Roman Church And from what hath been hitherto said I am so far from suspecting his Lordships candor as you do that I much rather suspect your judgement and that you are not much used to attend to the Consequences of things or else you would not have deserted Bellarmin in defence of so necessary and pertinent a point as the Infallibility of the particular Church of Rome Secondly You answer to his Lordships Discourse concerning Bellarmin's Authorities That you cannot hold your self obliged to take notice of his pretended Solutions till you find them brought to evacuate the Infallibility of the Catholick or the Roman Church in its full latitude as Catholicks ever mean it save when they say the particular Church of Rome But taking it in as full a Latitude as you please I doubt not but to make it appear that the Roman Church is the Roman Church still that is a particular Church as distinct from the Communion of others and therefore neither Catholick nor Infallible which I must refer to the place where you insist upon it which I shall do without the imitation of your Vanity in telling your Reader as far as eighthly and lastly what fine exploits you intend to do there But usually those who brag most of their Valour before-hand shew least in the Combat and thus it will be found with you I shall let you therefore enjoy your self in the pleasant thoughts of your noble intendments till we come to the tryal of them and so come to the present Controversie concerning the Greek Church The Defence of the Greek Church It is none of the least of those Arts which you make use of for the perplexing the Christian Faith to put men upon enquiring after an Infallible Church when yet you have no way to discern which is so much as a true Church but by examining the doctrine of it So that of necessity the rule of Faith and Doctrine must be certainly known before ever any one can with safety depend upon the judgement of any Church For having already proved that there can be no other meaning of the Question concerning the Church as here stated but with relation to some particular Church to whose Communion the party enquiring might joyn and whose judgement might be relyed on we see it presently follows in the debate Which was that Church and it seems as is said already a Friend of the Ladies undertook to defend that the Greek Church was right To which Mr. Fisher answers That the Greek Church had plainly changed and taught false in a point of Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost and after repeats it that it had erred Before I come to examine how you make good the charge you draw up against the poor Greek Church in making it erre fundamentally it is worth our while to consider upon what account this dispute comes in The Inquiry was concerning the True Church on whose judgement one might safely depend in Religion It seems two were propounded to consideration the Greek and the Roman the Greek was rejected because it had erred From whence it follows that the dispute concerning the Truth of Doctrine must necessarily precede that of the Church For by Mr. Fishers confession and your own A Church which hath erred cannot be relyed on therefore men must be satisfied whether a Church hath erred or no before they can judge whether she may be relyed on or no. Which being granted all the whole Fabrick of your Book falls to the ground for then 1. Men must be Infallibly certain of the grounds of Faith antecedently to the testimony of the Church for if they be to judge of a Church by the Doctrine they must in order to such a judgement be certain what that Doctrine is which they must judge of the Church by 2. No Church can be known to be Infallible unless it appear to be so by that Doctrine which they are to examine the truth of the Church by and therefore no Church can be known to be Infallible by the motives of credibility 3. No Church ought to be relyed on as Infallible which may be found guilty of any errour by comparing it with the Doctrine which we are to try it by Therefore you must first prove your Church not to have erred in any particular for if she hath it is impossible she should be Infallible and not think to prove that she hath not erred because she cannot that being the thing in question and must by your dealing with the Greek Church be judged by particulars 4. There must be a certain rule of Faith supposed to have sufficient Authority to decide Controversies without any dependence upon the Church For the matter to be judged is the Church and if the Scripture may and must decide that Why may it not as well all the rest 5. Every mans reason proceeding according to this rule of Faith must be left his Judge in matters of Religion And whatever inconveniencies you can imagine to attend upon this they immediately and necessarily follow from your proceeding with the Greek Church by excluding her because she hath erred which while we are in pursuit of a Church can be determined by nothing but every ones particular reason 6. Then Fundamentals do not depend upon the Churches declaration For you assert the Greek Church to erre fundamentally and that this may be made appear to one who is seeking after a Church Suppose then I inquire as the Lady did after a Church whose judgement I must absolutely depend on and some mention the Greek and others the Roman Church You tell me It cannot be the Greek for that hath erred fundamentally I inquire how you know supposing her to erre that it is a fundamental errour will you answer me because the true Church hath declared it to be a fundamental errour but that was it I was seeking for Which that Church is which may declare what errours are fundamental and what not If you tell me It is yours I may soon tell you You seem to have a greater kindness for your Church then your self and venture to speak any thing for the sake of it Thus we see how finely you have betrayed your whole Cause in your first onset by so rude an attempt upon the Greek Church And truly it was much your concernment to load her as much as you can For though she now wants one of the great marks of your Church which yet you know not how long your Church may enjoy viz. outward splendor and bravery yet you cannot deny but that Church was planted by the Apostles enjoyed a continual Succession from them flourished with a number of the Fathers exceeding that of yours had more of the Councils of greatest credit in it and which is a commendation still to it it retains more purity under its persecutions then your Church with all its external splendour But she hath erred concerning the Holy Ghost and therefore hath lost it A severe censure which his
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
tam manifesta monstratur where it is plain quae which is relative only to Truth and not to Scripture or any thing else A wonderful abuse of S. Austin to make him parallel plain Scripture evident sense or a full Demonstrative Argument with Truth As though if evident Truth were more prevalent with him than all those Arguments which held him in the Catholick Church plain Scripture evident Sense or Demonstrations would not be so too What Truth can be evident if it be not one of these three Do you think there is any other way of manifesting Truth but by Scripture Sense or Demonstration if you have found out other waies oblige the world by communicating them but till then give us leave to think that it is all one to say Manifest Truth as plain Scripture evident Sense or clear Demonstrations But say you He speaks only of that Truth which the Manichees bragged of and promised As though S. Austin would have been perswaded sooner as it came from them than as it was Truth in it self I suppose S. Austin did not think their Testimony sufficient and therefore sayes Quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur c. i. e. If they could make that which they said evident to be Truth he would quit the Church and adhere to them and if this holds against the Manichees will it not on the same reason hold every where else viz. That manifest Truth is not to be quitted on any Authority whatsoever which is all his Lordship asserts But You offer to prove that S. Austin by Truth could not mean plain Scripture But can you prove that by Truth he did not mean Truth whereever he found it whether in Scripture or elsewhere No say you It cannot be meant that by Truth he should mean plain Scripture in opposition to the Definitions of the Catholick Church or General Councils For which you give this Reason because he supposes it impossible that the Doctrine of the Catholick Church should be contrary to Scripture for then men according to S. Austin should not believe infallibly either the one or the other Not the Scriptures because they are received only upon the Authority of the Church nor the Church whose Authority is infringed by the plain Scripture which is brought against her For which you produce a large citation out of S. Austin to that purpose But the Answer to that is easie For S. Austin when he speaks of Church-Authority quâ infirmatâ jam nec Evangelio credere potero he doth not in the least understand it of any Definitions of the Church but of the Vniversal Tradition of the Catholick Church concerning the Scriptures from the time of Christ and his Apostles And what plain Scriptures those are supposable which should contradict such a Tradition as this is is not easie to understand But the case is quite otherwise as to the Churches Definitions for neither doth the Authority of Scripture at all rest upon them and there may be very well supposed some plain Scriptures contrary to the Churches Definitions unless it be proved that the Church is absolutely Infallible and the very proof of that depending on Scripture there must be an appeal made to plain Scripture whether the Churches Definitions may not be contradicted by Scripture When therefore you say This is an impossible Supposition that Scripture should contradict the Churches Definitions like that of the Apostle If an Angel from Heaven teach otherwise let him be accursed Gal. 1. You must prove it as impossible for the Church to deviate from Scripture in any of her Definitions as for an Angel to preach another Gospel which will be the braver attempt because it seems so little befriended either by sense or reason But say you If the Church may be an erring Definer I would gladly know why an erring Disputer may not oppugn her That which you would so gladly know is not very difficult to be resolved by any one who understands the great difference between yielding an Internal Assent to the Definitions of the Church and open opposing them for it only follows from the possibility of the Churches Errour in defining that therefore we ought not to yield an absolute Internal Assent to all her determinations but must examine them by the best measures of Truth in order to our full Assent to them but though the Church may erre it doth not therefore follow that it is lawful in all cases or for all persons to oppugn her Definitions especially if those Definitions be only in order to the Churches Peace but if they be such as require Internal Assent to them then plain Scripture evidence of Sense or clear Reason may be sufficient cause to hinder the submitting to those Definitions 2. You tell us That his Lordship hath abused S. Austin 's Testimony because he speaks not of the Definitions of the Church in matters not Fundamental according to the matter they contain but the Truth mentioned by him was Fundamental in its matter This is the substance of your second Answer which is very rational and prudent being built on this substantial Evidence If S. Austin doth preferr manifest Truth before things supposed Fundamental in the matter then no doubt S. Austin would not preferr manifest Truth before things supposed not-not-Fundamental in the matter And do not you think this enough to charge his Lordship with shamefully abusing S. Austin But certainly if S. Austin preferred manifest Truth before that which was greater would he not do it before that which was incomparably less If he did it before all those things which kept him in the Catholick Church such as the consent of Nations Miracles Universal Tradition which he mentions before do you think he would have scrupled to have done it as to any particular Definitions of the Church These are therefore very excellent waies of vindicating the Fathers Testimonies from having any thing of sense or reason in them 3. You say He hath abused S. Austin by putting in a wrangling Disputer But I wonder where his Lordship ever sayes that S. Austin mentions any such in the Testimony cited For his words are these But plain Scripture with evident Sense or a full Demonstrative Argument must have room where a wrangling and erring Disputer may not be allowed it And there 's neither of these over against these words he referrs to S. Austin's Testimony and not the foregoing but may convince the Definition of the Council if it be ill founded When you therefore ask Where the wrangling Disputer is to be found had it not been for the help of this Cavil we might have been to seek for him But when you have been enquiring for him at last you cry out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oh! I see now And you are the fittest man to find him out that I know You say This is done to distinguish him from such a Disputer as proceeds solidly and demonstratively against the Definitions of the Church when they are
laudando praecipere by commending them to be such instruct them that such indeed they ought to be to whom perfidiousness should not get access And for this he instanceth in such another Rhetorical expression of Synesius to Theophilus of Alexandria wherein he tells him that he ought to esteem what his Throne should determine as an Oracle or Divine Law And certainly this comes nearer Infallibility than that of St. Cyprian doth But what inconveniency there should be that St. Cyprian by this interpretation should give no more prerogative to the Church of Rome than to that of Alexandria or Antioch I cannot easily imagine till you prove some greater Infallibility attributed then to the Church of Rome than was to other Apostolical Churches which as yet we are to seek for But at length you tell us after much ado he grants perfidia may be taken for errour in Faith or for perfidious misbelievers and Schismaticks who had betrayed their Faith but then say you he cavils with the word Romanos This must be limited only to those Christians who then lived in Rome to whom quà tales as long as they continued such errour in Faith could not have access What you say his Lordship doth at length and after much ado he did freely and willingly but that you might have occasion for those words you altered the course of his answers and put the second in the last place But still you have the unhappiness to misunderstand him For although he grants that perfidia may relate to errour in Faith yet as it is here used it is not understood of it abstractly but concretely for perfidious misbelievers i. e. such perfidious persons excommunicated out of other Churches were not likely to get access at Rome or to find admittance into their communion And in this sense it is plain that St. Cyprian did not intend by these words to exempt the Romans from possibility of errour but to brand his adversaries with a title due to their merit calling them perfidious i. e. such as had betrayed or perverted the Faith When you therefore ask is not this great praise I suppose none but your self would make a question of it viz. that the Church of Rome had then so great purity as not to admit such perfidious misbelievers into her communion And it were well if the present Church of Rome were capable of the same praise But when you add It is as if St. Cyprian should say St. Peters See could not erre so long as it continued constant in the truth you wilfully misunderstand his Lordships meaning who speaks of the persons and not meerly of their errours but however is it not a commendation to say that the Church of Rome consisted of such persons then who adhered to the Apostolical Faith and therefore errour could not have access to them And I look on it as so great a commendation that I heartily wish it could be verified of your Church now Neither is this any such Identical proposition as that you produce but only a declaration of their present constancy and inferring thence how unlikely it was that errours should be admitted by them His Lordship to make it plain that St. Cyprian had no meaning to assert the unerring Infallibility of either Pope or Church of Rome insists on the contest which after happened between St. Cyprian and Pope Stephen upon which he saith expresly That Pope Stephen did not only maintain an errour but the very cause of Hereticks and that against Christians and the very Church of God And after this he chargeth him with obstinacy and presumption And I hope this is plain enough saith his Lordship to shew that St. Cyprian had no great opinion of the Roman Infallibility To this you answer With a famous distinction of the Popes erring as a private Doctor and as the Vniversal Pastor and that St. Cyprian might very well be supposed to think the Pope erred only in the first sense Not to spend time in rifling this distinction of the Popes erring personally but not judicially or as a private Doctor but not as Vniversal Pastor which it were an easie matter to do by manifesting the incongruity of it and the absurdities consequent upon it in case that doctrine which the Pope erres in comes to be judicially decided by him It is sufficient for us at present to shew that this distinction cannot relieve you in our present case For your Doctors tell us the Pope then erres personally and as a private Doctor when he erres only in his own judgement without obliging others to believe what he judges to be true but then he erres judicially and as Vniversal Pastor when he declares his judgement so as to oblige others to receive it as true Now can any thing be more evident then that St. Cyprian judged Pope Stephen to erre in this latter and not in the former sense For doth he not absolutely and severely declare himself against St. Cyprians opinion condemning it as an errour and an innovation But say you He did not properly define any doctrine in that contestation but said nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum But was not that the question what was traditum and what not for Cyprian and his party denyed it to be a tradition which Stephen asserted was so and doth he not therefore undertake to define something in this cause But say you If this argument hold good against the Infallibility of Popes viz. that St. Cyprian held Pope Stephen erred therefore the Pope may erre in matters of Faith it will be a good consequence also to say St. Cyprian held Pope Stephen erred even whilst he maintained an universal immemorial tradition therefore the Pope may erre whilst he follows such a tradition I answer 1. Who besides you would not have seen that the question was not Whether the Pope was Infallible or no but whether St. Cyprian judged him to be Infallible or no for if it appear that St. Cyprian did not judge him Infallible then those former words cannot be interpreted to such a sense as doth imply Infallibility 2. No doubt if the Pope may err in other things he may err when he thinks he follows an universal immemorial tradition not that he doth err when he doth really follow such a one but he may err in judging that to be an universal immemorial tradition which is not and this was the case between St. Cyprian and Pope Stephen the Pope pretended to follow an universal tradition St. Cyprian judgeth him to err in it and that it was not so And is it not plain still notwithstanding these frivolous pretences that St. Cyprian had no opinion at all of the Popes Infallibility in any sense and therefore out of honour to him you are bound to interpret his former words to some other sense then that of any Infallibility in the Church of Rome Thus all his Lordships answers standing good you have gained no great matter by this first testimony of St.
one Visible Church free from errours and corruptions What if we should say in our own times What if in elder times For that which is possible to be may be supposed actually in any time If it be possible for one particular Church to fall into errours and corruptions Why is it not for another unless some particular priviledge of Infallibility be pretended but that is not our present Question if it be possible for every particular Church to fall into errour Why may not that possibility come into act in one Age as well as several Is there any promise that there shall be a succession and course of erring in Churches that one Church must erre for one age and another for the next but that it shall never fall out that by any means whatsoever they shall erre together If there be no such promise to the contrary the reason of the thing will hold that they may all erre at the same time No say you for then it would follow that the Catholick Church might erre To that I answer 1. Either you mean by that that all societies in the Christian world may concurr in the same errour or else that several of them may have several errours and this latter is it only which you prove for you do not suppose that the Romanists Hussites Albigenses c. were all guilty of the same errours but that these several societies were guilty of several errours and therefore from hence it follows not that they may all concurr in the same errour which is the only way to prove that the Church as Catholick may erre for otherwise you only prove that the several particular Churches which make up the Catholick may fall into errour 2. Supposing all these Churches should agree in one errour which is more than you have proved or it may be can have you proved that they concurr in such an errour which destroies the Being of the Catholick Church For you would do well to evince that the Church is secured from any but such errours which destroy its Being for the means of proving That the Catholick Church cannot erre are built on the promises of its perpetuity now those can only prove that the Church is secured from Fundamental errours for those are such only which destroy its Being And so his Lordship tells you That the whole Church cannot universally erre in the Doctrine of Faith is most true and granted by divers Protestants so you will but understand it s not erring in absolute Fundamental Doctrines and this he proves from that promise of Christ That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it So that the Catholick Churche's not erring and the perpetuity of the Catholick Church do with us mean the same thing For his Lordship grants That she may erre in superstructures and deductions and other By and Vnnecessary truths if her curiosity or other weakness carry her beyond or cause her to fall short of her Rule There is then a great difference between saying That the Catholick Church cannot erre which is no more than to say That there shall be alwaies a Catholick Church and saying That there must be alwaies some one Visible Church which must be free from all errour and corruption For this we deny and you produce no reason at all to prove it Granting that all particular Churches whether of Romanists Greeks or others are subject to errours and corruptions we assert no more of them than you grant your selves that any particular Church is subject to for the only ground why you would have your Church exempt from errour is the supposing her not to be a particular but the Catholick Church which implies that if she were only a particular Church as she is no more she might be subject to errours as well as other Churches And what incongruity then there is in asserting that there may be no one Visible Church of any particular denomination free from all errour and corruption I cannot understand But further you say If there were no one Visible Church then free from errour it follows not only for some time but for many ages before Luther yea even up to the Apostles times there was no one Visible Church untainted throughout the whole world Not to meddle with the truth of the thing Whether there were so or no the consequence is that we are now to examine that if it were so in Luthers time it must be so even up to the Apostles times The proof of which depends upon the impossibility of a Churches degeneracy in Faith or Manners and so supposeth the thing in question that there must be some one Visible Church absolutely exempt from all impossibility of errour For otherwise that might be true in one age which might not in another For although we say that particular Churches may erre and be corrupt we do not say that it is necessary they should alwaies be so For in some ages particular Churches may be free from errour and corruption and yet in another age be overspread with them And thus we assert it to have been with the Roman Church for his Lordship saith In the prime times it was a most right and orthodox Church but in the immediate times before Luther or in some ages before that it was a corrupt and tainted Church And so in those times in which it was right those might be heretical who did not communicate with it not meerly because they did not communicate with it but because in not communicating with a right and orthodox Church they shewed themselves guilty of some errour or corruption We see then there is no connexion in the world in the parts of your consequence That if it were so at one time it must be so alwaies if in the time of Luther it must be so even up to the Apostles times 3. From hence you say it will follow That it will be necessary to separate from the external communion of the whole Church I answer there can be no separation from the whole Church but in such things wherein the Vnity of the whole Church lyes for separation is a violation of some Vnion now when men separate from the errours of all particular Churches they do not separate from the whole because those things which one separates from those particular Churches for are not such as make all them put together to be the whole or Catholick Church This must be somewhat further explained There are two things considerable in all particular Churches those things which belong to it as a Church and those things which belong to it as a particular Church Those things which belong to it as a Church are the common ligaments or grounds of union between all particular Churches which taken together make up the Catholick Church Those things which belong to it as a particular Church are such as it may retain the essence of a Church without Now I say Whosoever separates from any particular Church much more from
And the oppression of the Church of Rome he further adds is the great cause of all the errours in that part of the Church which is under the Roman Jurisdiction And for the Protestants they have made no separation from the General Church properly so called but their Separation is only from the Church of Rome and such other Churches as by adhering to her have hazarded themselves and do now miscall themselves the whole Catholick Church Nay even here the Protestants have not left the Church of Rome in her essence but in her errours not in the things which constitute a Church but only in such abuses and corruptions as work towards the dissolution of a Church Let now any indifferent Reader be judge Whether his Lordship or A. C. be the more guilty in begging the Question For all the Answer you can give is That his Lordship begs it in saying that the Roman Church is not the whole Catholick Church and that the Roman Catholick Church may be in an errour but the former we have proved already and I doubt not but the latter will be as evident as the other before our task be ended But as though it were not possible for you to be guilty of begging the Question after you have said that the Roman Church cannot erre you give this as the reason for it Because she is the unshaken Rock of Truth and that she hath the sole continual succession of lawfully-sent Pastors and Teachers who have taught the same unchanged Doctrine and shall infallibly continue so teaching it to the worlds end Now Who dares call this Begging the Question No it must not be called so in you it shall be only Taking it for granted Which we have seen hath been your practice all along especially when we charge your Church with errourâ— for then you cry out presently What your Church erre No you defie the language What the Spouse of Christ the Catholick Church erre that is impossible What the unshaken Rock of Truth to sink into errours the Infallible Church be deceived she that hath never taught any thing but Truth be charged with falshood she that not only never did erre but it is impossible nay utterly impossible nay so impossible that it cannot be imagined that ever she should erre This is the summ of all your arguments which no doubt sound high to all such who know not what confident begging the Question means or out of modesty are loath to charge you with it Much to the same purpose do you go on to prove that Protestants have separated not from the errours but the essence of your Church And if that be true which you say That those things which we call Errours are essential to your Church we are the more sorry for it for we are sure and when you please will prove it that they are not cannot be essential to a true Church and if they be to yours the case is so much the worse with you when your distempers are in your vitals and your errours essential to your Churches Constitution What other things you have here are the bare repetitions of what we have often had before in the Chapters you refer us to And here we may thank you for some ease you give us in the far greatest remaining part of this Chapter which consists of tedious repetitions of such things which have been largely discussed in the First part where they were purposely and designedly handled as that concerning Traditions chap. 6. that concerning necessaries to salvation chap. 2 3 4. that concerning the Scriptures being an Infallible Rule throughout the Controversie of Resolution of Faith and that which concerns the Infallibility of General Councils we shall have occasion at large to handle afterwards and if there be any thing material here which you omit there it shall be fully considered But I know no obligation lying upon me to answer things as often as you repeat them especially since your gift is so good that way It is sufficient that I know not of any material passage which hath not received an Answer in its proper place That which is most pertinent to our present purpose is that which concerns the necessity of a Living Judge besides the Scriptures for ending Controversies of Faith As to which his Lordship saith That supposing there were such a one and the Pope were he yet that is not sufficient against the malice of the Devil and impious men to keep the Church at all times from renting even in the Doctrine of Faith or to soder the Rents which are made For oportet esse Haereses 1 Cor. 11.19 Heresies there will be and Heresies there properly cannot be but in the Doctrine of Faith To this you answer That Heresies are not within but without the Church and the Rents which stand in need of sodering are not found among the true members of the Church who continue still united in the Faith and due obedience to their Head but in those who have deserted the true Church and either made or adhered to Schismatical and Heretical Congregations A most excellent Answer His Lordship sayes If Christ had appointed an Infallible Judge besides the Scripture certainly it should have been for preventing Heresies and sodering the Rents of the Church So it is say you for if there be any Heresies it is nothing to him they are out of the Church and if there be any Schisms they are among those who are divided from him That is he is an Infallible Judge only thus far in condemning all such for Hereticks and Schismaticks who do not own him And his only way of preventing Heresies and Schisms is the making this the only tryal of them that whatever questions his Authority is Heresie and whatever separation be made from him is Schism Just as Absalom pretended that there was no Judge appointed to hear and determine causes and that the Laws were not sufficient without one and therefore he would do it himself so doth the Pope by Christ he pretends that he hath not taken care sufficient for deciding Controversies in Faith therefore there is a necessity in order to the Churches Vnity he should take it upon himself But now if we suppose in the former case of Absalom that he had pretended he could infallibly end all the Controversies in Israel and keep all in peace and unity and yet abundance of Controversies to arise among them by what right and power he took that office upon him and many of them cry out upon it as an Vsurpation and a disparagement to the Laws and Government of his Father David and upon this some of the wiser Israelites should have asked him Whether this were the way to end all Controversies and keep the Nation in peace Would it not have been a satisfactory Answer for him to have said Yes no doubt it is the only way For only they that acknowledge my power are the Kings lawful subjects and all
from him and the other Patriarchs on this occasion As for your instance of the Popes restoring Athanasius I have sufficiently answered it already and if the Popes letter were never so Mandatory as it was not yet we see it took no effect among the Eastern Bishops and therefore they were of his Lordships mind That the Government of the Church was not Monarchical but Aristocratical I did expect here to have met with the pretended Epistle of Atticus of Constantinople about the manner of making formed letters wherein one Î is said to be for the honour of St. Peter but since you pass it over on this occasion I hope you are convinced of the Forgery of it In the beginning of your next Chapter which because of the coherence of the matter I handle with this you find great fault with his Lordship for a Marginal citation out of Gerson because he supposeth that Gersons judgement was that the Church might continue without a Monarchical head because he writ a Tract de Auferibilitate Papae whereas you say Gersons drift is only to shew how many several waies the Pope may be taken away that is deprived of his office and cease to be Pope as to his own person so that the Church pro tempore till another be chosen shall be without her visible Head But although the truth of what his Lordship proves doth not at all depend upon this Testimony of Gerson which was only a Marginal citation yet since you so boldly accuse him for a false allegation we must further examine how pertinent this Testimony is to that which his Lordship brought it for The sentence to which this Citation of Gerson refers is this For they are no mean ones who think our Saviour Christ left the Church-militant in the hands of the Apostles and their Successours in an Aristocratical or rather a mixt Government and that the Church is not Monarchical otherwise than the Triumphant and Militant make one body under Christ the Head Over against these words that Tract of Gerson de Auferibilitate Papae is cited If therefore so much be contained in that Book as makes good this which his Lordship sayes he is not so much guilty of false alledging Gerson as you are of falsly accusing him To make this clear we must consider what Gersons design was in writing that Book and what his opinion therein is concerning the Churches Government It is well known that his Book was written upon the occasion of the Council of Constance in the time of the great Schism between the three Popes and that the design of it is to make it appear that it was in the power of the Council to depose the Popes and suspend them from all Jurisdiction in the Church Therefore he saith That the Pope may not only lose his office by voluntary cession but that in many cases he may be deprived by the Church or by a General Council representing the Church whether he consent to it or no Nay in the next consideration he saith That he may be deprived by a General Council which is celebrated without his consent or against his will And in the following consideration adds That this may be done not only declaratively but juridically the Question now comes to this Whether a person who asserts these things doth believe the Government of the Militant Church to be Monarchical and not rather Aristocratical and mixt Government And I dare appeal to any mans reason whether that may be accounted a Monarchical Government where he that is Supream may be deposed and deprived of his office in a Juridical manner by a Senate that hath Authority to do these things For it is apparent the Supream power lyes in the Senate and not the Prince and that the Prince is only a Ministerial Head under them And this is plainly Gersons opinion as to the Church although therefore he may allow the supream Ministerial Authority to be in the Pope which is all your Citations prove yet the radical and intrinsecal power lyes in the Church which being represented in a General Council may depose the Pope from his Authority in the Church And the truth is this opinion of Gerson makes the Fundamental power of the Church to be Democratical and that the Supream exercise is by Representatives in a General Council and that the Pope at the highest is but a Ministerial and accountable Head And therefore Spalatensis truly observes That this opinion of Gerson which is the same with that of the Paris Divines of which he speaks doth only in words attribute supream Ecclesiastical jurisdiction to the Pope but in reality it takes it quite away from him And this is the same Doctrine which then prevailed in the Council of Constance and afterwards at Basil as may be seen at large in their Synodical Epistle defended by Richerius Vigorius and others Now let any man of reason judge whether notwithstanding your charge of false citation from some expressions intimating only a Ministerial Headship his Lordship did not very pertinently cite this Tract of Gersons to prove that no mean persons did think the Church Militant not to be Governed by a Monarchical but by an Aristocratical or mixt Government But no sooner is this marginal citation cleared but the charge is renewed about another viz. St. Hierom yet here you dare not charge his Lordship with a false allegation but you are put to your shifts to get off this Testimony as well as you can For St. Hierom saying expresly in his Epistle to Evagrius Vbicunque fuerit Episcopus sive Romae sive Eugubii sive Constantinopoli sive Rhegii c. ejusdem meriti est ejusdem est sacerdotii his Lordship might well inferr That doubtless he thought not of the Roman Bishops Monarchy For what Bishop saith he is of the same merit or the same degree in the Priesthood with the Pope as things are now carried at Rome To this you Answer That he speaks not of the Pope as he is Pope or in respect of that eminent Authority which belongs to him as St. Peters Successour but only compares him with another private Bishop in respect of meer character or power of a Bishop as Bishop only But though this be all which any of your party ever since the Reformation have been able to Answer to this place yet nothing looks more like a meer shift than this doth For had St. Hierom only compared these Bishops together in regard of their order was not Sacerdotium enough to express that by if St. Hierom had said only that all Bishops are ejusdem sacerdotii there might have been some plausible pretence for this distinction but when he adds ejusdem meriti too he wholly precludes the possibility of your evading that way For What doth merit here stand for as distinct from Priesthood if it imports not something besides what belongs to Bishops as Bishops What can merit here signifie but some greater Power
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
and such as are capable of such easie impressions as these are His Lordship from that which was expressed comes to that which was implyed in this Argument viz. That we cannot be saved because we are out of the Church As to which he saith We are not out of the Catholick Church because not within the Roman For the Roman Church and the Church of England are but two distinct members of that Catholick Church which is spread over the face of the earth If you can prove that Rome is properly the Catholick Church it self speak out and prove it This you say you have done already but how poorly let the Reader judge But when you add That in the day of account the Roman Church will be found not an elder Sister but a Mother it will be well for her if it prove not only in the sense wherein Babylon the Great is called so viz. the Mother of Harlots and abominations of the Earth The Controversie you tell us goes on touching Roman Catholicks Salvation and we must follow it though without breaking it into several Chapters as you do that so we may lay together all that belongs to the same subject And here his Lordship distinguishes the case of such whose calling and sufficiency gives them a greater capacity for understanding the Truth and such whom as S. Augustin speaks the simplicity of believing makes safe So that there 's no Question saith he but many were saved in corrupted times of the Church when their leaders unless they repented before death were lost Which he understands of such Leaders as refuse to hear the Churches instruction or to use all the means they can to come to the knowledge of the Truth For if they do this erre they may but Hereticks they are not as is most manifest in S. Cyprian 's case of Re-baptization But when Leaders add Schism to Heresie and Obstinacy to both they are lost without Repentance while many that succeed them in the errour only without obstinacy may be saved That is in case they hold these errours not supinely not pertinaciously not uncharitably not factiously i. e. in case all endeavours be used after Truth and Peace and all expressions of Charity shewed to all who retain an internal Communion with the whole visible Church of Christ in the fundamental points of Faith Such as these he confesses to be in a state of Salvation though their mis-leaders perish This is the summ of his Lordships discourse Which you call a heavy doom against all the Roman Doctors in general for what you say before is a meer declamation and repetition of what hath been often examined But you ask How could they be all lost who by the Bishops own Principles were members of the true visible Church of Christ by reason of their being baptized and holding the Foundation But Doth his Lordship say that all such as are within the Church are undoubtedly saved For he only faith That no man can be said simply to be out of the visible Church that is baptized and holds the Foundation The most then that can be inferred meerly from being within the Church is only the possibility of Salvation notwithstanding which I suppose you will not deny but many who have a possibility of Salvation may yet certainly perish For many may hold the Foundation it self doctrinally who may not hold it savingly and therefore it is a pitiful inference because he grants they are members of the Church therefore it follows from his Principles they cannot be lost But you are in a very sad condition if you have no other ground for your Salvation but being members of that which you account the Catholick Church When Christ himself saith Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away How much more such who have nothing else to plead for their Salvation but that they are in the Church It is not therefore the bare doctrinal holding that Faith which makes them members of the Church which can give them a title to Salvation unless all sincere endeavours be used to find out what the will of God is and to practise it when it is known But you say Your leaders did not refuse the Churches instructions for they taught as the Church taught for many hundred years together and What other means could they be bound to use than they did to come to the knowledge of the Truth Yes there were other means which they most supinely neglected themselves and most dangerously with-held from others viz. the plain and undoubted word of God which is the only Infallible Rule of Faith And let any Church whatsoever teach against this it must incurr the same Anathema which S. Paul pronounces against an Angel from Heaven if he teaches any other Doctrine Did those then take care of their own and others souls whose greatest care was to lock the Scripture up from the view of the people and minded it so little themselves which yet alone is able to make men wise to Salvation But you take the greatest advantage of his vindication of S. Cyprian and his followers for therein you say He vindicates more the Roman Catholick Doctors who had alwaies the universal practice of the Church on their side which they opposed and condemns Protestants because if S. Cyprian 's followers were in such danger for opposing the whole Church so must they be too who you say have opposed the Churches Instruction given them by the voice of a General Council But Who is so blind as not to discern that all this proceeds upon a palpable begging the Question viz. that the whole Church is of your side and against us which I have so often discover'd to be a notorious falshood that there is no necessity at all here to repeat it But if we grant you that liberty to suppose your selves to be the whole and only Church you will not more easily acquit all your Doctors than condemn Protestants both teachers and people However by this we see that you have no other way to do the one or the other but by supposing what you can never prove and which none in their wits will ever grant you The greatest part of the thirty seventh Paragraph in his Lordships Book is you say taken up with personal matters and matters of fact in which you will not interpose and you might as well have spared your pains in that which you touch at since they are spent only upon a bare asserting the Greek Church to be guilty of fundamental errours which we have at large disproved at the very beginning but as his Lordship sayes you labour indeed but like a horse in a Mill no farther at night than at noon the same thing over and over again and so we find it almost to the end of your Book and as vain an attempt to clear your Church from any errour endangering Salvation For Whether the errours of your Church be
E Typographiâ prodeat opus istud cui Titulus A Rational Account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion being a Vindication of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury's Relation of a Conference c. from the Pretended Answer by T. C. Humfr. London 2. Novemb. 1664. A Rational Account OF THE GROUNDS OF Protestant Religion BEING A VINDICATION OF THE Lord Archbishop of Canterbury's RELATION Of a CONFERENCE c. From the pretended ANSWER by T. C. Wherein the true GROUNDS of FAITH are cleared and the False discovered the CHURCH of ENGLAND Vindicated from the imputation of Schism and the most important particular Controversies between Us and Those of the Church of ROME throughly examined By EDWARD STILLINGFLEET B. D. LONDON Printed by Rob. White for Henry Mortlock at the Sign of the Phoenix in St. Pauls Church-yard near the little North-door 1665. TO HIS MOST Sacred Majesty CHARLES II. By the Grace of God King of Great Britain France and Ireland Defender of the Faith c. Most Gracious Soveraign SInce that great Miracle of Divine Providence in your Majesties most happy restauration we have seen those who before triumphed over the Church of England as dead as much expressing their envy at her resurrection Neither could it otherwise be expected but that so sudden a recovery of her former lustre would open the mouths of her weak but contentious Adversaries who see her shine in a Firmament so much above them But it is a part of her present Felicity that they are ashamed of that insulting Question What is become of your Church now and are driven back to their old impertinency Where was your Church before Luther They might as well alter the date of it and ask Where she was before your Majesties restauration For as she only suffered an Eclipse in the late confusions no more did she though of a longer stay in the times before the Reformation And it was her great Honour that she was not awakened out of it as of old they fancied by the beating of drums or the rude clamours of the people but as she Gradually regained her light so it was with the Influence of Supream Authority Which hath caused so close an union and combination of Interests between them that the Church of England and the Royal Family have like Hippocrates his Twins both wept and rejoyc'd together And nothing doth more argue the excellent constitution of our Church than that therein the purity of Christian Doctrine is joyned with the most hearty Acknowledgment of your Majesties Power and Supremacy So that the Loyalty of the members of it can neither be suspected of private Interest or of depending on the pleasure of a Forreign Bishop but is inlaid in the very Foundations of our Reformation Which stands on those two Grand Principles of Religion and Government The giving to God the things that are God's and to Caesar the things that are Caesar's And as long as these two remain unshaken we need not fear the continuance and flourishing of the Reformed Church of England and your Majesties Interest in the members of it Which it is hard to conceive those can have any zeal for who are the busie Factours among us for promoting so opposite an Interess as that of the Church of Rome For what a contradiction is it to suppose it consistent with your Majesties Honour and Interess to rob your Imperial Crown of one of the richest Jewels of it to expose Your Royal Scepter to the mercy of a Forreign Prelat to have another Supreme Head acknowledged within Your Dominions and thereby to cut off the dependence of a considerable part of the Nation wholly from Your Self and to exhaust the Nation of an Infinite Mass of Treasure meerly to support the Grandeur of the See of Rome They who can make men believe that these things tend to Your Majesties Service think they have gained thereby a considerable step to their Religion which is by baffling mens reason and perswading them to believe contradictions But if notwithstanding the received principles of their Church any have continued Faithful in their Loyalty to Your Majesty we have much more cause to attribute it to their Love to their King and Country than to their Religion We deny not but there may be such rare tempers which may conquer the malignity of poison but it would be a dangerous Inference from thence that it ought not to be accounted hurtful to humane nature If any such have been truly Loyal may they continue so and their number increase and since therein they so much come off from themselves we hope they may yet come nearer to us whose Religion tends as much to the settling the only sure Foundations of Loyalty as theirs doth to the weakning of them And were this the only Controversie between us there need not many Books be written to perswade men of the Truth of it But if these men may be believed we can as little please God on the principles of our Church as they Your Majesty on the principles of theirs A strange Assertion and impossible to be entertain'd by any but those who think there is no such way to please God as to renounce the judgement of Sense and Reason And then indeed we freely confess there are none so likely to do it as themselves With whom men are equally bound to believe the greatest repugnancies to sense and reason with the most Fundamental Verities of Christian Faith As though no Faith could carry men to Heaven but that which can not only remove but swallow Mountains Yet these are the persons who pretend to make our Faith Infallible while they undermine the Foundations of it as they advance Charity by denying Salvation to all but themselves and promote true Piety by their gross Superstitions By all which they have been guilty of debauching Christianity in so high a measure that it cannot but heartily grieve those who honour it as the most excellent Religion in the World to see its beauty so much clouded by the Errours and Superstitions of the Roman Church That these are great as well as sad truths is the design of the ensuing Book to discover Which I humbly present to Your Majesties hands both as it is a Defence of that Cause wherein Your Majesties Interess is so highly concern'd and of that Book which Your Royal Father of most Glorious Memory so highly honoured not only by his own perusal and approbation but by the commendation of it to his Dearest Children On which account I am more encouraged to hope for your Majesties acceptance of this because it appears under the Shadow as well as for the Defence of so great a Name And since God hath blessed Your Majesty with so happy and rare a mixture of Power and Sweetness of Temper May they be still imployed in the Love and Defence of our Reformed Church which is the hearty prayer of Your Majesties most Loyal and Obedient Subject E. STILLINGFLEET THE PREFACE TO THE READER IT
is now about a twelvemonth since there appeared to the world a Book under the Title of Dr. Lawd's Labyrinth but with the usual sincerity of those persons pretended to be Printed some years before It is not the business of this Preface to enquire Why if Printed then it remained so long unpublished but to acquaint the Reader with the scope and design of that Book and of this which comes forth as a Reply to it There are three things mainly in dispute between us and those of the Church of Rome viz. Whether they or we give the more satisfactory account of the Grounds of Faith Whether their Church or ours be guilty of the charge of Schism And Whether their Church be justly accused by us of introducing many Errours and Superstitions In the handling of these all our present Debate consists and therefore for the greater Advantage of the Reader I have distributed the whole into three distinct parts which I thought more commodious than carrying it on in one continued discourse And lest our Adversaries should complain that we still proceed in a destructive way I have not only endeavoured to lay open the palpable weakness of their Cause but to give a rational account of our own Doctrine in opposition to theirs Which I have especially done in the great Controversie of the Resolution of Faith as being the most difficult and important of any other I hope the Reader will have no cause to blame me for false or impertinent Allegations of the Fathers since it hath been so much my business to discover the fraud of our Adversaries in that particular which I have chiefly done from the scope and design of those very Books out of which their testimonies are produced In many of the particular Differences I have made use of several of their late Writers against themselves both to let them see how much Popery begins to grow weary of it self and how unjustly they condemn us for denying those things which the moderate and rational men of their own side disown and dispute against as well as we and chiefly to undeceive the world as to their great pretence of Unity among themselves Since their Divisions are grown to so great a height both at home and in foreign parts that the dissenting parties mutually charge each other with Heresie and that about their great Foundation of Faith viz. the Popes Infallibility The Jansenists in France and a growing party in England charging the Jesuits with Heresie in asserting it as they do them with the same for denying it As to my self I only declare that I have with freedom and impartiality enquired into the Reasons on both sides and no interest hath kept me from letting that side of the ballance fall where I saw the greater weight of reason In which respect I have been so far from dissembling the force of any of our Adversaries Arguments that if I could add greater weight to them I have done it being as unwilling to abuse my self as the world And therefore I have not only consulted their greatest Authours especially the three famous Cardinals Baronius Bellarmin and Perron but the chiefest of those who under the name of Conciliators have put the fairest Varnish on the Doctrine of that Church However I have kept close to my Adversary and followed him through all his windings from which I return with this satisfaction to my self that I have vindicated his Lordship and Truth together As to the style and way of writing I use all that I have to say is that my design hath been to joyn clearness of Expression with evidence of Reason What success I have had in it must be left to the Readers judgement I only desire him to lay aside prejudice as much in judging as I have done in writing otherwise I despair of his doing me right and of my doing him good For though reason be tractable and ingenuous yet prejudice and interest are invincible things Having done thus much by way of Preface I shall not detain thee longer by a particular Answer to the impertinencies of our Authours Preface since there is nothing contained therein but what is abundantly answered in a more proper place And I cannot think it reasonable to abuse so much the Readers Appetite as to give him a tedious Preface to cloy his stomach If any after perusal of the whole shall think fit to return an Answer if they do it fairly and rationally they shall receive the same civility if with clamour and impertinency I only let them know I have not leisure enough to kill Flyes though they make a troublesome noise If any service be done to God or the Church by this present work next to that Divine Assistance through which I have done it thou owest it to those great Pillars of our Church by whose command and encouragement I undertook it Who the Authour was of the Book I answer I have been the less solicitous to enquire because I would not betray the weakness of my cause by mixing personal matters in debates of so great importance And whether he be now living or dead I suppose our Adversaries cannot think it at all material unless they judge that their Cause doth live and dye with him THE CONTENTS PART I. Of the Grounds of Faith CHAP. I. The Occasion of the Conference and Defence of the Greek Church T. Cs. Title examined and retorted The Labyrinth found in his Book and Doctrine The occasion of the Conference about the Churches Infallibility The rise of the dispute about the Greek Church and the consequences from it The Charge of Heresie against the Greek Church examined and she found Not-guilty by the concurrent testimony of Fathers General Councils and Popes Of the Council of Florence and the proceedings there That Council neither General nor Free. The distinction of Ancient and Modern Greeks disproved The debate of the Filioque being inserted into the Creed The time when and the right by which it was done discussed The rise of the Schism between the Eastern and Western Churches mainly occasioned by the Church of Rome Page 1. CHAP. II. Of Fundamentals in General The Popish Tenet concerning Fundamentals a meer step to the Roman Greatness The Question about Fundamentals stated An enquiry into the nature of them What are Fundamentals in order to particular persons and what to be owned as such in order to Ecclesiastical Communion The Prudence and Moderation of the Church of England in defining Articles of Faith What judged Fundamental by the Catholick Church No new Articles of Faith can become necessary The Churches power in propounding matters of Faith examined What is a sufficient Proposition Of the Athanasian Creed and its being owned by the Church of England In what sense the Articles of it are necessary to Salvation Of the distinction of the material and formal object of Faith as to Fundamentals His Lordship's integrity and T. C. his forgery in the testimony of Scotus Of Heresie and how far
403 l 12 r Anulinus p 408 l 48 before done blot out not p 416 l 44 for context r contest p 422 l 4 for satisfied r falsified l 38 r Pelagius 2 and Gregory 1. p 433 marg l 8 for â—essime r piissime p 440 l 36 for most r not p 442 l 8 r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 447 l 13 r Alexandria l 24 r elegantissimè p 448 l 19 for him r them p 450 l 19 r unless S. Peter had p 469 l 35 after which insert is p 470 l 6 r Fundavit l 50 for first r fifth p 474 l 13 r conclude p 477 marg r Cusanus p 495 l 16 for conveying r convening p 497 l 42 for used r abused p 503 l 8 for your r their p 506 l 30 blot out are p 507 l 37 for an easie r any p 509 l 33 for it r out p 510 l 48 for he r it p 540 l 30 r denyes l 32 before shâ—ll insert there l 39 after is r no. p 550 l 29 r Spirit l 43 for and r yet p 551 l 19 for he r they l 35 place the comma after then l 43 after know insert not p 5â—6 l 25 for yet r that p 561 l 43 for wâ—ll as r that p 571 marg l ult r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 574 l 48 for mâ—ke r made l 50 for coâ—pus r corporis p 582 l 29 r indispensâ—ble p 589 l 15 r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 595 l 4 r defensiâ—le l 5 r Invocation p 597 l 19 blot out or no p 598 l 5 for appropriation r approbation p 622 l 32 for it r is PART I. Of the Grounds of Faith CHAP. I. The Occasion of the Conference and Defence of the Greek Church T. Cs. Title examined and retorted The Labyrinth found in his Book and Doctrine The occasion of the Conference about the Churches infallibility The rise of the dispute about the Greek Church and the consequences from it The charge of Heresie against the Greek Church examined and she found Not-guilty by the concurrent testimony of Fathers General Councils and Popes Of the Council of Florence and the proceedings there That Council neither General nor Free. The distinction of Ancient and Modern Greeks disproved The debate of the Filioque being inserted into the Creed The time when and the right by which it was done discussed The rise of the Schism between the Eastern and Western Churches mainly occasioned by the Church of Rome THat which is the common subtilty of Male-factors to derive if possible the imputation of that fault on the persons of their Accusers which they are most lyable to be charged with themselves is the great Artifice made use of by you in the Title and Designe of your Book For there being nothing which your Party is more justly accused for than involving and perplexing the grounds of Christian Faith under a pretext of Infallibility in your Church you thought you could not better avoid the odium of it then by a confident recrimination And from hence it is that you call his Lordships Book a Labyrinth and pretend to discover his abstruse turnings ambiguous windings and intricate Meanders as you are pleased to stile them But those who will take the pains to search your Book for the discoveries made in it will find themselves little satisfied but only in these that no cause can be so bad but interessed persons will plead for it and no writing so clear and exact but a perplexed mind will imagine nothing but Meanders in it And if dark passages and intricate windings if obscure sense and perplexed consequences if uncertain wandrings and frequent self-contradictions may make a writing be call'd a Labyrinth I know no Modern Artist who comes so near the skill of the Cretan Artificer as your self Neither is this meerly your own fault but the nature of the cause whose defence you have espoused is such as will not admit of being handled in any other manner For you might assoon hope to perswade a Traveller that his nearest and safest way was through such a Labyrinth as that of Creet as convince us that the best and surest Resolution of our Faith is into your Churches Infallibility And while you give out that all other grounds of Christian Faith are uncertain and yet are put to such miserable shifts in defence of your own instead of establishing the Faith of Christians you expose Christianity it self to the scorn and contempt of Atheists who need nothing more to confirm them in their Infidelity then such a senseless and unreasonable way of proceeding as you make use of for laying the Foundations of Christian Faith Your great Principle being that no Faith can be Divine but what is Infallible and none Infallible but what is built on a Divine and Infallible Testimony and that this Testimony is only that of the present Catholick Church and that Church none but yours and yet after all this you dare not say the Testimony of your Church is Divine but only in a sort and after a manner You pretend that our Faith is vain and uncertain because built only on Moral certainty and Rational evidence and yet you have no other proof for your Churches Infallibility but the motives of credibility You offer to prove the Churches Infallibility independently on Scripture and yet challenge no other Infallibility but what comes by the promise and assistance of the Holy Ghost which depends wholly on the Truth of the Scripture You seek to disparage Scripture on purpose to advance your Churches Authority and yet bring your greatest evidences of the Churches Authority from it By which Authority of the Church you often tell us that Christian Religion can only be proved to be Infallibly true when if but one errour be found in your Church her Infallible Testimony is gone and what becomes then of Christian Religion And all this is managed with a peculiar regard to the Interest of your Church as the only Catholick Church which you can never attempt to prove but upon supposition of the Truth of Christianity the belief of which yet you say depends upon your Churches being the True and Catholick Church These and many other such as these will be found the rare and coherent Principles of your Faith and Doctrine which I have here only given this taste of that the Reader may see with what honour to your self and advantage to your Cause you have bestowed the Title of Labyrinth on his Lordships Book But yet you might be pardonable if rather through the weakness of your Cause than your ill management of it you had brought us into these amazing Labyrinths if you had left us any thing whereby we might hope to be safely directed in our passage through them Whereas you not only endeavour to put men out of the True way but use your greatest industry to keep them from a possibility of returning into it by not only suggesting false Principles to them but
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
Lordship rebukes Mr. Fisher for citing King James so boldly for but two wayes it may be taken he adds 1. To lose such assistance as preserves from all errour 2. Or else from all fundamental errour this therefore his Lordship truely saith is an errour of the first sort and not of the latter Passing by therefore his Lordships expressions of his modesty which if an errour is one you are like to be secured from and his cautious expressions concerning the Greek Church which he highly shewed his wisdome in we come to consider how you prove the Greek Church guilty of fundamental errour You say You pass by his trifling and make way for truth I wonder not to see you reflect on his Lordship for his modesty considering how little of it you shew towards him let us then make way too but it is to see you and Truth combat together It is to be considered say you that now for many hundred years the whole Latine Church hath decreed and believed it to be flat Heresie in the Greeks and they decreed the contrary to be an Heresie in the Latin Church and both together condemned the opinion of the Grecians as Heretical in a General Council in Florentino how then bears it any shew of probability what some few of yesterday forced to it by an impossibility of otherwise avoiding the strength of Catholick arguments against them affirm that the matter of this Controversie was so small and inconsiderable that it is not sufficient to produce an Heresie on either side Is not this to make all the Churches of Christendome for many hundred years quite blind and themselves only clear and sharp-sighted which swelling presumption what spirit it argues and whence it proceeds all those who have learn'd from St. Augustin that Pride is the mother of Heresie will easily collect I grant this speech of St. Augustin to be true only let it be added that Pride is likewise the Mother of making Heresies as will appear in this present Controversie and whether we who vindicate the Greek Church from Heresie or you who would find the Bill against her to keep her from any rivalship with your Church be more guilty of Pride will be soon discovered but sure you believe us not only to be men of yesterday but to know nothing who should sentence the Greek Church for Heresie upon such feeble pretences as these are I know not what presumption that can be to say Men may be too forward on both sides in calling each other Hereticks and it may be not so much their Blindness as Pride and Passion which may make them do it But if they will condemn that for Heresie which is not so made appear to be upon any evidence from Scripture and Reason they were not so blind in defining it as we should be in following their judgement without further examination But this was for many hundred years The more to blame they for continuing in so rash judgements so long if it appear so But it is well still you tell us that as the Latin Church condemned the Greek for Heresie the Greek condemned the Latin for it too And so by your own rule the one was as blind as the other But the Latin Church had the right to determine Heresie and the Greek had not This is the question Which Church must be relyed on for judgement and if they mutually condemn each other we must have a higher rule to judge of both by But still Is it not an Argument that it is a Heresie of one side or the other because each party condemns the other of Heresie Just as much as if two men fall out and call each other Knaves it must be granted that if both be not yet at least the one of them is so Heresie being grown the scolding word in Religion and no two parties can differ but they seek to fasten this reproach on each other If one should bring greater evidence than the other of his Knavery he ought to be more accounted so No otherwise can it be here if sufficient proof be brought of Heresie on the one side and not the other that party may be looked on as more guilty but still remembring that the more confident affirmation the pretence to greater honesty and power be not taken for the only evidences of it As I doubt it will appear in our present case But still suppose that of two men who have so reproached each other the one of them being fallen into distress and poverty and not hoping for relief but from the other person and he denying it unless he be content by joynt-consent to be proclaimed Knave which he through his necessity yeilding to but assoon as that is over declaring on what account they agreed Must this man be more pittied for his Necessity or condemned for his Knavery Just such I shall make it appear that which you call condemning the Grecians as Heretical in a General Council at Florence to have been and no otherwise But I come to a closer examination of this Subject to see with what Justice you charge the Greek Church either with Heresie or Schism For both these you accuse it of in this Chapter Two things were the most in dispute between the Greek and Latin Churches the one was the Doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son the other was concerning the addition of the Filióque to the Creed And although the Greeks in the debates at Ferrara would not meddle with the Doctrine before the Latins could clear themselves concerning the addition which they said was the main cause of the Contest between them yet I am content to follow your method and handle the other first Your discourse concerning the first consists of two parts Proofs and Answers Proofs of their Heresie and Answers to his Lordships Arguments against it The Proofs are double the one from Authority the other from Theological reason Through every of these particulars I shall follow you and from them I doubt not to evince that the Greeks are not guilty of the faults you lay to their charge We have already seen what your Proofs from Authority are their condemning one another for Hereticks and the Greeks being condemned by a General Council If I can therefore prove that the Greeks opinion was not accounted an Heresie before the Council of Florence and that it did not become a Heresie by the Council of Florence I shall sufficiently discover the weakness of your Arguments from authority 1. That it was not accounted a Heresie before the Council of Florence I mean not that there were no hot-brain'd persons in all the time of the difference who did not brand the Greek Church with Heresie but that it was never accounted a Heresie by any of those whom your selves account the only competent Judges of Heresie and those are either the Fathers or Popes or Councils which I prove in their order 1. That it was not
and endeavour to make it out that this is the most proper interpretation both of Scripture and Fathers when they seem most clearly to speak of the Procession of the Spirit from the Son The same likewise the Patriarch Cyril insists upon who acknowledgeth these several words to be attributed to the Spirit in reference to the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and several others in the writings of the Fathers all which he acknowledgeth to be true but he denyes that any of them do import a Hypostatical Procession of the Spirit from the Son but that they all refer to the temporal mission and manifestation of the Spirit through Christ under the Gospel Whether this answer will reach to all the places produced out of the Fathers is not here my business to enquire only that which is pertinent to my purpose may be sufficiently inferred from hence that the Fathers certainly were not definitive in this Controversie when their expressest sentences seem capable of quite a different meaning to wise and learned men who one would think if the belief of this Procession had been a tradition of their Church or fully expressed in the Writings of the Fathers of the Greek Church could not be so ignorant or wilful as either not to see this to have been their meaning or supposing they had seen it to persist in so obstinate a belief of the contrary I can therefore with advantage return your words back again to you It is to be considered that for many hundred years the whole Greek Church never believed this to be an article of Faith nay the Fathers were so far from it that both single and in General Councils they did plainly express the contrary how then bears it any shew of probability what some few of yesterday forced to it by an impossibility of otherwise defending the Power and Infallibility of the Roman Church affirm that the matter of this Controversie is so great and considerable that it is sufficient to produce an Heresie on either side Is not this to make Fathers and General Councils and consequently all Christendom for many hundred years quite blind and themselves only clear and sharp-sighted Which swelling presumption what spirit it argues and whence it proceeds all those who have learnt from reason if not from S. Augustine That Pride is the Mother of making Heresies in unnecessary articles of Faith will easily collect Do not you see now how unadvisedly those words came from you which with so small variation in the manner of expression and much greater truth in the matter of it is restored upon your self But I go on still if possible to make you sensible how much you have wronged the Greek Church in this charge of a fundamental errour in her for denying this Procession of the Spirit from the Son Which shall be from hence that although there were some who did as plainly deny this as ever the Modern Greeks did or do yet they were far from being condemned for Heresie in so doing For which we must consider that although the Fathers as we have already seen did speak ambiguously in this matter yet the first who appears openly and stoutly to have denyed it was Theodoret which being the rise of the Controversie must be more carefully enquired into It appears then that a General Council being summoned by the Emperour Theodosius to meet at Ephesus concerning the opinions of Nectorius which were vehemently opposed by Cyril of Alexandria and several Aegyptian and Asian Bishops who being there convened proceed to the deposition of Nestorius and Anathematizing his doctrine before Johannes Antiochenus and several other Bishops who favoured Nestorius were come to Ephesus When these therefore came and found what had been done by the other Bishops they being seconded by Candidianus there and the Court-party at Constantinople assemble apart by themselves and proceed on the other side to a deposition and excommunication of Cyril and Memnon who were the leaders of all the rest and these make an Anti-Synod to the other which consisted of persons of several interests and perswasions some Pelagians some Nestorians and others more as Friends to Nestorius than his opinions as being his Ancient Familiars and acquaintance did joyn with them to prevent his deposition among which the chief were Johannes Antiochenus and Theodoret. But before the Council Cyril had published his Anathema's against the opinions of Nestorius to these therefore not only the Oriental Bishops gave an answer but John the Patriarch of Antioch particularly appoints Theodoret to refute them The ninth Anathema of Cyril was against Nestorius and all others who said That Christ used the Holy Ghost as a distinct power from himself for the working of miracles and that did not acknowledge him to be the proper Spirit of Christ. Theodoret grants the first part wherein he shews he was no Nestorian but quarrels with the latter part for saith he If by that he means that the Spirit is of the same nature with the Son and that it proceeds from the Father we acknowledge it together with him but if by that he understands as though the Spirit had his subsistence from or by the Son we reject it as blasphemous and impious Was ever any thing in this kind spoken with greater heat and confidence than this was here by Theodoret And if this had been looked on as Heretical at that time can we possibly imagine that so zealous an opposer of all Heresies and especially of the Nestorians as S. Cyril of Alexandria was should so coolly and patiently pass this by as he doth For all the answer he gives is only that which was before cited out of him that he acknowledgeth The Spirit doth proceed from the Father but yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is not of another nature from the Son but did not Theodoret expresly assert that as well as Cyril Is it then possible that any one who hath his wits about him should imagine that if that doctrine of Theodoret had been accounted Heretical it being expressed in so vehement a manner as it is it should have no other answer from Cyril but only approving that which Theodoret confesseth viz. the Consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Son All the answer which Petavius and others give is so weak and trifling that one may easily see how much they were put to it to find out any Sometimes it was because Cyril was intent upon his business and therefore passed it by as though he were so weak a man as to let his adversary broach Heresie and say nothing to it because it was not pertinent to the present cause But if it were not it is an argument the second Answer is false viz. that Theodoret was herein a Nestorian for if he were so it could not be besides the business but was a main part of it Moreover if this were a piece of Nestorianism it is very strange the Fathers of that Council when they purposely
by either of you That the Greeks might be excused by Ignorance before such Declaration of your Church concerning the Filioque and not be excused after through greater ignorance of any such Power in your Church to declare such things to be matters of Faith is an assertion not easie to be swallowed by such as have any strength of Logick or one drachm of Theological Reason Or else it is a very strange thing you should think it sufficient for the Greeks to know what your Church had declared without an antecedent knowledge that your Church had power to declare How much you answer at random appears by your answering Aquinas his testimony instead of that of Jodocus Clictoveus as is plain enough in his Lordships Margin and you might have been easily satisfied that it was so if you had taken the pains to look into either of them But the art of it was Aquinas his testimony might be easily answered because he speaks only by hear-say concerning the opinion of some certain Greeks but Clictoveus his was close to the purpose who plainly confesseth that the difference of the Ancient Greeks was more in words and the manner of explaining the Procession then in the thing it self This therefore you thought fit to slide by and answer Aquinas for him Your answer to Scotus depends on the former distinction of Ancient and Modern Greeks and therefore falls with it Bellarmin's answer concerning Damascen and your own after Bonaventure of his non dicimus hath been sufficiently disproved already What Tolet holds or the Lutherans deny the words of neither being of either side produced deserve no further consideration You tell us his Lordships Argument depends upon this That the Holy Ghost may be equal and consubstantial with the Son though he proceed not from it which you say is a matter too deep for his Lordship to wade into But any indifferent Reader would think it had been your concernment to have shewn the contrary that thereby you might seem to make good so heavy a charge as that of Heresie against the whole Greek Church For if the Holy Ghost cannot be equal and consubstantial with the Son if it proceeds not from the Son then it follows that they who deny this Procession must deny that Equality and Consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Son which you ought to prove to make good your charge of Heresie But on the other side if the Spirit may be proved to be God by such Arguments as do not at all infer his Procession from the Son then his equality and consubstantiality doth not depend upon that Procession for I suppose you grant that it is the Vnity of Essence in the Persons which make them equal and consubstantial but we may sufficiently prove the Spirit to be God by such Arguments as do not infer the Procession from the Son as I might easily make appear by all the Arguments insisted on to that purpose but I only mention that which the second General Council thought most cogent to that purpose which is the Spirit 's eternal Procession from the Father if that proves the Spirit to be God then its equality with the Son is proved without his Procession from the Son for I hope you will not say that the proving his Procession from the Father doth imply Procession from the Son too because the Procession cannot be supposed to be from the essence for then the Spirit would proceed from it self but from the Hypostasis and therefore one cannot imply the concurrence of the other And since you pretend so much to understand these depths before you renew a charge of Heresie against the Greek Church in this particular make use of your Theological reason in giving an Intelligible Answer to these Questions 1. Why the Spirit may not be equal and consubstantial to the other Persons in the Trinity supposing his Procession to be only from the Father as the Son to be equal and consubstantial with them when his Generation is only from the Father 2. If the Procession from the Son be necessary to make the Spirit consubstantial with the Son why is not Generation of the Son by the Spirit necessary to make the Son consubstantial with the Spirit 3. If the Spirit doth proceed from Father and Son as distinct Hypostases how he can proceed from these Hypostases as one principle by one common Spiration without confounding their Personalties or else shew how two distinct Hypostases alwayes remaining so can concur in the same numerical action ad intra 4. If there be such a necessity of believing this as an Article of Faith why hath not God thought fit to reveal to us the distinct emanations of the Son and Spirit and wherein the eternal Generation of the Son may be conceived as distinct from the Procession of the Spirit when both equally agree in the same essence and neither of them express the personality of the Father Either I say undertake intelligibly to resolve these things or else surcease your charge of Heresie against the Greek Church and upbraid not his Lordship for not entering into these depths Methinks their being confessed to be Depths on both sides might teach you a little more modesty in handling them and much more charity to men who differ about them For you may see the Greeks want not great plausibleness of reason on their side as well as Authority of Scripture and Fathers plain for them but not so against them As long therefore as the Greek Church confesseth the Divinity Consubstantiality Eternal Procession of the Spirit and acknowledgeth it to be the Spirit of the Son there must be something more in it then the bare denyal of the Procession from the Son which must make you so eager in your charge of Heresie against her The truth is there is something else in the matter by this Article of Filioque the Authority of the Church of Rome in matters of Faith is struck at and therefore if this be an Heresie it must be on the account of denying the plenitude of her power in matters of Faith as Anselm and Bonaventure ingenuously confess it and plead it on that account And therefore wise men are not apt to believe but that if the Church of Rome had not been particularly concerned in this addition to the Creed if the Greeks would have submitted in all other things to the Church of Rome this charge of Heresie would soon be taken off the File But as things stand if she be not found guilty of Heresie she may be found as Catholick as Rome and more too and therefore there is a necessity for it she must be contented to bear it for it is not consistent with the Interest of the Church of Rome that she should be free from Heresie Schism c. But if she hath no stronger Adversaries to make good the charge then you she may satisfie her self that though the blows be rude yet they are given her by feeble hands For
expect that your Anathema's will be accounted any other than bruta fulmina noise and no more CHAP. 2. Of Fundamentals in General The Popish Tenet concerning Fundamentals a meer step to the Roman Greatness The Question about Fundamentals stated An enquiry into the nature of them What are Fundamentals in order to particular persons and what to be owned as such in order to Ecclesiastical Communion The Prudence and Moderation of the Church of England in defining Articles of Faith What judged Fundamental by the Catholick Church No new Articles of Faith can become necessary The Churches Power in propounding matters of Faith examined What is a sufficient Proposition Of the Athanasian Creed and its being owned by the Church of England In what sense the Articles of it are necessary to Salvation Of the distinction of the material and formal object of Faith as to Fundamentals His Lordship's integrity and T. C's forgery in the testimony of Scotus Of Heresie and how far the Church may declare matters of Faith The testimony of S. Augustine vindicated THe Greek Church appearing not guilty of Heresie by any evidence of Scripture Reason or the Consent of the Primitive Church nothing is left to make good the charge but that the Church of Rome hath defin'd it to be so which Pretence at first view carrying the greatest partiality and unreasonableness in it great care is taken that the partiality be not discovered by not openly mentioning the Church of Rome but the Church in General as though it were impossible to conceive any other Church but that at Rome and for the unreasonableness of it it must be confidently asserted That all Points defin'd by the Church are Fundamental So to be sure the Greek Church will never escape the charge of Heresie For this end Mr. Fisher in the Conference acknowledgeth that when his Lordship had denyed the errour of the Greek Church to be Fundamental he was forced to repeat what he had formerly brought against Dr. White concerning Points Fundamental The reason of which was that easily perceiving that it was impossible to stand their ground in their charge on the Greek Church upon other terms he is forced to take Sanctuary in the Churches Definition and if that will not make it good there is nothing else remaining to do it And this is the cause of the following Dispute concerning Fundamentals wheren the main thing undertaken is the proof that the formal reason of Fundamentals is to be taken from the Definition of the present Church but as this must be confessed to be the main Fundamental of the Church of Rome for which yet the thing being manifest no Definition of that Church is necessary so withall I doubt not but it will be made evident in the progress of this discourse that never was there any pretence more partial absurd and tyrannical than this is Which his Lordship takes notice of in these words which deserve a repetition It was not the least means by which Rome grew to her Greatness to blast every opposer she had with the name of Heretick or Schismatick for this served to shrivel the credit of the persons And the persons once brought into Contempt and Ignominy all the good they desired in the Church fell to dust for want of creditable persons to back and support it To make this proceeding good in these latter years this course it seems was taken The School that must maintain and so they do that all Points defin'd by the Church are thereby Fundamental necessary to be believed of the substance of Faith and that though it be determined quite extra Scripturam And then leave the wise and active Heads to take order that there be strength enough ready to determine what is fittest for them To this you answer with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You call it a Squib a Fancy a weak Discourse one of the Bishop's Railleries and what not It seems it pinched you hard you cry out so Tragically But it is very certain you are more impatient to have your Politicks than your Errours discovered and if you have any Curses more dreadful than others they are sure to light on those who discover the intrigues of your Designs For if once men come to discern how much more of Artifice and cunning than of Truth and Religion there is in the managing the Interest of your Church they would not easily think the way to Heaven can lye among so many foldings of the old Serpent And this is not to think as you tragically speak That all the world is turn'd mad or Heathen for thanks be to God as Catholique as your Church is it must be a huge Catachresis to take it for all the world neither do we think your Church mad but very wise and Politick in these pretences and that still you are resolved to shew that though other Churches may be more Children of Light than yours ignorance being so much in favour with you yet yours is Wiser in its Generation But how the pretending of your Church to Infallibility and power to define Fundamentals should make us imagine all the world Heathen is not easie to conceive unless you are conscious to your self that such pretences as these are are the way to make it so But we must see still how your Cothurnus fits you No truth left upon earth but all become Juglers See what it is to be true Catholiques that if they juggle all the world must do so too as though totus mundus exercet histrioniam were Latin for the Infallibility of the Church of Rome But have you indeed such a Monopoly of Truth that if your party prove Juglers there will be no truth left upon earth if you had said none unsophisticated yet even that had been a great Truth left upon earth still But I shall cut you short in what follows of your Declamation by telling you that though your Harangue were ten times longer than it is and your exclamations louder and your Authorities better than of your Prelates Miracles Doctors Heads of Schools austere and religious persons in English Monks and Friers yet all these would not one jot perswade us contrary to common sense and the large experience of the world That Religion is not made by you an Instrument to advance the Pope's Ambition and that the Church is but a more plausible name whereby to maintain the Court of Rome And we need not go from our present subject for a proof of it I will not charge this upon all persons of your Communion for all of them do not believe the State-Principles of your Church and others are kept as much as may be from all waies of discovering the great Designs of it and therefore there may be so much innocency and simplicity in some as may keep them from prostituting their Salvation to the Pope's Greatness but this is no plea on behalf of those who have the managery of those Designs who if they do not
see what things are fittest for the Pope's temporal ends will not long be thought fit for their employment But is it not palpable how much you endeavour to shrivel Christianity into a Party and Faction excluding all others that are not of your party out of the Church and consequently from hopes of salvation though never so pious and conscientious Are not the far greatest part of the opinions you contend for against all the rest of the Christian world such as are manifestly subservient to temporal ends And are not such more zealously disputed for than the plain Articles of Faith and the indispensable precepts of the Christian Religion Have you not found out all the Artifices imaginable to enervate the force of Christian Piety by your Doctrines about Repentance Prayer Indulgences Probability Purgatory and such like And instead of those rational acts of Devotion which our Religion requires from us have made choice of such fond ludicrous unintelligible pieces of Devotion by the most who are concerned in them as though you were resolved to see how much it was possible to debauch Christianity and make it contemptible in the world Add to these the Arts you have to violate Humane Societies by dispensing with oaths breaking Faith dissolving Obedience to Civil Authority when it opposeth your designs and is it possible then for persons not blind-folded with the grossest sort of implicit Faith to judge otherwise but the design of your Chvrch is to determine not what is truest but what is fittest for your ends And although you scurrilously call his Lordship's discourse stuff that might serve sometimes for Pulpit-babble to deceive the giddy multitude and cast a mist before their eyes yet you see he was not afraid of what any adversary could say against it by writing it in a Polemical Discourse in which we could be glad to see some of those famous Legends and Seraphical Notions which your Pulpit-entertainments consist so much of especially where you are out of the reach of Hereticks and then we should judge Which looks more like babling and deceiving the giddy multitude But to let us see what men of reach and Politicians you are you have found out a strange Fetch in his Lordships discourse viz. that all this is That they might not see the impurity of their own English-Protestant Church even in its first rise under Henry the eighth and the people-cheating Policies it was beholding to for its restauration under Queen Elizabeth as may be seen in History History is a large wood to bid us seek for these cheating Policies in and if you had any other design but meerly to shew your self a Politician in this that you can fortitèr calumniari use your tongue manfully when reproaches are useful you would have produced some evidence so clear of them as his Lordship here insists on in reference to your Church But as long as you converse only in Generals you will give us leave to think who those are which use to do so viz. such grand Politicians as your self For the Particulars of our Reformation we shall have occasion to vindicate them in another place and therein shall easily manifest what an Itch you had to calumniate here though you were sure to smart for it afterwards That which you call weakness of judgement or want of Charity in his Lordship will be found to lye at another door by our making it appear that what you call a groundless and impossible slander is a real and undoubted truth But when you tell us That such Railleries do not become one that would be esteemed a grave Doctor of the English Church an alterius orbis Patriarcha as the antient Primates of England have been call'd I know not whether you discover more judgment or reading in it your judgement in calling that an unbecoming Raillery which is a great and seasonable Truth your reading in mistaking Patriarcha for Papa or else you were willing to dissemble it because then by the advantage of his title he might be fitter to discover the Artifices and Designs of his Fellow-Pope The laying open of which is certainly vastly different from sporting with all that can be serious on earth man's salvation as you most injuriously calumniate his Lordship in your next words in affirming so of him when his only design was to clear the way to mans salvation by discovering the gins and traps which are laid in the way of silly men by the pernicious subtilty of those of your party The way being thus cleared we come to the main question viz. Whether all Points defined by the Church are Fundamental and here because you tell us His Lordship is like one that provides for a retreat or a subterfuge by cutting out a number of ambiguous distinctions you give us fair hopes what clear proceedings we may expect from you who abhorr as much the clear stating of a question as Foxes do running in beaten Roads But as well as you love them you must be drawn out of your Holes which will be much for the advantage of Truth though very little for yours To come therefore close to the business that you may not think I seek subterfuges or retreats I shall wave all other acceptions of Fundamentals and take the Question in your own sense that is for Points necessary to Salvation The Question then in controversie between us is this Whether the ground or reason why any thing is fundamental or necessary to salvation be because it is defined by the Church to be so and consequently Whether all Points defined by the Church be not fundamental or necessary to Salvation For the occasion of this Controversie was from the Greek Church whether her errour as to the Procession from the Son be fundamental or no i. e. such as excludes her from being a Church and consequently from Salvation The ground of your affirmation is because the Church hath defined it to be so so that the ground and reason why any thing is supposed fundamental or necessary to Salvation must be the Definition of the Church But for our better understanding your meaning you distinguish of two waies whereby Points may be necessary to Salvation the one absolutely by reason of the matter they contain which say you is so fundamentally necessary in it self that not only the disbelief of it when propounded by the Church but the meer want of an express knowledge and belief of it will hinder Salvation and those are such Points without the express belief whereof no man can be saved which Divines call necessary necessitate medii others of this kind they call necessary necessitate praecepti which all men are commanded to seek after and expresly believe so that a culpable Ignorance of them hinders Salvation although some may be saved with invincible Ignorance of them And all these are absolutely necessary to be expresly believed either necessitate praecepti or medii in regard of the matter which they contain But the
are absolutely and indispensably necessary to all persons to whom God's Word is revealed Thus much may suffice concerning what is necessary to be believed by particular persons considered as such But this controversie never need break Christian Societies in that sense but the great difficulty lyes in the other part of it which is most commonly strangely confounded with the former viz. What things are necessary to be owned in order to Church-Societies or Ecclesiastical Communion For which we must consider that the combination of Christian Societies oâ— that which we call the Catholick Church doth subsist upon the belief of what is necessary to Salvation For the very notion of a Christian Church doth imply the belief of all those things which are necessary in order to the end of Christian Religion which is mens eternal Happiness From whence three things must be taken notice of 1. That the very being of a Church doth suppose the necessity of what is required to be believed in order to Salvation For else there could not be such a thing as a Church imagined which is only a combination of men together upon the belief of such a Doctrine as necessary to Salvation and for the performance of those acts of Worship which are suitable thereto Therefore to assert the Church to have power to make things necessary to Salvation is not only absurd but destructive to the Being of that Church For when it offer'd to define any thing to be necessary which was not so before was it a Church or no If it was a Church it believed all things necessary if it believed all things necessary before it Defined how comes it to make more things necessary by its Definition But of this more afterwards 2. Whatever Church owns those things which are antecedently necessary to the Being of a Church cannot so long cease to be a true Church Because it retains that which is the Foundation of the Being of the Catholick Church Here we must distinguish those things in the Catholick Church which give its Being from those things which are the proper Acts of it as the Catholick Church As to this latter the solemn Worship of God in the way prescribed by him is necessary in order to which there must be supposed lawful Officers set in the Church and Sacraments duly administred but these I say are rather the Exercise of the Communion of the Catholick Church than that which gives its Being which is the belief of that Religion whereon its Subsistence and Vnity depends and as long as a Church retains this it keeps its Being though the Integrity and Perfection of it depends upon the due exercise of all acts of Communion in it 3. The Vnion of the Catholick Church depends upon the agreement of it in making the Foundations of its Being to be the grounds of its Communion For the Vnity being intended to preserve the Being there can be no reason given why the bonds of Vnion should extend beyond the Foundation of its Being which is the owning the things necessary to the Salvation of all From whence it necessarily follows that whatsoever Church imposeth the belief of other things as necessary to Salvation which were not so antecedently necessary to the Being of the Catholick Church doth as much as in it lyes break the Vnity of it and those Churches who desire to preserve its Vnity are bound thereby not to have communion with it so long as it doth so Of what great consequence these principles are to the true understanding the Distance between our Church and yours if you see not now you may feel afterwards These things being premised I come to that which is the main subject of the present Dispute which is What those things are which ought to be owned by all Christian-Societies as necessary to Salvation on which the Being of the Catholick Church depends If we can find any sure footing for the Definition of these we shall thereby find what the necessary conditions of Ecclesiastical Communion are and consequently where the proper cause of Schism lyes in transgressing those bounds and what Foundations may be laid for the Peace of the Christian world Which being of so vast importance would require a larger discussion than this place will admit of but so far as is pertinent to our present subject I shall enquire into it and give an account of my thoughts in these Propositions 1. Nothing ought to be owned as necessary to Salvation by Christian-Societies but such things which by the judgement of all those Societies are antecedently necessary to the Being of the Catholick Church For no reason can be assigned as I said before why the Bonds of Union should be extended beyond that which is the Churches Foundation neither can there any reason be given why any thing else should be judged necessary to the Churches Communion but what all those Churches who do not manifestly dissent from the Catholick Church of the first Ages are agreed in as necessary to be believed by all this will be further explained afterwards Only I add here when I speak of the necessary conditions of Ecclesiastical Communion I speak of such things which must be owned as Necessary Articles of Faith and not of any other Agreements for the Churches Peace I deny not therefore but that in case of great Divisions in the Christian world and any National Churches reforming it self that Church may declare its sense of those abuses in Articles of Religion and require of men a Subscription to them but then we are to consider that there is a great deal of difference between the owning some Propositions in order to Peace and the believing of them as necessary Articles of Faith And this is clearly the state of the difference between the Church of Rome and the Church of England The Church of Rome imposeth new Articles of Faith to be believed as necessary to Salvation as appears by the formerly cited Bull of Pius 4. Which Articles contain in them the Justification of those things which are most excepted against by other Churches and by her imposing these as the conditions of her Communion she makes it necessary for other Churches who would preserve the Vnity of the Catholick Church upon her true Foundations to forbear her Communion But the Church of England makes no Articles of Faith but such as have the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Christian world of all ages and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self and in other things she requires Subscription to them not as Articles of Faith but as Inferiour Truths which she expects a submission to in order to her Peace and Tranquillity So the late learned L. Primate of Ireland often expresseth the sense of the Church of England as to her thirty nine Articles Neither doth the Church of England saith he define any of these Questions as necessary to be believed either necessitate medii or necessitate praecepti which is much less but only bindeth
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
judgement or not sufficiently versed in the Scriptures as at present to make them acknowledge the places are not so clear as they imagined them to be yet they being alwaies otherwise interpreted by the Catholick Church or the Christian Societies of all ages layes this potent prejudice against all such attempts as not to believe such interpretations true till they give a just account why if the belief of these Doctrines were not necessary the Christians of all ages from the Apostles times did so unanimously agree in them that when any began first to oppose them they were declared and condemned for Hereticks for their pains So that the Church of England doth very piously declare her consent with the Ancient Catholick Church in not admitting any thing to be delivered as the sense of Scripture which is contrary to the consent of the Catholick Church in the four first ages Not as though the sense of the Catholick Church were pretended to be any infallible Rule of interpreting Scripture in all things which concern the Rule of Faith but that it is a sufficient Prescription against any thing which can be alledged out of Scripture that if it appear contrary to the sense of the Catholick Church from the beginning it ought not to be looked on as the true meaning of the Scripture All this security is built upon this strong presumption that nothing contrary to the necessary Articles of Faith should he held by the Catholick Church whose very being depends upon the belief of those things which are necessary to Salvation As long therefore as the Church might appear to be truly Catholick by those correspondencies which were maintained between the several parts of it that what was refused by one was so by all so long this unanimous and uncontradicted sense of the Catholick Church ought to have a great sway upon the minds of such who yet profess themselves members of the Catholick Church From whence it follows that such Doctrines may well be judged destructive to the Rule of Faith which were so unanimously condemned by the Catholick Church within that time And thus much may suffice for the first Inquiry viz. What things are to be esteemed necessary either in order to Salvation or in order to Ecclesiastical Communion 2. Whether any thing which was not necessary to Salvation may by any means whatsoever afterwards become necessary so that the not believing it becomes damnable and unrepented destroyes Salvation We suppose the Question to proceed on such things as could not antecedently to such an act whereby they now become necessary be esteemed to be so either from the matter or from any express command For you in terms assert a necessity of believing distinct from the matter and absolute command and hath the Churches Definition for its formal object which makes the necessity of our Faith continually to depend upon the Churches Definition but this strange kind of Ambulatory Faith I shall now shew to be repugnant to the design of Christ and his Apostles in making known Christian Religion and to all evidence of Reason and directly contrary to the plain and uncontradicted sense of the Primitive and Catholick Church 1. It is contrary to the design of Christ and his Apostles in making known the Christian Religion to the world For if the design of Christ was to declare whatever was necessary to the Salvation of mankind if the Apostles were sent abroad for this very end then either they were very unfaithful in discharge of their trust or else they taught all things necessary for their Salvation and if they did so how can any thing become necessary which they did never teach Was it not the great Promise concerning the Messias that at his coming the Earth should be full of the Knowledge of the Lord as the Waters cover the Sea that then they shall all be taught of God Was not this the just expectation of the people concerning him That when he came he would tell them all things Doth not he tell his Disciples That all things I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you And for all this is there something still remaining necessary to Salvation which neither he nor his Disciples did ever make known to the world Doth not he promise Life and Salvation to all such as believe and obey his Doctrine And can any thing be necessary for eternal life which he never declared or did he only promise it to the men of that Age and Generation and leave others to the mercy of the Churches Definitions If this be so we have sad cause to lament our condition upon whom these heavy loyns of the Church are fallen how happy had we been if we had lived in Christs or the Apostles times for then we might have been saved though we had never believed the Pope's Supremacy or Transubstantiation or Invocation of Saints or Worshipping Images but now the case is altered these Milstones are now hung about our necks and how we shall swim to Heaven with them who knows How strangely mistaken was our Saviour when he said Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed For much more blessed certainly were they who did see him and believe in him for then he would undertake for their Salvation but now it seems we are out of his reach and turned over to the Merciless Infallibility of the present Church When Christ told his Disciples His yoke was easie and burden light he little thought what Power he had left in the Church to lay on so much load as might cripple mens belief were it not for a good reserve in a corner call'd Implicit Faith When he sent the Apostles to teach all that he commanded them he must be understood so that the Church hath power to teach more if she pleases and though the Apostles poor men were bound up by this commission and S. Peter himself too yet his Infallible Successors have a Paramount Priviledge beyond them all Though the Spirit was promised to the Apostles to lead them into all Truth yet there must be no incongruity in saying They understood not some necessary Truths for how should they when never revealed as Transubstantiation Supremacy c. Because though they never dreamt of such things yet the Infallible Church hath done it since for them and to say truth though the Apostles names were put into the promise yet they were but Feoffees in trust for the Church and the benefit comes to the Church by them For they were only Tutors to the Church in its minority teaching it some poor Rudiments of Christ and Heaven of Faith and Obedience c. But the great and Divine Mysteries of the seven Sacraments Indulgences Worship of Images Sacrifice of the Mass c. were not fit to be made known till the Church were at age her self and knew how to declare her own mind When S. Paul speaks so much of the great Mysteries hidden from Ages and Generations but
What a case then were we in if the Pope were Christ's Vicar in Heaven as he pretends to be on Earth but it is our comfort he is neither so nor so Thus we see what repugnancy there is both to Scirpture and Reason in this strange Doctrine of your Churches Definitions making things necessary to Salvation which were not so before I should now proceed to shew how repugnant this Doctrine is to the unanimous consent of Antiquity but I find my self prevented in that by the late Writings of one of your own Communion and if you will believe him in his Epistle Dedicatory which I much question the present Popes most humble Servant our Countryman Mr. Thomas White Whose whole Book call'd his Tabulae Suffragiales is purposely designed against this fond and absurd Opinion nay he goes so high as to assert the Opinion of the Pope's Personal Infallibility not only to be Heretical but Archi-heretical and that the propagating of this Doctrine is in its kind a most grievous sin It cannot but much rejoyce us to see that men of wit and parts begin to discover the intolerable arrogance of such pretences and that such men as D. Holden and Mr. White are in many things come so near the Protestant Principles and that since they quit the Plea of Infallibility and relye on Vniversal Tradition we are in hopes that the same reason and ingenuity which carried these persons thus far will carry others who go on the same principles so much farther as to see how impossible it is to make good the points in Controversie between us upon the Principle of Vniversal Tradition Which the Bigots of your Church are sufficiently sensible of and therefore like the Man at Athens when your Hands are cut off you are resolved to hold this Infallibility with your Teeth and so that Gentleman finds by the proceedings of the Court of Rome against him for that and his other pieces But this should not have been taken notice of lest we should seem to see as who doth not that is not stark blind what growing Divisions and Animosities there are among your selves both at home and in foreign parts and yet all this while the poor silly people must be told that there is nothing but Division out of your Church and nothing but Harmony and Musick in it but such as is made of Discords And that about this present Controversie for the forenamed Gentleman in his Epistle to the present Pope tells him plainly That it is found true by frequent Experience That there is no defending the Catholick Faith against the subtilties of his Heretical Countrymen without the principles of that Book which was condemned at Rome And what those principles are we may easily see by this Book which is writ in defence of the former Wherein he largely proves that the Church hath no power to make New Articles of Faith which he proves both from Scripture Reason and Authority this last is that I shall referr the Reader to him for for in his second Table as he calls it he proves from the testimonies of Origen Basil Chrysostom Cyril Irenaeus Tertullian Pope Stephen Hierom Theophylact Augustine Vincentius Lerinensis and several others nay the testimonies he sayes to this purpose are so many that whole Libraries must be transcribed to produce them all And afterwards more largely proves That the Faith of the Church lyes in a continued succession from the Apostles both from Scripture and Reason and abundance of Church-Authorities in his 4 5 and 6. Tables and through the rest of his Book disproves the Infallibility of Councils and Pope And can you think all this is answered by an Index Expurgatorius or by publishing a false-Latin Order of the inquisition at Rome whereby his Books are prohibited and his Opinions condemned as heretical erronious in Faith rash scandalous seditious and what not It seems then it is grown at last de fide that the Pope is infallible and never more like to do so than in this age for the same person gives us this character of it in his Purgation of himself to the Cardinals of the Inquisition saying That their Eminencies by the unhappiness of the present Age in which Knowledge is banished out of the Schools and the Doctrines of Faith and Theological Truths are judged by most voices fell it seems upon some ignorant and arrogant Consultors who hand over head condemn those Propositions which upon their oaths they could not tell whether they were true or false If these be your proceedings at Rome happy we that have nothing to do with such Infallible Ignorance This is the Age your Religion were like to thrive in if Ignorance were as predominant elsewhere as it seems it is at Rome But I leave this and return 3. The last thing is 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 But this is already answered by the foregoing Discourse for if the necessity of the things to be believed must be supposed antecedently to the Churches Being if that which was not before necessary cannot by any act whatsoever afterwards become necessary then it unavoidably follows That the Church neither hath nor can have any such power Other things which relate to this we shall have occasion to discuss in following your steps which having thus far cleared this important Controversie I betake my self to And we are highly obliged to you for the rare Divertisements you give us in your excellent way of managing Controversies Had my Lord of Canterbury been living What an excellent entertainment would your Confutation of his Book have afforded him But since so pleasant a Province is fallen to my share I must learn to command my self in the management of it and therefore where you present us with any thing which deserves a serious Answer for truth and the causes sake you shall be sure to have it In the first place you charge his Lordship with a Fallacy and that is because when he was to speak of Fundamentals he did not speak of that which was not Fundamental But say you He turns the difficulty which only proceeded upon a Fundamentality or Necessity derived from the formal Object that is from the Divine Authority revealing that Point to the Material Object that is to the importance of the Matter contained in the Point revealed which is a plain Fallacy in passing à sensu formali ad materialem Men seldom suspect those faults in others which they find not strong inclinations to in themselves had you not been conscious of a notorious Fallacy in this distinction of Formal and Material Object as here applyed by you you would never have suspected any such Sophistry in his Lordship's Discourse I pray consider what kind of Fundamentals those are which the Question proceeds on viz. such as are necessary to be owned as such by
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
ill founded which S. Austin is so far from supposing that one may do that he judges him a mad man who disputes against any thing quod universa Ecclesia sentit and that they have hearts not only of Stone but even of Devils who resist so great a manifestation of Truth as is made by an Oecumenical Council for of that he speaks Your design is to prove that S. Austin doth not admit of any plea from Scripture Sense or Reason against any Definitions of the Church for which you first produce that known place in which S. Austin accounts it madness to oppose the universal practices of the Church which will hold for your purpose as far as rites and matters of Faith have any Analogy with each other your latter Testimony seems more to the purpose to all persons who do not examine it and to none else For although you seemed very careful to prevent any examination of the place by a false citation of Epist. 153. for 152. yet that hath not hindered my discovering your fraud in asserting that S. Austin there speaks of an Oecumenical Council For there is not so much as any thing like it in that Epistle I acknowledge those words to be found there which you produce Nulla excusatio jam remansit nimium dura nimium diabolica sunt hominum corda quae adhuc tantae manifestationi veritatis obsistunt But there needs no more to confute the most of your Testimonies out of the Fathers but to mention the occasion of their being produced or the scope and design of the Authors as is most evident in this place For this Epistle is written in the name of Silvanus Valentinus Aurelius Innocentius Maximinus Optatus Augustinus Donatus and other Bishops for satisfaction of the Donatists concerning the proceedings at the Council of Carthage For the Donatist Bishops being therein baffled had dispersed among their Proselytes many false rumours of that Council and of their being circumvented by their Catholick Adversaries To disprove which in this Epistle they first shew the fraud and falsitie of the Donatists and then the Integrity of their own proceedings by the choice of seven persons on either side who should speak in behalf of the rest and seven others as Counsellors to them and four Notaries on either side and four other persons who should keep the Records to prevent all fraud Besides all this every one was to subscribe in his own words that no man might complain that any thing was corrupted afterwards which things being dispersed while the persons themselves lived there was no probability Posterity should be deceived in the report of them And then follow those words That no excuse hath now been left but that their hearts are too hard and diabolical who could gainsay so clear a manifestation of Truth Is it not now a rare consequence from hence to inferr That it is not lawful upon any ground of Scripture Sense or Reason to dispute the Definitions of General Councils Whereas no such thing was ever mentioned as a General Council as appears by the very next words where he sayes expresly it was only a Council of African Bishops and elsewhere S. Austin tells the Donatists that they never durst appeal to a General Council And supposing the Council never so Oecumenical he mentions nothing of the Definitions of it but the manner of its proceedings So that the greatest Truth hereby manifested is your design to abuse his Lordship and the Reader together Since you disown the distinction of things being Fundamental in the matter and in the manner I shall not trouble you with shewing you the weakness of it but it were easie to manifest it as good as that you embrace of the material and formal Object which hath been sufficiently refuted in the precedent chapter and I have no leisure for repetitions His Lordship endeavouring further to shew What little Foundation your Doctrine of Fundamentals hath in the forecited place of S. Augustine urgeth this as an Argument against it That if all Points defined by the Church are therefore Fundamental because that is not to be shaken which is setled by full Authority of the Church then it must follow That the Point there spoken of the remission of Original Sin in the Baptism of Infants was defined when S. Augustine wrote this by a full sentence of a General Council You deny the Consequence for say you By Authority of the Church you mean and not unproperly the Church generally practising this Doctrine and defining it in a National Council confirmed by the Pope For this was plena authoritas Ecclesiae though not plenissima and to dispute against what was so practised and defined is in S. Augustine's sense to shake the Foundation of the Church if not wholly to destroy it It seems a little hard to understand what you mean by the Churches being not unproperly said to practise this Doctrine What did the Church practise the Doctrine of the remission of Original Sin in Infants That a Church should practise a matter of Faith seems a little wonderful but that it should do this and that not unproperly increaseth the admiration And we might think it a peculiar priviledge belonging to your Church but that she is not so much used to practise things more capable of it And can you think it enough to run us down by telling us That the Pope with a National Council hath defined it unless you first prove that the Pope and a National Council have as much authority as a General Council which you pretend to be infallible and if a National Council with the Pope be so too I wonder to what end General Councils are ever call'd since the Infallibility may be had at a much cheaper rate And by the same reason you make National Councils Infallible you may do Provincial if the Pope concurrs with them and by the same reason the Colledge of Cardinals may be Infallible without any of them because of the Pope's concurrence with them And so all this business of Councils is but a formal piece of Pageantry since all the Infallibility they have by this pretence is conferred by the Pope in his concurrence whose Infallibility doth not depend on the presence of a Council and therefore he must be as Infallible without a Council as with it So that at last this Discourse comes to this issue He that shakes the Pope's Infallibility shakes the Foundation of the Church and prove but this to have been S. Augustine's meaning you will highly advance the interest of your cause But whatever S. Austin's meaning be you think your self engaged to vindicate Bellarmine who his Lordship had said was deceived in saying That the Pelagian Heresie was never condemned in an Oecumenical Council but only in Nationals For saith he While the Pelagians stood out impudently against National Councils some of them defended Nestorius which gave occasion to the first Ephesine Council to excommunicate and depose
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
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
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
whether an Infallible Assent to the Infallibility of your Church can be grounded on those Motives of Credibility If you affirm it then there can be no imaginable necessity to make the Testimony of your Church infallible in order to Divine Faith for you will not I hope deny but that there are at least equal Motives of Credibility to prove the Divine Authority of the Scriptures as the Infallibility of your Church and if so why may not an Infallible Assent be given to the Scriptures upon those Motives of Credibility as well as to your Churches Infallibility If you deny the Assent built upon the Motives of Credibility to be Infallible how can you make the Assent to your Churches Testimony to be infallible when that Infallibility is attempted to be proved only by the Motives of Credibility And therefore it necessarily follows That notwithstanding your bearing it so high under the pretence of Infallibility you leave mens minds much more wavering in their Assent than before in that as shall afterwards appear these very Motives of Credibility do not at all prove the Infallibility of your Church which undoubtedly prove the Truth and Certainty of Christian Religion Thus while by this device you seek to avoid the Circle you destroy the Foundation of your Discourse That there must be an Infallible Assent to the truth of that Proposition That the Scriptures are the Word of God which you call Divine Faith which how can it be infallible when that Infallibility at the highest by your own confession is but evidently credible and so I suppose the Authority of the Scriptures is without your Churches Infallibility And thus you run into the same Absurdities which you would seem to avoid which is the second thing to manifest the unreasonableness of this way for whatever Absurdity you charge us with for believing the Doctrine of Christ upon the Motives of Credibility unavoidably falls upon your selves for believing the Churches Infallibility on the same grounds for if we leave the Foundation of Faith uncertain you do so too if we build a Divine Faith upon Motives of Credibility so do you if we make every ones reason the Judge in the choice of his Religion so must you be forced to do if you understand the consequence of your own principles 1. It is impossible for you to give a better account of Faith by the Infallibility of your Church than we can do without it for if Divine Faith cannot be built upon the Motives proving the Doctrine of Christ what sense or reason is there that it should be built on those Motives which prove your Churches Infallibility so that if we leave the Foundation of Faith uncertain you much more and that I prove by a Rule of much Authority with you by which you use to pervert the weak judgements of such who in your case do not discern the Sophistry of it Which is when you come to deal with persons whom you hope to Proselyte you urge them with this great Principle That Prudence is to be our Guide in the choice of our Religion and that Prudence directs us to chuse the safest way and that it is much safer to make choice of that way which both sides agree Salvation is to be obtained in than of that which the other side utterly denies men can be saved in How far this Rule will hold in the choice of Religion will be examined afterwads but if we take your word that it is a sure Rule I know nothing will be more certainly advantagious to us in on present case For both sides I hope are agreed that there are sufficient Motives of Credibility as to the belief of the Scriptures but we utterly deny that there are any such Motives as to the Infallibility of your Church it then certainly follows That our way is the more eligible and certain and that we lay a surer Foundation for Faith than you do upon your principles for resolving Faith 2. Either you must deny any such thing as that you call Divine Faith or you must assert that it may have no other Foundation than the Motives of Credibility which yet is that you would seem most to avoid by introducing the Infallibility of your Church that the Foundation of Faith may not be uncertain whereas supposing what you desire you must of necessity do that you would seem most fearful of which is making a Divine Faith to rest upon prudential Motives Which I thus prove It is an undoubted Axiom among the great men of your side That whatever is a Foundation for a Divine Faith must itself be believed with a firm certain and infallible Assent Now according to your principles the Infallibility of the Church is the Foundation for Divine Faith and therefore that must be believed with an Assent Infallible It is apparent then an Assent Infallible is required which is that which in other terms you call Divine Faith now when you make it your business to prove the Churches Infallibility upon your prudential Motives I suppose your design is by those proofs to induce men to believe it and if men then do believe it upon those Motives do you not found an Assent Infallible or a Divine Faith upon the Motives of Credibility And by the same reason that you urge against us the necessity of believing the Scriptures to be the Word of God by Divine Faith because it is the ground why we believe the things contained in the Scripture we press on your side the necessity of believing the Infallibility of the Church by a Faith equally Divine because that is to you the only sufficient Foundation of believing the Scriptures or any thing contained in them 3. You make by this way of resolving Faith every man's Reason the only Judge in the choice of his Religion which you are pleased to charge on us as a great Absurdity yet you who have deserved so very ill of Reason are fain to call in her best assistance in a case of the greatest moment viz. On what ground we must believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God You say Because the Church is infallible which delivers them to us but how should we come to know that she is infallible you tell us By the Motives of Credibility very good But must not every ones reason judge whether these Motives be credible or no and whether they belong peculiarly to your Church so as to prove the Infallibility of it as it is distinct from all other societies of Christians in the world You tell us indeed That these Motives make it evidently credible but must we believe it to be so because you say so If so then the ground of believing is not the Credibility of the Motives but of your Testimony and therefore you ought to make it evidently true that whatever you speak is undoubtedly true which whosoever reads your Book will hardly be perswaded to So that of necessity every mans reason must be Judge whether your Church
be infallible or no and thus at last you give Reason the Vmpirage in the choice of Religion And what is there more than this that we contend for If there be then any danger of Scepticism a private spirit or what other inconveniencies you object against our way of judging the truth of Religion by the Vse of Reason it will fall much more heavily upon your selves in this way of believing the Infallibility of the Church on the Motives of Credibility Therefore I assure you it were much more consonant to the principles of your party to tell men The Infallibility of your Church ought to be taken for granted and that men are damned for not believing it though no reason be given for it but only because you say it which is as much as to say the reason of the Point is It must needs be so then thus to expose it to the scorn and contempt of the world by offering to prove it by your Motives of Credibility For unawares you thereby give away the main of your Cause for by the very offer of proving it you make him whom you offer to prove it to judge whether these proofs be sufficient or no and if he be capable to judge of his Guide certainly he may be of his Way too considering that he hath according to us an Infallible Rule to judge of his Way whereas according to you he hath but Prudential Motives in the choice of his Guide Thus by this Opinion of yours you have gained thus much That there is nothing so absurd which you charge upon us but it falls unavoidably upon your own head By this way of resolving Faith you undermine it and leave a sure Foundation for nothing but Scepticism which is the last thing to shew the great unreasonableness of this way of yours that when you are making us believe you are taking the greatest care to make our Religion sure you cancel our best evidences and produce nothing but crackt and broken titles which will not stand any fair tryal at the bar of Reason And that you make the Foundations of Religion uncertain I offer to prove by the reason of the thing for if you require that as necessary for Faith which was never believed to be so when the Doctrine of Faith was revealed if upon the pretence of Infallibility you assert such things which destroy all the rational evidence of Christian Religion and if at last you are far from giving the least satisfactory account concerning this Infallibility of your Church then certainly we may justly charge you with unsetling the Foundations of Religion instead of giving us a certain resolution of Faith 1. You make that necessary to Faith which was not looked on as such when the Doctrine of the Gospel was revealed and what other design can such a pretence seem to have than to expose to contempt that Religion which was not received by a true Divine Faith because it wanted that which is now thought to be the only sure Foundation of Faith viz. the Infallibility of the Church of Rome What then will become of the Faith of all those who received Divine Revelations without the infallible Testimony of any Church at all With what Faith did the Disciples of Christ at the time of his suffering believe the Divine Authority of the Old Testament was it a true Divine Faith or not If it was whereon was it built not certainly on the Infallible Testimony of the Jewish Church which at that time consented to the death of the Messias condemning him as a malefactor and deceiver Or did they believe it because of that great Rational Evidence they had to convince them that those Prophecies came from God If so why may not we believe the Divinity of all the Scriptures on the same grounds and with a Divine Faith too With what Faith did those believe in the Messias who were not personally present at the Miracles which our Saviour wrought but had them conveyed to them by such reports as the woman of Samaria was to the Samaritans Or were all such persons excused from believing meerly because they were not Spectators But by the same reason all those would be excused who never saw our Saviour's miracles or heard his Doctrine or his Apostles But if such persons then were bound to believe I ask On what Testimony was their Faith founded Was the woman of Samaria infallible in reporting the discourse between Christ and her Were all the persons infallible who gave an account to others of what Christ did yet I suppose had it been your own case you would have thought your self bound to have believed Christ to have been the Messias if you had lived at that time and a certain account had been given you of our Saviour's Doctrine and Miracles by men faithful and honest though you had no reason to have believed them infallible I pray Sir answer me would you have thought your self bound to have believed or no If you affirm it as I will suppose you so much a Christian as to say so I pray then tell me Whether persons in those circumstances might not have a true and Divine Faith where there was no infallible Testimony but only Rational Evidence to build it self upon And if those persons might have a Divine Faith upon such evidence as that was may not we much more who have evidence of the same nature indeed but much more extensive universal and convincing than that was And how then can you still assert an infallible Testimony of the conveyers of Divine Revelation to be necessary to a Divine Faith Nay further yet How very few were there in comparison in the first Ages of the Christian Church who received the Doctrine of the Gospel from the mouths of persons infallible And of those who did so what certain evidence have men That all those persons did receive the Doctrine upon the account of the Infallibility of the propounders and not rather upon the Rational Evidence of the Truth of the Doctrine delivered and whether the belief of their Infallibility was absolutely necessary to Faith when the report of the Evidences of the Truth of the Doctrine might raise in them an obligation to believe supposing them not infallible in that delivery of it but that they looked on them as honest men who faithfully related What they had seen and heard And this seems the more probable in that the Apostles themselves in their undoubtedly divine writings do so often appeal to their own sufficiency and integrity without pleading so much their Infallibility S. John saith That which we have seen and heard and handled declare we unto you S. Peter appeals to his being an Eye-witness to make it appear he delivered no cunningly devised fables S. Luke makes this a ground That the things were surely believed because delivered from them who were Eye-witnesses and Ministers of the Word If they insisted so much upon this Rational Evidence and so sparingly on
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
do not therefore wonder at your sharpness and severity in your censures of all out of your Church when upon your Principles the denying your Churches Infallibility must needs be an offence of as high a nature as if one denied the Infallibility of the Sacred Scriptures But lest you should not think these any Absurdities at all we must come yet closer to the examination of your Proofs For which we must enquire into these two things 1. Whether the same Motives of Credibility belong to your Church by which Moses and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles shewed their Testimony to be infallible 2. Whether on supposition you had the same Motives there were the same reason to believe the Testimony of your Church Infallible as there was to believe Them to be so 1. Whether the same Motives of Credibility belong to your Church or no. And here again these things offer themselves to consideration 1. By what means their Testimony was proved infallible 2. Whether your Churches Testimony can be proved by the same Motives or no. For the first you are pleased to give us this account Why Moses was accounted infallible for the Israelites seeing Moses to be a person very devout mild charitable and chaste and endowed with the gift of working miracles were upon that ground obliged to receive him for a true Prophet and to believe him infallible by acknowledging as true and certain whatever he proposed to them from God All which I acknowledge to be very true but am much to seek how you will apply it to the proving your Churches Infallibility What kind of Miracles those are which your Church pretends to will be examined afterwards the other Motives of Credibility mentioned are Devotion Mildness Charity and Chastity and these I suppose you look on as those Motives which must induce men to believe the Infallibility of your Church But do you really think that every person who is devout mild charitable and chast is therefore infallible If not to what purpose do you produce them here if you do some out of your Church may be as infallible as those in it Especially if your superstitious Ceremonies be the greatest part of your devotion and your burning of Hereticks the Argument of your mildness and your damning all out of your Church be the best evidence of your Charity and the lives of your Popes the most pregnant Instances of your Churches Chastity The rest of your discourse wherein you endeavour after your way to prove tha there were sufficient Motives of Credibility to believe the Testimony of Christ and his Apostles I suppose no Christian will deny and that the Miracles wrought by them were Proofs that their Testimony was infallible I am so far from questioning that all your other Motives signifie nothing without them Which because it hath so great an influence on the present dispute I think it necessary to be a little further cleared than it is by you and chiefly for this end to let you see how much you have befooled your self in attempting to prove the Infallibility of your Church in the same manner that Christ and his Apostles Infallibility was proved in and yet insisting on that of Miracles as the great evidence of their Infallibility which your Church cannot with any face pretend to I acknowledge it then as a great Truth that it was necessary that the Testimony of all such who pretend to be infallible must be confirmed by such Miracles as Christ and his Apostles wrought Nay that it is impossible without such Evidence to prove any Testimony infallible where that Infallibility is pretended to independently upon Scripture as it is in your present case Which will be thus made evident Absolute Infallibility is not consistent with the shortness of the Humane Vnderstanding for such an Infallibility must suppose an infinity of Knowledge for where there is a defect in the Apprehension there is a possibility of deception therefore only an Infinite Being can be absolutely infallible Now man's Vnderstanding being so finite and limited in its Conceptions it is on that account apt to be imposed upon and to form false Notions of things so that supposing no Being in the world of greater Perfections than man is there never could be any such thing as Infallibility among men For though some mens Vnderstandings might outstrip others in the quickness of Conception and solidity of Judgement yet the Nature of Man being thus finite that presumption would lye against all pretence of Infallibility It being then impossible that mans understanding should be in it self infallible we must consider whether there be a possibility it should receive any Infallibility from that Infinite Being which is above it This then must be taken for granted that as an Infinite Vnderstanding cannot be deceived so Infinite Goodness cannot deceive And therefore whatever doth immediately proceed from a Being infinitely Wise and Good cannot but be infallibly True And there is no repugnancy at all in the nature of the thing but that this Infinite Being may in a way certain but imperceptible by us communicate to the Minds of Men such Notions of things which are the effects of his own Wisdom and Counsel and this is that we call Divine Inspiration But then we are still to consider That the understanding of a finite Creature cannot be any further infallible than as it receives those Notions which are imprinted upon it by the Infinite and Supreme Intellect of the world and such a person is no further infallible in what he speaks than as he delivers to the world those very Conceptions which are thus formed in his mind And this is that which the Apostle means when he sayes That Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost And so far as they were thus moved so far they were infallible and no further But this Infallibility being not intended meerly for the satisfaction of the mind of him that hath it but for the general good of the world it is necessary that there be some way whereby men may come to understand who are infallibly assisted and who not For otherwise the world would be more exposed to delusions under this pretext of Infallibility than if there were never any such thing in the world Either therefore every man must be infallibly assured in his mind that such a person is infallible in what he is to deliver which is a needless piece of Enthusiasm or else such external Evidences of it are to be used which may induce all rational and considerative persons to the belief of it Which is the way that God in his infinite Wisdom hath made choice of by making those very persons whose understandings are thus assisted by him to be the Instruments of doing some things above the power of nature And nothing can be more reasonable than to believe their Testimony True who are imployed as such immediate Instruments of Divine Power and if their Testimony be believed True
Society of Men joyning together in the Profession of Christian Religion but these Men must presently be infallible in whatever they deliver as the Sense of their Society Their visible Profession of Christian Religion makes them a True Church but cannot men seem to profess our Religion unless they have a visible Infallible Head to guide them Is Infallibility the Soul of a Church which gives it its Being I mean a present Infallibility continually actuating and informing the Body of it Cannot a man be known to be a True Man unless he be inspired Nor a Church distinguished from other Societies but by a Spirit of Infallibility The truth is Let Bellarmine multiply his fifteen Notes of the Church to fifteen hundred if he please nay let it pretend to what Infallibility it please if any Society of men challenging the name of Church to it self do destroy the end of its Constitution or hold any thing directly contrary to the Foundation of its Institution all other Notes in the world can never make it a True Church So that the only certain Note of a True Church is its Agreement with the primary Foundation of it in that Doctrine which was Infallible and attested by Miracles undoubtedly Divine That which holds the Doctrine of Christ is the Christian Church and the nearer any Society comes to that the purer it is the more it is distant from it the more impure and no man who honours the Christian Religion can be bound to communicate with the Impurities of such a Church let it bear it never so high under the pretence of Infallibility If you boast never so much of your Vnity Succession Antiquity the name of Catholick c. if your Doctrine be repugnant to what was originally delivered by the Founder of the Christian Church your Society is not the True Christian Church But suppose it were and that it were known so to be by such Notes as these are Can you not conceive a Church should be consonant to the Doctrine of Christ but it must be it self infallible in deciding Controversies Cannot you imagine a Society consisting of all True Christians in the world should be made up of such persons who all firmly believe that Doctrine infallible which Christ delivered but yet judge themselves all fallible and dare not usurp that royal prerogative of Heaven in prescribing infallibly in matters questioned but leave all to judge according to the Pandects of the Divine Laws because each member of this Society is bound to take care of his soul and of all things that tend thereto Is such an Idea of a Christian Church a thing unreasonable inconsistent or contrary to any Law of its Foundation or rather is it not a very true and just representation of that Society of men which our blessed Saviour instituted as a Church in the world 2. Do you mean That these Motives should prove the Christian Church at large infallible or your present particular universal Church of Rome For some of your Motives seem to respect the one and the rest the other Notion of it When you mention miracles efficacy purity and excellency of Doctrine fulfilling of Prophecies do you really intend these for the proof of your present Roman-Churches Infallibility as that is distinct from all other Churches of Christians in the world If you do as you must if you speak to the purpose shew us what miracles efficacy purity and excellency of Doctrine there are in your Church beyond and beside all other Churches in the world What fulfilling of Prophecies among you which makes your Church infallible Is it the Prophecy That your Church shall be infallible that is fulfilled Shew then to us where that Prophecy is and how it appears to be fulfilled Is it because your Church pretends to be infallible I do heartily acknowledge some Prophecies are therein fulfilled but such as your Church hath little ground to be proud of their accomplishment But to all impartial Christians the accomplishment of those Prophecies which speak of the degenerate state of the Church as they are a great Confirmation of the Infallibility of the Divine Revealer of them when they see it so remarkably in the signatures of your Church so they are far from being any motive of credibility to them to prove your Church to be Infallible Unless it be meant that the state of your Church is an infallible evidence that those Prophesies are fulfilled But I pray why should fulfilling of Prophesies make your Church Infallible I had rather thought if you could have proved your Church to have been Prophetical it had been more to your purpose And if your Popes in Cathedrâ had foretold future events which by their coming to pass had evidenced to the world they had a true spirit of Prophesie then indeed you had said something towards Infallibility But that the meer fulfilling of Prophesies owned Divine by all Christians should prove your Church Infallible is such a motive of Credibility concerning that Infallibility that it proves nothing but by this consequence If Christ were Infallible then your Church is Or do you mean because some Prophesies concerning your Church are fulfilled therefore your Church is Infallible by the same reason I hope you will not deny but that Antichrist is Infallible for when ever he did doth or shall appear no doubt there will be fulfilling of Prophesies and those very clear ones too And therefore Antichrist and your Pope may go together for Infallibility But it may be yet you have some other motives besides fulfilling Prophesies and those are miracles now you speak indeed to the purpose But yet still we poor Infidels because out of your Church desire a little satisfaction concerning them too 1. We very reasonably desire That he in your Church who pretends most to infallibility should do these miracles himself For that was alwayes the way in Scripture for them whose testimony was to be believed Infallible to be the workers of those miracles which should induce men to believe such an Infallibility Do you think the Israelites would have believed Moses Infallible if any ordinary Israelite had wrought those miracles which he did unless you would suppose that those miracles were purposely wrought to have attested that Moses was Infallible But yet God thought it much more fit that Moses himself should be the instrument of doing them and so it was with our Blessed Saviour Let then your Church produce the several miracles wrought by your Popes to attest their Infallibility or if you believe Pope and Council the subject of Infallibility produce the miracles to prove that God was alwayes so just and reasonable as not to expect the belief of any Infallibility without such evidences given for it as might perswade men to believe it and you acknowledge That independently on Scripture there can be no such proof of Infallibility as Miracles and you require it from us to believe the present Church Infallible where then are your present miracles
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
that the matters to be believed are not so clear to us as demonstrations I will not gainsay it but if you mean obscurity or want of evidence as to the reason inducing me to believe I utterly deny any such obscurity to belong to Faith or to be consistent with it For God doth not require us to believe any thing without sufficient grounds for our believing it and those grounds do bear a proportionable evidence to the nature of that assent which he requires If he requires an Infallible assent he gives Infallible grounds if he requires a firm and certain assent he gives firm and certain grounds if he requires only a probable assent he gives only probable evidence But still such as the nature of the assent is such is the evidence he gives for it To make this plainer by an Instance That Christ was the true Messias he requires an assent built upon Infallible grounds and therefore God gave such Infallible evidence of it by the Miracles which he wrought That these Miracles were once really done he requires our firm assent and therefore gives certain evidence by an Universal and uncontrouled tradition but whether St. Paul or any other Apostolical person were Authour of the Epistle to the Hebrews he requires only an assent built on the most probable grounds and therefore he hath given us no more for it But still as the assent is so the evidence must be For Faith being an act of the mind whose nature is to judge according to reason we cannot suppose any act of it to proceed in a brutish manner by a meer impulse of the will I deny not but the will may be said to have some kind of influence upon the understanding both in furthering and hindering assent but it is not by any command it hath over the mind in its acts but as it can divert the mind from or incline it to the searching into the evidence of the things Therefore when we commonly say Facile credimus quae volumus and so on the contrary it is not because of the wills immediate power upon the understanding but as the desire of a thing makes us inquisitive after it so the dislike of it makes us unwilling to hear the reasons for it and ready to entertain any pretence against it Thus I grant the will may have power upon the mind as to the eliciting the act of Faith not that I can assent to a thing as true because I desire it to be true but this inclination of the will removes those impediments which would obstruct my discovery of the evidence which is in it You havs certainly a mind of another mould then others have that can believe thing which do not appear credible to you yet such a kind of Faith as this is very necessary for your Churches Infallibility and for that your discourse of believing by the impulse of the will is very proper and seasonable But other persons may think it an Imperfection in their minds that they cannot believe any thing any further than it appears credible that is that they can go no further than they have legs nor see when their eyes are shut or the room dark But it may be you will tell me All this discourse proceeds on supposition that Faith were a natural act of the mind but you speak of a supernatural Faith It may be so but I hope you speak not of an irrational Faith which must believe things beyond the evidence of their Credibility Faith whether natural or supernatural acquired or infused is still an act of the mind and let it have but what belongs to it as such and call it what you will I deny not a peculiar Operation of Grace in the eliciting the Act of Divine Faith but still I say The manner whereby it is wrought must be agreeable to the nature of the Vnderstanding and by discovering the Credibility which is in the Objects of Faith If you say The Assent is infused I must say The Evidence is first infused for as Christ when he healed the blind did not make them see Objects which did not appear visible so neither doth the Spirit of God in planting Faith make men discern Objects which do not appear credible and the stronger the Assent is the greater is the Evidence and Credibility of the Object And can you call then that any free inevident Assent which goes no further than the Object appears credible It cannot be then any Act of the Will but meerly of the Mind which yields assent to any Object propounded as credible to it So that in what way and manner Assent is required in that same manner doth God give proportionable evidence I deny not but that Assent is required to Objects inevident to sense and reason but then I say The Assent is not required to what is obscure and inevident but to what is evident to us and therefore credible In the Incarnation of the Son of God the manner of the Hypostatical Vnion is to us inevident but then God doth not require our Assent to the Manner but to the Truth of the thing it self Where-ever God requires us to believe any thing as True he gives us evidence that it is so where-ever it appears the thing is inevident we may lawfully suspend our Assent and for all that I know it is our duty so to do But yet you have not done with this profound discourse For you very learnedly distinguish a double proceeding in probations the one is per principia intrinseca which you very well English by intrinsecal Principles i. e. such as have a necessary natural connexion with the things proved and do manifest and lay open the objects themselves the other is per principia extrinseca by extrinsecal Principles that is such as have no natural or necessary connexion with nor do produce any such evident manifestation of the things proved but their efficacy viz. whereby they determine the understanding to assent doth wholly depend on the worth and vertue of that external Principle whereby such probations are made This you apply to Knowledge and Faith that as Knowledge proceeds in the former way so Faith doth in the latter which depends purely upon extrinsecal Principles viz. the Authority Veracity Goodness and Knowledge of God affirming it which was immediately known to the Prophets and Apostles but mediately to us which howâ—ver must be infallibly conveyed to us which can only be by the testimony of the Church This is the substance of your third Section to which I answer 1. That all Certainty in the acts of the Mind whether in Knowledge or Faith must equally suppose the Truth of some extrinsecal Principles viz. the veracity and goodness of God for otherwise we cannot certainly judge of those you call Principia intrinseca to know what things have necessary and natural connexion with the things proved For unless I suppose that God is so True and Good as not to suffer me to be deceived in
some generall postulata must be laid down which by the very state of the Controversie must be acknowledged by you which are 1. That the Question in dispute is not concerning the Formal Object of all things divinely revealed but concerning the believing this to be a particular Divine Revelation For it is obvious to any one that considers what vast difference there is between those two Questions Why you believe that to be True which God hath revealed the plain and easie resolution of this is into the veracity and infallibility of God in all his Revelations But it is quite another Question when I ask Why you believe this to have been a True Divine Revelation Or that such particular Books contain the Word of God And it is apparent by the whole process of the the Dispute that the Question is not concerning the first but the second of these two 2. That the Question is not concerning any kind of perswasion as to this Divine Revelation but concerning that which you call Divine Faith 3. That this Divine Faith must be resolved into some Testimony supposed infallible These three are things agreed on between both parties as appears by the whole management of this Controversie Only you suppose this Infallible Testimony to be the Church which your Adversary denies and saith It will follow from thence that you make your Churches Testimony the Formal Object of Faith which I thus prove 1. That which is the only Ground and Foundation whereon a Divine Faith is built must be the Formal Object of Faith but the Infallible Testimony of your Church is the only Foundation whereon Faith is built By the Formal Object of Faith I suppose you and I mean the same thing which is the Foundation whereon the Certainty of the Assent is grounded or the principal Objective Cause of Faith viz. not every account that may be given Why men believe but that which is the only Certain Foundation to establish a Divine Faith upon Now let any one but consider what the Question is and what your resolution is and then judge Whether you make not the Churches Testimony the Formal Object The Question is How we know the Scriptures to be the Word of God which in other terms is What the ground is why I assent to the Doctrine contained in Scripture as a Divine Revelation You say The Testimony of the Scripture it self cannot be that ground You say The Testimony of the Spirit cannot be it You say A Moral Certainty cannot be it because then it is not Divine Faith What then is the reason why you believe it Do you not over and over say It is because of the infallible Testimony of the Church which gives us unquestionable assurance that this was a Divine Revelation and yet for all this this Testimony is not the Formal Object of this Divine Faith The most charitable apprehension I can have of you when you write things so inconsistent is either that you understand not or consider not what you write of but take what hath been said in such cases by men of your own party and right or wrong that serves for an Answer But for all this you tell us confidently That your Faith is not resolved into the voice of the Church as into its Formal Object but it is enough to say Our Faith is resolved into God's Revelations whether written or unwritten as its Formal Object and our infallible assurance that the things we believe are Divine Revelations is resolved into the Infallibility of the Churches Definitions These are excellent Notions if they would hang together But 1. We enquire not what is enough to say in such a case but what ground you have for saying what you do You have enough to say upon many subjects in this Book or else your Book would never have swell'd to the bulk it hath but you have generally very little reason for what you say 2. Is that infallible Assurance that the things we believe as God's Revelations are revealed from him a thing call'd Faith or no If it be as I hope you will not deny it then by your own Confession Faith is resolved into the Churches Testimony as its Formal Object for you say This Infallible Assurance is resolved into the Infallibility of the Churches Definitions teaching us that they are his Revelations These are your own words And do you yet deny this Testimony of the Church to be the Formal Object of this infallible Assurance 3. What is it you mean when you say That Faith is resolved into God's Revelations as its Formal Object Is it that the reason why we believe is Because God hath revealed these things to us But that you know is not the matter at all in question but How we come to assent to such a Doctrine as a Divine Revelation Answer me punctually to it Can you possibly resolve your Faith into any thing else as its Formal Object If you can I pray do us the favour to name it If you resolve this Faith as you seem to express your mind into Divine Revelation as its Formal Object Shew us where that Revelation is extant for which you believe Scripture to be the Word of God Is it the Scripture it self or a Revelation distinct from it If you say It is the Scripture it self then you must make the infallible Testimony of your Church needless for then we may have infallible Assurance that the things we believe are Divine Revelations without your Churches Testimony or Definitions Then what is become of the unwritten Tradition you mention in these words If then it be demanded Why we believe such Books as are contained in the Bible to be the Word of God we answer Because it is a divine unwritten Tradition that they are his Word and this Divine Tradition is the Formal Object whereon our Faith relyes Well then our last resolution of Faith is into this Divine unwritten Tradition But whence come you to know that this Tradition is Divine Into what Revelation is the belief of that finally resolved Doth it appear to be so by it self and then why may not the Scripture or hath it some other Revelation and Divine Tradition to attest it And then the same Question returns concerning that and so in infinitum or else of necessity you must acknowledge one of these two things Either that some Divine Revelation may sufficiently manifest it self without any infallible Testimony of your Church Or else that this infallible Testimony must be the Formal Object of Faith Of these two chuse which you please 2. I prove that you must make the Churches Testimony the Formal Object of Faith because either you must make it so or you must deny Divine Revelation to be the Formal Object of Faith because the reason is equal for both I demand then How you resolve your Belief of the Truth of the Doctrine of Christ you tell me into Divine Revelation as its Formal Object I ask yet further Why
you believe the Revelation made by Christ to be Divine Your Answer must be either that your Churches Testimony gives you infallible Assurance of it and then the former Argument returns or else that Christ manifested his Testimony to be infallible and therefore his Revelation Divine because of the Motives of Credibility which accompanied his preaching If this be your Answer as it must be by your former discourse then by the same reason I prove your Churches Testimony to be the Formal Object of Faith because you have endeavoured to prove the Churches Infallibility by the same Motives of Credibility that Moses and Christ proved theirs Either therefore retract all your former discourse or else confess that by the same reason that the Divine Revelation made by Christ is the Formal Object of Faith the infallible Testimony of your Church must be so too For according to your own supposition there are equal Motives of Credibility and therefore equal obligation to believe the Infallibility of one as of the other 3. If the only reason which makes any thing be the Formal Object agrees to the Testimony of your Church then that Testimony must be the Formal Object of Faith to them that believe it Now that which is the only reason which makes any thing to be the Formal Object of Faith is the Supposition that it is infallible For why do you resolve your Faith finally into Divine Revelation Is it not because you suppose God to be infallible in all Revelations of himself and therefore if your Church be infallible as you say it is by the same reason that must be the Formal Object of Faith as if it were by the revelation of God himself But here you think to obviate this objection by some strange distinctions concerning your Infallibility You tell us therefore The Churches Infallibility is not absolutely and simply Divine or that God speaks immediately by her Definitions but only that she is supernaturally infallible by the assistance of the Holy Ghost preserving her from all errour in defining any thing as a point of Christian Faith that is as a Truth revealed from God which is not truly and really so revealed A rare Distinction this You say afterwards The Churches Definition is absolutely infallible but yet this Infallibility is not absolutely and simply Divine I pray tell us What is it then You say It is Supernatural but not Divine and this Supernatural Infallibility by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost securing from all errour but yet not absolutely and precisely Divine I pray tell us What kind of Infallibility that was which the Apostles had in delivering the Doctrine of Christ was that any more than such a Supernatural Infallibility as you fondly arrogate to your Church viz. such a one as might secure them from all errour in defining any thing as a point of Christian Faith which was not so that is as a Truth revealed from God which was not truly and really so revealed And yet I suppose you will not deny but those who lived in the Apostles times might resolve their Faith into that Infallibility which they had as its Formal Object and therefore why not as well into your Churches Infallibility since you pretend to as great Infallibility in your Church as ever was in the Apostles Thus I hope I have shewn it impossible for you not to make the Churches Testimony the Formal Object of Faith since you make it infallible as you do 2. We come now to consider the little evasions and distinctions whereby you hope to get out of this Labyrinth But having so manifestly proved that it follows from your Principles That the Churches Testimony is the Formal Object of Faith all your distinctions fall of themselves for thereby it appears that your Churches Testimony is not meerly a necessary Condition of believing but is the Formal Cause and Reason of it therefore your instance of approximation in natural Causes is nothing to the purpose No more is that of a Commonwealth's practising the same Laws being an Argument that those were its primitive Laws Unless you suppose it impossible 1. That a Common-wealth should ever alter its Laws Or 2. That it should practise contrary to its primitive Laws Or 3. That it should be supernaturally Infallible in judging which are primitive Laws and which not without these Suppositions I say That Instance signifies nothing to the business in hand and when you have proved these true I will give you a further Answer Your Answer to Aristotles Text or rather to that undoubted Maxim of Reason with which the citation of Aristotle concurred hath been considered already Your Answer to the Testimony of Canus is like the rest of your discourse trivial and not to the purpose for Canus doth not only deny the Churches Testimony to be the Formal Object of Faith but the necessity of believing its Testimony to be infallible Non intelligitur necessariò quod credo docenti Ecclesiae tanquam testi infallibili are the very words of the Testimony cited in the Margin of his Lordships Books Your next Section affords us some more words but not one drachm more of reason For How do you prove that the Churches Authority is more known to us than the Scriptures or How can you make it appear that there is any Authority but what is relative to us and therefore the distinction is in it self silly of Authority in se quoad nos For whatever hath Authority hath thereby a respect to some it hath its Authority over And Can any thing be a ground of Faith simply and in it self which is not so towards us For the Formal Object of Faith is that for whose sake we believe and therefore if Divine Revelation be as you say the Formal Object of Faith then it must be more known to us than the Testimony of the Church For that must be more known to us which is the main cause of Believing But if all your meaning be that we must first know what the Church delivers for Scripture before we can judge whether it were divinely revealed or no I grant it to be true but what is this to your Infallibility Will you prove the Infallibility of your Church to be more known to us than that of the Scriptures and on supposition that were true can you then prove that the Scriptures should still retain their prerogative above the Church What your Authors distinguish concerning objective and subjective Certainty pertains not to this place for the worth and dignity of the Scriptures may exceed that of Tradition yet when the knowledge of that worth relyes on that Tradition your esteem of the one must be according to your esteem of the other I will not here enquire Whether the adhesion of the Will can exceed the clearness of the Vnderstanding nor Whether Aristotle was unacquainted with subjective Certainty nor Whether our adhesion to Articles of Faith be stronger than to any Principles evident to natural
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
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
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
part of the world should be so grosly deceived in a matter of such moment especially supposing a Divine Providence then I freely and heartily assert We have such a kind of rational Infallibility or rather the highest degree of actual Certainty concerning the Truth of the Canon of Scripture and that the Catholick Church hath not de facto erred in defining it Thus I have followed your discoursing Christian through all his doubts and perplexities and upon the result can find no ground at all either of doubting concerning the Scripture or of believing the Testimony of your Church or any to be an infallible ground of Faith Your next passage is to tell us how his Lordships Dedalian windings as you finely call them are disintricated A happy man you are at squaring Circles and getting out of Labyrinths And thus it appears in the present case For when his Lordship had said That the Tradition of the Church is too weak because that is not absolutely Divine you repeat over your already exploded Proposition that there may be an infallible Testimony which is not absolutely Divine which when I have your faculty of writing things which neither you nor any one else can understand I may admit of but till then I must humbly beg your pardon as not being able to assent to any thing which I cannot understand and have no reason to believe And withall contrary to your second Answer it appears That if the Testimony of the Primitive were absolutely Divine because infallible the Testimony of the present Church must be absolutely Divine if it be infallible The rest of this Chapter is spent in the examining some by-citations of men of your own side chiefly and therefore it is very little material as to the truth or falshood of the present Controversie yet because you seem to triumph so much assoon as you are off the main business I shall briefly return an Answer to the substance of what you say His Lordship having asserted the Tradition of the Primitive Apostolical Church to be Divine and that the Church of England doth embrace that as much as any Church whatsoever withall adds That when S. Augustine said I would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Catholick Church moved me some of your own will not endure should be understood save of the Church in the time of the Apostles only and some of the Church in general not excluding after Ages but sure to include Christ and his Apostles In your Answer to this you insult strangely over his Lordship in two things First That he should say Some and mention but one in his Margent 2. That that One doth not say what he cites out of him To the first I answer you might easily observe the use his Lordship makes of his Margent is not so much to bring clear and distinct proofs of what he writes in his Book but what hath some reference to what he there saies and therefore it was no absurdity for him to say in his Book indefinitely some and yet in his Margent only to mention Occham For when his Lordship writ that no doubt his mind was upon others who asserted the same thing though he did not load his Margent with them And that you may see I have reason for what I say I hope you will not suppose his Lordship unacquainted with the Testimonies of those of your side who do in terms assert this That I may therefore free you from all kind of suspicion What think you of Gerson when speaking of the greater Authority of the Primitive Church than of the present he adds And by this means we come to understand what S. Augustine said I would not believe the Gospel c. For there saith he he takes the Church for the Primitive Congregation of Believers who saw and heard Christ and were witnesses of what he did Is not this Testimony plain enough for you But besides this we have another as evident in whom are those very words which his Lordship by a lapse of memory attributes to Occham For Durandus plainly sayes That for what concerns the approbation of Scripture by the Church it is understood only of the Church which was in the Apostles times who were filled with the Holy Spirit and withall saw the Miracles of Christ and heard his Doctrine and on that account were convenient witnesses of all which Christ did or taught that by their Testimony the Scripture containing the actions and speeches of Christ might receive approbation Do you yet desire a Testimony more express and full than this is of one who doth understand the Church exclusively of all successive to the Apostles when he had just before produced that known Testimony of S. Augustine You see then the Bishop had some reason to say Some of your Church asserted this to be S. Augustine 's meaning and therefore your Instances of some where but one is meant are both impertinent and scurrilous For where it is evidently known there was but one it were a Soloecism to say some as to say that some of the Apostles betrayed Christ when it is known that none but Judas did it But if I should say that some Jesuits had writ for the killing of Kings and in the Margent should cite Mariana no person conversant in their writings would think it a Soloecism for though I produce him for a remarkable Instance yet that doth not imply that I have none else to produce but only that the mentioning of one might shew I was not without proof of what I said For your impudent oblique slander on the memory of that excellent Prelate Arch-Bishop Cranmer when you say If a Catholick to disgrace the Protestant Primacy of Canterbury should say Some of them carried a holy Sister lockt up in a Chest about with them and name Cranmer only in the Margent His memory is infinitely above your slyest detractions and withall when you are about such a piece of Criticism I pray tell me what doth some of them relate to Is Primacy the name of some men Just as if one should disgrace the See of Rome and say Some of them have been Atheists Magicians debauched c. Though I confess it were a great injury in this case to cite but one in the Margent unless in pity to the Reader yet you may sooner vindicate some of them from a Soloecism in Language when the See of Rome went before than any of them from those Soloecisms in manners which your own Authours have complained of But say you What if this singular-plural say no such thing as the words alledged by the Bishop signifie I have already granted it to have been a very venial mistake of memory in his Lordship of Occham for Durandus in whom those very words are which are in the Margent of his Lordships Book as appears in the Testimony already produced I acknowledge therefore that Occham in that place of his Dialogues doth speak
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
contain the Gospel in them for it is plain he speaks of them and not the Doctrine abstractly considered should have wanted that consent of the Catholick Church that it had not been delivered down by a constant succession of all Ages from the Apostles and were not received among the Christian Churches but started out from a few persons who differ from all Christian Churches as this Apostleship of Manichaeus did he might justly question the Truth of them And this I take to be truest and most natural account of these so much controverted words of S. Austin by which sense the other two Questions are easily answered for it is plain S. Austin means not the judgement of the present Church but of the Catholick Church in the most comprehensive sense as taking in all ages and places or in Vincentius his words Succession Vniversality and Consent and it further appears that the influence which this Authority hath is sufficient to induce Assent to the thing attested in all persons who consider it in what age capacity or condition soever And therefore if in this sense you extend it beyond Novices and Weaklings I shall not oppose you in it but it cannot be denied that it is intended chiefly for doubters in the Faith because the design of it is to give men satisfaction as to the reason why they ought to believe But neither you nor any of those you call Catholick Authours will ever be able to prove that S. Austin by these words ever dreamt of any infallible Authority in the present Church as might be abundantly proved from the chapter foregoing where he gives an account of his being in the Catholick Church from the Consent of People and Nations from that Authority which was begun by miracles nourished by hope increased by charity confirmed by continuance which certainly are not the expressions of one who resolved his Faith into the infallible Testimony of the present Church And the whole scope and design of his Book de utilitate credendi doth evidently refute any such apprehension as might be easily manifested were it not too large a subject for this place where we only examine the meaning of S. Austin in another Book The substance of which is that That speech of his doth not contain a resolution of his Faith as to the Divinity of Christs Doctrine but the resolution of it as to the Truth and authenticalness of the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists which we acknowledge to be into the Testimony of the Catholick Church in the most large and comprehensive sense The next thing we come to consider is an Absurdity you charge on his Lordship viz. That if the infallible Authority of the Church be not admitted in the Resolution he must have recourse to the private Spirit which you say though he would seem to exclude from the state of the Question yet he falls into it under the specious title of Grace so that he only changeth the words but admits the same thing for which you cite p. 83 84. That therein his Lordship should averr that where others used to say They were infallibly resolved that Scripture was Gods Word by the Testimony of the Spirit within them that he hath the same assurance by Grace Whether you be not herein guilty of abusing his Lordship by a plain perverting of his meaning will be best seen by producing his words A man saith he 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 it 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 and direction of Tradition without and Grace within Had you not a great mind to calumniate who could pick out of these words That the Bishop resolved his Faith into Grace Can any thing be more plain than the contrary is from them when in the most perspicuous terms he says that the last Resolution of Faith is into internal arguments and only supposeth Tradition and Grace as necessary helps for the finding them Might you not then as well have said That his Lordship notwithstanding his zeal against the Infallibility of Tradition is fain to resolve his Faith into it at last as well as say that he doth it into Grace for he joyns these two together But Is it not possible to assert the Vse and Necessity of Grace in order to Faith but the last Resolution of it must be into it Do not all your Divines as well as ours suppose and prove the Necessity of Grace in order to believing and Are they not equally guilty of having recourse to the private Spirit Do you really think your self that there is any thing of Divine Grace in Faith or no If there be free your Self then from the private Spirit and you do his Lordship For shame then forbear such pitiful calumnies which if they have any truth in them You are as much concerned as Your adversary in it You would next perswade us That the Relator never comes near the main difficulty which say you is if the Church be supposed fallible in the Tradition of Scripture how it shall be certainly known whether de facto she now errs not in her delivery of it If this be your grand difficulty it is sufficiently assoiled already having largely answered this Question in terminis in the preceding Chapter You ask further What they are to do who are unresolved which is the true Church as though it were necessary for men to know which is the true Church before they can believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God but when we assert the tradition of the Church to be necessary for believing the Scriptures we do not thereby understand the particular Tradition of any particular Church whose judgement they must rely on but the Vniversal Tradition of all Christians though this must be first made known in some particular Society by the means of some particular persons though their authority doth not oblige us to believe but only are the means whereby men come acquainted with that Vniversal Tradition And therefore your following discourse concerning the knowing the true Church by its motives is superseded for we mean no other Church than the Community of Christians in this Controversie and if you ask me By what motives I come to be certain which is a Community of Christians and which of Mahumetans and how one should be known from another I can soon resolve you But we are so far from making it necessary to know which particular society
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
not of falsifying Hookers words yet of perverting his meaning let the Impartial Reader judge CHAP. VIII The Churches Infallibility not proved from Scripture Some general considerations from the design of proving the Churches Infallibility from Scripture No Infallibility in the High-Priest and his Clergy under the Law if there had been no necessity there should be under the Gospel Of St. Basils Testimony concerning Traditions Scripture less lyable to corruption than Traditions The great uncertainty of judging Traditions when Apostolical when not The Churches perpetuity being promised in Scripture proves not its Infallibility His Lordship doth not falsifie C's words but T. C. doth his meaning Producing the Jesuits words no traducing their Order C's miserable Apology for them The particular texts produced for the Churches Infallibility examined No such Infallibility necessary in the Apostles Successours as in Themselves The similitude of Scripture and Tradition to an Ambassadour and his Credentials rightly stated THE main design of this Chapter being to prove the Infallibility of the Church from the Testimonies of Scripture before I come to a particular discussion of the matters contained in it I shall make some general Observations on the scope and design of it which may give more light to the particulars to be handled in it 1. That the Infallibility you challenge to the Church is such as must suppose a promise extant of it in Scripture Which is evident from the words of A. C. which you own to his Lordship That if he would consider the Tradition of the Church not only as it is the Tradition of a company of fallible men in which sense the Authority of it is humane and fallible but as the Tradition of a company of men assisted by Christ and his Holy Spirit in that sense he might easily find it more than an Introduction indeed as much as would amount to an Infallible Motive Whence I inferr that in order to the Churches Testimony being an Infallible Motive to Faith it must be believed that this company of men which make the Church are assisted by Christ and his Holy Spirit Now I demand Supposing there were no Scripture extant the belief of which you said before in defence of Bellarmine was not necessary to salvation by what means could you prove such an Infallible Assistance of the Holy Spirit in the Catholick Church in order to the perswading an Infidel to believe Could you to one that neither believes Christ nor the Holy Ghost prove evidently that your Church had an assistance of both these You tell him that he cannot believe that there is a Christ or a Holy Ghost unless he believes first your Church to be Infallible and yet he cannot believe your Church to be Infallible unless he believes there are such things as Christ and the Holy Ghost for that Infallibility by your own confession doth suppose the peculiar assistance of both these And can any one believe their assistance before he believes they are If you say as you do By the motives of credibility you will prove your Church Infallible But setting aside the absurdity of that which I have fully discovered already Is it possible for you to prove your Church Infallible unless antecedently to the belief of your Churches Infallibility You can prove to an Infidel the truth of these things 1. That the names of Christ and the Holy Ghost are no Chimerical Fancies and Ideas but that they do import something real otherwise an Infidel would speedily tell you these names imported nothing but some kind of Magical spells which could keep men from errour as long as they carried them about with them That as well might Mahomet or any other Impostor pretend an infallible assistance from some Tutelar Angels with hard Arabick names as you of Christ and the Holy Ghost unless you can make it appear to him that really there are such Beings as Christ and the Holy Ghost and when you have proved it to him and he be upon your proof inclinable to believe it you are bound to tell him by your Doctrine that for all these proofs he can only fancy there are such Beings but he cannot really believe them unless he first believes your Church infallible And when he tells you He cannot according to your own Doctrine believe that Infallibility unless he believes the other first Would he not cry out upon you as either lamentable Fools that did not understand what you said or egregious Impostors that play fast and loose with him bidding him believe first one thing and then another till at last he may justly tell you that in this manner he cannot be perswaded to believe any thing at all 2. Supposing he should get through this and believe that there were such Beings as Christ and the Holy Ghost he may justly ask you 1. Whether they be nothing else but such a kind of Intellectus Agens as the Arabick Philosophers imagined some kind of Being which did assist the understanding in conception You answer him No but they are real distinct personalities of the same nature and essence with God himself then he asks 2. Whence doth this appear for these being such grand difficulties you had need of some very clear evidence of them If you send him to Scripture he asks you To what end for the belief of that must suppose the Truth of the thing in Question that your Church is infallible in delivery of this Scripture for Divine Revelation But he further demands 3. Whence comes that Church which you call Infallible to have this Assistance of both these Do they assist all kind of men to make them infallible You answer No. But Do they assist though not all men separately yet all societies of men conjunctly You answer No. Do they assist all men only in Religious actions of what Religion soever they are of Still you answer No. Do they assist then all men of the Christian Religion in their societies No. Do they assist all those among the Christians who say they have this Assistance No. Do they thus assist all Churches to keep them from errour No. Whom is it then that they do thus infallibly assist You answer The Church But what Church do you mean The Catholick Church But which is this Catholick Church for I hear there are as great Controversies about that as any thing You must answer confidently That Church which is in the Roman Communion is the true Catholick Church Have then all in that Communion this Infallible Assistance No. Have all the Bishops in this Communion it No. Have all these Bishops this Assistance when they meet together Yes say you undoubtedly if the Pope be their Head and confirm their Acts. Then it should seem to me that this Infallible Assistance is in the Pope and he it is whom you call the Catholick Church But surely he is a very big man then is he not But say you These are Controversies which are not necessary for you to know it sufficeth
at Rome from St. Peter If then Traditions be so uncapable of falsification and corruption how came they to be so much to seek as to what the Apostolical Tradition was in the very next age succeeding the Apostles What Could not those who lived in St. Johns and St. Peters time know what they did Could they be deceived themselves or had they an intent to deceive their posterity If some of them did falsifie Tradition so soon we see what little certainty there is in the deriving a Tradition from the Apostles if neither falsified then it should seem there was no universal practise of the Apostles concerning it but they looked on it as a matter of indifferency and some might practise one way and some another If so then we are yet further to seek for an Vniversal Tradition of the Apostles binding succeeding Ages For can you possibly think the Apostles did intend to bind unalterably succeeding Ages in such things which they used a Liberty in themselves If then it be granted that in matters of an indifferent nature the Apostles might practise severally as they saw occasion How then can we be certain of the Apostles universal practise in matters of an indifferent nature If we cannot so we can have no evidence of an Vniversal Tradition of the Apostles but in some things which they judged necessary But whence shall we have this unquestionable evidence first that they did such things and secondly that they did them with an apprehension of the necessity of them and with an intention to oblige posterity by their actions By what rule or measure must we judge of this necessity By their Vniversal practise but that brings us into a plain Circle for we must judge of the necessity of it by their Vniversal practise and we must prove that Vniversal practise by the necessity of the thing For if the thing were not judged necessary the Apostles might differ in their practise from one another Whence then shall we prove any practise necessary unless built on some unalâ—erable ground of reason and then it is not formally an Apostolical Tradition but the use of that common reason and prudence in matters of a religious nature or else by some positive Law and Institution of theirs and this supposing it unwritten must be evidenced from something distinct from their practise or else you must assert that whatever the Apostles did they made an unalterable Law for or lastly you must quit all Vnwritten Traditions as Vniversal and must first inferr the necessity and then the Vniversality of their practise from some record extant in Scripture and then you can be no further certain of any Vniversal practise of the Apostles then you are of the Scriptures by which it will certainly appear that the Scripture is farr more evident and credible then any Vniversal unwritten Tradition A clear and evident Instance of the uncertainty of knowing Apostolical Traditions in things not defined in Scripture is one of those you instance in your self viz. that of Rebaptizing Hereticks which came to be so great a Controversie so soon after the Apostolical Age. For though this Controversie rose to its height in St. Cyprians time which was about A. D. 250. yet it was begun some competent time before that For St. Cyprian in his Epistle to Jubaianus where he gives an account of the General Council of the Provinces of Africa and Numidia consisting of seventy one Bishops endeavours to remove all suspicion of Novelty from their opinion For saith he it is no new or sudden thing among us to judge that those ought to be baptized who come to the Church from Hereticks for now many years are past and a long time since under Agrippinus the Bishops meeting together did determine it in Council and thousands of Hereticks have voluntarily submitted to it How far off could that be from the Apostolical times which was done so long before Cyprians And although S. Augustine as it was his interest so to do would make this to have been but a few years yet we have greater evidence both of the greater antiquity and larger spread of this Opinion Whereby we may see how little the judgement of Vincentius Lyrinensis is to relyed on as to Traditions who gives Agrippinus such hard words for being the first who against Scripture the Rule of the Vniversal Church the judgement of all his Fellow-Priests the custom of his Ancestors did assert the rebaptization of Hereticks How little Truth there is in what Vincentius here saies and consequently how little certainty in his way of finding out Traditions will appear from the words of Dionysius of Alexandria in his Epistle to Philemon and Dionysius concerning this subject For therein he asserts That long before that custom obtained in Africa the same was practised and decreed in the most famous Churches both at Iconium Synada and other places On which account this great person professeth that he durst not condemn their Opinion who held so Whether this Synod at Iconium were the same with that mentioned by Firmilian is not so certain but if it were that can be no argument against the Antiquity of it For although Firmilian say That we long ago meeting in Iconium from Galatia Cilicia and the neighbour Regions have confirmed the same viz. that Hereticks should be baptized yet as the learned Valesius observes the pronoune We is not to be understood of Firmilian's person but of his predecessors and therefore checks both Baronius and Binius for placing that Synod A. D. 258. We see therefore this Opinion was so largely spread that not only the Churches in Africa Numidia and Mauritania favoured it but almost all the Eastern Christians For Dionysius in an Epistle to Xystus who succeeded Stephanus at Rome wherein he pleads for Moderation as to this Controversie and desires him more throughly to consider the weight of the business and not proceed so rashly as Stephanus had done he tells him in conclusion that he writ not this of himself but at the request of the several Bishops of Antioch Caesarea Aelia Tyre Laodicea Tarsus c. Nay and as it appears by Firmilians Epistle they made no question but this custom of theirs descended from Christ and his Apostles For telling Cyprian that in such places where the other custom had been used they did well to oppose truth to custom But we saith he joyn truth and custom together and to the custom of the Romans we oppose the custom of truth holding that from the beginning which was delivered by Christ and his Apostles And therefore adds Neither do we remember when this practice began seeing it was alwaies observed among us And thence charges the Church of Rome in that Epistle with violating that and several other Traditions of the Apostles But Vincentius Lyrinensis still takes Stephens part and all that he hath to say is That that is the property of Christian modesty and gravity not to deliver
prove that any of the Fathers have denyed this place to extend to infallibility is a very unreasonable thing which you put the Bishop and his party upon because they only deliver what they conceive the meaning of places to be without reflections on any Heresies but such as were most prevalent in their own times And if your Church had in their time challenged Infallibility from such places you might have heard of their Negative which at present you put us unreasonably to prove Your answer to John 14.16 only is that it must be understood in some absolute sense and doth not his Lordship say so too viz. in regard of Consolation and Grace But if you say there can be no other absolute sense but an infallible assistance you would do well to prove it and not barely to suppose it and so likewise what follows as to John 16.13 which his Lordship justly restrains to the Apostles alone you tell us That you contend that in whatsoever sense all truth is to be understood in respect of each Apostle apart it is also to be understood in relation to their Successors assembled in a full Representative of the whole Church That you contend we grant but we say it is without sense or reason And therefore come to examine what you produce for it Your first reason Because the Representative of the Church in General Council and the Bishop of Rome as Pastor of the whole Church have equal power to oblige the Church to believe what they deliver as each Apostle had is utterly denied and must be more then barely supposed as it is here Your second which you call the Fundamental reason of this Exposition is in short That the preservation of the Church requires infallibility in future ages of the Church as well as in the Apostles times which is again utterly denied And the next time you write I pray prove your reasons well and think not your confident producing things you know are denied by us will serve for reasons against us Before you can sufficiently prove that any rite of the Church not mentioned in Scripture had the Holy Ghost for its Authour especially when contrary to a custome expressed in Scripture you must do more then produce a single testimony of St. Augustine for it who was apt to suppose the Holy Ghost might be pleased with such things which the Church though not therein infallible might consent in the practise of Which certainly is far from supposing the Church to have infallible assistance with it in delivering Doctrines of Faith because some things might be used in the Church which the Holy Ghost might be supposed not displeased with which is the utmost can be made of your citation out of St. Austin It seems you were aware of that disparity between the Apostles times and ours as to the pretence of Infallibility because the Apostles were first to deliver this Doctrine to the world and after to consign it by writing to future ages from whence it were easie to inferr there could not be that necessity of a Continual Infallible Assistance in the Church because the Doctrine infallibly delivered by them is preserved in the Church by the Infallible Records of it But to this your answer is considerable What wise man say you would go about to raise a stately building for many ages and satisfie himself with laying a Foundation to last but for a few years Our Saviour the wisest of Architects is not to be thought to have founded this incomparable building of the Church upon sand which must infallibly have happened had he not intended to afford his continual assistance also to the succeeding Pastors of the Church to lead them when assembled in a General Council into all those truths wherein he first setled the Apostles Whether you call this arguing for the Churches infallibility or libelling against our blessed Saviour if he hath not done what you would have him is hard to determine I am sure it is arguing ab absurdo with a witness for if he hath not done just as you fancy he should have done he must venture to be accounted an Ignoramus and Impostor before and here to do that which no wise man would have done viz. build a stately Fabrick the Church upon the Sands So it seems you account the Prophets and the Apostles for if the Apostle may be credited we are built on the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner-stone And this is it you must mean by being built on the sand for herein it is plain the Church is built on these viz. that Infallible doctrine which was delivered by them but here is not one word or the least intimation of an inherent infallibility in the Church which was to be its foundation so as to secure it from all errour And this you say must infallibly happen if there be not the same infallibility in General Councils which was in the Apostles for that I suppose must be the meaning of your last words if they be to the purpose But how groundless your pretence of the Infallibility of General Councils is will appear when we come to that subject but have you so little of common sense and reason with you as to suppose the Church presently notwithstanding the Divine Revelation of the Doctrine of Christianity in Scripture to be built on Sand if General Councils be not infallible Is there not sufficient ground to rely on the Doctrine of Christianity supposing there never had been any General Council in the world What was the Church built on before the Nicene Council only on Sand surely the Wind and Billows of persecutions would then have easily overturned it What if through civil combustions in the Empire there could never have been any Assembly's of the Bishops afterwards must the Church needs have fallen to the ground for want of General Councils But why I pray must the Infallibility of the Apostles be compared only to a foundation that can last but for few years Do you suppose that these Apostles never did commit their Doctrine infallibly to writing or that these writings of theirs did last but for a few years without one of these it is hard to find out your meaning by those expressions If you deny either of them I shall readily prove them but if you affirm both these as if you are heartily a Christian you must do with what face can you say that Christ in making the Apostles infallible did lay a Foundation but for a few years But thanks be to God although perverse and unreasonable men are alwaies quarrelling with the methods of Divine wisdom and goodness this Foundation of the Lord standeth sure still and as long as the Infallible Doctrine of the Gospel continues the Church will be built on a stedfast and unmoveable Rock which will prove a much surer Foundation than the seven Hills of Infallibility But this is your grand and fundamental
mistake to suppose a Church cannot continue without a vital inherent Principle of Infallibility in her self which must be discovered by Infallible Directions from the Head of it whereas we grant the necessity of an Infallible Foundation of Faith but cannot discern either from Scripture Reason or Antiquity that there must be a living and standing Infallible Judge which must deliver and interpret those Infallible Records to us We grant then Infallibility in the Foundation of Faith we assert the highest Certainty of the Infallibility of that Foundation we declare that the owning of that Infallible Foundation is that which makes men Christians the body of whom we call a Church we further grant that Christ hath left in his Church sufficient means for the preservation of it in Truth and Unity but we deny that ever he promised such an Infallibility to be constantly resident in that Church as was in the Prophets and Apostles and that neither any intention of Christ or any reason in the thing can be manifested why such an Infallibility should be so necessary for the Churches preservation that without it the Wisdom of Christ must be questioned and the Church built on a sandy Foundation Your citation of Vincentius Lyrinensis proves nothing but the Churches constancy in adhering to that Doctrine of Faith which was delivered from the beginning but how that should prove a Constant Infallibility I cannot understand unless it is impossible that there should be any Truth where there is no inherent Infallibility Thus we see what very little success you have in the attempt of proving the Churches continual Infallibility from Scripture From hence you proceed to the consideration of the way How Scripture and Tradition do mutually confirm each other His Lordship grants That they do mutually but not equally confirm the authority either of other For Scripture doth infallibly confirm the authority of Church-Traditions truly so called but Tradition doth but morally and probably confirm the authority of the Scripture This you say is apparently false but endeavour not to make it evident that it is so Only you say A. C. refused already to grant it Et quid tum postea Must every thing be false which A. C. refuses to grant But let us see whether his Similitude makes it out For saith he 't is as a Kings Embassadours word of mouth and his Kings Letters bear mutual witness to each other Just so indeed saith his Lordship For his Kings Letters of Credence under hand and Seal confirm the Embassadours authority infallibly to all that know his Seal and hand But the Embassadours word of mouth confirms his Kings Letters but only probably For else Why are they callâ—d Letters of Credence if they give not him more credit than he gives them To which you make a large Reply 1. That the Kings hand and Seal cannot confirm infallibly to a Forein King who neither knows hand nor Seal the Embassadours authority and therefore this reacheth not the business How we should know infallibly that the Scripture is Gods Word 2. That the primary reason Why the Embassadour is admitted is his own credit to which correspond the motives of Credibility of the Church by which the Letters of Credence are admitted 3. That none can give authority to the Letters of Credence or be infallibly certain of them but such as infallibly know that hand and Seal 4. That none can infallibly know that hand and Seal but such as are certain of the Embassadours sincerity But Doth all this disprove what his Lordship saith That though there be a mutual Testimony yet it is not equal for although the Letters of Credence might be the sooner read and admitted of on the Embassadours Reputation and Sincerity yet still those Letters themselves upon the delivery of them may further and in a higher degree confirm the Prince he is sent to of his authority to act as Embassadour Supposing then that there be a sufficient Testimony that these Letters were sealed by the Secretary of State who did manifest his Sincerity in the highest manner in the sealing of them though a Forein Prince might not know the hand and Seal yet upon such a creditable Testimony he may be assured that they were sealed by the Prince himself But then withall if the Embassadour to assure the Prince offers his own life to attest the truth of his Credentials and the Prince by reading the Letters find something in them which could not be written by any other than that Prince he then hath the highest certainty he can desire This is the case between Tradition and Scripture General Tradition at first makes way for the first admission of Scripture as the general repute of an Embassadours coming doth for his access to the Prince the particular Tradition of the Church is like the Embassadours affirming to the Prince that he hath Letters of Credence with him but then when he enquires into the Certainty of those Letters those Motives of Credibility not which relate to the person of the Embassadour but which evidently prove the sealing of those Letters as the constant Testimony of such who were present at it the Secretaries and Embassadours venturing their lives upon it must confirm him in that and lastly his own reading the Credentials give him the highest Confirmation i. e. The testimony of those who saw the miracles of Christ and his Apostles and confirmed the Truth of their Testimony by their dying for it are the highest inducement to our believing that the Scriptures were sealed by God himself in the miracles wrought and written by his own hand his Spirit infallibly assisting the Apostle but still after all this when in these very Scriptures we read such things as we cannot reasonably suppose could come from any but God himself this doth in the highest degree settle and confirm our Faith Therefore as to the main scope for which this Similitude was used by his Lordship it holds still but your mistake lyes in supposing that the Embassadours reception depended wholly on his own single Testimony and that was enough to make any Prince infallibly certain that his Letters of Credence are true which cannot be unless he knows before-hand that Embassadour to be infallibly true which is impossible to be supposed at his first reception Yet this is plainly your case that the Scriptures are to be infallibly believed on the single Testimony of the present Church which is to make the Embassadour himself give authority to his Letters of Credence and set hand and seal to them Whereas the contrary is most evident to be true But then supposing these Credentials admitted the Prince transacts with the Embassadour according to that power which is conveyed to him therein And thus it is in the present case Not as though a Prince treated every Envoy with equal respect to an Embassadour no more ought any Pastors of the Church be received but according to that power and authority which their Credentials viz. the
Scriptures do convey to them We own therefore the Apostles as Gods immediate Embassadours whose miracles did attest their commission from Heaven to all they came to and no persons could pretend ignorance that this is Gods hand and Seal but all other Pastors of the Church we look on only as Agents settled to hold correspondency between God and Vs but no extraordinary Embassadours who must be looked on as immediately transacting by the Infallible Commission of Heaven When therefore the Pastor or Pastors of your Church shall bring new Credentials from Heaven attested with the same Broad-seal of Heaven which the Apostles had viz. Miracles we shall then receive them in the same capacity as Apostles viz. acting by an Infallible Commission but not till then By which I have given a sufficient Answer to what follows concerning the credit which is given to Christ's Legats as to himself for hereby it appears they are to have no greater authority than their Commission gives them Produce therefore an Infallible Commission for your Pastors Infallibility either apart or conjunctly and we shall receive it but not else Whether A.C. in the words following doth in terms attribute Divine and Infallible authority to the Church supposing it infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost is very little material for Whether he owns it or no it is sufficient that it necessarily follows from his Doctrine of Infallibility For How can the Church be infallible by virtue of those Promises wherein Divine Infallibility you say is promised and by virtue of which the Apostles had Divine Infallibility and yet the Church not to be divinely Infallible The remainder of this Chapter which concerns the sense of the Fathers in this Controversie will particularly be considered in the next which is purposely designed for it CHAP. IX The Sense of the Fathers in this Controversie The Judgement of Antiquity enquired into especially of the three first Centuries and the reasons for it The several Testimonies of Justin Martyr Athenagoras Tatianus Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus and all the Fathers who writ in vindication of Christian Religion manifested to concurr fully with our way of resolving Faith C's Answers to Vincentius Lyrinensis à Gandavo and the Fathers produced by his Lordship pitifully weak The particulars of his 9th Chapter examined S. Augustine's Testimony vindicated C's nauseous Repetitions sent as Vagrants to their several homes His Lordships Considerations found too heavy for C's Answers In what sense the Scripture may be called a Praecognitum What way the Jews resolved their Faith This Controversie and the first Part concluded HAving thus largely considered whatever you could pretend to for the advantage of your own cause or the prejudice of ours from Reason and Scripture nothing can be supposed to remain considerable but the judgement of the Primitive Church in this present Controversie And next to Scripture and Reason I attribute so much to the sense of the Christian Church in the ages next succeeding the Apostles that it is no mean confirmation to me of the truth of the Protestant Way of resolving Faith and of the falsity of yours that I see the one so exactly concurring and the other so apparently contrary to the unanimous Consent of Antiquity For though you love to make a great noise with Antiquity among persons meanly conversant in it yet those who do seriously and impartially enquire into the sense of the Primitive Church and not guess at it by the shreds of Citations to your hands in your own writers which is generally your way will scarce in any thing more palpably discern your jugling and impostures then in your pretence to Antiquity I shall not here enquire into the corruptions crept into your Church under that disguise but as occasion is ministred to me in the following discourse shall endeavour to pluck it off but shall keep close to the matter in question Three things then I design in this Chapter 1. To shew the concurrence of Antiquity with us in the resolution of Faith 2. Examine what you produce from thence either to assert your own way or enervate ours 3. Consider what remains of this Controversie in your Book 1. For the manifesting the concurrence of Antiquity with us I shall confine my present discourse to the most pure and genuine Antiquity keeping within the compass of the three first Centuries or at least of those who have purposely writ in vindication of the Christian Faith Not that I do in the least distrust the consent of the succeeding Writers of the Primitive Church but upon these Reasons 1. Because it would be too large a task at present to undertake since no necessity from what you object but only my desire to clear the Truth and rectifie the mistakes of such who are led blindfold under the pretence of Antiquity hath led me to this discourse 2. Because in reason they could not but understand best the waies and methods used by the Apostles for the perswading men to the Christian Faith and if they had mentioned any such thing as an Infallibility alwaies to continue in the Charch those Pastors certainly who received the care of the Church from the Apostles hands could not but have heard of it And were strangely to blame if they did not discover and make use of it Whatever therefore of truly Apostolical Tradition is to be relyed on in such cases must be conveyed to us from those persons who were the Apostles immediate Successors and if it can be made manifest that they heard not of any such thing in that when occasion was offered they are so far from mentioning it that they take such different waies of satisfying men which do manifestly suppose that they did not believe it I know some of the greatest Patrons of the Church of Rome and such who know best how to manage things with best advantage for the interest of that Church have made little account of the three first ages and confined themselves within the compass of the four first Councils upon this pretence because the Books and Writers are so rare before and that those persons who lived then had no occasion to write of the matters in Controversie between them and us But if the ground why those other things which are not determined in Scripture are to be believed by us and practised as necessary be that they were Apostolical Traditions Who can be more competent Judges what was so and what not then those who lived nearest the Apostolical times and those certainly if they writ of any thing could not write of any thing of more concernment to the Christian world than the knowledge of such things would be or at least we cannot imagine but that we should find express intimations of them where so many so wise and learned persons do industriously give an account of themselves and their solemn actions to their Heathen persecutors But however silent they may be in other things which they neither heard nor thought of as in the
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
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
general Foundations of Christian Society But if any Society shall pretend a necessity of communion with her because it is impossible this should be done by her this priviledge must in reason be as evident as the common grounds of Christianity are nay much more evident because the belief of Christianity it self doth upon this pretence depend on the knowledge of such Infallibility and the indispensable obligation to communion depends upon it 2. There being a possibility acknowledged that particular Churches may require unreasonable conditions of communion the obligation to communion cannot be absolute and indispensable but only so far as nothing is required destructive to the ends of Christian Society Otherwise men would be bound to destroy that which they believe and to do the most unjust and unreasonable things But the great difficulty lyes in knowing when such things are required and who must be the judge in that case to which I answer 3. Nothing can be more unreasonable then that the Society imposing such conditions of communion should be judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no. If the question only were in matters of peace and conveniency and order the judgement of the Society ought to over-rule the judgements of particular persons but in such cases where great Bodies of Christians judge such things required to be unlawful conditions of communion what justice or reason is there that the party accused should sit Judge in her own cause 4. Where there is sufficient evidence from Scripture reason and tradition that such things which are imposed are unreasonable conditions of Christian communion the not communicating with that Society which requires these things cannot incurr the guilt of Schism Which necessarily follows from the precedent grounds because none can be obliged to communion in such cases and therefore the not communicating is no culpable separation 5. By how much the Societies are greater which are agreed in not communicating with a Church imposing such conditions by how much the power of those who rule those Societies so agreeing is larger by so much the more justifiable is the Reformation of any Church from these abuses and the setling the bonds of Christian communion without them And on those grounds viz. the Church of Romes imposing unlawful conditions of communion it was necessary not to communicate with her and on the Church of Englands power to reform it self by the assistance of the Supream power it was lawful and justifiable not only to redress those abuses but to settle the Church upon its proper and true foundations So that the Church of Romes imposing unlawful conditions of communion is the reason why we do not communicate with her and the Church of Englands power to govern and take care of her self is the reason of our joyning together in the service of God upon the principles of our Reformation On these grounds I doubt not but to make it appear how free the Church of England is from all imputation of Schism These things being thus in general premised we come to consider what those principles are on which you can found so high a charge as that of Schism on the Protestant Churches And having throughly considered your way of management of it I find all that you have to say may be resolved into one of these three grounds 1. That the Roman Church is the true and only Catholick Church 2. That our Churches could have no power or cause to divide in their Communion from her 3. That the Authority of the Roman Church is so great that upon no pretence soever could it be lawful to withdraw from Communion with her I confess if you can make good any one of these three you do something to the purpose but how little ground you have to charge us with Schism from any of these Principles will be the design of this Part at large to manifest I begin then with the first which is the pretence of your Churches being the Catholick Church and here we again enter the lists to see how fairly you deal with your Adversary Mr. Fisher saith That from the Controversie of the resolution of Faith the Lady callâ—d them and desiring to hear whether the Bishop would grant the Roman Church to be the right Church the Bishop saith he granted that it was To which his Lordship answers after a just complaint of the abuse of disputations by mens resolution to hold their own though it be by unworthy means and disparagement of truth that the question was neither asked in that form nor so answered And that there is a great deal of difference especially as Romanists handle the question of the Church between The Church and A Church and there is some between a True Church and a Right Church For The Church may import the only true Church and perhaps the root and ground of the Catholick And this saith he I never did grant of the Roman Church nor ever mean to do But A Church can imply no more then that it is a member of the whole And this I never did saith he nor ever will deny if it fall not absolutely away from Christ. That it is a True Church I granted also but not a Right For Truth only imports the being right perfection in conditions thus a Thief is a true man though not an upright man So a corrupt Church may be true as a Church is a company of men which profess the Faith of Christ and are baptized into his Name but it is not therefore a right Church either in doctrine or manners And this he saith is acknowledged by very learned Protestants before him This is the substance of his Lordships answer to which we must consider what you reply That about the terms of the Ladie 's question you grant to be a verbal Controversie and that whatever her words were she was to be understood to demand this alone viz. Whether the Roman were not the True Visible Infallible Church out of which none can be saved for herein you say she had from the beginning of the Controversie desired satisfaction And in this subject the Roman Church could not be any Church at all unless it were The Church and a Right Church The reason is because St. Peters successour being the Bishop of Rome and Head of the whole Church as you tell us you will prove anon that must needs be the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it be any Church at all And because the Church can be but one if it be a true Church it must be the right Church But all this amounts only to a confident assertion of that which wants evident proof which is that the notion of a Church relates to one as appointed the Head of the whole Church without which it would be no Church at all Which being a thing so hard to be understood and therefore much harder to be proved we must be content to wait your leasure till you shall think fit
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
thought Man had been a compound of substance and accidents as well as a Church Or Did you mean some transubstantiated man that had accidents without substance But as his Lordship spake of a true real man who yet might want moral Integrity so he supposed there might be a true real Church as to the essential parts of it which yet might be in other respects a corrupted and defiled Church But when you add That the notion of a Church implies Integrity and Perfection of Conditions still you betray your weak or wilful mistakes of a Church morally for Metaphysically true If you will prove it impossible for a Church to retain its Being that hath any errours in Doctrine or corruptions in Practice you will do something to the purpose but when you have done it see what you get by it for then we shall not so much as acknowledge your Church to be Metaphysically a true Church If his Lordship therefore be so charitable as to say That because your Church receives the Scripture as a Rule of Faith though but as a partial and imperfect Rule and both the Sacraments as Instrumental causes and seals of Grace though they add more and misuse these it cannot but be a true Church in essence And you on the other side say If it doth misuse the Sacraments and make the Scripture an imperfect Rule of Faith it would be unchurched Let the Reader judge whether his Lordships charity for or your own Testimony against your Church be built on better grounds What follows concerning the Holy Catholick Church in the Apostles Creed the entire Catholick Faith in the Athanasian Creed the Churches being the Spouse of Christ and a pure Virgin are all things as true in themselves as your Church is little concerned in them The truly Catholick Church being quite another thing from that which goes under the name of the Roman Catholick Church and this latter may prostitute her self to errour while the other remains a pure Virgin and it is only your saying That yours only is the Catholick Church which is in effect to say That Christ hath a Harlot to his Spouse as you speak To omit that which you call A further skirmishing about the form of words and whether it savoured more of prudence and charity or cunning in the Jesuite to instruct the Lady what Questions she should ask we come to that which is the main subject of this chapter viz. Whether the Church be stiled Catholick by its agreeing with Rome which you say was a received and known Truth in the Ancient Church but is so far from being in the least true that his Lordship deservedly calls it A perfect Jesuitism For saith he in all the Primitive times of the Church a Man or a Family or a National Church were accounted right and orthodox as they agreed with the Catholick Church but the Catholick was never then measured or judged by Man Family or Nation But now in the Jesuits new School the One Holy Catholick Church must be measured by that which is in the Diocese or City of Rome or of them which agreed with it and not Rome by the Catholick So upon the matter belike the Christian Faith was committed to the custody of the Roman not of the Catholick Church and a man cannot agree with the Catholick Church of Christ in this new doctrine of A. C. unless he agree with the Church of Rome but if he agree with that all is safe and he is as orthodox as he need be To which you seem to answer at first by some slight tergiversations as though this did not follow from A. C 's words and that the Lady did not trouble her self with such punctilio's as those of the agreement of the Catholick Church with Rome or Romes agreeing with the Catholick Church but at last you take heart and affirm stoutly That the Church is stiled Catholick from its agreement with Rome and that this is no Jesuitism but a received and known Truth in the Ancient Church In these terms then I fix my self and this present dispute as containing the proper state of the Controversie concerning the Catholick Church And if you can make it appear that the Church is stiled Catholick by agreeing with Rome and that this was a received Truth in the Ancient Church then you may very plausibly charge us with Schism in our separation from Rome but if the contrary be made evident by your own pretence we are freed from that charge Now in the handling this Controversie you first explain your terms and then produce your Testimonies In the explication of your terms you tell us The word Catholick may be used in three different Acceptions viz. either formally causally or by way of participation Formally the Vniversal Church i. e. the society of all true particular Churches united together in one body in one Communion under one Head is called Catholick Causally the Church of Rome is stiled Catholick because it hath an influence and force to cause Vniversality in the whole body of the Church Catholick to which two things are necessary Multitude and Vnity The Roman Church therefore which as a Center of Ecclesiastical Communion infuses this Vnity which is the form of Vniversality into the Catholick Church and thereby causes in her Vniversality may be called Catholick causally though she be but a particular Church As he that commands a whole Army is stiled General though he be but a particular person Thirdly every particular orthodox Church is termed Catholick participative by way of participation because they agree in and participate of the Doctrine and Communion of the Catholick Church For which you bring the instance of the Church of Smyrna writing to the Catholick Church of Philomilion c. Thus we see say you both how properly the Roman Church is called Catholick and how the Catholick Church it self takes causally the denomination of Vniversal or Catholick from the Roman considered as the chief particular Church infusing Vnity to all the rest as having dependence of her and relation to her Thus I have recited your words that we may fully understand your meaning the substance of which is couched in your last words That the reason why any Church was accounted Catholick was from its Vnion with the Church of Rome But if it appear that this sense of the Catholick Church is wholly a stranger to Antiquity That the Catholick Church was so call'd upon farr different accounts than those mentioned by you If the Church of Rome had no other relation to the Catholick Church but as a member of it as other Churches were then all this discourse of yours comes to nothing and that is it which I now undertake to prove Now the Vnity of the Catholick Church lying in two things the Doctrine and the Government of it if in neither of these it had any dependence of the Church of Rome then certainly it could not be call'd Catholick causally from the
Church of Rome First the Church was called Catholick from the Vniversal spread of its Doctrine and the agreement of all particular Churches in it So Irenaeus derives the Vnity of the Church spread abroad over the world from the Vnity of that Faith which was Universally received and from thence saith That the Church is but as one house and having one soul and heart and speaks as with one mouth Nothing can be more plain then that Irenaeus makes the consent in Doctrine to be the ground of Vnity in the Catholick Church And that he did not suppose this consent to arise from the Church of Rome appears from what he saith before That this Faith was received in the Church so universally spread from the Apostles and their Disciples Which must be understood of that universal diffusion of it by the first Preachers of it in the world the continuance of which Doctrine was the ground of the Vnity in the Catholick Church To the same purpose Tertullian gives an account of the Churches Vnity by the adhering to that Doctrine which was first preached by the Apostles who having first delivered it in Judea and planted Churches there went abroad and declared the same to other Nations and setled Churches in Cities from whence other Churches have the same Doctrine propagated to them which are therefore call'd Apostolical Churches as the off-spring of those which were founded by them Therefore so many and so great Churches are all that one prime Apostolical Church from whence all others come And thus they are all prime and Apostolical in regard of their Vnity as long as there is that communication of that title of Brotherhood and common mark of peace and hospitality Wherein we see that which made Churches in Tertullians sense Apostolical is the embracing and continuing in that Doctrine which was first delivered by the Apostles and thus Churches though remote from the Apostolical times may have the denomination of Apostolical from their consent in Doctrine with those which were founded by them But here is not the least intimation of any centre of Ecclesiastical communion infusing unity into the Catholick Church for this unity ariseth from that Doctrine which was declared in and propagated by all the Apostolical Churches So likewise Theodoret speaks That there is one Church throughout the world and therefore we pray for the Holy One Catholick and Apostolick Church extended from one end of the earth to the other Which saith he is divided by Cities and Towns and Villages so that there are infinite and innumerable Churches in the Islands and Continent but all these are reduced to one being united in the agreement of the same true doctrine So Constantine in his Epistle to the Bishops who were absent from the Council of Nice saith That our Saviour would have one Catholick Church whose members though dispersed in many several places yet are nourished by the same Spirit which is the Will of God In all which and many other places which might be produced to the same purpose we see a quite different account given of the unity of the Catholick Church from that which you mention as the cause of it we find the Church call'd Catholick in regard of its large extent in the world as is apparent besides these testimonies from the Controversies between St. Austin and the Donatists and the unity of that Catholick Church not placed in the least respect to the Church of Rome but in the consent in the Apostolical Doctrine in all those Churches which concurred as members to make up this Catholick Church So that the formal reason of any particular Churches having the denomination of Catholick must come not from any communion with the Church of Rome but from the owning the Catholick and Apostolick Faith and joyning in communion with those Churches which did own and acknowledge it And therefore we find that the symbol of communion in the ancient communicatory letters never lay in the acknowledgement of Christs Vicar on earth or communion with the Church of Rome but in such things which were common to all Apostolical Churches And therefore the Church of Rome could not be then accounted the center of Ecclesiastical communion as you speak after Cardinal Perron from whom you have Verbatim transcribed all your former discourse This being therefore the utmost which that great witt of your Church was able to plead in behalf of its being the Catholick Church it deserves to be further considered We come therefore to that kind of unity in the Catholick Church which depends on the Government of it and this is that which is pretended as the ground of the Roman Churches being the Catholick Church because though as Cardinal Perron says she be in her own Being particular yet she may be call'd Catholick causally as the center and beginning of Ecclesiastical communion infusing unity which is the form of universality into the Catholick Church This therefore must be more narrowly searched into to see if this were a known and received truth in the ancient Church Which is so far from it that we find no such causal influence from the Church of Rome then owned or asserted but that the Catholick Church was a whole consisting of homogeneal parts without any such subordination or dependence as the contrary supposition implies This is by none more fully asserted than by such who have with the greatest zeal and industry stood up for the unity of the Catholick Church The first of whom is St. Cyprian in whose time and writings there are very remarkable cases occurring to clear upon what terms the unity of the Catholick Church did then stand The first I begin with is the case which arose in the Church about the Schism of Novatianus which will give us the fuller discovery of the grounds of unity in the Catholick Church because the first rise of this Schism was in Rome it self For Novatus coming to Rome in a discontent from Africa falls in with Novatianus which two names the Greek writers of the Church commonly confound who being likewise under discontent at the election of Cornelius to be Bishop of Rome was ready to joyn with the other in fomenting a Schism For which they made this their pretext That Cornelius had admitted such to communion who had lapsed in the persecution of Decius which tended to the overthrow of the Churches purity upon this Novatianus gets himself ordained by three Bishops Bishop of Rome in opposition to Cornelius the fame of which Schism being spread abroad there was great making of parties on both sides Cyprian and the Churches of Africa after full inquiry into it declare for Cornelius so did Dionysius of Alexandria and the Churches there but Fabius of Antioch with the Churches of Pontus and Cilicia suspend and rather encline to Novatianus for some time till they were after more fully satisfied by Dionysius of Alexandria Now here is a case wherein the grounds of unity in the
must needs be the same with that which was built on the Rock in the former Either therefore you must deny the See of Peter to be the Rock or you must of necessity assert the house built upon it to be the Vniversal Church and not the particular one of Rome and consequently the danger lyes not upon mens not being in communion with the Roman but with the truly Catholick Church And how from hence you will inferr That they are prophane who are out of the Roman Church it would be worth our while to understand 2. Suppose I should grant that S. Hierom did mean the particular Church of Rome yet I am not satisfied that this comes home to your purpose unless you could prove that S. Hierom spake of what was necessarily and unalterably to be in the Church of Rome and not meerly of what was in that time when he spake these words But that is your perpetual Paralogism in the citations of the Fathers in praise of the Church of Rome what they spake and it may be deservedly of the Church of their own time although sometimes their Rhetorick swell'd too high in their Encomiasticks that you will needs have to be understood of the same Church at all times and in our present age As though it were not possible for a Church to be eminent for purity of Doctrine in one age and to decline as much from it in another But I need give no other instance in this case than S. Hierom himself for if we believe S. Hierom in his Catalogue the two immediate predecessors of Damasus in the See of Rome Liberius and Felix were tainted with Heresie and that very Heresie viz. Arrianism which S. Hierom writes to Damasus about now I pray tell us then Whether if S. Hierom had lived in Liberius his time would he have writ to him after the same rate he now writes to Damasus if he had been of the same mind then he would have been so farr from scrupling the three hypostases that he must have subscribed the Arrian confession as S. Hierom tells us Liberius did through the instigation of Fortunatianus And therefore to let us see on what account he was now so liberal in his commendations of the Church of Rome he begins this Epistle with the praise of her present orthodoxness in the Catholick Faith And that amongst all the divisions and breaches of the Eastern Churches they preserved the Faith of their Fore-fathers entire That now the Sun of Righteousness rises in the West but that Lucifer who fell now reigns in the East with many expressions to the same purpose Which supposition being granted true at that time that which follows inferrs very little to your purpose unless you can prove that what was so then must necessarily continue so in all ages If the East was then corrupted and the West only sound what praises belonged to the Catholick Church in general did of right devolve to that part which remained sound in the opinion of those persons who judged so You would needs therefore from hence have your Church accounted Catholick now by the same argument that Tully said of the Roman Lady who still affirmed she was but thirty years of age that he believed it for he had heard her say so twenty years before so must we believe your Church sound and Catholick because it was said so of her so many hundred years since as though no infirmities or wrinkles could have come upon her ever since Prove your Church to be as sound and orthodox as pure and holy now as she was in the primitive Fathers time and we will not grudge her the highest of those commendations which were given her by them But without doing this your Testimonies come to nothing The same Answer will serve the remaining Testimonies of Eulalius and the Emperour Gratian who only spake of the communion of the Church of Rome as it was then That of Fulgentius stiling the Roman Church The top of the world only imports the eminency of it in regard of the power of that City it was in and so is wide enough from your purpose Thus we have considered all that you have produced out of Antiquity to prove that the Church is called Catholick with a particular relation to and dependence of the Church of Rome and can find nothing at all belonging to her as the center of Catholicism but that those things which are said of her and communion with her in relation to being called Catholick might as well have agreed with any other Apostolical Church remaining sound in the Catholick Faith Hence it appears that what his Lordship is pleased to term a perfect Jesuitism viz. the measuring the Catholick Church by that of Rome is really nothing else and that the perfect mistake belongs to you who assert that it was a received and known Truth in the Ancient Church Your vindication of the propriety of your Churches being called the Roman Catholick Church from the Roman Empire and the Jewish Church would then signifie something when you have proved that the Pope hath as much the Government of the Church as the Roman-Emperour had of all the Provinces within the confines of the Empire or that we are all bound as much to resort to Rome as the Jews were to Jerusalem for the solemn worship of God In the mean time the absurdity is never the less for being vulgar in calling yours The Roman Catholick Church And yet as though you had been only demonstrating these things you tell us very magisterially The truth is in all doubts concerning matter of Doctrine recourse is to be had to S. Peter 's successor who at least with a General Council can infallibly resolve all difficulties An excellent way of proving to say The truth is Might not I as well say The truth is the Pope neither in Council nor out of it hath any Infallibility at all And would not this be full as good an Answer as yours is an Argument but the very truth is you had rather have these things believed than go about to prove them least the weakness of the arguments should lay too much open your fond pretence of Infallibility Before you prove That the Pope can carry his Infallibility out of Rome with him shew us that he hath it there I grant S. Peter had been infallible though he had never been at Rome and it is far from being clear that the Pope is at all the more infallible for his being there How far you have been from proving That the Faith of every particular Church is to be examined and proved to be Catholick by its conformity to the Faith of the Roman Church may abundantly appear from the preceding discourse Those Questions which you say make nothing to your purpose concerning the Popes transferring his chair at Rome and the Roman Clergies deserting him and the true Faith I shall so far believe you in as to ease my self of the trouble of
considering them any further than hath been done already in the very entrance into this Conference And here you tell us You now come to perform your Promise viz. to examine more fully his Lordships pretended solutions as you call them of Bellarmine 's authorities in behalf of the Infallibility of the Church of Rome But for all your boasting at first what great things you would do you seem a little fearful of engaging too far and therefore are resolved only to maintain them in general as they make for the Infallible Authority of the Church or of the Pope defining Articles of Faith in a General Council But as far as you dare go I shall attend your motions and doubt not to make it evident that none of these authorities have any reference to that sense which you only offer to maintain them in and that though they had yet no such thing as Infallibility can be proved out of them The first authority is out of S. Cyprian's Letter to Cornelius Bishop of Rome whose words I am contented should be recited as fully as may be In which he chargeth Felicissimus and Fortunatus with their complices that having set up a Bishop against him at Carthage they sail to the chair of Peter and the principal Church from whence the sacerdotal Vnity had its rise and carry Letters from prophane and Schismatical persons not considering that the Romans whose Faith was commended by the Apostle were such to whom perfidiousness could not have access Now the meaning of this place you would have to be this and no other viz. that the See of S. Peter which is the principal of all Churches was so infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost that no errour in Faith could have access to it or be admitted by it if not as a particular Church yet at least as the Head of the Vniversal Church of Christ and as the Fountain of Priestly Vnity which S. Cyprian here expresly affirms that Church and See to be This you summe up at last as the most which can be made of this Testimony and which is indeed far more in all particulars than it can amount to Which will appear by particular examinations of what you return in answer to his Lordship Three things his Lordship answers to this place 1. That perfidia can hardly stand here for errour in Faith and if so then this can make nothing for Infallibility 2. That supposing it granted to signifie errour in Faith and Doctrine yet it belongs not to the Romans absolutely but with a respect to those first Romans whose Faith was commended by the Apostle 3. That it seems to be rather a Rhetorical insinuation than a dogmatical assertion And that S. Cyprian could not be supposed to assert herein the Popes Infallibility appears by the contracts between him and the Bishops of Rome This is the short of his Lordships answers to this place to which we must consider what you reply 1. His Lordship sayes That perfidia can hardly stand for errour in Faith or misbelief but it properly signifies malicious falshood in matter of trust and action not error in Faith but in fact against the discipline and Government of the Church And to make this interpretation appear the more probable his Lordship gives an account of the story which was the occasion of writing that Epistle which is this as his Lordship reports it from Binius and Baronius In the year 255. there was a Council in Carthage in the cause of two Schismaticks Felicissimus and Novatian about restoring of them to the communion of the Church which had lapsed in time of danger from Christianity to Idolatry Felicissimus would admit all even without penance and Novatian would admit none no not after penance The Fathers 42 in number went as Truth led them between both extreams To this Council came Privatus a known Heretick but was not admitted because he was formerly excommunicated and often condemned Hereupon he gathers his Complices together and chooses one Fortunatus who was formerly condemned as well as himself Bishop of Carthage and set him up against St. Cyprian This done Felicissimus and his Fellows haste to Rome with letters testimonial from their own party and pretend that 25 Bishops concurred with them and their desire was to be received into the communion of the Roman Church and to have their new Bishop acknowledged Cornelius then Pope though their haste had now prevented St. Cyprians letters having formerly heard from him both of them and their Schism in Africk would neither hear them nor receive their letters They grew insolent and furious the ordinary way that Schismaticks take Vpon this Cornelius writes to St. Cyprian and St. Cyprian in this Epistle gives Cornelius thanks for refusing these African fugitives declares their Schism and wickedness at large and encourages him and all Bishops to maintain the Ecclesiastical Discipline and censures against any the boldest threatnings of wicked Schismaticks This being the story his Lordship sayes He would fain know why perfidia all circumstances considered may not stand here in its proper sense for cunning and perfidious dealing which these men having practised at Carthage thought now to obtrude upon the Bishop of Rome also but that he was wary enough not to be over-reached by busie Schismaticks This demand of his Lordship seeming very just and reasonable we are bound to consider what reasons you give why perfidia must be understood for errour in Faith and not in the sense here mentioned Why calls he say you St. Peters chair Ecclesiam principalem the chief Church but because it is the head to which all other Churches must be subordinate in matter of doctrine the words following signifie as much Unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est from which chair of St. Peter as it were from its fountain unity in Priesthood and consequently unity in Faith is derived Why brings he the Apostle as Panegyrist of the Roman Faith Is it forsooth because no malicious falshood in matter of trust or errour in fact against the Discipline and Government of the Church can have access unto them as the Bishop will needs misinterpret the place or rather because no errour in Faith can approach the See Apostolick Certain it is perfidia in this sense is diametrically opposed to the Faith of the Romans immediately before commended by the Apostle which was true Christian Faith and consequently it must of necessity be taken for the quite contrary viz. misbelief or errour in Faith Three Arguments in these words you produce why perfidia must be understood of errour in Faith 1. Because the Church of Rome is called the chief Church but is it not possible it should be called so in any other sense but as the head of all other Churches in matter of doctrine Is it not sufficiently clear from Antiquity that there were other accounts of calling the Church of Rome the chief or principal Church as the eminency of it joyned
freely expatiate super hanc â—etram Touching Ruffinus I grant his Lordship is of opinion That he neither did nor could account the Roman Church Infallible for which he gives this reason For if he had so esteemed of it he would not have dissented from it in so main a point as is the Canon of Scripture as he plainly doth For reckoning up the Canonical Books he most manifestly dissents from the Roman Church Therefore either Ruffinus did not think the Church of Rome was Infallible or else the Church of Rome at this day reckons up more Books within the Canon than heretofore she did If she do then she is changed in a main point of Faith the Canon of Scripture and is absolutely convinced not to be Infallible for if she were right in her reckoning then she is wrong now and if she be right now she was wrong then and if she do not reckon now more then she did when Ruffinus lived then he reckons fewer than she and so dissents from her which doubtless he durst not have done had he thought her judgement Infallible Yea and he sets this mark upon his dissent besides that he reckons up the Books of the Canon just so and no otherwise then as he received them out of the Monuments of the fore-Fathers and out of which the assertions of our Faith are to be taken Now what have you to say to this strong and nervous Discourse of his Lordship Why forsooth this argument of the Bishop is far from being convincing And why so For say you though it should be granted that the Catholick Church the Roman you mean at present declares more books to be contained in the Canon than she did in Ruffinus his time yet this could be no errour in her That is strange that the Church should declare the Canon to be compleat then without these books and now not to be and yet neither time be in an errour No say you unless it be shewed which I am sure cannot be that she condemned those books then as not Divine Scripture or not Canonical which now she declares to be Divine or Canonical Excellent good still that which you are sure cannot be shewed is obvious to any one that hath eyes in his head For I only ask you Whether the Church of Rome did declare any Canon or no in that age If not according to your principles those who lived in that age could have no Divine Faith as to the Scripture if she did declare the Canon of Scripture without these Books did she not thereby condemn these Books to be not Canonical For you say that all are bound to take her judgement what is in the Canon and what not if therefore she did not put them into the Canon did she not leave them out of the Canon or Can you find any medium between being put in and being left out Yes say you these Books were left then under dispute with whom were they under dispute with the Church of Rome or not If with her was she not Infallible the mean while when so great a matter as the Canon of Scripture was under dispute with her But this whole business concerning the Canon of Scripture is largely discussed already only here it is sufficient to shew how you are pent in on every side so that there is no possibility of getting out As to the strait his Lordship takes notice of that the Church of Rome is driven to in borrowing a testimony for her Infallibility from one whom she branded with Heresie in that very Book from whence this testimony is taken You answer That it evidently argues the truth and uncorruptedness of that Church which is so clear that even her Adversaries cannot but confess it But if they confess it no better then Ruffinus doth she will have little cause to applaud her self for her Integrity in that respect And although a Testimony may be taken from persons suspected in some things yet it argues those have but very few friends who are fain to make use of their enemies to bear witness for them What follows concerning a particular Church being Infallible because you disown it although not consonantly to the principles of your party as was shewed in the occasion of the Conference I pass by The errours of the Church of Rome which his Lordship mentions but you say proves not you shall find abundantly proved before our task is over Your vindication of Bellarmin from inconsistency in saying A proposition is most true and yet but peradventure as true as another is so fine and subtil that it were an injury to the Reader to deprive him of the pleasure of perusing it And yet when all is done a Proposition very false might be as true as this which Bellarmin speaks of viz. That the Pope when he teacheth the whole Church in matters of Faith cannot erre And thus I have cleared that there can be no ground of an imputation of Schism on our Church from hence that the Roman Church is the Catholick Church which acception of the Catholick Church I have manifested to be as great a stranger to Antiquity as it is an enemy to Reason And that the calling the Roman Church the Catholick Church is as his Lordship truly saith a meer Novelty and perfect Jesuitism CHAP. II. Protestants no Schismaticks Schism a culpable separation therefore the Question of Schism must be determined by enquiring into the causes of it The plea from the Church of Rome's being once a right Church considered No necessity of assigning the punctual time when errours crept into her An account why the originals of errours seem obscure By Stapleton's confession the Roman and Catholick Church were not the same The falsity of that assertion manifested That there could be no pure Church since the Apostles times if the Roman Church were corrupt No one particular Church free from corruptions yet no separation from the Catholick Church How far the Catholick Church may be said to erre Men may have distinct communion from any one particular Church yet not separate from the Catholick Church The Testimony of Petrus de Alliaco vindicated Bellarmin not mis-cited Almain full to his Lordships purpose The Romanists guilty of the present Schism and not Protestants In what sense there can be no just cause of Schism and how far that concerns our case Protestants did not depart from the Church of Rome but were thrust out of it The Vindication of the Church of Rome from Schism at last depends upon the two false Principles Of her Infallibility and being the Catholick Church The Testimonies of S. Bernard and S. Austin not to the purpose The Catalogue of Fundamentals the Churches not erring c. referr'd back to their proper places BEfore I come to examine the particulars of this Chapter it will be necessary to see what the state of the Controversie was concerning Schism between his Lordship and his Adversary His Lordship delivers his sense clearly
and fully in these words T is too true indeed that there is a miserable rent in the Church and I make no question but the best men do most bemoan it nor is he a Christian that would not have Vnity might he have it with Truth But I never said nor thought that the Protestants made this rent The cause of the Schism is yours for you thrust us from you because we call'd for truth and redress of abuses For a Schism must needs be theirs whose the cause of it is The woe runs full out of the mouth of Christ ever against him that gives the offence not against him that takes it ever And in the Margent shewing that a separation may sometimes be necessary he instanceth in the orthodox departing from the communion of the Arrians upon which he sayes It cannot be that a man should do well in making a Schism There may be therefore a necessary separation which yet incurrs not the guilt of Schism and that is when Doctrines are taught contrary to the Catholick Faith And after saith The Protestants did not depart for departure is voluntary so was not theirs I say not theirs taking their whole body and cause together For that some among them were peevish and some ignorantly zealous is neither to be doubted nor is there danger in confessing it Your body is not so perfect I wot well but that many amongst you are as pettish and as ignorantly zealous as any of ours You must not suffer for these nor we for those nor should the Church of Christ for either And when A. C. saith That though the Church of Rome did thrust the Protestants from her by excommunication yet they had first divided themselves by obstinate holding and teaching Opinions contrary to the Roman Faith His Lordship answers So then in his Opinion Excommunication on their part was not the prime cause of this division but the holding and teaching of contrary Opinions Why but then in my opinion saith he that holding and teaching was not the prime cause neither but the corruptions and superstitions of Rome which forced many men to hold and teach the contrary So the prime cause was theirs still And A. C. telling him That he said that it was ill done of those who first made the separation He answers That though he remembred not that he said those words yet withall adds If I did not say it then I do say it now and most true it is That it was ill done of those whoere they were who first made the separation But then A. C. must not understand me of Actual only but of Causal separation For as I said before the Schism is theirs whose the cause of it is and he makes the separation that gives the first just cause of it not he that makes an actual separation upon a just cause preceding And this is so evident a Truth that A. C. cannot deny it for he sayes it is most true These passages I have laid together that the Reader may clearly understand the full state of this great Controversie concerning Schism the upshot of which is that it is agreed between both parties that all separation from communion with a Church doth not involve in it the guilt of Schism but only such a separation as hath no sufficient cause or ground for it So that the Question comes to this Whether your Church were not guilty of such errours and corruptions as gave sufficient cause for such a separation The Question being thus stated we now come to consider how you make good your part in it Your first pretence is if reduced into argument for you seem to have a particular pique against a close way of disputing That your Church is a right and orthodox Church and therefore could never give any just cause of separation from it For the Lady asked as A. C. would have it Whether the Roman Church was not the right Church not be not but was not that is relating to the times before the breach was made Now his Lordship tells him That as to the terms he might take his choice For the Church of Rome neither is nor was the right Church as the Lady desired to hear A particular Church it is and was and in some times right and in some times wrong but the right Church or the Holy Catholick Church it never was nor ever can be And therefore was not such before Luther and others left it or were thrust from it A particular Church it was but then A. C. is not distinct enough here neither For the Church of Rome both was and was not a right or orthodox Church before Luther made a breach from it For the word ante before may look upon Rome and that Church a great way off or long before and then in the prime times of it it was a most right and orthodox Church But it may look also nearer home and upon the immediate times before Luther or some ages before that and then in those times Rome was a corrupt and tainted Church far from being Right And yet both these times before Luther made his breach And so he concludes that Section with this clause That the Roman Church which was once right is now become wrong by embracing superstition and errour And what say you now to all this Two things you have to return in answer to it or at least to these two all that you say may be reduced 1. That if the Roman Church was right once it is so still 2. That if the Roman Church were wrong before Luther the Catholick Church was so too These two containing all that is said in this case must be more particularly discussed 1. That if the Roman was the right Church it still is so seeing no change can be shewn in her Doctrine If there have been a change let it appear when and in what the change was made Thus you say but you know his Lordship never granted that the Roman Church ever was the right Church in the sense you take those words for the true Catholick Church that it was once a right particular Church he acknowledged and as such was afterwards tainted with errours and corruptions If so you desire to know what these were and when they came in to the former I shall reserve an Answer till I come to the third part of my task where you shall have an account of them to the latter the time when these came in because this is so much insisted on by your party I shall return you an Answer in this place And that I shall do in these following Propositions 1. Nothing can be more unreasonable than to deny that errours and corruptions have come into a Church meerly because the punctual time of their coming in cannot be assigned For Will any one question the birth of an Infant because he cannot know the time of his conception Will any one deny there are tares in the field because
most part yet living These are your assertions and because you seek not to prove them it shall be sufficient to oppose ours to them Our assertion therefore is that the Church and Court of Rome are guilty of this Schism by obtruding erroneous Doctrines and superstitious practises as the conditions of her Communion by adding such Articles of Faith which are contrary to the plain rule of Faith and repugnant to the sense of the truly Catholick and not the Roman Church by her intolerable incroachments and usurpations upon the liberties and priviledges of particular Churches under a vain pretence of Vniversal Pastourship by forcing men if they would not damn their souls by sinning against their consciences in approving the errours and corruptions of the Roman Church to joyn together for the Solemn Worship of God according to the rule of Scripture and practise of the Primitive Church and suspending Communion with that Church till those abuses and corruptions be redressed In which they neither deny obedience to any Lawful Authority over them nor take to themselves any other Power than the Law of God hath given them receiving their Authority in a constant Succession from the Apostles they institute no Rites and Ceremonies either contrary to or different from the practise of the Primitive Church they neither exclude or dispossess others of their Lawful Power but in case others neglect their office they may be notwithstanding obliged to perform theirs in order to the Churches Reformation Leaving the Supreme Authority of the Kingdome or Nation to order and dispose of such things in the Church which of right appertain unto it And this we assert to be the case of Schism in reference to the Church of England which we shall make good in opposition to your assertions where we meet with any thing that seems to contradict the whole or any part of it These and the like practises of yours to use your own words not any obstinate maintaining any erroneous Doctrines as you vainly pretend we averre to have been the true and real causes of that separation which is made between your Church and Ours And you truly say That Protestants were thrust out of your Church which is an Argument they did not voluntarily forsake the Communion of it and therefore are no Schismaticks but your carriage and practises were such as forced them to joyn together in a distinct Communion from you And it was not we who left your Church but your Church that left her Primitive Faith and Purity in so high a manner as to declare all such excommunicate who will not approve of and joyn in her greatest corruptions though it be sufficiently manifest that they are great recessions from the Faith Piety and Purity of that Roman Church which was planted by the Apostles and had so large a commendation from the Apostolical men of those first ages Since then such errours and corruptions are enforced upon us as conditions of Communion with you by the same reason that the Orthodox did very well in departing from the Arrians because the Arrians were already departed from the Church by their false Doctrine will our separation from you be justified who first departed from the Faith and Purity of the Primitive Church and not only so but thrust out of your Communion all such as would not depart from it as farr as you Having thus considered and retorted your Assertions we come to your Answers Nor say you does the Bishop vindicate the Protestant party by saying The cause of Schism was ours and that we Catholicks thrust Protestants from us because they call'd for truth and redress of abuses For first there can be no just cause of Schism this hath been granted already even by Protestants And so it is by us and the reason is very evident for it for if there be a just cause there can be no Schism and therefore what you intend by this I cannot imagine unless it be to free Protestants from the guilt of Schism because they put the Main of their tryal upon the justice of the cause which moved them to forsake the Communion of your Church or else you would have it taken for granted that ours was a Schism and thence inferr there could be no just cause of it As if a man being accused for taking away the life of one who violently set upon him in the High-way with an intent both to rob and destroy him should plead for himself that this could be no murther in him because there was a sufficient and justifiable cause for what he did that he designed nothing but to go quietly on his road that this person and several others violently set upon him that he intreated them to desist that he sought to avoid them as much as he could but when he saw they were absolutely bent on his ruine he was forced in his own necessary defence to take away the life of that person Would not this with any intelligent Jury be looked on as a just and reasonable Vindication But if so wise a person as your self had been among them you would no doubt have better informed them for you would very gravely have told them All his plea went on a false supposition that he had a just cause for what he did but there could be no just cause for murther Do you not see now how subtil and pertinent your Answer is here by this parallel to it For as in that case all men grant that there can be no just cause for murther because all murther is committed without a just cause and if there be one it ceaseth to be murther So it is here in Schism which being a causeless separation from the Churches Vnity I wonder who ever imagined there could be just cause for it But to rectifie such gross mistakes as these are for the future you would do well to understand that Schism formally taken alwayes imports something criminal in it and there can be no just cause for a sin but besides that there is that which if you understand it you would call the materiality of it which is the separation of one part of the Church from another Now this according to the different grounds and reasons of it becomes lawful or unlawful that is as the reasons do make it necessary or unnecessary For separation is not lawful but when it is necessary now this being capable of such a different nature that it may be good or evil according to its circumstances there can be no absolute judgement passed upon it till all those reasons and circumstances be duely examined and if there be no sufficient grounds for it then it is formally Schism i. e. a culpable separation if there be sufficient cause then there may be a separation but it can be no Schism And because the Vnion of the Catholick Church lyes in Fundamental and necessary truths therefore there can be no separation absolutely from the Catholick Church but what involves in it the
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
examine particulars they would as soon believe it was impossible for that man to fall whom they see upon the ground as your Church to be infallible which they find overspread with errour and corruptions Much such another Answer you return to his Lordship's second Exception which is at his calling the Christian Faith the Roman Faith For you say It is no incongruity so to call it for the Bishop of Rome being Head of the whole Christian or Catholick Church the Faith approved and taught by him as Head thereof though it be de facto the general Faith and Profession of all Christians may yet very well be called the Roman Faith Why because the root origine and chief Foundation under Christ of its being practised and believed by Christians is at Rome But if the Bishop of Rome be no such thing as Head of the Christian Church and they must have a very wide Faith which must swallow that Vniversal Headship with all the appurtenances upon your bare affirmation if it belongs no more to him to approve and teach the Faith then to any other Catholick Bishop if the coming from Rome affords no credibility at all to the Christian Faith then still there remains as great an incongruity as may be in calling the Christian Faith the Roman Faith And as to all these my denial is as good as your affirmation when you undertake to prove I shall to answer If A. C. adds the practice of the Church to the Roman Faith I see no advantage is gotten by it for the first must limit the latter and the Faith being Roman the Church must be so too and therefore all your cavils on that subject come to nothing The third Exception is against the place out of S. Bernard and S. Austin which his Lordship saith are mis-applied for neither of them saith he spake of the Roman and S. Bernard perhaps neither of the Catholick nor the Roman but of a particular Church or Congregation His words are What greater pride than that one man should prefer his judgement before the whole Congregation Which A. C. conveniently to his purpose rendred before the whole Congregation of all the Christian Churches in the world Whereas no such thing is in him as all the Christian Churches in the world And his Lordship saith He thinks it is plain that he speaks both of and to the particular Congregation to which he was then preaching This you deny not but say The argument holds â minori ad majus to shew the more exorbitant pride of those who prefer their private fanatick Opinions before the judgement of the whole Catholick Church The Roman Church you should have said for you own no Catholick Church but what is Roman and therein the argument you mention will hold yet further against those who prefer the Novel Opinions of the Roman Church before the ancient Apostolical Faith of the truly Catholick Church His Lordship adds That it is one thing to prefer a mans private judgement before the whole Congregation and another for an intelligent man in something unsatisfied modestly to propose his doubts even to the Catholick Church And much more may a whole National Church nay the whole body of Protestants do it Now you very wisely leave out this last clause that you might take an opportunity to declaim against Luther Zuinglius Calvin c. for want of modesty But what pretext could there have been for such virulency had they been guilty of what you charge them if you would but have given us all that his Lordship said And may not I now therefore more justly return you your own language in the same page upon a far less occasion That here 's a manifest robbery of part of his Lordships words for which you are bound to restitution For his Lordship as it were foreseeing this cavil warily adds that concerning a whole National Church and the whole body of Protestants which you for reasons best known to your self craftily leave out But we must excuse our adversary for this slip though it be an unhandsome one For the truth is he had no other way to hide the guiltiness of his own pen c. These are your own words only applied and that much more justly to your self for a more palpable fault in the very same page wherein you had accused his Lordship for one of that kind But you go on further and supposing the doubts had been modestly proposed yet this could not at all help the Protestant cause in regard their doubts were in points of Faith already determined for such by authority of the Catholick Church to question any of which with what seeming modesty soever is sinful heretical and damnable Were it our present business it were easie to make it appear that the far greatest part of the matters in Controversie were never determined as points of Faith before the Council of Trent and I hope you will not say that was before the Reformation or any proposal of doubts But if they had been defined by your Church for matters of Faith and our great doubt be How your Church comes to have this power of determining points of Faith to whom should this doubt be propounded to your Church no doubt then we should hear from her as now we do from you That to question it with what seeming modesty soever is sinful heretical ond damnable And Is it not then likely that your Church should ever yield to the proposal of doubts and you do well to tell us so for it will save Protestants a great deal of labour when they see your Church so incurable that she makes it sinful heretical and damnable to question any thing she hath determined Although we do with much more reason assert it to be sinful heretical and damnable in your Church to offer to obtrude erroneous Doctrines on the Faith of the Christian world as points necessary to be believed and to urge superstitious practices as the conditions of communion with her To the place of S. Austin wherein he saith That it is a part of most insolent madness for any man to dispute Whether that be to be done which is usually done in and through the whole Catholick Church of Christ. His Lordship answer 1. Here 's not a word of the Roman Church but of that which is all over the world Catholick which Rome never yet was and for all your boast of having often shewn That the Roman and the Catholick are all one I dare leave it to the indifferent Reader Whether you have not miserably failed in your attempts that way 2. He answers That A. C. applies this to the Roman Faith whereas S. Austin speaks expresly of the rites and ceremonies of the Church and particularly about the manner of offering upon Maundy-Thursday whether it be in the morning or after supper or both 3. T is manifest by the words themselves that S. Austin speaks of no matter of Faith
That to reform what is amiss in Doctrine or Manners is as lawful for a particular Church as it is to publish and promulgate any thing that is Catholick in either And your Question Quô judice lies alike against both And yet I think saith he It may be proved that the Church of Rome and that as a particular Church did promulgate an orthodox truth which was not then Catholickly admitted in the Church namely the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son If she erred in this fact confess her errour if she erred not Why may not another particular Church do as she did From whence he inferrs That if a particular Church may publish any thing that is Catholick where the whole Church is silent it may reform any thing that is not Catholick where the whole Church is negligent or will not Now to this you answer 1. That this procession from the Son was a truth alwaies acknowledged in the Church but what concerns that and the time of this Article being inserted into the Creed have been so amply discussed already that I shall not cloy the reader with any repetition having fully considered whatever you here say concerning the Article it self or its addition to the Creed 2. You answer That the consequence will not hold that if a particular Church may in some case promulgate an orthodox truth not as yet Catholickly received by the Church then a particular Church may repeal or reverse any thing that the whole Church hath already Catholickly and definitively received Surely no. Yet this say you is his Lordships and the Protestants case You do well to mention an egregious fallacy presently after these words for surely this is so For doth his Lordship parallel the promulgating something Catholick and repealing something Catholick together Surely no. But the promulgating something true but not Catholickly received with the reforming something not Catholick Either therefore you had a mind to abuse his Lordships words or to deceive the reader by beging the thing in Question viz. that all those which we call for a Reformation of were things Catholickly and definitively received by the whole Church which you know we utterly deny But you go on and say That thence it follows not that a particular Church may reform any thing that is not Catholick where the whole Church is negligent or will not because this would suppose errour or something uncatholick to be taught or admitted by the whole Church To put this case a little more plainly by the former Instance Suppose then that the Worship of God under the symbols of the Calves at Dan and Bethel had been received generally as the visible worship of the Tribes of Judah and Benjamin as well as the rest Doth not this Answer of yours make it impossible that ever they should return to the true Worship of God For this were to call in question the truth of Gods Promise to his Church and to suppose something not Catholick to be received by the whole Church And so the greater the corruptions are the more impossible it is to cure them and in case they spread generally no attempts of Reformation can be lawful which is a more false and paradoxical Doctrine than either of those which you call so And the truth is such pretences as these are are fit only for a Church that hateth to be reformed for if something not good in it self should happen in any one age to overspread the visible Communion of all particular Churches this only makes a Reformation the more necessary so far is it from making it the more disputable For thereby those corruptions grow more dangerous and every particular Church is bound the more to regard its own security in a time of general Infection And if any other Churches neglect themselves What reason is it that the rest should For any or all other particular Churches neglecting their duty is no more an argument that no particular Church should reform it self than that if all other men in a Town neglect preserving themselves from the Plague then I am bound to neglect it too But you answer 3. That all this doth not justifie the Protestants proceedings because they promulged only new and unheard of Doctrines directly contrary to what the Catholick Church universally held and taught before them for Catholick Truths This is the great thing in Question but I see you love best the lazy trade of begging things which are impossible to be rationally proved But yet you would seem here to do something towards it in the subsequent words For about the year of our Lord 1517. when their pretended Reformations began was not the real presence of our Saviours body and blood in the Eucharist by a true substantial change of Bread and Wine generally held by the whole Church Was not the real Sacrifice of the Mass then generally believed Was not Veneration of Holy Images Invocation of Saints Purgatory Praying for the dead that they might be eased of their pains and receive the full remission of their sins generally used and practised by all Christians Was not Free will Merit of good works and Justification by Charity or inherent Grace and not by Faith only universally taught and believed in all Churches of Christendom Yea even among those who in some few other points dissented from the Pope and the Latin Church To what purpose then doth the Bishop urge that a particular Church may publish any thing that is Catholick This doth not justifie at all his Reformation he should prove that it may not only add but take away something that is Catholick from the Doctrine of the Church for this the pretended Reformers did as well in England as elsewhere His Lordship never pretends much less disputes that any particular Church hath a power to take away any thing that is truly Catholick but the ground why he supposeth such things as those mentioned by you might be taken away is because they are not Catholick the Question then is between us Whether they were Catholick Doctrines or not this you attempt to prove by this medium Because they were generally held by the whole Church at the time of the Reformation To which I answer 1. If this be a certain measure to judge by what was Catholick and what not then what doth not appear to have been Catholick in this sense it was in our Churches power to reject and so it was lawful to reform our selves as to all such things which were not at the time of the Reformation received by the whole Church And what think you now of the Popes Supremacy your Churches Infallibility the necessity of Coelibate in the Clergy Communion in one kind Prayer in an unknown tongue Indulgences c. Will you say That those were generally received by the Church at the time of the Reformation If you could have said so no doubt you would not have omitted such necessary points and some of which gave the
imposed those things which had been before only the errours of particular persons as the Catholick Doctrines of that Church and the necessary conditions of Communion with her 3. I may answer yet further That it is not enough to prove any Doctrine to be Catholick that it was generally received by Christian Churches in any one Age but it must be made appear to have been so received from the Apostles times So that if we should grant that these Doctrines were owned for Catholick not only by the Church of Rome but all other Christian Churches so far as it can be discerned by their Communion yet this doth not prove these Doctrines so owned to be truly Catholick unless you can first prove that all the Christian Churches of one Age can never believe a Doctrine to be Catholick which is not so You see therefore your task increases further upon you for it is not enough to say That A. D. 1517. such and such Doctrines were looked on as Catholick and therefore they were so but that for 1517. years successively from the Apostles to that time they were judged to be so and then we shall more easily believe you When you will therefore prove Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass Image-worship Invocation of Saints or any other of the good Doctrines mentioned by you in a constant tradition from the Apostles times to have been looked on as Catholick Doctrines you may then say That Protestants in denying these did take away something Catholick from the Doctrine of the Church but till that time these Answers may abundantly suffice We now come closer to the business of the Reformation but before we examine the particulars of it the general grounds on which it proceeded must somewhat further be cleared which his Lordship tells you are built upon the power of particular Churches reforming themselves in case the whole Church is negligent or will not to which you say That you grant in effect as great power as the Bishop himself does to particular Churches to National and Provincial Councils in reforming errours and abuses either of doctrine or practice only we require that they proceed with due respect to the chief Pastor of the Church and have recourse to him in all matters and decrees of Faith especially when they define or declare points not generally known and acknowledged to be Catholick Truths What you grant in effect at first you in effect deny again afterwards For the Question is about Reformation of such errours and abuses as may come from the Church of Rome and when you grant a power to reform only in case the Pope consent you grant no power to reform at all For the experience of the world hath sufficiently taught us How little his consent is to be expected in any thing of Reformation For his Lordship truly saith in Answer to Capellus who denies particular Churches any power of making Canons of Faith without consulting the Roman See That as Capellus can never prove that the Roman See must be consulted with before any Reformation be made So it is as certain that were it proved and practised we should have no Reformation For it would be long enough before the Church should be cured if that See alone should be her Physitian which in truth is her disease Now to this you say That even Capellus himself requires this as though Capellus were not the man whom his Lordship answers as to this very thing But besides you say The practise of the Church is evident for it in the examples of the Milevitan and Carthaginian Councils which as St. Austin witnesseth sent their decrees touching Grace Original sin in Infants and other matters against Pelagius to be confirmed by the Pope but what is all this to the business of Reformation that nothing of that nature is to be attempted without the Popes consent That these Councils did by Julius an African Bishop communicate their decrees to Pope Innocent Who denyes but what is it you would thence infer to your purpose for the utmost which can be drawn hence is that they desired the Pope to contribute his assistance in condemning Pelagius and Coelestius by adding the authority of the Apostolical See to their decrees that so by the consent of the Church that growing Heresie might the more easily be suppressed And who denyes but at that time the Roman Church had great reputation which is all that Authority implyes and by that means might be more serviceable in preventing the growth of Pelagianism if it did concur with the African Councils in condemning that Doctrine But because they communicated their decrees to Pope Innocent desiring his consent with them that therefore no reformation should be attempted in the Church without the consent of the Pope is a very far-fetched inference and unhappily drawn from those African Fathers who so stoutly opposed Zosimus Innocents Successour in the case of Appeals about the business of Apiarius Did they think you look on themselves as obliged to do nothing in the reforming the Church without the Popes authority who would by no means yield to those encroachments of power which Zosimus would have usurped over them Nay it appears that till the African Fathers had better informed him Zosimus did not a little favour Coelestius himself and in case he had gone on so to do do you think they would have thought themselves ever the less obliged to reform their Churches from the Pelagian Heresie which began to spread among them And in this time of the Controversie between Zosimus and them though they carried it with all fairness towards the Roman See yet they were still careful to preserve and defend their own priviledges and in case the Pope should then have challenged that power over them which he hath done since no doubt they would not have struck at calling such incroachments The disease of the Church without any unhandsomness or incivility and would have been far from looking on him as the only Physitian of it To that pretence That things should have been born with till the time of a General Council his Lordship answers First 't is true a General Council free and entire would have been the best remedy and most able for a Gangrene that had spread so far and eaten so deep into Christianity But what should we have suffered this Gangrene to endanger life and all rather then be cured in time by a Physitian of weaker knowledge and a less able hand Secondly we live to see since if we had stayed and expected a General Council what manner of one we should have had if any For that at Trent was neither General nor free And for the errours which Rome had contracted it confirmed them it cured them not And yet I much doubt whether ever that Council such as it was would have been call'd if some Provincial and National Synods under Supreme and Regal power had not first set upon this great work of Reformation which
the stage in the Questions of the Pope's Authority and Infallibility of General Councils I come to your following Chapter in which you enter upon the Vindication of the Roman Churches Authority 2. That which his Lordship hath long insisted on and evidently proved is The Right which particular Churches have to reform themselves when the General Church cannot for impediments or will not for negligence do it And your Answers to his proofs have had their weakness sufficiently laid open the only thing here objected further is Whether in so doing particular Churches do not condemn others of Errours in Faith To which his Lordship answers That to reform themselves and to condemn others are two different works unless it fall out so that by reforming themselves they do by consequence condemn any other that is guilty in that point in which they reform themselves and so far to judge and condemn others is not only lawful but necessary A man that lives Religiously doth not by and by sit in judgement and condemn with his mouth all prophane livers but yet while he is silent his very life condemns them To what end his Lordship produceth this Instance any one may easily understand but you abuse it as though his Lordship had said That Protestants only by their Religious lives do condemn your Church and upon this run out into a strange declamation about Who the men are that live so Religiously They who to propagate the Gospel the better marry wives contrary to the Canons and bring Scripture for it Yes surely much more then they who to propagate your Church enjoy Concubines for which if they can bring some Canons of your Church I am sure they can bring no Scripture for it They who pull down Monasteries both of Religious men and women I see you are still as loth to part them as they are to be parted themselves but if all their lives be no more Religious then the most of them have been the pulling of them down might be a greater act of Religion then living in them They who cast Altars to the ground More certainly then they who worshipped them They who partly banish Priests and partly put them to death Or they who commit treasons and do things worthy of death But you are doubtless very Religious and tender-hearted men whose consciences would never suffer you to banish or put any to death for the sake of Religion no not in Queen Maries time here in England They who deface the very Tombs of Saints and will not permit them to rest even when they are dead Or they who profess to worship dead Saints and martyr living ones with Fire and Faggot If this be your religious living none who know what Religion means will be much taken with it I shall easily grant that you stick close to the Pope but are therein far enough from the Doctrine or life of St. Peter If any of you have endured Sequestrations Imprisonments Death it self I am sure it was not for any good you did not for the Catholick Faith but if you will for some Catholick Treasons such as would have enwrapt a whole Nation in misery If this be your suffering persecution for righteousness sake you will have little cause to rejoyce in your Fellow-sufferers But if you had not a mind to calumniate us and provoke us to speak sad truths of you all this might have been spared for his Lordship only chose this Instance to shew that a Church or person may be condemned consequentially which was not intentionally But you say Our Church hath formally condemned yours by publick and solemn censures in the 39. Articles Doth his Lordship deny that our Church in order to our own reformation hath condemned many things which your Church holds No but that our Churches main intention was to reform it self but considering the corruption and degeneracy of your Church she could not do it without consequentially condemning yours and that she did justly in so doing we are ready on all occasions to justifie But his Lordship asks If one particular Church may not judge or condemn another What must then be done where particulars need reformation To which his Adversary gives a plain Answer That particular Churches must in that case as Irenaeus intimateth have recourse to the Church of Rome which hath more powerful principality and to her Bishop who is the chief Pastour of the whole Church as being St. Peters Successour c. This is the rise and occasion of the present Controversie To this his Lordship Answers That it is most true indeed the Church of Rome hath had and hath yet more powerful Principality then any other particular Church But she hath not this power from Christ. The Roman Patriarch by Ecclesiastical constitutions might perhaps have a Primacy of order but for principality of power the Patriarchs were as even as equal as the Apostles were before them The truth is this more powerful Principality the Roman Bishops got under the Emperours after they became Christian and they used the matter so that they grew big enough to oppose nay to depose the Emperours by the same power which they had given them And after this other particular Churches especially here in the West submitted themselves to them for Succour and Protections sake And this was one main cause that swel'd Rome into this more powerful Principality and not any right given by Christ to make that Prelate Pastour of the whole Church To this you Answer That to say that the Roman Churches Principality is not from Christ is contrary to St. Austin and the whole Milevitan Council who in their Epistle to Innocent the first profess that the Popes Authority is grounded upon Scripture and consequently proceeds from Christ. But whoever seriously reads and throughly considers that Epistle will find no such thing as that you aim at there For the scope of the Epistle is to perswade Pope Innocent to appear against Coelestius and Pelagius to that end they give first an account of their Doctrine shewing how pernicious and contrary to Scripture it was after which they tell him that Pelagius being at Jerusalem was like to do a great deal of mischief there but that many of the Brethren opposed him and especially St. Hierom. But we say they do suppose that through the mercy of our Lord Christ assisting you those which hold such perverse and pernicious principles may more easily yield by your Authority drawn out of Scripture Where they do not in the least dream of his Authority as Vniversal Pastor being grounded on Scripture but of his appearing against the Pelagians with his Authority drawn out of Scripture that is to that Authority which he had in the Church by the reputation of the Roman See the Authority of the Scripture being added which was so clear against the Pelagians or both these going together were the most probable way to suppress their Doctrine And it hath been sufficiently proved
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
their rights and liberties and thereupon gave present notice to Caelestine to forbear sending his Officers amongst them lest he should seem to induce the swelling pride of the World into the Church of Christ. And this is said to have amounted into a formal separation from the Church of Rome and to have continued for the space of somewhat more then one hundred years For which his Lordship produceth two publick instruments extant among the ancient Councils the one an Epistle from Boniface 2. in whose time the reconciliation to Rome is said to be made by Eulalius then Bishop of Carthage but the separation instigante Diabolo by the Temptation of the Devil The other is an exemplar precum or Copy of the Petition of the same Eulalius in which he damns and curses all those his Predecessours which went against the Church of Rome Now his Lordship urges from hence Either these Instruments are true or false If they be false then Boniface 2. and his Accomplices at Rome or some for them are notorious forgers and that of Records of great consequence to the Government and peace of the whole Church of Christ and to the perpetual Infamy of that See and all this foolishly and to no purpose On the other side if these instruments be true then 't is manifest that the Church of Africk separated from the Church of Rome which separation was either unjust or just if unjust then St. Austin Eugenius Fulgentius and all those Bishops and other Martyrs which suffered in the Vandalike persecution dyed in actual and unrepented Schism and out of the Church If it were just then is it far more lawful for the Church of England by a National Council to cast off the Popes Vsurpation as she did than it was for the African Church to separate because then the African Church excepted only against the Pride of Rome in case of Appeals and two other Canons less material but the Church of England excepts besides this grievance against many corruptions in Doctrine with which Rome at that time was not tainted And St. Austin and those other famous men durst not thus have separated from Rome had the Pope had that powerful Principality over the whole Church of Christ and that by Christs own Ordinance and Institution as A. C. pretends he had This is the substance of his Lordships discourse to which we must consider what Answer you return Which in short is That you dare not assert the credit of those two Instruments but are very willing to think them forgeries but you say the Schismatical separation of the African Church from the Roman is inconsistent with the truth of story and confuted by many pregnant and undeniable instances which prove that the Africans notwithstanding the context in the sixth Council of Carthage touching matter of Appeals were alwayes in true Catholick Communion with the Roman Church even during the term of this pretended separation For which you produce the Testimony of Pope Caelestine concerning St. Austin the proceeding of Pope Leo in the case of Lupicinus the Testimonies of Eugenius Fulgentius Gregory and the presence of some African Bishops at Rome To all which I Answer that either the African Fathers did persist in the decree of the Council of Carthage or they did not if they did persist in it and no separation followed then the casting off the Vsurpations of the Roman See cannot incur the guilt of Schism for these African Bishops did that and it seems continued still in the Roman Communion by which it is evident that the Roman Church was not so far degenerated then as afterwards or that the Authority of those persons was so great in the Church that the Roman Bishops durst not openly break with them which is a sufficient account of what Caelestine saith concerning St. Austin that he lived and dyed in the Communion of the Roman Church If you say the reason why they were in Communion with the Roman Church was because they did not persist you must prove it by better instances then you have here brought for some of them are sufficient proofs of the contrary As appears by the case of Lupicinus an African Bishop appealing to Leo who indeed was willing enough to receive him but what of that Did not the African Bishops of Mauritania Caesariensis excommunicate him notwithstanding that appeal and ordained another in his place and therefore the Pope very fairly sends him back to be tryed by the Bishops of his Province Which instance as it argues the Popes willingness to have brought up Appeals among them so it shews the continuance of their stoutness in opposing them And even Pope Gregory so long after though in his time the business of Appeals was much promoted at Rome yet he dares not challenge them from the Bishops of Africa but yields to them the enjoyment of those priviledges which they said they had enjoyed from the Apostles times And the testimonies of Eugenius and Fulgentius imply nothing of subjection to Rome but a Praeeminence which that Church had above all others which it might have without the other as London may I hope be the Head-City of England and yet all other Cities not express subjection to it But if after that Council of Carthage the Bishops of Rome did by degrees encroach upon the liberties of the African Churches there is this sufficient account to be given of it that as the Roman Bishops were alwayes watchful to take advantages to inhance their power and that especially when other Churches were in a suffering condition so a fit opportunity fell out for them to do it in Africa For not long after that Council of Carthage fell out that dismal persecution of the African Churches by the irruption of the Vandals in which all the Catholick Bishops were banished out of Africa or lived under great sufferings and by a strict edict of Gensericus no new Bishops were suffered to be ordained in the places of the former This now was a fair opportunity for the Bishop of Rome to advance his Authority among the suffering Bishops St. Peters pretended Successour loving to fish in troubled waters and it being fatal to Rome from the first Foundation of it to advance her self by the ruins of other places But we are call'd off from the ruins of other Churches to observe the methods whereby the Popes grew great under the Emperours which his Lordship gives an account of from Constantines time to Charles the Great about five hundred years which begins thus So soon as the Emperours became Christian the Church began to be put in better order For the calling and Authority of Bishops over the Inferiour Clergy that was a thing of known use and benefit for preservation of Vnity and Peace in the Church Which was confessed by St. Hierom himself and so settled in mens minds from the very Infancy of the Church that it had not been to that time contradicted by any The only difficulty then
the rest are Rebels and Traytors And Is not this just the same Answer which you give here That the Pope is still appointed to keep peace and unity in the Church because all that question his Authority be Hereticks and Schismaticks But as in the former case the surest way to prevent those Consequences were to produce that power and authority which the King had given him and that should be the first thing which should be made evident from authentick records and the clear testimony of the gravest Senatours so if you could produce the Letters Pattents whereby Christ made the Pope the great Lord Chancellour of his Church to determine all Controversies of Faith and shew this attested by the concurrent voice of the Primitive Church who best knew what order Christ took for the Government of his Church this were a way to prevent such persons turning such Hereticks and Schismaticks as you say they are by not submitting themselves to the Popes Authority But for you to pretend that the Popes Authority is necessary to the Churches Vnity and when the Heresies and Schisms of the Church are objected to say That those are all out of the Church is just as if a Shepherd should say That he would keep the whole Flock of sheep within such a Fold and when the better half are shewed him to be out of it he should return this Answer That those were without and not within his Fold and therefore they were none of the Flock that he meant So that his meaning was those that would abide in he could keep in but for those that would not he had nothing to say to them So it is with you the Pope he ends Controversies and keeps the Church at Vnity How so They who do agree are of his Flock and of the Church and those that do not are out of it A Quaker or Anabaptist will keep the Church in Vnity after the same way only the Pope hath the greater number of his side for they will tell you If they were hearkned to the Church should never be in pieces for all those who embrace their Doctrines are of the Church and those who do not are Hereticks and Schismaticks So we see upon your principles What an easie matter it is to be an Infallible Judge and to end all Controversies in the Church that only this must be taken for granted that all who will not own such an infallible Judge are out of the Church and so the Church is at Vnity still how many soever there are who doubt or deny the Popes Authority Thus we easily understand what that excellent harmony is which you cry so much up in your Church that you most gravely say That had not the Pope received from God the power he challenges he could never have been able to preserve that peace and unity in matters of Religion that is found in the Roman Church Of what nature that Unity is we have seen already And surely you have much cause to boast of the Popes faculty of deciding Controversies ever since the late Decree of Pope Innocent in the case of the five Propositions For How readily the Jansenists have submitted since and what Unity there hath been among the dissenting parties in France all the world can bear you witness And whatever you pretend were it not for Policy and Interest the Infallible Chair would soon fall to the ground for it hath so little footing in Scripture or Antiquity that there had need be a watchful eye and strong hand to keep it up But now we are to examine the main proof which is brought for the necessity of this Living and Infallible Judge which lyes in these words of A.C. Every earthly Kingdom when matters cannot be composed by a Parliament which cannot be called upon all occasions hath besides the Law-Books some living Magistrates and Judges and above all one visible King the highest Judge who hath Authority sufficient to end all Controversies and settle Vnity in all Temporal Affairs And Shall we think that Christ the wisest King hath provided in his Kingdom the Church only the Law-Books of holy Scripture and no living visible Judges and above all one chief so assisted by his Spirit as may suffice to end all Controversies for Vnity and Certainty of Faith which can never be if every man may interpret Holy Scripture the Law-Books as he list This his Lordship saith is a very plausible argument with the many but the Foundation of it is but a similitude and if the similitude hold not in the main argument is nothing And so his Lordship at large proves that it is here For whatever further concerns this Controversie concerning the Popes Authority is brought under the examination of this argument which you mangle into several Chapters thereby confounding the Reader that he may not see the coherence or dependence of one thing upon another But having cut off the superfluities of this Chapter already I may with more conveniency reduce all that belongs to this matter within the compass of it And that he may the better apprehend his Lordships scope and design I shall first summ up his Lordships Answers together and then more particularly go about the vindication of them 1. Then his Lordship at large proves that the Militant Church is not properly a Monarchy and therefore the foundation of the similitude is destroyed 2. That supposing it a Kingdom yet the Church Militant is spread in many earthly Kingdoms and cannot well be ordered like one particular Kingdom 3. That the Church of England under one Supreme Governour our Gracious Soveraign hath besides the Law-Book of the Scripture visible Magistrates and Judges Arch-Bishops and Bishops to govern the Church in Truth and Peace 4. That as in particular Kingdoms there are some affairs of greatest Consequence as concerning the Statute Laws which cannot be determined but in Parliament so in the Church the making such Canons which must bind all Christians must belong to a free and lawful General Council Thus I have laid together the substance of his Lordships Answer that the dependence and connexion of things may be better perceived by the intelligent Reader We come now therefore to the first Answer As to which his Lordship saith It is not certain that the whole Church Militant is a Kingdom for they are no mean ones which think our Saviour Christ left the Church-Militant in the hands of the Apostles and their Successours in an Aristocratical or rather a mixt Government and that the Church is not Monarchical otherwise than the Triumphant and Militant make one body under Christ the Head And in this sense indeed and in this only the Church is a most absolute Kingdom And the very expressing of this sense is a full Answer to all the places of Scripture and other arguments brought by Bellarmine to prove that the Church is a Monarchy But the Church being as large as the world Christ thought fittest to govern it Aristocratically
prevent or heal them Who then would not run into the bosom of such a Church as this with whom there is nothing but what is Infallible Who but Scepticks Hereticks and Schismaticks would keep out of her communion for what is there men can desire more in a Church then she hath where every thing is so Infallible Faith is Infallible Tradition Infallible the Church Infallible the Pope Infallible General Councils Infallible and what not But who are there that more cheat and deceive the world then those Mountebanks who pretend to the most Infallible cures For what is wanting in truth and reality must be helped out with the greater confidence and so we shall find it to be in these Infallible pretenders who fall short in nothing more then where they lay the highest claim to Infallibility Thus we have already manifested that none have more weakened Faith then such who have given out that they only could make it Infallibly certain none have brought more errours then that Church which arrogates to her self that she is Infallible it now remains that we discover that nothing is further from promoting the Churches peace then this present pretence of the Infallibility of General Councils For the ending of Controversies was the occasion of this dispute but this dispute it self hath caused more And will do so as long as men desire to see reason for what they do For it cannot be expected that men should yield their judgements up to the decrees of every such combination of men as shall call it self a General Council unless it be evidently proved that it is impossible they should erre in those decrees Where there be no other wayes found out for the ending some great Controversies of the Church but by a free and General Council all wise men will value the Churches peace so far as not to oppose the determinations of it it being the highest Court of Appeal which the Church hath But there is a great deal of difference between a submission for peace sake in those things which are not contrary to the Fundamentals of Faith and the assent of the mind to all the Decrees of such a Council as in themselves are Infallible For supposing them subject to errour yet if that errour be not such as doth over-weigh the peace of the Church the authority of it may be so great as to bind men to a submission to them But where they challenge an internal assent by vertue of such decrees there must be first proved an impossibility of erring in them before any can look on themselves as obliged to give it And while men contend about this that which was mainly aimed at is lost by these contentions which is the Vnity and Peace of the Church For it is a most fond and unreasonable thing to suppose there may not be as great divisions in the world about the wayes to end Controversies as any other Nay it is apparent that the greatest Controversies this day in the Christian world are upon this Subject It is not therefore any high challenge of Infallibility in any Person or Council which must put an end to Controversies for nothing but truth and reason can ever do it and the more men pretend to unreasonable wayes of deciding them instead of ending one they beget many For the higher the pretences are the more all wise men are apt to suspect them and to require the more clear and pregnant evidence for what they say and if they fail in that they have reason to question their Integrity much more then if they had contented themselves with more moderate claims For it is not saying Councils are infallible will make men yield the sooner to their determinations unless you first convince their reason by proving that they are so But if you aim at nothing but the Churches peace you might save your selves this labour perswade men to be meek and humble sober and rational and I dare promise you the Church shall be more at quiet than if you could prove all the Councils in the world to be Infallible For will that ever put a stop to the contentious Spirits of men will that alter their tempers or make them delight in those things which are contrary to them No you only offer to apply that Physick to the foreheads of men which should be taken inwards if you would endeavour to promote true piety and a Christian Spirit in the world that would tend more to the Churches peace then all your contests about the Infallibility of General Councils But since you are resolved to contend the nature of my task requires me to follow you which I shall more chearfully do because in pretence at least it is for peace sake This is then the first of those particular Controversies which this last part is designed for the handling of and which in the consequence of it brings in many of those particular errours which we charge your Church with In handling of which I must as I have hitherto done confine my self to those lines you have drawn for me to direct my course by Only in this first to prevent that confusion and tediousness which your discourse is subject to I find it necessary to alter the method somewhat For there being two distinct Questions treated of viz. Whether General Councils be Infallible and supposing them not Infallible How far they are to be submitted to You have intermixed these two so together that it will easily puzzle the Reader to see which of them it is you discourse of And although I must confess his Lordship hath gone before you in it as his occasion of entring into it required yet now the points coming to be more fully examined it will be the most natural and easie method to handle them apart and to begin first with that of Infallibility for the other supposing the denial of it it ought to follow the reasons which are given for that denial But although I thus transpose your method I assure you it is not with an intention to skip over any thing material but I shall readily resume the debate of it in its proper place In your entrance into this dispute you give us very little hopes of any great advantage is like to come by it because upon your principles it is impossible we should agree about the requisites to a General Council for his Lordship wishing that a lawful General Council were called to end Controversies you presently say A pure one to be sure if according to his wish Yes too pure a great deal for you to be willing to be tryed by And when his Lordship professes That an easie General General Council shall satisfie him that is lawfully called continued and ended according to the same course and under the same conditions which General Councils observed in the Primitive Church You say It is too general to be Ingenuous you mean such a Council would be too General for your purpose for you are resolved in
the Infallibility of General Councils that I believe a Philosopher might hear them repeated a hundred times over without ever imagining any such thing as a General Council much less concluding thence that they are Infallible But because you again cavil with another expression of his Lordships in that he saith That no one of them doth infer much less inforce Infallibility from whence you not infer but inforce this consequence that he was loath to say all of them together did not I shall therefore give you his Lordships Answer from all of them together Which is likewise sufficient for every one of them And for all the places together saith he weigh them with indifferency and either they speak of the Church including the Apostles as all of them do and then all grant the voyce of the Church is Gods voyce Divine and Infallible Or else they are general unlimited and appliable to private assemblies as well as General Councils which none grant to be Infallible but some mad Enthusiasts Or else they are limited not simply to all truth but all necessary to salvation in which I shall easily grant a General Council cannot err suffering it self to be led by this Spirit of Truth in Scripture and not taking upon it to lead both the Scripture and the Spirit For suppose these places or any other did promise assistance even to Infallibility yet they granted it not to every General Council but to the Catholick body of the Church it self and if it be in the whole Church principally then is it in a General Council but by consequent as the Council represents the whole And that which belongs to a thing by consequent doth not otherwise nor longer belong unto it then it consents and cleaves to that upon which it is a consequent And therefore a General Council hath not this assistance but as it keeps to the whole Church and Spouse of Christ whose it is to hear his Word and determine by it And therefore if a General Council will go out of the Churches way it may easily go without the Churches truth Which words of his contain so full an Answer to all these places together that till that be taken off there is no necessity at all to descend to the particular places especially those which are acknowledged by your selves to speak primarily of the Churches Infallibility Yet for your satisfaction more than any intelligent Readers I shall add somewhat further to shew the impertinency of the former places and then consider the force of the two last which have not yet been handled 1. There can be nothing drawn from promises made to the diffusive body for the benefit of the representative unless the maker of those promises did institute that representation Therefore supposing that Infallibility were by these promises bestowed upon the Catholick Church yet you cannot thence inferr that it belongs to a General Council unless you prove that Christ did appoint a General Council to represent the Church and in that representation to be Infallible For this Infallibility coming meerly by promise it belongs only to those to whom the promise is made and in that capacity in which it is made to it For Spiritual gifts are not bequeathable to Heirs nor can be made over to Assigns if the Church be promised Infallibility she cannot pass away the gift of it to her Assigns in a General Council unless that power of devolution be contained in the Original Grant For she can give no more then is in her power to bestow but this Infallibility being out of her disposal the utmost that can be given to a General Council is a power to oblige the Church by the acts of it which falls much short of Infallibility Besides this representation of the Church by a General Council is a thing not so evident from whence it should come that from a promise made to one it must necessarily be understood of the other For as Pighius sayes It cannot be demonstrated from Theological grounds that a General Council which is so far from being the whole Church that it is not a thousandth part of it should represent the whole Church For either saith he it hath this from Christ or from the Church but they cannot produce one tittle from Scripture where Christ hath conveyed over the power and authority of the whole Church to a hundred or two hundred Bishops If they say It is from the Church there are two things to be shewed first that it is done and secondly that it is de jure or ought to be so done First it can never be shewed that such a thing ever was done by the Vniversal Church for if it were it must either be by some formal act of the Church or by a tacit consent It could not be by any formal act of the Church For then there must be some such act of the Vniversal Church preceding the being of any General Council for by that act they receive their Commission to appear in behalf of the Vniversal Church And this could not be done in a General Council because that is not pretended to be the whole Church but only to represent it and therefore it must have this power to represent the Church by something antecedent to its being Else it would only arrogate this power to it self without any act of the Church in order to it Now that the Vniversal Church did ever agree in any such act is utterly impossible to be demonstrated either that it could be or that it was Yet such a delegation to a General Council must be supposed in order to its representation of the whole Church and this delegation must not only be before the first General Council but for all that I can see before every one For how can the Church by its act in one age bind the Church in all ages succeeding to the acts of those several Councils which shall be chosen afterwards If it be said That such a formal act is not necessary but the tacit consent of the whole Church is sufficient for it then such a consent of the Church must be made evident by which they did devolve over the power of the whole Church to such a representative And all those must consent in that act whose power the Council pretends to have and so it cannot be sufficient to say That those who choose Bishops for the Council do it for then they could only represent those who chose them and so their authority will fall much short of that of the whole Church But suppose such a thing were done by the whole Church of which no footsteps at all appear we must further enquire by what right or authority this is done for the authority of the Church being given it by Christ it cannot be given from it self without his commission for doing it Which if we stay till it can be produced in this case we may stay long enough before we see any such Infallible
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
as well as of the Laws of other Courts before private men can take liberty to refuse obedience Therefore he concludes That this seems most fit and necessary for the peace of Christendom unless in case the errour be manifest and intolerable or that the whole Church upon peaceable and just complaint of this errour neglect or refuse to call a Council to examine it and there come in National and Provincial Councils to reform for themselves These words contain the full account of his Lordships opinion which you charge with so many interclashings and inconveniences The first of which is That it tends only to oblige all the members of the Church to an Vnity in errour against Scripture and demonstration during their whole lives or rather to the worlds end since such an Utopian rectifying Council as the Bishop here fancies is morally impossible ever to be had and therefore you call it a strange not not say an impious doctrine advanced without authority of Gods Word or Antiquity nay contrary to all solid reason This being a charge of the highest nature and manag'd with such unmeasurable confidence we must somewhat further enquire into the grounds of his Lordships opinion to see whether it be guilty of these crimes or no. There are three things therefore must be cleared in order to his Lordships Vindication 1. The design of his Discourse 2. The suppositions he makes as to the proceedings of the Council 3. The obligation of its decrees supposing that it should err 1. The design of his discourse is to be considered which is to remedy a supposable inconvenience and to provide for the Churches peace For the first question in debate was Whether a General Council might err or no. In which his Lordship gives sufficient evidence from Scripture Antiquity and Reason that it might But then here comes an inconvenience to be removed for his Adversary objects What are we then nearer to Vnity after a Council hath determin'd supposing it may err To this his Lordship suits his Answer wherein we ought to consider that the inconvenience objected is on his Lordships suppositions one of the rara contingentia and such a one ought not to destroy a principle of Government in all other cases useful and necessary For there cannot possibly be any way thought of for peace and Government but there may be a supposition made of some notable inconvenience but that not being necessary nor immediately consequent upon it but something which may happen and far more probably may not it ought not to hinder the obtaining of that which is generally both useful and necessary To give you a parallel case to this It is granted on all hands that the civil authority of a Nation is Fallible and therefore we may suppose it actually to err and that so far as to bind men by Law to something in it self unlawful Will you say now that the intent of civil authority is to bind men necessarily to sin I hope you will not but by this you may easily see the fallacy of your arguing against his Lordship for it is an Inconvenience indeed supposable but not at all necessary if he had said indeed that General Councils must necessarily err your Argument had been strong against him but as it is it hath no more force against his assertion then the supposition before made hath against civil authority For that case may be easily put that such a Law may pass but doth this hinder men from their obligation to duty and submission to a just authority or Will you have men presently to renounce obedience and to repeal such a Law themselves and not rather in all wayes of duty and reverence to authority make known their just complaints and desire a redress by the hands of Supream authority And this is all which his Lordship aims at that in case a General Council should err which is not easily imaginable upon his suppositions it tends more to the Churches peace for private men not to oppose the Decrees of it but to endeavour that another General Council be called to repeal it and till then to preserve the Churches peace supposing the errour not manifest or intolerable In this case then there are two inconveniences put the one of them is That when a Council is supposed to err every particular man may be at liberty to oppose the Decrees of it and so put the Church into confusion the other is That though private men may know it to be an errour yet they should be patient till the Church by another Council may repeal it now these two inconveniences being laid together the question is Which is the greater His Lordship with a great deal of reason judges the former to be because in the latter case it is only a silencing of some less necessary truth for some time but in the other it is an exposing the Church to the fury of mens turbulent Spirits But that which shews the unreasonableness of your objection That this is the way to bind the Church to an union in errour is that this doth not necessarily follow from his Lordships opinion but is only a case supposable and no rare Inconvenience ought to prejudice a general good And the peace of the Church in such a case ought to be preferred before private mens satisfaction But this will further appear if we consider secondly the Suppositions his Lordship makes for by that we shall see how rarely incident this case is for I hope the supposing that a General Council may erre doth not suppose that it must necessarily erre and granting those things which are supposed by him it is a rare case that it should erre For these things are by him supposed 1. That it must be a Council lawfully called and ordered and so not such Councils as that of Trent was or any like it wherein the Pope gives only a General Summons and that it must be called a General Council on that account how few Bishops soever appear in it nay though the far greatest part of the Christian world be excluded from it but it must be such a Council as may be acknowledged to be General by the general Consent of the Christian world For that we would make our Judge in the case as it was in the four first General Councils Not that we would stand upon Bishops being actually present from every particular Church but that such a number be present from the greatest Churches as may make it not be suspected to be meerly a Faction packed together for the Interess of some potent Prelate but that they do so indifferently meet from all parts that there may be no just ground of suspicion that they design any thing but the common good of the Christian world And therefore we acknowledge the first four General Councils to be truly such in our present sense neither do we quarrel at them because so few Bishops were present who lived out of the Roman Empire for
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
erred yet we have yielded so much to you as to disprove what you have in general brought for the one before we come to meddle with the other But that being dispatched we come to a more short and compendious way of overthrowing your Infallibility by shewing the palpable falsity of such principles which must be owned by you as Infallible truths because defined by General Councils confirmed by the Pope Whereof The first in the Endictment as you say is that of the Priests Intention defined by the Councils of Florence and Trent both of them confirmed by the Pope to be essentially necessary to the validity of a Sacrament Concerning this there are two things to be enquired into 1. Whether this doth not render all pretence of Infallibility with you a vain and useless thing 2. Whether it be not in it self an errour We must begin with the first of these for that was the occasion of his Lordships entering upon it for he was shewing That your claim of Infallibility is of no use at all for the settling of Truth and Peace in the Church because no man can either know or believe this Infallibility It cannot be believed with Divine Faith having no foundation either in the written Word of God or Tradition of the Catholick Church and no humane Faith can be sufficient in order to it But neither can it be believed or known upon that decree of the Councils of Florence and Trent that the intention of the Priest is necessary to the validity of a Sacrament And lest you should think I represent his Lordships words too much with advantage I will take his Argument in the words you have summed it up in which are these Before the Church or any particular man can make use of the Popes Infallibility that is be settled and confirmed in the Truth by means thereof he must either know or upon sure grounds believe that he is Infallible But sayes the Bishop this can only be believed of him as he is S. Peters Successour and Bishop of Rome of which it is impossible in the relatours opinion for the Church or any particular man to have such certainty as is sufficient to ground an Infallible belief Why because the knowledge and belief of this depends upon his being truly in Orders truly a Bishop truly a Priest truly Baptized none of all which according to our principles can be certainly known and believed because forsooth the intention of him that administred these Sacraments to the Pope or made him Bishop Priest c. can never be certainly known and yet by the Doctrine of the Councils of Florence and Trent it is of absolute necessity to the validity of every one of these Sacraments so as without it the Pope were neither Bishop nor Priest Thus I grant you have faithfully sum'd up his Lordships Argument we must now see with what courage and success you encounter it Your first Answer is That though it be level'd against the Popes Infallibility yet it hath the same force against the Infallibility of the whole Church in points fundamental for we cannot be Infallibly sure there is such a number of Baptized persons to make a Church By this we see how likely you are to assoil this difficulty who bring it more strongly upon your self without the least inconvenience to your adversary For I grant it necessarily follows against the pretence of any Infallibility whether in Church Councils or Pope as being a certain ground for Faith for all these must suppose such a certainty of the due administration of Sacraments which your Doctrine of Intention doth utterly destroy For these two things are your principles of Faith that there can be no certainty of Faith without present Infallibility of the Church and that in order to the believing this testimony Infallible there must be such a certainty as is ground sufficient for an Infallible belief Now How is it possible there can be such when there can be no certainty of the Being of a Church Council or Pope from your own principles For when the only way of knowing this is a thing not possible to be evidenced to any one in any way of Infallible certainty viz. the intention of the Priest you must unavoidably destroy all your pretence of Infallibility For To what purpose do you tell me that Pope or Councils are Infallible unless I may be Infallibly sure that such decrees were passed by Pope and Council I cannot be assured of that unless I be first assured that they were Baptized persons and Bishops of the Church and for this you dare not offer at Infallible certainty and therefore all the rest is useless and vain So that while by this Doctrine of the intention of the Priest for the validity of the Sacraments you thought to advance higher the reputation of the Priesthood and to take away the assurance of Protestants as to the benefits which come by the use of the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper you could not have asserted any thing more really pernicious to your selves than this Doctrine is So strange an incogitancy was it in those Councils to define it and as great in those who defend it and yet at the same time maintain the necessity of a present Infallibility in the Church and General Councils For can any thing be more rational then to desire the highest assurance as to that whose decrees I am to believe Infallible And yet at the last you confess we can have but a moral certainty of it and that of the lowest degree the utmost ground of it being either the testimony of the Priest himself or that we have no ground to suspect the contrary Now what unreasonable men are you who so much to the dishonour of Christian Religion cry out upon the rational evidence of the truth of it as an uncertain principle and that Protestants though they assert the highest degree of actual certainty cannot have any Divine Faith because they want the Churches Infallible testimony and yet when we enquire into this Infallible Testimony you are fain to resolve it into one of the most uncertain and conjectural things imaginable For what can I have less ground to build my Faith upon than that the Priest had at least a virtual intention to do as the Church doth Whom must I believe in this case and whereon must that Faith be grounded On the Priests Testimony But how can I be assured but that he who may wander in his intention may do so in his expression too Or must I do it because I have no reason to suspect the contrary how can you assure me of that that I have no reason to suspect the contrary no otherwise then by telling me that the Priest is a man of that honesty and integrity that he cannot be supposed to do such a thing without intention So that though I were in Italy or Spain where some have told us it is no hard matter to meet with Jews
adversary confesses or differing parties agree in is no Metaphysical Principle but a bare contingent Proposition and may be true or false as the matter is to which it is applied and so of no necessary truth in it self nor able to lead in the Conclusion Because consent of disagreeing parties is neither Rule nor Proof of Truth For Herod and Pilate disagreeing parties enough yet agreed against Truth it self But Truth rather is or should be the Rule to frame if not to force agreement And to prove this further his Lordship shews That if this Principle hold good that 't is safest to believe as the dissenting parties agree or as the adverse party confesses a man must be an Heretick in the highest degree if not an Infidel For 1. In the Question between the Orthodox and Arrian concerning the Consubstantiality of the Son of God with the Father The Orthodox confessed that which the Arrians asserted viz. that Christ was of a like nature with his Father but they added more viz. that he was of the same nature Therefore upon this Principle it would be safest holding with the Arrians 2. In the Question about the Resurrection the dissenting parties agree that there ought to be a Resurrection from sin to the state of grace and that this Resurrection only is meant in divers passages of Scripture together with the life of the soul which they are content to say is Immortal but they deny any Resurrection of the body after death And therefore if this Principle be true it will be safest to deny the Article of the Resurrection 3. In the great Dispute about the Vnity of the Godhead all dissenting parties Jew Turk and Christian and all sects of Christians agree in this that there is but one God and so by virtue of this Principle men will be bound to deny the Trinity 4. In the Article of the Divinity of Christ The dissenting parties agree fully and clearly that Christ is man but the Hereticks deny him to be God if it be therefore safest to go by the consent of dissenting parties or the confession of adversaries it will be safest believing that Christ is a meer man and not God From whence his Lordship most evidently proves That this Rule To resolve a mans Faith into that in which the dissenting parties agree or which the adverse party confesses is a meer contingent Proposition and is as often false as true And false in as great if not greater matters than those in which it is true And where it is true you dare not govern your selves by it the Church of Rome condemning those things which that Rule proves And his Lordship justly admires that while you talk of Certainty nay of Infallibility you are driven to make use of such poor shifts as these which have no Certainty at all of Truth in them but inferr Falshood and Truth alike And yet for this also men will be so weak or so wilful as to be seduced by you But now it is time to take notice what Answer you return to these pregnant Instances which his Lordship uses and you think to take off all this by one General Answer viz. That the Rule speaks this precisely and no more viz. that when two parties differ in point of Religion 't is in prudence safest to take that way wherein both parties grant Salvation to be obtainable but in the former Instances Salvation was not allowed by the Orthodox to the dissenters But how poor an Evasion this is will be very easily discovered For 1. If that Principle be true it must be built on that which his Lordship disproves viz. That when two parties disagree it is safest believing that which both consent in For let any reasonable man judge on what account I ought to make choice of your Religion you say Because both parties are agreed that men may be saved in your Church well then I ask Why I ought to believe that which both parties are agreed in Doth it not necessarily resolve it self into this Principle That it is safest believing that which both parties consent in For if this be not safest Why should I be more inclined by their consent than otherwise So that if you let go this you let go the only foundation on which that Principle stands For if the consenting parties may agree in a falshood What evidence can I have but that this is one of those falshoods they may agree in And therefore it is far from being the safest way to venture upon that which the dissenting parties agree in And because Salvation is a matter of the highest moment if the Principle will not hold as to matter of particular Opinion much less certainly in the most weighty affair of mens eternal Salvation And it ought to be a safe Principle indeed which men should venture their souls upon and not so uncertain Topical an Argument as this is So that it is so far from being a matter of prudence to make choice of Religion on such a Principle that no man can be guilty of greater weakness or imprudence than by doing so 2. If this Principle should be limited only to a possibility of Salvation yet as to that it is easie to discover how false and uncertain a principle it is because it it generally the nature of Sects to be uncharitable and to deny Salvation to all but themselves Whereas the Orthodox Christians in all ages have hoped the best of those who were mis-led among them and on this ground it would still be safer to be on the Sectaries than the Churches side You have therefore gained an excellent Principle for the advantage of your Church which if it hold for you will hold as well for the most uncharitable Sectaries that are in the world Nay we may go somewhat further and What think you if Heathenism it self will be proved the safest way to Salvation For many of you agree with them That many of them might be saved without any explicite knowledge of Christ but they deny you can be saved by it If then this Principle be found farewel the Church of Rome and welcome Philosophy If you say They are only some among you who assert the possibility of the Salvation of Heathens you know the very same Answer will hold as to us for you confess That many Protestants grant no more to you than you do to them in order to Salvation If you say That Heathens may be saved only on supposition of a general Repentance that is all that any of us say as to you So that if the Argument will hold one way it must the other too and it argues you are very much to seek for proofs when you make use of this to perswade men to be of your Church And you have no cause to triumph in the Conversion of such who suffer themselves to be imposed on by so palpable a piece of Sophistry as this is But your way is to deal with the weakest
evidence can you bring to convince me both that the Church alwayes observed this rule and could never be deceived in it For I see the Roman Church asserts that things may be de fide in one age which were not in another at least Pope and Councils challenge this and this is the common Doctrine maintained there and others are looked on as no members of their Church who assert the contrary but as persons at least meritoriously if not actually excommunicate Where then shall I satisfie my self what the sense of your Church is as to this particular Must I believe a very few persons whom the rest disown as Heretical and Seditious persons or ought I not rather to take the judgement of the greatest and most approved persons in that Church And these disown any such Doctrine but assert that the Church may determine things de fide which were not so before in which case I ask Whether when a thing is de novo determined to be de fide that Church believed as the precedent did or no If it did How comes any thing to be de fide which was not before If it did not What assurance can I have that every age of the Church believes just as the precedent did and no otherwise when I see they profess the contrary And if a thing may be de fide in one age which was not in a foregoing then a Church may deliver that as a matter of Faith at one time which was never accounted so before by which means the present Church may oblige me to believe that as a matter of Faith which never was so in Christ or the Apostles times and so the Infallibility on the account of Tradition is destroyed 2. What security is there that in no age of the Church any practises should come in which were not used in the precedent You may say Because they could not be deceived what their fore Fathers did but that satisfies not unless you prove that all the Church in every age looked upon it self as obliged to do nothing at all but what their fore-Fathers did For although they might know never so much what was done by them if they did not judge themselves bound to observe unalterably what they did this doth not hinder at all but new customs and opinions might be introduced in the Church And therefore I cannot but justly wonder that any men of parts who professedly disown the vulgar wayes of establishing the Roman Church should think to satisfie themselves with Orall Tradition and cry it up as so impregnable a thing Because no age of the Church can be deceived in what the foregoing did and taught Whereas a very little of that reason which these men pretend to might acquaint them that the force of it doth not lye in their capacity to know what was done by others but in their obligation not to vary at all from it For the main weight of the Argument lyes here That nothing hath been changed in the Faith or Practise of the Church which being the thing to be proved the bare knowledge of what was believed or practised is not sufficient to prove it for men may know very well what others believe and do and yet may believe and do quite contrary themselves But the only thing to be proved in this case is That every age of the Church and all persons in it looked upon themselves as obliged not to vary in any thing from the Doctrine or practise of the precedent age And I pray let me know by what demonstrative medium can this be proved for no less then demonstrations are spoken of by the magnifiers of this way although there be so little evidence in it that it cannot work but upon a very weak understanding Must that obligation to observe all which the precedent age believed or practised be proved by reason particular testimony or universal tradition And let the extollers of this way take their choice so they will undertake to bring evidence equal to the weight which depends upon it It is hard to conceive what reason should inforce it but such as proves the impossibility of the contrary And they have understandings of another mould from others who can conceive it impossible that men should not think themselves obliged to believe and do all just as their Predecessours did If particular testimonies could be produced they signifie no more then their own judgements but we are enquiring for the judgement of every age of the Church and the persons who live in it And to prove an universal tradition of this obligation is the most difficult task of all for it depends upon the truth of that which is to be proved by it For if they did not think themselves obliged to believe and do what their Predecessours did they could not think themselves bound to deliver such an obligation to their posterity to do it And therefore you must first prove the obligation it self before you can prove the universal tradition of it For although one age may deliver it yet you cannot be assured that a former age did it to them unless you can prove the same sense of this obligation ran through them all But this is so far from being an universal tradition that the present age from which it begins was never agreed in it as I have shewed already 3. It is to no purpose to prove the impossibility of motion when I see men move no more is it to prove that no age of the Church could vary from the foregoing when we can evidently prove that they have done it And therefore this Argument is intended only to catch easie minds that care not for a search into the History of the several ages of the Church but had rather sit down with a superficial subtilty than spend time in further enquiries For this Argument proceeds just as if men should prove the world eternal by this medium The present age sees no alteration in it and they could not be deceived in what their fore Fathers believed nor they in theirs and so on in infinitum for no men did ever see the world made and therefore it was never made and so eternal But if we go about to prove by reason the production of the world or by Scripture to shew that it was once made then this oral tradition is spoiled And so it is in the present case These men attempt to prove there could never be any alteration in the Faith or practise of the Church since Christs time for the present age delivers what it had from the precedent and so up till the first institution of the Church but in the mean time if we can evidently prove that there have been such alterations in the Church then it is to no purpose to prove that impossible which we see actually done And this appears not only because the Scripture supposes a degeneracy in the Christian Church which could never be if every age of the Church did
infallibly believe and practise as the precedent up to Christs time did but because we can produce clear evidence that some things are delivered by the present Church which must be brought in by some age since the time of Christ. For which I shall refer you to what I have said already concerning Communion in one kind Invocation of Saints and Worship of Images In all which I have proved evidently that they were not in use in some ages of the Christian Church and it is as evident that these are delivered by the present Church and therefore this principle must needs be false For by these things it appears that one age of the Church may differ in practise or opinion from another and therefore this oral tradition cannot be infallible And yet this is the only way whereby a prescription may be allowed for this offers to give a sufficient title if it could be made good But bare possession in matters of Religion is a most sensless plea and which would justifie Heathenism and Mahumetism as well as your Church 2. It were worth knowing What you mean by full and quiet possession of your Faith Religion and Church which you say you were in Either you mean that you did believe the Doctrines of your Church your selves or that we were bound to believe them too If you mean only the former you are in as full possession of them as ever for I suppose all in your Church do believe them if you intend by this possession that we ought to believe them because you did this is a prescription indeed but without any ground or reason For even Tertullian whom you cite for prescribing against Hereticks sayes That nothing can be prescribed against truth Non spatium temporum non patrocinia personarum non privilegium regionum Neither length of time nor authority of persons nor priviledge of places If you say It was truth you were in possession of that is the thing to be proved and if you can make that appear we will not disturb your possession at all But you must be sure to prove it by something else besides your quiet and full possession unless you can prove it impossible that you should be possessed of falshoods But we have evidently shewn the contrary already And if we examine a little further what this possession is we shall see what an excellent right it gives you to prescribe by You were possessed of your Faith Religion and Church i. e. you did believe the Roman Church Infallible you believed the Popes Supremacy Transubstantiation Purgatory c. And what then Do you not believe them still Yes doubtless But What is your quarrel with us then Do we hinder you the Possession of them No but we ought to believe them too But Why so because you are in possession of them What Must we then believe whatever you do whether it be true or false If this be the meaning of your Possession you ought well to prove it or else we shall call it Vsurpation For it is a most ridiculous thing for you to talk of Possession when the Question is Whether there be any such things in the world or no as those you say you are possessed of We deny your Churches Infallibility the Popes Supremacy Purgatory c. You must first prove there are such things in rerum naturâ as Purgatory Transubstantiation c. before you can say you are possessed of them You must convince us that your Church is Infallible and that the Pope was made Head of the Church by Christ and then we will grant you are in full possession of them but not before So that you see the Question is not concerning the manner of Possession but of the things themselves which you call your Faith Religion and Church in opposition to ours and therefore it is impossible to plead Prescription where there never was any Possession at all And therefore you clearly mistake when you call us The Aggressors for you are plainly the Imposers in this case and quarrel with us for not believing what you would have us and therefore you are bound to prove and not we So that there is nothing you could challenge any Possession of in the Church of England but some Authority which the Pope had which you elsewhere confess he might he deprived of as he was in King Henry 's time and which we offer to prove that he was not Possessor bonae fidei of but that he came to it by fraud and violence and was deprived of it by a legal Power Thus I have fully examined your Argument from Possession because it presents us with something which had not been discussed before But having taken a view of all that remains I find that it consists of a bare Repetition of the Controversies before discussed especially concerning the certainty and grounds of Faith the Infallibility of the Church and General Councils and the Authority of the Roman Church So that if you had not an excellent faculty of saying most where there is least occasion I should wonder at your design in spending several Chapters in giving the same things under other words Unless it were an ambition of answering every clause in his Lordships Book which carried you to it though you only gave over and over what you had said in many places before Which is a piece of vanity I neither envy you for nor shall I strive to imitate you in having made it my endeavour to lay those grounds in the handling each Controversie that there should not need any such fruitless repetitions as you here give us His Lordship though he complains much of it was forced by his Adversaries importunity to return the same Answers in effect which had been given before by him in the proper places but whosoever compares what his Lordship saith with what you pretend to answer will find no necessity at all of my undergoing the same tedious and wearisome task Instead therefore of a particular Answer I shall give only some general strictures on what remains of these subjects where there is any appearance of difficulty and conclude all with the examination of your Defence of Purgatory that being a subject which hath not yet come under our enquiry Your main business is to perswade us that yours is the only saving Faith which you prove by this The saving Faith is but one yours is confessed by us to be a saving Faith still therefore yours is the only saving Faith But if you had considered on what that confession depends you could have made no Argument at all of it for when we say that your Faith is saving we mean no more but this that you have so much of the common truths of Christianity among you that there is a possibility for men to be saved in your Church but Doth this imply that yours is a saving Faith in that sense wherein it is said There is but one saving Faith for in that
Proposition it is understood of all those common fundamental Truths which the Christian Church of all ages hath been agreed in And the saying There is but one saving Faith is of the same sense with the saying There is but one true Religion in the world The substance of what you would inferr from the saying of Athanasius his Creed Which if a man keeps whole and inviolate as you would have it is this That a man is equally bound to believe every Article of Faith But you cannot mean that it is simply necessary to do it for that you disclaim elsewhere by your distinction of things necessary from the matter and the formal reason of Faith and therefore it can only be meant of such to whom those objects of Faith are sufficiently proposed and so far we acknowledge it too that it is necessary to Salvation for every man to believe that which he is convinced to be an object of Faith For otherwise such persons must call in question God's Veracity but if you would hence make it necessary to believe all that your Church proposes for matter of Faith you must prove that whatever your Church delivers is as infallibly true as if God himself spake and when you can perswade us of this we shall believe whatever is propounded by her When you say We cannot believe all Articles of Faith on the same formal reason because we deny the Churches Infallibility it is apparent that you make the Churches testimony the formal reason of Faith and that you are bound to prove the Church absolutely Infallible before we can believe any thing on her account Neither doth it follow Because we deny that therefore we pick and chuse our Faith for we believe all without reservation which you or any man can convince us was ever revealed by God As to what at large occurrs here again about the Infallibility of Councils there is nothing but what hath been sufficiently answered on that subject and so reserving the Question of Purgatory which is here brought in by his Lordship as a further Instance of the errours of General Councils I pass on to the two last Chapters In which we meet again with the objected inconveniencies from questioning the Infallibility of the Church and Councils That then Faith would be uncertain and private persons might judge of Councils and if they may erre in one they may erre in all as fresh as if they had never been heard of before Only the Argument from Rom. 10.15 That because none can preach except they be sent therefore the present Church is Infallible is both new and excellent on which account I let it pass If your Church with all her Infallibility can do no more as you confess in reference to Heresies but only secure the faithful members of the Church who have due care of themselves and perform their duty well towards their lawful Pastors you have little cause to boast of the great priviledge of it and as little reason to contend for the necessity of it since so much is done without it and on surer grounds by the Scriptures and the use of other means which fall short of Infallibility In the beginning of your last Chapter we have a large dispute concerning S. Cyprian's meaning in his 45. Epistle to Cornelius where he speaks of the root and matrix of the Catholick Church viz. Whether by that the Roman Church be understood or no His Lordship saith Not and gives many reasons for it you maintain the contrary but the business may be soon decided upon a true state of the occasion of writing that Epistle Which in short was this It seems Letters had been sent in the name of Polycarp Bishop of the Colony of Adrumyttium directed to Cornelius at Rome but Cyprian and Liberalis coming thither and acquainting the Clergy there with the resolution of the African Bishops to suspend communion either with Cornelius or Novatianus till the return of Caldonius and Fortunatus who were sent on purpose to give an account of the proceedings there the Clergy of Adrumyttium upon this writing to Rome direct their Letters not to Cornelius but to the Roman Clergy Which Cornelius being it seems informed by some as though it were done by S. Cyprian's Counsel takes offence at and writes to Cyprian about it Who gives him in this Epistle the account of it that it was only done that there might be no dissent among themselves upon this difference at Rome and that they only suspended their sentence till the return of Caldonius and Fortunatus who might either bring them word that all was composed at Rome or else satisfie them Who was the lawfully ordained Bishop And therefore as soon as they understood that Cornelius was the lawful Bishop they unanimously declare for him and order all Letters to be sent to him and that his communion should be embraced This is the substance of that Epistle But it seems Cornelius was moved at S. Cyprian's suspending himself as though it were done out of dis-favour to him which Cyprian to clear himself of tells him That his design was only to preserve the Vnity of the Catholick Church For saith he we gave this advice to all those who the mean time had occasion to sail to Rome ut Ecclesiae Catholicae radicem matricem agnoscerent tenerent that they would acknowledge and hold to the root and matrix of the Catholick Church by which his Lordship understands the Vnity of the Church Catholick you the particular Church of Rome But it is apparent the meaning of this Counsel was to prevent their participation in the Schism So that if upon their coming to Rome the Schismatical party was evidently known from the other which they might I grant soon understand there by the circumstances of affairs they should joyn themselves with that part which preserved the Vnity of the Catholick Church Which I take to be the true meaning of S. Cyprian But in case the matter should prove disputable at Rome and the matter be referred to other Churches then by virtue of this advice they were bound to suspend their communion with either party till the Catholick Church had declared it self By this account of the business all your Arguments come to nothing for they only prove that which I grant viz. That in case it appeared at Rome Which was the Catholick party they were to communicate with it but this was not because the Catholick party at Rome was the root and matrix of the Catholick Church for on that account the party of Novatianus might have been so too if Novatianus had been lawful Bishop but their holding to the root of the Catholick Church would oblige them to communicate only with that part which did preserve the Vnity of it For the Controversie now at Rome was between two parties both challenging an equal right and therefore if S. Cyprian had only advised them to communicate with the Roman
ground than not being able to distinguish between the submission of Obedience and Faith For his Lordship saith It may be our duty not to oppose General Councils in case they erre and yet it may be no pride not to believe known and gross errours of General Councils and I pray What shadow of a contradiction is here And if it be pride in us not to believe gross errours imposed on us Is it not much more intolerable in them who offer to impose them What Authority the Pope hath either to order or confirm Councils it is not here a place to enter upon again since it hath been so largely discoursed of in so many places But you force me though not to the repetition of matter yet to the repeating my saying that I will not oftener than I should but only to shew how little you deserve any further answer There is nothing now remaining to the end of your Book which hath not been over and over even in these last Chapters but only a long discourse touching Succession which you shew your self of how little importance it is when after you have endeavoured at large to prove the necessity of personal Succession you grant That it is not sufficient without succession of Doctrine too And on that account you deny the Greek Church to have a true Succession And in vindication of Stapleton you say All the Succession which he and you contend for is a Succession of Pastors which hold entire both the Vnity and the Faith of the Church So that it comes to this at last that you are bound to prove a continual Succession of all that which you call the Faith of your Church in every age from the Apostles times if you would have us believe that Doctrine or own your Church for the true Church of Christ. And therefore I conclude these general Answers with his Lordships words If A. C. T. C. or any Jesuit can prove that by a visible continued Succession from Christ or his Apostles to this day either Transubstantiation in the Eucharist or the Eucharist in one kind or Purgatory or Worship of Images or the Intention of the Priest of necessity in Baptism or the Power of the Pope over a General Council or his Infallibility with or without it or his Power to depose Princes or the publick Prayers of the Church in an unknown tongue with divers other points have been so taught I for my part will give the Cause CHAP. VI. The Sense of the Fathers concerning Purgatory The Advantage which comes to the Church of Rome by the Doctrine of Purgatory thence the boldness of our Adversaries in contending for it The Sense of the Roman Church concerning Purgatory explained The Controversie between the Greek and Latin Church concerning it The Difference in the Church of Rome about Purgatory Some general Considerations about the Sense of the Fathers as to its being an Article of Faith The Doubtfulness and Vncertainty of the Fathers Judgments in this particular manifested by S. Austin the first who seemed to assert a Purgation before the day of Judgement Prayer for the Dead used in the Ancient Church doth not inferr Purgatory The Primate of Armagh vindicated from our Adversaries Calumnies The general Intention of the Church distinguished from the private Opinions of particular persons The Prayers of the Church respected the day of Judgement The Testimonies of the Fathers in behalf of Purgatory examined particularly of the pretended Dionysius Tertullian S. Cyprian Origen S. Ambrose S. Hierom S. Basil Nazianzen Lactantius Hilary Gregory Nyssen c. And not one of them asserts the Purgatory of the Church of Rome S. Austin doth not contradict himself about it The Doctrine of Purgatory no elder than Gregory 1. and built on Credâ—lity and Superstition The Churches Infallibility made at last the Foundation of the belief of Purgatory The Falsity of that Principle and the whole concluded THese general Answers being dispatched there remains only now this Question concerning Purgatory to be discussed Which being the great Diana of your Church no wonder you are so much displeased at his Lordship for speaking against it for by that means your craft is in danger to be set at nought There being no Opinion in your Church which brings in a more constant revenue by Masses for the dead and Indulgencies besides Casualties and Deodands by dying persons or their friends in hopes of a speedier release out of the pains of Purgatory So that if this Opinion were once out of Countenance in the world you would lose one of the best Arts you have of upholding the Grandeur of your Church For then farewel Indulgences and years of Jubilee farewel all those rich Donations which are given by those at their death who hope by that means to get the sooner out of the Suburbs of Hell to a place of rest and happiness For What Engine could possibly be better contrived to extort the largest gifts from those whose riches were as great as their sins than to perswade them that by that means they would be sooner delivered out of the Flames of Purgatory and need not doubt but they should come to Heaven at last And Would not they be accounted great Fools that would not live as they pleased in this world as long as they could buy themselves out of the pains of another And by this means your Church hath not only eaten but grown fat by the sins of the people it being truly observed by Spalatensis That the Doctrine of Purgatory hath been that which hath most inriched the Church of Rome which he gives as the reason of the most zealous contending for that Doctrine among those of your party who find so much advantage by it And we might easily believe there was something extraordinary in it when you tell us It is therefore firmly to be believed by all Catholicks that there is a Purgatory yea we are as much bound to believe it as we are bound to believe for Instance the Trinity or Incarnation it self because since it is defined by the Church we cannot lawfully or without sin and peril of damnation deny or question this doctrine We had need then look to our selves who look on this Doctrine as a meer figment that hath no foundation at all either in Scripture Reason or Tradition of the Primitive Church but much more had you need to look to your selves who dare with so much confidence obtrude so destructive a Doctine to a Christian life without any evidence of the truth of it to be believed as much as the Trinity or Incarnation it self which expressions take them in the mildest sense you can give them carry a most insufferable boldness with them But these are not all the bold words which you utter on this Subject for you say elsewhere That Bellarmin doth not more boldly than truly affirm yea evidently prove that all the Fathers both Greek and Latin did constantly teach Purgatory
as you say Vtopian too for he will prevent if possible their ever appearing in Europe Therefore all this discourse of his Lordship doth suppose such a state of the Church as that was in the time of the Nicene Councils and after when there might be a liberty of calling such Councils that in case one errs another might be summoned to reverse it But this is not to be expected in faece Romuli in this state of the Christian world that there should be such a General Council so called and so proceeding as he supposes and therefore there is no such danger of being united in errour by vertue of its Decrees but if the state of things would bear such a Council so decreeing we might as well think it would bear another to reverse it if need were and then his Lordships supposition would come to act that in the interstice of those Councils private men ought not to oppose the Decrees of the former but patiently wait till the latter reverse them But as things are now in the Christian world his Lordship doth not suppose that any Council hath such a power to oblige because it calls it self a General Council but a truly General Council being as you say morally impossible nothing is left but that the Church reform it self by parts and wait to give an account of its proceedings therein till such a General Council as we before described be assembled in the Christian world Thus we see how vain and empty your first Objection is That from his Lordships opinion it would follow that the Church must be united in errour which is only the direct consequent of your own assertion that men are bound to believe the Decrees of those you call General Councils to be Infallible Your next great Objection is That this Doctrine exposes all to uncertainties for Who shall be judge whether it be a lawful Council and proceeds lawfully Whether the errours be fundamental and intolerable or no Whether there be Scripture and demonstration against them or no For if every man be judge there can be no such submission to any General Council This is the force of the many words which in several places you spend upon this subject and therefore I shall consider them together I answer therefore 1. In general if this be so intolerable an inconvenience it is unavoidable upon your own principles and therefore it is unreasonable to object that to another which you cannot quit your self of For you say That the Infallibility of General Councils confirmed by the Pope is the best way to end Controversies but there is not one term in the main Proposition but is liable to the same uncertainty which you here object to his Lordship for 1. You do not say that all Councils are Infallible but only General Councils Who then shall be judge whether the Council you would have me believe be General or no You do not say that all must be there to make a General Council but the Popes General Summons is sufficient But Who must be judge whether that be sufficient or no You say so but I see no reason for it Must you be my judge or I my own If I may be my own judge so must every one else and so every man is left to believe what Councils to be General he please himself 2. You say General Councils are Infallible Who must be judge of that too Must the Council be infallibly believed in it But that is the thing in Question Must the Pope be judge But no man you say is bound to believe him Infallible without the Council Must the Scripture be judge But Who must judge what the sense of the Scripture is 3. Who must be judge in what sense and how far the Council is Infallible Who must judge how the Council comes to be Infallible in the Conclusion that was fallible in the use of the means And when any Controversie arises concerning the meaning of the Decrees of the Council Who must be judge which is the Infallible sense of them for there is but one sense Infallible though the words may bear many and unless I know which is the Infallible sense I am not bound to yield my assent to it But Who must decide this The Council cannot for that leaves no exposition with the decrees The Pope cannot for he is not Infallible without the Council So that still it falls to every mans private reason to judge of it 4. Who must be judge that the Popes Confirmation is necessary to make the Decrees Infallible Not the Council without the Pope not the Pope without the Council for you say We are not bound to believe them Infallible but as they are together And together they cannot for that is the Question Why not a Council without the Popes Confirmation as well as with it and When did Pope and Council determine that no Council without the Pope is Infallible but the contrary hath been determined by a Council viz. that a Council is above the Pope and consequently needs not his Confirmation So that for all your pretending to end Controversies you leave men at as great uncertainties as any whatsoever Being not able to resolve some of the most necessary Questions in order to the Churches peace according to your own principles 2. I answer more particularly that his Lordships opinion doth not expose near to so great uncertainties as yours doth upon this reason because you requiring an internal assent to the Decrees of Councils and Infallible Certainty in all that men believe must of necessity leave men in the greatest perplexities where you cannot give them that kind of Certainty on which they may build their Faith but his Lordship only requiring external obedience to the Decrees of Councils a far less degree of Certainty will be sufficient That is such a kind of Moral Certainty as things of that nature are capable of You ask then Who shall be judge whether a Council were lawfully called and did lawfully proceed or no I answer let every man be judge according to the general sense and reason of mankind If there were sufficient authority for calling them together according to the known practice of the Church if there was no plain ground of suspicion of any practises by the power of any particular Prelate no complaints made of it either in or after the Council if there be no plain evidence that it takes any other Rules for its Decrees but the Scripture then we say They are bound to yield external obedience to them supposing the Council generally received in the Christian world for a lawful and General Council If you ask again How should it be known when errours are manifest and intolerable and when not We here appeal to Scripture interpreted by the concurrent sense of the Primitive Church the common reason of mankind supposing the Scripture to be the Rule of Faith the consent of wise and learned men which certainly will prevent the
exorbitances and capricious humours of any phantastical Spirits which may cry out That the most received truths ever since Christianity was in the world are intolerable errours If you are resolved yet further to ask Who shall be judge what a necessary reason or demonstration is His Lordship tells you I think plain enough from Hooker what is understood by it viz. such as being proposed to any man and understood the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent to it And Do you require any other judge but a mans own reason in this case But you say Others call their arguments demonstrations but let them submit to this way of tryal and they may soon be convinced that they are not Still you say They will not be convinced but will break the peace of the Church supposing they have sufficient evidence for what they say But if men will be unreasonable who can help it Can you with telling them Councils are Infallible I doubt you would hear of more arguments than you could well satisfie against that presently We appeal then to the common reason of mankind Whether it be not a far probable way to end Controversies to perswade men in disputable matters to yield external obedience to the Decrees of a lawful General Council than to tell them they are bound to believe whatever they decree to be infallibly true And therefore you are very much mistaken when you say His Lordship declines the main Question which is of the necessity of submitting to a living Judge or a definitive sentence in case two parties equal for learning and integrity both pretend to equal evidence for what they say for his Lordship doth not deny but that in such a case the submitting to a definitive sentence may be a reasonable way to end the Controversie but then the difference between you lyes in two things 1. That you would bind men to internal assent to the Decrees of a Council as being Infallible but his Lordship saith They bind to external obedience as being the Supremest Judicatory can be expected in the Church 2. You pretend that Councils called and confirmed by the Pope are thus Infallible and our Supreme Judge in matters of Faith his Lordship justly dedies that and sayes That a Free General Council observing the same conditions which the first did is the only equal and indifferent Judge So that the Question is not so much Whether shall be a living Judge as Who shall be he and How far the definitive Sentence binds and What is to be done in case there cannot be a free and indifferent Judge for in this case we say Every Church is bound to regard her own purity and peace and in case of corruptions to proceed to a Reformation of them We now come to the remaining Enquiry which is Whether your Doctrine or ours tends more to the Churches peace For clearing of this his Lordship premises these things by way of Considerations 1. That there is n necessity of any such Infallibility in the Church as was in the Apostles 2. That what Infallibility or Authority belongs to the Church doth primarily reside in the whole body of the Church and not in a General Council 3. That in case a General Council erre the whole Church hath full Authority to represent her self in another Council and so to redress what was amiss either practised or concluded And so upon these principles his Lordship saith Here is a sufficient remedy for what is amiss and yet no infringing any lawful Authority in the Church and yet he grants as the Church of England doth that a General Council may erre But he saith It doth not follow because the Church may erre therefore she may not govern For the Church hath not only a Pastoral Power to teach and direct but a Praetorian also to controll and censure too where errours or crimes are against points fundamental or of great consequence Thus he represents the advantages which follow upon his opinion after which he comes to the disadvantages of yours But we must first consider what you have to object against what his Lordship hath here delivered To the first you say nothing but that Stapleton and Bellarmin attribute more Infallibility to the Church than his Lordship doth which is an excellent way to prove the necessity of it if you had first proved those two Authours Infallible To the second your Answer is more large for his Lordship to confirm what he said That the power and authority given by Christ lyes in the whole Church produces that saying of S. Austin That S. Peter did not receive the Keyes of the Church but as sustaining the person of the Church from whence he proves against Stapleton That it is not to be understood finally only for the good of the Church but that the primary and formal right is in the Church For he that receives a thing in the person of another receives it indeed to his good and use but in his right too To this you answer from Bellarmin That there is a twofold representing or bearing the person of another The one Parabolical and by way of meer figure and supposition only as Agar represented the people of the Jews under bondage of the Law c. The other historical and real viz. when the person representing has right or relation à parte rei in and towards the thing represented by vertue whereof it bears the person of the thing represented Now S. Peter say you sustained the person of the Church in this latter sense really and historically and not parabolically and in figure i. e. he received the Keyes as Head of the Church though that Reception were ordained for the good of the whole Church But Sir our enquiry is not How many waies one may imagine a Representation to be made but What kind of Representation that is which is suitable to S. Austin's meaning That there may be an Allegorical Representation no body denies but I cannot imagine How it can belong to this place or Who ever meant that S. Peter stood here for an Allegory of the Church and therefore the members of your distinction are not apposite For those who assert that S. Peter did sustain the person of the Church in his Lordships sense do yet acknowledge that he did it historicè and not parabolicè as you speak i. e. the donation was really made to him but then the Question is In what right or capacity it was made to him Whether in his personal or representative capacity For these are the two only proper members of a distinction here St. Austin saith not only in that place but in very many others that S. Peter did sustain the person of the Church when Christ said to him I will give thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven Now the Question is In what sense he sustained the person of the Church You say In his own right as Head of the Church We say As
besotted on their old worm-eaten Images that when they were to have new ones in their rooms they begg'd with tears to have their old ones still But although you grant these people guilty of indiscretion yet by no means of Idolatry because they did not call them their gods If you think none were Idolaters but such as did believe their Images to be gods I doubt you may find the number of Atheists as great as that of Idolaters in the world But if we may guess at peoples apprehensions by their actions these seemed as much to believe them to be gods as any Heathens you can instance in Your vindication of Llamas from saying That the Images of Christ and the Saints as they represent their exemplars have Deity or Divinity in them as it is undertaken somewhat fearfully because you say you hope to clear his meaning whatever his words seem to import so at last it stands on the sandy foundation of relative and absolute Worship which being taken away that and your Images fall together I conclude this subject with his Lordships wish That men of learning would not strain their wits to spoil the truth and rent the Peace of the Church of Christ by such dangerous such superstitious vanities For better they are not but they may be worse And I fear are so CHAP. IV. Of the possibility of Salvation in the Roman Church Protestants Concessions ought not to be any ground to preferr the Communion of the Church of Rome How far those Concessions extend The uncharitableness of Romanists if they yield not the same to us The weakness of the Arguments to prove the Roman Church the safer way to salvation on Protestant Principles The dangerous Doctrines of Romanists about the easiness of salvation by the Sacrament of Pennance The case parall'eld be-between the Donatists and Romanists in denying salvation to all but themselves and the advantages equal from their adversaries Concessions The advantage of the Protestants if that be the safest way which both parties are agreed in manifested and vindicated in several particulars The Principle it self at large shewed to be a meer contingent Proposition and such as may lead to Heresie and Infidelity The case of the Leaders in the Roman Church and others distinguished The Errours and Superstitions of the Roman Church make its communion very dangerous in order to Salvation THe main thing which now remains to be discussed is Whether the Communion of your Church or ours be rather to be chosen in order to salvation For that being the great end of our Faith the tendency to the promotion of that ought to be the Rule by which we should embrace or continue in the society of any Church And since the regard men ought to have of their eternal welfare doth oblige them to make choice of the best means in order to it the bare remote possibility of salvation in any Church ought to have no force or consideration at all in the determining their choice in a matter of so great importance As supposing a Pilot at Sea whose only desire is to bring his ship safe into his desired Port should be told that there are two passages homewards the one free and open in which there is no danger the other amidst many Rocks and Shelves in which yet there is a possibility of escaping Would not he be accounted a very weak man that should chuse this latter way meerly because it is possible he may escape and neglect the other in which there is no danger of miscarrying So it is here in our present case the Protestants confess there is a possibility for some to escape in the Communion of the Roman Church but it is as men may escape with their lives in a shipwrack but they undertake to make it evident there can be no danger if they observe the principles of Protestant Religion VVould it not be madness in any then to neglect this and make choice of the other meerly because Protestants agree with you that there is a possibility of salvation for some in the Roman Church Yet this is the great Argument you make use of whereby to Proselyte such persons who want judgement enough to discern the weakness and sophistry of it That therefore we are now to enquire into is Whether your Communion or ours be more eligible upon principles of reason and prudence in order to Salvation And two things are insisted on in behalf of your Church first That Protestants grant the possibility of salvation in your Church but you deny it in ours and therefore yours is the safer way Secondly That the Faith of Protestants doth not stand upon those sure grounds which your Faith doth As to the first there are two things to be considered 1. How far we grant a possibility of salvation to those in your Church 2. What can be infer'd from that Concession in the choice of Religion The occasion of entering upon this debate was the Lady's Query Whether she might be saved in the Roman Faith to which his Lordship answers in General that the ignorant that could not discern the errours of that Church so they held the Foundation and conformed themselves to a religious life might be saved and more particularly to the Lady that it must needs go harder with her even in point of salvation because she had been brought to understand very much for one of her condition in these Controverted causes of Religion And a person that comes to know much had need carefully bethink himself that he oppose not known truth against the Church that made him a Christian for salvation may be in the Church of Rome and they not find it that make surest of it And after he explains himself more fully That might be saved grants but a possibility no sure or safe way to salvation the possibility I think saith he cannot be denyed to the ignorants especially because they hold the Foundation and cannot survey the Building And the Foundation can deceive no man that rests upon it But a secure way they cannot go that hold with such corruptions when they know them Now whether it be wisdom in such a point as salvation is to forsake a Church in the which the ground of salvation is firm to follow a Church in which it is but possible one may be saved but very probable he may do worse if he look not well to the Foundation judge ye So that still his Lordship asserts the Protestants way to be the only safe way to salvation and that in the Church of Rome there is only a limited possibility of it which is such that he say's A. C. or his fellows can take little comfort in For as he after declares himself Many Protestants indeed confess there is salvation possible to be attained in the Roman Church but yet they say withall that the errours of that Church are so many and some so great as weaken the Foundation that it is very
hard to go that way to Heaven especially to them that have had the truth manifested and a little after But we have not so learned Christ as either to return evil for evil in this heady course or to deny salvation to some ignorant silly souls whose humble peaceable obedience makes them safe among any part of men that profess the Foundation Christ. And in another place I do indeed for my part leaving other men free to their own judgement acknowledge a possibility of salvation in the Roman Church But so as that which I grant to Romanists is not as they are Romanists but as they are Christians that is as they believe the Creed and hold the Foundation Christ himself not as they associate themselves wittingly and knowingly to the gross Superstitions of the Roman Church And I am willing to hope there are many among them which keep within that Church and yet wish the superstitions abolished which they know and which pray to God to forgive their errours in what they know not and which hold the Foundation firm and live accordingly and which would have all things amended that are amiss were it in their power And to such I dare not deny a possibility of salvation for that which is Christs in them though they hazzard themselves extreamly by keeping so close to that which is superstition and in the case of Images comes too near Idolatry The substance then of what his Lordship saith is that the Protestant way is a safe and secure way to salvation that in the Roman Church there is extream hazzard made of it which all who love their souls ought to avoid but yet for such who by reason of ignorance see not the danger and by reason of honesty keep close to Christ the Foundation and repent of all miscarriages known or unknown he dares not deny a possibility of salvation for them But he is far from asserting it of those who either know the corruptions of that Church and yet continue in them or such who wilfully neglect the means whereby they may be convinced of them So that you strangely either mistake or pervert his Lordships meaning when you would inferr from these passages That he asserts a possibility of being saved to those who joyn with the Roman Church though their ignorance be not invincible and though all or the chief motives which the Protestants bring against you be never so sufficiently proposed to them For he still speaks either of such whose meer ignorance doth excuse them where the Fundamentals are held and a life lead according to them or else of such who condemn your superstitions as far as they are discovered to them and sincerely desire to find impartially the way that leads to Heaven Of such as these he dares not deny a possibility of salvation And you are the most uncharitable persons in the world if you dare assert the contrary of Protestants You expresly grant a possibility of salvation to those who joyn with the Protestant Church in case of invincible ignorance and dare you deny it where there is a preparation of mind to find out and embrace the most certain way to Heaven where all endeavours are used to that end and where there is a conscientious obedience to the Will of God so far as it is discovered If you dare peremptorily deny a possibility of salvation to such persons meerly because not of the Roman Church this prodigious uncharitableness would make us question the possibility of your salvation more while you persist in it For What is there more contrary to the design and spirit of the Gospel then this is From whence must we gather the terms of salvation but only from thence But it seems by you although men give never so hearty an assent to the Doctrine of the Gospel and live in the most universal obedience to it and abound in the fruits of the spirit of God of which Charity is none of the least yet if they be not in the Communion of your Church there is no hopes of salvation for them But Who is it the mean while that hath the disposal of this salvation Is it in your hands or Christs If it be in His we dare rely on His promise although you pretend to know His mind better than He did himself For notwithstanding a sincere endeavour to know and obey the will of God be the great Fundamental in order to salvation which is delivered us by the Doctrine of Christ yet it seems by you there may be this where there may be not so much as possibility of salvation By which assertion of yours you are so far from working upon any but very weak persons to bring them over to your Church that nothing can more effectually prejudice it among all such who dare believe Christ to be more Infallible then the Church of Rome For what is this else but to make heaven and eternal salvation stalk to the interess of your Church and to lay more weight upon being in your communion then upon the most indispensable precepts of Christianity But when we consider how many among you dispute for the possibility of the salvation of Heathens and yet deny it to those who own all the Fundamentals of Christianity when we see how much you lay the weight of salvation upon being in your Church and what wayes you have for those who are in it to reconcile the hopes of salvation with the practise of sin What can we otherwise imagine but it is the Interess of your Church that you more aim at than the salvation of mens-souls For you have so many wayes to give indulgence in sin to those who desire it and yet such ready wayes of pardon and such an easie task of repentance and so little troublesome means of obtaining grace by the Sacraments ex opere operato that it is hard conceiving what way a man should sooner take who would live in his sins and come to heaven at last then to be of your Church And yet you who are so soft and gentle so kind and indulgent to the sons of your Church are not more ready to send those who are out of it to the fire in this world than to eternal flames in another But we have not so learned Christ we dare not deal so inhumanely with them in this world much less judge so uncharitably as to another of those who profess to fear God and work righteousness though they be not of the same opinion or communion with us Yet we tell men of the danger of hazzarding their salvation by erroneous doctrines and superstitious practises and suppose that sufficient to perswade such who sincerely regard their future happiness to avoid all such things as tend so much to their eternal ruine And such who will continue in such things meerly because there is a possibility some persons may be saved in them by reason of Ignorance or Repentance are no wiser men then such who should split
weakness of your Argument For the crimes of Schism and unsoundness of Faith are still as chargeable upon you though we may grant a possibility of Salvation to some in your Church And I cannot possibly discern any difference between the judgment of the Catholicks concerning the Donatists and ours concerning you for if they judged the Donatists way very dangerous because of their uncharitableness to all others so do we of yours but if they notwithstanding that hoped that the misled people among them might be saved that is as much as we dare say concerning you And you very much mistake if you think the contrary For his Lordship no where saith as you would seem to impose upon him That a man may live and dye in the Roman Church and that none of his errours shall hinder salvation whatsoever motives he may know to the contrary But on the other side he plainly saith That he that lives in the Roman Church with a resolution to live and dye in it is presumed to believe as that Church believes And he that doth so I will not say is as guilty but guilty he is more or less of the Schism which that Church first caused by her corruptions and now continues by them and her power together And of all her damnable opinions too and all other sins also which the Doctrine and mis-belief of that Church leads him into Judge you now I pray Whether we think otherwise of those in your Church than the Orthodox did of the Donatists So that if the Argument doth hold for you it would as well have held for them too And therefore his Lordship well inferrs That this Principle That where two parties are dissenting it is safest believing that in which both parties agree or which the adversary confesses may lead men by your own confession into known and damnable Schism and Heresie for such you say the Donatists were guilty of And such his Lordship saith there is great danger of in your Church too for saith he in this present case there 's peril great peril of damnable both Schism and Heresie and other sins by living and dying in the Roman Faith tainted with so many superstitions as at this day it is and their tyranny to boot I pray now bethink your self What difference is there between the Orthodox judgement of the Donatists and ours concerning your Church And therefore the comparison between Petilian the Donatist and his Lordships adversary holds good still for all your Answer depends upon a mistake of Protestants granting a possibility of Salvation as I have already shewed you And in what way soever you limit this agreement you cannot possibly avoid but that it would equally hold as to the Donatists too for the concession was then as great in order to Salvation as it is now But you say Whether he asserts it or no it must needs follow from the Bishops Principles that there can be no peril of damnation by living and dying in the Roman Church because he professedly exempts the Ignorant and grants as much of those who do wittingly and knowingly associate themselves to the gross superstitions of the Roman Church if they hold the Foundation Christ and live accordingly From whence you argue That if neither voluntary nor involuntary superstition can hinder from Salvation then there is confessedly no peril of damnation in your Church And yet his Lordship saith All Protestants unanimously agree in this That there is great peril of damnation for any man to live and dye in the Roman Perswasion And therefore saith he that is a most notorious slander where you say that they which affirm this peril of damnation are contradicted by their own more learned Brethren By which we see the unjustice of your proceeding in offering to wrest his Lordships words contrary to his express meaning and since all your Argument depends upon your adversaries confession you ought to take that confession in the most clear and perspicuous terms and to understand all obscure expressions suitably to their often declared sense Which if you had attended to you would never have undertaken to prove that this Lordship grants that there is no peril of damnation in your Church which he so often disavows and calls it a most notorious slander and a most loud untruth which no ingenuous man would ever have said And even of those persons whom he speaks most favourably of he saith That although they wish for the abolishing the superstitions in use yet all he grants them is a possibility of Salvation but with extreme hazard to themselves by keeping close to that which is superstition and comes so near Idolatry Are these then such expressions which import no peril of damnation in the Roman Church And therefore when he speaks of the possibility of the Salvation of such who associate themselves wittingly and knowingly to the gross superstitions of the Romish Church he declares sufficiently that he means it not of those who do in heart approve of them but only of such who though they are convinced they are gross superstitions yet think they may communicate with those who use them as long as they do not approve of them Which errour of theirs though he looks on it as dangerous yet not as wholly destructive of Salvation But since your Answer to this is That he mistakes very much in supposing such persons to belong to your Church and Communion you are not aware How much thereby you take off from the Protestants Confession since those whom we contend for a possibility of Salvation for are such only whom you deny to be of your Churches Communion and so the Argument signifies much less by your confession than it did before Thus we see how this Argument upon the same terms you manage it against us would have held as well in the behalf of the Donatists against the Communion of the Catholick Church For what other impertinencies you mix here and there it is time now to pass them over since the main grounds of them have been so fully handled before We therefore proceed to the second Answer his Lordship gives to this Argument viz. That if the Principle on which it stands doth hold it makes more for the advantage of Protestants than against them For if that be safest which both parties are agreed in then 1. You are bound to believe with us in the point of the Eucharist For all sides agree in the Faith of the Church of England that in the most blessed Sacrament the worthy Receiver is by his Faith made spiritually partaker of the true and real body and blood of Christ truly and really and of all the benefits of his passion Your Roman Catholicks add a manner of this presence Transubstantiation which many deny and the Lutherans Consubstantiation which more deny If this Argument be good then even for this consent it is safer communicating with the Church of England than with the
Roman or Lutheran because all agree in this Truth not in any other Opinion You say This can hold no further than communicating in the belief of this Opinion let that be granted and Doth it not then follow that the Church of England's Opinion is the safest upon your own ground No say you for it is not such a common consent as doth exclude the manner of presence by trans or consubstantiation But How sensless an Answer is this for the Argument proceeds so far as all are agreed and the Church of England asserting that real presence which all acknowledge as simply necessary in order to the effects of it her Communion is more desirable on this account than of either of those Churches which offer to define the manner of Christ's presence since even the greatest men of your perswasion as Suarez and Bellarmin assert the belief of Transubstantiation not to be simply necessary to Salvation and that the manner of it is secret and ineffable It is therefore quite beside the purpose when you offer to prove that Suarez believed Transubstantiation for although he did so yet since he grants it not simply necessary to do it his Lordships Argument in behalf of the Church of England holds firm still unless you can prove that Suarez held the belief of that to be as necessary as the belief of the real and spiritual presence of Christ. But you after attempt at large to prove that the real participation of Christ in the Sacrament in your sense is quite different from that of Protestants If you mean a corporal participation indeed it is so but that is not it which is now enquired after but Whether you do not allow any real and spiritual presence of Christ besides the corporal manducation of that you call his body by Transubstantiation If you do not you would do well to shew what effects that hath upon the souls of men if you do then still the Church of England is of the safer side which holds that in which all are agreed Which is as much as we are here concerned to take notice of as to this subject the Controversie it self having been so lately handled 2. His Lordship instances in the Article of our Saviour Christ's descent into Hell both are agreed as to the Article of descent but the Church of Rome differs in the explication therefore it is safer holding with the Church of England which owns the Article without defining the manner But you say He proceeds on a false supposition for both are not agreed what is meant by Hell whether it be the place of the damned or no But this doth belong to the manner of Explication and not to the Article it self which both equally own and therefore the Church of England hath the advantage there 3. He instances in the Institution of the Sacrament in both kinds in which it is agreed by both Churches that Christ did institute it so and the Primitive Church received it so Therefore according to the former Rule 't is safest for a man to receive the Sacrament in both kinds This you say is as little to the purpose as the former because you do not agree that he did it with an intention or gave any command that it should be alwaies so received but still you are quite besides the business for that is not our Question but Whether it be more safe to adhere to that which Christ instituted and the Primitive Church practised as you confess your selves Or to your Church which prohibits the doing that which you confess Christ and the Primitive Church did And we see how great your Charity is when you deny a possibility of Salvation to those who assert that Christs Institution is unalterable or that all who communicate are bound to receive in both kinds For all other things concerning this subject I must referr the Reader to the precedent Chapter in which they are fully discussed 4. The dissenting Churches agree that in the Eucharist there is a sacrifice of duty and a sacrifice of praise and a sacrifice of commemoration Therefore it is safest to hold to the Church of England in this and leave the Church of Rome to her superstitions that I say no more Here you still pretend you differ in sense but all this is only to say you assert more than we do which we grant but assert upon your Principle that we are on the safer side And so in the intention of the Priest you agree with us as to the necessity of matter and form and therefore it is safer holding to that than believing the necessity of the Priest's intention which many deny And if the Rule doth hold as you assert That that which both are agreed in is safer than the contrary it will hold in matter of Opinion too that it is safer to believe no more is necessary to the Sacrament than both parties are agreed in The last Instance is That we say there are divers errours and some gross ones in the Roman Missal but you confess there is no positive errour in the Liturgy of the Church of England and therefore it is safest to worship God by that and not by the Roman Mass. This you answer as all the rest by running off from the business for you say It cannot be safer to use that because you Catholicks say That to use it in contempt of the Roman Missal is certainly damnable sin and destructive of Salvation But as it is not material what you say in this case so it is not at all to the purpose for if your Rule holds good it must be safer and if it be not you must confess the Principle is false That what both parties agree in is the safest to be chosen in Religion The same might be at large proved concerning the main things in difference between us that if this Principle be true we have very much the advantage of you as You and we are agreed that the Scripture is God's Word but we deny that Tradition is so therefore it is safer adhering to the Scripture and let Tradition shift for it self You and we are agreed that there are sufficient Motives of Credibility to believe the Scripture but we deny that there are any such Motives to believe the present Churches Infallibility therefore it is safer to believe the Scripture than the present Church So that this Principle if improved by these and other Instances will redound more to our advantage than yours considering that in the case we grant it as to you it is joyned with a Protestation of the extreme hazzard which those run who venture on your Communion on the account of it but there is no such danger upon the agreement with us in those Principles which are agreed upon between us 3. His Lordship answers truly that this Proposition That in point of Faith and Salvation 't is safest for a man to take that way which the