The Grounds of Protestant Religion, Part 1 · Chapter 2

The Grounds of Protestant Religion · Part 1 · Chapter 2

p. 44CHAP. 2. Of Fundamentals in General.

The Popish Tenet concerning Fundamentals, a meer step to the Roman Greatness. The Question about Fundamentals stated. An enquiry into the nature of them. What are Fundamentals, in order to particular persons; and what to be owned as such, in order to Ecclesiastical Communion. The Prudence and Moderation of the Church of England, in defining Articles of Faith. What judged Fundamental by the Catholick Church. No new Articles of Faith can become necessary. The Churches Power in propounding matters of Faith, examined. What is a sufficient Proposition. Of the Athanasian Creed, and its being owned by the Church of England. In what sense the Articles of it are necessary to Salvation. Of the distinction of the material and formal object of Faith, as to Fundamentals. His Lordship's integrity, and T. C'^s. forgery, in the testimony of Scotus. Of Heresie, and how far the Church may declare matters of Faith. The testimony of S. Augustine vindicated.

§. 1.THe Greek Church appearing not guilty of Heresie, by any evidence of Scripture, Reason, or the Consent of the Primitive Church, nothing is left to make good the charge, but that the Church of Rome hath defin'd it to be so; which Pretence, at first view, carrying the greatest partiality, and unreasonableness in it, great care is taken, that the partiality be not discovered, by not openly mentioning the Church of Rome, but the Church in General (as though it were impossible to conceive any other Church but that at Rome) and for the unreasonableness of it, it must be confidently asserted, That all Points defin'd by the Church are Fundamental: So to be sure the Greek Church will never escape the charge of Heresie. For this end, Mr. Fisher in the Conference acknowledgeth, that when his Lordship had denyed the errour of the Greek Church to be Fundamental, he was forced to repeat what he had formerly brought against Dr. White, concerning Points Fundamental. The reason of which was, that, easily perceiving that it was impossible to stand their ground in their charge on the Greek Church upon other terms, he is forced to take Sanctuary in the Churches Definition; and if that will not make it good, there is nothing else remaining to do it. And this is the cause of the following Dispute concerning Fundamentals; wheren the main thing undertaken, is, the proof, that the formal reason of Fundamentals, is to be taken from the Definition of the present Church; but, as this must be confessed to be the main Fundamental of the Church of Rome, (for which yet the thing being manifest, no Definition of that Church is necessary;) so withall, I doubt not, but it will be made evident in the progress of this discourse, that never was there any pretence more partial, absurd, and tyrannical than this is. Which his Lordship takes notice of in these words, which deserve a repetition;P. 27. sect. 10, n. 2. It was not the least means by which Rome grew to her Greatness, to blast every opposer she had with the name of Heretick or Schismatick; for this served to shrivel the credit of the persons. And the persons once brought into Contempt and Ignominy, all the good they desired in the Church, fell to dust, for want of creditable persons to back and support it. To make this proceeding good, in these latter years, this course, it seems, was taken. The School that p. 45must maintain (and so they do) that all Points defin'd by the Church, are thereby Fundamental, necessary to be believed, of the substance of Faith; and that, though it be determined quite extra Scripturam. And then leave the wise and active Heads to take order, that there be strength enough ready to determine what is fittest for them. To this you answer, with an foreign! You call it a Squib, a Fancy, a weak Discourse, one of the Bishop's Railleries, and what not. It seems it pinched you hard, you cry out so Tragically. But it is very certain, you are more impatient to have your Politicks,P. 13. n. 1. than your Errours discovered; and if you have any Curses more dreadful than others, they are sure to light on those who discover the intrigues of your Designs. For if once men come to discern how much more of Artifice and cunning, than of Truth and Religion, there is in the managing the Interest of your Church, they would not easily think, the way to Heaven can lye among so many foldings of the old Serpent: And this is not to think as you tragically speak, That all the world is turn'd mad or Heathen: for, thanks be to God, as Catholique as your Church is, it must be a huge Catachresis to take it for all the world: neither do we think your Church mad, but very wise and Politick in these pretences; and that still you are resolved to shew, that though other Churches may be more Children of Light than yours (ignorance being so much in favour with you) yet yours is Wiser in its Generation. But how the pretending of your Church to Infallibility, and power to define Fundamentals, should make us imagine all the world Heathen, is not easie to conceive, unless you are conscious to your self, that such pretences as these are, are the way to make it so. But we must see still how your Cothurnus fits you. No truth left upon earth, but all become Juglers? See what it is to be true Catholiques, that if they juggle, all the world must do so too; as though totus mundus exercet histrioniam, were Latin for the Infallibility of the Church of Rome. But have you indeed such a Monopoly of Truth, that if your party prove Juglers, there will be no truth left upon earth? if you had said, none unsophisticated, yet even that had been a great Truth left upon earth still. But I shall cut you short in what follows of your Declamation, by telling you, that though your Harangue were ten times longer than it is, and your exclamations louder, and your Authorities better than of your Prelates, Miracles, Doctors, Heads of Schools, austere and religious persons (in English Monks and Friers) yet all these would not one jot perswade us contrary to common sense, and the large experience of the world, That Religion is not made by you an Instrument to advance the Pope's Ambition, and that the Church is but a more plausible name, whereby to maintain the Court of Rome. And we need not go from our present subject, for a proof of it. I will not charge this upon all persons of your Communion, for all of them do not believe the State-Principles of your Church; and others are kept, as much as may be, from all waies of discovering the great Designs of it; and therefore there may be so much innocency and simplicity in some, as may keep them from prostituting their Salvation to the Pope's Greatness: but this is no plea on behalf of those who have the managery of those Designs; who if they do not see what things are fittest for the Pope's temporal ends, will not long be thought fit for their employment. But, is it not palpable how much you endeavour to shrivel Christianity into a Party and Faction, excluding all others that are not of your party out of the Church, and consequently from hopes of salvation, though never so pious and conscientious? Are not the far greatest part of p. 46the opinions you contend for, against all the rest of the Christian world, such as are manifestly subservient to temporal ends? And are not such more zealously disputed for, than the plain Articles of Faith, and the indispensable precepts of the Christian Religion? Have you not found out all the Artifices imaginable, to enervate the force of Christian Piety, by your Doctrines about Repentance, Prayer, Indulgences, Probability, Purgatory, and such like? And instead of those rational acts of Devotion, which our Religion requires from us, have made choice of such fond, ludicrous, unintelligible pieces of Devotion (by the most who are concerned in them) as though you were resolved to see how much it was possible to debauch Christianity, and make it contemptible in the world? Add to these the Arts you have to violate Humane Societies, by dispensing with oaths, breaking Faith, dissolving Obedience to Civil Authority, when it opposeth your designs; and is it possible then for persons not blind-folded with the grossest sort of implicit Faith, to judge otherwise, but the design of your Chvrch is to determine, not what is truest, but what is fittest for your ends? And, although you scurrilously call his Lordship's discourse, stuff that might serve sometimes for Pulpit-babble, to deceive the giddy multitude, and cast a mist before their eyes; yet you see, he was not afraid of what any adversary could say against it, by writing it in a Polemical Discourse, in which we could be glad to see some of those famous Legends, and Seraphical Notions, which your Pulpit-entertainments consist so much of, especially where you are out of the reach of Hereticks, and then we should judge Which looks more like babling, and deceiving the giddy multitude. But, to let us see what men of reach and Politicians you are, you have found out a strange Fetch in his Lordships discourse, viz. that all this, is, That they might not see the impurity of their own English-Protestant Church, P. 13.even in its first rise under Henry the eighth, and the people-cheating Policies it was beholding to for its restauration under Queen Elizabeth, as may be seen in History. History is a large wood to bid us seek for these cheating Policies in; and if you had any other design, but meerly to shew your self a Politician in this, that you can fortitèr calumniari, use your tongue manfully when reproaches are useful; you would have produced some evidence so clear of them, as his Lordship here insists on in reference to your Church. But, as long as you converse only in Generals, you will give us leave to think who those are which use to do so, viz. such grand Politicians as your self. For the Particulars of our Reformation, we shall have occasion to vindicate them in another place, and therein shall easily manifest what an Itch you had to calumniate here, though you were sure to smart for it afterwards. That which you call weakness of judgement, or want of Charity in his Lordship, will be found to lye at another door, by our making it appear, that what you call a groundless and impossible slander, is a real and undoubted truth. But when you tell us, That such Railleries do not become one that would be esteemed a grave Doctor of the English Church, P. 14.an alterius orbis Patriarcha, as the antient Primates of England have been call'd: I know not whether you discover more judgment or reading in it; your judgement in calling that an unbecoming Raillery, which is a great and seasonable Truth; your reading, in mistaking Patriarcha for Papa, or else you were willing to dissemble it, because then by the advantage of his title, he might be fitter to discover the Artifices and Designs of his Fellow-Pope. The laying open of which is certainly vastly different from sporting with all that can be serious on earth (man's salvation) as you most p. 47injuriously calumniate his Lordship in your next words, in affirming so of him, when his only design was, to clear the way to mans salvation, by discovering the gins and traps which are laid in the way of silly men, by the pernicious subtilty of those of your party.

The way being thus cleared, we come to the main question, viz. Whether all Points, defined by the Church, are Fundamental; and here,§. 2. because you tell us, His Lordship is like one that provides for a retreat or a subterfuge, by cutting out a number of ambiguous distinctions; you give us fair hopes what clear proceedings we may expect from you, who abhorr as much the clear stating of a question, as Foxes do running in beaten Roads. But, as well as you love them, you must be drawn out of your Holes, which will be much for the advantage of Truth, though very little for yours. To come therefore close to the business, that you may not think I seek subterfuges, or retreats, I shall wave all other acceptions of Fundamentals, and take the Question in your own sense, that is, for Points necessary to Salvation. The Question then in controversie between us, is this▪ Whether the ground or reason why any thing is fundamental or necessary to salvation, be, because it is defined by the Church to be so, and consequently, Whether all Points, defined by the Church, be not fundamental or necessary to Salvation? For the occasion of this Controversie was from the Greek Church, whether her errour, as to the Procession from the Son, be fundamental or no, i. e. such as excludes her from being a Church, and consequently from Salvation. The ground of your affirmation, is, because the Church hath defined it to be so; so that the ground and reason why any thing is supposed fundamental or necessary to Salvation, must be the Definition of the Church: But for our better understanding your meaning, you distinguish of two waies, whereby Points may be necessary to Salvation; the one absolutely, P. 15.by reason of the matter they contain; which, say you, is so fundamentally necessary in it self, that not only the disbelief of it, when propounded by the Church, but the meer want of an express knowledge, and belief of it, will hinder Salvation; and those are such Points, without the express belief whereof, no man can be saved, which Divines call necessary necessitate medii; others of this kind they call necessary necessitate praecepti, which all men are commanded to seek after, and expresly believe; so that a culpable Ignorance of them hinders Salvation, although some may be saved with invincible Ignorance of them. And all these are absolutely necessary to be expresly believed, either necessitate praecepti, or medii, in regard of the matter which they contain. But the rest of the Points of Faith are necessary to be believed necessitate praecepti, only conditionally, that is, to all such to whom they are sufficiently propounded, as defined by the Church: which necessity proceeds not precisely from the material object, or matter contained in them; but from the formal object of Divine Authority, declared to Christians by the Churches Definition. Whether therefore the Points in question be necessary in the first manner or no, by reason of their precise matter; yet if they be necessary, by reason of the Divine Authority, or Formal▪ object of Divine Revelation, sufficiently declared and propounded to us, they will be Points Fundamental, that is, necessary to Salvation to be believed, as we have shewed Fundamental must here be taken. These words of yours containing the full state of the question in your own terms, and being the substance of all you say on this Controversie, I have recited at large; that you may not complain, your meaning is mistaken in them. You assert then, that besides that necessity which ariseth from the matter of things to be believed, and from th… absolute Command of God; there is another necessity p. 48conditionally upon the Churches Definition, but, supposing that Definition, the thing so propounded becomes as necessary to Salvation, as what is necessary from the matter; for in all hypothetical propositions, the supposition being in act, the matter becomes necessary. For, unless you speak of such a necessity, as becomes as universally obligatory, on supposition of the Churches Definition, as that which ariseth from the matter, or absolute command; you are guilty of the greatest tergiversation, and perverting the state of the Question. For, otherwise that cannot be said to be fundamental or necessary to Salvation, in the sense of this Question, which is not generally necessary to Salvation to all Christians. For no man was ever so silly, as to imagine, that the Question of Fundamentals, with a respect to whole Churches, as it is here taken, can be understood in any other sense, than as the matter, call'd Fundamental or Necessary, must be equally fundamental and necessary to all persons. And that this must be your meaning, appears by the rise of the Controversie, which concerns the whole Greek Church, which you exclude from being a Church, because she erres fundamentally, and that she errres fundamentally, because the Church hath defined it to be an errour. So that what the Church determines as matter of Faith, is as necessary to be believed in order to Salvation, as that which is necessary from the matter, or from an absolute Command. For, otherwise the Greek Church might not be in a Fundamental Errour, notwithstanding the Churches Definition: the ground of this Errour being Fundamental, not being derived from the matter, or absolute Command, but from the Churches Definition. If therefore the denial of what the Church defines, doth exclude from Salvation; the necessity and obligation must be equal to that which ariseth from the matter to be believed. And if the Church defines any particulars to be explicitly believed as necessary to Salvation, not only the not disbelieving them, but the not explicit believing them, will be as destructive to Salvation, as if the matter of the things themselves were necessary; or that it were absolutely commanded; for in those cases you say, the not explicit believing is that which damns, and so on your principles it will do here, when the explicit belief is the thing defined by the Church. This will be more plain by an Instance. It is notoriously known, that at the shutting up of the Council of Trent, a Confession of Faith was drawn up, and confirmed by the Bull of Pius 4. A. D. 1564. and that, ut unius & ejusdem fidei professio uniformitèr ab omnibus exhibeatur, That the Profession of one and the same Faith, may be made known to all, and declared uniformally by all. In which Confession, after the enumeration of the Articles contained in the Ancient Creed; there are many others added concerning Traditions, Seven Sacraments, the Decrees of the Council of Trent, as to Original sin and Justification; The Sacrifice of the Mass, Transubstantiation, Communion in one kind, Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, Worship of Images, Indulgences, the Pope's Supremacy, &c. All which are required to be believed with an equal assent to the former, as absolutely necessary to Salvation, and necessary Conditions of Catholick Communion, For thus it ends; Hanc veram Catholicam Fidem, extra quam nemo salvus esse potest, quam in praesenti sponte profiteor, & veraciter teneo, eandem integram & inviolatam us que ad extremum vitae spiritum, &c. This true Catholick Faith, without which none can be saved, which at present I profess, and truly hold, and will do whole and undefiled to my lives end, &c. Judge you now, whether an equal explicit Faith be not here required to the Definitions of the Church, as to the p. 49Articles of the Creed; and if so, there must be an equal necessity, in order to Salvation, of believing both of them, it being here so expresly declared, that these Definitions are Integral Parts of that Catholick Faith, without which there is no Salvation. And what could be more said of those things, whose matter or absolute precept do make them necessary? This Confession of Faith therefore, gives us the truest state of the present Question, in these particulars. 1. That the Definitions of the Church are to be believed, to be as necessary to Salvation, as the Articles of the Ancient Creed, without the belief of which no Salvation is to be expected. 2. That the explicit Belief of these Definitions as necessary to Salvation▪ may be required in order to Catholick Communion, and that they are to be believed of all as such, because they are defined by the Church. So that the Question is not, What is so required by the Churches Definition, declared and propounded to us, that it ought not to be dis-believed without mortal and damnable sin, which unrepented destroyes Salvation, as you stated it; for this seems only to respect the Faith of particular persons, who are to believe according as the Proposition may be judged sufficient: but the true state of the Question, is, Whether any Definitions of the Church may be believed as Necessary Articles of Faith; and whether they may be imposed on others to be believed as such, so that they may be excluded Catholick Communion if they do not. For this is really the true state of the Question, between your Church, and ours, ever since the Council of Trent; and as to it thus stated (as it ought to be) I do most readily joyn issue with you.

For the clearing of which important Question, on which the main cause of our being separated from your Communion depends,§. 3▪ these three things will be necessary to be exactly discussed. 1. What the Grounds are on which any thing doth become necessary to Salvation? 2. Whether any thing, whose matter is not necessary, and is not required by an absolute Command, can by any means whatsoever afterwards become necessary? 3. Whether the Church hath power by any Proposition or Definition to make any thing become necessary to Salvation, and to be believed as such, which was not so before? These three I suppose you cannot deny but will take in all that is considerable in this Controversie. Which I shall with the more care examine, because nothing tends more to the peace of the Christian World, than a through and clear discussion of it; and nothing causeth more the Schisms and Divisions of it, than the want of a right and due conception of it.

1. What the Grounds are on which any thing doth become necessary to Salvation? For our better understanding of which, we must consider two things. 1. What things are necessary to the Salvation of men as such, or considered in their single and private capacities? 2. What things are necessary to be owned in order to Salvation, by Christian Societies, or as the bonds and conditions of Ecclesiastical Communion? The want of understanding this distinction of the necessity of things, hath caused most of the perplexities and confusion in this Controversie of Fundamentals.

1. What those things are which are necessary to the Salvation of particular persons? But that we make all as clear as possible, in a matter of so great intricacy, two things again must be inquired into. 1. What the Ground is, why any thing becomes necessary to be believed in order to Salvation? 2. What the Measure and Extent is of those things which are to be believed by particular persons as necessary to Salvation?

1. What the Ground or Foundation is, on which things become necessary to be believed by particular persons? And that which is the true ground of the necessity, why any thing is to be believed, is the proper ratio of a Fundamental p. 50Article. For, I suppose it a much clearer notion of Fundamentals, to understand them, not as Principles, from whence Deductions may be drawn of Theological Truths; but in regard of that immediate respect which they have to mens Salvation. Those things therefore which are necessary to be explicitly believed by particular persons, are Fundamentals in order to their Salvation. Now all belief in this case supposing Divine Revelation, nothing can be imagined to be necessary to be believed, but what may be certainly known to be of Divine Revelation. But when we consider, that besides the general reason of believing what God hath revealed; we must either suppose, that all things are of equal necessity, which are revealed in order to the general end of this Revelation; or, that some things therein contained, are expresly necessary to the end, and other things to be believed on the general account of Faith, so far as they are known to be of Divine Revelation. Now from hence ariseth a twofold necessity of things to be believed; the first more general and large, the second more particular and absolute. The first depends upon the formal reason of Faith; the second, on the particular end of Divine Revelation. That which depends on the formal reason of that Assent we call Faith, is that which supposeth Divine Veracity, or the impossibility of Gods deceiving us in any thing revealed by Him; now this extends to all things whatsoever, which are supposed by men to be of Divine Revelation. For, though men may mistake in the matter, yet the reason of Assent holding, under that mistake, they are bound necessarily to believe whatever is supposed by them to be Divine Revelation. Here lyes no difficulty in the ground of Faith, but all the care is to be used in the search into the matters which are to be believed on the account of this Revelation. But here we are to consider, that the only thing which is in general and absolutely necessary to Salvation, is, the general act of Faith, viz. Believing whatever God reveals to be true, else God's Veracity would be call'd in question; but particular objects cannot be said, on this account, to be absolutely and universally necessary, but only so far as there are sufficient convictions, that those particulars are of Divine Revelation. And, the more general and extensive the means of conviction are, the more large and universal is the obligation to Faith. As, that the Scriptures contain in them the Word of God, is a matter of more universal obligation, than particular things therein revealed; because the belief of the one depends upon the acknowledgement of the other. And withall, supposing it believed, that the matters contained in Scripture are of Divine Revelation; yet all things are not equally clear to all capacities, that they are therein contained. Which is a sufficient ground for us, to say, It was not God's intention, that all things contained in his Word, should be believed with the same degree of necessity by all persons. And therefore, though the general reason of Faith depends on Gods Veracity, yet the particular obligation to the belief of particular things, as revealed by God, depends on the means, whereby we may be assured, that such things are revealed by him: which means admitting of so great Variety, as to the circumstances and capacities of particular persons, there can be no general Rule set down what things are necessary to be believed by all particular persons. For, those who have greater means of knowledge, a larger capacity, and clearer proposal, are bound to believe more things explicitly, than those who want all these, or have a lower degree of them. In which case, it is an unreasonable thing to say, that such a one, who dis-believes any thing propounded to him as a matter of p. 51Faith, doth presently call in question God's Veracity; for he may as firmly believe that as any in general, and yet may have ground to question whether God's Veracity be at all concerned in that which is propounded to him as a matter of Faith; because he sees no reason to believe that this was ever revealed by God. And, by this,P. 1…. a clear answer is given to that Question, which you propose: Whether all those Truths which are sufficiently proposed to any Christian, as defined by the Church for matter of Faith, can be dis-believed by such a Christian, without mortal and damnable sin, which unrepented destroyes Salvation? To which the answer is easie upon the grounds here assigned: for this question concerning particular persons, and particular objects of Faith, the resolution of it doth depend upon the sufficiency of the means, to convince such a person, that whatever is propounded as Defined by the Church for a matter of Faith, is certainly and truly so. For to instance in any one of those new Articles of Faith, Transubstantiation, or the Pope's Supremacy, &c. you tell me, These are necessary to be believed, or at least cannot be dis-believed without sin (which is all one in this case, supposing clear conviction, for then what cannot be dis-believed without sin, must be explicitly believed.) I desire to know the grounds why they may not? you tell me, These are truths which are sufficiently proposed to me, as defined by the Church for matters of Faith. I deny the Churches Proposition to be sufficient to convince me, that these are matters of Faith; for I understand not what Power your Church hath to define any thing for matter of Faith: if I granted that, I must understand what you mean by sufficient Proposition; whether that your Church hath so defined them, or that she hath power so to define them; and because I am heartily willing to believe any thing that I have reason to believe is a matter of Faith; certainly it can be no sin in me, not to believe that which I can see no ground at all to believe, either in it self, or because of your Churches Definition. And all this while, I have as high thoughts of God's Veracity, as you can have, and it may be higher; because I interest it not in the false and contradictory Definitions of your Church. If therefore you will prove it to be a damnable sin not to believe whatever is proposed by your Church for a matter of Faith, you must first prove, that there is as universal an obligation to believe whatever is sufficiently proposed as defined by the Church for matter of Faith, as there is to assent to whatever God reveals as true. And when you have done this, I will give you leave to state the Question as you do: for then you would offer something to the proof of it, which now you do not. The substance then of what concerns the obligation to Faith, as to particular objects, on the account of Diuine Revelation, lyes in the means of conviction concerning those particular objects being divinely revealed, which being various, the degrees of Assent must be various too: but yet so, that the more men are negligent of the means of conviction, the more culpable their unbelief is; but where men use all moral diligence to understand what is revealed, and what not, if they cannot be convinced, that some particular thing is of Divine Revelation; it is hard to prove them guilty of mortal and damnable sin, without first proving, that God absolutely requires from men an Assent to that, which it is impossible in their Circumstances they should believe. And this is the first sort of things necessary to be believed by particular persons; such as are believed on the general account of God's Veracity in revealing them.

But because there must be a more particular reason assigned of any such intention in God to reveal his mind to the world,§. 4. viz. Some peculiar end p. 52which he had in it; therefore a further degree of the necessity of things to be believed, must be enquired after, viz. such as have an immediate and necessary respect to the prosecution of that end. Now the only end assignable of that great expression of Divine Goodness, in declaring to man the Will of God, is the Eternal Welfare and Happiness of mankind, for nothing else can be imagined suitable and proportionable to the Wisdom and Goodness of God; besides that, this is expresly mentioned in Scripture as God's great end in it. Now this being the great end of Divine Revelation, the necessity of things to be believed absolutely and in themselves, must be taken from the reference or respect which they have to the attainment of this end. And, although the distinction be commonly received, of necessity of the means, and of the command, as importing a different kind of necessity, yet in the sense I here take Necessity in, the members of that distinction do to me seem coincident. For I cannot see any reason to believe that God should make the belief of any thing necessary, by an absolute Command, but what hath an immediate tendency by way of means, for the attainment of this end: For otherwise, that which is call'd the Necessity of Precept, falls under the former degree of Necessity, viz. That which is to be believed on the general account of Divine Revelation. And, although these things which are necessary, as means, are to be believed on the same formal reason of Faith; yet since God had a different end in the Revelation of these from the other, therefore there is a necessity of putting a difference between them. For, supposing God to have such a design to bring the souls of men to Happiness; in order to this end, some means must be necessary, and these must consequently be revealed to men, because they are so necessary in order to such an end: now it is apparent, All things contained in Scripture, are not of that nature; some being at so great a remove from this end, that the only reason of believing them, is, because they are contained in that Book, which we have the greatest reason to believe, contains nothing false in it. Now the only way whereby we may judge of the nature of these things, is, from the consideration of what is made the most necessary condition in order to happiness; and the way by which we may come to it. And nothing being more evident, than that the Gospel contains in it a Covenant of Grace, or the conditions on which our Salvation depends; whatever is necessary in order to our performance of the conditions required of us, must be necessary to be believed by all. The Gospel therefore tendring Happiness upon the conditions of our believing in Christ, and walking in him; these two things are indispensably necessary to Salvation (where the Gospel is known, for we have no reason to enquire into the method of God's proceeding with others) An hearty Assent to the Doctrine of Christ, and A conscientious walking according to the Precepts of it. But to undertake to define what parts of that Doctrine are necessary to Salvation, and what not, seems to me wholly unnecessary; because the Assent to the Doctrine of Christ, as revealed from God, must necessarily carry in it so much as is sufficient in order to Salvation. Whatever therefore is necessary to a Spiritual Life, is necessary absolutely to Salvation, and no more; but what, and how much that is, must be gathered by every one as to himself from Scripture; but is impossible to be defined by others, as to all persons. But in all Faith towards God, and in our Lord Jesus Christ; and repentance from dead works, are absolutely and indispensably necessary to Salvation, which imply in them, both an universal readiness of mind to believe and obey God in p. 53all things: And by this we see, what the Rule and Measure of the necessity of things to be believed is, as to particular persons; which lyes in these things.

1. Whatever God hath revealed, is undoubtedly and infallibly true.

2. Whatever appears to me, upon sufficient enquiry, to be revealed by God, I am bound to believe it by virtue of God's Veracity.

3. All things not equally appearing to all persons to be revealed of God, the same measure of necessity cannot be extended to all persons.

4. An universal Assent to the Will of God, and universal Obedience to it, are absolutely and indispensably necessary to all persons, to whom God's Word is revealed.

Thus much may suffice concerning what is necessary to be believed by particular persons, considered as such.

But this controversie never need break Christian Societies in that sense,§. 5. but the great difficulty lyes in the other part of it, which is most commonly strangely confounded with the former, viz. What things are necessary to be owned, in order to Church-Societies, or Ecclesiastical Communion? For which, we must consider, that the combination of Christian Societies, o… that which we call the Catholick Church, doth subsist upon the belief of what is necessary to Salvation. For the very notion of a Christian Church doth imply the belief of all those things, which are necessary in order to the end of Christian Religion, which is mens eternal Happiness. From whence three things must be taken notice of.

1. That the very being of a Church, doth suppose the necessity of what is required to be believed in order to Salvation. For else there could not be such a thing as a Church imagined, which is only a combination of men together, upon the belief of such a Doctrine as necessary to Salvation; and for the performance of those acts of Worship which are suitable thereto: Therefore to assert the Church to have power to make things necessary to Salvation, is not only absurd, but destructive to the Being of that Church ▪ For when it offer'd to define any thing to be necessary, which was not so before, was it a Church or no? If it was a Church, it believed all things necessary; if it believed all things necessary, before it Defined; how comes it to make more things necessary by its Definition? But of this more afterwards.

2. Whatever Church owns those things which are antecedently necessary to the Being of a Church, cannot so long cease to be a true Church. Because it retains that which is the Foundation of the Being of the Catholick Church. Here we must distinguish those things in the Catholick Church, which give its Being, from those things which are the proper Acts of it, as the Catholick Church. As to this latter, the solemn Worship of God in the way prescribed by him, is necessary; in order to which there must be supposed lawful Officers set in the Church, and Sacraments duly administred: but these, I say, are rather the Exercise of the Communion of the Catholick Church, than that which gives its Being, which is, the belief of that Religion whereon its Subsistence and Vnity depends; and as long as a Church retains this, it keeps its Being, though the Integrity and Perfection of it depends upon the due exercise of all acts of Communion in it.

3. The Vnion of the Catholick Church depends upon the agreement of it, in making the Foundations of its Being, to be the grounds of its Communion. For the Vnity being intended to preserve the Being, there can be no reason given, why the bonds of Vnion should extend beyond the Foundation of its Being, which is, the owning the things necessary to the Salvation of p. 54all. From whence it necessarily follows, that whatsoever Church imposeth the belief of other things as necessary to Salvation, which were not so antecedently necessary to the Being of the Catholick Church, doth, as much as in it lyes, break the Vnity of it; and those Churches, who desire to preserve its Vnity, are bound thereby not to have communion with it so long as it doth so. Of what great consequence these principles are to the true understanding the Distance between our Church and yours, if you see not now, you may feel afterwards.

These things being premised, I come to that which is the main subject of the present Dispute,§. 6. which is, What those things are which ought to be owned by all Christian-Societies as necessary to Salvation, on which the Being of the Catholick Church depends. If we can find any sure footing for the Definition of these, we shall thereby find what the necessary conditions of Ecclesiastical Communion are, and consequently where the proper cause of Schism lyes in transgressing those bounds, and what Foundations may be laid for the Peace of the Christian world. Which being of so vast importance, would require a larger discussion, than this place will admit of: but so far as is pertinent to our present subject, I shall enquire into it; and give an account of my thoughts, in these Propositions.

1. Nothing ought to be owned as necessary to Salvation by Christian-Societies, but such things, which, by the judgement of all those Societies, are antecedently necessary to the Being of the Catholick Church. For, no reason can be assigned (as I said before) why the Bonds of Union should be extended beyond that which is the Churches Foundation; neither can there any reason be given why any thing else should be judged necessary to the Churches Communion, but what all those Churches (who do not manifestly dissent from the Catholick Church of the first Ages) are agreed in, as necessary to be believed by all; this will be further explained afterwards. Only I add here, when I speak of the necessary conditions of Ecclesiastical Communion, I speak of such things which must be owned as Necessary Articles of Faith, and not of any other Agreements for the Churches Peace. I deny not therefore, but that in case of great Divisions in the Christian world, and any National Churches reforming it self, that Church may declare its sense of those abuses in Articles of Religion, and require of men a Subscription to them; but then we are to consider, that there is a great deal of difference between the owning some Propositions in order to Peace, and the believing of them as necessary Articles of Faith. And this is clearly the state of the difference between the Church of Rome, and the Church of England. The Church of Rome imposeth new Articles of Faith to be believed as necessary to Salvation; as appears by the formerly cited Bull of Pius 4. Which Articles contain in them the Justification of those things which are most excepted against by other Churches; and by her imposing these as the conditions of her Communion, she makes it necessary for other Churches, who would preserve the Vnity of the Catholick Church upon her true Foundations, to forbear her Communion. But the Church of England makes no Articles of Faith, but such as have the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Christian world of all ages, and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self, and in other things she requires Subscription to them not as Articles of Faith, but as Inferiour Truths, which she expects a submission to, in order to her Peace and Tranquillity. So the late learned L. Primate of Ireland often expresseth the sense of the Church of England, as to her thirty nine Articles. p. 55Neither doth the Church of England, saith he, define any of these Questions, as necessary to be believed, either necessitate medii, or necessitate praecepti, which is much less; Bishop Bramhall. Schism Guarded. sect. 7▪ p 396.but only bindeth her Sons, for Peace sake, not to oppose them. And in another place more fully. We do not suffer any man to reject the thirty nine Articles of the Church of England at his pleasure; Sect. 1. cap 11. p. 190. V. Replication to the Bishop of Chalcedon ▪ p. 264.yet neither do we look upon them as Essentials of Saving Faith, or Legacies of Christ and his Apostles: but in a mean, as pious Opinions fitted for the preservation of Vnity; neither do we oblige any man to believe them, but only not to contradict them. By which we see, what a vast difference there is between those things which are required by the Church of England, in order to Peace; and those which are imposed by the Church of Rome, as part of that Faith, extra quam non est salus, without belief of which there is no Salvation. In which she hath as much violated the Vnity of the Catholick Church, as the Church of England by her Prudence and Moderation hath studied to preserve it.

2. Nothing ought to be imposed as a necessary Article of Faith to be believed by all, but what may be evidently propounded to all persons, §. 7▪as a thing which God did require the explicit belief of. It being impossible to make any thing appear a necessary Article of Faith, but what may not only be evidently proved to be revealed by God, but that God doth oblige all men to the belief of it in order to Salvation. And therefore none of those things, whose obligation doth depend on variety of Circumstances, ought in reason be made the Bonds of that Communion which cannot take notice of that variety as to mens conditions and capacities. There are many things in Christian Religion, which, whosoever believes the truth of it, cannot but easily discern to be necessary in order to the profession and practice of it, in most of which the common sense and reason of mankind is agreed. Not only the Existence of a Deity, the clear discovery of the Wisdom, Goodness and Power of God, with his Providence over the world, and the Immortality of Souls, being therein most evidently revealed; but, the way and manner of the restitution of mens souls by Faith in Jesus Christ as our only Saviour, and Obedience to his Commands, is so fully laid down in the clearest terms, that no rational man, who considers the nature of Christian Religion, but must assert the profession of all these things to be necessary to all such, who own Christian Religion to be true. But there are many other things in Christian Religion, which are neither so clearly revealed in the Scriptures, nor unanimously assented to in any age of the Christian Church; and, why any such things should be made the conditions of that Communion in the Catholick Church, whose very being depends only on necessary things, would puzzle a Philosopher to understand. As if none should be accounted Mathematicians, but such as could square circles; and none Naturalists, but such as could demonstrate whether quantity were infinitely divisible or no: much so it is, if none should be accounted members of the Catholick Church, but such as own the truth and necessity of some at least as disputable Points, as any in Religion. Let therefore any Romanist tell me, whether the Pope's Supremacy be as clear in Scripture, as that Christ is Saviour of the world; whether Purgatory be as plain as Eternal Life; Transubstantiation as evident, as that the Eucharist ought to be administred; whether Invocation of Saints be as manifest, as the Adoration of God; the Doctrine of Indulgences, as Repentance from dead works; and if there be so great a clearness in the Revelation of the one, p. 56and so far from it as to the other; let them give any just account why the belief of the one is made as necessary to Salvation as the other is. Certainly, such who take in things at least so disputable as all these are, and enforce the belief of them in order to their Communion, cannot otherwise be thought but to have a design to exclude a great part of the Christian world from their Communion; and, to do so, and then cry out of them as Schismaticks, is the most unreasonable proceedings in the world.

3. Nothing ought to be required as a necessary Article of Faith, but what hath been believed and received for such by the Catholick Church of all Ages. §. 8.For, since necessary Articles of Faith are supposed to be so antecedently to the Being of the Catholick Church, since the Catholick Church doth suppose the continual acknowledgement of such things as are necessary to be believed, it is but just and reasonable to admit nothing as necessary, but what appears to have been so universally received. Thence it is, that Antiquity, Vniversality, and Consent, are so much insisted on by Vincentius Lerinensis, in order to the proving any thing to be a necessary Article of Faith. But the great difficulty of this lyes in finding out what was received for a necessary Article of Faith, and what was not by the Catholick Church; which being a subject, as necessary, as seldom spoken to, I shall not leave it untouched, although I must premise, that Rule to be much more useful in discovering what was not looked on as a necessary Article of Faith, than what was; and therefore I begin with that first.

1. It is sufficient evidence, that was not looked on as a necessary Article of Faith, which was not admitted into the Ancient Creeds. Whether all those Declarations which were inserted in the enlargements of the Apostolical Creed, by the Councils of Nice and Constantinople, and in that Creed which goes under the name of Athanasius, were really judged by the Catholick Church of all Ages, to be necessary to Salvation, is not here my business to enquire; but there seems to be a great deal of reason for the Negative, that what was not inserted in the Ancient Creeds, was not by them judged necessary to be believed by all Christians. I know, it is said by some of your party, That the Apostolical Creed did only contain those Articles which were necessary to be believed, in opposition to the present Heresies which were then in the Church. As though the necessity of believing in Christians, came only by an Antiperistasis of the opposition of Hereticks; And if there had been no Hereticks to have denyed God's being the Creatour, and Christ's being the Saviour; it had not been necessary to have believed either of them so explicitly as now we do. But when we speak of all things necessary to be believed by all; I mean not, that all circumstances of things contained in those Creeds are necessary to be believed in order to Salvation; but, that all those things which were judged as necessary to be believed by all, were therein inserted, will appear to any one who either considers the expressions of the Ancients concerning the Creeds then in Use; or the primary reason why such Summaries of Faith were ever made in the Christian Church. The testimonies of the Fathers to this purpose are so well known in this subject, that it were a needless task to repeat them, who so unanimously assert the sufficiency, Irenaeus. l. 1 c. 2, 3. Tertul. de veland. virgin. c. 1. de praescript. c. 13, 14. Cyril Hierosolomit▪ Catech 4, 5. Hiero…. ep. 61. ad Pammach. Augustin. de symbol▪ ad Catec…. l. 3▪ c. 1 de temp. serm. 115, 119, 131▪ 181. Ambros. serm. 38. de jejun. & Quadrag. &c. Hilar. ad Constant. Aug. Ruffinus in symbol. c. 2.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 p. 57sole 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 p. 58varied 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.

§. 9.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 judgement, or not sufficiently versed in the Scriptures, as at present to make them acknowledge the places are not so clear as they imagined them to be; yet they being alwaies otherwise interpreted by the Catholick Church, or the Christian Societies of all ages, layes this potent prejudice against all such attempts, as not to believe such interpretations true, till they give a just account, why, if the belief of these Doctrines p. 59were not necessary, the Christians of all ages from the Apostles times, did so unanimously agree in them, that when any began first to oppose them, they were declared and condemned for Hereticks for their pains. So that the Church of England doth very piously declare her consent with the Ancient Catholick Church, in not admitting any thing to be delivered as the sense of Scripture, which is contrary to the consent of the Catholick Church in the four first ages. Not as though the sense of the Catholick Church were pretended to be any infallible Rule of interpreting Scripture in all things which concern the Rule of Faith; but that it is a sufficient Prescription against any thing which can be alledged out of Scripture, that if it appear contrary to the sense of the Catholick Church from the beginning, it ought not to be looked on as the true meaning of the Scripture. All this security is built upon this strong presumption, that nothing contrary to the necessary Articles of Faith, should he held by the Catholick Church, whose very being depends upon the belief of those things which are necessary to Salvation. As long therefore as the Church might appear to be truly Catholick by those correspondencies which were maintained between the several parts of it, that what was refused by one, was so by all; so long this unanimous and uncontradicted sense of the Catholick Church, ought to have a great sway upon the minds of such who yet profess themselves members of the Catholick Church. From whence it follows, that such Doctrines may well be judged destructive to the Rule of Faith, which were so unanimously condemned by the Catholick Church within that time. And thus much may suffice for the first Inquiry, viz. What things are to be esteemed necessary, either in order to Salvation, or in order to Ecclesiastical Communion.

2. Whether any thing which was not necessary to Salvation, §. 10.may by any means whatsoever afterwards become necessary, so that the not believing it becomes damnable, and unrepented destroyes Salvation? We suppose the Question to proceed on such things as could not antecedently to such an act whereby they now become necessary, be esteemed to be so, either from the matter, or from any express command. For you in terms assert a necessity of believing distinct from the matter, and absolute command, and hath the Churches Definition for its formal object, which makes the necessity of our Faith continually to depend upon the Churches Definition; but this strange kind of Ambulatory Faith, I shall now shew to be repugnant, to the design of Christ and his Apostles, in making known Christian Religion, and to all evidence of Reason, and directly contrary to the plain and uncontradicted sense of the Primitive and Catholick Church.

1. It is contrary to the design of Christ and his Apostles, in making known the Christian Religion to the world. For, if the design of Christ was to declare whatever was necessary to the Salvation of mankind, if the Apostles were sent abroad for this very end, then either they were very unfaithful in discharge of their trust, or else they taught all things necessary for their Salvation; and, if they did so, how can any thing become necessary, which they did never teach? Was it not the great Promise concerning the Messias, that at his coming, the Earth should be full of the Knowledge of the Lord, as the Waters cover the Sea; that then they shall all be taught of God? Was not this the just expectation of the people concerning him,Isa. 11.9. Joh. 6.45. Joh. 4.25. Joh. 15.15.Isa 11:9John 6:45John 4:25John 15:15 That when he came he would tell them all things? Doth not he tell his Disciples, That all things I have heard of my Father, I have made known unto you? And, for all this, is there something still remaining necessary to Salvation, which p. 60neither he, nor his Disciples, did ever make known to the world? Doth not he promise Life and Salvation to all such as believe and obey his Doctrine? And can any thing be necessary for eternal life, which he never declared? or did he only promise it to the men of that Age and Generation, and leave others to the mercy of the Churches Definitions? If this be so, we have sad cause to lament our condition, upon whom these heavy loyns of the Church are fallen: how happy had we been, if we had lived in Christs, or the Apostles times; for then we might have been saved, though we had never believed the Pope's Supremacy, or Transubstantiation, or Invocation of Saints, or Worshipping Images; but now the case is altered; these Milstones are now hung about our necks, and how we shall swim to Heaven with them, who knows? How strangely mistaken was our Saviour, when he said, Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed; For, much more blessed certainly were they, who did see him, and believe in him; for then he would undertake for their Salvation; but now, it seems, we are out of his reach, and turned over to the Merciless Infallibility of the present Church. When Christ told his Disciples, His yoke was easie, and burden light; he little thought, what Power he had left in the Church to lay on so much load, as might cripple mens belief; were it not for a good reserve in a corner, call'd Implicit Faith. When he sent the Apostles to teach all that he commanded them, he must be understood so, that the Church hath power to teach more if she pleases; and though the Apostles, poor men, were bound up by this commission, and S. Peter himself too, yet his Infallible Successors have a Paramount Priviledge beyond them all. Though the Spirit was promised to the Apostles, to lead them into all Truth, yet there must be no incongruity, in saying, They understood not some necessary Truths (for how should they, when never revealed) as Transubstantiation, Supremacy, &c. Because, though they never dreamt of such things, yet the Infallible Church hath done it since for them; and, to say truth, though the Apostles names were put into the promise, yet they were but Feoffees in trust for the Church, and the benefit comes to the Church by them. For they were only Tutors to the Church in its minority, teaching it some poor Rudiments of Christ and Heaven, of Faith and Obedience, &c. But the great and Divine Mysteries of the seven Sacraments, Indulgences, Worship of Images, Sacrifice of the Mass, &c. were not fit to be made known till the Church were at age her self, and knew how to declare her own mind. When S. Paul speaks so much of the great Mysteries hidden from Ages and Generations, but now made known, it must be understood with a reference to those silly people who lived in that Age; but there were greater Mysteries than these, which neither Christ, nor any of his Apostles were ever acquainted with, as Purgatory, and those before mentioned; for these were reserved as the Churches Portion, when her Infallibility-ship should come to Age. S. Paul, honest man, spake as he thought, when he told not the common people, but the Bishops of the Church, That he had not shunned to declare unto them all the Counsel of God;Act. 20.27.Acts 20:27 but if he had lived to our Age, he would have heard of this mistake with both ears; and if he had not sworn the contrary, he must have been contented to have been call'd Schismatick and Heretick a thousand times over. These are all the just and rare consequences of your Churches blessed Infallibility, and Power of Defining things necessary, which were not so in Christ, or his Apostles times. But, the greatest knack of all is yet behind; for men are bound to believe all the Doctrines of your Church to be Apostolical, and yet that your Church p. 61hath power to make things necessary to be believed, which were not so in the Apostolical times. Yes, say you, They were Doctrines then, but not so necessary as now, because they had not the Churches Definition. It seems, at last, the Apostles knew them, but did not understand the worth of them; else, no doubt, they were such charitable souls, they would have declared them to the world. Blessed S. Paul, who was continually employed in teaching and instructing men in the way to Salvation, could he have held back any thing that had tended to it, when he sayes, He kept back nothing that was profitable to them, but shewed them, and taught them publickly, Act. 20.20, 21.Acts 20:20Acts 20:21and from house to house, testifying to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, Repentance towards God, and Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ: What, not one word of the necessary Points all this while? nothing of the Church of Rome, nor Christ's Vicar on Earth, and his Infallibility? How slily and cunningly did S. Paul, and the rest of the Apostles carrie it, if they had believed these things; never let one word drop from their mouths or pens concerning them? and instead of that, speak so, and write so, that one that believes them honest, would swear they never heard of them. In what another kind of strain would S. Paul have writ to the Church of Rome, if he had had but any inckling of the Chair of Infallibility, being placed there? How soon would he have blotted out the whole 14. Chapter of his Epistle to the Corinthians, if he had known his Holiness his pleasure about serving God in an unknown tongue? How well might he have spared saying, That a Bishop should be the Husband of one Wife, if he had known de jure divino he must have none at all? At what another rate would he have discoursed of the Eucharist, had he believed Transubstantiation, Sacrifice of the Mass, Communion under one kind? What course would he have taken with the Schismatical Corinthians, that were divided like other Churches, if he had known the Infallible Judge of Controversie? If he had but understood the danger of reading Scriptures, he might have spared his exhortations to the people of the Word of God dwelling richly in them, and filled his Epistles with Pater Nosters, and Ave Mary's, or given good directions about them. But he must be pardoned, he was ignorant of these things, as well as we: only S. Paul never heard of them, and we do not believe them; because neither he, nor his Brethren ever revealed them to us, though they were the Stewards of the Mysteries of God; and they tell us themselves, That it is requisite such should be faithful, which we cannot understand how they could be, if they knew these deep Mysteries, but never discovered them that we can learn. But, if they knew them not, I pray from whence is it your Church learns them? By immediate inspiration? no, as bold as you are, you dare not challenge that: but whence then come you to know them to be necessary? infallibly forsooth: But whence comes this Infallibility? must there not be a peculiar Revelation, to discover that to be necessary, which was never discovered to be so before? But if discovered before, and declared before, the things were as necessary before your Churches Definition, as after; and therefore your Churches Definition adds nothing of necessity to them. If neither discovered, nor declared, you must have particular Revelation for them, and then work miracles, and we will believe you, but not otherwise; but, before you do it, consider what S. Paul hath said concerning an Angel from Heaven preaching another Gospel, let him be accursed; and what can be more preaching another Gospel, than making other things necessary to Salvation, than Christ or his Apostles did; and think then what your Church hath deserved p. 62for all her Definitions concerning Articles of Faith, or things necessary to be believed in order to Salvation. But yet further you say, That these things were declared by the Apostles, but they need a further Declaration now: And why so? shew us the Apostle's Declaration, and it sufficeth us; we shall not believe them one jot the more for your additional Definition. And it is surely a sign, you did not think the Apostles Declaration sufficient, or else you would never pretend to new ones. Perhaps you will tell us, It was to their Age, but not to ours? why not, as well as the other necessary Articles of Faith contained in Scripture? I know your Answer is, We can know no necessary Article of Faith at all; but from your Church. So then, we have brought all into a narrow compass, and instead of new Definitions of the Church concerning necessary things, we can know nothing at all to be necessary to be believed, but from your Church. This is high, but the higher it is, the better Foundation it had need stand on, which we shall throughly search into; in the Controversie of the resolution of Faith: to which we referr it, and return. If there were once a Declaration, but still there needs another, What is become of that Declaration? was it lost in its passage down to us? how then was that present Church infallible, which lost a Declaration in matter of Faith? was it necessary to be believed in the intermediate Age or no? if it was, then it was not lost, and then what need a new Declaration? if not, then a thing once necessary to Salvation, may be not necessary to Salvation, and become necessary to Salvation again. But still we have cause to envy their happiness, who lived in the Age when they might be saved without believing these things: for the case goes hard with us, for you tell us, Unless we believe them necessary, we cannot be saved; and our consciences tell us, that if we did profess to believe them necessary, when we do not, and cannot, we cannot be saved. What a case then were we in, if the Pope were Christ's Vicar in Heaven, as he pretends to be on Earth; but it is our comfort, he is neither so, nor so. Thus we see what repugnancy there is both to Scirpture and Reason in this strange Doctrine of your Churches Definitions, making things necessary to Salvation, which were not so before.

§. 11.I should now proceed to shew how repugnant this Doctrine is to the unanimous consent of Antiquity; but I find my self prevented in that, by the late Writings of one of your own Communion; and if you will believe him in his Epistle Dedicatory (which I much question) the present Popes most humble Servant, our Countryman Mr. Thomas White. Whose whole Book, call'd his Tabulae Suffragiales, is purposely designed against this fond and absurd Opinion; nay, he goes so high, as to assert the Opinion of the Pope's Personal Infallibility, Tabulae suff. cap. 19, 20, 21.not only to be Heretical, but Archi-heretical; and that the propagating of this Doctrine is in its kind a most grievous sin. It cannot but much rejoyce us to see, that men of wit and parts begin to discover the intolerable arrogance of such pretences, and that such men as D. Holden, and Mr. White, are in many things come so near the Protestant Principles; and that since they quit the Plea of Infallibility, and relye on Vniversal Tradition, we are in hopes that the same reason and ingenuity which carried these persons thus far, will carry others, who go on the same principles, so much farther, as to see, how impossible it is to make good the points in Controversie between us, upon the Principle of Vniversal Tradition. Which the Bigots of your Church are sufficiently sensible of, and therefore, like the Man at Athens, when your Hands are cut off, you are resolved to hold this Infallibility with your Teeth: and so that p. 63Gentleman finds by the proceedings of the Court of Rome against him for that and his other pieces. But, this should not have been taken notice of, lest we should seem to see (as who doth not, that is not stark blind?) what growing Divisions and Animosities there are among your selves both at home and in foreign parts; and yet all this while the poor silly people must be told, that there is nothing but Division out of your Church, and nothing but Harmony and Musick in it, but such as is made of Discords. And that about this present Controversie; for the forenamed Gentleman in his Epistle to the present Pope, tells him plainly, That it is found true by frequent Experience, That there is no defending the Catholick Faith against the subtilties of his Heretical Countrymen, Ne que si complurium experimentis fidem habere liceat, adversus nostratium haereticorum subtilitates fides Catholica sustineri potest abs que praecipuis hujus libelli dogmatibus, & (si conjicere fas sit) aliquibus accusatis. Tabulae suffrag. ep. dedicat. ad Papam Alex. 7.without the principles of that Book, which was condemned at Rome. And what those principles are, we may easily see by this Book, which is writ in defence of the former. Wherein he largely proves, that the Church hath no power to make New Articles of Faith, which he proves both from Scripture, Reason and Authority; this last, is that I shall referr the Reader to him for: for in his second Table, as he calls it, he proves from the testimonies of Origen, Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Tabulae suffrag. tab. 2. p. 11, &c.Pope Stephen, Hierom, Theophylact, Augustine, Vincentius Lerinensis, and several others; nay, the testimonies, he sayes, to this purpose, are so many, that whole Libraries must be transcribed to produce them all. And afterwards more largely proves, That the Faith of the Church lyes in a continued succession from the Apostles, both from Scripture and Reason, and abundance of Church-Authorities in his 4, 5, and 6. Tables: and, through the rest of his Book, disproves the Infallibility of Councils and Pope. And, can you think all this is answered by an Index Expurgatorius, or by publishing a false-Latin Order of the inquisition at Rome, whereby his Books are prohibited, and his Opinions condemned as heretical, erronious in Faith, rash, scandalous, seditious, and what not? It seems then, it is grown at last de fide, that the Pope is infallible, and never more like to do so, than in this age;V. exemplar ipsius Decreti apud Tho. Albii purgat. p. 9. for the same person gives us this character of it in his Purgation of himself, to the Cardinals of the Inquisition, saying, That their Eminencies, by the unhappiness of the present Age, in which Knowledge is banished out of the Schools, Eminentissimos Praesules, infortunio prae…entis seculi in quo scientia ex Scholis exulat, et fidei & Theologiae veritates numero votorum aestim…ntur, incidisse in Consultores ex majori parte & ignaros & arrogantes, qui intrepid… consigant propositiones, quas jurati asserant se nescire, sintne verae vel falsae. Appendix Albiana ad Purgat. sect. poster. p. 212. A. D. 1662.and the Doctrines of Faith and Theological Truths are judged by most voices; fell, it seems, upon some ignorant and arrogant Consultors; who, hand over head, condemn those Propositions, which, upon their oaths, they could not tell whether they were true or false. If these be your proceedings at Rome, happy we that have nothing to do with such Infallible Ignorance: This is the Age your Religion were like to thrive in, if Ignorance were as predominant elsewhere, as it seems it is at Rome. But I leave this, and return.

3. The last thing is,§. 12. Whether the Church hath Power by any Proposition or Definition, to make any thing become necessary to Salvation, and to be believed as such which was not so before? But this is already answered by the foregoing Discourse; for if the necessity of the things to be believed, must be supposed antecedently to the Churches Being, if that which was not before necessary, cannot by any act whatsoever afterwards become necessary, then it unavoidably follows, That the Church neither hath, nor p. 64can have any such power. Other things which relate to this, we shall have occasion to discuss in following your steps: which, having thus far cleared this important Controversie, I betake my self to.

And we are highly obliged to you, for the rare Divertisements you give us in your excellent way of managing Controversies. Had my Lord of Canterbury been living, What an excellent entertainment would your Confutation of his Book have afforded him? But, since so pleasant a Province is fallen to my share, I must learn to command my self in the management of it, and therefore, where you present us with any thing which deserves a serious Answer, for truth and the causes sake, you shall be sure to have it. In the first place, you charge his Lordship with a Fallacy, and that is, because, when he was to speak of Fundamentals, he did not speak of that which was not Fundamental.…. 15. n. 4. But, say you, He turns the difficulty, which only proceeded upon a Fundamentality or Necessity, derived from the formal Object, that is, from the Divine Authority revealing that Point, to the Material Object, that is, to the importance of the Matter contained in the Point revealed; which is a plain Fallacy, in passing à sensu formali ad materialem. Men seldom suspect those faults in others, which they find not strong inclinations to in themselves; had you not been conscious of a notorious Fallacy in this distinction of Formal and Material Object, as here applyed by you; you would never have suspected any such Sophistry in his Lordship's Discourse. I pray consider what kind of Fundamentals those are, which the Question proceeds on, viz. such as are necessary to be owned as such by all Churches, in order to their being true Churches, as is plain by the rise of this Controversie; for Mr. Fisher was proving the Greek Church to be no true Church, and, in order to that, proves, that she erred Fundamentally, for which he makes Vse of this Medium; That, whatever is defined by the Church is Fundamental. So that the whole Process of the Dispute lyes thus. TWhat ever Church is guilty of a Fundamental Errour, ceaseth to be a true Church; but the Greek Church is guilty of a Fundamental Errour; ergo. The Minor being denyed, he thus proves it: If whatever is defined by the Church be Fundamental, then the Greek Church is guilty of a Fundamental errour, because she denyes something defined by the Church; but whatever is defined by the Church is Fundamental; which is the thing his Lordship denyes, and his adversary is bound to prove. So that any one who was not resolved to wink as hard as you do, might easily see, the state of the Controversie doth not concern what things are Fundamental, supposing men know them to be sufficiently propounded; but what things are so necessary to be owned for Fundamentals, that upon the denying them, a Church ceaseth to be a true Church. Yet this mistake as gross and palpable, as it is, runs through your whole Discourse of Fundamentals, which, without it cannot hold together. If you will therefore prove, that, besides such things whose necessity ariseth from the matter, there are other from the Formal Object, which all Churches are equally bound to believe, in order to their being true Churches, you do something; but not before.

But we must still attend your Motions, especially when they tend towards proofs, as yours do now. For, say you, Now I shew (the difficulty being understood, as it ought to be of the Formal Object, whereby Points of Faith are manifested to Christians) that all Points defined by the Church as matter of Faith, are Fundamental; that is, necessary to Salvation to be believed by all those to whom they are sufficiently propounded to be so p. 65defined by this Argument. Whosoever refuseth to believe any thing sufficiently propounded to him for a truth revealed from God, commits a sin damnable and destructive of Salvation: But, whosoever refuses to believe any Point sufficiently propounded to him for defined by the Church as matter of Faith, refuses to believe a thing sufficiently propounded to him for a truth revealed from God. Ergo, Whosoever refuses to believe any Point sufficiently propounded to him for defined by the Church as matter of Faith, commits a sin damnable and destructive of Salvation. Before you proceed to the proof of your Minor, several things must here be considered, that we may better understand your meaning, and know what it is you intend to prove. Especially what you intend by sufficient Proposition. Do you mean such a Proposition as carries evidence along with it, or not? in which case the very understanding the terms, is sufficient Proposition, as that, two and two make four; but, I suppose, you mean not this, therefore it must be the sufficient Proposition of something which wants natural evidence; and therefore something else must be required, besides, the propounding the thing to make the Proposition be said to be sufficient. For Sufficiency relates to some end; so that a sufficient Proposition must be such a Proposition as is sufficient for its end: now the end of the Proposition of Matters of Faith, is, that they may be believed; and therefore the sufficiency of the Proposition lyes in the Arguments or Motives inducing men to believe. Now the Objects of Faith being of a different nature, the Sufficiency of the Proposition must be taken from a respect to them: for in things which are so clearly revealed, as necessary to Salvation, that none who acknowledge the Scripture to be God's Word, can doubt but such things are necessary; in this case the Sufficiency of the Proposition lyes in the Evidence of Divine Revelation, and the clearness of it to all understandings who consider it, and the Reasons or Motives of Faith in that case, are the same with those which induce men to believe, that the Scripture it self is from Divine Revelation. But, there being other things in Scripture, which neither appear so clear, or so necessary to be believed by all, something else is required in order to a sufficient Proposition of them, and in order to the making any of these things universally obligatory to Christians on pain of damnation, for not believing them these things are necessary. 1. It must be much clearer than the thing which is propounded to be believed on the account of it; for, to propound a thing to be believed by something at least as disputable as the matter it self, cannot certainly be call'd a sufficient Proposition. 2. It must be antecedently proved to be a true and certain Proposition, before any thing can be believed on the account of it. For, if men cannot see any reason to believe that there is any necessary Connexion between that which you call a sufficient Proposition, and any matter of Faith; they cannot be guilty of any sin at all in not believing what you think is sufficiently propounded. But, in this case, it is not your judgement, what Proposition is sufficient that makes it so, but the Reason of the Thing, and the Evidence that God hath appointed that way to reveal his Will to men, and that what is so propounded is necessary to be believed. As for instance, suppose you were told by the Greek Church, that to believe the Pope's Supremacy, jure divino, were a damnable sin, and that whosoever did not believe this being sufficiently propounded to them as a matter of Faith, as defined by the Church, were guilty of a sin destructive to Salvation, what answer would you return in this case? Would you not say, That the Proposition, though judged sufficient by them, is not judged so by you; and p. 66that they must first prove, that whatever their Church defines as a matter of Faith, is to be believed for such, before the other can be believed on the account of it. Just the same answer we return to you; prove first of all to us in a clear and evident manner, that God hath appointed the Definition of your Church, as the means whereby we may be infallibly assured, what is Matter of Faith, and what not; and then we may grant, that what your Church propounds as a matter of Faith, is sufficiently propounded as a matter revealed from God, but not before. For, while I see no reason to believe the Churches Proposition to be sufficient, I have no reason to believe, that what she propoundes, as defined for matter of Faith, is truly so: And, as long as I can see no reason to believe it, prove the disbelief of it to be a sin in me when you can. Thus we see, how far from being evident that Major of yours is, though you are pleased to tell us, it is so; but we do not believe your Defining it to be so, to be any matter of Faith, unless we had better reason for it, than we have. For, say you,P. 16. To refuse to believe God's Revelation, is either to give God the lye, or to doubt whether he speak truth or no? But, have you so little wit, as not to distinguish between not believing God's Revelation, and not believing what is propounded for God's Revelation? Must every one, who doth not believe every thing that is propounded for God's Revelation, presently give God the lye, and doubt whether he speak truth or no? And are not you then guilty of that fault every time a Quaker or Enthusiast tells you, That the Spirit of God within him told him this and that? But you said, Sufficiently propounded. But the Question is, What sufficient Proposition is, and who must be Judge whether the Proposition be sufficient or no, you, or the conscience of the person to whom the thing is proposed to be believed? If any one indeed that judgeth a Proposition sufficient, do notwithstanding question the truth of it, he doth interpretatively call God's Veracity into question; but not he certainly who thinks not God's Veracity at all concerned in that which you call a sufficient Proposition, but he judgeth not to be so.

Let us now see, how you prove your Assumption, which is very fairly done from a Supposition which his Lordship denies; which is, That General Councils cannot erre. But, say you, he adds, That though he should grant it, yet this cannot down with him, that all Points even so defined were Fundamentals. P. 28. n. 3.I grant, those are his words, and his reasons follow them. For, Deductions are not prime and native Principles; nor are Superstructures, Foundations. That which is a Foundation for all, cannot be one and another to different Christians, in regard of it self; for then it could be no common Rule for any, nor could the souls of men rest upon a shaking Foundation. No, if it be a true Foundation, it must be common to all, and firm under all; in which sense the Articles of Christian Faith are Fundamental. What now do you prove to destroy this? You very strenuously prove, That if men believe, A General Council cannot erre, they believe it cannot erre so far, and no further than it cannot erre. But, if you mean any thing further, your meaning is better than your proof: for when you would prove that to disbelieve the Churches Definition, is to dis-believe God's Revelation; and in order to that confound the Church and General Councils together, P. 16.and from the General Council's not erring, inferr the former Proposition, because, what is testified by the Church, is testified by an Authority that cannot erre; you do not consider, that all this while you prove nothing against his Lordship, unless you first prove, that whatever is testified to be revealed from p. 67God, is presently Fundamental to all Churches and Christians, which his Lordship utterly denies, by distinguishing even things which may be testified to be revealed from God, into such things as are common to all Christians to be believed by them, and such things as vary according to the different respects of Christians. But yet further, I add, that taking Fundamentals in your sense, you prove not the thing you intended, but only to such as do acknowledge, and as far as they do acknowledge, that General Councils cannot erre. For, they who acknowledge them infallible only in Fundamentals, do not judge any thing Fundamental by their Decision, but judge their Decisions infallible, so long as they hold to Fundamentals; and so (for all that I can see) leave themselves Judges, when General Councils are infallible, and when not: and therefore if they go about to testifie any thing as revealed from God, which is not Fundamental, they do not believe that their testimony cannot erre, and so are not bound to believe that it is from God. They who believe General Councils absolutely infallible, I do verily think do believe General Councils infallible in all they say; for that is the substance of all you say. But, what that is to those who neither do, nor can see any reason to believe them infallible in all they say or testifie as revealed from God, I neither do, nor can possibly understand. And, if you hope such kind of Arguments can satisfie your ingenuous Reader, you suppose him a good-natur'd man in the Greek sense of the phrase.

But all of a sudden, we find you in a very generous strain, and are contented to take Fundamentals for Fundamentals (which is a huge Concession, and his Lordship, were he living, would take it for a singular favour from you.) Yet to deal freely with the Bishop (say you) even taking Fundamentals in a General way (as it ought to be taken only here) for a thing belonging to the Foundation of Religion (and it is a strange Fundamental which hath no respect to the Foundation, but they who build downwards, must have their Foundations on tops of their houses) It is also manifest, that all Points defined by the Church are Fundamental, by reason of that formal Object, or infallible Authority, propounding them, though not alwaies by reason of the matter which they contain. The main proof of which lyes in this, That he who doth not believe the Church infallible, can believe nothing at all infallibly, and therefore no Fundamental of Religion; but, P. 16, 17.if he believe any thing upon the Churches Infallibility, he must believe all things on the same account of her Infallibility, and therefore must believe all equally; and so, whatever is propounded by the Church, is to be believed as Fundamental. This you cannot deny to be the force and strength of your verbose, and confused way of arguing. And therefore I give you a short Answer, That I utterly deny the Infallibility of any Church, to be in any thing the Foundation of Divine and Infallible Faith; as you will find it abundantly proved in the proper place for it, in the Controversie of the Resolution of Faith. Where it will be largely discussed, in what sense Faith may be said to be Divine and Infallible, what the proper grounds and reasons of our believing are, and how much you impose upon the world, in pretending that the Resolution of Faith, is into the Catholick Churches Infallibility; whereby it will appear to be far from a Fundamental Errour, not to believe on the Churches Infallibility, and that he who denies it, will have no reason to call into Question the Canon of Scripture, or the Foundations of all Religion. But, that you rather, by these absurd and unreasonable pretences of yours, have done your utmost to shake the true Foundations of Religion, and advance p. 68nothing but Sceptiscism, not to say Atheism in the world. These things I take upon me to make good in their proper place, and therefore shall not enter the discussion of them here: but since, this is the main, and, in truth, the only Foundation of your Doctrine of Fundamentals, the vanity, falshood and absurdity of it, cannot be sufficiently understood, till we have gone through the Account of the Grounds of Faith.

If S. Augustine make some no Catholick Christians, for holding obstinately some things of no great moment in his Book of Heresies; it was, because by Catholick Christians he understood all such, and only such, as were the members of the sound and Orthodox Church, in opposition to all kind of unnecessary separation from it upon matters of small moment, and not because he believed the Churches Infallibility, in defining all matters of Faith; and that all such things were so defined, which men are call'd Hereticks for denying of: unless you will suppose, it was ever infallibly defined, that there were no Antipodes; for some were accounted Hereticks for believing them; and that by such whom you account greater than S. Austin. But, for S. Austin, how far it was from his meaning, to have all those accounted Fundamental Errours, which he recounts in his Book of Heresies, appears not only from the multitude of particulars mentioned in it, which no one in his senses can acknowledge Fundamental, or declared by the Church as necessary to be believed by all, but from his declared scope and design in the preface to that Book, wherein it appears, he was desired not only to write the greater errours concerning Faith, the Trinity, Baptism, Repentance, Christ, the Resurrection, the Old and New Testament, Sed omnia omnino quibus à veritate dissentiunt, i. e. all kind of errours whatsoever; and do you think that there could then be no errour, but it must be against some thing then defined by the Church as necessary to Salvation? If not, then all truths were then defined by the Church, and consequently there could be no new Definitions ever since; if there might, then those errours mentioned by S. Austin, were not about matters necessary to be believed; and so S. Austin's Book of Heresies makes nothing for you; but very much against you, considering that in all that black list of Hereticks, there are none brought in for denying those grand Fundamentals of your Church, the Pope's Supremacy, your Churches Infallibility, nor any of that new brood of necessary Articles, which were so prudently hatcht by the Council of Trent. But if S. Austin do you no good, you hope S. Gregory Nazianzen may, because he saith, That nothing can be more perillous than those Hereticks, who with a drop of poison do infect our Lord's sincere Faith. Therefore all things defined by the Church are Fundamental. What an excellent Art this Logick is, that can fetch out of things that which was never in them! What a rare consequence is this, If Heresie be dangerous, then, whatever is defined by the Church, is Fundamental: but it may be, the strength lyes in the drop of poison, as though S. Gregory thought a drop of poison as dangerous as a whole dose of it. But, were I your Physitian, instead of the least drop of poison, I should prescribe you good store of Hellebore, and should hope to see the effect of it, in making better consequences than these are. But to see yet further, the strange effects that Logick hath upon some men; for, say you, in the prosecution of your proof, that all things defined by the Church are Fundamental. Hence it is, that Christ our Saviour saith, Matth. 8.17. If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as a Heathen and a Publican. The Argument in form runs thus; Whosoever deserves excommunication, is guilty of a Fundamental Errour; but p. 69he that will not hear the Church, deserves Excommunication; ergo, Or else there may be more in it than so. For, no doubt, the Heathens and Publicans as such, were guilty of Fundamental Errours; therefore they who will not hear the Church, are guilty of as Fundamental Errours as Heathens and Publicans. But, before you urge us any more with this dreadful Argument, I pray tell us, What that Church is which our Saviour speaks of; what the cases are, wherein the Church is to be heard; what the full importance is, of being as a Heathen and Publican; and you must prove this Church to be understood in your sense of the Catholick Church, and that this Church hath hereby power to define matters of Faith, and that none can possibly in any other sense be accounted as Heathens and Publicans, but as guilty of as Fundamental Errours as they were.

Your next Objection concerning giving God and the Church the lye, and preferring and opposing a man's private judgement and will before and against the Judgement and Will of God and the Church, if men deny or doubt of any thing made known by the Church to be a truth revealed by God; signifies nothing at all, unless it be antecedently proved, that the Church can never erre in declaring any thing to be a truth revealed by God, which none, who know what you mean by the Church, will easily assent to, till you have attempted a further proof of it, than yet we find. And, although the questioning Divine Veracity be destructive to that which you call Supernatural Faith, yet I hope it is possible to believe God to be true, and yet that all men are lyars, or that there is no such inseparable Connexion between God's Veracity, and the present Declarations of any Church, but that one may heartily assent to the former, and yet question the truth of the latter. If you think otherwise, shew your pity to the weakness of our understandings, by something that may look like a proof of it, which we are still much to seek for.

But, your greatest strength, like Sampson's, seems to lye there where one would least suspect it, viz. in Athanasius his Creed. For thus you go on.§. 14. Wherefore it is said in S. Athanasius his Creed (which is approved in the thirty nine Articles of the pretended English Church) that, P. 18.Whosoever will be saved, it is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith —which unless every one hold whole and inviolate, without doubt he shall perish for ever: Neither can the Bishop reply, That all Points expressed therein are Fundamental in his sense; for (to omit the Article of our Saviours descent into Hell) he mentions expresly the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, which his Lordship hath denyed to be a Fundamental Point, as we saw in the former Chapter. But, the better to comprehend the force of this Argument, we must first consider what it is you intend to prove by it, and then in what way and manner you prove it from this Creed. The matter which you are to prove, is, that all things defined by the Church, are Fundamental, i. e. in your sense necessary to Salvation; and, that the ground why such things, whose matter is not necessary, do become necessary, is, because the Church declares them to be revealed by God; now, in order to this, you insist on the Creed commonly call'd Athanasius his, wherein some things, acknowledged not to be Fundamental in the matter, are yet said to be necessary to Salvation, and that this is owned by the Church of England. This is the substance of the Argument, which being resolved into its parts, will consist of these Propositions. 1. That some things owned not to be Fundamental in the matter, are yet acknowledged in the Creed of Athanasius, to be necessary to Salvation. 2. That the reason why these p. 70things do become necessary, is, because the Church hath defined them to be so. 3. That this is acknowledged by the Church of England. And therefore, by parity of reason, whatever is defined by the Church, must be necessary to Salvation. But every one of these Propositions being ambiguous, the clear stating of them will be the best way of solving the difficulty, which seems to lye in the present Argument. And the main Ambiguity lyes in the meaning of that necessity to Salvation, which is implied in the Athanasian Creed, as to the Articles therein contained; for, there being different grounds and reasons upon which things may be supposed necessary, there can be no just consequence made from the general owning a necessity of the belief of some things, to the making those things necessary to be believed upon one particular account of it. For the necessity of believing things to Salvation, may arise from one of these three grounds. 1. The Supposition, that the matter to be believed is in it self necessary this makes it necessary to all those persons who are of that perswasion; and on this ground it is plain, that the main Articles of the Athanasian Creed are generally supposed necessary, viz. those concerning the Trinity in Vnity, the Incarnation, Resurrection, and Eternal Life, &c. Now these being supposed to be necessary from the Matter, any Church may own them under this degree of necessity, in that expression used in several places of the Athanasian Creed, Whosoever will be saved, it is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith—which Catholick Faith is, &c. But then we are to consider, that this is only a Declaration of the sense of that Church, what things she owns as necessary, and what not. And this Declaration doth not oblige the conscience of particular persons any further, than as the Articles of that Church are required to be owned as the conditions of Communion with her, i. e. where the degree of necessity is not declared, nor expresly owned by a Church, but left in general terms; no man is bound to believe the things judged as necessary, with any particular kind of necessity, exclusive of others, but only that the Church in General may use that Creed supposed necessary, and that the Use of that Creed is a lawful condition of that Churches Communion. 2. The belief of a thing may be supposed necessary, because of the clear Conviction of mens understandings, that though the matters be not in themselves necessary, yet being revealed by God, they must be explicitly believed; but then the necessity of this Belief doth extend no further than the clearness of that Conviction doth. As, suppose it inserted into a Creed, that the Article of the Descent must be understood according to the sense of the Scriptures, this doth oblige no man to any further necessity of belief of the sense of the Article, then he is convinced, that it is the sense of the Scriptures; And the case is the same, when the Article is expressed only in general terms, which are known to be capable of very different senses, when none of which are expressed, no particular sense can be said to be necessary to Salvation, to particular persons, but only that sense in general, which all must agree in who own it, and the particulars are left to the Convictions of mens understandings upon the use of the best means of satisfaction. So that he that believes fully that the meaning of this Article from Scripture, is, that Christ's soul did locally descend to Hell, it is necessary for him to believe so, upon such Conviction; but he that sees no more necessary to be believed by it, but that Christ's soul was, during his Body's lying in the Grave, in a state of Separation from it; how can you prove it necessary to Salvation for him to believe any more than this? And the case is the same as to all Modes of p. 71Existence, and particular explications of Articles in themselves owned, as of the different Subsistencies in the Trinity, the manner of the Hypostatical Vnion of the two Natures in Christ's Person, supposing the Doctrines themselves believed, what reason can there be to assert it necessary to Salvavation to all persons, to believe them under such a sense, if the Article may be it self believed without it, any further than as things under those explications, are manifested to such persons to be necessary to be believed. As Leo 3. defined in the Article of the Holy Ghost's Procession from the Son, To such, who, by reason of capacity and apprehension, could attain to the Knowledge of it, it was necessary to be believed, but not by others; as appears in our former Discourse on that Subject. Therefore from hence we see another account, why things may become necessary to be believed and owned as such, besides the matter and the Churches Definition. These things may be said to be necessary to be believed by such, who believe the Churches Proposition to be sufficient, though it be not; as, suppose any member of the Greek Church should believe their Church infallible, it is necessary, for such a one to believe whatever is propounded by that Church, though you suppose that judgement of his to be false in it self, because you say, the Greek Church is not infallible. So that from hence it appears, that the necessity arising from the Churches Definition, doth depend upon the Conviction, that whatever the Church defines, is necessary to be believed. And, where that is not received as an antecedent principle, the other cannot be supposed. By this opening the several grounds of necessity, your difficulty concerning the Athanasian Creed comes to nothing: For granting, that the Church of England doth own and approve the Creed, going under the name of Athanasius, and supposing that her Vse of the Creed, doth extend to the owning of those expressions, which import the necessity of believing the things therein contained in order to Salvation; yet this doth not reach to your purpose, unless you prove that the Church of England doth own that necessity purely on the account of the Churches Definition of those things which are not Fundamental, which it is very unreasonable to imagine; it being directly contrary to her sense in her nineteenth and twentieth Articles. And thence, that supposed necessity of the belief of the Articles of the Athanasian Creed, must, according to the sense of the Church of England, be resolved either into the necessity of the Matters, or into that necessity which supposeth clear Convictions, that the things therein contained are of Divine Revelation. From hence then it cannot at all follow, because the Church of England owns the Creed of Athanasius, therefore all things defined by the Church are, eo nomine, necessary to Salvation. Other particulars concerning that Creed, as to its Antiquity and Authority, we may have occasion afterwards more at large to discuss; it sufficeth now, that nothing is thence produced pertinent to the present Controversie.

His Lordship, in the progress of this Discourse, takes away that slight and poor evasion,§. 15. N. 8. P. 31, 32.That the Declaration of the Church makes any thing Fundamental, quoad nos, because that no respect to us can vary the Foundation. And that the Churches Declaration can bind us only to peace and external obedience, where there is not express letter of Scripture and sense agreed on: but it cannot make any thing Fundamental to us, that is not so in its own nature. For, saith he, if the Church can so add, that it can by a Declaration make a thing to be Fundamental in the Faith that was not, then it can take a thing away from the Foundation, and make it by declaring not to be Fundamental, p. 72which all men grant no power of the Church can do. For the power of adding any thing contrary, and of detracting any thing necessary, are alike forbidden, and alike denyed. Now you say, That all this is satisfied by the foresaid distinction, P. 18.of material and formal Object; and you desire the Reader, to carry along with him this distinction of objectum materiale & formale, materia attestata; & authoritas attestantis, and he will easily discover the fallacies of his Lordship's Discourse, in this main Point of Controversie, and solve all his difficulties supported by them. No doubt, an excellent Amulet to preserve from the infection of reason! But it is your great mishap, that where you commend it so much, it doth you so little service: For, let your distinction of formal and material Object, be supposed as sound and good, as I have shewed, it in your sense, to be false and fallacious; yet it doth not reach that part of his Lordship's Discourse, which you apply it to. For, still his reason is conclusive, though the necessity only be supposed to arise from the Churches Authority, yet if it be in the power of the Church, to make any thing necessary which was not, why may it not be equally in her power to make something not necessary which was? For, either the grounds of the necessity of things to Salvation, doth depend on the Doctrine of the Gospel, as at first declared to the world, or it doth not. If it doth, then it is not in the Churches Power to make any thing necessary, which was not made necessary by it; if it doth not, then the Church may as well pretend to a power to make something not necessary, which was; as to make something necessary, which was not. So that your distinction of Formal and Material Object, signifies nothing at all here; only this is observable, that you make the Churches Definition to be the Formal Object of Faith here, which you very solemnly contradict afterwards. (Chap. 5. §. 4.) And can any thing be more evident from this Discourse of yours, than that you make the last resolution of Faith, as to the necessity of things to be believed into the Churches Definition, as its Formal Object? But this distinction with the grounds of it being removed in our former Discourse, I shall ease my self and the Reader of any further labour in examining what follows in this Chapter, which depends wholly upon it; or else run out into the Churches Infallibility, the infallible Assent requisite to Faith, the Canon of Scripture, and our certainty of it, or the Authority of General Councils;P. 19, 20, 21. all which shall be fully and particularly examined in their proper places. There being nothing said here, but what either hath been answered already, or will be more at large in a more convenient place.

The only things remaining then in this Chapter, which deserve a further discussion here,§. 16. are the testimonies of Scotus and S. Austin, and the Discourses which depend thereon. For our better clearing the testimony of Scotus, in which you charge his Lordship with falsification, we must consider on what account, and for what purposes that testimony is produced. His Lordship had said before,P. 29. n. 5. That Fundamentals are a Rock immovable, and can never be varied; therefore what is Fundamental after the Church hath defined it, was Fundamental before the definition, and no Decrees of Councils, how general soever, can alter immovable Verities; wherefore, if the Church in a Council define any thing, the thing defined is not fundamental because the Church hath defined it; nor can be made so by the definition of the Church, if it be not so in it self. For if the Church hath this power, she might make a New Article of Faith, which the learned among themselves deny. For the Articles of Faith cannot increase in substance, but only in explication: p. 73For which he appeals to Bellarmin. Nor, saith he,N. 2. Is this hard to be further proved out of your own School. For Scotus professeth it in this very particular of the Greek Church. If there be, saith he, a true real difference between the Greeks and Latins about the Point of the Procession of the Holy Ghost, then either they or we be, vere haeretici, truly and indeed Hereticks. Which he speaks of the old Greeks long before any decision of the Church in this Controversie. For he instances in S. Basil, and Greg. Nazianzen, on one side; and S. Jerome, Augustine, and Ambrose, on the other. And who dares call any of these Hereticks is his challenge? That then which his Lordship proves by this testimony, is that the nature of Heresie doth not depend on the Churches Definition, but on the Nature of the things; for, according to Scotus, antecedently to the Churches Definition, if there had been any real difference between the Greeks and Latins one side of them had been Hereticks. P. 22.To this you answer, That hence it follows not, that Scotus thought they could be Hereticks, unless they denyed or doubted of that which they had reason to believe was revealed by God, But it only follows, that if they knew this (as those learned Greeks had sufficient reason to know it) they might well be esteemed Hereticks, before any special Declaration of the Church; although it be more clear, that he is an Heretick, who denies to believe that Doctrine, after he confesses that it is defined by the Church. From which answer of yours, several things are to our purpose observable. 1. That the Formal Reason of Heresie, is, denying something supposed to be of Divine Revelation. 2. That none can reasonably be accused of Heresie, but such as have sufficient reason to believe that which they deny is revealed by God. 3. That none can be guilty of Heresie, for denying any thing declared by the Church; unless they have sufficient reason to believe, that whatever is declared by the Church, is revealed by God. Which unavoidably follows from the former, and therefore the Churches Definition cannot make any Hereticks, but such as have reason to believe that she cannot erre in her Definitions. From whence Protestants will be in less danger of Heresie than Papists, till you give us more sufficient reasons to prove, that whatever the Church declares, is certainly revealed by God. And, although you tell us, Men may be accounted Hereticks before they are condemned as such by General Councils, if they oppose the Doctrine clearly contained in Scripture, or generally received by the Church; yet you tell us not, what the measures are, whereby we ought to judge what things are thus clearly contained in Scripture, or universally received; whether the Churches judgement must be taken, or every man's own judgement: if the former, the ground of Heresie lyes still in the Churches Definition, contrary to what Scotus affirms; if the latter, then no one can be an Heretick, but he that opposeth that which he is or may be convinced, is clearly contained in Scripture, or generally received by the Church. If that which he is convinced, then no man is an Heretick, but he that goes against his present judgement, and so there will be few Hereticks in the world; If that which he may be convinced of, it must be understood either in his own judgement, or yours; if in his own judgement, then a Heretick is one who dissents to things rashly, without using means to inform himself: if in yours, why may not he say, You may as well be convinced of the truth of that which he believes, as he be convinced of the truth of that which you believe; and so you may be a Heretick to him by the same reason that he is to you. But you say further, That there are many things, which in themselves are matters of Faith; yet so obscure, in relation especially to unlearned and particular persons, that before the decree of p. 74the Church, we are not Hereticks, though we should either doubt of them, or deny them: because, as yet, there appears no sufficient reason that can oblige us to believe them; although, after the Definition of the Church, we ought as well to believe them as any other. But it is impossible to understand how there can be such things which men might safely not believe, but upon the Definition of the Church they are bound to believe them necessarily, unless it be clear to them, that the Church hath power to make obscure things plain, and unnecessary things to become necessary. For, suppose one of these obscure things be this very Power of the Church in defining such things, while this remains so obscure, you tell me, I may doubt or disbelieve it without Heresie, and while I do so, I may certainly doubt or disbelieve all she declares. But, by what means shall this thing become clear? must it be by the Churches defining it? But that very Power of defining, is the thing in question, and therefore cannot be cleared by it. And if there be any thing then so obscure, that men may without sin doubt of it, or disbelieve it, certainly the Churches Power in defining matters of Faith, is such; it being not capable, by any act of the Church, of being made so clear, as to oblige men to believe it.

But we must see how his Lordship hath wronged the Testimony of Scotus: For first, say you, He would perswade his Reader, that this Author supposed a real difference between the Ancient Greek and Latin Fathers, about the Procession of the Holy Ghost; whereas Scotus declares, that there was no real difference between them: But doth his Lordship say, there was? doth he not expresly cite Scotus his testimony in an hypothetical manner; If there be a true real difference, &c. and it is evident from Scotus his words, that he supposeth, If the difference had been real, that either the Greeks or Latins were truly Hereticks. Pateret uti que tandem, ipsam contrarietatem non esse veraciter realem sicut est vocalis, alioquin vel ipsi Graci, vel nos Latini sumus verè haretici. Scotus Dist. 11. l. 1. q. 1. sect. 2.And therefore you are guilty of a much greater injury to his Lordship than he was to Scotus. Again, you say, He wrongs him, in saying, That after the Churches Definition, it becomes of the substance of Faith. Now, say you, Scotus hath not one word of the substance of Faith, P. 22, 23.much less of Fundamental, which he imposes presently upon him, but sayes only thus, Ex quo Ecclesia declaravit hoc esse tenendum, &c. tenendum est, quod Spiritus Sanctus procedat ab utroque, Since the Church hath so declared, so it must be held. Sure you never expect to be believed, but by a very implicit Faith; for if one doth but offer to search an Author, your Jugling becomes notorious. Had you the confidence to say, That Scotus has not one word of the substance of Faith; I pray who made that, &c. for you in the sentence? If you did it your self, you abuse your Readers; if another did it for you, he abused you: For that very, &c. leaves out those words, sicut de substantia fidei, and try if you can render that otherwise, than as of the substance of Faith: Quicquid sit de iis ex quo Ecclesia Catholica declaravit hoc esse tenendum, sicut de substantia fidei, sicut pa…et extra. de sum. Trin. & …id. Cath. c. …irmiter tenendum est quod Spiritu… Sanctus procedat ab utro que . Scotus. ib.to manifest your Forgery, the whole place is cited in the Margin. Is this your fidelity in quoting Authors, even when you charge others with wronging them? It may be you will say yet, That Scotus doth not say, it is to be held, sicut de substantia fidei, though it be declared by the Church to be so held! But what means then the ex quo, if men's Faith must not be guided by the Churches Declaration: for if it be therefore to be believed necessarily, because declared by the Church, it must be believed as it is declared by the Church: If therefore the Church declares that it is to be held as of the substance of p. 75Faith, it ought to be held so by such as are bound to believe it on the Churches Declaration. Besides, you will not say, but that it was to be believed before; now, what alteration is caused by the Declaration of the Church, but this, That which was before to be believed simply and in it self, is now to be believed on the account of the Churches Declaration, as of the substance of Faith. And thus it is impossible to relieve your self with your old shift of Material and Formal Object, which you betake your self to. Thus still we see you are that most unhappy person, who never begin a charge against your adversary, but it falls back most unevitably upon your self, who so readily make use of forgeries, to prove others guilty of them.

Upon Scotus his mentioning the Churches Declaration, his Lordship inquires, What this Declaration is, and how far it extends. For which,§. 17. P. 31. n. 7.his Lordship saith, The Master teacheth, and his Scholars too, that every thing which belongs to the Exposition or Declaration of another, intus est, is not another contrary thing, but is contained within the bowels and nature of that which is interpreted: from which, if the Declaration depart, it is faulty and erronious, because, instead of declaring, it gives another and contrary sense. Therefore when the Church declares any thing in Council, either that which she declares was intus, or extra; in the nature and verity of the thing, or out of it. If it were extra, without the nature of the thing declared, then the Declaration of the thing is false; and so, far from being Fundamental in the Faith. If it were intus, within the nature and compass of the thing, though not open and apparent to every eye; then the Declaration is true, but not otherwise Fundamental then the thing is which is declared: for that which is intus, cannot be larger or deeper, than that in which it is; if it were, it could not be intus. Therefore nothing is simply Fundamental, because the Church declares it; but because it is so, in the nature of the thing which the Church declares. In answer to this, you seem more ingenuous than usual; for you acknowledge, that his expression is learnedly solid and good: but yet you would seem to return some answer to this Argument, viz. That although there be no alteration in the nature of the Articles by the Churches Declaration; P. 23.yet this doth not hinder them from becoming Fundamental in that sense in which we dispute, i. e. such as cannot be denyed or doubted of under pain of damnation, although they were not thus Fundamental before the Declaration, as not being so clearly proposed to us, as that we were bound to believe them. Neither doth this take away any thing from their intus, or that Being which they had of themselves; but only gives a certainty of their being so, and declares that they ought to be so quoad nos, as well as quoad se, and internally. And it is no evasion, but a solid distinction, P. 24.that the Declaration of the Church varies not the thing in it self, but quoad nos in its respect to us. The substance of your Answer lyes in this, That though the Church by her Declaration, doth not alter the nature of things, yet she may, and doth, our Obligation to believe them; so that such things which men might have been saved without believing before, when once the Church hath declared them, become necessary to be believed in order to Salvation. And yet you would not have this called making new Articles of Faith: P. 20. n. 8.But I pray tell us, what you mean by Articles of Faith; are not those properly Articles of Faith, as distinct from Theological Verities, which are necessary to be believed by all? If therefore those things which the Church declares, were before not necessary, and by the Churches Declaration do become necessary; than certainly those things which were not Articles of Faith, p. 76do become Articles of Faith, and what then doth the Church by her Declaration, but make New Articles of Faith? But, though you assert the thing, you like not the terms, because they do not sound so pleasantly to the ears of Christians, who believe all Obligation to Faith doth depend upon immediate Divine Revelation. Setting aside therefore the terms, let us examine the thing, to see upon what grounds the Church can make that necessary to us, which was not in it self. In which case the Obligation not arising from the necessity of the Matter in it self to be believed, it is no otherwise intelligible, but that it must result from the supposition of some Immediate Revelation. For nothing else can bind us to an Internal Assent, which you require as necessary to the Churches Definitions but that, unless you can shew how any Society of men considered as such, have power to oblige all other men to believe what they declare on pain of damnation for not doing it. I pray tell me, whether the Apostles themselves had power to bind all Christians to the belief of something as necessary, which the Spirit of God did not immediately reveal to them to be so? If not, what power can any Church have to do it, without a greater measure of Infallibility, than the Apostles ever pretended to? For, they never attempted to define any thing as necessary, which was supposed unnecessary to be believed after the Doctrine of the Gospel was declared to the world. Before then you can perswade us to believe that your Church can make any thing necessary, which was not so, you must prove an Absolute Infallible Divine Assistance of God's Spirit with your Church, in whatever she shall attempt to declare or define as matter of Faith. As for instance, Supposing it not necessary to Salvation in it self to believe the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, how is it possible to conceive, after your Churches Definition of it, it should become necessary, unless it be supposed that there was an Immediate Divine Revelation, in that Definition. For, nothing but Divine Authority commanding our Assent, the ground of Faith must be resolved into that; now in this case, besides the Immediate Assent to the thing declared as a truth, there is a distinct Proposition to be believed, which is, That what was not before necessary to be believed, doth now become necessary to be believed by all; and shew us, either that there is Divine Revelation for this, or else excuse us, that we cannot give an Internal Assent to it. For, we have not learnt to give an Assent of Faith to a meer humane Proposition, or, in our Saviour's words, we call no man, Master upon Earth, so as to promise to believe it in the power of any Church whatsoever, to make any thing necessary to be believed, which was not so before. Hence it appears, that your Distinction of, in se, & quoad nos, is as insignificant, as your pretence of the Churches Power to define matters of Faith is presumptuous and arrogant, being the highest degree of Lording it over the Christian world.

Why your Church may not as well declare something not to be of Faith, P. 24.which before was of Faith, as declare something to be of Faith, which before was not of Faith, it is not easie to apprehend, if that thing might be supposed of Faith before, without the Churches explicit Declaration. For in that case the Church would not so apparently contradict her self; for that Contradiction doth not lye in varying the respects of things, but in one Declaration contradicting another. For otherwise, it is as great a contradiction to say, That something which was not necessary, is become necessary; as that a thing which was necessary, is become not necessary. Therefore if there be a contradiction in one, there is in the p. 77other. If the Contradiction lyes in the Declaration, you must say, That nothing could be supposed necessary to be believed, but what was declared by the Church to be so, and as declared by the Church: which is a Province as difficult as necessary to be undertaken, to rid your hands of this difficulty. For otherwise, that Answer of yours cannot reach the Objection.

And now we come to that Testimony of S. Augustine, which was produced to prove, That all Points defined by the Church are Fundamental: §. 18.Which say, It is a thing founded. An erring Disputant is to be born with in other Questions, Fundata ista res est; ferendus est disputator errans in aliis quaestionibus, non diligen…er digestis, nondum plena eccl siae autoritate firmatis, ibi ferendus est error: non tantum progredi debet, ut etiam Fundamentum ipsum Ecclesiae quatere moliatur. August. serm. 14. de verb. Apostol. Tom. 10. p. 2…4. edit. Froben. 1529.not diligently digested, not yet made firm by full Authority of the Church; there errour is to be born with: but it ought not to proceed so farre, that it should labour to shake the Foundation it self of the Church. Now to this place his Lordship answers. 1. He speaks of a Foundation of Doctrine in Scripture, not of a Church-Definition: This appears, saith he,P. 32, 33. n. 9, 10. For few lines before, he tells us, There was a Question moved to S. Cyprian, Whether Baptism was concluded to the eighth day, as well as Circumcision? and no doubt was made then of the beginning of sin; and that out of this thing, about which no Question was moved, that Question that was made was answered. And again, that S. Cyprian took that which he gave in Answer from the Foundation of the Church, to confirm a Stone that was shaking▪ Now S. Cyprian in all the Answer that he gives, hath not one word of any Definition of the Church: therefore ea res, that thing by which he answered, was a Foundation of prime and setled Scripture-Doctrine, not any Definition of the Church: Therefore that which he took out of the Foundation of the Church, to fasten the Stone that shook, was not Definition of the Church, but the Foundation of the Church it self, the Scripture upon which it is builded: as appeareth in the Milevitane Councils; where the Rule by which Pelagius was condemned, is the Rule of Scripture. Therefore S. Augustine goes on in the same sense, that the Disputer is not to be born any longer, that shall endeavour to shake the Foundation it self, upon which the whole Church is grounded. 2. His Lordship answers, That, granting that the Churches Definition, was meant by S. Austin, yet it can never follow out of any, or all these Circumstances, that all Points defined by the Church are Fundamental, because this Foundation may be upon Humane Authority; and that which follows, only is, That things are not to be opposed, which are made firm by full Authority of the Church; but it cannot be thence concluded, They are therefore Fundamental in the Faith. P. 2….This is the substance of his Lordships Answer to this place; which we must consider what you reply to. First, you say, That it cannot be doubted but that S. Austin's judgement was, that all our Faith depended on the Authority of the Church, and therefore that he that opposeth himself against this, endeavoureth to shake and destroy the very ground-work of all Divine and Supernatural Faith. This is a rare way of silencing Adversaries, by telling them, That cannot be doubted, which others can see no reason at all to believe. As in this present case you, tell me, that cannot be doubted, which I utterly deny, viz. That S. Austins judgement was, that all our Faith depended on the Authority of the Church; and if all the proof you have for it, be only that well-known place, Ego verò Evangelio non crederem, &c. You shall in time see, what an ill choice you made of fixing your proof wholly upon that. But whoever is never so little conversant in S. Augustin's way of disputing either against the Donatists, Pelagians, or Manichees, will find very little reason to doubt, but that he made the p. 78Foundation of Faith, to be God's Word, and not the Authority of the Church. Indeed S. Austin, by way of Prescription, often makes use of the Churches Authority, not where there hath been particular Definitions, but Vniversal Consent, which he understands by the settlement, by full Authority of the Church; but this he insists not on as the ground of Faith, but to shew the unreasonableness of mens opposing those things which the Vniversal Church was agreed in, as in this Controversie here disputed by him concerning Original Sin in Infants. Therefore if I understand S. Austin in this place, he doth not at all speak concerning what is to be owned as a matter of Faith simply in it self, but what the Churches Carriage towards Dissenters is. For after that Citation of S. Cyprian at the Conclusion of his Sermon, he addresseth himself to the Pelagians, as his dissenting Brethren; Therefore, saith he, Let us, if possible, intreat this of our Brethren, That they would no longer call us Hereticks; because we might as well call them so if we would, Impetremus ergo, si possumus, à fratribus nostris, nè nos insuper appellent Haereticos; quod eos talia dispurantes nos appellare possimus sorsitan, si vellemus, nec tamen appellamus. Id. ib.but we do not. Why was S. Austin so scrupulous of calling the Pelagians Hereticks, if he made the Definition of the Church the Foundation of Faith, and looked on this Controversie as defined by full Authority of the Church? And after, speakes of the Churches bearing with them still, in order to their instruction; though they were gone so far, that they were scarce to be born with; and that the Church exercised great patience towards them; therefore intreats them not to abuse this patience of the Church, but to be reformed, since they did exhort as Friends, and not contend as enemies. And so brings in the former words, which I thus paraphrase; It is a thing to be taken for granted, that in disputable Points, and such as the Church hath not alwaies been agreed in, dissenters may be born with: but if direct and full opposition to the clear sense of the Church should still be suffered, it would overthrow the very Foundation of the Church it self. And that this, and no other, is the plain and genuine meaning of S. Austin, is evident to any one who impartially considers antecedents and consequents, and the natural sense of the words themselves. Before, he spake how far the Church had born with them: in the words themselves, he tells them, They must not expect the Church would alwaies bear with them, if they joyned Obstinacy with their Errours for that would ruine the Church, if she continually suffered such as violently opposed things contrary to her clearest sense: and after tells them, This is not expedient: for hitherto, it may be, our patience is not to be found fault withall; Non expedit: adh…c sortè nostra non est reprehendenda patientia; sed de…emus time…c, nè culpetur etiam negligentia.but we ought likewise to fear, lest we be blamed for our negligence: Which words immediately follow the former. And is not this now a rare consequence, If the Church must not alwaies bear with such as oppose her, then whatever is defined by the Church is Fundamental? For it is most evident, S. Austin speaks not of the Churches Power, in defining matters of Faith, but of the Churches proceeding with obstinate Hereticks. And therefore the Foundation spoken of, is not the Foundation of her Belief, but of her Communion; which the continual bearing with such obstinate persons as the Pelagians were, would in time overthrow. The want of understanding this to be S. Augustine's meaning, hath made you spend many words to very little purpose, supposing all along that he speaks of the Churches Definition, and not her proceedings. Your Reply to his Lordships second Answer, runs upon the same mistake, that he speaks of Shaking the Foundation of Faith, whereas I have already p. 79shewed, that he speaks of no such thing, and therefore that, as well as the former Answer, fall to the ground together, being both built on the same mistaken Foundation.