their own Opinions to their posterity but to retain the Tradition of their Fore-fathers As though the other side could not say the same things and with as much confidence as they did but all the Question was What that Tradition was which they were to retain The one said one thing and the other another But as Rigaltius well observes Vincentius speaks very truly and prudently if nothing were delivered by our Ancestors but what they had from the Apostles but under the pretence of our Ancestors silly or counterfeit things may by fools or knaves be delivered us for Apostolical Traditions And whether this doth not often come to pass let the world judge Now therefore when these persons on both sides had incomparably greater advantages of knowing what the Vniversal Apostolical Practice was than we can have and yet so irreconcilably differ about it what likelihood or probability is there that we may have greater certainty of Apostolical Tradition than of the Writings of the Apostles Especially in such matters as these are in which it is very questionable Whether the Apostles had any occasion ministred to them to determine any thing in them And therefore when Stephen at Rome and those of his party pleaded custom and consequently as they thought Apostolical Tradition it was not irrationally answered on the other side by Cyprian and Firmilian that that might be Because the Apostles had not occasion given them to declare their minds in it because either the Heresies were not of such a nature as those of Marcion and Cerdon or else there might not be such returnings from those Heresies in the Apostolical times to the Church which being of so black a nature as to carry in them such malignity by corrupting the lives of men by vicious practices there was less probability either of the true Christians Apostatizing into them or the recovery of such who were fallen into them To this purpose Firmilian speaks That the Apostles could not be supposed to prohibit the baptizing of such which came from the Hereticks because no man would be so silly as to suppose the Apostles did prohibit that which came not in question till afterwards And therefore S. Augustine who concerned himself the most in this Controversie when he saw such ill use made of it by the Donatists doth ingenuously confess That the Apostles did determine nothing at all in it but however saith he that custom which is opposed to Cyprian is to be believed to have its rise from the Apostles Tradition as there are many other things observed in the Church and on that account are believed to have been commanded by the Apostles although they are no where found written But what cogent argument doth S. Austin use to perswade them this was an Apostolical Tradition He grants they determined nothing in it yet would needs have it believed that an Vniversal Practice of succeeding ages should imply such a determination though unwritten But 1. The Vniversal Practice we have seen already was far from being evident when not only the African but the Eastern Church did practise otherwise and that on the account of an Apostolical Tradition too 2. Supposing such an Vniversal Practice How doth it thence follow that it must be derived from the Apostles unless it be first proved that the Church could never consent in the use of any thing but what the Apostles commanded them Which is a very unreasonable supposition considering the different emergencies which might be in the Churches of Apostolical and succeeding times and the different reasons of practice attending upon them with that great desire which crept into the Church of representing the things conveyed by the Gospel in an external symbolical manner whence in the second Century came the use of many baptismal Ceremonies the praegustatio mellis lactis as Tertullian calls it and several of a like nature which by degrees came into the Church Must we now derive these and many other customs of the Church necessarily from the Apostles when even in S. Austins time several customs were supposed to be grounded on Apostolical Tradition which yet are otherwise believed now As in that known Instance of Infants Participation of the Eucharist which is otherwise determined by the Council of Trent and for all that I know the arguments used against this Tradition by some men may as well hold against Infant-Baptism for there is an equal incapacity as to the exercise of all acts of reason and understanding in both and as the Scripture seems to suppose such acts of grace in one as have their foundation in the use of reason it doth likewise in the other and I cannot see sufficient evidence to the contrary but if that place Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven taken in the sense of the Fathers doth imply a necessity of Baptism for all and consequently of Children that other place Verily verily I say unto you Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you taken likewise in the sense of the Fathers will import the necessity of a participation of the Eucharist by Infants as well as others I speak not this with an intention to plead either for this or for the rebaptizing Hereticks but to shew the great uncertainty of knowing Apostolical Traditions some things having been taken for such which we believe were not so and others which could not be known whether so or no by the ages next succeeding the Apostles And therefore let any reasonable person judge what probability there is in what you drive at that Apostolical Traditions may be more easily known than Apostolical Writings By which it appears 3. How vain and insufficient your reasons are Why Traditions should not be so liable to corruption as the Scriptures 1. You say Vniversal Traditions are recorded in Authours of every succeeding age and it seems more incident to have the Bible corrupted than them because of its bulk and passing through the hands of particular men whereas universal and immemorial Traditions are openly practised and taken notice of by every one in all ages To which I answer 1. That you give no sufficient reason why the Bible should be corrupted 2. And as little why Traditions should be more preserved than that Two Accounts you give why the Bible might be corrupted by errours because of its bulk and passing through the hands of particular men But Do you think it a thing impossible or at least unreasonable to suppose that a Book of no greater bulk than the Bible should by the care and vigilancy of men through the assistance of Divine Providence be preserved from any material corruptions or alterations Surely if you think so you have mean thoughts of the Christians in all ages and meaner of Divine Providence For you must suppose God to take no care at all for the preservation of
Testimony for to what purpose else was the Similitude of the Woman of Samaria insisted on but to parallel the Testimony of the Church with that of the Woman and consequently the Faith built on the Churches Testimony to be like that which the Samaritans had of Christ upon the Womans Testimony and if you believe that Faith Infallible you must assert an Infalâ—â—ble Faith to be built on a fallible Testimony and yet to be as infallible as that which is built on an Infallible Testimony And then I pray tell me To what end would you make your Churches Testimony Infallible if Faith may be infallible without it But it may be though these seem hard things yet you prove them invincibly No doubt of it for you say That Christ enters by that Faith but Christ cannot enter into a soul by a meer humane fallible perswasion but by Divine Faith only Nay when he says That he more believes the Scripture than the Churches Testimony he saith That he believes the Church But how can he believe without Faith O the irresistible force of demonstrations But what silly people are we that thought a man might enter into a house by the door though he met not with his hearty entertainment till afterwards But Do you really think that Christ never enters into a soul but by Divine and Infallible Faith For Christ enters by that which gives him his first admission but his full reception must be by a higher degree of Faith Do you think men believe as much at first as ever after If not May not Christ be said to enter by that lower degree of Faith I pray What think you of the case in hand Did not the belief of Christ enter by the Woman of Samaria and was that as Divine a Faith as what they had afterwards Nay take Christs entring as improperly as you can imagine it for his hearty reception in the soul Can that be no other waies but by an Infallible Faith A Faith supposed to be built on infallible grounds I grant but whether all who do truly believe in Christ do build their Faith on grounds in themselves infallible my charity to some deluded souls in your Church as well as honest but ignorant persons elsewhere gives me just reason to question But still there is a greater subtilty behind which is if he believes the Scripture more than the Church then he must believe the Church equally with the Scripture for that must be the meaning of what you say when he sayes He believes the Scripture more than the Church he believes the Church but how can he believe without Faith Ergo this must be Divine Faith or else all the rest come to nothing So that if I say I believe the Scripture more than you it follows that I believe you as much as the Scripture by the very same consequence But you have gotten such a knack of contradicting your self that poor Gandavo cannot fall into your hands but you must make him do so too When you say A man cannot believe without Faith I dare justifie it to be one of the greatest truths in your Book but if your meaning be A man cannot believe without Divine Faith I hope we Protestants sufficiently confute that for you dare not deny that we believe at all but just as the Devils do we must according to you believe and tremble because our Faith is not Divine and Infallible But still your subtilty works with you for because Gandavensis saith That we must yield our first Faith to the Scripture but secundam sub ista a secondary Faith to the definitions and customs of the Catholick Church You cry out Here 's prima secunda fides but yet both of them are properly and truly Faith But Are both of them properly and truly Divine Faith If so How comes the distinction of the first and second one subordinate to the other if both be equally Divine and Infallible Nay according to your Principles the Faith given to the Church must be the first Faith and to the Scriptures the second under that because for the sake of the Churches Testimony we are to believe the Scriptures And Do you really think there may be no discovery of Infidelity in rejecting a sufficient Testimony for Faith where there is not an Infallible Testimony But whatever you think your great enemy Reason tells us the contrary and therefore what follows of believing the Church sub poenâ perfidiae is to no more purpose than what went before The strength therefore of all that you say as to this Testimony of Gandavensis lyes in the proof of this one thing That no man can believe any thing without an Infallible Faith yet I verily believe that you have miserably perverted the Schoolmens words and think no more Infallible Testimony requisite for it than your own words But it may be though you do so ill by the Schoolmen you may use the Fathers more civilly Three things therefore you have to answer to those Testimonies of the Fathers which seem most to make use of internal Arguments 1. That they use them not to such as had no Divine Faith but to such as had 2. That they do not use them as Primary Infallible and Divine proofs but as secondary arguments perswasive only to such as believed Scripture to be Gods Word antecedently to them 3. That they do not use only such proofs as are wholly internal to the Scripture it self As to the two first conditions you say 't is evident these proofs were made by Christians namely the Holy Fathers and commonly to Christians who lived in their times And as clear is it that they never pronounced them to be the Primary Infallible and Divine Motives of their belief in that point nor used they them as such How false and absurd these Answers are may appear by our precedent discourse wherein we manifested that the Christians insisted on those arguments there mentioned not for themselves and other Christians but chiefly to convince and perswade by them the Gentile world to the belief of Christianity And Did they suppose these Heathens to have a Divine Faith already Or Did they look on such arguments as only secondary motives when these were the chief nay only arguments which they used to perswade them if they had other that were Primary Divine and Infallible and only made use of secondary humane probable motives they were guilty of the highest betraying the Christian Cause imaginable And you make them only to defend Christianity as Vaninus did Divine Providence with such silly and weak arguments that by their overthrow the belief of it might fall with them Indeed if they had pretended the Infallible Testimony of the Church there might have been just reason for such a Suspicion and any wise men would have thought their design had been to make their Religion contemptible and expose it to the derision of Atheists instead of better establishing the Foundations of believing it But
Schism and Heresie is and they are hugely to blame then if they admit any but those of their own party But yet some Councils have stood upon their priviledges in opposition to the Pope as those of Constance and Basil. Therefore to make all sure no Council is lawful in it self or its decrees bind the Church but such as is call'd and confirmed by the Pope who is strangely to blame then if he suffers any thing to pass to his own prejudice So that this Infallibility of the Pope is the last resort in the resolution of Faith for all the rest we see are uncertain And what a vast measure of Faith greater than that which our Saviour said would remove mountains is necessary to believe this Infallibility of the Pope for in the first place unless he believes the particular Roman-Church to be the Catholick Church he spoils all the Conjuring afterwards with not having Faith enough about him Again he must believe that Christ hath promised an Infallible Assistance to the Pastors of the Church as distinct from the People but this avails little still unless he believes these Credentials must not be opened but in full Council and that Council such a one as the Pope calls and in which himself presides either in Person or by his Legates and that the Decrees of the Council oblige not the Church without the Pope's Confirmation and to that end you must believe that S. Peter was made Monarch of the Church by Christ that this Monarchy was to be derived to all his Successors in all places but as to this where-ever he was besides he never had any Successor any where but at Rome And these Successors of his at Rome cannot for their lives err if they do but sit in Cathedrâ Certainly he that hath Faith to swallow all these things is hugely to blame if he stick at any thing and by that time a man's understanding is debauched sufficiently by these Principles I make no question but such a one will believe Infallibility Transubstantiation or any thing in the world But beside these things in order to the making the Churches Testimony the Rule of Faith to any one there must another dose of Principles be taken which have Opium enough in them to lay asleep all the remainders of reason For he must infallibly believe the Church to be infallible though no infallible Argument be brought for the proof of it That this Church doth judicially and authoritatively pronounce her Sentence in matters of Faith though we know not what that Church is which must so pronounce That he infallibly know that this particular Sentence was so pronounced though he can have no other than Moral Means of knowing it And lastly That the Infallibility must be the first thing believed although all these things must of necessity be believed before it And if after this second Purgation he be not a true Son of the Church of Rome he deserves to be Anathematized as an obstinate person for having any thing of reason in him Therefore I wonder not that the Doctrine of Infallibility seems no strange thing to you for a man must devour such Giant-like Absurdities before he comes to it that when he comes at it he finds it nothing But still one would think it a little strange that this Infallibility should be the only Foundation of believing all things in Religion and yet so many things and some of them very strange ones must of necessity be certainly believed before it 2. Supposing a man not only believes all these things before it but doth really believe your Church infallible yet he is uncertain still how he should know When your Church defines infallibly For so many things are required in reference to the Person defining so many for the definition it self that it will be no easie matter to remove those difficulties which lye in the way of his Assent to such a Definition As to the Person if he be not a Christian if he be not a Priest if not a Lawful Pope all his Definitions are far from being infallible yet none of all these can any one be assured of according to your Principles of the intention of the Priest being necessary in the administration of Sacraments in order to the effect of them But the large train of Consequences following from hence I forbear to urge you with because they have been so often urged by abler Pens But What will you say when we are so far from assurance as to the Pope's being legally chosen that we have if not great Evidence yet very high Presumptions of the contrary what becomes then of your Pope's Infallibility Nay from the illegality of one follows the illegality of all his Successors because they were chosen by Cardinals made by him who could be no lawful Cardinals because he was no legal Pope and consequently not they who were made by them The case is this There is a Bull of Pope Julius the second against the Simoniacal Election of any Pope which the Cardinals upon their first entrance into the Conclave swear solemnly to observe In which Bull it is expresly said That if any Pope be Simoniacally chosen by any of the Cardinals upon any gift or promise whatsoever that such an Election is ipso facto null and the Cardinals may oppose one so chosen as if guilty of manifest Heresie and that none ought to receive or look on such a one as Pope neither can this Simoniacal Election be made good by inthronisation course of time submission of Cardinals c. And that they ought all to avoid him as a Magician Heathen Publican or the Founder of Heresie This is the substance of that Bull. Now it is notoriously known that Sixtus the fifth was Simoniacally chosen Pope For that he might be chosen he did under his hand promise to Cardinal d'Este who had a great interest in the Conclave that in the time of his Popedome he would never create Jerome Matthew the Cardinals great enemy a Cardinal upon which promise he was through his interest chosen Pope But when afterwards the Pope violated his Faith to him by creating his enemy Cardinal d'Este being highly incensed against him for it sent the very instrument subscribed by the Pope's own hand to Philip the second King of Spain who in the year 1589. sent the Duke of Suisse extraordinary Embassador to Rome to intimate to Sixtus the fifth his intention of calling a General Council according to the Bull of Julius the second for declaring this Simoniacal Election When this Message was delivered to the Pope and he saw the Instrument was discovered under his own hand he fell into such a perplexity that he dyed soon after which stopt the progress of the business By this it evidently appears that Sixtus himself was no lawful Pope and therefore could create no Cardinals and because the Cardinals created by him had a voice in the Election of the subsequent Popes it follows That there hath
the proper actings of my Faculties I may judge such things to have connexions and depâ—ndencies one upon another which really have nothing so And therefore so far your distinction concerning Science and Faith will not hold But 2. If the meaning of this distinction be only this That there is a different proceeding in a demonstration from what there is in an act of Faith I deny it not but suppose it nothing to your purpose For though the evidence be discovered in a different way yet there is in both proportionable evidence to the nature of the Assent When I assent because I know that the thing is true the evidence of the thing it self is the ground of that Assent but when I assent upon the Authority of any person the Credibility of his Testimony is the evidence on which that Assent is grounded Though this latter evidence be of another kind yet it is sufficient for that act of the mind which is built upon it and that Testimony which I establish a firm Assent upon must be as evident in its kind i. e. of Credibility as the evidence of a thing demonstrable in the nature of a Demonstration 3. The main strength of your Answer seems to lye in this That in such an Assent as is built upon Authority as in the case of Faith when we do not immediately hear God speaking but it is conveyed to us by the Testimony of others it is necessary that this Testimony be infallible But good Sir this is not our present Question Whether it be necessary that this Testimony be infallibly conveyed to us but supposing such an infallible Conveyance Whether that infallible Testimony must not be more credible than the matters which are believed upon it But as though never any such thing had been started You give us a long discourse of the different proceeding of Science and Faith but never offer to apply it to the business in hand I must therefore ingenuously commend you for an excellent Art of gliding insensibly away from a business you cannot answer and casting out a great many words not to the purpose that you may seem to touch the matter when you are far enough from it And therefore I say Secondly That however the evidence proceeds in matters of Faith yet whatever is the Foundation of Assent must be more evident than the thing assented to Especially where you suppose the Assent to be infallible and the Testimony infallible which must ascertain it to us This will be plainer by an instance If I ask you Why you believe the Resurrection of the dead your Answer is because of the Authority of him that reveals it The next Question then is Why you believe that God hath revealed it your Answer is Because the Testimony of the Church is infallible which delivers it Whereby it is plain That though your first Answer be from God's Authority yet the last resolution of your Faith is the Infallibility of your Churches Testimony and that being the last resolution that Infallibility must be the Principle on which the belief of the rest depends For according to your Principles though God had revealed it yet if this Revelation were not attested by the infallible Testimony of your Church we should not have sufficient ground to believe it And if without that we can have no sufficient ground to believe then this Principle The Church is infallible must be more credible than the Resurrection of the dead Which was the Absurdity his Lordship charged upon you and you are far from being able to quit your self of The next thing which you busie your self much in answering of is That according to these Principles of resolution of Faith you make the Churches Testimony the formal Object of Faith which you acknowledge your self to be a great Absurdity and therefore make use of many shifts to avoid I shall reduce the substance of your verbose and immethodical Answer into as narrow a compass as I can without defalking any thing of the strength of it You tell us then That our Faith is resolved into God's Revelations whether written or unwritten as its Formal Object and our Infallible Assurance that the things we believe as God's Revelations are revealed from him is resolved into the Infallibility of the Churches Definitions teaching us that they are his Revelations And that the Formal Cause of our Assent in Divine Faith is God's Revelation delivered to the Church without writing but because that is as it were at distance from us it is approximated or immediately applied to us by the infallible Declaration of the present Church Hence it appears our Faith rests only upon God's Revelation as its Formal Object though the Churches Voice be a condition so necessary for its resting thereon that it can never attain that Formal Object without it And lastly you tell us The Churches Authority then being more known to us than the Scriptures may well be some reason of our admitting them yet the Scriptures still retain their prerogative above the Church and thence you distinguish of the certainty of the Object and Subject from all which you conclude That the Churches Definition is not the Formal Object of Faith but that our Faith relyes upon it as an Infallible Witness both of the written and unwritten Word of God which is the Formal Object This is the substance in your long Answer of what hath the face of reason and pertinency Which I come to a close and particular examination of And that you may not say I pass over this important Controversie without a through discussion of it I shall first prove that it necessarily follows from your Principles That the Churches Infallible Testimony must be the Formal Object of Faith And 2. That the Answers you give are far from being satisfactory that it is not 1. That it necessarily follows from your Principles That the Churches Infallible Testimony must be the Formal Object of Faith In order to which we must consider what the scope and design of this Discourse is concerning the Resolution of Faith The Question started by Mr. Fisher in the Conference was How his Lordship knew Scripture to be Scripture or How the Divine Authority of the Scriptures was to be proved To this his Lordship returns a large Answer to which you attempt a Reply in this Chapter and mention this to be the main Question How Scriptures may be known to be the Word of God To this you tell us No satisfactory Answer can be given but from the infallible Testimony of the Church and the great reason given by you in all your discourse is this That this is an Article to be believed with Divine Faith and Divine Faith must be built on an Infallible Testimony The Question then resulting hence is Whether on these Principles you do not make the Infallible Testimony of the Church the Formal Object of Faith You deny and we affirm it but before I come to the particular Evidences of the Cause
Proposition 2. That the ground of believing any unwritten word is the Infallibility of your Church defining it to be so For you say As the Church was Infallible in defining what was written so is she also infallible in defining what was not written And so she can neither tradere non traditum nor can she be unfaithful to God in not faithfully keeping the depositum committed to her trust Neither can her Sons ever justly accuse her of the contrary but are bound to believe her Tradition because she being infallible the Tradition she delivers can never be against the Word of their Father The substance of all which is that which I laid down as your Proposition That the ground of believing any Tradition to be Apostolical or any unwritten word is your Churches Infallibility in defining it to be so Which being built on a Principle I have already manifested to be so fallacious and uncertain I might without further trouble quit my hands of it but I shall however shew how inconsistent this is with the Rules of the Ancients for discerning when Traditions are Apostolical and when not The great Rule we meet with among the Ancients for judging Apostolical Traditions is that of Vincentius Lyrinensis In ipsâ item Catholicâ Ecclesiâ magnoperè curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est hoc est enim verè proprieque Catholicum If this be a certain Rule to judge of Catholick and Apostolical Traditions by viz. That which hath been held every where alwaies and by all then the judgement of your Church cannot be the infallible definer of Apostolical Traditions unless you will suppose that your Church only can tell us what was held every where alwaies and by all And if your Church alone can infallibly determine what Traditions are Apostolical to what purpose should we be put to such a VVild-goose chase to enquire Vniversality Antiquity and Consent in all things which pretend to be Traditions But to any reasonable man as to any thing which pretends to be a matter necessary to be believed or practised which is not expresly revealed in Scripture this Rule of Vincentius seems very just and equitable that before we believe it necessary it be made appear that it was universally believed by Christians to be so and that in all ages And I assure you I am so far convinced of the reasonableness of this proposal that if you will make out any of those things controverted between us such as Invocation of Saints VVorship of Images Transubstantiation Adoration of the Eucharist Purgatory Indulgences the Pope's Supremacy c. by these Rules and make it appear to me that these were held by all Christian Churches at all times or have Antiquity Vniversality and Consent I shall be very inclinable to embrace what your Church would impose upon me But when I know how impossible a task this is I do not at all wonder that you should quit this formerly magnified saying of Vincentius and resolve all into the Infallibility of the present Church But hereby we see how far you are from the judgement of Antiquity as to this very point of the tryal of doctrinal Traditions since you can see no security any where but in your selves and your Churches Infallibility I will therefore reduce the Controversie yet shorter prove but this Infallibility of your Church in defining the written and unwritten VVord by these Rules of Vincentius Vniversality Antiquity and Consent and I will yield you all the rest But what unreasonable men are you if you must be Parties and Judges too or if we must believe an unwritten VVord because your Church is infallible and believe your Church infallible because that is an unwritten VVord And well may you call it so for search the whole Book of Scriptures and all the Records of the Primitive Church and you find nothing at all of it We see plainly then you are resolved to be tryed by none but your selves and so you are Catholicks because you say You are so and your Church infallible because she pretends to be so 3. That our belief of the Scriptures must be resolved into an unwritten VVord which is defined by your Church to be such This is that for whose sake all your other discourse is brought in and is the main thing to the purpose Although you pretend likewise to a power in your Church to declare what Christ said when he held his peace But Are you sure your Church will be infallible in that too For when his Lordship had said That where-ever Christ held his peace and that his words are not registred no man may dare without rashness to say They were these or these You very gravely add That his Lordship must give you leave to tell him you must bind up his whole assertion with this Proviso but according as the Church shall declare Your Church then must declare when Christ held his peace and when he did not when he spake so that others might hear him and when he did not when any thing was taken notice of that he said and when not But when it is apparent Christ both spake and did much more than ever was written how well doth your Church acquit her Office in being Christ's Remembrancer And therefore I believe your Church will be guilty of the same rashness with any private person in S. Augustine's Opinion In offering to determine what Christ said when either he held his peace or his words are not registred As for those things which you mention for Traditions not contrary to God's written Word which yet are not an unwritten Word such as the Ceremonies of Baptism by you mentioned they are therefore not pertinent to our purpose because they are only rites and ceremonies and our discourse is about doctrinal Traditions neither yet if I would spend time in the enquiry could you derive them from Apostolical Tradition notwithstanding what either you or Bellarmine say But the substance of all you have to say pertinent to your purpose is That though every Tradition be not God's unwritten VVord yet it being necessary for us to believe the Scripture to be the VVord of God we must believe it either for some word written or unwritten or we shall have no Divine Faith at all of the Point because all Divine Faith must rely upon some VVord of God This being a great novelty with you that is something like Argumentation it obliges me to take a little more particular notice of it Any one that considers the force of this Argument will find that it lyes wholly upon your notion of Divine Faith for it appearing unreasonable to you that our belief that the Scripture is the Word should be resolved into the written Word it self therefore you find out an unwritten VVord of God for a Divine Faith to fix it self upon which can be nothing but some VVord of God To this therefore I
is so great integrity and incorruption in those Copies we have that we cannot but therein take notice of a peculiar hand of Divine Providence in preserving these authentick records of our Religion so safe to our dayes But it is time now to return to you You would therefore perswade us That we have no ground of certainty as to the Copies of Scripture but comparing them with the Apostles Autographa but I hope our former discourse hath given you a sufficient account of our certainty without seeing the Apostles own hands But I pray what certainty then had the Jews after the Captivity of their Copies of the Law yet I cannot think you will deny them any ground of certainty in the time of Christ that they had the true Copies both of the Law and the Prophets and I hope you will not make the Sanhedrin which condemned our Saviour to death to have given them their only Infallible certainty concerning it If therefore the Jews might be certain without Infallibility why may not we for if the Oracles of God were committed to the Jews then they are to the Christians now You yet further urge That there can be no certainty concerning the Autographa's of the Apostles but by tradition And may not every universal tradition be carried up as clearly at least to the Apostles times as the Scriptures by most credible Authours who wrote in their respective succeeding ages I answer We grant there can be no certainty as to the Copies of Scripture but from tradition and if you can name any of those great things in Controversie between us which you will undertake to prove to be as universal a tradition as that of the Scriptures you and I shall not differ as to the belief of it But think not to fob us off with the tradition of the present Church instead of the Church of all ages with the tradition of your Church instead of the Catholick with the ambiguous testimonies of two or three of the Fathers instead of the universal consent of the Church since the Apostles times If I should once see you prove the Infallibility of your Church the Popes Supremacy Invocation of Saints Veneration of Images the necessity of Coelibate in the Clergy a punitive Purgatory the lawfulness of communicating in one kind the expediency of the Scriptures and Prayers being in an unknown tongue the sacrifice of the Mass Transubstantiation to name no moâ—e by as unquestionable and universal a tradition as that whereby we receive the Scriptures I shall extoll you for the only person that ever did any thing considerable on your side and I shall willingly yield my self up as a Trophey to your brave attempts Either then for ever forbear to mention any such things as Vniversal Tradition among you as to any things besides Scriptures which carry a necessity with them of being believed or practised or once for all undertake this task and manifest it as to the things in Controversie between us Your next Paragraph besides what hath been already discussed in this Chapter concerning Apostolical tradition of Scripture empties it self into the old mare mortuum of the formal object and Infallible application of Faith which I cannot think my self so much at leasure to follow you into so often as you fall into it When once you bring any thing that hath but the least resemblance of reason more than before I shall afresh consider it but not till then What next follows concerning resolving Faith into prime Apostolical Tradition infallibly without the Infallibility of the present Church hath been already prevented by telling you that his Lordship doth not say That the infallible Resolution of Faith is into that Apostolical Tradition but into the Doctrine which is conveyed in the Books of Scripture from the Apostles times down to us by an unquestionable Tradition Your stale Objection That then we should want Divine Certainty hath been over and over answered and so hath your next Paragraph That if the Church be not infallible we cannot be infallibly certain that Scripture is Gods Word and so the remainder concerning Canonical Books It is an easie matter to write great Books after that rate to swell up your discourses with needless repetitions but it is the misery that attends a bad cause and a bad stomach to have unconcocted things brought up so often till we nauseate them Your next offer is at the Vindication of the noted place of S. Austin I would not believe the Gospel c. which you say cannot rationally be understood of Novices Weaklings and Doubters in the Faith This being then the place at every turn objected by you and having before reserved the discussion of it to this place I shall here particularly and throughly consider the meaning of it In order to which three things must be enquired into 1. What the Controversie was which St. Austin was there discussing of 2. What that Church was which St. Austin was moved by the Authority of 3. In what way and manner that Churches Authority did perswade him 1. Nothing seems more necessary for understanding the meaning of this place than a true state of the Controversie which S. Austin was disputing of and yet nothing less spoke to on either side than this hath been We are therefore to consider that when Manes or Manichaeus began to appear in the world to broach that strange and absurd Doctrine of his in the Christian world which he had received from Terebinthus or Buddas as he from Scythianus who if we belieue Epiphanius went to Jerusalem in the Apostles times to enquire into the Doctrine of Christianity and dispute with the Christians about his Opinions but easily foreseeing what little entertainment so strange a complexion of absurdities would find in the Christian world as long as the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists were received every where with that esteem and veneration Two waies he or his more cunning Disciples bethought themselves of whereby to lessen the authority of those writings and so make way for the Doctrine of Manichaeus One was to disparage the Credulity of Christians because the Catholick Church insisted so much on the necessity of Faith whereas they pretended they would desire men to believe nothing but what they gave them sufficient reason for But all this while since the Christians thought they had evident reason for believing the Scriptures and consequently none to believe the Doctrine which did oppose them therefore they found it necessary to go further and to charge those Copies of Scripture with falsifications and corruptions which were generally received among Christians But these are fully delivered by S. Austin in his Book de utilitate credendi as will appear to any one who looks into it but the latter is that which I aim at this he therefore taxeth them for That with a great deal of impudence or to speak mildly with much weakness they charged the Scriptures to be corrupted and yet
I heartily wish had been as orderly and happily pursued as the work was right Christian and good in it self But humane frailty and the heats and distempers of men as well as the cunning of the Devil would not suffer that For even in this sense also the wrath of man doth not accomplish the will of God St. James 1.20 but I have learnt not to reject the good which God hath wrought for any evil which men may fasten upon it Now to this you answer 1. By a fair Concession again that a Provincial Council is the next Chirurgion when a Gangrene endangers life but still the Popes assistance is required For fear the Chirurgion should do too much good of himself you would be sure to have the Pope as Physitian to stand by whom you know too much concerned in the maladies of the Church to give way to an effectual cure 2. But you say further That the most proper expedient is an Oecumenical Council and this you spoil again with saying Such as the Council of Trent was For what you say in vindication of that being General and free we shall consider in the Chapter designed for that purpose What you object against our National Synod 1562. will be fully answered before the end of this which that we may make way for we must proceed to the remainder of these general grounds in which his Lordship proves That when the Vniversal Church will not or for the iniquity of the times cannot obtain and settle a free General Council 't is lawful nay sometimes necessary to reform gross abuses by a National or a Provincial To this you answer in General That you deny not but matters of less moment as concerning rites and ceremonies abuses in manners and discipline may be reformed by particular Councils without express leave of the Pope but that in matters of great moment concerning the Faith and publick Doctrine of the Church Sacraments and whatever else is of Divine Institution or universal obligation particular Councils if they duly proceed attempt nothing without recourse to the Sea Apostolick and the Pope's consent either expresly granted or justly presumed Fair hopes then there are of a cure when the Imposthume gathers in the Head we are indeed by this put into a very good condition for if a small matter hurts a Church she hath her hands at liberty to help her self but if one comes to ravish her her hands are tyed and by no means must she defend her self For in case say you it be any matter of great moment it must be left to the Pope and nothing to be done without his consent no not although the main of the distempers come through him But thanks be to God our Church is not committed to the hands of such a merciless Physitian who first causeth the malady and then forbids the cure we know of no such obligation we have to sleep in St. Peters Church as of old they did in the Temple of Aesculapius in hopes of a cure God hath entrusted every National Church with the care of her own safety and will require of her an account of that power he hath given to that end It will be little comfort to a Church whose members rot for want of a remedy to say The Pope will not give leave or else it might have been cured I wonder where it is that any Christian Church is commanded to wait the Popes good leasure for reforming her self Whence doth he derive this Authority and sole power of reforming Churches But that must be afterwards examined But is it reasonable to suppose that there should be Christian Magistrates and Christian Bishops in Churches and yet these so tyed up that they can do nothing in order to the Churches recovery though the distempers be never so great and dangerous Do we not read in the Apostolical Churches that the Government of them was in themselves without any the least mention of any Oecumenical Pastour over all if any abuses were among them the particular Governours of those Churches are checked and rebuked for it and commanded to exercise their power over offenders and must the encroachments of an usurped and arbitrary power in the Church hinder particular Churches from the exercise of that full power which is committed to the Governours of them Neither is this only a Right granted to a Church as such but we find this power practised and asserted in the history of the Christian Churches from the Apostles times For no sooner did the Bishops of Rome begin to encroach but other Bishops were so mindful of their own priviledges and the Interess of their Churches that they did not yield themselves his Vassals but disputed their rights and withstood his usurpations As hath partly appeared already and will do more afterwards And that particular Churches may reform themselves his Lordship produceth several Testimonies The first is of Gerson who tells us plainly That he will not deny but that the Church may be reformed by parts And that this is necessary and that to effect it Provincial Councils may suffice and in some things Diocesan And again Either you should reform all estates of the Church in a General Council or command them to be reformed in Provincial Councils But all this you say doth not concern matters of Faith but only personal abuses But I pray what ground is there that one should be reformed and not the other Is it not the reason why any reformation is necessary that the Churches purity and safety should be preserved and is not that as much or more endangered by erroneous doctrines then by personal abuses Will not then the parity of reason hold proportionably for one as well as the other that if the Church may be reformed by parts as to lesser abuses then much more certainly as to greater Besides you say Gerson allowed no Schismatical Reformations against the Churches head neither do we plead for any such but then you must shew Who the Churches head is and By what right he comes to be so otherwise the cause of the Schism will fall upon him who pretends to be the head to direct others and is as corrupt a member as any in the body But his Lordship adds This right of Provincial Synods that they might decree in causes of Faith and in cases of Reformation where corruptions had crept into the Sacraments of Christ was practised much above a thousand years ago by many both National and Provincial Synods For which he first instanceth in the Council at Rome under Pope Sylvester An. 324. condemning Photinus and Sabellius whose heresies were of a high nature against the Faith but here you say The very title confutes his pretence for it was held under the Pope and therefore not against him But however whether with the Pope or against him it was no more then a Provincial Synod and this decreed something in matters of Faith though according to your own
then it doth when given to other Bishops if it doth you must prove it from some other Arguments and not barely from the title being attributed to them Thus you see though the title were granted to be attributed to him there is nothing new nothing peculiar in it But we must further examine Who they are that attribute this title to him and what the account is of their doing it For this you cite the Council of Chalcedon in a letter inserted in the Acts of it the Council of Constantinople sub Mena John Bishop of Nicopolis Constantinus Pogonatus the Emperour Basil the yonger and Balsamon himself To the first I Answer 1. That this title was not given by the Council of Chalcedon 2. If it had no more was given to the Bishop of Rome then to the Bishops of other Patriarchal Churches 1. That this title was not given by the General Council of Chalcedon this I know Gregory 1. in his Epistles about this subject repeats usque ad nauseam that the title of Vniversal Bishop was offered to the Bishop of Rome by the Council of Chalcedon and that he refused it but there is as little evidence for the one as the other That the title of Oecumenical Patriarch was attributed to the Bishop of Rome by some Papers read and received in that Council I deny not but we must consider the persons who did it and the occasion of it The persons were such who came to inform the Council against Dioscorus the Patriarch of Alexandria and they were no other then Athanasius a Presbyter Theodorus and Ischyrion two Deacons and Sophronius a Laick of Alexandria now these persons not in a letter as you relate it but in their bills exhibited to the Council against Dioscorus give that title of Oecumenical Patriarch or Archbishop to Leo the Bishop of Rome And is this now the offer made of the title of Vniversal Bishop by the Council of Chalcedon But you say This was inserted into the Acts of the Council I grant it was but on what account not with any respect to the title but as containing the Accusations against Dioscorus But where do any of the Bishops of that Council attribute that title to Leo which of them mentions it in their subscriptions to the Deposition of Dioscorus though many of them speak expresly of Leo and Anatolius together with the same titles of honour to them both Why did not the Council superscribe their Synodical Epistle to Pope Leo with that title so indeed Binius rather supposes they should have done then proves they ever did it and that only from Gregories Epistle not Leo's as he mistakes it to Eulogius where he mentions this offer but upon what grounds we have seen already But suppose 2. We should grant that the Council of Chalcedon should have offered the title of Oecumenical Patriarch or Bishop to the Bishop of Rome there are none who understand any thing of the nature of that title or the proceedings of that Council who can imagine they should intend any acknowledgement of the Popes Supremacy by it For the title it self as to the importance of it was common to other Bishops especially of the Patriarchal Sees as I have proved by some instances already and might do yet by more but I shall content my self with the ingenuous confession of Sim. Vigorius That when the Western Fathers call the Roman Bishops Bishops of the Vniversal Church they do it from the custome of their Churches not that they look on them as Vniversal Bishops of the whole Church but in the same sense that the Patriarchs of Constantinople Antioch Alexandria Jerusalem are call'd so or as they are Vniversal over the Churches under their Patriarchate or that in Oecumenical Councils they preside over the whole Church And after acknowledgeth that the title of Vniversal or Oecumenical Bishop makes nothing for the Popes Monarchy in the Church And if it doth not so when given by the Western Fathers much less certainly when given by the Eastern especially those who met in the Council of Chalcedon For it is evident by their 16 Session the 28 Canon and their Synodical Epistle to Pope Leo they designed the advancement of the See of Constantinople to equal priviledges with that of Rome And therefore if they gave the Pope the title of Oecumenical Patriarch or Bishop it was that he might be willing that the Patriarch of Constantinople might be call'd so too And if as Gregory saith the Bishops of Rome would not accept the title of Vniversal Bishop the truest account I know of it is lest the Patriarch of Constantinople should share with him in it but we see when the great Benefactor to your Church the Benigne Phocas as Gregory himself styles him gave it to the Bishop of Rome alone then hands and heart and all were ready to receive it And I much fear Leo 1. and St. Gregory himself would have been shrewdly tempted to receive it if it had been offered them upon those terms that no one else should have it besides them but they scorned it till they could have it alone And for all their declamations against the pride of Anatolius and John Patriarchs of Constantinople they must look very favourably on the actions of those two Popes that discern not their own Pride in condemning of them for it For usually men shew it as much in suspecting or condemning others for it as in any other way whatsoever Thus it was in these persons they thought the Patriarchs of Constantinople proud and arrogant because they sought to be equal with them But Was it not their own greater Pride that they were able to bear no equals and it is to be feared it was their desire to advance their own Supremacy which made them quarrel so much with Anatolius and John and Cyriacus For would they but have been contented to truckle under the Roman Bishops they had been accounted very meek and humble men And St. Gregory himself would not sure have thought much to have call'd them so who most abominably flatters that monster Phocas after the murder of Mauricius and his Children for he begins his Epistle to him with Gloria in excelsis Deo Glory to God on high who according to what is written changes times and transfers Kingdomes and after in such notorious flattering expressions congratulates his coming to the Throne that any one who reads them would think Phocas the greater Saint he rejoyces that the benignity of his piety was advanced to the Imperial Throne nay laetentur coeli exultet terra let the heavens rejoyce and the earth be glad and all the people which hath been hitherto in much affliction revive at the benignity of your actions O rare Phocas Could he do any less then pronounce the Bishop of Rome Vniversal Bishop after this when poor Cyriacus at Constantinople suffered for his opposing him for the execrable murder of his Master Therefore these proceedings of Leo
hard to go that way to Heaven especially to them that have had the truth manifested and a little after But we have not so learned Christ as either to return evil for evil in this heady course or to deny salvation to some ignorant silly souls whose humble peaceable obedience makes them safe among any part of men that profess the Foundation Christ. And in another place I do indeed for my part leaving other men free to their own judgement acknowledge a possibility of salvation in the Roman Church But so as that which I grant to Romanists is not as they are Romanists but as they are Christians that is as they believe the Creed and hold the Foundation Christ himself not as they associate themselves wittingly and knowingly to the gross Superstitions of the Roman Church And I am willing to hope there are many among them which keep within that Church and yet wish the superstitions abolished which they know and which pray to God to forgive their errours in what they know not and which hold the Foundation firm and live accordingly and which would have all things amended that are amiss were it in their power And to such I dare not deny a possibility of salvation for that which is Christs in them though they hazzard themselves extreamly by keeping so close to that which is superstition and in the case of Images comes too near Idolatry The substance then of what his Lordship saith is that the Protestant way is a safe and secure way to salvation that in the Roman Church there is extream hazzard made of it which all who love their souls ought to avoid but yet for such who by reason of ignorance see not the danger and by reason of honesty keep close to Christ the Foundation and repent of all miscarriages known or unknown he dares not deny a possibility of salvation for them But he is far from asserting it of those who either know the corruptions of that Church and yet continue in them or such who wilfully neglect the means whereby they may be convinced of them So that you strangely either mistake or pervert his Lordships meaning when you would inferr from these passages That he asserts a possibility of being saved to those who joyn with the Roman Church though their ignorance be not invincible and though all or the chief motives which the Protestants bring against you be never so sufficiently proposed to them For he still speaks either of such whose meer ignorance doth excuse them where the Fundamentals are held and a life lead according to them or else of such who condemn your superstitions as far as they are discovered to them and sincerely desire to find impartially the way that leads to Heaven Of such as these he dares not deny a possibility of salvation And you are the most uncharitable persons in the world if you dare assert the contrary of Protestants You expresly grant a possibility of salvation to those who joyn with the Protestant Church in case of invincible ignorance and dare you deny it where there is a preparation of mind to find out and embrace the most certain way to Heaven where all endeavours are used to that end and where there is a conscientious obedience to the Will of God so far as it is discovered If you dare peremptorily deny a possibility of salvation to such persons meerly because not of the Roman Church this prodigious uncharitableness would make us question the possibility of your salvation more while you persist in it For What is there more contrary to the design and spirit of the Gospel then this is From whence must we gather the terms of salvation but only from thence But it seems by you although men give never so hearty an assent to the Doctrine of the Gospel and live in the most universal obedience to it and abound in the fruits of the spirit of God of which Charity is none of the least yet if they be not in the Communion of your Church there is no hopes of salvation for them But Who is it the mean while that hath the disposal of this salvation Is it in your hands or Christs If it be in His we dare rely on His promise although you pretend to know His mind better than He did himself For notwithstanding a sincere endeavour to know and obey the will of God be the great Fundamental in order to salvation which is delivered us by the Doctrine of Christ yet it seems by you there may be this where there may be not so much as possibility of salvation By which assertion of yours you are so far from working upon any but very weak persons to bring them over to your Church that nothing can more effectually prejudice it among all such who dare believe Christ to be more Infallible then the Church of Rome For what is this else but to make heaven and eternal salvation stalk to the interess of your Church and to lay more weight upon being in your communion then upon the most indispensable precepts of Christianity But when we consider how many among you dispute for the possibility of the salvation of Heathens and yet deny it to those who own all the Fundamentals of Christianity when we see how much you lay the weight of salvation upon being in your Church and what wayes you have for those who are in it to reconcile the hopes of salvation with the practise of sin What can we otherwise imagine but it is the Interess of your Church that you more aim at than the salvation of mens-souls For you have so many wayes to give indulgence in sin to those who desire it and yet such ready wayes of pardon and such an easie task of repentance and so little troublesome means of obtaining grace by the Sacraments ex opere operato that it is hard conceiving what way a man should sooner take who would live in his sins and come to heaven at last then to be of your Church And yet you who are so soft and gentle so kind and indulgent to the sons of your Church are not more ready to send those who are out of it to the fire in this world than to eternal flames in another But we have not so learned Christ we dare not deal so inhumanely with them in this world much less judge so uncharitably as to another of those who profess to fear God and work righteousness though they be not of the same opinion or communion with us Yet we tell men of the danger of hazzarding their salvation by erroneous doctrines and superstitious practises and suppose that sufficient to perswade such who sincerely regard their future happiness to avoid all such things as tend so much to their eternal ruine And such who will continue in such things meerly because there is a possibility some persons may be saved in them by reason of Ignorance or Repentance are no wiser men then such who should split