order to the Establishment of it i. e. he would not have failed to have told us who were to make up that Supreme Court and where it was to Sit. For these things were necessary to the end of it Shall we then say that Christ was not yet resolved where it should be Or that it was not fit to let it be known so soon But why not when he made Promises to the Apostles of being with them to the end of the World There can be no pretence why he should not then declare where the Supreme and standing Court of his Church was to be which was in all Ages to give Rules to the rest of the Church and to Determine all Points of Faith which came before them But did the Apostles Determine this matter after Christ's Ascension If they had done it we must have yielded because they had an Infallible Spirit But we find nothing like it in all their Writings They mention Heresies often and damnable ones they saw creeping into the Church they lamented the Schisms and Divisions in the Churches of their own Planting and used frequent and vehement Exhortations to Peace and Unity But why not a word of the Infallible Judge of Controversies all this while S. Paul wrote to the Church of Rome it self and even there mentions Dissensions that were among them as well as in any other Church What could not he tell them they were to make Rules and give Judgment for the whole Church Did S. Paul envy this Privilege to S. Peter's See and therefore took no notice of it That I suppose will not be said of him though he once withstood him to the face But how happen the rest of the Apostles not to do it Nay how came S. Peter himself writing for the benefit of the whole Church in a Catholic Epistle never to give the least intimation concerning it These things make it appear incredible to me that Christ or his Apostles appointed any such thing especially when the Apostles in their infallible Writings give such Directions to particular Christians as they do to prove all things and to hold fast that which is good to try the Spirits whether they be of God oâ— not What had they to do to try the Spirits or to prove any thing themselves if the Judgment of the matters of Faith were so given to the Church that others without farther enquiry are bound to submit to its Sentence And if Christ and his Apostles knew nothing of such an Infallible Judge we have no Reason to hearken to any who after their time should pretend to it For the Promise of Infallibility must be made by him and such a Commission can be derived only from the immediate Authority of Christ himself But the Defender saith The Holy Scripture assures us that the Church is the Foundation and Pillar of Truth I confess I cannot be assured from hence that the Church hath such an Authority as is here pleaded for suppose it be understood of the whole Church For how was it possible the Church at that time should be the Foundation and Pillar of Truth when the Apostles had the Infallible Spirit and were to guide and direct the whole Church It seems therefore far more probable to me that those words relate to Timothy and not to the Church by a very common Elleipsis viz. how he ought to behave himself in the Church of God which is the House of the living God as a Pillar and Support of Truth and to that purpose this whole Epistle was written to him as appears by the beginning of it wherein he is charged not to give heed to Fables and to take care that no false Doctrine were taught at Ephesus Now saith the Apostle If I come not shortly yet I have written this Epistle that thou maist know how to behave thy self in the Church which is the House of God as a Pillar and Support of Truâ—h What can be more natural and easie than this Sense And that there is no Novelty in it appears from hence that Gregory Nyssen expresly delivers this to be the meaning and many others of the Fathers apply the same Phrases to the great Men of the Church S. Basil useth the very same Expressions concerning Musonius S. Chrysosrom calls the Apostles the immovable Pillars of the true Faith. Theodoret saith concerning S. Peter and S. Iohn That they were the Towers of Godliness and the Pillars of Truth â—regory Nazianzen calls S. Basil The Ground of Faith and the Rule of Truth And elsewhere The Pillar and Ground of the Church which Titles he gives to another Bishop at that time And so it appears in the Greek Catena mentioned by Heinsius S. Basil read these words or understood them so when he saith The Apostles were the Pillars of the New Jerusalem as it is said The Pillar and Ground of the Church I forbear more since these are sufficient to shew that they understood this place as relating to Timothy and not to the Church As to what he brings of Scriptures not being of private Iâ—terpretation it is so remote from the Sense and Scope of the Place which relates wholy to Divine Inspiration that this is a great Instance of that private Interpretation which ought to be avoided viz. of minding only the Words without regard to the Sense of Scripture It was said in the Papers Thaâ— Christ left his Power to his Church even to forgive Sins in Heaven and left his Spirit with them which they exercised after the Resurrection It was farther answered That all this makes nothing for the Roman-Catholic Church not then in being unless she were Heir-General to the Apostles that the ordinary Power of the Keys relates not to this matter that the Promise of the Spirit made to the Apostles implied many Gifts not pretended to by this Heir-General as the Gift of Tongues Spirit of Discerning Prophecie miraculous Cures and Punish ments If no more be understood of Divine Assistance that is promised as much to keep Men from Sin as Error but the Church of Rome pretends only to the latter and yet it is granted too that it may err in matters of great Consequence to the Peace of the Christian World as in the Deposing Doctrine This is the Substance of the Answer let us now see what they Reply The force of what the Desender saith is this That though the Roman Church were not then in being yet as soon as it was it was a part of the Catholic Church to which the Promises were made and therefore the Roman-Catholic Church being the One Church of Christ these Promises must have their effect in her This is all I can make of it though it cost me more pains to lay their things together with an appeâ—â—ance of strength than to give an Answer to them The Roman Church it seems had not the Promises made to it but as soon as it was a Church she was a Part of the
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
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
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
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
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
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
Rule without the Church but the Church cannot without the Scriptures The Replier like a fair Adversary mentions that which looks like an Objection viz. That there was a Church before the Scriptures were written and some Ages were passed before the Canon of Scripture was made and owned by the Church To which I Answer That when I said the Church cannot be a Rule without the Scripture it was upon the supposition that the Canon of Scripture had been long since owned by the Church and that the Church derives its Infallibility from the Promises contaiâ—ed in the Scripture But the Defender goes another way to work for saith he The Scriptures I say may be a Rule without the Church that is without Faithful for a Congregation of them is a Church What! in the Sense now before us as it is taken for a Guide Is every Congregation of the Faithful a Church in this Sense Then well-fare the Independents And this me-thinks makes Infallibility sink very low I do not say There could be no Church before Scripture nor that they had then no Rule of Faith nor that the Church depends on writing these are but mean Objections but I â—ill say That where a Church challenges her Authority by the Scripture it can signify nothing without it Which is so plain that I need not multiply words about it As to his Church-Security we have considered it enough already but it would make one mistrust a Security which is so often offered I said that suppose Infallibility be found in Scripture there is yet a harder Point to get over viz. how the Promises relating to the Church in general came to be appropriated to the Church of Rome From hence he insers That I have at last found the Promises of Infallibility to the Church there Is not this a rare Consequence Suppose I should say I know a Book of Controversy in the World that hath very little of true Reasoning in it but if it were to be found there it doth not reach to the Point in hand Doth this imply that I affirmed in the latter part what I denied before Is this finding out true Reasoning in the latter Period which was not to be found in the former There may be true Reasoning when it is not to the purpose So there might be Infallibility and yet the Church of Rome not concerned in it Suppose the Church of Jerusalem as the Mother Church might be Infallible by the Promises of Scripture what would this be to the Church of Rome But I never said or thought that there were any Promises of Infallibility made to any Church in Scripture Proâ—ises of Divine Assistance and Indefectibility I grant are made to the Church in general but these are quite of another Nature from Promises of Infallibility in delivering Matters of Faith in all Ages Yet if this were granted the Church of Rome as it takes in all of her Communion hath no more reason to challenge it to her self than Europe hath to be called the Face of the whole Earth As to his Sandy Foundation I tell him in short He that builds his Faith on the Word of God builds on a Rock and all other things will be found but Sandy Foundations 4. The next thing laid to our Charge is That we draw our Arguments from Implications and far-fetch'd Interpretations at the same time that we deny plain and positive words In Answer to this 1. It was shew'd that in many of the Points in Difference we have express words of Scripture for us As against the Worship of Images and giving Divine Worship to any but God and for giving the Eucharist in both kinds and praying in a Language we understand The Defender would have me produce the very Words to shew that the Scripture saith No to what their Church saith I or contrariwise He talked much before that we give the same Answer the old Hereticks did and now I think he hath matched them Shew us say they in Terms the direct contrary to our Propositions where the Son was said to be Consubstantial to the Father or the Holy Ghost was a Divine Person or the Blessed Virgin the Mother of God or that there are two Natures in Christ after the Union Will Reason and Consequences signify nothing when founded on the Word of God But I need not this answer for I assirm that the words of the first and second Commandment of the Institution of the Sacrament Drink ye all of this of S. Paul 14. of the first Epistle to the Corinthians against Publick Service in an unknown Tongue are so plain and evident that there is no Command of Scripture but may be avoided and turned another way as well as these And herein we go not upon our own Fancies but we have the concurrent Sense of the Christian Church in the best and most Primitive Ages in every one of the Points here mentioned And whether we are right as to the sense of the second Commandment and as to Divine Worship in general as to Christ's Institution amounting to a Command as to St. Paul 's Discourse Which the Replier insists upon next to the Scripture it self and the Force contained therein we appeal to the Primitive Church as the most indifferent Arbitrator between us 2. I answered That where words seem plain and positive they may have a Metaphorical or Figurative Sense as when God hath Eyes and Ears c. given him and the Rock was Christ. And so in the Words This is my Body it was a Sacramental Expression as the other was and the other words are figurative when the Cup is said to be the New Testament in his Blood and St. Paul notwithstanding those words called it Bread after Consecration Here the Defender will not bite the Light being too clear for him but descants upon denying plain words and so runs clear off from the Point which seemed to be chiefly meant by the Paper But the Replier is a generous Adversary and attacks what stands before him He endeavours to shew a Difference between God's having Eyes and Eaâ—s c. and those words This is my Body as to the receding from the literal Sense because saith he there is an implication of impossibility in the one but not in the other But withal he grants that if by This be meant the Bread it would have implied an equal impossibility I am very glad to see this Point brought to so fair an Issue For if I do not prove by the general Consent of the Fathers both of the Greek and Latin Churches that by This the Bread is meant I dare promise to become hiâ— Prosclyâ—â— 5. The last Thing objected is That our Church sâ—bsists only on the Pleasure of the Civil Magistrate who may turn the Church which way he pleases To this it was answered 1. That the Rule of our Religion is unalterable being the Word of God tho the Exercise of it be under the Regulation
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
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
subscribed the Arian Confession of Faith as both Hilary and S Ierome witness and it appears from his Seventh Epistle and the old Lesson in the Roman Breviary 19 Kal. Sept. which hath been since expunged for telling Tales In the Fifth Age happened a greater breach â—etween the Bishops of Rome and the Eastern Churches For Acacius the Bishop of Constantinople not complying with what the Bishops of Rome desired from him was solemnly excommunicated by Feâ—â— III. But notwithstanding this the Emperour and Eastern bishops continued still in his Communion and they complained that the proceedings against him were against the Rules of the Church and savoured of great Pride as appears by the Epistles of Gelâ—sius who succeeded Felix And upon this a notorious Scâ—â— happened which the Eastern Churches charged the Church of Rome with and believed themselves to be still in the Communion oâ— the Catholic Church In the Sixth Age Vigilius Bishop of Rome gives an undeniable evidence of the difference between Communion with the Catholic Church and with the Bishop of Rome When he went to Constantinople upon Iustinian's Summons about the three Chapters not only the Church of Rome but that of Africa Sardinia Istria Iâ—â—yricum and others earnestly entreated him not to consent to the condemning them accordingly when he came to Constantinople he was so warm and zealous in the Cause that he forthwith excommunicates the Patriarch and his adherents among whom the Empress her self was one But soon after he was so much mollified that he not only took off his Sentence but privately agreed with the Emperour to condemn the Three Chapters Which was discovered to the Western Churches by Rusticus and Sebastiâ—nus who were then with him Whereupon they cried out upon him for prevaricating and betraying the Council of Chalcedon and the African Bishops not only condemned his Judgment but excommunicated him and all that consented to it and so did the Bishops of Illyricum Which Schism continued many years as appears by the Epistles of Pelagius II. and Gregory Vigilius finding how the matter was resented in the Western Churches yields to a General Council which the Emperour Summon'd at Constantinople in the mean time he publishes an Edict against the Three Chapters Vigilius to recover his Credit with the Western Bishops denounces Excommunication against those that yielded to it but the Greeks despised his Censure and immediately went to celebrate Divine Offices When the Council sate he refused to come which they regarded not but went on and condemned the Three Chapters without him but when the Council was ended he complied with it as now appears from the Authentic Acts lately published Let any Man now judge whether Communion with the Bishop of Rome were then looked on aâ— a necessary condition of being in the Catholic Church either by the Eastern or Western Churches In the Seventh Age there is a necessity to make a Distinction between the Communion with the Bishop of Rome and with the Catholic Church because Honorius then Bishop of Rome is condemned by the Sixth General Council for contradicting the Apostolical Doctrine and the Definitions of Councils and for following the false Doctrines of Hereticks And the same Judgment is confirmed by the Seventh and Eighth Councils which are received for General in the Church of Rome And Leo Iâ— in his Epistle to the Emperour wherein he confirms the Sixth Council expresly Anathematizes his Predecessor Honorius for no less thaâ— betraying the Catholic Faith. And in the Profession of Faith made by every new Bishop of Rome extant in the Diurnus Honorius is Anathematized by name Was it then the Roman Catholic Church which joyned in Communion with Honorius In the Eighth Age the Bishop of Rome approved the Second Council of Nice but notwithstanding the Western Churches stifly opposed it as contrary to Faith which they could not have done if at that time the Pope had been looked on as the Head and Center of Catholic Communion In the Ninth Age happened the great breach between the two Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople which in consequence engaged the Eastern and Western Churches against each other And although the restoring of Photius after the death of Ignatius seemed to put an end to it yet the difference increased chieâ—ly upon two points that of Iurisdiction and the Addition to the Creed made by the Western Church which the Council under Photius did Anathematize and the whole Greek Church with the Four Patriarchs joyned in it as arguing Imperfection in the Creed and the Tradition of their Fore-fathers And upon these two Points this Schism began although Photius did charge the Latin Church with other things which made Nicolaus I. to employ the best Pens they had to defend the Latins against the Greeks One of which was Ratramnus lately â—ublished who lived at that time and it is observable in him That he supposes both to be still Parts of the Catholic Church and he often distinguishes the Latin Church or the whole Roman Communion from the Catholic Church which he saith was extended from the East to the West from the North to the South In the Eleventh Age this Schism brake forth with greater violence in the time of Leo IX and Michael Cerularius Patriarch of Constantinople To the former occasions of difference a new one was added never mention'd in Photius his time viz. the use of unleavened Bread in the Sacrament by the Latin Church Of this with other things Michael Cerularius complained the Pope sends Three Nuntio's to Constantinople who behaved themselves rudely and insolently towards the Patriarch as he shews in his Epistles to the Patriarch of Antioch published lately by Coâ—elerius there he declares he would not treat with them about Religion without the other Patriarchs upon which they pronounced them obstinate and proceeded to Excommunicate the whole Greek Church for not complying with them And the Patriarch returned the kindness and Anathematized them The Form of the Anathema against the Greeks is printed with Humbertus and the short of it is whosoever contradicts the Roman See is to be excluded Catholic Communion and be made Anathema Maranatha This was plain dealing but it was the Eleventh Age before things came to this height And yet in that very Anathema one of the Reasons assigned was because the Greeks like the Donatists conâ—â—ned the Catholic Church to themselves In the Thirteenth Age Innocent III. writes to the Greek Emperour to bring the Greeks back to the Unity of the Church the Patriarch of Constantinople writes back again to know what he meant by it and how he could call the Roman Church the One Catholic Church since Christians made but one Flock under their several Pastors Christ himself being Head over all The Pope answers The Church is called Catholic two ways 1. As it consists of all particular Churches and so he grants the Roman Church is not the Catholic Church but a part of it though the
external Visible Head which may sail but to Christ as the essential Head of the Church This is the express Doctrine of the Cardinal de Alliaco Ioh. Major Almain Gerson and many others and follows from the Decree of the Council of Constance Thus I have briefly deduced the Sense of the Christian Church in this matter from the Apostolical times and that not meerly from the sayings of particular Men but from publick solemn and undoubted Acts of the Church Which I have the rather done because the Defender saith we have no Antiquity on our sido in this â—ause but as much as since Luther I think I have produced a little more and too much for him to Answer It is time now to consider what proof the Replier brings that Catholic and Roman-Catholic in the Sense of Antiquity were one and the same thing He produces the Testimonies of Tertullian and Cyprian wherein the Church of Rome is called the Catholic Church Who doubts that in those days there was a Catholic Church at Rome For every particular Church which agreed in the Catholic Faith was then called the Catholic Church of such a place And innumerable Instances of this kind may be gathered out of Antiquity both as to the City of Rome and other Cities as well as that and surely they were not all Catholic Churches in his Sense when he agrees there is but One Catholic Church nay more even Parochial Churches were called Catholic as he may find in â—otelerius S Ambrose's Testimony signifies no more than that Satyrus coming into a Place suspected for the Luciferian Schism asked if the Bishop joyned with the Catholic Bishops i. e. with the Roman Church Which is no more than whether he agreed with his own Church for Satyrus was a Roman born But this would prove any other Church to be the One Catholic Church altogether as well as the Roman The Patriarch of Constantinople writes to Hormisda that he would not hereafter recite in the Diptychs the Names of those who were excommunicated by the Apostolical See. And what follows But he saith They were sever'd from the Communion of the Catholic Church And so were those excommunicated by the Patriarch of Constantinople But the words are who do not in all things consent with the See Apostolic but the plain meaning is of those who were cast out of Communion for the words are too Sequestrates à Communione Ecclesiae Catholicae And doth this prove the Roman Church to have any more relation to the Catholic than the Church of the meanest Bishop in the Catholic Church As to the calling of Catholics Romanists by the Gothic Arians that relates to the Roman Empire and not to the Roman Church And now let any impartial Reader judge whether the sense of Antiquity be not admirably cleared by these passages as to the making out Roman and Catholic to be the same But to proceed 3. I said farther that if the Roman Church believed it self to be the Catholick Church it must void the Baptism of those who are out of its Communion but since Baptism doth enter persons into the Catholic Church by its own Confession the Catholic Church which is owned in the Creeds must be of larger Extent than the Roman In Answer to this they both tell me this point hath been over-ruled long ago by the Catholic Church the Baptism of Hereticks being allowed to be good But since it is granted that Baptism doth enter Persons into that Catholic Church we believe in the Creeds doth it not evidently follow that the Catholic Church in the Creeds is larger than the Roman Communion For it takes in those which the other doth not Doth not the Catholic Church take in all that are admitted into the Catholick Church but many more by their own Confession are admitted into it than are of the Roman Communion and therefore it unavoidably follows that the Roman Catholick Church cannot be the Catholic Church believed in the two Creeds And although according to S. Augustine the validity of Baptism depends on the right form of words and not the good Disposition of him that administers yet Baptism where it is valid must have its due Effect which is entering Persons into the Catholic Church But say they Doth not Heresie c. cast them out of the Catholic Church Suppose it doth yet if Heresie do cast them out they were in the Church till they were cast out of it Their being allowed to be in it doth my business let them prove them cast out by Heresie when they please But the Defender saith I suppose what I should prove and then prove it by means of that supposition Here I am to seek for do I not prove from their own Supposition and not from mine that Baptism doth enter persons into the Catholic Church and therefore from thence I prove that themselves cannot believe the Catholic and Roman Church to be all one since they allow many multitudes to be entred into the Catholic Church which they deny to be of the Roman Church Yet he goes on that such persons are not truly Members either of the Catholic or Roman-â—atholic Church No then Baptism doth not admit Persons into the Catholic Church Which is very new Doctrine and fit only for new Converts and is directly contrary to the Roman Catechism which saith Baptism is the Gate by which we enter into the Church They were so far â—embers saith he as Baptism could make them And that I hope was to make them Members of Christs Body or else what becomes of the Council of Trent which so expresly asserts and that with an Anathema the Validity and Efficacy of the Sacraments in general and of Baptism in particulâ—â— And there is a special Anathema against those who say that Children baptized are not to be reckon'd inter fideles and I hope those are Members of the Catholic Church Is there Remission of sins Communion with the Holy Spirit granted out of the Catholic Church yet these are the Effects of Baptism owned by all Persons in the Church of Rome or else they cannot themselves be of the Roman Communion What is it then I pray to be as much Members of the Church as Baptism could make them What can make them more Members than Baptism doth According to their own Doctrine But they are as far off the Roman Church as they are off the Catholic Say you so then no more is requisite to make a Man a Member of the Roman â—hurch than is necessary to his Baptism This great News aâ—â— would be very welcome to the Christian World. I have hâ—â—rd of many Projects of Accommodation but none seem to be like this For then no more is necessary to make us Members of the Roman Church than of the Catholic i. e. owning the Creed and our Baptismal Vow Nay hold there saith he the Profession of the Catholic Faith is necessary to make one a true Member of
the Roman-Catholic Church This is the meaning of a whole Page or else it has none Suppose this to be true and it proves what I intend For either this Catholic Faith is the same which was required to Baptism or not If the same then no more is required than owning the Creeds to make a Member of the Roman-Catholic Church if not the same then those who are Members of the Catholic Church by Baptism are not Members of the Roman Catholic till a farther Profession of the Roman Faith and consequently the Catholic Church and the Roman-Catholic are not the same since those may be Members of the Catholic Church who are not of the Roman-Catholic Can any thing be plainer And the Replier is so much a Gentleman to own the Truth of it For these are his words that Baptism enters persons into the Catholic Church who though they be out of the Communion of the Roman Church yet having the true form of Baptism are Members of the Catholic Church Therefore the Catholick Church and Roman-Catholic cannot be the same Which was all I intended to prove But he saith that as Baptism enters them into the Catholic Church so Heresie Apostasie or Infidelity casts them out or else the old Hereticks which he reckons up were still Members of the Catholic Church I answer that my Argument was not concerning the old Hereticks who rejected any Article of the â—reed which was delivered at Baptism and the owning of it required in order to it but concerning the Roman-Catholic Church which makes the owning New Articles of Faith necessary in order to its Communion and if this Church reject any from its Communion who do own the Articles of the Creeds it follows from thence that it is not the Catholic Church into which Persons are admitted by Baptism But no Man if an Heretick though baptized can remain in the Church If he be convicted of renouncing the Creed upon the owning whereof he was received to Baptism he casts himself out of the Church for he doth not stand to his Promise If you mean that any thing which the Roman-Catholic Church declares to be Heresie casts a Man out of the Catholic Church I do utterly deny it and I see no Reason brought to prove it 4. I argued that in a divided State of the Church there may be different Communions and yet both may remain Parts of the Catholic Church for which I instanced in the Excommunications of old about keeping Easter and the Differences between the Eastern and Western Churches but to appropriate the title of the One Catholic Church to any one of the divided Parties so as to exclude the rest was to charge that Party with the Schism as in the case of the Novatians and Donatists and consequently to apply the One Catholic Church to the Roman was to make it guilty of the present Schism in the Christian World. Both the Defender and Replier behave themselves in their Answers to this as if they did not understand what I aimed at and therefore run out into things by the bye as if they thought there were no difference between saying something to a Book and giving an Answer to it What I can pick up which seems material I will set down distinctly The Replier takes notice that I said that before the Unhappy Divisions of the Christian Church it had been no difficulty to have shewed that one visible Church which Christ had here upon Earth to which he answers that there were Divisions in the Apostles times and the same Means which were then used to preserve the Unity of the Catholic Church did equally serve for after Ages and continue to this day and so the Unity of the Catholic Church is still as visible as ever it was This in few words I take to be the force of what he saith But certainly there was a time when the Unity of the â—atholic â—hurch was a little more discernable than now it is Doth not the Scripture tell us the Multitude was of one heart and one Soul Are all Christians so at this day I grant afterward there were Schisms and Heresies in the Apostolical Churches But the Apostles had an Infallible Spirit which they manifested by the Power of Miracles going along with it by which means the Heresies were laid open and the Schisms stopped But what were those Heresies Such as contradicted the Articles of the Creed as about the Truth of Christ's Incarnation and the Resurrection of the Dead c. and therefore the Apostles by the Assistance of that Infallible Spirit did write Epistles to the Churches to declare that which was to be the standing Faith of all Ages and by an unquestionable Tradition in the Church of Rome they summ'd up these Fundamental Points of Faith in that which is therefore called the Apostles Creed This was therefore the Standard whereby to judge of Faith and Heresie and by this they proceeded in the Ages succeeding the Apostles Afterwards some did not bare faced contradict the Articles of the Creed but broached such Doctrines as did by consequence overthrow them as the Arians by making a Creature God the Nestorians and Eâ—tychians denying in effect the Truth of Christ's Incarnation against these the General Councils assembled and the Eastern and Western Churches joyned in condemning them not from their own Authority as Supreme or Infallible Judges but as the most Authentic Witnesses of the true Apostolical Doctrine And thus the Creed was enlarged by general Consent through the whole Catholic Church and that which was called the Nicene Creed was made the standard of Catholic Communion But to prevent any Mischief by overcharging the Creed the General Council of Ephesus did absolutely forbid any farther additions to be made to it and the Council of Chalcedon ratified that prohibition All that they pretended to was only to give the true Sense of the Articles therein received about the Incarnation of Christ and the same was declared by the fifth and sixth General Councils whereof the one was to clear the Council of Chalcedon from favouring Nestorianism and the other to shew that the Humane Nature in Christ was perfect as to the Affections of the Soul as well as the Body But after this a mighty Breach happen'd between the Eastern and Western Churches and setting aside the different Customs in both which might easily have been composed there were two things which made this breach irreconcileable 1. The Western Churches taking upon them to make a New Addition to the Creed as to the Spirit 's proceeding from the Son without asking the Consent of the Eastern Churches 2. The Bishop of Rome's assuming to himself an Authority of Headship over the Catholic Church They did not deny him a Primacy of Order as he had the first Patriarchal See but when he took upon him to exercise Jurisdiction in the other Patriarchates as well as his own and sent Legates for that purpose they rejected his Authority and so the
condemn the Popes Missionaries for notorious Liers for the Judgment I make of them is from the Relations they have given us And if these be true I can by no means allow them to be excluded from being Parts of the Catholic Church and so that must be of far greater extent than the Roman-Catholic Church But to go on I observed that which I thought a material difference in the Schisms of the Church some I said were consistent with both Parties remaining in the Catholic Church for which I instanced in the Bishops of Rome Excommunicating the Bishops of Asia about Easter and those of Asia and Africa about Re-baptizing Others were for excluding all out of the Church but themselves as the Novatians and Donatists The Replier tells me he doth not think this difference at all material For what Reason Because the Church is the last Tribunal in all differences and whosoever separates from her is to be reputed as a Heathen or a Publican It seems then the Bishops of Asia for not keeping Easter with Pope Victor were as very Heathens and Publicans as the Novatians and Donatists I hope this Gentleman after all will not make the Church so severe in all its Censures to cut Men presently off from being Members of the Catholic Church I had learnt from S. Augustin That Excommunications are sometimes used by way of Discipline to bring Persons to a sense of their Fauits and not to cut them off from the People of God. But suppose Excommunications should always cut Persons off from the Catholic Church is it not to be supposed that they are just and reasonable Suppose the matter doth not deserve it or there be false suggestions or a precipitate sentence is it really all one if the Church happens to Excommunicate But beside all this suppose one Bishop in the Church takes upon him to Excommunicate others for little or no cause and against the advice of his Brethren which was the Case of Victor about the Asian Bishops must they be cut off from the Catholic Church as effectually as if they had been guilty of the greatest Heresie or Schism But not to affix too severe a censure on the Replier in the next Page he doth acknowledge a material difference which he saith was That the whole Church was not yet engaged and till a Decision be made by the whole Church the Parts may Excommunicate each other and remain Parts of the Church still Now this in my Opinion makes very much for me For in this divided state of the Christian World the whole Church is not engaged as to any Decision of the present differences and therefore no Parts can be cut off by other Parts from the Catholic Church For since the breaches of Christendom there hath been no Representative of the Catholic Church and is not like to be and so the divided Parts remain Parts of the Catholic Church still The Council of Trent was so far from it that the famous Abbot of S. â—yprian called it a Cabal of Schoolmen influenced by the Pope And there is a great deal of difference between the Decision of Schoolmen and of the Catholic Church I cannot but still think it material to observe that in Schisms of the most dangerous nature the fault was laid on that Part which appropriated the Title of the Catholic Church to it self as in the Novatians and Donatists Here the Defender puts in his Exceptions for he saith It sounds as if I would have that Title never rightly applied but to those who do not challenge it in likelihood because they have no pretence to it The insinuation is as if I were willing any should be called the Catholic â—hurch but that which is But in earnest I am as much against any one Part being called the Whole as another And from the Case of the Novatians and Donatists I have learnt to charge the Schism on those who at best being but a Part challenge the Whole to themselves But he cannot understand how it comes to be Presumption and a cause of Schism in one part of a Division to assume it I am very sorry for it that he cannot understand it to be a presumption in a Part to call it self the Whole He saith In a Division it is not well intelligible how more than one Part can bear it I say it is not at all intelligible how any Part can bear it What thinks he of the Novatians and Donatists Was it not Presumption in them to arrogate the Title of the Catholic Church to themselves And were they not therefore guilty of the Schism In the ancient Church there were two sorts of Schisms which I think it material to observe 1. A Factious Schism 2. A Sacrilegious Schism 1. A Factious Schism when Men out of opposition to their lawful Governours in the Church set up separate Assemblies Which by the Fathers are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as by S. Basil in his Epistle to Amphilochius where he distinguisheth Heresie Schism and unlawful Meetings Heresie is against some necessary point of Faith Schism is a Separation from the Catholic Church about matters of Discipline And unlawful Assemblies are such as are set up against the Rules of the Church Those who were guilty of these were received upon due submission those who were guilty of Schism were to renounce their Schism and those who were guilty of Heresie were to be re-baptized This was S. Basil's Judgment and is followed by Balsamon Zonaras and Aristâ—nus And S. Basil himself saith This was the Sense of the Fathers before him 2. A Sacrilegious Schism is that which robs the Church of God of that which belongs to it i. e. which excludes all but their own Number from being true Members of the Church And this was the Schism charged on the Novatians and Donatists This S. Augustine very often charges upon the latter as a very high piece of Schism for saith he while they confine the Church to their own Communion they are guilty of manifest Sacrilege both against Christ and his â—hurch And whosoever follow their steps and exclude any Parts of the Church from being so and confine the Church to their own Communion they are guilty of the same Sacrilegious Schism which is of a higher nature than a meer Factious Schism But the Defender saith The Language of the World has always preserved the Title of Catholic to one Part and given the name of Sect or Part cut off to the other By the Language of the World he must mean of that Part which excludes the rest Which he calls the World by the very same Figure by which a Part challenges to be the Whole But in consequence to this for all that I can yet see these who were excluded out of the Catholic Church must be taken in by Baptism And S. Cyprian Firmilian and S. Basil saw this well enough I confess it was after carried That Hereticks were to be distinguished and those
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
the Scriptures for his Infallible Rule Now to judge the Sense of the Primitive Church about this Point there can be no method more proper or convincing than to consider what Course the Christian Church did take in the Controversies then started which were great and considerable And if it had been then believed that Christ had left such an infallible Authority in the Church to have put an end to them it had been no more possible to have avoided the mention of it than if a great Cause in Law were to be decided among us that neither Party should ever take notice of the Iudges in Westminster-Hall There were two very great Controversies in the Primitive Church which continued a long time under different Names and we are now to observe what method the Catholic Writers of the Church took for establishing the true Faith. And these were concerning the Humanity and the Divinity of Christ. That concerning the Humanity of Christ begun very early for S. Iohn mentions those who denied that Iesus was come in the Flesh i. e. that he really took our Nature upon him And this Heresie did spread very much after the Apostles times Ignatius made it a great part of the business of his Epistles to warn the Churches he wrote to and to arm them against it And what way doth he take to do it Doth he ever tell them of the danger of using their own Judgment or of not relying on the Authority of the Church in this matter I cannot find one passage tending that way in all his Epistles But instead thereof he appeals to the Words of our Saviour in the Evangelist Touch me and see if I be a Body or a Spirit his words are an incorporeal Daemon but it was usual with the ancient Fathers to repeat the Sense of Places and not the very Words And a little after he saith That these Hereticks were not perswaded neither by the Prophets nor by the Law nor by the Gospel And he advises the Church of Smyrna to attend to the Prophets but especially to the Gospel in which the Passion and Resurrection of Christ are declared Irenaeus disputes warmly and frequently against this Heresie and he appeals to the Testimony of the Apostles in theiâ— Writings especially to the Gospels of S. Iohn and S. â—aâ—thew but not omitting the other Gospels and the Epistles of S. Paul and S. Iohn And he calls the Scriptures The immoveable Rule of Truth the Foundation and Pillar of our Faith and saith That they contain the whole Will of God. It is tâ—ue he makes use of Tradition in the Church to those who rejected the Scriptures and he finds fault with those who took words and pieces of Scripture to serve their turn but he directs to the right use of it and doth not seem to question the sufficiency thereof for the satisfaction of humble and teacâ—able minds in all the points of Faith which were then controverted Tertullian undertakes the same Cause in several Books and several ways One is by shewing that the Opinion of the Hereticks was novel not being consistent with the Doctrine delivered by the Apostles as appeared by the unanimous consent of the Apostolical Churches which did all believe Christ had a true and real Body And this way he made use of because those Hereticks either rejected or interpolated or perverted the Books of Scripture But this way of Prescription look'd like Out-Lawing of Hereticks and never suffering them to come to a fair Trial. Therefore in his other Books he goes upon three substantial Grounds 1. That the Books of Scripture do certainly deliver the Doctrine of the Christian Church concerning Christs having a true Body 2. That these Books of Scripture were not counterfeit nor corrupted and adulterated but preserved genuine and sincere in the Apostolical Churches 3. That the sense which the Hereticks put upon the Words of Scripture was forced and unreasonable but the sense of the Church was true and natural So that Tertullian did conclude that there was no way to end this Controversie but by finding out the true sense of Scripture But the Author of the Defence brings in Tertullian as representing all trial of Doctrine by Scripture as good for nothing but to turn the Brain or the Stomach and that the issue is either uncertain or none I grant Tertullian hath those words but for Truths sake I wish he had not left out others viz. That those Hereticks do not receive some Scriptures and those they do receive they add and alter as they please And what saith he can the most skilful in Scriptures do with those who will defend or deny what they think fit With such indeed he saith it is to little purpose to dispute out of Scriptures And no doubt he was in the right for the Rule must be allow'd on both sides or else there can be nothing but a wrangling about it The first thing then here was to settle the Rule and for this the Testimony of the Apostolical Churches was of great use But to imagine that Tertullian rejected all trial of Doctrines by Scripture is to make him to write to little purpose afterwards when he combates with all sorts of Hereticks out of Scripture as appears by his Books against Marcion Praxeas Hermogenes and others And Tertullian himself saith That if we bring Hereticks only to Scripture they cannot stand Not because they went only upon Reason but in the end of the same Treatise he saith They made use of Scriptures too but such as were to be confuted by other Scriptures And therefore he makes the Hereticks to decline as much as in them lay the Light of the Scriptures which he would never have charged on others if he thought himself that Controversies could not be ended by them Clemens Alexandrinus speaking of the same Heresies makes the Controversie to consist chiefly about the Scriptures whether they were to be embraced and followed or not He saith None of the Heresies among Christians had so darken'd the Truth but that those who would might find it and the way he advises to is a diligent search of the Scriptures wherein the Demonstration of our Faith doth consist and by which as by a certain Criterion we are to judge of the truth and falshood of opinions Which he there insists upon at large He speaks indeed of the Advantage of the Church above Heresies both as to Antiquity and Unity but he never makes the Iudgment of the Church to be the Rule of Faith as he doth the Scriptures In the Dialogue against the Marcionists supposed to be Origen's this Controversie is briefly handled the point is brought to the Sense of Scripture as in that place the Word was made Flesh from which and other places the Catholic argues the Truth of Christ's humane Nature especially from Christ's appealing to the sense of his Disciples about the Truth of his Body after the Resurrection
gross a Forgery and confess St. Augustin never thought of the Decretal Epistles but of the Canonical Scriptures but yet they 〈◊〉 itle stand for good Canon Law. In the Controversy about the Church with the Donatists St. Augustin's constant appeal is to the Scripâ—â— and he sets aside not only particular Doctors hut the preteâ—â— to Miracles and the Definitions of Councils He doth not therefore appeal to Scripture because â—hey 〈◊〉 about the Church but because he looked on the Testimonies of Scripture as clear enough to decide the point as he often declares And he calls the plain Testimonies of Scripture the support and strength of their Cause If he then thought that Scripture alone could put an end to such a Controversy as that no doubt he thought so as to any other But we need not mention his thoughts for he declares as much whether it be about Christ or his Church or any matter of Faith he makes Scripture so far the Rule that he denouncess Anathema against those who deliver any other Doctrine than what is contained in them Nor doth he direct to any Church Authority to manifest the Sense of Scripture but leaves all Mankind to judg of it and even the Donatists themselves whom he opposed The same way he takes with Maximinus the Arian He desires all other Authorities may be laid aside and only those of Scripture and Reason used To what purpose unless he thought the Scripture sufficient to end the Controversy Against Faustus the Manichean he saith The Excellency of the Canonical Scripture is such as to be placed in a Threne far above all other Writings to which every faithful and pious Mind ought to submit All other Writings are to be tried by them but there is no doubt to be made of whatever we find in them The same method he uses with the Pâ—lagians an advises them to yeild to the Authority of Scripture which can neither deceive nor be deceived This Controversy saith he requires a Judg les Christ judg let us hear him speak Let the Apostle judg with him for Christ speaks in his Apostle And in another place Let St. John sit judg between us And in general he saith We ought to Acquiesce in the Authority of Scripture and when any Controversy arises it ought to be quietly ended by Proofs brought from thence But St. Augustin is the Man whom the Defender produces against me because against the Manicheans he saith he believed the Scripture for the sake of the Church and to bring any proof out of Scripture against the Church does weaken that Authority upon which he believed the Scripture and so he could believe neither The meaning wherof is this St. Augustin was reduced from being a Manichean to the Catholick Church by many Arguments and by the Authority of the Church delivering the Books of Scripture he embraced the Gospel which before he did not Now saith he You would make use of this Gospel to prove Manichaeus an Apostle I can by no means yield to this way Why so Do not you believe it to be Gospel Yes saith he but the same reason which moved me to embrace this Gospel moved me to reject Manichaeus and therefore I have no reason to allow a Testimony out of it for Manichaeus Not that St. Augustine seared any proof that could be brought from thence but he begins with general Topicks as Tertullian did against the Hereticks of his time before he came to close with them And such was this which he here produces For in case Manichaeus his Name had been in the Gospel as an Apostle of Christs appointing this Argument of St. Augustine had not been sufficient For there might be sufficient reason from the Churches Authority to embrace the Gospel and yet if the Scripture had been plain he ought to have believed Manichaeus his Apostleship though the Church disowned it As I will prove by an undeniable Instance Suppose a Jewish Proselyte to have argued just after the same manner against Jesus being the Messias the Apostles go about to prove that he was so by the Testimony of the Prophets No saith he I can allow no such Argument because the same Authority of the Jewish Church which perswaded me to believe the Prophets doth likewise perswade me not to believe Jesus to be the Messias If it be so far from holding in this case neither can it in the other For it proceeds upon a very feeble Supposition that no Church can deliver a Book for Canonical but it must judg aright concerning all things relating to it Which unavoidably makes the Jewish Church infallible at the same time it condemned Christ as a Deceiver But this was only a witty velitation in St. Augustine used by Rhetoricians before he entered into the Merits of the Cause And it is very hard when such sayings shall at every turn be quoted against his more mature and well weighed judgment What noise is there made in the world with that one saying of his I should not believe the Gospel unless the Authority os the Cathelick Church moved me And the Defender brings it to prove the Church more visible than Scripture Whereas he means no more by it but that the authority of the Church was greater to him than that of Manichaeus For he had been swayed by his authority to reject the Gospel and now he rejects that authority and believes the Catholick Church rather than him And this doth not make the Churches authority greater than Scripture but more visible than that of Manichaeus But if St. Augustin's Testimony here be allowed to extend farther yet it implies no more than that the constant universal Tradition of the Scripture by the Catholick Church makes it appear credible to us What can be deduced hence as to the Churches Infallibility in interpreting Scripture or the Roman Churches authority in delivering it The Arrian Controversie gave a great disturbance to the Christian Church and no less a man than the Emperour Constantine thought there was no such way to put an end to it as to search the Scriptures about it As he declared to the Council of Nice at their meeting as Theodoret saith It is true he spake to the Guides of the Church assembled in Council but his words are remarkable viz. That the Books of Scripture do plainly instruct us what we are to believe concerning the Deity if we search them with peaceable minds Methinks Bellarmine bestows no great Complement on Constantine for this saying when he saith He was a great Emperour but no greaâ— Doctor This had been indeed sawcy and scurrilous in others but it was no doubt good manners in him St. Hilary commends his Son Constantius because he would have this Controversie ended by the Scriptures and he desires to be heard by him about the sense of the Scriptures concerning it which he was ready to shew not from new Writings but from Gods Word Athanasius seems to
question the usefulness of Councils in this matter because the Scripture of it self was sufficient to put an end to it And elsewhere saith that it is plain enough to those who search for Truth And in general he asserts their sufficiency and clearness for the discovery of Truth When a Controversie was raised in St. Basil's time about the Trinity the best Expedient that great man could think of for putting an end to it was to refer it to the Scriptures In another place he commends it as the best way to find out Truth to be much in the study of the Scriptures and saith that the Spirit of God did thereby lead to all things useful Epiphanius was well acquainted with all the Heresies of the Church and the best means to suppress them and certainly he would never have taken such pains to refute so many Heresies out of Scripture if he had look'd on the Church as the Infallible Judg of Controversies For he not only undertakes to give the sense of Scripture for the ending of Controversies but he supposes all Persons capable of understanding it that will apply themselves to it Which he several times affirms in the consutation of his last Heresie I shall conclude with St. Chrysostome who speaks to this purpose to a person so offended at the Sects and Heresies among Christians that he did not know whom or what to believe â—he Scriptures saith he are plaâ— and true and it is an easie matter to judg by them if a man agrees with the Sâ—â—iptures he is a Christian if not he is out of that â—oll But men diâ—fer about the sense of Scripture What saith he hâ—ve ye not a 〈◊〉 and judgment And after the answering several other Cavâ—ls lâ— concludes Let us submit to the Divine Law and dâ—â— what is pleasing tâ— that and that will bring us to Heaven And in another place If â—e sâ—udy the Scriptures we shall understand both true Doctrine and a good liâ—e And again the Scriptures are the Door which kâ—â—p out Hereticks which establish our minds in the Truth and suffer us not to be seduâ—ed Thus I have given somewhat a clearer view of the sense of the Primitive Church in this mâ—tter than could be taken from two single passages of Tertullian and St. Augustin and I have been so far from swelling or enlarging this as far as I could that I have made choice only of these out of many others which I could have produced But if these be not sufficient a Volume will not satisfie which it were not hard to make on this Subject out of the Fathers 3 It is time now to examine the Inconveniencies alledged against Persons judging of matters of Faith according to the Scriptures 1 That God Almighty would then leave us at Uncertainties if he gave us a Rule and â—eft every one to be his own Iudg for that were to leave every phantastical mâ—n to câ—use as he pleases To this was answered 1 That this Objection doth not reach those of the Church of Englanâ— which receives the three Creeds and embraces the four General Councils and professes to hold nothing contrary to any Uâ—iversal Tradition of the Church from the Apostles times And that we have often offer'd to put the Controversies between us and the Church of Rome upon that issue To this Answer the Replier saith That they do not charge our Church with not profâ—ssing these things but for erring against her own Profâ—ssion and deserting that Church to which all these Authorities bear Testimony and of which her Progenitors and first Reformers had been Members and from whose hands she received what soever she had either of Scripture Creeds Councils or Tradition and consequently whose judgment she was bound to follow Whether we act against our Profession or not it is plain the Rule of our Church doth not by this Profession leave every one to follow his own fancy and to believe as he plâ—ses But wherein is it that we thus Act against our Profession Do we reject the â—reeds Councils and Universal Tradition in our Deeds Wherein In deserting the Communion of the Church of Rome And is the necessity of thâ—t contained in the Creeds here receiv'd In the â—our Councils â—y Universal Tradition For this I refer to the foregoing Dâ—scourse about the Unity of the Catholick Church But we receiv'd these thiâ—gs from the Church of Rome So we do the old Tâ—stament from the Jews must we therefore hold Communion still with them Are we bound therefore to follow the Judgment of the Jewish Churâ—â— But I do not understand how we receiv'd these things from the Authority of the Church of Rome We receiv'd the Scriptures from Universal Tradition derived from all the Apostolical â—hurches and so the Creeds and Councils and such an Universal Tradition is the thing we desire for the Trent-Creed our forefathers never knew or receiv'd as part of that Faith without which there is no Salvation But here the Defender grows brisk and saith All Hereticks since the first â—our General Councils may say the very same which I say for the Church of England and all before them the Equivalent Arius Macedonius Nestorius and Entyches might have said as much of the Crâ—eds before them and all complain of the Villainous Factâ—ns in the Church against them My Plea for the Church of England hath justified them all The same thing is said in sewer words by the Replier That this Plea justifies the Arrians and condemns the Nicene Fathers vindicates the Eutychians Nestorians and Donatists and confounds all General Councils Lest therefore I should seem to betray the Church of England instead of defending it I shall shew the Reasonableness and Equity of this Plea and its great difference from that of the Ancient Hereticks condemned by General Councils or the Ancient Church 1 The Ancient Hereticks were condemned by that Rule of Faith which the Church always receiv'd v z. the Scriptures but the Council of Tâ—ent set up a new Rule of Faith on purpose that they might condemn us for Hereticks viz. in making Tradition equal with Scripture which is directly contrary to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church as I have already shewed The method of General Councils was to have the Books of Scripture placed in the middle of them on a Table as the Rule they were to judg by And Richerius a Doctâ—â— of the Scrbon not only affirms the Custom but saiâ—h it was for 〈◊〉 Reason That the Fathers of the Councils might be admonished that all things were to be examined by the standard of the Gospel Bellarmin affirms the Council of Nice To have drawn its Conclusion out of Scriptures and the same he affirms of the 6th General Council and he might as well have done it of the rest their main design being only to establish the Doctrine of the Divinity and Incarnation of Christ. But the Case of Councils came to be very different when
they took upon them to define other matters for which they had no Colour in Scripture as the 2d Council of Nice did which was the first that went upon Tradition and then the Christian Church did not shew such Respect to them as was most apparent in the Case of this Council of Nice which was universally rejected in these Western parts Rome excepted as appears by the Council of Franâ—ford and the unexceptionable Testimonies of Eghinardus Hincmarus and others Would this have been a sufficient Argument against Charlemaign and the Western Bishops that they joyned in the Plea of the Ancient Hereticks and none were ever condemned by the Church but they made such complaints against the Proceedings of Councils as they did It is certain that Leo Armenus in the East as well as Charles and the Western Church rejected that Council as contrary to Scripture which shews that neither in the East or West did they think themselves so tied up by Definitions of Councils proceeding in such a manner but that they were at full Liberty to examin and if they saw Cause to reject such Definitions While Councils did declare that they intended to make use of no other Rule but Scripture and to deliver only the Sense of the Catholick Church from the beginning a great regard was to be shew'd to them but when they set up another Rule the Christian Church had just Reason not to submit to their Decrees And to say This is the Plea of all Hereticks is just as if an innocent Person might not be allowed to plead not Guilty because the greatest Malefactors do the same There must be some certain Rules whereby to proceed in this matter and this is the first We fix upon That they proceed as the Ancient Councils did according to Scriptures 2. The Ancient Hereticks were condemned by such Councils as did represent the Universal Church after another manner than the Council of Trent did I do not say There was ever such a General Council as did fully represent the Universal Church which could not be done without Provincial Councils summon'd bâ—â—ore in all parts of Christendom and the Deâ—â—egation from them of such Persons as were to deliver their Sense â—n the matter of Faith to be debated in the General Council and I have Reason to question whether this were ever done But however there is a very great difference in the Ancient Councils from the modern as to this point of Representing for in them there was the Consent of all the Patriarchs and a general Summons for the Bishops from all parts to appear But in the Modern Councils four Patriarchs and the Bishops under them have been excluded and the 5th hath Summon'd the Bishops under him to meet together and then hath called this a General Council Which is just as if in the time of the Heptarchy the King of Mercia should assemble the States under him and call the Convention of them The Parliament of England Thus in the Council of Trent the Pope Summons the Bishops that owned his Supremacy and had taken Oaths to him to meet together and would have this pass for a General Council When the Council met and Cardinal Hosius was appointed President in it Stanistaus Orechovius a warm and zealous Romanist writes to Hosius That it would very much conduce to their Reputation and Interest if the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch were Summon'd to the Council because the Greeks and Armenians depended upon them And he could not understand how the Catholick Church could be Represented without them nor how the Council could be called Oecumenical To which Hosivs Replied That the Pope being Oecumenical Patriarch a Council called by him was an Oecumenical Council Now this we say is extreamly different from the Notion of an Oecumenical Council in the Ancient times and overthrows the Rights of other Churches as they were setled by the Four General Councils and therefore the Case is very different as to being condemnd by General Councils and by the late Conventions assembled by the Popes Authority 3. Themselves allow that some Councils may be and ought to be rejected and therefore all our business is to enquire whether we may not with as much Reason reject some Councils as they do others They reject the Council of Ariminum which together with that of Sâ—leucia which sat at the same time make up the most General Council we read of in Church-History For Bellarmin owns that there were 600. Bishops in the Western part of it So that there were many more Bishops assembled than were in the Council of Nice there was no Exception against the Summons or the Bishops present and yet the Authority of this Council is rejected because it was too much influenced by Constantius and his Agents The 2d Council of Ephesus wanted no just Summons no presence of Patriarchs or number of Bishops yet this is rejected because its Proceedings were too Violent The Councils of Constantinople against Images are rejected because but one Patriarch was present in either of them Now I desire to know whether it be not as lawful to except against other Councils as against these supposing the Reasons to be the same and greater Evidence to be given in these latter Times of the Truth of the Allegations Besides we find they are divided in the Church of Rome concerning their latter Councils Some say The Councils of Pisa Constance and Basil were true General Councils and that the Council of Lateran under Leo X. was not so others say That the former have not the Authority of General Councils but the latter hath Some say That there have been 18. General Councils so the Roman Editors of the Councils and others but a great number of these are rejected by others who allow but 8. of the number viz. those wherein the Eastern and Western Bishops met And so the Councils of Lateran and Trent besides others are cut off What becomes then of the Articles of Faith defined by those Councils For they cannot be received on the account of their Authority However we find this Objection lies equally against them as against us For do not both these differing Parties side with the Ancient Hereticks as much as we do For they except against the Supreme Judicature in the Church and decline the Judgment of these Councils as much as those Hereticks did the Councils of their own Times These are therefore but ordinary Tâ—picks which may be reasonble or not as they are applied 2. It was answer'd That the way proposed doth not hinder mens believing as they please i. e. without sufficient Reason for their Faith several Instances were given As believing the Roman Church to be the Catholick without any colour of Scripture Reason or Antiquity as is now fully shew'd in the foregoing Discourse believing against the most convincing Evidence of their own Senses Believing the lawfulness of the Worship of Images can be reconciled with Gods forbidding it the Communion in
all your new Settlements for I am sure my Ancestors would never deceive me but I know not what designs you with your new Settlements may have upon me and therefore I pray let me alone with my old Deeds The Defender here dances upon Ropes he makes swift and quick motions but he stands on a slender bottom and he knows not whereon to fix but would seem â—o say something but not enough to afford scope for an Answer That which he aims at is That unless a man by judging controversies by the Infallible Rule be able to come to an Infallible Determination then controversies will not be infallibly determined if every man be left to be his own Judg. And I am clearly of his mind But the point is whether such an infallible determination of Controversies be the necessary way to Heaven If a man can judg well enough to carry him thither that is as much as I am concerned for at present But he goes on Who can hope to he saved without pleasing God and every body knows that without Faith it is impossible to please him There wants only one little thing to be added and without an Infallible Judg of Controversies there can be no Faith. But this was forgotten But after all he saith I confess that Scripture is not the Rule of Controversies I pray why for I take it not only to be the Rule but to be the only Rule For saith he they are not ended till one side or other be certain â—hat then is there no Rule that doth not put an end to Controversies Nay their own Writers say a Rule as a Rule cannot put an end to them and therefore a Judg is necessary But I must answer such things as they bring In matters of good and evil I said every mans conscience is his immediate Judg and why not in matters of truth and falshood unless we suppose mens involuntary mistakes to be more dangerous than their wilful sins Here the Defender triumphs How saith he are we before we are aware come to conscience at last I heartily wish we were tâ—â—t would tend more to the ending of controversies than an Infallible Judg. But he wonders that in Disputes of Religion it should before we are aware come to conscienoe at last Good man he was not aware that there was any thing of conscience in the matter Doth he think it is only matter of interest we contend about so those who believe no Religion themselves think all controversies about Religion to have nothing of conscience in them But after a long harangue he saith Toat conscience can do no more than secure a man from being judged for sinning against his conscience But if it lead him to do ill things or embrace a â—râ—ng Faith what can he answer for the sin of having that conscience I grant where it is a sin to have such a conscience the conscience doth not excuse the faults a man commits by it But the Question we are upon is whether it is not a sin for a man to have such a conscience and we are not upon the point of an Erroneous conscience but of an Infallible Judg of conscience in matters of good and evil And it is strange the Defender should not see this There is no question but there are as disputable Points in Morality as in matters of Faith and we think Mens committing Sin is at least as dangerous to their souls as embracing what they call Heresy Now I desire to know why it is not as necessary to have an infallible Guide in Manners as in Faith But if they think that Men may be let alone to judg as well as they can in such matters as their Salvation certainly depends upon what monstrous Inconvenience is it if they use the same Liberty in matters of Speculation I would he had given some better Answer that I might have had an occasion to have inforced this matter For in truth it seems to me a very strange thing when I read in the New Testament such terrible Denunciations against the practice of Sin and that mens happiness or misery depends so much on their doing Good or Evil and so very little said as to mens errors or mistakes of Judgment where there is a general Sincerity as to a good Life and a care to please God that so much weight should be laid on an infallible Judg in matters of Controversy and no care taken for an infallible Guide in matters of Practice But I am to consider that it tends more to the interest of some People to swagger about an infallible Faith than to secure the Practice of Virtue and a good Life which yet is certainly the great design and concernment of the Christian Religion however it may seem to some that an infallible Faith and Church are all in all To shew we do not allow every man to believe as he pleases I said We not only allow the Assistance of spiritual Guides and embrace the ancient Creeds but think no man ought to follow his own fancy against Doctrines so universally received from the Apostles times But all this signifies nothing to him unless our Guides be Infallible and he saith They are plainly no Guides of Christs appointing who teach any other Doctrine than he taught Very well Let this then be the Rule whereby we are to judg whether Guides are Infallible or not But then have a care of telling us we must believe what Doctrine it was that Christ taught upon the word of these Infallible Guides for by that Doctrine we are to judg whether they be Infallible or not The different methods of his Proceeding and mine in this matter will be best understood by this Comparison A Man that goes to enquire the way to a Place he had a great desire to be at but was afraid of mistaking the way of two Men and how he should avoid the dangerous passages in it the one like a plain hoâ—â—st Man tells him there are diffiâ—ulties in it but he will give him a Book of the Roads which acquâ—ints him with all the dangerous turnings he bids hâ—m look well to his Steps and observe the way he goes and when he is to seek to â—eâ—rch his Book and ask such as understand the wav better thâ—n he doesâ— Alas â—aith the other Man this is a very sad Direction to him for his Book may be misunderstood and the Guides may mistake themselves with all their Care but I will put him into an infallible way whereby he may avoid all the dangers Ay Sir saith the Traveller you speak indeed to the purpose I pray acquaint me with it There is saith he to him at such a Hill a Person who by the help of Wings not only flies over all that dangerous passage but carries all those safe who take hold of him You have therefore no better way than to pinion your self to him and you will be safe But saith the Traveller how if he and I
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
all the Clerks of his Kingdom besides two were lately declared for him Adding That he had studied the Matter himself and Writers of it and that he found it was unlawful DE JURE DIVINO and undispensible Thus we have found the King himself declaring in Publick and Private his real dissatisfaction in Point of Conscience and that it was no inordinate Affection to Ann Bolleyn which put him upon it and the same attested by Sir Tho. More and the Circumstances of Affairs I now proceed to another Witness The next is Bishop Bonner himself in his Preface to Gardiner's Book of True Obedience For thus he begins Forasmuch as there be some doubtless now at this present which think the Controversy between the King 's Royal Majesty and the Bishop of Rome consisteth in this Point for that his Majesty hath taken the most excellent and most noble Lady Ann to his Wife whereas in very deed notwithstanding the Matter is far otherwise and nothing so So that if Bishop Bonner may be believed there was no such immediate Cause of the Schism as the Love to Ann Bolleyn And withal he adds That this Book was published that the World might understand what was the whole Voice and resolute Determination of the best and greatest learned Bishops with all the Nobles and Commons of England not only in the Cause of Matrimony but also in defending the Gospel's Doctrine i. e. against the Pope's usurped Authority over the Church Again he saith That the King's Marriage was made by the ripe Judgment Authority and Privilege of the most and principal Universities of the World and then with the Consent of the whole Church of England And that the false pretended Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was most justly abrogated and that if there were no other Cause but this Marriage the Bishop of Rome would content himself i. e. if he might enjoy his Power and Revenues still which he saith were so insupportable that there lay the true Cause of the Breach For his Revenues here were near as great as the King 's and his Tyranny was 〈◊〉 and bitter which he had exercised here under the Title of the Catholick Church and the Authority of the Apostles Peter and Paul when notwithstanding he was a very ravening Wolf dressed in Sheeps clothing calling himself the Servant of Servants These are Bonner's words as I have transcribed them out of two several Translations whereof one was published while he was Bishop of London Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester in his Book not only affirms the King's former Marriage to be unlawful and the second to be just and lawful but that he had the Consent of the Nation and the Judgment of his Church as well as foreign Learned Men for it And afterwards he strenuously argues against the Pope's Authority here as a meer Usurpation And the whole Clergy not only then owned the King's Supremacy Fisher excepted but in the Book published by Authority called A Necessary Doctrine and Erudition of a Christian Man c. The Pope's Authority was rejected as an Usurpation and confuted by Scripture and Antiquity K. James I. declares That there was a General and Catholick Conclusion of the whole Church of England in this Case And when some Persons suspected that it all came from the King's Marriage Bishop Bonner we see undertakes to assure the World it was no such thing The Separation was made then by a General Consent of the Nation the King and Church and People all concurring and the Reasons inducing them to cast off the Popes Usurpation were published to the World at that time And those Reasons have no relation at all to the King's Marriage and if they are good as they thought they were and this Gentleman saith not a word to disprove them then the Foundation of the Disunion between the Church of Rome and Us was not laid in the King 's inordinate Passion but on just and sufficient Reasons Thus it appears that this Gentleman hath by no means proved two parts of his Assertion viz. That our Reformation was erected on the Foundations of Last and Usurpation But our grim Logician proceeds from Immediate and Original to Concomitant Causes which he saith were Revenge Ambition and Covetousness But the Skill of Logicians used to lie in proving but this is not our Author's Talent for not a word is produced to that purpose If bold Sayings and confident Declarations will do the Busines he is never unprovided but if you expect any Reason from him he begs your Pardon he finds how ill the Character of a grim Logician suits with his Inclination However he takes a leap from Causes to Effects and here he tells us the immediate Effects of this Schism were Sacrilege and a bloody Persecution of such as denied the King's Supremacy in Matters wholly Spiritual which no Layman no King of Israel ever exercised What the Supremacy was is best understood by the Book published by the King's Order and drawn up by the Bishops of that Time. By which it appears that the main thing insisted on was rejecting the Pope's Authority and as to the positive Part it lies in these things 1. In Defending and Protecting the Church 2. In overseeing the Bishops and Priests in the execution of their Office 3. In Reforming the Church to the old Limits and pristine Estate of that Power which was given to them by Christ and used in the Primitive Church For it is out of doubt saith that Book that Christ's Faith was then most pure and firm and the Scriptures of God were then best understood and Vertue did then most abound and excel And therefore it must needs follow that the Customs and Ordinances then used and made be more conform and agreeable unto the true Doctrine of Christ and more conducing unto the edifying and benefit of the Church of Christ than any Custom or Laws used or made by the Bishop of Rome or any other addicted to that See and usurped Power since that time This Book was published with the King's Declaration before it And therefore we have reason to look on the Supremacy to be taken as it is there explained And what is there now so wholly Spiritual that no Layman or King of Israel ever exercised in this Supremacy But this Writer never took the pains to search into these things and therefore talks so at random about them As to the Persecutions that followed it is well known that both sides blame K. Hen. 8. for his Severity and therefore this cannot be laid to the Charge of his Separation For the other Effect of Sacrilege I do not see how this follows from the Reformation For although some Uses might cease by the Doctrines of it as Monks to pray the Dead out of Purgatory yet there were others to have employed the Church Lands about as some of them were in founding New Bishopricks c. And I have nothing to say in justification of any Abuses committed
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