hath as much Authority over our Church as the Rulers of it have over the Members Which ought not to have been supposed but substantially proved since the Weight of the Cause depends upon it But I see nothing like a Proof produced 2. That the Sectaries have as much reason to reject the Terms of Communion required by our Church as our Church had to reject those of the Church of Rome But this is as far from being proved as the other 2. The Defender desires to be instructed how such an Authority can be in a Church without Infallibility I hope he believes there may be Authority without Infallibility or else how shall Fathers govern their Children But not in the Church Why so Have not Bishops out of Councils Authority to rule their Diocesses Have they not a Provincial Synods Authority to make Canons tho they be not Infallible What then is the meaning of this He tells us soon after To say a Church is Fallible is to say she may be deceived There is no doubt of that And if she may be deceived her self they may be deceived who follow her And if a Church pretends to be Infallible which is not she certainly deceives those that follow her and that without Remedy But all this sort of Reasoning proceeds upon a false Suggestion viz. That our Faith must be grounded on the Chuach's Authority as the formal Reason of it Which he knows is utterly denied by us and ought to have been proved We declare the Ground of our Faith is the Word of God not interpreted by Fancy but by the Consent of the whole Christian Church from the Apostles Times This is our Bottom or if you will the Rock on which our Church is built This is far more firm and durable than a pretence to Infallibility which is like a desperate Remedy which Men never run to but when they see nothing else will help them Had the Church of Rome been able to defend her Innovations by Reason or Antiquity she had never thought of Infallibility It is a much better expedient to keep Men in Error than to keep them from it and tends more to save the Authority of a sinking Church than the Souls of Men. But he will not let the Church's Infallibility go thus For he pretends to prove that if we take that away we make Christianity the most unreasonable Thing in Nature nay absolutely impossible What! whether God hath promised to make the Church Infallible or not We understand those who offer to prove the Church Infallible by Scripture but these Scientifical Men despise such beaten Roads and when they offer to demonstrate fall short of the others Probabilities As will appear by examining his Argument Faith requires an assent to a thing as absolutely true but a fallible Authority cannot oblige me to a thing as absolutely true and therefore this would be an Effect without a Cause a down-right Impossibility a flat Contradiction I will match his Argument with another Faith is not an Assent to a thing as absolutely true upon less than a Divine Testimony but the Church's Testimony is not Divine and therefore to believe upon the Church's Testimony is an Effect without a Cause a down-right Impossibility a flat Contradiction Let him set one of these against the other and see who makes Faith unreasonable or impossible But I will clear this Matter in few words I grant that Faith is an Assent to a thing as absolutely true and that what is absolutely true is impossible to be false I grant that a meer fallible Authority is not sufficient to produce an Act of Faith. But here I distinguish the Infallible Authority of God revealing into which my Faith is resolved as into the formal Reason of it from the Authority of the Church conveying that Revelation which is only the Means by which this Revelation comes to be known to us As when a Man swears by the Bible there is a difference between the Contents of that Book by which he swears and the Officers putting the Book into his hands 3. The Church of England is blamed for allowing no Liberty of Appeals to a higher Judicature The Question is Whether this makes her no true Church or not to have any just Authority over her own Members The Replier saith She makes her self the last Tribunal of Spiritual Doctrine I know not where she hath done so since we own the Authority of Free and truly General Councils as the Supreme Tribunal of the Church upon Earth And accordingly receive the four first which even S. Gregory the Great distinguished from those that followed as to their Authority and Veneration The Defender had a good mind to cut off the Church of England from being a Church because she hath renounced Communion with the Church of Rome but his heart failed him And I hope he will think better of it when he sees cause to prove a little more effectually that the Church of Rome in its largest extent is the Catholick Church He argues That there must be such an Authority in a Church which may give a final Sentence conclusive to the Parties as the Judges do Temporal Differences But is it necessary for all Churches to have such a Power then there must be as many Supreme Courts as there are Churches If not we desire to know where the Supreme Court is and who appointed it And where Christ hath ever promised to his Church a Power to end Controversies when they arise as effectually as Judges do Temporal Differences For the freest and most General Councils yet assembled have not been so happy and those we look on as the most Venerable Authority to decide Differences in the Church But still our Church wants sufficient Authority in his Opinion Doth it want Authority to govern its own Members To Reform Abuses in a divided State of the Catholick Church To cast off an usurped Power as it was judged by the Clergy in Convocation who yet concurred in other things with the Church of Rome I pray what Authority had the Gallican Church so lately to declare against the Pope's Infallibility and to reduce him in that respect to the Case of an ordinary Bishop If Absolute Obedience be due to him as Head of the Church what Authority have the Temporal Princes in other Countries sometimes to forbid sometimes to restrain and limit the Pope's Bulls This at least shews that there may be just Authority to examine and restrain the Pope's Power And I see no Reason why the several Churches of Christendom may not act as well against the Pretence of the Pope's Authority as the Gallican Church hath done against his Infallibility especially since this Gentleman hath told us that Authority without Infallibility signifies nothing And those who think they may examine and reject his Dictates may do the same by his Authority the one being as liable as the other It was said in the Papers That no Country can subsist in
the adding German to it restrains the sense of Ocean to it within certain bounds and excludes many parts of the great Ocean which are without those limits Just so it is in adding Roman to Catholic Catholic alone comprehends all the Parts of the Church but Roman added to it confines the Sense of it to those who embrace the Faith received in the Roman Communion and this excludes all other Parts of the Catholic Church and so makes a Part to be the Whole 2. I objected farther that if this had been the Catholic Church meant in the Creeds this limitation ought to have been expressed in the Creeds and put to Persons to be baptized which being never done in the Roman Church it self I thence inferr'd that it did not believe it self to be the one Catholic Church which we profess to believe in the Creeds Here the Author of the Reply answers that Catholic and Roman Catholic were in the Language of Antiquity one and the same thing and this point being never called in Question in the time when the Creeds were published there was no occasion to put Roman into the Creeds no more than of putting in Consubstantial with the Father till it was denied This were a substantial way of answering the Difficulty if it would in any measure hold But I shall now prove just the Contrary to have been the Sense of Authority by plain and undeniable Instances in matters of fact in most of the Ages of the Christian Church from the very next to the Apostolical down to the Council of Trent To which I shall only premise this which I think no Roman Catholic will deny me viz. that the Roman Catholic Church doth imply Obedience to the Bishop of Rome as Supream visible Head of the Church under Christ. For Bellarmin and others make not only Faith and Sacraments necessary to the Being of the Church but submission to lâ—wful Pastors and especially to the Pope as Christ's only Vicar upon Earth and he placeth the Essential Unity of the Catholic Church in the Conjunction of the members under Christ and hâ—s Vicar as Head of the Church And from hence he excludes Schismaticks out of the Catholic Church though they have Unity of Faith and Sacraments and Hope and Spirit And the Roman Catechism makes Union with the Pope as visible Head of the Church necessary to the Unity of the Catholiâ— Church And the Proofs I bring shall not be from short or doubtful sentences but from remarkable passages and notorious Acts of the Church In the First Age of the Church the name Catholic was as little known as the Authority of the Roman Church it not being once found in the Apostolical Writings for the Inscriptions of the Catholic Epistles are of latter times And if they were allowed to be Apostolical they would be far from proving any thing to this purpose since the Roman Church is never mentioned in these Epistles unless under the name of Babylon and I suppose they would not like the Title of the Catholic Babylonish Church But in all the directions of the Apostles concerning Unity of Faith there is not one which gives the least intimation that the Roman Church in any sense was to be the Rule or Standard of Faith or Communion In the Second Age we find two remarkable Instances that the Communion of the Catholic Church was not to be taken from Conjunction with the Bishop of Rome as Head of it The first is from the Bishop of Rome's approving the Prophecies of Montanus Prisca and Maximilla This would hardly appear credible if Tertullian had not expresly affirmed it and he farther saith that had it not been for Praxeas a Heretick he had taken them into the Communion of the Catholic Church and he prevailed with him to revoke his communicatory Letters already past What a Case had the Catholic Church been in at this time if the Bishop of Rome had been look'd on as the Centre of Catholic Communion and if he had not been better informed by Praxeas a Heretick The second in the same Age is when Victor took upon him to excommunicate the Eastern Bishops for not celebrating Easter at the same time they did at Rome If now the Eastern Bishops did own the Roman-Catholic and Catholic Church to be the same they must shew it at such a time by their regard to the Pope's sentence as Head of the Catholic Church but they owned no such Authority he had over them and instead of it Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus with a Council of Bishops joyning with him about A. D. 197 wrote a smart Epistle to Victor wherein they let him know they would go on in their way notwithstanding his threats and that it was better to obey God than Man. From whence it is observable That they followed their own judgment against the Pope's and that they believed the Pope required things of them so contrary to the Will of God that they resolved to disobey him And his requiring their compliance was no Argument of his Authority but of his Usâ—rpation In the Third Age happen'd a famous contest between Stephen Bishop of Rome and the Eastern and African Bishops about Re-baptizing Hereticks I meddle not now with the Controversie it self but with the Sense of those Bishops upon occasion of it as to the Roman-Catholic Church The Bishop of Rome did at least threaten to Excommunicate the African Bishops And if Firmilian may be believed he did actually Excommunicate the Asian Bishops How did these Primitive Bishops behave themselves under this Sentence They charge Stephen with Insolence Folly Contempt of his Brethren and breaking the Peace of the Catholic Church and cutting himself off from the Unity of it The words are abscindere se à Charitatis unitate alienum se per omnia fratribus facere Now I desire to know whether these Bishops believed the necessary conjunction of Roman and Catholic together And whether Bishop of Rome were thought to be the Centre of Communion in the Catholic Church It is plain they made him the Cause of the Schism and thought themselves never the less in the Catholic Church for being out of the Roman Communion In the Fourth Age the Government and Subordination of the Catholic Church was established in the Council of Nice according to ancient Custom but we read not a word of the Roman Catholic Church there or any Priviledge or Authority the Bishop of Rome had but within his own Province and such as the Bishops of Antioch and Alexandria had in theirs And when the Bishop of Rome in that Age interposed to restore some Bishops cast out of Communion by the Eastern Bishops they declared against it as a violation of the Rules of the Catholic Church and this became the Occasion of the first Breach between the Eastern and Western Churches In the same Age Liberius Bishop of Rome joyned with the Eastern Bishops in casting Athanasius out of the Catholic Church and
the Roman-Catholic Church This is the meaning of a whole Page or else it has none Suppose this to be true and it proves what I intend For either this Catholic Faith is the same which was required to Baptism or not If the same then no more is required than owning the Creeds to make a Member of the Roman-Catholic Church if not the same then those who are Members of the Catholic Church by Baptism are not Members of the Roman Catholic till a farther Profession of the Roman Faith and consequently the Catholic Church and the Roman-Catholic are not the same since those may be Members of the Catholic Church who are not of the Roman-Catholic Can any thing be plainer And the Replier is so much a Gentleman to own the Truth of it For these are his words that Baptism enters persons into the Catholic Church who though they be out of the Communion of the Roman Church yet having the true form of Baptism are Members of the Catholic Church Therefore the Catholick Church and Roman-Catholic cannot be the same Which was all I intended to prove But he saith that as Baptism enters them into the Catholic Church so Heresie Apostasie or Infidelity casts them out or else the old Hereticks which he reckons up were still Members of the Catholic Church I answer that my Argument was not concerning the old Hereticks who rejected any Article of the â—reed which was delivered at Baptism and the owning of it required in order to it but concerning the Roman-Catholic Church which makes the owning New Articles of Faith necessary in order to its Communion and if this Church reject any from its Communion who do own the Articles of the Creeds it follows from thence that it is not the Catholic Church into which Persons are admitted by Baptism But no Man if an Heretick though baptized can remain in the Church If he be convicted of renouncing the Creed upon the owning whereof he was received to Baptism he casts himself out of the Church for he doth not stand to his Promise If you mean that any thing which the Roman-Catholic Church declares to be Heresie casts a Man out of the Catholic Church I do utterly deny it and I see no Reason brought to prove it 4. I argued that in a divided State of the Church there may be different Communions and yet both may remain Parts of the Catholic Church for which I instanced in the Excommunications of old about keeping Easter and the Differences between the Eastern and Western Churches but to appropriate the title of the One Catholic Church to any one of the divided Parties so as to exclude the rest was to charge that Party with the Schism as in the case of the Novatians and Donatists and consequently to apply the One Catholic Church to the Roman was to make it guilty of the present Schism in the Christian World. Both the Defender and Replier behave themselves in their Answers to this as if they did not understand what I aimed at and therefore run out into things by the bye as if they thought there were no difference between saying something to a Book and giving an Answer to it What I can pick up which seems material I will set down distinctly The Replier takes notice that I said that before the Unhappy Divisions of the Christian Church it had been no difficulty to have shewed that one visible Church which Christ had here upon Earth to which he answers that there were Divisions in the Apostles times and the same Means which were then used to preserve the Unity of the Catholic Church did equally serve for after Ages and continue to this day and so the Unity of the Catholic Church is still as visible as ever it was This in few words I take to be the force of what he saith But certainly there was a time when the Unity of the â—atholic â—hurch was a little more discernable than now it is Doth not the Scripture tell us the Multitude was of one heart and one Soul Are all Christians so at this day I grant afterward there were Schisms and Heresies in the Apostolical Churches But the Apostles had an Infallible Spirit which they manifested by the Power of Miracles going along with it by which means the Heresies were laid open and the Schisms stopped But what were those Heresies Such as contradicted the Articles of the Creed as about the Truth of Christ's Incarnation and the Resurrection of the Dead c. and therefore the Apostles by the Assistance of that Infallible Spirit did write Epistles to the Churches to declare that which was to be the standing Faith of all Ages and by an unquestionable Tradition in the Church of Rome they summ'd up these Fundamental Points of Faith in that which is therefore called the Apostles Creed This was therefore the Standard whereby to judge of Faith and Heresie and by this they proceeded in the Ages succeeding the Apostles Afterwards some did not bare faced contradict the Articles of the Creed but broached such Doctrines as did by consequence overthrow them as the Arians by making a Creature God the Nestorians and Eâ—tychians denying in effect the Truth of Christ's Incarnation against these the General Councils assembled and the Eastern and Western Churches joyned in condemning them not from their own Authority as Supreme or Infallible Judges but as the most Authentic Witnesses of the true Apostolical Doctrine And thus the Creed was enlarged by general Consent through the whole Catholic Church and that which was called the Nicene Creed was made the standard of Catholic Communion But to prevent any Mischief by overcharging the Creed the General Council of Ephesus did absolutely forbid any farther additions to be made to it and the Council of Chalcedon ratified that prohibition All that they pretended to was only to give the true Sense of the Articles therein received about the Incarnation of Christ and the same was declared by the fifth and sixth General Councils whereof the one was to clear the Council of Chalcedon from favouring Nestorianism and the other to shew that the Humane Nature in Christ was perfect as to the Affections of the Soul as well as the Body But after this a mighty Breach happen'd between the Eastern and Western Churches and setting aside the different Customs in both which might easily have been composed there were two things which made this breach irreconcileable 1. The Western Churches taking upon them to make a New Addition to the Creed as to the Spirit 's proceeding from the Son without asking the Consent of the Eastern Churches 2. The Bishop of Rome's assuming to himself an Authority of Headship over the Catholic Church They did not deny him a Primacy of Order as he had the first Patriarchal See but when he took upon him to exercise Jurisdiction in the other Patriarchates as well as his own and sent Legates for that purpose they rejected his Authority and so the
order to the Establishment of it i. e. he would not have failed to have told us who were to make up that Supreme Court and where it was to Sit. For these things were necessary to the end of it Shall we then say that Christ was not yet resolved where it should be Or that it was not fit to let it be known so soon But why not when he made Promises to the Apostles of being with them to the end of the World There can be no pretence why he should not then declare where the Supreme and standing Court of his Church was to be which was in all Ages to give Rules to the rest of the Church and to Determine all Points of Faith which came before them But did the Apostles Determine this matter after Christ's Ascension If they had done it we must have yielded because they had an Infallible Spirit But we find nothing like it in all their Writings They mention Heresies often and damnable ones they saw creeping into the Church they lamented the Schisms and Divisions in the Churches of their own Planting and used frequent and vehement Exhortations to Peace and Unity But why not a word of the Infallible Judge of Controversies all this while S. Paul wrote to the Church of Rome it self and even there mentions Dissensions that were among them as well as in any other Church What could not he tell them they were to make Rules and give Judgment for the whole Church Did S. Paul envy this Privilege to S. Peter's See and therefore took no notice of it That I suppose will not be said of him though he once withstood him to the face But how happen the rest of the Apostles not to do it Nay how came S. Peter himself writing for the benefit of the whole Church in a Catholic Epistle never to give the least intimation concerning it These things make it appear incredible to me that Christ or his Apostles appointed any such thing especially when the Apostles in their infallible Writings give such Directions to particular Christians as they do to prove all things and to hold fast that which is good to try the Spirits whether they be of God oâ— not What had they to do to try the Spirits or to prove any thing themselves if the Judgment of the matters of Faith were so given to the Church that others without farther enquiry are bound to submit to its Sentence And if Christ and his Apostles knew nothing of such an Infallible Judge we have no Reason to hearken to any who after their time should pretend to it For the Promise of Infallibility must be made by him and such a Commission can be derived only from the immediate Authority of Christ himself But the Defender saith The Holy Scripture assures us that the Church is the Foundation and Pillar of Truth I confess I cannot be assured from hence that the Church hath such an Authority as is here pleaded for suppose it be understood of the whole Church For how was it possible the Church at that time should be the Foundation and Pillar of Truth when the Apostles had the Infallible Spirit and were to guide and direct the whole Church It seems therefore far more probable to me that those words relate to Timothy and not to the Church by a very common Elleipsis viz. how he ought to behave himself in the Church of God which is the House of the living God as a Pillar and Support of Truth and to that purpose this whole Epistle was written to him as appears by the beginning of it wherein he is charged not to give heed to Fables and to take care that no false Doctrine were taught at Ephesus Now saith the Apostle If I come not shortly yet I have written this Epistle that thou maist know how to behave thy self in the Church which is the House of God as a Pillar and Support of Truâ—h What can be more natural and easie than this Sense And that there is no Novelty in it appears from hence that Gregory Nyssen expresly delivers this to be the meaning and many others of the Fathers apply the same Phrases to the great Men of the Church S. Basil useth the very same Expressions concerning Musonius S. Chrysosrom calls the Apostles the immovable Pillars of the true Faith. Theodoret saith concerning S. Peter and S. Iohn That they were the Towers of Godliness and the Pillars of Truth â—regory Nazianzen calls S. Basil The Ground of Faith and the Rule of Truth And elsewhere The Pillar and Ground of the Church which Titles he gives to another Bishop at that time And so it appears in the Greek Catena mentioned by Heinsius S. Basil read these words or understood them so when he saith The Apostles were the Pillars of the New Jerusalem as it is said The Pillar and Ground of the Church I forbear more since these are sufficient to shew that they understood this place as relating to Timothy and not to the Church As to what he brings of Scriptures not being of private Iâ—terpretation it is so remote from the Sense and Scope of the Place which relates wholy to Divine Inspiration that this is a great Instance of that private Interpretation which ought to be avoided viz. of minding only the Words without regard to the Sense of Scripture It was said in the Papers Thaâ— Christ left his Power to his Church even to forgive Sins in Heaven and left his Spirit with them which they exercised after the Resurrection It was farther answered That all this makes nothing for the Roman-Catholic Church not then in being unless she were Heir-General to the Apostles that the ordinary Power of the Keys relates not to this matter that the Promise of the Spirit made to the Apostles implied many Gifts not pretended to by this Heir-General as the Gift of Tongues Spirit of Discerning Prophecie miraculous Cures and Punish ments If no more be understood of Divine Assistance that is promised as much to keep Men from Sin as Error but the Church of Rome pretends only to the latter and yet it is granted too that it may err in matters of great Consequence to the Peace of the Christian World as in the Deposing Doctrine This is the Substance of the Answer let us now see what they Reply The force of what the Desender saith is this That though the Roman Church were not then in being yet as soon as it was it was a part of the Catholic Church to which the Promises were made and therefore the Roman-Catholic Church being the One Church of Christ these Promises must have their effect in her This is all I can make of it though it cost me more pains to lay their things together with an appeâ—â—ance of strength than to give an Answer to them The Roman Church it seems had not the Promises made to it but as soon as it was a Church she was a Part of the
make shipwrack of that Faith which makes her a true Church But other kind of Errors cannot overthrow her being I urged farther That notwithstanding the pretence to Infallibility they allow the Church may err in matters of Practice of the highest importance as about Deposing Princes and Absolving Subjects from their Allegiance but not about the least matter of Faith which made it very suspicious to be rather a politick device than a thing they really believed Here the Defender I fear wilfully mistakes my meaning for he argues as if he thought I were proving That the Church of Rome hath defined the Deposing Doctrine as a matter of Faith and great pains he takes to prove it hath not And all to no purpose For I insisted only that in this point they confessed their Church had grosly erred as to a matter of Practice though it had not expresly declared it as an Article of Faith. I desire him to speak out hath it not erred notoriously as to Practice in this matter Whether they have made any such Declaration or not as to oblige all others of their Communion to embrace the Doctrine it is undeniably true that their Popes and Councils have owned it and acted according to it to the mighty disturbance of the Peace of the Christian World. Now the question I put was this Since it is granted they have so notoriously erred in matters of Practice why should any believe them Infallible in Points of Faith i. e. that so many Popes so many Councils should act upon this principle as believing it to be true and yet preserve their Infallibility in not declaring it to be true This I confess is an extraordinary thing and the Defender seems in earnest to think they were kept from it by an over-ruling assistance of the Divine Spirit Which is just as if a Man were set upon in the Road by some pretending to be his Friends who should take from him all that he had and afterwards he should admire the Providence of God that these Men should not declare it lawful to do it It is granted that so many Popes did great Mischief to the World and especially to Christian Princes by acting according to this Doctrine and that they actually owned it in Councils and made Canons on purpose for it but yet an over-ruling Assistance kept them from making it a Point of Faith. They declared their own belief by their Practice and Canons they required the observance of them under pain of being cut off from the Church if they did it not and Gregory VII saith They cut themselves off who question this Power but they were deceived notoriously deceived in this matter yet they might be Infallible still Did not these Popes declare that to be Christs Doctrine which is not But not Authoritatively What I pray doth this mean Did they not declare this Power by vertue of the Authority given them by Christ over the Church And declare those Excommunicate who did not obey their Sentence Is not this proceeding Authoritatively Suppose the Popes had in the same manner declared that Hereticks should be Re-baptized i. e. made Canons for it and required the observance of them I desire to know whether this had not been Authoritative declaring it though they affixed no Anathema to those who held the contrary Is it possible for any Man to believe that if there were such a thing as Infallibility in the Guides of the Church that Christ would suffer them to run into such pernicious Errors and in such an Authoritative manner and yet make good his Promise of keeping them from Error by not suffering them to define this Doctrine as an Article of Faith But this will appear to be a very slender Evasion if Men will reflect on the nature of the matter it self for it is about the exercise of the Pope's Power over Princes and can it be supposed that since they challenged it they would ever suffer it to be debated in Councils but they would still have it pass as an inseparable Right of their Supremacy derived from S. Peter And all that they would allow in this Case is a bare Recognition and that was made in the Councils of Lyons and Lateran And the Deposing Power in the Church was sufficiently owned in the Councils of Constance and Trent But there are two sorts of Articles of Faith to be considered in the Church of Rome 1. Some are defined with an Anathema against Dissenters and so we do not say the Deposing Power is made an Article of Faith. 2. Some are received upon the common Grounds of Faith though not expresly declared And whatever Doctrine being denied would overthrow them may be justly look'd on as a Presumptive Article of Faith. As the denying the Deposing Power must charge the Church of Rome Representative and Virtual with such acts as are utterly inconsistent with the Promises of Divine Assistance supposed to be made to it Therefore all those who sincerely believe those Promises to belong to the Church of Rome so taken must in consequence believe so many Popes and Councils could not be so grosly mistaken in the Ground of their Actings And I find those who do now most contend that this Doctrine was never defined do yet yield that both Popes and Councils believed it to be true and acted accordingly But if nothing will be allowed to be points of Faith but what passes under the Decision of Councils approved by the Pope as such I pray tell me which of the General Councils determined the Popes Supremacy as a Point of Faith Where was the Roman Catholic Churches Infallibility defined Are these Points of Faith with you or not If they be then there may be Points of Faith among you which never passed any Conciliar Definitions or such Authoritative Declaration as the Defender means 2. I now come to consider the Sense of the Primitive Church about this matter of an Infallible Judge of Controversies Which I am obliged to do not only because it is said in the Papers That the Church exercised this Power after the Apostles but because the Defender brings Tertullian as rejecting the Scripture from being a sufficient Rule for Controversies and S. Augustine as setting up the Authority of the Church above the Scripture in matters of Proof But I confess two lame sayings of Fathers make no great impression on me I am for searching the sense of the Primitive Church in so weighty a Point as this after another manner but as briefly as may be i. e. by the general Sense of the Fathers of the first Ages about the Controversies then on foot that I may not deceive my self or others in a matter of this Consequence The point is Whether according to the sense of the Primitive Church when any Controversie about Faith doth arise a Person be bound to submit to the Churches Sentence as Infallible or he be required to make use of the best means he can to judge concerning it taking
the Scriptures for his Infallible Rule Now to judge the Sense of the Primitive Church about this Point there can be no method more proper or convincing than to consider what Course the Christian Church did take in the Controversies then started which were great and considerable And if it had been then believed that Christ had left such an infallible Authority in the Church to have put an end to them it had been no more possible to have avoided the mention of it than if a great Cause in Law were to be decided among us that neither Party should ever take notice of the Iudges in Westminster-Hall There were two very great Controversies in the Primitive Church which continued a long time under different Names and we are now to observe what method the Catholic Writers of the Church took for establishing the true Faith. And these were concerning the Humanity and the Divinity of Christ. That concerning the Humanity of Christ begun very early for S. Iohn mentions those who denied that Iesus was come in the Flesh i. e. that he really took our Nature upon him And this Heresie did spread very much after the Apostles times Ignatius made it a great part of the business of his Epistles to warn the Churches he wrote to and to arm them against it And what way doth he take to do it Doth he ever tell them of the danger of using their own Judgment or of not relying on the Authority of the Church in this matter I cannot find one passage tending that way in all his Epistles But instead thereof he appeals to the Words of our Saviour in the Evangelist Touch me and see if I be a Body or a Spirit his words are an incorporeal Daemon but it was usual with the ancient Fathers to repeat the Sense of Places and not the very Words And a little after he saith That these Hereticks were not perswaded neither by the Prophets nor by the Law nor by the Gospel And he advises the Church of Smyrna to attend to the Prophets but especially to the Gospel in which the Passion and Resurrection of Christ are declared Irenaeus disputes warmly and frequently against this Heresie and he appeals to the Testimony of the Apostles in theiâ— Writings especially to the Gospels of S. Iohn and S. â—aâ—thew but not omitting the other Gospels and the Epistles of S. Paul and S. Iohn And he calls the Scriptures The immoveable Rule of Truth the Foundation and Pillar of our Faith and saith That they contain the whole Will of God. It is tâ—ue he makes use of Tradition in the Church to those who rejected the Scriptures and he finds fault with those who took words and pieces of Scripture to serve their turn but he directs to the right use of it and doth not seem to question the sufficiency thereof for the satisfaction of humble and teacâ—able minds in all the points of Faith which were then controverted Tertullian undertakes the same Cause in several Books and several ways One is by shewing that the Opinion of the Hereticks was novel not being consistent with the Doctrine delivered by the Apostles as appeared by the unanimous consent of the Apostolical Churches which did all believe Christ had a true and real Body And this way he made use of because those Hereticks either rejected or interpolated or perverted the Books of Scripture But this way of Prescription look'd like Out-Lawing of Hereticks and never suffering them to come to a fair Trial. Therefore in his other Books he goes upon three substantial Grounds 1. That the Books of Scripture do certainly deliver the Doctrine of the Christian Church concerning Christs having a true Body 2. That these Books of Scripture were not counterfeit nor corrupted and adulterated but preserved genuine and sincere in the Apostolical Churches 3. That the sense which the Hereticks put upon the Words of Scripture was forced and unreasonable but the sense of the Church was true and natural So that Tertullian did conclude that there was no way to end this Controversie but by finding out the true sense of Scripture But the Author of the Defence brings in Tertullian as representing all trial of Doctrine by Scripture as good for nothing but to turn the Brain or the Stomach and that the issue is either uncertain or none I grant Tertullian hath those words but for Truths sake I wish he had not left out others viz. That those Hereticks do not receive some Scriptures and those they do receive they add and alter as they please And what saith he can the most skilful in Scriptures do with those who will defend or deny what they think fit With such indeed he saith it is to little purpose to dispute out of Scriptures And no doubt he was in the right for the Rule must be allow'd on both sides or else there can be nothing but a wrangling about it The first thing then here was to settle the Rule and for this the Testimony of the Apostolical Churches was of great use But to imagine that Tertullian rejected all trial of Doctrines by Scripture is to make him to write to little purpose afterwards when he combates with all sorts of Hereticks out of Scripture as appears by his Books against Marcion Praxeas Hermogenes and others And Tertullian himself saith That if we bring Hereticks only to Scripture they cannot stand Not because they went only upon Reason but in the end of the same Treatise he saith They made use of Scriptures too but such as were to be confuted by other Scriptures And therefore he makes the Hereticks to decline as much as in them lay the Light of the Scriptures which he would never have charged on others if he thought himself that Controversies could not be ended by them Clemens Alexandrinus speaking of the same Heresies makes the Controversie to consist chiefly about the Scriptures whether they were to be embraced and followed or not He saith None of the Heresies among Christians had so darken'd the Truth but that those who would might find it and the way he advises to is a diligent search of the Scriptures wherein the Demonstration of our Faith doth consist and by which as by a certain Criterion we are to judge of the truth and falshood of opinions Which he there insists upon at large He speaks indeed of the Advantage of the Church above Heresies both as to Antiquity and Unity but he never makes the Iudgment of the Church to be the Rule of Faith as he doth the Scriptures In the Dialogue against the Marcionists supposed to be Origen's this Controversie is briefly handled the point is brought to the Sense of Scripture as in that place the Word was made Flesh from which and other places the Catholic argues the Truth of Christ's humane Nature especially from Christ's appealing to the sense of his Disciples about the Truth of his Body after the Resurrection
All his Demonstrations are out of Scripture and by the meer force of them he overthrows this Heresie And it was nothing but the clear Evidence of Scripture without any Infallible Judgment or Assistance of the Guides of the Church which did at last suppress this Heresie For no Council was called about it but as the Authority of the New Testament prevailed so this Heresie declined and by degrees vanished out of the Christian World. And it is observable That the greatest and worst of Heresies were supprest while no other Authority was made use of against them but that of the holy Scriptures So Theodoret takes notice That before his time these Heresies by Divine Grace were extinct So that the Scriptures were then found an effectual means for putting an end to some of the most dangerous Heresies which ever were in the Christian Church The other great Controversie of the first Age was about the Divinity of Christ which begun with the Ebionites and Cerinthians and was continued down by succession as appears by Theodoret's account of Heresies in his second Book Those who first embraced this Heresie rejected the whole New Testament and received only the Nazarene Gospel But after a while Artemon had the boldness to assert that the Apostles deliver'd the same Doctrine in their Writings and then the Controversie was reduced to the Sense of Scripture Paulus Samosatenus follow'd Artemon as Photinus afterwards follow'd him But Theodoret again observes That all those Heresies against the Divinity of Christ were in his time so extinct that not so much as any remainders of them were left but saith he The true Doctrines of the Gospels prevail and spread themselves over the World. And we may find what course was taken for putting an end to this Controversie by the management of it with Paulus Samosatenus In the fragment of an Epistle of Dionysius of Alexandria we read the Testimonies of Scripture which he produced against him and more at large in the Epistle of the Six Bishops to him who makes use of the very same Places of Scripture which are most applied to that purpose to this day To which they only add That this had been the Doctrine of the Christian Church from the beginning and all Catholic Churches agreed in it But here is no such thing thought of as Iâ—sallibility in the Guides of the Church for there is great difference between the consent of the Christian Church as a means to find out the Sense of Scripture and the Authority of Church Guides declaring the Sense by vertue of an Insallible Assistance the one is but a Moral Argument and the other is a Foundation of Faith. Theodoret further observes That there was another set of Heresies distinct from the two former in the Primitive Church which related chiefly to matters of Discipline and Manners and most of these he saith were so far destroyed tâ—at there were none thâ—n left who were Followers of Nicolas Nepos or Patroclus and very few Novatians or Montanists or Quartodecemans so that Truth had prevailâ—d over the World and the Heresies were either quite rooted out or only some dry and withered Branches remained of them in remote and obscure Places Which being affirmed by a Person of so much Judgment and Learning as Theodoret was gives us a plain and evident Proof that the Sense of Scripture may be so fully clear'd without an Infallible Church as to be effectual for putting an end to Controversies And altho we own a great Esteem and Reverence for the Four General Councils yet we cannot but observe that Controversies were so far from being ended by them that they broke out more violently after them As the Arian Controversy after the Council of Nice the Nestorian after that at Ephâ—sus and these Gentlemen believe that Heresy continues still in the East the Eutychian Controversy gave greater Disturbance after the Council of Chalcedâ—n than before and continued so to do for many Ages Which is an Argument that the Infallibility of Councils or of the Guides of the Church was not a Doctrine then received in the Church But I proceed to shew what means were used in the Primitive Church for putting an end to Controversies Of which we have a remarkable Instance in the Dispute about Rebaptizing Hereticks This was managed between St. Cyprian and other Bishops of Africa and Asia on one side and the Bishop of Rome on the other He pleaded Custom and Tradition the other That Custom without Truth was but ancient Error and that the matter ought to be examined by Scripture and many Reasons they bring from thence because Christ said in his Gospel I am Truth and the only way to prevent Errors is to have recourse to the Head and Fountain of Divine Tradition i. e. to the Holy Scriptures which St. Cyprian calls the Evangelical and Apostolical Tradition So that we have the clear Opinion of the African Bishops that this Controversy ought to be decided by Scripture But here the Replier saith That Right stood for the Bishops of Rome and a General Council determined the Point and the whole Church came to an Acquiescence If the Council was in the Right the Bishop of Rome was not if St. Cyprian represent his Opinion truly and he saith he did it in his own Words which are Si quis a quacunque Haeresi venerit ad nos nihil innovetur nisi quod Traditum est Now no Council ever determin'd so That whatsoever the Heresy was none should â—e Rebaptized For the Councils of Arles and Nice both disallow'd the Baptism of some Hereticks and therefore if the Council put an end to the Controversy it was by deciding against the Bishop of Rome as well as St. Cyprian The Donatists afterwards made use of St. Cyprians Authority in this Controversy which gave occasion to St. Augustin to deliver that noted Sentence concerning Scripture and Fathers and Councils viz That anonical Scripture is to be preferr'd before any other Writings for they are to be believed without Examination but the Writings of Bishops are to be examined and corrected by other Bishops and Councils if they see Cause and lesser Councils by greater and the greatest Councils by such as come after them when Truth comes to be more fully diservered It is hardly possible for a Man to speak plainer against a standâ—ng infallible Judg in Controversies than St. Augustin doth in these Words wherein he neither limits his Words to matters of Fact nor to Manners but he speaks generally as to the Authority of the Guides of the Church compared with Scripture Which are enter'd in the Authentick Body of the Canon Law approved and corrected at Rome only that part which relates to the correcting of Councils is left out But to make amends Gâ—atian in another place hath with admirable Ingenuity put the Popes Decretal Epistles among the Canâ—nical Scriptures and quotes St. Augustin for it too But the Roman Correctors were ashamed of so
gross a Forgery and confess St. Augustin never thought of the Decretal Epistles but of the Canonical Scriptures but yet they 〈◊〉 itle stand for good Canon Law. In the Controversy about the Church with the Donatists St. Augustin's constant appeal is to the Scripâ—â— and he sets aside not only particular Doctors hut the preteâ—â— to Miracles and the Definitions of Councils He doth not therefore appeal to Scripture because â—hey 〈◊〉 about the Church but because he looked on the Testimonies of Scripture as clear enough to decide the point as he often declares And he calls the plain Testimonies of Scripture the support and strength of their Cause If he then thought that Scripture alone could put an end to such a Controversy as that no doubt he thought so as to any other But we need not mention his thoughts for he declares as much whether it be about Christ or his Church or any matter of Faith he makes Scripture so far the Rule that he denouncess Anathema against those who deliver any other Doctrine than what is contained in them Nor doth he direct to any Church Authority to manifest the Sense of Scripture but leaves all Mankind to judg of it and even the Donatists themselves whom he opposed The same way he takes with Maximinus the Arian He desires all other Authorities may be laid aside and only those of Scripture and Reason used To what purpose unless he thought the Scripture sufficient to end the Controversy Against Faustus the Manichean he saith The Excellency of the Canonical Scripture is such as to be placed in a Threne far above all other Writings to which every faithful and pious Mind ought to submit All other Writings are to be tried by them but there is no doubt to be made of whatever we find in them The same method he uses with the Pâ—lagians an advises them to yeild to the Authority of Scripture which can neither deceive nor be deceived This Controversy saith he requires a Judg les Christ judg let us hear him speak Let the Apostle judg with him for Christ speaks in his Apostle And in another place Let St. John sit judg between us And in general he saith We ought to Acquiesce in the Authority of Scripture and when any Controversy arises it ought to be quietly ended by Proofs brought from thence But St. Augustin is the Man whom the Defender produces against me because against the Manicheans he saith he believed the Scripture for the sake of the Church and to bring any proof out of Scripture against the Church does weaken that Authority upon which he believed the Scripture and so he could believe neither The meaning wherof is this St. Augustin was reduced from being a Manichean to the Catholick Church by many Arguments and by the Authority of the Church delivering the Books of Scripture he embraced the Gospel which before he did not Now saith he You would make use of this Gospel to prove Manichaeus an Apostle I can by no means yield to this way Why so Do not you believe it to be Gospel Yes saith he but the same reason which moved me to embrace this Gospel moved me to reject Manichaeus and therefore I have no reason to allow a Testimony out of it for Manichaeus Not that St. Augustine seared any proof that could be brought from thence but he begins with general Topicks as Tertullian did against the Hereticks of his time before he came to close with them And such was this which he here produces For in case Manichaeus his Name had been in the Gospel as an Apostle of Christs appointing this Argument of St. Augustine had not been sufficient For there might be sufficient reason from the Churches Authority to embrace the Gospel and yet if the Scripture had been plain he ought to have believed Manichaeus his Apostleship though the Church disowned it As I will prove by an undeniable Instance Suppose a Jewish Proselyte to have argued just after the same manner against Jesus being the Messias the Apostles go about to prove that he was so by the Testimony of the Prophets No saith he I can allow no such Argument because the same Authority of the Jewish Church which perswaded me to believe the Prophets doth likewise perswade me not to believe Jesus to be the Messias If it be so far from holding in this case neither can it in the other For it proceeds upon a very feeble Supposition that no Church can deliver a Book for Canonical but it must judg aright concerning all things relating to it Which unavoidably makes the Jewish Church infallible at the same time it condemned Christ as a Deceiver But this was only a witty velitation in St. Augustine used by Rhetoricians before he entered into the Merits of the Cause And it is very hard when such sayings shall at every turn be quoted against his more mature and well weighed judgment What noise is there made in the world with that one saying of his I should not believe the Gospel unless the Authority os the Cathelick Church moved me And the Defender brings it to prove the Church more visible than Scripture Whereas he means no more by it but that the authority of the Church was greater to him than that of Manichaeus For he had been swayed by his authority to reject the Gospel and now he rejects that authority and believes the Catholick Church rather than him And this doth not make the Churches authority greater than Scripture but more visible than that of Manichaeus But if St. Augustin's Testimony here be allowed to extend farther yet it implies no more than that the constant universal Tradition of the Scripture by the Catholick Church makes it appear credible to us What can be deduced hence as to the Churches Infallibility in interpreting Scripture or the Roman Churches authority in delivering it The Arrian Controversie gave a great disturbance to the Christian Church and no less a man than the Emperour Constantine thought there was no such way to put an end to it as to search the Scriptures about it As he declared to the Council of Nice at their meeting as Theodoret saith It is true he spake to the Guides of the Church assembled in Council but his words are remarkable viz. That the Books of Scripture do plainly instruct us what we are to believe concerning the Deity if we search them with peaceable minds Methinks Bellarmine bestows no great Complement on Constantine for this saying when he saith He was a great Emperour but no greaâ— Doctor This had been indeed sawcy and scurrilous in others but it was no doubt good manners in him St. Hilary commends his Son Constantius because he would have this Controversie ended by the Scriptures and he desires to be heard by him about the sense of the Scriptures concerning it which he was ready to shew not from new Writings but from Gods Word Athanasius seems to
question the usefulness of Councils in this matter because the Scripture of it self was sufficient to put an end to it And elsewhere saith that it is plain enough to those who search for Truth And in general he asserts their sufficiency and clearness for the discovery of Truth When a Controversie was raised in St. Basil's time about the Trinity the best Expedient that great man could think of for putting an end to it was to refer it to the Scriptures In another place he commends it as the best way to find out Truth to be much in the study of the Scriptures and saith that the Spirit of God did thereby lead to all things useful Epiphanius was well acquainted with all the Heresies of the Church and the best means to suppress them and certainly he would never have taken such pains to refute so many Heresies out of Scripture if he had look'd on the Church as the Infallible Judg of Controversies For he not only undertakes to give the sense of Scripture for the ending of Controversies but he supposes all Persons capable of understanding it that will apply themselves to it Which he several times affirms in the consutation of his last Heresie I shall conclude with St. Chrysostome who speaks to this purpose to a person so offended at the Sects and Heresies among Christians that he did not know whom or what to believe â—he Scriptures saith he are plaâ— and true and it is an easie matter to judg by them if a man agrees with the Sâ—â—iptures he is a Christian if not he is out of that â—oll But men diâ—fer about the sense of Scripture What saith he hâ—ve ye not a 〈◊〉 and judgment And after the answering several other Cavâ—ls lâ— concludes Let us submit to the Divine Law and dâ—â— what is pleasing tâ— that and that will bring us to Heaven And in another place If â—e sâ—udy the Scriptures we shall understand both true Doctrine and a good liâ—e And again the Scriptures are the Door which kâ—â—p out Hereticks which establish our minds in the Truth and suffer us not to be seduâ—ed Thus I have given somewhat a clearer view of the sense of the Primitive Church in this mâ—tter than could be taken from two single passages of Tertullian and St. Augustin and I have been so far from swelling or enlarging this as far as I could that I have made choice only of these out of many others which I could have produced But if these be not sufficient a Volume will not satisfie which it were not hard to make on this Subject out of the Fathers 3 It is time now to examine the Inconveniencies alledged against Persons judging of matters of Faith according to the Scriptures 1 That God Almighty would then leave us at Uncertainties if he gave us a Rule and â—eft every one to be his own Iudg for that were to leave every phantastical mâ—n to câ—use as he pleases To this was answered 1 That this Objection doth not reach those of the Church of Englanâ— which receives the three Creeds and embraces the four General Councils and professes to hold nothing contrary to any Uâ—iversal Tradition of the Church from the Apostles times And that we have often offer'd to put the Controversies between us and the Church of Rome upon that issue To this Answer the Replier saith That they do not charge our Church with not profâ—ssing these things but for erring against her own Profâ—ssion and deserting that Church to which all these Authorities bear Testimony and of which her Progenitors and first Reformers had been Members and from whose hands she received what soever she had either of Scripture Creeds Councils or Tradition and consequently whose judgment she was bound to follow Whether we act against our Profession or not it is plain the Rule of our Church doth not by this Profession leave every one to follow his own fancy and to believe as he plâ—ses But wherein is it that we thus Act against our Profession Do we reject the â—reeds Councils and Universal Tradition in our Deeds Wherein In deserting the Communion of the Church of Rome And is the necessity of thâ—t contained in the Creeds here receiv'd In the â—our Councils â—y Universal Tradition For this I refer to the foregoing Dâ—scourse about the Unity of the Catholick Church But we receiv'd these thiâ—gs from the Church of Rome So we do the old Tâ—stament from the Jews must we therefore hold Communion still with them Are we bound therefore to follow the Judgment of the Jewish Churâ—â— But I do not understand how we receiv'd these things from the Authority of the Church of Rome We receiv'd the Scriptures from Universal Tradition derived from all the Apostolical â—hurches and so the Creeds and Councils and such an Universal Tradition is the thing we desire for the Trent-Creed our forefathers never knew or receiv'd as part of that Faith without which there is no Salvation But here the Defender grows brisk and saith All Hereticks since the first â—our General Councils may say the very same which I say for the Church of England and all before them the Equivalent Arius Macedonius Nestorius and Entyches might have said as much of the Crâ—eds before them and all complain of the Villainous Factâ—ns in the Church against them My Plea for the Church of England hath justified them all The same thing is said in sewer words by the Replier That this Plea justifies the Arrians and condemns the Nicene Fathers vindicates the Eutychians Nestorians and Donatists and confounds all General Councils Lest therefore I should seem to betray the Church of England instead of defending it I shall shew the Reasonableness and Equity of this Plea and its great difference from that of the Ancient Hereticks condemned by General Councils or the Ancient Church 1 The Ancient Hereticks were condemned by that Rule of Faith which the Church always receiv'd v z. the Scriptures but the Council of Tâ—ent set up a new Rule of Faith on purpose that they might condemn us for Hereticks viz. in making Tradition equal with Scripture which is directly contrary to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church as I have already shewed The method of General Councils was to have the Books of Scripture placed in the middle of them on a Table as the Rule they were to judg by And Richerius a Doctâ—â— of the Scrbon not only affirms the Custom but saiâ—h it was for 〈◊〉 Reason That the Fathers of the Councils might be admonished that all things were to be examined by the standard of the Gospel Bellarmin affirms the Council of Nice To have drawn its Conclusion out of Scriptures and the same he affirms of the 6th General Council and he might as well have done it of the rest their main design being only to establish the Doctrine of the Divinity and Incarnation of Christ. But the Case of Councils came to be very different when
an Usurpation as that of the Popes was And the main Point in order to a Reformation was casting off the Popes Power as an encroachment upon the Ancient and Canonical Priviledges of the Western Churches which was done here by a General consent even of those Bishops who held in Communion with the Roman Church as far as those could do who rejected the Head of it And this is the Fundamental Point as to the matter of Schism If the Pope as Head of the Church doth influâ—â—ce Catholick Communion so far that it is necessary to Salvation to live in subjection to him it will be very hard to justify separation from that Body whereof he is the visible Head. But if there be no Scripture no Councils no Universal Tradition for this as the Roman Catholick Bishops here declared in the time of H. 8. then there can be no Schism in acting without Authority from him or against his Authority And whether any other Church joyned with ours or not is no more material to the justification of the Reformation than the lawfulness of any one Counties Acting for the Royal Family in the late times of Usurpation did depend upon the concurrence of others with it What more commonly talked of and magnified in the Church of Rome than the Reformation of the Mâ—nastick Orders And some of the personâ— have been Canonized who have done it But in this Case the Governour of a Monastick Order proceeding according to the Rules of his Order doth a very justifiable thing tho never another Monastry joyn with him in it because he only doth his duty and proceeds by the Rules which are receiv'd by the whole Order This I say was the Case of the Church of England in Reforming according to Scripture and the sense of the Primitive Church and if others joyned so much the better if not the Act justifies it self and needs not the concurrence of others to make it good 2. The 2d Answer was That there is a difference between voluntary Separation and that which is unavoidable in case unreasonable conditions of Communion be required The Defender pretends He can by no means understand this unavoidable Separation because tho Men be separated from the Communion of a Church yet they may continue of the same Faith if they please but if they have another Faith they separate themselves even supposing Usurpation or whatever I would have Now this seems very strange to me from a person who knows the Terms of Communion with the Roman Church Can any Man be a true Member thereof who doth not own and profess to believe the Popes Supremacy Transubstantiation c. Is he not by the constitution of that Church required to believe all that the Roman Church believes But suppose men do not and cannot for their hearts believe as that Church believes can they notwithstanding be Members of it No he confesses a different Faith unavoidably casts them out But then to believe otherwise than the Roman Church believes casts them out unavoidably The Question now is who is the cause of this casting out those who cannot believe those Doctrines or those who require the belief of them in order to communion If these Doctrines be evident in Scripture or were defined by the four General Councils or are contained in the ancient Creeds or can be clearly proved by Universal Tradition then we confess the blame falls on those who refuse but if none of those can be made appear to the satisfaction of a mans mind who desires to search out Truth then their separation is unavoidable and there is no reason to make it their voluntary act But saith the Defender a mans faith is his own voluntary act I grant that but not a voluntary cause of Separation which two ought to be distinguished in this case As in the case of Usurpation the owning the lawful King is a voluntary act but if an Usurper threatens to banish him if he doth not abjâ—re him upon whom must the blame be laid upon the mans voluntary act or the Usurpers voluntary imposing such a penalty on those who do nothing but what is just The Defender did not consider that the making such terms of communion was a voluntary act too and being a thing unreasonable and unjust it leaves the blame upon the imposers But he denies any such thing as Usurpation in the Pâ—pe because he hath shewed by his reiterated Approbation of the Bishop of Meaux's Book that he is content with that submission and obedience which the Holy Councils and Fathers have always taâ—ght the Faithful These are very fine words to deceive the unwary But I pray tell us who is to declare what the Councils and Fathers have always taught the Faithful Who is to be Judg Is not the Pope himself For no Council will be allowed without his Approbation and Confirmation And is not this then a very pretty Artifice to draw weak persons into a snare For my part I do not wonder at the Popes Approbation of the Bishop of Meaux's Book no more than I would at a Gentlemans approbation of a fine spun Net when he goes a fishing which is not so easily discerned and yet doth as effectually catch the Game Some there are still who love to be deceived and some have more arts of deceiving than others and those who gain most by it will be sure to give them the greatest approbation The Defender proceeds Suppose there were Usurpation must people therefore believe otherwise than they did before as that there is no change of Substance no Purgatory no more than two Sacraments and the rest The Question about Faith is one thing and about Separation is another We are now upon the latter of these and in this case we are most concerned about the Popes Authority since he is look'd on by you as the Head of the Catholick Church and the Center of Communion If there were no such Usurpation yet we should never decline giving an account of the Reasons of our Faith as to Sacraments Purgatory or what you please of the Points in difference between us Which I neither desire to make greater or lesser than really they are For there may be deceit both ways As to his renewing the Question by what authority we separate I answer by the same authority which makes it unlawful for us to profess what we do not believe and to practise what we believe God hath forbidden This is just as if one should ask by what authority men are bound to be honest and sincere and to prefer Gods Laws before mens For the Church of Rome requires from the Members of her Communion besides matters of Faith such acts of Worship which whatever they be to those who believe as they do must be Idolatrous to those that believe as we do For example suppose in China where they believe God to be the same with the World that honour of the Chineses who on that account think they may
a man such St. Augustins opinion is reported by Aquinus as the Reason of his Judgment that is adopted into the Body of the Canon-law and therefore that ought to be the Standard according to which they are to pronounce a Person obstinate If Men do not wiâ—h Diligence and Caution seek after Truth and are not willing to embrace it when they find it then they are to be accounted Hereticks for being obstinate But St. Augustin goes no further however Suarez would seem to agree with him But it is worth the while to consider his Doctrine about it 1. He affirms That it is not enough for one to be ready to submit to Gods Word either written or unwritten but the Submission must be with respect to the Church as proposing both to us 2. That those who believe any Doctrine because their Judgment tells them it is the sense of Scripture if they therein follow their own Judgment and not the sense of the Church they are guilty of such an Oâ—stinacy as makes Hereticks 3 That it doth not excuse â—f he be willing to believe the Church if he â—â—es Reasons and Arguments to move him for this he saith is not to believe the Churches Authority as Divine but after a human manner which may consist with Obstinacy against the Church as a Rule of Faith. 4 That it is not yet necessary in order to this Obstinacy to believe the Church to have Infallible Authority for then those must be excused from heretical Obstinacy who denied it but it is sufficient that the Church is proposed as a true Church whose Authority he is bound to submit to The short of all this matter is If a Man resolve to believe as the Church believes a very small thing will excuse him from Heresy but if not nothing according to Suarez will do it unless it be Ignorance as to the Churches proposing And this is the modern notion of Heresy which appears to me to be very unreasonable on these accounts 1. Suppose a Person have a general Disposition of mind to believe whatever is sufficiently proposed to him as revealed by God and believes sincerely whatever he knows to be contained in Scripture I would sain know whether this Disposition of mind do not really excuse him from heretical Obstinacy And yet this is very consistent with doubting whether the Church be accounted as the Proponent of matters of Faith. 2. Is it necessary in order to heretical Obstinacy that the Person believes the Proponent to be Infallible or not If it be then none can be convinced of heretical Obstinacy but such as reject the Churches Authority when they believe it Infallible and then none of us can be charged with it for we do not believe the Churches Infallibility If it be not necessary then the Churches Infallibility is not necessary to Faith for iâ— order to Heretical Obstinacy he must be convinced of resisting that which was necessary in order to Faâ—â—h from whence it will follow that the Churches Infallibility is noâ— equired as the Ground of Faith. 3 Suppose a Person thinks himself bound in Conscience to believe those Guides which God by his Providence hath set over him and he believes to be sincere and honest and these tell him there is no ground to believe on the Churches Authority as being sounded neither in Scripture nor Antiquity nor Reason is not he excused hereby from Heretical Obstinacy 4. Suppose he declares himself ready to believe the Churches Authority if it be sufficiently proposed to him i. e. with such Reasons and Arguments as are proper to convince him but after all he declares that he cannot see any such And yet Aquinas affirms No man can believe unless he sees Reason why he should 〈◊〉 How then can a man be liable to Heretical Obstinacy because he only refuses to believe when he sees no Reason to believe 5. Suppose he doth believe that which the Church proposes not meerly upon its Authority but upon the Reasons which the Church offers why must this man be liable to Heretical Obstinacy for believing upon the Churches Reasons What a wonderful nice thing is Heresie made It seems by this rare Doctrine it doth not excuse from Heresie to believe even Truth it self if it be upon grounds of Reason which the Church it self gives But it must be taken meerly from the Churches Authority and yet that very Authority must be believed on the grounds of Reason or the Motives of Gredibility 6. Suppose a Person hath used the best means he could to find out his Obligation to believe on the Churches Authority and after all he cannot find any such thing what Obligation is he under to enquire farther and from whence doth it arise And if he be not under any how can he be guilty of Herecial Obstinacy who is under no Obligation to search any farther For Obstinacy must suppose resisting some Obligation 7. Suppose he be willing to believe on the Churches Authority if that Church be made appear to him to be the One Catholick Church of Christ but when he comes to examine this he finds that he must exclude very great and considerable Parts of the Catholick Church to reduce the Authority of the Catholick Church to that of the Roman Communion how can it then be Heretical Obstinacy not to suppose a Part to be the Whole 8. Suppose he hath overcome this yet if he should mistake about the Seat of Infallibility is he not still as liable to the charge of Heretical Obstinacy because the true Reason of it is that such a Person rejects that which God hath chosen as the proper means to propound matters of Faith to us But if he should be mistaken in the true Proponent he is in as much danger of Heretical Obstinacy still As suppose a man takes a General Council as representing the Catholick Church to be the only true Proponent of Faith and therefore rejects the Authority of the Pope in this matter I desire to know whether this be Heretical Obstinacy or not If not then rejecting the true Proponent doth not make any liable to it If it doth then there is Heretical Obstinacy in the Church of Rome as well as out of it And so much in Answer to the Repliers Charge of Heresie on the Church of England 3. The next Charge relates to the Insufficient Authority of the Church of England and that on these Accounts 1. In that it leaves every man to judge for himself 2. Because she dares not use the true Arguments against Sects for fear of their being turned upon her self 3. Because she denies an Appeal to an higher Judicature 1. It is urged in the Papers That among us every man thinks himself as competent a Judg of Scripture as the very Apostles It was answer'd That every man among us doth not pretend to an Infallible Spirit but all yield the Apostles had it And by being a Judg of Scripture if no more be meant than that
Quiet where there is not a Supreme Judg from whom there can be no Appeal The Answer was That the natural Consequence was then that every National Church ought to have the Supreme Power within it self But how comes Appeals to a Foreign Jurisdiction to tend to the Peace and Quiet of a Church The Defender saith That a National to the whole Church is but as a Shire to a Kingdom and a very natural and consistent Consequence it is that every Shire should have a King. One would think by such an Answer this Defender is a mighty Stranger to the ancient Polity of the Church Did he never hear of the Power of Metropolitans being setled by the Council of Nice for governing the Churches and calling Provincial Synods Did he never hear of many other Canons relating to the Power and Frequency of Provincial Synods Did he never hear of the Decrees of the Council of Ephesus forbidding all Incroachments on the ancient Rights of Churches Did he never hear that Provincial Councils have declared Matters of Faith without so much as advising with the Bishop of Rome As the African Councils did in the Pelagian Controversy and the Councils of Tolcdo in the Case of Arianism which reformed the Spanish Churches and made Canons by their own Authority which were confirmed by their Kings Reccaredus and Sisenandus Did he never hear that it was good Doctrine among Catholâ—ck Divines That particular Churches might take upon them to declare the true Catholick Faith And if so they must judg what is so Did he never hear that in a divided State of the Church Errors and Abuses may be reformed by particular Churches And that this was owned and defended by great Men in the Church of Rome if he did not he was very much unprovided for the handling such a Controversy if he did know these things he ought not to have spoken with so much contempt of the Power of Particular or National Churches And to assert their Authority is very far from being like setting up a King in every Shire for this were the highest Dilloyalty to the King who hath a just and unquestionable Authority over all the Shires Let him prove that the Pope hath such a Monarchy over all particular Churches before he make such a Parallel again But the way he takes is rather like making the Imperial Crown of this Realm to be in subjection to a Foreign Power because the Roman Emperors once had Dominion here and therefore this Kingdom could never recover its own Rights But he saith A Foreign Jurisdiction is hardly sense with respect to the Church for â—oris is out and unless the ultimate Jurisdiction be out of the Church it cannot be said to be foreign This is a shameful begging of the Question that what they call the Roman Catholick Church is the Catholick Church for if it be not which I hope I have sufficiently shewn then the pretended and usurped Jurisdiction of the Roman Church over the Church of England is a Foreign Jurisdiction He adds That it is impossible to re-settle the Church among us without that which we call Foreign Jurisdiction because Dissentions in matters of Religion cannot otherwise be removed But suppose this Foreign Jurisdiction be the occasion of these Dissentions some maintaining 〈◊〉 others asserting the Rights of our Church against it Is not 〈◊〉 â—oreign Jurisdiction like to put an end to it Yes certainly For if all Parties submit there will be no longer disputing But our Question as yet is whether this be reasonable or not I complained of the Inconvenience of Appeals to a Foreign Jurisdiction He gives us a smart Answer and saith That holds no comparison with the Inconvenience of Heresy As tho it were so plain a thing that we are guilty of Heresy that it needed no manner of proof Alas what need a Man prove that it is day when the sun shines We are just as much guilty of Heresy as the good Bishop was who for denying the Antipodes was condemned by Pope Zachâ—â—y But it is a comfortable thing in a Charge of Heresy to find it no better proved He saith I mistook the matter of Appeals and that it was not understood with respect to Causes but to matters of Doctrine and Worship An Appeal must reâ—ate to a Superiour Authority and a constant Appeal to a standing Authority and whatever the pretence be the Court of Rome will challenge Supreme Jurisdiction where-ever the Pope is owned as Head of the Church And then all those Consequences will follow I mentioned before If other kind of Appeals were meant in the Papers yet they must relate to an Authority Superiour to our Church which we could wish had been more fully expressed that we might have known to whom the Appeal was to be made whether to a free General Council which we never disowned or to the Popes Authority which we yet see no cause to make our Appeals to especially as to what concerns his own Jurisdiction He pleads That Supream Power must be Judg in its own Cause for no Authority ought to be set up against the King supposing a Question be started about his Prerogative I answer This is a Case extreamly different for in matters of Prerogative the King 's Supream Power is not the Question for his Right to the Imperial Crown is and ought to be out of dispute but all the Question that can be started must relate only to the Exercise of his Power in some particular Cases where former Laws made by the King's Consent are supposed to limit it which the Courts of Judicature take Cognizance of and so are a kind of Legal Arbitrators between the King and his People But in the Case before us the Jurisdiction it self and the Right to exercise any such Authority is the very thing in Question And I desire this Gentleman to resolve me whether in the late times of Usurpation this had 〈◊〉 been good Doctrine that those who enjoy or pretend to Supream Power are to be Judges in their own Case If so then it had been impossible for Men to have justified their Loyalty to the Royal Family then very unjustly put out of possession If not then there may be a pretence to Supream Authority where it is by no means allowable for the Pretender to Judg in his own Cause As to his Appeal to the Catholick Church we by no means reject it provided he mean the Church truly Catholick as it comprehends the Apostolical Church in the first place and then all other Christian Churches which from the Apostles times have delivered down the Catholick Doctrine and Worship which they received from them But if he means that which is called a Catholick Church but is neither Catholick nor Apostolical we beg his pardon if we allow no Appeal to it since its Errors and Corruptions are the great and just Cause of our Complaints He runs into a long Discourse about Church-Security and his design is
contain the Reasons and Motives of the Conversion of so great a Lady to the Church of Rome But this Gentleman hath now eased me of the necessity of further considering it on that account For he declares That none of those Motives or Reasons are to be found in the Paper of her Highness Which he repeats several times She writ this Paper not as to the Reasons she had her self for changing c. As for the Reasons of it they were only betwixt God and her own Soul and the Priest with whom she spoke at laâ—t And so my Work is at an end as to her Paper For I never intended to ransack the private Papers or secret Narratives of great Persons And I do not in the least question the Relation now given from so great Authority as that he mentions of the Passages concerning Her and therefore I have nothing more to say as to what relates to the Person of the Dutchess But I shall take notice of what this Defender saith which reflects on the Honour of the Church of England 1. The Pillars of the Church established by Law saith he are to be found but broken Staffs by their own Concessions What! is the Church of Eâ—gland Felo de se But how I pray For after all their undertaking to heal a wounded Conscience they leave their Proselytes finally to the Scripture as our Physicians when they have emptied the Pockets of their Patients without curing them send them at last to Tunbridg Waters or the Air of Montpellier As tho the Scripture were looked on by us as a meer Help at a dead Lift when we have nothing to say One would think he had never read the Articles of the Church of England for there he might have seen that thâ— Scripture is made the Rule and Ground of our Faith. And I pray whither should any Persons be directed under Trouble of Mind but to the Word of God Can any thing else give real Satisfaction Must they go to an Infallible Church But whence should they know it to be Infallible but from the Scriptures So that on all hands Persons must go to the Scriptures if they will have Satisfaction But this Gentleman talks like a meer Novice as to Matters of Faith as tho believing were a new thing to him and he did not yet know that true Faith must be grounded on Divine Revelation which the Pillars of our Church have always asserted to be contained only in the Scripture and therefore whither can they send Persons but to the Scripture But it seemâ— he is got no farther than the Collier's Faith he believes as the Church believes and the Church believes as he believes and by this he hopes to be too hard for a Legion of Devils 2. He saith We are Reformed from the Vertues of good Living i. e. from the Devotions Mortifications Austerities Humility and Charity which are practised in Catholick Countries by the Example and Precept of that lean mortified Apostle St. Martin Luther He knows we pretend not to Canonize Saints and he may know that a very great Man in the Church of Rome once said That the new Saints they Canonized would make one question the old Ones We neither make a Saint nor an Apostle of Martin Luther and we know of no Authority he ever had in this Church Our Church was reformed by it self and neither by Luther nor Calvin whom he had mentioned as well as the other but for his lean and mortified Aspect But after all Luther was as lean and mortified an Apostle as Bishop Bonner but a Man of far greater worth and sit for the Work he undertook being of an undaunted Spirit What a strange sort of Calumny is this to upbraid our Church as if it followed the Example and Precept of Martin Luther He knows how very easy it is for us to retort such things with mighty advantage when for more than an Age together that Church was governed by such dissolute and profane Heads of the Church that it is a shame to mention them and all this by the confession of their own Writers But as to Luther's Person if his Crimes were his Corpulency what became of all the fat Abbots and Monks But they were no Apostles or Reformers I easily grant it But must God chuse Instruments as some do Horses by their fatness to run Races As to Luther's Conversation it is justified by those who best knew him and are Persons of undoubted Reputation I mean Frasmus Melancthon and Camerarius And as to Matters in dispute if he acted according to his Principles his Fault lay in his Opinions and not in acting according to them But whether our Church follow Luther or not it is Objected that we have reformed away the Vertues of good Living God forbid But I dare not think there is any Church in the World where the Necessity of good Living is more earnestly pressed But I confess we of the Church of England do think the Examples and Precepts of Christ and his Apostles are to be our Rules for the Vertues of good Living And according to them I doubt not but there are as great Examples of Devotion Mortification Humility and Charity as in any place whatsoever But I am afraid this Gentleman's Acquaintance did not lie much that way nor doth he seem to be a very competent Judg of the Ways of good living is he did not know how to distinguish between outward Appearances and true Christian Vertues And according to his way of judging the Disciples of the Pharisees did very much outdoe those of our Blessed Saviour as appears by a Book we esteem very much called the New Testament but if I mention it to him I am afraid he should think I am like the Physicians who send their Patients to Tuâ—bridg-Wells or the Air of Montpellier 3. That two of our Bishops whereof one was Primate of all England renounced and condemned two of the established Articles of our Church But what two Articles were these It seems they wished we had kept Confession which no doubt was commanded of God and praying for the Dead which was one of the ancient things of Christianity But which of our 39 Articles did they renounce hereby I think I have read and consider'd them as much as this Gentleman and I can find no such Articles against Confession and praying for the Dead Our Church as appears by the Office of the Visitation of the Sick doth not disallow of Confession in particular Cases but the necessity of it in order to Forgiveness in all Cases And if any Bishop asserted this then he exceeded the Doctrine of our Church but he renounced no Article of it As to the other Point we have an Article against the Romish Doctrine of Purgatory Art. 22. but not a word concerning praying for the Dead without respect to it But he out of his great skill in Controversy believes that Prayer for the Dead and the Romish
all the Clerks of his Kingdom besides two were lately declared for him Adding That he had studied the Matter himself and Writers of it and that he found it was unlawful DE JURE DIVINO and undispensible Thus we have found the King himself declaring in Publick and Private his real dissatisfaction in Point of Conscience and that it was no inordinate Affection to Ann Bolleyn which put him upon it and the same attested by Sir Tho. More and the Circumstances of Affairs I now proceed to another Witness The next is Bishop Bonner himself in his Preface to Gardiner's Book of True Obedience For thus he begins Forasmuch as there be some doubtless now at this present which think the Controversy between the King 's Royal Majesty and the Bishop of Rome consisteth in this Point for that his Majesty hath taken the most excellent and most noble Lady Ann to his Wife whereas in very deed notwithstanding the Matter is far otherwise and nothing so So that if Bishop Bonner may be believed there was no such immediate Cause of the Schism as the Love to Ann Bolleyn And withal he adds That this Book was published that the World might understand what was the whole Voice and resolute Determination of the best and greatest learned Bishops with all the Nobles and Commons of England not only in the Cause of Matrimony but also in defending the Gospel's Doctrine i. e. against the Pope's usurped Authority over the Church Again he saith That the King's Marriage was made by the ripe Judgment Authority and Privilege of the most and principal Universities of the World and then with the Consent of the whole Church of England And that the false pretended Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was most justly abrogated and that if there were no other Cause but this Marriage the Bishop of Rome would content himself i. e. if he might enjoy his Power and Revenues still which he saith were so insupportable that there lay the true Cause of the Breach For his Revenues here were near as great as the King 's and his Tyranny was 〈◊〉 and bitter which he had exercised here under the Title of the Catholick Church and the Authority of the Apostles Peter and Paul when notwithstanding he was a very ravening Wolf dressed in Sheeps clothing calling himself the Servant of Servants These are Bonner's words as I have transcribed them out of two several Translations whereof one was published while he was Bishop of London Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester in his Book not only affirms the King's former Marriage to be unlawful and the second to be just and lawful but that he had the Consent of the Nation and the Judgment of his Church as well as foreign Learned Men for it And afterwards he strenuously argues against the Pope's Authority here as a meer Usurpation And the whole Clergy not only then owned the King's Supremacy Fisher excepted but in the Book published by Authority called A Necessary Doctrine and Erudition of a Christian Man c. The Pope's Authority was rejected as an Usurpation and confuted by Scripture and Antiquity K. James I. declares That there was a General and Catholick Conclusion of the whole Church of England in this Case And when some Persons suspected that it all came from the King's Marriage Bishop Bonner we see undertakes to assure the World it was no such thing The Separation was made then by a General Consent of the Nation the King and Church and People all concurring and the Reasons inducing them to cast off the Popes Usurpation were published to the World at that time And those Reasons have no relation at all to the King's Marriage and if they are good as they thought they were and this Gentleman saith not a word to disprove them then the Foundation of the Disunion between the Church of Rome and Us was not laid in the King 's inordinate Passion but on just and sufficient Reasons Thus it appears that this Gentleman hath by no means proved two parts of his Assertion viz. That our Reformation was erected on the Foundations of Last and Usurpation But our grim Logician proceeds from Immediate and Original to Concomitant Causes which he saith were Revenge Ambition and Covetousness But the Skill of Logicians used to lie in proving but this is not our Author's Talent for not a word is produced to that purpose If bold Sayings and confident Declarations will do the Busines he is never unprovided but if you expect any Reason from him he begs your Pardon he finds how ill the Character of a grim Logician suits with his Inclination However he takes a leap from Causes to Effects and here he tells us the immediate Effects of this Schism were Sacrilege and a bloody Persecution of such as denied the King's Supremacy in Matters wholly Spiritual which no Layman no King of Israel ever exercised What the Supremacy was is best understood by the Book published by the King's Order and drawn up by the Bishops of that Time. By which it appears that the main thing insisted on was rejecting the Pope's Authority and as to the positive Part it lies in these things 1. In Defending and Protecting the Church 2. In overseeing the Bishops and Priests in the execution of their Office 3. In Reforming the Church to the old Limits and pristine Estate of that Power which was given to them by Christ and used in the Primitive Church For it is out of doubt saith that Book that Christ's Faith was then most pure and firm and the Scriptures of God were then best understood and Vertue did then most abound and excel And therefore it must needs follow that the Customs and Ordinances then used and made be more conform and agreeable unto the true Doctrine of Christ and more conducing unto the edifying and benefit of the Church of Christ than any Custom or Laws used or made by the Bishop of Rome or any other addicted to that See and usurped Power since that time This Book was published with the King's Declaration before it And therefore we have reason to look on the Supremacy to be taken as it is there explained And what is there now so wholly Spiritual that no Layman or King of Israel ever exercised in this Supremacy But this Writer never took the pains to search into these things and therefore talks so at random about them As to the Persecutions that followed it is well known that both sides blame K. Hen. 8. for his Severity and therefore this cannot be laid to the Charge of his Separation For the other Effect of Sacrilege I do not see how this follows from the Reformation For although some Uses might cease by the Doctrines of it as Monks to pray the Dead out of Purgatory yet there were others to have employed the Church Lands about as some of them were in founding New Bishopricks c. And I have nothing to say in justification of any Abuses committed
that way only that the King and Parliament could not discern the difference between greater and lesser as to the Point of Sacrilege and since the Pope had shewed them the way by granting Bulls for the dissolution of the lesser Monasteries they thought since the Pope's Power was taken away they might with as little Sacrilege dissolve the rest I will shut up this with the words of Arch-bishop Laud But if there have been any wilful and gross Errors not so much in Opinion as Fact Sacrilege too often pretending to reform Superstition that 's the Crime of the Reformers not of the Reformation and they are long since gone to God to answer it to whom I leave them The Method I proposed for Satisfaction of Conscience about the Reformation was to consider Whether there were not sufficient cause for it Whether there were not sufficient Authority And whether the Proceedings of our Reformation were not justifiable by the Rules of Scripture and the Ancient Church He tells me he may safely join issue with me upon all three Points and conclude in the Negative But upon second thoughts he finds he may much more safely let it alone And very fairly would have me take it for granted That the Church of Rome cannot err in Matters of Faith for that he must mean by the Church there and that our Church hath no Authority ef Reforming her self and that our Proceedings were not justifiable according to the right interpretation of Scriptures by the Fathers and Councils But if I will not allow his Affirmations for Proofs for his part he will act the grim Logician no longer and in truth it becomes him so ill that he doth well to give it over When he will undertake to prove that the Church of Rome is the One Catholick and Infallible Church of Christ and answer what I have produced in the former Discourses I will ease him of any farther Trouble for then I will grant that our Reformation cannot be justified But till then I shall think it no want of Humility to conclude the Victory to be on our side And I would desire him not to end with such a bare-faced Assertion of a thing so well known to be false viz. That there is not one Original Treatise written by a Protestant which hath handled distinctly and by it seif that Christian Vertue of Humility Since within a few Years besides what hath been printed formerly such a Book hath been published in London But he doth well to bring it off with at least that I have seen or heard of for such Books have not lain much in the way of his Enquiries Suppose we had not such particular Books we think the Holy Scripture gives the best Rules and Examples of Humility of any Book in the World but I am afraid he should look on his Case as desperate if I send him to the Scripture since he saith Our Divines do that as Physicians do with their Patients whom they think uncurable send them at last to Tunbridg-Waters or to the Air of Montpellier FINIS ERRATA The Folio's through mistake are twice repeated from Pag. 81 pag. 92 inclusive PAge 7. line 26 for Authority read Antiquity Pag. 22. l. 39. f. Persoâ—a r. Parsopa Pag. 23. l. 25. f. when r. whom l. 26. f. his r. as l. 32. f. Western r. Southern Pag. 26. l. 5. f. S. Cyprian r. San Lyran. Pag. 68. l. 32. r. Some of the Chineses Pag. 78. l. 3. a whole line faulty r. pristinam melioratam recipere 〈◊〉 sanitate Pag. 86. 2d l. 23. blot out not Pag. 93. l. 23. blot out both Pag. 103. l. 14. f. House of the Lord r. House of Lords Pag. 108. l. 20. f. satness r. fitness l. 28 f. dare not r. do not Page 112. l. 37. f. eras r. ejus Pag. 116. l. 17. f. Declarations r. Declamations Books lately printed for Richard Chiswell THe History of the Reformation of the Church of England By GILBERT BURNET D. D. in two Volumes Folio The Moderation of the Church of England in her Reformation in avoiding all undue Compliances with Popery and other sorts of Phaâ—aticism c. By TIMOTHY PULLER D. D. Octavo A Dissertation concerning the Government of the Ancient Church more particularly of the Encroachments of the Bishops of Rome upon other Sees By WILLIAM CAVE D. D. Octavo An Answer to Mr. Serjeant's Sure Footing in Christianity concerning the Rule of Faith With some other Discourses By WILLIAM FALKNER D. D. 40. A Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England in Answer to a Paper written by one of the Church of Rome to prove the Nullity of our Orders By GILBERT BURNET D. D. Octavo An Abridgment of the History of the Reformation of the Church of England By GILB BURNET D. D. Octavo The APOLOGY of the Church of England and an Epistle to one Signior Scipio a Venetian Gentleman concerning the Council of Trent Written both in Latin by the Right Reverend Father in God JOHN JEWEL Lord Bishop of Salisbury Made English by a Person of Quality To which is added The Life of the said Bishop Collected and written by the same Hand Octavo A LETTER writ by the last Assembly General of the Clergy of Francâ— to the Protestants inviting them to return to their Communion Together with the Methods proposed by them for their Conviction Translated into English and Examined by GILB BURNET D. D. Octavo The Life of WILLIAM BEDEL D. D. Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland Together with Certain Letters which passed betwixt him and James Waddesworth a late Pensioner of the Holy Inquisition of Sevil in Matter of Religion concerning the General Motives to the Roman Obedience Octavo The Dâ—cree made at ROME the Second of March 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Jesuits and other Casâ—ists Quarto A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome Quarto First and Second Parts A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongne Quarto A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to A Papist Misrepresented and Represented Quarto An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOM in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church Quarto An Answer to THREE PAPERS lately printed concerning the Authority of the Catholick Church in Matters of Faith and the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome With an Answer thereunto By a Protestant of the Church of England 80. A Papist Represented and not Misrepresented being an Answer to the First Second Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Second Part of the Papist Misrepresented and Represented and for a further Vindication of the CATECHISM truly representing the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome Quarto The Lay-Christian's
Obligations to read the Holy Scriptures Quarto The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholick Missionaries 240. A Vindication of the Answer to SOME LATE PAPERS concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholick Church and the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto A Treatise written by an AUTHOR of the Communion of the CHURCH of ROME touching TRANSUBSTANTIATION Wherein is made appear that according to the Principles of THAT CHURCH This Doctrine cannot be an Article of Faith. Quarto Def. p. 1. Pag. 2. Pag. â— Des. p. 2 3. Des. p. 2. Rep. p. 2. Des. p. 3. Rep. p. 3. Rep. p. â— Def. p. 3 4. Pag. â— Pag 5. De Ecclâ—s l. 3. c. 2. Ibid. c. 5. Catech. Rom. Part. 1. c 10. â— 10. Tertul. c. Praâ—â—am c. 1. Noâ—a Collect. Concil Balâ—â— p. 10. V. Epist. Cypri ep 74 75. Epist. 4. 8. Faâ—â— l. 4. c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Poâ—â— Coâ—â— Baâ—il X. Nova Collect. Concil p. 1551. Ratraâ—â— c. Graec. apâ—d 〈◊〉 Spicil To. 2. p. 3 24 27 29 53 54 60 61 62. Monument a Graec. To. 2. p. 138. n. 6. p. 164. n. 3 4 5. Caâ—is Aâ—tiq Lect. To. 6. p. 197. Pag. 196. Innocent III. Ep. l. 1. 353. Lib. 2. 208. Ep. 209. 〈◊〉 c◠〈◊〉 p. ◠〈◊〉 l. 4. c. 14. L. 7. c. 24. Stâ—â— l. 7. p. 764 〈◊〉 7â—â—5 〈◊〉 Eâ—â— 1. Fulgâ—â—t Op. p. 6â— Lactant. In it l. 4. c. â—lt Sola 〈◊〉 Catholi◠〈◊〉 quâ—â—erum Cultâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concii p. 286. Supplem Concil Gall. p. 14. Can. 6. Epist. ad Smyrn Eusâ—b l. 4. c. 14. l. 7. c. â—4 Cyrilâ— Catech. 18. p. 220. 〈◊〉 â—o 2. p. â—â—2 〈◊〉 in 1 Cor. 12. 27. Opt. c. Par. l. 2. Câ—m inde dicta sit Catholica quod sit rationabilis abique dissusa Balâ—z Coll. Concil p. 287 288. Nos universo orbi Christiano communione cohaeremus n. 100. Et appellantur merito sunt Catholici ipsa sua communione noâ—â—en testantes Catholon enim secundùn totâ—â—m dicitur Qui autem à toto sâ—paratus est partem â—ue defendit ab uniniverso praecisam non sibi uâ—â—rpet hoc nomen sed nobiscum teneat veritatem n. 101. Concil Florent Sess. 9. Concil Constant Sess. 11. Concil Gen. To. 12. p. 87. De Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 14. Des. p. 23. Pag. 6. Not. in Moâ—â— Graâ— To. â— p. 601. Reply p. 8. Defence p. 7. Pag. 8. Pag. 9. Catech. Rom. Part 1. c. 10. n. 20. Seâ—â— 7. Can. 7 8 9. De Bapt. Can. 13. Pag. 10. Pag. â— Reply p. 8. Pag. 9. Pag. 9 10. Concil Ephes. Part 2. Act. 6. Chalcedon Act. 5. Des. p. 14. Pag. 15. 〈…〉 Aâ—â—â— Thom. à â—esa l. 7. c. 14. Philipp à SS Trinit Itiner Orient l. 5. c. 5. 〈◊〉 Hist. Sâ—â—iet Jesu l. 6. 12. 123. Voyage du Mont. Liâ—an 〈◊〉 Daâ—dini Remarques sâ—r Chap. 2â— p. 383. Dissâ—rt de Origine Nomine Religion Maâ—oâ—itarâ—m Pag. 15. Thom. à Jesu de Concil â—mn Gent. l. 7. c. 6. Pag. 16. Pag. II. Aâ—g â— Donat. p. 6. Collat. c. 20. Pag. 12 13. Prejugbs legit contre le Janâ—â—â—â— p. 135. Pag. 14. C. Parmen l. 1. c. ult l. 2. c. 1 11. C. Cresom l. 4. c. 10 11. Pag. 14. Concil Nic. c. 19. Arel c. 8. Pag. 11. Pag. 12. Pag 1. Deut. 17. 8 9 10 11. Rom. 15. 17. 1 Thess. 5. 21. 1 S John. 4. 1. 1 Tim 3. 15. Grâ—g Nyssen de â—ita Mos. p. 226 Basil. Epist. 62. Chrysost. Hom. 148. To. 5. Theod. de Prov. Orat. 10. p. 441. Greg. Nazian Ep. 38. Orat. 19. Epist. 29. Heins in loc Pag. 17. Dis. p. 33. Pag. 33. 〈◊〉 legit c. le Jansenists c. 10. P ag 87. Pag. 34. Rep. p. 22. Aug. de Bapt. c. Donatisâ— l. 3. c. 17 18. l. 4. c. 18 20. l. 5. c. 21. l. 6. c. 1 3 4 14 24 2 30 31 32 33 34 40. l. 7. c. 12 32 43 44. L. 2. c. 1. L. 7. c. 51. â—â—Lineâ—â— Rep. p. 23. John 7. 17. Def. p. 34 35. Greg. 7. Epist. Reg. l. 4. Ep. 2. Pag. 18. 1 John 4. 3. A◠〈◊〉 p. 3. Pag. 4. Pag. 6. I. 〈◊〉 l. â— c. 17 18. * L. 1. 1. 4. 69. †L. 3. c. 1. * L. â— â— 47. 4. 66. De Carut Christi c. Marcion c. Valentin Def. p. 18. Dâ— Praescript c. 17. Aufer denique Haereticis quae cum Ethnicis sapiunt ut de Scripturis solis quaestiones suas sistant stare non poterunt De Resur Caâ—nis c. 3. Haereses autem sine aliquibus occasionibus Scripturarum audere non poterant idcirco pristina instrumenta quasdam materias illis videntur subministrasse ipsas quidem iisdem literis revincibiles c. 63. Lucifugae isti Scripturarum c. 47. Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 7. p. 755. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. 757. Orig. Dial. c. Marcionist §. 4. p. 108. p. 101. Yâ—od ad heâ—â—t Fab. Prâ—ef l. 2. p. 218. Haeret. Fab. l. 3. p. 226 231. St. Cyprian Epist. 74 75. Reply p. 13. Aug. de Bapt. c. Donatill l. 2. c. 3. Deâ—r Dist 9. c 8. Dist. 19. c. 6. De unit Ecel c. 3. 416. c. Petil. Donar l. 3. c. 6 c. Maxim. Arian l. 3. c. 14. c. Faust. l. 11. c. 5. De Peccator Merit remiss l. 1. 22. De Nuptiis Concupisc l. 2. c. 33. De Grat. lib. Arbitrio c. 18. In Psalm 67. Def. p. 18. Deâ— p. 2. Theod. l. 1. c. 6. Bellar. de Ver. Dei l 4. c. 11. Hilar. l. 2. ad Constant. Athanas. de Synodis Tom. 1. p. 873. Tom. 2. p. 197. Tom. 1. c. Grat. Basil. Epist. 80. Tom. 3. Epist. 1 284 Haer. 75. p. 923 943 989. Chrysost. in Acta Apost Hom. 33. In Joh. Hom 53 Ib Hom. 58 Reply p. 18 Def p 21 Reply p. 19 Act Synodi Eph. p. 175. Hist. Concil To. 1. p. 498. Bell. de Concil l. 2. c. 12. Niceph. cum Leone Armeno Disput. ed. Combefis p. 162. Hos. Oper. p. 373. Quandoquidem solus ille verè dicitur est Oecumenicus patriarcha quod Concilium ipsius est Auctoritate Congregatum id verè dicitur oecumenicum De Concil l. 1. â— 6. Repl. p. 8 Def. p. 23 Def. p 24. Circa ea quae sunt de necessitate salutis sufficienter instruuntur â— Spiritu sancto 2 2 Qu. 8 ar 4 ad 1 Donum Intellectus nunquam se subtrahit sanctis circa ea quae sunt â—eâ—â—â—saria ad salutem ib ad 3 Gul. Parisiens de Legibus c 21 p 57 58 Pag 59 D. Col. 1. Henr. a Gand. Sum. Art. 13. q. 4. n. 3. Def. p. 26 P. 27. P. 28. Def. p. 29. Reply p. 21. Def. p. 30. Reply p. 21. Def. p. 31. Reply p. 22. Def. p 32. Reply p. 25. Def. p. 39. Def. p. 39. Def p 40 Pag. 41. Def. p. 42. Pag. 43. Cler. Gallica Declaratio Prop. 4. 1682. Censura Hungarica 24 Oct. 1682. Tractat. de Libertat Eccles Gallican Leodii 1684. Regale Sacerdotium Romano Pontifici assertum Auctore Eugenio Lombardo 1684. De Antiqua Ecclesiae Disâ—iplina Dissert 5. Auct Lud. Ellies Du Pin 1686. Dissert 5 c. â— ss 2. Pag. 44. Pag 45. Reply p. 25 Pag. 27. Reply p. 40. * Dial. 4. c. 39. Reply p. 27. Reply p. 28. Def. p. 46. Reply p. 29. Inititur enim Fides nostra Revelationi Apostolis Prophetis factae qui Canonicos libros scripserunt non autem revelation si qua fuit aliis Doctoribus facta 1. q. 1. Arâ— 8 ad 2. 2. 2. q. 1 Art. 5. ad 2. 1. q. 32. art 4 2. 2. q. 2. art 5 De Haeret puâ—it l. 1. c. 3 Loc. Theolog. l. 12. c. 11. Suarez de Fide Disp. 19. Sect. 2 n. 13. Suarez de Fide Disp. 19. Sect. 2. n. 8. â—â—p 4. Sect. 2. n. 3. 2. 2. q. 11. Art. 2. ad 3. Aug Epist. 162 Non est ergo haereticus nisi qui videns prudens doctrinam eligit Fidei contrariam Loc. 12. c. 9. Suarez de Fide Disc. 19. Sect. 3. n. 9. De Bapt. c. Donat l 4 c. 16 De Civit. Dei l. 18. c. 51. C. 24. q 3. c. 29 31. Ockam Dialog l. 3. c. 3. c. c. 6. ad fin Cap. 8 C. 24. q 1. Schismae â— 4. c. 2. C. 5 c. C. 9. C. 10. C. 27. C. 28. C. 29. C. 30. Gerson To. 1. p. 408. Can. Loc. Th. l. 12. c. 9. Disp. 14. de fide Sect. 3. n. 10. N. 11. Ibid. N. 13. 2. â— q l. art 3. Repl. p. 31. 2. 2. q. 5. Loc. 2. c. 8. Concedimus enim liberaliter doctrinam cuique in sua vita statâ—â— necessariam illi fore perspectam cognitam qui fecerit voluntatem Dei. Deuâ— Natura Gratia Probl. 15. p. 96 P. 97. Def. p. 49. Repl. p. 32. Des. p. 51. Page 52. Repl. p. 33. Def. p. 54. Page 55. Page 56. Page 57. Pag. 55. Pag 58. Pag. 59. Pag. 59. Pag. 52. Pag. 63. Pag. 64 65. Pag. 65. Repl. p. 34. Pag. 66. P. 67 68. Pag. 67. Pag. 6â— Pag. 70. Repl. p. 36. Pag. 71. Pag. 75. Repl. p. 37. Dis. p. 72. Pag. 73. Pag. 74. Pag. 75. Pag. 38 30. Des. p. 76. Repâ—â— p. 35. Repl. p. 41. Dis. p. 78. Pag. 80. Des. p. 111. Pag. 85. 87. 88. Ib. 125. lvix Pag. 85. Page 92. 125. 126. Pag. 95. 93. Pag. 〈◊〉 Pag. 87. Pag. 88. Pag. 97. P. 104 105 c. 108 109. Pag. 109. Pag. 90. Ibid. Ibid. Page 11â— Page 94. Pag. 98. â—ag 101. Pag. 1â—2 Paâ— 117. Pag. 117. Pag. 117. Sand. de Schism Angl. l. 1. p. 11. Pag. 9. Pag. 10. Pag. 15. Pag. 10. Pag. 18. Acworth c. Sander l. 2. â— 14 17. Pag. 22. History of H. 8 p. 216. Servi Fidelis Responsio c. 〈◊〉 Herb. 〈◊〉 219. Pag. 217. Apol. for the Oath of Allâ—giance Pag. 118. â—id Conference 〈◊〉 p. 156. Pag. 1. 2.
evidently contained therein But I go no further tâ—an the Replier leads me At the Conclusion of the first Paper there was a suggestion As tho the Schism were raised by particular men for their own Advantage It was answered That the Advantage of the Clergy lay plainly on the other side which is yielded by the Replier and yet he would have the Clergy byast What byast against their Interest For that is the point Whether they got ot lost by the Reformation and besides other considerations if there were so much Sacriledg committed by it as is said in one of the Papers it is hard to suppose that they should raise the Schism for their own Advantage I am of the Defenders mind That matter of Interest ought not to be regarded in these things but when that was said to lie at the bottom of the Reformation we had reason to consider on which side lay the greater Advantage The 2d Charge is That the Reformation hath been â—he occasion of a World of Heresies creeping into this Nation With this the 2d Paper begins In answer it was said That either this respects the several Sects of Dissenters from the Religion established by Law and then it seems hard considering aâ— circumstances to charge the Church of England with them or it takes in all that dissent from the Church of Rome and so it is a charge on the whole Church since the Reformation as guilty of Heresie which was a charge I said could never be made good The Defender avoids the charge as to the Church of England but the Replier in plain terms owns it saying That establishment of a Religion by Law cannot protect it from being a Heresie which I readily grant And then he adds Let him defend his own and his work is done The best way to do that is to consider first what Heresie is and that I said was an obstinate opposing some necessary Article of Faith and then how it comes to be in the Power of the Church of Rome to define Heretical Doctrines so as that any Doctrine comes to be Heresie by being contrary to its Definitions He answers By the same way the Church had Power in her General Councils to make Creeds and to Anathematize Heretiâ—ks So that whatever Power the Catholick Church exercised in declaring Matters of Faith he challenges as of Right belonging to the Church of Rome which wholly depends on the first Point already discussed viz. That the Roman and Catholick Church are the same But I shall now wave that and consider Whether if that were allow'd the Church could now have the same Reason to declare the Points in difference to be Heresies as the Primitive Church had the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation of Christ. I am of opinion it cannot and yet if it could that alone is not sufficient to charge Heresie upon us And in making out of both these I shall argue from the Nature of Heresie as it is stated among their best Writers who agree that there are three Things necessary to make up the charge of Heresie 1. The Nature of the Proposition 2. The Authority of the Proponent 3. The obstinacy of the Party 1. The Nature of the Proposition for it is allowed among them that there is a difference between a Proposition Erroneous in Faith and Heretical But for our better understanding this matter I shall set down something very pertinently observed by Aquinas and others 1. Aquinas saith That Faith in us depends upon Divine Revelation not such as is made to any person but that which was made to the Prophets and Apostles which is preserved in the Canonical Books and therefore he saith the proofs from Scripture are necessary and convincing those from other Authorities are but probable Which is a Testimony of great Consequence in this matter for from hence it appears that whatsover Article of Faith is made necessary to be believed must be proved from Scripture and Heresie being an obstinate opposing a necessary Article of Faith there can be no Heresie where the Doctrine is not founded on Scripture And elsewhere he makes the principles of Faith to be the Authorities of the Scripture 2. That all matters of Faith are not equally revealed in Scripture For some he saith are principally designed as the Trinity and Incarnation and these are directly against Faith and to hold the contrary to them especially with obstinacy is Heresie but there are others which are indirectly against Faith from whence something follows which overthrows Faith as for any one to deny that Samuel was the son of Helcanah the consequence would be that the Scripture was false 3. He makes a distinction between those who discern the Repugnancy and continue obstinate and those who do not not intending to maintain any thing contrary to Faith and in this case there may be an erroneous opinion in Faith without Heresie So that an erroneous opinion lies in not attending to the Consequence of that Opinion as against Faith and not maintaining it obstinately But he asserts it to be in the Churches Power to declare such an opinion to be against Faith and then he makes it Heretical to deny it His Instance is about the five Notions of the Trinity and his Conclusion is That it cannot be Heretical in it self to have different Opinions about them but it is very hard to understand how the Church by its declaration can make the holding one or the other opinion to be more or less repugnant to Faith. But then the Reason of Heresie must be resolved into the Authority of the Church of which afterwards yet still Scripture is the Rule by which the Church is to judg 4 That there are some things revealed in Scripture which immediately tend to make mankind happy and those are the Articles of Faith which all men are bound to believe explicitely other things are revealed by accident or secondarily as that Abraham had two Sons that David was the Son of Jesse Now as to these latter points he saith That it is enough to have an inward preparation of mind to believe all that is contained in Scripture and those things in particular as soon as they are known to be there But we believe all persons bound to search the Scriptures that they may know what is contained therein However we gain this point hereby that by their own Doctrine besides the Articles of Faith receiv'd on both sides no other points can become necessary till they be made appear to us to be contained in Scripture otherwise it is sufficient for us to be ready to believe whatever is contained therein And consequently we cannot be charged with Heresie for rejecting them Alphonsus a Castro makes this distinction between Heresie and a Proposition erroneous in Faith That the former is against such a point of Faith as all men are bound to believe but there are some Propositions he saith relating to Faith wherein a man is under no
the main Thing aimed at in all the Negotiations at Rome other Applications had been more proper if his Design was only upon having her for a Concubine But she would not be corrupted If this were the Reason he must again contradict himself for he makes her a lewd vicious Woman And it doth not â—eem so probable if she had been such a Person as he desâ—ribes her that she would have put the King to so much trouble and such a tedious method of proceeding by so many Forms of Law. But again Sanders saith when she returned from France and was at Court she found out what Wolsey designed Which makes it evident by Sanders his own words that the Design of the Divorce was before the thoughts of Ann Bolleyn And it seems very probable that Card Wolsey might carry on a Publick Design by it to draw the King off from the Emperor and to unite him with France And the Pope at that time being highly displeased with the Emperor he might think it no dissicult thing to procure a Dispensation the King of France's Interest being join'd with our King 's Some have written That the Pope himself was in this Intrigue at first but seeing no Proof of iâ— I dare not affirm it It is sussicient for my purpose that the first Design was laid quite another way I confess afterwards when Wolsey upon his return from France saw how things were like to go he struck in with the King's Humour as appears by the Letters of Ann Bolleyn to him But yet carried himself so coldly afterwards in the Matter of the Divorce that it proved one occasion of his Fall. Thuanus being an Historian of great Judgment saw the inconsistencies of Sanders his Relations and therefore concludes that Wolsey was surprized with the Business of Ann Bolleyn after he went into France having notice sent him by his Friends and that Wolsey wholly aimed at the French Match Mezeray saith The Cardinal could not foresee the Love of Ann Bolleyn but his Design was to be reveaged on the Emperor and he questions whether the King were smitten with her till Wolsey was sent into France when the King so unexpectedly forbad him to proceed in that Match cum summo eras dosore as Sanders confesses From all this we see plainly that since Sanders makes Card. Wolsey the great Contriver and Manager of this Business the immediate Cause of the Schism could not be the Love of Ann Bolleyn But we have other kind of Proofs concerning this Matter besides Sanders his Inconsistencies and those shall be from some of the greatest and most aâ—live Men of that Time and some remarkable Circumstances The sirst is a Person of unquestionable Integrity aâ—d accounted a Martyr for his Conscience at that Time I mean Sir Thomas More then Lord Chancellor who after he had delivered to the House of Commons the Original Papers of the Universities in favour of the Divorce he then saâ—d That all Men should clearly perceive that the King hath not attempted this Matter of Will and Pleasure as Strangers say but only for the Discharge of his Conscience and the Security of the Succession to the Crown Which was a Reason alleadged by the King himself and seems to have been built on the Grounds which Charles the 5th assigned for breaking his Oath which he made to marry the Lady Mary by the first Article of the Treaty at Windsor Lord Herbert owns that the Emperor to avoid the Force of this Treaty had alledged something against the Marriage between the King and his Aunt But another Author who lived much nearer the Time doth affirm That when the Match was debated in the Spanish Council it was then said That altho the Match between the King and his Brother's Relict were not yet disputed yet if the King should die without Issue Male rather than the Kingdom should pass to Foreigners the English Nation would dispute the Validity of the Marriage And to confirm this in Sir Henry Spelman's Manuscript-Register of the Proceedings of the Legatine Court about the Divorce subscribed by the three Notaries there present the Witnesses deposed That at the time of the Marriage the People said commonly that it was unfit one Brother should marry the other Brother's Wife And Arch-bishop Warham then upon Oath declared That he told K. Henry the 7th that the Marriage seem'd to him neither Honourable nor well-pleasing to God. And he confesses the People then murmur'd at it but that the murmuring was quieted by the Pope's Dispensation So that all the Satisfaction that was given about it arose from the Pope's extraordinary dispensing Power with the Laws of God. Which was a thing vehemently opposed by many in the Church of Rome and the University of Bononia it self afterwards declared That the Match was abominable and that the Pope himself could not dispense with it and this they say was after they had read Card. Cajetan 's Defence of the Marriage The like was done by the University of Padua besidâ—s many others which I shall not mention and are easily to be seen So that the Succession to the Crown by this Match must depend upon an extravagant Power in the Pope which the Roman Church it self never owned and the wisest Statesmen thought by no means sit to depend upon The notice of this Debate in the Spanish Council being sent over to Card. Wolsey seems to have been the first Occasion taken of starting the Question about the Lawfulness of the King's Marriage which Wolsey out of a private Grudg to the Emperor as well as for other Reasons was not wanting to carry on till he saw which way it was like to end And the Pope himself was willing enough to grant the Bull for the Divorce till he made a secret Peace with the Emperor and it is easy to see that the Pope went forwards and backwards in the whole Affair merely as politick Considerations moved him Which being fully known to so discerning a Prince as Henry the 8th it gave him just occasion to question whether that Authority were so Divine as was pretended which in so great a Matter did not govern it self by any Rule of Conscience but by Political Measures One remarkable Circumstance in this Matter ought not to be omitted viz. That the King's Agent at Rome sent him word That the Pope's Advice was that if the King's Conscience were satisfied he should presently marry another Wife and then prosecute the Suit and that this was the only way for the King to attain his Desires But the King refused to do it And when Card Wolsey sent a Message to the King to the same purpose the King replied If the Bull be naught let it be so declared and if it be good it shall never be broken by any by-ways for me And when he objected the tediousness of the Suit he answered Since he had Patience eighteen Years he would stay yet four or five more since the Opinion of