question the usefulness of Councils in this matter because the Scripture of it self was sufficient to put an end to it And elsewhere saith that it is plain enough to those who search for Truth And in general he asserts their sufficiency and clearness for the discovery of Truth When a Controversie was raised in St. Basil's time about the Trinity the best Expedient that great man could think of for putting an end to it was to refer it to the Scriptures In another place he commends it as the best way to find out Truth to be much in the study of the Scriptures and saith that the Spirit of God did thereby lead to all things useful Epiphanius was well acquainted with all the Heresies of the Church and the best means to suppress them and certainly he would never have taken such pains to refute so many Heresies out of Scripture if he had look'd on the Church as the Infallible Judg of Controversies For he not only undertakes to give the sense of Scripture for the ending of Controversies but he supposes all Persons capable of understanding it that will apply themselves to it Which he several times affirms in the consutation of his last Heresie I shall conclude with St. Chrysostome who speaks to this purpose to a person so offended at the Sects and Heresies among Christians that he did not know whom or what to believe â—he Scriptures saith he are plaâ— and true and it is an easie matter to judg by them if a man agrees with the Sâ—â—iptures he is a Christian if not he is out of that â—oll But men diâ—fer about the sense of Scripture What saith he hâ—ve ye not a 〈◊〉 and judgment And after the answering several other Cavâ—ls lâ— concludes Let us submit to the Divine Law and dâ—â— what is pleasing tâ— that and that will bring us to Heaven And in another place If â—e sâ—udy the Scriptures we shall understand both true Doctrine and a good liâ—e And again the Scriptures are the Door which kâ—â—p out Hereticks which establish our minds in the Truth and suffer us not to be seduâ—ed Thus I have given somewhat a clearer view of the sense of the Primitive Church in this mâ—tter than could be taken from two single passages of Tertullian and St. Augustin and I have been so far from swelling or enlarging this as far as I could that I have made choice only of these out of many others which I could have produced But if these be not sufficient a Volume will not satisfie which it were not hard to make on this Subject out of the Fathers 3 It is time now to examine the Inconveniencies alledged against Persons judging of matters of Faith according to the Scriptures 1 That God Almighty would then leave us at Uncertainties if he gave us a Rule and â—eft every one to be his own Iudg for that were to leave every phantastical mâ—n to câ—use as he pleases To this was answered 1 That this Objection doth not reach those of the Church of Englanâ— which receives the three Creeds and embraces the four General Councils and professes to hold nothing contrary to any Uâ—iversal Tradition of the Church from the Apostles times And that we have often offer'd to put the Controversies between us and the Church of Rome upon that issue To this Answer the Replier saith That they do not charge our Church with not profâ—ssing these things but for erring against her own Profâ—ssion and deserting that Church to which all these Authorities bear Testimony and of which her Progenitors and first Reformers had been Members and from whose hands she received what soever she had either of Scripture Creeds Councils or Tradition and consequently whose judgment she was bound to follow Whether we act against our Profession or not it is plain the Rule of our Church doth not by this Profession leave every one to follow his own fancy and to believe as he plâ—ses But wherein is it that we thus Act against our Profession Do we reject the â—reeds Councils and Universal Tradition in our Deeds Wherein In deserting the Communion of the Church of Rome And is the necessity of thâ—t contained in the Creeds here receiv'd In the â—our Councils â—y Universal Tradition For this I refer to the foregoing Dâ—scourse about the Unity of the Catholick Church But we receiv'd these thiâ—gs from the Church of Rome So we do the old Tâ—stament from the Jews must we therefore hold Communion still with them Are we bound therefore to follow the Judgment of the Jewish Churâ—â— But I do not understand how we receiv'd these things from the Authority of the Church of Rome We receiv'd the Scriptures from Universal Tradition derived from all the Apostolical â—hurches and so the Creeds and Councils and such an Universal Tradition is the thing we desire for the Trent-Creed our forefathers never knew or receiv'd as part of that Faith without which there is no Salvation But here the Defender grows brisk and saith All Hereticks since the first â—our General Councils may say the very same which I say for the Church of England and all before them the Equivalent Arius Macedonius Nestorius and Entyches might have said as much of the Crâ—eds before them and all complain of the Villainous Factâ—ns in the Church against them My Plea for the Church of England hath justified them all The same thing is said in sewer words by the Replier That this Plea justifies the Arrians and condemns the Nicene Fathers vindicates the Eutychians Nestorians and Donatists and confounds all General Councils Lest therefore I should seem to betray the Church of England instead of defending it I shall shew the Reasonableness and Equity of this Plea and its great difference from that of the Ancient Hereticks condemned by General Councils or the Ancient Church 1 The Ancient Hereticks were condemned by that Rule of Faith which the Church always receiv'd v z. the Scriptures but the Council of Tâ—ent set up a new Rule of Faith on purpose that they might condemn us for Hereticks viz. in making Tradition equal with Scripture which is directly contrary to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church as I have already shewed The method of General Councils was to have the Books of Scripture placed in the middle of them on a Table as the Rule they were to judg by And Richerius a Doctâ—â— of the Scrbon not only affirms the Custom but saiâ—h it was for 〈◊〉 Reason That the Fathers of the Councils might be admonished that all things were to be examined by the standard of the Gospel Bellarmin affirms the Council of Nice To have drawn its Conclusion out of Scriptures and the same he affirms of the 6th General Council and he might as well have done it of the rest their main design being only to establish the Doctrine of the Divinity and Incarnation of Christ. But the Case of Councils came to be very different when
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
gross a Forgery and confess St. Augustin never thought of the Decretal Epistles but of the Canonical Scriptures but yet they 〈◊〉 itle stand for good Canon Law. In the Controversy about the Church with the Donatists St. Augustin's constant appeal is to the Scripâ—â— and he sets aside not only particular Doctors hut the preteâ—â— to Miracles and the Definitions of Councils He doth not therefore appeal to Scripture because â—hey 〈◊〉 about the Church but because he looked on the Testimonies of Scripture as clear enough to decide the point as he often declares And he calls the plain Testimonies of Scripture the support and strength of their Cause If he then thought that Scripture alone could put an end to such a Controversy as that no doubt he thought so as to any other But we need not mention his thoughts for he declares as much whether it be about Christ or his Church or any matter of Faith he makes Scripture so far the Rule that he denouncess Anathema against those who deliver any other Doctrine than what is contained in them Nor doth he direct to any Church Authority to manifest the Sense of Scripture but leaves all Mankind to judg of it and even the Donatists themselves whom he opposed The same way he takes with Maximinus the Arian He desires all other Authorities may be laid aside and only those of Scripture and Reason used To what purpose unless he thought the Scripture sufficient to end the Controversy Against Faustus the Manichean he saith The Excellency of the Canonical Scripture is such as to be placed in a Threne far above all other Writings to which every faithful and pious Mind ought to submit All other Writings are to be tried by them but there is no doubt to be made of whatever we find in them The same method he uses with the Pâ—lagians an advises them to yeild to the Authority of Scripture which can neither deceive nor be deceived This Controversy saith he requires a Judg les Christ judg let us hear him speak Let the Apostle judg with him for Christ speaks in his Apostle And in another place Let St. John sit judg between us And in general he saith We ought to Acquiesce in the Authority of Scripture and when any Controversy arises it ought to be quietly ended by Proofs brought from thence But St. Augustin is the Man whom the Defender produces against me because against the Manicheans he saith he believed the Scripture for the sake of the Church and to bring any proof out of Scripture against the Church does weaken that Authority upon which he believed the Scripture and so he could believe neither The meaning wherof is this St. Augustin was reduced from being a Manichean to the Catholick Church by many Arguments and by the Authority of the Church delivering the Books of Scripture he embraced the Gospel which before he did not Now saith he You would make use of this Gospel to prove Manichaeus an Apostle I can by no means yield to this way Why so Do not you believe it to be Gospel Yes saith he but the same reason which moved me to embrace this Gospel moved me to reject Manichaeus and therefore I have no reason to allow a Testimony out of it for Manichaeus Not that St. Augustine seared any proof that could be brought from thence but he begins with general Topicks as Tertullian did against the Hereticks of his time before he came to close with them And such was this which he here produces For in case Manichaeus his Name had been in the Gospel as an Apostle of Christs appointing this Argument of St. Augustine had not been sufficient For there might be sufficient reason from the Churches Authority to embrace the Gospel and yet if the Scripture had been plain he ought to have believed Manichaeus his Apostleship though the Church disowned it As I will prove by an undeniable Instance Suppose a Jewish Proselyte to have argued just after the same manner against Jesus being the Messias the Apostles go about to prove that he was so by the Testimony of the Prophets No saith he I can allow no such Argument because the same Authority of the Jewish Church which perswaded me to believe the Prophets doth likewise perswade me not to believe Jesus to be the Messias If it be so far from holding in this case neither can it in the other For it proceeds upon a very feeble Supposition that no Church can deliver a Book for Canonical but it must judg aright concerning all things relating to it Which unavoidably makes the Jewish Church infallible at the same time it condemned Christ as a Deceiver But this was only a witty velitation in St. Augustine used by Rhetoricians before he entered into the Merits of the Cause And it is very hard when such sayings shall at every turn be quoted against his more mature and well weighed judgment What noise is there made in the world with that one saying of his I should not believe the Gospel unless the Authority os the Cathelick Church moved me And the Defender brings it to prove the Church more visible than Scripture Whereas he means no more by it but that the authority of the Church was greater to him than that of Manichaeus For he had been swayed by his authority to reject the Gospel and now he rejects that authority and believes the Catholick Church rather than him And this doth not make the Churches authority greater than Scripture but more visible than that of Manichaeus But if St. Augustin's Testimony here be allowed to extend farther yet it implies no more than that the constant universal Tradition of the Scripture by the Catholick Church makes it appear credible to us What can be deduced hence as to the Churches Infallibility in interpreting Scripture or the Roman Churches authority in delivering it The Arrian Controversie gave a great disturbance to the Christian Church and no less a man than the Emperour Constantine thought there was no such way to put an end to it as to search the Scriptures about it As he declared to the Council of Nice at their meeting as Theodoret saith It is true he spake to the Guides of the Church assembled in Council but his words are remarkable viz. That the Books of Scripture do plainly instruct us what we are to believe concerning the Deity if we search them with peaceable minds Methinks Bellarmine bestows no great Complement on Constantine for this saying when he saith He was a great Emperour but no greaâ— Doctor This had been indeed sawcy and scurrilous in others but it was no doubt good manners in him St. Hilary commends his Son Constantius because he would have this Controversie ended by the Scriptures and he desires to be heard by him about the sense of the Scriptures concerning it which he was ready to shew not from new Writings but from Gods Word Athanasius seems to
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
reform abuses and to declare Articles of Religion so as to oblige its Members to Conformity especially since it proceeds by such excellent Rules as the Holy Scriptures the ancient Councils and Universal Tradition And I hope this may pass for a direct Answer The Replier takes another course besides this for he makes use of these two Topicks against the Church of England 1. That the Church of Rome was in possâ—ssion of all those Truths we rejected 2. That we ought to bring positive Texts for our Negative Articles 1. As to the Plea of Possession of all those Truths now question'd by us This were a pleasant thing for us to question them if we owned they were Truths but he means only that he thinks them so Well then how is it their Church was in possession of those Truths Do they become Truths by their possession or only that they were Truths they were then possessed of If so he must first prove them to be Truths or the Possession signifies nothing And that is the point I went upon that no Possession gives a right to Truth but the Church of England had just reason to examine whether these were Truths or not and upon examination finding them to be otherwise it had reason to reject them But to inforce this he saith afterwards That their Church had a thousand years prescription here and that their Religion came into this Nation with Christianity Although according to St. Cyprian's Rule all this prâ—ves no more than the Antiquity of Error unless the proof be made from Scripture yet because this goes a great way with some people I do not only deny the truth of it but shall give evident proof to the contrary For I suppose it will not be questioned that the Religion brought in here by Augustin and his Companions was the Religion of Gregory the Great I shall therefore compare the Doctrine of the Council of Trent with that of Gregory in some remarkable Paticulars and shew the great Difference between them as to these things 1. Scripture and Tradition Council of Trent Gregory the Great DEclares That it receives Traditions with an equal Veneration with Holy Scriptures Sess. 4. AFfirms That all things which edifie and instruct are contained in the Volume of Scriptures in Ezek. Hom. l. 1. cap. 8.  That Gods Mind is to be found in his Words Regist. Epist. l. 4. Ep. 40.  That the Scripture is the Glass of the Elect in Reg. l. 4. c. 10. in Job l. 2. c. 1.  That to be born of God is to love his Will revealed in Scripture in 1 Reg. c. 14  That Preachers are to instruct their People in what they learn out of the Holy Scriptures Greg Sacram in Consecr Episcopi  That the Staves being in the Rings on the sides of the Ark do shew that Teachers should have the holy Scriptures in their hearts that from thence they may presently teach whatever is needful de Cura Pastor l. 2. c. 11. 2. Apochryphal Books The Council of Trent Gregory the Great REckons the Maccabees among the Canonical Books Sess. 4. PLainly rejects them from being Canonical for he excuses taking an Example out of them not being Canonical Moral in Job l. 19. c. 13. 3. Merit of Good Works The Council of Trent Gregory the Great ANathematizes those who deny good Works to be truly meritorious of Grace and Eternal Life Sess. 6. Can. 32. DEnies the most sanctified Persons to procure Divine Wisdom by their Graces in Job l. 18. c. 26.  Affirms that the best Men will find no Merit in their best Actions Moral l. 9. c. 2.  That all human Righteousness will be found unrighteousness if strictly judged Ib. l. 9. c. 11.  That if he should attain to the highest Virture he should obtain eternal Life not by Merits but by Pardon Ib. 4. Auricular Confession The Council of Trent Gregory the Great DEclares secret Confâ—ssion of all sins to be necessary in order to Remission and Absolution by the Priest Sess. 14. c. 6 7 8. SPeaks of no other Confession than what was required in order to the Reconciliation of those who had undergone publick Penance the Custom whereof at Rome is set down in Golasius his Sacramentary p. 63. And Gregory refers to the Custom then used in his Sacramentary p. 225. And there is no Form of Absolution in either of them but by way of Prayer to God which is different from a Sacramental judicial Absolution required by the Council of Trent  He makes no Absolution true but that which follows the judgment of God which he parallels with the loosing of Lazarus after Christ had raised him from the Grave Hom. 26. in Evangel 5. Solitary Masses The Council of Trent Gregory the Great ANathematizes those who say such Masses wherein the Priest only communicates are unlawful and to be abrogated Sess. 22. Can. 8. FOrbids the Priest to ce ebrate alone and saith expresly it ought not to he celebrated by one because the People are to bear their share Greg lib. Capital c. 7. apud Cassandr Liturg. c. 33. Transubstantiation The Council of Trent Gregory the Great DEclares the Body of Christ to be in the Eucharist under the Species of Bread Sess. 13. Cap 1. ASserts the Body of Christ after â—is Resurrection to be palpable i. e. That it may be seen and felt where it is and that he proved this against Eutychius of Constantinople Moral l. 14. c. 31. That asserts only the Species to remain after Consecration ib. c. 4. He frequently declares That our Bodies as well as our Souls are nourished by the Eucharist which cannot be done by more species for no Accidents can produce a Substance Greg. Sacram. 16. Kal. Mart. in Sexages Hebd 3. in Quadrag Fr. 4. 7. Communion in one Kind Council of Trent Gregory the Great DEclares against the necessity of Communion in both kinds Sess. 13. Cap 13. AFfirms it to be the constant practise for the People to receive in both  Sacram. in Quadrag Fr. 3. 6 Kal. Julii ad Compleâ—d Hebd 3. in Quadr. Sabbato Miss Temp. Belli Sexages ad Complend Domin in Ramis Palm VI. Non. Julii ad Complend VIII Kal. Aug. ad Compl. Kalend. Aug. ad Compl.  The like may be observed in Gelasius his Sacramentary who declared it Sacriledg to do otherwise as appears by the known Canon Comperimus De Consecr Dist. 2. who was one of Gregory's Predecessors and not long before him 8. Purgatory Council of Trent Gregory the Great DEclares that there is a Purgatory after this Life out of which Souls may be helped by the Prayers of the faithful Sess. 25. AFfirms That at the time of Death either the good or evil Spirit seizeth upon the Soul and keeps it with it for ever without any change Moral in Job l. 8. c. 8. ed. Basil. c. 9. ed Novae That in the day of death the just goes to Joy and the wicked with the Apostate Angel is
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
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
all the Clerks of his Kingdom besides two were lately declared for him Adding That he had studied the Matter himself and Writers of it and that he found it was unlawful DE JURE DIVINO and undispensible Thus we have found the King himself declaring in Publick and Private his real dissatisfaction in Point of Conscience and that it was no inordinate Affection to Ann Bolleyn which put him upon it and the same attested by Sir Tho. More and the Circumstances of Affairs I now proceed to another Witness The next is Bishop Bonner himself in his Preface to Gardiner's Book of True Obedience For thus he begins Forasmuch as there be some doubtless now at this present which think the Controversy between the King 's Royal Majesty and the Bishop of Rome consisteth in this Point for that his Majesty hath taken the most excellent and most noble Lady Ann to his Wife whereas in very deed notwithstanding the Matter is far otherwise and nothing so So that if Bishop Bonner may be believed there was no such immediate Cause of the Schism as the Love to Ann Bolleyn And withal he adds That this Book was published that the World might understand what was the whole Voice and resolute Determination of the best and greatest learned Bishops with all the Nobles and Commons of England not only in the Cause of Matrimony but also in defending the Gospel's Doctrine i. e. against the Pope's usurped Authority over the Church Again he saith That the King's Marriage was made by the ripe Judgment Authority and Privilege of the most and principal Universities of the World and then with the Consent of the whole Church of England And that the false pretended Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was most justly abrogated and that if there were no other Cause but this Marriage the Bishop of Rome would content himself i. e. if he might enjoy his Power and Revenues still which he saith were so insupportable that there lay the true Cause of the Breach For his Revenues here were near as great as the King 's and his Tyranny was 〈◊〉 and bitter which he had exercised here under the Title of the Catholick Church and the Authority of the Apostles Peter and Paul when notwithstanding he was a very ravening Wolf dressed in Sheeps clothing calling himself the Servant of Servants These are Bonner's words as I have transcribed them out of two several Translations whereof one was published while he was Bishop of London Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester in his Book not only affirms the King's former Marriage to be unlawful and the second to be just and lawful but that he had the Consent of the Nation and the Judgment of his Church as well as foreign Learned Men for it And afterwards he strenuously argues against the Pope's Authority here as a meer Usurpation And the whole Clergy not only then owned the King's Supremacy Fisher excepted but in the Book published by Authority called A Necessary Doctrine and Erudition of a Christian Man c. The Pope's Authority was rejected as an Usurpation and confuted by Scripture and Antiquity K. James I. declares That there was a General and Catholick Conclusion of the whole Church of England in this Case And when some Persons suspected that it all came from the King's Marriage Bishop Bonner we see undertakes to assure the World it was no such thing The Separation was made then by a General Consent of the Nation the King and Church and People all concurring and the Reasons inducing them to cast off the Popes Usurpation were published to the World at that time And those Reasons have no relation at all to the King's Marriage and if they are good as they thought they were and this Gentleman saith not a word to disprove them then the Foundation of the Disunion between the Church of Rome and Us was not laid in the King 's inordinate Passion but on just and sufficient Reasons Thus it appears that this Gentleman hath by no means proved two parts of his Assertion viz. That our Reformation was erected on the Foundations of Last and Usurpation But our grim Logician proceeds from Immediate and Original to Concomitant Causes which he saith were Revenge Ambition and Covetousness But the Skill of Logicians used to lie in proving but this is not our Author's Talent for not a word is produced to that purpose If bold Sayings and confident Declarations will do the Busines he is never unprovided but if you expect any Reason from him he begs your Pardon he finds how ill the Character of a grim Logician suits with his Inclination However he takes a leap from Causes to Effects and here he tells us the immediate Effects of this Schism were Sacrilege and a bloody Persecution of such as denied the King's Supremacy in Matters wholly Spiritual which no Layman no King of Israel ever exercised What the Supremacy was is best understood by the Book published by the King's Order and drawn up by the Bishops of that Time. By which it appears that the main thing insisted on was rejecting the Pope's Authority and as to the positive Part it lies in these things 1. In Defending and Protecting the Church 2. In overseeing the Bishops and Priests in the execution of their Office 3. In Reforming the Church to the old Limits and pristine Estate of that Power which was given to them by Christ and used in the Primitive Church For it is out of doubt saith that Book that Christ's Faith was then most pure and firm and the Scriptures of God were then best understood and Vertue did then most abound and excel And therefore it must needs follow that the Customs and Ordinances then used and made be more conform and agreeable unto the true Doctrine of Christ and more conducing unto the edifying and benefit of the Church of Christ than any Custom or Laws used or made by the Bishop of Rome or any other addicted to that See and usurped Power since that time This Book was published with the King's Declaration before it And therefore we have reason to look on the Supremacy to be taken as it is there explained And what is there now so wholly Spiritual that no Layman or King of Israel ever exercised in this Supremacy But this Writer never took the pains to search into these things and therefore talks so at random about them As to the Persecutions that followed it is well known that both sides blame K. Hen. 8. for his Severity and therefore this cannot be laid to the Charge of his Separation For the other Effect of Sacrilege I do not see how this follows from the Reformation For although some Uses might cease by the Doctrines of it as Monks to pray the Dead out of Purgatory yet there were others to have employed the Church Lands about as some of them were in founding New Bishopricks c. And I have nothing to say in justification of any Abuses committed
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
the Scriptures for his Infallible Rule Now to judge the Sense of the Primitive Church about this Point there can be no method more proper or convincing than to consider what Course the Christian Church did take in the Controversies then started which were great and considerable And if it had been then believed that Christ had left such an infallible Authority in the Church to have put an end to them it had been no more possible to have avoided the mention of it than if a great Cause in Law were to be decided among us that neither Party should ever take notice of the Iudges in Westminster-Hall There were two very great Controversies in the Primitive Church which continued a long time under different Names and we are now to observe what method the Catholic Writers of the Church took for establishing the true Faith. And these were concerning the Humanity and the Divinity of Christ. That concerning the Humanity of Christ begun very early for S. Iohn mentions those who denied that Iesus was come in the Flesh i. e. that he really took our Nature upon him And this Heresie did spread very much after the Apostles times Ignatius made it a great part of the business of his Epistles to warn the Churches he wrote to and to arm them against it And what way doth he take to do it Doth he ever tell them of the danger of using their own Judgment or of not relying on the Authority of the Church in this matter I cannot find one passage tending that way in all his Epistles But instead thereof he appeals to the Words of our Saviour in the Evangelist Touch me and see if I be a Body or a Spirit his words are an incorporeal Daemon but it was usual with the ancient Fathers to repeat the Sense of Places and not the very Words And a little after he saith That these Hereticks were not perswaded neither by the Prophets nor by the Law nor by the Gospel And he advises the Church of Smyrna to attend to the Prophets but especially to the Gospel in which the Passion and Resurrection of Christ are declared Irenaeus disputes warmly and frequently against this Heresie and he appeals to the Testimony of the Apostles in theiâ— Writings especially to the Gospels of S. Iohn and S. â—aâ—thew but not omitting the other Gospels and the Epistles of S. Paul and S. Iohn And he calls the Scriptures The immoveable Rule of Truth the Foundation and Pillar of our Faith and saith That they contain the whole Will of God. It is tâ—ue he makes use of Tradition in the Church to those who rejected the Scriptures and he finds fault with those who took words and pieces of Scripture to serve their turn but he directs to the right use of it and doth not seem to question the sufficiency thereof for the satisfaction of humble and teacâ—able minds in all the points of Faith which were then controverted Tertullian undertakes the same Cause in several Books and several ways One is by shewing that the Opinion of the Hereticks was novel not being consistent with the Doctrine delivered by the Apostles as appeared by the unanimous consent of the Apostolical Churches which did all believe Christ had a true and real Body And this way he made use of because those Hereticks either rejected or interpolated or perverted the Books of Scripture But this way of Prescription look'd like Out-Lawing of Hereticks and never suffering them to come to a fair Trial. Therefore in his other Books he goes upon three substantial Grounds 1. That the Books of Scripture do certainly deliver the Doctrine of the Christian Church concerning Christs having a true Body 2. That these Books of Scripture were not counterfeit nor corrupted and adulterated but preserved genuine and sincere in the Apostolical Churches 3. That the sense which the Hereticks put upon the Words of Scripture was forced and unreasonable but the sense of the Church was true and natural So that Tertullian did conclude that there was no way to end this Controversie but by finding out the true sense of Scripture But the Author of the Defence brings in Tertullian as representing all trial of Doctrine by Scripture as good for nothing but to turn the Brain or the Stomach and that the issue is either uncertain or none I grant Tertullian hath those words but for Truths sake I wish he had not left out others viz. That those Hereticks do not receive some Scriptures and those they do receive they add and alter as they please And what saith he can the most skilful in Scriptures do with those who will defend or deny what they think fit With such indeed he saith it is to little purpose to dispute out of Scriptures And no doubt he was in the right for the Rule must be allow'd on both sides or else there can be nothing but a wrangling about it The first thing then here was to settle the Rule and for this the Testimony of the Apostolical Churches was of great use But to imagine that Tertullian rejected all trial of Doctrines by Scripture is to make him to write to little purpose afterwards when he combates with all sorts of Hereticks out of Scripture as appears by his Books against Marcion Praxeas Hermogenes and others And Tertullian himself saith That if we bring Hereticks only to Scripture they cannot stand Not because they went only upon Reason but in the end of the same Treatise he saith They made use of Scriptures too but such as were to be confuted by other Scriptures And therefore he makes the Hereticks to decline as much as in them lay the Light of the Scriptures which he would never have charged on others if he thought himself that Controversies could not be ended by them Clemens Alexandrinus speaking of the same Heresies makes the Controversie to consist chiefly about the Scriptures whether they were to be embraced and followed or not He saith None of the Heresies among Christians had so darken'd the Truth but that those who would might find it and the way he advises to is a diligent search of the Scriptures wherein the Demonstration of our Faith doth consist and by which as by a certain Criterion we are to judge of the truth and falshood of opinions Which he there insists upon at large He speaks indeed of the Advantage of the Church above Heresies both as to Antiquity and Unity but he never makes the Iudgment of the Church to be the Rule of Faith as he doth the Scriptures In the Dialogue against the Marcionists supposed to be Origen's this Controversie is briefly handled the point is brought to the Sense of Scripture as in that place the Word was made Flesh from which and other places the Catholic argues the Truth of Christ's humane Nature especially from Christ's appealing to the sense of his Disciples about the Truth of his Body after the Resurrection
they took upon them to define other matters for which they had no Colour in Scripture as the 2d Council of Nice did which was the first that went upon Tradition and then the Christian Church did not shew such Respect to them as was most apparent in the Case of this Council of Nice which was universally rejected in these Western parts Rome excepted as appears by the Council of Franâ—ford and the unexceptionable Testimonies of Eghinardus Hincmarus and others Would this have been a sufficient Argument against Charlemaign and the Western Bishops that they joyned in the Plea of the Ancient Hereticks and none were ever condemned by the Church but they made such complaints against the Proceedings of Councils as they did It is certain that Leo Armenus in the East as well as Charles and the Western Church rejected that Council as contrary to Scripture which shews that neither in the East or West did they think themselves so tied up by Definitions of Councils proceeding in such a manner but that they were at full Liberty to examin and if they saw Cause to reject such Definitions While Councils did declare that they intended to make use of no other Rule but Scripture and to deliver only the Sense of the Catholick Church from the beginning a great regard was to be shew'd to them but when they set up another Rule the Christian Church had just Reason not to submit to their Decrees And to say This is the Plea of all Hereticks is just as if an innocent Person might not be allowed to plead not Guilty because the greatest Malefactors do the same There must be some certain Rules whereby to proceed in this matter and this is the first We fix upon That they proceed as the Ancient Councils did according to Scriptures 2. The Ancient Hereticks were condemned by such Councils as did represent the Universal Church after another manner than the Council of Trent did I do not say There was ever such a General Council as did fully represent the Universal Church which could not be done without Provincial Councils summon'd bâ—â—ore in all parts of Christendom and the Deâ—â—egation from them of such Persons as were to deliver their Sense â—n the matter of Faith to be debated in the General Council and I have Reason to question whether this were ever done But however there is a very great difference in the Ancient Councils from the modern as to this point of Representing for in them there was the Consent of all the Patriarchs and a general Summons for the Bishops from all parts to appear But in the Modern Councils four Patriarchs and the Bishops under them have been excluded and the 5th hath Summon'd the Bishops under him to meet together and then hath called this a General Council Which is just as if in the time of the Heptarchy the King of Mercia should assemble the States under him and call the Convention of them The Parliament of England Thus in the Council of Trent the Pope Summons the Bishops that owned his Supremacy and had taken Oaths to him to meet together and would have this pass for a General Council When the Council met and Cardinal Hosius was appointed President in it Stanistaus Orechovius a warm and zealous Romanist writes to Hosius That it would very much conduce to their Reputation and Interest if the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch were Summon'd to the Council because the Greeks and Armenians depended upon them And he could not understand how the Catholick Church could be Represented without them nor how the Council could be called Oecumenical To which Hosivs Replied That the Pope being Oecumenical Patriarch a Council called by him was an Oecumenical Council Now this we say is extreamly different from the Notion of an Oecumenical Council in the Ancient times and overthrows the Rights of other Churches as they were setled by the Four General Councils and therefore the Case is very different as to being condemnd by General Councils and by the late Conventions assembled by the Popes Authority 3. Themselves allow that some Councils may be and ought to be rejected and therefore all our business is to enquire whether we may not with as much Reason reject some Councils as they do others They reject the Council of Ariminum which together with that of Sâ—leucia which sat at the same time make up the most General Council we read of in Church-History For Bellarmin owns that there were 600. Bishops in the Western part of it So that there were many more Bishops assembled than were in the Council of Nice there was no Exception against the Summons or the Bishops present and yet the Authority of this Council is rejected because it was too much influenced by Constantius and his Agents The 2d Council of Ephesus wanted no just Summons no presence of Patriarchs or number of Bishops yet this is rejected because its Proceedings were too Violent The Councils of Constantinople against Images are rejected because but one Patriarch was present in either of them Now I desire to know whether it be not as lawful to except against other Councils as against these supposing the Reasons to be the same and greater Evidence to be given in these latter Times of the Truth of the Allegations Besides we find they are divided in the Church of Rome concerning their latter Councils Some say The Councils of Pisa Constance and Basil were true General Councils and that the Council of Lateran under Leo X. was not so others say That the former have not the Authority of General Councils but the latter hath Some say That there have been 18. General Councils so the Roman Editors of the Councils and others but a great number of these are rejected by others who allow but 8. of the number viz. those wherein the Eastern and Western Bishops met And so the Councils of Lateran and Trent besides others are cut off What becomes then of the Articles of Faith defined by those Councils For they cannot be received on the account of their Authority However we find this Objection lies equally against them as against us For do not both these differing Parties side with the Ancient Hereticks as much as we do For they except against the Supreme Judicature in the Church and decline the Judgment of these Councils as much as those Hereticks did the Councils of their own Times These are therefore but ordinary Tâ—picks which may be reasonble or not as they are applied 2. It was answer'd That the way proposed doth not hinder mens believing as they please i. e. without sufficient Reason for their Faith several Instances were given As believing the Roman Church to be the Catholick without any colour of Scripture Reason or Antiquity as is now fully shew'd in the foregoing Discourse believing against the most convincing Evidence of their own Senses Believing the lawfulness of the Worship of Images can be reconciled with Gods forbidding it the Communion in
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
obligation to believe either part of the contradiction But if he asserts either of them to be an Article of Faith and pronounces the other Heretical he then errs in Faith and is become a Heretick From whence I observe that supposing any points in Controversie not to be so determined as to bring on men an obligation to believe them those who make them to be Articles of Faith and condemn the others for Hereticks are in so doing Hereticks themselves Melchior Canus saith That although a Proposition be thought by wise men to be a matter of Faith yet if it be not plainly defined by the Church nor demonstrated by Reason then the opposing of it is no Heresie but Erroneous Doctrine Nay he saith further That if an Opinion do contradict a point of Catholick Faith in the most probable and almost necessary opinion of all wise men yet if it do not manifestly contradict it is barely Erroneous and not Heretical Suarez saith that Melchior Canus his Doctrine in this matter is generally receiv'd But he adds one thing more viz. That in Heresie there must be the highest opposition to immediate Revelation but if it implies only a repugnancy to a bare Catholick Truth or Theological conclusion it is erroneous in Faith but no Heresie The highest opposition lies in three things 1. The Revelation must be immediate and not deduced by consequence 2. That it must be most certainly and undoubtedly of Faith. 3. That the Erroneous Proposition do most certainly and undoubtedly contradict it For saith he if there be a defect in any one of these it is not an Heretical Proposition These are the Principles laid down by their own Writers of greatest esteem And therefore if the Replier think fit to make good his Charge of Heresie against the Church of England he may from hence see what he hath to do 1 He must prove the Points in Controversie to be of immediate Divine Revelation and not drawn from thence by Consequences and Suppositions 2. That the Doctrine of our Church doth in the highest plainest and most certain manner contradict such Propositions of Faith. And supposing it were possible for him to do the former yet if their own Expositor of the Articles of our Church may be believed he can never do the latter For he endeavours to prove them capable of a Catholick sense The five first he allows for Catholick as they stand The sixth about Canonical Scripture with St Jerome's explication is Catholick enough The 7th 8th first part of the 9th and the whole 10th are very Catholick The four next he examines The 15th needs only a Gloss of St. Augustins The 16th very good The 17th Catholick and so the 18th The 19th only wants a Gloss and so the 20th and 21. The 22th he examines 23d is allow'd The 24th being only against a custom of the Church he proves from Canus can imply no Heresie and yet he thinks it capable of a good Gloss. The 25th he allows in the genuine sense of it The 26th and 27th are confessed to be the Doctrines of the Church and all the Fathers Even the 28th against Transubstantiation he thinks may be glossed into a good sense The 29th is explained from S. Augustin The 30th from Canus not to contain any Heresie The 31th he saith only opposes the common opinion The 32th capable of a 〈◊〉 sense 33 34th agreeable to Scripture and Antiquity 35th 〈◊〉 Hâ—milies passable 36th about Ordination valid 37th agreeable to the French Opinion and practise the Popes Jurisdiction may be understood of Temporal The two last he allows to be Catholick So that of 39 Articles but five are reserved for examination and of these the 11th he saith is about words the 12 and 13 capable of a good sense the 14th goes upon a mistake of their sense the 22th determines nothing against the true Faith. I do not go about to justifie his Exposition but I say that upon your own grounds it sheweth that our Church cannot be justly charged with Heresie For if it be required that such Propositions as are Heretical must in the highest and clearest manner contradict the Doctrines of Faith and your own Expositor grants they do not then however you may think them Erroneous yet you cannot condemn them for Heretical 2 As to Heresie a sufficient Proposition of the matters of Faith is required For they grant that the matters of Faith must be proposed in such a manner as to induce an obligation to believe them before any can be guilty of Heresie in rejecting them Therefore it is necessary for us to know what they mean by a sufficient proposal Sâ—arez yields this to be a necessary condition and elsewhere discourses about the nature of it And there he shews 1. That a sufficient Proposition of a matter of Faith is not barely to deliver it as a Divine Trath but it must be done with such circumstances that it may appear to be prudently credible i. e. so as to see such reason for it as to put him beyond doubt or fear of the contrary 2. That it must appear evidently credible to be revealed by God and therefore certain and infallible 3. That it must appear not only so but evidently more credible than the Doctrine repugnant to it 4. That according to natural reason the assent to it is to be prefer'd before the contrary opinion Now to make good the charge of Heresie against our Church he must not bring the Motives of Credibility for the Christian Faith in general which are owned on both sides but as to those points which are asserted by them as matters of Faith and rejected by us As for instance Transubstantiation is declared by them to be a matter of Faith and it is denied by us and they charge us with Heresie for it We say it hath never been proposed to us in such a manner as to make it appear to be a prudent judgment in us to believe it or that it was ever revealed by God or more credible than the contrary opinion in the judgment of Reason Not any one of these things doth appear to us but the contrary for we can see nothing of the Credibility but a great deal for the evident Incredibility of it How then can this matter of Faith be said to be sufficiently proposed to us It may be said all this is done by the Authority of the Church proposing it and if it be made evidently credible that you ought to believe the Church then we are Hereticks for rejecting her Authority I answer That if by the Churches Authority be meant that of the Roman Catholick Churches Infallible proposing matters of Faith to us we are as far to seek as ever and for our hearts we cannot find this made out with any degree of Credibility We have searched all your Grounds examined your Motives weighed your Reasons your miracles we have not seen but we can meet with nothing that should make it a prudent judgment
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
that way only that the King and Parliament could not discern the difference between greater and lesser as to the Point of Sacrilege and since the Pope had shewed them the way by granting Bulls for the dissolution of the lesser Monasteries they thought since the Pope's Power was taken away they might with as little Sacrilege dissolve the rest I will shut up this with the words of Arch-bishop Laud But if there have been any wilful and gross Errors not so much in Opinion as Fact Sacrilege too often pretending to reform Superstition that 's the Crime of the Reformers not of the Reformation and they are long since gone to God to answer it to whom I leave them The Method I proposed for Satisfaction of Conscience about the Reformation was to consider Whether there were not sufficient cause for it Whether there were not sufficient Authority And whether the Proceedings of our Reformation were not justifiable by the Rules of Scripture and the Ancient Church He tells me he may safely join issue with me upon all three Points and conclude in the Negative But upon second thoughts he finds he may much more safely let it alone And very fairly would have me take it for granted That the Church of Rome cannot err in Matters of Faith for that he must mean by the Church there and that our Church hath no Authority ef Reforming her self and that our Proceedings were not justifiable according to the right interpretation of Scriptures by the Fathers and Councils But if I will not allow his Affirmations for Proofs for his part he will act the grim Logician no longer and in truth it becomes him so ill that he doth well to give it over When he will undertake to prove that the Church of Rome is the One Catholick and Infallible Church of Christ and answer what I have produced in the former Discourses I will ease him of any farther Trouble for then I will grant that our Reformation cannot be justified But till then I shall think it no want of Humility to conclude the Victory to be on our side And I would desire him not to end with such a bare-faced Assertion of a thing so well known to be false viz. That there is not one Original Treatise written by a Protestant which hath handled distinctly and by it seif that Christian Vertue of Humility Since within a few Years besides what hath been printed formerly such a Book hath been published in London But he doth well to bring it off with at least that I have seen or heard of for such Books have not lain much in the way of his Enquiries Suppose we had not such particular Books we think the Holy Scripture gives the best Rules and Examples of Humility of any Book in the World but I am afraid he should look on his Case as desperate if I send him to the Scripture since he saith Our Divines do that as Physicians do with their Patients whom they think uncurable send them at last to Tunbridg-Waters or to the Air of Montpellier FINIS ERRATA The Folio's through mistake are twice repeated from Pag. 81 pag. 92 inclusive PAge 7. line 26 for Authority read Antiquity Pag. 22. l. 39. f. Persoâ—a r. Parsopa Pag. 23. l. 25. f. when r. whom l. 26. f. his r. as l. 32. f. Western r. Southern Pag. 26. l. 5. f. S. Cyprian r. San Lyran. Pag. 68. l. 32. r. Some of the Chineses Pag. 78. l. 3. a whole line faulty r. pristinam melioratam recipere 〈◊〉 sanitate Pag. 86. 2d l. 23. blot out not Pag. 93. l. 23. blot out both Pag. 103. l. 14. f. House of the Lord r. House of Lords Pag. 108. l. 20. f. satness r. fitness l. 28 f. dare not r. do not Page 112. l. 37. f. eras r. ejus Pag. 116. l. 17. f. Declarations r. Declamations Books lately printed for Richard Chiswell THe History of the Reformation of the Church of England By GILBERT BURNET D. D. in two Volumes Folio The Moderation of the Church of England in her Reformation in avoiding all undue Compliances with Popery and other sorts of Phaâ—aticism c. By TIMOTHY PULLER D. D. Octavo A Dissertation concerning the Government of the Ancient Church more particularly of the Encroachments of the Bishops of Rome upon other Sees By WILLIAM CAVE D. D. Octavo An Answer to Mr. Serjeant's Sure Footing in Christianity concerning the Rule of Faith With some other Discourses By WILLIAM FALKNER D. D. 40. A Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England in Answer to a Paper written by one of the Church of Rome to prove the Nullity of our Orders By GILBERT BURNET D. D. Octavo An Abridgment of the History of the Reformation of the Church of England By GILB BURNET D. D. Octavo The APOLOGY of the Church of England and an Epistle to one Signior Scipio a Venetian Gentleman concerning the Council of Trent Written both in Latin by the Right Reverend Father in God JOHN JEWEL Lord Bishop of Salisbury Made English by a Person of Quality To which is added The Life of the said Bishop Collected and written by the same Hand Octavo A LETTER writ by the last Assembly General of the Clergy of Francâ— to the Protestants inviting them to return to their Communion Together with the Methods proposed by them for their Conviction Translated into English and Examined by GILB BURNET D. D. Octavo The Life of WILLIAM BEDEL D. D. Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland Together with Certain Letters which passed betwixt him and James Waddesworth a late Pensioner of the Holy Inquisition of Sevil in Matter of Religion concerning the General Motives to the Roman Obedience Octavo The Dâ—cree made at ROME the Second of March 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Jesuits and other Casâ—ists Quarto A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome Quarto First and Second Parts A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongne Quarto A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to A Papist Misrepresented and Represented Quarto An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOM in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church Quarto An Answer to THREE PAPERS lately printed concerning the Authority of the Catholick Church in Matters of Faith and the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome With an Answer thereunto By a Protestant of the Church of England 80. A Papist Represented and not Misrepresented being an Answer to the First Second Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Second Part of the Papist Misrepresented and Represented and for a further Vindication of the CATECHISM truly representing the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome Quarto The Lay-Christian's