Spirit of the Son So Cyril expresly when Theodoret had denyed the Procession from the Son he gives no other Answer but this The Holy Spirit doth truly proceed from God and the Father according to our Saviours words but is not of another nature from the Son We see he contents himself with the acknowledgement that the Spirit is of the same nature with the Son To the same purpose is another testimony of his produced by the Patriarch Hieremias speaking of the Spirit whereby the Apostles spake he saies Which proceeded in an ineffable manner from the Father but is not different from the Son in regard of his essence Several other testimonies are there produced by him and elsewhere by others which need not be here recited 2. That when they use the particle ex it is against those who denyed the Consubstantiality both of the Son and Spirit and therefore Gregorius Palamas lay's down this Rule That as often as the praepositions ex and per have the same force in Divinity they do not denote any division or difference in the Trinity but only their conjunction and inseparable union and consent of their wills For which he cites the famous Epistle of Maximus to Marinus which was made the foundation of the Vnion at the Council of Florence who therein saith that when the Latins said in their Synodical Epistle sent to Constantinople that the Spirit did proceed ex filio they meant no more than to shew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the perfect and inseparable Vnion of the Divine Essence So when S. Basil saith that the Father did create the world per filium he adds that notes no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the conjunction of their Wills And by this means the Greeks interpret all those passages of the Fathers which seem most express for the Spirit 's proceeding ex filio So Marcus Ephesius tells the Latins in the Florentine Council that when we say Man comes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Essence of a man therein is not implyed that the Essence of man is the productive cause of man but only it notes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Communion of Essence which is in men so when the Greek Fathers speak of the Spirit 's proceeding ex filio that doth not imply that the Son is the Principle of Spiration but that there is a Communion of Essence between the Son and the Spirit So when Athanasius disputing against the Arrians saith the Patriarch Hieremias saith that the Spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Son is given to all and that the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Son in the Spirit doth create work and give all things you must consider that Athanasius was then disputing against the Arrians who made both Son and Spirit to be creatures that therefore he might shew that the Spirit was of the same Substance with the Father and the Son he therefore useth that preposition ex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very opportunely and conveniently Therefore saith he It is to be observed that he never useth this but in opposition to the Arrians and such who denyed the Divinity of the Holy Ghost To which purpose it is well observed by Spalatensis that when the Fathers of the Constantinopolitan Council did insert into their Creed the article of the Spirit 's Procession from the Father they did it not with a purpose to define any thing concerning the Procession as an article of Faith but that they might from those words of S. John inferr the Divinity of the Holy Ghost because it proceeds from the Father And withall it is further observable that in the Creed which Charisius delivered into and was accepted by the Council of Ephesus all that he sayes as to the Holy Ghost is And in the Spirit of Truth the Paraclete who is consubstantial with the Father and the Son By which that which Spalatensis saith is much confirmed for this Symbol of Charisius was accepted by the Council as agreeable to the Nicene Creed Thus we see how probable this Answer of the Greeks is That the intention of the Fathers in those expressions is only to assert the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father and the Son because when they used them it was in their disputes with them who denyed it And therefore Petavius spends his pains to very little purpose when going about to take off this answer of the Greeks he only shews that those expressions in themselves cannot be confined meerly to the signification of the Consubstantiality of the persons whereas the main force of this answer ly's in the intention and scope of the persons who used them and the adversaries they disputed against and not in the importance of the Articles themselves 2. The second answer of the Greeks is that most of those places which speak of the procession of the Spirit from the Son are not to be understood of the Eternal Procession but of the Temporal which is the same with the Spirits Mission This as the rest of the Greeks so the Patriarchs Hieremias and Cyril especially insist upon the first in his last answer to the Divines of Wirtenberg For when they in their reply to his second answer had produced several testimonies of Athanasius Cyril Epiphanius Basil and Nazianzen in behalf of the Spirit 's Procession from the Son he wonders at them that leaving the plain and clear places both of Scriptures and Fathers which do as he saith so openly proclaim the Spirit 's Procession from the Father only they should hope for relief from other obscure places which are capable of a different interpretation As from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which only relates to the Spirit 's manifestation and is quite different from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so cannot imply his Eternal Procession Therefore for the clearing the controversie and giving account of the mistakes in it he begins with the signification of the Spirit which when it is applyed to the Divine Spirit is capable of different significations being taken either for the several gifts of the Spirit or for the person of the Spirit and so though the word Procession be taken in a peculiar manner for the Eternal Procession of the Spirit yet it is not only some times attributed to the bestowing the forementioned gifts but likewise to the Eternal Generation of the Son and therefore whenever they meet with the word Procession attributed to the Spirit with a respect to the Son they must not presently infer the Eternal Procession but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there signifies no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. that the Spirit doth come through is sent and given by the Son which the Fathers often mention the better thereby to assert 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Identity of nature and essence which is in the Spirit with the Father and Son This he doth therein very largely explain
and endeavour to make it out that this is the most proper interpretation both of Scripture and Fathers when they seem most clearly to speak of the Procession of the Spirit from the Son The same likewise the Patriarch Cyril insists upon who acknowledgeth these several words to be attributed to the Spirit in reference to the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and several others in the writings of the Fathers all which he acknowledgeth to be true but he denyes that any of them do import a Hypostatical Procession of the Spirit from the Son but that they all refer to the temporal mission and manifestation of the Spirit through Christ under the Gospel Whether this answer will reach to all the places produced out of the Fathers is not here my business to enquire only that which is pertinent to my purpose may be sufficiently inferred from hence that the Fathers certainly were not definitive in this Controversie when their expressest sentences seem capable of quite a different meaning to wise and learned men who one would think if the belief of this Procession had been a tradition of their Church or fully expressed in the Writings of the Fathers of the Greek Church could not be so ignorant or wilful as either not to see this to have been their meaning or supposing they had seen it to persist in so obstinate a belief of the contrary I can therefore with advantage return your words back again to you It is to be considered that for many hundred years the whole Greek Church never believed this to be an article of Faith nay the Fathers were so far from it that both single and in General Councils they did plainly express the contrary how then bears it any shew of probability what some few of yesterday forced to it by an impossibility of otherwise defending the Power and Infallibility of the Roman Church affirm that the matter of this Controversie is so great and considerable that it is sufficient to produce an Heresie on either side Is not this to make Fathers and General Councils and consequently all Christendom for many hundred years quite blind and themselves only clear and sharp-sighted Which swelling presumption what spirit it argues and whence it proceeds all those who have learnt from reason if not from S. Augustine That Pride is the Mother of making Heresies in unnecessary articles of Faith will easily collect Do not you see now how unadvisedly those words came from you which with so small variation in the manner of expression and much greater truth in the matter of it is restored upon your self But I go on still if possible to make you sensible how much you have wronged the Greek Church in this charge of a fundamental errour in her for denying this Procession of the Spirit from the Son Which shall be from hence that although there were some who did as plainly deny this as ever the Modern Greeks did or do yet they were far from being condemned for Heresie in so doing For which we must consider that although the Fathers as we have already seen did speak ambiguously in this matter yet the first who appears openly and stoutly to have denyed it was Theodoret which being the rise of the Controversie must be more carefully enquired into It appears then that a General Council being summoned by the Emperour Theodosius to meet at Ephesus concerning the opinions of Nectorius which were vehemently opposed by Cyril of Alexandria and several Aegyptian and Asian Bishops who being there convened proceed to the deposition of Nestorius and Anathematizing his doctrine before Johannes Antiochenus and several other Bishops who favoured Nestorius were come to Ephesus When these therefore came and found what had been done by the other Bishops they being seconded by Candidianus there and the Court-party at Constantinople assemble apart by themselves and proceed on the other side to a deposition and excommunication of Cyril and Memnon who were the leaders of all the rest and these make an Anti-Synod to the other which consisted of persons of several interests and perswasions some Pelagians some Nestorians and others more as Friends to Nestorius than his opinions as being his Ancient Familiars and acquaintance did joyn with them to prevent his deposition among which the chief were Johannes Antiochenus and Theodoret. But before the Council Cyril had published his Anathema's against the opinions of Nestorius to these therefore not only the Oriental Bishops gave an answer but John the Patriarch of Antioch particularly appoints Theodoret to refute them The ninth Anathema of Cyril was against Nestorius and all others who said That Christ used the Holy Ghost as a distinct power from himself for the working of miracles and that did not acknowledge him to be the proper Spirit of Christ. Theodoret grants the first part wherein he shews he was no Nestorian but quarrels with the latter part for saith he If by that he means that the Spirit is of the same nature with the Son and that it proceeds from the Father we acknowledge it together with him but if by that he understands as though the Spirit had his subsistence from or by the Son we reject it as blasphemous and impious Was ever any thing in this kind spoken with greater heat and confidence than this was here by Theodoret And if this had been looked on as Heretical at that time can we possibly imagine that so zealous an opposer of all Heresies and especially of the Nestorians as S. Cyril of Alexandria was should so coolly and patiently pass this by as he doth For all the answer he gives is only that which was before cited out of him that he acknowledgeth The Spirit doth proceed from the Father but yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is not of another nature from the Son but did not Theodoret expresly assert that as well as Cyril Is it then possible that any one who hath his wits about him should imagine that if that doctrine of Theodoret had been accounted Heretical it being expressed in so vehement a manner as it is it should have no other answer from Cyril but only approving that which Theodoret confesseth viz. the Consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Son All the answer which Petavius and others give is so weak and trifling that one may easily see how much they were put to it to find out any Sometimes it was because Cyril was intent upon his business and therefore passed it by as though he were so weak a man as to let his adversary broach Heresie and say nothing to it because it was not pertinent to the present cause But if it were not it is an argument the second Answer is false viz. that Theodoret was herein a Nestorian for if he were so it could not be besides the business but was a main part of it Moreover if this were a piece of Nestorianism it is very strange the Fathers of that Council when they purposely
accounted Heresie by the Fathers which will be proved by these two things 1. Because it is very doubtful whether many of the Fathers did believe the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son or no. 2. Because those who did believe it did not condemn those of Heresie who did not 1. That it is very doubtful whether many of them did believe the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son or no at least so far as to make it an Article of Faith for 1. There are clear testimonies that they make it unnecessary to be believed 2. The testimonies which seem to say That they did believe it do not necessarily imply that they did 1. That there are clear testimonies that they did not account it a thing necessary to be believed both because they in terms asserted the nature of this procession to be incomprehensible and withall did as clearly affirm the belief of that which doth not imply this procession to be sufficient for salvation 1. They in terms assert that the mystery of this Procession is incomprehensible And can you or any reasonable man imagine they should make the manner of that Procession to be an article of Faith which they acknowledge to be absolutely beyond our apprehension I grant Something supposed by them to be incomprehensible is made an article of Faith but then it is not that which is supposed as incomprehensible under that notion which is made so but the thing it self which may be incomprehensible yet being clearly revealed in Scripture ought to be believed notwithstanding that incomprehensibility of it As the mystery of the Trinity it self the Eternal Generation of the Son the Procession of the Spirit from the Father c. But then I say these things are such as are either declared by them to be expresly revealed in Scripture or necessarily consequent from something supposed to be so As for instance supposing the Trinity in Vnity to be something divinely revealed whatever is necessarily consequent from that and is necessary to be believed in order to that though it be incomprehensible must be believed as Supposing these two things clear from Scripture that there is but one true God and that there are three Persons who have the Name Properties and Attributes of God given to them though our reason be too short to fathom the manner how these can have three distinct Subsistences and yet but one Essence because our reason i. e. all those conceptions which we have formed in our mind from the observation of things doth tell us that Those things which agree or disagree in a third agree or disagree one with another and from thence it would inferr that if the Father be God and the Son God there could be no difference between Father and Son yet this being meerly as to the connexion of two propositions both of which are supposed distinctly revealed in Scripture we are bound in this case to believe such a Connexion because both parts are equally revealed by an Infallible Testimony though the Mode of that Connexion be to us Incomprehensible But it is not so where neither clear Revelation nor a necessary Consequent from something which is divinely revealed doth inforce our belief of it As in our present case Since we suppose it revealed in Scripture that Father Son and Holy Ghost are God whatever is necessary to the belief of that though incomprehensible we ought to believe it but if there be something without which I may believe the Deity of the Father Son and Spirit and this not clearly asserted in Scripture but is a thing in it self incomprehensible that cannot be made a necessary article of Faith Thus that the Spirit doth proceed from the Father seems necessary on both accounts as consequent upon the belief of the Trinity in Vnity and as clearly expressed in Scripture but that the Spirit should proceed from Father and Son as from one principle that they should communicate in an action proper to their Subsistences and yet be distinguished from each other in those Subsistences and agree only in Essence and if the Spirit proceeds not from their Subsistences but from the Essence the Spirit must proceed from it self because that is common to all three these things being in themselves incomprehensible and not necessary to the belief of the Divinity either of Son or Holy Ghost nor pretended to be clearly revealed in Scripture cannot be said to make a necessary article of Faith the denyal of which must suppose Heresie And therefore that which is the only Objection in this case is removed viz. that this Procession of the Spirit from the Father is incomprehensible and yet supposed to be an article of Faith for that I have already shewed is expresly revealed in Scripture that the Spirit doth proceed from the Father But neither is the procession from the Son necessary to the belief of the Deity of the Son for if it were it would be as necessary to the Deity of the Holy Ghost that the Son should be begotten by the Spirit neither doth it follow from any place of Scripture for all those places which are usually brought are very capable of such interpretations as do not at all infer it from hence then it follows that those who upon these terms acknowledge this Procession incomprehensible do therein imply that the belief of it is no article necessary to salvation and therefore the denyal no Heresie Now for this we have the clearest testimonies of such who were the greatest and most zealous assertors of the Doctrine of the Trinity Athanasius saith expresly That it is sufficient to know that the Spirit is no creature nor to be reckoned among Gods works for nothing of another nature is mingled with the Trinity but it is undivided and like it self These things are sufficient for believers But saith he when we come hither the Cherubims vail their faces but he that inquires and searches into more than these neglects him that hath said Be not wise overmuch c. If it be sufficient to know that the Spirit is no creature it cannot be necessary to believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Son for they who do not believe that do firmly believe the Deity of it And if whatever goes beyond that goes beyond the bounds which God hath set us then certainly he never dreamt that men should be condemned for Heresie as to some things which cannot be supposed to be within them To the same purpose speaks St. Basil in several places acknowledging the Procession of the Holy Ghost to be a thing inexplicable and when the Hereticks enquired of him What kind of thing that Procession was when the Spirit was neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the answer he gives them is If there be such multitudes of things in the world which we are ignorant of what shame is it to confess our ignorance here And if it be here our duty to confess our
ignorance it is far from it to be Magisterial and definitive that unless men acknowledge every punctilio they are guilty of Heresie and fundamental Errors St. Gregory Nazianzene mentioning that Question What this Procession is returns this Answer Tell me first what it is for the Father to be unbegotten and I will explain the Generation of the Son and Procession of the Holy Ghost that we may both therein shew our folly who pry into these Divine mysteries and do not know the things which are before our feet And elsewhere If we enquire into these things what shall we leave to them whom the Scripture tells us alone know and are known of each other St. Cyrill requires of men To believe his Being and subsistence and dominion over all but for other things not to suffer the mind to go beyond the bounds allotted to humane nature These spoke like wise men and the true Fathers of the Church who would have men content themselves with believing meerly what was necessary in these deep and incomprehensible mysteries and not to make Articles of Faith of such things which are not made necessary either by deduction of Reason or clear Divine Revelation Although therefore I should grant that some or all of these did themselves believe this Procession from the Son yet hereby it appears they were far from imposing it upon others or making it a Heresie in any not to believe it They saw well these were not things to be narrowly searched into but as the Philosopher said of some kind of Hellebore taken in the lump it is Medicinal but beaten into powder is dangerous is true of these more abstruse mysteries of Religion for whosoever will endeavour to satisfie himself concerning them from the strange niceties and subtilties of the Schools may return with greater doubts then he went to them For not to go beyond our present Subject whosoever would examine the way they take to make the Procession to be immediate from the Father and the Son so as to be from one principle to shew how the Spirit comes from both by the same numerical spiration but most of all when they come to make distinctions between the Generation of the Son and the Procession of the Holy Ghost of which no less then nine are recounted and rejected by Petavius out of the Fathers and Schoolmen and the last which he rests in which is the common one of the Schools viz. That the one is per modum Intellectûs and the other per modum Amoris as unsatisfactory as any there being so vast a disproportion between the most immediate acts of our souls and these emanations will see much greater reason to commend the Wisdome of those Fathers who sought to repress mens curiosity as to these things and as much to condemn you who are so apt to charge whole Churches with Heresie if they come not up to every thing which you shall pronounce to be an Article of Faith 2. It is plain from the Fathers That they made the belief of that to be sufficient for salvation which doth not imply this Procession from the Son which is that the Holy Ghost doth proceed from the Father If therefore they often mention the Procession from the Father without taking notice of the Procession from the Son and when they do so assert the sufficiency of the belief of that for Salvation there cannot be the least ground to imagine that they looked on the Procession from the Son as a necessary Article of Faith We see before Athanasius made no more necessary then the belief of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost and in the same discourse where he speaks expresly what the Orthodox opinion was of the Holy Ghost he says no more but If they thought well of the Word they would likewise of the Spirit which proceeds from the Father and is proper to the Son and is given by him to the Disciples and all that believe on him In which words there is nothing but what the Greeks to this day do most freely and heartily acknowledge viz. That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and is the Spirit of the Son being given by him to all that believe Many other Testimonies are produced out of him and the rest of the Greek Fathers by the Patriarch Hieremias in his Answer to the Wirtenberg Divines by Marcus Ephesius in his Disputes in the Council of Florence by Gregorius Palamas in his Answer to Beccus the Latinizing Patriarch of Constantinople in the time of Michael Palaeologus and other modern Defendants of the Greek Church But although I do not think that the places produced by them are sufficient for their purpose viz. That those Fathers believed the Procession from the Father exclusivè to be an Article of Faith yet whosoever will take the pains to compare those Testimonies with the others produced on the other side by those who writ in defence of the Filioque either Latins as Hugo Eterianus Anselme c. or Latinizing Greeks such as Nicephorus Blemmydes Beccus Emanuel Calecas and others will find it most for the honour of the Fathers and most consonant to Truth to assert that they did not look upon this as any necessary Article of Faith and therefore took liberty to express themselves differently about it as they saw occasion For such different Testimonies are produced not only of different Fathers but of several places of the same that it will be a hard matter but upon this ground to reconcile them to each other and themselves And that which abundantly confirms it is That when they sate most solemnly in Council to determine the matters of Faith about the Trinity they were so far from inserting this when they had just occasion to do it that they only mention the Proceeding from the Father and determine this to be a perfect Symbol of Christian Faith which contained no more In the first Nicene Creed and that which is properly so called for that which now goes under that Name is the Constantinopolitan Creed there was nothing at all determined concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost and yet Athanasius saith expresly of the Faith there delivered by the Fathers according to the Scriptures That it was of it self sufficient for the turning men from all impiety and the establishment of all Christian Piety And afterwards saith That though certain men contended much for some additions to be made to it yet the Sardican Synod would by no means consent to it because the Nicene Creed was not defective but sufficient for Piety and therefore forbid the making any new Creed lest the former should be accounted defective We see then by the Testimony of Athanasius and the Sardican Synod which when it serves your turn as in the case of Appeals you extoll so much and in defence of Zozimus his forgery of the Nicene Canons you would have confounded with the Nicene that the Nicene Creed without any thing at all
concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost was looked on as sufficient to Salvation and therefore certainly they did not then judge this Article of the Procession to be so necessary as you would have it be But suppose we yeild Nazianzene and the Fathers of the Constantinopolitan Council that though this Creed was not defective as to the Son yet there ought to be somewhat added further concerning the Holy Ghost upon the rising of Macedonius yet even here we shall find when they purposely added to the Article of the Holy Ghost they added only this touching the Procession 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which proceedeth from the Father And thus the Copies of the Constantinopolitan Creed either in the Councils or elsewhere have it where they mention the Procession at all And when Marcus Ephesius in the Florentine Council read this Creed the Latins took no exceptions at all to it but it passed then as it doth still for the Nicene Creed although it much differs from the Original Nicene and therefore it is a great Mistake of them who imagine the Article of Filioque was found in some Copies of this Creed for this the Latins never pretended in the Florentine Council but did indeed as to the Creed of the second Council of Nice but were therein much suspected of forgery by the Greeks which might be the ground of that mistake But that which I insist on is If this Article of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son had been by these Fathers judged necessary when had there been a fitter time to insert it then now when purposely they added the Procession to the former Creed And yet we see they did not judge it at all necessary to be inserted It may be you will say it was Because the Controversie was not then started concerning the Filioque But that can signifie nothing here because we have already shewed that the Fathers themselves spake differently concerning it and looked upon it as a thing not necessary to be known but the things which were upon the rising of Hereticks inserted into the Creed were such as by the Fathers were judged and believed as necessary before ever those Hereticks arose as in the Case here of Macedonius for I hope you will not say it was no Heresie to deny the Divinity of the Holy Ghost till it was determined in this Oecumenical Council For the Fathers never thought that they made Articles of Faith in Councils but only declared themselves and what they believed against the Hereticks which did arise in the Church And therefore that Answer of the Filioque not being then controverted comes to nothing From hence we come to the third Oecumenical Council to see if that adds any thing concerning this Procession instead of which it highly confirms what was established before for the Fathers of that Council discerning at last the great inconveniency of making such additions to the Creed because the Nestorians had got the art of it too and made a new Creed of their own which by Charisius was brought to the Council and there read upon which the Ephesine Fathers make an irrevocable decree against all additions being made hereafter to the Creed For after they had caused the Nicene or rather the Constantinopolitan Creed to be publickly read in which yet the Article of Procession was left out as appears by that Copy which Marcus Ephesius produced at the Council of Ferrara as it is likewise in the Copies of the Ephesine Council upon which they pass this definitive Sentence That it should not be lawful hereafter for any one to produce write or compose any other Creed besides that which was agreed on and defined by the Holy Fathers who were met together at Nice by the Holy Spirit Concerning the meaning of this Decree we shall fully enquire when we come to the addition of the Filioque That which I take notice of it now for is not only the further ratification of what was in the Creed before and that what was therein contained was as much as was judged necessary but an express Decree made against all after-additions which doth as fully as a General Council could do declare that nothing else was necessary to be believed but what was already inserted in the Creed or else To what end did they prohibit any further additions To the like purpose the fourth General Council of Chalcedon determins That by no means they would suffer that Faith to be moved which was already defined I might proceed to the fifth and sixth Councils but these are sufficient Let me now put some few Questions to you Are General Councils Infallible or no Yes say you if confirmed by the Pope Were not these four first Councils confirmed Yes it is evident they were Were they then Infallible in all their Decrees or no especially concerning matters of Faith If they were were they not Infallible in this Determination That it should not be lawful to add to the Creed any thing else but what was in before were they Infallible in declaring the received Creed to be full and sufficient If they were so how comes any Article to become necessary which was not then in the Creed If you say The Pope and another General Council have power Infallibly to contradict these and to say that somewhat else is necessary to be inserted into the Creed and to be believed in order to Salvation I must content my self with having brought you to the humble confession that both parts of a Contradiction may be Infallibly determined Thus we see that the Fathers whether single or joyned in such Councils which are of the greatest Authority in the Christian world have been so far from believing or determining this Article of the Procession of the Holy Ghost to be necessary which must be if the denyal of it be a fundamental error that they have plainly enough expressed and determined the contrary 2. The next thing we come to is That those Testimonies which are produced out of the Fathers are so far from asserting the necessity of this Article that the most of them do not evidently prove that they believed it For these two Answers the Greeks return to them 1. That they do not assert the Procession of the Spirit from the Son but the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Son 2. That those which speak of a Procession do not mean it of an Eternal Procession but a Temporal which is the same with the Spirits Mission 1. That they do not assert the Eternal Procession of the Spirit from the Son but the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Son And therefore no more can be inferred from them but only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Greeks constantly acknowledge This they make probable by two things 1. That when the Fathers dispute not with those who denyed the consubstantiality of Son and Spirit they use not the particle ex but only say that the Spirit is the
Article of the Procession from the Son to be no necessary Article of Faith but acknowledgeth it to be one of the deeper mysteries of Religion which none were obliged to believe but such as could reach to the knowledge of which either want of age in some capacity in others and invincible prejudice in many more might keep them from the knowledge of Thus it appears by the Pope's judgement the denyal of this could be no Heresie then because he declares it not to be necessary to be believed by all What now must we think of this Pope if we apply your words to him Were all other succeeding ages blind and this Pope only clear and sharp-sighted which judgement of his must be called nothing short of swelling presumption and if you please St. Austin shall be quoted for it too but it must be in some other place besides that where he sayes that Pride is the Mother of Heresie Do you think we can do other then hugely applaud our selves in seeing you so furiously lay about you when we know your first blows fall on the Fathers and your second cut off one Leg at least of your Infallible Chair Can we have better security against you then the judgement of one of your own Popes may we not well be accounted blind when for our sakes Infallibility it self must be so too If you tell us that after Popes declared otherwise I have but one request to make to you viz. To make it appear that when two Popes shall determine both parts of a Contradiction to be true they both are Infallible in doing so But if we proceed a little further it may be we shall find the judgement of another Pope agreeing with this For which we must consider that A. D. 858 Ignatius the Patriarch of Constantinople being imprisoned by the Emperour Michael and Photius being placed in his room in a Council held by Photius A. D. 861 Ignatius was condemned upon which he being likewise condemned by Pope Nicolaus at Rome he doth as much for him at Constantinople So that those grudges which had been before more closely carried between the Greeks and Latins did now openly discover themselves But among several other things which Photius charged the Latin Church with the chiefest and that which he insists on with the greatest vehemency is That they did attempt to corrupt and adulterate the holy and sacred Symbol of Faith which had obtained an unalterable force by the Decrees of Synods and Councils with false senses and new additions by an unmeasurable confidence O their Diabolical machinations for by a strange innovation they make the Holy Ghost proceed not only from the Father but the Son too This we find in his Encyclical Epistle published by him on the account of the difference between the Latin and the Greek Church in which he largely disputes against the Doctrine of the Procession of the Spirit from the Son and as we see charges the Latins with fraud presumption and a desire of Innovation in the inserting that Article into the Creed Not long after this Pope Nicolaus having advised with the Gallican Bishops what to do in this business dyes to whom Adrian succeeds as bitter against Photius as his Predecessor and had more advantage against him then the other had For at Constantinople the Emperour Michael being slain by Basilius whom he had adopted to a Partnership in the Empire the year before he presently banisheth Photius restoreth Ignatius calleth a Council A. D. 869 in which Photius is Anathematized and for the greater execration of him they dipt their Pens wherewith they subscribed in the Sacred Chalice This the Latins call the eighth Oecumenical Synod Notwithstanding all which Ignatius being dead Photius is restored by Basilius Macedo A. D. 878. Legats are dispatched to Pope John 8. as in courtesie to you we call him who succeeded Adrian that Photius might be restored to the communion of the Church and his Patriarchal dignity which is presently done The year following a General Council is held at Constantinople in which the Popes Legats are present and this the Greeks only admit for the eighth Oecumenical In which all that was done against Photius is abrogated the Constantinopolitan Creed without the addition of Filioque is solemnly read and it is decreed against the Latins the Popes Legats consenting that nothing should be added to the Creed But lest you should think the Popes Legats were practised upon by some arts of Photius for some of his Enemies among other reproaches did not stick to say he learnt Magick from the famous Santarabenus And that it was done without the Popes free consent we have his own testimony afterwards in approbation of it For Pithaeus an ingenuous as well as very learned man confesseth that the Letters of this Pope are still extant among the Latins by which it appears that he condemned all the Synods held against Photius whether at Rome or Constantinople and the Patriarch Hieremias whose testimony in other cases you make much of saith expresly not only that the Pope consented to this Synod by the Cardinal Peter and Paulus and Eugenius who were there his Legats but that in an Epistle he writ to Photius he hath these words I declare again to your Grace concerning that Article by which such scandals have been in the Churches of Christ. Assure your self that we not only speak this but that we really judge Those who first durst out of their presumption do this to be transgressors of the sacred Oracles changers of the Doctrine of our Lord Christ and the Holy Fathers and we place them in the Society of Judas What Article was this I pray which the Pope is so zealous against even no other then that which you account all blind who do not esteem the denyal of it Heresie It seems then we have one more added to the number of Heretical Popes for Photius himself could not express more vehemency against this Article then the Pope doth and that when by his Legats in a Council therefore Infallible according to you because confirmed by the Pope he had declared himself utterly against the addition of this Article to the Creed And instead of accounting them Hereticks who denyed it you see how much worse then Hereticks he accounted them who first added it So that I wonder you do not rather account the belief of that Article Heresie than the denyal of it I know well enough how your party rail here to purpose against Photius but what is all that to the business Let Photius be what he will Were not the Popes Legats present at the Council Did not they confirm the decrees of it Did not the Pope afterwards ratifie it So that if ever Council were Infallible according to your Principles this must be choose therefore either to relinquish the Pope's and Councils Infallibility or else acknowledge that men at one time may be infallibly guilty of violating Scriptures Fathers Councils for
understand that I must confess that whoever asserts the one and deny's the other is so far from Theological Reason that I think he hath no common reason in him Is this then think you a parallel case with the Procession of the Spirit from the Son which may be supposed Consubstantial to Father and Son and a distinct person from both without any Connotation of respect to the Personality of the Son as a principle of Spiration 2. He that should affirm the Procession of the Spirit only from the Son and not the Father would speak much more absurdly than the Greeks do for thereby he would destroy the Father's being the fountain or principle of Origination as to the distinct Hypostases of Son and Spirit he would plainly and directly thwart the Creed of the second General Council and which is more than would speak directly against express words of Scripture which say The Spirit proceeds from the Father which by the consent of the Christian Church hath been interpreted of the Eternal Procession And by this time I hope you begin to have better thoughts of rational men than to make such a wonder at their questioning the Greeks Heresie but if this be your Theological Reason one scruple of common reason goes far beyond it We have had a fair proof of your skill at charging we shall now see how good you are at standing your ground Your main defence lyes in a distinction which ruines you for you think to ward off all the citations his Lordship produceth against you out of the Schoolmen and others that the Greeks and Latins agree with each other in eandem fidei sententiam upon the same sentence of Faith but differ only in words by saying That the Greeks must be distinguished into Ancient and Modern The Ancient you say expressed themselves per filium but they meant thereby à filio whereas the Modern Greeks will not admit that expression à filio but per filium only and that too in a sense dissignificative to à filio This is the substance of all the answer you give both in general and to the particular authorities for several pages The disproof therefore of this distinction must by your own Confession make all those testimonies stand good against you which I shall do by two things 1. By shewing that the Ancient Greeks did assert as much as the Modern do in this Controversie 2. That those who speak expresly of the Modern Greeks do deny their difference from us in any matter of Faith 1. That the Ancient Greeks did assert as much as the Modern do By the Ancient Greeks we must here understand those who writ before the Schoolmen whose testimonies you would answer by this distinction Now nothing can be more clear than that those Greeks who writ before them did as peremptorily deny the Procession from the Son as any of the Modern Greeks do We have already produced the testimony of Theodoret who accounts the contrary opinion blasphemous and impious and that of Photius who so largely and vehemently disputes against the Procession from the Son To whom I shall add two more of great reputation not only in the Greek but in the Latin Church and those are Theophylact and Damascen Theophylact whether he lived in the time of Photius about 870 as the common opinion is or more probably in the time of Michael Cerularius as great an adversary as Photius to the Latins about 1070. yet was long enough before the Schoolmen for Peter Lombard flourished A. D. 1145. and Thomas and Bonaventure about 1260. So that in this respect he must be one of the Ancient Greeks He therefore delivers his opinion as expresly as may be in his Commentaries on St. John and that not as his own private opinion but as the common sense of the Greek Church for there taking occasion to speak how the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son For the Latins saith he apprehend it amiss and mistaking it say That the Spirit proceeds from the Son But we answer That it is one thing to say The Spirit is the Spirit of the Son which we assert and another that it proceeds from the Son which we deny for it hath no testimony of Scripture for it and then we must bring in two principles the Father and the Son And withall adds that when Christ breathed the Spirit on his Disciples it is not to be understood personally but in regard of the gift of remission of sins after which he briefly and comprehensively sets down the opinion of the Greek Church Believe thou that the Spirit doth proceed from the Father but is given to men by the Son and let this be the Rule of sound doctrine to thee And what now do the Modern Greeks say more than Theophylact did or what do they say less for they acknowledge that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son as well as he To the same purpose Damascen who lived between the 6. and 7. Synod about A. D. 730. in the time of Leo Isaurus delivers the sense of the Greek Church in his time concerning this Article It must be considered saith he That we assert not the Father to be from any but that he is said to be the Father of the Son We say not that the Son is a proper cause neither the Father but we say the Son is from the Father and of the Father The Holy Spirit we say is from the Father and of the Father but we say not the Spirit is from the Son but we call him the Spirit of the Son And we confess that by the Son the Spirit is manifested and given to us These words are so plain that the Patriarch Hieremias producing them saith Nothing can be more clear and evident than these words are But the Philosopher who was so much pleased to see the Ass mumble his thistles could not take much less contentment to see how the Schoolmen handle this testimony of Damascen For being very loath that so zealous an assertor of Images should in any thing seem opposite to the Church of Rome they very handsomly and with wonderful subtilty bring him off by admiring the wisdom and caution he useth in these words So your own St. Bonaventure whose testimony youthink so considerable as to produce at large Tamen ipse cautè loquitur unde non dicit quod Spiriâ—us non est à filio sed dicit non dicimus à filio which you put in great letters the more to be taken notice of But I pray What was it which Damascen was there delivering of was it not the sense of the Greek Church concerning the Persons of the Trinity and how could he otherwise have expressed it than by non dicimus but if this must argue what Bonaventure and you would have from it for this is the only testimony you give of your distinction of Ancient and Modern Greeks will it not as well hold for the other
by either of you That the Greeks might be excused by Ignorance before such Declaration of your Church concerning the Filioque and not be excused after through greater ignorance of any such Power in your Church to declare such things to be matters of Faith is an assertion not easie to be swallowed by such as have any strength of Logick or one drachm of Theological Reason Or else it is a very strange thing you should think it sufficient for the Greeks to know what your Church had declared without an antecedent knowledge that your Church had power to declare How much you answer at random appears by your answering Aquinas his testimony instead of that of Jodocus Clictoveus as is plain enough in his Lordships Margin and you might have been easily satisfied that it was so if you had taken the pains to look into either of them But the art of it was Aquinas his testimony might be easily answered because he speaks only by hear-say concerning the opinion of some certain Greeks but Clictoveus his was close to the purpose who plainly confesseth that the difference of the Ancient Greeks was more in words and the manner of explaining the Procession then in the thing it self This therefore you thought fit to slide by and answer Aquinas for him Your answer to Scotus depends on the former distinction of Ancient and Modern Greeks and therefore falls with it Bellarmin's answer concerning Damascen and your own after Bonaventure of his non dicimus hath been sufficiently disproved already What Tolet holds or the Lutherans deny the words of neither being of either side produced deserve no further consideration You tell us his Lordships Argument depends upon this That the Holy Ghost may be equal and consubstantial with the Son though he proceed not from it which you say is a matter too deep for his Lordship to wade into But any indifferent Reader would think it had been your concernment to have shewn the contrary that thereby you might seem to make good so heavy a charge as that of Heresie against the whole Greek Church For if the Holy Ghost cannot be equal and consubstantial with the Son if it proceeds not from the Son then it follows that they who deny this Procession must deny that Equality and Consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Son which you ought to prove to make good your charge of Heresie But on the other side if the Spirit may be proved to be God by such Arguments as do not at all infer his Procession from the Son then his equality and consubstantiality doth not depend upon that Procession for I suppose you grant that it is the Vnity of Essence in the Persons which make them equal and consubstantial but we may sufficiently prove the Spirit to be God by such Arguments as do not infer the Procession from the Son as I might easily make appear by all the Arguments insisted on to that purpose but I only mention that which the second General Council thought most cogent to that purpose which is the Spirit 's eternal Procession from the Father if that proves the Spirit to be God then its equality with the Son is proved without his Procession from the Son for I hope you will not say that the proving his Procession from the Father doth imply Procession from the Son too because the Procession cannot be supposed to be from the essence for then the Spirit would proceed from it self but from the Hypostasis and therefore one cannot imply the concurrence of the other And since you pretend so much to understand these depths before you renew a charge of Heresie against the Greek Church in this particular make use of your Theological reason in giving an Intelligible Answer to these Questions 1. Why the Spirit may not be equal and consubstantial to the other Persons in the Trinity supposing his Procession to be only from the Father as the Son to be equal and consubstantial with them when his Generation is only from the Father 2. If the Procession from the Son be necessary to make the Spirit consubstantial with the Son why is not Generation of the Son by the Spirit necessary to make the Son consubstantial with the Spirit 3. If the Spirit doth proceed from Father and Son as distinct Hypostases how he can proceed from these Hypostases as one principle by one common Spiration without confounding their Personalties or else shew how two distinct Hypostases alwayes remaining so can concur in the same numerical action ad intra 4. If there be such a necessity of believing this as an Article of Faith why hath not God thought fit to reveal to us the distinct emanations of the Son and Spirit and wherein the eternal Generation of the Son may be conceived as distinct from the Procession of the Spirit when both equally agree in the same essence and neither of them express the personality of the Father Either I say undertake intelligibly to resolve these things or else surcease your charge of Heresie against the Greek Church and upbraid not his Lordship for not entering into these depths Methinks their being confessed to be Depths on both sides might teach you a little more modesty in handling them and much more charity to men who differ about them For you may see the Greeks want not great plausibleness of reason on their side as well as Authority of Scripture and Fathers plain for them but not so against them As long therefore as the Greek Church confesseth the Divinity Consubstantiality Eternal Procession of the Spirit and acknowledgeth it to be the Spirit of the Son there must be something more in it then the bare denyal of the Procession from the Son which must make you so eager in your charge of Heresie against her The truth is there is something else in the matter by this Article of Filioque the Authority of the Church of Rome in matters of Faith is struck at and therefore if this be an Heresie it must be on the account of denying the plenitude of her power in matters of Faith as Anselm and Bonaventure ingenuously confess it and plead it on that account And therefore wise men are not apt to believe but that if the Church of Rome had not been particularly concerned in this addition to the Creed if the Greeks would have submitted in all other things to the Church of Rome this charge of Heresie would soon be taken off the File But as things stand if she be not found guilty of Heresie she may be found as Catholick as Rome and more too and therefore there is a necessity for it she must be contented to bear it for it is not consistent with the Interest of the Church of Rome that she should be free from Heresie Schism c. But if she hath no stronger Adversaries to make good the charge then you she may satisfie her self that though the blows be rude yet they are given her by feeble hands For
let us now make way for Theological reason to enter the lists armed Cap-a-pe in Mood and Figure For now at last you tell us You will argue in Forme against his Lordship and the Greek Church together And thus it proceeds If the Greeks errour be not only concerning but against the Holy Ghost then according to the Bishops own distinction they have lost all assistance of that blessed Spirit and are become no true Church But their errour is not only concerning but against the Holy Ghost Therefore c. The Major or first Proposition contains the Bishops own Doctrine the Minor or second Proposition wherein you learnedly tell us what the Major and Minor in Syllogisms are you thus prove All errours specially opposite to the particular and personal Procession of the Holy Ghost are according to all Divines not only errours concerning but errours against the Holy Ghost But the Greeks errour is opposite to the particular and personal Procession of the Holy Ghost as is already proved Ergo their errour is not only concerning but against the Holy Ghost whose assistance therefore they have lost not only according to the first but even latter branch of the Bishops distinction and consequently remain no true Church Now who is there that out of meer pitty can find in his heart not to yield this to you when you have been at such pains to prove it But things set out with the greatest formality have not alwayes the most solidity in them All the force of this Argument such as it is lye's in this that his Lordship had said That the errour of the Greeks was rather about the Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost then against the Holy Ghost which he after explains by saying It was not such an errour as did destroy the equality or Consubstantiality of the Spirit with the other persons of the Trinity I pray now take his Lordships explication of himself and you must form your Argument after another way then you have done but you saw well enough that you could not make any shew of an Argument but meerly from words If I thought it worth considering it were easie to tell you that what is only against the Procession from the Son is not thereby against the Holy Ghost because it may be the Holy Ghost i. e. the third person in the Trinity though it proceed only from the Father And as well you might say that whatever Doctrine denies the Son to be begotten of the Spirit is not only concerning but against the Son and urge the consequences upon as good terms as you do about the Spirit But so trifling an Argument is too much honoured by any serious confutation And it seems you were something sensible of it your self when you say His Lordship seemed to have provided against the force of it as who would not by hinting a difference between errours fundamental and not fundamental which point I shall purposely examine in the following Chapter When you therefore come to hold forth what is now but hinted at I shall readily hearken to what you have to say Thus for any thing you have produced to the contrary it sufficiently appears that the Greek Church is very unjustly charged with Heresie by you and that those testimonies which his Lordship produced would as well hold for the Modern as Ancient Greeks to which I might add the judgement of others of your own side who speak as much concerning the Modern Greeks as Thomas à Jesu Azorius and others but I think not that way of arguing to have much force on either side and therefore pass it over And come to the debate of the Filioque with which you say his Lordship begins to quibble on occasion of the Popes inserting it into the Creed But I am quite of another mind I think he speaks very seriously and with a great deal of reason when he saith And Rome in this particular should be more moderate if it be but because this Article Filioque was added to the Creed by her self And 't is hard to add and Anathematize too For what you say to this of the Holy Ghost's having leave to assist the Church in adding expressions for the better explication of any Article of Faith and then the Pope hath leave and command too to Anathematize all such as shall not allow the use of such expressions I commend you that when you must beg something you would beg all that was to be had at once but before you perswade us to the digesting such crudities as these are prove but these following things 1. Where it is that there is any promise of the Ghost's assistance in adding any Articles to the Creed under pretence of better expressions for explication of them 2. Supposing such an assistance what ground is there to impose such additional expressions so that those who admit them not must be guilty of Heresie and consequently by your principles incurr eternal damnation 3. How those expressions can be accounted a better explication of an Article of Faith which contain something not implyed in nor necessarily deduced from any other Article of Faith 4. If this assistance be promised to the Church how any one part of that Church as great a part stifly opposing such additional expressions can claim that assistance to it self the other parts of the Catholick Church utterly denying it 5. If an assistance as to such things be promised the Church why may it not be more reasonably presumed to be in an Oecumenical Council as that at Ephesus forbidding such additions than in any part of the Church which after such a Decree shall directly contradict it 6. What right can the Church have to Anathematize any for the not using such expressions which that Church which determins the use of them doth acknowledge to be only expressions for better explication of an Article of Faith and consequently the denyal of them cannot amount to the denyal of an Article of Faith but only of the better explication of it 7. If all these things be granted how comes the Pope not only to have leave but command too to Anathematize all such as use not these expressions Where is that Command extant how comes it to be limited to him Is he expressed in it or doth it by necessary consequence follow from it What good would it do us to see but one of these proved which you very fairly beg in the lump together And till you have proved them all you may assure your self that we shall never believe that the Pope hath so much as leave much less command to Add and Anathematize too As to the Filioque you grant That many hundred years had passed from the time of the Apostles before Filioque was added to the Nicene Creed and more since the declarations and decrees were sufficiently published and in all these years salvation was had without mention of Filioque A fair Concession and nothing is wanting to destroy all that
the Church may declare matters of Faith The testimony of St. Augustine vindicated Page 44. CHAP. III. The Absurdities of the Romanists Doctrine of Fundamentals The Churches Authority must be Divine if whatever she defines be Fundamental His Lordship and not the Testimony of S. Augustine shamefully abused three several wayes Bellarmin not mis-cited the Pelagian Heresie condemned by the General Council at Ephesus The Popes Authority not implyed in that of Councils The gross Absurdities of the distinction of the Church teaching and representative from the Church taught and diffusive in the Question of Fundamentals The Churches Authority and Testimony in matters of Faith distinguished The Testimony of Vincentius Lirinensis explained and shewed to be directly contrary to the Roman Doctrine of Fundamentals Stapleton and Bellarmin not reconciled by the vain endeavours used to that end Page 79. CHAP. IV. The Protestant Doctrine of Fundamentals vindicated The unreasonableness of demanding a Catalogue of Fundamentals The Creed contains the Fundamentals of Christian Communion The belief of Scripture supposed by it The Dispute concerning the Sense of Christs Descent into Hell and Mr. Rogers his Book confessed by T. C. impertinent With others of the same nature T. C. his fraud in citing his Lordships words Of Papists and Protestants Vnity The Moderation of the Church of England compared with that of Rome Her grounds of Faith justified Infant-Baptism how far proved out of Scripture alone Page 98. CHAP. V. The Romanists way of Resolving Faith The ill consequences of the resolution of Faith by the Churches Infallibility The grand Absurdities of it manifested by its great unreasonableness in many particulars The certain Foundations of Faith unsettled by it as is largely proved The Circle unavoidable by their new attempts The impossibility of proving the Church Infallible by the way that Moses Christ and his Apostles were proved to be so Of the Motives of Credibility and how far they belong to the Church The difference between Science and Faith considered and the new art of mens believing with their wills The Churches Testimony must be according to their principles the formal object of Faith Of their esteem of Fathers Scripture and Councils The rare distinctions concerning the Churches Infallibility discussed How the Church can be Infallible by the assistance of the Holy Ghost yet not divinely Infallible but in a manner and after a sort T.C. applauded for his excellent faculty in contradicting himself Page 109. CHAP. VI. Of the Infallibility of Tradition Of the unwritten Word and the necessary Ingredients of it The Instances for it particularly examined and disproved The Fathers Rule for examining Traditions No unwritten Word the Foundation of Divine Faith In what sense Faith may be said to be Divine Of Tradition being known by its own light and the Canon of the Scripture The â—estimony of the Spirit how far pertinent to this Controversie Of the use of Reason in the resolution of Faith C's Dialogue answered with another between himself and a Sceptick A twofold resolution of Faith into the Doctrine and into the Books Several Objections answered from the Supposition made of a Child brought up without sight of Scripture Christ no Ignoramus nor Impostor though the Church be not Infallible C's Blasphemy in saying otherwise The Testimonies of Irenaeus and S. Augustin examined and retorted Of the nature of Infallible Certainty as to the Canon of Scripture and whereon it is grounded The Testimonies produced by his Lordship vindicated p. 161. CHAP. VII The Protestant Way of resolving Faith Several Principles premised in order to it The distinct Questions set down and their several Resolutions given The Truth of matters of fact the Divinity of the Doctrine and of the Books of Scripture distinctly resolved into their proper grounds Moral Certainty a sufficient Foundation for Faith and yet Christian Religion proved to be infallibly true How Apostolical Tradition made by his Lordship a Foundation of Faith Of the Certainty we have of the Copies of Scripture and the Authority of them S. Augustine's Testimony concerning Church-Authority largely discussed and vindicated Of the private Spirit and the necessity of Grace His Lordship's Way of resolving Faith vindicated How far Scripture may be said to be known by its own Light The several Testimonies of Bellarmine Brierly and Hooker cleared p. 202. CHAP. VIII The Churches Infallibility not proved from Scripture Some general Considerations from the design of proving the Churches Infallibility from Scripture No Infallibility in the High-Priest and his Clergy under the Law if there had been no necessity there should be under the Gospel Of S. Basil's Testimony concerning Traditions Scripture less liable to corruptions than Traditions The great uncertainty of judging Traditions when Apostolical when not The Churches perpetuity being promised in Scripture proves not its Infallibility His Lordship doth not falsifie C's words but T. C. doth his meaning Producing the Jesuits words no traducing their Order C's miserable Apology for them The particular Texts produced for the Churches Infallibility examined No such Infallibility necessary in the Apostles Successours as in Themselves The Similitude of Scripture and Tradition to an Ambassadour and his Credentials rightly stated p. 235. 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 p. 261 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 entred 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 Unity 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 S. 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 dependence on the Church of Rome
Scripture Reason or Antiquity for the Popes personal Infallibility p. 533. CHAP. III. Of the errours of pretended General Councils The erroneous Doctrine of the Church of Rome in making the Priests intention necessary to the essence of Sacraments That Principle destructive to all certainty of Faith upon our Authours grounds The absurdity of asserting That Councils define themselves to be Infallible Sacramental actions sufficiently distinguished from others without the Priests Intention Of the moral assurance of the Priests Intention and the insufficiency of a meer virtual Intention The Popes confirmation of Councils supposeth personal Infallibility Transubstantiation an errour decreed by Pope and Council The repugnancy of it to the grounds of Faith The Testimonies brought for it out of Antiquity examin'd at large and shewed to be far from proving Transubstantiation Communion in one kind a violation of Christs Institution The Decree of the Council of Constance implyes a non obstante to it The unalterable nature of Christs Institution cleared The several Evasions considered and answered No publick Communion in one kind for a thousand years after Christ. The indispensableness of Christs Institution owned by the Primitive Church Of Invocation of Saints and the Rhetorical expressions of the Fathers which gave occasion to it No footsteps of the Invocation of Saints in the three first Centuries nor precept or example in Scripture as our Adversaries confess Evidences against Invocation of Saints from the Christians Answers to the Heathens The worship of Spirits and Heroes among the Heathens justifiable on the same grounds that Invocation of Saints is in the Church of Rome Commemoration of the Saints without Invocation in S. Austins time Invocation of Saints as practised in the Church of Rome a derogation to the merits of Christ. Of the worship of Images and the near approach to Pagan Idolatry therein No Vse or Veneration of Images in the Primitive Church The Church of Rome justly chargeable with the abuses committed in the worship of Images Page 554. CHAP. IV. Of the possibility of Salvation in the Roman Church Protestants Concessions ought not to be any ground to prefer the Communion of the Church of Rome How far those Concessions extend The uncharitableness of Romanists if they yield not the same to us The weakness of the Arguments to prove the Roman Church the safer way to Salvation on Protestant principles The dangerous Doctrines of Romanists about the easiness of salvation by the Sacrament of Pennance The case parallel'd between the Donatists and Romanists in denying salvation to all but themselves and the advantages equal from their adversaries Concessions The advantage of the Protestants if that be the safest way which both parties are agreed in manifested and vindicated in several particulars The Principle it self at large shewed to be a meer contingent Proposition and such as may lead to Heresie and Infidelity The case of the Leaders in the Roman Church and others distinguished The Errours and Superstitions of the Roman Church make its communion very dangerous in order to Salvation Page 611. CHAP. V. The Safety of the Protestant Faith The sufficiency of the Protestant Faith to Salvation manifested by disproving the Cavils against it C's tedious Repâ—titions passed over The Argument from Possession at large consider'd No Prescription allowable where the Law hath antecedently determined the right Of the Infallibility of Oral Tradition That contrary to the received Doctrine of the Roman Church and in it self unreasonable The Grounds of it examined The ridiculousness of the Plea of bare Possession discovered General Answers returned to the remaining Chapters consisting wholly of things already discussed The place of S. Cyprian to Cornelius particularly vindicated The proof of Succession of Doctrine lyes on the Romanists by their own principles Page 625. 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 Judgements 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 Credulity and Superstition The Churches Infallibility made at last the Foundation of the belief of Purgatory The Falsity of that Principle and the whole concluded Page 636. Errata sic corrige PAge 21 l 12 for which r them p 37 marg for Baron an 405. r 447. p 48 l 38 for uniformally r uniformly p 64 l 29 for That r What. p 68 l 1 for Sceptiscism r Scepticism p 73 l 46 for dissents r assents p 101 l 3 between you and say insert to p 103 l 14 after men insert were p 116 l 34 blot out not before a good p 125 l 37 for Montallo r Montalto p 12â— l 16 for Valentius r Valentia p 128 l 39 r Infallibility p 159 l 26 r Assistance p 178 l 14 blot out bâ—t before probablâ— false p 184 l penult for it r Christ. p 210 l 42 before any insert for p 211 l 39 for of the r of this p 215 l 8 after Sixtine insert and. p 218 l 30 for it r them p 219 marg l penult r vetâ—stiores p 230 l 15 r generality p 235 l 43 blot out but before setting p 243 l 21 r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 263 l 25 blot out where l 41 blot out and p 267 l 17 r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 274 l 26 r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 marg 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 297 l 21 22 r communication of peace title of Brotherhood and common mark of Hospitality p 304 marg l 10 r Mastrucam p 308 l 30 for from r of p 312 l 5 r Sardican p 315 l 38 for contracts r contrasts p 326 l 46 for interrupted r uninterrupted p 340 l 33 for now r not p 344 l 34 for reply r rely l 45 r Ecclesiastical p 378 l 12 r And in the first of her reign of c. p 389 l 47 for Protestants r Patriarchs p 390 l 44 for Gâ—icenus r Cyzicenus p
collected the opinions of Nestorius out of his own Writings should never make any mention at all of this no not when they produce his opinion concerning the Spirit of God Why was it not then condemned and Anathematized as one of his Heresies why did not the Oriental Bishops when they subscribed to the deposition of Nestorius and the election of Maximianus at Constantinople and sent a Confession of their Faith to Cyril at Alexandria by Paulus Emesenus mention this among the rest of their agreement with the Orthodox Bishops Yet in that extant both in Cyril's works and in the third part of the Council at Ephesus there is not the least intimation of it And therefore the learned Jesuit Sirmondus in the life of Theodoret prefixed by him to the first Tome of his works which he set forth vindicates Theodoret from all suspition of Nestorianism and imputes all the troubles which he fell into on that account to the violence of Dioscorus the successor of Cyril at Alexandria who being a great Patron of the Eutychians thought to revenge himself on Theodoret by blasting his reputation as a Nestorian There is not then any shew of probability that this opinion in Theodoret was condemned as a piece of Nestorianism which certainly the whole Greek Church could not have been ignorant of from that time to this But though that piece of Theodoret against Anathema's were condemned in succeeding Councils yet that might be for the defence of other things which they judged bordered too near on Nestorianism or because they would not have any monument remain of that discord between the Oriental Bishops and the Ephesine Council which Theodosius doth so much and so heartily lament in his excellent Epistle to Johannes Antiochenus about a reconciliation between him and Cyril after the banishment of Nestorius and the choice of Maximianus Thus we see one who in a divided and busie time ventured upon the absolute denyal of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son not as a bare errour but as impious and blasphemous yet was far from being condemned for Heretical himself for saying so by those Fathers who were the most zealous defenders of the true Apostolical Faith And if these things considered together do not make it appear that the Fathers did not make the denyal of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son to be a Heresie I know not what can be made plain from them But I know whatever the Fathers say you are of Cornelius Mussus his mind who heartily professed that he preferred the judgement of one Pope before a thousand Augustines and Hieroms but what if the Popes should prove of the same mind with the Fathers how then can this be accounted an Heresie And that they were exactly of the same mind might be made appear by the several Epistles of Vigilius and Agatho in confirmation of the Faith established in the four first General Councils in which it was determined that all necessaries were already in the Creed and that there needed no further additions to it both which are produced and insisted on by the Greeks in the fifth Session at Ferrara But I pass by them and come to more particular testimonies of Popes and that either in Councils or upon a reference to them from Councils The first time we read of this Controversie in the Western Churches was about A. D. 767. in the time of Constantinus Copronymus upon which in the time of Pepin King of France there was a Synod held at Gentilly near Paris for determining a Controversie between the Greeks and Latins about the Trinity as appears by the several testimonies of Ado and Rhegino in their Chronicles produced by Pithaeus Petavius and others but little more is left of that Convention besides the bare mention of it but it seems the ashes were only raked over these coals then which about two and fourty years after A.D. 809. broke out into a greater flame for as appears by the testimonies of the same Ado and Adelmus or Ademarus a Synod was held at Aquisgrane about this very question Whether the Spirit did proceed from the Son as well as the Father which question they say was started by one John a Monk of Hierusalem which Monk Pithaeus supposeth to be Johannes Damascenus who after Theodoret most expresly denyed the Procession from the Son but whether it was he or any other it seems from that Council called by Charls the Great there were several Legats called Apocrisiarij dispatched to Rome to know the judgment of the present Pope Leo 3. concerning this Controversie the Legats were Bernarius Jesse and Adalhardus the two former the Bishops of Worms and Amiens the latter the Abbot of Corbey But Petavius herein betrayes either his fraud or inadvertency that he will by no means admit that these came to the Pope to know his judgement concerning the Procession it self but only concerning the Addition of the Filioque to the Creed which now began to be used in the Gallican Churches with that Addition But although I grant that the main of their business was concerning the Addition of Filioque by the same token that Leo condemned it as will appear afterwards yet that brought on the discourse concerning the Doctrine it self of the Procession from the Son For in the Acts of Smaragdus which were sent to Charls the Great giving an account of this Controversie which are published both by Baronius and Sirmondus it appears that when they urge the Pope for his consent to the addition of Filioque they make use of this Argument That it was a matter of Faith and therefore none should be ignorant of it upon which they ask the Pope this Question Whether if any one doth not know or doth not believe this Article he could be saved To which the Pope returns this wise and cautious Answer Whosoever by the subtilty of his wit can reach to the knowledge of it and knowing it will not believe it he cannot be saved For there are many things of which this is one which being the deeper mysteries of Faith to the knowledge of which many can attain but many others cannot being hindred either through want of age or capacity and therefore as we said before he that can and will not shall not be saved I pray Sir do me the Favour to let me know your judgement whether this Pope were Infallible or no or will you acknowledge that he was quite beside the Cushion that is not in Cathedrâ when he spake it What not then when Solemn Legats were dispatched from a Council purposely to know his judgement in a matter of Controversie which the Church was divided about If so the Pope shall never be in Cathedrâ but when you will have him or if he were there you will surely say he did not act very Apostolically when he spake these words For can any thing be more plain then that the Pope determins this
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
things before mentioned concerning the Father and the Son where he useth dicimus non dicimus as well as here And therefore Aquinas was much wiser who plainly condemns Damascen for a Nestorian in this licet à quibusdam dicatur c. Although it be said by some that in these words he neither affirms or denys it wherein I am much mistaken if he reflects not on Bonaventure Vasquez Petavius and several others think to bring Damascen off by the distinctions of à filio and per filium much to your purpose but in the great dispute at the Council at Florence between Bessarion and Marcus Ephesius about the importance of the Articles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Marcus Ephesius produceth the words of Damascen expresly that the Spirit doth not proceed from the Son but by the Son whereby it is plain that he understood per filium in opposition to à filio And Bessarion had nothing else to return in answer to it but that he could produce but one out of Antiquity who said so Thus we see if Theophylact and Damascen as well as Theodoret and Photius be Ancient Greeks your distinction comes to nothing But besides this it appears by the disputations of Hugo Etherianus against the Greeks who lived saith Bellarmin A. D. 1160. still extant in the Bibliotheca Patrum that the Greeks held the very same then that they do now And so in the Synod of Bar in Apulia when Anselm disputed so stoutly against the Greeks that Pope Vrban said he was alterius orbis Papa as the story is related by Eadmerus and Wilhelmus Malmesburiensis it appears they denyed the Procession of the Spirit absolutely from the Son and this was A. D. 1096. as is evident from the Letter of Hildebertus to him about the publishing his Disputation and from the Book of Anselm still extant on that subject We find not therefore any ground for this distinction of yours concerning the Ancient and Modern Greeks and therefore they who said that there was no real difference in any matter of Faith between the Ancient Greeks and Latins must be understood as well of the Modern Greeks as them Their words being no more capable of such a tolerable interpretation as you speak of than the words of any of the Modern Greeks are His Lordship was proving that the point was not fundamental that the Greeks and Latins differed in from that acknowledgement of Peter Lombard and the Schoolmen that is to say The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Father and the Son and that he is or proceeds from the Father and the Son is not to speak different things but the same sense in different words Now in this cause saith he where the words differ but the sentence of Faith is the same penitùs eadem even altogether the same can the point be fundamental But say you he was to prove that such as were in grievous errour in Divinity erred not fundamentally and for proof of this he alledges such as have no real errour at all in Divinity But do you not herein wilfully mistake his Lordships meaning For in the Paragraph foregoing his Lordship first declares his own judgement concerning the denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost viz. That he did acknowledge it to be a grievous errour in Divinity but yet he could not judge the Greeks guilty of a fundamental errour which he proves by a double medium 1. Because they did not thereby deny the Equality and Consubstantiality of the persons 2. Because divers learned men were of opinion that à filio per filium in the sense of the Greek Church was but a question in modo loquendi and therefore not fundamental now for this he produceth those testimonies Now I pray do you put no difference between the making the denyal of a Proposition to be an errour and the saying that such persons are guilty of the denyal of that Proposition His Lordship grants the denyal of the Procession to be a grievous errour in Divinity but he questioned as the Greeks expressed themselves for those very words he inserts whether they were guilty of denying that Proposition as appears by the authorities of the Schoolmen and therefore certainly much less guilty of a fundamental errour Thus you see his Lordship fully proves what he intends for if they agreed in sense they were much less guilty of a fundamental errour than if they had plainly denyed the Procession which he supposeth from those Authorities that they did not And therefore when you Sarcastically ask Is not this strong Logick The only answer I shall give you is That if you apprehend it not to be so it is because of the weakness of your Theological Reason And therefore you put his Lordships Defender on a strange task to prove from those Authorities that those Greeks who erre grievously in Divinity erre not fundamentally When the only design of his Lordship in producing those Authorities was to shew that according to their opinion the Greeks were so far from erring fundamentally that they did not erre grievously in Divinity And to this purpose the citation of Peter Lombard was pertinent who saith That because the Greeks acknowledge that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Son though he doth not proceed from him therefore the difference between the Greeks and Latins is in words and not in sense but you say He speaks only of such as differed in words and not in substance as though he put a difference between the Greeks that some differed in words and others really which is quite beside his meaning for he takes not the least notice of any such difference among themselves but saith The difference it self concerning the Procession the Greeks acknowledging the Holy Ghost to be the Spirit of the Son is more verbal than real And that the present Greeks say full as much is evident for they acknowledge the same things in express words The testimony of Bonaventure hath been already considered as far as concerns Damascen as for the rest it was sufficient for his Lordships purpose to produce such a Confession from so bitter an enemy of the Greeks as Bonaventure was so his Lordship in his Marginal Citation sayes truly of him licèt Graecis infensissimus c. that he doth not deny but that salvation might be had without the article of Filioque but whether on that supposition there were sufficient reason to add it to the Creed will be considered afterwards Though Bonaventure held the Greeks to be Hereticks and Schismaticks I hope you do not think that is Argument enough to perswade us that they were so That any thing without which salvation might have been had before may by the definition of your Church become so necessary that men cannot be saved without the belief of it had need be more than barely asserted either by Bonaventure or you and we must wait for the proof of it for any thing here said
added by way of explication the word Filioque to the Article which concerned the Holy Ghost and this they did to signifie that the Holy Ghost as true God proceeded from the Son and was not made or created by him as some Hereticks in those times began to teach Neither doth he say you affirm this without citation of some credible authority I could wish you had produced it not only for our satisfaction but of the more learned men of your own side who look on this as an improbable fiction Bellarmin produceth many Arguments against it saying That no mention is made of it in the Councils or Theodoret's History who particularly relates the Letters of the Council to Damasus and his to the Council that Leo 3. caused the Constantinopolitan Creed to be inscribed in a silver Table without that Addition that the third Council of Toledo used the Creed without that Addition that the Greeks did not begin this Controversie till A. D. 600. And how could they possibly charge the Latins with breaking the Canons of the third Oecumenical when according to this opinion it was added in the second Petavius is so great a friend to your opinion that in plain terms he calls it ridiculous and abundantly confutes that imagination of its being inserted because of the Heresie of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Manuel Calecas calls it who with Aristinus are all those worshipful Authorities which this opinion stands on But setting aside the contrary Authorities to these any one who is any thing versed in this Controversie must needs esteem this the most improbable account that can be given of this Addition For if this were true how little did the Latins at the Council at Florence understand their business when if they could have produced such an Addition before the Ephesine Council all the Greeks objections had come to nothing If this were true how little did Leo 3. consult his own or his predecessors honour who disswaded the Legats of the Council at Aquisgrane from continuing in the Creed that Addition of Filioque for when after a great deal of discourse concerning the Article and the Addition the Legats at last tell him That they perceived his pleasure was that it should be taken out of the Creed and so every one left to his liberty His answer is So it is certainly determined by me and I would perswade you by all means to assent to it And to manifest this to be his constant judgment he caused the Constantinopolitan Creed without the Addition of Filioque to be inscribed in a greater silver Tablet and placed publickly in the Church to be read of all as appears by the testimony of Photius and Peter Lombard that so all both Greeks and Latins might see that nothing was added to the Creed Had not this now been a strange action of his if this Addition had been so long before in the time of Damasus Nothing then can be more evident than that in this Leo's time no such Addition was made to the Creed Therefore it seems most probable which the famous Antoninus delivers that this Addition was made by Pope Nicolaus 1. For when he relates he causes why Photius excommunicated him he mentions that in the first place That he had made an Addition to the Creed by making the Spirit to proceed from the Son and therefore had fallen under the sentence of the third Oecumenical Council which prohibited such Additions to be made To which P. Pithaeus subscribes likewise and Petavius seems not to dissent the only thing which is pretended against it is that Andreas Colossensis in the Council at Ferrara saith That though Photius was a known and bitter enemy of the Latin Church yet he never objected this Addition against Nicolaus or Adrian but how strangely overseen Andreas was in these words sufficiently appears by Photius his Encyclical Epistle wherein he doth in terms object this against the Latins as appears by the words already produced So that although you would willingly have set this Addition far enough off from the Schism yet you see how improbable a fiction you produce for it and withall you see that this Addition by the consent of your own most learned and impartial Writers falls just upon the time when the Schism broke out viz. in the time of Nicolaus and Photius and therefore now judge you whether these words were so long added before the Schism that they could give no occasion to it 2. The next thing to be considered is Whether they who added it had power so to do Two things the Greeks insist on to shew that it was not done by sufficient authority 1. Because all such Additions were directly prohibited by the Ephesine Council 2. That supposing them not prohibited yet the Pope had no power to add to the Creed without the consent of the Eastern Churches 1. That such Additions were severely prohibited by the Ephesine Council the Sanction of which Council to this purpose hath been already produced and is extant both in the Acts of the Ephesine and Florentine Councils in which latter it is insisted on as the Foundation of the Greek's Arguments against the Addition of Filioque by Marcus Ephesius and the reason he there gives of such a Sanction made by the Council at Ephesus is that after the Nicene Council in several Provincial Councils there were above thirty several Expositions made of the Nicene Creed upon which the second Oecumenical Council made a further explication of it explaining those things which belonged to the Divinity of the Spirit and the Incarnation of Christ and because they did not prohibit any Additions the Nestorians easily depraved the Nicene Creed inserting their own opinions into it as appears by the confession of Faith exhibited to the Council by Charisius which being read in the Council and the Fathers thereby understanding how easily after this rate New Creeds might be continually made in the Church they severely prohibited any further Additions to be made to the Creed And therefore although they decreed in that Council the Virgin Mary to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in opposition to Nestorius yet they never offered to insert it into the Creed although they apprehended it necessary to explain the Oeconomy of our Saviour's Incarnation And that which much confirms the meaning of the Decree to be the absolute prohibition of all kind of Additions to the Creed is the Epistle of S. Cyril of Alexandria to Johannes Antiochenus wherein reciting this decree of the Council he adds these words as the explication of it We neither permit our selves or others to change one word or syllable of what is herein contained speaking of the Nicene Creed which Epistle was read and approved in the fourth Oecumenical Council To this the Latins answered them that which is still answered in the same case viz. That this Article of Filioque was only a declaration and not a prohibited Addition
us still more evidence of your self-contradicting faculty for which we need no more than lay your words together Your words next before were If the Church should fall into errour it would be as much ascribed to God himself as in case of immediate Divine Revelation but here you add Neither is it necessary for us to affirm that the Definition of the Church is God's immediate Revelation as if the Definition were false God's Revelation must be also such It is enough for us to averr that God's Promise would be infringed as truly it would in that Supposition From which we may learn very useful instructions 1. That God's Promise may he infringed and yet God's Revelation not proved to be false But whence came that Promise Was it not a Divine Revelation if it was undoubtedly such Can such a Promise be false and not God's Revelation 2. That though if the Church erre God must be fallible yet for all this all God's Revelations may remain infallible 3. That though the only ground of Infallibility be the immediate Assistance of the Holy Ghost which gives as great an Infallibility as ever was in Prophets and Apostles yet we must not say That such an Infallibility doth suppose an immediate Revelation 4. That though God's Veracity would be destroyed if the Church should define any thing for a point of Catholick Faith which were not revealed from God which are your next words yet we are not to think if her Definition be false God's Revelation must be also such which are your words foregoing Those are excellent Corollaries to conclude so profound a discourse with And if the Bishop as you say had little reason to accuse you for maintaining a party I am sure I have less to admire you for your seeking Truth and what ever animosity you are led by I hope I have made it evident you are led by very little reason CHAP. VI. Of the Infallibility of Tradition Of the unwritten Word and the necessary Ingredients of it The Instances for it particularly examined and disproved The Fathers Rule for examining Traditions No unwritten Word the Foundation of Divine Faith In what sense Faith may be said to be Divine Of Tradition being known by its own light and the Canon of the Scripture The Testimony of the Spirit how far pertinent to this Controversie Of the use of reason in the resolution of Faith T. C ' s. Dialogue answered with another between himself and a Sceptick A twofold resolution of Faith into the Doctrine and into the Books Several Objections answered from the Supposition made of a Child brought up without sight of Scripture Christ no Ignoramus nor Impostor though the Church be not infallible T. C ' s. Blasphemy in saying otherwise The Testimonies of Irenaeus and S. Augustin examined and retorted Of the nature of infallible Certainty as to the Canon of Scripture and whereon it is grounded The Testimonies produced by his Lordship vindicated YOu begin this Chapter with as much confidence as if you had spoken nothing but Oracles in the foregoing Whether the Bishop or you were more hardly put to it let any indifferent Reader judge If he did as you say tread on the brink of a Circle we have made it appear notwithstanding all your evasions that you are left in the middle of it The reason of his falling on the unwritten Word is not his fear of stooping to the Church to shew it him and finally depend on her Authority but to shew the unreasonableness of your proceedings who talk much of an unwritten Word and are not able to prove any such thing If he will not believe any unwritten Word but what is shewn him delivered by the Prophets and Apostles I think he hath a great deal of reason for such incredulity unless you could shew him some assurance of any unwritten Word that did not come from the Apostles Though he desired not to read unwritten Words in their Books which is a wise Question you ask yet he reasonably requested some certain evidence of what you pretend to be so that he might not have so big a Faith as to swallow into his belief that every thing which his adversary saies is the unwritten Word is so indeed If it be not your desire he should we have the greater hopes of satisfaction from you but if you crave the indifferent Reader 's Patience till he hear reason from you I am afraid his patience will be tyred before you come to it But whatever it is it must be examined Though your discourse concerning this unwritten Word be as the rest are very confused and immethodical yet I conceive the design and substance of it lyes in these particulars as will appear in the examination of them 1. That there is an unwritten Word which must be believed by us containing such doctrinal Traditions as are warranted by the Church for Apostolical 2. That the ground of believing this unwritten Word is from the Infallibility of the Church which defines it to be so 3. That our belief of the Scriptures must be grounded on such an unwritten Word which is warranted by the Church under each of these I shall examine faithfully what belongs to them in your indigested discourse The first of these is taken from your own words where you tell us That our Ensurancer in the main Principle of Faith concerning the Scriptures being the Word of God is Apostolical Tradition and well may it be so for such Tradition declared by the Church is the unwritten Word of God And you after tell us That every Doctrine which any particular person may please to call Tradition is not therefore to be received as God's unwritten Word but such doctrinal Traditions only as are warranted to us by the Church for truly Apostolical which are consequently God's unwritten Word So that these three things are necessary ingredients of this unwritten Word 1. That it must be originally Apostolical and not only so but it must be of Divine Revelation to the Apostles too For otherwise it cannot be God's Word at all and therefore not his unwritten Word I quarrel not at all with you for speaking of an unwritten Word if you could prove it for it is evident to me that God's Word is no more so by being written or printed than if it were not so for the writing adds no Authority to the Word but only is a more certain means of conveying it to us It is therefore God's Word as it proceeds from him and that which is now his written Word was once his unwritten Word but however whatever is God's Word must come from him and since you derive the source of the unwritten Word from the Apostles whatever you call an unwritten Word you must be sure to derive its pedegree down from them So that insisting on that point of time when this was declared and owned for an unwritten Word you must be able to shew that it came from the Apostles otherwise it
on other grounds is gratis dictum unless you can prove from the Fathers that they did believe the Scriptures infallibly on other grounds Which when you shall think fit to attempt I make no question to answer but in the mean time to a crude assertion it is enough to oppose a bare denyal Your following absurdities concerning the private Spirit infallible assurance Apostolical tradition have been frequently examin'd already Only what you say that you read esteem nay very highly reverence the Scripture is but Protestatio contra factum as may appear by your former expressions and therefore can have no force at all with wise men who judge by things and not by bare words 3. You say That if there were such sufficient light in Scripture to shew it self you should see it as well as we seeing you read it as diligently and esteem it as highly as we do What! You esteem the Scripture as highly as we who say that the Scripture appears no more of it self to be Gods Word than distinction of colours to a blind man You who but in the page before had said there was no more light in Scripture to discover it self than in Seneca Plutarch Aristotle nay as to some things than the Talmud and Alcoran You who say that notwithstanding the Scriptures Christ would have been esteemed an Ignoramus and Impostor if your Church be not Infallible Are you the man who esteem as highly of the Scriptures as we do May we not therefore justly return you your own language and say that if you do not see this light in Scripture it is because your eyes are perverse your understanding unsanctified which instead of discovering such Divine light in Scripture as to make you love and adore it can have the confidence to utter such expressions which tend so highly to the disparagement of it But did not his Lordship give before a sufficient answer to this objection by saying 1. That the light is sufficient in it self but it doth not follow that it must be evident to every one that looks into it for the blindness or perversness of mens minds may keep them from the discovery of it 2. He saith This light is not so full a light as that of the first Principles as that the whole is greater than the part that the same thing cannot be and not be at the same time And yet such is your sincerity you would seem at first to perswade the Reader of the contrary in your next Paragraph but at last you grant that he denies it to be evidently known as one of the Principles of the first sort For you with your wonted subtilty distinguish Principles known of themselves into such as are either evidently and such as are probably known of themselves i. e. Principles known of themselves are either such as are known of themselves or such as are not for what is but probably known is not certainly known of it self but by that probable argument which causeth assent to it But when you deny that the Scripture is so much as one of the second sort of principles and say expresly That of it self it appears not so much as probably to be more the Word of God than some other Book that is not truly such were you not so used to Contradictions I would desire you to reconcile this expression with what you said a little before of your high Esteem and Reverence of the Scriptures 3. The Bishop saith That when he speaks of this light in Scripture he only means it of such a light as is of force to breed Faith that it is the Word of God not to make a perfect knowledge Now Faith of whatsoever it is this or other principle is an evidence as well as knowledge and the belief is firmer than any knowledge can be because it rests upon Divine authority which cannot deceive whereas knowledge or at least he that thinks he knows is not ever certain in deductions from Principles but the Evidence is not so clear Now God doth not require a full demonstrative knowledge in us that the Scripture is his Word and therefore in his Providence hath kindled in it no light for that but he requires our Faith of it and such a certain demonstration as may fit that Now what answer do you return to all this Why forsooth We must have certainty nay an Infallible certainty nay such an Infallible certainty as is built on the Infallible Authority of the Church yet such an Infallible Authority as can be proved only by motives of credibility which is a new kind of Climax in Rhetorick viz. a ladder standing with both ends upon ground at the same time All the answer I shall therefore now give it is that your Faith then is certain Infallibly certain and yet built on but probable motives and therefore on your own principles must be also uncertain very uncertain nay undoubtedly and Infallibly uncertain What again follows concerning Canonical Books and the private Spirit I must send them as Constables do vagrants to the place from whence they came and there they shall meet with a sufficient Answer The remainder of this Chapter consists of a tedious vindication of Bellarmine and Brierely which being of little consequence to the main business I shall return the shorter answer I shall not quarrel much with you about the interpretation of those words of Bellarmine in the sense you give them viz. if they be understood of absolute necessity not of all Christians and only in rare cases that it is not necessary to believe that there is Scripture on supposition that the Doctrine of Scripture could be sufficiently conveyed to the minds of any without it as in the case of the Barbarous Nations mentioned by Irenaeus But for you who make the tradition of the present Church Infallible and at the least the Infallible conveyer of the formal object of Faith I do not see how you can avoid making it as absolutely necessary to be believed as any other object of Faith unless your Church hath some other way of conveying objects of Faith than by propounding the Scripture infallibly to us If therefore men are bound to believe things absolutely necessary to salvation because contained in that Book which the Church delivers to be the Infallible Word of God I cannot possibly see but the belief of the Scripture on the Churches Infallible Testimony must be as necessary necessitate medii as any thing contained in it As for the Citation of Hooker by Brierely Whether it be falsified or no will best be seen by producing the scope and design of that worthy Authour in the Testimonies cited out of him Upon an impartial view of which in the several places referred to I cannot but say that if Brierely's design was to shew that Hooker made the authority of the Church that into which Faith is lastly resolved he doth evidently contradict Mr. Hookers design and is therefore guilty of unfaithful
end differences as Infallibility in a constant Judge for all they had dissentions and divisions among them as well as we But you are very angry with his Lordship for taxing this pretence of Infallibility with Insolency and a design to lord it over the Faith of Christendom And therefore tell him You go no further than Christ himself leads you by Promises made of this Infallibility That is the thing in question and must not be taken upon the trust of your Infallibility in interpreting the places by you alledged When you can prove the Pastors of your Church to be as Infallible as the Apostles were and to have the same Spirit which they had I shall as little suspect them of Lording it over others as the Apostles but if it appear quite otherwise as to the Pastors of your Church name if you can a greater Insolency than to usurp a power of prescribing to the Faith of the Christian world As to what follows concerning your Churches Testimony being again Infallible by the assistance of Christ and his Spirit and yet not Divinely Infallible it is so subtle and Scholastical a distinction that I now begin not to admire Your so often using it for I see plainly if that wedge how blunt soever doth not rive asunder the knot it is like to remain for any thing you have to say to it His Lordship having given one Instance of the Insolency of your pretence of Infallibility by the dangerous errours which your Church doth hold particularly in equalling the Tradition of the present Church to the written Word of God which saith he is a Doctrine unknown to the Primitive Church and which frets upon the very Foundation it self by justling with it But being well acquainted with the Arts of your party in making a great noise with the Fathers and particularly in this Controversie with a citation out of S. Basils Books de Spirit Sanct. ad Amphilochium and especially those words parem vim habent ad pictatem speaking of Traditions he therefore in his Margent so far takes notice of them as to return this threefold Answer to to them 1. That he speaks of Apostolical Tradition and not the Tradition of the present Church 2. That exceptions are taken at this Book as corrupted 3. That S. Basil makes Scripture the Touchstone of Tradition To this you return a Threefold Answer 1. That 't is true he speaks of Apostolical Traditions but of such as were come down to their present times 2. That the Exceptions against the Book are unreasonable 3. That S. Basil doth not make the Scripture so to be the touchstone of Tradition as that Scripture must needs therefore be of greater force and superiour dignity than that of Tradition Because therefore this is the chief place in Antiquity which is produced on your side in behalf of Traditions it will deserve a more careful examination in the particulars by you mentioned 1. You acknowledge that he speaks of Apostolical Traditions and such as the present Church judged Apostolical now you say that the present Church is infallible in judging Apostolical Traditions and what Traditions are so judged are necessary to be practised Now I pray consider what difficulties and self-contradictions you have brought your self into by acknowledging these Traditions to have been judged Apostolical by the present Church For either that Church at that time was not infallible in judging Traditions and so the present Church of every age is not Infallible or if that was infallible yours is not for your Church differs from the Church in St. Basils time about these very Traditions by him mentioned your Church not judging them Apostolical Which will appear by an inspection into those things which are here accounted Traditions by him Among which he not only mentions signing believers with the sign of the Cross praying toward the East the oyl and the abrenunciation used in Baptism but the consecration of the person to be Baptized the standing at prayers untill Pentecost and above all the trine immersion in Baptism all which he saith come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Out of a secret and unpublished Tradition which our Fathers preserved in a quiet and silent manner Are these three last then acknowledged by your Church now for Apostolical Traditions or no Nay doth not your Roman Catechism absolutely pronounce the trine immersion to be unnecessary for baptism How can that become unnecessary which was once infallibly judged to be an Apostolical Tradition Either the Church then was out in her judgement or your Church out in hers and choose whether of those you have the more mind to either of them will help you to contradict your self 2. There want not sufficient reasons of suspecting that Book to be corrupted You say Erasmus was the first who suspected it Not the first who suspected corruption in St. Basils writings For Marcus Ephesius in the Florentine Council charged some Latinizing Greeks with corrupting his books against Eunomius protesting that in Constantinople there were but four Copies to above one thousand which had the passages in them which were produced by the Latins But suppose Erasmus were the first was he not so in discovering the genuine and supposititious writings of several others of the Fathers We must therefore enquire into the reason which Erasmus had of this suspicion Who tells us in his Epistle to John Dantiscus the Poland Embassadour that by that time he had gone through half this work he discerned a palpable inequality in the style sometimes swelling to a Tragical height and then sinking into a vulgar flatness having much more of ostentation impertinent digressions repetitions than any of St. Basils own writings which had alwaies a great deal of vigour simplicity and candour with great evenness and equality c. And although this argument to all that know the worth of that excellent person especially in his judgement of the writings of the Fathers will seem by no means contemptible yet we have much greater reason for our suspicion than this meerly from the stile For if you believe St. Basil was a man who knew how to speak consistencies that he would not utter palpable and evident contradictions in his writings you will have no reason to applaud your self in this as a genuine piece of St. Basils at least for the latter part of it For whereas you make this the force of his words That unwritten Traditions have equal force to stir up piety with the written Word You could hardly have named so many words which bear a greater face of contradiction to a multitude of testimonies in his unquestionably genuine writings For is it not St. Basil who saith That it is a manifest falling from the Faith and an argument of arrogancy either to reject any point of those things that are written or to bring in any of those things that are not written Is it not St. Basil who bids a man Believe the things that are
their own Opinions to their posterity but to retain the Tradition of their Fore-fathers As though the other side could not say the same things and with as much confidence as they did but all the Question was What that Tradition was which they were to retain The one said one thing and the other another But as Rigaltius well observes Vincentius speaks very truly and prudently if nothing were delivered by our Ancestors but what they had from the Apostles but under the pretence of our Ancestors silly or counterfeit things may by fools or knaves be delivered us for Apostolical Traditions And whether this doth not often come to pass let the world judge Now therefore when these persons on both sides had incomparably greater advantages of knowing what the Vniversal Apostolical Practice was than we can have and yet so irreconcilably differ about it what likelihood or probability is there that we may have greater certainty of Apostolical Tradition than of the Writings of the Apostles Especially in such matters as these are in which it is very questionable Whether the Apostles had any occasion ministred to them to determine any thing in them And therefore when Stephen at Rome and those of his party pleaded custom and consequently as they thought Apostolical Tradition it was not irrationally answered on the other side by Cyprian and Firmilian that that might be Because the Apostles had not occasion given them to declare their minds in it because either the Heresies were not of such a nature as those of Marcion and Cerdon or else there might not be such returnings from those Heresies in the Apostolical times to the Church which being of so black a nature as to carry in them such malignity by corrupting the lives of men by vicious practices there was less probability either of the true Christians Apostatizing into them or the recovery of such who were fallen into them To this purpose Firmilian speaks That the Apostles could not be supposed to prohibit the baptizing of such which came from the Hereticks because no man would be so silly as to suppose the Apostles did prohibit that which came not in question till afterwards And therefore S. Augustine who concerned himself the most in this Controversie when he saw such ill use made of it by the Donatists doth ingenuously confess That the Apostles did determine nothing at all in it but however saith he that custom which is opposed to Cyprian is to be believed to have its rise from the Apostles Tradition as there are many other things observed in the Church and on that account are believed to have been commanded by the Apostles although they are no where found written But what cogent argument doth S. Austin use to perswade them this was an Apostolical Tradition He grants they determined nothing in it yet would needs have it believed that an Vniversal Practice of succeeding ages should imply such a determination though unwritten But 1. The Vniversal Practice we have seen already was far from being evident when not only the African but the Eastern Church did practise otherwise and that on the account of an Apostolical Tradition too 2. Supposing such an Vniversal Practice How doth it thence follow that it must be derived from the Apostles unless it be first proved that the Church could never consent in the use of any thing but what the Apostles commanded them Which is a very unreasonable supposition considering the different emergencies which might be in the Churches of Apostolical and succeeding times and the different reasons of practice attending upon them with that great desire which crept into the Church of representing the things conveyed by the Gospel in an external symbolical manner whence in the second Century came the use of many baptismal Ceremonies the praegustatio mellis lactis as Tertullian calls it and several of a like nature which by degrees came into the Church Must we now derive these and many other customs of the Church necessarily from the Apostles when even in S. Austins time several customs were supposed to be grounded on Apostolical Tradition which yet are otherwise believed now As in that known Instance of Infants Participation of the Eucharist which is otherwise determined by the Council of Trent and for all that I know the arguments used against this Tradition by some men may as well hold against Infant-Baptism for there is an equal incapacity as to the exercise of all acts of reason and understanding in both and as the Scripture seems to suppose such acts of grace in one as have their foundation in the use of reason it doth likewise in the other and I cannot see sufficient evidence to the contrary but if that place Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven taken in the sense of the Fathers doth imply a necessity of Baptism for all and consequently of Children that other place Verily verily I say unto you Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you taken likewise in the sense of the Fathers will import the necessity of a participation of the Eucharist by Infants as well as others I speak not this with an intention to plead either for this or for the rebaptizing Hereticks but to shew the great uncertainty of knowing Apostolical Traditions some things having been taken for such which we believe were not so and others which could not be known whether so or no by the ages next succeeding the Apostles And therefore let any reasonable person judge what probability there is in what you drive at that Apostolical Traditions may be more easily known than Apostolical Writings By which it appears 3. How vain and insufficient your reasons are Why Traditions should not be so liable to corruption as the Scriptures 1. You say Vniversal Traditions are recorded in Authours of every succeeding age and it seems more incident to have the Bible corrupted than them because of its bulk and passing through the hands of particular men whereas universal and immemorial Traditions are openly practised and taken notice of by every one in all ages To which I answer 1. That you give no sufficient reason why the Bible should be corrupted 2. And as little why Traditions should be more preserved than that Two Accounts you give why the Bible might be corrupted by errours because of its bulk and passing through the hands of particular men But Do you think it a thing impossible or at least unreasonable to suppose that a Book of no greater bulk than the Bible should by the care and vigilancy of men through the assistance of Divine Providence be preserved from any material corruptions or alterations Surely if you think so you have mean thoughts of the Christians in all ages and meaner of Divine Providence For you must suppose God to take no care at all for the preservation of
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
such Miracles as 〈◊〉 did besides all which they do tends to advance these evil spirits in the world but the design of the true Prophets is to declare the True God and his Son Christ. But May then any one by the innate power of his mind yield a divine assent to these things No but pray earnestly to God to enlighten your mind for this is the effect of Divine Grace in and through Christ. What part is there now of our resolution of Faith which is not herein asserted If you ask Why you believe there were such men in the World as these Prophets The continuance of their Books and common Fame sufficiently attest it If you ask Why you should believe them to be True Prophets The excellency of their Doctrine joyned with the fulfilling Prophecies and working Miracles abundantly prove it But if you lastly ask Whether besides objective evidence there be not some higher efficient requisite to produce a Divine Faith The Answer is That depends upon the Grace of God in Christ So that here we have most evidently all those things concurring which his Lordship asserts in the resolution of Faith Moral inducement preparing the mind rational evidence from the thing into which Faith is resolved and Divine Grace requisite in the nature of an efficient cause But Where is there the least intimation of any Churches Infallibility requisite to make men believe with a firm and Divine Faith No doubt that was a Divine Faith which Justin was bid to pray so heartily for and which was only in those to whom it was given and yet even this Faith had no other assurance to build it self upon but that rational evidence which is before discovered That Divine Person never thought of mens believing with their Wills much less that the Books of Scripture had no more evidence of themselves than distinction of colours to a blind man he did not think Christ an Ignoramus or Impostor because he left no Church infallible nor that God by the Prophets laid a Foundation upon sand or that would last but a few years because he did not continue such an Infallible Assistance as the Prophets had to the Church in all ages yet these are all brave assertions of yours which doubtless you would be ashamed of and recant if you had not as Casaubon saith of the Person whom you could not tell whether he was a Jesuit or no but by that character you might guess it that he had frontem ferream cor involutum a brow of steel and a heartfull of Meanders to use your own fine expression Upon this Justin tells us a divine ardour was raised in his mind and a love of the Prophets and such as were the Friends of Christ and upon further consideration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I found this the only certain and profitable Philosophy and thereupon commends the Doctrine of Christ to Trypho and his Company for something which was certainly innate to it that it had a kind of awe and majesty in it and is excellent at terrifying and perswading those who were out of the right way and brings the sweetest tranquillity to such as are conversant in it And afterwards undertakes to demonstrate the truth of our Religion from the reasonableness of it that we have not yielded our assent to vain and empty Fables nor to assertions uncapable of evidence and demonstration but to such as are filled with a Divine Spirit overflowing with Power and flourishing with Grace And accordingly manageth his discourse quite through shewing the insufficiency of the Ceremonial Law and the Truth and Excellency both of the Person and Doctrine of Christ. But what need all this if he had believed your Doctrine It had been but proving the Church Infallible by Motives of Credibility and then to be sure whatever was propounded to be believed by it was infallibly true But older and wiser it seems must hold here to Justin though so near the Apostles times went a much further way about but it was well for him he lived so long ago else he might have been accused of Heresie or making Faith uncertain if he had lived in our times and such Doctrine of his might have merited an Index Expurgatorius But it seems he was not afraid of it then for he often elsewhere speaks to the same purpose For in his Paraenesis to the Greeks he makes it his business first to shew the unreasonableness of believing those who were the great Authours of all their superstitions for the Poets were manifestly ridiculous the Philosophers at continual dissentions among themselves so that there was no relying on them for the finding out of Truth or the redress of the miseries of humane nature and then comes to the Authours of our Religion who were both much elder than any of theirs and did not teach any thing of their own heads nor dissented from one another in what they delivered or sought to confute each other as the Philosophers did but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without all jarring and contention they delivered to men the Doctrine which they received from God For saith he it was not possible for them to know such great and divine things by nature or humane wit but by a heavenly gift descending from above upon holy men It seems Justin believed there was such evidence in the matters contained in Scripture which might perswade men to believe that they came from God that they were but as instruments to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he expresseth it to that Divine Spirit which did strike upon them whence with one consent and harmony they sound forth the Doctrine of God the worlds Creation and Mans the Immortality of the soul Judgment to come and all things else which are necessary for us to know which they unanimously deliver to us though at great distances from each other both in regard of time and place And so proves the Antiquity of the Writings of Moses above all the Wise men of the Greeks by the testimony of their own Authours Polemon Appion Ptolomaeus Mendesius and many others and concludes his discourse with this speech That it is impossible for us to know any thing certainly concerning God or Religion but from Divine Inspiration which alone was in the Prophets In his first Apology for the Christians he tells us what it was while he was a Platonist which brought him to a good Opinion of Christianity which was the observing the power and efficacy that Doctrine had upon the Christians to undergo with so much courage what was accounted most terrible to humane nature which are death and torments From whence he reasoned with himself that although the Christians were so much calumniated yet certainly they could not be vitious persons who were so little fearful of those great Bug-bears of humane nature For Who is there that is a lover of pleasure or intemperate or cruel that can chearfully embrace death so as thereby to be deprived
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
was to shew that their Church from which the Donatists separated was the true Catholick Church which he proves from their communion with all the Apostolical Churches which had a clear and distinct succession from the Apostles their planters And because of the Vicinity and Fame of Rome and the easier knowing the succession there he instanceth in that in the first place and then proceeds to the rest of them But withall to shew the Vnity of all these Apostolical Churches when he had mentioned Siricius as the present Bishop of Rome he adds That all the world agreed with him in the entercourse of the formed Letters not thereby intimating any supremacy of that Church above others but to shew that that succession he instanceth in at Rome was of the Catholick Church because the whole Christian world did agree in Communion with him that was the Bishop there And when he speaks of one chair it is plain he means it of the particular Church of Rome because every Apostolical Church had an Apostolical Chair belonging to it So Tertullian expresly That in all the Apostolical Churches there were their Chairs still remaining And Eusebius particularly mentions the Apostolical Throne or Chair at Hierusalem as others do that of Mark at Alexandria and of the rest elsewhere Nothing then can possibly be inferred from these words of Optatus concerning the Church of Rome but what would equally hold for any other Apostolical Church and how much that is let the Reader judge And how much soever it be it will be very little for your advantage who pretend to something peculiar to the Church of Rome above all other Churches From Optatus you proceed or rather return to S. Hierom who say you professes the Church is built upon S. Peter 's See and that whoever eats the Lamb that is pretends to believe in Christ and partakes of the Sacraments out of that house that is out of the communion of that Church is prophane and an Alien yea that he belongs to Antichrist and not to Christ whoever consents not with the successor of S. Peter This Testimony sounds big and high at first and I shall not impute these expressions either to S. Hierome's heat or his flattery although it looks the more suspicious because at that time he had so great a pique against the Eastern Bishops and that these words are contained in a complemental address to Damasus But setting aside what advantages might be gained on that account to weaken the force of this Testimony if we consider the occasion or nature of these expressions we shall find that they reach not the purpose you design them for We must therefore consider that at the time of the writing this Epistle S. Hierom seems to be in a great perplexity what to do in that division which was then in the Church of Antioch concerning Paulinus Vitalis and Miletius but besides this Schism it seems S. Hierom suspected some remainders of Arrianism to be still among them from their demanding of him Whether he acknowledged three distinct hypostases in the Trinity Now S. Hierom by hypostasis understands the essence as many of the Greek Fathers did and thence the Sardian Council defined That there was but one hypostasis of the Father Son and Spirit and therefore he suspects that when they require of him the acknowledgement of three hypostases they might design to entrap him and unawares betray him into Arrianism And therefore argues stifly in the remainder of that Epistle that hypostasis properly signifies essence and nothing else and from thence urgeth the inconvenience of admitting the terms of three hypostases Now S. Hierom being thus set upon by these Eastern Bishops he keeps off from communion with them and adviseth with the Aegyptian Confessors and follows them at present but having received his Baptism in the Church of Rome and being looked on as a Roman where he was he thought it necessary to address himself to Pope Damasus to know what he should do in this case And the rather because if S. Hierom had consented with them they would have looked on it as an evidence of the agreement of the Roman Church with them Therefore he so earnestly and importunately writes to Damasus concerning it as being originally part of his charge having been baptized in that Church But say you whatever the occasion of the words were Is it not plain that he makes the Church to be built on S. Peter's See and that whosoever is out of the communion of that Church is an Alien and belongs to Antichrist To that therefore I answer 1. That he doth not say that the Catholick Church is built on the particular Church of Rome for it is not super hanc Petram as referring to the Cathedra immediately preceding but super illam and therefore it is not improbably supposed by some that the Rock here referrs to Christ. And although Erasmus doth imagine that some particular priviledge and dignity did belong to Rome above other Churches from this place which is not the thing we contend about yet withall he sayes that by the Rock we must not understand Rome for that may degenerate but we must understand that Faith which Peter professed And it is a much easier matter for Marianus Victorius to tell him he lyes as he doth here in plain terms than to be able to confute what he saith And that the rather because he begins his discourse in that manner Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens whereby he attributes the supreme power and infallible judgement in the Church only to Christ. For as for your learned correction of praemium for primum though you follow Cardinal Perron in it yet it is without any probability at all it being contrary to all the MSS. used by Erasmus Victorius Gravius Possevin and others and hath no authority to vouch it but only Gratian who is condemned by your own Writers for a falsifier and corrupter of Authours 2. I answer when S. Hierom pronounces those Aliens and prophane who are out of the communion of the Church either it belongs not to the particular Church of Rome or if it doth it makes not much for your purpose 1. There is no certainty that he there speaks of the particular Church of Rome but that he rather speaks of the true Vniversal Church for it is plain he speaks of that Church which is built upon the Rock now by your own confession that cannot be the Church of Rome for that you suppose to be the Rock it self viz. the See of Peter and therefore the Church built upon it must be the Vniversal Church And that this must be his meaning appears from his plain words for he saith Vpon that Rock the Church is built and whosoever eats the Lamb without this house is prophane he cannot certainly mean Whosoever eats without the Rock but without the house built upon it so that the house in the latter clause
Nice For if this be taken care for as to the Inferiour Clergy and Laity How much more would it have it to be observed in Bishops that so they who are in their own Province suspended from communion be not hastily or unduly admitted by your Holiness Let your Holiness also reject the wicked refuges of Priests and Inferiour Clerks for no Canon of the Fathers hath taken that from the Church of Africk and the decrees of Nice hath subjected both the Inferiour Clergy and Bishops io their Metropolitans For they have most wisely and justly provided that every business be determined in the place where it begun and that the Grace of the Holy Spirit will not be wanting to every Province that so equity may be prudently discovered and constantly held by Christ's Priests Especially seeing that it is lawful to every one if he be offended to appeal to the Council of the Province or even to an Vniversal Council Vnless perhaps some body believe that God can inspire to every one of us the justice of examination of a cause and refuse it to a multitude of Bishops assembled in Council Or How can a judgement made beyond the Sea be valid to which the persons of necessary witnesses cannot be brought by reason of the infirmity of their sex and age or of many other intervening impediments For this sending of men to us from your Holiness we do not find commanded by any Synod of the Fathers And as for that which you did long since send to us by Faustinus our Fellow-Bishop as belonging to the Council of Nice we could not find it in the truest Copies of the Council sent by holy Cyril our Colleague Bishop of Alexandria and by the venerable Atticus Bishop of Constantinople which also we sent to your predecessor Boniface of happy memory by Innocent a Presbyter and Marcellus a Deacon Take heed also of sending to us any of your Clerks for executors to those who desire it lest we seem to bring the swelling pride of the world into the Church of Christ which beareth the light of simplicity and the brightness of humility before them that desire to see God And concerning our Brother Faustinus Apiarius being now for his wickedness cast out of the Church of Christ we are confident that our brotherly love continuing through the goodness and moderation of your Holiness Africa shall no more be troubled with him Thus I have at large produced this noble Monument of the prudence courage and simplicity of the African Fathers enough to put any reasonable man out of the fond conceit of an Vniversal Pastorship of the Bishop of Rome I wonder not that Baronius saith There are some hard things in this Epistle that Perron sweats and toils so much to so little purpose to enervate the force of it for as long as the records of it last we have an impregnable Bulwark against the Vsurpations of the Church of Rome And methinks you might blush for shame to produce those African Fathers as determining the Appeals of Bishops to Rome who with as much evidence and reason as courage and resolution did finally oppose it What can be said more convincingly against these Appeals than is here urged by them That they have neither authority from Councils nor any Foundation in Justice and Equity that God's presence was as well in Africk as Rome no doubt then they never imagined any Infallibility there that the proceedings of the Roman Bishop were so far from the simplicity and humility of the Gospel that they tended only to nourish swelling pride and secular ambition in the Church That the Pope had no authority to send Legats to hear causes and they hoped they should be no more troubled with such as Faustinus was All these things are so evident in this testimony that it were a disparagement to it to offer more at large to explain them I hope then this will make you sensible of the injury you have done the African Fathers by saying that they determined the causes of Bishops might be heard at Rome Your Answer to the place of S. Gregory which his Lordship produceth concerning Appeals viz. that the Patriarch is to put a final end to those causes which come before him by Appeal from Bishops and Arch-Bishops is the very same that it speaks only of the Inferiour Clergy and therefore is taken off already But you wonder his Lordship should expose to view the following words of S. Gregory where there is neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch of that Diocese there they are to have recourse to the See Apostolick as being the Head of all Churches Then surely it follows say you the Bishop of Rome 's Jurisdiction is not only over the Western and Southern Provinces but over the whole Church whither the Jurisdiction of Patriarchs and Metropolitans never extended See how well you make good the common saying That Ignorance is the cause of Admiration for Wherefore should you wonder at his Lordships producing these words if you had either understood or considered the abundant Answers which he gives to them 1. That if there be a Metropolitan or a Patriarch in those Churches his judgement is final and there ought to be no Appeal to Rome 2. It is as plain that in those ancient times of Church-Government Britain was never subject to the See of Rome of which afterwards 3. It will be hard for any man to prove that there were any Churches then in the world which were not under some either Patriarch or Metropolitan 4. If any such were 't is gratis dictum and impossible to be proved that all such Churches where-ever seated in the world were obliged to depend on Rome And Do you still wonder why his Lordship produces these words I may more justly wonder why you return no Answer to what his Lordship here sayes But still the Caput omnium Ecclesiarum sticks with you if his Lordship hath not particularly spoken to that it was because his whole discourse was sufficient to a man of ordinary capacity to let him see that no more could be meant by it but some preheminence of that Church above others in regard of order and dignity but no such thing as Vniversal Power and Jurisdiction was to be deduced from it And if Gregory understood more by it as his Lordship saith 'T is gratis dictum and Gregory himself was not a person to be believed in his own cause But now as you express it his Lordship takes a leap from the Church of Rome to the Church of England No neither his Lordship nor we take a leap from thence hither but you are the men who leap over the Alps from the Church of England to that of Rome We plead as his Lordship doth truly That in the ancient times of the Church Britain was never subject to the See of Rome but being one of the Western Dioceses of the Empire it had a Primate of its own This you say his Lordship should
Representative of the Vniversal Church The utmost then that can be supposed in this case is that the parts of the Church may voluntarily consent to accept of the decrees of such a Council and by that voluntary act or by the Supream authority injoyning it such decrees may become obligatory But what is this to an Infallibility in the Council because it represents the whole Church For neither is there evidence enough for such a representation neither if there were could any priviledge of that nature belong to the representative body because of any promise made to the diffusive body of the Church 2. What belongs to the representative body of the Church by vertue of a promise made to the diffusive can in no other sense be understood of the representative then as it belongs to the diffusive Because no further right can be derived from any then they had themselves Therefore supposing a promise of Infallibility made to the Church it is necessary to know in what way and manner that promise belongs to it for in no other way and manner can it belong to the Council which represents it If therefore the Churches Infallibility lyes only in Fundamentals the Councils Infallibility can extend no further If the Churches Infallibility doth not imply that all the Church or the major part should be Infallible but that though the major part err yet all the Church shall not then neither can it be true of a General Council that all or the major part should be Infallible but only that there should be no such General Council wherein all the Bishops should erre But then this is utterly destructive to the Infallibility of the Decrees of General Councils for those must pass by the major part of the Votes Which Canus one of the acutest of our adversaries was sensible of and grants that the major part in a General Council may erre and the lesser part hold the truth but then he saith That the Pope is not bound to follow the major part Which is expresly to take away any pretext of Infallibility from the Decrees of the Council and place it wholly in the Pope And Why may not then the Pope and a Provincial Council be as Infallible as the Pope and the lesser part of a General Council What then do the promises of Infallibility to the Council signifie if the major part may definitively erre And therefore Bellarmin likes not this Answer as being too plain and open but gives another as destructive to the Councils Infallibility as this is Which is that in case the major part doth resist the better in a General Council as in that of Ariminum and the second at Ephesus yet that it cannot conquer it How so Doth it not conquer it when the Decrees are passed by the major part No saith he for these Decrees are afterwards made void Very good But then I suppose in the Council the major part did conquer although not after But by whom are they made void By him to whom it belongs to confirm his Brethren saith Bellarmin Well but the skill is to know who that is in this case who can reverse the Decree of the representative body of the Church under the plea of confirming his Brethren If it be the Pope Who reversed the Decrees of the Council of Sirmium to which the Pope subscribed And for that of Ariminum and Selencia Hilary did more to reverse it than ever the Pope did Therefore others say It is in the Churches power to make void the Decrees of General Councils as she did the Decrees of the Arrian Councils If so then we plainly see the Infallibility doth not lye in the representative but in the diffusive body of the Church still if that hath the power to avoid and repeal the Decrees of General Councils So that all the Infallibility of Councils is meerly probationary and stands to the good liking and consent of the dâ—ffusive body of the Church By which means the Decrees of a Provincial Council being accepted by the Church are as Infallible as of a General But in all these waies there is no proper Infallibility at all in the major part of a General Council but it wholly lyes either in the Pope or in the diffusive body of the Church still 3. If these places which mention a promise of Infallibility to the Church must imply the Infallibility of General Councils as the Churches representative then it will thence follow that the Decrees of General Councils are Infallible whether the Pope confirm them or no. For the Infallibility is not promised at all mediante Papâ but virtute Ecclesiae for if they be infallible as representing the Church they are Infallible whether there be any Pope or no for the Pope doth not make them more represent the Church than they did before And this is very well understood and proved by those who from these promises to the Church and from that Infallibility consequent upon it by their adversaries confession to a General Council do inferr the Councils Authority to be above the Popes Which is a just and necessary consequence from this assertion That the priviledges of the Vniversal Church are by vertue of its representation in a General Council Which Doctrine was asserted by the Councils of Constance and Basil and by the Sorbonne Doctors till their being Jesuited of late Who have therefore asserted that it might be as lawful to call in question the Decrees of the Council of Trent as of those two Councils And whereas their adversaries object That this is not de fide they answer It is impossible but that it should be de fide since it is decreed by General Councils For say they Were the Fathers at Constance and Basil acted by any other Spirit than those at Nicaea and Ephesus Why may not then the Council of Trent be opposed as well as them For if there be any difference they had much the advantage In the Council of Constance say they two Popes were present all the Cardinals two Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch and the Emperour himself and the Legats of all Christian Princes and besides all this it was confirmed by Pope Martin and the Acts of Confirmation extant in the 45. Session And so the Council of Basil was begun according to the Decrees of the Councils of Constance and Pisa and by vertue of the Bulls of Martin and Eugenius and the Popes Legats were presidents in it So that if General Councils be Infallible it must be de fide Catholicâ that their Authority is above the Pope's And if so their Infallibility cannot depend upon his Confirmation Now if we search into the grounds on which they build this power of General Councils independently on the Pope we shall find they derive it wholly from those places of Scripture which speak so much concerning the Church and Councils as is agreed on both sides And therefore Aeneas Sylvius afterwards Pius 2. sayes That is not the
cannot erre in his judicial determinations concerning Faith is not to be found either in letter or sense in any Scripture in any Council or in any Father of the Church for the full space of a thousand years and more after Christ To this you answer 1. That in the sense wherein Catholicks maintain the Popes Infallibility to be a matter of necessary belief to all Christians it is found for sense both in Scripture Councils and Fathers as you say you have proved in proving the Infallibility of General Councils of which he is the most principal and necessary member So then when we enquire for the Infallibility of General Councils we are sent to the Pope for his Confirmation to make them so but when we enquire for the Popes Infallibility we are sent back again to the Councils for the proof of it And they are hugely to blame if they give not an ample testimony to the Pope since he can do them as good a turn But between them both we see the greatest reason to believe neither the one nor the other to be Infallible But 2. You would offer at something too for his personal Infallibility in which I highly commend your prudence that you say You will omit Scripture and you might as well have omitted all that follows since you say only That the testimonies you have produced seem to do it in effect and at last say That it is an Assertion you have wholly declined the maintaining of and judge it expedient to do so still And you may very well do so if there be no better proofs for it than those you have produced but however we must examine them Doth not the Council of Chalcedon seem to say in effect that the Pope is Infallible when upon the reading of his Epistle to them in condemnation of the Eutychian Heresie the whole Assembly of Prelates cry out with acclamation and profess that S. Peter who was Infallible spake by the mouth of Leo and that the Pope was interpreter of the Apostles voice You do well to use those cautious expressions of seeming to say in effect for it would be a very hard matter to imagine any such thing as the Popes Infallibility in the highest expressions used by the Council of Chalcedon For after the reading of Leo's Epistle against Eutyches and many testimonies of the Fathers to the same purpose the Council begins their acclamations with these words This is the Faith of the Fathers this is the Faith of the Apostles all who are orthodox hold thus And after it follows Peter by Leo hath thus spoken the Apostles have taught thus Which are all the words there extant to that purpose And Is not this a stout argument for the Popes personal Infallibility For What else do they mean but only that Leo who succeeded in the Apostolical See of S. Peter at Rome did concurr in Faith with S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles But Do they say that it was impossible that Leo should erre or that his judgement was Infallible or only that he owned that Doctrine which was Divine and Apostolical And the Council of Ephesus your next testimony hath much less than this even nothing at all For the Council speaks not concerning S. Peter or the Pope in the place by you cited only one of the Popes officious Legats Philip begins very formally with S. Peter's being Prince and Head of the Apostles c. and that he to this day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lives in his successours and passeth judgement Is it not a very good Inference from hence that the Council acknowledged the Popes personal Infallibility because one of the Popes Legats did assert in the Council that S. Peter lived and judged by the Pope And yet Might not this be done without his personal Infallibility in regard of his succession in that See which was founded by S. Peter But you are very hard driven when you are fain to take up with the Sentence of a Roman Priest instead of a General Council and any judgement in matters of Faith instead of Infallibility Your other testimonies of S. Hierom S. Augustine and S. Cyprian have been largely examined already and for the remaining testimonies of four Popes you justly fear it would be answered that they were Popes and spake partially in their own cause And you give us no antidote against these fears but conclude very warily That you had hitherto declined the defence of that Assertion and professed that it would be sufficient for Protestants to acknowledge the Pope Infallible in and with General Councils only But as we see no reason to believe General Councils at all Infallible whether with or without the Pope so neither can we see but if the Infallibility of the Council depends on the Popes Confirmation you are bound to defend the Popes personal Infallibility as the main Bulwark of your Church CHAP. III. Of the errours of pretended General Councils The erroneous Doctrine of the Church of Rome in making the Priests intention necessary to the essence of Sacraments That principle destructive to all certainty of Faith upon our Authours grounds The absurdity of asserting that Councils define themselves to be Infallible Sacramental actions sufficiently distinguished from others without the Priests Intention Of the moral assurance of the Priests Intention and the insufficiency of a meer virtual Intention The Popes confirmation of Councils supposeth personal Infallibility Transubstantiation an errour decreed by Pope and Council The repugnancy of it to the grounds of Faith The Testimonies brought for it out of Antiquity examin'd at large and shewed to be far from proving Transubstantiation Communion in one kind a violation of Christs Institution The Decree of the Council of Constance implyes a non obstante to it The unalterable nature of Christs Institution cleared The several evasions considered and answered No publick Communion in one kind for a thousand years after Christ. The indispensableness of Christs Institution owned by the Primitive Church Of Invocation of Saints and the Rhetorical expressions of the Fathers which gave occâ—sion to it No footsteps of the Invocation of Saints in the three first Centuries nor precept or example in Scripture as our Adversaries confess Evidences against Invocation of Saints from the Christians Answers to the Heathens The worship of Spirits and Heroes among the Heathens justifiable on the same grounds that Invocation of Saints is in the Church of Rome Commemoration of the Saints without Invocation in S. Augustins time Invocation of Saints as practised in the Church of Rome a derogation to the merits of Christ. Of the worship of Images and the near approach to Pagan Idolatry therein No Vse or Veneration of Images in the Primitive Church The Church of Rome justly chargeable with the abuses committed in the worship of Images ALthough nothing can be more unreasonable then to pretend that Church Person or Council to be Infallible which we can prove to have actually