And to this end he talks of Men of a Latitudinarian Stamp For it goes a great way towards the making Divisions to be able to fasten a Name of Distinction among Brethren This being to create Jealousies of each other But there is nothing should make them more careful to avoid such Names of Distinction than to obâ—â—rve how ready their common Enemies are to make use of them to create Animosities by them Which hath made this worthy Gentleman to start this different Character of Church-men among us as tho there were any who were not true to the Principles of the Church of England as by Law established If he knows them he is better acquainted with them than the Answerer is for he professes to know none such But who then are these Men of the Latitudinarian Stamp To speak in his own Language they are a sort of Ergoteerers who are for a Concedo rather than a Nego And now I hope they are well explained Or in other words of his They are saith he for drawing the Non-conformists to their Party i. e. they are for having no Non-conformists And is this their Crime But they would take the Headship of the Church out of the King's Hands How is that possible They would by his own description be glad to see Differences lessened and all that agree in the same Doctrine to be one entire Body But this is that which their Enemies fear and this Politician hath too much discovered for then such a Party would be wanting which might be plaid upon the Church of England or be brought to joyn with others against it But how this should touch the King's Supremacy I cannot imagine As for his desiring Loyal Subjects to consider this matter I hope they will and the more sor his desiring it and assure themselves that they have no cause to apprehend any juggling Designs of their Brethren who I hope will always shew themselves to be Loyal Subjects and dutiful Sons of the Church of England The next he falls upon is the Worthy Answerer of the Bishop of Condom 's Exposition and him he charges with picking up Stories against him and wraping them up with little Circumstances How many Fields doth he range for Game to sind Matter to sill up an Answer and make it look big enough to be considered But that Author hath so well acquitted himsâ—lf in his Defence as to all the little Objections made against him that I can do the Reader no greater Kindness than to refer him to it I must not say the poor Bishop of Winchester is used unmercifully by him for he calls him that Prelate of rich Memory As though like some Popes he had been considerable for nothing but for leaving a Rich Nephew But as he was a Person of known Loyalty Piety and Learning so he was of great Charity and a publick Spirit which he shewed both in his Life-time and at his Death Could nothing be said of him then but that Prâ—late of rich Memory Or had he a mind to tell us he was no Poet Or that he was out of the Temptation of changing his Religion for Bread The Bishop of Worcester is charged with down-right Prevarication i. e. being in his Heart for the Church of Rome but for mean Reasons continuing in the Communion of the Church of England Therefore saith he take him Topham And now what can I do more for the poor Bishop The most he will allow him is that he was a peaceable old Gentleman who only desired to possess his Conscience and his Bishoprick in Peace without Offence to any Man either of the Catholick Church or that of England Yet he hath so much kindness left for the poor Bishop that for his sake he goes about to defend that a Man may be a true Member of the Church of England who asserts both Churches to be so far Parts of the Catholick Church that there is no Necessity of going from one Church to another to be saved This is a very surprising Argument from a new Convert Why might he not then have continued still in the Communion of this Church tho he might look on the Church of Rome as part of the Catholick Church The Reason I gave against it was that every true Member of this Church must own the Doctrine of it contained in the Articles and Homilies which charge the Church of Rome with such Errors and unlawful Practices as no Man who believes them to be such can continue in the Communion of that Church and therefore he must believe a Necessity of the forsaking of one Communion for the other and that no true Member of this Châ—rch can with a good Consâ—ience leave this Church and embrace the other Let us now see what a Talent he hath at Ergoteering If this be true saith he then to be a Member of the Church of England one must assert that either both Churches are not Parts of the Catholick or that they are so Parts that there is a necessity of going from one to another He would be a strange Member of the Church of England who should hold that both Churches are not Parts of the Catholick for then he must deny that Parts are Parts for evâ—ry true Church is so far a Part of the Catholick Church Therefore I say he must hold tho it be in some respects a Part of the Catholick Church yet it may have so many Errors and Corruptions mixed with it as may make it necessary for Salvation to leave it The second he saith is Nonsense How Nonsense He doth well to hope that Men may be saved that do not understand Controversy nor approach Heaven in Mood and Figure A necessity of a Change saith he consists not with their being Parts for Parts constitute one Whole and leave not one and another to go to or from We are not speaking of the Parts leaving one another but of a Person leaving one Part to go to another Suppose a Pestilential Disease rage in one part of the City and not in another may it not be necessary to leave one Part and go to the other tho they are both Parts of the same City and do not remove from one to the other But he saith with great assurance that necessity of Change makes it absolutely impossible for both Churches to be parts of the Catholick Which plainly shews he never understood the Terms of Communion with both Churches For no Church in the World can lay on Obligation upon a Man to be dishonest i. e. to profess one thing and to do another which is Dissimulation and Hypocrisy And no Church can oblige a Man to believe what is false or to do what is unlawful and rather than do either he must forsake the Communion of that Church Thus I have given a sufficient taste of the Spirit and Reasoning of this Gentleman As to the main Design of the Third Paper I declared that I considered it as it was supposed to
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
Breach continued But the Defender saith the Popes Supremacy if his Memory fail him not was not so much as made a pretence till near 200 years after the Schism began nor any where more acknowledged than in Greece nor by any body more than by him that began the Schism If his Memory fail him not I am sure something else doth For nothing can be more notorious from the very Epistles of the Popes on Occasion of this Schism than that this was at the bottom of all whatever pretences might be made use of sometimes to palliate the matter Let him but read the Epistles of Leo I. to Anatolius and concerning him the Epistles of Gregory I. about the title of Oecumenical Patriarch the Epistles of Nicolaus I. concerning Photius of Leo IX concerning Michael Cerularius and I think he will be of another Opinion and that the Controversie about Supremacy to the Scandal of the Christian World was the true occasion of that dreadful Schism But all the Eastern Churches I said however different among themselves to this day look on the Pope's Supremacy as an Innovation to the Church To which the Replier saith the Eastern Churches were divided from the Roman-Catholic Church by such Doctrines as are inconsistent with the Church of England which professes to hold with the four first General Councils I will not deny but the breach as to the Nestorians began on the account of the Council of Ephesus but whether the Christians under the Turk and Persians in Asia are truely Nestorians is another Question I think not for this Reason In the beginning of this Century the Patriarch of those Christians called his most learned Men about him to consider what their Doctrine really was and how far they differ'd from the Roman Church about Christ since the Missionaries from thence still charged them with Heresie and they declared the difference to be only in Words and the manner of explication For however they say that every Nature hath a Person inseparable from it by which they mean no more than a Subsistence yet from the Union of these two in Christ they hold that there is but one Persona they câ—ll it or One Son resulting from the Union of both Natures And as long as they hold a real Union of both Natures and one Filiation as they speak resulting from it it is beyond my understanding that they should be guilty of the Nestorian Heresie And this account was given to Paul 5. by one sent from their Patriarch and ordered to be Printed by him at Rome But is it not really a very hard Case for 300000 Families who as is there said were under that Patriarch to be excluded the Catholic Church and consequently from Salvation for not right understanding the Subtilties of the distinction between Nature and Person as whether Subsistence can be separated from Individual Nature or whether an Hypostatical Union doth imply that the Individual Nature doth lose its own Subsistence I appeal to the Conscience of any good Christian whether he thinks Christ and his Apostles did ever make the knowledge of these things necessary to Salvation which the subtilest of their Schoolmen are never able to explain to the capacities of the sar greatest part of Mankind The like may be said as to those called Eutychians I do not doubt but the Confusion of both Natures in Christ was a Doctrine justly condemned by the Council of Chalcedon because he could not be true Man if the Nature of Man were lost in him but I think there is no Reason to condemn those for that Heresie who declare they reject the Doctrine of Eutyches and that they hold two Natures in Christ making up one Personated Nature without mixture or Confusion as their Patriarch explained their Doctrine to Leonardus Abel Bishop of Sidon when Gregrory 13. sent his Nuncio into those parts on purpose to understand their Doctrines And the latter Missionaries confirm the same thing that they do not deny two Natures in Christ but say that two Natures are as parts making up by their Union one Nature with a Person And herein they say Dioscorus whom they follow differ'd from Eutyches And must such infinite Numbers of this perswasion in the Eastern and Western parts be excluded from the Catholic Church for not knowing the difference between a Person resulting from the Union of two Natures and one Nature without a Person arising from two Natures without mixture or Confusion A late Writer of the Roman Communion is so ingenuous to acknowledge that the Heresies charged on the Eastern Churches are imaginary and that they differ only in terms from that which is owned to be the Catholic Faith. And Faustus Naironus hath lately published a Book at Rome to prove that the Maronites have been all along good Catholics although the Popes in their Bulls from the time of Innocent III. have still charged them with Heresie As to the Greeks there is yet less Reason to charge them with Heresie since they adhere to the Four General Councils and out of Zeal for the Decree of the Council of Ephesus will not allow the Addition which the Western Church made to the Creed So that upon the whole matter there is nothing to exclude the Eastern Churches from being Parts of the Catholic Church but denying the Popes Supremacy But he tells us some of these if his Authors deceive him not as the Egyptians and Ethiopians have often made Overtures to the Pope for Peace and Communion owning him for Supreme Head of the Church provided only they might not be obliged to renounce Eutyches and Dioscorus I am extremely afraid his Authors have deceived him I wish he had named them that others might beware of them I suppose he means that which Baronius printed at the end of his sixth Tome of a solemn Embassy from the Patriarch of Alexandria and all the Provinces of Egypt to own the Pope as Supreme Head of the Church which was soon after found to be a meer cheat and imposture How far the Ethiopians are from owning the Popes Authority he may find in Ludolphus or Balthasar Tellez It is true the Pope sent a Patriarch into the East upon a Division among themselves but after a while he was forced to withdraw to the remotest parts of Persia and to leave their own Patriarch in full Power The Bishop of Sidon relates what ill success he had with the Patriarch of the Iacobites And it is well known how soon the Greeks returned to their old Opposition after the Council of Florence I had therefore Reason to say that all the Churches of the East however different among themselves agreed in rejecting the Pope's Supremacy and to this day look on it as an Innovation in the Church As to what he afterwards speaks of their Blasphemies against the Divinity and Humanity of Christ I now leave the World to judge of them and if they be true all Men must
other And thereâ—â—re we must judg more reasonably What follows about the Infallibility promised to the Church hath been answered already As to the Canonical Book I shewed it was no Authoritative Decision by a Power in the Church to make Books Canonical which were not so but a meer giving Testimony in a Matter of Fact in which all parts of the Church are concerned and it depends as other Matters of Fact do on the Skill and Fidelity of the Reporters And so far I own the truly Catholick Church to have Authority in any Testimony delivering down the Books of Scripture but this proves no more Infallibility in the Christian Church as to the Books of the New Testament than it doth in the Jewish Church as to the Books of the Old Testament And thus much of the Authority of the Catholick Church in Matters of Faith. III. Of the Reformation of the Church of England THere are so many Passages in the Papers relating to the Church of England on the Account of her Reformation that I thought it the best Method of proceeding to handle this Subject by itself And there are these things charged upon it either in Terms or by Consequence in the Papers which as I am a Member of this Church I think my self bound to clear for I could nor justifie continuing in her Communion if she were justly liable to these Imputations 1. That she hath made a causless Breach in the Communion of the Catholick Church 2. That she hath been the occasion of a World of Heresies crept into this Nation 3. That she hath not sufficient Authority within her self and yet denies an Appeal to a higher Judicature 4. That she contradicts her own Rule viz. the Holy Scriptures 5. That she subsists only on the Pleasure of the Civil Magistrate All these I shall examine with Care and consider what hath been said in Defence of the Papers upon these Heads As to the charge of causless Breach in the Communion of the Catholick Church it lies in these Words And by what Authority Men separate themselves from that Church Which being spoken with respect to the Members of the Church of England do imply that they have made a Separation from the Communion of the Catholick Church and that they had no sufficient Authority for so doing and therefore are guily of Schism in it To the Question two Answers were given 1. By distinguishing the truly Catholick Church from the Roman Catholick And a Distinction between these being made out which is done in the first part of this Defence It doth not follow that we have made a Breach in the Communion of the Catholick Church because we do not join in Communion with the Roman Catholick This was illustrated by the Example of a prosperous Usurper in a Kingdom who challenges a Title to the whole by gaining a considerable part of it and requires from all the Kings Subjects within his Power to own him to be rightful King whereupon the Question was put Whether refusing to do it were an Act of Rebellion or of Loyalty So in the Church the Popes Authority over it so as to restrain Catholick Communion only to those who own it is not only looked on as an Usurpation by Us but by all the Eastern Churches and is in Truth altering the Terms of Christian Communion from what they were in the truly Catholick and Apostolick Church Therefore since the Conditions required are unreasonable because different from them what Breach hath followed is not to be imputed to those who refuse these Terms but to those who impose them and so the Guilt of it lies upon the Church of Rome and not upon the Church of England This is the Substance of the Answer To which the Replier saith That the Eastern Churches cannot be parts of the Catholick Church because they hold not the Apostolick Doctrine contained in the Creeds and Councils owned by the Church of England This hath been fully answered already But he goes on There were no other Churches then in being but those which were in Communion with the Church of Rome consequently the Church of England going out from them separated her self from the Catholick Apostolick Church And the Defender saith He expects I should shew That truely Catholick and Apostolick Church we held Communion with when we separated from the Roman He desires to know where the men live that people may go to them and learn of them what their Faith is c. In answer to this I say That there is no necessity for us to shew any Church distinct from others which in all things we agreed with because we hold all particular Churches liable to Errors and Corruptions and that the notion of the Catholick Church may take in such Particulars from which we may see reason to dissent But we do not thereby exclude them from being parts of the Catholick Church but we say they are no Infallible Rule to us and therefore we ought to proceed by what the Church hath receiv'd as an Infallible Rule and not by the Communion of other Churches And supposing there were no particular Church we did in all things joyn with the Church of England might Reform it self without separating from the Catholick Apostolick Church For it was then in the Case particular Churches were in after the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia for then the standard of Catholick Communion set up by the Council of Nice was taken down and the setting of it up again was to oppose the Consent of the Christian Church in the most General Council that ever Assembled I do not say this Council obliged men to profess Arrianism but that it took away the Authority of the Nicene Creed in as valid a manner as the Council by its Acts could do it I ask then by what Authority any particular Church could set up the Nicene Faith and if not how it was possible to be restored And I desire to know in what Country the people lived who then owned the Nicene Faith against such a General Council And where were the Churches in being which at that time adhered to it But if in this Case the British Church tho alone was bound notwithstanding such a general consent to Reform it self and to restore the Authority of the Nicene Creed the same Case it is when the Western Church was oppressed and hindered from Reforming Errors and Abuses by the Usurpation and Tyranny of the Papal Faction the Church of England was then obliged to exercise its own Inherent Right in bringing things to the state they were in in the time of the first General Councils In matters of Reformation the main enquiries are whether there be just Occasion and due Authority for it and a certain Rule to proceed by the last and least important Question is what Company we have to joyn with us in it For there is a Natural Right iâ— every Church to preserve its own just Liberties and consequently to throw off such
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
to shew there can be none without Infallibility Infallibility is no doubt a very good thing but where is it to be had Is it not possible for Men both to be deceived and to deceive with a pretence of Infallibility All that we desire is to see some Infallible Prooss of it without which all the talk about it doth not end one Controversy but beget many And this kind of Talk is as if a Man were to advise with two Lawyers about making a Purchase but would fain be secure of a good Title the one desires to see all the Evidences that belong to the Estate and after the perusal of all he tells him that as far as he can possibly discern the Title is very good and he would venture all he had upon it He goes to another and tells him what the former had said to him And was this all saith he Would he not say it was impossible for you to be cheated No. And will you venture your Money without such Security Why saith the Client what would you have me to do I will tell you saith he there is but one way in the World for you to be safe What is that Sir. I should be glad to know it with all my Heart I will discover it to you provided you follow my Counsel and that is to deal with a Man who hath such a Gift from Heaven bestowed upon him that he never did nor ever can deceive you and then it is impossible you should be cheated for all these Deeds and Writings and Lawyers may deceive you but if you deal with such a Man you are safe enough I thank you Sir saith the Client for your good Advice but I pray where is there such a Man to be found For if I cannot find him out I am just where I was before and I must use the best means I can and rather trust to good Deeds and real Honesty than wait for a Chimerical Infallibliity It is alledged still That without infallibility we have not Judgment but Fancy And the Replier saith That in Competition with the Churches Authority all is but Fancy The difference of these must depend upon the Reason we produce and by that we are still content the World should judg so we understand those who are unprejudiced in it It was said in the Papers That if the Fancies of those who are now for the Church of England vary they are ready or as the Desender saith it ought to be read really to embrace or joyn with the next Congregation of People whose Discipline or Worship agrees with their Opinion at that time I will take his own Reading which in my Opinion alters the matter very little for still it implies That those of the Church of England have nothing to hold them to it but a present Fancy and when that varies they may as well be of another Perswasion for Fancy we all know is a very mutable thing But to shew that those of the Church of England are not so apt to vary their Fancies or Opinions in these matters I alledged their adhering to the Crown in the times of Rebellion He answers That my Zeal for the Church of England is wonderous unlucky I am sorry if it prove so since I unfeignedly design to serve her and therefore should be much more concerned if I should do her Injury under a pretence of Service But wherein is it He confesses The Doctrine of our Church is in this Point very Orthodox and her Practice in the times of Rebellion conformable to it And what was the Practice of the Church then but the firmness of the Members of it But many he saith deserted Her and her Doctrine in this Point at that time so many that the Rebellion was peradventure indebted for its success to those Deserters But they were Deserters still and the Practice of the Church of England was agreeable to her Doctrine by his own Confession How then comes this to shew that it is only a variable Fancy which keeps Men to it He saith If those who deserted her had ever adhered to her with a Perswasion that they were obliged to believe what sbe taught they could not have deserted her in this Point who always taught Loyalty and till they do so there is no security of adhering to her This seems to me to be a wonderous unlucky Answer For doth Infallibility secure a Church against Deserters Have no Men no Provinces no whole Nations deserted a Church which pretends to Infallibility And since there may be such Multitudes of Deserters where â—â—fallibility is challenged what greater Security can that give aâ—â—inst them more than our Church doth Nay I think so much the less because the very pretence to Infallibility is suspicious and hard to be made out and every Error overthrows it And I do not think the Church of Rome did her self greater Miâ—â—hief or â—ade more total Deserters by any one thing than by pretending to be Infallible For when such gross Errors and Corruption were complained of that one of the Popes at that time confessed them and owned the necessity of a Reformation when the Princes of the Roman Communion called for it and pressed it very hard by their Ambassadors in the Council of Trent as appears by the French Collection of Memoires relating to it when 〈◊〉 all no one thing as to Doctrine or Worship could be redressed it â—onvinced the World that let things be as they would they would Reform nothing this made the Breach irreconcileable For till the Council of Trent was ended and confirmed there was still hopes of Reconciliation upon a due Explication of some Points Reforming Abuses and leaving School-Doctrines at liberty but when they saw every thing defended and the Errors complained of made Articles of Faith and put into a New Creed there was no hopes of any Accommodation left And all this was the blessed Effect of pretending to Infallibility for if one Error had been owned there had been no farther pretending to that It is some comfort however that our Church is confessed to teach the Orthodox Doctrine of Loyalty and her Practice to be conformable in the worst of Times and so I hope it will always be But it hath been said by some Body That we had our Government and Ceremonies from his Church our Doctrine from Luther and Calvin and that we had nothing peculiar to our Church but our Doctrine of Non-Resistance and much good may it do us And we hope we shall never fare the worse for it This might give occasion to enquire Whether the Church which pretends to be Infallible doth teach it so Orthodoxly or not Or whether those who do think themselves obliged to believe what she teaches are thereby obliged to the strictest Principles of Loyalty But I forbear It is sufficient to my Purpose to shew that our Church doth not only teach them as her own Doctrine but which is far more effectual as the
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
A VINDICATION OF THE ANSWER TO SOME Late Papers Concerning the UNITY and AUTHORITY OF THE Catholick Church AND THE REFORMATION OF THE CHURCH of ENGLAND LONDON Printed for Richard Chismell at the Rose and Crown in S. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVII A VINDICATION of the ANSWER to Some late Papers c. IT was so tempting a piece of Honour to appear as the Champion of the Royal Papers that I rather wonder that no more than that these have shewed themselves to the World under so inviting a Character Which seems to have betray'd them into more than usual security presuming I suppose that they are to be looked on as a sort of Heralds in Controversis whose bearing the Royal Arms will keep them from being touched themselves though they bid defiance to others But where Truth lies at stake every one hath a Right to put in for it and whose Game soever any Person plays those ought to carry it who have the best Cards to shew I mean that in Debates of this Nature and Consequence other considerations ought to be so far laid aside that the strongest Reason should prevail But lest I be again thought to have a mind to flourish before I offer to pass as the Champion speaks in his proper Language I shall apply my self to the Matter before us Only taking notice that I am now glad to enter the Lists upon even Ground For although I thought I behaved my self with due Respect and Decency before yet I perceive the Measure of those things is so nice and arbitrary that it is very hard to escape Censures where the Distance is so great But those who live in the Country may mean and intend as well to their Prince as those who live at Court though they do not make so fine Legs nor are of so pleasing an Address The plain truth is Controversie is quite another thing from Courtship and Poetry It is like a Trial at Law which ought to depend on Evidence and Proof though the King himself be concerned in it And as we must give Honour to whom Honour so Truth to whom Truth is due and this without Respect of Persons it being a Case long since decided That Truth is greater than the King. If I thought there were no such thing in the World as true Religion and that the Priests of all Religions are alike I might have been as nimble a Convert and as early a Defender of the Royal Papers as any one of these Champions For why should not one who believes no Religion declare for any But since I do verily believe not only that there is such a thing as true Religion but that it is only to be found in the Books of Holy Scripture I have Reason to enquire after the best means of understanding the sense of those Books and thereby if it may be to put an end to the Controversies of Christendom This was the noble design of the two Royal Papers which are written with far greater strenght and spirit and closeness than these which are published in Defence of them But notwithstanding all their fair appearance I could not be convinced by the Reason contained in them and much less by the Defence of them Which I endeavour'd to represent as far as I could judge with Modesty and Civility But if I have offended in any thing against the strict Rules of good Manners I hope I may be the more easily forgiven since their Casuists allow involuntary faults to be in their own nature venial The Method proposed by the Paper for ending Controversies was by finding out a Principle for doing it as visible as that the Scripture is in Print This I could noâ— but extreamly approve as a very satisfactory method of proceeding and the Consequence I said would be that all Men of sense would soon give over disputing for none who dare to believe what they see can call that in Question The Author of the Râ—ply saith I mistook the meaning of the words which he saith was this That what ever Motives render it visible that a Book in Print is Scripture i. e. the Word of God the same or other Motives are as powerful to render this other truth as visible that none can be that Church but that which is called the Roman-Catholick Church The Desender saith The Church is more visible than Scripture because the Scripture is seen by the Church for which he brings S. Augustin 's Authority And if by saying that the Scripture is in Print be understood a tking out of Question then he denies it to be visible that the Scripture is in Print because many Men do call Scripture in question at this day and to question whether the Book in print be Scripture is manifestly to question whether Scripture be in print The Words of the Royal Paper are plain but these Interpretations of them so forced and unnatural that there needs no other confutation of them but to compare their confused Comment with the Text. It is as visible as that the Scripture is in Print that is it is a thing evident to sense for so it is that the Book called the Scripture or the Bible is in Print Now what is it which is affirmed in the Paper to be thus evident viz. this Proposition That none can be that one Church which Christ has here on Earth but that which is called the Roman Catholick Church But if it be certain as I doubt not to make it appear that what is called the Roman-Catholick Church is but a Part of that One Church which Christ has here on Earth then the plain result of this Proposition must be that it is a thing evident to sense that a Part is the Whole Now this looked so oddly that these Gentlemen were resolved that this should not be the sense of the plain words and therefore have endeavoured to put another sense if it may be called so upon them And if their Church can but interpret Scripture at this rate we are in a hopeful way to have a speedy and happy end of Controversies As to the Consequence I drew from hence that if Controversies could be determined by a Principle as visible as that Scripture is in Print all Men of sense would soon give over disputing for none who dare believe what they see would call that in question One saith The sooner the hetter So say I too upon good grounds But what would then become of the Noble Science of Controversie The other saith That Catholicks and Protestants are both Men of sense and yet they dispute about the Scripture which is in Print And what then This is to shew that the Scriptures being in Print is one thing and the Authority of the Scripture is another The one is a common object of sense in which all are agreed the other is liable to many Disputes and therefore could not be meant in the Papers But they have a notable Cavil against Mens believing what they
see because Faith is of things not seen This Cavil had been as good against our Blessed Saviour when he said to Thomas because thou hast seen thou hast believed I hope upon second thoughts they will not tell him that this was improperly spoken and not like a Schoolman Call it what you will the single Question is Whether your Church will allow us to Judge of things according to the plain Evidence of Sense One saith It is impossible that any Man should be commanded not to believe what he sees Believing here is the Judgment of the Mind upon the Representation of Sense and will he secure us that the Church can never require us to judge otherwise than according to the Evidence of Sense I wish he would make his words good for I assure him he would remove a terrible block out of our way My Senses plainly tell me what I see and feel and taste is as much Bread after Consecration as it was before how then comes it to pass that my Judgment that it was Bread before was very good but although there be the very same Evidence afterwards without the least alteration to Sense yet then I am to judge just contrary i. e. that it is not Bread which I see and feel and taste just as I did before But he saith what is seen is only the form shape and sigure of Bread and Wine and that they believe to be there But alas This doth not reach to the point For the Question is not about external appearances but about the Iudgment of the Mind upon the Evidence of Sense I will make this matter plainer that they may know where the Difficulty lies When Christ's Body appeared to the Disciples after his Resurrection there was no dispute among them concerning the form shape and figure of his body but the doubt was whether from these they were to conclude that it was Christ's real Body or not If not they could not believe from the Evidence of Sense that Christ's Body was risen from the dead if they were let them tell us how Christ's Body comes to be so much changed and to lose those essential properties of a body which it once had and was judged by and farther what ground there is for us now not to allow that Judgment of Sense which Christ himself appealed to after the Institution of the Sacrament For if Christ had therein declared that our Senses are not to be our Rule of judging concerning his Body he would certainly not have appealed so soon after to the Senses of his Disciples concerning that very Body and neither he nor his Disciples have given the least intimation that what we see and feel to be one body we must believe to be quite another which we can neither see nor feel Did not two Angels appear to Lot in the figure and shapes of Men and the Holy Ghost descend in the form of a Dove And were they who saw them to believe according to the Evidence of Sense I answer that there is a great deal of difference to be made between Invisible Powers appearing under bodily shapes and a natural visible palpable extended body losing the Properties of a body abd becoming invisible impalpable and indivisible And withal there is a great difference between Spiritual Powers uniting the real particles of Matter into a Body and the making the Form Figure and Shape of a real Body to be where there is no substance of a body We do not pretend to judge by our Senses of Invisible Substances under outward appearances but of the Truth of a bodily Substance by all the Appearances of a body under all the Circumstances necessary for the right judgment of Sense The other saith he knows of no Church which allows not People to believe all they see May we then believe that to be still Bread which we see to be so No he saith the What of a thing is not the Object of Sense I perceive then our Senses are very impertinent things and only give an account of the Circumstances and not of the Substances of things But I pray did not the Disciples perceive the What of Christ's Body by their Senses How do we know the What of any bodily Substance but by them It is meer Collusion to say our Senses do not judge of Substances for our bare Senses judge of nothing but are the means of conveying the impressions or Representations inward whereby our Minds do paâ—s Judgment upon things And either we cannot know the Substance of any thing sensible or we must know the What of it as he speaks by our Senses We now come to the main business which for the clearer proceeding I shall put under three distinct Heads I. Concerning the Unity of the Catholick Church II. Concerning the Authority of it III. Concerning the Reformation of the Church of England I. Of the Unity of the Catholick Church ANd here the point to be discussed is viz. Whether that which is called the Roman-Catholick Church be that one Church which Christ has here on Earth 1. The first thing I objected against it was that a Part cannot be the Whole but that which is called the Roman-Catholick Church is but a Part and therefore it cannot be the One Catholick Church of Christ here on earth Here to prevent cavilling I must declare that I meant not the Roman Diocese or Province but all the Churches which live in Communion with and Subjection to the Bishop of Rome as Head of the Church and look on it as necessary to Salvation so to do And this I still assert to be but a Part of the Catholick Church and a corrupt one too The Author of the Defence saith all this Riddle of Part and Whole comes from my Inadvertence How so Because I confound the Roman Diocese with the Roman-Catholick Church No I assure him I did take it in their own sense for all that embrace the matters of Faith which are received in the Roman Communion And He need not fear my doing otherwise for I intend to discourse of no other Church but this and this I deny as so taken to be the One Catholick Church Doth not Catholic signifie all the Parts I am sure it ought to do so but I say it doth not when Roman is joyned to Catholick for then it excludes all those from being Parts of the Catholic Church which do not joyn in the Roman Communion and this I say is unreasonable And here I expected some Proof in so material a Point but there is not a Word farther than that Catholic comprehends all but I say again Roman Catholic excludes all that are not in its Communion As suppose any one should say the German Ocean is the whole Sea and to prove it should reason as this Gentlemen doth Ocean is the whole Sea is it not And is it the less the Ocean because German is added to it No the Ocean is just as large as ever it was but
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
lawfully give Divine Worship to any part of the World to be converted by the Missionaries who tell them the parts of the World cannot be God for he is Infinite and Immutable and Wise and Powerful which the Parts of the World are not and cannot be and therefore they cannot without Idolatry give Divine Worship to them the Mandarins require their giving the same Adorations that others do they refuse and say Whatever you may do who believe God and the World to be the same certainly it would be gross Idolatry in us who believe the thing you worship to be nothing but dull insensible parts of the World. And if now it should be asked By what authority they separate Is there not a plain answer By the authority of God himself who requires Adoration to be given to himself alone But who shall be Judg saith the Defender God himself will be Judg aâ— the great Day whether we will or not And I think that is more to be regarded than putting an end to Controversies If we be not sincere and faithful to him and his service if we do not act and judg with a regard to the Judgment of that day all the pretences in the world of a Judg in Controversies then will stand in no stead If we do use our careful endeavours to know the will of God and to do it we have great reason to hope God will shew mercy to us and then the Question will not appear of such wonderful importance Who shall be Judg here But we do not decline a reasonable Judgment in this world we only desire our Judges may be fair and equal and such as God hath appointed And if those who would judg for us pretend that they have a Divine Commission we desire to know who shall be judg of this pretence We have no reason to trust them and they will not trust us So that here we are stopt at first unless the Commission be produced which impowers those persons to judg who challenge such authority over our judgments A general indefinite obscure Commission which may extend to all other Guides in the Church as well as to them will by no means be sufficient Let us see whom Christ hath appointed in his own words and we will submit for we look on him as Supreme Judg and Legislator to his Church and if he hath thought fit to appoint an Infallible Judg we have done But we desire to know where he hath done it Hath he granted any new Commission from Heaven No. Is it to be found in Scripture Yes But then I pray observe you tell us Scripture cannot be Judg in any Controversie being ambiguous uncertain general mute flexible and what not and because it cannot hear Parties nor give a decisive voice it can by no means be a Judg of Controversies How then can the Scripture put an end to this Controversie when it can put an end to none Are the Expressions in this matter so particular so clear so peremptory that we cannot mistake about the sense of them If so then I perceive notwithstanding all the hard words given it Scripture may be Judg as well as a Rule because it is fitted to put an end to such a Controversie which is as doubtful as any and why not as well to all the rest We are not then afraid of this Question Who shall be Judg But we desire to be satisfied about it and to know not only who hath appointed him but who he is whether the Pope in Cathedrâ— or a General Council For this is very material for us to know since even at this day you are far from being agreed about it The Assembly of the Clergy of France have solemnly declared within few years That they do not believe the Popes Judgment to be Infallible The Clergy of Hungary have rejected and censured this Declaration as absurd and detestable and have forbidden any to read hold or teach the Doctrine and own the Pope to be the only Infallible Judg of Controversies A Sorbon Doctor in his Notes on the Hungarian Censure calls this the new Heresie of the Jesuits on the other side large Volumes have been Printed to prove that the right of judging infallibly belongs only to the Pope And now very lately comes out a Learned Book by another Doctor of the Sorbon to prove not only that the Popes Judgment is not Infallible but that it is a dangerous thing to believe it and that no man ought to do it unless infallible proof be brought of it But he proves at large that not so much as probable evidence can be brought for it either from Scripture or Tradition I pray now the Defender to tell me Who is the Judg Is the Pope Infallible or not It is easily answer'd I or no. And it is necessary to be answer'd if we must know Who is the Judg The common Evasion is That you are agreed that Popes and Councils together are but this is but an Evasion For the Infallibility is by virtue of Divine Promises â—â—d those must either relate to the Church as the subject of them or to the Successors of St. Peter in their capacity as such If to the former the Popes have nothing to do in it but as included in the Church if the latter the Councils have no Infallibility but the Pope To say the Council is infallible when confirmed by the Pope is Nonsense For either it was Infallible in its Decree or not If not it can borrow no Infallibility from the Popes subsequent Confirmation but the Popes Judgment may be said to be Infallible but by no means the Councils And Du Pin hath proved that there cannot be two Seats of Infallibility for whereever there is Infallibility it can receive no addition or force from another Infallibility and whatever is Infallible must be believed for it self and not depend on anothers Judgment And therefore I again desire the Defender to make no harangues about this matter but to answer directly Who is the Judg For we would sain be acquainted with this some body as he speaks but I am afraid his some body of Infallibility will prove a more pleasing dream than what he charges me with in what follows I had given a fair account of the proceedings in England upon the Reformation how the search began the Popes Authority to be discarded and the Articles of Religion to be drawn up which ought not to be looked on as particular Fancies but the sense of our Church All this he calls a pleasing dream I am sure the pretence of Infallibility is so but I related matter of fact which he hath no mind to meddle with but he runs again to his Who shall be Judg And concludes that I think between Churches there 's none at all I do think the Church of England in this divided state of the Catholick Church is under no Superior Judicature but that it hath sufficient power and authority to
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
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
a man such St. Augustins opinion is reported by Aquinus as the Reason of his Judgment that is adopted into the Body of the Canon-law and therefore that ought to be the Standard according to which they are to pronounce a Person obstinate If Men do not wiâ—h Diligence and Caution seek after Truth and are not willing to embrace it when they find it then they are to be accounted Hereticks for being obstinate But St. Augustin goes no further however Suarez would seem to agree with him But it is worth the while to consider his Doctrine about it 1. He affirms That it is not enough for one to be ready to submit to Gods Word either written or unwritten but the Submission must be with respect to the Church as proposing both to us 2. That those who believe any Doctrine because their Judgment tells them it is the sense of Scripture if they therein follow their own Judgment and not the sense of the Church they are guilty of such an Oâ—stinacy as makes Hereticks 3 That it doth not excuse â—f he be willing to believe the Church if he â—â—es Reasons and Arguments to move him for this he saith is not to believe the Churches Authority as Divine but after a human manner which may consist with Obstinacy against the Church as a Rule of Faith. 4 That it is not yet necessary in order to this Obstinacy to believe the Church to have Infallible Authority for then those must be excused from heretical Obstinacy who denied it but it is sufficient that the Church is proposed as a true Church whose Authority he is bound to submit to The short of all this matter is If a Man resolve to believe as the Church believes a very small thing will excuse him from Heresy but if not nothing according to Suarez will do it unless it be Ignorance as to the Churches proposing And this is the modern notion of Heresy which appears to me to be very unreasonable on these accounts 1. Suppose a Person have a general Disposition of mind to believe whatever is sufficiently proposed to him as revealed by God and believes sincerely whatever he knows to be contained in Scripture I would sain know whether this Disposition of mind do not really excuse him from heretical Obstinacy And yet this is very consistent with doubting whether the Church be accounted as the Proponent of matters of Faith. 2. Is it necessary in order to heretical Obstinacy that the Person believes the Proponent to be Infallible or not If it be then none can be convinced of heretical Obstinacy but such as reject the Churches Authority when they believe it Infallible and then none of us can be charged with it for we do not believe the Churches Infallibility If it be not necessary then the Churches Infallibility is not necessary to Faith for iâ— order to Heretical Obstinacy he must be convinced of resisting that which was necessary in order to Faâ—â—h from whence it will follow that the Churches Infallibility is noâ— equired as the Ground of Faith. 3 Suppose a Person thinks himself bound in Conscience to believe those Guides which God by his Providence hath set over him and he believes to be sincere and honest and these tell him there is no ground to believe on the Churches Authority as being sounded neither in Scripture nor Antiquity nor Reason is not he excused hereby from Heretical Obstinacy 4. Suppose he declares himself ready to believe the Churches Authority if it be sufficiently proposed to him i. e. with such Reasons and Arguments as are proper to convince him but after all he declares that he cannot see any such And yet Aquinas affirms No man can believe unless he sees Reason why he should 〈◊〉 How then can a man be liable to Heretical Obstinacy because he only refuses to believe when he sees no Reason to believe 5. Suppose he doth believe that which the Church proposes not meerly upon its Authority but upon the Reasons which the Church offers why must this man be liable to Heretical Obstinacy for believing upon the Churches Reasons What a wonderful nice thing is Heresie made It seems by this rare Doctrine it doth not excuse from Heresie to believe even Truth it self if it be upon grounds of Reason which the Church it self gives But it must be taken meerly from the Churches Authority and yet that very Authority must be believed on the grounds of Reason or the Motives of Gredibility 6. Suppose a Person hath used the best means he could to find out his Obligation to believe on the Churches Authority and after all he cannot find any such thing what Obligation is he under to enquire farther and from whence doth it arise And if he be not under any how can he be guilty of Herecial Obstinacy who is under no Obligation to search any farther For Obstinacy must suppose resisting some Obligation 7. Suppose he be willing to believe on the Churches Authority if that Church be made appear to him to be the One Catholick Church of Christ but when he comes to examine this he finds that he must exclude very great and considerable Parts of the Catholick Church to reduce the Authority of the Catholick Church to that of the Roman Communion how can it then be Heretical Obstinacy not to suppose a Part to be the Whole 8. Suppose he hath overcome this yet if he should mistake about the Seat of Infallibility is he not still as liable to the charge of Heretical Obstinacy because the true Reason of it is that such a Person rejects that which God hath chosen as the proper means to propound matters of Faith to us But if he should be mistaken in the true Proponent he is in as much danger of Heretical Obstinacy still As suppose a man takes a General Council as representing the Catholick Church to be the only true Proponent of Faith and therefore rejects the Authority of the Pope in this matter I desire to know whether this be Heretical Obstinacy or not If not then rejecting the true Proponent doth not make any liable to it If it doth then there is Heretical Obstinacy in the Church of Rome as well as out of it And so much in Answer to the Repliers Charge of Heresie on the Church of England 3. The next Charge relates to the Insufficient Authority of the Church of England and that on these Accounts 1. In that it leaves every man to judge for himself 2. Because she dares not use the true Arguments against Sects for fear of their being turned upon her self 3. Because she denies an Appeal to an higher Judicature 1. It is urged in the Papers That among us every man thinks himself as competent a Judg of Scripture as the very Apostles It was answer'd That every man among us doth not pretend to an Infallible Spirit but all yield the Apostles had it And by being a Judg of Scripture if no more be meant than that
hath as much Authority over our Church as the Rulers of it have over the Members Which ought not to have been supposed but substantially proved since the Weight of the Cause depends upon it But I see nothing like a Proof produced 2. That the Sectaries have as much reason to reject the Terms of Communion required by our Church as our Church had to reject those of the Church of Rome But this is as far from being proved as the other 2. The Defender desires to be instructed how such an Authority can be in a Church without Infallibility I hope he believes there may be Authority without Infallibility or else how shall Fathers govern their Children But not in the Church Why so Have not Bishops out of Councils Authority to rule their Diocesses Have they not a Provincial Synods Authority to make Canons tho they be not Infallible What then is the meaning of this He tells us soon after To say a Church is Fallible is to say she may be deceived There is no doubt of that And if she may be deceived her self they may be deceived who follow her And if a Church pretends to be Infallible which is not she certainly deceives those that follow her and that without Remedy But all this sort of Reasoning proceeds upon a false Suggestion viz. That our Faith must be grounded on the Chuach's Authority as the formal Reason of it Which he knows is utterly denied by us and ought to have been proved We declare the Ground of our Faith is the Word of God not interpreted by Fancy but by the Consent of the whole Christian Church from the Apostles Times This is our Bottom or if you will the Rock on which our Church is built This is far more firm and durable than a pretence to Infallibility which is like a desperate Remedy which Men never run to but when they see nothing else will help them Had the Church of Rome been able to defend her Innovations by Reason or Antiquity she had never thought of Infallibility It is a much better expedient to keep Men in Error than to keep them from it and tends more to save the Authority of a sinking Church than the Souls of Men. But he will not let the Church's Infallibility go thus For he pretends to prove that if we take that away we make Christianity the most unreasonable Thing in Nature nay absolutely impossible What! whether God hath promised to make the Church Infallible or not We understand those who offer to prove the Church Infallible by Scripture but these Scientifical Men despise such beaten Roads and when they offer to demonstrate fall short of the others Probabilities As will appear by examining his Argument Faith requires an assent to a thing as absolutely true but a fallible Authority cannot oblige me to a thing as absolutely true and therefore this would be an Effect without a Cause a down-right Impossibility a flat Contradiction I will match his Argument with another Faith is not an Assent to a thing as absolutely true upon less than a Divine Testimony but the Church's Testimony is not Divine and therefore to believe upon the Church's Testimony is an Effect without a Cause a down-right Impossibility a flat Contradiction Let him set one of these against the other and see who makes Faith unreasonable or impossible But I will clear this Matter in few words I grant that Faith is an Assent to a thing as absolutely true and that what is absolutely true is impossible to be false I grant that a meer fallible Authority is not sufficient to produce an Act of Faith. But here I distinguish the Infallible Authority of God revealing into which my Faith is resolved as into the formal Reason of it from the Authority of the Church conveying that Revelation which is only the Means by which this Revelation comes to be known to us As when a Man swears by the Bible there is a difference between the Contents of that Book by which he swears and the Officers putting the Book into his hands 3. The Church of England is blamed for allowing no Liberty of Appeals to a higher Judicature The Question is Whether this makes her no true Church or not to have any just Authority over her own Members The Replier saith She makes her self the last Tribunal of Spiritual Doctrine I know not where she hath done so since we own the Authority of Free and truly General Councils as the Supreme Tribunal of the Church upon Earth And accordingly receive the four first which even S. Gregory the Great distinguished from those that followed as to their Authority and Veneration The Defender had a good mind to cut off the Church of England from being a Church because she hath renounced Communion with the Church of Rome but his heart failed him And I hope he will think better of it when he sees cause to prove a little more effectually that the Church of Rome in its largest extent is the Catholick Church He argues That there must be such an Authority in a Church which may give a final Sentence conclusive to the Parties as the Judges do Temporal Differences But is it necessary for all Churches to have such a Power then there must be as many Supreme Courts as there are Churches If not we desire to know where the Supreme Court is and who appointed it And where Christ hath ever promised to his Church a Power to end Controversies when they arise as effectually as Judges do Temporal Differences For the freest and most General Councils yet assembled have not been so happy and those we look on as the most Venerable Authority to decide Differences in the Church But still our Church wants sufficient Authority in his Opinion Doth it want Authority to govern its own Members To Reform Abuses in a divided State of the Catholick Church To cast off an usurped Power as it was judged by the Clergy in Convocation who yet concurred in other things with the Church of Rome I pray what Authority had the Gallican Church so lately to declare against the Pope's Infallibility and to reduce him in that respect to the Case of an ordinary Bishop If Absolute Obedience be due to him as Head of the Church what Authority have the Temporal Princes in other Countries sometimes to forbid sometimes to restrain and limit the Pope's Bulls This at least shews that there may be just Authority to examine and restrain the Pope's Power And I see no Reason why the several Churches of Christendom may not act as well against the Pretence of the Pope's Authority as the Gallican Church hath done against his Infallibility especially since this Gentleman hath told us that Authority without Infallibility signifies nothing And those who think they may examine and reject his Dictates may do the same by his Authority the one being as liable as the other It was said in the Papers That no Country can subsist in
Quiet where there is not a Supreme Judg from whom there can be no Appeal The Answer was That the natural Consequence was then that every National Church ought to have the Supreme Power within it self But how comes Appeals to a Foreign Jurisdiction to tend to the Peace and Quiet of a Church The Defender saith That a National to the whole Church is but as a Shire to a Kingdom and a very natural and consistent Consequence it is that every Shire should have a King. One would think by such an Answer this Defender is a mighty Stranger to the ancient Polity of the Church Did he never hear of the Power of Metropolitans being setled by the Council of Nice for governing the Churches and calling Provincial Synods Did he never hear of many other Canons relating to the Power and Frequency of Provincial Synods Did he never hear of the Decrees of the Council of Ephesus forbidding all Incroachments on the ancient Rights of Churches Did he never hear that Provincial Councils have declared Matters of Faith without so much as advising with the Bishop of Rome As the African Councils did in the Pelagian Controversy and the Councils of Tolcdo in the Case of Arianism which reformed the Spanish Churches and made Canons by their own Authority which were confirmed by their Kings Reccaredus and Sisenandus Did he never hear that it was good Doctrine among Catholâ—ck Divines That particular Churches might take upon them to declare the true Catholick Faith And if so they must judg what is so Did he never hear that in a divided State of the Church Errors and Abuses may be reformed by particular Churches And that this was owned and defended by great Men in the Church of Rome if he did not he was very much unprovided for the handling such a Controversy if he did know these things he ought not to have spoken with so much contempt of the Power of Particular or National Churches And to assert their Authority is very far from being like setting up a King in every Shire for this were the highest Dilloyalty to the King who hath a just and unquestionable Authority over all the Shires Let him prove that the Pope hath such a Monarchy over all particular Churches before he make such a Parallel again But the way he takes is rather like making the Imperial Crown of this Realm to be in subjection to a Foreign Power because the Roman Emperors once had Dominion here and therefore this Kingdom could never recover its own Rights But he saith A Foreign Jurisdiction is hardly sense with respect to the Church for â—oris is out and unless the ultimate Jurisdiction be out of the Church it cannot be said to be foreign This is a shameful begging of the Question that what they call the Roman Catholick Church is the Catholick Church for if it be not which I hope I have sufficiently shewn then the pretended and usurped Jurisdiction of the Roman Church over the Church of England is a Foreign Jurisdiction He adds That it is impossible to re-settle the Church among us without that which we call Foreign Jurisdiction because Dissentions in matters of Religion cannot otherwise be removed But suppose this Foreign Jurisdiction be the occasion of these Dissentions some maintaining 〈◊〉 others asserting the Rights of our Church against it Is not 〈◊〉 â—oreign Jurisdiction like to put an end to it Yes certainly For if all Parties submit there will be no longer disputing But our Question as yet is whether this be reasonable or not I complained of the Inconvenience of Appeals to a Foreign Jurisdiction He gives us a smart Answer and saith That holds no comparison with the Inconvenience of Heresy As tho it were so plain a thing that we are guilty of Heresy that it needed no manner of proof Alas what need a Man prove that it is day when the sun shines We are just as much guilty of Heresy as the good Bishop was who for denying the Antipodes was condemned by Pope Zachâ—â—y But it is a comfortable thing in a Charge of Heresy to find it no better proved He saith I mistook the matter of Appeals and that it was not understood with respect to Causes but to matters of Doctrine and Worship An Appeal must reâ—ate to a Superiour Authority and a constant Appeal to a standing Authority and whatever the pretence be the Court of Rome will challenge Supreme Jurisdiction where-ever the Pope is owned as Head of the Church And then all those Consequences will follow I mentioned before If other kind of Appeals were meant in the Papers yet they must relate to an Authority Superiour to our Church which we could wish had been more fully expressed that we might have known to whom the Appeal was to be made whether to a free General Council which we never disowned or to the Popes Authority which we yet see no cause to make our Appeals to especially as to what concerns his own Jurisdiction He pleads That Supream Power must be Judg in its own Cause for no Authority ought to be set up against the King supposing a Question be started about his Prerogative I answer This is a Case extreamly different for in matters of Prerogative the King 's Supream Power is not the Question for his Right to the Imperial Crown is and ought to be out of dispute but all the Question that can be started must relate only to the Exercise of his Power in some particular Cases where former Laws made by the King's Consent are supposed to limit it which the Courts of Judicature take Cognizance of and so are a kind of Legal Arbitrators between the King and his People But in the Case before us the Jurisdiction it self and the Right to exercise any such Authority is the very thing in Question And I desire this Gentleman to resolve me whether in the late times of Usurpation this had 〈◊〉 been good Doctrine that those who enjoy or pretend to Supream Power are to be Judges in their own Case If so then it had been impossible for Men to have justified their Loyalty to the Royal Family then very unjustly put out of possession If not then there may be a pretence to Supream Authority where it is by no means allowable for the Pretender to Judg in his own Cause As to his Appeal to the Catholick Church we by no means reject it provided he mean the Church truly Catholick as it comprehends the Apostolical Church in the first place and then all other Christian Churches which from the Apostles times have delivered down the Catholick Doctrine and Worship which they received from them But if he means that which is called a Catholick Church but is neither Catholick nor Apostolical we beg his pardon if we allow no Appeal to it since its Errors and Corruptions are the great and just Cause of our Complaints He runs into a long Discourse about Church-Security and his design is
of the Laws of the Land. 2. That altho we attribute the Supreme Jurisdiction to the King yet we do not question but there are inviolable Rights of the Church which ought to be preserved against the Fancies of some and the Usurpations of others The Replier Answers That our Religion is built on private Interpretations of Scripture established by Law and therefore if the Law be mutable the Religion is mutable The Defender desires I would make it appear that the Holy Scripture is such a Foundation as makes the Protestant Church unalterable for the Letter of Scripture is common to all who bear the Name of Christians And all Alterations of Religion are made upon pretence of Scripture To give a clear and distinct Answer I shall lay down these Propositions 1. That altho Humane Laws be alterable yet the Divine Law is unchangeable and continues its Force on the Consciences of Men so that no Humane Law can make that lawful which God hath sorbidden nor that unlawful which he hath commanded Whatever Change therefore may happen as to the Laws of Men the Law of God is still the same and its Obliâ—ation cannot be taken off by any Laws of Men. As suppose God hath forbidden the Worship of Images or of Saints or of any Creature upon Supposition that it is not a Creature no Law in the World can make this lawful because God's Authority is Superior and Antecedent to Man's and therefore cannot be superseded by an Act of Men. And this is one of the Fund mentals of the Christian Religion without which it could never have been practised when the Laws of the Empire were againâ—â— it So neither can Humane Laws make that true which is againsâ— the Word of God nor that false which is agreeable to it They can never make Transubstantiation a true Doctrine if it were nor so before nor a Purgatory necessary to be believed unless it be proved from Scripture to be so So that the Foundation of our Religion being the Word of God and the Obligation of that on the Consciences of Men it must remain the same tho Humane Laws be mutable Howbeit I do not deny the Magistrates Power in making Laws for regulating the Publick Exercise of Religion But as we have cause to thank God for the establishment of the best Church in the Christian World by them among us so we are unwilling to put such Cases as the Defender doth when we enjoy our Religion as established by Law And it would be interpreted to be a mistrust of his Majesty's Gracious Promise to protect it 2. Although the Letter of Scripture be liable to Misinterpretations and Abuses yet the true and genuine Sense of it may be understood and then there is a great disterence between false and mistaken Notions and the proper Sense of Scripture This is very strange Reasoning if Men will infer that there can be no certainty as to the Sense of Scripture because so many have misinterpreted it Is it any Argument that the Constitution of our Government is not sirm or that Loyal Subjects cannot be certain of their Duty because Men of ill Principles have run away with false Notions of a Fundamental Contract and Coordinate Power Is there no Certainty in Law because Judges have been of different Opinions and determined the same Cause several ways Is there no Principle of Certainty in the World because Men have been imposed upon both by their Senses and Reason If notwithstanding this we must allow that we may judg truly of some Things or else we must all turn Scepticks then we desire no more than to observe the same Rules and Caution in judging the Sense of Scripture which we do as to our judgment of other Matters In them we take notice of the Causes of Errors the Circumstances of Things the Difference of Objects the Nature of the Medium and accordingly pass our Judgment And in Things too small for our view or too remote we make use of Glasses to help us but all this while Men do not reason so weakly in these Matters Do they say that some have been deceived by their Glasses and Telescopes therefore there is no certainty in any of them and they must all be laid aside and whatever they talk of Spots in the Sun and the unequal Surface of the Moon they are all Fancies and Chimera's of giddy Brains and no Men of sense can believe them If Mankind do not argue at this rate in other things how come they to be so fatally unreasonable about the Scripture The Letter of Scripture say they is used for this Fancy and the other Mistake and a third pleads it for down-right Heresy I very one thinks he hath the Letter of Scripture for him and upon that he grounds his Faith. And what then The natural Consequence is that every one would sain have Scripture of his side Doth it really follow from hence that no Body hath it Or that there can be no certainty who hath it and who hath it not But every one thinks he hath it And what follows Some or others must be deceived I grant it But who shall tell who is deceived and who not I pray let me ask one Question Are you willing to be deceived or not Who is willing to be deceived Every one that will not take the pains to be undeceived or to prevent being deceived What pains do you mean Such honest Industry and Diligence which every one ought to take who pretends he searches for Truth in order to his Salvation And I dare affirm such shall never want Means to attain certainty as to the Sense of Scripture in what concerns their Salvation But suppose the Question be about Churches how can the Church of England assure Men that is the true Sense of Scripture which is delivered by it I Answer 3. The Church of England hath ofsered all reasonable Satisfaction to Mankind that it doth follow the true Sense of Scripture And that by these ways 1. By not locking up the Scripture from the view of the People but leaving it free and open for all Persons to judg concerning the Doctrines here taught Which argues a great assurance that our Church is not afraid of any Opposition to be found to the Word of God in the Articles of our Religion And the contrary is vehemently to be suspected where Reading the Scripture is forbidden the People as it is in the Church of Rome if the Popes Authority signify any thing for Clement the 8th did revoke the Power of granting Licenses which was allowed by Pius the 4th And I do not see how any Confessor can justify his acting against the Pope's Authority 2. By not pretending to deliver the Sense of Scripture on her own Authority If she did require her Members to depend wholly upon her Sense without examining themselves that very thing would render her Authority suspicious with all Inquisitive Men who always mistrust where there is too much Caution
contain the Reasons and Motives of the Conversion of so great a Lady to the Church of Rome But this Gentleman hath now eased me of the necessity of further considering it on that account For he declares That none of those Motives or Reasons are to be found in the Paper of her Highness Which he repeats several times She writ this Paper not as to the Reasons she had her self for changing c. As for the Reasons of it they were only betwixt God and her own Soul and the Priest with whom she spoke at laâ—t And so my Work is at an end as to her Paper For I never intended to ransack the private Papers or secret Narratives of great Persons And I do not in the least question the Relation now given from so great Authority as that he mentions of the Passages concerning Her and therefore I have nothing more to say as to what relates to the Person of the Dutchess But I shall take notice of what this Defender saith which reflects on the Honour of the Church of England 1. The Pillars of the Church established by Law saith he are to be found but broken Staffs by their own Concessions What! is the Church of Eâ—gland Felo de se But how I pray For after all their undertaking to heal a wounded Conscience they leave their Proselytes finally to the Scripture as our Physicians when they have emptied the Pockets of their Patients without curing them send them at last to Tunbridg Waters or the Air of Montpellier As tho the Scripture were looked on by us as a meer Help at a dead Lift when we have nothing to say One would think he had never read the Articles of the Church of England for there he might have seen that thâ— Scripture is made the Rule and Ground of our Faith. And I pray whither should any Persons be directed under Trouble of Mind but to the Word of God Can any thing else give real Satisfaction Must they go to an Infallible Church But whence should they know it to be Infallible but from the Scriptures So that on all hands Persons must go to the Scriptures if they will have Satisfaction But this Gentleman talks like a meer Novice as to Matters of Faith as tho believing were a new thing to him and he did not yet know that true Faith must be grounded on Divine Revelation which the Pillars of our Church have always asserted to be contained only in the Scripture and therefore whither can they send Persons but to the Scripture But it seemâ— he is got no farther than the Collier's Faith he believes as the Church believes and the Church believes as he believes and by this he hopes to be too hard for a Legion of Devils 2. He saith We are Reformed from the Vertues of good Living i. e. from the Devotions Mortifications Austerities Humility and Charity which are practised in Catholick Countries by the Example and Precept of that lean mortified Apostle St. Martin Luther He knows we pretend not to Canonize Saints and he may know that a very great Man in the Church of Rome once said That the new Saints they Canonized would make one question the old Ones We neither make a Saint nor an Apostle of Martin Luther and we know of no Authority he ever had in this Church Our Church was reformed by it self and neither by Luther nor Calvin whom he had mentioned as well as the other but for his lean and mortified Aspect But after all Luther was as lean and mortified an Apostle as Bishop Bonner but a Man of far greater worth and sit for the Work he undertook being of an undaunted Spirit What a strange sort of Calumny is this to upbraid our Church as if it followed the Example and Precept of Martin Luther He knows how very easy it is for us to retort such things with mighty advantage when for more than an Age together that Church was governed by such dissolute and profane Heads of the Church that it is a shame to mention them and all this by the confession of their own Writers But as to Luther's Person if his Crimes were his Corpulency what became of all the fat Abbots and Monks But they were no Apostles or Reformers I easily grant it But must God chuse Instruments as some do Horses by their fatness to run Races As to Luther's Conversation it is justified by those who best knew him and are Persons of undoubted Reputation I mean Frasmus Melancthon and Camerarius And as to Matters in dispute if he acted according to his Principles his Fault lay in his Opinions and not in acting according to them But whether our Church follow Luther or not it is Objected that we have reformed away the Vertues of good Living God forbid But I dare not think there is any Church in the World where the Necessity of good Living is more earnestly pressed But I confess we of the Church of England do think the Examples and Precepts of Christ and his Apostles are to be our Rules for the Vertues of good Living And according to them I doubt not but there are as great Examples of Devotion Mortification Humility and Charity as in any place whatsoever But I am afraid this Gentleman's Acquaintance did not lie much that way nor doth he seem to be a very competent Judg of the Ways of good living is he did not know how to distinguish between outward Appearances and true Christian Vertues And according to his way of judging the Disciples of the Pharisees did very much outdoe those of our Blessed Saviour as appears by a Book we esteem very much called the New Testament but if I mention it to him I am afraid he should think I am like the Physicians who send their Patients to Tuâ—bridg-Wells or the Air of Montpellier 3. That two of our Bishops whereof one was Primate of all England renounced and condemned two of the established Articles of our Church But what two Articles were these It seems they wished we had kept Confession which no doubt was commanded of God and praying for the Dead which was one of the ancient things of Christianity But which of our 39 Articles did they renounce hereby I think I have read and consider'd them as much as this Gentleman and I can find no such Articles against Confession and praying for the Dead Our Church as appears by the Office of the Visitation of the Sick doth not disallow of Confession in particular Cases but the necessity of it in order to Forgiveness in all Cases And if any Bishop asserted this then he exceeded the Doctrine of our Church but he renounced no Article of it As to the other Point we have an Article against the Romish Doctrine of Purgatory Art. 22. but not a word concerning praying for the Dead without respect to it But he out of his great skill in Controversy believes that Prayer for the Dead and the Romish
Obligations to read the Holy Scriptures Quarto The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholick Missionaries 240. A Vindication of the Answer to SOME LATE PAPERS concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholick Church and the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto A Treatise written by an AUTHOR of the Communion of the CHURCH of ROME touching TRANSUBSTANTIATION Wherein is made appear that according to the Principles of THAT CHURCH This Doctrine cannot be an Article of Faith. Quarto Def. p. 1. Pag. 2. Pag. â— Des. p. 2 3. Des. p. 2. Rep. p. 2. Des. p. 3. Rep. p. 3. Rep. p. â— Def. p. 3 4. Pag. â— Pag 5. De Ecclâ—s l. 3. c. 2. Ibid. c. 5. Catech. Rom. Part. 1. c 10. â— 10. Tertul. c. Praâ—â—am c. 1. Noâ—a Collect. Concil Balâ—â— p. 10. V. Epist. Cypri ep 74 75. Epist. 4. 8. Faâ—â— l. 4. c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Poâ—â— Coâ—â— Baâ—il X. Nova Collect. Concil p. 1551. Ratraâ—â— c. Graec. apâ—d 〈◊〉 Spicil To. 2. p. 3 24 27 29 53 54 60 61 62. Monument a Graec. To. 2. p. 138. n. 6. p. 164. n. 3 4 5. Caâ—is Aâ—tiq Lect. To. 6. p. 197. Pag. 196. Innocent III. Ep. l. 1. 353. Lib. 2. 208. Ep. 209. 〈◊〉 c◠〈◊〉 p. ◠〈◊〉 l. 4. c. 14. L. 7. c. 24. Stâ—â— l. 7. p. 764 〈◊〉 7â—â—5 〈◊〉 Eâ—â— 1. Fulgâ—â—t Op. p. 6â— Lactant. In it l. 4. c. â—lt Sola 〈◊〉 Catholi◠〈◊〉 quâ—â—erum Cultâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concii p. 286. Supplem Concil Gall. p. 14. Can. 6. Epist. ad Smyrn Eusâ—b l. 4. c. 14. l. 7. c. â—4 Cyrilâ— Catech. 18. p. 220. 〈◊〉 â—o 2. p. â—â—2 〈◊〉 in 1 Cor. 12. 27. Opt. c. Par. l. 2. Câ—m inde dicta sit Catholica quod sit rationabilis abique dissusa Balâ—z Coll. Concil p. 287 288. Nos universo orbi Christiano communione cohaeremus n. 100. Et appellantur merito sunt Catholici ipsa sua communione noâ—â—en testantes Catholon enim secundùn totâ—â—m dicitur Qui autem à toto sâ—paratus est partem â—ue defendit ab uniniverso praecisam non sibi uâ—â—rpet hoc nomen sed nobiscum teneat veritatem n. 101. Concil Florent Sess. 9. Concil Constant Sess. 11. Concil Gen. To. 12. p. 87. De Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 14. Des. p. 23. Pag. 6. Not. in Moâ—â— Graâ— To. â— p. 601. Reply p. 8. Defence p. 7. Pag. 8. Pag. 9. Catech. Rom. Part 1. c. 10. n. 20. Seâ—â— 7. Can. 7 8 9. De Bapt. Can. 13. Pag. 10. Pag. â— Reply p. 8. Pag. 9. Pag. 9 10. Concil Ephes. Part 2. Act. 6. Chalcedon Act. 5. Des. p. 14. Pag. 15. 〈…〉 Aâ—â—â— Thom. à â—esa l. 7. c. 14. Philipp à SS Trinit Itiner Orient l. 5. c. 5. 〈◊〉 Hist. Sâ—â—iet Jesu l. 6. 12. 123. Voyage du Mont. Liâ—an 〈◊〉 Daâ—dini Remarques sâ—r Chap. 2â— p. 383. Dissâ—rt de Origine Nomine Religion Maâ—oâ—itarâ—m Pag. 15. Thom. à Jesu de Concil â—mn Gent. l. 7. c. 6. Pag. 16. Pag. II. Aâ—g â— Donat. p. 6. Collat. c. 20. Pag. 12 13. Prejugbs legit contre le Janâ—â—â—â— p. 135. Pag. 14. C. Parmen l. 1. c. ult l. 2. c. 1 11. C. Cresom l. 4. c. 10 11. Pag. 14. Concil Nic. c. 19. Arel c. 8. Pag. 11. Pag. 12. Pag 1. Deut. 17. 8 9 10 11. Rom. 15. 17. 1 Thess. 5. 21. 1 S John. 4. 1. 1 Tim 3. 15. Grâ—g Nyssen de â—ita Mos. p. 226 Basil. Epist. 62. Chrysost. Hom. 148. To. 5. Theod. de Prov. Orat. 10. p. 441. Greg. Nazian Ep. 38. Orat. 19. Epist. 29. Heins in loc Pag. 17. Dis. p. 33. Pag. 33. 〈◊〉 legit c. le Jansenists c. 10. P ag 87. Pag. 34. Rep. p. 22. Aug. de Bapt. c. Donatisâ— l. 3. c. 17 18. l. 4. c. 18 20. l. 5. c. 21. l. 6. c. 1 3 4 14 24 2 30 31 32 33 34 40. l. 7. c. 12 32 43 44. L. 2. c. 1. L. 7. c. 51. â—â—Lineâ—â— Rep. p. 23. John 7. 17. Def. p. 34 35. Greg. 7. Epist. Reg. l. 4. Ep. 2. Pag. 18. 1 John 4. 3. A◠〈◊〉 p. 3. Pag. 4. Pag. 6. I. 〈◊〉 l. â— c. 17 18. * L. 1. 1. 4. 69. †L. 3. c. 1. * L. â— â— 47. 4. 66. De Carut Christi c. Marcion c. Valentin Def. p. 18. Dâ— Praescript c. 17. Aufer denique Haereticis quae cum Ethnicis sapiunt ut de Scripturis solis quaestiones suas sistant stare non poterunt De Resur Caâ—nis c. 3. Haereses autem sine aliquibus occasionibus Scripturarum audere non poterant idcirco pristina instrumenta quasdam materias illis videntur subministrasse ipsas quidem iisdem literis revincibiles c. 63. Lucifugae isti Scripturarum c. 47. Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 7. p. 755. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. 757. Orig. Dial. c. Marcionist §. 4. p. 108. p. 101. Yâ—od ad heâ—â—t Fab. Prâ—ef l. 2. p. 218. Haeret. Fab. l. 3. p. 226 231. St. Cyprian Epist. 74 75. Reply p. 13. Aug. de Bapt. c. Donatill l. 2. c. 3. Deâ—r Dist 9. c 8. Dist. 19. c. 6. De unit Ecel c. 3. 416. c. Petil. Donar l. 3. c. 6 c. Maxim. Arian l. 3. c. 14. c. Faust. l. 11. c. 5. De Peccator Merit remiss l. 1. 22. De Nuptiis Concupisc l. 2. c. 33. De Grat. lib. Arbitrio c. 18. In Psalm 67. Def. p. 18. Deâ— p. 2. Theod. l. 1. c. 6. Bellar. de Ver. Dei l 4. c. 11. Hilar. l. 2. ad Constant. Athanas. de Synodis Tom. 1. p. 873. Tom. 2. p. 197. Tom. 1. c. Grat. Basil. Epist. 80. Tom. 3. Epist. 1 284 Haer. 75. p. 923 943 989. Chrysost. in Acta Apost Hom. 33. In Joh. Hom 53 Ib Hom. 58 Reply p. 18 Def p 21 Reply p. 19 Act Synodi Eph. p. 175. Hist. Concil To. 1. p. 498. Bell. de Concil l. 2. c. 12. Niceph. cum Leone Armeno Disput. ed. Combefis p. 162. Hos. Oper. p. 373. Quandoquidem solus ille verè dicitur est Oecumenicus patriarcha quod Concilium ipsius est Auctoritate Congregatum id verè dicitur oecumenicum De Concil l. 1. â— 6. Repl. p. 8 Def. p. 23 Def. p 24. Circa ea quae sunt de necessitate salutis sufficienter instruuntur â— Spiritu sancto 2 2 Qu. 8 ar 4 ad 1 Donum Intellectus nunquam se subtrahit sanctis circa ea quae sunt â—eâ—â—â—saria ad salutem ib ad 3 Gul. Parisiens de Legibus c 21 p 57 58 Pag 59 D. Col. 1. Henr. a Gand. Sum. Art. 13. q. 4. n. 3. Def. p. 26 P. 27. P. 28. Def. p. 29. Reply p. 21. Def. p. 30. Reply p. 21. Def. p. 31. Reply p. 22. Def. p 32. Reply p. 25. Def. p. 39. Def. p. 39. Def p 40 Pag. 41. Def. p. 42. Pag. 43. Cler. Gallica Declaratio Prop. 4. 1682. Censura Hungarica 24 Oct. 1682. Tractat. de Libertat Eccles Gallican Leodii 1684. Regale Sacerdotium Romano Pontifici assertum Auctore Eugenio Lombardo 1684. De Antiqua Ecclesiae Disâ—iplina Dissert 5. Auct Lud. Ellies Du Pin 1686. Dissert 5 c. â— ss 2. Pag. 44. Pag 45. Reply p. 25 Pag. 27. Reply p. 40. * Dial. 4. c. 39. Reply p. 27. Reply p. 28. Def. p. 46. Reply p. 29. Inititur enim Fides nostra Revelationi Apostolis Prophetis factae qui Canonicos libros scripserunt non autem revelation si qua fuit aliis Doctoribus facta 1. q. 1. Arâ— 8 ad 2. 2. 2. q. 1 Art. 5. ad 2. 1. q. 32. art 4 2. 2. q. 2. art 5 De Haeret puâ—it l. 1. c. 3 Loc. Theolog. l. 12. c. 11. Suarez de Fide Disp. 19. Sect. 2 n. 13. Suarez de Fide Disp. 19. Sect. 2. n. 8. â—â—p 4. Sect. 2. n. 3. 2. 2. q. 11. Art. 2. ad 3. Aug Epist. 162 Non est ergo haereticus nisi qui videns prudens doctrinam eligit Fidei contrariam Loc. 12. c. 9. Suarez de Fide Disc. 19. Sect. 3. n. 9. De Bapt. c. Donat l 4 c. 16 De Civit. Dei l. 18. c. 51. C. 24. q 3. c. 29 31. Ockam Dialog l. 3. c. 3. c. c. 6. ad fin Cap. 8 C. 24. q 1. Schismae â— 4. c. 2. C. 5 c. C. 9. C. 10. C. 27. C. 28. C. 29. C. 30. Gerson To. 1. p. 408. Can. Loc. Th. l. 12. c. 9. Disp. 14. de fide Sect. 3. n. 10. N. 11. Ibid. N. 13. 2. â— q l. art 3. Repl. p. 31. 2. 2. q. 5. Loc. 2. c. 8. Concedimus enim liberaliter doctrinam cuique in sua vita statâ—â— necessariam illi fore perspectam cognitam qui fecerit voluntatem Dei. Deuâ— Natura Gratia Probl. 15. p. 96 P. 97. Def. p. 49. Repl. p. 32. Des. p. 51. Page 52. Repl. p. 33. Def. p. 54. Page 55. Page 56. Page 57. Pag. 55. Pag 58. Pag. 59. Pag. 59. Pag. 52. Pag. 63. Pag. 64 65. Pag. 65. Repl. p. 34. Pag. 66. P. 67 68. Pag. 67. Pag. 6â— Pag. 70. Repl. p. 36. Pag. 71. Pag. 75. Repl. p. 37. Dis. p. 72. Pag. 73. Pag. 74. Pag. 75. Pag. 38 30. Des. p. 76. Repâ—â— p. 35. Repl. p. 41. Dis. p. 78. Pag. 80. Des. p. 111. Pag. 85. 87. 88. Ib. 125. lvix Pag. 85. Page 92. 125. 126. Pag. 95. 93. Pag. 〈◊〉 Pag. 87. Pag. 88. Pag. 97. P. 104 105 c. 108 109. Pag. 109. Pag. 90. Ibid. Ibid. Page 11â— Page 94. Pag. 98. â—ag 101. Pag. 1â—2 Paâ— 117. Pag. 117. Pag. 117. Sand. de Schism Angl. l. 1. p. 11. Pag. 9. Pag. 10. Pag. 15. Pag. 10. Pag. 18. Acworth c. Sander l. 2. â— 14 17. Pag. 22. History of H. 8 p. 216. Servi Fidelis Responsio c. 〈◊〉 Herb. 〈◊〉 219. Pag. 217. Apol. for the Oath of Allâ—giance Pag. 118. â—id Conference 〈◊〉 p. 156. Pag. 1. 2.