Christ and his Apostles In your Answer to this you insult strangely over his Lordship in two things First That he should say Some and mention but one in his Margent 2. That that One doth not say what he cites out of him To the first I answer you might easily observe the use his Lordship makes of his Margent is not so much to bring clear and distinct proofs of what he writes in his Book but what hath some reference to what he there saies and therefore it was no absurdity for him to say in his Book indefinitely some and yet in his Margent only to mention Occham For when his Lordship writ that no doubt his mind was upon others who asserted the same thing though he did not load his Margent with them And that you may see I have reason for what I say I hope you will not suppose his Lordship unacquainted with the Testimonies of those of your side who do in terms assert this That I may therefore free you from all kind of suspicion What think you of Gerson when speaking of the greater Authority of the Primitive Church than of the present he adds And by this means we come to understand what S. Augustine said I would not believe the Gospel c. For there saith he he takes the Church for the Primitive Congregation of Believers who saw and heard Christ and were witnesses of what he did Is not this Testimony plain enough for you But besides this we have another as evident in whom are those very words which his Lordship by a lapse of memory attributes to Occham For Durandus plainly sayes That for what concerns the approbation of Scripture by the Church it is understood only of the Church which was in the Apostles times who were filled with the Holy Spirit and withall saw the Miracles of Christ and heard his Doctrine and on that account were convenient witnesses of all which Christ did or taught that by their Testimony the Scripture containing the actions and speeches of Christ might receive approbation Do you yet desire a Testimony more express and full than this is of one who doth understand the Church exclusively of all successive to the Apostles when he had just before produced that known Testimony of S. Augustine You see then the Bishop had some reason to say Some of your Church asserted this to be S. Augustine 's meaning and therefore your Instances of some where but one is meant are both impertinent and scurrilous For where it is evidently known there was but one it were a Soloecism to say some as to say that some of the Apostles betrayed Christ when it is known that none but Judas did it But if I should say that some Jesuits had writ for the killing of Kings and in the Margent should cite Mariana no person conversant in their writings would think it a Soloecism for though I produce him for a remarkable Instance yet that doth not imply that I have none else to produce but only that the mentioning of one might shew I was not without proof of what I said For your impudent oblique slander on the memory of that excellent Prelate Arch-Bishop Cranmer when you say If a Catholick to disgrace the Protestant Primacy of Canterbury should say Some of them carried a holy Sister lockt up in a Chest about with them and name Cranmer only in the Margent His memory is infinitely above your slyest detractions and withall when you are about such a piece of Criticism I pray tell me what doth some of them relate to Is Primacy the name of some men Just as if one should disgrace the See of Rome and say Some of them have been Atheists Magicians debauched c. Though I confess it were a great injury in this case to cite but one in the Margent unless in pity to the Reader yet you may sooner vindicate some of them from a Soloecism in Language when the See of Rome went before than any of them from those Soloecisms in manners which your own Authours have complained of But say you What if this singular-plural say no such thing as the words alledged by the Bishop signifie I have already granted it to have been a very venial mistake of memory in his Lordship of Occham for Durandus in whom those very words are which are in the Margent of his Lordships Book as appears in the Testimony already produced I acknowledge therefore that Occham in that place of his Dialogues doth speak
of the Catholick Church of all Ages comprehending the Apostles and Evangelists in it and in this sense he saith that place of S. Augustine is to be understood But what advantage this is to your cause I cannot imagine For what if the Catholick Church be taken in that comprehensive sense to include not only the Apostles but the Church successively from their times Doth it hence follow That it is not day though the Sun shines Or rather Doth it not follow That you are not so quick-sighted as you would seem to be And Whether his Lordship or you come nearer the meaning of Occham's words let any one judge For they who speak of the Church in that comprehensive sense do only suppose the Infallibility to have been in the Primitive Apostolical Church but the successive Church to be only the chanel of conveyance of that Testimony down to us and so they say no more than we do Thus Driedo expounds that place of S. Augustine who understands it of the Catholick Church which was from the beginning of the Christian Faith increasing according to the course of succession of Bishops to these times which Church comprehends in it the Colledge of Apostles Do you think that these men did believe a present Infallibility in the Church If so To what end are they so careful to carry it so high as the Apostles Whereas on your Principle we can have no Assurance concerning any thing that the Apostles did or said but only for the Infallibility of the present Church You must therefore understand the present Church exclusively of the Apostolical Church and therefore if S. Augustine be understood in their sense he is far enough from serving your purposes But say you It is evident that S. Augustine must speak of the Church in his time because he speaks of that Church which said to him Noli credere Manichaeo which was not true of the Apostolical Church But Why might not the Apostolical Church be a reason to S. Augustine not to believe Manichaeus because he found no footsteps of his Doctrine in the Records of that Church Again suppose he means the present Church Doth he mean the infallible Testimony of the present Church Might not the Testimony of the Church supposing it fallible be sufficient for what S. Augustine saith of it I doubt it not And you seem to have no great confidence in this Testimony your self when you add That though it be a point of Faith to believe that the Church is infallible in delivering Scripture to us yet it is not a point of Faith that her Infallibility is proved out of the cited place of S. Augustine But when you say it is sufficient that it be clear and manifest out of the Text it self what Text do you mean S. Augustines or the Scriptures If S. Augustines you would do well to shew by what engines you force Infallibility out of his words if the Scriptures What becomes of our good Motives of Credibility When his Lordship objects That according to your Principles the Tradition of the present Church must be as infallible as that of the Primitive you very learnedly distinguish That if he means the one must be as truly and really infallible quoad substantiam as the other you grant it But if he mean the one must be as highly and perfectly infallible as the other quoad modum you deny it Very good still It seems there are higher and lower degrees in Infallibility I pray tell us What that is which is more than infallible The present Church you say is infallible but not so highly and perfectly infallible therefore there must be degrees in Infallibility and since the lowest degree is infallible that which is highly infallible must be more than infallible Again What difference is there between the substance and the mode in Infallibility I had thought the substance of Infallibility had layn in the mode and I should rather think Infallibility it self to be a mode of Apprehension then talk of substances and modes in it But it may be you mean such kind of modes of Infallibility as absolute and hypothetical If you do so explain your self by them and that we may better understand your meaning shew us whether the Church be at all capable of absolute Infallibility if not What difference there is in degrees between the hypothetical Infallibility of the present and Primitive Church supposing both infallible in delivering their Testimony and no otherwise For you yet again add Of the Churches Testimony being infallible but not simply Divine but it is the infallible Testimony of a desperate cause to have but one bad shift and to use it so often Because you would be apt to say That upon his Lordships rejecting the Infallibility of Tradition he left no use at all of it He therefore tells you Notwithstanding that it is serviceable for very good ends that it induces Infidels to the reading and consideration of Scripture and that it instructs novices and doubters in the Faith which two ends you say fall short of the end of Tradition For say you it founds and establishes Believers even the greatest Doctors of the Church for which you cite again this same place of S. Augustine But did not his Lordship tell you that some of your own understood that very place either of Novices or Infidels For which besides the Testimony of some of your own party he adds this reason because the words immediately before are If thou find one qui Evangelio nondum credit which did not yet believe the Gospel What wouldst thou do to make him believe Ego vero non c. To which you very prudently say nothing Concerning Almayn's Opinion That we are first and more bound to believe the Church than the Scripture you would seem in terms to disavow it though very faintly it is not altogether true and hope to salve it by a distinction of priority of time and nature and you acknowledge That in priority of nature we are first bound to believe the Church and I suppose in priority of time too if we believe the Scripture for the Churches sake Yet you would not have it said That we are more bound to believe the Church than Scripture but it is not what you would have properly said but what follows from that antecedent which Jacobus Almayn puts It is certain saith he that we are bound to believe all things contained in the Sacred Canon upon that account alone because the Church believes them therefore we are first and more bound to believe the Church than the Scripture which is so evident a consequence that nothing but shame would make you deny it Touching Almayn's and Gerson's reading compelleret for commoveret his Lordship saith That Almayn falsifies the Text notoriously you say No but you had rather charitably think they both read it so in some Copies his Lordship produceth a very ancient M.S. for the common reading you none at all for
could not at so small a distance of time prove any corruption by any Copies which were extant For saith he if they should say They would not embrace their writings because they were written by such who were not careful of writing Truth their evasion would be more sâ—y and their errour more pardonable But thus it seems they did by the Acts of the Apostles utterly denying them to contain matter of Truth in them and the reason was very obvious for it because that Book gives so clear an account of the sending the Spirit upon the Apostles which the Manichees pretended was to be only accomplished in the person of Manichaeus And both before and after S. Austin mentions it as their common speech That before the time of Manichaeus there had been corrupters of the sacred Books who had mixed several things of their own with what was written by the Apostles And this they laid upon the Judaizing Christians because their great pique was against the Old Testament and probably some further reason might be from the Nazarene Gospel wherein many things were inserted by such as did Judaize The same thing St. Austin chargeth them with when he gives an account of their Heresie And this likewise appears by the management of the dispute between S. Austin and Faustus who was much the subtillest man among them Faustus acknowledged no more to be Gospel than what contained the Doctrine delivered by our Saviour and therefore denied the Genealogies to be any part of the Gospel and afterwards disputes against it both in S. Matthew and S. Luke And after this S. Austin notes it as their usual custom when they could not avoid a Testimony of Scripture to deny it Thus we see what kind of persons these were and what their pretences were which S. Austin disputes against They embraced so much of Scripture as pleased them and no more To this therefore S. Austin returns these very substantial Answers That if such proceedings might be admitted the Divine Authority of any Books could signifie nothing at all for the convincing of errours That it was much more reasonable either with the Pagans to deny the whole Bible or with the Jews to deny the New Testament than thus to acknowledge in general the Books Divine and to quarrel with such particular passages as pinched them most that if there were any suspicion of corruption they ought to produce more true Copies and more ancient Books than theirs or else be judged by the Original Languages with many other things to the same purpose To apply this now to the present place in dispute S. Austin in that Book against the Epistle of Manichaeus begins with the Preface to it which is made in imitation of the Apostles strain and begins thus Manichaeus Apostolus Jesu Christi providentià Dei Patris c. To this S. Austin saith he believes no such thing as that Manichaeus was an Apostle of Jesus Christ and hopes they will not be angry with him for it for he had learned of them not to believe without reason And therefore desires them to prove it It may be saith he one of you may read me the Gospel and thence perswade me to believe it But what if you should meet with one who when you read the Gospel should say to you I do not believe it But I should not believe the Gospel if the Authority of the Church did not move me Whom therefore I obey in saying Believe the Gospel should I not obey in saying Believe not Manichaeus The Question we see is concerning the proving the Apostleship of Manichaeus which cannot in it self be proved but from some Records which must specifie such an Apostleship of his and to any one who should question the authenticalness of those Records it can only be proved by the testimony and consent of the Catholick Church without which S. Austin professeth he should never have believed the Gospel i. e. that these were the only true and undoubted Records which are left us of the Doctrine and actions of Christ. And he had very good reason to say so for otherwise the authority of those Books should be questioned every time any one such as Manichaeus should pretend himself an Apostle which Controversies there can be no other way of deciding but by the Testimony of the Church which hath received and embraced these Copies from the time of their first publishing And that this was S. Austin's meaning will appear by several parallel places in his disputes against the Manichees For in the same chapter speaking concerning the Acts of the Apostles Which Book saith he I must believe as well as the Gospel because the same Catholick Authority commends both i. e. The same Testimony of the Vniversal Church which delivers the Gospel as the authentick writings of the Evangelists doth likewise deliver the Acts of the Apostles for an authentick writing of one of the same Evangelists So that there can be no reason to believe the one and not the other So when he disputes against Faustus who denied the truth of some things in S. Paul's Epistles he bids him shew a truer Copy than that the Catholick Church received which Copy if he should produce he desires to know how he would prove it to be truer to one that should deny it What would you do saith he Whither would you turn your self What Original of your Book could you shew What Antiquity what Testimony of a succession of persons from the time of the writing of it But on the contrary What huge advantage the Catholicks have who by a constant succession of Bishops in the Apostolical Sees and by the consent of so many people have the Authority of the Church confirmed to them for the clearing the validity of its Testimony concerning the Records of Scripture And after laies down Rules for the trying of Copies where there appears any difference between them viz. by comparing them with the Copies of other Countries from whence the Doctrine originally came and if those Copies vary too the more Copies should be preferred before the fewer the ancienter before the latter If yet any uncertainty remains the original Language must be consulted This is in case a Question ariseth among the acknowledged authentical Copies of the Catholick Church in which case we see he never sends men to the infallible Testimony of the Church for certainty as to the Truth of the Copies but if the Question be Whether any writing it self be authentical or no then it stands to the greatest reason that the Testimony of the Catholick Church should be relyed on which by reason of its large spread and continual Succession from the very time of those writings cannot but give the most indubitable Testimony concerning the authenticalness of the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists And were it not for this Testimony S. Austin might justly say He should not believe the Gospel i. e. Suppose those writings which
contain the Gospel in them for it is plain he speaks of them and not the Doctrine abstractly considered should have wanted that consent of the Catholick Church that it had not been delivered down by a constant succession of all Ages from the Apostles and were not received among the Christian Churches but started out from a few persons who differ from all Christian Churches as this Apostleship of Manichaeus did he might justly question the Truth of them And this I take to be truest and most natural account of these so much controverted words of S. Austin by which sense the other two Questions are easily answered for it is plain S. Austin means not the judgement of the present Church but of the Catholick Church in the most comprehensive sense as taking in all ages and places or in Vincentius his words Succession Vniversality and Consent and it further appears that the influence which this Authority hath is sufficient to induce Assent to the thing attested in all persons who consider it in what age capacity or condition soever And therefore if in this sense you extend it beyond Novices and Weaklings I shall not oppose you in it but it cannot be denied that it is intended chiefly for doubters in the Faith because the design of it is to give men satisfaction as to the reason why they ought to believe But neither you nor any of those you call Catholick Authours will ever be able to prove that S. Austin by these words ever dreamt of any infallible Authority in the present Church as might be abundantly proved from the chapter foregoing where he gives an account of his being in the Catholick Church from the Consent of People and Nations from that Authority which was begun by miracles nourished by hope increased by charity confirmed by continuance which certainly are not the expressions of one who resolved his Faith into the infallible Testimony of the present Church And the whole scope and design of his Book de utilitate credendi doth evidently refute any such apprehension as might be easily manifested were it not too large a subject for this place where we only examine the meaning of S. Austin in another Book The substance of which is that That speech of his doth not contain a resolution of his Faith as to the Divinity of Christs Doctrine but the resolution of it as to the Truth and authenticalness of the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists which we acknowledge to be into the Testimony of the Catholick Church in the most large and comprehensive sense The next thing we come to consider is an Absurdity you charge on his Lordship viz. That if the infallible Authority of the Church be not admitted in the Resolution he must have recourse to the private Spirit which you say though he would seem to exclude from the state of the Question yet he falls into it under the specious title of Grace so that he only changeth the words but admits the same thing for which you cite p. 83 84. That therein his Lordship should averr that where others used to say They were infallibly resolved that Scripture was Gods Word by the Testimony of the Spirit within them that he hath the same assurance by Grace Whether you be not herein guilty of abusing his Lordship by a plain perverting of his meaning will be best seen by producing his words A man saith he is probably led by the Authority of the present Church as by the first informing inducing perswading means to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God But when he hath studied considered and compared this Word with it self and with other writings with the help of ordinary Grace and a mind morally induced and reasonably perswaded by the Voice of the Church the Scripture then gives greater and higher reasons of Credibility to it self than Tradition alone could give And then he that believes resolves his last and full assent that Scripture is of Divine Authority into internal arguments found in the letter it self though found by the help and direction of Tradition without and Grace within Had you not a great mind to calumniate who could pick out of these words That the Bishop resolved his Faith into Grace Can any thing be more plain than the contrary is from them when in the most perspicuous terms he says that the last Resolution of Faith is into internal arguments and only supposeth Tradition and Grace as necessary helps for the finding them Might you not then as well have said That his Lordship notwithstanding his zeal against the Infallibility of Tradition is fain to resolve his Faith into it at last as well as say that he doth it into Grace for he joyns these two together But Is it not possible to assert the Vse and Necessity of Grace in order to Faith but the last Resolution of it must be into it Do not all your Divines as well as ours suppose and prove the Necessity of Grace in order to believing and Are they not equally guilty of having recourse to the private Spirit Do you really think your self that there is any thing of Divine Grace in Faith or no If there be free your Self then from the private Spirit and you do his Lordship For shame then forbear such pitiful calumnies which if they have any truth in them You are as much concerned as Your adversary in it You would next perswade us That the Relator never comes near the main difficulty which say you is if the Church be supposed fallible in the Tradition of Scripture how it shall be certainly known whether de facto she now errs not in her delivery of it If this be your grand difficulty it is sufficiently assoiled already having largely answered this Question in terminis in the preceding Chapter You ask further What they are to do who are unresolved which is the true Church as though it were necessary for men to know which is the true Church before they can believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God but when we assert the tradition of the Church to be necessary for believing the Scriptures we do not thereby understand the particular Tradition of any particular Church whose judgement they must rely on but the Vniversal Tradition of all Christians though this must be first made known in some particular Society by the means of some particular persons though their authority doth not oblige us to believe but only are the means whereby men come acquainted with that Vniversal Tradition And therefore your following discourse concerning the knowing the true Church by its motives is superseded for we mean no other Church than the Community of Christians in this Controversie and if you ask me By what motives I come to be certain which is a Community of Christians and which of Mahumetans and how one should be known from another I can soon resolve you But we are so far from making it necessary to know which particular society
that they are the Word of God than the distinction of colours to a blind man 2. That the peculiar strain and genius of Scripture argues something Divine in it because notwithstanding its simplicity it hath so great power and efficacy on the minds of men far beyond any humane art or Rhetorick 3. That this may be discerned in the very Books of Scripture without the supposition of the authority of any Church for he mentions the Doctrine meerly as written and what may be found by the reading of it Go then and learn some piety and ingenuity where it is so seldome to be learned from a Jesuite and think not that we shall ever have the meaner thoughts of the Scripture for such bold expressions but we can easily see that the Infallibility of the Church and the Honour of Scripture cannot possibly stand together Your subsequent discourse consists of some rare pieces of subtilty which may be resolved into these consequences If your Church of Rome hath erred as to the number of Canonical Books then the Catholick Church ever since Christs time hath erred if the Church may erre then we cannot be certain but she hath erred if we can have no infallible certainty then we can have none at all These consequences your discourse to n. 5. may be resolved into and make good ever a one of them I will say you have proved something which is more than you have done yet N. 5. You object against his Lordship That he requires so many things in order to the resolution of Faith that he makes none capable of it but men of extraordinary parts and learning To which I answer that his Lordship is not undertaking to give an account of the Faith of rude or illiterate persons but such a one as may satisfie men of parts and learning i. e. he endeavoured to lay down the true rational account of it and not to enquire how far God obligeth every man that comes to Heaven to a critical Resolution of his Faith And therefore for the generality of such persons who heartily believe the Truth of Scriptures but are not able to give a clear and satisfactory account of it to others I answer as S. Austin did in the same case Caeteram quippe turbam non intelligendi vivacitas sed credendi simplicitas tutissimam facit That God requires not from the common sort of believers the subtilty of Speculation but the simplicity of Faith which may be very firm even in them from the reading of Scriptures and hearing the Doctrine of it plainly delivered to them though they are not able to give such accounts of their Faith which may be satisfactory to any but themselves So we say That the way is so plain that mean capacities may not erre therein But I wonder at you of all men that you should charge our way with intricacy who lead men into such perplexities and difficulties before they can be satisfied that they ought to believe for to this end you make the infallible Testimony of the Church necessary and how many insuperable difficulties are there before one can be assured of that first he must know your Church to be the True Church and this must be proved by a continual succession of Pastors in your Church and by a conformity of your Doctrine with the Ancients and Do you think these two are not very easie introductions to Faith like the taking Rome in ones way to go from York to London but though a man should pull down a House to find a Key to open it and after he had searched in all the rubbish of antiquity find enough to perswade him yours may be a True Church yet he is as far from believing as ever unless he finds a way through another Trap-door for his Faith which is that yours though a particular Church is yet the only Catholick Church i. e. that the first room he comes in is infallibly the whole house and therefore he never needs look further But supposing this yet if he doth not believe this Church to be infallible in all it says he had as good never come into it and therefore he must believe strenuously That whatever it says is infallibly True which being so hard a task as for a man that sees a house half down before his eyes to believe it can never fall it had need have some good buttresses to support it and at last finds nothing but some feeble Motives of Credibility which signifie nothing as to the Church but might have been strong enough if set in the right place viz. not to support the Church but to prove the truth of Christian Doctrine These and many other intrigues which I have formerly discovered do unavoidably attend the resolution of your Faith among all persons who profess to believe on the account of your Churches Infallibility What follows next concerning Grace is already answered What certainty we have that Scripture is of Divine Revelation and consequently what obligation lyes upon men to believe it are things largely discoursed on in the beginning of this Chapter and I shall suppose sufficiently cleared till you shew me reason to the contrary By which it will appear contrary to what follows n. 6. that we have the highest reasons or motives of Credibility to assent to the Truth and Divine Authority of the Scriptures But you proceed to an attempt of something new which is in a long harangue to disprove his Lordships Opinion of resolving Faith into that Divine Light which appears in Scripture This you insist on from n. 6. to n. 8. the substance of all which discourse I suppose may be reduced to these three things 1. That though the Scripture be called a Light yet that is to be understood only of those who own its authority 2. That the Scripture cannot shew it self to be an Infallible Light 3. That if there were such Light in Scriture all others would see it as well as he Before I come to a particular handling of each of these it will be necessary to consider What it is which his Lordship means by this Divine Light in Scripture for there is nothing causeth more confusion in the discourses and apprehensions of men than the applying Metaphors taken from the sense to the acts of the Vnderstanding For by this means we are apt to judge of our intellectual acts in a way wholly suitable to those of sense We are not therefore to conceive there can be any thing in Divine Truths which so immediately doth discover it self to the mind as light doth to the eye But that only which bears proportion to the light in the mind is reason for mens minds being discursive and not intuitive they do not behold the truth of things by immediate intuition but by such reason and arguments as do induce and perswade to assent We are not therefore to imagine any such Light in Scripture that doth as immediately work upon the understanding as the Light
themselves to be Divine because the Talmud Alcoran and Philosophers have some things in them which the Scripture hath But Can you prove that the Scripture hath nothing else in it but what may be found in any or all of these Books Will you undertake to shew any where such representations of the Being and Attributes of God so suitable to the conceptions which naturally flow from the Idea of a Supreme and Infinite Being and yet those Attributes discovered in such contrivances for mans Good which the wit of man could never have reached to above all in the reconciliation of the world to himself by the death of his Son Will you find out so exact a Rule of Piety consisting of such excellent Precepts such incouraging Promises as are in Scripture in any other writings whatsoever Can you discover any where such an unexpressible energy and force in a writing of so great simplicity and plainness as the Scripture is Is there any thing unbecoming that Authority which it awes the consciences of men with Is there any thing mean trivial fabulous and impertinent in it Are not all things written with that infinite decorum and suitableness as do highly express the Majesty of him from whom it comes but in the most sweet affable and condescending manner Are there any such arguments in the writings of Seneca Plutarch Aristotle for the Being of God and Immortality of souls as there are in Scripture Are there any moral instructions built on such good grounds carried on to so high a degree written with that life and vigour in any of the Heathen Philosophers as are in the Scriptures How infinitely do the highest of them fall short of the Scripture in those very things which they seem most to have in common with it As were it here a fit place might be at large discovered But besides and beyond all these Are there not other things which evidence the Divine Revelation of the Doctrine contained in Scripture which none of the writings you mention can in the least pretend to viz. the accurate accomplishment of Prophecies and the abundance of Miracles wrought for the confirmation of the Divine Testimony of those who delivered this Doctrine to the world And these very things now to us are internal to the Scripture the motives of Faith being delivered to us in the same Books that the Doctrine of Faith is In which sense the Scriptures may well be said to be proved Divine by themselves and that they appear infallible by the Light which is in them notwithstanding you most pitifully pretend to the contrary And if your Church will again pardon you for such opprobrious language of Scripture as not only to compare the writings of Seneca Plutarch and Aristotle with it which yet are commendable in their kind for moral Virtue and natural Knowledge but those wretched and notorious impostures of the Alcoran and the fabulous relations of the Talmud if I say your Church will pardon such expressions as these because they tend to inhance her Infallibility well fare that Pope who said Heu quam minimo regitur mundus As for your following instance of a Candle lighted in a room which shews that it is a light but not who lighted it so the sentences in Scripture are lights and shew themselves to be such but they cannot shew themselves to be such infallible lights which are produced by none but God himself I answer That I commend your discretion in making choice of a Candle rather than of the light of the Sun to set forth the Scripture by For a Candle yields but a dim uncertain light may be put into a dark lanthorn and snuffed at pleasure so would your Church fain pretend of the Scripture that its light is very weak and uncertain that your Church must open the sides of the Lanthorn that it may give light and make use of some Apostolical Snuffers of the Popes keeping to make it shine the clearer though they often endanger the almost extinguishing of it at least as to the generation of those who should enjoy the benefit of it But because that poor light of a Candle cannot shew who lighted it Will not the light of the Sun manifest it self to be no greater than that of a Candle Cannot any one inferr from the vast extent of that light from the vanishing of it upon the Suns setting and its dispersing it self at his rising that this light can proceed only from that great luminous body which is in the Heavens And may we not proportionably inferr from the clearness greatness majesty coherency of those truths revealed in Scripture that they must certainly come from none but God especially being joyned with those impregnable evidences which himself by the persons who delivered them that they were imployed by himself for that end But because this is a matter of great consequence give me leave to propound these questions to you and after you have considered them seriously return me a rational answer to them 1. Doth it imply any repugnancy at all in the nature of the thing or to the nature of God that he should reveal his mind to the world 2. If it doth not as I suppose you will grant that Whether is it possible that God should make it evident to the world that such a Revelation is from himself 3. If this be not impossible Is it not necessary that it should be so supposing that God should require the belief of a Doctrine so revealed on pain of eternal damnation for not believing it 4. Whether God may not give as great evidence of a Revelation that he makes of his mind to the world as he doth of his Being from the Wisdom Goodness and Power which may be seen in the works of Creation 5. Whether any other way be conceivable that it should be evident that a Doctrine comes from God but that it contains things highly suitable to the Divine nature things above the finding out of humane reason things only tending to advance Holiness and Goodness in the world and this doctrine to be delivered by persons who wrought unparalleld miracles 6. Whether all these be not in the most evident manner imaginable contained in the Doctrine of Christianity and in the Books of Scripture which I leave any man that hath common sense to judge of 7. Whether then it be not the highest disparagement of this Divine doctrine to make it stand in need of an Infallible testimony of any company who shall take the boldness to call themselves the Catholick Church in order to the believing of it and whether there can be any greater dishonour done it then to say it hath no more light to discover it self Divine than the Writings of Philosophers not to add of Jews and Mahumetans These things I leave you and the reader to consider of and proceed What follows concerning the Fathers and others proving the Scriptures to be the Word of God by themselves after they have believed them infallibly
on other grounds is gratis dictum unless you can prove from the Fathers that they did believe the Scriptures infallibly on other grounds Which when you shall think fit to attempt I make no question to answer but in the mean time to a crude assertion it is enough to oppose a bare denyal Your following absurdities concerning the private Spirit infallible assurance Apostolical tradition have been frequently examin'd already Only what you say that you read esteem nay very highly reverence the Scripture is but Protestatio contra factum as may appear by your former expressions and therefore can have no force at all with wise men who judge by things and not by bare words 3. You say That if there were such sufficient light in Scripture to shew it self you should see it as well as we seeing you read it as diligently and esteem it as highly as we do What! You esteem the Scripture as highly as we who say that the Scripture appears no more of it self to be Gods Word than distinction of colours to a blind man You who but in the page before had said there was no more light in Scripture to discover it self than in Seneca Plutarch Aristotle nay as to some things than the Talmud and Alcoran You who say that notwithstanding the Scriptures Christ would have been esteemed an Ignoramus and Impostor if your Church be not Infallible Are you the man who esteem as highly of the Scriptures as we do May we not therefore justly return you your own language and say that if you do not see this light in Scripture it is because your eyes are perverse your understanding unsanctified which instead of discovering such Divine light in Scripture as to make you love and adore it can have the confidence to utter such expressions which tend so highly to the disparagement of it But did not his Lordship give before a sufficient answer to this objection by saying 1. That the light is sufficient in it self but it doth not follow that it must be evident to every one that looks into it for the blindness or perversness of mens minds may keep them from the discovery of it 2. He saith This light is not so full a light as that of the first Principles as that the whole is greater than the part that the same thing cannot be and not be at the same time And yet such is your sincerity you would seem at first to perswade the Reader of the contrary in your next Paragraph but at last you grant that he denies it to be evidently known as one of the Principles of the first sort For you with your wonted subtilty distinguish Principles known of themselves into such as are either evidently and such as are probably known of themselves i. e. Principles known of themselves are either such as are known of themselves or such as are not for what is but probably known is not certainly known of it self but by that probable argument which causeth assent to it But when you deny that the Scripture is so much as one of the second sort of principles and say expresly That of it self it appears not so much as probably to be more the Word of God than some other Book that is not truly such were you not so used to Contradictions I would desire you to reconcile this expression with what you said a little before of your high Esteem and Reverence of the Scriptures 3. The Bishop saith That when he speaks of this light in Scripture he only means it of such a light as is of force to breed Faith that it is the Word of God not to make a perfect knowledge Now Faith of whatsoever it is this or other principle is an evidence as well as knowledge and the belief is firmer than any knowledge can be because it rests upon Divine authority which cannot deceive whereas knowledge or at least he that thinks he knows is not ever certain in deductions from Principles but the Evidence is not so clear Now God doth not require a full demonstrative knowledge in us that the Scripture is his Word and therefore in his Providence hath kindled in it no light for that but he requires our Faith of it and such a certain demonstration as may fit that Now what answer do you return to all this Why forsooth We must have certainty nay an Infallible certainty nay such an Infallible certainty as is built on the Infallible Authority of the Church yet such an Infallible Authority as can be proved only by motives of credibility which is a new kind of Climax in Rhetorick viz. a ladder standing with both ends upon ground at the same time All the answer I shall therefore now give it is that your Faith then is certain Infallibly certain and yet built on but probable motives and therefore on your own principles must be also uncertain very uncertain nay undoubtedly and Infallibly uncertain What again follows concerning Canonical Books and the private Spirit I must send them as Constables do vagrants to the place from whence they came and there they shall meet with a sufficient Answer The remainder of this Chapter consists of a tedious vindication of Bellarmine and Brierely which being of little consequence to the main business I shall return the shorter answer I shall not quarrel much with you about the interpretation of those words of Bellarmine in the sense you give them viz. if they be understood of absolute necessity not of all Christians and only in rare cases that it is not necessary to believe that there is Scripture on supposition that the Doctrine of Scripture could be sufficiently conveyed to the minds of any without it as in the case of the Barbarous Nations mentioned by Irenaeus But for you who make the tradition of the present Church Infallible and at the least the Infallible conveyer of the formal object of Faith I do not see how you can avoid making it as absolutely necessary to be believed as any other object of Faith unless your Church hath some other way of conveying objects of Faith than by propounding the Scripture infallibly to us If therefore men are bound to believe things absolutely necessary to salvation because contained in that Book which the Church delivers to be the Infallible Word of God I cannot possibly see but the belief of the Scripture on the Churches Infallible Testimony must be as necessary necessitate medii as any thing contained in it As for the Citation of Hooker by Brierely Whether it be falsified or no will best be seen by producing the scope and design of that worthy Authour in the Testimonies cited out of him Upon an impartial view of which in the several places referred to I cannot but say that if Brierely's design was to shew that Hooker made the authority of the Church that into which Faith is lastly resolved he doth evidently contradict Mr. Hookers design and is therefore guilty of unfaithful
not of falsifying Hookers words yet of perverting his meaning let the Impartial Reader judge CHAP. VIII The Churches Infallibility not proved from Scripture Some general considerations from the design of proving the Churches Infallibility from Scripture No Infallibility in the High-Priest and his Clergy under the Law if there had been no necessity there should be under the Gospel Of St. Basils Testimony concerning Traditions Scripture less lyable to corruption than Traditions The great uncertainty of judging Traditions when Apostolical when not The Churches perpetuity being promised in Scripture proves not its Infallibility His Lordship doth not falsifie C's words but T. C. doth his meaning Producing the Jesuits words no traducing their Order C's miserable Apology for them The particular texts produced for the Churches Infallibility examined No such Infallibility necessary in the Apostles Successours as in Themselves The similitude of Scripture and Tradition to an Ambassadour and his Credentials rightly stated THE main design of this Chapter being to prove the Infallibility of the Church from the Testimonies of Scripture before I come to a particular discussion of the matters contained in it I shall make some general Observations on the scope and design of it which may give more light to the particulars to be handled in it 1. That the Infallibility you challenge to the Church is such as must suppose a promise extant of it in Scripture Which is evident from the words of A. C. which you own to his Lordship That if he would consider the Tradition of the Church not only as it is the Tradition of a company of fallible men in which sense the Authority of it is humane and fallible but as the Tradition of a company of men assisted by Christ and his Holy Spirit in that sense he might easily find it more than an Introduction indeed as much as would amount to an Infallible Motive Whence I inferr that in order to the Churches Testimony being an Infallible Motive to Faith it must be believed that this company of men which make the Church are assisted by Christ and his Holy Spirit Now I demand Supposing there were no Scripture extant the belief of which you said before in defence of Bellarmine was not necessary to salvation by what means could you prove such an Infallible Assistance of the Holy Spirit in the Catholick Church in order to the perswading an Infidel to believe Could you to one that neither believes Christ nor the Holy Ghost prove evidently that your Church had an assistance of both these You tell him that he cannot believe that there is a Christ or a Holy Ghost unless he believes first your Church to be Infallible and yet he cannot believe your Church to be Infallible unless he believes there are such things as Christ and the Holy Ghost for that Infallibility by your own confession doth suppose the peculiar assistance of both these And can any one believe their assistance before he believes they are If you say as you do By the motives of credibility you will prove your Church Infallible But setting aside the absurdity of that which I have fully discovered already Is it possible for you to prove your Church Infallible unless antecedently to the belief of your Churches Infallibility You can prove to an Infidel the truth of these things 1. That the names of Christ and the Holy Ghost are no Chimerical Fancies and Ideas but that they do import something real otherwise an Infidel would speedily tell you these names imported nothing but some kind of Magical spells which could keep men from errour as long as they carried them about with them That as well might Mahomet or any other Impostor pretend an infallible assistance from some Tutelar Angels with hard Arabick names as you of Christ and the Holy Ghost unless you can make it appear to him that really there are such Beings as Christ and the Holy Ghost and when you have proved it to him and he be upon your proof inclinable to believe it you are bound to tell him by your Doctrine that for all these proofs he can only fancy there are such Beings but he cannot really believe them unless he first believes your Church infallible And when he tells you He cannot according to your own Doctrine believe that Infallibility unless he believes the other first Would he not cry out upon you as either lamentable Fools that did not understand what you said or egregious Impostors that play fast and loose with him bidding him believe first one thing and then another till at last he may justly tell you that in this manner he cannot be perswaded to believe any thing at all 2. Supposing he should get through this and believe that there were such Beings as Christ and the Holy Ghost he may justly ask you 1. Whether they be nothing else but such a kind of Intellectus Agens as the Arabick Philosophers imagined some kind of Being which did assist the understanding in conception You answer him No but they are real distinct personalities of the same nature and essence with God himself then he asks 2. Whence doth this appear for these being such grand difficulties you had need of some very clear evidence of them If you send him to Scripture he asks you To what end for the belief of that must suppose the Truth of the thing in Question that your Church is infallible in delivery of this Scripture for Divine Revelation But he further demands 3. Whence comes that Church which you call Infallible to have this Assistance of both these Do they assist all kind of men to make them infallible You answer No. But Do they assist though not all men separately yet all societies of men conjunctly You answer No. Do they assist all men only in Religious actions of what Religion soever they are of Still you answer No. Do they assist then all men of the Christian Religion in their societies No. Do they assist all those among the Christians who say they have this Assistance No. Do they thus assist all Churches to keep them from errour No. Whom is it then that they do thus infallibly assist You answer The Church But what Church do you mean The Catholick Church But which is this Catholick Church for I hear there are as great Controversies about that as any thing You must answer confidently That Church which is in the Roman Communion is the true Catholick Church Have then all in that Communion this Infallible Assistance No. Have all the Bishops in this Communion it No. Have all these Bishops this Assistance when they meet together Yes say you undoubtedly if the Pope be their Head and confirm their Acts. Then it should seem to me that this Infallible Assistance is in the Pope and he it is whom you call the Catholick Church But surely he is a very big man then is he not But say you These are Controversies which are not necessary for you to know it sufficeth
end differences as Infallibility in a constant Judge for all they had dissentions and divisions among them as well as we But you are very angry with his Lordship for taxing this pretence of Infallibility with Insolency and a design to lord it over the Faith of Christendom And therefore tell him You go no further than Christ himself leads you by Promises made of this Infallibility That is the thing in question and must not be taken upon the trust of your Infallibility in interpreting the places by you alledged When you can prove the Pastors of your Church to be as Infallible as the Apostles were and to have the same Spirit which they had I shall as little suspect them of Lording it over others as the Apostles but if it appear quite otherwise as to the Pastors of your Church name if you can a greater Insolency than to usurp a power of prescribing to the Faith of the Christian world As to what follows concerning your Churches Testimony being again Infallible by the assistance of Christ and his Spirit and yet not Divinely Infallible it is so subtle and Scholastical a distinction that I now begin not to admire Your so often using it for I see plainly if that wedge how blunt soever doth not rive asunder the knot it is like to remain for any thing you have to say to it His Lordship having given one Instance of the Insolency of your pretence of Infallibility by the dangerous errours which your Church doth hold particularly in equalling the Tradition of the present Church to the written Word of God which saith he is a Doctrine unknown to the Primitive Church and which frets upon the very Foundation it self by justling with it But being well acquainted with the Arts of your party in making a great noise with the Fathers and particularly in this Controversie with a citation out of S. Basils Books de Spirit Sanct. ad Amphilochium and especially those words parem vim habent ad pictatem speaking of Traditions he therefore in his Margent so far takes notice of them as to return this threefold Answer to to them 1. That he speaks of Apostolical Tradition and not the Tradition of the present Church 2. That exceptions are taken at this Book as corrupted 3. That S. Basil makes Scripture the Touchstone of Tradition To this you return a Threefold Answer 1. That 't is true he speaks of Apostolical Traditions but of such as were come down to their present times 2. That the Exceptions against the Book are unreasonable 3. That S. Basil doth not make the Scripture so to be the touchstone of Tradition as that Scripture must needs therefore be of greater force and superiour dignity than that of Tradition Because therefore this is the chief place in Antiquity which is produced on your side in behalf of Traditions it will deserve a more careful examination in the particulars by you mentioned 1. You acknowledge that he speaks of Apostolical Traditions and such as the present Church judged Apostolical now you say that the present Church is infallible in judging Apostolical Traditions and what Traditions are so judged are necessary to be practised Now I pray consider what difficulties and self-contradictions you have brought your self into by acknowledging these Traditions to have been judged Apostolical by the present Church For either that Church at that time was not infallible in judging Traditions and so the present Church of every age is not Infallible or if that was infallible yours is not for your Church differs from the Church in St. Basils time about these very Traditions by him mentioned your Church not judging them Apostolical Which will appear by an inspection into those things which are here accounted Traditions by him Among which he not only mentions signing believers with the sign of the Cross praying toward the East the oyl and the abrenunciation used in Baptism but the consecration of the person to be Baptized the standing at prayers untill Pentecost and above all the trine immersion in Baptism all which he saith come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Out of a secret and unpublished Tradition which our Fathers preserved in a quiet and silent manner Are these three last then acknowledged by your Church now for Apostolical Traditions or no Nay doth not your Roman Catechism absolutely pronounce the trine immersion to be unnecessary for baptism How can that become unnecessary which was once infallibly judged to be an Apostolical Tradition Either the Church then was out in her judgement or your Church out in hers and choose whether of those you have the more mind to either of them will help you to contradict your self 2. There want not sufficient reasons of suspecting that Book to be corrupted You say Erasmus was the first who suspected it Not the first who suspected corruption in St. Basils writings For Marcus Ephesius in the Florentine Council charged some Latinizing Greeks with corrupting his books against Eunomius protesting that in Constantinople there were but four Copies to above one thousand which had the passages in them which were produced by the Latins But suppose Erasmus were the first was he not so in discovering the genuine and supposititious writings of several others of the Fathers We must therefore enquire into the reason which Erasmus had of this suspicion Who tells us in his Epistle to John Dantiscus the Poland Embassadour that by that time he had gone through half this work he discerned a palpable inequality in the style sometimes swelling to a Tragical height and then sinking into a vulgar flatness having much more of ostentation impertinent digressions repetitions than any of St. Basils own writings which had alwaies a great deal of vigour simplicity and candour with great evenness and equality c. And although this argument to all that know the worth of that excellent person especially in his judgement of the writings of the Fathers will seem by no means contemptible yet we have much greater reason for our suspicion than this meerly from the stile For if you believe St. Basil was a man who knew how to speak consistencies that he would not utter palpable and evident contradictions in his writings you will have no reason to applaud your self in this as a genuine piece of St. Basils at least for the latter part of it For whereas you make this the force of his words That unwritten Traditions have equal force to stir up piety with the written Word You could hardly have named so many words which bear a greater face of contradiction to a multitude of testimonies in his unquestionably genuine writings For is it not St. Basil who saith That it is a manifest falling from the Faith and an argument of arrogancy either to reject any point of those things that are written or to bring in any of those things that are not written Is it not St. Basil who bids a man Believe the things that are
of Infallibility What follows concerning the Jesuits pretence of Infallibility to themselves proved by his Lordship from the words of the Apologist to whom Casaubon replies in his Epistle to Fronto Ducaeus which are these Let day and night life and death be joyned together and then there will be some hope that Heresie may fall upon the person of a Jesuite is very well worth the observing were it only for that rare and incomparable answer which you make to them In which it is hard to guess whether your ingenuity or your wit surpass the other Rabbi Casaubon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must help him out An Apologist saith Casaubon averres 't is impossible for a Jesuite to err Who is this Anonymus Apologist A Jesuite or a Minister for an Apologist and a Jesuite are no more convertible terms than a Jesuite and a Minister How shall we know then whether this nameless Apologist was a Jesuite or a Minister personating a Jesuite The Gospel will tell us Ex fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos O rare Drollery doth this pass for wit at Rome or must we think you speak these words in good earnest If so your Ignorance is more then ordinary in these matters For to pass by your unworthy reflection on that excellent person Isaac Casaubon whose memory is as farr above your detraction as his learning beyond your reach and to let go your scurrilous Greek Proverb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which some will tell you was Greek for a Jesuite are you really so Ignorant that you did not know whether the Apologist whose words are cited were a Jesuite or a Minister What not he who professedly undertakes the Vindication of the Jesuites not he who was so seriously recommended by Fronto Ducaeus a Jesuite himself not he who industriously vindicates Ribadeneira Scribanius Emanuel Sa Bellarmin and others in their doctrine which doth most reflect on the Power and Authority of Princes not he who extolls Father Garnet who was executed in England for the Gunpowder-treason yet for all this not he known to be a Jesuite Are you yet to seek Apply but your own rule of the Gospel to what is said already and by those fruits you cannot but know him to be a Jesuite But now notwithstanding the sufficient answers which have been so often given to the places produced for the proof of the Churches Infallibility out of Scripture You thought it no needless trouble in A. C. to mention them and much less in your self to vindicate them from the Bishops Interpretation The places are Luk. 10.16 He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me Matth. 28.20 I am with you alwaies to the end of the world Joh. 14.16 The Comforter the Holy Ghost shall abide with you for ever That which you would inferr from these places is That an Infallible assistance is promised to the Church in all ages not in its diffusive sense but representative viz. in the Pastors and Doctors assembled in Council The substance of his Lordships answer to these places is in these words These promises were made of continual presence and assistance that I grant and they were made to the Apostles and their Successors that I grant too but in a different degree For it was of continual and Infallible assistance to the Apostles but to their Successors of continual and fitting assistance but not Infallible To this you return no answer in general but endeavour to evince the contrary from the particular places by disproving his Interpretations of them To the first therefore Luk. 10.16 He that heareth you heareth me c. His Lordship answers That this was absolutely true in the Apostles who kept themselves to that which was revealed by Christ but it was to be but conditionally true in their Successors i. e. so long and so farr as you speak my words and not your own For where the command is for Preaching the Restraint is added Go saith Christ and teach all Nations but you may not Preach all things that you please but all things which I have commanded you The publication is yours the Doctrine is mine and where the Doctrine is not mine there your publication is beyond or short of your commission To this you reply That this is rather to pervert our Saviours words than to Interpret them is manifest And the reason you give is Because a Sectary who denies the Apostles Infallibility as well as the Churches might apply this restraint to the Apostles themselves as well as he now applies it to their Successors But they are strange kind of Sectaries indeed who deny the Apostles Infallibility and my memory doth not serve me with any such who asserted Christs Infallibility and denyed the Apostles but if there be any such Sectaries let us know them that we may then say There are some in the world who believe great absurdities as well as you However let us for the present take this for a supposition that any men might do so whether then they might not say the Apostles were only Infallible when they spake Christs words and not their own i. e. delivered his Doctrine and not any other No doubt they might and said very well in it too And if these be the Sectaries you mean I am one of them my self For I believe the Apostles were no further Infallible then as they delivered Christs Doctrine to the world and I suppose there are many such Sectaries besides my self But all the difference then between the Apostles and their Successors was this that those who heard the Apostles Doctrine had ground to believe them Infallible in what they delivered for Christs Doctrine but we have no ground to believe so of any Church since the Apostles times that it is Infallible in delivering the Doctrine of Christ to others The promise then of Infallible assistance as made to the Apostles doth imply that Gods Spirit would be so with them that they should deliver nothing for the revealed will of God or the Doctrine of Christ but what was really and truly so And if you can from this or any other place prove such an Infallible assistance to the Church of all ages you do something but not otherwise But for this particular place He that heareth you heareth me I have something more yet to say which may manifest how wholly impertinent it is to your purpose 1. It seems to me very questionable whether any such thing as Infallibility be at all implyed in this place and then certainly from hence you cannot inferr a successive Infallibility in the Church And the reasons why I question it are 1. The Apostles themselves had not that continual Infallible assistance of the Spirit of God till after Christs Ascension when the promise of Christs sending his Spirit upon them was remarkably accomplished Will you say then they had Infallible assistance by the Spirit before the promise of that Infallible assistance was made to them If then the Apostles
themselves had not such a continual Infallible assistance much less the LXX Disciples who are here spoken of 2. The message they were sent upon did not at all require any Infallible assistance for it was only a preparative message they not being sent to deliver fully the Doctrine of Christ but to tell them The Kingdom of God is at hand or nigh unto you ver 9 11. i. e. that blessed state of things under the Messias is now ready to be revealed to you the whole design therefore of that commission of the LXX Disciples and the Apostles when they were first sent abroad was of the same nature with Baptist's viz. to prepare people for the reception and entertainment of that Doctrine which Christ should deliver to them Now what Infallible assistance can be supposed necessary in order to this 3. The words imply nothing of Infallible assistance in them For when Christ saith He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me the plain meaning is no more than this They which hearken to your message and believe the truth of what you say do therein manifest their readiness to hearken to me and consequently will receive my Doctrine when it is delivered to them but they who despise this message of yours the affront they offer you reflects most on me who sent you and they shall find to their sorrow that in rejecting me they reject God too who will punish them severely for it which that it is the meaning of the words will very easily appear to any one that considers the scope and design of the place Now is it not possible for any to declare their respect to Christ by receiving his Messengers without believing those Messengers to be Infalliblâ— If that be possible then what kind of Infallibility can you hence inferr 2. Suppose I should grant these LXX Infallible in what they delivered yet nothing can be hence drawn for the Churches continual Infallibility because of the different reason of one from the other and that will appear in these things 1. These were immediately sent abroad by Christ himself when there were no Infallible writings containing this Doctrine made by himself or his Apostles And was there not then much more reason for such an Infallibility then there can be now 2. These had sufficient evidences to attest that Infallibility by that power of Miracles which they had in curing diseases and casting out of Devils ver 9. 17. And therefore those they were sent to had sufficient inducement to believe such an Infallibility if they had pretended to it when therefore you can prove the like of your lawfully sent Doctors and Pastors either a-part or in a General Council you may then from hence argue some thing toward that Infallibility but not before In your following words you acknowledge a difference in applying this text to the Apostles and their Successors For it was true in every one of the Apostles apart but it is not so in every one of the succeeding Pastors and for this you give these Reasons 1. Your adversaries and you are agreed in it viz. That the Pastors apart are fallible 2. 'T is manifest by experience that many eminent Pastors have not only been erronious but heretical 3. There is universal Tradition for it 4. Plain Scripture for it that even from themselves there should arise some that should speak perverse things These reasons I acknowledge to be so true that if you had expressed the Pope himself in them you could not have proved his fallibility better then by Experience Consent and Scripture But yet you have two Reserves in a Corner which marr all the rest viz. that from these places you make General Councils infallible and according to your most received perswasion the Pope too Do you so indeed and from these places and both of them Infallible whether they agree or not But if our reasons be not stronger against any such Infallibility deducible from these places than yours are for it for I have not seen any I am content to blind my understanding so much if I can as to believe what you say That to give reasons against your exposition is impossible But as your reason in all other things is weak so in this it appears that either your ignorance or your confidence is intolerable The next place is Matth. 28.20 I am with you alwaies even unto the end of the world To which his Lordship saith Yes most certain it is present by his spirit for else in bodily presence he continued not with his Apostles but during his abode on earth And this promise of his spiritual presence was to their Successors else why to the end of the world The Apostles did not could not live so long But then to the Successors the Promise goes no further than I am with you alwaies which reaches to continual assistance but not to Divine and Infallible What say you now to this Why forsooth It is the same answer as before and therefore deserves no further refutation But doth it not deserve some further proof of your Infallibility from this place Or are you content to let it go because you cannot but see that a spiritual presence and not infallible is hereby promised either to the Apostles or their Successors although from other places it appears that the spiritual presence of Christ with his Apostles did extend to so high a degree as to make them infallible in what they delivered for the Doctrine of Christ but no place of Scripture doth assert so much of the Churches infallibility It is well then that you grant that St. Gregory did not believe any infallible assistance in the Pastors of the Church but you say he understood it of them apart to make which probable you must produce some other places where he saith otherwise of them in Council But how a gracious presence of Christ with his Church which you grant Rhabanus Maurus meant by this place should suppose a conjunctive infallibility of the Pastors as a necessary foundation and support of the Church diffusive I confess is beyond my understanding but at least you say it denies it not neither doth it deny that you or I are infallible but doth it therefore follow that we are so What places you produce or rather bid us go seek for out of the Fathers to prove that they in effect it seems then not evidently do attribute infallibility to the Church but by no means Divine infallibility for this is more than the third time that you have forbid the Banes between those two words Divine and Infallible will to any that reads them appear to be capable of proving no more than the Perpetuity of a Church in the world but if any of them can do any better service I doubt not but we shall again meet with them and therefore shall adjourn their consideration to a more convenient place To
prove that any of the Fathers have denyed this place to extend to infallibility is a very unreasonable thing which you put the Bishop and his party upon because they only deliver what they conceive the meaning of places to be without reflections on any Heresies but such as were most prevalent in their own times And if your Church had in their time challenged Infallibility from such places you might have heard of their Negative which at present you put us unreasonably to prove Your answer to John 14.16 only is that it must be understood in some absolute sense and doth not his Lordship say so too viz. in regard of Consolation and Grace But if you say there can be no other absolute sense but an infallible assistance you would do well to prove it and not barely to suppose it and so likewise what follows as to John 16.13 which his Lordship justly restrains to the Apostles alone you tell us That you contend that in whatsoever sense all truth is to be understood in respect of each Apostle apart it is also to be understood in relation to their Successors assembled in a full Representative of the whole Church That you contend we grant but we say it is without sense or reason And therefore come to examine what you produce for it Your first reason Because the Representative of the Church in General Council and the Bishop of Rome as Pastor of the whole Church have equal power to oblige the Church to believe what they deliver as each Apostle had is utterly denied and must be more then barely supposed as it is here Your second which you call the Fundamental reason of this Exposition is in short That the preservation of the Church requires infallibility in future ages of the Church as well as in the Apostles times which is again utterly denied And the next time you write I pray prove your reasons well and think not your confident producing things you know are denied by us will serve for reasons against us Before you can sufficiently prove that any rite of the Church not mentioned in Scripture had the Holy Ghost for its Authour especially when contrary to a custome expressed in Scripture you must do more then produce a single testimony of St. Augustine for it who was apt to suppose the Holy Ghost might be pleased with such things which the Church though not therein infallible might consent in the practise of Which certainly is far from supposing the Church to have infallible assistance with it in delivering Doctrines of Faith because some things might be used in the Church which the Holy Ghost might be supposed not displeased with which is the utmost can be made of your citation out of St. Austin It seems you were aware of that disparity between the Apostles times and ours as to the pretence of Infallibility because the Apostles were first to deliver this Doctrine to the world and after to consign it by writing to future ages from whence it were easie to inferr there could not be that necessity of a Continual Infallible Assistance in the Church because the Doctrine infallibly delivered by them is preserved in the Church by the Infallible Records of it But to this your answer is considerable What wise man say you would go about to raise a stately building for many ages and satisfie himself with laying a Foundation to last but for a few years Our Saviour the wisest of Architects is not to be thought to have founded this incomparable building of the Church upon sand which must infallibly have happened had he not intended to afford his continual assistance also to the succeeding Pastors of the Church to lead them when assembled in a General Council into all those truths wherein he first setled the Apostles Whether you call this arguing for the Churches infallibility or libelling against our blessed Saviour if he hath not done what you would have him is hard to determine I am sure it is arguing ab absurdo with a witness for if he hath not done just as you fancy he should have done he must venture to be accounted an Ignoramus and Impostor before and here to do that which no wise man would have done viz. build a stately Fabrick the Church upon the Sands So it seems you account the Prophets and the Apostles for if the Apostle may be credited we are built on the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner-stone And this is it you must mean by being built on the sand for herein it is plain the Church is built on these viz. that Infallible doctrine which was delivered by them but here is not one word or the least intimation of an inherent infallibility in the Church which was to be its foundation so as to secure it from all errour And this you say must infallibly happen if there be not the same infallibility in General Councils which was in the Apostles for that I suppose must be the meaning of your last words if they be to the purpose But how groundless your pretence of the Infallibility of General Councils is will appear when we come to that subject but have you so little of common sense and reason with you as to suppose the Church presently notwithstanding the Divine Revelation of the Doctrine of Christianity in Scripture to be built on Sand if General Councils be not infallible Is there not sufficient ground to rely on the Doctrine of Christianity supposing there never had been any General Council in the world What was the Church built on before the Nicene Council only on Sand surely the Wind and Billows of persecutions would then have easily overturned it What if through civil combustions in the Empire there could never have been any Assembly's of the Bishops afterwards must the Church needs have fallen to the ground for want of General Councils But why I pray must the Infallibility of the Apostles be compared only to a foundation that can last but for few years Do you suppose that these Apostles never did commit their Doctrine infallibly to writing or that these writings of theirs did last but for a few years without one of these it is hard to find out your meaning by those expressions If you deny either of them I shall readily prove them but if you affirm both these as if you are heartily a Christian you must do with what face can you say that Christ in making the Apostles infallible did lay a Foundation but for a few years But thanks be to God although perverse and unreasonable men are alwaies quarrelling with the methods of Divine wisdom and goodness this Foundation of the Lord standeth sure still and as long as the Infallible Doctrine of the Gospel continues the Church will be built on a stedfast and unmoveable Rock which will prove a much surer Foundation than the seven Hills of Infallibility But this is your grand and fundamental
mistake to suppose a Church cannot continue without a vital inherent Principle of Infallibility in her self which must be discovered by Infallible Directions from the Head of it whereas we grant the necessity of an Infallible Foundation of Faith but cannot discern either from Scripture Reason or Antiquity that there must be a living and standing Infallible Judge which must deliver and interpret those Infallible Records to us We grant then Infallibility in the Foundation of Faith we assert the highest Certainty of the Infallibility of that Foundation we declare that the owning of that Infallible Foundation is that which makes men Christians the body of whom we call a Church we further grant that Christ hath left in his Church sufficient means for the preservation of it in Truth and Unity but we deny that ever he promised such an Infallibility to be constantly resident in that Church as was in the Prophets and Apostles and that neither any intention of Christ or any reason in the thing can be manifested why such an Infallibility should be so necessary for the Churches preservation that without it the Wisdom of Christ must be questioned and the Church built on a sandy Foundation Your citation of Vincentius Lyrinensis proves nothing but the Churches constancy in adhering to that Doctrine of Faith which was delivered from the beginning but how that should prove a Constant Infallibility I cannot understand unless it is impossible that there should be any Truth where there is no inherent Infallibility Thus we see what very little success you have in the attempt of proving the Churches continual Infallibility from Scripture From hence you proceed to the consideration of the way How Scripture and Tradition do mutually confirm each other His Lordship grants That they do mutually but not equally confirm the authority either of other For Scripture doth infallibly confirm the authority of Church-Traditions truly so called but Tradition doth but morally and probably confirm the authority of the Scripture This you say is apparently false but endeavour not to make it evident that it is so Only you say A. C. refused already to grant it Et quid tum postea Must every thing be false which A. C. refuses to grant But let us see whether his Similitude makes it out For saith he 't is as a Kings Embassadours word of mouth and his Kings Letters bear mutual witness to each other Just so indeed saith his Lordship For his Kings Letters of Credence under hand and Seal confirm the Embassadours authority infallibly to all that know his Seal and hand But the Embassadours word of mouth confirms his Kings Letters but only probably For else Why are they callâ—d Letters of Credence if they give not him more credit than he gives them To which you make a large Reply 1. That the Kings hand and Seal cannot confirm infallibly to a Forein King who neither knows hand nor Seal the Embassadours authority and therefore this reacheth not the business How we should know infallibly that the Scripture is Gods Word 2. That the primary reason Why the Embassadour is admitted is his own credit to which correspond the motives of Credibility of the Church by which the Letters of Credence are admitted 3. That none can give authority to the Letters of Credence or be infallibly certain of them but such as infallibly know that hand and Seal 4. That none can infallibly know that hand and Seal but such as are certain of the Embassadours sincerity But Doth all this disprove what his Lordship saith That though there be a mutual Testimony yet it is not equal for although the Letters of Credence might be the sooner read and admitted of on the Embassadours Reputation and Sincerity yet still those Letters themselves upon the delivery of them may further and in a higher degree confirm the Prince he is sent to of his authority to act as Embassadour Supposing then that there be a sufficient Testimony that these Letters were sealed by the Secretary of State who did manifest his Sincerity in the highest manner in the sealing of them though a Forein Prince might not know the hand and Seal yet upon such a creditable Testimony he may be assured that they were sealed by the Prince himself But then withall if the Embassadour to assure the Prince offers his own life to attest the truth of his Credentials and the Prince by reading the Letters find something in them which could not be written by any other than that Prince he then hath the highest certainty he can desire This is the case between Tradition and Scripture General Tradition at first makes way for the first admission of Scripture as the general repute of an Embassadours coming doth for his access to the Prince the particular Tradition of the Church is like the Embassadours affirming to the Prince that he hath Letters of Credence with him but then when he enquires into the Certainty of those Letters those Motives of Credibility not which relate to the person of the Embassadour but which evidently prove the sealing of those Letters as the constant Testimony of such who were present at it the Secretaries and Embassadours venturing their lives upon it must confirm him in that and lastly his own reading the Credentials give him the highest Confirmation i. e. The testimony of those who saw the miracles of Christ and his Apostles and confirmed the Truth of their Testimony by their dying for it are the highest inducement to our believing that the Scriptures were sealed by God himself in the miracles wrought and written by his own hand his Spirit infallibly assisting the Apostle but still after all this when in these very Scriptures we read such things as we cannot reasonably suppose could come from any but God himself this doth in the highest degree settle and confirm our Faith Therefore as to the main scope for which this Similitude was used by his Lordship it holds still but your mistake lyes in supposing that the Embassadours reception depended wholly on his own single Testimony and that was enough to make any Prince infallibly certain that his Letters of Credence are true which cannot be unless he knows before-hand that Embassadour to be infallibly true which is impossible to be supposed at his first reception Yet this is plainly your case that the Scriptures are to be infallibly believed on the single Testimony of the present Church which is to make the Embassadour himself give authority to his Letters of Credence and set hand and seal to them Whereas the contrary is most evident to be true But then supposing these Credentials admitted the Prince transacts with the Embassadour according to that power which is conveyed to him therein And thus it is in the present case Not as though a Prince treated every Envoy with equal respect to an Embassadour no more ought any Pastors of the Church be received but according to that power and authority which their Credentials viz. the
Scriptures do convey to them We own therefore the Apostles as Gods immediate Embassadours whose miracles did attest their commission from Heaven to all they came to and no persons could pretend ignorance that this is Gods hand and Seal but all other Pastors of the Church we look on only as Agents settled to hold correspondency between God and Vs but no extraordinary Embassadours who must be looked on as immediately transacting by the Infallible Commission of Heaven When therefore the Pastor or Pastors of your Church shall bring new Credentials from Heaven attested with the same Broad-seal of Heaven which the Apostles had viz. Miracles we shall then receive them in the same capacity as Apostles viz. acting by an Infallible Commission but not till then By which I have given a sufficient Answer to what follows concerning the credit which is given to Christ's Legats as to himself for hereby it appears they are to have no greater authority than their Commission gives them Produce therefore an Infallible Commission for your Pastors Infallibility either apart or conjunctly and we shall receive it but not else Whether A.C. in the words following doth in terms attribute Divine and Infallible authority to the Church supposing it infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost is very little material for Whether he owns it or no it is sufficient that it necessarily follows from his Doctrine of Infallibility For How can the Church be infallible by virtue of those Promises wherein Divine Infallibility you say is promised and by virtue of which the Apostles had Divine Infallibility and yet the Church not to be divinely Infallible The remainder of this Chapter which concerns the sense of the Fathers in this Controversie will particularly be considered in the next which is purposely designed for it CHAP. IX The Sense of the Fathers in this Controversie The Judgement of Antiquity enquired into especially of the three first Centuries and the reasons for it The several Testimonies of Justin Martyr Athenagoras Tatianus Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus and all the Fathers who writ in vindication of Christian Religion manifested to concurr fully with our way of resolving Faith C's Answers to Vincentius Lyrinensis à Gandavo and the Fathers produced by his Lordship pitifully weak The particulars of his 9th Chapter examined S. Augustine's Testimony vindicated C's nauseous Repetitions sent as Vagrants to their several homes His Lordships Considerations found too heavy for C's Answers In what sense the Scripture may be called a Praecognitum What way the Jews resolved their Faith This Controversie and the first Part concluded HAving thus largely considered whatever you could pretend to for the advantage of your own cause or the prejudice of ours from Reason and Scripture nothing can be supposed to remain considerable but the judgement of the Primitive Church in this present Controversie And next to Scripture and Reason I attribute so much to the sense of the Christian Church in the ages next succeeding the Apostles that it is no mean confirmation to me of the truth of the Protestant Way of resolving Faith and of the falsity of yours that I see the one so exactly concurring and the other so apparently contrary to the unanimous Consent of Antiquity For though you love to make a great noise with Antiquity among persons meanly conversant in it yet those who do seriously and impartially enquire into the sense of the Primitive Church and not guess at it by the shreds of Citations to your hands in your own writers which is generally your way will scarce in any thing more palpably discern your jugling and impostures then in your pretence to Antiquity I shall not here enquire into the corruptions crept into your Church under that disguise but as occasion is ministred to me in the following discourse shall endeavour to pluck it off but shall keep close to the matter in question Three things then I design in this Chapter 1. To shew the concurrence of Antiquity with us in the resolution of Faith 2. Examine what you produce from thence either to assert your own way or enervate ours 3. Consider what remains of this Controversie in your Book 1. For the manifesting the concurrence of Antiquity with us I shall confine my present discourse to the most pure and genuine Antiquity keeping within the compass of the three first Centuries or at least of those who have purposely writ in vindication of the Christian Faith Not that I do in the least distrust the consent of the succeeding Writers of the Primitive Church but upon these Reasons 1. Because it would be too large a task at present to undertake since no necessity from what you object but only my desire to clear the Truth and rectifie the mistakes of such who are led blindfold under the pretence of Antiquity hath led me to this discourse 2. Because in reason they could not but understand best the waies and methods used by the Apostles for the perswading men to the Christian Faith and if they had mentioned any such thing as an Infallibility alwaies to continue in the Charch those Pastors certainly who received the care of the Church from the Apostles hands could not but have heard of it And were strangely to blame if they did not discover and make use of it Whatever therefore of truly Apostolical Tradition is to be relyed on in such cases must be conveyed to us from those persons who were the Apostles immediate Successors and if it can be made manifest that they heard not of any such thing in that when occasion was offered they are so far from mentioning it that they take such different waies of satisfying men which do manifestly suppose that they did not believe it I know some of the greatest Patrons of the Church of Rome and such who know best how to manage things with best advantage for the interest of that Church have made little account of the three first ages and confined themselves within the compass of the four first Councils upon this pretence because the Books and Writers are so rare before and that those persons who lived then had no occasion to write of the matters in Controversie between them and us But if the ground why those other things which are not determined in Scripture are to be believed by us and practised as necessary be that they were Apostolical Traditions Who can be more competent Judges what was so and what not then those who lived nearest the Apostolical times and those certainly if they writ of any thing could not write of any thing of more concernment to the Christian world than the knowledge of such things would be or at least we cannot imagine but that we should find express intimations of them where so many so wise and learned persons do industriously give an account of themselves and their solemn actions to their Heathen persecutors But however silent they may be in other things which they neither heard nor thought of as in the
such Miracles as 〈◊〉 did besides all which they do tends to advance these evil spirits in the world but the design of the true Prophets is to declare the True God and his Son Christ. But May then any one by the innate power of his mind yield a divine assent to these things No but pray earnestly to God to enlighten your mind for this is the effect of Divine Grace in and through Christ. What part is there now of our resolution of Faith which is not herein asserted If you ask Why you believe there were such men in the World as these Prophets The continuance of their Books and common Fame sufficiently attest it If you ask Why you should believe them to be True Prophets The excellency of their Doctrine joyned with the fulfilling Prophecies and working Miracles abundantly prove it But if you lastly ask Whether besides objective evidence there be not some higher efficient requisite to produce a Divine Faith The Answer is That depends upon the Grace of God in Christ So that here we have most evidently all those things concurring which his Lordship asserts in the resolution of Faith Moral inducement preparing the mind rational evidence from the thing into which Faith is resolved and Divine Grace requisite in the nature of an efficient cause But Where is there the least intimation of any Churches Infallibility requisite to make men believe with a firm and Divine Faith No doubt that was a Divine Faith which Justin was bid to pray so heartily for and which was only in those to whom it was given and yet even this Faith had no other assurance to build it self upon but that rational evidence which is before discovered That Divine Person never thought of mens believing with their Wills much less that the Books of Scripture had no more evidence of themselves than distinction of colours to a blind man he did not think Christ an Ignoramus or Impostor because he left no Church infallible nor that God by the Prophets laid a Foundation upon sand or that would last but a few years because he did not continue such an Infallible Assistance as the Prophets had to the Church in all ages yet these are all brave assertions of yours which doubtless you would be ashamed of and recant if you had not as Casaubon saith of the Person whom you could not tell whether he was a Jesuit or no but by that character you might guess it that he had frontem ferream cor involutum a brow of steel and a heartfull of Meanders to use your own fine expression Upon this Justin tells us a divine ardour was raised in his mind and a love of the Prophets and such as were the Friends of Christ and upon further consideration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I found this the only certain and profitable Philosophy and thereupon commends the Doctrine of Christ to Trypho and his Company for something which was certainly innate to it that it had a kind of awe and majesty in it and is excellent at terrifying and perswading those who were out of the right way and brings the sweetest tranquillity to such as are conversant in it And afterwards undertakes to demonstrate the truth of our Religion from the reasonableness of it that we have not yielded our assent to vain and empty Fables nor to assertions uncapable of evidence and demonstration but to such as are filled with a Divine Spirit overflowing with Power and flourishing with Grace And accordingly manageth his discourse quite through shewing the insufficiency of the Ceremonial Law and the Truth and Excellency both of the Person and Doctrine of Christ. But what need all this if he had believed your Doctrine It had been but proving the Church Infallible by Motives of Credibility and then to be sure whatever was propounded to be believed by it was infallibly true But older and wiser it seems must hold here to Justin though so near the Apostles times went a much further way about but it was well for him he lived so long ago else he might have been accused of Heresie or making Faith uncertain if he had lived in our times and such Doctrine of his might have merited an Index Expurgatorius But it seems he was not afraid of it then for he often elsewhere speaks to the same purpose For in his Paraenesis to the Greeks he makes it his business first to shew the unreasonableness of believing those who were the great Authours of all their superstitions for the Poets were manifestly ridiculous the Philosophers at continual dissentions among themselves so that there was no relying on them for the finding out of Truth or the redress of the miseries of humane nature and then comes to the Authours of our Religion who were both much elder than any of theirs and did not teach any thing of their own heads nor dissented from one another in what they delivered or sought to confute each other as the Philosophers did but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without all jarring and contention they delivered to men the Doctrine which they received from God For saith he it was not possible for them to know such great and divine things by nature or humane wit but by a heavenly gift descending from above upon holy men It seems Justin believed there was such evidence in the matters contained in Scripture which might perswade men to believe that they came from God that they were but as instruments to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he expresseth it to that Divine Spirit which did strike upon them whence with one consent and harmony they sound forth the Doctrine of God the worlds Creation and Mans the Immortality of the soul Judgment to come and all things else which are necessary for us to know which they unanimously deliver to us though at great distances from each other both in regard of time and place And so proves the Antiquity of the Writings of Moses above all the Wise men of the Greeks by the testimony of their own Authours Polemon Appion Ptolomaeus Mendesius and many others and concludes his discourse with this speech That it is impossible for us to know any thing certainly concerning God or Religion but from Divine Inspiration which alone was in the Prophets In his first Apology for the Christians he tells us what it was while he was a Platonist which brought him to a good Opinion of Christianity which was the observing the power and efficacy that Doctrine had upon the Christians to undergo with so much courage what was accounted most terrible to humane nature which are death and torments From whence he reasoned with himself that although the Christians were so much calumniated yet certainly they could not be vitious persons who were so little fearful of those great Bug-bears of humane nature For Who is there that is a lover of pleasure or intemperate or cruel that can chearfully embrace death so as thereby to be deprived
of all his goods And when he speaks of the Doctrine it self of Christianity he saies It is suitable to whatever was rational among the Platonists or other Philosophers but far more agreeable to it self and containing much more excellent things than ever they could attain to the knowledge of In his second Apology for the Christians to the Emperour Antoninus Pius he insists much on the excellency of the Doâ—trine of Christianity from the Precepts of it chastity love of enemies liberality submission to authority worship of God c. Afterwards he proves the truth and certainty of all we believe concerning Christ from the exact accomplishment of the Prophecies made concerning him in the Old Testament which discourse he ends with this saying So many and so great things being seen are sufficient to perswade men to believe the truth of them who are lovers of truth and not seekers of applause and under the command of passions Thus we see in all his discourses where he had the most occasion administred to him to discover the most certain grounds of Christian Faith he resolves all into the rational evidence of the truth excellency and divinity of the Doctrine which was contained in the Scriptures For in his second Oration to the Greeks after he had spoken highly in commendation of the Scripture calling it The best expeller of all turbulent passions and the surest extinguisher of those preternatural heats in the souls of men which saith he makes men not Poets nor Philosophers nor Orators but it makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dying men immortal and mortals become gods and transferrs them from the earth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to such places whose confines are far above Olympus therefore O ye Greeks come and be instructed be ye as I am for I was as you are And these were the things which prevailed with me the divine power and efficacy of the Doctrine What was it then I pray that Justin Martyr of a Philosopher becoming a Christian resolved his Faith into If we may believe himself it was into the evidence of the Doctrine of Christianity and not into the Infallibility of any Church The Testimony of this person I have the more largely insisted on both because he was so great a Philosopher as well as Christian and lived so near the Apostolical times Next him we produce Athenagoras as a Philosopher too as well as Christian who flourished under Antoninus and Commodus to whom he made his Apology in behalf of the Christians in which he first undertakes to manifest the reasonableness of the Doctrine which they owned the Foundation of it being the same with that which the best Philosophers acknowledged the existence and unity of the Deity But saith he if we had nothing but such reasons as he had produced our perswasion could only be humane but the words of the Prophets are they which establish our minds who being carried beyond themselves by the impulse of the Divine Spirit spake that which they were moved to when the Spirit used them as Instruments through which he spake Is not here a plain resolution of Faith into that Divine Authority by which the Prophets spake and that not as testified by any Infallible Church but as it was discernable by those persons he spake to for he appeals to the Emperours themselves concerning it which had been a fond and absurd thing for him to do if the knowledge of that Divine Inspiration did depend meerly on the testimony of Christians as such and were not to be discovered by some common Principles to them and others Much to the same purpose Tatianus speaks in that eloquent Oration of his against the Greeks who was Justin Martyrs Scholar and we shall see how agreeably he speaks to him in the account he gives how he became a Christian. After saith he he had abundantly discovered the vanity of the Theology and Superstitions of the Greeks he fell to the reading some strange Books much elder and more Divine than the Writings of the Greek Philosophers And to these saith he I yielded up my Faith for the great simplicity and plainness of the style and the freedom from affectation which was in the writers and that evidence and perspicuity which was in all they writ and because they foretold things to come made excellent promises and manifestly declared the Monarchy of the World What Protestant could speak higher of the Scripture and of those internal arguments which are the grounds of Faith than Tatianus in these words doth Yet we see these were the arguments which made him relinquish the Greek learning of which he was a Professor at Rome and betake himself to the profession of Christianity though he was sure to undergo not only contempt from the world but to be in continual hazard of his life by it That innate simplicity of the writings of the Scripture joyned with the perspicuity of it if at least those words be rightly translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by sermo nusquam obscurus and it doth not rather relate to the account of the worlds creation which I conjecture it may do but however the certainty of the predictions the excellency of the promises and the reasonableness of the Doctrine were the things which by the reading of the Books he was perswaded to believe them by But all this while we hear no news of any Churches Infallibility in order to Faith We come therefore to Irenaeus who was omnium doctrinarum curioâ—â—ssimus explorator as Tertullian speaks of him a great searcher into all kind of learning and therefore surely not to seek as to the true account of his Faith Whose judgement herein although we have had occasion to enquire into before yet we have testimonies enough beside to manifest his consent with them And although Irenaeus of all the ancient Fathers be looked on as the most favourable to Tradition and is most cited to that purpose in these disputes yet I doubt not but to make it appear that where he speaks most concerning Tradition he makes the resolution of Faith to be wholly and entirely into the Scripture and they who apprehend otherwise do either take the citations out of him upon trust or else only search him for the words of those citations and never take the pains to enquire into the scope and design of his discourse For clearing which we must consider what the subject was which he writ of what the plea's of the adverse party were what way Irenaeus takes to confute them and to establish the Faith of Christians as to the matter which was in Controversie The matter in dispute was this Valentinus and his Scholars not being contented with the simplicity of the Doctrine of the Gospel and in probability the better to suit their opinions to the Heathen Mythology had invented a strange Pedigree of Gods the better as they pretended to give an account of the production of things and the various dispensations
man How much beyond the Valentinians and Basilidians would Clemens have accounted so great a madness who so plainly asserts the Scriptures to be proved by themselves and that not casually or in the heat of argument But lest we should not throughly apprehend his meaning repeats it again in the same page 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfectly demonstrating the Scriptures by themselves And are not all these Testimonies of such persons so near the Apostolical times sufficient to acquaint us what the grounds of the Resolution of Faith were in the Christian Church when all of them do so unanimously fix on the Scripture and not so much as mention the Infallible Testimonies of any Church much less the Roman Much more might be cited out of this excellent Authour to the same purpose particularly where he refutes the Valentinians who deserted the Scriptures and pleaded Tradition but the Testimonies already produced are so plain that it will be to no purpose to produce any more It were easie to continue an account of the same grounds of Faith through the succeeding Writers of the Christian Church who have designedly writ on that subject in vindication of Christian Religion which they unanimously prove to be Divine chiefly by these Arguments from the undoubted Miracles which were wrought by Christ and his Apostles from the exact fulfilling of Prophecies and the admirable propagation of the Christian Doctrine all which are particularly insisted on by Origen against Celsus by Tertullian in his Apologetick adversus Scapulam and elsewhere by Minucius Felix Arnobius and Lactantius not to mention Eusebius in his Books of preparation and Cyril's Answer to Julian and others But having elsewhere more fully and largely considered that subject I rather chuse to referr the Reader to what hath been there handled already than to tire his patience with either repeating the same or adding more Testimonies to the same purpose Only that which is most pertinent to our present purpose I shall here add Whether is it credible that those persons who fully understood the Doctrine of Christianity who were themselves rational and inquisitive men and writ for the satisfaction not only of subtle adversaries but of doubting and staggering Christians should so unanimously agree in insisting on the evidence of matter of fact for the truth of the thing delivered in Scripture and the fore-mentioned Arguments for the Divinity of the Doctrine therein delivered had it not been the judgement of the Church they lived in that the resolution of Faith was into those grounds on which they insisted And is it again credible that any of them should believe the Testimony of the Church to be necessary as infallible in order to a Divine Faith and that without it the Scriptures could not be believed as Divine and yet in all their disputes with the Gentiles concerning the Doctrine of Christianity and with several Hereticks as the Marcionists c. concerning the Books of Scripture upon no occasion should mention this grand Palladium of Faith viz. the Infallibility of the present Church And lastly Is it credible that when in our modern Controversies men do evidently maintain faction and interest more than the common Principles of Christianity that he must be blinder than one that can see no distinction of colours that doth not discern on what account this Infallibility is now pretended Is it I say credible that a Doctrine pretended so necessary for our believing Scriptures with Divine Faith should be so concealed when it ought for the honour and interest of Christianity to have been most divulged Which now only in these last and worst times is challenged by an usurping party in the Church as left by Christ himself when no other evidence can be given of it but what was common to all ages of the Church as belonging to such a party under the pretence of the Catholick Church which doth so apparently use it only to uphold her pretended Authority and so makes it serve to the worst ends and the most unworthy designs Having thus far considered what the judgement of those Fathers was concerning the resolution of Faith who lived nearest the Apostolical times I should now come to consider what you can produce out of Antiquity for your Churches Infallibility or more generally for any infallible Testimony supposed in the Catholick Church whatever that be in order to a Foundation for Divine Faith But you very prudently avoid the Testimonies of Antiquity in so necessary a subject as this is for those Testimonies mentioned in the foregoing Chapter in explication of Matth. 28.20 takeing them as you have in so loose and careless a manner produced them make nothing at all for the Churches Infallible Testimonie but only assert that which is not denied that there shall alwaies be a Christian Church in the world Our only remaining task then as to this is to examine in what way you seek to enervate the Testimonies produced by his Lordship out of Antiquity which you do in the latter part of Chap. 8. His Lordship had truly said That this method and manner of proving the Scripture to be the Word of God which he useth is the same which the ancient Church ever held namely Tradition or Ecclesiastical Authority first and then all other arguments but especially internal from the Scripture it self For which he cites first The Church in S. Augustine 's time He was no enemy to Church-Tradition saith his Lorship yet when he would prove that the Authour of the Scripture and so of the whole knowledge of Divinity as it is supernatural is God in Christ he takes this as the all-sufficient way and gives four proofs all internal to the Scripture 1. The Miracles 2. That there is nothing carnal in the Doctrine 3. That there hath been such performance of it 4. That by such a Doctrine of Humility the whole world almost hath been converted And whereas ad muniendam fidem for the defending of the Faith and keeping it entire there are two things requisite Scripture and Church-Tradition Vincent Lyrinens places authority of Scriptures first and then Tradition And since it is apparent that Tradition is first in order of time it must necessarily follow that Scripture is first in order of nature that is the chief upon which Faith rests and resolves it self To this after you have needlesly explained his Lordships opinion in this Controversie you begin to answer thus He cites first Vincentius Lyrinensis l. 1. c. 1. who makes our Faith to be confirmed both by Scripture and Tradition of the Catholick Church But Are not you like to be trusted in citing Fathers who doubly falsifie a Testimony of your adversaries when you may be so easily disproved For 1. You tell us he cites that first which he produceth last 2. You cite that as produced by him for the Foundation of Faith which he expresly cites for the preservation of the Doctrine of Faith so he tells you ad muniendam fidem
c. Can any thing be more plain and obvious to any one who looks into that discourse of Vincentius than that he makes it not his business to give an account of the general Foundations of Faith as to the Scriptures being Gods Word but of the particular Doctrines of Faith in opposition to the Heresies which arise in the Church So that all that he speaks concerning Scripture is not about the authority but the sense and interpretation of it If therefore I should grant you that he speaks of Christian and Divine Faith What is this to your purpose unless you could prove that he speaks of that Divine Faith whereby we believe the Scripture to be the Word of God But yet your argument is very good to prove that he speaks not of any humane fallible perswasion but true Christian Divine Faith for he opposes it to Heresie and calls it sound Faith and his Faith It seems then whatever Faith is sound for the matter of it is presently Christian Divine and Infallible and so whosoever believes any thing which is materially true in opposition to Heresies needs never fear as long as he doth so for according to you he hath Christian and Infallible Faith but what if the Devils Faith be as sound as any Catholicks ' Must it therefore be Divine Faith No it may be you will answer because he wants the formal object of Faith and doth not believe on the account of your Churches Infallibility I verily believe you for he knows the jugglings of it too much to believe it infallible But take Vincentius in what sense you please that is evident in him which his Lordship produced him for that for the preserving Faith entire he places authority of Scripture first and then Tradition unless you will serve his Testimony as you do his Lordships because it makes for your purpose say He mentions Tradition first and then Scripture but say you He sayes Tradition doth as truly confirm Divine Faith as Scripture though Scripture doth it in a higher manner If you did but consider either what kind of Tradition or what kind of Faith Vincentius insists on you could not possibly think his words any thing to your purpose For he speaks not of any Tradition infallibly attested to us without which you pretend there can be no Divine Faith but of such an Vniversal Tradition which depends wholly upon Antiquity Vniversality and Consent and never so much as mentions much less pretends to any thing of Infallibility So that if you grant such a kind of Tradition doth as truly confirm Faith as the Scripture then you must grant no necessity of an Infallible Testimony to assure us of that Tradition for Vincentius speaks of such a kind of Tradition as hath no connexion with Infallibility For if Vincentius had ever in the least thought of any such thing so great and zealous an opposer of Heresies would not have left out that which had been more to his purpose than all that he had said For wise men who have throughly considered of Vincentius his way though in general they cannot but approve of it so far as to think it highly improbable that there should be Antiquity Vniversality and Consent against the true and genuine sense of Scripture yet when they consider this way of Vincentius with all those cautions restrictions and limitations set down by him ◠1. c. 39. they are apt to think that he hath put men to a wild-goose-chase to finde out any thing according to his Rules and that S. Augustine spake a great deal more to the purpose when he spake concerning all the Writers of the Church That although they had never so much learning and sanctity he did not think it true because they thought so but because they perswaded him to believe it true either from the Authority of Scripture or some probable Reason If therefore S. Austin's Authority be not sunk so low as that of the Monk of Lerins we have very little reason to think that Tradition can as truly confirm Faith to us as the Scriptures supposing that to have been the meaning of Vincentius Which yet is not reasonable to imagine since Vincentius himself grants that in case of inveterate Heresie or Schism either the sole Authority of Scripture is to be used or at most the determinations of General Councils nay and in all cases doth suppose that the Canon of Scripture is perfect and is abundantly sufficient of it self for all things Can you yet therefore suppose that Vincentius did think that Tradition did as truly confirm our Faith as the Scripture Which is your assertion and the only thing whereby you pretend that the Bishop hath misconstrued Vincentius but whether be more guilty of it I leave to impartial judgement The next Testimony you consider is that of Henricus à Gandavo For his Lordship had said That the School had confessed this was the way ever For which he cites the Testimony of that Schoolman That daily with them that are without Christ enters by the woman i. e. the Church and they believe by that fame which she gives alluding to the story of the woman of Samaria But when they come to hear Christ himself they believe His words before the words of the woman For when they have once found Christ they do more believe his words in Scripture than they do the Church which testifies of him because then propter illam for the Scripture they believe the Church And if the Church should speak contrary to the Scripture they would not believe it Thus saith his Lordship the School taught then No that did it not say you But let us see how rarely you prove it For you say he speaks all this of a supernatural and Divine Faith to be given both to the Scriptures and the Church Gandavensis certainly is much obliged to you who venture to speak such great Absurdities for his sake for if he be understood in both places of Divine and Infallible Faith these rare consequences follow 1. That the first beginning of Faith is equal to the highest degree of it for when he speaks of the Church he speaks of Christs entring by that which can be meant of nothing else but the first step to Faith as is plain in the parallel case of the woman of Samaria but if this were Divine and Infallible it must be equal to the highest degree for that I suppose can be but Divine and Infallible unless you can find out degrees in Infallibility By this Rule you make him that is but over the threshold as much in the house as he that is sate down to the Table a plant at its first peeping out of the earth to be as tall as at its full growth and the Samaritans as firmly to believe in Christ at the first mention of him by the Woman as when they saw and heard him 2. By this you make an Infallible Faith to be built on a Fallible
those wise and holy men knew better the interest of Christianity than to offer to defend it by Principles in themselves false and much more liable to question than that was which they were to prove by them and therefore made choice of arguments in themselves strong and evident and built on Principles common to themselves and those whom they disputed against i. e. they urged them with the greatest strength of Reason and the clearest evidence of Divine Revelation and never questioned but that a Faith built on those grounds if effectual for a holy Life was a true and Divine Faith It seems then your cause cannot be maintained without the most sharp and virulent reflections on those Primitive Christians who among all those arguments whereby they so successfully prevailed over the Gentile world never did so much as vouchsafe to mention the least pretence to Infallibility for which they are now accused of using only the blunter weapons of humane and fallible motives and not those Primary and Divine Motives of Infallibility But this is not the first time we have seen what desperate shifts a bad cause puts men upon It may be yet your strength may lye in your last condition viz. That these arguments used by them were not internal For 1. You say That of Miracles is external the Scriptures themselves work none neither were ever any Miracles wrought to confirm that all the Books now in the Canon and no more are the Word of God I answer 1. I have already told you of a double resolution of Faith the one as to the Divinity of the Doctrine the other as to the Veracity of the Books which contain it when therefore Miracles are insisted on it is not in order to the latter of these which we have sufficient assurance of without them as I have already largely proved both as to the Truth and Integrity of the Canon of Scripture but Miracles we say are the arguments to prove the Divinity of the Doctrine by because they attest the Divine Revelation of the persons who deliver this Doctrine to the world 2. As to us who receive the report of those Miracles as conveyed to us by the Scripture those may be said to be internal arguments to the Scripture which are there recorded in order to our believing the Doctrine therein contained to be Divine The Motives of Faith being delivered to us now joyntly with the Doctrine although on different grounds we believe the Veracity of the Books of Scripture and the Infallibility of the Doctrine contained in it We believe that the Miracles were truly done because they are delivered to us by an unquestionable Tradition in such Authentick Writings as the Scriptures are but we believe the Doctrine contained in the Books to be Divine because attested by such Miracles and we believe the Books of Scripture to be divinely inspired because such persons cannot be supposed to falsifie to the world who wrought such great Miracles 2. You say The conversion of so many People and Nations by the Doctrine contained in Scripture is also external to the Scripture But still you suppose that these arguments are brought to prove these Books to be divinely inspired which is denied we say only That the admirable propagation of the Doctrine of the Gospel is a great argument that it was from God And therefore when afterwards you say That supposing all those arguments mentioned by the Bishop out of S. Augustine to be internal to the Scripture yet they cannot infallibly and divinely prove that Scripture is the Word of God If by Scripture you mean the Writings we pretend not to it if by Scripture you mean the Doctrine of it we assert it and think it no argument at all against that which you add That perswade they may but convince they cannot no doubt if they perswade they do much more than convince But I suppose your meaning is they do it not effectually if so that is not the fault of the arguments but of the person who by his obstinacy will not hearken to the clearest evidence of Reason All that this can prove is a necessity of Divine Grace to go along with external evidence which you dare not assert for fear of running into that private Spirit which you objected to his Lordship on the same account But it is very pretty which follows You say Supposing that all those arguments mentioned of Miracles nothing carnal in the Doctrine performance of it and conversion of the world by it were all of them internal to Scripture yet they could not prove infallibly the Scripture to be the Word of God and to prove this you tell us concerning the third and fourth How can it ever be proved that either the performance of this Doctrine or the conversion of Nations is internal to Scripture But Did you not suppose them before to be internal to Scripture and though they were so yet could not prove the Scriture c and to prove that you say they cannot be proved internal to Scripture Which is just as if I should say If you were Pope you would not be Infallible and all the evidence I should give for it should be only to prove that you were not Pope You conclude this Chapter with a Wonder I mean not any thing of Reason which would really be so But say you who can sufficiently wonder that his Lordship for these four Motives should so easily make the Scripture give Divine Testimony to it self upon which our Faith must rest and yet deny the same priviledge to the Church Seeing it cannot be denied but that every one of these Motives are much more immediately and clearly applied to the Church than to the Scripture What more immediately and clearly and so clearly that it cannot be denied Prove but any one of them as to that Church whose Infallibility is in question viz. the present Roman-Church and I will yield you the rest Produce but any one undoubted Miracle to confirm the Infallibility of your Church or the Pastors of it shew your Doctrine wherein it differs from ours not to be carnal manifest the performance of the Christian Doctrine only in the members of your Church prove that it is your Church as such which hath preached this Doctrine and converted whole Nations to the belief of it in any other way than the Spaniards did the poor Indians and we may begin to hearken with somewhat more patience to your arrogant and unreasonable pretence of Infallibility Can any one then who hath any grain of reason left him think that from these arguments while his Lordship disputes most eagerly against the present Churches Infallibility he argues mainly for it as you very wisely conclude that Chapter If this be arguing for your Churches Infallibility much good may such arguments do you And so I come to the last part of my task as to this Controversie which is to examine your next Chapter which puts us in hopes of seeing an End of
this tedious Controversie But this containing very little new in it and therefore deserves not to be handled apart will on that account admit of a quicker dispatch In which the first Section begins with S. Austin's Testimony which should have been considered before and now it comes out with the same Answer attending it which was given so lately concerning primary and infallible and secondary and probable Motives of Faith the vanity of which is sufficiently discovered Whereas in your Margent you bring an example of such a probable Motive viz. when S. Austin saith to Faustus That as constant Tradition was sufficient for him to believe that that Epistle was Manichaeus his which went under his name so the same Tradition was sufficient to him to prove the Gospel was S. Matthew 's which was so universally received for his ever since the writing of it I am so far from thinking this a meer probable Motive that it is the highest evidence the matter is capable of and so S. Austin thought Your paralleling the saying of Waldensis That if the Church should speak any thing contrary to Scripture he would not believe her with another which you pretend to be S. Austin's If the Scripture should speak any thing contrary to the Church we could not believe that neither and then saying that both proceed on an impossible supposition must imply that it is an equal impossibility for the Church to deliver any thing contrary to the Doctrine of Scripture as for the Scripture to contradict it self for to say The Scripture should contradict the Church signifies nothing because the Being of the Church is founded on the Doctrine of Scripture All that S. Austin saith in the place you referr us to comes to no more than this If the Church were found deceived in the Writings of Scripture then there could be no ground of any firm assent to them And is this I pray a fit parallel for that speech of Waldensis Is this to say If the Scripture speak any thing against the Church it is not to be believed In your next Sect. N. 2 3. you fall from Parallels to Circles and Semicircles as you call them in which you only shew us your faculty of mumbling the same things over and over concerning his Lordships mistating the Question about Infallible and Divine Faith Apostolical Tradition the formal Object of Faith which I must out of charity to the Readers patience beg him to look back for the several Answers if he thinks any thing needs it for I am now quite tired with these Repetitions there being not one word added here but what hath been answered already But lest thâ—se should not enough tire us the next Sect. N. 4. consists of the old puff-paste of ultimate Motive and formal Object of the Infallibility which is not simply Divine and others of a like nature whose vanity hath been detected in the very entrance into this Controversie It seems you had a great mind to give the Bishop a blow when you reach as far as from p. 103 to p. 115. to do it and yet fall short of it at last for though you charge him with a false citation of S. Austin for these words fidei ultima resolutio est in Deum illuminantem yet in that Chapter though not the words yet the sense is there extant when he gives that account of Christian Faith That it comes not by the authority of men but from God himself confirming and inlightening our mind Is not here a plain resolution of Faith in Deum illuminantem And therefore your charge of false citation and your confident denial That there is any such Text to be found either there or any where else in all S. Augustine argue you are not careful what you say so you may but throw dirt in your adversaries face though we may easily know from whence it comes by the foulness of your fingers And for your other challenge of producing any Testimony of the Fathers which saith That we must resolve our Faith of Scripture into the Light of Scriptures I hope the Testimonies I have in this Chapter mentioned may teach you a little more modesty and for the other part of it That we cannot believe the Scripture infallibly for the Churches authority as far as a Negative can be proved I dare appeal to the judgement of any one Whether it be possible to believe that the Fathers judged the Certainty much less Infallibility of Christian Faith did depend on the Churches Infallible Testimony and yet never upon the most just occasion do so much as mention it but rather speak very much to the contrary His Lordship having thus at large delivered his mind in this important Controversie to make what he had said the more portable summs up the substance of it in several Considerations Which being only a recapitulation of what hath been fully discussed already will need the shorter Vindication in some brief strictures where you unjustly quarrel with them To his 1. That it seems reasonable that since all Sciences suppose Principles Theology should be allowed some too the chiefest of which is That the Scriptures are of Divine Authority your Answer is considerable viz. that he confounds Theology a discoursive Science with Faith which is an act of the Vnderstanding produced by an Impulse of the Will c. But not to examine what hath been already handled of the power of the Will in the act of Faith it is plain when his Lordship speaks of Theology he means Theology and not Faith and the intent of this Consideration was to shew the unreasonableness of starting this Question in a Theological Dispute about the Church In your Answer to the second you say That Fallible Motives cannot produce Certainty which if you would prove you would do more to the purpose than you have done yet and by this argument I could not be certain whether you had done it or no unless you brought some Infallible Motives to prove it The third you pass over The fourth you grant though not very consistently with what you elsewhere say As to what you say in answer to the fifth concerning Miracles I agree with you in it having elsewhere sufficiently declared my self as to them For the sixth you referr to your former Answer and so do I to the reply to it In the seventh his Lordship proves the necessity of some revelation from God rationally and strongly and thence inferrs That either there never was any such Revelation or that the Scripture is that Revelation and that 's it we Christians labour to make good against all Atheism Prophaneness and Infidelity To which you have two Exceptions 1. That this cannot be proved by the meer Light of Scripture which His Lordship never pretended to 2. That he leaves out the Word only which was the cause of the whole Controversie What between Christians and Atheists For of that Controversie he there speaks but since
to prove it When you therefore tell us afterwards That the Vniversal Church supposes the acknowledgement of the same Vicar of Christ and that those Dioceses which agree in this acknowledgement as well as in the same Faith and communion of the same Sacraments make up one and the same Vniversal Church When you further add That the Roman Church is therefore stiled the Church because it is the seat of the Vicar of Christ and chief Pastor of the Church Vniversal I can only say to all these confident affirmations that if you had sat in the chair your self you could not have said more or proved less It is not therefore in what sense words may be taken by you for who questions but you may abuse words but in what sense they ought to be taken You may call the Bishop of Rome the Vicar of Christ but before you can expect our submission to him you must prove that he is so you may call the Roman Church The Church if you please among your selves but if by that you would perswade us there can be no Church but that you would do an office of kindness to offer a little at some small proof of it i. e. as much as the cause and your abilities will afford And what if the Ancients by a true Church did mean an Orthodox Church I know but one of these things will follow from it either that they took a true Church for one morally and not metaphysically true or that if your Church be not an Orthodox Church it can be none at all From hence you proceed to quarrel with his Lordship for saying That may be a true Church which is not a right Church which is all the thanks he hath for his kindness to you for say you how can you call that a true Church in which men are not taught the way to Heaven but to eternal perdition Which is as much as to ask How you can call that man a true man that hath a Leprosie upon him But if you had considered what his Lordship had said you would never have made such an objection For his Lordship doth not speak of the soundness of a Church but of the metaphysical entity of it For he saith It is true in that sense as ens and verum Being and True are convertible one with another and every thing that hath a Being is truly that Being which it is in truth of substance But say you how can that be a true Church which teacheth the way to eternal perdition by some false Doctrine in matter of Faith because it either teacheth something to be the Word of God which is not or denies that to be his Word which is to err in this sort is certainly to commit high and mortal offence against the honour and veracity of God and consequently the direct way to eternal perdition An excellent discourse to prove that no man can be saved that is not Infallible for if he be not Infallible he may either teach something to be Gods Word which is not or deny that to be his Word that is either of which being a mortal offence against the honour and veracity of God it is impossible any man that is not Infallible should be saved either then we must put off that humanity which exposes us to errour or pronounce it impossible for any men to be saved or else assert that there may be errour where Gods veracity is not denyed And if so then not only men severally but a Society of men may propound that for truth which is not and yet not mortally offend against Gods veracity supposing that Society of men doth believe though falsly that this is therefore true because revealed by God In which case that Church may be a true Church in one sense though an erroneous Church in another true as there is a possibility of salvation in it erroneous as delivering that for truth which is not so But here is a great deal of difference between a Church acknowledging her self fallible and that which doth not For suppose a Church propose something erroneous to be believed if she doth not arrogate Infallibility to her self in that proposal but requires men to search and examine her doctrine by the Word of God the danger is nothing so great to the persons in her communion but when a Church pretends to be Infallible and teacheth errours that Church requiring those errours to be believed upon her Authority without particular examination of the Doctrines proposed is chargeable with a higher offence against the honour and veracity of God and doth as much as in her lies in your expression teach men the way to eternal perdition And of all sorts of blind guides it is most dangerous following such who pretend to be Infallible in their blindness and it is a great miracle if such do not fall past recovery The more therefore you aggravate the danger of errour the worse still you make the condition of your Church where men are bound to believe the Church Infallible when she proposeth the most dangerous errours When you say The whole Church is not lyable to these inconveniencies of seducing or being seduced if you mean as you speak of that which is truly the whole Church of Christ you are to seek for an Adversary in it if you mean the Roman Church you are either seduced or endeavour to seduce in saying so when neither that is or can be the whole Church neither is it free from believing or proposing errours as will appear afterwards You quarrel with his Lordship again for his Similitude of a man that may be termed a man and not be honest and say it comes not home to the case But we must see how well you have fitted it Instead of a man you would have a Saint put and then you say the Parallel would have held much better But certainly then you mean only such Saints as Rome takes upon her to Canonize for the Question was of one that might be a man and not be honest Will you say the same of your Saint too If instead of Saint you had put his Holiness in there are some in the world would not have quarrelled with you for it But you are an excellent man at paralleling cases His Lordship was speaking of the Metaphysical Truth of a Church being consistent with moral corruptions for which he instanced in a thiefs being truly a man though not an honest man now you to mend the matter make choice of moral Integrity being consistent with Metaphysical Truth which is of a Saint and a man And Doth not this now come home to our case That which follows to shew the incongruity of his Lordships Similitude would much more shew your wit if it were capable of tolerable sense For you say the word Church in our present debate implies not a simple or uncompounded term as that of man but is a compound of substance and accidents together We had
and punctual then this testimony of Cyprian is to overthrow that sense of the Catholick Church which you contend for How farr were Cyprian and the African Bishops from making Rome the center of Ecclesiastical communion when they looked on appeals thither as very unjust and unreasonable What acknowledgement and dependence was there on the Church of Rome in those who looked on themselves as having a portion of Christs flock committed to them of which they were to give an account to God alone And I pray what excellent persons were those who undervalued the Authority of the African Bishops and ran to Rome St. Cyprian tells us they were pauci desperati perditi and translate these with as much advantage to your cause as you can So fatal hath it been to Rome even from its first foundation to be a receptacle for such persons And is not this a great credit to your cause that such persons who were ejected out of communion for their crimes at home did make their resort to Rome and the more pious and stout any Bishops were the more they defended their own priviledges in opposition to the encroachments of the Roman Sec. Which was apt to take advantage from such Renegado's as these were by degrees to get more power into her hands and lift up her head above her fellow-Churches But lest you should think that St. Cyprian only spake these things in an heat out of his opposition to these persons and his desire to crush them you shall see what his judgement was concerning the same things when he purposely discourseth of them For in his Book of the Vnity of the Church he useth that expression which destroyes all your subordinate union in the Church which is Episcopatus unus est cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur They who consider and understand the importance of that speech will find nothing more destructive to your doctrine of the Catholick Church then that is For when he makes the Vniversal Government of the Church to be but one Episcopal office and that committed in the several parts of it with full power to particular Bishops can any be so senseless to imagine that he should ever think the Government of the Church in General to depend on any one particular Church as chief over the rest And that the former words do really import such a full power in particular Bishops over that part of the flock which is committed to them appears from the true importance of the phrase insolidum a phrase taken out of the Civil Law where great difference is made between an obligation in partem and in solidum and so proportionable between a tenure in partem and in solidum those things were held in solidum which were held in full right and power without payments and acknowledgements But where the usus-fructus belonged to another it was not held in solidum So that when St. Cyprian saith that every part belonging to each Bishop was held in solidum he therein imports that full right and power which every Bishop hath over his charge and in this speech he compares the Government of the Church to an estate held by several Freeholders in which every one hath a full right to that share which belongs to him Whereas according to your principles the Government of the Church is like a Mannor or Lordship in which the several inhabitants hold at the best but by Copy from the Lord and you would fain have it at the will of your Lord too But thus farr we see St. Cyprian was from your modern notion of the Catholick Church that he looks on the Vnity of it as depending on the consent of the Catholick Bishops and Churches under their full power and not deriving that Vnity from any particular Church as the head and fountain of it And therefore in the former Schism at Rome about Cornelius and Novatianus St. Cyprian imployed two of his colleagues thither Caldonius and Fortunatus that not only by the Letters they carried but by their presence and Counsel they should do their utmost endeavour to bring the members of that divided body to the unity of the Catholick Church Which is certainly a very different thing from the Catholick Churche's deriving its Vnity from the particular Church of Rome Many other instances of a like nature might be produced out of the Reports of St. Cyprians times but these are sufficient to evidence how far the Vnity of the Catholick Church was then from depending on the Church of Rome But lest we should seem to insist only on St. Cyprians testimony it were easie to multiply examples in this kind which I shall but touch at some of and proceed If the Church of Rome then had been looked on as the center of Ecclesiastical communion is it possible to conceive that the excommunications of the Church of Rome should be slighted as they were by Polycrates for which St. Hierome commends him as a man of courage that Stephen should be opposed as he was by Cyprian and Firmilian in a way so reflecting on the Authority of the Roman Church that appeals to Rome should be so severely prohibited by the African Bishops that causes should be determined by so many Canons to be heard in their proper Dioceses that when the right of appeals was challenged by the Bishops of Rome it was wholly upon the account of the imaginary Nicene Canons that when Julius undertook by his sole power to absolve Athanasius the Oriental Bishops opposed it as irregular on that account at the Council at Antioch that when afterwards Paulus Marcellus and Lucius repaired to Rome to Julius and he seeks to restore them the Eastern Bishops wonder at his offering to restore them who were excommunicated by themselves and that as when Novatus was excommunicated at Rome they opposed it not so neither ought he to oppose their proceedings against these persons What account can be given of these passages if the Vnity of the Catholick Church had depended on the particular Church of Rome Besides while the Church of Rome continued regular we find she looked on her self as much obliged to observe the excommunications made by other Churches as others were to observe hers As in the case of Marcion who being excommunicated by his Father the Bishop of Sinope in Pontus and by no means prevailing with his Father for his admission into the Church again resorts to Rome and with great earnestness begs admission there where he received this answer That they could not do it without the command of his Father for there is one Faith and one consent and we cannot contradict our worthy brother your Father This shews the Vnity of the Catholick Church to proceed upon other grounds than the causal influence of the Church of Rome when the consent of the Church did oblige the Church of Rome not to repeal the excommunication of a particular Bishop Upon which ground it was that Synesius
and fully in these words T is too true indeed that there is a miserable rent in the Church and I make no question but the best men do most bemoan it nor is he a Christian that would not have Vnity might he have it with Truth But I never said nor thought that the Protestants made this rent The cause of the Schism is yours for you thrust us from you because we call'd for truth and redress of abuses For a Schism must needs be theirs whose the cause of it is The woe runs full out of the mouth of Christ ever against him that gives the offence not against him that takes it ever And in the Margent shewing that a separation may sometimes be necessary he instanceth in the orthodox departing from the communion of the Arrians upon which he sayes It cannot be that a man should do well in making a Schism There may be therefore a necessary separation which yet incurrs not the guilt of Schism and that is when Doctrines are taught contrary to the Catholick Faith And after saith The Protestants did not depart for departure is voluntary so was not theirs I say not theirs taking their whole body and cause together For that some among them were peevish and some ignorantly zealous is neither to be doubted nor is there danger in confessing it Your body is not so perfect I wot well but that many amongst you are as pettish and as ignorantly zealous as any of ours You must not suffer for these nor we for those nor should the Church of Christ for either And when A. C. saith That though the Church of Rome did thrust the Protestants from her by excommunication yet they had first divided themselves by obstinate holding and teaching Opinions contrary to the Roman Faith His Lordship answers So then in his Opinion Excommunication on their part was not the prime cause of this division but the holding and teaching of contrary Opinions Why but then in my opinion saith he that holding and teaching was not the prime cause neither but the corruptions and superstitions of Rome which forced many men to hold and teach the contrary So the prime cause was theirs still And A. C. telling him That he said that it was ill done of those who first made the separation He answers That though he remembred not that he said those words yet withall adds If I did not say it then I do say it now and most true it is That it was ill done of those whoere they were who first made the separation But then A. C. must not understand me of Actual only but of Causal separation For as I said before the Schism is theirs whose the cause of it is and he makes the separation that gives the first just cause of it not he that makes an actual separation upon a just cause preceding And this is so evident a Truth that A. C. cannot deny it for he sayes it is most true These passages I have laid together that the Reader may clearly understand the full state of this great Controversie concerning Schism the upshot of which is that it is agreed between both parties that all separation from communion with a Church doth not involve in it the guilt of Schism but only such a separation as hath no sufficient cause or ground for it So that the Question comes to this Whether your Church were not guilty of such errours and corruptions as gave sufficient cause for such a separation The Question being thus stated we now come to consider how you make good your part in it Your first pretence is if reduced into argument for you seem to have a particular pique against a close way of disputing That your Church is a right and orthodox Church and therefore could never give any just cause of separation from it For the Lady asked as A. C. would have it Whether the Roman Church was not the right Church not be not but was not that is relating to the times before the breach was made Now his Lordship tells him That as to the terms he might take his choice For the Church of Rome neither is nor was the right Church as the Lady desired to hear A particular Church it is and was and in some times right and in some times wrong but the right Church or the Holy Catholick Church it never was nor ever can be And therefore was not such before Luther and others left it or were thrust from it A particular Church it was but then A. C. is not distinct enough here neither For the Church of Rome both was and was not a right or orthodox Church before Luther made a breach from it For the word ante before may look upon Rome and that Church a great way off or long before and then in the prime times of it it was a most right and orthodox Church But it may look also nearer home and upon the immediate times before Luther or some ages before that and then in those times Rome was a corrupt and tainted Church far from being Right And yet both these times before Luther made his breach And so he concludes that Section with this clause That the Roman Church which was once right is now become wrong by embracing superstition and errour And what say you now to all this Two things you have to return in answer to it or at least to these two all that you say may be reduced 1. That if the Roman Church was right once it is so still 2. That if the Roman Church were wrong before Luther the Catholick Church was so too These two containing all that is said in this case must be more particularly discussed 1. That if the Roman was the right Church it still is so seeing no change can be shewn in her Doctrine If there have been a change let it appear when and in what the change was made Thus you say but you know his Lordship never granted that the Roman Church ever was the right Church in the sense you take those words for the true Catholick Church that it was once a right particular Church he acknowledged and as such was afterwards tainted with errours and corruptions If so you desire to know what these were and when they came in to the former I shall reserve an Answer till I come to the third part of my task where you shall have an account of them to the latter the time when these came in because this is so much insisted on by your party I shall return you an Answer in this place And that I shall do in these following Propositions 1. Nothing can be more unreasonable than to deny that errours and corruptions have come into a Church meerly because the punctual time of their coming in cannot be assigned For Will any one question the birth of an Infant because he cannot know the time of his conception Will any one deny there are tares in the field because
one Visible Church free from errours and corruptions What if we should say in our own times What if in elder times For that which is possible to be may be supposed actually in any time If it be possible for one particular Church to fall into errours and corruptions Why is it not for another unless some particular priviledge of Infallibility be pretended but that is not our present Question if it be possible for every particular Church to fall into errour Why may not that possibility come into act in one Age as well as several Is there any promise that there shall be a succession and course of erring in Churches that one Church must erre for one age and another for the next but that it shall never fall out that by any means whatsoever they shall erre together If there be no such promise to the contrary the reason of the thing will hold that they may all erre at the same time No say you for then it would follow that the Catholick Church might erre To that I answer 1. Either you mean by that that all societies in the Christian world may concurr in the same errour or else that several of them may have several errours and this latter is it only which you prove for you do not suppose that the Romanists Hussites Albigenses c. were all guilty of the same errours but that these several societies were guilty of several errours and therefore from hence it follows not that they may all concurr in the same errour which is the only way to prove that the Church as Catholick may erre for otherwise you only prove that the several particular Churches which make up the Catholick may fall into errour 2. Supposing all these Churches should agree in one errour which is more than you have proved or it may be can have you proved that they concurr in such an errour which destroies the Being of the Catholick Church For you would do well to evince that the Church is secured from any but such errours which destroy its Being for the means of proving That the Catholick Church cannot erre are built on the promises of its perpetuity now those can only prove that the Church is secured from Fundamental errours for those are such only which destroy its Being And so his Lordship tells you That the whole Church cannot universally erre in the Doctrine of Faith is most true and granted by divers Protestants so you will but understand it s not erring in absolute Fundamental Doctrines and this he proves from that promise of Christ That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it So that the Catholick Churche's not erring and the perpetuity of the Catholick Church do with us mean the same thing For his Lordship grants That she may erre in superstructures and deductions and other By and Vnnecessary truths if her curiosity or other weakness carry her beyond or cause her to fall short of her Rule There is then a great difference between saying That the Catholick Church cannot erre which is no more than to say That there shall be alwaies a Catholick Church and saying That there must be alwaies some one Visible Church which must be free from all errour and corruption For this we deny and you produce no reason at all to prove it Granting that all particular Churches whether of Romanists Greeks or others are subject to errours and corruptions we assert no more of them than you grant your selves that any particular Church is subject to for the only ground why you would have your Church exempt from errour is the supposing her not to be a particular but the Catholick Church which implies that if she were only a particular Church as she is no more she might be subject to errours as well as other Churches And what incongruity then there is in asserting that there may be no one Visible Church of any particular denomination free from all errour and corruption I cannot understand But further you say If there were no one Visible Church then free from errour it follows not only for some time but for many ages before Luther yea even up to the Apostles times there was no one Visible Church untainted throughout the whole world Not to meddle with the truth of the thing Whether there were so or no the consequence is that we are now to examine that if it were so in Luthers time it must be so even up to the Apostles times The proof of which depends upon the impossibility of a Churches degeneracy in Faith or Manners and so supposeth the thing in question that there must be some one Visible Church absolutely exempt from all impossibility of errour For otherwise that might be true in one age which might not in another For although we say that particular Churches may erre and be corrupt we do not say that it is necessary they should alwaies be so For in some ages particular Churches may be free from errour and corruption and yet in another age be overspread with them And thus we assert it to have been with the Roman Church for his Lordship saith In the prime times it was a most right and orthodox Church but in the immediate times before Luther or in some ages before that it was a corrupt and tainted Church And so in those times in which it was right those might be heretical who did not communicate with it not meerly because they did not communicate with it but because in not communicating with a right and orthodox Church they shewed themselves guilty of some errour or corruption We see then there is no connexion in the world in the parts of your consequence That if it were so at one time it must be so alwaies if in the time of Luther it must be so even up to the Apostles times 3. From hence you say it will follow That it will be necessary to separate from the external communion of the whole Church I answer there can be no separation from the whole Church but in such things wherein the Vnity of the whole Church lyes for separation is a violation of some Vnion now when men separate from the errours of all particular Churches they do not separate from the whole because those things which one separates from those particular Churches for are not such as make all them put together to be the whole or Catholick Church This must be somewhat further explained There are two things considerable in all particular Churches those things which belong to it as a Church and those things which belong to it as a particular Church Those things which belong to it as a Church are the common ligaments or grounds of union between all particular Churches which taken together make up the Catholick Church Those things which belong to it as a particular Church are such as it may retain the essence of a Church without Now I say Whosoever separates from any particular Church much more from
all for such things without which that can be no Church separates from the communion of the Catholick Church but he that separates only from particular Churches as to such things which concern not their Being is only separated from the communion of those Churches and not the Catholick And therefore supposing that all particular Churches have some errours and corruptions in them though I should separate from them all I do not separate from the communion of the whole Church unless it be for something without which those could be no Churches An evidence of which is that by my declaring the grounds of my separation to be such errours and corruptions which are crept into the communion of such Churches and imposed on me in order to it I withall declare my readiness to joyn with them again if those errours and corruptions be left out And where there is this readiness of communion there is no absolute separation from the Church as such but only suspending communion till such abuses be reformed Which is therefore more properly a separation from the errours than the communion of such a Church Wherefore if we suppose that there is no one Visible Church whose communion is not tainted with some corruptions though if these corruptions be injoyned as conditions of communion I cannot communicate with any of those Churches yet it follows not that I am separated from the external communion of the Catholick Church but that I only suspend communion with those particular Churches till I may safely joyn with them As suppose all the particular men I can converse with were infected with Leprosie my not associating with them doth not imply that I am separated from the communion of all mankind but that I am loath to be infected as they are and therefore withdraw my self till I can meet with such healthful persons with whom I may safely associate again And if several other persons be of the same mind with me and we therefore joyn together Do we therefore divide our selves from the whole world by only taking care of our own safety And especially if any company of such leprous persons should resolve that none should live among them but such as would eat of those meats which brought that distemper upon them our withdrawing our selves and associating without them will still appear more reasonable and commendable Therefore we say We do not necessarily separate from all Churches that have errours or corruptions in them supposing those errours and corruptions be not imposed on us as conditions of communion and thence though we should grant No one visible Church free from taint or corruption yet it is not necessary we should separate from them all For we may lawfully joyn in Communion with Churches having errours and corruptions if our joyning be not an approbation of them Thus though the Greeks Armenians Albigenses Abyssms may have some errours or corruptions yet if they be not Fundamental and be not injoyned as necessary to be approved in order to their Communion notwithstanding them we may lawfully Communicate with them It doth not then at all follow that if there may be no one visible Church free from errour and corruption it would be necessary to separate from the Communion of the Catholick Church because 1. All those particular Churches may not make those errours conditions of Communion 2. Though they did we separate not from them as Catholick but as corrupt and erroneous particular Churches And therefore you might have spared your labour in telling us from the Holy Fathers and the Reverend and learned Dr. Hammond That it can never be lawful to separate from the Catholick Church for we assert the same but have made it appear that it follows not from the premises which were laid down His Lordship having said That the Roman Church before Luther was a corrupt and tainted Church in his Margin produceth a Citation to that purpose of Cardinal de Alliaco who acknowledgeth infinite abuses Schisms and Heresies to prevail over the Christian world so that it is plain The Church of God stands in need of due reformation From which his Lordship saith That it will hardly sink into any mans judgement that so great a man as Pet. de Alliaco was in that Church should speak thus if he did not see some errours in the Doctrine of that Church as well as the manners To this you answer That he speaks not of false Doctrines taught by the Roman Church but of Schisms and Heresies raised against the Church not fostered by her in all parts of Christendom But I appeal to any indifferent Reader of this Testimony whether he can conceive that the Cardinal intended to acquit or accuse the Roman Church in those words of his For taking them in your sense they must contain a high commendation of the Roman Church that in the midst of so many Heresies and Schisms raised against her she preserved her Faith entire and think you that he that said The Church of God needed reformation thought there was nothing in the Church which stood in need of it And therefore this Testimony doth sufficiently prove that the Roman Church was a tainted and corrupted Church If there be sufficient evidence that there are tares sown in the Church of Rome it is not to much purpose to enquire Whether they were sown while the Bishops slept or whether they themselves did not help to sow them But it seems in their private capacities they might sow them as private Doctors and then it is not likely that in their publick capacity they would pluck them up If the Catholick Faith only as you tell us oblige us to maintain that the Pope is Infallible when he defines a General Council then there will be opportunity enough for errours to be sown and grow up in the interval of such definitions But you further add That though this be all which men are obliged to maintain for no man can be bound to impossibilities yet that it is a very pious opinion to hold That no Popes have personally erred as private Doctors i. e. you have a very good mind to maintain it if you knew how for that is the meaning of your pious opinion For if you thought it had been defensible no doubt it had been de fide long ago But it was hard thwarting the Records of former ages wherein the errours of Popes and their mutual contradictions are so visible to all that search after them and therefore it was wisely concluded that this should not be held de fide but if any would venture upon a thing so acceptable at Rome as Personal Infallibility is it should be accounted a very pious undertaking And accordingly Bellarmin hath with the greatest care and industry endeavoured it in several Chapters but as his Lordship truly saith All Bellarmin's labour though great and full of art is not able to wash them clean And this if you had undertaken the defence of Bellarmin should have been
made good but since you are so cautious as not to think your self obliged to do it I commend your discretion in it and proceed I cannot see that his Lordship is guilty of a false quotation of Bellarmin for that saying Et Papas quosdam graves errores seminâsse in Ecclesiâ Christi luce clarius est for he doth not seem at all to Cite Bellarmin for it but having Cited the place just before where he endeavours to vindicate the Popes from all errours he adds this expression as directly contrary to his design that though he had endeavoured so much to clear them from errours yet that they had sown some grievous errours in the Church was as clear as the day and as it immediately follows is proved by Jac. Almain c. And therefore it was only your own oscitancy which made you set it in the Contents of your Chapter that Cardinal Bellarmin was most falsly quoted by him But that falseness which with so much confidence you charge his Lordship with rebounds with greater force on your self when you say That Almain speaks not of errours in Faith at all but only of errours or rather abuses in point of manners whereas he not only asserts but largely proves That the Pope may err not only personally but judicially and in the same Chapter brings that remarkable Instance of the evident contradiction between the definitions of Pope Nicolaus 3. and John 22. And Platina tells us that John 22. declared them to be Hereticks who held according to the former definition And Is this only concerning some abuses abuses in point of manners and not concerning errours in Faith that Almain speaks You might as well say so of Lyra who said That many Popes have Apostatized from the Faith of Cusanus who saith That both in a direct and collateral line several Popes have fallen into Heresie of Alphonsus à Castro who saith That the best friends of the Popes believe they may err in Faith of Carranza who sayes No one questions but the Pope may be an Heretick of Canus who sayes It is not to be denyed but that the chief Bishop may be an Heretick and that there are examples of it You might as well I say affirm that all these spake only of abuses in Manners and not errours in Faith as you do of Almain Neither will your other subterfuge serve your turn That they taught errours in Doctrine as private men for Alphonsus à Castro expresly affirms in the case of Pope Coelestine about the dissolution of Marriage in case of Heresie That it cannot be said that he erred through negligence and as a private person and not as Pope For saith he this definition is extant in the decretals and he had seen it himself Although the contrary to this were afterwards defined not only by Pope Innocent 3. but by the Council of Trent And hence it appears whatever you pretend to the contrary That there may be tares sown in the Church of Rome not only by private persons but by the publick hands of the Popes too if they themselves may be believed who else do most Infallibly contradict each other But whether these errours came in at first through negligence or publick definitions is not so material to our purpose for which it is sufficient to prove that the Church of Rome may be tainted and corrupted which may be done one way as well as the other As Corn-fields may be over-run with tares though no one went purposely to sow them there And so much is acknowledged by Cassander when he speaks of the superstitious practises used in your Church That those who should have redressed those abuses were if not the Authours yet the incouragers of them for their own advantage by which means errours and corruptions may soon grow to a great height in a Church though they were never sown by publick definitions And when you disparage Cassanders Testimony by telling us how little his credit is among Catholicks you thereby let us see how much your Church is over-run with corruptions when none among you can speak against them but they presently forfeit their reputation The case of the Schism at Rome between Cornelius and Novatianus and the imployment of Caldonius and Fortunatus from St. Cyprian thither doth belong to the former Chapter where it hath been fully discoursed of already and must not be repeated here Only thence we see that Rome is as capable of a Schism within her own bowels as any other Church is which is abundantly attested by the multitudes of Schisms which happened afterwards between the Bishops of that See But this being insisted on by his Lordship in the former Controversie of the Catholick Church doth not refer to this Chapter wherein the causes of our separation should be enquired into Which at last you come to and passing by the verbal dispute between A.C. and his Lordship about what was spoken at the Conference you tell us It more concerns you to see what could or can be said in this point You draw up therefore a large and formal charge of Schism against us in your following words Our assertion say you is but good Sir it is not what you assert but what you prove It were an easie matter for us to draw up a far larger Bill against your Church and tell you our assertion is that you are the greatest Schismaticks in the world Would you look on it as sufficiently proved because we asserted it I pray think the same of us for we are not apt to think our selves guilty of Schism at all the more because you tell us what your assertion is if this be your way of dealing with us your first assertion had need be That you are Infallible but still that had need be more then asserted for unless it be Infallibly proved we should not believe it But however we must see what your assertion is that we may at least understand from you the state of the present Controversie Your assertion therefore is that Protestants made this rent or Schism by their obstinate and pertinacious maintaining erroneous Doctrines contrary to the Faith of the Roman or Catholick Church by their rejecting the Authority of their lawful Ecclesiastical Superiours both immediate and mediate by aggregating themselves into a separate body or company of pretended Christians independent of any Pastours at all that were in lawful and quiet possession of jurisdiction over them by making themselves Pastours and Teachers of others and administring Sacraments without Authority given them by any that were lawfully impowerâ—d to give it by instituting new rites and ceremonies of their own in matter of Religion contrary to those anciently received throughout all Christendome by violently excluding and dispossessing other Prelates and Pastours of and from their respective See's Cures and Benefices and intruding themselves into their places in every Nation where they could get footing the said Prelates and Pastours for the
in the safe-conduct he had granted Thus we see how on all hands it appears from Husse's fears and desires the Emperours power the nature of safe-conducts the Emperours own sense of it and the Councils decree that this first Answer hath no ground at all viz. that the safe conduct was granted jure communi and that it was only to hinder unjust violence and not the execution of Justice But besides you say John Husse was justly burnt for two reasons The first is For being obstinate in his Heresie the second For having fled which the Emperour had prohibited in his safe-conduct under pain of death I answer It is not Whether a man obstinate in Heresie may be burnt which is now the Question although that may justly bear a dispute too But Whether one suspected for Heresie and coming to a Council with safe-conduct for coming and returning may be burnt without violation of Faith your first reason then is nothing to the purpose and your second as little First Because there is no certain evidence at all of Husse's flying it not being objected against him by the Emperour who only upbraided him with his obstinacy in his Heresie as the cause of his execution and withall if Husse had fled and had suffered death for that as you say he ought to have done he would not have suffered the death proper to Heresie and not to flying nor been accounted as by all your own Authours he is a sufferer on the account of Heresie But this being a groundless Calumny it needs no further confutation But before we come to your second Answer the case of Hierom of Prague must be discussed so far as it is distinct from that of John Husse who it seems was trepanned by a pretended safe-conduct granted him by the Council and not by the Emperour wherein you tell us that express clause of salvâ semper justitiâ was inserted which is another argument that the safe-conduct of the Emperour to Husse was of another nature because it ran in general terms without any such clause but poor Hierom who it seems was not acquainted with the arts and subtilties of his enemies but thought them as honest as himself ventures to Constance upon this safe-conduct but when he came thither and began to understand the jugglings of his enemies he thought to shift for himself by flight but being taken was burnt So that Hierom suffered through his honest simplicity and credulity not considering what that salvâ justitiâ would mean in his case which as they interpreted it was such another safe-conduct as known Malefactors have to the place of Justice but to call it a safe-conduct in the sense which Hierom apprehended it in is as proper as to say A man that is to be executed shall have a Salvo for his life This was therefore intended as appears by the event as a meer trick to bring him within their power and so all such safe-conducts granted with those clauses by such persons who are to interpret them themselves are and nothing else For they are the sole Judges what this Justice shall be Neither can you say then That Faith was kept with Hierom of Prague for no such thing as a safe-conduct truly so called was intended him and when the Emperour was sollicited to grant him one he utterly denied it because of the bad success he had in that of John Husse and some of the Council being then present with the Emperour offered to give him a safe-conduct but they very honestly explained themselves that it was a safe-conduct for coming thither but not for going thence again And so it proved So that Faith was well given to Hierom of Prague and as well kept to John Husse But say you Had the Protestants gone to the Council of Trent upon the safe-conduct granted them by that Council jure speciali in the second manner they could not at all have been punished under any pretence of Heresie without manifest breach of Faith which all Catholicks hold to be unlawful The like may be said of the safe-conduct offered them for going to Rome But you must better satisfie us that you look upon this as a breach of Faith than as yet you have done For so are your ambiguities in your expressions of this nature that men who know your arts can hardly tell when they have your right meaning For you may look on all breach of Faith as unlawful and yet not look on your acting contrary to your express words in safe-conducts offered to Hereticks to be a breach of Faith For you may say Faith is there only broken where men are bound to keep it but you are not bound to keep it with Hereticks and that because your obligation to the Church is greater than it can be to Hereticks when therefore you have Hereticks in your power it is an easie matter for you to say that were it in any thing else but in a matter so nearly concerning the Interest of your Holy Mother the Church you could not but observe it but your obligation to that is so great as destroies all other which are contrary to it and the obligation being destroyed there is no breach of Faith at all and therefore you may hold all breach of Faith unlawful and yet you may proceed against those whom you account Hereticks contrary to all engagements whatsoever and then say This is no breach of Faith And the truth is by your Doctrines of aequivocations and mental reservations you have made all manner of converse in the world so lubricous and uncertain that he who hath to deal with you especially in matters where the interest of your Church is concerned had need be wary and remember to distrust or else he may repent it afterwards If you therefore account the Protestants crafty Foxes in not coming to Rome or the Council of Trent it was because they would not venture too near the Lions Den but if you will not account them wise men for refusing so fair an offer you will give us leave to think them so till they see better reason to trust your offers And the Council of Trent did very well to tell them in their form of safe-conduct they would not do by them as the Council of Constance did for therein they shew how much the Faith of Councils was sunk by that so that if that were not particularly excepted no trust would ever be given to them more But supposing the safe-conduct of the Council of Trent to have been never so free from suspicion the Protestants had sufficient reasons not to appear there as will be manifested afterwards We come therefore now to your second Answer in vindication of the Council of Constance which is this That by that decree the Council declares that no Secular Power how soveraign soever can hinder the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Tribunal in causes of Heresie for which there is great reason and consequently if the Emperour or any other Secular Prince
Yet these things have been done by you and the doers of them not condemned but rather fomented and incouraged as zealous promoters of the Holy See and most devout Sons of the Church of Rome Cease therefore to charge the guilt of persons disowned by the Church of England upon her when you are unwilling to hear of the faults of those persons among your selves whom you dare not disown I mean your Popes and Jesuits Leaving therefore these unbecoming Railleries of yours and that which occasioneth them viz. corruption of manners we come to consider that which is more pertinent to our purpose viz. errours in Doctrine which his Lordship truly assigned as the ground of the Reformation and not only that there were doctrinal errours in your Church but that some of the errours of the Roman Church were dangerous to salvation For it is not every light errour in disputable Doctrine and points of curious speculation that can be a just cause of separation in that admirable body of Christ which is his Church or of one member of it from another But that there are errours in Doctrine and some of them such as most manifestly endanger salvation in the Church of Rome is evident to them that will not shut their eyes The proof his Lordship saith runs through the particular points and so is too long for this discourse Now to this you manfully answer That in vain do they attempt to reform the Church of what she can never be guilty Which if it depends on your Churches Infallibility which is largely disproved already must needs fall to the ground with it And it is an excellent Answer when a Church is charged actually with erring to say She doth not erre because she cannot Which is all that you give us here But if you prove it no better than you have done the Heretical and Schismatical obstinacy is like to be found in that Church which in her errours challenges Infallibility The Question now comes to this Whether errours being supposed in the Doctrine and corruptions in the Communion of a Church when the General Church would not reform it was not lawful for particular Churches to reform themselves To this his Lordship answers affirmatively in these words Is it then such a strange thing that a particular Church may reform it self if the general will not I had thought and do so still that in point of Reformation of either Manners or Doctrine it is lawful for the Church since Christ to do as the Church before Christ did and might do The Church before Christ consisted of Jews and Proselytes This Church came to have a separation upon a most ungodly Policy of Jeroboams so that it never pieced together again To a Common Council to reform all they would not come Was it not lawful for Judah to reform her self when Israel would not joyn Sure it was or else the Prophet deceives me that sayes expresly Though Israel transgress yet let not Judah sin And S. Hierom expounds it of this very particular sin of Heresie and Errour in Religion After which he proves That Israel during this Separation was a true Church which we shall insist on when we have considered what Answer you return to his Lordships Argument which lyes in these two things First That Judah did not reform her self Secondly That Judah is not the Protestant party as his Lordship supposeth it to be First You say Judah did not reform her self For Juda being the orthodox Church united with her Head the High Priest and not tainted with any Doctrinal errours What need was there of her Reformation And so the meaning of that place Though Israel transgress yet let not Juda sin is rather against than for him because the sense is rather Let not Juda fall into Schism though Israel does than let Judah reform her self But if it appears that Judah had corruptions crept into her as well as Israel had though not so great and universal then it follows that by these words Judah had power to reform her self And the antecedent is clear to any one who takes the pains to read the Scripture and compare the places in it more than it seems you do For Doth not this very Prophet check Judah as well as Israel for transgressing Gods Covenant Doth he not say That God had a Controversie with Judah and would punish Jacob according to his waies And for all this Was there no need of Reformation in the Church of Judah Indeed in one place it is said That Judah ruleth with God and is faithful with his Saints but then that is to be understood of Judah when she had reformed her self in the daies of Hezekiah for surely you will not say That Judah did not stand in need of Reformation when Hezekiah began his Reign for it is said of him That he removed the high places and brake the Images and cut down the groves And were not these things which wanted Reformation think you If we consider the times of those three Kings before Hezekiah in which Hosea prophesied we shall see what need there was of Reformation among them and those were Vzziah Jotham and Ahaz of the time of Vzziah called Azariah in the Book of Kings it is said That the high places were not removed but the people sacrificed and burnt Incense still on the high places the same is affirmed of the time of Jotham in the same Chapter so that though these Princes were good themselves yet there were many corruptions still among the people But of Ahaz it is said expresly That he walked in the way of the Kings of Israel and he sacrificed and burnt Incense in the high places and on the hills and under everygreen tree Chuse now which of these three you please for it is most improbable those words considering the long time of Hosea's Prophecy should be spoken in the time of Hezekiah the last of the four Kings he prophesied under And will you tell us again That the Church of Judah needed no Reformation But you offer at a reason for it Because she was united with her Head the High-Priest at Hierusalem So then belike as long as Judah and the High-Priest were united she could be guilty of no Doctrinal Errours No not although she should pronounce Christ a blasphemer and condemn him to be crucified as a malefactor for then certainly Judah and the High-Priest were united But I know you will say You spake this of the time before the Messias was come And was it then true that as long as Judah was united with her Head the High-Priest there was no need of Reformation What think you then of the time of Ahaz when Vzziah the Priest built an Altar at the command of Ahaz according to the pattern of the Altar of Damascus contrary to Gods express Law yet according to you as long as Judah was united with her Head the High-Priest there was nothing
That to reform what is amiss in Doctrine or Manners is as lawful for a particular Church as it is to publish and promulgate any thing that is Catholick in either And your Question Quô judice lies alike against both And yet I think saith he It may be proved that the Church of Rome and that as a particular Church did promulgate an orthodox truth which was not then Catholickly admitted in the Church namely the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son If she erred in this fact confess her errour if she erred not Why may not another particular Church do as she did From whence he inferrs That if a particular Church may publish any thing that is Catholick where the whole Church is silent it may reform any thing that is not Catholick where the whole Church is negligent or will not Now to this you answer 1. That this procession from the Son was a truth alwaies acknowledged in the Church but what concerns that and the time of this Article being inserted into the Creed have been so amply discussed already that I shall not cloy the reader with any repetition having fully considered whatever you here say concerning the Article it self or its addition to the Creed 2. You answer That the consequence will not hold that if a particular Church may in some case promulgate an orthodox truth not as yet Catholickly received by the Church then a particular Church may repeal or reverse any thing that the whole Church hath already Catholickly and definitively received Surely no. Yet this say you is his Lordships and the Protestants case You do well to mention an egregious fallacy presently after these words for surely this is so For doth his Lordship parallel the promulgating something Catholick and repealing something Catholick together Surely no. But the promulgating something true but not Catholickly received with the reforming something not Catholick Either therefore you had a mind to abuse his Lordships words or to deceive the reader by beging the thing in Question viz. that all those which we call for a Reformation of were things Catholickly and definitively received by the whole Church which you know we utterly deny But you go on and say That thence it follows not that a particular Church may reform any thing that is not Catholick where the whole Church is negligent or will not because this would suppose errour or something uncatholick to be taught or admitted by the whole Church To put this case a little more plainly by the former Instance Suppose then that the Worship of God under the symbols of the Calves at Dan and Bethel had been received generally as the visible worship of the Tribes of Judah and Benjamin as well as the rest Doth not this Answer of yours make it impossible that ever they should return to the true Worship of God For this were to call in question the truth of Gods Promise to his Church and to suppose something not Catholick to be received by the whole Church And so the greater the corruptions are the more impossible it is to cure them and in case they spread generally no attempts of Reformation can be lawful which is a more false and paradoxical Doctrine than either of those which you call so And the truth is such pretences as these are are fit only for a Church that hateth to be reformed for if something not good in it self should happen in any one age to overspread the visible Communion of all particular Churches this only makes a Reformation the more necessary so far is it from making it the more disputable For thereby those corruptions grow more dangerous and every particular Church is bound the more to regard its own security in a time of general Infection And if any other Churches neglect themselves What reason is it that the rest should For any or all other particular Churches neglecting their duty is no more an argument that no particular Church should reform it self than that if all other men in a Town neglect preserving themselves from the Plague then I am bound to neglect it too But you answer 3. That all this doth not justifie the Protestants proceedings because they promulged only new and unheard of Doctrines directly contrary to what the Catholick Church universally held and taught before them for Catholick Truths This is the great thing in Question but I see you love best the lazy trade of begging things which are impossible to be rationally proved But yet you would seem here to do something towards it in the subsequent words For about the year of our Lord 1517. when their pretended Reformations began was not the real presence of our Saviours body and blood in the Eucharist by a true substantial change of Bread and Wine generally held by the whole Church Was not the real Sacrifice of the Mass then generally believed Was not Veneration of Holy Images Invocation of Saints Purgatory Praying for the dead that they might be eased of their pains and receive the full remission of their sins generally used and practised by all Christians Was not Free will Merit of good works and Justification by Charity or inherent Grace and not by Faith only universally taught and believed in all Churches of Christendom Yea even among those who in some few other points dissented from the Pope and the Latin Church To what purpose then doth the Bishop urge that a particular Church may publish any thing that is Catholick This doth not justifie at all his Reformation he should prove that it may not only add but take away something that is Catholick from the Doctrine of the Church for this the pretended Reformers did as well in England as elsewhere His Lordship never pretends much less disputes that any particular Church hath a power to take away any thing that is truly Catholick but the ground why he supposeth such things as those mentioned by you might be taken away is because they are not Catholick the Question then is between us Whether they were Catholick Doctrines or not this you attempt to prove by this medium Because they were generally held by the whole Church at the time of the Reformation To which I answer 1. If this be a certain measure to judge by what was Catholick and what not then what doth not appear to have been Catholick in this sense it was in our Churches power to reject and so it was lawful to reform our selves as to all such things which were not at the time of the Reformation received by the whole Church And what think you now of the Popes Supremacy your Churches Infallibility the necessity of Coelibate in the Clergy Communion in one kind Prayer in an unknown tongue Indulgences c. Will you say That those were generally received by the Church at the time of the Reformation If you could have said so no doubt you would not have omitted such necessary points and some of which gave the
I heartily wish had been as orderly and happily pursued as the work was right Christian and good in it self But humane frailty and the heats and distempers of men as well as the cunning of the Devil would not suffer that For even in this sense also the wrath of man doth not accomplish the will of God St. James 1.20 but I have learnt not to reject the good which God hath wrought for any evil which men may fasten upon it Now to this you answer 1. By a fair Concession again that a Provincial Council is the next Chirurgion when a Gangrene endangers life but still the Popes assistance is required For fear the Chirurgion should do too much good of himself you would be sure to have the Pope as Physitian to stand by whom you know too much concerned in the maladies of the Church to give way to an effectual cure 2. But you say further That the most proper expedient is an Oecumenical Council and this you spoil again with saying Such as the Council of Trent was For what you say in vindication of that being General and free we shall consider in the Chapter designed for that purpose What you object against our National Synod 1562. will be fully answered before the end of this which that we may make way for we must proceed to the remainder of these general grounds in which his Lordship proves That when the Vniversal Church will not or for the iniquity of the times cannot obtain and settle a free General Council 't is lawful nay sometimes necessary to reform gross abuses by a National or a Provincial To this you answer in General That you deny not but matters of less moment as concerning rites and ceremonies abuses in manners and discipline may be reformed by particular Councils without express leave of the Pope but that in matters of great moment concerning the Faith and publick Doctrine of the Church Sacraments and whatever else is of Divine Institution or universal obligation particular Councils if they duly proceed attempt nothing without recourse to the Sea Apostolick and the Pope's consent either expresly granted or justly presumed Fair hopes then there are of a cure when the Imposthume gathers in the Head we are indeed by this put into a very good condition for if a small matter hurts a Church she hath her hands at liberty to help her self but if one comes to ravish her her hands are tyed and by no means must she defend her self For in case say you it be any matter of great moment it must be left to the Pope and nothing to be done without his consent no not although the main of the distempers come through him But thanks be to God our Church is not committed to the hands of such a merciless Physitian who first causeth the malady and then forbids the cure we know of no such obligation we have to sleep in St. Peters Church as of old they did in the Temple of Aesculapius in hopes of a cure God hath entrusted every National Church with the care of her own safety and will require of her an account of that power he hath given to that end It will be little comfort to a Church whose members rot for want of a remedy to say The Pope will not give leave or else it might have been cured I wonder where it is that any Christian Church is commanded to wait the Popes good leasure for reforming her self Whence doth he derive this Authority and sole power of reforming Churches But that must be afterwards examined But is it reasonable to suppose that there should be Christian Magistrates and Christian Bishops in Churches and yet these so tyed up that they can do nothing in order to the Churches recovery though the distempers be never so great and dangerous Do we not read in the Apostolical Churches that the Government of them was in themselves without any the least mention of any Oecumenical Pastour over all if any abuses were among them the particular Governours of those Churches are checked and rebuked for it and commanded to exercise their power over offenders and must the encroachments of an usurped and arbitrary power in the Church hinder particular Churches from the exercise of that full power which is committed to the Governours of them Neither is this only a Right granted to a Church as such but we find this power practised and asserted in the history of the Christian Churches from the Apostles times For no sooner did the Bishops of Rome begin to encroach but other Bishops were so mindful of their own priviledges and the Interess of their Churches that they did not yield themselves his Vassals but disputed their rights and withstood his usurpations As hath partly appeared already and will do more afterwards And that particular Churches may reform themselves his Lordship produceth several Testimonies The first is of Gerson who tells us plainly That he will not deny but that the Church may be reformed by parts And that this is necessary and that to effect it Provincial Councils may suffice and in some things Diocesan And again Either you should reform all estates of the Church in a General Council or command them to be reformed in Provincial Councils But all this you say doth not concern matters of Faith but only personal abuses But I pray what ground is there that one should be reformed and not the other Is it not the reason why any reformation is necessary that the Churches purity and safety should be preserved and is not that as much or more endangered by erroneous doctrines then by personal abuses Will not then the parity of reason hold proportionably for one as well as the other that if the Church may be reformed by parts as to lesser abuses then much more certainly as to greater Besides you say Gerson allowed no Schismatical Reformations against the Churches head neither do we plead for any such but then you must shew Who the Churches head is and By what right he comes to be so otherwise the cause of the Schism will fall upon him who pretends to be the head to direct others and is as corrupt a member as any in the body But his Lordship adds This right of Provincial Synods that they might decree in causes of Faith and in cases of Reformation where corruptions had crept into the Sacraments of Christ was practised much above a thousand years ago by many both National and Provincial Synods For which he first instanceth in the Council at Rome under Pope Sylvester An. 324. condemning Photinus and Sabellius whose heresies were of a high nature against the Faith but here you say The very title confutes his pretence for it was held under the Pope and therefore not against him But however whether with the Pope or against him it was no more then a Provincial Synod and this decreed something in matters of Faith though according to your own
Doctrine the Pope could not be Infallible there for you restrain his Infallibility to a General Council and do not assert that it belongs to the particular Church of Rome As well then may any other Provincial Synod determine matters of Faith as that of Rome since that hath no more Infallibility belonging to it as such then any other particular Church hath and the Pope himself you say may erre when he doth not define matters of Faith in a General Council To his Lordships second instance of the Council of Gangra about the same time condemning Eustathius for his condemning marriage as unlawful you answer to the same purpose That Osius was there Pope Sylvester's Legat but what then if the Pope had been there himself he had not been Infallible much less certainly his Legat who could have only a Second-hand Infallibility To the third of the Council of Carthage condemning rebaptization about 348. you grant That it was assembled by Gratus Bishop of Carthage but that no new Article was defined in it but only the perpetual tradition of the Church was confirmed therein Neither do we plead for any power in Provincial Councils to define any new Articles of Faith but only to revive the old and to confirm them in opposition to any Innovations in point of Doctrine and as to this we profess to be guided by the sense of Scripture as interpreted by the unanimous consent of the Fathers and the four first General Councils To the fourth of the Council of Aquileia A. D. 381. condemning Palladius and Secundinus for embracing the Arrian Heresie St. Ambrose being present you answer That they only condemned those who had been condemned already by the Nicene Council and St. Ambrose and other Bishops of Italy being present Who can doubt but every thing was done there by the Popes authority and consent But if they only enforced the decrees of the Council of Nice What need of the Pope's authority to do that And do you think that there were no Provincial Councils in that part of Italy which was particularly distinguished from the suburbicarian Churches under the Bishop of Rome wherein the Pope was not present either by himself or Legats If you think so your thoughts have more of your will then understanding in them But if this Council proceeded according to that of Nice Will it not be as lawful for other Provincial Councils to reform particular Churches as long as they keep to the Decrees not barely of Nice but of the four General Councils which the Church of England looks on as her duty to do In the two following Instances of the second Council of Carthage declaring in behalf of the Trinity and the Milevitan Council about the Pelagian Heresie you say The Bishops of Rome were consulted But what then Were they consulted as the Heads of the Church or only as eminent members of it in regard of their Faith and Piety Prove the former when you are able and as to the latter it depends upon the continuance of that Faith and Piety in them and when once the reason is taken away there can be no necessity of continuing the same resort The same answer will serve for what you say concerning the second Council of Aurange determining the Controversies about Grace and Free-will supposing we grant it assembled by the means of Felix 4. Bishop of Rome as likewise to the third of Toledo We come therefore to that which you call his Lordships reserve and Master-allegation the fourth Council of Toledo which saith he did not only handle matters of Faith for the reformation of that people but even added also something to the Creed which were not expresly delivered in former Creeds Nay the Bishops did not only practise this to condemn Heresies in National and Provincial Synods and so to reform those several places and the Church it self by parts but they did openly challenge this as their right and due and that without any leave asked of the See of Rome For in this fourth Council of Toledo they decree that If there happen a cause of Faith to be setled a general that is a National Synod of all Spain and Gallicia shall be held thereon And this in the year 643. where you see it was then Catholick Doctrine in all Spain that a National Synod might be a competent Judge in a cause of Faith But here still we meet with the same Answer That all this might be done with a due subordination to the See Apostolick but that it doth not hence follow that any thing may be done in Provincial Councils against the authority of it Neither do we plead that any thing may be done against the just authority of the Bishop of Rome or any other Bishop but then you must prove that he had a just authority over the Church of England and that he exercised no power here at the Reformation but what did of right belong to him But the fuller debate of these things must be left to that place where you designedly assert and vindicate the Pope's Authority These things being thus in the general cleared we come to the particular application of them to the case of the Church of England As to which his Lordship say's And if this were practised so often and in so many places Why may not a National Council of the Church of England do the like As she did For she cast off the Pope's usurpation and as much as in her lay restored the King to his right That appears by a Book subscribed by the Bishops in Henry the eighths time And by the Records in the Archbishops office orderly kept and to be seen In the Reformation which came after our Princes had their parts and the Clergy theirs And to these two principally the power and direction for Reformation belongs That our Princes had their parts is manifest by their calling together of the Bishops and others of the Clergy to consider of that which might seem worthy Reformation And the Clergy did their part for being thus call'd together by Regal power they met in the National Synod of sixty two And the Articles there agreed on were afterwards confirmed by acts of State and the Royal assent In this Synod the Positive truths which are delivered are more then the Polemicks So that a meer calumny it is that we profess only a Negative Religion True it is and we must thank Rome for it our Confession must needs contain some Negatives For we cannot but deny that Images are to be adored Nor can we admit maimed Sacraments Nor grant Prayers in an unknown tongue And in a corrupt time or place 't is as necessary in Religion to deny falshood as to assert and vindicate Truth Indeed this latter can hardly be well and sufficiently done but by the former an Affirmative verity being ever included in the Negative to a falshood As for any errour which might fall into this as any other Reformation if
consecrated and invested in them And so they were the places being supplied by worthy persons the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury being consecrated by a Canonical number of Edward-Bishops and the rest duly consecrated by other hands And for all this Must all these persons be intruders and intrude themselves by force and that into the places of other lawful Bishops When so many Sees were actually vacant and the rest by due form of Law into which other Bishops were elected and legally consecrated notwithstanding the putid Fable of the Nags-Head ordination which hath so often and so evidently been disproved that I am glad to find you have so much modesty as not to mention it These Bishops being thus legally invested in their places To whom did the care and Government of the English Church belong to these or to those who were justly deprived If to these Were not they then the due representatives of the English Church in a National Synod who with those of the lower House of Convocation make up a true National Council And if so it belonged to them as such to consider what appertained to the Faith and Government of the Church of England For they undertook not to prescribe to the whole world that they leave to the Bishop and Church of Rome not as legally belonging to them but arrogantly usurped by them but to draw up Articles of Religion which should be owned by all such who enjoyed any place of Trust in the Church of England So that in all this they were neither intruders neither did they act any thing beyond their place and authority But you would seem to quarrel with their Vocation Mission and Jurisdiction as though it were not lawful i. e. Canonical and Just all these are your own words and they are but words for not one syllable like a proof is suggested I tell you then not to spend time in a needless vindication of the Vocation of the Bishops and Pastors of the Church of England when you give us no reason to question it that by the same arguments that you can prove that you have any lawful Bishops and Pastors in your Church it will appear that we have too And that our Vocation and Mission is far more consonant to the Apostolical and Primitive Church than yours is But the main quarrel is still behind which is that Supposing they had been true Bishops and Pastors of the English Church and their Assembly a lawful National Council yet you say They were so far from doing the like that other Provincial Councils had done that they acted directly contrary to them which charge lyes in these things 1. Condemning points of Faith that had been generally believed and practised in the Church before them This you know we deny and you barely affirm it and I have shewed some reason of our denial already and shall do more when we come to particulars 2. In contradicting the Doctrine of the Roman Church A great Heresie indeed but never yet condemned in any General Council 3. In convening against the express Will of the Church of Rome We shall then think that a fault when you prove it belongs to that only to summon all Councils General National and Provincial 4. In denying the Popes Authority or attempting to deprive him of it if you speak of his usurped Authority you must prove it a fault to deprive him of it i. e. to withdraw our selves from obedience to it for that is all the deprivation can be here understood If you mean Just Authority shew wherein it lyes whence he had it by what means he came into it in the Church of England and if you can make it appear that he had a just claim it will be easie proving them guilty of a fault who disowned it But Whether it were a fault in them or no I am sure it is one in you to lay such things and so many to our charge and not offering to give evidence for one of them But I must consider the Infallibility of your Church lyes in dictating and not proving Thus then for any thing which you so much as seem to say to the contrary the proceedings of the Reformation were very regular and just being built on sufficient grounds managed in a legal manner and carried on with due moderation Which are the highest commendations can be given to a work of Reformation and do with the greatest right belong to the Church of England of any Church in the Christian world There remains nothing now which you object against our Reformation but some faults of the Reformers as to which his Lordship had already said If any such be found they are the crimes of the persons and not of the Reformation and they are long since gone to God to answer it to whom I leave them Which Answer so full of justice and modesty one would have thought should have been sufficient for any reasonable man but you are not satisfied with it For you will have those faults to come from the principles of the Reformation and that they did not belong to the persons of the Reformers but are entailed on their Successors But a short Answer will suffice for both these shew us What avowed principles of the Church of England tend to any real Sacriledge before you charge any thing of that nature as flowing from the Maxims of the Reformation And if you can prove the Successors of the Reformers to continue in any Sacrilegious Actions let those plead for them who will I shall not but leave them as his Lordship did to answer such things to God As to the Memorandum which his Lordship concludes this discourse with That he spake at that time of the General Church as it was for the most part forced under the Government of the Roman See not doubting but that as the Vniversal Catholick Church would have reformed her self had she been in all parts freed of the Roman Yoke so while she was for the most in these Western parts under that Yoke the Church of Rome was if not the only yet the chief hinderance of Reformation You answer with some stomach By what force I pray Is it possible or Can it enter into the judgement of any reasonable man that a single Bishop of no very large Diocese should be able by force to bring into subjection so many large Provinces of Christendom as confessedly did acknowledge the Popes Power when the pretended Reformation began But What reasonable man can imagine that a single Bishop indeed of no very large Diocese if kept within his bounds should in progress of time extend his power so far as the Pope did but by one of these two means force or fraud And since you seem to be so much displeased at the former I pray take the latter or rather the conjunction of both together For that there was force used appears by the manifold resistance which was made to the encroachments of the Popes power and
the sad complaints of the usurpations and abuses which were in it and these abundantly delivered by Classical Authors of both the present and precedent times and to use more of your own words all Ecclesiastical Monuments are full of them so that this is no false calumny or bitter Pasquil as you call it but a very plain and evident truth But that there was likewise a great deal of art subtilty and fraud used in the getting keeping and managing the Popes power he hath but a small measure of wit who doth not understand and they as little of honesty who dare not confess it CHAP. V. Of the Roman Churches Authority The Question concerning the Church of Rome's Authority entred upon How far our Church in reforming her self condemns the Church of Rome The Pope's equality with other Patriarchs asserted The Arabick Canons of the Nicene Council proved to be supposititious The Polity of the Ancient Church discovered from the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice The Rights of Primates and Metropolitans settled by it The suitableness of the Ecclesiastical to the Civil Government That the Bishop of Rome had then a limited Jurisdiction within the suburbicary Churches as Primate of the Roman Diocese Of the Cyprian Priviledge that it was not peculiar but common to all Primates of Dioceses Of the Pope's Primacy according to the Canons how far pertinent to our dispute How far the Pope's Confirmation requisite to new elected Patriarchs Of the Synodical and Communicatory Letters The testimonies of Petrus de Marcâ concerning the Pope's Power of confirming and deposing Bishops The Instances brought for it considered The case of Athanasius being restored by Julius truly stated The proceedings of Constantine in the case of the Donatists cleared and the evidence thence against the Pope's Supremacy Of the Appeals of Bishops to Rome how far allowed by the Canons of the Church The great case of Appeals between the Roman and African Bishops discussed That the Appeals of Bishops were prohibited as well as those of the inferiour Clergy C's fraud in citing the Epistle of the African Bishops for acknowledging Appeals to Rome The contrary manifested from the same Epistle to Boniface and the other to Coelestine The exemption of the Ancient Britannick Church from any subjection to the See of Rome asserted The case of Wilfrids Appeal answered The Primacy of England not derived from Gregory's Grant to Augustine the Monk The Ancient Primacy of the Britannick Church not lost upon the Saxon Conversion Of the state of the African Churches after their denying Appeals to Rome The rise of the Pope's Greatness under Christian Emperours Of the Decree of the Sardican Synod in case of Appeals Whether ever received by the Church No evidence thence of the Pope's Supremacy Zosimus his forgery in sending the Sardican Canons instead of the Nicene The weakness of the pleas for it manifested THat which now remains to be discussed in the Question of Schism is concerning the Authority of the Church and Bishop of Rome Whether that be so large and extensive as to bind us to an universal submission so that by renouncing of it we violate the Vnity of the Church and are thereby guilty of Schism But before we come to a particular discussion of that we must cast our eyes back on the precedent Chapter in which the title promiseth us That Protestants should be further convinced of Schism but upon examination of it there appears not so much as the shadow of any new matter but it wholly depends upon principles already refuted and so contains a bare repetition of what hath been abundantly answered in the first part So your first Section hath no more of strength than what lyes in your Churches Infallibility For when you would plead That though the Church of Rome be the accused party yet she may judge in her own cause you do it upon this ground That you had already proved the Roman Church to be infallible and therefore your Church might as well condemn her accusers as the Apostles theirs and that Protestants not pretending Infallibility cannot rationally be permitted to be Accusers and Witnesses against the Roman Church Now What doth all this come to in case your Church be not infallible as we have evidently proved she is not in the first part and that she is so far from it that she hath most grosly erred as we shall prove in the third part Your second Section supposes the matter of fact evident That Protestants did contradict the publick Doctrine and belief of all Christians generally throughout the world which we have lately proved to be an egregious falsity and shall do more afterwards The cause of the Separatists and the Church of England is vastly different Whether wee look on the authority cause or manner of their proceedings and in your other Instances you still beg the Question That your Church is our Mother-Church and therefore we are bound to submit to her judgement though she be the accused party But as to this whole business of Quô Judice nothing can be spoken with more solidity and satisfaction than what his Lordship saith If it be a cause common to both as certain it is here between the Protestant and Roman Church then neither part alone may be Judge if neither alone may judge then either they must be judged by a third which stands indifferent to both and that is the Scripture or if there be a jealousie or a doubt of the sense of the Scripture they must either both repair to the Exposition of the Primitive Church and submit to that or both call and submit to a General Council which shall be lawfully called and fairly and freely held with indifferency to all parties and that must judge the Difference according to Scripture which must be their Rule as well as private mens When you either attempt to shew the unreasonableness of this or substitute any thing more reasonable instead of it you may expect a further Answer to the Question Quô Judice as far as it concerns the difference between your Church or ours The remainder of this whole Chapter is only a repetition of somewhat concerning Fundamentals and a further expatiating in words without the addition of any more strength from reason or authority upon the Churches Infallibility being proved from Scripture which having been throughly considered already and an account given not only of the meaning of those places one excepted which we shall meet with again but of the reason Why the sense of them as to Infallibility should be restrained to the Apostles I find no sufficient motive inducing me to follow you in distrusting the Readers memory and trespassing on his patience so much as to inculcate the same things over and over as you do Passing by therefore the things already handled and leaving the rest if any such thing appear to a more convenient place where these very places of Scripture are again brought upon
that he saith Ruffinus did rectissimè ex usu recepto very agreeably both to reason and custom compare the Alexandrian and Roman Bishop in this that he should have the power over the Diocese of Aegypt by the same right that the Bishop of Rome had over the Vrbicary Diocese or saith he ut Ruffinus-eligantissime loquitur In Ecclesiis Suburbicariis id est in iis Ecclesiis quae decem Provinciis Suburbicariis continebantur as Ruffinus most elegantly speaks sure then he thought him no such ignorant person as Perron and others from him have reproached him to be In the Suburbicary Churches that is in those Churches which are contained in the ten Suburbicary Provinces For as as he goes on the calling of Synods the ordination of Bishops the full administration of the Churches in those Provinces did belong to the Bishop of Rome as to the Bishop of Alexandria in the Aegyptian Diocese and to the Bishop of Antioch in the Oriental Which he likewise confirms by the ancient Latin Interpreter of the Nicene Canons who he saith was elder than Dionysius Exiguns in whose interpretation he makes the Suburbicaria loca to contain the four Regions about Rome which made the proper Metropolitan Province of the Roman Bishop comprehending sixty nine Bishopricks and that which he calls his Province to be the Vrbicary Diocese contained in those ten Provinces which his Lordship mentions But the Pope's being Vniversal Bishop having so little evidence elsewhere his Lordships adversary at last hath recourse to this That the Bishop of Rome is S. Peter 's successor and therefore to him we must have recourse To which his Lordship answers The Fathers I deny not ascribe very much to S. Peter but 't is to S. Peter in his own person And among them Epiphanius is as free and as frequent in extolling S. Peter as any of them And yet did he never intend to give an absolute principality to Rome in S. Peter 's right which he at large manifests by a place particularly insisted on in which he proves that the building of the Church on S. Peter in Epiphanius his sense is not as if he and his successors were to be Monarchs over it for ever but it is the edifying and establishing the Church in the true Faith of Christ by the Confession which S. Peter made And so saith he he expresses himself elsewhere most plainly that Christ's building his Church upon this Rock was upon the Confession of S. Peter and the solid Faith contained therein And that Epiphanius could not mean that S. Peter was any Rock or Foundation of the Church so as that he and his successors must be relyed on in all matters of Faith and govern the Church like Princes and Monarchs he proves not only by the Context but because he makes S. James to succeed our Lord in the principality of the Church And Epiphanius saith he was too full of learning and industry to speak contrary to himself in a point of this moment This is the summ of his Lordships discourse to which you answer That it is clear even by the Texts of Epiphanius that this promise by Christ to S. Peter is derived to his successors which you prove from hence because he saith That by the Gates of Hell Heresies and Hereticks are understood now this say you cannot be understood of S. Peter 's person alone for then Why not Heresies and Hereticks prevail against the Church after S. Peter 's death yea so far as utterly to extinguish the true Faith But Cannot God preserve the Church from being extinguished by Heresies though S. Peter hath no Infallible Successor Is not the promise That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church It doth not say That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against any that shall pretend to be his Successors at Rome For if Heresies be those Gates they have too often prevailed against him And Is this your way indeed to secure the Church by providing S. Peter such successors which may be Hereticks themselves But much more wisely did S. Gregory say If one pretends to be Vniversal Bishop then upon his falling the Church must fall too much more wisely the Council of Basil in their Synodal Epistle object this as the necessary consequent of the Doctrine of the Pope's Supremacy that errante Pontifice quod saepe contigit contingere potest tota erraret Ecclesia that in case the Pope erre which often hath happened and often may the whole Church must erre too And yet this is your way to secure the Church from errours and heresies If you designed to ruine it you could not do it in a more compendious way than to oblige the whole Church to believe the dictates of one who is so far from that Infallibility which S. Peter had that he follows him in nothing more than his Falls I wish he would in his Repentance too and that would be the best way to secure the Church from Errours and Heresies Which she can never be secured from as long as one pretends to be her Head who may not only erre himself but propound that to be believed infallibly which is notoriously false For that Popes as Popes may erre and propound false Doctrine to the Church not only Protestants but some of your own Communion have abundantly proved particularly Sim. Vigorius in his defence of Richerius in his Commentary on the forecited Synodal Epistle of the Council of Basil. And calls that opinion That the Pope may erre as a private Doctor but not as Pope ineptissimam opinionem a most foolish opinion For otherwise as he saith it would be most absurd to say That the Pope might be deposed for Heresie for he is not deposed as a private Doctor but as Pope And this he proves by the contradictious decrees of Adrian 3. to Adrian 1. and Leo 7. and so of Formosus Martinus Romanus to Johannes Stephanus and Sergius Nay he instanceth in that famous decree of Boniface 8. in pronouncing so definitively that it was de necessitate salutis subesse Romano Pontifici necessary to salvation to be subject to the Pope and that he decreed this as Pope appears by those words Declaramus dicimus definimus pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis than which words nothing can be more express and definitive and yet Pope Innocent 3. asserts that the King of France hath no superiour upon earth Is not the Church like then to be well secured from Heresies when her Infallible Heads may so apparently contradict each other and this acknowledged by men of your own Communion Nothing then can be more absurd or unreasonable than to say That the Church cannot be preserved from being extinguished by Heresie unless the Pope be S. Peter's successor as Head of the Church To his Lordships testimonies out of Epiphanius that S. James succceded our Lord in the principality of the Church you answer 1. That in the places
the rest are Rebels and Traytors And Is not this just the same Answer which you give here That the Pope is still appointed to keep peace and unity in the Church because all that question his Authority be Hereticks and Schismaticks But as in the former case the surest way to prevent those Consequences were to produce that power and authority which the King had given him and that should be the first thing which should be made evident from authentick records and the clear testimony of the gravest Senatours so if you could produce the Letters Pattents whereby Christ made the Pope the great Lord Chancellour of his Church to determine all Controversies of Faith and shew this attested by the concurrent voice of the Primitive Church who best knew what order Christ took for the Government of his Church this were a way to prevent such persons turning such Hereticks and Schismaticks as you say they are by not submitting themselves to the Popes Authority But for you to pretend that the Popes Authority is necessary to the Churches Vnity and when the Heresies and Schisms of the Church are objected to say That those are all out of the Church is just as if a Shepherd should say That he would keep the whole Flock of sheep within such a Fold and when the better half are shewed him to be out of it he should return this Answer That those were without and not within his Fold and therefore they were none of the Flock that he meant So that his meaning was those that would abide in he could keep in but for those that would not he had nothing to say to them So it is with you the Pope he ends Controversies and keeps the Church at Vnity How so They who do agree are of his Flock and of the Church and those that do not are out of it A Quaker or Anabaptist will keep the Church in Vnity after the same way only the Pope hath the greater number of his side for they will tell you If they were hearkned to the Church should never be in pieces for all those who embrace their Doctrines are of the Church and those who do not are Hereticks and Schismaticks So we see upon your principles What an easie matter it is to be an Infallible Judge and to end all Controversies in the Church that only this must be taken for granted that all who will not own such an infallible Judge are out of the Church and so the Church is at Vnity still how many soever there are who doubt or deny the Popes Authority Thus we easily understand what that excellent harmony is which you cry so much up in your Church that you most gravely say That had not the Pope received from God the power he challenges he could never have been able to preserve that peace and unity in matters of Religion that is found in the Roman Church Of what nature that Unity is we have seen already And surely you have much cause to boast of the Popes faculty of deciding Controversies ever since the late Decree of Pope Innocent in the case of the five Propositions For How readily the Jansenists have submitted since and what Unity there hath been among the dissenting parties in France all the world can bear you witness And whatever you pretend were it not for Policy and Interest the Infallible Chair would soon fall to the ground for it hath so little footing in Scripture or Antiquity that there had need be a watchful eye and strong hand to keep it up But now we are to examine the main proof which is brought for the necessity of this Living and Infallible Judge which lyes in these words of A.C. Every earthly Kingdom when matters cannot be composed by a Parliament which cannot be called upon all occasions hath besides the Law-Books some living Magistrates and Judges and above all one visible King the highest Judge who hath Authority sufficient to end all Controversies and settle Vnity in all Temporal Affairs And Shall we think that Christ the wisest King hath provided in his Kingdom the Church only the Law-Books of holy Scripture and no living visible Judges and above all one chief so assisted by his Spirit as may suffice to end all Controversies for Vnity and Certainty of Faith which can never be if every man may interpret Holy Scripture the Law-Books as he list This his Lordship saith is a very plausible argument with the many but the Foundation of it is but a similitude and if the similitude hold not in the main argument is nothing And so his Lordship at large proves that it is here For whatever further concerns this Controversie concerning the Popes Authority is brought under the examination of this argument which you mangle into several Chapters thereby confounding the Reader that he may not see the coherence or dependence of one thing upon another But having cut off the superfluities of this Chapter already I may with more conveniency reduce all that belongs to this matter within the compass of it And that he may the better apprehend his Lordships scope and design I shall first summ up his Lordships Answers together and then more particularly go about the vindication of them 1. Then his Lordship at large proves that the Militant Church is not properly a Monarchy and therefore the foundation of the similitude is destroyed 2. That supposing it a Kingdom yet the Church Militant is spread in many earthly Kingdoms and cannot well be ordered like one particular Kingdom 3. That the Church of England under one Supreme Governour our Gracious Soveraign hath besides the Law-Book of the Scripture visible Magistrates and Judges Arch-Bishops and Bishops to govern the Church in Truth and Peace 4. That as in particular Kingdoms there are some affairs of greatest Consequence as concerning the Statute Laws which cannot be determined but in Parliament so in the Church the making such Canons which must bind all Christians must belong to a free and lawful General Council Thus I have laid together the substance of his Lordships Answer that the dependence and connexion of things may be better perceived by the intelligent Reader We come now therefore to the first Answer As to which his Lordship saith It is not certain that the whole Church Militant is a Kingdom for they are no mean ones which think our Saviour Christ left the Church-Militant in the hands of the Apostles and their Successours in an Aristocratical or rather a mixt Government and that the Church is not Monarchical otherwise than the Triumphant and Militant make one body under Christ the Head And in this sense indeed and in this only the Church is a most absolute Kingdom And the very expressing of this sense is a full Answer to all the places of Scripture and other arguments brought by Bellarmine to prove that the Church is a Monarchy But the Church being as large as the world Christ thought fittest to govern it Aristocratically
Synodical Epistle by which I shall prove it impossible that either the Letters of Pope Damasus did concern the calling of the Oecumenical Council or that the sitting of the Council at Rome and the General one at Constantinople could be at the same time The first is from the date of those Letters which is thus expressed there that they met together at Constantinople having received the Letters which were sent the year before from them to the Emperour Theodosius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the Synod at Aquileia Now the Synod at Aquileia by Baronius his computation was held the same year A. D. 381. in which the Oecumenical Council at Constantinople was held and much later in the year too for this was held in the Nones of September and the other in May and so much is likewise confessed by Binius in his notes on that Council Now let me demand of you Whether is it impossible that Damasus should by his Letters summon the Oecumenical Council when the date of those Letters to Theodosius is so long after the sitting of it But besides this these Eastern Bishops in that Council which sate after these Letters of Damasus clearly distinguished themselves from the Oecumenical Council of the year foregoing for after they had given a brief account of their Faith they referr the Pope and Western Council to that declaration of Faith which had been made the year before by the Oecumenical Council assembled at Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Is it possible then any thing should be more evident than that this Council assembled upon the Letters of Damasus to Theodosius and sitting with the Council at Rome is clearly distinct from the Oecumenical Council of Constantinople And thus I hope I have dispelled those mists which you would cast before the Readers eyes by confounding these two Councils and thereby offering to prove that the Pope had some kind of very remote Presidency in the second General Council Which is so far from being true that there is not any intimation in any of the ancient Historians Theodoret Socrates or Sozomen that the Pope or any of the Western Bishops had any thing at all to do in it But you will ask How comes it then to be accounted an Oecumenical Council For this indeed Baronius would fain find out some hand that Damasus had in it or else he cannot conceive how it should become Oecumenical but all the proof he produceth is Because in the Acts of the sixth Council it is said that Theodosius and Damasus opposed Macedonius and so I hope he might do by declaring his consent to the Doctrine decreed in this Council not that thereby his approbation made it Oecumenical And as that Doctrine was received and that Confession of Faith embraced all over the world so that Council became Oecumenical For I cannot see but that if Damasus had stood up for Macedonius if the Decrees against him had been received by the Catholick Church it had been never the less Oecumenical in the sense of Antiquity That testimony which Baronius brings out of his own Library and a Copy of the Vatican expressing that Damasus did summon the Council at Constantinople is not to be taken against the consent of the ancient Church-Historians it being well known what Interess those Roman Copies have a long time driven on I deny not therefore but that the Council of Constantinople was assented to by Damasus and the Western Bishops in the matters of Faith there decided but I utterly deny that Damasus had any thing to do in the Presidency over that Council So that we find a Council alwaies acknowledged to be Oecumenical in which the Pope had no Presidency at all and this very Instance sufficiently refutes your Hypothesis viz. that the Popes Presidency is necessary to a General Council In the third General Council held at Ephesus A. D. 431. it is agreed on both sides that S. Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria was the President of it but the Question is In what capacity he sate there whether in his own or as Legat of Celestine Bishop of Rome All the proof you produce for the latter is That it appears by a Letter written to him by the Pope long before he sent any other Legats to that Council in which Letter he gives S. Cyril charge to supply his place as is testified by Evagâ—ius Prosper Photius and divers other Authours But here again you offer to confound two things which are of a distinct nature for you would have your Reader believe that this Letter was sent by Coelestine to Cyril in order to his Presidentship in the Council whereas this Letter was sent the year before without any relation to the Council as appears by the series of the story which is briefly this the differences in the Eastern Churches increasing about the Opinions broached by Nestorius S. Cyril of Alexandria chiefly appearing in opposition to them they both write much about the same time to Pope Coelestine impeaching each other of Heresie But before Coelestine had read the Letters from Nestorius in vindication of himself Possidonius a Deacon of Alexandria comes with several dispatches from S. Cyril wherein a large account is given of the heresie and actions of Nestorius upon which the Pope calls a Council at Rome and therein examines the allegations on both sides which being done the Council condemns Nestorius and passeth this sentence on him That ten daies should be allowed him after notice given for his repentance and in case of obstinacy he should be declared excommunicate And for executing this sentence Coelestine commits his power to Cyril not as though it belonged to the Pope only to do it but that by this means there might appear the Consent of the Western with the Eastern Bishops in putting Nestorius out of the communion of the Catholick Church S. Cyril having received these Letters by the return of Possidonius dated the third of the Ides of August as appears by the Letters extant in Baronius calls a Council at Alexandria in which four Legats are decreed to be sent to Constantinople in pursuance of the sentence against Nestorius they deliver the Letters of Coelestine and Cyril to him he returns them no answer at all but addresses himself to the Emperour Theodosius and complains of the persecutions of Cyril which occasioned a very sharp Letter of the Emperour to him charging him with disturbing the Churches Peace But this was not all for Cyril having with the Synodical Epistle of the Council of Alexandria sent twelve Anathematisms to be subscribed by Nestorius he was so far from it that he charges Cyril with the heresie of Apollinaris in them and sends them to Johannes Antiochenus who with the Syrian Bishops of his Diocese joyn with Nestorius in the impeachment of Cyril So that by this means the sentence against Nestorius could not be put in execution because of the dissent of the Eastern Bishops and that S. Cyril stood
the more free because that party which met there continued in what they had done Just as if a part of a Common-Council should suffer only such persons to come there whom they thought fit and suffer nothing to be debated but what two or three of the leading men should propound and yet this be call'd a free Common-Council because they who were of it did after they had done persist in it And this is all you have to plead for the Freedom of the Council of Trent Touching the Greek Church and the writings of the Patriarch Hieremias it is to little purpose to say That they differ from us in several things unless you could prove that they did agree with you in all And if as you say they do condemn Protestantism you cannot but know they do much more condemn Popery and that in some of the main Articles of it And therefore we have reason to believe that you more dread a Free Council wherein the Greek Churches may be admitted to equal votes with the Latin then the Protestants do the judgement of the Greek Church For it is sufficiently known how much the Greeks agree with us in the opposition to the great points of the Popes Supremacy and the Infallibility of the Church of Rome how far they are from the belief of Purgatory in your sense and several other things which are contained in the Decrees of the Council of Trent If the Patriarch Hieremias did not in all things agree with the Lutheran Divines doth it thence follow that he would subscribe to the Council of Trent But because you pretend to give us a full account of the proceedings between the Patriarch Hieremias and the Lutheran Divines we must a little further enquire into them You tell us then That about the end of the last Century some eminent Protestants of the Lutheran party endeavoured to feel the pulse of the Greek Church to see if they could there find any Symptoms of their own disease The design was you say to close with the Greeks for the better making out the pretended perpetual succession of their Church which Project they so hotly pursued though formerly in vain attempted that they would not desist till the Patriarch being settled in his Throne they had sent him the sum of their reformed belief drawn up according to the Augustan Confession After a long entercourse of letters answers and replies mutually continued for some years and all Arguments used that might induce the Patriarch to receive them into his communion he could not be courted to so much as the least shew of approving their Doctrine but did in all his Answers clearly confirm the Tenets of the Roman Catholick Church which those Lutherans endeavoured to overthrow In so much that the Patriarch tyred with their importunity gave them a rebuke for their departure from the Doctrine of the Catholick Church and desired them not to trouble him any more with their writings A very formal story One would expect the next news should have been that the Patriarch had come to kiss his Holiness's feet or at least subscribed to the Council of Trent But all your stories out of the East have not so much truth as formality in them witness one for all that solemn legation from Gabriel Patriarch of Alexandria to Pope Clement 8 wherein an acknowledgement was made of the Popes Supremacy as Head of the Church upon which such joy was conceived at Rome that Baronius unmeasurably triumphs upon it and sayes it tends as much to the joy of Catholicks as to the confusion of Hereticks and therefore hath very solemnly published the Legation it self at the end of the sixth Tome of his Annals but upon a further examination of it it was all found to be a meer fiction and imposture of one Barton as both Thuanus and Thomas à Jesu confess But we must suppose no such danger in this story for you tell us You have it from Spondanus and he out of the writings of those Protestants themselves but I much rather believe by the circumstances of your story that either you or Spondanus had it from Socolovius their virulent adversary who having clancularly procured a Copy of the Patriarchs Answer he publishes it in Latin with the title of Censura Orientalis Ecclesiae and gives much the same account as you do here In which there are two grand mistakes first as to the design which you say was to be admitted into Communion with the Greek Church The second as to the event which you say was That the Patriarch did not shew the least approbation of their Doctrine but did in all his Answers confirm the Tenets of the Roman Catholick Church Both which how notoriously false they are will presently appear by a full account of the circumstances of this affair We must know then that the news of the Lutherans appearing in Germany against the Pope being spread at Constantinople great enquiry was made what their doctrine was and they were represented by whose arts one may easily guess as men holding strange opinions denying the Divinity of Christ c. as appears by a letter lately published of a Divine about that time resident in Constantinople and withall that they were defamed generally as persons of no Religion at all and of wicked and flagitious lives upon this those German Divines send by Stephanus Gerlachius Chaplain to the Emperours Embassadour a Greek copy of the Augustan Confession Martinus Crusius having before sent a letter only of respect to the Patriarch Hieremias who by the means of Cantacuzenus was made Patriarch in the room of Metrophanes who was then deposed Gerlachius as appears by a letter of his dated May 24 A. 1575. carries the copy of the Augustan Confession to the Patriarch who then had his Council about him which with great joy and delight he saith he read in the presence of them and delivered it to be read to the Priests and Calogeri but five points he selected out of it to be further discussed and when afterwards he waited on the Patriarch to know his judgement concerning it Johannes Zygomalas who was then the Rhetor Patriarchicus a kind of Chancellour to him told him that having read it almost all over they approved almost all except that about procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son and unleavened bread but he particularly desired the Patriarch to return an Answer to the Divines who sent it with his judgement upon it and having spoken with the Metropolitan of Nice and others they seemed very much pleased with that Confession With the Patriarchs letter Johannes Zygomalas writes to Martin Crusius and therein tells him that though in all things the Patriarch did not assent to them yet it might be evident to all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they did agree in the most important Articles of Christian Faith and that in other things they might easily agree if they left the new and strange customs and adhered to
time viz. the direction of the Holy Ghost this spiritual power not being of humane but divine Institution and not proceeding so much from the abilities of the persons as from the co-operation of the Holy Spirit with them To which I reply that all this had need be more then thus barely asserted it being confessed by your selves as his Lordship shews that a General Council is a representative of the whole Church you ought to have shewed us the Divine Institution of this Representative and the promises made to it under that notion or else we may still say with his Lordship That all the power and assistance it hath is by vertue of that body which it represents But I need not in this urge the Arguments of Protestants against you for in this as in most other Controversies we have enough from those of your own party to oppose against these affirmations of yours For Albertus Pighius not only asserts but proves that General Councils are not of divine but humane institution arising from a dictate of right reason that matters of doubt may be better debated by many prudent and experienced persons then by a few So that as the supream authority for administration of affairs belongs to one so it is most agreeable to right reason that debates should be by many This he proves at large that nothing but humane reason is the foundation of Councils in the Church for saith he In Scripturis Canonicis nullum de iis verbum est nec ex Apostolorum institutione speciale quicquam de illis accepit illa primitiva Christi Ecclesia There is not a word of them in Scripture neither did the primitive Church receive any particular order from the Apostles concerning them which he from thence proves because in all the time of the primitive Church till the Nicene Council there is no mention at all of them And at that time it did not receive any new revelation concerning the celebrating General Councils but the Emperour Constantines zeal for the peace of the Church was the first cause and original of them From whence he concludes that they have no supernatural or divine Institution sed prorsus humanam but altogether humane for they are saith he The invention of Constantine sometimes useful but not at all necessary This man speaks intelligibly and not like those who jumble Pope and Council together to make something Infallible between them For he sayes It is the better way by far to go immediately to the Apostolical See and consult that as the Infallible Oracle in all doubts of Faith And very honestly tells us That he believes Constantine was ignorant of that priviledge of the Holy See when he first instituted General Councils Than which nothing could be spoken truer If you have then nothing more to say for the Divine Institution of General Councils then what you have acquainted us with it would be much more wisedom in you to contend with Pighius for the Popes Infallibility and let that of General Councils shift for it self His Lordships second Consideration you admit of viz. That though the Act which is hammered out by many together must needs be perfecter then that which is but the child of one mans sufficiency yet this cannot be Infallible unless it be from some special assistance of the Holy Ghost Therefore omitting your very impertinent addition to this consideration viz. So as to make its Decrees Infallible which is the thing in question We proceed to the third which is That the Assistance of the Holy Ghost is without errour which saith he is no question and as little that a Council hath it But the doubt that troubles is whether all assistance of the Holy Ghost be afforded in such a high manner as to cause all the definitions of a Council in matters fundamental in the Faith and in remote deductions from it to be alike Infallible From this last expression you would very subtilly infer contrary to his Lordships design That he granted General Councils to be Infallible in deductions as well as fundamentals but not to be alike Infallible whereas it is plain his Lordship means no more by alike Infallible then Whether the assistance be alike in both to make them Infallible And this you might easily perceive but it would have prevented your cavil about a graduated Infallibility which I know none assert but your self This Consideration brings on the main of the battel in those texts of Scripture which are most insisted on to prove the Infallibility of General Councils viz. John 16.13 I will send you the Spirit of Truth and he shall lead you into all Truth John 14.16 This Spirit shall abide with you for ever Matth. 28.20 Behold I am with you to the end of the world Matth. 16.18 The founding of the Church upon the Rock against which the gates of hell shall not prevail Luke 22.32 Christs prayer for St. Peter that his Faith should not fail Matth. 18.20 Where two or three are gathered together in my Name I will be in the midst of them Acts 15.28 It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us All which places except the two last have been already examined as far as concerns any promise of Infallibility in the questions concerning the Churches and the Popes Infallibility and there being no reason at all given why any Infallibility at all is promised by them to the Church after the Apostles times it may seem wholly needless to bestow a particular consideration again upon all of them For it is evident in those places all your drift and design is only to prove a promise of Infallibility in the Church and to the Councils only by vertue of that But having at large before shewed that no such thing can be inferred from these or any other places that which is built upon it is wholly taken away too For the only pretence that you have why Councils should be proved hence Infallible is because the Church hath Infallibility promised by these texts which must be very well proved and much better then you have done either here or elsewhere before the other can be deduced from hence And yet supposing I should grant that Infallibility was promised to the Church I see no such necessary consequence from thence that General Councils must be Infallible unless you can prove from Scripture that the Infallibility of the Church is meant of the Church representative and not diffusive which is a new task which you have not yet undertaken For it is not enough to say That the body of the Church is bound to believe and profess the doctrine taught by the representative and therefore the representative must be Infallible unless you could first prove that there is a necessity of some continued Infallible teaching by the Church representative which I despair of ever seeing done I am so far therefore from thinking as you do That these texts are sufficiently clear in themselves to prove
necessary to be amended afterwards by some other Council which can pretend to no higher assistance than the other had before But your critical judgement is not extraordinary if you will have the signification of words taken from the conjectural Etymologies of them such as this of Scaliger is in the place where he corrects Varro's Etymologies at the end of his Conjectanea but besides that all attempts of that nature are but Conjectural Essayes it is but an ill way to judge of the use of a word by the Etymology of it for What multitudes of words are carried further in their sense than their Originals would bear His Lordship therefore takes a far surer way to know S. Austin's meaning than running to Martinius for the signification of the word menda which is by producing a parallel place in S. Austin where it is taken for to correct and supposes an evident fault aliud quod praecipere jubemur aliud quod emendare praecipimur where emendare is plainly to amend something amiss not to supply something defective So that Stapleton's sense of amending by explication of something not fully known and not by correction of something erroneous cannot here have place For as his Lordship well observes the National Council which S. Austin did in this dispute speak most of was not guilty meerly of not fully explaining it self but of a positive errour viz. that under S. Cyprian determining that Baptism of Hereticks was no Baptism And therefore when S. Austin speaks of amendment it is such an amendment as doth suppose errour and not barely defect And so the words used before of reprehension and yielding do both imply more than a bare explanation and those which follow after evince it fully where S. Austin layes down the cautions whereby such amendments should be made without sacrilegious pride or swelling arrogancy without contention of envy and in holy humility in Catholick peace in Christian Charity All which words were very needless if he meant only an explanation of something not fully declared before but are very necessary supposing it to be the amendment of some former errour All the Answer you have is That these last words relate not in particular to General Councils by no means although they follow them at the heels but to the other several subjects viz. private Bishops Provincial and National Councils which are subject to pride arrogancy and contention in their emendations But Was not S. Austin an unhappy man then at expressing himself that he must needs set those Caveats after he had spoken of General Councils which referr to the particulars that went before without any reference to the immediate antecedents For if they do at all respect the proceedings of General Councils as doubtless they do and that most immediately as appears to any one who reads them then they imply still that this amendment of General Councils must be done without pride arrogance and envy and with the greatest humility and peace and charity which it is hard to conceive why S. Austin should add unless he supposed some errours to be amended in them Nothing remains further for the clearing this place but only that his Lordship mentions that which he calls The poorest shift of all in Bellarmin viz. that he speaks of unlawful Councils and it is a sign it is so indeed when you have nothing more to say for it but only that it was given ex superabundanti and with a Peradventure When his Lordship concludes that the Popes Confirmation to make Councils Infallible is a meer trick and unknown to the ancient Church you have nothing more to prove it to be grounded on the practice of Councils of the Church and of Reason but to referr the Reader back to what you have said about the Popes Supremacy and therefore I must do so too for an Answer to what you have said on that subject The next thing which belongs to this Question is contained in his Lordships sixth Consideration which is If the definition of a General Council be Infallible then the Infallibility of it is either in the conclusion and in the means that prove it or in the conclusion not the means or in the means not the conclusion But it is Infallible in none of these Not in the first for there are divers deliberations in General Councils where the conclusion is Catholick but the means by which they prove it not Infallible Not in the second for the conclusion must alwaies follow the nature of the premises or principles out of which it is deduced therefore if those which the Council uses be sometimes uncertain the conclusion cannot be Infallible Not in the third for the conclusion cannot but be true and necessary if the means be so Your Answer is That it is Infallible in the conclusion that is in the Doctrine defined though it be not Infallible in the means or arguments upon which it proceeded to the definition And your reason is because one is necessary for the Government of the Church but the other is not for Deus non deficit in necessariis nec redundat in superfluis You mean it is necessary for you to assert it whether it hath any foundation in reason or no for you have not yet proved that the Infallibility of General Councils is necessary for the Churches Government and therefore cannot thence inferr so great an absurdity as this that where all the premises are fallible and uncertain yet the conclusion may be prophetical and Infallible But so involved and obscure are your discourses on this subject that while you pretend a General Council is seeing Visions one might easily believe you were dreaming dreams For I pray speak out and tell us what you mean by Councils being fallible in the use of means and yet Infallible in the conclusion drawn from those premises which she was fallible in the deducing the conclusion from For the deducing the conclusion is in the use of the means therefore how is it possible that the Council should be Infallible in the conclusion when it was fallible in making that Conclusion But it may be I do not yet fully apprehend what you would have neither I doubt do you For you would fain be Infallible in the conclusion too without so much as truth in the premises But I shall attempt to make you speak intelligibly it must be one of these two things you mean when you say Councils are Infallible in the conclusion either that they are Infallible in deducing the Conclusion or in assenting to the Conclusion If Infallible in the deducing the Conclusion then it must be Infallible in the use of the means for unless it doth infallibly discern the connexion of the premises it is impossible it should be Infallible in drawing the Conclusion from them So that it is non-sense and a contradiction to say That a Council is Infallible in the drawing a Conclusion and not Infallible in the use of the means for
which is all the Apostle means that is nothing to your purpose for we are not enquiring whether men may not believe the things which are not seen but whether the assent of Faith may not be consistent with reason which I am so far from thinking any strange doctrine that I cannot see how there can be an assent of Faith without reason And they must be such great meriters at Gods hands as you are who must think to oblige him with believing what you cannot understand or see any ground in reason for For assent being an act of the mind cannot be elicited without sufficient reason perswading the mind to it or else it is so far from being free and as you who are so loath to be beholding to God call it meritorious that it is brutish and irrational Not that there are demonstrations to be expected for every thing we believe but there must be sufficient reason for the mind to build its assent upon and that reason is evidence and that evidence destroyes that obscurity which you make necessary to Faith Evidence I say not of the object but of the reason and obligation to assent When you say That Faith as Faith cannot be Knowledge his Lordship grants it but yet it doth not thence follow that what may be believed by one may not be known by another and though Christ as you add did not set up a School of knowledge but of Faith yet he did not set up a School of blind implicite Faith but such a one as consists of a rational and discursive act of the mind You must not therefore expect that we should believe the definitions of Councils because they pretend to be Infallible but you must first convince our reasons that they are so and then we shall assent to them But you have very well contrived your business to have an obscure implicite Faith for such Doctrines which are so far from any evidence of Reason CHAP. II. Of the use and Authority of General Councils The denying the Infallibility of General Councils takes not away their use and Authority Of the submission due to them by all particular persons How far external obedience is required in case they err No violent opposition to be made against them Rare Inconveniences hinder not the effect of a just power It cannot rationally be supposed that such General Councils as are here meant should often or dangerously err The true notion of a General Council explained The Freedom requisite in the proceedings of it The Rule it must judge by Great difference between external obedience and internal assent to the Decrees of Councils This latter unites men in errour not the former As great uncertainties supposing General Councils Infallible as not Not so great certainty requisite for submission as Faith Whether the Romanists Doctrine of the Infallibility of Councils or ours tend more to the Churches peace St. Austin explained The Keyes according to him given to the Church No unremediable inconvenience supposing a General Councilerr But errours in Faith are so supposing them Infallible when they are not The Church hath power to reverse the Decrees of General Councils The power of Councils not by Divine Institution The unreasonableness of making the Infallibility of Councils depend on the Popes confirmation No consent among the Romanists about the subject of Infallibility whether in Pope or Council No evidence from Scripture Reason or Antiquity for the Popes personal Infallibility THE first question being thus dispatched I now come to the second which is Of what Vse and Authority General Councils are in the Church supposing them not Infallible And here again two things are to be examined first How far General Councils are to be submitted to Secondly Whether our opinion or yours tend more to the peace of the Church for both these his Lordship handles distinctly and so shall we For the first nothing is more necessary then throughly to understand his Lordships meaning which he most fully delivers in these words General Councils lawfully called and ordered and lawfully proceeding are a great and awful representation and cannot err in matters of Faith keeping themselves to Gods rule and not attempting to make a new one of their own and are with all submission to be observed by every Christian where Scripture or evident demonstration comes not against them Two things you mainly object against this opinion 1. That in case such a Council err it tends only to unite men in errour 2. Who shall be Judge of all those conditions implyed in the Councils proceedings to these two all that I can find material scattered up and down in your Discourse on this Subject may be reduced For the first we must consider the occasion of his Lordships entrance into this subject concerning General Councils how far they may err or not which he saith is a question of great consequence in the Church of God For to say they cannot err leaves the Church not only without remedy against an errour once determin'd but also without sense that it may need a remedy and so without care to seek it which is the misery of the Church of Rome at this day To say they can err seems to expose the members of the Church to an uncertainty and wavering in the Faith to make unquiet Spirits not only to disrespect former Councils of the Church but also to slight and contemn whatsoever they may now determine So that great inconveniencies appearing on both sides his Lordship endeavours to steer his course so as not to dash on the rocks of either side by betraying the Churches Faith in asserting their Infallibility or the Churches peace by acknowledging them fallible But as he could not see any reason to believe them Infallible so neither could he see any necessity that the Churches peace should be broken supposing them not to be so And the most obvious objection being If a General Council be fallible what is to be done in case it should err For that he propounds this Expedient That the determination of a General Council erring was to stand in force and to have external obedience at the least yielded to it till evidence of Scripture or a demonstration to the contrary made the errour appear and untill thereupon another Council of equal authority did reverse it And he after explains what he means by this external obedience viz. That which consists in silence patience and forbearance yielded to it which he builds on this reason That Controversies arising in the Church must have some end or they 'l tear all in sunder therefore supposing a General Council should err and an erring Decree be by the Law it self invalid I would have it saith he wisely considered again supposing the Council not to err in Fundamental Verity whether it be not fit to allow a General Council that honour and priviledge which all other great Courts have Namely that there be a declaration of the invalidity of its decrees
exorbitances and capricious humours of any phantastical Spirits which may cry out That the most received truths ever since Christianity was in the world are intolerable errours If you are resolved yet further to ask Who shall be judge what a necessary reason or demonstration is His Lordship tells you I think plain enough from Hooker what is understood by it viz. such as being proposed to any man and understood the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent to it And Do you require any other judge but a mans own reason in this case But you say Others call their arguments demonstrations but let them submit to this way of tryal and they may soon be convinced that they are not Still you say They will not be convinced but will break the peace of the Church supposing they have sufficient evidence for what they say But if men will be unreasonable who can help it Can you with telling them Councils are Infallible I doubt you would hear of more arguments than you could well satisfie against that presently We appeal then to the common reason of mankind Whether it be not a far probable way to end Controversies to perswade men in disputable matters to yield external obedience to the Decrees of a lawful General Council than to tell them they are bound to believe whatever they decree to be infallibly true And therefore you are very much mistaken when you say His Lordship declines the main Question which is of the necessity of submitting to a living Judge or a definitive sentence in case two parties equal for learning and integrity both pretend to equal evidence for what they say for his Lordship doth not deny but that in such a case the submitting to a definitive sentence may be a reasonable way to end the Controversie but then the difference between you lyes in two things 1. That you would bind men to internal assent to the Decrees of a Council as being Infallible but his Lordship saith They bind to external obedience as being the Supremest Judicatory can be expected in the Church 2. You pretend that Councils called and confirmed by the Pope are thus Infallible and our Supreme Judge in matters of Faith his Lordship justly dedies that and sayes That a Free General Council observing the same conditions which the first did is the only equal and indifferent Judge So that the Question is not so much Whether shall be a living Judge as Who shall be he and How far the definitive Sentence binds and What is to be done in case there cannot be a free and indifferent Judge for in this case we say Every Church is bound to regard her own purity and peace and in case of corruptions to proceed to a Reformation of them We now come to the remaining Enquiry which is Whether your Doctrine or ours tends more to the Churches peace For clearing of this his Lordship premises these things by way of Considerations 1. That there is n necessity of any such Infallibility in the Church as was in the Apostles 2. That what Infallibility or Authority belongs to the Church doth primarily reside in the whole body of the Church and not in a General Council 3. That in case a General Council erre the whole Church hath full Authority to represent her self in another Council and so to redress what was amiss either practised or concluded And so upon these principles his Lordship saith Here is a sufficient remedy for what is amiss and yet no infringing any lawful Authority in the Church and yet he grants as the Church of England doth that a General Council may erre But he saith It doth not follow because the Church may erre therefore she may not govern For the Church hath not only a Pastoral Power to teach and direct but a Praetorian also to controll and censure too where errours or crimes are against points fundamental or of great consequence Thus he represents the advantages which follow upon his opinion after which he comes to the disadvantages of yours But we must first consider what you have to object against what his Lordship hath here delivered To the first you say nothing but that Stapleton and Bellarmin attribute more Infallibility to the Church than his Lordship doth which is an excellent way to prove the necessity of it if you had first proved those two Authours Infallible To the second your Answer is more large for his Lordship to confirm what he said That the power and authority given by Christ lyes in the whole Church produces that saying of S. Austin That S. Peter did not receive the Keyes of the Church but as sustaining the person of the Church from whence he proves against Stapleton That it is not to be understood finally only for the good of the Church but that the primary and formal right is in the Church For he that receives a thing in the person of another receives it indeed to his good and use but in his right too To this you answer from Bellarmin That there is a twofold representing or bearing the person of another The one Parabolical and by way of meer figure and supposition only as Agar represented the people of the Jews under bondage of the Law c. The other historical and real viz. when the person representing has right or relation à parte rei in and towards the thing represented by vertue whereof it bears the person of the thing represented Now S. Peter say you sustained the person of the Church in this latter sense really and historically and not parabolically and in figure i. e. he received the Keyes as Head of the Church though that Reception were ordained for the good of the whole Church But Sir our enquiry is not How many waies one may imagine a Representation to be made but What kind of Representation that is which is suitable to S. Austin's meaning That there may be an Allegorical Representation no body denies but I cannot imagine How it can belong to this place or Who ever meant that S. Peter stood here for an Allegory of the Church and therefore the members of your distinction are not apposite For those who assert that S. Peter did sustain the person of the Church in his Lordships sense do yet acknowledge that he did it historicè and not parabolicè as you speak i. e. the donation was really made to him but then the Question is In what right or capacity it was made to him Whether in his personal or representative capacity For these are the two only proper members of a distinction here St. Austin saith not only in that place but in very many others that S. Peter did sustain the person of the Church when Christ said to him I will give thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven Now the Question is In what sense he sustained the person of the Church You say In his own right as Head of the Church We say As
a publick person representing the Church not parabolically for that is no sustaining the person at all but really and historically And that S. Austin means As a publick person appears by the other expressions in the places cited that he did universam significare Ecclesiam signifie the whole Church and that those things which are spoken of Peter Non habent illustrem intellectum nisi cum referuntur ad Ecclesiam cujus ille agnoscitur in figurâ gestâsse personam Have no clear sense but when they are referred to the Church whose person he did bear Can you say this of a King who receives the Keyes of a Town whereof he takes possession for himself though it be for the good of the Kingdom that he signifies the whole Kingdom in it and that it cannot have any clear sense but when it is applied to the Kingdom which he represents No this cannot be for the King takes possession in his own full right and it is not the possession but the administration which is referred properly to the good of the Kingdom But this might be properly said of a Duke of Venice that he takes possession of a Town in the person of the State and that the proper sense is that the State took possession and he only representing it So that the full right lyes in the body of the State but he as chief member represents the whole And this is that which S. Austin means when he saith That S. Peter represented the Church propter primatum for the Primacy which he had amongst the Apostles i e. such a Primacy of order whereby he was fittest to represent the whole Church For it is impossible to conceive that he should mean that S. Peter should receive this as Head of the Church when you acknowledge that he was not Head of the Church till after the Keyes were given him For you say The performance of Christ's Promise in making him Head of the Church was not till after his resurrection But Will you say the Church had no power of the Keyes till then and then only finally too and not formally What became then of the power of the Keyes at S. Peters death if only formally in him and not in the Church What becomes of them at the death of every Pope Will you say as Bellarmin doth that Christ takes them and gives them to his Successour But he must be sure to wait till the Cardinals agree To whom he must give them Nothing then could be further from S. Austin's meaning than that S. Peter received the Keyes as Head of the Church and so that he represented the Church only finally whereas his expressions carry it that he means the formal right of them was conveyed to the Church and that S. Peter was only a publick person to receive them in the name of the Church But whatever S. Austin's meaning was the strength of his Lordships assertion doth not stand or fall with that for there are arguments sufficient besides to prove that the Authority for governing the Church was not committed formally to S. Peter much less to any pretended successour but that it primarily and formally resides in the whole body of the Church And were that the thing to be here disputed you must not think to take it for granted that if the Keyes were given personally to S. Peter by them was meant the Supreme Authority of governing the Church exclusively of the other Apostles To the third Consideration you answer That in case a General Council erre there can be no redress for errour in Faith for if one Council may erre so may another and a third and a fourth c. This indeed is very suitable to your Doctrine from the beginning that a man can be certain of nothing but what it is impossible should be otherwise I hope you are certain your self you do not erre but I suppose you do not think it impossible you should So although we do not think it impossible a Council should erre yet we may be certain it doth not and supposing it should we do not say It is impossible that a Council should not erre so that another Council may correct the errour of the former And doubtless men may be certain of it too if as his Lordship saith plain Scripture and evident demonstration be brought against the former errour But these are strange Doctrines that because a Council may erre therefore a Council can never afford remedy against inconveniences For one great inconvenience is the breaking the Churches peace that is remedied by the Councils Authority another is errour in Faith that may be remedied by another Council No say you for that may erre too but Doth it follow that it must erre or Is it probable that it should erre if the former errour be so discovered and the Council so proceed as his Lordship supposes For your other difficulty about the calling another General Council I have answered it already when I shewed what we meant by a General Council and when it was lawfully call'd When you after add That the Church never represented her self in another Council but where the former Council was unlawful and instance in the Councils of Ariminum and Ephesus you say the same which his Lordship doth for these Councils were therefore accounted unlawful because erroneous and factious and he never asserts the necessity of calling a new Council but in those two cases But if you would have us account none such but whom you do you must excuse us till we see greater reason for it then we do yet and so likewise for what follows that the Councils which rectified the errours of those were called by the Popes authority as that of Trent and others were which to speak mildly is a gross untruth You urge from his Lordships granting That the Church hath a Praetorian power to controul and censure too where errours or crimes are against points Fundamental or of great consequence that therefore he and all Protestants are justly censured by the Roman Church for opposing those Doctrines which are with her Fundamental and of great consequence But still there is no difference with you between the Roman Church and the Catholick between Papal Councils and Free and General between what she judges Fundamental and what all are bound to judge so If you prove then that we are bound to rely only on the judgement of your Church your consequence is good but otherwise it is tyed with a rope of sand and therefore we do not fear the lashes of it And the same fault runs through your subsequent discourse in which you suppose the Church Infallible in all she propounds which you know is constantly denyed and hath been at large disproved in our first Part. For the ground of your resolution of Faith being removed I see the Fabrick of your Church falls down with it For take but away your pretence of Infallibility and your confounding the Catholick and Roman
Church all the rest moulders as not being able to stand without them But that is still your way if any thing be said of the Catholick Church we must presently understand it of yours so that it cannot be said in any sense that the Church is without spot or wrinkle but by you it must be understood presently of the Doctrine of the Roman Catholick Church universally received as a matter of Faith but till you prove not only your two former assertions but that St. Austin understood those words ever in that sense your vindication of that place in him concerning it will appear utterly impertinent to your purpose And his Lordships assertion may still stand good That the Church on earth is not any freer from wrinkles in Doctrine and Discipline then she is from spots in life and Conversation Having thus vindicated his Lordships way from the objections you raised against it we must now consider how well you vindicate your own from the unreasonableness he charges it with in several particulars 1. That if we suppose a General Council Infallible and it prove not so but that an errour in Faith be concluded the same erring opinion which makes it think it self Infallible makes the errour of it irrevocable and so leaves the Church without remedy To this you Answer Grant false antecedents and false premises enow and what absurdities will not be consequent and fill up the conclusion But you clearly mistake the present business which is not Whether Councils be Infallible or no but Whether opinion be lyable to greater Inconveniencies that which asserts that they may or that they cannot err Will you have your supposition of the Infallibility of Councils taken for a first principle or a thing as true as the Scriptures So you would seem indeed by the supposing the Scriptures not to be Gods Word which you subjoyn as the parallel to the supposing General Councils fallible But will you say the one is as evident and built on as good reason and as much agreed on among Christians as the other is I suppose you will not and therefore it was very absurd unreasonable to say Supposing the Word of God were not so errours would be irrevocable as if General Councils were supposed Infallible and proved not so But this is a Question you grant to be disputable among Christians and will you not give us leave to make a supposition that it may prove not so You must consider we are now enquiring into the conveniencies of these two opinions and in that case it is necessary to make such suppositions And let any reasonable man judge what opinion can be more pernicious to the Church then yours is supposing it not to be true for then it will be necessary for men to assent to the grossest errours as the most Divine and Infallible truths and there can be no remedy imagin'd for the redress of them If then the Inconvenience of admitting it be so great men had need look well to the grounds on which it is built And I cannot see any reason men can have to admit any Infallible proponent in matters of Faith to the Church but on as great and as clear evidence as the Prophets and Apostles had that they were sent from God For the danger may be as great to believe that to be Infallible which is not as not to believe that to be Infallible which is for the believing an errour to be a Divine truth may be as dangerous to the souls of men as the not believing something which is really revealed by God But to be sure those who see no reason to believe a General Council to be Infallible cannot be obliged to assent to errours propounded by it but such who believe it Infallible must what ever the errours be swallow them down without questioning the truth of them And it argues how conscious you are of the falseness of your principles that you are so loath to have them examined or so much as a supposition made that they should not prove true Whereas truth alwayes invites men to the most accurate search into it We see the Apostles bid men search whether the things they spake were true or no and those are most commended who did it most and I hope men were as much bound to believe them Infallible as General Councils But we see how unreasonable you are you would obtrude such things upon mens Faith which must lead them into unavoidable errours if false and yet not allow men the liberty of examination whether they be true or no. But such proceedings are so far from advancing your cause that nothing can more prejudice it among rational and inquisitive men His Lordship for the clearing this proceeds to an Instance of an errour defined by one of your General Councils viz. Communion in one kind but that we shall reserve the discussion of to the ensuing Chapter which is purposely allotted for the discovery of those errours which have been defined by such as you call General Councils Therefore I proceed 2. His Lordship saith Your opinion is yet more unreasonable because no Body-collective whensoever it assembled it self did ever give more power to the representing body of it then a binding power upon it self and all particulars nor ever did it give this power otherwise then with this reservation in nature that it would call again and reform and if need were abrogate any Law or ordinance upon just cause made evident that the representing Body had failed in trust or truth And this power no Body-collective ecclesiastical or civil can put out of it self or give away to a Parliament or Council or call it what you will that represents it To this again you Answer This is only to suppose and take for granted that a General Council hath no Authority but what is meerly delegate from the Church Vniversal which it represents I grant this is supposed in it and this is all which the nature of a representative body doth imply if you say there is more then that you are bound to prove it Yes say you We maintain its Authority to be of Divine Institution and when lawfully assembled to act by Divine right and not meerly by deputation and consent of the Church But if all the proof you have for it be only that which you refer us to in the precedent Chapter the palpable weakness of it for any such purpose hath been there fully laid open His Lordship saith That the power which a Council hath to order settle and define differences arising concerning Faith it hath not by any Immediate Institution from Christ but it was prudently taken up by the Church from the Apostles example So that to hold Councils to this end is apparent Apostolical Tradition written but the power which Councils have is from the whole Catholick Church whose members they are and the Churches power from God You say True it is the calling such
assemblies was taken up and hath for its pattern the example of the Apostles Act. 15. yet surely there is little doubt to be made but the Apostles had both direction and precept too for doing it so often as just occasion required from Christ himself The whole force of which Answer lyes in those well placed words Surely there is little doubt to be made for as to any thing of reason you never offer at it Just such another of Bellarmins Sine dubio's comes after Though a General Council be the Church representative and do not meet or assemble together hic nunc but by order and deputation from man yet it follows not but the power and authority by which they act when they are met may be from God as doubtless it is Can any man have the face to question Whether the Authority of General Councils be of Divine Institution or no when you say Yes surely there is no doubt to be made of it doubtless it is We do not question as you would seem to imply afterwards Whether the people or the Pastours have right to send to General Councils but what ground you have to assert that General Councils are an immediate Divine Institution But I must needs say I never saw any thing affirmed oftener and offered to be proved less then that is here and yet as though you had done it invincibly you triumphantly proceed General Councils then are a principal and necessary part of that Ecclesiastical Hierarchy which Christ instituted for the Government of his Church and not an humane Expedient only taken up by the Church her self meerly upon prudential considerations as the Bishop will needs conceive It strangely puzzles me to find out any thing that Particle then relates to and after all my search can find nothing but surely without doubt and doubtless I pray Sir think not so meanly of us that we should take these for Arguments or Demonstrations Deal fairly with us and if we fall by the force of reason we yield our selves up to you But you are very much deceived if you think these things are taken for proofs with us we can easily discern the weakness of your cause through the most confident affirmations If you had brought any Law of Christ appointing that General Councils should be in the Church any Apostolical precept prescribing or giving directions concerning them you had done something but not so much as to offer at a proof and yet conclude it as confidently as if it were impossible to resist the force of your Demonstrations is an evidence that either you know your cause to be weak or suppose us to be so Much such another discourse is that which follows wherein you pretend to give a reason Why what is defined by one Council in point of Doctrine cannot be reversed by another Which is because the true Christian Faith is ex natura rei unchangeable that it admits not of yea and nay but only yea that it is alwayes the same that it must stand without alteration for ever nay that it is to be invariable and admit no change All these expressions we have in one Paragraph and for all that I see are the greatest strength of it But what is it you mean by all this Do you think we could not understand what you meant by the unchangeableness of Christian Faith without so many diversified expressions of it And what follows now from all this That one Council cannot repeal the Decrees of another How so was not the Faith of Christ as unchangeable in the time of the Arrian Councils as it is now and yet then one Council repealed the Decrees of others in point of Doctrine and yet by that nothing was derogated from the Institution or honour of Christ by such a reversing those Decrees Though the Faith i. e. The Doctrine of Christ be alwayes the same Doth it thence follow then men shall alwayes believe all this unalterable Doctrine If so how came Arrianism to overspread the Church How came six hundred Bishops at the Council of Ariminum to be deceived in a Doctrine of Faith by your own confession It is therefore a profound mistake to infer from the fallibility of General Councils the alteration of the Faith of Christ. The Faith of Christ is founded on a surer bottom then the Decrees of Councils though all men are lyars God is true and Christ the same yesterday to day and for ever But of this more afterwards You would seem to argue more pertinently in the following pages against his Lordships opinion for you say He sayes and unsayes the same and what he seems to attribute to General Councils in one proposition he takes away in another That which his Lordship sayes is That the definitions of a General Council are binding to all particulars and it self but yet so that they cannot bind the whole Church from calling again and in the after-calls upon just cause to order and if need be to abrogate former acts And after adds And because the whole Church can meet no other way the Council shall remain the Supream external living temporary Ecclesiastical Judge of all Controversies Only the whole Church and she alone hath power when Scripture or Demonstration is found and peaceably tendered to her to represent her self again in a new Council and in it to order what was amiss Now we must consider what we find contradictious and repugnant to themselves in these words Three things if I mistake not the main of this charge may be reduced to 1. That men should be bound to that which Scripture and Demonstration be against But this is very easily answered for his Lordship doth not say Men are bound to believe it but not so to oppose it as to break the peace of the Church by it 2. That another Council cannot be call'd without opposition to the other this his Lordship prevented by supposing that the just reasons against the decrees of the former Council ought to be peaceably tendred to the Church but no boisterous opposition to be made against it 3. To what purpose should another Council be call'd if the whole Church be satisfied that there is Scripture and Demonstration against the decrees of the former But 1. His Lordship supposes there may Scripture and Demonstration be where the whole Church is not satisfied and therefore there may be necessity of calling another Council 2. That the Council may free all those who may suppose themselves still bound not to oppose the former errour 3. That no erroneous Decree of a Council may remain unrepealed in the Church that so no erroneous person may challenge such a Decree of a Council as a ground for his opposition to the Doctrine of the Church And where now lyes any such appearance of contradiction in his Lordships words 3. The last thing his Lordship chargeth your way with unreasonableness in is That you do not only make the definition of a General Council
erred yet we have yielded so much to you as to disprove what you have in general brought for the one before we come to meddle with the other But that being dispatched we come to a more short and compendious way of overthrowing your Infallibility by shewing the palpable falsity of such principles which must be owned by you as Infallible truths because defined by General Councils confirmed by the Pope Whereof The first in the Endictment as you say is that of the Priests Intention defined by the Councils of Florence and Trent both of them confirmed by the Pope to be essentially necessary to the validity of a Sacrament Concerning this there are two things to be enquired into 1. Whether this doth not render all pretence of Infallibility with you a vain and useless thing 2. Whether it be not in it self an errour We must begin with the first of these for that was the occasion of his Lordships entering upon it for he was shewing That your claim of Infallibility is of no use at all for the settling of Truth and Peace in the Church because no man can either know or believe this Infallibility It cannot be believed with Divine Faith having no foundation either in the written Word of God or Tradition of the Catholick Church and no humane Faith can be sufficient in order to it But neither can it be believed or known upon that decree of the Councils of Florence and Trent that the intention of the Priest is necessary to the validity of a Sacrament And lest you should think I represent his Lordships words too much with advantage I will take his Argument in the words you have summed it up in which are these Before the Church or any particular man can make use of the Popes Infallibility that is be settled and confirmed in the Truth by means thereof he must either know or upon sure grounds believe that he is Infallible But sayes the Bishop this can only be believed of him as he is S. Peters Successour and Bishop of Rome of which it is impossible in the relatours opinion for the Church or any particular man to have such certainty as is sufficient to ground an Infallible belief Why because the knowledge and belief of this depends upon his being truly in Orders truly a Bishop truly a Priest truly Baptized none of all which according to our principles can be certainly known and believed because forsooth the intention of him that administred these Sacraments to the Pope or made him Bishop Priest c. can never be certainly known and yet by the Doctrine of the Councils of Florence and Trent it is of absolute necessity to the validity of every one of these Sacraments so as without it the Pope were neither Bishop nor Priest Thus I grant you have faithfully sum'd up his Lordships Argument we must now see with what courage and success you encounter it Your first Answer is That though it be level'd against the Popes Infallibility yet it hath the same force against the Infallibility of the whole Church in points fundamental for we cannot be Infallibly sure there is such a number of Baptized persons to make a Church By this we see how likely you are to assoil this difficulty who bring it more strongly upon your self without the least inconvenience to your adversary For I grant it necessarily follows against the pretence of any Infallibility whether in Church Councils or Pope as being a certain ground for Faith for all these must suppose such a certainty of the due administration of Sacraments which your Doctrine of Intention doth utterly destroy For these two things are your principles of Faith that there can be no certainty of Faith without present Infallibility of the Church and that in order to the believing this testimony Infallible there must be such a certainty as is ground sufficient for an Infallible belief Now How is it possible there can be such when there can be no certainty of the Being of a Church Council or Pope from your own principles For when the only way of knowing this is a thing not possible to be evidenced to any one in any way of Infallible certainty viz. the intention of the Priest you must unavoidably destroy all your pretence of Infallibility For To what purpose do you tell me that Pope or Councils are Infallible unless I may be Infallibly sure that such decrees were passed by Pope and Council I cannot be assured of that unless I be first assured that they were Baptized persons and Bishops of the Church and for this you dare not offer at Infallible certainty and therefore all the rest is useless and vain So that while by this Doctrine of the intention of the Priest for the validity of the Sacraments you thought to advance higher the reputation of the Priesthood and to take away the assurance of Protestants as to the benefits which come by the use of the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper you could not have asserted any thing more really pernicious to your selves than this Doctrine is So strange an incogitancy was it in those Councils to define it and as great in those who defend it and yet at the same time maintain the necessity of a present Infallibility in the Church and General Councils For can any thing be more rational then to desire the highest assurance as to that whose decrees I am to believe Infallible And yet at the last you confess we can have but a moral certainty of it and that of the lowest degree the utmost ground of it being either the testimony of the Priest himself or that we have no ground to suspect the contrary Now what unreasonable men are you who so much to the dishonour of Christian Religion cry out upon the rational evidence of the truth of it as an uncertain principle and that Protestants though they assert the highest degree of actual certainty cannot have any Divine Faith because they want the Churches Infallible testimony and yet when we enquire into this Infallible Testimony you are fain to resolve it into one of the most uncertain and conjectural things imaginable For what can I have less ground to build my Faith upon than that the Priest had at least a virtual intention to do as the Church doth Whom must I believe in this case and whereon must that Faith be grounded On the Priests Testimony But how can I be assured but that he who may wander in his intention may do so in his expression too Or must I do it because I have no reason to suspect the contrary how can you assure me of that that I have no reason to suspect the contrary no otherwise then by telling me that the Priest is a man of that honesty and integrity that he cannot be supposed to do such a thing without intention So that though I were in Italy or Spain where some have told us it is no hard matter to meet with Jews
do they administer the Sacrament What other words are there to give them a power to do the one distinct from them whereby they pretend a right for the other 3. There is no evidence at all from Antiquity that Hoc facite hath any respect to the Eucharist as a Sacrifice or to the making the Apostles Priests And so much is confessed by Estius viz. that neither is this exposition found in any ancient Writer nor is it suitable to our Saviours purpose For he saith it is not absolutely said Facite but Hoc facite i. e. that which ye see me do do ye likewise So that still by virtue of these words those who do receive authority to administer are bound to follow Christs example and that as he did administer in both kinds to all who were present so ought they to do likewise But there is one Exception yet more left which is the last Reserve viz. that although it be granted to be a command that the Cup should be administred to all yet it is only a positive command binding in the general but yet it is of the nature of all affirmative precepts that though it alwaies binds yet not at all times but only in case of necessity of which necessity the Church is the most competent Judge and therefore if the Church do not think it necessary then the obligation ceases To which I answer 1. That upon this ground it will be in the Churches power to repeal or suspend all divine positive precepts as well as this For the reason of this will hold for all others which is that they do not oblige as they speak ad semper but only semper i. e. not at all times though they never cease to oblige And therefore on this ground for all that I can see the Church may as well repeal the use of Baptism or the Eucharist it self as the communion in both kinds all being of of an equal nature as affirmative precepts But Is it possible to imagine that Christ appointing positive Institutions in his Church and giving precepts and plain directions about them should yet leave it in the power of any men to reverse alter suspend the obligation to the performance of those commands Did not he foresee all cases of necessity when he first appointed these things and if notwithstanding that he makes a plain command for the observance of them What can such a pretended power in the Church signifie but an authority to alter or repeal what she pleases in the Laws of Christ 2. There is a great deal of difference between the nature of the obligation of affirmative precepts and the prohibiting the use of something positively commanded For although positive precepts do not bind at all times yet that reaches only to the thing it self and not to the mode of performance Thus we say That the Eucharist being a positive Institution doth not oblige men at all times to be partakers of it but if on that account any Church should undertake to forbid the celebration of it this were a direct violation of the Law it self and not an Interpretation of it in regard of circumstances And what ever obligation of this nature there is it respects the whole duty But it doth by no means follow that therefore in the celebration the Church may declare what may be used and what not For the manner of performance in case it be performed at all is absolutely commanded it is only the performance in general which is of the nature of a positive precept Thus we say Men are not bound to pray at all times though they be alwaies bound to pray but in case men do pray they are indispensably bound to pray as God hath required them to do it So we say here That men are not bound at all times to administer or receive the Eucharist but in case they do they are indispensably bound to receive it according to Christ's Institution So that this of communion in both kinds relates to the manner of a positive precept and is not a distinct positive precept by it self and therefore is indispensably by any authority of the Church Besides your Church doth not meerly suspend the exercise of this in case of necessity but forbids men the doing it which is a direct and wilful violation of the Institution of Christ. And therefore the Question is not as it is strangely perverted by some of you Whether it be necessary at all times to receive the Cup although even that be true in case of receiving at all but whether it be in the Churches power at all to prohibit the receiving it and this we say and are ready to make good to be a presumptuous violation of the Laws of Christ and an usurping an Authority which may as well extend to all positive Institutions And thus I hope I have made that appear which you say his Lordship should have done viz. that Christ did so institute the Sacrament of his last Supper that he would not have one part to be administred without the other nor one part to be taken without the other The same I might also at large shew from the Reasons of this Institution that they do equally belong to the people as well as the Priests and that those reasons are of a nature as unalterable as the Institution it self whereby I should have shewed the vanity of your distinction of the Eucharist into a Sacrament and a Sacrifice and the absurdity of your Doctrine of Concomitancy but that would be too large for our present design and that which you give me not sufficient ground to enter upon since the obligation is sufficiently cleared from the Institution it self I therefore proceed to shew that the Primitive Church did alwaies understand the Communion in both kinds to be an indispensible part of the Institution of Christ. Which one would think were evident enough from S. Paul in his bringing the Corinthians back to the Primitive Institution as that unalterable Rule which they were to observe For if because of some ill customs which had obtained amongst them he tells them This is not to eat the Lords Supper How much more would he have said so if there had been an mutilation of the parts of it And all along in his discourse he supposes Christs Institution to be the indispensable Rule which they ought to observe That which I have received of the Lord I delivered unto you not certainly to leave it in their power Whether they would observe it or no but to shew them what their duty was and what they ought unalterably to observe Else he would never have told them so much of the danger of unworthy receiving in eating the Bread and drinking the Cup of the Lord unworthily For Can we possibly think that the rudeness of their access to the Lords Table was so great a sin and the violation of his Institution to be none at all The Apostles were such strangers to the Doctrine
wine nor communicated under the form of wine as 't is certain they frequently did in S. Leo 's time and after But you have very unhappily light of this for your first proof which is so evident against you For Leo who mentions the Manichees communicating in Catholick Churches tells the Catholicks What way they might discern them from themselves viz. that though they received the bread yet they refused the wine by which saith he you may discover their sacrilegious hypocrisie and by that means they may be expelled out of the society of Catholicks You were therefore very ill advised to make choice of this for your argument which makes it plain that all Catholicks did receive in both kinds and that the Manichees might be thereby known that they did not And if it were the custom for the Catholicks sometimes to receive in both kinds and sometimes not which is all the shift Bellarmin hath and the Manichees not at all this could be no note of distinction between them for although the Manichees might not receive at one time they could not tell but they might at another Now Leo's intention being to give such a note of distinction that they might not receive at all among them it evidently follows that all the Catholicks did constantly receive in both kinds and that they were only Manichees who did abstain from the Cup. For that Story which Bellarmin insists on and you referr to of the woman who being a Macedonian Heretick yet pretending to communicate with the Catholicks had the bread which her Maid brought with her and which she took instead of the Eucharist turned into a stone in her mouth upon which she runs presently to the Bishop and with tears confessed her fault as we take it wholly upon the Faith of Sozomen from whom Nicephorus transcribes it so I cannot imagine what it proves for your purpose unless it be that they in whose mouths the bread turns into a stone too will hardly have patience till the Cup be administred to them For so both Sozomen and Nicephorus relate it that immediately upon her feeling it to be a stone she ran to the Bishop and shewed him the stone acknowledging with tears her miscarriage But besides this you bring several Instances from the Communion of Hermites in the wilderness of travellers on their journeys of sick persons in their beds and private Communions in houses and lastly little Children in the Church and at home in their Cradles which communicated in form of wine only And Are not all these invincible proofs that there was a publick solemn administration of the Communion in one kind publickly allowed in Churches in all times When you can prove that the Communion of Hermites was in the Church or that they did not receive as well the wine as the bread in the wilderness or that such Communion was approved by the Church That the Communion of Travellers was not meer Communion in Prayers as Baronius and Albaspinaeus assert without any participation of the Eucharist at all or if it were that it was only a participation in one kind against which Albaspinaeus gives many reasons That the Communion of the sick was without wine when Justin Martyr saith That both bread and wine were sent to the absent when Eusebius tells us That the bread given to Serapion was dipt when S. Hierom saith of Exuperius That he preserved the blood in a glass for the use of the sick That Private Communions were without wine since Gregory Nazianzen saith his Sister Gorgonia preserved both the symbols of the body and blood of Christ and Albaspinaeus confesses that one might be carried home as well as the other or that these were approved by the Church since Durantus saith That the use of Private Communions coming up by persecutions were abrogated afterwards and are expresly condemned by the Council of Caesar-Augusta about the year 381. and the first Council of Toledo about A. D. 400. Lastly that the Communion of Infants was only in one kind either in the Church or at home or that this Communion of Infants which the Council of Trent condemns was a due administration of the Eucharist When I say you have proved all these things the utmost you can hence inferr is only that in some rare cases and accidental occasions Communion in one kind was allowed of But what is all this to the proving that the stated solemn administration of the Eucharist in one kind was ever practised much less allowed within a thousand years after Christ. And yet if you could prove that you fall short of vindicating your Church unless you add this which you never so much as touch at viz. That it was ever in all that time thought lawful to forbid the celebration of the Eucharist in both kinds Prove but this which is your only proper task and I say as his Lordship doth in another case You shall be my Apollo for ever We proceed to a fourth errour which is the Invocation of Saints defined by the Council of Trent As to which that which his Lordship saith may be reduced to three things 1. That those expressions of the Fathers which seem most to countenance it are but Rhetorical flourishes 2. That the Church then did not admit of the Invocation of Saints but only of the commemoration of Martyrs 3. That the Doctrine of the Roman Church makes the Saints more then Mediatours of Intercession To these three I shall confine my discourse on this subject and therefore shall follow you close in your Answers to them For the first When you are proving that the Fathers expressions were not Rhetorical flourishes you would fain have your own accounted so For say you How can it seem to any that duly considers it but most extreamly partial and strange to term so many exhortations so many plain and positive assertions so many Instances Examples Histories Reports and the like which the Fathers frequently use and afford in this kind and that upon occasions wherein dogmatical and plain delivery of Christian Doctrine and truth is expected nothing but flourishes of wit and Rhetorick And after you call these meer put-off's as before you had said That when any thing in the Fathers is against us then it is Rhetorick only when against you then it is dogmatical and the real sense of the Fathers But these are only General words fit only to deceive such who believe bold affirmations sooner then solid proofs This is a thing must be tryed by particulars because it is on both sides acknowledged that the Fathers did many times use their Rhetorick and that such things are uttered by them in their Panegyrical Orations especially which will not abide a severe tryal Doth not Bellarmin confess that St. Chrysostome doth often hyperbolize and Sixtus Senensis say as much of others that in the heat of their discourses they are carried beyond what they would have said in a strict debate But who are better
Judges of these things then the Fathers themselves Are they not the men who have bid us distinguish what comes from them in a heat from that which they deliver as the Doctrine of the Church Have not they told us that the popular Orations uttered in Churches are no rules of opinion Have not some of them when they have seemed extream vehement and earnest at last come off with this That they have been declaiming all that while Witness St. Hierome against Helvidius and if you make not use of the same rule to put a favourable construction on his Books against Jovinian Vigilantius Ruffinus and others you will as little be able to excuse him from strange Doctrines as from intemperate heats What put-off then is it for us to say that St. Basil in his Oration on Mammas and the forty eight Martyrs that S. Gregory Nazianzen in his Panegyrical Orations on St. Basil St. Athanasius St. Cyprian his sister Gorgonia St. Gregory Nyssen in his commendation of Theodorus do make use of their Rhetorick in Apostrophe's to the persons whom they praise without any solemn Invocation of them What is there herein unsuitable to their present purpose Is it any more then Oratours have commonly done What strange thing is it then that those great Masters of Rhetorick should make use of their art to raise the people not only to a high esteem of their persons but of those vertues which rendred them so illustrious Might not such expressions by way of Apostrophe be still used by such who are furthest from the Invocation of Saints although by their example we are taught how dangerous it is to indulge Rhetorick too much in such cases But as though they foresaw the ill use would be made of them they add such expressions as sufficiently tell us they made no solemn Invocation of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the like Had these persons a mind to deliver a Doctrine of Invocation of Saints who speak with such hesitation and doubt as to their sense of what was spoken For it is a groundless shift to say that those expressions imply an affirmation and not doubt That which we say then is this That the Doctrine of the Church is not to be judged by such Encomiastick Orations wherein such Rhetorical flourishes are usual and when you bring us their plain and positive assertions we will by no means give you that Answer That those are flourishes of wit and Rhetorick But his Lordship very well knew how far you were from any such dogmatical assertions of the Fathers in this point and that the most plausible testimonies which you had were taken out of those three great Oratours in their Panegyricks in praise of their Friends or of the Martyrs and therefore it was he said Though some of the ancient Fathers have some Rhetorical flourishes about it for the stirring up devotion as they thought yet the Church then admitted not of the Invocation of Saints That is it we stand on that no such thing was admitted by the Church if we should yield that any particular though great persons were too lavish in their expressions this way must these be the standard which we must judge of the Doctrine of the Church by We must consider the Church was now out of persecution and ease and honour attended that profession of Christianity for which such multitudes had endured the flames and the people began to grow more loose and vain then when they still expected Martyrdoms This made these great men so highly commend the Martyrs in their popular Orations not to propound them as objects of Invocation but as examples for their imitation Thence they encouraged them to frequent the Memoriae martyrum that by their assemblies in those places they might revive something of that pristine heat of devotion which was now so much abated among them But the event was so far from answering their expectation that by this means they grew by degrees to place much of their Religion rather in honouring the former Martyrs and Saints then in striving to imitate them in their vertues and graces And from the frequenting the places where the Martyrs were enshrined through the pretence of some extatical dreams and visions or some rare occurrences which they say happened at those places they began to turn their real honour into superstitious devotion which at last ended in solemn Invocation To which no small encouragement was given when such persons as S. Hierom and others were so far from putting a stop to the growing evil that though they confessed many miscarriages committed yet they rather sought to palliate them and make the best construction of them still hoping that this zeal in the people to the honour of the Martyrs would promote devotion among them whereas it sunk gradually into greater superstitions This I take to be the truest and most faithful account of those first beginnings and tendencies to Invocation of Saints which appeared in the latter end of the fourth Century For before that time we meet with nothing that can bear the face of any positive and plain assertions instances examples histories or reports tending that way Which is so clear that Cardinal Perron after the best use of his wit and diligence to find out something to this purpose within the three first Centuries at last confesses that in the Authours who lived nearer the Apostles times no footsteps can be found of the Invocation of Saints But when he gives this account of it That most of the writings of that time are lost it makes us see what poor excuses bad causes will drive the greatest wits to For are not the writings of Justin Martyr Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Tertullian Cyprian Arnobius Lactantius and others still extant who were pious and learned men And is it possible that such men should all of them conceal such a Doctrine as this which would so easily appear in the face of the Church But it is well we have the confession of so great a man for the best ages of the Church and not only so but he acknowledges withall That there is neither precept nor example for it in the Scripture Which others not only assert but offer to give reasons for it for the Old Testament Because the Fathers were not then admitted to the beatifical vision and for the New Testament Because the Apostles were men of such piety and humility that they would not admit of it themselves and therefore made no mention of it in their writings and withall Because in the beginning of Christianity there would have been a suspicion that they had only changed the names of Heathen Deities and retained the same kinds of worship These for the new Testament we admit of not as Rhetorical flourishes but as plain and positive assertions which contain a great deal of truth and reason in them So that here is a confessed silence as to this Doctrine throughout all the story of Scripture and for three
hundred years and more after Christ and in all this time we meet with no such assertions instances examples reports and the like which tend to establish this new Doctrine But in stead of this we meet with very plain assertions to the contrary back'd with strong and invincible reasons and herein not to insist on those places in Scripture which appropriate Invocation to God only and that in regard of his incommunicable attributes of omnisciency and infinite goodness and power which are the only foundations given in Scripture for Invocation nor to mention those places where all tendencies to such kind of worship of any created Being are severely checked and wherein an Inferiour and relative worship is condemned on this account Because all worship is due to God only and wherein that very pretence of humility in not coming to God but through some Mediatour is expresly spoken against nor to inlarge how much this Doctrine of Invocation of Saints is injurious to God by giving that worship to creatures which belongs only to himself and how repugnant it is to Divine wisdom that prayers should be made to Saints for them to intercede with God when they cannot know what those prayers are till God reveals them nor how dishonourable it is to Christ both in regard of his merits and intercession nor how great a check it is to true piety to put men to pray to them whom they can have no ground to believe do hear or regard their prayers and in the mean time to take them off from their serious and solemn addresses to God Not to insist I say on these things because I design no set discourse on this subject which hath been so amply handled by so many already I shall only discover the sense of the Primitive Church in this particular by two things the one of which takes in the first three Centuries and the other extends a great deal farther From which I doubt not but to make it evident how farr the Invocation of Saints was from being received then The first is from the Answers given to the Heathens when it was objected against the Christians that they did worship dead men and Angels I confess some have been so subtle as from hence to inferr that they did it or else say they the Heathens would never have charg'd them with it But they who read the Christians Apologies will find farr more unreasonable things than this laid to their charge and I hope they will not say there must be an equal ground for all the other imputations also But it seems they more believe the Heathens Objections then the Christians Answers who utterly disavow any such thing The first mention we find of any such imputation is in that excellent Epistle of the Church of Smyrna to the Church of Philomylium concerning the Martyrdome of Polycarpe wherein they tell us how some suggested to Nicetas that he should desire the Proconsul that Polycarp's body might not be granted to the Christians Lest say they they should leave to worship Him that was Crucified and worship him to which they return this excellent Answer They are ignorant that we can never be induced to forsake Christ who suffered for the salvation of all who shall be saved of the whole world or to worship any other for him being the Son of God we adore But the Martyrs as the Disciples and followers of the Lord we love worthily for their exceeding great affection toward their own King and Master of whom we wish that we may be partners and disciples Can any thing be more express then this is to shew what difference they put between Christ and the Martyrs Not that they worshipped one as God with an absolute direct worship and the other as subordinate intercessours with a relative and indirect worship as you would have told them but they worship'd Christ and none but him because he was the Son of God but for the Martyrs they loved them indeed but they worship'd them not at all for so much is implyed in the Antithesis between that and their worship of Christ. So that these words are exclusive of any kind of worship which they gave to the Martyrs for they were so far from giving them that worship which belonged to the Son of God that they only expressed their love to them without giving them any worship And in the old Latin translation of this Epistle of which there are two MSS. extant in England when they say They can worship none else but Christ it is there rendred Neque alteri cuiquam precem orationis impendere Nor impart the supplication of prayer to any other As the late learned Lord Primat Vsher hath observed which utterly destroyes the Doctrine of Invocation We proceed further to see what account Origen gives of the Christian Doctrine touching Invocation in his Answer to Celsus wherein he had sufficient occasion given him to declare the sense of the Church at that time And if he had known or approved any relative worship given to Angels or Saints it is not conceivable that he should express himself in such a manner as he doth For when Celsus enquires what kind of Beings they thought Angels to be Origen answers that although the Scripture sometimes calls them Gods it is not with that intention that we ought to worship them For saith he all prayers and supplications and intercessions and thanksgivings are to be sent up to God the Lord of all by the High-priest who is above all Angels being the living Word and God For to call upon Angels we not comprehending the knowledge of them which is above the reach of man is unreasonable And supposing it were granted that the knowledge of them which is wonderful and secret might be comprehended this very knowledge declaring their nature to us and the charge over which every one of them is set would not permit us to presume to pray unto any other but God the Lord of all who is abundantly sufficient for all by our Saviour the Son of God In which Testimony we clearly see what the judgement of the Church then was concerning Invocation For in a matter of Divine worship equally concerning the whole Church we have no reason to imagine that Origen should deliver any private opinion of his own And herein we are plainly told That all prayers and supplications are to be made to God only through Christ that in such cases where we are Ignorant of the nature of Beings it is unreasonable for us to pray to them as we certainly are concerning separated souls as well as Angels that in case we did know them yet it would not be reasonable to pray to them both because they are inferiour and ministring Spirits and that God himself is abundantly sufficient for all through Christ. Now let any reasonable man judge whether these Arguments do not hold as well against a relative and subordinate Invocation as absolute and Soveraign But no
and Ononychites for all these are in the same Chapter and equally reckon'd among the false accusations of the Christians But it seems you had rather believe the Heathens objection than the Christians denial whose Answer we find express to the contrary in Minutius Felix Cruces nec colimus nec optamus we neither wish for nor worship Crosses and Tertullian in answer to the former cavil saith Quod colimus nos Deus unus est That which we worship is only God They were then strangers to any such distinctions of worship as you have invented to answer such places with viz. that they did not worship them absolutely but relatively And for all that I can perceive by the same distinctions you may prove that the Christians did worship Daemons and Heroes for although they deny it never so much I may as well say they meant only by it that they did not worship them with the Worship proper only to God but with an inferiour and relative Worship as you say as much concerning Images by which Art you may evade all denyals whatsoever For your place of S. Chrysostom the most that Bellarmin makes of it is That in his time the Cross was wont to be painted in all places in Cities Houses Chambers Vessels not a word in him of Altars which he would not have left out had he found any such thing in him but you intended to take care we should not search too farr by not referring us to the Edition of S. Chrysostom which you or your Authour made use of But What is all this to the veneration of the Cross if we grant that it did make a glorious shew on the Altar Could it not make a glorious shew unless they all fell down and worshipped it And Can you think now that these testimonies are sufficient against the whole strain of Antiquity to perswade men that the veneration of Images was used in the Ancient Church But you are men who can believe what you have a mind to any word clause or impertinent allegation which doth but seem afar off to cast an eye towards you is presently the consent of all Antiquity when the most pregnant testimonies of the best Writers of the Church against you are pish'd at and scorned or else eluded with most frivolous interpretations or lastly suspected without any shadow of reason As the Epistle of Epiphanius and the Canon of the Eliberine Council have been in this present Controversie When you shall produce your other testimonies an Answer shall attend them but you must not think the story of the Statue at Paneas which Eusebius attributes to a Heathenish Custom besides the many improbabilities in it will ever perswade us that the Christians did then worship Images But it would now take up too much time to examine that particularly with others of a like nature What I have said already being sufficient to give an account of the sense of the Primitive Church as to this subject which is our present business We pass by the resemblance between the Feasts at the Oratories of Martyrs and the Heathen Parentalia because you say now it seems wholly extirpated And I would not charge you with more faults than you are guilty of since you have enough without it An evidence of which is your discarding all persons from your communion who are not such Bigots as to approve all the abuses and corruptions among you Which sufficiently appears by your censure of Cassander Who you say seemed to many to halt between God and Baal and although he was not actually excommunicate yet you would have us believe he was meritoriously so because he favoured Heresie so much By which we see that we must not judge all of the Roman Communion who profess themselves to be of it for so Cassander did to his death But whoever offer to find the least fault with the practices or Doctrine of your Church let them pretend never so much to be of it yet they may be excommunicate sententiâ juris and so not only Cassander but Erasmus Fspencaeus Ferus Barns Picherellus and all other persons of reason and ingenuity among you ought not to be looked on as persons of your Communion whatever their pretences be It seems your Church bears none but Hectors and in a short time none shall be accounted Papists but Jesuits but it is hard to determine Whether this discovers more the corruption or tyranny of your Church which loves her degeneracy so much that she proscribes all who dare in the least to tell her of her faults But How can she be found fault with that takes such excellent care to prevent all abuses as appears by the caution of the Council of Trent in the present case of your worship of Images For say you As to any matter of abuse in this kind crept in amongst the ignorant we have already shewn how careful the Council of Trent was to prevent and provide against all inconveniencies that could reasonably be foreseen or feared So it seems by the admirable Caution used by the Council to prevent giving undue Worship to Images by telling men They must only give that which was due when all the Question was What was due and What not So it seems by the care used to instruct the people concerning the nature of Divine Worship and the danger of Idolatry So it seems by the leaving out the second Commandment in the offices of frequent use lest the peoples consciences should check them for doing that which God had severely prohibited So it seems by the unintelligible subtilties concerning the kind of that Worship which is to be given to the Image when yet a mistake there makes the person who gives it guilty of Idolatry So it seems by the continuance of the most gross abuses in this nature still in your Church in this matter of Images Of which such things are related by eye-witnesses that the most gross Heathen Idolatries were not more unreasonable absurd and ridiculous than they are And if people continue ignorant and sottish enough all is well but if with Cassander they charge you with any corruptions then they stand meritoriously excommunicate and it is well if they escape so for although Cassander did Father Barns did not But plead as long as you will for the care your Church hath taken to prevent all abuses in the worship of Images as long as the worship of Images continues it is impossible to prevent the abuses in it since that is a great abuse it self and gives occasion to all others For the vindication of your Doctrine depends on such Metà physical Niceties which the minds of people are uncapable of and however they may serve you in disputation are impossible to be reconciled with the practice of your Church and the apprehensions of those who yield the worship you allow to Images And therefore it is no wonder at all what Llamas relates of the Spanish people that they were so
hard to go that way to Heaven especially to them that have had the truth manifested and a little after But we have not so learned Christ as either to return evil for evil in this heady course or to deny salvation to some ignorant silly souls whose humble peaceable obedience makes them safe among any part of men that profess the Foundation Christ. And in another place I do indeed for my part leaving other men free to their own judgement acknowledge a possibility of salvation in the Roman Church But so as that which I grant to Romanists is not as they are Romanists but as they are Christians that is as they believe the Creed and hold the Foundation Christ himself not as they associate themselves wittingly and knowingly to the gross Superstitions of the Roman Church And I am willing to hope there are many among them which keep within that Church and yet wish the superstitions abolished which they know and which pray to God to forgive their errours in what they know not and which hold the Foundation firm and live accordingly and which would have all things amended that are amiss were it in their power And to such I dare not deny a possibility of salvation for that which is Christs in them though they hazzard themselves extreamly by keeping so close to that which is superstition and in the case of Images comes too near Idolatry The substance then of what his Lordship saith is that the Protestant way is a safe and secure way to salvation that in the Roman Church there is extream hazzard made of it which all who love their souls ought to avoid but yet for such who by reason of ignorance see not the danger and by reason of honesty keep close to Christ the Foundation and repent of all miscarriages known or unknown he dares not deny a possibility of salvation for them But he is far from asserting it of those who either know the corruptions of that Church and yet continue in them or such who wilfully neglect the means whereby they may be convinced of them So that you strangely either mistake or pervert his Lordships meaning when you would inferr from these passages That he asserts a possibility of being saved to those who joyn with the Roman Church though their ignorance be not invincible and though all or the chief motives which the Protestants bring against you be never so sufficiently proposed to them For he still speaks either of such whose meer ignorance doth excuse them where the Fundamentals are held and a life lead according to them or else of such who condemn your superstitions as far as they are discovered to them and sincerely desire to find impartially the way that leads to Heaven Of such as these he dares not deny a possibility of salvation And you are the most uncharitable persons in the world if you dare assert the contrary of Protestants You expresly grant a possibility of salvation to those who joyn with the Protestant Church in case of invincible ignorance and dare you deny it where there is a preparation of mind to find out and embrace the most certain way to Heaven where all endeavours are used to that end and where there is a conscientious obedience to the Will of God so far as it is discovered If you dare peremptorily deny a possibility of salvation to such persons meerly because not of the Roman Church this prodigious uncharitableness would make us question the possibility of your salvation more while you persist in it For What is there more contrary to the design and spirit of the Gospel then this is From whence must we gather the terms of salvation but only from thence But it seems by you although men give never so hearty an assent to the Doctrine of the Gospel and live in the most universal obedience to it and abound in the fruits of the spirit of God of which Charity is none of the least yet if they be not in the Communion of your Church there is no hopes of salvation for them But Who is it the mean while that hath the disposal of this salvation Is it in your hands or Christs If it be in His we dare rely on His promise although you pretend to know His mind better than He did himself For notwithstanding a sincere endeavour to know and obey the will of God be the great Fundamental in order to salvation which is delivered us by the Doctrine of Christ yet it seems by you there may be this where there may be not so much as possibility of salvation By which assertion of yours you are so far from working upon any but very weak persons to bring them over to your Church that nothing can more effectually prejudice it among all such who dare believe Christ to be more Infallible then the Church of Rome For what is this else but to make heaven and eternal salvation stalk to the interess of your Church and to lay more weight upon being in your communion then upon the most indispensable precepts of Christianity But when we consider how many among you dispute for the possibility of the salvation of Heathens and yet deny it to those who own all the Fundamentals of Christianity when we see how much you lay the weight of salvation upon being in your Church and what wayes you have for those who are in it to reconcile the hopes of salvation with the practise of sin What can we otherwise imagine but it is the Interess of your Church that you more aim at than the salvation of mens-souls For you have so many wayes to give indulgence in sin to those who desire it and yet such ready wayes of pardon and such an easie task of repentance and so little troublesome means of obtaining grace by the Sacraments ex opere operato that it is hard conceiving what way a man should sooner take who would live in his sins and come to heaven at last then to be of your Church And yet you who are so soft and gentle so kind and indulgent to the sons of your Church are not more ready to send those who are out of it to the fire in this world than to eternal flames in another But we have not so learned Christ we dare not deal so inhumanely with them in this world much less judge so uncharitably as to another of those who profess to fear God and work righteousness though they be not of the same opinion or communion with us Yet we tell men of the danger of hazzarding their salvation by erroneous doctrines and superstitious practises and suppose that sufficient to perswade such who sincerely regard their future happiness to avoid all such things as tend so much to their eternal ruine And such who will continue in such things meerly because there is a possibility some persons may be saved in them by reason of Ignorance or Repentance are no wiser men then such who should split
their ship upon a rock because some have escaped upon a plank notwithstanding So that considering on what terms we grant this possibility of salvation this Concession of ours can be no Argument at all to judge yours to be the safer way and if upon the same terms you deny it to us it shews how much more unsafe your way is where there is so much of Interess and so little Charity But you attempt to prove against all Protestants whatsoever that yours is the safer way to salvation Your first Argument in short is Because we grant that you may be saved upon our own principles but you deny that we may be saved upon yours And what is there more in this Argument but a multitude of words to little purpose then there is in that which his Lordship examines For the main force of it lyes in this That is the safest way which both parties are agreed in and therefore although you would have your Major proposition put out of all doubt yet that wants more proof then I doubt you are able to give it For although we grant Men may be saved who have true Faith Repentance and a holy Conversation without any such Sacrament of Pennance which you make necessary for conveying the grace of Justification yet What security can thence come to a man in the choice of his Religion since we withall say That where there is a continuance in the corruptions and errours of your Church it is hard to conceive there should be that Faith and Repentance which we make necessary to Salvation You go therefore on a very false supposition when you take it for granted that we acknowledge that all those whom you admit to your Sacrament of Pennance have all things upon our own principles which are necessary to Salvation And so your Minor is as false as your Major uncertain viz. That many are saved in the Roman Church according to the principles which are granted on both sides But you would seem to prove That all admitted by you at death to the Sacrament of Pennance as you call it have all things necessary to Salvation upon Protestant principles because you say That Faith Hope true Repentance and a purpose of Amendment are necessary to the due receiving the Sacrament of Pennance and these are all which Protestants make necessary to Salvation But supposing that Is it necessary that all those things must be in them which make the necessary requisites to this Sacrament of yours Do none receive this unworthily as many do a far greater Sacrament than this granting it to be any at all It seems Salvation is very easie to be had in your Church then for this Sacrament is supposed by you to be given to men upon their death-beds when you say It cannot be supposed that men will omit any thing necessary for the attaining Salvation and by vertue of this Sacrament they receive the grace of Justification whereby of sinners they are made the Sons of God and heires of eternal life But I assure you we who believe Men must be saved only by the terms of the Gospel make no such easie matter of it as you do we profess the necessity of a through-renovation of heart and life to be indispensable in order to happiness for without holiness no man shall see the Lord and although we take not upon us to judge the final estate of men whose hearts we know not yet the Gospel gives us very little ground to think that such who defer the work of their Salvation to their death-beds shall ever attain to it The main design of Christian Religion being The turning mens souls from sin to God in order to the serving him in this world that they may be happy in another For if Salvation depended on no more then you require the greatest part of the Gospel might have been spared whose great end is to perswade men to holiness of heart and life It is not a meer purpose of amendment when men can sin no longer that we make only necessary to Salvation But so hearty a repentance of sin past as to carry with it an effectual reformation without this men may flatter themselves into their own ruine by your Sacraments of Pennance and such contrivances of men but there can be no grounded hopes of any freedom from eternal misery And their Faith too must be as weak as their Repentance shallow who dare venture their souls into another world upon no better security than that By receiving the Sacrament of Pennance they are made the Sons of God and heirs of eternal life But you betray men into stupid ignorance and carelesness as to their eternal Salvation and then deal most unfaithfully with them by telling them that a death-bed Repentance will suffice them and the Sacrament of Pennance will presently make them heirs of eternal life So that although your Doctrine be very unreasonable and your Superstitions very gross yet this unfaithfulness to the souls of men makes all true lovers of Christian Religion and of the Salvation of mens souls more averse from your Doctrine and Practises then any thing else whatsoever For what can really be more pernicious to the world then to flatter them into the hopes of Salvation without the performance of those things which if the Gospel be true are absolutely necessary in order to it How quietly do you permit the most stupid ignorance in such who are the zealous practisers of your fopperies and superstitions What excellent arts have you to allure debauches upon their death-beds to you by promising them that in another world which our principles will not allow us to do How many wayes have you to get the pardon of sin or at least to delude people with the hopes of it without any serious turning from sin to God What do your Doctrines of the sufficiency of bare contrition and the Sacraments working grace ex opere operato of Indulgences Satisfactions regulating the intention and the like tend to but to supersede the necessity of a holy life And at last you exchange the inward hatred and mortification of sin for some external severities upon mens bodies which is only beating the servant for the Masters fault So that it is hard to imagine any Doctrine or way of Religion which owns Christianity which doth with more apparent danger to the souls of men undermine the foundations of Faith and Obedience than yours doth And as I have at large shewed the former How destructive your principles are to the grounds of Faith so it hath been fully and lately manifested by a learned Bishop of our Church What Doctrines and practises are allowed in your Church which in themselves or their immediate consequences are direct impieties and give warranty to a wicked life Which being so of your own side we must see what reasons you give for your most uncharitable Censure That there are very few or none among Protestants that escape damnation And
this you call The Doctrine of Catholicks The Doctrine rather of a proud tyrannical and uncharitable faction of men who that they might gain Proselytes to themselves shew how little they are themselves the Proselytes of Christ. But you offer us a reason for it Because all Catholicks hold that neither Faith nor Hope nor any Repentance can save us but that only which is joyned with a perfect Love of God without the Sacrament of Pennance actually and duely received and because Protestants reject this they cannot be saved But you are not at all the less excusable because you assert such Doctrines from whence such uncharitableness follows but the dreadful consequence of such Doctrines ought rather to make you question the truth of them For can any one who knows and understands Christianity ever believe that although he had a most hearty repentance for sin and a most sincere love to God he should eternally perish because he did not confess his sins to a Priest and receive absolution from him I can hardly perswade my self that you can believe such things but that only such Doctrines are necessary to be taught to maintain the Priests authority and to fright men into that pick-lock of conscience the useful practise of Auricular Confession To what purpose are all the promises of grace and mercy through Christ upon the sincerity of our turning to him if after all this the effect depends upon that Sacrament of Pennance of which no precept is given us by Christ much less any necessity of it asserted in order to eternal Salvation If this then be all your ground of condemning Protestants they may rejoyce in this That your reasons are as weak as your malice strong But it would be more fit for you to enquire Whether such who live and dye in such a height of uncharitableness whether with or without the Sacrament of Pennance can be in any capacity of eternal Salvation For that is a plain violation of the Laws of Christ this other even among your selves a disputable Institution of Christ and by many said not to be at all of that necessity which you suppose it to be For neither Medina nor Maldonate even since the Council of Trent dare affirm the denyal of your Sacrament of Pennance to be Heresie and must then the souls of all Protestants be sent to hell for want of that which it is questionable whether it were Instituted by Christ or no. But if this Sacrament of Pennance be so necessary to Salvation that they cannot be saved who want it What becomes then of all the Primitive Church which was utterly a stranger to your Sacrament of Pennance as shall be manifested when you desire it what becomes of the Greek Church which as peremptorily denies the necessity of it as Protestants do Both which you may find confessed and proved by Father Barns and many testimonies of your own Authours are brought by him against the Divine Institution and necessity of it Who very ingenuously confesses That by the Law of Christ such a one by the sentence of very many Catholicks may be pronounced absolved before God who manifests the truth of his Faith and Charity although he discovers not a word of the number or weight of his sins What unreasonable as well as uncharitable men are you then to assert That no Protestants can escape damnation for want of that which so many among your selves make unnecessary for the pardon of sin But it is just with God that those who are so ready to condemn others should be condemned by themselves and if your Consciences do not condemn you here your Sentence may be the greater in another world Your second Argument against Protestants is Because they want certainty of Faith by denying the Infallibility of Church and Councils but this hath been so throughly sifted already that I suppose none who have read the preceding discourses will have the least cause to stick at this and therefore we proceed to the Vindication of your censures from being guilty of the want of Charity For you are the men who would have us thank God when you condemn us to hell that we escape so and are angry with us that we do not believe that you most entirely love us when you judge us to eternal flames For you say that your denyal of Salvation to us is grounded even upon Charity If it be so you are the most charitable people in the world for you deny Salvation to all but your selves and some Heathens But say you If Salvation may be had in your Church as Protestants confess and there be no true Church or Faith but one it follows that out of your Church there is no Salvation to be had To which his Lordship had fully answered by saying T is true there is but one true Faith and but one true Church but that one both Faith and Church is the Catholick Christian not the particular Roman So that this passage is a meer begging the question and then threatning upon it without all reason or charity And all your declamations about the way of knowing the Doctrine of the Catholick Church have been spoiled by what hath been said already upon that subject We come therefore to that which is the proper business of this Chapter which is to examine the strength of that Inference which is drawn from the Protestants concession of the possibility of Salvation in your Church viz. That thence it follows that the Roman Church and Religion is the safer way to Salvation Two things his Lordship observes the force of this Argument lyes in the one directly expressed viz. The consent of both parties of the possibility of Salvation in the Roman Church the other upon the By viz. That we cannot be saved because we are out of the Church And of these two he speaks in order First he begins with the confession as to which his Answer lyes in three things 1. That this was the way of the Donatists of old and would hold as well for them as the Church of Rome 2. That if the principle on which this Argument proceeds be true it will be more for the advantage of Protestants then of your Church 3. That the principle it self is a contingent Proposition and may justifie the greatest Heresies in the world By this methodizing his Lordships discourse we shall the better discern the strength of your Answers to the several particulars of it In the first place he shews How parallel this is with the proceedings of the Donatists for both parts granted that baptism was true among the Donatists but the Donatists denyed it to be true baptism among the Catholick Christians and therefore on this principle the Donatists side is the surer side if that principle be true That it is the safest taking that way which the differing parties agree on To this you Answer nothing but what will still return upon your selves and discover the
Roman or Lutheran because all agree in this Truth not in any other Opinion You say This can hold no further than communicating in the belief of this Opinion let that be granted and Doth it not then follow that the Church of England's Opinion is the safest upon your own ground No say you for it is not such a common consent as doth exclude the manner of presence by trans or consubstantiation But How sensless an Answer is this for the Argument proceeds so far as all are agreed and the Church of England asserting that real presence which all acknowledge as simply necessary in order to the effects of it her Communion is more desirable on this account than of either of those Churches which offer to define the manner of Christ's presence since even the greatest men of your perswasion as Suarez and Bellarmin assert the belief of Transubstantiation not to be simply necessary to Salvation and that the manner of it is secret and ineffable It is therefore quite beside the purpose when you offer to prove that Suarez believed Transubstantiation for although he did so yet since he grants it not simply necessary to do it his Lordships Argument in behalf of the Church of England holds firm still unless you can prove that Suarez held the belief of that to be as necessary as the belief of the real and spiritual presence of Christ. But you after attempt at large to prove that the real participation of Christ in the Sacrament in your sense is quite different from that of Protestants If you mean a corporal participation indeed it is so but that is not it which is now enquired after but Whether you do not allow any real and spiritual presence of Christ besides the corporal manducation of that you call his body by Transubstantiation If you do not you would do well to shew what effects that hath upon the souls of men if you do then still the Church of England is of the safer side which holds that in which all are agreed Which is as much as we are here concerned to take notice of as to this subject the Controversie it self having been so lately handled 2. His Lordship instances in the Article of our Saviour Christ's descent into Hell both are agreed as to the Article of descent but the Church of Rome differs in the explication therefore it is safer holding with the Church of England which owns the Article without defining the manner But you say He proceeds on a false supposition for both are not agreed what is meant by Hell whether it be the place of the damned or no But this doth belong to the manner of Explication and not to the Article it self which both equally own and therefore the Church of England hath the advantage there 3. He instances in the Institution of the Sacrament in both kinds in which it is agreed by both Churches that Christ did institute it so and the Primitive Church received it so Therefore according to the former Rule 't is safest for a man to receive the Sacrament in both kinds This you say is as little to the purpose as the former because you do not agree that he did it with an intention or gave any command that it should be alwaies so received but still you are quite besides the business for that is not our Question but Whether it be more safe to adhere to that which Christ instituted and the Primitive Church practised as you confess your selves Or to your Church which prohibits the doing that which you confess Christ and the Primitive Church did And we see how great your Charity is when you deny a possibility of Salvation to those who assert that Christs Institution is unalterable or that all who communicate are bound to receive in both kinds For all other things concerning this subject I must referr the Reader to the precedent Chapter in which they are fully discussed 4. The dissenting Churches agree that in the Eucharist there is a sacrifice of duty and a sacrifice of praise and a sacrifice of commemoration Therefore it is safest to hold to the Church of England in this and leave the Church of Rome to her superstitions that I say no more Here you still pretend you differ in sense but all this is only to say you assert more than we do which we grant but assert upon your Principle that we are on the safer side And so in the intention of the Priest you agree with us as to the necessity of matter and form and therefore it is safer holding to that than believing the necessity of the Priest's intention which many deny And if the Rule doth hold as you assert That that which both are agreed in is safer than the contrary it will hold in matter of Opinion too that it is safer to believe no more is necessary to the Sacrament than both parties are agreed in The last Instance is That we say there are divers errours and some gross ones in the Roman Missal but you confess there is no positive errour in the Liturgy of the Church of England and therefore it is safest to worship God by that and not by the Roman Mass. This you answer as all the rest by running off from the business for you say It cannot be safer to use that because you Catholicks say That to use it in contempt of the Roman Missal is certainly damnable sin and destructive of Salvation But as it is not material what you say in this case so it is not at all to the purpose for if your Rule holds good it must be safer and if it be not you must confess the Principle is false That what both parties agree in is the safest to be chosen in Religion The same might be at large proved concerning the main things in difference between us that if this Principle be true we have very much the advantage of you as You and we are agreed that the Scripture is God's Word but we deny that Tradition is so therefore it is safer adhering to the Scripture and let Tradition shift for it self You and we are agreed that there are sufficient Motives of Credibility to believe the Scripture but we deny that there are any such Motives to believe the present Churches Infallibility therefore it is safer to believe the Scripture than the present Church So that this Principle if improved by these and other Instances will redound more to our advantage than yours considering that in the case we grant it as to you it is joyned with a Protestation of the extreme hazzard which those run who venture on your Communion on the account of it but there is no such danger upon the agreement with us in those Principles which are agreed upon between us 3. His Lordship answers truly that this Proposition That in point of Faith and Salvation 't is safest for a man to take that way which the
fundamental in themselves or only by reduction and consequence Whether you hold all fundamental points literally or no yet if we prove you guilty of any gross dangerous and damnable errours as his Lordship asserts you are that will be abundantly sufficient to our purpose that Yours cannot possibly be any safe way to Salvation And although we should grant your Church right in the exposition of the three Creeds yet if you assert any other errours of a dangerous nature your right exposition of them cannot secure the souls of men from the danger they run themselves upon by embracing the other So much for the Argument drawn from the possibility of Salvation in the Roman Church CHAP. V. The Safety of the Protestant Faith The sufficiency of the Protestant Faith to Salvation manifested by disproving the Cavils against it C's tedious Repetitions passed over The Argument from Possession at large consider'd No Prescription allowable where the Law hath antecedently determined the right Of the Infallibility of Oral Tradition That contrary to the received Doctrine of the Roman Church and in it self unreasonable The Grounds of it examined The ridiculousness of the Plea of bare Possession discovered General Answers returned to the remaining Chapters consisting wholly of things already discussed The place of S. Cyprian to Cornelius particularly vindicated The proof of Succession of Doctrine lyes on the Romanists by their own Principles ALthough this Subject hath been sufficiently cleared in the Controversie concerning the resolution of Faith yet the nature of our task requires that we so far resume the debate of it as any thing undiscussed already offers it self to consideration For I cannot think it a civil way of treating the Reader to cloy him with Tautologies or Repetitions nor can I think it a way to satisfie him rather by some incidental passages than by a full and free debate In all those things then which we have had occasion to handle already I shall remit the Reader to the precedent discourses but whatever hath the face of being new and pertinent I shall readily examine the force of it The occasion of this fresh Debate was a new Question of the Lady Whether she might be saved in the Protestant Faith In answering whereof you say The parties conferring are put into new heats Vpon my soul said the Bishop you may Vpon my soul said Mr. Fisher there 's but one saving Faith and that 's the Roman Since the confidence seems equal on both sides we must examine Which is built on the stronger reason And his Lordship's comes first to be examined which he offers very freely to examination For saith he to believe the Scripture and the Creeds to believe these in the sense of the Ancient Primitive Church to receive the four great General Councils so much magnified by Antiquity to believe all points of Doctrine generally received as fundamental in the Church of Christ is a Faith in which to live and dye cannot but give Salvation And therefore saith he I went upon sure ground in the adventure of my soul upon that Faith Besides in all the points controverted between us I would fain see any one point maintain'd by the Church of England that can be proved to depart from the foundation You have many dangerous errours about the very foundation in that which you call the Roman Faith but there I leave you to look to your own soul and theirs whom you seduce Thus far his Lordship Two things you seem to answer to this 1. That such a Faith may not be sufficient 2. That ours is not such a Faith 1. That such a Faith may not be sufficient because you suppose it necessary to believe the Infallibility of the present Church and General Councils But that we are now excused from a fresh enquiry into but you would seem to inferr it from his own principles of submission to General Councils But by what peculiar Arts you can thence draw that some thing else is necessary to be believed in order to Salvation besides what hath been owned as Fundamentals in all ages I am yet to learn And sure you were much to seek for Arguments when you could not distinguish between the necessity of external submission and internal assent But the second is the main thing you quarrel with viz. That the English-Protestant Faith is really and indeed such a Faith and this you undertake at large to disprove You ask first Whether we believe all Scripture or only a part of it we answer All without exception that is Scripture i. e. hath any evidence that ever it was of Divine Revelation In this you say we profess more then we can make good seeing we refuse many books owned for Canonical by the Primitive Church and imbrace some which were not But in both you assert that which we are sure you are never able to defend since we are content to put it upon as fair a tryal as you can desire viz. That the Church of England doth fully agree with the Primitive Church as to the Canon of Scripture Which hath been already made good by the successful diligence of a learned Bishop of our Church to whom I refer you either for satisfaction or confusion But you are the men whose bare words and bold affirmations must weigh more then the greatest evidence of reason or Antiquity You love to pronounce where you are loath to prove and think to bear men down with confidence where you are afraid to enter the lists But our Faith stands not on so sandy a Foundation to be blown down with your biggest words which have that property of wind in them to be leight and loud When you will attempt to prove that the Books call'd Apocrypha have had an equal testimony of Divine Authority with those we receive into the Canon of Scripture you may meet with a further Answer upon that Subject Just as much you say to disprove our believing Scripture and the Creeds in the Primitive Church For you say The Fathers oppose us we deny it you say The Councils condemn us we say and prove the contrary You offer again at some broken evidences of the Popes Supremacy from Councils and Fathers but those have been discussed already and the sense of the Church at large manifested to be contrary to it But I fear your matters lye very ill concocted upon your stomack you bring them us so often up but I am not bound to dance in a circle because you do so And therefore I proceed but when I hope to do so you pull me back again to the Infallibility of Councils and the Church the question of Fundamentals and the Greek Church and scarce a page between but in comes again the Popes Supremacy as fresh as if it had been never handled before But I assure you after this rate I wonder you ever came to an end for you might have writ all your life time after that manner For the
evidence can you bring to convince me both that the Church alwayes observed this rule and could never be deceived in it For I see the Roman Church asserts that things may be de fide in one age which were not in another at least Pope and Councils challenge this and this is the common Doctrine maintained there and others are looked on as no members of their Church who assert the contrary but as persons at least meritoriously if not actually excommunicate Where then shall I satisfie my self what the sense of your Church is as to this particular Must I believe a very few persons whom the rest disown as Heretical and Seditious persons or ought I not rather to take the judgement of the greatest and most approved persons in that Church And these disown any such Doctrine but assert that the Church may determine things de fide which were not so before in which case I ask Whether when a thing is de novo determined to be de fide that Church believed as the precedent did or no If it did How comes any thing to be de fide which was not before If it did not What assurance can I have that every age of the Church believes just as the precedent did and no otherwise when I see they profess the contrary And if a thing may be de fide in one age which was not in a foregoing then a Church may deliver that as a matter of Faith at one time which was never accounted so before by which means the present Church may oblige me to believe that as a matter of Faith which never was so in Christ or the Apostles times and so the Infallibility on the account of Tradition is destroyed 2. What security is there that in no age of the Church any practises should come in which were not used in the precedent You may say Because they could not be deceived what their fore Fathers did but that satisfies not unless you prove that all the Church in every age looked upon it self as obliged to do nothing at all but what their fore-Fathers did For although they might know never so much what was done by them if they did not judge themselves bound to observe unalterably what they did this doth not hinder at all but new customs and opinions might be introduced in the Church And therefore I cannot but justly wonder that any men of parts who professedly disown the vulgar wayes of establishing the Roman Church should think to satisfie themselves with Orall Tradition and cry it up as so impregnable a thing Because no age of the Church can be deceived in what the foregoing did and taught Whereas a very little of that reason which these men pretend to might acquaint them that the force of it doth not lye in their capacity to know what was done by others but in their obligation not to vary at all from it For the main weight of the Argument lyes here That nothing hath been changed in the Faith or Practise of the Church which being the thing to be proved the bare knowledge of what was believed or practised is not sufficient to prove it for men may know very well what others believe and do and yet may believe and do quite contrary themselves But the only thing to be proved in this case is That every age of the Church and all persons in it looked upon themselves as obliged not to vary in any thing from the Doctrine or practise of the precedent age And I pray let me know by what demonstrative medium can this be proved for no less then demonstrations are spoken of by the magnifiers of this way although there be so little evidence in it that it cannot work but upon a very weak understanding Must that obligation to observe all which the precedent age believed or practised be proved by reason particular testimony or universal tradition And let the extollers of this way take their choice so they will undertake to bring evidence equal to the weight which depends upon it It is hard to conceive what reason should inforce it but such as proves the impossibility of the contrary And they have understandings of another mould from others who can conceive it impossible that men should not think themselves obliged to believe and do all just as their Predecessours did If particular testimonies could be produced they signifie no more then their own judgements but we are enquiring for the judgement of every age of the Church and the persons who live in it And to prove an universal tradition of this obligation is the most difficult task of all for it depends upon the truth of that which is to be proved by it For if they did not think themselves obliged to believe and do what their Predecessours did they could not think themselves bound to deliver such an obligation to their posterity to do it And therefore you must first prove the obligation it self before you can prove the universal tradition of it For although one age may deliver it yet you cannot be assured that a former age did it to them unless you can prove the same sense of this obligation ran through them all But this is so far from being an universal tradition that the present age from which it begins was never agreed in it as I have shewed already 3. It is to no purpose to prove the impossibility of motion when I see men move no more is it to prove that no age of the Church could vary from the foregoing when we can evidently prove that they have done it And therefore this Argument is intended only to catch easie minds that care not for a search into the History of the several ages of the Church but had rather sit down with a superficial subtilty than spend time in further enquiries For this Argument proceeds just as if men should prove the world eternal by this medium The present age sees no alteration in it and they could not be deceived in what their fore Fathers believed nor they in theirs and so on in infinitum for no men did ever see the world made and therefore it was never made and so eternal But if we go about to prove by reason the production of the world or by Scripture to shew that it was once made then this oral tradition is spoiled And so it is in the present case These men attempt to prove there could never be any alteration in the Faith or practise of the Church since Christs time for the present age delivers what it had from the precedent and so up till the first institution of the Church but in the mean time if we can evidently prove that there have been such alterations in the Church then it is to no purpose to prove that impossible which we see actually done And this appears not only because the Scripture supposes a degeneracy in the Christian Church which could never be if every age of the Church did
from the very Apostles times and consequently that it must be held for an Apostolical Tradition or nothing can be So then if confidence would carry it we must not only tremble at the fears of Purgatory but we must firmly believe it as an Article of Faith and as a most undoubted Apostolical Tradition But before we can digest these things we must see a little more ground for them than as yet we do and therefore you must be content to hear our reasons Why we neither look on it as a matter of Faith or Apostolical tradition in order to which nothing is more necessary then to enquire what you mean by Purgatory For as long as you can shelter your selves under General words you think you are safe enough but when we once bring you to a fuller explication of your meaning Purgatory it self is not half so evident as those impostures are whereby you would maintain it But for our clear understanding this Controversie we must find out what your Doctrine is concerning it for as confident as you are of it there are not a few among you who are afraid to declare what you mean by it lest by that means the world should see how far it is from having foundation either in Scripture or Antiquity We are therefore told by some either are ashamed of the Doctrine it self or loth to betray their cause who by declaring themselves that your Church requires no more then to believe that there is a Purgatory for which they avouch the Council of Trent which only defines That the sound Doctrine concerning Purgatory should be taught This was indeed necessary to be said by such who do not at all believe the Roman Doctrine concerning it what ever they pretend but rather agree with the Greek Church about the middle state of souls But although the Council of Trent did not expresly define what they meant by Purgatory yet the sense of the Council concerning it is easie to be gathered from the comparing of places together in it For the Council of Trent in the last Session when it passed the decree of Purgatory referrs us to two things by which we may fully understand the meaning of it For in the Preface to the Decree it saith That the Catholick Church had in this and former Oecumenical Councils taught that there was a Purgatory by which we may understand What this Purgatory is which was now decreed and you say we are bound to believe it as an Article of Faith Now in all the former Decrees and Anathematisms of the Council there is no place which seems to concern the Doctrine of Purgatory so much as the thirtieth Anathema of the sixth Session in these words Si quis ita reatum poenae aeternae deleri dixerit ut nullus remaneat reatus poenae temporalis exsolvendae vel in hoc seculo vel in futuro in Purgatorio antequam ad regna coelorum aditus patere possit Anathema sit If any one shall affirm that the guilt of eternal punishment is so forgiven as that there remains no guilt of temporal punishment to be paid either in this life or hereafter in Purgatory before there can be any entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven let them be Anathema From whence it evidently follows that the Doctrine of Purgatory as it is taught by the Council of Trent doth depend upon this principle That there is a guilt of temporal punishment remaining after the sin is pardoned which temporal punishment is to be satisfied for either in this life or in Purgatory So that all those who are in Purgatory are there on that account that they might satisfie the justice of God for the temporal punishment of sin For the guilt of mortal sin being remitted by the merits of Christ the punishment is supposed still to remain which being exchanged from eternal to temporal by the keyes of the Church this punishment remains to be satisfied for in the pains of Purgatory But this punishment being temporal the possibility of a release from them is necessarily supposed before the day of judgement for the Council of Trent in the Decree of Purgatory declares that the souls there detained are relieved by the prayers of the Faithful and especially by the sacrifice of the Altar Which in the 22 Session it saith is offer'd pro defunctis in Christo nondum ad plenum purgatis for the departed in Christ not yet fully purg'd So that the satisfaction of the debt of temporal punishment which remains when the sin is pardoned and the translation of souls from thence to Heaven by the prayers of the living and the sacrifice of the Mass are the main Foundations of the Doctrine of your Church concerning Purgatory And this will further appear by the state of the Controversie between the Greek and Latin Church upon this Subject For the main thing which the Greeks objected against the Latins was this temporary punishment for sin in a future state For they say in their Apology delivered into the Council of Basil We own no Purgatory fire nor any temporary punishment by fire which shall have an end for we received no such thing by tradition nor doth the Eastern Church confess it And afterwards We deny that any souls pass through this fire to eternal fire for in saying so we should weaken the consent of the whole Church and it is to be fear'd if we should assert such a temporary fire that people would be apt to believe that all the fire in the other life were only temporary by which means they would fall into such neglect and carelesness that they would make the more fuel for eternal fire And therefore they conclude That they neither have nor shall assert any such Purgatory fire But you would seem to perswade us That the Contest between the Greeks and Latins was only whether the fire of Purgatory were material or no For you say The Greeks in the Council of Florence never doubted in the least measure nor denyed Purgatory it self but only question'd Whether the fire were material or metaphorical But if you speak of those Greeks who held to what was generally received in the Greek Church you are very much deceived therein for the sense of the Greek Church was fully delivered by them in this Apology penned as is supposed by Marcus Ephesius but the year before at the Council of Basil and herein they not only dispute against the fire but against any such state of purgation after this life by the undergoing any temporary punishment for sin For thus that Apology ends For these causes the Doctrine proposed of a Purgatory fire is to be cast out of the Church as that which tends to slacken the endeavours of the diligent and which hinders them from doing their utmost to purge themselves in this life since another purgation is expected after it Is not this plain enough for their denyal of any state of purgation after this life by which men
might satisfie for the temporary punishment of sin and be translated out of that state to the Kingdom of Heaven And thence although in the Bull of Vnion published by Eugenius 4. at the concluding the Florentine Council no more was concluded than that those penitents who departed this life before they had satisfied for their former sins by worthy fruits of pennance should have their souls purged after death poenis purgatoriis with purgatory punishments yet Marcus Eugenicus utterly refused to subscribe it thus which certainly he would never have done if all the Controversie had been only Whether the fire were real or metaphorical And the whole Greek Church utterly refused those terms of union and therefore Alphonsus à Castro recounts the denying Purgatory among the errours of the Greeks The Greeks indeed do not believe that any souls enjoy the beatifical Vision before the day of Judgement and on that account they allow of prayer for the dead notwith any respect to a deliverance of souls out of purgatory but to the participation of their happiness at the great Day But there is a great deal of difference between this Opinion and that of your Church for they believe all souls of believers to be in expectation of the final Judgement but without any temporary punishment for sin or any release from that punishment by the prayers of the living which your Church asserts and is the proper state of the Question concerning Purgatory Which is not Whether there be any middle state wherein the souls of the Faithful may continue in expectation of the final consummation of their happiness at the great day nor Whether it be lawful in that sense for the Church on earth to pray for departed souls in order to their final justification at the day of Judgment or in St. Pauls language That God would have mercy on them in that day but Whether there be such a state wherein the souls of men undergo a temporary punishment for sin the guilt being pardoned out of which they may be released by the prayers of the living and translated from Purgatory to the Kingdom of Heaven before the day of Resurrection This is the true state of the Question between us and the Church of Rome and now we come to examine Whether your Doctrine concerning Purgatory be either an Article of Faith or Apostolical Tradition which how confidently so ever you may assert we shall find your confidence built on very little reason Which we may the easier believe since there are so many among your selves who do not think themselves obliged to own this Doctrine of your Church concerning Purgatory Nay we have not only the confession of several of your party that your Doctrine of Purgatory was not known in the Primitive Church as Alphonsus à Castro Roffensis Polydore c. and of others that it cannot be sufficiently proved from Scripture as Petrus â Soto Perionius Bulenger whose testimonies are produced by others but there are some persons of note among you who have expresly denied the Doctrine it self and confuted the pretended reasons which are given for it Petrus Picherellus saith There is no fuel to be found in Scripture either to kindle or maintain the fire of Purgatory and which afterwards he largely disproves in his excellent Discourse de Missâ Father Barns acknowledges That the punishment of souls in Purgatory is a thing which lyes meerly in humane opinion which cannot be firmly deduced from Scriptures Fathers or Councils Yea saith he with submission to better judgements the opposite opinion seems more agreeable to them But later then these you cannot but know Who it is here at home that hath not only pull'd down the superstructure but raced the very Foundations of your Doctrine of Purgatory in his discourse de medio Animarum statu wherein he professedly disproves the Doctrine of your Church though he is loath to own it to be so in this particular and shews at large that it hath no foundation at all either in Scripture Antiquity or Reason But if your Doctrine of Purgatory be to be believed as an Article of Faith and Apostolical Tradition if any be How come these differences among your selves about it How comes that Authour not to be answered and his reasons satisfied But if you be not agreed among your selves What this Article of Faith is you are most unreasonable men to tell us We are as much bound to believe it as the Trinity or Incarnation We ask you What it is we are bound to believe You tell us according to the sense of your Church The punishment of souls in a future state out of which they may be delivered by the prayers of the Faithful and translated into the Kingdom of Heaven Another he denies all this and saith We are in effect only bound to believe That faithful souls do not enjoy their full happiness till the resurrection and that there is no deliverance at all out of any state in which mens souls are after death till the day of Judgement and that the prayers of the Church only respect that Day but that the former Doctrine is so far from being an Article of Faith that it is contrary to Scripture Antiquity and Reason If such a state of expectation wherein faithful souls are at rest but according to different degrees of grace which they had at their departure hence and look for the day of Resurrection when they shall have a perfect consummation of their bliss were all the Purgatory which your Church asserted the breach might be far nearer closing as to this Article than now it is For although we find some particular persons ready to give a fair and tolerable sense of your Doctrine herein yet we cannot be ignorant that the General apprehension and sense of your Church is directly contrary and those persons who have discovered the freedom of their judgements as to this and other particulars know how much it concerns them to keep a due distance from Rome if they would preserve the freedom of their persons But you are not one of those that hath cause for any such fears for what ever Bellarmin saith you are ready to swear to it and accordingly set your self to the defence of Purgatory upon his principles which are far more suitable to the Doctrine of your Church than to Scripture or Antiquity But because this Controversie is not managed between his Lordship and you about the sense of the Scripture but the Fathers concerning it I must therefore enquire Whether your Doctrine of Purgatory were ever owned by the Fathers as an Article of Faith or Apostolical Tradition And that I may the more fully clear it before I come to examine your proofs for it I shall lay down some general considerations 1. Nothing ought to be looked on as an Article of Faith among the Fathers but what they declare that they believe on the account of Divine Revelation As to all other things which
they assert we may look on them as private opinions of particular persons but not as such things which were received as Articles of Faith For whatsoever is received as such it must be wholly on the account of Gods revealing it who only can oblige us to believe with that assent which is required to Faith And if it be so as to all other things much more certainly as to the future state of souls of which we can know nothing certainly without Divine Revelation For since the remission of sins and the happiness of the future life depend upon the goodness and mercy of God we can define nothing as to these things any further then God hath declared them If God hath declared that remission of sins lyes in the taking away the obligation to punishment it will be a contradiction to say That he pardons those whom he exacts the punishment of sin from purely to satisfie his justice if he hath declared that the souls of the faithful are in joy and felicity assoon as they are delivered out of this sinful world it is impossible they should undergo unsufferable pains though not to eternity I dispute not now Whether he hath so revealed these things but that it is impossible for any thing to be looked on as an Article of Faith but what hath clear Divine Revelation for it And therefore although many testimonies of the Fathers might be produced one way or other as to these things when they speak only their own fancies and imaginations and not what God hath revealed they cannot all put together make the opinion they assert to be an Article of Faith Nothing is more apparent then that the itching curiosity of humane nature to know more then God hath revealed concerning the future state of souls did betimes discover it self in the Church But the strange diversity of these Imaginations were a sufficient evidence that they speak not by any certain rule but according to their different fancies and therefore that they did not deliver any Doctrine of Faith but only their own private opinions If you would therefore prove that the Fathers did own Purgatory as an Article of Faith you must not think it enough to prove that one or two of the Fathers did speak something tending to it but that all who had occasion to mention it did speak of it as the Doctrine of the Church and that which came from an immediate Divine Revelation 2. There is no reason That should be looked on as an Article of Faith which they who seemed to assert it most did build on such places which they acknowledged themselves to be very obscure For since they deduced it from Scripture it is apparent that they did not believe it on the account of any unwritten word or Divine Revelation conveyed meerly by Tradition and since they confess the places to be very difficult it is unreasonable to judge that they looked on that as a matter of Faith which they supposed was contained in them As for instance St. Austin in several places asserts that all things necessary to be believed are clearly revealed in Scripture and withall he sayes that the place 1 Cor. 3.15 is very difficult and obscure and that it is one of those places in St. Paul which St. Peter saith are hard to be understood and therefore it is not conceivable that S. Austin should make any thing a matter of Faith which he founds upon this place And this is the great and almost only considerable Place which he or the rest of the Fathers did insist on as to the nature of that purgation which was to be in a future state 3. That cannot be looked on as an Article of Faith to such persons who express their own doubts concerning the truth of it For whatever is owned as an Article of Faith by any person is thereby acknowledged to be firmly believed by him Now upon our enquiry into the Fathers we shall find the first person who seemed to assert that any faithful souls passed through a fire of purgation before the day of judgement was St. Austin but he delivers his judgement with so much fear and hesitancy that any one may easily see that he was far from making it any Article of Faith We must consider then that in St. Augustin's time there were many who though they denied Origen's opinion as to the Salvation at last of all persons yet were very willing to believe it as to all those who died in the Communion of the Church that though they passed through the flames of Hell for their sins yet at last they should be saved and for this they mainly insisted on 1 Cor. 3.15 where it is said That some should be saved but as by fire Such say they build upon the foundation gold silver pretious stones who to their Faith add good works but they hay wood and stubble whose life is contrary to their Faith and yet these latter they asserted should come to Heaven at last but they must undergo the torments of Hell first Against these St. Austin writes his book de fide operibus wherein he proves that such as live in sin shall be finally excluded the Kingdom of Heaven And when he comes to the interpretation of that place he gives this account of it That those who do so love Christ as rather to part with all things for him than to lose him but yet have too great a love to the things of the world shall suffer grief and loss on that account Sive ergo in hâc vitâ tantum homines ista patiuntur sive etiam post hanc vitam talia quaedam judicia subsequuntur non abhorret quantum arbitror à ratione veritatis iste intellectus hujus sententiae Whether saith he men suffer these things in this life or such judgements follow after it I suppose this sense of S. Paul 's meaning is not dissonant from truth So far was he from being certain of it that he puts in quantum arbitror as far as I suppose and yet he would not define whether that loss which they were to suffer were only in this life or no. And in his Enchiridion to Laurentius where he disputes the very same matter he saith Tale aliquid post hanc vitam fieri incredibile non est utrum ita sit quaeri potest aut inveniri aut latere Nonnullos fideles per ignem quendam purgatorium quanto magis minusve bona pereuntia dilexerunt tanto tardius citiusve salvari It is not incredible that such a thing should be after this life and it may be enquired after whether it be found to be so or no that some faithful souls pass through a purging fire and are saved sooner or later according to the degree of their affection to worldly things Will any man in his wits think that St. Austin spake this of any matter of Faith or that was generally received in the Church as an Apostolical Tradition Did
he ever speak so concerning the Trinity or the Incarnation of Christ which you parallel with Purgatory What would men have thought of him if he had said of either of those Articles It is not incredible they may be true and it may be enquired into whether they be or no Whatever then St. Austins private opinion was we see he delivers it modestly and doubtfully not obtruding it as an Article of Faith or Apostolical Tradition if any be And the very same he repeats in his Answer to the first Question of Dulcitius so that this was all that ever he asserted as to this Controversie What you offer to the contrary from other places of St. Austin shall be considered in its due place 4. Where any of the Fathers build any Doctrine upon the sense of doubtful places of Scripture we have no further reason to believe that Doctrine then we have to believe that it is the meaning of those places So that in this case the enquiry is taken off from the judgement of the Fathers and fixed upon the sense of the Scriptures which they and we both rely upon For since they pretend themselves to no greater evidence of the truth of the Doctrine then such places do afford it is the greatest reason that the argument to perswade us be not the testimony of the Father but the evidence of the place it self Unless it be evident some other way that there was an universal Tradition in the Church from the Apostles times concerning it and that the only design of the Father was to apply some particular place to it But then such a Tradition must be cleared from something else besides the sense of some ambiguous places of Scripture and that Tradition manifested to be Vniversal both as to time and place These things being premised I now come particularly to examine the evidence you bring That all the Fathers both Greek and Latin did constantly teach Purgatory from the Apostles times and consequently that it must be held for an Apostolical Tradition or nothing can be And as you follow Bellarmin in your way of proving it so must I follow you and he divides his proofs you say into two ranks First Such who affirm prayer for the dead 2. Such who in the successive ages of the Church did expresly affirm Purgatory First with those who affirm prayer for the dead Which you say doth necessarily infer Purgatory whatever the Bishop vainly insinuates to the contrary The Question then between us is Whether that prayer for the dead which was used in the ancient Church doth necessarily inferr that Purgatory was then acknowledged This you affirm for say you If there were no other place or condition of being for departed souls but either Heaven or Hell surely it were a vain thing to pray for the dead especially to pray for the remission of their sins or for their refreshment ease rest relaxation of their pains as Ancients most frequently do From whence you add that Purgatory is so undenyably proved that the Relator finding nothing himself sufficient to Answer was forced to put us off to the late Primate of Armagh 's Answer to the Jesuits Challenge Which you say You have perused and find only there that the Authour proves that which none of you deny viz. That the prayers and commemorations used for the dead had reference to more souls than those in Purgatory But you attempt to prove That the nature and kind of those prayers do imply that they were intended for other ends than meerly that the body might be glorified as well as the soul and to praise God for the final happy end of the deceased Whereas that Answerer of the Jesuite would you say by his allegations insinuate to the Reader a conceit that it was used only for those two reasons and no other Which you say you must needs avouch to be most loudly untrue and so manifestly contrary to the Doctrine and practise of the Fathers as nothing can be more A high charge against two most Reverend and learned Primates together against the one as not being able to Answer and therefore turning it off to the other against the other for publishing most loud untruths instead of giving a true account of the grounds of the Churches practise It seems you thought it not honour enough to overcome one unless you led the other in triumph also but you do neither of them but only in your own fancy and imagination And never had you less cause to give out such big words then here unless it were to amuse the spectatours that they might not see how you fall before them For it was not the least distrust of his sufficiency to Answer which made his Lordship to put it oft to the Primate of Armagh but because he was prevented in it by him Who as he truly saith had very learnedly and at large set down other reasons which the Ancients gave for prayer for the dead without any intention to free them from Purgatory Which are not only different from but inconsistent with the belief of Purgatory for the clearing of which and vindicating my Lord Primate from your calumnies rather then answers it will be necessary to give a brief account of his Discourse on that subject He tells us therefore at first That we are here prudently to distinguish the Original institution of the Church from the private opinions of particular Doctors which waded further herein then the general intendment of the Church did give them warrant Now he evidently proves that the memorials oblations and prayers made for the dead at the beginning had reference to such as rested from their labours and not unto any souls which were thought to be tormented in that Vtopian Purgatory whereof there was no news stirring in those dayes This he gathers first by the practise of the ancient Christians laid down by the Authour of the Commentaries on Job who saith The memorials of the Saints were observed as a memorial of rest to the souls departed and that they therein rejoyced for their refreshing St. Cyprian saith they offered Sacrifices for them whom he acknowledgeth to have received of the Lord Palms and Crowns and in the Authour of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy the party deceased is described by him to have departed this life replenished with Divine joy as now not fearing any change to worse being come unto the end of all his labours and publickly pronounced to be a happy man and admitted into the society of the Saints and yet the Bishop prayes that God would forgive him all his sins he had committed through humane infirmity and bring him into the light and band of the living into the bosoms of Abraham Isaac and Jacob into the place from whence pain and sorrow and sighing flyeth And Saint Chrysostom shews that the funeral Ordinances of the Church were appointed to admonish the living that the parties deceased were in a state of joy and not of grief and
some generall postulata must be laid down which by the very state of the Controversie must be acknowledged by you which are 1. That the Question in dispute is not concerning the Formal Object of all things divinely revealed but concerning the believing this to be a particular Divine Revelation For it is obvious to any one that considers what vast difference there is between those two Questions Why you believe that to be True which God hath revealed the plain and easie resolution of this is into the veracity and infallibility of God in all his Revelations But it is quite another Question when I ask Why you believe this to have been a True Divine Revelation Or that such particular Books contain the Word of God And it is apparent by the whole process of the the Dispute that the Question is not concerning the first but the second of these two 2. That the Question is not concerning any kind of perswasion as to this Divine Revelation but concerning that which you call Divine Faith 3. That this Divine Faith must be resolved into some Testimony supposed infallible These three are things agreed on between both parties as appears by the whole management of this Controversie Only you suppose this Infallible Testimony to be the Church which your Adversary denies and saith It will follow from thence that you make your Churches Testimony the Formal Object of Faith which I thus prove 1. That which is the only Ground and Foundation whereon a Divine Faith is built must be the Formal Object of Faith but the Infallible Testimony of your Church is the only Foundation whereon Faith is built By the Formal Object of Faith I suppose you and I mean the same thing which is the Foundation whereon the Certainty of the Assent is grounded or the principal Objective Cause of Faith viz. not every account that may be given Why men believe but that which is the only Certain Foundation to establish a Divine Faith upon Now let any one but consider what the Question is and what your resolution is and then judge Whether you make not the Churches Testimony the Formal Object The Question is How we know the Scriptures to be the Word of God which in other terms is What the ground is why I assent to the Doctrine contained in Scripture as a Divine Revelation You say The Testimony of the Scripture it self cannot be that ground You say The Testimony of the Spirit cannot be it You say A Moral Certainty cannot be it because then it is not Divine Faith What then is the reason why you believe it Do you not over and over say It is because of the infallible Testimony of the Church which gives us unquestionable assurance that this was a Divine Revelation and yet for all this this Testimony is not the Formal Object of this Divine Faith The most charitable apprehension I can have of you when you write things so inconsistent is either that you understand not or consider not what you write of but take what hath been said in such cases by men of your own party and right or wrong that serves for an Answer But for all this you tell us confidently That your Faith is not resolved into the voice of the Church as into its Formal Object but it is enough to say Our Faith is resolved into God's Revelations whether written or unwritten as its Formal Object and our infallible assurance that the things we believe are Divine Revelations is resolved into the Infallibility of the Churches Definitions These are excellent Notions if they would hang together But 1. We enquire not what is enough to say in such a case but what ground you have for saying what you do You have enough to say upon many subjects in this Book or else your Book would never have swell'd to the bulk it hath but you have generally very little reason for what you say 2. Is that infallible Assurance that the things we believe as God's Revelations are revealed from him a thing call'd Faith or no If it be as I hope you will not deny it then by your own Confession Faith is resolved into the Churches Testimony as its Formal Object for you say This Infallible Assurance is resolved into the Infallibility of the Churches Definitions teaching us that they are his Revelations These are your own words And do you yet deny this Testimony of the Church to be the Formal Object of this infallible Assurance 3. What is it you mean when you say That Faith is resolved into God's Revelations as its Formal Object Is it that the reason why we believe is Because God hath revealed these things to us But that you know is not the matter at all in question but How we come to assent to such a Doctrine as a Divine Revelation Answer me punctually to it Can you possibly resolve your Faith into any thing else as its Formal Object If you can I pray do us the favour to name it If you resolve this Faith as you seem to express your mind into Divine Revelation as its Formal Object Shew us where that Revelation is extant for which you believe Scripture to be the Word of God Is it the Scripture it self or a Revelation distinct from it If you say It is the Scripture it self then you must make the infallible Testimony of your Church needless for then we may have infallible Assurance that the things we believe are Divine Revelations without your Churches Testimony or Definitions Then what is become of the unwritten Tradition you mention in these words If then it be demanded Why we believe such Books as are contained in the Bible to be the Word of God we answer Because it is a divine unwritten Tradition that they are his Word and this Divine Tradition is the Formal Object whereon our Faith relyes Well then our last resolution of Faith is into this Divine unwritten Tradition But whence come you to know that this Tradition is Divine Into what Revelation is the belief of that finally resolved Doth it appear to be so by it self and then why may not the Scripture or hath it some other Revelation and Divine Tradition to attest it And then the same Question returns concerning that and so in infinitum or else of necessity you must acknowledge one of these two things Either that some Divine Revelation may sufficiently manifest it self without any infallible Testimony of your Church Or else that this infallible Testimony must be the Formal Object of Faith Of these two chuse which you please 2. I prove that you must make the Churches Testimony the Formal Object of Faith because either you must make it so or you must deny Divine Revelation to be the Formal Object of Faith because the reason is equal for both I demand then How you resolve your Belief of the Truth of the Doctrine of Christ you tell me into Divine Revelation as its Formal Object I ask yet further Why