because what the Council hath defined is evident in Scripture therefore do we believe it And if we should find that in any Article they dissented from Scripture we should in that as much oppose them as we do you our Appeal then to them is not as Rules but as conformable to the Rule and so we should to the Council of Trent it self had it been as Orthodox as they but I hope we should not thence make them guides or their Decrees rules of our faith Though that I may not be mistaken I allow the four first a preheminence above the ensuing Oecumenical Councils were there any such because from their nearness to the Apostolical times they had greater advantage of being acquainted with the Apostles minds and practices but then the preheminence we grant them above others is derived from the probability of their consonancy with that which we avow to be infallible We appeal therefore to the four first general Councils not because we think it absolutely necessary to conform our belief to theirs but ex abundanti to shew you that should we appeal to the Church as you would have us that in the most pure and uncorrupted Ages its belief carried an exact harmony with Ours so that were the Church judge as it is not the primitive Church would stand for us And this is all we mean in our appeal to the four first general Councils How impertinent then is Mr. Cressys Dilemma P. 1. s 8. that if Dr. Pierce submit to the four first general Councils not because of their inherent authority but because he judged their decisions conformable to Gods express word then he deludes us and with Presbyterians Independents c. makes Scripture alone the rule of Reformation How doth he delude you did he ever deny this what delusion is it to tell you that I hold what I hold But then you say Dr. Pierce must make Scripture his only rule What then nothing but this that Dr. Pierce affirms what he affirms and what absurdity is that a shrewd Dilemma that forceth Dr. Pierce to believe what he doth believe In the next place when you tell us that beside reason our Ecclesiastical Synods Bishops or Parliamnts are admitted as guides of our faith you do but evidence by your imputing to us what we hold not you cannot confute what we hold For Sect. 4 We assert therefore that Reason alone is and can be our guide which we demonstrate because Reason alone is our judge in all cases for I either have reason for my belief whatever it be or I have not if the latter then my belief is 1. Irrational for my belief must be Irrational when I have no reason to believe and as Irrational so 2. Altogether uncertain and its object may as well be a falsehood as a truth because if I have no reason why I believe it true then have I no certainty but it may be false for the only certainty I can have that my belief is not false is because I have rational grounds to evidence it true which when removed what certainty can I have that I do not err But if the former that is If whatsoever I believe or assent to I do it because my reason judgeth it a truth then reason is my judge and guide in whatsoever I believe which is the proposition to be proved And this is easily confirmed and illustrated by a few particular considerations as when the question is Whether I am bound to embrace any religion at all I bring my reason to judge which after it hath examined the weight and evidence of the arguments suggested to it and found them valid determines and judges that I ought to own some religion after this my next enquiry is Amongst the various kinds of Religion professed in the world which is the true one here again having examined all their pretences my reason judgeth which is most consonant to truth and hereupon I close with the Christian profession because I find their arguments most valid and highly satisfactory to an ingenuous and unprejudiced understanding and such as carry with them so full an evidence as that it will make all unbelief infinitely irrational And hitherto as reason is my only guide so my only rule too for I can have no other Canon whereby to guide it but it s own acknowledged Laws and Maximes by which I examine the verity of all other rules and therefore can have no other rules whereby to judge seeing they themselves are the matters judged of and therefore when we dispute with the Romanists whether Scripture be our sole rule whereby to determine controversies t is not to be taken absolutely as if there were no other rule for I can never confute a Jew from a text of the new Testament nor an Atheist or an Infidel out of either Testaments but limitedly that its the sole rule whereby to determine controversies of faith among those that profess the Christian Religion in which sense alone it concerns their dispute which is not with Infidels but Christians who have already acknowledged Scripture to be a rule of faith But to proceed having by embracing the Christian Religion received a new rule the old guide may still suffice that which could guide me into the right way will much more guide me in it especially when its plain and easie But now Christianity is professed and a new rule owned my nex quere is what party among the several pretenders adhere to this rule and so with what Church I must join here again reason must sit on the bench and pass judgement of all the Churches in the world which of them keep to the rule of faith and which swerve from it Let us then first call the Socinian Churches to the bar here the enquiry would be whether I may embrace any thing for Truth though sufficiently manifested to be of Divine Revelation if it seem to contradict or thwart my reason hereto reason it self must be judge and so the enquiry is whether it be more rational to believe a Truth Divinely revealed that I cannot comprehend or upon that account to reject it My reason judgeth it most rational to captivate and submit it self to infinite Wisdome and believe what it cannot comprehend because I and all the World beside do acknowledge such things as transcend our comprehensions v. g. an infinite extension of space an eternal duration c. and therefore I think not their principle sufficient to explode a truth for a falshood beside I know the Divine knowledge and wisdome is infinite and so incomprehensible to any sinite and shallow intellect and therefore that he may know and consequently reveal such matters which are too deep and too wide to be contained within the bounds of our narrow understandings and therefore what more absurd then to measure the immensity of the Divine wisdome by the standard of our imperfect and short apprehensions Wherefore we do not proscribe the Doctrine imputed to the
Socinians because it makes reason the Judge as the Romanists would fain perswade us but because it makes it the rule of Faith and believes nothing for a truth but what we can comprehend as to the manner of its existence that it is whereas nothing is more evident then that we may be certain of the being of a thing when we understand not the manner of its being Though I have been already too tedious in this instance yet because I had rather offend by tediousness or any thing rather then disingenuity I must venture a very short digression to avoid dealing disingenuously with the Socinians When then I charge this principle upon them I have it rather from their Adversaries then from themselves for I must profess I could never meet with it expresly asserted in their own writings they will not avow that they reject manifestly revealed Truths because they seem contradict on s but on the contrary that they believe not contradictions because not manifestly revealed and so they pretend to explode the Doctrine of the Trinity not in the first place because it seems a contradiction but because they conceive it not to be clearly discovered in Scripture and then after this they urge against it its repugnancy to the principles and common notions of reason and so their principle runs thus That which is not clearly revealed in Scripture and is contradictory to reason is not to be believed and if there were as much truth in the first part of their Maxime as there is in the last there would be one more Socinian in the world then now there is I have stayed the longer upon this particular because as its an irrefragable evidence of reasons soveraignty so is it a full Answer to the Objections against it for whereas they object that we must captivate and submit our reasons to Faith how then can we make them Judges of our Faith from the the preceding instance we Reply That we even then place reason on the Bench when we seem to dethrone it and at the same time make it an Umpire when we make it a Captive But in the last place to come nearer our present purpose and to shew that the Romanists as well as we do at last appeal to their private reasons If my enquiry were Whether the Roman Church or the reformed Churches were the true Church here neither the Romish Church nor ours must be judge seeing they both pretend to it and both are the purest to themselves How then shall I know which is really so only by examining both their pleas and then that which I judge to be purest do I adhere to When Mr. Cressy renounced the Protestant Communion to joyn with the Roman Church he either did it upon motives of reason or not if not it was a brutish unreasonable act but if he did then did he enter into the Roman Communion because his own reason judged it to be the purest Church and when he believes his Church infallible he either hath reason for his belief or he hath not if he hath not then again is his belief irrational uncertain and absurd if he hath then he believes his Church infallible because his reason judgeth it to be so and so the Church is beholden to the judgement of his private reason for his belief of her infallibility And hath not Mr. C. given us his reasons such as they are why he judgeth and believeth the Church infallible to what purpose if reason be so unfit a Judge and let him do what violence he can to his rational faculties unless he become a meer brute his own private reason will rule him and in spight of Pope or Council keep the Chair And I dare challenge all the Romanists in the World to demonstrate that unless every mans reason be his guide he must follow chance and uncertainty Before I pass hence to avoid captious mistakes be pleased to note that when I make every mans reason his guide I do not exclude the guidance of the Divine Spirit but rather imply it because that doth not move us by irrational and violent impulses but by discovering to our reasons a fuller evidence or farther connexion of truths then without its illumination we could have discerned and so forceth our assents by a stronger conviction of our reasons which is the Criterion whereby we difference the impressions of the Divine Spirit from delusory and false inspirations in that these black vapours darken and blast our reasons and act us by illiterate and brutish phantasmes whilst the Spirit of God clarifies our understandings and leads us by the rules of reason and sobriety And therefore our Enthusiastical Sectaries are in part Romish Proselytes for their folly is the same though not in the same instance viz. of quitting the surer conduct of their reasons to entrust themselves to more uncertain guides and such as they cannot know unless from their reasons which they dare not trust but may be meer delusions and impostures Now the only exception Sect. 5 which Mr. C. following his predecessors urgeth against this Supream Authority of reason is that its fallible and so may deceive and misguide us But 1. If this impeachment be valid then le ts renounce our reasons and with one consent turn Scepticks how shall I be assur'd that twice two make four that the whole is more then a part that the same thing cannot at the same time exist and not exist I must not trust the judgement of my reason for that may deceive saith Mr. Cressey what then must I confide in must I appeal to a General Council whether two and two make four 2. Can you bring me to a surer guide then reason Yes you will answer to the Church but if my reason being fallible may misguide me why may it not when it conducts me to the Church especially when your selves profess to believe the Churches infallibility upon prudential motives if I may not trust my reason why should I trust it here Again if my considence in the Churches infallibility be built upon my reason and I have no certainty of it but from my reason then cannot I have more assurance in the Churches guidance then in the conduct of my reason for the superstructure cannot be stronger then the foundation if then my reason be too weak to trust to much more that which is built upon it 3. What 's your meaning when you object that reason is fallible is it this that its possible we may be deceived by it but then 1. Is it not possible the Church may deceive us too 2. As long as we follow reasons true rules its impossible to erre because they are certain and infallibly true But if men will abuse their reasons and bend them to their interests they may so and so they may the Churches Authority and may not the Church abuse her Authority will Christ violently force her into truth Give us a guide that cannot be abused by wicked and unreasonable men
Majesty as it were over the Lamb of God then lying upon the table their supplications and prayers for the whole State of Christs Church and all sorts and degrees therein thus the Authour of the Mystagogical Catechis Lib. 5. upon these propitiatory hosts we beseech God for the common peace of the Church the tranquillity of the world for Kings Souldiers Companions the afflicted in fine for all that stand in need of help Christ Sac. S. 3. See more of this in the Ingenious Master Mede and partly because it was such a commemoration of Christs sufferings as conveyed unto us an interest in what he hath suffered for us which therefore we are enabled to plead for our selves and others but that Saint Chrysost never esteemed it a proper Sacrament is apparent from these words of his 17. Hom. on the Heb. What do we not continually offer Yes saith he we offer but only by a commemoration of his Christs death there is but one host not many how so because it was offered once and that host viz. once offered was carried up into the holy of holies this that we celebrate is the figure of that former and that the truth of this And a little after he is our high Priest who offers that sacrifice which cleanseth us which we now offer and which then was offered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor possibly can be consumed this is done in a remembrance of that which was then done according to that of Our Saviour do this in remembrance of me we do not offer another sacrifice as the Jewish Priests but continually the same or rather a remembrance of a sacrifice what can be more express then this And indeed our Authour saith the same thing S. 4. p. 146. his words are these Ordinarily the conception of a sacrifice is supposed to import an immolation shedding of blood and killing and no such matter appearing here but only a commemoration of a former reall immolation and shedding of Christs Blood therefore we Sectaries will not allow it the name of sacrifice Now not to note that if this be the ordinary conception of a sacrifice that then the Fathers must be granted in this matter to have spoken contrary to the ordinary sence which the word beareth and to that which it is supposed commonly to import 1 hence it is clear that he holds the celebration of the Eucharist to be only a commemoration of a sacrifice which we will endeavour to evince from his own words only premizing that Christs sacrifice was a reall immolation and shedding of his blood thus where there is only a commemoration of the reall immolation and shedding of Christs blood there is only the commemoration of Christs sacrifice offered on the Cross but here that is in the celebration of the Mass there is only a commemoration of a former reall immolation and shedding of Christs blood and therefore a commemoration only of his sacrifice S. 6. p. 148. nor is it any thing to the purpose which he adds that it is in the most proper rigorous sence an oblation of the very same body and blood that our Lord now offers in heaven For to let pass the question sufficiently handled already whether the very same body and blood which Christ offered on the Cross be present in the Sacrament or only the Symbols of it either he terms this a proper oblation because in the Sacrament somewhat is properly tendred or presented unto God and thus we all acknowledge a proper oblation in the Sacrament for there we shew forth the Lords death by presenting before him the sacrifice of atonement that Christ hath made commemorating the pains that he endured entreating God that we may all enjoy the purchase of his blood and reap the benefit of his passion reached forth unto us in the Symbol and that for the sake of the Bloody sacrifice of his Son in which by the faithful receiving of the elements we are interested he will turn away all his anger from us Or Secondly as this word is taken in a stricter sence to signifie a sacrifice of inanimate things as fruits incense c. and thus it is distinguished from a sacrifice of an animate being which was accompanied with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or an effusion of blood to which it is requisite Clopen Scb. Suc. ab initio if properly and strictly such ut vel incendio vel alio convenienti riâ—u sacro per sacerdotis ministerium destruatur that it be destroyed by fire or any other convenient Rite by the ministery of a Priest and if this be his sense of an oblation we deny that there is any such destruction or consumption of the reall body and blood of the Lord in the holy Sacrament and shall now consider it Fourthly Sect. 7 Therefore that this is no true and proper sacrifice appears 1. because to a proper sacrifice is requisite that the thing sacrificed suffer some Physical mutation but here is no Physical mutation of the thing sacrificed the Major is proved by Bell from the perpetuall use of Scripture when speaking of a proper sacrifice for what ever in Scripture is properly so call'd was necessarily to suffer such a mutation if it had life by the deprivation of it if it were an inanimate and solid being as Frankincense Salt c. by combustion if liquid as wine blood and water by effusion Levit. 1.2 Secondly He proves it because all the Sacraments did prefigure the death of Christ their death or mutation being Typical of his with Bellarmine consents Cardinal Alanus De Eucha sacrif l. 2. c. 3. who tells us that unless the intervention of some mutation be allowed to the nature of a sacrifice we must acknowledge that first-fruits Tythes the first-born religious persons and innumerable other things which in the Law were consecrated to God must be called sacrifices there being no difference in them from true and proper sacrifices imaginable but this that these gifts thus consecrated remain entire but the things which are sacrificed do not but suffer as it were a change into another species being either kill'd roasted bruised or boiled or by some other action of the Priest consumed But now there is no real mutation here of the thing sacrificed for the thing sacrificed is the very same body and blood which our Lord offered upon the Cross as our Author tells us P. 148. and p. 135. We acknowledge an oral manducation but without any suffering or change in the divine body it self and the victim saith he suffers nothing But should he eat his words as he doth his God I will thus force him to confesse the truth If the body of Christ suffer any mutation when sacrificed then either as to its real being in Heaven or its Sacramental but neither can with reason be affirmed Not the first for Christs natural body is now impassible not the second for then would the body of Christ lose its being in
See Dr. Field p. 246. c. du pless Sac Mis l. 2 c. 6. c. 7. then that the people should not understand him could you be ignorant of these and other evidences of this truth and cite so frequently that Dr. Field from whence I had them And would it not make an Heraclitus laugh to hear you tell us of S. Sect. 14. Ib. Basils Liturgy used in the Greek tongue in most parts of the Eastern Churches and adde that this was not the vulgar or tongue sufficiently understood in many of these Eastern Churches Act. 14.11 and that because the people said in the language of Lycaonia the Gods are come down to us in the likeness of men Act. 2.8 9 10. and further Parthians and Medes and Elamites and the dwellers of Mesopotamia and in Judea and Cappadocia in Pontus and Asia Phrygia and Pamphilia heard the Apostles speak in their own tongues the wonderful works of God For can this do you any service till you have proved these things 1. That Saint Basils Liturgy was in all or any of these places 2. That those places where this Liturgy was used did not understand Greek as well as their vulgar tongue 3. That if they could not understand Greek in the days of the Apostles neither could they do it 600 years after their decease and upwards about which time this spurious Liturgy might haply have been used and when all this is done which will be ad Graecas Calendas the consequence will be only this that after six hundred years Saint Pauls precept was disregarded by some Eastern Churches Farther we have sufficient evidences that in many parts of Asia the Greek was a sufficiently vulgar tongue Saint Chrysostom preached in Greek at Antioch S. Basil at Caesarea Athanasius at Alexandria Cyril at Jerusalem thus from Constantinople to Antioch throughout Asia was the Greek language sufficiently known S. Jerom will tell us Tom. in Ep. ad Gal. in proamia pro Archia Pocta sermme Graeco omnis oriens loquitur all the East used the Greek tongue and Cicero Graeca leguntur in omnibus fere gentibus that almost all Nations used it and why not then those places in which this Liturgy was used But you go on to inform us Sect. 15. Ib. that your Church did not intend that her publick devotions should therefore be in Latine because it is not vulgarly understood but this hath hapned as it were by accident of the mixture of barbarous nations but why then was it thus performed in England where it was always a tongue unknown unto the vulgar and notwithstanding this accident you do not think meet to change it upon these accounts 1. Because no example can be given of anciently established Churches that any of them changed the Language of Gods publick service entirely Ans Were it so the reason evidently must be the no-necessity of such a change seeing 't is evident beyond all possibility of contradiction that the most holy and pious of every age required the performance of Gods service in a language known Rupert de Diz officiis l. 3. c. 8. hence in mixt congregations the Service was read both in Greek and Latine and at the funeral solemnities of Paula the Greeks Hier ad Eustoch Epitaph Paulae Syrians Latines c. had their devotions in their proper tongues Yea Innocent the third decreed that seeing there were mixed people of divers languages in sundry parts within the same Diocess or City the Bishops of these places should provide fit men to Celebrate Divine Service p. 248. De Sac. Mis l. 2. c. 6. according to the diversities of their Rites and Languages as you may see in Doctor Field he that would be glutted with the suffiages of Antiquity let him have recourse to the honourable the Lord du Plessis and he shall find abundant satiâ—faction Secondly As the evasion is evidently weak and impertinent so is it notoriously false for Methodius having translated the Scripture into the Sâ—lavenian tongue perswaded the Dalmatians to explode the Latine and make use of their own in the service of God p. 434. as Aventinus informs us yea the same Mâ—thodius went into the Kingdoms of Boiaria and sought to perswade Noricum Pannenia Veneda to abandon the Latine and have the service in the vulgar and albeit at the present he was resisted yet afterwards the attempt took effect See Doctor Field ubi supra at least in part as appears by Aventinus telling us that in his age the priests of Liburnia did celebrate Divine Service in their own De missa Latine facienda in locis communibus p. 241. that is in the Sclavonian tongue yea Eckius a rigid Papist will consess that heretofore the Divine Service was in the Dalmatian tongue throughout all Illiricum the same you may find evinced of many others that now use the Latine in the most Learned Dr. Field You go on Sect. 16 and tell us that the Greeks now use the Ancient Mass of Saint Chrysostom Mr. C. p. 173. written in pure Greek as much dissering from the vulgar as Latine from the Italian Spanish c. and that the like may be said of the Syrian Cophtites c. yea the Jews continue their devotions in the Hebrew to this day albeit understood by few of them Ans 1. The Lord du Plessis would have informed you albeit the Mass which the Greek Church useth is different from their vulgar p. 268. non tamen quantum aut Italica à Latinâ aut Gallica ipsa à Narbonensi and farther that where the Greek tongue is not in use as among the Muscovians and Russiane albeit they follow the Greek customs yet do they celebrate Divine Service in the vulgar tongue and I have so much confidence of the truth of his assertion as to judge your contradiction to it to exceed the bounds Secondly The Aegyptians indeed have their service in a bastard Chalde or Syriaque their vulgar being Arabique Field p. 241. but then they first read the Gospel in the Chaide and afterwards in Arabique which is not done in their publick Services Thirdly When the example of the Russians Muscovians Com. in 1 Cor. 16. disp 50. s 7. l 2 de verbo dei c. 16. Aethiopians c. was objected to Salmeron in behalf of Service in the vulgar tongue he Answers we will not be moved with the examples of such barbarous people and their famous Bellar adds 't is all one as if Lutherans and Anabaptists should be called for confirmation of an opinion seeing these are Hereticks as well as they so that our adversary might as well have argued that Arrius and his followers denyed the Godhead of Saviour and therefore we also ought to do so the Jews deny him to be the Saviour of the world blaspheme him in their Services and therefore so should we Again he argues thus Sect. 17. Ib. a great fitness there is that
let him receive it nor would the Apostle have been so nice in his perswading it And again Christ saith this that every one may consider his strength whether hee be able to satisfie this command of Virginity and Chastity for our abilities ought to bee considered that so hee that can receive it may St. Austin Lib. 1. de nupt concup ad voler C. 16. id ad Pollent In cap. 20 Leviticus Pt 3. cur past C. 30. this vertue of such excellent Continence he that can receive let him receive it And again the Apostle counsels Celibacy to him that can receive it Hesyc we do not require any thing beyond mens power but onely what is possible viz. virginity of him to whom it is possble And Gregory Hee that is truth it self saith all cannot receive this Word And again the Pastors that are single are to bee admonished that if they cannot withstand the storms of temptation without difficulty of Shipwrack they betake themselves to the Haven of Wedlock To these you may add Ignat. Ep. 8. ad Smyrnenses Cyril L. 1. Ep. 11. Si perseverare nolunt aut non possunt nubant Lactan. L. 6. Inst C. 23. Chrysost L. de Virg. Homil. 19. in 1 Cor. Bernard in Serm. de convers ad Cler. C. 29. Amrbose cited in Jure Canon C. Integritas 32. qu. 2. yea Bell armine himself C. 34. resp ad 19. CHAP. XVIII Schisme is an unnecessary separation sect 1. Our separation necessary by reason 1 Of many things unjustly required to be believed 2 To be practised by us sect 2 3. That supposing these doctrines to be innovations wee are bound to separate sect 4. The result of Mr. C ' s. positions ibid. His pretensions to make his assertion reasonable considered sect 5 6 7. The Church of Rome Schismatical sect 8. The Arguments to the contrary answered sect 9 10 11. WE are at length arrived at our last Sect. 1 and largest taske to wipe off that odious name of Schisme which hee most irrationally casts upon us Now in this business Mr. C. as he is more voluminous so is he more weak and more confused And therefore I will not follow him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but draw up some thesis or propositions and confront them to his assertions and then return an answer to his arguments 1. 1. Proposition Therefore Schism is an unnecessary separation that it is a separation Sect. 2 the very import of the word assures us that it is an unnecessary one appears because nothing can bee sinful which is necessary with a necessity not introduced upon my self through my own default and consequently where cause of Schism is necessary there not hee that separates but hee that is the cause of separation is the Schismatick for schism there cannot bee in leaving the communion of any Church Chilling p. 17. unlesse wee were obliged to continue in it man cannot be obliged by man but to what either formally or virtually hee is obliged by God for all just power is from God God the eternal truth neither can nor will oblige us to believe any the least or the most â—nâ—ocent falshood to bee a Divine Truth that is to erre nor to professe a known errour which is to lye So that seeing you require the belief of errours among the conditions of your Communion our Obligation to communicate with you ceaseth yea we are obliged not to communicate with you upon these terms which are evidently sinful and so the imputation of schism to us vanisheth to nothing but it falls heavy upon your own heads for making our separation from you just and necessary by requiring unnecessary and unlawful conditions of your communion Thus being not content with Christ the Mediatour of mankind you require us to hold the Saints departed to bee our Mediatours besides the head Christ Jesus you require us to believe the Pope to bee the head and Husband of the universal Church by Divine right besides the Sacrifice of the Cross you force upon us that of the Altar as a true and proper Sacrifice besides the blood of Christ you command us to expect our cleansing from the sufferings of Martyrs besides the torments of Hell which are threatned to the wicked you require us to assert Purgatorian torments to bee inflicted on the faithful Besides the Worship of the great God you require us to adore and that with the worship due and proper unto him the holy Sacraments besides the holy Scriptures you require us to receive with equal authority certain Books Apocriphal and Traditions like unto them with the same faith wee give to these Holy Scriptures the veneration of Images the transubstantiation of the elements into the body and blood of Christ you require us to believe The Churches power in mutilating the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in enjoyning the celebration of publick service in a tongue unknown in imposing perpetual Celibacy upon such as take upon them holy orders you require us to acknowledge These things you have established in your councels and thundred your Anathemaes against all those that will not yeild their assent unto them so that without the belief of these things it is impossible for us to keep in the communion of your Church nay the denial of any of these Articles excludes us at least in your esteem not only from the Roman but the Church of God and makes it unlawful for you to communicate with us the confessions of these things you exact from us with the greatest rigour and that as the true Catholick faith Bulla pii quarti extra quam neâ—o salvus esse potest without beleiving of which there is no salvation to any man continually proclaiming that you esteem them Hereticks enemies of Christ and worse than Infidels that reject these opinions or any of them nay which is worst of all in making of these and such like decrees you give out that you are infallible So that to question any one of them is ipso facto to thrust our selves out of your Communion sith therefore you require the belief of these untruths as necessary conditions of communion you evidently free us from the guilt of Schisme in refusing to communicate with you upon such terms Again wee confidently assert Sect. 3 there can be no necessity of communicating with others in wicked actions nay there is a necessity of separation when the performance of them is required a necessity of getting out of Babylon when wee cannot stay there Rev. 18.4 but we must be partakers of her sins And evidently to practise what I esteem and look upon as forbidden by God is to be guilty of damned hypocrisie and wilful disobedience against him seeing therefore the Church of Rome requireth of us the practise of such unlawful actions as the Adoration of the Sacrament which is Idolatry the Invocation of Saints Veneration of Images petitions for deliverance of Souls from Purgatory which are superstitions yea and injoyns her
would endanger our falling into the ditch Mat. 15.24 Seducers V. 15. of this chapter which is evidence sufficient that he never intended they should be followed absolutely but only when they followed the Law of Moses 2. This infallibility cannot bee proved from reason which to evince I will carefully ponder what Mr. C. hath produced from this topick 1. Then to help him out a little I will premise that nature teacheth us that what is necessary to the Christian Faith for its preservation and to hinder the undermining of it ought to bee practised Mr. C. p. 239. but it is absolutely necessary saith hee for the Church oft times to make her decisions of points in controversie for otherwise the Devil would have power to undermine a great part of our Faith if permission were given freely to maintain I suppose hee means to deny any thing that doth not appear to any one expresly either in Scripture or Tradition Answ We also grant a necessity or at least a convenience of a Tribunal to decide controversies but how not by causing any person to believe what hee did not antecedently to these decrees upon the sole authority of the Council but by silencing our disputes and making us acquiesce in what is propounded without any publick opposition to it keeping our opinions to our selves and not troubling the Church of God with them and therefore wee are farre enough from granting a permission to maintain openly such things as appear to any private judgement to bee a truth as knowing this may breed disturbances but yet a liberty of using private discretion in approving or rejecting any thing as delivered or not in Scripture wee think ought to bee allowed for faith cannot bee compelled and by taking away this liberty from men wee should force them to become Hypocrites and to profess outwardly what inwardly they dis-believe But you further adde p. 242. that upon such a decision it cannot be avoided but that an obligation of believing it will arise to Christians or else to what end doth the Council state it Answ We acknowledge that this is the end of her decrees and that when ever her decisions are Divine Truths wee are under an Obligation to believe them but to suppose they are alwaies such is evidently to beg the question and to assert this Obligation when they are not such is to lay upon us a necessity to believe as many errours as it is possible for a Council to decide which the experience of the Lateran 2. Nicene and Trent Council tells us may bee very many and very dangerous 2. This undoubtedly was the end of the decisions of the Arrian Councils yea of every Council in the Church of God and yet will Mr. C. assert that they unavoidably laid an obligation upon every Member of their respective Churches to obey them Well therefore Baron will tell you Objecto fidei c. 17. quae quamvis non sit exse infallibilis c. ad vitandam confusionem Ecclesiarum dilacerationem c. qui palam contradicunt that wee confesse the highest Ecclesiastical power to bee a general Council which albeit it bee not of it self infallible and therefore cannot from its own authority oblige to give credit to its determinations yet doth it avail to that end to which it was instituted i. e. for the avoiding the confusion and renting of the Church Seeing such a Council can Excommunicate and subject to Ecclesiastical censures those who openly contradict her 2. The Authority of general Councils hath a great weight and moment in the begetting a perswasion of the truth of the Doctrine defined by it For such decrees cannot rashly bee rejected as being made by those Timere non adhibitâ accuratâ gravi observatione who 1. Have greater assistance of the Spirit of God 2. Greater means of finding out the truth viz. by Prayer Fastings and Disputations 3. Authoritatem divinitus datam definiendi controversias fidei Better reason of discovering what is the opinion of the whole Church yea 4. Saith hee an authority delegated from Christ to decide controversies of Faith Your second Argument is Sect. 8 that God will not bee wanting to his Church to keep it in truth and unity P. 245. Ergo not onely a general Council but as general a one as can bee had ought to have the force and obligation of a general or Oecumeâ—nical that is it ought to be infallible Ans But pray you sir do you not here apparently beg the question For if any of us thought that God would be wanting to preserve his Church in truth and unity if General Councils were not infallible how soon would wee embrace their infallibility but this is it that we constantly deny maintaining that albeit there be no such infallible Judge yet hath God sufficiently consulted the wel-fare of his Church in that hee hath given us his Word as a Rule to walk by and his Spirit who will infallibly guide his children into all saving truth and indeed the Church whose unity we professe is not an Organical body made of several particular Congregations or provincial Churches but onely consists of the true and living members of Christs body scattered through the world which are united to him by faith and the mystical union of the Spirit and to one another by the bond of charity and are infallibly guided by the Spirit into a belief of all saving truth 2. It is evident hence that want of charity prophaneness and Hypocrisie are as great breaches of the Churches unity as want of truth and yet I hope you will not accuse God of being defective to his Church because he hath provided no other means then his Word Spirit and Ministers against these things and why then should we esteem him so in not making further provision for the unity of his Church 3. As God hath sufficiently provided for Kingdomes and common-wealths by his ordinance of Magistracy albeit they bee not infallible in their Laws but may sometimes enact such things as tend to the prejudice of their Subjects even so hee hath sufficiently provided for the external unity of the Church by the Ecclesiastical Governours hee hath placed in them albeit they bee not so But 4. This is an undeniable evidence that God doth not think these means so necessary to unity as you pretend viz. that hee hath not at all acquainted us with this means of unity For it cannot be that the Infinitely wise God should make that to bee the onely sufficient means of unity about the nature and requisites of which there bee so many hundred doubts that the wisest man is not able to resolve them or returne any thing satisfactory to them Peruse but the questions I have made touching this matter unlesse you are able to resolve them all with the greatest perspicuity and evidence this means will evidently be uneffectual to the end that God intended it for still it will remain in
or else upon that account reject not this Divine Revelations are abused by some to undermine our Faith shall they therefore not be allowed to be foundations of it The question is What is the surest guide of our Faith we say pure and unprejudiced reason and that if we will follow its dictates we are in the safest way to happiness and though then we may erre about some lesser truths because not perspicuous yet not about any thing that 's a necessary Article of Faith But if men will not follow their own guides but force them into by-paths and follow the blind guides of interest prejudice or passion then they may perish not because they follow their free reasons but because they either stifle or violently divert them 4. I would beseech Mr. C. and his brethren to beware of strengthning the hands of Atheists and Scepticks whilst they endeavour to weaken ours for beside the damages they bring to all Religion it s no small one they bring to their own for hereby they shew that upon the same grounds that a man is a Papist he may be an Atheist too and that they cannot build their own Religion but upon the ruins of all Religion For let me ask will not his exception become an Atheists mouth and be more serviceable to his cause then to Mr. Cressey's What if he should ask Why do you embrace any Religion give what account you can he will enquire what Warrant you have that you are not deceived what assurance can we give him if we dare not credit our own saculties and how Mr. C. who will not allow us to trust our own reason will answer him I understand not But I am certain let him reply what he will the doubt will still return upon him for if he take refuge at the Church the quere will be how he is certain that the Church doth not deceive him And imagine he could return an Answer yet unless he at last appeal to his reason it will serve only to give occasion to a new question But though Mr. C. by his principles cannot answer a Sceptick yet by ours we may satisfactorily answer him for I know that if my faculties are right and the common notions of humane reason are true that I err not and I will never desire greater assurance that I am in the right then that my faculties are so and if the Sceptick will rather reject all certainty then acknowledge his faculties to be true his fancy is so odd that upon the same score he may cast himself from a precipice because its possible he might only dream that he was there But let us talk what we will of reason Sect. 6 yet we have as Mr. C. Mr. C. s 4. would perswade us our last speaking Judge as well as they viz. Our Ecclesiastical Synods or Bishops or Parliaments so that the result of all dispute must come to this whether the last speaking Judge in England or that in the whole Catholick Church deserves better to be believ'd and relyed on To this 1. Have not you your self expresly set down the difference of Protestant obedience from that of Papists unto the judgement of the Church whose words are these which we find in the thirteenth phragraph of this Chapter The Vniversal Church representative has an influence over the souls of men requiring much more then an external submission which yet is all that Protestants will allow to the most authentick General Councils Now what a vast difference is there between giving external submission as we do and internal assent to the truth of their decrees as you do 2. What Protestant ever asserted what your Church challengeth that our Convocations Bishops or Parliaments are Judges of our Faith or when did they themselves require that upon pain of damnation we should take up our faith upon their Authority nay when did they challenge any power over our minds and consciences do not our Divines affirm that our internal actions fall not under the verge or cognisance of any external power whatsoever whether Ecclesiastical or Temporal do we not teach that the end of the Government in the Church is to preserve its peace and unity and that whatsoever disturbs not them falls not under the Churches cogâ—isance and that therefore our Church doth not condemn or punish so all difference from her in opinion but for divulging these differing opinions which creates Schisms and Factions in the Church whom did our Convocations ever damn for not internally receiving their Decrees do they not leave every man to the liberty of his judgement and only challenge the Authority of it which all men resign up to the Governours of those Socieries of which they are members they do not require that we should in all things believe as they believe but that we should submit to their determinations and not contradict them their decisions are not obtruded as infallible Oracles but only submitted to in order to peace and unity which we esteem to be of an infinitely greater value then the propagation of any little truth So that their work is rather to silence then determine disputes or if they do positively determine they either do not then require that all should positively believe their determinations but expect that all should so far acquiese therein as not to proceed in opposing them and so make Schisms and divisions incurable or if they do require a positive assent it s not upon pretence of any infallibility as your Church doth but because the thing determined is so evident in Scripture as that all denying of it must be willful v. g. They do not require us to believe there is but one God upon their Authority but because it s expresly asserted in Scripture but in matters which Scripture hath left doubtful our Church permits her members every one to abound in his own sence because she knows no way to determine them but by Scripture and therefore Scripture not having clearly revealed them she dares not be so arrogant as positively to determine them What impudence then is it to charge us as if we had changed the Pope for my Lord of Canterbury and a General Council for a National Convocation and the Conclave of Rome for a Parliament at London giving that very Authority to the Church of England that we take from the Church of Rome when the difference is so infinitely great between the Authority which you give to your Church and we give to ours Whereas Mr. C. Sect. 7 tells us that we fight against Sectaries with the weapons of the Romanists and against Romanists turn Sectaries c. it s a most pitiful and false exception for we accuse not Sectaries for not believing our Church as the Romanists accuse us for not believing theirs but for not obeying her in things lawful and separating from her unnecessarily Who ever urged them to believe as the Church believes or who â—amns them for not doing it there are many Topicks used to