the adding German to it restrains the sense of Ocean to it within certain bounds and excludes many parts of the great Ocean which are without those limits Just so it is in adding Roman to Catholic Catholic alone comprehends all the Parts of the Church but Roman added to it confines the Sense of it to those who embrace the Faith received in the Roman Communion and this excludes all other Parts of the Catholic Church and so makes a Part to be the Whole 2. I objected farther that if this had been the Catholic Church meant in the Creeds this limitation ought to have been expressed in the Creeds and put to Persons to be baptized which being never done in the Roman Church it self I thence inferr'd that it did not believe it self to be the one Catholic Church which we profess to believe in the Creeds Here the Author of the Reply answers that Catholic and Roman Catholic were in the Language of Antiquity one and the same thing and this point being never called in Question in the time when the Creeds were published there was no occasion to put Roman into the Creeds no more than of putting in Consubstantial with the Father till it was denied This were a substantial way of answering the Difficulty if it would in any measure hold But I shall now prove just the Contrary to have been the Sense of Authority by plain and undeniable Instances in matters of fact in most of the Ages of the Christian Church from the very next to the Apostolical down to the Council of Trent To which I shall only premise this which I think no Roman Catholic will deny me viz. that the Roman Catholic Church doth imply Obedience to the Bishop of Rome as Supream visible Head of the Church under Christ. For Bellarmin and others make not only Faith and Sacraments necessary to the Being of the Church but submission to lâ—wful Pastors and especially to the Pope as Christ's only Vicar upon Earth and he placeth the Essential Unity of the Catholic Church in the Conjunction of the members under Christ and hâ—s Vicar as Head of the Church And from hence he excludes Schismaticks out of the Catholic Church though they have Unity of Faith and Sacraments and Hope and Spirit And the Roman Catechism makes Union with the Pope as visible Head of the Church necessary to the Unity of the Catholiâ— Church And the Proofs I bring shall not be from short or doubtful sentences but from remarkable passages and notorious Acts of the Church In the First Age of the Church the name Catholic was as little known as the Authority of the Roman Church it not being once found in the Apostolical Writings for the Inscriptions of the Catholic Epistles are of latter times And if they were allowed to be Apostolical they would be far from proving any thing to this purpose since the Roman Church is never mentioned in these Epistles unless under the name of Babylon and I suppose they would not like the Title of the Catholic Babylonish Church But in all the directions of the Apostles concerning Unity of Faith there is not one which gives the least intimation that the Roman Church in any sense was to be the Rule or Standard of Faith or Communion In the Second Age we find two remarkable Instances that the Communion of the Catholic Church was not to be taken from Conjunction with the Bishop of Rome as Head of it The first is from the Bishop of Rome's approving the Prophecies of Montanus Prisca and Maximilla This would hardly appear credible if Tertullian had not expresly affirmed it and he farther saith that had it not been for Praxeas a Heretick he had taken them into the Communion of the Catholic Church and he prevailed with him to revoke his communicatory Letters already past What a Case had the Catholic Church been in at this time if the Bishop of Rome had been look'd on as the Centre of Catholic Communion and if he had not been better informed by Praxeas a Heretick The second in the same Age is when Victor took upon him to excommunicate the Eastern Bishops for not celebrating Easter at the same time they did at Rome If now the Eastern Bishops did own the Roman-Catholic and Catholic Church to be the same they must shew it at such a time by their regard to the Pope's sentence as Head of the Catholic Church but they owned no such Authority he had over them and instead of it Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus with a Council of Bishops joyning with him about A. D. 197 wrote a smart Epistle to Victor wherein they let him know they would go on in their way notwithstanding his threats and that it was better to obey God than Man. From whence it is observable That they followed their own judgment against the Pope's and that they believed the Pope required things of them so contrary to the Will of God that they resolved to disobey him And his requiring their compliance was no Argument of his Authority but of his Usâ—rpation In the Third Age happen'd a famous contest between Stephen Bishop of Rome and the Eastern and African Bishops about Re-baptizing Hereticks I meddle not now with the Controversie it self but with the Sense of those Bishops upon occasion of it as to the Roman-Catholic Church The Bishop of Rome did at least threaten to Excommunicate the African Bishops And if Firmilian may be believed he did actually Excommunicate the Asian Bishops How did these Primitive Bishops behave themselves under this Sentence They charge Stephen with Insolence Folly Contempt of his Brethren and breaking the Peace of the Catholic Church and cutting himself off from the Unity of it The words are abscindere se à Charitatis unitate alienum se per omnia fratribus facere Now I desire to know whether these Bishops believed the necessary conjunction of Roman and Catholic together And whether Bishop of Rome were thought to be the Centre of Communion in the Catholic Church It is plain they made him the Cause of the Schism and thought themselves never the less in the Catholic Church for being out of the Roman Communion In the Fourth Age the Government and Subordination of the Catholic Church was established in the Council of Nice according to ancient Custom but we read not a word of the Roman Catholic Church there or any Priviledge or Authority the Bishop of Rome had but within his own Province and such as the Bishops of Antioch and Alexandria had in theirs And when the Bishop of Rome in that Age interposed to restore some Bishops cast out of Communion by the Eastern Bishops they declared against it as a violation of the Rules of the Catholic Church and this became the Occasion of the first Breach between the Eastern and Western Churches In the same Age Liberius Bishop of Rome joyned with the Eastern Bishops in casting Athanasius out of the Catholic Church and
subscribed the Arian Confession of Faith as both Hilary and S Ierome witness and it appears from his Seventh Epistle and the old Lesson in the Roman Breviary 19 Kal. Sept. which hath been since expunged for telling Tales In the Fifth Age happened a greater breach â—etween the Bishops of Rome and the Eastern Churches For Acacius the Bishop of Constantinople not complying with what the Bishops of Rome desired from him was solemnly excommunicated by Feâ—â— III. But notwithstanding this the Emperour and Eastern bishops continued still in his Communion and they complained that the proceedings against him were against the Rules of the Church and savoured of great Pride as appears by the Epistles of Gelâ—sius who succeeded Felix And upon this a notorious Scâ—â— happened which the Eastern Churches charged the Church of Rome with and believed themselves to be still in the Communion oâ— the Catholic Church In the Sixth Age Vigilius Bishop of Rome gives an undeniable evidence of the difference between Communion with the Catholic Church and with the Bishop of Rome When he went to Constantinople upon Iustinian's Summons about the three Chapters not only the Church of Rome but that of Africa Sardinia Istria Iâ—â—yricum and others earnestly entreated him not to consent to the condemning them accordingly when he came to Constantinople he was so warm and zealous in the Cause that he forthwith excommunicates the Patriarch and his adherents among whom the Empress her self was one But soon after he was so much mollified that he not only took off his Sentence but privately agreed with the Emperour to condemn the Three Chapters Which was discovered to the Western Churches by Rusticus and Sebastiâ—nus who were then with him Whereupon they cried out upon him for prevaricating and betraying the Council of Chalcedon and the African Bishops not only condemned his Judgment but excommunicated him and all that consented to it and so did the Bishops of Illyricum Which Schism continued many years as appears by the Epistles of Pelagius II. and Gregory Vigilius finding how the matter was resented in the Western Churches yields to a General Council which the Emperour Summon'd at Constantinople in the mean time he publishes an Edict against the Three Chapters Vigilius to recover his Credit with the Western Bishops denounces Excommunication against those that yielded to it but the Greeks despised his Censure and immediately went to celebrate Divine Offices When the Council sate he refused to come which they regarded not but went on and condemned the Three Chapters without him but when the Council was ended he complied with it as now appears from the Authentic Acts lately published Let any Man now judge whether Communion with the Bishop of Rome were then looked on aâ— a necessary condition of being in the Catholic Church either by the Eastern or Western Churches In the Seventh Age there is a necessity to make a Distinction between the Communion with the Bishop of Rome and with the Catholic Church because Honorius then Bishop of Rome is condemned by the Sixth General Council for contradicting the Apostolical Doctrine and the Definitions of Councils and for following the false Doctrines of Hereticks And the same Judgment is confirmed by the Seventh and Eighth Councils which are received for General in the Church of Rome And Leo Iâ— in his Epistle to the Emperour wherein he confirms the Sixth Council expresly Anathematizes his Predecessor Honorius for no less thaâ— betraying the Catholic Faith. And in the Profession of Faith made by every new Bishop of Rome extant in the Diurnus Honorius is Anathematized by name Was it then the Roman Catholic Church which joyned in Communion with Honorius In the Eighth Age the Bishop of Rome approved the Second Council of Nice but notwithstanding the Western Churches stifly opposed it as contrary to Faith which they could not have done if at that time the Pope had been looked on as the Head and Center of Catholic Communion In the Ninth Age happened the great breach between the two Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople which in consequence engaged the Eastern and Western Churches against each other And although the restoring of Photius after the death of Ignatius seemed to put an end to it yet the difference increased chieâ—ly upon two points that of Iurisdiction and the Addition to the Creed made by the Western Church which the Council under Photius did Anathematize and the whole Greek Church with the Four Patriarchs joyned in it as arguing Imperfection in the Creed and the Tradition of their Fore-fathers And upon these two Points this Schism began although Photius did charge the Latin Church with other things which made Nicolaus I. to employ the best Pens they had to defend the Latins against the Greeks One of which was Ratramnus lately â—ublished who lived at that time and it is observable in him That he supposes both to be still Parts of the Catholic Church and he often distinguishes the Latin Church or the whole Roman Communion from the Catholic Church which he saith was extended from the East to the West from the North to the South In the Eleventh Age this Schism brake forth with greater violence in the time of Leo IX and Michael Cerularius Patriarch of Constantinople To the former occasions of difference a new one was added never mention'd in Photius his time viz. the use of unleavened Bread in the Sacrament by the Latin Church Of this with other things Michael Cerularius complained the Pope sends Three Nuntio's to Constantinople who behaved themselves rudely and insolently towards the Patriarch as he shews in his Epistles to the Patriarch of Antioch published lately by Coâ—elerius there he declares he would not treat with them about Religion without the other Patriarchs upon which they pronounced them obstinate and proceeded to Excommunicate the whole Greek Church for not complying with them And the Patriarch returned the kindness and Anathematized them The Form of the Anathema against the Greeks is printed with Humbertus and the short of it is whosoever contradicts the Roman See is to be excluded Catholic Communion and be made Anathema Maranatha This was plain dealing but it was the Eleventh Age before things came to this height And yet in that very Anathema one of the Reasons assigned was because the Greeks like the Donatists conâ—â—ned the Catholic Church to themselves In the Thirteenth Age Innocent III. writes to the Greek Emperour to bring the Greeks back to the Unity of the Church the Patriarch of Constantinople writes back again to know what he meant by it and how he could call the Roman Church the One Catholic Church since Christians made but one Flock under their several Pastors Christ himself being Head over all The Pope answers The Church is called Catholic two ways 1. As it consists of all particular Churches and so he grants the Roman Church is not the Catholic Church but a part of it though the
Breach continued But the Defender saith the Popes Supremacy if his Memory fail him not was not so much as made a pretence till near 200 years after the Schism began nor any where more acknowledged than in Greece nor by any body more than by him that began the Schism If his Memory fail him not I am sure something else doth For nothing can be more notorious from the very Epistles of the Popes on Occasion of this Schism than that this was at the bottom of all whatever pretences might be made use of sometimes to palliate the matter Let him but read the Epistles of Leo I. to Anatolius and concerning him the Epistles of Gregory I. about the title of Oecumenical Patriarch the Epistles of Nicolaus I. concerning Photius of Leo IX concerning Michael Cerularius and I think he will be of another Opinion and that the Controversie about Supremacy to the Scandal of the Christian World was the true occasion of that dreadful Schism But all the Eastern Churches I said however different among themselves to this day look on the Pope's Supremacy as an Innovation to the Church To which the Replier saith the Eastern Churches were divided from the Roman-Catholic Church by such Doctrines as are inconsistent with the Church of England which professes to hold with the four first General Councils I will not deny but the breach as to the Nestorians began on the account of the Council of Ephesus but whether the Christians under the Turk and Persians in Asia are truely Nestorians is another Question I think not for this Reason In the beginning of this Century the Patriarch of those Christians called his most learned Men about him to consider what their Doctrine really was and how far they differ'd from the Roman Church about Christ since the Missionaries from thence still charged them with Heresie and they declared the difference to be only in Words and the manner of explication For however they say that every Nature hath a Person inseparable from it by which they mean no more than a Subsistence yet from the Union of these two in Christ they hold that there is but one Persona they câ—ll it or One Son resulting from the Union of both Natures And as long as they hold a real Union of both Natures and one Filiation as they speak resulting from it it is beyond my understanding that they should be guilty of the Nestorian Heresie And this account was given to Paul 5. by one sent from their Patriarch and ordered to be Printed by him at Rome But is it not really a very hard Case for 300000 Families who as is there said were under that Patriarch to be excluded the Catholic Church and consequently from Salvation for not right understanding the Subtilties of the distinction between Nature and Person as whether Subsistence can be separated from Individual Nature or whether an Hypostatical Union doth imply that the Individual Nature doth lose its own Subsistence I appeal to the Conscience of any good Christian whether he thinks Christ and his Apostles did ever make the knowledge of these things necessary to Salvation which the subtilest of their Schoolmen are never able to explain to the capacities of the sar greatest part of Mankind The like may be said as to those called Eutychians I do not doubt but the Confusion of both Natures in Christ was a Doctrine justly condemned by the Council of Chalcedon because he could not be true Man if the Nature of Man were lost in him but I think there is no Reason to condemn those for that Heresie who declare they reject the Doctrine of Eutyches and that they hold two Natures in Christ making up one Personated Nature without mixture or Confusion as their Patriarch explained their Doctrine to Leonardus Abel Bishop of Sidon when Gregrory 13. sent his Nuncio into those parts on purpose to understand their Doctrines And the latter Missionaries confirm the same thing that they do not deny two Natures in Christ but say that two Natures are as parts making up by their Union one Nature with a Person And herein they say Dioscorus whom they follow differ'd from Eutyches And must such infinite Numbers of this perswasion in the Eastern and Western parts be excluded from the Catholic Church for not knowing the difference between a Person resulting from the Union of two Natures and one Nature without a Person arising from two Natures without mixture or Confusion A late Writer of the Roman Communion is so ingenuous to acknowledge that the Heresies charged on the Eastern Churches are imaginary and that they differ only in terms from that which is owned to be the Catholic Faith. And Faustus Naironus hath lately published a Book at Rome to prove that the Maronites have been all along good Catholics although the Popes in their Bulls from the time of Innocent III. have still charged them with Heresie As to the Greeks there is yet less Reason to charge them with Heresie since they adhere to the Four General Councils and out of Zeal for the Decree of the Council of Ephesus will not allow the Addition which the Western Church made to the Creed So that upon the whole matter there is nothing to exclude the Eastern Churches from being Parts of the Catholic Church but denying the Popes Supremacy But he tells us some of these if his Authors deceive him not as the Egyptians and Ethiopians have often made Overtures to the Pope for Peace and Communion owning him for Supreme Head of the Church provided only they might not be obliged to renounce Eutyches and Dioscorus I am extremely afraid his Authors have deceived him I wish he had named them that others might beware of them I suppose he means that which Baronius printed at the end of his sixth Tome of a solemn Embassy from the Patriarch of Alexandria and all the Provinces of Egypt to own the Pope as Supreme Head of the Church which was soon after found to be a meer cheat and imposture How far the Ethiopians are from owning the Popes Authority he may find in Ludolphus or Balthasar Tellez It is true the Pope sent a Patriarch into the East upon a Division among themselves but after a while he was forced to withdraw to the remotest parts of Persia and to leave their own Patriarch in full Power The Bishop of Sidon relates what ill success he had with the Patriarch of the Iacobites And it is well known how soon the Greeks returned to their old Opposition after the Council of Florence I had therefore Reason to say that all the Churches of the East however different among themselves agreed in rejecting the Pope's Supremacy and to this day look on it as an Innovation in the Church As to what he afterwards speaks of their Blasphemies against the Divinity and Humanity of Christ I now leave the World to judge of them and if they be true all Men must
Catholic Church This is very intelligible Let us then go on But how come the Promises made to the Catholic Church to belong to the Roman-Catholic How comes the Roman-Catholic to be the One Church of Christ on Eaâ—th But this is running forwards and backwards And 〈◊〉 gâ—od is to be done without supposing Roman and Cathoâ—â—â— to be terms equivalent He tells me I am over-hasty in removing the Power of working Miracles out of the Church For he saith God still works Miracles in the Roman Church and if I would put the whole issue on Miracles he would undertake the Proof There is nothing in this Case like working of Miracles among us for our satisfaction For Miracles are a sign to unbelievers But it is a pleasant thing that they should go about to convince us by those things which they laugh at one another for pretending to I will give them an Instance past contradiction Did not the Iansenists pretend to a Miracle at Port-Royal by one of the Thorns of our Saviours Crown And did not the Iesuits expose the very pretence as idle and ridiculous as appears by F. Annat's Book on that Occasion The late Author of the Prejudices against the Jansenists upon occasion of that Miracle lays down some good Rules for discerning true Miracles and false 1. That such Miracles are not sufficient to convince which may be effected by a created Power unless they be attested by such Miracles which can only be effected by a Divine Power such as Resurrection from the dead 2. We must not only attend to the Nature but to the End of Miracles which he saith is the true worship of God and the love of Vertue And by these Rules I shall be content to examine all his Miracles when ever he produces them The Assistance which Christ promised he tells us was to all his Doctrine and to all time But what a sad thing is it that we have nothing but his bare saying for the Proof of it Never Man more needed Infallibility than this Defender does when he undertakes to prove it What! Can Christ afford no Assistance to his Church without Infallibility What thinks he of the Assistance of Divine Grace Doth that make all Infallible that have it And is not that Assistance by vertue of Divine Promises Is this to ask which of the parts of his Promise he will not perform We doubt not he will perform all he hath promised but we desire to see where he hath made the Promise We ask nothing unreasonable and therefore out of pity to our weakness shew these Promises of standing Infallibility to us and do not take it still for granted without proving it But the Replier saith The Promises of Christ imply whatever is necessary to the Church for the support and government of her self to the Worlds end Is Infallibility then necessary for the Support and Government of the Catholic Church If not then the Promises of Support and Government â—elate not to the matter But no less a Man than S. Augustine frequently affirms That the Promises made by Christ to the Church are only made to good and not to bad Men in it and that the case of wicked Men in the Church and of Hereticks and Schismaticks out of it is alike i. e. that both have true Sacraments but neither any right to the Promises And this he doth not assert by chance but it is the very Foundation of his Answer to the Donatists in the Answer which himself valued the most And he concludes with saying That some are in the House of God so as to be that House of God which was built upon a Rock and had th Promises made to it and these are the Saints dispersed over the World and joyned together in the Communion of the same Sacraments others are so in the House as not to belong to the Frame of it but are as the Chaff among the Wheat and are rather of the House than any part of it If this be good Doctrine in S. Augustin what becomes of all the Promiâ—es made to the Church with respect to the External Government and Support of it I might name multitudes of Places more wherein he argues That wicked â—en do not belong to the One Church and are not the Spâ—se of Christ for Christ saith to them I know you nâ—t and Herâ—â—ticks he saith are but one sort of bad Men. If therefore the Promises of the Catholic Church do not belong to one neither can 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 other I had therefore Reason â—o ask where God hath ever promised to keep Men more from Error than Sin And how it comes to pass that very bad Men are allow'd in the Church of Rome to have this Prâ—â—â—ise of Infallibility The Defender slides off from this to a matter he was better prepared to Answer But the Replier tells us of some of the Prophâ—ts who were great Sinners I suppose he means Balaam and Caiaphas But however this doth not reach to the matter of the New Testament wherein doing the Will of God is laid down as the best means of knowing the Truth But he offers at a Reason why impeccability is not so necessary as Infallibility because without this the Church could not subsist for if once she make shipwrack of her Faith she is no more a Church an effeâ— not so proper to Sin. There is a great difference between absolute impeccability and notorious Offenders the question I put was not concerning perfect Saints but great Sinners why they should believe that Christ would give an infallible Assistance to keep such Men from erring when notwithstanding the Assistance of Grace they run on in a course of wickedness He saith One is necessary for the Church and not the other Then there may be a holy Catholic infallible Church made up of none but great Sinners And was this such a Church as Christ purchased with his own Blood and whom he reâ—â—â—med from all impiety to be a peculiar People zealous of good Works If they say The Grace of God ill never fail to keep some from great Sins why may not the same hold as to great Errors And that be as much as the Promises extend to Bâ—t if the Church once makes Shipwrack of Faith she is no more a Church How comes Faith to be separated from a good Conscience I am sure S. Paul joyns them together Is no Error consistent with the Being of a Church Not an Error about the Seat of Infallibility Not an Error about the Immaculate Conception Nor about the Vision of God before the day of Iudgment Not about the Son 's being of the same substance with the Father Not about Christ's having a will proper to his humane Nature Then there can be no such thing as the Roman-Catholic Church in the opinion of those who are for personal Infallibility of the Pope since the Heads of their Church have erred about these things The true Church can never
an Usurpation as that of the Popes was And the main Point in order to a Reformation was casting off the Popes Power as an encroachment upon the Ancient and Canonical Priviledges of the Western Churches which was done here by a General consent even of those Bishops who held in Communion with the Roman Church as far as those could do who rejected the Head of it And this is the Fundamental Point as to the matter of Schism If the Pope as Head of the Church doth influâ—â—ce Catholick Communion so far that it is necessary to Salvation to live in subjection to him it will be very hard to justify separation from that Body whereof he is the visible Head. But if there be no Scripture no Councils no Universal Tradition for this as the Roman Catholick Bishops here declared in the time of H. 8. then there can be no Schism in acting without Authority from him or against his Authority And whether any other Church joyned with ours or not is no more material to the justification of the Reformation than the lawfulness of any one Counties Acting for the Royal Family in the late times of Usurpation did depend upon the concurrence of others with it What more commonly talked of and magnified in the Church of Rome than the Reformation of the Mâ—nastick Orders And some of the personâ— have been Canonized who have done it But in this Case the Governour of a Monastick Order proceeding according to the Rules of his Order doth a very justifiable thing tho never another Monastry joyn with him in it because he only doth his duty and proceeds by the Rules which are receiv'd by the whole Order This I say was the Case of the Church of England in Reforming according to Scripture and the sense of the Primitive Church and if others joyned so much the better if not the Act justifies it self and needs not the concurrence of others to make it good 2. The 2d Answer was That there is a difference between voluntary Separation and that which is unavoidable in case unreasonable conditions of Communion be required The Defender pretends He can by no means understand this unavoidable Separation because tho Men be separated from the Communion of a Church yet they may continue of the same Faith if they please but if they have another Faith they separate themselves even supposing Usurpation or whatever I would have Now this seems very strange to me from a person who knows the Terms of Communion with the Roman Church Can any Man be a true Member thereof who doth not own and profess to believe the Popes Supremacy Transubstantiation c. Is he not by the constitution of that Church required to believe all that the Roman Church believes But suppose men do not and cannot for their hearts believe as that Church believes can they notwithstanding be Members of it No he confesses a different Faith unavoidably casts them out But then to believe otherwise than the Roman Church believes casts them out unavoidably The Question now is who is the cause of this casting out those who cannot believe those Doctrines or those who require the belief of them in order to communion If these Doctrines be evident in Scripture or were defined by the four General Councils or are contained in the ancient Creeds or can be clearly proved by Universal Tradition then we confess the blame falls on those who refuse but if none of those can be made appear to the satisfaction of a mans mind who desires to search out Truth then their separation is unavoidable and there is no reason to make it their voluntary act But saith the Defender a mans faith is his own voluntary act I grant that but not a voluntary cause of Separation which two ought to be distinguished in this case As in the case of Usurpation the owning the lawful King is a voluntary act but if an Usurper threatens to banish him if he doth not abjâ—re him upon whom must the blame be laid upon the mans voluntary act or the Usurpers voluntary imposing such a penalty on those who do nothing but what is just The Defender did not consider that the making such terms of communion was a voluntary act too and being a thing unreasonable and unjust it leaves the blame upon the imposers But he denies any such thing as Usurpation in the Pâ—pe because he hath shewed by his reiterated Approbation of the Bishop of Meaux's Book that he is content with that submission and obedience which the Holy Councils and Fathers have always taâ—ght the Faithful These are very fine words to deceive the unwary But I pray tell us who is to declare what the Councils and Fathers have always taught the Faithful Who is to be Judg Is not the Pope himself For no Council will be allowed without his Approbation and Confirmation And is not this then a very pretty Artifice to draw weak persons into a snare For my part I do not wonder at the Popes Approbation of the Bishop of Meaux's Book no more than I would at a Gentlemans approbation of a fine spun Net when he goes a fishing which is not so easily discerned and yet doth as effectually catch the Game Some there are still who love to be deceived and some have more arts of deceiving than others and those who gain most by it will be sure to give them the greatest approbation The Defender proceeds Suppose there were Usurpation must people therefore believe otherwise than they did before as that there is no change of Substance no Purgatory no more than two Sacraments and the rest The Question about Faith is one thing and about Separation is another We are now upon the latter of these and in this case we are most concerned about the Popes Authority since he is look'd on by you as the Head of the Catholick Church and the Center of Communion If there were no such Usurpation yet we should never decline giving an account of the Reasons of our Faith as to Sacraments Purgatory or what you please of the Points in difference between us Which I neither desire to make greater or lesser than really they are For there may be deceit both ways As to his renewing the Question by what authority we separate I answer by the same authority which makes it unlawful for us to profess what we do not believe and to practise what we believe God hath forbidden This is just as if one should ask by what authority men are bound to be honest and sincere and to prefer Gods Laws before mens For the Church of Rome requires from the Members of her Communion besides matters of Faith such acts of Worship which whatever they be to those who believe as they do must be Idolatrous to those that believe as we do For example suppose in China where they believe God to be the same with the World that honour of the Chineses who on that account think they may
reprobated Moral in Job l. 12. c. 4.  The Passages in his Dialogues which seem to contradict these do not come up to the Council of Trents Purgatory for they only speak of a Purgation for light and venial sins and not for the temporal pain of mortal sins whose Guilt is remitted But in the former places he plainly denies any change of State after this Life so that the Purgation he speaks of must be consistent with a State of Joy and in that very place he saith Persons shall be at the day of Judgment as they were when they went out of the World. 9. Masses for the Dead The Council of Trent Gregory the Great DEclares That they are intended for those who are dead in Christ not yet fully purged from their sins Sess. 22. C. 2. SUpposes those to be in a state of Bliss for whom the Oblation was made at the Altar as appears by the Sacramentary IV. Kalend. Julii where the Oblation is first mention'd and after follows Deus qui animoe famuli tui Leonis eternae beatitudinis praemià contulisti 10. Worship of Images The Council of Trent Gregory the Great DEclares not only that Images are to be placed in Temples but to be worshipped there Sess. 25. ALlows their being in Temples but denies any worship to be given to them For he not only often denies any Adoration to be given them but he saith They are only for Instruction which excludes Relative Worship Registr Epist. l. 9. Ep. 9. l. 7. Ep. 110.  The Epistle to Secundinus Gussanvillaeus in his late Edition of S. Gregory saith was not to be found in the most Ancient M S S. 11. Extreme Unction The Council of Trent Gregory the Great ANathematizes those who do affirm it not to be a true and proper Sacrament appointed by Christ for Remission of Sins and conferring Grace Sess. 14. Can. 1 2. MEntions the Unction then used in order to the Recovery of sick Persons and in the Prayer applies S. James his Words that way and then adds Sana quoque quaesumus omnium medicator ejus Febrium cunctorum languorum cruciatus aegritudinemque c. Sacram. p. 253. And immediately before in the Unction these words are said Per hanc sacrati olei Unctionemprisinam emmelioratem recipice mersaris sanitatem Ibid.  And that it was not looked on as the last Sacrament appears by things in that Sacramentary  1. The Eucharist was to be given after it  2. It was to be continued for seven days if there were occasion suscitabit eum Deus which shews that it was designed for bodily health 12. Pope's Supremacy Council of Trent Gregory the Great OWned it from beginning to end and refer'd the Confirmation of its Decrees to the Pope as Supreme Head of the Church DEclares the Headship of the Church to be peculiar to Christ. Registr Ep. l. 4. Ep. 36 38. where he speaks not of an Essential Head but of the Fountain of Jurisdiction  He urges it as an inconvenience If there were a Head of the Church the Church must err with him Epist. 32. 36.  Which Bellarmin owns to be a true Consequence De R. Poâ—t l. 4. c. 5.  He makes it the Pride of Lucifer and the forerunning of Antichrist for one Bishop to set himself above the rest Ep. 36.  Not to be the Sole Bishop but to have all the rest in subjection to him These things may be sufficient at present to shew how little ground there is to say That the Religion now owned in the Church of Rome was brought in hither with Christianity in the time of Gregory the Great 2. The Replier saith We ought to bring positive Texts for our negative Articles as no Praying to Saints no Purgatory no Worship of Images no Transubstantiation and the like with which he saith the 39 Articles are stuft But why must we be obliged to bring Texts for the Negative Because he saith we make these Articles of Faith. To answer this Let us suppose the Common Council of the City should agree to make men swear that the Monument near London Bridge is a living creature and should exclude all those from the City Priviledges who do not and that others having examin'd the Monument and found nothing but Stones and Iron were resolved to follow their Senses and declare their minds That upon due consideration they did judg the Monument to be no living creature Would any say these men maâ—e it an Article of their Faith when they only rejected a false proposition imposed upon the Faith of others Why may not a Church declare what it doth not believe as well as what it doth And when it declares what it doth not believe doth it make such declarations Articles of Faith The plain case is Those of the Church of Rome impose things we think as hard and unreasonable as the former Example Our Church not only denies its belief of them but signifies it to its Members by a body of Articles which they are to sign to testifie their consent How doth this come to make every one of these Declarations an Article of Faith They are only Articles of Agreement and not of Faith. And the difference between these may be easily understood An Article of Faith supposes a Divine Revelation as the Replier yields but if men offer that for a Divine Revelation which is not the rejecting of that cannot be called an Article of Faith because there is no need of Revelation to declare the other to be none supposing there be a Rule to judg what is of Divine Revelation and what not That Rule we say is the Holy Scripture not interpreted by Fancy but by the Primitive Church by this Rule so interpreted we reject Invocation of Saints Purgatory Worship of Images Transubstantiation c. And why then should our rejecting them be called so many Articles of Faith We own the Scripture for our Rule and for our compleat and adequate Rule of Faith and therefore it serves us both for what we are to believe and what we are not to believe In positive Articles we resolve our Faith into Divine Revelation contained in Scripture in Negative the Article of Faith is That Scripture is our Rule but from thence it is a necessary Consequence of Reason That we are not to believe any thing but what is contained in Scripture or may be deduced from thence Which deductions being within the force of the Rule are not to be looked on as different from it and what can neither be proved by Scripture nor by deductions from it if our Principle be allowed we can never be blamed if we reject it For otherwise we should not act reasonably nor agreeable to our own Principles But as to the Particulars mentioned we do not meerly reject them as not contained in Scripture but as repugnant to such Principles concerning Divine Worship Remission of Sins the Nature of Christs Body c. which are
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
see because Faith is of things not seen This Cavil had been as good against our Blessed Saviour when he said to Thomas because thou hast seen thou hast believed I hope upon second thoughts they will not tell him that this was improperly spoken and not like a Schoolman Call it what you will the single Question is Whether your Church will allow us to Judge of things according to the plain Evidence of Sense One saith It is impossible that any Man should be commanded not to believe what he sees Believing here is the Judgment of the Mind upon the Representation of Sense and will he secure us that the Church can never require us to judge otherwise than according to the Evidence of Sense I wish he would make his words good for I assure him he would remove a terrible block out of our way My Senses plainly tell me what I see and feel and taste is as much Bread after Consecration as it was before how then comes it to pass that my Judgment that it was Bread before was very good but although there be the very same Evidence afterwards without the least alteration to Sense yet then I am to judge just contrary i. e. that it is not Bread which I see and feel and taste just as I did before But he saith what is seen is only the form shape and sigure of Bread and Wine and that they believe to be there But alas This doth not reach to the point For the Question is not about external appearances but about the Iudgment of the Mind upon the Evidence of Sense I will make this matter plainer that they may know where the Difficulty lies When Christ's Body appeared to the Disciples after his Resurrection there was no dispute among them concerning the form shape and figure of his body but the doubt was whether from these they were to conclude that it was Christ's real Body or not If not they could not believe from the Evidence of Sense that Christ's Body was risen from the dead if they were let them tell us how Christ's Body comes to be so much changed and to lose those essential properties of a body which it once had and was judged by and farther what ground there is for us now not to allow that Judgment of Sense which Christ himself appealed to after the Institution of the Sacrament For if Christ had therein declared that our Senses are not to be our Rule of judging concerning his Body he would certainly not have appealed so soon after to the Senses of his Disciples concerning that very Body and neither he nor his Disciples have given the least intimation that what we see and feel to be one body we must believe to be quite another which we can neither see nor feel Did not two Angels appear to Lot in the figure and shapes of Men and the Holy Ghost descend in the form of a Dove And were they who saw them to believe according to the Evidence of Sense I answer that there is a great deal of difference to be made between Invisible Powers appearing under bodily shapes and a natural visible palpable extended body losing the Properties of a body abd becoming invisible impalpable and indivisible And withal there is a great difference between Spiritual Powers uniting the real particles of Matter into a Body and the making the Form Figure and Shape of a real Body to be where there is no substance of a body We do not pretend to judge by our Senses of Invisible Substances under outward appearances but of the Truth of a bodily Substance by all the Appearances of a body under all the Circumstances necessary for the right judgment of Sense The other saith he knows of no Church which allows not People to believe all they see May we then believe that to be still Bread which we see to be so No he saith the What of a thing is not the Object of Sense I perceive then our Senses are very impertinent things and only give an account of the Circumstances and not of the Substances of things But I pray did not the Disciples perceive the What of Christ's Body by their Senses How do we know the What of any bodily Substance but by them It is meer Collusion to say our Senses do not judge of Substances for our bare Senses judge of nothing but are the means of conveying the impressions or Representations inward whereby our Minds do paâ—s Judgment upon things And either we cannot know the Substance of any thing sensible or we must know the What of it as he speaks by our Senses We now come to the main business which for the clearer proceeding I shall put under three distinct Heads I. Concerning the Unity of the Catholick Church II. Concerning the Authority of it III. Concerning the Reformation of the Church of England I. Of the Unity of the Catholick Church ANd here the point to be discussed is viz. Whether that which is called the Roman-Catholick Church be that one Church which Christ has here on Earth 1. The first thing I objected against it was that a Part cannot be the Whole but that which is called the Roman-Catholick Church is but a Part and therefore it cannot be the One Catholick Church of Christ here on earth Here to prevent cavilling I must declare that I meant not the Roman Diocese or Province but all the Churches which live in Communion with and Subjection to the Bishop of Rome as Head of the Church and look on it as necessary to Salvation so to do And this I still assert to be but a Part of the Catholick Church and a corrupt one too The Author of the Defence saith all this Riddle of Part and Whole comes from my Inadvertence How so Because I confound the Roman Diocese with the Roman-Catholick Church No I assure him I did take it in their own sense for all that embrace the matters of Faith which are received in the Roman Communion And He need not fear my doing otherwise for I intend to discourse of no other Church but this and this I deny as so taken to be the One Catholick Church Doth not Catholic signifie all the Parts I am sure it ought to do so but I say it doth not when Roman is joyned to Catholick for then it excludes all those from being Parts of the Catholic Church which do not joyn in the Roman Communion and this I say is unreasonable And here I expected some Proof in so material a Point but there is not a Word farther than that Catholic comprehends all but I say again Roman Catholic excludes all that are not in its Communion As suppose any one should say the German Ocean is the whole Sea and to prove it should reason as this Gentlemen doth Ocean is the whole Sea is it not And is it the less the Ocean because German is added to it No the Ocean is just as large as ever it was but
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
chief 2. As it holds under it all particular Churches and so he saith The Roman Church only is the Catholic Church And so he makes owning the Roman Church to be Mother and Mistress of all Churches as he there saith to be a necessary condition of Catholic Communion And thus it becomes the Roman Catholic Church But this was a very new notion of the Catholic Church which in the Fathers of the Church was taken in one of these two Senses 1. With Respect to Faith and so Catholic was the same with Sound and of a right Faith in opposition to the notorious Heresies of the First Ages So it was used by Igâ—â—tius against the Heresies of that time which denied Iesus to be Christ therefore saith he Whereever Christ Iesus is there is the Catholic Church After him Polycarp is called by the Church of Smâ—rna Bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna So the Council of Antioch speaking of the deposition of Paâ—lus Samosatenus say They must set another Bishop over the Catholic Church there â—lemens Alexandrinus saith The Catholic Church is ancienter than Heresies that it hath the Unity of the Faith and subsists only in the Truth Pacianus observes That in those Ages the Hereticks went by other Names but the sound Christians were known by the Name of Catholics which had been of very ancient usâ— in the Church though not found in Scripture as Fulgentiâ—s likewise observes But Lactantius takes notice that the Hereticks had gotten the trick of using that Name and then his Rule is to discern the true Catholic Church by the true Religion For he not only saith before That the Catholic Church is to be known by the true Worship of God but when he comes to lay down the Notes of the true Church the first of them is Religion So I find in an old Lactantius printed at Rome A. D. 1470. but for what Reason I know not it is leâ—t out in the latteâ—â— Editions In the Conference between the Donatists and the Catholic Bishops both sides challenged the name of Catholics to themselves and the Roman Judge determined It should belong to them who were found to have Truth on their side Pope Innocent III. in a Council at Rome declares That all the Churches in the World are called one from the Unity of the Catholic Faith. And in the Canon before he mentions the Roman Church as distinct from the Catholic but comprehended under it while it adheres to the Catholic Faith. Which was not then understood to be what the Roman Church declares to be so but what was universally received in the Church from the Apostles times and was delivered in the Creeds to the Persons to be admitted by Baptism into the Catholic Church 2. With respect to Persons and Places And so Catholic was first taken in opposition to the Iewish Confinement of Salvation to themselves and of Gods appointed Worship to one Temple So Ignatius faith The â—hurch is one Body made up of Jews and Gentiles And the Church of Smyrna writes to all the Members of the Catholic Church in all places and the Council of Antioch writes to the whole Catholic Church under Heaven S. Cyril saith The Church is called Catholic from its Universal spreading and teaching the whole Doctrine of Christ to all sorts of Persons Athanasius saith It is called Catholic because it is dispersed over the World. Theophylact saith The Catholic Church is a Body made up of all â—hurches whereof Christ is the Head. And the African Bishops from the first beginning of the Dispute with the Donatists laid great weight upon this That the Catholic Church was to be taken in its largest Extent or else the Promises could not be fulfilled as may be seen in Optatus who saith The Church is called Catholic not only from its having the true Faith but from its being every where dispersed And S. Augustine hath written whole Books to prove it In the Conference with the Donatists the Catholic Bishops and especially S. Augustin plead that they are called Catholics because they hold communion with the whole World of Christians and not with thâ—se only of a particular Title or Denomination For therein they made the Schism of the Donatists consist not barely in a causeless Separation but in confining the Catholic Church to themselves who at best were but a Part of it And because the notion which Innocent III. gives is liable to the same charge it cannot be excused from the same guilt Thus we have found the Author of this Notion of the Roman Catholic Church viz. for such as own the Supremacy of the Church of Rome as he explains it more fully in the same Epistle But yet this Notion of the Catholic Church was not Uniniversally received after Innocent III. For in the Fifteenth Age in the Council of Florence Cardinal Bessarion disputing with the Greeks about the Authority of the Roman Church in making an Addition to the Creed saith That how great soever the Power of the Roman Church be he grants it is less than that of a General Council or the Catholic Church From whence it follows that the Notion of the Catholic Church cannot be taken from owning the Roman Church to be Mistress of all Churches for then the Catholic Church is bound to submit to the Decrees of the Roman Church about Matters of Faith. In the beginning of the same Age the Council of â—onstance met and in the Fourth Session declared That a General ouncil represents the Catholic Church and hath its Power immediately from Christ and that in matters of Faith Unity of the â—hurch and Reformation all Persons even Popes â—hemselves are bound to submit to it And truly it was but necessary for them to take off from the Popes Authority in matters of Faith since they charge Ioh. XXIII with no less than frequent and pertinacious denying the Immortality of the Soul. Was not this Man fit to be an Infallible Head of the Catholic Church and the true Center of Christian Communion Bellarmin saith this Article was not proved but only commonly believed because of the dissoluteness of his Life But this is but a poor defence since this Article stands upon Record against him in all the Editions of the Council of Constance which I have compared even that at Rome said to be collated with Manuscripts And why should so scandalous an Article be suffered to stand unless there were such a consent of Copies that it could not for shame be removed The Doctrine of the Council of Constance was confirmed by the Council of Basil and is to this day maintained by the Clergy of France as appears by their Declaration made A. D. 1682. From whence it follows that the Church is not called Catholic from relation to the Roman Church but to the whole Body of Christians and that the Unity of it is not to be taken from the respect it bears to an
external Visible Head which may sail but to Christ as the essential Head of the Church This is the express Doctrine of the Cardinal de Alliaco Ioh. Major Almain Gerson and many others and follows from the Decree of the Council of Constance Thus I have briefly deduced the Sense of the Christian Church in this matter from the Apostolical times and that not meerly from the sayings of particular Men but from publick solemn and undoubted Acts of the Church Which I have the rather done because the Defender saith we have no Antiquity on our sido in this â—ause but as much as since Luther I think I have produced a little more and too much for him to Answer It is time now to consider what proof the Replier brings that Catholic and Roman-Catholic in the Sense of Antiquity were one and the same thing He produces the Testimonies of Tertullian and Cyprian wherein the Church of Rome is called the Catholic Church Who doubts that in those days there was a Catholic Church at Rome For every particular Church which agreed in the Catholic Faith was then called the Catholic Church of such a place And innumerable Instances of this kind may be gathered out of Antiquity both as to the City of Rome and other Cities as well as that and surely they were not all Catholic Churches in his Sense when he agrees there is but One Catholic Church nay more even Parochial Churches were called Catholic as he may find in â—otelerius S Ambrose's Testimony signifies no more than that Satyrus coming into a Place suspected for the Luciferian Schism asked if the Bishop joyned with the Catholic Bishops i. e. with the Roman Church Which is no more than whether he agreed with his own Church for Satyrus was a Roman born But this would prove any other Church to be the One Catholic Church altogether as well as the Roman The Patriarch of Constantinople writes to Hormisda that he would not hereafter recite in the Diptychs the Names of those who were excommunicated by the Apostolical See. And what follows But he saith They were sever'd from the Communion of the Catholic Church And so were those excommunicated by the Patriarch of Constantinople But the words are who do not in all things consent with the See Apostolic but the plain meaning is of those who were cast out of Communion for the words are too Sequestrates à Communione Ecclesiae Catholicae And doth this prove the Roman Church to have any more relation to the Catholic than the Church of the meanest Bishop in the Catholic Church As to the calling of Catholics Romanists by the Gothic Arians that relates to the Roman Empire and not to the Roman Church And now let any impartial Reader judge whether the sense of Antiquity be not admirably cleared by these passages as to the making out Roman and Catholic to be the same But to proceed 3. I said farther that if the Roman Church believed it self to be the Catholick Church it must void the Baptism of those who are out of its Communion but since Baptism doth enter persons into the Catholic Church by its own Confession the Catholic Church which is owned in the Creeds must be of larger Extent than the Roman In Answer to this they both tell me this point hath been over-ruled long ago by the Catholic Church the Baptism of Hereticks being allowed to be good But since it is granted that Baptism doth enter Persons into that Catholic Church we believe in the Creeds doth it not evidently follow that the Catholic Church in the Creeds is larger than the Roman Communion For it takes in those which the other doth not Doth not the Catholic Church take in all that are admitted into the Catholick Church but many more by their own Confession are admitted into it than are of the Roman Communion and therefore it unavoidably follows that the Roman Catholick Church cannot be the Catholic Church believed in the two Creeds And although according to S. Augustine the validity of Baptism depends on the right form of words and not the good Disposition of him that administers yet Baptism where it is valid must have its due Effect which is entering Persons into the Catholic Church But say they Doth not Heresie c. cast them out of the Catholic Church Suppose it doth yet if Heresie do cast them out they were in the Church till they were cast out of it Their being allowed to be in it doth my business let them prove them cast out by Heresie when they please But the Defender saith I suppose what I should prove and then prove it by means of that supposition Here I am to seek for do I not prove from their own Supposition and not from mine that Baptism doth enter persons into the Catholic Church and therefore from thence I prove that themselves cannot believe the Catholic and Roman Church to be all one since they allow many multitudes to be entred into the Catholic Church which they deny to be of the Roman Church Yet he goes on that such persons are not truly Members either of the Catholic or Roman-â—atholic Church No then Baptism doth not admit Persons into the Catholic Church Which is very new Doctrine and fit only for new Converts and is directly contrary to the Roman Catechism which saith Baptism is the Gate by which we enter into the Church They were so far â—embers saith he as Baptism could make them And that I hope was to make them Members of Christs Body or else what becomes of the Council of Trent which so expresly asserts and that with an Anathema the Validity and Efficacy of the Sacraments in general and of Baptism in particulâ—â— And there is a special Anathema against those who say that Children baptized are not to be reckon'd inter fideles and I hope those are Members of the Catholic Church Is there Remission of sins Communion with the Holy Spirit granted out of the Catholic Church yet these are the Effects of Baptism owned by all Persons in the Church of Rome or else they cannot themselves be of the Roman Communion What is it then I pray to be as much Members of the Church as Baptism could make them What can make them more Members than Baptism doth According to their own Doctrine But they are as far off the Roman Church as they are off the Catholic Say you so then no more is requisite to make a Man a Member of the Roman â—hurch than is necessary to his Baptism This great News aâ—â— would be very welcome to the Christian World. I have hâ—â—rd of many Projects of Accommodation but none seem to be like this For then no more is necessary to make us Members of the Roman Church than of the Catholic i. e. owning the Creed and our Baptismal Vow Nay hold there saith he the Profession of the Catholic Faith is necessary to make one a true Member of
other And thereâ—â—re we must judg more reasonably What follows about the Infallibility promised to the Church hath been answered already As to the Canonical Book I shewed it was no Authoritative Decision by a Power in the Church to make Books Canonical which were not so but a meer giving Testimony in a Matter of Fact in which all parts of the Church are concerned and it depends as other Matters of Fact do on the Skill and Fidelity of the Reporters And so far I own the truly Catholick Church to have Authority in any Testimony delivering down the Books of Scripture but this proves no more Infallibility in the Christian Church as to the Books of the New Testament than it doth in the Jewish Church as to the Books of the Old Testament And thus much of the Authority of the Catholick Church in Matters of Faith. III. Of the Reformation of the Church of England THere are so many Passages in the Papers relating to the Church of England on the Account of her Reformation that I thought it the best Method of proceeding to handle this Subject by itself And there are these things charged upon it either in Terms or by Consequence in the Papers which as I am a Member of this Church I think my self bound to clear for I could nor justifie continuing in her Communion if she were justly liable to these Imputations 1. That she hath made a causless Breach in the Communion of the Catholick Church 2. That she hath been the occasion of a World of Heresies crept into this Nation 3. That she hath not sufficient Authority within her self and yet denies an Appeal to a higher Judicature 4. That she contradicts her own Rule viz. the Holy Scriptures 5. That she subsists only on the Pleasure of the Civil Magistrate All these I shall examine with Care and consider what hath been said in Defence of the Papers upon these Heads As to the charge of causless Breach in the Communion of the Catholick Church it lies in these Words And by what Authority Men separate themselves from that Church Which being spoken with respect to the Members of the Church of England do imply that they have made a Separation from the Communion of the Catholick Church and that they had no sufficient Authority for so doing and therefore are guily of Schism in it To the Question two Answers were given 1. By distinguishing the truly Catholick Church from the Roman Catholick And a Distinction between these being made out which is done in the first part of this Defence It doth not follow that we have made a Breach in the Communion of the Catholick Church because we do not join in Communion with the Roman Catholick This was illustrated by the Example of a prosperous Usurper in a Kingdom who challenges a Title to the whole by gaining a considerable part of it and requires from all the Kings Subjects within his Power to own him to be rightful King whereupon the Question was put Whether refusing to do it were an Act of Rebellion or of Loyalty So in the Church the Popes Authority over it so as to restrain Catholick Communion only to those who own it is not only looked on as an Usurpation by Us but by all the Eastern Churches and is in Truth altering the Terms of Christian Communion from what they were in the truly Catholick and Apostolick Church Therefore since the Conditions required are unreasonable because different from them what Breach hath followed is not to be imputed to those who refuse these Terms but to those who impose them and so the Guilt of it lies upon the Church of Rome and not upon the Church of England This is the Substance of the Answer To which the Replier saith That the Eastern Churches cannot be parts of the Catholick Church because they hold not the Apostolick Doctrine contained in the Creeds and Councils owned by the Church of England This hath been fully answered already But he goes on There were no other Churches then in being but those which were in Communion with the Church of Rome consequently the Church of England going out from them separated her self from the Catholick Apostolick Church And the Defender saith He expects I should shew That truely Catholick and Apostolick Church we held Communion with when we separated from the Roman He desires to know where the men live that people may go to them and learn of them what their Faith is c. In answer to this I say That there is no necessity for us to shew any Church distinct from others which in all things we agreed with because we hold all particular Churches liable to Errors and Corruptions and that the notion of the Catholick Church may take in such Particulars from which we may see reason to dissent But we do not thereby exclude them from being parts of the Catholick Church but we say they are no Infallible Rule to us and therefore we ought to proceed by what the Church hath receiv'd as an Infallible Rule and not by the Communion of other Churches And supposing there were no particular Church we did in all things joyn with the Church of England might Reform it self without separating from the Catholick Apostolick Church For it was then in the Case particular Churches were in after the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia for then the standard of Catholick Communion set up by the Council of Nice was taken down and the setting of it up again was to oppose the Consent of the Christian Church in the most General Council that ever Assembled I do not say this Council obliged men to profess Arrianism but that it took away the Authority of the Nicene Creed in as valid a manner as the Council by its Acts could do it I ask then by what Authority any particular Church could set up the Nicene Faith and if not how it was possible to be restored And I desire to know in what Country the people lived who then owned the Nicene Faith against such a General Council And where were the Churches in being which at that time adhered to it But if in this Case the British Church tho alone was bound notwithstanding such a general consent to Reform it self and to restore the Authority of the Nicene Creed the same Case it is when the Western Church was oppressed and hindered from Reforming Errors and Abuses by the Usurpation and Tyranny of the Papal Faction the Church of England was then obliged to exercise its own Inherent Right in bringing things to the state they were in in the time of the first General Councils In matters of Reformation the main enquiries are whether there be just Occasion and due Authority for it and a certain Rule to proceed by the last and least important Question is what Company we have to joyn with us in it For there is a Natural Right iâ— every Church to preserve its own just Liberties and consequently to throw off such