make shipwrack of that Faith which makes her a true Church But other kind of Errors cannot overthrow her being I urged farther That notwithstanding the pretence to Infallibility they allow the Church may err in matters of Practice of the highest importance as about Deposing Princes and Absolving Subjects from their Allegiance but not about the least matter of Faith which made it very suspicious to be rather a politick device than a thing they really believed Here the Defender I fear wilfully mistakes my meaning for he argues as if he thought I were proving That the Church of Rome hath defined the Deposing Doctrine as a matter of Faith and great pains he takes to prove it hath not And all to no purpose For I insisted only that in this point they confessed their Church had grosly erred as to a matter of Practice though it had not expresly declared it as an Article of Faith. I desire him to speak out hath it not erred notoriously as to Practice in this matter Whether they have made any such Declaration or not as to oblige all others of their Communion to embrace the Doctrine it is undeniably true that their Popes and Councils have owned it and acted according to it to the mighty disturbance of the Peace of the Christian World. Now the question I put was this Since it is granted they have so notoriously erred in matters of Practice why should any believe them Infallible in Points of Faith i. e. that so many Popes so many Councils should act upon this principle as believing it to be true and yet preserve their Infallibility in not declaring it to be true This I confess is an extraordinary thing and the Defender seems in earnest to think they were kept from it by an over-ruling assistance of the Divine Spirit Which is just as if a Man were set upon in the Road by some pretending to be his Friends who should take from him all that he had and afterwards he should admire the Providence of God that these Men should not declare it lawful to do it It is granted that so many Popes did great Mischief to the World and especially to Christian Princes by acting according to this Doctrine and that they actually owned it in Councils and made Canons on purpose for it but yet an over-ruling Assistance kept them from making it a Point of Faith. They declared their own belief by their Practice and Canons they required the observance of them under pain of being cut off from the Church if they did it not and Gregory VII saith They cut themselves off who question this Power but they were deceived notoriously deceived in this matter yet they might be Infallible still Did not these Popes declare that to be Christs Doctrine which is not But not Authoritatively What I pray doth this mean Did they not declare this Power by vertue of the Authority given them by Christ over the Church And declare those Excommunicate who did not obey their Sentence Is not this proceeding Authoritatively Suppose the Popes had in the same manner declared that Hereticks should be Re-baptized i. e. made Canons for it and required the observance of them I desire to know whether this had not been Authoritative declaring it though they affixed no Anathema to those who held the contrary Is it possible for any Man to believe that if there were such a thing as Infallibility in the Guides of the Church that Christ would suffer them to run into such pernicious Errors and in such an Authoritative manner and yet make good his Promise of keeping them from Error by not suffering them to define this Doctrine as an Article of Faith But this will appear to be a very slender Evasion if Men will reflect on the nature of the matter it self for it is about the exercise of the Pope's Power over Princes and can it be supposed that since they challenged it they would ever suffer it to be debated in Councils but they would still have it pass as an inseparable Right of their Supremacy derived from S. Peter And all that they would allow in this Case is a bare Recognition and that was made in the Councils of Lyons and Lateran And the Deposing Power in the Church was sufficiently owned in the Councils of Constance and Trent But there are two sorts of Articles of Faith to be considered in the Church of Rome 1. Some are defined with an Anathema against Dissenters and so we do not say the Deposing Power is made an Article of Faith. 2. Some are received upon the common Grounds of Faith though not expresly declared And whatever Doctrine being denied would overthrow them may be justly look'd on as a Presumptive Article of Faith. As the denying the Deposing Power must charge the Church of Rome Representative and Virtual with such acts as are utterly inconsistent with the Promises of Divine Assistance supposed to be made to it Therefore all those who sincerely believe those Promises to belong to the Church of Rome so taken must in consequence believe so many Popes and Councils could not be so grosly mistaken in the Ground of their Actings And I find those who do now most contend that this Doctrine was never defined do yet yield that both Popes and Councils believed it to be true and acted accordingly But if nothing will be allowed to be points of Faith but what passes under the Decision of Councils approved by the Pope as such I pray tell me which of the General Councils determined the Popes Supremacy as a Point of Faith Where was the Roman Catholic Churches Infallibility defined Are these Points of Faith with you or not If they be then there may be Points of Faith among you which never passed any Conciliar Definitions or such Authoritative Declaration as the Defender means 2. I now come to consider the Sense of the Primitive Church about this matter of an Infallible Judge of Controversies Which I am obliged to do not only because it is said in the Papers That the Church exercised this Power after the Apostles but because the Defender brings Tertullian as rejecting the Scripture from being a sufficient Rule for Controversies and S. Augustine as setting up the Authority of the Church above the Scripture in matters of Proof But I confess two lame sayings of Fathers make no great impression on me I am for searching the sense of the Primitive Church in so weighty a Point as this after another manner but as briefly as may be i. e. by the general Sense of the Fathers of the first Ages about the Controversies then on foot that I may not deceive my self or others in a matter of this Consequence The point is Whether according to the sense of the Primitive Church when any Controversie about Faith doth arise a Person be bound to submit to the Churches Sentence as Infallible or he be required to make use of the best means he can to judge concerning it taking
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
only to be Re-baptized who renounced the Baptismal Faith in Father Son and Holy Ghost And the meaning I suppose waâ— that nothing but that exclude Persons out of the Catholic Church and those Hereticks whose Baptism was allow'd were of an inferiour sort and by not disowning their Baptism they shew'd they looked on them only as corrupted Parts of the Church And so did the Councils of Nice and Arles which did not utterly reject Re-baptization but only of those who preserved the Baptismal Faith. It was not therefore the Sense of the Ancient Church that upon every dissension in matters of Faith from the general Doctrine of the Church one Party must be excluded from the Catholic Church and that Title belong to the other But he proceeds That this Presumption cannot be the Cause of Schisms which must happen before the Presumption This is very easily answered For a breach there must be before but the Schism belongs to those who were the true Causes of the Breach If therefore any one Part assumes to it self the right of the whole and requires the owning it from all that joyn in Communion with it this very act makes it justifiable not to separate from the Catholic Church but not to joyn in Communion with that Part on such unreasonable terms Well saith he Suppose the dividing Parts do still continue Parts of the Catholic Whole cannot the Roman-Catholic be that Whole i. e. Suppose there be many Parts why may not one of them be the Whole For still the Roman-Catholic is but a Part though Catholic be the Whole as though the Ocean be the whole yet the British or Gallican or Spanish or Atlantick Ocean is but a Part of the Whole Ocean I am ashamed to pursue so clear a point any farther But he hath one fetch behind still viz. That it is one Faith which makes the Catholic Church one if therefore the Roman Catholic Church be a Part of this Catholic Whole the other Parts must believe as she does or else they cannot be Parts I will endeavour to make this clear to him and so end this Dispute The Church is a Society of Persons who own and profess the Christian Faith Therefore Faith is necessary to the very being of a Church for unless they believe the Christian Doctrine they cannot be the Christian Church This Faith which is necessary to make them Christians is to be embraced by all who are Members of this Church their entrance is by Baptism the Faith is the Creed delivered to those who are to be Baptized which being universally received by Christians that makes the common Bond of Union in the Parts of this great Body and this is the One Faith of the Catholic Church But if he thinks the Roman-Catholic Church can make all its Decisions a Part of this one Faith he is extreamly mistaken As will more fully appear in the following Discourse II. Of the Authority of the Catholic Church THE whole and sole design of the First Paper as the Replier tells me was to evince this Point That all Controversial Pâ—ints of Faith either about Holy Scripture or other Subjects do fall under the Iudgment and Decision of the Church But under Favour that is not the whole Design of it for this implies no more than that the Church may if it pleases decide them but the Desi n is to prove That in all Matters of Faith the Churches Authority is without farther Examination to be submitted to so that all that Christians have to do is but to enquire into Two things 1. Where the Church is 2. Whether the Church hath declared its Judgment or not And several things are objected in the Papers against the not submitting to the Churches Judgment viz. That every one will be his own Iudge which is not allowed in common matters much less in matters of Faith that no such Authority is given to every particular Man by Scripture but the Churches Authority is there established and was owned in the Primitive Church in the Creeds and about the Canonical Books and since the Church had once such a Power there is no reasâ—n to suppose it lost but upon differences happening the Churches Iudgment is to be submitted to This is the whole strength and force of the First Paper and it is about a Subject of the highest Importance both as to the satisfaction of particular Persons and the Peace of the Christian World. And the clearing thes Two Points will go a very great way towards the putting an end to Controversies 1. That in all Disputes we are to search no farther but presently to yield to the Judgment of the Church 2. That the Roman-Catholic Church is that Church How far I am from being satisfied with the latter doth already appear I now set my self to consider the other And here are these things necessary to be debated 1. Whether Christ and his Apostles did establish such a standing Judicature in the Church to which all Christians were bound to submit in matters of Faith 2. Whether the Primitive Church did own such a Judicature And did accordingly govern their Faith 3. Whether it be an unreasonable thing to suppose the contrary viz. That Christ should leave Men to judge for themselves in matters which concern their Salvation according to the Scriptures 1. Whether Christ and his Apostles did establish such a standing Judicature in the Church to put an end to all Controversies which should arise about matters of Faith We do not Question but Christ might have done it if he had pleased and there is no doubt he foresaw all those Inconveniences which are now objected against the want of it But the point before us is Whether Christ who alone could do it hath declared this to be his Will and Pleasure We are then to consider that this being a Point of so great Consequence the Commission for such a Court of Judicature in the Church ought to be delivered in the plainest and clearest Words that may be for otherwise this were to beget Controversies instead of putting an end to them When God under the Law established a Supreme Court of Appeal as to the differences which might arise about the Law he tells them where that Court should fit and commands the People to go up thither and hear their Sentence and submit to it This was a plain and clear declaration of the Will of God and they had no more to do but to go up to the Place which God did chuse viz. Ierusalem And there was never any dispute aftâ—rwards among the Israelites what they were to do when Differences happened for an Appeal lay to the Court of Ierusalem and the Sentence of that Court they were to stand to on pain of Death Our blessed Saviour knew this Constitution among the Jews when he founded his Church and if he had intended any such thing therein he would not have fallen short of the exactness of the Law in the things necessary in
Catholic Church This is very intelligible Let us then go on But how come the Promises made to the Catholic Church to belong to the Roman-Catholic How comes the Roman-Catholic to be the One Church of Christ on Eaâ—th But this is running forwards and backwards And 〈◊〉 gâ—od is to be done without supposing Roman and Cathoâ—â—â— to be terms equivalent He tells me I am over-hasty in removing the Power of working Miracles out of the Church For he saith God still works Miracles in the Roman Church and if I would put the whole issue on Miracles he would undertake the Proof There is nothing in this Case like working of Miracles among us for our satisfaction For Miracles are a sign to unbelievers But it is a pleasant thing that they should go about to convince us by those things which they laugh at one another for pretending to I will give them an Instance past contradiction Did not the Iansenists pretend to a Miracle at Port-Royal by one of the Thorns of our Saviours Crown And did not the Iesuits expose the very pretence as idle and ridiculous as appears by F. Annat's Book on that Occasion The late Author of the Prejudices against the Jansenists upon occasion of that Miracle lays down some good Rules for discerning true Miracles and false 1. That such Miracles are not sufficient to convince which may be effected by a created Power unless they be attested by such Miracles which can only be effected by a Divine Power such as Resurrection from the dead 2. We must not only attend to the Nature but to the End of Miracles which he saith is the true worship of God and the love of Vertue And by these Rules I shall be content to examine all his Miracles when ever he produces them The Assistance which Christ promised he tells us was to all his Doctrine and to all time But what a sad thing is it that we have nothing but his bare saying for the Proof of it Never Man more needed Infallibility than this Defender does when he undertakes to prove it What! Can Christ afford no Assistance to his Church without Infallibility What thinks he of the Assistance of Divine Grace Doth that make all Infallible that have it And is not that Assistance by vertue of Divine Promises Is this to ask which of the parts of his Promise he will not perform We doubt not he will perform all he hath promised but we desire to see where he hath made the Promise We ask nothing unreasonable and therefore out of pity to our weakness shew these Promises of standing Infallibility to us and do not take it still for granted without proving it But the Replier saith The Promises of Christ imply whatever is necessary to the Church for the support and government of her self to the Worlds end Is Infallibility then necessary for the Support and Government of the Catholic Church If not then the Promises of Support and Government â—elate not to the matter But no less a Man than S. Augustine frequently affirms That the Promises made by Christ to the Church are only made to good and not to bad Men in it and that the case of wicked Men in the Church and of Hereticks and Schismaticks out of it is alike i. e. that both have true Sacraments but neither any right to the Promises And this he doth not assert by chance but it is the very Foundation of his Answer to the Donatists in the Answer which himself valued the most And he concludes with saying That some are in the House of God so as to be that House of God which was built upon a Rock and had th Promises made to it and these are the Saints dispersed over the World and joyned together in the Communion of the same Sacraments others are so in the House as not to belong to the Frame of it but are as the Chaff among the Wheat and are rather of the House than any part of it If this be good Doctrine in S. Augustin what becomes of all the Promiâ—es made to the Church with respect to the External Government and Support of it I might name multitudes of Places more wherein he argues That wicked â—en do not belong to the One Church and are not the Spâ—se of Christ for Christ saith to them I know you nâ—t and Herâ—â—ticks he saith are but one sort of bad Men. If therefore the Promises of the Catholic Church do not belong to one neither can 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 other I had therefore Reason â—o ask where God hath ever promised to keep Men more from Error than Sin And how it comes to pass that very bad Men are allow'd in the Church of Rome to have this Prâ—â—â—ise of Infallibility The Defender slides off from this to a matter he was better prepared to Answer But the Replier tells us of some of the Prophâ—ts who were great Sinners I suppose he means Balaam and Caiaphas But however this doth not reach to the matter of the New Testament wherein doing the Will of God is laid down as the best means of knowing the Truth But he offers at a Reason why impeccability is not so necessary as Infallibility because without this the Church could not subsist for if once she make shipwrack of her Faith she is no more a Church an effeâ— not so proper to Sin. There is a great difference between absolute impeccability and notorious Offenders the question I put was not concerning perfect Saints but great Sinners why they should believe that Christ would give an infallible Assistance to keep such Men from erring when notwithstanding the Assistance of Grace they run on in a course of wickedness He saith One is necessary for the Church and not the other Then there may be a holy Catholic infallible Church made up of none but great Sinners And was this such a Church as Christ purchased with his own Blood and whom he reâ—â—â—med from all impiety to be a peculiar People zealous of good Works If they say The Grace of God ill never fail to keep some from great Sins why may not the same hold as to great Errors And that be as much as the Promises extend to Bâ—t if the Church once makes Shipwrack of Faith she is no more a Church How comes Faith to be separated from a good Conscience I am sure S. Paul joyns them together Is no Error consistent with the Being of a Church Not an Error about the Seat of Infallibility Not an Error about the Immaculate Conception Nor about the Vision of God before the day of Iudgment Not about the Son 's being of the same substance with the Father Not about Christ's having a will proper to his humane Nature Then there can be no such thing as the Roman-Catholic Church in the opinion of those who are for personal Infallibility of the Pope since the Heads of their Church have erred about these things The true Church can never
one Kind with Christs Institution and Praying in an unknow Tongue with the 14 Chapâ—er of the first Epistle to the Corinthians To this the Replier saith only that these are voluntary assumpti on s without proof and his saying so needs no Answer The Defender shelters himself under the Catholick Church and resolves not to put to Sea with the Answerer about these things But he knows very well we utterly deny any of these to have been the practice of the Universal Church according to Vincentius Lerinensis his Rules by which we are content to be tried And although he seems to wish for such a trial yet I know a reason why they ought to decline it because I am certain they can never make it good in any one of them 2 The second Inconvenience objected was That this would make the wisdom of God fall beneath the discretion of prudent Law-givers who do not make Laws and leave every man to be his own judg as to right or wrong It was answered three ways 1 That there are Inconveniencies on both sides and one ought to be provided against as well as the other sor as the people are not to be their own Judges so it may happen that an Usurper may pretend to the right of Interpreting the Laws only to justifie his Usurpation 2 That the People are allowed in some sense to interpret the Laws or else they could never understand the duty they owe to their lawful King and to justifie his Rights against all the pretences of Usurpers To this the Replier saith nothing and the Defender saith that which is next to nothing to the first and takes no notice of the second Answer and I think I therein tell him plainly enough what I would be at He saith I mean receiving and holding the true faith by Usurpation Nothing was farther from my thoughts But I had thought it were easie enough to know whom I meant viz. such a one as pretends to an Infallible Chair which they cannot deny themselves to be the highest Usurpation if he cannot prove his Title by Scripture as we are sure he cannot 3 That in this Case a Rule is given to direct persons in the way to Heaven and therefore must be capable of being understood by those who are to make use of it for that end Which being the greatest concernment to Mankind they are therefore obliged to search into it for their own Salvation but we exclude not the help of Spiritual Guides and embrace the ancient Creeds of the Church To this the Replier answers two things 1 That an Infallible Guide is necessary to secure persons from wilful Errors which he saith God hath provided From wilful Error this is new Doctrine indeed that God hath provided a remedy for wilful Error Had not our Saviour himself an Infallible Spirit and yet we do not read that ever he secured men from wilful Error or ever designed to do it But suppose an Infallible Judg could do this he doth not tell us where he is to be found who he is and in what manner he doth thus secure men which are very necessary Enquiries and without being satisfied in all these points we are still left to be our own Judges so far as concerns the way to Salvation since at the day of Judgment we must answer for our selves than which there can be no greater obligation to care and sincerity in judging Suppose a mans life depends upon the benefit of his Clergy and one comes to him and tells him You are an ignorant man and liable to great mistakes in reading therefore I advise you by no means to trust to your own skill in Reading for it is a horrible dark Letter and many have been mistaken that were more Book learned than you therefore take my counsel there is Mr. Ordinary who understands Book-learning a thousand times better than you or I trust him for the Reading and no doubt you will escape Ay Sir saith the man all that is very true that you say but my life lies at stake and how if Mr. Ordinary's Reading will not be allow'd by the Judg for mine then I am a lost man past recovery therefore I am resolved to learn to read my self and to that end I will make the best use of his skill to instruct me before-hand that I may be able to answer for my self This needs no Application But I do not see how an Infâ—â—lible 〈◊〉 should be necessary to particular persons in order to 〈◊〉 Salvation upon the â—rinciples owned and receiv'd by the greatest Divines in the Roman Church For Aquinas determines that every one that hath saving Grace hath likewise a gift of understanding whereby hâ— is â—ussiciently instructed in all things necessary to Salvation and that it is never withdrawn from them as to those things If this Doctrine hold good I do not see any such necessity for persons to look after an Infallible Guide as there is to look after saving Grace Gulielmus Parisiensis saith That mens not looking after the way of Salvation themselves is that which will dâ—mn them And in case of difference among Guides if a man sincerely makes application to God to know the Truth he doth not question but such is the mercy of God to keep such a one from dangerous Error or if he doth suffer him to fall into Error with a good mind it shall not be imputed to him It is a Doctrine generally receiv'd in the Schools That where ever God doth bestow his Grace there goes along with it such a gift of understanding as keeps them from being deceived in the matters they believe in order to Salvation Henricus a Gandavo thus expresses it That as Faith makes the mind to rest on the Authority of the Scripture so this gift of understanding makes them perceive the Truth of what they are to believe And what need then such an Infallible Guide 2 He saith That ancient Creeds will not serve unless there be a power in the Church to make nâ—w decisions in matters of Faith. This ought to have been a little proved For in truth we are apt to think the Faith once delivered to the Saints as suffiâ—ient to carry us to Heaven as it was in the Apostles times A man is heir to a good Estate which by many Generations is derived down from his Ancestors and he hath the Original Deeds in his hands one comes to him and tells him â—t is a very fine Estate you are heir to and it is a thousand pities you should want a good Title to it I will put you into a way to get it if you will give up your musty old Deeds and put your self into the hands of such persons as I shall name to you they shall make you a new Settlement and add several Parcels to your Estate which you had not before I am content saith the Heir with my Ancestors Estate and I will never part with my old Deeds for
should tumble down together what would become of us both Never fear that saith he But how should I help fearing of it Have any that he carried thither come back and assured others of the safety of the passage No. But how then Why saith he You are bound to believe what he saith for he affirms that he can do it But saith the Traveller this is very hard I must venture Body and Soul upon his skill and strength and I must take his Word that he hath both This seems very unreasonable to me and therefore I am resolved to take the other course which tho it do not make such big boasts of it self is much more likely to be safe in the conclusion having better Reason on its side and requiring a more constant care of my self to which God hath promis'd more of his Grace and Assistance to secure me from all fatal mistakes of my way Where I mention Doctrines so universally received in the Christian Church from the Apostles times as those in the Creeds The Defender makes a notable Exception As if saith he any part of the universal Christian Doctrine were lost and all had not beâ—n always as universally retained as the Creeds Then I hope all the Points in Controversy between us and them can be proved by as clear and evident a Succession as the Articles of the Creeds If he can do this he will be a â—ampion indeed I desire him to take his choice either Supremacy Transubstantiation Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church or which he pleases I grant all true Christian Doctrine was universally retained as far as the Rule of it was so received but if he means any of those distinguishing points between us and them when he comes to make it out he will be of another mind 3. A third Inconvenience objected in the Papers against the want of an infallible Judg was That Scripture would be interpreted by Fancy which is the same thing as to follow Fancy To this it was answer'd 1. That our Church owns the Creeds Councils Fathers and Primitive Church more frankly than any other Church and therefore cannot be suspected to leave Scripture to be so interpreted The Replier saith We only pretend it and do it not That is to be proved for bare saying it will never convince us But his proof is because if we had done it we had never deserted the Church of Rome and our Answer is we therefore deserted the Communion of that Church because She required owning things from us for which She had no Authority either from Scripture Creeds Councils or Fathers The Defender would have me answer directly Whether it be not the same to follow Fancy as to interpret Scripture by it As tho I were examined at the Catechism which requires all answers to be made by Yea or Nay I said enough to shew the Question doth not concern us for we do not allow Persons to interpret Scripture by Fancy And withal 2. I asked some other Questions to shew That those who pretend to Infallibity may do things as unreasonable as leaving Scripture to be interpreted by Fancy And I have our Saviours example for answering one question with another The Instances I gave were these The Church of Romes assuming to it self the Power of interpreting the Rule which concerns its own Power of interpreting which was to make it Judg in its own Cause and to give it as great Power as if it made the Rule and I further added that Interest is as mischievous an Interpreter of Scripture as Fancy and therefore those who are so much concerned are not to be relied on either in Councils or out The Power of declaring Tradition is as Arbitrary a thing in the Church of Rome as interpreting Scripture by Fancy There being no other Rule allowed by it but the Sense of the present Church The Replier like a fair Adversary gives his answer plainly which consists in two things 1. That their Church gives no Sense of Scripture but what She received from Tradition of the foregoing Church and so he calls it Apostolical Tradition But suppose there happen a Question whether it be so or not must not all be resolved into the Authority of the present Church declaring what is Apostolical Tradition And so it comes all to one 2. He saith Tradition is publick and Fancy is private But I say according to their Rules Tradition is but publick Fancy and so Fancy in particular Persons is a private Tradition but whether publick or private if it be equally Arbitrary the Case is alike The Defender saith All this is besides the Business and therefore slides off as well as he can with some slight touches which deserve no Answer 4. If there be no infallible Judg the Power of deciding matters of Faith will be given to every particular man for which no place can be shewed The Answer was That if by deciding matters of Faith no more be meant but every mans being satisfied of the Reasons why he believes one thing to be true and not another that belongs to every man as he is bound to take care of his Soul and must give an account both to God and Man of the Reason of his Faith. This the Replier saith is bringing every Article of Faith to the Test of ones own Reason whereas Authority is the Correlative of Believing and Reason of Knowledg We do not pretend that every one that believes should be able to judg from meer Principles of Reason of the Credibility of the Doctrine propos'd it is sufficient if he finds it to be of Divine Revelation by being contained in Gods word And it is not the Authority of the Church but of Divine Revelation which Faith bottoms upon the former is no more than an inducement to believe those Books we call Scripture to contain the word of God in them But when we find any Doctrine therein we account that sufficient Reason for believing it The Defender finds no fault with our saying We ought to be satisfied of the Reason why we believe but the Question he puts is Whether there be indeed any Reasons why they should believe besides the Authority of the Church He doth not deny that particular Men ought to judg but the meaning of the Papers he saith is that they ought not to judg unreasonably Then we have no difference for I assure him I never pleaded for mens judging unreasonably The Question then between us is Whether those who do not believe upon the Infallible Authority of the Roman Catholick Church Do judg unreasonably i. e. Whether there be equal Grounds to believe the Roman Catholick Church Infallible as there are to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God We utterly deny the Roman Churches Infallibility to be necessary to our believing the Scripture for we receive that by an Universal Tradition from all the Apostolical Churches which is as clear for this as it is wanting for the
an Usurpation as that of the Popes was And the main Point in order to a Reformation was casting off the Popes Power as an encroachment upon the Ancient and Canonical Priviledges of the Western Churches which was done here by a General consent even of those Bishops who held in Communion with the Roman Church as far as those could do who rejected the Head of it And this is the Fundamental Point as to the matter of Schism If the Pope as Head of the Church doth influâ—â—ce Catholick Communion so far that it is necessary to Salvation to live in subjection to him it will be very hard to justify separation from that Body whereof he is the visible Head. But if there be no Scripture no Councils no Universal Tradition for this as the Roman Catholick Bishops here declared in the time of H. 8. then there can be no Schism in acting without Authority from him or against his Authority And whether any other Church joyned with ours or not is no more material to the justification of the Reformation than the lawfulness of any one Counties Acting for the Royal Family in the late times of Usurpation did depend upon the concurrence of others with it What more commonly talked of and magnified in the Church of Rome than the Reformation of the Mâ—nastick Orders And some of the personâ— have been Canonized who have done it But in this Case the Governour of a Monastick Order proceeding according to the Rules of his Order doth a very justifiable thing tho never another Monastry joyn with him in it because he only doth his duty and proceeds by the Rules which are receiv'd by the whole Order This I say was the Case of the Church of England in Reforming according to Scripture and the sense of the Primitive Church and if others joyned so much the better if not the Act justifies it self and needs not the concurrence of others to make it good 2. The 2d Answer was That there is a difference between voluntary Separation and that which is unavoidable in case unreasonable conditions of Communion be required The Defender pretends He can by no means understand this unavoidable Separation because tho Men be separated from the Communion of a Church yet they may continue of the same Faith if they please but if they have another Faith they separate themselves even supposing Usurpation or whatever I would have Now this seems very strange to me from a person who knows the Terms of Communion with the Roman Church Can any Man be a true Member thereof who doth not own and profess to believe the Popes Supremacy Transubstantiation c. Is he not by the constitution of that Church required to believe all that the Roman Church believes But suppose men do not and cannot for their hearts believe as that Church believes can they notwithstanding be Members of it No he confesses a different Faith unavoidably casts them out But then to believe otherwise than the Roman Church believes casts them out unavoidably The Question now is who is the cause of this casting out those who cannot believe those Doctrines or those who require the belief of them in order to communion If these Doctrines be evident in Scripture or were defined by the four General Councils or are contained in the ancient Creeds or can be clearly proved by Universal Tradition then we confess the blame falls on those who refuse but if none of those can be made appear to the satisfaction of a mans mind who desires to search out Truth then their separation is unavoidable and there is no reason to make it their voluntary act But saith the Defender a mans faith is his own voluntary act I grant that but not a voluntary cause of Separation which two ought to be distinguished in this case As in the case of Usurpation the owning the lawful King is a voluntary act but if an Usurper threatens to banish him if he doth not abjâ—re him upon whom must the blame be laid upon the mans voluntary act or the Usurpers voluntary imposing such a penalty on those who do nothing but what is just The Defender did not consider that the making such terms of communion was a voluntary act too and being a thing unreasonable and unjust it leaves the blame upon the imposers But he denies any such thing as Usurpation in the Pâ—pe because he hath shewed by his reiterated Approbation of the Bishop of Meaux's Book that he is content with that submission and obedience which the Holy Councils and Fathers have always taâ—ght the Faithful These are very fine words to deceive the unwary But I pray tell us who is to declare what the Councils and Fathers have always taught the Faithful Who is to be Judg Is not the Pope himself For no Council will be allowed without his Approbation and Confirmation And is not this then a very pretty Artifice to draw weak persons into a snare For my part I do not wonder at the Popes Approbation of the Bishop of Meaux's Book no more than I would at a Gentlemans approbation of a fine spun Net when he goes a fishing which is not so easily discerned and yet doth as effectually catch the Game Some there are still who love to be deceived and some have more arts of deceiving than others and those who gain most by it will be sure to give them the greatest approbation The Defender proceeds Suppose there were Usurpation must people therefore believe otherwise than they did before as that there is no change of Substance no Purgatory no more than two Sacraments and the rest The Question about Faith is one thing and about Separation is another We are now upon the latter of these and in this case we are most concerned about the Popes Authority since he is look'd on by you as the Head of the Catholick Church and the Center of Communion If there were no such Usurpation yet we should never decline giving an account of the Reasons of our Faith as to Sacraments Purgatory or what you please of the Points in difference between us Which I neither desire to make greater or lesser than really they are For there may be deceit both ways As to his renewing the Question by what authority we separate I answer by the same authority which makes it unlawful for us to profess what we do not believe and to practise what we believe God hath forbidden This is just as if one should ask by what authority men are bound to be honest and sincere and to prefer Gods Laws before mens For the Church of Rome requires from the Members of her Communion besides matters of Faith such acts of Worship which whatever they be to those who believe as they do must be Idolatrous to those that believe as we do For example suppose in China where they believe God to be the same with the World that honour of the Chineses who on that account think they may
reprobated Moral in Job l. 12. c. 4.  The Passages in his Dialogues which seem to contradict these do not come up to the Council of Trents Purgatory for they only speak of a Purgation for light and venial sins and not for the temporal pain of mortal sins whose Guilt is remitted But in the former places he plainly denies any change of State after this Life so that the Purgation he speaks of must be consistent with a State of Joy and in that very place he saith Persons shall be at the day of Judgment as they were when they went out of the World. 9. Masses for the Dead The Council of Trent Gregory the Great DEclares That they are intended for those who are dead in Christ not yet fully purged from their sins Sess. 22. C. 2. SUpposes those to be in a state of Bliss for whom the Oblation was made at the Altar as appears by the Sacramentary IV. Kalend. Julii where the Oblation is first mention'd and after follows Deus qui animoe famuli tui Leonis eternae beatitudinis praemià contulisti 10. Worship of Images The Council of Trent Gregory the Great DEclares not only that Images are to be placed in Temples but to be worshipped there Sess. 25. ALlows their being in Temples but denies any worship to be given to them For he not only often denies any Adoration to be given them but he saith They are only for Instruction which excludes Relative Worship Registr Epist. l. 9. Ep. 9. l. 7. Ep. 110.  The Epistle to Secundinus Gussanvillaeus in his late Edition of S. Gregory saith was not to be found in the most Ancient M S S. 11. Extreme Unction The Council of Trent Gregory the Great ANathematizes those who do affirm it not to be a true and proper Sacrament appointed by Christ for Remission of Sins and conferring Grace Sess. 14. Can. 1 2. MEntions the Unction then used in order to the Recovery of sick Persons and in the Prayer applies S. James his Words that way and then adds Sana quoque quaesumus omnium medicator ejus Febrium cunctorum languorum cruciatus aegritudinemque c. Sacram. p. 253. And immediately before in the Unction these words are said Per hanc sacrati olei Unctionemprisinam emmelioratem recipice mersaris sanitatem Ibid.  And that it was not looked on as the last Sacrament appears by things in that Sacramentary  1. The Eucharist was to be given after it  2. It was to be continued for seven days if there were occasion suscitabit eum Deus which shews that it was designed for bodily health 12. Pope's Supremacy Council of Trent Gregory the Great OWned it from beginning to end and refer'd the Confirmation of its Decrees to the Pope as Supreme Head of the Church DEclares the Headship of the Church to be peculiar to Christ. Registr Ep. l. 4. Ep. 36 38. where he speaks not of an Essential Head but of the Fountain of Jurisdiction  He urges it as an inconvenience If there were a Head of the Church the Church must err with him Epist. 32. 36.  Which Bellarmin owns to be a true Consequence De R. Poâ—t l. 4. c. 5.  He makes it the Pride of Lucifer and the forerunning of Antichrist for one Bishop to set himself above the rest Ep. 36.  Not to be the Sole Bishop but to have all the rest in subjection to him These things may be sufficient at present to shew how little ground there is to say That the Religion now owned in the Church of Rome was brought in hither with Christianity in the time of Gregory the Great 2. The Replier saith We ought to bring positive Texts for our negative Articles as no Praying to Saints no Purgatory no Worship of Images no Transubstantiation and the like with which he saith the 39 Articles are stuft But why must we be obliged to bring Texts for the Negative Because he saith we make these Articles of Faith. To answer this Let us suppose the Common Council of the City should agree to make men swear that the Monument near London Bridge is a living creature and should exclude all those from the City Priviledges who do not and that others having examin'd the Monument and found nothing but Stones and Iron were resolved to follow their Senses and declare their minds That upon due consideration they did judg the Monument to be no living creature Would any say these men maâ—e it an Article of their Faith when they only rejected a false proposition imposed upon the Faith of others Why may not a Church declare what it doth not believe as well as what it doth And when it declares what it doth not believe doth it make such declarations Articles of Faith The plain case is Those of the Church of Rome impose things we think as hard and unreasonable as the former Example Our Church not only denies its belief of them but signifies it to its Members by a body of Articles which they are to sign to testifie their consent How doth this come to make every one of these Declarations an Article of Faith They are only Articles of Agreement and not of Faith. And the difference between these may be easily understood An Article of Faith supposes a Divine Revelation as the Replier yields but if men offer that for a Divine Revelation which is not the rejecting of that cannot be called an Article of Faith because there is no need of Revelation to declare the other to be none supposing there be a Rule to judg what is of Divine Revelation and what not That Rule we say is the Holy Scripture not interpreted by Fancy but by the Primitive Church by this Rule so interpreted we reject Invocation of Saints Purgatory Worship of Images Transubstantiation c. And why then should our rejecting them be called so many Articles of Faith We own the Scripture for our Rule and for our compleat and adequate Rule of Faith and therefore it serves us both for what we are to believe and what we are not to believe In positive Articles we resolve our Faith into Divine Revelation contained in Scripture in Negative the Article of Faith is That Scripture is our Rule but from thence it is a necessary Consequence of Reason That we are not to believe any thing but what is contained in Scripture or may be deduced from thence Which deductions being within the force of the Rule are not to be looked on as different from it and what can neither be proved by Scripture nor by deductions from it if our Principle be allowed we can never be blamed if we reject it For otherwise we should not act reasonably nor agreeable to our own Principles But as to the Particulars mentioned we do not meerly reject them as not contained in Scripture but as repugnant to such Principles concerning Divine Worship Remission of Sins the Nature of Christs Body c. which are
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
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
Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and of the Primitive Church which I think ought to have more force on the Consciences of Men than the pretence to Infallibility in any Church in the World. But all this while it is said There is no firm Motive produced for adhering to the Doctrine of our Church And this is repeated over and over As though there could be any greater Motive in the World than that our Doctrine is no other than that of Christ and his Apostles And unless you prove this as to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome all your other Motives signify nothing to the real satisfaction of any Man's Conscience For it is agreed on all hands that our Religion is a revealed Religion and that this Revelation was made by Christ and his Apostles and that this Revelation as to Matters necessary to Salvation is contained in the Books of the New Testament What satisfaction then can it be to any Man's Conscience to be told such a Church tells me this and that and the other Point were the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles As will appear by this short Representation You pretend to no new Revelations of Matter of Doctrine No. You have the Books of this Revelation Yes Are they not legible Yes But you cannot understand them Let me try It is for God's sake I must believe and therefore I cannot be satisfied till I see his Word What! will you not believe the Church which delivers you the Word I pray excuse me A Man brings me a Letter from my Father about matter of great Consequence to me he tells me I need not look into the Letter it self for he was authorized by my Father to tell me his Meaning Altho I believe he dealt faithfully in bringing me the true Letter Do you think I will trust him for the Meaning of it No I will open it if it be only to see whether he had such Authority from him or not And I know if my Father was pleased to write to me about Matters of such Importance he would write in such a manner that I might understand him and if any Difficulties arise in Point of Law I will take the Advice of thâ—se who are most fit and able to direct me But after all I must know what my Father would have me to do from his own Words and not from the Mouth of the Messenger Or if he tells me he hath Authority to deliver other things by Word of Mouth not contained in the Letter which I am equally bound to believe with what I can find in iâ— can any one think I will believe him unless it appears by the Letter it self that my Father gave him such Authority Let him tell me never so much how long he hath been my Father's Servant and how faithful he hath been to him and how much he hath done and suffered for him and what a number of Certificates he can produce from time to time of his good Behaviour yet all this can give me no satisfaction as long as the Letter he brings is confessed to be my Father 's own Hand-writing and that it was purposely sent to direct me what I was to do in a Matter that he knew to be of the greatest Concernment in the World to me Can I imagine one so wise and careful should omit setting down in his own Letter such important Things and leave them to the disâ—retion of one that may either mistake his Meaning or have some Interest to carry on different from mine And therefore all the fair Pretences or Motives in the World shall never make me believe any thing to be his Mind for me to do in a Matter which relates to my Welfare but what I find under his own Hand It is to very little purpose to quote S. Augustin's Motives about the Church unless it be made appear that they belong only to the Church of Rome and that they prove the Church Infallible in all she teaches Our Faith depends on the Word of God as it is contained in Scripture thiâ— Scripture is conveyed down by the Church but the Church still is but the Messenger which bringâ— the Letter by which we are directed what to believe and practise in order to Salvation We do by no means think the Word of God is made by writing as he suggests but we are sure it is the Word of God which is written which we can never be of any Tradition We do not look out for a fallible Judg to be sure to have an end of our Differences But we hate to be imposed on by a pretence to an Infallible Judg who instead of ending Differences makes more We do not think it Judgment to affirm that giving Honour to God is not giving Honour to God But we have not such deep Understandings to comprehend how God should be honoured by the breaking his Commandments It is not Judgment in our Opinion to think That because only one could redeem us no Body besides can pray for us But it is no great Wisdom and Judgment if God hath appointed but one Advocate in Heaven for us to appoint him more or to make our Addresses to our Fellow-Creatures in Heaven when he hath commanded us to do it to his Son. We do not believe that the Body and Blood of Christ can now be separated or he die again But when Christ instituted a Sacrament to set forth the shedding of his Blood that it is meer Fancy to think his Blood being in his Body doth answer the Ends of it The Apostles no doubt understood Christ's meaning in what he said and have so well instructed his Church therein that we have no reason to believe he meant the substantial Change of his Body in the Institution of a Sacrament Now on which side Judgment and Reason lies these very Instances discover And we desire no greater Liberty in these Matters than to have our Judgments sway'd by the strongest Reason and that I hope is not building on Sand. The Replier saith The Infallible Church is as visible as the Sun. We are then wondrous unlucky indeed that cannot see it I have often rubbed my Eyes and looked over and over where they tell me it is to be seen and I can yet see nothing like it although I should be as glad to see it as another I have heard of a blind Man who pretended to have such a sagacity with his Fingers that he could feel Colours and he proceeded so far in it that some Vertuoso's believed him and were ready to form a Theory of Colours from the subtilty of the blind Man's Fingers but before they had accomplished it the Trick was discovered An Infallible Judg of all Controversies looks to me just like it He is to determine Controversies not by seeing but by a kind of feeling If he produces Reason we may judg as well as he if he doth not he must feel them out which is so different a way
contain the Reasons and Motives of the Conversion of so great a Lady to the Church of Rome But this Gentleman hath now eased me of the necessity of further considering it on that account For he declares That none of those Motives or Reasons are to be found in the Paper of her Highness Which he repeats several times She writ this Paper not as to the Reasons she had her self for changing c. As for the Reasons of it they were only betwixt God and her own Soul and the Priest with whom she spoke at laâ—t And so my Work is at an end as to her Paper For I never intended to ransack the private Papers or secret Narratives of great Persons And I do not in the least question the Relation now given from so great Authority as that he mentions of the Passages concerning Her and therefore I have nothing more to say as to what relates to the Person of the Dutchess But I shall take notice of what this Defender saith which reflects on the Honour of the Church of England 1. The Pillars of the Church established by Law saith he are to be found but broken Staffs by their own Concessions What! is the Church of Eâ—gland Felo de se But how I pray For after all their undertaking to heal a wounded Conscience they leave their Proselytes finally to the Scripture as our Physicians when they have emptied the Pockets of their Patients without curing them send them at last to Tunbridg Waters or the Air of Montpellier As tho the Scripture were looked on by us as a meer Help at a dead Lift when we have nothing to say One would think he had never read the Articles of the Church of England for there he might have seen that thâ— Scripture is made the Rule and Ground of our Faith. And I pray whither should any Persons be directed under Trouble of Mind but to the Word of God Can any thing else give real Satisfaction Must they go to an Infallible Church But whence should they know it to be Infallible but from the Scriptures So that on all hands Persons must go to the Scriptures if they will have Satisfaction But this Gentleman talks like a meer Novice as to Matters of Faith as tho believing were a new thing to him and he did not yet know that true Faith must be grounded on Divine Revelation which the Pillars of our Church have always asserted to be contained only in the Scripture and therefore whither can they send Persons but to the Scripture But it seemâ— he is got no farther than the Collier's Faith he believes as the Church believes and the Church believes as he believes and by this he hopes to be too hard for a Legion of Devils 2. He saith We are Reformed from the Vertues of good Living i. e. from the Devotions Mortifications Austerities Humility and Charity which are practised in Catholick Countries by the Example and Precept of that lean mortified Apostle St. Martin Luther He knows we pretend not to Canonize Saints and he may know that a very great Man in the Church of Rome once said That the new Saints they Canonized would make one question the old Ones We neither make a Saint nor an Apostle of Martin Luther and we know of no Authority he ever had in this Church Our Church was reformed by it self and neither by Luther nor Calvin whom he had mentioned as well as the other but for his lean and mortified Aspect But after all Luther was as lean and mortified an Apostle as Bishop Bonner but a Man of far greater worth and sit for the Work he undertook being of an undaunted Spirit What a strange sort of Calumny is this to upbraid our Church as if it followed the Example and Precept of Martin Luther He knows how very easy it is for us to retort such things with mighty advantage when for more than an Age together that Church was governed by such dissolute and profane Heads of the Church that it is a shame to mention them and all this by the confession of their own Writers But as to Luther's Person if his Crimes were his Corpulency what became of all the fat Abbots and Monks But they were no Apostles or Reformers I easily grant it But must God chuse Instruments as some do Horses by their fatness to run Races As to Luther's Conversation it is justified by those who best knew him and are Persons of undoubted Reputation I mean Frasmus Melancthon and Camerarius And as to Matters in dispute if he acted according to his Principles his Fault lay in his Opinions and not in acting according to them But whether our Church follow Luther or not it is Objected that we have reformed away the Vertues of good Living God forbid But I dare not think there is any Church in the World where the Necessity of good Living is more earnestly pressed But I confess we of the Church of England do think the Examples and Precepts of Christ and his Apostles are to be our Rules for the Vertues of good Living And according to them I doubt not but there are as great Examples of Devotion Mortification Humility and Charity as in any place whatsoever But I am afraid this Gentleman's Acquaintance did not lie much that way nor doth he seem to be a very competent Judg of the Ways of good living is he did not know how to distinguish between outward Appearances and true Christian Vertues And according to his way of judging the Disciples of the Pharisees did very much outdoe those of our Blessed Saviour as appears by a Book we esteem very much called the New Testament but if I mention it to him I am afraid he should think I am like the Physicians who send their Patients to Tuâ—bridg-Wells or the Air of Montpellier 3. That two of our Bishops whereof one was Primate of all England renounced and condemned two of the established Articles of our Church But what two Articles were these It seems they wished we had kept Confession which no doubt was commanded of God and praying for the Dead which was one of the ancient things of Christianity But which of our 39 Articles did they renounce hereby I think I have read and consider'd them as much as this Gentleman and I can find no such Articles against Confession and praying for the Dead Our Church as appears by the Office of the Visitation of the Sick doth not disallow of Confession in particular Cases but the necessity of it in order to Forgiveness in all Cases And if any Bishop asserted this then he exceeded the Doctrine of our Church but he renounced no Article of it As to the other Point we have an Article against the Romish Doctrine of Purgatory Art. 22. but not a word concerning praying for the Dead without respect to it But he out of his great skill in Controversy believes that Prayer for the Dead and the Romish
they took upon them to define other matters for which they had no Colour in Scripture as the 2d Council of Nice did which was the first that went upon Tradition and then the Christian Church did not shew such Respect to them as was most apparent in the Case of this Council of Nice which was universally rejected in these Western parts Rome excepted as appears by the Council of Franâ—ford and the unexceptionable Testimonies of Eghinardus Hincmarus and others Would this have been a sufficient Argument against Charlemaign and the Western Bishops that they joyned in the Plea of the Ancient Hereticks and none were ever condemned by the Church but they made such complaints against the Proceedings of Councils as they did It is certain that Leo Armenus in the East as well as Charles and the Western Church rejected that Council as contrary to Scripture which shews that neither in the East or West did they think themselves so tied up by Definitions of Councils proceeding in such a manner but that they were at full Liberty to examin and if they saw Cause to reject such Definitions While Councils did declare that they intended to make use of no other Rule but Scripture and to deliver only the Sense of the Catholick Church from the beginning a great regard was to be shew'd to them but when they set up another Rule the Christian Church had just Reason not to submit to their Decrees And to say This is the Plea of all Hereticks is just as if an innocent Person might not be allowed to plead not Guilty because the greatest Malefactors do the same There must be some certain Rules whereby to proceed in this matter and this is the first We fix upon That they proceed as the Ancient Councils did according to Scriptures 2. The Ancient Hereticks were condemned by such Councils as did represent the Universal Church after another manner than the Council of Trent did I do not say There was ever such a General Council as did fully represent the Universal Church which could not be done without Provincial Councils summon'd bâ—â—ore in all parts of Christendom and the Deâ—â—egation from them of such Persons as were to deliver their Sense â—n the matter of Faith to be debated in the General Council and I have Reason to question whether this were ever done But however there is a very great difference in the Ancient Councils from the modern as to this point of Representing for in them there was the Consent of all the Patriarchs and a general Summons for the Bishops from all parts to appear But in the Modern Councils four Patriarchs and the Bishops under them have been excluded and the 5th hath Summon'd the Bishops under him to meet together and then hath called this a General Council Which is just as if in the time of the Heptarchy the King of Mercia should assemble the States under him and call the Convention of them The Parliament of England Thus in the Council of Trent the Pope Summons the Bishops that owned his Supremacy and had taken Oaths to him to meet together and would have this pass for a General Council When the Council met and Cardinal Hosius was appointed President in it Stanistaus Orechovius a warm and zealous Romanist writes to Hosius That it would very much conduce to their Reputation and Interest if the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch were Summon'd to the Council because the Greeks and Armenians depended upon them And he could not understand how the Catholick Church could be Represented without them nor how the Council could be called Oecumenical To which Hosivs Replied That the Pope being Oecumenical Patriarch a Council called by him was an Oecumenical Council Now this we say is extreamly different from the Notion of an Oecumenical Council in the Ancient times and overthrows the Rights of other Churches as they were setled by the Four General Councils and therefore the Case is very different as to being condemnd by General Councils and by the late Conventions assembled by the Popes Authority 3. Themselves allow that some Councils may be and ought to be rejected and therefore all our business is to enquire whether we may not with as much Reason reject some Councils as they do others They reject the Council of Ariminum which together with that of Sâ—leucia which sat at the same time make up the most General Council we read of in Church-History For Bellarmin owns that there were 600. Bishops in the Western part of it So that there were many more Bishops assembled than were in the Council of Nice there was no Exception against the Summons or the Bishops present and yet the Authority of this Council is rejected because it was too much influenced by Constantius and his Agents The 2d Council of Ephesus wanted no just Summons no presence of Patriarchs or number of Bishops yet this is rejected because its Proceedings were too Violent The Councils of Constantinople against Images are rejected because but one Patriarch was present in either of them Now I desire to know whether it be not as lawful to except against other Councils as against these supposing the Reasons to be the same and greater Evidence to be given in these latter Times of the Truth of the Allegations Besides we find they are divided in the Church of Rome concerning their latter Councils Some say The Councils of Pisa Constance and Basil were true General Councils and that the Council of Lateran under Leo X. was not so others say That the former have not the Authority of General Councils but the latter hath Some say That there have been 18. General Councils so the Roman Editors of the Councils and others but a great number of these are rejected by others who allow but 8. of the number viz. those wherein the Eastern and Western Bishops met And so the Councils of Lateran and Trent besides others are cut off What becomes then of the Articles of Faith defined by those Councils For they cannot be received on the account of their Authority However we find this Objection lies equally against them as against us For do not both these differing Parties side with the Ancient Hereticks as much as we do For they except against the Supreme Judicature in the Church and decline the Judgment of these Councils as much as those Hereticks did the Councils of their own Times These are therefore but ordinary Tâ—picks which may be reasonble or not as they are applied 2. It was answer'd That the way proposed doth not hinder mens believing as they please i. e. without sufficient Reason for their Faith several Instances were given As believing the Roman Church to be the Catholick without any colour of Scripture Reason or Antiquity as is now fully shew'd in the foregoing Discourse believing against the most convincing Evidence of their own Senses Believing the lawfulness of the Worship of Images can be reconciled with Gods forbidding it the Communion in
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
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