the Roman-Catholic Church This is the meaning of a whole Page or else it has none Suppose this to be true and it proves what I intend For either this Catholic Faith is the same which was required to Baptism or not If the same then no more is required than owning the Creeds to make a Member of the Roman-Catholic Church if not the same then those who are Members of the Catholic Church by Baptism are not Members of the Roman Catholic till a farther Profession of the Roman Faith and consequently the Catholic Church and the Roman-Catholic are not the same since those may be Members of the Catholic Church who are not of the Roman-Catholic Can any thing be plainer And the Replier is so much a Gentleman to own the Truth of it For these are his words that Baptism enters persons into the Catholic Church who though they be out of the Communion of the Roman Church yet having the true form of Baptism are Members of the Catholic Church Therefore the Catholick Church and Roman-Catholic cannot be the same Which was all I intended to prove But he saith that as Baptism enters them into the Catholic Church so Heresie Apostasie or Infidelity casts them out or else the old Hereticks which he reckons up were still Members of the Catholic Church I answer that my Argument was not concerning the old Hereticks who rejected any Article of the â—reed which was delivered at Baptism and the owning of it required in order to it but concerning the Roman-Catholic Church which makes the owning New Articles of Faith necessary in order to its Communion and if this Church reject any from its Communion who do own the Articles of the Creeds it follows from thence that it is not the Catholic Church into which Persons are admitted by Baptism But no Man if an Heretick though baptized can remain in the Church If he be convicted of renouncing the Creed upon the owning whereof he was received to Baptism he casts himself out of the Church for he doth not stand to his Promise If you mean that any thing which the Roman-Catholic Church declares to be Heresie casts a Man out of the Catholic Church I do utterly deny it and I see no Reason brought to prove it 4. I argued that in a divided State of the Church there may be different Communions and yet both may remain Parts of the Catholic Church for which I instanced in the Excommunications of old about keeping Easter and the Differences between the Eastern and Western Churches but to appropriate the title of the One Catholic Church to any one of the divided Parties so as to exclude the rest was to charge that Party with the Schism as in the case of the Novatians and Donatists and consequently to apply the One Catholic Church to the Roman was to make it guilty of the present Schism in the Christian World. Both the Defender and Replier behave themselves in their Answers to this as if they did not understand what I aimed at and therefore run out into things by the bye as if they thought there were no difference between saying something to a Book and giving an Answer to it What I can pick up which seems material I will set down distinctly The Replier takes notice that I said that before the Unhappy Divisions of the Christian Church it had been no difficulty to have shewed that one visible Church which Christ had here upon Earth to which he answers that there were Divisions in the Apostles times and the same Means which were then used to preserve the Unity of the Catholic Church did equally serve for after Ages and continue to this day and so the Unity of the Catholic Church is still as visible as ever it was This in few words I take to be the force of what he saith But certainly there was a time when the Unity of the â—atholic â—hurch was a little more discernable than now it is Doth not the Scripture tell us the Multitude was of one heart and one Soul Are all Christians so at this day I grant afterward there were Schisms and Heresies in the Apostolical Churches But the Apostles had an Infallible Spirit which they manifested by the Power of Miracles going along with it by which means the Heresies were laid open and the Schisms stopped But what were those Heresies Such as contradicted the Articles of the Creed as about the Truth of Christ's Incarnation and the Resurrection of the Dead c. and therefore the Apostles by the Assistance of that Infallible Spirit did write Epistles to the Churches to declare that which was to be the standing Faith of all Ages and by an unquestionable Tradition in the Church of Rome they summ'd up these Fundamental Points of Faith in that which is therefore called the Apostles Creed This was therefore the Standard whereby to judge of Faith and Heresie and by this they proceeded in the Ages succeeding the Apostles Afterwards some did not bare faced contradict the Articles of the Creed but broached such Doctrines as did by consequence overthrow them as the Arians by making a Creature God the Nestorians and Eâ—tychians denying in effect the Truth of Christ's Incarnation against these the General Councils assembled and the Eastern and Western Churches joyned in condemning them not from their own Authority as Supreme or Infallible Judges but as the most Authentic Witnesses of the true Apostolical Doctrine And thus the Creed was enlarged by general Consent through the whole Catholic Church and that which was called the Nicene Creed was made the standard of Catholic Communion But to prevent any Mischief by overcharging the Creed the General Council of Ephesus did absolutely forbid any farther additions to be made to it and the Council of Chalcedon ratified that prohibition All that they pretended to was only to give the true Sense of the Articles therein received about the Incarnation of Christ and the same was declared by the fifth and sixth General Councils whereof the one was to clear the Council of Chalcedon from favouring Nestorianism and the other to shew that the Humane Nature in Christ was perfect as to the Affections of the Soul as well as the Body But after this a mighty Breach happen'd between the Eastern and Western Churches and setting aside the different Customs in both which might easily have been composed there were two things which made this breach irreconcileable 1. The Western Churches taking upon them to make a New Addition to the Creed as to the Spirit 's proceeding from the Son without asking the Consent of the Eastern Churches 2. The Bishop of Rome's assuming to himself an Authority of Headship over the Catholic Church They did not deny him a Primacy of Order as he had the first Patriarchal See but when he took upon him to exercise Jurisdiction in the other Patriarchates as well as his own and sent Legates for that purpose they rejected his Authority and so the
should tumble down together what would become of us both Never fear that saith he But how should I help fearing of it Have any that he carried thither come back and assured others of the safety of the passage No. But how then Why saith he You are bound to believe what he saith for he affirms that he can do it But saith the Traveller this is very hard I must venture Body and Soul upon his skill and strength and I must take his Word that he hath both This seems very unreasonable to me and therefore I am resolved to take the other course which tho it do not make such big boasts of it self is much more likely to be safe in the conclusion having better Reason on its side and requiring a more constant care of my self to which God hath promis'd more of his Grace and Assistance to secure me from all fatal mistakes of my way Where I mention Doctrines so universally received in the Christian Church from the Apostles times as those in the Creeds The Defender makes a notable Exception As if saith he any part of the universal Christian Doctrine were lost and all had not beâ—n always as universally retained as the Creeds Then I hope all the Points in Controversy between us and them can be proved by as clear and evident a Succession as the Articles of the Creeds If he can do this he will be a â—ampion indeed I desire him to take his choice either Supremacy Transubstantiation Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church or which he pleases I grant all true Christian Doctrine was universally retained as far as the Rule of it was so received but if he means any of those distinguishing points between us and them when he comes to make it out he will be of another mind 3. A third Inconvenience objected in the Papers against the want of an infallible Judg was That Scripture would be interpreted by Fancy which is the same thing as to follow Fancy To this it was answer'd 1. That our Church owns the Creeds Councils Fathers and Primitive Church more frankly than any other Church and therefore cannot be suspected to leave Scripture to be so interpreted The Replier saith We only pretend it and do it not That is to be proved for bare saying it will never convince us But his proof is because if we had done it we had never deserted the Church of Rome and our Answer is we therefore deserted the Communion of that Church because She required owning things from us for which She had no Authority either from Scripture Creeds Councils or Fathers The Defender would have me answer directly Whether it be not the same to follow Fancy as to interpret Scripture by it As tho I were examined at the Catechism which requires all answers to be made by Yea or Nay I said enough to shew the Question doth not concern us for we do not allow Persons to interpret Scripture by Fancy And withal 2. I asked some other Questions to shew That those who pretend to Infallibity may do things as unreasonable as leaving Scripture to be interpreted by Fancy And I have our Saviours example for answering one question with another The Instances I gave were these The Church of Romes assuming to it self the Power of interpreting the Rule which concerns its own Power of interpreting which was to make it Judg in its own Cause and to give it as great Power as if it made the Rule and I further added that Interest is as mischievous an Interpreter of Scripture as Fancy and therefore those who are so much concerned are not to be relied on either in Councils or out The Power of declaring Tradition is as Arbitrary a thing in the Church of Rome as interpreting Scripture by Fancy There being no other Rule allowed by it but the Sense of the present Church The Replier like a fair Adversary gives his answer plainly which consists in two things 1. That their Church gives no Sense of Scripture but what She received from Tradition of the foregoing Church and so he calls it Apostolical Tradition But suppose there happen a Question whether it be so or not must not all be resolved into the Authority of the present Church declaring what is Apostolical Tradition And so it comes all to one 2. He saith Tradition is publick and Fancy is private But I say according to their Rules Tradition is but publick Fancy and so Fancy in particular Persons is a private Tradition but whether publick or private if it be equally Arbitrary the Case is alike The Defender saith All this is besides the Business and therefore slides off as well as he can with some slight touches which deserve no Answer 4. If there be no infallible Judg the Power of deciding matters of Faith will be given to every particular man for which no place can be shewed The Answer was That if by deciding matters of Faith no more be meant but every mans being satisfied of the Reasons why he believes one thing to be true and not another that belongs to every man as he is bound to take care of his Soul and must give an account both to God and Man of the Reason of his Faith. This the Replier saith is bringing every Article of Faith to the Test of ones own Reason whereas Authority is the Correlative of Believing and Reason of Knowledg We do not pretend that every one that believes should be able to judg from meer Principles of Reason of the Credibility of the Doctrine propos'd it is sufficient if he finds it to be of Divine Revelation by being contained in Gods word And it is not the Authority of the Church but of Divine Revelation which Faith bottoms upon the former is no more than an inducement to believe those Books we call Scripture to contain the word of God in them But when we find any Doctrine therein we account that sufficient Reason for believing it The Defender finds no fault with our saying We ought to be satisfied of the Reason why we believe but the Question he puts is Whether there be indeed any Reasons why they should believe besides the Authority of the Church He doth not deny that particular Men ought to judg but the meaning of the Papers he saith is that they ought not to judg unreasonably Then we have no difference for I assure him I never pleaded for mens judging unreasonably The Question then between us is Whether those who do not believe upon the Infallible Authority of the Roman Catholick Church Do judg unreasonably i. e. Whether there be equal Grounds to believe the Roman Catholick Church Infallible as there are to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God We utterly deny the Roman Churches Infallibility to be necessary to our believing the Scripture for we receive that by an Universal Tradition from all the Apostolical Churches which is as clear for this as it is wanting for the
a man such St. Augustins opinion is reported by Aquinus as the Reason of his Judgment that is adopted into the Body of the Canon-law and therefore that ought to be the Standard according to which they are to pronounce a Person obstinate If Men do not wiâ—h Diligence and Caution seek after Truth and are not willing to embrace it when they find it then they are to be accounted Hereticks for being obstinate But St. Augustin goes no further however Suarez would seem to agree with him But it is worth the while to consider his Doctrine about it 1. He affirms That it is not enough for one to be ready to submit to Gods Word either written or unwritten but the Submission must be with respect to the Church as proposing both to us 2. That those who believe any Doctrine because their Judgment tells them it is the sense of Scripture if they therein follow their own Judgment and not the sense of the Church they are guilty of such an Oâ—stinacy as makes Hereticks 3 That it doth not excuse â—f he be willing to believe the Church if he â—â—es Reasons and Arguments to move him for this he saith is not to believe the Churches Authority as Divine but after a human manner which may consist with Obstinacy against the Church as a Rule of Faith. 4 That it is not yet necessary in order to this Obstinacy to believe the Church to have Infallible Authority for then those must be excused from heretical Obstinacy who denied it but it is sufficient that the Church is proposed as a true Church whose Authority he is bound to submit to The short of all this matter is If a Man resolve to believe as the Church believes a very small thing will excuse him from Heresy but if not nothing according to Suarez will do it unless it be Ignorance as to the Churches proposing And this is the modern notion of Heresy which appears to me to be very unreasonable on these accounts 1. Suppose a Person have a general Disposition of mind to believe whatever is sufficiently proposed to him as revealed by God and believes sincerely whatever he knows to be contained in Scripture I would sain know whether this Disposition of mind do not really excuse him from heretical Obstinacy And yet this is very consistent with doubting whether the Church be accounted as the Proponent of matters of Faith. 2. Is it necessary in order to heretical Obstinacy that the Person believes the Proponent to be Infallible or not If it be then none can be convinced of heretical Obstinacy but such as reject the Churches Authority when they believe it Infallible and then none of us can be charged with it for we do not believe the Churches Infallibility If it be not necessary then the Churches Infallibility is not necessary to Faith for iâ— order to Heretical Obstinacy he must be convinced of resisting that which was necessary in order to Faâ—â—h from whence it will follow that the Churches Infallibility is noâ— equired as the Ground of Faith. 3 Suppose a Person thinks himself bound in Conscience to believe those Guides which God by his Providence hath set over him and he believes to be sincere and honest and these tell him there is no ground to believe on the Churches Authority as being sounded neither in Scripture nor Antiquity nor Reason is not he excused hereby from Heretical Obstinacy 4. Suppose he declares himself ready to believe the Churches Authority if it be sufficiently proposed to him i. e. with such Reasons and Arguments as are proper to convince him but after all he declares that he cannot see any such And yet Aquinas affirms No man can believe unless he sees Reason why he should 〈◊〉 How then can a man be liable to Heretical Obstinacy because he only refuses to believe when he sees no Reason to believe 5. Suppose he doth believe that which the Church proposes not meerly upon its Authority but upon the Reasons which the Church offers why must this man be liable to Heretical Obstinacy for believing upon the Churches Reasons What a wonderful nice thing is Heresie made It seems by this rare Doctrine it doth not excuse from Heresie to believe even Truth it self if it be upon grounds of Reason which the Church it self gives But it must be taken meerly from the Churches Authority and yet that very Authority must be believed on the grounds of Reason or the Motives of Gredibility 6. Suppose a Person hath used the best means he could to find out his Obligation to believe on the Churches Authority and after all he cannot find any such thing what Obligation is he under to enquire farther and from whence doth it arise And if he be not under any how can he be guilty of Herecial Obstinacy who is under no Obligation to search any farther For Obstinacy must suppose resisting some Obligation 7. Suppose he be willing to believe on the Churches Authority if that Church be made appear to him to be the One Catholick Church of Christ but when he comes to examine this he finds that he must exclude very great and considerable Parts of the Catholick Church to reduce the Authority of the Catholick Church to that of the Roman Communion how can it then be Heretical Obstinacy not to suppose a Part to be the Whole 8. Suppose he hath overcome this yet if he should mistake about the Seat of Infallibility is he not still as liable to the charge of Heretical Obstinacy because the true Reason of it is that such a Person rejects that which God hath chosen as the proper means to propound matters of Faith to us But if he should be mistaken in the true Proponent he is in as much danger of Heretical Obstinacy still As suppose a man takes a General Council as representing the Catholick Church to be the only true Proponent of Faith and therefore rejects the Authority of the Pope in this matter I desire to know whether this be Heretical Obstinacy or not If not then rejecting the true Proponent doth not make any liable to it If it doth then there is Heretical Obstinacy in the Church of Rome as well as out of it And so much in Answer to the Repliers Charge of Heresie on the Church of England 3. The next Charge relates to the Insufficient Authority of the Church of England and that on these Accounts 1. In that it leaves every man to judge for himself 2. Because she dares not use the true Arguments against Sects for fear of their being turned upon her self 3. Because she denies an Appeal to an higher Judicature 1. It is urged in the Papers That among us every man thinks himself as competent a Judg of Scripture as the very Apostles It was answer'd That every man among us doth not pretend to an Infallible Spirit but all yield the Apostles had it And by being a Judg of Scripture if no more be meant than that
every man must use his Understanding about it that was no more than was necessary in order to the believing the matters contained in it But if by being a Judg of Scripture was meant giving such a Judgment as obliges others to submit to it then it was denied that every man among us is allow'd to judg of it But yet we own the Authority of the Guides of the Church and a due submission to them but we do not allow them to be as competent Judges of Scriptures as the very Apostles This seems to me to be a full and clear Answer But the Replier offers some things against it 1. That I suppose Men cannot be deceived in understanding the Scriptures and consequently their Spirit is infallible I never said or thought that they could not be deceived but I 〈◊〉 they must use their Understandings to prevent being deceived and must judg of the sense of what they are to believe in the Scriptures in order to their own Salvation But he saith Whosoever uses his Understanding in opposition to the Churches Tradition makes himself a Judg indeed but not to his own Salvation To make this matter clear we must consider That Matters of Faith necessary to Salvation are of another nature from Matters of Controversie concerning the Sense of Scripture in doubtful places As to the matters necessary to Salvation to particular persons we assert the Scriptures to be so plain and the Tradition of the Church as to the Creeds so well known and attested that no man without gross and culpable neglect can mistake about them but in case of invincible or unaffected ignorance their Errors shall not be laid to their charge and so their mistakes shall not hinder their Salvation And herein we assert no more than we can justifie not only from Scripture Reason and Antiquity but from the best of their own Writers who assert 1. That there are some Points of Faith necessary to be explicitely believed by all in order to Salvation for altho they say there may be such invincible ignorance of them as may excuse from sin in not believing them yet without believing them they are not capable of Salvation As to the prima credibilia as Aquinas calls them he determines That every man is bound to believe them explicitely as much as he is bound to have Faith but as to other things a preparation of mind is sufficient to believe all contained in Scripture and so much explicitely as is made plain to him to he contained therein From whence it follows That by the Doctrine of the Schools every man is to judg what he is to believe for his Words are Quando hoc ei constiterit when it is made clear to him and how can any thing be made clear to a man unless he be the Judg of it 2. That particular persons may certainly know what is sufficient to their Salvation by the inward assistance of Divine Grace without depending on the Churches Infallibility This follows from what is mention'd before concerning the Divine Gifts which accompany Grace And so much is owned by Melchior Canus as to what is necessary for every man as to his own state and condition So that the greatest Divines of the Roman Church do yield all we contend for as to the Matters necessary to Salvation The only Question is about Matters of Controversie raised in the Church concerning the Sense of Scripture and as to these they yield these material Points 1 That an Implicit Faith as to what is contained in Scripture is sufficient and that particular persons are bound to no more till the Doctrine be made clear to them which appears from the words of Aquinas lately mentioned 2. That particular Persons may disbelieve many things determined by the Church without sin This Sancta Clara proves from Vega and others and he saith himself Their Ignorance in such cases is either invincible or at least such as excuses from sin And he farther saith 3. That it is the common opinion of the Schools and of their Divines That Laymen erring with their Teachers are excused from any fault and as long as it is out of obedience to their Teachers it is rather a meritorious Act. Let us now lay these things to the present Case and all the Difficulty will soon disappear As to the Matters of Salvation they grant that God will not suffer those to be deceived about them who do sincerely seek after the knowledg of them As to Matters of Controversie they are in no danger if they trust their Spiritual Guides And I asserted that we owned the Authority of Guides in the Church and a due submission to them But the Replier is not satisfied with this for he saith 2. That no other submission is sufficient but such as men lose I haven without it This is somewhat hard to understand Doth he in earnest think men cannot go to Heaven without a blind Obedience to the Church Is there no allowance to be made for Ignorance Education reasonable Doubts Is all other submission to Authority in the Church merely ad Pompam But this Gentleman did not take time to consider the Doctrine of their own Schools about these matters for I cannot imagine he could be ignorant of it But the Defender seems to be wholly unacquainted with it otherwise he could not talk so crudely and unskilfully as he doth about mens Judgment in matters that concern their Salvation And he may now see how far their own Divines allow particular persons to be competent Judges about matters that relate to their own Salvation and therefore I need give him no other Answer till he hath better informed himself about these things but we have been upon such a Point as may in some measure excuse him but not those who ought to understand their own Doctrine better 2. The next Argument to prove the Insufficient Authority of the Church of England was That she dares not bring the true Arguments against the other Sects for fear they should be turned against themselves and confuted by their own Arguments To this it was answered That the Church of England did wisely disown the pretence of Infallibility and made use of the best Arguments against Sectaries from a just Authority and the Sinfulness and Folly of the Sectaries refusing to submit to it To take off the force of this Answer two different Ways are taken 1. The Replier saith The Argument is as forcible without Infallibility as with it 2. The Defender saith Authority signifies nothing in this Case without Infallibility I shall consider them both tho both cannot stand together 1. The Replier goes upon this Ground That the Church of England can never justly charge Sectaries with Disobedience to Her because they may as well cast it in her Teeth that she disobeyed her Mother Church whether she were Infallible or not But the Force of this depends upon a double Mistake 1. That the Church of Rome
hath as much Authority over our Church as the Rulers of it have over the Members Which ought not to have been supposed but substantially proved since the Weight of the Cause depends upon it But I see nothing like a Proof produced 2. That the Sectaries have as much reason to reject the Terms of Communion required by our Church as our Church had to reject those of the Church of Rome But this is as far from being proved as the other 2. The Defender desires to be instructed how such an Authority can be in a Church without Infallibility I hope he believes there may be Authority without Infallibility or else how shall Fathers govern their Children But not in the Church Why so Have not Bishops out of Councils Authority to rule their Diocesses Have they not a Provincial Synods Authority to make Canons tho they be not Infallible What then is the meaning of this He tells us soon after To say a Church is Fallible is to say she may be deceived There is no doubt of that And if she may be deceived her self they may be deceived who follow her And if a Church pretends to be Infallible which is not she certainly deceives those that follow her and that without Remedy But all this sort of Reasoning proceeds upon a false Suggestion viz. That our Faith must be grounded on the Chuach's Authority as the formal Reason of it Which he knows is utterly denied by us and ought to have been proved We declare the Ground of our Faith is the Word of God not interpreted by Fancy but by the Consent of the whole Christian Church from the Apostles Times This is our Bottom or if you will the Rock on which our Church is built This is far more firm and durable than a pretence to Infallibility which is like a desperate Remedy which Men never run to but when they see nothing else will help them Had the Church of Rome been able to defend her Innovations by Reason or Antiquity she had never thought of Infallibility It is a much better expedient to keep Men in Error than to keep them from it and tends more to save the Authority of a sinking Church than the Souls of Men. But he will not let the Church's Infallibility go thus For he pretends to prove that if we take that away we make Christianity the most unreasonable Thing in Nature nay absolutely impossible What! whether God hath promised to make the Church Infallible or not We understand those who offer to prove the Church Infallible by Scripture but these Scientifical Men despise such beaten Roads and when they offer to demonstrate fall short of the others Probabilities As will appear by examining his Argument Faith requires an assent to a thing as absolutely true but a fallible Authority cannot oblige me to a thing as absolutely true and therefore this would be an Effect without a Cause a down-right Impossibility a flat Contradiction I will match his Argument with another Faith is not an Assent to a thing as absolutely true upon less than a Divine Testimony but the Church's Testimony is not Divine and therefore to believe upon the Church's Testimony is an Effect without a Cause a down-right Impossibility a flat Contradiction Let him set one of these against the other and see who makes Faith unreasonable or impossible But I will clear this Matter in few words I grant that Faith is an Assent to a thing as absolutely true and that what is absolutely true is impossible to be false I grant that a meer fallible Authority is not sufficient to produce an Act of Faith. But here I distinguish the Infallible Authority of God revealing into which my Faith is resolved as into the formal Reason of it from the Authority of the Church conveying that Revelation which is only the Means by which this Revelation comes to be known to us As when a Man swears by the Bible there is a difference between the Contents of that Book by which he swears and the Officers putting the Book into his hands 3. The Church of England is blamed for allowing no Liberty of Appeals to a higher Judicature The Question is Whether this makes her no true Church or not to have any just Authority over her own Members The Replier saith She makes her self the last Tribunal of Spiritual Doctrine I know not where she hath done so since we own the Authority of Free and truly General Councils as the Supreme Tribunal of the Church upon Earth And accordingly receive the four first which even S. Gregory the Great distinguished from those that followed as to their Authority and Veneration The Defender had a good mind to cut off the Church of England from being a Church because she hath renounced Communion with the Church of Rome but his heart failed him And I hope he will think better of it when he sees cause to prove a little more effectually that the Church of Rome in its largest extent is the Catholick Church He argues That there must be such an Authority in a Church which may give a final Sentence conclusive to the Parties as the Judges do Temporal Differences But is it necessary for all Churches to have such a Power then there must be as many Supreme Courts as there are Churches If not we desire to know where the Supreme Court is and who appointed it And where Christ hath ever promised to his Church a Power to end Controversies when they arise as effectually as Judges do Temporal Differences For the freest and most General Councils yet assembled have not been so happy and those we look on as the most Venerable Authority to decide Differences in the Church But still our Church wants sufficient Authority in his Opinion Doth it want Authority to govern its own Members To Reform Abuses in a divided State of the Catholick Church To cast off an usurped Power as it was judged by the Clergy in Convocation who yet concurred in other things with the Church of Rome I pray what Authority had the Gallican Church so lately to declare against the Pope's Infallibility and to reduce him in that respect to the Case of an ordinary Bishop If Absolute Obedience be due to him as Head of the Church what Authority have the Temporal Princes in other Countries sometimes to forbid sometimes to restrain and limit the Pope's Bulls This at least shews that there may be just Authority to examine and restrain the Pope's Power And I see no Reason why the several Churches of Christendom may not act as well against the Pretence of the Pope's Authority as the Gallican Church hath done against his Infallibility especially since this Gentleman hath told us that Authority without Infallibility signifies nothing And those who think they may examine and reject his Dictates may do the same by his Authority the one being as liable as the other It was said in the Papers That no Country can subsist in
Quiet where there is not a Supreme Judg from whom there can be no Appeal The Answer was That the natural Consequence was then that every National Church ought to have the Supreme Power within it self But how comes Appeals to a Foreign Jurisdiction to tend to the Peace and Quiet of a Church The Defender saith That a National to the whole Church is but as a Shire to a Kingdom and a very natural and consistent Consequence it is that every Shire should have a King. One would think by such an Answer this Defender is a mighty Stranger to the ancient Polity of the Church Did he never hear of the Power of Metropolitans being setled by the Council of Nice for governing the Churches and calling Provincial Synods Did he never hear of many other Canons relating to the Power and Frequency of Provincial Synods Did he never hear of the Decrees of the Council of Ephesus forbidding all Incroachments on the ancient Rights of Churches Did he never hear that Provincial Councils have declared Matters of Faith without so much as advising with the Bishop of Rome As the African Councils did in the Pelagian Controversy and the Councils of Tolcdo in the Case of Arianism which reformed the Spanish Churches and made Canons by their own Authority which were confirmed by their Kings Reccaredus and Sisenandus Did he never hear that it was good Doctrine among Catholâ—ck Divines That particular Churches might take upon them to declare the true Catholick Faith And if so they must judg what is so Did he never hear that in a divided State of the Church Errors and Abuses may be reformed by particular Churches And that this was owned and defended by great Men in the Church of Rome if he did not he was very much unprovided for the handling such a Controversy if he did know these things he ought not to have spoken with so much contempt of the Power of Particular or National Churches And to assert their Authority is very far from being like setting up a King in every Shire for this were the highest Dilloyalty to the King who hath a just and unquestionable Authority over all the Shires Let him prove that the Pope hath such a Monarchy over all particular Churches before he make such a Parallel again But the way he takes is rather like making the Imperial Crown of this Realm to be in subjection to a Foreign Power because the Roman Emperors once had Dominion here and therefore this Kingdom could never recover its own Rights But he saith A Foreign Jurisdiction is hardly sense with respect to the Church for â—oris is out and unless the ultimate Jurisdiction be out of the Church it cannot be said to be foreign This is a shameful begging of the Question that what they call the Roman Catholick Church is the Catholick Church for if it be not which I hope I have sufficiently shewn then the pretended and usurped Jurisdiction of the Roman Church over the Church of England is a Foreign Jurisdiction He adds That it is impossible to re-settle the Church among us without that which we call Foreign Jurisdiction because Dissentions in matters of Religion cannot otherwise be removed But suppose this Foreign Jurisdiction be the occasion of these Dissentions some maintaining 〈◊〉 others asserting the Rights of our Church against it Is not 〈◊〉 â—oreign Jurisdiction like to put an end to it Yes certainly For if all Parties submit there will be no longer disputing But our Question as yet is whether this be reasonable or not I complained of the Inconvenience of Appeals to a Foreign Jurisdiction He gives us a smart Answer and saith That holds no comparison with the Inconvenience of Heresy As tho it were so plain a thing that we are guilty of Heresy that it needed no manner of proof Alas what need a Man prove that it is day when the sun shines We are just as much guilty of Heresy as the good Bishop was who for denying the Antipodes was condemned by Pope Zachâ—â—y But it is a comfortable thing in a Charge of Heresy to find it no better proved He saith I mistook the matter of Appeals and that it was not understood with respect to Causes but to matters of Doctrine and Worship An Appeal must reâ—ate to a Superiour Authority and a constant Appeal to a standing Authority and whatever the pretence be the Court of Rome will challenge Supreme Jurisdiction where-ever the Pope is owned as Head of the Church And then all those Consequences will follow I mentioned before If other kind of Appeals were meant in the Papers yet they must relate to an Authority Superiour to our Church which we could wish had been more fully expressed that we might have known to whom the Appeal was to be made whether to a free General Council which we never disowned or to the Popes Authority which we yet see no cause to make our Appeals to especially as to what concerns his own Jurisdiction He pleads That Supream Power must be Judg in its own Cause for no Authority ought to be set up against the King supposing a Question be started about his Prerogative I answer This is a Case extreamly different for in matters of Prerogative the King 's Supream Power is not the Question for his Right to the Imperial Crown is and ought to be out of dispute but all the Question that can be started must relate only to the Exercise of his Power in some particular Cases where former Laws made by the King's Consent are supposed to limit it which the Courts of Judicature take Cognizance of and so are a kind of Legal Arbitrators between the King and his People But in the Case before us the Jurisdiction it self and the Right to exercise any such Authority is the very thing in Question And I desire this Gentleman to resolve me whether in the late times of Usurpation this had 〈◊〉 been good Doctrine that those who enjoy or pretend to Supream Power are to be Judges in their own Case If so then it had been impossible for Men to have justified their Loyalty to the Royal Family then very unjustly put out of possession If not then there may be a pretence to Supream Authority where it is by no means allowable for the Pretender to Judg in his own Cause As to his Appeal to the Catholick Church we by no means reject it provided he mean the Church truly Catholick as it comprehends the Apostolical Church in the first place and then all other Christian Churches which from the Apostles times have delivered down the Catholick Doctrine and Worship which they received from them But if he means that which is called a Catholick Church but is neither Catholick nor Apostolical we beg his pardon if we allow no Appeal to it since its Errors and Corruptions are the great and just Cause of our Complaints He runs into a long Discourse about Church-Security and his design is
all the Clerks of his Kingdom besides two were lately declared for him Adding That he had studied the Matter himself and Writers of it and that he found it was unlawful DE JURE DIVINO and undispensible Thus we have found the King himself declaring in Publick and Private his real dissatisfaction in Point of Conscience and that it was no inordinate Affection to Ann Bolleyn which put him upon it and the same attested by Sir Tho. More and the Circumstances of Affairs I now proceed to another Witness The next is Bishop Bonner himself in his Preface to Gardiner's Book of True Obedience For thus he begins Forasmuch as there be some doubtless now at this present which think the Controversy between the King 's Royal Majesty and the Bishop of Rome consisteth in this Point for that his Majesty hath taken the most excellent and most noble Lady Ann to his Wife whereas in very deed notwithstanding the Matter is far otherwise and nothing so So that if Bishop Bonner may be believed there was no such immediate Cause of the Schism as the Love to Ann Bolleyn And withal he adds That this Book was published that the World might understand what was the whole Voice and resolute Determination of the best and greatest learned Bishops with all the Nobles and Commons of England not only in the Cause of Matrimony but also in defending the Gospel's Doctrine i. e. against the Pope's usurped Authority over the Church Again he saith That the King's Marriage was made by the ripe Judgment Authority and Privilege of the most and principal Universities of the World and then with the Consent of the whole Church of England And that the false pretended Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was most justly abrogated and that if there were no other Cause but this Marriage the Bishop of Rome would content himself i. e. if he might enjoy his Power and Revenues still which he saith were so insupportable that there lay the true Cause of the Breach For his Revenues here were near as great as the King 's and his Tyranny was 〈◊〉 and bitter which he had exercised here under the Title of the Catholick Church and the Authority of the Apostles Peter and Paul when notwithstanding he was a very ravening Wolf dressed in Sheeps clothing calling himself the Servant of Servants These are Bonner's words as I have transcribed them out of two several Translations whereof one was published while he was Bishop of London Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester in his Book not only affirms the King's former Marriage to be unlawful and the second to be just and lawful but that he had the Consent of the Nation and the Judgment of his Church as well as foreign Learned Men for it And afterwards he strenuously argues against the Pope's Authority here as a meer Usurpation And the whole Clergy not only then owned the King's Supremacy Fisher excepted but in the Book published by Authority called A Necessary Doctrine and Erudition of a Christian Man c. The Pope's Authority was rejected as an Usurpation and confuted by Scripture and Antiquity K. James I. declares That there was a General and Catholick Conclusion of the whole Church of England in this Case And when some Persons suspected that it all came from the King's Marriage Bishop Bonner we see undertakes to assure the World it was no such thing The Separation was made then by a General Consent of the Nation the King and Church and People all concurring and the Reasons inducing them to cast off the Popes Usurpation were published to the World at that time And those Reasons have no relation at all to the King's Marriage and if they are good as they thought they were and this Gentleman saith not a word to disprove them then the Foundation of the Disunion between the Church of Rome and Us was not laid in the King 's inordinate Passion but on just and sufficient Reasons Thus it appears that this Gentleman hath by no means proved two parts of his Assertion viz. That our Reformation was erected on the Foundations of Last and Usurpation But our grim Logician proceeds from Immediate and Original to Concomitant Causes which he saith were Revenge Ambition and Covetousness But the Skill of Logicians used to lie in proving but this is not our Author's Talent for not a word is produced to that purpose If bold Sayings and confident Declarations will do the Busines he is never unprovided but if you expect any Reason from him he begs your Pardon he finds how ill the Character of a grim Logician suits with his Inclination However he takes a leap from Causes to Effects and here he tells us the immediate Effects of this Schism were Sacrilege and a bloody Persecution of such as denied the King's Supremacy in Matters wholly Spiritual which no Layman no King of Israel ever exercised What the Supremacy was is best understood by the Book published by the King's Order and drawn up by the Bishops of that Time. By which it appears that the main thing insisted on was rejecting the Pope's Authority and as to the positive Part it lies in these things 1. In Defending and Protecting the Church 2. In overseeing the Bishops and Priests in the execution of their Office 3. In Reforming the Church to the old Limits and pristine Estate of that Power which was given to them by Christ and used in the Primitive Church For it is out of doubt saith that Book that Christ's Faith was then most pure and firm and the Scriptures of God were then best understood and Vertue did then most abound and excel And therefore it must needs follow that the Customs and Ordinances then used and made be more conform and agreeable unto the true Doctrine of Christ and more conducing unto the edifying and benefit of the Church of Christ than any Custom or Laws used or made by the Bishop of Rome or any other addicted to that See and usurped Power since that time This Book was published with the King's Declaration before it And therefore we have reason to look on the Supremacy to be taken as it is there explained And what is there now so wholly Spiritual that no Layman or King of Israel ever exercised in this Supremacy But this Writer never took the pains to search into these things and therefore talks so at random about them As to the Persecutions that followed it is well known that both sides blame K. Hen. 8. for his Severity and therefore this cannot be laid to the Charge of his Separation For the other Effect of Sacrilege I do not see how this follows from the Reformation For although some Uses might cease by the Doctrines of it as Monks to pray the Dead out of Purgatory yet there were others to have employed the Church Lands about as some of them were in founding New Bishopricks c. And I have nothing to say in justification of any Abuses committed
that way only that the King and Parliament could not discern the difference between greater and lesser as to the Point of Sacrilege and since the Pope had shewed them the way by granting Bulls for the dissolution of the lesser Monasteries they thought since the Pope's Power was taken away they might with as little Sacrilege dissolve the rest I will shut up this with the words of Arch-bishop Laud But if there have been any wilful and gross Errors not so much in Opinion as Fact Sacrilege too often pretending to reform Superstition that 's the Crime of the Reformers not of the Reformation and they are long since gone to God to answer it to whom I leave them The Method I proposed for Satisfaction of Conscience about the Reformation was to consider Whether there were not sufficient cause for it Whether there were not sufficient Authority And whether the Proceedings of our Reformation were not justifiable by the Rules of Scripture and the Ancient Church He tells me he may safely join issue with me upon all three Points and conclude in the Negative But upon second thoughts he finds he may much more safely let it alone And very fairly would have me take it for granted That the Church of Rome cannot err in Matters of Faith for that he must mean by the Church there and that our Church hath no Authority ef Reforming her self and that our Proceedings were not justifiable according to the right interpretation of Scriptures by the Fathers and Councils But if I will not allow his Affirmations for Proofs for his part he will act the grim Logician no longer and in truth it becomes him so ill that he doth well to give it over When he will undertake to prove that the Church of Rome is the One Catholick and Infallible Church of Christ and answer what I have produced in the former Discourses I will ease him of any farther Trouble for then I will grant that our Reformation cannot be justified But till then I shall think it no want of Humility to conclude the Victory to be on our side And I would desire him not to end with such a bare-faced Assertion of a thing so well known to be false viz. That there is not one Original Treatise written by a Protestant which hath handled distinctly and by it seif that Christian Vertue of Humility Since within a few Years besides what hath been printed formerly such a Book hath been published in London But he doth well to bring it off with at least that I have seen or heard of for such Books have not lain much in the way of his Enquiries Suppose we had not such particular Books we think the Holy Scripture gives the best Rules and Examples of Humility of any Book in the World but I am afraid he should look on his Case as desperate if I send him to the Scripture since he saith Our Divines do that as Physicians do with their Patients whom they think uncurable send them at last to Tunbridg-Waters or to the Air of Montpellier FINIS ERRATA The Folio's through mistake are twice repeated from Pag. 81 pag. 92 inclusive PAge 7. line 26 for Authority read Antiquity Pag. 22. l. 39. f. Persoâ—a r. Parsopa Pag. 23. l. 25. f. when r. whom l. 26. f. his r. as l. 32. f. Western r. Southern Pag. 26. l. 5. f. S. Cyprian r. San Lyran. Pag. 68. l. 32. r. Some of the Chineses Pag. 78. l. 3. a whole line faulty r. pristinam melioratam recipere 〈◊〉 sanitate Pag. 86. 2d l. 23. blot out not Pag. 93. l. 23. blot out both Pag. 103. l. 14. f. House of the Lord r. House of Lords Pag. 108. l. 20. f. satness r. fitness l. 28 f. dare not r. do not Page 112. l. 37. f. eras r. ejus Pag. 116. l. 17. f. Declarations r. Declamations Books lately printed for Richard Chiswell THe History of the Reformation of the Church of England By GILBERT BURNET D. D. in two Volumes Folio The Moderation of the Church of England in her Reformation in avoiding all undue Compliances with Popery and other sorts of Phaâ—aticism c. By TIMOTHY PULLER D. D. Octavo A Dissertation concerning the Government of the Ancient Church more particularly of the Encroachments of the Bishops of Rome upon other Sees By WILLIAM CAVE D. D. Octavo An Answer to Mr. Serjeant's Sure Footing in Christianity concerning the Rule of Faith With some other Discourses By WILLIAM FALKNER D. D. 40. A Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England in Answer to a Paper written by one of the Church of Rome to prove the Nullity of our Orders By GILBERT BURNET D. D. Octavo An Abridgment of the History of the Reformation of the Church of England By GILB BURNET D. D. Octavo The APOLOGY of the Church of England and an Epistle to one Signior Scipio a Venetian Gentleman concerning the Council of Trent Written both in Latin by the Right Reverend Father in God JOHN JEWEL Lord Bishop of Salisbury Made English by a Person of Quality To which is added The Life of the said Bishop Collected and written by the same Hand Octavo A LETTER writ by the last Assembly General of the Clergy of Francâ— to the Protestants inviting them to return to their Communion Together with the Methods proposed by them for their Conviction Translated into English and Examined by GILB BURNET D. D. Octavo The Life of WILLIAM BEDEL D. D. Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland Together with Certain Letters which passed betwixt him and James Waddesworth a late Pensioner of the Holy Inquisition of Sevil in Matter of Religion concerning the General Motives to the Roman Obedience Octavo The Dâ—cree made at ROME the Second of March 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Jesuits and other Casâ—ists Quarto A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome Quarto First and Second Parts A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongne Quarto A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to A Papist Misrepresented and Represented Quarto An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOM in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church Quarto An Answer to THREE PAPERS lately printed concerning the Authority of the Catholick Church in Matters of Faith and the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome With an Answer thereunto By a Protestant of the Church of England 80. A Papist Represented and not Misrepresented being an Answer to the First Second Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Second Part of the Papist Misrepresented and Represented and for a further Vindication of the CATECHISM truly representing the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome Quarto The Lay-Christian's
Obligations to read the Holy Scriptures Quarto The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholick Missionaries 240. A Vindication of the Answer to SOME LATE PAPERS concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholick Church and the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto A Treatise written by an AUTHOR of the Communion of the CHURCH of ROME touching TRANSUBSTANTIATION Wherein is made appear that according to the Principles of THAT CHURCH This Doctrine cannot be an Article of Faith. Quarto Def. p. 1. Pag. 2. Pag. â— Des. p. 2 3. Des. p. 2. Rep. p. 2. Des. p. 3. Rep. p. 3. Rep. p. â— Def. p. 3 4. Pag. â— Pag 5. De Ecclâ—s l. 3. c. 2. Ibid. c. 5. Catech. Rom. Part. 1. c 10. â— 10. Tertul. c. Praâ—â—am c. 1. Noâ—a Collect. Concil Balâ—â— p. 10. V. Epist. Cypri ep 74 75. Epist. 4. 8. Faâ—â— l. 4. c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Poâ—â— Coâ—â— Baâ—il X. Nova Collect. Concil p. 1551. Ratraâ—â— c. Graec. apâ—d 〈◊〉 Spicil To. 2. p. 3 24 27 29 53 54 60 61 62. Monument a Graec. To. 2. p. 138. n. 6. p. 164. n. 3 4 5. Caâ—is Aâ—tiq Lect. To. 6. p. 197. Pag. 196. Innocent III. Ep. l. 1. 353. Lib. 2. 208. Ep. 209. 〈◊〉 c◠〈◊〉 p. ◠〈◊〉 l. 4. c. 14. L. 7. c. 24. Stâ—â— l. 7. p. 764 〈◊〉 7â—â—5 〈◊〉 Eâ—â— 1. Fulgâ—â—t Op. p. 6â— Lactant. In it l. 4. c. â—lt Sola 〈◊〉 Catholi◠〈◊〉 quâ—â—erum Cultâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concii p. 286. Supplem Concil Gall. p. 14. Can. 6. Epist. ad Smyrn Eusâ—b l. 4. c. 14. l. 7. c. â—4 Cyrilâ— Catech. 18. p. 220. 〈◊〉 â—o 2. p. â—â—2 〈◊〉 in 1 Cor. 12. 27. Opt. c. Par. l. 2. Câ—m inde dicta sit Catholica quod sit rationabilis abique dissusa Balâ—z Coll. Concil p. 287 288. Nos universo orbi Christiano communione cohaeremus n. 100. Et appellantur merito sunt Catholici ipsa sua communione noâ—â—en testantes Catholon enim secundùn totâ—â—m dicitur Qui autem à toto sâ—paratus est partem â—ue defendit ab uniniverso praecisam non sibi uâ—â—rpet hoc nomen sed nobiscum teneat veritatem n. 101. Concil Florent Sess. 9. Concil Constant Sess. 11. Concil Gen. To. 12. p. 87. De Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 14. Des. p. 23. Pag. 6. Not. in Moâ—â— Graâ— To. â— p. 601. Reply p. 8. Defence p. 7. Pag. 8. Pag. 9. Catech. Rom. Part 1. c. 10. n. 20. Seâ—â— 7. Can. 7 8 9. De Bapt. Can. 13. Pag. 10. Pag. â— Reply p. 8. Pag. 9. Pag. 9 10. Concil Ephes. Part 2. Act. 6. Chalcedon Act. 5. Des. p. 14. Pag. 15. 〈…〉 Aâ—â—â— Thom. à â—esa l. 7. c. 14. Philipp à SS Trinit Itiner Orient l. 5. c. 5. 〈◊〉 Hist. Sâ—â—iet Jesu l. 6. 12. 123. Voyage du Mont. Liâ—an 〈◊〉 Daâ—dini Remarques sâ—r Chap. 2â— p. 383. Dissâ—rt de Origine Nomine Religion Maâ—oâ—itarâ—m Pag. 15. Thom. à Jesu de Concil â—mn Gent. l. 7. c. 6. Pag. 16. Pag. II. Aâ—g â— Donat. p. 6. Collat. c. 20. Pag. 12 13. Prejugbs legit contre le Janâ—â—â—â— p. 135. Pag. 14. C. Parmen l. 1. c. ult l. 2. c. 1 11. C. Cresom l. 4. c. 10 11. Pag. 14. Concil Nic. c. 19. Arel c. 8. Pag. 11. Pag. 12. Pag 1. Deut. 17. 8 9 10 11. Rom. 15. 17. 1 Thess. 5. 21. 1 S John. 4. 1. 1 Tim 3. 15. Grâ—g Nyssen de â—ita Mos. p. 226 Basil. Epist. 62. Chrysost. Hom. 148. To. 5. Theod. de Prov. Orat. 10. p. 441. Greg. Nazian Ep. 38. Orat. 19. Epist. 29. Heins in loc Pag. 17. Dis. p. 33. Pag. 33. 〈◊〉 legit c. le Jansenists c. 10. P ag 87. Pag. 34. Rep. p. 22. Aug. de Bapt. c. Donatisâ— l. 3. c. 17 18. l. 4. c. 18 20. l. 5. c. 21. l. 6. c. 1 3 4 14 24 2 30 31 32 33 34 40. l. 7. c. 12 32 43 44. L. 2. c. 1. L. 7. c. 51. â—â—Lineâ—â— Rep. p. 23. John 7. 17. Def. p. 34 35. Greg. 7. Epist. Reg. l. 4. Ep. 2. Pag. 18. 1 John 4. 3. A◠〈◊〉 p. 3. Pag. 4. Pag. 6. I. 〈◊〉 l. â— c. 17 18. * L. 1. 1. 4. 69. †L. 3. c. 1. * L. â— â— 47. 4. 66. De Carut Christi c. Marcion c. Valentin Def. p. 18. Dâ— Praescript c. 17. Aufer denique Haereticis quae cum Ethnicis sapiunt ut de Scripturis solis quaestiones suas sistant stare non poterunt De Resur Caâ—nis c. 3. Haereses autem sine aliquibus occasionibus Scripturarum audere non poterant idcirco pristina instrumenta quasdam materias illis videntur subministrasse ipsas quidem iisdem literis revincibiles c. 63. Lucifugae isti Scripturarum c. 47. Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 7. p. 755. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. 757. Orig. Dial. c. Marcionist §. 4. p. 108. p. 101. Yâ—od ad heâ—â—t Fab. Prâ—ef l. 2. p. 218. Haeret. Fab. l. 3. p. 226 231. St. Cyprian Epist. 74 75. Reply p. 13. Aug. de Bapt. c. Donatill l. 2. c. 3. Deâ—r Dist 9. c 8. Dist. 19. c. 6. De unit Ecel c. 3. 416. c. Petil. Donar l. 3. c. 6 c. Maxim. Arian l. 3. c. 14. c. Faust. l. 11. c. 5. De Peccator Merit remiss l. 1. 22. De Nuptiis Concupisc l. 2. c. 33. De Grat. lib. Arbitrio c. 18. In Psalm 67. Def. p. 18. Deâ— p. 2. Theod. l. 1. c. 6. Bellar. de Ver. Dei l 4. c. 11. Hilar. l. 2. ad Constant. Athanas. de Synodis Tom. 1. p. 873. Tom. 2. p. 197. Tom. 1. c. Grat. Basil. Epist. 80. Tom. 3. Epist. 1 284 Haer. 75. p. 923 943 989. Chrysost. in Acta Apost Hom. 33. In Joh. Hom 53 Ib Hom. 58 Reply p. 18 Def p 21 Reply p. 19 Act Synodi Eph. p. 175. Hist. Concil To. 1. p. 498. Bell. de Concil l. 2. c. 12. Niceph. cum Leone Armeno Disput. ed. Combefis p. 162. Hos. Oper. p. 373. Quandoquidem solus ille verè dicitur est Oecumenicus patriarcha quod Concilium ipsius est Auctoritate Congregatum id verè dicitur oecumenicum De Concil l. 1. â— 6. Repl. p. 8 Def. p. 23 Def. p 24. Circa ea quae sunt de necessitate salutis sufficienter instruuntur â— Spiritu sancto 2 2 Qu. 8 ar 4 ad 1 Donum Intellectus nunquam se subtrahit sanctis circa ea quae sunt â—eâ—â—â—saria ad salutem ib ad 3 Gul. Parisiens de Legibus c 21 p 57 58 Pag 59 D. Col. 1. Henr. a Gand. Sum. Art. 13. q. 4. n. 3. Def. p. 26 P. 27. P. 28. Def. p. 29. Reply p. 21. Def. p. 30. Reply p. 21. Def. p. 31. Reply p. 22. Def. p 32. Reply p. 25. Def. p. 39. Def. p. 39. Def p 40 Pag. 41. Def. p. 42. Pag. 43. Cler. Gallica Declaratio Prop. 4. 1682. Censura Hungarica 24 Oct. 1682. Tractat. de Libertat Eccles Gallican Leodii 1684. Regale Sacerdotium Romano Pontifici assertum Auctore Eugenio Lombardo 1684. De Antiqua Ecclesiae Disâ—iplina Dissert 5. Auct Lud. Ellies Du Pin 1686. Dissert 5 c. â— ss 2. Pag. 44. Pag 45. Reply p. 25 Pag. 27. Reply p. 40. * Dial. 4. c. 39. Reply p. 27. Reply p. 28. Def. p. 46. Reply p. 29. Inititur enim Fides nostra Revelationi Apostolis Prophetis factae qui Canonicos libros scripserunt non autem revelation si qua fuit aliis Doctoribus facta 1. q. 1. Arâ— 8 ad 2. 2. 2. q. 1 Art. 5. ad 2. 1. q. 32. art 4 2. 2. q. 2. art 5 De Haeret puâ—it l. 1. c. 3 Loc. Theolog. l. 12. c. 11. Suarez de Fide Disp. 19. Sect. 2 n. 13. Suarez de Fide Disp. 19. Sect. 2. n. 8. â—â—p 4. Sect. 2. n. 3. 2. 2. q. 11. Art. 2. ad 3. Aug Epist. 162 Non est ergo haereticus nisi qui videns prudens doctrinam eligit Fidei contrariam Loc. 12. c. 9. Suarez de Fide Disc. 19. Sect. 3. n. 9. De Bapt. c. Donat l 4 c. 16 De Civit. Dei l. 18. c. 51. C. 24. q 3. c. 29 31. Ockam Dialog l. 3. c. 3. c. c. 6. ad fin Cap. 8 C. 24. q 1. Schismae â— 4. c. 2. C. 5 c. C. 9. C. 10. C. 27. C. 28. C. 29. C. 30. Gerson To. 1. p. 408. Can. Loc. Th. l. 12. c. 9. Disp. 14. de fide Sect. 3. n. 10. N. 11. Ibid. N. 13. 2. â— q l. art 3. Repl. p. 31. 2. 2. q. 5. Loc. 2. c. 8. Concedimus enim liberaliter doctrinam cuique in sua vita statâ—â— necessariam illi fore perspectam cognitam qui fecerit voluntatem Dei. Deuâ— Natura Gratia Probl. 15. p. 96 P. 97. Def. p. 49. Repl. p. 32. Des. p. 51. Page 52. Repl. p. 33. Def. p. 54. Page 55. Page 56. Page 57. Pag. 55. Pag 58. Pag. 59. Pag. 59. Pag. 52. Pag. 63. Pag. 64 65. Pag. 65. Repl. p. 34. Pag. 66. P. 67 68. Pag. 67. Pag. 6â— Pag. 70. Repl. p. 36. Pag. 71. Pag. 75. Repl. p. 37. Dis. p. 72. Pag. 73. Pag. 74. Pag. 75. Pag. 38 30. Des. p. 76. Repâ—â— p. 35. Repl. p. 41. Dis. p. 78. Pag. 80. Des. p. 111. Pag. 85. 87. 88. Ib. 125. lvix Pag. 85. Page 92. 125. 126. Pag. 95. 93. Pag. 〈◊〉 Pag. 87. Pag. 88. Pag. 97. P. 104 105 c. 108 109. Pag. 109. Pag. 90. Ibid. Ibid. Page 11â— Page 94. Pag. 98. â—ag 101. Pag. 1â—2 Paâ— 117. Pag. 117. Pag. 117. Sand. de Schism Angl. l. 1. p. 11. Pag. 9. Pag. 10. Pag. 15. Pag. 10. Pag. 18. Acworth c. Sander l. 2. â— 14 17. Pag. 22. History of H. 8 p. 216. Servi Fidelis Responsio c. 〈◊〉 Herb. 〈◊〉 219. Pag. 217. Apol. for the Oath of Allâ—giance Pag. 118. â—id Conference 〈◊〉 p. 156. Pag. 1. 2.
an Usurpation as that of the Popes was And the main Point in order to a Reformation was casting off the Popes Power as an encroachment upon the Ancient and Canonical Priviledges of the Western Churches which was done here by a General consent even of those Bishops who held in Communion with the Roman Church as far as those could do who rejected the Head of it And this is the Fundamental Point as to the matter of Schism If the Pope as Head of the Church doth influâ—â—ce Catholick Communion so far that it is necessary to Salvation to live in subjection to him it will be very hard to justify separation from that Body whereof he is the visible Head. But if there be no Scripture no Councils no Universal Tradition for this as the Roman Catholick Bishops here declared in the time of H. 8. then there can be no Schism in acting without Authority from him or against his Authority And whether any other Church joyned with ours or not is no more material to the justification of the Reformation than the lawfulness of any one Counties Acting for the Royal Family in the late times of Usurpation did depend upon the concurrence of others with it What more commonly talked of and magnified in the Church of Rome than the Reformation of the Mâ—nastick Orders And some of the personâ— have been Canonized who have done it But in this Case the Governour of a Monastick Order proceeding according to the Rules of his Order doth a very justifiable thing tho never another Monastry joyn with him in it because he only doth his duty and proceeds by the Rules which are receiv'd by the whole Order This I say was the Case of the Church of England in Reforming according to Scripture and the sense of the Primitive Church and if others joyned so much the better if not the Act justifies it self and needs not the concurrence of others to make it good 2. The 2d Answer was That there is a difference between voluntary Separation and that which is unavoidable in case unreasonable conditions of Communion be required The Defender pretends He can by no means understand this unavoidable Separation because tho Men be separated from the Communion of a Church yet they may continue of the same Faith if they please but if they have another Faith they separate themselves even supposing Usurpation or whatever I would have Now this seems very strange to me from a person who knows the Terms of Communion with the Roman Church Can any Man be a true Member thereof who doth not own and profess to believe the Popes Supremacy Transubstantiation c. Is he not by the constitution of that Church required to believe all that the Roman Church believes But suppose men do not and cannot for their hearts believe as that Church believes can they notwithstanding be Members of it No he confesses a different Faith unavoidably casts them out But then to believe otherwise than the Roman Church believes casts them out unavoidably The Question now is who is the cause of this casting out those who cannot believe those Doctrines or those who require the belief of them in order to communion If these Doctrines be evident in Scripture or were defined by the four General Councils or are contained in the ancient Creeds or can be clearly proved by Universal Tradition then we confess the blame falls on those who refuse but if none of those can be made appear to the satisfaction of a mans mind who desires to search out Truth then their separation is unavoidable and there is no reason to make it their voluntary act But saith the Defender a mans faith is his own voluntary act I grant that but not a voluntary cause of Separation which two ought to be distinguished in this case As in the case of Usurpation the owning the lawful King is a voluntary act but if an Usurper threatens to banish him if he doth not abjâ—re him upon whom must the blame be laid upon the mans voluntary act or the Usurpers voluntary imposing such a penalty on those who do nothing but what is just The Defender did not consider that the making such terms of communion was a voluntary act too and being a thing unreasonable and unjust it leaves the blame upon the imposers But he denies any such thing as Usurpation in the Pâ—pe because he hath shewed by his reiterated Approbation of the Bishop of Meaux's Book that he is content with that submission and obedience which the Holy Councils and Fathers have always taâ—ght the Faithful These are very fine words to deceive the unwary But I pray tell us who is to declare what the Councils and Fathers have always taught the Faithful Who is to be Judg Is not the Pope himself For no Council will be allowed without his Approbation and Confirmation And is not this then a very pretty Artifice to draw weak persons into a snare For my part I do not wonder at the Popes Approbation of the Bishop of Meaux's Book no more than I would at a Gentlemans approbation of a fine spun Net when he goes a fishing which is not so easily discerned and yet doth as effectually catch the Game Some there are still who love to be deceived and some have more arts of deceiving than others and those who gain most by it will be sure to give them the greatest approbation The Defender proceeds Suppose there were Usurpation must people therefore believe otherwise than they did before as that there is no change of Substance no Purgatory no more than two Sacraments and the rest The Question about Faith is one thing and about Separation is another We are now upon the latter of these and in this case we are most concerned about the Popes Authority since he is look'd on by you as the Head of the Catholick Church and the Center of Communion If there were no such Usurpation yet we should never decline giving an account of the Reasons of our Faith as to Sacraments Purgatory or what you please of the Points in difference between us Which I neither desire to make greater or lesser than really they are For there may be deceit both ways As to his renewing the Question by what authority we separate I answer by the same authority which makes it unlawful for us to profess what we do not believe and to practise what we believe God hath forbidden This is just as if one should ask by what authority men are bound to be honest and sincere and to prefer Gods Laws before mens For the Church of Rome requires from the Members of her Communion besides matters of Faith such acts of Worship which whatever they be to those who believe as they do must be Idolatrous to those that believe as we do For example suppose in China where they believe God to be the same with the World that honour of the Chineses who on that account think they may
reform abuses and to declare Articles of Religion so as to oblige its Members to Conformity especially since it proceeds by such excellent Rules as the Holy Scriptures the ancient Councils and Universal Tradition And I hope this may pass for a direct Answer The Replier takes another course besides this for he makes use of these two Topicks against the Church of England 1. That the Church of Rome was in possâ—ssion of all those Truths we rejected 2. That we ought to bring positive Texts for our Negative Articles 1. As to the Plea of Possession of all those Truths now question'd by us This were a pleasant thing for us to question them if we owned they were Truths but he means only that he thinks them so Well then how is it their Church was in possession of those Truths Do they become Truths by their possession or only that they were Truths they were then possessed of If so he must first prove them to be Truths or the Possession signifies nothing And that is the point I went upon that no Possession gives a right to Truth but the Church of England had just reason to examine whether these were Truths or not and upon examination finding them to be otherwise it had reason to reject them But to inforce this he saith afterwards That their Church had a thousand years prescription here and that their Religion came into this Nation with Christianity Although according to St. Cyprian's Rule all this prâ—ves no more than the Antiquity of Error unless the proof be made from Scripture yet because this goes a great way with some people I do not only deny the truth of it but shall give evident proof to the contrary For I suppose it will not be questioned that the Religion brought in here by Augustin and his Companions was the Religion of Gregory the Great I shall therefore compare the Doctrine of the Council of Trent with that of Gregory in some remarkable Paticulars and shew the great Difference between them as to these things 1. Scripture and Tradition Council of Trent Gregory the Great DEclares That it receives Traditions with an equal Veneration with Holy Scriptures Sess. 4. AFfirms That all things which edifie and instruct are contained in the Volume of Scriptures in Ezek. Hom. l. 1. cap. 8.  That Gods Mind is to be found in his Words Regist. Epist. l. 4. Ep. 40.  That the Scripture is the Glass of the Elect in Reg. l. 4. c. 10. in Job l. 2. c. 1.  That to be born of God is to love his Will revealed in Scripture in 1 Reg. c. 14  That Preachers are to instruct their People in what they learn out of the Holy Scriptures Greg Sacram in Consecr Episcopi  That the Staves being in the Rings on the sides of the Ark do shew that Teachers should have the holy Scriptures in their hearts that from thence they may presently teach whatever is needful de Cura Pastor l. 2. c. 11. 2. Apochryphal Books The Council of Trent Gregory the Great REckons the Maccabees among the Canonical Books Sess. 4. PLainly rejects them from being Canonical for he excuses taking an Example out of them not being Canonical Moral in Job l. 19. c. 13. 3. Merit of Good Works The Council of Trent Gregory the Great ANathematizes those who deny good Works to be truly meritorious of Grace and Eternal Life Sess. 6. Can. 32. DEnies the most sanctified Persons to procure Divine Wisdom by their Graces in Job l. 18. c. 26.  Affirms that the best Men will find no Merit in their best Actions Moral l. 9. c. 2.  That all human Righteousness will be found unrighteousness if strictly judged Ib. l. 9. c. 11.  That if he should attain to the highest Virture he should obtain eternal Life not by Merits but by Pardon Ib. 4. Auricular Confession The Council of Trent Gregory the Great DEclares secret Confâ—ssion of all sins to be necessary in order to Remission and Absolution by the Priest Sess. 14. c. 6 7 8. SPeaks of no other Confession than what was required in order to the Reconciliation of those who had undergone publick Penance the Custom whereof at Rome is set down in Golasius his Sacramentary p. 63. And Gregory refers to the Custom then used in his Sacramentary p. 225. And there is no Form of Absolution in either of them but by way of Prayer to God which is different from a Sacramental judicial Absolution required by the Council of Trent  He makes no Absolution true but that which follows the judgment of God which he parallels with the loosing of Lazarus after Christ had raised him from the Grave Hom. 26. in Evangel 5. Solitary Masses The Council of Trent Gregory the Great ANathematizes those who say such Masses wherein the Priest only communicates are unlawful and to be abrogated Sess. 22. Can. 8. FOrbids the Priest to ce ebrate alone and saith expresly it ought not to he celebrated by one because the People are to bear their share Greg lib. Capital c. 7. apud Cassandr Liturg. c. 33. Transubstantiation The Council of Trent Gregory the Great DEclares the Body of Christ to be in the Eucharist under the Species of Bread Sess. 13. Cap 1. ASserts the Body of Christ after â—is Resurrection to be palpable i. e. That it may be seen and felt where it is and that he proved this against Eutychius of Constantinople Moral l. 14. c. 31. That asserts only the Species to remain after Consecration ib. c. 4. He frequently declares That our Bodies as well as our Souls are nourished by the Eucharist which cannot be done by more species for no Accidents can produce a Substance Greg. Sacram. 16. Kal. Mart. in Sexages Hebd 3. in Quadrag Fr. 4. 7. Communion in one Kind Council of Trent Gregory the Great DEclares against the necessity of Communion in both kinds Sess. 13. Cap 13. AFfirms it to be the constant practise for the People to receive in both  Sacram. in Quadrag Fr. 3. 6 Kal. Julii ad Compleâ—d Hebd 3. in Quadr. Sabbato Miss Temp. Belli Sexages ad Complend Domin in Ramis Palm VI. Non. Julii ad Complend VIII Kal. Aug. ad Compl. Kalend. Aug. ad Compl.  The like may be observed in Gelasius his Sacramentary who declared it Sacriledg to do otherwise as appears by the known Canon Comperimus De Consecr Dist. 2. who was one of Gregory's Predecessors and not long before him 8. Purgatory Council of Trent Gregory the Great DEclares that there is a Purgatory after this Life out of which Souls may be helped by the Prayers of the faithful Sess. 25. AFfirms That at the time of Death either the good or evil Spirit seizeth upon the Soul and keeps it with it for ever without any change Moral in Job l. 8. c. 8. ed. Basil. c. 9. ed Novae That in the day of death the just goes to Joy and the wicked with the Apostate Angel is
question the usefulness of Councils in this matter because the Scripture of it self was sufficient to put an end to it And elsewhere saith that it is plain enough to those who search for Truth And in general he asserts their sufficiency and clearness for the discovery of Truth When a Controversie was raised in St. Basil's time about the Trinity the best Expedient that great man could think of for putting an end to it was to refer it to the Scriptures In another place he commends it as the best way to find out Truth to be much in the study of the Scriptures and saith that the Spirit of God did thereby lead to all things useful Epiphanius was well acquainted with all the Heresies of the Church and the best means to suppress them and certainly he would never have taken such pains to refute so many Heresies out of Scripture if he had look'd on the Church as the Infallible Judg of Controversies For he not only undertakes to give the sense of Scripture for the ending of Controversies but he supposes all Persons capable of understanding it that will apply themselves to it Which he several times affirms in the consutation of his last Heresie I shall conclude with St. Chrysostome who speaks to this purpose to a person so offended at the Sects and Heresies among Christians that he did not know whom or what to believe â—he Scriptures saith he are plaâ— and true and it is an easie matter to judg by them if a man agrees with the Sâ—â—iptures he is a Christian if not he is out of that â—oll But men diâ—fer about the sense of Scripture What saith he hâ—ve ye not a 〈◊〉 and judgment And after the answering several other Cavâ—ls lâ— concludes Let us submit to the Divine Law and dâ—â— what is pleasing tâ— that and that will bring us to Heaven And in another place If â—e sâ—udy the Scriptures we shall understand both true Doctrine and a good liâ—e And again the Scriptures are the Door which kâ—â—p out Hereticks which establish our minds in the Truth and suffer us not to be seduâ—ed Thus I have given somewhat a clearer view of the sense of the Primitive Church in this mâ—tter than could be taken from two single passages of Tertullian and St. Augustin and I have been so far from swelling or enlarging this as far as I could that I have made choice only of these out of many others which I could have produced But if these be not sufficient a Volume will not satisfie which it were not hard to make on this Subject out of the Fathers 3 It is time now to examine the Inconveniencies alledged against Persons judging of matters of Faith according to the Scriptures 1 That God Almighty would then leave us at Uncertainties if he gave us a Rule and â—eft every one to be his own Iudg for that were to leave every phantastical mâ—n to câ—use as he pleases To this was answered 1 That this Objection doth not reach those of the Church of Englanâ— which receives the three Creeds and embraces the four General Councils and professes to hold nothing contrary to any Uâ—iversal Tradition of the Church from the Apostles times And that we have often offer'd to put the Controversies between us and the Church of Rome upon that issue To this Answer the Replier saith That they do not charge our Church with not profâ—ssing these things but for erring against her own Profâ—ssion and deserting that Church to which all these Authorities bear Testimony and of which her Progenitors and first Reformers had been Members and from whose hands she received what soever she had either of Scripture Creeds Councils or Tradition and consequently whose judgment she was bound to follow Whether we act against our Profession or not it is plain the Rule of our Church doth not by this Profession leave every one to follow his own fancy and to believe as he plâ—ses But wherein is it that we thus Act against our Profession Do we reject the â—reeds Councils and Universal Tradition in our Deeds Wherein In deserting the Communion of the Church of Rome And is the necessity of thâ—t contained in the Creeds here receiv'd In the â—our Councils â—y Universal Tradition For this I refer to the foregoing Dâ—scourse about the Unity of the Catholick Church But we receiv'd these thiâ—gs from the Church of Rome So we do the old Tâ—stament from the Jews must we therefore hold Communion still with them Are we bound therefore to follow the Judgment of the Jewish Churâ—â— But I do not understand how we receiv'd these things from the Authority of the Church of Rome We receiv'd the Scriptures from Universal Tradition derived from all the Apostolical â—hurches and so the Creeds and Councils and such an Universal Tradition is the thing we desire for the Trent-Creed our forefathers never knew or receiv'd as part of that Faith without which there is no Salvation But here the Defender grows brisk and saith All Hereticks since the first â—our General Councils may say the very same which I say for the Church of England and all before them the Equivalent Arius Macedonius Nestorius and Entyches might have said as much of the Crâ—eds before them and all complain of the Villainous Factâ—ns in the Church against them My Plea for the Church of England hath justified them all The same thing is said in sewer words by the Replier That this Plea justifies the Arrians and condemns the Nicene Fathers vindicates the Eutychians Nestorians and Donatists and confounds all General Councils Lest therefore I should seem to betray the Church of England instead of defending it I shall shew the Reasonableness and Equity of this Plea and its great difference from that of the Ancient Hereticks condemned by General Councils or the Ancient Church 1 The Ancient Hereticks were condemned by that Rule of Faith which the Church always receiv'd v z. the Scriptures but the Council of Tâ—ent set up a new Rule of Faith on purpose that they might condemn us for Hereticks viz. in making Tradition equal with Scripture which is directly contrary to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church as I have already shewed The method of General Councils was to have the Books of Scripture placed in the middle of them on a Table as the Rule they were to judg by And Richerius a Doctâ—â— of the Scrbon not only affirms the Custom but saiâ—h it was for 〈◊〉 Reason That the Fathers of the Councils might be admonished that all things were to be examined by the standard of the Gospel Bellarmin affirms the Council of Nice To have drawn its Conclusion out of Scriptures and the same he affirms of the 6th General Council and he might as well have done it of the rest their main design being only to establish the Doctrine of the Divinity and Incarnation of Christ. But the Case of Councils came to be very different when
they took upon them to define other matters for which they had no Colour in Scripture as the 2d Council of Nice did which was the first that went upon Tradition and then the Christian Church did not shew such Respect to them as was most apparent in the Case of this Council of Nice which was universally rejected in these Western parts Rome excepted as appears by the Council of Franâ—ford and the unexceptionable Testimonies of Eghinardus Hincmarus and others Would this have been a sufficient Argument against Charlemaign and the Western Bishops that they joyned in the Plea of the Ancient Hereticks and none were ever condemned by the Church but they made such complaints against the Proceedings of Councils as they did It is certain that Leo Armenus in the East as well as Charles and the Western Church rejected that Council as contrary to Scripture which shews that neither in the East or West did they think themselves so tied up by Definitions of Councils proceeding in such a manner but that they were at full Liberty to examin and if they saw Cause to reject such Definitions While Councils did declare that they intended to make use of no other Rule but Scripture and to deliver only the Sense of the Catholick Church from the beginning a great regard was to be shew'd to them but when they set up another Rule the Christian Church had just Reason not to submit to their Decrees And to say This is the Plea of all Hereticks is just as if an innocent Person might not be allowed to plead not Guilty because the greatest Malefactors do the same There must be some certain Rules whereby to proceed in this matter and this is the first We fix upon That they proceed as the Ancient Councils did according to Scriptures 2. The Ancient Hereticks were condemned by such Councils as did represent the Universal Church after another manner than the Council of Trent did I do not say There was ever such a General Council as did fully represent the Universal Church which could not be done without Provincial Councils summon'd bâ—â—ore in all parts of Christendom and the Deâ—â—egation from them of such Persons as were to deliver their Sense â—n the matter of Faith to be debated in the General Council and I have Reason to question whether this were ever done But however there is a very great difference in the Ancient Councils from the modern as to this point of Representing for in them there was the Consent of all the Patriarchs and a general Summons for the Bishops from all parts to appear But in the Modern Councils four Patriarchs and the Bishops under them have been excluded and the 5th hath Summon'd the Bishops under him to meet together and then hath called this a General Council Which is just as if in the time of the Heptarchy the King of Mercia should assemble the States under him and call the Convention of them The Parliament of England Thus in the Council of Trent the Pope Summons the Bishops that owned his Supremacy and had taken Oaths to him to meet together and would have this pass for a General Council When the Council met and Cardinal Hosius was appointed President in it Stanistaus Orechovius a warm and zealous Romanist writes to Hosius That it would very much conduce to their Reputation and Interest if the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch were Summon'd to the Council because the Greeks and Armenians depended upon them And he could not understand how the Catholick Church could be Represented without them nor how the Council could be called Oecumenical To which Hosivs Replied That the Pope being Oecumenical Patriarch a Council called by him was an Oecumenical Council Now this we say is extreamly different from the Notion of an Oecumenical Council in the Ancient times and overthrows the Rights of other Churches as they were setled by the Four General Councils and therefore the Case is very different as to being condemnd by General Councils and by the late Conventions assembled by the Popes Authority 3. Themselves allow that some Councils may be and ought to be rejected and therefore all our business is to enquire whether we may not with as much Reason reject some Councils as they do others They reject the Council of Ariminum which together with that of Sâ—leucia which sat at the same time make up the most General Council we read of in Church-History For Bellarmin owns that there were 600. Bishops in the Western part of it So that there were many more Bishops assembled than were in the Council of Nice there was no Exception against the Summons or the Bishops present and yet the Authority of this Council is rejected because it was too much influenced by Constantius and his Agents The 2d Council of Ephesus wanted no just Summons no presence of Patriarchs or number of Bishops yet this is rejected because its Proceedings were too Violent The Councils of Constantinople against Images are rejected because but one Patriarch was present in either of them Now I desire to know whether it be not as lawful to except against other Councils as against these supposing the Reasons to be the same and greater Evidence to be given in these latter Times of the Truth of the Allegations Besides we find they are divided in the Church of Rome concerning their latter Councils Some say The Councils of Pisa Constance and Basil were true General Councils and that the Council of Lateran under Leo X. was not so others say That the former have not the Authority of General Councils but the latter hath Some say That there have been 18. General Councils so the Roman Editors of the Councils and others but a great number of these are rejected by others who allow but 8. of the number viz. those wherein the Eastern and Western Bishops met And so the Councils of Lateran and Trent besides others are cut off What becomes then of the Articles of Faith defined by those Councils For they cannot be received on the account of their Authority However we find this Objection lies equally against them as against us For do not both these differing Parties side with the Ancient Hereticks as much as we do For they except against the Supreme Judicature in the Church and decline the Judgment of these Councils as much as those Hereticks did the Councils of their own Times These are therefore but ordinary Tâ—picks which may be reasonble or not as they are applied 2. It was answer'd That the way proposed doth not hinder mens believing as they please i. e. without sufficient Reason for their Faith several Instances were given As believing the Roman Church to be the Catholick without any colour of Scripture Reason or Antiquity as is now fully shew'd in the foregoing Discourse believing against the most convincing Evidence of their own Senses Believing the lawfulness of the Worship of Images can be reconciled with Gods forbidding it the Communion in