the adding German to it restrains the sense of Ocean to it within certain bounds and excludes many parts of the great Ocean which are without those limits Just so it is in adding Roman to Catholic Catholic alone comprehends all the Parts of the Church but Roman added to it confines the Sense of it to those who embrace the Faith received in the Roman Communion and this excludes all other Parts of the Catholic Church and so makes a Part to be the Whole 2. I objected farther that if this had been the Catholic Church meant in the Creeds this limitation ought to have been expressed in the Creeds and put to Persons to be baptized which being never done in the Roman Church it self I thence inferr'd that it did not believe it self to be the one Catholic Church which we profess to believe in the Creeds Here the Author of the Reply answers that Catholic and Roman Catholic were in the Language of Antiquity one and the same thing and this point being never called in Question in the time when the Creeds were published there was no occasion to put Roman into the Creeds no more than of putting in Consubstantial with the Father till it was denied This were a substantial way of answering the Difficulty if it would in any measure hold But I shall now prove just the Contrary to have been the Sense of Authority by plain and undeniable Instances in matters of fact in most of the Ages of the Christian Church from the very next to the Apostolical down to the Council of Trent To which I shall only premise this which I think no Roman Catholic will deny me viz. that the Roman Catholic Church doth imply Obedience to the Bishop of Rome as Supream visible Head of the Church under Christ. For Bellarmin and others make not only Faith and Sacraments necessary to the Being of the Church but submission to lâ—wful Pastors and especially to the Pope as Christ's only Vicar upon Earth and he placeth the Essential Unity of the Catholic Church in the Conjunction of the members under Christ and hâ—s Vicar as Head of the Church And from hence he excludes Schismaticks out of the Catholic Church though they have Unity of Faith and Sacraments and Hope and Spirit And the Roman Catechism makes Union with the Pope as visible Head of the Church necessary to the Unity of the Catholiâ— Church And the Proofs I bring shall not be from short or doubtful sentences but from remarkable passages and notorious Acts of the Church In the First Age of the Church the name Catholic was as little known as the Authority of the Roman Church it not being once found in the Apostolical Writings for the Inscriptions of the Catholic Epistles are of latter times And if they were allowed to be Apostolical they would be far from proving any thing to this purpose since the Roman Church is never mentioned in these Epistles unless under the name of Babylon and I suppose they would not like the Title of the Catholic Babylonish Church But in all the directions of the Apostles concerning Unity of Faith there is not one which gives the least intimation that the Roman Church in any sense was to be the Rule or Standard of Faith or Communion In the Second Age we find two remarkable Instances that the Communion of the Catholic Church was not to be taken from Conjunction with the Bishop of Rome as Head of it The first is from the Bishop of Rome's approving the Prophecies of Montanus Prisca and Maximilla This would hardly appear credible if Tertullian had not expresly affirmed it and he farther saith that had it not been for Praxeas a Heretick he had taken them into the Communion of the Catholic Church and he prevailed with him to revoke his communicatory Letters already past What a Case had the Catholic Church been in at this time if the Bishop of Rome had been look'd on as the Centre of Catholic Communion and if he had not been better informed by Praxeas a Heretick The second in the same Age is when Victor took upon him to excommunicate the Eastern Bishops for not celebrating Easter at the same time they did at Rome If now the Eastern Bishops did own the Roman-Catholic and Catholic Church to be the same they must shew it at such a time by their regard to the Pope's sentence as Head of the Catholic Church but they owned no such Authority he had over them and instead of it Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus with a Council of Bishops joyning with him about A. D. 197 wrote a smart Epistle to Victor wherein they let him know they would go on in their way notwithstanding his threats and that it was better to obey God than Man. From whence it is observable That they followed their own judgment against the Pope's and that they believed the Pope required things of them so contrary to the Will of God that they resolved to disobey him And his requiring their compliance was no Argument of his Authority but of his Usâ—rpation In the Third Age happen'd a famous contest between Stephen Bishop of Rome and the Eastern and African Bishops about Re-baptizing Hereticks I meddle not now with the Controversie it self but with the Sense of those Bishops upon occasion of it as to the Roman-Catholic Church The Bishop of Rome did at least threaten to Excommunicate the African Bishops And if Firmilian may be believed he did actually Excommunicate the Asian Bishops How did these Primitive Bishops behave themselves under this Sentence They charge Stephen with Insolence Folly Contempt of his Brethren and breaking the Peace of the Catholic Church and cutting himself off from the Unity of it The words are abscindere se à Charitatis unitate alienum se per omnia fratribus facere Now I desire to know whether these Bishops believed the necessary conjunction of Roman and Catholic together And whether Bishop of Rome were thought to be the Centre of Communion in the Catholic Church It is plain they made him the Cause of the Schism and thought themselves never the less in the Catholic Church for being out of the Roman Communion In the Fourth Age the Government and Subordination of the Catholic Church was established in the Council of Nice according to ancient Custom but we read not a word of the Roman Catholic Church there or any Priviledge or Authority the Bishop of Rome had but within his own Province and such as the Bishops of Antioch and Alexandria had in theirs And when the Bishop of Rome in that Age interposed to restore some Bishops cast out of Communion by the Eastern Bishops they declared against it as a violation of the Rules of the Catholic Church and this became the Occasion of the first Breach between the Eastern and Western Churches In the same Age Liberius Bishop of Rome joyned with the Eastern Bishops in casting Athanasius out of the Catholic Church and
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
chief 2. As it holds under it all particular Churches and so he saith The Roman Church only is the Catholic Church And so he makes owning the Roman Church to be Mother and Mistress of all Churches as he there saith to be a necessary condition of Catholic Communion And thus it becomes the Roman Catholic Church But this was a very new notion of the Catholic Church which in the Fathers of the Church was taken in one of these two Senses 1. With Respect to Faith and so Catholic was the same with Sound and of a right Faith in opposition to the notorious Heresies of the First Ages So it was used by Igâ—â—tius against the Heresies of that time which denied Iesus to be Christ therefore saith he Whereever Christ Iesus is there is the Catholic Church After him Polycarp is called by the Church of Smâ—rna Bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna So the Council of Antioch speaking of the deposition of Paâ—lus Samosatenus say They must set another Bishop over the Catholic Church there â—lemens Alexandrinus saith The Catholic Church is ancienter than Heresies that it hath the Unity of the Faith and subsists only in the Truth Pacianus observes That in those Ages the Hereticks went by other Names but the sound Christians were known by the Name of Catholics which had been of very ancient usâ— in the Church though not found in Scripture as Fulgentiâ—s likewise observes But Lactantius takes notice that the Hereticks had gotten the trick of using that Name and then his Rule is to discern the true Catholic Church by the true Religion For he not only saith before That the Catholic Church is to be known by the true Worship of God but when he comes to lay down the Notes of the true Church the first of them is Religion So I find in an old Lactantius printed at Rome A. D. 1470. but for what Reason I know not it is leâ—t out in the latteâ—â— Editions In the Conference between the Donatists and the Catholic Bishops both sides challenged the name of Catholics to themselves and the Roman Judge determined It should belong to them who were found to have Truth on their side Pope Innocent III. in a Council at Rome declares That all the Churches in the World are called one from the Unity of the Catholic Faith. And in the Canon before he mentions the Roman Church as distinct from the Catholic but comprehended under it while it adheres to the Catholic Faith. Which was not then understood to be what the Roman Church declares to be so but what was universally received in the Church from the Apostles times and was delivered in the Creeds to the Persons to be admitted by Baptism into the Catholic Church 2. With respect to Persons and Places And so Catholic was first taken in opposition to the Iewish Confinement of Salvation to themselves and of Gods appointed Worship to one Temple So Ignatius faith The â—hurch is one Body made up of Jews and Gentiles And the Church of Smyrna writes to all the Members of the Catholic Church in all places and the Council of Antioch writes to the whole Catholic Church under Heaven S. Cyril saith The Church is called Catholic from its Universal spreading and teaching the whole Doctrine of Christ to all sorts of Persons Athanasius saith It is called Catholic because it is dispersed over the World. Theophylact saith The Catholic Church is a Body made up of all â—hurches whereof Christ is the Head. And the African Bishops from the first beginning of the Dispute with the Donatists laid great weight upon this That the Catholic Church was to be taken in its largest Extent or else the Promises could not be fulfilled as may be seen in Optatus who saith The Church is called Catholic not only from its having the true Faith but from its being every where dispersed And S. Augustine hath written whole Books to prove it In the Conference with the Donatists the Catholic Bishops and especially S. Augustin plead that they are called Catholics because they hold communion with the whole World of Christians and not with thâ—se only of a particular Title or Denomination For therein they made the Schism of the Donatists consist not barely in a causeless Separation but in confining the Catholic Church to themselves who at best were but a Part of it And because the notion which Innocent III. gives is liable to the same charge it cannot be excused from the same guilt Thus we have found the Author of this Notion of the Roman Catholic Church viz. for such as own the Supremacy of the Church of Rome as he explains it more fully in the same Epistle But yet this Notion of the Catholic Church was not Uniniversally received after Innocent III. For in the Fifteenth Age in the Council of Florence Cardinal Bessarion disputing with the Greeks about the Authority of the Roman Church in making an Addition to the Creed saith That how great soever the Power of the Roman Church be he grants it is less than that of a General Council or the Catholic Church From whence it follows that the Notion of the Catholic Church cannot be taken from owning the Roman Church to be Mistress of all Churches for then the Catholic Church is bound to submit to the Decrees of the Roman Church about Matters of Faith. In the beginning of the same Age the Council of â—onstance met and in the Fourth Session declared That a General ouncil represents the Catholic Church and hath its Power immediately from Christ and that in matters of Faith Unity of the â—hurch and Reformation all Persons even Popes â—hemselves are bound to submit to it And truly it was but necessary for them to take off from the Popes Authority in matters of Faith since they charge Ioh. XXIII with no less than frequent and pertinacious denying the Immortality of the Soul. Was not this Man fit to be an Infallible Head of the Catholic Church and the true Center of Christian Communion Bellarmin saith this Article was not proved but only commonly believed because of the dissoluteness of his Life But this is but a poor defence since this Article stands upon Record against him in all the Editions of the Council of Constance which I have compared even that at Rome said to be collated with Manuscripts And why should so scandalous an Article be suffered to stand unless there were such a consent of Copies that it could not for shame be removed The Doctrine of the Council of Constance was confirmed by the Council of Basil and is to this day maintained by the Clergy of France as appears by their Declaration made A. D. 1682. From whence it follows that the Church is not called Catholic from relation to the Roman Church but to the whole Body of Christians and that the Unity of it is not to be taken from the respect it bears to an
the Roman-Catholic Church This is the meaning of a whole Page or else it has none Suppose this to be true and it proves what I intend For either this Catholic Faith is the same which was required to Baptism or not If the same then no more is required than owning the Creeds to make a Member of the Roman-Catholic Church if not the same then those who are Members of the Catholic Church by Baptism are not Members of the Roman Catholic till a farther Profession of the Roman Faith and consequently the Catholic Church and the Roman-Catholic are not the same since those may be Members of the Catholic Church who are not of the Roman-Catholic Can any thing be plainer And the Replier is so much a Gentleman to own the Truth of it For these are his words that Baptism enters persons into the Catholic Church who though they be out of the Communion of the Roman Church yet having the true form of Baptism are Members of the Catholic Church Therefore the Catholick Church and Roman-Catholic cannot be the same Which was all I intended to prove But he saith that as Baptism enters them into the Catholic Church so Heresie Apostasie or Infidelity casts them out or else the old Hereticks which he reckons up were still Members of the Catholic Church I answer that my Argument was not concerning the old Hereticks who rejected any Article of the â—reed which was delivered at Baptism and the owning of it required in order to it but concerning the Roman-Catholic Church which makes the owning New Articles of Faith necessary in order to its Communion and if this Church reject any from its Communion who do own the Articles of the Creeds it follows from thence that it is not the Catholic Church into which Persons are admitted by Baptism But no Man if an Heretick though baptized can remain in the Church If he be convicted of renouncing the Creed upon the owning whereof he was received to Baptism he casts himself out of the Church for he doth not stand to his Promise If you mean that any thing which the Roman-Catholic Church declares to be Heresie casts a Man out of the Catholic Church I do utterly deny it and I see no Reason brought to prove it 4. I argued that in a divided State of the Church there may be different Communions and yet both may remain Parts of the Catholic Church for which I instanced in the Excommunications of old about keeping Easter and the Differences between the Eastern and Western Churches but to appropriate the title of the One Catholic Church to any one of the divided Parties so as to exclude the rest was to charge that Party with the Schism as in the case of the Novatians and Donatists and consequently to apply the One Catholic Church to the Roman was to make it guilty of the present Schism in the Christian World. Both the Defender and Replier behave themselves in their Answers to this as if they did not understand what I aimed at and therefore run out into things by the bye as if they thought there were no difference between saying something to a Book and giving an Answer to it What I can pick up which seems material I will set down distinctly The Replier takes notice that I said that before the Unhappy Divisions of the Christian Church it had been no difficulty to have shewed that one visible Church which Christ had here upon Earth to which he answers that there were Divisions in the Apostles times and the same Means which were then used to preserve the Unity of the Catholic Church did equally serve for after Ages and continue to this day and so the Unity of the Catholic Church is still as visible as ever it was This in few words I take to be the force of what he saith But certainly there was a time when the Unity of the â—atholic â—hurch was a little more discernable than now it is Doth not the Scripture tell us the Multitude was of one heart and one Soul Are all Christians so at this day I grant afterward there were Schisms and Heresies in the Apostolical Churches But the Apostles had an Infallible Spirit which they manifested by the Power of Miracles going along with it by which means the Heresies were laid open and the Schisms stopped But what were those Heresies Such as contradicted the Articles of the Creed as about the Truth of Christ's Incarnation and the Resurrection of the Dead c. and therefore the Apostles by the Assistance of that Infallible Spirit did write Epistles to the Churches to declare that which was to be the standing Faith of all Ages and by an unquestionable Tradition in the Church of Rome they summ'd up these Fundamental Points of Faith in that which is therefore called the Apostles Creed This was therefore the Standard whereby to judge of Faith and Heresie and by this they proceeded in the Ages succeeding the Apostles Afterwards some did not bare faced contradict the Articles of the Creed but broached such Doctrines as did by consequence overthrow them as the Arians by making a Creature God the Nestorians and Eâ—tychians denying in effect the Truth of Christ's Incarnation against these the General Councils assembled and the Eastern and Western Churches joyned in condemning them not from their own Authority as Supreme or Infallible Judges but as the most Authentic Witnesses of the true Apostolical Doctrine And thus the Creed was enlarged by general Consent through the whole Catholic Church and that which was called the Nicene Creed was made the standard of Catholic Communion But to prevent any Mischief by overcharging the Creed the General Council of Ephesus did absolutely forbid any farther additions to be made to it and the Council of Chalcedon ratified that prohibition All that they pretended to was only to give the true Sense of the Articles therein received about the Incarnation of Christ and the same was declared by the fifth and sixth General Councils whereof the one was to clear the Council of Chalcedon from favouring Nestorianism and the other to shew that the Humane Nature in Christ was perfect as to the Affections of the Soul as well as the Body But after this a mighty Breach happen'd between the Eastern and Western Churches and setting aside the different Customs in both which might easily have been composed there were two things which made this breach irreconcileable 1. The Western Churches taking upon them to make a New Addition to the Creed as to the Spirit 's proceeding from the Son without asking the Consent of the Eastern Churches 2. The Bishop of Rome's assuming to himself an Authority of Headship over the Catholic Church They did not deny him a Primacy of Order as he had the first Patriarchal See but when he took upon him to exercise Jurisdiction in the other Patriarchates as well as his own and sent Legates for that purpose they rejected his Authority and so the
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
other And thereâ—â—re we must judg more reasonably What follows about the Infallibility promised to the Church hath been answered already As to the Canonical Book I shewed it was no Authoritative Decision by a Power in the Church to make Books Canonical which were not so but a meer giving Testimony in a Matter of Fact in which all parts of the Church are concerned and it depends as other Matters of Fact do on the Skill and Fidelity of the Reporters And so far I own the truly Catholick Church to have Authority in any Testimony delivering down the Books of Scripture but this proves no more Infallibility in the Christian Church as to the Books of the New Testament than it doth in the Jewish Church as to the Books of the Old Testament And thus much of the Authority of the Catholick Church in Matters of Faith. III. Of the Reformation of the Church of England THere are so many Passages in the Papers relating to the Church of England on the Account of her Reformation that I thought it the best Method of proceeding to handle this Subject by itself And there are these things charged upon it either in Terms or by Consequence in the Papers which as I am a Member of this Church I think my self bound to clear for I could nor justifie continuing in her Communion if she were justly liable to these Imputations 1. That she hath made a causless Breach in the Communion of the Catholick Church 2. That she hath been the occasion of a World of Heresies crept into this Nation 3. That she hath not sufficient Authority within her self and yet denies an Appeal to a higher Judicature 4. That she contradicts her own Rule viz. the Holy Scriptures 5. That she subsists only on the Pleasure of the Civil Magistrate All these I shall examine with Care and consider what hath been said in Defence of the Papers upon these Heads As to the charge of causless Breach in the Communion of the Catholick Church it lies in these Words And by what Authority Men separate themselves from that Church Which being spoken with respect to the Members of the Church of England do imply that they have made a Separation from the Communion of the Catholick Church and that they had no sufficient Authority for so doing and therefore are guily of Schism in it To the Question two Answers were given 1. By distinguishing the truly Catholick Church from the Roman Catholick And a Distinction between these being made out which is done in the first part of this Defence It doth not follow that we have made a Breach in the Communion of the Catholick Church because we do not join in Communion with the Roman Catholick This was illustrated by the Example of a prosperous Usurper in a Kingdom who challenges a Title to the whole by gaining a considerable part of it and requires from all the Kings Subjects within his Power to own him to be rightful King whereupon the Question was put Whether refusing to do it were an Act of Rebellion or of Loyalty So in the Church the Popes Authority over it so as to restrain Catholick Communion only to those who own it is not only looked on as an Usurpation by Us but by all the Eastern Churches and is in Truth altering the Terms of Christian Communion from what they were in the truly Catholick and Apostolick Church Therefore since the Conditions required are unreasonable because different from them what Breach hath followed is not to be imputed to those who refuse these Terms but to those who impose them and so the Guilt of it lies upon the Church of Rome and not upon the Church of England This is the Substance of the Answer To which the Replier saith That the Eastern Churches cannot be parts of the Catholick Church because they hold not the Apostolick Doctrine contained in the Creeds and Councils owned by the Church of England This hath been fully answered already But he goes on There were no other Churches then in being but those which were in Communion with the Church of Rome consequently the Church of England going out from them separated her self from the Catholick Apostolick Church And the Defender saith He expects I should shew That truely Catholick and Apostolick Church we held Communion with when we separated from the Roman He desires to know where the men live that people may go to them and learn of them what their Faith is c. In answer to this I say That there is no necessity for us to shew any Church distinct from others which in all things we agreed with because we hold all particular Churches liable to Errors and Corruptions and that the notion of the Catholick Church may take in such Particulars from which we may see reason to dissent But we do not thereby exclude them from being parts of the Catholick Church but we say they are no Infallible Rule to us and therefore we ought to proceed by what the Church hath receiv'd as an Infallible Rule and not by the Communion of other Churches And supposing there were no particular Church we did in all things joyn with the Church of England might Reform it self without separating from the Catholick Apostolick Church For it was then in the Case particular Churches were in after the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia for then the standard of Catholick Communion set up by the Council of Nice was taken down and the setting of it up again was to oppose the Consent of the Christian Church in the most General Council that ever Assembled I do not say this Council obliged men to profess Arrianism but that it took away the Authority of the Nicene Creed in as valid a manner as the Council by its Acts could do it I ask then by what Authority any particular Church could set up the Nicene Faith and if not how it was possible to be restored And I desire to know in what Country the people lived who then owned the Nicene Faith against such a General Council And where were the Churches in being which at that time adhered to it But if in this Case the British Church tho alone was bound notwithstanding such a general consent to Reform it self and to restore the Authority of the Nicene Creed the same Case it is when the Western Church was oppressed and hindered from Reforming Errors and Abuses by the Usurpation and Tyranny of the Papal Faction the Church of England was then obliged to exercise its own Inherent Right in bringing things to the state they were in in the time of the first General Councils In matters of Reformation the main enquiries are whether there be just Occasion and due Authority for it and a certain Rule to proceed by the last and least important Question is what Company we have to joyn with us in it For there is a Natural Right iâ— every Church to preserve its own just Liberties and consequently to throw off such
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
evidently contained therein But I go no further tâ—an the Replier leads me At the Conclusion of the first Paper there was a suggestion As tho the Schism were raised by particular men for their own Advantage It was answered That the Advantage of the Clergy lay plainly on the other side which is yielded by the Replier and yet he would have the Clergy byast What byast against their Interest For that is the point Whether they got ot lost by the Reformation and besides other considerations if there were so much Sacriledg committed by it as is said in one of the Papers it is hard to suppose that they should raise the Schism for their own Advantage I am of the Defenders mind That matter of Interest ought not to be regarded in these things but when that was said to lie at the bottom of the Reformation we had reason to consider on which side lay the greater Advantage The 2d Charge is That the Reformation hath been â—he occasion of a World of Heresies creeping into this Nation With this the 2d Paper begins In answer it was said That either this respects the several Sects of Dissenters from the Religion established by Law and then it seems hard considering aâ— circumstances to charge the Church of England with them or it takes in all that dissent from the Church of Rome and so it is a charge on the whole Church since the Reformation as guilty of Heresie which was a charge I said could never be made good The Defender avoids the charge as to the Church of England but the Replier in plain terms owns it saying That establishment of a Religion by Law cannot protect it from being a Heresie which I readily grant And then he adds Let him defend his own and his work is done The best way to do that is to consider first what Heresie is and that I said was an obstinate opposing some necessary Article of Faith and then how it comes to be in the Power of the Church of Rome to define Heretical Doctrines so as that any Doctrine comes to be Heresie by being contrary to its Definitions He answers By the same way the Church had Power in her General Councils to make Creeds and to Anathematize Heretiâ—ks So that whatever Power the Catholick Church exercised in declaring Matters of Faith he challenges as of Right belonging to the Church of Rome which wholly depends on the first Point already discussed viz. That the Roman and Catholick Church are the same But I shall now wave that and consider Whether if that were allow'd the Church could now have the same Reason to declare the Points in difference to be Heresies as the Primitive Church had the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation of Christ. I am of opinion it cannot and yet if it could that alone is not sufficient to charge Heresie upon us And in making out of both these I shall argue from the Nature of Heresie as it is stated among their best Writers who agree that there are three Things necessary to make up the charge of Heresie 1. The Nature of the Proposition 2. The Authority of the Proponent 3. The obstinacy of the Party 1. The Nature of the Proposition for it is allowed among them that there is a difference between a Proposition Erroneous in Faith and Heretical But for our better understanding this matter I shall set down something very pertinently observed by Aquinas and others 1. Aquinas saith That Faith in us depends upon Divine Revelation not such as is made to any person but that which was made to the Prophets and Apostles which is preserved in the Canonical Books and therefore he saith the proofs from Scripture are necessary and convincing those from other Authorities are but probable Which is a Testimony of great Consequence in this matter for from hence it appears that whatsover Article of Faith is made necessary to be believed must be proved from Scripture and Heresie being an obstinate opposing a necessary Article of Faith there can be no Heresie where the Doctrine is not founded on Scripture And elsewhere he makes the principles of Faith to be the Authorities of the Scripture 2. That all matters of Faith are not equally revealed in Scripture For some he saith are principally designed as the Trinity and Incarnation and these are directly against Faith and to hold the contrary to them especially with obstinacy is Heresie but there are others which are indirectly against Faith from whence something follows which overthrows Faith as for any one to deny that Samuel was the son of Helcanah the consequence would be that the Scripture was false 3. He makes a distinction between those who discern the Repugnancy and continue obstinate and those who do not not intending to maintain any thing contrary to Faith and in this case there may be an erroneous opinion in Faith without Heresie So that an erroneous opinion lies in not attending to the Consequence of that Opinion as against Faith and not maintaining it obstinately But he asserts it to be in the Churches Power to declare such an opinion to be against Faith and then he makes it Heretical to deny it His Instance is about the five Notions of the Trinity and his Conclusion is That it cannot be Heretical in it self to have different Opinions about them but it is very hard to understand how the Church by its declaration can make the holding one or the other opinion to be more or less repugnant to Faith. But then the Reason of Heresie must be resolved into the Authority of the Church of which afterwards yet still Scripture is the Rule by which the Church is to judg 4 That there are some things revealed in Scripture which immediately tend to make mankind happy and those are the Articles of Faith which all men are bound to believe explicitely other things are revealed by accident or secondarily as that Abraham had two Sons that David was the Son of Jesse Now as to these latter points he saith That it is enough to have an inward preparation of mind to believe all that is contained in Scripture and those things in particular as soon as they are known to be there But we believe all persons bound to search the Scriptures that they may know what is contained therein However we gain this point hereby that by their own Doctrine besides the Articles of Faith receiv'd on both sides no other points can become necessary till they be made appear to us to be contained in Scripture otherwise it is sufficient for us to be ready to believe whatever is contained therein And consequently we cannot be charged with Heresie for rejecting them Alphonsus a Castro makes this distinction between Heresie and a Proposition erroneous in Faith That the former is against such a point of Faith as all men are bound to believe but there are some Propositions he saith relating to Faith wherein a man is under no
obligation to believe either part of the contradiction But if he asserts either of them to be an Article of Faith and pronounces the other Heretical he then errs in Faith and is become a Heretick From whence I observe that supposing any points in Controversie not to be so determined as to bring on men an obligation to believe them those who make them to be Articles of Faith and condemn the others for Hereticks are in so doing Hereticks themselves Melchior Canus saith That although a Proposition be thought by wise men to be a matter of Faith yet if it be not plainly defined by the Church nor demonstrated by Reason then the opposing of it is no Heresie but Erroneous Doctrine Nay he saith further That if an Opinion do contradict a point of Catholick Faith in the most probable and almost necessary opinion of all wise men yet if it do not manifestly contradict it is barely Erroneous and not Heretical Suarez saith that Melchior Canus his Doctrine in this matter is generally receiv'd But he adds one thing more viz. That in Heresie there must be the highest opposition to immediate Revelation but if it implies only a repugnancy to a bare Catholick Truth or Theological conclusion it is erroneous in Faith but no Heresie The highest opposition lies in three things 1. The Revelation must be immediate and not deduced by consequence 2. That it must be most certainly and undoubtedly of Faith. 3. That the Erroneous Proposition do most certainly and undoubtedly contradict it For saith he if there be a defect in any one of these it is not an Heretical Proposition These are the Principles laid down by their own Writers of greatest esteem And therefore if the Replier think fit to make good his Charge of Heresie against the Church of England he may from hence see what he hath to do 1 He must prove the Points in Controversie to be of immediate Divine Revelation and not drawn from thence by Consequences and Suppositions 2. That the Doctrine of our Church doth in the highest plainest and most certain manner contradict such Propositions of Faith. And supposing it were possible for him to do the former yet if their own Expositor of the Articles of our Church may be believed he can never do the latter For he endeavours to prove them capable of a Catholick sense The five first he allows for Catholick as they stand The sixth about Canonical Scripture with St Jerome's explication is Catholick enough The 7th 8th first part of the 9th and the whole 10th are very Catholick The four next he examines The 15th needs only a Gloss of St. Augustins The 16th very good The 17th Catholick and so the 18th The 19th only wants a Gloss and so the 20th and 21. The 22th he examines 23d is allow'd The 24th being only against a custom of the Church he proves from Canus can imply no Heresie and yet he thinks it capable of a good Gloss. The 25th he allows in the genuine sense of it The 26th and 27th are confessed to be the Doctrines of the Church and all the Fathers Even the 28th against Transubstantiation he thinks may be glossed into a good sense The 29th is explained from S. Augustin The 30th from Canus not to contain any Heresie The 31th he saith only opposes the common opinion The 32th capable of a 〈◊〉 sense 33 34th agreeable to Scripture and Antiquity 35th 〈◊〉 Hâ—milies passable 36th about Ordination valid 37th agreeable to the French Opinion and practise the Popes Jurisdiction may be understood of Temporal The two last he allows to be Catholick So that of 39 Articles but five are reserved for examination and of these the 11th he saith is about words the 12 and 13 capable of a good sense the 14th goes upon a mistake of their sense the 22th determines nothing against the true Faith. I do not go about to justifie his Exposition but I say that upon your own grounds it sheweth that our Church cannot be justly charged with Heresie For if it be required that such Propositions as are Heretical must in the highest and clearest manner contradict the Doctrines of Faith and your own Expositor grants they do not then however you may think them Erroneous yet you cannot condemn them for Heretical 2 As to Heresie a sufficient Proposition of the matters of Faith is required For they grant that the matters of Faith must be proposed in such a manner as to induce an obligation to believe them before any can be guilty of Heresie in rejecting them Therefore it is necessary for us to know what they mean by a sufficient proposal Sâ—arez yields this to be a necessary condition and elsewhere discourses about the nature of it And there he shews 1. That a sufficient Proposition of a matter of Faith is not barely to deliver it as a Divine Trath but it must be done with such circumstances that it may appear to be prudently credible i. e. so as to see such reason for it as to put him beyond doubt or fear of the contrary 2. That it must appear evidently credible to be revealed by God and therefore certain and infallible 3. That it must appear not only so but evidently more credible than the Doctrine repugnant to it 4. That according to natural reason the assent to it is to be prefer'd before the contrary opinion Now to make good the charge of Heresie against our Church he must not bring the Motives of Credibility for the Christian Faith in general which are owned on both sides but as to those points which are asserted by them as matters of Faith and rejected by us As for instance Transubstantiation is declared by them to be a matter of Faith and it is denied by us and they charge us with Heresie for it We say it hath never been proposed to us in such a manner as to make it appear to be a prudent judgment in us to believe it or that it was ever revealed by God or more credible than the contrary opinion in the judgment of Reason Not any one of these things doth appear to us but the contrary for we can see nothing of the Credibility but a great deal for the evident Incredibility of it How then can this matter of Faith be said to be sufficiently proposed to us It may be said all this is done by the Authority of the Church proposing it and if it be made evidently credible that you ought to believe the Church then we are Hereticks for rejecting her Authority I answer That if by the Churches Authority be meant that of the Roman Catholick Churches Infallible proposing matters of Faith to us we are as far to seek as ever and for our hearts we cannot find this made out with any degree of Credibility We have searched all your Grounds examined your Motives weighed your Reasons your miracles we have not seen but we can meet with nothing that should make it a prudent judgment
for us to take all matters of Faith upon trust from her And if there be no Evidence of Credibility there is no sufficient proposal and if there be not there can be no obligation to believe and where that is not there can be no Heresie in not believing according to the judgment of your greatest Divines 3 As to the charge of Heresie there must be obstinacy in the party which they all make necessary to formal Heresie Aquinas quotes the noted passage of St. Augâ—stin to this purpose That although men hold a false opinion without pertinacious animosity especially if they derive it from their Parents and do with diligence and caution seek after the Truth and are ready to lay it down when they have found it they are not to be reckoâ—'d for Hereticks And we do not think a better Plea can be made for us as to this charge than what is contained in these words of St. Augustâ—n But here we must observe the artifice of Aquinas He saw this would never do their business against the enemies of the Church of Rome and therefore he pretends to give the Reason for this because they do not contradict the judgment of the Church and so draws the power of declaring Heresie to the Pope as having the chief Authority in the Church Of whom St. Augustin saith not a word But however Aquinas himself requires Obstinacy even in this case to make a Heretick And the Obstinacy is not placed by him in the meer resisting the Authority of the Church but in the manner of doing it Cajetan there affirms that if there be no pertinacy in the Will there is no Heresie So that if a man holds an opinion contrary to Faith in it self and he thinks he holds right and doth not intend to dissent from the Church he is not guilty of Heresie And so Cajetan defines Pertinacy to be a consent to an error in Faith knowing it so to be Melchior Canus saith It is the general Opinion of Divines and Canonists that there can be no Heresie without Obstinacy And no man is a Heretick he saith who doth not seeing and knowing chuse a Doctrine contrary to Faâ—â—h Suarez saith that all the Doctors are agreed that Obstinacy is required to Heresie and that it is expressed in the Canon Law. So that I need to produce no more to that purpose But the difficulty is to know what they mean by Obstinacy It is not hard to understand what is meant by the word for pertinax is one that is over-tenacious i. e. that holds an opinion when he sees no ground for it or will yield to no Reasonable conviction or that hath not a desire to find out Truth and submit to it And so it is plain St. Augustin understood it in the place before mention'd And in another place he makes it to lye in a mans resisting the Catholick Doctrine made known to him without which he did not judg him a Heretick though he held Heretical Doctrine And again he declares those to be Hereticks that contumaciously resist those that correct and instruct them and will not amend their wicked Doctrines but go on to defend them These passages of St. Augustin are enter'd in the Body of the Canon Law and the Gloss there saith If one bolds Doctrines against Faith and be ready to be better instructed he is no Heretick The same Authorities Ockam insists upon and from them he declares Obstinacy to be so necessary that without it no man can be a Heretick And he concludes from St. Augustin that if a man be ready to yield to Truth when he finds it he is not guilâ—y of Obstinacy And he proves that such are no Hereticks from these Reasons 1 Because Hereticks are to be Excommunicated but such by the Canon Law are not to be â—xcommunicated 2 Because they are ready to be better instructed 3 Because many have erred and were not accounted Hereticks on this account Oâ—kam distinguishes a twofold Obstinacy 1. Internal 2. External Internal may be known he saith by theâ—e Rules 1. If a man be not convinced by Miracles 2. If he will rather question the truth of the Christian Faith than be convinced 3. When he doth not use means for his own Conviction but resolves to persist in his Errors such a neglect argues an obstinate mind External of which he gives many instances of which I shall mention some as 1. If a man willingly saith or doth something whereby he discovers his disbelief of the whole Christian Faith 2 If he demes any part of the old or new Testament 3. If he holds the whole Christian Church to have erred which he by no means understands of any part of it assuming the Titles of Catholick and Infallible to it self for he saith some say that whatsoever Christ hath promised to his Church may be made good if but one Person in it holds the true Faith but he declares that the 〈◊〉 Faith may be preserved in a very few 4. If the contrary Doctrâ—â— known to be universally received among Christians as if one shâ—uld deny that Christ was crucified and on this account he charges 〈◊〉 22. with Heresy for denying that the Souls of the Wicked are in Hell and of the Saints in Heaven before the day of Judgment 5. If he refuses to be informed being reproved by the Learned 6. If he protests he will never alter his Opinion 7. If he forbids reading the Scriptures or preaching Catholick Doctrine 8. If a Pope commands an erroneous Opinion to be believed as matter of Faith. 9. If a man consents to such a Definition of the Pope and imposes it on others Joh. Gerson treats at large about the obstinacy which makes one a Heretick in several Discourses before the Council of Constance and he follows St. Augustins Doctrine in saying That it consists in not seeking after Truth and not obeying it when he hath found it Melchior Canus finds fault with the uncertain Marks of Obstinacy given by others and he resolves it at last into this That a Man holds an Opinion which he knows to be contrary to the Catholick Faith but then he requires 1. That he be certain that it belongs to it and it is not enough that learned Men say so 2. That he must know it by an infallible Authority For otherwise a mans persisting in his Opinion may be great rashness and presumption but it is not Heresy But in case a persons ignorance be such as makes his Errors involuntary it doth excuse him from Heresy because that is not a voluntary Error Suarez and others after him in plain terms make the Obstinacy to lie in not submiting to the Judgment of the Church because while a Man doth yield to the Churches Authority they account him no Heretick â—his is indeed an Argument according to their way of declaring Hereticks but we are now enquiring what that Obstinacy is which doth really make
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
Quiet where there is not a Supreme Judg from whom there can be no Appeal The Answer was That the natural Consequence was then that every National Church ought to have the Supreme Power within it self But how comes Appeals to a Foreign Jurisdiction to tend to the Peace and Quiet of a Church The Defender saith That a National to the whole Church is but as a Shire to a Kingdom and a very natural and consistent Consequence it is that every Shire should have a King. One would think by such an Answer this Defender is a mighty Stranger to the ancient Polity of the Church Did he never hear of the Power of Metropolitans being setled by the Council of Nice for governing the Churches and calling Provincial Synods Did he never hear of many other Canons relating to the Power and Frequency of Provincial Synods Did he never hear of the Decrees of the Council of Ephesus forbidding all Incroachments on the ancient Rights of Churches Did he never hear that Provincial Councils have declared Matters of Faith without so much as advising with the Bishop of Rome As the African Councils did in the Pelagian Controversy and the Councils of Tolcdo in the Case of Arianism which reformed the Spanish Churches and made Canons by their own Authority which were confirmed by their Kings Reccaredus and Sisenandus Did he never hear that it was good Doctrine among Catholâ—ck Divines That particular Churches might take upon them to declare the true Catholick Faith And if so they must judg what is so Did he never hear that in a divided State of the Church Errors and Abuses may be reformed by particular Churches And that this was owned and defended by great Men in the Church of Rome if he did not he was very much unprovided for the handling such a Controversy if he did know these things he ought not to have spoken with so much contempt of the Power of Particular or National Churches And to assert their Authority is very far from being like setting up a King in every Shire for this were the highest Dilloyalty to the King who hath a just and unquestionable Authority over all the Shires Let him prove that the Pope hath such a Monarchy over all particular Churches before he make such a Parallel again But the way he takes is rather like making the Imperial Crown of this Realm to be in subjection to a Foreign Power because the Roman Emperors once had Dominion here and therefore this Kingdom could never recover its own Rights But he saith A Foreign Jurisdiction is hardly sense with respect to the Church for â—oris is out and unless the ultimate Jurisdiction be out of the Church it cannot be said to be foreign This is a shameful begging of the Question that what they call the Roman Catholick Church is the Catholick Church for if it be not which I hope I have sufficiently shewn then the pretended and usurped Jurisdiction of the Roman Church over the Church of England is a Foreign Jurisdiction He adds That it is impossible to re-settle the Church among us without that which we call Foreign Jurisdiction because Dissentions in matters of Religion cannot otherwise be removed But suppose this Foreign Jurisdiction be the occasion of these Dissentions some maintaining 〈◊〉 others asserting the Rights of our Church against it Is not 〈◊〉 â—oreign Jurisdiction like to put an end to it Yes certainly For if all Parties submit there will be no longer disputing But our Question as yet is whether this be reasonable or not I complained of the Inconvenience of Appeals to a Foreign Jurisdiction He gives us a smart Answer and saith That holds no comparison with the Inconvenience of Heresy As tho it were so plain a thing that we are guilty of Heresy that it needed no manner of proof Alas what need a Man prove that it is day when the sun shines We are just as much guilty of Heresy as the good Bishop was who for denying the Antipodes was condemned by Pope Zachâ—â—y But it is a comfortable thing in a Charge of Heresy to find it no better proved He saith I mistook the matter of Appeals and that it was not understood with respect to Causes but to matters of Doctrine and Worship An Appeal must reâ—ate to a Superiour Authority and a constant Appeal to a standing Authority and whatever the pretence be the Court of Rome will challenge Supreme Jurisdiction where-ever the Pope is owned as Head of the Church And then all those Consequences will follow I mentioned before If other kind of Appeals were meant in the Papers yet they must relate to an Authority Superiour to our Church which we could wish had been more fully expressed that we might have known to whom the Appeal was to be made whether to a free General Council which we never disowned or to the Popes Authority which we yet see no cause to make our Appeals to especially as to what concerns his own Jurisdiction He pleads That Supream Power must be Judg in its own Cause for no Authority ought to be set up against the King supposing a Question be started about his Prerogative I answer This is a Case extreamly different for in matters of Prerogative the King 's Supream Power is not the Question for his Right to the Imperial Crown is and ought to be out of dispute but all the Question that can be started must relate only to the Exercise of his Power in some particular Cases where former Laws made by the King's Consent are supposed to limit it which the Courts of Judicature take Cognizance of and so are a kind of Legal Arbitrators between the King and his People But in the Case before us the Jurisdiction it self and the Right to exercise any such Authority is the very thing in Question And I desire this Gentleman to resolve me whether in the late times of Usurpation this had 〈◊〉 been good Doctrine that those who enjoy or pretend to Supream Power are to be Judges in their own Case If so then it had been impossible for Men to have justified their Loyalty to the Royal Family then very unjustly put out of possession If not then there may be a pretence to Supream Authority where it is by no means allowable for the Pretender to Judg in his own Cause As to his Appeal to the Catholick Church we by no means reject it provided he mean the Church truly Catholick as it comprehends the Apostolical Church in the first place and then all other Christian Churches which from the Apostles times have delivered down the Catholick Doctrine and Worship which they received from them But if he means that which is called a Catholick Church but is neither Catholick nor Apostolical we beg his pardon if we allow no Appeal to it since its Errors and Corruptions are the great and just Cause of our Complaints He runs into a long Discourse about Church-Security and his design is
that way only that the King and Parliament could not discern the difference between greater and lesser as to the Point of Sacrilege and since the Pope had shewed them the way by granting Bulls for the dissolution of the lesser Monasteries they thought since the Pope's Power was taken away they might with as little Sacrilege dissolve the rest I will shut up this with the words of Arch-bishop Laud But if there have been any wilful and gross Errors not so much in Opinion as Fact Sacrilege too often pretending to reform Superstition that 's the Crime of the Reformers not of the Reformation and they are long since gone to God to answer it to whom I leave them The Method I proposed for Satisfaction of Conscience about the Reformation was to consider Whether there were not sufficient cause for it Whether there were not sufficient Authority And whether the Proceedings of our Reformation were not justifiable by the Rules of Scripture and the Ancient Church He tells me he may safely join issue with me upon all three Points and conclude in the Negative But upon second thoughts he finds he may much more safely let it alone And very fairly would have me take it for granted That the Church of Rome cannot err in Matters of Faith for that he must mean by the Church there and that our Church hath no Authority ef Reforming her self and that our Proceedings were not justifiable according to the right interpretation of Scriptures by the Fathers and Councils But if I will not allow his Affirmations for Proofs for his part he will act the grim Logician no longer and in truth it becomes him so ill that he doth well to give it over When he will undertake to prove that the Church of Rome is the One Catholick and Infallible Church of Christ and answer what I have produced in the former Discourses I will ease him of any farther Trouble for then I will grant that our Reformation cannot be justified But till then I shall think it no want of Humility to conclude the Victory to be on our side And I would desire him not to end with such a bare-faced Assertion of a thing so well known to be false viz. That there is not one Original Treatise written by a Protestant which hath handled distinctly and by it seif that Christian Vertue of Humility Since within a few Years besides what hath been printed formerly such a Book hath been published in London But he doth well to bring it off with at least that I have seen or heard of for such Books have not lain much in the way of his Enquiries Suppose we had not such particular Books we think the Holy Scripture gives the best Rules and Examples of Humility of any Book in the World but I am afraid he should look on his Case as desperate if I send him to the Scripture since he saith Our Divines do that as Physicians do with their Patients whom they think uncurable send them at last to Tunbridg-Waters or to the Air of Montpellier FINIS ERRATA The Folio's through mistake are twice repeated from Pag. 81 pag. 92 inclusive PAge 7. line 26 for Authority read Antiquity Pag. 22. l. 39. f. Persoâ—a r. Parsopa Pag. 23. l. 25. f. when r. whom l. 26. f. his r. as l. 32. f. Western r. Southern Pag. 26. l. 5. f. S. Cyprian r. San Lyran. Pag. 68. l. 32. r. Some of the Chineses Pag. 78. l. 3. a whole line faulty r. pristinam melioratam recipere 〈◊〉 sanitate Pag. 86. 2d l. 23. blot out not Pag. 93. l. 23. blot out both Pag. 103. l. 14. f. House of the Lord r. House of Lords Pag. 108. l. 20. f. satness r. fitness l. 28 f. dare not r. do not Page 112. l. 37. f. eras r. ejus Pag. 116. l. 17. f. Declarations r. Declamations Books lately printed for Richard Chiswell THe History of the Reformation of the Church of England By GILBERT BURNET D. D. in two Volumes Folio The Moderation of the Church of England in her Reformation in avoiding all undue Compliances with Popery and other sorts of Phaâ—aticism c. By TIMOTHY PULLER D. D. Octavo A Dissertation concerning the Government of the Ancient Church more particularly of the Encroachments of the Bishops of Rome upon other Sees By WILLIAM CAVE D. D. Octavo An Answer to Mr. Serjeant's Sure Footing in Christianity concerning the Rule of Faith With some other Discourses By WILLIAM FALKNER D. D. 40. A Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England in Answer to a Paper written by one of the Church of Rome to prove the Nullity of our Orders By GILBERT BURNET D. D. Octavo An Abridgment of the History of the Reformation of the Church of England By GILB BURNET D. D. Octavo The APOLOGY of the Church of England and an Epistle to one Signior Scipio a Venetian Gentleman concerning the Council of Trent Written both in Latin by the Right Reverend Father in God JOHN JEWEL Lord Bishop of Salisbury Made English by a Person of Quality To which is added The Life of the said Bishop Collected and written by the same Hand Octavo A LETTER writ by the last Assembly General of the Clergy of Francâ— to the Protestants inviting them to return to their Communion Together with the Methods proposed by them for their Conviction Translated into English and Examined by GILB BURNET D. D. Octavo The Life of WILLIAM BEDEL D. D. Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland Together with Certain Letters which passed betwixt him and James Waddesworth a late Pensioner of the Holy Inquisition of Sevil in Matter of Religion concerning the General Motives to the Roman Obedience Octavo The Dâ—cree made at ROME the Second of March 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Jesuits and other Casâ—ists Quarto A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome Quarto First and Second Parts A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongne Quarto A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to A Papist Misrepresented and Represented Quarto An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOM in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church Quarto An Answer to THREE PAPERS lately printed concerning the Authority of the Catholick Church in Matters of Faith and the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome With an Answer thereunto By a Protestant of the Church of England 80. A Papist Represented and not Misrepresented being an Answer to the First Second Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Second Part of the Papist Misrepresented and Represented and for a further Vindication of the CATECHISM truly representing the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome Quarto The Lay-Christian's