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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
of the Laws of the Land. 2. That altho we attribute the Supreme Jurisdiction to the King yet we do not question but there are inviolable Rights of the Church which ought to be preserved against the Fancies of some and the Usurpations of others The Replier Answers That our Religion is built on private Interpretations of Scripture established by Law and therefore if the Law be mutable the Religion is mutable The Defender desires I would make it appear that the Holy Scripture is such a Foundation as makes the Protestant Church unalterable for the Letter of Scripture is common to all who bear the Name of Christians And all Alterations of Religion are made upon pretence of Scripture To give a clear and distinct Answer I shall lay down these Propositions 1. That altho Humane Laws be alterable yet the Divine Law is unchangeable and continues its Force on the Consciences of Men so that no Humane Law can make that lawful which God hath sorbidden nor that unlawful which he hath commanded Whatever Change therefore may happen as to the Laws of Men the Law of God is still the same and its Obliâ—ation cannot be taken off by any Laws of Men. As suppose God hath forbidden the Worship of Images or of Saints or of any Creature upon Supposition that it is not a Creature no Law in the World can make this lawful because God's Authority is Superior and Antecedent to Man's and therefore cannot be superseded by an Act of Men. And this is one of the Fund mentals of the Christian Religion without which it could never have been practised when the Laws of the Empire were againâ—â— it So neither can Humane Laws make that true which is againsâ— the Word of God nor that false which is agreeable to it They can never make Transubstantiation a true Doctrine if it were nor so before nor a Purgatory necessary to be believed unless it be proved from Scripture to be so So that the Foundation of our Religion being the Word of God and the Obligation of that on the Consciences of Men it must remain the same tho Humane Laws be mutable Howbeit I do not deny the Magistrates Power in making Laws for regulating the Publick Exercise of Religion But as we have cause to thank God for the establishment of the best Church in the Christian World by them among us so we are unwilling to put such Cases as the Defender doth when we enjoy our Religion as established by Law And it would be interpreted to be a mistrust of his Majesty's Gracious Promise to protect it 2. Although the Letter of Scripture be liable to Misinterpretations and Abuses yet the true and genuine Sense of it may be understood and then there is a great disterence between false and mistaken Notions and the proper Sense of Scripture This is very strange Reasoning if Men will infer that there can be no certainty as to the Sense of Scripture because so many have misinterpreted it Is it any Argument that the Constitution of our Government is not sirm or that Loyal Subjects cannot be certain of their Duty because Men of ill Principles have run away with false Notions of a Fundamental Contract and Coordinate Power Is there no Certainty in Law because Judges have been of different Opinions and determined the same Cause several ways Is there no Principle of Certainty in the World because Men have been imposed upon both by their Senses and Reason If notwithstanding this we must allow that we may judg truly of some Things or else we must all turn Scepticks then we desire no more than to observe the same Rules and Caution in judging the Sense of Scripture which we do as to our judgment of other Matters In them we take notice of the Causes of Errors the Circumstances of Things the Difference of Objects the Nature of the Medium and accordingly pass our Judgment And in Things too small for our view or too remote we make use of Glasses to help us but all this while Men do not reason so weakly in these Matters Do they say that some have been deceived by their Glasses and Telescopes therefore there is no certainty in any of them and they must all be laid aside and whatever they talk of Spots in the Sun and the unequal Surface of the Moon they are all Fancies and Chimera's of giddy Brains and no Men of sense can believe them If Mankind do not argue at this rate in other things how come they to be so fatally unreasonable about the Scripture The Letter of Scripture say they is used for this Fancy and the other Mistake and a third pleads it for down-right Heresy I very one thinks he hath the Letter of Scripture for him and upon that he grounds his Faith. And what then The natural Consequence is that every one would sain have Scripture of his side Doth it really follow from hence that no Body hath it Or that there can be no certainty who hath it and who hath it not But every one thinks he hath it And what follows Some or others must be deceived I grant it But who shall tell who is deceived and who not I pray let me ask one Question Are you willing to be deceived or not Who is willing to be deceived Every one that will not take the pains to be undeceived or to prevent being deceived What pains do you mean Such honest Industry and Diligence which every one ought to take who pretends he searches for Truth in order to his Salvation And I dare affirm such shall never want Means to attain certainty as to the Sense of Scripture in what concerns their Salvation But suppose the Question be about Churches how can the Church of England assure Men that is the true Sense of Scripture which is delivered by it I Answer 3. The Church of England hath ofsered all reasonable Satisfaction to Mankind that it doth follow the true Sense of Scripture And that by these ways 1. By not locking up the Scripture from the view of the People but leaving it free and open for all Persons to judg concerning the Doctrines here taught Which argues a great assurance that our Church is not afraid of any Opposition to be found to the Word of God in the Articles of our Religion And the contrary is vehemently to be suspected where Reading the Scripture is forbidden the People as it is in the Church of Rome if the Popes Authority signify any thing for Clement the 8th did revoke the Power of granting Licenses which was allowed by Pius the 4th And I do not see how any Confessor can justify his acting against the Pope's Authority 2. By not pretending to deliver the Sense of Scripture on her own Authority If she did require her Members to depend wholly upon her Sense without examining themselves that very thing would render her Authority suspicious with all Inquisitive Men who always mistrust where there is too much Caution