their own Infallibility certainly they thought the one afforded not a good foundation for Faith though the other after believing it might highly advance it And therefore I suggest not these things in the least to question the Infallibility of the Apostles but to let us see that even at that time when there was a certainly infallible Testimony yet that is not urged as the only Foundation for Faith but Rational Evidence produced even by those persons who were thus infallible If we descend lower in the Christian Church or walk abroad to view the several Plantations of the Churches at that time Where do we read or meet with the least intimation of an infallible Testimony of the Catholick Church so call'd from its Communion with that of Rome What infallible Testimony of that Church had the poor Brittains to believe on or those Barbarians mentioned in Irenaeus who yet believed without a written word What mention do we meet with in all the ancient Apologeticks of Christians wherein they give so large an account of the grounds of Christian Faith of the modern method for resolving Faith Nay what one ancient Father or Council give the least countenance to this pretended Infallibility much less make it the only sure Foundation of Faith as you do Nay how very few are there among your selves who believe it and yet think themselves never the worse Christians for it If then your Doctrine be true what becomes of the Faith of all these persons mentioned Upon your principles their Faith could not be a true and Divine Faith that is Let them all think they believed the Doctrine of Christ never so heartily and obeyed it never so conscientiously yet because they did not believe it on the Infallibility of your Church their Faith was but a kind of guilded and splendid Infidelity and none of them Christians because not Jesuits And doth not this principle then fairly advance Christianity in the world when the belief of it comes to be setled on Foundations never heard of in the best and purest times of it nay such Foundations as for want of their believing them their Faith must be all in vain and Christ dyed in vain for them 2. You assert such things upon the pretence of Infallibility which destroy all the rational evidence of Christian Religion And what greater disservice could you possibly do to it than by taking away all the proper grounds of certainty of it And instead of building it super hanc Petram upon the Rock of Infallibility you do it only upon a Quick-sand which swallows up the Edifice and sucks in the Foundations of it You would have men to believe the Infallibility of your Church that their Faith might stand upon sure grounds and yet if men believe this Infallibility of your Church you require such things to be believed upon it which destroy all kind of certainty in Religion And that I prove by some of those principles which are received among you upon the account of the Churches Infallibility 1. That the judgement of Sense is not to be relyed on in matters of Faith This is the great Principle upon which the Doctrine of Transubstantiation stands in your Church and this is all the most considerative men among you have to say when all those Contradictions are offered to them which that Doctrine is so big of both to the judgement of sense and reason viz. That though it seem so contradictory yet because the Church which is infallible delivers it they are bound not to question it If this Principle then be true That the judgement of sense is not to be relyed on in matters which sense is capable of judging of it will be impossible for any one to give any satisfactory account of the grand Foundations of Christian Faith For if we carefully examine the grounds of Certainty in Christian Religion we find the great appeal made to the judgement of Sense That which we have seen and heard and handled If then the judgement of Sense must not be taken in a proper object at due distance and in such a thing wherein all mens Senses are equally Judges I pray tell me what assurance the Apostles could have or any from them of any miracles which Christ wrought of any Doctrine which he preached especially because in his miracles there was something above nature in which case men are more apt to suspect Impostures than in things which are the continual Objects of Sense as in the case of Transubstantiation Wherein if men are not bound to rely on the judgement of Sense you must say that our Faculties are so made that they may be imposed upon in the proper Objects of them and if so farewell all Certainty not only in Religion but in all things else in the world For what assurance can I have of the knowledge of any thing if I find that my Faculties not only may be but I am bound to believe that they actually are deceived in a thing that is as proper an Object of sense as any in the world And if a thing which the judgement of all mankind those excepted who have given away their sense and reason in this present case doth unanimously concurr in may be false What evidence can we have when any thing is true For if a thing so plain and evident to our Senses may be false viz. That what I and all other men see is bread what ground of certainty can we have but that which my Senses and all other mens judge to be false may be true For by this means you take away the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both of Sense and Reason in things and consequently all things are equally true and false to us and thence it follows That Truth and Falshood are but Fancies that our Faculties have no means to difference the one from the other that in things we all agree in as proper objects of Sense we not only may be but are deceived and then farewell Sense Reason and Religion together For I pray Tell me what Assurance could the Apostles have of the Resurrection of Christ's Individual Body from the grave but the Judgement of Sense What waies did he use to convince them that he was not a Spectre or Apparition but by an appeal to their Senses by what means did he reclaim Thomas from his Infidelity but by bidding him make use of his Senses If Thomas had believed Transubstantiation he would easily have answered our Saviours Argument and told him If there were not a productive yet there might be an Adductive Transmutation of some other person into him And the Disciples might all have said It was true there were the accidents of Christ's Body the external shape and figure of it but for all they could discern there might be some Invisible Spirit under those external accidents of shape and therefore they must desire to be excused from believing it to be his Body for Hoc est corpus meum had told them already
some generall postulata must be laid down which by the very state of the Controversie must be acknowledged by you which are 1. That the Question in dispute is not concerning the Formal Object of all things divinely revealed but concerning the believing this to be a particular Divine Revelation For it is obvious to any one that considers what vast difference there is between those two Questions Why you believe that to be True which God hath revealed the plain and easie resolution of this is into the veracity and infallibility of God in all his Revelations But it is quite another Question when I ask Why you believe this to have been a True Divine Revelation Or that such particular Books contain the Word of God And it is apparent by the whole process of the the Dispute that the Question is not concerning the first but the second of these two 2. That the Question is not concerning any kind of perswasion as to this Divine Revelation but concerning that which you call Divine Faith 3. That this Divine Faith must be resolved into some Testimony supposed infallible These three are things agreed on between both parties as appears by the whole management of this Controversie Only you suppose this Infallible Testimony to be the Church which your Adversary denies and saith It will follow from thence that you make your Churches Testimony the Formal Object of Faith which I thus prove 1. That which is the only Ground and Foundation whereon a Divine Faith is built must be the Formal Object of Faith but the Infallible Testimony of your Church is the only Foundation whereon Faith is built By the Formal Object of Faith I suppose you and I mean the same thing which is the Foundation whereon the Certainty of the Assent is grounded or the principal Objective Cause of Faith viz. not every account that may be given Why men believe but that which is the only Certain Foundation to establish a Divine Faith upon Now let any one but consider what the Question is and what your resolution is and then judge Whether you make not the Churches Testimony the Formal Object The Question is How we know the Scriptures to be the Word of God which in other terms is What the ground is why I assent to the Doctrine contained in Scripture as a Divine Revelation You say The Testimony of the Scripture it self cannot be that ground You say The Testimony of the Spirit cannot be it You say A Moral Certainty cannot be it because then it is not Divine Faith What then is the reason why you believe it Do you not over and over say It is because of the infallible Testimony of the Church which gives us unquestionable assurance that this was a Divine Revelation and yet for all this this Testimony is not the Formal Object of this Divine Faith The most charitable apprehension I can have of you when you write things so inconsistent is either that you understand not or consider not what you write of but take what hath been said in such cases by men of your own party and right or wrong that serves for an Answer But for all this you tell us confidently That your Faith is not resolved into the voice of the Church as into its Formal Object but it is enough to say 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 are Divine Revelations is resolved into the Infallibility of the Churches Definitions These are excellent Notions if they would hang together But 1. We enquire not what is enough to say in such a case but what ground you have for saying what you do You have enough to say upon many subjects in this Book or else your Book would never have swell'd to the bulk it hath but you have generally very little reason for what you say 2. Is that infallible Assurance that the things we believe as God's Revelations are revealed from him a thing call'd Faith or no If it be as I hope you will not deny it then by your own Confession Faith is resolved into the Churches Testimony as its Formal Object for you say This Infallible Assurance is resolved into the Infallibility of the Churches Definitions teaching us that they are his Revelations These are your own words And do you yet deny this Testimony of the Church to be the Formal Object of this infallible Assurance 3. What is it you mean when you say That Faith is resolved into God's Revelations as its Formal Object Is it that the reason why we believe is Because God hath revealed these things to us But that you know is not the matter at all in question but How we come to assent to such a Doctrine as a Divine Revelation Answer me punctually to it Can you possibly resolve your Faith into any thing else as its Formal Object If you can I pray do us the favour to name it If you resolve this Faith as you seem to express your mind into Divine Revelation as its Formal Object Shew us where that Revelation is extant for which you believe Scripture to be the Word of God Is it the Scripture it self or a Revelation distinct from it If you say It is the Scripture it self then you must make the infallible Testimony of your Church needless for then we may have infallible Assurance that the things we believe are Divine Revelations without your Churches Testimony or Definitions Then what is become of the unwritten Tradition you mention in these words If then it be demanded Why we believe such Books as are contained in the Bible to be the Word of God we answer Because it is a divine unwritten Tradition that they are his Word and this Divine Tradition is the Formal Object whereon our Faith relyes Well then our last resolution of Faith is into this Divine unwritten Tradition But whence come you to know that this Tradition is Divine Into what Revelation is the belief of that finally resolved Doth it appear to be so by it self and then why may not the Scripture or hath it some other Revelation and Divine Tradition to attest it And then the same Question returns concerning that and so in infinitum or else of necessity you must acknowledge one of these two things Either that some Divine Revelation may sufficiently manifest it self without any infallible Testimony of your Church Or else that this infallible Testimony must be the Formal Object of Faith Of these two chuse which you please 2. I prove that you must make the Churches Testimony the Formal Object of Faith because either you must make it so or you must deny Divine Revelation to be the Formal Object of Faith because the reason is equal for both I demand then How you resolve your Belief of the Truth of the Doctrine of Christ you tell me into Divine Revelation as its Formal Object I ask yet further Why
which supposing it never so great is not shewed to the Councils but to your Church For the reason of that Reverence cannot be resolved into the Councils but into that Church for whose sake you reverence them And thus it evidently appears That the cunning of this device is wholly your own and notwithstanding these miserable shifts you do finally resolve all Authorities of the Fathers Councils and Scriptures into the Authority of the present Roman-Church which was the thing to be proved The first Absurdity consequent from hence which the Arch-Bishop chargeth your party with is That by this means they ascribe as great Authority if not greater to a part of the Catholick Church as to the whole which we believe in our Creed and which is the Societie of all Christians And this is full of Absurdity in nature in reason in all things that any part should be of equal worth power credit or authority with the whole Here you deny the Consequence which you say depends upon his Lordships wilfully mistaken Notion of the Catholick Church which he saith Is the Church we believe in our Creed and is the Society of all Christians which you call a most desperate extension of the Church because thereby forsooth it will appear that a part is not so great as the whole viz. that the Roman-Church in her full latitude is but a piece or parcel of the Catholick Church believed in our Creed Is this all the desperate Absurdity which follows from his Lordships Answer I pray shew it to have any thing tending to an Absurdity in it And though you confidently tell us That the Roman-Church taken as comprizing all Christians that are in her Communion is the sole and whole Catholick Church yet I will contentedly put the whole issue of the cause upon the proof of this one Proposition that the Roman-Church in its largest sense is the sole and whole Catholick Church or that the present Roman-Church is a sound member of the Catholick Church Your evidence from Ecclesiastical History is such as I fear not to follow you in but I beseech you have a care of treading too near the Apostles heels That any were accounted Catholicks meerly for their Communion with the Roman-Church or that any were condemned for Heresie or Schism purely for their dissent from it prove it when you please I shall be ready God willing to attend your Motions But it is alwaies your faculty when a thing needs proving most to tell us what you could have done This you say You would have proved at large if his Lordship had any more than supposed the contrary But your Readers will think that his Supposition being grounded on such a Maxim of Reason as that mentioned by him it had been your present business to have proved it but I commend your prudence in adjourning it and I suppose you will do it as the Court of Areopagus used to do hard causes in diem longissimum It is apparent the Bishop speaks not of a part of the Church by representation of the whole which is an objection no body but your self would here have fancied and therefore your Instance of a Parliament is nothing to the purpose unless you will suppose that Councils in the Church do represent in such a manner as Parliaments in England do and that their decision is obligatory in the same way as Acts of Parliament are if you believe this to be good Doctrine I will be content to take the Objecters place and make the Application The next Absurdity laid to your charge is as you summe it up That in your Doctrine concerning the Infallibility of your Church your proceeding is most unreasonable in regard you will not have recourse to Texts of Scripture exposition of Fathers propriety of Language Conference of Places Antecedents and Consequents c. but argue that the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome is true and Catholick because she professeth it to be such which saith he is to prove idem per idem To this you answer That as to all those helps you use them with much more candour than Protestants do And why so Because of their manifold wrestings of Scriptures and Fathers Let the handling the Controversies of this Book be the evidence between us in this case and any indifferent Reader be the Judge You tell us You use all these helps but to what purpose do you use them Do you by them prove the Infallibility of your Church If not the same Absurdity lyes at your door still of proving idem per idem No that you do not you say But how doth it appear Thanks to these mute persons the good Motives of Credibility which come in again at a dead lift but do no more service than before I pray cure the wounds they have received already before you rally them again or else I assure you what strength they have left they will employ it against your selves You suppose no doubt your Coleworts good you give them us so often over but I neither like proving nor eating idem per idem But yet we have two Auxiliaries more in the field call'd Instances The design of your first Instance is to shew That if your Church be guilty of proving idem per idem the Apostolical Church was so too For you tell us That a Sectary might in the Apostles times have argued against the Apostolical Church by the very same method his Lordship here uses against the present Catholick Church For if you ask the Christians then Why they believe the whole Doctrine of the Apostles to be the sole true Catholick Faith their Answer is Because it is agreeable to the Doctrine of Christ. If you ask them How they know it to be so they will produce the words sentences and works of Christ who taught it But if you ask a third time By what means they are assured that those Testimonies do indeed make for them or their cause or are really the Testimonies and Doctrine of Christ they will not then have recourse to those Testimonies or Doctrine but their Answer is They know it to be so because the present Apostolick Church doth witness it And so by consequence prove idem per idem Thus the Sectary I know not whether your faculty be better at framing Questions or Answers to them I am sure it is extraordinary at both Is it not enough to be in a Circle your selves but you must needs bring the Apostles into it too at least if you may have the management of their Doctrine you would do it The short Answer to all this is That the ground why the Christians did assent to the Apostles Doctrine as true was because God gave sufficient evidence that their Testimony was infallible in such things where such Infallibility was requisite For you had told us before That the Apostles did confirm their words with signs that followed by which signs all their hearers were bound to submit themselves unto
as immediate a revelation as the first discovery of it As is clear in the Council of the Apostles for I hope you will not deny but the non-obligation of the ceremonial Law was in some manner revealed to them before and yet I hope you will not say but the Apostles had an immediate revelation as to what they decreed in that Council It is very plain therefore that when you say General Councils neither have erred nor can err in their definitions they usurp as great a priviledge thereby as ever the Apostles had and in order to it must have as immediate an inspiration For never was there any such Infallibility either in the Prophets or Apostles as did suppose an absolute impossibility of errour but it was wholly hypothetical in case of Divine assistance which hindred them from any capacity of erring so long as that continued with them and no longer For inspiration was no permanent habit but a transient act in them and that being removed they were lyable to errours as well as others from whence it follows that where revelations were most immediate they did no more then what you assume to your Church viz. preserve them from actual errour in declaring Gods will So that nothing can be more evident then that you challenge as great an Infallibility and as immediate assistance of Gods Spirit in Councils as ever the Prophets and Apostles had And therefore that Divine was in the right of whom Canus speaks who asserted That since General Councils were Infallible their definitions ought to be equalled with the Scriptures themselves And although Canus and others dislike this it is rather because of the odium which would follow it than for any just reason they give why it should not follow For they not only suppose as great a Certainty or Infallibility in the Decrees of both but an equal obligation to internal assent in those to whom they are declared Which doth further prove that the revelation must be immediate for if by vertue of those definitions we are obliged to assent to the Doctrines contained in them as Infallibly true there must be an immediate Divine Authority which must command our Assent For nothing short of that can oblige us to believe any thing as of Divine revelation now Councils require that we must believe their definitions to be Divine truths though men were not obliged to believe them to be so before those definitions For that is your express Doctrine That though the matters decreed in Councils were in some manner revealed before yet not so as to oblige all men with an explicite assent to believe them but after the definitions of Councils they are bound to do it So that though there be not an object newly revealed yet there ariseth a new obligation to internal assent which obligation cannot come but from immediate Divine Authority If you say The obligation comes not simply by vertue of the Councils definitions but by a command extant in Scripture whereby all are bound to give this assent to the decrees of Councils I then say we must be excused from it till you have discharged this new obligation upon your self by producing some express testimony of Scripture to that purpose which is I think sufficient to keep our minds at liberty from this internal assent to the definitions of General Councils by vertue of any Infallibility in them And thus having more at large considered the nature of this Infallibility which you challenge to General Councils and having shewed that it implyes as immediate a revelation as the Apostles had the second thing is sufficiently demonstrated That this Infallibility cannot suppose discursiveness with fallibility in the use of the means because these two are repugnant to each other The next thing to be considered is Stapletons argument why Councils must be Prophetical in the conclusion because that which is determined by the Church is matter of Faith and not of knowledge and the assent required else would not be an assent of Faith but an habit of knowledge To which his Lordship Answers That he sees no inconvenience in it if it be granted for one and the same conclusion may be Faith to the believer that cannot prove and knowledge to the learned that can Which he further explains thus Some supernatural principles which reason cannot demonstrate simply must be supposed in order to Faith but these principles being owned reason being thereby inlightned that may serve to convert or convince Philosophers and the great men of reason in the very point of Faith where it is at the highest This he brings down to the business of Councils as to which he saith that the first immediate fundamental points of Faith as they cannot be proved simply by reason so neither need they be determined by any Council nor ever were they attempted they are so plain set down in Scripture If about the sense and true meaning of these or necessary deduction out of the prime Articles of Faith General Councils determine any thing as they have done at Nice and the rest there is no inconvenience that one and the same Canon of the Council should be believed as it reflects upon the Articles and grounds indemonstrable and yet known to the learned by the means and proof by which that deduction is vouched and made good And again the conclusion of a Council suppose that in Nice about the consubstantiality of Christ with the Father in it self considered is indemonstrable by reason there saith he I believe and assent in Faith but the same conclusion if you give me the ground of Scripture and the Creed for somewhat must be supposed in all whether Faith or knowledge is demonstrable by natural reason against any Arrian in the world So that he concludes The weaker sort of Christians may assent by Faith where the more learned may build it on reason the principles of Faith being supposed This is the substance of his Lordships Discourse In Answer to which you tell us That the Bishop seems to broach a new Doctrine that the assent of Faith may be an habit of knowledge But surely say you Divine Faith is according to the Apostle Heb. 11. an Argument of things which do not appear viz. by the same means by which we give this assent of Faith otherwise our Faith would not be free and meritorious An Answer I must needs say hugely suitable to your principles who are most concerned of all men to set reason at a distance from Faith and so you do sufficiently in this Discourse of it For it is no easie matter to understand what you mean but that is not to be wondered at since you make obscurity so necessary to Faith Divine Faith is you say an Argument of things which do not appear viz. by the same means by which we give this assent of Faith Do you mean that the objects of Faith do not appear or that the reason of believing doth not If only the former
as his reason but the departing from the Institution of Christ and this is done by one as well as the other But he adds That there was a precept for that Do this And so say we was there as plain for the other Drink ye all of this So that the parity of reason is evident for the one as well as the other Upon the same ground doth Pope Julius afterwards condemn the using milk instead of wine because contrary to Christs Institution and so he doth the dipping the bread in the Chalice From whence we inferr that they looked on Christs Example and Institution in the administration to be unalterable But most express is the Testimony of Pope Gelasius who finding some from the remainders of Manichaism did abstain from the Cup gives express order That they who were infected with this odde superstition either should receive the whole Sacrament or abstain wholly from it because the dividing one and the same mystery cannot be done without great sacriledge To this Bellarmin tells us two Answers are commonly given one That these words are meant of Priests another That they relate only to those superstitious persons but both of them are sufficiently taken off by the reason assigned which is not fetched either from their Priesthood or Superstition but only from the Institution of Christ that it would be sacriledge to part those things which Christ by his Institution had joyned together Thus we see the sense of the Church is clear not only for the practice but the command too and the sinfulness of the violation of it Although to you one would think it were wholly needless to prove any more than the Vniversal Practice since the Tradition of the Church is equal with you with an unwritten word but that is when it makes for your purpose and not otherwise For in this case though the Institution be express the universal practice of the Church for at least a thousand years unquestionable yet because it contradicts the present sense and practice of your Church all this signifies nothing at all with you So true is it that it is neither Scripture nor Antiquity which you really regard but Interest and the Present Church And what Cusanus like a downright man spake out in this case is that you must all at last take sanctuary in That the Scriptures must be interpreted according to the current practice of the Church and therefore it is no wonder if they be interpreted at one time one way and another time another way And though this seem a very great absurdity yet it is no more than is necessary to be said by such who maintain things so contrary to Scripture and the practice of former ages of the Church But you are so far from thinking this contrary to the practice of the Church in former ages that you say Not only in S. Thomas his time but in all times of the Church it was both publickly allowed and commonly by some practised even in Churches to receive under one kind only A bold Assertion and which is confidently denied by very many of your own Communion For not only Cassander often confesses that for above a thousand years after Christ no instance can be produced of publick Communion in one kind But Father Barns acknowledges not only that Communion in both kinds is much more agreeable to Scripture Fathers and the Vniversal Church but that per se loquendo jure divino praescribitur taking it in it self it is commanded by a Divine Law But I know these men are too honest for you to own them but as to the universal practice of the Church it is confessed by Ruardus Alphonsus à Castro Lindanus and many others But we need no more than your S. Thomas himself even in that very place where you say He rather makes for you than against you for when he saies that Providè in quibusdam Ecclesiis observatur ut populo sanguis non detur It was a custom providently observed in some Churches not to give the Sacrament in the form of wine to the Laity He thereby shews indeed that in his time about A. D. 1260. this custom did in some places obtain but yet so that the universal practice had been to the contrary for so much is confessed by him in his Commentaries on S. John where his words are secundum antiquam in Ecclesiâ consuetudinem omnes sicut communicabant corpori ita communicabant sanguini quod etiam adhuc in quibusdam Ecclesiis servatur According to the anceint custom of the Church all did communicate in both kinds which as yet is observed in some Churches Now Whether the universal practice of the Church in former times or the practice of some Churches in his time were more agreeable to the Divine Institution we may appeal to Aquinas himself who elsewhere gives this account Why the elements of bread and wine were made use of and delivered severally That they might denote a complete refection and fully represent the death and passion of our Saviour On the same accounts Bonaventure and Alensis make both kinds necessary to the Integrity of the Sacrament And the latter who was Master to the two former saies expresly That whole Christ is not contained sacramentally under either kinds but his flesh under that of bread and his blood under that of wine Than which nothing can be more destructive to the Doctrine of Concomitancy And it is learnedly proved by Pet. Picherellus that the bread was appointed to represent not the body in its compleat substance but the meer flesh when the blood is out of it according to the division of the Sacrifices into flesh and blood from whence it appears that the Sacrifice of Christs death cannot be represented meerly by one kind and that whole Christ is not contained under one in the administration of it And therefore Alensis rightly determines that the res Sacramenti cannot be perfectly represented by one kind and thence sayes He that receives but in one kind doth not receive the Sacrament perfectly No wonder therefore that he tells us That some religious persons in his time when the contrary custom through the superstition of people had somewhat prevailed did earnestly desire that the Sacrament might again be received in both kinds Thus we see when this custom did begin reason and argument was still against it and nothing pleaded for it but only some superstitious fears of some accidental effusions of the blood of Christ. But you are the man who would still perswade us That Communion in one kind was not only publickly allowed but by some practised even in Churches in all times of the Church And therefore in reason we must give attendance to your impregnable demonstrations of it For otherwise say you How is it possible that the Manichees should find liberty and opportunity to communicate amongst Catholicks in Catholick Churches without being perceived since they never drank
act of the Will which results from an apprehension of infinite excellency which is only in the Supreme Being very few if any of the more intelligent Heathens were ever guilty of it But if the formal reason of their Idolatry lay in offering up those devotions to that which was not God which only belong to an Infinite Being I see not but the same charge will hold on the same grounds against those who Invocate Saints with those external acts of devotion which are confessed to be the same with those wherewith we call on God But nothing can be more unreasonable than that Bellarmin should except Sacrifices and things belonging thereto from being common to the first and second sort of Adoration and not except Invocation For Is it possible to conceive any act which doth more express our sense of an Infinite Excellency and the profession of our subjection to it than Invocation doth which doth it far more than Sacrifice doth for that being a meer external act is consistent with the greatest mockery of God but solemn Invocation implies in its own nature our dependence upon God and an acknowledgement of his Infinite Knowledge and Power For Invocation lyes chiefly in the internal acts and denotes primarily the inward desire of obtaining something from a Being above our own So that though I should grant the meer external acts of bowing and kneeling to be common to Adoration given to infinite and finite perfections yet I utterly deny that these acts are common to both when the circumstances do determine the end and design of them As no man by the meer bowing of Abraham to the Children of Heth could tell whether it were civil or divine Adoration which he meant but none who understood all the circumstances of it would have any reason to question it But suppose it had been declared before that these men expected a more than civil Adoration and that all the rites of solemn Invocation which Abraham at any time used to God must be used to them too then the same external acts must have received a new denomination So that though the meer external acts be common to civil and religious Worship yet as those acts are considered with their several circumstances they are appropriated to one or the other of them Thus though a man may use the same form of words to an Emperour on his Throne and the same external posture which he doth use after his death in a Temple consecrated to him yet in the one they are meerly signs of Civil Worship but in the other they become Testimonies of Religious Adoration So although in the Invocation of Saints no other words were used but such as denote them to be Creatures still yet if they be used with all the rites of solemn Invocation in places appropriate to Divine Worship and in Sacred Offices they thereby declare the Adoration intended to be greater than any meer creature is capable of For we must consider that as God is owned to be Infinite in himself and to have incommunicable perfections so by reason of them there ought to be some appropriated acts or signs of Worship to declare our subjection to him which being determined for this end either by the Law of God or the consent of people the attributing of them to any else but him is a publick violation of his honour Although in so doing men profess that they intend them only as expressions of a lower kind of Worship than is due to the Supreme Being But in such cases the protestation avails not where the fact is evident to the contrary For when men in the most solemn manner in publick places of devotion and in sacred offices do invocate Saints and yet think they dishonour not God by it because they say they do not worship them as God it is just as if a man should upon all occasions in the Presence-Chamber address himself to one of the King's subjects as to the King himself and being questioned for it should only say he did not dishonour the King by it because he meant it not to him as a King but as a Subject But by so much is the dishonour greater because the Soveraignity of the King doth require that the rights of Majesty should not be given to any Subject whatsoever So that it is but a vain pretence when men use all the expressions whereby we declare our sense of the Infinite Perfections which are in God to any Creatures to say They give them not that Worship which belongs to God meerly because they do believe they are Creatures still But Is it possible for men to give the honour which is due to God to the Creatures or no acknowledging them to be Creatures still or Is it not If not then none of the Heathens could be guilty of Idolatry in worshipping Daemons Heroes and Deified Emperours if it be possible then the acknowledging the Saints not to be God cannot excuse men from the same kind of Idolatry in the Invocation of them And it is as frivolous a plea which is made for those forms of Invocation which are made to the Saints in plain terms not to intercede with God for them but to bestow upon them both temporal and spiritual Blessings of which multitudes have been produced by our Writers viz. That though the form of words be the same that is used to God yet the sense is wholly that they would pray to God to bestow them For How should any other sense be understood when these forms are allowed in Invocation For although the Scripture may sometimes attribute the effect to the subordinate Instrument as when S. Paul is said to save some yet certainly the Scripture is far from allowing such a liberty in solemn Invocation For upon this ground it might have been lawful for men to have fallen down upon their knees to St. Paul and have intreated him to save them Do you think St. Paul would have approved such phrases in Invocation So that it is not the meer phrase but as it is joyned with all rites of Invocation which makes it look so like the most gross Idolatry When you pray to the Virgin Mary to protect you from your enemies and receive you in the hour of death and to the Apostles to heal your spiritual maladies which forms are acknowledged by Bellarmin Can any reasonable man think that the meaning of them only is that they would pray to God to do these things for them If one should bring his Petition to a Courtier for his Pardon and in plain terms beg that of him which the King only can grant What man that had his wits about him would ever imagine that he only meant by it that he would entreat the King to do it for him But God is more jealous of his honour than to be put off by such Mockeries as these are Nay when your great men at the end of their most elaborate works conclude with a Laus Deo beatissimae
which the Emperour was fain to take a new course and exclude those from the Councils who were of greatest authority in obstructing his designs but Marcus Ephesius still continued in so great opposition that he publickly charged the Latins opinion with Heresie Notwithstanding all which when it was put to Suffrage Whether the Spirit did proceed from the Son for ten who affirmed it there were seventeen who denyed it which put them yet to more disquietment and new Councils At first the Emperour would vote himself which when the Patriarch kept him from some advised him to remove more of the Dissenters but instead of that they used a more plausible and effectual way the Emperour and Patriarch sent for them severally and some they upbraided with ingratitude others they caressed with all expressions of kindness both by themselves and their Instruments Yet at the last they could get but thirteen Bishops to affirm the Procession from the Son all others being excluded the power of giving Suffrage who were accustomed formerly to give it such as the great Officers of the Church of Constantinople the Coenobiarchs and others but to fill up the number all the Courtiers were called in who made no dispute but did presently what the Emperour would have them do Having dispatched this after this manner the other Controversies concerning the Addition to the Creed unleavened bread in the Eucharist Purgatory Pope's Supremacy the Emperour agreed them privately never so much as communicating them to the Greek Synod Among the Emperours Instruments the Bishop of Mitylene went roundly to work saying openly Let the Pope give me so many Florens to be distributed to whom I think fit and I make no question but to bring them in very readily to subscribe the Vnion which he accordingly effected and the same way was taken with several others by which and other means most of those who were excluded from the Suffrages were at last perswaded to Subscribe This is the short account of the management of those affairs at Florence which are more particularly and largely prosecuted by the Author wherein we see what Clandestine Arts what menaces and insinuations what threats and promises were used to bring the poor Greeks to consent to this pretended Vnion For it afterwards appeared to be no more than pretended for the infinitely greater number of Bishops at home refused it and these very Bishops themselves when they saw what arts were used in it fell ofâ— from it again and the Emperour found himself at last deceived in his great expectations of help from the Latins Must we then acknowledge this for a free and General Council which hath a promise of Infallibility annexed to the definitions of it Shall we from hence pronounce the Greeks Doctrine to be Heretical when for all these proceedings yet at last no more was agreed on than that they did both believe the Procession from the Son without condemning the other opinion as Heretical as you pretend which the Greeks would never have consented to or Anathematizing the persons who denyed it as was usual in former General Councils who did suppose it not enough to have it virtually done by the positive definition but did expresly and formally do it For when this Anathematizing dissenters was propounded among the Greeks by Bessarion of Nice and Isidore of Russia who for their great service to the Pope in this business were made Cardinals it was refused by the rest who were zealous promoters of the Vnion Thus I have at large more out of a design to vindicate the Greek Church than being necessitated to it by any thing you produce shewed that there is no reason from Authority either before or after the Council of Florence to charge the Greek Church with Heresie I now come to the examination of your Theological Reason by which you think you have so evidently proved the Greeks Opinion to be Heresie that you introduce it with confidence in abundance But say you though this perswasion had not been attested by such clouds of witnesses Theological Reason is so strong a Foundation to confirm it that I wonder how rational men could ever be induced to question the truth of it Still you so unadvisedly place your expressions that the sharpest which you use against your adversaries return with more force upon your self For it being so fully cleared that these clouds of witnesses are Fathers Councils and Popes against you What do you else by this expression but exclude them from the number of Rational men because forsooth not acquainted with the depth of your Theological Reason But Is not this to make all the Churches of Christendom for many hundred years quite blind and your self only clear and sharp-sighted Which swelling presumption what Spirit it argues c. You see wee need no other weapons against you but your immediate preceding words What pitty it is that the Fathers and Councils had not been made acquainted with this grand Secret of your Theological Reason but happy we that have it at so cheap a rate but it may be that is it which makes us esteem it no more But such as it is it being Reason and Theological too it deserves the greatest respect that may be if it makes good its title His Lordship had said That since the Greeks notwithstanding this opinion of theirs deny not the equality or Consubstantiality of the Persons in the Trinity he dares not deny them to be a true Church for this opinion though he grants them erronious in it So this you reply Is it think you enough to assert the Divinity and Consubstantiality and personal Distinction of the Holy Ghost as the Bishop sayes to save from Heresie the denyal of his Procession from the Father and the Son as from one Principle But why is it not enough your Theological Reason is that we want to convince us of the contrary That therefore follows Would not he that should affirm the Son to be a distinct person from and Consubstantial to the Father but denyed his eternal Generation from him be an Heretick Or he who held the Holy Ghost distinct from and Consubstantial to them both but affirmed his Procession to be from the Son only and not from the Father be guilty of Heresie It is then most evident that not only an errour against the Consubstantiality and Distinction but against the Origination Generation and Procession of the Divine Persons is sufficient matter of Heresie Your faculty at Clinching your Arguments is much better than of Driving them in For your Conclusion is most evident when your Premises have nothing like evidence in them For 1. He that doth acknowledge the Son to be Consubstantial with the Father and yet a distinct person from him must needs therein acknowledge his Eternal Generation for how he should be the Son of the same nature with God and yet having a distinct Personality as a Son without Eternal Generation is so hard to
absolute Command can by any means whatsoever afterwards become necessary 3. Whether the Church hath power by any Proposition or Definition to make any thing become necessary to Salvation and to be believed as such which was not so before These three I suppose you cannot deny but will take in all that is considerable in this Controversie Which I shall with the more care examine because nothing tends more to the peace of the Christian World than a through and clear discussion of it and nothing causeth more the Schisms and Divisions of it than the want of a right and due conception of it 1. What the Grounds are on which any thing doth become necessary to Salvation For our better understanding of which we must consider two things 1. What things are necessary to the Salvation of men as such or considered in their single and private capacities 2. What things are necessary to be owned in order to Salvation by Christian Societies or as the bonds and conditions of Ecclesiastical Communion The want of understanding this distinction of the necessity of things hath caused most of the perplexities and confusion in this Controversie of Fundamentals 1. What those things are which are necessary to the Salvation of particular persons But that we make all as clear as possible in a matter of so great intricacy two things again must be inquired into 1. What the Ground is why any thing becomes necessary to be believed in order to Salvation 2. What the Measure and Extent is of those things which are to be believed by particular persons as necessary to Salvation 1. What the Ground or Foundation is on which things become necessary to be believed by particular persons And that which is the true ground of the necessity why any thing is to be believed is the proper ratio of a Fundamental Article For I suppose it a much clearer notion of Fundamentals to understand them not as Principles from whence Deductions may be drawn of Theological Truths but in regard of that immediate respect which they have to mens Salvation Those things therefore which are necessary to be explicitly believed by particular persons are Fundamentals in order to their Salvation Now all belief in this case supposing Divine Revelation nothing can be imagined to be necessary to be believed but what may be certainly known to be of Divine Revelation But when we consider that besides the general reason of believing what God hath revealed we must either suppose that all things are of equal necessity which are revealed in order to the general end of this Revelation or that some things therein contained are expresly necessary to the end and other things to be believed on the general account of Faith so far as they are known to be of Divine Revelation Now from hence ariseth a twofold necessity of things to be believed the first more general and large the second more particular and absolute The first depends upon the formal reason of Faith the second on the particular end of Divine Revelation That which depends on the formal reason of that Assent we call Faith is that which supposeth Divine Veracity or the impossibility of Gods deceiving us in any thing revealed by Him now this extends to all things whatsoever which are supposed by men to be of Divine Revelation For though men may mistake in the matter yet the reason of Assent holding under that mistake they are bound necessarily to believe whatever is supposed by them to be Divine Revelation Here lyes no difficulty in the ground of Faith but all the care is to be used in the search into the matters which are to be believed on the account of this Revelation But here we are to consider that the only thing which is in general and absolutely necessary to Salvation is the general act of Faith viz. Believing whatever God reveals to be true else God's Veracity would be call'd in question but particular objects cannot be said on this account to be absolutely and universally necessary but only so far as there are sufficient convictions that those particulars are of Divine Revelation And the more general and extensive the means of conviction are the more large and universal is the obligation to Faith As that the Scriptures contain in them the Word of God is a matter of more universal obligation than particular things therein revealed because the belief of the one depends upon the acknowledgement of the other And withall supposing it believed that the matters contained in Scripture are of Divine Revelation yet all things are not equally clear to all capacities that they are therein contained Which is a sufficient ground for us to say It was not God's intention that all things contained in his Word should be believed with the same degree of necessity by all persons And therefore though the general reason of Faith depends on Gods Veracity yet the particular obligation to the belief of particular things as revealed by God depends on the means whereby we may be assured that such things are revealed by him which means admitting of so great Variety as to the circumstances and capacities of particular persons there can be no general Rule set down what things are necessary to be believed by all particular persons For those who have greater means of knowledge a larger capacity and clearer proposal are bound to believe more things explicitly than those who want all these or have a lower degree of them In which case it is an unreasonable thing to say that such a one who dis-believes any thing propounded to him as a matter of Faith doth presently call in question God's Veracity for he may as firmly believe that as any in general and yet may have ground to question whether God's Veracity be at all concerned in that which is propounded to him as a matter of Faith because he sees no reason to believe that this was ever revealed by God And by this a clear answer is given to that Question which you propose Whether all those Truths which are sufficiently proposed to any Christian as defined by the Church for matter of Faith can be dis-believed by such a Christian without mortal and damnable sin which unrepented destroyes Salvation To which the answer is easie upon the grounds here assigned for this question concerning particular persons and particular objects of Faith the resolution of it doth depend upon the sufficiency of the means to convince such a person that whatever is propounded as Defined by the Church for a matter of Faith is certainly and truly so For to instance in any one of those new Articles of Faith Transubstantiation or the Pope's Supremacy c. you tell me These are necessary to be believed or at least cannot be dis-believed without sin which is all one in this case supposing clear conviction for then what cannot be dis-believed without sin must be explicitly believed I desire to know the grounds why they may not you tell me These
are truths which are sufficiently proposed to me as defined by the Church for matters of Faith I deny the Churches Proposition to be sufficient to convince me that these are matters of Faith for I understand not what Power your Church hath to define any thing for matter of Faith if I granted that I must understand what you mean by sufficient Proposition whether that your Church hath so defined them or that she hath power so to define them and because I am heartily willing to believe any thing that I have reason to believe is a matter of Faith certainly it can be no sin in me not to believe that which I can see no ground at all to believe either in it self or because of your Churches Definition And all this while I have as high thoughts of God's Veracity as you can have and it may be higher because I interest it not in the false and contradictory Definitions of your Church If therefore you will prove it to be a damnable sin not to believe whatever is proposed by your Church for a matter of Faith you must first prove that there is as universal an obligation to believe whatever is sufficiently proposed as defined by the Church for matter of Faith as there is to assent to whatever God reveals as true And when you have done this I will give you leave to state the Question as you do for then you would offer something to the proof of it which now you do not The substance then of what concerns the obligation to Faith as to particular objects on the account of Diuine Revelation lyes in the means of conviction concerning those particular objects being divinely revealed which being various the degrees of Assent must be various too but yet so that the more men are negligent of the means of conviction the more culpable their unbelief is but where men use all moral diligence to understand what is revealed and what not if they cannot be convinced that some particular thing is of Divine Revelation it is hard to prove them guilty of mortal and damnable sin without first proving that God absolutely requires from men an Assent to that which it is impossible in their Circumstances they should believe And this is the first sort of things necessary to be believed by particular persons such as are believed on the general account of God's Veracity in revealing them But because there must be a more particular reason assigned of any such intention in God to reveal his mind to the world viz. Some peculiar end which he had in it therefore a further degree of the necessity of things to be believed must be enquired after viz. such as have an immediate and necessary respect to the prosecution of that end Now the only end assignable of that great expression of Divine Goodness in declaring to man the Will of God is the Eternal Welfare and Happiness of mankind for nothing else can be imagined suitable and proportionable to the Wisdom and Goodness of God besides that this is expresly mentioned in Scripture as God's great end in it Now this being the great end of Divine Revelation the necessity of things to be believed absolutely and in themselves must be taken from the reference or respect which they have to the attainment of this end And although the distinction be commonly received of necessity of the means and of the command as importing a different kind of necessity yet in the sense I here take Necessity in the members of that distinction do to me seem coincident For I cannot see any reason to believe that God should make the belief of any thing necessary by an absolute Command but what hath an immediate tendency by way of means for the attainment of this end For otherwise that which is call'd the Necessity of Precept falls under the former degree of Necessity viz. That which is to be believed on the general account of Divine Revelation And although these things which are necessary as means are to be believed on the same formal reason of Faith yet since God had a different end in the Revelation of these from the other therefore there is a necessity of putting a difference between them For supposing God to have such a design to bring the souls of men to Happiness in order to this end some means must be necessary and these must consequently be revealed to men because they are so necessary in order to such an end now it is apparent All things contained in Scripture are not of that nature some being at so great a remove from this end that the only reason of believing them is because they are contained in that Book which we have the greatest reason to believe contains nothing false in it Now the only way whereby we may judge of the nature of these things is from the consideration of what is made the most necessary condition in order to happiness and the way by which we may come to it And nothing being more evident than that the Gospel contains in it a Covenant of Grace or the conditions on which our Salvation depends whatever is necessary in order to our performance of the conditions required of us must be necessary to be believed by all The Gospel therefore tendring Happiness upon the conditions of our believing in Christ and walking in him these two things are indispensably necessary to Salvation where the Gospel is known for we have no reason to enquire into the method of God's proceeding with others An hearty Assent to the Doctrine of Christ and A conscientious walking according to the Precepts of it But to undertake to define what parts of that Doctrine are necessary to Salvation and what not seems to me wholly unnecessary because the Assent to the Doctrine of Christ as revealed from God must necessarily carry in it so much as is sufficient in order to Salvation Whatever therefore is necessary to a Spiritual Life is necessary absolutely to Salvation and no more but what and how much that is must be gathered by every one as to himself from Scripture but is impossible to be defined by others as to all persons But in all Faith towards God and in our Lord Jesus Christ and repentance from dead works are absolutely and indispensably necessary to Salvation which imply in them both an universal readiness of mind to believe and obey God in all things And by this we see what the Rule and Measure of the necessity of things to be believed is as to particular persons which lyes in these things 1. Whatever God hath revealed is undoubtedly and infallibly true 2. Whatever appears to me upon sufficient enquiry to be revealed by God I am bound to believe it by virtue of God's Veracity 3. All things not equally appearing to all persons to be revealed of God the same measure of necessity cannot be extended to all persons 4. An universal Assent to the Will of God and universal Obedience to it
tam manifesta monstratur where it is plain quae which is relative only to Truth and not to Scripture or any thing else A wonderful abuse of S. Austin to make him parallel plain Scripture evident sense or a full Demonstrative Argument with Truth As though if evident Truth were more prevalent with him than all those Arguments which held him in the Catholick Church plain Scripture evident Sense or Demonstrations would not be so too What Truth can be evident if it be not one of these three Do you think there is any other way of manifesting Truth but by Scripture Sense or Demonstration if you have found out other waies oblige the world by communicating them but till then give us leave to think that it is all one to say Manifest Truth as plain Scripture evident Sense or clear Demonstrations But say you He speaks only of that Truth which the Manichees bragged of and promised As though S. Austin would have been perswaded sooner as it came from them than as it was Truth in it self I suppose S. Austin did not think their Testimony sufficient and therefore sayes Quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur c. i. e. If they could make that which they said evident to be Truth he would quit the Church and adhere to them and if this holds against the Manichees will it not on the same reason hold every where else viz. That manifest Truth is not to be quitted on any Authority whatsoever which is all his Lordship asserts But You offer to prove that S. Austin by Truth could not mean plain Scripture But can you prove that by Truth he did not mean Truth whereever he found it whether in Scripture or elsewhere No say you It cannot be meant that by Truth he should mean plain Scripture in opposition to the Definitions of the Catholick Church or General Councils For which you give this Reason because he supposes it impossible that the Doctrine of the Catholick Church should be contrary to Scripture for then men according to S. Austin should not believe infallibly either the one or the other Not the Scriptures because they are received only upon the Authority of the Church nor the Church whose Authority is infringed by the plain Scripture which is brought against her For which you produce a large citation out of S. Austin to that purpose But the Answer to that is easie For S. Austin when he speaks of Church-Authority quâ infirmatâ jam nec Evangelio credere potero he doth not in the least understand it of any Definitions of the Church but of the Vniversal Tradition of the Catholick Church concerning the Scriptures from the time of Christ and his Apostles And what plain Scriptures those are supposable which should contradict such a Tradition as this is is not easie to understand But the case is quite otherwise as to the Churches Definitions for neither doth the Authority of Scripture at all rest upon them and there may be very well supposed some plain Scriptures contrary to the Churches Definitions unless it be proved that the Church is absolutely Infallible and the very proof of that depending on Scripture there must be an appeal made to plain Scripture whether the Churches Definitions may not be contradicted by Scripture When therefore you say This is an impossible Supposition that Scripture should contradict the Churches Definitions like that of the Apostle If an Angel from Heaven teach otherwise let him be accursed Gal. 1. You must prove it as impossible for the Church to deviate from Scripture in any of her Definitions as for an Angel to preach another Gospel which will be the braver attempt because it seems so little befriended either by sense or reason But say you If the Church may be an erring Definer I would gladly know why an erring Disputer may not oppugn her That which you would so gladly know is not very difficult to be resolved by any one who understands the great difference between yielding an Internal Assent to the Definitions of the Church and open opposing them for it only follows from the possibility of the Churches Errour in defining that therefore we ought not to yield an absolute Internal Assent to all her determinations but must examine them by the best measures of Truth in order to our full Assent to them but though the Church may erre it doth not therefore follow that it is lawful in all cases or for all persons to oppugn her Definitions especially if those Definitions be only in order to the Churches Peace but if they be such as require Internal Assent to them then plain Scripture evidence of Sense or clear Reason may be sufficient cause to hinder the submitting to those Definitions 2. You tell us That his Lordship hath abused S. Austin 's Testimony because he speaks not of the Definitions of the Church in matters not Fundamental according to the matter they contain but the Truth mentioned by him was Fundamental in its matter This is the substance of your second Answer which is very rational and prudent being built on this substantial Evidence If S. Austin doth preferr manifest Truth before things supposed Fundamental in the matter then no doubt S. Austin would not preferr manifest Truth before things supposed not-Fundamental in the matter And do not you think this enough to charge his Lordship with shamefully abusing S. Austin But certainly if S. Austin preferred manifest Truth before that which was greater would he not do it before that which was incomparably less If he did it before all those things which kept him in the Catholick Church such as the consent of Nations Miracles Universal Tradition which he mentions before do you think he would have scrupled to have done it as to any particular Definitions of the Church These are therefore very excellent waies of vindicating the Fathers Testimonies from having any thing of sense or reason in them 3. You say He hath abused S. Austin by putting in a wrangling Disputer But I wonder where his Lordship ever sayes that S. Austin mentions any such in the Testimony cited For his words are these But plain Scripture with evident Sense or a full Demonstrative Argument must have room where a wrangling and erring Disputer may not be allowed it And there 's neither of these over against these words he referrs to S. Austin's Testimony and not the foregoing but may convince the Definition of the Council if it be ill founded When you therefore ask Where the wrangling Disputer is to be found had it not been for the help of this Cavil we might have been to seek for him But when you have been enquiring for him at last you cry out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oh! I see now And you are the fittest man to find him out that I know You say This is done to distinguish him from such a Disputer as proceeds solidly and demonstratively against the Definitions of the Church when they are
whether an Infallible Assent to the Infallibility of your Church can be grounded on those Motives of Credibility If you affirm it then there can be no imaginable necessity to make the Testimony of your Church infallible in order to Divine Faith for you will not I hope deny but that there are at least equal Motives of Credibility to prove the Divine Authority of the Scriptures as the Infallibility of your Church and if so why may not an Infallible Assent be given to the Scriptures upon those Motives of Credibility as well as to your Churches Infallibility If you deny the Assent built upon the Motives of Credibility to be Infallible how can you make the Assent to your Churches Testimony to be infallible when that Infallibility is attempted to be proved only by the Motives of Credibility And therefore it necessarily follows That notwithstanding your bearing it so high under the pretence of Infallibility you leave mens minds much more wavering in their Assent than before in that as shall afterwards appear these very Motives of Credibility do not at all prove the Infallibility of your Church which undoubtedly prove the Truth and Certainty of Christian Religion Thus while by this device you seek to avoid the Circle you destroy the Foundation of your Discourse That there must be an Infallible Assent to the truth of that Proposition That the Scriptures are the Word of God which you call Divine Faith which how can it be infallible when that Infallibility at the highest by your own confession is but evidently credible and so I suppose the Authority of the Scriptures is without your Churches Infallibility And thus you run into the same Absurdities which you would seem to avoid which is the second thing to manifest the unreasonableness of this way for whatever Absurdity you charge us with for believing the Doctrine of Christ upon the Motives of Credibility unavoidably falls upon your selves for believing the Churches Infallibility on the same grounds for if we leave the Foundation of Faith uncertain you do so too if we build a Divine Faith upon Motives of Credibility so do you if we make every ones reason the Judge in the choice of his Religion so must you be forced to do if you understand the consequence of your own principles 1. It is impossible for you to give a better account of Faith by the Infallibility of your Church than we can do without it for if Divine Faith cannot be built upon the Motives proving the Doctrine of Christ what sense or reason is there that it should be built on those Motives which prove your Churches Infallibility so that if we leave the Foundation of Faith uncertain you much more and that I prove by a Rule of much Authority with you by which you use to pervert the weak judgements of such who in your case do not discern the Sophistry of it Which is when you come to deal with persons whom you hope to Proselyte you urge them with this great Principle That Prudence is to be our Guide in the choice of our Religion and that Prudence directs us to chuse the safest way and that it is much safer to make choice of that way which both sides agree Salvation is to be obtained in than of that which the other side utterly denies men can be saved in How far this Rule will hold in the choice of Religion will be examined afterwads but if we take your word that it is a sure Rule I know nothing will be more certainly advantagious to us in on present case For both sides I hope are agreed that there are sufficient Motives of Credibility as to the belief of the Scriptures but we utterly deny that there are any such Motives as to the Infallibility of your Church it then certainly follows That our way is the more eligible and certain and that we lay a surer Foundation for Faith than you do upon your principles for resolving Faith 2. Either you must deny any such thing as that you call Divine Faith or you must assert that it may have no other Foundation than the Motives of Credibility which yet is that you would seem most to avoid by introducing the Infallibility of your Church that the Foundation of Faith may not be uncertain whereas supposing what you desire you must of necessity do that you would seem most fearful of which is making a Divine Faith to rest upon prudential Motives Which I thus prove It is an undoubted Axiom among the great men of your side That whatever is a Foundation for a Divine Faith must itself be believed with a firm certain and infallible Assent Now according to your principles the Infallibility of the Church is the Foundation for Divine Faith and therefore that must be believed with an Assent Infallible It is apparent then an Assent Infallible is required which is that which in other terms you call Divine Faith now when you make it your business to prove the Churches Infallibility upon your prudential Motives I suppose your design is by those proofs to induce men to believe it and if men then do believe it upon those Motives do you not found an Assent Infallible or a Divine Faith upon the Motives of Credibility And by the same reason that you urge against us the necessity of believing the Scriptures to be the Word of God by Divine Faith because it is the ground why we believe the things contained in the Scripture we press on your side the necessity of believing the Infallibility of the Church by a Faith equally Divine because that is to you the only sufficient Foundation of believing the Scriptures or any thing contained in them 3. You make by this way of resolving Faith every man's Reason the only Judge in the choice of his Religion which you are pleased to charge on us as a great Absurdity yet you who have deserved so very ill of Reason are fain to call in her best assistance in a case of the greatest moment viz. On what ground we must believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God You say Because the Church is infallible which delivers them to us but how should we come to know that she is infallible you tell us By the Motives of Credibility very good But must not every ones reason judge whether these Motives be credible or no and whether they belong peculiarly to your Church so as to prove the Infallibility of it as it is distinct from all other societies of Christians in the world You tell us indeed That these Motives make it evidently credible but must we believe it to be so because you say so If so then the ground of believing is not the Credibility of the Motives but of your Testimony and therefore you ought to make it evidently true that whatever you speak is undoubtedly true which whosoever reads your Book will hardly be perswaded to So that of necessity every mans reason must be Judge whether your Church
Society of Men joyning together in the Profession of Christian Religion but these Men must presently be infallible in whatever they deliver as the Sense of their Society Their visible Profession of Christian Religion makes them a True Church but cannot men seem to profess our Religion unless they have a visible Infallible Head to guide them Is Infallibility the Soul of a Church which gives it its Being I mean a present Infallibility continually actuating and informing the Body of it Cannot a man be known to be a True Man unless he be inspired Nor a Church distinguished from other Societies but by a Spirit of Infallibility The truth is Let Bellarmine multiply his fifteen Notes of the Church to fifteen hundred if he please nay let it pretend to what Infallibility it please if any Society of men challenging the name of Church to it self do destroy the end of its Constitution or hold any thing directly contrary to the Foundation of its Institution all other Notes in the world can never make it a True Church So that the only certain Note of a True Church is its Agreement with the primary Foundation of it in that Doctrine which was Infallible and attested by Miracles undoubtedly Divine That which holds the Doctrine of Christ is the Christian Church and the nearer any Society comes to that the purer it is the more it is distant from it the more impure and no man who honours the Christian Religion can be bound to communicate with the Impurities of such a Church let it bear it never so high under the pretence of Infallibility If you boast never so much of your Vnity Succession Antiquity the name of Catholick c. if your Doctrine be repugnant to what was originally delivered by the Founder of the Christian Church your Society is not the True Christian Church But suppose it were and that it were known so to be by such Notes as these are Can you not conceive a Church should be consonant to the Doctrine of Christ but it must be it self infallible in deciding Controversies Cannot you imagine a Society consisting of all True Christians in the world should be made up of such persons who all firmly believe that Doctrine infallible which Christ delivered but yet judge themselves all fallible and dare not usurp that royal prerogative of Heaven in prescribing infallibly in matters questioned but leave all to judge according to the Pandects of the Divine Laws because each member of this Society is bound to take care of his soul and of all things that tend thereto Is such an Idea of a Christian Church a thing unreasonable inconsistent or contrary to any Law of its Foundation or rather is it not a very true and just representation of that Society of men which our blessed Saviour instituted as a Church in the world 2. Do you mean That these Motives should prove the Christian Church at large infallible or your present particular universal Church of Rome For some of your Motives seem to respect the one and the rest the other Notion of it When you mention miracles efficacy purity and excellency of Doctrine fulfilling of Prophecies do you really intend these for the proof of your present Roman-Churches Infallibility as that is distinct from all other Churches of Christians in the world If you do as you must if you speak to the purpose shew us what miracles efficacy purity and excellency of Doctrine there are in your Church beyond and beside all other Churches in the world What fulfilling of Prophecies among you which makes your Church infallible Is it the Prophecy That your Church shall be infallible that is fulfilled Shew then to us where that Prophecy is and how it appears to be fulfilled Is it because your Church pretends to be infallible I do heartily acknowledge some Prophecies are therein fulfilled but such as your Church hath little ground to be proud of their accomplishment But to all impartial Christians the accomplishment of those Prophecies which speak of the degenerate state of the Church as they are a great Confirmation of the Infallibility of the Divine Revealer of them when they see it so remarkably in the signatures of your Church so they are far from being any motive of credibility to them to prove your Church to be Infallible Unless it be meant that the state of your Church is an infallible evidence that those Prophesies are fulfilled But I pray why should fulfilling of Prophesies make your Church Infallible I had rather thought if you could have proved your Church to have been Prophetical it had been more to your purpose And if your Popes in Cathedrâ had foretold future events which by their coming to pass had evidenced to the world they had a true spirit of Prophesie then indeed you had said something towards Infallibility But that the meer fulfilling of Prophesies owned Divine by all Christians should prove your Church Infallible is such a motive of Credibility concerning that Infallibility that it proves nothing but by this consequence If Christ were Infallible then your Church is Or do you mean because some Prophesies concerning your Church are fulfilled therefore your Church is Infallible by the same reason I hope you will not deny but that Antichrist is Infallible for when ever he did doth or shall appear no doubt there will be fulfilling of Prophesies and those very clear ones too And therefore Antichrist and your Pope may go together for Infallibility But it may be yet you have some other motives besides fulfilling Prophesies and those are miracles now you speak indeed to the purpose But yet still we poor Infidels because out of your Church desire a little satisfaction concerning them too 1. We very reasonably desire That he in your Church who pretends most to infallibility should do these miracles himself For that was alwayes the way in Scripture for them whose testimony was to be believed Infallible to be the workers of those miracles which should induce men to believe such an Infallibility Do you think the Israelites would have believed Moses Infallible if any ordinary Israelite had wrought those miracles which he did unless you would suppose that those miracles were purposely wrought to have attested that Moses was Infallible But yet God thought it much more fit that Moses himself should be the instrument of doing them and so it was with our Blessed Saviour Let then your Church produce the several miracles wrought by your Popes to attest their Infallibility or if you believe Pope and Council the subject of Infallibility produce the miracles to prove that God was alwayes so just and reasonable as not to expect the belief of any Infallibility without such evidences given for it as might perswade men to believe it and you acknowledge That independently on Scripture there can be no such proof of Infallibility as Miracles and you require it from us to believe the present Church Infallible where then are your present miracles
the liberty it indulgeth them in sin here and yet the hopes it gives them of heaven hereafter Our doctrine requires indispensable obedience to all the precepts of Christ Yours tells them those which are the most strict and severe are not precepts but counsels of perfection Ours That there is no hope of Salvation without hearty amendment of life Yours That Pennance is requisite and external satisfaction to the Church and for internals that Contrition is very commendable but if there be not that Attrition will serve the turn Ours Charges men to look to their Salvation in this life because when life is ended their estate is irrecoverable Yours That though men dye in their sins yet they may be relieved by the prayers of the living and that there is hope they may get through Purgatory to Heaven at last So that supposing any persons to own Christianity to be true it is hard to conceive there should be more Artifices imagined to reconcile the Love of the pleasures of sin here with the hopes of Heaven at last than are used by those of your Profession So that if I should suppose my self a Heathen Philosopher and any of your Profession should come and tell me These were the Precepts and these the Promises of Christian Religion but I could believe none of them but by the Infallible proposition of your Church and that I was to know your Church Infallible by that Sanctity of life which was in it when I had throughly considered not only the impieties committed by the great ones of your Religion even in Rome in the first place but the Artifices used to enervate all the Precepts of real Sanctity and so plainly to see what interest and design is carried on under all these disguises I should be insuperably assaulted with the thoughts that those of your Religion who were the Authours of these things were so far from believing your Church Infallible that they really believed neither Christian nor any other Religion in the world So much for that Sanctity of life which is in your Chuch As for your other motives of Vnity Succession Antiquity and the name of Catholick c. they have so little affinity with any pretence of Infallibility and do equally agree to those Churches as the Greek and Abyssine which you are so far from acknowledging Infallible that you will not grant them to be true Churches notwithstanding these Motives that I cannot easily imagine to what end you produced them unless to let us see you had the gift of saying something though nothing to the purpose When you have thus apparently failed in producing any shadow of proof for your Churches Infallibility by these motives of credibility we now come to see how good you are at the defensive part who have been so unhappy in your Attempts Therefore we must consider what arts you use in putting by the force of those arguments which are produced against you by his Lordship After he had urged that question against you How it may appear that your Church is infallibly governed by the Holy Ghost to which we have seen how impossible it is for you to give any satisfactory answer he proceeds to another Argument which lies in these words Besides this is an inviolable ground of reason That the principles of any conclusion must be of more credit then the conclusion it self Therefore if the Articles of Faith the Trinity the Resurrection and the rest be the conclusions and the Principles by which they are proved be only Ecclesiastical Tradition it must needs follow that the tradition of the Church is more infallible then the Articles of Faith if the Faith which we have of the Articles should be finally resolved into the veracity of the Churches Testimony To this your Answer is very considerable 1. You tell us That the ground of all this discourse is the authority of Aristotle cited in the Margent which you repeat after him But I pray Whence learn'd you that this was all the ground of his discourse For his Lordship doth not say that Aristotle saith so and therefore it is so but saies That it is an inviolable ground of reason which words you prudently left out that there might appear some shadow for such a cavil and cites only the concurrent testimony of Aristotle with that evidence of reason which is in it And will you deny this to be an undoubted principle in reason that That which is assumed as the ground and reason why I assent to any thing must be more certain and evident then that is which I assent to on that ground Certainly you must have an art above all other men to make the superstructure stronger then the foundation the particular Problems in Mathematicks more evident then the Postulata the conclusion surer then the Premisses But you think to come off this absurdity 2. By distinguishing between Science and Faith or as you express it between the proceeding of the understanding when it works naturally and necessarily by and from the evidence and clearness of its object and when it works supernaturally and produceth supernatural and free acts meerly or at least principally from the impulse and inclination of the will for in such cases the Maxim holds not viz. That the principles of a Conclusion must be of more credit then the conclusion it self Now the act of believing is such an act that is which the understanding elicites rather by a voluntary and free inclination and consent of the will then from any evident certainty in the object whereto it assents A most judicious and profound discourse to which I know not whether ever I can perswade my will but I am sure I never shall my understanding Lest you should think it is only some impulse of my will which hinders my assent I shall fairly lay down the Reasons which keep me from it 1. That all assent of the understanding is grounded upon evidence 2. That however that evidence proceeds yet the Foundation of assent must be more evident then the thing assented to And these two I suppose will fully reach the scope of your Answer by shewing that your distinction of acts natural and supernatural is both untrue and impertinent 1. That all assent is grounded upon evidence i. e. that no man can assent to any thing meerly because he will but there must be sufficient reason inducing and perswading to that assent You acknowledge this to be true in acts of Knowledge but not of Faith but What do you make to be the genus in your definition of Faith I suppose you will say it is an assent of the mind If it be so the mind cannot be supposed to elicite an act of the same nature in so repugnant a manner to it self that it should assent to any thing without evidence I know what discourses those of your party have concerning the obscurity which is necessary to Faith If you mean obscurity as to the object believed i. e.
that the matters to be believed are not so clear to us as demonstrations I will not gainsay it but if you mean obscurity or want of evidence as to the reason inducing me to believe I utterly deny any such obscurity to belong to Faith or to be consistent with it For God doth not require us to believe any thing without sufficient grounds for our believing it and those grounds do bear a proportionable evidence to the nature of that assent which he requires If he requires an Infallible assent he gives Infallible grounds if he requires a firm and certain assent he gives firm and certain grounds if he requires only a probable assent he gives only probable evidence But still such as the nature of the assent is such is the evidence he gives for it To make this plainer by an Instance That Christ was the true Messias he requires an assent built upon Infallible grounds and therefore God gave such Infallible evidence of it by the Miracles which he wrought That these Miracles were once really done he requires our firm assent and therefore gives certain evidence by an Universal and uncontrouled tradition but whether St. Paul or any other Apostolical person were Authour of the Epistle to the Hebrews he requires only an assent built on the most probable grounds and therefore he hath given us no more for it But still as the assent is so the evidence must be For Faith being an act of the mind whose nature is to judge according to reason we cannot suppose any act of it to proceed in a brutish manner by a meer impulse of the will I deny not but the will may be said to have some kind of influence upon the understanding both in furthering and hindering assent but it is not by any command it hath over the mind in its acts but as it can divert the mind from or incline it to the searching into the evidence of the things Therefore when we commonly say Facile credimus quae volumus and so on the contrary it is not because of the wills immediate power upon the understanding but as the desire of a thing makes us inquisitive after it so the dislike of it makes us unwilling to hear the reasons for it and ready to entertain any pretence against it Thus I grant the will may have power upon the mind as to the eliciting the act of Faith not that I can assent to a thing as true because I desire it to be true but this inclination of the will removes those impediments which would obstruct my discovery of the evidence which is in it You havs certainly a mind of another mould then others have that can believe thing which do not appear credible to you yet such a kind of Faith as this is very necessary for your Churches Infallibility and for that your discourse of believing by the impulse of the will is very proper and seasonable But other persons may think it an Imperfection in their minds that they cannot believe any thing any further than it appears credible that is that they can go no further than they have legs nor see when their eyes are shut or the room dark But it may be you will tell me All this discourse proceeds on supposition that Faith were a natural act of the mind but you speak of a supernatural Faith It may be so but I hope you speak not of an irrational Faith which must believe things beyond the evidence of their Credibility Faith whether natural or supernatural acquired or infused is still an act of the mind and let it have but what belongs to it as such and call it what you will I deny not a peculiar Operation of Grace in the eliciting the Act of Divine Faith but still I say The manner whereby it is wrought must be agreeable to the nature of the Vnderstanding and by discovering the Credibility which is in the Objects of Faith If you say The Assent is infused I must say The Evidence is first infused for as Christ when he healed the blind did not make them see Objects which did not appear visible so neither doth the Spirit of God in planting Faith make men discern Objects which do not appear credible and the stronger the Assent is the greater is the Evidence and Credibility of the Object And can you call then that any free inevident Assent which goes no further than the Object appears credible It cannot be then any Act of the Will but meerly of the Mind which yields assent to any Object propounded as credible to it So that in what way and manner Assent is required in that same manner doth God give proportionable evidence I deny not but that Assent is required to Objects inevident to sense and reason but then I say The Assent is not required to what is obscure and inevident but to what is evident to us and therefore credible In the Incarnation of the Son of God the manner of the Hypostatical Vnion is to us inevident but then God doth not require our Assent to the Manner but to the Truth of the thing it self Where-ever God requires us to believe any thing as True he gives us evidence that it is so where-ever it appears the thing is inevident we may lawfully suspend our Assent and for all that I know it is our duty so to do But yet you have not done with this profound discourse For you very learnedly distinguish a double proceeding in probations the one is per principia intrinseca which you very well English by intrinsecal Principles i. e. such as have a necessary natural connexion with the things proved and do manifest and lay open the objects themselves the other is per principia extrinseca by extrinsecal Principles that is such as have no natural or necessary connexion with nor do produce any such evident manifestation of the things proved but their efficacy viz. whereby they determine the understanding to assent doth wholly depend on the worth and vertue of that external Principle whereby such probations are made This you apply to Knowledge and Faith that as Knowledge proceeds in the former way so Faith doth in the latter which depends purely upon extrinsecal Principles viz. the Authority Veracity Goodness and Knowledge of God affirming it which was immediately known to the Prophets and Apostles but mediately to us which howâ—ver must be infallibly conveyed to us which can only be by the testimony of the Church This is the substance of your third Section to which I answer 1. That all Certainty in the acts of the Mind whether in Knowledge or Faith must equally suppose the Truth of some extrinsecal Principles viz. the veracity and goodness of God for otherwise we cannot certainly judge of those you call Principia intrinseca to know what things have necessary and natural connexion with the things proved For unless I suppose that God is so True and Good as not to suffer me to be deceived in
easie that she can do it without arguments or reasons 5. Are men bound to believe what she so declares without arguments and reasons too If they be shew whence that Obligation comes and when you attempt that you endeavour to shew some argument and reason why they should believe it 6. What do you mean that these arguments reasons and words are not absolutely speaking matters of Faith it should seem then that conditionally they may be so and then shew the difference between them and those in Scripture 7. How is it possible for us to assent to any thing as a matter of Faith if we do not first assent to the arguments reasons and words by which you would perswade us to believe the thing to be declared by the Church and what is declared by the Church is true 8. Whether when you say That in the Scripture every word and tittle is matter of Faith at least implicitely and necessarily to be believed by all that knew it to be a part of Scripture this will not equally hold as to the Church too that every word and tittle is matter of Faith at least implicitely to all that know it to be a part of the Churches Definition And where then lyes the prerogative of Scripture above the Church Besides you tell us The Church hath certain limits and can define nothing but what was either revealed before or hath such connexion with it as it may be rationally and logically deduced from it as appertaining to the Declaration and Defence of that which was before revealed That herein you consult much for the honour of the Scripture above the Church will appear when you have answered these Queries 1. When the belief and sense of Scripture depend according to you upon the Churches Testimony Whether hath more limits the Church or Scripture For whatever is in Scripture must as to us haâ—e its Authority from the Church and therefore your Church sets what bounds she please as to things revealed in Scripture 2. Who shall be Judge whether your Church define nothing but what was revealed before when according to you we can have no assurance as to any Divine Revelation but from the Judgement of your Church 3. When your Church defines things to be matters of Faith which we think are not only not logically and rationally deduced from Scripture but plainly repugnant to it How can we believe that she doth not pretend to reveal something which was not revealed before 4. Is that rational and logical deduction from Scripture sufficient to perswade any rational man or no If not Why use you those terms if it be What need your Churches Definition in a thing that is obvious to any ones reason 5. Must we believe your Church absolutely as to what is rationally and logically deduced from Scripture If so then when she declares her own Infallibility we must believe that to be rationally deduced because she declares it 6. Doth your Church make use of Logick and Reason in her deductions then Why may not every one else unless she hath only the gift of Logick and Reason which I suppose you will say is but in a manner and after a sort Moreover say you The Church hath the receiving and interpreting Scripture for its end and consequently is in that respect inferiour to it But for whose end do you mean the Churches or the Scriptures end If the latter Shew us how any end of Scripture is attained by your Churches interpretation if you mean the Churches end I verily believe you that your Church pretends to the receiving and interpreting Scripture for her own ends and consequently in that respect she makes the Scripture inferiour to her Here again we meet with another piece of your Errantry in attempting to vindicate your Doctrine from the enchantment of another contradiction You say You hold it necessary that we are to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God upon Divine Authority and yet you tell us That the Churches Authority on which we are to believe the Scriptures is but in some sort and after a manner Divine This seems to have a huge resemblance to a Contradiction or else you must say That it is not necessary that we believe the Scriptures on a simply Divine Authority but only on such a one as is in some sort and after a manner Divine For if you make the same Authoririty to be Divine absolutely in your pretence and only after a sort in your Application you reach not the thing you promised If there be not as you say any necessity of defending the Churches Authority to be simply Divine in answering that Question How we know Scripture to be Scripture then there can be no necessity of asserting that we are bound to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God upon Divine Authority Which yet is your assertion before but yet you would fain distinguish between that which is absolutely infallible and divine the Churches Authority you say must be the former but cannot be the latter when yet this Infallibility is as you again tell us By the promised assistance of the Holy Ghost These are fit hedges to keep in Cuckows but none else But as you are still off and on sometimes seeming to go forward and then stepping back again sometimes answering sometimes proving which are great arguments of a disturbed mind or a being in a Labyrinth which you take many steps in but can find no way out of lest you should seem not sufficiently to contradict your self You go about to prove That the Authority teaching Scripture to be the Word of God must be absolutely infallible If you prove that I will undertake to prove it must be simply Divine But let us see however how irrefragably you prove it And the immediate Reason Why the Authority teaching Scripture to be the Word of God must be absolutely infallible is because it is an Article of Christian Faith that all those Books which the Church hath defined for Canonical Scripture are the Word of God and seeing every Article of Faith must be revealed or taught by Divine Authority this also must be revealed and consequently no Authority less than Divine is sufficient to move us to believe it as an Article of Faith But 1. Is it not possible for you to utter so many words without a contradiction Were you not just before distinguishing that Authority which is Divine from that which is absolutely infallible and but in a manner and after a sort Divine And yet here that Authority which you call absolutely infallible in the former part of your Argument in the last you explain it No Authority less than Divine Doth it not then follow that an Authority absolutely infallible is an Authority no less than Divine But to let that pass among the rest of his Brethren 2. Why take you this needless pains to prove that which you say before You and your Adversary are agreed in 3. Supposing you
can desire that they are infallibly conveyed to us 1. If the Doctrine of Christ be True and Divine then all the Promises be made were accomplished Now that was one of the greatest That his Spirit should lead his Apostles into all Truth Can we then reasonably think that if the Apostles had such an infallible Assistance of the Spirit of God with them in what they spake in a transitory way to them who heard them that they should want it in the delivering those Records to the Church which were to be the standing monuments of this Doctrine to all Ages and Generations If Christ's Doctrine therefore be True the Apostles had an infallible Assistance of God's Spirit if they had so in delivering the Doctrine of Christ by preaching nothing can be more unreasonable than to imagine such should want it who were employed to give an account to the world of the nature of this Doctrine and of the Miracles which accompanied Christ and his Apostles So that it will appear an absurd thing to assert that the Doctrine of Christ is Divine and to question whether we have the infallible Records of it It is not pertinent to our Question in what way the Spirit of God assisted them that wrote Whether by immediate suggestion of all such things which might be sufficiently known without it and whether in some things which were not of concernment it might not leave them to their own judgement as in that place When they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs when no doubt God's Spirit knew infallibly whether it was but thought not fit to reveal it whether in some lighter circumstances the Writers were subject to any inadvertencies the negative of which is more piously credible whether meer historical passages needed the same infallible Assistance that Prophetical and Doctrinal these things I say are not necessary to be resolved it being sufficient in order to Faith that the Doctrine we are to believe as it was infallibly delivered to the world by the preaching of Christ and his Apostles so it is infallibly conveyed to us in the Books of Scripture 2. Because these Books were owned for Divine by those Persons and Ages who were most competent Judges Whether they were so or no. For the Age of the Apostles was sufficiently able to judge whether those things which are said to be spoken by Christ or written by the Apostles were really so or no. And we can have no reason at all to question but what was delivered by them was infallibly true Now from that first Age we derive our knowledge concerning the Authority of these Books which being conveyed to us in the most unquestionable and universal Tradition we can have no reason in the world to doubt and therefore the greatest reason firmly to assent that the Books we call the Scripture are the infallible Records of the Word of God And thus much may suffice in general concerning the Protestant Way of resolving Faith I now return to the examination of what you give us by way of answer to his Lordship's discourse The first Assault you make upon his Lordship is for making Apostolical Tradition a ground of Faith but because your peculiar excellency lyes in the involving plain things the best service I can do is to lay things open as they are by which means we shall easily discern where the truth lyes I shall therefore first shew how far his Lordship makes Apostolical Tradition a ground of Faith and then consider what you have to object against it In that Section which your Margent referrs to all that he sayes of it is That the Voice and Tradition of that Church which included in it Apostles Disciples and such as had immediate Revelation from Heaven was Divine and the Word of God from them is of like validity written or delivered And as to this Tradition he saith there is abundance of Certainty in it self but how far it is evident to us shall after appear At the end of the next n. 21. he saith That there is double Authority and both Divine that confirms Scripture to be the Word of God Tradition of the Apostles delivering it and the internal worth and argument in the Scripture obvious to a soul prepared by the present Churches Tradition and Gods Grace But n. 23. he saith That this Apostolical Tradition is not the sole and only means to prove Scripture Divine but the moral perswasion reason and force of the present Church is ground enough for any one to read the Scripture and esteem reverently of it And this once done the Scripture hath then In and home-arguments enough to put a soul that hath but ordinary Grace out of doubt that the Scripture is the Word of God infallible and Divine I suppose his Lordships meaning may be comprized in these particulars 1. That to those who lived in the Apostolical times the Tradition of Scripture by those who had an infallible Testimony was a sufficient ground of their believing it infallibly true 2. That though the conveyance of that Tradition to us be not infallible yet it may be sufficient to raise in us a high esteem and veneration for the Scripture 3. That those who have this esteem for the Scripture by a through studying and consideration of it may undoubtedly believe that Scripture is the Divine and Infallible Word of God This I take to be the substance of his Lordships discourse We now come to examine what you object against him Your first demand is How comes Apostolical Primitive Tradition to work upon us if the present Church be fallible Which I shall answer by another How come the decrees of Councils to work upon you if the reporters of those Decrees be fallible If you say It is sufficient that the Decree it self be infallible but it is not necessary that the reporter of those Decrees should be so The same I say concerning the Apostolical Tradition of Scripture though it were infallible in their Testimony yet it is not necessary that the conveyance of it to us should be infallible And if you think your self bound to believe the Decrees of General Councils as infallible though fallibly conveyed to you Why may not we say the same concerning Apostolical Tradition Whereby you may see though Tradition be fallible yet the matter conveyed by it may have its proper effect upon us Your next Inquiry if I understand it is to this sense Whether Apostolical Tradition be not then as credible as the Scriptures I answer freely supposing it equally evident what was delivered by the Apostles to the Church by word or writing hath equal Credibility You attempt to prove That there is equal evidence because the Scripture is only known by the Tradition of the Church to be the same that was recommended by the Apostolical Church which you have likewise for Apostolical Tradition But 1. Do you mean the same Apostolical Tradition here or no which the Arch-Bishop
of Christians in opposition to others is the true Church for resolving this question that we look on it as a great argument of the Credibility as well as Vniversality of this Tradition that all these differing Societies consent in it And not only they but the greatest opposers of Christianity Jews or Philosophers could never see any reason to call in question such a Tradition His Lordship the better to represent the use of Tradition in the last resolution of Faith makes use of this illustration That as the knowledge of Grammer and Logick is necessary in order to the making a Demonstration yet the knowledge of the Conclusion is not resolved into Grammer or Logick but into the immediate principles out of which it is deduced So a mans first preparative to Faith is the Churches Tradition but his full and last assent is resolved into the internal arguments of Scripture This you quarrel with and tell us There is not the same Analogy between Logick and Church Tradition your meaning I suppose is because Logick doth Physically by inlarging the understanding fit men for demonstrations but Church-Tradition cannot enable men to understand the Scripture But cannot you easily discern that Analogy which his Lordship brought this illustration for which is that some things may be necessary preparatives for knowledge which that knowledge is not resolved into Is not this plain in Logick and is it not as plain between Tradition and Scripture For though Tradition doth not open our eyes to see this light yet it presents the object to us to be seen and that in an unquestionable manner But for all this say you a man must either receive it on the sole authority of Church-Tradition or be as much in the dark as ever Why so Is there any repugnancy in the thing that Scripture should be received first upon the account of Tradition and yet afterwards men resolve their Faith into the Scripture it self May not a man very probably believe that a Diamond is sent him from a Friend upon the testimony of the Messenger who brings it and yet be firmly perswaded of it by discerning the Sparklings of it But say you further The Scriptures themselves appear no more to be the Word of God then the Stars to be of a certain determinate number or the distinction of colours to a blind man If this approach not to the highest blasphemy against the Scripture I know not what doth He that shall compare this saying of yours with that in the precedent Chapter That if Christ had not left the Church Infallible he might be accounted an Impostor and Deceiver may easily guess how much of Religion you believe in your heart when on so small occasions you do so openly disparage both Christ and the Scriptures It is well yet your Churches Infallibility can stand on no better terms than these are which will be sufficient to keep any who have any true sense of the truth and excellency of Christ and the Scriptures from hearkening to it But are you in good earnest when you say that Scriptures themselves appear no more to be the Word of God than the distinction of colours to a blind man which is as much as nothing at all Is there nothing at all in the excellency of the Doctrine and Precepts contained in the Scriptures nothing in those clear discoveries of God and our selves nothing in all those transactions between God and men nothing in that Covenant of Redemption between God and man through Christ nothing in the clear accomplishment and fulfilling of Prophesies nothing in that admirable strain and style which is in the writings nothing in that harmonious consent which is discovered in writers of several ages interests places and conditions nothing in that admirable efficacy which the Doctrine of it hath upon the souls of men to perswade them to renounce sin the world and themselves for the sake of it is there nothing more I say in all these which makes the Scripture appear to be the Word of God than the distinction of colours to a blind man Could you assoon think to account the starrs as discern any thing of Divinity from these things in the Scriptures If your eyes were as blind as your understanding could you assoon distinguish white from black as the Scripture from the Alcoran if they were both presented to you to read and judge of them according to the evidence you found in them Is it possible a man that owns himself a Christian should utter such opprobrious language of the Scripture You had been before speaking what honour you give to the Scripture notwithstanding you pretend your Church Infallible and I had mentioned some of those passages which occurr in your writers in disparagement of them but I must needs say they all fall short of this the Nose of Wax the Inky Divinity the Lesbian rule are Courtlike expressions to this of yours for this puts no difference in the world between the Scripture and the Alcoran if your Church should propound the one as well as the other For you could not possibly say worse of the Alcoran then that of it self it appeared no more to be the Word of God than distinction of colours to a blind man I might here send you to be chastised for this insolent Atheistical expression to the Primitive Fathers who speak so much in admiration of the excellency of Scriptures who did vindicate them from all assaults of the Heathen Philosophers I might send you to those of your own party who if they have any love or tenderness for Christian Religion will not suffer such passages to pass without the most severe rebukes I might sufficiently prove the contrary from the arguments used against Atheists by Bellarmine and others but I shall content my self with that noble and Christian confession of your Gregory de Valentiâ from whom you might learn more piety and modesty towards the Sacred Scriptures There being many things in the Doctrine of Christianity it self which of themselves may conciliate belief and authority yet that seems the greatest to me as hath been observed by Clement of Alexandria Lactantius and others that I know not with what admirable force but most divine it affects the hearts of men and stirs them up to vertue It is written with great simplicity and without almost any artifice or ornament of speech which is an argument that its authority is not humane but Divine for no humane writing hath any power on the minds of men without a great deal of art and eloquence How many things are there in this ingenuous and pious confession of this learned Jesuite which might if you have any shame left make you sensible of the Blasphemy of your former expression For 1. He saith there are many things in the doctrine of Christianity which for themselves may conciliate our belief and manifest their authority If for themselves then certainly the Scriptures of themselves have a great deal more evidence
a Monument of unspeakable concernment to the good of mankind and you must conceive the Christians in all ages to be stupendiously careless and negligent either in transcribing or reading the Scriptures which could suffer errours to slip into them without discovery of them Do you think that the Christians had no higher esteem of the Scriptures than of the Vse of Altars or any other of your immemorial Traditions but say you The one were publick and the other passed through the hands of particular men It should seem then their Altars were upon high places but the Scriptures were only read in corners never any such thing being publickly read as the Bible so that any alteration might be there and no notice at all taken of it The poor African Bishop found the contrary to his sorrow who was in such danger from the people for altering but one word according to S. Hieroms Translation as S. Austin reports the story But suppose it passed through the hands of particular men Was it therefore more liable to be corrupted I should think just the contrary unless you could suppose all those particular men to agree in corrupting it which considering the difference of opinions capacities and interests is a most unreasonable supposition that some verbal and literal mistakes might slip in you might rationally imagine but that therefore any great corruptions should creep into it argues your mean thoughts both of Gods Providence and the care of the Christian world Well but still it is impossible to corrupt your Traditions It were a much harder matter to free your Traditions from being corruptions themselves of the purity of the Christian Church And why so hard for them to be corrupted Because recorded in Authours of every succeeding age I had thought all Books of equal or much bigger bulk than the Scripture had been as liable to corruption as that but it seems not If a Book be written of Traditions the very Traditions will preserve it pure though as big as that Livy Quem mea vix totum bibliotheca capit But that is not all it seems these Traditions are recorded in Authours of every succeeding age Unhappy men we that cannot find them there I wish instead of writing Controversies you would write the history of these Traditions but be sure to deduce them through the Authours of every succeeding age and I suppose you mean ever since the Apostles I shall then indeed believe Popish Traditions to be no Novelties but not before But let us grant this Were not the Scriptures attested by the same Authours No It seems they were agreed about all Traditions but not so about the Scripture And the reason is Because the Scriptures were first delivered to private men as S. John 's Epistle and S. Luke 's Gospel but Traditions had an universal practice But Can you suppose it otherwise but that particular Books must be first delivered to private men Would you have them delivered only to General Councils or the Pope and his Cardinals It seems S. John was to blame for not directing his Epistle to the Pope instead of Gaius and S. Luke his Gospel to a General Council instead of Theophilus for then we might have had Infallible Certainty of them but now it is a plain case we can have no more than Moral Certainty that ever they were theirs But for this trick it seems they fared the worse for some Books were doubted of for many years in particular Churches It is well yet they were not discarded by your Catholick Church because the Apostles did not put their Books into your hands to recommend them But what if some Books by some men were for some time doubted of which yet were afterwards universally received upon sufficient evidence Why then say you Tradition hath much advantage of Scripture How so Was no Tradition which would be accounted universal doubted of by any men at any time No say you it is impossible it should for universal Traditions were universally practised at all times Now you speak home and nothing wants to the proof of it but only to let us know What these Vniversal Traditions are which were so universally practised in all ages containing things different from Scripture which are recorded in the Authours of every succeeding Age. Your offer is so fair that my request shall be very short name them and prove them and I will believe you but not before So much for this which though a digression in this Chapter yet is not from the design of this discourse Setting aside therefore your discourse about A. C ' s. Pen being troubled in which is nothing worth our notice I come to the main dispute of this Chapter which is Whether the Promises of Infallibility made to the Apostles are to be restrained to their own times or to be extended to the present Church in all ages We assert the former and you the latter For which you produce this argument That from these very places Christians do inferr that the Church shall never fall away and perish For if the assistance be not to preserve the succeeding Church at least from some kind of errours infallibly it may notwithstanding all the assistance he allows it here fall into all kind of errours one after another and so by degrees the whole Church might fall into a general Apostacy and thereby perish There must therefore be some kind of infallible assistance in the Apostles successors by virtue of these Promises But 1. Is it all one to say There shall alwaies be a Church and to say That Church shall alwaies be infallible Those who from the places in question do prove that the Church shall never quite fall away do not dream of a present Infallibility in your sense but that there alwaies shall be a number of men professing Christianity in the world And Cannot you possibly conceive that there should be such a number of men professing Christianity without Infallibility To help therefore your understanding a little suppose that all the members of the Roman Church should in one age be destroyed and according to your former Principle that if a Church may erre we cannot be certain but that it doth erre because this may be we cannot be certain but that it is but we only make the supposition Do not you think that there would be still a number remaining who profess Christianity of the Greek and Protestant Churches yet I hope you will not say that these were infallible There may be then a number of Christians who are not infallible and that is all which is meant by saying That the present Church is infallible in Fundamentals viz. that there shall alwaies be a Church for that which makes them a Church is the belief of Fundamentals and if they believe not them they cease to be so That therefore which being supposed a Church is and being destroyed it ceaseth to be is the formal constitution of it but thus it is as to the Church the
Scriptures do convey to them We own therefore the Apostles as Gods immediate Embassadours whose miracles did attest their commission from Heaven to all they came to and no persons could pretend ignorance that this is Gods hand and Seal but all other Pastors of the Church we look on only as Agents settled to hold correspondency between God and Vs but no extraordinary Embassadours who must be looked on as immediately transacting by the Infallible Commission of Heaven When therefore the Pastor or Pastors of your Church shall bring new Credentials from Heaven attested with the same Broad-seal of Heaven which the Apostles had viz. Miracles we shall then receive them in the same capacity as Apostles viz. acting by an Infallible Commission but not till then By which I have given a sufficient Answer to what follows concerning the credit which is given to Christ's Legats as to himself for hereby it appears they are to have no greater authority than their Commission gives them Produce therefore an Infallible Commission for your Pastors Infallibility either apart or conjunctly and we shall receive it but not else Whether A.C. in the words following doth in terms attribute Divine and Infallible authority to the Church supposing it infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost is very little material for Whether he owns it or no it is sufficient that it necessarily follows from his Doctrine of Infallibility For How can the Church be infallible by virtue of those Promises wherein Divine Infallibility you say is promised and by virtue of which the Apostles had Divine Infallibility and yet the Church not to be divinely Infallible The remainder of this Chapter which concerns the sense of the Fathers in this Controversie will particularly be considered in the next which is purposely designed for it CHAP. IX The Sense of the Fathers in this Controversie The Judgement of Antiquity enquired into especially of the three first Centuries and the reasons for it The several Testimonies of Justin Martyr Athenagoras Tatianus Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus and all the Fathers who writ in vindication of Christian Religion manifested to concurr fully with our way of resolving Faith C's Answers to Vincentius Lyrinensis à Gandavo and the Fathers produced by his Lordship pitifully weak The particulars of his 9th Chapter examined S. Augustine's Testimony vindicated C's nauseous Repetitions sent as Vagrants to their several homes His Lordships Considerations found too heavy for C's Answers In what sense the Scripture may be called a Praecognitum What way the Jews resolved their Faith This Controversie and the first Part concluded HAving thus largely considered whatever you could pretend to for the advantage of your own cause or the prejudice of ours from Reason and Scripture nothing can be supposed to remain considerable but the judgement of the Primitive Church in this present Controversie And next to Scripture and Reason I attribute so much to the sense of the Christian Church in the ages next succeeding the Apostles that it is no mean confirmation to me of the truth of the Protestant Way of resolving Faith and of the falsity of yours that I see the one so exactly concurring and the other so apparently contrary to the unanimous Consent of Antiquity For though you love to make a great noise with Antiquity among persons meanly conversant in it yet those who do seriously and impartially enquire into the sense of the Primitive Church and not guess at it by the shreds of Citations to your hands in your own writers which is generally your way will scarce in any thing more palpably discern your jugling and impostures then in your pretence to Antiquity I shall not here enquire into the corruptions crept into your Church under that disguise but as occasion is ministred to me in the following discourse shall endeavour to pluck it off but shall keep close to the matter in question Three things then I design in this Chapter 1. To shew the concurrence of Antiquity with us in the resolution of Faith 2. Examine what you produce from thence either to assert your own way or enervate ours 3. Consider what remains of this Controversie in your Book 1. For the manifesting the concurrence of Antiquity with us I shall confine my present discourse to the most pure and genuine Antiquity keeping within the compass of the three first Centuries or at least of those who have purposely writ in vindication of the Christian Faith Not that I do in the least distrust the consent of the succeeding Writers of the Primitive Church but upon these Reasons 1. Because it would be too large a task at present to undertake since no necessity from what you object but only my desire to clear the Truth and rectifie the mistakes of such who are led blindfold under the pretence of Antiquity hath led me to this discourse 2. Because in reason they could not but understand best the waies and methods used by the Apostles for the perswading men to the Christian Faith and if they had mentioned any such thing as an Infallibility alwaies to continue in the Charch those Pastors certainly who received the care of the Church from the Apostles hands could not but have heard of it And were strangely to blame if they did not discover and make use of it Whatever therefore of truly Apostolical Tradition is to be relyed on in such cases must be conveyed to us from those persons who were the Apostles immediate Successors and if it can be made manifest that they heard not of any such thing in that when occasion was offered they are so far from mentioning it that they take such different waies of satisfying men which do manifestly suppose that they did not believe it I know some of the greatest Patrons of the Church of Rome and such who know best how to manage things with best advantage for the interest of that Church have made little account of the three first ages and confined themselves within the compass of the four first Councils upon this pretence because the Books and Writers are so rare before and that those persons who lived then had no occasion to write of the matters in Controversie between them and us But if the ground why those other things which are not determined in Scripture are to be believed by us and practised as necessary be that they were Apostolical Traditions Who can be more competent Judges what was so and what not then those who lived nearest the Apostolical times and those certainly if they writ of any thing could not write of any thing of more concernment to the Christian world than the knowledge of such things would be or at least we cannot imagine but that we should find express intimations of them where so many so wise and learned persons do industriously give an account of themselves and their solemn actions to their Heathen persecutors But however silent they may be in other things which they neither heard nor thought of as in the
Customs controverted between the Papists and us which no doubt is the true reason why the three first ages are declined by Cardinal Perrone yet there is not the least shadow of pretence why they should be silent in this present Controversie since the great business of their writings was to vindicate the Christian Faith to perswade the Heathens to believe it and to manifest the grounds on which they were induced to believe themselves If therefore in this they do unanimously concurr with that resolution of Faith I have already laid down nothing can be desired more for the evidence and confirmation of the truth of our way than that it is not only most consonant to Scripture but built on the truest Reason and was the very same which the Primitive Christians used when they gave an account of their Faith Which I shall do not by some mangled citations but deducing it from the scope and design of their writings and drawing it successively down from the first after the Apostles who appeared in Vindication of the Christian Faith I begin with Justin Martyr who as Photius saith of him was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not far from the Apostles either in time or virtue and who being a professed Philosopher before he became a Christian we may in reason think that he was more inquisitive into the grounds of Christian Faith before he believed and the more able to give an account of them when he did Whether therefore we consider those arguments which first induced him to believe or those whereby he endeavours to perswade others to it we shall find how consonant and agreeable he is to our grounds of Faith how far from any imagination of the Churches Infallibility In the beginning of his excellent Dialogue with Trypho where if I may conjecture he represents the manner of his conversion in a Platonical way introducing a solemn conference between himself and an ancient person of great gravity and a venerable aspect in a solitary place whither he was retired for his meditations Pet. Halloix is much troubled who this person should be Whether an Angel in humane shape or a man immediately conveyed by an Angel to discover Christianity to him which when he had done he was as suddenly carried back again Scultetus I suppose from this story asserts Justin Martyr to be converted by Divine Revelation But if I be not much mistaken this whole Conference is no more than the setting forth the grounds of his becoming a Christian in the Platonical mode by way of Dialogue and probably the whole Disputation with Trypho may be nothing else but however that be it is apparent Trypho looked on him as a Platonist by his Pallium and Justin Martyr owns himself to have been so and therefore it was very congruous for him to discourse after the Academick manner In which discourse when Justin Martyr had stood up in vindication of the Platonick Philosophy and the other Person endeavours to convince him of the impossibility of attaining true happiness by any Philosophy For when Justin had said That by Philosophy he came to the Knowledge of God the other person demanded How they could know God who had never seen him nor heard him He replied That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God was only intelligible by our minds as Plato said He again asks Whether there were such a faculty in the minds of men as to be able to see God without a Divine Power and Spirit assisting it Justin answers that according to Plato the eye of the understanding was sufficient to discover that there is such a Being which is the cause of all things but the nature of it is ineffable and incomprehensible Upon which he proceeds to enquire What relation there was between God and the Souls of men and what means to come to the participation of him after a great deal of discourse on which subject between them Justin comes at last to enquire if there were no truth and certainty in Philosophy By whose instruction or by what means he should come to it To which that person returns this excellent Answer That there had been a long time since several persons much elder than the reputed Philosophers blessed men just and lovers of God speaking by the inspiration of the Divine Spirit foretelling things which have come to pass since whom they call Prophets These only saw the Truth and declared it to men neither flattering nor fearing any nor conquered with the love of honour But they only spake the things which they heard and saw being filled with the Holy Spirit Whose Books are still extant which whosoever reads and assents to will find himself much improved in the principles and ends of things and whatever becomes a Philosopher to know For they write not by way of argument or demonstration but that which is above it they are most faithful witnesses of Truth For the things which have and do come to pass do enforce men to believe the Truth of what they spake And not only so but they are most worthy to be believed for the Miracles which they wrought Moreover they extol the Maker of the World God and the Father and declare to the World his Son Christ which the false Prophets who are acted by a seducing and impure spirit neither have done nor yet do do but they attempt to shew some tricks for the amazement of men and cry up the evil and deceiving spirits But do thou above all things pray that the gates of light may be opened to thee For these things are not seen nor understood by all but only by them to whom God and Christ shall grant the knowledge of them A most signal and remarkable Testimony as any is extant in all Antiquity for acquainting us with the true grounds and reasons of Faith which therefore I have at large produced The very reading of which is sufficient to tell us How true a Protestant this whether Angel or Man was When Justin asked him What Teachers he should have to lead him to Truth He tells him There had been long before Philosophers excellent persons in the world called Prophets men every way good who did nothing for fear or favour or love of themselves But Justin might further ask How he should come to be instructed by them He tells him Their Writings were still extant wherein were contained such things as might hugely satisfie a Philosophical mind concerning the Origine and Principles of things He might still enquire Whether those things were demonstrated or no in them No he replies but they deserve assent as much if not beyond any demonstration because they manifest themselves to be from God by two things the exact accomplishment of the Prophecies made by them and the unparalleld Miracles which were wrought by them But might not the evil spirits work such things No For although their false Prophetsâ—ay â—ay do several things to amaze men yet they can do no
of all his goods And when he speaks of the Doctrine it self of Christianity he saies It is suitable to whatever was rational among the Platonists or other Philosophers but far more agreeable to it self and containing much more excellent things than ever they could attain to the knowledge of In his second Apology for the Christians to the Emperour Antoninus Pius he insists much on the excellency of the Doâ—trine of Christianity from the Precepts of it chastity love of enemies liberality submission to authority worship of God c. Afterwards he proves the truth and certainty of all we believe concerning Christ from the exact accomplishment of the Prophecies made concerning him in the Old Testament which discourse he ends with this saying So many and so great things being seen are sufficient to perswade men to believe the truth of them who are lovers of truth and not seekers of applause and under the command of passions Thus we see in all his discourses where he had the most occasion administred to him to discover the most certain grounds of Christian Faith he resolves all into the rational evidence of the truth excellency and divinity of the Doctrine which was contained in the Scriptures For in his second Oration to the Greeks after he had spoken highly in commendation of the Scripture calling it The best expeller of all turbulent passions and the surest extinguisher of those preternatural heats in the souls of men which saith he makes men not Poets nor Philosophers nor Orators but it makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dying men immortal and mortals become gods and transferrs them from the earth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to such places whose confines are far above Olympus therefore O ye Greeks come and be instructed be ye as I am for I was as you are And these were the things which prevailed with me the divine power and efficacy of the Doctrine What was it then I pray that Justin Martyr of a Philosopher becoming a Christian resolved his Faith into If we may believe himself it was into the evidence of the Doctrine of Christianity and not into the Infallibility of any Church The Testimony of this person I have the more largely insisted on both because he was so great a Philosopher as well as Christian and lived so near the Apostolical times Next him we produce Athenagoras as a Philosopher too as well as Christian who flourished under Antoninus and Commodus to whom he made his Apology in behalf of the Christians in which he first undertakes to manifest the reasonableness of the Doctrine which they owned the Foundation of it being the same with that which the best Philosophers acknowledged the existence and unity of the Deity But saith he if we had nothing but such reasons as he had produced our perswasion could only be humane but the words of the Prophets are they which establish our minds who being carried beyond themselves by the impulse of the Divine Spirit spake that which they were moved to when the Spirit used them as Instruments through which he spake Is not here a plain resolution of Faith into that Divine Authority by which the Prophets spake and that not as testified by any Infallible Church but as it was discernable by those persons he spake to for he appeals to the Emperours themselves concerning it which had been a fond and absurd thing for him to do if the knowledge of that Divine Inspiration did depend meerly on the testimony of Christians as such and were not to be discovered by some common Principles to them and others Much to the same purpose Tatianus speaks in that eloquent Oration of his against the Greeks who was Justin Martyrs Scholar and we shall see how agreeably he speaks to him in the account he gives how he became a Christian. After saith he he had abundantly discovered the vanity of the Theology and Superstitions of the Greeks he fell to the reading some strange Books much elder and more Divine than the Writings of the Greek Philosophers And to these saith he I yielded up my Faith for the great simplicity and plainness of the style and the freedom from affectation which was in the writers and that evidence and perspicuity which was in all they writ and because they foretold things to come made excellent promises and manifestly declared the Monarchy of the World What Protestant could speak higher of the Scripture and of those internal arguments which are the grounds of Faith than Tatianus in these words doth Yet we see these were the arguments which made him relinquish the Greek learning of which he was a Professor at Rome and betake himself to the profession of Christianity though he was sure to undergo not only contempt from the world but to be in continual hazard of his life by it That innate simplicity of the writings of the Scripture joyned with the perspicuity of it if at least those words be rightly translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by sermo nusquam obscurus and it doth not rather relate to the account of the worlds creation which I conjecture it may do but however the certainty of the predictions the excellency of the promises and the reasonableness of the Doctrine were the things which by the reading of the Books he was perswaded to believe them by But all this while we hear no news of any Churches Infallibility in order to Faith We come therefore to Irenaeus who was omnium doctrinarum curioâ—â—ssimus explorator as Tertullian speaks of him a great searcher into all kind of learning and therefore surely not to seek as to the true account of his Faith Whose judgement herein although we have had occasion to enquire into before yet we have testimonies enough beside to manifest his consent with them And although Irenaeus of all the ancient Fathers be looked on as the most favourable to Tradition and is most cited to that purpose in these disputes yet I doubt not but to make it appear that where he speaks most concerning Tradition he makes the resolution of Faith to be wholly and entirely into the Scripture and they who apprehend otherwise do either take the citations out of him upon trust or else only search him for the words of those citations and never take the pains to enquire into the scope and design of his discourse For clearing which we must consider what the subject was which he writ of what the plea's of the adverse party were what way Irenaeus takes to confute them and to establish the Faith of Christians as to the matter which was in Controversie The matter in dispute was this Valentinus and his Scholars not being contented with the simplicity of the Doctrine of the Gospel and in probability the better to suit their opinions to the Heathen Mythology had invented a strange Pedigree of Gods the better as they pretended to give an account of the production of things and the various dispensations
for being weak and mortal he cannot speak as he ought of a Being infinite and immortal nor he that is the work of him who made it besides he that cannot speak truth concerning Himself how much less is he to be believed concerning God For as much as man wants of Divine power so much must his speech fall short of God when he discourseth of him For mans speech is naturally weak and unable to express God not only as to his essence but as to his power and works thence he concludes a necessity that God by his Spirit must discover himself to men which revelation he proves to be only extant among Christians because of the many Divine testimonies that Christ was the Son of God because the knowledge that came by him was so remarkably dispersed abroad in the world and did prevail notwithstanding all opposition and persecution For saith he the Greek Philosophy if any ordinary Magistrate forbid it did presently sink but our doctrine hath been forbid from its first publishing by the Kings and Potentates of the earth who have used their utmost industry to destroy both us and that together but still it flourisheth and the more for its being persecuted for it dyes not like a humane doctrine nor perisheth like a weak gift Thus we see that he insists on rational evidence as the great and sufficient testimony into which our Faith is resolved as to the being of a Divine Revelation In his next Book he answers some objections of the Heathens against believing Christianity of which the chiefest was the dissension among the Christians wherein if ever he had an opportunity to declare what the certain rule of Faith is and what power God hath left his Church for determining matters to be believed by us But for want of understanding this necessary foundation of Faith viz. the Churches infallibility he is fain to answer this objection just as a Protestant would do 1. If this were an argument against truth the objectors had none themselves for both Jews and Greeks had heresies among them 2. The very coming of heresies was an argument of the truth of Scripture because that had expresly foretold them 3. This argument doth not hold any where else therefore it should not in reason here viz. where there is any dissent there can be no certainty for though Physitians differ much from one another yet Patients are not thereby discouraged from seeking to them for cure 4. This should only make men use more care and diligence in the search and enquiry after truth for they will find abundant recompence for their search in the pleasure of finding truth Would any one say because two apples are offered to him the one a real fruit the other made of wax that therefore he will meddle with neither but rather that he ought to use more care to distinguish the one from the other If there be but one high way and many by-paths which lead to precipices rivers or the Sea Will he not go in the highway because there are such false ones but rather go in it with the more care and get the exactest knowledge of it he can Doth a Gardener cast off the care of his Garden because weeds grow up with his herbs or rather doth he not use the more diligence to distinguish one from the other So ought we to do in discerning truth 5. That all those who seriously enquire after truth may receive satisfaction For either mans mind is capable of evidence or it is not if not it is to no purpose to trouble ourselves with any thing of knowledge at all if it be then we must descend to particular questions by which we may demonstratively learn from the Scriptures how the heresies fell off from them and that the most exact knowledge is preserved in truth alone and the ancient Church If then Heresies must be demonstratively confuted out of Scriptures what then doth he make to be the rule to judge of Controversies but only them For what he speaks of the ancient Church he speaks of it as in conjunction with truth and in opposition to those novel Heresies of the Basilidians and Valentinians For that he doth not at all appeal to the judgement of any Church much less the present as having any infallibility whereon men ought to rely in matters of Faith appears likewise by his following words But those saith he who are willing to imploy themselves in the most excellent things will never give over the search of truth till they have received a demonstration of it from the Scriptures themselves Here we see the last resolution of Assent is into the Scriptures themselves without any the least mention or intimation of any Infallibility in the Church either to deliver or interpret those Scriptures to us And after gives the true account of Heresies viz. mens not adhering to the Scriptures For saith he they must necessarily be deceived in the greatest things who undertake them unless they hold fast the Rule of Truth which they received from Truth it self And in this following discourse he goes as high as any Protestants whatever even such who suppose the Scripture to be principium indemonstrabile by any thing but it self for he makes the Doctrine delivered by Christ to be the Principle of our Faith and we make use of it saith he to be our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to find out other things by But whatever is judged is not believed till it be judged therefore that can be no Principle which stands in need of being judged Justly therefore when we have by Faith received that indemonstrable Principle and from the Principle it self used demonstrations concerning it self we are by the voice of our Lord instructed in the knowledge of Truth Nothing can be more plain in what he saith than that if there were a higher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than Scripture as there must be if we are to receive it on the account of the Churches Infallible Testimony the Scripture could not be call'd the Principle of our Faith but when we receive the Scripture the evidence we have that it is our Principle must be fetched from it self and therefore he does here in terms as express as may be resolve the belief of Scripture into internal arguments and makes it as much a Principle supposed as ever his Lordship doth And immediately after when he proposeth that very Question How this should be proved to others We expect not saith he any proof from men but we prove the thing sought for by the Word of God which is more worthy belief than any demonstration or rather which is the only demonstration by the knowledge of which those who have tasted of the Scripture alone become believers Can any one who reads these words ever imagine that this man speaks like one that said That the Scriptures of themselves appear no more to be Gods Word than distinction of colours to a blind
c. Can any thing be more plain and obvious to any one who looks into that discourse of Vincentius than that he makes it not his business to give an account of the general Foundations of Faith as to the Scriptures being Gods Word but of the particular Doctrines of Faith in opposition to the Heresies which arise in the Church So that all that he speaks concerning Scripture is not about the authority but the sense and interpretation of it If therefore I should grant you that he speaks of Christian and Divine Faith What is this to your purpose unless you could prove that he speaks of that Divine Faith whereby we believe the Scripture to be the Word of God But yet your argument is very good to prove that he speaks not of any humane fallible perswasion but true Christian Divine Faith for he opposes it to Heresie and calls it sound Faith and his Faith It seems then whatever Faith is sound for the matter of it is presently Christian Divine and Infallible and so whosoever believes any thing which is materially true in opposition to Heresies needs never fear as long as he doth so for according to you he hath Christian and Infallible Faith but what if the Devils Faith be as sound as any Catholicks ' Must it therefore be Divine Faith No it may be you will answer because he wants the formal object of Faith and doth not believe on the account of your Churches Infallibility I verily believe you for he knows the jugglings of it too much to believe it infallible But take Vincentius in what sense you please that is evident in him which his Lordship produced him for that for the preserving Faith entire he places authority of Scripture first and then Tradition unless you will serve his Testimony as you do his Lordships because it makes for your purpose say He mentions Tradition first and then Scripture but say you He sayes Tradition doth as truly confirm Divine Faith as Scripture though Scripture doth it in a higher manner If you did but consider either what kind of Tradition or what kind of Faith Vincentius insists on you could not possibly think his words any thing to your purpose For he speaks not of any Tradition infallibly attested to us without which you pretend there can be no Divine Faith but of such an Vniversal Tradition which depends wholly upon Antiquity Vniversality and Consent and never so much as mentions much less pretends to any thing of Infallibility So that if you grant such a kind of Tradition doth as truly confirm Faith as the Scripture then you must grant no necessity of an Infallible Testimony to assure us of that Tradition for Vincentius speaks of such a kind of Tradition as hath no connexion with Infallibility For if Vincentius had ever in the least thought of any such thing so great and zealous an opposer of Heresies would not have left out that which had been more to his purpose than all that he had said For wise men who have throughly considered of Vincentius his way though in general they cannot but approve of it so far as to think it highly improbable that there should be Antiquity Vniversality and Consent against the true and genuine sense of Scripture yet when they consider this way of Vincentius with all those cautions restrictions and limitations set down by him ◠1. c. 39. they are apt to think that he hath put men to a wild-goose-chase to finde out any thing according to his Rules and that S. Augustine spake a great deal more to the purpose when he spake concerning all the Writers of the Church That although they had never so much learning and sanctity he did not think it true because they thought so but because they perswaded him to believe it true either from the Authority of Scripture or some probable Reason If therefore S. Austin's Authority be not sunk so low as that of the Monk of Lerins we have very little reason to think that Tradition can as truly confirm Faith to us as the Scriptures supposing that to have been the meaning of Vincentius Which yet is not reasonable to imagine since Vincentius himself grants that in case of inveterate Heresie or Schism either the sole Authority of Scripture is to be used or at most the determinations of General Councils nay and in all cases doth suppose that the Canon of Scripture is perfect and is abundantly sufficient of it self for all things Can you yet therefore suppose that Vincentius did think that Tradition did as truly confirm our Faith as the Scripture Which is your assertion and the only thing whereby you pretend that the Bishop hath misconstrued Vincentius but whether be more guilty of it I leave to impartial judgement The next Testimony you consider is that of Henricus à Gandavo For his Lordship had said That the School had confessed this was the way ever For which he cites the Testimony of that Schoolman That daily with them that are without Christ enters by the woman i. e. the Church and they believe by that fame which she gives alluding to the story of the woman of Samaria But when they come to hear Christ himself they believe His words before the words of the woman For when they have once found Christ they do more believe his words in Scripture than they do the Church which testifies of him because then propter illam for the Scripture they believe the Church And if the Church should speak contrary to the Scripture they would not believe it Thus saith his Lordship the School taught then No that did it not say you But let us see how rarely you prove it For you say he speaks all this of a supernatural and Divine Faith to be given both to the Scriptures and the Church Gandavensis certainly is much obliged to you who venture to speak such great Absurdities for his sake for if he be understood in both places of Divine and Infallible Faith these rare consequences follow 1. That the first beginning of Faith is equal to the highest degree of it for when he speaks of the Church he speaks of Christs entring by that which can be meant of nothing else but the first step to Faith as is plain in the parallel case of the woman of Samaria but if this were Divine and Infallible it must be equal to the highest degree for that I suppose can be but Divine and Infallible unless you can find out degrees in Infallibility By this Rule you make him that is but over the threshold as much in the house as he that is sate down to the Table a plant at its first peeping out of the earth to be as tall as at its full growth and the Samaritans as firmly to believe in Christ at the first mention of him by the Woman as when they saw and heard him 2. By this you make an Infallible Faith to be built on a Fallible
those wise and holy men knew better the interest of Christianity than to offer to defend it by Principles in themselves false and much more liable to question than that was which they were to prove by them and therefore made choice of arguments in themselves strong and evident and built on Principles common to themselves and those whom they disputed against i. e. they urged them with the greatest strength of Reason and the clearest evidence of Divine Revelation and never questioned but that a Faith built on those grounds if effectual for a holy Life was a true and Divine Faith It seems then your cause cannot be maintained without the most sharp and virulent reflections on those Primitive Christians who among all those arguments whereby they so successfully prevailed over the Gentile world never did so much as vouchsafe to mention the least pretence to Infallibility for which they are now accused of using only the blunter weapons of humane and fallible motives and not those Primary and Divine Motives of Infallibility But this is not the first time we have seen what desperate shifts a bad cause puts men upon It may be yet your strength may lye in your last condition viz. That these arguments used by them were not internal For 1. You say That of Miracles is external the Scriptures themselves work none neither were ever any Miracles wrought to confirm that all the Books now in the Canon and no more are the Word of God I answer 1. I have already told you of a double resolution of Faith the one as to the Divinity of the Doctrine the other as to the Veracity of the Books which contain it when therefore Miracles are insisted on it is not in order to the latter of these which we have sufficient assurance of without them as I have already largely proved both as to the Truth and Integrity of the Canon of Scripture but Miracles we say are the arguments to prove the Divinity of the Doctrine by because they attest the Divine Revelation of the persons who deliver this Doctrine to the world 2. As to us who receive the report of those Miracles as conveyed to us by the Scripture those may be said to be internal arguments to the Scripture which are there recorded in order to our believing the Doctrine therein contained to be Divine The Motives of Faith being delivered to us now joyntly with the Doctrine although on different grounds we believe the Veracity of the Books of Scripture and the Infallibility of the Doctrine contained in it We believe that the Miracles were truly done because they are delivered to us by an unquestionable Tradition in such Authentick Writings as the Scriptures are but we believe the Doctrine contained in the Books to be Divine because attested by such Miracles and we believe the Books of Scripture to be divinely inspired because such persons cannot be supposed to falsifie to the world who wrought such great Miracles 2. You say The conversion of so many People and Nations by the Doctrine contained in Scripture is also external to the Scripture But still you suppose that these arguments are brought to prove these Books to be divinely inspired which is denied we say only That the admirable propagation of the Doctrine of the Gospel is a great argument that it was from God And therefore when afterwards you say That supposing all those arguments mentioned by the Bishop out of S. Augustine to be internal to the Scripture yet they cannot infallibly and divinely prove that Scripture is the Word of God If by Scripture you mean the Writings we pretend not to it if by Scripture you mean the Doctrine of it we assert it and think it no argument at all against that which you add That perswade they may but convince they cannot no doubt if they perswade they do much more than convince But I suppose your meaning is they do it not effectually if so that is not the fault of the arguments but of the person who by his obstinacy will not hearken to the clearest evidence of Reason All that this can prove is a necessity of Divine Grace to go along with external evidence which you dare not assert for fear of running into that private Spirit which you objected to his Lordship on the same account But it is very pretty which follows You say Supposing that all those arguments mentioned of Miracles nothing carnal in the Doctrine performance of it and conversion of the world by it were all of them internal to Scripture yet they could not prove infallibly the Scripture to be the Word of God and to prove this you tell us concerning the third and fourth How can it ever be proved that either the performance of this Doctrine or the conversion of Nations is internal to Scripture But Did you not suppose them before to be internal to Scripture and though they were so yet could not prove the Scriture c and to prove that you say they cannot be proved internal to Scripture Which is just as if I should say If you were Pope you would not be Infallible and all the evidence I should give for it should be only to prove that you were not Pope You conclude this Chapter with a Wonder I mean not any thing of Reason which would really be so But say you who can sufficiently wonder that his Lordship for these four Motives should so easily make the Scripture give Divine Testimony to it self upon which our Faith must rest and yet deny the same priviledge to the Church Seeing it cannot be denied but that every one of these Motives are much more immediately and clearly applied to the Church than to the Scripture What more immediately and clearly and so clearly that it cannot be denied Prove but any one of them as to that Church whose Infallibility is in question viz. the present Roman-Church and I will yield you the rest Produce but any one undoubted Miracle to confirm the Infallibility of your Church or the Pastors of it shew your Doctrine wherein it differs from ours not to be carnal manifest the performance of the Christian Doctrine only in the members of your Church prove that it is your Church as such which hath preached this Doctrine and converted whole Nations to the belief of it in any other way than the Spaniards did the poor Indians and we may begin to hearken with somewhat more patience to your arrogant and unreasonable pretence of Infallibility Can any one then who hath any grain of reason left him think that from these arguments while his Lordship disputes most eagerly against the present Churches Infallibility he argues mainly for it as you very wisely conclude that Chapter If this be arguing for your Churches Infallibility much good may such arguments do you And so I come to the last part of my task as to this Controversie which is to examine your next Chapter which puts us in hopes of seeing an End of
one of these three Answers 1. That it is a Principle to be supposed for though it be supposed as to the particular debate depending on Scripture yet it is fond and absurd to say It must be supposed when it is the thing in question 2. That it is known meerly by its own Light for the person I have to deal with supposing himself equally capable to judge of Reason and Evidence as my self it doth but betray the weakness of my cause or my inability to manage it to pretend that to be evident which it is much more evident that he doth not think so and it is only to tell him my Vnderstanding must rule his and that whatever appears to me to have Light in it self ought likewise so appear to him 3. It is as absurd as either of the other two to say That you will prove to a rational Enquirer the Scripture to be Gods Word by an unwritten Word of God For 1. His Enquiry is Whether there be any Word of God or no you prove there is because there is for that is all you prove by your unwritten Word He denies or at least questions Whether there be any and particularly instanceth in Scripture you think to end the Question by telling him He must believe it to be so because there is another Word of God which attests it which instead of ending the first Question begets a great many more For 2. He will be more to seek concerning this unwritten Word than before because he might use his Reason in judging concerning the written Word but cannot as to this unwritten it being only told him There is such a thing but he knows not what it is how far it extends who must deliver it what evidence this hath beyond the other that it comes from God that it must be used as an argument to prove it with If you send him to the Infallibility of the Church you must either presume him of a very weak Vnderstanding or else he would easily discern your perfect jugling in this the veins of which I have discovered throughout this discourse There remains nothing then but Reason a Principle common to us both by which I must prove that the Scriptures are from God which Reason partly makes use of the Churches Tradition not in any notion of Infallibility but meerly as built on Principles common to humane nature and partly uses those other arguments which prove by the greatest rational evidence that the Doctrine contained in Scripture was from God and if this were all the meaning of saying The Scriptures are a Principle supposed because of a different way of proving them from particular objects of Faith you can have no reason to deny it The next thing his Lordship insists on is That the Jews never had nor can have any other proof that the Old Testament is the Word of God than we have of the New In your Answer to which I grant that which you contend for That the Tradition of Scriptures among them was by their immediate Ancestors as well as others I grant That their Faith was not a Scientifical Knowledge but a firm perfect assurance only but understand not what you mean by saying That otherwise it would not be meritorious but am as far to seek as ever for any Infallibility in the Jewish Church which should in every age be the ground of believing the Books of the Old Testament to be divinely inspired And if you will prove a constant succession of Prophets from Moses till our Saviour's appearing which you seem willing to believe you would do something towards it but for your permanent Infallible Authority in the High Priest and his Clergy I have already shewed it to be a groundless if not a wilful mistake What remains concerning the nature of Infallibility which at last his Lordship makes to be no more than that which excludes all possibility of doubting and therefore grants that an Infallible Assurance may be had by Ecclesiastical and Humane proof and how far that is requisite to Faith concerning moral Certainty and what Assurance may be had by it concerning the Canon of Scripture Apostolical Tradition the unwritten Word S. Austin 's Testimony about the Church they are all points so fully discussed before that out of pity to the Reader I must referr him to their several places which when he hath throughly considered I will give him leave to summ up the several victories you have obtained in the management of it which will be much more honourable for you than for your self to do it as you do most triumphantly in the end of this Controversie concerning the Resolution of Faith And although I have not been much surprized with your attempts yet I shall heartily conclude this great Debate with your last words in it The Consequence I leave to the serious consideration of the Judicious Reader I beseech God he may make benefit of it to his eternal felicity PART II. Of Schism CHAP. I. Of the Universal Church The Question of Schism explained The nature of it enquired into Several general Principles laid down for clearing the present Controversie Three grounds of the charge of Schism on Protestant Churches by our Authour The first of the Roman Churches being the Catholick Church entered upon How far the Roman Church may be said to be a true Church The distinction of a Church morally and metaphysically true justified The grounds of the Vnity of the Catholick Church as to Doctrine and Government Cardinal Perron's distinction of the formal causal and participative Catholick Church examined The true sense of the Catholick Church in Antiquity manifested from St. Cyprian and several cases happening in his time as the Schism of Novatianus at Rome the case of Felicissimus and Fortunatus Several other Instances out of Antiquity to the same purpose by all which it is manifest that the unity of the Catholick Church had no dependance on the Church of Rome The several testimonies to the contrary of St. Ambrose St. Hierome John Patriarch of Constantinople St. Augustine Optatus c. particularly examined and all found short of proving that the Roman Church is the Catholick Church The several Answers of his Lordship to the testimonies of St. Cyprian St. Hierom St. Greg. Nazianzene St. Cyril and Ruffinus about the infallibility of the Church of Rome justified From all which it appears that the making the Roman-Church to be the Catholick is a great Novelty and perfect Jesuitism SInce so great and considerable parts of the Christian Church have in these last ages been divided in communion from each other the great contest and enquiry hath been which party stands guilty of the cause of the present distance and separation For both sides retain still so much of their common Christianity as to acknowledge that no Religion doth so strictly oblige the owners of it to peace and unity as the Christian Religion doth and yet notwithstanding this we finde these
sufficiently detected by the African Bishops And it is the worst of all excuses to lay the blame of it as you do on the Pope's Secretary for Do you think Pope Zosimus was so careless of his business as not to look over the Commonitorium which Faustinus carried with him Do you think Faustinus would not have corrected the fault when the African Bishops boggled so at it What made him so unwilling that they should send into the East to examine the Nicene Canons but intreated them to leave the business wholly with the Pope if he were not conscious of some forgery in the business But you say as a further plea in Zosimus his excuse That the Council of Sardica was an Appendix to the Nicene Council rather than otherwise An excellent Appendix made at two and twenty years distance from the other and called by other Emperours consisting of many other persons and assembled upon a quite different occasion If this had been an Appendix to the Nicene Council How comes that to have but twenty Canons How came Atticus and Cyrillus not to send these with the other How come all the Copies of Councils and Canons to distinguish them How came they not to be contained in the Code of Canons produced in the Council of Chalcedon in the cause of Bassianus and Stephanus If this were the same Council because some of the same things were determined How comes that in Trullo not to be the same with the 6. Oecumenical How comes the Council of Antioch not to be an Appendix to the Council of Nice if this was when it was celebrated before this and the Canons of it inserted in the Code of Canons owned by the Council of Chalcedon So that by all the shifts and arts you can use you cannot excuse Zosimus from Imposture in sending these Sardican under the name of the Nicene Canons And on what account the Pope satisfied the Canons then is apparent enough viz. for the advancing the Interess of his See and this the African Fathers did as easily discern afterwards as we do now But by this we see What good Foundations the Pope's claim of Supremacy had then and what arts not to say frauds they were beholding to for setting it up even as great as they have since made use of to maintain it CHAP. VI. Of the Title of Universal Bishop In what sense the Title of Vniversal Bishop was taken in Antiquity A threefold acceptation of it as importing 1. A general care over the Christian Churches which is attributed to other Catholick Bishops by Antiquity besides the Bishop of Rome as is largely proved 2. A peculiar dignity over the Churches within the Roman Empire This accounted then Oecumenical thence the Bishops of the seat of the Empire called Oecumenical Bishops and sometimes of other Patriarchal Churches 3. Nothing Vniversal Jurisdiction over the whole Church as Head of it so never given in Antiquity to the Bishop of Rome The ground of the Contest about this Title between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople Of the proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon about the Popes Supremacy Of the Grammatical and Metaphorical sense of this Title Many arguments to prove it impossible that S. Gregory should understand it in the Grammatical sense The great absurdities consequent upon it S. Gregory's Reasons proved to hold against that sense of it which is admitted in the Church of Rome Of Irenaeus his opposition to Victor's excommunicating the Asian Bishops argues no authority he had over them What the more powerful principality in Irenaeus is Ruffinus his Interpretation of the 6. Nicene Canon vindicated The Suburbicary Churches cannot be understood of all the Churches in the Roman Empire The Pope no Infallible successor of S. Peter nor so acknowledged to be by Epiphanius S. Peter had no Supremacy of Power over the Apostles HIs Lordship having undertaken to give an account How the Popes rose by degrees to their Greatness under the Christian Emperours in prosecution of that necessarily falls upon the Title of Vniversal Bishop affected by John the Patriarch of Constantinople and condemned by Pelagius 1. and Gregory 2. This you call a trite and beaten way because I suppose the truth is so plain and evident in it but withall you tell us This Objection hath been satisfied a hundred times over if you had said the same Answer had been repeated so often over you had said true but if you say that it hath been satisfied once you say more than you are able to defend as will evidently appear by your very unsatisfactory Answer which at last you give to it So that if none of your party have been any wiser than your self in this matter I am so far from being satisfied with what they say that I can only pitty those persons whose interest swayes their understandings so much or at least their expressions as to make them say any thing that seems to be for their purpose though in it self never so senseless or unreasonable And I can scarce hold my self from saying with the Oratour when a like Objection to this was offered him because multitudes had said so Quasi verò quidquam sit tam valdè quà m nihil sapere vulgare That truth and reason are the greatest Novelties in the world For seriously Were it possible for men of common understanding to rest satisfied with such pitiful shifts as you are fain to make if they would but use any freedom in enquiring and any liberty of judging when they had done But when once men have given not to say sold away the exercise of their free reason by addicting themselves to a particular interest there can scarce any thing be imagined so absurd but it passeth currently from one to another because they are bound to receive all blindfold and in the same manner to deliver it to others By which means it is an easie matter for the greatest nonsense and contradictions to be said a hundred times over And Whether it be not so in the present case is that we are now to enquire into And for the same ends which you propose to your self viz. that all obscurity may be taken away and the truth clearly appear I shall in the first place set down What his Lordship saith and then distinctly examine What you reply in Answer to it Thus then his Lordship proceeds About this time brake out the ambition of John Patriarch of Constantinople affecting to be Vniversal Bishop He was countenanced in this by Mauricius the Emperour but sowrely opposed by Pelagius and S. Gregory Insomuch that S. Gregory plainly sayes That this Pride of his shews that the times of Antichrist were near So as yet and this was near upon the point of six hundred years after Christ there was no Vniversal Bishop no one Monarch over the whole Militant Church But Mauricius being deposed and murthered by Phocas Phocas conferred upon Boniface the third that very Honour which two of his predecessors had
and Gregory yield shrewd matter of suspicion what the main ground of their quarrel against the Patriarchs of Constantinople was For before the Emperours stood up for the honour of Constantinople as being the seat of their Empire and Rome began to sink the Empire decaying there but now there was a fit time to do something for the honour of the Roman See Cyriacus was in disgrace with the Tyrant Phocas and no such time as now to fall in with him and caresse him and we see Gregory did it prety well for a Saint but he lived not to enjoy the benefit of it but Boniface did however After the Patriarchate of Constantinople was erected the Popes had a double game to play to advance themselves and depress that which it was very hard for them to do because all the Eastern Bishops as well as the Emperour favoured it But after equal priviledges were decreed to the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Bishop of Rome by the Council of Constantinople they could no longer dissemble their choler but had no such occasion ministred to them to express it as after the Canon of the Council of Chalcedon wherein were present 630 Bishops which confirmed the former For then Leo fumes and frets and writes to Martianus and Pulcheria to Anatolius and the Bishops of the East but still pretends that he stood up for the priviledges of the other Patriarchs and the Nicene Canons and what not but one might easily discern what it was that pinched him viz. the equalling the Patriarch of Constantinople with himself Which it is apparent he suspected before by the instructions he gave his Legats Paschasinus and Lucentius to be sure to oppose whatever was proposed in the Council concerning the Primacy of that See And accordingly they did and complained that the Canon was surreptitiously made Which they were hugely overseen in doing while the Council sat for upon this the whole matter is reviewed the Judges scan the business the Bishops protest there were no practises used that they all voluntarily consented to it and all this in the presence of the Roman Legats How comes it then to pass that this should not be a regular and Conciliar action Were not the Bishops at age to understand their own priviledges Did not the Bishop of Antioch know his own interest as well as Pope Leo Must he be supposed more able to understand the Nicene Canons then these 630 Bishops Why then was not this Canon as regular as any other Why forsooth The Pope did not consent to it So true is that sharp censure of Ludovicus Vives that those are accounted lawful Canons and Councils which make for their interest but others are no more esteemed then a company of tattling Gossips But what made the Pope so angry at this Canon of the Council of Chalcedon He pretends the honour of the Nicene Canons the preserving the priviledges of other Patriarchs But Binius hath told us the true reason of it because they say that the Primacy of Rome came by its being the seat of the Empire and therefore not by Divine right and since Constantinople was become the seat of the Empire too therefore the Patriarch there should enjoy equal priviledges with the Bishop of Rome If Rome had continued still the sole seat of the Empire this reason would not have been quarrelled at but now Rome sinking and Constantinople rising this must not be endured but all the arts and devices possible must be used to keep it under And this is the true account of the pique which the Bishops of Rome had to the Patriarchs of Constantinople From whence we may easily guess how probable it is that this Council of Chalcedon did acknowledge the Pope Oecumenical Bishop in any other sense then they contended the Patriarch of Constantinople was so too And the same answer will serve for all your following Instances For as you pretend that the Council of Constantinople sub Menna did call Pope Agapetus Oecumenical Patriarch so it is most certain that it call'd Mennas the Patriarch of Constantinople so too And which is more Adrian 1. in his Epistle to Tharasius of Constantinople in the second Nicene Council calls him Vniversal Bishop If therefore the Greek Emperours and Balsamon call the Pope so they import nothing peculiar to him in it because it is most evident they call'd their own Patriarch so likewise So that you find little advantage to your cause from this first thing which you premise viz. that the Pope was anciently call'd Vniversal Bishop But you say further 2. That the Bishops of Constantinople never intended to deny by this usurped title the Popes Vniversal Authority even over themselves This is ambiguous unless it be further explained what you mean by Vniversal Authority for it may either note some kind of prae-eminence and dignity which the Bishop of Rome had as the chief Patriarch and who on that account had great Authority in the Church and this your instances prove that the Patriarchs of Constantinople did acknowledge to belong to the Pope but if by Vniversal Authority be meant Vniversal Jurisdiction over the Church as appointed the head of it by Christ then not one of your instances comes near the shadow of a proof for it Thus having considered what you premise we come to your Answer it self For which you tell us We are to take notice that the term Vniversal Bishop is capable of two senses the one Grammatical the other Metaphorical In the Grammatical sense it signifies Bishop of the Vniversal Church and of all Churches in particular even to the exclusion of all others from being properly Bishops and consequently displaceable at his pleasure as being only his not Christs officers and receiving authority from him and not from Christ. In the Metaphorical sense it signifies only so high and eminent a dignity above all other Bishops throughout the whole Church that though he who is stiled Vniversal Bishop hath a true and real Superintendency Jurisdiction and Authority over all other Bishops yet that they be as truly and properly Bishops in their respective Provinces and Dioceses as he himself This being clear'd say you 't is evident that St. Gregory when he inveighs against the title of Vniversal Bishop takes it in the literal and Grammatical sense which you very faintly endeavour to prove out of him as I shall make it presently appear This being then the substance of that Answer which you say hath been given a hundred times over must now once for all pass a strict and severe examination Which it shall receive in these two Enquiries 1. Whether it be possible to conceive that St. Gregory should take Vniversal Bishop in the literal and Grammatical sense 2. Whether all the Arguments which he useth against that title do not hold against that Vniversal Jurisdiction which you attribute to the Pope as Head of the Church 1. Whether it be possible to conceive that St. Gregory
Empire But this extending of the Suburbicary Churches as far as the Roman Empire is like the art of those Jesuits who in their setting forth Anastasius de vitis Pontificum in Stephanus 5. turn'd Papa Vrbis into Papa Orbis for that being so mean and contemptible a title they thought much it should remain as it did but Papa Orbis was magnificent and glorious I wonder therefore that instead of extending the signification of Suburbicary Churches you do not rather pretend that it ought to be read Suborbicary and so to suit exactly with the Papa Orbis as importing all those Churches which are under the power of the Vniversal Pastor For Why should you stop at the confines of the Roman Empire How comes his Jurisdiction to be confined within that By what right did he govern the Churches within the Empire and not those without Surely not as Primate Metropolitan or Patriarch of the Roman Empire for those are titles yet unheard of in Antiquity if as Head of the Church How comes the Jurisdiction of that to be at all limited Were there no Churches without the Empire then I hope you will not deny that If there were To whom did the Jurisdiction over them belong to the Pope or not If not How comes he to be Head of the Church and Vniversal Pastor If they did Why were not these Suburbicary Churches as well as those within the Empire Besides it is confessed by the learnedest among you that when the notion of Suburbicary is extended beyond the Suburbicary Provinces it is not out of any relation to the City but to the power of the Bishop of the City and therefore the Suburbicary Churches may be larger than the Suburbicary Provinces But if this be true as it is the only probable evasion then it is impossible for you to confine the Suburbicary Churches within the Roman Empire without confining the Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop within those bounds too For if the inlarging the notion of Surburbicary Churches depends upon the extent of his power the fixing the limits of those Churches determines the bounds of his power too Which is utterly destructive to your pretences of the Pope's being Head of the Vniversal Church and not barely of the Churches within the Roman Empire But if it had been Ruffinus his design to express by Suburbicary Churches all those within the Roman Empire surely he made choice of the most unhappy expression to do it by which he could well have thought of For it being then so well known what the Suburbicary Provinces were that in the Code of Theodosius where they are so often mentioned they are not distinctly enumerated because they were then as well understood as the African Gallican or Britannick Provinces How absurd were it for him to take a word in common use and so well known and apply it to such a sense as no example besides can be produced for it For if any one at that time should have spoken of the African Gallican or Britannick Churches no one would have imagined any other than those which were contained in the several Provinces under those names What reason is there then that any thing else should be apprehended by the Suburbicary Churches I know the last refuge of most of your side instead of explaining these Suburbicary Churches hath been to rail at Ruffinus and call him Dunce and Blockhead and enemy to the Roman Church instances were easie to be given if it were at all necessary but besides that it were easie to make it appear that Ruffinus was no such fool as some have taken him for And if they think so because S. Hierom gives him such hard words they must think so of all whom S. Hierom opposed he is sufficiently vindicated in this translation by the Ancient Vatican Copy of the Nicene Canons out of which this very Canon is produced by Sirmondus and the very same word of Suburbicary therein used And that in such a manner as utterly destroies your sense of the Suburbicary Churches for such as are within the Roman Empire for that Copy calls them Loca Suburbicaria and Will you say those are the Provinces within the Roman Empire too Can any one rationally think that any other places should be called Suburbicary but such as lye about the City And by the same interpretation which you here use you may call all England the Suburbs of London because London is the City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as you speak and therefore all the Churches of England must be Suburbicary to London But if you think this incongruous you may on the same account judge the other to be so too It appears then that the Suburbicary places in the Vatican Copy and in that very Ancient Copy which Justellus had which agrees with the Vatican are the same with the Suburbicary Churches in Ruffinus and if you will explain these latter of the Roman Empire you must do the former too But not only the Vatican Copy but all other different Versions of the Nicene Canon utterly overthrow this Opinion of Cardinal Perron that the Suburbicary Churches must be taken for those within the Roman Empire For in the Arabick Version published by Turrianus it is thus rendred Siquidem similitèr Episcopus Romae i. e. successor Petri Apostoli potestatem habet omnium civitatum locorum quae sunt circa eam Are all the Cities and places in the Roman Empire circa eam about the City of Rome If not neither can the Churches be And in that Arabick paraphrase which Salmasius had of the famous Peireskius it is translated much more agreeably to the Nicene Canon in these words Propterea quod Episcopus Romanus etiam hunc morem obtinet hoc ei adjunctum est ut potestatem habeat supra civitates loca quae prope eam sunt Which is yet more full to shew the absurdity of your exposition for these Suburbicary Churches must be then in places near the City of Rome And agreeably to these Aristinus the Greek Collector of the Canons hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Ruffinus his Suburbicary doth exactly render By whom now must we be judged What is meant by these Suburbicary Churches by you who make a forced and strained interpretation of the word Suburbicary to such a sense of which there is no evidence in Antiquity or Reason and is withall manifestly repugnant to the design of the Canon which is to proportion the Dioceses of the Bishops of Antioch and Alexandrina by the example of Rome which had been very absurd if these Suburbicary Churches did comprehend the Dioceses of Alexandria and Antioch and all other Provinces as you make them or else must we be judged by the ancient Versions of the Nicene Canon Latin and Arabick and by other Greek Paraphrases all which unanimously concurr to overthrow that Figment that the Suburbicary Churches are all those within the Roman Empire And this the learned Petrus de Marcâ was so sensible of
Authority and Jurisdiction given by Christ to one Bishop above another St. Hierom was not so sensless as not to see that the Bishops of Rome Constantinople and Alexandria had greater Authority and larger Jurisdiction in the Church then the petty Bishops of Eugubium Rhegium and Tanis but all this he knew well enough came by the custom of the Church that one Bishop should have larger power in the Church then another But saith he if you come to urge us with what ought to be practised in the Church then saith he Orbis major est urbe it is no one City as that of Rome which he particularly instanceth in which can prescribe to the whole world For saith he all Bishops are of equal merit and the same Priesthood wheresoever they are whether at Rome or elsewhere So that it is plain to all but such as wilfully blind themselves that St. Hierom speaks not of that which you call the Character of Bishops but of the Authority of them for that very word he useth immediately before Si authoritas quaeritur orbis major est urbe And where do you ever find merit applyed to the Bishops Character They who say It is understood of the merit of good life make St. Hierom speak non-sense For are all Bishops of the same merit of good life But we need not go out of Rome for the proper importance of merit here For in the third Roman Synod under Symmachus that very word is used concerning Authority and Principality in the Church ejus sedi primum Petri Apostoli meritum sive principatus deinde Conciliorum venerandorum authoritas c. where Binius confesseth an account is given of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome the first ground of which St. Peters merit or principality apply now but this sense to S. Hierom and he may be very easily understood All Bishops are ejusdem meriti sive principatus of the same merit Dignity or Authority in the Church But you say he speaks not of the Pope as he is Pope good reason for it for St. Hierom knew no such Supremacy in the Pope as he now challengeth And can you think if St. Hierom had believed such an authority in the Pope as you do he would ever have used such words as these are to compare him with the poor Bishop of Agobio in Merit and Priesthood I cannot perswade my self you can think so only something must be said for the cause you have undertaken to defend And since Bellarmine and such great men had gone before you you could not believe there were any absurdity in saying as they did Still you say He doth not speak of that Authority which belongs to the Bishop of Rome as S. Peter 's Successor But if you would but read a little further you might see that S. Hierom speaks of all Bishops whether at Rome or Eugubium c. as equally the Apostles Successors For it is neither saith he riches or poverty which makes Bishops higher or lower Caeterùm omnes Apostolorum successores sunt but they are all the Apostles Successors therefore he speaks of them with relation to that Authority which they derived from the Apostles And never had there been greater necessity for him to speak of the Popes succeeding S. Peter in the Supremacy over the Church than here if he had known any such thing but he must be excused he was ignorant of it No that he could not be say you again for he speaks of it elsewhere and therefore he must be so understood there as that he neither contradict nor condemn himself But if the Epistle to Damasus be all your evidence for it a sufficient account hath been given of that already therefore you add more and bid us go find them out to see Whether they make for the purpose or no. I am sure your first doth not out of his Commentary on the 13. Psalm because it only speaks of S. Peters being Head of the Church and not of the the Popes and that may import only dignity and preheminence without authority and jurisdiction besides that Commentary on the Psalms is rejected as spurious by Erasmus Sixtus Senensis and many others among your selves Your second ad Demetriadem Virginem is much less to your purpose for that only speaks of Innocentius coming after Anastasius at Rome qui Apostolicae Cathedrae supradicti viri successor filius est Who succeeded him in the Apostolical Chair But Do you not know that there were many Apostolical Chairs besides that of Rome and had every one of them supreme authority over the Church of God What that should be on the 16. of S. Matthew I cannot imagine unless it be that S. Peter is called Princeps Apostolorum which honour we deny him not or that he saith Aedificabo Ecâ—lesiam meam super te But how these things concern the Popes Authority unless you had further enlightened us I cannot understand That ep 54. ad Marcellam is of the same nature with the last for the words which I suppose you mean are Petrus super quem Dominus fundaâ—it Ecclesiam and if you see what Erasmus saith upon that place you will have little cause to boast much of it Your last place is l. 1. Cont. Lucifer which I suppose to be that commonly cited thence Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet but there even Marianus Victorius will tell you it is understood of every ordinary Bishop Thus I have taken the pains to search those places you nakedly refer us to in S. Hierom and find him far enough from the least danger of contradicting or condemning himself as to any thing which is here spoken by him So that we see S. Hierom remains a sufficient testimony against the Popes Monarchical Government of the Church His Lordship further argues against this Monarchy in the Church from the great and undoubted Rule given by Optatus that wheresoever there is a Church there the Church is in the Common-wealth and not the Common-wealth in the Church And so also the Church was in the Roman Empire Now from this ground saith his Lordship I argue thus If the Church be within the Empire or other Kingdom 't is impossible the Government of the Church should be Monarchical For no Emperour or King will endure another King within his Dominion that shall be greater than himself since the very enduring it makes him that endures it upon the matter no Monarch Your answer to this is That these two Kingdoms are of different natures the one spiritual the other temporal the one exercised only in such things as concern the worship of God and the Eternal Salvation of souls the other in affairs that concern this world only Surely you would perswade us we had never heard of much less read Bellarmin's first Book de Pontifice about the Popes Temporal Power which was fain to get license for the other four to pass at Rome and although he minces
Civil Power hath a right to meddle in Ecclesiastical matters And though you express never so much honour to civil authority yet still you limit it to the administration meerly of civil affairs and how far that is is well enough known You tell us plainly That it doth not belong to the Emperour to order the affairs of the Church But why do you not answer the Reasons and Instances which his Lordship brings to the contrary Yet you yield That in case of notorious and gross abuses manifestly contrary to Religion and connived at by the Pastors of the Church Christian Princes may lawfully and piously use their Authority in procuring the said abuses to be effectually redressed by the said Pastors as the examples of Ezekias and Josias prove But in case the High-Priest would not have yielded to such a reformation Might not those Princes by the assistance of other Priests have effected it This is the case you were to speak to For whereas you fly out and say That Princes may not take the Priests office upon them Whom do you dispute against in that Not his Lordship certainly nor any of the Church of England who never said they might though they have been most injuriously calumniated as though they did That which we assert is That Princes may enact Laws concerning Religion and reform abuses in Divine Worship but we do not say they may take the Pastoral office upon them and therefore you say no more in that than we do our selves But when you say They may not reform Religion in the substance of it I cannot well tell How to understand you If you mean not so reform Religion as to take away any of the substance that is a Reformation to purpose but if you bring it ad hypothesin we utterly deny that any of the substance of Religion was taken away upon our Churches Reformation If you mean not reform abuses which go under the name of the substance of Religion that will be to make the most unsufferable abuses the most incurable But when you add That nothing must be enacted pertaining to Religion by their own Authority without or contrary to the Priests consent the High-Priest I suppose you mean shew us Where the Kings of Israel were bound not to reform in case the High-Priest did not consent and if you could do this you must prove such a High-Priest now and that Princes are bound to wait his leisure for reforming abuses in Religion when his pretended Authority is upheld by maintaining them As for your commendations of Pope Hildebrand and Innocent the Third for very prudent men and worthy Champions of your Church we see What prudence is with you and what a worthy Church you have But it is still an excellent evasion That they never endeavoured to subject the Emperour to themselves in temporal matters no nor Alexander the Third neither when he trod upon the Emperours neck But the proceedings of these Popes with the Emperours as likewise Adrian 4. Lucius 3. and others are so gross that it had been more for your Interest with Christian Princes to disown them than to go about to palliate them with such frivolous distinctions that his Vnderstanding must be as blind as his Obedience that doth not see thorough them You are much concerned that his Lordship should seem to give a lash to those mortified self-denying men the Jesuits in bidding them leave their practising to advance the greatness of the Pope and Emperour for Who could believe they should deprive themselves of the riches and pleasures of the world upon such designs Undoubtedly you are one of the number for I never heard that any other Order among you did ever give them half so good words but condemned them as much for their practising as we do our selves And What holy men they are and what excellent Casuistical Divinity about both the riches and pleasures of the world if we did not otherwise know the Mysteries of Jesuitism would sufficiently discover To what his Lordship saith further That there is no necessity of one Supreme Living Judge to keep the Church in peace and unity but that the several Bishops under their Soveraign Princes are sufficient in order to it you only say That he quotes Occham for it But Doth he nothing else but quote Occham Why do you not answer to the thing and not barely to Occham You have very good reason for it for you have little to say to the thing it self but for Occham you have enough to tell him in his ear 1. That he is in the Index of forbidden Books a good testimony for the man's honesty 2. That he sided with the Emperour a crime beyond an Index Expurgatorius at Rome 3. That if there were such a Government as Occham supposes all those Governours must be Infallible or else there would be meer Anarchy in the Church And Why not as well in the State without Infallibility there You say For want of this Infallibility those Countries where it is not acknowledged are in Schisms And we say The pretence of this Infallibity hath caused the greatest of them 4. You say Occham speaks only de possibili of what might have been if our Saviour had pleased but Occhamsayes There is no necessity there should be one chief Governour under Christ and we say You can never prove that Christ hath appointed that there shall be one and therefore this is more than disputing a bare possibility But now as though all your beggings the Question had been arguments all your sayings proofs and all your proofs demonstrations with as much authority as if you were in Cathedrâ you conculde Remain it therefore a settled Catholick Principle that the Pope hath power over the whole Church of God But you leave out something which should be at the end of it among all those who can believe things as strongly without reason as with it And for the greater solemnity of the Sentence you give it in the words of the Oecumenical Council at Florence And I must needs say You have fitted them very well for that was just as much an Oecumenical Council as the Pope is Oecumenical Pastor but that neither the one nor the other is so I have sufficiently proved already CHAP. VIII Of the Council of Trent The Illegality of it manifested first from the insufficiency of the Rule it proceeded by different from that of the first General Councils and from the Popes Presidency in it The matter of Right concerning it discussed In what Cases Superiours may be excepted against as Parties The Pope justly excepted against as a Party and therefore ought not to be Judge The Necessity of a Reformation in the Court of Rome acknowledged by Roman Catholicks The matter of fact enquired into as to the Popes Presidency in General Councils Hosius did not preside in the Nicene Council as the Popes Legat. The Pope had nothing to do in the second General Council Two Councils held at Constantinople
yet the best your cause would bear And the greater you say the number of Bishopricks is in Italy the more friends I hope the Pope must make by disposing them and Could they do the Pope better service than to help him in this grand business at Trent wherein they sought to outvy each other by promoting the Popes Interest But not only the Protestants complained of this but the Emperour and other Princes and all impartial men in Germany France nay and in some part of Italy too But here his Lordship encounters an Objection of Bellarmine viz. that in the Council of Nice there were as few Bishops of the West present as were of the East at Trent and manifestly shews the great disparity between the the two Councils 1. Because it is not a meer disparity in number which he insists on but with it the Popes carriage to be sure of a major part but neither the Greek Church in general nor any Patriarch of the East had any private interest to look to in the Council at Nice 2. It was not so much a disparity between the Eastern and Western Bishops but that there were so many more Italians and Bishops obnoxious to the Popes Power than of all Germany France Spain and of all other parts of the West besides 3. Even in the comparison of those two Councils as to Eastern and Western Bishops there is this remarkable difference that Pope Sylvester with 275. Bishops confirmed the Council at Nice but the Council at Trent was never confirmed by any Council of Eastern Bishops To the two first of these you Answer with your best property silence Only you would fain perswade some silly people if there be any so weak in the world that enquire into such things That the Pope had no private interest at Trent but what was common to him with other Bishops You should have done well to have commended the excellency of an implicite Faith before you had uttered a thing so contrary to the sense of the whole Christian World To the third you confess It is some disparity but nothing to the purpose because if the Pope himself had ratified them the Council would have had as much Authority as by that accessory Assembly The more to blame was the Pope a great deal for putting so many Bishops to so needless a trouble But you say further This Council was not held just at the same time But Binius tells you it was held assoon as might be after the notice of what was done at Nice shew us the like of the Eastern Bishops at any time and we will not quarrel with you because it was not at the same time Though these Answers may pass for want of better they come not near your last which is a prodigious one the sense of it being That the Doctrine of Faith defined by the Council of Trent was more universally received in the Church then that of the Council of Nice For that of Trent you say was universally received by the whole Catholick Church and hath been more constantly held ever since whereas many Provinces either in whole or in part deserted the Faith defined at Nice and embraced the Arrian Heresie It seems then the twelve good Articles of Trent have been more generally received by the Catholick Church then the eternal existence of the Son of God and consequently that you are more bound to believe the Doctrine of Purgatory or Transubstantiation then that the Son is of the same substance with the Father For your grounds of Faith being resolved into the Churches Infallibility you cannot believe that which hath been so much questioned in the Church so firmly as that which hath been universally believed and constantly held But the universal reception of the Doctrine of the Council of Trent by the whole Catholick Church is so intolerable a falshood that you would scarce have vented it unless it were your design to write for the Whetstone To C's objection That neither French nor Spanish nor Schismatical Greeks did agree with the Protestants in those points which were defined by the Council his Lordship Answers That there can be no certainty who did agree and who not or who might have agreed before the Council ended because they were not admitted to a fair and free dispute And it may be too some Decrees would have been more favourable to them had not the care of the Popes Interest made them sowrer Here you complain of his Lordships falling again to his Surmizes of the Bishops being over-awed by the Popes Authority in the Council which you call an empty and injurious suspicion an unworthy accusation and arguing the want of Christian charity But usually when you storm the most you are the most guilty For if you call this an empty suspicion c. you charge many more with it besides his Lordship and those the greatest of your own Communion what meant else the frequent Protestations of the French and Spanish Ambassadours in which they often declared that as things were managed the Council was not Free What meant those words of the Emperour Ferdinand in his Letters to the Legats and the Pope That the Liberty of the Council was impeached chiefly by three causes one because every thing was first consulted of at Rome another because the Legats had assumed to themselves only the liberty of proposing which ought to be common to all the third because of the practises which some Prelats interested in the Greatness of the Court of Rome did make The French Ambassadour Monsieur de Lansac writ to the King his Master That the Pope was so much Master of this Council that his Pensioners whatsoever the Emperours or we do remonstrate to them will do but what they list Several of the like nature might easily be produced so that it is not his Lordship only is guilty of this want of charity as you call it but all impartial persons who were most acquainted with the Affairs of that Council Whose judgement is certainly much more to be taken then such who have sworn to defend it But you have an excellent Argument to prove the Council Free because the Bishops of the Council continued in the Faith and Doctrine of it as long as they lived And had they not good reason so to do when they were sworn before hand to defend the Pope and having secured him from danger of reformation by the Council and subscribed the Decrees of it they were as much bound to defend their own acts And although it is well enough known what practises were used to bring off the French and Spanish Bishops yet when they were brought off what a shame would it have been for them to have revolted from their own Subscriptions But what is this to that General freedom which was desired by the Roman Catholick Princes for Reformation of the Court of Rome and by Protestants both of the Court and Church Was the Council any thing
necessary to be amended afterwards by some other Council which can pretend to no higher assistance than the other had before But your critical judgement is not extraordinary if you will have the signification of words taken from the conjectural Etymologies of them such as this of Scaliger is in the place where he corrects Varro's Etymologies at the end of his Conjectanea but besides that all attempts of that nature are but Conjectural Essayes it is but an ill way to judge of the use of a word by the Etymology of it for What multitudes of words are carried further in their sense than their Originals would bear His Lordship therefore takes a far surer way to know S. Austin's meaning than running to Martinius for the signification of the word menda which is by producing a parallel place in S. Austin where it is taken for to correct and supposes an evident fault aliud quod praecipere jubemur aliud quod emendare praecipimur where emendare is plainly to amend something amiss not to supply something defective So that Stapleton's sense of amending by explication of something not fully known and not by correction of something erroneous cannot here have place For as his Lordship well observes the National Council which S. Austin did in this dispute speak most of was not guilty meerly of not fully explaining it self but of a positive errour viz. that under S. Cyprian determining that Baptism of Hereticks was no Baptism And therefore when S. Austin speaks of amendment it is such an amendment as doth suppose errour and not barely defect And so the words used before of reprehension and yielding do both imply more than a bare explanation and those which follow after evince it fully where S. Austin layes down the cautions whereby such amendments should be made without sacrilegious pride or swelling arrogancy without contention of envy and in holy humility in Catholick peace in Christian Charity All which words were very needless if he meant only an explanation of something not fully declared before but are very necessary supposing it to be the amendment of some former errour All the Answer you have is That these last words relate not in particular to General Councils by no means although they follow them at the heels but to the other several subjects viz. private Bishops Provincial and National Councils which are subject to pride arrogancy and contention in their emendations But Was not S. Austin an unhappy man then at expressing himself that he must needs set those Caveats after he had spoken of General Councils which referr to the particulars that went before without any reference to the immediate antecedents For if they do at all respect the proceedings of General Councils as doubtless they do and that most immediately as appears to any one who reads them then they imply still that this amendment of General Councils must be done without pride arrogance and envy and with the greatest humility and peace and charity which it is hard to conceive why S. Austin should add unless he supposed some errours to be amended in them Nothing remains further for the clearing this place but only that his Lordship mentions that which he calls The poorest shift of all in Bellarmin viz. that he speaks of unlawful Councils and it is a sign it is so indeed when you have nothing more to say for it but only that it was given ex superabundanti and with a Peradventure When his Lordship concludes that the Popes Confirmation to make Councils Infallible is a meer trick and unknown to the ancient Church you have nothing more to prove it to be grounded on the practice of Councils of the Church and of Reason but to referr the Reader back to what you have said about the Popes Supremacy and therefore I must do so too for an Answer to what you have said on that subject The next thing which belongs to this Question is contained in his Lordships sixth Consideration which is If the definition of a General Council be Infallible then the Infallibility of it is either in the conclusion and in the means that prove it or in the conclusion not the means or in the means not the conclusion But it is Infallible in none of these Not in the first for there are divers deliberations in General Councils where the conclusion is Catholick but the means by which they prove it not Infallible Not in the second for the conclusion must alwaies follow the nature of the premises or principles out of which it is deduced therefore if those which the Council uses be sometimes uncertain the conclusion cannot be Infallible Not in the third for the conclusion cannot but be true and necessary if the means be so Your Answer is That it is Infallible in the conclusion that is in the Doctrine defined though it be not Infallible in the means or arguments upon which it proceeded to the definition And your reason is because one is necessary for the Government of the Church but the other is not for Deus non deficit in necessariis nec redundat in superfluis You mean it is necessary for you to assert it whether it hath any foundation in reason or no for you have not yet proved that the Infallibility of General Councils is necessary for the Churches Government and therefore cannot thence inferr so great an absurdity as this that where all the premises are fallible and uncertain yet the conclusion may be prophetical and Infallible But so involved and obscure are your discourses on this subject that while you pretend a General Council is seeing Visions one might easily believe you were dreaming dreams For I pray speak out and tell us what you mean by Councils being fallible in the use of means and yet Infallible in the conclusion drawn from those premises which she was fallible in the deducing the conclusion from For the deducing the conclusion is in the use of the means therefore how is it possible that the Council should be Infallible in the conclusion when it was fallible in making that Conclusion But it may be I do not yet fully apprehend what you would have neither I doubt do you For you would fain be Infallible in the conclusion too without so much as truth in the premises But I shall attempt to make you speak intelligibly it must be one of these two things you mean when you say Councils are Infallible in the conclusion either that they are Infallible in deducing the Conclusion or in assenting to the Conclusion If Infallible in the deducing the Conclusion then it must be Infallible in the use of the means for unless it doth infallibly discern the connexion of the premises it is impossible it should be Infallible in drawing the Conclusion from them So that it is non-sense and a contradiction to say That a Council is Infallible in the drawing a Conclusion and not Infallible in the use of the means for
which is all the Apostle means that is nothing to your purpose for we are not enquiring whether men may not believe the things which are not seen but whether the assent of Faith may not be consistent with reason which I am so far from thinking any strange doctrine that I cannot see how there can be an assent of Faith without reason And they must be such great meriters at Gods hands as you are who must think to oblige him with believing what you cannot understand or see any ground in reason for For assent being an act of the mind cannot be elicited without sufficient reason perswading the mind to it or else it is so far from being free and as you who are so loath to be beholding to God call it meritorious that it is brutish and irrational Not that there are demonstrations to be expected for every thing we believe but there must be sufficient reason for the mind to build its assent upon and that reason is evidence and that evidence destroyes that obscurity which you make necessary to Faith Evidence I say not of the object but of the reason and obligation to assent When you say That Faith as Faith cannot be Knowledge his Lordship grants it but yet it doth not thence follow that what may be believed by one may not be known by another and though Christ as you add did not set up a School of knowledge but of Faith yet he did not set up a School of blind implicite Faith but such a one as consists of a rational and discursive act of the mind You must not therefore expect that we should believe the definitions of Councils because they pretend to be Infallible but you must first convince our reasons that they are so and then we shall assent to them But you have very well contrived your business to have an obscure implicite Faith for such Doctrines which are so far from any evidence of Reason CHAP. II. Of the use and Authority of General Councils The denying the Infallibility of General Councils takes not away their use and Authority Of the submission due to them by all particular persons How far external obedience is required in case they err No violent opposition to be made against them Rare Inconveniences hinder not the effect of a just power It cannot rationally be supposed that such General Councils as are here meant should often or dangerously err The true notion of a General Council explained The Freedom requisite in the proceedings of it The Rule it must judge by Great difference between external obedience and internal assent to the Decrees of Councils This latter unites men in errour not the former As great uncertainties supposing General Councils Infallible as not Not so great certainty requisite for submission as Faith Whether the Romanists Doctrine of the Infallibility of Councils or ours tend more to the Churches peace St. Austin explained The Keyes according to him given to the Church No unremediable inconvenience supposing a General Councilerr But errours in Faith are so supposing them Infallible when they are not The Church hath power to reverse the Decrees of General Councils The power of Councils not by Divine Institution The unreasonableness of making the Infallibility of Councils depend on the Popes confirmation No consent among the Romanists about the subject of Infallibility whether in Pope or Council No evidence from Scripture Reason or Antiquity for the Popes personal Infallibility THE first question being thus dispatched I now come to the second which is Of what Vse and Authority General Councils are in the Church supposing them not Infallible And here again two things are to be examined first How far General Councils are to be submitted to Secondly Whether our opinion or yours tend more to the peace of the Church for both these his Lordship handles distinctly and so shall we For the first nothing is more necessary then throughly to understand his Lordships meaning which he most fully delivers in these words General Councils lawfully called and ordered and lawfully proceeding are a great and awful representation and cannot err in matters of Faith keeping themselves to Gods rule and not attempting to make a new one of their own and are with all submission to be observed by every Christian where Scripture or evident demonstration comes not against them Two things you mainly object against this opinion 1. That in case such a Council err it tends only to unite men in errour 2. Who shall be Judge of all those conditions implyed in the Councils proceedings to these two all that I can find material scattered up and down in your Discourse on this Subject may be reduced For the first we must consider the occasion of his Lordships entrance into this subject concerning General Councils how far they may err or not which he saith is a question of great consequence in the Church of God For to say they cannot err leaves the Church not only without remedy against an errour once determin'd but also without sense that it may need a remedy and so without care to seek it which is the misery of the Church of Rome at this day To say they can err seems to expose the members of the Church to an uncertainty and wavering in the Faith to make unquiet Spirits not only to disrespect former Councils of the Church but also to slight and contemn whatsoever they may now determine So that great inconveniencies appearing on both sides his Lordship endeavours to steer his course so as not to dash on the rocks of either side by betraying the Churches Faith in asserting their Infallibility or the Churches peace by acknowledging them fallible But as he could not see any reason to believe them Infallible so neither could he see any necessity that the Churches peace should be broken supposing them not to be so And the most obvious objection being If a General Council be fallible what is to be done in case it should err For that he propounds this Expedient That the determination of a General Council erring was to stand in force and to have external obedience at the least yielded to it till evidence of Scripture or a demonstration to the contrary made the errour appear and untill thereupon another Council of equal authority did reverse it And he after explains what he means by this external obedience viz. That which consists in silence patience and forbearance yielded to it which he builds on this reason That Controversies arising in the Church must have some end or they 'l tear all in sunder therefore supposing a General Council should err and an erring Decree be by the Law it self invalid I would have it saith he wisely considered again supposing the Council not to err in Fundamental Verity whether it be not fit to allow a General Council that honour and priviledge which all other great Courts have Namely that there be a declaration of the invalidity of its decrees
Virgini What can be meant by it but the attributing an honour of the same kind to the one as the other And when prayers are made to Saints that through their merits they would do such things for them it is hard conceiving the meaning should only be that they would pray to God for them Nay some have expresly said That God hath communicated that which of right belonged to him because of his divinity and omnipotency to the blessed Virgin the Saints and that which is more wonderful to their Images too So Gulielmus Fabricius in his appropriation of Lipsius his Diva Virgo Hallensis which it is thought by some that Lipsius only writ in imitation of some Heathen Goddess which may be a very probable account of that otherwise very unhappy undertaking of that learned Man And as one said of the Pen he offered to the Virgin Nothing could be lighter unless it were the Book he wrote with it But that professed Critick understood well enough the exactness of the parallel of the Worship of the Virgin Mary with that of the Heathen Goddesses and therefore very suitably calls her Tutelaris Diva by which his meaning might be guessed at as Plato's was by his using the name of God or Gods But however that be we are sure the parallel is so great between the worship of Saints in the Church of Rome and that of Heroes and Daemons amongst the Heathens that if one be justified the other cannot be condemned and if one be condemned the other cannot be justified So that from hence it follows that the arguments used by the Primitive Christians against that Worship will hold against Invocation of Saints because the Heathens pleaded not for an absolute and soveraign Worship of them but only such a kind of relative and subordinate Worship as you profess to be due to Saints Thus much may suffice to clear the notion of Worship in the Primitive Church and to shew how far that was from approving your Doctrine of the Invocation of Saints The next Argument I intended to have insisted on should have been the proving the Divinity of Christ from the Invocation of him as Athanasius and several others do which could signifie nothing if Invocation were then allowed to Saints But this hath been so amply managed by others and the sense of the Church having been sufficiently discovered by our precedent discourse I shall not need to insist any more on those foregoing times but now come to that age of the Church wherein the honour of the Martyrs seems to be advanced higher upon the ceasing of persecution But still his Lordship saith That the Church then admitted not of the Invocation of Saints but only of the Commemoration of the Martyrs as appears clearly in S. Augustine who saith Although they be at the Sacrifice named in their order non tamen à Sacerdote qui sacrificat invocantur they are not invoked by the Priest who sacrifices Now to this you answer The Father's meaning is that the Saints departed are not invocated or call'd upon by way of Sacrifice i. e. as persons to whom the Sacrifice is offered which you say is a work of Religion due to God only and this you prove was all that S. Austin meant because in other places of his works where he teaches that not only Commemoration is made of the Saints departed in time of Sacrifice but that it is done to this particular intent and purpose viz. that they would pray for us which doubtless amounts to a virtual Invocation of them And for this you produce several passages out of his works Two things therefore must be enquired into 1. What the meaning of S. Austin is when he saith That the Saints are not invocated at the sacrifice 2. What his meaning is in those places wherein he allows of that you call Virtual Invocation viz. that the Saints would pray for us 1. We are to enquire What S. Austin's meaning is when he saith That the Saints are not invocated at the Sacrifice meaning no other say you but the Sacrifice of the Mass which you hope the Reader will mark for S. Austin's sake wherein you betray most egregious ignorance or fraud if you either suppose the Christians called nothing else a Sacrifice at that time but what you now call the Mass or that they did it in the same respect that you do now A Sacrifice of Prayer and Praise indeed they had and a Commemoration of Christs Sacrifice in the Lords Supper but no such thing as a propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and the dead and I pray mark this for your own sake But for our better understanding S. Austin's meaning we must consider that he is there comparing the honours which the Heathens gave to their Heroes with those which the Christians give to the Martyrs They saith he to those Gods of theirs build Temples erect Altars appoint Priests and offer Sacrifices but we do not build any Temples to the Martyrs as to gods but raise Sepulchres as to dead men whose spirits live with God neither do we build Altars at which we may sacrifice to the Martyrs but we offer up a Sacrifice only to the God of the Martyrs and of us at which Sacrifice saith he as holy men of God who through their confession of him have overcome the world they are named in their place and order but are not invocated by the Priest who offers up the Sacrifice Two things may here be understood by the Sacrifice either the anniversary Sacrifice of praise to God on the day of their Natalitia or Martyrdoms or else the celebration of the Eucharist which was wont to be done at the memoriae Martyrum chiefly upon that anniversary day Now there are many reasons to incline me to think that S. Austin doth not speak of any ordinary celebration of the Eucharist but of that anniversary solemnity which was wont to be kept at the tombs of the Martyrs on the day of their sufferings Chiefly because S. Austin is here paralleling the honours of the Martyrs with those of the Heathen Heroes and therefore it was reason he should speak of the greatest solemnities which were used for them Now it is certain that there were such anniversary dayes then kept by many passages of those times and somewhat before them especially in the African Churches and at these they offered up solemn prayers and praises to God Both which are clear from this passage of S. Cyprian Sacrificia pro iis semper ut meministis offerimus quoties Martyrum passiones dies anniversariâ Commemoratione celebramus Where we find an anniversary Commemoration and Sacrifices offered at them What these Sacrifices were Rigaltius in his Observations on that place tells us Christiani saith he sacris anniversariis laudes Deo dicunt commemoratis eorum nominibus qui pro fide Christo dicta Martyrium fortiter obierunt So that the Sacrifice was a Sacrifice of praise
infallibly believe and practise as the precedent up to Christs time did but because we can produce clear evidence that some things are delivered by the present Church which must be brought in by some age since the time of Christ. For which I shall refer you to what I have said already concerning Communion in one kind Invocation of Saints and Worship of Images In all which I have proved evidently that they were not in use in some ages of the Christian Church and it is as evident that these are delivered by the present Church and therefore this principle must needs be false For by these things it appears that one age of the Church may differ in practise or opinion from another and therefore this oral tradition cannot be infallible And yet this is the only way whereby a prescription may be allowed for this offers to give a sufficient title if it could be made good But bare possession in matters of Religion is a most sensless plea and which would justifie Heathenism and Mahumetism as well as your Church 2. It were worth knowing What you mean by full and quiet possession of your Faith Religion and Church which you say you were in Either you mean that you did believe the Doctrines of your Church your selves or that we were bound to believe them too If you mean only the former you are in as full possession of them as ever for I suppose all in your Church do believe them if you intend by this possession that we ought to believe them because you did this is a prescription indeed but without any ground or reason For even Tertullian whom you cite for prescribing against Hereticks sayes That nothing can be prescribed against truth Non spatium temporum non patrocinia personarum non privilegium regionum Neither length of time nor authority of persons nor priviledge of places If you say It was truth you were in possession of that is the thing to be proved and if you can make that appear we will not disturb your possession at all But you must be sure to prove it by something else besides your quiet and full possession unless you can prove it impossible that you should be possessed of falshoods But we have evidently shewn the contrary already And if we examine a little further what this possession is we shall see what an excellent right it gives you to prescribe by You were possessed of your Faith Religion and Church i. e. you did believe the Roman Church Infallible you believed the Popes Supremacy Transubstantiation Purgatory c. And what then Do you not believe them still Yes doubtless But What is your quarrel with us then Do we hinder you the Possession of them No but we ought to believe them too But Why so because you are in possession of them What Must we then believe whatever you do whether it be true or false If this be the meaning of your Possession you ought well to prove it or else we shall call it Vsurpation For it is a most ridiculous thing for you to talk of Possession when the Question is Whether there be any such things in the world or no as those you say you are possessed of We deny your Churches Infallibility the Popes Supremacy Purgatory c. You must first prove there are such things in rerum naturâ as Purgatory Transubstantiation c. before you can say you are possessed of them You must convince us that your Church is Infallible and that the Pope was made Head of the Church by Christ and then we will grant you are in full possession of them but not before So that you see the Question is not concerning the manner of Possession but of the things themselves which you call your Faith Religion and Church in opposition to ours and therefore it is impossible to plead Prescription where there never was any Possession at all And therefore you clearly mistake when you call us The Aggressors for you are plainly the Imposers in this case and quarrel with us for not believing what you would have us and therefore you are bound to prove and not we So that there is nothing you could challenge any Possession of in the Church of England but some Authority which the Pope had which you elsewhere confess he might he deprived of as he was in King Henry 's time and which we offer to prove that he was not Possessor bonae fidei of but that he came to it by fraud and violence and was deprived of it by a legal Power Thus I have fully examined your Argument from Possession because it presents us with something which had not been discussed before But having taken a view of all that remains I find that it consists of a bare Repetition of the Controversies before discussed especially concerning the certainty and grounds of Faith the Infallibility of the Church and General Councils and the Authority of the Roman Church So that if you had not an excellent faculty of saying most where there is least occasion I should wonder at your design in spending several Chapters in giving the same things under other words Unless it were an ambition of answering every clause in his Lordships Book which carried you to it though you only gave over and over what you had said in many places before Which is a piece of vanity I neither envy you for nor shall I strive to imitate you in having made it my endeavour to lay those grounds in the handling each Controversie that there should not need any such fruitless repetitions as you here give us His Lordship though he complains much of it was forced by his Adversaries importunity to return the same Answers in effect which had been given before by him in the proper places but whosoever compares what his Lordship saith with what you pretend to answer will find no necessity at all of my undergoing the same tedious and wearisome task Instead therefore of a particular Answer I shall give only some general strictures on what remains of these subjects where there is any appearance of difficulty and conclude all with the examination of your Defence of Purgatory that being a subject which hath not yet come under our enquiry Your main business is to perswade us that yours is the only saving Faith which you prove by this The saving Faith is but one yours is confessed by us to be a saving Faith still therefore yours is the only saving Faith But if you had considered on what that confession depends you could have made no Argument at all of it for when we say that your Faith is saving we mean no more but this that you have so much of the common truths of Christianity among you that there is a possibility for men to be saved in your Church but Doth this imply that yours is a saving Faith in that sense wherein it is said There is but one saving Faith for in that
Proposition it is understood of all those common fundamental Truths which the Christian Church of all ages hath been agreed in And the saying There is but one saving Faith is of the same sense with the saying There is but one true Religion in the world The substance of what you would inferr from the saying of Athanasius his Creed Which if a man keeps whole and inviolate as you would have it is this That a man is equally bound to believe every Article of Faith But you cannot mean that it is simply necessary to do it for that you disclaim elsewhere by your distinction of things necessary from the matter and the formal reason of Faith and therefore it can only be meant of such to whom those objects of Faith are sufficiently proposed and so far we acknowledge it too that it is necessary to Salvation for every man to believe that which he is convinced to be an object of Faith For otherwise such persons must call in question God's Veracity but if you would hence make it necessary to believe all that your Church proposes for matter of Faith you must prove that whatever your Church delivers is as infallibly true as if God himself spake and when you can perswade us of this we shall believe whatever is propounded by her When you say We cannot believe all Articles of Faith on the same formal reason because we deny the Churches Infallibility it is apparent that you make the Churches testimony the formal reason of Faith and that you are bound to prove the Church absolutely Infallible before we can believe any thing on her account Neither doth it follow Because we deny that therefore we pick and chuse our Faith for we believe all without reservation which you or any man can convince us was ever revealed by God As to what at large occurrs here again about the Infallibility of Councils there is nothing but what hath been sufficiently answered on that subject and so reserving the Question of Purgatory which is here brought in by his Lordship as a further Instance of the errours of General Councils I pass on to the two last Chapters In which we meet again with the objected inconveniencies from questioning the Infallibility of the Church and Councils That then Faith would be uncertain and private persons might judge of Councils and if they may erre in one they may erre in all as fresh as if they had never been heard of before Only the Argument from Rom. 10.15 That because none can preach except they be sent therefore the present Church is Infallible is both new and excellent on which account I let it pass If your Church with all her Infallibility can do no more as you confess in reference to Heresies but only secure the faithful members of the Church who have due care of themselves and perform their duty well towards their lawful Pastors you have little cause to boast of the great priviledge of it and as little reason to contend for the necessity of it since so much is done without it and on surer grounds by the Scriptures and the use of other means which fall short of Infallibility In the beginning of your last Chapter we have a large dispute concerning S. Cyprian's meaning in his 45. Epistle to Cornelius where he speaks of the root and matrix of the Catholick Church viz. Whether by that the Roman Church be understood or no His Lordship saith Not and gives many reasons for it you maintain the contrary but the business may be soon decided upon a true state of the occasion of writing that Epistle Which in short was this It seems Letters had been sent in the name of Polycarp Bishop of the Colony of Adrumyttium directed to Cornelius at Rome but Cyprian and Liberalis coming thither and acquainting the Clergy there with the resolution of the African Bishops to suspend communion either with Cornelius or Novatianus till the return of Caldonius and Fortunatus who were sent on purpose to give an account of the proceedings there the Clergy of Adrumyttium upon this writing to Rome direct their Letters not to Cornelius but to the Roman Clergy Which Cornelius being it seems informed by some as though it were done by S. Cyprian's Counsel takes offence at and writes to Cyprian about it Who gives him in this Epistle the account of it that it was only done that there might be no dissent among themselves upon this difference at Rome and that they only suspended their sentence till the return of Caldonius and Fortunatus who might either bring them word that all was composed at Rome or else satisfie them Who was the lawfully ordained Bishop And therefore as soon as they understood that Cornelius was the lawful Bishop they unanimously declare for him and order all Letters to be sent to him and that his communion should be embraced This is the substance of that Epistle But it seems Cornelius was moved at S. Cyprian's suspending himself as though it were done out of dis-favour to him which Cyprian to clear himself of tells him That his design was only to preserve the Vnity of the Catholick Church For saith he we gave this advice to all those who the mean time had occasion to sail to Rome ut Ecclesiae Catholicae radicem matricem agnoscerent tenerent that they would acknowledge and hold to the root and matrix of the Catholick Church by which his Lordship understands the Vnity of the Church Catholick you the particular Church of Rome But it is apparent the meaning of this Counsel was to prevent their participation in the Schism So that if upon their coming to Rome the Schismatical party was evidently known from the other which they might I grant soon understand there by the circumstances of affairs they should joyn themselves with that part which preserved the Vnity of the Catholick Church Which I take to be the true meaning of S. Cyprian But in case the matter should prove disputable at Rome and the matter be referred to other Churches then by virtue of this advice they were bound to suspend their communion with either party till the Catholick Church had declared it self By this account of the business all your Arguments come to nothing for they only prove that which I grant viz. That in case it appeared at Rome Which was the Catholick party they were to communicate with it but this was not because the Catholick party at Rome was the root and matrix of the Catholick Church for on that account the party of Novatianus might have been so too if Novatianus had been lawful Bishop but their holding to the root of the Catholick Church would oblige them to communicate only with that part which did preserve the Vnity of it For the Controversie now at Rome was between two parties both challenging an equal right and therefore if S. Cyprian had only advised them to communicate with the Roman
ground than not being able to distinguish between the submission of Obedience and Faith For his Lordship saith It may be our duty not to oppose General Councils in case they erre and yet it may be no pride not to believe known and gross errours of General Councils and I pray What shadow of a contradiction is here And if it be pride in us not to believe gross errours imposed on us Is it not much more intolerable in them who offer to impose them What Authority the Pope hath either to order or confirm Councils it is not here a place to enter upon again since it hath been so largely discoursed of in so many places But you force me though not to the repetition of matter yet to the repeating my saying that I will not oftener than I should but only to shew how little you deserve any further answer There is nothing now remaining to the end of your Book which hath not been over and over even in these last Chapters but only a long discourse touching Succession which you shew your self of how little importance it is when after you have endeavoured at large to prove the necessity of personal Succession you grant That it is not sufficient without succession of Doctrine too And on that account you deny the Greek Church to have a true Succession And in vindication of Stapleton you say All the Succession which he and you contend for is a Succession of Pastors which hold entire both the Vnity and the Faith of the Church So that it comes to this at last that you are bound to prove a continual Succession of all that which you call the Faith of your Church in every age from the Apostles times if you would have us believe that Doctrine or own your Church for the true Church of Christ. And therefore I conclude these general Answers with his Lordships words If A. C. T. C. or any Jesuit can prove that by a visible continued Succession from Christ or his Apostles to this day either Transubstantiation in the Eucharist or the Eucharist in one kind or Purgatory or Worship of Images or the Intention of the Priest of necessity in Baptism or the Power of the Pope over a General Council or his Infallibility with or without it or his Power to depose Princes or the publick Prayers of the Church in an unknown tongue with divers other points have been so taught I for my part will give the Cause CHAP. VI. The Sense of the Fathers concerning Purgatory The Advantage which comes to the Church of Rome by the Doctrine of Purgatory thence the boldness of our Adversaries in contending for it The Sense of the Roman Church concerning Purgatory explained The Controversie between the Greek and Latin Church concerning it The Difference in the Church of Rome about Purgatory Some general Considerations about the Sense of the Fathers as to its being an Article of Faith The Doubtfulness and Vncertainty of the Fathers Judgments in this particular manifested by S. Austin the first who seemed to assert a Purgation before the day of Judgement Prayer for the Dead used in the Ancient Church doth not inferr Purgatory The Primate of Armagh vindicated from our Adversaries Calumnies The general Intention of the Church distinguished from the private Opinions of particular persons The Prayers of the Church respected the day of Judgement The Testimonies of the Fathers in behalf of Purgatory examined particularly of the pretended Dionysius Tertullian S. Cyprian Origen S. Ambrose S. Hierom S. Basil Nazianzen Lactantius Hilary Gregory Nyssen c. And not one of them asserts the Purgatory of the Church of Rome S. Austin doth not contradict himself about it The Doctrine of Purgatory no elder than Gregory 1. and built on Credâ—lity and Superstition The Churches Infallibility made at last the Foundation of the belief of Purgatory The Falsity of that Principle and the whole concluded THese general Answers being dispatched there remains only now this Question concerning Purgatory to be discussed Which being the great Diana of your Church no wonder you are so much displeased at his Lordship for speaking against it for by that means your craft is in danger to be set at nought There being no Opinion in your Church which brings in a more constant revenue by Masses for the dead and Indulgencies besides Casualties and Deodands by dying persons or their friends in hopes of a speedier release out of the pains of Purgatory So that if this Opinion were once out of Countenance in the world you would lose one of the best Arts you have of upholding the Grandeur of your Church For then farewel Indulgences and years of Jubilee farewel all those rich Donations which are given by those at their death who hope by that means to get the sooner out of the Suburbs of Hell to a place of rest and happiness For What Engine could possibly be better contrived to extort the largest gifts from those whose riches were as great as their sins than to perswade them that by that means they would be sooner delivered out of the Flames of Purgatory and need not doubt but they should come to Heaven at last And Would not they be accounted great Fools that would not live as they pleased in this world as long as they could buy themselves out of the pains of another And by this means your Church hath not only eaten but grown fat by the sins of the people it being truly observed by Spalatensis That the Doctrine of Purgatory hath been that which hath most inriched the Church of Rome which he gives as the reason of the most zealous contending for that Doctrine among those of your party who find so much advantage by it And we might easily believe there was something extraordinary in it when you tell us It is therefore firmly to be believed by all Catholicks that there is a Purgatory yea we are as much bound to believe it as we are bound to believe for Instance the Trinity or Incarnation it self because since it is defined by the Church we cannot lawfully or without sin and peril of damnation deny or question this doctrine We had need then look to our selves who look on this Doctrine as a meer figment that hath no foundation at all either in Scripture Reason or Tradition of the Primitive Church but much more had you need to look to your selves who dare with so much confidence obtrude so destructive a Doctine to a Christian life without any evidence of the truth of it to be believed as much as the Trinity or Incarnation it self which expressions take them in the mildest sense you can give them carry a most insufferable boldness with them But these are not all the bold words which you utter on this Subject for you say elsewhere That Bellarmin doth not more boldly than truly affirm yea evidently prove that all the Fathers both Greek and Latin did constantly teach Purgatory