none of your own proposing but yet your very calling it a pertinent Question renders it liable to suspicion and upon examination it will be found both unreasonable and impertinent The Question was What Points the Bishop would account Fundamental and that you may shew how necessary this Question was you add For if he will have some Fundamental which we are bound to believe under pain of damnation and others not Fundamental which we may without sin question or deny it behoves us much to know what they are I have ever desired say you a satisfactory Answer from Protestants to this Question but could never yet have it in the sense demanded An unhappy man you are who it seems have in your time propounded more foolish Questions than a great many wise men were never able to answer But is it not every jot as reasonable That since your Church pretends to the power of making things necessary to the Salvation of all which were not so before we should have from you an exact Catalogue of all your Churches Definitions If for that you referr us to the Confession of Faith at the end of the Council of Trent so may not we with far greater reason send you back to the Apostolical Creed there being no objection which will hold against this being a Catalogue of our Fundamentals but will hold against that Being a Catalogue of yours Nay you assert such things your self concerning the necessity of believing things defined by the Church as make it impossible for you to assign the definite number of such things as are necessary for all persons and therefore it is very unreasonable to demand it of us For still when you speak that the things defined by the Church are necessary to the Salvation of all you add Where they are sufficiently propounded so that the measure of Fundamentals depends on the sufficiency of the Proposition Now will you undertake to assign what number of things are sufficiently propounded to the belief of all persons Can you set down the exact bounds as to all individuals when their ignorance is inexcusable and when not Can you tell what the measure of their capacity was what allowance God makes for the prejudices of Education where there is a mind desirous of instruction Will you say God accounts all those things sufficiently proposed to mens belief which you judge to be so or that all men are bound to think those things necessary to Salvation which you think so by what means shall the Churches Power of defining matters of Faith be sufficiently proposed to men as an Article of Faith Either by its own Definition or without If by its the thing is proposed to be believed which is supposed to be believed already before that Proposition or else the Enquiry returns with as great force Why should I believe that Definition more than any other if without it then the sufficiency of Proposition and the necessity of believing depends not on the Churches Definition These Questions I am apt to think as pertinent and necessary as yours was and now you know my sense and are so discontented you could never meet with a satisfactory Answer from Protestants prevent the same dissatisfaction in me by giving a punctual Answer to such necessary Questions But if you think the demands unreasonable because they depend on such things which none can know but God himself I pray accept of that as a satisfactory Answer to your own very pertinent Question But if the Question be propounded not concerning what things are Fundamental and necessary to particular persons which on the reasons formerly given it is impossible to give a Catalogue of but of such things which are necessary to be owned for Christian Communion as I have shewed this Question of Fundamentals ought only to be taken here then his Lordship's Answer was more pertinent than the Question viz. That all the Points of the Creed were such For saith he Since the Fathers make the Creed the Rule of Faith since the agreeing sense of Scripture with those Articles are the two Regular Precepts by which a Divine is governed about the Faith since your own Council of Trent decrees That it is that principle of Faith in which all that profess Christ do necessarily agree Fundamentum firmum unicum not the firm only but the only Foundation since it is Excommunication ipso jure for any man to contradict the Articles contained in that Creed since the whole body of Faith is so contained in the Creed as that the substance of it was believed even before the coming of Christ though not so expresly as since in the number of the Articles Since Bellarlarmin confesses That all things simply necessary for all mens Salvation are in the Creed and Decalogue What reason can you have to except Thus far his Lordship though from hence it appears what little reason you have to except yet because of that I expect your Exceptions the sooner and therefore very fairly passing by the sense of the Fathers you ask concerning the Council of Trent What if that call the Creed the only Foundation Are you come to a What if with the Council of Trent But I suppose it is not from disputing its Authority but its meaning for you would seem to understand it only of prime Articles of Faith and not of such as all are bound upon sufficient Proposition expresly to believe for that is all the sense I can make of your words But whoever was so silly as to say That all such things which are to be believed on sufficient Proposition that they are revealed by God are contained in the Creed When you seem to imply That this was the sense the Question was propounded in it is a sign you little attend to the Consequence of things when it is most evident that the Question was started concerning the Greek Church and therefore must referr only to such Fundamentals as are necessary to be owned in order to the Being of a true Church And when you can prove that any other Articles are necessary to that besides those contained in the Creed you will do something to purpose but not before But you suppose them to take the Creed in a very large sense who would lap up in the folds of it all particular Points of Faith whatever and I am sure this is not the sense it is to be taken in here nor that in which his Lordship took it He saith indeed That if he had said that those Articles only which are expressed in the Creed are Fundamental it would have been hard to have excluded the Scripture upon which the Creed it self in every Point is grounded For nothing is supposed to shut out its own Foundation And this is built on very good reason For the things contained in the Creed are proposed as matters to be believed all Faith must suppose a Divine Testimony revealing those things to us as the ground on which we
believe them this Divine Testimor is never pretended to be contained in the Creed but that it is only a summary Collection of the most necessary Points which God hath revealed and therefore something else must be supposed as the ground and formal reason why we assent to the truth of those things therein contained So that the Creed must suppose the Scripture as the main and only Foundation of believing the matters of Faith therein contained But say you If all the Scripture be included in the Creed there appears no great reason of scruple why the same should not be said of Traditions and other Points especially of that for which we admit Scripture it self But do you make no difference between the Scripture being supposed as the ground of Faith and all Scripture being contained in the Creed And doth not his Lordship tell you That though some Articles may be Fundamental which are infolded in the Creed it would not follow that therefore some unwritten Traditions were Fundamental for though they may have Authority and use in the Church as Apostolical yet are they not Fundamental in the Faith And as for that Tradition That the Books of Holy Scripture are Divine and Infallible in every part he promises to handle it when he comes to the proper place for it And there we shall readily attend what you have to object to what his Lordship saith about it But yet you say His Lordship doth not answer the Question as far as it was necessary to be answered we say he doth No say you For the Question arising concerning the Greek Churches errour whether it were Fundamental or no Mr. Fisher demanded of the Bishop What Points he would account Fundamental to which he answers That all Points contained in the Creed are such but yet not only they and therefore this was no direct Answer to the Question for though the Greeks errour was not against the Creed yet it may be against some other Fundamental Article not contained in the Creed This you call fine shuffling To which I answer That when his Lordship speaks of its not being Fundamentum unicum in that sense to exclude all things not contained in the Creed from being Fundamental he spake it with an immediate respect to the belief of Scripture as an Infallible Rule of Faith For saith he The truth is I said and say still That all the Points of the Apostles Creed as they are there expressed are Fundamental And herein I say no more than some of your best learned have said before me But I never said or meant that they only are Fundamental that they are Fundamentum unicum is the Council of Trent's 't is not mine Mine is That the belief of Scripture to be the Word of God and Infallible is an equal or rather a preceding Principle of Faith with or to the whole body of the Creed Now what reason can you have to call this shuffling unless you will rank the Greeks errour equal with the denying the Scripture to be the Word of God otherwise his Lordship's Answer is as full and pertinent as your cavil is vain and trifling His Lordship adds That this agrees with one of your own great Masters Albertus Magnus who is not far from the Proposition in terminis To which your Exceptions are so pitiful that I shall answer them without reciting them for he that supposeth the sense of Scripture joyned with the Articles of Faith to be the Rule of Faith as Albertus doth must certainly suppose the belief of the Scripture as the Word of God else how is it possible its sense should be the Rule of Faith Again it is not enough for you to say That he believed other Articles of Faith besides these in the Creed but that he made them a Rule of Faith together with the sense of Scripture 3. All this while here is not one word of Tradition as the ground on which these Articles of Faith were to be believed If this therefore be your way of answering I know none will contend with you for fine shuffling What follows concerning the right sense of the Article of the Descent of Christ into Hell since you say You will not much trouble your self about it as being not Fundamental either in his Lordships sense or ours I look on that expression as sufficient to excuse me from undertaking so needless a trouble as the examining the several senses of it since you acknowledge That no one determinate sense is Fundamental and therefore not pertinent to our business Much less is that which follows concerning Mr. Rogers his Book and Authority in which and that which depends upon it I shall only give you your own words for an Answer That truly I conceive it of small importance to spend much time upon this subject and shall not so far contradict my judgement as to do that which I think when it is done is to very little purpose Of the same nature is that of Catharinus for it signifies nothing to us whether you account him an Heretick or no who know Men are not one jot more or less Heretick for your accounting them to be so or not You call the Bishop your good friend in saying That all Protestants do agree with the Church of England in the main Exceptions which they joyntly take against the Roman Church as appears by their several Confessions For say you by their agreeing in this but in little or nothing else they sufficiently shew themselves enemies to the true Church which is one and only one by Vnity of Doctrine from whence they must needs be judged to depart by reason of their Divisions As good a friend as you say his Lordship was to you in that saying of his I am sure you ill requite him for his Kindness by so palpable a falsification of his words and abuse of his meaning And all that Friendship you pretend lyes only in your leaving out that part of the Sentence which takes away all that you build on the rest For where doth his Lordship say That the Protestants only agree in their main Exceptions against the Roman Church and not in their Doctrines Nay doth he not expresly say That they agree in the chiefest Doctrines as well as main Exceptions which they take against the Church of Rome as appears by their several Confessions But you very conveniently to your purpose and with a fraud suitable to your Cause leave out the first part of agreement in the chiefest Doctrines and mention only the latter lest your Declamation should be spoiled as to your Unity and our Disagreements But we see by this by what means you would perswade men of both by Arts and Devices fit only to deceive such who look only on the appearance and outside of things and yet even there he that sees not your growing Divisions is a great stranger to the Christian world Your great Argument of the Vnity of your party because
fundamental in themselves or only by reduction and consequence Whether you hold all fundamental points literally or no yet if we prove you guilty of any gross dangerous and damnable errours as his Lordship asserts you are that will be abundantly sufficient to our purpose that Yours cannot possibly be any safe way to Salvation And although we should grant your Church right in the exposition of the three Creeds yet if you assert any other errours of a dangerous nature your right exposition of them cannot secure the souls of men from the danger they run themselves upon by embracing the other So much for the Argument drawn from the possibility of Salvation in the Roman Church CHAP. V. The Safety of the Protestant Faith The sufficiency of the Protestant Faith to Salvation manifested by disproving the Cavils against it C's tedious Repetitions passed over The Argument from Possession at large consider'd No Prescription allowable where the Law hath antecedently determined the right Of the Infallibility of Oral Tradition That contrary to the received Doctrine of the Roman Church and in it self unreasonable The Grounds of it examined The ridiculousness of the Plea of bare Possession discovered General Answers returned to the remaining Chapters consisting wholly of things already discussed The place of S. Cyprian to Cornelius particularly vindicated The proof of Succession of Doctrine lyes on the Romanists by their own Principles ALthough this Subject hath been sufficiently cleared in the Controversie concerning the resolution of Faith yet the nature of our task requires that we so far resume the debate of it as any thing undiscussed already offers it self to consideration For I cannot think it a civil way of treating the Reader to cloy him with Tautologies or Repetitions nor can I think it a way to satisfie him rather by some incidental passages than by a full and free debate In all those things then which we have had occasion to handle already I shall remit the Reader to the precedent discourses but whatever hath the face of being new and pertinent I shall readily examine the force of it The occasion of this fresh Debate was a new Question of the Lady Whether she might be saved in the Protestant Faith In answering whereof you say The parties conferring are put into new heats Vpon my soul said the Bishop you may Vpon my soul said Mr. Fisher there 's but one saving Faith and that 's the Roman Since the confidence seems equal on both sides we must examine Which is built on the stronger reason And his Lordship's comes first to be examined which he offers very freely to examination For saith he to believe the Scripture and the Creeds to believe these in the sense of the Ancient Primitive Church to receive the four great General Councils so much magnified by Antiquity to believe all points of Doctrine generally received as fundamental in the Church of Christ is a Faith in which to live and dye cannot but give Salvation And therefore saith he I went upon sure ground in the adventure of my soul upon that Faith Besides in all the points controverted between us I would fain see any one point maintain'd by the Church of England that can be proved to depart from the foundation You have many dangerous errours about the very foundation in that which you call the Roman Faith but there I leave you to look to your own soul and theirs whom you seduce Thus far his Lordship Two things you seem to answer to this 1. That such a Faith may not be sufficient 2. That ours is not such a Faith 1. That such a Faith may not be sufficient because you suppose it necessary to believe the Infallibility of the present Church and General Councils But that we are now excused from a fresh enquiry into but you would seem to inferr it from his own principles of submission to General Councils But by what peculiar Arts you can thence draw that some thing else is necessary to be believed in order to Salvation besides what hath been owned as Fundamentals in all ages I am yet to learn And sure you were much to seek for Arguments when you could not distinguish between the necessity of external submission and internal assent But the second is the main thing you quarrel with viz. That the English-Protestant Faith is really and indeed such a Faith and this you undertake at large to disprove You ask first Whether we believe all Scripture or only a part of it we answer All without exception that is Scripture i. e. hath any evidence that ever it was of Divine Revelation In this you say we profess more then we can make good seeing we refuse many books owned for Canonical by the Primitive Church and imbrace some which were not But in both you assert that which we are sure you are never able to defend since we are content to put it upon as fair a tryal as you can desire viz. That the Church of England doth fully agree with the Primitive Church as to the Canon of Scripture Which hath been already made good by the successful diligence of a learned Bishop of our Church to whom I refer you either for satisfaction or confusion But you are the men whose bare words and bold affirmations must weigh more then the greatest evidence of reason or Antiquity You love to pronounce where you are loath to prove and think to bear men down with confidence where you are afraid to enter the lists But our Faith stands not on so sandy a Foundation to be blown down with your biggest words which have that property of wind in them to be leight and loud When you will attempt to prove that the Books call'd Apocrypha have had an equal testimony of Divine Authority with those we receive into the Canon of Scripture you may meet with a further Answer upon that Subject Just as much you say to disprove our believing Scripture and the Creeds in the Primitive Church For you say The Fathers oppose us we deny it you say The Councils condemn us we say and prove the contrary You offer again at some broken evidences of the Popes Supremacy from Councils and Fathers but those have been discussed already and the sense of the Church at large manifested to be contrary to it But I fear your matters lye very ill concocted upon your stomack you bring them us so often up but I am not bound to dance in a circle because you do so And therefore I proceed but when I hope to do so you pull me back again to the Infallibility of Councils and the Church the question of Fundamentals and the Greek Church and scarce a page between but in comes again the Popes Supremacy as fresh as if it had been never handled before But I assure you after this rate I wonder you ever came to an end for you might have writ all your life time after that manner For the
decrying the use of those things which should discover their falsity For although the judgement of sense were that which the Apostles did appeal to that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you although that were the greatest and surest evidence to them of the Resurrection of Christ although Christ himself condemned them for their unbelief and hardness of heart because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen yet according to your Principles men must have a care of relying on the judgement of sense in matters of Faith lest perchance they should not believe that great Affront to humane Nature the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Neither are men only deprived of the judgement of sense but of the concurrent use of Scripture and Reason for these are pretended to be uncertain fallible nay dangerous without the Churches Infallibility So that the short of your grounds of establishing Faith is If we will find our way we must renounce the judgement of sense and reason submit our selves and Scripture to an Infallible Guide and then you tell us we cannot miss of our way when it is impossible for us to know our Guide without the use of those things which we are bid to renounce These things laid together make us admire more at your confidence than invention in making the current title of your Book to be Dr. Lawd's Labyrinth in which it is hard to say whether your immodesty or blindness be the greater But as though you were the only Heroes for asserting the Christian Cause and all others but more subtle betrayers of it you begin your Book with a most ingenious comparison of the learned labours of those of your Church to the stately Temple of Solomon and the artificial but pestiferous works of all Heretical Authors i. e. all but your selves to Labyrinths and intricate Dungeons In which only your discretion is to be commended in placing this at the entrance of your Book for whosoever looks but further into it and compares it with that you pretend to answer will not condemn the choice of your Similitudes but your forgetfulness in misapplying them But it matters not what titles you give to the books of our Authors unless you were better able to confute them and if no other book of any late Protestant Writer hath been any more discovered to be of this intangling nature than this of his Lordship whom you call our grand Author is by you you may very justly say of them as you do in the next words they are very liable to the same Reproach In which we commend your ingenuity that when you had so lately disparaged our Authors and Writings you so suddenly wipe off those Aspersions again by giving them the deserved name of Reproaches When you say his Lordships Book is most artificially composed we have reason to believe so fair a Testimony from a professed Adversary but when notwithstanding this you call it a Labyrinth we can interpret it only as a fair plea for your not being able to answer it And who can blame you for calling that a Labyrinth in which you have so miserably lost your self but in pity to you and justice to the cause I have undertaken I shall endeavour with all kindness and fairness to reduce you out of your strange entanglements into the plain and easie paths of Truth which I doubt not to effect by your own Clew of Scripture and Tradition by which you may soon discover what a Labyrinth you were in your self when you had thought to have made directive Marks as you call them for others to avoid it To omit therefore any further preface I shall wait upon you to particulars the first of which is the Occasion of the Conference which you say was for the satisfaction of an honourable Lady who having heard it granted in a former Conference that there must be a continual visible company ever since Christ teaching unchanged doctrine in all points necessary to salvation and finding it seems in her own reason that such a company or Church must not be fallible in its teaching was in quest of a Continual Visible Infallible Church as not thinking it fit for unlearned persons to judge of particular doctrinals but to depend on the judgement of the true Church The Question then was not concerning a Continual and Visible Church which you acknowledge was granted but concerning such a Church as must be infallible in all she teaches and if she be infallible according to your doctrine of Fundamentals whatever she teaches is necessary to salvation which that Lady thought necessary to be first determined because saith Mr. Fisher It was not for her or any other unlearned persons to take upon them to judge of particulars without depending upon the judgement of the true Church which seeming to allow of some use of our own judgement supposing the Churches Authority you pervert into these words Not thinking it fit to judge c. but to depend c. But let them be as they will unless you gave greater reason for them it is not material which way they pass For his Lordship had returned a sufficient Answer to that pretence which you are content to take no notice of in saying That it is very fit the people should look to the judgement of the Church before they be too busie with particulars But yet neither Scripture nor any good Authority denyes them some moderate use of their own understanding and judgement especially in things familiar and evident which even ordinary capacities may as easily understand as read And therefore some particulars a Christian may judge without depending To which you having nothing to say run post to the business of Infallibility for when it was said The Lady desired to rely on an Infallible Church therein his Lordship says neither the Jesuite nor the Lady her self spake very advisedly For an Infallible Church denotes a particular Church in that it is set in opposition to some other particular Church that is not infallible Here now you begin your discoveries for you tell us he makes this his first crook in his projected Labyrinth which is apparent to any man that has eyes even without the help of a Perspective As seldome as Perspectives are used to discern the turns of Labyrinths nothing is so apparent as that your eyes or your judgement were not very good when you used this expression For I pray what crook or turn is there in that when a Lady demanded an Infallible Church to her guide to say that by that question she supposeth some particular Church as distinct from and opposite to others to be infallible No say you she sought not any one particular Church infallible in opposition to another Church not infallible but some Church such as might without danger of errour direct her in all doctrinal points of Faith Rarely well distinguish'd Not any particular Church but some particular Church For if
rest of the Points of Faith are necessary to be believed necessitate praecepti only conditionally that is to all such to whom they are sufficiently propounded as defined by the Church which necessity proceeds not precisely from the material object or matter contained in them but from the formal object of Divine Authority declared to Christians by the Churches Definition Whether therefore the Points in question be necessary in the first manner or no by reason of their precise matter yet if they be necessary by reason of the Divine Authority or Formal object of Divine Revelation sufficiently declared and propounded to us they will be Points Fundamental that is necessary to Salvation to be believed as we have shewed Fundamental must here be taken These words of yours containing the full state of the question in your own terms and being the substance of all you say on this Controversie I have recited at large that you may not complain your meaning is mistaken in them You assert then that besides that necessity which ariseth from the matter of things to be believed and from th◠absolute Command of God there is another necessity conditionally upon the Churches Definition but supposing that Definition the thing so propounded becomes as necessary to Salvation as what is necessary from the matter for in all hypothetical propositions the supposition being in act the matter becomes necessary For unless you speak of such a necessity as becomes as universally obligatory on supposition of the Churches Definition as that which ariseth from the matter or absolute command you are guilty of the greatest tergiversation and perverting the state of the Question For otherwise that cannot be said to be fundamental or necessary to Salvation in the sense of this Question which is not generally necessary to Salvation to all Christians For no man was ever so silly as to imagine that the Question of Fundamentals with a respect to whole Churches as it is here taken can be understood in any other sense than as the matter call'd Fundamental or Necessary must be equally fundamental and necessary to all persons And that this must be your meaning appears by the rise of the Controversie which concerns the whole Greek Church which you exclude from being a Church because she erres fundamentally and that she errres fundamentally because the Church hath defined it to be an errour So that what the Church determines as matter of Faith is as necessary to be believed in order to Salvation as that which is necessary from the matter or from an absolute Command For otherwise the Greek Church might not be in a Fundamental Errour notwithstanding the Churches Definition the ground of this Errour being Fundamental not being derived from the matter or absolute Command but from the Churches Definition If therefore the denial of what the Church defines doth exclude from Salvation the necessity and obligation must be equal to that which ariseth from the matter to be believed And if the Church defines any particulars to be explicitly believed as necessary to Salvation not only the not disbelieving them but the not explicit believing them will be as destructive to Salvation as if the matter of the things themselves were necessary or that it were absolutely commanded for in those cases you say the not explicit believing is that which damns and so on your principles it will do here when the explicit belief is the thing defined by the Church This will be more plain by an Instance It is notoriously known that at the shutting up of the Council of Trent a Confession of Faith was drawn up and confirmed by the Bull of Pius 4. A. D. 1564. and that ut unius ejusdem fidei professio uniformitèr ab omnibus exhibeatur That the Profession of one and the same Faith may be made known to all and declared uniformally by all In which Confession after the enumeration of the Articles contained in the Ancient Creed there are many others added concerning Traditions Seven Sacraments the Decrees of the Council of Trent as to Original sin and Justification The Sacrifice of the Mass Transubstantiation Communion in one kind Purgatory Invocation of Saints Worship of Images Indulgences the Pope's Supremacy c. All which are required to be believed with an equal assent to the former as absolutely necessary to Salvation and necessary Conditions of Catholick Communion For thus it ends Hanc veram Catholicam Fidem extra quam nemo salvus esse potest quam in praesenti sponte profiteor veraciter teneo eandem integram inviolatam usque ad extremum vitae spiritum c. This true Catholick Faith without which none can be saved which at present I profess and truly hold and will do whole and undefiled to my lives end c. Judge you now whether an equal explicit Faith be not here required to the Definitions of the Church as to the Articles of the Creed and if so there must be an equal necessity in order to Salvation of believing both of them it being here so expresly declared that these Definitions are Integral Parts of that Catholick Faith without which there is no Salvation And what could be more said of those things whose matter or absolute precept do make them necessary This Confession of Faith therefore gives us the truest state of the present Question in these particulars 1. That the Definitions of the Church are to be believed to be as necessary to Salvation as the Articles of the Ancient Creed without the belief of which no Salvation is to be expected 2. That the explicit Belief of these Definitions as necessary to Salvation may be required in order to Catholick Communion and that they are to be believed of all as such because they are defined by the Church So that the Question is not What is so required by the Churches Definition declared and propounded to us that it ought not to be dis-believed without mortal and damnable sin which unrepented destroyes Salvation as you stated it for this seems only to respect the Faith of particular persons who are to believe according as the Proposition may be judged sufficient but the true state of the Question is Whether any Definitions of the Church may be believed as Necessary Articles of Faith and whether they may be imposed on others to be believed as such so that they may be excluded Catholick Communion if they do not For this is really the true state of the Question between your Church and ours ever since the Council of Trent and as to it thus stated as it ought to be I do most readily joyn issue with you For the clearing of which important Question on which the main cause of our being separated from your Communion depends these three things will be necessary to be exactly discussed 1. What the Grounds are on which any thing doth become necessary to Salvation 2. Whether any thing whose matter is not necessary and is not required by an
absolute Command can by any means whatsoever afterwards become necessary 3. Whether the Church hath power by any Proposition or Definition to make any thing become necessary to Salvation and to be believed as such which was not so before These three I suppose you cannot deny but will take in all that is considerable in this Controversie Which I shall with the more care examine because nothing tends more to the peace of the Christian World than a through and clear discussion of it and nothing causeth more the Schisms and Divisions of it than the want of a right and due conception of it 1. What the Grounds are on which any thing doth become necessary to Salvation For our better understanding of which we must consider two things 1. What things are necessary to the Salvation of men as such or considered in their single and private capacities 2. What things are necessary to be owned in order to Salvation by Christian Societies or as the bonds and conditions of Ecclesiastical Communion The want of understanding this distinction of the necessity of things hath caused most of the perplexities and confusion in this Controversie of Fundamentals 1. What those things are which are necessary to the Salvation of particular persons But that we make all as clear as possible in a matter of so great intricacy two things again must be inquired into 1. What the Ground is why any thing becomes necessary to be believed in order to Salvation 2. What the Measure and Extent is of those things which are to be believed by particular persons as necessary to Salvation 1. What the Ground or Foundation is on which things become necessary to be believed by particular persons And that which is the true ground of the necessity why any thing is to be believed is the proper ratio of a Fundamental Article For I suppose it a much clearer notion of Fundamentals to understand them not as Principles from whence Deductions may be drawn of Theological Truths but in regard of that immediate respect which they have to mens Salvation Those things therefore which are necessary to be explicitly believed by particular persons are Fundamentals in order to their Salvation Now all belief in this case supposing Divine Revelation nothing can be imagined to be necessary to be believed but what may be certainly known to be of Divine Revelation But when we consider that besides the general reason of believing what God hath revealed we must either suppose that all things are of equal necessity which are revealed in order to the general end of this Revelation or that some things therein contained are expresly necessary to the end and other things to be believed on the general account of Faith so far as they are known to be of Divine Revelation Now from hence ariseth a twofold necessity of things to be believed the first more general and large the second more particular and absolute The first depends upon the formal reason of Faith the second on the particular end of Divine Revelation That which depends on the formal reason of that Assent we call Faith is that which supposeth Divine Veracity or the impossibility of Gods deceiving us in any thing revealed by Him now this extends to all things whatsoever which are supposed by men to be of Divine Revelation For though men may mistake in the matter yet the reason of Assent holding under that mistake they are bound necessarily to believe whatever is supposed by them to be Divine Revelation Here lyes no difficulty in the ground of Faith but all the care is to be used in the search into the matters which are to be believed on the account of this Revelation But here we are to consider that the only thing which is in general and absolutely necessary to Salvation is the general act of Faith viz. Believing whatever God reveals to be true else God's Veracity would be call'd in question but particular objects cannot be said on this account to be absolutely and universally necessary but only so far as there are sufficient convictions that those particulars are of Divine Revelation And the more general and extensive the means of conviction are the more large and universal is the obligation to Faith As that the Scriptures contain in them the Word of God is a matter of more universal obligation than particular things therein revealed because the belief of the one depends upon the acknowledgement of the other And withall supposing it believed that the matters contained in Scripture are of Divine Revelation yet all things are not equally clear to all capacities that they are therein contained Which is a sufficient ground for us to say It was not God's intention that all things contained in his Word should be believed with the same degree of necessity by all persons And therefore though the general reason of Faith depends on Gods Veracity yet the particular obligation to the belief of particular things as revealed by God depends on the means whereby we may be assured that such things are revealed by him which means admitting of so great Variety as to the circumstances and capacities of particular persons there can be no general Rule set down what things are necessary to be believed by all particular persons For those who have greater means of knowledge a larger capacity and clearer proposal are bound to believe more things explicitly than those who want all these or have a lower degree of them In which case it is an unreasonable thing to say that such a one who dis-believes any thing propounded to him as a matter of Faith doth presently call in question God's Veracity for he may as firmly believe that as any in general and yet may have ground to question whether God's Veracity be at all concerned in that which is propounded to him as a matter of Faith because he sees no reason to believe that this was ever revealed by God And by this a clear answer is given to that Question which you propose Whether all those Truths which are sufficiently proposed to any Christian as defined by the Church for matter of Faith can be dis-believed by such a Christian without mortal and damnable sin which unrepented destroyes Salvation To which the answer is easie upon the grounds here assigned for this question concerning particular persons and particular objects of Faith the resolution of it doth depend upon the sufficiency of the means to convince such a person that whatever is propounded as Defined by the Church for a matter of Faith is certainly and truly so For to instance in any one of those new Articles of Faith Transubstantiation or the Pope's Supremacy c. you tell me These are necessary to be believed or at least cannot be dis-believed without sin which is all one in this case supposing clear conviction for then what cannot be dis-believed without sin must be explicitly believed I desire to know the grounds why they may not you tell me These
are truths which are sufficiently proposed to me as defined by the Church for matters of Faith I deny the Churches Proposition to be sufficient to convince me that these are matters of Faith for I understand not what Power your Church hath to define any thing for matter of Faith if I granted that I must understand what you mean by sufficient Proposition whether that your Church hath so defined them or that she hath power so to define them and because I am heartily willing to believe any thing that I have reason to believe is a matter of Faith certainly it can be no sin in me not to believe that which I can see no ground at all to believe either in it self or because of your Churches Definition And all this while I have as high thoughts of God's Veracity as you can have and it may be higher because I interest it not in the false and contradictory Definitions of your Church If therefore you will prove it to be a damnable sin not to believe whatever is proposed by your Church for a matter of Faith you must first prove that there is as universal an obligation to believe whatever is sufficiently proposed as defined by the Church for matter of Faith as there is to assent to whatever God reveals as true And when you have done this I will give you leave to state the Question as you do for then you would offer something to the proof of it which now you do not The substance then of what concerns the obligation to Faith as to particular objects on the account of Diuine Revelation lyes in the means of conviction concerning those particular objects being divinely revealed which being various the degrees of Assent must be various too but yet so that the more men are negligent of the means of conviction the more culpable their unbelief is but where men use all moral diligence to understand what is revealed and what not if they cannot be convinced that some particular thing is of Divine Revelation it is hard to prove them guilty of mortal and damnable sin without first proving that God absolutely requires from men an Assent to that which it is impossible in their Circumstances they should believe And this is the first sort of things necessary to be believed by particular persons such as are believed on the general account of God's Veracity in revealing them But because there must be a more particular reason assigned of any such intention in God to reveal his mind to the world viz. Some peculiar end which he had in it therefore a further degree of the necessity of things to be believed must be enquired after viz. such as have an immediate and necessary respect to the prosecution of that end Now the only end assignable of that great expression of Divine Goodness in declaring to man the Will of God is the Eternal Welfare and Happiness of mankind for nothing else can be imagined suitable and proportionable to the Wisdom and Goodness of God besides that this is expresly mentioned in Scripture as God's great end in it Now this being the great end of Divine Revelation the necessity of things to be believed absolutely and in themselves must be taken from the reference or respect which they have to the attainment of this end And although the distinction be commonly received of necessity of the means and of the command as importing a different kind of necessity yet in the sense I here take Necessity in the members of that distinction do to me seem coincident For I cannot see any reason to believe that God should make the belief of any thing necessary by an absolute Command but what hath an immediate tendency by way of means for the attainment of this end For otherwise that which is call'd the Necessity of Precept falls under the former degree of Necessity viz. That which is to be believed on the general account of Divine Revelation And although these things which are necessary as means are to be believed on the same formal reason of Faith yet since God had a different end in the Revelation of these from the other therefore there is a necessity of putting a difference between them For supposing God to have such a design to bring the souls of men to Happiness in order to this end some means must be necessary and these must consequently be revealed to men because they are so necessary in order to such an end now it is apparent All things contained in Scripture are not of that nature some being at so great a remove from this end that the only reason of believing them is because they are contained in that Book which we have the greatest reason to believe contains nothing false in it Now the only way whereby we may judge of the nature of these things is from the consideration of what is made the most necessary condition in order to happiness and the way by which we may come to it And nothing being more evident than that the Gospel contains in it a Covenant of Grace or the conditions on which our Salvation depends whatever is necessary in order to our performance of the conditions required of us must be necessary to be believed by all The Gospel therefore tendring Happiness upon the conditions of our believing in Christ and walking in him these two things are indispensably necessary to Salvation where the Gospel is known for we have no reason to enquire into the method of God's proceeding with others An hearty Assent to the Doctrine of Christ and A conscientious walking according to the Precepts of it But to undertake to define what parts of that Doctrine are necessary to Salvation and what not seems to me wholly unnecessary because the Assent to the Doctrine of Christ as revealed from God must necessarily carry in it so much as is sufficient in order to Salvation Whatever therefore is necessary to a Spiritual Life is necessary absolutely to Salvation and no more but what and how much that is must be gathered by every one as to himself from Scripture but is impossible to be defined by others as to all persons But in all Faith towards God and in our Lord Jesus Christ and repentance from dead works are absolutely and indispensably necessary to Salvation which imply in them both an universal readiness of mind to believe and obey God in all things And by this we see what the Rule and Measure of the necessity of things to be believed is as to particular persons which lyes in these things 1. Whatever God hath revealed is undoubtedly and infallibly true 2. Whatever appears to me upon sufficient enquiry to be revealed by God I am bound to believe it by virtue of God's Veracity 3. All things not equally appearing to all persons to be revealed of God the same measure of necessity cannot be extended to all persons 4. An universal Assent to the Will of God and universal Obedience to it
of Athanasius therefore all things defined by the Church are eo nomine necessary to Salvation Other particulars concerning that Creed as to its Antiquity and Authority we may have occasion afterwards more at large to discuss it sufficeth now that nothing is thence produced pertinent to the present Controversie His Lordship in the progress of this Discourse takes away that slight and poor evasion That the Declaration of the Church makes any thing Fundamental quoad nos because that no respect to us can vary the Foundation And that the Churches Declaration can bind us only to peace and external obedience where there is not express letter of Scripture and sense agreed on but it cannot make any thing Fundamental to us that is not so in its own nature For saith he if the Church can so add that it can by a Declaration make a thing to be Fundamental in the Faith that was not then it can take a thing away from the Foundation and make it by declaring not to be Fundamental which all men grant no power of the Church can do For the power of adding any thing contrary and of detracting any thing necessary are alike forbidden and alike denyed Now you say That all this is satisfied by the foresaid distinction of material and formal Object and you desire the Reader to carry along with him this distinction of objectum materiale formale materia attestata authoritas attestantis and he will easily discover the fallacies of his Lordship's Discourse in this main Point of Controversie and solve all his difficulties supported by them No doubt an excellent Amulet to preserve from the infection of reason But it is your great mishap that where you commend it so much it doth you so little service For let your distinction of formal and material Object be supposed as sound and good as I have shewed it in your sense to be false and fallacious yet it doth not reach that part of his Lordship's Discourse which you apply it to For still his reason is conclusive though the necessity only be supposed to arise from the Churches Authority yet if it be in the power of the Church to make any thing necessary which was not why may it not be equally in her power to make something not necessary which was For either the grounds of the necessity of things to Salvation doth depend on the Doctrine of the Gospel as at first declared to the world or it doth not If it doth then it is not in the Churches Power to make any thing necessary which was not made necessary by it if it doth not then the Church may as well pretend to a power to make something not necessary which was as to make something necessary which was not So that your distinction of Formal and Material Object signifies nothing at all here only this is observable that you make the Churches Definition to be the Formal Object of Faith here which you very solemnly contradict afterwards Chap. 5. § 4. And can any thing be more evident from this Discourse of yours than that you make the last resolution of Faith as to the necessity of things to be believed into the Churches Definition as its Formal Object But this distinction with the grounds of it being removed in our former Discourse I shall ease my self and the Reader of any further labour in examining what follows in this Chapter which depends wholly upon it or else run out into the Churches Infallibility the infallible Assent requisite to Faith the Canon of Scripture and our certainty of it or the Authority of General Councils all which shall be fully and particularly examined in their proper places There being nothing said here but what either hath been answered already or will be more at large in a more convenient place The only things remaining then in this Chapter which deserve a further discussion here are the testimonies of Scotus and S. Austin and the Discourses which depend thereon For our better clearing the testimony of Scotus in which you charge his Lordship with falsification we must consider on what account and for what purposes that testimony is produced His Lordship had said before That Fundamentals are a Rock immovable and can never be varied therefore what is Fundamental after the Church hath defined it was Fundamental before the definition and no Decrees of Councils how general soever can alter immovable Verities wherefore if the Church in a Council define any thing the thing defined is not fundamental because the Church hath defined it nor can be made so by the definition of the Church if it be not so in it self For if the Church hath this power she might make a New Article of Faith which the learned among themselves deny For the Articles of Faith cannot increase in substance but only in explication For which he appeals to Bellarmin Nor saith he Is this hard to be further proved out of your own School For Scotus professeth it in this very particular of the Greek Church If there be saith he a true real difference between the Greeks and Latins about the Point of the Procession of the Holy Ghost then either they or we be vere haeretici truly and indeed Hereticks Which he speaks of the old Greeks long before any decision of the Church in this Controversie For he instances in S. Basil and Greg. Nazianzen on one side and S. Jerome Augustine and Ambrose on the other And who dares call any of these Hereticks is his challenge That then which his Lordship proves by this testimony is that the nature of Heresie doth not depend on the Churches Definition but on the Nature of the things for according to Scotus antecedently to the Churches Definition if there had been any real difference between the Greeks and Latins one side of them had been Hereticks To this you answer That hence it follows not that Scotus thought they could be Hereticks unless they denyed or doubted of that which they had reason to believe was revealed by God But it only follows that if they knew this as those learned Greeks had sufficient reason to know it they might well be esteemed Hereticks before any special Declaration of the Church although it be more clear that he is an Heretick who denies to believe that Doctrine after he confesses that it is defined by the Church From which answer of yours several things are to our purpose observable 1. That the Formal Reason of Heresie is denying something supposed to be of Divine Revelation 2. That none can reasonably be accused of Heresie but such as have sufficient reason to believe that which they deny is revealed by God 3. That none can be guilty of Heresie for denying any thing declared by the Church unless they have sufficient reason to believe that whatever is declared by the Church is revealed by God Which unavoidably follows from the former and therefore the Churches Definition cannot
she declares was intus or extra in the nature and verity of the thing or out of it If it were extra without the nature of the thing declared then the Declaration of the thing is false and so far from being Fundamental in the Faith If it were intus within the nature and compass of the thing though not open and apparent to every eye then the Declaration is true but not otherwise Fundamental then the thing is which is declared for that which is intus cannot be larger or deeper than that in which it is if it were it could not be intus Therefore nothing is simply Fundamental because the Church declares it but because it is so in the nature of the thing which the Church declares In answer to this you seem more ingenuous than usual for you acknowledge that his expression is learnedly solid and good but yet you would seem to return some answer to this Argument viz. That although there be no alteration in the nature of the Articles by the Churches Declaration yet this doth not hinder them from becoming Fundamental in that sense in which we dispute i. e. such as cannot be denyed or doubted of under pain of damnation although they were not thus Fundamental before the Declaration as not being so clearly proposed to us as that we were bound to believe them Neither doth this take away any thing from their intus or that Being which they had of themselves but only gives a certainty of their being so and declares that they ought to be so quoad nos as well as quoad se and internally And it is no evasion but a solid distinction that the Declaration of the Church varies not the thing in it self but quoad nos in its respect to us The substance of your Answer lyes in this That though the Church by her Declaration doth not alter the nature of things yet she may and doth our Obligation to believe them so that such things which men might have been saved without believing before when once the Church hath declared them become necessary to be believed in order to Salvation And yet you would not have this called making new Articles of Faith But I pray tell us what you mean by Articles of Faith are not those properly Articles of Faith as distinct from Theological Verities which are necessary to be believed by all If therefore those things which the Church declares were before not necessary and by the Churches Declaration do become necessary than certainly those things which were not Articles of Faith do become Articles of Faith and what then doth the Church by her Declaration but make New Articles of Faith But though you assert the thing you like not the terms because they do not sound so pleasantly to the ears of Christians who believe all Obligation to Faith doth depend upon immediate Divine Revelation Setting aside therefore the terms let us examine the thing to see upon what grounds the Church can make that necessary to us which was not in it self In which case the Obligation not arising from the necessity of the Matter in it self to be believed it is no otherwise intelligible but that it must result from the supposition of some Immediate Revelation For nothing else can bind us to an Internal Assent which you require as necessary to the Churches Definitions but that unless you can shew how any Society of men considered as such have power to oblige all other men to believe what they declare on pain of damnation for not doing it I pray tell me whether the Apostles themselves had power to bind all Christians to the belief of something as necessary which the Spirit of God did not immediately reveal to them to be so If not what power can any Church have to do it without a greater measure of Infallibility than the Apostles ever pretended to For they never attempted to define any thing as necessary which was supposed unnecessary to be believed after the Doctrine of the Gospel was declared to the world Before then you can perswade us to believe that your Church can make any thing necessary which was not so you must prove an Absolute Infallible Divine Assistance of God's Spirit with your Church in whatever she shall attempt to declare or define as matter of Faith As for instance Supposing it not necessary to Salvation in it self to believe the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary how is it possible to conceive after your Churches Definition of it it should become necessary unless it be supposed that there was an Immediate Divine Revelation in that Definition For nothing but Divine Authority commanding our Assent the ground of Faith must be resolved into that now in this case besides the Immediate Assent to the thing declared as a truth there is a distinct Proposition to be believed which is That what was not before necessary to be believed doth now become necessary to be believed by all and shew us either that there is Divine Revelation for this or else excuse us that we cannot give an Internal Assent to it For we have not learnt to give an Assent of Faith to a meer humane Proposition or in our Saviour's words we call no man Master upon Earth so as to promise to believe it in the power of any Church whatsoever to make any thing necessary to be believed which was not so before Hence it appears that your Distinction of in se quoad nos is as insignificant as your pretence of the Churches Power to define matters of Faith is presumptuous and arrogant being the highest degree of Lording it over the Christian world Why your Church may not as well declare something not to be of Faith which before was of Faith as declare something to be of Faith which before was not of Faith it is not easie to apprehend if that thing might be supposed of Faith before without the Churches explicit Declaration For in that case the Church would not so apparently contradict her self for that Contradiction doth not lye in varying the respects of things but in one Declaration contradicting another For otherwise it is as great a contradiction to say That something which was not necessary is become necessary as that a thing which was necessary is become not necessary Therefore if there be a contradiction in one there is in the other If the Contradiction lyes in the Declaration you must say That nothing could be supposed necessary to be believed but what was declared by the Church to be so and as declared by the Church which is a Province as difficult as necessary to be undertaken to rid your hands of this difficulty For otherwise that Answer of yours cannot reach the Objection And now we come to that Testimony of S. Augustine which was produced to prove That all Points defined by the Church are Fundamental Which say It is a thing founded An erring Disputant is to be born with in
in Points of Faith but the Authority of God speaking by the Church To which I answer that all this runs upon a Supposition false in it self which is That all our Assurance in matters of Faith depends upon the Infallible Authority of the present Church which being granted I would not deny but supposing that Infallibility absolute on the same reason I believe one thing on the Churches Authority I must believe all For the case were the same then as to the Church which we say it is as to the Scriptures he that believes any thing on the account of its being contained in that Book as the Word of God must believe every thing he is convinced to be therein contained whether the matter be in it self small or great because the ground of his belief is the Authority of God revealing those things to us And if therefore you could prove such a Divine Authority constantly resident in the Church for determining all matters of Faith I grant your consequence would hold but that is too great a boon to be had for begging and that is all the way you use for it here If you offer to prove it afterwards our Answers shall be ready to attend you But at present let it suffice to tell you That we believe no Article of Faith at all upon the Churches Infallible Authority and therefore though we deny what the Church proposeth it follows not that we are any more liable to question the truth of any Article any further than the Churches Authority reaches in it i. e. we deny that any thing becomes an Article meerly upon her account But now if you remove the Argument from the present Churches Infallible Authority to the Vniversal Churches Testimony we then tell you That he who questions a clear full universal Tradition of the whole Church from Christ's time to this will by the same reason doubt of all matters of Faith which are conveyed by this Testimony to us But then we must further consider That we are bound by virtue of the Churches Testimony to believe nothing any further than it appears to have been the constant full Vniversal Testimony of the Church from the time of Christ and his Apostles Whatever therefore you can make appear to have been received as a necessary Article of Faith in this manner we embrace it but nothing else and on the other side we say That whoever doubts or denies this Testimony will doubt of all matters of Faith because the ground and rule of Faith the Scriptures is conveyed to us only through this Universal Tradition 3. You answer That his Lordship mistakes Vincentius Lerinensis his meaning and falsifies his testimony thrice at least Whereof the first is in rendring de Catholico dogmate of Catholick Maxims and here a double most dreadful charge is drawn up against his Lordship the first from the accusation of Priscian and the second of no less Authours than Rider and the English Lexicons the first is for translating the Singular Number by the Plural whereas our most Reverend Orbilius himself in the following page tells us that this Catholicum dogma Vincentius speaks of contains the whole Systeme of the Catholick Faith and in that Systeme some are Fundamentals some Superstructures both Plurals yet all these contained in this one singular Dogma but it was his Lordships great mishap not to have his education in the Schools of the Jesuites else he might have escaped the lash for this most unpardonable oversight of rendring verbum multitudinis by our Authours own confession who makes it larger too then his Lordship doth for his Lordship saith it contains only Fundamentals but our Authour Superstructures too by the Plural Number But the second fault is worse then this for saith our Authour very gravely and discreetly with his rod in his hand But in what Authour learnt he that Dogma signifies only Maxims were it in the Plural number Dogma according to our English Lexicons Rider and others signifies a Decree or common received Opinion whether in prime or less principal matters What a learned dispute are we now fallen into But I see you were resolved to put all but Boys and Paedagogues out of all likelyhood of confuting you For those are only the persons among us who deal in Rider and English Lexicons I see now there is some hopes that the orders of the Inquisition may have better Latin then that against Mr. White had since our old Jesuites begin to be so well versed in such Masters of the Latin tongue How low is Infallibility fallen that we must appeal for knowing what dogma fidei is to the definition not of Popes and Councils but of Rider and English Lexicons But it is ill jesting with our Orbilius in so severe a humour that his Grace of Canterbury cannot scape his lash for not consulting Riders Dictionary for the signification of Dogma But our Authour passeth and we must attend him out of his Grammatical into the Theological School and there tells us That the Ecclesiastical signification of Dogma extends it self to all things established in the Church as matters of Faith whether Fundamentals or Superstructures and for this Scotus is cited somewhat a better Authour than Rider who calls Transubstantiation Dogma fidei I begin to believe now that Dogma is a very large word and Fides much larger that can hold so prodigious a thing as Transubstantiation within them But notwithstanding what Rider and Scotus say None so able to explain Vincentius his meaning as Vincentius himself To him therefore at last our Authour appeals and tells us That he declares in other places that he means by Dogma such things as in general belong to Christian Faith without distinction But doth Vincentius any where by Dogma mean any such things which were not judged necessary by the ancient and Primitive Church but become necessary to be believed upon the Churches Definitions Nothing can possibly be imagined more directly contrary to the design of his whole Book then that is when he appeals still for matters to be believed to Antiquity Vniversality and Consent and to be sure all these are required to whatever he means by a Dogma fidei if you therefore can produce any testimonies out of his Book which can be supposed in the least to favour the power of the Church in her new Definitions of matters of Faith you may justly challenge to your self the name of an excellent Invention who can find that in his Book which all other persons find the directly contrary to Your first citation is out of ch 33. not 23. as you quote it or some one else for you where he is explaining what St. Paul means by Prophanas vocum novitates Vocum saith he i. e. Dogmatum rerum sententiarum novitates quae sunt vetustati quae antiquitati contrariae I shall not scruple to grant you that Vincentius by Dogmata here doth mean such things as the Definitions of your Church
were proved to be so Of the Motives of Credibility and how far they belong to the Church The difference between Science and Faith considered and the new art of mens believing with their wills The Churches testimony must be according to their principles the formal object of Faith Of their esteem of Fathers Scripture and Councils The rare distinctions concerning the Churches infallibility discussed How the Church can be Infallible by the assistance of the Holy Ghost yet not divinely Infallible but in a manner and after a sort T. C. applauded for his excellent faculty in contradicting himself HE that hath a mind to betray an excellent Cause may more advantagiously do it by bringing weak and insufficient Evidences for it then by the greatest heat and vigour of Opposition against it For there cannot possibly be any greater prejudice done to a weighty and important truth then to perswade men to believe it on such grounds which are if not absolutely false yet much more disputable then the thing it self For hereby the minds of men are taken off from the native evidence which the truth enquired after offers to them and build their assent upon the certainty of the medium's suggested as the only grounds to establish a firm assent upon By which means when upon severe enquiry the falsity and insufficiency of those grounds is discovered the person so discovering lyes under a dangerous temptation of calling into question the truth of that which he finds he assented to upon grounds apparently weak and insufficient And the more refined and subtle the speculations are the more sublime and mysterious the matters believed the greater still the danger of Scepticism is upon a discovery of the unsoundness of those principles which such things were believed upon Especially if the more confident and Magisterial party of those who profess the belief of such things do with the greatest heat decry all other wayes as uncertain and obtrude these principles upon the world as the only sure foundation for the belief of them It was anciently a great question among the Philosophers whether there were any certainty in the principles of knowledge or supposing certainty in things whether there were any undoubted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rules to obtain this certainty of knowledge by If then any one Sect of Philosophers should have undertaken to prove the certainty that was in knowledge upon this account because whatever their Sect or Party delivered was infallibly true they had not only shamefully beg'd the thing in dispute but made it much more lyable to question then before Because every errour discovered in that Sect would not only prove the fondness and arrogance of their pretence of being Infallible but would to all such as believed the certainty of things on the authority of their Sect be an argument to disprove all certainty of knowledge when they once discovered the errours of those whose authority they relyed upon Just such is the case of the Church of Rome in this present Controversie concerning the Resolution of Faith The question is What the certain grounds of our assent are to the principles and rule of Christian Religion the Romanists pretend that there can be no ground of True and Divine Faith at all but the Infallible testimony of Their Church let then any rational man judge whether this be not the most compendious way to overthrow the belief of Christianity in the world For our assent must be wholly suspended upon that supposed Infallibility which when once it falls as it unavoidably doth upon the discovery of the least errour in the doctrine of that Church what becomes then of the belief of Christianity which was built upon that as it s only sure foundation So that it is hardly imaginable there could be any design more really destructive to Christianity or that hath a greater tendency to Atheism then the modern pretence of Infallibility and the Jesuits way of resolving Faith Which was the reason why his Lordship was so unwilling to engage in that Controversie How we know the Scriptures to be the Word of God not out of any distrust he had of solving it upon Protestant Principles as you vainly suggest nor out of any fears of being left himself in that Labyrinth which after all your endeavours you have lost your self and your cause in as appears by your attempting this way and that way to get out and at last standing in the very middle of that circle you thought your self out of If his Lordship thought this more a question of curiosity then necessity it was because out of his great Charity he supposed them to be Christians he had to deal with But if his charity were therein deceived you shall see how able we are to make good the grounds of our Religion against all Adversaries whether Papists or others And so far is the answering of this question from making the weakness of our cause appear that I doubt not but to make it evident that our cause stands upon the same grounds which our common Christianity doth and that we are Protestants by the same reason that we are Christians And on the other side that you are so far from giving any true grounds of Christian Faith that nothing will more advance the highest Scepticism and Irreligion then such Principles as you insist on for resolving Faith The true reason then why the Archbishop declared any unwillingness to enter upon this dispute was not the least apprehension how insuperably hard the resolution of this question was as you pretend but because of the great mischief your Party had done in starting such questions you could not resolve with any satisfaction to the common reason of mankind and that you run your selves into such a Circle in which you conjure up more Spirits then ever you are able to lay by giving those advantages to Infidelity which all your Sophistry can never answer on those principles you go upon That this was the true ground of his Lordship's seeming averseness from this Controversie appears by his plain words where he tells you at first of the danger of mens being disputed into infidelity by the Circle between Scripture and Tradition and by his expressing his sense of the great harm you have done by the starting of that question among Christians How we know the Scriptures to be the Word of God But although in this respect he might be said to be drawn into it yet lest you should think his averseness argued any consciousness of his own inability to answer it you may see how closely he follows it with what care and accuracy he handles it with what strength of reason and evidence he hath discovered the weakness of your way which he hath done with that success that he hath put you to miserable shifts to avoid the force of his arguments as will appear afterwards I am therefore fully of his mind that it is a matter of such consequence it deserves to be
whether an Infallible Assent to the Infallibility of your Church can be grounded on those Motives of Credibility If you affirm it then there can be no imaginable necessity to make the Testimony of your Church infallible in order to Divine Faith for you will not I hope deny but that there are at least equal Motives of Credibility to prove the Divine Authority of the Scriptures as the Infallibility of your Church and if so why may not an Infallible Assent be given to the Scriptures upon those Motives of Credibility as well as to your Churches Infallibility If you deny the Assent built upon the Motives of Credibility to be Infallible how can you make the Assent to your Churches Testimony to be infallible when that Infallibility is attempted to be proved only by the Motives of Credibility And therefore it necessarily follows That notwithstanding your bearing it so high under the pretence of Infallibility you leave mens minds much more wavering in their Assent than before in that as shall afterwards appear these very Motives of Credibility do not at all prove the Infallibility of your Church which undoubtedly prove the Truth and Certainty of Christian Religion Thus while by this device you seek to avoid the Circle you destroy the Foundation of your Discourse That there must be an Infallible Assent to the truth of that Proposition That the Scriptures are the Word of God which you call Divine Faith which how can it be infallible when that Infallibility at the highest by your own confession is but evidently credible and so I suppose the Authority of the Scriptures is without your Churches Infallibility And thus you run into the same Absurdities which you would seem to avoid which is the second thing to manifest the unreasonableness of this way for whatever Absurdity you charge us with for believing the Doctrine of Christ upon the Motives of Credibility unavoidably falls upon your selves for believing the Churches Infallibility on the same grounds for if we leave the Foundation of Faith uncertain you do so too if we build a Divine Faith upon Motives of Credibility so do you if we make every ones reason the Judge in the choice of his Religion so must you be forced to do if you understand the consequence of your own principles 1. It is impossible for you to give a better account of Faith by the Infallibility of your Church than we can do without it for if Divine Faith cannot be built upon the Motives proving the Doctrine of Christ what sense or reason is there that it should be built on those Motives which prove your Churches Infallibility so that if we leave the Foundation of Faith uncertain you much more and that I prove by a Rule of much Authority with you by which you use to pervert the weak judgements of such who in your case do not discern the Sophistry of it Which is when you come to deal with persons whom you hope to Proselyte you urge them with this great Principle That Prudence is to be our Guide in the choice of our Religion and that Prudence directs us to chuse the safest way and that it is much safer to make choice of that way which both sides agree Salvation is to be obtained in than of that which the other side utterly denies men can be saved in How far this Rule will hold in the choice of Religion will be examined afterwads but if we take your word that it is a sure Rule I know nothing will be more certainly advantagious to us in on present case For both sides I hope are agreed that there are sufficient Motives of Credibility as to the belief of the Scriptures but we utterly deny that there are any such Motives as to the Infallibility of your Church it then certainly follows That our way is the more eligible and certain and that we lay a surer Foundation for Faith than you do upon your principles for resolving Faith 2. Either you must deny any such thing as that you call Divine Faith or you must assert that it may have no other Foundation than the Motives of Credibility which yet is that you would seem most to avoid by introducing the Infallibility of your Church that the Foundation of Faith may not be uncertain whereas supposing what you desire you must of necessity do that you would seem most fearful of which is making a Divine Faith to rest upon prudential Motives Which I thus prove It is an undoubted Axiom among the great men of your side That whatever is a Foundation for a Divine Faith must itself be believed with a firm certain and infallible Assent Now according to your principles the Infallibility of the Church is the Foundation for Divine Faith and therefore that must be believed with an Assent Infallible It is apparent then an Assent Infallible is required which is that which in other terms you call Divine Faith now when you make it your business to prove the Churches Infallibility upon your prudential Motives I suppose your design is by those proofs to induce men to believe it and if men then do believe it upon those Motives do you not found an Assent Infallible or a Divine Faith upon the Motives of Credibility And by the same reason that you urge against us the necessity of believing the Scriptures to be the Word of God by Divine Faith because it is the ground why we believe the things contained in the Scripture we press on your side the necessity of believing the Infallibility of the Church by a Faith equally Divine because that is to you the only sufficient Foundation of believing the Scriptures or any thing contained in them 3. You make by this way of resolving Faith every man's Reason the only Judge in the choice of his Religion which you are pleased to charge on us as a great Absurdity yet you who have deserved so very ill of Reason are fain to call in her best assistance in a case of the greatest moment viz. On what ground we must believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God You say Because the Church is infallible which delivers them to us but how should we come to know that she is infallible you tell us By the Motives of Credibility very good But must not every ones reason judge whether these Motives be credible or no and whether they belong peculiarly to your Church so as to prove the Infallibility of it as it is distinct from all other societies of Christians in the world You tell us indeed That these Motives make it evidently credible but must we believe it to be so because you say so If so then the ground of believing is not the Credibility of the Motives but of your Testimony and therefore you ought to make it evidently true that whatever you speak is undoubtedly true which whosoever reads your Book will hardly be perswaded to So that of necessity every mans reason must be Judge whether your Church
be infallible or no and thus at last you give Reason the Vmpirage in the choice of Religion And what is there more than this that we contend for If there be then any danger of Scepticism a private spirit or what other inconveniencies you object against our way of judging the truth of Religion by the Vse of Reason it will fall much more heavily upon your selves in this way of believing the Infallibility of the Church on the Motives of Credibility Therefore I assure you it were much more consonant to the principles of your party to tell men The Infallibility of your Church ought to be taken for granted and that men are damned for not believing it though no reason be given for it but only because you say it which is as much as to say the reason of the Point is It must needs be so then thus to expose it to the scorn and contempt of the world by offering to prove it by your Motives of Credibility For unawares you thereby give away the main of your Cause for by the very offer of proving it you make him whom you offer to prove it to judge whether these proofs be sufficient or no and if he be capable to judge of his Guide certainly he may be of his Way too considering that he hath according to us an Infallible Rule to judge of his Way whereas according to you he hath but Prudential Motives in the choice of his Guide Thus by this Opinion of yours you have gained thus much That there is nothing so absurd which you charge upon us but it falls unavoidably upon your own head By this way of resolving Faith you undermine it and leave a sure Foundation for nothing but Scepticism which is the last thing to shew the great unreasonableness of this way of yours that when you are making us believe you are taking the greatest care to make our Religion sure you cancel our best evidences and produce nothing but crackt and broken titles which will not stand any fair tryal at the bar of Reason And that you make the Foundations of Religion uncertain I offer to prove by the reason of the thing for if you require that as necessary for Faith which was never believed to be so when the Doctrine of Faith was revealed if upon the pretence of Infallibility you assert such things which destroy all the rational evidence of Christian Religion and if at last you are far from giving the least satisfactory account concerning this Infallibility of your Church then certainly we may justly charge you with unsetling the Foundations of Religion instead of giving us a certain resolution of Faith 1. You make that necessary to Faith which was not looked on as such when the Doctrine of the Gospel was revealed and what other design can such a pretence seem to have than to expose to contempt that Religion which was not received by a true Divine Faith because it wanted that which is now thought to be the only sure Foundation of Faith viz. the Infallibility of the Church of Rome What then will become of the Faith of all those who received Divine Revelations without the infallible Testimony of any Church at all With what Faith did the Disciples of Christ at the time of his suffering believe the Divine Authority of the Old Testament was it a true Divine Faith or not If it was whereon was it built not certainly on the Infallible Testimony of the Jewish Church which at that time consented to the death of the Messias condemning him as a malefactor and deceiver Or did they believe it because of that great Rational Evidence they had to convince them that those Prophecies came from God If so why may not we believe the Divinity of all the Scriptures on the same grounds and with a Divine Faith too With what Faith did those believe in the Messias who were not personally present at the Miracles which our Saviour wrought but had them conveyed to them by such reports as the woman of Samaria was to the Samaritans Or were all such persons excused from believing meerly because they were not Spectators But by the same reason all those would be excused who never saw our Saviour's miracles or heard his Doctrine or his Apostles But if such persons then were bound to believe I ask On what Testimony was their Faith founded Was the woman of Samaria infallible in reporting the discourse between Christ and her Were all the persons infallible who gave an account to others of what Christ did yet I suppose had it been your own case you would have thought your self bound to have believed Christ to have been the Messias if you had lived at that time and a certain account had been given you of our Saviour's Doctrine and Miracles by men faithful and honest though you had no reason to have believed them infallible I pray Sir answer me would you have thought your self bound to have believed or no If you affirm it as I will suppose you so much a Christian as to say so I pray then tell me Whether persons in those circumstances might not have a true and Divine Faith where there was no infallible Testimony but only Rational Evidence to build it self upon And if those persons might have a Divine Faith upon such evidence as that was may not we much more who have evidence of the same nature indeed but much more extensive universal and convincing than that was And how then can you still assert an infallible Testimony of the conveyers of Divine Revelation to be necessary to a Divine Faith Nay further yet How very few were there in comparison in the first Ages of the Christian Church who received the Doctrine of the Gospel from the mouths of persons infallible And of those who did so what certain evidence have men That all those persons did receive the Doctrine upon the account of the Infallibility of the propounders and not rather upon the Rational Evidence of the Truth of the Doctrine delivered and whether the belief of their Infallibility was absolutely necessary to Faith when the report of the Evidences of the Truth of the Doctrine might raise in them an obligation to believe supposing them not infallible in that delivery of it but that they looked on them as honest men who faithfully related What they had seen and heard And this seems the more probable in that the Apostles themselves in their undoubtedly divine writings do so often appeal to their own sufficiency and integrity without pleading so much their Infallibility S. John saith That which we have seen and heard and handled declare we unto you S. Peter appeals to his being an Eye-witness to make it appear he delivered no cunningly devised fables S. Luke makes this a ground That the things were surely believed because delivered from them who were Eye-witnesses and Ministers of the Word If they insisted so much upon this Rational Evidence and so sparingly on
their own Infallibility certainly they thought the one afforded not a good foundation for Faith though the other after believing it might highly advance it And therefore I suggest not these things in the least to question the Infallibility of the Apostles but to let us see that even at that time when there was a certainly infallible Testimony yet that is not urged as the only Foundation for Faith but Rational Evidence produced even by those persons who were thus infallible If we descend lower in the Christian Church or walk abroad to view the several Plantations of the Churches at that time Where do we read or meet with the least intimation of an infallible Testimony of the Catholick Church so call'd from its Communion with that of Rome What infallible Testimony of that Church had the poor Brittains to believe on or those Barbarians mentioned in Irenaeus who yet believed without a written word What mention do we meet with in all the ancient Apologeticks of Christians wherein they give so large an account of the grounds of Christian Faith of the modern method for resolving Faith Nay what one ancient Father or Council give the least countenance to this pretended Infallibility much less make it the only sure Foundation of Faith as you do Nay how very few are there among your selves who believe it and yet think themselves never the worse Christians for it If then your Doctrine be true what becomes of the Faith of all these persons mentioned Upon your principles their Faith could not be a true and Divine Faith that is Let them all think they believed the Doctrine of Christ never so heartily and obeyed it never so conscientiously yet because they did not believe it on the Infallibility of your Church their Faith was but a kind of guilded and splendid Infidelity and none of them Christians because not Jesuits And doth not this principle then fairly advance Christianity in the world when the belief of it comes to be setled on Foundations never heard of in the best and purest times of it nay such Foundations as for want of their believing them their Faith must be all in vain and Christ dyed in vain for them 2. You assert such things upon the pretence of Infallibility which destroy all the rational evidence of Christian Religion And what greater disservice could you possibly do to it than by taking away all the proper grounds of certainty of it And instead of building it super hanc Petram upon the Rock of Infallibility you do it only upon a Quick-sand which swallows up the Edifice and sucks in the Foundations of it You would have men to believe the Infallibility of your Church that their Faith might stand upon sure grounds and yet if men believe this Infallibility of your Church you require such things to be believed upon it which destroy all kind of certainty in Religion And that I prove by some of those principles which are received among you upon the account of the Churches Infallibility 1. That the judgement of Sense is not to be relyed on in matters of Faith This is the great Principle upon which the Doctrine of Transubstantiation stands in your Church and this is all the most considerative men among you have to say when all those Contradictions are offered to them which that Doctrine is so big of both to the judgement of sense and reason viz. That though it seem so contradictory yet because the Church which is infallible delivers it they are bound not to question it If this Principle then be true That the judgement of sense is not to be relyed on in matters which sense is capable of judging of it will be impossible for any one to give any satisfactory account of the grand Foundations of Christian Faith For if we carefully examine the grounds of Certainty in Christian Religion we find the great appeal made to the judgement of Sense That which we have seen and heard and handled If then the judgement of Sense must not be taken in a proper object at due distance and in such a thing wherein all mens Senses are equally Judges I pray tell me what assurance the Apostles could have or any from them of any miracles which Christ wrought of any Doctrine which he preached especially because in his miracles there was something above nature in which case men are more apt to suspect Impostures than in things which are the continual Objects of Sense as in the case of Transubstantiation Wherein if men are not bound to rely on the judgement of Sense you must say that our Faculties are so made that they may be imposed upon in the proper Objects of them and if so farewell all Certainty not only in Religion but in all things else in the world For what assurance can I have of the knowledge of any thing if I find that my Faculties not only may be but I am bound to believe that they actually are deceived in a thing that is as proper an Object of sense as any in the world And if a thing which the judgement of all mankind those excepted who have given away their sense and reason in this present case doth unanimously concurr in may be false What evidence can we have when any thing is true For if a thing so plain and evident to our Senses may be false viz. That what I and all other men see is bread what ground of certainty can we have but that which my Senses and all other mens judge to be false may be true For by this means you take away the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both of Sense and Reason in things and consequently all things are equally true and false to us and thence it follows That Truth and Falshood are but Fancies that our Faculties have no means to difference the one from the other that in things we all agree in as proper objects of Sense we not only may be but are deceived and then farewell Sense Reason and Religion together For I pray Tell me what Assurance could the Apostles have of the Resurrection of Christ's Individual Body from the grave but the Judgement of Sense What waies did he use to convince them that he was not a Spectre or Apparition but by an appeal to their Senses by what means did he reclaim Thomas from his Infidelity but by bidding him make use of his Senses If Thomas had believed Transubstantiation he would easily have answered our Saviours Argument and told him If there were not a productive yet there might be an Adductive Transmutation of some other person into him And the Disciples might all have said It was true there were the accidents of Christ's Body the external shape and figure of it but for all they could discern there might be some Invisible Spirit under those external accidents of shape and therefore they must desire to be excused from believing it to be his Body for Hoc est corpus meum had told them already
to prove the Infallibility of the Church and Scripture to You tell us That when you prove the Infallibility of the Church by Scripture you make use only of Arguments ad hominem and argue ex principiis concessis against Sectaries who deny the Infallibility of your Church but admit the Divine Authority of the Scriptures and therefore you may justly use Scripture-arguments against them I grant it but still I say you avoid not the Circle by this subterfuge neither For 1. The question is not Which way you will prove the Infallibility of the Church against those who deny it but which way you resolve your own faith of the Churches Infallibility therefore this signifies nothing at all as to your Question about the resolution of Faith for I suppose you build not that on any thing which your adversary grants or denyes Is there no difference between the way of proving a thing to an adversary and the resolving ones own Faith I question not but you may dispute with him upon Principles he grants and you deny but I should think you no wise man to build your Faith upon such Principles So that this evasion comes not near the business 2. Even in disputing against your Adversaries you cannot avoid the circle which I thus prove You offer to prove to them the Church to be Infallible out of Scripture for this you bring them particular places and think presently to vanquish them with Super hanc Petram Pasce oves Dabo tibi claves but hence ariseth another Question How you come infallibly to know that this is the sense of those places You know your Adversaries presently deny any such thing as Infallibility to be proved out of them And what way have you to assure them this is the sense of them but because your Church which is infallible delivers this to be the sense of them And is not this then a plain circle You are to believe the Church infallible because the Scripture saith so and you are to believe the Scripture saith so because the Church is infallible If this be not still a plain circle you may question whether there be any such figure in Mathematicks 3. I prove you cannot avoid the Circle from your own Confession of the nature of that Infallibility which you say is in the Church For you tell us That the Churches Testimony doth not suppose any new Revelation from God but only a supernatural Assistance of the Holy Ghost preserving her from all errour in defining the Points of Christian Faith By this Assertion you destroy all possibility of avoiding the Circle by the Motives of Credibility for if these had proved an immediate Divine Revelation in the Church I confess you had proved the Churches Infallibility independently on Scripture but when you offer to prove only a Divine Assistance with the Church in delivering former Revelations you cannot and the reason is because you can bring no ground at all why such an Assistance should be necessary in the Church or why it should be expected but from the Promises made in Scripture concerning such an Assistance of God's Spirit to be with the Church and therefore the utmost your Motives of Credibility can pretend to is only to notifie that Church from others which you suppose infallible but still the formal reason of your beleeving this Infallibility cannot be from those Motives but upon those Promises which you suppose to import such an Assistance of the Holy Ghost with the Church which shall secure her from errour So that still the Circle returns upon you For you believe the Scriptures infallible because of the Churches Testimony and you believe the Church infallible because of the Promises in Scripture concerning the Assistance of the Holy Ghost with the Church so as to secure her from all errour And thus I hope I have made good this general Attempt upon your way of resolving Faith by manifesting the great unreasonableness and manifest insufficiency of it I now come to handle the particulars of this Chapter which consists of two things Proofs and Evasions the Proofs you produce for your Churches Infallibility and your Evasions as to those Arguments which are objected by his Lordship Both of these will deserve our Consideration and if it appear that your Proofs are weak and your Evasions silly you will have no great cause to triumph in this Attempt of yours As to your Proofs two things are considerable your Method of proving and the Proofs themselves I begin with the first which you deliver in these words Wherefore as to the last demand in which only there is difficulty viz. How we know the Church to be infallibly governed by the Holy Ghost we answer that we prove it first in general not by the Scripture but by the Motives of Credibility which belong to the Church in the same manner as the Infallibity of Moses and other Prophets of Christ and his Apostles was proved which was by the Miracles they wrought and by other signs of an Infallible Spirit direction and guidance from God which appeared in them Whence it is clear that we incurr no circle That supposing all that true which you said before yet thereby you avoid not the circle I shall take it for granted I have already proved till you better inform me Our business now therefore is to consider which way you prove this Infallibility of your Church which you tell us is not by Scripture for which I commend your ingenuity but by the Motives of Credibility But lest any should think this a weak way of probation you tell us It is in the same manner that the Infallibility of all persons divinely inspired was proved not excepting Christ himself A most heroical and generous Attempt For which the Church of Rome is infinitely obliged to you if you make it good For then it necessarily follows that there is as great danger in not believing the Infallibility of your Church as in not believing Moses and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles For where there is an equal obligation to believe there is an equal sin in not believing and where the sin is equal it stands to reason that the punishment should be so too I suppose you deny not but Where there are equal Motives inducing to believe there results an equal Obligation to Faith because the Grounds obliging to assent can be no other than the Motives inducing to it and if these Motives be as strong and evident for your Churches Infallibility as for that of Moses and Christ men must be as much obliged now to believe your Church infallible as that Moses and Christ were so So that the denial of your Churches Infallibility must needs be accounted by you to be as high a piece of Infidelity as if one should call in question the Infallibility of Christ himself For you assert That you have the same Proofs for the Infallibility of your Church which there were to prove him infallible I
that the matters to be believed are not so clear to us as demonstrations I will not gainsay it but if you mean obscurity or want of evidence as to the reason inducing me to believe I utterly deny any such obscurity to belong to Faith or to be consistent with it For God doth not require us to believe any thing without sufficient grounds for our believing it and those grounds do bear a proportionable evidence to the nature of that assent which he requires If he requires an Infallible assent he gives Infallible grounds if he requires a firm and certain assent he gives firm and certain grounds if he requires only a probable assent he gives only probable evidence But still such as the nature of the assent is such is the evidence he gives for it To make this plainer by an Instance That Christ was the true Messias he requires an assent built upon Infallible grounds and therefore God gave such Infallible evidence of it by the Miracles which he wrought That these Miracles were once really done he requires our firm assent and therefore gives certain evidence by an Universal and uncontrouled tradition but whether St. Paul or any other Apostolical person were Authour of the Epistle to the Hebrews he requires only an assent built on the most probable grounds and therefore he hath given us no more for it But still as the assent is so the evidence must be For Faith being an act of the mind whose nature is to judge according to reason we cannot suppose any act of it to proceed in a brutish manner by a meer impulse of the will I deny not but the will may be said to have some kind of influence upon the understanding both in furthering and hindering assent but it is not by any command it hath over the mind in its acts but as it can divert the mind from or incline it to the searching into the evidence of the things Therefore when we commonly say Facile credimus quae volumus and so on the contrary it is not because of the wills immediate power upon the understanding but as the desire of a thing makes us inquisitive after it so the dislike of it makes us unwilling to hear the reasons for it and ready to entertain any pretence against it Thus I grant the will may have power upon the mind as to the eliciting the act of Faith not that I can assent to a thing as true because I desire it to be true but this inclination of the will removes those impediments which would obstruct my discovery of the evidence which is in it You havs certainly a mind of another mould then others have that can believe thing which do not appear credible to you yet such a kind of Faith as this is very necessary for your Churches Infallibility and for that your discourse of believing by the impulse of the will is very proper and seasonable But other persons may think it an Imperfection in their minds that they cannot believe any thing any further than it appears credible that is that they can go no further than they have legs nor see when their eyes are shut or the room dark But it may be you will tell me All this discourse proceeds on supposition that Faith were a natural act of the mind but you speak of a supernatural Faith It may be so but I hope you speak not of an irrational Faith which must believe things beyond the evidence of their Credibility Faith whether natural or supernatural acquired or infused is still an act of the mind and let it have but what belongs to it as such and call it what you will I deny not a peculiar Operation of Grace in the eliciting the Act of Divine Faith but still I say The manner whereby it is wrought must be agreeable to the nature of the Vnderstanding and by discovering the Credibility which is in the Objects of Faith If you say The Assent is infused I must say The Evidence is first infused for as Christ when he healed the blind did not make them see Objects which did not appear visible so neither doth the Spirit of God in planting Faith make men discern Objects which do not appear credible and the stronger the Assent is the greater is the Evidence and Credibility of the Object And can you call then that any free inevident Assent which goes no further than the Object appears credible It cannot be then any Act of the Will but meerly of the Mind which yields assent to any Object propounded as credible to it So that in what way and manner Assent is required in that same manner doth God give proportionable evidence I deny not but that Assent is required to Objects inevident to sense and reason but then I say The Assent is not required to what is obscure and inevident but to what is evident to us and therefore credible In the Incarnation of the Son of God the manner of the Hypostatical Vnion is to us inevident but then God doth not require our Assent to the Manner but to the Truth of the thing it self Where-ever God requires us to believe any thing as True he gives us evidence that it is so where-ever it appears the thing is inevident we may lawfully suspend our Assent and for all that I know it is our duty so to do But yet you have not done with this profound discourse For you very learnedly distinguish a double proceeding in probations the one is per principia intrinseca which you very well English by intrinsecal Principles i. e. such as have a necessary natural connexion with the things proved and do manifest and lay open the objects themselves the other is per principia extrinseca by extrinsecal Principles that is such as have no natural or necessary connexion with nor do produce any such evident manifestation of the things proved but their efficacy viz. whereby they determine the understanding to assent doth wholly depend on the worth and vertue of that external Principle whereby such probations are made This you apply to Knowledge and Faith that as Knowledge proceeds in the former way so Faith doth in the latter which depends purely upon extrinsecal Principles viz. the Authority Veracity Goodness and Knowledge of God affirming it which was immediately known to the Prophets and Apostles but mediately to us which howâ—ver must be infallibly conveyed to us which can only be by the testimony of the Church This is the substance of your third Section to which I answer 1. That all Certainty in the acts of the Mind whether in Knowledge or Faith must equally suppose the Truth of some extrinsecal Principles viz. the veracity and goodness of God for otherwise we cannot certainly judge of those you call Principia intrinseca to know what things have necessary and natural connexion with the things proved For unless I suppose that God is so True and Good as not to suffer me to be deceived in
before conclusions there is little hopes of your being a true Roman Catholick But I must tell you this is not the way You must first believe the Church and then you may believe any thing Scept But would you have me attain Infallible certainty without any reason that is Infallible But because you quarrel with my method I will yield to yours but let me desire to know first What those things are which I must believe upon this Infallibility and then Whether nothing short of this Infallible certainty will serve in order to Faith for if so I must confess my self not only a Sceptick but an Infidel T. C. All objects of Faith must be believed with Infallible certainty and nothing short of that can be true Faith for true Divine Faith must rely on Divine Authority or some Word of God now because you cannot rely on Gods written Word for the Divine Authority of it self you must rely on some Divine unwritten Word which can be no other but what is delivered by the Infallible Testimony of the present Roman Church Scept I was in hopes you intended my cure but now I perceive you aim at making me worse for I never heard so many things uttered in a breath with so great confidence and so little shew of reason that if I were not a Sceptick already I should commence one now You tell me indeed very magisterially that I cannot believe without Infallibility because Faith must rely on a Divine Testimony this Divine Testimony is not in Scripture as you call it but in the Infallibility of your present Roman Church I find my doubts so increase by this discourse of yours that they all croud so to get out I know not how to propose them in order but as well as I can You tell me the ground why you require Infallible certainty is because Faith must rest on Divine Authority and that this Authority must be that of your Church which you say is Infallible these things therefore I desire of you first to shew how your Churches Authority comes to be Divine 2. How her Testimony comes to be Infallible 3. How I may be Infallibly certain of this Infallibility 4. Supposing the Catholick Churches Testimony to be so how such a Sceptick as I am should know your Roman Church to be that Catholick Church T. C. Your first question is How our Churches Authority comes to be Divine I see there is little hopes of doing good on you that ask such questions as these are you ought quietly to submit your Faith to the Church and heartily believe all these things without questioning them for I must tell you such kind of questions have almost ruined us and hath made scrupulous men turn Hereticks and others Atheists but since I hope your questions may go no further then my answers nor be any better understood I must tell you That though we say that it is necessary that Divine Faith must rely on Divine Authority because that seems to promise Infallibility yet when we come to our Churches Testimony we dare not for fear of the Hereticks call it Divine but Infallible and in a manner and after a sort Divine hoping they would never take notice of any Contradiction in it but still we say As far as concerns precise Infallibility it is so truly supernatural and certain that it comes nothing short of the Divinest Testimony but yet this is not Divine though it be by the Testimony of the Holy Ghost and yet is no immediate revelation but still it is so much as if the Church should erre Gods veracity may be called in question assoon as the Churches Scept I took you for a Priest before but now I take you for an absolute conjurer but I confess I like this discourse well for I perceive your Religion is built on such grounds as you never intend should be understood wherein I commend your discretion for these distinctions will doubtless do your work among silly and ignorant people which are a great part of mankind and much the greatest of your Church I am therefore infinitely satisfied with this answer to my first question answer but the rest so and I promise you to be less a Sceptick then ever I was T. C. to your second How her Testimony comes to be Infallible because I perceive you are an understanding person I will acquaint you with our way The Hereticks trouble us with this question above all others for they presently cry out If you know the Scripture to be Infallible by the Church and the Church Infallible by Scripture we run into a Circle and this we know as well as they but do not think fit to let the people know it and therefore we tell them of things being known in themselves and to us between the formal object and the Infallible witness between the principal cause and a condition prerequisite between proving of it to Hereticks and to our selves but I see some of my brethren of late have been much beholding to some things with vizards upon them called Motives of credibility and the generality are so frighted with them that they will rather say they are satisfied then ask any more questions but if they do these do so little in truth belong to our Church that then we storm and sweat and cry out upon them as Atheists and that it is impossible they should believe any Religion who question them and if that doth it not then we patter over the former distinctions as we do our prayers and hope they are both in an unknown tongue Scept Well I see you are the man like to give me satisfaction I pray to your third question How I may be Infallibly certain of this Infallibility T.C. that is a question never asked by Catholicks and if we find any propounding it whom we hoped to proselyte we give them hard words and leave them for because we offer to prove our Infallibility by only motives of credibility they presently ask us Whether our Infallibility be an Article of Faith if it be then they may believe an Article of Faith without Infallible certainty and then what need our Churches Infallibility and then to what end do we quarrel with their Faith for being built on greater motives of credibility which being such untoward questions we see there is no good to be done on them and so leave them but in our Books we are sure to cry out of the fallibility and uncertainty of the Faith of Protestants because they acknowledge their Churches not Infallible and cry up our Church because she pretends to it if they ask How we prove it we seek to confound the state of the question and run out into the necessity of an unwritten Word or bring such motives as hold only for the Primitive and Apostolical Church and make them serve ours too If all this will not do we have other shifts still but it is not yet fit to discover them Scept To your fourth Question and then
I will tell you my judgement How your Church comes to be called or accounted the Catholick Church T. C. For this though it seems strange to the Hereticks how a part should be called or accountd the whole yet to all true Catholicks who must wink hard that they may see the better we make no great difficulty of it for we tell them the Pope is Christs Vicar and it is the head which gives the denomination and so Catholick is nothing else but a name to denote persons who are in our Church and if they question this they thereby are out of the Church and so under damnation But for the sturdy Hereticks who deride our thunderbolts we are put to a greater trouble and are fain to gather all the citations of the Fathers against the poor Donatists and apply them to the Hereticks and what ever they say belongs to the Catholick Church we confidently arrogate it to our selves as though our Church now were the same with the Catholick Church then and chiefly we have the advantage of the Protestants by this that whatever corruptions they charge us with they had the good hap to be almost generally received at the time Luther appeared and upon this we thunder them with the succession and visibility of our Church as the Samaritans were much to blame they did not serve the Israelites so after their return from captivity for they had a continual succession in the same place and a greater visibility than the Israelites under their bondage but yet we had the advantage of them by a larger spread a longer prescription and a fairer shew Scept Sir I am hugely taken with these discourses of yours and easily perceive whatever they that believe Christian Religion to be true think that you are men of wit and parts and understand your Interest I mean your Religion I understand now throughly to what intent it is you say that Those who build their Faith on rational grounds go about to destroy Religion I confess you have taken the only way to reclaim me from any thing of Scepticism I suppose you understand my meaning as I do yours In this discourse I pretend not as you did to deliver his Lordships words and so wrong him by falsly imposing them on him in another sense then he intended them but collect from your former managery of this Controversie what your real sense and meaning is and how excellent a way this is instead of reclaiming Atheists to make them so If I have mistaken your meaning I pray speak more clearly and then we shall think you mean honestly but as long as you walk so much in the dark you will give us leave to suspect your design is either upon our purses or our Religion I now return to your Church-tradition You begin your sixth Section with a fair Supposition and carry it on accordingly which is of a Child brought up in your Church who is commanded to believe the Scriptures and all other Articles of Faith on the Authority of your Church whom you suppose to dye without once looking into the Scriptures Your question is Whether he had saving Faith or no if so then the Churches Authority is a sufficient ground for Infallible Faith if not then he had none at all and consequently could not be saved I answer We pry not into Divine secrets on which account we dare not pronounce of the final condition of such who through ignorance cannot be acquainted with Gods written Word we therefore say that an hearty assent to the Doctrine of the Gospel is the Faith which God requires and if this Faith lead men to obedience to Gods will we assert the sufficiency of it for salvation and not otherwise for Faith is not therefore saving because built on an Infallible ground as you fondly seem to imagine but when it attains its end when it brings men to a hearty obedience to the precepts of the Gospel And if some among you may believe that which is in it self true but upon weak and insufficient grounds as the advantages of education which are much rather the foundation of the Faith of such a one as you speak of then any Infallibility supposed by him in the Church yet such and so great is the goodness of God that if a Faith standing on such grounds do attain its end that is make such a one Universally holy we deny not but God may accept of it for Salvation But still we say such a Faith is so far from being Infallible that it is not built on any sufficient or satisfactory ground for the motive of it is that which may be false as well as true for he that assents to any thing on the Authority of any Church before he doth judge whether her Authority be to be relyed on absolutely or no may believe a falshood assoon as truth upon that Authority and the more he makes this his foundation the more he is in danger of being deceived As suppose a Child brought up in Turky and instructed in that Religion he is told that he must without examination believe Mahomets Alcoran to be Divine and he must neither doubt of this nor of any other Article of Faith universally received among Mahumetans may not such a one as invincibly believe the Authority of the Turkish Church if we may call it so as your Child doth the Authority of your Church Where then lies the difference you see plainly it cannot be in the Motive to Faith for the Authority is supposed equally Infallible in both but it lies in the evidence of truth in one Religion above the other and this requires something more then the Authority of the Church viz. judgement and diligent examination And then Faith is built on a sure ground Remember then that we enquire not what abatements God makes for the prejudices of education in believing or not believing any Religion nor how God intends to deal with them who through age or other invincible prejudices are uncapable of judging the evidence of truth in any Religion but what are the certain grounds of Faith which sober and understanding men may and ought to build their belief of true Religion upon But you proceed and suppose your young Christian to live and apply himself to study and becomes a learned man and then upon the Churches recommendation betakes himself to the reading the Scriptures upon which by the light he discovers in it he finds the Faith he had before was but a humane perswasion and not a Divine Faith and consequently that he had no saving Faith of any Article of Christian belief and so was out of the state of Salvation from whence you say will spring gripes and torture of spirit among Christians And why so What because they discern greater reason to believe then ever they did must they find gripes and torture of spirit I had thought the more light men had found i. e. the more reason for believing the more peace and
that but only the concurrent Testimonies of some Schoolmen who must be confessed to be excellent Criticks and well versed in ancient M.SS. unless where they met with a little Greek or some hard Latin words and among whom the mistake of one would pass current for want of examining Copies let the Reader therefore judge whether Judgement be more probable But I think it not worth while to say more about it In your vindication of the Authority of Canus you make use of a very silly piece of Sophistry for say you Though he make Infidels and Novices in the Faith to be convinced by the Authority of the Church yet you say It doth not follow that he makes the said Authority a fallible but a certain and sure way to make them believe it But 1. The Question is Whether Canus doth understand that place of S. Augustine of Infidels and Novices or no 2. Suppose he sayes It is a sure way Doth it therefore follow that it is an infallible way Is nothing certain but what is infallible I hope you are certain that the Church of Rome is the Cacholick Church but Are you infallible that she is so If you advance all certainty to Infallibility or bring down all Infallibility to Certainty every Christian is as infallible as your Church is For I make no question but that every good Christian is certain of the Grounds and Principles of his Religion The same thing you return upon again after to little purpose you multiply words about Canus and Stapleton's Testimonies For say you because S. Augustine speaks of a sure way therefore he must mean an infallible way as though what was not supernaturally infallible was presently unsure I pray tell me Are you sure that two and two make four Yet I hope you will not say You are supernaturally infallible that they do so I hope you are sure there is a Pope at Rome and a goodly Colledge of Cardinals there but Are you infallible in this It is not then certainly the same to deny a thing to be infallible and to make it unsure And you are either very weak or very wilful in saying so In what sense this so much controverted place of S. Augustine is to be understood will be afterwards discussed and whether it be intended wholly for Infidels or no only I shall take notice now how in the last words of this Chapter you would again inferr Infallibility from undoubted certainty For say you the Church in S. Augustine's time esteemed her self undoubtedly certain that the Gospel was the infallible Word of God for otherwise she might be deceived her self and deceive others in commanding them to believe that to be God's Word which was only the word of man But What is it you would inferr from all this For we believe the Church as undoubtedly certain as may be that the Scriptures are God's Word yet we are far enough from believing that her Testimony now is supernaturally infallible CHAP. VII The Protestant Way of resolving Faith Several Principles premised in order to it The distinct Questions set down and their several Resolution given The Truth of matters of fact the Divinity of the Doctrine and of the Books of Scripture distinctly resolved into their proper grounds Moral Certainty a sufficient Foundation for Faith and yet Christian Religion proved to be infallibly True How Apostolical Tradition made by his Lordship a Foundation of Faith Of the certainty we have of the Copies of Scripture and the Authority of them S. Augustine's Testimony concerning Church-Authority largely discussed and vindicated Of the private Spirit and the necessity of Grace His Lordship's Way of resolving Faith vindicated How far Scripture may be said to be known by its own Light The several Testimonies of Bellarmine Brierly and Hooker cleared HAving thus far followed you through all your intricacies and windings and shewed with what diligence and subtilty you would juggle men out of their Faith under a pretence of Infallibility it will be necessary for the vindicating our Doctrine and the clearing this important Controversie with all evidence and perspicuity to lay down those certain grounds which we build our Faith upon And although it be one of the greatest of your Modern Artifices to perswade the world that Protestants have no certain grounds of Faith at all yet I doubt not but to make it evident that the way taken by the most judicious and considerative Protestants is as satisfactory and reasonable as I have already made it appear that yours is unreasonable and ridiculous Which I shall the rather do because through the want of a clear and distinct apprehension of the true way of resolving Faith no Controversie in Religion hath been more obscure and involved than this hath been Therefore for our more distinct method of proceeding I shall first endeavour to prevent misunderstanding by premising several things which are necessary for a through opening the state of the Controversie and then come to the resolution of it The things then I would premise are these following 1. That we enquire not after the reason why we assent to what is divinely revealed but after the reason why we believe any thing to be a Divine Revelation Therefore when men speak of the last resolution of Faith into the Veracity of God revealing they speak that which is undoubtedly true but it reacheth not our present enquiry I freely grant that the ultimate reason why any thing is believed is upon the Testimony of him from whom it comes and the greater the knowledge and fidelity is of him whose Testimony I believe the stronger my Assent is supposing I have sufficient evidence that it is his Testimony But that is our present Question for it being taken for granted among all Christians that God's Testimony is absolutely infallible there can no dispute arise concerning the ground of resolving Faith supposing God's Revelation to be sufficiently known For no one questions but God's Veracity however discovered is a sufficient ground for Faith but all the Question is How we come to know wherein this Veracity of God doth discover it self or what those things are which are immediately revealed by him Therefore to tell us that the resolution of Faith is into Gods Infallible Testimony without shewing on what account this testimony is to be beleeved to be from God is to tell us that which no one doubts of and to escape that which is the main question For in case Isaac should have denyed submission to his Fathers will when he went to be sacrificed till he could be satisfied concerning the lawfulness of that action which his Father went about Do you think it had been satisfactory to him if Abraham had told him that God had power to relax his own Laws and therefore he need not question the lawfulness of the action might not Isaac have presently answered That he did not question that what God commanded was lawful but that he desired was some evidence that he had
a revelation for what he did And the answer to this had been only pertinent and satisfactory So that he might have no reason to question it although he did not believe any thing more then common fidelity in his Fathers testimony For God never when revelations were most common thought it necessary to multiply revelations so far as to make one necessary to attest another but that revelation which was communicated to one was obligatory to all concerned in it though they could have nothing but Moral certainty for it By this it appears that when we now speak of the resolution of Faith though the utmost reason of our assent is that Infallibility which is supposed in Divine Testimony yet the nearest and most proper resolution of it is into the grounds inducing us to believe that such a Testimony is truly Divine and the resolution of this cannot be into any Divine Testimony without a process in infinitum 2. That when we speak of the resolution of Faith by Faith we understand a rational and discursive act of the mind For Faith being an assent upon evidence or reason inducing the mind to assent it must be a rational and discursive act and such a one that one may be able to give an account of to another And this account which men are able to give why they do believe or on what ground they do it is that which we call resolving Faith And by this it appears that whatever resolves Faith into its efficient cause which some improperly call the Testimony of the spirit though it may be true yet comes not home to the question For if by the Testimony of the spirit be meant that operation of the spirit whereby saving Faith is wrought in us then it gives no account from the thing to be believed why we assent to it but only shews how Faith is wrought in us by way of efficiency which is rather resolving the question about the necessity of Grace than the grounds of Faith Our question is not then concerning the necessity of infused habits of Grace but of those rational inducements which do incline the mind to a firm assent For Faith in us however it is wrought being a perswasion of the mind it is not conceivable how there should be any discursive act of the mind without some reason causing the mind to assent to what is propounded to it For without this Faith would be an unaccountable thing and the spirit of revelation would not be the spirit of wisdom and Religion would be exposed to the contempt of all unbelievers if we were able to give no other account of Faith then that it is wrought in us by the Spirit of God When we speak therefore of the resolving Faith we mean what are the rational inducements to believe or what evidence there is in the object propounded to make us firmly assent to it 3. According to the different acts of Faith there must be assigned a different resolution of Faith For every act being rational and discursive must have its proper grounds belonging to it unless we suppose that act elicited without any reason for it which is incongruous with the nature of the humane understanding There are then in the question of resolution of Faith these three questions to be resolved First Why I believe those things to be true which are contained in the Book called the Scripture 2. Why I believe the Doctrine contained in that Book to be Divine 3. Why I believe the Books themselves to be of Divine revelation Now every one of these questions admits of a different way of resolution as will appear by the handling each of them distinctly 1. If I be asked On what grounds I believe the things to be true which are contained in Scripture my answer must be From the greatest evidence of truth which things of that nature are capable of If therefore the persons who are supposed to have writ these things were such who were fully acquainted with what they writ of if they were such persons who cannot be suspected of any design to deceive men by their writings and if I be certain that these which go under the name of their writings are undoubtedly theirs I must have sufficient grounds to believe the truth of them Now that the writers of these things cannot be suspected of ignorance appears by the time and age they writ in when the story of these things was new and such multitudes were willing enough to have contradicted it if any thing had beeen amiss besides some of the writers had been intimately conversant with the person and actions of him whom they writ most of That they could have no intent to deceive appears from the simplicity and candour both of their actions and writings from their contempt of the world and exposing themselves to the greatest hazards to bear witness to them That these are the very same writings appears by all the evidence can be desired For we have as great if not much greater reason to believe them to be the Authors of the Books under their Names than any other writers of any Books whatsoever both because the matters are of greater moment and therefore men might be supposed more inquisitive about them and that they have been unanimously received for 〈◊〉 from the very time of their being first written except some very few which upon strict examination were admitted too and we find these very Books cited by the learned Christians under these Names in that time when it had been no difficulty to have found out several of the Original Copy's themselves When therefore they were universally received by Christians never doubted of by Jews or Heathen Philosophers we have as great evidence for this first act of Faith as it is capable of And he is unreasonable who desires more 2. If I be asked why I believe the Doctrine contained in these Books to be Divine I must give in two things for answer 1. That in the Age when the Doctrine was delivered there was sufficient reason to believe it Divine 2. That if there was sufficient reason then we have sufficient reason now 1. That in the Age when the Doctrine was delivered there was sufficient reason to believe it Divine Supposing then that we already believe upon the former answer that all the matters of fact be true I answer that if Christ did such unparalleâ—d miracles and rose from the dead they who heard his Doctrine had reason to believe it to be of God and this I suppose the greatest Infidel would not deny if himself had been one of the witnesses of his actions and resurection 2. That if they had reason then we have so now because tradition to us doth only supply the want of our senses as to what Christ did and spake i. e. That tradition is a kind of derivative and perpetuated sensation to us it being of the same use to us now which our eyes and ears had been if we had been
the Question and suppose that already to be which you are proving the existence of Now that Infallibility in us doth suppose the existence of God appears most evidently because mans understanding being of it self fallible it cannot be supposed in any thing infallible without the supernatural Assistance of a being Infallible which can be nothing else but God But if you think you have infallible proofs produce them and convince the world of Atheists by them We acknowledge we have as great evidence and certainty as humane nature is capable of of a Being of such a Nature as God is from the consideration of his works but all this still is moral Certainty for the grounds are neither Mathematically demonstrative nor supernaturally infallible What folly and madness then is it for your party to cry out so much against moral Certainty in Religion when the Foundation of all Religion is capable of no more And may not this justly increase our suspicion that under moral Certainty you strike at the Foundation of all Religion 2. Suppose God gives the most infallible evidence of any Religion it is not possible but that some who are bound to believe that Religion can have any more than moral Certainty of it And for all that I know the greatest Physical Certainty is as liable to question as moral there being as great a possibility of Deception in that as a suspicion of doubt in this and oft-times greater What advantage then had those who stood by and saw the miracles of Moses and Christ above those who did not but had the report of them conveyed to them in an unquestionable manner Besides it is apparent God's great aim in any Religion is most at the good of those who can have only a moral Certainty of the great evidences of the Truth of that Religion because it being God's intention that the Religion delivered by Him should be not meerly for the benefit of those very few persons who could be present at such things but for the advantage of those incomparably greater numbers who by reason of distance of place and age could not be present it would argue a strange want of provision for mens Faith unless moral Certainty were sufficient Only you indeed will suppose that which God himself never thought necessary viz. an infallible Testimony of the present Church but to what good purposes you have introduced this hath largely appeared already 3. Moral Certainty yields us sufficient Assurance that Christian Religion is infallibly true And that I prove because moral Certainty may evidently shew us the Credibility of the Christian Religion which you deny not nor any else and that from the Credibility of it the infallible Truth of it may be proved will appear by these two things 1. That where there is evident Credibility in the matter propounded there doth arise upon men an obligation to believe And that is proved both by your own confession as to the Churches Infallibility being believed on the Motives of Credibility and from Gods intention in giving such Motives which was to perswade them to believe as appears by multitudes of places of Scripture and withall though the meer Credibility of the Motives might at first suppose some doubts concerning the Infallibility of the Doctrine yet it is not consistent with any doubt as to the Infallibility of the obligation to believe because there can be no other reason assigned of these Motives of Credibility than the inducing on men an obligation to Faith 2. That where there is such an obligation to believe we have the greatest assurance that the matter to be believed is infallibly True Which depends upon this manifest proof That God cannot oblige men to believe a lye it being repugnant to all our conceptions of the Veracity and Goodness of God to imagine that God should require from men on the pain of eternal damnation for not believing to believe something as infallibly True which is really false Thus you see what a clear and pregnant demonstration we have of the infallible Truth of Christian Religion from moral Certainty How injurious then have those of your party been who have charged this opinion of believing upon moral Certainty with betraying Religion and denying Christian Religion to be infallibly True Thus much for this grand Objection I now come to the last Question considerable in the Resolution 3. On what account do I believe these particular Books of Scripture to be Gods Word Which may admit of a double sense 1. On what account I do believe the Doctrine contained in these Books to be Gods Word 2. On what account I do believe the Books containing this Doctrine to be Gods Word As to the first I have answered already viz. Upon the same rational evidence which God gave that the Testimony of those who delivered was a Divine and infallible Testimony To the second I answer in these two Propositions 1. That the last Resolution of Faith is not into the Infallibility of the Instrument of conveyance but into the Infallibility of that Doctrine which is thereby conveyed to us For the writing of this Doctrine is only the condition by which this Revelation is made manifest to us it being evident from the nature of the thing that the writing of a Divine Revelation is not necessary for the ground and reason of Faith as to that Revelation because men may believe a Divine Revelation without it as is not only evident in the case of the Patriarchs but of all those who in the time of Christ and the Apostles did believe the truth of the Doctrin of Christ before it was written If therefore the writing be only the condition of the manifestation of the Object in a certain way to us the ground and reason of Faith is not to be resolved into that which is only the mode of our knowledge of the Object to be believed but into that which is properly the ground and reason why we believe that Doctrine or Revelation to be Divine which is contained in those Books And this is still the case of all illiterate persons who cannot resolve their Faith properly into the Scripture but into the Doctrine delivered them out of Scripture Hence we may discern the difference between the Formal Object and the Rule of Faith the Formal Object is that evidence which is given of the Infallibility of the Testimony of those who delivered the Doctrine the infallible Rule of Faith to us is the Scripture viz. that which limits and bounds the material Objects of Faith which we are bound to believe and this doth therefore discover to us what those things are which on the account of the Formal Object we are obliged to believe 2. Those who believe the Doctrine of Scripture to be Divine have no reason to question the infallible conveyance of that Doctrine to us in those Books we call the Scripture Therefore whatever things we are to believe in order to salvation we have as great evidence as we
Customs controverted between the Papists and us which no doubt is the true reason why the three first ages are declined by Cardinal Perrone yet there is not the least shadow of pretence why they should be silent in this present Controversie since the great business of their writings was to vindicate the Christian Faith to perswade the Heathens to believe it and to manifest the grounds on which they were induced to believe themselves If therefore in this they do unanimously concurr with that resolution of Faith I have already laid down nothing can be desired more for the evidence and confirmation of the truth of our way than that it is not only most consonant to Scripture but built on the truest Reason and was the very same which the Primitive Christians used when they gave an account of their Faith Which I shall do not by some mangled citations but deducing it from the scope and design of their writings and drawing it successively down from the first after the Apostles who appeared in Vindication of the Christian Faith I begin with Justin Martyr who as Photius saith of him was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not far from the Apostles either in time or virtue and who being a professed Philosopher before he became a Christian we may in reason think that he was more inquisitive into the grounds of Christian Faith before he believed and the more able to give an account of them when he did Whether therefore we consider those arguments which first induced him to believe or those whereby he endeavours to perswade others to it we shall find how consonant and agreeable he is to our grounds of Faith how far from any imagination of the Churches Infallibility In the beginning of his excellent Dialogue with Trypho where if I may conjecture he represents the manner of his conversion in a Platonical way introducing a solemn conference between himself and an ancient person of great gravity and a venerable aspect in a solitary place whither he was retired for his meditations Pet. Halloix is much troubled who this person should be Whether an Angel in humane shape or a man immediately conveyed by an Angel to discover Christianity to him which when he had done he was as suddenly carried back again Scultetus I suppose from this story asserts Justin Martyr to be converted by Divine Revelation But if I be not much mistaken this whole Conference is no more than the setting forth the grounds of his becoming a Christian in the Platonical mode by way of Dialogue and probably the whole Disputation with Trypho may be nothing else but however that be it is apparent Trypho looked on him as a Platonist by his Pallium and Justin Martyr owns himself to have been so and therefore it was very congruous for him to discourse after the Academick manner In which discourse when Justin Martyr had stood up in vindication of the Platonick Philosophy and the other Person endeavours to convince him of the impossibility of attaining true happiness by any Philosophy For when Justin had said That by Philosophy he came to the Knowledge of God the other person demanded How they could know God who had never seen him nor heard him He replied That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God was only intelligible by our minds as Plato said He again asks Whether there were such a faculty in the minds of men as to be able to see God without a Divine Power and Spirit assisting it Justin answers that according to Plato the eye of the understanding was sufficient to discover that there is such a Being which is the cause of all things but the nature of it is ineffable and incomprehensible Upon which he proceeds to enquire What relation there was between God and the Souls of men and what means to come to the participation of him after a great deal of discourse on which subject between them Justin comes at last to enquire if there were no truth and certainty in Philosophy By whose instruction or by what means he should come to it To which that person returns this excellent Answer That there had been a long time since several persons much elder than the reputed Philosophers blessed men just and lovers of God speaking by the inspiration of the Divine Spirit foretelling things which have come to pass since whom they call Prophets These only saw the Truth and declared it to men neither flattering nor fearing any nor conquered with the love of honour But they only spake the things which they heard and saw being filled with the Holy Spirit Whose Books are still extant which whosoever reads and assents to will find himself much improved in the principles and ends of things and whatever becomes a Philosopher to know For they write not by way of argument or demonstration but that which is above it they are most faithful witnesses of Truth For the things which have and do come to pass do enforce men to believe the Truth of what they spake And not only so but they are most worthy to be believed for the Miracles which they wrought Moreover they extol the Maker of the World God and the Father and declare to the World his Son Christ which the false Prophets who are acted by a seducing and impure spirit neither have done nor yet do do but they attempt to shew some tricks for the amazement of men and cry up the evil and deceiving spirits But do thou above all things pray that the gates of light may be opened to thee For these things are not seen nor understood by all but only by them to whom God and Christ shall grant the knowledge of them A most signal and remarkable Testimony as any is extant in all Antiquity for acquainting us with the true grounds and reasons of Faith which therefore I have at large produced The very reading of which is sufficient to tell us How true a Protestant this whether Angel or Man was When Justin asked him What Teachers he should have to lead him to Truth He tells him There had been long before Philosophers excellent persons in the world called Prophets men every way good who did nothing for fear or favour or love of themselves But Justin might further ask How he should come to be instructed by them He tells him Their Writings were still extant wherein were contained such things as might hugely satisfie a Philosophical mind concerning the Origine and Principles of things He might still enquire Whether those things were demonstrated or no in them No he replies but they deserve assent as much if not beyond any demonstration because they manifest themselves to be from God by two things the exact accomplishment of the Prophecies made by them and the unparalleld Miracles which were wrought by them But might not the evil spirits work such things No For although their false Prophetsâ—ay â—ay do several things to amaze men yet they can do no
Testimony for to what purpose else was the Similitude of the Woman of Samaria insisted on but to parallel the Testimony of the Church with that of the Woman and consequently the Faith built on the Churches Testimony to be like that which the Samaritans had of Christ upon the Womans Testimony and if you believe that Faith Infallible you must assert an Infalâ—â—ble Faith to be built on a fallible Testimony and yet to be as infallible as that which is built on an Infallible Testimony And then I pray tell me To what end would you make your Churches Testimony Infallible if Faith may be infallible without it But it may be though these seem hard things yet you prove them invincibly No doubt of it for you say That Christ enters by that Faith but Christ cannot enter into a soul by a meer humane fallible perswasion but by Divine Faith only Nay when he says That he more believes the Scripture than the Churches Testimony he saith That he believes the Church But how can he believe without Faith O the irresistible force of demonstrations But what silly people are we that thought a man might enter into a house by the door though he met not with his hearty entertainment till afterwards But Do you really think that Christ never enters into a soul but by Divine and Infallible Faith For Christ enters by that which gives him his first admission but his full reception must be by a higher degree of Faith Do you think men believe as much at first as ever after If not May not Christ be said to enter by that lower degree of Faith I pray What think you of the case in hand Did not the belief of Christ enter by the Woman of Samaria and was that as Divine a Faith as what they had afterwards Nay take Christs entring as improperly as you can imagine it for his hearty reception in the soul Can that be no other waies but by an Infallible Faith A Faith supposed to be built on infallible grounds I grant but whether all who do truly believe in Christ do build their Faith on grounds in themselves infallible my charity to some deluded souls in your Church as well as honest but ignorant persons elsewhere gives me just reason to question But still there is a greater subtilty behind which is if he believes the Scripture more than the Church then he must believe the Church equally with the Scripture for that must be the meaning of what you say when he sayes He believes the Scripture more than the Church he believes the Church but how can he believe without Faith Ergo this must be Divine Faith or else all the rest come to nothing So that if I say I believe the Scripture more than you it follows that I believe you as much as the Scripture by the very same consequence But you have gotten such a knack of contradicting your self that poor Gandavo cannot fall into your hands but you must make him do so too When you say A man cannot believe without Faith I dare justifie it to be one of the greatest truths in your Book but if your meaning be A man cannot believe without Divine Faith I hope we Protestants sufficiently confute that for you dare not deny that we believe at all but just as the Devils do we must according to you believe and tremble because our Faith is not Divine and Infallible But still your subtilty works with you for because Gandavensis saith That we must yield our first Faith to the Scripture but secundam sub ista a secondary Faith to the definitions and customs of the Catholick Church You cry out Here 's prima secunda fides but yet both of them are properly and truly Faith But Are both of them properly and truly Divine Faith If so How comes the distinction of the first and second one subordinate to the other if both be equally Divine and Infallible Nay according to your Principles the Faith given to the Church must be the first Faith and to the Scriptures the second under that because for the sake of the Churches Testimony we are to believe the Scriptures And Do you really think there may be no discovery of Infidelity in rejecting a sufficient Testimony for Faith where there is not an Infallible Testimony But whatever you think your great enemy Reason tells us the contrary and therefore what follows of believing the Church sub poenâ perfidiae is to no more purpose than what went before The strength therefore of all that you say as to this Testimony of Gandavensis lyes in the proof of this one thing That no man can believe any thing without an Infallible Faith yet I verily believe that you have miserably perverted the Schoolmens words and think no more Infallible Testimony requisite for it than your own words But it may be though you do so ill by the Schoolmen you may use the Fathers more civilly Three things therefore you have to answer to those Testimonies of the Fathers which seem most to make use of internal Arguments 1. That they use them not to such as had no Divine Faith but to such as had 2. That they do not use them as Primary Infallible and Divine proofs but as secondary arguments perswasive only to such as believed Scripture to be Gods Word antecedently to them 3. That they do not use only such proofs as are wholly internal to the Scripture it self As to the two first conditions you say 't is evident these proofs were made by Christians namely the Holy Fathers and commonly to Christians who lived in their times And as clear is it that they never pronounced them to be the Primary Infallible and Divine Motives of their belief in that point nor used they them as such How false and absurd these Answers are may appear by our precedent discourse wherein we manifested that the Christians insisted on those arguments there mentioned not for themselves and other Christians but chiefly to convince and perswade by them the Gentile world to the belief of Christianity And Did they suppose these Heathens to have a Divine Faith already Or Did they look on such arguments as only secondary motives when these were the chief nay only arguments which they used to perswade them if they had other that were Primary Divine and Infallible and only made use of secondary humane probable motives they were guilty of the highest betraying the Christian Cause imaginable And you make them only to defend Christianity as Vaninus did Divine Providence with such silly and weak arguments that by their overthrow the belief of it might fall with them Indeed if they had pretended the Infallible Testimony of the Church there might have been just reason for such a Suspicion and any wise men would have thought their design had been to make their Religion contemptible and expose it to the derision of Atheists instead of better establishing the Foundations of believing it But
those wise and holy men knew better the interest of Christianity than to offer to defend it by Principles in themselves false and much more liable to question than that was which they were to prove by them and therefore made choice of arguments in themselves strong and evident and built on Principles common to themselves and those whom they disputed against i. e. they urged them with the greatest strength of Reason and the clearest evidence of Divine Revelation and never questioned but that a Faith built on those grounds if effectual for a holy Life was a true and Divine Faith It seems then your cause cannot be maintained without the most sharp and virulent reflections on those Primitive Christians who among all those arguments whereby they so successfully prevailed over the Gentile world never did so much as vouchsafe to mention the least pretence to Infallibility for which they are now accused of using only the blunter weapons of humane and fallible motives and not those Primary and Divine Motives of Infallibility But this is not the first time we have seen what desperate shifts a bad cause puts men upon It may be yet your strength may lye in your last condition viz. That these arguments used by them were not internal For 1. You say That of Miracles is external the Scriptures themselves work none neither were ever any Miracles wrought to confirm that all the Books now in the Canon and no more are the Word of God I answer 1. I have already told you of a double resolution of Faith the one as to the Divinity of the Doctrine the other as to the Veracity of the Books which contain it when therefore Miracles are insisted on it is not in order to the latter of these which we have sufficient assurance of without them as I have already largely proved both as to the Truth and Integrity of the Canon of Scripture but Miracles we say are the arguments to prove the Divinity of the Doctrine by because they attest the Divine Revelation of the persons who deliver this Doctrine to the world 2. As to us who receive the report of those Miracles as conveyed to us by the Scripture those may be said to be internal arguments to the Scripture which are there recorded in order to our believing the Doctrine therein contained to be Divine The Motives of Faith being delivered to us now joyntly with the Doctrine although on different grounds we believe the Veracity of the Books of Scripture and the Infallibility of the Doctrine contained in it We believe that the Miracles were truly done because they are delivered to us by an unquestionable Tradition in such Authentick Writings as the Scriptures are but we believe the Doctrine contained in the Books to be Divine because attested by such Miracles and we believe the Books of Scripture to be divinely inspired because such persons cannot be supposed to falsifie to the world who wrought such great Miracles 2. You say The conversion of so many People and Nations by the Doctrine contained in Scripture is also external to the Scripture But still you suppose that these arguments are brought to prove these Books to be divinely inspired which is denied we say only That the admirable propagation of the Doctrine of the Gospel is a great argument that it was from God And therefore when afterwards you say That supposing all those arguments mentioned by the Bishop out of S. Augustine to be internal to the Scripture yet they cannot infallibly and divinely prove that Scripture is the Word of God If by Scripture you mean the Writings we pretend not to it if by Scripture you mean the Doctrine of it we assert it and think it no argument at all against that which you add That perswade they may but convince they cannot no doubt if they perswade they do much more than convince But I suppose your meaning is they do it not effectually if so that is not the fault of the arguments but of the person who by his obstinacy will not hearken to the clearest evidence of Reason All that this can prove is a necessity of Divine Grace to go along with external evidence which you dare not assert for fear of running into that private Spirit which you objected to his Lordship on the same account But it is very pretty which follows You say Supposing that all those arguments mentioned of Miracles nothing carnal in the Doctrine performance of it and conversion of the world by it were all of them internal to Scripture yet they could not prove infallibly the Scripture to be the Word of God and to prove this you tell us concerning the third and fourth How can it ever be proved that either the performance of this Doctrine or the conversion of Nations is internal to Scripture But Did you not suppose them before to be internal to Scripture and though they were so yet could not prove the Scriture c and to prove that you say they cannot be proved internal to Scripture Which is just as if I should say If you were Pope you would not be Infallible and all the evidence I should give for it should be only to prove that you were not Pope You conclude this Chapter with a Wonder I mean not any thing of Reason which would really be so But say you who can sufficiently wonder that his Lordship for these four Motives should so easily make the Scripture give Divine Testimony to it self upon which our Faith must rest and yet deny the same priviledge to the Church Seeing it cannot be denied but that every one of these Motives are much more immediately and clearly applied to the Church than to the Scripture What more immediately and clearly and so clearly that it cannot be denied Prove but any one of them as to that Church whose Infallibility is in question viz. the present Roman-Church and I will yield you the rest Produce but any one undoubted Miracle to confirm the Infallibility of your Church or the Pastors of it shew your Doctrine wherein it differs from ours not to be carnal manifest the performance of the Christian Doctrine only in the members of your Church prove that it is your Church as such which hath preached this Doctrine and converted whole Nations to the belief of it in any other way than the Spaniards did the poor Indians and we may begin to hearken with somewhat more patience to your arrogant and unreasonable pretence of Infallibility Can any one then who hath any grain of reason left him think that from these arguments while his Lordship disputes most eagerly against the present Churches Infallibility he argues mainly for it as you very wisely conclude that Chapter If this be arguing for your Churches Infallibility much good may such arguments do you And so I come to the last part of my task as to this Controversie which is to examine your next Chapter which puts us in hopes of seeing an End of
you are so fond of your unwritten Revelations pray prove the necessity of them as strongly against Atheists as his Lordship hath done the necessity of a written one In the last Consideration he musters up all the several arguments whereby men may be perswaded that this Revelation is contained in those Books we call the Scripture as the Tradition of the Church the Testimony of former Ages the consent of times the Harmony of Prophets and the Prophecies fulfilled the success of the Doctrine the constancy of it the spiritual nature and efficacy of it and lastly the inward light and excellency of the Text it self which with a great deal of Rhetorick is there set forth But to all this you say no more than what hath been abundantly disproved viz. That all these only justifie our belief when it is received as the ancients received it upon the Infallible Authority of Church-Tradition but never otherwise Whereas we have proved that the ancients received it only on the same grounds which are here mentioned and therefore certainly are sufficient not only to justifie our Faith but to perswade us to believe Your argument against what his Lordship saith of the necessity of the Spirit 's assistance with these Motives and the Light of Scripture for producing Divine Faith will equally hold against all those of your own side who hold the necessity of Gods Spirit for believing the Churches Infallibility and against all such of both sides who hold any necessity of Divine Grace for then you must say that either that Grace is not necessary in order to salvation or that those who want it are neither truly Christians nor capable of salvation And how horridly soever these consequences sound in the ears of the unlearned they can sound no worse than those multitudes of Scriptures do which tell men That without true Divine Faith and real Grace they are under eternal condemnation But it may be that the unlearned may not be affrighted with such sentences as those are you think it a great deal better to let them hear little or nothing of the Scripture and to let them be continually entertained with the sweet and melodious voice of the Church No doubt you thought your next argument had done the business effectually For say you to make them more sensible of the foulness of this errour viz. the danger of such who do not savingly believe Let them consider that when young and unlearned Christians are taught to say their Creed and profess their belief of the Articles contained in it before they read Scripture they are taught to lye and profess to do that which they neither do nor can do in his Tenet An excellent argument against making Children say their Creed but Will not the same hold against all publick using of the Creed because it is unquestionable but there are some who do not savingly or divinely believe it Nay Will it not much more hold against any in your Church saying their Creed at all unless they first believe your Church to be Infallible which is very well known that all do not For then according to you they do but lye and profess to do that which they neither do nor can do without the Churches Infallible Testimony And therefore you must begin a new work of Catechizing the members of your Church to know whether they believe the Churches Infallibility before they can say their Creed Unless you solve it among your selves by saying It is not a formal lye but only an aequivocation which many of you say is lawful in case of danger as you see apparently this is But if the aequivocation be said only to lye in the word Believe you might easily discern the weakness of your argument through it For if some may truly believe what they do not savingly believe there is no lye certainly told in saying They do believe as far as they do which is by a firm assent to the Truth of all the Articles of Faith by that which is call'd an historical or dogmatical Faith where there may be no saving Faith But that because Children are taught as a short systeme of the Articles of Faith to say their Creed we must be convinced of the foulness of our errour is an apparent evidence that either you apprehended our understandings to be very weak or that you sufficiently discover your own to be so The only quarrel which you have with his Lordships Synthetical way is That he confounds his Reader with multiplicity of arguments and weakens the authority of the Church without which if you may be believed he might tire himself and others but never be able to make a clear resolution of Faith How clear an account you have given of Faith in your Analytical way by the Authority of the Church hath been sufficiently laid open to you but I wonder not that you quarrel with multiplicity of arguments there being nothing which doth really weaken the authority of your Church so much as they do and they are men certainly of your temper who will be soon tired with too much reason What follows concerning the captiousness of the Question as first propounded and the vicious Circle you would free your selves of by the Motives of Credibility deserve no further answer Only when you would make A. C. go your way and both together prove the Church Infallible independently on Scripture you did not certainly consider that it is an Infallibility by Promise which you challenge and for that end in the precedent Chapter were those places of Scripture produced by A. C. and urged by you All that I shall return by way of Answer to your tedious discourse concerning Scriptures being a Principle supposed among Christians the main of it depending on the circumstances of the dispute between his Lordship and Mr. Fisher shall be in these following particulars 1. That in all Controversies among Christians whose decision depends upon the authority of Scripture the Scripture must be supposed as granted to be of Divine Authority by both parties 2. That in that Question Whether the Scripture contains all necessary things of Faith that necessity must be supposed to relate to the things which depend upon Scripture and therefore implies it believed on other grounds that this Scripture is of Divine Revelation For the Question is Whether God hath consigned his Will so fully to us in this Revelation of himself that nothing necessary to be believed is left out of it For men then to say That this is left out of it viz. to believe that this is a Divine Revelation is an unreasonable Cavil it being supposed in the very Question that it is so 3. That in this sense the Scripture may be said to be a supposed Principle because it hath a different way of probation from particular objects of Faith revealed in Scripture For to a rational Enquirer who seems to doubt of the Truth of Scriptures it is equally absurd to give him any
Cyprian The second Authority is out of St. Hierome whose words are The Roman Faith commended by the Apostle admits not such praestigiae deceits and delusions into it though an Angel should Preach it otherwise than it was Preached at first being armed and fenced by St. Pauls Authority it cannot be changed Here you tell us You willingly agree with his Lordship that by Romanam fidem St. Hierom understands the Catholick Faith of Christ and so you concur with him against Bellarmine that it cannot be understood of the particular Church of Rome But by the way you charge your Adversaries with great inconsequence that in this place they make Roman and Catholick to be the same and yet usually condemn you for joyning as Synonyma 's Roman and Catholick together A wonderful want of judgement as though the Roman Faith might not be the Catholick Faith then and yet the Catholick Faith not be the Roman Faith now The former speech only affirms that the Faith at Rome was truly Catholick the latter implyes that no Faith can be Catholick but what agrees with Rome and think you there is no difference between these two But you say further That this Catholick Faith must not here be taken abstractly that so it cannot be changed for Ruffinus was not ignorant of that but that it must be understood of the immutable Faith of the See Apostolick so highly commended by the Apostle and St. Hierom which is founded upon such a rock that even an Angel himself is not able to shake it But St. Hierom speaking this with a reference to that Faith he supposeth the Apostle commended in them although the Apostle doth not so much commend the Catholickness or soundness of their Faith as the act of believing in them and therefore whatever is drawn from thence whether by St. Hierome or any else can have no force in it for if he should infeâ— the immutability of the Faith of the Church of Rome from so apparently weak a foundation there can be no greater strength in his testimony than there is in the ground on which it is built and if there be any force in this Argument the Church of Thessalonica will be as Infallible as Rome for her Faith is commended rather in a more ample manner by the Apostle then that of Rome is St. Hierome I say referring to that Faith he supposes the Apostle commended in them must only be understood of the unchangeableness of that first Faith which appears by the mention of an Angel from Heaven Preaching otherwise Which certainly cannot with any tolerable sense be meant thus that St. Hierome supposed it beyond the power of an Angel from Heaven to alter the Faith of the Roman Church For in the very same Apology he expresseth his great fears lest the Faith of the Romans should be corrupted by the Books of Ruffinus But say you What is this then to Ruffinus who knew as well as St. Hierom that Faith could not change its essence However though St. Hierome should here speak of the Primitive and Apostolical Faith which was then received at Rome that this could receive no alteration yet this was very pertinent to be told Ruffinus because St. Hierome charges him with an endeavour to subvert the Faith not meerly at Rome but in all other places by publishing the Books of Origen with an Encomiastick Preface to them and therefore the telling him The Catholick Faith would admit of no alteration which was received at Rome as elsewhere might be an Argument to discourage him from any attempts of that nature And the main charge against Ruffinus is not an endeavour to subvert meerly the people of Rome but the Latin Church by his translation and therefore these words ought to be taken in their greatest latitude and so imply not at all any Infallibility in the Roman See The remaining Testimonies of Gregory Nazianzene Cyril and Ruffinus as appears to any one who reads them only import that the Roman Church had to their time preserved the Catholick Faith but they do not assert it impossible it should ever do otherwise or that she is an Infallible preserver of it and none of their Testimonies are so proper to the Church of Rome but they would equally hold for any other Apostolical Churches at that time Gregory Nazianzene indeed sayes That it would become the Church of Rome to hold the entire Faith alwayes and would it not become any other Church to do so to doth this import that she shall Infallibly do it or rather that it is her duty to do it And if these then be such pregnant Authorities with you it is a sign there is little or nothing to be found in Antiquity for your purpose But before we end this Chapter we are called to a new task on occasion of a Testimony of St. Cyril produced by his Lordship in stead of that in Bellarmin which appeared not in that Chapter where his Name is mentioned In which he asserts That the foundation and firmness which the Church of Christ hath is placed not in or upon the person much less the Successour of St. Peter but upon the Faith which by Gods Spirit in him he so firmly professed which saith his Lordship is the common received opinion both of the ancient Fathers and of the Protestants Vpon this Rock that is upon this Faith will I build my Church On which occasion you run presently out into that large common place concerning Tu es Petrus and super hanc Petram and although I should grant all that you so earnestly contend for viz. That these words are not spoken of St. Peters Confession but of his Person I know no advantage which will accrue to your cause by it For although very many of the Fathers understand this place of St. Peters Confession as containing in it the ground and Foundation of Christian Religion Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God which therefore may well be said to be the Rock on which Christ would build his Church and although it were no matter of difficulty to defend this interpretation from all exceptions yet because I think it not improbable the words running by way of address to St. Peter that something peculiar to him is contained in them I shall not contend with you about that But then if you say that the meaning of St. Peters being the Rock is The constant Infallibility in Faith which was derived from St. Peter to the Church of Rome as you seem to suggest you must remember you have a new task to make good and it is not saying That St. Peter was meant by the Rock will come within some leagues of doing it I pass therefore by that discourse as a thing we are not much concerned in for it is brought in by his Lordship as the last thing out of that testimony of Cyril but you were contented to let go the other more material Observations that you might more
within two years these strangely confounded The mistake made evident S. Cyril not President in the third General Council as the Popes Legat. No sufficient evidence of the Popes Presidency in following Councils The justness of the Exception against the place manifested and against the freedom of the Council from the Oath taken by the Bishops to the Pope The form of that Oath in the time of the Council of Trent Protestants not condemned by General Councils The Greeks and others unjustly excluded as Schismaticks The exception from the small number of Bishops cleared and vindicated A General Council in Antiquity not so called from the Popes General Summons In what sense a General Council represents the whole Church The vast difference between the proceedings in the Council of Nice and that at Trent The exception from the number of Italian Bishops justified How far the Greek Church and the Patriarch Hieremias may be said to condemn Protestants with an account of the proceedings between them HAving thus far considered the several grounds on which you lay the charge of Schism upon us and shewed at large the weakness and insufficiency of them we should now have proceeded to the last part of our task but that the great Palladium of the present Roman Church viz. the Council of Trent must be examined to see whether it be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or no whether it came from Heaven or was only the contrivance of some cunning Artificers And the famous Bishop of Bitonto in the Sermon made at the opening the Council of Trent hath given us some ground to conjecture its original by his comparing it so ominously to the Trojan-horse Although therefore that the pretences may be high and great that it was made Divina Palladis arte the Spirit of God being said to be present in it and concurring with it yet they who search further will find as much of Artifice in contriving and deceit in the managing the one as the other And although the Cardinal Palavicino uses all his art to bring this Similitude off without reflecting on the honour of the Council yet that Bishop who in that Sermon pleaded so much That the Spirit of God would open the mouths of the Council as he did once those of Balaam and Caiaphas was himself in this expression an illustrious Instance of the truth of what he said For he spake as true in this as if he had been High-Priest himself that year But as if you really believed your self the truth of that Bishops Doctrine That whatever spirit was within them yet being met in Council the Spirit of God would infallibly inspire them you set your self to a serious vindication of the proceedings of that Council and not only so but triumph in it as that which will bring the cause to a speedy Issue And therefore we must particularly enquire into all the pretences you bring to justifie the lawfulness and freedom of that Council but to keep to the Bishops Metaphor Accipe nunc Danaûm Insidias crimine ab uno Disce omnes And when we have thorowly searched this great Engine of your Church we shall have little reason to believe that ever it fell from Heaven His Lordship then having spoken of the usefulness of free General Councils for making some Laws which concern the whole Church His Adversary thinks presently to give him a Choak-pear by telling him That the Council of Trent was a General Council and that had already judged the Protestants to hold errours This you call Laying the Axe to the Root of the Tree that Tree you mean out of which the Popes Infallible Chair was cut for the management of this dispute about the Council of Trent will redound very little to the honour of your Church or Cause But you do well to add That his Lordship was not taken unprovided for he truly answered That the Council of Trent was neither a Legal nor a General Council Both these we undertake to make good in opposition to what you bring by way of answer to his Lordships Exceptions to them That which we begin with is That it was not a Legal Council which his Lordship proves First Because that Council maintained publickly that it is lawful for them to conclude any Controversie and make it to be de Fide and so in your judgement fundamental though it have not a written word for its warrant nay so much as a probable testimony from Scripture The force of his Lordships argument I suppose lyes in this that the Decrees of that Council cannot be such as should bind us to an assent to them because according to their own principles those Decrees may have no foundation in Scripture And that the only legal proceeding in General Councils is to decree according to the Scriptures Now to this you answer That the meaning of the Council or Catholick Authours is not that the Council may make whatever they please matter of Faith but only that which is expressed or involved in the Word of God written or unwritten and this you confess is defined by the Council of Trent in these terms that in matters of Faith we are to rely not only upon Scripture but also on Tradition which Doctrine you say is true and that you have already proved it And I may as well say It is false for I have already answered all your pretended proofs But it is one thing Whether the Doctrine be true or no and another Whether the Council did proceed legally in defining things upon this principle For upon your grounds you are bound to believe it true because the Council hath defined it to be so But if you will undertake to justifie the proceedings of the Council as legal you must make it appear that this was the Rule which General Councils have alwaies acted by in defining any thing to be matter of Faith But if this appear to be false and that you cannot instance in any true General Council which did look on this as a sufficient ground to proceed upon then though the thing may since that Decree be believed as true yet that Council did not proceed legally in defining upon such grounds Name us therefore What Council did ever offer to determine a matter of Faith meerly upon Tradition In the four first General Councils it is well known What authority was given to the Scripture in their definitions and I hope you will not say That any thing they defined had no other ground but Tradition But suppose you could prove this it is not enough for your purpose unless you can make it appear that those Fathers in making such Decrees did acknowledge they had no ground in Scripture for them For if you should prove that really there was no foundation but Tradition yet all that you can inferr thence is That those Fathers were deceived in judging they had other grounds when they had not But still if they made Scripture their Rule and
your following words not to yield to such a Council wherein all excommunicate Bishops Hereticks and Schismaticks are not excluded which is in short to tell us You are resolved to account none General Councils but such as are wholly of your own pary in which the Pope shall sit as Judge Who are admitted and Who not though this be as contrary to sense and reason as it is to the practice of the Primitive Church in those Councils which were then called In which I have already proved that the Pope did not sit as President And as long as you hold to such unreasonable conditions it evidently appears That your discourses of General Councils are meerly delusory and to use your own words Such a General Council as you would have is a meer nothing as to a general and free Council an empty name to amuse silly people with for you require such conditions in order to it as are destructive both to the freedom and Being of a General Council If therefore it be true which you say That morally speaking such a General Council as Protestants would have is impossible to be had it is much more true that such a General Council as you would have it is most unreasonable we should submit to For as long as you condemn all other Bishops but those of your own Church for out-laws and desertors of the Catholick Church and give no other reason for it but because you say so we thereby see How absolutely averse you are from any Free Council and that without any shew of justice you condemn all others but your selves without suffering them to plead for themselves in an Indifferent Council where both parties may be equally heard But it was wisely said of Pope Clement 7. that General Councils are very dangerous when the Popes Authority is called in Question and this you know well enough for if a Free Council were held the Pope himself might be found with his party to be the greatest out-laws and desertors of the truly Catholick Church But in such pack'd Councils where the Pope sits as President and orders all by his Legats I shall desire you once more to ruminate over your own words What Rebel would ever be found criminal if he might be allowed to be his own Judge But of such a kind of Council as you would have I have spoken sufficiently in the precedent chapter That which we are now upon is not the Hypothesis but the Thesis in which we are to enquire Whether such a General Council as you suppose be Infallible or no His Lordship maintains the negative and you the affirmative Your Opinion then is That the Decrees of a General Council confirmed by the Pope are Infallible and that the holding of this is a piece of Catholick Faith and that it secures all the members of the Church from erring in any matter of Faith For you say It is not de fide that the Pope without a Council is Infallible but that Pope and Council together are Infallible you all along above assert to be so and that the Decrees of General Councils fall nothing short in point of certainty of the Scripture it self and that the contrary opinion does actually expose and abandon all the adherents to it to an unevitable wavering and uncertainty in Faith These are your own words in several places which I have laid together the better to discern the state of the Question The main thing then whereon the use of General Councils depends being that this must be believed to be de fide in order to the certainty of mens Faith and prevention of errours that I may the better shew how insignificant all this pretext of the Infallibility of General Councils is I shall first prove from your own principles that this cannot be de fide and then examine the grounds you insist on for the proof of their Infallibility I begin with the First which will sufficiently demonstrate to how little purpose you talk of this Infallibility of Councils for preventing uncertainty of Faith when you cannot have any certainty of Faith at all as to that principle which must prevent it For supposing that really General Councils are Infallible if you cannot give me any reasons to believe that they are so their Decrees can have no power over my understanding to oblige me to assent to them And since you say this principle must be held de fide if there be no foundation at all for such an assent of Faith to it I must needs be uncertain whatever the Decrees of those Councils be upon your own principles If you require an assent to the Decrees of Councils as Infallible there must be an antecedent assent to this Proposition That whatsoever Councils decree is Infallible As I cannot assent to any thing as Infallible which is contained in Scripture unless I first assent to this That the Scripture it self is Infallible If I therefore prove from your own principles that none can have an assent of Faith to this Proposition That whatever General Councils decree is Infallible then all your discourse comes to nothing and men can have no more certainty by their Decrees than if they were not Infallible And this I shall prove by these things 1. That you can have no certainty of Faith I must use your own terms That the Decrees of General Councils in the general are Infallible 2. That you can have no such certainty as to the Decrees of any General Council in particular 1. That you cannot in the general have any certainty of Faith as to the Infallibility of General Councils For 1. What Infallible Testimony have you for this without which you say No certainty of Faith is to be had It is not enough for you to say That the Testimonies of Scripture you produce are an Infallible Testimony for it for that were to make the Scripture the sole Judge of this great Controversie which you deny to be the sole Judge of any And we must consider this as a present Controversie which divides the Church Whether General Councils be Infallible or no In order to the ending which Controversie we desire you to assign the way to it for you tell us you have the only Infallible Way of putting an end to Controversies Shew us therefore which way this must be ended in the first place Not by Scripture for that were to come wholly over to us and if it may decide this Controversie it may as well all others Who must then The Pope That cannot be for we are not bound to believe him Infallible but only with a General Council as you tell us often Must every one judge it by his reason No this is the private Spirit and would leave all to uncertainties What then must do it the Pope and Council together But that is it we are enquiring for Whether we are to believe Pope and Council or no And then the reason is we must believe them because they say so And
Can any thing be more ridiculous than for you to deny that the Scriptures are to be believed for themselves and to assert that the Pope and Council are to be believed for themselves If the Pope and Council then should declare their Decrees Infallible On what account are we bound to believe them to be so You have found it then an excellent way for ending all other Controversies that are so far to seek for ending this which you cannot possibly do without renouncing some of your principles or an apparent contradiction But besides this 2. Your very manner of asserting the Infallibility of General Councils destroyes all certainty of Faith concerning it For you say That Councils are not Infallible unless they be confirmed by the Pope which to the apprehension of any reasonable man is that they are not in and of themselves Infallible but by vertue of the Popes confirmation And therefore to say that Councils are Infallible and then make that Infallibility depend upon the Popes Confirmation is meerly delusory for you may as well say that the Pope and Provincial Councils are Infallible For Doth the Decree receive any Infallibility from the Council or not If it doth then the Decree is Infallible whether the Pope confirm it or no If it doth not then the Infallibility is wholly in the Pope And he may as well make a Provincial Council Infallible as a General But suppose it be some promise which helps the Pope in a General Council which doth not in a lesser though there be no reason for that for he is Head of the Church in one as well as in the other yet you cannot have any certainty of Faith that the Council is Infallible For you say The Popes Confirmation is necessary to make it Infallible but that the Pope may infallibly confirm the Council is no matter of Faith and therefore the Infallibility of the Council can be none For if the Councils Infallibility depend on the Popes Confirmation you can have no greater certainty of the Councils Infallibility then you have that the Pope will infallibly confirm it But you can have no certainty of Faith that the Pope will infallibly confirm the Council therefore neither can you have any of the Councils Infallibility The assumption depends upon this that you acknowledge you can have no certainty of Faith that the Pope is Infallible but when he decrees in a General Council i. e. that the Decrees by Pope and Council are Infallible But you can have no certainty that the Pope in the Act of confirming them is Infallible for if so you might assert it de fide that the Pope without a Council is Infallible For his Act of Confirmation is distinct from that Infallibility which lyes in the Decrees which have passed both Pope and Council So that if the Infallibility of Councils lyes wholly in the Popes Confirmation and you can have no certainty of Faith of the Popes Infallibility you can have no certainty of Faith of the Infallibility of General Councils But suppose we should grant that you might in general be certain of the Infallibility of General Councils when we come to instance in any one of them you can have no certainty of Faith as to the Infallibility of the Decrees of it For you can have no such certainty that this was a lawful General Council that it passed such Decrees that it proceeded lawfully in passing them and that this is the certain meaning of them and yet all these are necessary in order to the believing those Decrees to be Infallible with such a Faith as you call Divine 1. You can have no certainty of Faith that this was a lawful General Council for that depends upon such things which you cannot say are de fide as that the Bishops in the Council are lawful Bishops that the Pope who confirms them is a lawful Pope for by your own explication afterwards of your Doctrine concerning the intention of the Priest you say it can be but a moral certainty and that you contend elsewhere can be no ground for a Divine Faith Besides you can have no more certainty that is a lawful Council whose Decrees you assent to than you have that those Bishops who are excluded are Hereticks or Schismaticks but Can you be certain of that with Divine Faith and Whereon is that Faith built 2. You can have no such kind of certainty of what Decrees were passed by them and whether those Decrees were at all confirmed by the Pope or no For Bellarmin confesseth No other certainty can be had of that than that whereby we believe there were such persons as Cicero or Julius Caesar and condemns Vega for saying The certainty of it depends upon the definitions of the Council it self Now this at the best being but a humane or moral certainty you must contradict your self if you say That a Divine Faith may be built upon it 3. What certainty can you have that may be a ground for Faith that the Council hath proceeded lawfully for in case he doth not your own Authours say It may not be Infallible For so Bellarmin answers in the case of the Council of Chalcedon Concilium legitimum posse errare in his quae non legitimè agit that a lawful Council may erre in case it doth not proceed lawfully Now Who can assure one that there have been no practices at all used to bring off some men to give their Votes with them It is hard to conceive such a body of men wherein some few do not sway and govern all the rest and in that case Can any one say that it was the Spirit of God which governed the Council Especially if one Preside in the Council who hath authority and power above all the rest and that others in the Council have any dependence on him Who can then expect that freedom which is requisite to a General Council The Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia are condemned because though there were a very great number of Bishops yet some out-witted all the rest and by their subtilty brought them to subscribe that confession of Faith which Pope Liberius afterwards confirmed by his own subscription And if so great a Council as this must be reprobated on that account Why not all others where there are suspicions of the same arts and subtilties Nay How can a man be sure there have not been such arts used in Councils for it is not to be expected that such things should be much known to the world they being privately managed with the greatest secrecy that may be And yet it is in this case necessary to know that the Council proceeded with all simplicity and plainness for otherwise their determinations may not be Infallible In order to which nothing is more requisite than that there be no one which hath any great Authority over them For if the second Council of Ephesus lawfully summoned and the Popes Legats being present be therefore rejected because Dioscorus
as immediate a revelation as the first discovery of it As is clear in the Council of the Apostles for I hope you will not deny but the non-obligation of the ceremonial Law was in some manner revealed to them before and yet I hope you will not say but the Apostles had an immediate revelation as to what they decreed in that Council It is very plain therefore that when you say General Councils neither have erred nor can err in their definitions they usurp as great a priviledge thereby as ever the Apostles had and in order to it must have as immediate an inspiration For never was there any such Infallibility either in the Prophets or Apostles as did suppose an absolute impossibility of errour but it was wholly hypothetical in case of Divine assistance which hindred them from any capacity of erring so long as that continued with them and no longer For inspiration was no permanent habit but a transient act in them and that being removed they were lyable to errours as well as others from whence it follows that where revelations were most immediate they did no more then what you assume to your Church viz. preserve them from actual errour in declaring Gods will So that nothing can be more evident then that you challenge as great an Infallibility and as immediate assistance of Gods Spirit in Councils as ever the Prophets and Apostles had And therefore that Divine was in the right of whom Canus speaks who asserted That since General Councils were Infallible their definitions ought to be equalled with the Scriptures themselves And although Canus and others dislike this it is rather because of the odium which would follow it than for any just reason they give why it should not follow For they not only suppose as great a Certainty or Infallibility in the Decrees of both but an equal obligation to internal assent in those to whom they are declared Which doth further prove that the revelation must be immediate for if by vertue of those definitions we are obliged to assent to the Doctrines contained in them as Infallibly true there must be an immediate Divine Authority which must command our Assent For nothing short of that can oblige us to believe any thing as of Divine revelation now Councils require that we must believe their definitions to be Divine truths though men were not obliged to believe them to be so before those definitions For that is your express Doctrine That though the matters decreed in Councils were in some manner revealed before yet not so as to oblige all men with an explicite assent to believe them but after the definitions of Councils they are bound to do it So that though there be not an object newly revealed yet there ariseth a new obligation to internal assent which obligation cannot come but from immediate Divine Authority If you say The obligation comes not simply by vertue of the Councils definitions but by a command extant in Scripture whereby all are bound to give this assent to the decrees of Councils I then say we must be excused from it till you have discharged this new obligation upon your self by producing some express testimony of Scripture to that purpose which is I think sufficient to keep our minds at liberty from this internal assent to the definitions of General Councils by vertue of any Infallibility in them And thus having more at large considered the nature of this Infallibility which you challenge to General Councils and having shewed that it implyes as immediate a revelation as the Apostles had the second thing is sufficiently demonstrated That this Infallibility cannot suppose discursiveness with fallibility in the use of the means because these two are repugnant to each other The next thing to be considered is Stapletons argument why Councils must be Prophetical in the conclusion because that which is determined by the Church is matter of Faith and not of knowledge and the assent required else would not be an assent of Faith but an habit of knowledge To which his Lordship Answers That he sees no inconvenience in it if it be granted for one and the same conclusion may be Faith to the believer that cannot prove and knowledge to the learned that can Which he further explains thus Some supernatural principles which reason cannot demonstrate simply must be supposed in order to Faith but these principles being owned reason being thereby inlightned that may serve to convert or convince Philosophers and the great men of reason in the very point of Faith where it is at the highest This he brings down to the business of Councils as to which he saith that the first immediate fundamental points of Faith as they cannot be proved simply by reason so neither need they be determined by any Council nor ever were they attempted they are so plain set down in Scripture If about the sense and true meaning of these or necessary deduction out of the prime Articles of Faith General Councils determine any thing as they have done at Nice and the rest there is no inconvenience that one and the same Canon of the Council should be believed as it reflects upon the Articles and grounds indemonstrable and yet known to the learned by the means and proof by which that deduction is vouched and made good And again the conclusion of a Council suppose that in Nice about the consubstantiality of Christ with the Father in it self considered is indemonstrable by reason there saith he I believe and assent in Faith but the same conclusion if you give me the ground of Scripture and the Creed for somewhat must be supposed in all whether Faith or knowledge is demonstrable by natural reason against any Arrian in the world So that he concludes The weaker sort of Christians may assent by Faith where the more learned may build it on reason the principles of Faith being supposed This is the substance of his Lordships Discourse In Answer to which you tell us That the Bishop seems to broach a new Doctrine that the assent of Faith may be an habit of knowledge But surely say you Divine Faith is according to the Apostle Heb. 11. an Argument of things which do not appear viz. by the same means by which we give this assent of Faith otherwise our Faith would not be free and meritorious An Answer I must needs say hugely suitable to your principles who are most concerned of all men to set reason at a distance from Faith and so you do sufficiently in this Discourse of it For it is no easie matter to understand what you mean but that is not to be wondered at since you make obscurity so necessary to Faith Divine Faith is you say an Argument of things which do not appear viz. by the same means by which we give this assent of Faith Do you mean that the objects of Faith do not appear or that the reason of believing doth not If only the former
which is all the Apostle means that is nothing to your purpose for we are not enquiring whether men may not believe the things which are not seen but whether the assent of Faith may not be consistent with reason which I am so far from thinking any strange doctrine that I cannot see how there can be an assent of Faith without reason And they must be such great meriters at Gods hands as you are who must think to oblige him with believing what you cannot understand or see any ground in reason for For assent being an act of the mind cannot be elicited without sufficient reason perswading the mind to it or else it is so far from being free and as you who are so loath to be beholding to God call it meritorious that it is brutish and irrational Not that there are demonstrations to be expected for every thing we believe but there must be sufficient reason for the mind to build its assent upon and that reason is evidence and that evidence destroyes that obscurity which you make necessary to Faith Evidence I say not of the object but of the reason and obligation to assent When you say That Faith as Faith cannot be Knowledge his Lordship grants it but yet it doth not thence follow that what may be believed by one may not be known by another and though Christ as you add did not set up a School of knowledge but of Faith yet he did not set up a School of blind implicite Faith but such a one as consists of a rational and discursive act of the mind You must not therefore expect that we should believe the definitions of Councils because they pretend to be Infallible but you must first convince our reasons that they are so and then we shall assent to them But you have very well contrived your business to have an obscure implicite Faith for such Doctrines which are so far from any evidence of Reason CHAP. II. Of the use and Authority of General Councils The denying the Infallibility of General Councils takes not away their use and Authority Of the submission due to them by all particular persons How far external obedience is required in case they err No violent opposition to be made against them Rare Inconveniences hinder not the effect of a just power It cannot rationally be supposed that such General Councils as are here meant should often or dangerously err The true notion of a General Council explained The Freedom requisite in the proceedings of it The Rule it must judge by Great difference between external obedience and internal assent to the Decrees of Councils This latter unites men in errour not the former As great uncertainties supposing General Councils Infallible as not Not so great certainty requisite for submission as Faith Whether the Romanists Doctrine of the Infallibility of Councils or ours tend more to the Churches peace St. Austin explained The Keyes according to him given to the Church No unremediable inconvenience supposing a General Councilerr But errours in Faith are so supposing them Infallible when they are not The Church hath power to reverse the Decrees of General Councils The power of Councils not by Divine Institution The unreasonableness of making the Infallibility of Councils depend on the Popes confirmation No consent among the Romanists about the subject of Infallibility whether in Pope or Council No evidence from Scripture Reason or Antiquity for the Popes personal Infallibility THE first question being thus dispatched I now come to the second which is Of what Vse and Authority General Councils are in the Church supposing them not Infallible And here again two things are to be examined first How far General Councils are to be submitted to Secondly Whether our opinion or yours tend more to the peace of the Church for both these his Lordship handles distinctly and so shall we For the first nothing is more necessary then throughly to understand his Lordships meaning which he most fully delivers in these words General Councils lawfully called and ordered and lawfully proceeding are a great and awful representation and cannot err in matters of Faith keeping themselves to Gods rule and not attempting to make a new one of their own and are with all submission to be observed by every Christian where Scripture or evident demonstration comes not against them Two things you mainly object against this opinion 1. That in case such a Council err it tends only to unite men in errour 2. Who shall be Judge of all those conditions implyed in the Councils proceedings to these two all that I can find material scattered up and down in your Discourse on this Subject may be reduced For the first we must consider the occasion of his Lordships entrance into this subject concerning General Councils how far they may err or not which he saith is a question of great consequence in the Church of God For to say they cannot err leaves the Church not only without remedy against an errour once determin'd but also without sense that it may need a remedy and so without care to seek it which is the misery of the Church of Rome at this day To say they can err seems to expose the members of the Church to an uncertainty and wavering in the Faith to make unquiet Spirits not only to disrespect former Councils of the Church but also to slight and contemn whatsoever they may now determine So that great inconveniencies appearing on both sides his Lordship endeavours to steer his course so as not to dash on the rocks of either side by betraying the Churches Faith in asserting their Infallibility or the Churches peace by acknowledging them fallible But as he could not see any reason to believe them Infallible so neither could he see any necessity that the Churches peace should be broken supposing them not to be so And the most obvious objection being If a General Council be fallible what is to be done in case it should err For that he propounds this Expedient That the determination of a General Council erring was to stand in force and to have external obedience at the least yielded to it till evidence of Scripture or a demonstration to the contrary made the errour appear and untill thereupon another Council of equal authority did reverse it And he after explains what he means by this external obedience viz. That which consists in silence patience and forbearance yielded to it which he builds on this reason That Controversies arising in the Church must have some end or they 'l tear all in sunder therefore supposing a General Council should err and an erring Decree be by the Law it self invalid I would have it saith he wisely considered again supposing the Council not to err in Fundamental Verity whether it be not fit to allow a General Council that honour and priviledge which all other great Courts have Namely that there be a declaration of the invalidity of its decrees
erred yet we have yielded so much to you as to disprove what you have in general brought for the one before we come to meddle with the other But that being dispatched we come to a more short and compendious way of overthrowing your Infallibility by shewing the palpable falsity of such principles which must be owned by you as Infallible truths because defined by General Councils confirmed by the Pope Whereof The first in the Endictment as you say is that of the Priests Intention defined by the Councils of Florence and Trent both of them confirmed by the Pope to be essentially necessary to the validity of a Sacrament Concerning this there are two things to be enquired into 1. Whether this doth not render all pretence of Infallibility with you a vain and useless thing 2. Whether it be not in it self an errour We must begin with the first of these for that was the occasion of his Lordships entering upon it for he was shewing That your claim of Infallibility is of no use at all for the settling of Truth and Peace in the Church because no man can either know or believe this Infallibility It cannot be believed with Divine Faith having no foundation either in the written Word of God or Tradition of the Catholick Church and no humane Faith can be sufficient in order to it But neither can it be believed or known upon that decree of the Councils of Florence and Trent that the intention of the Priest is necessary to the validity of a Sacrament And lest you should think I represent his Lordships words too much with advantage I will take his Argument in the words you have summed it up in which are these Before the Church or any particular man can make use of the Popes Infallibility that is be settled and confirmed in the Truth by means thereof he must either know or upon sure grounds believe that he is Infallible But sayes the Bishop this can only be believed of him as he is S. Peters Successour and Bishop of Rome of which it is impossible in the relatours opinion for the Church or any particular man to have such certainty as is sufficient to ground an Infallible belief Why because the knowledge and belief of this depends upon his being truly in Orders truly a Bishop truly a Priest truly Baptized none of all which according to our principles can be certainly known and believed because forsooth the intention of him that administred these Sacraments to the Pope or made him Bishop Priest c. can never be certainly known and yet by the Doctrine of the Councils of Florence and Trent it is of absolute necessity to the validity of every one of these Sacraments so as without it the Pope were neither Bishop nor Priest Thus I grant you have faithfully sum'd up his Lordships Argument we must now see with what courage and success you encounter it Your first Answer is That though it be level'd against the Popes Infallibility yet it hath the same force against the Infallibility of the whole Church in points fundamental for we cannot be Infallibly sure there is such a number of Baptized persons to make a Church By this we see how likely you are to assoil this difficulty who bring it more strongly upon your self without the least inconvenience to your adversary For I grant it necessarily follows against the pretence of any Infallibility whether in Church Councils or Pope as being a certain ground for Faith for all these must suppose such a certainty of the due administration of Sacraments which your Doctrine of Intention doth utterly destroy For these two things are your principles of Faith that there can be no certainty of Faith without present Infallibility of the Church and that in order to the believing this testimony Infallible there must be such a certainty as is ground sufficient for an Infallible belief Now How is it possible there can be such when there can be no certainty of the Being of a Church Council or Pope from your own principles For when the only way of knowing this is a thing not possible to be evidenced to any one in any way of Infallible certainty viz. the intention of the Priest you must unavoidably destroy all your pretence of Infallibility For To what purpose do you tell me that Pope or Councils are Infallible unless I may be Infallibly sure that such decrees were passed by Pope and Council I cannot be assured of that unless I be first assured that they were Baptized persons and Bishops of the Church and for this you dare not offer at Infallible certainty and therefore all the rest is useless and vain So that while by this Doctrine of the intention of the Priest for the validity of the Sacraments you thought to advance higher the reputation of the Priesthood and to take away the assurance of Protestants as to the benefits which come by the use of the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper you could not have asserted any thing more really pernicious to your selves than this Doctrine is So strange an incogitancy was it in those Councils to define it and as great in those who defend it and yet at the same time maintain the necessity of a present Infallibility in the Church and General Councils For can any thing be more rational then to desire the highest assurance as to that whose decrees I am to believe Infallible And yet at the last you confess we can have but a moral certainty of it and that of the lowest degree the utmost ground of it being either the testimony of the Priest himself or that we have no ground to suspect the contrary Now what unreasonable men are you who so much to the dishonour of Christian Religion cry out upon the rational evidence of the truth of it as an uncertain principle and that Protestants though they assert the highest degree of actual certainty cannot have any Divine Faith because they want the Churches Infallible testimony and yet when we enquire into this Infallible Testimony you are fain to resolve it into one of the most uncertain and conjectural things imaginable For what can I have less ground to build my Faith upon than that the Priest had at least a virtual intention to do as the Church doth Whom must I believe in this case and whereon must that Faith be grounded On the Priests Testimony But how can I be assured but that he who may wander in his intention may do so in his expression too Or must I do it because I have no reason to suspect the contrary how can you assure me of that that I have no reason to suspect the contrary no otherwise then by telling me that the Priest is a man of that honesty and integrity that he cannot be supposed to do such a thing without intention So that though I were in Italy or Spain where some have told us it is no hard matter to meet with Jews
in Priests habits and professing themselves such and acting accordingly yet I am bound to believe though they heartily believe nothing of Christianity yet in all Sacraments they must have an intention to do as the Church doth Without which we are told by you No Sacrament can be valid because the matter and form cannot be determin'd or united without the Priests intention And therefore I do not only object that this takes away the comfort of all Sacraments as to the receivers but that it destroyes all certain Foundations of Faith Because the promises of Infallibility supposing that which I can have no assurance of that Infallibility can be no foundation of Faith at all to me As for instance suppose the title to an estate depends upon the Kings free donation and this donation to be confirmed by his Great Seal but yet so that if the Lord Chancellour in the sealing it doth not intend it should pass on that account the whole gift becomes null in Law I pray tell me now What other assurance you can have of your title to this estate then you have of the Lord Chancellours intention in passing the Seal and what Infallible certainty you can have of such intention of his Just such is your case you tell us The only ground of Infallible certainty in Faith is the Churches Infallibility this Infallibility comes by a free promise of Christ this promise must suppose a Church in being that there is a Church we can have no more assurance then that there are Baptized-persons but the validity of their Baptism requires the Priests intention in administring it and therefore we can have no more assurance of the Churches Infallibility then we have of the Priests intention And Is this it at last which your loud clamours of Infallibility come to Is this the effect of all your exclamations against Protestants for making Faith uncertain by taking away the Churches Infallibility Must our Faith at last be resolved into that which it is impossible we should have any undoubted assurance at all of And will not the highest reason the clearest evidence the most pregnant demonstrations which things are capable of be accounted with you sufficient ground to build our Faith of the Scriptures upon and yet must a thing so impossible to be certainly known so generally uncertain and conjectural be accounted by you sufficient ground to believe your Churches Infallibility Are not the miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles joyned with the Vniversal Tradition of the Christian Church a ground firm enough for us to believe the Doctrine of Christ divine and yet must the intention of the Priest with you be a much surer ground then these are By all which it appears that if I had not already largely discovered your grand Imposture in your pretence to Infallibility this very Doctrine would invincibly prove it since notwithstanding that pretence you must resolve all into something which falls short of those grounds of certainty which we have to build our Faith upon But we must now consider how you offer to retort this upon his Lordship for you say The same Argument will hold against the Infallibility of the whole Church in Fundamentals since men cannot be Infallibly sure there is such a company of men who are truly Baptized But how manifestly ridiculous this is will appear 1. That it will hold indeed against all such who assert this Doctrine of the necessity of the Priests intention but not others Therefore if his Lordship had said This Doctrine had been true the retortion had been good but you saw well enough he disproves it as an errour and urges this as an absurdity consequent upon it Your Argument then as it is runs in this form If they who hold the Priests intention necessary cannot be sure who are Baptized then they who do not hold it necessary cannot Where is your consequence for he was shewing the uncertainty of it depended upon that principle and therefore I suppose the denying of the principle doth not stand guilty of the same absurdity which the holding it doth But it may be the force lyes in being Infallibly sure and so that none can know the Infallibility of the Church in Fundamentals but such as are Infallibly sure that men are Baptised I Answer therefore 2. That there is no such necessity of being Infallibly sure upon our principles as there is upon yours For you build your Faith upon the Churches Infallibility in Pope and Councils but we do not pretend to build our Faith upon the Churches Infallibility in Fundamentals All that we assert is that the Church is Infallible in Fundamentals but we do not say the ground of our Faith is because she is so for that were to make the Church the formal object of our Faith since therefore we do not rely on the Church as our Infallible Guide in Fundamentals there is no such necessity of that Infallible certainty as to this principle as there is with you who must wholly establish your Faith upon the Churches Infallibility The most then that we assert is that there is and shall alwayes be a Church for that as I have told you is all that is meant by a Church being Infallible in Fundamentals now for this we have the greatest assurance possible that there shall be from the promises of Christ and that there is from the certainty we have of the Faith and Baptism of Christians since no more is required by us to assure men of it then all men in the world are competent Judges of which surely they cannot be of the Priests intention So much for your weak attempt of retorting this Argument upon his Lordship But the main thing to be considered is your solid Answer you give to it which indeed is of that weight that it must not be slightly passed over You Answer therefore That both a General Council and the Pope when they define any matters of Faith do also implicitely define that themselves are Infallible and by consequence that both the Pope in such case and also the Bishops that sit in Council are persons Baptised in holy Orders and have all things essentially necessary for that Function which they then execute Neither is there any more difficulty in the case of the Pope now then there was in the time of the Prophets and Apostles of old whom all must grant that with the same breath they defin'd or Infallibly declared the several Articles and points of Doctrine proposed by them to the Faithful and their own Infallibility in proposing them So indeed Vega answered in the case of General Councils for when it was demanded How it should be known that the Council was a lawful Council he sayes Because the Council defined it self to be so but for this he is sufficiently chastised by Bellarmin who gives this unanswerable Argument against it Either it doth appear from some other Argument that while the Council defines it self to be a lawful
from the very Apostles times and consequently that it must be held for an Apostolical Tradition or nothing can be So then if confidence would carry it we must not only tremble at the fears of Purgatory but we must firmly believe it as an Article of Faith and as a most undoubted Apostolical Tradition But before we can digest these things we must see a little more ground for them than as yet we do and therefore you must be content to hear our reasons Why we neither look on it as a matter of Faith or Apostolical tradition in order to which nothing is more necessary then to enquire what you mean by Purgatory For as long as you can shelter your selves under General words you think you are safe enough but when we once bring you to a fuller explication of your meaning Purgatory it self is not half so evident as those impostures are whereby you would maintain it But for our clear understanding this Controversie we must find out what your Doctrine is concerning it for as confident as you are of it there are not a few among you who are afraid to declare what you mean by it lest by that means the world should see how far it is from having foundation either in Scripture or Antiquity We are therefore told by some either are ashamed of the Doctrine it self or loth to betray their cause who by declaring themselves that your Church requires no more then to believe that there is a Purgatory for which they avouch the Council of Trent which only defines That the sound Doctrine concerning Purgatory should be taught This was indeed necessary to be said by such who do not at all believe the Roman Doctrine concerning it what ever they pretend but rather agree with the Greek Church about the middle state of souls But although the Council of Trent did not expresly define what they meant by Purgatory yet the sense of the Council concerning it is easie to be gathered from the comparing of places together in it For the Council of Trent in the last Session when it passed the decree of Purgatory referrs us to two things by which we may fully understand the meaning of it For in the Preface to the Decree it saith That the Catholick Church had in this and former Oecumenical Councils taught that there was a Purgatory by which we may understand What this Purgatory is which was now decreed and you say we are bound to believe it as an Article of Faith Now in all the former Decrees and Anathematisms of the Council there is no place which seems to concern the Doctrine of Purgatory so much as the thirtieth Anathema of the sixth Session in these words Si quis ita reatum poenae aeternae deleri dixerit ut nullus remaneat reatus poenae temporalis exsolvendae vel in hoc seculo vel in futuro in Purgatorio antequam ad regna coelorum aditus patere possit Anathema sit If any one shall affirm that the guilt of eternal punishment is so forgiven as that there remains no guilt of temporal punishment to be paid either in this life or hereafter in Purgatory before there can be any entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven let them be Anathema From whence it evidently follows that the Doctrine of Purgatory as it is taught by the Council of Trent doth depend upon this principle That there is a guilt of temporal punishment remaining after the sin is pardoned which temporal punishment is to be satisfied for either in this life or in Purgatory So that all those who are in Purgatory are there on that account that they might satisfie the justice of God for the temporal punishment of sin For the guilt of mortal sin being remitted by the merits of Christ the punishment is supposed still to remain which being exchanged from eternal to temporal by the keyes of the Church this punishment remains to be satisfied for in the pains of Purgatory But this punishment being temporal the possibility of a release from them is necessarily supposed before the day of judgement for the Council of Trent in the Decree of Purgatory declares that the souls there detained are relieved by the prayers of the Faithful and especially by the sacrifice of the Altar Which in the 22 Session it saith is offer'd pro defunctis in Christo nondum ad plenum purgatis for the departed in Christ not yet fully purg'd So that the satisfaction of the debt of temporal punishment which remains when the sin is pardoned and the translation of souls from thence to Heaven by the prayers of the living and the sacrifice of the Mass are the main Foundations of the Doctrine of your Church concerning Purgatory And this will further appear by the state of the Controversie between the Greek and Latin Church upon this Subject For the main thing which the Greeks objected against the Latins was this temporary punishment for sin in a future state For they say in their Apology delivered into the Council of Basil We own no Purgatory fire nor any temporary punishment by fire which shall have an end for we received no such thing by tradition nor doth the Eastern Church confess it And afterwards We deny that any souls pass through this fire to eternal fire for in saying so we should weaken the consent of the whole Church and it is to be fear'd if we should assert such a temporary fire that people would be apt to believe that all the fire in the other life were only temporary by which means they would fall into such neglect and carelesness that they would make the more fuel for eternal fire And therefore they conclude That they neither have nor shall assert any such Purgatory fire But you would seem to perswade us That the Contest between the Greeks and Latins was only whether the fire of Purgatory were material or no For you say The Greeks in the Council of Florence never doubted in the least measure nor denyed Purgatory it self but only question'd Whether the fire were material or metaphorical But if you speak of those Greeks who held to what was generally received in the Greek Church you are very much deceived therein for the sense of the Greek Church was fully delivered by them in this Apology penned as is supposed by Marcus Ephesius but the year before at the Council of Basil and herein they not only dispute against the fire but against any such state of purgation after this life by the undergoing any temporary punishment for sin For thus that Apology ends For these causes the Doctrine proposed of a Purgatory fire is to be cast out of the Church as that which tends to slacken the endeavours of the diligent and which hinders them from doing their utmost to purge themselves in this life since another purgation is expected after it Is not this plain enough for their denyal of any state of purgation after this life by which men
nothing new to our consideration But at last we are come to a man who did in good earnest believe Purgatory and was the first of any name in the Church who did so and that is Gregory 1. But whosoever reads in his Dialogues the excellent arguments he builds it on and confirms it with will find as much reason to pitty his superstition and credulity as to condemn his Doctrine And after this time his Lordship saith truly Purgatory was found too warm a business to be suffer'd to cool again and in the after-ages more were frighted then led by proof into the belief of it And although amidst the variety of judgements among the Fathers concerning the state of the dead not one of them affirmed your Doctrine of Purgatory before Gregory 1 yet by all means you will needs have it to have been still owned as an Apostolical Tradition and an Article of Faith But I commend you that knowing the weakness of the arguments brought from the Fathers and Scripture you at last take Sanctuary in the Churches Definition on the account of which you say We are as much bound to believe it as any other Article of Faith yea as the Trinity or Incarnation it self But this holds for none but only those who so little understand the grounds of their Religion as to believe it on the account of your Churches Infallibility which is so far from being any ground of Faith that if we had nothing more certain then that to establish our Faith upon you would be so far from making men believe Purgatory on that account that you would sooner make them question whether there were either Heaven or Hell But though your Church be so far from Infallibility that we have found her guilty of many Errours yet the Word of God abideth for ever which alone is the sure Foundation for our Faith to rest upon And so I conclude with your own Prayer I beseech God to give all men light to see this Truth and Grace to assent unto it to the end that by living in the militant Church in the Vnity of Faith we may come at last to meet in Glory in the triumphant Church of Heaven which we may hope for by the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ To whom with the Father and the Holy Ghost be all honour and glory world without end FINIS §. 1. 1 Joh. 1.1 3. Mark 16.14 §. 2. P. 1. P. 2. §. 3. P. 2. P. 2. sect 2. P. 3. sect 3. n. 2. Page 3 §. 4. Navigare audent ad Petri Cathedram Ecclesiam Principalem c. nec cogitare eos esse Romanos ad quos pâ—rfidea habere non potest accessum Cypr. l. 1. c. 3. Scito Romanam fidem ejusmodi praestigias non recipere Hierony Apol. 3. c. Ruff. Roma semper fidem retinet Greg. Nazianz. carm de vitâ suâ Bellarm. de Pontifice Rom. l. 4. c. 4. sect 1. Pag. 4. §. 5. P. 21. sect 4. P. 5. n. 4. P. 25. n. 17. sect 5. §. 6. P. 6. n. 4. §. 7. Joh. 15.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Athanas. ep ad Sâ—rapion p. 357. Tom. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil. De Spir. Sancto c. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Greg. Nazian orat 37. p. 597. Tom. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 23. Tom. 1 p. 426 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril Paschal 12. Tom. 5. p 2. Dogm Theol. de Trinit l. 7. c. 13 14 Tom. 2 §. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas. c. Serapi ubi supr Acta Theolog. Wirtenberg p. 217. c. Res. 2. Patriarch Concil Florent sess 19 20 21 c. Arcudii opuscula aurea V. ep Cyrilli Patriarch ad Joh. Utenbogard inter epistol Remonstrant p. 402. V. Lâ—onis Allatii Graeciam Orthodox Tom. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas. ep ad Epictet Tom 1. p. 562. Greg. Nazian ep 2. ad Cled Concil Ephes. part 2. Act. 6. p. 357. Tom. 2. Binii ed. Paris 1636. Concil Florent sess 5. p. 587. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Ephes. Part 2. Act. 6. p. 366. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Chalced. Act. 5. Concil Florent Asâ— 5. p. 590. §. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril Alexan. Tom. 6. edit Paris p. 229. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acta Theolog. Wirtenberg Resp. 2. Patriarch p. 202. Gregorius Palamas c. 1. apud Petavium Dogmat. Theolog de Trin. To. 2. l. 7. c. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sess. 19. Ubi supra Spalatens de Rep. Eccles. Tom. 3. l. 7. c. 10. sect 125. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apud Acta Concil Ephes. part 2. Act. 6. p 360. Petav. ubi supra Acta Theolog. Wirtenb p. 350. c. Resp. 3. Patriarch Cyril ep ad Utenbogard p. 403. §. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret c. Cyril Anathemat Tom. 4. p. 718. ed. Sirmond Concil Ephes. part 3· p. 497. ed. Bin. Cyril Tom. 6. p. 229. Dogmat. Theol. To. 2. l. 7. c. 18. c. 1. Concil Ephes. Part. 2. Act. 1. p. 177. Part 3. p. 596. Part. 3. p. 581. §. 11. Concil Florenâ— sess 5. p. 593. Pithaeus Opus de proces S.S. p. 26. Petav. Dogm Theol. To. 2. l. 7. c. 1. Baron Annal. ad An. 809. Sirmond Concil Gallic Tom. 2. p. 256 257. Quisquis ad hoc sensu subtiliori pertingere potest id scire aut ita sciens credere noluerit salvus esse non poterit Sunt enim multa è quibus istud unum est sacrae fidei altiora mysteria ad quorum indagationem pertingere multi valent multi verò aut aetatis quantitate aut intelligentiae qualitate praepediti non valent ideò ut praediximus qui potuerit noluerit salvus esse non potuerit Apud Sirmond ubi supra §. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Photius ep 7. p. 51. Opuscul edit Lutet 1609. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acta Theolog. Wirtenberg Resp. 2. Patriarch p. 213 214. §. 13. Sylvester Sguropul Histor. Concil Florent sect 2. c. 10. Sect. 2. c. 12. C. 17 18. Sect. 6. c. 1. Sect. 3. c. 12. Sect. 3. c. 3. C. 4. Cap. 12. C. 11. C. 15. Sect. 6. c. 3. Sect. 8. c. 12. C. 13. C. 14. C 16. C. 18. Sect. 9. c. 4. C. 5. C. 8. C. 9. C. 10. Sect. 10. c. 1. C. 4. §. 14. P. 6. Sect. 9. n. 1. p. 24. §. 15. P. 7. n. 5. Theophylact. in Joh. 3.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophylact. in Joh. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. ib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joh. Damascenus de Trinit c. 8. l. 1. de Orthodoxa fide c. 11. Acta Theolog. Wirteab p. 220. P. 8. Sum. 1. q 36. aâ—t 2. Vasquez in Thoâ— To. 2. dis 146. c. 7. Petavius dogm Theol. To. 2. l. 7. c. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hist. Concil Florent sect 8. c. 15. p. 239. Eadmer de vita Anselm l. 2. Malmesbu de
see what things are fittest for the Pope's temporal ends will not long be thought fit for their employment But is it not palpable how much you endeavour to shrivel Christianity into a Party and Faction excluding all others that are not of your party out of the Church and consequently from hopes of salvation though never so pious and conscientious Are not the far greatest part of the opinions you contend for against all the rest of the Christian world such as are manifestly subservient to temporal ends And are not such more zealously disputed for than the plain Articles of Faith and the indispensable precepts of the Christian Religion Have you not found out all the Artifices imaginable to enervate the force of Christian Piety by your Doctrines about Repentance Prayer Indulgences Probability Purgatory and such like And instead of those rational acts of Devotion which our Religion requires from us have made choice of such fond ludicrous unintelligible pieces of Devotion by the most who are concerned in them as though you were resolved to see how much it was possible to debauch Christianity and make it contemptible in the world Add to these the Arts you have to violate Humane Societies by dispensing with oaths breaking Faith dissolving Obedience to Civil Authority when it opposeth your designs and is it possible then for persons not blind-folded with the grossest sort of implicit Faith to judge otherwise but the design of your Chvrch is to determine not what is truest but what is fittest for your ends And although you scurrilously call his Lordship's discourse stuff that might serve sometimes for Pulpit-babble to deceive the giddy multitude and cast a mist before their eyes yet you see he was not afraid of what any adversary could say against it by writing it in a Polemical Discourse in which we could be glad to see some of those famous Legends and Seraphical Notions which your Pulpit-entertainments consist so much of especially where you are out of the reach of Hereticks and then we should judge Which looks more like babling and deceiving the giddy multitude But to let us see what men of reach and Politicians you are you have found out a strange Fetch in his Lordships discourse viz. that all this is That they might not see the impurity of their own English-Protestant Church even in its first rise under Henry the eighth and the people-cheating Policies it was beholding to for its restauration under Queen Elizabeth as may be seen in History History is a large wood to bid us seek for these cheating Policies in and if you had any other design but meerly to shew your self a Politician in this that you can fortitèr calumniari use your tongue manfully when reproaches are useful you would have produced some evidence so clear of them as his Lordship here insists on in reference to your Church But as long as you converse only in Generals you will give us leave to think who those are which use to do so viz. such grand Politicians as your self For the Particulars of our Reformation we shall have occasion to vindicate them in another place and therein shall easily manifest what an Itch you had to calumniate here though you were sure to smart for it afterwards That which you call weakness of judgement or want of Charity in his Lordship will be found to lye at another door by our making it appear that what you call a groundless and impossible slander is a real and undoubted truth But when you tell us That such Railleries do not become one that would be esteemed a grave Doctor of the English Church an alterius orbis Patriarcha as the antient Primates of England have been call'd I know not whether you discover more judgment or reading in it your judgement in calling that an unbecoming Raillery which is a great and seasonable Truth your reading in mistaking Patriarcha for Papa or else you were willing to dissemble it because then by the advantage of his title he might be fitter to discover the Artifices and Designs of his Fellow-Pope The laying open of which is certainly vastly different from sporting with all that can be serious on earth man's salvation as you most injuriously calumniate his Lordship in your next words in affirming so of him when his only design was to clear the way to mans salvation by discovering the gins and traps which are laid in the way of silly men by the pernicious subtilty of those of your party The way being thus cleared we come to the main question viz. Whether all Points defined by the Church are Fundamental and here because you tell us His Lordship is like one that provides for a retreat or a subterfuge by cutting out a number of ambiguous distinctions you give us fair hopes what clear proceedings we may expect from you who abhorr as much the clear stating of a question as Foxes do running in beaten Roads But as well as you love them you must be drawn out of your Holes which will be much for the advantage of Truth though very little for yours To come therefore close to the business that you may not think I seek subterfuges or retreats I shall wave all other acceptions of Fundamentals and take the Question in your own sense that is for Points necessary to Salvation The Question then in controversie between us is this Whether the ground or reason why any thing is fundamental or necessary to salvation be because it is defined by the Church to be so and consequently Whether all Points defined by the Church be not fundamental or necessary to Salvation For the occasion of this Controversie was from the Greek Church whether her errour as to the Procession from the Son be fundamental or no i. e. such as excludes her from being a Church and consequently from Salvation The ground of your affirmation is because the Church hath defined it to be so so that the ground and reason why any thing is supposed fundamental or necessary to Salvation must be the Definition of the Church But for our better understanding your meaning you distinguish of two waies whereby Points may be necessary to Salvation the one absolutely by reason of the matter they contain which say you is so fundamentally necessary in it self that not only the disbelief of it when propounded by the Church but the meer want of an express knowledge and belief of it will hinder Salvation and those are such Points without the express belief whereof no man can be saved which Divines call necessary necessitate medii others of this kind they call necessary necessitate praecepti which all men are commanded to seek after and expresly believe so that a culpable Ignorance of them hinders Salvation although some may be saved with invincible Ignorance of them And all these are absolutely necessary to be expresly believed either necessitate praecepti or medii in regard of the matter which they contain But the
to Salvation and that this is owned by the Church of England This is the substance of the Argument which being resolved into its parts will consist of these Propositions 1. That some things owned not to be Fundamental in the matter are yet acknowledged in the Creed of Athanasius to be necessary to Salvation 2. That the reason why these things do become necessary is because the Church hath defined them to be so 3. That this is acknowledged by the Church of England And therefore by parity of reason whatever is defined by the Church must be necessary to Salvation But every one of these Propositions being ambiguous the clear stating of them will be the best way of solving the difficulty which seems to lye in the present Argument And the main Ambiguity lyes in the meaning of that necessity to Salvation which is implied in the Athanasian Creed as to the Articles therein contained for there being different grounds and reasons upon which things may be supposed necessary there can be no just consequence made from the general owning a necessity of the belief of some things to the making those things necessary to be believed upon one particular account of it For the necessity of believing things to Salvation may arise from one of these three grounds 1. The Supposition that the matter to be believed is in it self necessary this makes it necessary to all those persons who are of that perswasion and on this ground it is plain that the main Articles of the Athanasian Creed are generally supposed necessary viz. those concerning the Trinity in Vnity the Incarnation Resurrection and Eternal Life c. Now these being supposed to be necessary from the Matter any Church may own them under this degree of necessity in that expression used in several places of the Athanasian Creed Whosoever will be saved it is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith which Catholick Faith is c. But then we are to consider that this is only a Declaration of the sense of that Church what things she owns as necessary and what not And this Declaration doth not oblige the conscience of particular persons any further than as the Articles of that Church are required to be owned as the conditions of Communion with her i. e. where the degree of necessity is not declared nor expresly owned by a Church but left in general terms no man is bound to believe the things judged as necessary with any particular kind of necessity exclusive of others but only that the Church in General may use that Creed supposed necessary and that the Use of that Creed is a lawful condition of that Churches Communion 2. The belief of a thing may be supposed necessary because of the clear Conviction of mens understandings that though the matters be not in themselves necessary yet being revealed by God they must be explicitly believed but then the necessity of this Belief doth extend no further than the clearness of that Conviction doth As suppose it inserted into a Creed that the Article of the Descent must be understood according to the sense of the Scriptures this doth oblige no man to any further necessity of belief of the sense of the Article then he is convinced that it is the sense of the Scriptures And the case is the same when the Article is expressed only in general terms which are known to be capable of very different senses when none of which are expressed no particular sense can be said to be necessary to Salvation to particular persons but only that sense in general which all must agree in who own it and the particulars are left to the Convictions of mens understandings upon the use of the best means of satisfaction So that he that believes fully that the meaning of this Article from Scripture is that Christ's soul did locally descend to Hell it is necessary for him to believe so upon such Conviction but he that sees no more necessary to be believed by it but that Christ's soul was during his Body's lying in the Grave in a state of Separation from it how can you prove it necessary to Salvation for him to believe any more than this And the case is the same as to all Modes of Existence and particular explications of Articles in themselves owned as of the different Subsistencies in the Trinity the manner of the Hypostatical Vnion of the two Natures in Christ's Person supposing the Doctrines themselves believed what reason can there be to assert it necessary to Salvavation to all persons to believe them under such a sense if the Article may be it self believed without it any further than as things under those explications are manifested to such persons to be necessary to be believed As Leo 3. defined in the Article of the Holy Ghost's Procession from the Son To such who by reason of capacity and apprehension could attain to the Knowledge of it it was necessary to be believed but not by others as appears in our former Discourse on that Subject Therefore from hence we see another account why things may become necessary to be believed and owned as such besides the matter and the Churches Definition These things may be said to be necessary to be believed by such who believe the Churches Proposition to be sufficient though it be not as suppose any member of the Greek Church should believe their Church infallible it is necessary for such a one to believe whatever is propounded by that Church though you suppose that judgement of his to be false in it self because you say the Greek Church is not infallible So that from hence it appears that the necessity arising from the Churches Definition doth depend upon the Conviction that whatever the Church defines is necessary to be believed And where that is not received as an antecedent principle the other cannot be supposed By this opening the several grounds of necessity your difficulty concerning the Athanasian Creed comes to nothing For granting that the Church of England doth own and approve the Creed going under the name of Athanasius and supposing that her Vse of the Creed doth extend to the owning of those expressions which import the necessity of believing the things therein contained in order to Salvation yet this doth not reach to your purpose unless you prove that the Church of England doth own that necessity purely on the account of the Churches Definition of those things which are not Fundamental which it is very unreasonable to imagine it being directly contrary to her sense in her nineteenth and twentieth Articles And thence that supposed necessity of the belief of the Articles of the Athanasian Creed must according to the sense of the Church of England be resolved either into the necessity of the Matters or into that necessity which supposeth clear Convictions that the things therein contained are of Divine Revelation From hence then it cannot at all follow because the Church of England owns the Creed
That the external accidents might remain where the substance was changed Now therefore when the Assurance of Christian Religion came from the judgement of the Senses of those who were Eye-witnesses of the Miracles and the Resurrection of Christ if the Senses of men may be so grosly deceived in the proper Objects of them in the case of Transubstantiation what assurance could they themselves have who were Eye-witnesses of them and how much less assurance can we have who have all our Evidence from the certainty of their report So that it appears upon the whole that take away the certainty of the judgement of Sense you destroy all Certainty in Religion for Tradition only conveys to us now what was originally grounded upon the judgement of Sense and delivers to us in an undoubted manner that which the Apostles saw and heard And do not you then give a very good account of Religion by the Infallibility of your Church when if I believe your Church to be infallible I must by vertue of that Infallibility believe something to be true which if it be true there can be no certainty at all of the Truth of Christian Religion 2. Another principle is That we can have no certainty of any of the grounds of Faith but from the Infallibility of your present Church Whereby you do these two things 1. Destroy the obligation to Faith which ariseth from the rational evidence of Christian Religion 2. Put the whole stress of the truth of Christianity upon the proofs of your Churches Infallibility by which things any one may easily see what tendency your doctrine of resolving Faith hath and how much it designs the overthrow of Christianity 1. You destroy the obligation to Faith from the rational evidence of Christian Religion by telling men as you do expresly in the very Title of your next Chapter That there can be no unquestionable assurance of Apostolical Tradition but for the infallible authority of the present Church If so then men cannot have any unquestionable assurance that there was such a Person as Christ in the world that he wrought such great miracles for confirmation of his Doctrine that he dyed and rose again it seems we can have no assurance of these things if the present Church be not Infallible And if we can have no assurance of them what obligation can lye upon us to believe them for assurance of the matters of fact which are the foundations of Faith is necessary in order to the obligation to believe I mean such an assurance as matters of fact are capable of for no higher can be required then the nature of things will bear And what a strange assertion then is this that matters of fact cannot be conveyed to us in an unquestionable manner unless the present Church stamp her Infallibility upon them Cannot we have an unquestionable assurance that there were such persons as Caesar and Pompey and that they did such and such things without some infallible testimony if we may in such things why not in other matters of fact which infinitely more concern the world to know then whatever Caesar or Pompey did But this will be more at large examined afterwards I only now take notice of the consequence of this principle and how fairly it destroyes all rational evidence of the truth of our Religion which whosoever takes away will be by force of reason a Sceptick in the first place and an Infidel in the second Neither is the danger meerly in destroying the rational evidence of Religion but 2. In putting the whole weight of Religion upon the proofs of the present Churches infallibility which whosoever considers how silly and weak they are cannot sufficiently wonder at the design of those men who put the most excellent Religion in the world and which is built upon the highest and truest reason to such a strange kind of Ordeal tryal that if she pass not through this St. Winifreds needle her innocency must be suspected and her truth condemned So that whosoever questions the truth of this kind of Purgation will have a greater suspition of a juggle and imposture if she be acquitted then if she had never submitted to such a tryal And when we come to examine the proofs brought for this Infallibility it will then further appear what uncertainty in Religion men are betrayed to under this confident pretext of Infallibility Thus we see what Scepticism in Religion the principles owned upon the account of Infallibility do bring men to 3. When you have brought men to this that the only sure ground of Faith is the Infallibility of your Church you are not able to give them any satisfactory account at all concerning it but plunge them into greater uncertainties then ever they were in before For you can neither satisfie them what that Church is which you suppose Infallible what in that Church is the proper subject of this Infallibility what kind of Infallibility this is nor how we should know when the Church doth decide Infallibly and when not and yet every one of these questions is no less then absolutely necessary to be resolved in order to the satisfaction of mens minds as to the foundation of their Faith 1. You cannot satisfie men What that Church is which you suppose to be Infallible Certainly if you had a design to give men a certain foundation for their Faith you would not be so shy of discovering what it is you understand by that Church which you would have Infallible if you had meant honestly the first thing you should have done was to have prevented all mistakes concerning the meaning of the Church when you know what various significations it hath not only in Scripture but among your selves Whether you mean the Church essential representative or vertual for every one of these upon occasion you make use of and it was never more necessary to have explained them then in this place and yet you with wonderful care and industry avoid any intimation of what you mean by that Church which you would prove Infallible When you plead so earnestly for the Churches Infallibility I pray tell us what you mean by the Church do you intend the truly Catholick and Vniversal Church which comprehends in it all such as own and profess the Doctrine of Christ in which sense it was well said by Abulensis Ecclesia universalis nunquam errat quia nunquam tota errat The universal Church never erres because the whole Church is never deceived Or do you mean by your Catholick Church some particular part of it to which you apply the name of Catholick not for Vniversality of extent but soundness of Doctrine then it will be necessary yet further to shew what part of the Church that is by what right and title that hath engrossed the name of Catholick so as to exclude other Societies of Christians from it and whether you must not first prove the absolute integrity and soundness of her Doctrine before
Infallibility cannot be de fide because not determined neither For if the Determination of the Church be necessary to make any thing de fide it must by the same reason be necessary to make your Churches Infallibility de fide and I suppose you will not readily instance in any decree of the Catholick Church where the Testimony of your Church is determined to be infallible And yet one would imagine that if there were such a necessity in order to Faith of the Infallible Testimony of your Church there would be an equal necessity of believing this Infallibility on the same Testimony or if one may believe one Article especially so important a one as that without any precedent infallible Testimony why not any other nay why not all the rest Thus you still see how uncertainties grow upon us when we search into your account of Faith 3. You are not certain neither What kind of Infallibility this is For you offer to prove the Church infallible by the same way that Moses Christ and his Apostles were proved infallible A very fair Offer if you could make it good but then we were in hopes you would have proved such a kind of Infallibility as they had you tell us No for your Infallibility is Supernatural but not Divine that it is precise Infallibility but not absolute that it is not by immediate Revelation but by immediate Assistance of the Holy Ghost Something you would have but you cannot tell what an Infallibility in the Conclusion without any in the Vse of means an Infallibility by immediate Assistance of the Holy Ghost yet but in a sort Divine an Infallibility yielding nothing to Scripture in point of Supernaturality and Certainty yet nothing so infallible as Scripture Are not these brave things to make wise men certain in their Religion with that they are to believe the Scriptures upon a Testimony infallible yet not infallible divine yet not divine and therefore certain but not certain true but not true But of the silliness of these Distinctions afterwards But can you think to perswade wise or rational men to believe their Religion on such terms as these are Had they no other evidence than what you give them would they not be shrewdly tempted to reject all Religion as a meer Imposture as no doubt your Doctrine of Infallibility is A strange kind of Talisman which secures your Pope from a possibility of erring but still he must be under the certain direction of his Stars for if he be not in Cathedrâ this Telesm doth him no good at all It were heartily to be wished if he should once happen to be in Cathedrâ he would infallibly determine what it was to be in Cathedrâ for ever after for it would ease mens minds of a great many troublesome scruples which they cannot without some infallible Determination get themselves quit of But still we are bound to believe your Church infallible But I pray whence comes this Infallibility Comes it from Heaven or is it of Men From Heaven no doubt you say for it is by a promise of the Holy Ghost This were something if it were proved but yet you maintain this Infallibility in such a manner that none that read the Scriptures could ever think it were promised there For there they alwaies read That the Spirit of Truth is a Spirit of Holiness and never dwells in those who are carnal or wicked men but you tell us That let the lives of Popes be what they will they have no promise to secure them from being wicked but the Spirit of God doth by immediate Assistance secure them from being fallible But I pray Which of these two is not only more contrary to Scripture but to Humane Nature Wickedness or Fallibility This latter so consequent upon the imperfection of our understandings that till we put off the one we can hardly be freed from the other but Wickedness is that which the whole design of Christian Religion is against and administers the highest Motives and the greatest Assistance for the conquest of and can it then be thought suitable to such a Doctrine that the Divine Spirit should like Mahomet's Dove be alwaies ready to whisper in the ear of the most profligate person if it be but his fortune to sit in Cathedrá Such a kind of Infallibility as this I assure you will never prevail with any such persons who understand Christian Religion to believe the Doctrine of it upon such pretences as yours are 4. Supposing you could tell men intelligibly and suitably to the Doctrine of Christianity What kind of Infallibility this is yet if you cannot satisfie them When your Church doth define infallibly you leave them still in the same Labyrinth without any clue to direct them out of it But if we consider what things are necessary to be believed before we can believe any definition of your Church infallible how impossible it is to be infallibly assured of any such definition of your Church sure you cannot blame us for crying out of the Labyrinth you have brought us into 1. How many things in Christian Religion are to be believed before we can imagine any such thing as an infallible Testimony of your Church And if the Infallibility of that be the ground of Faith on what account must those things be believed which are antecedent to the belief of such an infallible Testimony Now that many things and some of them far from being clear are to be believed antecedently to an infallible Testimony will appear if we do but consider what they commonly mean by that Church which they suppose infallible and what must be supposed that this Infallibility be the Rule of Faith By the Church they tell you they mean the Catholick Church but lest you should think them too honest in saying so at next word it is the Roman-Catholick Church just as if one should say the German-Vniversal Emperour But lest you should think at least they meant the Roman Church of all Ages and think you might have some relief from the Primitive Roman Church they will soon rectifie your mistakes by telling you it is the present Roman-Church they mean but if it be the present Roman-Church it may be you would be willing to hear the judgement of all the honest men in that Church and that you hope many of the people and learned men not in Orders may speak their minds freely To prevent that they tell you they mean only the representative Church But still the Bishops who make up this representative Church may in their several Synods complain of abuses and rectifie miscarriages therefore they understand not Bishops by themselves or particular Synods but met together in General Councils But yet if the Councils were truly Oecumenical there might be some hopes of redress But for that they are sure for they allow none to be members of the General Councils which are in Schism or Heresie and their own Church is to be Judge what
wrought to attest this Infallibility For as long as you require such an assent to the present Churches Infallibility it is necessary on your own grounds that the present Church should alwayes work miracles in order to the proving this Infallibility 2. We desire such miracles as may sufficiently convince the Infidels as to this point of your Infallibility For that was alwayes the way used in Scripture The intention of miracles was to perswade those who did not believe Would Pharaoh or the Aegyptians have believed Moses if all his miracles had been wrought in a corner where none but Israelites had been present Would the Jews have believed in Christ if he had not come in publick among them and wrought such frequent publick and uncontrouled miracles that his greatest enemies durst not deny them If you would then have us believe your present Churches Infallibility let your Pope or at least your Priests come and do such kind of miracles among us which may bear the examination of inquisitive men and then try whether we will not believe your Infallibility but till then excuse us Think not we are of such easie Faith that the pretended growing out of a Leg in Spain or any of your famous miracles wrought by your Priests in Italy will perswade us to believe your Church Infallible It is alwayes observed your miracles are most talked on where people are most ignorant and therefore most apt to be deceived Your Priests like the Devils in the Primitive times can do no feats when their opposers are by It is an easie thing for a stump to grow a Leg in its passage from Spain hither for Fama crescit eundo such things are most believed where circumstances are least capable of examination And the juglings and impostures of your Priests have been so notorious in this kind that their pretences to miracles have made more Infidels then Catholicks by making men more apt to question whether ever there were any real miracles done then believe the truth of yours Very likely then it is that you should perswade the world your Church is Infallible because of the miracles wrought in it 3. What discrimination do you put between those lying wonders which you are foretold shall be wrought at the coming of Antichrist and those pretended miracles which are wrought among you Convince us by sufficient evidence that the things which seem most confirmed by your miracles viz. Invocation of Saints is a thing consonant to the doctrine established by the undoubted miracles of Christ and his Apostles If it be contrary to it either you must prove that doctrine false or if you admit it true you prove your miracles to be false because contrary to a doctrine established by miracles undoubtedly Divine And God can never be supposed to attest with miracles the truth of doctrines contrary to each other And thence the wisest of your Church are so far from insisting on this of miracles for a motive of credibility concerning your Churches Infallibility that they leave it out from being a note of the Church because Hereticks as they say may as to all outward appearance work as great miracles as the best Catholicks And therefore Bellarmin saith No man can have an absolute certainty concerning the truth of miracles because the Devil though he cannot work true miracles can work as to appearance the greatest Therefore since the confirmation of Christian Religion by miracles undoubtedly Divine there can be no relyance on the tryal of miracles for the truth of any doctrine for those very miracles and doctrine must be judged according to that rule of Faith which was confirmed by Divine miracles Thus we have examined those motives which seem most to prove Infallibility and shewn how little they agree to the present Churches Infallibility 3. As to the other motives what evidence do you produce That where-ever they are the Church is Infallible and that these do infallibly belong to your Church for both these must be made evident or you do nothing Now these motives are Sanctity of life Succession Vnity Antiquity and the very name of Catholick c. How hard is it to conceive the connexion between these and infallibility Nay they are so far from it that it hath been abundantly proved against your party that these are no certain notes of the true Church which is a Controversie I shall not now discuss And if the Church cannot be proved to be true by them much less certainly will it be proved to be Infallible But suppose all this is your Church so remarkable for Sanctity of life that it should be a motive for your Infallibility Have your Popes been indeed such Holy men that we may not question but they were moved by the Holy Ghost when they spake Certainly you have some other way to know it then all Histories both of friends and enemies and the constant fame of the world which hath then much abused us with stories quite of another nature Or is the state of your Church so pure and holy that it must shew it self Infallible by that But whom will you be judged by in this case I desire you not to stand to the verdict of your Adversaries Will you believe men of your own Communion pray read what sad complaints are made of the degenerate state of your Church by Petrarch Mantuan Clemangis Espencaeus Erasmus Cassander and several others and judge you whether we have not reason to cry up the Sanctity of your Church But these it may be you will say were discontented persons Will you believe then your Cardinals And if ever you will believe them it should certainly be when they meet to advise concerning the state of your Church and was not this the expression of the Colledge of chosen Cardinals for reformation of the Church under Paul 3. Per nos inquimus per nos nomen Christi blasphematur apud gentes Is not this a great evidence of your Sanctity If you will not believe the Cardinals you will not certainly question the judgement of him whom you would fain have to be Infallible the Pope himself And these are the words of Adrian 6. in his Instructions to his Legat at the diet of Norimberg A. D. 1522. Scimus in hâc Sede aliquot jam annis multa abominanda fuisse abusus in Spiritualibus excessus in mandatis omnia denique in perversum mutata If ever Pope was Infallible he was in saying so and he could not but be in Cathedrâ when he said it You see then what evidence you have from your selves concerning that Sanctity of life which is in your Church But it may be still you do not mean real Sanctity but that the doctrine of your Church tends more to promote it then that of any other Church I heartily wish the quite contrary could not be too truly said of it and it is well known that one of your great Artifices whereby you perswade great Persons to your Religion is
the proper actings of my Faculties I may judge such things to have connexions and depâ—ndencies one upon another which really have nothing so And therefore so far your distinction concerning Science and Faith will not hold But 2. If the meaning of this distinction be only this That there is a different proceeding in a demonstration from what there is in an act of Faith I deny it not but suppose it nothing to your purpose For though the evidence be discovered in a different way yet there is in both proportionable evidence to the nature of the Assent When I assent because I know that the thing is true the evidence of the thing it self is the ground of that Assent but when I assent upon the Authority of any person the Credibility of his Testimony is the evidence on which that Assent is grounded Though this latter evidence be of another kind yet it is sufficient for that act of the mind which is built upon it and that Testimony which I establish a firm Assent upon must be as evident in its kind i. e. of Credibility as the evidence of a thing demonstrable in the nature of a Demonstration 3. The main strength of your Answer seems to lye in this That in such an Assent as is built upon Authority as in the case of Faith when we do not immediately hear God speaking but it is conveyed to us by the Testimony of others it is necessary that this Testimony be infallible But good Sir this is not our present Question Whether it be necessary that this Testimony be infallibly conveyed to us but supposing such an infallible Conveyance Whether that infallible Testimony must not be more credible than the matters which are believed upon it But as though never any such thing had been started You give us a long discourse of the different proceeding of Science and Faith but never offer to apply it to the business in hand I must therefore ingenuously commend you for an excellent Art of gliding insensibly away from a business you cannot answer and casting out a great many words not to the purpose that you may seem to touch the matter when you are far enough from it And therefore I say Secondly That however the evidence proceeds in matters of Faith yet whatever is the Foundation of Assent must be more evident than the thing assented to Especially where you suppose the Assent to be infallible and the Testimony infallible which must ascertain it to us This will be plainer by an instance If I ask you Why you believe the Resurrection of the dead your Answer is because of the Authority of him that reveals it The next Question then is Why you believe that God hath revealed it your Answer is Because the Testimony of the Church is infallible which delivers it Whereby it is plain That though your first Answer be from God's Authority yet the last resolution of your Faith is the Infallibility of your Churches Testimony and that being the last resolution that Infallibility must be the Principle on which the belief of the rest depends For according to your Principles though God had revealed it yet if this Revelation were not attested by the infallible Testimony of your Church we should not have sufficient ground to believe it And if without that we can have no sufficient ground to believe then this Principle The Church is infallible must be more credible than the Resurrection of the dead Which was the Absurdity his Lordship charged upon you and you are far from being able to quit your self of The next thing which you busie your self much in answering of is That according to these Principles of resolution of Faith you make the Churches Testimony the formal Object of Faith which you acknowledge your self to be a great Absurdity and therefore make use of many shifts to avoid I shall reduce the substance of your verbose and immethodical Answer into as narrow a compass as I can without defalking any thing of the strength of it You tell us then That our Faith is resolved into God's Revelations whether written or unwritten as its Formal Object and our Infallible Assurance that the things we believe as God's Revelations are revealed from him is resolved into the Infallibility of the Churches Definitions teaching us that they are his Revelations And that the Formal Cause of our Assent in Divine Faith is God's Revelation delivered to the Church without writing but because that is as it were at distance from us it is approximated or immediately applied to us by the infallible Declaration of the present Church Hence it appears our Faith rests only upon God's Revelation as its Formal Object though the Churches Voice be a condition so necessary for its resting thereon that it can never attain that Formal Object without it And lastly you tell us The Churches Authority then being more known to us than the Scriptures may well be some reason of our admitting them yet the Scriptures still retain their prerogative above the Church and thence you distinguish of the certainty of the Object and Subject from all which you conclude That the Churches Definition is not the Formal Object of Faith but that our Faith relyes upon it as an Infallible Witness both of the written and unwritten Word of God which is the Formal Object This is the substance in your long Answer of what hath the face of reason and pertinency Which I come to a close and particular examination of And that you may not say I pass over this important Controversie without a through discussion of it I shall first prove that it necessarily follows from your Principles That the Churches Infallible Testimony must be the Formal Object of Faith And 2. That the Answers you give are far from being satisfactory that it is not 1. That it necessarily follows from your Principles That the Churches Infallible Testimony must be the Formal Object of Faith In order to which we must consider what the scope and design of this Discourse is concerning the Resolution of Faith The Question started by Mr. Fisher in the Conference was How his Lordship knew Scripture to be Scripture or How the Divine Authority of the Scriptures was to be proved To this his Lordship returns a large Answer to which you attempt a Reply in this Chapter and mention this to be the main Question How Scriptures may be known to be the Word of God To this you tell us No satisfactory Answer can be given but from the infallible Testimony of the Church and the great reason given by you in all your discourse is this That this is an Article to be believed with Divine Faith and Divine Faith must be built on an Infallible Testimony The Question then resulting hence is Whether on these Principles you do not make the Infallible Testimony of the Church the Formal Object of Faith You deny and we affirm it but before I come to the particular Evidences of the Cause
some generall postulata must be laid down which by the very state of the Controversie must be acknowledged by you which are 1. That the Question in dispute is not concerning the Formal Object of all things divinely revealed but concerning the believing this to be a particular Divine Revelation For it is obvious to any one that considers what vast difference there is between those two Questions Why you believe that to be True which God hath revealed the plain and easie resolution of this is into the veracity and infallibility of God in all his Revelations But it is quite another Question when I ask Why you believe this to have been a True Divine Revelation Or that such particular Books contain the Word of God And it is apparent by the whole process of the the Dispute that the Question is not concerning the first but the second of these two 2. That the Question is not concerning any kind of perswasion as to this Divine Revelation but concerning that which you call Divine Faith 3. That this Divine Faith must be resolved into some Testimony supposed infallible These three are things agreed on between both parties as appears by the whole management of this Controversie Only you suppose this Infallible Testimony to be the Church which your Adversary denies and saith It will follow from thence that you make your Churches Testimony the Formal Object of Faith which I thus prove 1. That which is the only Ground and Foundation whereon a Divine Faith is built must be the Formal Object of Faith but the Infallible Testimony of your Church is the only Foundation whereon Faith is built By the Formal Object of Faith I suppose you and I mean the same thing which is the Foundation whereon the Certainty of the Assent is grounded or the principal Objective Cause of Faith viz. not every account that may be given Why men believe but that which is the only Certain Foundation to establish a Divine Faith upon Now let any one but consider what the Question is and what your resolution is and then judge Whether you make not the Churches Testimony the Formal Object The Question is How we know the Scriptures to be the Word of God which in other terms is What the ground is why I assent to the Doctrine contained in Scripture as a Divine Revelation You say The Testimony of the Scripture it self cannot be that ground You say The Testimony of the Spirit cannot be it You say A Moral Certainty cannot be it because then it is not Divine Faith What then is the reason why you believe it Do you not over and over say It is because of the infallible Testimony of the Church which gives us unquestionable assurance that this was a Divine Revelation and yet for all this this Testimony is not the Formal Object of this Divine Faith The most charitable apprehension I can have of you when you write things so inconsistent is either that you understand not or consider not what you write of but take what hath been said in such cases by men of your own party and right or wrong that serves for an Answer But for all this you tell us confidently That your Faith is not resolved into the voice of the Church as into its Formal Object but it is enough to say Our Faith is resolved into God's Revelations whether written or unwritten as its Formal Object and our infallible assurance that the things we believe are Divine Revelations is resolved into the Infallibility of the Churches Definitions These are excellent Notions if they would hang together But 1. We enquire not what is enough to say in such a case but what ground you have for saying what you do You have enough to say upon many subjects in this Book or else your Book would never have swell'd to the bulk it hath but you have generally very little reason for what you say 2. Is that infallible Assurance that the things we believe as God's Revelations are revealed from him a thing call'd Faith or no If it be as I hope you will not deny it then by your own Confession Faith is resolved into the Churches Testimony as its Formal Object for you say This Infallible Assurance is resolved into the Infallibility of the Churches Definitions teaching us that they are his Revelations These are your own words And do you yet deny this Testimony of the Church to be the Formal Object of this infallible Assurance 3. What is it you mean when you say That Faith is resolved into God's Revelations as its Formal Object Is it that the reason why we believe is Because God hath revealed these things to us But that you know is not the matter at all in question but How we come to assent to such a Doctrine as a Divine Revelation Answer me punctually to it Can you possibly resolve your Faith into any thing else as its Formal Object If you can I pray do us the favour to name it If you resolve this Faith as you seem to express your mind into Divine Revelation as its Formal Object Shew us where that Revelation is extant for which you believe Scripture to be the Word of God Is it the Scripture it self or a Revelation distinct from it If you say It is the Scripture it self then you must make the infallible Testimony of your Church needless for then we may have infallible Assurance that the things we believe are Divine Revelations without your Churches Testimony or Definitions Then what is become of the unwritten Tradition you mention in these words If then it be demanded Why we believe such Books as are contained in the Bible to be the Word of God we answer Because it is a divine unwritten Tradition that they are his Word and this Divine Tradition is the Formal Object whereon our Faith relyes Well then our last resolution of Faith is into this Divine unwritten Tradition But whence come you to know that this Tradition is Divine Into what Revelation is the belief of that finally resolved Doth it appear to be so by it self and then why may not the Scripture or hath it some other Revelation and Divine Tradition to attest it And then the same Question returns concerning that and so in infinitum or else of necessity you must acknowledge one of these two things Either that some Divine Revelation may sufficiently manifest it self without any infallible Testimony of your Church Or else that this infallible Testimony must be the Formal Object of Faith Of these two chuse which you please 2. I prove that you must make the Churches Testimony the Formal Object of Faith because either you must make it so or you must deny Divine Revelation to be the Formal Object of Faith because the reason is equal for both I demand then How you resolve your Belief of the Truth of the Doctrine of Christ you tell me into Divine Revelation as its Formal Object I ask yet further Why
us still more evidence of your self-contradicting faculty for which we need no more than lay your words together Your words next before were If the Church should fall into errour it would be as much ascribed to God himself as in case of immediate Divine Revelation but here you add Neither is it necessary for us to affirm that the Definition of the Church is God's immediate Revelation as if the Definition were false God's Revelation must be also such It is enough for us to averr that God's Promise would be infringed as truly it would in that Supposition From which we may learn very useful instructions 1. That God's Promise may he infringed and yet God's Revelation not proved to be false But whence came that Promise Was it not a Divine Revelation if it was undoubtedly such Can such a Promise be false and not God's Revelation 2. That though if the Church erre God must be fallible yet for all this all God's Revelations may remain infallible 3. That though the only ground of Infallibility be the immediate Assistance of the Holy Ghost which gives as great an Infallibility as ever was in Prophets and Apostles yet we must not say That such an Infallibility doth suppose an immediate Revelation 4. That though God's Veracity would be destroyed if the Church should define any thing for a point of Catholick Faith which were not revealed from God which are your next words yet we are not to think if her Definition be false God's Revelation must be also such which are your words foregoing Those are excellent Corollaries to conclude so profound a discourse with And if the Bishop as you say had little reason to accuse you for maintaining a party I am sure I have less to admire you for your seeking Truth and what ever animosity you are led by I hope I have made it evident you are led by very little reason CHAP. VI. Of the Infallibility of Tradition Of the unwritten Word and the necessary Ingredients of it The Instances for it particularly examined and disproved The Fathers Rule for examining Traditions No unwritten Word the Foundation of Divine Faith In what sense Faith may be said to be Divine Of Tradition being known by its own light and the Canon of the Scripture The Testimony of the Spirit how far pertinent to this Controversie Of the use of reason in the resolution of Faith T. C ' s. Dialogue answered with another between himself and a Sceptick A twofold resolution of Faith into the Doctrine and into the Books Several Objections answered from the Supposition made of a Child brought up without sight of Scripture Christ no Ignoramus nor Impostor though the Church be not infallible T. C ' s. Blasphemy in saying otherwise The Testimonies of Irenaeus and S. Augustin examined and retorted Of the nature of infallible Certainty as to the Canon of Scripture and whereon it is grounded The Testimonies produced by his Lordship vindicated YOu begin this Chapter with as much confidence as if you had spoken nothing but Oracles in the foregoing Whether the Bishop or you were more hardly put to it let any indifferent Reader judge If he did as you say tread on the brink of a Circle we have made it appear notwithstanding all your evasions that you are left in the middle of it The reason of his falling on the unwritten Word is not his fear of stooping to the Church to shew it him and finally depend on her Authority but to shew the unreasonableness of your proceedings who talk much of an unwritten Word and are not able to prove any such thing If he will not believe any unwritten Word but what is shewn him delivered by the Prophets and Apostles I think he hath a great deal of reason for such incredulity unless you could shew him some assurance of any unwritten Word that did not come from the Apostles Though he desired not to read unwritten Words in their Books which is a wise Question you ask yet he reasonably requested some certain evidence of what you pretend to be so that he might not have so big a Faith as to swallow into his belief that every thing which his adversary saies is the unwritten Word is so indeed If it be not your desire he should we have the greater hopes of satisfaction from you but if you crave the indifferent Reader 's Patience till he hear reason from you I am afraid his patience will be tyred before you come to it But whatever it is it must be examined Though your discourse concerning this unwritten Word be as the rest are very confused and immethodical yet I conceive the design and substance of it lyes in these particulars as will appear in the examination of them 1. That there is an unwritten Word which must be believed by us containing such doctrinal Traditions as are warranted by the Church for Apostolical 2. That the ground of believing this unwritten Word is from the Infallibility of the Church which defines it to be so 3. That our belief of the Scriptures must be grounded on such an unwritten Word which is warranted by the Church under each of these I shall examine faithfully what belongs to them in your indigested discourse The first of these is taken from your own words where you tell us That our Ensurancer in the main Principle of Faith concerning the Scriptures being the Word of God is Apostolical Tradition and well may it be so for such Tradition declared by the Church is the unwritten Word of God And you after tell us That every Doctrine which any particular person may please to call Tradition is not therefore to be received as God's unwritten Word but such doctrinal Traditions only as are warranted to us by the Church for truly Apostolical which are consequently God's unwritten Word So that these three things are necessary ingredients of this unwritten Word 1. That it must be originally Apostolical and not only so but it must be of Divine Revelation to the Apostles too For otherwise it cannot be God's Word at all and therefore not his unwritten Word I quarrel not at all with you for speaking of an unwritten Word if you could prove it for it is evident to me that God's Word is no more so by being written or printed than if it were not so for the writing adds no Authority to the Word but only is a more certain means of conveying it to us It is therefore God's Word as it proceeds from him and that which is now his written Word was once his unwritten Word but however whatever is God's Word must come from him and since you derive the source of the unwritten Word from the Apostles whatever you call an unwritten Word you must be sure to derive its pedegree down from them So that insisting on that point of time when this was declared and owned for an unwritten Word you must be able to shew that it came from the Apostles otherwise it
Proposition 2. That the ground of believing any unwritten word is the Infallibility of your Church defining it to be so For you say As the Church was Infallible in defining what was written so is she also infallible in defining what was not written And so she can neither tradere non traditum nor can she be unfaithful to God in not faithfully keeping the depositum committed to her trust Neither can her Sons ever justly accuse her of the contrary but are bound to believe her Tradition because she being infallible the Tradition she delivers can never be against the Word of their Father The substance of all which is that which I laid down as your Proposition That the ground of believing any Tradition to be Apostolical or any unwritten word is your Churches Infallibility in defining it to be so Which being built on a Principle I have already manifested to be so fallacious and uncertain I might without further trouble quit my hands of it but I shall however shew how inconsistent this is with the Rules of the Ancients for discerning when Traditions are Apostolical and when not The great Rule we meet with among the Ancients for judging Apostolical Traditions is that of Vincentius Lyrinensis In ipsâ item Catholicâ Ecclesiâ magnoperè curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est hoc est enim verè proprieque Catholicum If this be a certain Rule to judge of Catholick and Apostolical Traditions by viz. That which hath been held every where alwaies and by all then the judgement of your Church cannot be the infallible definer of Apostolical Traditions unless you will suppose that your Church only can tell us what was held every where alwaies and by all And if your Church alone can infallibly determine what Traditions are Apostolical to what purpose should we be put to such a VVild-goose chase to enquire Vniversality Antiquity and Consent in all things which pretend to be Traditions But to any reasonable man as to any thing which pretends to be a matter necessary to be believed or practised which is not expresly revealed in Scripture this Rule of Vincentius seems very just and equitable that before we believe it necessary it be made appear that it was universally believed by Christians to be so and that in all ages And I assure you I am so far convinced of the reasonableness of this proposal that if you will make out any of those things controverted between us such as Invocation of Saints VVorship of Images Transubstantiation Adoration of the Eucharist Purgatory Indulgences the Pope's Supremacy c. by these Rules and make it appear to me that these were held by all Christian Churches at all times or have Antiquity Vniversality and Consent I shall be very inclinable to embrace what your Church would impose upon me But when I know how impossible a task this is I do not at all wonder that you should quit this formerly magnified saying of Vincentius and resolve all into the Infallibility of the present Church But hereby we see how far you are from the judgement of Antiquity as to this very point of the tryal of doctrinal Traditions since you can see no security any where but in your selves and your Churches Infallibility I will therefore reduce the Controversie yet shorter prove but this Infallibility of your Church in defining the written and unwritten VVord by these Rules of Vincentius Vniversality Antiquity and Consent and I will yield you all the rest But what unreasonable men are you if you must be Parties and Judges too or if we must believe an unwritten VVord because your Church is infallible and believe your Church infallible because that is an unwritten VVord And well may you call it so for search the whole Book of Scriptures and all the Records of the Primitive Church and you find nothing at all of it We see plainly then you are resolved to be tryed by none but your selves and so you are Catholicks because you say You are so and your Church infallible because she pretends to be so 3. That our belief of the Scriptures must be resolved into an unwritten VVord which is defined by your Church to be such This is that for whose sake all your other discourse is brought in and is the main thing to the purpose Although you pretend likewise to a power in your Church to declare what Christ said when he held his peace But Are you sure your Church will be infallible in that too For when his Lordship had said That where-ever Christ held his peace and that his words are not registred no man may dare without rashness to say They were these or these You very gravely add That his Lordship must give you leave to tell him you must bind up his whole assertion with this Proviso but according as the Church shall declare Your Church then must declare when Christ held his peace and when he did not when he spake so that others might hear him and when he did not when any thing was taken notice of that he said and when not But when it is apparent Christ both spake and did much more than ever was written how well doth your Church acquit her Office in being Christ's Remembrancer And therefore I believe your Church will be guilty of the same rashness with any private person in S. Augustine's Opinion In offering to determine what Christ said when either he held his peace or his words are not registred As for those things which you mention for Traditions not contrary to God's written Word which yet are not an unwritten Word such as the Ceremonies of Baptism by you mentioned they are therefore not pertinent to our purpose because they are only rites and ceremonies and our discourse is about doctrinal Traditions neither yet if I would spend time in the enquiry could you derive them from Apostolical Tradition notwithstanding what either you or Bellarmine say But the substance of all you have to say pertinent to your purpose is That though every Tradition be not God's unwritten VVord yet it being necessary for us to believe the Scripture to be the VVord of God we must believe it either for some word written or unwritten or we shall have no Divine Faith at all of the Point because all Divine Faith must rely upon some VVord of God This being a great novelty with you that is something like Argumentation it obliges me to take a little more particular notice of it Any one that considers the force of this Argument will find that it lyes wholly upon your notion of Divine Faith for it appearing unreasonable to you that our belief that the Scripture is the Word should be resolved into the written Word it self therefore you find out an unwritten VVord of God for a Divine Faith to fix it self upon which can be nothing but some VVord of God To this therefore I
is the substance of his Lordships discourse about the use of Reason in which we observe 1. That he doth not make reason a means sufficient to ground an infallible belief that Scripture is the Word of God And therefore you are guilty of notorious oscitancy or willful calumny in telling us That natural reason is introduced by the Bishop for that end By which we may guess at the truth of what you say at the end of your interlocutory discourse between the Bishop and the Heathen that you have not wronged him by either falsly imposing on him or dissembling the force of his arguments wherein you are so guilty that the only extenuation of your crime had been never to have professed the contrary For you give us a hopeful specimen of your fair dealings at your entrance on this subject 2. Though reason cannot give a supernatural ground whereby to resolve Faith as to the Scriptures being Gods Word Infallibly yet reason may abundantly prove to any one who questions it the truth and reasonableness of Christian Religion By which if you please you may take notice of a double resolution of Faith the one is into the truth and reasonableness of the Doctrine of Christianity considered in it self and the other is into the Infallible means of the conveyance of that Doctrine to us which is the Scripture When therefore his Lordship offers to deal with a Heathen he doth not as you either sillily or wilfully would make him say That he would prove Infallibly to him that the Bible is Gods Word but that Christian Religion hath so much the advantage above all others as to make it appear that it stands upon surer grounds of nature reason common equity and justice then any thing in the world which any one who questions it doth adhere unto Which I think is a thing that no one who understands Christian Religion would be afraid to undertake against any Infidel of what sort or nature soever These things being premised your grand piece of Sophistry in the dispute between the Heathen and the Bishop whom you so solemnly introduce at a Conference about Religion doth evidently discover it self Wherein you bring in your learned Heathen as one desiring satisfaction in matter of Religion but being not verst in Christian Principles desires to be satisfied by the evidence of natural reason which when the Bishop hath condescended to your very next thing is that your Heathen understands by his Lordships Book that the sole foundation of our Faith is a Book called the Bible which saith he you tell me must be believed Infallibly with every part and parcel in it to be the undoubted Word of the true God before I can believe any other point of Religion as it ought to be believed As to which your Heathen sees no ground to assent that it is Gods Word But by this way of management of your dispute we may easily discern which way the issue of it is like to go Doth his Lordship any where undertake to prove this in the first place Infallibly to a Heathen That the Bible must be Infallibly believed to be Gods Word No he offers to prove first the excellency and the reasonableness of the Christian Religion considered in its self From whence you might easily conceive how the dispute ought to be managed shewing first that the precepts of Christianity are highly just and reasonable the Promises of it such as may induce any reasonable man to the practice of those Precepts and that the whole Doctrine is such as may appear to any considerative person to have been very wisely contrived That there is nothing vain or impertinent in it but that it is designed for great and excellent purposes the bringing men off from the love of sin to the love of God that it is impossible to imagine any Doctrine to be contrived with more advantage for promoting these ends because it represents to us the highest expressions of the Kindness and Goodness of God to man and that the Promises made by God were confirmed to the world by the death of his only Son That since mens natures are now so degenerate God hath made a tender of Grace and divine assistance whereby to enable men to perform the excellent duties of this Religion That those things which seem most hard to believe in this Doctrine are not such things as might have been spared out of it as though God did intend only to puzzle mens reason with them but they are such mysteries as it is impossible the wit of man can conceive they should have been discovered upon better reasons or for more excellent ends as that a Virgin should conceive by the immediate power of God to bring him into the world who should be the Saviour of it That there should be a resurrection of bodies in order to a compleat felicity of them who obey this Doctrine and so for others of a like nature that supposing it possible such things should be it is impossible to conceive they should be done upon better grounds or for better purposes than they are in Christian Religion This being now a short draught or Idea of Christianity is the first thing which I suppose any learned or inquisitive Heathen or Infidel should be acquainted with if he finds fault with this let him in any thing shew the incongruity or unreasonableness of it If he acknowledge this model of the Doctrine reasonable his next scruple is Whether this be truly the Model of it or no for that end I tell him We have a Book among us which is and ever hath been by Christians taken for granted to comprize in it the Principles of Christian Religion I bid him take it and read it seriously and see if that which I have given him as the Idea of Christian Doctrine do not perfectly agree with that Book I do not bid him presently absolutely and infallibly believe this Book to be God's VVord which is a very preposterous way of proceeding but only compare the Doctrine with the Book as he would do a body of Civil Law with the Institutes of it or the Principles of any Science with the most approved Authors of it If after this search he be satisfied that the representation I gave him of Christian Religion agrees with those Books we call the Bible he yet further adds that he acknowledges the Principles of our Religion to be reasonable but desires to be satisfied of the Truth of them I must further enquire Whether he doth believe any thing else to be in the world besides what he hath seen and heard himself I may justly suppose his Answer affirmative I then demand upon what grounds A. Vpon the certain report of honest men who have seen and heard other things than ever he did But why do you think honest mens reports to be credible in such cases A. Because I see they have no design or interest to deceive me in it Will you then believe the
report of such men whom I can make it appear could have no interest in deceiving you A. I can see no reason to the contrary Will you then believe such men who lost their lives to make it appear that their Testimony was true A. Yes Will you believe such things wherein persons of several Ages Professions Nations Religions Interests are all agreed that they were so A. Yes if it be only to believe a matter of fact on their Testimony I can see no ground to question it That is all I desire of you and therefore you must believe that there was in the world such a person as Jesus Christ who dyed and rose again and while he lived wrought great miracles to confirm his Doctrine with and that he sent out Apostles to preach this Doctrine in the world who likewise did work many miracles and that some of these persons the better to preserve and convey this Doctrine did write the substance of all that Christ either did or spake and withall penned several Epistles to those Churches which were planted by them These are all matters of fact and therefore on your former Principle you are to believe them There are then but two Scruples left Supposing all this true yet this doth not prove the Doctrine Divine nor the Scriptures which convey it to be infallible To which I answer 1. Can you question Whether that Doctrine be Divine when the person who declared it to the world was so divine and extraordinary a person not only in his conversation but in those frequent and unparalleld Miracles which he wrought in the sight and face of his enemies who after his death did rise again and converse with his Disciples who gave evidence of their fidelity in the Testimony they gave of it by laying down their lives to attest the Truth of it Again Can you question the Divinity of that Doctrine which tended so apparently to the destruction of sin and wickedness and the power of the evil Spirit in the world For we cannot think he would quit his possession willingly out of the bodies and souls of men that therefore which threw him out of both must be not only a Doctrine directly contrary to his interest but infinitely exceeding him in power And that can be no less than Divine But still you will say Is it not besides all this necessary to believe these very Books you call the Scripture to be divinely inspired and how should I know that To that I answer 1. That which God chiefly requires from you is the belief of the Truth and Divinity of the Doctrine for that is the Faith which will bring you to obedience which is the thing God aims at 2. If you believe the Doctrine to be True and Divine you cannot reasonably question the Infallibility of the Scriptures For in that you read that not only Christ did miracles but his Apostles too and therefore their Testimony whether writing or speaking was equally infallible all that you want evidence for is that such persons writ these Books and that being a matter of fact was sufficiently proved and acknowledged before Thus you see if we take a right method and not jumble things confusedly together as you do what a satisfactory account may be given to any inquisitive person first of the Reasonableness next of the Truth and lastly of the Divinity both of the Doctrine and the Books containing it which we call the Scripture Let us now again see How you make the Bishop and Heathen dispute The substance of which is That you make your Heathen desire no less than infallible evidence that the Bible is God's VVord by conviction of natural reason whereas his Lordship attempts only to make the Authority of Scriptures appear by such Arguments as unbelievers themselves could not but think reasonable if they weighed them with indifferency For though saith he this Truth That Scripture is the VVord of God is not so demonstratively evident à priori as to inforce assent yet it is strengthened so abundantly with probable Arguments both from the Light of Nature it self and Humane Testimony that he must be very wilful and self-conceited that shall dare to suspect it And sure any reasonable man in the world would think it sufficient to deal with an adversary upon such terms But saies your Heathen A man cannot be infallibly certain of what is strengthened with but probable Arguments since that which is but probably true may also be said to be but probably false Which being a thing so often objected against us by your party must be somewhat further explained How far Infallibility may be admitted in our belief may partly be perceived by what hath been said already and what shall be said more afterwards That there is and ought to be the highest degree of actual Certainty I assert as much as you But say you The very Arguments being but probable destroy it To which I answer by explaining the meaning of probable Arguments in this case whereby are not understood such kind of Probabilities which cannot raise a firm Assent in which sense we say That which is probable to be is probable not to be but by Probabilities are only meant such kind of rational Evidence which may yield a sufficient foundation for a firm Assent but yet notwithstanding which an obstinate person may deny Assent As for Instance if you were to dispute with an Atheist concerning the Existence of a Deity which he denies and should proceed with you just as your Heathen doth with the Bishop Sir All that Religion you talk of is built only upon the belief of a God but I cannot be infallibly convinced by natural reason that there is such a one You presently tell him that there is so much evidence for a Deity from the works of nature the consent of all people c. that he can have no reason to question it But still he replies None of these are demonstrations for notwithstanding I have considered these I believe the contrary but demonstrations would make me infallibly certain these then are no more but probable Arguments and therefore since it is but probably true it may be probably false How then will you satisfie such a person Can you do it any otherwise than by saying that we have as great Evidence as the nature of the thing will bear and it is unreasonable to require more Unless you will tell him it is to no purpose to believe a God unless he believe it infallibly and there being no infallible Arguments in nature he must believe it on the Infallibility of your Church And do you not think this were an excellent way to confute Atheists But when we speak of probable Arguments we mean not such as are apt to leave the mind in suspence whether the thing be true or no but only such as are not proper and rigid demonstrations or infallible Testimony but the highest Evidence which the nature of the thing will bear
an errour is the worse the condition is of all such who believe the Churches Testimony Infallible Now this is that we justly charge your Church with that while she pretends to Infallibility she hath actually erred in delivering such Books for Canonical which are not so as hath been abundantly manifested by the worthies of our Church The remainder of this discourse of yours concerning knowing Canonical Books by the light in them is vacated by our present answer and so is the other concerning Apostolical traditions by our former upon that subject As to that Scruple How the light should be Infallible and Divine when the Churches Testimony is humane and fallible it signifies nothing unless the light be only supposed to rise from the Testimony which his Lordship denies 7. The judgement of the Fathers is inquired into concerning the present subject out of whom only Irenaeus and St. Augustin are produced as affirming in many places That the Tradition of the Church is sufficient to found Christian Faith even without Scripture and that for some hundreds of years after the Canon of Scripture was written But must we stand only to the judgement of these two concerning the sense of the Primitive Church in this present Controversie We may easily know the judgement of the Fathers if two such lame Citations as these are are sufficient to discover it But your unhappiness is great in whatever you undertake If you meddle with reason you soon find how little it becomes you if you fly to the Fathers they prove the greatest witnesses against you as will appear in this debate if we first examine the citations you produce and then shew how fully and clearly these very persons whom you have picked out of all the Chorus do deliver themselves against you The first citation is that known one out of Irenaeus concerning those barbarous nations who believed without the Scriptures adhering to the Tradition of the Apostles having salvation written without Paper and Ink. But what it is you would hence inferr I cannot imagine unless it be one of these two things 1. That if we had no Scriptures left us it would be necessary for us to believe on the account of Apostolical Tradition that is that the grounds of our Faith were so clear and evident of themselves that though they had never been written yet if they had been conveyed by an unquestionable Tradition from the Apostles there had lain an obligation on us to believe the Doctrine of Christ. But is this our case hath not God infinitely better provided for us when as your other witness St. Augustine speaks Whatever our Saviour would have us read of his actions or speeches he commanded his Apostles and Disciples as his hands to write Christian Religion is now no Cabala to us God hath consigned his will over to us by Codicills of his own appointing and must we then be now in the like case as if his Will had never been written at all 2. But what if the barbarous Nations did believe without the Books of Scripture what doth that prove but only this that there may be sufficient reason to believe in Christ where the Scriptures are not known Is that contrary to us who say The last resolution of Faith is into the Doctrine of Christ as attested by God now if that attestation be sufficiently conveyed there is an obligation to believe but withall we say that to us who enjoy the Scriptures as delivered down to us the only certain and infallible conveyance of Gods Word to us is by them So that the whole Christian world is obliged to you for your civil comparison of them with those Barbarians who either enjoyed not the Scriptures or in probability were not able to make use of them as being probably ignorant of the use of letters 3. Doth Irenaeus in these words say that even these Barbarians did believe upon the Infallible Testimony of the present Church No he mentions no such thing but that they believed that Tradition of Doctrine which was delivered them from the Apostles I ask you then Suppose at that time some honest but fallible persons should have gone into Scythia or some such barbarous places and delivered the Doctrine of the Gospel and attesting the matters of fact as being eye-witnesses of Christs Miracles Death and Resurrection whether would these Barbarians have been bound to believe or no If not then for all I know Infidelity is a very excusable sin If they were I pray tell me what it was their Faith was resolved into was it an infallible testimony of fallible men And the same case is of such who should preach the same Doctrine from these eye-witnesses in another Generation and so on for although there might be no reason to question their testimony yet I suppose you will not say It is Infallible so that still this makes nothing for your purpose 4. Who better understood Irenaeus his mind than himself let us therefore see what he elsewhere tells us is the foundation and pillar of our Faith who have received the Scriptures Doth not he tell us but three Chapters before this That we have received the method or Doctrine of our Salvation from those persons who preached it which by Gods command they after delivered in the Scriptures which were to be the foundation and pillaâ— of our Faith Could any thing be more fully spoken to our purpose than this is Whereby he shews us now the Scriptures are consigned unto us what that is which our Faith must stand upon not the Infallibility of the Church but that Word of God which is delivered to us This therefore he elsewhere calls the Vnmoveable Canon of our Faith as S. Augustine calls it Divinam stateram the Divine ballance we must weigh the grounds of our Belief in By which we may guess what little relief you are like to have from your second witness St. Augustin Two citations you produce out of him and I question not but to make it appear that neither of those Testimonies do make for you and those very Books afford us sufficient against you The first is out of his Books of Christian Doctrine which lest we should think not pertinent you care not to produce it but we must A man who strengthens himself with Faith Hope and Charity and retains them unshaken needs not the Scriptures but only to instruct others for by these three many live without Books in a desert His meaning is that he who hath a principle of Divine life within him which discovers it self in the exercise of those three Graces needs not so much the external precepts because that inward principle will carry him to actions suitable to it only for convincing or instructing others these Books are continually useful but for themselves those good men who first through the fury of their persecution were driven and after others who in imitation of that piety they shewed there did withdraw into remote
part of the world should be so grosly deceived in a matter of such moment especially supposing a Divine Providence then I freely and heartily assert We have such a kind of rational Infallibility or rather the highest degree of actual Certainty concerning the Truth of the Canon of Scripture and that the Catholick Church hath not de facto erred in defining it Thus I have followed your discoursing Christian through all his doubts and perplexities and upon the result can find no ground at all either of doubting concerning the Scripture or of believing the Testimony of your Church or any to be an infallible ground of Faith Your next passage is to tell us how his Lordships Dedalian windings as you finely call them are disintricated A happy man you are at squaring Circles and getting out of Labyrinths And thus it appears in the present case For when his Lordship had said That the Tradition of the Church is too weak because that is not absolutely Divine you repeat over your already exploded Proposition that there may be an infallible Testimony which is not absolutely Divine which when I have your faculty of writing things which neither you nor any one else can understand I may admit of but till then I must humbly beg your pardon as not being able to assent to any thing which I cannot understand and have no reason to believe And withall contrary to your second Answer it appears That if the Testimony of the Primitive were absolutely Divine because infallible the Testimony of the present Church must be absolutely Divine if it be infallible The rest of this Chapter is spent in the examining some by-citations of men of your own side chiefly and therefore it is very little material as to the truth or falshood of the present Controversie yet because you seem to triumph so much assoon as you are off the main business I shall briefly return an Answer to the substance of what you say His Lordship having asserted the Tradition of the Primitive Apostolical Church to be Divine and that the Church of England doth embrace that as much as any Church whatsoever withall adds That when S. Augustine said I would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Catholick Church moved me some of your own will not endure should be understood save of the Church in the time of the Apostles only and some of the Church in general not excluding after Ages but sure to include Christ and his Apostles In your Answer to this you insult strangely over his Lordship in two things First That he should say Some and mention but one in his Margent 2. That that One doth not say what he cites out of him To the first I answer you might easily observe the use his Lordship makes of his Margent is not so much to bring clear and distinct proofs of what he writes in his Book but what hath some reference to what he there saies and therefore it was no absurdity for him to say in his Book indefinitely some and yet in his Margent only to mention Occham For when his Lordship writ that no doubt his mind was upon others who asserted the same thing though he did not load his Margent with them And that you may see I have reason for what I say I hope you will not suppose his Lordship unacquainted with the Testimonies of those of your side who do in terms assert this That I may therefore free you from all kind of suspicion What think you of Gerson when speaking of the greater Authority of the Primitive Church than of the present he adds And by this means we come to understand what S. Augustine said I would not believe the Gospel c. For there saith he he takes the Church for the Primitive Congregation of Believers who saw and heard Christ and were witnesses of what he did Is not this Testimony plain enough for you But besides this we have another as evident in whom are those very words which his Lordship by a lapse of memory attributes to Occham For Durandus plainly sayes That for what concerns the approbation of Scripture by the Church it is understood only of the Church which was in the Apostles times who were filled with the Holy Spirit and withall saw the Miracles of Christ and heard his Doctrine and on that account were convenient witnesses of all which Christ did or taught that by their Testimony the Scripture containing the actions and speeches of Christ might receive approbation Do you yet desire a Testimony more express and full than this is of one who doth understand the Church exclusively of all successive to the Apostles when he had just before produced that known Testimony of S. Augustine You see then the Bishop had some reason to say Some of your Church asserted this to be S. Augustine 's meaning and therefore your Instances of some where but one is meant are both impertinent and scurrilous For where it is evidently known there was but one it were a Soloecism to say some as to say that some of the Apostles betrayed Christ when it is known that none but Judas did it But if I should say that some Jesuits had writ for the killing of Kings and in the Margent should cite Mariana no person conversant in their writings would think it a Soloecism for though I produce him for a remarkable Instance yet that doth not imply that I have none else to produce but only that the mentioning of one might shew I was not without proof of what I said For your impudent oblique slander on the memory of that excellent Prelate Arch-Bishop Cranmer when you say If a Catholick to disgrace the Protestant Primacy of Canterbury should say Some of them carried a holy Sister lockt up in a Chest about with them and name Cranmer only in the Margent His memory is infinitely above your slyest detractions and withall when you are about such a piece of Criticism I pray tell me what doth some of them relate to Is Primacy the name of some men Just as if one should disgrace the See of Rome and say Some of them have been Atheists Magicians debauched c. Though I confess it were a great injury in this case to cite but one in the Margent unless in pity to the Reader yet you may sooner vindicate some of them from a Soloecism in Language when the See of Rome went before than any of them from those Soloecisms in manners which your own Authours have complained of But say you What if this singular-plural say no such thing as the words alledged by the Bishop signifie I have already granted it to have been a very venial mistake of memory in his Lordship of Occham for Durandus in whom those very words are which are in the Margent of his Lordships Book as appears in the Testimony already produced I acknowledge therefore that Occham in that place of his Dialogues doth speak
of the Sun doth on the organs of sight and therefore that common speech that Light doth discover it self as well as other things is in this sense improperly applied to the Understanding for whatever is discovered to the mind in a discursive manner as all Objects of Faith are must have some antecedent evidence to it self which must be the ground of the act of assent That therefore which is called the Divine Light of Scripture is I suppose that rational evidence which is contained in the Books of Scripture whereby any reasonable man may be perswaded that these Books are of Divine Authority Now that herein I say nothing beyond or besides his Lordships meaning and intention will appear by his own discourse on this subject For 1. His Lordship designedly disproves that Opinion that Scripture should be fully and sufficiently known as by Divine and Infallible Testimony lumine proprio by the resplendency of that Light which it hath in it self only and by the witness that it can so give to it self Because as there is no place in Scripture that tells us such Books containing such and such particulars are the Canon and Infallible Will of God so if there were any such place that could be no sufficient proof for a man may justly ask another Book to bear witness to that and so in infinitum Again this inbred Light of Scripture is a thing coincident with Scripture it self and so the Principles and the Conclusion in this kind of proof should be entirely the same which cannot be Besides if this inward Light were so clear how could there have been any variety among the ancient Believers touching the authority of S. James and S. Judes Epistles and the Apocalypse c. For certainly the Light which is in the Scripture was the same then which now it is On these reasons then we see his Lordship not only disclaims but disproves such knowing the Scripture meerly by the Light within Two things then I hence inferr which will be very necessary to clear his Lordships meaning 1. That he no where attributes such an inward Light to Scripture that by it self it can discover that these Books are from God 2. That where his Lordship mentions this Light most he supposeth Tradition antecedent to it as appears by his whole discourse From whence I gather this to have been the plainest account of his way of resolving Faith as I have already intimated viz. that the resolution of Faith may be considered two waies into the Books and into the Doctrine contained in them The resolution into the Books must of necessity suppose Tradition and rely upon it and this kind of resolution of Faith cannot be into any self-evidence or internal Light but supposing the Books owned on the account of Tradition if the Question be concerning the Divinity of the Doctrine then he asserts that the resolution of this is into the Divine Light of Scripture i. e. into that rational evidence which we find of the Divinity of it in these Books which are owned on the account of Tradition And that this is his Lordships meaning appears 2. By his own Testimony who was best able to explain himself for when he goes about to confirm his Opinion by the Testimonies of the Fathers he tells us This was the way which the ancient Church ever used namely Tradition or Ecclesiastical Authority first and then all other arguments but especially internal from the Scripture it self And for this first instanceth in S. Augustine who saith he gives four proofs all internal to the Scripture it self which are First The Miracles Secondly That there is nothing carnal in the Doctrine Thirdly Fulfilling of Prophecies Fourthly The efficacy of it for conversion of the world All these we see he instanceth in as internal arguments and therefore make up that which he calls Divine Light So that all that he means by this Light of Scripture is only that rational evidence of the Divinity of the Doctrine which may be discovered in it or deduced from it Having thus explained his Lordships meaning it will be no matter of difficulty to return an Answer to the particulars by you alledged 1. You say That when Scripture is said to be a Light by the Royal Prophet it is to be understood in this sense Because after we have once received it from the infallible Authority of the Church it teacheth what we are to do and believe But 1. Doth not the Scripture sufficiently teach what we are to do and believe supposing it not received on the infallible Authority of the Church doth that add any thing to the Light of Scripture Or do you suppose the necessity of infallibly believing it on the Churches Authority before one can discern what it teacheth us to do and believe 2. What ground have you in the least to imagine that David ever believed the Scripture on the infallible authority of the Church That he doth suppose it to be Gods Word when he saith It is a Light to his feet I deny not but that he should suppose it to be so because the Church did infallibly tell him it was so is a most ungrounded Assertion Had he not sufficient evidence that the Law was from God by those many unquestionable and stupendous Miracles which attended the delivery of it Was not the whole constitution and government of the Jewish Nation an impregnable argument that those things were true which were recorded in their Books Did ever the Jewish Sanhedrin High Priest or others arrogate to themselves any infallible Testimony in delivering the Books of Moses to the people The most you can suppose of a ground of certainty among them was from that Sacred Record of the Book of the Law which was kept in the Ark And how could they know that was Authentick but from the same Tradition which conveyed the Miracles of Moses to them So that nothing like any infallible Authority of a Church was looked on by them as necessary to believe the Law to have been from God 3. Supposing it from tradition unquestionable that the Law was from God those incomparable directions which were in it might be a great confirmation to David's Faith that it was his Word Which is that he intends in these words Thy Word is a light to my feet c. to shew that excellency and perspicuity which was in his Word that it gave him the best directions for ordering his conversation And this is all which his Lordship means that to those who by the advantage of Tradition have already venerable thoughts of Scripture the serious conversing with it doth highly advance them and establish their belief of it as that Faith is thereby clinched which was driven in by education And therefore when he saith That Light discovers its self as well as other things he presently adds not till there hath been a preparing instruction what Light it is Thus he saith the Tradition of the Church is the first moral motive
on other grounds is gratis dictum unless you can prove from the Fathers that they did believe the Scriptures infallibly on other grounds Which when you shall think fit to attempt I make no question to answer but in the mean time to a crude assertion it is enough to oppose a bare denyal Your following absurdities concerning the private Spirit infallible assurance Apostolical tradition have been frequently examin'd already Only what you say that you read esteem nay very highly reverence the Scripture is but Protestatio contra factum as may appear by your former expressions and therefore can have no force at all with wise men who judge by things and not by bare words 3. You say That if there were such sufficient light in Scripture to shew it self you should see it as well as we seeing you read it as diligently and esteem it as highly as we do What! You esteem the Scripture as highly as we who say that the Scripture appears no more of it self to be Gods Word than distinction of colours to a blind man You who but in the page before had said there was no more light in Scripture to discover it self than in Seneca Plutarch Aristotle nay as to some things than the Talmud and Alcoran You who say that notwithstanding the Scriptures Christ would have been esteemed an Ignoramus and Impostor if your Church be not Infallible Are you the man who esteem as highly of the Scriptures as we do May we not therefore justly return you your own language and say that if you do not see this light in Scripture it is because your eyes are perverse your understanding unsanctified which instead of discovering such Divine light in Scripture as to make you love and adore it can have the confidence to utter such expressions which tend so highly to the disparagement of it But did not his Lordship give before a sufficient answer to this objection by saying 1. That the light is sufficient in it self but it doth not follow that it must be evident to every one that looks into it for the blindness or perversness of mens minds may keep them from the discovery of it 2. He saith This light is not so full a light as that of the first Principles as that the whole is greater than the part that the same thing cannot be and not be at the same time And yet such is your sincerity you would seem at first to perswade the Reader of the contrary in your next Paragraph but at last you grant that he denies it to be evidently known as one of the Principles of the first sort For you with your wonted subtilty distinguish Principles known of themselves into such as are either evidently and such as are probably known of themselves i. e. Principles known of themselves are either such as are known of themselves or such as are not for what is but probably known is not certainly known of it self but by that probable argument which causeth assent to it But when you deny that the Scripture is so much as one of the second sort of principles and say expresly That of it self it appears not so much as probably to be more the Word of God than some other Book that is not truly such were you not so used to Contradictions I would desire you to reconcile this expression with what you said a little before of your high Esteem and Reverence of the Scriptures 3. The Bishop saith That when he speaks of this light in Scripture he only means it of such a light as is of force to breed Faith that it is the Word of God not to make a perfect knowledge Now Faith of whatsoever it is this or other principle is an evidence as well as knowledge and the belief is firmer than any knowledge can be because it rests upon Divine authority which cannot deceive whereas knowledge or at least he that thinks he knows is not ever certain in deductions from Principles but the Evidence is not so clear Now God doth not require a full demonstrative knowledge in us that the Scripture is his Word and therefore in his Providence hath kindled in it no light for that but he requires our Faith of it and such a certain demonstration as may fit that Now what answer do you return to all this Why forsooth We must have certainty nay an Infallible certainty nay such an Infallible certainty as is built on the Infallible Authority of the Church yet such an Infallible Authority as can be proved only by motives of credibility which is a new kind of Climax in Rhetorick viz. a ladder standing with both ends upon ground at the same time All the answer I shall therefore now give it is that your Faith then is certain Infallibly certain and yet built on but probable motives and therefore on your own principles must be also uncertain very uncertain nay undoubtedly and Infallibly uncertain What again follows concerning Canonical Books and the private Spirit I must send them as Constables do vagrants to the place from whence they came and there they shall meet with a sufficient Answer The remainder of this Chapter consists of a tedious vindication of Bellarmine and Brierely which being of little consequence to the main business I shall return the shorter answer I shall not quarrel much with you about the interpretation of those words of Bellarmine in the sense you give them viz. if they be understood of absolute necessity not of all Christians and only in rare cases that it is not necessary to believe that there is Scripture on supposition that the Doctrine of Scripture could be sufficiently conveyed to the minds of any without it as in the case of the Barbarous Nations mentioned by Irenaeus But for you who make the tradition of the present Church Infallible and at the least the Infallible conveyer of the formal object of Faith I do not see how you can avoid making it as absolutely necessary to be believed as any other object of Faith unless your Church hath some other way of conveying objects of Faith than by propounding the Scripture infallibly to us If therefore men are bound to believe things absolutely necessary to salvation because contained in that Book which the Church delivers to be the Infallible Word of God I cannot possibly see but the belief of the Scripture on the Churches Infallible Testimony must be as necessary necessitate medii as any thing contained in it As for the Citation of Hooker by Brierely Whether it be falsified or no will best be seen by producing the scope and design of that worthy Authour in the Testimonies cited out of him Upon an impartial view of which in the several places referred to I cannot but say that if Brierely's design was to shew that Hooker made the authority of the Church that into which Faith is lastly resolved he doth evidently contradict Mr. Hookers design and is therefore guilty of unfaithful
representing his meaning For where he doth most fully and largely express himself he useth these words which for clearing his meaning must be fully produced Scripture teacheth all supernaturally revealed truth without the knowledge whereof salvation cannot be attained The main principle whereon the belief of all things therein contained dependeth is that the Scriptures are the Oracles of God himself This in it self we cannot say is evident For then all men that hear it would acknowledge it in heart as they do when they hear that every whole is more than any part of that whole because this in it self is evident The other we know that all do not acknowledge it when they hear it There must be therefore some former knowledge presupposed which doth herein assure the hearts of all believers Scripture teacheth us that saving truth which God hath discovered to the world by Revelation and it presumeth us taught otherwise that it self is Divine and Sacred The question then being by what means we are taught this some answer That to learn it we have no other way then only Tradition As namely that so we believe because both we from our predecessours and they from theirs have so received But is this enough That which all mens experience teacheth them may not in any wise be denyed And by experience we all know that the first Motive leading men so to esteem of the Scripture is the Authority of Gods Church For when we know the whole Church of God hath that opinion of the Scripture we judge it even at the first an impudent thing for any man bred and brought up in the Church to be of a contrary mind without cause Afterwards the more we bestow our labour in reading or hearing the mysteries thereof the more we find that the thing it self doth answer our receiv'd opinion concerning it So that the former inducement prevailing somewhat with us before doth now much more prevail when the very thing hath ministred farther reason Can any thing be more plain if mens meaning may be gathered from their words especially when purposely they treat of a subject than that Hooker makes the Authority of the Church the primary inducement to Faith and that rational evidence which discovers it self in the Doctrine revealed to be that which it is finally resolved into For as his Lordship saith on this very place of Hooker The resolution of Faith ever settles upon the farthest reason it can not upon the first inducement By this place then where this worthy Authour most clearly and fully delivers his judgement we ought in reason to interpret all other occasional and incidental passages on the same subject So in that other place For whatsoever we believe concerning salvation by Christ although the Scripture be therein the ground of our belief yet the authority of man is if we mark it the key which openeth the door of entrance into the knowledge of the Scriptures I will not dispute whether here he speaks concerning the knowledge of Scripture to be Scripture or concerning the natural sense and meaning of Scripture suppose I should grant you the latter it would make little for your purpose for when he adds The Scripture doth not teach us the things that are of God unless we did credit men who have taught us that the words of Scripture do signifie those things You need not here bid us stay a while For his sense is plain and obvious viz. that men cannot come to the natural sense and importance of the words used in Scripture unless they rely on the authority of men for the signification of those words He speaks not here then at all concerning Church-Tradition properly taken but meerly of the authority of man which he contends must in many cases be relyed on particularly in that of the sense and meaning of the words which occurr in Scripture Therefore with his Lordships leave and yours too I do not think that in this place Hooker by the authority of man doth understand Church-Tradition but if I may so call it Humane-Tradition viz. that which acquainteth us with the force and signification of words in use When therefore you prove that it is Tradition only which is all the ground he puts of believing Scripture to be the Word of God from those words of his That utterly to infringe the force and strength of mans testimony were to shake the very Fortress of Gods truth Now say you How can that Fortress the Scripture be shaken were not that authority esteemed by him the ground of that Fortress That may very easily be shewn viz. by calling in question the truth of humane testimony in general for he plainly speaks of such a kind of humane testimony as that is whereby we know there is such a City as Rome that such and such were Popes of Rome wherein the ground of our perswasion can be nothing else but humane testimony now take away the credit and validity of this testimony the very Fortress of truth must needs be shaken for we could never be certain that there were such persons as Moses the Prophets Christ and his Apostles in the world we could never be certain of the meaning of any thing written by them But how farr is this from the final resolution of Faith into Church-Tradition But the place you lay the greatest force on is that which you first cite out of him Finally we all believe that the Scriptures of God are sacred and that they have proceeded from God our selves we assure that we do right well in so believing We have for this a demonstration sound and Infallible But it is not the Word of God which doth or can possibly assure us that we do well to think it his Word From hence you inferr That either he must settle no Infallible ground at all or must say that the Tradition of the Church is that ground No Infallible ground in your sense I grant it but well enough in his own for all the difficulty lies in understanding what he means by Infallible which he takes not in your sense for a supernatural but only for a rational Infallibility not such a one as excludes possibility of deception but all reasonable doubting In which sense he saith of such things as are capable only of moral certainty That the Testimony of man will stand as a ground of Infallible assurance and presently instanceth in these That there is such a City of Rome that Pius 5. was Pope there c. So afterwards he saith That the mind of man desireth evermore to know the truth according to the most Infallible certainty which the nature of things can yield by which it is plain that the utmost certainty which things are capable of is with him Infallible certainty and so a sound and Infallible ground of Faith is a certain ground which we all assert may be had without your Churches Infallible Testimony Whether therefore Brierely and you are not guilty if
in case any Priest should be to seek as to any Ceremonial Cause as that of Leprosie brought before him he was to take advice of the Court of the Triumvirate where he lived if that did not agree then he was to appeal to the lesser Sanhedrin of 23. in the neighbour-City if there it could not be ended to the Sanhedrin of 23. at the entrance of the Mount of the Temple if not there neither then appeal was made to the Great Sanhedrin whose sentence was final and peremptory and was instead of a Law in the Case 2. You are greatly mistaken in supposing that all this is spoken of the High Priest and his Clergy I deny not but express mention is made of the Priests and Levites as those who were supposed most acquainted with all matters of difference which should happen among them and therefore were probably the greatest part of the great Sanhedrin for it is a groundless fancy to suppose two distinct Courts the one Civil and the other Ecclesiastical among the Jews Nay the High Priest himself was so far from being the constant President of this Court that if we believe the Tradition of the Jews he was not admitted to sit there without the same previous examination and tryal which others underwent Indeed in the decay of the Jewish Polity in the time of the Assomanean Family the chief Civil Power was in the hands of the High Priest on which account he might then preside in the Sanhedrin but that is nothing to this place where mention is made vers 9. of the Priests and Levites and then of the Judge which is in case God should raise up among them an extraordinary person who should be Judge over Israel then the appeals might be to him but otherwise v. 10. they were to do according to the sentence which they of that place which the Lord shall chuse shall shew thee which was the great Sanhedrin According therefore to the sentence of this Court whether pronounced by a Priest or other they were to act and they that refused were punished with death 3. Whoever the persons were who gave this Sentence yet it was not looked on as Infallible for it is not said Whosoever doth not believe the judgement given to be infallibly true but whosoever acts contumaciously in opposition to it And the man that will do presumptuously and will not hearken unto the Priest or unto the Judge even that man shall dye Besides we are so far from reading of any promise of Infallibility made to the High Priest and his Clergy or to the Sanhedrin that God himself doth suppose a possibility of errour in the whole Congregation of Israel Levit. 4.15 And all along the Books of the Prophets we see how much God chargeth the Priests with Ignorance and forsaking his way And I pray Where was that Infallibility of the High Priest and his Clergy not only when our blessed Saviour was condemned by him and the Sanhedrin both but in that time when Israel for a long season had been without the True God and without a Teaching Priest and without Law So that we see what very little relief you have out of this place for the Infallibility of the High Priest and his Clergy But suppose we should grant them Infallible and that Infallibility proved from this place What is that to us Might not you as well challenge the Oracular Responses by Vrim and Thummim to belong to you as the High Priests Infallibility supposing he had any If God thought it fit to make them Infallible and gave such express command concerning obedience and submission to their judgement Is it not very reasonable to think that under the Gospel there should be express mention made of the subject of this Infallibility the place whither we should resort for final judgements as there is here Nay had it not been far more necessary to have specified and determined these circumstances since they are of such vast importance for the peace of the Christian world How easily had all our debates been ended if God had said any where in the New Testament When any Controversie of Faith ariseth go to the place which I shall chuse viz. Rome and there enquire the Judgement of the Bishop that shall sit there and whatever he determines that believe as infallibly true if we had met with any thing so express nay that had any seeming tendency this way How readily should we submit our Controversies to his determination But when there is so little ground or foundation for it there that you are fain to deduce your Infallibility from Gods settling a Court of Appeals among the Jews Can you think that we are presumptuous and deserve to be cut off if we do not believe For for all that I know you may challenge the sanction of the Law as well as the Priviledge of it and your former practises would perswade us that you believe the Sanction to be as valid as the other But say you the infinite dissentions and divisions among those that deny it make this necessary 1. I pray Doth your pretence of Infallibility put an end to all your divisions Nay Are there not many among your selves raised meerly on the account of this Infallibility Have not many among you grown so weary of it that they have wished the name had never been mentioned Are not others so ashamed of the thred-bare impertinent places of Scripture commonly produced that they have ventured the censure of your Church for disowning them and have sheltered themselves under the Infallibility of Vniversal Tradition Have not some ingenuously confessed that there is no avoiding the circle on the common grounds Are those no differences at all concerning the subject of Infallibility and the Superiority of Pope and Council Happy men that have so many coincident distinctions and such agreeing differences 2. Were there not dissentions and divisions in the Apostles times And had it not been think you much better for the Apostle instead of saying There must be heresies or divisions among you that they which are approved may be made manifest have told them There must be an Infallible Judge among you that there may be no heresies or divisions If you had been at his Elbow what prudent advise you would have given S. Paul for ending all the divisions in the Corinthian Colossian Galatian Churches c You must have told him that it was to very little purpose to wooe them by the many arguments he useth to exhort them so often to unity and chide them as carnal while they had dissentions when one word of an Infallible Judge had ended all of them But poor S. Paul knew of no such thing which made him give as good counsels as the Spirit of God directed him to but alas they were but sorry things in comparison of an Infallible Judge Give us leave therefore to reckon our selves among those Primitive Christians who knew no more than we of any such way to
of Infallibility What follows concerning the Jesuits pretence of Infallibility to themselves proved by his Lordship from the words of the Apologist to whom Casaubon replies in his Epistle to Fronto Ducaeus which are these Let day and night life and death be joyned together and then there will be some hope that Heresie may fall upon the person of a Jesuite is very well worth the observing were it only for that rare and incomparable answer which you make to them In which it is hard to guess whether your ingenuity or your wit surpass the other Rabbi Casaubon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must help him out An Apologist saith Casaubon averres 't is impossible for a Jesuite to err Who is this Anonymus Apologist A Jesuite or a Minister for an Apologist and a Jesuite are no more convertible terms than a Jesuite and a Minister How shall we know then whether this nameless Apologist was a Jesuite or a Minister personating a Jesuite The Gospel will tell us Ex fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos O rare Drollery doth this pass for wit at Rome or must we think you speak these words in good earnest If so your Ignorance is more then ordinary in these matters For to pass by your unworthy reflection on that excellent person Isaac Casaubon whose memory is as farr above your detraction as his learning beyond your reach and to let go your scurrilous Greek Proverb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which some will tell you was Greek for a Jesuite are you really so Ignorant that you did not know whether the Apologist whose words are cited were a Jesuite or a Minister What not he who professedly undertakes the Vindication of the Jesuites not he who was so seriously recommended by Fronto Ducaeus a Jesuite himself not he who industriously vindicates Ribadeneira Scribanius Emanuel Sa Bellarmin and others in their doctrine which doth most reflect on the Power and Authority of Princes not he who extolls Father Garnet who was executed in England for the Gunpowder-treason yet for all this not he known to be a Jesuite Are you yet to seek Apply but your own rule of the Gospel to what is said already and by those fruits you cannot but know him to be a Jesuite But now notwithstanding the sufficient answers which have been so often given to the places produced for the proof of the Churches Infallibility out of Scripture You thought it no needless trouble in A. C. to mention them and much less in your self to vindicate them from the Bishops Interpretation The places are Luk. 10.16 He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me Matth. 28.20 I am with you alwaies to the end of the world Joh. 14.16 The Comforter the Holy Ghost shall abide with you for ever That which you would inferr from these places is That an Infallible assistance is promised to the Church in all ages not in its diffusive sense but representative viz. in the Pastors and Doctors assembled in Council The substance of his Lordships answer to these places is in these words These promises were made of continual presence and assistance that I grant and they were made to the Apostles and their Successors that I grant too but in a different degree For it was of continual and Infallible assistance to the Apostles but to their Successors of continual and fitting assistance but not Infallible To this you return no answer in general but endeavour to evince the contrary from the particular places by disproving his Interpretations of them To the first therefore Luk. 10.16 He that heareth you heareth me c. His Lordship answers That this was absolutely true in the Apostles who kept themselves to that which was revealed by Christ but it was to be but conditionally true in their Successors i. e. so long and so farr as you speak my words and not your own For where the command is for Preaching the Restraint is added Go saith Christ and teach all Nations but you may not Preach all things that you please but all things which I have commanded you The publication is yours the Doctrine is mine and where the Doctrine is not mine there your publication is beyond or short of your commission To this you reply That this is rather to pervert our Saviours words than to Interpret them is manifest And the reason you give is Because a Sectary who denies the Apostles Infallibility as well as the Churches might apply this restraint to the Apostles themselves as well as he now applies it to their Successors But they are strange kind of Sectaries indeed who deny the Apostles Infallibility and my memory doth not serve me with any such who asserted Christs Infallibility and denyed the Apostles but if there be any such Sectaries let us know them that we may then say There are some in the world who believe great absurdities as well as you However let us for the present take this for a supposition that any men might do so whether then they might not say the Apostles were only Infallible when they spake Christs words and not their own i. e. delivered his Doctrine and not any other No doubt they might and said very well in it too And if these be the Sectaries you mean I am one of them my self For I believe the Apostles were no further Infallible then as they delivered Christs Doctrine to the world and I suppose there are many such Sectaries besides my self But all the difference then between the Apostles and their Successors was this that those who heard the Apostles Doctrine had ground to believe them Infallible in what they delivered for Christs Doctrine but we have no ground to believe so of any Church since the Apostles times that it is Infallible in delivering the Doctrine of Christ to others The promise then of Infallible assistance as made to the Apostles doth imply that Gods Spirit would be so with them that they should deliver nothing for the revealed will of God or the Doctrine of Christ but what was really and truly so And if you can from this or any other place prove such an Infallible assistance to the Church of all ages you do something but not otherwise But for this particular place He that heareth you heareth me I have something more yet to say which may manifest how wholly impertinent it is to your purpose 1. It seems to me very questionable whether any such thing as Infallibility be at all implyed in this place and then certainly from hence you cannot inferr a successive Infallibility in the Church And the reasons why I question it are 1. The Apostles themselves had not that continual Infallible assistance of the Spirit of God till after Christs Ascension when the promise of Christs sending his Spirit upon them was remarkably accomplished Will you say then they had Infallible assistance by the Spirit before the promise of that Infallible assistance was made to them If then the Apostles
of all his goods And when he speaks of the Doctrine it self of Christianity he saies It is suitable to whatever was rational among the Platonists or other Philosophers but far more agreeable to it self and containing much more excellent things than ever they could attain to the knowledge of In his second Apology for the Christians to the Emperour Antoninus Pius he insists much on the excellency of the Doâ—trine of Christianity from the Precepts of it chastity love of enemies liberality submission to authority worship of God c. Afterwards he proves the truth and certainty of all we believe concerning Christ from the exact accomplishment of the Prophecies made concerning him in the Old Testament which discourse he ends with this saying So many and so great things being seen are sufficient to perswade men to believe the truth of them who are lovers of truth and not seekers of applause and under the command of passions Thus we see in all his discourses where he had the most occasion administred to him to discover the most certain grounds of Christian Faith he resolves all into the rational evidence of the truth excellency and divinity of the Doctrine which was contained in the Scriptures For in his second Oration to the Greeks after he had spoken highly in commendation of the Scripture calling it The best expeller of all turbulent passions and the surest extinguisher of those preternatural heats in the souls of men which saith he makes men not Poets nor Philosophers nor Orators but it makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dying men immortal and mortals become gods and transferrs them from the earth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to such places whose confines are far above Olympus therefore O ye Greeks come and be instructed be ye as I am for I was as you are And these were the things which prevailed with me the divine power and efficacy of the Doctrine What was it then I pray that Justin Martyr of a Philosopher becoming a Christian resolved his Faith into If we may believe himself it was into the evidence of the Doctrine of Christianity and not into the Infallibility of any Church The Testimony of this person I have the more largely insisted on both because he was so great a Philosopher as well as Christian and lived so near the Apostolical times Next him we produce Athenagoras as a Philosopher too as well as Christian who flourished under Antoninus and Commodus to whom he made his Apology in behalf of the Christians in which he first undertakes to manifest the reasonableness of the Doctrine which they owned the Foundation of it being the same with that which the best Philosophers acknowledged the existence and unity of the Deity But saith he if we had nothing but such reasons as he had produced our perswasion could only be humane but the words of the Prophets are they which establish our minds who being carried beyond themselves by the impulse of the Divine Spirit spake that which they were moved to when the Spirit used them as Instruments through which he spake Is not here a plain resolution of Faith into that Divine Authority by which the Prophets spake and that not as testified by any Infallible Church but as it was discernable by those persons he spake to for he appeals to the Emperours themselves concerning it which had been a fond and absurd thing for him to do if the knowledge of that Divine Inspiration did depend meerly on the testimony of Christians as such and were not to be discovered by some common Principles to them and others Much to the same purpose Tatianus speaks in that eloquent Oration of his against the Greeks who was Justin Martyrs Scholar and we shall see how agreeably he speaks to him in the account he gives how he became a Christian. After saith he he had abundantly discovered the vanity of the Theology and Superstitions of the Greeks he fell to the reading some strange Books much elder and more Divine than the Writings of the Greek Philosophers And to these saith he I yielded up my Faith for the great simplicity and plainness of the style and the freedom from affectation which was in the writers and that evidence and perspicuity which was in all they writ and because they foretold things to come made excellent promises and manifestly declared the Monarchy of the World What Protestant could speak higher of the Scripture and of those internal arguments which are the grounds of Faith than Tatianus in these words doth Yet we see these were the arguments which made him relinquish the Greek learning of which he was a Professor at Rome and betake himself to the profession of Christianity though he was sure to undergo not only contempt from the world but to be in continual hazard of his life by it That innate simplicity of the writings of the Scripture joyned with the perspicuity of it if at least those words be rightly translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by sermo nusquam obscurus and it doth not rather relate to the account of the worlds creation which I conjecture it may do but however the certainty of the predictions the excellency of the promises and the reasonableness of the Doctrine were the things which by the reading of the Books he was perswaded to believe them by But all this while we hear no news of any Churches Infallibility in order to Faith We come therefore to Irenaeus who was omnium doctrinarum curioâ—â—ssimus explorator as Tertullian speaks of him a great searcher into all kind of learning and therefore surely not to seek as to the true account of his Faith Whose judgement herein although we have had occasion to enquire into before yet we have testimonies enough beside to manifest his consent with them And although Irenaeus of all the ancient Fathers be looked on as the most favourable to Tradition and is most cited to that purpose in these disputes yet I doubt not but to make it appear that where he speaks most concerning Tradition he makes the resolution of Faith to be wholly and entirely into the Scripture and they who apprehend otherwise do either take the citations out of him upon trust or else only search him for the words of those citations and never take the pains to enquire into the scope and design of his discourse For clearing which we must consider what the subject was which he writ of what the plea's of the adverse party were what way Irenaeus takes to confute them and to establish the Faith of Christians as to the matter which was in Controversie The matter in dispute was this Valentinus and his Scholars not being contented with the simplicity of the Doctrine of the Gospel and in probability the better to suit their opinions to the Heathen Mythology had invented a strange Pedigree of Gods the better as they pretended to give an account of the production of things and the various dispensations
breaches so farr from closing that supposing the same grounds to continue a reconciliation seems to humane reason impossible An evidence of which is that those persons who either out of a generous desire of seeing the wounds of the Christian world healed or out of some private interest or design have made it their business to propound terms of reconciliation between the divided parties have been equally rejected by those parties they have professed themselves the members of For whether any of the Roman Communion have ingenuously confessed the great corruptions crept into that Church and desired a reformation of them or any of the Protestant Communion have endeavoured to excuse palliate or plead for the corruptions of the Roman Church we find how little incouragement they have had for such undertakings from that Church whose Communion they have professed to retain The distance then being so great as it is it is a very necessary enquiry what the cause of it is and where the main fault lies and it being acknowledged that there is a possibility that corruptions may get into a Christian Church and it being impossible to prove that Christianity obligeth men to communicate with a Church in all those corruptions its Communion may be tainted with it seems evident to reason that the cause of the breach must lye there where the corruptions are owned and imposed as conditions of Communion For can any one imagine it should be a fault in any to keep off from Communion where they are so far from being obliged to it that they have an obligation to the contrary from the prinples of their common Christianity and where men are bound not to communicate it is impossible to prove their not communicating to be Schism For there can be no Schism but where there is an obligation to communion Schism being nothing else but a willful violation of the bonds of Christian Communion and therefore when ever you would prove the Protestants guilty of Schism you must do it by proving they were bound to communicate with your Church in those things which they are Protestants for disowning of Or that there is so absolute and unlimited an obligation to continue in the Society of your Church that no conditions can be so hard but we are bound rather to submit to them than not joyn in Communion with you But we who look on the nature of a Christian Society in general the Foundations of its constitution the ends and designs of it cannot think our selves obliged to Communion in those things which undermine those Foundations and contradict those ends This being a matter of so vast consequence in order to the settling mens minds in the present disputes of the Christian world before I come to particulars I shall lay down those general principles which may manifest how free Protestants are from all imputation of Schism Schism then importing a violation of that Communion which we are obliged to the most natural way for understanding what Schism is is to enquire what the Foundations are of Christian Communion and how far the bonds of it do extend Now the Foundations of Christian Communion in general depend upon the acknowledgement of the truth of Christian Religion For that Religion which Christ came to deliver to the world being supposed true is the reason why any look on themselves as obliged to profess it which obligation extending to all persons who have the same grounds to believe the truth of it thence ariseth the ground of Society in this profession which is a common obligation on several persons joyning together in some acts of common concernment to them The truth then of Christian Religion being acknowledged by several persons they find in this Religion some actions which are to be performed by several persons in Society with each other From whence ariseth that more immediate obligation to Christian Society in all those who profess themselves Christians and the whole number of these who own the truth of Christian Religion and are thereby obliged to joyn in Society with each other is that which we call the Catholick Church But although there be such a relation to each other in all Christians as to make them one common Society yet for the performance of particular acts of communion there must be lesser Societies wherein persons may joyn together in the actions belonging to them But still the obligation to communion in these lesser is the same with that which constitutes the great body of Christians which is the owning Christianity as the only true Religion and way to eternal Happiness And therefore those lesser Societies cannot in justice make the necessary conditions of communion narrower than those which belong to the Catholick Church i. e. those things which declare men Christians ought to capacitate them for communion with Christians But here we are to consider that as to be a Christian supposeth mens owning the Christian Religion to be true so the conveyance of that Religion being to us now in those Books we call the Scriptures there must be an acknowledgement of them as the indispensable rule of Faith and manners which is That these Books are the great Charter of the Christian Society according to which it must be governed These things being premised as the foundation in general of Christian Society we shall the better understand how far the obligation to communion in it doth extend For which it must be considered that the grounds of continuance in Communion must be suitable and proportionable to the first reason of entering into it No man being obliged by vertue of his being in a Society to agree in any thing which tends to the apparent ruine of that Society but he is obliged to the contrary from the general grounds of his first admission into it His primary obligation being to preserve the honour and interest of it and to joyn in acts of it so far as they tend to it Now the main end of the Christian Society being the promotion of Gods honour and the salvation of mens souls the primary obligation of men entering into it is the advancement of these ends to joyn in all acts of it so far as they tend to these ends but if any thing come to be required directly repugnant to these ends those men of whom such things are required are bound not to communicate in those lesser Societies where such things are imposed but to preserve their communion with the Catholick Society of Christians But these general discourses seeming more obscure it will be necessary for the better subserviency of them to our design to deduce them into particulars Setting then aside the Catholick Society of Christians we come to enquire how far men are bound to communicate with any lesser Society how extensive so ever it may pretend its communion to be 1. There is no Society of Christians of any one Communion but may impose some things to be believed or practised which may be repugnant to the
Church i. e. who consent not in all things with the See Apostolick But lest these words being thus inserted by the Pope himself should be interpreted to the disadvantage of other Churches and particularly that of Constantinople The Patriarch makes a Preface to that Subscription by way of Protestation wherein after declaring the reception of the Popes letters and congratulating the hopes of Vnion he manifests his own desire of peace and his willingness to refuse the communion of all Hereticks For saith he I look on those most holy Churches of your elder and our new Rome as both making but one Church And after declaring his assent to the decrees of the four General Councils he adds That those who opposed them he judged fallen off à Sanct â Dei generali Apostolicâ Ecclesiâ from the holy Catholick and Apostolick Church Now when the Patriarch was thus careful to explain himself so as to assert that the Church of Rome and that of Constantinople made but one Church when he adds what he means by the Catholick Church viz. the truely General and Apostolical Church inferr as much from Hormisda's words as you will I am sure you can do little to your purpose from the Patriarchs taking them in the sense he explains himself in by this Protestation So that the meaning of them is only this that as he judged the Church of Rome a member of the Catholick Church whose Vnity required that those who were out of communion in one Church should be so with the rest so he consented to acknowledge them justly excommunicated whom the Church of Rome would have to be so So that hence nothing ariseth to your purpose more then will equally advance the authority of any other particular Church whose excommunications did oblige the whole Church as we have seen already in the case of Sinope and Ptolemais You proceed to another Testimony of St. Austin addressing himself to the Donatists telling them That the succession of the Roman Bishops is the rock which the proud gates of Hell overcome not thereby insinuating that the very succession of those Bishops is in some true sense the Catholick Church But from whence doth it appear that the succession of the Roman Bishops is the Rock here spoken of For St. Austin was there arguing against the Donatists and shewing them the danger of being separated from the unity of the Catholick Church that if they were cut off from the vine they would wither and be in danger to be cast into the fire and therefore exhorts them to come and be planted into the vine it being a grief to them to see them cut off Now in order to this he brings in the former words to acquaint them with the way whereby they might better understand the Catholick Church which could not in reason be confined to their own age but must be derived from the Apostles So that his counsel is of the same nature with that of Tertullian and Irenaeus who put men upon a diligent search into the successions of the Apostolical Churches But now when by this search they have found out the Catholick Church he tells them That is the Rock which the proud gates of hell cannot overcome For so elsewhere St. Austin calls the Catholick Church a Rock as he calls it likewise a House and a City in several places of these disputations against the Donatists As here before he calls it the Vine from whence all who are cut off wither and dye But what is all this to the particular Church of Rome which none of the Disputes with the Donatists at all concerned As is fully manifest from the whole management of that Controversie in which though he was so much put upon shewing what and where the Catholick Church was yet he never once expressed any such thing as that the Church was called Catholick from any relation to the Church of Rome but still mentions it as a particular Church which with other Churches made up one Catholick Church So in his Commentaries on the 44. Psalm Behold Rome saith he behold Carthage behold several other Cities these are Kings daughters and have delighted the King in his honour but they all make up but one Queen How incongruous had this expression been had St. Austin believed the Roman Church to be so much above all others that the ground why any others were called Catholick was from their union with her and therefore he must according to your principles have saluted the Church of Rome as the Queen of all the rest and made other particular Churches but as her daughters and hand-maids But St. Austin knew of no such difference but looked on all particular Churches whether at Rome Carthage or elsewhere as making up but one Catholick Church And to the same purpose he frequently speaks when he sayes That the Church is call'd One in regard of her Vnity and Many in regard from the several Societies of Christians abroad in the world When he calls the several Churches members of that one Church which is spread all over the world without setting any note of discrimination upon one above all the rest When he reckons the Roman Corinthian Galatian Ephesian Churches together and that all these and the Churches propagated from them do conspire in one Vniversal Church But the places are so many to this purpose in him that it would look too much like ostentation to offer to prove a matter so evident to all that read any thing in him And is it possible then for you to think That St. Austin made the succession of Bishops at Rome in any sense the Catholick Church You might as well say that he made the Church spread all over the world a particular Church as that he made any particular Church whether at Rome or elsewhere for he makes no difference to be in any sense the Vniversal Church But that which you seem to lay the greatest force on is the testimony of Optatus Milevitanus Who say you after he had said that St. Peter was head of all the Apostles and that he would have been a Schismatick who should have erected another chair against that singular one of St. Peter as also that in that chair of St. Peter being but one Vnity was to be kept by all he adds that with Syricius then Pope he himself was united in communion with whom the whole world saith he meaning the whole Catholick Church agrees by communicatory letters in one Society of communion See here say you how clearly he makes the union with the Bishop of Rome the measure of the Catholick Church which the Bishop calls a Jesuitism and further proves himself to be in the Catholick Church because he was in communion with the See of St. Peter For our better understanding the meaning of these words of Optatus we must consider the state of the Controversie between Optatus and Parmenianus by which it will appear how
very little these words of his make to your purpose The main question between the Catholicks and the Donatists was about the Catholick Church To whom it was that title did belong The difficulty seemed the greater because there was no difference between them in any matter of Faith or in the substance of the Sacraments and therefore they were fain to find out other means to decide this Controversie than by either of those two For which the Catholicks made choice of these two arguments Vniversality and Succession the former as agreeing with that large spread of the Church which was Prophesied to be in the times of the Gospel whereas the Donatists confined the Church to a Corner in Africa the latter in regard of the necessity of deriving themselves from the Apostolical Churches Now the Donatists denying any but themselves to be the Catholick Church the proof lay on their Adversaries part who upon all occasions offer to make it good That the Church from which the Donatists separated themselves was the only true and Catholick Church Accordingly Optatus having in the first book discussed the matters of fact about the rise of the Schism the ordinations of Cecilian and Majorinus and the proceedings used for the ending the Schism in this second Book he enters on the Controversie of the Church which Parmenianus would have to be only among themselves against which he urgeth first that then certainly the Church could not be called Catholick because it was so called from its large comprehension and universal spread Had Optatus believed the ground of the Churches being Catholick had been its union with the Church of Rome he would never have given that account of its being called so which here he doth After which he produceth many places of Scripture to prove the large extent of the Church and concludes That to be the Catholick Church which was diffused over all the world than which nothing can be more contrary to your pretensions who limit and confine the Catholick Church to your own party as the Donatists did And if those arguments then used against the Donatists had any force against them they have still as much against you who exclude so great and considerable Churches from being members of the Catholick Church because not of your communion From hence Optatus proceeds to examine Which had the better title to be the Catholick Church on the account of Succession and Parmenianus reckoning the Cathedra in the first of the dotes Ecclesiae Optatus begins with that by which is understood the lawful derivation of power for governing the Church so Albaspinaeus as well as others understands it Now the Controversie was where this Cathedra was Optatus proves there can be no lawful power but what is derived from the Apostles and therefore where the succession is plain and uninterrupted there and no where else can that Cathedra be Which Episcopal chair being first placed at Rome by St. Peter in which he as chief of the Apostles sate from whence he had his name Cephas in which one chair Vnity should be kept by all lest the other Apostles should set up others against it so that he must be a schismatick and offender who should place another chair against that Therefore in this one chair St. Peter sate first to whom succeeded Linus to him Clemens and so on to Syricius who joyns with us with whom the whole world communicates by the entercourse of formed letters Do you now give an account of your chair who challenge to your selves the name of the Holy Church To pass by that ridiculous account of the name Cephas which Baldwin supposes to be inserted into the text from some ignorant gloss made in the margin the main thing to be considered is the scope and design of these words in which he doth two things 1. He shews the evident succession of the Catholick Bishops from St. Peter in the Church of Rome which he doth by a distinct and particular enumeration of them 2. From thence shews the unlawfulness of setting up another chair in opposition to that i. e. pretending to another right of Government then what was conveyed down from the Apostles or setting up another chair in opposition to that of St. Peter at Rome i. e. that succession of Bishops which was derived from him Now saith he God providing for the unity of the Church intended there should be but one chair in a place i. e. that the several Apostles should not in the same place set up a distinct Cathedra or succession of Church-Governours and therefore though St. Paul as well as St. Peter were instrumental in the settling the Church of Rome yet that the Churches Vnity might be preserved there were not two distinct series of Bishops the one deriving from St. Peter and the other from St. Paul So that Optatus his saying is much of the same nature with that of Cyprian in the case of the Schism about Cornelius and Novatianus who urgeth that most That there ought to be but one Bishop in one Church now the Bishop and his Cathedra are correlates to each other Optatus therefore saying that there was but one Cathedra at Rome puts the Donatist's upon this issue that if they could not deduce their succession from St. Peter at Rome they could have no pretence to the Cathedra there And therefore challengeth them to deduce the succession of their Bishops there as at large appears in his following discourse Which could be no higher then of Macrobius from Encolpius Encolpius from Bonifacius Ballitanus as he from Victor Garbiensis who was sent over on purpose from the Donatists in Africk to make a faction and a party at Rome among the African Inhabitants there Now this being the utmost succession they could pretend to and that being in opposition to that succession which was derived from St. Peter nothing could be more plain then that at Rome about which the Contest was the Cathedra could not belong to the Donatists but their Adversaries and therefore that being by Parmenianus acknowledged one of the dowries of the Catholick Church the title of that could not belong to the Donatists but their opposers This therefore doth not at all concern Romes being causally the Catholick Church but is only produced as a particular Church for a known instance whereby to decide this particular Controversie of succession For otherwise the argument would have held as well for any other Apostolical Church where the succession was clear And therefore afterwards he makes the communion with the seven Churches as plain an argument of communion with the Catholick as he doth here of the Church of Rome You may therefore every jot as well make the seven Churches of Asia to be causally the Catholick Church as the Church of Rome And to the same purpose he instanceth in the Corinthian Thessalonian Galatian Churches as he doth in that of Rome or the seven Churches We see then Optatus his design
examine particulars they would as soon believe it was impossible for that man to fall whom they see upon the ground as your Church to be infallible which they find overspread with errour and corruptions Much such another Answer you return to his Lordship's second Exception which is at his calling the Christian Faith the Roman Faith For you say It is no incongruity so to call it for the Bishop of Rome being Head of the whole Christian or Catholick Church the Faith approved and taught by him as Head thereof though it be de facto the general Faith and Profession of all Christians may yet very well be called the Roman Faith Why because the root origine and chief Foundation under Christ of its being practised and believed by Christians is at Rome But if the Bishop of Rome be no such thing as Head of the Christian Church and they must have a very wide Faith which must swallow that Vniversal Headship with all the appurtenances upon your bare affirmation if it belongs no more to him to approve and teach the Faith then to any other Catholick Bishop if the coming from Rome affords no credibility at all to the Christian Faith then still there remains as great an incongruity as may be in calling the Christian Faith the Roman Faith And as to all these my denial is as good as your affirmation when you undertake to prove I shall to answer If A. C. adds the practice of the Church to the Roman Faith I see no advantage is gotten by it for the first must limit the latter and the Faith being Roman the Church must be so too and therefore all your cavils on that subject come to nothing The third Exception is against the place out of S. Bernard and S. Austin which his Lordship saith are mis-applied for neither of them saith he spake of the Roman and S. Bernard perhaps neither of the Catholick nor the Roman but of a particular Church or Congregation His words are What greater pride than that one man should prefer his judgement before the whole Congregation Which A. C. conveniently to his purpose rendred before the whole Congregation of all the Christian Churches in the world Whereas no such thing is in him as all the Christian Churches in the world And his Lordship saith He thinks it is plain that he speaks both of and to the particular Congregation to which he was then preaching This you deny not but say The argument holds â minori ad majus to shew the more exorbitant pride of those who prefer their private fanatick Opinions before the judgement of the whole Catholick Church The Roman Church you should have said for you own no Catholick Church but what is Roman and therein the argument you mention will hold yet further against those who prefer the Novel Opinions of the Roman Church before the ancient Apostolical Faith of the truly Catholick Church His Lordship adds That it is one thing to prefer a mans private judgement before the whole Congregation and another for an intelligent man in something unsatisfied modestly to propose his doubts even to the Catholick Church And much more may a whole National Church nay the whole body of Protestants do it Now you very wisely leave out this last clause that you might take an opportunity to declaim against Luther Zuinglius Calvin c. for want of modesty But what pretext could there have been for such virulency had they been guilty of what you charge them if you would but have given us all that his Lordship said And may not I now therefore more justly return you your own language in the same page upon a far less occasion That here 's a manifest robbery of part of his Lordships words for which you are bound to restitution For his Lordship as it were foreseeing this cavil warily adds that concerning a whole National Church and the whole body of Protestants which you for reasons best known to your self craftily leave out But we must excuse our adversary for this slip though it be an unhandsome one For the truth is he had no other way to hide the guiltiness of his own pen c. These are your own words only applied and that much more justly to your self for a more palpable fault in the very same page wherein you had accused his Lordship for one of that kind But you go on further and supposing the doubts had been modestly proposed yet this could not at all help the Protestant cause in regard their doubts were in points of Faith already determined for such by authority of the Catholick Church to question any of which with what seeming modesty soever is sinful heretical and damnable Were it our present business it were easie to make it appear that the far greatest part of the matters in Controversie were never determined as points of Faith before the Council of Trent and I hope you will not say that was before the Reformation or any proposal of doubts But if they had been defined by your Church for matters of Faith and our great doubt be How your Church comes to have this power of determining points of Faith to whom should this doubt be propounded to your Church no doubt then we should hear from her as now we do from you That to question it with what seeming modesty soever is sinful heretical ond damnable And Is it not then likely that your Church should ever yield to the proposal of doubts and you do well to tell us so for it will save Protestants a great deal of labour when they see your Church so incurable that she makes it sinful heretical and damnable to question any thing she hath determined Although we do with much more reason assert it to be sinful heretical and damnable in your Church to offer to obtrude erroneous Doctrines on the Faith of the Christian world as points necessary to be believed and to urge superstitious practices as the conditions of communion with her To the place of S. Austin wherein he saith That it is a part of most insolent madness for any man to dispute Whether that be to be done which is usually done in and through the whole Catholick Church of Christ. His Lordship answer 1. Here 's not a word of the Roman Church but of that which is all over the world Catholick which Rome never yet was and for all your boast of having often shewn That the Roman and the Catholick are all one I dare leave it to the indifferent Reader Whether you have not miserably failed in your attempts that way 2. He answers That A. C. applies this to the Roman Faith whereas S. Austin speaks expresly of the rites and ceremonies of the Church and particularly about the manner of offering upon Maundy-Thursday whether it be in the morning or after supper or both 3. T is manifest by the words themselves that S. Austin speaks of no matter of Faith
Yet these things have been done by you and the doers of them not condemned but rather fomented and incouraged as zealous promoters of the Holy See and most devout Sons of the Church of Rome Cease therefore to charge the guilt of persons disowned by the Church of England upon her when you are unwilling to hear of the faults of those persons among your selves whom you dare not disown I mean your Popes and Jesuits Leaving therefore these unbecoming Railleries of yours and that which occasioneth them viz. corruption of manners we come to consider that which is more pertinent to our purpose viz. errours in Doctrine which his Lordship truly assigned as the ground of the Reformation and not only that there were doctrinal errours in your Church but that some of the errours of the Roman Church were dangerous to salvation For it is not every light errour in disputable Doctrine and points of curious speculation that can be a just cause of separation in that admirable body of Christ which is his Church or of one member of it from another But that there are errours in Doctrine and some of them such as most manifestly endanger salvation in the Church of Rome is evident to them that will not shut their eyes The proof his Lordship saith runs through the particular points and so is too long for this discourse Now to this you manfully answer That in vain do they attempt to reform the Church of what she can never be guilty Which if it depends on your Churches Infallibility which is largely disproved already must needs fall to the ground with it And it is an excellent Answer when a Church is charged actually with erring to say She doth not erre because she cannot Which is all that you give us here But if you prove it no better than you have done the Heretical and Schismatical obstinacy is like to be found in that Church which in her errours challenges Infallibility The Question now comes to this Whether errours being supposed in the Doctrine and corruptions in the Communion of a Church when the General Church would not reform it was not lawful for particular Churches to reform themselves To this his Lordship answers affirmatively in these words Is it then such a strange thing that a particular Church may reform it self if the general will not I had thought and do so still that in point of Reformation of either Manners or Doctrine it is lawful for the Church since Christ to do as the Church before Christ did and might do The Church before Christ consisted of Jews and Proselytes This Church came to have a separation upon a most ungodly Policy of Jeroboams so that it never pieced together again To a Common Council to reform all they would not come Was it not lawful for Judah to reform her self when Israel would not joyn Sure it was or else the Prophet deceives me that sayes expresly Though Israel transgress yet let not Judah sin And S. Hierom expounds it of this very particular sin of Heresie and Errour in Religion After which he proves That Israel during this Separation was a true Church which we shall insist on when we have considered what Answer you return to his Lordships Argument which lyes in these two things First That Judah did not reform her self Secondly That Judah is not the Protestant party as his Lordship supposeth it to be First You say Judah did not reform her self For Juda being the orthodox Church united with her Head the High Priest and not tainted with any Doctrinal errours What need was there of her Reformation And so the meaning of that place Though Israel transgress yet let not Juda sin is rather against than for him because the sense is rather Let not Juda fall into Schism though Israel does than let Judah reform her self But if it appears that Judah had corruptions crept into her as well as Israel had though not so great and universal then it follows that by these words Judah had power to reform her self And the antecedent is clear to any one who takes the pains to read the Scripture and compare the places in it more than it seems you do For Doth not this very Prophet check Judah as well as Israel for transgressing Gods Covenant Doth he not say That God had a Controversie with Judah and would punish Jacob according to his waies And for all this Was there no need of Reformation in the Church of Judah Indeed in one place it is said That Judah ruleth with God and is faithful with his Saints but then that is to be understood of Judah when she had reformed her self in the daies of Hezekiah for surely you will not say That Judah did not stand in need of Reformation when Hezekiah began his Reign for it is said of him That he removed the high places and brake the Images and cut down the groves And were not these things which wanted Reformation think you If we consider the times of those three Kings before Hezekiah in which Hosea prophesied we shall see what need there was of Reformation among them and those were Vzziah Jotham and Ahaz of the time of Vzziah called Azariah in the Book of Kings it is said That the high places were not removed but the people sacrificed and burnt Incense still on the high places the same is affirmed of the time of Jotham in the same Chapter so that though these Princes were good themselves yet there were many corruptions still among the people But of Ahaz it is said expresly That he walked in the way of the Kings of Israel and he sacrificed and burnt Incense in the high places and on the hills and under everygreen tree Chuse now which of these three you please for it is most improbable those words considering the long time of Hosea's Prophecy should be spoken in the time of Hezekiah the last of the four Kings he prophesied under And will you tell us again That the Church of Judah needed no Reformation But you offer at a reason for it Because she was united with her Head the High-Priest at Hierusalem So then belike as long as Judah and the High-Priest were united she could be guilty of no Doctrinal Errours No not although she should pronounce Christ a blasphemer and condemn him to be crucified as a malefactor for then certainly Judah and the High-Priest were united But I know you will say You spake this of the time before the Messias was come And was it then true that as long as Judah was united with her Head the High-Priest there was no need of Reformation What think you then of the time of Ahaz when Vzziah the Priest built an Altar at the command of Ahaz according to the pattern of the Altar of Damascus contrary to Gods express Law yet according to you as long as Judah was united with her Head the High-Priest there was nothing
of this cause as a thing not belonging to his Authority They who can believe such things as these and notwithstanding all the circumstances of this story can think the Popes Vniversal Pastourship was then owned the most I can say of them is that they are in a fair way to believe Transubstantiation there being nothing so improbable but upon equal grounds they may judge it true That the Pope had no Supremacy over other Patriarchs his Lordship saith That were all other Records of Antiquity silent the Civil Law is proof enough And that 's a Monument of the Primitive Church The Text there is A Patriarchâ non datur appellatio From a Patriarch there lyes no appeal No appeal Therefore every Patriarch was alike Supreme in his own Patriarchate Therefore the Pope then had no Supremacy over the whole Church Therefore certainly not then received as universal Pastor Two things you answer to this 1. That this reacheth not the difference between Patriarchs themselves who must have some higher ordinary Tribunal where such causes may be heard and determined Very well argued against the Pope's power of judging for in case of a difference between him and the other Patriarchs who must decide the difference Himself no doubt But still it is your way to beg that you can never prove for you herein suppose the Pope to be above all Patriarchs which you know is the thing in dispute Or Do you suppose it very possible that other Patriarchs may quarrel and fall out among themselves but that the Popes are alwaies such mild and good men that it is impossible any should fall out with them or they with others that still they must stand by as unconcerned in all the quarrels of the Christian world and be ready to receive complaints from all places If therefore a General Council must not be the Judge in this case I pray name somewhat else more agreeable to reason and the practice of the Church But you answer 2. What the Law saith is rightly understood and must be explicated of inferiour Clerks only who were not of ordinary course to appeal further than the Patriarch or the Primate of their Province For so the Council of Africk determines But 't is even there acknowledged that Bishops had power in their own causes to appeal to Rome This answer of yours necessarily leads us to the debates of the great case of appeals to Rome as it was managed between the African Bishops and the Bishops of Rome by which we shall easily discover the weakness of your answer and the most palpable fraud of your citation by which we may see What an excellent cause you have to manage which cannot be defended but by such frauds as here you make use of and hope to impose upon your Reader by Your Answer therefore in the general is That the Laws concerning appeals did only concern inferiour Clergy-men but that Bishops were allowed to appeal to Rome even by the Council of Africk which not only decreed it but acknowledged it in an Epistle to Pope Boniface And therefore for our through understanding the truth in this case those proceedings of the African Church must be briefly explained and truly represented Two occasions the Churches of Africa had to determine in the case of Appeals to Rome the first in the Milevitan the second in the Carthaginian Councils in both which we have several things very considerable to our purpose In the Milevitan Council they decree That whosoever would appeal beyond the Sea should not be received into Communion by any in Africa which decree is supposed by some to be occasioned by Coelestius having recourse to Pope Zosimus after he had been condemned in Africa No doubt those prudent Bishops began to be quickly sensible of the monstrous inconvenience which would speedily follow upon the permission of such appeals to Rome for by that means they should never preserve any discipline in their Churches but every person who was called in Question for any crimes would slight the Bishops of those Churches and presently appeal to Rome To prevent which mischief they make that excellent Canon which allows only liberty of appealing to the Councils of Africa or to the Primates of their Province but absolutely forbids all forein appeals All the difficulty is Whether this Canon only concerned the Inferiour Clergy as you say and which is all that the greatest of your side have said in it or Whether it doth not take away all appeals of Bishops too For which we need no more than produce the Canon it self as it is extant in the authentick collection of the Canons of the African Church In which is an express clause declaring that the same thing had been often determined in the case of Bishops Which because it strikes home therefore Perron and others have no other shift but to say That this clause was not in the original Milevitan Canons but was inserted afterwards But why do not they who assert such bold things produce the true authentick Copy of these Milevitan Canons that we may see What is genuine and what not But suppose we should grant that this clause was inserted afterwards it will be rather for the advantage than prejudice of our cause For which we must consider that in the time of Aurelius Bishop of Carthage there had been very many Councils celebrated there no fewer than seventeen Justellus and others reckon But a general Council meeting at Carthage A. D. 419. which was about three years after that Milevitan Council which was held 416. as appears by the Answer of Innocentius to it A. D. 417. at the end of the first Session they reviewed the Canons of those lesser Councils and out of them all composed that Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Africanae as Justellus at large proves in the preface to his edition of it So that if this clause were inserted it must be inserted then for it is well known that the case of Appeals was then at large debated and by that means it received a more general authority by passing in this African Council And hence it was that this Canon passed with this clause into the Greek Churches for Balsamon and Zonaras both acknowledge it and not only they but many ancient Latin Copies had it too and is so received and pleaded by the Council of Rhemes as Hincmarus and others have already proved But Gracian hath helped it well out for he hath added a brave Antidote at the end of it by putting to it a very useful clause Nisi forte Romanam Sedem appellaverit by which the Canon makes excellent sense that none shall appeal to Rome unless they do appeal to Rome for none who have any understanding of the state of those Churches at that time do make the least Question but the intent of the Canon was to prohibit appeals to Rome but then say they They were only the appeals of the Inferiour Clergy which were to be ended
yet the best your cause would bear And the greater you say the number of Bishopricks is in Italy the more friends I hope the Pope must make by disposing them and Could they do the Pope better service than to help him in this grand business at Trent wherein they sought to outvy each other by promoting the Popes Interest But not only the Protestants complained of this but the Emperour and other Princes and all impartial men in Germany France nay and in some part of Italy too But here his Lordship encounters an Objection of Bellarmine viz. that in the Council of Nice there were as few Bishops of the West present as were of the East at Trent and manifestly shews the great disparity between the the two Councils 1. Because it is not a meer disparity in number which he insists on but with it the Popes carriage to be sure of a major part but neither the Greek Church in general nor any Patriarch of the East had any private interest to look to in the Council at Nice 2. It was not so much a disparity between the Eastern and Western Bishops but that there were so many more Italians and Bishops obnoxious to the Popes Power than of all Germany France Spain and of all other parts of the West besides 3. Even in the comparison of those two Councils as to Eastern and Western Bishops there is this remarkable difference that Pope Sylvester with 275. Bishops confirmed the Council at Nice but the Council at Trent was never confirmed by any Council of Eastern Bishops To the two first of these you Answer with your best property silence Only you would fain perswade some silly people if there be any so weak in the world that enquire into such things That the Pope had no private interest at Trent but what was common to him with other Bishops You should have done well to have commended the excellency of an implicite Faith before you had uttered a thing so contrary to the sense of the whole Christian World To the third you confess It is some disparity but nothing to the purpose because if the Pope himself had ratified them the Council would have had as much Authority as by that accessory Assembly The more to blame was the Pope a great deal for putting so many Bishops to so needless a trouble But you say further This Council was not held just at the same time But Binius tells you it was held assoon as might be after the notice of what was done at Nice shew us the like of the Eastern Bishops at any time and we will not quarrel with you because it was not at the same time Though these Answers may pass for want of better they come not near your last which is a prodigious one the sense of it being That the Doctrine of Faith defined by the Council of Trent was more universally received in the Church then that of the Council of Nice For that of Trent you say was universally received by the whole Catholick Church and hath been more constantly held ever since whereas many Provinces either in whole or in part deserted the Faith defined at Nice and embraced the Arrian Heresie It seems then the twelve good Articles of Trent have been more generally received by the Catholick Church then the eternal existence of the Son of God and consequently that you are more bound to believe the Doctrine of Purgatory or Transubstantiation then that the Son is of the same substance with the Father For your grounds of Faith being resolved into the Churches Infallibility you cannot believe that which hath been so much questioned in the Church so firmly as that which hath been universally believed and constantly held But the universal reception of the Doctrine of the Council of Trent by the whole Catholick Church is so intolerable a falshood that you would scarce have vented it unless it were your design to write for the Whetstone To C's objection That neither French nor Spanish nor Schismatical Greeks did agree with the Protestants in those points which were defined by the Council his Lordship Answers That there can be no certainty who did agree and who not or who might have agreed before the Council ended because they were not admitted to a fair and free dispute And it may be too some Decrees would have been more favourable to them had not the care of the Popes Interest made them sowrer Here you complain of his Lordships falling again to his Surmizes of the Bishops being over-awed by the Popes Authority in the Council which you call an empty and injurious suspicion an unworthy accusation and arguing the want of Christian charity But usually when you storm the most you are the most guilty For if you call this an empty suspicion c. you charge many more with it besides his Lordship and those the greatest of your own Communion what meant else the frequent Protestations of the French and Spanish Ambassadours in which they often declared that as things were managed the Council was not Free What meant those words of the Emperour Ferdinand in his Letters to the Legats and the Pope That the Liberty of the Council was impeached chiefly by three causes one because every thing was first consulted of at Rome another because the Legats had assumed to themselves only the liberty of proposing which ought to be common to all the third because of the practises which some Prelats interested in the Greatness of the Court of Rome did make The French Ambassadour Monsieur de Lansac writ to the King his Master That the Pope was so much Master of this Council that his Pensioners whatsoever the Emperours or we do remonstrate to them will do but what they list Several of the like nature might easily be produced so that it is not his Lordship only is guilty of this want of charity as you call it but all impartial persons who were most acquainted with the Affairs of that Council Whose judgement is certainly much more to be taken then such who have sworn to defend it But you have an excellent Argument to prove the Council Free because the Bishops of the Council continued in the Faith and Doctrine of it as long as they lived And had they not good reason so to do when they were sworn before hand to defend the Pope and having secured him from danger of reformation by the Council and subscribed the Decrees of it they were as much bound to defend their own acts And although it is well enough known what practises were used to bring off the French and Spanish Bishops yet when they were brought off what a shame would it have been for them to have revolted from their own Subscriptions But what is this to that General freedom which was desired by the Roman Catholick Princes for Reformation of the Court of Rome and by Protestants both of the Court and Church Was the Council any thing
the Catholick Church with them and there was the greater hopes of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Since neither part did agree with the Bishop of old Rome or the Church which joynes with him but both oppose the evil customs and abuses which come by him which bears the same date with the Patriarchs first Answer to the Tubing Divines May 15. 1576. And the Patriarch in his letter heartily wishes an union and conjunction between them From hence we may easily gather how true both those things were viz. That the intent of their writing was to be admitted into the communion of the Greek Church and that the Patriarch did not in the least approve their Doctrine but confirmed the Tenets of the Roman Catholick Church But we must look further into the writings themselves to see how far they agreed and wherein they differed It appears then that the Patriarch did profess his consent with them in these things besides the Articles of the Creed and the satisfaction of Christ and other more general points viz. That the Sacrament was to be received in both kinds that the use of marriage was not to be absolutely forbidden the Clergy though their custom is that they must be married before they take Orders besides the grand Articles of the Popes Supremacy and the Roman Churches Infallibility Doth he that joyns with them in these things not in the least approve their Doctrine but confirm the Tenets of the Roman Catholick Church But withall it must be confessed that besides that common Article of the Procession of the Spirit wherein he disputes most earnestly there are five others in which they dissented from each other about Free will justification by Faith the number of Sacraments Invocation of Saints and Monastick life and about these the remaining disputes were In some of which it is easie to discern how far the right state of the question was from being apprehended which the Lutheran Divines perceiving sent him a larger and fuller explication of their mind in a body of Divinity in Greek but the Patriarchs troubles coming on Cantacuzenus deposing him too and other businesses taking him off upon his restauration he breaks off the Conference between them But although he differed from them in these things yet he was far enough from rebuking them for departing from the Roman Church although he was desirous they should have joyned with them in the approbation of such things as were in use among themselves And in those things in which he seems to plead for some practises in use in the Roman Church yet there are many considerable circumstances about them wherein they differ from the Church of Rome as hath been manifested by many others As in the Article of Invocation of Saints the Patriarch saith They do not properly Invocate Saints but God for neither Peter nor Paul do hear us upon which ground it is impossible to maintain the Romish Doctrine of Invocation of Saints And in most of the other the main difference lies in the want of a true State of the Questions between them But is this any such great matter of admiration that the Patriarch upon the first sight of their confession should declare his dissent from them in these things It is well enough known how much Barbarism had crept into the Greek Church after their being subdued by the Turks the means of Instruction being taken from them and it being very rare at that time to have any Sermons at all in so much that one of your Calogeri being more learned then the rest and preaching there in Lent was thereby under great suspicion and at last was by the Patriarch himself sent out of the way It is therefore more to be wondered they should preserve so much of the Doctrine of Faith entire as they have done then that any corrupt practises should prevail amongst them The most then which you can make of the judgement of the Patriarch Hieremias is that in some things he was opposite to the Protestants as in others to the Church of Rome But what would you have said if any Patriarch of Constantinople had declared his consent so fully with the Church of Rome as the Patriarch Cyril did afterwards with the Protestants who on that account suffered so much by the practises of the Jesuits of whom he complains in his Epistle to Vtenbogard And although a Faction was raised against him by Parthenius who succeeded him yet another Parthenius succeeding him stood up in vindication of him Since therefore such different opinions have been among them about the present Controversies of the Christian world and there being no declared Confession of their Faith which is owned by the whole Greek Church as to these things there can be no confident pronouncing what their judgement is as to all our differences till they have further declared themselves PART III. Of Particular Controversies CHAP. I. Of the Infallibility of General Councils How far this tends to the ending Controversies Two distinct Questions concerning the Infallibility and Authority of General Councils The first entered upon with the state of the Question That there can be no certainty of faith that General Councils are infallible nor that the particular decrees of any of them are so which are largely proved Pighius his Arguments against the Divine Institution of General Councils The places of Scripture considered which are brought for the Churches infallibility and that these cannot prove that General Councils are so Matth. 18.20 Acts 15.28 particularly answered The sense of the Fathers in their high expressions of the decrees of Councils No consent of the Church as to their infallibility The place of St. Austin about the amendment of former General Councils by latter at large vindicated No other places in S. Austin prove them infallible but many to the contrary General Councils cannot be infallible in the conclusion if not in the use of the means No such infallibility without as immediate a revelation as the Prophets and Apostles had taking Infallibility not for an absolute unerring power but such as comes by a promise of Divine Assistance preserving from errour No obligation to internal assent but from immediate Divine Authority Of the consistency of Faith and reason in things propounded to be believed The suitableness of the contrary Doctrine to the Romanists principles IF high pretences and large promises were the only things which we ought to value any Church for there were none comparable to the Church of Rome For there can be nothing imagined amiss in the Christian world but if we believe the bills her Factours set up she hath an Infallible cure for it If any enquire into the grounds of Religion they tell us that her testimony only can give them Infallible Certainty if any are afraid of mistaking in opinions they have the only Infallible Judge of Controversies to go to if any complain of the rents and divisions of the Christian world they have Infallible Councils either to
less de fide because it is contradicted by some since it is founded on the promises of Christ concerning the Church Since therefore the Pope himself is but Filius Ecclesiae and the Church is Sponsa Christi they say It is unreasonable that the Son of the Church should not be subject to the Spouse of Christ. If therefore these promises concerning the Church inferr an Infallibility in it and that Infallibility be in a General Council as representing the Church it follows thence that Councils must be in themselves Infallible whether confirmed by the Pope or no. And we may see how little this Opinion of Infallibility of General Councils is like to stand between them by the Answers which are given by those of the other party who makâ—â—he Popes Confirmation necessary to the Infallibility of the Council For Canus expresly saith That the Council is said to be Infallible in no other sense than the Church is i. e. in those things wherein all agreed and not the major part Bellarmin likes not this For saith he if the major part of the Council erre the Council must of necessity erre for that which properly belongs to the Council is Passing judgement in matter of Faith or making Decrees now if that were not the lawful Decree of the Council which is made by the major part there never could be a lawful Decree for none passes without some dissenting and therefore he denies that the Council doth fully represent the Church without the Pope So that on both sides we see how pregnant these proofs are for the Councils Infallibility when one saith That if they be understood of the Church the Councils Infallibility doth not want the Popes Confirmation the other to make the Popes Confirmation necessary denies such an absolute representation of the Church in the Council If then the Council doth represent the Church it is Infallible although not confirmed by the Pope if it doth not then the promises made to the Church cannot belong to the General Council Thus I have shewed you how far these places concerning as you say the Infallibility of the Church are from proving the Infallibility of General Councils But though these general places concerning the Church may not so clearly prove the Infallibility of General Councils yet you say There are some particular places to this purpose Which are Mat. 18.20 and Act. 15.28 Which not having been handled already I must follow you more closely in the examination of them The first place is Mat. 18.20 Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them The substance of the argument from this place his Lordship thus repeats from Bellarmin The strength of the argument is not taken from these words alone but as they are continued with the former and that the argument is drawn à minori ad majus from the less to the greater thus If two or three gathered in my name do alwaies obtain that which they ask at Gods hands viz. wisdom and knowledge of those things which are necessary for them How much more shall all the Bishops gathered together in Council alwaies obtain wisdom and knowledge to judge those things which belong to the direction of the whole Church To which his Lordship answers That there is very little strength in these words either considered alone being generally interpreted by the Fathers of consent in prayer or with the argument à minori ad majus 1. Because though that argument hold in natural or necessary things yet not in voluntary or promised things or things which depend upon their institution 2. Because it follows not but where and so far as the thing upon which the argument is founded agrees to the less Now this Infallibility doth not belong to the lesser Congregation and therefore cannot be inferred as to the greater 3. Because it depends upon conditions here supposed of being gathered together in the name of Christ and therefore supposing Infallibility promised these conditions here implied must be known before such a Congregation can be known to be Infallible 4. Because Christs promise of presence in the midst of them is only to grant what he shall find to be fit for them not infallibly whatsoever they shall think fit to ask for themselves 5. Because Gregory de Valentiâ and Stapleton confess that this place doth not properly belong to prove an Infallible certainty of any sentence in which more agree in the name of Christ but to the efficacy of consent for obtaining that which more shall pray for in the name of Christ if at least that be for their souls health For else it would hence follow that not only the definition of a General Council but even of a Provincial nay of two or three Bishops gathered together is valid and that without the Popes consent The utmost I can make of your reply to these Answers lyes in this That you grant that primarily and directly our Saviour doth not intend that particular Infallibility and this is that which Gregory and Stapleton assert but only that he signified in general that he would be present with his Church and all faithful people gathered together in his name so often and so far as their necessities required his presence they duly imploring it But yet the argument holds for the Infallibility of General Councils and not National or Provincial because the necessities of the Church require one and not the other and that it will follow à minori ad majus in things promised as well as natural where the motive is increased and neither goodness nor power wanting in the promiser But all this depends on a false supposition viz. that there is a necessity of Infallibility to continue in the Church and that all persons are bound to believe the Decrees of the Councils to be the Infallible Oracles of truth but we say neither of these are necessary in the Church and therefore you have no ground to extend this promise of Christs presence to the Infallibility of Councils For you are not to extend the power and goodness of Christ as far as you shall judge fitting but as far only as he hath promised to extend it For otherwise it would be far more for the peace and unity of the Church if every particular Congregation had this Infallibility than if only General Councils had it Because by that means many disputes about the authority calling and proceedings of General Councils would be prevented Nay it might be extended much further for by this argument from the goodness and power of Christ you might for all that I can see inferr with more force that every true Christian should be Infallible and so there be no need of any Councils at all For whatever argument you can produce why Christ's goodness should extend to make Councils Infallible it will much more hold as to the other for the peace and unity of the Church would be far better secured
Council it was a lawful Council or it doth not if it doth To what purpose doth it define it self to be a lawful Council if it doth not then we shall doubt of that Decree whereby it defines it self to be so for if I doubt whether the Council were lawful before that Decree I doubt likewise whether it might not err in passing that Decree And therefore he grants that no more than moral certainty or historical Faith is requisite in order to it Now this Argument of Bellarmins holds with equal strength if not more against you for you derive the lawfulness of the Council from its Infallibility and that Infallibility from the Councils definition Thus therefore I argue Either it doth appear that the Council was Infallible before that definition or it doth not If it appears to be Infallible before then its Infallibility is not known by that definition If it doth not How can I know it to be Infallible by it For as I doubt whether it was Infallible before it so I must doubt whether it was Infallible in it and consequently it is impossible I should believe it Infallible because it defines it self to be so Neither do you at all salve this by calling it only an implicite definition for whether it be implicite or explicite it is all one since that definition is made the ground why we must believe the Council to be Infallible And of all men in the world you seem the strangest in this that you declaim with so much vehemency against those who believe the Scriptures to be Infallible for themselves and yet assert that Pope and General Councils are to be believed Infallible because they define themselves to be so Than which no greater absurdity can be well imagin'd For they who assert that the Scriptures are to be believed for themselves do not thereby mean that they are to be believed Infallible meerly because they say they are Infallible but that out of the Scriptures such Arguments may be brought as may sufficiently prove that they come from God But when you say that Pope and General Councils are to be believed Infallible because of their implicite definition that they are so you can mean nothing else but that they are Infallible because they take upon them to be Infallible for that is all I can understand by your implicite definition for if they should decree they were Infallible that were an explicite definition But yet how should this implicite definition be known for it must be some way certainly known or else we can never believe that they are Infallible upon that account Which way then must we understand that they implicitely define it Is it by their meeting debating decreeing matters of Faith that cannot be for Councils have done all these which are acknowledged to have erred Is it by Pope and Council joyning together but how can that be unless I know before that when Pope and Council joyn they are Infallible If this then be all the way to prove that Pope and Council are true Bishops because Infallible and they are Infallible because they define themselves to be so I see there is an absolute necessity of a mans putting out the eye of his reason if ever he hopes to see Pope and Councils Infallible But further yet there is more absurdity still if more can be imagin'd in this excellent Answer for here is a new Labyrinth for our Authour to sport himself in For we are to believe a Council to consist of lawful Bishops because they are Infallible and yet his only way to prove them Infallible is by supposing that they consist of lawful Bishops For I ask Whether all persons meeting together in Council are Infallible No. Are all Bishops of Protestant and the Greek and other Churches besides the Roman assembled in Council Infallible No. Must it not then be supposed that the Bishops are lawful Bishops before they can implicitely define themselves Infallible And if their lawfulness must be supposed before their Infallibility they cannot first be proved to be Infallible before we can know Whether they were lawful Bishops or no. And we cannot know them to be lawful Bishops unless we knew the intention of the Priest and therefore it remains proved with evidence equal to a demonstration that your certainty of your Churches Infallibility can be no greater than that you have of the Priests intention in the administration of Sacraments And by this it appears how absurdly you go about to compare the case of Pope and Council with that of the Prophets and Apostles of old For you challenge not an Infallibility by immediate inspiration but such as is constantly resident in the Church by vertue of some particular promises which must suppose the persons in whom it lodges to be actually members of the Church And therefore all the proof of their Infallibility depends upon the certainty of that which you can never satisfie any rational men in but I hope you will not say it was so in the Prophets and Apostles Besides God never sent any persons with a message from himself to the world but he gave the world sufficient evidence in point of reason that He sent them either by Miracles the Testimony of other Prophets who wrought them or some other satisfactory way to humane reason as I have elsewhere proved at large But there is no such thing in your case no rational evidence at all is offered but we must believe the Council lawful because Infallible and we must believe it Infallible because it defines itself to be so Neither is it possible to conceive that any man should believe whatever the Prophet or Apostle said to be Infallibly true unless he were before convinced that they were Infallible who spake it But for this you have a further Answer That it is not necessary to believe the Infallibility of the proposer viz. prioritate temporis in respect of time and afterwards the Infallibility of the Doctrine he proposeth but it sufficeth to believe it first prioritate naturae so as the Infallibility of the teacher be presupposed to the Infallibility of his Doctrine But what this makes to your purpose I understand not For it is not the time but the evidence we enquire for or the ground on which we are to believe the proposer Infallible Whether it must not be something else besides the implicite defining himself to be Infallible You assert that to be a sufficient ground in the case of Pope and Councils and I pray Will it not be as sufficient in the case of a Quaker or Enthusiast May not they as well pretend this that they are Infallible and if you ask them what evidence they have for it they may tell you just the same that Pope and Council have to be so for as they implicitely define themselves to be Infallible so do they So that talk what you will of private Spirits and Enthusiasms I know none lay so great a foundation for them as you do upon
am sure you are hard put to it to return any satisfactory Answer to it For you distinguish of the Popes joynt-consent and of his actual Confirmation in case say you the Pope either in person or by his Legats concurr with the Council then the definition is unquestionably Infallible but in case he doth not then the actual Confirmation is necessary but in case the Council erre the Pope ought not and it is impossible he should confirm it but if he doth not erre you grant it is true before the Pope confirms it but his Confirmation makes us infallibly certain that it is true This is the full force of your Answer which by no means takes off the difficulty as will appear 1. That by reason of the Pope's rare appearance in General Councils never in any that are unquestioned by the Greek and Latin Churches that of his joynt-consent cannot serve you neither doth the presence of his Legats suffice for it is determined by Bellarmin and proved by many reasons that though the Pope's Legats consent yet if they have not the express sentence of the Pope the Council may erre notwithstanding So that still the Popes actual Confirmation is supposed necessary and that after the definitions of the Council are passed And this is the case which his Lordship speaks to and for your answer to that I say 2. That in plain terms you assert the Popes personal Infallibility which you disowned the defence of before for you say In case the Council erre not only the Pope ought not to confirm it but that it is impossible he should Which What is it other than to assert that the Pope shall never erre though the Council may Neither is it sufficient to say That he shall never erre in confirming the Decrees of a Council for in this case the Council is supposed actually to erre already so that nothing of Infallibility can be at all supposed in the Council and if the Pope be not considered in his personal capacity he might erre as well as the Council From whence it follows since you suppose that a Council may erre but not the Pope that you really judge the Council not to be Infallible but the Pope only 3. When you say That if the Council erred not the Popes Confirmation doth not make the definition true but makes us infallibly certain that it is true I enquire further Whereon this Infallible Certainty depends on a promise made to the Council or to the Pope not to the Council for that you grant may erre but it is impossible the Pope should confirm it therefore still it is some promise of the Popes Infallibility which makes men Infallibly certain of the truth of what the Council decrees 4. To what purpose then are all those promises and proofs of Scripture which you produced concerning the Councils Infallibility if notwithstanding them a General Council may err Only the Pope shall never confirm it and although it do not err yet we cannot be Infallibly certain of it but by the Popes confirmation And let any reasonable man judge whether a promise of the Popes Infallibility though there be none at all concerning Councils be not sufficient for all this So that upon these principles you take away the least degree of necessity of any Infallibility in Councils and resolve all into the Popes Infallibility For to what purpose are they Infallible if we cannot be certain that any thing which they decree is true but by the Popes confirmation But that the Popes confirmation cannot make the Decrees of those you account General Councils Infallible nor us Infallibly Certain of the truth of them his Lordship proves by another evidence in matter of fact viz. That the Pope hath erred by teaching in and by the Council of Lateran confirmed by Innocent 3. that Christ is present in the Sacrament by way of Transubstantiation Which his Lordship saith was never heard of in the Primitive Church nor till the Council of Lateran nor can it be proved out of Scripture and taken properly cannot stand with the grounds of Christian Religion This you call a strange kind of proceeding to assert a point of so great importance without solving or so much as taking notice of the pregnant proofs your Authours bring both out of Scripture and Fathers to the contrary of what he mainly affirms How pregnant those proofs are we must examine afterwards but his Lordship might justly leave it to those who assert so strange a Doctrine to produce their evidence for it Especially since it is confessed by so many among your selves That it could not be sufficiently proved either from Scripture or Fathers to bind men to the belief of it till the Church had defined it in the Council of Lateran Since the more moderate and learned men among your selves Bishop Tonstall for one have looked on that definition as a rash and inconsiderate action Since the English Jesuits confessed that the Fathers did not meddle with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Since Suarez confesseth that the names used by the Fathers are more accommodated to an accidental change Since Father Barns acknowledgeth that Transubstantiation is not the Faith of the Church and that Scripture and Fathers may be sufficiently expounded of a Supernatural presence of the body of Christ without any change in the substance of the Elements For which he produces a large Catalogue of Fathers and others Since therefore we have such confessions of your own side What need his Lordship in a Controversie so throughly sifted as this hath been bring all the Testimonies of both sides which had been so often and so punctually examin'd by others At least you say he should have cleared how Transubstantiation may be taken improperly whereas of all the words which the Church useth there is none methinks less apt to a Metaphorical and figurative sense then this of Transubstantiation By which I see you are a man who would really seem to believe Transubstantiation and are afraid of nothing but that it should not be impossible enough for you to believe it For his Lordship was only afraid that though the word it self were gross enough yet some of the more refined and subtle wits might transubstantiate the word it self and leave only the accidents of it behind by taking it in a spiritual sense as Bellarmin confesses those words of St. Bernard In Sacramento exhiberi nobis veram carnis substantiam sed spiritualitèr non carnalitèr have a true sense but adds that the word spiritualitèr must not be too often used and the Council of Trent would seem to provide an evasion by Sacramentaliter and his Lordship not well knowing what they would have by such expressions therefore he saith properly taken it cannot stand with the grounds of Christian Religion And for all those expressions Bellarmin as well as the Council take it in as gross a manner as you can desire and I think the Physitian who wanted impossibilities
enough to exercise his Faith needed nothing else to try it but your Doctrine of Transubstantiation But you say The term indeed was first authorised by the Council of Lateran as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by that of Nice but for the thing it self signified by this term which is a real conversion of the substance of bread into the body of Christ and of wine into his blood 't is clear enough that it was ever held for a Divine truth If you prove but that I will never quarrel with you about the term call it Transubstantiation or what you will but we do not think it so clear as not to want proofs stronger for the belief of it then all the repugnancies of sense and reason are against it For it is a vain thing for you to attempt to prove so unreasonable a Doctrine as this is by some few lame citations of Fathers unless you can first prove that the Authority of them is so great as to make me believe any thing they say though never so contrary to sense and reason If you could bring some places of the Fathers to prove that we must renounce absolutely the judgement of sense believe things most contradictions to reason yet you must first shew that the evidence they bring is greater then that of sense or reason Or that I am more bound to believe them then I am to believe the greatest evidence of sense or reason When you say In these cases we must submit reason to Faith we acknowledge it when it is no manifest contradiction in things so obvious to sense or reason that the asserting it will destroy the use of our faculties and make us turn absolute Scepticks for then Faith must be destroyed too For may not a man question as well whether his hearing may not deceive him as his sight and by that means he may question all the Tradition of the Church and what becometh of his Faith then and if his sight might deceive him in a proper object of it Why might not the Apostles sight deceive them in the body of Christ being risen from the grave And if a man may be bound to believe that to be false which his sense judges to be true what assurance can be had of any miracles which were wrought to confirm the Christian Doctrine and therefore his Lordship might well say That Transubstantiation is not consistent with the grounds of Christian Religion But of this I have spoken already That which I am now upon is not how far reason is to be submitted to Divine Authority in case of certainty that there is a Divine Revelation for what I am to believe but how far it is to be renounced when all the evidence which is brought is from the Authority of the Fathers So that the Question in short is Whether there be greater evidence that I am bound to believe the Fathers in a matter contrary to sense and reason or else to adhere to the judgement of them though in opposition to the Fathers Authority And since you do not grant their Authority immediately Divine since you pretend not to places as clear out of them as the judgement of sense and reason is in this case since you dare not say that all the Fathers are as much agreed about it as the senses of all mankind are about the matter in dispute I think with men who have not already renounced all that looks like reason this will be no matter of Controversie at all From whence it follows that supposing the Fathers were as clear for you as they are against you in this subject yet that would not be enough to perswade us to believe so many contradictions as Transubstantiation involves in it meerly because the Fathers delivered it to us I speak not this as though I did at all fear the clearness of any Testimony you can produce out of them but to shew you that you take not a competent way to prove such a Doctrine as Transubstantiation is For nothing but a stronger evidence than that of sense and reason can be judged sufficient to oversway the clear dictates of both This being premised I come to consider the clear evidence you produce out of Antiquity for this Doctrine and since you pretend to so much choice in referring us to Bellarmin and Gualtierus for more I must either much distrust your judgement or suppose these the clearest to be had in them and therefore the examination of these will save the labour of searching for the rest And yet it is the great unhappiness of your cause that there is scarce one of all the Testimonies you make use of but either its Authority is slighted by some of your own writers or sufficient reasons given against it by many of ours Your first is of St. Cyprian or at least an Authour of those first ages of the Church who speaking of the Sacrament of the Eucharist saith This common bread chang'd into flesh and blood giveth life And again The bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples being chang'd not in its outward form or semblance but in its inward nature or substance by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh As to this Testimony there are two things to be considered the authority and the meaning of it For its Authority you seem doubtful your self whether S. Cyprian's or no since Bellarmin and others of your own deny it but at least you say an Authour of those first ages of the Church but you bring no evidence at all for it Bellarmin grants that he is younger then St. Augustine and others say that none mention him for 800 years after St. Cyprians time And the abundance of barbarisms which that book is so full fraught with manifest that it is of a much later extraction then the time it pretends to But the matter seems to be now out of question since the Book is extant in the King of France's Library with an Inscription to Pope Adrian and a MSS. of it is in the Library of All-Souls in Oxford with the same Inscription and the name of Arnaldus Bonavillacensis who was St. Bernards co-temporary and lived in the twelfth Century And those who have taken the pains to compare this Book with what is extant of the same Authour in the Bibliotheca Patrum not only observe the very same barbarisms but the same conceptions and expressions about the Sacrament which the other hath Although therefore I might justly reject this testimony as in all respects incompetent yet I shall not take that advantage of you but supposing him an Authour as ancient as you would have him I say he proves not the thing you bring him for For which two things must be enquired into 1. What kind of presence of Christ he asserts in the Sacrament 2. What change he supposes to be made in the Elements For your Doctrine asserts That there is a conversion of the whole substance of bread and
infallibly believe and practise as the precedent up to Christs time did but because we can produce clear evidence that some things are delivered by the present Church which must be brought in by some age since the time of Christ. For which I shall refer you to what I have said already concerning Communion in one kind Invocation of Saints and Worship of Images In all which I have proved evidently that they were not in use in some ages of the Christian Church and it is as evident that these are delivered by the present Church and therefore this principle must needs be false For by these things it appears that one age of the Church may differ in practise or opinion from another and therefore this oral tradition cannot be infallible And yet this is the only way whereby a prescription may be allowed for this offers to give a sufficient title if it could be made good But bare possession in matters of Religion is a most sensless plea and which would justifie Heathenism and Mahumetism as well as your Church 2. It were worth knowing What you mean by full and quiet possession of your Faith Religion and Church which you say you were in Either you mean that you did believe the Doctrines of your Church your selves or that we were bound to believe them too If you mean only the former you are in as full possession of them as ever for I suppose all in your Church do believe them if you intend by this possession that we ought to believe them because you did this is a prescription indeed but without any ground or reason For even Tertullian whom you cite for prescribing against Hereticks sayes That nothing can be prescribed against truth Non spatium temporum non patrocinia personarum non privilegium regionum Neither length of time nor authority of persons nor priviledge of places If you say It was truth you were in possession of that is the thing to be proved and if you can make that appear we will not disturb your possession at all But you must be sure to prove it by something else besides your quiet and full possession unless you can prove it impossible that you should be possessed of falshoods But we have evidently shewn the contrary already And if we examine a little further what this possession is we shall see what an excellent right it gives you to prescribe by You were possessed of your Faith Religion and Church i. e. you did believe the Roman Church Infallible you believed the Popes Supremacy Transubstantiation Purgatory c. And what then Do you not believe them still Yes doubtless But What is your quarrel with us then Do we hinder you the Possession of them No but we ought to believe them too But Why so because you are in possession of them What Must we then believe whatever you do whether it be true or false If this be the meaning of your Possession you ought well to prove it or else we shall call it Vsurpation For it is a most ridiculous thing for you to talk of Possession when the Question is Whether there be any such things in the world or no as those you say you are possessed of We deny your Churches Infallibility the Popes Supremacy Purgatory c. You must first prove there are such things in rerum naturâ as Purgatory Transubstantiation c. before you can say you are possessed of them You must convince us that your Church is Infallible and that the Pope was made Head of the Church by Christ and then we will grant you are in full possession of them but not before So that you see the Question is not concerning the manner of Possession but of the things themselves which you call your Faith Religion and Church in opposition to ours and therefore it is impossible to plead Prescription where there never was any Possession at all And therefore you clearly mistake when you call us The Aggressors for you are plainly the Imposers in this case and quarrel with us for not believing what you would have us and therefore you are bound to prove and not we So that there is nothing you could challenge any Possession of in the Church of England but some Authority which the Pope had which you elsewhere confess he might he deprived of as he was in King Henry 's time and which we offer to prove that he was not Possessor bonae fidei of but that he came to it by fraud and violence and was deprived of it by a legal Power Thus I have fully examined your Argument from Possession because it presents us with something which had not been discussed before But having taken a view of all that remains I find that it consists of a bare Repetition of the Controversies before discussed especially concerning the certainty and grounds of Faith the Infallibility of the Church and General Councils and the Authority of the Roman Church So that if you had not an excellent faculty of saying most where there is least occasion I should wonder at your design in spending several Chapters in giving the same things under other words Unless it were an ambition of answering every clause in his Lordships Book which carried you to it though you only gave over and over what you had said in many places before Which is a piece of vanity I neither envy you for nor shall I strive to imitate you in having made it my endeavour to lay those grounds in the handling each Controversie that there should not need any such fruitless repetitions as you here give us His Lordship though he complains much of it was forced by his Adversaries importunity to return the same Answers in effect which had been given before by him in the proper places but whosoever compares what his Lordship saith with what you pretend to answer will find no necessity at all of my undergoing the same tedious and wearisome task Instead therefore of a particular Answer I shall give only some general strictures on what remains of these subjects where there is any appearance of difficulty and conclude all with the examination of your Defence of Purgatory that being a subject which hath not yet come under our enquiry Your main business is to perswade us that yours is the only saving Faith which you prove by this The saving Faith is but one yours is confessed by us to be a saving Faith still therefore yours is the only saving Faith But if you had considered on what that confession depends you could have made no Argument at all of it for when we say that your Faith is saving we mean no more but this that you have so much of the common truths of Christianity among you that there is a possibility for men to be saved in your Church but Doth this imply that yours is a saving Faith in that sense wherein it is said There is but one saving Faith for in that
Society of Men joyning together in the Profession of Christian Religion but these Men must presently be infallible in whatever they deliver as the Sense of their Society Their visible Profession of Christian Religion makes them a True Church but cannot men seem to profess our Religion unless they have a visible Infallible Head to guide them Is Infallibility the Soul of a Church which gives it its Being I mean a present Infallibility continually actuating and informing the Body of it Cannot a man be known to be a True Man unless he be inspired Nor a Church distinguished from other Societies but by a Spirit of Infallibility The truth is Let Bellarmine multiply his fifteen Notes of the Church to fifteen hundred if he please nay let it pretend to what Infallibility it please if any Society of men challenging the name of Church to it self do destroy the end of its Constitution or hold any thing directly contrary to the Foundation of its Institution all other Notes in the world can never make it a True Church So that the only certain Note of a True Church is its Agreement with the primary Foundation of it in that Doctrine which was Infallible and attested by Miracles undoubtedly Divine That which holds the Doctrine of Christ is the Christian Church and the nearer any Society comes to that the purer it is the more it is distant from it the more impure and no man who honours the Christian Religion can be bound to communicate with the Impurities of such a Church let it bear it never so high under the pretence of Infallibility If you boast never so much of your Vnity Succession Antiquity the name of Catholick c. if your Doctrine be repugnant to what was originally delivered by the Founder of the Christian Church your Society is not the True Christian Church But suppose it were and that it were known so to be by such Notes as these are Can you not conceive a Church should be consonant to the Doctrine of Christ but it must be it self infallible in deciding Controversies Cannot you imagine a Society consisting of all True Christians in the world should be made up of such persons who all firmly believe that Doctrine infallible which Christ delivered but yet judge themselves all fallible and dare not usurp that royal prerogative of Heaven in prescribing infallibly in matters questioned but leave all to judge according to the Pandects of the Divine Laws because each member of this Society is bound to take care of his soul and of all things that tend thereto Is such an Idea of a Christian Church a thing unreasonable inconsistent or contrary to any Law of its Foundation or rather is it not a very true and just representation of that Society of men which our blessed Saviour instituted as a Church in the world 2. Do you mean That these Motives should prove the Christian Church at large infallible or your present particular universal Church of Rome For some of your Motives seem to respect the one and the rest the other Notion of it When you mention miracles efficacy purity and excellency of Doctrine fulfilling of Prophecies do you really intend these for the proof of your present Roman-Churches Infallibility as that is distinct from all other Churches of Christians in the world If you do as you must if you speak to the purpose shew us what miracles efficacy purity and excellency of Doctrine there are in your Church beyond and beside all other Churches in the world What fulfilling of Prophecies among you which makes your Church infallible Is it the Prophecy That your Church shall be infallible that is fulfilled Shew then to us where that Prophecy is and how it appears to be fulfilled Is it because your Church pretends to be infallible I do heartily acknowledge some Prophecies are therein fulfilled but such as your Church hath little ground to be proud of their accomplishment But to all impartial Christians the accomplishment of those Prophecies which speak of the degenerate state of the Church as they are a great Confirmation of the Infallibility of the Divine Revealer of them when they see it so remarkably in the signatures of your Church so they are far from being any motive of credibility to them to prove your Church to be Infallible Unless it be meant that the state of your Church is an infallible evidence that those Prophesies are fulfilled But I pray why should fulfilling of Prophesies make your Church Infallible I had rather thought if you could have proved your Church to have been Prophetical it had been more to your purpose And if your Popes in Cathedrâ had foretold future events which by their coming to pass had evidenced to the world they had a true spirit of Prophesie then indeed you had said something towards Infallibility But that the meer fulfilling of Prophesies owned Divine by all Christians should prove your Church Infallible is such a motive of Credibility concerning that Infallibility that it proves nothing but by this consequence If Christ were Infallible then your Church is Or do you mean because some Prophesies concerning your Church are fulfilled therefore your Church is Infallible by the same reason I hope you will not deny but that Antichrist is Infallible for when ever he did doth or shall appear no doubt there will be fulfilling of Prophesies and those very clear ones too And therefore Antichrist and your Pope may go together for Infallibility But it may be yet you have some other motives besides fulfilling Prophesies and those are miracles now you speak indeed to the purpose But yet still we poor Infidels because out of your Church desire a little satisfaction concerning them too 1. We very reasonably desire That he in your Church who pretends most to infallibility should do these miracles himself For that was alwayes the way in Scripture for them whose testimony was to be believed Infallible to be the workers of those miracles which should induce men to believe such an Infallibility Do you think the Israelites would have believed Moses Infallible if any ordinary Israelite had wrought those miracles which he did unless you would suppose that those miracles were purposely wrought to have attested that Moses was Infallible But yet God thought it much more fit that Moses himself should be the instrument of doing them and so it was with our Blessed Saviour Let then your Church produce the several miracles wrought by your Popes to attest their Infallibility or if you believe Pope and Council the subject of Infallibility produce the miracles to prove that God was alwayes so just and reasonable as not to expect the belief of any Infallibility without such evidences given for it as might perswade men to believe it and you acknowledge That independently on Scripture there can be no such proof of Infallibility as Miracles and you require it from us to believe the present Church Infallible where then are your present miracles
themselves to be Divine because the Talmud Alcoran and Philosophers have some things in them which the Scripture hath But Can you prove that the Scripture hath nothing else in it but what may be found in any or all of these Books Will you undertake to shew any where such representations of the Being and Attributes of God so suitable to the conceptions which naturally flow from the Idea of a Supreme and Infinite Being and yet those Attributes discovered in such contrivances for mans Good which the wit of man could never have reached to above all in the reconciliation of the world to himself by the death of his Son Will you find out so exact a Rule of Piety consisting of such excellent Precepts such incouraging Promises as are in Scripture in any other writings whatsoever Can you discover any where such an unexpressible energy and force in a writing of so great simplicity and plainness as the Scripture is Is there any thing unbecoming that Authority which it awes the consciences of men with Is there any thing mean trivial fabulous and impertinent in it Are not all things written with that infinite decorum and suitableness as do highly express the Majesty of him from whom it comes but in the most sweet affable and condescending manner Are there any such arguments in the writings of Seneca Plutarch Aristotle for the Being of God and Immortality of souls as there are in Scripture Are there any moral instructions built on such good grounds carried on to so high a degree written with that life and vigour in any of the Heathen Philosophers as are in the Scriptures How infinitely do the highest of them fall short of the Scripture in those very things which they seem most to have in common with it As were it here a fit place might be at large discovered But besides and beyond all these Are there not other things which evidence the Divine Revelation of the Doctrine contained in Scripture which none of the writings you mention can in the least pretend to viz. the accurate accomplishment of Prophecies and the abundance of Miracles wrought for the confirmation of the Divine Testimony of those who delivered this Doctrine to the world And these very things now to us are internal to the Scripture the motives of Faith being delivered to us in the same Books that the Doctrine of Faith is In which sense the Scriptures may well be said to be proved Divine by themselves and that they appear infallible by the Light which is in them notwithstanding you most pitifully pretend to the contrary And if your Church will again pardon you for such opprobrious language of Scripture as not only to compare the writings of Seneca Plutarch and Aristotle with it which yet are commendable in their kind for moral Virtue and natural Knowledge but those wretched and notorious impostures of the Alcoran and the fabulous relations of the Talmud if I say your Church will pardon such expressions as these because they tend to inhance her Infallibility well fare that Pope who said Heu quam minimo regitur mundus As for your following instance of a Candle lighted in a room which shews that it is a light but not who lighted it so the sentences in Scripture are lights and shew themselves to be such but they cannot shew themselves to be such infallible lights which are produced by none but God himself I answer That I commend your discretion in making choice of a Candle rather than of the light of the Sun to set forth the Scripture by For a Candle yields but a dim uncertain light may be put into a dark lanthorn and snuffed at pleasure so would your Church fain pretend of the Scripture that its light is very weak and uncertain that your Church must open the sides of the Lanthorn that it may give light and make use of some Apostolical Snuffers of the Popes keeping to make it shine the clearer though they often endanger the almost extinguishing of it at least as to the generation of those who should enjoy the benefit of it But because that poor light of a Candle cannot shew who lighted it Will not the light of the Sun manifest it self to be no greater than that of a Candle Cannot any one inferr from the vast extent of that light from the vanishing of it upon the Suns setting and its dispersing it self at his rising that this light can proceed only from that great luminous body which is in the Heavens And may we not proportionably inferr from the clearness greatness majesty coherency of those truths revealed in Scripture that they must certainly come from none but God especially being joyned with those impregnable evidences which himself by the persons who delivered them that they were imployed by himself for that end But because this is a matter of great consequence give me leave to propound these questions to you and after you have considered them seriously return me a rational answer to them 1. Doth it imply any repugnancy at all in the nature of the thing or to the nature of God that he should reveal his mind to the world 2. If it doth not as I suppose you will grant that Whether is it possible that God should make it evident to the world that such a Revelation is from himself 3. If this be not impossible Is it not necessary that it should be so supposing that God should require the belief of a Doctrine so revealed on pain of eternal damnation for not believing it 4. Whether God may not give as great evidence of a Revelation that he makes of his mind to the world as he doth of his Being from the Wisdom Goodness and Power which may be seen in the works of Creation 5. Whether any other way be conceivable that it should be evident that a Doctrine comes from God but that it contains things highly suitable to the Divine nature things above the finding out of humane reason things only tending to advance Holiness and Goodness in the world and this doctrine to be delivered by persons who wrought unparalleld miracles 6. Whether all these be not in the most evident manner imaginable contained in the Doctrine of Christianity and in the Books of Scripture which I leave any man that hath common sense to judge of 7. Whether then it be not the highest disparagement of this Divine doctrine to make it stand in need of an Infallible testimony of any company who shall take the boldness to call themselves the Catholick Church in order to the believing of it and whether there can be any greater dishonour done it then to say it hath no more light to discover it self Divine than the Writings of Philosophers not to add of Jews and Mahumetans These things I leave you and the reader to consider of and proceed What follows concerning the Fathers and others proving the Scriptures to be the Word of God by themselves after they have believed them infallibly
general Foundations of Christian Society But if any Society shall pretend a necessity of communion with her because it is impossible this should be done by her this priviledge must in reason be as evident as the common grounds of Christianity are nay much more evident because the belief of Christianity it self doth upon this pretence depend on the knowledge of such Infallibility and the indispensable obligation to communion depends upon it 2. There being a possibility acknowledged that particular Churches may require unreasonable conditions of communion the obligation to communion cannot be absolute and indispensable but only so far as nothing is required destructive to the ends of Christian Society Otherwise men would be bound to destroy that which they believe and to do the most unjust and unreasonable things But the great difficulty lyes in knowing when such things are required and who must be the judge in that case to which I answer 3. Nothing can be more unreasonable then that the Society imposing such conditions of communion should be judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no. If the question only were in matters of peace and conveniency and order the judgement of the Society ought to over-rule the judgements of particular persons but in such cases where great Bodies of Christians judge such things required to be unlawful conditions of communion what justice or reason is there that the party accused should sit Judge in her own cause 4. Where there is sufficient evidence from Scripture reason and tradition that such things which are imposed are unreasonable conditions of Christian communion the not communicating with that Society which requires these things cannot incurr the guilt of Schism Which necessarily follows from the precedent grounds because none can be obliged to communion in such cases and therefore the not communicating is no culpable separation 5. By how much the Societies are greater which are agreed in not communicating with a Church imposing such conditions by how much the power of those who rule those Societies so agreeing is larger by so much the more justifiable is the Reformation of any Church from these abuses and the setling the bonds of Christian communion without them And on those grounds viz. the Church of Romes imposing unlawful conditions of communion it was necessary not to communicate with her and on the Church of Englands power to reform it self by the assistance of the Supream power it was lawful and justifiable not only to redress those abuses but to settle the Church upon its proper and true foundations So that the Church of Romes imposing unlawful conditions of communion is the reason why we do not communicate with her and the Church of Englands power to govern and take care of her self is the reason of our joyning together in the service of God upon the principles of our Reformation On these grounds I doubt not but to make it appear how free the Church of England is from all imputation of Schism These things being thus in general premised we come to consider what those principles are on which you can found so high a charge as that of Schism on the Protestant Churches And having throughly considered your way of management of it I find all that you have to say may be resolved into one of these three grounds 1. That the Roman Church is the true and only Catholick Church 2. That our Churches could have no power or cause to divide in their Communion from her 3. That the Authority of the Roman Church is so great that upon no pretence soever could it be lawful to withdraw from Communion with her I confess if you can make good any one of these three you do something to the purpose but how little ground you have to charge us with Schism from any of these Principles will be the design of this Part at large to manifest I begin then with the first which is the pretence of your Churches being the Catholick Church and here we again enter the lists to see how fairly you deal with your Adversary Mr. Fisher saith That from the Controversie of the resolution of Faith the Lady callâ—d them and desiring to hear whether the Bishop would grant the Roman Church to be the right Church the Bishop saith he granted that it was To which his Lordship answers after a just complaint of the abuse of disputations by mens resolution to hold their own though it be by unworthy means and disparagement of truth that the question was neither asked in that form nor so answered And that there is a great deal of difference especially as Romanists handle the question of the Church between The Church and A Church and there is some between a True Church and a Right Church For The Church may import the only true Church and perhaps the root and ground of the Catholick And this saith he I never did grant of the Roman Church nor ever mean to do But A Church can imply no more then that it is a member of the whole And this I never did saith he nor ever will deny if it fall not absolutely away from Christ. That it is a True Church I granted also but not a Right For Truth only imports the being right perfection in conditions thus a Thief is a true man though not an upright man So a corrupt Church may be true as a Church is a company of men which profess the Faith of Christ and are baptized into his Name but it is not therefore a right Church either in doctrine or manners And this he saith is acknowledged by very learned Protestants before him This is the substance of his Lordships answer to which we must consider what you reply That about the terms of the Ladie 's question you grant to be a verbal Controversie and that whatever her words were she was to be understood to demand this alone viz. Whether the Roman were not the True Visible Infallible Church out of which none can be saved for herein you say she had from the beginning of the Controversie desired satisfaction And in this subject the Roman Church could not be any Church at all unless it were The Church and a Right Church The reason is because St. Peters successour being the Bishop of Rome and Head of the whole Church as you tell us you will prove anon that must needs be the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it be any Church at all And because the Church can be but one if it be a true Church it must be the right Church But all this amounts only to a confident assertion of that which wants evident proof which is that the notion of a Church relates to one as appointed the Head of the whole Church without which it would be no Church at all Which being a thing so hard to be understood and therefore much harder to be proved we must be content to wait your leasure till you shall think fit