The Grounds of Protestant Religion, Part 1 · Chapter 3
CHAP. III. The Absurdities of the Romanists Doctrine of Fundamentals.
The Churches Authority must be Divine, if whatever she defines be Fundamental. His Lordship, and not the Testimony of S. Augustine, shamefully abused, three several wayes. Bellarmine not mis-cited; the Pelagian Heresie condemned by the General Council at Ephesus. The Pope's Authority not implyed in that of Councils. The gross Absurdities of the distinction of the Church teaching and representative, from the Church taught and dissusive, in the Question of Fundamentals. The Churches Authority and Testimony in matters of Faith, distinguished. The Testimonies of Vincentius Lerinensis explained, and shewed to be directly contrary to the Roman Doctrine of Fundamentals. Stapleton and Bellarmine not reconciled by the vain endeavours used to that end.
THe main Doctrine of Fundamentals being in the foregoing Chapter setled and cleared,§. 1. what remains of that subject will be capable of a quicker dispatch. The scope of this Chapter, is, to assoil those difficulties, which your doctrine of Fundamentals is subject to. What little footing that hath in the place of S. Augustine, was the last thing discussed in the preceding Chapter; and therefore must not be repeated here. His Lordship urgeth this reason why S. Augustine, or any other reasonable man could not believe,P. 34. n. 11. that whatever is defined by the Church is Fundamental in the Faith; because full Church-Authority (alwaies the time that included the Holy Apostles being past by, and not comprehended in it) is but Church-Authority; and Church-Authority, when it is at full Sea, is not simply divine; therefore the sentence of it not Fundamentall in the Faith. To this you very wisely and learnedly answer; I will not dispute with his Lordship, whether it be, or no; because it is sufficient that such Authority be infallible. P. 28. n. 1.For if it be infallible, it cannot propose to us any thing as revealed by God, but what is so revealed. So that to dispute against this Authority, is in effect to take away all Authority from divine Revelation; we having no other absolute certainty, that this or that is revealed by God, but only the Infallibility of the Church proposing, or attesting it unto us as revealed. Whence also it follows, that to doubt, dispute against, or deny any thing that is proposed by the Infallible Authority of the Church, is to doubt, dispute against, and deny that which is Fundamental in Faith. His Lordship denies the sentence of the Church to be Fundamental in the Faith, because not Divine; you dare not say, It is Divine, but contend that it is Infallible, and from that Infallibility inferr, That Whosoever denies the Churches Infallibility, must deny something Fundamental in the Faith, because we can have no other absolute certainty that any thing is revealed by God, but only from the Churches Infallibility, So that your whole proof rests upon a very rotten and uncertain Foundation, viz. that all certainty in matters of Faith, doth depend upon the Churches Infallibility; the falshood and unreasonableness of which principle, will at large be discovered in the succeeding Controversie. And if this fails, then the denial of the Churches Infallibility doth not inferr the denial of any thing Fundamental in the Faith, because men may be certain of all Fundamentals, without believing this Infallibility. But yet, say you, There is no necessity of asserting Church-Authority to be Divine, but only to be infallible, in order to the making what she defines to be Fundamental. A rare and excellent piece of your old Theological Reason; as though any thing could be any further Infallible than it is Divine, or any further owned to be Divine, than as it is Infallible. I pray, acquaint us with these rare Arts of distinguishing between an Authority Divine and Infallible, when the ground of that Infallibility, is the supposition of something properly and simply Divine, which is the Infallible Assistance of God's Spirit. Is that Assistance Infallible too, but not Divine? If it be Divine, as well as Infallible, how comes that Infallibility which flows from it not to be Divine, when the cause of it was simply and absolutely so? Besides, what Infallible Authority is that which makes all its Definitions Fundamental, and yet is not in it self Divine? From whence comes any thing to be Fundamental? You tell us your self, as it is known to be revealed by God. And can any thing be known to be revealed by God, but by an Authority Divine? especially on your principles, who make all certainty of knowing it to depend on that Churches Authority? If so, then since the Churches sentence makes things become matters of Faith, some things may become matters of Faith, which have no Divine Authority for them. But this excellent and subtle distinction between Divine and Infallible Authority, we shall have occasion to examine afterwards. And therefore it is well you tell us, Notwithstanding that Infallible and Divine, seem to many great Divines to be terms convertible, which only acquaints us with thus much, that there are some men who understand things better than you do; and that to do so, is to be a great Divine. And if Stapleton be one of these, we are not much offended at it; and so far we will take the Testimonies which you produce out of him.—That which next follows depends upon the proof of the Infallibility of General Councils, which when you have sufficiently cleared, we will believe, that there can be no plain Scripture, or Evident Reason against any of their Definitions, but till then we must believe there may be room for both.
Your next Section promiseth to shew us a shameful abuse of S. Augustine's Testimony, §. 2.three several waies; But, if it appears, that not one of those waies will hold, then it only follows, that so many waies you have abused his Lordship, and not he S. Augustine. His Lordship having affirmed, That plain Scripture with evident sense, P. 32. n. 11.or a full demonstrative Argument, must have room, where a wrangling and erring Disputer may not be allowed it. And there's neither of these but may convince the Definition of the Council, if it be ill founded. Over against these words he cites that sentence of S. Austin; Aug. contra ep. Fundam. c. 4.Quae quidem si tam manifest a monstratur, ut in dubium venire non possit, praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus, quibus in Catholicâ teneor. Ita si aliquid apertissimum in Evangelio, &c. The plain meaning of which words of S. Augustine, is, That evident Truth is to be preferred before all Church-Authority: Now a threefold Exception you take to his Lordships insisting on this Testimony. 1. That S. Austin speaks not either of plain Scripture, or evident sense, P. 30.or of a full demonstrative Argument; but addressing his speech to the Manicheans, he writes thus, Apud vos autem ubi nihil horum est quod me invitet ac teneat, sola personat veritatis pollicitatio (and then follow the words cited by the Bishop) quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur; where it is plain quae, which is relative only to Truth, and not to Scripture, or any thing else. A wonderful abuse of S. Austin to make him parallel plain Scripture, evident sense, or a full Demonstrative Argument with Truth! As though if evident Truth were more prevalent with him than all those Arguments which held him in the Catholick Church, plain Scripture, evident Sense, or Demonstrations would not be so too. What Truth can be evident, if it be not one of these three? Do you think, there is any other way of manifesting Truth, but by Scripture, Sense or Demonstration? if you have found out other waies, oblige the world by communicating them; but till then, give us leave to think, that it is all one to say, Manifest Truth, as plain Scripture, evident Sense, or clear Demonstrations. But, say you, He speaks only of that Truth which the Manichees bragged of, and promised▪ As though S. Austin would have been perswaded sooner as it came from them, than as it was Truth in it self. I suppose, S. Austin did not think their Testimony sufficient, and therefore sayes, Quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur, &c. i. e. If they could make that which they said, evident to be Truth, he would quit the Church, and adhere to them: and if this holds against the Manichees, will it not on the same reason hold every where else, viz. That manifest Truth is not to be quitted on any Authority whatsoever? which is all his Lordship asserts.
But, You offer to prove, that S. Austin, by Truth, could not mean plain Scripture; But can you prove, that by Truth, he did not mean Truth, whereever he found it, whether in Scripture, or elsewhere? No, say you, It cannot be meant, that by Truth, he should mean plain Scripture, in opposition to the Definitions of the Catholick Church, or General Councils; For which, you give this Reason, because he supposes it impossible, that the Doctrine of the Catholick Church, should be contrary to Scripture; for then men, according to S. Austin, should not believe infallibly, either the one or the other. Not the Scriptures, because they are received only upon the Authority of the Church; nor the Church, whose Authority is infringed by the plain Scripture which is brought against her. C. ep. Fund. c. 5.For which you produce a large citation out of S. Austin. to that purpose. But the Answer to that is easie. For, S. Austin, when he speaks of Church-Authority, quâ infirmatâ jam nec Evangelio credere potero; he doth not in the least understand it of any Definitions of the Church; but of the Vniversal Tradition of the Catholick Church concerning the Scriptures from the time of Christ and his Apostles. And what plain Scriptures those are supposable, which should contradict such a Tradition as this is, is not easie to understand. But the case is quite otherwise as to the Churches Definitions; for neither doth the Authority of Scripture at all rest upon them; and there may be very well supposed some plain Scriptures contrary to the Churches Definitions, unless it be proved, that the Church is absolutely Infallible, and the very proof of that depending on Scripture, there must be an appeal made to plain Scripture, whether the Churches Definitions may not be contradicted by Scripture. When therefore you say, This is an impossible Supposition, that Scripture should contradict the Churches Definitions, like that of the Apostle; If an Angel from Heaven teach otherwise, let him be accursed, Gal. 1. You must prove it as impossible for the Church to deviate from Scripture in any of her Definitions, as for an Angel to preach another Gospel; which will be the braver attempt, because it seems so little befriended either by sense or reason. But, say you, If the Church may be an erring Definer, I would gladly know, why an erring Disputer may not oppugn her. That which you would so gladly know, is not very difficult to be resolved, by any one who understands the great difference between yielding an Internal Assent to the Definitions of the Church, and open opposing them; for it only follows from the possibility of the Churches Errour in defining, that therefore we ought not to yield an absolute Internal Assent to all her determinations, but must examine them by the best measures of Truth, in order to our full Assent to them: but, though the Church may erre, it doth not therefore follow, that it is lawful in all cases, or for all persons, to oppugn her Definitions, especially if those Definitions be only in order to the Churches Peace: but if they be such as require Internal Assent to them, then plain Scripture, evidence of Sense, or clear Reason, may be sufficient cause to hinder the submitting to those Definitions.
2. You tell us, That his Lordship hath abused S. Austin's Testimony, because he speaks not of the Definitions of the Church, Ibidem.in matters not Fundamental, according to the matter they contain; but the Truth mentioned by him was Fundamental in its matter. This is the substance of your second Answer, which is very rational and prudent, being built on this substantial Evidence. If S. Austin doth preferr manifest Truth before things supposed Fundamental in the matter, then no doubt S. Austin would not preferr manifest Truth, before things supposed not-Fundamental in the matter. And do not you think this enough to charge his Lordship with shamefully abusing S. Austin? But certainly, if S. Austin preferred manifest Truth before that which was greater, would he not do it before that which was incomparably less? If he did it before, all those things which kept him in the Catholick Church, such as the consent of Nations, Miracles, Universal Tradition, which he mentions before; do you think he would have scrupled to have done it, as to any particular Definitions of the Church? These are therefore very excellent waies of vindicating the Fathers Testimonies, from having any thing of sense or reason in them.
3. You say, He hath abused S. Austin, by putting in a wrangling Disputer: But I wonder where his Lordship ever sayes,§. 3. that S. Austin mentions any such in the Testimony cited. For his words are these. But plain Scripture, with evident Sense, or a full Demonstrative Argument must have room, where a wrangling and erring Disputer may not be allowed it. And there's neither of these (over against these words, he referrs to S. Austin's Testimony, and not the foregoing) but may convince the Definition of the Council, if it be ill founded. When you therefore ask, Where the wrangling Disputer is to be found; had it not been for the help of this Cavil, we might have been to seek for him. But when you have been enquiring for him, at last you cry out, foreign, Oh! I see now: And you are the fittest man to find him out that I know. You say, This is done to distinguish him from such a Disputer as proceeds solidly and demonstratively against the Definitions of the Church, P. 32.when they are ill founded; which S. Austin is so far from supposing that one may do, that he judges him a mad man, who disputes against any thing quod universa Ecclesia sentit; and that they have hearts, not only of Stone, but even of Devils, who resist so great a manifestation of Truth, as is made by an Oecumenical Council, for of that he speaks. Your design is, to prove, that S. Austin doth not admit of any plea from Scripture, Sense, or Reason, against any Definitions of the Church, for which you first produce that known place in which S. Austin accounts it madness to oppose the universal practices of the Church, which will hold for your purpose, as far as rites and matters of Faith have any Analogy with each other; your latter Testimony seems more to the purpose to all persons who do not examine it, and to none else. For, although you seemed very careful to prevent any examination of the place by a false citation of Epist. 153. for 152. yet that hath not hindered my discovering your fraud, in asserting, that S. Austin there speaks of an Oecumenical Council. For there is not so much as any thing like it in that Epistle. I acknowledge those words to be found there which you produce, Nulla excusatio jam remansit: nimium dura, nimium diabolica sunt hominum corda, quae adhuc tantae manifestationi veritatis obsistunt. But there needs no more to confute the most of your Testimonies out of the Fathers, but to mention the occasion of their being produced, or the scope and design of the Authors, as is most evident in this place. For this Epistle is written in the name of Silvanus, Valentinus, Aurelius, Innocentius, Maximinus, Optatus, Augustinus, Donatus, and other Bishops, for satisfaction of the Donatists concerning the proceedings at the Council of Carthage; For the Donatist Bishops being therein baffled, had dispersed among their Proselytes many false rumours of that Council, and of their being circumvented by their Catholick Adversaries. To disprove which in this Epistle, they first shew the fraud and falsitie of the Donatists, and then the Integrity of their own proceedings, by the choice of seven persons on either side, who should speak in behalf of the rest; and seven others as Counsellors to them; and four Notaries on either side, and four other persons who should keep the Records to prevent all fraud. Besides all this, every one was to subscribe in his own words, that no man might complain that any thing was corrupted afterwards; which things being dispersed, while the persons themselves lived, there was no probability Posterity should be deceived in the report of them. And then follow those words; That no excuse hath now been left, but that their hearts are too hard and diabolical, who could gainsay so clear a manifestation of Truth. Is it not now a rare consequence from hence to inferr, That it is not lawful upon any ground of Scripture, Sense or Reason, to dispute the Definitions of General Councils? Whereas no such thing was ever mentioned as a General Council, as appears by the very next words, where he sayes expresly, it was only a Council of African Bishops; and elsewhere S. Austin tells the Donatists, that they never durst appeal to a General Council. And supposing the Council never so Oecumenical, Ecce putemus illos Episcopos qui Romae judicarunt, non bonos judices fuisse, restabat adhuc plenarium Ecclesiae universae Concilium, ubi etiam cum ipsis judicibus causa posset agitari, ut si male judicasse convicti essent, eorum sententiae solverentur. Quod utrum fecerint, probent. Nos enim non factum …sse sa ilè probamus, ex eo quod totus o…bis non iis communicat. Aug. Epist. 162.he mentions nothing of the Definitions of it, but the manner of its proceedings. So that the greatest Truth hereby manifested, is, your design to abuse his Lordship and the Reader together.
Since you disown the distinction of things, §. 4.being Fundamental in the matter and in the manner, I shall not trouble you with shewing you the weakness of it: but it were easie to manifest it as good as that you embrace of the material and formal Object, which hath been sufficiently refuted in the precedent chapter, and I have no leisure for repetitions.
His Lordship endeavouring further to shew,P. 35. n. 13. What little Foundation your Doctrine of Fundamentals hath in the forecited place of S. Augustine; urgeth this as an Argument against it, That if all Points defined by the Church, are therefore Fundamental, because that is not to be shaken, which is setled by full Authority of the Church; then it must follow, That the Point there spoken of, the remission of Original Sin, in the Baptism of Infants, was defined when S. Augustine wrote this, by a full sentence of a General Council. You deny the Consequence; for, say you, By Authority of the Church you mean (and not unproperly) the Church generally practising this Doctrine, P. 3…. n. 2.and defining it in a National Council confirmed by the Pope. For this was plena authoritas Ecclesiae, though not plenissima; and to dispute against what was so practised and defined, is, in S. Augustine's sense, to shake the Foundation of the Church, if not wholly to destroy it. It seems a little hard to understand what you mean by the Churches being (not unproperly) said to practise this Doctrine: What, did the Church practise the Doctrine of the remission of Original Sin in Infants? That a Church should practise a matter of Faith, seems a little wonderful; but that it should do this and that not unproperly, increaseth the admiration. And we might think it a peculiar priviledge belonging to your Church, but that she is not so much used to practise things more capable of it. And can you think it enough to run us down, by telling us, That the Pope, with a National Council, hath defined it, unless you first prove, that the Pope, and a National Council, have as much authority as a General Council, which you pretend to be infallible; and if a National Council with the Pope be so too, I wonder to what end General Councils are ever call'd, since the Infallibility may be had at a much cheaper rate.
And by the same reason you make National Councils Infallible, you may do Provincial, if the Pope concurrs with them; and, by the same reason, the Colledge of Cardinals may be Infallible without any of them, because of the Pope's concurrence with them. And so, all this business of Councils, is but a formal piece of Pageantry, since all the Infallibility they have by this pretence, is conferred by the Pope in his concurrence; whose Infallibility doth not depend on the presence of a Council; and therefore he must be as Infallible without a Council, as with it. So that at last this Discourse comes to this issue, He that shakes the Pope's Infallibility, shakes the Foundation of the Church: and prove but this to have been S. Augustine's meaning, you will highly advance the interest of your cause.
§. 5.But, whatever S. Austin's meaning be, you think your self engaged to vindicate Bellarmine, who, his Lordship had said, was deceived, in saying, That the Pelagian Heresie was never condemned in an Oecumenical Council, but only in Nationals. P. 35. n. 13.For, saith he, While the Pelagians stood out impudently against National Councils, some of them defended Nestorius, which gave occasion to the first Ephesine Council, to excommunicate and depose them. To which you answer.P. 33. n. 3. 1. It is not credible, that Bellarmine, who writ so much of Controversie, should not have read that Council; nor can there be any suspicion of his con…ealing the matter, had he found it there, &c. and therefore you suspend your Assent till the Council's words be produced. 2. You tell us, That it is not enough to prove that Pelagianism was condemned by a General Council, because some who were Pelagians were; but, say you, They were condemned not for Pelagianism, but Nestorianism, and therefore his Lordship shoots wide of the mark. Your Argument from Bellarmine will have no great force with them, who see no reason to admire his fidelity; and they who enquire into the matter of fact, in the present debate, will have cause to suspect it. The short account whereof is this. After that Julianus, Florus, Orontius, Fabius and others, had been deposed and banished in the Western Churches, for the Pelagian Heresie, they fly to Constantinople, and shroud themselves under the protection of Nestorius the Patriarch there, who secretly favoured them, and writ several Letters to Pope Celestine in behalf of them: who is supposed to have received his Doctrine of the person of Christ from the Pelagians. But when he saw that no good was to be done by these Letters, but by the daily spreading of Nestorianism, the Emperour was forced to summon a Council at Ephesus, A. D. 431. The Pelagians accompany Nestorius thither, and joyn with Johannes Antiochenus, and his party, in opposition to the Synod. But the Council understanding the proceedings which had been in the Western Churches against the Pelagians, ratifies and confirms their deposition, as appears by the Synodal Epistle of the Council to Pope Celestine, which is extant in the Acts of the Ephesine Council: and in the Epistles of Cyril of Alexandria. And besides this, some of the Canons of that Council, do equally concern Celestius and Nestorius; the first Canon decreeing as well the favourers of Celestius as Nestorius to be excommunicate; and the fourth dereeing the Deposition of all such who should embrace either of them. And therefore it is truly said by Jansenius, that the Pelagian Heresie, Paulò post enim, lectis Commentariis Romae sub Coelestino conscriptis, & haeresis ipsa Pelagiana, & authores, sautores que ejus episcopi, ab Oecumenica Synodo iterum condemnati sunt. Jansenius de haeres. Pelag. lib. 1▪ p. 31.and the Bishops who favoured it, were again condemned by an Oecumenical Council. And thence Prosper in the Epitaph of the Nestorian and Pelagian Heresies, as he makes the Nestorian only an Off-spring of the Pelagian;Nestoriana lues successi Pelagianae, Quae tamen est utero progenerata meo. Me tamen una dedit victam sententia letho: Illa volens iterum surgere, bis cecidit. Mecum oritur, mecum moritur, mecum sepulchrum Intrat, & inferni carceris ima subit. Prosper in Epitaph. Nestor. & Pelag. haeres. so he makes both of them to fall, and be condemned together. From whence it appears, that the Pelagians were not condemned in the Ephesine Council meerly for Nestorianism, but for their proper and peculiar sentiments; the former deposition of them being ratified by the Council, and a new Canon made to that purpose for the future. And now let the Reader judge whether his Lordship or Bellarmine were herein the more mistaken.
His Lordship adds;§. 6. If this Heresie were condemned only by a National Council, then the full Authority of the Church here, P. 36.is no more than the full Authority of this Church of Africk. And I hope, saith he, That Authority doth doth not make all Points defined by it, to be Fundamental. You will say, Yes: if that Council be confirmed by the Pope. And then I must ever wonder, why S. Augustine should say, The full Authority of the Church; and not bestow one word upon the Pope, by whose Authority only that Council, as all other, have their fulness of Authority in your judgement. An inexpiable Omission; if this Doctrine concerning the Pope were true. To this you answer, That there was no need of any special mention of the Pope, P. 33. n. 4.in speaking of the Authority of the Church; because his Authority is alwaies chiefly supposed, as being Head of the whole Church. But by whom was this supposed? by you, or by S. Augustine? Can you prove that S. Austin, or any of the African Fathers did ever suppose any such thing, that the Pope being Head of the Church, his Authority is chiefly supposed in the Acts of National Councils? Where was the supposal of this Authority in the Dispute between the African Fathers, and the Popes, in the case of Appeals? These are suppositions, only to be obtruded upon ignorant Novices; and such, who look no further into Antiquity, than the Implicit Faith in their Priests will give them leave. But what a stranger to all true Antiquity this supposition of the Pope's being Head of the Church, is, we shall see abundantly, when we come to the Controversie of the Pope's Authority. Yet granting the Supposition true (than which nothing can be more false) when the main strength lyes not in the bare Definition of a National Council, which you grant of it self hath not full Authority, but in the confirmation of that Decision by the Pope which makes that Authority full, which was not so before; Was it not necessary to declare, that the Pope did concurr to the giving it full Authority, which without it could not be had? You do not say, That all National Councils have this full Authority, not being confirmed by the Pope; if therefore S. Augustine designed to shew that Council to have full Authority, the only way, to prove it, was to produce the Pope's Confirmation of it; which cannot therefore be otherwise looked on, than as an inexpiable Omission, if your Doctrine be true; for he left out that which was only pertinent and material to the business. Your parallel between S. Austin and your self (which is a very worthy one) in leaving out the mention of the Pope's Authority when it is understood, will then hold when you produce as great evidence that S. Austin was a Jesuit, as we have from your principles that you are. When you give as manifest proof, that the Pope's Power is necessary to all Definitions of Councils, as there is in our Laws for our Kings assenting to Acts of Parliament; we may give you leave to parallel the Omission of the express mention of one with the other. If the Definitions of Ancient Councils did run in the name of Pope and Council, as our Acts of Parliament, in the name of the King, and both Houses, we might easily say, the Authority of them came from the Pope, as of these from the King; but there is nothing of that nature, but much of the contrary, as will appear in due time. When you therefore prove that the Pope's Power is implied, though it be not mentioned, you must prove it by some evident Confession, that no Authority of a Council was full, unless the Pope concurred with it: else you may as well say, That the great Mogul hath no full Authority to decree any thing without the Pope's consent; for I dare say, There is no denial of it in any of his Laws. And yet, that is more than can be said here, for we have sufficient testimony from the records of that age, That the Pope's Authority was not supposed necessary to Councils, from his being Head of the Church. What follows p. 34. n. 5, 6. depends wholly upon the often-mention'd distinction of the Formal and Material Object of Faith; the foundation of which, having been already removed, whatever you offer to build upon it, must of necessity fall to the ground; but I shall not follow your ill example, in making tedious Repetitions, and then cry out, You are forced to it.
His Lordship urgeth further, from the Romanists Doctrine of Fundamentals, §. 7.That the Churches Definition, must be the Churches Foundation. His words are; Besides, whatsoever is Fundamental in the Faith, is Fundamental to the Church, which is one by the Vnity of Faith: Therefore, if every thing defined by the Church be Fundamental in the Faith, P. 36. n. 14.then the Churches Definition, is the Churches Foundation. And so, upon the matter, the Church can lay her own Foundation, and then the Church must be in absolute and perfect Being, before so much as her Foundation is laid. To which you answer;P. 35. But what Absurdity is it to grant, That the Definition of the Church teaching, is the Foundation of the Church taught? or, the Definition of the Church representative, is the Foundation of the Church diffusive? I pray, inform us whether this Church teaching and representing, be the same Church with the Church taught and diffusive, or one different from it: If it be different, it must have a different Foundation, and so must be fundamentally different; if it be the same, then the Church must still lay its own Foundation: for whatever becomes Fundamental by the Definition of the Church, is, I suppose, to be believed as necessary, i. e. Fundamental, by the Church teaching and representing, as well as taught and diffusive. Unless you think those who decree things, to be believed by all in order to salvation, do exclude themselves out of that number; and therefore, though it be necessary for all others to believe it, it is still indifferent for them, whether they will believe it or no. And therefore, were I of your Church, I should heartily wish my self of the teaching and representative Church; for then others might go to Hell for not believing that, which I might chuse whether I would or no. What an excellent invention this is, to make the Pope and Cardinals go to Heaven, though they be Atheists and Infidels? For, you tell us, we can have no assurance of any matter of Faith, but from the Infallibility of your Church; this Infallibility lyes not in the taught and diffusive, but in the teaching and representative Church; and this distinction here supposes, that what is made the Foundation of the Church taught, is not the Foundation of the Church teaching, i. e. what is necessary to Salvation for one, is not so for the other; for that is your meaning of Fundamentals. Now, since all things become necessary to be believed by the Church diffusive, upon the Authority of the Church representative; it necessarily follows, from this distinction, That nothing at all is necessary to be believed by the Church representative. And is not this a rare Church the mean while? but what is it which makes it a Church? for though it represents and teaches, yet it is still call'd a Church teaching and representative: If it be a Church, something must make it so: What can make it so, if not the belief of what is necessary to Salvation? And if it doth not believe all that is necessary to Salvation, the Church diffusive is much more truly a Church, than the representative: If it doth believe all that is necessary, then it must believe its own Definitions, because those are supposed to be so; and consequently, if those be Fundamental, the Church must still lay her own Foundation. Or else these consequences follow. 1. That may be a true Church, which doth not believe all things necessary to Salvation. 2. The Church teaching is not bound to believe that which she teaches, but only the Church taught. 3. That may be the same Church which Fundamentally differs from it self. 4. When the Church defines a thing to be necessary, she doth not believe it to be necessary, but it becomes necessary after her Definition. For, I pray, satisfie us as to this Teaching Church, when she defines something necessary to be believed in order to Salvation, which was not so defined before; Doth she at that Instant of her Definition believe that to be necessary to Salvation, or doth she not? If she doth, then it is necessary before her Definition; and so the belief of it as necessary, cannot depend upon it: But if she believes it only to be necessary, because she defines it to be so; then she cannot believe it to be necessary, till she hath defined it, and consequently defines that to be necessary, which she believes not to be necessary: and so defines contrary to her own judgement and belief. Let me therefore ask here some more Questions, which I doubt you will think troublesome, If the Church representative believed that not to be necessary to Salvation, which she defined to be necessary to Salvation, was she infallible in that belief or no? If she was not infallible, then at that time what assurance could men have, of any matter of Faith, since you tell us, That must be had from the Churches Infallibility? If she were infallible, then either in some things only, or in all she believed? if only in some things we ought to know what she is infallible in, and what not, lest we deceive our selves in believing her infallible in that in which she is not infallible? If in all things, then she is infallible in believing that not to be necessary to Salvation, which yet she infallibly defines to be necessary to Salvation: And so the Church may infallibly define that to be true, which at the very moment of that Definition, she infallibly believes to be false. All these are the just and excellent Consequences of this useful Distinction of yours, which you look on as the only happy Expedient, whereby to free your self from asserting, that the Church, by making things Fundamental, by her Definitions, doth thereby lay her own Foundation.
But as absurd and unreasonable as this is, you would seem to have something to say for it:§. 8. for you tell us, That the Pastors, in all Ages preserving Christian People from being carried away with every wind of Doctrine, Ibid.are a Foundation to them of constancy in Doctrine. Wonderfully subtle! it is pity such excellent reasoning should want the ornaments of Mood and Figure: but thus it is in them. If the Pastors of the Church may be the means of preserving men from errours, then the Definition of the Church teaching, is the Foundation of the Church taught: which in short amounts to this; If the Pastors of the Church may be a Foundation of mens constancy in Doctrine, then they may be a Foundation of mens inconstancy in Doctrine. If this be not that you mean, I can make no sense of what you say; and if it be, let any one else make Sense of it, that hath a gift for it. For, by constancy in Doctrine, is meant, the adhering to that Doctrine which God hath revealed as necessary in his Word, but by the Definitions of the teaching Church, you understand a Power to make more things necessary to the Salvation of all than Christ hath made; so that, joyn these two together, the Consequence is this: If the Pastors of the Church may, and ought to keep men from believing any other Doctrine, then they have power to impose another Doctrine; which things are so contradictious to each other, that none but one of your faculty would have ventured to have set one to prove the other. Therefore when you would prove any thing by this Argument, your Medium must be this, That the Pastors of the Church are a Foundation of constancy in Doctrine, by laying New Foundations of Doctrines by her Definitions, which is just as if you would prove, That the best way to keep a House entire, without any additions, is to build another house adjoyning to it.
But, say you further, Were not the Apostles in their times (who were Ecclesia docens) by their Doctrine and Decrees, a Foundation to the Church which was taught by them? Doth not S. Paul expresly affirm it, superaedificati supra Fundamentum Apostolorum, &c. To which I answer. 1. That the Apostles were not therefore said to be the Foundation on which they were built who believed on that Doctrine, because, by virtue of their Power, they could define or decree any thing to be necessary to Salvation, which was not so before; but, because they were the Instruments whereby the things which were necessary to Salvation, were conveyed to them. And because their Authority, by virtue of their Mission, and the Power accompanying it, was the means whereby they were brought to believe the Doctrin of the Gospel, as in it self true. But there is a great deal of difference between teaching what is necessary to Salvation, and making any thing necessary to Salvation, which was before, meerly because it is taught by them. 2. I grant, that those things did become necessary to be believed, which the Apostles taught; but, it was either because the things were in themselves necessary, in order to the end declared, viz. Man's Salvation, or else it was on the account of that evidence which the Apostles gave, that they were persons immediately imployed by God, to deliver those Doctrines to them. But still here is nothing becoming necessary, by virtue of a Decree or Definition, but by virtue of a Testimony, that what they delivered, came from God. 3. When the Apostles delivered these things, the Doctrine of the Gospel was not made known to the world; but they were chosen by God, and infallibly assisted for that end, that they might reveal it to the world: And this is certainly a very different case from that, when the Doctrine of Salvation is fully revealed and delivered down to us in unquestionable records. And therefore, if you will prove any thing to your purpose, you must prove as great and as divine assistance of the Spirit in the Church representative of all Ages, as was in the Apostles in the first Age of the Christian Church. 4. When you say from hence, That the Apostles, as the teaching Church, laid the Foundation of the Church taught; that can only be understood of those Christians who became a Church, by the Apostles preaching the Doctrine of the Gospel to them: but this is quite a different thing from laying the Foundation of a Church already in being as your Church, taught, and diffusive, is supposed to be. Can you tell us, where the Apostles are said to lay further Foundations for Churches already constituted; that they made or declared more things necessary to Salvation, than were so antecedently to their being a Church? But this is your case, you pretend a power in your Church representative, to make more things necessary to Salvation, than were before to a Church already in Being, and therefore supposed to believe all things necessary to Salvation. You see therefore, what a vast disparity there is in the case, and how far the Apostles declaring the Doctrine of Christ, and thereby founding Churches, is from being an Argument that the representative Church, may lay the Foundation of the Church diffusive, which being a Church already, must have its Foundation laid before all new Decrees and Definitions of the teaching Church. So that still it unavoidably follows upon your principles, That the Church must lay her own Foundation, and then the Church must have been in absolute and perfect Being, before so much as her Foundation is laid. Your weak endeavour of retorting this upon the Bishop, because of the Apostles teaching the Church of their Age, only shews, that you have a good will to say something in behalf of so bad a cause, but that you want ability to do it: as appears by the Answers already given, as to the difference of the Apostles case and yours. The subsequent Section, which is spent in a weak defence of A. C's. words, P. 3….hath the less cause to be particularly examined; and besides, its whole strength lyes on things sufficiently discussed already, viz. the sufficient Proposition of matters of Faith, and the Material and Formal Object of it.
That which follows pretending to something New, and which looks like Argumentation, must be more distinctly considered.§. 9. A. Cs. words are, That if one may deny, or doubtfully dispute against any one Determination of the Church, then he may against another, and another, and so against all: since all are made firm to us by one and the same Divine Revelation, sufficiently applied by one and the same full Authority of the Church; which being weakned in any one, cannot be firm in any other. P. 38. n. 15.To which his Lordship answers, 1. That this is understood only of Catholick Maxims, which are properly Fundamental, by Vincentius Lirinensis, from whom this Argument is derived. 2. He denies, that all Determinations of the Church are made firm to us by one and the same Divine Revelation. 3. He denies, n. 16.that all Determinations of the Church are sufficiently applied by one and the same full Authority of the Church. Of each of these he gives his reasons; the examination and defence of which, is all that remains of this Chapter. To the first, you answer three things (for I must digest your Answers for you.P. 37.) 1. That there is no evidence, that A. C. borrowed this from Vincentius, and you give an excellent reason for it, because good wits may both hit on the same thing, or at least come near it; which, had it been said of your self, had been more unquestionable: but, to let that pass, 2. You tell us, That the Doctrine is true, whosoever said it. For which, you give this reason. For the same reason which permits not our questioning, or denying the prime Maxims of Faith, permits not our questioning, or denying any other Doctrine declared by the Church; because it is not the greatness or smalness of the matter, that moves us to give firm Assent in Points of Faith; but the Authority of God speaking by the Church. To which I answer, that all this runs upon a Supposition false in it self, which is, That all our Assurance in matters of Faith, depends upon the Infallible Authority of the present Church; which being granted, I would not deny; but, supposing that Infallibility absolute, on the same reason I believe one thing on the Churches Authority, I must believe all. For the case were the same then, as to the Church, which we say, it is as to the Scriptures; he that believes any thing, on the account of its being contained in that Book as the Word of God, must believe every thing he is convinced to be therein contained, whether the matter be in it self small or great; because the ground of his belief, is the Authority of God, revealing those things to us. And if therefore you could prove such a Divine Authority, constantly resident in the Church, for determining all matters of Faith, I grant your consequence would hold: but that is too great a boon to be had for begging, and that is all the way you use for it here. If you offer to prove it afterwards, our Answers shall be ready to attend you. But at present, let it suffice to tell you, That we believe no Article of Faith at all upon the Churches Infallible Authority; and therefore, though we deny what the Church proposeth, it follows not that we are any more liable to question the truth of any Article any further than the Churches Authority reaches in it; i. e. we deny that any thing becomes an Article meerly upon her account. But now, if you remove the Argument from the present Churches Infallible Authority, to the Vniversal Churches Testimony, we then tell you, That he who questions a clear, full, universal Tradition of the whole Church from Christ's time to this, will, by the same reason, doubt of all matters of Faith, which are conveyed by this Testimony to us. But then we must further consider, That we are bound by virtue of the Churches Testimony, to believe nothing any further, than it appears to have been the constant, full, Vniversal Testimony of the Church, from the time of Christ and his Apostles. Whatever therefore you can make appear to have been received as a necessary Article of Faith in this manner, we embrace it, but nothing else; and on the other side, we say, That whoever doubts, or denies this Testimony, will doubt of all matters of Faith, because the ground and rule of Faith, the Scriptures, is conveyed to us only through this Universal Tradition.
3. You answer, That his Lordship mistakes Vincentius Lerinensis his meaning, §. 10.and falsifies his testimony thrice at least. Whereof the first is in rendring [de Catholico dogmate] of Catholick Maxims: P. 37. …. 8.and here a double most dreadful charge is drawn up against his Lordship; the first from the accusation of Priscian, and the second of no less Authours, than Rider and the English Lexicons: the first is, for translating the Singular Number by the Plural; whereas our most Reverend Orbilius himself in the following page, tells us, that this Catholicum dogma, Vincentius speaks of, contains the whole Systeme of the Catholick Faith, and in that Systeme some are Fundamentals, some Superstructures, (both Plurals) yet all these contained in this one singular, Dogma: but it was his Lordships great mishap not to have his education in the Schools of the Jesuites, else he might have escaped the lash for this most unpardonable oversight of rendring verbum multitudinis by our Authours own confession (who makes it larger too then his Lordship doth; for his Lordship saith, it contains only Fundamentals, but our Authour Superstructures too) by the Plural Number. But the second fault is worse then this; for, saith our Authour very gravely and discreetly with his rod in his hand, But in what Authour learnt he, that Dogma signifies only Maxims, were it in the Plural number? Pag. 38.Dogma according to our English Lexicons, Rider, and others, signifies a Decree, or common received Opinion, whether in prime, or less principal matters. What a learned dispute are we now fallen into? But I see you were resolved to put all, but Boys and Paedagogues out of all likelyhood of confuting you; For those are only the persons among us, who deal in Rider and English Lexicons. I see now, there is some hopes, that the orders of the Inquisition may have better Latin, then that against Mr. White had; since our old Jesuites begin to be so well versed in such Masters of the Latin tongue. How low is Infallibility fallen, that we must appeal for knowing what dogma fidei is, to the definition not of Popes and Councils, but of Rider and English Lexicons? But it is ill jesting with our Orbilius in so severe a humour, that his Grace of Canterbury cannot scape his lash for not consulting Riders Dictionary for the signification of Dogma. But our Authour passeth, and we must attend him, out of his Grammatical into the Theological School; and there tells us, That the Ecclesiastical signification of Dogma, extends it self to all things established in the Church, as matters of Faith, whether Fundamentals or Superstructures; and for this, Scotus is cited (somewhat a better Authour than Rider) who calls Transubstantiation, Dogma fidei. I begin to believe now, that Dogma is a very large word, and Fides much larger, that can hold so prodigious a thing as Transubstantiation within them. But, notwithstanding what Rider and Scotus say, None so able to explain Vincentius his meaning, as Vincentius himself. To him therefore at last our Authour appeals and tells us, That he declares in other places, that he means by Dogma such things as in general belong to Christian Faith without distinction. But doth Vincentius any where by Dogma mean any such things which were not judged necessary by the ancient and Primitive Church, but become necessary to be believed upon the Churches Definitions? Nothing can possibly be imagined more directly contrary to the design of his whole Book then that is, when he appeals still for matters to be believed to Antiquity, Vniversality, and Consent; and to be sure, all these are required to whatever he means by a Dogma fidei: if you therefore can produce any testimonies out of his Book, which can be supposed in the least to favour the power of the Church in her new Definitions of matters of Faith, you may justly challenge to your self the name of an excellent Invention, who can find that in his Book, which all other persons find the directly contrary to. Your first citation is out of ch. 33. (not 23. as you quote it, or some one else for you) where he is explaining what St. Paul means by, Prophanas vocum novitates. Vocum, saith he, i. e. Dogmatum, rerum, sententiarum novitates; quae sunt vetustati, quae antiquitati contrariae. I shall not scruple to grant you that Vincentius by Dogmata here, doth mean such things as the Definitions of your Church are, for he speaks of those things, which all Christians, who have a care of their Salvation are to avoid; of such things as are contrary to all Antiquity; and such kind of Dogmata, I freely grant the Definitions of your Church to be. Your second citation is as happy as the first, cap. 28. Crescat (saith he, speaking of the Church) sed in suo duntaxat genere, in eodem scilicet Dogmate, eodem sensu, eâdemque sententiâ. An excellent place, no doubt, to prove it in the Churches power to define new Articles of Faith; because the Church must alwaies remain in the same Belief, sense, and opinion. When his words but little foregoing are, Profectus sit ille fidei non permutatio, which without the help of English Lexicons you would willingly render by leaving out that troublesome Particle non, that the best progress in Faith is by adding new Articles, though it be as contrary to reason as it is to the sense of Vincentius Lerinensis. If Vincentius saith, that the Pelagians erred in Dogmate fidei (which words neither appear cap. 24. nor 34.) he gives this reason for it, because they contradict the Vniversal sense of Antiquity, and the Catholick Church, cap. 34. So that still Vincentius, where-ever he speaks of this Dogma fidei, speaks in direct opposition to your sense of it, for new definitions of the Church in matters of Faith. There being scarce any book extant which doth more designedly overthrow this opinion of yours, then that of Vincentius doth.
To shew therefore how much you have wronged his Lordship, and what little advantage comes to your cause by your insisting on Vincentius his testimony:§. 11. I shall give a brief account both of his Design and Book. The design of it, is, to shew what wayes one should use to prevent being deceived, by such who pretend to discover new matters of Faith, and those he assigns to be these two,Commonit. 1. c. 1. setling ones faith, on the Authority of Scripture, and the tradition of the Catholick Church. But since men would enquire, The Canon of Scripture being perfect, and abundantly sufficient for all things, what need can there be of Ecclesiastical tradition? He answers, For finding out the true sense of Scripture, Cap. 2.which is diversly interpreted, by Novatianus, Photinus, Sabellius, Donatus, Arrius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, &c. In the following Chapter he tells us, what he means by this Ecclesiastical tradition, Quod ubique, quod semper, ab omnibus creditum est, Cap 3.that which hath Antiquity, Vniversality, and Consent, joyning in the belief of it. And can any new Definitions of the Church pretend to all, or any of these? He after enquires, what is to be done in case a particular Church separates it self from the communion of the Catholick? Cap. 4.He answers, We ought to prefer the health of the whole body, before any pestiferous or corrupted member. But in case any Novel Contagion should spread over, not a part only, but endanger the whole Church? then, saith he, a man must adhere to Antiquity, which cannot be deceived with a pretence of Novelty. But if in Antiquity, we find out the errour of two or three particular Persons, or City, or Province; what is then to be done? then, saith he, the Decrees of General Councils are to be preferred: But in case there be none? then he adds, The general consent of the most approved writers of the Church is to be enquired after; and what they all with one consent, openly, frequently, constantly held, writ, and taught, that let every man look on himself as bound to believe without hesitation. Now then, prove but any one of the new Articles of Faith in the Tridentine Confession by these rules of Vincentius; and it will appear, that you have produced his Testimony to some purpose: else nothing will be more strong and forcible against all your pretences, than this discourse of Vincentius is; which he inlarges by the examples of the Donatists, Arrians, and others, in the following Chapters; in which still his scope is to assert Antiquity, and condemn all Novelties in matters of Faith under any pretext whatsoever. For this,Nihil novandum nisi quod traditum est. Nos que religionem, non quâ vellemus ducere, sed quâ illa duceret, sequi oportere. Idque esse proprium Christiana modestiae & gravitatis, non sua posteris tradere, sed à majoribus accepta servare. cap. 9. ch. 12, 14. he cites a multitude of Texts of Scripture; forbidding our following any other Doctrine, but what was delivered by Christ and his Apostles; and Anathematizing all such as such as should Preach any other Gospel: and concludes that, with this remarkable speech;Adnunciare ergo aliquid Christianis Catholicis praeter id quod acceperunt, nunquam licuit, nunquam▪ licet, nunquam licebit: & Anathematizare eos qui Adnuncient aliquid, praeterquam quod semel acceptum est, nunquam non oportuit, nusquam non oportet, nusquam non oportebit. Vincent. Lerin. cap. 14. It never was, never is, never will be, lawful to propose any thing (as matter of Faith) to Christian Catholicks, besides what they have received. And it was, is, and will be becoming Christians to Anathematize all such who declare any thing but what they have received. Do you think this man was not of your minde in the Doctrine of Fundamentals? could he do otherwise then believe it in the Churches power to define things necessary to Salvation, who would have all those Anathematized, who pretend to declare any thing as matter of Faith, but what they received as such from their Ancestours? And after he hath at large exemplified this in the Photinian, Nestorian, Apollinarian Heresies, and shewed how little the Authority of private Doctors, how excellent soever, is to be relyed on in matters of faith; he concludes again with this, Whatsoever the Catholick Church held universally, that and that alone is to be held by particular persons. Quicquid universaliter antiqui…ùs Ecclesiam Catholicam tenuisse cognovent, id solùm sibi tenendum, credendumque decernit. cap. 25. Mirari satis nequeo tantam quorundam hominum vesaniam, tantam excacatae men…is impietatem, tantam postremò errandi libidinem, ut contenti non sint trad…tâ semel & acceptâ antiquitùs credendi regulâ; sed nova & nova in diem quaerunt, semperque aliquid gest…u…t religioni addere, mutare, detrahere. Quasi non coeleste dogma sit, quod semel revelatum esse sufficiat; sed terrena institutio, quae aliter perfici nisi assiduâ emendatione, immò potius reprehensione, non possit. cap. 26.And after admires at the madness, blindness, perverseness of those, who are not contented with the once delivered and ancient rule of Faith; but are still seeking new things, and alwaies are itching to add, alter, take away, some thing of Religion (or matter of Faith). As though that were not a Heavenly Doctrine, which may suffice to be once revealed; but an earthly institution, which cannot be perfect, but by continual correction and amendment. Is not this man now a fit person to explain the sense of your Churches new Definitions, and Declarations in matters of Faith? And have not you hit very right on this sense of Dogma, when here he understands by it that Doctrine of Faith, which is not capable of any addition or alteration? And thus we understand sufficiently what he means by the present controverted place; that if men reject any part of the Catholick Doctrine, they may as well refuse another, and another, till at last they reject all. Abdicatâ enim qualibet parte Catholici dogmatis, alia quo que item at que alia, &c. quid aliud ad extremum sequetur, nisi ut totum pariter repudietur? cap. 31.By the Catholick Doctrine, or Catholicum dogma, there he means the same with the Coeleste dogma before, and by both of them understands that Doctrine of Faith which was once revealed by God, and which is capable of no addition at all, having Antiquity, Vniversality, and Consent, going along with it; and when you can prove that this Catholicum dogma, doth extend beyond those things which his Lordship calls Catholick Maxims, or properly Fundamental Truths, you will have done something to the purpose, which as yet you have failed in. And thus we say, Vincentius his rule is good, though we do not say, that he was infallible in the application of it, but that he might mention some such things to have had Antiquity, Vniversality, and Consent which had not so, such as the business of not rebaptizing Hereticks, and the observation of Easter, which you instance in. And withall we add, though nothing is to be admitted for matter of Faith which wants those three marks, yet some things may have all three of them, and yet be no matters of Faith at all; and therefore not at all pertinent to this question; Such as those things are which you insist on, as deposita dogmata; which doubtless is a rare way of probation. viz. to shew that by dogmata deposita, Vincentius means some articles of Faith which are not Fundamental in the matter of them; and for that make choice of such instances which are no matters of faith at all: but either ritual traditions, or matters of order, such as the form and matter of Sacraments, the Hierarchy of the Church, Paedobaptism, not rebaptizing Hereticks, the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary. For that of the Canon of Scripture, it will be elsewhere considered, as likewise those other Church-traditions.
How the Church should still keep, hoc idem quod antea, as you confess she ought, §. 12.and yet make some things necessary to be believed by all, which before her declaration were not so, Pag. 39.is somewhat hard to conceive; and yet both these you assert together. Is that which is necessary to be believed by all, the same with that which was not necessary to be so believed? if the same measure of Faith will not serve after, which would have done before, is there not an alteration made: Yes, you grant, as to our believing, but not as to the thing, for that is the same it was. But do you in the mean time consider what kind of thing that is which you speak of, which is a thing propounded to be believed, and considered in no other respect, but as it is revealed by God in order to our believing it; now when the same thing which was required only to be believed implicitely, i. e. not at all necessarily, is now propounded to be believed expresly and necessarily; the Fundamental nature of it, as an object of Faith, is altered. For that which you call implicite Faith, doth really imply as to all those things to be believed implicitely, that there is an indifferency, whether they be believed or no; nothing being necessary to be believed, but what is propounded to be expresly believed: Which being so, Can it be imagined there should be a greater alteration in a matter of Faith, then from its being indifferent whether it were believed or no, to become necessary to be expresly believed by all in order to Salvation? And where there is such an alteration as this in the thing to be believed, who can without the help of a very commodious implicite Faith believe, that still this is hoc idem quod antea, the very same as a matter of Faith, which it was before. Though the Church were careful to preserve every Iota and tittle of Sacred Doctrines; yet I hope it follows not, that every Iota and tittle is of as much consequence, and as necessary to be believed, as the main substance of Christian Doctrine. Although when any Doctrine was violently opposed in the Church she might declare her owning it by some overt act; yet thence it doth not follow, that the internal assent to every thing so declared is as necessary, as to that proposition, that Jesus is the Son of God, the belief of which the Scripture tells us was the main design of the writing of Scripture. That General Councils, rightly proceeding, may be great helps to the Faith of Christians, I know none that deny; but that by vertue of their definitions any thing becomes necessary to be believed, which was not so before, remains yet to be proved.
You much wonder his Lordship should father that saying on Vincentius, That, If new Doctrines be added to the old, the Church, §. 13.Pag. 39.which is Sacrarium veritatis, the repository of verity, may be changed in Lupanar errorum, which, his Lordship saith, he is loth to English: for you tell us, That Vincentius is so far from entertaining the least thought of it, that he presently adds, Deus avertat, God forbid it should be so. A stout Inference! Just as if one should say, The Church of Rome may be in time overspread with the Mahumetan Religion, but God forbid, it should be so; Were he not an excellent Disputer, who should hence inferr it impossible ever to be so. What you add out of Vincentius only proves, that he did not believe it was so in his time, but doth not in the least prove, that he believed it impossible that ever it should be so afterwards; but notwithstanding all that you say, it is evident enough, that Vincentius believed it a very supposable Case, by that question he puts elsewhere. What if any new contagion doth not only endeavour to defile a part only, Quid si novella aliqua contagio non jam por…unculam tantum, sed totam pariter Ecclesiam commaculare conctur? tunc item providebit, ut antiquitati inhaereat. cap. 4.but the whole Church? in which, he saith, we are to adhere to antiquity. If you answer, he speaks only of an endeavour: it is soon replyed, That he speaks of such an endeavour as puts men to dispute a question, what they are to do in such a Case, and he resolves at that time, they are not to adhere to the judgement of the present Church, but to that of Antiquity, which is all we desire in that Case, viz. That the present Church may so far add to matters of Faith, that we can in no reason be obliged to rely only upon her judgement. Wherein we are to consider, the Question is not of that you call the diffusive, but the representative Church, all which may be overspread, and yet but a part of the other; but yet if that Church, whose judgement you say only is to be relyed on may be so infected, it is all one as to those who are to be guided by her judgement, whether the other be or no. For here eadem est ratio non entis & non apparentis, because it is not the reality, but the manifestation which is the ground of mens relying on the Churches judgement. So that if as to all outward appearance and all judicial acts of the Church, she may recede from the ancient Faith, and add novitia veteribus, (whether all particular persons in it do so or no) all ground of relying on the judgement of that Church, is thereby taken away. Whether it be the Church her self, or Hereticks in the Church which make these additions, is very little material, if these Hereticks, who add these new articles of Faith, may carry themselves so cunningly as to get to themselves the reputation of the Catholick Church: and so that which ought to have been Sacrarium veritatis, may become impiorum & turpium errorum Lupanar: which your Church is concerned not to have Englished; but by the help of Rider, and other good Authours of yours, it is no hard matter to come to understand it. And thus we see how much you have abused his Lordship, in charging him with a threefold falsification of Vincentius Lerinensis.
The second thing which his Lordship answers, is,§. 14. That all determinations of the Church are not made firm to us by one and the same Divine Revelation; because some are made by Scripture, and others, as Stapleton saith, P. 39. n. 16.without any evident or probable testimony of Holy writ: though therein Bellarmine falls quite off, and confesses in express terms, that nothing can be certain by certainty of Faith, unless it be contained immediately in the Word of God: or be deduced thence by evident consequence. Your only design here, is, to vindicate your two great Champions from contradicting each other,P. 42 n. 9. which though it be of little consequence to the main Assertion of his Lordship, which you knew well enough, and therefore carefully avoid the main Charge of your enemy, to part two of your quarrelling friends: yet since you intend this for a tryal of your skill, we must see how well you play your Prize. Stapleton, you say, means that we must submit to the determinations of the Church and the traditions she approves, though they be not expresly contained in Scripture. Excellently well guessed at Stapletons meaning! when the very words you cite out of him are, We ought not to deny our assent in matters of Faith, though we have them only by tradition, or the decisions of the Church against Hereticks, and not confirmed with evident or probable testimony of Scripture. What a rare Interpreter are you grown since your acquaintance with Rider, and other English Lexicons? Who make not denying assent in matters of Faith, to be the same with submitting to the Churches Determinations, when you know well enough, we plead for submission to the Churches Determinations, where there may be a liberty as to internal assent: and it is as good to make no evident or probable testimony of Scripture the same with not being expresly contained in Scripture; as though nothing which was not expresly contained in Scripture, could have any probable testimony from thence. And from this we may guess what an easie matter it is for you to accommodate all persons who differ, if one sayes Yes, and the other No, you will tell them they do not differ, but that one of them by Yes, means No; and the other by No, means Yes. Just so here you reconcile Stapleton and Bellarmine; for you say, Stapleton by [no probable testimony] means some kind of probable testimony, viz. such as though not express, may be yet deduced from Scripture; and Bellarmine, when he speaks of Gods written Word, as the ground of certainty, means that which is neither Gods Word, nor yet written, viz. Tradition. I never met with one who had a better faculty of reconciling than you seem to have by this attempt. But his Lordship had prevented this subterfuge as to Bellarmine and Stapleton, as if Stapleton spake of the Word of God written, and Bellarmine of the Word of God unwritten (as he calls Tradition). For Bellarmine, Pag. 40.saith he, there treats of the knowledge which a man hath of the certainty of his own Salvation. And I hope A. C. will not tell us, there's any Tradition extant unwritten, by which particular men may have assurance of their several Salvations. Therefore Bellarmine's whole Disputation there, is quite beside the matter: Or else, he must speak of the written Word, and so lye cross to Stapleton as is mentioned. You tell us, This Reason is very strange: Pag 43.but I dare say, yours exceeds it in strangeness, which is, because Bellarmines design was to shew, there was no such unwritten Tradition to be found. But doth Bellarmine dispute against any body or no body? If he disputes against any body upon your principles, those whom he disputes against must be such, who assert that men may have certainty of Faith concerning their Salvation from Tradition; and you would do well to tell us, Who those were that pretended that there was a Tradition or unwritten word delivered down from the Apostles, that they should be saved. And though Bellarmine was not to affirm this, yet those he disputed against, upon your Principles must be supposed to do it. But certainly you thought none of your Readers did ever intend to look into Bellarmine for the place in Controversie; for if they did, nothing could be more plain, than that Bellarmines reason against Catharinus and others, proceeds wholly and only upon the written Word. For, 1. When he saith, that Nothing can be certain with the certainty of Faith, Bellarm. de justific. l. 3. c. 8. sect. 2.but what is either immediately contained in the Word of God, or may be deduced thence by evident consequence, because Faith can rest on nothing, but the authority of Gods Word; he adds, That of this Principle, neither the Catholicks nor the Hereticks doubt. But I pray, do those whom Bellarmine there calls Hereticks, acknowledge the unwritten Word as a foundation for certainty of Faith in the Case Disputed? therefore it is plain, he speaks exclusively of a written Word. 2. When he mentions the Assumption, he evidently explains himself of the written Word; for, saith he, There is no such Proposition contained in the Word of God, that such and such a particular person is justified; for there are none mentioned therein save Mary Magdalen, and a certain Paralytick of whom it is said, their sins are forgiven them. Caeteri homines in sacris literis nè nominantur quidem. And will Rider, and your other good friends the English Lexicons, help you to interpret Sacrae literae by unwritten Traditions? Could any one that had either any common sense left in him, or else had not a design most grosly to impose on his Readers, offer to perswade men, that Bellarmine could here understand the Word of God in a sense common to Scripture and Tradition. If you can prove that Bellarmine saith otherwise elsewhere, you are so far from reconciling Bellarmine and Stapleton, that you will not easily reconcile Bellarmine to himself.
The remainder of this Chapter either refers to something to be handled afterwards as the Infallibility of the Church and Councils, Pag. 43, 44.or else barely repeats what hath been discussed already concerning your sense of Fundamentals, and therefore I dare not presume so far on the Reader's patience, as to give him the same things over and over.