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
the Church may declare matters of Faith The testimony of St. Augustine vindicated Page 44. CHAP. III. The Absurdities of the Romanists Doctrine of Fundamentals The Churches Authority must be Divine if whatever she defines be Fundamental His Lordship and not the Testimony of S. Augustine shamefully abused three several wayes Bellarmin not mis-cited the Pelagian Heresie condemned by the General Council at Ephesus The Popes Authority not implyed in that of Councils The gross Absurdities of the distinction of the Church teaching and representative from the Church taught and diffusive in the Question of Fundamentals The Churches Authority and Testimony in matters of Faith distinguished The Testimony of Vincentius Lirinensis explained and shewed to be directly contrary to the Roman Doctrine of Fundamentals Stapleton and Bellarmin not reconciled by the vain endeavours used to that end Page 79. CHAP. IV. The Protestant Doctrine of Fundamentals vindicated The unreasonableness of demanding a Catalogue of Fundamentals The Creed contains the Fundamentals of Christian Communion The belief of Scripture supposed by it The Dispute concerning the Sense of Christs Descent into Hell and Mr. Rogers his Book confessed by T. C. impertinent With others of the same nature T. C. his fraud in citing his Lordships words Of Papists and Protestants Vnity The Moderation of the Church of England compared with that of Rome Her grounds of Faith justified Infant-Baptism how far proved out of Scripture alone Page 98. CHAP. V. The Romanists way of Resolving Faith The ill consequences of the resolution of Faith by the Churches Infallibility The grand Absurdities of it manifested by its great unreasonableness in many particulars The certain Foundations of Faith unsettled by it as is largely proved The Circle unavoidable by their new attempts The impossibility of proving the Church Infallible by the way that Moses Christ and his Apostles 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 Page 109. 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 â—estimony of the Spirit how far pertinent to this Controversie Of the use of Reason in the resolution of Faith 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 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 p. 161. CHAP. VII The Protestant Way of resolving Faith Several Principles premised in order to it The distinct Questions set down and their several Resolutions 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 p. 202. CHAP. VIII The Churches Infallibility not proved from Scripture Some general Considerations from the design of proving the Churches Infallibility from Scripture No Infallibility in the High-Priest and his Clergy under the Law if there had been no necessity there should be under the Gospel Of S. Basil's Testimony concerning Traditions Scripture less liable to corruptions than Traditions The great uncertainty of judging Traditions when Apostolical when not The Churches perpetuity being promised in Scripture proves not its Infallibility His Lordship doth not falsifie C's words but T. C. doth his meaning Producing the Jesuits words no traducing their Order C's miserable Apology for them The particular Texts produced for the Churches Infallibility examined No such Infallibility necessary in the Apostles Successours as in Themselves The Similitude of Scripture and Tradition to an Ambassadour and his Credentials rightly stated p. 235. CHAP. IX The Sense of the Fathers in this Controversie The Judgement of Antiquity enquired into especially of the three first Centuries and the reasons for it The several Testimonies of Justin Martyr Athenagoras Tatianus Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus and all the Fathers who writ in vindication of Christian Religion manifested to concurr fully with our way of resolving Faith C's Answers to Vincentius Lyrinensis à Gandavo and the Fathers produced by his Lordship pitifully weak The particulars of his 9th Chapter examined S. Augustine's Testimony vindicated C's nauseous Repetitions sent as Vagrants to their several homes His Lordships Considerations found too heavy for C's Answers In what sense the Scripture may be called a Praecognitum What way the Jews resolved their Faith This Controversie and the first part concluded p. 261 PART II. Of Schism CHAP. I. Of the Universal Church THe Question of Schism explained The nature of it enquired into Several general Principles laid down for clearing the present Controversie Three grounds of the charge of Schism on Protestant Churches by our Authour The first of the Roman Churches being the Catholick Church entred upon How far the Roman Church may be said to be a true Church The distinction of a Church morally and metaphysically true justified The grounds of the Unity of the Catholick Church as to Doctrine and Government Cardinal Perron's distinction of the formal causal and participative Catholick Church examined The true sense of the Catholick Church in Antiquity manifested from S. Cyprian and several cases happening in his time as the Schism of Novatianus at Rome the case of Felicissimus and Fortunatus Several other Instances out of Antiquity to the same purpose by all which it is manifest that the Unity of the Catholick Church had no dependence on the Church of Rome
in charging him with a threefold falsification of Vincentius Lerinensis The second thing which his Lordship answers is That all determinations of the Church are not made firm to us by one and the same Divine Revelation because some are made by Scripture and others as Stapleton saith without any evident or probable testimony of Holy writ though therein Bellarmine falls quite off and confesses in express terms that nothing can be certain by certainty of Faith unless it be contained immediately in the Word of God or be deduced thence by evident consequence Your only design here is to vindicate your two great Champions from contradicting each other which though it be of little consequence to the main Assertion of his Lordship which you knew well enough and therefore carefully avoid the main Charge of your enemy to part two of your quarrelling friends yet since you intend this for a tryal of your skill we must see how well you play your Prize Stapleton you say means that we must submit to the determinations of the Church and the traditions she approves though they be not expresly contained in Scripture Excellently well guessed at Stapletons meaning when the very words you cite out of him are We ought not to deny our assent in matters of Faith though we have them only by tradition or the decisions of the Church against Hereticks and not confirmed with evident or probable testimony of Scripture What a rare Interpreter are you grown since your acquaintance with Rider and other English Lexicons Who make not denying assent in matters of Faith to be the same with submitting to the Churches Determinations when you know well enough we plead for submission to the Churches Determinations where there may be a liberty as to internal assent and it is as good to make no evident or probable testimony of Scripture the same with not being expresly contained in Scripture as though nothing which was not expresly contained in Scripture could have any probable testimony from thence And from this we may guess what an easie matter it is for you to accommodate all persons who differ if one sayes Yes and the other No you will tell them they do not differ but that one of them by Yes means No and the other by No means Yes Just so here you reconcile Stapleton and Bellarmine for you say Stapleton by no probable testimony means some kind of probable testimony viz. such as though not express may be yet deduced from Scripture and Bellarmine when he speaks of Gods written Word as the ground of certainty means that which is neither Gods Word nor yet written viz. Tradition I never met with one who had a better faculty of reconciling than you seem to have by this attempt But his Lordship had prevented this subterfuge as to Bellarmine and Stapleton as if Stapleton spake of the Word of God written and Bellarmine of the Word of God unwritten as he calls Tradition For Bellarmine saith he there treats of the knowledge which a man hath of the certainty of his own Salvation And I hope A. C. will not tell us there 's any Tradition extant unwritten by which particular men may have assurance of their several Salvations Therefore Bellarmine 's whole Disputation there is quite beside the matter Or else he must speak of the written Word and so lye cross to Stapleton as is mentioned You tell us This Reason is very strange but I dare say yours exceeds it in strangeness which is because Bellarmines design was to shew there was no such unwritten Tradition to be found But doth Bellarmine dispute against any body or no body If he disputes against any body upon your principles those whom he disputes against must be such who assert that men may have certainty of Faith concerning their Salvation from Tradition and you would do well to tell us Who those were that pretended that there was a Tradition or unwritten word delivered down from the Apostles that they should be saved And though Bellarmine was not to affirm this yet those he disputed against upon your Principles must be supposed to do it But certainly you thought none of your Readers did ever intend to look into Bellarmine for the place in Controversie for if they did nothing could be more plain than that Bellarmines reason against Catharinus and others proceeds wholly and only upon the written Word For 1. When he saith that Nothing can be certain with the certainty of Faith but what is either immediately contained in the Word of God or may be deduced thence by evident consequence because Faith can rest on nothing but the authority of Gods Word he adds That of this Principle neither the Catholicks nor the Hereticks doubt But I pray do those whom Bellarmine there calls Hereticks acknowledge the unwritten Word as a foundation for certainty of Faith in the Case Disputed therefore it is plain he speaks exclusively of a written Word 2. When he mentions the Assumption he evidently explains himself of the written Word for saith he There is no such Proposition contained in the Word of God that such and such a particular person is justified for there are none mentioned therein save Mary Magdalen and a certain Paralytick of whom it is said their sins are forgiven them Caeteri homines in sacris literis nè nominantur quidem And will Rider and your other good friends the English Lexicons help you to interpret Sacrae literae by unwritten Traditions Could any one that had either any common sense left in him or else had not a design most grosly to impose on his Readers offer to perswade men that Bellarmine could here understand the Word of God in a sense common to Scripture and Tradition If you can prove that Bellarmine saith otherwise elsewhere you are so far from reconciling Bellarmine and Stapleton that you will not easily reconcile Bellarmine to himself The remainder of this Chapter either refers to something to be handled afterwards as the Infallibility of the Church and Councils or else barely repeats what hath been discussed already concerning your sense of Fundamentals and therefore I dare not presume so far on the Reader 's patience as to give him the same things over and over CHAP. IV. The Protestant Doctrine of Fundamentals vindicated The unreasonableness of demanding a Catalogue of Fundamentals The Creed contains the Fundamentals of Christian Communion The belief of Scripture supposed by it The Dispute concerning the Sense of Christ's Descent into Hell and Mr. Rogers his Book confessed by T. C. impertinent With others of the same nature T. C ' s fraud in citing his Lordships words Of Papists and Protestants Vnity The Moderation of the Church of England compared with that of Rome Her grounds of Faith justified Infant-Baptism how far proved out of Scripture alone THis Chapter begins with a very pertinent Question as you call it we might the easier believe it to be so because it is
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
Reason For I look upon all these Assertions to serve you in no other capacity than as excursions from the matter in hand and therefore I shall not gratifie you so far as particularly to examine them For all then that hath been yet produced by you his Lordships Argument remains good that according to your Principles the Churches Testimony must be made the Formal Object of Faith and I am the more confirmed in it by the weakness of your evasions and I hope I have now made good those words which you challenge his Lordship for That it were no hard thing to prove it The next Absurdity charged upon you by his Lordship is That all the Authorities of Fathers Councils nay of Scripture too must be finally resolved into the Authority of the present Roman Church And though they would seem to have us believe the Fathers and the Church of old yet they will not have us take their Doctrine from their own writings or the Decrees of Councils because as they say We cannot know by reading them what their meaning was but from the infallible Testimony of the present Roman Church teaching by Tradition And this he tells you is the cunning of this devise To which you answer By what hath been said it appears That there is no device or cunning at all either in taking away any thing due to the Fathers Councils or Scripture or in giving too much to the Tradition of the present Church For we acknowledge all due respect to the Fathers and as much to speak modestly as any of our adversaries party But they must pardon us if we prefer the general interpretation of the present Church before the result of any mans particular Phansie As for Scripture we ever extol it above the Definitions of the Church yet affirm it to be in many places so obscure that we cannot be certain of its true sense without the help of a living infallible Judge to determine and declare it which can be no other than the present Church And what we say of Scripture may with proportion be applied to Ancient General Councils For though we willingly submit to them all yet where they happen to be obscure in matters requiring Determination we seek the assistance and direction of the same living Infallible Rule viz. the Tradition or the Sentence of the present Church The Question is Supposing your Churches Testimony to be infallible without which we can have no Assurance of what Fathers Scriptures and Councils say What Authority remains among you to any or all of these And it is not what respect you tell us you give them for you may as easily speak as believe contradictions but what is really left to them if your Opinion concerning the present Churches Infallibility be true And he that cannot see the cunning of this Device of resolving all into the Authority of the present Roman Church will never understand the interest of your Church but it seems you apprehend it so much as not to seem to do it and have too much cunning to confess it But this must not be so easily passed over this being one of the grand Artifices of your Church to make a great noise with Fathers Scriptures and Councils among those most who understand them least when your selves resolve them all into the present Churches Testimony Which is first to gagge them and then bid them speak First For the Fathers you say You acknowledge all due respect to them but the Question is What kind of respect that is which can be due to them when let them speak their minds never so plainly and agree in what they please and deliver what they will as the Judgement of the Church yet all this can give us no Assurance at all on your Principles unless your Church doth infallibly determine the same way What then do the Fathers signifie with you Doth the Infallibility of your Churches Definition depend on the consent of the Fathers No you tell us She is supernaturally assisted by the Holy Ghost and if so I suppose the judgement of the Fathers is not that which she relyes on But it may be you will say This supernatural Assistance directs the Church to that which was the Judgement of the Fathers in all Ages This were something indeed if it could be proved But then I would never read the Fathers to know what their mind is but aske your Church what they meant And though your Church delivers that as their sense which is as opposite as may be both to their words and judgements yet this is part of the respect due to them not to believe whatever they say themselves but what your Church tells us they say A most compendious way for interpreting Fathers and making them sure not to speak any thing against your Church Therefore I cannot but commend the ingenuity of Cornelius Mussus the Bishop of Bitonto who spake that out which more wary men are contented onely to think Ego ut ingenuè fatear plus uni summo Pontitifici crediderim in his quae mysteria fidei tangunt quà m mille Augustinis Hieronymis Gregoriis That I may deal freely saith he I would sooner believe the Pope in matters of Faith than a thousand Augustines Hieromes and Gregories Bravely said and like a man that did heartily believe the Pope's Infallibility And yet no more than every one will be forced to do that understands the Consequence of his own Principles And therefore Alphonsus à Castro was not to be blamed for preferring an Epistle of Anacletus though counterfeit because Pope before Augustine Hierome or any other however holy or learned These men understood themselves and the interest of their Church And although the rest of them make finer leggs to the Fathers than these do yet when they seem to cross their way and entrench upon their Church they find not much kinder entertainment for them We may guess at the rest by two of them men of great note in their several waies the one for Controversies the other for his Commentaries viz. Bellarmine and Maldonate and let us see when occasion serves how rudely they handle the Fathers If S. Cyprian speaks against Tradition it was saith Bellarmine In defence of his errour and therefore no wonder if he argued after the manner of erroneous persons If he opposeth Stephen the Bishop of Rome in the business of Rebaptization He seemeth saith he To have erred mortally in it If S. Ambrose pronounce Baptism in the name of Christ to be valid without the naming other Persons in the Trinity Bellarmine is not afraid to say That in his judgement his Opinion is false If S. Chrysostome saith That it is better not to be present at the Eucharist than to be present and not receive it I say saith Bellarmine That Chrysostome as at other times went beyond his bounds in saying so If S. Augustine expound a place of Scripture not to his mind
cannot be owned as an Apostolical Tradition 2. That what you call an unwritten Word must be something doctrinal so you call them your self doctrinal Traditions i. e. such as contain in them somewhat dogmatical or necessary to be believed by us and thence it was this Controversie rose from the Dispute concerning the sufficiency of the Scriptures as a Rule of Faith Whether that contained all God's Word or all matters to be believed or no or Whether there were not some Objects of Faith which were never written but conveyed by Tradition 3. That what is thus doctrinal must be declared by the Church to be an Apostolical Tradition which you in terms assert According then to these Rules we come to examine the Evidences by you produced for such an unwritten Word For which you first produce several Instances out of S. Austin of such things which were in his time judged to be such i. e. doctrinal Traditions derived from the Apostles and have ever since been conserved and esteemed such in the whole Church of Christ. The first you instance in is that we now treat That Scripture is the Word of God for which you propose the known place wherein he affirms he should not believe the Gospel but for the Authority of the Church moving him thereto But this proves nothing to your purpose unless you make it appear that the Authority of the Church could not move him to believe the Gospel unless that Authority be supposed to be an unwritten Word For I will suppose that S. Austin or any other rational man might be sufficiently induced to believe the Gospel on the account of the Churches Authority not as delivering any doctrinal Tradition in the nature of an unwritten Word but as attesting that Vniversal Tradition which had been among all Christians concerning it Which Universal Tradition is nothing else but a conveying down to us the judgement of sense and reason in the present case For the Primitive Christians being best able to judge as to what Authentick Writings came from the Apostles not by any unwritten Word but by the use of all moral means it cannot reasonably be supposed that the successive Christians should imbezzle these Authentick Records and substitute others in the place of them When therefore Manichaeus pretended the Authenticalness of some other writings besides those then owned by the Church S. Austin did no more than any reasonable man would do in the like case viz. appeal to the Vniversal Tradition of the Catholick Church upon the account of which he saies He was induced to believe the Gospel it self i. e. not so much the Doctrine as the Books containing it But of this more largely elsewhere I can hardly excuse you from a falsification of S. Austin's meaning in the ensuing words which you thus render If any clear Testimony were brought out of Scripture against the Church he would neither believe the Scripture nor the Church whereas it appears by the words cited in your own Margin his meaning is only this If you can find saith he something very plain in the Gospel concerning the Apostleship of Manichaeus you will thereby weaken the Authority of those Catholicks who bid me that I should not believe you whose Authority being weakned neither can I believe the Gospel because through them I believed it Is here any like what you said or at least would seem to have apprehended to be his meaning which is plainly this If against the consent of all those Copies which the Catholick Christians received those Copies should be found truer which have in them something of the Apostleship of Manichaeus this must needs weaken much the Authority of the Catholick Church in its Tradition whom he adhered to against the Manichees and their Authority being thus weakned his Faith as to the Scriptures delivered by them must needs be much weakned too To give you an Instance of a like nature The Mahumetans pretend that in the Scripture there was anciently express mention of their Prophet Mahomet but that the Christians out of hatred of their Religion have erased all those places which spake of him Suppose now a Christian should say If he should find in the Gospel express mention of Mahomet's being a Prophet it would much weaken the Authority of the whole Christian Church which being so weakned it must of necessity weaken the Faith of all those who have believed our present Copies Authentick upon the account of the Christian Churches Authority Is not this plainly the case S. Austin speaks of and Is it any more than any man's reason will tell him Not that the Churches Authority is to be relyed on as judicially or infallibly but as rationally delivering such an Universal Tradition to us And might not S. Austin on the same reason as well believe the Acts of the Apostles as the Gospel when they were both equally delivered by the same Universal Tradition What you have gained then to your purpose from these three citations out of S. Austin in your first Instance I cannot easily imagine Your second Tradition is That the Father is not begotten of any other person S. Austin's words are Sicut Patrem in illis libris nusquam Ingenitum legimus tamen dicendum esse defenditur We never read in the Scriptures that the Father is unbegotten and yet it is defended that we must say so And had they not good reason with them to say so who believed that he was the Father by way of exclusion of such a kind of Generation as the Eternal Son of God is supposed to have But Must this be an Instance of a doctrinal Tradition containing some Object of Faith distinct from Scripture Could any one whoever believed the Doctrine of the Trinity as revealed in Scripture believe or imagine any other that though it be not in express terms set down in Scripture yet no one that hath any conceptions of the Father but this is implied in them If it be therefore a Tradition because it is not expresly in Scripture Why may not Trinity Hypostasis Person Consubstantiality be all unwritten Traditions as well as this You will say Because though the words be not there yet the sense is and I pray take the same Answer for this of the Father's being unbegotten Your third is Of the perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary This indeed S. Austin saith is to be believed fide integra but he saith not divinâ but Do you therefore make this a doctrinal Tradition and an unwritten Word If you make it a doctrinal Tradition you must shew us what Article of Faith is contained in it that it was not looked on as an unwritten Word will appear by the disputations of those Fathers who writ most eagerly about it who make it their design to prove it out of Scripture Those who did most zealously appear against the Opinion of Helvidius were S. Hierom and S. Ambrose of the Latin Church S. Austin only mentions it in
the places by you cited Of the Greek Church Epiphanius and S. Basil. And yet every one of these contends to have it proved out of Scripture S. Hierom enters his dispute against Helvidius upon those terms of confuting him out of Scripture and towards the conclusion of that discourse see what a friend S. Hierom is to doctrinal Traditions As saith he we deny not the things which are written so we embrace not the things which are not written We believe the Incarnation because we read it we believe not the Marriage of Mary after her delivery because we read it not St. Ambrose in his Epistle to Theophilus and Anysius where he first mentions this Opinion argues against it wholly from the Testimony of Scripture and the unreasonableness of the thing To the same purpose Epiphanius discourseth of this subject whose utmost Arguments are only probabilities Whether the Antidicomariani were the same with Helvidians as S. Austin supposeth Or Whether they were the Disciples of Apollinarius who broached the same Doctrine in the East at the time Helvidius did in the West as others suppose is not material to our purpose but this latter seems to be the Opinion of Epiphanius Who in his Epistle written in Confutation of that Opinion chargeth the first Authours of it with great Ignorance of the Scriptures and urgeth many places to prove the perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary and therefore did not look on it as an unwritten Word St. Basil in his discourse concerning the Humane Generation of Christ falls upon this Subject and goes about to prove it from the importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which saith he although it seems to speak some circumscription of time yet it really denotes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an indefinite time as in that I will be with you alwaies to the end of the world But he ushers in this discourse with this remarkable Expression Although this be no hinderance to the Doctrine of Piety for till the Oeconomy of her delivery was accomplished her Virginity was necessary but what became of it afterwards is not pertinent to this mystery however because the ears of those who love Christ will hardly entertain this that Mary ceased to be a Virgin we suppose these proofs sufficient for it Judge then whether S. Basil did believe this to be a Doctrine of Faith or an unwritten Word This Testimony Fronto Ducaeus is much troubled with and would go about to prove this to be an Article of Faith from the Councils of Constantinople and the Lateran in the first of which she is only called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But doth that note it to be an Article of Faith As for his evasion of this Testimony it is so impertinent that I shall not repeat it although he voucheth Vasquez for the Authour of it It cannot be denied but that afterwards S. Basil produceth a Tradition for it concerning Zachary's placing the Virgin Mary after her delivery among the Virgins for which he was slain of the Jews between the Temple and the Altar But we may guess at the credit of this Tradition by what S. Hierom saith of it that it came ex Apocryphorum somniis and withall gives a sufficient lash at all Traditions by reason of this in the next words Hoc quia de Scripturis non habet auctoritatem eâdem facilitate contemnitur quâ probatur Which having no Authority from the Scriptures it is as easily contemned as produced And think you not then that S. Hierom was a great friend to your doctrinal Traditions and unwritten Word But say you still The Virginity of Mary must be an Article of Faith because those who denied it are called Hereticks and S. Augustine calls Helvidius his Opinion blasphemy But though Helvidius be listed among the Hereticks yet I suppose you will not say that all who are listed in those Catalogues are defined to be Hereticks by the Catholick Church It is very apparent that any one who seemed to broach any new fancies and thereby disturbed the Churches Peace were called Hereticks by them And Vasquez confesseth that Aquinas calls it an Errour and not an Heresie in Helvidius If it were so he was not the first Authour of it for Tertullian is not only cited by Helvidius for it and S. Hierom casts away his Testimony as of a man out of the Church but Vasquez confesseth he delivers it so often that Pamelius could make no antidote for those places One would therefore think that one so near the Apostles as Tertullian was might easily have learned such a Tradition and so great a friend to Virginity as he was while a Montanist should not have been apt to believe the contrary That which was accounted Blasphemy in Helvidius was the rashness of his assertion which seemed dishonourable to the Blessed Virgin and not as though he did thereby overthrow any Article of Faith For the other part of your Tradition that she was a Virgin in the Birth of Christ you will find it a greater difficulty to make it out to have been believed as a Tradition much less as an unwritten Word For not only Tertullian but Ignatius Irenaeus Origen Epiphanius Ambrose Theophylact oppose you in it and judge you then whether this were owned as a constant Tradition or no. But it is not worth while to insist upon it Your fourth Instance is concerning the Rebaptization of Hereticks Concerning which two things are to be considered The Custome it self and the Right and Law on which that Custome was grounded In the places by you cited out of S. Austin it is plain he speaks of the Custome and Practice of the Church which saith he did not use the Iteration of Baptism which Custome he believed did come from Apostolical Tradition as many other things which are not found in the writings of the Apostles nor in following Councils yet because they are observed by the Vniversal Church are believed to be delivered and commended by them To the same purpose is the other Testimony But what is this to doctrinal Traditions concerning matters of Faith That there were many Ecclesiastical Customes observed in the Church as Apostolical Traditions I deny not but that is not our present Question If you therefore enquire into that which is only doctrinal in this case concerning the right and lawfulness of Practice in this case that he fixeth wholly upon the Scriptures The Practice of the Church in admitting Hereticks without baptizing them again might be known by Tradition but whether the Church did well or ill in it must be by S. Austin's own confession determined out of Scripture And in that latter place by you cited there is mentioned no such thing as an unwritten Word or that the Apostles had left any command that Hereticks should not be baptized again Nihil quidem exinde praeceperunt Apostoli are his own words there being then neither written nor unwritten Word for
it S. Austin takes the likeliest course he could think of which was from the Custome of the Church to judge most probably what was most agreeable to the Apostles minds But still when he comes to urge most home against the Donatists he makes his recourse to the Scriptures And offers to prove the matter in dispute from them and would have all tryed by the ballance of the Lord. And expresly saith It is against the Lords command that those who have had lawful Baptism already should be rebaptized So that we see S. Augustine did not himself think it a sufficient proof of Apostolical Tradition that it was a Custome of the Church unless he did likewise produce certain evidence out of Scripture for the confirmation of it Neither then will your fourth Instance prove what it was brought for Your fifth concerning Infants Baptism you have given us occasion to consider largely already your sixth depends upon that your seventh is only a rite of the Church To your eighth I answer Though the Tradition of the Church be a great confirmation of the Apostolical Practice in observation of the Lords day yet that very Practice and the ground of it are sufficiently deduced from Scripture Among all these Instances therefore we are yet to seek for such a doctrinal Tradition as makes an unwritten Word But methinks an Authour who would seem so much versed in S. Augustine might among all these Instances have found out one more which would have looked more like a doctrinal Tradition than most of these which is the necessity of the Eucharist to baptized Infants The places are so many and so express in him concerning it that it would be a needless task to produce them I shall only therefore referr you to your Espencaeus who hath made some collection of them When you have viewed them I pray bethink your self of some convenient Answer to them which either must be by asserting that S. Augustine might be deceived in judging of Doctrinal and Apostolical Traditions and then to what purpose are your eight Instances out of him Or else that might be accounted an Apostolical Tradition in one age which may not in another and then since according to your judgement the present Church is infallible in every age that was infallibly an Apostolical Tradition in one age which infallibly is not so in another Which leaves us in a greater dispute than ever what these Apostolical Traditions are when the Church in several ages doth so much differ concerning them After you have in your way attempted to prove such unwritten Words or doctrinal Traditions you fall upon a high charge against his Lordship and not without a severe reflection on all Protestants in these words It is so natural to Protestants to build upon false grounds that they cannot enter into a Question without supposing a falshood so his Lordship here feeds his humour and obtrudes many It is well yet his Lordship meets with no worse entertainment than all Protestants do You think all Protestants still build upon false grounds because not super hanc Petram and that they still suppose falshoods because they suppose your Church fallible whether she undertakes to explain written or define unwritten Words But whether his Lordship feeds his humour in obtruding falshoods or you yours in calumniating will appear upon examination You say He makes Bellarmine and all Catholick Doctors maintain that whatever they please to call Tradition must presently be received by all as God's unwritten Word Upon which you go about to vindicate Bellarmine by repeating his distinctions concerning Traditions viz. That some are Divine others Apostolical and others Ecclesiastical and that some belong to Faith others to Manners But all this doth not serve your turn For 1. His Lordship doth not deny that Bellarmine useth these distinctions but reduceth all these several Traditions under the same common title de Verbo Dei non scripto and that his design therein is to impose upon unwary Readers that all the Traditions mentioned by him are God's unwritten Word Upon which his Lordship had good reason to go about to undeceive them and to make it appear so evidently as he hath done that Tradition and God's unwritten Word are not convertible terms both because there may be justly supposed to have been many unwritten Words which were never delivered over to the Church and that there are many things which go for Traditions in your Church which have no shadow of pretence from an unwritten Word 2. There may be yet further cunning in all this for although Bellarmine and you distinguish of Traditions Divine Apostolical and Ecclesiastical yet when you come to put the difference between these I suppose you would not leave it to every particular person to judge which of these Traditions is of these several natures but the Church must be judge of them So that a Tradition is Ecclesiastical when your Church will have it so that is when it is disused among you as the three dippings in Baptism the participation of Eucharists by Infants c. But when any Tradition is still in use by your Church then your Churches Practice being in this case a sufficient Definition as to all those things so used by your Church they must be accounted Apostolical if not Divine 3. Of what kind or nature soever these Traditions are supposed to be whether Divine Apostolical or Ecclesiastical prove any of them to contain any thing necessary for Faith and Salvation and you will then come near an unwritten Word Your Ecclesiastical Traditions you discard your self from being such inform us then what Divine and Apostolical Traditions those are which are founded on such an unwritten Word Whether any of your Ecclesiastical Traditions contradict God's Word or no is not here a place to examine we are now enquiring Whether there be any such thing as an unwritten Word at all which contains any matter necessary for us to believe or practise The only pretence you have here for it is That we believe by Divine Faith that Scripture is God's VVord and that there is no other VVord of God to assure us of this Point but the Tradition delivered to us by the Church and that such Tradition so delivered must be the unwritten VVord of God How far we are to believe Scriptures to be the VVord of God with Divine Faith will be throughly examined in its due time and likewise how far any VVord of God is necessary for the Foundation of this Faith only I cannot here but take notice what it is which makes a Tradition be the unwritten VVord of God and what becomes then of your former distinction concerning Traditions for we see that which makes them the VVord of God is their being delivered by the Church so that let their Authour Nature or Matter be what it will according to this Principle any Tradition being delivered by your Church becomes an unwritten VVord So I come to the second
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
produced is That a Tradition may be known to be such by the Light it hath in it self in which you say you find not one word of Tradition being known by its own Light But who are so blind as those who will not see I pray what difference is there between a Tradition being known to be such by its own Light and a Tradition being known by its own Light Yes say you known to be such implies that is to be God's unwritten Word but are not doctrinal Traditions and an unwritten Word with you the same thing Can therefore a Tradition be known to be an unwritten Word by its own Light and not be known to be a Tradition by its own Light Nay How can it possibly be known to be an unwritten Word unless it first appears to be a Tradition for Tradition containing under it both those that are unwritten Words and those that are not it must in order of nature be known to be a Tradition before it can be known to be the other As I must first know you to be a living Creature before I can know you to be a reasonable Creature and I may much sooner know the one than the other You do therefore very well when you have given us such occasion for sport to give us leave to laugh at it as you do in your next words But before you leave this point you have some graver matter to take notice of which is that you desire the reader to consider what the Relator grants viz. That the Church now admits of St. James and St. Judes Epistles and the Apocalypse which were not received for diverse years after the rest of the New Testament From which you wisely inferr That if some Books are now to be admitted for Canonical which were not alwayes acknowledged to be such then upon the same authority some Books may now be received into the Canon which were not so in Ruffinus his time And therefore the Bishop doth elsewhere unjustly charge the Church of Rome that it had erred in receiving more Books into the Canon then were received in Ruffinus his time To which I Answer 1. By your own confession then the Church of Rome doth now receive into the Canon more Books then she did in Ruffinus his time from whence I enquire whether the present Church of Rome were Infallible in Ruffinus his time in determining the Canon of the Scripture If not then the present Church is no Infallible propounder of the Word of God and then all your discourse comes to nothing If she were Infallible then she cannot be now for now she determins otherwise as to a main point of Faith than she did then unless you will say your Church can be Infallible in determining both parts of a contradiction to be true 2. Is the integrity of the Canon of Scripture an Apostolical tradition or no I doubt not but you will say It is if so Whether were these Books which you admit now and were not admitted then known to be of the Canon by this Apostolical tradition If not by what right come they now to be of the Canon if so then was not your Church in Ruffinus's time much to seek for her Infallibility in defining what was Apostolical tradition and what not 3. Your main principle on which the lawfulness of adding more books to the Canon of the Scripture is built is That it is in the power of your Church judicially and authoritatively to determine what books belong to the Canon of the Scripture and what not which I utterly deny For it is impossible that your Church or any in the world can by any definition make that Book to be Divine which was not so before such a definition For the Divinity of the Book doth meerly arise from Divine revelation Can your Church then make that to be a Divine revelation which was not so All that any Church in the world can do in this case is not to constitute any new Canon which were to make Books Divine which were not so but to use its utmost diligence and care in searching into the authenticalness of those Copy's which have any pretence to be of the Canon and whether they did originally proceed from such persons as we have reason to believe had an immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost and according to the evidence they find the Church may declare and give in her verdict For the Church in this case is but a Jury of grand Inquest to search into matters of Fact and not a Judge upon the Bench to determine in point of Law And that is the true reason why the Books of the New Testament were gradually received into the Canon and some a great while after others as St. James St. Jude the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse because at first the Copyes being not so publickly dispersed there was not that occasion ministred to the Church for examination of them upon which when by degrees they came to be more publick it caused scruples in many concerning them because they appeared no sooner especially if any passages in them seemed to gratifie any of the Sects then appearing as the Epistle to the Hebrews the Novatians and the Apocalypse the Millenary's But when upon a through search and examination of all circumstances it did appear that these Copyes were authentical and did originally proceed from Divine Persons then they came to be admitted and owned for such by the Vniversal Church which we call being admitted into the Canon of the Scripture Which I take to be the only true and just account of that which is called the constituting the Canon of Scripture not as though either the Apostles met to do it or St. John intended any such thing by those words in the end of the Apocalypse for that Book being as much lyable to question as any how could that seal the Canon for all the rest much less that it was in the power of any Church or Council and least of all of the Pope to determine what was Canonical and what not but only that the Church upon examination and enquiry did by her Universal reception of these Books declare it self satisfied with the evidence which was produced that those were true and authentick Copyes which were abroad under such names or titles and that there was great reason to believe by a continued tradition from the age and time these Books were written in that they were written by such persons who were not only free from any design of imposture but gave the greatest Rational evidence that they had a more special and immediate assistance of Gods Spirit You see then to how little advantage to your Cause you made this digression As to the third way propounded for resolving the Question How we know the Scriptures to be the Word of God viz. by the testimony of the Holy Ghost three things you object against the Bishops discourse about it First that his discourse
which Cyprian replies Whence comes this Tradition doth it descend from the Lords Authority or from the Commands and Epistles of the Apostles for those things are to be done which are there written And again If it be commanded in the Gospel or the Epistles and Acts of the Apostles then let this holy Tradition be observed We see then what St. Cyprian meant by his Apostolical Tradition not one Infallibly attested by the present Church but that is clearly derived from Scripture as its fountain and therefore brings in the foregoing words on purpose to correct the errours of Traditions that As when channels are diverted to a wrong course we must have recourse to the fountain so we must in all pretended Traditions of the Church run up to the Scriptures as the fountain-head And whereas Bellarmins only shift to avoid this place of Cyprian is by saying that Cyprian argued more errantium i. e. could not defend one errour but by another see how different the judgements of St. Augustine and Bellarmin are about it for St. Augustin is so far from blaming it in him that he saith Optimum est sine dubitatione faciendum i. e. It was the best and most prudent course to prevent errours And in another place where he mentions that saying of Cyprian It is in vain for them to object Custom who are overcome by Reason as though custom were greater than truth or as though that were not to be followed in spiritual things which is revealed by the Holy Ghost This saith St. Augustin is evidently true because reason and truth is to be preferred before custom He doth not charge these sayings on him as Bellarmin doth as part of his errours but acknowledgeth them and disputes against his opinion out of those principles And when before the Donatists objected the authority of St. Cyprian in the point of Rebaptization What kind of answer doth St. Augustine give them the very same that any Protestant would give Who knows not that the sacred Canonical Scripture of the Old and New Testament is contained within certain bounds and ought so far to be prefer'd before the succeeding writings of Bishops that of that alone we are not to doubt or call in question any thing therein written whether it be true and right or no. But as he saith in the following words All the writings since the confirmation of the Canon of Scripture are lyable to dispute and even Councils themselves to be examined and amended by Councils Think you then that St. Augustin ever thought of a present Infallibility in the Church or if he did he expressed it in as odd a manner as ever I read How easily might he have stopt the mouths of the Donatists with that one pretence of Infallibility How impertinently doth he dispute through all those Books if he had believed any such thing It were easie to multiply the Citations out of other Books of St. Austin to shew how much he attributed to Scripture as the only rule of Faith and consequently how farr from believing your Doctrine of Infallibility But these may suffice to shew how unhappily you light on these Books of St. Augustine for the proof of your opinion out of the Fathers The last thing your Discourser objects against his Lordships way is If the Church be fallible in the Tradition of Scripture how can I ever be Infallibly certain that she hath not erred de facto and defined some Book to be the Word of God which really is not his Word To which I answer If you mean by Infallible certainty such a certainty as must have some Infallible Testimony for the ground of it you beg the question for I deny any such Infallible Testimony to be at all requisite for our believing the Canon of Scripture and therefore you object that as an inconvenience which I apprehend to be none at all For I do not think it any absurdity to say that I cannot believe upon some Infallible Testimony that the Church hath not erred in defining the Canon of Scripture If by Infallible certainty you mean such a certainty as absolutely excludes a possibility of deception you would do well first to shew how congruous this is to humane nature in this present state before you make such a certainty so necessary for any act of humane understanding But if by Infallible certainty you mean only such as excludes all possibility of reasonable doubting upon the consideration of the validity and sufficiency of that Testimony I am to believe the Canon of Scripture upon then I assert that upon making the Churches Testimony to be fallible it doth not at all follow but that I may have so great a certainty as excludes the possibility of all reasonable doubting concerning the Canon of Scripture For when I suppose the Churches Testimony fallible I do not thereby understand as though there were as great reason to suspect her deceived as not nay I say there can be no reason to suspect her deceived but by that I understand only this that the Church hath not any supernatural Infallibility given her in delivering such a Testimony or that such Infallibility must be the foundation of believing the thing so delivered For whether I suppose your particular Church of Rome or the Catholick Church to be supernaturally Infallible in her Traditions there will be the same difficulty returning and an equal impossibility of vindicating our Faith from the entanglements of a Circle For still the question unavoidably returns From whence I believe such a supernatural Infallibility in the Church For in that it is supernatural it must suppose some promise on which it depends that promise must be somewhere extant and that can be no where but in Scripture therefore when I am asked Why I believe the Canon of the Scripture to be true if I answer Because the Tradition of the Catholick Church is Infallible the question presently returns Since humane nature is in it self fallible whence comes the Church to have this Infallibility If I answer By the assistance of Gods spirit I am presently asked Since no man by the light of nature and meer reason can be assured of this how know you that you are not deceived in believing such an assistance If to this I answer Because God who is Infallible hath made this promise in his Word I am driven again to the first question How I know this to be Gods Word and must answer it as before Upon the infallible Testimony of the Catholick Church Thus we see how impossible it is to avoid a Circle in the supposition of a supernatural Infallibility in the Churches Tradition But if no more be meant but a kind of rational Infallibility though those terms be not very proper i. e. so great evidence as if I question it I may upon equal grounds question every thing which mankind yields the firmest Assent to because I cannot imagine that so great a part of the wisest and most considerative
speaks of i. e. that act of the Apostles whereby they delivered the Doctrine of Christ upon their Testimony to the world If you mean this Tradition for my part I do not understand it as any thing really distinct from the Tradition of the Scripture it self For although I grant that the Apostles did deliver that Doctrine by Word as well as Writing yet if that Tradition by Word had been judged sufficient I much question whether we had ever had any written Records at all But because of the speedy decay of an oral Tradition if there had been no standing Records it pleased God in his infinite Wisdom and Goodness to stir up some fit persons to digest those things summarily into writing which otherwise would have been exposed to several corruptions in a short time For we see presently in the Church notwithstanding this how suddenly the Gnosticks Valentinians Manichees and others did pretend some secret Tradition of Christ or his Apostles distinct from their writings When therefore you can produce as certain evidence any Apostolical Tradition distinct from Scripture as we can do that the Books of Scripture were delivered by the Apostles to the Church you may then be hearkened to but not be before 2. We have other waies to judge of the Identity of the Copies of Scripture which we have with those delivered by the Primitive Church besides the Testimony of the present Church And the judgement of the present Church considered meerly as such can be no argument to secure any man concerning the integrity and incorruption of the Books of Scripture We do therefore justly appeal to the ancient Copies and M. SS which confirm the incorruption of ours But say you What infallible Certainty have we of them besides Church Tradition Very wisely said in several respects as though no Certainty less than infallible could serve mens turn as to ancient Copies of Scripture and as though your Church could give men Infallible certainty which Copy's were ancient and which were not But for our parts we should not be at all nearer any certainty much less Infallibility concerning the authenticalness of any ancient Copy's because your Church declared it self for them neither can we imagine it at all necessary in the examination of ancient Copy's to have any Infallible certainty at all of them For as well you may pretend it as to any other Authours when all that we look after in such Copy's is only that evidence which things of that nature are capable of But you make his Lordship give as wise an answer to this question of yours They may be examined and approved by the authentical Autographa's of the very Apostles Where is it that this answer is given by his Lordship If you may be allowed to make questions and answers too no doubt the one will be as wise as the other But I suppose you thought nothing could be said pertinent in this case but what you make his Lordship say and then by the unreasonableness of that answer because none of these Autographa's are supposed extant and because if they were so all men could not be Infallibly certain of them you think you have sufficient advantage against your adversary because thereby it would appear there can be no certainty of Scripture but from the authority of your Church To which because it may seem to carry on your great design of rendring Religion uncertain I shall return a particular answer 1. Supposing we could have no certainty concerning the Copy's of Scripture but from Tradition this doth not at all advantage your cause unless you could prove that no other Tradition but that of your Church can give us any certainty of it Give me leave then to make this supposition That God might not have given this supernatural assistance to your Church which you pretend makes it Infallible Whether men through the Vniversal consent of persons of the Christian Church in all Ages might not have been undoubtedly certain That the Scripture we have was the same delivered by the Apostles i. e. Whether a matter of fact in which the whole Christian world was so deeply engaged that not only their credit but their interest was highly concerned in it could not be attested by them in a credible manner Which is as much as to ask Whether the whole Christian world was not at once besotted and infatuated in â—he grossest manner so as to suffer the records of those things which concerned their eternal welfare to be imbezeled falsified or corrupted so as to mistake them for Apostolical writings which were nothing so If it be not then credible that the Christian world should be so monstrously imposed upon and so grosly deceived then certainly the Vniversal Tradition of the Society may yield unquestionable evidence to any inquisitive person as to the integrity and incorruption of the body of Scriptures And if it may yield such evidence why doth it not so when we see this was the very case of the Christian world in all Ages Some writings were delivered to the Church of the Age they lived in by the Apostles these writings were so delivered as that the Christians understood they were of things of more concernment to them than the whole world was these writings were then received embraced and publickly read these writings were preserved by them so sacred and inviolable that it was accounted a crime of the highest nature to deliver the Copy's of them into the hands of the Heathen persecutors these writings were still owned by them as Divine and the rule and standard of Faith these were appealed to in all disputes among them these were preserved from the attempts of Hereticks vindicated from the assaults of the most learned Infidels transcribed into the Books of the most diligent Christians transmitted from one Generation to another as the most sacred depositum of Heaven And yet is it possible to suppose that these writings should be extorted out of their hands by violence abused under their eyes by fraud or suffered to be lost by negligence Yet no other way can be imagined why any should suspect the Books of Scripture which we have are not the same with those delivered by the Apostles All which are such unreasonable suppositions that they could hardly enter into any head but yours or such whose cause you manage in these disputes the most profligate Atheists or most unreasonable Scepticks If then we entertain but mean and ordinary thoughts of the Christians of all Ages if we look upon them as silly men abused into a Religion by fraud and imposture yet we cannot doubt but that these persons were careful to preserve the records of that Religion because they were so diligent in the study of it so venturous for it such enemies to the corrupters of it so industrious in propagating the knowledge of it to their friends and Posterity Do you think our Nation did ever want an Infallible Testimony to preserve the Magna Charta supposing no authentick
is so great integrity and incorruption in those Copies we have that we cannot but therein take notice of a peculiar hand of Divine Providence in preserving these authentick records of our Religion so safe to our dayes But it is time now to return to you You would therefore perswade us That we have no ground of certainty as to the Copies of Scripture but comparing them with the Apostles Autographa but I hope our former discourse hath given you a sufficient account of our certainty without seeing the Apostles own hands But I pray what certainty then had the Jews after the Captivity of their Copies of the Law yet I cannot think you will deny them any ground of certainty in the time of Christ that they had the true Copies both of the Law and the Prophets and I hope you will not make the Sanhedrin which condemned our Saviour to death to have given them their only Infallible certainty concerning it If therefore the Jews might be certain without Infallibility why may not we for if the Oracles of God were committed to the Jews then they are to the Christians now You yet further urge That there can be no certainty concerning the Autographa's of the Apostles but by tradition And may not every universal tradition be carried up as clearly at least to the Apostles times as the Scriptures by most credible Authours who wrote in their respective succeeding ages I answer We grant there can be no certainty as to the Copies of Scripture but from tradition and if you can name any of those great things in Controversie between us which you will undertake to prove to be as universal a tradition as that of the Scriptures you and I shall not differ as to the belief of it But think not to fob us off with the tradition of the present Church instead of the Church of all ages with the tradition of your Church instead of the Catholick with the ambiguous testimonies of two or three of the Fathers instead of the universal consent of the Church since the Apostles times If I should once see you prove the Infallibility of your Church the Popes Supremacy Invocation of Saints Veneration of Images the necessity of Coelibate in the Clergy a punitive Purgatory the lawfulness of communicating in one kind the expediency of the Scriptures and Prayers being in an unknown tongue the sacrifice of the Mass Transubstantiation to name no moâ—e by as unquestionable and universal a tradition as that whereby we receive the Scriptures I shall extoll you for the only person that ever did any thing considerable on your side and I shall willingly yield my self up as a Trophey to your brave attempts Either then for ever forbear to mention any such things as Vniversal Tradition among you as to any things besides Scriptures which carry a necessity with them of being believed or practised or once for all undertake this task and manifest it as to the things in Controversie between us Your next Paragraph besides what hath been already discussed in this Chapter concerning Apostolical tradition of Scripture empties it self into the old mare mortuum of the formal object and Infallible application of Faith which I cannot think my self so much at leasure to follow you into so often as you fall into it When once you bring any thing that hath but the least resemblance of reason more than before I shall afresh consider it but not till then What next follows concerning resolving Faith into prime Apostolical Tradition infallibly without the Infallibility of the present Church hath been already prevented by telling you that his Lordship doth not say That the infallible Resolution of Faith is into that Apostolical Tradition but into the Doctrine which is conveyed in the Books of Scripture from the Apostles times down to us by an unquestionable Tradition Your stale Objection That then we should want Divine Certainty hath been over and over answered and so hath your next Paragraph That if the Church be not infallible we cannot be infallibly certain that Scripture is Gods Word and so the remainder concerning Canonical Books It is an easie matter to write great Books after that rate to swell up your discourses with needless repetitions but it is the misery that attends a bad cause and a bad stomach to have unconcocted things brought up so often till we nauseate them Your next offer is at the Vindication of the noted place of S. Austin I would not believe the Gospel c. which you say cannot rationally be understood of Novices Weaklings and Doubters in the Faith This being then the place at every turn objected by you and having before reserved the discussion of it to this place I shall here particularly and throughly consider the meaning of it In order to which three things must be enquired into 1. What the Controversie was which St. Austin was there discussing of 2. What that Church was which St. Austin was moved by the Authority of 3. In what way and manner that Churches Authority did perswade him 1. Nothing seems more necessary for understanding the meaning of this place than a true state of the Controversie which S. Austin was disputing of and yet nothing less spoke to on either side than this hath been We are therefore to consider that when Manes or Manichaeus began to appear in the world to broach that strange and absurd Doctrine of his in the Christian world which he had received from Terebinthus or Buddas as he from Scythianus who if we belieue Epiphanius went to Jerusalem in the Apostles times to enquire into the Doctrine of Christianity and dispute with the Christians about his Opinions but easily foreseeing what little entertainment so strange a complexion of absurdities would find in the Christian world as long as the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists were received every where with that esteem and veneration Two waies he or his more cunning Disciples bethought themselves of whereby to lessen the authority of those writings and so make way for the Doctrine of Manichaeus One was to disparage the Credulity of Christians because the Catholick Church insisted so much on the necessity of Faith whereas they pretended they would desire men to believe nothing but what they gave them sufficient reason for But all this while since the Christians thought they had evident reason for believing the Scriptures and consequently none to believe the Doctrine which did oppose them therefore they found it necessary to go further and to charge those Copies of Scripture with falsifications and corruptions which were generally received among Christians But these are fully delivered by S. Austin in his Book de utilitate credendi as will appear to any one who looks into it but the latter is that which I aim at this he therefore taxeth them for That with a great deal of impudence or to speak mildly with much weakness they charged the Scriptures to be corrupted and yet
written and seek not the things that are not written Is it not the same St. Basil who saith That every word and action ought to be confirmed by the testimony of Holy Scripture for confirmation of the Faith of the good and confusion of the evil Is it not he who urgeth that very place to this purpose Whatsoever is not of Faith is sin then whatsoever is without the Holy Scripture being not of Faith is sin Which at least must be understood of such things which men have an opinion of piety and necessity in the doing of These and many other places may be produced out of his genuine writings attesting the clean contrary to what you produce this place for What then must we think of him Must we say of him as he did of Gregory Thaumaturgus that he spoke some things not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not as though he believed them but for disputation sake because they served his purpose well Or rather have we not much greater reason considering the contrariety of â—he Doctrine as well as inequality of style to follow Erasmus his judgement concerning this Book Especially considering that Bellarmin himself who slights Erasmus his judgement herein yet when he is pinched with a citation out of his Asceticks calls the sincerity of that Book into question because he doth not therein seem to admit of unwritten Traditions which saith he ad Amphilochium he doth strenuously defend If therefore he may question another Book for not agreeing with this we may more justly question this for disagreeing with so many others Thus you see it is not meerly the style and that only on the judgement of Erasmus which makes this Book suspicious And from those citations produced out of other writings of St. Basil the 3. thing evidently appears viz. That he so makes the Scripture the touchstone of all Traditions as that Scripture must be incomparably of greater force and superiour dignity than any unwritten Tradition whatsoever But Whether Stapleton in his testimony meant primarily Apostolical Traditions or others is not worth the enquiring Concerning what follows as to the sincerity and agreement of ancient Copies of Scripture and the means to be assured of the integrity of them I have sufficiently expressed my self already Only what you add concerning the integrity of Traditions above the Scripture being new deserves to be considered For say you universal Traditions are recorded in Authours of every succeeding age and it seems much more incident to have errours sâ—ip into writings of so great bulk as is the Bible which in their Editions pass only through the hands of particular men then that there should be errours in publick universal and immemorial Traditions which are openly practised throughout Christendom and taken notice of by every one in all ages And from hence you instance in St. Johns Epistle or St. Lukes Gospel which being originally written to particular persons must be at first received as authentical upon their credit but on the other side Apostolical Traditions for which you instance in the Observation of the Lords day Infant-baptism use of Altars c. in their prime Institution and practise being publickly practised and owned by the Apostles it was incomparably harder morally speaking to doubt in the beginning of these Traditions then whether St. Johns Epistle or St. Lukes Gospel were really theirs or no. Whence we see some Books that were written by Apostles were questioned for some time but these and such like Traditions were alwayes owned as truely and really descending from the Apostles To which I answer 1. If you prove not some Tradition thus universally owned and received which we have no record of or ground for the observation of from Scripture you speak nothing at all to the purpose but two of those you instance in Observation of the Lords day and Paedobaptism we have as much as is requisite for the Churches practise from Scripture it self for the other Of the Vse of Altars it were a work becoming you to deduce the History of them from the Apostolical times beginning at the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or upper room where the Apostles met after Christs Ascension and so tracing them through all the private houses and Synagogues in which the Christians in the Apostles times had their solemn Assemblies for Divine worship thence bringing down the History of them carefully through all the persecutions and producing evidences to that purpose out of Tertullian Origen Minutius Felix and Arnobius only blotting out non where they speak of Altars and Temples among Christians and telling us that some Protestants had corrupted their Books that where they utterly disown them they did highly magnifie them that where they seemed to speak most against them it was not to let the Heathens know that they had them By this means indeed you are like to acquaint us with some Vniversal Tradition less lyable to corruption and alteration than the Scriptures For this of Altars is the only thing by you mentioned which seems any thing to your purpose the other two being sufficiently proved from Scripture which acquaints us so much with Apostolical practise as to yield abundant reason for the practise of following Ages You do well therefore to wrap up all other such Traditions as might vye with the Scriptures for integrity with a prudent c. For you cannot but know that this game of Tradition is quite spoiled if we offer to come to particulars But it is a fine thing in general to talk of the impossibility of corrupting such a Tradition as had its rise from the practise of the Apostles and was by them delivered to succeeding ages and so was universally practised by all Christians as derived from the Apostles but when we put but that sullen demand that such a thing as hath no evidence in Scripture may be named which was so universally received and owned as the Scriptures are how many put off's and c.'s do we meet with all For fear of being evidently disproved in the particular instanced in 2. If there be so much greater evidence for Tradition than Scripture whence came the very next ages to the Apostles to be so doubtful as to Traditions which yet were agreed in receiving the Scripture I speak not of such things which we have not the least evidence the Apostles ever thought of much less universally practised such as we contend the things in controversie between you and us are but in such things which undoubtedly the Apostles did practise so as that the Christians of that Age could not but know such a practise of theirs As in that Controversie which soon rise in the Church about the day of the Observation of Easter what contests soon grew between the Asian and Roman Christians about this both equally pretending Apostolical Tradition and that at the least distance imaginable from the Apostolical times For Polycarpe professed to receive his Tradition from St. John as those
at Rome from St. Peter If then Traditions be so uncapable of falsification and corruption how came they to be so much to seek as to what the Apostolical Tradition was in the very next age succeeding the Apostles What Could not those who lived in St. Johns and St. Peters time know what they did Could they be deceived themselves or had they an intent to deceive their posterity If some of them did falsifie Tradition so soon we see what little certainty there is in the deriving a Tradition from the Apostles if neither falsified then it should seem there was no universal practise of the Apostles concerning it but they looked on it as a matter of indifferency and some might practise one way and some another If so then we are yet further to seek for an Vniversal Tradition of the Apostles binding succeeding Ages For can you possibly think the Apostles did intend to bind unalterably succeeding Ages in such things which they used a Liberty in themselves If then it be granted that in matters of an indifferent nature the Apostles might practise severally as they saw occasion How then can we be certain of the Apostles universal practise in matters of an indifferent nature If we cannot so we can have no evidence of an Vniversal Tradition of the Apostles but in some things which they judged necessary But whence shall we have this unquestionable evidence first that they did such things and secondly that they did them with an apprehension of the necessity of them and with an intention to oblige posterity by their actions By what rule or measure must we judge of this necessity By their Vniversal practise but that brings us into a plain Circle for we must judge of the necessity of it by their Vniversal practise and we must prove that Vniversal practise by the necessity of the thing For if the thing were not judged necessary the Apostles might differ in their practise from one another Whence then shall we prove any practise necessary unless built on some unalâ—erable ground of reason and then it is not formally an Apostolical Tradition but the use of that common reason and prudence in matters of a religious nature or else by some positive Law and Institution of theirs and this supposing it unwritten must be evidenced from something distinct from their practise or else you must assert that whatever the Apostles did they made an unalterable Law for or lastly you must quit all Vnwritten Traditions as Vniversal and must first inferr the necessity and then the Vniversality of their practise from some record extant in Scripture and then you can be no further certain of any Vniversal practise of the Apostles then you are of the Scriptures by which it will certainly appear that the Scripture is farr more evident and credible then any Vniversal unwritten Tradition A clear and evident Instance of the uncertainty of knowing Apostolical Traditions in things not defined in Scripture is one of those you instance in your self viz. that of Rebaptizing Hereticks which came to be so great a Controversie so soon after the Apostolical Age. For though this Controversie rose to its height in St. Cyprians time which was about A. D. 250. yet it was begun some competent time before that For St. Cyprian in his Epistle to Jubaianus where he gives an account of the General Council of the Provinces of Africa and Numidia consisting of seventy one Bishops endeavours to remove all suspicion of Novelty from their opinion For saith he it is no new or sudden thing among us to judge that those ought to be baptized who come to the Church from Hereticks for now many years are past and a long time since under Agrippinus the Bishops meeting together did determine it in Council and thousands of Hereticks have voluntarily submitted to it How far off could that be from the Apostolical times which was done so long before Cyprians And although S. Augustine as it was his interest so to do would make this to have been but a few years yet we have greater evidence both of the greater antiquity and larger spread of this Opinion Whereby we may see how little the judgement of Vincentius Lyrinensis is to relyed on as to Traditions who gives Agrippinus such hard words for being the first who against Scripture the Rule of the Vniversal Church the judgement of all his Fellow-Priests the custom of his Ancestors did assert the rebaptization of Hereticks How little Truth there is in what Vincentius here saies and consequently how little certainty in his way of finding out Traditions will appear from the words of Dionysius of Alexandria in his Epistle to Philemon and Dionysius concerning this subject For therein he asserts That long before that custom obtained in Africa the same was practised and decreed in the most famous Churches both at Iconium Synada and other places On which account this great person professeth that he durst not condemn their Opinion who held so Whether this Synod at Iconium were the same with that mentioned by Firmilian is not so certain but if it were that can be no argument against the Antiquity of it For although Firmilian say That we long ago meeting in Iconium from Galatia Cilicia and the neighbour Regions have confirmed the same viz. that Hereticks should be baptized yet as the learned Valesius observes the pronoune We is not to be understood of Firmilian's person but of his predecessors and therefore checks both Baronius and Binius for placing that Synod A. D. 258. We see therefore this Opinion was so largely spread that not only the Churches in Africa Numidia and Mauritania favoured it but almost all the Eastern Christians For Dionysius in an Epistle to Xystus who succeeded Stephanus at Rome wherein he pleads for Moderation as to this Controversie and desires him more throughly to consider the weight of the business and not proceed so rashly as Stephanus had done he tells him in conclusion that he writ not this of himself but at the request of the several Bishops of Antioch Caesarea Aelia Tyre Laodicea Tarsus c. Nay and as it appears by Firmilians Epistle they made no question but this custom of theirs descended from Christ and his Apostles For telling Cyprian that in such places where the other custom had been used they did well to oppose truth to custom But we saith he joyn truth and custom together and to the custom of the Romans we oppose the custom of truth holding that from the beginning which was delivered by Christ and his Apostles And therefore adds Neither do we remember when this practice began seeing it was alwaies observed among us And thence charges the Church of Rome in that Epistle with violating that and several other Traditions of the Apostles But Vincentius Lyrinensis still takes Stephens part and all that he hath to say is That that is the property of Christian modesty and gravity not to deliver
their own Opinions to their posterity but to retain the Tradition of their Fore-fathers As though the other side could not say the same things and with as much confidence as they did but all the Question was What that Tradition was which they were to retain The one said one thing and the other another But as Rigaltius well observes Vincentius speaks very truly and prudently if nothing were delivered by our Ancestors but what they had from the Apostles but under the pretence of our Ancestors silly or counterfeit things may by fools or knaves be delivered us for Apostolical Traditions And whether this doth not often come to pass let the world judge Now therefore when these persons on both sides had incomparably greater advantages of knowing what the Vniversal Apostolical Practice was than we can have and yet so irreconcilably differ about it what likelihood or probability is there that we may have greater certainty of Apostolical Tradition than of the Writings of the Apostles Especially in such matters as these are in which it is very questionable Whether the Apostles had any occasion ministred to them to determine any thing in them And therefore when Stephen at Rome and those of his party pleaded custom and consequently as they thought Apostolical Tradition it was not irrationally answered on the other side by Cyprian and Firmilian that that might be Because the Apostles had not occasion given them to declare their minds in it because either the Heresies were not of such a nature as those of Marcion and Cerdon or else there might not be such returnings from those Heresies in the Apostolical times to the Church which being of so black a nature as to carry in them such malignity by corrupting the lives of men by vicious practices there was less probability either of the true Christians Apostatizing into them or the recovery of such who were fallen into them To this purpose Firmilian speaks That the Apostles could not be supposed to prohibit the baptizing of such which came from the Hereticks because no man would be so silly as to suppose the Apostles did prohibit that which came not in question till afterwards And therefore S. Augustine who concerned himself the most in this Controversie when he saw such ill use made of it by the Donatists doth ingenuously confess That the Apostles did determine nothing at all in it but however saith he that custom which is opposed to Cyprian is to be believed to have its rise from the Apostles Tradition as there are many other things observed in the Church and on that account are believed to have been commanded by the Apostles although they are no where found written But what cogent argument doth S. Austin use to perswade them this was an Apostolical Tradition He grants they determined nothing in it yet would needs have it believed that an Vniversal Practice of succeeding ages should imply such a determination though unwritten But 1. The Vniversal Practice we have seen already was far from being evident when not only the African but the Eastern Church did practise otherwise and that on the account of an Apostolical Tradition too 2. Supposing such an Vniversal Practice How doth it thence follow that it must be derived from the Apostles unless it be first proved that the Church could never consent in the use of any thing but what the Apostles commanded them Which is a very unreasonable supposition considering the different emergencies which might be in the Churches of Apostolical and succeeding times and the different reasons of practice attending upon them with that great desire which crept into the Church of representing the things conveyed by the Gospel in an external symbolical manner whence in the second Century came the use of many baptismal Ceremonies the praegustatio mellis lactis as Tertullian calls it and several of a like nature which by degrees came into the Church Must we now derive these and many other customs of the Church necessarily from the Apostles when even in S. Austins time several customs were supposed to be grounded on Apostolical Tradition which yet are otherwise believed now As in that known Instance of Infants Participation of the Eucharist which is otherwise determined by the Council of Trent and for all that I know the arguments used against this Tradition by some men may as well hold against Infant-Baptism for there is an equal incapacity as to the exercise of all acts of reason and understanding in both and as the Scripture seems to suppose such acts of grace in one as have their foundation in the use of reason it doth likewise in the other and I cannot see sufficient evidence to the contrary but if that place Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven taken in the sense of the Fathers doth imply a necessity of Baptism for all and consequently of Children that other place Verily verily I say unto you Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you taken likewise in the sense of the Fathers will import the necessity of a participation of the Eucharist by Infants as well as others I speak not this with an intention to plead either for this or for the rebaptizing Hereticks but to shew the great uncertainty of knowing Apostolical Traditions some things having been taken for such which we believe were not so and others which could not be known whether so or no by the ages next succeeding the Apostles And therefore let any reasonable person judge what probability there is in what you drive at that Apostolical Traditions may be more easily known than Apostolical Writings By which it appears 3. How vain and insufficient your reasons are Why Traditions should not be so liable to corruption as the Scriptures 1. You say Vniversal Traditions are recorded in Authours of every succeeding age and it seems more incident to have the Bible corrupted than them because of its bulk and passing through the hands of particular men whereas universal and immemorial Traditions are openly practised and taken notice of by every one in all ages To which I answer 1. That you give no sufficient reason why the Bible should be corrupted 2. And as little why Traditions should be more preserved than that Two Accounts you give why the Bible might be corrupted by errours because of its bulk and passing through the hands of particular men But Do you think it a thing impossible or at least unreasonable to suppose that a Book of no greater bulk than the Bible should by the care and vigilancy of men through the assistance of Divine Providence be preserved from any material corruptions or alterations Surely if you think so you have mean thoughts of the Christians in all ages and meaner of Divine Providence For you must suppose God to take no care at all for the preservation of
one of these three Answers 1. That it is a Principle to be supposed for though it be supposed as to the particular debate depending on Scripture yet it is fond and absurd to say It must be supposed when it is the thing in question 2. That it is known meerly by its own Light for the person I have to deal with supposing himself equally capable to judge of Reason and Evidence as my self it doth but betray the weakness of my cause or my inability to manage it to pretend that to be evident which it is much more evident that he doth not think so and it is only to tell him my Vnderstanding must rule his and that whatever appears to me to have Light in it self ought likewise so appear to him 3. It is as absurd as either of the other two to say That you will prove to a rational Enquirer the Scripture to be Gods Word by an unwritten Word of God For 1. His Enquiry is Whether there be any Word of God or no you prove there is because there is for that is all you prove by your unwritten Word He denies or at least questions Whether there be any and particularly instanceth in Scripture you think to end the Question by telling him He must believe it to be so because there is another Word of God which attests it which instead of ending the first Question begets a great many more For 2. He will be more to seek concerning this unwritten Word than before because he might use his Reason in judging concerning the written Word but cannot as to this unwritten it being only told him There is such a thing but he knows not what it is how far it extends who must deliver it what evidence this hath beyond the other that it comes from God that it must be used as an argument to prove it with If you send him to the Infallibility of the Church you must either presume him of a very weak Vnderstanding or else he would easily discern your perfect jugling in this the veins of which I have discovered throughout this discourse There remains nothing then but Reason a Principle common to us both by which I must prove that the Scriptures are from God which Reason partly makes use of the Churches Tradition not in any notion of Infallibility but meerly as built on Principles common to humane nature and partly uses those other arguments which prove by the greatest rational evidence that the Doctrine contained in Scripture was from God and if this were all the meaning of saying The Scriptures are a Principle supposed because of a different way of proving them from particular objects of Faith you can have no reason to deny it The next thing his Lordship insists on is That the Jews never had nor can have any other proof that the Old Testament is the Word of God than we have of the New In your Answer to which I grant that which you contend for That the Tradition of Scriptures among them was by their immediate Ancestors as well as others I grant That their Faith was not a Scientifical Knowledge but a firm perfect assurance only but understand not what you mean by saying That otherwise it would not be meritorious but am as far to seek as ever for any Infallibility in the Jewish Church which should in every age be the ground of believing the Books of the Old Testament to be divinely inspired And if you will prove a constant succession of Prophets from Moses till our Saviour's appearing which you seem willing to believe you would do something towards it but for your permanent Infallible Authority in the High Priest and his Clergy I have already shewed it to be a groundless if not a wilful mistake What remains concerning the nature of Infallibility which at last his Lordship makes to be no more than that which excludes all possibility of doubting and therefore grants that an Infallible Assurance may be had by Ecclesiastical and Humane proof and how far that is requisite to Faith concerning moral Certainty and what Assurance may be had by it concerning the Canon of Scripture Apostolical Tradition the unwritten Word S. Austin 's Testimony about the Church they are all points so fully discussed before that out of pity to the Reader I must referr him to their several places which when he hath throughly considered I will give him leave to summ up the several victories you have obtained in the management of it which will be much more honourable for you than for your self to do it as you do most triumphantly in the end of this Controversie concerning the Resolution of Faith And although I have not been much surprized with your attempts yet I shall heartily conclude this great Debate with your last words in it The Consequence I leave to the serious consideration of the Judicious Reader I beseech God he may make benefit of it to his eternal felicity PART II. Of Schism CHAP. I. Of the Universal Church The Question of Schism explained The nature of it enquired into Several general Principles laid down for clearing the present Controversie Three grounds of the charge of Schism on Protestant Churches by our Authour The first of the Roman Churches being the Catholick Church entered upon How far the Roman Church may be said to be a true Church The distinction of a Church morally and metaphysically true justified The grounds of the Vnity of the Catholick Church as to Doctrine and Government Cardinal Perron's distinction of the formal causal and participative Catholick Church examined The true sense of the Catholick Church in Antiquity manifested from St. Cyprian and several cases happening in his time as the Schism of Novatianus at Rome the case of Felicissimus and Fortunatus Several other Instances out of Antiquity to the same purpose by all which it is manifest that the unity of the Catholick Church had no dependance on the Church of Rome The several testimonies to the contrary of St. Ambrose St. Hierome John Patriarch of Constantinople St. Augustine Optatus c. particularly examined and all found short of proving that the Roman Church is the Catholick Church The several Answers of his Lordship to the testimonies of St. Cyprian St. Hierom St. Greg. Nazianzene St. Cyril and Ruffinus about the infallibility of the Church of Rome justified From all which it appears that the making the Roman-Church to be the Catholick is a great Novelty and perfect Jesuitism SInce so great and considerable parts of the Christian Church have in these last ages been divided in communion from each other the great contest and enquiry hath been which party stands guilty of the cause of the present distance and separation For both sides retain still so much of their common Christianity as to acknowledge that no Religion doth so strictly oblige the owners of it to peace and unity as the Christian Religion doth and yet notwithstanding this we finde these
the one signifies Vniversally the other indefinitely undique relating properly to the circumference as undique aequalis on all sides it is equal so that qui sunt undique fideles are those which lye upon all quarters round about And so it doth not imply that all persons were bound to come but that from all quarters some did come as Herodian speaks of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it was very populous and did receive them which came from all parts which doth very fitly explain the sense of Irenaeus that to Rome being the Imperial City men came from all quarters But the sense of this will be more fully understood by a parallel expression in the ninth Canon of the Council of Antioch in which it is decreed that the Metropolitan should have the care of all the Bishops in his Province 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because all persons who have business from all parts resort to the Metropolis here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the very same with the undique convenire in Irenaeus so that it relates not to any Obligation on Churches to resort thither but that being the Seat of the Empire all believers from all parts did make their recourse thither Which is most fully expressed by Leo speaking of S. Peter's coming to Rome Cujus nationis homines in hâc Vrbe non essent aut quae uspiam gentes ignorarent quod Roma didicisset And so if I grant you that it extends to all parts I know not what advantages you will get by it for Irenaeus his design is to shew that there was no such secret Tradition left by the Apostles as the Valentinians pretended And for this he appeals to the Church of Rome which being seated in the Imperial City to which Believers from all parts did resort it is impossible to conceive that the Apostles should have left such a Tradition and it not to be heard of there which is the plain genuine meaning of Irenaeus his words Not as you weakly imagine That all Churches in all doubts of Faith were bound to have their recourse thither as to their constant guide therein For Irenaeus was not disputing What was to be done by Christians in doubts of Faith but was enquiring into a matter of fact viz. Whether any such Tradition were ever left in the Church or no and therefore nothing could be more pertinent or convincing than appealing to that Church to which Christians resorted from all parts for it could not be conceived but if the Apostles had left such a Tradition any where it would be heard of at Rome And you most notoriously pervert the meaning of Irenaeus when you would make the force of his argument to lye in the necessity of all Christians resorting to Rome because the Doctrine or Tradition of the Roman Church was as it were the touchstone of all Apostolical Doctrine But I suppose you deal in some English Logicians as well as English Lexicons and therefore I must submit both to your Grammar and Logick but your ingenuity is as great as your reason for you first pervert his Lordships meaning and then make him dispute ridiculously that you might come out with your triumphant language Is not this fine Meandrick Logick well beseeming so noble a Labyrinth Whereas his Lordships reasoning is so plain and clear that none but such a one as had a Labyrinth in his brains could have imagined any Meanders in it As appears by what I have said already in the explication of the meaning of Irenaeus But that I may see the strength of your Logick out of this place of Irenaeus I will translate undique and semper as fully as you would have me and give you the words at large in which by those who come from all places the Apostolical Tradition is alwaies conserved What is it you inferr hence From the Premises you argue thus All the faithful every where must of necessity have recourse to the Church of Rome by reason of her more powerful principality This is S. Irenaeus his proposition But there could be no necessity they all should have recourse to that Church by reason of her more powerful principality if her said power extended not to them all This is evident to reason Ergo this more powerful principality of the Roman Church must needs extend to all the faithful every where and not only to those of the Suburbicary Churches or Patriarchal Diocese of Rome as the Bishop pleads Now I see you are a man at arms and know not only how to grapple with his Lordship but with Irenaeus to boot But we must first see How Irenaeus himself argues that we may the better understand the force of what you deduce from him The Question as I have told you already was Whether the Apostles left any such Tradition in the Church as the Valentinians pretended Irenaeus proves they did not because if there had been any such the Apostolical Churches would certainly have preserved the memory of it but because it would be too tedious to insist on the succession of all Churches he therefore makes choice of the most famous the Church of Rome in which the Apostolical Tradition had been derived by a succession of Bishops down to his own time and by this saith he we confound all those who through vain glory or blindness do gather any such thing For saith he to this Church for the more powerful principality all Churches do make resort i. e. the believers from all parts in which by those who come from all parts the Apostolical Tradition is alwaies preserved We must now see How Irenaeus argues according to your sense of his words If all the faithful every where must of necessity have recourse to the Church of Rome for her more powerful principality then there is no secret Tradition left by the Apostles But Where lyes the connexion between these two What had the Valentinians to do with the power of the Church of Rome over other Churches That was not the business they disputed their Question was Whether there were no such Tradition as they pretended And Rome might have never so great power over all Churches and yet have this secret Tradition too For now we see when she pretends to the greatest power nay to Infallibility she pretends the highest to Traditions Where then lyes the force of Irenaeus his argument Was it in this that the Valentinians did acknowledge the Infallibility of the Church of Rome then in Traditions This were indeed to the purpose if it could be proved Or Doth Irenaeus go about to prove this first But by what argument doth he prove it so that the Valentinians might be convinced by it Yes say you he saith That all the faithful must of necessity have recourse to the Church of Rome This is your way of proving indeed to take things for granted but How doth this necessity appear because say you she hath the more powerful principality But
as his reason but the departing from the Institution of Christ and this is done by one as well as the other But he adds That there was a precept for that Do this And so say we was there as plain for the other Drink ye all of this So that the parity of reason is evident for the one as well as the other Upon the same ground doth Pope Julius afterwards condemn the using milk instead of wine because contrary to Christs Institution and so he doth the dipping the bread in the Chalice From whence we inferr that they looked on Christs Example and Institution in the administration to be unalterable But most express is the Testimony of Pope Gelasius who finding some from the remainders of Manichaism did abstain from the Cup gives express order That they who were infected with this odde superstition either should receive the whole Sacrament or abstain wholly from it because the dividing one and the same mystery cannot be done without great sacriledge To this Bellarmin tells us two Answers are commonly given one That these words are meant of Priests another That they relate only to those superstitious persons but both of them are sufficiently taken off by the reason assigned which is not fetched either from their Priesthood or Superstition but only from the Institution of Christ that it would be sacriledge to part those things which Christ by his Institution had joyned together Thus we see the sense of the Church is clear not only for the practice but the command too and the sinfulness of the violation of it Although to you one would think it were wholly needless to prove any more than the Vniversal Practice since the Tradition of the Church is equal with you with an unwritten word but that is when it makes for your purpose and not otherwise For in this case though the Institution be express the universal practice of the Church for at least a thousand years unquestionable yet because it contradicts the present sense and practice of your Church all this signifies nothing at all with you So true is it that it is neither Scripture nor Antiquity which you really regard but Interest and the Present Church And what Cusanus like a downright man spake out in this case is that you must all at last take sanctuary in That the Scriptures must be interpreted according to the current practice of the Church and therefore it is no wonder if they be interpreted at one time one way and another time another way And though this seem a very great absurdity yet it is no more than is necessary to be said by such who maintain things so contrary to Scripture and the practice of former ages of the Church But you are so far from thinking this contrary to the practice of the Church in former ages that you say Not only in S. Thomas his time but in all times of the Church it was both publickly allowed and commonly by some practised even in Churches to receive under one kind only A bold Assertion and which is confidently denied by very many of your own Communion For not only Cassander often confesses that for above a thousand years after Christ no instance can be produced of publick Communion in one kind But Father Barns acknowledges not only that Communion in both kinds is much more agreeable to Scripture Fathers and the Vniversal Church but that per se loquendo jure divino praescribitur taking it in it self it is commanded by a Divine Law But I know these men are too honest for you to own them but as to the universal practice of the Church it is confessed by Ruardus Alphonsus à Castro Lindanus and many others But we need no more than your S. Thomas himself even in that very place where you say He rather makes for you than against you for when he saies that Providè in quibusdam Ecclesiis observatur ut populo sanguis non detur It was a custom providently observed in some Churches not to give the Sacrament in the form of wine to the Laity He thereby shews indeed that in his time about A. D. 1260. this custom did in some places obtain but yet so that the universal practice had been to the contrary for so much is confessed by him in his Commentaries on S. John where his words are secundum antiquam in Ecclesiâ consuetudinem omnes sicut communicabant corpori ita communicabant sanguini quod etiam adhuc in quibusdam Ecclesiis servatur According to the anceint custom of the Church all did communicate in both kinds which as yet is observed in some Churches Now Whether the universal practice of the Church in former times or the practice of some Churches in his time were more agreeable to the Divine Institution we may appeal to Aquinas himself who elsewhere gives this account Why the elements of bread and wine were made use of and delivered severally That they might denote a complete refection and fully represent the death and passion of our Saviour On the same accounts Bonaventure and Alensis make both kinds necessary to the Integrity of the Sacrament And the latter who was Master to the two former saies expresly That whole Christ is not contained sacramentally under either kinds but his flesh under that of bread and his blood under that of wine Than which nothing can be more destructive to the Doctrine of Concomitancy And it is learnedly proved by Pet. Picherellus that the bread was appointed to represent not the body in its compleat substance but the meer flesh when the blood is out of it according to the division of the Sacrifices into flesh and blood from whence it appears that the Sacrifice of Christs death cannot be represented meerly by one kind and that whole Christ is not contained under one in the administration of it And therefore Alensis rightly determines that the res Sacramenti cannot be perfectly represented by one kind and thence sayes He that receives but in one kind doth not receive the Sacrament perfectly No wonder therefore that he tells us That some religious persons in his time when the contrary custom through the superstition of people had somewhat prevailed did earnestly desire that the Sacrament might again be received in both kinds Thus we see when this custom did begin reason and argument was still against it and nothing pleaded for it but only some superstitious fears of some accidental effusions of the blood of Christ. But you are the man who would still perswade us That Communion in one kind was not only publickly allowed but by some practised even in Churches in all times of the Church And therefore in reason we must give attendance to your impregnable demonstrations of it For otherwise say you How is it possible that the Manichees should find liberty and opportunity to communicate amongst Catholicks in Catholick Churches without being perceived since they never drank
ground than not being able to distinguish between the submission of Obedience and Faith For his Lordship saith It may be our duty not to oppose General Councils in case they erre and yet it may be no pride not to believe known and gross errours of General Councils and I pray What shadow of a contradiction is here And if it be pride in us not to believe gross errours imposed on us Is it not much more intolerable in them who offer to impose them What Authority the Pope hath either to order or confirm Councils it is not here a place to enter upon again since it hath been so largely discoursed of in so many places But you force me though not to the repetition of matter yet to the repeating my saying that I will not oftener than I should but only to shew how little you deserve any further answer There is nothing now remaining to the end of your Book which hath not been over and over even in these last Chapters but only a long discourse touching Succession which you shew your self of how little importance it is when after you have endeavoured at large to prove the necessity of personal Succession you grant That it is not sufficient without succession of Doctrine too And on that account you deny the Greek Church to have a true Succession And in vindication of Stapleton you say All the Succession which he and you contend for is a Succession of Pastors which hold entire both the Vnity and the Faith of the Church So that it comes to this at last that you are bound to prove a continual Succession of all that which you call the Faith of your Church in every age from the Apostles times if you would have us believe that Doctrine or own your Church for the true Church of Christ. And therefore I conclude these general Answers with his Lordships words If A. C. T. C. or any Jesuit can prove that by a visible continued Succession from Christ or his Apostles to this day either Transubstantiation in the Eucharist or the Eucharist in one kind or Purgatory or Worship of Images or the Intention of the Priest of necessity in Baptism or the Power of the Pope over a General Council or his Infallibility with or without it or his Power to depose Princes or the publick Prayers of the Church in an unknown tongue with divers other points have been so taught I for my part will give the Cause CHAP. VI. The Sense of the Fathers concerning Purgatory The Advantage which comes to the Church of Rome by the Doctrine of Purgatory thence the boldness of our Adversaries in contending for it The Sense of the Roman Church concerning Purgatory explained The Controversie between the Greek and Latin Church concerning it The Difference in the Church of Rome about Purgatory Some general Considerations about the Sense of the Fathers as to its being an Article of Faith The Doubtfulness and Vncertainty of the Fathers Judgments in this particular manifested by S. Austin the first who seemed to assert a Purgation before the day of Judgement Prayer for the Dead used in the Ancient Church doth not inferr Purgatory The Primate of Armagh vindicated from our Adversaries Calumnies The general Intention of the Church distinguished from the private Opinions of particular persons The Prayers of the Church respected the day of Judgement The Testimonies of the Fathers in behalf of Purgatory examined particularly of the pretended Dionysius Tertullian S. Cyprian Origen S. Ambrose S. Hierom S. Basil Nazianzen Lactantius Hilary Gregory Nyssen c. And not one of them asserts the Purgatory of the Church of Rome S. Austin doth not contradict himself about it The Doctrine of Purgatory no elder than Gregory 1. and built on Credâ—lity and Superstition The Churches Infallibility made at last the Foundation of the belief of Purgatory The Falsity of that Principle and the whole concluded THese general Answers being dispatched there remains only now this Question concerning Purgatory to be discussed Which being the great Diana of your Church no wonder you are so much displeased at his Lordship for speaking against it for by that means your craft is in danger to be set at nought There being no Opinion in your Church which brings in a more constant revenue by Masses for the dead and Indulgencies besides Casualties and Deodands by dying persons or their friends in hopes of a speedier release out of the pains of Purgatory So that if this Opinion were once out of Countenance in the world you would lose one of the best Arts you have of upholding the Grandeur of your Church For then farewel Indulgences and years of Jubilee farewel all those rich Donations which are given by those at their death who hope by that means to get the sooner out of the Suburbs of Hell to a place of rest and happiness For What Engine could possibly be better contrived to extort the largest gifts from those whose riches were as great as their sins than to perswade them that by that means they would be sooner delivered out of the Flames of Purgatory and need not doubt but they should come to Heaven at last And Would not they be accounted great Fools that would not live as they pleased in this world as long as they could buy themselves out of the pains of another And by this means your Church hath not only eaten but grown fat by the sins of the people it being truly observed by Spalatensis That the Doctrine of Purgatory hath been that which hath most inriched the Church of Rome which he gives as the reason of the most zealous contending for that Doctrine among those of your party who find so much advantage by it And we might easily believe there was something extraordinary in it when you tell us It is therefore firmly to be believed by all Catholicks that there is a Purgatory yea we are as much bound to believe it as we are bound to believe for Instance the Trinity or Incarnation it self because since it is defined by the Church we cannot lawfully or without sin and peril of damnation deny or question this doctrine We had need then look to our selves who look on this Doctrine as a meer figment that hath no foundation at all either in Scripture Reason or Tradition of the Primitive Church but much more had you need to look to your selves who dare with so much confidence obtrude so destructive a Doctine to a Christian life without any evidence of the truth of it to be believed as much as the Trinity or Incarnation it self which expressions take them in the mildest sense you can give them carry a most insufferable boldness with them But these are not all the bold words which you utter on this Subject for you say elsewhere That Bellarmin doth not more boldly than truly affirm yea evidently prove that all the Fathers both Greek and Latin did constantly teach Purgatory
might satisfie for the temporary punishment of sin and be translated out of that state to the Kingdom of Heaven And thence although in the Bull of Vnion published by Eugenius 4. at the concluding the Florentine Council no more was concluded than that those penitents who departed this life before they had satisfied for their former sins by worthy fruits of pennance should have their souls purged after death poenis purgatoriis with purgatory punishments yet Marcus Eugenicus utterly refused to subscribe it thus which certainly he would never have done if all the Controversie had been only Whether the fire were real or metaphorical And the whole Greek Church utterly refused those terms of union and therefore Alphonsus à Castro recounts the denying Purgatory among the errours of the Greeks The Greeks indeed do not believe that any souls enjoy the beatifical Vision before the day of Judgement and on that account they allow of prayer for the dead notwith any respect to a deliverance of souls out of purgatory but to the participation of their happiness at the great Day But there is a great deal of difference between this Opinion and that of your Church for they believe all souls of believers to be in expectation of the final Judgement but without any temporary punishment for sin or any release from that punishment by the prayers of the living which your Church asserts and is the proper state of the Question concerning Purgatory Which is not Whether there be any middle state wherein the souls of the Faithful may continue in expectation of the final consummation of their happiness at the great day nor Whether it be lawful in that sense for the Church on earth to pray for departed souls in order to their final justification at the day of Judgment or in St. Pauls language That God would have mercy on them in that day but Whether there be such a state wherein the souls of men undergo a temporary punishment for sin the guilt being pardoned out of which they may be released by the prayers of the living and translated from Purgatory to the Kingdom of Heaven before the day of Resurrection This is the true state of the Question between us and the Church of Rome and now we come to examine Whether your Doctrine concerning Purgatory be either an Article of Faith or Apostolical Tradition which how confidently so ever you may assert we shall find your confidence built on very little reason Which we may the easier believe since there are so many among your selves who do not think themselves obliged to own this Doctrine of your Church concerning Purgatory Nay we have not only the confession of several of your party that your Doctrine of Purgatory was not known in the Primitive Church as Alphonsus à Castro Roffensis Polydore c. and of others that it cannot be sufficiently proved from Scripture as Petrus â Soto Perionius Bulenger whose testimonies are produced by others but there are some persons of note among you who have expresly denied the Doctrine it self and confuted the pretended reasons which are given for it Petrus Picherellus saith There is no fuel to be found in Scripture either to kindle or maintain the fire of Purgatory and which afterwards he largely disproves in his excellent Discourse de Missâ Father Barns acknowledges That the punishment of souls in Purgatory is a thing which lyes meerly in humane opinion which cannot be firmly deduced from Scriptures Fathers or Councils Yea saith he with submission to better judgements the opposite opinion seems more agreeable to them But later then these you cannot but know Who it is here at home that hath not only pull'd down the superstructure but raced the very Foundations of your Doctrine of Purgatory in his discourse de medio Animarum statu wherein he professedly disproves the Doctrine of your Church though he is loath to own it to be so in this particular and shews at large that it hath no foundation at all either in Scripture Antiquity or Reason But if your Doctrine of Purgatory be to be believed as an Article of Faith and Apostolical Tradition if any be How come these differences among your selves about it How comes that Authour not to be answered and his reasons satisfied But if you be not agreed among your selves What this Article of Faith is you are most unreasonable men to tell us We are as much bound to believe it as the Trinity or Incarnation We ask you What it is we are bound to believe You tell us according to the sense of your Church The punishment of souls in a future state out of which they may be delivered by the prayers of the Faithful and translated into the Kingdom of Heaven Another he denies all this and saith We are in effect only bound to believe That faithful souls do not enjoy their full happiness till the resurrection and that there is no deliverance at all out of any state in which mens souls are after death till the day of Judgement and that the prayers of the Church only respect that Day but that the former Doctrine is so far from being an Article of Faith that it is contrary to Scripture Antiquity and Reason If such a state of expectation wherein faithful souls are at rest but according to different degrees of grace which they had at their departure hence and look for the day of Resurrection when they shall have a perfect consummation of their bliss were all the Purgatory which your Church asserted the breach might be far nearer closing as to this Article than now it is For although we find some particular persons ready to give a fair and tolerable sense of your Doctrine herein yet we cannot be ignorant that the General apprehension and sense of your Church is directly contrary and those persons who have discovered the freedom of their judgements as to this and other particulars know how much it concerns them to keep a due distance from Rome if they would preserve the freedom of their persons But you are not one of those that hath cause for any such fears for what ever Bellarmin saith you are ready to swear to it and accordingly set your self to the defence of Purgatory upon his principles which are far more suitable to the Doctrine of your Church than to Scripture or Antiquity But because this Controversie is not managed between his Lordship and you about the sense of the Scripture but the Fathers concerning it I must therefore enquire Whether your Doctrine of Purgatory were ever owned by the Fathers as an Article of Faith or Apostolical Tradition And that I may the more fully clear it before I come to examine your proofs for it I shall lay down some general considerations 1. Nothing ought to be looked on as an Article of Faith among the Fathers but what they declare that they believe on the account of Divine Revelation As to all other things which
that it were a needless task to repeat them who so unanimously assert the sufficiency unalterableness and perfection of that Faith which is contained in the Creed making it the summe of all necessary Doctrines the Foundation of the Catholick Faith and of the Church the first and sole Confession of Evangelical Doctrine Of all which and many more expressions to the same purpose produced not only by our Writers but by yours too no tolerable sense can be made without asserting that whatever was judged necessary to be believed by all by the Catholick Church of that Age they lived in or before them was therein contained Besides what account can be given why any such Summaries of Faith should at all be made either by Apostles or Apostolical persons but only for that end that necessary Articles of Faith might be reduced into such a compass as might become portable to the weakest capacities If the rise of Creeds were as most probable it was from the things propounded to the Catechumens to be believed in order to Baptism can we reasonably think that any thing judged necessary to be believed should be left out If the Apostolical Creed be a summary comprehension of that Form of sound Doctrine which the Apostles delivered to all Christians at their first conversion as it is generally supposed either we must think the Apostles unfaithful in their work or the Creed an unfaithful account of their Doctrine or that such things which were supposed universally necessary to be believed are therein comprehended Which is sufficient for my purpose that nothing ought to be looked on as a necessary Article of Faith or was so esteemed by the Catholick Church which is not contained in the Ancient Creeds 2. Nothing ought to be judged a necessary Article of Faith but what was universally believed by the Catholick Church to be delivered as such by Christ or his Apostles So that it is not the judgement but the testimony of the Catholick Church which must be relyed on and that testimony only when universal as delivering what was once infallibly delivered by Christ or his Apostles From whence it follows that any one who will undertake to make out any thing as a necessary Article of Faith by Catholick Tradition meerly must do these things 1. He must make it appear to be universally embraced at all times and in all places by such who were members of the Catholick Church 2. That none ever opposed it but he was presently disowned as no member of the Catholick Church because opposing something necessary to Salvation 3. That it be delivered by all those Writers of the Church who give an account of the Faith of Christians or what was delivered by Christ and his Apostles to the Church 4. That it was not barely looked on as necessary to be believed by such as might be convinced it was of Divine Revelation but that it was deliver'd with a necessity of its being explicitly believed by all 5. That what is deliver'd by the consent of the Writers of the Catholick Church was undoubtedly the Consent of the Church of those ages 6. That all those Writers agree not only in the Belief of the thing it self but of the Necessity of it to all Christians 7. That no Writers or Fathers of succeeding Ages can be supposed to alter in the belief either of the matters believed before or the necessity of them 8. That no oppositions of Hereticks or heats of Contention could make them judge any Article so opposed to be more necessary than it was judged before that Contention or they themselves would have judged it had it not been so opposed 9. That when they affirm many Traditions to be Apostolical which yet varied in several Churches they could not affirm any Doctrine to be Apostolical which they were not universally agreed in 10. That when they so plainly assert the sufficiency of the Scriptures as a Rule of Faith they did yet believe something necessary to Salvation which was not contained therein When you or any one else will undertake to make good these conditions I shall then begin to believe that something may be made appear to be a necessary Article of Faith which is not clearly revealed in Scripture but not before but till then this Negative will suffice that nothing ought to be embraced as the judgement of the Church concerning a necessary Article of Faith but what appears to be clearly revealed in Scriture and universally embraced by the Catholick Church of all Ages 3. Nothing ought to be looked on as a necessary Article of Faith by the judgement of the Catholick Church the denyal of which was not universally opposed and condemned as Heresie For otherwise the Catholick Church was very little sensible of the honour of Christian Faith if it suffered dissenters in necessary things without putting a mark of dishonour upon them Therefore we may conclude that whatever was patiently born with in such as dissented from the generality of Christians especially if considerable persons in the Church were the authors or fomenters of such opinions however true the contrary Doctrine was supposed to be yet it was not supposed necessary because then the opposers would have been condemned of Heresie by some open act of the Catholick Church But if beyond these Negatives we would enquire what was positively believed as necessary to Salvation by the Catholick Church we shall hardly find any better way than by the Articles of the Ancient Creeds and the universal opposition of any new Doctrine on its firsts appearance and the condemning the broachers of it for Heresie in Oecumenical Councils with the continual disapprobation of those Doctrines by the Christian Churches of all Ages As is clear in the cases of Arrius and Pelagius For it seems very reasonable to judge that since the necessary Articles of Faith were all delivered by the Apostles to the Catholick Church since the foundation of that Church lyes in the belief of those things which are necessary that nothing should be delivered contrary to any necessary Article of Faith but the Church by some evident act must declare its dislike of it and its resolution thereby to adhere to that necessary Doctrine which was once delivered to the Saints And withall it seems reasonable that because Art and Subtilty may be used by such who seek to pervert the Catholick Doctrine and to wrest the plain places of Scripture which deliver it so far from their proper meaning that very few ordinary capacities may be able to clear themselves of such mists as are cast before their eyes the sense of the Catholick Church in succeeding ages may be a very useful way for us to embrace the true sense of Scripture especially in the great Articles of the Christian Faith As for instance in the Doctrine of the Deity of Christ or the Trinity though the subtilty of such Modern Hereticks who oppose either of these may so far prevail on persons either not of sufficient
tam manifesta monstratur where it is plain quae which is relative only to Truth and not to Scripture or any thing else A wonderful abuse of S. Austin to make him parallel plain Scripture evident sense or a full Demonstrative Argument with Truth As though if evident Truth were more prevalent with him than all those Arguments which held him in the Catholick Church plain Scripture evident Sense or Demonstrations would not be so too What Truth can be evident if it be not one of these three Do you think there is any other way of manifesting Truth but by Scripture Sense or Demonstration if you have found out other waies oblige the world by communicating them but till then give us leave to think that it is all one to say Manifest Truth as plain Scripture evident Sense or clear Demonstrations But say you He speaks only of that Truth which the Manichees bragged of and promised As though S. Austin would have been perswaded sooner as it came from them than as it was Truth in it self I suppose S. Austin did not think their Testimony sufficient and therefore sayes Quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur c. i. e. If they could make that which they said evident to be Truth he would quit the Church and adhere to them and if this holds against the Manichees will it not on the same reason hold every where else viz. That manifest Truth is not to be quitted on any Authority whatsoever which is all his Lordship asserts But You offer to prove that S. Austin by Truth could not mean plain Scripture But can you prove that by Truth he did not mean Truth whereever he found it whether in Scripture or elsewhere No say you It cannot be meant that by Truth he should mean plain Scripture in opposition to the Definitions of the Catholick Church or General Councils For which you give this Reason because he supposes it impossible that the Doctrine of the Catholick Church should be contrary to Scripture for then men according to S. Austin should not believe infallibly either the one or the other Not the Scriptures because they are received only upon the Authority of the Church nor the Church whose Authority is infringed by the plain Scripture which is brought against her For which you produce a large citation out of S. Austin to that purpose But the Answer to that is easie For S. Austin when he speaks of Church-Authority quâ infirmatâ jam nec Evangelio credere potero he doth not in the least understand it of any Definitions of the Church but of the Vniversal Tradition of the Catholick Church concerning the Scriptures from the time of Christ and his Apostles And what plain Scriptures those are supposable which should contradict such a Tradition as this is is not easie to understand But the case is quite otherwise as to the Churches Definitions for neither doth the Authority of Scripture at all rest upon them and there may be very well supposed some plain Scriptures contrary to the Churches Definitions unless it be proved that the Church is absolutely Infallible and the very proof of that depending on Scripture there must be an appeal made to plain Scripture whether the Churches Definitions may not be contradicted by Scripture When therefore you say This is an impossible Supposition that Scripture should contradict the Churches Definitions like that of the Apostle If an Angel from Heaven teach otherwise let him be accursed Gal. 1. You must prove it as impossible for the Church to deviate from Scripture in any of her Definitions as for an Angel to preach another Gospel which will be the braver attempt because it seems so little befriended either by sense or reason But say you If the Church may be an erring Definer I would gladly know why an erring Disputer may not oppugn her That which you would so gladly know is not very difficult to be resolved by any one who understands the great difference between yielding an Internal Assent to the Definitions of the Church and open opposing them for it only follows from the possibility of the Churches Errour in defining that therefore we ought not to yield an absolute Internal Assent to all her determinations but must examine them by the best measures of Truth in order to our full Assent to them but though the Church may erre it doth not therefore follow that it is lawful in all cases or for all persons to oppugn her Definitions especially if those Definitions be only in order to the Churches Peace but if they be such as require Internal Assent to them then plain Scripture evidence of Sense or clear Reason may be sufficient cause to hinder the submitting to those Definitions 2. You tell us That his Lordship hath abused S. Austin 's Testimony because he speaks not of the Definitions of the Church in matters not Fundamental according to the matter they contain but the Truth mentioned by him was Fundamental in its matter This is the substance of your second Answer which is very rational and prudent being built on this substantial Evidence If S. Austin doth preferr manifest Truth before things supposed Fundamental in the matter then no doubt S. Austin would not preferr manifest Truth before things supposed not-Fundamental in the matter And do not you think this enough to charge his Lordship with shamefully abusing S. Austin But certainly if S. Austin preferred manifest Truth before that which was greater would he not do it before that which was incomparably less If he did it before all those things which kept him in the Catholick Church such as the consent of Nations Miracles Universal Tradition which he mentions before do you think he would have scrupled to have done it as to any particular Definitions of the Church These are therefore very excellent waies of vindicating the Fathers Testimonies from having any thing of sense or reason in them 3. You say He hath abused S. Austin by putting in a wrangling Disputer But I wonder where his Lordship ever sayes that S. Austin mentions any such in the Testimony cited For his words are these But plain Scripture with evident Sense or a full Demonstrative Argument must have room where a wrangling and erring Disputer may not be allowed it And there 's neither of these over against these words he referrs to S. Austin's Testimony and not the foregoing but may convince the Definition of the Council if it be ill founded When you therefore ask Where the wrangling Disputer is to be found had it not been for the help of this Cavil we might have been to seek for him But when you have been enquiring for him at last you cry out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oh! I see now And you are the fittest man to find him out that I know You say This is done to distinguish him from such a Disputer as proceeds solidly and demonstratively against the Definitions of the Church when they are
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
are for he speaks of those things which all Christians who have a care of their Salvation are to avoid of such things as are contrary to all Antiquity and such kind of Dogmata I freely grant the Definitions of your Church to be Your second citation is as happy as the first cap. 28. Crescat saith he speaking of the Church sed in suo duntaxat genere in eodem scilicet Dogmate eodem sensu eâdemque sententiâ An excellent place no doubt to prove it in the Churches power to define new Articles of Faith because the Church must alwaies remain in the same Belief sense and opinion When his words but little foregoing are Profectus sit ille fidei non permutatio which without the help of English Lexicons you would willingly render by leaving out that troublesome Particle non that the best progress in Faith is by adding new Articles though it be as contrary to reason as it is to the sense of Vincentius Lerinensis If Vincentius saith that the Pelagians erred in Dogmate fidei which words neither appear cap. 24. nor 34. he gives this reason for it because they contradict the Vniversal sense of Antiquity and the Catholick Church cap. 34. So that still Vincentius where-ever he speaks of this Dogma fidei speaks in direct opposition to your sense of it for new definitions of the Church in matters of Faith There being scarce any book extant which doth more designedly overthrow this opinion of yours then that of Vincentius doth To shew therefore how much you have wronged his Lordship and what little advantage comes to your cause by your insisting on Vincentius his testimony I shall give a brief account both of his Design and Book The design of it is to shew what wayes one should use to prevent being deceived by such who pretend to discover new matters of Faith and those he assigns to be these two setling ones faith on the Authority of Scripture and the tradition of the Catholick Church But since men would enquire The Canon of Scripture being perfect and abundantly sufficient for all things what need can there be of Ecclesiastical tradition He answers For finding out the true sense of Scripture which is diversly interpreted by Novatianus Photinus Sabellius Donatus Arrius Eunomius Macedonius Apollinaris c. In the following Chapter he tells us what he means by this Ecclesiastical tradition Quod ubique quod semper ab omnibus creditum est that which hath Antiquity Vniversality and Consent joyning in the belief of it And can any new Definitions of the Church pretend to all or any of these He after enquires what is to be done in case a particular Church separates it self from the communion of the Catholick He answers We ought to prefer the health of the whole body before any pestiferous or corrupted member But in case any Novel Contagion should spread over not a part only but endanger the whole Church then saith he a man must adhere to Antiquity which cannot be deceived with a pretence of Novelty But if in Antiquity we find out the errour of two or three particular Persons or City or Province what is then to be done then saith he the Decrees of General Councils are to be preferred But in case there be none then he adds The general consent of the most approved writers of the Church is to be enquired after and what they all with one consent openly frequently constantly held writ and taught that let every man look on himself as bound to believe without hesitation Now then prove but any one of the new Articles of Faith in the Tridentine Confession by these rules of Vincentius and it will appear that you have produced his Testimony to some purpose else nothing will be more strong and forcible against all your pretences than this discourse of Vincentius is which he inlarges by the examples of the Donatists Arrians and others in the following Chapters in which still his scope is to assert Antiquity and condemn all Novelties in matters of Faith under any pretext whatsoever For this ch 12 14. he cites a multitude of Texts of Scripture forbidding our following any other Doctrine but what was delivered by Christ and his Apostles and Anathematizing all such as such as should Preach any other Gospel and concludes that with this remarkable speech It never was never is never will be lawful to propose any thing as matter of Faith to Christian Catholicks besides what they have received And it was is and will be becoming Christians to Anathematize all such who declare any thing but what they have received Do you think this man was not of your minde in the Doctrine of Fundamentals could he do otherwise then believe it in the Churches power to define things necessary to Salvation who would have all those Anathematized who pretend to declare any thing as matter of Faith but what they received as such from their Ancestours And after he hath at large exemplified this in the Photinian Nestorian Apollinarian Heresies and shewed how little the Authority of private Doctors how excellent soever is to be relyed on in matters of faith he concludes again with this Whatsoever the Catholick Church held universally that and that alone is to be held by particular persons And after admires at the madness blindness perverseness of those who are not contented with the once delivered and ancient rule of Faith but are still seeking new things and alwaies are itching to add alter take away some thing of Religion or matter of Faith As though that were not a Heavenly Doctrine which may suffice to be once revealed but an earthly institution which cannot be perfect but by continual correction and amendment Is not this man now a fit person to explain the sense of your Churches new Definitions and Declarations in matters of Faith And have not you hit very right on this sense of Dogma when here he understands by it that Doctrine of Faith which is not capable of any addition or alteration And thus we understand sufficiently what he means by the present controverted place that if men reject any part of the Catholick Doctrine they may as well refuse another and another till at last they reject all By the Catholick Doctrine or Catholicum dogma there he means the same with the Coeleste dogma before and by both of them understands that Doctrine of Faith which was once revealed by God and which is capable of no addition at all having Antiquity Vniversality and Consent going along with it and when you can prove that this Catholicum dogma doth extend beyond those things which his Lordship calls Catholick Maxims or properly Fundamental Truths you will have done something to the purpose which as yet you have failed in And thus we say Vincentius his rule is good though we do not say that he was infallible in the application of it but that he might mention some such things to
have had Antiquity Vniversality and Consent which had not so such as the business of not rebaptizing Hereticks and the observation of Easter which you instance in And withall we add though nothing is to be admitted for matter of Faith which wants those three marks yet some things may have all three of them and yet be no matters of Faith at all and therefore not at all pertinent to this question Such as those things are which you insist on as deposita dogmata which doubtless is a rare way of probation viz. to shew that by dogmata deposita Vincentius means some articles of Faith which are not Fundamental in the matter of them and for that make choice of such instances which are no matters of faith at all but either ritual traditions or matters of order such as the form and matter of Sacraments the Hierarchy of the Church Paedobaptism not rebaptizing Hereticks the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary For that of the Canon of Scripture it will be elsewhere considered as likewise those other church-Church-traditions How the Church should still keep hoc idem quod antea as you confess she ought and yet make some things necessary to be believed by all which before her declaration were not so is somewhat hard to conceive and yet both these you assert together Is that which is necessary to be believed by all the same with that which was not necessary to be so believed if the same measure of Faith will not serve after which would have done before is there not an alteration made Yes you grant as to our believing but not as to the thing for that is the same it was But do you in the mean time consider what kind of thing that is which you speak of which is a thing propounded to be believed and considered in no other respect but as it is revealed by God in order to our believing it now when the same thing which was required only to be believed implicitely i. e. not at all necessarily is now propounded to be believed expresly and necessarily the Fundamental nature of it as an object of Faith is altered For that which you call implicite Faith doth really imply as to all those things to be believed implicitely that there is an indifferency whether they be believed or no nothing being necessary to be believed but what is propounded to be expresly believed Which being so Can it be imagined there should be a greater alteration in a matter of Faith then from its being indifferent whether it were believed or no to become necessary to be expresly believed by all in order to Salvation And where there is such an alteration as this in the thing to be believed who can without the help of a very commodious implicite Faith believe that still this is hoc idem quod antea the very same as a matter of Faith which it was before Though the Church were careful to preserve every Iota and tittle of Sacred Doctrines yet I hope it follows not that every Iota and tittle is of as much consequence and as necessary to be believed as the main substance of Christian Doctrine Although when any Doctrine was violently opposed in the Church she might declare her owning it by some overt act yet thence it doth not follow that the internal assent to every thing so declared is as necessary as to that proposition that Jesus is the Son of God the belief of which the Scripture tells us was the main design of the writing of Scripture That General Councils rightly proceeding may be great helps to the Faith of Christians I know none that deny but that by vertue of their definitions any thing becomes necessary to be believed which was not so before remains yet to be proved You much wonder his Lordship should father that saying on Vincentius That If new Doctrines be added to the old the Church which is Sacrarium veritatis the repository of verity may be changed in Lupanar errorum which his Lordship saith he is loth to English for you tell us That Vincentius is so far from entertaining the least thought of it that he presently adds Deus avertat God forbid it should be so A stout Inference Just as if one should say The Church of Rome may be in time overspread with the Mahumetan Religion but God forbid it should be so Were he not an excellent Disputer who should hence inferr it impossible ever to be so What you add out of Vincentius only proves that he did not believe it was so in his time but doth not in the least prove that he believed it impossible that ever it should be so afterwards but notwithstanding all that you say it is evident enough that Vincentius believed it a very supposable Case by that question he puts elsewhere What if any new contagion doth not only endeavour to defile a part only but the whole Church in which he saith we are to adhere to antiquity If you answer he speaks only of an endeavour it is soon replyed That he speaks of such an endeavour as puts men to dispute a question what they are to do in such a Case and he resolves at that time they are not to adhere to the judgement of the present Church but to that of Antiquity which is all we desire in that Case viz. That the present Church may so far add to matters of Faith that we can in no reason be obliged to rely only upon her judgement Wherein we are to consider the Question is not of that you call the diffusive but the representative Church all which may be overspread and yet but a part of the other but yet if that Church whose judgement you say only is to be relyed on may be so infected it is all one as to those who are to be guided by her judgement whether the other be or no. For here eadem est ratio non entis non apparentis because it is not the reality but the manifestation which is the ground of mens relying on the Churches judgement So that if as to all outward appearance and all judicial acts of the Church she may recede from the ancient Faith and add novitia veteribus whether all particular persons in it do so or no all ground of relying on the judgement of that Church is thereby taken away Whether it be the Church her self or Hereticks in the Church which make these additions is very little material if these Hereticks who add these new articles of Faith may carry themselves so cunningly as to get to themselves the reputation of the Catholick Church and so that which ought to have been Sacrarium veritatis may become impiorum turpium errorum Lupanar which your Church is concerned not to have Englished but by the help of Rider and other good Authours of yours it is no hard matter to come to understand it And thus we see how much you have abused his Lordship
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
enough for his purpose to prove it by such sufficient evidence as may convince any reasonable man And this was all his Lordship meant when he said That our Negative Articles do refute where the thing is not affirmed in Scripture or not directly concluded out of it And if you will stand to the strict sense of these words you will be forced to prove all those Doctrines of your Church which ours denies to be true so evidently and demonstratively i. e. undeniably as you would put him upon for the proof of Infant-Baptism To leave therefore this verbal dispute and come to the thing His Lordship saith That it may be concluded directly out of Scripture That Infants ought to be baptized c. For which he insists on two places of Scriture Joh. 3.8 Except a man be born again of Water and of the Spirit c. which being interpreted according to the sense of the Fathers and the Ancient Church and as your own party acknowledge it ought to be interpreted do evidently assert Infant-Baptism By which your exception of a Pelagian Anabaptist who denies Original sin and from thence saith That Infants cannot be born again is taken away for the same Tradition of the Ancient Church which from hence inferrs the Baptism of Infants doth it upon that ground because they are guilty of Original sin as you might have seen by his Lordship's Citations to that purpose The other place he insists on is Act. 2.38 39. which by the acknowledgement of Ferus and Salmeron holds for Infant-Baptism But when you say That you would not weaken the Argument from Joh. 3. for Infant-Baptism because you only would shew that it cannot be proved demonstratively from Scripture alone against a perverse Heretick You seem not much to consider what those perverse Hereticks as you call them hold as to Infant-Baptism which is not meerly that Infant-Baptism is not commanded in Scripture but that it is a thing unlawful as being a perverting of the Institution of Christ as to the subject of Baptism For the main Question between us and the Antipaedobaptists is not concerning an absolute and express command for Baptizing Infants but whether our Blessed Saviour hath not by a positive Precept so determined the subject of Baptism viz. adult persons professing the Faith that the alteration of the subject viz. in Baptizing Infants be not a deviation from and perversion of the Institution of Christ in a substantial part of it or in short thus whether our Saviour hath so determined the subject of Baptism as to exclude Infants And although the question being thus stated the proof ought to lye on those who affirm it yet taking in only the help of Scripture and reason it were no difficult matter to prove directly and evidently that Infants are so far from being excluded Baptism by the Institution of Christ that there are as many grounds as are necessary to a matter of that nature to prove that the Baptizing them is suitable to the Institution of Christ and agreeable to the state of the Church under the Gospel For if there were any ground to exclude them it must be either the incapacity of the subject or some express precept and Institution of our Saviour But neither of these can be supposed to do it 1. Not incapacity as to the ends of Baptism for clearing which these two things must be premised 1. That the rule and measure as to the use and capacity of Divine Institutions is to be fetched from the end of them For this was the ground of the Circumcision of the Proselytes under the Law and this was the way the Apostles did interpret Christs Commission for Baptizing all Nations as to the capacity of the subjects of it Acts 10.47 Can any man forbid water that these should not be Baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we where the question was concerning the subject of Baptism For it might be made evident that the Apostles at first did interpret their Commission of Baptizing all Nations only of the Jews of all Nations for after that St. Peter looked on the Gentiles as unclean and the Disciples at Jerusalem charged St. Peter with it as a great fault for going in to men uncircumcised Acts 11.3 Therefore we see when the question was concerning the subject of Baptism the only Argument is drawn from the design and ends of it that they who were capable of the thing signified ought not to be denyed the use of the sign And thus by a parity of reason built on equal grounds those who are capable of the great things represented in Baptism and confirmed by it viz. Gods pardoning grace and acceptation to eternal life ought not to be denyed the external sign which is Baptism it self And therefore 2. Where there is a capacity as to the main ends of an Institution an incapacity as to some ends doth not exclude from it As is most evident in the Baptism of our Blessed Saviour in whom was a greater incapacity as to the main ends of Baptism then possibly can be in Infants for his Baptism could not at all be for the remission of sins Now we see although there were but one end and that a very general one mentioned That he might fulfill all righteousness Matth. 3.15 yet we see that was sufficient to perswade John to Baptize him Whereby we see evidently in this practise of our Saviour built on a general and common ground that a capacity as to one end of a positive Institution is sufficient to make such a practice lawful and in some cases a duty These two general Principles being laid down it were easie to shew 1. That what incapacity there is in Infants is not destructive of the main ends of Baptism which is chiefly thought to be the incapacity of understanding the nature or ends of the Institution and if that exclude it must either be that it is a thing repugnant to reason that any Divine Institution should be applyed to persons uncapable of understanding the nature and ends of it which would highly reflect on the wisdome of God in appointing Circumcision for Children eight dayes old who were certainly as uncapable of understanding the ends of that as our Children are of Baptism or else that there is some peculiarity in the Institution of Baptism which must exclude them from it under the Gospel which that there is not will appear presently 2. That there is a capacity in Infants as to the main ends of Baptism which have either an aspect from God to us in regard of its Institution or from us to God in regard of our undertaking it Now the chief ends of a Divine Institution as such are such as respect Gods Intention in it towards us in which respect it is properly a sign but as it respects God from us it is properly a Ceremony betokening our profession and restipulation towards God Now the ends of it as a sign are to represent
and exhibit to us the nature of the grace of the Gospel as it cleanseth and purifieth and to confirm the truth of the Covenant on Gods part and to enstate the partakers of it in the priviledges of the Church of God now as to all these ends there is no incapacity in Infants to exclude them from Baptism because of them So that nothing can seem wanting of the ends of Baptism but that which seems most Ceremonial in it which is the personal restipulation which yet may reasonably be supplyed by Sponsors so far as to make it of the nature of a solemn Contract and Covenant in sight of the Congregation Thus far it appears from Scripture and Reason that no incapacity in Infants doth exclude them from Baptism 2. That there is no direct or consequential prohibition made by our Blessed Saviour to exclude them For granting that he had the power to limit and determine the subject of Baptism the question is Whether he hath so far done it as to exclude Infants And nothing of that nature is pretended before the last Commission given to the Apostles of Teaching and Baptizing all Nations Matth. 28.19 And that by this expression there is no exclusion of Infants will appear 1. If our Saviour had intended the gathering of Churches among the Gentiles according to the Law of Moses he could hardly have expressed it after another manner then thus Go Proselyte all Nations Circumcising them Now I appeal to any mans judgement and reason whether in such words it could be imagined that the Infants of such Gentile-Proselytes should be excluded Circumcision and what reason can there be then from these words to imagine that our Saviour did intend to exclude the Infants of Gentile-Converts from Baptism 2. We must consider what apprehensions those whom our Saviour directed these words to viz. the Apostles had concerning the Church-state of such as were in an external Covenant with God which they measured by the general reason of that Covenant which God made with the Jews Can we then think that when our Saviour bid the Apostles gather whole Nations into Churches they should imagine the Infants were excluded out of it when they were so solemnly admitted into it in that dispensation which was in use among them 3. The Gentiles being now to be first Proselyted to Christianity the order of the words was necessary for whoever imagined but that such as were wholly strangers to Christianity as those were whom Christ there speaks of were to be first taught or discipled before they were to be Baptized For suppose it should be said to such persons among whom Infant Baptism is the most used Go and Disciple the Indians Baptizing them c. Could any one conceive the intention of such a Commission was to exclude the Infants of all those Indians from Baptism when it was well known that Infant-Baptism was used among those who came with that Commission And therefore neither these words here nor those Mark 16.16 He that believeth and is Baptized c. can in reason be so interpreted as to exclude Infants when the meer order of nature and necessity of the thing requires that those who first own Christianity by being Baptized ought before such Baptism not only to believe but to make profession of that Faith but this reacheth not at all to the case of such Infants as are born of those persons For if any one had said to Abraham He that believes and is circumcised shall be saved Could it have been so interpreted that the intention was to exclude his Children from Circumcision No more ought these words of our Saviour be strained to a greater prejudice of the right of Infants to Baptism then those other to their right of Circumcision And thus far we see there is no ground from Scriptures or Reason why Infants should be excluded And were it not too large a Digression I might further shew how suitable the Baptism of Infants is to the administration of things under the Gospel but I shall only propound some considerations concerning it 1. That if it had been Christs intention to exclude Infants â—here had been far greater reason for an express prohibition then of an express command if his intention were to admit them because this was suitable to the general grounds of Gods dispensation among them before 2. It is very hard to conceive that the Apostles thought Infants excluded by Christ when after Christs Ascension they looked on themselves as bound to observe the Jewish customes even when they had Baptized many thousand people 3. If admission of Infants to Baptism were a meer Relick of Judaism it seems strange that none of the Judaizing Christians should be charged with it who yet are charged with the observation of other Judaical rites 4. Since the Jewish Christians were so much offended at the neglect of Circumcision Acts 21.21 Can we in reason think they should quietly bear their Childrens being wholly thrown out of the Church as they would have been if neither admitted to Circumcision nor Baptism 5. Had it been contrary to Christs Institution we should not have had such evidence of its early practice in the Church as we have And here I acknowledge the use of Apostolical Tradition to manifest this to us In which sense I acknowledge what St. Austin saith That the custom of our mother the Church is not to be contemned or thought superfluous neither is it to be believed but as an Apostolical Tradition For that the words are to be read so and not as you translate them nor at all to be believed unless it had been an Apostolical Tradition from thence inferring that Infant-Baptism were not to be believed at all but for Tradition appears by three ancient Manuscripts at Oxford as well as the course of the sentence and St. Austins judgement in other places viz. that it ought to be read Nec omninò credenda nisi Apostolica traditio esse and not esset But we grant that the practice of the Church from Apostolical times is a great confirmation that it was never Christs intention to have Infants excluded from Baptism And thus much may suffice to shew what evidence we have from Scripture and Reason without recourse wholly to Tradition or building upon any more controverted places to justifie the Churches practice in Infant-Baptism which is as much as is necessary for us to do What follows concerning the founding Divine Faith on Apostolical Tradition will be fully considered in the succeeding Controversie concerning the resolution of Faith to which we now hasten CHAP. V. The Romanists way of Resolving Faith The ill consequences of the resolution of Faith by the Churches Infallibility The grand Absurdities of it manifested by its great unreasonableness in many particulars The certain Foundations of Faith unsettled by it as is largely proved The Circle unavoidable by their new attempts The impossibility of proving the Church Infallible by the way that Moses Christ and his Apostles
you believe the Revelation made by Christ to be Divine Your Answer must be either that your Churches Testimony gives you infallible Assurance of it and then the former Argument returns or else that Christ manifested his Testimony to be infallible and therefore his Revelation Divine because of the Motives of Credibility which accompanied his preaching If this be your Answer as it must be by your former discourse then by the same reason I prove your Churches Testimony to be the Formal Object of Faith because you have endeavoured to prove the Churches Infallibility by the same Motives of Credibility that Moses and Christ proved theirs Either therefore retract all your former discourse or else confess that by the same reason that the Divine Revelation made by Christ is the Formal Object of Faith the infallible Testimony of your Church must be so too For according to your own supposition there are equal Motives of Credibility and therefore equal obligation to believe the Infallibility of one as of the other 3. If the only reason which makes any thing be the Formal Object agrees to the Testimony of your Church then that Testimony must be the Formal Object of Faith to them that believe it Now that which is the only reason which makes any thing to be the Formal Object of Faith is the Supposition that it is infallible For why do you resolve your Faith finally into Divine Revelation Is it not because you suppose God to be infallible in all Revelations of himself and therefore if your Church be infallible as you say it is by the same reason that must be the Formal Object of Faith as if it were by the revelation of God himself But here you think to obviate this objection by some strange distinctions concerning your Infallibility You tell us therefore The Churches Infallibility is not absolutely and simply Divine or that God speaks immediately by her Definitions but only that she is supernaturally infallible by the assistance of the Holy Ghost preserving her from all errour in defining any thing as a point of Christian Faith that is as a Truth revealed from God which is not truly and really so revealed A rare Distinction this You say afterwards The Churches Definition is absolutely infallible but yet this Infallibility is not absolutely and simply Divine I pray tell us What is it then You say It is Supernatural but not Divine and this Supernatural Infallibility by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost securing from all errour but yet not absolutely and precisely Divine I pray tell us What kind of Infallibility that was which the Apostles had in delivering the Doctrine of Christ was that any more than such a Supernatural Infallibility as you fondly arrogate to your Church viz. such a one as might secure them from all errour in defining any thing as a point of Christian Faith which was not so that is as a Truth revealed from God which was not truly and really so revealed And yet I suppose you will not deny but those who lived in the Apostles times might resolve their Faith into that Infallibility which they had as its Formal Object and therefore why not as well into your Churches Infallibility since you pretend to as great Infallibility in your Church as ever was in the Apostles Thus I hope I have shewn it impossible for you not to make the Churches Testimony the Formal Object of Faith since you make it infallible as you do 2. We come now to consider the little evasions and distinctions whereby you hope to get out of this Labyrinth But having so manifestly proved that it follows from your Principles That the Churches Testimony is the Formal Object of Faith all your distinctions fall of themselves for thereby it appears that your Churches Testimony is not meerly a necessary Condition of believing but is the Formal Cause and Reason of it therefore your instance of approximation in natural Causes is nothing to the purpose No more is that of a Commonwealth's practising the same Laws being an Argument that those were its primitive Laws Unless you suppose it impossible 1. That a Common-wealth should ever alter its Laws Or 2. That it should practise contrary to its primitive Laws Or 3. That it should be supernaturally Infallible in judging which are primitive Laws and which not without these Suppositions I say That Instance signifies nothing to the business in hand and when you have proved these true I will give you a further Answer Your Answer to Aristotles Text or rather to that undoubted Maxim of Reason with which the citation of Aristotle concurred hath been considered already Your Answer to the Testimony of Canus is like the rest of your discourse trivial and not to the purpose for Canus doth not only deny the Churches Testimony to be the Formal Object of Faith but the necessity of believing its Testimony to be infallible Non intelligitur necessariò quod credo docenti Ecclesiae tanquam testi infallibili are the very words of the Testimony cited in the Margin of his Lordships Books Your next Section affords us some more words but not one drachm more of reason For How do you prove that the Churches Authority is more known to us than the Scriptures or How can you make it appear that there is any Authority but what is relative to us and therefore the distinction is in it self silly of Authority in se quoad nos For whatever hath Authority hath thereby a respect to some it hath its Authority over And Can any thing be a ground of Faith simply and in it self which is not so towards us For the Formal Object of Faith is that for whose sake we believe and therefore if Divine Revelation be as you say the Formal Object of Faith then it must be more known to us than the Testimony of the Church For that must be more known to us which is the main cause of Believing But if all your meaning be that we must first know what the Church delivers for Scripture before we can judge whether it were divinely revealed or no I grant it to be true but what is this to your Infallibility Will you prove the Infallibility of your Church to be more known to us than that of the Scriptures and on supposition that were true can you then prove that the Scriptures should still retain their prerogative above the Church What your Authors distinguish concerning objective and subjective Certainty pertains not to this place for the worth and dignity of the Scriptures may exceed that of Tradition yet when the knowledge of that worth relyes on that Tradition your esteem of the one must be according to your esteem of the other I will not here enquire Whether the adhesion of the Will can exceed the clearness of the Vnderstanding nor Whether Aristotle was unacquainted with subjective Certainty nor Whether our adhesion to Articles of Faith be stronger than to any Principles evident to natural
Judge before we know whether there is such a one or no For that is the thing enquired after in the meaning of these places and you say We cannot be certain of their sense without him so that we must first suppose the thing to be true and then prove it or else you run back again into your old Labyrinth How know you that God hath promised there shall be such an infallible Judge By such places say you as you produce for it Well but the Scripture being in many places obscure How shall I be certain this is the true sense of them You say because the present Church is the living and infallible Judge to determine and declare it Do not you herein argue like a man that can square Circles 3. In those places whose sense you say is so obscure Where hath God made it necessary for us to have the certain sense of them You can have no pretence for all this for an infallible Judge unless you could make it evident that God hath left no mysteries in his Word but he hath left your Church a Key to unlock them and therefore I hope there is a Clavis Apocalyptica too hanging at your Churches Girdle It is true indeed your Church is happily instrumental in explaining a mystery spoken of in Scripture but not much for your comfort it is a mystery of Iniquity But in good earnest do you think That God hath promised a living and infallible Judge to make us certain of the sense of obscure places in Scripture Then two things will necessarily follow from thence 1. That it must be necessary that all those that believe this infallible Judge must know the certain sense of these obscure places 2. That this infallible Judge must give the certain sense of these places But then Why hath your present Church so neglected her Talent this way that she hath not decided all the Controversies concerning the difficiliora loca Such a Commentary as this were worth inquiring after But yet supposing your Church had done this Could we be more certain of the sense of your Church then we are now of the Scriptures I will suppose your Church so charitable as to put so useful a thing in writing for the general good of the world But all Writings you tell us are obscure and want a living Judge to interpret them and so consequently must that and so in infinitum But 4. All this while it is worth understanding how you preferr the Scripture before the Church when you make the Church the living and infallible Judge to interpret the Scriptures You make the Scripture a deâ—d Letter but your Church is a living Judge you make the sense of Scripture obscure uncertain and therefore giving occasion to all the errours in the world but your Church is infallible to determine all Controversies and yet for all this you preferr the Scripture before the Church It is plain you do not in regard of evidence and certainty and one would have thought these had been the greatest Excellencies of a Rule of Faith Do you preferr it as such before your Church If not you deny it the peculiar property and design of it and therefore whatever else you attribute to it you are guilty of the highest disparagement of it Just as if one should commend a Mathematicians Square for the materials of it or the Excellency of the Figures engraven on it but in the mean time tell him It is oblique crooked uncertain and he cannot draw a straight line by it Do you think he would believe you commended his Square Just so do you commend the Scriptures and can you then imagine that any rational man will believe that you do preferr the Scriptures before the present Church It is next to be considered what respect remains due to general Councils if the present Church be supposed infallible For say you though you willingly submit to them all yet where they happen to be obscure in matters requiring Determination we seek the assistance and direction of the same living infallible Rule viz. the Tradition or the Sentence of the present Church But 1. You say You submit to them all but Do you submit to them all as infallible or no which you must of necessity do or else apparently contradict your self which yet is no novelty for you to do for you spend a great deal of pains to prove general Councils infallible and therefore I hope you own them as infallible your self If you own them to be infallible what need of the sentence of the present Church as to those Decrees which you already acknowledge infallible Or do you really own them no further to be infallible than as they agree with the sentence of the present Church and then I pray What doth the pretended Infallibility of general Councils signifie if your Church give all the Authority to them And what consents with your Church is infallible and what doth not is far from being so 2. You say General Councils may happen to be obscure in matters requiring Determination Do you mean in things decreed by them or not If not it is no wonder if they be obscure in matters they never meddle with therefore I suppose you mean in things determined by them Then I further ask Whether these Decrees of general Councils were the Sentence of the present Church to those who lived in the time of those Councils If they were How could the Sentence of the present Church declare and determine the sense of what is obscure in Scripture if notwithstanding this Determination the Sentence of the Church remains as obscure as the sense of the Scripture If it was not obscure then but is so now Whence comes that obscurity the Sentence of the Council is supposed to be written then that those who were not present at it might understand the Decree of it and it is supposed we have the very same Authentical Decrees of Councils which they had who lived in the several Ages of them How come they then to be more obscure to us than they were to them 3. What do you mean by matters requiring Determination Is it not enough that things be infallibly determined once but they must be determined over again If the former Determination were infallible what need any more or doth the Infallibility cease as soon as the Church ceaseth to be the present Church and then that which comes to be the present Church must convey an Infallibility into it but how comes any thing which was once infallible to lose its Infallibility which is a thing really so obscure that your present Church would do well to help us out in it But if notwithstanding all your pretence of the Infallibility of general Councils nothing is truly to be owned as such but what agrees with the Sentence of the present Church then we plainly see what reverence you shew to all general Councils even as much as the present Church will let you and no more
them and to acknowledge their words for infallible Oracles of Truth Was not here then sufficient ground for assent in the Primitive Christians to the Apostles Doctrine Not as you weakly imagine because the Doctrine of the Apostles was suitable to the Doctrine of Christ for the ground why they assented to the Doctrine of Christ was because of the Testimony of the Apostles And therefore to say They believed the Doctrine of the Apostles because it was agreeable to the Doctrine of Christ and then that they believed the Doctrine of Christ because it was suitable to the Testimony of the Apostles is a Circle fit for none but your self and that silly person of your own moulding whom you call the Sectary It were worth considering too How the works of Christ could prove the Doctrine of the Apostles suitable to his own I had thought Christs works had proved his own Testimony to be true and not the Apostles Doctrine to be consonant to his The works of Christ shew us the reason why he was to be believed in what he delivered and did not the works of the Apostles do so too What need then any rational person enquire further why the Apostles Doctrine was to be believed Was it not on the same account that the Doctrine of Christ was to be believed But say you How should you know their Doctrine was the same What do you want an infallible Testimony for this too or do you believe that God can contradict himself or that Christ should send such to deliver his Doctrine to the world and attest it with miracles who should falsifie and corrupt it Now you will say I am come over to you and answer as you do that the Apostles Testimony was to be believed because of the pregnant and convincing Motives of Credibility This I grant but must be excused as to what follows That these same Motives moved the Primitive Christians and us in our respective times to believe the Church Prove but that and I yield the cause But till then I pray give us leave to believe that still you prove idem per idem and your Answers are like your Proofs for this we have had often already and have sufficiently examined before as likewise your other Coccysm about the Formal Object of Faith and certain inducements to accept the Churches Infallibility which I shall not think worth repeating till you think what I have said against it before worth answering Your second Instance is ad hominem whereby you would prove That if he acknowledge the Church infallible in Fundamentals he must prove idem per idem as much as you do For say you if he be demanded a reason why he believes such Points as he calls Fundamental his Answer is because they are agreeable to the Doctrine of Christ. If he be asked How he knows them to be so he will no doubt produce the words sentences and works of Christ who taught the said Fundamental Points But if he be asked a third time By what means he is assured that these Testimonies do make for him then he will not have recourse to the words themselves i. e. to the Bible but his final Answer will be He knows them to be so and that they do make for him because the present Church doth infallibly witness so much from Tradition and according to Tradition which is say you to prove idem per idem as much as we Things are not alwaies just as you would have them If we allow you to make both Objections and Answers for us no doubt you are guilty of no Absurdity so great but we shall be equally guilty of it But it is the nature both of your Religion and Arguments not to be able to stand a Tryal but however they must undergo it I say then that granting the Church infallible in the belief of Fundamentals it doth not follow that we must prove idem per idem as you do For when we ask you Why you believe your Doctrine to be the sole Catholick Faith your final Answer is because your Church is infallible which is answering by the very thing in Question for you have no other way to judge of the Catholick Faith but by the Infallibility of your Church but when you ask us Why we believe such an Article to be Fundamental as for Instance That Christ will give Eternal Life to them that obey him we answer not because the Church which is infallible in Fundamentals delivers it to be so which were answering idem per idem but we appeal to that common reason which is in mankind Whether if the Doctrine of Christ be true this can be other than a Fundamental Article of it it being that without which the whole design of Christian Religion comes to nothing Therefore you much mistake when you think we resolve our Faith of Fundamentals into the Church as the infallible Witness of them for though the Church may be infallible in the belief of all things Fundamental for otherwise it were not a Church if it did not believe them it doth not thence necessarily follow That the Church must infallibly witness what is Fundamental and what not It is sufficient that the Church doth deliver from the consent of universal Tradition that infallible Rule of Faith which to be sure contains all things Fundamental in it though she never meddle with the deciding what Points are Fundamental and what not If you therefore ask me Why I believe any Point supposed Fundamental I answer By all the evidence which assures me that the Doctrine containing that Point is of Divine Revelation If you aske me How I know that this Point is part of that Doctrine I appeal to the common sense and reason of the world as to things plainly Fundamental and therefore by this means your third Question is prevented How I know this to be the meaning of those words for I suppose no one that can tell that two and two make four can question but if the Doctrine of Christ be true the belief of it is necessary to Salvation which is it we mean by Fundamental Either therefore prove it necessary that the Church must infallibly witness what is Fundamental and what not and that we must rely on such a Testimony in the belief of Fundamentals or you prove nothing at all to your purpose no more than your convincing Motives of Credibility which were they made into a grand Sallad would know the way to the Table they are served so often up But I have found them so dry and insipid already I have no encouragement to venture on them any more But still you are deservedly afraid we should not think worthily enough of your Churches Infallibility You therefore tell us very wisely that this Infallibility is not a thing that is not infallible For say you Which Infallibility must come from the Holy Ghost and be more than humane or moral and therefore must be truly supernatural c. It
answer that when you say It is necessary we must believe the Scriptures to be the VVord of God with Divine Faith this Divine Faith must be taken in one of these three senses either first that Faith may be said to be Divine which hath a Divine Revelation for its Material Object as that Faith may be said to be a Humane Faith which is conversant about natural causes and the effects of them And in this sense it cannot but be a Divine Faith which is conversant about the Scripture because it is a Divine Revelation Or secondly a Faith may be said to be Divine in regard of its Testimony or Formal Object and so that is called a Divine Faith which is built on a Divine Testimony and that a Humane Faith which is built on a Humane Testimony Thus I assert all that Faith which respects particular Objects of Faith supposing the belief of the Scriptures is in this sense Divine because it is built on a properly Divine Testimony but the Question is Whether that Act of Faith which hath the whole Scripture as its Material Object be in that sense Divine or no. Thirdly Faith may be said to be Divine in regard of the Divine Effects it hath upon the soul of man as it is said in Scripture to purifie the heart overcome the world resist Satan and his Temptations receive Christ c. And this is properly a Divine Faith and there is no Question but every Christian ought to have this Divine Faith in his soul without which the other sorts of Divine Faith will never bring men to Heaven But it is apparent that all who heartily profess to believe the Scriptures to be the VVord of God have not this sort of Divine Faith though they have so firm an assent to the Truth and Authority of it that they durst lay down their lives for it The Assent therefore we see may be firm where the effects are not saving The Question now is Whether this may be called a Divine Faith in the second sense that is Whether it must be built on a Testimony infallible For clearing which we must further consider the meaning of this Question How we know Scripture to be Scripture which may import two things How we know that all these Books contain God's VVord in them Or secondly How we know the Doctrine contained in these Books to be Divine If you then ask me Whether it be necessary that I believe with such a Faith as is built on Divine Testimony that these Books called the Scripture contain the principles of the Jewish and Christian Religion in them which we call God's VVord I deny it and shall do so till you shew me some further necessity of it than you have done yet and my reason is because I may have sufficient ground for such an Assent without any Divine Testimony But if you ask me On what ground I believe the Doctrine to be Divine which is contained in those Books I then answer affirmatively On a Divine Testimony because God hath given abundant evidence that this Doctrine was of Divine Revelation Thus you see what little reason you have to triumph in your Argument from Divine Faith inferring the necessity of an unwritten VVord of God But the further explication of these things must be reserved till I come to the positive part of our way of resolution of Faith I now return Having after your way that is very unsatisfactorily attempted the vindicating your resolution of Faith from the Objections which were offered against it by his Lordship you come now to consider the second way propounded by him for the resolving Faith which is That Scripture should be fully and sufficiently known as by divine and infallible Testimony by the resplendency of that light which it hath in it self only and by the witness it can so give to it self against which he gives such evident reasons that you acknowledge the Relator himself hath sufficiently confuted it and you agree with him in the Confutation Yet herein you grow very angry with him for saying That this Doctrine may agree well enough with your grounds in regard you hold that Tradition may be known for God's VVord by its own light and consequently the like may be said of Scripture This you call aspersing you and obtruding falshoods upon you Whether it be so or no must appear upon examination Two Testimonies are cited from A. C. to this purpose the first is Tradition of the Church is of a Company which by its own light shews it self to be infallibly assisted Your Answer is That the word which must properly relate to the preceding word Company and not to the more remote word Tradition But what of all this Doth any thing the less follow which the Bishop charged A. C. with For it being granted by you That there can be no knowing an Apostolical Tradition but for the Infallibility of the present Church the same light which discovers the Infallibility of that Company doth likewise discover the Truth of Tradition If therefore your Church doth appear infallible by its own light which is your own confession May not the Scripture as well appear infallible by its own light For is there not as great self-evidence at least that the Scripture is infallible as that your Church is infallible And therefore that way you take to shift the Objection makes it return upon you with greater force For I pray tell me how any Company can appear by its own Light to be assisted by the Holy Ghost and not much more the Holy Scripture to be divine Especially seeing you must at last be forced to derive this Infallibility from the Scriptures For you pretend to no other Infallibility than what comes by a promise of the immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost How then can any Company appear by its own Light to be thus infallibly assisted unless it first appear by its own Light that there was such a Promise and how can that unless it antecedently appear by its own Light that the Scripture in which the Promise is written is the VVord of God You tell us A. C ' s. intention is only to affirm That the Church is known by her Motives of Credibility which ever accompany her and may very properly be called her own Light How well you are acquainted with A. C ' s. intention I know not neither is it much matter for granting this to have been his intention may not the Scripture be known by her Motives of Credibility as well as the Church and do not these accompany her as much as the Church and may they not be called her Light as properly as those of the Church It is plain then by all the senses and meanings you can find out in the very same that you say the Church may be known by her own Light the Scripture may much more and therefore you have no reason to quarrel with his Lordship or affirming it The second Testimony
obtruded without possibility of amendment of them excuse your Church from Imposture if you can for my part I cannot nor any one else who throughly considers it For the second it will follow indeed that the Testimony of your Church is as much as nothing as to any infallible Foundation of Faith but yet it may be of great use for conveying Vniversal Tradition to us and so by that delivering the Scripture into our hands as the infallible Rule of Faith To the third it by no means follows that there is nothing but the sole Letter of Scripture left to convince us of the Divine Authority of Scripture I hope the working Miracles fulfilling Prophecies the nature and reasonableness of the Doctrine of Scriptures are all left besides the bare letter of Scripture and these we say are sufficient to make us believe that the Scripture contains the infallible Word of God Now your profound Christian begins to reflect on the Bishops way which is say you That the Testimony of the Church is humane and fallible and that the belief of the Scripture rests upon the Scripture it self But it will be more to our purpose to hear the Bishop deliver his own mind than to hear you so lamely deliver it which in short he summs up thus A man is probably led by the Authority of the present Church as by the first informing inducing perswading means to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God But when he hath studied considered and compared this Word with its self and with other writings with the help of ordinary grace and a mind morally induced and reasonably perswaded by the voice of the Church the Scripture then gives greater and higher Reasons of Credibility to it self than Tradition alone could give And then he that believes resolves his last and full Assent that Scripture is of Divine Authority into internal Arguments found in the Letter it self though found by the help of Tradition without and Grace within This is the substance of his Lordship's Opinion against which we shall now consider what your Discourser hath to object 1. The first is from the case of ignorant and illiterate persons such who either through want of learning could not read the Scripture and examine or else made little use of it because they supposed they might have infallible Faith without it What then becomes of millions of such souls both in former and present times To that I answer Although the Ignorance and carelesness of men in a matter of so great consequence be so great in all ages as is not to be justified because all men ought to endeavour after the highest waies of satisfaction in a matter so nearly concerning them and it is none of the least things to be blamed in your Church that she doth so much countenance this ignorance and neglect of the Scripture yet for such persons who either morally or invincibly are hindered from this capacity of examining Scripture there may be sufficient means for their Faith to be built upon For although such illiterate persons cannot themselves see and read the Scripture yet as many as do believe do receive the Doctrine of it by that sense by which Faith is conveyed that is Hearing and by that means they have so great certainty as excludes all doubting that such Doctrines and such matters of fact are contained in these Books by which they come to the understanding of the nature of this Doctrine and are capable of judging concerning the Divinity of it For the Light spoken of in Scripture is not a Light to the eye but to the mind now the mind is capable of this Light as well by the ear as by the eyes The case then of such honest illiterate persons as are not capable of reading Scripture but diligently and devoutly hear it read to them is much of the same nature with those who heard the Apostles preach this Doctrine before it was writ For whatever was an Argument to such to believe the Apostles in what they spake becomes an Argument to such who hear the same things which are certainly conveyed to us by an unquestionable Tradition So that nothing hinders but such illiterate persons may resolve their Faith into the same Doctrine and Motives which others do only those are conveyed to them by the ear which are conveyed to others by the eyes But if you suppose persons so rude and illiterate as not to understand any thing but that they are to believe as the Church believes do you if you can resolve their Faith for them for my part I cannot and am so far from it that I have no reason to believe they can have any 2. The second thing objected by your discourser is That if the Churches judgement be fallible then much more ones own judgement is fallible And therefore if notwithstanding all the care and pains taken by the Doctors of the Church their perswasion was only humane and fallible What reason hath any particular person to say That he is divinely and infallibly certain by his reading the Scripture that it is Divine Truth But 1. Is there no difference between the Churches Perswasion and the Churches Tradition Doth the Bishop deny but the perswasion of the Doctors of the Church is as infallible as that of any particular person But this he denies that they can derive that Infallibility of the grounds of their Perswasion into their Tradition so as those who are to receive it on their Testimony may be competent Judges of it May we not then suppose their Tradition to be humane and fallible whose perswasion of what they deliver is established on infallible grounds As a Mathematician is demonstratively convinced himself of the Truth of any particular Problem but if he bids another believe it on his Testimony the other thereby hath no demonstrative evidence of the Truth of it but only so great moral evidence as the Testimony of that person carries along with it The case is the same here Suppose those persons in the Church in every Age of it have to themselves infallible evidence of the Divinity of the Scripture yet when they are to deliver this to be believed by others unless their Testimony hath infallible evidence in it men can never have more than humane or moral certainty of it 2. It doth not at all follow that if the Testimony of the Church be fallible no particular person can be infallibly assured of the Divinity of the Scripture unless this assurance did wholly depend upon that Testimony indeed if it did so the Argument would hold but otherwise it doth not at all Now you know the Bishop denies that the Faith of any particular person doth rest upon the judgement of the Church only he saith This may be a Motive and Inducement to men to consider further but that which they rely upon is that rational evidence which appears in the Scripture it self 3. He goes on and argues against this use of
Tradition thus If the Light of the Scripture be insufficient to shew it self unless it be introduced by the recommendation of the Church How came Luther Calvin Zuinglius Husse c. to discover this Light in it seeing they rejected the Authority of all visible Churches in the world c Sure your Discourser was not very profound in this that could not distinguish between the Authority of Vniversal Tradition and the Authority of the present visible Church or between the Testimony of the Church and the Authority of it Shew us where Luther Calvin c. did ever reject the Authority of an uncontrouled Vniversal Tradition such as that here mentioned concerning the Scriptures being the Word of God Shew us where they deny that Vse of the Testimony of those Churches whose Authority in imposing matters of Faith they denied which his Lordship asserts viz. to be a means to introduce men to the knowledge and belief of the Scritures and unless you shew this you do nothing 4. He argues against that Light in Scripture because it is not sufficient to distinguish Canonical Books from such as are not so For saies he Had not the Ancient Primitive Fathers in the first three hundred years as much reason and ability to find this Light in Scripture as any particular person Yet many Books which do appear to us to be God's Word by their Light did not appear to be so to them by it till they were declared such by the Catholick Church I answer 1. Where doth his Lordship ever say or pretend that any person by the Light contained in the Books can distinguish Books that are Canonical from such as are not All that can be discovered as to particular Books in question is the examination of the Doctrine contained in them by the series of that which is in the unquestionable Books for we know that God can never speak contradictions but still this will only serve to exclude such Books as contain things contrary but not to admit all which have no Doctrine contrary to Scripture 2. The reason why the Primitive Fathers questioned any Books that we do not was not because they could not discover that Light in them which we do for neither can we discover so much Light in any particular Book as meerly from thence to say It is Canonical but there was not sufficient evidence then appearing to them that those Copies did proceed from Apostolical persons and this was therefore only an Argument of that commendable care and caution which was in them lest any Book should pass for Canonical which was not really so 3. When the Catholick Church declared any controverted Book to be Canonical Did not the Church then see as much Light in it as we do but that Light which both the Church and we discover is not a discriminating Internal Light but an External Evidence from the sufficiency and validity of Testimony And such we have for the Canonical Books of the Old Testament and therefore you have no cause to quarrel with us for receiving them from the Jewish Synagogue For who I pray are so competent witnesses of what is delivered as they who received it and the Apostle tells us That to the Jews were committed the Oracles of God 5. Hence your discoursing Christian argues That if one take up the Scripture on the account of Tradition then if one should deny S. Matthew 's Gospel to be the written Word of God he could not be accounted an Heretick because it was not sufficiently propounded to him to be God's Word Whether such a person may be accounted a Heretick in your sense or no I am sure he is in S. Paul's because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self-condemned and that for the very contrary reason to what you give because this is sufficiently propounded to him I pray tell me What way you would have such a thing sufficiently propounded as a matter to be believed that this is not propounded in Would you have an unquestionable evidence that this was writ by one of Christ's Apostles called S. Matthew so you have Would you have all the Churches of Christ agreed in this Testimony in all Ages from the Apostles times so you have Would you have it delivered to you by the Testimony of the present Church so you have What then is or can be wanting in order to a Proposition of it to be believed Why forsooth some infallible authoritative sentence of the present Church which shall make this an Object of Faith See what a different mould some mens minds are of from others For my part should I see or hear any Church in the world undertaking such an office as that I should be so far from thinking it more sufficiently propounded by it that I should not scruple to charge it with the greatest presumption and arrogance that may be For on what account can it possibly be a thing credible to me that S. Matthew's Gospel contains God's written Word any further than it is evident that the person who wrote it was one chosen by Christ to deliver the summe of his proceedings as an Apostle to the world And therefore I have no reason to think he would deceive men in what he spake or writ The only Question then is How I should know this is no counterfeit name but that S. Matthew writ it Let us consider what possible means there are to be assured of it I cannot imagine any but these two Either that God should immediately reveal it either to my self or to some Church to propound it to me or else that I am to believe those persons who first received those Copies from his hands by whose means they were dispersed abroad in the world from whence they are conveyed by an unquestionable Tradition down to us Of these two chuse whether you please if the first then particular immediate Revelations are necessary to particular persons to have such an Object of Faith sufficiently propounded to them and then the Church cannot authoritatively pronounce any Books of Scripture to be Canonical without immediate Revelation to her that this Book was written by such a person who was divinely assisted in the writing of it And this you have denied before to belong to the Church If you take up with the second the unquestionable Testimony of all Ages since the Apostles then judge you whether S. Matthew's Gospel be not sufficiently propounded to be believed and consequently Whether any one who should question or deny it be not guilty of the greatest peevishness and obstinacy imaginable From hence we may see with what superfluity of discretion the next words came from you Nay hence it follows that even our blessed Saviour who is Wisdom it self would have been esteemed by all the world not a wise Law-giver but a meer Ignoramus and Impostor For shame man forbear such insolent expressions for the future and repent of these For Must Christ's Wisdom be called in question and he liable to be accounted an
Ignoramus and Impostor if he doth not make your Church infallible I have told you often before how much your Doctrine of Infallibility tends to Atheism and now you speak out For the meaning of your words plainly is If God hath not entrusted your Church with a full and absolute power to declare what is his will and what not Christ was an Ignoramus and Impostor For that is the substance of your next words For had he not framed think you a strange and Chimerical Common-wealth were it alone destitute of a full and absolute power to give an authentical and unquestionable declaration which is the true and genuine Law Now it is evident from all your discourse foregoing you only plead for this full and absolute power in your Church and judge you then what the consequence is to all those who cannot see any shadow of reason for this your pretended Infallibility neither more nor less than that Christ is liable to be accounted by all the world an Ignoramus and Impostor Nay that they are fools who account him not so if they do not believe this present Infallibility of your Church for it is apparent say you that he hath ordered his Common-wealth worse than ever any one did And now let any that consider what pitiful silly proofs you have produced for this present Infallibility nay such that I am confident that you cannot think your self you have in the least measure proved it then judge what thoughts of Christ you are forced to entertain your self upon your own Argument viz. as of an Ignoramus and Impostor Hath not your Infallibility lead you now a fine dance Is not this the way to make Faith certain and to reclaim Atheists I had thought it had been enough for your Canonists to have charged Christ with indiscretion if he had not left a Vicar on earth but now it seems the profound Philosophers learned Divines and expert Historians for such a one you told us your discoursing Christian was supposed by you to be in whose name these words are spoken do charge Christ with folly and imposture if he hath not made your Church infallible For shift it off as you can you cannot deny but that must be the aim of these words for you are proving the necessity of an infallible Declaration by the present Church in order to a sufficient Proposition of the Scripture to be believed and it is notorious you never pretend that any Church hath any share in this Infallibility but your own And therefore the consequence unavoidably follows that since there can be no sufficient Proposition that the Scripture is to be believed without this infallible Testimony since no Church pretends to this Infallibility but yours since without such provision for the Church Christ would have been esteemed by all the world not a wise Law-giver but a meer Ignoramus and Impostor What then follows but that if your Church be not infallible He must be accounted so And if you dread not these consequences I hope all Christians do and have never the better thoughts of your Infallibility for them 6. Let us see how he comes closer to the matter it self and examines how this Light should be Infallible and Divine supposing the Churches Testimony to be humane and fallible The substance of which is this If the Church may erre we may suppose she hath erred in testifying some Books to be God's Word in that case Books that were not God's Word would be equally recommended with those that were And that it would be impossible for any particular person by reading them to distinguish the one from the other To which I answer 1. It is all one with you to suppose a Church fallible and suppose that she hath erred To put a case of a like nature The Testimony of all mankind is fallible May you therefore suppose that all mankind hath erred in something they are agreed in The Testimony of all those persons who have seen Rome is fallible May I therefore question whether they were not all deceived But of this afterwards 2. When you speak of the Church erring Do you mean the Church in every Age since Christ's Coming concerning all the Books of Scripture or the present Church concerning only some Books of Scripture If you suppose the Church of all Ages should be deceived you must suppose some who were infallible should be deceived those were the Apostles in writing and delivering their Books to the Churches of their time or else you must suppose all the Apostolical Churches deceived in taking those Books to have come from the Apostles which did not And is not this a congruous Supposition Well then if it be unreasonable to suppose the Apostolical Churches deceived and impossible to imagine the Apostles deceived in saying They writ what they did not Where then must such an universal-errour as this come in Or Is it not equally unreasonable to suppose all the Christian Churches in the world should be deceived without any questioning of such a deceit supposing but the goodness and common providence of God in preserving such records and the moral industry used by Christians in a matter of such importance It is therefore a very absurd and unreasonable thing to imagine That all the Churches of Christ in all Ages should erre in receiving all the Books of Scripture Let us then see as to the present Churches erring as to particular Books 1. Either the Records of former Ages are left to judge by or no If they be as certainly they are we thereby see a way to correct the errour of the present Church by appealing to these records of the Church in former times if they be not left how could any of these Books be derived from Apostolical Tradition when we have no means to trace such a Tradition by 2. Supposing only some Books questioned or that the present Church erres only in some particular Books then it appears that there remains a far greater number of such Books whose Authority we have no reason at all to question and by comparing the other with these we may easily prevent any very dangerous errour for if they contain any Doctrine contrary to the former we have no reason to believe them if they do not there can be no very dangerous errour in admitting them Thus you see how easily this errour is prevented supposing the Churches testimony not only fallible but that it also should actually erre in delivering some Books for Canonical which are not so but supposing a Church pretends to be Infallible and is believed to be so and yet doth actually erre in delivering the Canon of Scripture what remedy is there then for while we look on the Churches testimony as fallible there is scope and liberty left for enquiry and further satisfaction but if it be looked on as Infallible all that believe it to be so are left under an impossibility of escaping that errour which she is guilty of And the more dangerous such
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
places did live in the exercise of their Religion without them But what is there in all this to inferr that not the Scriptures but the Infallibility of the Church is the foundation of Faith Doth St. Augustine suppose that men may have Faith Hope and Charity without believing or that men may believe without the Scriptures when in the precedent Chapter he hath this remarkable expression concerning Faith That it will soon stumble if the Authority of the sacred Scriptures be weakned and doth not this imply that Faith stands on the Authority of the Scriptures as its proper foundation But this were pardonable if the very design of all that Treatise did not so evidently refute all your pretensions as nothing can do it more effectually For can you possibly perswade any reasonable man to think that St. Augustine dreamt of any such thing as the Infallible Testimony of the present Church to be the ground of Faith who when he purposely discourseth concerning the Christian Doctrine the principles of it and the best means to understand it never so much as mentions any such thing but on the contrary directs to no other but those you call Moral and Fallible means For understanding the principles of Christian Doctrine he shews us the several natures of things some to be enjoyed some to be used and others both that the main thing we are to enjoy is God and therefore begins with him as our last end in whom our happiness lies and then shews the means to come to this enjoyment of God by explaining the principles of Faith and the efficacy of it In his second Book he shews how we may come to the sense of Scripture and first discovers the nature of signs which represent things and of letters which are signs of words and since there are diversities of tongues how necessary the translation of Scripture is into them a good citation for you to justifie your Bibles and Prayers in an unknown language with and then shews what great reason there was why there should be some doubtful and obscure places left in Scripture to conquer our pride by industry and to keep the understanding from nauseating which commonly slights things that are easily understood Then shews what preparation and disposition of soul is requisite for Divine wisdome and so comes to the understanding the Scriptures for which first is requisite a serious and diligent reading of them in order to which he must carefully distinguish such as are Canonical from such as are not and for judging of these he never so much as mentions much less sends us to the Infallible Testimony of the Roman Church but bids us follow the Authority of the most Catholick Churches among which those are which are worthy to be call'd Apostolical See's and had Epistles sent to them What Authority then had the Church of Rome to judge of Canonical Scriptures more then Ephesus Philippi Thessalonica c. To be sure then St. Augustin was not of our Discourser's mind as to the judgement of Canonical Books and why should he send men to those Churches which received the Epistles but that there they were like to meet with greater satisfaction as to the authenticalness of the Copies of those Epistles After this he gives directions for understanding hard places First by diligent reading and remembring the plainest places for in them saith he are found all those things which contain matters of Faith and Practice An excellent citation for you for several purposes especially when you would prove the obscurity of Scripture the necessity of an Infallible Judge or your Doctrine of Fundamentals out of St. Augustin And then bids them compare obscure and easie places together to understand the proprieties of words to get knowledge in the Tongues to compare Versions Antecedents and Consequents to be skil'd in all humane Arts and Sciences these and several other instructions to the same purpose are the scope of his following Books Would any one now but T. C. have ventured so unluckily upon this Treatise of St. Augustin above all others to prove the Infallibility of the Churches Testimony as necessary to Faith by Could any Protestant have delivered his mind more punctually and plainly than he doth And can you or any one else that doth but look into that Book imagine that St. Augustin ever imagined that any such thing should ever be thought of in the world as that the Testimony of the Church of Rome must be owned as the Infallible foundation of Faith and the Infallible Interpreter of Scripture But this it is to converse with the Fathers only by retail as they are delivered out in parcels to you with directions upon them what use they are for by Bellarmin and such Artists as himself This is instead of quoting the Fathers to challenge them and you see they are not afraid to appear though to your shame and confusion But for all this you have a Reserve in St. Augustin still let us see what quotation that is which lies so in Ambuscado behind the hedges and is so loath to come out There is good reason for so much reservedness for when we come to search we find only bushes instead of Souldiers I have throughly examined the place you referr us to and cannot meet any thing the least pertinent to your purpose unless the question of the Lawfulness of Hereticks Baptism prove your Churches Testimony to be Infallible But it may be it is but a venial mistake of a Chapter or two forward or backward and there we may find it Which when I look into I cannot but suspect that some Protestant had trepanned you into this Book and place of St. Augustine there being scarce any Book or place in him more begirt with Arguments against you than this is I was at first fearful you had quoted Fathers at a peradventure but upon my further considering the place I soon rectified that mistake I will therefore reckon you up some of the most probable Citations out of St. Augustins Books of Baptism against the Donatists and choose which of them you please to prove the necessity of an Infallible Testimony of the present Church as a foundation of Faith by I suppose that you intended is in the Chapter but one following where St. Augustine Cites that passage of Cyprian That we ought to recurre to the fountain i. e. to Apostolical Tradition and thence derive the channel into our own times this saith St. Augustin is the best and without doubt to be done No doubt you think you owe me great thanks for finding out so apposite a place for you so near that you intended but before we have done with it you will see what little reason you have to thank me for it The place you see is cited by St. Augustin out of Cyprian in whose Epistle it is to Pompeius against Stephanus Bishop of Rome we therefore consider that it was Stephen who pleaded custom and tradition to
of the Catholick Church of all Ages comprehending the Apostles and Evangelists in it and in this sense he saith that place of S. Augustine is to be understood But what advantage this is to your cause I cannot imagine For what if the Catholick Church be taken in that comprehensive sense to include not only the Apostles but the Church successively from their times Doth it hence follow That it is not day though the Sun shines Or rather Doth it not follow That you are not so quick-sighted as you would seem to be And Whether his Lordship or you come nearer the meaning of Occham's words let any one judge For they who speak of the Church in that comprehensive sense do only suppose the Infallibility to have been in the Primitive Apostolical Church but the successive Church to be only the chanel of conveyance of that Testimony down to us and so they say no more than we do Thus Driedo expounds that place of S. Augustine who understands it of the Catholick Church which was from the beginning of the Christian Faith increasing according to the course of succession of Bishops to these times which Church comprehends in it the Colledge of Apostles Do you think that these men did believe a present Infallibility in the Church If so To what end are they so careful to carry it so high as the Apostles Whereas on your Principle we can have no Assurance concerning any thing that the Apostles did or said but only for the Infallibility of the present Church You must therefore understand the present Church exclusively of the Apostolical Church and therefore if S. Augustine be understood in their sense he is far enough from serving your purposes But say you It is evident that S. Augustine must speak of the Church in his time because he speaks of that Church which said to him Noli credere Manichaeo which was not true of the Apostolical Church But Why might not the Apostolical Church be a reason to S. Augustine not to believe Manichaeus because he found no footsteps of his Doctrine in the Records of that Church Again suppose he means the present Church Doth he mean the infallible Testimony of the present Church Might not the Testimony of the Church supposing it fallible be sufficient for what S. Augustine saith of it I doubt it not And you seem to have no great confidence in this Testimony your self when you add That though it be a point of Faith to believe that the Church is infallible in delivering Scripture to us yet it is not a point of Faith that her Infallibility is proved out of the cited place of S. Augustine But when you say it is sufficient that it be clear and manifest out of the Text it self what Text do you mean S. Augustines or the Scriptures If S. Augustines you would do well to shew by what engines you force Infallibility out of his words if the Scriptures What becomes of our good Motives of Credibility When his Lordship objects That according to your Principles the Tradition of the present Church must be as infallible as that of the Primitive you very learnedly distinguish That if he means the one must be as truly and really infallible quoad substantiam as the other you grant it But if he mean the one must be as highly and perfectly infallible as the other quoad modum you deny it Very good still It seems there are higher and lower degrees in Infallibility I pray tell us What that is which is more than infallible The present Church you say is infallible but not so highly and perfectly infallible therefore there must be degrees in Infallibility and since the lowest degree is infallible that which is highly infallible must be more than infallible Again What difference is there between the substance and the mode in Infallibility I had thought the substance of Infallibility had layn in the mode and I should rather think Infallibility it self to be a mode of Apprehension then talk of substances and modes in it But it may be you mean such kind of modes of Infallibility as absolute and hypothetical If you do so explain your self by them and that we may better understand your meaning shew us whether the Church be at all capable of absolute Infallibility if not What difference there is in degrees between the hypothetical Infallibility of the present and Primitive Church supposing both infallible in delivering their Testimony and no otherwise For you yet again add Of the Churches Testimony being infallible but not simply Divine but it is the infallible Testimony of a desperate cause to have but one bad shift and to use it so often Because you would be apt to say That upon his Lordships rejecting the Infallibility of Tradition he left no use at all of it He therefore tells you Notwithstanding that it is serviceable for very good ends that it induces Infidels to the reading and consideration of Scripture and that it instructs novices and doubters in the Faith which two ends you say fall short of the end of Tradition For say you it founds and establishes Believers even the greatest Doctors of the Church for which you cite again this same place of S. Augustine But did not his Lordship tell you that some of your own understood that very place either of Novices or Infidels For which besides the Testimony of some of your own party he adds this reason because the words immediately before are If thou find one qui Evangelio nondum credit which did not yet believe the Gospel What wouldst thou do to make him believe Ego vero non c. To which you very prudently say nothing Concerning Almayn's Opinion That we are first and more bound to believe the Church than the Scripture you would seem in terms to disavow it though very faintly it is not altogether true and hope to salve it by a distinction of priority of time and nature and you acknowledge That in priority of nature we are first bound to believe the Church and I suppose in priority of time too if we believe the Scripture for the Churches sake Yet you would not have it said That we are more bound to believe the Church than Scripture but it is not what you would have properly said but what follows from that antecedent which Jacobus Almayn puts It is certain saith he that we are bound to believe all things contained in the Sacred Canon upon that account alone because the Church believes them therefore we are first and more bound to believe the Church than the Scripture which is so evident a consequence that nothing but shame would make you deny it Touching Almayn's and Gerson's reading compelleret for commoveret his Lordship saith That Almayn falsifies the Text notoriously you say No but you had rather charitably think they both read it so in some Copies his Lordship produceth a very ancient M.S. for the common reading you none at all for
actually present when Christ delivered his Doctrine and wrought his Miracles Which that we may better understand we may consider what the use of our senses had been if we had been then present and consequently what the use of tradition is now to us Now it is apparent that the use of the senses to those who saw the Miracles and heard the Doctrine of Christ was not to give any credibility to either of them but only to be the means of conveying to them those things which might induce them to believe the same doth tradition now to us it doth not in it self make the Doctrin more credible but supplies the use of our senses in a certain conveyance of those things to us which were the motives to believe then For the motives to Faith both to them and us are the same only the manner of conveyance is different but our case is much the same with those who lived in the same Age but by reason of distance of place could not be personally present at what Christ did or said now if those persons were obliged to believe and had sufficient reason for Faith who by reason of distance of place could not exercise their senses about Christs Doctrine and Miracles the same reason and obligation have we who cannot do it by reason of distance of time And if there be any advantage on either side it is on ours because though the tradition doth not in it self give any credibility to the Doctrine yet there are such circumstances accompanying this tradition which may much facilitate our belief above theirs because by such a continued tradition we have an evidence of the efficacy of this Doctrine which had so continual a power as to engage so many in all ages since its first appearance to be the propagators and defenders of it And therefore this hath very much the advantage of the report of any credible persons in that age who might report to any at distance the Miracles and Doctrine of Christ. And this is the way of resolution of Faith which the Scripture it self directs us to How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him God also bearing them witness both with signs and wonders and with diverse miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost according to his own will Where we plainly see the resolution of Faith as to the Divinity of the Doctrine was into the Miracles wrought for the confirmation of it which was the proper witness or testimony of the Holy Ghost but the means of conveyance was by the tradition of those who were eye and ear-witnesses of what Christ said or did As therefore it was not supposed necessary for them who saw the miracles of Christ either to have some inward Testimony of the Spirit or some external Infallible Testimony of the Church to assure them that these miracles were really done by Christ but God left them to the judgement of sense so proportionably neither of those two is now necessary for the resolution of our Faith but God instead of the judgement of sense leaves us to the evidence of Tradition Object But all this is you say no more then Moral certainty which being fallible we cannot from thence be assured that Christian Religion is Infallibly true Answ. This being the great bug-bear wherewith you would fright men out of their Religion I shall in this place shew that it serves only to scare fools and children with For 1. What greater certainty had they who lived in the time of Christ and his Apostles and did not see their Miracles Had they or could they have any more than this you call moral Certainty and Do you really think that all such could not be sufficiently assured that Christian Religion was infallibly true 2. Moral Certainty may be a sufficient Foundation for the most firm Assent and therefore if the matter to be believed be the infallible Truth of a Doctrine upon suitable evidence though we have now but moral Certainty of that evidence the Assent may be firm to such a Doctrine as infallible And therefore the grand mistake lyes here as though our Faith were resolved finally into this moral Certainty or as if the Faith of those who saw Christ's Miracles were resolved into their eyes and not into the Miracles for as their eyes were but the means of conveyance of that evidence which was infallible so is that Tradition to us by which we have our Certainty of those evidences of the infallible Truth of Christian Religion And we are further to consider that the nature of Certainty is not so much to be taken from the matters themselves as from the grounds inducing the Assent that is Whether the things be Mathematical Physical or Moral if there be no reason to question the grounds of belief the case is all one as to the nature of the Assent So that moral Certainty may be as great as Mathematical and Physical supposing as little reason to doubt in moral things as to their natures as in Mathematical and Physical as to theirs Therefore this great quarrel about moral Certainty is very unreasonable unless it be proved that there is no cause of firm Assent upon moral grounds now if the cause of the Assent may be as equal and proportionable to their nature in moral things as in Mathematical there may be as firm an Assent in the One as in the Other as I have already shewed For which this reason is plain and evident that Certainty implies the taking away all suspicion of doubt But there can be no taking away all suspicion of doubt in Mathematical things without Mathematical evidence but in moral things all suspicion of doubt is removed upon moral evidence and therefore the Certainty may be as great in the Assent to one as the other Thus we see how unjustly and how much to the dishonour of Religion you quarrel with moral evidence as an uncertain thing But I answer yet further 3. That the greatest assurance we can desire that any Religion is infallibly True is from moral Certainty and that upon these three grounds 1. Because the grounds of all Religion are capable of no more 2. Because the highest evidence of any Religion must depend upon it 3. Because this in it self may evidently demonstrate that Christian Religion is infallibly True 1. There can be no greater than this moral Certainty of the main Foundations of all Religion which are The Being of God and Immortality of souls without the supposition of which there can be no such thing as Infallibility in the world and therefore from thence I may easily prove that there can be no more than moral Certainty of the existence of a Deity For if the very notion of Infallibility doth suppose a God then you cannot infallibly prove that there is One in your sense of Infallibility for then you must beg
can desire that they are infallibly conveyed to us 1. If the Doctrine of Christ be True and Divine then all the Promises be made were accomplished Now that was one of the greatest That his Spirit should lead his Apostles into all Truth Can we then reasonably think that if the Apostles had such an infallible Assistance of the Spirit of God with them in what they spake in a transitory way to them who heard them that they should want it in the delivering those Records to the Church which were to be the standing monuments of this Doctrine to all Ages and Generations If Christ's Doctrine therefore be True the Apostles had an infallible Assistance of God's Spirit if they had so in delivering the Doctrine of Christ by preaching nothing can be more unreasonable than to imagine such should want it who were employed to give an account to the world of the nature of this Doctrine and of the Miracles which accompanied Christ and his Apostles So that it will appear an absurd thing to assert that the Doctrine of Christ is Divine and to question whether we have the infallible Records of it It is not pertinent to our Question in what way the Spirit of God assisted them that wrote Whether by immediate suggestion of all such things which might be sufficiently known without it and whether in some things which were not of concernment it might not leave them to their own judgement as in that place When they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs when no doubt God's Spirit knew infallibly whether it was but thought not fit to reveal it whether in some lighter circumstances the Writers were subject to any inadvertencies the negative of which is more piously credible whether meer historical passages needed the same infallible Assistance that Prophetical and Doctrinal these things I say are not necessary to be resolved it being sufficient in order to Faith that the Doctrine we are to believe as it was infallibly delivered to the world by the preaching of Christ and his Apostles so it is infallibly conveyed to us in the Books of Scripture 2. Because these Books were owned for Divine by those Persons and Ages who were most competent Judges Whether they were so or no. For the Age of the Apostles was sufficiently able to judge whether those things which are said to be spoken by Christ or written by the Apostles were really so or no. And we can have no reason at all to question but what was delivered by them was infallibly true Now from that first Age we derive our knowledge concerning the Authority of these Books which being conveyed to us in the most unquestionable and universal Tradition we can have no reason in the world to doubt and therefore the greatest reason firmly to assent that the Books we call the Scripture are the infallible Records of the Word of God And thus much may suffice in general concerning the Protestant Way of resolving Faith I now return to the examination of what you give us by way of answer to his Lordship's discourse The first Assault you make upon his Lordship is for making Apostolical Tradition a ground of Faith but because your peculiar excellency lyes in the involving plain things the best service I can do is to lay things open as they are by which means we shall easily discern where the truth lyes I shall therefore first shew how far his Lordship makes Apostolical Tradition a ground of Faith and then consider what you have to object against it In that Section which your Margent referrs to all that he sayes of it is That the Voice and Tradition of that Church which included in it Apostles Disciples and such as had immediate Revelation from Heaven was Divine and the Word of God from them is of like validity written or delivered And as to this Tradition he saith there is abundance of Certainty in it self but how far it is evident to us shall after appear At the end of the next n. 21. he saith That there is double Authority and both Divine that confirms Scripture to be the Word of God Tradition of the Apostles delivering it and the internal worth and argument in the Scripture obvious to a soul prepared by the present Churches Tradition and Gods Grace But n. 23. he saith That this Apostolical Tradition is not the sole and only means to prove Scripture Divine but the moral perswasion reason and force of the present Church is ground enough for any one to read the Scripture and esteem reverently of it And this once done the Scripture hath then In and home-arguments enough to put a soul that hath but ordinary Grace out of doubt that the Scripture is the Word of God infallible and Divine I suppose his Lordships meaning may be comprized in these particulars 1. That to those who lived in the Apostolical times the Tradition of Scripture by those who had an infallible Testimony was a sufficient ground of their believing it infallibly true 2. That though the conveyance of that Tradition to us be not infallible yet it may be sufficient to raise in us a high esteem and veneration for the Scripture 3. That those who have this esteem for the Scripture by a through studying and consideration of it may undoubtedly believe that Scripture is the Divine and Infallible Word of God This I take to be the substance of his Lordships discourse We now come to examine what you object against him Your first demand is How comes Apostolical Primitive Tradition to work upon us if the present Church be fallible Which I shall answer by another How come the decrees of Councils to work upon you if the reporters of those Decrees be fallible If you say It is sufficient that the Decree it self be infallible but it is not necessary that the reporter of those Decrees should be so The same I say concerning the Apostolical Tradition of Scripture though it were infallible in their Testimony yet it is not necessary that the conveyance of it to us should be infallible And if you think your self bound to believe the Decrees of General Councils as infallible though fallibly conveyed to you Why may not we say the same concerning Apostolical Tradition Whereby you may see though Tradition be fallible yet the matter conveyed by it may have its proper effect upon us Your next Inquiry if I understand it is to this sense Whether Apostolical Tradition be not then as credible as the Scriptures I answer freely supposing it equally evident what was delivered by the Apostles to the Church by word or writing hath equal Credibility You attempt to prove That there is equal evidence because the Scripture is only known by the Tradition of the Church to be the same that was recommended by the Apostolical Church which you have likewise for Apostolical Tradition But 1. Do you mean the same Apostolical Tradition here or no which the Arch-Bishop
contain the Gospel in them for it is plain he speaks of them and not the Doctrine abstractly considered should have wanted that consent of the Catholick Church that it had not been delivered down by a constant succession of all Ages from the Apostles and were not received among the Christian Churches but started out from a few persons who differ from all Christian Churches as this Apostleship of Manichaeus did he might justly question the Truth of them And this I take to be truest and most natural account of these so much controverted words of S. Austin by which sense the other two Questions are easily answered for it is plain S. Austin means not the judgement of the present Church but of the Catholick Church in the most comprehensive sense as taking in all ages and places or in Vincentius his words Succession Vniversality and Consent and it further appears that the influence which this Authority hath is sufficient to induce Assent to the thing attested in all persons who consider it in what age capacity or condition soever And therefore if in this sense you extend it beyond Novices and Weaklings I shall not oppose you in it but it cannot be denied that it is intended chiefly for doubters in the Faith because the design of it is to give men satisfaction as to the reason why they ought to believe But neither you nor any of those you call Catholick Authours will ever be able to prove that S. Austin by these words ever dreamt of any infallible Authority in the present Church as might be abundantly proved from the chapter foregoing where he gives an account of his being in the Catholick Church from the Consent of People and Nations from that Authority which was begun by miracles nourished by hope increased by charity confirmed by continuance which certainly are not the expressions of one who resolved his Faith into the infallible Testimony of the present Church And the whole scope and design of his Book de utilitate credendi doth evidently refute any such apprehension as might be easily manifested were it not too large a subject for this place where we only examine the meaning of S. Austin in another Book The substance of which is that That speech of his doth not contain a resolution of his Faith as to the Divinity of Christs Doctrine but the resolution of it as to the Truth and authenticalness of the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists which we acknowledge to be into the Testimony of the Catholick Church in the most large and comprehensive sense The next thing we come to consider is an Absurdity you charge on his Lordship viz. That if the infallible Authority of the Church be not admitted in the Resolution he must have recourse to the private Spirit which you say though he would seem to exclude from the state of the Question yet he falls into it under the specious title of Grace so that he only changeth the words but admits the same thing for which you cite p. 83 84. That therein his Lordship should averr that where others used to say They were infallibly resolved that Scripture was Gods Word by the Testimony of the Spirit within them that he hath the same assurance by Grace Whether you be not herein guilty of abusing his Lordship by a plain perverting of his meaning will be best seen by producing his words A man saith he is probably led by the Authority of the present Church as by the first informing inducing perswading means to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God But when he hath studied considered and compared this Word with it self and with other writings with the help of ordinary Grace and a mind morally induced and reasonably perswaded by the Voice of the Church the Scripture then gives greater and higher reasons of Credibility to it self than Tradition alone could give And then he that believes resolves his last and full assent that Scripture is of Divine Authority into internal arguments found in the letter it self though found by the help and direction of Tradition without and Grace within Had you not a great mind to calumniate who could pick out of these words That the Bishop resolved his Faith into Grace Can any thing be more plain than the contrary is from them when in the most perspicuous terms he says that the last Resolution of Faith is into internal arguments and only supposeth Tradition and Grace as necessary helps for the finding them Might you not then as well have said That his Lordship notwithstanding his zeal against the Infallibility of Tradition is fain to resolve his Faith into it at last as well as say that he doth it into Grace for he joyns these two together But Is it not possible to assert the Vse and Necessity of Grace in order to Faith but the last Resolution of it must be into it Do not all your Divines as well as ours suppose and prove the Necessity of Grace in order to believing and Are they not equally guilty of having recourse to the private Spirit Do you really think your self that there is any thing of Divine Grace in Faith or no If there be free your Self then from the private Spirit and you do his Lordship For shame then forbear such pitiful calumnies which if they have any truth in them You are as much concerned as Your adversary in it You would next perswade us That the Relator never comes near the main difficulty which say you is if the Church be supposed fallible in the Tradition of Scripture how it shall be certainly known whether de facto she now errs not in her delivery of it If this be your grand difficulty it is sufficiently assoiled already having largely answered this Question in terminis in the preceding Chapter You ask further What they are to do who are unresolved which is the true Church as though it were necessary for men to know which is the true Church before they can believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God but when we assert the tradition of the Church to be necessary for believing the Scriptures we do not thereby understand the particular Tradition of any particular Church whose judgement they must rely on but the Vniversal Tradition of all Christians though this must be first made known in some particular Society by the means of some particular persons though their authority doth not oblige us to believe but only are the means whereby men come acquainted with that Vniversal Tradition And therefore your following discourse concerning the knowing the true Church by its motives is superseded for we mean no other Church than the Community of Christians in this Controversie and if you ask me By what motives I come to be certain which is a Community of Christians and which of Mahumetans and how one should be known from another I can soon resolve you But we are so far from making it necessary to know which particular society
of Christians in opposition to others is the true Church for resolving this question that we look on it as a great argument of the Credibility as well as Vniversality of this Tradition that all these differing Societies consent in it And not only they but the greatest opposers of Christianity Jews or Philosophers could never see any reason to call in question such a Tradition His Lordship the better to represent the use of Tradition in the last resolution of Faith makes use of this illustration That as the knowledge of Grammer and Logick is necessary in order to the making a Demonstration yet the knowledge of the Conclusion is not resolved into Grammer or Logick but into the immediate principles out of which it is deduced So a mans first preparative to Faith is the Churches Tradition but his full and last assent is resolved into the internal arguments of Scripture This you quarrel with and tell us There is not the same Analogy between Logick and Church Tradition your meaning I suppose is because Logick doth Physically by inlarging the understanding fit men for demonstrations but Church-Tradition cannot enable men to understand the Scripture But cannot you easily discern that Analogy which his Lordship brought this illustration for which is that some things may be necessary preparatives for knowledge which that knowledge is not resolved into Is not this plain in Logick and is it not as plain between Tradition and Scripture For though Tradition doth not open our eyes to see this light yet it presents the object to us to be seen and that in an unquestionable manner But for all this say you a man must either receive it on the sole authority of Church-Tradition or be as much in the dark as ever Why so Is there any repugnancy in the thing that Scripture should be received first upon the account of Tradition and yet afterwards men resolve their Faith into the Scripture it self May not a man very probably believe that a Diamond is sent him from a Friend upon the testimony of the Messenger who brings it and yet be firmly perswaded of it by discerning the Sparklings of it But say you further The Scriptures themselves appear no more to be the Word of God then the Stars to be of a certain determinate number or the distinction of colours to a blind man If this approach not to the highest blasphemy against the Scripture I know not what doth He that shall compare this saying of yours with that in the precedent Chapter That if Christ had not left the Church Infallible he might be accounted an Impostor and Deceiver may easily guess how much of Religion you believe in your heart when on so small occasions you do so openly disparage both Christ and the Scriptures It is well yet your Churches Infallibility can stand on no better terms than these are which will be sufficient to keep any who have any true sense of the truth and excellency of Christ and the Scriptures from hearkening to it But are you in good earnest when you say that Scriptures themselves appear no more to be the Word of God than the distinction of colours to a blind man which is as much as nothing at all Is there nothing at all in the excellency of the Doctrine and Precepts contained in the Scriptures nothing in those clear discoveries of God and our selves nothing in all those transactions between God and men nothing in that Covenant of Redemption between God and man through Christ nothing in the clear accomplishment and fulfilling of Prophesies nothing in that admirable strain and style which is in the writings nothing in that harmonious consent which is discovered in writers of several ages interests places and conditions nothing in that admirable efficacy which the Doctrine of it hath upon the souls of men to perswade them to renounce sin the world and themselves for the sake of it is there nothing more I say in all these which makes the Scripture appear to be the Word of God than the distinction of colours to a blind man Could you assoon think to account the starrs as discern any thing of Divinity from these things in the Scriptures If your eyes were as blind as your understanding could you assoon distinguish white from black as the Scripture from the Alcoran if they were both presented to you to read and judge of them according to the evidence you found in them Is it possible a man that owns himself a Christian should utter such opprobrious language of the Scripture You had been before speaking what honour you give to the Scripture notwithstanding you pretend your Church Infallible and I had mentioned some of those passages which occurr in your writers in disparagement of them but I must needs say they all fall short of this the Nose of Wax the Inky Divinity the Lesbian rule are Courtlike expressions to this of yours for this puts no difference in the world between the Scripture and the Alcoran if your Church should propound the one as well as the other For you could not possibly say worse of the Alcoran then that of it self it appeared no more to be the Word of God than distinction of colours to a blind man I might here send you to be chastised for this insolent Atheistical expression to the Primitive Fathers who speak so much in admiration of the excellency of Scriptures who did vindicate them from all assaults of the Heathen Philosophers I might send you to those of your own party who if they have any love or tenderness for Christian Religion will not suffer such passages to pass without the most severe rebukes I might sufficiently prove the contrary from the arguments used against Atheists by Bellarmine and others but I shall content my self with that noble and Christian confession of your Gregory de Valentiâ from whom you might learn more piety and modesty towards the Sacred Scriptures There being many things in the Doctrine of Christianity it self which of themselves may conciliate belief and authority yet that seems the greatest to me as hath been observed by Clement of Alexandria Lactantius and others that I know not with what admirable force but most divine it affects the hearts of men and stirs them up to vertue It is written with great simplicity and without almost any artifice or ornament of speech which is an argument that its authority is not humane but Divine for no humane writing hath any power on the minds of men without a great deal of art and eloquence How many things are there in this ingenuous and pious confession of this learned Jesuite which might if you have any shame left make you sensible of the Blasphemy of your former expression For 1. He saith there are many things in the doctrine of Christianity which for themselves may conciliate our belief and manifest their authority If for themselves then certainly the Scriptures of themselves have a great deal more evidence
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
to belief But the belief it self that Scripture is the Word of God rests upon Scripture when a man finds it to answer and exceed that which the Church gave in Testimony For this his Lordship cites Origen who though much nearer the prime Tradition than we are yet being to prove that the Scriptures were inspired from God he saith De hoc assignabimus ex ipsis Scripturis Divinis quae nos competentèr moverint c. We will mention those things out of the sacred Scriptures which have perswaded us c. To this you answer Though Origen prove by the Scriptures themselves that they were inspired from God yet doth he never avow that this could be proved out of them unless they were received by the infallible Authority of the Church Which Answer is very unreasonable For 1. It might be justly expected that his Lordship had produced an express Testimony to his purpose out of Origen you should have brought some other as clear for his believing Scripture on the Churches Infallibility which you are so far from that you would put us to prove a Negative But if you will deal fairly and as you ought to do produce your Testimonies out of him and the rest of the Fathers concerning your Churches Infallibility Till then excuse us if we take their express words and leave you to gather Infallibility out of their latent meanings 2. What doth your Infallibility conduce to the believing Scriptures for themselves For you say The Scriptures cannot be proved by themselves to be Gods Word unless they were received by the infallible Authority of the Church it seems then if they be so received they may be proved by themselves to be Gods Word Are those proofs by themselves sufficient for Faith or no If not they are very slender proofs if they be What need your Churches Infallibility Unless you will suppose no man can discern those proofs without your Churches Testimony and then they are not proofs by themselves but from your Churches Infallibility which may serve for one accession more to the heap of your Contradictions His Lordship asserting the last resolution of Faith to be into simply Divine Authority cites that speech of Henr. à Gandavo That in the Primitive Church when the Apostles themselves spake they did believe principally for the sake of God and not the Apostles from whence he inferrs If where the Apostles themselves spake the last resolution of Faith was into God and not into themselves on their own account much more shall it now be into God and not the present Church and into the writings of the Apostles than into the words of their successors made up into Tradition All that you answer is That this argument must be solved by the Bishop as well as you because he hath granted the authority of the Apostles was Divine as well as you Was there ever a more senseless Answer Doth Gandavo deny the Apostles authority to have been Divine Nay Doth he not imply it when he saith Men did not believe for the Apostles sakes but for Gods who spake by them As S. Paul said You received our word not as the word of men but as it is indeed the Word of God How the Bishop should be concerned to answer this is beyond my skill to imagine If Origen speaks to such as believed the Scriptures to be the Word of God so doth the Bishop too viz. on the account of Tradition and Education If Origen endeavoured by those proofs to confirm and settle their Faith that is all the Bishop aims at that a Faith taken up on the Churches Tradition may be settled and confirmed by the internal arguments of Scripture But how you should from this discourse assert That the Authority of the Church must be infallible in delivering the Scripture is again beyond my reach neither can I possibly think what should bear the face of Premises to such a Conclusion Unless it be if Origen assert That the Scriptures may be believed for themselves if Gandavo saith That the resolution of Faith must be into God himself then the Churches Authority must be infallible but it appears already that the premises are true and what then remains but therefore c. which may indeed be listed among your rare argumentations for Infallibility 2. That Scripture cannot manifest it self to be an infallible Light the proof of which is the design of your following discourse Wherein you first quarrel with the Bishop for his arguing from the Scriptures being a Light for thence you say it will only follow that the Scripture manifests it self to be a Light which you grant but that it should manifest it self to be an infallible Light you deny for say you unless he could shew that there are no other Lights save the Word of God and such as are infallible he can never make good his consequence For in Seneca Plutarch Aristotle you read many Lights and those manifest themselves to be Lights but they do not therefore manifest themselves to be infallible Lights The substance of your argument lyes in this The Scripture discovers the Being of God so doth the Talmud and Alcoran as well as it the Scripture delivers abundance of moral instructions but these may be found in multitudes of other Books both of Christians and Jews and Heathens and as we do not thence inferr that these Books are infallible so neither can we that the Scriptures are This is the utmost of sense or reason which I can extract out of your discourse which reduced into Form will come to this If the Scriptures contain nothing in them but what may be found in other Books that are not infallible then the Scriptures cannot shew themselves to be infallible but the antecedent is true and therefore the consequent I could wish you would have taken a little more pains in proving that which must be your assumption viz. That Scripture contains nothing in it but what may be seen in Seneca Plutarch Aristotle the Talmud Alcoran and other Books of Jews and Heathens These are rare things to assert among Christians without offering at any more proof of them than you do which lyes in this Syllogism If Scripture contain some things which may be seen in these Books then it contains nothing but what may be seen in these Books but the Scripture contains some things which may be seen in other Books viz. the existence of God and moral instructions therefore it contains nothing but what is in them And Do you really think that you have now proved that there is nothing in Scripture that can shew it self to be infallible because some things are common to other writings Would you not take it very ill that any should say that you had no more brains than a Horse or a creature of a like nature because they have sense and motion as well as you Yet this is the very same argument whereby you would prove that the Scriptures cannot shew
not of falsifying Hookers words yet of perverting his meaning let the Impartial Reader judge CHAP. VIII The Churches Infallibility not proved from Scripture Some general considerations from the design of proving the Churches Infallibility from Scripture No Infallibility in the High-Priest and his Clergy under the Law if there had been no necessity there should be under the Gospel Of St. Basils Testimony concerning Traditions Scripture less lyable to corruption than Traditions The great uncertainty of judging Traditions when Apostolical when not The Churches perpetuity being promised in Scripture proves not its Infallibility His Lordship doth not falsifie C's words but T. C. doth his meaning Producing the Jesuits words no traducing their Order C's miserable Apology for them The particular texts produced for the Churches Infallibility examined No such Infallibility necessary in the Apostles Successours as in Themselves The similitude of Scripture and Tradition to an Ambassadour and his Credentials rightly stated THE main design of this Chapter being to prove the Infallibility of the Church from the Testimonies of Scripture before I come to a particular discussion of the matters contained in it I shall make some general Observations on the scope and design of it which may give more light to the particulars to be handled in it 1. That the Infallibility you challenge to the Church is such as must suppose a promise extant of it in Scripture Which is evident from the words of A. C. which you own to his Lordship That if he would consider the Tradition of the Church not only as it is the Tradition of a company of fallible men in which sense the Authority of it is humane and fallible but as the Tradition of a company of men assisted by Christ and his Holy Spirit in that sense he might easily find it more than an Introduction indeed as much as would amount to an Infallible Motive Whence I inferr that in order to the Churches Testimony being an Infallible Motive to Faith it must be believed that this company of men which make the Church are assisted by Christ and his Holy Spirit Now I demand Supposing there were no Scripture extant the belief of which you said before in defence of Bellarmine was not necessary to salvation by what means could you prove such an Infallible Assistance of the Holy Spirit in the Catholick Church in order to the perswading an Infidel to believe Could you to one that neither believes Christ nor the Holy Ghost prove evidently that your Church had an assistance of both these You tell him that he cannot believe that there is a Christ or a Holy Ghost unless he believes first your Church to be Infallible and yet he cannot believe your Church to be Infallible unless he believes there are such things as Christ and the Holy Ghost for that Infallibility by your own confession doth suppose the peculiar assistance of both these And can any one believe their assistance before he believes they are If you say as you do By the motives of credibility you will prove your Church Infallible But setting aside the absurdity of that which I have fully discovered already Is it possible for you to prove your Church Infallible unless antecedently to the belief of your Churches Infallibility You can prove to an Infidel the truth of these things 1. That the names of Christ and the Holy Ghost are no Chimerical Fancies and Ideas but that they do import something real otherwise an Infidel would speedily tell you these names imported nothing but some kind of Magical spells which could keep men from errour as long as they carried them about with them That as well might Mahomet or any other Impostor pretend an infallible assistance from some Tutelar Angels with hard Arabick names as you of Christ and the Holy Ghost unless you can make it appear to him that really there are such Beings as Christ and the Holy Ghost and when you have proved it to him and he be upon your proof inclinable to believe it you are bound to tell him by your Doctrine that for all these proofs he can only fancy there are such Beings but he cannot really believe them unless he first believes your Church infallible And when he tells you He cannot according to your own Doctrine believe that Infallibility unless he believes the other first Would he not cry out upon you as either lamentable Fools that did not understand what you said or egregious Impostors that play fast and loose with him bidding him believe first one thing and then another till at last he may justly tell you that in this manner he cannot be perswaded to believe any thing at all 2. Supposing he should get through this and believe that there were such Beings as Christ and the Holy Ghost he may justly ask you 1. Whether they be nothing else but such a kind of Intellectus Agens as the Arabick Philosophers imagined some kind of Being which did assist the understanding in conception You answer him No but they are real distinct personalities of the same nature and essence with God himself then he asks 2. Whence doth this appear for these being such grand difficulties you had need of some very clear evidence of them If you send him to Scripture he asks you To what end for the belief of that must suppose the Truth of the thing in Question that your Church is infallible in delivery of this Scripture for Divine Revelation But he further demands 3. Whence comes that Church which you call Infallible to have this Assistance of both these Do they assist all kind of men to make them infallible You answer No. But Do they assist though not all men separately yet all societies of men conjunctly You answer No. Do they assist all men only in Religious actions of what Religion soever they are of Still you answer No. Do they assist then all men of the Christian Religion in their societies No. Do they assist all those among the Christians who say they have this Assistance No. Do they thus assist all Churches to keep them from errour No. Whom is it then that they do thus infallibly assist You answer The Church But what Church do you mean The Catholick Church But which is this Catholick Church for I hear there are as great Controversies about that as any thing You must answer confidently That Church which is in the Roman Communion is the true Catholick Church Have then all in that Communion this Infallible Assistance No. Have all the Bishops in this Communion it No. Have all these Bishops this Assistance when they meet together Yes say you undoubtedly if the Pope be their Head and confirm their Acts. Then it should seem to me that this Infallible Assistance is in the Pope and he it is whom you call the Catholick Church But surely he is a very big man then is he not But say you These are Controversies which are not necessary for you to know it sufficeth
that the Catholick Church is the subject of Infallibility But I had thought nothing could have been more necessary than to have known this But I proceed then How comes this Catholick Church to have this Infallible Assistance Cannot I suppose that Christ and the Holy Spirit may exist without giving this Assistance cannot I suppose that Christian Religion may be in the world without such an Infallibility Is this Assistance therefore a necessary or a free Act A free Act. If a free Act then for all you know Your Catholick Church may not be so assisted No you reply you are sure it is so assisted But Whence can you be sure of an arbitrary thing unless the Authours of this Assistance have engaged themselves by Promise to give your Catholick Church that Infallible Assistance Yes that they have you reply and then produce Luk. 10.16 Mat. 28.20 Joh. 14.16 But although our Infidel might ask some untoward Questions still as How you are sure these are Divine Promises when the knowledge that they are Divine must suppose the thing to be true which you would prove out of them viz. that your Church is infallible Supposing them Divine how are you sure That and no other is the meaning of them when from such places you prove that your Church is the only Infallible Interpreter of Scripture But I let pass these and other Questions and satisfie my self with this That it is impossible for you to prove such an Infallible Assistance of Christ and the Holy Spirit unless you produce some express Promise for it 2. This being impossible it necessarily follows That the only Motives of Credibility which can prove your Church Infallible must be such as do antecedently prove these Promises to be Divine This is so plain and evident a Consectary from the former that it were an affront upon humane understanding to go about to prove it For if the Infallibility doth depend upon the Promise nothing can prove that Infallibility but what doth prove that Promise to be True and Divine True or else not to be believed Divine or else not to be relyed on for such an Assistance none else being able to make a promise of it but the Authour of it As therefore my right to an estate as given by Will depends wholly upon the Truth and Validity of that Will which I must first prove before I can challenge any right to it So your pretence of Infallibility must solely depend upon the Promises which you challenge it by By which it appears that your attempting to prove the Infallibility of your Church by Motives of Credibility antecedent to and independent on the Scripture is vain ridiculous and destructive to that very Infallibility which you pretend to Which being by a free Assistance of Christ and his Spirit must wholly depend on the proof of the Promise made of it For if you prove no Promise all your Motives of Credibility prove nothing at all as I have at large demonstrated before and shall not follow you in needless repetitions 3. No right to any priviledge can be challenged by virtue of a free Promise made to particular persons unless it be evident that the intention of the Promiser was that it should equally extend to them and others For the Promise being free and the Priviledge such as carries no necessity at all along with it in order to the great ends of Christian Religion it is intolerable Arrogance and Presumption to challenge it without manifest evidence that the design of it was for them as well as the persons to whom it was made Indeed in such Promises which are built on common and general grounds containing things agreeable to all Christians it is but reasonable to inferr the universal extent of that Promise to all such as are in the like condition Hence the Apostle inferrs from the particular Promise made to Joshua I will never leave thee nor forsake thee the effect of it upon all believers Although had not the Apostle done it before us it may seem questionable on what ground we could have done it unless from the general reason of of it and the unbounded nature of Divine Goodness in things necessary for the Good of his People But in things arbitrary and such as contain special Priviledge in them to challenge a right to a Promise of the same Priviledge without equal evidence of the descent of it as the first Grant is great presumption and a challenge of the Promisor for partiality if he doth not make it good Because the pretence of the right of the Priviledge goes upon this ground that it is as much due to the Successor as to the Original Grantee 4. Nothing can be more unreasonable than to challenge a right to a Priviledge by virtue of such a Promise which was granted upon quite different considerations from the grounds on which that right is challenged Thus I shall after make it evident that the Promise of an Infallible Assistance of the Holy Ghost had a peculiar respect to the Apostles present employment and the first state of the Church that it was not made upon reasons common to all ages viz. for the Government of the Church deciding Controversies Foundation of Faith all which Ends may be sufficiently attained without them But above all it seems very unreasonable that a Promise made to persons in one office must be applied in the same manner to persons in a quite different office that a Promise made to each of them separate must be equally applied to others only as in Council that a Promise made implying Divine Assistance must be equally applied to such who dare not say that Assistance is Divine but infallible and after a sort Divine that a Promise made of immediate Divine Revelation and enabling the persons who enjoyed the Priviledge of it to work miracles to attest their Testimony to be infallible should be equally applied to such as dare not challenge a Divine Revelation nor ever did work a miracle to attest such an Infallible Assistance Yet all this is done by you in your endeavour of fetching the Infallibility of your Church out of those Promises of the assistance of Christ and his Spirit which were made to the Apostles These general Considerations do sufficiently enervate the force of your whole Chapter which yet I come particularly to consider His Lordship tells A. C. That in the second sense of church-Church-Tradition he cannot find that the Tradition of the present Church is of Divine and Infallible Authority till A. C. can prove that this company of men the Roman Prelates and Clergy he means are so fully so clearly so permanently assisted by Christ and his Spirit as may reach to Infallibility much less to a Divine Infallibilility in this or any other Principle which they teach In answer to this you tell us That the Bishop declines the Question by withdrawing his Reader from the thesis to the hypothesis from the Church to the Church of Rome But
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
end differences as Infallibility in a constant Judge for all they had dissentions and divisions among them as well as we But you are very angry with his Lordship for taxing this pretence of Infallibility with Insolency and a design to lord it over the Faith of Christendom And therefore tell him You go no further than Christ himself leads you by Promises made of this Infallibility That is the thing in question and must not be taken upon the trust of your Infallibility in interpreting the places by you alledged When you can prove the Pastors of your Church to be as Infallible as the Apostles were and to have the same Spirit which they had I shall as little suspect them of Lording it over others as the Apostles but if it appear quite otherwise as to the Pastors of your Church name if you can a greater Insolency than to usurp a power of prescribing to the Faith of the Christian world As to what follows concerning your Churches Testimony being again Infallible by the assistance of Christ and his Spirit and yet not Divinely Infallible it is so subtle and Scholastical a distinction that I now begin not to admire Your so often using it for I see plainly if that wedge how blunt soever doth not rive asunder the knot it is like to remain for any thing you have to say to it His Lordship having given one Instance of the Insolency of your pretence of Infallibility by the dangerous errours which your Church doth hold particularly in equalling the Tradition of the present Church to the written Word of God which saith he is a Doctrine unknown to the Primitive Church and which frets upon the very Foundation it self by justling with it But being well acquainted with the Arts of your party in making a great noise with the Fathers and particularly in this Controversie with a citation out of S. Basils Books de Spirit Sanct. ad Amphilochium and especially those words parem vim habent ad pictatem speaking of Traditions he therefore in his Margent so far takes notice of them as to return this threefold Answer to to them 1. That he speaks of Apostolical Tradition and not the Tradition of the present Church 2. That exceptions are taken at this Book as corrupted 3. That S. Basil makes Scripture the Touchstone of Tradition To this you return a Threefold Answer 1. That 't is true he speaks of Apostolical Traditions but of such as were come down to their present times 2. That the Exceptions against the Book are unreasonable 3. That S. Basil doth not make the Scripture so to be the touchstone of Tradition as that Scripture must needs therefore be of greater force and superiour dignity than that of Tradition Because therefore this is the chief place in Antiquity which is produced on your side in behalf of Traditions it will deserve a more careful examination in the particulars by you mentioned 1. You acknowledge that he speaks of Apostolical Traditions and such as the present Church judged Apostolical now you say that the present Church is infallible in judging Apostolical Traditions and what Traditions are so judged are necessary to be practised Now I pray consider what difficulties and self-contradictions you have brought your self into by acknowledging these Traditions to have been judged Apostolical by the present Church For either that Church at that time was not infallible in judging Traditions and so the present Church of every age is not Infallible or if that was infallible yours is not for your Church differs from the Church in St. Basils time about these very Traditions by him mentioned your Church not judging them Apostolical Which will appear by an inspection into those things which are here accounted Traditions by him Among which he not only mentions signing believers with the sign of the Cross praying toward the East the oyl and the abrenunciation used in Baptism but the consecration of the person to be Baptized the standing at prayers untill Pentecost and above all the trine immersion in Baptism all which he saith come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Out of a secret and unpublished Tradition which our Fathers preserved in a quiet and silent manner Are these three last then acknowledged by your Church now for Apostolical Traditions or no Nay doth not your Roman Catechism absolutely pronounce the trine immersion to be unnecessary for baptism How can that become unnecessary which was once infallibly judged to be an Apostolical Tradition Either the Church then was out in her judgement or your Church out in hers and choose whether of those you have the more mind to either of them will help you to contradict your self 2. There want not sufficient reasons of suspecting that Book to be corrupted You say Erasmus was the first who suspected it Not the first who suspected corruption in St. Basils writings For Marcus Ephesius in the Florentine Council charged some Latinizing Greeks with corrupting his books against Eunomius protesting that in Constantinople there were but four Copies to above one thousand which had the passages in them which were produced by the Latins But suppose Erasmus were the first was he not so in discovering the genuine and supposititious writings of several others of the Fathers We must therefore enquire into the reason which Erasmus had of this suspicion Who tells us in his Epistle to John Dantiscus the Poland Embassadour that by that time he had gone through half this work he discerned a palpable inequality in the style sometimes swelling to a Tragical height and then sinking into a vulgar flatness having much more of ostentation impertinent digressions repetitions than any of St. Basils own writings which had alwaies a great deal of vigour simplicity and candour with great evenness and equality c. And although this argument to all that know the worth of that excellent person especially in his judgement of the writings of the Fathers will seem by no means contemptible yet we have much greater reason for our suspicion than this meerly from the stile For if you believe St. Basil was a man who knew how to speak consistencies that he would not utter palpable and evident contradictions in his writings you will have no reason to applaud your self in this as a genuine piece of St. Basils at least for the latter part of it For whereas you make this the force of his words That unwritten Traditions have equal force to stir up piety with the written Word You could hardly have named so many words which bear a greater face of contradiction to a multitude of testimonies in his unquestionably genuine writings For is it not St. Basil who saith That it is a manifest falling from the Faith and an argument of arrogancy either to reject any point of those things that are written or to bring in any of those things that are not written Is it not St. Basil who bids a man Believe the things that are
a Monument of unspeakable concernment to the good of mankind and you must conceive the Christians in all ages to be stupendiously careless and negligent either in transcribing or reading the Scriptures which could suffer errours to slip into them without discovery of them Do you think that the Christians had no higher esteem of the Scriptures than of the Vse of Altars or any other of your immemorial Traditions but say you The one were publick and the other passed through the hands of particular men It should seem then their Altars were upon high places but the Scriptures were only read in corners never any such thing being publickly read as the Bible so that any alteration might be there and no notice at all taken of it The poor African Bishop found the contrary to his sorrow who was in such danger from the people for altering but one word according to S. Hieroms Translation as S. Austin reports the story But suppose it passed through the hands of particular men Was it therefore more liable to be corrupted I should think just the contrary unless you could suppose all those particular men to agree in corrupting it which considering the difference of opinions capacities and interests is a most unreasonable supposition that some verbal and literal mistakes might slip in you might rationally imagine but that therefore any great corruptions should creep into it argues your mean thoughts both of Gods Providence and the care of the Christian world Well but still it is impossible to corrupt your Traditions It were a much harder matter to free your Traditions from being corruptions themselves of the purity of the Christian Church And why so hard for them to be corrupted Because recorded in Authours of every succeeding age I had thought all Books of equal or much bigger bulk than the Scripture had been as liable to corruption as that but it seems not If a Book be written of Traditions the very Traditions will preserve it pure though as big as that Livy Quem mea vix totum bibliotheca capit But that is not all it seems these Traditions are recorded in Authours of every succeeding age Unhappy men we that cannot find them there I wish instead of writing Controversies you would write the history of these Traditions but be sure to deduce them through the Authours of every succeeding age and I suppose you mean ever since the Apostles I shall then indeed believe Popish Traditions to be no Novelties but not before But let us grant this Were not the Scriptures attested by the same Authours No It seems they were agreed about all Traditions but not so about the Scripture And the reason is Because the Scriptures were first delivered to private men as S. John 's Epistle and S. Luke 's Gospel but Traditions had an universal practice But Can you suppose it otherwise but that particular Books must be first delivered to private men Would you have them delivered only to General Councils or the Pope and his Cardinals It seems S. John was to blame for not directing his Epistle to the Pope instead of Gaius and S. Luke his Gospel to a General Council instead of Theophilus for then we might have had Infallible Certainty of them but now it is a plain case we can have no more than Moral Certainty that ever they were theirs But for this trick it seems they fared the worse for some Books were doubted of for many years in particular Churches It is well yet they were not discarded by your Catholick Church because the Apostles did not put their Books into your hands to recommend them But what if some Books by some men were for some time doubted of which yet were afterwards universally received upon sufficient evidence Why then say you Tradition hath much advantage of Scripture How so Was no Tradition which would be accounted universal doubted of by any men at any time No say you it is impossible it should for universal Traditions were universally practised at all times Now you speak home and nothing wants to the proof of it but only to let us know What these Vniversal Traditions are which were so universally practised in all ages containing things different from Scripture which are recorded in the Authours of every succeeding Age. Your offer is so fair that my request shall be very short name them and prove them and I will believe you but not before So much for this which though a digression in this Chapter yet is not from the design of this discourse Setting aside therefore your discourse about A. C ' s. Pen being troubled in which is nothing worth our notice I come to the main dispute of this Chapter which is Whether the Promises of Infallibility made to the Apostles are to be restrained to their own times or to be extended to the present Church in all ages We assert the former and you the latter For which you produce this argument That from these very places Christians do inferr that the Church shall never fall away and perish For if the assistance be not to preserve the succeeding Church at least from some kind of errours infallibly it may notwithstanding all the assistance he allows it here fall into all kind of errours one after another and so by degrees the whole Church might fall into a general Apostacy and thereby perish There must therefore be some kind of infallible assistance in the Apostles successors by virtue of these Promises But 1. Is it all one to say There shall alwaies be a Church and to say That Church shall alwaies be infallible Those who from the places in question do prove that the Church shall never quite fall away do not dream of a present Infallibility in your sense but that there alwaies shall be a number of men professing Christianity in the world And Cannot you possibly conceive that there should be such a number of men professing Christianity without Infallibility To help therefore your understanding a little suppose that all the members of the Roman Church should in one age be destroyed and according to your former Principle that if a Church may erre we cannot be certain but that it doth erre because this may be we cannot be certain but that it is but we only make the supposition Do not you think that there would be still a number remaining who profess Christianity of the Greek and Protestant Churches yet I hope you will not say that these were infallible There may be then a number of Christians who are not infallible and that is all which is meant by saying That the present Church is infallible in Fundamentals viz. that there shall alwaies be a Church for that which makes them a Church is the belief of Fundamentals and if they believe not them they cease to be so That therefore which being supposed a Church is and being destroyed it ceaseth to be is the formal constitution of it but thus it is as to the Church the
mistake to suppose a Church cannot continue without a vital inherent Principle of Infallibility in her self which must be discovered by Infallible Directions from the Head of it whereas we grant the necessity of an Infallible Foundation of Faith but cannot discern either from Scripture Reason or Antiquity that there must be a living and standing Infallible Judge which must deliver and interpret those Infallible Records to us We grant then Infallibility in the Foundation of Faith we assert the highest Certainty of the Infallibility of that Foundation we declare that the owning of that Infallible Foundation is that which makes men Christians the body of whom we call a Church we further grant that Christ hath left in his Church sufficient means for the preservation of it in Truth and Unity but we deny that ever he promised such an Infallibility to be constantly resident in that Church as was in the Prophets and Apostles and that neither any intention of Christ or any reason in the thing can be manifested why such an Infallibility should be so necessary for the Churches preservation that without it the Wisdom of Christ must be questioned and the Church built on a sandy Foundation Your citation of Vincentius Lyrinensis proves nothing but the Churches constancy in adhering to that Doctrine of Faith which was delivered from the beginning but how that should prove a Constant Infallibility I cannot understand unless it is impossible that there should be any Truth where there is no inherent Infallibility Thus we see what very little success you have in the attempt of proving the Churches continual Infallibility from Scripture From hence you proceed to the consideration of the way How Scripture and Tradition do mutually confirm each other His Lordship grants That they do mutually but not equally confirm the authority either of other For Scripture doth infallibly confirm the authority of Church-Traditions truly so called but Tradition doth but morally and probably confirm the authority of the Scripture This you say is apparently false but endeavour not to make it evident that it is so Only you say A. C. refused already to grant it Et quid tum postea Must every thing be false which A. C. refuses to grant But let us see whether his Similitude makes it out For saith he 't is as a Kings Embassadours word of mouth and his Kings Letters bear mutual witness to each other Just so indeed saith his Lordship For his Kings Letters of Credence under hand and Seal confirm the Embassadours authority infallibly to all that know his Seal and hand But the Embassadours word of mouth confirms his Kings Letters but only probably For else Why are they callâ—d Letters of Credence if they give not him more credit than he gives them To which you make a large Reply 1. That the Kings hand and Seal cannot confirm infallibly to a Forein King who neither knows hand nor Seal the Embassadours authority and therefore this reacheth not the business How we should know infallibly that the Scripture is Gods Word 2. That the primary reason Why the Embassadour is admitted is his own credit to which correspond the motives of Credibility of the Church by which the Letters of Credence are admitted 3. That none can give authority to the Letters of Credence or be infallibly certain of them but such as infallibly know that hand and Seal 4. That none can infallibly know that hand and Seal but such as are certain of the Embassadours sincerity But Doth all this disprove what his Lordship saith That though there be a mutual Testimony yet it is not equal for although the Letters of Credence might be the sooner read and admitted of on the Embassadours Reputation and Sincerity yet still those Letters themselves upon the delivery of them may further and in a higher degree confirm the Prince he is sent to of his authority to act as Embassadour Supposing then that there be a sufficient Testimony that these Letters were sealed by the Secretary of State who did manifest his Sincerity in the highest manner in the sealing of them though a Forein Prince might not know the hand and Seal yet upon such a creditable Testimony he may be assured that they were sealed by the Prince himself But then withall if the Embassadour to assure the Prince offers his own life to attest the truth of his Credentials and the Prince by reading the Letters find something in them which could not be written by any other than that Prince he then hath the highest certainty he can desire This is the case between Tradition and Scripture General Tradition at first makes way for the first admission of Scripture as the general repute of an Embassadours coming doth for his access to the Prince the particular Tradition of the Church is like the Embassadours affirming to the Prince that he hath Letters of Credence with him but then when he enquires into the Certainty of those Letters those Motives of Credibility not which relate to the person of the Embassadour but which evidently prove the sealing of those Letters as the constant Testimony of such who were present at it the Secretaries and Embassadours venturing their lives upon it must confirm him in that and lastly his own reading the Credentials give him the highest Confirmation i. e. The testimony of those who saw the miracles of Christ and his Apostles and confirmed the Truth of their Testimony by their dying for it are the highest inducement to our believing that the Scriptures were sealed by God himself in the miracles wrought and written by his own hand his Spirit infallibly assisting the Apostle but still after all this when in these very Scriptures we read such things as we cannot reasonably suppose could come from any but God himself this doth in the highest degree settle and confirm our Faith Therefore as to the main scope for which this Similitude was used by his Lordship it holds still but your mistake lyes in supposing that the Embassadours reception depended wholly on his own single Testimony and that was enough to make any Prince infallibly certain that his Letters of Credence are true which cannot be unless he knows before-hand that Embassadour to be infallibly true which is impossible to be supposed at his first reception Yet this is plainly your case that the Scriptures are to be infallibly believed on the single Testimony of the present Church which is to make the Embassadour himself give authority to his Letters of Credence and set hand and seal to them Whereas the contrary is most evident to be true But then supposing these Credentials admitted the Prince transacts with the Embassadour according to that power which is conveyed to him therein And thus it is in the present case Not as though a Prince treated every Envoy with equal respect to an Embassadour no more ought any Pastors of the Church be received but according to that power and authority which their Credentials viz. the
Scriptures do convey to them We own therefore the Apostles as Gods immediate Embassadours whose miracles did attest their commission from Heaven to all they came to and no persons could pretend ignorance that this is Gods hand and Seal but all other Pastors of the Church we look on only as Agents settled to hold correspondency between God and Vs but no extraordinary Embassadours who must be looked on as immediately transacting by the Infallible Commission of Heaven When therefore the Pastor or Pastors of your Church shall bring new Credentials from Heaven attested with the same Broad-seal of Heaven which the Apostles had viz. Miracles we shall then receive them in the same capacity as Apostles viz. acting by an Infallible Commission but not till then By which I have given a sufficient Answer to what follows concerning the credit which is given to Christ's Legats as to himself for hereby it appears they are to have no greater authority than their Commission gives them Produce therefore an Infallible Commission for your Pastors Infallibility either apart or conjunctly and we shall receive it but not else Whether A.C. in the words following doth in terms attribute Divine and Infallible authority to the Church supposing it infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost is very little material for Whether he owns it or no it is sufficient that it necessarily follows from his Doctrine of Infallibility For How can the Church be infallible by virtue of those Promises wherein Divine Infallibility you say is promised and by virtue of which the Apostles had Divine Infallibility and yet the Church not to be divinely Infallible The remainder of this Chapter which concerns the sense of the Fathers in this Controversie will particularly be considered in the next which is purposely designed for it CHAP. IX The Sense of the Fathers in this Controversie The Judgement of Antiquity enquired into especially of the three first Centuries and the reasons for it The several Testimonies of Justin Martyr Athenagoras Tatianus Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus and all the Fathers who writ in vindication of Christian Religion manifested to concurr fully with our way of resolving Faith C's Answers to Vincentius Lyrinensis à Gandavo and the Fathers produced by his Lordship pitifully weak The particulars of his 9th Chapter examined S. Augustine's Testimony vindicated C's nauseous Repetitions sent as Vagrants to their several homes His Lordships Considerations found too heavy for C's Answers In what sense the Scripture may be called a Praecognitum What way the Jews resolved their Faith This Controversie and the first Part concluded HAving thus largely considered whatever you could pretend to for the advantage of your own cause or the prejudice of ours from Reason and Scripture nothing can be supposed to remain considerable but the judgement of the Primitive Church in this present Controversie And next to Scripture and Reason I attribute so much to the sense of the Christian Church in the ages next succeeding the Apostles that it is no mean confirmation to me of the truth of the Protestant Way of resolving Faith and of the falsity of yours that I see the one so exactly concurring and the other so apparently contrary to the unanimous Consent of Antiquity For though you love to make a great noise with Antiquity among persons meanly conversant in it yet those who do seriously and impartially enquire into the sense of the Primitive Church and not guess at it by the shreds of Citations to your hands in your own writers which is generally your way will scarce in any thing more palpably discern your jugling and impostures then in your pretence to Antiquity I shall not here enquire into the corruptions crept into your Church under that disguise but as occasion is ministred to me in the following discourse shall endeavour to pluck it off but shall keep close to the matter in question Three things then I design in this Chapter 1. To shew the concurrence of Antiquity with us in the resolution of Faith 2. Examine what you produce from thence either to assert your own way or enervate ours 3. Consider what remains of this Controversie in your Book 1. For the manifesting the concurrence of Antiquity with us I shall confine my present discourse to the most pure and genuine Antiquity keeping within the compass of the three first Centuries or at least of those who have purposely writ in vindication of the Christian Faith Not that I do in the least distrust the consent of the succeeding Writers of the Primitive Church but upon these Reasons 1. Because it would be too large a task at present to undertake since no necessity from what you object but only my desire to clear the Truth and rectifie the mistakes of such who are led blindfold under the pretence of Antiquity hath led me to this discourse 2. Because in reason they could not but understand best the waies and methods used by the Apostles for the perswading men to the Christian Faith and if they had mentioned any such thing as an Infallibility alwaies to continue in the Charch those Pastors certainly who received the care of the Church from the Apostles hands could not but have heard of it And were strangely to blame if they did not discover and make use of it Whatever therefore of truly Apostolical Tradition is to be relyed on in such cases must be conveyed to us from those persons who were the Apostles immediate Successors and if it can be made manifest that they heard not of any such thing in that when occasion was offered they are so far from mentioning it that they take such different waies of satisfying men which do manifestly suppose that they did not believe it I know some of the greatest Patrons of the Church of Rome and such who know best how to manage things with best advantage for the interest of that Church have made little account of the three first ages and confined themselves within the compass of the four first Councils upon this pretence because the Books and Writers are so rare before and that those persons who lived then had no occasion to write of the matters in Controversie between them and us But if the ground why those other things which are not determined in Scripture are to be believed by us and practised as necessary be that they were Apostolical Traditions Who can be more competent Judges what was so and what not then those who lived nearest the Apostolical times and those certainly if they writ of any thing could not write of any thing of more concernment to the Christian world than the knowledge of such things would be or at least we cannot imagine but that we should find express intimations of them where so many so wise and learned persons do industriously give an account of themselves and their solemn actions to their Heathen persecutors But however silent they may be in other things which they neither heard nor thought of as in the
which had been in the world but knowing that the Christians did with the greatest resolution adhere to that Doctrine which was delivered by Christ and his Apostles they could not suppose that they should embrace these figments unless they could some way or other father them upon them Upon which they pretended that these very things which they delivered were really intended by Christ and the Apostles in their writings but because so few were capable of them they gave only some intimations of them there but delivered these great mysteries privately only to those who were perfect and that this was St. Pauls meaning when he said I speak wisdome among them that are perfect This Irenaeus gives us an account of in the beginning of all his discourse but is more fully expressed in the original Greek of Irenaeus preserved by Epiphanius in the heresie of the Valentinians On which account alone as Petavius saith Epiphanius hath well deserved of Posterity for preserving entire those original Fragments of Irenaeus his Greek therein being much more intelligible and smooth than the old harsh Latin version of him His words are All which things are not expresly declared in as much as all are not fit to understand them but are mysteriously couched by our Saviour in parables for such who are able to understand them Thus they said the 30. Aeônes were represented by the 30. years in which our Saviour did not appear publickly and by the parable of the works in the vineyard in which the 1 3 6 9 11 hours making up 30. did again denote their Aeônes and that St. Paul did most expresly signifie them when he used so often 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Duodecad of Aeôns by the 12 years at which our Saviour appeared disputing with the Doctors The raising of Jairus his daughter of 12 years represented Achamoth being brought to light whose passions were set forth by those words of our Saviour My God my God why hast thou forsaken me in which were three passions of Achamoth Sorrow Fear and Despair With many things of a like nature but hereby we sufficiently see what their pretence was viz. That there were deep mysteries but obscurely represented in Scripture but whose full knowledge was delivered down by an Oral Cabala from Christ and his Apostles Now we must consider what course Irenaeus takes to confute these pretensions of theirs First he gives an account what that Faith was which the Church dispersed up and down the world received from the Apostles and their Disciples viz. that thereby they believed in one God the Father Almighty who made Heaven and Earth the Sea and all in them and in one Jesus Christ the Son of God c. which was directly contrary to the Valentinian Heresies who supposed the Supream God and Demiurgus to be different and so Christus and Salvator and so in others This Faith which the Church hath received it unanimously keeps though dispersed through the whole world for although the languages be different yet the Tradition is the same among them whether they live in Germany France Spain the East Aegypt Libya or elsewhere And after in the first Book he hath shewed the many different opinions of the several broods of these Hereticks and in the second discovered the fondness and ridiculousness of them in his third Book he undertakes from Scripture to shew the falseness of them And begins with that excellent expression before cited For we have not known the disposition or oeconomy of our Salvation by others than by those by whom the Gospel came to us which they then first preached and after by the will of God delivered to us in writings to be the Foundation and Pillar of our Faith Which being laid down by him at his entrance as the grand principle on which he goes will lead us to an easie understanding of all that follows This therefore he not only asserts but proves for whereas some of the Adversaries pretended that the Apostles preached before they fully understood all they were to know he shews how false that was because after Christs Resurrection from the grave they were endued with the Spirit of God descending from on high upon them and were furnished with a perfect knowledge by which they went up and down preaching the Gospel which all and each of them had the knowledge of Thus Matthew in the Hebrew tongue set forth his Gospel when Peter and Paul at Rome preached the Gospel and founded a Church and after their departure Mark the Disciple and Interpreter of Peter writ those things which were preached Afterwards John published his Gospel at Ephesus in Asia And all these saith he delivered to us one God maker of Heaven and Earth and one Christ his Son To whom if one doth not assent he despiseth those who were our Lords companions and therefore despiseth our Lord Christ and likewise despiseth the Father and is condemned of himself resisting and opposing his own salvation which all Hereticks do Can any thing be more plain than that Irenaeus makes it his design to resolve Faith into the writings of Christ and his Apostles and saith That these writings were delivered as a Foundation of Faith that the reason why the Christians believed but one God and one Christ was because they read of no more in the Gospels published by them That he that despiseth them who were our Lords companions despise himself and God and condemn themselves He doth not say he that despiseth the lawfully sent Pastours of the Church meeting in General Councils nor them who have power to oblige the Church to believe as well as the Apostles had as you say but evidently makes the obligation to believe to depend upon that revelation of Gods will which was made by the Apostles and is by their writings conveyed down to us Would not the Valentinians have thought themselves presently run down by such wayes of confutation as yours are that they must believe the present Church infallible in whatever is delivered to be believed to the world But doth not Irenaeus himself make use of the Churches Tradition as the great argument to confute them by I grant he doth so and it is on that very account that he might confute them and not lay down the only sure Foundation of Christian Faith For he gives that reason of his doing so in the beginning of the very next Chapter For saith he when we dispute against them out of the Scripture they are turned presently to an accusing of the Scriptures as though they were not in all things right and wanted Authority and because of their ambiguity and for that truth cannot be found out by them without the help of Tradition I need not say that Irenaeus prophesied of you in this saying of his but it is as true of you as if he had Your pretences being the very same against the Scriptures being the rule of Faith with those of the Valentinians only
that you deny not the truth of what is therein contained for otherwise the want of Authority in themselves the ambiguity of them the impossibility of knowing the sense of them without Tradition are the very same arguments which with the greatest pomp and ostentation are produced by you against the Scriptures being the Rule whereby to judge of Controversies Which we have no more cause to wonder at than Irenaeus had in the Valentinians because from them we produce our greatest arguments against your fond opinions Now when the Valentinians pretended their great rule was on oral Tradition which was conveyed from the Apostles down to them to this Irenaeus opposeth the constant Tradition of the Apostolical Churches which in a continued succession was preserved from the Apostles times which was the same every where among all the Churches which every one who desired it might easily be satisfied about because they could number them who by the Apostles were appointed Bishops in Churches and their successors unto our own times who taught no such thing nor ever knew any such thing as they madly fancy to themselves We see then his appeal to Tradition was only in a matter of fact Whether ever any such thing as their opinion which was not contained in Scripture was delivered to them by the Apostles or no i. e. Whether the Apostles left any oral Traditions in the Churches which should be the rule to interpret Scriptures by or no And the whole design of Irenaeus is to prove the contrary by an appeal to all the Apostolical Churches and particularly by appealing to the Roman Church because of its due fame and celebrity in that Age wherein Irenaeus lived So that Irenaeus appealed to the then Roman Church even when he speaks highest in the honour of it for somewhat which is fundamentally contrary to the pretensions of the now Roman Church He then appealed to it for an evidence against such oral Traditions which were pretended to be left by the Apostles as a rule to understand Scripture by and were it not for this same pretence now what will become of the Authority of the present Roman Church After he hath thus manifested by recourse to the Apostolical Churches that there was no such Tradition left among them it was very reasonable to inferr that there was none such at all for they could not imagine if the Apostles had designed any such Tradition but they would have communicated it to those famous Churches which were planted by them and it was absurd to suppose that those Churches who could so easily derive their succession from the Apostles should in so short a time have lost the memory of so rich a treasure deposited with them as that was pretended to be from whence he sufficiently refutes that unreasonable imagination of the Valentinians Which having done he proceeds to settle those firm grounds on which the Christians believed in one God the Father and in one Lord Jesus Christ which he doth by removing the only Objection which the Adversaries had against them For when the Christians declared the main reason into which they resolved their Faith as to these principles was Because no other God or Christ were revealed in Scripture but them whom they believed the Valentinians answered this could not be a sufficient foundation for their Faith on this account because many things were delivered in Scripture not according to the truth of the things but the judgment and opinion of the persons they were spoken to This therefore being such a pretence as would destroy any firm resolution of Faith into Scripture and must necessarily place it in Tradition Irenaeus concerns himself much to demonstrate the contrary by an ostension as he calls it that Christ and the Apostles did all along speak according to truth and not according to the opinion of their auditours which is the entire subject of the fifth Chapter of his third Book Which he proves first of Christ because he was Truth it self and it would be very contrary to his nature to speak of things otherwise then they were when the very design of his coming was to direct men in the way of Truth The Apostles were persons who professed to declare truth to the world and as light cannot communicate with darkness so neither could truth be blended with so much falshood as that opinion supposeth in them And therefore neither our Lord nor his Apostles could be supposed to mean any other God or Christ then whom they declared For this saith he were rather to increase their ignorance and confirm them in it then to cure them of it and therefore that Law was true which pronounced a curse on every one who led a blind man out of his way And the Apostles being sent for the recovery of the lost sight of the blind cannot be supposed to speak to men according to their present opinion but according to the manifestation of truth For what Physitian intending to cure a Patient will do according to his Patients desire and not rather what will be best for him From whence he concludes Since the design of Christ and his Apostles was not to flatter but to cure mens souls it follows that they did not speak to them according to their former opinion but according to truth without all hypocrisie and dissimulation From whence it follows that if Christ and his Apostles did speak according to truth there is then need of no Oral Tradition for our understanding Scripture and consequently the resolution of our Faith as to God and Christ and proportionably as to other objects to be believed is not into any Tradition pretending to be derived from the Apostles but into the Scriptures themselves which by this discourse evidently appears to have been the judgement of Irenaeus The next which follows is Clemens of Alexandria who flourished A. D. 196. whom St. Hierome accounted the most learned of all the writers of the Church and therefore cannot be supposed ignorant in so necessary a part of the Christian Doctrine as the Resolution of Faith is And if his judgement may be taken the Scriptures are the only certain Foundation of Faith for in his Admonition to the Gentiles after he hath with a great deal of excellent learning derided the Heathen Superstitions when he comes to give an account of the Christians Faith he begins it with this pregnant Testimony to our purpose For saith he the Sacred Oracles affording us the most manifest grounds of Divine worship are the Foundation of Truth And so goes on in a high commendation of the Scripture as the most compendious directions for happiness the best Institutions for government of life the most free from all vain ornaments that they raise mens souls up out of wickedness yielding the most excellent remedies disswading from the greatest deceit and most clearly incouraging to a foreseen happiness with more of the same nature And when after he perswades men with so much Rhetorick and
man How much beyond the Valentinians and Basilidians would Clemens have accounted so great a madness who so plainly asserts the Scriptures to be proved by themselves and that not casually or in the heat of argument But lest we should not throughly apprehend his meaning repeats it again in the same page 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfectly demonstrating the Scriptures by themselves And are not all these Testimonies of such persons so near the Apostolical times sufficient to acquaint us what the grounds of the Resolution of Faith were in the Christian Church when all of them do so unanimously fix on the Scripture and not so much as mention the Infallible Testimonies of any Church much less the Roman Much more might be cited out of this excellent Authour to the same purpose particularly where he refutes the Valentinians who deserted the Scriptures and pleaded Tradition but the Testimonies already produced are so plain that it will be to no purpose to produce any more It were easie to continue an account of the same grounds of Faith through the succeeding Writers of the Christian Church who have designedly writ on that subject in vindication of Christian Religion which they unanimously prove to be Divine chiefly by these Arguments from the undoubted Miracles which were wrought by Christ and his Apostles from the exact fulfilling of Prophecies and the admirable propagation of the Christian Doctrine all which are particularly insisted on by Origen against Celsus by Tertullian in his Apologetick adversus Scapulam and elsewhere by Minucius Felix Arnobius and Lactantius not to mention Eusebius in his Books of preparation and Cyril's Answer to Julian and others But having elsewhere more fully and largely considered that subject I rather chuse to referr the Reader to what hath been there handled already than to tire his patience with either repeating the same or adding more Testimonies to the same purpose Only that which is most pertinent to our present purpose I shall here add Whether is it credible that those persons who fully understood the Doctrine of Christianity who were themselves rational and inquisitive men and writ for the satisfaction not only of subtle adversaries but of doubting and staggering Christians should so unanimously agree in insisting on the evidence of matter of fact for the truth of the thing delivered in Scripture and the fore-mentioned Arguments for the Divinity of the Doctrine therein delivered had it not been the judgement of the Church they lived in that the resolution of Faith was into those grounds on which they insisted And is it again credible that any of them should believe the Testimony of the Church to be necessary as infallible in order to a Divine Faith and that without it the Scriptures could not be believed as Divine and yet in all their disputes with the Gentiles concerning the Doctrine of Christianity and with several Hereticks as the Marcionists c. concerning the Books of Scripture upon no occasion should mention this grand Palladium of Faith viz. the Infallibility of the present Church And lastly Is it credible that when in our modern Controversies men do evidently maintain faction and interest more than the common Principles of Christianity that he must be blinder than one that can see no distinction of colours that doth not discern on what account this Infallibility is now pretended Is it I say credible that a Doctrine pretended so necessary for our believing Scriptures with Divine Faith should be so concealed when it ought for the honour and interest of Christianity to have been most divulged Which now only in these last and worst times is challenged by an usurping party in the Church as left by Christ himself when no other evidence can be given of it but what was common to all ages of the Church as belonging to such a party under the pretence of the Catholick Church which doth so apparently use it only to uphold her pretended Authority and so makes it serve to the worst ends and the most unworthy designs Having thus far considered what the judgement of those Fathers was concerning the resolution of Faith who lived nearest the Apostolical times I should now come to consider what you can produce out of Antiquity for your Churches Infallibility or more generally for any infallible Testimony supposed in the Catholick Church whatever that be in order to a Foundation for Divine Faith But you very prudently avoid the Testimonies of Antiquity in so necessary a subject as this is for those Testimonies mentioned in the foregoing Chapter in explication of Matth. 28.20 takeing them as you have in so loose and careless a manner produced them make nothing at all for the Churches Infallible Testimonie but only assert that which is not denied that there shall alwaies be a Christian Church in the world Our only remaining task then as to this is to examine in what way you seek to enervate the Testimonies produced by his Lordship out of Antiquity which you do in the latter part of Chap. 8. His Lordship had truly said That this method and manner of proving the Scripture to be the Word of God which he useth is the same which the ancient Church ever held namely Tradition or Ecclesiastical Authority first and then all other arguments but especially internal from the Scripture it self For which he cites first The Church in S. Augustine 's time He was no enemy to church-Church-Tradition saith his Lorship yet when he would prove that the Authour of the Scripture and so of the whole knowledge of Divinity as it is supernatural is God in Christ he takes this as the all-sufficient way and gives four proofs all internal to the Scripture 1. The Miracles 2. That there is nothing carnal in the Doctrine 3. That there hath been such performance of it 4. That by such a Doctrine of Humility the whole world almost hath been converted And whereas ad muniendam fidem for the defending of the Faith and keeping it entire there are two things requisite Scripture and Church-Tradition Vincent Lyrinens places authority of Scriptures first and then Tradition And since it is apparent that Tradition is first in order of time it must necessarily follow that Scripture is first in order of nature that is the chief upon which Faith rests and resolves it self To this after you have needlesly explained his Lordships opinion in this Controversie you begin to answer thus He cites first Vincentius Lyrinensis l. 1. c. 1. who makes our Faith to be confirmed both by Scripture and Tradition of the Catholick Church But Are not you like to be trusted in citing Fathers who doubly falsifie a Testimony of your adversaries when you may be so easily disproved For 1. You tell us he cites that first which he produceth last 2. You cite that as produced by him for the Foundation of Faith which he expresly cites for the preservation of the Doctrine of Faith so he tells you ad muniendam fidem
c. Can any thing be more plain and obvious to any one who looks into that discourse of Vincentius than that he makes it not his business to give an account of the general Foundations of Faith as to the Scriptures being Gods Word but of the particular Doctrines of Faith in opposition to the Heresies which arise in the Church So that all that he speaks concerning Scripture is not about the authority but the sense and interpretation of it If therefore I should grant you that he speaks of Christian and Divine Faith What is this to your purpose unless you could prove that he speaks of that Divine Faith whereby we believe the Scripture to be the Word of God But yet your argument is very good to prove that he speaks not of any humane fallible perswasion but true Christian Divine Faith for he opposes it to Heresie and calls it sound Faith and his Faith It seems then whatever Faith is sound for the matter of it is presently Christian Divine and Infallible and so whosoever believes any thing which is materially true in opposition to Heresies needs never fear as long as he doth so for according to you he hath Christian and Infallible Faith but what if the Devils Faith be as sound as any Catholicks ' Must it therefore be Divine Faith No it may be you will answer because he wants the formal object of Faith and doth not believe on the account of your Churches Infallibility I verily believe you for he knows the jugglings of it too much to believe it infallible But take Vincentius in what sense you please that is evident in him which his Lordship produced him for that for the preserving Faith entire he places authority of Scripture first and then Tradition unless you will serve his Testimony as you do his Lordships because it makes for your purpose say He mentions Tradition first and then Scripture but say you He sayes Tradition doth as truly confirm Divine Faith as Scripture though Scripture doth it in a higher manner If you did but consider either what kind of Tradition or what kind of Faith Vincentius insists on you could not possibly think his words any thing to your purpose For he speaks not of any Tradition infallibly attested to us without which you pretend there can be no Divine Faith but of such an Vniversal Tradition which depends wholly upon Antiquity Vniversality and Consent and never so much as mentions much less pretends to any thing of Infallibility So that if you grant such a kind of Tradition doth as truly confirm Faith as the Scripture then you must grant no necessity of an Infallible Testimony to assure us of that Tradition for Vincentius speaks of such a kind of Tradition as hath no connexion with Infallibility For if Vincentius had ever in the least thought of any such thing so great and zealous an opposer of Heresies would not have left out that which had been more to his purpose than all that he had said For wise men who have throughly considered of Vincentius his way though in general they cannot but approve of it so far as to think it highly improbable that there should be Antiquity Vniversality and Consent against the true and genuine sense of Scripture yet when they consider this way of Vincentius with all those cautions restrictions and limitations set down by him ◠1. c. 39. they are apt to think that he hath put men to a wild-goose-chase to finde out any thing according to his Rules and that S. Augustine spake a great deal more to the purpose when he spake concerning all the Writers of the Church That although they had never so much learning and sanctity he did not think it true because they thought so but because they perswaded him to believe it true either from the Authority of Scripture or some probable Reason If therefore S. Austin's Authority be not sunk so low as that of the Monk of Lerins we have very little reason to think that Tradition can as truly confirm Faith to us as the Scriptures supposing that to have been the meaning of Vincentius Which yet is not reasonable to imagine since Vincentius himself grants that in case of inveterate Heresie or Schism either the sole Authority of Scripture is to be used or at most the determinations of General Councils nay and in all cases doth suppose that the Canon of Scripture is perfect and is abundantly sufficient of it self for all things Can you yet therefore suppose that Vincentius did think that Tradition did as truly confirm our Faith as the Scripture Which is your assertion and the only thing whereby you pretend that the Bishop hath misconstrued Vincentius but whether be more guilty of it I leave to impartial judgement The next Testimony you consider is that of Henricus à Gandavo For his Lordship had said That the School had confessed this was the way ever For which he cites the Testimony of that Schoolman That daily with them that are without Christ enters by the woman i. e. the Church and they believe by that fame which she gives alluding to the story of the woman of Samaria But when they come to hear Christ himself they believe His words before the words of the woman For when they have once found Christ they do more believe his words in Scripture than they do the Church which testifies of him because then propter illam for the Scripture they believe the Church And if the Church should speak contrary to the Scripture they would not believe it Thus saith his Lordship the School taught then No that did it not say you But let us see how rarely you prove it For you say he speaks all this of a supernatural and Divine Faith to be given both to the Scriptures and the Church Gandavensis certainly is much obliged to you who venture to speak such great Absurdities for his sake for if he be understood in both places of Divine and Infallible Faith these rare consequences follow 1. That the first beginning of Faith is equal to the highest degree of it for when he speaks of the Church he speaks of Christs entring by that which can be meant of nothing else but the first step to Faith as is plain in the parallel case of the woman of Samaria but if this were Divine and Infallible it must be equal to the highest degree for that I suppose can be but Divine and Infallible unless you can find out degrees in Infallibility By this Rule you make him that is but over the threshold as much in the house as he that is sate down to the Table a plant at its first peeping out of the earth to be as tall as at its full growth and the Samaritans as firmly to believe in Christ at the first mention of him by the Woman as when they saw and heard him 2. By this you make an Infallible Faith to be built on a Fallible
he did not see them sown and our Saviour hath told us That the time of sowing tares by the enemy was when the men were asleep So we say The errours and corruptions of your Church came in in a time of great Ignorance when little notice was taken of them and few records preserved of those times and all the passages of them Since Learning and Religion commonly decay and flourish together How is it possible there should be as exact an account given of the decay of Religion as of the flourishing of it Besides Are there not many things you judge errours and corruptions your selves which you can give no account when they first entred into the Church As the necessity of communicating Infants name us the person who first broached that Doctrine and the time in which it was first received in the Church That no souls of men departed shall see God till the day of resurrection is I suppose with you an errour yet it would puzzle you to find out the first Authour of it So for the rebaptizing Hereticks and many things of a like nature it is easier to shew when they appeared publickly than when they first came into the Church And as evident is it in the decay of the primitive Discipline of the Church the altering the orders of penitents and the rites belonging to them the leaving of the communicatory Letters between Churches and many other customes of the Church grown into disuse and yet I suppose you will not presume to name the persons who first altered the former orders of the Church and methinks this is as reasonable as the naming the punctual time when other corruptions came in If you say the primitive Discipline decayed gradually and insensibly so say I that the Churches corruptions came in as the other went out in the same gradual and insensible manner and if you cannot name the precise time of the one it is not reasonable you should expect the other from us 2. We may have sufficient reason to judge what are errours and corruptions in a Church though we cannot fix on the time when they came in Which is by comparing them with that Rule of Faith which is delivered down by an interrupted tradition to us and with the practice of the first Ages of the Christian Church What is apparently contrary to either of these we have reason to reject though we cannot determine when it first came in For as long as these are our certain standards it matters not who first departed from them as long as we see that they have departed But when we own an absolute and infallible Rule of Faith and manners to question Whether any thing contrary to it be an errour or no because we cannot tell when it first began would be as if the Aegyptians when they saw their Land overflowed by the Nile should question Whether it were so or no because they could not find out the head of Nilus 3. They who assert their Doctrines and Practices to be Apostolical are bound to shew the continued succession of them from the Apostles times And if they fail in this upon their own principles they must be errours and corruptions though the punctual time of their first obtaining in the Church cannot be set down Since therefore you affirm you are bound to prove If you say The judgement of your Church being infallible you need prove no more than that I answer you must prove that this Infallibility then hath been ever received in the Church but if there be not the least footstep of it in the records of the ancient Church we justly look on this as an errour of the first magnitude though we cannot tell you the minute of its first rising 4. We have sufficient evidence from your selves that many Doctrines and Practices are owned by you which are of no great antiquity in the Christian Church Thus by the confession of Scotus Transubstantiation is no elder than the Council of Lateran Purgatory not much heard of in the primitive Church by the acknowledgement of Bishop Fisher Communion in one kind confessed by most to be contrary to the primitive practice and institution Prayer in an unknown tongue can be no elder than the general disuse of the Latin tongue in the Roman Provinces And so for many others for which we have the confessions of your own party but I need not insist upon that since your very Doctrine of the Churches power to declare matters of Faith may make things necessary in one Age which were not in a foregoing and in that case sure it is no great difficulty to tell you when some things of School-points became necessary Doctrines but then the Question goes off from the time to the matter Whether any thing declared by your Church can be an errour but of that enough hath been said already 5. There may be a sufficient account given why the beginnings of errours and corruptions in your Church have been so obscure because they came not in all of a sudden but some at one time some at another because they rise gradually as is apparent in Invocation of Saints and Worship of Images because many of those things which ended in great corruptions were taken up at first out of good designs to win more upon the Gentile world because many things were at first practised freely which afterwards were urged as necessary because Barbarism came into the Church along with these corruptions because many who gave occasion to them were persons of great esteem in their age and others strove to follow their example more than the Rule because the state of the Church did very much alter from it self in several ages which altered mens apprehensions and judgements of things in regard of their suitableness and necessity because those persons who brought in and contended for these things were the persons chiefly in power then in the Church which hindered their being cast out of communion as others had been because a long time most of these errours and corruptions were but the private opinions and practices of a faction though then the more prevalent in the Church and therefore not so vehemently opposed in the first rise of them as when this imposthumated matter was grown to a head and then there was a necessity of lancing it These and several other reasons might be given why the first originals of errours and corruptions in your Church cannot with so much clearness be manifested as that they were errours and corruptions Although such who would take the pains to travel in an argument of that nature might with very great probability trace the most both of your errours and corruptions to the time and age when they were first publickly owned and received But thus much may here suffice as to your demand That if your Church be not the same she was we should mention the time when the change was made As though Chronical distempers could not be known unless we could set
What principality do you mean over all Churches But that was the thing in Question So that if you will make Irenaeus speak sense and argue pertinently his meaning can be no other than this If there be such a Tradition left it must be left somewhere among Christians if it be left among them it may be known by enquiry Whether they own any such or no. But because it would be troublesome searching of all Churches we may know their judgement more compendiously there is the Church of Rome near us a famous and ancient Church seated in the chief City of the Empire to which all persons have necessities to go and among them you cannot but suppose but that out of every Church some faithful persons should come and therefore it is very unreasonable to think that the Apostolical Tradition hath not alwaies been preserved there when persons come from all places thither Is not every thing in this account of Irenaeus his words very clear and pertinent to his present dispute But in the sense you give of them they are little to the purpose and very precarious and inconsequent And therefore since the more powerful principality is not that of the Church but of the City since the necessity of recourse thither is not for doubts of Faith but other occasions therefore it by no means follows thence That this Churches power did extend over the faithful every where thus by explaining your Proposition your Conclusion is ashamed of it self and runs away For your argument comes to this If English men from all parts be forced to resort to London then London hath the power over all England or if one should say If some from all Churches in England must resort to London then the Church at London hath power over all the Churches in England and if this consequence be good yours is for it is of the same nature of it the necessity of the resort not lying in the Authority of the Church but in the Dignity of the City the words in all probability in the Greek being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so relate to the dignity of Rome as the Imperial City From whence we proceed to the Vindication of Ruffinus in his Translation of the 6. Canon of the Council of Nice The occasion of which is this His Lordship saith Supposing that the powerful principality be ascribed to the Church of Rome yet it follows not that it should have power over all Churches for this power was confined within its own Patriarchate and Jurisdiction and that saith he was very large containing all the Provinces in the Diocese of Italy in the old sense of the word Diocese which Provinces the Lawyers and others term Suburbicaries There were ten of them the three Islands Sicily Corsica and Sardinia and the other seven upon the firm Land of Italy And this I take it is plain in Ruffinus For he living shortly after the Nicene Council as he did and being of Italy as he was he might very well know the bounds of the Patriarchs Jurisdiction as it was then practised And he sayes expresly that according to the old custom the Roman Patriarchs charge was confined within the limits of the Suburbican Churches To avoid the force of this testimony Cardinal Perron laies load upon Ruffinus For he charges him with passion ignorance and rashness And one piece of his ignorance is that he hath ill translated the Canon of the Council of Nice Now although his Lordship doth not approve of it as a Translation yet he saith Ruffinus living in that time and place was very like well to know and understand the limits and bounds of that Patriarchate of Rome in which he lived This you say is very little to his Lordships advantage since it is inconsistent with the vote of all Antiquity and gives S. Irenaeus the lye but if the former be no truer than the latter it may be very much to his advantage notwithstanding what you have produced to the contrary What the ground is Why the Roman Patriarchate was confined within the Roman Diocese I have already shewed in the precedent Chapter in explication of the Nicene Canon We must now therefore examine the Reasons you bring Why the notion of Suburbicary Churches must be extended beyond the limits his Lordship assigns that of the smalness of Jurisdiction compared with other Patriarchs I have given an account of already viz. from the correspondency of the Ecclesiastical and Civil Government for the Civil Dioceses of the Eastern part of the Empire did extend much farther than the Western did and that was the Reason Why the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria had a larger Metropolitical Jurisdiction than the Bishop of Rome had But you tell us That Suburbicary Churches must be taken as generally signifying all Churches and Cities any waies subordinate to the City of Rome which was at that time known by the name of Urbs or City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of excellency not as it related to the Praefect or Governour of Rome in regard of whose ordinary Jurisdiction we confess it commanded only those few places about it in Italy but as it related to the Emperour himself in which sense the word Suburbicary rightly signifies all Cities or Churches whatsoever within the Roman Empire as the word Romania also anciently signified the whole Imperial Territory as Card. Perron clearly proves upon this subject But this is one instance of what mens wits will do when they are resolved to break through any thing For whoever that had read of the Suburbicary Regions and Provinces in the Code of Theodosius or other parts of the Civil Law as distinguished from other Provinces under the Roman Empire and those in Italy too could ever have imagined that the notion of Suburbicary Churches had been any other than what was correspondent to those Regions and Provinces But let that be granted which Sirmondus so much contends for That the notion of Suburbicary may have different respects and so sometimes be taken for the Churches within the Roman Diocese sometimes for those within the Roman Patriarchate and sometimes for those which are under the Pope as Vniversal Pastor yet How doth it appear that ever Ruffinus took it in any other than the first sense No other Provinces being called Suburbicary but such as were under the Jurisdiction either of the Roman Prefect within a hundred miles of the City within which compass references and appeals were made to him or at the most to the Lieutenant of the Roman Diocese whose Jurisdiction extended to those ten Provinces which his Lordship mentions It is not therefore In what sense words may be taken but in what sense they were taken and what Evidence there is that ever they were so understood Never was any Controversie more ridiculous than that concerning the extent of the Suburbicary Regions or Provinces if Suburbicary were taken in your sense for all the Cities within the Roman
prevent or heal them Who then would not run into the bosom of such a Church as this with whom there is nothing but what is Infallible Who but Scepticks Hereticks and Schismaticks would keep out of her communion for what is there men can desire more in a Church then she hath where every thing is so Infallible Faith is Infallible Tradition Infallible the Church Infallible the Pope Infallible General Councils Infallible and what not But who are there that more cheat and deceive the world then those Mountebanks who pretend to the most Infallible cures For what is wanting in truth and reality must be helped out with the greater confidence and so we shall find it to be in these Infallible pretenders who fall short in nothing more then where they lay the highest claim to Infallibility Thus we have already manifested that none have more weakened Faith then such who have given out that they only could make it Infallibly certain none have brought more errours then that Church which arrogates to her self that she is Infallible it now remains that we discover that nothing is further from promoting the Churches peace then this present pretence of the Infallibility of General Councils For the ending of Controversies was the occasion of this dispute but this dispute it self hath caused more And will do so as long as men desire to see reason for what they do For it cannot be expected that men should yield their judgements up to the decrees of every such combination of men as shall call it self a General Council unless it be evidently proved that it is impossible they should erre in those decrees Where there be no other wayes found out for the ending some great Controversies of the Church but by a free and General Council all wise men will value the Churches peace so far as not to oppose the determinations of it it being the highest Court of Appeal which the Church hath But there is a great deal of difference between a submission for peace sake in those things which are not contrary to the Fundamentals of Faith and the assent of the mind to all the Decrees of such a Council as in themselves are Infallible For supposing them subject to errour yet if that errour be not such as doth over-weigh the peace of the Church the authority of it may be so great as to bind men to a submission to them But where they challenge an internal assent by vertue of such decrees there must be first proved an impossibility of erring in them before any can look on themselves as obliged to give it And while men contend about this that which was mainly aimed at is lost by these contentions which is the Vnity and Peace of the Church For it is a most fond and unreasonable thing to suppose there may not be as great divisions in the world about the wayes to end Controversies as any other Nay it is apparent that the greatest Controversies this day in the Christian world are upon this Subject It is not therefore any high challenge of Infallibility in any Person or Council which must put an end to Controversies for nothing but truth and reason can ever do it and the more men pretend to unreasonable wayes of deciding them instead of ending one they beget many For the higher the pretences are the more all wise men are apt to suspect them and to require the more clear and pregnant evidence for what they say and if they fail in that they have reason to question their Integrity much more then if they had contented themselves with more moderate claims For it is not saying Councils are infallible will make men yield the sooner to their determinations unless you first convince their reason by proving that they are so But if you aim at nothing but the Churches peace you might save your selves this labour perswade men to be meek and humble sober and rational and I dare promise you the Church shall be more at quiet than if you could prove all the Councils in the world to be Infallible For will that ever put a stop to the contentious Spirits of men will that alter their tempers or make them delight in those things which are contrary to them No you only offer to apply that Physick to the foreheads of men which should be taken inwards if you would endeavour to promote true piety and a Christian Spirit in the world that would tend more to the Churches peace then all your contests about the Infallibility of General Councils But since you are resolved to contend the nature of my task requires me to follow you which I shall more chearfully do because in pretence at least it is for peace sake This is then the first of those particular Controversies which this last part is designed for the handling of and which in the consequence of it brings in many of those particular errours which we charge your Church with In handling of which I must as I have hitherto done confine my self to those lines you have drawn for me to direct my course by Only in this first to prevent that confusion and tediousness which your discourse is subject to I find it necessary to alter the method somewhat For there being two distinct Questions treated of viz. Whether General Councils be Infallible and supposing them not Infallible How far they are to be submitted to You have intermixed these two so together that it will easily puzzle the Reader to see which of them it is you discourse of And although I must confess his Lordship hath gone before you in it as his occasion of entring into it required yet now the points coming to be more fully examined it will be the most natural and easie method to handle them apart and to begin first with that of Infallibility for the other supposing the denial of it it ought to follow the reasons which are given for that denial But although I thus transpose your method I assure you it is not with an intention to skip over any thing material but I shall readily resume the debate of it in its proper place In your entrance into this dispute you give us very little hopes of any great advantage is like to come by it because upon your principles it is impossible we should agree about the requisites to a General Council for his Lordship wishing that a lawful General Council were called to end Controversies you presently say A pure one to be sure if according to his wish Yes too pure a great deal for you to be willing to be tryed by And when his Lordship professes That an easie General General Council shall satisfie him that is lawfully called continued and ended according to the same course and under the same conditions which General Councils observed in the Primitive Church You say It is too general to be Ingenuous you mean such a Council would be too General for your purpose for you are resolved in
it is to say It is Infallible and not Infallible at the same time and about the same thing and in the same manner For What is drawing a Conclusion but a discerning that truth which results from the connexion of the premises together for that which is concluded hath all its truth depending upon the evidence of the premises otherwise it is a simple Proposition and not a Conclusion If you had then said That the Spirit of God did immediately reveal to the Council the truth of what was to be decreed you had spoken that which might have been understood though not believed but this you durst not say for fear of the charge of Enthusiasms and new Revelations but when you say The Council must use means and make Syllogisms as other fallible creatures do but then it is Infallible in the drawing the Conclusion from the premises though it be fallible in the connexion of those premises is an unparalleld piece of profound non-sense For suppose the matter the Council was to determine was the Popes Infallibility in order to the proving this you say The Council must use all arguments tending to prove it there comes in Christ's Prayer for S. Peter that his Faith should not fail and that this must be extended to his Successors thence the argument is formed Whomsoever Christ prayed for that his Faith should not fail is Infallible but Christ prayed for the Pope that his Faith should not fail therefore he is Infallible Now you say The Council is fallible in the use of the means for this Conclusion i. e. it may not infallibly believe the truth of the major or minor Proposition but yet it may infallibly deduce thence the Conclusion though all the strength of the Conclusion depends upon the truth of the premises You must therefore either assert that the Decrees of Councils are immediately revealed as Divine Oraclâ—s or else that they are fallible Conclusions drawn from fallible premises And were it not for a little shame because of your charging others with immediate Revelations I doubt not but you would assert the former which you must of necessity do if you will maintain the Infallibility of General Councils for if there be any infirmity in the use of the premises it must of necessity be in the Conclusion too But suppose you mean an Infallible Assent to the matter of the Conclusion though it be fallibly deduced you are as far to seek as ever for Whereon must that Assent be grounded It must be either upon the truth of the premises or something immediately revealed If on the truth of the premises the Assent can be no stronger than the grounds are on which it is built if on something revealed it must needs be still an immediate Revelation But I forget my self all this while to urge you thus with absurdities consequent from reason for in answer to his Lordship you grant That it is a thing altogether unknown in nature and art too that fallible principles can either as Father or Mother beget or bring forth an Infallible Conclusion for when his Lordship had objected this you return him this Answer That this is a false supposition of the Bishop for the Conclusion is not so much the child of those premises i. e. it is not the Conclusion as the fruit of the Holy Ghost directing and guiding the Council to produce an Infallible Conclusion whatever the premises be true or false certain or uncertain all is a case This is necessary for the peace and unity of the Church to believe Contradictions and therefore not to be denied unless an impossibility be shewed therein I doubt believing contradictions is accounted no impossibility with you But I hope no man will attaque Gods Omnipotency and deprive him of the power of doing this Is it come to that at last Whatever you assert that is repugnant to the common reason of mankind and involves contradictions in it that you call for Gods Omnipotency to help you in Thus Transubstantiation must be believed because God is Omnipotent and that men may believe any thing though not grounded on Scripture and repugnant to Reason because God is Omnipotent We acknowledge God's Omnipotency as much as you but we dare not put it to such servile uses to make good any absurd imaginations of our brains If you had said It was possible for God to enlighten the minds of the Bishops in a General Council either to discern infallibly the truth of the premises or immediately to reveal the truth of the Conclusion you had spoken intelligible falshoods But to say that God permits them to be fallible in the use of the means and in drawing the Conclusion from them but to be Infallible in the Conclusion it self without any immediate Revelation and then to challenge Gods Omnipotency for it I know not whether it be a greater dishonour to God or reproach to humane understanding And if such incongruities as these are do not discover that you are miserably hampered as his Lordship saith in this argument I know not what will But we must proceed to discover more of them two things his Lordship very rationally objects against Stapletons assertion That the Council is discursive in the use of the means but prophetical in delivering the Conclusion 1. That since this is not according to principles of nature and reason there must be some supernatural Authority which must deliver this truth which saith he must be the Scripture For if you fly to immediate Revelations the Enthusiasm must be yours But the Scriptures which are brought in the very exposition of all the Primitive Church neither say it nor enforce it Therefore Scripture warrants not your prophecy in the Conclusion Neither can the Tradition Produce one Father who sayes This is an Vniversal Tradition of the Church that her definitions in a General Council are prophetical and by immediate Revelation Produce any one Father that sayes it of his own authority that he thinks so To all this you very gravely say nothing and we can shrewdly guess at the reason of it 2. His Lordship proves That it is a repugnancy to say That the Council is prophetical in the Conclusion and discursive in the use of the means for no Prophet in that which he delivered from God as Infallible truth was ever discursive at all in the use of the means Nay saith he make it but probable in the ordinary course of prophecy and I hope you go no higher nor will I offer at Gods absolute power but his Lordship was deceived in you for you run to Gods Omnipotency that that which is discursive in the means can be prophetical in the Conclusion and you shall be my great Apollo for ever And this he shews is contrary to what your own Authours deliver concerning the nature and kinds of prophecy and that none of them were by discourse To this you answer That both Stapleton and you deny that the Church is simply prophetical
Church all the rest moulders as not being able to stand without them But that is still your way if any thing be said of the Catholick Church we must presently understand it of yours so that it cannot be said in any sense that the Church is without spot or wrinkle but by you it must be understood presently of the Doctrine of the Roman Catholick Church universally received as a matter of Faith but till you prove not only your two former assertions but that St. Austin understood those words ever in that sense your vindication of that place in him concerning it will appear utterly impertinent to your purpose And his Lordships assertion may still stand good That the Church on earth is not any freer from wrinkles in Doctrine and Discipline then she is from spots in life and Conversation Having thus vindicated his Lordships way from the objections you raised against it we must now consider how well you vindicate your own from the unreasonableness he charges it with in several particulars 1. That if we suppose a General Council Infallible and it prove not so but that an errour in Faith be concluded the same erring opinion which makes it think it self Infallible makes the errour of it irrevocable and so leaves the Church without remedy To this you Answer Grant false antecedents and false premises enow and what absurdities will not be consequent and fill up the conclusion But you clearly mistake the present business which is not Whether Councils be Infallible or no but Whether opinion be lyable to greater Inconveniencies that which asserts that they may or that they cannot err Will you have your supposition of the Infallibility of Councils taken for a first principle or a thing as true as the Scriptures So you would seem indeed by the supposing the Scriptures not to be Gods Word which you subjoyn as the parallel to the supposing General Councils fallible But will you say the one is as evident and built on as good reason and as much agreed on among Christians as the other is I suppose you will not and therefore it was very absurd unreasonable to say Supposing the Word of God were not so errours would be irrevocable as if General Councils were supposed Infallible and proved not so But this is a Question you grant to be disputable among Christians and will you not give us leave to make a supposition that it may prove not so You must consider we are now enquiring into the conveniencies of these two opinions and in that case it is necessary to make such suppositions And let any reasonable man judge what opinion can be more pernicious to the Church then yours is supposing it not to be true for then it will be necessary for men to assent to the grossest errours as the most Divine and Infallible truths and there can be no remedy imagin'd for the redress of them If then the Inconvenience of admitting it be so great men had need look well to the grounds on which it is built And I cannot see any reason men can have to admit any Infallible proponent in matters of Faith to the Church but on as great and as clear evidence as the Prophets and Apostles had that they were sent from God For the danger may be as great to believe that to be Infallible which is not as not to believe that to be Infallible which is for the believing an errour to be a Divine truth may be as dangerous to the souls of men as the not believing something which is really revealed by God But to be sure those who see no reason to believe a General Council to be Infallible cannot be obliged to assent to errours propounded by it but such who believe it Infallible must what ever the errours be swallow them down without questioning the truth of them And it argues how conscious you are of the falseness of your principles that you are so loath to have them examined or so much as a supposition made that they should not prove true Whereas truth alwayes invites men to the most accurate search into it We see the Apostles bid men search whether the things they spake were true or no and those are most commended who did it most and I hope men were as much bound to believe them Infallible as General Councils But we see how unreasonable you are you would obtrude such things upon mens Faith which must lead them into unavoidable errours if false and yet not allow men the liberty of examination whether they be true or no. But such proceedings are so far from advancing your cause that nothing can more prejudice it among rational and inquisitive men His Lordship for the clearing this proceeds to an Instance of an errour defined by one of your General Councils viz. Communion in one kind but that we shall reserve the discussion of to the ensuing Chapter which is purposely allotted for the discovery of those errours which have been defined by such as you call General Councils Therefore I proceed 2. His Lordship saith Your opinion is yet more unreasonable because no Body-collective whensoever it assembled it self did ever give more power to the representing body of it then a binding power upon it self and all particulars nor ever did it give this power otherwise then with this reservation in nature that it would call again and reform and if need were abrogate any Law or ordinance upon just cause made evident that the representing Body had failed in trust or truth And this power no Body-collective ecclesiastical or civil can put out of it self or give away to a Parliament or Council or call it what you will that represents it To this again you Answer This is only to suppose and take for granted that a General Council hath no Authority but what is meerly delegate from the Church Vniversal which it represents I grant this is supposed in it and this is all which the nature of a representative body doth imply if you say there is more then that you are bound to prove it Yes say you We maintain its Authority to be of Divine Institution and when lawfully assembled to act by Divine right and not meerly by deputation and consent of the Church But if all the proof you have for it be only that which you refer us to in the precedent Chapter the palpable weakness of it for any such purpose hath been there fully laid open His Lordship saith That the power which a Council hath to order settle and define differences arising concerning Faith it hath not by any Immediate Institution from Christ but it was prudently taken up by the Church from the Apostles example So that to hold Councils to this end is apparent Apostolical Tradition written but the power which Councils have is from the whole Catholick Church whose members they are and the Churches power from God You say True it is the calling such
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
decretal Epistles those impregnable testimonies St. Cyprian Optatus Hierom Austin the Council of Sardica Ephesus Chalcedon and all the baffled and impertinent proofs you could think on must be pressed to do new service though they had run out of the Field before And this you call a General Consent of the Fathers of the Primitive Church but I must beg the Reader not to be scared with these vizards for if he touches them they fall off and then you will see them blush that they are so often abused to so ill an end But this is not the only subject viz. the Popes Supremacy which you give us so often over but within a page or two following enter again worship of Images with as much ceremony as if it had never appeared but till you have Answered what I have said already all that you have here is vain and impertinent in the next page enter Transubstantiation in the following enter again Infallibility of Councils Resolution of Faith Apocrypha books Fundamentals Communion in one kind c. to the end of the Chapter In all which I find but two things new the one about Purgatory which we shall meet with again and the other you call a Note only by the way but it is so rare a one it ought to be considered Which is That Protestants ought to prove their Faith agreeable to that of the Primitive Church by special undeniable evidence but they have not the like reason to require it of you Catholicks good reason for it but you say not that you are unable to do it no who would ever suspect that who reads your book but because you are in full and quiet possession of your Faith Religion Church c. by immemorial tradition and succession from your Ancestours that you do upon that sole ground of quiet possession justly prescribe against your Adversaries And your plea you say must in all Law and equity be admitted for good till they do by more pregnant and convincing arguments disprove it and shew that your possession is not bonae fidei but gain'd by force or fraud or some other wrongful and unallowed means To this because I have not yet considered it I shall now return the suller Answer And it appears that the proof lyes upon you For they who challenge full and quiet possession by vertue of immemorial tradition and succession from their Ancestours ought to produce the conveyance of that tradition from him who alone could invest them in that possession For although this title of possession be of late so much insisted on by those who see the weakness of other Arguments and are ashamed to use them yet whosoever throughly searches it will find it as weak and ridiculous as any other For it is plain in this case the full right depends not upon meer occupancy but a title must be pleaded to shew that the possession is bonae fidei so that the Question comes from the bare possession to the goodness of the title and the validity of it in justice and equity Your title then is immemorial tradition from your Ancestours but here several things are to be contested before your prescription be allowed 1. That no antecedent Law hath determin'd contrary to what you challenge by vertue of possession For if it hath no prescription is allowable in it For prescription can only take place where the Law allows a liberty for prescription but if the Law hath antecedently determin'd against it possession signifies nothing but the liberty to make good the Title Would any man be so mad as to think that prescription of threescore years would have been sufficient in the Judaical Law when all possessions were to return to their first owners by Law at every year of Jubilee So then the matter to be enquired here is What liberty of prescription is allowed by vertue of the Law of Christ for since he hath made Laws to Govern his Church by it is most sensless pleading prescription till you have particularly examin'd how far such prescription is allowed by him Let us then suppose that any of the matters in difference between us are one way or other determined by him viz. Whether the Bishop of Rome be Head of the Church or no Whether the present Church be Infallible or no. What do you say Hath he determined these things or hath he not If he hath determined them one way or other it is to no purpose in the world to plead possession or prescription for these signifie nothing against Law So that the question must be wholly removed from the plea of possession and it must be tryed upon this issue Whether Christ by his Law hath determined on your side or ours It may be you will tell me That in this case prescription interprets Law and that the Churches possession argues it was the will of Christ. But still the proof lyes upon your side since you run your self into new bryars for you must prove that there is no way to interpret this Law but by the practise of the Church and which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all That the Church cannot come into the possession of any thing but what was originally given her by the Legislator Which is a task necessarily incumbent on you to prove and I suppose you will find so much difficulty in it that you had as good run back to Super hanc Petram and Pasce oves as undertake to manage it He that undertakes to prove it impossible that the Church should claim possession by an undue title must prove it impossible that the Church should ever be deceived And herein we see the excellent way of this proof For suppose the matter in dispute be the Roman Churches Infallibility this you say you are in possession of though that be the thing in question well we will suppose it that we may discern your proofs I demand then On what account do you challenge this you say By prescription I further ask How you prove this prescription sufficient you say Because the Church cannot challenge any thing but what belongs to her I demand a proof of that your Answer must be Because the Church cannot be deceived so that the proof at last comes to this The Church is Infallible because she is Infallible Well but suppose this Infallibility challenged be only an Infallibility of Tradition and not a Doctrinal Infallibility in either Pope or Councils Yet still I am as unsatisfied as ever For I ask Whether am I bound to believe what the present Church delivers to be Infallible Yes On what account am I bound to believe it Because the present Church cannot be deceived in what the Church of the former age believed nor that in the preceding and so up till the time of Christ. But 1. How can you assure me the present Church obliges me to believe nothing but only what and so far as it received it from the former Church What
evidence can you bring to convince me both that the Church alwayes observed this rule and could never be deceived in it For I see the Roman Church asserts that things may be de fide in one age which were not in another at least Pope and Councils challenge this and this is the common Doctrine maintained there and others are looked on as no members of their Church who assert the contrary but as persons at least meritoriously if not actually excommunicate Where then shall I satisfie my self what the sense of your Church is as to this particular Must I believe a very few persons whom the rest disown as Heretical and Seditious persons or ought I not rather to take the judgement of the greatest and most approved persons in that Church And these disown any such Doctrine but assert that the Church may determine things de fide which were not so before in which case I ask Whether when a thing is de novo determined to be de fide that Church believed as the precedent did or no If it did How comes any thing to be de fide which was not before If it did not What assurance can I have that every age of the Church believes just as the precedent did and no otherwise when I see they profess the contrary And if a thing may be de fide in one age which was not in a foregoing then a Church may deliver that as a matter of Faith at one time which was never accounted so before by which means the present Church may oblige me to believe that as a matter of Faith which never was so in Christ or the Apostles times and so the Infallibility on the account of Tradition is destroyed 2. What security is there that in no age of the Church any practises should come in which were not used in the precedent You may say Because they could not be deceived what their fore Fathers did but that satisfies not unless you prove that all the Church in every age looked upon it self as obliged to do nothing at all but what their fore-Fathers did For although they might know never so much what was done by them if they did not judge themselves bound to observe unalterably what they did this doth not hinder at all but new customs and opinions might be introduced in the Church And therefore I cannot but justly wonder that any men of parts who professedly disown the vulgar wayes of establishing the Roman Church should think to satisfie themselves with Orall Tradition and cry it up as so impregnable a thing Because no age of the Church can be deceived in what the foregoing did and taught Whereas a very little of that reason which these men pretend to might acquaint them that the force of it doth not lye in their capacity to know what was done by others but in their obligation not to vary at all from it For the main weight of the Argument lyes here That nothing hath been changed in the Faith or Practise of the Church which being the thing to be proved the bare knowledge of what was believed or practised is not sufficient to prove it for men may know very well what others believe and do and yet may believe and do quite contrary themselves But the only thing to be proved in this case is That every age of the Church and all persons in it looked upon themselves as obliged not to vary in any thing from the Doctrine or practise of the precedent age And I pray let me know by what demonstrative medium can this be proved for no less then demonstrations are spoken of by the magnifiers of this way although there be so little evidence in it that it cannot work but upon a very weak understanding Must that obligation to observe all which the precedent age believed or practised be proved by reason particular testimony or universal tradition And let the extollers of this way take their choice so they will undertake to bring evidence equal to the weight which depends upon it It is hard to conceive what reason should inforce it but such as proves the impossibility of the contrary And they have understandings of another mould from others who can conceive it impossible that men should not think themselves obliged to believe and do all just as their Predecessours did If particular testimonies could be produced they signifie no more then their own judgements but we are enquiring for the judgement of every age of the Church and the persons who live in it And to prove an universal tradition of this obligation is the most difficult task of all for it depends upon the truth of that which is to be proved by it For if they did not think themselves obliged to believe and do what their Predecessours did they could not think themselves bound to deliver such an obligation to their posterity to do it And therefore you must first prove the obligation it self before you can prove the universal tradition of it For although one age may deliver it yet you cannot be assured that a former age did it to them unless you can prove the same sense of this obligation ran through them all But this is so far from being an universal tradition that the present age from which it begins was never agreed in it as I have shewed already 3. It is to no purpose to prove the impossibility of motion when I see men move no more is it to prove that no age of the Church could vary from the foregoing when we can evidently prove that they have done it And therefore this Argument is intended only to catch easie minds that care not for a search into the History of the several ages of the Church but had rather sit down with a superficial subtilty than spend time in further enquiries For this Argument proceeds just as if men should prove the world eternal by this medium The present age sees no alteration in it and they could not be deceived in what their fore Fathers believed nor they in theirs and so on in infinitum for no men did ever see the world made and therefore it was never made and so eternal But if we go about to prove by reason the production of the world or by Scripture to shew that it was once made then this oral tradition is spoiled And so it is in the present case These men attempt to prove there could never be any alteration in the Faith or practise of the Church since Christs time for the present age delivers what it had from the precedent and so up till the first institution of the Church but in the mean time if we can evidently prove that there have been such alterations in the Church then it is to no purpose to prove that impossible which we see actually done And this appears not only because the Scripture supposes a degeneracy in the Christian Church which could never be if every age of the Church did
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
they assert we may look on them as private opinions of particular persons but not as such things which were received as Articles of Faith For whatsoever is received as such it must be wholly on the account of Gods revealing it who only can oblige us to believe with that assent which is required to Faith And if it be so as to all other things much more certainly as to the future state of souls of which we can know nothing certainly without Divine Revelation For since the remission of sins and the happiness of the future life depend upon the goodness and mercy of God we can define nothing as to these things any further then God hath declared them If God hath declared that remission of sins lyes in the taking away the obligation to punishment it will be a contradiction to say That he pardons those whom he exacts the punishment of sin from purely to satisfie his justice if he hath declared that the souls of the faithful are in joy and felicity assoon as they are delivered out of this sinful world it is impossible they should undergo unsufferable pains though not to eternity I dispute not now Whether he hath so revealed these things but that it is impossible for any thing to be looked on as an Article of Faith but what hath clear Divine Revelation for it And therefore although many testimonies of the Fathers might be produced one way or other as to these things when they speak only their own fancies and imaginations and not what God hath revealed they cannot all put together make the opinion they assert to be an Article of Faith Nothing is more apparent then that the itching curiosity of humane nature to know more then God hath revealed concerning the future state of souls did betimes discover it self in the Church But the strange diversity of these Imaginations were a sufficient evidence that they speak not by any certain rule but according to their different fancies and therefore that they did not deliver any Doctrine of Faith but only their own private opinions If you would therefore prove that the Fathers did own Purgatory as an Article of Faith you must not think it enough to prove that one or two of the Fathers did speak something tending to it but that all who had occasion to mention it did speak of it as the Doctrine of the Church and that which came from an immediate Divine Revelation 2. There is no reason That should be looked on as an Article of Faith which they who seemed to assert it most did build on such places which they acknowledged themselves to be very obscure For since they deduced it from Scripture it is apparent that they did not believe it on the account of any unwritten word or Divine Revelation conveyed meerly by Tradition and since they confess the places to be very difficult it is unreasonable to judge that they looked on that as a matter of Faith which they supposed was contained in them As for instance St. Austin in several places asserts that all things necessary to be believed are clearly revealed in Scripture and withall he sayes that the place 1 Cor. 3.15 is very difficult and obscure and that it is one of those places in St. Paul which St. Peter saith are hard to be understood and therefore it is not conceivable that S. Austin should make any thing a matter of Faith which he founds upon this place And this is the great and almost only considerable Place which he or the rest of the Fathers did insist on as to the nature of that purgation which was to be in a future state 3. That cannot be looked on as an Article of Faith to such persons who express their own doubts concerning the truth of it For whatever is owned as an Article of Faith by any person is thereby acknowledged to be firmly believed by him Now upon our enquiry into the Fathers we shall find the first person who seemed to assert that any faithful souls passed through a fire of purgation before the day of judgement was St. Austin but he delivers his judgement with so much fear and hesitancy that any one may easily see that he was far from making it any Article of Faith We must consider then that in St. Augustin's time there were many who though they denied Origen's opinion as to the Salvation at last of all persons yet were very willing to believe it as to all those who died in the Communion of the Church that though they passed through the flames of Hell for their sins yet at last they should be saved and for this they mainly insisted on 1 Cor. 3.15 where it is said That some should be saved but as by fire Such say they build upon the foundation gold silver pretious stones who to their Faith add good works but they hay wood and stubble whose life is contrary to their Faith and yet these latter they asserted should come to Heaven at last but they must undergo the torments of Hell first Against these St. Austin writes his book de fide operibus wherein he proves that such as live in sin shall be finally excluded the Kingdom of Heaven And when he comes to the interpretation of that place he gives this account of it That those who do so love Christ as rather to part with all things for him than to lose him but yet have too great a love to the things of the world shall suffer grief and loss on that account Sive ergo in hâc vitâ tantum homines ista patiuntur sive etiam post hanc vitam talia quaedam judicia subsequuntur non abhorret quantum arbitror à ratione veritatis iste intellectus hujus sententiae Whether saith he men suffer these things in this life or such judgements follow after it I suppose this sense of S. Paul 's meaning is not dissonant from truth So far was he from being certain of it that he puts in quantum arbitror as far as I suppose and yet he would not define whether that loss which they were to suffer were only in this life or no. And in his Enchiridion to Laurentius where he disputes the very same matter he saith Tale aliquid post hanc vitam fieri incredibile non est utrum ita sit quaeri potest aut inveniri aut latere Nonnullos fideles per ignem quendam purgatorium quanto magis minusve bona pereuntia dilexerunt tanto tardius citiusve salvari It is not incredible that such a thing should be after this life and it may be enquired after whether it be found to be so or no that some faithful souls pass through a purging fire and are saved sooner or later according to the degree of their affection to worldly things Will any man in his wits think that St. Austin spake this of any matter of Faith or that was generally received in the Church as an Apostolical Tradition Did
he ever speak so concerning the Trinity or the Incarnation of Christ which you parallel with Purgatory What would men have thought of him if he had said of either of those Articles It is not incredible they may be true and it may be enquired into whether they be or no Whatever then St. Austins private opinion was we see he delivers it modestly and doubtfully not obtruding it as an Article of Faith or Apostolical Tradition if any be And the very same he repeats in his Answer to the first Question of Dulcitius so that this was all that ever he asserted as to this Controversie What you offer to the contrary from other places of St. Austin shall be considered in its due place 4. Where any of the Fathers build any Doctrine upon the sense of doubtful places of Scripture we have no further reason to believe that Doctrine then we have to believe that it is the meaning of those places So that in this case the enquiry is taken off from the judgement of the Fathers and fixed upon the sense of the Scriptures which they and we both rely upon For since they pretend themselves to no greater evidence of the truth of the Doctrine then such places do afford it is the greatest reason that the argument to perswade us be not the testimony of the Father but the evidence of the place it self Unless it be evident some other way that there was an universal Tradition in the Church from the Apostles times concerning it and that the only design of the Father was to apply some particular place to it But then such a Tradition must be cleared from something else besides the sense of some ambiguous places of Scripture and that Tradition manifested to be Vniversal both as to time and place These things being premised I now come particularly to examine the evidence you bring That all the Fathers both Greek and Latin did constantly teach Purgatory from the Apostles times and consequently that it must be held for an Apostolical Tradition or nothing can be And as you follow Bellarmin in your way of proving it so must I follow you and he divides his proofs you say into two ranks First Such who affirm prayer for the dead 2. Such who in the successive ages of the Church did expresly affirm Purgatory First with those who affirm prayer for the dead Which you say doth necessarily infer Purgatory whatever the Bishop vainly insinuates to the contrary The Question then between us is Whether that prayer for the dead which was used in the ancient Church doth necessarily inferr that Purgatory was then acknowledged This you affirm for say you If there were no other place or condition of being for departed souls but either Heaven or Hell surely it were a vain thing to pray for the dead especially to pray for the remission of their sins or for their refreshment ease rest relaxation of their pains as Ancients most frequently do From whence you add that Purgatory is so undenyably proved that the Relator finding nothing himself sufficient to Answer was forced to put us off to the late Primate of Armagh 's Answer to the Jesuits Challenge Which you say You have perused and find only there that the Authour proves that which none of you deny viz. That the prayers and commemorations used for the dead had reference to more souls than those in Purgatory But you attempt to prove That the nature and kind of those prayers do imply that they were intended for other ends than meerly that the body might be glorified as well as the soul and to praise God for the final happy end of the deceased Whereas that Answerer of the Jesuite would you say by his allegations insinuate to the Reader a conceit that it was used only for those two reasons and no other Which you say you must needs avouch to be most loudly untrue and so manifestly contrary to the Doctrine and practise of the Fathers as nothing can be more A high charge against two most Reverend and learned Primates together against the one as not being able to Answer and therefore turning it off to the other against the other for publishing most loud untruths instead of giving a true account of the grounds of the Churches practise It seems you thought it not honour enough to overcome one unless you led the other in triumph also but you do neither of them but only in your own fancy and imagination And never had you less cause to give out such big words then here unless it were to amuse the spectatours that they might not see how you fall before them For it was not the least distrust of his sufficiency to Answer which made his Lordship to put it oft to the Primate of Armagh but because he was prevented in it by him Who as he truly saith had very learnedly and at large set down other reasons which the Ancients gave for prayer for the dead without any intention to free them from Purgatory Which are not only different from but inconsistent with the belief of Purgatory for the clearing of which and vindicating my Lord Primate from your calumnies rather then answers it will be necessary to give a brief account of his Discourse on that subject He tells us therefore at first That we are here prudently to distinguish the Original institution of the Church from the private opinions of particular Doctors which waded further herein then the general intendment of the Church did give them warrant Now he evidently proves that the memorials oblations and prayers made for the dead at the beginning had reference to such as rested from their labours and not unto any souls which were thought to be tormented in that Vtopian Purgatory whereof there was no news stirring in those dayes This he gathers first by the practise of the ancient Christians laid down by the Authour of the Commentaries on Job who saith The memorials of the Saints were observed as a memorial of rest to the souls departed and that they therein rejoyced for their refreshing St. Cyprian saith they offered Sacrifices for them whom he acknowledgeth to have received of the Lord Palms and Crowns and in the Authour of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy the party deceased is described by him to have departed this life replenished with Divine joy as now not fearing any change to worse being come unto the end of all his labours and publickly pronounced to be a happy man and admitted into the society of the Saints and yet the Bishop prayes that God would forgive him all his sins he had committed through humane infirmity and bring him into the light and band of the living into the bosoms of Abraham Isaac and Jacob into the place from whence pain and sorrow and sighing flyeth And Saint Chrysostom shews that the funeral Ordinances of the Church were appointed to admonish the living that the parties deceased were in a state of joy and not of grief and