Spirit of the Son So Cyril expresly when Theodoret had denyed the Procession from the Son he gives no other Answer but this The Holy Spirit doth truly proceed from God and the Father according to our Saviours words but is not of another nature from the Son We see he contents himself with the acknowledgement that the Spirit is of the same nature with the Son To the same purpose is another testimony of his produced by the Patriarch Hieremias speaking of the Spirit whereby the Apostles spake he saies Which proceeded in an ineffable manner from the Father but is not different from the Son in regard of his essence Several other testimonies are there produced by him and elsewhere by others which need not be here recited 2. That when they use the particle ex it is against those who denyed the Consubstantiality both of the Son and Spirit and therefore Gregorius Palamas lay's down this Rule That as often as the praepositions ex and per have the same force in Divinity they do not denote any division or difference in the Trinity but only their conjunction and inseparable union and consent of their wills For which he cites the famous Epistle of Maximus to Marinus which was made the foundation of the Vnion at the Council of Florence who therein saith that when the Latins said in their Synodical Epistle sent to Constantinople that the Spirit did proceed ex filio they meant no more than to shew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the perfect and inseparable Vnion of the Divine Essence So when S. Basil saith that the Father did create the world per filium he adds that notes no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the conjunction of their Wills And by this means the Greeks interpret all those passages of the Fathers which seem most express for the Spirit 's proceeding ex filio So Marcus Ephesius tells the Latins in the Florentine Council that when we say Man comes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Essence of a man therein is not implyed that the Essence of man is the productive cause of man but only it notes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Communion of Essence which is in men so when the Greek Fathers speak of the Spirit 's proceeding ex filio that doth not imply that the Son is the Principle of Spiration but that there is a Communion of Essence between the Son and the Spirit So when Athanasius disputing against the Arrians saith the Patriarch Hieremias saith that the Spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Son is given to all and that the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Son in the Spirit doth create work and give all things you must consider that Athanasius was then disputing against the Arrians who made both Son and Spirit to be creatures that therefore he might shew that the Spirit was of the same Substance with the Father and the Son he therefore useth that preposition ex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very opportunely and conveniently Therefore saith he It is to be observed that he never useth this but in opposition to the Arrians and such who denyed the Divinity of the Holy Ghost To which purpose it is well observed by Spalatensis that when the Fathers of the Constantinopolitan Council did insert into their Creed the article of the Spirit 's Procession from the Father they did it not with a purpose to define any thing concerning the Procession as an article of Faith but that they might from those words of S. John inferr the Divinity of the Holy Ghost because it proceeds from the Father And withall it is further observable that in the Creed which Charisius delivered into and was accepted by the Council of Ephesus all that he sayes as to the Holy Ghost is And in the Spirit of Truth the Paraclete who is consubstantial with the Father and the Son By which that which Spalatensis saith is much confirmed for this Symbol of Charisius was accepted by the Council as agreeable to the Nicene Creed Thus we see how probable this Answer of the Greeks is That the intention of the Fathers in those expressions is only to assert the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father and the Son because when they used them it was in their disputes with them who denyed it And therefore Petavius spends his pains to very little purpose when going about to take off this answer of the Greeks he only shews that those expressions in themselves cannot be confined meerly to the signification of the Consubstantiality of the persons whereas the main force of this answer ly's in the intention and scope of the persons who used them and the adversaries they disputed against and not in the importance of the Articles themselves 2. The second answer of the Greeks is that most of those places which speak of the procession of the Spirit from the Son are not to be understood of the Eternal Procession but of the Temporal which is the same with the Spirits Mission This as the rest of the Greeks so the Patriarchs Hieremias and Cyril especially insist upon the first in his last answer to the Divines of Wirtenberg For when they in their reply to his second answer had produced several testimonies of Athanasius Cyril Epiphanius Basil and Nazianzen in behalf of the Spirit 's Procession from the Son he wonders at them that leaving the plain and clear places both of Scriptures and Fathers which do as he saith so openly proclaim the Spirit 's Procession from the Father only they should hope for relief from other obscure places which are capable of a different interpretation As from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which only relates to the Spirit 's manifestation and is quite different from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so cannot imply his Eternal Procession Therefore for the clearing the controversie and giving account of the mistakes in it he begins with the signification of the Spirit which when it is applyed to the Divine Spirit is capable of different significations being taken either for the several gifts of the Spirit or for the person of the Spirit and so though the word Procession be taken in a peculiar manner for the Eternal Procession of the Spirit yet it is not only some times attributed to the bestowing the forementioned gifts but likewise to the Eternal Generation of the Son and therefore whenever they meet with the word Procession attributed to the Spirit with a respect to the Son they must not presently infer the Eternal Procession but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there signifies no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. that the Spirit doth come through is sent and given by the Son which the Fathers often mention the better thereby to assert 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Identity of nature and essence which is in the Spirit with the Father and Son This he doth therein very largely explain
Infallibility cannot be de fide because not determined neither For if the Determination of the Church be necessary to make any thing de fide it must by the same reason be necessary to make your Churches Infallibility de fide and I suppose you will not readily instance in any decree of the Catholick Church where the Testimony of your Church is determined to be infallible And yet one would imagine that if there were such a necessity in order to Faith of the Infallible Testimony of your Church there would be an equal necessity of believing this Infallibility on the same Testimony or if one may believe one Article especially so important a one as that without any precedent infallible Testimony why not any other nay why not all the rest Thus you still see how uncertainties grow upon us when we search into your account of Faith 3. You are not certain neither What kind of Infallibility this is For you offer to prove the Church infallible by the same way that Moses Christ and his Apostles were proved infallible A very fair Offer if you could make it good but then we were in hopes you would have proved such a kind of Infallibility as they had you tell us No for your Infallibility is Supernatural but not Divine that it is precise Infallibility but not absolute that it is not by immediate Revelation but by immediate Assistance of the Holy Ghost Something you would have but you cannot tell what an Infallibility in the Conclusion without any in the Vse of means an Infallibility by immediate Assistance of the Holy Ghost yet but in a sort Divine an Infallibility yielding nothing to Scripture in point of Supernaturality and Certainty yet nothing so infallible as Scripture Are not these brave things to make wise men certain in their Religion with that they are to believe the Scriptures upon a Testimony infallible yet not infallible divine yet not divine and therefore certain but not certain true but not true But of the silliness of these Distinctions afterwards But can you think to perswade wise or rational men to believe their Religion on such terms as these are Had they no other evidence than what you give them would they not be shrewdly tempted to reject all Religion as a meer Imposture as no doubt your Doctrine of Infallibility is A strange kind of Talisman which secures your Pope from a possibility of erring but still he must be under the certain direction of his Stars for if he be not in Cathedrâ this Telesm doth him no good at all It were heartily to be wished if he should once happen to be in Cathedrâ he would infallibly determine what it was to be in Cathedrâ for ever after for it would ease mens minds of a great many troublesome scruples which they cannot without some infallible Determination get themselves quit of But still we are bound to believe your Church infallible But I pray whence comes this Infallibility Comes it from Heaven or is it of Men From Heaven no doubt you say for it is by a promise of the Holy Ghost This were something if it were proved but yet you maintain this Infallibility in such a manner that none that read the Scriptures could ever think it were promised there For there they alwaies read That the Spirit of Truth is a Spirit of Holiness and never dwells in those who are carnal or wicked men but you tell us That let the lives of Popes be what they will they have no promise to secure them from being wicked but the Spirit of God doth by immediate Assistance secure them from being fallible But I pray Which of these two is not only more contrary to Scripture but to Humane Nature Wickedness or Fallibility This latter so consequent upon the imperfection of our understandings that till we put off the one we can hardly be freed from the other but Wickedness is that which the whole design of Christian Religion is against and administers the highest Motives and the greatest Assistance for the conquest of and can it then be thought suitable to such a Doctrine that the Divine Spirit should like Mahomet's Dove be alwaies ready to whisper in the ear of the most profligate person if it be but his fortune to sit in Cathedrá Such a kind of Infallibility as this I assure you will never prevail with any such persons who understand Christian Religion to believe the Doctrine of it upon such pretences as yours are 4. Supposing you could tell men intelligibly and suitably to the Doctrine of Christianity What kind of Infallibility this is yet if you cannot satisfie them When your Church doth define infallibly you leave them still in the same Labyrinth without any clue to direct them out of it But if we consider what things are necessary to be believed before we can believe any definition of your Church infallible how impossible it is to be infallibly assured of any such definition of your Church sure you cannot blame us for crying out of the Labyrinth you have brought us into 1. How many things in Christian Religion are to be believed before we can imagine any such thing as an infallible Testimony of your Church And if the Infallibility of that be the ground of Faith on what account must those things be believed which are antecedent to the belief of such an infallible Testimony Now that many things and some of them far from being clear are to be believed antecedently to an infallible Testimony will appear if we do but consider what they commonly mean by that Church which they suppose infallible and what must be supposed that this Infallibility be the Rule of Faith By the Church they tell you they mean the Catholick Church but lest you should think them too honest in saying so at next word it is the Roman-Catholick Church just as if one should say the German-Vniversal Emperour But lest you should think at least they meant the Roman Church of all Ages and think you might have some relief from the Primitive Roman Church they will soon rectifie your mistakes by telling you it is the present Roman-Church they mean but if it be the present Roman-Church it may be you would be willing to hear the judgement of all the honest men in that Church and that you hope many of the people and learned men not in Orders may speak their minds freely To prevent that they tell you they mean only the representative Church But still the Bishops who make up this representative Church may in their several Synods complain of abuses and rectifie miscarriages therefore they understand not Bishops by themselves or particular Synods but met together in General Councils But yet if the Councils were truly Oecumenical there might be some hopes of redress But for that they are sure for they allow none to be members of the General Councils which are in Schism or Heresie and their own Church is to be Judge what
time viz. the direction of the Holy Ghost this spiritual power not being of humane but divine Institution and not proceeding so much from the abilities of the persons as from the co-operation of the Holy Spirit with them To which I reply that all this had need be more then thus barely asserted it being confessed by your selves as his Lordship shews that a General Council is a representative of the whole Church you ought to have shewed us the Divine Institution of this Representative and the promises made to it under that notion or else we may still say with his Lordship That all the power and assistance it hath is by vertue of that body which it represents But I need not in this urge the Arguments of Protestants against you for in this as in most other Controversies we have enough from those of your own party to oppose against these affirmations of yours For Albertus Pighius not only asserts but proves that General Councils are not of divine but humane institution arising from a dictate of right reason that matters of doubt may be better debated by many prudent and experienced persons then by a few So that as the supream authority for administration of affairs belongs to one so it is most agreeable to right reason that debates should be by many This he proves at large that nothing but humane reason is the foundation of Councils in the Church for saith he In Scripturis Canonicis nullum de iis verbum est nec ex Apostolorum institutione speciale quicquam de illis accepit illa primitiva Christi Ecclesia There is not a word of them in Scripture neither did the primitive Church receive any particular order from the Apostles concerning them which he from thence proves because in all the time of the primitive Church till the Nicene Council there is no mention at all of them And at that time it did not receive any new revelation concerning the celebrating General Councils but the Emperour Constantines zeal for the peace of the Church was the first cause and original of them From whence he concludes that they have no supernatural or divine Institution sed prorsus humanam but altogether humane for they are saith he The invention of Constantine sometimes useful but not at all necessary This man speaks intelligibly and not like those who jumble Pope and Council together to make something Infallible between them For he sayes It is the better way by far to go immediately to the Apostolical See and consult that as the Infallible Oracle in all doubts of Faith And very honestly tells us That he believes Constantine was ignorant of that priviledge of the Holy See when he first instituted General Councils Than which nothing could be spoken truer If you have then nothing more to say for the Divine Institution of General Councils then what you have acquainted us with it would be much more wisedom in you to contend with Pighius for the Popes Infallibility and let that of General Councils shift for it self His Lordships second Consideration you admit of viz. That though the Act which is hammered out by many together must needs be perfecter then that which is but the child of one mans sufficiency yet this cannot be Infallible unless it be from some special assistance of the Holy Ghost Therefore omitting your very impertinent addition to this consideration viz. So as to make its Decrees Infallible which is the thing in question We proceed to the third which is That the Assistance of the Holy Ghost is without errour which saith he is no question and as little that a Council hath it But the doubt that troubles is whether all assistance of the Holy Ghost be afforded in such a high manner as to cause all the definitions of a Council in matters fundamental in the Faith and in remote deductions from it to be alike Infallible From this last expression you would very subtilly infer contrary to his Lordships design That he granted General Councils to be Infallible in deductions as well as fundamentals but not to be alike Infallible whereas it is plain his Lordship means no more by alike Infallible then Whether the assistance be alike in both to make them Infallible And this you might easily perceive but it would have prevented your cavil about a graduated Infallibility which I know none assert but your self This Consideration brings on the main of the battel in those texts of Scripture which are most insisted on to prove the Infallibility of General Councils viz. John 16.13 I will send you the Spirit of Truth and he shall lead you into all Truth John 14.16 This Spirit shall abide with you for ever Matth. 28.20 Behold I am with you to the end of the world Matth. 16.18 The founding of the Church upon the Rock against which the gates of hell shall not prevail Luke 22.32 Christs prayer for St. Peter that his Faith should not fail Matth. 18.20 Where two or three are gathered together in my Name I will be in the midst of them Acts 15.28 It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us All which places except the two last have been already examined as far as concerns any promise of Infallibility in the questions concerning the Churches and the Popes Infallibility and there being no reason at all given why any Infallibility at all is promised by them to the Church after the Apostles times it may seem wholly needless to bestow a particular consideration again upon all of them For it is evident in those places all your drift and design is only to prove a promise of Infallibility in the Church and to the Councils only by vertue of that But having at large before shewed that no such thing can be inferred from these or any other places that which is built upon it is wholly taken away too For the only pretence that you have why Councils should be proved hence Infallible is because the Church hath Infallibility promised by these texts which must be very well proved and much better then you have done either here or elsewhere before the other can be deduced from hence And yet supposing I should grant that Infallibility was promised to the Church I see no such necessary consequence from thence that General Councils must be Infallible unless you can prove from Scripture that the Infallibility of the Church is meant of the Church representative and not diffusive which is a new task which you have not yet undertaken For it is not enough to say That the body of the Church is bound to believe and profess the doctrine taught by the representative and therefore the representative must be Infallible unless you could first prove that there is a necessity of some continued Infallible teaching by the Church representative which I despair of ever seeing done I am so far therefore from thinking as you do That these texts are sufficiently clear in themselves to prove
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
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
it to be so to be any matter of Faith unless we had better reason for it than we have For say you To refuse to believe God's Revelation is either to give God the lye or to doubt whether he speak truth or no But have you so little wit as not to distinguish between not believing God's Revelation and not believing what is propounded for God's Revelation Must every one who doth not believe every thing that is propounded for God's Revelation presently give God the lye and doubt whether he speak truth or no And are not you then guilty of that fault every time a Quaker or Enthusiast tells you That the Spirit of God within him told him this and that But you said Sufficiently propounded But the Question is What sufficient Proposition is and who must be Judge whether the Proposition be sufficient or no you or the conscience of the person to whom the thing is proposed to be believed If any one indeed that judgeth a Proposition sufficient do notwithstanding question the truth of it he doth interpretatively call God's Veracity into question but not he certainly who thinks not God's Veracity at all concerned in that which you call a sufficient Proposition but he judgeth not to be so Let us now see how you prove your Assumption which is very fairly done from a Supposition which his Lordship denies which is That General Councils cannot erre But say you he adds That though he should grant it yet this cannot down with him that all Points even so defined were Fundamentals I grant those are his words and his reasons follow them For Deductions are not prime and native Principles nor are Superstructures Foundations That which is a Foundation for all cannot be one and another to different Christians in regard of it self for then it could be no common Rule for any nor could the souls of men rest upon a shaking Foundation No if it be a true Foundation it must be common to all and firm under all in which sense the Articles of Christian Faith are Fundamental What now do you prove to destroy this You very strenuously prove That if men believe A General Council cannot erre they believe it cannot erre so far and no further than it cannot erre But if you mean any thing further your meaning is better than your proof for when you would prove that to disbelieve the Churches Definition is to dis-believe God's Revelation and in order to that confound the Church and General Councils together and from the General Council's not erring inferr the former Proposition because what is testified by the Church is testified by an Authority that cannot erre you do not consider that all this while you prove nothing against his Lordship unless you first prove that whatever is testified to be revealed from God is presently Fundamental to all Churches and Christians which his Lordship utterly denies by distinguishing even things which may be testified to be revealed from God into such things as are common to all Christians to be believed by them and such things as vary according to the different respects of Christians But yet further I add that taking Fundamentals in your sense you prove not the thing you intended but only to such as do acknowledge and as far as they do acknowledge that General Councils cannot erre For they who acknowledge them infallible only in Fundamentals do not judge any thing Fundamental by their Decision but judge their Decisions infallible so long as they hold to Fundamentals and so for all that I can see leave themselves Judges when General Councils are infallible and when not and therefore if they go about to testifie any thing as revealed from God which is not Fundamental they do not believe that their testimony cannot erre and so are not bound to believe that it is from God They who believe General Councils absolutely infallible I do verily think do believe General Councils infallible in all they say for that is the substance of all you say But what that is to those who neither do nor can see any reason to believe them infallible in all they say or testifie as revealed from God I neither do nor can possibly understand And if you hope such kind of Arguments can satisfie your ingenuous Reader you suppose him a good-natur'd man in the Greek sense of the phrase But all of a sudden we find you in a very generous strain and are contented to take Fundamentals for Fundamentals which is a huge Concession and his Lordship were he living would take it for a singular favour from you Yet to deal freely with the Bishop say you even taking Fundamentals in a General way as it ought to be taken only here for a thing belonging to the Foundation of Religion and it is a strange Fundamental which hath no respect to the Foundation but they who build downwards must have their Foundations on tops of their houses It is also manifest that all Points defined by the Church are Fundamental by reason of that formal Object or infallible Authority propounding them though not alwaies by reason of the matter which they contain The main proof of which lyes in this That he who doth not believe the Church infallible can believe nothing at all infallibly and therefore no Fundamental of Religion but if he believe any thing upon the Churches Infallibility he must believe all things on the same account of her Infallibility and therefore must believe all equally and so whatever is propounded by the Church is to be believed as Fundamental This you cannot deny to be the force and strength of your verbose and confused way of arguing And therefore I give you a short Answer That I utterly deny the Infallibility of any Church to be in any thing the Foundation of Divine and Infallible Faith as you will find it abundantly proved in the proper place for it in the Controversie of the Resolution of Faith Where it will be largely discussed in what sense Faith may be said to be Divine and Infallible what the proper grounds and reasons of our believing are and how much you impose upon the world in pretending that the Resolution of Faith is into the Catholick Churches Infallibility whereby it will appear to be far from a Fundamental Errour not to believe on the Churches Infallibility and that he who denies it will have no reason to call into Question the Canon of Scripture or the Foundations of all Religion But that you rather by these absurd and unreasonable pretences of yours have done your utmost to shake the true Foundations of Religion and advance nothing but Sceptiscism not to say Atheism in the world These things I take upon me to make good in their proper place and therefore shall not enter the discussion of them here but since this is the main and in truth the only Foundation of your Doctrine of Fundamentals the vanity falshood and absurdity of it cannot be sufficiently
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
should meet with some who should question this as it is probable you may do before we part I think it no difficult thing to answer this Argument of yours which in short is Every Article of Faith must be believed upon Divine Authority but that the Scriptures are the Word of God is an Article of Faith To which I answer If by an Article of Faith you mean that we must give an undoubted assent to then I grant that this is an Article of Faith but deny that every such Article must be believed upon Divine Authority if by an Article of Faith you mean something to be believed upon Divine Testimony then I grant that every such Article must be built on Divine Authority but shall desire you to prove that that Faith whereby I believe Scripture to be Scripture must be built on a Divine Testimony For I cannot see how any who say so can free themselves from a Circle and of all persons you have the least reason to say so for you deny the Churches Testimony to be properly Divine and withall the Argument is very easily retorted upon your self For say you Whatsoever is an Article of Faith must be believed on Divine Authority but that the Church is infallible I suppose to you is an Article of Faith Name therefore what Divine Authority the belief of that is built upon But Do not you say the belief of that is built on the Motives of Credibility and I suppose you distinguish them from Divine Authority or else they can do you no service for avoiding the Circle Either therefore deny that your Churches Infallibility is an Article of Faith or else deny it to be necessary that every Article of Faith must be built on Divine Authority and then farewell your old friends the Motives of Credibility or else you see how necessary it is for you if you will vindicate your self from contradiction to answer this Argument and when you have done so you will believe I did not much dread the force of it The rest of that Paragraph is a bare Repetition the fourth or fifth time of your distinction about the Formal Object of Faith and the infallible Assurance of it which is a thing in it self so incongruous and unreasonable that I had thoughts mean enough of you when I met with it first but have much meaner now I meet with it so often for I see as pitiful a shift as it is you have no other to make use of on all occasions His Lordship goes on to prove that since it is confessed between him and his Adversary That we must be able to prove the Scriptures to be the Word of God by some Authority that is absolutely Divine this Authority cannot be that of the Church For the Church consists of men subject to errour and all the parts being all liable to mistaking and fallible the whole cannot possibly be infallible in and of it self and priviledged from being deceived in some things or other To this you answer His Lordship's Argument that the whole may erre because every part may erre is disproved by himself because in Fundamentals he grants the whole Church cannot erre and yet that any particular man may erre even in those points But is it not plain that his Lordship's design is to prove that if all the parts are fallible the Authority of the whole cannot be simply Divine and therefore he saith himself that in Fundamentals in which the Vniversal Church cannot erre her Authority is not Divine because the Church is tyed to the use of means You must therefore prove that when every part is acknowledged fallible the Authority of the whole in propounding any thing to be believed can be infallible in and of it self I cannot therefore understand how the perfection of Infallibility in the proposition of any Object to be believed can be applied to the whole Church when every particular member of it in such a Proposition is supposed to be fallible The Arch-Bishop therefore tells you That there is special immediate Revelation requisite to the very least degree of Divine Authority to avoid which you would fain prove that there may be absolute Infallibility without Divine Authority and immediate Assistance of the Holy Ghost in delivering Objects of Faith without immediate Revelation You tell us therefore Though the Church use means yet she receives not her Infallibility from them but from the Assistance of the Holy Ghost which makes her Definitions truly infallible though they be not new Revelations But How do you prove that any thing but an immediate Divine Revelation can make such a Divine Testimony which is supposed necessary for the belief of Scripture to be Scripture How can you make it appear that there can be Infallibility in the Conclusion where there was not Infallibility in judging of the Truth of the Premises You say By the Assistance of the Holy Ghost But why should you not believe such an Assiance in the one as well as the other If therefore you assert that the Spirit of God doth not assist infallibly in the use of the means but only in the conclusion then it must be an immediate Revelation for what else it should be is not intelligible For I had thought the Revelation had been immediate when somewhat more was discovered than all use of means could attain to therefore the Churches Infallibility must be a meer Enthusiasm No say you Because it only declares what was formerly revealed Though that be a Question among some of your selves yet supposing it to be so it clears not the business For suppose that God had supernaturally assisted the Vnderstanding of any Prophet in declaring a Prophecy which had been revealed before Would not this have been as immediate a Revelation to that Prophet as if it had been a New Prophecy And the case is the same here for though you say the Material Objects of Faith be revealed before yet we cannot know the Formal Object of Faith without your Churches declaration so that on your Principles there cannot lye an Obligation to Faith on us without your Churches Definition and therefore that is as necessary to us as immediate Revelation and to the Church it self when you say The Infallibility proceeds so immediately from God that if the Church should fall into errour that would be ascribed to God as much as in case of Divine Revelation What difference can you make between them For it is not Whether the Object be new or old which makes an immediate Revelation but the immediate Impression of it on the understanding For if the Spirit of God doth immediately discover to any one a thing knowable by natural causes is it any thing the less an immediate Divine Revelation So it must be in things already revealed if the same things be discovered in an immediate infallible manner to the mind of any the Revelation is as immediate as if they had never been revealed before Your last Paragraph affords
is roving and uncertain 2. That notwithstanding his brags he must have recourse to a private spirit himself 3. That though the Bishop would seem to deny it diverse eminent Protestants do resolve their Faith into the private spirit This being the substance of what you say I shall return a particular Answer to each of them For the first you tell us He delivers himself in such a roving way of discourse as signifies nothing in effect as to what he would drive at No that is strange when that which his Lordship drives at is to shew how far this opinion is to be allowed and how far not which he is so far from roving in that he clearly and distinctly propounds the state of the question and the resolution of it which in short is this If by the testimony of the spirit be meant any special revelation of a new object of Faith then he denies the truth of it at least in an ordinary way both because God never sends us to look for such a testimony and because it would expose men to the danger of Enthusiasms but if by the testimony of the Spirit be meant the habit or the act of Divine infused Faith by vertue of which they believe the object which appears credible then he grants the truth but denyes the pertinency of it because it is quite out of the state of the question which inquires only after a sufficient means to make this object credible against all impeachment of folly and temerity in believing whether men do actually believe or not And withal adds that the question is of such outward and evident means as other men may take notice of as well as our selves Judge you now whether this may be called roving if it be so I can freely excuse you from it in all the discourses I have met with in your Book who abhorre nothing more then a true stating and methodical handling any question But yet say you the Bishop cannot free himself from that imputation of recurring to the private Spirit against any that should press the business home Sure you refer us here to some one else who is able to press a business home for you never attempt it your self and instead of that only produce a large testimony out of A. C. That he did not acquit the Bishop wholly of this Whether he did or no is to little purpose and yet those very words which his Lordship cites are in your testimony produced out of him Only what you add more from him that he must be driven to it that his Lordship denies and neither A. C. or you have been able to prove it But though the Bishop seems not only to deny any such private revelation himself but will not confess that any Protestants hold it yet you say there can be no doubt in this since Calvin and Whitaker do both so expresly own it But according to those principles laid down before both these testimonies are easily answered For 1. Neither of them doth imply any private revelation of any new object but only a particular application of the evidence appearing in Scripture to the conscience of every Believer 2. That these testimonies do not speak of the external evidence which others are capable of but of the internal satisfaction of every ones conscience Therefore Calvin saith Si conscientiis optimè consultum volumus c. if we will satisfie our own consciences not If we will undertake to give a sufficient reason to others of our Faith So Whitaker Esse enim dicimus certius illustrius testimonium quo nobis persuadeatur hos libros esse sacros c. There is a more certain and noble testimony by which we may be perswaded that these Books are sacred viz. that of the Holy Ghost 3. Neither of these testimonies affirm any more than the more judicious Writers among your selves do Your Canus asserts the necessity of an internal efficient cause by special assistance of the Spirit moving us to believe besides and beyond all humane authorities and motives which of themselves are not sufficient to beget Faith and this a little after he calls Divinum quoddam lume◠incitans ad credendum A divine light moving us to believe and again Interius lumen infusum à Spirit◠Sancto An inward light infused by the Spirit of God There is nothing in the sayings of the most rigid Protestants is more hard to explain or vindicate from a private revelation then this is if as you say one would press it home Nay hath not your own Stapleton Calvins very phrase of the necessity of the secret testimony of the Spirit that one believe the testimony and judgement of the Church concerning Scripture And is there not then as much danger of Enthusiasm in believing the Testimony of your Church as in believing the Scriptures Nay doth not your Gregory de Valentiâ rather go higher then the testimonies by you produced out of Calvin and Whitaker on this very subject in the beginning of his discourse of the resolution of Faith It is God himself saith he in the first place which must convince and perswade the minds of men of the truth of the Christian Doctrine and consequently of the Sacred Scriptures by some inward instinct and impulse as it appears from Scripture it self is fully explained by Prosper If you will then undertake to clear this inward instinct and impulse upon the minds of men whereby they are perswaded of the truth of Christianity and Scripture from Enthusiasm and a private spirit you may as easily do it for the utmost which is said by Calvin or Whitaker or any other Protestant Divine This therefore is only an argument of your desire to cavil and as such I will pass it over For what concerns the influence which the Spirit hath in the resolution of Faith it will be enquired into afterwards The last way mentioned in order to the resolution of Faith is that of Reason which his Lordship saith cannot be denyed to have some place to come in and prove what it can According to which he tells us no man can be hindred from weighing the tradition of the Church the inward motives in Scripture it self all testimonies within which seem to bear witness to it and in all this saith he there is no harm the danger is when a man will use no other scale but reason or prefer reason before any other scale Reason then can give no supernatural ground into which a man may resolve his Faith that the Scripture is the word of God infallibly yet Reason can go so high as it can prove that Christian Religion which rests upon the authority of this Book stands upon surer grounds of nature reason common equity and justice then any thing in the world which any Infidel or meer naturalist hath done doth or can adhere unto against it in that which he makes accounts or assumes as Religion to himself This
report of such men whom I can make it appear could have no interest in deceiving you A. I can see no reason to the contrary Will you then believe such men who lost their lives to make it appear that their Testimony was true A. Yes Will you believe such things wherein persons of several Ages Professions Nations Religions Interests are all agreed that they were so A. Yes if it be only to believe a matter of fact on their Testimony I can see no ground to question it That is all I desire of you and therefore you must believe that there was in the world such a person as Jesus Christ who dyed and rose again and while he lived wrought great miracles to confirm his Doctrine with and that he sent out Apostles to preach this Doctrine in the world who likewise did work many miracles and that some of these persons the better to preserve and convey this Doctrine did write the substance of all that Christ either did or spake and withall penned several Epistles to those Churches which were planted by them These are all matters of fact and therefore on your former Principle you are to believe them There are then but two Scruples left Supposing all this true yet this doth not prove the Doctrine Divine nor the Scriptures which convey it to be infallible To which I answer 1. Can you question Whether that Doctrine be Divine when the person who declared it to the world was so divine and extraordinary a person not only in his conversation but in those frequent and unparalleld Miracles which he wrought in the sight and face of his enemies who after his death did rise again and converse with his Disciples who gave evidence of their fidelity in the Testimony they gave of it by laying down their lives to attest the Truth of it Again Can you question the Divinity of that Doctrine which tended so apparently to the destruction of sin and wickedness and the power of the evil Spirit in the world For we cannot think he would quit his possession willingly out of the bodies and souls of men that therefore which threw him out of both must be not only a Doctrine directly contrary to his interest but infinitely exceeding him in power And that can be no less than Divine But still you will say Is it not besides all this necessary to believe these very Books you call the Scripture to be divinely inspired and how should I know that To that I answer 1. That which God chiefly requires from you is the belief of the Truth and Divinity of the Doctrine for that is the Faith which will bring you to obedience which is the thing God aims at 2. If you believe the Doctrine to be True and Divine you cannot reasonably question the Infallibility of the Scriptures For in that you read that not only Christ did miracles but his Apostles too and therefore their Testimony whether writing or speaking was equally infallible all that you want evidence for is that such persons writ these Books and that being a matter of fact was sufficiently proved and acknowledged before Thus you see if we take a right method and not jumble things confusedly together as you do what a satisfactory account may be given to any inquisitive person first of the Reasonableness next of the Truth and lastly of the Divinity both of the Doctrine and the Books containing it which we call the Scripture Let us now again see How you make the Bishop and Heathen dispute The substance of which is That you make your Heathen desire no less than infallible evidence that the Bible is God's VVord by conviction of natural reason whereas his Lordship attempts only to make the Authority of Scriptures appear by such Arguments as unbelievers themselves could not but think reasonable if they weighed them with indifferency For though saith he this Truth That Scripture is the VVord of God is not so demonstratively evident à priori as to inforce assent yet it is strengthened so abundantly with probable Arguments both from the Light of Nature it self and Humane Testimony that he must be very wilful and self-conceited that shall dare to suspect it And sure any reasonable man in the world would think it sufficient to deal with an adversary upon such terms But saies your Heathen A man cannot be infallibly certain of what is strengthened with but probable Arguments since that which is but probably true may also be said to be but probably false Which being a thing so often objected against us by your party must be somewhat further explained How far Infallibility may be admitted in our belief may partly be perceived by what hath been said already and what shall be said more afterwards That there is and ought to be the highest degree of actual Certainty I assert as much as you But say you The very Arguments being but probable destroy it To which I answer by explaining the meaning of probable Arguments in this case whereby are not understood such kind of Probabilities which cannot raise a firm Assent in which sense we say That which is probable to be is probable not to be but by Probabilities are only meant such kind of rational Evidence which may yield a sufficient foundation for a firm Assent but yet notwithstanding which an obstinate person may deny Assent As for Instance if you were to dispute with an Atheist concerning the Existence of a Deity which he denies and should proceed with you just as your Heathen doth with the Bishop Sir All that Religion you talk of is built only upon the belief of a God but I cannot be infallibly convinced by natural reason that there is such a one You presently tell him that there is so much evidence for a Deity from the works of nature the consent of all people c. that he can have no reason to question it But still he replies None of these are demonstrations for notwithstanding I have considered these I believe the contrary but demonstrations would make me infallibly certain these then are no more but probable Arguments and therefore since it is but probably true it may be probably false How then will you satisfie such a person Can you do it any otherwise than by saying that we have as great Evidence as the nature of the thing will bear and it is unreasonable to require more Unless you will tell him it is to no purpose to believe a God unless he believe it infallibly and there being no infallible Arguments in nature he must believe it on the Infallibility of your Church And do you not think this were an excellent way to confute Atheists But when we speak of probable Arguments we mean not such as are apt to leave the mind in suspence whether the thing be true or no but only such as are not proper and rigid demonstrations or infallible Testimony but the highest Evidence which the nature of the thing will bear
which Cyprian replies Whence comes this Tradition doth it descend from the Lords Authority or from the Commands and Epistles of the Apostles for those things are to be done which are there written And again If it be commanded in the Gospel or the Epistles and Acts of the Apostles then let this holy Tradition be observed We see then what St. Cyprian meant by his Apostolical Tradition not one Infallibly attested by the present Church but that is clearly derived from Scripture as its fountain and therefore brings in the foregoing words on purpose to correct the errours of Traditions that As when channels are diverted to a wrong course we must have recourse to the fountain so we must in all pretended Traditions of the Church run up to the Scriptures as the fountain-head And whereas Bellarmins only shift to avoid this place of Cyprian is by saying that Cyprian argued more errantium i. e. could not defend one errour but by another see how different the judgements of St. Augustine and Bellarmin are about it for St. Augustin is so far from blaming it in him that he saith Optimum est sine dubitatione faciendum i. e. It was the best and most prudent course to prevent errours And in another place where he mentions that saying of Cyprian It is in vain for them to object Custom who are overcome by Reason as though custom were greater than truth or as though that were not to be followed in spiritual things which is revealed by the Holy Ghost This saith St. Augustin is evidently true because reason and truth is to be preferred before custom He doth not charge these sayings on him as Bellarmin doth as part of his errours but acknowledgeth them and disputes against his opinion out of those principles And when before the Donatists objected the authority of St. Cyprian in the point of Rebaptization What kind of answer doth St. Augustine give them the very same that any Protestant would give Who knows not that the sacred Canonical Scripture of the Old and New Testament is contained within certain bounds and ought so far to be prefer'd before the succeeding writings of Bishops that of that alone we are not to doubt or call in question any thing therein written whether it be true and right or no. But as he saith in the following words All the writings since the confirmation of the Canon of Scripture are lyable to dispute and even Councils themselves to be examined and amended by Councils Think you then that St. Augustin ever thought of a present Infallibility in the Church or if he did he expressed it in as odd a manner as ever I read How easily might he have stopt the mouths of the Donatists with that one pretence of Infallibility How impertinently doth he dispute through all those Books if he had believed any such thing It were easie to multiply the Citations out of other Books of St. Austin to shew how much he attributed to Scripture as the only rule of Faith and consequently how farr from believing your Doctrine of Infallibility But these may suffice to shew how unhappily you light on these Books of St. Augustine for the proof of your opinion out of the Fathers The last thing your Discourser objects against his Lordships way is If the Church be fallible in the Tradition of Scripture how can I ever be Infallibly certain that she hath not erred de facto and defined some Book to be the Word of God which really is not his Word To which I answer If you mean by Infallible certainty such a certainty as must have some Infallible Testimony for the ground of it you beg the question for I deny any such Infallible Testimony to be at all requisite for our believing the Canon of Scripture and therefore you object that as an inconvenience which I apprehend to be none at all For I do not think it any absurdity to say that I cannot believe upon some Infallible Testimony that the Church hath not erred in defining the Canon of Scripture If by Infallible certainty you mean such a certainty as absolutely excludes a possibility of deception you would do well first to shew how congruous this is to humane nature in this present state before you make such a certainty so necessary for any act of humane understanding But if by Infallible certainty you mean only such as excludes all possibility of reasonable doubting upon the consideration of the validity and sufficiency of that Testimony I am to believe the Canon of Scripture upon then I assert that upon making the Churches Testimony to be fallible it doth not at all follow but that I may have so great a certainty as excludes the possibility of all reasonable doubting concerning the Canon of Scripture For when I suppose the Churches Testimony fallible I do not thereby understand as though there were as great reason to suspect her deceived as not nay I say there can be no reason to suspect her deceived but by that I understand only this that the Church hath not any supernatural Infallibility given her in delivering such a Testimony or that such Infallibility must be the foundation of believing the thing so delivered For whether I suppose your particular Church of Rome or the Catholick Church to be supernaturally Infallible in her Traditions there will be the same difficulty returning and an equal impossibility of vindicating our Faith from the entanglements of a Circle For still the question unavoidably returns From whence I believe such a supernatural Infallibility in the Church For in that it is supernatural it must suppose some promise on which it depends that promise must be somewhere extant and that can be no where but in Scripture therefore when I am asked Why I believe the Canon of the Scripture to be true if I answer Because the Tradition of the Catholick Church is Infallible the question presently returns Since humane nature is in it self fallible whence comes the Church to have this Infallibility If I answer By the assistance of Gods spirit I am presently asked Since no man by the light of nature and meer reason can be assured of this how know you that you are not deceived in believing such an assistance If to this I answer Because God who is Infallible hath made this promise in his Word I am driven again to the first question How I know this to be Gods Word and must answer it as before Upon the infallible Testimony of the Catholick Church Thus we see how impossible it is to avoid a Circle in the supposition of a supernatural Infallibility in the Churches Tradition But if no more be meant but a kind of rational Infallibility though those terms be not very proper i. e. so great evidence as if I question it I may upon equal grounds question every thing which mankind yields the firmest Assent to because I cannot imagine that so great a part of the wisest and most considerative
can desire that they are infallibly conveyed to us 1. If the Doctrine of Christ be True and Divine then all the Promises be made were accomplished Now that was one of the greatest That his Spirit should lead his Apostles into all Truth Can we then reasonably think that if the Apostles had such an infallible Assistance of the Spirit of God with them in what they spake in a transitory way to them who heard them that they should want it in the delivering those Records to the Church which were to be the standing monuments of this Doctrine to all Ages and Generations If Christ's Doctrine therefore be True the Apostles had an infallible Assistance of God's Spirit if they had so in delivering the Doctrine of Christ by preaching nothing can be more unreasonable than to imagine such should want it who were employed to give an account to the world of the nature of this Doctrine and of the Miracles which accompanied Christ and his Apostles So that it will appear an absurd thing to assert that the Doctrine of Christ is Divine and to question whether we have the infallible Records of it It is not pertinent to our Question in what way the Spirit of God assisted them that wrote Whether by immediate suggestion of all such things which might be sufficiently known without it and whether in some things which were not of concernment it might not leave them to their own judgement as in that place When they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs when no doubt God's Spirit knew infallibly whether it was but thought not fit to reveal it whether in some lighter circumstances the Writers were subject to any inadvertencies the negative of which is more piously credible whether meer historical passages needed the same infallible Assistance that Prophetical and Doctrinal these things I say are not necessary to be resolved it being sufficient in order to Faith that the Doctrine we are to believe as it was infallibly delivered to the world by the preaching of Christ and his Apostles so it is infallibly conveyed to us in the Books of Scripture 2. Because these Books were owned for Divine by those Persons and Ages who were most competent Judges Whether they were so or no. For the Age of the Apostles was sufficiently able to judge whether those things which are said to be spoken by Christ or written by the Apostles were really so or no. And we can have no reason at all to question but what was delivered by them was infallibly true Now from that first Age we derive our knowledge concerning the Authority of these Books which being conveyed to us in the most unquestionable and universal Tradition we can have no reason in the world to doubt and therefore the greatest reason firmly to assent that the Books we call the Scripture are the infallible Records of the Word of God And thus much may suffice in general concerning the Protestant Way of resolving Faith I now return to the examination of what you give us by way of answer to his Lordship's discourse The first Assault you make upon his Lordship is for making Apostolical Tradition a ground of Faith but because your peculiar excellency lyes in the involving plain things the best service I can do is to lay things open as they are by which means we shall easily discern where the truth lyes I shall therefore first shew how far his Lordship makes Apostolical Tradition a ground of Faith and then consider what you have to object against it In that Section which your Margent referrs to all that he sayes of it is That the Voice and Tradition of that Church which included in it Apostles Disciples and such as had immediate Revelation from Heaven was Divine and the Word of God from them is of like validity written or delivered And as to this Tradition he saith there is abundance of Certainty in it self but how far it is evident to us shall after appear At the end of the next n. 21. he saith That there is double Authority and both Divine that confirms Scripture to be the Word of God Tradition of the Apostles delivering it and the internal worth and argument in the Scripture obvious to a soul prepared by the present Churches Tradition and Gods Grace But n. 23. he saith That this Apostolical Tradition is not the sole and only means to prove Scripture Divine but the moral perswasion reason and force of the present Church is ground enough for any one to read the Scripture and esteem reverently of it And this once done the Scripture hath then In and home-arguments enough to put a soul that hath but ordinary Grace out of doubt that the Scripture is the Word of God infallible and Divine I suppose his Lordships meaning may be comprized in these particulars 1. That to those who lived in the Apostolical times the Tradition of Scripture by those who had an infallible Testimony was a sufficient ground of their believing it infallibly true 2. That though the conveyance of that Tradition to us be not infallible yet it may be sufficient to raise in us a high esteem and veneration for the Scripture 3. That those who have this esteem for the Scripture by a through studying and consideration of it may undoubtedly believe that Scripture is the Divine and Infallible Word of God This I take to be the substance of his Lordships discourse We now come to examine what you object against him Your first demand is How comes Apostolical Primitive Tradition to work upon us if the present Church be fallible Which I shall answer by another How come the decrees of Councils to work upon you if the reporters of those Decrees be fallible If you say It is sufficient that the Decree it self be infallible but it is not necessary that the reporter of those Decrees should be so The same I say concerning the Apostolical Tradition of Scripture though it were infallible in their Testimony yet it is not necessary that the conveyance of it to us should be infallible And if you think your self bound to believe the Decrees of General Councils as infallible though fallibly conveyed to you Why may not we say the same concerning Apostolical Tradition Whereby you may see though Tradition be fallible yet the matter conveyed by it may have its proper effect upon us Your next Inquiry if I understand it is to this sense Whether Apostolical Tradition be not then as credible as the Scriptures I answer freely supposing it equally evident what was delivered by the Apostles to the Church by word or writing hath equal Credibility You attempt to prove That there is equal evidence because the Scripture is only known by the Tradition of the Church to be the same that was recommended by the Apostolical Church which you have likewise for Apostolical Tradition But 1. Do you mean the same Apostolical Tradition here or no which the Arch-Bishop
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
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
Customs controverted between the Papists and us which no doubt is the true reason why the three first ages are declined by Cardinal Perrone yet there is not the least shadow of pretence why they should be silent in this present Controversie since the great business of their writings was to vindicate the Christian Faith to perswade the Heathens to believe it and to manifest the grounds on which they were induced to believe themselves If therefore in this they do unanimously concurr with that resolution of Faith I have already laid down nothing can be desired more for the evidence and confirmation of the truth of our way than that it is not only most consonant to Scripture but built on the truest Reason and was the very same which the Primitive Christians used when they gave an account of their Faith Which I shall do not by some mangled citations but deducing it from the scope and design of their writings and drawing it successively down from the first after the Apostles who appeared in Vindication of the Christian Faith I begin with Justin Martyr who as Photius saith of him was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not far from the Apostles either in time or virtue and who being a professed Philosopher before he became a Christian we may in reason think that he was more inquisitive into the grounds of Christian Faith before he believed and the more able to give an account of them when he did Whether therefore we consider those arguments which first induced him to believe or those whereby he endeavours to perswade others to it we shall find how consonant and agreeable he is to our grounds of Faith how far from any imagination of the Churches Infallibility In the beginning of his excellent Dialogue with Trypho where if I may conjecture he represents the manner of his conversion in a Platonical way introducing a solemn conference between himself and an ancient person of great gravity and a venerable aspect in a solitary place whither he was retired for his meditations Pet. Halloix is much troubled who this person should be Whether an Angel in humane shape or a man immediately conveyed by an Angel to discover Christianity to him which when he had done he was as suddenly carried back again Scultetus I suppose from this story asserts Justin Martyr to be converted by Divine Revelation But if I be not much mistaken this whole Conference is no more than the setting forth the grounds of his becoming a Christian in the Platonical mode by way of Dialogue and probably the whole Disputation with Trypho may be nothing else but however that be it is apparent Trypho looked on him as a Platonist by his Pallium and Justin Martyr owns himself to have been so and therefore it was very congruous for him to discourse after the Academick manner In which discourse when Justin Martyr had stood up in vindication of the Platonick Philosophy and the other Person endeavours to convince him of the impossibility of attaining true happiness by any Philosophy For when Justin had said That by Philosophy he came to the Knowledge of God the other person demanded How they could know God who had never seen him nor heard him He replied That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God was only intelligible by our minds as Plato said He again asks Whether there were such a faculty in the minds of men as to be able to see God without a Divine Power and Spirit assisting it Justin answers that according to Plato the eye of the understanding was sufficient to discover that there is such a Being which is the cause of all things but the nature of it is ineffable and incomprehensible Upon which he proceeds to enquire What relation there was between God and the Souls of men and what means to come to the participation of him after a great deal of discourse on which subject between them Justin comes at last to enquire if there were no truth and certainty in Philosophy By whose instruction or by what means he should come to it To which that person returns this excellent Answer That there had been a long time since several persons much elder than the reputed Philosophers blessed men just and lovers of God speaking by the inspiration of the Divine Spirit foretelling things which have come to pass since whom they call Prophets These only saw the Truth and declared it to men neither flattering nor fearing any nor conquered with the love of honour But they only spake the things which they heard and saw being filled with the Holy Spirit Whose Books are still extant which whosoever reads and assents to will find himself much improved in the principles and ends of things and whatever becomes a Philosopher to know For they write not by way of argument or demonstration but that which is above it they are most faithful witnesses of Truth For the things which have and do come to pass do enforce men to believe the Truth of what they spake And not only so but they are most worthy to be believed for the Miracles which they wrought Moreover they extol the Maker of the World God and the Father and declare to the World his Son Christ which the false Prophets who are acted by a seducing and impure spirit neither have done nor yet do do but they attempt to shew some tricks for the amazement of men and cry up the evil and deceiving spirits But do thou above all things pray that the gates of light may be opened to thee For these things are not seen nor understood by all but only by them to whom God and Christ shall grant the knowledge of them A most signal and remarkable Testimony as any is extant in all Antiquity for acquainting us with the true grounds and reasons of Faith which therefore I have at large produced The very reading of which is sufficient to tell us How true a Protestant this whether Angel or Man was When Justin asked him What Teachers he should have to lead him to Truth He tells him There had been long before Philosophers excellent persons in the world called Prophets men every way good who did nothing for fear or favour or love of themselves But Justin might further ask How he should come to be instructed by them He tells him Their Writings were still extant wherein were contained such things as might hugely satisfie a Philosophical mind concerning the Origine and Principles of things He might still enquire Whether those things were demonstrated or no in them No he replies but they deserve assent as much if not beyond any demonstration because they manifest themselves to be from God by two things the exact accomplishment of the Prophecies made by them and the unparalleld Miracles which were wrought by them But might not the evil spirits work such things No For although their false Prophetsâ—ay â—ay do several things to amaze men yet they can do no
such Miracles as 〈◊〉 did besides all which they do tends to advance these evil spirits in the world but the design of the true Prophets is to declare the True God and his Son Christ. But May then any one by the innate power of his mind yield a divine assent to these things No but pray earnestly to God to enlighten your mind for this is the effect of Divine Grace in and through Christ. What part is there now of our resolution of Faith which is not herein asserted If you ask Why you believe there were such men in the World as these Prophets The continuance of their Books and common Fame sufficiently attest it If you ask Why you should believe them to be True Prophets The excellency of their Doctrine joyned with the fulfilling Prophecies and working Miracles abundantly prove it But if you lastly ask Whether besides objective evidence there be not some higher efficient requisite to produce a Divine Faith The Answer is That depends upon the Grace of God in Christ So that here we have most evidently all those things concurring which his Lordship asserts in the resolution of Faith Moral inducement preparing the mind rational evidence from the thing into which Faith is resolved and Divine Grace requisite in the nature of an efficient cause But Where is there the least intimation of any Churches Infallibility requisite to make men believe with a firm and Divine Faith No doubt that was a Divine Faith which Justin was bid to pray so heartily for and which was only in those to whom it was given and yet even this Faith had no other assurance to build it self upon but that rational evidence which is before discovered That Divine Person never thought of mens believing with their Wills much less that the Books of Scripture had no more evidence of themselves than distinction of colours to a blind man he did not think Christ an Ignoramus or Impostor because he left no Church infallible nor that God by the Prophets laid a Foundation upon sand or that would last but a few years because he did not continue such an Infallible Assistance as the Prophets had to the Church in all ages yet these are all brave assertions of yours which doubtless you would be ashamed of and recant if you had not as Casaubon saith of the Person whom you could not tell whether he was a Jesuit or no but by that character you might guess it that he had frontem ferream cor involutum a brow of steel and a heartfull of Meanders to use your own fine expression Upon this Justin tells us a divine ardour was raised in his mind and a love of the Prophets and such as were the Friends of Christ and upon further consideration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I found this the only certain and profitable Philosophy and thereupon commends the Doctrine of Christ to Trypho and his Company for something which was certainly innate to it that it had a kind of awe and majesty in it and is excellent at terrifying and perswading those who were out of the right way and brings the sweetest tranquillity to such as are conversant in it And afterwards undertakes to demonstrate the truth of our Religion from the reasonableness of it that we have not yielded our assent to vain and empty Fables nor to assertions uncapable of evidence and demonstration but to such as are filled with a Divine Spirit overflowing with Power and flourishing with Grace And accordingly manageth his discourse quite through shewing the insufficiency of the Ceremonial Law and the Truth and Excellency both of the Person and Doctrine of Christ. But what need all this if he had believed your Doctrine It had been but proving the Church Infallible by Motives of Credibility and then to be sure whatever was propounded to be believed by it was infallibly true But older and wiser it seems must hold here to Justin though so near the Apostles times went a much further way about but it was well for him he lived so long ago else he might have been accused of Heresie or making Faith uncertain if he had lived in our times and such Doctrine of his might have merited an Index Expurgatorius But it seems he was not afraid of it then for he often elsewhere speaks to the same purpose For in his Paraenesis to the Greeks he makes it his business first to shew the unreasonableness of believing those who were the great Authours of all their superstitions for the Poets were manifestly ridiculous the Philosophers at continual dissentions among themselves so that there was no relying on them for the finding out of Truth or the redress of the miseries of humane nature and then comes to the Authours of our Religion who were both much elder than any of theirs and did not teach any thing of their own heads nor dissented from one another in what they delivered or sought to confute each other as the Philosophers did but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without all jarring and contention they delivered to men the Doctrine which they received from God For saith he it was not possible for them to know such great and divine things by nature or humane wit but by a heavenly gift descending from above upon holy men It seems Justin believed there was such evidence in the matters contained in Scripture which might perswade men to believe that they came from God that they were but as instruments to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he expresseth it to that Divine Spirit which did strike upon them whence with one consent and harmony they sound forth the Doctrine of God the worlds Creation and Mans the Immortality of the soul Judgment to come and all things else which are necessary for us to know which they unanimously deliver to us though at great distances from each other both in regard of time and place And so proves the Antiquity of the Writings of Moses above all the Wise men of the Greeks by the testimony of their own Authours Polemon Appion Ptolomaeus Mendesius and many others and concludes his discourse with this speech That it is impossible for us to know any thing certainly concerning God or Religion but from Divine Inspiration which alone was in the Prophets In his first Apology for the Christians he tells us what it was while he was a Platonist which brought him to a good Opinion of Christianity which was the observing the power and efficacy that Doctrine had upon the Christians to undergo with so much courage what was accounted most terrible to humane nature which are death and torments From whence he reasoned with himself that although the Christians were so much calumniated yet certainly they could not be vitious persons who were so little fearful of those great Bug-bears of humane nature For Who is there that is a lover of pleasure or intemperate or cruel that can chearfully embrace death so as thereby to be deprived
within two years these strangely confounded The mistake made evident S. Cyril not President in the third General Council as the Popes Legat. No sufficient evidence of the Popes Presidency in following Councils The justness of the Exception against the place manifested and against the freedom of the Council from the Oath taken by the Bishops to the Pope The form of that Oath in the time of the Council of Trent Protestants not condemned by General Councils The Greeks and others unjustly excluded as Schismaticks The exception from the small number of Bishops cleared and vindicated A General Council in Antiquity not so called from the Popes General Summons In what sense a General Council represents the whole Church The vast difference between the proceedings in the Council of Nice and that at Trent The exception from the number of Italian Bishops justified How far the Greek Church and the Patriarch Hieremias may be said to condemn Protestants with an account of the proceedings between them HAving thus far considered the several grounds on which you lay the charge of Schism upon us and shewed at large the weakness and insufficiency of them we should now have proceeded to the last part of our task but that the great Palladium of the present Roman Church viz. the Council of Trent must be examined to see whether it be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or no whether it came from Heaven or was only the contrivance of some cunning Artificers And the famous Bishop of Bitonto in the Sermon made at the opening the Council of Trent hath given us some ground to conjecture its original by his comparing it so ominously to the Trojan-horse Although therefore that the pretences may be high and great that it was made Divina Palladis arte the Spirit of God being said to be present in it and concurring with it yet they who search further will find as much of Artifice in contriving and deceit in the managing the one as the other And although the Cardinal Palavicino uses all his art to bring this Similitude off without reflecting on the honour of the Council yet that Bishop who in that Sermon pleaded so much That the Spirit of God would open the mouths of the Council as he did once those of Balaam and Caiaphas was himself in this expression an illustrious Instance of the truth of what he said For he spake as true in this as if he had been High-Priest himself that year But as if you really believed your self the truth of that Bishops Doctrine That whatever spirit was within them yet being met in Council the Spirit of God would infallibly inspire them you set your self to a serious vindication of the proceedings of that Council and not only so but triumph in it as that which will bring the cause to a speedy Issue And therefore we must particularly enquire into all the pretences you bring to justifie the lawfulness and freedom of that Council but to keep to the Bishops Metaphor Accipe nunc Danaûm Insidias crimine ab uno Disce omnes And when we have thorowly searched this great Engine of your Church we shall have little reason to believe that ever it fell from Heaven His Lordship then having spoken of the usefulness of free General Councils for making some Laws which concern the whole Church His Adversary thinks presently to give him a Choak-pear by telling him That the Council of Trent was a General Council and that had already judged the Protestants to hold errours This you call Laying the Axe to the Root of the Tree that Tree you mean out of which the Popes Infallible Chair was cut for the management of this dispute about the Council of Trent will redound very little to the honour of your Church or Cause But you do well to add That his Lordship was not taken unprovided for he truly answered That the Council of Trent was neither a Legal nor a General Council Both these we undertake to make good in opposition to what you bring by way of answer to his Lordships Exceptions to them That which we begin with is That it was not a Legal Council which his Lordship proves First Because that Council maintained publickly that it is lawful for them to conclude any Controversie and make it to be de Fide and so in your judgement fundamental though it have not a written word for its warrant nay so much as a probable testimony from Scripture The force of his Lordships argument I suppose lyes in this that the Decrees of that Council cannot be such as should bind us to an assent to them because according to their own principles those Decrees may have no foundation in Scripture And that the only legal proceeding in General Councils is to decree according to the Scriptures Now to this you answer That the meaning of the Council or Catholick Authours is not that the Council may make whatever they please matter of Faith but only that which is expressed or involved in the Word of God written or unwritten and this you confess is defined by the Council of Trent in these terms that in matters of Faith we are to rely not only upon Scripture but also on Tradition which Doctrine you say is true and that you have already proved it And I may as well say It is false for I have already answered all your pretended proofs But it is one thing Whether the Doctrine be true or no and another Whether the Council did proceed legally in defining things upon this principle For upon your grounds you are bound to believe it true because the Council hath defined it to be so But if you will undertake to justifie the proceedings of the Council as legal you must make it appear that this was the Rule which General Councils have alwaies acted by in defining any thing to be matter of Faith But if this appear to be false and that you cannot instance in any true General Council which did look on this as a sufficient ground to proceed upon then though the thing may since that Decree be believed as true yet that Council did not proceed legally in defining upon such grounds Name us therefore What Council did ever offer to determine a matter of Faith meerly upon Tradition In the four first General Councils it is well known What authority was given to the Scripture in their definitions and I hope you will not say That any thing they defined had no other ground but Tradition But suppose you could prove this it is not enough for your purpose unless you can make it appear that those Fathers in making such Decrees did acknowledge they had no ground in Scripture for them For if you should prove that really there was no foundation but Tradition yet all that you can inferr thence is That those Fathers were deceived in judging they had other grounds when they had not But still if they made Scripture their Rule and
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
this way If you say that experience shews Christ never intended this by the errours of particular men in all ages To the same purpose we answer you as to Councils that large experience shews that when Bishops have solemnly met in Council they have been grosly deceived as you confess in all the Arrian Councils If your argument would have ever held from the power and goodness of Christ Would it not have held at that time when so great a matter of Faith was under debate If Christ therefore suffered so many Bishops so grosly to erre in a matter of such importance wherein the Church was so highly concerned How can you inferr from his power and goodness that he will never suffer General Councils to erre If you answer That these erred for not observing the conditions requisite in order to Christs hearing them viz. that they were not met in the name of Christ did not come without prejudice nor rely on Divine Assistance I pray take the same Answer as to all other Councils that we cannot know that Christ hears them or that they are Infallible till we are assured of their performance of the conditions requisite in order to that Infallibility And when you can assure us that such a Council met together in the name of Christ and came meerly with a desire to find out truth and relyed wholly on his assistance for it we do not so much distrust the power and goodness of Christ as to think he will suffer them to be deceived For we know upon those conditions he will not suffer any good man to erre much less an Assembly of them met in a General Council But here you have the hardest task of all lying upon you which is to prove that a General Council hath observed all these conditions without which nothing can be inferred from this place as to Christs being in any sense in the midst of them The last place mentioned for the Infallibility of General Councils is that Act. 15.28 Where the Apostles say of themselves and the Council held by them It seems good to the Holy Ghost and to us And saith his Lordship they might well say it For they had infallibly the assistance of the Holy Ghost and kept close to his direction But there is a great deal of difference between them and succeeding Councils who never arrogated this to their definitions though they presumed of the assistance of the Holy Ghost and though that form might be used yet they did not assume such an Infallibility to themselves as the Apostles had And therefore it is little less than blasphemy in Stapleton to say That the Decrees of Councils are the very Oracles of the Holy Ghost And that all Councils are not so Infallible as was this of the Apostles nor the causes handled in them as there they were is manifest by the ingenuous confession of Ferus to that purpose This is the substance of his Lordships Answer to this place Which you think to take off by saying That there 's no essential difference between the certainty of the things determined by the Apostles and those decided by a General Council confirmed by the Roman Bishop and though after-Councils use not the same expression in terms yet they do it in effect by enjoyning the belief of their decisions under the pain of Anathema If this be the meaning of the Anathema's of Councils there had need indeed be no great difference between the Apostles Decrees and theirs But this had need be very well proved and so it is by you for you produce several expressions of Cyril Athanasius Austin Leo Gregory and some others out of Bellarmin in which they magnifie the Decrees of General Councils calling them a Divine Oracle a Sentence inspired by the Holy Ghost not to be retracted and some others to the same purpose by which you vindicate Stapleton and tell us he said no more than the Fathers had done before him Yet all this is far from any vindication of Stapleton or proving your assertion as to the equal certainty of the Decrees of Councils and of the Apostles For the ground of all those expressions and several others of the same nature was not the supposition of any inherent Infallibility in the Decrees of General Councils but their great assurance of the truth of that Doctrine which was determined by those first General Councils For although I am far enough from believing the Council of Trent Infallible yet if that had determined the same points of Faith which were determined in the first four General Councils and nothing else I might have said That the Decree of that Council was a Holy and Divine Oracle a Sentence inspired by the Holy Ghost c. not that I thought the Council in the least Infallible in determining these things but that they were of themselves Divine Truths which the Council determined And in this sense Athanasius might well term the definition of the Nicene-Council against Arius the word of our Lord which endureth for ever and Constantine stile it a coelestial mandate and Gregory might reverence the four first Councils as the four Gospels though Bellarmin tells you that expression must be taken in a qualified sense yet all these and any other of a like nature I say import no more than that they were fully assured the matters decreed by them were revealed by God in his Word and not that they believed that they became such holy and divine Oracles meerly by the Councils definition For the contrary might be abundantly manifested by many expressions in them quite to another purpose and if instead of all the rest you will but read Athanasius and Hilary concerning Councils you will find your self strangely deceived if you believed they ever thought them Infallible What you add afterwards that it is sufficient that there be a real Infallibility though not like to that of the Apostles will not be sufficient for me till you can shew me the degrees of Infallibility for I will promise you if you can once prove that Councils are really Infallible I shall not stick to say That they are alike Infallible with the Apostles As for your discarding Ferus as a prohibited Authour it only shews the great integrity of the man who spoke too much truth to be born by the tender ears of the Roman Inquisition Before I had proceeded any further I had thought because of a former promise to have looked back to the place where you speak in vindication of the decretal Epistles but because you only referr to Turrianus his defence of them I shall only return you an equal courtesie and referr you to the abundantly sufficient Answer to him by David Blondel One would have thought you should have been ashamed of so notorious an imposture as those decretal Epistles are but we see what shifts a bad cause puts you upon that such men as Ferus Cassander Erasmus are under an Index Expurgatorius but the
it is to say It is Infallible and not Infallible at the same time and about the same thing and in the same manner For What is drawing a Conclusion but a discerning that truth which results from the connexion of the premises together for that which is concluded hath all its truth depending upon the evidence of the premises otherwise it is a simple Proposition and not a Conclusion If you had then said That the Spirit of God did immediately reveal to the Council the truth of what was to be decreed you had spoken that which might have been understood though not believed but this you durst not say for fear of the charge of Enthusiasms and new Revelations but when you say The Council must use means and make Syllogisms as other fallible creatures do but then it is Infallible in the drawing the Conclusion from the premises though it be fallible in the connexion of those premises is an unparalleld piece of profound non-sense For suppose the matter the Council was to determine was the Popes Infallibility in order to the proving this you say The Council must use all arguments tending to prove it there comes in Christ's Prayer for S. Peter that his Faith should not fail and that this must be extended to his Successors thence the argument is formed Whomsoever Christ prayed for that his Faith should not fail is Infallible but Christ prayed for the Pope that his Faith should not fail therefore he is Infallible Now you say The Council is fallible in the use of the means for this Conclusion i. e. it may not infallibly believe the truth of the major or minor Proposition but yet it may infallibly deduce thence the Conclusion though all the strength of the Conclusion depends upon the truth of the premises You must therefore either assert that the Decrees of Councils are immediately revealed as Divine Oraclâ—s or else that they are fallible Conclusions drawn from fallible premises And were it not for a little shame because of your charging others with immediate Revelations I doubt not but you would assert the former which you must of necessity do if you will maintain the Infallibility of General Councils for if there be any infirmity in the use of the premises it must of necessity be in the Conclusion too But suppose you mean an Infallible Assent to the matter of the Conclusion though it be fallibly deduced you are as far to seek as ever for Whereon must that Assent be grounded It must be either upon the truth of the premises or something immediately revealed If on the truth of the premises the Assent can be no stronger than the grounds are on which it is built if on something revealed it must needs be still an immediate Revelation But I forget my self all this while to urge you thus with absurdities consequent from reason for in answer to his Lordship you grant That it is a thing altogether unknown in nature and art too that fallible principles can either as Father or Mother beget or bring forth an Infallible Conclusion for when his Lordship had objected this you return him this Answer That this is a false supposition of the Bishop for the Conclusion is not so much the child of those premises i. e. it is not the Conclusion as the fruit of the Holy Ghost directing and guiding the Council to produce an Infallible Conclusion whatever the premises be true or false certain or uncertain all is a case This is necessary for the peace and unity of the Church to believe Contradictions and therefore not to be denied unless an impossibility be shewed therein I doubt believing contradictions is accounted no impossibility with you But I hope no man will attaque Gods Omnipotency and deprive him of the power of doing this Is it come to that at last Whatever you assert that is repugnant to the common reason of mankind and involves contradictions in it that you call for Gods Omnipotency to help you in Thus Transubstantiation must be believed because God is Omnipotent and that men may believe any thing though not grounded on Scripture and repugnant to Reason because God is Omnipotent We acknowledge God's Omnipotency as much as you but we dare not put it to such servile uses to make good any absurd imaginations of our brains If you had said It was possible for God to enlighten the minds of the Bishops in a General Council either to discern infallibly the truth of the premises or immediately to reveal the truth of the Conclusion you had spoken intelligible falshoods But to say that God permits them to be fallible in the use of the means and in drawing the Conclusion from them but to be Infallible in the Conclusion it self without any immediate Revelation and then to challenge Gods Omnipotency for it I know not whether it be a greater dishonour to God or reproach to humane understanding And if such incongruities as these are do not discover that you are miserably hampered as his Lordship saith in this argument I know not what will But we must proceed to discover more of them two things his Lordship very rationally objects against Stapletons assertion That the Council is discursive in the use of the means but prophetical in delivering the Conclusion 1. That since this is not according to principles of nature and reason there must be some supernatural Authority which must deliver this truth which saith he must be the Scripture For if you fly to immediate Revelations the Enthusiasm must be yours But the Scriptures which are brought in the very exposition of all the Primitive Church neither say it nor enforce it Therefore Scripture warrants not your prophecy in the Conclusion Neither can the Tradition Produce one Father who sayes This is an Vniversal Tradition of the Church that her definitions in a General Council are prophetical and by immediate Revelation Produce any one Father that sayes it of his own authority that he thinks so To all this you very gravely say nothing and we can shrewdly guess at the reason of it 2. His Lordship proves That it is a repugnancy to say That the Council is prophetical in the Conclusion and discursive in the use of the means for no Prophet in that which he delivered from God as Infallible truth was ever discursive at all in the use of the means Nay saith he make it but probable in the ordinary course of prophecy and I hope you go no higher nor will I offer at Gods absolute power but his Lordship was deceived in you for you run to Gods Omnipotency that that which is discursive in the means can be prophetical in the Conclusion and you shall be my great Apollo for ever And this he shews is contrary to what your own Authours deliver concerning the nature and kinds of prophecy and that none of them were by discourse To this you answer That both Stapleton and you deny that the Church is simply prophetical
as 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
believe him he did as much want all moral means for finding out the truth as another since he so ingenuously confessed at another audience That he was old and had never studied Divinity But What need he to do it that could so easily be inspired by kneeling at the feet of a Crucifix Your Doctrine then would not be very well taken at Rome that General Councils are a necessary Medium to his Holiness in order to the definition of matters of Faith No more would your following Distinction in vindication of Stapleton That though the Pope acquires no new power or certainty of judgement by the presence of a General Council and there is something thereby which conduceth to the due exercise of that power So that it must be an usurpation or undue exercise of power for the Pope to offer to define without a General Council I know not what liberty you have to write these things among us but if you were at Rome you durst not venture to do it Your saying that Bellarmin only sayes That the firmness of a Council in regard of us depends wholly on the Popes Confirmation argues you had very little to say For What firmness hath a Council at all in this dispute but in regard of us since you look on men as obliged to believe the Decrees of it Infallible And if the Decrees had any Infallibility from the Council that might make them firm in regard of us as well as the Pope But you object to your self That if the Pope be Infallible without the Council and the Council subject to errour without the Pope it must needs follow that all the Infallibility of General Councils proceeds from the Pope only not partly from the Pope and partly from the Council To which you answer That the assertors of that Opinion of whom you must be one if you know what you say may say that Christ hath made two promises to his Church the one to assist her Soveraign Head and Pastor to make him Infallible another to assist General Councils to make them so But What need this latter if the former be well proved For if the Head be Infallible by vertue of a promise from Christ he must be Infallible whether in Council or out of it And therefore it is a ridiculous shift to say The Pope hath one promise to make him Infallible in a General Council ano-to make him so out of it But I commend you that since you thought one would not hold you would have two strings for the Popes Infallibility And it is but adding a third promise to the Church in general and then your threefold cord may be surely Infallible You give many Reasons but none so convincing as Experience Why the Popes should not be Impeccable and if you search Scripture Antiquity and Reason you may find as much why he should not be Infallible For that of the necessity of one and not the other for the Church is of your own devising it having been sufficiently proved that the certainty of Faith doth not at all depend upon the Popes or your Churches or Councils Infallibility And it seems still very strange to all who know the doctrine and promises of Christianity and that the promotion of Holiness is the great design of it and that Faith signifies nothing without Obedience and that the Spirit of God is a Spirit of Holiness as well as Truth that you dare challenge such an assistance of the Divine Spirit as may make your Popes Infallible who have led lives quite contrary to the Gospel of Christ. Nay such lives as his Lordship saith as no Epicurean Monster storied out to the world hath out-gone them in sensuality or other gross impiety if their own historians be true Your vindication of Pope Liberius his submitting his judgement to Athanasius because the Pope had passed no definition ex Cathedrâ in the business hath no strength at all unless you first prove that the Popes definitions ex Cathedrâ were held Infallible then which none would ever believe that read the passage which his Lordship cites out of Liberius his Epistle to Athanasius For as he saith The Pope complemented exceeding low that would submit his unerring judgement to be commanded by Athanasius who he well knew could erre Whether S. Ambrose in his Epistle meddles with any doctrinal definitions or only with some difficulties which that year happened about the observation of Easter the fourteenth of the first month falling on the Lords day is not very material to our purpose But that it was something else besides Astronomical definitions which I know what S. Ambrose's excellency was in might easily appear if you had read the Epistle So that you might have spared your large account of the Paschal Letters sent by the Bishops of Alexandria about the keeping of Easter which are no great novelties to such who are at all acquainted with Antiquity and given us a fuller account why in such a matter of dispute about the right of the day to be kept that year the Roman Bishops should not rather have stood to the Popes definition than write to S. Ambrose if it had been then taken for granted that the Pope was Infallible But I might as well have passed by this testimony of S. Ambrose as you do that of Lyra which is so express for the Erring and Apostatizing of several Popes that you thought the best Answer to it were to let it alone However you come off with the story of Peter Lombard which is not of that consequence to require any further examination of the truth of it I am sure you are hard put to it in the case of Honorius when you deny that Honorius did really maintain the Monothelites Heresie and excuse the Councils Sentence by saying it was only in case of mis-information Since it manifestly appears by the sixth Synod action 13. that they condemned his Epistle written to Sergius as containing heretical and pernicious Doctrine in it And in the seventh Synod he is reckoned up with Arrius Macedonius Eutyches Dioscorus and the rest of condemned Hereticks among whom he is likewise reckoned by Leo 2. in his Epistle to Constantine Which evidence is so great that Canus wonders at those who would offer to vindicate him And in the mean time you provide excellent moral means for the Pope to judge of matters of Faith by in General Councils if they may be guilty of so gross mis-information as you suppose here in the case of Honorius and not one barely but three successively the sixth seventh and eighth and the whole Church from their time till Albertus Pighius who first began to defend him For conclusion of this point his Lordship would fain know since this had been so plain so easie a way either to prevent all divisions about the Faith or to end all Controversies did they arise why this brief but most necessary proposition The Bishop of Rome