she enquired after some Church which without danger of errour might direct her in all doctrinal points of Faith doth she not thereby imply that some other Church might bring her into danger of errour under pretence of directing her in matters of Faith and if this be some particular fallible Church the other must be some particular infallible Church And is it possible to conceive some Church that may erre in directing and some other that may not erre without some particular Church being taken in opposition to some other Church But you would fain perswade us that the force of his Lordships Argument rests wholly upon the importance of the particle a or an which cannot be applyed but to particulars which you very learnedly disprove whereas the main strength of what his Lordship says depends upon the nature of the question and the manner of proposing it For the Lady enquiring after such a Church whose judgement she might relye on as to the matters in dispute in the Christian world must mean such a Church whose communion must be known as distinct from other Churches which are not infallible for otherwise she might be deceived still And if you give a pertinent answer to her question you must shew her some such Church as an Infallible Guide which can be no other in this case but some particular Church considered as distinct from others For a general answer concerning the Infallibility of the Catholick Church without shewing how the Infallible judgement of that Church may be known can by no means reach the case in hand which doth not meerly respect an Infallibility in the subject but such an infallibility as may be a sufficient guide in all doctrinal points of Faith When you say therefore she meant no other then the Vniversal visible Church of Christ you must tell us how the Vniversal visible Church can become such an Infallible guide in the matters in Controversie between those Churches which yet are members of that Vniversal visible Church For the notion of the Vniversal Church not being in its nature confined to any one of these parties but all of them concurring to the making of it up can no more be an Infallible guide in the matters in difference then the common notion of Animal can direct us in judging what Beings are sensitive and what rational Therefore though you would fain deceive the world under a pretence of the Catholick Church yet nothing can be more evident then that in the question what Church must be a guide in Doctrinal points of Faith it must be understood of some Church as distinct from other Churches which ought not to be relyed on as infallible guides But the subtilty of this is that when you challenge Infallibility to your Church we should not apprehend her as a particular Church but as the true Catholick Church which is a thing so every way absurd and unreasonable that you had need use the greatest Artifice's to disguise it which yet can deceive none but such as are resolved to be deceived by them For any one who had his eyes in his head might discern without a Perspective as you speak that Churches of several and distinct Communions from each other were placed in competition for Infallibility For Mr. Fisher's next words are The Question was Which was that Church Do you think he means Which was that Vniversal visible Church Certainly not for the nature of the Question supposes several Churches now I think you do not believe there are several Vniversal visible Churches And it immediately follows A Friend of the Ladies would needs defend that not only the Roman but the Greek Church was right to which Mr. Fisher answers That the Greek Church had erred in matter of doctrine Can any thing be more plain then that this Question doth relate to Churches considered severally and as under distinct Communions and Denominations And therefore notwithstanding your pittiful pretences to the contrary this Question can be no otherwise understood then as his Lordship said of some particular Infallible Church in opposition to some other particular Church which is not Infallible And if you judge this an affected mistake as you call it your discerning faculty will be as lyable to Question as your Churches Infallibility That you might seem to avoid the better the force of his Lordships following discourse against Bellarmine about the Infallibility of the particular Church of Rome you first tell us That it is sufficient for a Catholick to believe that there is an Infallibility in the Church without further obligation to examine whether the particular Church of Rome be infallible or no. Which is an egregious piece of Sophistry For put case a man believes the Catholick Church of all Ages Infallible but not of any one particular Age since the Apostles times suppose a man believe the Catholick Church of the present Age Infallible but not of any one particular Communion but as it takes in those common truths wherein they are all agreed will you say this is sufficient for a Catholick to believe without obligation to examine further If you will speak it out and I dare say you shall not have much thanks at Rome when you have done it But the mysterie is If a man believes the Roman Church only to be the Catholick Church it is no matter whether he enquires whether the Catholick Church be only at Rome or no. It is not the place but the communion of the Roman Church which is now enquired after in the question of Infallibility although I cannot see but those places out of the Fathers which are produced to prove the Roman Church Infallible will hold for the continuance of that Infallibility in that particular place of Rome For St. Cyprian saith expresly of the Romans that they are such to whom Perfidia what ever be meant by it cannot have access St. Jerome saith The Roman Faith admits no deceits into it Gregory Nazianzene that Rome retains the ancient Faith Not that I think any of these places do in the least import the Infallibility of the Roman Church as will be shewed in its proper place but that on supposition that Infallibility were implyed in them they would hold for the Infallibility of the particular Roman Church And therefore Bellarmin understood what he did when he produced these places to that purpose especially the Apostolical See remaining at Rome as he supposeth himself in this part of the Question which he there discusseth Either therefore you must assert that which his Lordship learnedly proves viz. That no such thing as Infallibility is intended by any of these Citations or else that it must extend to the particular Roman Church And when you deny this to be an Article of Faith among Catholicks that the particular Roman Church the Apostolical See remaining there is Infallible prove at your leasure from any of these Citations that the Church within the Roman Communion is Infallible and not the particular
all Churches in order to their being true Churches as is plain by the rise of this Controversie for Mr. Fisher was proving the Greek Church to be no true Church and in order to that proves that she erred Fundamentally for which he makes Vse of this Medium That whatever is defined by the Church is Fundamental So that the whole Process of the Dispute lyes thus TWhat ever Church is guilty of a Fundamental Errour ceaseth to be a true Church but the Greek Church is guilty of a Fundamental Errour ergo The Minor being denyed he thus proves it If whatever is defined by the Church be Fundamental then the Greek Church is guilty of a Fundamental errour because she denyes something defined by the Church but whatever is defined by the Church is Fundamental which is the thing his Lordship denyes and his adversary is bound to prove So that any one who was not resolved to wink as hard as you do might easily see the state of the Controversie doth not concern what things are Fundamental supposing men know them to be sufficiently propounded but what things are so necessary to be owned for Fundamentals that upon the denying them a Church ceaseth to be a true Church Yet this mistake as gross and palpable as it is runs through your whole Discourse of Fundamentals which without it cannot hold together If you will therefore prove that besides such things whose necessity ariseth from the matter there are other from the Formal Object which all Churches are equally bound to believe in order to their being true Churches you do something but not before But we must still attend your Motions especially when they tend towards proofs as yours do now For say you Now I shew the difficulty being understood as it ought to be of the Formal Object whereby Points of Faith are manifested to Christians that all Points defined by the Church as matter of Faith are Fundamental that is necessary to Salvation to be believed by all those to whom they are sufficiently propounded to be so defined by this Argument Whosoever refuseth to believe any thing sufficiently propounded to him for a truth revealed from God commits a sin damnable and destructive of Salvation But whosoever refuses to believe any Point sufficiently propounded to him for defined by the Church as matter of Faith refuses to believe a thing sufficiently propounded to him for a truth revealed from God Ergo Whosoever refuses to believe any Point sufficiently propounded to him for defined by the Church as matter of Faith commits a sin damnable and destructive of Salvation Before you proceed to the proof of your Minor several things must here be considered that we may better understand your meaning and know what it is you intend to prove Especially what you intend by sufficient Proposition Do you mean such a Proposition as carries evidence along with it or not in which case the very understanding the terms is sufficient Proposition as that two and two make four but I suppose you mean not this therefore it must be the sufficient Proposition of something which wants natural evidence and therefore something else must be required besides the propounding the thing to make the Proposition be said to be sufficient For Sufficiency relates to some end so that a sufficient Proposition must be such a Proposition as is sufficient for its end now the end of the Proposition of Matters of Faith is that they may be believed and therefore the sufficiency of the Proposition lyes in the Arguments or Motives inducing men to believe Now the Objects of Faith being of a different nature the Sufficiency of the Proposition must be taken from a respect to them for in things which are so clearly revealed as necessary to Salvation that none who acknowledge the Scripture to be God's Word can doubt but such things are necessary in this case the Sufficiency of the Proposition lyes in the Evidence of Divine Revelation and the clearness of it to all understandings who consider it and the Reasons or Motives of Faith in that case are the same with those which induce men to believe that the Scripture it self is from Divine Revelation But there being other things in Scripture which neither appear so clear or so necessary to be believed by all something else is required in order to a sufficient Proposition of them and in order to the making any of these things universally obligatory to Christians on pain of damnation for not believing them these things are necessary 1. It must be much clearer than the thing which is propounded to be believed on the account of it for to propound a thing to be believed by something at least as disputable as the matter it self cannot certainly be call'd a sufficient Proposition 2. It must be antecedently proved to be a true and certain Proposition before any thing can be believed on the account of it For if men cannot see any reason to believe that there is any necessary Connexion between that which you call a sufficient Proposition and any matter of Faith they cannot be guilty of any sin at all in not believing what you think is sufficiently propounded But in this case it is not your judgement what Proposition is sufficient that makes it so but the Reason of the Thing and the Evidence that God hath appointed that way to reveal his Will to men and that what is so propounded is necessary to be believed As for instance suppose you were told by the Greek Church that to believe the Pope's Supremacy jure divino were a damnable sin and that whosoever did not believe this being sufficiently propounded to them as a matter of Faith as defined by the Church were guilty of a sin destructive to Salvation what answer would you return in this case Would you not say That the Proposition though judged sufficient by them is not judged so by you and that they must first prove that whatever their Church defines as a matter of Faith is to be believed for such before the other can be believed on the account of it Just the same answer we return to you prove first of all to us in a clear and evident manner that God hath appointed the Definition of your Church as the means whereby we may be infallibly assured what is Matter of Faith and what not and then we may grant that what your Church propounds as a matter of Faith is sufficiently propounded as a matter revealed from God but not before For while I see no reason to believe the Churches Proposition to be sufficient I have no reason to believe that what she propoundes as defined for matter of Faith is truly so And as long as I can see no reason to believe it prove the disbelief of it to be a sin in me when you can Thus we see how far from being evident that Major of yours is though you are pleased to tell us it is so but we do not believe your Defining
understood till we have gone through the Account of the Grounds of Faith If S. Augustine make some no Catholick Christians for holding obstinately some things of no great moment in his Book of Heresies it was because by Catholick Christians he understood all such and only such as were the members of the sound and Orthodox Church in opposition to all kind of unnecessary separation from it upon matters of small moment and not because he believed the Churches Infallibility in defining all matters of Faith and that all such things were so defined which men are call'd Hereticks for denying of unless you will suppose it was ever infallibly defined that there were no Antipodes for some were accounted Hereticks for believing them and that by such whom you account greater than S. Austin But for S. Austin how far it was from his meaning to have all those accounted Fundamental Errours which he recounts in his Book of Heresies appears not only from the multitude of particulars mentioned in it which no one in his senses can acknowledge Fundamental or declared by the Church as necessary to be believed by all but from his declared scope and design in the preface to that Book wherein it appears he was desired not only to write the greater errours concerning Faith the Trinity Baptism Repentance Christ the Resurrection the Old and New Testament Sed omnia omnino quibus à veritate dissentiunt i. e. all kind of errours whatsoever and do you think that there could then be no errour but it must be against some thing then defined by the Church as necessary to Salvation If not then all truths were then defined by the Church and consequently there could be no new Definitions ever since if there might then those errours mentioned by S. Austin were not about matters necessary to be believed and so S. Austin's Book of Heresies makes nothing for you but very much against you considering that in all that black list of Hereticks there are none brought in for denying those grand Fundamentals of your Church the Pope's Supremacy your Churches Infallibility nor any of that new brood of necessary Articles which were so prudently hatcht by the Council of Trent But if S. Austin do you no good you hope S. Gregory Nazianzen may because he saith That nothing can be more perillous than those Hereticks who with a drop of poison do infect our Lord 's sincere Faith Therefore all things defined by the Church are Fundamental What an excellent Art this Logick is that can fetch out of things that which was never in them What a rare consequence is this If Heresie be dangerous then whatever is defined by the Church is Fundamental but it may be the strength lyes in the drop of poison as though S. Gregory thought a drop of poison as dangerous as a whole dose of it But were I your Physitian instead of the least drop of poison I should prescribe you good store of Hellebore and should hope to see the effect of it in making better consequences than these are But to see yet further the strange effects that Logick hath upon some men for say you in the prosecution of your proof that all things defined by the Church are Fundamental Hence it is that Christ our Saviour saith Matth. 8.17 If he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as a Heathen and a Publican The Argument in form runs thus Whosoever deserves excommunication is guilty of a Fundamental Errour but he that will not hear the Church deserves Excommunication ergo Or else there may be more in it than so For no doubt the Heathens and Publicans as such were guilty of Fundamental Errours therefore they who will not hear the Church are guilty of as Fundamental Errours as Heathens and Publicans But before you urge us any more with this dreadful Argument I pray tell us What that Church is which our Saviour speaks of what the cases are wherein the Church is to be heard what the full importance is of being as a Heathen and Publican and you must prove this Church to be understood in your sense of the Catholick Church and that this Church hath hereby power to define matters of Faith and that none can possibly in any other sense be accounted as Heathens and Publicans but as guilty of as Fundamental Errours as they were Your next Objection concerning giving God and the Church the lye and preferring and opposing a man's private judgement and will before and against the Judgement and Will of God and the Church if men deny or doubt of any thing made known by the Church to be a truth revealed by God signifies nothing at all unless it be antecedently proved that the Church can never erre in declaring any thing to be a truth revealed by God which none who know what you mean by the Church will easily assent to till you have attempted a further proof of it than yet we find And although the questioning Divine Veracity be destructive to that which you call Supernatural Faith yet I hope it is possible to believe God to be true and yet that all men are lyars or that there is no such inseparable Connexion between God's Veracity and the present Declarations of any Church but that one may heartily assent to the former and yet question the truth of the latter If you think otherwise shew your pity to the weakness of our understandings by something that may look like a proof of it which we are still much to seek for But your greatest strength like Sampson's seems to lye there where one would least suspect it viz. in Athanasius his Creed For thus you go on Wherefore it is said in S. Athanasius his Creed which is approved in the thirty nine Articles of the pretended English Church that Whosoever will be saved it is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith which unless every one hold whole and inviolate without doubt he shall perish for ever Neither can the Bishop reply That all Points expressed therein are Fundamental in his sense for to omit the Article of our Saviours descent into Hell he mentions expresly the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son which his Lordship hath denyed to be a Fundamental Point as we saw in the former Chapter But the better to comprehend the force of this Argument we must first consider what it is you intend to prove by it and then in what way and manner you prove it from this Creed The matter which you are to prove is that all things defined by the Church are Fundamental i. e. in your sense necessary to Salvation and that the ground why such things whose matter is not necessary do become necessary is because the Church declares them to be revealed by God now in order to this you insist on the Creed commonly call'd Athanasius his wherein some things acknowledged not to be Fundamental in the matter are yet said to be necessary
in Points of Faith but the Authority of God speaking by the Church To which I answer that all this runs upon a Supposition false in it self which is That all our Assurance in matters of Faith depends upon the Infallible Authority of the present Church which being granted I would not deny but supposing that Infallibility absolute on the same reason I believe one thing on the Churches Authority I must believe all For the case were the same then as to the Church which we say it is as to the Scriptures he that believes any thing on the account of its being contained in that Book as the Word of God must believe every thing he is convinced to be therein contained whether the matter be in it self small or great because the ground of his belief is the Authority of God revealing those things to us And if therefore you could prove such a Divine Authority constantly resident in the Church for determining all matters of Faith I grant your consequence would hold but that is too great a boon to be had for begging and that is all the way you use for it here If you offer to prove it afterwards our Answers shall be ready to attend you But at present let it suffice to tell you That we believe no Article of Faith at all upon the Churches Infallible Authority and therefore though we deny what the Church proposeth it follows not that we are any more liable to question the truth of any Article any further than the Churches Authority reaches in it i. e. we deny that any thing becomes an Article meerly upon her account But now if you remove the Argument from the present Churches Infallible Authority to the Vniversal Churches Testimony we then tell you That he who questions a clear full universal Tradition of the whole Church from Christ's time to this will by the same reason doubt of all matters of Faith which are conveyed by this Testimony to us But then we must further consider That we are bound by virtue of the Churches Testimony to believe nothing any further than it appears to have been the constant full Vniversal Testimony of the Church from the time of Christ and his Apostles Whatever therefore you can make appear to have been received as a necessary Article of Faith in this manner we embrace it but nothing else and on the other side we say That whoever doubts or denies this Testimony will doubt of all matters of Faith because the ground and rule of Faith the Scriptures is conveyed to us only through this Universal Tradition 3. You answer That his Lordship mistakes Vincentius Lerinensis his meaning and falsifies his testimony thrice at least Whereof the first is in rendring de Catholico dogmate of Catholick Maxims and here a double most dreadful charge is drawn up against his Lordship the first from the accusation of Priscian and the second of no less Authours than Rider and the English Lexicons the first is for translating the Singular Number by the Plural whereas our most Reverend Orbilius himself in the following page tells us that this Catholicum dogma Vincentius speaks of contains the whole Systeme of the Catholick Faith and in that Systeme some are Fundamentals some Superstructures both Plurals yet all these contained in this one singular Dogma but it was his Lordships great mishap not to have his education in the Schools of the Jesuites else he might have escaped the lash for this most unpardonable oversight of rendring verbum multitudinis by our Authours own confession who makes it larger too then his Lordship doth for his Lordship saith it contains only Fundamentals but our Authour Superstructures too by the Plural Number But the second fault is worse then this for saith our Authour very gravely and discreetly with his rod in his hand But in what Authour learnt he that Dogma signifies only Maxims were it in the Plural number Dogma according to our English Lexicons Rider and others signifies a Decree or common received Opinion whether in prime or less principal matters What a learned dispute are we now fallen into But I see you were resolved to put all but Boys and Paedagogues out of all likelyhood of confuting you For those are only the persons among us who deal in Rider and English Lexicons I see now there is some hopes that the orders of the Inquisition may have better Latin then that against Mr. White had since our old Jesuites begin to be so well versed in such Masters of the Latin tongue How low is Infallibility fallen that we must appeal for knowing what dogma fidei is to the definition not of Popes and Councils but of Rider and English Lexicons But it is ill jesting with our Orbilius in so severe a humour that his Grace of Canterbury cannot scape his lash for not consulting Riders Dictionary for the signification of Dogma But our Authour passeth and we must attend him out of his Grammatical into the Theological School and there tells us That the Ecclesiastical signification of Dogma extends it self to all things established in the Church as matters of Faith whether Fundamentals or Superstructures and for this Scotus is cited somewhat a better Authour than Rider who calls Transubstantiation Dogma fidei I begin to believe now that Dogma is a very large word and Fides much larger that can hold so prodigious a thing as Transubstantiation within them But notwithstanding what Rider and Scotus say None so able to explain Vincentius his meaning as Vincentius himself To him therefore at last our Authour appeals and tells us That he declares in other places that he means by Dogma such things as in general belong to Christian Faith without distinction But doth Vincentius any where by Dogma mean any such things which were not judged necessary by the ancient and Primitive Church but become necessary to be believed upon the Churches Definitions Nothing can possibly be imagined more directly contrary to the design of his whole Book then that is when he appeals still for matters to be believed to Antiquity Vniversality and Consent and to be sure all these are required to whatever he means by a Dogma fidei if you therefore can produce any testimonies out of his Book which can be supposed in the least to favour the power of the Church in her new Definitions of matters of Faith you may justly challenge to your self the name of an excellent Invention who can find that in his Book which all other persons find the directly contrary to Your first citation is out of ch 33. not 23. as you quote it or some one else for you where he is explaining what St. Paul means by Prophanas vocum novitates Vocum saith he i. e. Dogmatum rerum sententiarum novitates quae sunt vetustati quae antiquitati contrariae I shall not scruple to grant you that Vincentius by Dogmata here doth mean such things as the Definitions of your Church
whatever the private Opinions of men are they are ready to submit their judgements to the censure and determination of the Church if it be good will hold as well or better for our Unity as yours because all men are willing to submit their judgements to Scripture which is agreed on all sides to be Infallible If you say That it cannot be known what Scripture determines but it may be easily what the Church defines It is easily answered that the event shews it to be far otherwise for how many Disputes are there concerning the Power of determining matters of Faith to whom it belongs in what way it must be managed whether parties ought to be heard in matters of Doctrine what the meaning of the Decrees are when they are made which raise as many Divisions as were before them as appears by the Decrees of the Council of Trent and the latter of Pope Innocent relating to the five Propositions So that upon the whole it appears setting aside force and fraud which are excellent principles of Christian Vnity we are upon as fair terms of Vnion as you are among your selves You tell us That your Church doth Anathematize only such persons as are obstinate but who are they whom she accounts obstinate even all who dissent from her in any punctilio And therefore this is a singular piece of Moderation in your Church And you believe the troubles of Christendom rather come from too great freedom taken in matters of Faith than from any severity in the Church of Rome The truth is you have excellent waies of ending Controversies much like perswading men to put out their Eyes to end the Disputes about the nature of Colours and if they will not hearken to such prudent counsel they are pronounced obstinate and perverse for offering to keep their Eyes in their Heads And if men will not say that White is Black when your Church bids them do it these men are the troublers of Israel and the fomenters of the Discords of the Christian world But if your Church had kept to the primitive simplicity and moderation and not offered to define matters of Faith the occasion of most of the Controversies of the Christian world had been taken away Believe what you will and speak what you list there are none who consider what they believe or speak but easily discover whence the great Dissentions of the Christian world have risen viz. from the Ambition and Vsurpation of the Church of Rome which hath not been contented to have introduced many silly Superstitions into the publick exercise of Devotion but when any of these came to be discovered thought it her best course to defend her corruptions with greater by inforcing men to the belief of them and thereby rendring a Separation from her Communion unavoidable by all those who sought to retrieve the Piety and Devotion of the Primitive Church And yet this must be call'd Schism and the persons attempting it Hereticks by that same Pious and tender-hearted Mother of yours who loves her Children so dearly that if they do but desire any reformation of abuses she takes all possible care they shall complain no more As though the only way to prevent quarrelling in the world were to cut out peoples Tongues and cut off their Arms Such a kind of Vnity hath your Church shewed her self very desirous of where ever power and conveniency have met for the carrying it on But I hope you will give us leave not to envy the Vnity of those who therefore agree in the Church because as soon as they do in the least differ from it they are pronounced not to be of it for opposing the determinations of it And yet notwithstanding the violence and fraud used in your Church to preserve its Vnity the world is alarm'd with the noise of its Dissentions and the increase of the differing parties who manage their Contests with great heats and animosities against each other under all the great pretences of your Vnity I cannot but therefore judge it a very prudent expression of his Lordship That as the Church of England is not such a Shrew to her Children as to deny her blessing or denounce an Anathema against them if some peaceably dissent in some particulars remoter from the Foundation So if the Church of Rome since she grew to her greatness had not been so fierce in this course and too particular in determining too many things and making them matters of necessary belief which had gone for many hundred of years before only for things of pious Opinion Christendom I perswade my self had been in happier Peace at this day then I doubt we shall ever live to see it And it is an excellent reason you give why the Church of Rome doth impose her Doctrine on the whole world under pain of damnation because it is not in her power to do otherwise There is little hopes then of amendment in her if she thinks so But you tell us Christ hath commanded her to do it What hath he commanded her to do to add to his Doctrine by making things necessary which he never made to be so Is it in that place where he bids the Apostles to teach all that he commanded them that he gives power to the Church to teach more than he commanded But this is a new kind of Supererogation to make more Articles of Faith than ever men required to make Where still is this Command extant in Scripture Not sure any where but in that most apposite place produced to that and all other good purposes which have nothing else to prove them even Dic Ecclesiae If he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as a Heathen and a Publican therefore the Church of Rome is commanded by Christ to impose her Doctrine on the whole Church upon pain of damnation Sure you will pronounce men obstinate that dare in the least question this after so irrefragable a demonstration of it And you may well cry Scripture is not fit to decide Controversies when you consider the lame Consequences you above all men derive from it His Lordship shews the Moderation of the Church of England even in that Canon which A. C. looks on as the most severe where she pronounces Excommunication on such as affirm that the Articles are in any part superstitious or erronious c. by these things 1. That it is not meant of mens private judgements but of what they boldly and publickly affirm 2. That it is one thing to hold contrary to some part of an Article and anotherp ositively to affirm That the Articles in any part are superstitious or erronious 3. The Church of England doth this only for thirty nine Articles but the Church of Rome doth it for above a hundred in matter of Doctrine 4. The Church of England never declared That every one of her Articles are Fundamental in the Faith but the Church of Rome requires that all be
believed as Fundamental when once the Church hath determined them 5. The Church of England prescribes only to her own Children and by those Articles provides but for her own peaceable consent in those Doctrines of Truth But the Church of Rome severely imposes her Doctrine upon the whole world under pain of damnation To all these very considerable Instances of our Churches Moderation your Answer is The Question is not Whether the English Congregation or the Roman Church be more severe but Whether the English Protestants Severity be not unreasonable supposing she be subject to errour in defining those Articles For after many words to the same i. e. little purpose the reason you give for it is That every just Excommunication inflicted for opposing of Doctrine must necessarily suppose the Doctrine opposed to be infallibly true and absolutely exempt from errour otherwise the Sentence it self would be unreasonable and unjust as wanting sufficient ground From whence you charge Protestants with greater Tyranny and Injustice towards their people than they can with any colour or pretence of reason charge upon the Roman Church which excommunicates no man but for denying such Doctrine as is both infallibly True and also Fundamental at least as to its formal Object This is the strength of all you say which will be reduced to this short Question Whether the proceedings of that Church be more unreasonable which excommunicates such as openly oppose her Doctrine supposing her Fallible or of that Church which excommunicates all who will not believe whatever she defines to be Infallibly true This is the true State of the Controversie which must be judged by the resolving another Question Whether it be not a more unreasonable Vsurpation to bind men upon pain of damnation hereafter and excommunication here to believe every thing Infallible which a Church defines or to bind men to peace to a Churches Determinations reserving to men the liberty of their judgements on pain of Excommunication if they violate that peace For it is plain on the one side where a Church pretends Infallibility the Excommunication is directed against the persons for refusing to give Internal Assent to what she defines But where a Church doth not pretend to that the Excommunication respects wholly that Overt Act whereby the Churches Peace is broken And if a Church be bound to look to her own Peace no doubt she hath power to excommunicate such as openly violate the bonds of it which is only an Act of Caution in a Church to preserve her self in Vnity but where it is given out that the Church is Infallible the Excommunication must be so much the more unreasonable because it is against those Internal Acts of the mind over which the Church as such hath no direct power And thus I hope you see how much more just and reasonable the proceedings of our Church are then of yours and that eo nomine because she pretends to be infallible and ours doth not His Lordship shews further in Vindication of the Church of England and her grounds of Faith that the Church of England grounded her Positive Articles upon Scripture and her Negative do refute there where the thing affirmed by them is not affirmed by Scripture nor directly to be concluded out of it And this he saith is the main principle of all Protestants that Scripture is sufficient to Salvation and contains in it all things necessary to it The Fathers are plain the Schoolmen not strangers in it And Stapleton himself confesses as much Nay and you dare not deny it as to all material Objects of Faith and your formal here signifies nothing And when A. C. saith That the Church of England grounded her Positive Articles upon Scripture if themselves may be Judges in their own cause His Lordship answers We are contented to be judged by the joynt and constant belief of the Fathers which lived within the first four or five hundred years after Christ when the Church was at the best and by the Councils held within those times and to submit to them in all those Points of Doctrine This Offer you grant to be very fair and you do for your selves promise the same and say You will make it good upon all occasions Which we shall have tryal of before the end of this Book To what his Lordship saith concerning the Negative Articles That they refute where the thing affirmed by them is either not affirmed in Scripture or not directly to be concluded out of it A. C. replies That the Baptism of Infants is not expresly at least not evidently affirmed in Scripture nor directly at least not demonstratively concluded out of it Here two things his Lordship answers 1. To the Expression 2. To the thing 1. To the Expression That he is no way satisfied with A. C. his addition not expresly at least not evidently for saith he What means he If he speak of the lâ—tter of Scripture then whatsoever is expresly is evidently in the Scripture and so his addition is in vain If he speak of the meaning of Scripture then his addition is cunning For many things are expresly in Scripture which yet in their meaning are not evidently there And as little satisfied his Lordship declares himself with that other nor directly at least not demonstratively because many things are directly concluded which are not demonstratively To the first you answer That a Point may be exprest yet not evidently exprest otherwise there could be no doubt concerning what were exprest in Scripture since men never question things that are evident Now say you the Baptism of Infants must not only â—e exprest but evidently exprest to prove it sufficiently i. e. undeniably by Scripture alone But the Question being concerning matters of Doctrine and not meer words those things are expresly affirmed which are evidently and no other For it is one thing for words to be expresly in Scripture and another for Doctrines to be so For these latter are no further expresly affirmed there than as there is evidence that the meaning of such words doth contain such a Doctiine in them As to take your own Instance This is my Body we grant the words to be express but we deny that which he had then in his hands was his real Body for his hands were part of his real Body Now we do not say That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is expresly but not evidently contained here for we say The Doctrine is not there at all but only that those are the express words This is my Body as it is in other figurative expressions in Scripture But that which causeth this litigation about words is That you look upon that which is evident and undeniable to be all one whereas there may be sufficient evidence where all men are not perswaded by it And so you would put his Lordship to prove out of Scripture Infant-Baptism evidently and demonstratively i. e. undeniably whereas his Lordship supposeth it
That the external accidents might remain where the substance was changed Now therefore when the Assurance of Christian Religion came from the judgement of the Senses of those who were Eye-witnesses of the Miracles and the Resurrection of Christ if the Senses of men may be so grosly deceived in the proper Objects of them in the case of Transubstantiation what assurance could they themselves have who were Eye-witnesses of them and how much less assurance can we have who have all our Evidence from the certainty of their report So that it appears upon the whole that take away the certainty of the judgement of Sense you destroy all Certainty in Religion for Tradition only conveys to us now what was originally grounded upon the judgement of Sense and delivers to us in an undoubted manner that which the Apostles saw and heard And do not you then give a very good account of Religion by the Infallibility of your Church when if I believe your Church to be infallible I must by vertue of that Infallibility believe something to be true which if it be true there can be no certainty at all of the Truth of Christian Religion 2. Another principle is That we can have no certainty of any of the grounds of Faith but from the Infallibility of your present Church Whereby you do these two things 1. Destroy the obligation to Faith which ariseth from the rational evidence of Christian Religion 2. Put the whole stress of the truth of Christianity upon the proofs of your Churches Infallibility by which things any one may easily see what tendency your doctrine of resolving Faith hath and how much it designs the overthrow of Christianity 1. You destroy the obligation to Faith from the rational evidence of Christian Religion by telling men as you do expresly in the very Title of your next Chapter That there can be no unquestionable assurance of Apostolical Tradition but for the infallible authority of the present Church If so then men cannot have any unquestionable assurance that there was such a Person as Christ in the world that he wrought such great miracles for confirmation of his Doctrine that he dyed and rose again it seems we can have no assurance of these things if the present Church be not Infallible And if we can have no assurance of them what obligation can lye upon us to believe them for assurance of the matters of fact which are the foundations of Faith is necessary in order to the obligation to believe I mean such an assurance as matters of fact are capable of for no higher can be required then the nature of things will bear And what a strange assertion then is this that matters of fact cannot be conveyed to us in an unquestionable manner unless the present Church stamp her Infallibility upon them Cannot we have an unquestionable assurance that there were such persons as Caesar and Pompey and that they did such and such things without some infallible testimony if we may in such things why not in other matters of fact which infinitely more concern the world to know then whatever Caesar or Pompey did But this will be more at large examined afterwards I only now take notice of the consequence of this principle and how fairly it destroyes all rational evidence of the truth of our Religion which whosoever takes away will be by force of reason a Sceptick in the first place and an Infidel in the second Neither is the danger meerly in destroying the rational evidence of Religion but 2. In putting the whole weight of Religion upon the proofs of the present Churches infallibility which whosoever considers how silly and weak they are cannot sufficiently wonder at the design of those men who put the most excellent Religion in the world and which is built upon the highest and truest reason to such a strange kind of Ordeal tryal that if she pass not through this St. Winifreds needle her innocency must be suspected and her truth condemned So that whosoever questions the truth of this kind of Purgation will have a greater suspition of a juggle and imposture if she be acquitted then if she had never submitted to such a tryal And when we come to examine the proofs brought for this Infallibility it will then further appear what uncertainty in Religion men are betrayed to under this confident pretext of Infallibility Thus we see what Scepticism in Religion the principles owned upon the account of Infallibility do bring men to 3. When you have brought men to this that the only sure ground of Faith is the Infallibility of your Church you are not able to give them any satisfactory account at all concerning it but plunge them into greater uncertainties then ever they were in before For you can neither satisfie them what that Church is which you suppose Infallible what in that Church is the proper subject of this Infallibility what kind of Infallibility this is nor how we should know when the Church doth decide Infallibly and when not and yet every one of these questions is no less then absolutely necessary to be resolved in order to the satisfaction of mens minds as to the foundation of their Faith 1. You cannot satisfie men What that Church is which you suppose to be Infallible Certainly if you had a design to give men a certain foundation for their Faith you would not be so shy of discovering what it is you understand by that Church which you would have Infallible if you had meant honestly the first thing you should have done was to have prevented all mistakes concerning the meaning of the Church when you know what various significations it hath not only in Scripture but among your selves Whether you mean the Church essential representative or vertual for every one of these upon occasion you make use of and it was never more necessary to have explained them then in this place and yet you with wonderful care and industry avoid any intimation of what you mean by that Church which you would prove Infallible When you plead so earnestly for the Churches Infallibility I pray tell us what you mean by the Church do you intend the truly Catholick and Vniversal Church which comprehends in it all such as own and profess the Doctrine of Christ in which sense it was well said by Abulensis Ecclesia universalis nunquam errat quia nunquam tota errat The universal Church never erres because the whole Church is never deceived Or do you mean by your Catholick Church some particular part of it to which you apply the name of Catholick not for Vniversality of extent but soundness of Doctrine then it will be necessary yet further to shew what part of the Church that is by what right and title that hath engrossed the name of Catholick so as to exclude other Societies of Christians from it and whether you must not first prove the absolute integrity and soundness of her Doctrine before
is well you tell us of such a rare distinction of Infallibility for else I assure you we had never thought of it viz. of an Infallibility that may be deceived and an Infallibility that cannot be deceived or in your words a humane and moral Infallibility and a supernatural divine Infallibility To ease you therefore of your fears I solemnly promise you that when I believe your Church infallible I will not believe it to have a humane moral Infallibility but supernatural and divine That is when I believe her infallible I believe her infallible Your mind being eased of this grand fear you think all the difficulty is over and that you are out of any possibility of a Circle but I have endeavoured before to shew you are not infallible in that For the charge you exhibit against the Bishop as though you had left him tumbling in the Circle you had so easily got out of I shall consider it in its due time and place but if one may guess at being in a Circle by tumbling you will not seem very free from it who seem to be at very little ease by your impatience of being held to the subject in hand Well but yet our Conceptions must once more be rectified as to the nature of this Infallibility before our danger was least we should have believed it to be only a humane moral and not supernatural Infallibility and now we are bid have a care lest we think it to be any more than in a sort and in some manner divine But what kind of transcendental thing is this Infallibility It is not humane nor yet divine and yet it is supernatural which is scarce in some sort or in a manner sense How comes it to be supernatural if it be not divine Or is it naturally supernatural and humanely divine It must not then be called divine but in a manner and after a sort But yet say you so far as concerns precise Infallibility or certain Connexion with Truth it is so truly supernatural and certain that in this respect it yields nothing to the Scripture it self These are your own words And if you did not believe Transubstantiation I should think this the greatest non-sense in the world But What doth that Infallibility which is more than in a sort divine import beyond what you assert doth belong to the Church Is that any more than precise Infallibility and certain Connexion with Truth and such as is in the Scripture and all this your Church hath and yet when we say so she drops a Courtâ—sie and cryes No forsooth though she be infallible yet she desires to be excused she is not infallible but only as if one should say in a manner and after a sort and so forth Just as if one should ask a new married woman Whether she were certainly married to such a man and she should answer as to what concerns marrying she was certainly married but yet she was not absolutely married but only in a manner and after a sort This is so great a mystery you will oblige the world much to inform it a little more fully in these following Questions What kind of Infallibility that is which is supernatural and by the assistance of the Holy Ghost which is equal to the Scripture it self in point of Certainty and Infallibility your own words and yet is divine but in a manner and after a sort And what way we should come to understand that manner and sort and what degrees and sorts there are in Infallibility Whether any thing so far as it is infallible be not absolutely as well as precisely infallible and whether that which is but in a sort divine be not in a sort not divine Whether that which is in a sort not divine be not likewise in the same sort not infallible since all this Infallibility by your own Confession is from the Holy Ghost and whether this be not an excellent way in a manner and after a sort to reconcile Contradictions For if a man should ask you Whether one might be and not be at the same time you might easily tell him That absolutely and precisely he cannot be and not be but in a manner and after a sort he may be and not be together You have cause therefore to make much of this distinction and you never need fear baffling as long as you carry it about with you it is a most excellent preservative against all the batteries of sense and reason But lest yet for all this we should apprehend something by this in a manner and after a sort as though they were some odd diminishing terms You tell us No Catholick Divines by this manner of speaking do not intend to deny the Church to be equal even to Scripture it self in point of Certainty and Infallibility What is now become of our manner and sort when the Church dares justle with the Scripture for the upper hand at least for an equal place as to Infallibility What then is the intent of this distinction It is to shew the prerogatives of Scripture above the Definitions of the Church This doth well however to follow the rest it comes so near to a contradiction for if the Church be equal to Scripture in point of Certainty and Infallibility What prerogative can be left to the Scripture above the Church when that which makes it Scripture and the Rule of Faith is only its Certainty and Infallibility Yes you tell us The Scripture doth much exceed the Church in regard of its larger extent of Truth because there not only every reason but every word and tittle is matter of Faith but in the Definitions of the Church neither the arguments reasons nor words are absolutely speaking matters of Faith but only the thing declared to be such Excellent good still and all of a piece I commend you that you would not offer to mix any thing of sense in so good a discourse For 1. How comes the Scripture to have a larger extent of Truth than the Church if we cannot know what Truth is in the Scripture but from the Church 2. How every word and tittle comes to be matter of Faith in Scripture and not in the Church when you say The Church is equal to the Scripture in point of Certainty and Infallibility 3. How any word and tittle can be any where a matter of Faith I had thought it had been the sense and thing understood by those words had been matters of Faith and then it is all one with the Scripture and Church for you say as to the Church the thing declared is a matter of Faith 4. What that thing is which is declared by the Church which is neither arguments reasons nor words and if it doth consist of these how one can be believed and not the other Doth your Church declare things so nakedly as to do it without arguments reasons or words That she can do it without words it is hard to believe but very
I will tell you my judgement How your Church comes to be called or accounted the Catholick Church T. C. For this though it seems strange to the Hereticks how a part should be called or accountd the whole yet to all true Catholicks who must wink hard that they may see the better we make no great difficulty of it for we tell them the Pope is Christs Vicar and it is the head which gives the denomination and so Catholick is nothing else but a name to denote persons who are in our Church and if they question this they thereby are out of the Church and so under damnation But for the sturdy Hereticks who deride our thunderbolts we are put to a greater trouble and are fain to gather all the citations of the Fathers against the poor Donatists and apply them to the Hereticks and what ever they say belongs to the Catholick Church we confidently arrogate it to our selves as though our Church now were the same with the Catholick Church then and chiefly we have the advantage of the Protestants by this that whatever corruptions they charge us with they had the good hap to be almost generally received at the time Luther appeared and upon this we thunder them with the succession and visibility of our Church as the Samaritans were much to blame they did not serve the Israelites so after their return from captivity for they had a continual succession in the same place and a greater visibility than the Israelites under their bondage but yet we had the advantage of them by a larger spread a longer prescription and a fairer shew Scept Sir I am hugely taken with these discourses of yours and easily perceive whatever they that believe Christian Religion to be true think that you are men of wit and parts and understand your Interest I mean your Religion I understand now throughly to what intent it is you say that Those who build their Faith on rational grounds go about to destroy Religion I confess you have taken the only way to reclaim me from any thing of Scepticism I suppose you understand my meaning as I do yours In this discourse I pretend not as you did to deliver his Lordships words and so wrong him by falsly imposing them on him in another sense then he intended them but collect from your former managery of this Controversie what your real sense and meaning is and how excellent a way this is instead of reclaiming Atheists to make them so If I have mistaken your meaning I pray speak more clearly and then we shall think you mean honestly but as long as you walk so much in the dark you will give us leave to suspect your design is either upon our purses or our Religion I now return to your Church-tradition You begin your sixth Section with a fair Supposition and carry it on accordingly which is of a Child brought up in your Church who is commanded to believe the Scriptures and all other Articles of Faith on the Authority of your Church whom you suppose to dye without once looking into the Scriptures Your question is Whether he had saving Faith or no if so then the Churches Authority is a sufficient ground for Infallible Faith if not then he had none at all and consequently could not be saved I answer We pry not into Divine secrets on which account we dare not pronounce of the final condition of such who through ignorance cannot be acquainted with Gods written Word we therefore say that an hearty assent to the Doctrine of the Gospel is the Faith which God requires and if this Faith lead men to obedience to Gods will we assert the sufficiency of it for salvation and not otherwise for Faith is not therefore saving because built on an Infallible ground as you fondly seem to imagine but when it attains its end when it brings men to a hearty obedience to the precepts of the Gospel And if some among you may believe that which is in it self true but upon weak and insufficient grounds as the advantages of education which are much rather the foundation of the Faith of such a one as you speak of then any Infallibility supposed by him in the Church yet such and so great is the goodness of God that if a Faith standing on such grounds do attain its end that is make such a one Universally holy we deny not but God may accept of it for Salvation But still we say such a Faith is so far from being Infallible that it is not built on any sufficient or satisfactory ground for the motive of it is that which may be false as well as true for he that assents to any thing on the Authority of any Church before he doth judge whether her Authority be to be relyed on absolutely or no may believe a falshood assoon as truth upon that Authority and the more he makes this his foundation the more he is in danger of being deceived As suppose a Child brought up in Turky and instructed in that Religion he is told that he must without examination believe Mahomets Alcoran to be Divine and he must neither doubt of this nor of any other Article of Faith universally received among Mahumetans may not such a one as invincibly believe the Authority of the Turkish Church if we may call it so as your Child doth the Authority of your Church Where then lies the difference you see plainly it cannot be in the Motive to Faith for the Authority is supposed equally Infallible in both but it lies in the evidence of truth in one Religion above the other and this requires something more then the Authority of the Church viz. judgement and diligent examination And then Faith is built on a sure ground Remember then that we enquire not what abatements God makes for the prejudices of education in believing or not believing any Religion nor how God intends to deal with them who through age or other invincible prejudices are uncapable of judging the evidence of truth in any Religion but what are the certain grounds of Faith which sober and understanding men may and ought to build their belief of true Religion upon But you proceed and suppose your young Christian to live and apply himself to study and becomes a learned man and then upon the Churches recommendation betakes himself to the reading the Scriptures upon which by the light he discovers in it he finds the Faith he had before was but a humane perswasion and not a Divine Faith and consequently that he had no saving Faith of any Article of Christian belief and so was out of the state of Salvation from whence you say will spring gripes and torture of spirit among Christians And why so What because they discern greater reason to believe then ever they did must they find gripes and torture of spirit I had thought the more light men had found i. e. the more reason for believing the more peace and
obtruded without possibility of amendment of them excuse your Church from Imposture if you can for my part I cannot nor any one else who throughly considers it For the second it will follow indeed that the Testimony of your Church is as much as nothing as to any infallible Foundation of Faith but yet it may be of great use for conveying Vniversal Tradition to us and so by that delivering the Scripture into our hands as the infallible Rule of Faith To the third it by no means follows that there is nothing but the sole Letter of Scripture left to convince us of the Divine Authority of Scripture I hope the working Miracles fulfilling Prophecies the nature and reasonableness of the Doctrine of Scriptures are all left besides the bare letter of Scripture and these we say are sufficient to make us believe that the Scripture contains the infallible Word of God Now your profound Christian begins to reflect on the Bishops way which is say you That the Testimony of the Church is humane and fallible and that the belief of the Scripture rests upon the Scripture it self But it will be more to our purpose to hear the Bishop deliver his own mind than to hear you so lamely deliver it which in short he summs up thus A man is probably led by the Authority of the present Church as by the first informing inducing perswading means to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God But when he hath studied considered and compared this Word with its self and with other writings with the help of ordinary grace and a mind morally induced and reasonably perswaded by the voice of the Church the Scripture then gives greater and higher Reasons of Credibility to it self than Tradition alone could give And then he that believes resolves his last and full Assent that Scripture is of Divine Authority into internal Arguments found in the Letter it self though found by the help of Tradition without and Grace within This is the substance of his Lordship's Opinion against which we shall now consider what your Discourser hath to object 1. The first is from the case of ignorant and illiterate persons such who either through want of learning could not read the Scripture and examine or else made little use of it because they supposed they might have infallible Faith without it What then becomes of millions of such souls both in former and present times To that I answer Although the Ignorance and carelesness of men in a matter of so great consequence be so great in all ages as is not to be justified because all men ought to endeavour after the highest waies of satisfaction in a matter so nearly concerning them and it is none of the least things to be blamed in your Church that she doth so much countenance this ignorance and neglect of the Scripture yet for such persons who either morally or invincibly are hindered from this capacity of examining Scripture there may be sufficient means for their Faith to be built upon For although such illiterate persons cannot themselves see and read the Scripture yet as many as do believe do receive the Doctrine of it by that sense by which Faith is conveyed that is Hearing and by that means they have so great certainty as excludes all doubting that such Doctrines and such matters of fact are contained in these Books by which they come to the understanding of the nature of this Doctrine and are capable of judging concerning the Divinity of it For the Light spoken of in Scripture is not a Light to the eye but to the mind now the mind is capable of this Light as well by the ear as by the eyes The case then of such honest illiterate persons as are not capable of reading Scripture but diligently and devoutly hear it read to them is much of the same nature with those who heard the Apostles preach this Doctrine before it was writ For whatever was an Argument to such to believe the Apostles in what they spake becomes an Argument to such who hear the same things which are certainly conveyed to us by an unquestionable Tradition So that nothing hinders but such illiterate persons may resolve their Faith into the same Doctrine and Motives which others do only those are conveyed to them by the ear which are conveyed to others by the eyes But if you suppose persons so rude and illiterate as not to understand any thing but that they are to believe as the Church believes do you if you can resolve their Faith for them for my part I cannot and am so far from it that I have no reason to believe they can have any 2. The second thing objected by your discourser is That if the Churches judgement be fallible then much more ones own judgement is fallible And therefore if notwithstanding all the care and pains taken by the Doctors of the Church their perswasion was only humane and fallible What reason hath any particular person to say That he is divinely and infallibly certain by his reading the Scripture that it is Divine Truth But 1. Is there no difference between the Churches Perswasion and the Churches Tradition Doth the Bishop deny but the perswasion of the Doctors of the Church is as infallible as that of any particular person But this he denies that they can derive that Infallibility of the grounds of their Perswasion into their Tradition so as those who are to receive it on their Testimony may be competent Judges of it May we not then suppose their Tradition to be humane and fallible whose perswasion of what they deliver is established on infallible grounds As a Mathematician is demonstratively convinced himself of the Truth of any particular Problem but if he bids another believe it on his Testimony the other thereby hath no demonstrative evidence of the Truth of it but only so great moral evidence as the Testimony of that person carries along with it The case is the same here Suppose those persons in the Church in every Age of it have to themselves infallible evidence of the Divinity of the Scripture yet when they are to deliver this to be believed by others unless their Testimony hath infallible evidence in it men can never have more than humane or moral certainty of it 2. It doth not at all follow that if the Testimony of the Church be fallible no particular person can be infallibly assured of the Divinity of the Scripture unless this assurance did wholly depend upon that Testimony indeed if it did so the Argument would hold but otherwise it doth not at all Now you know the Bishop denies that the Faith of any particular person doth rest upon the judgement of the Church only he saith This may be a Motive and Inducement to men to consider further but that which they rely upon is that rational evidence which appears in the Scripture it self 3. He goes on and argues against this use of
could not at so small a distance of time prove any corruption by any Copies which were extant For saith he if they should say They would not embrace their writings because they were written by such who were not careful of writing Truth their evasion would be more sâ—y and their errour more pardonable But thus it seems they did by the Acts of the Apostles utterly denying them to contain matter of Truth in them and the reason was very obvious for it because that Book gives so clear an account of the sending the Spirit upon the Apostles which the Manichees pretended was to be only accomplished in the person of Manichaeus And both before and after S. Austin mentions it as their common speech That before the time of Manichaeus there had been corrupters of the sacred Books who had mixed several things of their own with what was written by the Apostles And this they laid upon the Judaizing Christians because their great pique was against the Old Testament and probably some further reason might be from the Nazarene Gospel wherein many things were inserted by such as did Judaize The same thing St. Austin chargeth them with when he gives an account of their Heresie And this likewise appears by the management of the dispute between S. Austin and Faustus who was much the subtillest man among them Faustus acknowledged no more to be Gospel than what contained the Doctrine delivered by our Saviour and therefore denied the Genealogies to be any part of the Gospel and afterwards disputes against it both in S. Matthew and S. Luke And after this S. Austin notes it as their usual custom when they could not avoid a Testimony of Scripture to deny it Thus we see what kind of persons these were and what their pretences were which S. Austin disputes against They embraced so much of Scripture as pleased them and no more To this therefore S. Austin returns these very substantial Answers That if such proceedings might be admitted the Divine Authority of any Books could signifie nothing at all for the convincing of errours That it was much more reasonable either with the Pagans to deny the whole Bible or with the Jews to deny the New Testament than thus to acknowledge in general the Books Divine and to quarrel with such particular passages as pinched them most that if there were any suspicion of corruption they ought to produce more true Copies and more ancient Books than theirs or else be judged by the Original Languages with many other things to the same purpose To apply this now to the present place in dispute S. Austin in that Book against the Epistle of Manichaeus begins with the Preface to it which is made in imitation of the Apostles strain and begins thus Manichaeus Apostolus Jesu Christi providentià Dei Patris c. To this S. Austin saith he believes no such thing as that Manichaeus was an Apostle of Jesus Christ and hopes they will not be angry with him for it for he had learned of them not to believe without reason And therefore desires them to prove it It may be saith he one of you may read me the Gospel and thence perswade me to believe it But what if you should meet with one who when you read the Gospel should say to you I do not believe it But I should not believe the Gospel if the Authority of the Church did not move me Whom therefore I obey in saying Believe the Gospel should I not obey in saying Believe not Manichaeus The Question we see is concerning the proving the Apostleship of Manichaeus which cannot in it self be proved but from some Records which must specifie such an Apostleship of his and to any one who should question the authenticalness of those Records it can only be proved by the testimony and consent of the Catholick Church without which S. Austin professeth he should never have believed the Gospel i. e. that these were the only true and undoubted Records which are left us of the Doctrine and actions of Christ. And he had very good reason to say so for otherwise the authority of those Books should be questioned every time any one such as Manichaeus should pretend himself an Apostle which Controversies there can be no other way of deciding but by the Testimony of the Church which hath received and embraced these Copies from the time of their first publishing And that this was S. Austin's meaning will appear by several parallel places in his disputes against the Manichees For in the same chapter speaking concerning the Acts of the Apostles Which Book saith he I must believe as well as the Gospel because the same Catholick Authority commends both i. e. The same Testimony of the Vniversal Church which delivers the Gospel as the authentick writings of the Evangelists doth likewise deliver the Acts of the Apostles for an authentick writing of one of the same Evangelists So that there can be no reason to believe the one and not the other So when he disputes against Faustus who denied the truth of some things in S. Paul's Epistles he bids him shew a truer Copy than that the Catholick Church received which Copy if he should produce he desires to know how he would prove it to be truer to one that should deny it What would you do saith he Whither would you turn your self What Original of your Book could you shew What Antiquity what Testimony of a succession of persons from the time of the writing of it But on the contrary What huge advantage the Catholicks have who by a constant succession of Bishops in the Apostolical Sees and by the consent of so many people have the Authority of the Church confirmed to them for the clearing the validity of its Testimony concerning the Records of Scripture And after laies down Rules for the trying of Copies where there appears any difference between them viz. by comparing them with the Copies of other Countries from whence the Doctrine originally came and if those Copies vary too the more Copies should be preferred before the fewer the ancienter before the latter If yet any uncertainty remains the original Language must be consulted This is in case a Question ariseth among the acknowledged authentical Copies of the Catholick Church in which case we see he never sends men to the infallible Testimony of the Church for certainty as to the Truth of the Copies but if the Question be Whether any writing it self be authentical or no then it stands to the greatest reason that the Testimony of the Catholick Church should be relyed on which by reason of its large spread and continual Succession from the very time of those writings cannot but give the most indubitable Testimony concerning the authenticalness of the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists And were it not for this Testimony S. Austin might justly say He should not believe the Gospel i. e. Suppose those writings which
of Christians in opposition to others is the true Church for resolving this question that we look on it as a great argument of the Credibility as well as Vniversality of this Tradition that all these differing Societies consent in it And not only they but the greatest opposers of Christianity Jews or Philosophers could never see any reason to call in question such a Tradition His Lordship the better to represent the use of Tradition in the last resolution of Faith makes use of this illustration That as the knowledge of Grammer and Logick is necessary in order to the making a Demonstration yet the knowledge of the Conclusion is not resolved into Grammer or Logick but into the immediate principles out of which it is deduced So a mans first preparative to Faith is the Churches Tradition but his full and last assent is resolved into the internal arguments of Scripture This you quarrel with and tell us There is not the same Analogy between Logick and Church Tradition your meaning I suppose is because Logick doth Physically by inlarging the understanding fit men for demonstrations but Church-Tradition cannot enable men to understand the Scripture But cannot you easily discern that Analogy which his Lordship brought this illustration for which is that some things may be necessary preparatives for knowledge which that knowledge is not resolved into Is not this plain in Logick and is it not as plain between Tradition and Scripture For though Tradition doth not open our eyes to see this light yet it presents the object to us to be seen and that in an unquestionable manner But for all this say you a man must either receive it on the sole authority of Church-Tradition or be as much in the dark as ever Why so Is there any repugnancy in the thing that Scripture should be received first upon the account of Tradition and yet afterwards men resolve their Faith into the Scripture it self May not a man very probably believe that a Diamond is sent him from a Friend upon the testimony of the Messenger who brings it and yet be firmly perswaded of it by discerning the Sparklings of it But say you further The Scriptures themselves appear no more to be the Word of God then the Stars to be of a certain determinate number or the distinction of colours to a blind man If this approach not to the highest blasphemy against the Scripture I know not what doth He that shall compare this saying of yours with that in the precedent Chapter That if Christ had not left the Church Infallible he might be accounted an Impostor and Deceiver may easily guess how much of Religion you believe in your heart when on so small occasions you do so openly disparage both Christ and the Scriptures It is well yet your Churches Infallibility can stand on no better terms than these are which will be sufficient to keep any who have any true sense of the truth and excellency of Christ and the Scriptures from hearkening to it But are you in good earnest when you say that Scriptures themselves appear no more to be the Word of God than the distinction of colours to a blind man which is as much as nothing at all Is there nothing at all in the excellency of the Doctrine and Precepts contained in the Scriptures nothing in those clear discoveries of God and our selves nothing in all those transactions between God and men nothing in that Covenant of Redemption between God and man through Christ nothing in the clear accomplishment and fulfilling of Prophesies nothing in that admirable strain and style which is in the writings nothing in that harmonious consent which is discovered in writers of several ages interests places and conditions nothing in that admirable efficacy which the Doctrine of it hath upon the souls of men to perswade them to renounce sin the world and themselves for the sake of it is there nothing more I say in all these which makes the Scripture appear to be the Word of God than the distinction of colours to a blind man Could you assoon think to account the starrs as discern any thing of Divinity from these things in the Scriptures If your eyes were as blind as your understanding could you assoon distinguish white from black as the Scripture from the Alcoran if they were both presented to you to read and judge of them according to the evidence you found in them Is it possible a man that owns himself a Christian should utter such opprobrious language of the Scripture You had been before speaking what honour you give to the Scripture notwithstanding you pretend your Church Infallible and I had mentioned some of those passages which occurr in your writers in disparagement of them but I must needs say they all fall short of this the Nose of Wax the Inky Divinity the Lesbian rule are Courtlike expressions to this of yours for this puts no difference in the world between the Scripture and the Alcoran if your Church should propound the one as well as the other For you could not possibly say worse of the Alcoran then that of it self it appeared no more to be the Word of God than distinction of colours to a blind man I might here send you to be chastised for this insolent Atheistical expression to the Primitive Fathers who speak so much in admiration of the excellency of Scriptures who did vindicate them from all assaults of the Heathen Philosophers I might send you to those of your own party who if they have any love or tenderness for Christian Religion will not suffer such passages to pass without the most severe rebukes I might sufficiently prove the contrary from the arguments used against Atheists by Bellarmine and others but I shall content my self with that noble and Christian confession of your Gregory de Valentiâ from whom you might learn more piety and modesty towards the Sacred Scriptures There being many things in the Doctrine of Christianity it self which of themselves may conciliate belief and authority yet that seems the greatest to me as hath been observed by Clement of Alexandria Lactantius and others that I know not with what admirable force but most divine it affects the hearts of men and stirs them up to vertue It is written with great simplicity and without almost any artifice or ornament of speech which is an argument that its authority is not humane but Divine for no humane writing hath any power on the minds of men without a great deal of art and eloquence How many things are there in this ingenuous and pious confession of this learned Jesuite which might if you have any shame left make you sensible of the Blasphemy of your former expression For 1. He saith there are many things in the doctrine of Christianity which for themselves may conciliate our belief and manifest their authority If for themselves then certainly the Scriptures of themselves have a great deal more evidence
that they are the Word of God than the distinction of colours to a blind man 2. That the peculiar strain and genius of Scripture argues something Divine in it because notwithstanding its simplicity it hath so great power and efficacy on the minds of men far beyond any humane art or Rhetorick 3. That this may be discerned in the very Books of Scripture without the supposition of the authority of any Church for he mentions the Doctrine meerly as written and what may be found by the reading of it Go then and learn some piety and ingenuity where it is so seldome to be learned from a Jesuite and think not that we shall ever have the meaner thoughts of the Scripture for such bold expressions but we can easily see that the Infallibility of the Church and the Honour of Scripture cannot possibly stand together Your subsequent discourse consists of some rare pieces of subtilty which may be resolved into these consequences If your Church of Rome hath erred as to the number of Canonical Books then the Catholick Church ever since Christs time hath erred if the Church may erre then we cannot be certain but she hath erred if we can have no infallible certainty then we can have none at all These consequences your discourse to n. 5. may be resolved into and make good ever a one of them I will say you have proved something which is more than you have done yet N. 5. You object against his Lordship That he requires so many things in order to the resolution of Faith that he makes none capable of it but men of extraordinary parts and learning To which I answer that his Lordship is not undertaking to give an account of the Faith of rude or illiterate persons but such a one as may satisfie men of parts and learning i. e. he endeavoured to lay down the true rational account of it and not to enquire how far God obligeth every man that comes to Heaven to a critical Resolution of his Faith And therefore for the generality of such persons who heartily believe the Truth of Scriptures but are not able to give a clear and satisfactory account of it to others I answer as S. Austin did in the same case Caeteram quippe turbam non intelligendi vivacitas sed credendi simplicitas tutissimam facit That God requires not from the common sort of believers the subtilty of Speculation but the simplicity of Faith which may be very firm even in them from the reading of Scriptures and hearing the Doctrine of it plainly delivered to them though they are not able to give such accounts of their Faith which may be satisfactory to any but themselves So we say That the way is so plain that mean capacities may not erre therein But I wonder at you of all men that you should charge our way with intricacy who lead men into such perplexities and difficulties before they can be satisfied that they ought to believe for to this end you make the infallible Testimony of the Church necessary and how many insuperable difficulties are there before one can be assured of that first he must know your Church to be the True Church and this must be proved by a continual succession of Pastors in your Church and by a conformity of your Doctrine with the Ancients and Do you think these two are not very easie introductions to Faith like the taking Rome in ones way to go from York to London but though a man should pull down a House to find a Key to open it and after he had searched in all the rubbish of antiquity find enough to perswade him yours may be a True Church yet he is as far from believing as ever unless he finds a way through another Trap-door for his Faith which is that yours though a particular Church is yet the only Catholick Church i. e. that the first room he comes in is infallibly the whole house and therefore he never needs look further But supposing this yet if he doth not believe this Church to be infallible in all it says he had as good never come into it and therefore he must believe strenuously That whatever it says is infallibly True which being so hard a task as for a man that sees a house half down before his eyes to believe it can never fall it had need have some good buttresses to support it and at last finds nothing but some feeble Motives of Credibility which signifie nothing as to the Church but might have been strong enough if set in the right place viz. not to support the Church but to prove the truth of Christian Doctrine These and many other intrigues which I have formerly discovered do unavoidably attend the resolution of your Faith among all persons who profess to believe on the account of your Churches Infallibility What follows next concerning Grace is already answered What certainty we have that Scripture is of Divine Revelation and consequently what obligation lyes upon men to believe it are things largely discoursed on in the beginning of this Chapter and I shall suppose sufficiently cleared till you shew me reason to the contrary By which it will appear contrary to what follows n. 6. that we have the highest reasons or motives of Credibility to assent to the Truth and Divine Authority of the Scriptures But you proceed to an attempt of something new which is in a long harangue to disprove his Lordships Opinion of resolving Faith into that Divine Light which appears in Scripture This you insist on from n. 6. to n. 8. the substance of all which discourse I suppose may be reduced to these three things 1. That though the Scripture be called a Light yet that is to be understood only of those who own its authority 2. That the Scripture cannot shew it self to be an Infallible Light 3. That if there were such Light in Scriture all others would see it as well as he Before I come to a particular handling of each of these it will be necessary to consider What it is which his Lordship means by this Divine Light in Scripture for there is nothing causeth more confusion in the discourses and apprehensions of men than the applying Metaphors taken from the sense to the acts of the Vnderstanding For by this means we are apt to judge of our intellectual acts in a way wholly suitable to those of sense We are not therefore to conceive there can be any thing in Divine Truths which so immediately doth discover it self to the mind as light doth to the eye But that only which bears proportion to the light in the mind is reason for mens minds being discursive and not intuitive they do not behold the truth of things by immediate intuition but by such reason and arguments as do induce and perswade to assent We are not therefore to imagine any such Light in Scripture that doth as immediately work upon the understanding as the Light
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
to prove it When you therefore tell us afterwards That the Vniversal Church supposes the acknowledgement of the same Vicar of Christ and that those Dioceses which agree in this acknowledgement as well as in the same Faith and communion of the same Sacraments make up one and the same Vniversal Church When you further add That the Roman Church is therefore stiled the Church because it is the seat of the Vicar of Christ and chief Pastor of the Church Vniversal I can only say to all these confident affirmations that if you had sat in the chair your self you could not have said more or proved less It is not therefore in what sense words may be taken by you for who questions but you may abuse words but in what sense they ought to be taken You may call the Bishop of Rome the Vicar of Christ but before you can expect our submission to him you must prove that he is so you may call the Roman Church The Church if you please among your selves but if by that you would perswade us there can be no Church but that you would do an office of kindness to offer a little at some small proof of it i. e. as much as the cause and your abilities will afford And what if the Ancients by a true Church did mean an Orthodox Church I know but one of these things will follow from it either that they took a true Church for one morally and not metaphysically true or that if your Church be not an Orthodox Church it can be none at all From hence you proceed to quarrel with his Lordship for saying That may be a true Church which is not a right Church which is all the thanks he hath for his kindness to you for say you how can you call that a true Church in which men are not taught the way to Heaven but to eternal perdition Which is as much as to ask How you can call that man a true man that hath a Leprosie upon him But if you had considered what his Lordship had said you would never have made such an objection For his Lordship doth not speak of the soundness of a Church but of the metaphysical entity of it For he saith It is true in that sense as ens and verum Being and True are convertible one with another and every thing that hath a Being is truly that Being which it is in truth of substance But say you how can that be a true Church which teacheth the way to eternal perdition by some false Doctrine in matter of Faith because it either teacheth something to be the Word of God which is not or denies that to be his Word which is to err in this sort is certainly to commit high and mortal offence against the honour and veracity of God and consequently the direct way to eternal perdition An excellent discourse to prove that no man can be saved that is not Infallible for if he be not Infallible he may either teach something to be Gods Word which is not or deny that to be his Word that is either of which being a mortal offence against the honour and veracity of God it is impossible any man that is not Infallible should be saved either then we must put off that humanity which exposes us to errour or pronounce it impossible for any men to be saved or else assert that there may be errour where Gods veracity is not denyed And if so then not only men severally but a Society of men may propound that for truth which is not and yet not mortally offend against Gods veracity supposing that Society of men doth believe though falsly that this is therefore true because revealed by God In which case that Church may be a true Church in one sense though an erroneous Church in another true as there is a possibility of salvation in it erroneous as delivering that for truth which is not so But here is a great deal of difference between a Church acknowledging her self fallible and that which doth not For suppose a Church propose something erroneous to be believed if she doth not arrogate Infallibility to her self in that proposal but requires men to search and examine her doctrine by the Word of God the danger is nothing so great to the persons in her communion but when a Church pretends to be Infallible and teacheth errours that Church requiring those errours to be believed upon her Authority without particular examination of the Doctrines proposed is chargeable with a higher offence against the honour and veracity of God and doth as much as in her lies in your expression teach men the way to eternal perdition And of all sorts of blind guides it is most dangerous following such who pretend to be Infallible in their blindness and it is a great miracle if such do not fall past recovery The more therefore you aggravate the danger of errour the worse still you make the condition of your Church where men are bound to believe the Church Infallible when she proposeth the most dangerous errours When you say The whole Church is not lyable to these inconveniencies of seducing or being seduced if you mean as you speak of that which is truly the whole Church of Christ you are to seek for an Adversary in it if you mean the Roman Church you are either seduced or endeavour to seduce in saying so when neither that is or can be the whole Church neither is it free from believing or proposing errours as will appear afterwards You quarrel with his Lordship again for his Similitude of a man that may be termed a man and not be honest and say it comes not home to the case But we must see how well you have fitted it Instead of a man you would have a Saint put and then you say the Parallel would have held much better But certainly then you mean only such Saints as Rome takes upon her to Canonize for the Question was of one that might be a man and not be honest Will you say the same of your Saint too If instead of Saint you had put his Holiness in there are some in the world would not have quarrelled with you for it But you are an excellent man at paralleling cases His Lordship was speaking of the Metaphysical Truth of a Church being consistent with moral corruptions for which he instanced in a thiefs being truly a man though not an honest man now you to mend the matter make choice of moral Integrity being consistent with Metaphysical Truth which is of a Saint and a man And Doth not this now come home to our case That which follows to shew the incongruity of his Lordships Similitude would much more shew your wit if it were capable of tolerable sense For you say the word Church in our present debate implies not a simple or uncompounded term as that of man but is a compound of substance and accidents together We had
formal guilt of Schism it being impossible any person should have just cause to disown the Churches Communion for any thing whose belief is necessary to salvation And whosoever doth so thereby makes himself no member of the Church because the Church subsists on the belief of Fundamental truths But in all such cases wherein a division may be made and yet the several persons divided retain the essentials of a Christian Church the separation which may be among any such must be determined according to the causes of it For it being possible of one side that men may out of capricious humours and fancies renounce the Communion of a Church which requires nothing but what is just and reasonable and it being possible on the other side that a Church calling her self Catholick may so far degenerate in Faith and practise as not only to be guilty of great errours and corruptions but to impose them as conditions of Communion with her it is necessary where there is a manifest separation to enquire into the reasons and grounds of it and to determine the nature of it according to the justice of the cause which is pleaded for it And this I hope may help you a little better to understand what is meant by such who say There can be no just cause of Schism and how little this makes for your purpose But you go on and I must follow And to his calling for truth c. I Answer What Hereticks ever yet forsook the Church of God but pretended truth and complain'd they were thrust out and hardly dealt with meerly because they call'd for truth and redress of abuses And I pray what Church was ever so guilty of errours and corruptions but would call those Hereticks and Schismaticks who found fault with her Doctrine or separated from her Communion It is true Hereticks pretend truth and Schismaticks abuses but is it possible there should be errours and corruptions in a Churches Communion or is it not if not prove but that of your Church and the cause is at an end if it be we are to examine whether the charge be true or no. For although Hereticks may pretend truth and others be deceived in judging of it yet doubtless there is a real difference between truth and errour If you would never have men quarrel with any Doctrine of your Church because Hereticks have pretended truth would not the same reason hold why men should never enquire after Truth Reason or Religion because men have pretended to them all which have not had them It is therefore a most senseless cavil to say we have no reason to call for truth because Hereticks have done so and on the same grounds you must not be call'd Catholicks because Hereticks have been call'd so But those who have been Hereticks were first proved to be so by making it appear that was a certain truth which they denyed do you the same by us prove those which we call errours in your Church to be part of the Catholick and Apostolick Faith prove those we account corruptions to be parts of Divine worship and we will give you leave to call us Hereticks and Schismaticks but not before But say you He should have reflected that the Church of God is stiled a City of Truth by the Prophet and so it may be and yet your Church be a fortress of Errour And a pillar and foundation of Truth by the Apostle but what is this to the Church of Romes being so And by the Fathers a rich depository or Treasury of all Divine and Heavenly Doctrines so it was in the sense the Fathers took the Church in for the truly Catholick Christian Church And we may use the same expressions still of the Church as the Prophets Apostles and Fathers did and nevertheless charge your Church justly with the want of truth and opposition to the preaching of it and on that ground justly forsake her Communion which is so far from being inexcusable impiety and presumption that it was only the performance of a necessary Christian duty And therefore that Woe of scandal his Lordship mentioned still returns upon your party who gave such just cause of offence to the Christian world and making it necessary for all such as aimed at the purity of the Christian Church to leave your Communion when it could not be enjoyed without making shipwrack both of Faith and a good Conscience And this is so clear and undeniable to follow you still in your own language that we dare appeal for a tryal of our cause to any Assembly of learned Divines or what Judge and Jury you please provided they be not some of the parties accused and because you are so willing to have Learned Divines I hope you will believe the last Pope Innocent so far as not to mention the Pope and Cardinals What follows in Vindication of A. C. from enterfeiring and shuffling in his words because timorous and tender consciences think they can never speak with caution enough for fear of telling a lye will have the force of a demonstration being spoken of and by a Jesuite among all those who know what mortal haters they are of any thing that looks like a lye or aequivocation And what reason there is that of all persons in the world they should be judged men of timorous and tender consciences But whatever the words were which passed you justifie A. C. in saying That the Protestants did depart from the Church of Rome and got the Name of Protestants by protesting against her For this say you is so apparent that the whole world acknowledgeth it If you mean that the Communion of Protestants is distinct from yours Whoever made scruple of confessing it But because in those terms of departing leaving forsaking your Communion you would seem to imply that it was a voluntary act and done without any necessary cause enforcing it therefore his Lordship denyes that Protestants did depart for saith he departure is voluntary so was not theirs But because it is so hard a matter to explain the nature of that separation between your Church and Ours especially in the beginning of it without using those terms or some like them as when his Lordship saith that Luther made a breach from it It is sufficient that we declare that by none of these expressions we mean any causeless separation but only such acts as were necessarily consequential to the imposing your errours and corruptions as conditions of Communion with your Church To the latter part his Lordship answers That the Protestants did not get that name by Protesting against the Church of Rome but by Protesting and that when nothing else would serve against her errours and superstitions Do you but remove them from the Church of Rome our Protestation is ended and our Separation too This you think will be answered with our old put off That it is the common pretext of all Hereticks when they sever themselves from the Roman Catholick
of Rome alone if the Vniversal Pastorship did belong to him But your Narrative gives us a rare account why the Donatists did not go to the Pope before they went to the Emperour viz. That they durst not appear there or else knew it would be to little purpose But by what Arguments do you prove they durst not appear there before when we see they went readily thither after the Emperour had appointed Rome for the place where their cause was to be heard if they thought it were to so little purpose For we see the Donatists never except against the place at all or the person of the Bishop of Rome but upon the command of Constantine made known to them by Analinus the Proconsul of Africa ten of their party go to Rome to negotiate their affairs before the Delegates This is but therefore a very lame account why the first appeal should be to the Emperour and not to the Pope if he had been then known to be the Vniversal Pastour of the Church But say you further The Emperour disliked their proceedings and told them expresly That it belonged not to him neither durst he act the part of a Judge in a cause of Bishops But on what grounds he durst not do it we may easily judge by his undertaking it at last and passing a final judgement in this cause himself after the Councils at Rome at Arles could not put an end to it If Constantine had judged it unlawful could their importunity have excused it and could it be any other then unlawful if the Pope were the Vniversal Pastour of the Church Do you think it would be accounted a sufficient plea among you now for any Prince to assume to himself the judgement of any cause already determin'd by the Pope because of the importunity of the persons concerned in it Indeed Constantine did at first prudently wave the business himself and that I suppose the rather because the Donatists in their Petition had intreated that some of the Bishops of Gaul might umpire the business either because that was then the place of the Emperours residence or else that Gaul under Constantius had escaped the late persecution and therefore were not lyable to the suspicion of those crimes whereof Caecilian and Felix of Aptung were accused But however though Constantine did not sit as Judge himself he appointed Marinus Rheticius and Maternus to joyn with Melchiades the Bishop of Rome in the determining this case But this he did you say to comply with the Donatists What to joyn other Bishops with the Head of the Church in equal power for deciding Controversies and all this meerly to comply with the Schismatical Donatists was this think you becoming one who believed the Popes Vniversal Pastourship by Divine Right Well fare then the Answer of others who love to speak plain truths and impute all these proceedings to Constantines Ignorance of his duty being yet but a Catechumen in Christian Religion and therefore did he knew not what But methinks the Vniversal Pastour or some of those nineteen Bishops who sat at Rome in this business or of those two hundred whom you say met afterwards at Arles about it should have a little better instructed him in his duty and not let him go so far on in it as from delegating Judges to hear it and among them the Head of the Church to resume it afterwards himself both to hear and determine it If the Emperour had as you say protested against this as in it self unlawful would none of the Bishops hinder him from doing it But where doth Constantine profess against it as in it self unlawful if so no circumstances no importunities could ever make it lawful Unless you think the importunity of Josephs Mistress would have made adultery no sin in him If Constantine said he would ask the Bishops pardon in it that might be as looking on them as the more competent Judges but not thinking it unlawful in it self for him to do as you say Well but you tell us It was rather the justice and moderation of the Roman Prelate that he came not in before it was due time and the matter orderly brought before him I am very much of your mind in this and if all Popes since Melchiades had used the same justice and moderation to have staid till things had been orderly brought to them and not usurped upon the priviledges of other Churches things had been in a far better condition in the Christian world then they are Had there been none but such as Melchiades who shewed so much Christian prudence and moderation in the management of this business that great Schism which your Church hath caused by her arrogant pretences might have been prevented But how come you to know that this case did properly belong to the Popes cognizance who told you this to be sure not the Emperour Constantine who in his Epistle to Miltiades extant in Eusebius intimates no such thing but only writes to him as one delegated to hear that cause with the other Bishops and gives him Instructions in order to it Do the Donatists or their Adversaries mention any such thing Doth the Pope himself ever express or intimate it It seems he wanted your information much at that time Or it may be like the late Pope Innocent in the case of the five propositions he might say he was bred no Divine and therefore might the less understand his duty But can it possibly enter into your head that this case came to the Pope at last by way of regular appeal as you seem to assert afterwards Is this the way of appeals to go to the Emperour and Petition him to appoint Judges to hear the case If the case of appeals must be determined from these proceedings to be sure the last resort will be to the Emperour himself as well as the first appeal Whether the African Bishops gave leave to the Donatists to be heard by forraign Bishops or they took it themselves is not much material because the Schism was so great at home that there was no likelihood of any ending the Controversie by standing to a fair arbitration among themselves And therefore there seemed a necessity on both sides of referring the business to some unconcerned persons who might hear the Allegations and judge indifferently between them And no other way did the nineteen Bishops at Rome proceed with them but as indifferent Arbitrators and therefore the Witnesses and Allegations on both sides were brought before them but we read of no power at all challenged absolutely to bind the persons to the judgement of the Church of Rome as the final judgement in the case The Question Whether the Pope had usurped this power or no depends not upon the Donatists Question Whether Melchiades ought to have undertaken the judgement of that cause which had been already determined by a Synod of LXX Bishops in Africk But upon St. Augustines Answer who justifies
less de fide because it is contradicted by some since it is founded on the promises of Christ concerning the Church Since therefore the Pope himself is but Filius Ecclesiae and the Church is Sponsa Christi they say It is unreasonable that the Son of the Church should not be subject to the Spouse of Christ. If therefore these promises concerning the Church inferr an Infallibility in it and that Infallibility be in a General Council as representing the Church it follows thence that Councils must be in themselves Infallible whether confirmed by the Pope or no. And we may see how little this Opinion of Infallibility of General Councils is like to stand between them by the Answers which are given by those of the other party who makâ—â—he Popes Confirmation necessary to the Infallibility of the Council For Canus expresly saith That the Council is said to be Infallible in no other sense than the Church is i. e. in those things wherein all agreed and not the major part Bellarmin likes not this For saith he if the major part of the Council erre the Council must of necessity erre for that which properly belongs to the Council is Passing judgement in matter of Faith or making Decrees now if that were not the lawful Decree of the Council which is made by the major part there never could be a lawful Decree for none passes without some dissenting and therefore he denies that the Council doth fully represent the Church without the Pope So that on both sides we see how pregnant these proofs are for the Councils Infallibility when one saith That if they be understood of the Church the Councils Infallibility doth not want the Popes Confirmation the other to make the Popes Confirmation necessary denies such an absolute representation of the Church in the Council If then the Council doth represent the Church it is Infallible although not confirmed by the Pope if it doth not then the promises made to the Church cannot belong to the General Council Thus I have shewed you how far these places concerning as you say the Infallibility of the Church are from proving the Infallibility of General Councils But though these general places concerning the Church may not so clearly prove the Infallibility of General Councils yet you say There are some particular places to this purpose Which are Mat. 18.20 and Act. 15.28 Which not having been handled already I must follow you more closely in the examination of them The first place is Mat. 18.20 Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them The substance of the argument from this place his Lordship thus repeats from Bellarmin The strength of the argument is not taken from these words alone but as they are continued with the former and that the argument is drawn à minori ad majus from the less to the greater thus If two or three gathered in my name do alwaies obtain that which they ask at Gods hands viz. wisdom and knowledge of those things which are necessary for them How much more shall all the Bishops gathered together in Council alwaies obtain wisdom and knowledge to judge those things which belong to the direction of the whole Church To which his Lordship answers That there is very little strength in these words either considered alone being generally interpreted by the Fathers of consent in prayer or with the argument à minori ad majus 1. Because though that argument hold in natural or necessary things yet not in voluntary or promised things or things which depend upon their institution 2. Because it follows not but where and so far as the thing upon which the argument is founded agrees to the less Now this Infallibility doth not belong to the lesser Congregation and therefore cannot be inferred as to the greater 3. Because it depends upon conditions here supposed of being gathered together in the name of Christ and therefore supposing Infallibility promised these conditions here implied must be known before such a Congregation can be known to be Infallible 4. Because Christs promise of presence in the midst of them is only to grant what he shall find to be fit for them not infallibly whatsoever they shall think fit to ask for themselves 5. Because Gregory de Valentiâ and Stapleton confess that this place doth not properly belong to prove an Infallible certainty of any sentence in which more agree in the name of Christ but to the efficacy of consent for obtaining that which more shall pray for in the name of Christ if at least that be for their souls health For else it would hence follow that not only the definition of a General Council but even of a Provincial nay of two or three Bishops gathered together is valid and that without the Popes consent The utmost I can make of your reply to these Answers lyes in this That you grant that primarily and directly our Saviour doth not intend that particular Infallibility and this is that which Gregory and Stapleton assert but only that he signified in general that he would be present with his Church and all faithful people gathered together in his name so often and so far as their necessities required his presence they duly imploring it But yet the argument holds for the Infallibility of General Councils and not National or Provincial because the necessities of the Church require one and not the other and that it will follow à minori ad majus in things promised as well as natural where the motive is increased and neither goodness nor power wanting in the promiser But all this depends on a false supposition viz. that there is a necessity of Infallibility to continue in the Church and that all persons are bound to believe the Decrees of the Councils to be the Infallible Oracles of truth but we say neither of these are necessary in the Church and therefore you have no ground to extend this promise of Christs presence to the Infallibility of Councils For you are not to extend the power and goodness of Christ as far as you shall judge fitting but as far only as he hath promised to extend it For otherwise it would be far more for the peace and unity of the Church if every particular Congregation had this Infallibility than if only General Councils had it Because by that means many disputes about the authority calling and proceedings of General Councils would be prevented Nay it might be extended much further for by this argument from the goodness and power of Christ you might for all that I can see inferr with more force that every true Christian should be Infallible and so there be no need of any Councils at all For whatever argument you can produce why Christ's goodness should extend to make Councils Infallible it will much more hold as to the other for the peace and unity of the Church would be far better secured
supposing the Church at the same freedom from particular Interesses that it was then and so great a number of Bishops assembled together we look on it to be so great and awful a Representation that its determinations ought not to be opposed by any factious or turbulent Spirits And in case some Bishops be not present from some Churches whether Eastern or Western yet if upon the publishing those Decrees they be universally accepted that doth ex post-facto make the Council truly Occumenical By this you see what we mean by a General Council And for the calling of it though we say it should be by the consent of the chief Patriarchs yet the right and custom of the ancient Church clearly carries it that it ought to be summoned by the authority of Christian Princes for nothing can be more evident to such who will not shut their eyes against the clearest evidence than that the first General Councils before the Pope had got the better of the Emperours were summoned by the Emperours command and authority and since the division of the Empire into so many Kingdoms and Principalities the consent of Christian Princes is necessary on the same grounds Neither ought it only to be a General Council and lawfully called but lawfully ordered too viz. that no Prelate challenge himself such a Presidency not in but over the Council that his Instructions must be looked on as the only Chart they must steer their course by and that nothing be debated but proponentibus Legatis as it was at Trent for these things take away utterly that Freedom which is necessary for a General Council And therefore his Lordship justly requires 2. That the Council do proceed lawfully which it cannot do if it be over-awed as the second Ephesine was by Dioscorus and his party or if practices be used as at Ariminum but there must be the greatest freedom in debates no canvasing for votes but every one suffered to deliver his judgement without prejudice or partiality that those who give their judegements deliver their reasons before and not only appear in Pontificalibus to give their Placet That the Bishops present be men of unquestionable abilities and generally presumed to be well acquainted with the matters to be debated there For otherwise nothing would be more easie than for the more subtil men under ambiguous expressions and fair pretences to bring over a great number of the rest to them who want either judgement or learning enough to discern their designs And this is supposed to be the case of the Council at Ariminum where the Occidental Bishops for want of learning were over-reached by the subtilty of the Arrian party 3. His Lordship supposes That this Council keeps it self to Gods Rule and not attempt to make a new one of their own For in so doing they commit an errour in the first Concoction which will be incorrigible afterwards And this is not only reasonable but just and necessary because nothing can be a Rule of Faith but what is of immediate divine Revelation and this hath been the practice of the first General Councils which never owned or proceeded by any other Rule of Faith but this These things being supposed May we not justly say That an erring determination of such a Council so proceeding is a rare case Since we believe that God will not deny to any particular person who doth sincerely seek it the knowledge of his truth much less may we think he will do it to such an awful Representation of the Church when assembled together purposely for finding out that truth which may be of so great consequence to the Christian world For both the truth of Gods promises the goodness of God to his people and his peculiar care of his Church seem highly concerned that such a Council should not be guilty of any notorious errour But because we deny not but such a Council is fallible therefore we grant the case may be put that such a Council may erre and the Question is What is to be done then Whether every particular person may oppose such a determination or submit till another Council reverse the Decrees of it His Lordship asserts the latter and so we come to the effect of such an erring Decree which was the third thing to be spoken to As to which these things must be considered 1. That he doth not assert that men are bound to believe the truth of that Decree but not openly to oppose it For so he speaks expresly of external obedience and at least so far as it consists in silence patience and forbearance yielded to it And therefore you are greatly deceived when with such confidence you assert That this obliges all the members of the Church to unity in errour for that is only consequent upon your principle that the Decrees of General Councils are to be believed by an internal Assent for this indeed would necessarily oblige them to unity in errour but the most that is consequent on his Lordships Opinion is that in such cases wherein a General Council hath erred men ought rather to be silent for a time as to some truth than to break the Churches peace In the mean time he doth not deny but that men may be bound to follow their own judgements in the discovery of truth nay and they may use all means consistent with the Churches peace to promote that truth for he allows that just complaints may be made to the Church for reversing the decrees of the former Council and this cannot be without discovering the errour of that Council And I hope this liberty of dissent and just complaint is sufficient to keep all the members of the Church from being united in Errour And I pray Sir What cause is there now for such hideous out-cryes that this is such a strange and impious Doctrine against Scripture Antiquity and solid Reason which appears for all that I can see very just and reasonable taking it in the way which he explains himself in But whereas you object That this will keep men in errour to the worlds end because such a Council is morally impossible it is easie to shew you that if the rectifying Council be impossible the General erring Council is equally impossible therefore there is no danger coming that way neither And that such General Councils are grown such morally impossible things we may in a great measure thank your Church for it which hates as much such a true rectifying Council as you call it as the Court of Rome does a thorow Reformation For all your design is to perswade men that those only are General Councils which have the Popes Summons and wherein he rules and in effect does all and to perswade men to believe the Decrees of such Councils is the most effectual way in the world to unite men in the belief of errours to the worlds end For as long as the Popes Interest can carry it to be sure all rectifying Councils shall be
infallibly believe and practise as the precedent up to Christs time did but because we can produce clear evidence that some things are delivered by the present Church which must be brought in by some age since the time of Christ. For which I shall refer you to what I have said already concerning Communion in one kind Invocation of Saints and Worship of Images In all which I have proved evidently that they were not in use in some ages of the Christian Church and it is as evident that these are delivered by the present Church and therefore this principle must needs be false For by these things it appears that one age of the Church may differ in practise or opinion from another and therefore this oral tradition cannot be infallible And yet this is the only way whereby a prescription may be allowed for this offers to give a sufficient title if it could be made good But bare possession in matters of Religion is a most sensless plea and which would justifie Heathenism and Mahumetism as well as your Church 2. It were worth knowing What you mean by full and quiet possession of your Faith Religion and Church which you say you were in Either you mean that you did believe the Doctrines of your Church your selves or that we were bound to believe them too If you mean only the former you are in as full possession of them as ever for I suppose all in your Church do believe them if you intend by this possession that we ought to believe them because you did this is a prescription indeed but without any ground or reason For even Tertullian whom you cite for prescribing against Hereticks sayes That nothing can be prescribed against truth Non spatium temporum non patrocinia personarum non privilegium regionum Neither length of time nor authority of persons nor priviledge of places If you say It was truth you were in possession of that is the thing to be proved and if you can make that appear we will not disturb your possession at all But you must be sure to prove it by something else besides your quiet and full possession unless you can prove it impossible that you should be possessed of falshoods But we have evidently shewn the contrary already And if we examine a little further what this possession is we shall see what an excellent right it gives you to prescribe by You were possessed of your Faith Religion and Church i. e. you did believe the Roman Church Infallible you believed the Popes Supremacy Transubstantiation Purgatory c. And what then Do you not believe them still Yes doubtless But What is your quarrel with us then Do we hinder you the Possession of them No but we ought to believe them too But Why so because you are in possession of them What Must we then believe whatever you do whether it be true or false If this be the meaning of your Possession you ought well to prove it or else we shall call it Vsurpation For it is a most ridiculous thing for you to talk of Possession when the Question is Whether there be any such things in the world or no as those you say you are possessed of We deny your Churches Infallibility the Popes Supremacy Purgatory c. You must first prove there are such things in rerum naturâ as Purgatory Transubstantiation c. before you can say you are possessed of them You must convince us that your Church is Infallible and that the Pope was made Head of the Church by Christ and then we will grant you are in full possession of them but not before So that you see the Question is not concerning the manner of Possession but of the things themselves which you call your Faith Religion and Church in opposition to ours and therefore it is impossible to plead Prescription where there never was any Possession at all And therefore you clearly mistake when you call us The Aggressors for you are plainly the Imposers in this case and quarrel with us for not believing what you would have us and therefore you are bound to prove and not we So that there is nothing you could challenge any Possession of in the Church of England but some Authority which the Pope had which you elsewhere confess he might he deprived of as he was in King Henry 's time and which we offer to prove that he was not Possessor bonae fidei of but that he came to it by fraud and violence and was deprived of it by a legal Power Thus I have fully examined your Argument from Possession because it presents us with something which had not been discussed before But having taken a view of all that remains I find that it consists of a bare Repetition of the Controversies before discussed especially concerning the certainty and grounds of Faith the Infallibility of the Church and General Councils and the Authority of the Roman Church So that if you had not an excellent faculty of saying most where there is least occasion I should wonder at your design in spending several Chapters in giving the same things under other words Unless it were an ambition of answering every clause in his Lordships Book which carried you to it though you only gave over and over what you had said in many places before Which is a piece of vanity I neither envy you for nor shall I strive to imitate you in having made it my endeavour to lay those grounds in the handling each Controversie that there should not need any such fruitless repetitions as you here give us His Lordship though he complains much of it was forced by his Adversaries importunity to return the same Answers in effect which had been given before by him in the proper places but whosoever compares what his Lordship saith with what you pretend to answer will find no necessity at all of my undergoing the same tedious and wearisome task Instead therefore of a particular Answer I shall give only some general strictures on what remains of these subjects where there is any appearance of difficulty and conclude all with the examination of your Defence of Purgatory that being a subject which hath not yet come under our enquiry Your main business is to perswade us that yours is the only saving Faith which you prove by this The saving Faith is but one yours is confessed by us to be a saving Faith still therefore yours is the only saving Faith But if you had considered on what that confession depends you could have made no Argument at all of it for when we say that your Faith is saving we mean no more but this that you have so much of the common truths of Christianity among you that there is a possibility for men to be saved in your Church but Doth this imply that yours is a saving Faith in that sense wherein it is said There is but one saving Faith for in that
nothing new to our consideration But at last we are come to a man who did in good earnest believe Purgatory and was the first of any name in the Church who did so and that is Gregory 1. But whosoever reads in his Dialogues the excellent arguments he builds it on and confirms it with will find as much reason to pitty his superstition and credulity as to condemn his Doctrine And after this time his Lordship saith truly Purgatory was found too warm a business to be suffer'd to cool again and in the after-ages more were frighted then led by proof into the belief of it And although amidst the variety of judgements among the Fathers concerning the state of the dead not one of them affirmed your Doctrine of Purgatory before Gregory 1 yet by all means you will needs have it to have been still owned as an Apostolical Tradition and an Article of Faith But I commend you that knowing the weakness of the arguments brought from the Fathers and Scripture you at last take Sanctuary in the Churches Definition on the account of which you say We are as much bound to believe it as any other Article of Faith yea as the Trinity or Incarnation it self But this holds for none but only those who so little understand the grounds of their Religion as to believe it on the account of your Churches Infallibility which is so far from being any ground of Faith that if we had nothing more certain then that to establish our Faith upon you would be so far from making men believe Purgatory on that account that you would sooner make them question whether there were either Heaven or Hell But though your Church be so far from Infallibility that we have found her guilty of many Errours yet the Word of God abideth for ever which alone is the sure Foundation for our Faith to rest upon And so I conclude with your own Prayer I beseech God to give all men light to see this Truth and Grace to assent unto it to the end that by living in the militant Church in the Vnity of Faith we may come at last to meet in Glory in the triumphant Church of Heaven which we may hope for by the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ To whom with the Father and the Holy Ghost be all honour and glory world without end FINIS §. 1. 1 Joh. 1.1 3. Mark 16.14 §. 2. P. 1. P. 2. §. 3. P. 2. P. 2. sect 2. P. 3. sect 3. n. 2. Page 3 §. 4. Navigare audent ad Petri Cathedram Ecclesiam Principalem c. nec cogitare eos esse Romanos ad quos pâ—rfidea habere non potest accessum Cypr. l. 1. c. 3. Scito Romanam fidem ejusmodi praestigias non recipere Hierony Apol. 3. c. Ruff. Roma semper fidem retinet Greg. Nazianz. carm de vitâ suâ Bellarm. de Pontifice Rom. l. 4. c. 4. sect 1. Pag. 4. §. 5. P. 21. sect 4. P. 5. n. 4. P. 25. n. 17. sect 5. §. 6. P. 6. n. 4. §. 7. Joh. 15.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Athanas. ep ad Sâ—rapion p. 357. Tom. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil. De Spir. Sancto c. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Greg. Nazian orat 37. p. 597. Tom. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 23. Tom. 1 p. 426 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril Paschal 12. Tom. 5. p 2. Dogm Theol. de Trinit l. 7. c. 13 14 Tom. 2 §. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas. c. Serapi ubi supr Acta Theolog. Wirtenberg p. 217. c. Res. 2. Patriarch Concil Florent sess 19 20 21 c. Arcudii opuscula aurea V. ep Cyrilli Patriarch ad Joh. Utenbogard inter epistol Remonstrant p. 402. V. Lâ—onis Allatii Graeciam Orthodox Tom. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas. ep ad Epictet Tom 1. p. 562. Greg. Nazian ep 2. ad Cled Concil Ephes. part 2. Act. 6. p. 357. Tom. 2. Binii ed. Paris 1636. Concil Florent sess 5. p. 587. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Ephes. Part 2. Act. 6. p. 366. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Chalced. Act. 5. Concil Florent Asâ— 5. p. 590. §. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril Alexan. Tom. 6. edit Paris p. 229. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acta Theolog. Wirtenberg Resp. 2. Patriarch p. 202. Gregorius Palamas c. 1. apud Petavium Dogmat. Theolog de Trin. To. 2. l. 7. c. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sess. 19. Ubi supra Spalatens de Rep. Eccles. Tom. 3. l. 7. c. 10. sect 125. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apud Acta Concil Ephes. part 2. Act. 6. p 360. Petav. ubi supra Acta Theolog. Wirtenb p. 350. c. Resp. 3. Patriarch Cyril ep ad Utenbogard p. 403. §. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret c. Cyril Anathemat Tom. 4. p. 718. ed. Sirmond Concil Ephes. part 3· p. 497. ed. Bin. Cyril Tom. 6. p. 229. Dogmat. Theol. To. 2. l. 7. c. 18. c. 1. Concil Ephes. Part. 2. Act. 1. p. 177. Part 3. p. 596. Part. 3. p. 581. §. 11. Concil Florenâ— sess 5. p. 593. Pithaeus Opus de proces S.S. p. 26. Petav. Dogm Theol. To. 2. l. 7. c. 1. Baron Annal. ad An. 809. Sirmond Concil Gallic Tom. 2. p. 256 257. Quisquis ad hoc sensu subtiliori pertingere potest id scire aut ita sciens credere noluerit salvus esse non poterit Sunt enim multa è quibus istud unum est sacrae fidei altiora mysteria ad quorum indagationem pertingere multi valent multi verò aut aetatis quantitate aut intelligentiae qualitate praepediti non valent ideò ut praediximus qui potuerit noluerit salvus esse non potuerit Apud Sirmond ubi supra §. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Photius ep 7. p. 51. Opuscul edit Lutet 1609. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acta Theolog. Wirtenberg Resp. 2. Patriarch p. 213 214. §. 13. Sylvester Sguropul Histor. Concil Florent sect 2. c. 10. Sect. 2. c. 12. C. 17 18. Sect. 6. c. 1. Sect. 3. c. 12. Sect. 3. c. 3. C. 4. Cap. 12. C. 11. C. 15. Sect. 6. c. 3. Sect. 8. c. 12. C. 13. C. 14. C 16. C. 18. Sect. 9. c. 4. C. 5. C. 8. C. 9. C. 10. Sect. 10. c. 1. C. 4. §. 14. P. 6. Sect. 9. n. 1. p. 24. §. 15. P. 7. n. 5. Theophylact. in Joh. 3.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophylact. in Joh. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. ib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joh. Damascenus de Trinit c. 8. l. 1. de Orthodoxa fide c. 11. Acta Theolog. Wirteab p. 220. P. 8. Sum. 1. q 36. aâ—t 2. Vasquez in Thoâ— To. 2. dis 146. c. 7. Petavius dogm Theol. To. 2. l. 7. c. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hist. Concil Florent sect 8. c. 15. p. 239. Eadmer de vita Anselm l. 2. Malmesbu de
absolute Command can by any means whatsoever afterwards become necessary 3. Whether the Church hath power by any Proposition or Definition to make any thing become necessary to Salvation and to be believed as such which was not so before These three I suppose you cannot deny but will take in all that is considerable in this Controversie Which I shall with the more care examine because nothing tends more to the peace of the Christian World than a through and clear discussion of it and nothing causeth more the Schisms and Divisions of it than the want of a right and due conception of it 1. What the Grounds are on which any thing doth become necessary to Salvation For our better understanding of which we must consider two things 1. What things are necessary to the Salvation of men as such or considered in their single and private capacities 2. What things are necessary to be owned in order to Salvation by Christian Societies or as the bonds and conditions of Ecclesiastical Communion The want of understanding this distinction of the necessity of things hath caused most of the perplexities and confusion in this Controversie of Fundamentals 1. What those things are which are necessary to the Salvation of particular persons But that we make all as clear as possible in a matter of so great intricacy two things again must be inquired into 1. What the Ground is why any thing becomes necessary to be believed in order to Salvation 2. What the Measure and Extent is of those things which are to be believed by particular persons as necessary to Salvation 1. What the Ground or Foundation is on which things become necessary to be believed by particular persons And that which is the true ground of the necessity why any thing is to be believed is the proper ratio of a Fundamental Article For I suppose it a much clearer notion of Fundamentals to understand them not as Principles from whence Deductions may be drawn of Theological Truths but in regard of that immediate respect which they have to mens Salvation Those things therefore which are necessary to be explicitly believed by particular persons are Fundamentals in order to their Salvation Now all belief in this case supposing Divine Revelation nothing can be imagined to be necessary to be believed but what may be certainly known to be of Divine Revelation But when we consider that besides the general reason of believing what God hath revealed we must either suppose that all things are of equal necessity which are revealed in order to the general end of this Revelation or that some things therein contained are expresly necessary to the end and other things to be believed on the general account of Faith so far as they are known to be of Divine Revelation Now from hence ariseth a twofold necessity of things to be believed the first more general and large the second more particular and absolute The first depends upon the formal reason of Faith the second on the particular end of Divine Revelation That which depends on the formal reason of that Assent we call Faith is that which supposeth Divine Veracity or the impossibility of Gods deceiving us in any thing revealed by Him now this extends to all things whatsoever which are supposed by men to be of Divine Revelation For though men may mistake in the matter yet the reason of Assent holding under that mistake they are bound necessarily to believe whatever is supposed by them to be Divine Revelation Here lyes no difficulty in the ground of Faith but all the care is to be used in the search into the matters which are to be believed on the account of this Revelation But here we are to consider that the only thing which is in general and absolutely necessary to Salvation is the general act of Faith viz. Believing whatever God reveals to be true else God's Veracity would be call'd in question but particular objects cannot be said on this account to be absolutely and universally necessary but only so far as there are sufficient convictions that those particulars are of Divine Revelation And the more general and extensive the means of conviction are the more large and universal is the obligation to Faith As that the Scriptures contain in them the Word of God is a matter of more universal obligation than particular things therein revealed because the belief of the one depends upon the acknowledgement of the other And withall supposing it believed that the matters contained in Scripture are of Divine Revelation yet all things are not equally clear to all capacities that they are therein contained Which is a sufficient ground for us to say It was not God's intention that all things contained in his Word should be believed with the same degree of necessity by all persons And therefore though the general reason of Faith depends on Gods Veracity yet the particular obligation to the belief of particular things as revealed by God depends on the means whereby we may be assured that such things are revealed by him which means admitting of so great Variety as to the circumstances and capacities of particular persons there can be no general Rule set down what things are necessary to be believed by all particular persons For those who have greater means of knowledge a larger capacity and clearer proposal are bound to believe more things explicitly than those who want all these or have a lower degree of them In which case it is an unreasonable thing to say that such a one who dis-believes any thing propounded to him as a matter of Faith doth presently call in question God's Veracity for he may as firmly believe that as any in general and yet may have ground to question whether God's Veracity be at all concerned in that which is propounded to him as a matter of Faith because he sees no reason to believe that this was ever revealed by God And by this a clear answer is given to that Question which you propose Whether all those Truths which are sufficiently proposed to any Christian as defined by the Church for matter of Faith can be dis-believed by such a Christian without mortal and damnable sin which unrepented destroyes Salvation To which the answer is easie upon the grounds here assigned for this question concerning particular persons and particular objects of Faith the resolution of it doth depend upon the sufficiency of the means to convince such a person that whatever is propounded as Defined by the Church for a matter of Faith is certainly and truly so For to instance in any one of those new Articles of Faith Transubstantiation or the Pope's Supremacy c. you tell me These are necessary to be believed or at least cannot be dis-believed without sin which is all one in this case supposing clear conviction for then what cannot be dis-believed without sin must be explicitly believed I desire to know the grounds why they may not you tell me These
her Sons for Peace sake not to oppose them And in another place more fully We do not suffer any man to reject the thirty nine Articles of the Church of England at his pleasure yet neither do we look upon them as Essentials of Saving Faith or Legacies of Christ and his Apostles but in a mean as pious Opinions fitted for the preservation of Vnity neither do we oblige any man to believe them but only not to contradict them By which we see what a vast difference there is between those things which are required by the Church of England in order to Peace and those which are imposed by the Church of Rome as part of that Faith extra quam non est salus without belief of which there is no Salvation In which she hath as much violated the Vnity of the Catholick Church as the Church of England by her Prudence and Moderation hath studied to preserve it 2. Nothing ought to be imposed as a necessary Article of Faith to be believed by all but what may be evidently propounded to all persons as a thing which God did require the explicit belief of It being impossible to make any thing appear a necessary Article of Faith but what may not only be evidently proved to be revealed by God but that God doth oblige all men to the belief of it in order to Salvation And therefore none of those things whose obligation doth depend on variety of Circumstances ought in reason be made the Bonds of that Communion which cannot take notice of that variety as to mens conditions and capacities There are many things in Christian Religion which whosoever believes the truth of it cannot but easily discern to be necessary in order to the profession and practice of it in most of which the common sense and reason of mankind is agreed Not only the Existence of a Deity the clear discovery of the Wisdom Goodness and Power of God with his Providence over the world and the Immortality of Souls being therein most evidently revealed but the way and manner of the restitution of mens souls by Faith in Jesus Christ as our only Saviour and Obedience to his Commands is so fully laid down in the clearest terms that no rational man who considers the nature of Christian Religion but must assert the profession of all these things to be necessary to all such who own Christian Religion to be true But there are many other things in Christian Religion which are neither so clearly revealed in the Scriptures nor unanimously assented to in any age of the Christian Church and why any such things should be made the conditions of that Communion in the Catholick Church whose very being depends only on necessary things would puzzle a Philosopher to understand As if none should be accounted Mathematicians but such as could square circles and none Naturalists but such as could demonstrate whether quantity were infinitely divisible or no much so it is if none should be accounted members of the Catholick Church but such as own the truth and necessity of some at least as disputable Points as any in Religion Let therefore any Romanist tell me whether the Pope's Supremacy be as clear in Scripture as that Christ is Saviour of the world whether Purgatory be as plain as Eternal Life Transubstantiation as evident as that the Eucharist ought to be administred whether Invocation of Saints be as manifest as the Adoration of God the Doctrine of Indulgences as Repentance from dead works and if there be so great a clearness in the Revelation of the one and so far from it as to the other let them give any just account why the belief of the one is made as necessary to Salvation as the other is Certainly such who take in things at least so disputable as all these are and enforce the belief of them in order to their Communion cannot otherwise be thought but to have a design to exclude a great part of the Christian world from their Communion and to do so and then cry out of them as Schismaticks is the most unreasonable proceedings in the world 3. Nothing ought to be required as a necessary Article of Faith but what hath been believed and received for such by the Catholick Church of all Ages For since necessary Articles of Faith are supposed to be so antecedently to the Being of the Catholick Church since the Catholick Church doth suppose the continual acknowledgement of such things as are necessary to be believed it is but just and reasonable to admit nothing as necessary but what appears to have been so universally received Thence it is that Antiquity Vniversality and Consent are so much insisted on by Vincentius Lerinensis in order to the proving any thing to be a necessary Article of Faith But the great difficulty of this lyes in finding out what was received for a necessary Article of Faith and what was not by the Catholick Church which being a subject as necessary as seldom spoken to I shall not leave it untouched although I must premise that Rule to be much more useful in discovering what was not looked on as a necessary Article of Faith than what was and therefore I begin with that first 1. It is sufficient evidence that was not looked on as a necessary Article of Faith which was not admitted into the Ancient Creeds Whether all those Declarations which were inserted in the enlargements of the Apostolical Creed by the Councils of Nice and Constantinople and in that Creed which goes under the name of Athanasius were really judged by the Catholick Church of all Ages to be necessary to Salvation is not here my business to enquire but there seems to be a great deal of reason for the Negative that what was not inserted in the Ancient Creeds was not by them judged necessary to be believed by all Christians I know it is said by some of your party That the Apostolical Creed did only contain those Articles which were necessary to be believed in opposition to the present Heresies which were then in the Church As though the necessity of believing in Christians came only by an Antiperistasis of the opposition of Hereticks And if there had been no Hereticks to have denyed God's being the Creatour and Christ's being the Saviour it had not been necessary to have believed either of them so explicitly as now we do But when we speak of all things necessary to be believed by all I mean not that all circumstances of things contained in those Creeds are necessary to be believed in order to Salvation but that all those things which were judged as necessary to be believed by all were therein inserted will appear to any one who either considers the expressions of the Ancients concerning the Creeds then in Use or the primary reason why such Summaries of Faith were ever made in the Christian Church The testimonies of the Fathers to this purpose are so well known in this subject
it to be so to be any matter of Faith unless we had better reason for it than we have For say you To refuse to believe God's Revelation is either to give God the lye or to doubt whether he speak truth or no But have you so little wit as not to distinguish between not believing God's Revelation and not believing what is propounded for God's Revelation Must every one who doth not believe every thing that is propounded for God's Revelation presently give God the lye and doubt whether he speak truth or no And are not you then guilty of that fault every time a Quaker or Enthusiast tells you That the Spirit of God within him told him this and that But you said Sufficiently propounded But the Question is What sufficient Proposition is and who must be Judge whether the Proposition be sufficient or no you or the conscience of the person to whom the thing is proposed to be believed If any one indeed that judgeth a Proposition sufficient do notwithstanding question the truth of it he doth interpretatively call God's Veracity into question but not he certainly who thinks not God's Veracity at all concerned in that which you call a sufficient Proposition but he judgeth not to be so Let us now see how you prove your Assumption which is very fairly done from a Supposition which his Lordship denies which is That General Councils cannot erre But say you he adds That though he should grant it yet this cannot down with him that all Points even so defined were Fundamentals I grant those are his words and his reasons follow them For Deductions are not prime and native Principles nor are Superstructures Foundations That which is a Foundation for all cannot be one and another to different Christians in regard of it self for then it could be no common Rule for any nor could the souls of men rest upon a shaking Foundation No if it be a true Foundation it must be common to all and firm under all in which sense the Articles of Christian Faith are Fundamental What now do you prove to destroy this You very strenuously prove That if men believe A General Council cannot erre they believe it cannot erre so far and no further than it cannot erre But if you mean any thing further your meaning is better than your proof for when you would prove that to disbelieve the Churches Definition is to dis-believe God's Revelation and in order to that confound the Church and General Councils together and from the General Council's not erring inferr the former Proposition because what is testified by the Church is testified by an Authority that cannot erre you do not consider that all this while you prove nothing against his Lordship unless you first prove that whatever is testified to be revealed from God is presently Fundamental to all Churches and Christians which his Lordship utterly denies by distinguishing even things which may be testified to be revealed from God into such things as are common to all Christians to be believed by them and such things as vary according to the different respects of Christians But yet further I add that taking Fundamentals in your sense you prove not the thing you intended but only to such as do acknowledge and as far as they do acknowledge that General Councils cannot erre For they who acknowledge them infallible only in Fundamentals do not judge any thing Fundamental by their Decision but judge their Decisions infallible so long as they hold to Fundamentals and so for all that I can see leave themselves Judges when General Councils are infallible and when not and therefore if they go about to testifie any thing as revealed from God which is not Fundamental they do not believe that their testimony cannot erre and so are not bound to believe that it is from God They who believe General Councils absolutely infallible I do verily think do believe General Councils infallible in all they say for that is the substance of all you say But what that is to those who neither do nor can see any reason to believe them infallible in all they say or testifie as revealed from God I neither do nor can possibly understand And if you hope such kind of Arguments can satisfie your ingenuous Reader you suppose him a good-natur'd man in the Greek sense of the phrase But all of a sudden we find you in a very generous strain and are contented to take Fundamentals for Fundamentals which is a huge Concession and his Lordship were he living would take it for a singular favour from you Yet to deal freely with the Bishop say you even taking Fundamentals in a General way as it ought to be taken only here for a thing belonging to the Foundation of Religion and it is a strange Fundamental which hath no respect to the Foundation but they who build downwards must have their Foundations on tops of their houses It is also manifest that all Points defined by the Church are Fundamental by reason of that formal Object or infallible Authority propounding them though not alwaies by reason of the matter which they contain The main proof of which lyes in this That he who doth not believe the Church infallible can believe nothing at all infallibly and therefore no Fundamental of Religion but if he believe any thing upon the Churches Infallibility he must believe all things on the same account of her Infallibility and therefore must believe all equally and so whatever is propounded by the Church is to be believed as Fundamental This you cannot deny to be the force and strength of your verbose and confused way of arguing And therefore I give you a short Answer That I utterly deny the Infallibility of any Church to be in any thing the Foundation of Divine and Infallible Faith as you will find it abundantly proved in the proper place for it in the Controversie of the Resolution of Faith Where it will be largely discussed in what sense Faith may be said to be Divine and Infallible what the proper grounds and reasons of our believing are and how much you impose upon the world in pretending that the Resolution of Faith is into the Catholick Churches Infallibility whereby it will appear to be far from a Fundamental Errour not to believe on the Churches Infallibility and that he who denies it will have no reason to call into Question the Canon of Scripture or the Foundations of all Religion But that you rather by these absurd and unreasonable pretences of yours have done your utmost to shake the true Foundations of Religion and advance nothing but Sceptiscism not to say Atheism in the world These things I take upon me to make good in their proper place and therefore shall not enter the discussion of them here but since this is the main and in truth the only Foundation of your Doctrine of Fundamentals the vanity falshood and absurdity of it cannot be sufficiently
make any Hereticks but such as have reason to believe that she cannot erre in her Definitions From whence Protestants will be in less danger of Heresie than Papists till you give us more sufficient reasons to prove that whatever the Church declares is certainly revealed by God And although you tell us Men may be accounted Hereticks before they are condemned as such by General Councils if they oppose the Doctrine clearly contained in Scripture or generally received by the Church yet you tell us not what the measures are whereby we ought to judge what things are thus clearly contained in Scripture or universally received whether the Churches judgement must be taken or every man 's own judgement if the former the ground of Heresie lyes still in the Churches Definition contrary to what Scotus affirms if the latter then no one can be an Heretick but he that opposeth that which he is or may be convinced is clearly contained in Scripture or generally received by the Church If that which he is convinced then no man is an Heretick but he that goes against his present judgement and so there will be few Hereticks in the world If that which he may be convinced of it must be understood either in his own judgement or yours if in his own judgement then a Heretick is one who dissents to things rashly without using means to inform himself if in yours why may not he say You may as well be convinced of the truth of that which he believes as he be convinced of the truth of that which you believe and so you may be a Heretick to him by the same reason that he is to you But you say further That there are many things which in themselves are matters of Faith yet so obscure in relation especially to unlearned and particular persons that before the decree of the Church we are not Hereticks though we should either doubt of them or deny them because as yet there appears no sufficient reason that can oblige us to believe them although after the Definition of the Church we ought as well to believe them as any other But it is impossible to understand how there can be such things which men might safely not believe but upon the Definition of the Church they are bound to believe them necessarily unless it be clear to them that the Church hath power to make obscure things plain and unnecessary things to become necessary For suppose one of these obscure things be this very Power of the Church in defining such things while this remains so obscure you tell me I may doubt or disbelieve it without Heresie and while I do so I may certainly doubt or disbelieve all she declares But by what means shall this thing become clear must it be by the Churches defining it But that very Power of defining is the thing in question and therefore cannot be cleared by it And if there be any thing then so obscure that men may without sin doubt of it or disbelieve it certainly the Churches Power in defining matters of Faith is such it being not capable by any act of the Church of being made so clear as to oblige men to believe it But we must see how his Lordship hath wronged the Testimony of Scotus For first say you He would perswade his Reader that this Author supposed a real difference between the Ancient Greek and Latin Fathers about the Procession of the Holy Ghost whereas Scotus declares that there was no real difference between them But doth his Lordship say there was doth he not expresly cite Scotus his testimony in an hypothetical manner If there be a true real difference c. and it is evident from Scotus his words that he supposeth If the difference had been real that either the Greeks or Latins were truly Hereticks And therefore you are guilty of a much greater injury to his Lordship than he was to Scotus Again you say He wrongs him in saying That after the Churches Definition it becomes of the substance of Faith Now say you Scotus hath not one word of the substance of Faith much less of Fundamental which he imposes presently upon him but sayes only thus Ex quo Ecclesia declaravit hoc esse tenendum c. tenendum est quod Spiritus Sanctus procedat ab utroque Since the Church hath so declared so it must be held Sure you never expect to be believed but by a very implicit Faith for if one doth but offer to search an Author your Jugling becomes notorious Had you the confidence to say That Scotus has not one word of the substance of Faith I pray who made that c. for you in the sentence If you did it your self you abuse your Readers if another did it for you he abused you For that very c. leaves out those words sicut de substantia fidei and try if you can render that otherwise than as of the substance of Faith to manifest your Forgery the whole place is cited in the Margin Is this your fidelity in quoting Authors even when you charge others with wronging them It may be you will say yet That Scotus doth not say it is to be held sicut de substantia fidei though it be declared by the Church to be so held But what means then the ex quo if men's Faith must not be guided by the Churches Declaration for if it be therefore to be believed necessarily because declared by the Church it must be believed as it is declared by the Church If therefore the Church declares that it is to be held as of the substance of Faith it ought to be held so by such as are bound to believe it on the Churches Declaration Besides you will not say but that it was to be believed before now what alteration is caused by the Declaration of the Church but this That which was before to be believed simply and in it self is now to be believed on the account of the Churches Declaration as of the substance of Faith And thus it is impossible to relieve your self with your old shift of Material and Formal Object which you betake your self to Thus still we see you are that most unhappy person who never begin a charge against your adversary but it falls back most unevitably upon your self who so readily make use of forgeries to prove others guilty of them Upon Scotus his mentioning the Churches Declaration his Lordship inquires What this Declaration is and how far it extends For which his Lordship saith The Master teacheth and his Scholars too that every thing which belongs to the Exposition or Declaration of another intus est is not another contrary thing but is contained within the bowels and nature of that which is interpreted from which if the Declaration depart it is faulty and erronious because instead of declaring it gives another and contrary sense Therefore when the Church declares any thing in Council either that which
believe them this Divine Testimor is never pretended to be contained in the Creed but that it is only a summary Collection of the most necessary Points which God hath revealed and therefore something else must be supposed as the ground and formal reason why we assent to the truth of those things therein contained So that the Creed must suppose the Scripture as the main and only Foundation of believing the matters of Faith therein contained But say you If all the Scripture be included in the Creed there appears no great reason of scruple why the same should not be said of Traditions and other Points especially of that for which we admit Scripture it self But do you make no difference between the Scripture being supposed as the ground of Faith and all Scripture being contained in the Creed And doth not his Lordship tell you That though some Articles may be Fundamental which are infolded in the Creed it would not follow that therefore some unwritten Traditions were Fundamental for though they may have Authority and use in the Church as Apostolical yet are they not Fundamental in the Faith And as for that Tradition That the Books of Holy Scripture are Divine and Infallible in every part he promises to handle it when he comes to the proper place for it And there we shall readily attend what you have to object to what his Lordship saith about it But yet you say His Lordship doth not answer the Question as far as it was necessary to be answered we say he doth No say you For the Question arising concerning the Greek Churches errour whether it were Fundamental or no Mr. Fisher demanded of the Bishop What Points he would account Fundamental to which he answers That all Points contained in the Creed are such but yet not only they and therefore this was no direct Answer to the Question for though the Greeks errour was not against the Creed yet it may be against some other Fundamental Article not contained in the Creed This you call fine shuffling To which I answer That when his Lordship speaks of its not being Fundamentum unicum in that sense to exclude all things not contained in the Creed from being Fundamental he spake it with an immediate respect to the belief of Scripture as an Infallible Rule of Faith For saith he The truth is I said and say still That all the Points of the Apostles Creed as they are there expressed are Fundamental And herein I say no more than some of your best learned have said before me But I never said or meant that they only are Fundamental that they are Fundamentum unicum is the Council of Trent's 't is not mine Mine is That the belief of Scripture to be the Word of God and Infallible is an equal or rather a preceding Principle of Faith with or to the whole body of the Creed Now what reason can you have to call this shuffling unless you will rank the Greeks errour equal with the denying the Scripture to be the Word of God otherwise his Lordship's Answer is as full and pertinent as your cavil is vain and trifling His Lordship adds That this agrees with one of your own great Masters Albertus Magnus who is not far from the Proposition in terminis To which your Exceptions are so pitiful that I shall answer them without reciting them for he that supposeth the sense of Scripture joyned with the Articles of Faith to be the Rule of Faith as Albertus doth must certainly suppose the belief of the Scripture as the Word of God else how is it possible its sense should be the Rule of Faith Again it is not enough for you to say That he believed other Articles of Faith besides these in the Creed but that he made them a Rule of Faith together with the sense of Scripture 3. All this while here is not one word of Tradition as the ground on which these Articles of Faith were to be believed If this therefore be your way of answering I know none will contend with you for fine shuffling What follows concerning the right sense of the Article of the Descent of Christ into Hell since you say You will not much trouble your self about it as being not Fundamental either in his Lordships sense or ours I look on that expression as sufficient to excuse me from undertaking so needless a trouble as the examining the several senses of it since you acknowledge That no one determinate sense is Fundamental and therefore not pertinent to our business Much less is that which follows concerning Mr. Rogers his Book and Authority in which and that which depends upon it I shall only give you your own words for an Answer That truly I conceive it of small importance to spend much time upon this subject and shall not so far contradict my judgement as to do that which I think when it is done is to very little purpose Of the same nature is that of Catharinus for it signifies nothing to us whether you account him an Heretick or no who know Men are not one jot more or less Heretick for your accounting them to be so or not You call the Bishop your good friend in saying That all Protestants do agree with the Church of England in the main Exceptions which they joyntly take against the Roman Church as appears by their several Confessions For say you by their agreeing in this but in little or nothing else they sufficiently shew themselves enemies to the true Church which is one and only one by Vnity of Doctrine from whence they must needs be judged to depart by reason of their Divisions As good a friend as you say his Lordship was to you in that saying of his I am sure you ill requite him for his Kindness by so palpable a falsification of his words and abuse of his meaning And all that Friendship you pretend lyes only in your leaving out that part of the Sentence which takes away all that you build on the rest For where doth his Lordship say That the Protestants only agree in their main Exceptions against the Roman Church and not in their Doctrines Nay doth he not expresly say That they agree in the chiefest Doctrines as well as main Exceptions which they take against the Church of Rome as appears by their several Confessions But you very conveniently to your purpose and with a fraud suitable to your Cause leave out the first part of agreement in the chiefest Doctrines and mention only the latter lest your Declamation should be spoiled as to your Unity and our Disagreements But we see by this by what means you would perswade men of both by Arts and Devices fit only to deceive such who look only on the appearance and outside of things and yet even there he that sees not your growing Divisions is a great stranger to the Christian world Your great Argument of the Vnity of your party because
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 HE that hath a mind to betray an excellent Cause may more advantagiously do it by bringing weak and insufficient Evidences for it then by the greatest heat and vigour of Opposition against it For there cannot possibly be any greater prejudice done to a weighty and important truth then to perswade men to believe it on such grounds which are if not absolutely false yet much more disputable then the thing it self For hereby the minds of men are taken off from the native evidence which the truth enquired after offers to them and build their assent upon the certainty of the medium's suggested as the only grounds to establish a firm assent upon By which means when upon severe enquiry the falsity and insufficiency of those grounds is discovered the person so discovering lyes under a dangerous temptation of calling into question the truth of that which he finds he assented to upon grounds apparently weak and insufficient And the more refined and subtle the speculations are the more sublime and mysterious the matters believed the greater still the danger of Scepticism is upon a discovery of the unsoundness of those principles which such things were believed upon Especially if the more confident and Magisterial party of those who profess the belief of such things do with the greatest heat decry all other wayes as uncertain and obtrude these principles upon the world as the only sure foundation for the belief of them It was anciently a great question among the Philosophers whether there were any certainty in the principles of knowledge or supposing certainty in things whether there were any undoubted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rules to obtain this certainty of knowledge by If then any one Sect of Philosophers should have undertaken to prove the certainty that was in knowledge upon this account because whatever their Sect or Party delivered was infallibly true they had not only shamefully beg'd the thing in dispute but made it much more lyable to question then before Because every errour discovered in that Sect would not only prove the fondness and arrogance of their pretence of being Infallible but would to all such as believed the certainty of things on the authority of their Sect be an argument to disprove all certainty of knowledge when they once discovered the errours of those whose authority they relyed upon Just such is the case of the Church of Rome in this present Controversie concerning the Resolution of Faith The question is What the certain grounds of our assent are to the principles and rule of Christian Religion the Romanists pretend that there can be no ground of True and Divine Faith at all but the Infallible testimony of Their Church let then any rational man judge whether this be not the most compendious way to overthrow the belief of Christianity in the world For our assent must be wholly suspended upon that supposed Infallibility which when once it falls as it unavoidably doth upon the discovery of the least errour in the doctrine of that Church what becomes then of the belief of Christianity which was built upon that as it s only sure foundation So that it is hardly imaginable there could be any design more really destructive to Christianity or that hath a greater tendency to Atheism then the modern pretence of Infallibility and the Jesuits way of resolving Faith Which was the reason why his Lordship was so unwilling to engage in that Controversie How we know the Scriptures to be the Word of God not out of any distrust he had of solving it upon Protestant Principles as you vainly suggest nor out of any fears of being left himself in that Labyrinth which after all your endeavours you have lost your self and your cause in as appears by your attempting this way and that way to get out and at last standing in the very middle of that circle you thought your self out of If his Lordship thought this more a question of curiosity then necessity it was because out of his great Charity he supposed them to be Christians he had to deal with But if his charity were therein deceived you shall see how able we are to make good the grounds of our Religion against all Adversaries whether Papists or others And so far is the answering of this question from making the weakness of our cause appear that I doubt not but to make it evident that our cause stands upon the same grounds which our common Christianity doth and that we are Protestants by the same reason that we are Christians And on the other side that you are so far from giving any true grounds of Christian Faith that nothing will more advance the highest Scepticism and Irreligion then such Principles as you insist on for resolving Faith The true reason then why the Archbishop declared any unwillingness to enter upon this dispute was not the least apprehension how insuperably hard the resolution of this question was as you pretend but because of the great mischief your Party had done in starting such questions you could not resolve with any satisfaction to the common reason of mankind and that you run your selves into such a Circle in which you conjure up more Spirits then ever you are able to lay by giving those advantages to Infidelity which all your Sophistry can never answer on those principles you go upon That this was the true ground of his Lordship's seeming averseness from this Controversie appears by his plain words where he tells you at first of the danger of mens being disputed into infidelity by the Circle between Scripture and Tradition and by his expressing his sense of the great harm you have done by the starting of that question among Christians How we know the Scriptures to be the Word of God But although in this respect he might be said to be drawn into it yet lest you should think his averseness argued any consciousness of his own inability to answer it you may see how closely he follows it with what care and accuracy he handles it with what strength of reason and evidence he hath discovered the weakness of your way which he hath done with that success that he hath put you to miserable shifts to avoid the force of his arguments as will appear afterwards I am therefore fully of his mind that it is a matter of such consequence it deserves to be
wrought to attest this Infallibility For as long as you require such an assent to the present Churches Infallibility it is necessary on your own grounds that the present Church should alwayes work miracles in order to the proving this Infallibility 2. We desire such miracles as may sufficiently convince the Infidels as to this point of your Infallibility For that was alwayes the way used in Scripture The intention of miracles was to perswade those who did not believe Would Pharaoh or the Aegyptians have believed Moses if all his miracles had been wrought in a corner where none but Israelites had been present Would the Jews have believed in Christ if he had not come in publick among them and wrought such frequent publick and uncontrouled miracles that his greatest enemies durst not deny them If you would then have us believe your present Churches Infallibility let your Pope or at least your Priests come and do such kind of miracles among us which may bear the examination of inquisitive men and then try whether we will not believe your Infallibility but till then excuse us Think not we are of such easie Faith that the pretended growing out of a Leg in Spain or any of your famous miracles wrought by your Priests in Italy will perswade us to believe your Church Infallible It is alwayes observed your miracles are most talked on where people are most ignorant and therefore most apt to be deceived Your Priests like the Devils in the Primitive times can do no feats when their opposers are by It is an easie thing for a stump to grow a Leg in its passage from Spain hither for Fama crescit eundo such things are most believed where circumstances are least capable of examination And the juglings and impostures of your Priests have been so notorious in this kind that their pretences to miracles have made more Infidels then Catholicks by making men more apt to question whether ever there were any real miracles done then believe the truth of yours Very likely then it is that you should perswade the world your Church is Infallible because of the miracles wrought in it 3. What discrimination do you put between those lying wonders which you are foretold shall be wrought at the coming of Antichrist and those pretended miracles which are wrought among you Convince us by sufficient evidence that the things which seem most confirmed by your miracles viz. Invocation of Saints is a thing consonant to the doctrine established by the undoubted miracles of Christ and his Apostles If it be contrary to it either you must prove that doctrine false or if you admit it true you prove your miracles to be false because contrary to a doctrine established by miracles undoubtedly Divine And God can never be supposed to attest with miracles the truth of doctrines contrary to each other And thence the wisest of your Church are so far from insisting on this of miracles for a motive of credibility concerning your Churches Infallibility that they leave it out from being a note of the Church because Hereticks as they say may as to all outward appearance work as great miracles as the best Catholicks And therefore Bellarmin saith No man can have an absolute certainty concerning the truth of miracles because the Devil though he cannot work true miracles can work as to appearance the greatest Therefore since the confirmation of Christian Religion by miracles undoubtedly Divine there can be no relyance on the tryal of miracles for the truth of any doctrine for those very miracles and doctrine must be judged according to that rule of Faith which was confirmed by Divine miracles Thus we have examined those motives which seem most to prove Infallibility and shewn how little they agree to the present Churches Infallibility 3. As to the other motives what evidence do you produce That where-ever they are the Church is Infallible and that these do infallibly belong to your Church for both these must be made evident or you do nothing Now these motives are Sanctity of life Succession Vnity Antiquity and the very name of Catholick c. How hard is it to conceive the connexion between these and infallibility Nay they are so far from it that it hath been abundantly proved against your party that these are no certain notes of the true Church which is a Controversie I shall not now discuss And if the Church cannot be proved to be true by them much less certainly will it be proved to be Infallible But suppose all this is your Church so remarkable for Sanctity of life that it should be a motive for your Infallibility Have your Popes been indeed such Holy men that we may not question but they were moved by the Holy Ghost when they spake Certainly you have some other way to know it then all Histories both of friends and enemies and the constant fame of the world which hath then much abused us with stories quite of another nature Or is the state of your Church so pure and holy that it must shew it self Infallible by that But whom will you be judged by in this case I desire you not to stand to the verdict of your Adversaries Will you believe men of your own Communion pray read what sad complaints are made of the degenerate state of your Church by Petrarch Mantuan Clemangis Espencaeus Erasmus Cassander and several others and judge you whether we have not reason to cry up the Sanctity of your Church But these it may be you will say were discontented persons Will you believe then your Cardinals And if ever you will believe them it should certainly be when they meet to advise concerning the state of your Church and was not this the expression of the Colledge of chosen Cardinals for reformation of the Church under Paul 3. Per nos inquimus per nos nomen Christi blasphematur apud gentes Is not this a great evidence of your Sanctity If you will not believe the Cardinals you will not certainly question the judgement of him whom you would fain have to be Infallible the Pope himself And these are the words of Adrian 6. in his Instructions to his Legat at the diet of Norimberg A. D. 1522. Scimus in hâc Sede aliquot jam annis multa abominanda fuisse abusus in Spiritualibus excessus in mandatis omnia denique in perversum mutata If ever Pope was Infallible he was in saying so and he could not but be in Cathedrâ when he said it You see then what evidence you have from your selves concerning that Sanctity of life which is in your Church But it may be still you do not mean real Sanctity but that the doctrine of your Church tends more to promote it then that of any other Church I heartily wish the quite contrary could not be too truly said of it and it is well known that one of your great Artifices whereby you perswade great Persons to your Religion is
answer that when you say It is necessary we must believe the Scriptures to be the VVord of God with Divine Faith this Divine Faith must be taken in one of these three senses either first that Faith may be said to be Divine which hath a Divine Revelation for its Material Object as that Faith may be said to be a Humane Faith which is conversant about natural causes and the effects of them And in this sense it cannot but be a Divine Faith which is conversant about the Scripture because it is a Divine Revelation Or secondly a Faith may be said to be Divine in regard of its Testimony or Formal Object and so that is called a Divine Faith which is built on a Divine Testimony and that a Humane Faith which is built on a Humane Testimony Thus I assert all that Faith which respects particular Objects of Faith supposing the belief of the Scriptures is in this sense Divine because it is built on a properly Divine Testimony but the Question is Whether that Act of Faith which hath the whole Scripture as its Material Object be in that sense Divine or no. Thirdly Faith may be said to be Divine in regard of the Divine Effects it hath upon the soul of man as it is said in Scripture to purifie the heart overcome the world resist Satan and his Temptations receive Christ c. And this is properly a Divine Faith and there is no Question but every Christian ought to have this Divine Faith in his soul without which the other sorts of Divine Faith will never bring men to Heaven But it is apparent that all who heartily profess to believe the Scriptures to be the VVord of God have not this sort of Divine Faith though they have so firm an assent to the Truth and Authority of it that they durst lay down their lives for it The Assent therefore we see may be firm where the effects are not saving The Question now is Whether this may be called a Divine Faith in the second sense that is Whether it must be built on a Testimony infallible For clearing which we must further consider the meaning of this Question How we know Scripture to be Scripture which may import two things How we know that all these Books contain God's VVord in them Or secondly How we know the Doctrine contained in these Books to be Divine If you then ask me Whether it be necessary that I believe with such a Faith as is built on Divine Testimony that these Books called the Scripture contain the principles of the Jewish and Christian Religion in them which we call God's VVord I deny it and shall do so till you shew me some further necessity of it than you have done yet and my reason is because I may have sufficient ground for such an Assent without any Divine Testimony But if you ask me On what ground I believe the Doctrine to be Divine which is contained in those Books I then answer affirmatively On a Divine Testimony because God hath given abundant evidence that this Doctrine was of Divine Revelation Thus you see what little reason you have to triumph in your Argument from Divine Faith inferring the necessity of an unwritten VVord of God But the further explication of these things must be reserved till I come to the positive part of our way of resolution of Faith I now return Having after your way that is very unsatisfactorily attempted the vindicating your resolution of Faith from the Objections which were offered against it by his Lordship you come now to consider the second way propounded by him for the resolving Faith which is That Scripture should be fully and sufficiently known as by divine and infallible Testimony by the resplendency of that light which it hath in it self only and by the witness it can so give to it self against which he gives such evident reasons that you acknowledge the Relator himself hath sufficiently confuted it and you agree with him in the Confutation Yet herein you grow very angry with him for saying That this Doctrine may agree well enough with your grounds in regard you hold that Tradition may be known for God's VVord by its own light and consequently the like may be said of Scripture This you call aspersing you and obtruding falshoods upon you Whether it be so or no must appear upon examination Two Testimonies are cited from A. C. to this purpose the first is Tradition of the Church is of a Company which by its own light shews it self to be infallibly assisted Your Answer is That the word which must properly relate to the preceding word Company and not to the more remote word Tradition But what of all this Doth any thing the less follow which the Bishop charged A. C. with For it being granted by you That there can be no knowing an Apostolical Tradition but for the Infallibility of the present Church the same light which discovers the Infallibility of that Company doth likewise discover the Truth of Tradition If therefore your Church doth appear infallible by its own light which is your own confession May not the Scripture as well appear infallible by its own light For is there not as great self-evidence at least that the Scripture is infallible as that your Church is infallible And therefore that way you take to shift the Objection makes it return upon you with greater force For I pray tell me how any Company can appear by its own Light to be assisted by the Holy Ghost and not much more the Holy Scripture to be divine Especially seeing you must at last be forced to derive this Infallibility from the Scriptures For you pretend to no other Infallibility than what comes by a promise of the immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost How then can any Company appear by its own Light to be thus infallibly assisted unless it first appear by its own Light that there was such a Promise and how can that unless it antecedently appear by its own Light that the Scripture in which the Promise is written is the VVord of God You tell us A. C ' s. intention is only to affirm That the Church is known by her Motives of Credibility which ever accompany her and may very properly be called her own Light How well you are acquainted with A. C ' s. intention I know not neither is it much matter for granting this to have been his intention may not the Scripture be known by her Motives of Credibility as well as the Church and do not these accompany her as much as the Church and may they not be called her Light as properly as those of the Church It is plain then by all the senses and meanings you can find out in the very same that you say the Church may be known by her own Light the Scripture may much more and therefore you have no reason to quarrel with his Lordship or affirming it The second Testimony
is roving and uncertain 2. That notwithstanding his brags he must have recourse to a private spirit himself 3. That though the Bishop would seem to deny it diverse eminent Protestants do resolve their Faith into the private spirit This being the substance of what you say I shall return a particular Answer to each of them For the first you tell us He delivers himself in such a roving way of discourse as signifies nothing in effect as to what he would drive at No that is strange when that which his Lordship drives at is to shew how far this opinion is to be allowed and how far not which he is so far from roving in that he clearly and distinctly propounds the state of the question and the resolution of it which in short is this If by the testimony of the spirit be meant any special revelation of a new object of Faith then he denies the truth of it at least in an ordinary way both because God never sends us to look for such a testimony and because it would expose men to the danger of Enthusiasms but if by the testimony of the Spirit be meant the habit or the act of Divine infused Faith by vertue of which they believe the object which appears credible then he grants the truth but denyes the pertinency of it because it is quite out of the state of the question which inquires only after a sufficient means to make this object credible against all impeachment of folly and temerity in believing whether men do actually believe or not And withal adds that the question is of such outward and evident means as other men may take notice of as well as our selves Judge you now whether this may be called roving if it be so I can freely excuse you from it in all the discourses I have met with in your Book who abhorre nothing more then a true stating and methodical handling any question But yet say you the Bishop cannot free himself from that imputation of recurring to the private Spirit against any that should press the business home Sure you refer us here to some one else who is able to press a business home for you never attempt it your self and instead of that only produce a large testimony out of A. C. That he did not acquit the Bishop wholly of this Whether he did or no is to little purpose and yet those very words which his Lordship cites are in your testimony produced out of him Only what you add more from him that he must be driven to it that his Lordship denies and neither A. C. or you have been able to prove it But though the Bishop seems not only to deny any such private revelation himself but will not confess that any Protestants hold it yet you say there can be no doubt in this since Calvin and Whitaker do both so expresly own it But according to those principles laid down before both these testimonies are easily answered For 1. Neither of them doth imply any private revelation of any new object but only a particular application of the evidence appearing in Scripture to the conscience of every Believer 2. That these testimonies do not speak of the external evidence which others are capable of but of the internal satisfaction of every ones conscience Therefore Calvin saith Si conscientiis optimè consultum volumus c. if we will satisfie our own consciences not If we will undertake to give a sufficient reason to others of our Faith So Whitaker Esse enim dicimus certius illustrius testimonium quo nobis persuadeatur hos libros esse sacros c. There is a more certain and noble testimony by which we may be perswaded that these Books are sacred viz. that of the Holy Ghost 3. Neither of these testimonies affirm any more than the more judicious Writers among your selves do Your Canus asserts the necessity of an internal efficient cause by special assistance of the Spirit moving us to believe besides and beyond all humane authorities and motives which of themselves are not sufficient to beget Faith and this a little after he calls Divinum quoddam lume◠incitans ad credendum A divine light moving us to believe and again Interius lumen infusum à Spirit◠Sancto An inward light infused by the Spirit of God There is nothing in the sayings of the most rigid Protestants is more hard to explain or vindicate from a private revelation then this is if as you say one would press it home Nay hath not your own Stapleton Calvins very phrase of the necessity of the secret testimony of the Spirit that one believe the testimony and judgement of the Church concerning Scripture And is there not then as much danger of Enthusiasm in believing the Testimony of your Church as in believing the Scriptures Nay doth not your Gregory de Valentiâ rather go higher then the testimonies by you produced out of Calvin and Whitaker on this very subject in the beginning of his discourse of the resolution of Faith It is God himself saith he in the first place which must convince and perswade the minds of men of the truth of the Christian Doctrine and consequently of the Sacred Scriptures by some inward instinct and impulse as it appears from Scripture it self is fully explained by Prosper If you will then undertake to clear this inward instinct and impulse upon the minds of men whereby they are perswaded of the truth of Christianity and Scripture from Enthusiasm and a private spirit you may as easily do it for the utmost which is said by Calvin or Whitaker or any other Protestant Divine This therefore is only an argument of your desire to cavil and as such I will pass it over For what concerns the influence which the Spirit hath in the resolution of Faith it will be enquired into afterwards The last way mentioned in order to the resolution of Faith is that of Reason which his Lordship saith cannot be denyed to have some place to come in and prove what it can According to which he tells us no man can be hindred from weighing the tradition of the Church the inward motives in Scripture it self all testimonies within which seem to bear witness to it and in all this saith he there is no harm the danger is when a man will use no other scale but reason or prefer reason before any other scale Reason then can give no supernatural ground into which a man may resolve his Faith that the Scripture is the word of God infallibly yet Reason can go so high as it can prove that Christian Religion which rests upon the authority of this Book stands upon surer grounds of nature reason common equity and justice then any thing in the world which any Infidel or meer naturalist hath done doth or can adhere unto against it in that which he makes accounts or assumes as Religion to himself This
report of such men whom I can make it appear could have no interest in deceiving you A. I can see no reason to the contrary Will you then believe such men who lost their lives to make it appear that their Testimony was true A. Yes Will you believe such things wherein persons of several Ages Professions Nations Religions Interests are all agreed that they were so A. Yes if it be only to believe a matter of fact on their Testimony I can see no ground to question it That is all I desire of you and therefore you must believe that there was in the world such a person as Jesus Christ who dyed and rose again and while he lived wrought great miracles to confirm his Doctrine with and that he sent out Apostles to preach this Doctrine in the world who likewise did work many miracles and that some of these persons the better to preserve and convey this Doctrine did write the substance of all that Christ either did or spake and withall penned several Epistles to those Churches which were planted by them These are all matters of fact and therefore on your former Principle you are to believe them There are then but two Scruples left Supposing all this true yet this doth not prove the Doctrine Divine nor the Scriptures which convey it to be infallible To which I answer 1. Can you question Whether that Doctrine be Divine when the person who declared it to the world was so divine and extraordinary a person not only in his conversation but in those frequent and unparalleld Miracles which he wrought in the sight and face of his enemies who after his death did rise again and converse with his Disciples who gave evidence of their fidelity in the Testimony they gave of it by laying down their lives to attest the Truth of it Again Can you question the Divinity of that Doctrine which tended so apparently to the destruction of sin and wickedness and the power of the evil Spirit in the world For we cannot think he would quit his possession willingly out of the bodies and souls of men that therefore which threw him out of both must be not only a Doctrine directly contrary to his interest but infinitely exceeding him in power And that can be no less than Divine But still you will say Is it not besides all this necessary to believe these very Books you call the Scripture to be divinely inspired and how should I know that To that I answer 1. That which God chiefly requires from you is the belief of the Truth and Divinity of the Doctrine for that is the Faith which will bring you to obedience which is the thing God aims at 2. If you believe the Doctrine to be True and Divine you cannot reasonably question the Infallibility of the Scriptures For in that you read that not only Christ did miracles but his Apostles too and therefore their Testimony whether writing or speaking was equally infallible all that you want evidence for is that such persons writ these Books and that being a matter of fact was sufficiently proved and acknowledged before Thus you see if we take a right method and not jumble things confusedly together as you do what a satisfactory account may be given to any inquisitive person first of the Reasonableness next of the Truth and lastly of the Divinity both of the Doctrine and the Books containing it which we call the Scripture Let us now again see How you make the Bishop and Heathen dispute The substance of which is That you make your Heathen desire no less than infallible evidence that the Bible is God's VVord by conviction of natural reason whereas his Lordship attempts only to make the Authority of Scriptures appear by such Arguments as unbelievers themselves could not but think reasonable if they weighed them with indifferency For though saith he this Truth That Scripture is the VVord of God is not so demonstratively evident à priori as to inforce assent yet it is strengthened so abundantly with probable Arguments both from the Light of Nature it self and Humane Testimony that he must be very wilful and self-conceited that shall dare to suspect it And sure any reasonable man in the world would think it sufficient to deal with an adversary upon such terms But saies your Heathen A man cannot be infallibly certain of what is strengthened with but probable Arguments since that which is but probably true may also be said to be but probably false Which being a thing so often objected against us by your party must be somewhat further explained How far Infallibility may be admitted in our belief may partly be perceived by what hath been said already and what shall be said more afterwards That there is and ought to be the highest degree of actual Certainty I assert as much as you But say you The very Arguments being but probable destroy it To which I answer by explaining the meaning of probable Arguments in this case whereby are not understood such kind of Probabilities which cannot raise a firm Assent in which sense we say That which is probable to be is probable not to be but by Probabilities are only meant such kind of rational Evidence which may yield a sufficient foundation for a firm Assent but yet notwithstanding which an obstinate person may deny Assent As for Instance if you were to dispute with an Atheist concerning the Existence of a Deity which he denies and should proceed with you just as your Heathen doth with the Bishop Sir All that Religion you talk of is built only upon the belief of a God but I cannot be infallibly convinced by natural reason that there is such a one You presently tell him that there is so much evidence for a Deity from the works of nature the consent of all people c. that he can have no reason to question it But still he replies None of these are demonstrations for notwithstanding I have considered these I believe the contrary but demonstrations would make me infallibly certain these then are no more but probable Arguments and therefore since it is but probably true it may be probably false How then will you satisfie such a person Can you do it any otherwise than by saying that we have as great Evidence as the nature of the thing will bear and it is unreasonable to require more Unless you will tell him it is to no purpose to believe a God unless he believe it infallibly and there being no infallible Arguments in nature he must believe it on the Infallibility of your Church And do you not think this were an excellent way to confute Atheists But when we speak of probable Arguments we mean not such as are apt to leave the mind in suspence whether the thing be true or no but only such as are not proper and rigid demonstrations or infallible Testimony but the highest Evidence which the nature of the thing will bear
that but only the concurrent Testimonies of some Schoolmen who must be confessed to be excellent Criticks and well versed in ancient M.SS. unless where they met with a little Greek or some hard Latin words and among whom the mistake of one would pass current for want of examining Copies let the Reader therefore judge whether Judgement be more probable But I think it not worth while to say more about it In your vindication of the Authority of Canus you make use of a very silly piece of Sophistry for say you Though he make Infidels and Novices in the Faith to be convinced by the Authority of the Church yet you say It doth not follow that he makes the said Authority a fallible but a certain and sure way to make them believe it But 1. The Question is Whether Canus doth understand that place of S. Augustine of Infidels and Novices or no 2. Suppose he sayes It is a sure way Doth it therefore follow that it is an infallible way Is nothing certain but what is infallible I hope you are certain that the Church of Rome is the Cacholick Church but Are you infallible that she is so If you advance all certainty to Infallibility or bring down all Infallibility to Certainty every Christian is as infallible as your Church is For I make no question but that every good Christian is certain of the Grounds and Principles of his Religion The same thing you return upon again after to little purpose you multiply words about Canus and Stapleton's Testimonies For say you because S. Augustine speaks of a sure way therefore he must mean an infallible way as though what was not supernaturally infallible was presently unsure I pray tell me Are you sure that two and two make four Yet I hope you will not say You are supernaturally infallible that they do so I hope you are sure there is a Pope at Rome and a goodly Colledge of Cardinals there but Are you infallible in this It is not then certainly the same to deny a thing to be infallible and to make it unsure And you are either very weak or very wilful in saying so In what sense this so much controverted place of S. Augustine is to be understood will be afterwards discussed and whether it be intended wholly for Infidels or no only I shall take notice now how in the last words of this Chapter you would again inferr Infallibility from undoubted certainty For say you the Church in S. Augustine's time esteemed her self undoubtedly certain that the Gospel was the infallible Word of God for otherwise she might be deceived her self and deceive others in commanding them to believe that to be God's Word which was only the word of man But What is it you would inferr from all this For we believe the Church as undoubtedly certain as may be that the Scriptures are God's Word yet we are far enough from believing that her Testimony now is supernaturally infallible CHAP. VII The Protestant Way of resolving Faith Several Principles premised in order to it The distinct Questions set down and their several Resolution 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 HAving thus far followed you through all your intricacies and windings and shewed with what diligence and subtilty you would juggle men out of their Faith under a pretence of Infallibility it will be necessary for the vindicating our Doctrine and the clearing this important Controversie with all evidence and perspicuity to lay down those certain grounds which we build our Faith upon And although it be one of the greatest of your Modern Artifices to perswade the world that Protestants have no certain grounds of Faith at all yet I doubt not but to make it evident that the way taken by the most judicious and considerative Protestants is as satisfactory and reasonable as I have already made it appear that yours is unreasonable and ridiculous Which I shall the rather do because through the want of a clear and distinct apprehension of the true way of resolving Faith no Controversie in Religion hath been more obscure and involved than this hath been Therefore for our more distinct method of proceeding I shall first endeavour to prevent misunderstanding by premising several things which are necessary for a through opening the state of the Controversie and then come to the resolution of it The things then I would premise are these following 1. That we enquire not after the reason why we assent to what is divinely revealed but after the reason why we believe any thing to be a Divine Revelation Therefore when men speak of the last resolution of Faith into the Veracity of God revealing they speak that which is undoubtedly true but it reacheth not our present enquiry I freely grant that the ultimate reason why any thing is believed is upon the Testimony of him from whom it comes and the greater the knowledge and fidelity is of him whose Testimony I believe the stronger my Assent is supposing I have sufficient evidence that it is his Testimony But that is our present Question for it being taken for granted among all Christians that God's Testimony is absolutely infallible there can no dispute arise concerning the ground of resolving Faith supposing God's Revelation to be sufficiently known For no one questions but God's Veracity however discovered is a sufficient ground for Faith but all the Question is How we come to know wherein this Veracity of God doth discover it self or what those things are which are immediately revealed by him Therefore to tell us that the resolution of Faith is into Gods Infallible Testimony without shewing on what account this testimony is to be beleeved to be from God is to tell us that which no one doubts of and to escape that which is the main question For in case Isaac should have denyed submission to his Fathers will when he went to be sacrificed till he could be satisfied concerning the lawfulness of that action which his Father went about Do you think it had been satisfactory to him if Abraham had told him that God had power to relax his own Laws and therefore he need not question the lawfulness of the action might not Isaac have presently answered That he did not question that what God commanded was lawful but that he desired was some evidence that he had
a revelation for what he did And the answer to this had been only pertinent and satisfactory So that he might have no reason to question it although he did not believe any thing more then common fidelity in his Fathers testimony For God never when revelations were most common thought it necessary to multiply revelations so far as to make one necessary to attest another but that revelation which was communicated to one was obligatory to all concerned in it though they could have nothing but Moral certainty for it By this it appears that when we now speak of the resolution of Faith though the utmost reason of our assent is that Infallibility which is supposed in Divine Testimony yet the nearest and most proper resolution of it is into the grounds inducing us to believe that such a Testimony is truly Divine and the resolution of this cannot be into any Divine Testimony without a process in infinitum 2. That when we speak of the resolution of Faith by Faith we understand a rational and discursive act of the mind For Faith being an assent upon evidence or reason inducing the mind to assent it must be a rational and discursive act and such a one that one may be able to give an account of to another And this account which men are able to give why they do believe or on what ground they do it is that which we call resolving Faith And by this it appears that whatever resolves Faith into its efficient cause which some improperly call the Testimony of the spirit though it may be true yet comes not home to the question For if by the Testimony of the spirit be meant that operation of the spirit whereby saving Faith is wrought in us then it gives no account from the thing to be believed why we assent to it but only shews how Faith is wrought in us by way of efficiency which is rather resolving the question about the necessity of Grace than the grounds of Faith Our question is not then concerning the necessity of infused habits of Grace but of those rational inducements which do incline the mind to a firm assent For Faith in us however it is wrought being a perswasion of the mind it is not conceivable how there should be any discursive act of the mind without some reason causing the mind to assent to what is propounded to it For without this Faith would be an unaccountable thing and the spirit of revelation would not be the spirit of wisdom and Religion would be exposed to the contempt of all unbelievers if we were able to give no other account of Faith then that it is wrought in us by the Spirit of God When we speak therefore of the resolving Faith we mean what are the rational inducements to believe or what evidence there is in the object propounded to make us firmly assent to it 3. According to the different acts of Faith there must be assigned a different resolution of Faith For every act being rational and discursive must have its proper grounds belonging to it unless we suppose that act elicited without any reason for it which is incongruous with the nature of the humane understanding There are then in the question of resolution of Faith these three questions to be resolved First Why I believe those things to be true which are contained in the Book called the Scripture 2. Why I believe the Doctrine contained in that Book to be Divine 3. Why I believe the Books themselves to be of Divine revelation Now every one of these questions admits of a different way of resolution as will appear by the handling each of them distinctly 1. If I be asked On what grounds I believe the things to be true which are contained in Scripture my answer must be From the greatest evidence of truth which things of that nature are capable of If therefore the persons who are supposed to have writ these things were such who were fully acquainted with what they writ of if they were such persons who cannot be suspected of any design to deceive men by their writings and if I be certain that these which go under the name of their writings are undoubtedly theirs I must have sufficient grounds to believe the truth of them Now that the writers of these things cannot be suspected of ignorance appears by the time and age they writ in when the story of these things was new and such multitudes were willing enough to have contradicted it if any thing had beeen amiss besides some of the writers had been intimately conversant with the person and actions of him whom they writ most of That they could have no intent to deceive appears from the simplicity and candour both of their actions and writings from their contempt of the world and exposing themselves to the greatest hazards to bear witness to them That these are the very same writings appears by all the evidence can be desired For we have as great if not much greater reason to believe them to be the Authors of the Books under their Names than any other writers of any Books whatsoever both because the matters are of greater moment and therefore men might be supposed more inquisitive about them and that they have been unanimously received for 〈◊〉 from the very time of their being first written except some very few which upon strict examination were admitted too and we find these very Books cited by the learned Christians under these Names in that time when it had been no difficulty to have found out several of the Original Copy's themselves When therefore they were universally received by Christians never doubted of by Jews or Heathen Philosophers we have as great evidence for this first act of Faith as it is capable of And he is unreasonable who desires more 2. If I be asked why I believe the Doctrine contained in these Books to be Divine I must give in two things for answer 1. That in the Age when the Doctrine was delivered there was sufficient reason to believe it Divine 2. That if there was sufficient reason then we have sufficient reason now 1. That in the Age when the Doctrine was delivered there was sufficient reason to believe it Divine Supposing then that we already believe upon the former answer that all the matters of fact be true I answer that if Christ did such unparalleâ—d miracles and rose from the dead they who heard his Doctrine had reason to believe it to be of God and this I suppose the greatest Infidel would not deny if himself had been one of the witnesses of his actions and resurection 2. That if they had reason then we have so now because tradition to us doth only supply the want of our senses as to what Christ did and spake i. e. That tradition is a kind of derivative and perpetuated sensation to us it being of the same use to us now which our eyes and ears had been if we had been
actually present when Christ delivered his Doctrine and wrought his Miracles Which that we may better understand we may consider what the use of our senses had been if we had been then present and consequently what the use of tradition is now to us Now it is apparent that the use of the senses to those who saw the Miracles and heard the Doctrine of Christ was not to give any credibility to either of them but only to be the means of conveying to them those things which might induce them to believe the same doth tradition now to us it doth not in it self make the Doctrin more credible but supplies the use of our senses in a certain conveyance of those things to us which were the motives to believe then For the motives to Faith both to them and us are the same only the manner of conveyance is different but our case is much the same with those who lived in the same Age but by reason of distance of place could not be personally present at what Christ did or said now if those persons were obliged to believe and had sufficient reason for Faith who by reason of distance of place could not exercise their senses about Christs Doctrine and Miracles the same reason and obligation have we who cannot do it by reason of distance of time And if there be any advantage on either side it is on ours because though the tradition doth not in it self give any credibility to the Doctrine yet there are such circumstances accompanying this tradition which may much facilitate our belief above theirs because by such a continued tradition we have an evidence of the efficacy of this Doctrine which had so continual a power as to engage so many in all ages since its first appearance to be the propagators and defenders of it And therefore this hath very much the advantage of the report of any credible persons in that age who might report to any at distance the Miracles and Doctrine of Christ. And this is the way of resolution of Faith which the Scripture it self directs us to How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him God also bearing them witness both with signs and wonders and with diverse miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost according to his own will Where we plainly see the resolution of Faith as to the Divinity of the Doctrine was into the Miracles wrought for the confirmation of it which was the proper witness or testimony of the Holy Ghost but the means of conveyance was by the tradition of those who were eye and ear-witnesses of what Christ said or did As therefore it was not supposed necessary for them who saw the miracles of Christ either to have some inward Testimony of the Spirit or some external Infallible Testimony of the Church to assure them that these miracles were really done by Christ but God left them to the judgement of sense so proportionably neither of those two is now necessary for the resolution of our Faith but God instead of the judgement of sense leaves us to the evidence of Tradition Object But all this is you say no more then Moral certainty which being fallible we cannot from thence be assured that Christian Religion is Infallibly true Answ. This being the great bug-bear wherewith you would fright men out of their Religion I shall in this place shew that it serves only to scare fools and children with For 1. What greater certainty had they who lived in the time of Christ and his Apostles and did not see their Miracles Had they or could they have any more than this you call moral Certainty and Do you really think that all such could not be sufficiently assured that Christian Religion was infallibly true 2. Moral Certainty may be a sufficient Foundation for the most firm Assent and therefore if the matter to be believed be the infallible Truth of a Doctrine upon suitable evidence though we have now but moral Certainty of that evidence the Assent may be firm to such a Doctrine as infallible And therefore the grand mistake lyes here as though our Faith were resolved finally into this moral Certainty or as if the Faith of those who saw Christ's Miracles were resolved into their eyes and not into the Miracles for as their eyes were but the means of conveyance of that evidence which was infallible so is that Tradition to us by which we have our Certainty of those evidences of the infallible Truth of Christian Religion And we are further to consider that the nature of Certainty is not so much to be taken from the matters themselves as from the grounds inducing the Assent that is Whether the things be Mathematical Physical or Moral if there be no reason to question the grounds of belief the case is all one as to the nature of the Assent So that moral Certainty may be as great as Mathematical and Physical supposing as little reason to doubt in moral things as to their natures as in Mathematical and Physical as to theirs Therefore this great quarrel about moral Certainty is very unreasonable unless it be proved that there is no cause of firm Assent upon moral grounds now if the cause of the Assent may be as equal and proportionable to their nature in moral things as in Mathematical there may be as firm an Assent in the One as in the Other as I have already shewed For which this reason is plain and evident that Certainty implies the taking away all suspicion of doubt But there can be no taking away all suspicion of doubt in Mathematical things without Mathematical evidence but in moral things all suspicion of doubt is removed upon moral evidence and therefore the Certainty may be as great in the Assent to one as the other Thus we see how unjustly and how much to the dishonour of Religion you quarrel with moral evidence as an uncertain thing But I answer yet further 3. That the greatest assurance we can desire that any Religion is infallibly True is from moral Certainty and that upon these three grounds 1. Because the grounds of all Religion are capable of no more 2. Because the highest evidence of any Religion must depend upon it 3. Because this in it self may evidently demonstrate that Christian Religion is infallibly True 1. There can be no greater than this moral Certainty of the main Foundations of all Religion which are The Being of God and Immortality of souls without the supposition of which there can be no such thing as Infallibility in the world and therefore from thence I may easily prove that there can be no more than moral Certainty of the existence of a Deity For if the very notion of Infallibility doth suppose a God then you cannot infallibly prove that there is One in your sense of Infallibility for then you must beg
the Question and suppose that already to be which you are proving the existence of Now that Infallibility in us doth suppose the existence of God appears most evidently because mans understanding being of it self fallible it cannot be supposed in any thing infallible without the supernatural Assistance of a being Infallible which can be nothing else but God But if you think you have infallible proofs produce them and convince the world of Atheists by them We acknowledge we have as great evidence and certainty as humane nature is capable of of a Being of such a Nature as God is from the consideration of his works but all this still is moral Certainty for the grounds are neither Mathematically demonstrative nor supernaturally infallible What folly and madness then is it for your party to cry out so much against moral Certainty in Religion when the Foundation of all Religion is capable of no more And may not this justly increase our suspicion that under moral Certainty you strike at the Foundation of all Religion 2. Suppose God gives the most infallible evidence of any Religion it is not possible but that some who are bound to believe that Religion can have any more than moral Certainty of it And for all that I know the greatest Physical Certainty is as liable to question as moral there being as great a possibility of Deception in that as a suspicion of doubt in this and oft-times greater What advantage then had those who stood by and saw the miracles of Moses and Christ above those who did not but had the report of them conveyed to them in an unquestionable manner Besides it is apparent God's great aim in any Religion is most at the good of those who can have only a moral Certainty of the great evidences of the Truth of that Religion because it being God's intention that the Religion delivered by Him should be not meerly for the benefit of those very few persons who could be present at such things but for the advantage of those incomparably greater numbers who by reason of distance of place and age could not be present it would argue a strange want of provision for mens Faith unless moral Certainty were sufficient Only you indeed will suppose that which God himself never thought necessary viz. an infallible Testimony of the present Church but to what good purposes you have introduced this hath largely appeared already 3. Moral Certainty yields us sufficient Assurance that Christian Religion is infallibly true And that I prove because moral Certainty may evidently shew us the Credibility of the Christian Religion which you deny not nor any else and that from the Credibility of it the infallible Truth of it may be proved will appear by these two things 1. That where there is evident Credibility in the matter propounded there doth arise upon men an obligation to believe And that is proved both by your own confession as to the Churches Infallibility being believed on the Motives of Credibility and from Gods intention in giving such Motives which was to perswade them to believe as appears by multitudes of places of Scripture and withall though the meer Credibility of the Motives might at first suppose some doubts concerning the Infallibility of the Doctrine yet it is not consistent with any doubt as to the Infallibility of the obligation to believe because there can be no other reason assigned of these Motives of Credibility than the inducing on men an obligation to Faith 2. That where there is such an obligation to believe we have the greatest assurance that the matter to be believed is infallibly True Which depends upon this manifest proof That God cannot oblige men to believe a lye it being repugnant to all our conceptions of the Veracity and Goodness of God to imagine that God should require from men on the pain of eternal damnation for not believing to believe something as infallibly True which is really false Thus you see what a clear and pregnant demonstration we have of the infallible Truth of Christian Religion from moral Certainty How injurious then have those of your party been who have charged this opinion of believing upon moral Certainty with betraying Religion and denying Christian Religion to be infallibly True Thus much for this grand Objection I now come to the last Question considerable in the Resolution 3. On what account do I believe these particular Books of Scripture to be Gods Word Which may admit of a double sense 1. On what account I do believe the Doctrine contained in these Books to be Gods Word 2. On what account I do believe the Books containing this Doctrine to be Gods Word As to the first I have answered already viz. Upon the same rational evidence which God gave that the Testimony of those who delivered was a Divine and infallible Testimony To the second I answer in these two Propositions 1. That the last Resolution of Faith is not into the Infallibility of the Instrument of conveyance but into the Infallibility of that Doctrine which is thereby conveyed to us For the writing of this Doctrine is only the condition by which this Revelation is made manifest to us it being evident from the nature of the thing that the writing of a Divine Revelation is not necessary for the ground and reason of Faith as to that Revelation because men may believe a Divine Revelation without it as is not only evident in the case of the Patriarchs but of all those who in the time of Christ and the Apostles did believe the truth of the Doctrin of Christ before it was written If therefore the writing be only the condition of the manifestation of the Object in a certain way to us the ground and reason of Faith is not to be resolved into that which is only the mode of our knowledge of the Object to be believed but into that which is properly the ground and reason why we believe that Doctrine or Revelation to be Divine which is contained in those Books And this is still the case of all illiterate persons who cannot resolve their Faith properly into the Scripture but into the Doctrine delivered them out of Scripture Hence we may discern the difference between the Formal Object and the Rule of Faith the Formal Object is that evidence which is given of the Infallibility of the Testimony of those who delivered the Doctrine the infallible Rule of Faith to us is the Scripture viz. that which limits and bounds the material Objects of Faith which we are bound to believe and this doth therefore discover to us what those things are which on the account of the Formal Object we are obliged to believe 2. Those who believe the Doctrine of Scripture to be Divine have no reason to question the infallible conveyance of that Doctrine to us in those Books we call the Scripture Therefore whatever things we are to believe in order to salvation we have as great evidence as we
that the Catholick Church is the subject of Infallibility But I had thought nothing could have been more necessary than to have known this But I proceed then How comes this Catholick Church to have this Infallible Assistance Cannot I suppose that Christ and the Holy Spirit may exist without giving this Assistance cannot I suppose that Christian Religion may be in the world without such an Infallibility Is this Assistance therefore a necessary or a free Act A free Act. If a free Act then for all you know Your Catholick Church may not be so assisted No you reply you are sure it is so assisted But Whence can you be sure of an arbitrary thing unless the Authours of this Assistance have engaged themselves by Promise to give your Catholick Church that Infallible Assistance Yes that they have you reply and then produce Luk. 10.16 Mat. 28.20 Joh. 14.16 But although our Infidel might ask some untoward Questions still as How you are sure these are Divine Promises when the knowledge that they are Divine must suppose the thing to be true which you would prove out of them viz. that your Church is infallible Supposing them Divine how are you sure That and no other is the meaning of them when from such places you prove that your Church is the only Infallible Interpreter of Scripture But I let pass these and other Questions and satisfie my self with this That it is impossible for you to prove such an Infallible Assistance of Christ and the Holy Spirit unless you produce some express Promise for it 2. This being impossible it necessarily follows That the only Motives of Credibility which can prove your Church Infallible must be such as do antecedently prove these Promises to be Divine This is so plain and evident a Consectary from the former that it were an affront upon humane understanding to go about to prove it For if the Infallibility doth depend upon the Promise nothing can prove that Infallibility but what doth prove that Promise to be True and Divine True or else not to be believed Divine or else not to be relyed on for such an Assistance none else being able to make a promise of it but the Authour of it As therefore my right to an estate as given by Will depends wholly upon the Truth and Validity of that Will which I must first prove before I can challenge any right to it So your pretence of Infallibility must solely depend upon the Promises which you challenge it by By which it appears that your attempting to prove the Infallibility of your Church by Motives of Credibility antecedent to and independent on the Scripture is vain ridiculous and destructive to that very Infallibility which you pretend to Which being by a free Assistance of Christ and his Spirit must wholly depend on the proof of the Promise made of it For if you prove no Promise all your Motives of Credibility prove nothing at all as I have at large demonstrated before and shall not follow you in needless repetitions 3. No right to any priviledge can be challenged by virtue of a free Promise made to particular persons unless it be evident that the intention of the Promiser was that it should equally extend to them and others For the Promise being free and the Priviledge such as carries no necessity at all along with it in order to the great ends of Christian Religion it is intolerable Arrogance and Presumption to challenge it without manifest evidence that the design of it was for them as well as the persons to whom it was made Indeed in such Promises which are built on common and general grounds containing things agreeable to all Christians it is but reasonable to inferr the universal extent of that Promise to all such as are in the like condition Hence the Apostle inferrs from the particular Promise made to Joshua I will never leave thee nor forsake thee the effect of it upon all believers Although had not the Apostle done it before us it may seem questionable on what ground we could have done it unless from the general reason of of it and the unbounded nature of Divine Goodness in things necessary for the Good of his People But in things arbitrary and such as contain special Priviledge in them to challenge a right to a Promise of the same Priviledge without equal evidence of the descent of it as the first Grant is great presumption and a challenge of the Promisor for partiality if he doth not make it good Because the pretence of the right of the Priviledge goes upon this ground that it is as much due to the Successor as to the Original Grantee 4. Nothing can be more unreasonable than to challenge a right to a Priviledge by virtue of such a Promise which was granted upon quite different considerations from the grounds on which that right is challenged Thus I shall after make it evident that the Promise of an Infallible Assistance of the Holy Ghost had a peculiar respect to the Apostles present employment and the first state of the Church that it was not made upon reasons common to all ages viz. for the Government of the Church deciding Controversies Foundation of Faith all which Ends may be sufficiently attained without them But above all it seems very unreasonable that a Promise made to persons in one office must be applied in the same manner to persons in a quite different office that a Promise made to each of them separate must be equally applied to others only as in Council that a Promise made implying Divine Assistance must be equally applied to such who dare not say that Assistance is Divine but infallible and after a sort Divine that a Promise made of immediate Divine Revelation and enabling the persons who enjoyed the Priviledge of it to work miracles to attest their Testimony to be infallible should be equally applied to such as dare not challenge a Divine Revelation nor ever did work a miracle to attest such an Infallible Assistance Yet all this is done by you in your endeavour of fetching the Infallibility of your Church out of those Promises of the assistance of Christ and his Spirit which were made to the Apostles These general Considerations do sufficiently enervate the force of your whole Chapter which yet I come particularly to consider His Lordship tells A. C. That in the second sense of Church-Tradition he cannot find that the Tradition of the present Church is of Divine and Infallible Authority till A. C. can prove that this company of men the Roman Prelates and Clergy he means are so fully so clearly so permanently assisted by Christ and his Spirit as may reach to Infallibility much less to a Divine Infallibilility in this or any other Principle which they teach In answer to this you tell us That the Bishop declines the Question by withdrawing his Reader from the thesis to the hypothesis from the Church to the Church of Rome But
themselves had not such a continual Infallible assistance much less the LXX Disciples who are here spoken of 2. The message they were sent upon did not at all require any Infallible assistance for it was only a preparative message they not being sent to deliver fully the Doctrine of Christ but to tell them The Kingdom of God is at hand or nigh unto you ver 9 11. i. e. that blessed state of things under the Messias is now ready to be revealed to you the whole design therefore of that commission of the LXX Disciples and the Apostles when they were first sent abroad was of the same nature with Baptist's viz. to prepare people for the reception and entertainment of that Doctrine which Christ should deliver to them Now what Infallible assistance can be supposed necessary in order to this 3. The words imply nothing of Infallible assistance in them For when Christ saith He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me the plain meaning is no more than this They which hearken to your message and believe the truth of what you say do therein manifest their readiness to hearken to me and consequently will receive my Doctrine when it is delivered to them but they who despise this message of yours the affront they offer you reflects most on me who sent you and they shall find to their sorrow that in rejecting me they reject God too who will punish them severely for it which that it is the meaning of the words will very easily appear to any one that considers the scope and design of the place Now is it not possible for any to declare their respect to Christ by receiving his Messengers without believing those Messengers to be Infalliblâ— If that be possible then what kind of Infallibility can you hence inferr 2. Suppose I should grant these LXX Infallible in what they delivered yet nothing can be hence drawn for the Churches continual Infallibility because of the different reason of one from the other and that will appear in these things 1. These were immediately sent abroad by Christ himself when there were no Infallible writings containing this Doctrine made by himself or his Apostles And was there not then much more reason for such an Infallibility then there can be now 2. These had sufficient evidences to attest that Infallibility by that power of Miracles which they had in curing diseases and casting out of Devils ver 9. 17. And therefore those they were sent to had sufficient inducement to believe such an Infallibility if they had pretended to it when therefore you can prove the like of your lawfully sent Doctors and Pastors either a-part or in a General Council you may then from hence argue some thing toward that Infallibility but not before In your following words you acknowledge a difference in applying this text to the Apostles and their Successors For it was true in every one of the Apostles apart but it is not so in every one of the succeeding Pastors and for this you give these Reasons 1. Your adversaries and you are agreed in it viz. That the Pastors apart are fallible 2. 'T is manifest by experience that many eminent Pastors have not only been erronious but heretical 3. There is universal Tradition for it 4. Plain Scripture for it that even from themselves there should arise some that should speak perverse things These reasons I acknowledge to be so true that if you had expressed the Pope himself in them you could not have proved his fallibility better then by Experience Consent and Scripture But yet you have two Reserves in a Corner which marr all the rest viz. that from these places you make General Councils infallible and according to your most received perswasion the Pope too Do you so indeed and from these places and both of them Infallible whether they agree or not But if our reasons be not stronger against any such Infallibility deducible from these places than yours are for it for I have not seen any I am content to blind my understanding so much if I can as to believe what you say That to give reasons against your exposition is impossible But as your reason in all other things is weak so in this it appears that either your ignorance or your confidence is intolerable The next place is Matth. 28.20 I am with you alwaies even unto the end of the world To which his Lordship saith Yes most certain it is present by his spirit for else in bodily presence he continued not with his Apostles but during his abode on earth And this promise of his spiritual presence was to their Successors else why to the end of the world The Apostles did not could not live so long But then to the Successors the Promise goes no further than I am with you alwaies which reaches to continual assistance but not to Divine and Infallible What say you now to this Why forsooth It is the same answer as before and therefore deserves no further refutation But doth it not deserve some further proof of your Infallibility from this place Or are you content to let it go because you cannot but see that a spiritual presence and not infallible is hereby promised either to the Apostles or their Successors although from other places it appears that the spiritual presence of Christ with his Apostles did extend to so high a degree as to make them infallible in what they delivered for the Doctrine of Christ but no place of Scripture doth assert so much of the Churches infallibility It is well then that you grant that St. Gregory did not believe any infallible assistance in the Pastors of the Church but you say he understood it of them apart to make which probable you must produce some other places where he saith otherwise of them in Council But how a gracious presence of Christ with his Church which you grant Rhabanus Maurus meant by this place should suppose a conjunctive infallibility of the Pastors as a necessary foundation and support of the Church diffusive I confess is beyond my understanding but at least you say it denies it not neither doth it deny that you or I are infallible but doth it therefore follow that we are so What places you produce or rather bid us go seek for out of the Fathers to prove that they in effect it seems then not evidently do attribute infallibility to the Church but by no means Divine infallibility for this is more than the third time that you have forbid the Banes between those two words Divine and Infallible will to any that reads them appear to be capable of proving no more than the Perpetuity of a Church in the world but if any of them can do any better service I doubt not but we shall again meet with them and therefore shall adjourn their consideration to a more convenient place To
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
of all his goods And when he speaks of the Doctrine it self of Christianity he saies It is suitable to whatever was rational among the Platonists or other Philosophers but far more agreeable to it self and containing much more excellent things than ever they could attain to the knowledge of In his second Apology for the Christians to the Emperour Antoninus Pius he insists much on the excellency of the Doâ—trine of Christianity from the Precepts of it chastity love of enemies liberality submission to authority worship of God c. Afterwards he proves the truth and certainty of all we believe concerning Christ from the exact accomplishment of the Prophecies made concerning him in the Old Testament which discourse he ends with this saying So many and so great things being seen are sufficient to perswade men to believe the truth of them who are lovers of truth and not seekers of applause and under the command of passions Thus we see in all his discourses where he had the most occasion administred to him to discover the most certain grounds of Christian Faith he resolves all into the rational evidence of the truth excellency and divinity of the Doctrine which was contained in the Scriptures For in his second Oration to the Greeks after he had spoken highly in commendation of the Scripture calling it The best expeller of all turbulent passions and the surest extinguisher of those preternatural heats in the souls of men which saith he makes men not Poets nor Philosophers nor Orators but it makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dying men immortal and mortals become gods and transferrs them from the earth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to such places whose confines are far above Olympus therefore O ye Greeks come and be instructed be ye as I am for I was as you are And these were the things which prevailed with me the divine power and efficacy of the Doctrine What was it then I pray that Justin Martyr of a Philosopher becoming a Christian resolved his Faith into If we may believe himself it was into the evidence of the Doctrine of Christianity and not into the Infallibility of any Church The Testimony of this person I have the more largely insisted on both because he was so great a Philosopher as well as Christian and lived so near the Apostolical times Next him we produce Athenagoras as a Philosopher too as well as Christian who flourished under Antoninus and Commodus to whom he made his Apology in behalf of the Christians in which he first undertakes to manifest the reasonableness of the Doctrine which they owned the Foundation of it being the same with that which the best Philosophers acknowledged the existence and unity of the Deity But saith he if we had nothing but such reasons as he had produced our perswasion could only be humane but the words of the Prophets are they which establish our minds who being carried beyond themselves by the impulse of the Divine Spirit spake that which they were moved to when the Spirit used them as Instruments through which he spake Is not here a plain resolution of Faith into that Divine Authority by which the Prophets spake and that not as testified by any Infallible Church but as it was discernable by those persons he spake to for he appeals to the Emperours themselves concerning it which had been a fond and absurd thing for him to do if the knowledge of that Divine Inspiration did depend meerly on the testimony of Christians as such and were not to be discovered by some common Principles to them and others Much to the same purpose Tatianus speaks in that eloquent Oration of his against the Greeks who was Justin Martyrs Scholar and we shall see how agreeably he speaks to him in the account he gives how he became a Christian. After saith he he had abundantly discovered the vanity of the Theology and Superstitions of the Greeks he fell to the reading some strange Books much elder and more Divine than the Writings of the Greek Philosophers And to these saith he I yielded up my Faith for the great simplicity and plainness of the style and the freedom from affectation which was in the writers and that evidence and perspicuity which was in all they writ and because they foretold things to come made excellent promises and manifestly declared the Monarchy of the World What Protestant could speak higher of the Scripture and of those internal arguments which are the grounds of Faith than Tatianus in these words doth Yet we see these were the arguments which made him relinquish the Greek learning of which he was a Professor at Rome and betake himself to the profession of Christianity though he was sure to undergo not only contempt from the world but to be in continual hazard of his life by it That innate simplicity of the writings of the Scripture joyned with the perspicuity of it if at least those words be rightly translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by sermo nusquam obscurus and it doth not rather relate to the account of the worlds creation which I conjecture it may do but however the certainty of the predictions the excellency of the promises and the reasonableness of the Doctrine were the things which by the reading of the Books he was perswaded to believe them by But all this while we hear no news of any Churches Infallibility in order to Faith We come therefore to Irenaeus who was omnium doctrinarum curioâ—â—ssimus explorator as Tertullian speaks of him a great searcher into all kind of learning and therefore surely not to seek as to the true account of his Faith Whose judgement herein although we have had occasion to enquire into before yet we have testimonies enough beside to manifest his consent with them And although Irenaeus of all the ancient Fathers be looked on as the most favourable to Tradition and is most cited to that purpose in these disputes yet I doubt not but to make it appear that where he speaks most concerning Tradition he makes the resolution of Faith to be wholly and entirely into the Scripture and they who apprehend otherwise do either take the citations out of him upon trust or else only search him for the words of those citations and never take the pains to enquire into the scope and design of his discourse For clearing which we must consider what the subject was which he writ of what the plea's of the adverse party were what way Irenaeus takes to confute them and to establish the Faith of Christians as to the matter which was in Controversie The matter in dispute was this Valentinus and his Scholars not being contented with the simplicity of the Doctrine of the Gospel and in probability the better to suit their opinions to the Heathen Mythology had invented a strange Pedigree of Gods the better as they pretended to give an account of the production of things and the various dispensations
that you deny not the truth of what is therein contained for otherwise the want of Authority in themselves the ambiguity of them the impossibility of knowing the sense of them without Tradition are the very same arguments which with the greatest pomp and ostentation are produced by you against the Scriptures being the Rule whereby to judge of Controversies Which we have no more cause to wonder at than Irenaeus had in the Valentinians because from them we produce our greatest arguments against your fond opinions Now when the Valentinians pretended their great rule was on oral Tradition which was conveyed from the Apostles down to them to this Irenaeus opposeth the constant Tradition of the Apostolical Churches which in a continued succession was preserved from the Apostles times which was the same every where among all the Churches which every one who desired it might easily be satisfied about because they could number them who by the Apostles were appointed Bishops in Churches and their successors unto our own times who taught no such thing nor ever knew any such thing as they madly fancy to themselves We see then his appeal to Tradition was only in a matter of fact Whether ever any such thing as their opinion which was not contained in Scripture was delivered to them by the Apostles or no i. e. Whether the Apostles left any oral Traditions in the Churches which should be the rule to interpret Scriptures by or no And the whole design of Irenaeus is to prove the contrary by an appeal to all the Apostolical Churches and particularly by appealing to the Roman Church because of its due fame and celebrity in that Age wherein Irenaeus lived So that Irenaeus appealed to the then Roman Church even when he speaks highest in the honour of it for somewhat which is fundamentally contrary to the pretensions of the now Roman Church He then appealed to it for an evidence against such oral Traditions which were pretended to be left by the Apostles as a rule to understand Scripture by and were it not for this same pretence now what will become of the Authority of the present Roman Church After he hath thus manifested by recourse to the Apostolical Churches that there was no such Tradition left among them it was very reasonable to inferr that there was none such at all for they could not imagine if the Apostles had designed any such Tradition but they would have communicated it to those famous Churches which were planted by them and it was absurd to suppose that those Churches who could so easily derive their succession from the Apostles should in so short a time have lost the memory of so rich a treasure deposited with them as that was pretended to be from whence he sufficiently refutes that unreasonable imagination of the Valentinians Which having done he proceeds to settle those firm grounds on which the Christians believed in one God the Father and in one Lord Jesus Christ which he doth by removing the only Objection which the Adversaries had against them For when the Christians declared the main reason into which they resolved their Faith as to these principles was Because no other God or Christ were revealed in Scripture but them whom they believed the Valentinians answered this could not be a sufficient foundation for their Faith on this account because many things were delivered in Scripture not according to the truth of the things but the judgment and opinion of the persons they were spoken to This therefore being such a pretence as would destroy any firm resolution of Faith into Scripture and must necessarily place it in Tradition Irenaeus concerns himself much to demonstrate the contrary by an ostension as he calls it that Christ and the Apostles did all along speak according to truth and not according to the opinion of their auditours which is the entire subject of the fifth Chapter of his third Book Which he proves first of Christ because he was Truth it self and it would be very contrary to his nature to speak of things otherwise then they were when the very design of his coming was to direct men in the way of Truth The Apostles were persons who professed to declare truth to the world and as light cannot communicate with darkness so neither could truth be blended with so much falshood as that opinion supposeth in them And therefore neither our Lord nor his Apostles could be supposed to mean any other God or Christ then whom they declared For this saith he were rather to increase their ignorance and confirm them in it then to cure them of it and therefore that Law was true which pronounced a curse on every one who led a blind man out of his way And the Apostles being sent for the recovery of the lost sight of the blind cannot be supposed to speak to men according to their present opinion but according to the manifestation of truth For what Physitian intending to cure a Patient will do according to his Patients desire and not rather what will be best for him From whence he concludes Since the design of Christ and his Apostles was not to flatter but to cure mens souls it follows that they did not speak to them according to their former opinion but according to truth without all hypocrisie and dissimulation From whence it follows that if Christ and his Apostles did speak according to truth there is then need of no Oral Tradition for our understanding Scripture and consequently the resolution of our Faith as to God and Christ and proportionably as to other objects to be believed is not into any Tradition pretending to be derived from the Apostles but into the Scriptures themselves which by this discourse evidently appears to have been the judgement of Irenaeus The next which follows is Clemens of Alexandria who flourished A. D. 196. whom St. Hierome accounted the most learned of all the writers of the Church and therefore cannot be supposed ignorant in so necessary a part of the Christian Doctrine as the Resolution of Faith is And if his judgement may be taken the Scriptures are the only certain Foundation of Faith for in his Admonition to the Gentiles after he hath with a great deal of excellent learning derided the Heathen Superstitions when he comes to give an account of the Christians Faith he begins it with this pregnant Testimony to our purpose For saith he the Sacred Oracles affording us the most manifest grounds of Divine worship are the Foundation of Truth And so goes on in a high commendation of the Scripture as the most compendious directions for happiness the best Institutions for government of life the most free from all vain ornaments that they raise mens souls up out of wickedness yielding the most excellent remedies disswading from the greatest deceit and most clearly incouraging to a foreseen happiness with more of the same nature And when after he perswades men with so much Rhetorick and
earnestness to imbrace the Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the greatest readiness he gives this as the reason of it that so they might 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 entertain God in chaste souls For the Word is that light to men by which we see God and soon after speaking that the design of Religion is to make men like to God as much as possible he adds That truly they are the Sacred Scriptures which make men Holy and Deifie men i. e. by Assimilation And in that large and eloquent Paraenesis which follows wherein he perswades men to the forsaking their old customs and embracing Christianity all the arguments he useth are drawn from the Scriptures and not so much as the least mention of any Infallible Ensurancer of their truth and authority but supposeth the evidence he produceth sufficient to perswade them to the belief and love of them In the first of his Stromata he proves the truth of the Scriptures by the much greater antiquity of them then any of the Greek learning In the second where he particularly enquires into the nature and grounds of Faith he hath this expression He therefore that believes the Sacred Scriptures having a firm judgement doth receive the voyce of God who gave the Scriptures as an impregnable demonstration Although the text be commonly printed without the comma between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet the sense and context makes it evident that it ought to be there and accordingly Sylburgius gives intimation of it in his notes and Gentian Hervet in the translation as revised by Heinsius applies the demonstration to what follows but very weakly joynes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so renders it firmum habens judicium cui contradici nequit whereas it is plain that there he intends to give an account what that foundation is â—hich Faith doth stand on And after having made a large discourse concerning the nature of Faith comparing the judgement of Philosophers concerning it he concludes with this saying That it is an absurd thing for the followers of Pythagoras to suppose that his ipse dixit was instead of a demonstration to them and yet those who are the lovers of truth not to believe the sure testimony of our only Saviour and God but to exact proofs of him of what he spake Wherein he discovers that Christianity requires from men no unreasonable thing in expecting assent where no such kind of proofs as those used by Philosophers are but if the Epicureans did suppose some kind of anticipation necessary to knowledge if the Pythagoreans relyed on Authority if Heraclitus quarrell'd with such as could neither hear nor speak i. e. such as neither had Authority themselves and yet would rely on none it could not be judged any absurd thing that Christianity did require such an assent to what Christ delivered especially considering that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. that he discovered sufficient reason why he was to be believed in whatever he spake And thence elsewhere he sayes That Faith is a sure demonstration because truth follows whatever is delivered from God And when he gives an account what that true knowledge is which the Christian hath he shews what things are requisite to it two things Knowledge supposeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enquiry and discovery the Enquiry saith he is an impulse of the mind for the finding out of something by some signs which are proper to it Discovery is the end and rest of enquiry which lyes in the comprehension of the thing which is properly Knowledge Now the signs by which things are discovered are either precedent concomitant or subsequent All these he thus applyes to the Scriptures The discovery as the end of our enquiry after God is the Doctrine delivered by his Son but the signs whereby we know that he was the Son of God precedent are the Prophesies declaring his coming concomitant were the Testimonies concerning his birth subsequent are those Miracles which were published and manifestly shewed to the world after his Ascension Therefore the peculiar evidence that the truth is with us is that the Son of God himself hath taught us A place not so clear in it self as miserably involved through the oscitancy of the Latin Interpreter in which it is plain that Clemens doth exactly according to all rational principles of knowledge give an account of the grounds of Christian Faith the main principle of which is the doctrine delivered by Christ which that it ought to be assented to appears by a full concurrence of all those signs which are necessary in enquiries here are the greatest precedent signs Prophesies made so long before exactly accomplished in him the fullest concomitant signs in the many wonderful things which happened at his coming into the world and the clearest subsequent signs by those great and uncontrouled miracles which were wrought in the world after his Ascension all which put together do evidently prove that he was the Son of God who delivered this doctrine to us and therefore deserves our most firm assent in what ever appears to be his Word Can any thing then be more apparent then his resolution of Faith into the rational evidence of Christs being the Son of God which is manifested to us not by the Infallible testimony of any Church but by the Infalliblâ—â—â—gns of it which were precedent to attendant on and consequent to his appearance in the world If therefore saith he according to Plato truth can only be learned either from God or those who are come from him we may justly boast that we learn the truth from the Son of God taking the Testimonies out of those Sacred Oracles which were first Prophesied and then fully declared viz. by accomplishment The main ground of Faith then is such as the wisest Philosophers did admit of viz. that whatsoever God said is true and none can deliver truth but such as come from him on which account there is nothing left but evidence that he in whom we believe was the Son of God which is abundantly manifested by the accomplishment of those Prophesies in him which were made so long before After which he disputes against the same sort of Hereticks which Irenaeus did and upon the same principles viz. that whatever God or Christ thought necessary for us to know or believe is consigned to us in the writings of the Prophets and Apostles and thence he cites that out of Peters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Book I suppose then extant under that name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing without the written word where was the unwritten word then And in the end of that Book discovers the weakness of Philosophy because it came from meer men but men as men are no sufficient teachers when they speak concerning God For saith he man cannot speak 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things becoming God
Testimony for to what purpose else was the Similitude of the Woman of Samaria insisted on but to parallel the Testimony of the Church with that of the Woman and consequently the Faith built on the Churches Testimony to be like that which the Samaritans had of Christ upon the Womans Testimony and if you believe that Faith Infallible you must assert an Infalâ—â—ble Faith to be built on a fallible Testimony and yet to be as infallible as that which is built on an Infallible Testimony And then I pray tell me To what end would you make your Churches Testimony Infallible if Faith may be infallible without it But it may be though these seem hard things yet you prove them invincibly No doubt of it for you say That Christ enters by that Faith but Christ cannot enter into a soul by a meer humane fallible perswasion but by Divine Faith only Nay when he says That he more believes the Scripture than the Churches Testimony he saith That he believes the Church But how can he believe without Faith O the irresistible force of demonstrations But what silly people are we that thought a man might enter into a house by the door though he met not with his hearty entertainment till afterwards But Do you really think that Christ never enters into a soul but by Divine and Infallible Faith For Christ enters by that which gives him his first admission but his full reception must be by a higher degree of Faith Do you think men believe as much at first as ever after If not May not Christ be said to enter by that lower degree of Faith I pray What think you of the case in hand Did not the belief of Christ enter by the Woman of Samaria and was that as Divine a Faith as what they had afterwards Nay take Christs entring as improperly as you can imagine it for his hearty reception in the soul Can that be no other waies but by an Infallible Faith A Faith supposed to be built on infallible grounds I grant but whether all who do truly believe in Christ do build their Faith on grounds in themselves infallible my charity to some deluded souls in your Church as well as honest but ignorant persons elsewhere gives me just reason to question But still there is a greater subtilty behind which is if he believes the Scripture more than the Church then he must believe the Church equally with the Scripture for that must be the meaning of what you say when he sayes He believes the Scripture more than the Church he believes the Church but how can he believe without Faith Ergo this must be Divine Faith or else all the rest come to nothing So that if I say I believe the Scripture more than you it follows that I believe you as much as the Scripture by the very same consequence But you have gotten such a knack of contradicting your self that poor Gandavo cannot fall into your hands but you must make him do so too When you say A man cannot believe without Faith I dare justifie it to be one of the greatest truths in your Book but if your meaning be A man cannot believe without Divine Faith I hope we Protestants sufficiently confute that for you dare not deny that we believe at all but just as the Devils do we must according to you believe and tremble because our Faith is not Divine and Infallible But still your subtilty works with you for because Gandavensis saith That we must yield our first Faith to the Scripture but secundam sub ista a secondary Faith to the definitions and customs of the Catholick Church You cry out Here 's prima secunda fides but yet both of them are properly and truly Faith But Are both of them properly and truly Divine Faith If so How comes the distinction of the first and second one subordinate to the other if both be equally Divine and Infallible Nay according to your Principles the Faith given to the Church must be the first Faith and to the Scriptures the second under that because for the sake of the Churches Testimony we are to believe the Scriptures And Do you really think there may be no discovery of Infidelity in rejecting a sufficient Testimony for Faith where there is not an Infallible Testimony But whatever you think your great enemy Reason tells us the contrary and therefore what follows of believing the Church sub poenâ perfidiae is to no more purpose than what went before The strength therefore of all that you say as to this Testimony of Gandavensis lyes in the proof of this one thing That no man can believe any thing without an Infallible Faith yet I verily believe that you have miserably perverted the Schoolmens words and think no more Infallible Testimony requisite for it than your own words But it may be though you do so ill by the Schoolmen you may use the Fathers more civilly Three things therefore you have to answer to those Testimonies of the Fathers which seem most to make use of internal Arguments 1. That they use them not to such as had no Divine Faith but to such as had 2. That they do not use them as Primary Infallible and Divine proofs but as secondary arguments perswasive only to such as believed Scripture to be Gods Word antecedently to them 3. That they do not use only such proofs as are wholly internal to the Scripture it self As to the two first conditions you say 't is evident these proofs were made by Christians namely the Holy Fathers and commonly to Christians who lived in their times And as clear is it that they never pronounced them to be the Primary Infallible and Divine Motives of their belief in that point nor used they them as such How false and absurd these Answers are may appear by our precedent discourse wherein we manifested that the Christians insisted on those arguments there mentioned not for themselves and other Christians but chiefly to convince and perswade by them the Gentile world to the belief of Christianity And Did they suppose these Heathens to have a Divine Faith already Or Did they look on such arguments as only secondary motives when these were the chief nay only arguments which they used to perswade them if they had other that were Primary Divine and Infallible and only made use of secondary humane probable motives they were guilty of the highest betraying the Christian Cause imaginable And you make them only to defend Christianity as Vaninus did Divine Providence with such silly and weak arguments that by their overthrow the belief of it might fall with them Indeed if they had pretended the Infallible Testimony of the Church there might have been just reason for such a Suspicion and any wise men would have thought their design had been to make their Religion contemptible and expose it to the derision of Atheists instead of better establishing the Foundations of believing it But
you are so fond of your unwritten Revelations pray prove the necessity of them as strongly against Atheists as his Lordship hath done the necessity of a written one In the last Consideration he musters up all the several arguments whereby men may be perswaded that this Revelation is contained in those Books we call the Scripture as the Tradition of the Church the Testimony of former Ages the consent of times the Harmony of Prophets and the Prophecies fulfilled the success of the Doctrine the constancy of it the spiritual nature and efficacy of it and lastly the inward light and excellency of the Text it self which with a great deal of Rhetorick is there set forth But to all this you say no more than what hath been abundantly disproved viz. That all these only justifie our belief when it is received as the ancients received it upon the Infallible Authority of Church-Tradition but never otherwise Whereas we have proved that the ancients received it only on the same grounds which are here mentioned and therefore certainly are sufficient not only to justifie our Faith but to perswade us to believe Your argument against what his Lordship saith of the necessity of the Spirit 's assistance with these Motives and the Light of Scripture for producing Divine Faith will equally hold against all those of your own side who hold the necessity of Gods Spirit for believing the Churches Infallibility and against all such of both sides who hold any necessity of Divine Grace for then you must say that either that Grace is not necessary in order to salvation or that those who want it are neither truly Christians nor capable of salvation And how horridly soever these consequences sound in the ears of the unlearned they can sound no worse than those multitudes of Scriptures do which tell men That without true Divine Faith and real Grace they are under eternal condemnation But it may be that the unlearned may not be affrighted with such sentences as those are you think it a great deal better to let them hear little or nothing of the Scripture and to let them be continually entertained with the sweet and melodious voice of the Church No doubt you thought your next argument had done the business effectually For say you to make them more sensible of the foulness of this errour viz. the danger of such who do not savingly believe Let them consider that when young and unlearned Christians are taught to say their Creed and profess their belief of the Articles contained in it before they read Scripture they are taught to lye and profess to do that which they neither do nor can do in his Tenet An excellent argument against making Children say their Creed but Will not the same hold against all publick using of the Creed because it is unquestionable but there are some who do not savingly or divinely believe it Nay Will it not much more hold against any in your Church saying their Creed at all unless they first believe your Church to be Infallible which is very well known that all do not For then according to you they do but lye and profess to do that which they neither do nor can do without the Churches Infallible Testimony And therefore you must begin a new work of Catechizing the members of your Church to know whether they believe the Churches Infallibility before they can say their Creed Unless you solve it among your selves by saying It is not a formal lye but only an aequivocation which many of you say is lawful in case of danger as you see apparently this is But if the aequivocation be said only to lye in the word Believe you might easily discern the weakness of your argument through it For if some may truly believe what they do not savingly believe there is no lye certainly told in saying They do believe as far as they do which is by a firm assent to the Truth of all the Articles of Faith by that which is call'd an historical or dogmatical Faith where there may be no saving Faith But that because Children are taught as a short systeme of the Articles of Faith to say their Creed we must be convinced of the foulness of our errour is an apparent evidence that either you apprehended our understandings to be very weak or that you sufficiently discover your own to be so The only quarrel which you have with his Lordships Synthetical way is That he confounds his Reader with multiplicity of arguments and weakens the authority of the Church without which if you may be believed he might tire himself and others but never be able to make a clear resolution of Faith How clear an account you have given of Faith in your Analytical way by the Authority of the Church hath been sufficiently laid open to you but I wonder not that you quarrel with multiplicity of arguments there being nothing which doth really weaken the authority of your Church so much as they do and they are men certainly of your temper who will be soon tired with too much reason What follows concerning the captiousness of the Question as first propounded and the vicious Circle you would free your selves of by the Motives of Credibility deserve no further answer Only when you would make A. C. go your way and both together prove the Church Infallible independently on Scripture you did not certainly consider that it is an Infallibility by Promise which you challenge and for that end in the precedent Chapter were those places of Scripture produced by A. C. and urged by you All that I shall return by way of Answer to your tedious discourse concerning Scriptures being a Principle supposed among Christians the main of it depending on the circumstances of the dispute between his Lordship and Mr. Fisher shall be in these following particulars 1. That in all Controversies among Christians whose decision depends upon the authority of Scripture the Scripture must be supposed as granted to be of Divine Authority by both parties 2. That in that Question Whether the Scripture contains all necessary things of Faith that necessity must be supposed to relate to the things which depend upon Scripture and therefore implies it believed on other grounds that this Scripture is of Divine Revelation For the Question is Whether God hath consigned his Will so fully to us in this Revelation of himself that nothing necessary to be believed is left out of it For men then to say That this is left out of it viz. to believe that this is a Divine Revelation is an unreasonable Cavil it being supposed in the very Question that it is so 3. That in this sense the Scripture may be said to be a supposed Principle because it hath a different way of probation from particular objects of Faith revealed in Scripture For to a rational Enquirer who seems to doubt of the Truth of Scriptures it is equally absurd to give him any
breaches so farr from closing that supposing the same grounds to continue a reconciliation seems to humane reason impossible An evidence of which is that those persons who either out of a generous desire of seeing the wounds of the Christian world healed or out of some private interest or design have made it their business to propound terms of reconciliation between the divided parties have been equally rejected by those parties they have professed themselves the members of For whether any of the Roman Communion have ingenuously confessed the great corruptions crept into that Church and desired a reformation of them or any of the Protestant Communion have endeavoured to excuse palliate or plead for the corruptions of the Roman Church we find how little incouragement they have had for such undertakings from that Church whose Communion they have professed to retain The distance then being so great as it is it is a very necessary enquiry what the cause of it is and where the main fault lies and it being acknowledged that there is a possibility that corruptions may get into a Christian Church and it being impossible to prove that Christianity obligeth men to communicate with a Church in all those corruptions its Communion may be tainted with it seems evident to reason that the cause of the breach must lye there where the corruptions are owned and imposed as conditions of Communion For can any one imagine it should be a fault in any to keep off from Communion where they are so far from being obliged to it that they have an obligation to the contrary from the prinples of their common Christianity and where men are bound not to communicate it is impossible to prove their not communicating to be Schism For there can be no Schism but where there is an obligation to communion Schism being nothing else but a willful violation of the bonds of Christian Communion and therefore when ever you would prove the Protestants guilty of Schism you must do it by proving they were bound to communicate with your Church in those things which they are Protestants for disowning of Or that there is so absolute and unlimited an obligation to continue in the Society of your Church that no conditions can be so hard but we are bound rather to submit to them than not joyn in Communion with you But we who look on the nature of a Christian Society in general the Foundations of its constitution the ends and designs of it cannot think our selves obliged to Communion in those things which undermine those Foundations and contradict those ends This being a matter of so vast consequence in order to the settling mens minds in the present disputes of the Christian world before I come to particulars I shall lay down those general principles which may manifest how free Protestants are from all imputation of Schism Schism then importing a violation of that Communion which we are obliged to the most natural way for understanding what Schism is is to enquire what the Foundations are of Christian Communion and how far the bonds of it do extend Now the Foundations of Christian Communion in general depend upon the acknowledgement of the truth of Christian Religion For that Religion which Christ came to deliver to the world being supposed true is the reason why any look on themselves as obliged to profess it which obligation extending to all persons who have the same grounds to believe the truth of it thence ariseth the ground of Society in this profession which is a common obligation on several persons joyning together in some acts of common concernment to them The truth then of Christian Religion being acknowledged by several persons they find in this Religion some actions which are to be performed by several persons in Society with each other From whence ariseth that more immediate obligation to Christian Society in all those who profess themselves Christians and the whole number of these who own the truth of Christian Religion and are thereby obliged to joyn in Society with each other is that which we call the Catholick Church But although there be such a relation to each other in all Christians as to make them one common Society yet for the performance of particular acts of communion there must be lesser Societies wherein persons may joyn together in the actions belonging to them But still the obligation to communion in these lesser is the same with that which constitutes the great body of Christians which is the owning Christianity as the only true Religion and way to eternal Happiness And therefore those lesser Societies cannot in justice make the necessary conditions of communion narrower than those which belong to the Catholick Church i. e. those things which declare men Christians ought to capacitate them for communion with Christians But here we are to consider that as to be a Christian supposeth mens owning the Christian Religion to be true so the conveyance of that Religion being to us now in those Books we call the Scriptures there must be an acknowledgement of them as the indispensable rule of Faith and manners which is That these Books are the great Charter of the Christian Society according to which it must be governed These things being premised as the foundation in general of Christian Society we shall the better understand how far the obligation to communion in it doth extend For which it must be considered that the grounds of continuance in Communion must be suitable and proportionable to the first reason of entering into it No man being obliged by vertue of his being in a Society to agree in any thing which tends to the apparent ruine of that Society but he is obliged to the contrary from the general grounds of his first admission into it His primary obligation being to preserve the honour and interest of it and to joyn in acts of it so far as they tend to it Now the main end of the Christian Society being the promotion of Gods honour and the salvation of mens souls the primary obligation of men entering into it is the advancement of these ends to joyn in all acts of it so far as they tend to these ends but if any thing come to be required directly repugnant to these ends those men of whom such things are required are bound not to communicate in those lesser Societies where such things are imposed but to preserve their communion with the Catholick Society of Christians But these general discourses seeming more obscure it will be necessary for the better subserviency of them to our design to deduce them into particulars Setting then aside the Catholick Society of Christians we come to enquire how far men are bound to communicate with any lesser Society how extensive so ever it may pretend its communion to be 1. There is no Society of Christians of any one Communion but may impose some things to be believed or practised which may be repugnant to the
est If Faith be given against Christ that is to the dishonour of God or contrary to the precepts of true Religion it were perfidiousness to observe it But the Answer to this is easie for it appears from Simancha's own grounds that he supposeth it holds universally because Faith can never be given to Hereticks so as that promise can be lawfully performed because thereby he supposeth it given against Christ and to the dishonour of God and therefore concludes it would be perfidiousness to observe it And this is evident from Simancha's own grounds which he gives for it For saith he if Faith be not kept with Tyrants Pirats and other Robbers which kill the body much less with Hereticks who destroy souls which reason being absolute and universal his Proposition must be so too And very consonantly to his former assertions concludes That if Faith be given them with an Oath against the publick good against the salvation of souls against divine and humane Laws it is not to be kept and it is well known that all Heresies are accounted so by you and therefore in no case Faith is to be kept with Hereticks Neither can this possibly be understood meerly of private persons for his words are general and we see he vindicates the proceedings of the Council at Constance upon these grounds and he quotes Marius Salomonius and Placa who likewise assert in terms That Faith given to Hereticks is not to be kept and makes use of the instance of the Council of Constance to prove it And Menochius whom Simancha likewise cites who was an Italian Canonist and therefore might well know the practices of Rome in these cases saith That Placa expresly holds That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks which he saith he understands so when Faith is given to the injury of the Catholick Faith and cites Conradus Brunus to this purpose That it is not lawful to make such agreements with Hereticks that they may enjoy the liberty of their own sect If therefore they must interpret how far the Faith given tends to the prejudice of the Catholick Faith we see how little security can be had from any solemn promise And Menochius himself asserts the safe-conduct granted by Princes in case of Heresie to be unlawful because the inferiour as he supposes Princes to be to the Ecclesiastical Tribunal cannot secure them who are condemned by the Superiour and because Kings and Emperours ought rather to destroy Hereticks than to secure them And therefore the Council of Constance did well in nulling the safe-conducts granted to Hereticks And what now is this but in plain terms to assert That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks Neither can you say as some do That they are the Canonists and not the Church of Rome which assert this for besides that the Canonists understand well enough the intrigues and proceedings of the Court of Rome although it seems they do not conceal them so much as they should do yet they are not only these who have asserted it but some great men of your Church have upon occasion expresly said it for we are not to expect that this should be avowed as a publick Opinion of your Church for that were to make it unserviceable to you but when you have those whom you call Hereticks at an advantage then is the time to discover this So there wanted not some to perswade Charls the fifth notwithstanding the safe-conduct given to Luther at his coming to Worms to deal by him as the Council of Constance had done by John Husse and that upon this very account That no Faith was to be kept with Hereticks But the Emperour and the Princes about him were persons of too great honour and honesty to hearken to such perfidious Councils And no meaner a person than Cardinal Hosius admonishes Henry King of Poland that he ought not to keep the Faith he had given to the Protestants and gives this reason for it That an Oath ought to not be the bond of iniquity And the Jesuit Possevin is reported to have given the same counsel afterwards to Stephen King of Poland But these things are as much as possible kept from our view and the Books containing such Doctrines in them are like the Golden Legends bought up by themselves to prevent our discovery of their frauds and imposture and therefore if we cannot instance in those Jesuits who have expresly taught this Opinion in print yet that only argues the greater fraud and subtilty of them who will own and practise such things which they dare not publickly avow to the world And yet it appears from the way used by Becanus and you in vindication of your selves that you cannot possibly avoid the asserting such things from whence it necessarily follows That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks But because the Doctrine it self is grown a matter so odious to the world being contrary to all principles of humanity and justice and which if practised by all those who call each other Hereticks would overthrow all civil societies therefore you dare not but in terms disown it though it still remains among those Arcana Societatis those hidden works of darkness which want only a fair opportunity to discover themselves But as much as you wipe your mouth though it be foul enough in saying That neither the Bishop nor all his gang are able to name one of them of that Opinion to make it appear how much you have abused your self in these words I shall make a short business of it and name your self for one and Becanus your Author for another and refer the Reader to what goes before for an evidence that you own those Principles from whence it unavoidably follows That no Faith is to be kept with Hereticks But Are the Jesuits indeed grown such honest men that not one of their number can be named who assert this Doctrine A happy change For sure they were not alwaies so if we believe that excellent person of as great integrity as learning and a Romanist too Jac. Augustus Thuanus in his Elegy in Parricidas wherewith he concludes his sacred Poems in which he speaks great and sad truths of that honest Society where he mentions those Cruelties and Assasinations which were brought into these parts of the world by the Arts and Opinions of a famous Society which makes nothing of Laws Faith Honesty Religion to advance that Interest which it hath espoused and expresly saith That they deny Faith to be kept that by their distinctions and subtilties they enervate the force of divine commands they deny obedience to authority destroy Religion under a pretence of Piety break engagements teach the murthering Kings and what not And yet all this while not one of all this Society ever taught That Faith was not to be kept with Hereticks But whence came then the great disputes Whether an Oath of Allegiance might be taken to Heretical Princes Was it
within two years these strangely confounded The mistake made evident S. Cyril not President in the third General Council as the Popes Legat. No sufficient evidence of the Popes Presidency in following Councils The justness of the Exception against the place manifested and against the freedom of the Council from the Oath taken by the Bishops to the Pope The form of that Oath in the time of the Council of Trent Protestants not condemned by General Councils The Greeks and others unjustly excluded as Schismaticks The exception from the small number of Bishops cleared and vindicated A General Council in Antiquity not so called from the Popes General Summons In what sense a General Council represents the whole Church The vast difference between the proceedings in the Council of Nice and that at Trent The exception from the number of Italian Bishops justified How far the Greek Church and the Patriarch Hieremias may be said to condemn Protestants with an account of the proceedings between them HAving thus far considered the several grounds on which you lay the charge of Schism upon us and shewed at large the weakness and insufficiency of them we should now have proceeded to the last part of our task but that the great Palladium of the present Roman Church viz. the Council of Trent must be examined to see whether it be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or no whether it came from Heaven or was only the contrivance of some cunning Artificers And the famous Bishop of Bitonto in the Sermon made at the opening the Council of Trent hath given us some ground to conjecture its original by his comparing it so ominously to the Trojan-horse Although therefore that the pretences may be high and great that it was made Divina Palladis arte the Spirit of God being said to be present in it and concurring with it yet they who search further will find as much of Artifice in contriving and deceit in the managing the one as the other And although the Cardinal Palavicino uses all his art to bring this Similitude off without reflecting on the honour of the Council yet that Bishop who in that Sermon pleaded so much That the Spirit of God would open the mouths of the Council as he did once those of Balaam and Caiaphas was himself in this expression an illustrious Instance of the truth of what he said For he spake as true in this as if he had been High-Priest himself that year But as if you really believed your self the truth of that Bishops Doctrine That whatever spirit was within them yet being met in Council the Spirit of God would infallibly inspire them you set your self to a serious vindication of the proceedings of that Council and not only so but triumph in it as that which will bring the cause to a speedy Issue And therefore we must particularly enquire into all the pretences you bring to justifie the lawfulness and freedom of that Council but to keep to the Bishops Metaphor Accipe nunc Danaûm Insidias crimine ab uno Disce omnes And when we have thorowly searched this great Engine of your Church we shall have little reason to believe that ever it fell from Heaven His Lordship then having spoken of the usefulness of free General Councils for making some Laws which concern the whole Church His Adversary thinks presently to give him a Choak-pear by telling him That the Council of Trent was a General Council and that had already judged the Protestants to hold errours This you call Laying the Axe to the Root of the Tree that Tree you mean out of which the Popes Infallible Chair was cut for the management of this dispute about the Council of Trent will redound very little to the honour of your Church or Cause But you do well to add That his Lordship was not taken unprovided for he truly answered That the Council of Trent was neither a Legal nor a General Council Both these we undertake to make good in opposition to what you bring by way of answer to his Lordships Exceptions to them That which we begin with is That it was not a Legal Council which his Lordship proves First Because that Council maintained publickly that it is lawful for them to conclude any Controversie and make it to be de Fide and so in your judgement fundamental though it have not a written word for its warrant nay so much as a probable testimony from Scripture The force of his Lordships argument I suppose lyes in this that the Decrees of that Council cannot be such as should bind us to an assent to them because according to their own principles those Decrees may have no foundation in Scripture And that the only legal proceeding in General Councils is to decree according to the Scriptures Now to this you answer That the meaning of the Council or Catholick Authours is not that the Council may make whatever they please matter of Faith but only that which is expressed or involved in the Word of God written or unwritten and this you confess is defined by the Council of Trent in these terms that in matters of Faith we are to rely not only upon Scripture but also on Tradition which Doctrine you say is true and that you have already proved it And I may as well say It is false for I have already answered all your pretended proofs But it is one thing Whether the Doctrine be true or no and another Whether the Council did proceed legally in defining things upon this principle For upon your grounds you are bound to believe it true because the Council hath defined it to be so But if you will undertake to justifie the proceedings of the Council as legal you must make it appear that this was the Rule which General Councils have alwaies acted by in defining any thing to be matter of Faith But if this appear to be false and that you cannot instance in any true General Council which did look on this as a sufficient ground to proceed upon then though the thing may since that Decree be believed as true yet that Council did not proceed legally in defining upon such grounds Name us therefore What Council did ever offer to determine a matter of Faith meerly upon Tradition In the four first General Councils it is well known What authority was given to the Scripture in their definitions and I hope you will not say That any thing they defined had no other ground but Tradition But suppose you could prove this it is not enough for your purpose unless you can make it appear that those Fathers in making such Decrees did acknowledge they had no ground in Scripture for them For if you should prove that really there was no foundation but Tradition yet all that you can inferr thence is That those Fathers were deceived in judging they had other grounds when they had not But still if they made Scripture their Rule and
more that Hosius should not subscribe first in that capacity but only as Bishop of Corduba for the Popes Legats do not use to be so forgetful of their place and honour It seems then very plain that the Pope had no manner of Presidency at the Council ef Nice We come therefore to following Councils You grant That in the second General Council Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople was President and not the Pope or his Legats But the reason you say was because Pope Damasus having first summoned that Council to be held at Constantinople and the Bishops of the Oriental Provinces being accordingly there met the Pope for some reasons altered his mind and would have had them come to Rome to joyn with the Bishops he had there assembled which the Prelates at Constantinople refusing in a submissive manner alledged such arguments as the Pope remained satisfied with them So the Council you say was upon the matter held in two places at Rome and Constantinople So that while the Pope presided in the Council at Rome and gave allowance to their proceedings at Constantinople and that by reason of their entercourse they were looked on but as one Council in effect and the Pope to have presided therein In all this you discover How much you take up things upon trust and utter them with great confidence when they seem for your purpose although they are built upon notorious mistakes in Ecclesiastical History as I shall make it plain to you this Answer of yours is For neither was the General Council at Constantinople ever in the least summoned by the Pope neither did it â—it at the same time that the Council at Rome under Damasus did neither were any Letters sent from that Council to the Pope and therefore certainly Pope Damasus could not in any sense be said to preside there These things I know make you wonder at first but I shall undertake to make it appear How much your great Masters I need not name them to you have abused your credulity in this story We are to know then that the Emperour Theodosius having been newly admitted into a share of the Empire by Gratian and the Eastern parts of it being allotted to him he considering what a deplorable condition the Churches of those parts were in by reason of the factions and heresies which were among them judges it the best expedient to call a Council at Constantinople to see if there were any hopes to bring the Church to any peace For this purpose 150. Bishops meet from the several Provinces at Constantinople who condemn Macedonius publish a new Creed make several Canons accept of Gregory Nazianzen's resignation of the See of Constantinople chuse Nectarius in his room and on the death of Meletius at Antioch elect Flavianus to succeed him make a Synodical Epistle to the Emperour Theodosius giving him an account of their proceedings and so dissolve This is the short of the narration of it in Theodoret Socrates and Sozomen But as soon as the report of their actions was come into the Western parts great discontents are taken at their proceedings especially at the election of Flavianus to the See at Antioch because the Church of Rome had declared it self in favour of Paulinus at Antioch during the life of Meletius and therefore by no means would they now yield to the succession of Flavianus Upon this Damasus sollicits the Emperour Gratian for a General Council that the cause might be heard and that the Eastern Bishops might meet too he sends other Letters to Theodosius to the same purpose upon the intimation of which the Eastern Bishops who either were detained at Constantinople by several occurrences there or were sent again out of their Provinces thither assemble together and write a Synodical Epistle to Damasus Ambrosius Britton Valerian c. wherein they give an account Why they could not come to Rome because the Eastern Churches could not in so divided and busie a time be left destitute of their Bishops and therefore they desire to be excused but however they had sent Cyriacus Eusebius and Priscianus as their Legats thither This excuse the Emperour Theodosius accepted of and Damasus and his Council were fain to rest satisfied with it only some of Paulinus his party met him there as Epiphanius and S. Hierom although S. Hierom being no Bishop could only shew his good will and take that opportunity of returning to Rome What this Council did under Damasus we are to seek for both Baronius and Binius confess that the Acts of that Council are wholly lost only Baronius thinks that the condemnation of Apollinaris and Timotheus which Theodoret mentions to have been done before and that Paulinus was restored to the See of Antioch by this Council which seems the more probable in that Paulinus the next year returns to Antioch and because the Bishops of Rome afterward took his part and defended his successour against Flavianus in the See of Antioch This being the true account of those proceedings let now any indifferent person judge Whether you were not much put to it when you are fain to confound two Councils held at several times on several occasions on purpose to blind the Reader and to make him believe that Pope Damasus had somewhat to do in calling and presiding in the General Council at Constantinople because he requested the meeting of the Bishops again the year after the General Council And the truth of this is so plain that Baronius and Binius confess the difference of these two Councils both as to the times and occasions of them Baronius placeth the Oecumenical Council at Constantinople A. D. 381. Eucherius and Syagrius being COSS. in May but the other Council at Constantinople he placeth the year after A. D. 382. Syagrius and Antonius COSS. at which time likewise the Council at Rome sate And so Binius reckons this Council as a second Council at Constantinople under Damasus and in all things concerning the times of this and the former follows Baronius exactly So much are the two great Cardinals Bellarmin and Perron mistaken when they would have the Council at Constantinople called Oecumenical on this account because there was a Council at Rome sitting under Damasus at the same time approving what was done at Constantinople Whereas the occasion of the Council at Rome was given by some of the last Acts of the Oecumenical Council viz. the election of Flavianus But that this could not be that those two Councils at Rome and Constantinople should sit together at the same time and on the same account appears by the Synodical Epistle of the Council the year following sent to Damasus which is exemplified both in Binius and Baronius and is originally extant in Theodoret. Although Binius placeth it at the end of the Oecumenical Council but Baronius much more fairly in the next year as being the Act of the second Council Now there are two things in that
it is to say It is Infallible and not Infallible at the same time and about the same thing and in the same manner For What is drawing a Conclusion but a discerning that truth which results from the connexion of the premises together for that which is concluded hath all its truth depending upon the evidence of the premises otherwise it is a simple Proposition and not a Conclusion If you had then said That the Spirit of God did immediately reveal to the Council the truth of what was to be decreed you had spoken that which might have been understood though not believed but this you durst not say for fear of the charge of Enthusiasms and new Revelations but when you say The Council must use means and make Syllogisms as other fallible creatures do but then it is Infallible in the drawing the Conclusion from the premises though it be fallible in the connexion of those premises is an unparalleld piece of profound non-sense For suppose the matter the Council was to determine was the Popes Infallibility in order to the proving this you say The Council must use all arguments tending to prove it there comes in Christ's Prayer for S. Peter that his Faith should not fail and that this must be extended to his Successors thence the argument is formed Whomsoever Christ prayed for that his Faith should not fail is Infallible but Christ prayed for the Pope that his Faith should not fail therefore he is Infallible Now you say The Council is fallible in the use of the means for this Conclusion i. e. it may not infallibly believe the truth of the major or minor Proposition but yet it may infallibly deduce thence the Conclusion though all the strength of the Conclusion depends upon the truth of the premises You must therefore either assert that the Decrees of Councils are immediately revealed as Divine Oraclâ—s or else that they are fallible Conclusions drawn from fallible premises And were it not for a little shame because of your charging others with immediate Revelations I doubt not but you would assert the former which you must of necessity do if you will maintain the Infallibility of General Councils for if there be any infirmity in the use of the premises it must of necessity be in the Conclusion too But suppose you mean an Infallible Assent to the matter of the Conclusion though it be fallibly deduced you are as far to seek as ever for Whereon must that Assent be grounded It must be either upon the truth of the premises or something immediately revealed If on the truth of the premises the Assent can be no stronger than the grounds are on which it is built if on something revealed it must needs be still an immediate Revelation But I forget my self all this while to urge you thus with absurdities consequent from reason for in answer to his Lordship you grant That it is a thing altogether unknown in nature and art too that fallible principles can either as Father or Mother beget or bring forth an Infallible Conclusion for when his Lordship had objected this you return him this Answer That this is a false supposition of the Bishop for the Conclusion is not so much the child of those premises i. e. it is not the Conclusion as the fruit of the Holy Ghost directing and guiding the Council to produce an Infallible Conclusion whatever the premises be true or false certain or uncertain all is a case This is necessary for the peace and unity of the Church to believe Contradictions and therefore not to be denied unless an impossibility be shewed therein I doubt believing contradictions is accounted no impossibility with you But I hope no man will attaque Gods Omnipotency and deprive him of the power of doing this Is it come to that at last Whatever you assert that is repugnant to the common reason of mankind and involves contradictions in it that you call for Gods Omnipotency to help you in Thus Transubstantiation must be believed because God is Omnipotent and that men may believe any thing though not grounded on Scripture and repugnant to Reason because God is Omnipotent We acknowledge God's Omnipotency as much as you but we dare not put it to such servile uses to make good any absurd imaginations of our brains If you had said It was possible for God to enlighten the minds of the Bishops in a General Council either to discern infallibly the truth of the premises or immediately to reveal the truth of the Conclusion you had spoken intelligible falshoods But to say that God permits them to be fallible in the use of the means and in drawing the Conclusion from them but to be Infallible in the Conclusion it self without any immediate Revelation and then to challenge Gods Omnipotency for it I know not whether it be a greater dishonour to God or reproach to humane understanding And if such incongruities as these are do not discover that you are miserably hampered as his Lordship saith in this argument I know not what will But we must proceed to discover more of them two things his Lordship very rationally objects against Stapletons assertion That the Council is discursive in the use of the means but prophetical in delivering the Conclusion 1. That since this is not according to principles of nature and reason there must be some supernatural Authority which must deliver this truth which saith he must be the Scripture For if you fly to immediate Revelations the Enthusiasm must be yours But the Scriptures which are brought in the very exposition of all the Primitive Church neither say it nor enforce it Therefore Scripture warrants not your prophecy in the Conclusion Neither can the Tradition Produce one Father who sayes This is an Vniversal Tradition of the Church that her definitions in a General Council are prophetical and by immediate Revelation Produce any one Father that sayes it of his own authority that he thinks so To all this you very gravely say nothing and we can shrewdly guess at the reason of it 2. His Lordship proves That it is a repugnancy to say That the Council is prophetical in the Conclusion and discursive in the use of the means for no Prophet in that which he delivered from God as Infallible truth was ever discursive at all in the use of the means Nay saith he make it but probable in the ordinary course of prophecy and I hope you go no higher nor will I offer at Gods absolute power but his Lordship was deceived in you for you run to Gods Omnipotency that that which is discursive in the means can be prophetical in the Conclusion and you shall be my great Apollo for ever And this he shews is contrary to what your own Authours deliver concerning the nature and kinds of prophecy and that none of them were by discourse To this you answer That both Stapleton and you deny that the Church is simply prophetical
as immediate a revelation as the first discovery of it As is clear in the Council of the Apostles for I hope you will not deny but the non-obligation of the ceremonial Law was in some manner revealed to them before and yet I hope you will not say but the Apostles had an immediate revelation as to what they decreed in that Council It is very plain therefore that when you say General Councils neither have erred nor can err in their definitions they usurp as great a priviledge thereby as ever the Apostles had and in order to it must have as immediate an inspiration For never was there any such Infallibility either in the Prophets or Apostles as did suppose an absolute impossibility of errour but it was wholly hypothetical in case of Divine assistance which hindred them from any capacity of erring so long as that continued with them and no longer For inspiration was no permanent habit but a transient act in them and that being removed they were lyable to errours as well as others from whence it follows that where revelations were most immediate they did no more then what you assume to your Church viz. preserve them from actual errour in declaring Gods will So that nothing can be more evident then that you challenge as great an Infallibility and as immediate assistance of Gods Spirit in Councils as ever the Prophets and Apostles had And therefore that Divine was in the right of whom Canus speaks who asserted That since General Councils were Infallible their definitions ought to be equalled with the Scriptures themselves And although Canus and others dislike this it is rather because of the odium which would follow it than for any just reason they give why it should not follow For they not only suppose as great a Certainty or Infallibility in the Decrees of both but an equal obligation to internal assent in those to whom they are declared Which doth further prove that the revelation must be immediate for if by vertue of those definitions we are obliged to assent to the Doctrines contained in them as Infallibly true there must be an immediate Divine Authority which must command our Assent For nothing short of that can oblige us to believe any thing as of Divine revelation now Councils require that we must believe their definitions to be Divine truths though men were not obliged to believe them to be so before those definitions For that is your express Doctrine That though the matters decreed in Councils were in some manner revealed before yet not so as to oblige all men with an explicite assent to believe them but after the definitions of Councils they are bound to do it So that though there be not an object newly revealed yet there ariseth a new obligation to internal assent which obligation cannot come but from immediate Divine Authority If you say The obligation comes not simply by vertue of the Councils definitions but by a command extant in Scripture whereby all are bound to give this assent to the decrees of Councils I then say we must be excused from it till you have discharged this new obligation upon your self by producing some express testimony of Scripture to that purpose which is I think sufficient to keep our minds at liberty from this internal assent to the definitions of General Councils by vertue of any Infallibility in them And thus having more at large considered the nature of this Infallibility which you challenge to General Councils and having shewed that it implyes as immediate a revelation as the Apostles had the second thing is sufficiently demonstrated That this Infallibility cannot suppose discursiveness with fallibility in the use of the means because these two are repugnant to each other The next thing to be considered is Stapletons argument why Councils must be Prophetical in the conclusion because that which is determined by the Church is matter of Faith and not of knowledge and the assent required else would not be an assent of Faith but an habit of knowledge To which his Lordship Answers That he sees no inconvenience in it if it be granted for one and the same conclusion may be Faith to the believer that cannot prove and knowledge to the learned that can Which he further explains thus Some supernatural principles which reason cannot demonstrate simply must be supposed in order to Faith but these principles being owned reason being thereby inlightned that may serve to convert or convince Philosophers and the great men of reason in the very point of Faith where it is at the highest This he brings down to the business of Councils as to which he saith that the first immediate fundamental points of Faith as they cannot be proved simply by reason so neither need they be determined by any Council nor ever were they attempted they are so plain set down in Scripture If about the sense and true meaning of these or necessary deduction out of the prime Articles of Faith General Councils determine any thing as they have done at Nice and the rest there is no inconvenience that one and the same Canon of the Council should be believed as it reflects upon the Articles and grounds indemonstrable and yet known to the learned by the means and proof by which that deduction is vouched and made good And again the conclusion of a Council suppose that in Nice about the consubstantiality of Christ with the Father in it self considered is indemonstrable by reason there saith he I believe and assent in Faith but the same conclusion if you give me the ground of Scripture and the Creed for somewhat must be supposed in all whether Faith or knowledge is demonstrable by natural reason against any Arrian in the world So that he concludes The weaker sort of Christians may assent by Faith where the more learned may build it on reason the principles of Faith being supposed This is the substance of his Lordships Discourse In Answer to which you tell us That the Bishop seems to broach a new Doctrine that the assent of Faith may be an habit of knowledge But surely say you Divine Faith is according to the Apostle Heb. 11. an Argument of things which do not appear viz. by the same means by which we give this assent of Faith otherwise our Faith would not be free and meritorious An Answer I must needs say hugely suitable to your principles who are most concerned of all men to set reason at a distance from Faith and so you do sufficiently in this Discourse of it For it is no easie matter to understand what you mean but that is not to be wondered at since you make obscurity so necessary to Faith Divine Faith is you say an Argument of things which do not appear viz. by the same means by which we give this assent of Faith Do you mean that the objects of Faith do not appear or that the reason of believing doth not If only the former
Church all the rest moulders as not being able to stand without them But that is still your way if any thing be said of the Catholick Church we must presently understand it of yours so that it cannot be said in any sense that the Church is without spot or wrinkle but by you it must be understood presently of the Doctrine of the Roman Catholick Church universally received as a matter of Faith but till you prove not only your two former assertions but that St. Austin understood those words ever in that sense your vindication of that place in him concerning it will appear utterly impertinent to your purpose And his Lordships assertion may still stand good That the Church on earth is not any freer from wrinkles in Doctrine and Discipline then she is from spots in life and Conversation Having thus vindicated his Lordships way from the objections you raised against it we must now consider how well you vindicate your own from the unreasonableness he charges it with in several particulars 1. That if we suppose a General Council Infallible and it prove not so but that an errour in Faith be concluded the same erring opinion which makes it think it self Infallible makes the errour of it irrevocable and so leaves the Church without remedy To this you Answer Grant false antecedents and false premises enow and what absurdities will not be consequent and fill up the conclusion But you clearly mistake the present business which is not Whether Councils be Infallible or no but Whether opinion be lyable to greater Inconveniencies that which asserts that they may or that they cannot err Will you have your supposition of the Infallibility of Councils taken for a first principle or a thing as true as the Scriptures So you would seem indeed by the supposing the Scriptures not to be Gods Word which you subjoyn as the parallel to the supposing General Councils fallible But will you say the one is as evident and built on as good reason and as much agreed on among Christians as the other is I suppose you will not and therefore it was very absurd unreasonable to say Supposing the Word of God were not so errours would be irrevocable as if General Councils were supposed Infallible and proved not so But this is a Question you grant to be disputable among Christians and will you not give us leave to make a supposition that it may prove not so You must consider we are now enquiring into the conveniencies of these two opinions and in that case it is necessary to make such suppositions And let any reasonable man judge what opinion can be more pernicious to the Church then yours is supposing it not to be true for then it will be necessary for men to assent to the grossest errours as the most Divine and Infallible truths and there can be no remedy imagin'd for the redress of them If then the Inconvenience of admitting it be so great men had need look well to the grounds on which it is built And I cannot see any reason men can have to admit any Infallible proponent in matters of Faith to the Church but on as great and as clear evidence as the Prophets and Apostles had that they were sent from God For the danger may be as great to believe that to be Infallible which is not as not to believe that to be Infallible which is for the believing an errour to be a Divine truth may be as dangerous to the souls of men as the not believing something which is really revealed by God But to be sure those who see no reason to believe a General Council to be Infallible cannot be obliged to assent to errours propounded by it but such who believe it Infallible must what ever the errours be swallow them down without questioning the truth of them And it argues how conscious you are of the falseness of your principles that you are so loath to have them examined or so much as a supposition made that they should not prove true Whereas truth alwayes invites men to the most accurate search into it We see the Apostles bid men search whether the things they spake were true or no and those are most commended who did it most and I hope men were as much bound to believe them Infallible as General Councils But we see how unreasonable you are you would obtrude such things upon mens Faith which must lead them into unavoidable errours if false and yet not allow men the liberty of examination whether they be true or no. But such proceedings are so far from advancing your cause that nothing can more prejudice it among rational and inquisitive men His Lordship for the clearing this proceeds to an Instance of an errour defined by one of your General Councils viz. Communion in one kind but that we shall reserve the discussion of to the ensuing Chapter which is purposely allotted for the discovery of those errours which have been defined by such as you call General Councils Therefore I proceed 2. His Lordship saith Your opinion is yet more unreasonable because no Body-collective whensoever it assembled it self did ever give more power to the representing body of it then a binding power upon it self and all particulars nor ever did it give this power otherwise then with this reservation in nature that it would call again and reform and if need were abrogate any Law or ordinance upon just cause made evident that the representing Body had failed in trust or truth And this power no Body-collective ecclesiastical or civil can put out of it self or give away to a Parliament or Council or call it what you will that represents it To this again you Answer This is only to suppose and take for granted that a General Council hath no Authority but what is meerly delegate from the Church Vniversal which it represents I grant this is supposed in it and this is all which the nature of a representative body doth imply if you say there is more then that you are bound to prove it Yes say you We maintain its Authority to be of Divine Institution and when lawfully assembled to act by Divine right and not meerly by deputation and consent of the Church But if all the proof you have for it be only that which you refer us to in the precedent Chapter the palpable weakness of it for any such purpose hath been there fully laid open His Lordship saith That the power which a Council hath to order settle and define differences arising concerning Faith it hath not by any Immediate Institution from Christ but it was prudently taken up by the Church from the Apostles example So that to hold Councils to this end is apparent Apostolical Tradition written but the power which Councils have is from the whole Catholick Church whose members they are and the Churches power from God You say True it is the calling such
believe him he did as much want all moral means for finding out the truth as another since he so ingenuously confessed at another audience That he was old and had never studied Divinity But What need he to do it that could so easily be inspired by kneeling at the feet of a Crucifix Your Doctrine then would not be very well taken at Rome that General Councils are a necessary Medium to his Holiness in order to the definition of matters of Faith No more would your following Distinction in vindication of Stapleton That though the Pope acquires no new power or certainty of judgement by the presence of a General Council and there is something thereby which conduceth to the due exercise of that power So that it must be an usurpation or undue exercise of power for the Pope to offer to define without a General Council I know not what liberty you have to write these things among us but if you were at Rome you durst not venture to do it Your saying that Bellarmin only sayes That the firmness of a Council in regard of us depends wholly on the Popes Confirmation argues you had very little to say For What firmness hath a Council at all in this dispute but in regard of us since you look on men as obliged to believe the Decrees of it Infallible And if the Decrees had any Infallibility from the Council that might make them firm in regard of us as well as the Pope But you object to your self That if the Pope be Infallible without the Council and the Council subject to errour without the Pope it must needs follow that all the Infallibility of General Councils proceeds from the Pope only not partly from the Pope and partly from the Council To which you answer That the assertors of that Opinion of whom you must be one if you know what you say may say that Christ hath made two promises to his Church the one to assist her Soveraign Head and Pastor to make him Infallible another to assist General Councils to make them so But What need this latter if the former be well proved For if the Head be Infallible by vertue of a promise from Christ he must be Infallible whether in Council or out of it And therefore it is a ridiculous shift to say The Pope hath one promise to make him Infallible in a General Council ano-to make him so out of it But I commend you that since you thought one would not hold you would have two strings for the Popes Infallibility And it is but adding a third promise to the Church in general and then your threefold cord may be surely Infallible You give many Reasons but none so convincing as Experience Why the Popes should not be Impeccable and if you search Scripture Antiquity and Reason you may find as much why he should not be Infallible For that of the necessity of one and not the other for the Church is of your own devising it having been sufficiently proved that the certainty of Faith doth not at all depend upon the Popes or your Churches or Councils Infallibility And it seems still very strange to all who know the doctrine and promises of Christianity and that the promotion of Holiness is the great design of it and that Faith signifies nothing without Obedience and that the Spirit of God is a Spirit of Holiness as well as Truth that you dare challenge such an assistance of the Divine Spirit as may make your Popes Infallible who have led lives quite contrary to the Gospel of Christ. Nay such lives as his Lordship saith as no Epicurean Monster storied out to the world hath out-gone them in sensuality or other gross impiety if their own historians be true Your vindication of Pope Liberius his submitting his judgement to Athanasius because the Pope had passed no definition ex Cathedrâ in the business hath no strength at all unless you first prove that the Popes definitions ex Cathedrâ were held Infallible then which none would ever believe that read the passage which his Lordship cites out of Liberius his Epistle to Athanasius For as he saith The Pope complemented exceeding low that would submit his unerring judgement to be commanded by Athanasius who he well knew could erre Whether S. Ambrose in his Epistle meddles with any doctrinal definitions or only with some difficulties which that year happened about the observation of Easter the fourteenth of the first month falling on the Lords day is not very material to our purpose But that it was something else besides Astronomical definitions which I know what S. Ambrose's excellency was in might easily appear if you had read the Epistle So that you might have spared your large account of the Paschal Letters sent by the Bishops of Alexandria about the keeping of Easter which are no great novelties to such who are at all acquainted with Antiquity and given us a fuller account why in such a matter of dispute about the right of the day to be kept that year the Roman Bishops should not rather have stood to the Popes definition than write to S. Ambrose if it had been then taken for granted that the Pope was Infallible But I might as well have passed by this testimony of S. Ambrose as you do that of Lyra which is so express for the Erring and Apostatizing of several Popes that you thought the best Answer to it were to let it alone However you come off with the story of Peter Lombard which is not of that consequence to require any further examination of the truth of it I am sure you are hard put to it in the case of Honorius when you deny that Honorius did really maintain the Monothelites Heresie and excuse the Councils Sentence by saying it was only in case of mis-information Since it manifestly appears by the sixth Synod action 13. that they condemned his Epistle written to Sergius as containing heretical and pernicious Doctrine in it And in the seventh Synod he is reckoned up with Arrius Macedonius Eutyches Dioscorus and the rest of condemned Hereticks among whom he is likewise reckoned by Leo 2. in his Epistle to Constantine Which evidence is so great that Canus wonders at those who would offer to vindicate him And in the mean time you provide excellent moral means for the Pope to judge of matters of Faith by in General Councils if they may be guilty of so gross mis-information as you suppose here in the case of Honorius and not one barely but three successively the sixth seventh and eighth and the whole Church from their time till Albertus Pighius who first began to defend him For conclusion of this point his Lordship would fain know since this had been so plain so easie a way either to prevent all divisions about the Faith or to end all Controversies did they arise why this brief but most necessary proposition The Bishop of Rome
he ever speak so concerning the Trinity or the Incarnation of Christ which you parallel with Purgatory What would men have thought of him if he had said of either of those Articles It is not incredible they may be true and it may be enquired into whether they be or no Whatever then St. Austins private opinion was we see he delivers it modestly and doubtfully not obtruding it as an Article of Faith or Apostolical Tradition if any be And the very same he repeats in his Answer to the first Question of Dulcitius so that this was all that ever he asserted as to this Controversie What you offer to the contrary from other places of St. Austin shall be considered in its due place 4. Where any of the Fathers build any Doctrine upon the sense of doubtful places of Scripture we have no further reason to believe that Doctrine then we have to believe that it is the meaning of those places So that in this case the enquiry is taken off from the judgement of the Fathers and fixed upon the sense of the Scriptures which they and we both rely upon For since they pretend themselves to no greater evidence of the truth of the Doctrine then such places do afford it is the greatest reason that the argument to perswade us be not the testimony of the Father but the evidence of the place it self Unless it be evident some other way that there was an universal Tradition in the Church from the Apostles times concerning it and that the only design of the Father was to apply some particular place to it But then such a Tradition must be cleared from something else besides the sense of some ambiguous places of Scripture and that Tradition manifested to be Vniversal both as to time and place These things being premised I now come particularly to examine the evidence you bring That all the Fathers both Greek and Latin did constantly teach Purgatory from the Apostles times and consequently that it must be held for an Apostolical Tradition or nothing can be And as you follow Bellarmin in your way of proving it so must I follow you and he divides his proofs you say into two ranks First Such who affirm prayer for the dead 2. Such who in the successive ages of the Church did expresly affirm Purgatory First with those who affirm prayer for the dead Which you say doth necessarily infer Purgatory whatever the Bishop vainly insinuates to the contrary The Question then between us is Whether that prayer for the dead which was used in the ancient Church doth necessarily inferr that Purgatory was then acknowledged This you affirm for say you If there were no other place or condition of being for departed souls but either Heaven or Hell surely it were a vain thing to pray for the dead especially to pray for the remission of their sins or for their refreshment ease rest relaxation of their pains as Ancients most frequently do From whence you add that Purgatory is so undenyably proved that the Relator finding nothing himself sufficient to Answer was forced to put us off to the late Primate of Armagh 's Answer to the Jesuits Challenge Which you say You have perused and find only there that the Authour proves that which none of you deny viz. That the prayers and commemorations used for the dead had reference to more souls than those in Purgatory But you attempt to prove That the nature and kind of those prayers do imply that they were intended for other ends than meerly that the body might be glorified as well as the soul and to praise God for the final happy end of the deceased Whereas that Answerer of the Jesuite would you say by his allegations insinuate to the Reader a conceit that it was used only for those two reasons and no other Which you say you must needs avouch to be most loudly untrue and so manifestly contrary to the Doctrine and practise of the Fathers as nothing can be more A high charge against two most Reverend and learned Primates together against the one as not being able to Answer and therefore turning it off to the other against the other for publishing most loud untruths instead of giving a true account of the grounds of the Churches practise It seems you thought it not honour enough to overcome one unless you led the other in triumph also but you do neither of them but only in your own fancy and imagination And never had you less cause to give out such big words then here unless it were to amuse the spectatours that they might not see how you fall before them For it was not the least distrust of his sufficiency to Answer which made his Lordship to put it oft to the Primate of Armagh but because he was prevented in it by him Who as he truly saith had very learnedly and at large set down other reasons which the Ancients gave for prayer for the dead without any intention to free them from Purgatory Which are not only different from but inconsistent with the belief of Purgatory for the clearing of which and vindicating my Lord Primate from your calumnies rather then answers it will be necessary to give a brief account of his Discourse on that subject He tells us therefore at first That we are here prudently to distinguish the Original institution of the Church from the private opinions of particular Doctors which waded further herein then the general intendment of the Church did give them warrant Now he evidently proves that the memorials oblations and prayers made for the dead at the beginning had reference to such as rested from their labours and not unto any souls which were thought to be tormented in that Vtopian Purgatory whereof there was no news stirring in those dayes This he gathers first by the practise of the ancient Christians laid down by the Authour of the Commentaries on Job who saith The memorials of the Saints were observed as a memorial of rest to the souls departed and that they therein rejoyced for their refreshing St. Cyprian saith they offered Sacrifices for them whom he acknowledgeth to have received of the Lord Palms and Crowns and in the Authour of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy the party deceased is described by him to have departed this life replenished with Divine joy as now not fearing any change to worse being come unto the end of all his labours and publickly pronounced to be a happy man and admitted into the society of the Saints and yet the Bishop prayes that God would forgive him all his sins he had committed through humane infirmity and bring him into the light and band of the living into the bosoms of Abraham Isaac and Jacob into the place from whence pain and sorrow and sighing flyeth And Saint Chrysostom shews that the funeral Ordinances of the Church were appointed to admonish the living that the parties deceased were in a state of joy and not of grief and
are truths which are sufficiently proposed to me as defined by the Church for matters of Faith I deny the Churches Proposition to be sufficient to convince me that these are matters of Faith for I understand not what Power your Church hath to define any thing for matter of Faith if I granted that I must understand what you mean by sufficient Proposition whether that your Church hath so defined them or that she hath power so to define them and because I am heartily willing to believe any thing that I have reason to believe is a matter of Faith certainly it can be no sin in me not to believe that which I can see no ground at all to believe either in it self or because of your Churches Definition And all this while I have as high thoughts of God's Veracity as you can have and it may be higher because I interest it not in the false and contradictory Definitions of your Church If therefore you will prove it to be a damnable sin not to believe whatever is proposed by your Church for a matter of Faith you must first prove that there is as universal an obligation to believe whatever is sufficiently proposed as defined by the Church for matter of Faith as there is to assent to whatever God reveals as true And when you have done this I will give you leave to state the Question as you do for then you would offer something to the proof of it which now you do not The substance then of what concerns the obligation to Faith as to particular objects on the account of Diuine Revelation lyes in the means of conviction concerning those particular objects being divinely revealed which being various the degrees of Assent must be various too but yet so that the more men are negligent of the means of conviction the more culpable their unbelief is but where men use all moral diligence to understand what is revealed and what not if they cannot be convinced that some particular thing is of Divine Revelation it is hard to prove them guilty of mortal and damnable sin without first proving that God absolutely requires from men an Assent to that which it is impossible in their Circumstances they should believe And this is the first sort of things necessary to be believed by particular persons such as are believed on the general account of God's Veracity in revealing them But because there must be a more particular reason assigned of any such intention in God to reveal his mind to the world viz. Some peculiar end which he had in it therefore a further degree of the necessity of things to be believed must be enquired after viz. such as have an immediate and necessary respect to the prosecution of that end Now the only end assignable of that great expression of Divine Goodness in declaring to man the Will of God is the Eternal Welfare and Happiness of mankind for nothing else can be imagined suitable and proportionable to the Wisdom and Goodness of God besides that this is expresly mentioned in Scripture as God's great end in it Now this being the great end of Divine Revelation the necessity of things to be believed absolutely and in themselves must be taken from the reference or respect which they have to the attainment of this end And although the distinction be commonly received of necessity of the means and of the command as importing a different kind of necessity yet in the sense I here take Necessity in the members of that distinction do to me seem coincident For I cannot see any reason to believe that God should make the belief of any thing necessary by an absolute Command but what hath an immediate tendency by way of means for the attainment of this end For otherwise that which is call'd the Necessity of Precept falls under the former degree of Necessity viz. That which is to be believed on the general account of Divine Revelation And although these things which are necessary as means are to be believed on the same formal reason of Faith yet since God had a different end in the Revelation of these from the other therefore there is a necessity of putting a difference between them For supposing God to have such a design to bring the souls of men to Happiness in order to this end some means must be necessary and these must consequently be revealed to men because they are so necessary in order to such an end now it is apparent All things contained in Scripture are not of that nature some being at so great a remove from this end that the only reason of believing them is because they are contained in that Book which we have the greatest reason to believe contains nothing false in it Now the only way whereby we may judge of the nature of these things is from the consideration of what is made the most necessary condition in order to happiness and the way by which we may come to it And nothing being more evident than that the Gospel contains in it a Covenant of Grace or the conditions on which our Salvation depends whatever is necessary in order to our performance of the conditions required of us must be necessary to be believed by all The Gospel therefore tendring Happiness upon the conditions of our believing in Christ and walking in him these two things are indispensably necessary to Salvation where the Gospel is known for we have no reason to enquire into the method of God's proceeding with others An hearty Assent to the Doctrine of Christ and A conscientious walking according to the Precepts of it But to undertake to define what parts of that Doctrine are necessary to Salvation and what not seems to me wholly unnecessary because the Assent to the Doctrine of Christ as revealed from God must necessarily carry in it so much as is sufficient in order to Salvation Whatever therefore is necessary to a Spiritual Life is necessary absolutely to Salvation and no more but what and how much that is must be gathered by every one as to himself from Scripture but is impossible to be defined by others as to all persons But in all Faith towards God and in our Lord Jesus Christ and repentance from dead works are absolutely and indispensably necessary to Salvation which imply in them both an universal readiness of mind to believe and obey God in all things And by this we see what the Rule and Measure of the necessity of things to be believed is as to particular persons which lyes in these things 1. Whatever God hath revealed is undoubtedly and infallibly true 2. Whatever appears to me upon sufficient enquiry to be revealed by God I am bound to believe it by virtue of God's Veracity 3. All things not equally appearing to all persons to be revealed of God the same measure of necessity cannot be extended to all persons 4. An universal Assent to the Will of God and universal Obedience to it