Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
truth_n believe_v faith_n know_v 8,213 5 4.2899 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A45460 A reply to the Catholick gentlemans answer to the most materiall parts of the booke Of schisme whereto is annexed, an account of H.T. his appendix to his Manual of controversies, concerning the Abbot of Bangors answer to Augustine / by H. Hammond. Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660. 1654 (1654) Wing H598; ESTC R9274 139,505 188

There are 7 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

the fift Age these lovers of truth will stand to it but not to the fourth Age precedent or that very Age in which it was held so humble they are to submit to any authority that toucheth not the questions in present controversie but where doe they finde Christ's Church shall be judge in three Ages and fail in the fourth or that the Councels in the fift Age shall be sound but not the Fathers Num. 3 It is very hard it seems to please this Gentleman Our humility is one while by him censured as really too great another while the want of it is our crime and we equally to be scoffed at on both accounts Num. 4 It is a criminous excesse of humility forsooth to submit to those of whom we first professe not to know that they are infallible But as long as we doe verily believe they doe actually affirm truth why may we not submit to them though we know not that they are infallible For certainly I may submit to my natural or civil parent in this manner obey him in all his commands supposing as now I doe that none of his commands are by me apprehended to be unlawful as none of these Councels definitions as by us believed to be contrary to the Word and Will of God though yet I neither account him inerrable nor impeccable But of this I have spoken already Chap I. Sect. 3. Num. 5 What he adds of holding under pain of damnation what they say is in this place an insertion of this Gentleman's no word being said of it in that section to which his words are confronted and having elsewhere spoken to that I abstain from adding more at this time Num. 6 In the next place it seems our humility is too scanty for when I have submitted to be judged by the scriptures the consent of the first 300 years or the four General Councels whether we have departed from the Apostolical doctrines or traditions this saith he is submitting to Ages where very few witnesses can be found c. But I desire it may be remembred what there I speak of for perhaps this Gentleman's haste hath not permitted him to advert to it the contesting or innocence in this that we of the Church of England have not departed from the Apostolick doctrine and traditions And for this whether could the appeal more properly be directed than to the scriptures the Conservatorie of the Apostles written doctrine and the three first Centuries the conservatorie of their traditions It being unimaginable that any thing should be so per saltum conveyed to us from the Apostles as to leap over those three Centuries next to them without leaving any footstep discernible among them Num. 7 For let the witnesses of those times the authors that remain to us be never so few yet unlesse by some of their hands we be directed what the Apostles delivered to them how can we know what was delivered It being all one in this respect not to be as not to appear Tradition even Apostolical being no more than an empty name unlesse we suppose our selves able to avouch some competent testifiers of the Tradition Num. 8 And if to these two I have added the four General Councels because they were held against the great disturbers of the unity of the Faith and they maintained the true faith by these two special weapons the Scriptures and Tradition testified by the first Writers and our Church hath taken in their Creed● into our Liturgies and their definitions into our Articles of religion and so I have by that appeal so farre testified our non departure from the Faith I hope there is no offence in this no degree of defect in our humility Num. 9 As for the little occasion these first had to speak of the present controversies that sure cannot be objected against our procedure any more than the paucity of the Authors could for if the Romanist doe but grant this one thing it will be found a real prejudice to his pretensions if which was the point in hand the question be whether the Church of England have departed from the unity of the Apostolick Faith denied any Apost●lick Doctrine or Tradition Num. 10 For in this Controversie how shall it be proved that we have departed unlesse that Doctrine or Tradition being specified what it is it be evidenced also that it was delivered by the Apostles and how can that be evidenced but by those which within some competent distance of their time affirm that from them and how can they be pretended to affirm that if it be granted of them that they had no occasion to speak of it and so are utterly silent in it Num. 11 To his last note of humility i. e. the next expression of his scoptical humor there can be no need of applying any answer it being no where intimated in that Treatise that we are not ready to stand to the fourth Age or that wherein the fourth Councel was held All that was said was that the three first Ages and the four General Councels were competent witnesses of the Apostolical doctrines and traditions and I desire any man to name any other that were more competent to this purpose i. e. to testifie what the Apostles taught It being certain that whosoever doth not by inspiration tell us any thing of that kinde must assume to tell it from them and as evident that all those things that even now were spoken of which the Apostles resolved on as heads of special force to form religion and Christian life were by this means conveyed to us Num. 12 Mean while other matters there are which we look on as additaments to the doctrines of Faith and so are the subject of a double question 1. whether they be parts of that faith which was once or at once delivered to the saints 2. whether not appearing to be so there be any other just reason to believe though but by an humane Faith that they have any truth in them Num. 13 Now of these two questions as the resolution of the former depends upon those Ages which alone can conveigh Tradition to the succeeding and so still for that we referre our selves to the former Vmpirage so of the second I did not then because I had not occasion to speak in that place Num. 14 And if my answer be required now I shall readily give it that in matters of this nature the Opinions of the Fathers of the Church in the most flourishing Ages of it wherein their writings are most voluminous and their Learning in Theologie most venerable are with us of great weight and consideration we doe and shall upon all occasions demonstrate our selves to allow them as full an authority pay as great and true a reverence to their judgments indevour as uniformly to conform our selves to the declarations of their sense as any sober Romanists are by us discerned to doe or as it can be their interest to doe in respect of the controversies
error certainly without a bias of interest or prejudice it is impossible for him to leave the Church if he be in it or not returne if he be out of it for if infallibility be the ground of the Churches power to command beliefe as shee pretends no other no time no separation within memory of History can justifie a continuance out of the Church You may please to consider then how solid this Doctors discourse is who telleth us for his great evidence that we saith he who doe not acknowledge the Church of Rome to be infallible may be allowed to make certaine suppositions that follow there The question is whether a Protestant be a Schismatick because a Protestant and he will prove he is not a Schismatick because he goeth consequently to Protestant that is Schismatical grounds I pray you reflect that not to acknowledge the Church to be infallible is that for which we charge the Doctor with Schisme and Heresie in Capite and more than for all the rest he holds distinct from us for this principle taketh away all beliefe and all ground of beliefe and turneth it into uncertainty and weather-cock opinion putteth us into the condition to be circumferri omni vento Doctrinae submitteth us to Atheisme and all sort of miscreancy let him not then over-leap the question but either prove this is not sufficient to make him a Schismatick and an Heretick too or let him acknowledge he is both Num. 3 This discourse thus inlarged to the consideration of fallibility and infallibility in a Church is certainly a digression in this place and taking the occasion from some words of mine Sect. 6. of a concession of Master Knots it is a little necessary to recount what concession that was and the use that I there made of it that so it may appeare whether there were any thing blameable in my procedure Num. 4 The subject I was upon Sect. 5. was the undoubted lawfulnesse of being and continuing excluded from any such Church the conditions of whose communion containe Sin in them To this head of discourse I mentioned a concession of Master Knots that it is perfectly unlawful to dissemble aequivocate or lye in matters of Faith and this as a confirmation of my then present assertion that when I am not permitted by the Romanists to have external communion with them unlesse I doe thus dissemble equivocate and lye affirme my selfe to believe what I doe not believe I may lawfully continue thus excluded from their communion But then I could not justly conceale what Master Knot there added as his conclusion from hence together with the acknowledged unlawfulnesse of forsaking the externall communion of Gods visible Church that therefore the Church of Rome is infallible because otherwise men might forsake her communion Num. 5 Here indeed I thought it very strange that this conclusion should be thus deduced from such praemisses that it should be deemed lawful to separate from a Church for every error or for no more but being subject to error being fallible though it were actually guilty of no errour which I conceived to be the same in effect as to affirme it lawfull to forsake the communion of all but Saints and Angels and God in Heaven because all others were peccable and fallible But yet I thought not fit to goe farther out of my way to presse the unreasonablenesse of it but contented my selfe with that which was for my present turne his confession that it was lawful to separate or continue in separation from the Church of Christ in case we could not without lying c. be permitted to communicate with it Num. 6 This being the whole businesse as it lyes visible to any in that 5. and 6. Sect. Let us now see what a confusion is made to gaine some small advantage from hence or excuse for a long digression Num. 7 First it is the conclusion viz. that any Congregation that can lye c. cannot have power to binde any to believe what shee saith which he saith is called by me Master Knots concession But this is a great mistake I never lookt on this as his concession never called it by that title but as a conclusion that he made a strange shift to deduce from another concession Num. 8 A concession this Gentleman should in reason have understood to be somewhat which the Adversary yeilds and which the disputer gaines advantage by his yeilding it such was his assertion that all lying and dissembling was unlawful and that rather than that should be admitted it were lawful to forsake the external communion of the Church of Christ And that and nothing but that was by me cited as his concession Num. 9 Secondly That conclusion it self that the Congregation that is fallible cannot have power to binde to believe is not so much as considered by me in that place or else where I said not one word against it which might provoke this objector to take it up and confirme it neither was it in the least needfull or pertinent to the matter then in hand to enter into the consideration of it All that was by me taken notice of and that but in passing was the consequence or coherence betwixt the praemisses and that conclusion which naturally inferred a third thing that it was in Mr. Knots opinion lawful to forsake the Communion of any fallible Church which I thought by the way would be sure to excuse us though we should be granted to have forsaken and continued wilfully in Separation from the Roman Church if it might but appeare that either that were guilty of any one error or lyable to fal into any one And this being intirely all that was there said by me there is no reason I should so far attend this Gentleman in his digression as to consider what here he proceeds to say upon his new-sprung subject of discourse very distant from that of Schisme to which I indeavoured to adhere having elsewhere pursued at large the Romanists other hypothesis concerning their Churches Infallibility Num. 10 Were it not thus remote from our matter in hand and perfectly unnecessary to the defence of our Church from Schisme I might discover farther many infirme parts in this procedure I shall but briefly touch on some of them Num. 11 1. For the truth of that proposition that a Congregation that can lye i. e. a Church that is fallible and knoweth not i. e. hath no infallible certainty whether it lye or no in any proposition cannot have power to binde any to believe what shesaith I may certainly affirme 1. That this is no infallible truth being no where affirmed by any infallible speaker or deduced from any infallible principle For as to the Scripture it is not pretended to be affirmed by that and for Natural Reason that cannot be an infallible Judge in this matter of defining what power may be or is by God given to a Church without defining it infallible A Prince may no doubt be impowered by God
to give Lawes and those Lawes oblige Subjects to obedience and yet that Prince never be imagined infallible in making Lawes And natural reason cannot conclude it impossible that a Church should have a proportionable power given it by God to binde belief c. Num. 12 As for the Catholick or Roman Church 1. that is a misprision the Catholick is not the single Roman Church nor the Roman the Catholick 2. There no where appears any such definition either of the Catholick i. e. Vniversall Church of God or particularly of the Roman Church no act of Councell representative of that Church no known affirmation of that diffused body under the Bishop of Rome's Pastorage that all authority to oblige belief is founded in Infallibility 3. If any such definition did appear it could no way be foundation of belief to us who doe not believe that Church or any definition thereof as such to be infallible Num. 13 2. If we shall but distinguish and limit the termes 1. what is meant by can lie 2. By knowing or not knowing whether it lie or no 3. By power to binde 4 By belief as every of these have a latitude of signification and may be easily mistaken till they are duly limited It will then soon appear that there is no unlimited truth in that which he saith is the whole Churches affirmation nor prejudice to our pretensions from that limited truth which shall be found in it Num. 14 1. The phrase can lie may denote no more than such a possibility of erring as yet is joyned neither with actuall error nor with any principle whether of deficiency on one side nor of malignity on the other which shall be sure to betray it into error Thus that particular Church that is at the present in the right in all matters of faith and hath before it the Scripture to guide it in all its decisions together with the traditions and doctrines of the antient and Primitive Church and having skill in all those knowledges which are usefull to fetch out the true meaning of Scripture and ability to inquire into the antient path and to compare her self with all other considerable parts of the Vniversall Church and then is diligent and faithfull to make use of all these succours and in uprightness of heart seeks the truth and applies it self to God in humble and ardent and continuall prayer for his guidance to lead into all truth This Church I say is yet fallible may affirm and teach false i. e. this is naturally possible that it may but it is not strongly probable that it will as long as it is thus assisted and disposed to make use of these assistances and means of true defining Num. 15 2. That Churches knowledge whether it define truly or no in any proposition may signifie no more than a full perswasion or belief cui non subest dubium wherein they neither doubt nor apprehend reason of doubting that what they define is the very truth though for knowledge properly so called or assurance cui non potest subesse falsum which is unerrable or infallible in strictness of speech it may not have attained or pretend to have attained to it Num. 16 3. By power to binde may be meant no more than authority derived to them from the Apostles of Christ to make decisions when difficulties arise to prescribe rules for ceremonies or government such as shall oblige inferiors to due observance and obedience by force of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his precept to obey the rulers set over us in the Church which we may doe without thinking them simply or by any promise of God inerrable or infallible as the obedience which is due to civil Magistrates which supposes in them a power of binding subjects to obey doth yet no way suppose or imply them uncapable of erring and sinning and giving unreasonable commands and such as wherein it is unlawfull to yeild obedience to them Num. 17 Beside this there may farther be meant by it a generall obligation that lies on all men to believe what is with due grounds of conviction proposed to them such as the disbelieving or doubting of it shall be in them inseparable from obstinacy and this obligation is again the greater when that which is thus convincingly proposed is proposed by our superiors from whose mouth it is regular to seek and receive Gods will Num. 18 Lastly Believing may signifie not an implicite irrational blinde but a well-grounded rationall explicite belief of that which as the truth of God is duely proposed to us or again where there is not that degree of manifestation yet a consent to that which is proposed as most probable on the grounds afforded to judge by or when the person is not competent to search grounds a bare yeilding to the judgment of superiours and deeming it better to adhere to them than to attribute any thing to their own judgment a believing so farre as not to disbelieve And this again may rationally be yeilded to a Church or the Rulers and Governors of it without deeming them inerrable or infallible Num. 19 Nay where the proposition defined is such that every member of that Church cannot without violence to his understanding yeild any such degree of belief unto it yet he that believes it not may behave himself peaceably and reverently either duely representing his grounds why he cannot consent to it or if his subscription or consent be neither formally nor interpretatively required of him quietly enjoy his contrary opinion And this may tend as much to the peace and unity of a Church as the perswasion of the inerrability thereof can be supposed to doe Num. 20 By this view of the latitude of these terms and the limitations they are capable of it is now not so difficult to discern in what sense the proposition under consideration is false and in what sense it is true and by us acknowledged to be so Num. 21 A congregation that is fallible and hath no knowledge or assurance cui non potest subesse falsum that it is not deceived in any particular proposition may yet have authority to make decisions c. and to require inferiors so farre to acquiesce to their determinations as not to disquiet the peace of that Church with their contrary opinions Num. 22 But for any absolute infallible belief or consent that no Church which is not it self absolutely infallible and which doth not infallibly know that it is infallible hath power to require of any Num. 23 By this it appears in the next place in what sense it is true which in the following words is suggested of Protestants that they binde men to a Profession of Faith and how injustly it is added that supposing them not to be infallibe it is unjust tyrannical and self-condemnation to the binders The contrary whereto is most evident understanding the obligation with that temper and the infallibity in that notion wherein it is evident we understand
it For what injustice or tyranny c. can it be in any lawful superior having defined what verily he believes to be the truth of God and no way doubts of his having deduced it rightly from the Scripture but yet knows that he as a man is fallible and that it is possible he may have some way failed in this as in any other his most circumspect action what injustice I say can it be authoritatively to direct this definition to those who are committed to his charge and expect their due submission to it meaning by submission what I have here exprest to mean by it Num. 24 So again it appears of the Roman Church how far it is from gentle or charitable in them to bind men to profess as matter of faith whatsoever is by that Church defined upon this one account that the Church is infallible can't erre when this very thing that it is infallible is not at all made probable much lesse infallibly deduced from any reason or testimony that is infallible Num. 25 Next then when he saith that the state of the question will be this whether the Roman Church be infallible or no I am not sure I know what question he means whether the main Question on which the Tract of Schisme was written i. e. whether the Church of England be schismaticall or no or whether the particular question which this Gentlemans haste hath framed to himself in this place Whether a fallible Church may have power to binde any to believe what she saith But I suppose by some indications that the latter is it and then as from hence I learn what he means by infallible a Church that cannot possibly erre all whose definitions are such quibus nequit subesse falsum so untill this be proved of that Church I must be allowed to speak like one who think not my self obliged to the belief of it and being sure of this that a Protestant is or may be verily perswaded of some truth against which the Roman Church bindeth to profession of error meaning by verily perswaded such a certainty only cui non subest dubium he hath no doubt nor reason to induce doubting of it I cannot imagine how that part of my discourse wherein I have supposed or asserted this can be either superfluous unnecessary or whatever other weakness it be guilty of contrary to my self For certainly I that think I am fallible may yet verily believe without all doubt the truth of many propositions which if I should affirm my self not to believe I must doubtlesse lie and then sin by Mr. Knot 's former concession And 't is as certain on the other side that he that pretendeth to have an infallible rule may yet foully mistake both in that generall originall and in many other particular derivative pretensions His supposed infallibility if it be not rightly supposed and till it be proved it will not be so will be so farre from an amulet to keep him safe from all error that it is the likeliest way to deliver him up to it as the premature perswasion of his particular election may be the ingulsing any through security and presumption in the most certain ruine Num. 26 In the processe of this discourse he is pleased to mention four advantages of the Roman Church above any other Antiquity possession perswasion of Infallibility the pledges that Christ hath left to his Church for motives of union and nothing but uncertain reasons on the other side which saith he must make it impossible for any without interest or prejudice to leave the Church if he be in it or not return if he be out of it Num. 27 To this imaginary setting of the scales between them and us and particularly to the fourth advantage pretended to the pledges that Christ left for motives of union it is sufficient to reply in generall that for us which have not voluntarily separated but are by them violently removed from communion with them and cannot be admitted to reunion but upon conditions which without dissembling and lying we cannot undergoe it is in vain to speak of motives or obligations to return to their communion We that are bound as much as in us lies to have peace with all men must not admit any known or wilfull sin in order to that most desirable end And this one thing as alone it is pertinent to the matter in hand that of schisme so it is necessarily the concluding of this controversie We that are not permitted to return and so we are if the conditions of our return be so incumbred as to include sin cannot with any justice or equity be charged for not returning Num. 28 Against this here is nothing said any farther than the bare mention of the three other advantages on their side And none of these are of any force to perswade our return upon such conditions as these much lesse to exact it as duty from us Num. 29 By Antiquity and Possession as here they are spoken of I am apt to suppose he means not antiquity of the Roman Church or the present doctrines and therefore I shall not speak of them but the antiquity of our communion with them if he mean a Possession in the belief of the Popes Vniversall Pastorship I shall have occasion to speak of that hereafter And if this be granted as for fraternall communion and such as is due from one sister Church to another it is willingly granted then this will divolve the blame on those who are guilty of this breach who have cast us out and permit us no way of returning with a good conscience And so this is little for the Romanists advantage Num. 30 But if in stead of fraternall communion it be subjection to the Roman See that is by his words claimed and pretended to by possession then as we willingly grant to that See all that the antient Canons allowed to it and so cannot in that respect offend against Antiquity so what contrary to those Canons they have at any time assumed and unlawfully possest themselves of can no way be pretended to be their right or they to be bonae fidei possessores true or fair possessors of it which qualification and condition is yet absolutely necessary to found their plea from possession and which alone can bear any proportion with that which Kings can shew for their crowns or proprietaries for their inheritances Num. 31 Of this head of possession or prescription it were easie to adde much more by considering that claim and title by the known rules whether of the Canon or Civil Law The Civil Law which is generally more favourable to Prescription doth yet acknowledge many waies of interrupting it as by calling it into question and that is sufficiently done in some cases per solam conventionem by citing or summoning the possessor and when contestatio litis the entring a suit is actually required yet still he that appears to have caused the impediment and kept it
from coming to this contestation is not to gain any advantage by his guilt but adversus eum lis habetur pro contestato he shall be lookt on as if the suit had been actually contested against him See Bartolus in l. si eum § qui injuriarum in fi ff si quis caut Num. 32 But as to the Canon Law which in all reason the Catholick is to own in this question it is known that it admitteth not any the longest prescription without the bonae fidei possessio he that came by any thing dishonestly is for ever obliged to restitution and for the judging of that allows of many waies of probation from the nature of the thing the course we have taken in this present debate and from other probable indications and where the appearances are equal on both sides the Law though it be wont to judge most favourably doth yet incline to question the honesty of coming to the possession and to presume the dishonesty upon this account because mala fides dishonesty is presumed industriously to contrive its own secrecie and to lie hid in those recesses from which at a distance of time it is not easily fetcht out So Felinus in C. ult de praescript per leg ult C. unde vi And in a word it is the affirmation of the Doctors presumi malam fidem ex antiquiore adversarii possessione the presumption is strong that the possession was not honestly come by when it appears to have been antiently in the other hands and the way of conveyance from one to the other is not discernible See Panormit and Felinus in c. si diligenti X de prescript Menochius arbit quaest Casu 225. n. 4. and others referred to by the learned Groti●● in Consil Jurid super iis quae Nassavii p. 36. c. But I have no need of these nicer disquisitions Num. 33 As for the perswasion of infallibility meaning as they must their own perswasion of it that can have no influence upon us who are sure that we are not so perswaded unless the grounds on which their perswasion is founded be so convincingly represented to us that it must be our prejudice or other vitious defect or affection in us that we are not in the like manner perswaded of it But on this we are known to insist and never yet have had any such grounds offered to us As may in some measure appear by the view of that Controversie as it lies visible in the Book intituled The view of Infallibility Num. 34 As for the uncertainty of the reasons on the Protestants side by uncertainty meaning fallibility and the potest subesse falsum whilest yet we are without doubting verily perswaded that our reasons have force in them that cannot make it possible for us to believe what we doe not believe or lawfull upon any the fairest intuition to professe contrary to our belief I believe that Henry VIII was King of this Nation and the reasons on which I believe it are the testimonies of meer men and so fallible yet the bare fallibility of those testimonies cannot infuse into me any doubt of the truth of them hath no force to shake that but humane belief and while I thus believe I am sure it were wilfull sin in me though for the greatest and most pretious acquisitions in my view to professe I doe not believe it The like must be said of any other perswasion of mine denied by the Romanists and the denying whereof is part of the condition required of me to make me capable of communion with them Num. 35 But it is not now time to insist on this both because here is nothing produced against it and because here follows a much higher undertaking which swallows up all these inferior differences between us viz that not to acknowledge the Church that must be the Roman Church to be infallible is the great crime of schime and heresie in capite and more than all that I hold distinct from the Romanists Num. 36 This I acknowledge was not foreseen in the Tract of Schisme and may serve for the una litura the one answer to remove all that is there said For if our grand Fundamental schisme and heresie be all summed up in this one comprehensive guilt our not acknowledging the Church of Rome to be infallible then it was and still is impertinent to discourse on any other subject but that one of Infallibility for if that be gained by them to belong to their Church I am sure we are concluded Schismaticks and till it be gained I am sure there is no reason to suppose it Num. 37 But then as this is a compendious way of answering the Tract of Schism and I wonder after he had said this he could think it seasonable to proceed to make exceptions to any other particulars this one great mistake of the Question being discovered made all other more minute considerations unnecessary as he that hath sprung a mine to blow up the whole Fort need not set wispes of straw to severall corners to burn it so it falls out a little unluckily that this doth not supersede but onely remove this Gentleman's labour it being now as necessary that he should defend his hypothesis of the Church of Romes Infallibility against all that is formerly said by me on that subject as now it was to make this Answer to the Book of Schism and till that be done or attempted to be done there is nothing left for me to reply to in this matter Num. 38 For as to his bare affirmations that the not acknowledging their Infallibility takes away all belief and ground of belief turns all into uncertainty c. nay submitteth to Atheisme and all sorts of miscreancy It is sure but a mistake or misunderstanding as of some other things so particularly of the nature of belief For beside that I may have other grounds of belief than the affirmations of the Roman Church the authority of Scripture for the severalls contained in it and the Testimony of the universal Primitive that sure is more than of the present Roman Church to assure me that what we take for Scripture is Scripture and to derive Apostolical traditions to me and so I may believe enough without ever knowing that the Roman Church defines any thing de fide but much more without acknowledging the truth of all she defines and yet much more without acknowledging her inerrable and infallible Beside this I say it is evident that belief is no more than consent to the truth of any thing and the grounds of belief such arguments as are sufficient to exclude doubting to induce conviction and perswasion and where that is actually induced there is belief though there be no pretense of infallibility in the argument nor opinion of it in him that is perswaded by it Num. 39 That all that God hath said is true I believe by a belief or perswasion cui non potest subesse falsum wherein I cannot
contained in that Crede acknowledging that it did forbid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 difference as well as contrariety pag. 644. b and even for such a bare explication they counted not that lawfull for any but the Fathers convened in O Ecumenical Synods citing it from Aquinas 2a 2 ae qu 1 ar 10. and adding that he spake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of any Creed whatsoever which was common to the whole Church Num. 6 And accordingly there followes out of the Epistle of Celestine to Nestorius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The beliefe delivered by the Apostles requires neither addition nor diminution Num. 7 In all which how they are concerned who impose so many new articles of beliefe upon their owne Churches and upon all that desire Communion with them I leave to each Romanist to consider ann shall onely adde the words of the Catechism taken out of the workes of Costerus Petrus de Soto and others and set out by command of the Archbishop of Triers resp ad 2. qu. Neque ulla unquam ex titit haresis quae non hoc symbolo damnari potuerit There was never any Heresie which might not be condemned by the Apostles Creed It were well we might be allowed the benefit of this tryal Num. 8 And now having given this pledge of my readinesse to answer his questions though I discern not any obligation arising from my former discourse to lye upon me yet I shall not be so nice or sparing of my paines as to deny him a clear account also of his subsequent demands but shall speak as loud as he would wish and tell him first to the first demand that as to those few heads I spoke of I can blessed be God shew him Churches enough which have not betrayed the trust deposited The Church of England even now under the saddest persecution hath not been tempted to betray that trust the Church of Rome through all the Prosperity and Splendor and Grandeur which it hath long injoyed and which the Historian tells us acrioribus stimulis animum explorant hath as yet held out thus farre I meane hath retainnd those few head● and in that respect is not accused by us to have betrayed that trust I wish it were as blamelesse in all things else particularly in that wherein our present debate is most concerned in imposing new Articles of Faith on all Christians and her own infallibility for the first of them Num. 9 The same I can as freely affirm of all other National Churches that I know of confining my discourse still to the small yet in the Apostles opinions sufficient number of heads of special force to the planting of Christian life through the world Num. 10 And so as this Gentleman is much disappointed in his expectation that I should not be able to name any Church that hath not betrayed the trust deposited so I must professe to him I think it as reasonable that they that agree in believing and conserving those few pretious heads of truth designed to so glorious an end as is the peopling a world with a peculiar colonie of inhabitants all uniformly zealous of good workes should all joyne hands and hearts to adde that superstructure to the foundation pure immaculate Elevated Heroical i. e. Christian practice to the untainted beliefe of these few things Num. 11 And then how much blame by force of that Canon of Ephesus most justly belongs unto them that make it their great interest to quarrel divide from and anathematize all others who cannot believe all other things which they chance to believe though they know they agree with them in all that the Apostles thus thought necessary to be agreed in indeed how contrary this is and destructive to this superstructure of which Charity in one principall ingredient and so to the designe of laying the foundation though not to the foundation it selfe I shall leave this Gentleman and every sober Christian to consider and if he judge not as I doe yet I shall not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 number it among the prodigies of the age or indeed thinke stranger of it than I have long done of the great distance betwixt Reason and Passion in the same sort of creatures Man and God knowes too oft in the same Individual creature the same Man and Christian Num. 12 Having gone thus farre in ready obedience to this Gentlemans lightest intimation of his pleasure in satisfaction to his first demand I shall in the same humour proceed without all reserve to the next doubting as little as he but that these few things all justice must allow our discourse to he coherent and so to adhere to the same subject with which we began have been preserved in each Church by Tradition and then to the third that there is no place of doubt concerning the fact and so of question whether they have or no and if by thus speaking aloud to every of his demands I render my selfe subject to as much jealousie as I say Grotius was I shall not accuse him as my tempter but onely support and comfort my self that I have retained as much innocence as I alwaies thought Grotius had done and by declaring my meaning thus clearly and professing that I mean no whit more than I say I see no place for jealousie remaining to any Num. 13 If to believe the Apostles Creed to be conveyed down to us by tradition in every national Church from the Apostles time to this be any heresie I am visibly guilty of it and need not have my words put upon the rack as Grotius's have been to extort a more explicite confession from them Sect. III. Submission without opinion of infallibility The appeal to the Fathers of the first 300 years and the four General Conncels to what it belongs The silence of the first times no advantage to the Romanist Two Questions of Additaments to Faith The way of debating each of them Num. 1 HIS last exception to this Chapter is to our profession of humility and temper which it seems those of our religion must not be permitted to assume to themselves and which I was no farther so insolent to assume than as it is observable in the peculiarity of the frame of the Church of England's Reformation Thus Num. 2 I cannot but admire indeed the great temper he professeth men of his religion have in choosing of Doctrines to wit their submission to the three first Ages and the four first Councels but I confesse it is a humility I understand not first to professe they know not whether their teachers say true or no that is that they are fallible and then to hold under pain of damnation what they say Another piece of their humility is in submitting to ages where very few witnesses can be found in regard of the rarity of the Authors and the little occasion they had to speak of present controversies A third note of humility is that whereas the fourth Councel was held about the midst of
miracle and all the supposed virtue thereof to the confirming the Traditions which Augustine delivered without farther extending it to the asserting the Papal power to which the Abbot of Bangor's answer was particularly confronted for had they once acknowledged themselves convinced of that there had been no place left for the licentia suorum no need of the consent or licence of any other superiors which yet they resolutely adhere to Lastly that at their second meeting the Britains deemed Augustine's pride a more valid convincing argument that the yoke which he designed to impose on them was not the yoke of Christ than the supposed miracle that it was And for the latter that of the slaughter first threatned and then fulfilled upon them 1. If that were indeed a miracle it was not of the complexion which is generally observed in Christ's miracles used for the working of faith but proportionable to the Spirit of the Boanerges which would have the fire from heaven called down upon the Samaritans and were answered by Christ that this was not agreeable to the Spirit of the Gospel And if the example of S. Peter on Ananias and Sapphyra or of S. Paul on Elymas be made use of as a precedent for this severity yet sure the answer of Pope Gregory to Augustine at that time supposing different Churches to enjoy different customes and not imposing the Roman upon all might have directed him to greater moderation See Bed l. 1. c. 27. in his answer to the third Interrogation Secondly it is no very great miracle that a grand Army falling first upon unarmed Monks should obtain the victory against them and afterward against all other their opposers nor consequently is it any whit strange that Augustine that was so provoked and meant to use this bloody revengefull course should thus threaten what he then designed to see performed for that is the full meaning of his foretelling it It is true indeed that either Bede or some Interpolator that copied out the original Latine of that Historie hath thought good to insert some words in the end of that story l. 2. c. 2. in fine quamvis ipso jam multo ante tempore ad coelestia regna sublato which might delude men into a perswasion that this bloody act was a long time after Augustine's death But for this First it is observable that King Alfred's Saxon translation or paraphrase of Bede wholly omits that parenthesis and reads it onely thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 B. A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and so was fulfilled the prediction of S. Augustine that they should feel the revenge of temporal destruction Secondly that the series of the story in Bede gives just prejudice to that parenthesis for this of the slaughter of the Britans being set down in the end of that second Chap the third begins with Augustine's ordaining two Bishops Mellitus and Justus which sure was not after his death and as the Saxon paraphrase of King Alfred begins that Chapter with this form of reference to the former passage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was after this which plainly defines Augustine to have survived that bloody fact so the Latine Bede which sets down the time of Augustine's ordaining those two Bishops Anno Dominicae incarnationis sexcentefimo quarto In the year 604 doth yet more incline us to suspect that Parenthesis for though Bede who sets down the month and day of Augustine's death sets not down the year of it but leaves it in a latitude to be between the year 596 in which he came to England and the year 613. or as the Saxon reads 616. in which King Ethelbert died yet others commonly affirm that he continued Bishop 15 or 16 years and so died about 612 or 13. whereas Chronologers affirm the slaughter of the Monks of Bangor c. to have been in the year 603 and so the year immediately precedent to Augustine's ordaining those two Bishops Thirdly when in the relation of this slaughter the Latine Bede begins Siquidem posthaec ipse de quo diximus Rex Anglorum For after this i. e. after Augustine's threatning destruction to the British the forenamed King of the Angles gathered an Army the Saxon paraphrase reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and soon rath i. e. very soon after this which again perswades that it was before Augustine's death at least that the jam multo ante in the Parenthesis that Augustine died long before could have no truth in it Lastly as some Writers of these dark times have made a shift to affirm with the Latine Bede that Augustine was first dead so it is known also that others charge it on him that he was not onely the inciter to it but that he met the Kings when they were ready for the fight and was present with them And Trivet in his French Chronicle that saith it was done after Augustine's death yet adds that Ethelbert King of Kent who stirred up Ethelfred King of Northumberland and his Saxons against the Britans and by name against Dinoth Abbot of Bangor forementioned was highly displeased and inflamed that he had despised Augustine All which being considered it is certain that this was no very Christian action whether in Augustine or in Ethelbert and the threats of the one and performances of the other as they bear an exact proportion so are they equally argumentative not for but against that cause which was willing thus unchristianly to support it self Thirdly if the slaughter of these poor Monks shall yet be thought a solid probation as an act of divine vengeance upon them just such as the falling of the towre of Siloe was from which none but a Jew or Turke or the Barbarians Act. 28. or those that make prosperity the speciall mark of the true Church will think fit to conclude any thing there is one part of the story yet behinde which will refute and retort that argument for when Edilfrid had used them so bloodily and in the heat of his rage and victory proceeded to destroy the remainder of those Monks and their Monasterie together the avengers of blood met him three British Commanders with their forces routed his Army killed ten thousand and sixty of them wounded the king and put him and the remainder of his Army to flight which certainly is an argument of as much validity to inferre that God maintained the cause of those innocent Monks against the Saxons and Augustine as the former was argumentative on their side against the British But it is not needfull that I insist on either of these the one thing that from this view of the story in Bede was to be concluded is onely this that upon the relations as in him they lie and are by this Author H. T. vouched against us there can be no doubt of our Conclusion that the Abbot and Monks of Bangor opposed Augustine yeilded him no obedience referred themselves onely to their own Governours without any acknowledgment of obedience to