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
obligation to believe either part of the contradiction But if he asserts either of them to be an Article of Faith and pronounces the other Heretical he then errs in Faith and is become a Heretick From whence I observe that supposing any points in Controversie not to be so determined as to bring on men an obligation to believe them those who make them to be Articles of Faith and condemn the others for Hereticks are in so doing Hereticks themselves Melchior Canus saith That although a Proposition be thought by wise men to be a matter of Faith yet if it be not plainly defined by the Church nor demonstrated by Reason then the opposing of it is no Heresie but Erroneous Doctrine Nay he saith further That if an Opinion do contradict a point of Catholick Faith in the most probable and almost necessary opinion of all wise men yet if it do not manifestly contradict it is barely Erroneous and not Heretical Suarez saith that Melchior Canus his Doctrine in this matter is generally receiv'd But he adds one thing more viz. That in Heresie there must be the highest opposition to immediate Revelation but if it implies only a repugnancy to a bare Catholick Truth or Theological conclusion it is erroneous in Faith but no Heresie The highest opposition lies in three things 1. The Revelation must be immediate and not deduced by consequence 2. That it must be most certainly and undoubtedly of Faith. 3. That the Erroneous Proposition do most certainly and undoubtedly contradict it For saith he if there be a defect in any one of these it is not an Heretical Proposition These are the Principles laid down by their own Writers of greatest esteem And therefore if the Replier think fit to make good his Charge of Heresie against the Church of England he may from hence see what he hath to do 1 He must prove the Points in Controversie to be of immediate Divine Revelation and not drawn from thence by Consequences and Suppositions 2. That the Doctrine of our Church doth in the highest plainest and most certain manner contradict such Propositions of Faith. And supposing it were possible for him to do the former yet if their own Expositor of the Articles of our Church may be believed he can never do the latter For he endeavours to prove them capable of a Catholick sense The five first he allows for Catholick as they stand The sixth about Canonical Scripture with St Jerome's explication is Catholick enough The 7th 8th first part of the 9th and the whole 10th are very Catholick The four next he examines The 15th needs only a Gloss of St. Augustins The 16th very good The 17th Catholick and so the 18th The 19th only wants a Gloss and so the 20th and 21. The 22th he examines 23d is allow'd The 24th being only against a custom of the Church he proves from Canus can imply no Heresie and yet he thinks it capable of a good Gloss. The 25th he allows in the genuine sense of it The 26th and 27th are confessed to be the Doctrines of the Church and all the Fathers Even the 28th against Transubstantiation he thinks may be glossed into a good sense The 29th is explained from S. Augustin The 30th from Canus not to contain any Heresie The 31th he saith only opposes the common opinion The 32th capable of a 〈◊〉 sense 33 34th agreeable to Scripture and Antiquity 35th 〈◊〉 Hâ—milies passable 36th about Ordination valid 37th agreeable to the French Opinion and practise the Popes Jurisdiction may be understood of Temporal The two last he allows to be Catholick So that of 39 Articles but five are reserved for examination and of these the 11th he saith is about words the 12 and 13 capable of a good sense the 14th goes upon a mistake of their sense the 22th determines nothing against the true Faith. I do not go about to justifie his Exposition but I say that upon your own grounds it sheweth that our Church cannot be justly charged with Heresie For if it be required that such Propositions as are Heretical must in the highest and clearest manner contradict the Doctrines of Faith and your own Expositor grants they do not then however you may think them Erroneous yet you cannot condemn them for Heretical 2 As to Heresie a sufficient Proposition of the matters of Faith is required For they grant that the matters of Faith must be proposed in such a manner as to induce an obligation to believe them before any can be guilty of Heresie in rejecting them Therefore it is necessary for us to know what they mean by a sufficient proposal Sâ—arez yields this to be a necessary condition and elsewhere discourses about the nature of it And there he shews 1. That a sufficient Proposition of a matter of Faith is not barely to deliver it as a Divine Trath but it must be done with such circumstances that it may appear to be prudently credible i. e. so as to see such reason for it as to put him beyond doubt or fear of the contrary 2. That it must appear evidently credible to be revealed by God and therefore certain and infallible 3. That it must appear not only so but evidently more credible than the Doctrine repugnant to it 4. That according to natural reason the assent to it is to be prefer'd before the contrary opinion Now to make good the charge of Heresie against our Church he must not bring the Motives of Credibility for the Christian Faith in general which are owned on both sides but as to those points which are asserted by them as matters of Faith and rejected by us As for instance Transubstantiation is declared by them to be a matter of Faith and it is denied by us and they charge us with Heresie for it We say it hath never been proposed to us in such a manner as to make it appear to be a prudent judgment in us to believe it or that it was ever revealed by God or more credible than the contrary opinion in the judgment of Reason Not any one of these things doth appear to us but the contrary for we can see nothing of the Credibility but a great deal for the evident Incredibility of it How then can this matter of Faith be said to be sufficiently proposed to us It may be said all this is done by the Authority of the Church proposing it and if it be made evidently credible that you ought to believe the Church then we are Hereticks for rejecting her Authority I answer That if by the Churches Authority be meant that of the Roman Catholick Churches Infallible proposing matters of Faith to us we are as far to seek as ever and for our hearts we cannot find this made out with any degree of Credibility We have searched all your Grounds examined your Motives weighed your Reasons your miracles we have not seen but we can meet with nothing that should make it a prudent judgment
a man such St. Augustins opinion is reported by Aquinus as the Reason of his Judgment that is adopted into the Body of the Canon-law and therefore that ought to be the Standard according to which they are to pronounce a Person obstinate If Men do not wiâ—h Diligence and Caution seek after Truth and are not willing to embrace it when they find it then they are to be accounted Hereticks for being obstinate But St. Augustin goes no further however Suarez would seem to agree with him But it is worth the while to consider his Doctrine about it 1. He affirms That it is not enough for one to be ready to submit to Gods Word either written or unwritten but the Submission must be with respect to the Church as proposing both to us 2. That those who believe any Doctrine because their Judgment tells them it is the sense of Scripture if they therein follow their own Judgment and not the sense of the Church they are guilty of such an Oâ—stinacy as makes Hereticks 3 That it doth not excuse â—f he be willing to believe the Church if he â—â—es Reasons and Arguments to move him for this he saith is not to believe the Churches Authority as Divine but after a human manner which may consist with Obstinacy against the Church as a Rule of Faith. 4 That it is not yet necessary in order to this Obstinacy to believe the Church to have Infallible Authority for then those must be excused from heretical Obstinacy who denied it but it is sufficient that the Church is proposed as a true Church whose Authority he is bound to submit to The short of all this matter is If a Man resolve to believe as the Church believes a very small thing will excuse him from Heresy but if not nothing according to Suarez will do it unless it be Ignorance as to the Churches proposing And this is the modern notion of Heresy which appears to me to be very unreasonable on these accounts 1. Suppose a Person have a general Disposition of mind to believe whatever is sufficiently proposed to him as revealed by God and believes sincerely whatever he knows to be contained in Scripture I would sain know whether this Disposition of mind do not really excuse him from heretical Obstinacy And yet this is very consistent with doubting whether the Church be accounted as the Proponent of matters of Faith. 2. Is it necessary in order to heretical Obstinacy that the Person believes the Proponent to be Infallible or not If it be then none can be convinced of heretical Obstinacy but such as reject the Churches Authority when they believe it Infallible and then none of us can be charged with it for we do not believe the Churches Infallibility If it be not necessary then the Churches Infallibility is not necessary to Faith for iâ— order to Heretical Obstinacy he must be convinced of resisting that which was necessary in order to Faâ—â—h from whence it will follow that the Churches Infallibility is noâ— equired as the Ground of Faith. 3 Suppose a Person thinks himself bound in Conscience to believe those Guides which God by his Providence hath set over him and he believes to be sincere and honest and these tell him there is no ground to believe on the Churches Authority as being sounded neither in Scripture nor Antiquity nor Reason is not he excused hereby from Heretical Obstinacy 4. Suppose he declares himself ready to believe the Churches Authority if it be sufficiently proposed to him i. e. with such Reasons and Arguments as are proper to convince him but after all he declares that he cannot see any such And yet Aquinas affirms No man can believe unless he sees Reason why he should 〈◊〉 How then can a man be liable to Heretical Obstinacy because he only refuses to believe when he sees no Reason to believe 5. Suppose he doth believe that which the Church proposes not meerly upon its Authority but upon the Reasons which the Church offers why must this man be liable to Heretical Obstinacy for believing upon the Churches Reasons What a wonderful nice thing is Heresie made It seems by this rare Doctrine it doth not excuse from Heresie to believe even Truth it self if it be upon grounds of Reason which the Church it self gives But it must be taken meerly from the Churches Authority and yet that very Authority must be believed on the grounds of Reason or the Motives of Gredibility 6. Suppose a Person hath used the best means he could to find out his Obligation to believe on the Churches Authority and after all he cannot find any such thing what Obligation is he under to enquire farther and from whence doth it arise And if he be not under any how can he be guilty of Herecial Obstinacy who is under no Obligation to search any farther For Obstinacy must suppose resisting some Obligation 7. Suppose he be willing to believe on the Churches Authority if that Church be made appear to him to be the One Catholick Church of Christ but when he comes to examine this he finds that he must exclude very great and considerable Parts of the Catholick Church to reduce the Authority of the Catholick Church to that of the Roman Communion how can it then be Heretical Obstinacy not to suppose a Part to be the Whole 8. Suppose he hath overcome this yet if he should mistake about the Seat of Infallibility is he not still as liable to the charge of Heretical Obstinacy because the true Reason of it is that such a Person rejects that which God hath chosen as the proper means to propound matters of Faith to us But if he should be mistaken in the true Proponent he is in as much danger of Heretical Obstinacy still As suppose a man takes a General Council as representing the Catholick Church to be the only true Proponent of Faith and therefore rejects the Authority of the Pope in this matter I desire to know whether this be Heretical Obstinacy or not If not then rejecting the true Proponent doth not make any liable to it If it doth then there is Heretical Obstinacy in the Church of Rome as well as out of it And so much in Answer to the Repliers Charge of Heresie on the Church of England 3. The next Charge relates to the Insufficient Authority of the Church of England and that on these Accounts 1. In that it leaves every man to judge for himself 2. Because she dares not use the true Arguments against Sects for fear of their being turned upon her self 3. Because she denies an Appeal to an higher Judicature 1. It is urged in the Papers That among us every man thinks himself as competent a Judg of Scripture as the very Apostles It was answer'd That every man among us doth not pretend to an Infallible Spirit but all yield the Apostles had it And by being a Judg of Scripture if no more be meant than that
hath as much Authority over our Church as the Rulers of it have over the Members Which ought not to have been supposed but substantially proved since the Weight of the Cause depends upon it But I see nothing like a Proof produced 2. That the Sectaries have as much reason to reject the Terms of Communion required by our Church as our Church had to reject those of the Church of Rome But this is as far from being proved as the other 2. The Defender desires to be instructed how such an Authority can be in a Church without Infallibility I hope he believes there may be Authority without Infallibility or else how shall Fathers govern their Children But not in the Church Why so Have not Bishops out of Councils Authority to rule their Diocesses Have they not a Provincial Synods Authority to make Canons tho they be not Infallible What then is the meaning of this He tells us soon after To say a Church is Fallible is to say she may be deceived There is no doubt of that And if she may be deceived her self they may be deceived who follow her And if a Church pretends to be Infallible which is not she certainly deceives those that follow her and that without Remedy But all this sort of Reasoning proceeds upon a false Suggestion viz. That our Faith must be grounded on the Chuach's Authority as the formal Reason of it Which he knows is utterly denied by us and ought to have been proved We declare the Ground of our Faith is the Word of God not interpreted by Fancy but by the Consent of the whole Christian Church from the Apostles Times This is our Bottom or if you will the Rock on which our Church is built This is far more firm and durable than a pretence to Infallibility which is like a desperate Remedy which Men never run to but when they see nothing else will help them Had the Church of Rome been able to defend her Innovations by Reason or Antiquity she had never thought of Infallibility It is a much better expedient to keep Men in Error than to keep them from it and tends more to save the Authority of a sinking Church than the Souls of Men. But he will not let the Church's Infallibility go thus For he pretends to prove that if we take that away we make Christianity the most unreasonable Thing in Nature nay absolutely impossible What! whether God hath promised to make the Church Infallible or not We understand those who offer to prove the Church Infallible by Scripture but these Scientifical Men despise such beaten Roads and when they offer to demonstrate fall short of the others Probabilities As will appear by examining his Argument Faith requires an assent to a thing as absolutely true but a fallible Authority cannot oblige me to a thing as absolutely true and therefore this would be an Effect without a Cause a down-right Impossibility a flat Contradiction I will match his Argument with another Faith is not an Assent to a thing as absolutely true upon less than a Divine Testimony but the Church's Testimony is not Divine and therefore to believe upon the Church's Testimony is an Effect without a Cause a down-right Impossibility a flat Contradiction Let him set one of these against the other and see who makes Faith unreasonable or impossible But I will clear this Matter in few words I grant that Faith is an Assent to a thing as absolutely true and that what is absolutely true is impossible to be false I grant that a meer fallible Authority is not sufficient to produce an Act of Faith. But here I distinguish the Infallible Authority of God revealing into which my Faith is resolved as into the formal Reason of it from the Authority of the Church conveying that Revelation which is only the Means by which this Revelation comes to be known to us As when a Man swears by the Bible there is a difference between the Contents of that Book by which he swears and the Officers putting the Book into his hands 3. The Church of England is blamed for allowing no Liberty of Appeals to a higher Judicature The Question is Whether this makes her no true Church or not to have any just Authority over her own Members The Replier saith She makes her self the last Tribunal of Spiritual Doctrine I know not where she hath done so since we own the Authority of Free and truly General Councils as the Supreme Tribunal of the Church upon Earth And accordingly receive the four first which even S. Gregory the Great distinguished from those that followed as to their Authority and Veneration The Defender had a good mind to cut off the Church of England from being a Church because she hath renounced Communion with the Church of Rome but his heart failed him And I hope he will think better of it when he sees cause to prove a little more effectually that the Church of Rome in its largest extent is the Catholick Church He argues That there must be such an Authority in a Church which may give a final Sentence conclusive to the Parties as the Judges do Temporal Differences But is it necessary for all Churches to have such a Power then there must be as many Supreme Courts as there are Churches If not we desire to know where the Supreme Court is and who appointed it And where Christ hath ever promised to his Church a Power to end Controversies when they arise as effectually as Judges do Temporal Differences For the freest and most General Councils yet assembled have not been so happy and those we look on as the most Venerable Authority to decide Differences in the Church But still our Church wants sufficient Authority in his Opinion Doth it want Authority to govern its own Members To Reform Abuses in a divided State of the Catholick Church To cast off an usurped Power as it was judged by the Clergy in Convocation who yet concurred in other things with the Church of Rome I pray what Authority had the Gallican Church so lately to declare against the Pope's Infallibility and to reduce him in that respect to the Case of an ordinary Bishop If Absolute Obedience be due to him as Head of the Church what Authority have the Temporal Princes in other Countries sometimes to forbid sometimes to restrain and limit the Pope's Bulls This at least shews that there may be just Authority to examine and restrain the Pope's Power And I see no Reason why the several Churches of Christendom may not act as well against the Pretence of the Pope's Authority as the Gallican Church hath done against his Infallibility especially since this Gentleman hath told us that Authority without Infallibility signifies nothing And those who think they may examine and reject his Dictates may do the same by his Authority the one being as liable as the other It was said in the Papers That no Country can subsist in
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
from the proceeding of the rest of Mankind that for my part I must be content rather to grope in the darkness of common Reason than be directed by the Light of this invisible Sun-shine The Defender here comes in with his Dish and his Stand which are Metaphors somewhat too mean for such a Subject and are apt to turn one's Stomach more than Repetition The Question is Whether those who allow the use of our Judgments in the choice of a Church have Reason to find fault with it in other thingâ— because the Difficulties about an Infallible Church are as great as about any other Point in Religion The Replier again saith The Church is a Noon-day Light. Then what Cimmerians are we Tully questioned Whether some God or Nature or the Situation of the Place hindred a whole Nation that they could never see the Sun But our Modern Geographers put an end to this Dispute telling us there are no People in the World who cannot see the Sun at some time or other And we are apt to think if there were such a Sun-shine of the Churches Infallibility we should be able to discern it unless the Light of it may be thought to dazle oâ—â— Eyes for we are as willing to find it as they but the Disâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it are such as we cannot conquer And there need no Telescopes to find out the Sun. But the Defender will not yield that there are any suâ—â— Difficulties about the Church's Infallibility for he hath but oâ—â— thing to mind and that no Difficulty neither where or which the Church is I hope when he hath considered the former Discourses he will not think it so easy a matter to find out the Church he talketh of viz. One Infallible Catholick Church But the Difficulties about Scripture are greater as about the Canon Translation and Sense of it The Question proceeds upon a Person who in earnest desires to satisfy himself in this Matter Whether in order to his Salvation he must follow the Directions of Scripture or the Church And I doubt not to make it appear that the Difficulties are greater about the Church than the Scripture That which deceives Persons is that they rather consider the Difficulties after the Choice than before It is very true those who trust the Church have no more to do afterward but to believe and do as she directs for they are to examine no farther whether it be true or false right or wrong Vertue or Vice which is commanded the Church is to be obey'd But those who follow the Scripture must not only read and weigh and consider it well but when Doubts arise must make fresh Applications to their Rule and use the best Means for understanding it by Prayer Meditation and the Assistance of Spiritual Guides And this is far more agreeable to the Design of the Christian Religion as it was taught by Christ and his Apostles But the Difficulties of the Choice are now to be consider'd and let us consider what those are about the Church and then compare them with those about the Scripture If I choose a Church for my Infallible Guide in the Way to Heaven to which the Promises of Christ do belong then there are these Difficulties both which I think impossible for my mind to get over 1. I must exclude all other Churches in the Christian World from any share in these Promises And either I must condemn them without hearing them or examining the Grounds of their Exclusion or I must be satisfied with the Reason of it which I cannot be till I am certain that Church hath justly shut out all other Churches and challenged the Promises to her self alone 2. I must be satisfied that Christ did intend one standing Visible Church to be my Director in the Way to Heaven And for this purpose I must examine all the places of Scripture produced to that end and be Judg of the clearness and evidence of them i. e. I must conquer the Difficulties about the Scripture as to Canon Translation and Sense before I can be satisfied that I am to make choice of a Church 3. There is yet a harder Point to get over Suppose a Church must be chosen why the Church of Rome rather than any other What is there in the Promises of Christ which direct me to chuse that Church and no other Suppose I were born in Greece and there I was told I must â—huse a Church for my Guide to Heavâ—n If it must be so I will chuse our own Greek Church No it must be the Church of Rome What Reason or Colour is there for it Is it said so in Scripture No not expresly But what Consequence from Scripture will make me do it There are Promises made to the Church What then Were not our Churches planted by the Apostles Have not we had a constant Succession of Bishop in them Have we not four Patriarchs in our Communion and you but one For what imaginable Reason then should you exclude our Churâ—â—es from any share in the Promises of Christ But now as to the Scripture we are to consider 1. That no more is necessary as to particular Persons than knowing the things necessary to their Salvation which are easy to be known and are clearly revealed in Scripture if S. Chrysostom and S. Augustine may be bâ—lieved 2. That what Difficulties are objected about the Scripture must be all of them resolved by him that believes the Church as is already observed but the Difficulties about the Church's Infallibility do not concern him that relies on Scripture 3. That the general Consent of the Christian Church is of far greater Advantage for the satisfaction of a Man's Mind than the Authority of any one Church as about the Integrity of the Copies and the Canon of Scripture 4. As to Translations the Unlearned in all Churches must trust to those that are Learned for the particular examination of them but in general a private Person may be satisfied by these Conâ—â—derations 1. That Men will not go about to deceive others in a Matter wherein so many are concerned and in which it is so easy to discover any wilful Fraud 2. That since the Divisions of Christendom there are Parties still at watch to discover the Faults committed by each other in a Work of so publick a Nature 3. That where a Translation hath been review'd with great care after several Attempts there is still greater Security as to the goodness of it And this is the Case of the present Translation of our Church which was with wonderful care review'd and compared with the Original Languages by the particular Direction of K. James I. and therefore deserves to be esteemed above such a Translation which was never made out of the Original as to the Old Testament nor ever review'd and corrected by it Which is the Case of the Vulgar Latin and of such Translations which are made from it I had said that the Scripâ—ure may be a
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
for us to take all matters of Faith upon trust from her And if there be no Evidence of Credibility there is no sufficient proposal and if there be not there can be no obligation to believe and where that is not there can be no Heresie in not believing according to the judgment of your greatest Divines 3 As to the charge of Heresie there must be obstinacy in the party which they all make necessary to formal Heresie Aquinas quotes the noted passage of St. Augâ—stin to this purpose That although men hold a false opinion without pertinacious animosity especially if they derive it from their Parents and do with diligence and caution seek after the Truth and are ready to lay it down when they have found it they are not to be reckoâ—'d for Hereticks And we do not think a better Plea can be made for us as to this charge than what is contained in these words of St. Augustâ—n But here we must observe the artifice of Aquinas He saw this would never do their business against the enemies of the Church of Rome and therefore he pretends to give the Reason for this because they do not contradict the judgment of the Church and so draws the power of declaring Heresie to the Pope as having the chief Authority in the Church Of whom St. Augustin saith not a word But however Aquinas himself requires Obstinacy even in this case to make a Heretick And the Obstinacy is not placed by him in the meer resisting the Authority of the Church but in the manner of doing it Cajetan there affirms that if there be no pertinacy in the Will there is no Heresie So that if a man holds an opinion contrary to Faith in it self and he thinks he holds right and doth not intend to dissent from the Church he is not guilty of Heresie And so Cajetan defines Pertinacy to be a consent to an error in Faith knowing it so to be Melchior Canus saith It is the general Opinion of Divines and Canonists that there can be no Heresie without Obstinacy And no man is a Heretick he saith who doth not seeing and knowing chuse a Doctrine contrary to Faâ—â—h Suarez saith that all the Doctors are agreed that Obstinacy is required to Heresie and that it is expressed in the Canon Law. So that I need to produce no more to that purpose But the difficulty is to know what they mean by Obstinacy It is not hard to understand what is meant by the word for pertinax is one that is over-tenacious i. e. that holds an opinion when he sees no ground for it or will yield to no Reasonable conviction or that hath not a desire to find out Truth and submit to it And so it is plain St. Augustin understood it in the place before mention'd And in another place he makes it to lye in a mans resisting the Catholick Doctrine made known to him without which he did not judg him a Heretick though he held Heretical Doctrine And again he declares those to be Hereticks that contumaciously resist those that correct and instruct them and will not amend their wicked Doctrines but go on to defend them These passages of St. Augustin are enter'd in the Body of the Canon Law and the Gloss there saith If one bolds Doctrines against Faith and be ready to be better instructed he is no Heretick The same Authorities Ockam insists upon and from them he declares Obstinacy to be so necessary that without it no man can be a Heretick And he concludes from St. Augustin that if a man be ready to yield to Truth when he finds it he is not guilâ—y of Obstinacy And he proves that such are no Hereticks from these Reasons 1 Because Hereticks are to be Excommunicated but such by the Canon Law are not to be â—xcommunicated 2 Because they are ready to be better instructed 3 Because many have erred and were not accounted Hereticks on this account Oâ—kam distinguishes a twofold Obstinacy 1. Internal 2. External Internal may be known he saith by theâ—e Rules 1. If a man be not convinced by Miracles 2. If he will rather question the truth of the Christian Faith than be convinced 3. When he doth not use means for his own Conviction but resolves to persist in his Errors such a neglect argues an obstinate mind External of which he gives many instances of which I shall mention some as 1. If a man willingly saith or doth something whereby he discovers his disbelief of the whole Christian Faith 2 If he demes any part of the old or new Testament 3. If he holds the whole Christian Church to have erred which he by no means understands of any part of it assuming the Titles of Catholick and Infallible to it self for he saith some say that whatsoever Christ hath promised to his Church may be made good if but one Person in it holds the true Faith but he declares that the 〈◊〉 Faith may be preserved in a very few 4. If the contrary Doctrâ—â— known to be universally received among Christians as if one shâ—uld deny that Christ was crucified and on this account he charges 〈◊〉 22. with Heresy for denying that the Souls of the Wicked are in Hell and of the Saints in Heaven before the day of Judgment 5. If he refuses to be informed being reproved by the Learned 6. If he protests he will never alter his Opinion 7. If he forbids reading the Scriptures or preaching Catholick Doctrine 8. If a Pope commands an erroneous Opinion to be believed as matter of Faith. 9. If a man consents to such a Definition of the Pope and imposes it on others Joh. Gerson treats at large about the obstinacy which makes one a Heretick in several Discourses before the Council of Constance and he follows St. Augustins Doctrine in saying That it consists in not seeking after Truth and not obeying it when he hath found it Melchior Canus finds fault with the uncertain Marks of Obstinacy given by others and he resolves it at last into this That a Man holds an Opinion which he knows to be contrary to the Catholick Faith but then he requires 1. That he be certain that it belongs to it and it is not enough that learned Men say so 2. That he must know it by an infallible Authority For otherwise a mans persisting in his Opinion may be great rashness and presumption but it is not Heresy But in case a persons ignorance be such as makes his Errors involuntary it doth excuse him from Heresy because that is not a voluntary Error Suarez and others after him in plain terms make the Obstinacy to lie in not submiting to the Judgment of the Church because while a Man doth yield to the Churches Authority they account him no Heretick â—his is indeed an Argument according to their way of declaring Hereticks but we are now enquiring what that Obstinacy is which doth really make