obligation to believe either part of the contradiction But if he asserts either of them to be an Article of Faith and pronounces the other Heretical he then errs in Faith and is become a Heretick From whence I observe that supposing any points in Controversie not to be so determined as to bring on men an obligation to believe them those who make them to be Articles of Faith and condemn the others for Hereticks are in so doing Hereticks themselves Melchior Canus saith That although a Proposition be thought by wise men to be a matter of Faith yet if it be not plainly defined by the Church nor demonstrated by Reason then the opposing of it is no Heresie but Erroneous Doctrine Nay he saith further That if an Opinion do contradict a point of Catholick Faith in the most probable and almost necessary opinion of all wise men yet if it do not manifestly contradict it is barely Erroneous and not Heretical Suarez saith that Melchior Canus his Doctrine in this matter is generally receiv'd But he adds one thing more viz. That in Heresie there must be the highest opposition to immediate Revelation but if it implies only a repugnancy to a bare Catholick Truth or Theological conclusion it is erroneous in Faith but no Heresie The highest opposition lies in three things 1. The Revelation must be immediate and not deduced by consequence 2. That it must be most certainly and undoubtedly of Faith. 3. That the Erroneous Proposition do most certainly and undoubtedly contradict it For saith he if there be a defect in any one of these it is not an Heretical Proposition These are the Principles laid down by their own Writers of greatest esteem And therefore if the Replier think fit to make good his Charge of Heresie against the Church of England he may from hence see what he hath to do 1 He must prove the Points in Controversie to be of immediate Divine Revelation and not drawn from thence by Consequences and Suppositions 2. That the Doctrine of our Church doth in the highest plainest and most certain manner contradict such Propositions of Faith. And supposing it were possible for him to do the former yet if their own Expositor of the Articles of our Church may be believed he can never do the latter For he endeavours to prove them capable of a Catholick sense The five first he allows for Catholick as they stand The sixth about Canonical Scripture with St Jerome's explication is Catholick enough The 7th 8th first part of the 9th and the whole 10th are very Catholick The four next he examines The 15th needs only a Gloss of St. Augustins The 16th very good The 17th Catholick and so the 18th The 19th only wants a Gloss and so the 20th and 21. The 22th he examines 23d is allow'd The 24th being only against a custom of the Church he proves from Canus can imply no Heresie and yet he thinks it capable of a good Gloss. The 25th he allows in the genuine sense of it The 26th and 27th are confessed to be the Doctrines of the Church and all the Fathers Even the 28th against Transubstantiation he thinks may be glossed into a good sense The 29th is explained from S. Augustin The 30th from Canus not to contain any Heresie The 31th he saith only opposes the common opinion The 32th capable of a 〈◊〉 sense 33 34th agreeable to Scripture and Antiquity 35th 〈◊〉 Hâ—milies passable 36th about Ordination valid 37th agreeable to the French Opinion and practise the Popes Jurisdiction may be understood of Temporal The two last he allows to be Catholick So that of 39 Articles but five are reserved for examination and of these the 11th he saith is about words the 12 and 13 capable of a good sense the 14th goes upon a mistake of their sense the 22th determines nothing against the true Faith. I do not go about to justifie his Exposition but I say that upon your own grounds it sheweth that our Church cannot be justly charged with Heresie For if it be required that such Propositions as are Heretical must in the highest and clearest manner contradict the Doctrines of Faith and your own Expositor grants they do not then however you may think them Erroneous yet you cannot condemn them for Heretical 2 As to Heresie a sufficient Proposition of the matters of Faith is required For they grant that the matters of Faith must be proposed in such a manner as to induce an obligation to believe them before any can be guilty of Heresie in rejecting them Therefore it is necessary for us to know what they mean by a sufficient proposal Sâ—arez yields this to be a necessary condition and elsewhere discourses about the nature of it And there he shews 1. That a sufficient Proposition of a matter of Faith is not barely to deliver it as a Divine Trath but it must be done with such circumstances that it may appear to be prudently credible i. e. so as to see such reason for it as to put him beyond doubt or fear of the contrary 2. That it must appear evidently credible to be revealed by God and therefore certain and infallible 3. That it must appear not only so but evidently more credible than the Doctrine repugnant to it 4. That according to natural reason the assent to it is to be prefer'd before the contrary opinion Now to make good the charge of Heresie against our Church he must not bring the Motives of Credibility for the Christian Faith in general which are owned on both sides but as to those points which are asserted by them as matters of Faith and rejected by us As for instance Transubstantiation is declared by them to be a matter of Faith and it is denied by us and they charge us with Heresie for it We say it hath never been proposed to us in such a manner as to make it appear to be a prudent judgment in us to believe it or that it was ever revealed by God or more credible than the contrary opinion in the judgment of Reason Not any one of these things doth appear to us but the contrary for we can see nothing of the Credibility but a great deal for the evident Incredibility of it How then can this matter of Faith be said to be sufficiently proposed to us It may be said all this is done by the Authority of the Church proposing it and if it be made evidently credible that you ought to believe the Church then we are Hereticks for rejecting her Authority I answer That if by the Churches Authority be meant that of the Roman Catholick Churches Infallible proposing matters of Faith to us we are as far to seek as ever and for our hearts we cannot find this made out with any degree of Credibility We have searched all your Grounds examined your Motives weighed your Reasons your miracles we have not seen but we can meet with nothing that should make it a prudent judgment
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 LONDON Printed for Richard Chismell at the Rose and Crown in S. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVII A VINDICATION of the ANSWER to Some late Papers c. IT was so tempting a piece of Honour to appear as the Champion of the Royal Papers that I rather wonder that no more than that these have shewed themselves to the World under so inviting a Character Which seems to have betray'd them into more than usual security presuming I suppose that they are to be looked on as a sort of Heralds in Controversis whose bearing the Royal Arms will keep them from being touched themselves though they bid defiance to others But where Truth lies at stake every one hath a Right to put in for it and whose Game soever any Person plays those ought to carry it who have the best Cards to shew I mean that in Debates of this Nature and Consequence other considerations ought to be so far laid aside that the strongest Reason should prevail But lest I be again thought to have a mind to flourish before I offer to pass as the Champion speaks in his proper Language I shall apply my self to the Matter before us Only taking notice that I am now glad to enter the Lists upon even Ground For although I thought I behaved my self with due Respect and Decency before yet I perceive the Measure of those things is so nice and arbitrary that it is very hard to escape Censures where the Distance is so great But those who live in the Country may mean and intend as well to their Prince as those who live at Court though they do not make so fine Legs nor are of so pleasing an Address The plain truth is Controversie is quite another thing from Courtship and Poetry It is like a Trial at Law which ought to depend on Evidence and Proof though the King himself be concerned in it And as we must give Honour to whom Honour so Truth to whom Truth is due and this without Respect of Persons it being a Case long since decided That Truth is greater than the King. If I thought there were no such thing in the World as true Religion and that the Priests of all Religions are alike I might have been as nimble a Convert and as early a Defender of the Royal Papers as any one of these Champions For why should not one who believes no Religion declare for any But since I do verily believe not only that there is such a thing as true Religion but that it is only to be found in the Books of Holy Scripture I have Reason to enquire after the best means of understanding the sense of those Books and thereby if it may be to put an end to the Controversies of Christendom This was the noble design of the two Royal Papers which are written with far greater strenght and spirit and closeness than these which are published in Defence of them But notwithstanding all their fair appearance I could not be convinced by the Reason contained in them and much less by the Defence of them Which I endeavour'd to represent as far as I could judge with Modesty and Civility But if I have offended in any thing against the strict Rules of good Manners I hope I may be the more easily forgiven since their Casuists allow involuntary faults to be in their own nature venial The Method proposed by the Paper for ending Controversies was by finding out a Principle for doing it as visible as that the Scripture is in Print This I could noâ— but extreamly approve as a very satisfactory method of proceeding and the Consequence I said would be that all Men of sense would soon give over disputing for none who dare to believe what they see can call that in Question The Author of the Râ—ply saith I mistook the meaning of the words which he saith was this That what ever Motives render it visible that a Book in Print is Scripture i. e. the Word of God the same or other Motives are as powerful to render this other truth as visible that none can be that Church but that which is called the Roman-Catholick Church The Desender saith The Church is more visible than Scripture because the Scripture is seen by the Church for which he brings S. Augustin 's Authority And if by saying that the Scripture is in Print be understood a tking out of Question then he denies it to be visible that the Scripture is in Print because many Men do call Scripture in question at this day and to question whether the Book in print be Scripture is manifestly to question whether Scripture be in print The Words of the Royal Paper are plain but these Interpretations of them so forced and unnatural that there needs no other confutation of them but to compare their confused Comment with the Text. It is as visible as that the Scripture is in Print that is it is a thing evident to sense for so it is that the Book called the Scripture or the Bible is in Print Now what is it which is affirmed in the Paper to be thus evident viz. this Proposition That none can be that one Church which Christ has here on Earth but that which is called the Roman Catholick Church But if it be certain as I doubt not to make it appear that what is called the Roman-Catholick Church is but a Part of that One Church which Christ has here on Earth then the plain result of this Proposition must be that it is a thing evident to sense that a Part is the Whole Now this looked so oddly that these Gentlemen were resolved that this should not be the sense of the plain words and therefore have endeavoured to put another sense if it may be called so upon them And if their Church can but interpret Scripture at this rate we are in a hopeful way to have a speedy and happy end of Controversies As to the Consequence I drew from hence that if Controversies could be determined by a Principle as visible as that Scripture is in Print all Men of sense would soon give over disputing for none who dare believe what they see would call that in question One saith The sooner the hetter So say I too upon good grounds But what would then become of the Noble Science of Controversie The other saith That Catholicks and Protestants are both Men of sense and yet they dispute about the Scripture which is in Print And what then This is to shew that the Scriptures being in Print is one thing and the Authority of the Scripture is another The one is a common object of sense in which all are agreed the other is liable to many Disputes and therefore could not be meant in the Papers But they have a notable Cavil against Mens believing what they
see because Faith is of things not seen This Cavil had been as good against our Blessed Saviour when he said to Thomas because thou hast seen thou hast believed I hope upon second thoughts they will not tell him that this was improperly spoken and not like a Schoolman Call it what you will the single Question is Whether your Church will allow us to Judge of things according to the plain Evidence of Sense One saith It is impossible that any Man should be commanded not to believe what he sees Believing here is the Judgment of the Mind upon the Representation of Sense and will he secure us that the Church can never require us to judge otherwise than according to the Evidence of Sense I wish he would make his words good for I assure him he would remove a terrible block out of our way My Senses plainly tell me what I see and feel and taste is as much Bread after Consecration as it was before how then comes it to pass that my Judgment that it was Bread before was very good but although there be the very same Evidence afterwards without the least alteration to Sense yet then I am to judge just contrary i. e. that it is not Bread which I see and feel and taste just as I did before But he saith what is seen is only the form shape and sigure of Bread and Wine and that they believe to be there But alas This doth not reach to the point For the Question is not about external appearances but about the Iudgment of the Mind upon the Evidence of Sense I will make this matter plainer that they may know where the Difficulty lies When Christ's Body appeared to the Disciples after his Resurrection there was no dispute among them concerning the form shape and figure of his body but the doubt was whether from these they were to conclude that it was Christ's real Body or not If not they could not believe from the Evidence of Sense that Christ's Body was risen from the dead if they were let them tell us how Christ's Body comes to be so much changed and to lose those essential properties of a body which it once had and was judged by and farther what ground there is for us now not to allow that Judgment of Sense which Christ himself appealed to after the Institution of the Sacrament For if Christ had therein declared that our Senses are not to be our Rule of judging concerning his Body he would certainly not have appealed so soon after to the Senses of his Disciples concerning that very Body and neither he nor his Disciples have given the least intimation that what we see and feel to be one body we must believe to be quite another which we can neither see nor feel Did not two Angels appear to Lot in the figure and shapes of Men and the Holy Ghost descend in the form of a Dove And were they who saw them to believe according to the Evidence of Sense I answer that there is a great deal of difference to be made between Invisible Powers appearing under bodily shapes and a natural visible palpable extended body losing the Properties of a body abd becoming invisible impalpable and indivisible And withal there is a great difference between Spiritual Powers uniting the real particles of Matter into a Body and the making the Form Figure and Shape of a real Body to be where there is no substance of a body We do not pretend to judge by our Senses of Invisible Substances under outward appearances but of the Truth of a bodily Substance by all the Appearances of a body under all the Circumstances necessary for the right judgment of Sense The other saith he knows of no Church which allows not People to believe all they see May we then believe that to be still Bread which we see to be so No he saith the What of a thing is not the Object of Sense I perceive then our Senses are very impertinent things and only give an account of the Circumstances and not of the Substances of things But I pray did not the Disciples perceive the What of Christ's Body by their Senses How do we know the What of any bodily Substance but by them It is meer Collusion to say our Senses do not judge of Substances for our bare Senses judge of nothing but are the means of conveying the impressions or Representations inward whereby our Minds do paâ—s Judgment upon things And either we cannot know the Substance of any thing sensible or we must know the What of it as he speaks by our Senses We now come to the main business which for the clearer proceeding I shall put under three distinct Heads I. Concerning the Unity of the Catholick Church II. Concerning the Authority of it III. Concerning the Reformation of the Church of England I. Of the Unity of the Catholick Church ANd here the point to be discussed is viz. Whether that which is called the Roman-Catholick Church be that one Church which Christ has here on Earth 1. The first thing I objected against it was that a Part cannot be the Whole but that which is called the Roman-Catholick Church is but a Part and therefore it cannot be the One Catholick Church of Christ here on earth Here to prevent cavilling I must declare that I meant not the Roman Diocese or Province but all the Churches which live in Communion with and Subjection to the Bishop of Rome as Head of the Church and look on it as necessary to Salvation so to do And this I still assert to be but a Part of the Catholick Church and a corrupt one too The Author of the Defence saith all this Riddle of Part and Whole comes from my Inadvertence How so Because I confound the Roman Diocese with the Roman-Catholick Church No I assure him I did take it in their own sense for all that embrace the matters of Faith which are received in the Roman Communion And He need not fear my doing otherwise for I intend to discourse of no other Church but this and this I deny as so taken to be the One Catholick Church Doth not Catholic signifie all the Parts I am sure it ought to do so but I say it doth not when Roman is joyned to Catholick for then it excludes all those from being Parts of the Catholic Church which do not joyn in the Roman Communion and this I say is unreasonable And here I expected some Proof in so material a Point but there is not a Word farther than that Catholic comprehends all but I say again Roman Catholic excludes all that are not in its Communion As suppose any one should say the German Ocean is the whole Sea and to prove it should reason as this Gentlemen doth Ocean is the whole Sea is it not And is it the less the Ocean because German is added to it No the Ocean is just as large as ever it was but
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
should tumble down together what would become of us both Never fear that saith he But how should I help fearing of it Have any that he carried thither come back and assured others of the safety of the passage No. But how then Why saith he You are bound to believe what he saith for he affirms that he can do it But saith the Traveller this is very hard I must venture Body and Soul upon his skill and strength and I must take his Word that he hath both This seems very unreasonable to me and therefore I am resolved to take the other course which tho it do not make such big boasts of it self is much more likely to be safe in the conclusion having better Reason on its side and requiring a more constant care of my self to which God hath promis'd more of his Grace and Assistance to secure me from all fatal mistakes of my way Where I mention Doctrines so universally received in the Christian Church from the Apostles times as those in the Creeds The Defender makes a notable Exception As if saith he any part of the universal Christian Doctrine were lost and all had not beâ—n always as universally retained as the Creeds Then I hope all the Points in Controversy between us and them can be proved by as clear and evident a Succession as the Articles of the Creeds If he can do this he will be a â—ampion indeed I desire him to take his choice either Supremacy Transubstantiation Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church or which he pleases I grant all true Christian Doctrine was universally retained as far as the Rule of it was so received but if he means any of those distinguishing points between us and them when he comes to make it out he will be of another mind 3. A third Inconvenience objected in the Papers against the want of an infallible Judg was That Scripture would be interpreted by Fancy which is the same thing as to follow Fancy To this it was answer'd 1. That our Church owns the Creeds Councils Fathers and Primitive Church more frankly than any other Church and therefore cannot be suspected to leave Scripture to be so interpreted The Replier saith We only pretend it and do it not That is to be proved for bare saying it will never convince us But his proof is because if we had done it we had never deserted the Church of Rome and our Answer is we therefore deserted the Communion of that Church because She required owning things from us for which She had no Authority either from Scripture Creeds Councils or Fathers The Defender would have me answer directly Whether it be not the same to follow Fancy as to interpret Scripture by it As tho I were examined at the Catechism which requires all answers to be made by Yea or Nay I said enough to shew the Question doth not concern us for we do not allow Persons to interpret Scripture by Fancy And withal 2. I asked some other Questions to shew That those who pretend to Infallibity may do things as unreasonable as leaving Scripture to be interpreted by Fancy And I have our Saviours example for answering one question with another The Instances I gave were these The Church of Romes assuming to it self the Power of interpreting the Rule which concerns its own Power of interpreting which was to make it Judg in its own Cause and to give it as great Power as if it made the Rule and I further added that Interest is as mischievous an Interpreter of Scripture as Fancy and therefore those who are so much concerned are not to be relied on either in Councils or out The Power of declaring Tradition is as Arbitrary a thing in the Church of Rome as interpreting Scripture by Fancy There being no other Rule allowed by it but the Sense of the present Church The Replier like a fair Adversary gives his answer plainly which consists in two things 1. That their Church gives no Sense of Scripture but what She received from Tradition of the foregoing Church and so he calls it Apostolical Tradition But suppose there happen a Question whether it be so or not must not all be resolved into the Authority of the present Church declaring what is Apostolical Tradition And so it comes all to one 2. He saith Tradition is publick and Fancy is private But I say according to their Rules Tradition is but publick Fancy and so Fancy in particular Persons is a private Tradition but whether publick or private if it be equally Arbitrary the Case is alike The Defender saith All this is besides the Business and therefore slides off as well as he can with some slight touches which deserve no Answer 4. If there be no infallible Judg the Power of deciding matters of Faith will be given to every particular man for which no place can be shewed The Answer was That if by deciding matters of Faith no more be meant but every mans being satisfied of the Reasons why he believes one thing to be true and not another that belongs to every man as he is bound to take care of his Soul and must give an account both to God and Man of the Reason of his Faith. This the Replier saith is bringing every Article of Faith to the Test of ones own Reason whereas Authority is the Correlative of Believing and Reason of Knowledg We do not pretend that every one that believes should be able to judg from meer Principles of Reason of the Credibility of the Doctrine propos'd it is sufficient if he finds it to be of Divine Revelation by being contained in Gods word And it is not the Authority of the Church but of Divine Revelation which Faith bottoms upon the former is no more than an inducement to believe those Books we call Scripture to contain the word of God in them But when we find any Doctrine therein we account that sufficient Reason for believing it The Defender finds no fault with our saying We ought to be satisfied of the Reason why we believe but the Question he puts is Whether there be indeed any Reasons why they should believe besides the Authority of the Church He doth not deny that particular Men ought to judg but the meaning of the Papers he saith is that they ought not to judg unreasonably Then we have no difference for I assure him I never pleaded for mens judging unreasonably The Question then between us is Whether those who do not believe upon the Infallible Authority of the Roman Catholick Church Do judg unreasonably i. e. Whether there be equal Grounds to believe the Roman Catholick Church Infallible as there are to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God We utterly deny the Roman Churches Infallibility to be necessary to our believing the Scripture for we receive that by an Universal Tradition from all the Apostolical Churches which is as clear for this as it is wanting for the
for us to take all matters of Faith upon trust from her And if there be no Evidence of Credibility there is no sufficient proposal and if there be not there can be no obligation to believe and where that is not there can be no Heresie in not believing according to the judgment of your greatest Divines 3 As to the charge of Heresie there must be obstinacy in the party which they all make necessary to formal Heresie Aquinas quotes the noted passage of St. Augâ—stin to this purpose That although men hold a false opinion without pertinacious animosity especially if they derive it from their Parents and do with diligence and caution seek after the Truth and are ready to lay it down when they have found it they are not to be reckoâ—'d for Hereticks And we do not think a better Plea can be made for us as to this charge than what is contained in these words of St. Augustâ—n But here we must observe the artifice of Aquinas He saw this would never do their business against the enemies of the Church of Rome and therefore he pretends to give the Reason for this because they do not contradict the judgment of the Church and so draws the power of declaring Heresie to the Pope as having the chief Authority in the Church Of whom St. Augustin saith not a word But however Aquinas himself requires Obstinacy even in this case to make a Heretick And the Obstinacy is not placed by him in the meer resisting the Authority of the Church but in the manner of doing it Cajetan there affirms that if there be no pertinacy in the Will there is no Heresie So that if a man holds an opinion contrary to Faith in it self and he thinks he holds right and doth not intend to dissent from the Church he is not guilty of Heresie And so Cajetan defines Pertinacy to be a consent to an error in Faith knowing it so to be Melchior Canus saith It is the general Opinion of Divines and Canonists that there can be no Heresie without Obstinacy And no man is a Heretick he saith who doth not seeing and knowing chuse a Doctrine contrary to Faâ—â—h Suarez saith that all the Doctors are agreed that Obstinacy is required to Heresie and that it is expressed in the Canon Law. So that I need to produce no more to that purpose But the difficulty is to know what they mean by Obstinacy It is not hard to understand what is meant by the word for pertinax is one that is over-tenacious i. e. that holds an opinion when he sees no ground for it or will yield to no Reasonable conviction or that hath not a desire to find out Truth and submit to it And so it is plain St. Augustin understood it in the place before mention'd And in another place he makes it to lye in a mans resisting the Catholick Doctrine made known to him without which he did not judg him a Heretick though he held Heretical Doctrine And again he declares those to be Hereticks that contumaciously resist those that correct and instruct them and will not amend their wicked Doctrines but go on to defend them These passages of St. Augustin are enter'd in the Body of the Canon Law and the Gloss there saith If one bolds Doctrines against Faith and be ready to be better instructed he is no Heretick The same Authorities Ockam insists upon and from them he declares Obstinacy to be so necessary that without it no man can be a Heretick And he concludes from St. Augustin that if a man be ready to yield to Truth when he finds it he is not guilâ—y of Obstinacy And he proves that such are no Hereticks from these Reasons 1 Because Hereticks are to be Excommunicated but such by the Canon Law are not to be â—xcommunicated 2 Because they are ready to be better instructed 3 Because many have erred and were not accounted Hereticks on this account Oâ—kam distinguishes a twofold Obstinacy 1. Internal 2. External Internal may be known he saith by theâ—e Rules 1. If a man be not convinced by Miracles 2. If he will rather question the truth of the Christian Faith than be convinced 3. When he doth not use means for his own Conviction but resolves to persist in his Errors such a neglect argues an obstinate mind External of which he gives many instances of which I shall mention some as 1. If a man willingly saith or doth something whereby he discovers his disbelief of the whole Christian Faith 2 If he demes any part of the old or new Testament 3. If he holds the whole Christian Church to have erred which he by no means understands of any part of it assuming the Titles of Catholick and Infallible to it self for he saith some say that whatsoever Christ hath promised to his Church may be made good if but one Person in it holds the true Faith but he declares that the 〈◊〉 Faith may be preserved in a very few 4. If the contrary Doctrâ—â— known to be universally received among Christians as if one shâ—uld deny that Christ was crucified and on this account he charges 〈◊〉 22. with Heresy for denying that the Souls of the Wicked are in Hell and of the Saints in Heaven before the day of Judgment 5. If he refuses to be informed being reproved by the Learned 6. If he protests he will never alter his Opinion 7. If he forbids reading the Scriptures or preaching Catholick Doctrine 8. If a Pope commands an erroneous Opinion to be believed as matter of Faith. 9. If a man consents to such a Definition of the Pope and imposes it on others Joh. Gerson treats at large about the obstinacy which makes one a Heretick in several Discourses before the Council of Constance and he follows St. Augustins Doctrine in saying That it consists in not seeking after Truth and not obeying it when he hath found it Melchior Canus finds fault with the uncertain Marks of Obstinacy given by others and he resolves it at last into this That a Man holds an Opinion which he knows to be contrary to the Catholick Faith but then he requires 1. That he be certain that it belongs to it and it is not enough that learned Men say so 2. That he must know it by an infallible Authority For otherwise a mans persisting in his Opinion may be great rashness and presumption but it is not Heresy But in case a persons ignorance be such as makes his Errors involuntary it doth excuse him from Heresy because that is not a voluntary Error Suarez and others after him in plain terms make the Obstinacy to lie in not submiting to the Judgment of the Church because while a Man doth yield to the Churches Authority they account him no Heretick â—his is indeed an Argument according to their way of declaring Hereticks but we are now enquiring what that Obstinacy is which doth really make
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