all your new Settlements for I am sure my Ancestors would never deceive me but I know not what designs you with your new Settlements may have upon me and therefore I pray let me alone with my old Deeds The Defender here dances upon Ropes he makes swift and quick motions but he stands on a slender bottom and he knows not whereon to fix but would seem â—o say something but not enough to afford scope for an Answer That which he aims at is That unless a man by judging controversies by the Infallible Rule be able to come to an Infallible Determination then controversies will not be infallibly determined if every man be left to be his own Judg. And I am clearly of his mind But the point is whether such an infallible determination of Controversies be the necessary way to Heaven If a man can judg well enough to carry him thither that is as much as I am concerned for at present But he goes on Who can hope to he saved without pleasing God and every body knows that without Faith it is impossible to please him There wants only one little thing to be added and without an Infallible Judg of Controversies there can be no Faith. But this was forgotten But after all he saith I confess that Scripture is not the Rule of Controversies I pray why for I take it not only to be the Rule but to be the only Rule For saith he they are not ended till one side or other be certain â—hat then is there no Rule that doth not put an end to Controversies Nay their own Writers say a Rule as a Rule cannot put an end to them and therefore a Judg is necessary But I must answer such things as they bring In matters of good and evil I said every mans conscience is his immediate Judg and why not in matters of truth and falshood unless we suppose mens involuntary mistakes to be more dangerous than their wilful sins Here the Defender triumphs How saith he are we before we are aware come to conscience at last I heartily wish we were tâ—â—t would tend more to the ending of controversies than an Infallible Judg. But he wonders that in Disputes of Religion it should before we are aware come to conscienoe at last Good man he was not aware that there was any thing of conscience in the matter Doth he think it is only matter of interest we contend about so those who believe no Religion themselves think all controversies about Religion to have nothing of conscience in them But after a long harangue he saith Toat conscience can do no more than secure a man from being judged for sinning against his conscience But if it lead him to do ill things or embrace a â—râ—ng Faith what can he answer for the sin of having that conscience I grant where it is a sin to have such a conscience the conscience doth not excuse the faults a man commits by it But the Question we are upon is whether it is not a sin for a man to have such a conscience and we are not upon the point of an Erroneous conscience but of an Infallible Judg of conscience in matters of good and evil And it is strange the Defender should not see this There is no question but there are as disputable Points in Morality as in matters of Faith and we think Mens committing Sin is at least as dangerous to their souls as embracing what they call Heresy Now I desire to know why it is not as necessary to have an infallible Guide in Manners as in Faith But if they think that Men may be let alone to judg as well as they can in such matters as their Salvation certainly depends upon what monstrous Inconvenience is it if they use the same Liberty in matters of Speculation I would he had given some better Answer that I might have had an occasion to have inforced this matter For in truth it seems to me a very strange thing when I read in the New Testament such terrible Denunciations against the practice of Sin and that mens happiness or misery depends so much on their doing Good or Evil and so very little said as to mens errors or mistakes of Judgment where there is a general Sincerity as to a good Life and a care to please God that so much weight should be laid on an infallible Judg in matters of Controversy and no care taken for an infallible Guide in matters of Practice But I am to consider that it tends more to the interest of some People to swagger about an infallible Faith than to secure the Practice of Virtue and a good Life which yet is certainly the great design and concernment of the Christian Religion however it may seem to some that an infallible Faith and Church are all in all To shew we do not allow every man to believe as he pleases I said We not only allow the Assistance of spiritual Guides and embrace the ancient Creeds but think no man ought to follow his own fancy against Doctrines so universally received from the Apostles times But all this signifies nothing to him unless our Guides be Infallible and he saith They are plainly no Guides of Christs appointing who teach any other Doctrine than he taught Very well Let this then be the Rule whereby we are to judg whether Guides are Infallible or not But then have a care of telling us we must believe what Doctrine it was that Christ taught upon the word of these Infallible Guides for by that Doctrine we are to judg whether they be Infallible or not The different methods of his Proceeding and mine in this matter will be best understood by this Comparison A Man that goes to enquire the way to a Place he had a great desire to be at but was afraid of mistaking the way of two Men and how he should avoid the dangerous passages in it the one like a plain hoâ—â—st Man tells him there are diffiâ—ulties in it but he will give him a Book of the Roads which acquâ—ints him with all the dangerous turnings he bids hâ—m look well to his Steps and observe the way he goes and when he is to seek to â—eâ—rch his Book and ask such as understand the wav better thâ—n he doesâ— Alas â—aith the other Man this is a very sad Direction to him for his Book may be misunderstood and the Guides may mistake themselves with all their Care but I will put him into an infallible way whereby he may avoid all the dangers Ay Sir saith the Traveller you speak indeed to the purpose I pray acquaint me with it There is saith he to him at such a Hill a Person who by the help of Wings not only flies over all that dangerous passage but carries all those safe who take hold of him You have therefore no better way than to pinion your self to him and you will be safe But saith the Traveller how if he and I
to shew there can be none without Infallibility Infallibility is no doubt a very good thing but where is it to be had Is it not possible for Men both to be deceived and to deceive with a pretence of Infallibility All that we desire is to see some Infallible Prooss of it without which all the talk about it doth not end one Controversy but beget many And this kind of Talk is as if a Man were to advise with two Lawyers about making a Purchase but would fain be secure of a good Title the one desires to see all the Evidences that belong to the Estate and after the perusal of all he tells him that as far as he can possibly discern the Title is very good and he would venture all he had upon it He goes to another and tells him what the former had said to him And was this all saith he Would he not say it was impossible for you to be cheated No. And will you venture your Money without such Security Why saith the Client what would you have me to do I will tell you saith he there is but one way in the World for you to be safe What is that Sir. I should be glad to know it with all my Heart I will discover it to you provided you follow my Counsel and that is to deal with a Man who hath such a Gift from Heaven bestowed upon him that he never did nor ever can deceive you and then it is impossible you should be cheated for all these Deeds and Writings and Lawyers may deceive you but if you deal with such a Man you are safe enough I thank you Sir saith the Client for your good Advice but I pray where is there such a Man to be found For if I cannot find him out I am just where I was before and I must use the best means I can and rather trust to good Deeds and real Honesty than wait for a Chimerical Infallibliity It is alledged still That without infallibility we have not Judgment but Fancy And the Replier saith That in Competition with the Churches Authority all is but Fancy The difference of these must depend upon the Reason we produce and by that we are still content the World should judg so we understand those who are unprejudiced in it It was said in the Papers That if the Fancies of those who are now for the Church of England vary they are ready or as the Desender saith it ought to be read really to embrace or joyn with the next Congregation of People whose Discipline or Worship agrees with their Opinion at that time I will take his own Reading which in my Opinion alters the matter very little for still it implies That those of the Church of England have nothing to hold them to it but a present Fancy and when that varies they may as well be of another Perswasion for Fancy we all know is a very mutable thing But to shew that those of the Church of England are not so apt to vary their Fancies or Opinions in these matters I alledged their adhering to the Crown in the times of Rebellion He answers That my Zeal for the Church of England is wonderous unlucky I am sorry if it prove so since I unfeignedly design to serve her and therefore should be much more concerned if I should do her Injury under a pretence of Service But wherein is it He confesses The Doctrine of our Church is in this Point very Orthodox and her Practice in the times of Rebellion conformable to it And what was the Practice of the Church then but the firmness of the Members of it But many he saith deserted Her and her Doctrine in this Point at that time so many that the Rebellion was peradventure indebted for its success to those Deserters But they were Deserters still and the Practice of the Church of England was agreeable to her Doctrine by his own Confession How then comes this to shew that it is only a variable Fancy which keeps Men to it He saith If those who deserted her had ever adhered to her with a Perswasion that they were obliged to believe what sbe taught they could not have deserted her in this Point who always taught Loyalty and till they do so there is no security of adhering to her This seems to me to be a wonderous unlucky Answer For doth Infallibility secure a Church against Deserters Have no Men no Provinces no whole Nations deserted a Church which pretends to Infallibility And since there may be such Multitudes of Deserters where â—â—fallibility is challenged what greater Security can that give aâ—â—inst them more than our Church doth Nay I think so much the less because the very pretence to Infallibility is suspicious and hard to be made out and every Error overthrows it And I do not think the Church of Rome did her self greater Miâ—â—hief or â—ade more total Deserters by any one thing than by pretending to be Infallible For when such gross Errors and Corruption were complained of that one of the Popes at that time confessed them and owned the necessity of a Reformation when the Princes of the Roman Communion called for it and pressed it very hard by their Ambassadors in the Council of Trent as appears by the French Collection of Memoires relating to it when 〈◊〉 all no one thing as to Doctrine or Worship could be redressed it â—onvinced the World that let things be as they would they would Reform nothing this made the Breach irreconcileable For till the Council of Trent was ended and confirmed there was still hopes of Reconciliation upon a due Explication of some Points Reforming Abuses and leaving School-Doctrines at liberty but when they saw every thing defended and the Errors complained of made Articles of Faith and put into a New Creed there was no hopes of any Accommodation left And all this was the blessed Effect of pretending to Infallibility for if one Error had been owned there had been no farther pretending to that It is some comfort however that our Church is confessed to teach the Orthodox Doctrine of Loyalty and her Practice to be conformable in the worst of Times and so I hope it will always be But it hath been said by some Body That we had our Government and Ceremonies from his Church our Doctrine from Luther and Calvin and that we had nothing peculiar to our Church but our Doctrine of Non-Resistance and much good may it do us And we hope we shall never fare the worse for it This might give occasion to enquire Whether the Church which pretends to be Infallible doth teach it so Orthodoxly or not Or whether those who do think themselves obliged to believe what she teaches are thereby obliged to the strictest Principles of Loyalty But I forbear It is sufficient to my Purpose to shew that our Church doth not only teach them as her own Doctrine but which is far more effectual as the
external Visible Head which may sail but to Christ as the essential Head of the Church This is the express Doctrine of the Cardinal de Alliaco Ioh. Major Almain Gerson and many others and follows from the Decree of the Council of Constance Thus I have briefly deduced the Sense of the Christian Church in this matter from the Apostolical times and that not meerly from the sayings of particular Men but from publick solemn and undoubted Acts of the Church Which I have the rather done because the Defender saith we have no Antiquity on our sido in this â—ause but as much as since Luther I think I have produced a little more and too much for him to Answer It is time now to consider what proof the Replier brings that Catholic and Roman-Catholic in the Sense of Antiquity were one and the same thing He produces the Testimonies of Tertullian and Cyprian wherein the Church of Rome is called the Catholic Church Who doubts that in those days there was a Catholic Church at Rome For every particular Church which agreed in the Catholic Faith was then called the Catholic Church of such a place And innumerable Instances of this kind may be gathered out of Antiquity both as to the City of Rome and other Cities as well as that and surely they were not all Catholic Churches in his Sense when he agrees there is but One Catholic Church nay more even Parochial Churches were called Catholic as he may find in â—otelerius S Ambrose's Testimony signifies no more than that Satyrus coming into a Place suspected for the Luciferian Schism asked if the Bishop joyned with the Catholic Bishops i. e. with the Roman Church Which is no more than whether he agreed with his own Church for Satyrus was a Roman born But this would prove any other Church to be the One Catholic Church altogether as well as the Roman The Patriarch of Constantinople writes to Hormisda that he would not hereafter recite in the Diptychs the Names of those who were excommunicated by the Apostolical See. And what follows But he saith They were sever'd from the Communion of the Catholic Church And so were those excommunicated by the Patriarch of Constantinople But the words are who do not in all things consent with the See Apostolic but the plain meaning is of those who were cast out of Communion for the words are too Sequestrates à Communione Ecclesiae Catholicae And doth this prove the Roman Church to have any more relation to the Catholic than the Church of the meanest Bishop in the Catholic Church As to the calling of Catholics Romanists by the Gothic Arians that relates to the Roman Empire and not to the Roman Church And now let any impartial Reader judge whether the sense of Antiquity be not admirably cleared by these passages as to the making out Roman and Catholic to be the same But to proceed 3. I said farther that if the Roman Church believed it self to be the Catholick Church it must void the Baptism of those who are out of its Communion but since Baptism doth enter persons into the Catholic Church by its own Confession the Catholic Church which is owned in the Creeds must be of larger Extent than the Roman In Answer to this they both tell me this point hath been over-ruled long ago by the Catholic Church the Baptism of Hereticks being allowed to be good But since it is granted that Baptism doth enter Persons into that Catholic Church we believe in the Creeds doth it not evidently follow that the Catholic Church in the Creeds is larger than the Roman Communion For it takes in those which the other doth not Doth not the Catholic Church take in all that are admitted into the Catholick Church but many more by their own Confession are admitted into it than are of the Roman Communion and therefore it unavoidably follows that the Roman Catholick Church cannot be the Catholic Church believed in the two Creeds And although according to S. Augustine the validity of Baptism depends on the right form of words and not the good Disposition of him that administers yet Baptism where it is valid must have its due Effect which is entering Persons into the Catholic Church But say they Doth not Heresie c. cast them out of the Catholic Church Suppose it doth yet if Heresie do cast them out they were in the Church till they were cast out of it Their being allowed to be in it doth my business let them prove them cast out by Heresie when they please But the Defender saith I suppose what I should prove and then prove it by means of that supposition Here I am to seek for do I not prove from their own Supposition and not from mine that Baptism doth enter persons into the Catholic Church and therefore from thence I prove that themselves cannot believe the Catholic and Roman Church to be all one since they allow many multitudes to be entred into the Catholic Church which they deny to be of the Roman Church Yet he goes on that such persons are not truly Members either of the Catholic or Roman-â—atholic Church No then Baptism doth not admit Persons into the Catholic Church Which is very new Doctrine and fit only for new Converts and is directly contrary to the Roman Catechism which saith Baptism is the Gate by which we enter into the Church They were so far â—embers saith he as Baptism could make them And that I hope was to make them Members of Christs Body or else what becomes of the Council of Trent which so expresly asserts and that with an Anathema the Validity and Efficacy of the Sacraments in general and of Baptism in particulâ—â— And there is a special Anathema against those who say that Children baptized are not to be reckon'd inter fideles and I hope those are Members of the Catholic Church Is there Remission of sins Communion with the Holy Spirit granted out of the Catholic Church yet these are the Effects of Baptism owned by all Persons in the Church of Rome or else they cannot themselves be of the Roman Communion What is it then I pray to be as much Members of the Church as Baptism could make them What can make them more Members than Baptism doth According to their own Doctrine But they are as far off the Roman Church as they are off the Catholic Say you so then no more is requisite to make a Man a Member of the Roman â—hurch than is necessary to his Baptism This great News aâ—â— would be very welcome to the Christian World. I have hâ—â—rd of many Projects of Accommodation but none seem to be like this For then no more is necessary to make us Members of the Roman Church than of the Catholic i. e. owning the Creed and our Baptismal Vow Nay hold there saith he the Profession of the Catholic Faith is necessary to make one a true Member of
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
only to be Re-baptized who renounced the Baptismal Faith in Father Son and Holy Ghost And the meaning I suppose waâ— that nothing but that exclude Persons out of the Catholic Church and those Hereticks whose Baptism was allow'd were of an inferiour sort and by not disowning their Baptism they shew'd they looked on them only as corrupted Parts of the Church And so did the Councils of Nice and Arles which did not utterly reject Re-baptization but only of those who preserved the Baptismal Faith. It was not therefore the Sense of the Ancient Church that upon every dissension in matters of Faith from the general Doctrine of the Church one Party must be excluded from the Catholic Church and that Title belong to the other But he proceeds That this Presumption cannot be the Cause of Schisms which must happen before the Presumption This is very easily answered For a breach there must be before but the Schism belongs to those who were the true Causes of the Breach If therefore any one Part assumes to it self the right of the whole and requires the owning it from all that joyn in Communion with it this very act makes it justifiable not to separate from the Catholic Church but not to joyn in Communion with that Part on such unreasonable terms Well saith he Suppose the dividing Parts do still continue Parts of the Catholic Whole cannot the Roman-Catholic be that Whole i. e. Suppose there be many Parts why may not one of them be the Whole For still the Roman-Catholic is but a Part though Catholic be the Whole as though the Ocean be the whole yet the British or Gallican or Spanish or Atlantick Ocean is but a Part of the Whole Ocean I am ashamed to pursue so clear a point any farther But he hath one fetch behind still viz. That it is one Faith which makes the Catholic Church one if therefore the Roman Catholic Church be a Part of this Catholic Whole the other Parts must believe as she does or else they cannot be Parts I will endeavour to make this clear to him and so end this Dispute The Church is a Society of Persons who own and profess the Christian Faith Therefore Faith is necessary to the very being of a Church for unless they believe the Christian Doctrine they cannot be the Christian Church This Faith which is necessary to make them Christians is to be embraced by all who are Members of this Church their entrance is by Baptism the Faith is the Creed delivered to those who are to be Baptized which being universally received by Christians that makes the common Bond of Union in the Parts of this great Body and this is the One Faith of the Catholic Church But if he thinks the Roman-Catholic Church can make all its Decisions a Part of this one Faith he is extreamly mistaken As will more fully appear in the following Discourse II. Of the Authority of the Catholic Church THE whole and sole design of the First Paper as the Replier tells me was to evince this Point That all Controversial Pâ—ints of Faith either about Holy Scripture or other Subjects do fall under the Iudgment and Decision of the Church But under Favour that is not the whole Design of it for this implies no more than that the Church may if it pleases decide them but the Desi n is to prove That in all Matters of Faith the Churches Authority is without farther Examination to be submitted to so that all that Christians have to do is but to enquire into Two things 1. Where the Church is 2. Whether the Church hath declared its Judgment or not And several things are objected in the Papers against the not submitting to the Churches Judgment viz. That every one will be his own Iudge which is not allowed in common matters much less in matters of Faith that no such Authority is given to every particular Man by Scripture but the Churches Authority is there established and was owned in the Primitive Church in the Creeds and about the Canonical Books and since the Church had once such a Power there is no reasâ—n to suppose it lost but upon differences happening the Churches Iudgment is to be submitted to This is the whole strength and force of the First Paper and it is about a Subject of the highest Importance both as to the satisfaction of particular Persons and the Peace of the Christian World. And the clearing thes Two Points will go a very great way towards the putting an end to Controversies 1. That in all Disputes we are to search no farther but presently to yield to the Judgment of the Church 2. That the Roman-Catholic Church is that Church How far I am from being satisfied with the latter doth already appear I now set my self to consider the other And here are these things necessary to be debated 1. Whether Christ and his Apostles did establish such a standing Judicature in the Church to which all Christians were bound to submit in matters of Faith 2. Whether the Primitive Church did own such a Judicature And did accordingly govern their Faith 3. Whether it be an unreasonable thing to suppose the contrary viz. That Christ should leave Men to judge for themselves in matters which concern their Salvation according to the Scriptures 1. Whether Christ and his Apostles did establish such a standing Judicature in the Church to put an end to all Controversies which should arise about matters of Faith We do not Question but Christ might have done it if he had pleased and there is no doubt he foresaw all those Inconveniences which are now objected against the want of it But the point before us is Whether Christ who alone could do it hath declared this to be his Will and Pleasure We are then to consider that this being a Point of so great Consequence the Commission for such a Court of Judicature in the Church ought to be delivered in the plainest and clearest Words that may be for otherwise this were to beget Controversies instead of putting an end to them When God under the Law established a Supreme Court of Appeal as to the differences which might arise about the Law he tells them where that Court should fit and commands the People to go up thither and hear their Sentence and submit to it This was a plain and clear declaration of the Will of God and they had no more to do but to go up to the Place which God did chuse viz. Ierusalem And there was never any dispute aftâ—rwards among the Israelites what they were to do when Differences happened for an Appeal lay to the Court of Ierusalem and the Sentence of that Court they were to stand to on pain of Death Our blessed Saviour knew this Constitution among the Jews when he founded his Church and if he had intended any such thing therein he would not have fallen short of the exactness of the Law in the things necessary in
make shipwrack of that Faith which makes her a true Church But other kind of Errors cannot overthrow her being I urged farther That notwithstanding the pretence to Infallibility they allow the Church may err in matters of Practice of the highest importance as about Deposing Princes and Absolving Subjects from their Allegiance but not about the least matter of Faith which made it very suspicious to be rather a politick device than a thing they really believed Here the Defender I fear wilfully mistakes my meaning for he argues as if he thought I were proving That the Church of Rome hath defined the Deposing Doctrine as a matter of Faith and great pains he takes to prove it hath not And all to no purpose For I insisted only that in this point they confessed their Church had grosly erred as to a matter of Practice though it had not expresly declared it as an Article of Faith. I desire him to speak out hath it not erred notoriously as to Practice in this matter Whether they have made any such Declaration or not as to oblige all others of their Communion to embrace the Doctrine it is undeniably true that their Popes and Councils have owned it and acted according to it to the mighty disturbance of the Peace of the Christian World. Now the question I put was this Since it is granted they have so notoriously erred in matters of Practice why should any believe them Infallible in Points of Faith i. e. that so many Popes so many Councils should act upon this principle as believing it to be true and yet preserve their Infallibility in not declaring it to be true This I confess is an extraordinary thing and the Defender seems in earnest to think they were kept from it by an over-ruling assistance of the Divine Spirit Which is just as if a Man were set upon in the Road by some pretending to be his Friends who should take from him all that he had and afterwards he should admire the Providence of God that these Men should not declare it lawful to do it It is granted that so many Popes did great Mischief to the World and especially to Christian Princes by acting according to this Doctrine and that they actually owned it in Councils and made Canons on purpose for it but yet an over-ruling Assistance kept them from making it a Point of Faith. They declared their own belief by their Practice and Canons they required the observance of them under pain of being cut off from the Church if they did it not and Gregory VII saith They cut themselves off who question this Power but they were deceived notoriously deceived in this matter yet they might be Infallible still Did not these Popes declare that to be Christs Doctrine which is not But not Authoritatively What I pray doth this mean Did they not declare this Power by vertue of the Authority given them by Christ over the Church And declare those Excommunicate who did not obey their Sentence Is not this proceeding Authoritatively Suppose the Popes had in the same manner declared that Hereticks should be Re-baptized i. e. made Canons for it and required the observance of them I desire to know whether this had not been Authoritative declaring it though they affixed no Anathema to those who held the contrary Is it possible for any Man to believe that if there were such a thing as Infallibility in the Guides of the Church that Christ would suffer them to run into such pernicious Errors and in such an Authoritative manner and yet make good his Promise of keeping them from Error by not suffering them to define this Doctrine as an Article of Faith But this will appear to be a very slender Evasion if Men will reflect on the nature of the matter it self for it is about the exercise of the Pope's Power over Princes and can it be supposed that since they challenged it they would ever suffer it to be debated in Councils but they would still have it pass as an inseparable Right of their Supremacy derived from S. Peter And all that they would allow in this Case is a bare Recognition and that was made in the Councils of Lyons and Lateran And the Deposing Power in the Church was sufficiently owned in the Councils of Constance and Trent But there are two sorts of Articles of Faith to be considered in the Church of Rome 1. Some are defined with an Anathema against Dissenters and so we do not say the Deposing Power is made an Article of Faith. 2. Some are received upon the common Grounds of Faith though not expresly declared And whatever Doctrine being denied would overthrow them may be justly look'd on as a Presumptive Article of Faith. As the denying the Deposing Power must charge the Church of Rome Representative and Virtual with such acts as are utterly inconsistent with the Promises of Divine Assistance supposed to be made to it Therefore all those who sincerely believe those Promises to belong to the Church of Rome so taken must in consequence believe so many Popes and Councils could not be so grosly mistaken in the Ground of their Actings And I find those who do now most contend that this Doctrine was never defined do yet yield that both Popes and Councils believed it to be true and acted accordingly But if nothing will be allowed to be points of Faith but what passes under the Decision of Councils approved by the Pope as such I pray tell me which of the General Councils determined the Popes Supremacy as a Point of Faith Where was the Roman Catholic Churches Infallibility defined Are these Points of Faith with you or not If they be then there may be Points of Faith among you which never passed any Conciliar Definitions or such Authoritative Declaration as the Defender means 2. I now come to consider the Sense of the Primitive Church about this matter of an Infallible Judge of Controversies Which I am obliged to do not only because it is said in the Papers That the Church exercised this Power after the Apostles but because the Defender brings Tertullian as rejecting the Scripture from being a sufficient Rule for Controversies and S. Augustine as setting up the Authority of the Church above the Scripture in matters of Proof But I confess two lame sayings of Fathers make no great impression on me I am for searching the sense of the Primitive Church in so weighty a Point as this after another manner but as briefly as may be i. e. by the general Sense of the Fathers of the first Ages about the Controversies then on foot that I may not deceive my self or others in a matter of this Consequence The point is Whether according to the sense of the Primitive Church when any Controversie about Faith doth arise a Person be bound to submit to the Churches Sentence as Infallible or he be required to make use of the best means he can to judge concerning it taking
All his Demonstrations are out of Scripture and by the meer force of them he overthrows this Heresie And it was nothing but the clear Evidence of Scripture without any Infallible Judgment or Assistance of the Guides of the Church which did at last suppress this Heresie For no Council was called about it but as the Authority of the New Testament prevailed so this Heresie declined and by degrees vanished out of the Christian World. And it is observable That the greatest and worst of Heresies were supprest while no other Authority was made use of against them but that of the holy Scriptures So Theodoret takes notice That before his time these Heresies by Divine Grace were extinct So that the Scriptures were then found an effectual means for putting an end to some of the most dangerous Heresies which ever were in the Christian Church The other great Controversie of the first Age was about the Divinity of Christ which begun with the Ebionites and Cerinthians and was continued down by succession as appears by Theodoret's account of Heresies in his second Book Those who first embraced this Heresie rejected the whole New Testament and received only the Nazarene Gospel But after a while Artemon had the boldness to assert that the Apostles deliver'd the same Doctrine in their Writings and then the Controversie was reduced to the Sense of Scripture Paulus Samosatenus follow'd Artemon as Photinus afterwards follow'd him But Theodoret again observes That all those Heresies against the Divinity of Christ were in his time so extinct that not so much as any remainders of them were left but saith he The true Doctrines of the Gospels prevail and spread themselves over the World. And we may find what course was taken for putting an end to this Controversie by the management of it with Paulus Samosatenus In the fragment of an Epistle of Dionysius of Alexandria we read the Testimonies of Scripture which he produced against him and more at large in the Epistle of the Six Bishops to him who makes use of the very same Places of Scripture which are most applied to that purpose to this day To which they only add That this had been the Doctrine of the Christian Church from the beginning and all Catholic Churches agreed in it But here is no such thing thought of as Iâ—sallibility in the Guides of the Church for there is great difference between the consent of the Christian Church as a means to find out the Sense of Scripture and the Authority of Church Guides declaring the Sense by vertue of an Insallible Assistance the one is but a Moral Argument and the other is a Foundation of Faith. Theodoret further observes That there was another set of Heresies distinct from the two former in the Primitive Church which related chiefly to matters of Discipline and Manners and most of these he saith were so far destroyed tâ—at there were none thâ—n left who were Followers of Nicolas Nepos or Patroclus and very few Novatians or Montanists or Quartodecemans so that Truth had prevailâ—d over the World and the Heresies were either quite rooted out or only some dry and withered Branches remained of them in remote and obscure Places Which being affirmed by a Person of so much Judgment and Learning as Theodoret was gives us a plain and evident Proof that the Sense of Scripture may be so fully clear'd without an Infallible Church as to be effectual for putting an end to Controversies And altho we own a great Esteem and Reverence for the Four General Councils yet we cannot but observe that Controversies were so far from being ended by them that they broke out more violently after them As the Arian Controversy after the Council of Nice the Nestorian after that at Ephâ—sus and these Gentlemen believe that Heresy continues still in the East the Eutychian Controversy gave greater Disturbance after the Council of Chalcedâ—n than before and continued so to do for many Ages Which is an Argument that the Infallibility of Councils or of the Guides of the Church was not a Doctrine then received in the Church But I proceed to shew what means were used in the Primitive Church for putting an end to Controversies Of which we have a remarkable Instance in the Dispute about Rebaptizing Hereticks This was managed between St. Cyprian and other Bishops of Africa and Asia on one side and the Bishop of Rome on the other He pleaded Custom and Tradition the other That Custom without Truth was but ancient Error and that the matter ought to be examined by Scripture and many Reasons they bring from thence because Christ said in his Gospel I am Truth and the only way to prevent Errors is to have recourse to the Head and Fountain of Divine Tradition i. e. to the Holy Scriptures which St. Cyprian calls the Evangelical and Apostolical Tradition So that we have the clear Opinion of the African Bishops that this Controversy ought to be decided by Scripture But here the Replier saith That Right stood for the Bishops of Rome and a General Council determined the Point and the whole Church came to an Acquiescence If the Council was in the Right the Bishop of Rome was not if St. Cyprian represent his Opinion truly and he saith he did it in his own Words which are Si quis a quacunque Haeresi venerit ad nos nihil innovetur nisi quod Traditum est Now no Council ever determin'd so That whatsoever the Heresy was none should â—e Rebaptized For the Councils of Arles and Nice both disallow'd the Baptism of some Hereticks and therefore if the Council put an end to the Controversy it was by deciding against the Bishop of Rome as well as St. Cyprian The Donatists afterwards made use of St. Cyprians Authority in this Controversy which gave occasion to St. Augustin to deliver that noted Sentence concerning Scripture and Fathers and Councils viz That anonical Scripture is to be preferr'd before any other Writings for they are to be believed without Examination but the Writings of Bishops are to be examined and corrected by other Bishops and Councils if they see Cause and lesser Councils by greater and the greatest Councils by such as come after them when Truth comes to be more fully diservered It is hardly possible for a Man to speak plainer against a standâ—ng infallible Judg in Controversies than St. Augustin doth in these Words wherein he neither limits his Words to matters of Fact nor to Manners but he speaks generally as to the Authority of the Guides of the Church compared with Scripture Which are enter'd in the Authentick Body of the Canon Law approved and corrected at Rome only that part which relates to the correcting of Councils is left out But to make amends Gâ—atian in another place hath with admirable Ingenuity put the Popes Decretal Epistles among the Canâ—nical Scriptures and quotes St. Augustin for it too But the Roman Correctors were ashamed of so
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
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
lawfully give Divine Worship to any part of the World to be converted by the Missionaries who tell them the parts of the World cannot be God for he is Infinite and Immutable and Wise and Powerful which the Parts of the World are not and cannot be and therefore they cannot without Idolatry give Divine Worship to them the Mandarins require their giving the same Adorations that others do they refuse and say Whatever you may do who believe God and the World to be the same certainly it would be gross Idolatry in us who believe the thing you worship to be nothing but dull insensible parts of the World. And if now it should be asked By what authority they separate Is there not a plain answer By the authority of God himself who requires Adoration to be given to himself alone But who shall be Judg saith the Defender God himself will be Judg aâ— the great Day whether we will or not And I think that is more to be regarded than putting an end to Controversies If we be not sincere and faithful to him and his service if we do not act and judg with a regard to the Judgment of that day all the pretences in the world of a Judg in Controversies then will stand in no stead If we do use our careful endeavours to know the will of God and to do it we have great reason to hope God will shew mercy to us and then the Question will not appear of such wonderful importance Who shall be Judg here But we do not decline a reasonable Judgment in this world we only desire our Judges may be fair and equal and such as God hath appointed And if those who would judg for us pretend that they have a Divine Commission we desire to know who shall be judg of this pretence We have no reason to trust them and they will not trust us So that here we are stopt at first unless the Commission be produced which impowers those persons to judg who challenge such authority over our judgments A general indefinite obscure Commission which may extend to all other Guides in the Church as well as to them will by no means be sufficient Let us see whom Christ hath appointed in his own words and we will submit for we look on him as Supreme Judg and Legislator to his Church and if he hath thought fit to appoint an Infallible Judg we have done But we desire to know where he hath done it Hath he granted any new Commission from Heaven No. Is it to be found in Scripture Yes But then I pray observe you tell us Scripture cannot be Judg in any Controversie being ambiguous uncertain general mute flexible and what not and because it cannot hear Parties nor give a decisive voice it can by no means be a Judg of Controversies How then can the Scripture put an end to this Controversie when it can put an end to none Are the Expressions in this matter so particular so clear so peremptory that we cannot mistake about the sense of them If so then I perceive notwithstanding all the hard words given it Scripture may be Judg as well as a Rule because it is fitted to put an end to such a Controversie which is as doubtful as any and why not as well to all the rest We are not then afraid of this Question Who shall be Judg But we desire to be satisfied about it and to know not only who hath appointed him but who he is whether the Pope in Cathedrâ— or a General Council For this is very material for us to know since even at this day you are far from being agreed about it The Assembly of the Clergy of France have solemnly declared within few years That they do not believe the Popes Judgment to be Infallible The Clergy of Hungary have rejected and censured this Declaration as absurd and detestable and have forbidden any to read hold or teach the Doctrine and own the Pope to be the only Infallible Judg of Controversies A Sorbon Doctor in his Notes on the Hungarian Censure calls this the new Heresie of the Jesuits on the other side large Volumes have been Printed to prove that the right of judging infallibly belongs only to the Pope And now very lately comes out a Learned Book by another Doctor of the Sorbon to prove not only that the Popes Judgment is not Infallible but that it is a dangerous thing to believe it and that no man ought to do it unless infallible proof be brought of it But he proves at large that not so much as probable evidence can be brought for it either from Scripture or Tradition I pray now the Defender to tell me Who is the Judg Is the Pope Infallible or not It is easily answer'd I or no. And it is necessary to be answer'd if we must know Who is the Judg The common Evasion is That you are agreed that Popes and Councils together are but this is but an Evasion For the Infallibility is by virtue of Divine Promises â—â—d those must either relate to the Church as the subject of them or to the Successors of St. Peter in their capacity as such If to the former the Popes have nothing to do in it but as included in the Church if the latter the Councils have no Infallibility but the Pope To say the Council is infallible when confirmed by the Pope is Nonsense For either it was Infallible in its Decree or not If not it can borrow no Infallibility from the Popes subsequent Confirmation but the Popes Judgment may be said to be Infallible but by no means the Councils And Du Pin hath proved that there cannot be two Seats of Infallibility for whereever there is Infallibility it can receive no addition or force from another Infallibility and whatever is Infallible must be believed for it self and not depend on anothers Judgment And therefore I again desire the Defender to make no harangues about this matter but to answer directly Who is the Judg For we would sain be acquainted with this some body as he speaks but I am afraid his some body of Infallibility will prove a more pleasing dream than what he charges me with in what follows I had given a fair account of the proceedings in England upon the Reformation how the search began the Popes Authority to be discarded and the Articles of Religion to be drawn up which ought not to be looked on as particular Fancies but the sense of our Church All this he calls a pleasing dream I am sure the pretence of Infallibility is so but I related matter of fact which he hath no mind to meddle with but he runs again to his Who shall be Judg And concludes that I think between Churches there 's none at all I do think the Church of England in this divided state of the Catholick Church is under no Superior Judicature but that it hath sufficient power and authority to
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
one Kind with Christs Institution and Praying in an unknow Tongue with the 14 Chapâ—er of the first Epistle to the Corinthians To this the Replier saith only that these are voluntary assumpti on s without proof and his saying so needs no Answer The Defender shelters himself under the Catholick Church and resolves not to put to Sea with the Answerer about these things But he knows very well we utterly deny any of these to have been the practice of the Universal Church according to Vincentius Lerinensis his Rules by which we are content to be tried And although he seems to wish for such a trial yet I know a reason why they ought to decline it because I am certain they can never make it good in any one of them 2 The second Inconvenience objected was That this would make the wisdom of God fall beneath the discretion of prudent Law-givers who do not make Laws and leave every man to be his own judg as to right or wrong It was answered three ways 1 That there are Inconveniencies on both sides and one ought to be provided against as well as the other sor as the people are not to be their own Judges so it may happen that an Usurper may pretend to the right of Interpreting the Laws only to justifie his Usurpation 2 That the People are allowed in some sense to interpret the Laws or else they could never understand the duty they owe to their lawful King and to justifie his Rights against all the pretences of Usurpers To this the Replier saith nothing and the Defender saith that which is next to nothing to the first and takes no notice of the second Answer and I think I therein tell him plainly enough what I would be at He saith I mean receiving and holding the true faith by Usurpation Nothing was farther from my thoughts But I had thought it were easie enough to know whom I meant viz. such a one as pretends to an Infallible Chair which they cannot deny themselves to be the highest Usurpation if he cannot prove his Title by Scripture as we are sure he cannot 3 That in this Case a Rule is given to direct persons in the way to Heaven and therefore must be capable of being understood by those who are to make use of it for that end Which being the greatest concernment to Mankind they are therefore obliged to search into it for their own Salvation but we exclude not the help of Spiritual Guides and embrace the ancient Creeds of the Church To this the Replier answers two things 1 That an Infallible Guide is necessary to secure persons from wilful Errors which he saith God hath provided From wilful Error this is new Doctrine indeed that God hath provided a remedy for wilful Error Had not our Saviour himself an Infallible Spirit and yet we do not read that ever he secured men from wilful Error or ever designed to do it But suppose an Infallible Judg could do this he doth not tell us where he is to be found who he is and in what manner he doth thus secure men which are very necessary Enquiries and without being satisfied in all these points we are still left to be our own Judges so far as concerns the way to Salvation since at the day of Judgment we must answer for our selves than which there can be no greater obligation to care and sincerity in judging Suppose a mans life depends upon the benefit of his Clergy and one comes to him and tells him You are an ignorant man and liable to great mistakes in reading therefore I advise you by no means to trust to your own skill in Reading for it is a horrible dark Letter and many have been mistaken that were more Book learned than you therefore take my counsel there is Mr. Ordinary who understands Book-learning a thousand times better than you or I trust him for the Reading and no doubt you will escape Ay Sir saith the man all that is very true that you say but my life lies at stake and how if Mr. Ordinary's Reading will not be allow'd by the Judg for mine then I am a lost man past recovery therefore I am resolved to learn to read my self and to that end I will make the best use of his skill to instruct me before-hand that I may be able to answer for my self This needs no Application But I do not see how an Infâ—â—lible 〈◊〉 should be necessary to particular persons in order to 〈◊〉 Salvation upon the â—rinciples owned and receiv'd by the greatest Divines in the Roman Church For Aquinas determines that every one that hath saving Grace hath likewise a gift of understanding whereby hâ— is â—ussiciently instructed in all things necessary to Salvation and that it is never withdrawn from them as to those things If this Doctrine hold good I do not see any such necessity for persons to look after an Infallible Guide as there is to look after saving Grace Gulielmus Parisiensis saith That mens not looking after the way of Salvation themselves is that which will dâ—mn them And in case of difference among Guides if a man sincerely makes application to God to know the Truth he doth not question but such is the mercy of God to keep such a one from dangerous Error or if he doth suffer him to fall into Error with a good mind it shall not be imputed to him It is a Doctrine generally receiv'd in the Schools That where ever God doth bestow his Grace there goes along with it such a gift of understanding as keeps them from being deceived in the matters they believe in order to Salvation Henricus a Gandavo thus expresses it That as Faith makes the mind to rest on the Authority of the Scripture so this gift of understanding makes them perceive the Truth of what they are to believe And what need then such an Infallible Guide 2 He saith That ancient Creeds will not serve unless there be a power in the Church to make nâ—w decisions in matters of Faith. This ought to have been a little proved For in truth we are apt to think the Faith once delivered to the Saints as suffiâ—ient to carry us to Heaven as it was in the Apostles times A man is heir to a good Estate which by many Generations is derived down from his Ancestors and he hath the Original Deeds in his hands one comes to him and tells him â—t is a very fine Estate you are heir to and it is a thousand pities you should want a good Title to it I will put you into a way to get it if you will give up your musty old Deeds and put your self into the hands of such persons as I shall name to you they shall make you a new Settlement and add several Parcels to your Estate which you had not before I am content saith the Heir with my Ancestors Estate and I will never part with my old Deeds for
evidently contained therein But I go no further tâ—an the Replier leads me At the Conclusion of the first Paper there was a suggestion As tho the Schism were raised by particular men for their own Advantage It was answered That the Advantage of the Clergy lay plainly on the other side which is yielded by the Replier and yet he would have the Clergy byast What byast against their Interest For that is the point Whether they got ot lost by the Reformation and besides other considerations if there were so much Sacriledg committed by it as is said in one of the Papers it is hard to suppose that they should raise the Schism for their own Advantage I am of the Defenders mind That matter of Interest ought not to be regarded in these things but when that was said to lie at the bottom of the Reformation we had reason to consider on which side lay the greater Advantage The 2d Charge is That the Reformation hath been â—he occasion of a World of Heresies creeping into this Nation With this the 2d Paper begins In answer it was said That either this respects the several Sects of Dissenters from the Religion established by Law and then it seems hard considering aâ— circumstances to charge the Church of England with them or it takes in all that dissent from the Church of Rome and so it is a charge on the whole Church since the Reformation as guilty of Heresie which was a charge I said could never be made good The Defender avoids the charge as to the Church of England but the Replier in plain terms owns it saying That establishment of a Religion by Law cannot protect it from being a Heresie which I readily grant And then he adds Let him defend his own and his work is done The best way to do that is to consider first what Heresie is and that I said was an obstinate opposing some necessary Article of Faith and then how it comes to be in the Power of the Church of Rome to define Heretical Doctrines so as that any Doctrine comes to be Heresie by being contrary to its Definitions He answers By the same way the Church had Power in her General Councils to make Creeds and to Anathematize Heretiâ—ks So that whatever Power the Catholick Church exercised in declaring Matters of Faith he challenges as of Right belonging to the Church of Rome which wholly depends on the first Point already discussed viz. That the Roman and Catholick Church are the same But I shall now wave that and consider Whether if that were allow'd the Church could now have the same Reason to declare the Points in difference to be Heresies as the Primitive Church had the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation of Christ. I am of opinion it cannot and yet if it could that alone is not sufficient to charge Heresie upon us And in making out of both these I shall argue from the Nature of Heresie as it is stated among their best Writers who agree that there are three Things necessary to make up the charge of Heresie 1. The Nature of the Proposition 2. The Authority of the Proponent 3. The obstinacy of the Party 1. The Nature of the Proposition for it is allowed among them that there is a difference between a Proposition Erroneous in Faith and Heretical But for our better understanding this matter I shall set down something very pertinently observed by Aquinas and others 1. Aquinas saith That Faith in us depends upon Divine Revelation not such as is made to any person but that which was made to the Prophets and Apostles which is preserved in the Canonical Books and therefore he saith the proofs from Scripture are necessary and convincing those from other Authorities are but probable Which is a Testimony of great Consequence in this matter for from hence it appears that whatsover Article of Faith is made necessary to be believed must be proved from Scripture and Heresie being an obstinate opposing a necessary Article of Faith there can be no Heresie where the Doctrine is not founded on Scripture And elsewhere he makes the principles of Faith to be the Authorities of the Scripture 2. That all matters of Faith are not equally revealed in Scripture For some he saith are principally designed as the Trinity and Incarnation and these are directly against Faith and to hold the contrary to them especially with obstinacy is Heresie but there are others which are indirectly against Faith from whence something follows which overthrows Faith as for any one to deny that Samuel was the son of Helcanah the consequence would be that the Scripture was false 3. He makes a distinction between those who discern the Repugnancy and continue obstinate and those who do not not intending to maintain any thing contrary to Faith and in this case there may be an erroneous opinion in Faith without Heresie So that an erroneous opinion lies in not attending to the Consequence of that Opinion as against Faith and not maintaining it obstinately But he asserts it to be in the Churches Power to declare such an opinion to be against Faith and then he makes it Heretical to deny it His Instance is about the five Notions of the Trinity and his Conclusion is That it cannot be Heretical in it self to have different Opinions about them but it is very hard to understand how the Church by its declaration can make the holding one or the other opinion to be more or less repugnant to Faith. But then the Reason of Heresie must be resolved into the Authority of the Church of which afterwards yet still Scripture is the Rule by which the Church is to judg 4 That there are some things revealed in Scripture which immediately tend to make mankind happy and those are the Articles of Faith which all men are bound to believe explicitely other things are revealed by accident or secondarily as that Abraham had two Sons that David was the Son of Jesse Now as to these latter points he saith That it is enough to have an inward preparation of mind to believe all that is contained in Scripture and those things in particular as soon as they are known to be there But we believe all persons bound to search the Scriptures that they may know what is contained therein However we gain this point hereby that by their own Doctrine besides the Articles of Faith receiv'd on both sides no other points can become necessary till they be made appear to us to be contained in Scripture otherwise it is sufficient for us to be ready to believe whatever is contained therein And consequently we cannot be charged with Heresie for rejecting them Alphonsus a Castro makes this distinction between Heresie and a Proposition erroneous in Faith That the former is against such a point of Faith as all men are bound to believe but there are some Propositions he saith relating to Faith wherein a man is under no
for us to take all matters of Faith upon trust from her And if there be no Evidence of Credibility there is no sufficient proposal and if there be not there can be no obligation to believe and where that is not there can be no Heresie in not believing according to the judgment of your greatest Divines 3 As to the charge of Heresie there must be obstinacy in the party which they all make necessary to formal Heresie Aquinas quotes the noted passage of St. Augâ—stin to this purpose That although men hold a false opinion without pertinacious animosity especially if they derive it from their Parents and do with diligence and caution seek after the Truth and are ready to lay it down when they have found it they are not to be reckoâ—'d for Hereticks And we do not think a better Plea can be made for us as to this charge than what is contained in these words of St. Augustâ—n But here we must observe the artifice of Aquinas He saw this would never do their business against the enemies of the Church of Rome and therefore he pretends to give the Reason for this because they do not contradict the judgment of the Church and so draws the power of declaring Heresie to the Pope as having the chief Authority in the Church Of whom St. Augustin saith not a word But however Aquinas himself requires Obstinacy even in this case to make a Heretick And the Obstinacy is not placed by him in the meer resisting the Authority of the Church but in the manner of doing it Cajetan there affirms that if there be no pertinacy in the Will there is no Heresie So that if a man holds an opinion contrary to Faith in it self and he thinks he holds right and doth not intend to dissent from the Church he is not guilty of Heresie And so Cajetan defines Pertinacy to be a consent to an error in Faith knowing it so to be Melchior Canus saith It is the general Opinion of Divines and Canonists that there can be no Heresie without Obstinacy And no man is a Heretick he saith who doth not seeing and knowing chuse a Doctrine contrary to Faâ—â—h Suarez saith that all the Doctors are agreed that Obstinacy is required to Heresie and that it is expressed in the Canon Law. So that I need to produce no more to that purpose But the difficulty is to know what they mean by Obstinacy It is not hard to understand what is meant by the word for pertinax is one that is over-tenacious i. e. that holds an opinion when he sees no ground for it or will yield to no Reasonable conviction or that hath not a desire to find out Truth and submit to it And so it is plain St. Augustin understood it in the place before mention'd And in another place he makes it to lye in a mans resisting the Catholick Doctrine made known to him without which he did not judg him a Heretick though he held Heretical Doctrine And again he declares those to be Hereticks that contumaciously resist those that correct and instruct them and will not amend their wicked Doctrines but go on to defend them These passages of St. Augustin are enter'd in the Body of the Canon Law and the Gloss there saith If one bolds Doctrines against Faith and be ready to be better instructed he is no Heretick The same Authorities Ockam insists upon and from them he declares Obstinacy to be so necessary that without it no man can be a Heretick And he concludes from St. Augustin that if a man be ready to yield to Truth when he finds it he is not guilâ—y of Obstinacy And he proves that such are no Hereticks from these Reasons 1 Because Hereticks are to be Excommunicated but such by the Canon Law are not to be â—xcommunicated 2 Because they are ready to be better instructed 3 Because many have erred and were not accounted Hereticks on this account Oâ—kam distinguishes a twofold Obstinacy 1. Internal 2. External Internal may be known he saith by theâ—e Rules 1. If a man be not convinced by Miracles 2. If he will rather question the truth of the Christian Faith than be convinced 3. When he doth not use means for his own Conviction but resolves to persist in his Errors such a neglect argues an obstinate mind External of which he gives many instances of which I shall mention some as 1. If a man willingly saith or doth something whereby he discovers his disbelief of the whole Christian Faith 2 If he demes any part of the old or new Testament 3. If he holds the whole Christian Church to have erred which he by no means understands of any part of it assuming the Titles of Catholick and Infallible to it self for he saith some say that whatsoever Christ hath promised to his Church may be made good if but one Person in it holds the true Faith but he declares that the 〈◊〉 Faith may be preserved in a very few 4. If the contrary Doctrâ—â— known to be universally received among Christians as if one shâ—uld deny that Christ was crucified and on this account he charges 〈◊〉 22. with Heresy for denying that the Souls of the Wicked are in Hell and of the Saints in Heaven before the day of Judgment 5. If he refuses to be informed being reproved by the Learned 6. If he protests he will never alter his Opinion 7. If he forbids reading the Scriptures or preaching Catholick Doctrine 8. If a Pope commands an erroneous Opinion to be believed as matter of Faith. 9. If a man consents to such a Definition of the Pope and imposes it on others Joh. Gerson treats at large about the obstinacy which makes one a Heretick in several Discourses before the Council of Constance and he follows St. Augustins Doctrine in saying That it consists in not seeking after Truth and not obeying it when he hath found it Melchior Canus finds fault with the uncertain Marks of Obstinacy given by others and he resolves it at last into this That a Man holds an Opinion which he knows to be contrary to the Catholick Faith but then he requires 1. That he be certain that it belongs to it and it is not enough that learned Men say so 2. That he must know it by an infallible Authority For otherwise a mans persisting in his Opinion may be great rashness and presumption but it is not Heresy But in case a persons ignorance be such as makes his Errors involuntary it doth excuse him from Heresy because that is not a voluntary Error Suarez and others after him in plain terms make the Obstinacy to lie in not submiting to the Judgment of the Church because while a Man doth yield to the Churches Authority they account him no Heretick â—his is indeed an Argument according to their way of declaring Hereticks but we are now enquiring what that Obstinacy is which doth really make
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
Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and of the Primitive Church which I think ought to have more force on the Consciences of Men than the pretence to Infallibility in any Church in the World. But all this while it is said There is no firm Motive produced for adhering to the Doctrine of our Church And this is repeated over and over As though there could be any greater Motive in the World than that our Doctrine is no other than that of Christ and his Apostles And unless you prove this as to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome all your other Motives signify nothing to the real satisfaction of any Man's Conscience For it is agreed on all hands that our Religion is a revealed Religion and that this Revelation was made by Christ and his Apostles and that this Revelation as to Matters necessary to Salvation is contained in the Books of the New Testament What satisfaction then can it be to any Man's Conscience to be told such a Church tells me this and that and the other Point were the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles As will appear by this short Representation You pretend to no new Revelations of Matter of Doctrine No. You have the Books of this Revelation Yes Are they not legible Yes But you cannot understand them Let me try It is for God's sake I must believe and therefore I cannot be satisfied till I see his Word What! will you not believe the Church which delivers you the Word I pray excuse me A Man brings me a Letter from my Father about matter of great Consequence to me he tells me I need not look into the Letter it self for he was authorized by my Father to tell me his Meaning Altho I believe he dealt faithfully in bringing me the true Letter Do you think I will trust him for the Meaning of it No I will open it if it be only to see whether he had such Authority from him or not And I know if my Father was pleased to write to me about Matters of such Importance he would write in such a manner that I might understand him and if any Difficulties arise in Point of Law I will take the Advice of thâ—se who are most fit and able to direct me But after all I must know what my Father would have me to do from his own Words and not from the Mouth of the Messenger Or if he tells me he hath Authority to deliver other things by Word of Mouth not contained in the Letter which I am equally bound to believe with what I can find in iâ— can any one think I will believe him unless it appears by the Letter it self that my Father gave him such Authority Let him tell me never so much how long he hath been my Father's Servant and how faithful he hath been to him and how much he hath done and suffered for him and what a number of Certificates he can produce from time to time of his good Behaviour yet all this can give me no satisfaction as long as the Letter he brings is confessed to be my Father 's own Hand-writing and that it was purposely sent to direct me what I was to do in a Matter that he knew to be of the greatest Concernment in the World to me Can I imagine one so wise and careful should omit setting down in his own Letter such important Things and leave them to the disâ—retion of one that may either mistake his Meaning or have some Interest to carry on different from mine And therefore all the fair Pretences or Motives in the World shall never make me believe any thing to be his Mind for me to do in a Matter which relates to my Welfare but what I find under his own Hand It is to very little purpose to quote S. Augustin's Motives about the Church unless it be made appear that they belong only to the Church of Rome and that they prove the Church Infallible in all she teaches Our Faith depends on the Word of God as it is contained in Scripture thiâ— Scripture is conveyed down by the Church but the Church still is but the Messenger which bringâ— the Letter by which we are directed what to believe and practise in order to Salvation We do by no means think the Word of God is made by writing as he suggests but we are sure it is the Word of God which is written which we can never be of any Tradition We do not look out for a fallible Judg to be sure to have an end of our Differences But we hate to be imposed on by a pretence to an Infallible Judg who instead of ending Differences makes more We do not think it Judgment to affirm that giving Honour to God is not giving Honour to God But we have not such deep Understandings to comprehend how God should be honoured by the breaking his Commandments It is not Judgment in our Opinion to think That because only one could redeem us no Body besides can pray for us But it is no great Wisdom and Judgment if God hath appointed but one Advocate in Heaven for us to appoint him more or to make our Addresses to our Fellow-Creatures in Heaven when he hath commanded us to do it to his Son. We do not believe that the Body and Blood of Christ can now be separated or he die again But when Christ instituted a Sacrament to set forth the shedding of his Blood that it is meer Fancy to think his Blood being in his Body doth answer the Ends of it The Apostles no doubt understood Christ's meaning in what he said and have so well instructed his Church therein that we have no reason to believe he meant the substantial Change of his Body in the Institution of a Sacrament Now on which side Judgment and Reason lies these very Instances discover And we desire no greater Liberty in these Matters than to have our Judgments sway'd by the strongest Reason and that I hope is not building on Sand. The Replier saith The Infallible Church is as visible as the Sun. We are then wondrous unlucky indeed that cannot see it I have often rubbed my Eyes and looked over and over where they tell me it is to be seen and I can yet see nothing like it although I should be as glad to see it as another I have heard of a blind Man who pretended to have such a sagacity with his Fingers that he could feel Colours and he proceeded so far in it that some Vertuoso's believed him and were ready to form a Theory of Colours from the subtilty of the blind Man's Fingers but before they had accomplished it the Trick was discovered An Infallible Judg of all Controversies looks to me just like it He is to determine Controversies not by seeing but by a kind of feeling If he produces Reason we may judg as well as he if he doth not he must feel them out which is so different a way
contain the Reasons and Motives of the Conversion of so great a Lady to the Church of Rome But this Gentleman hath now eased me of the necessity of further considering it on that account For he declares That none of those Motives or Reasons are to be found in the Paper of her Highness Which he repeats several times She writ this Paper not as to the Reasons she had her self for changing c. As for the Reasons of it they were only betwixt God and her own Soul and the Priest with whom she spoke at laâ—t And so my Work is at an end as to her Paper For I never intended to ransack the private Papers or secret Narratives of great Persons And I do not in the least question the Relation now given from so great Authority as that he mentions of the Passages concerning Her and therefore I have nothing more to say as to what relates to the Person of the Dutchess But I shall take notice of what this Defender saith which reflects on the Honour of the Church of England 1. The Pillars of the Church established by Law saith he are to be found but broken Staffs by their own Concessions What! is the Church of Eâ—gland Felo de se But how I pray For after all their undertaking to heal a wounded Conscience they leave their Proselytes finally to the Scripture as our Physicians when they have emptied the Pockets of their Patients without curing them send them at last to Tunbridg Waters or the Air of Montpellier As tho the Scripture were looked on by us as a meer Help at a dead Lift when we have nothing to say One would think he had never read the Articles of the Church of England for there he might have seen that thâ— Scripture is made the Rule and Ground of our Faith. And I pray whither should any Persons be directed under Trouble of Mind but to the Word of God Can any thing else give real Satisfaction Must they go to an Infallible Church But whence should they know it to be Infallible but from the Scriptures So that on all hands Persons must go to the Scriptures if they will have Satisfaction But this Gentleman talks like a meer Novice as to Matters of Faith as tho believing were a new thing to him and he did not yet know that true Faith must be grounded on Divine Revelation which the Pillars of our Church have always asserted to be contained only in the Scripture and therefore whither can they send Persons but to the Scripture But it seemâ— he is got no farther than the Collier's Faith he believes as the Church believes and the Church believes as he believes and by this he hopes to be too hard for a Legion of Devils 2. He saith We are Reformed from the Vertues of good Living i. e. from the Devotions Mortifications Austerities Humility and Charity which are practised in Catholick Countries by the Example and Precept of that lean mortified Apostle St. Martin Luther He knows we pretend not to Canonize Saints and he may know that a very great Man in the Church of Rome once said That the new Saints they Canonized would make one question the old Ones We neither make a Saint nor an Apostle of Martin Luther and we know of no Authority he ever had in this Church Our Church was reformed by it self and neither by Luther nor Calvin whom he had mentioned as well as the other but for his lean and mortified Aspect But after all Luther was as lean and mortified an Apostle as Bishop Bonner but a Man of far greater worth and sit for the Work he undertook being of an undaunted Spirit What a strange sort of Calumny is this to upbraid our Church as if it followed the Example and Precept of Martin Luther He knows how very easy it is for us to retort such things with mighty advantage when for more than an Age together that Church was governed by such dissolute and profane Heads of the Church that it is a shame to mention them and all this by the confession of their own Writers But as to Luther's Person if his Crimes were his Corpulency what became of all the fat Abbots and Monks But they were no Apostles or Reformers I easily grant it But must God chuse Instruments as some do Horses by their fatness to run Races As to Luther's Conversation it is justified by those who best knew him and are Persons of undoubted Reputation I mean Frasmus Melancthon and Camerarius And as to Matters in dispute if he acted according to his Principles his Fault lay in his Opinions and not in acting according to them But whether our Church follow Luther or not it is Objected that we have reformed away the Vertues of good Living God forbid But I dare not think there is any Church in the World where the Necessity of good Living is more earnestly pressed But I confess we of the Church of England do think the Examples and Precepts of Christ and his Apostles are to be our Rules for the Vertues of good Living And according to them I doubt not but there are as great Examples of Devotion Mortification Humility and Charity as in any place whatsoever But I am afraid this Gentleman's Acquaintance did not lie much that way nor doth he seem to be a very competent Judg of the Ways of good living is he did not know how to distinguish between outward Appearances and true Christian Vertues And according to his way of judging the Disciples of the Pharisees did very much outdoe those of our Blessed Saviour as appears by a Book we esteem very much called the New Testament but if I mention it to him I am afraid he should think I am like the Physicians who send their Patients to Tuâ—bridg-Wells or the Air of Montpellier 3. That two of our Bishops whereof one was Primate of all England renounced and condemned two of the established Articles of our Church But what two Articles were these It seems they wished we had kept Confession which no doubt was commanded of God and praying for the Dead which was one of the ancient things of Christianity But which of our 39 Articles did they renounce hereby I think I have read and consider'd them as much as this Gentleman and I can find no such Articles against Confession and praying for the Dead Our Church as appears by the Office of the Visitation of the Sick doth not disallow of Confession in particular Cases but the necessity of it in order to Forgiveness in all Cases And if any Bishop asserted this then he exceeded the Doctrine of our Church but he renounced no Article of it As to the other Point we have an Article against the Romish Doctrine of Purgatory Art. 22. but not a word concerning praying for the Dead without respect to it But he out of his great skill in Controversy believes that Prayer for the Dead and the Romish
Doctrine of Purgatory are the same Whereas this relates to the deliverance of Souls out of Purgatory by the Suffrages of the Living which makes all the gainful Trade of Masses for the Dead c. but the other related to the Day of Judgment as is known to all who are versed in the Writings of the Ancient Church But this our Church wisely passes over neither condemning it because so ancient nor approving it because not grounded on Scripture and therefore not necessary to be observed 4. But his great spite is at the Reformation of this Church which he saith was erected on the Foundation of Lust Sacrilege and Usurpation And that no Paint is capable of making lovely the hideous Face of the pretended Reformation These are severe Sayings and might be requited with sharper if such hard Words and blustering Expressions had any good effect on Mankind But instead thereof I shall gently wipe off the Dirt he hath thrown in the Face of our Church that it may appear in its proper Colours And now this Gentleman sets himself to Ergoteering and looks and talks like any grim Logician Of the Causes which produced it and the Effects which it produced The Schism led the way to the Reformation for breaking the Unity of Christ's Church which was the Foundation of it but the immediate Cause of this which produced the Separation of Hen. 8. from the Church of Rome was the refusal of the Pope to grant him a Divorce from his first Wife and to gratify his Desires in a Dispensation for a second Marriage Ergo the first Cause of the Reformation was the satisfying an inordinaâ—e and brutal Passion But is he sure of this If he be not it is a horrible Calumny upon our Church upon King Henry the 8th and the whole Nation as I shall presently shew No he confesses he cannot be sure of it For saith he no Man can carry it so high as the Original Cause with any certainty And at the same time he undertakes to demonstrate the immediate Cause to be Henry the 8s inordinate and brutal Passion And afterwards assirms as confidently as if he had demonstrated it That our Reformation was erected on the Foundations of Lust Sacrilege and Usurpation Yet saith he the King only knew whether it was Conscience or Love or Love alone which moved him to sue for a Divorce Then by his Favour the King only could know what was the immediate Cause of that which he calls the Schism Well! but he offers at some Probabilities that Lust was the true Cause Is Ergoteering come to this already But this we may say if Conscience had any part in it she had taken a long Nap of almost twenty Years together before she awakened Doth he think that Conscience doth not take a longer Nap than this in some Men and yet they pretend to have it truly awaken'd at last What thinks he of late Converts Cannot they be true because Conscience hath slept so long in them Must we conclude in such Cases That some inordinate Passion gives Conscience a jog at last So that it cannot be denied he saith that an inordinate and brutal Passion bad a great share at least in the production of the Schism How cannot be denied I say from his own words it ought to be denied for he confesses none could know but the King himself he never pretends that the King confessed it How then cannot it be denied Yea how dare any one affirm it Especially when the King himself declared in a Solemn Assembly in these words saith Hall as near saith he as I could carry them away speaking of the dissatisfaction of his Conscience For this only Cause I protest before God and in the Word of a Prince I have asked Counsel of the greatest Clerks in Christendom and for this Cause I have sent for this Legat as a Man indifferent only to know the Truth and to settle my Conscience and for none other Cause as God can judg And both then and afterwards he declared that his Scruples began upon the French Ambassador's making a Question about the Legitimacy of the Marriage when the Match was prâ—posed between the Duke of Orleance and his Daughter and he affirms That he moved it himself in Confession to the Bishop of Lincoln and appeals to him concerning the Truth of it in open Court. Sanders himself doth not deny that the French Ambassador whom he calls the Bishop of Tarbe afterwards Card. Grammont others say it was Anthony Vesey one of the Presidents of the Parliament of Paris did start this Difficulty in the Debate about this Marriage of the King's Daughter and he makes a set Speech for him wherein he saith That the King's Marriage had an ill Report abroad But then he adds That this was done by the King's appointment and that Card. Wolsey put him upon it but he produces no manner of Proofs concerning it but only that it was so believed by the People at that time who cursed the French Ambassador As tho the suspicious of the People were of greater Authority than the solemn Protestation of the King himself But I think it may be demonstrated as far as such things are capable of it from Sanders his own Story that the King 's first Scruples or the jogging of his Conscience as our Author stiles it could not come from an inordinate Passion to Ann Bolleyn For he makes Card. Wolsey the chief Instrument in the Intrigue Let us then see what Accounts he gives of his Motives to undertake it He not only takes notice of the great Discontent he took at the Emperor Charles V. the Queen's Nephew but how studious he was upon the first intimation of the King's Scruples to recommend to him the Dutchess of Alençon the King of France's Sister and that when there were none present but the King Wolsey and the Confessor Afterwards Wolsey was sent on a very splendid Ambassy into France and had secret Instructions to carry on the Match with the King of France's Sister But when he was at Calais he received Orders from the King to manage other Matters as he was appointed but not to say a word of that Match At which saith Sanders he was in a mighty rage because he carried on the Divorce for nothing more than to oblige the most Christian King wholly to himself by this Marriage How could this be if from the beginning of his Scruples he knew the King designed to marry Ann Bolleyn But Sanders thinks to come off with saying That Wolsey knew of the King's Love but he thought he designed her only for his Concubine But this is plainly to contradict himself for before he said That Wolsey knew from the beginning whom he intended to marry Besides what Reason could there be if the King had only a design to corrupt her that he should put himself and the World to so much trouble to sue out a Divorce For the Divorce was