The Grounds of Protestant Religion, Part 3 · Chapter 5
CHAP. V. The Safety of the Protestant Faith.
The sufficiency of the Protestant Faith to Salvation, manifested by disproving the Cavils against it. T. C's tedious Repetitions passed over. The Argument from Possession at large consider'd. No Prescription allowable, where the Law hath antecedently determined the right. Of the Infallibility of Oral Tradition. That, contrary to the received Doctrine of the Roman Church; and in it self unreasonable. The Grounds of it examined. The ridiculousness of the Plea of bare Possession, discovered. General Answers returned to the remaining Chapters, consisting wholly of things already discussed. The place of S. Cyprian to Cornelius particularly vindicated. The proof of Succession of Doctrine lyes on the Romanists by their own Principles.
ALthough this Subject hath been sufficiently cleared in the Controversie, concerning the resolution of Faith;§. 1. yet the nature of our task requires that we so far resume the debate of it, as any thing undiscussed already offers it self to consideration. For I cannot think it a civil way of treating the Reader, to cloy him with Tautologies, or Repetitions; nor can I think it a way to satisfie him, rather by some incidental passages, than by a full and free debate. In all those things then, which we have had occasion to handle already, I shall remit the Reader to the precedent discourses; but whatever hath the face of being new and pertinent, I shall readily examine the force of it. The occasion of this fresh Debate was a new Question of the Lady; Whether she might be saved in the Protestant Faith? In answering whereof, you say, The parties conferring are put into new heats; VponUpon my soul (said the Bishop) you may. VponUpon my soul (said Mr. Fisher) there's but one saving Faith, and that's the Roman. Since the confidence seems equal on both sides, we must examine, Which is built on the stronger reason. And his Lordship's comes first to be examined; which he offers very freely to examination. For, saith he, to believe the Scripture and the Creeds; to believe these in the sense of the Ancient Primitive Church; to receive the four great General Councils so much magnified by Antiquity; to believe all points of Doctrine generally received as fundamental in the Church of Christ, is a Faith, in which to live and dye, cannot but give Salvation. And therefore, saith he, I went upon sure ground in the adventure of my soul upon that Faith. Besides, in all the points controverted between us, I would fain see any one point maintain'd by the Church of England, that can be proved to depart from the foundation. You have many dangerous errours about the very foundation, in that which you call the Roman Faith; but there I leave you to look to your own soul, and theirs whom you seduce. Thus far his Lordship. Two things you seem to answer to this. 1. That such a Faith may not be sufficient. 2. That ours is not such a Faith. 1. That such a Faith may not be sufficient, because you suppose it necessary to believe the Infallibility of the present Church, and General Councils: But that we are now excused from a fresh enquiry into; but you would seem to inferr it from his own principles of submission to General Councils. P. 328.But by what peculiar Arts you can thence draw, that some thing else is necessary to be believed in order to Salvation besides what hath been owned as Fundamentals in all ages, I am yet to learn. And sure you were much to seek for Arguments, when you could not distinguish between the necessity of external submission and internal assent.
But the second is the main thing you quarrel with, viz. That the English-Protestant Faith is really and indeed such a Faith: §. 2.and this you undertake at large to disprove.P. 329. You ask first, Whether we believe all Scripture, or only a part of it? we answer, All without exception that is Scripture, i. e. hath any evidence that ever it was of Divine Revelation. In this, you say, we profess more then we can make good, seeing we refuse many books owned for Canonical by the Primitive Church, and imbrace some which were not. But in both you assert that, which we are sure you are never able to defend; since we are content to put it upon as fair a tryal as you can desire, viz. That the Church of England doth fully agree with the Primitive Church, as to the Canon of Scripture. Which hath been already made good by the successful diligence of a learned Bishop of our Church, Bishop Cosens Scholastical history of the Canon of Scripture.to whom I refer you either for satisfaction or confusion. But you are the men whose bare words and bold affirmations must weigh more then the greatest evidence of reason or Antiquity. You love to pronounce, where you are loath to prove; and think to bear men down with confidence, where you are afraid to enter the lists. But our Faith stands not on so sandy a Foundation to be blown down with your biggest words; which have that property of wind in them to be leight and loud. When you will attempt to prove that the Books call'd Apocrypha have had an equal testimony of Divine Authority with those we receive into the Canon of Scripture, you may meet with a further Answer upon that Subject. Just as much you say to disprove our believing Scripture, and the Creeds in the Primitive Church; For, you say, The Fathers oppose us, we deny it: you say, The Councils condemn us, we say and prove the contrary. You offer again at some broken evidences of the Popes Supremacy from Councils and Fathers;P. 330. but those have been discussed already: and the sense of the Church at large manifested to be contrary to it. But I fear your matters lye very ill concocted upon your stomack, you bring them us so often up; but I am not bound to dance in a circle because you do so. And therefore I proceed; but when I hope to do so, you pull me back again to the Infallibility of Councils and the Church, the question of Fundamentals and the Greek Church;P. 331. P. 332. and scarce a page between, but in comes again the Popes Supremacy as fresh, as if it had been never handled before. But I assure you after this rate,P. 334: P. 335. I wonder you ever came to an end, for you might have writ all your life time after that manner. For the 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,P. 337. all that you have here is vain and impertinent: in the next page enter Transubstantiation: in the following, enter again Infallibility of Councils, P. 338.Resolution of Faith, Apocrypha books, Fundamentals, Communion in one kind, P. 339.&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,P. 333. That Protestants ought to prove their Faith agreeable to that of the Primitive Church by special undeniable evidence; §. 3.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 foreign 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, §. 4.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, §. 5.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, §. 6.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, Tertui. de virg. veland. cap. 1.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,§. 7. 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, P. 349.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 Proposition it is understood of all those common fundamental Truths, which the Christian Church of all ages hath been agreed in And the saying, There is but one saving Faith, is of the same sense with the saying, There is but one true Religion in the world.
The substance of what you would inferr from the saying of Athanasius his Creed, P. 351.Which if a man keeps whole and inviolate (as you would have it) is this, That a man is equally bound to believe every Article of Faith. But you cannot mean, that it is simply necessary to do it, for that you disclaim elsewhere, by your distinction of things necessary from the matter and the formal reason of Faith; and therefore it can only be meant of such to whom those objects of Faith are sufficiently proposed, and so far we acknowledge it too, that it is necessary to Salvation for every man to believe that which he is convinced to be an object of Faith. For otherwise such persons must call in question God's Veracity; but if you would hence make it necessary to believe all that your Church proposes for matter of Faith, you must prove, that whatever your Church delivers, is as infallibly true, as if God himself spake; and when you can perswade us of this, we shall believe whatever is propounded by her. When you say, We cannot believe all Articles of Faith on the same formal reason, P. 352.because we deny the Churches Infallibility, it is apparent, that you make the Churches testimony the formal reason of Faith; and that you are bound to prove the Church absolutely Infallible, before we can believe any thing on her account. Neither doth it follow, Because we deny that, therefore we pick and chuse our Faith; for we believe all without reservation,P. 353. which you, or any man can convince us was ever revealed by God. As to what at large occurrs here again, about the Infallibility of Councils; there is nothing but what hath been sufficiently answered on that subject;P. 355, &c. and so reserving the Question of Purgatory, which is here brought in by his Lordship, as a further Instance of the errours of General Councils; I pass on to the two last Chapters: In which we meet again with the objected inconveniencies,P. 373. P. 376, &c. from questioning the Infallibility of the Church and Councils, That then Faith would be uncertain, and private persons might judge of Councils, and if they may erre in one, they may erre in all; as fresh as if they had never been heard of before. Only the Argument from Rom. 10.15.P. 375. That because none can preach except they be sent, therefore the present Church is Infallible, is both new and excellent, on which account I let it pass.P. 386. If your Church, with all her Infallibility, can do no more, as you confess, in reference to Heresies, but only secure the faithful members of the Church, who have due care of themselves, and perform their duty well towards their lawful Pastors; you have little cause to boast of the great priviledge of it, and as little reason to contend for the necessity of it, since so much is done without it, and on surer grounds by the Scriptures, and the use of other means which fall short of Infallibility.
§. 8.In the beginning of your last Chapter, we have a large dispute concerning S. Cyprian's meaning, in his 45. Epistle to Cornelius, where he speaks of the root and matrix of the Catholick Church, viz. Whether by that, the Roman Church be understood or no? His Lordship saith, Not, and gives many reasons for it; you maintain the contrary; but the business may be soon decided upon a true state of the occasion of writing that Epistle. Which in short was this; It seems, Letters had been sent in the name of Polycarp Bishop of the Colony of Adrumyttium, directed to Cornelius at Rome; but Cyprian and Liberalis coming thither, and acquainting the Clergy there with the resolution of the African Bishops to suspend communion either with Cornelius, or Novatianus, till the return of Caldonius and Fortunatus, who were sent on purpose to give an account of the proceedings there, the Clergy of Adrumyttium upon this writing to Rome, direct their Letters not to Cornelius, but to the Roman Clergy. Which Cornelius (being it seems informed by some, as though it were done by S. Cyprian's Counsel) takes offence at, and writes to Cyprian about it. Who gives him in this Epistle the account of it, that it was only done, that there might be no dissent among themselves upon this difference at Rome, and that they only suspended their sentence till the return of Caldonius and Fortunatus, who might either bring them word that all was composed at Rome, or else satisfie them, Who was the lawfully ordained Bishop. And therefore, as soon as they understood that Cornelius was the lawful Bishop, they unanimously declare for him, and order all Letters to be sent to him, and that his communion should be embraced. This is the substance of that Epistle. But, it seems Cornelius was moved at S. Cyprian's suspending himself, as though it were done out of dis-favour to him; which Cyprian to clear himself of, tells him, That his design was only to preserve the Vnity of the Catholick Church. For, saith he, we gave this advice to all those, who the mean time had occasion to sail to Rome, ut Ecclesiae Catholicae radicem & matricem agnoscerent & tenerent; that they would acknowledge and hold to the root and matrix of the Catholick Church, by which his Lordship understands, the Vnity of the Church Catholick, you, the particular Church of Rome. But it is apparent, the meaning of this Counsel was, to prevent their participation in the Schism. So that if, upon their coming to Rome, the Schismatical party was evidently known from the other (which they might, I grant, soon understand there, by the circumstances of affairs) they should joyn themselves with that part which preserved the Vnity of the Catholick Church. Which I take to be the true meaning of S. Cyprian. But in case the matter should prove disputable at Rome, and the matter be referred to other Churches, then by virtue of this advice, they were bound to suspend their communion with either party, till the Catholick Church had declared it self. By this account of the business, all your Arguments come to nothing: for they only prove that which I grant, viz. That in case it appeared at Rome, Which was the Catholick party, they were to communicate with it: P. 391. P. 392.but this was not, because the Catholick party at Rome was the root and matrix of the Catholick Church (for on that account the party of Novatianus might have been so too, if Novatianus had been lawful Bishop) but their holding to the root of the Catholick Church, would oblige them to communicate only with that part, which did preserve the Vnity of it. For the Controversie now at Rome was between two parties both challenging an equal right; and therefore if S. Cyprian had only advised them to communicate with the Roman Church, because that was the root and matrix of the Catholick Church, his advice had signified nothing; for the Question was not between the Church of Rome, and other Churches, in which case it might have been pertinent to have said, they should adhere to the Church of Rome, because that was the root, &c. But when the difference was at Rome it self between two Bishops there, this reason had been wholly impertinent; for the only reason proper in this case, must be such as must discriminate the one party from the other, which this could not do, because it was equally challenged by them both. And had belonged to one as well as the other, in case Novatianus had proved the lawful Bishop, and not Cornelius. And therefore the sense of Cyprian's words must be such as might give direction, which party to joyn with at Rome, on which account they cannot import any priviledge of the Church of Rome over other Churches, but only contain this advice, that they should hold to the Vnity of the Catholick Church, and communicate only with that party which did it. This reason is so clear and evident to me, that this place cannot be understood of any priviledge of the Church of Rome, above other Churches, that if there were nothing else to induce me to believe it, this were so pregnant, that I could not resist the force of it.
But besides this, his Lordship proves that elsewhere S. Cyprian speaks in his own person with other Catholick Bishops, §. 9.nos qui Ecclesiae unius caput & radicem tenemus, P. 366.we who hold the head and root of one Church, by which it appears, he could not make the Church of Rome the root and matrix of the Catholick; this being understood of the Vnity and Society of the Catholick Church, Cypr. ep. 73.without relation to the Church of Rome: and S. Cyprian writes to Cornelius, that they had sent Caldonius and Fortunatus to reduce the Church of Rome to the Vnity and Communion of the Catholick Church; and because no particular Church can be the root of the Catholick, and if any were, Jerusalem might more pretend to it than Rome, and because S. Cyprian and his Brethren durst not have suspended their communion at all, if they had looked on the Church of Rome as the root and matrix of the Catholick, as Baronius confesses they did, all which things are largely insisted on by his Lordship, and do all confirm, that hereby was not meant any Authority or Priviledge of the Church of Rome above other Apostolical Churches, which in respect of the lesser Churches which came from them, are called Matrices Ecclesiae, by Tertullian and others. But you are still so very unreasonable, that though no more be said of the Church of Rome, than might be said of any other Apostolical Church, yet because it is said of the Church of Rome, it must import some huge Authority, which if it had been said of any other, would have been interpreted by your selves into nothing: For so do you deal with us here; for, because it is said, that they who joyned with Cornelius, did preserve the Unity of the Catholick Church, P. 394.therefore it must needs be understood, that the Roman Church is the root of the Catholick. But he must have a very mean understanding, that can be swayed by such trifles as these are: For, Was there not a Catholick and Schismatical party then at Rome? and if they who joyned with Novatianus, did separate from the Catholick Church, then they who were in communion with Cornelius, must preserve the Vnity of it. And, Would not this Argment as well prove the Catholick party at Carthage to be the root and matrix of the Catholick Church, as well as at Rome? But such kind of things must they deal with, who are resolved to maintain a cause, and yet are destitute of better means to do it with. So that I cannot find any thing in all your Answer, but what would equally hold for any other Church at that time, which was so divided as Rome was; considering the great care that then was used to preserve the Vnity of the Catholick Church. And what particularly S. Cyprian's apprehension was concerning the Nature and Vnity of the Catholick Church, Part 2. ch. 2. sect. 8, 9.we have at large discoursed already, to which place we referr the Reader, if he desires any further satisfaction.
Your whole N. 5. depends on personal matters concerning the satisfaction of the Lady's conscience; but if you would thence inferr,§. 10. P. 399, &c.That she did well to desert the Protestant Communion; you must prove that it can be no sin to follow the dictates of an erroneous conscience. For such, we say, it was in her, and, you denying it, all this discourse signifies nothing, but depends on the truth of the matters in controversie between us. But you most notoriously impose on his Lordship, when, because he asserts the possibility of Salvation of some in your Church, you would make him say,P. 401. That it is no sin to joyn with your Church: You might as well say, Because he hopes some who have committed Adultery may be saved, therefore it is no sin to commit Adultery. So that while you are charging him falsly for allowing dissimulation, you do that which is more, in saying that which you cannot but know to be a great untruth.
If our Religion be not the same with yours, as you eagerly contend it is not,P. 402. let it suffice to tell you, that our Religion is Christianity, let yours be what it will. And if it please you better, to have a name wholly distinct from us, yours shall be called the Roman Religion, and ours the Christian. If you judge us of another Religion from yours, because we do not believe all that you do, we may judge you to have a different Religion from the Christian, because you impose more by your own confession to be believed as necessary in order to Salvation, than ever Christ or the Apostles did. And certainly the main of any Religion consists in those things which are necessary to be believed in it, in order to eternal happiness.
In your following discourse, you are so far from giving us any hopes of peace with your Church, that you plainly give us the reason,P. 403▪ why it is vain to expect or desire it; which is, that if your Church should recede from any thing, it would appear she had erred, and if that appears, farewell Infallibility; and then if that be once gone, you think all is gone. And while you maintain it, we are so far from hoping any peace with you, that the Peace of Christendom may still be joyned in the Dutchmans Sign with the quadrature of the circle, and the Philosophers Stone for the sign of the three hopelesse things.
How far we are bound to submit to General Councils, hath been so fully cleared already, that I need not go about here to vindicate his Lordships Opinion from falsity or contradiction; both which you unreasonably charge it with, and that still from no wiser a ground, than not being able to distinguish between the submission of Obedience and Faith. P. 404, &c.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; P. 406.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, P. 409. P. 410.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. P. 411.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, P. 382.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.