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
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
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
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
A VINDICATION OF THE ANSWER TO SOME Late Papers Concerning the UNITY and AUTHORITY OF THE Catholick Church AND THE REFORMATION OF THE CHURCH of ENGLAND LONDON Printed for Richard Chismell at the Rose and Crown in S. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVII A VINDICATION of the ANSWER to Some late Papers c. IT was so tempting a piece of Honour to appear as the Champion of the Royal Papers that I rather wonder that no more than that these have shewed themselves to the World under so inviting a Character Which seems to have betray'd them into more than usual security presuming I suppose that they are to be looked on as a sort of Heralds in Controversis whose bearing the Royal Arms will keep them from being touched themselves though they bid defiance to others But where Truth lies at stake every one hath a Right to put in for it and whose Game soever any Person plays those ought to carry it who have the best Cards to shew I mean that in Debates of this Nature and Consequence other considerations ought to be so far laid aside that the strongest Reason should prevail But lest I be again thought to have a mind to flourish before I offer to pass as the Champion speaks in his proper Language I shall apply my self to the Matter before us Only taking notice that I am now glad to enter the Lists upon even Ground For although I thought I behaved my self with due Respect and Decency before yet I perceive the Measure of those things is so nice and arbitrary that it is very hard to escape Censures where the Distance is so great But those who live in the Country may mean and intend as well to their Prince as those who live at Court though they do not make so fine Legs nor are of so pleasing an Address The plain truth is Controversie is quite another thing from Courtship and Poetry It is like a Trial at Law which ought to depend on Evidence and Proof though the King himself be concerned in it And as we must give Honour to whom Honour so Truth to whom Truth is due and this without Respect of Persons it being a Case long since decided That Truth is greater than the King. If I thought there were no such thing in the World as true Religion and that the Priests of all Religions are alike I might have been as nimble a Convert and as early a Defender of the Royal Papers as any one of these Champions For why should not one who believes no Religion declare for any But since I do verily believe not only that there is such a thing as true Religion but that it is only to be found in the Books of Holy Scripture I have Reason to enquire after the best means of understanding the sense of those Books and thereby if it may be to put an end to the Controversies of Christendom This was the noble design of the two Royal Papers which are written with far greater strenght and spirit and closeness than these which are published in Defence of them But notwithstanding all their fair appearance I could not be convinced by the Reason contained in them and much less by the Defence of them Which I endeavour'd to represent as far as I could judge with Modesty and Civility But if I have offended in any thing against the strict Rules of good Manners I hope I may be the more easily forgiven since their Casuists allow involuntary faults to be in their own nature venial The Method proposed by the Paper for ending Controversies was by finding out a Principle for doing it as visible as that the Scripture is in Print This I could noâ— but extreamly approve as a very satisfactory method of proceeding and the Consequence I said would be that all Men of sense would soon give over disputing for none who dare to believe what they see can call that in Question The Author of the Râ—ply saith I mistook the meaning of the words which he saith was this That what ever Motives render it visible that a Book in Print is Scripture i. e. the Word of God the same or other Motives are as powerful to render this other truth as visible that none can be that Church but that which is called the Roman-Catholick Church The Desender saith The Church is more visible than Scripture because the Scripture is seen by the Church for which he brings S. Augustin 's Authority And if by saying that the Scripture is in Print be understood a tking out of Question then he denies it to be visible that the Scripture is in Print because many Men do call Scripture in question at this day and to question whether the Book in print be Scripture is manifestly to question whether Scripture be in print The Words of the Royal Paper are plain but these Interpretations of them so forced and unnatural that there needs no other confutation of them but to compare their confused Comment with the Text. It is as visible as that the Scripture is in Print that is it is a thing evident to sense for so it is that the Book called the Scripture or the Bible is in Print Now what is it which is affirmed in the Paper to be thus evident viz. this Proposition That none can be that one Church which Christ has here on Earth but that which is called the Roman Catholick Church But if it be certain as I doubt not to make it appear that what is called the Roman-Catholick Church is but a Part of that One Church which Christ has here on Earth then the plain result of this Proposition must be that it is a thing evident to sense that a Part is the Whole Now this looked so oddly that these Gentlemen were resolved that this should not be the sense of the plain words and therefore have endeavoured to put another sense if it may be called so upon them And if their Church can but interpret Scripture at this rate we are in a hopeful way to have a speedy and happy end of Controversies As to the Consequence I drew from hence that if Controversies could be determined by a Principle as visible as that Scripture is in Print all Men of sense would soon give over disputing for none who dare believe what they see would call that in question One saith The sooner the hetter So say I too upon good grounds But what would then become of the Noble Science of Controversie The other saith That Catholicks and Protestants are both Men of sense and yet they dispute about the Scripture which is in Print And what then This is to shew that the Scriptures being in Print is one thing and the Authority of the Scripture is another The one is a common object of sense in which all are agreed the other is liable to many Disputes and therefore could not be meant in the Papers But they have a notable Cavil against Mens believing what they
see because Faith is of things not seen This Cavil had been as good against our Blessed Saviour when he said to Thomas because thou hast seen thou hast believed I hope upon second thoughts they will not tell him that this was improperly spoken and not like a Schoolman Call it what you will the single Question is Whether your Church will allow us to Judge of things according to the plain Evidence of Sense One saith It is impossible that any Man should be commanded not to believe what he sees Believing here is the Judgment of the Mind upon the Representation of Sense and will he secure us that the Church can never require us to judge otherwise than according to the Evidence of Sense I wish he would make his words good for I assure him he would remove a terrible block out of our way My Senses plainly tell me what I see and feel and taste is as much Bread after Consecration as it was before how then comes it to pass that my Judgment that it was Bread before was very good but although there be the very same Evidence afterwards without the least alteration to Sense yet then I am to judge just contrary i. e. that it is not Bread which I see and feel and taste just as I did before But he saith what is seen is only the form shape and sigure of Bread and Wine and that they believe to be there But alas This doth not reach to the point For the Question is not about external appearances but about the Iudgment of the Mind upon the Evidence of Sense I will make this matter plainer that they may know where the Difficulty lies When Christ's Body appeared to the Disciples after his Resurrection there was no dispute among them concerning the form shape and figure of his body but the doubt was whether from these they were to conclude that it was Christ's real Body or not If not they could not believe from the Evidence of Sense that Christ's Body was risen from the dead if they were let them tell us how Christ's Body comes to be so much changed and to lose those essential properties of a body which it once had and was judged by and farther what ground there is for us now not to allow that Judgment of Sense which Christ himself appealed to after the Institution of the Sacrament For if Christ had therein declared that our Senses are not to be our Rule of judging concerning his Body he would certainly not have appealed so soon after to the Senses of his Disciples concerning that very Body and neither he nor his Disciples have given the least intimation that what we see and feel to be one body we must believe to be quite another which we can neither see nor feel Did not two Angels appear to Lot in the figure and shapes of Men and the Holy Ghost descend in the form of a Dove And were they who saw them to believe according to the Evidence of Sense I answer that there is a great deal of difference to be made between Invisible Powers appearing under bodily shapes and a natural visible palpable extended body losing the Properties of a body abd becoming invisible impalpable and indivisible And withal there is a great difference between Spiritual Powers uniting the real particles of Matter into a Body and the making the Form Figure and Shape of a real Body to be where there is no substance of a body We do not pretend to judge by our Senses of Invisible Substances under outward appearances but of the Truth of a bodily Substance by all the Appearances of a body under all the Circumstances necessary for the right judgment of Sense The other saith he knows of no Church which allows not People to believe all they see May we then believe that to be still Bread which we see to be so No he saith the What of a thing is not the Object of Sense I perceive then our Senses are very impertinent things and only give an account of the Circumstances and not of the Substances of things But I pray did not the Disciples perceive the What of Christ's Body by their Senses How do we know the What of any bodily Substance but by them It is meer Collusion to say our Senses do not judge of Substances for our bare Senses judge of nothing but are the means of conveying the impressions or Representations inward whereby our Minds do paâ—s Judgment upon things And either we cannot know the Substance of any thing sensible or we must know the What of it as he speaks by our Senses We now come to the main business which for the clearer proceeding I shall put under three distinct Heads I. Concerning the Unity of the Catholick Church II. Concerning the Authority of it III. Concerning the Reformation of the Church of England I. Of the Unity of the Catholick Church ANd here the point to be discussed is viz. Whether that which is called the Roman-Catholick Church be that one Church which Christ has here on Earth 1. The first thing I objected against it was that a Part cannot be the Whole but that which is called the Roman-Catholick Church is but a Part and therefore it cannot be the One Catholick Church of Christ here on earth Here to prevent cavilling I must declare that I meant not the Roman Diocese or Province but all the Churches which live in Communion with and Subjection to the Bishop of Rome as Head of the Church and look on it as necessary to Salvation so to do And this I still assert to be but a Part of the Catholick Church and a corrupt one too The Author of the Defence saith all this Riddle of Part and Whole comes from my Inadvertence How so Because I confound the Roman Diocese with the Roman-Catholick Church No I assure him I did take it in their own sense for all that embrace the matters of Faith which are received in the Roman Communion And He need not fear my doing otherwise for I intend to discourse of no other Church but this and this I deny as so taken to be the One Catholick Church Doth not Catholic signifie all the Parts I am sure it ought to do so but I say it doth not when Roman is joyned to Catholick for then it excludes all those from being Parts of the Catholic Church which do not joyn in the Roman Communion and this I say is unreasonable And here I expected some Proof in so material a Point but there is not a Word farther than that Catholic comprehends all but I say again Roman Catholic excludes all that are not in its Communion As suppose any one should say the German Ocean is the whole Sea and to prove it should reason as this Gentlemen doth Ocean is the whole Sea is it not And is it the less the Ocean because German is added to it No the Ocean is just as large as ever it was but