The Grounds of Protestant Religion, Part 1 · Chapter 5 (3 of 3)

The Grounds of Protestant Religion · Part 1 · Chapter 5 (3 of 3)

p. 1432. I prove that you must make the Churches Testimony the Formal Object of Faith, because either you must make it so, or you must deny Divine Revelation to be the Formal Object of Faith; because the reason is equal for both. I demand then, How you resolve your Belief of the Truth of the Doctrine of Christ, you tell me, into Divine Revelation, as its Formal Object? I ask yet further, Why you believe the Revelation made by Christ to be Divine. Your Answer must be, either that your Churches Testimony gives you infallible Assurance of it, and then the former Argument returns: or else that Christ manifested his Testimony to be infallible, and therefore his Revelation Divine, because of the Motives of Credibility, which accompanied his preaching. If this be your Answer, as it must be by your former discourse, then by the same reason I prove your Churches Testimony to be the Formal Object of Faith, because you have endeavoured to prove the Churches Infallibility by the same Motives of Credibility that Moses and Christ proved theirs. Either therefore retract all your former discourse, or else confess, that by the same reason that the Divine Revelation made by Christ, is the Formal Object of Faith, the infallible Testimony of your Church must be so too. For according to your own supposition, there are equal Motives of Credibility, and therefore equal obligation to believe the Infallibility of one as of the other.

p. 1443. If the only reason which makes any thing be the Formal Object agrees to the Testimony of your Church, then that Testimony must be the Formal Object of Faith to them that believe it. Now, that which is the only reason which makes any thing to be the Formal Object of Faith, is the Supposition that it is infallible. For, why do you resolve your Faith finally into Divine Revelation? Is it not because you suppose God to be infallible in all Revelations of himself; and therefore if your Church be infallible, as you say it is, by the same reason that must be the Formal Object of Faith; as if it were by the revelation of God himself? But here you think to obviate this objection by some strange distinctions concerning your Infallibility. You tell us therefore, The Churches Infallibility is not absolutely and simply Divine; or that God speaks immediately by her Definitions: but only that she is supernaturally infallible, P. 58, 59.by the assistance of the Holy Ghost preserving her from all errour, in defining any thing as a point of Christian Faith, that is, as a Truth revealed from God, which is not truly and really so revealed. A rare Distinction this! You say afterwards, The Churches Definition is absolutely infallible, but yet this Infallibility is not absolutely and simply Divine: I pray tell us, What is it then? You say, It is Supernatural, but not Divine, and this Supernatural Infallibility, by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost securing from all errour, but yet not absolutely and precisely Divine: I pray tell us, What kind of Infallibility that was which the Apostles had in delivering the Doctrine of Christ, was that any more than such a Supernatural Infallibility as you fondly arrogate to your Church, viz. such a one as might secure them from all errour in defining any thing as a point of Christian Faith, which was not so, that is, as a Truth revealed from God, which was not truly and really so revealed. And yet, I suppose, you will not deny, but those who lived in the Apostles times, might resolve their Faith into that Infallibility which they had as its Formal Object, and therefore why not as well into your Churches Infallibility, since you pretend to as great Infallibility in your Church as ever was in the Apostles. Thus, I hope, I have shewn it impossible for you, not to make the Churches Testimony the Formal Object of Faith, since you make it infallible as you do.

2. We come now to consider, the little evasions and distinctions, whereby you hope to get out of this Labyrinth. But, having so manifestly proved, that it follows from your Principles, That the Churches Testimony is the Formal Object of Faith, all your distinctions fall of themselves; for thereby it appears, that your Churches Testimony is not meerly a necessary Condition of believing, but is the Formal Cause and Reason of it, therefore your instance of approximation in natural Causes, P. 59.is nothing to the purpose. No more is that of a Commonwealth's practising the same Laws, being an Argument that those were its primitive Laws: Unless you suppose it impossible, 1. That a Common-wealth should ever alter its Laws. Or, 2. That it should practise contrary to its primitive Laws. Or 3. That it should be supernaturally Infallible in judging which are primitive Laws, and which not; without these Suppositions, I say, That Instance signifies nothing to the business in hand; and when you have proved these true, I will give you a further Answer. Your Answer to Aristotles Text, or rather to that undoubted Maxim of Reason, with which the citation of Aristotle concurred, hath been considered already. Your Answer to the Testimony of Canus, is like the rest of your discourse, trivial, and not to the purpose; for Canus doth not only deny the Churches Testimony to be the Formal Object of Faith, but the necessity of believing its Testimony p. 145to be infallible. Non intelligitur necessariò, quod credo docenti Ecclesiae tanquam testi infallibili, Pag. 6….are the very words of the Testimony cited in the Margin of his Lordships Books.

Your next Section affords us some more words, but not one drachm more of reason. For, How do you prove, that the Churches Authority is more known to us than the Scriptures? or, How can you make it appear, that there is any Authority, but what is relative to us, and therefore the distinction is in it self silly, of Authority in se, & quoad nos. For, whatever hath Authority, hath thereby a respect to some it hath its Authority over. And, Can any thing be a ground of Faith simply and in it self, which is not so towards us: For the Formal Object of Faith, is that for whose sake we believe, and therefore, if Divine Revelation be, as you say, the Formal Object of Faith, then it must be more known to us, than the Testimony of the Church: For, that must be more known to us, which is the main cause of Believing. But, if all your meaning be, that we must first know what the Church delivers for Scripture, before we can judge whether it were divinely revealed or no: I grant it to be true; but what is this to your Infallibility? Will you prove the Infallibility of your Church to be more known to us, than that of the Scriptures; and, on supposition that were true, can you then prove that the Scriptures should still retain their prerogative above the Church? What your Authors distinguish concerning objective and subjective Certainty, pertains not to this place; for the worth and dignity of the Scriptures, may exceed that of Tradition, yet, when the knowledge of that worth, relyes on that Tradition, your esteem of the one, must be according to your esteem of the other. I will not here enquire, Whether the adhesion of the Will, can exceed the clearness of the Vnderstanding; nor, Whether Aristotle was unacquainted with subjective Certainty; nor Whether our adhesion to Articles of Faith, be stronger than to any Principles evident to natural Reason: For, I look upon all these Assertions to serve you in no other capacity, than as excursions from the matter in hand; and therefore I shall not gratifie you so far as particularly to examine them. For all then that hath been yet produced by you, his Lordships Argument remains good, that, according to your Principles, the Churches Testimony must be made the Formal Object of Faith, and I am the more confirmed in it by the weakness of your evasions; and, I hope, I have now made good those words which you challenge his Lordship for, That it were no hard thing to prove it.

The next Absurdity charged upon you by his Lordship, is,§. 19. That all the Authorities of Fathers, Councils, nay of Scripture too, P. 62.must be finally resolved into the Authority of the present Roman Church: And, though they would seem to have us believe the Fathers, and the Church of old; yet they will not have us take their Doctrine from their own writings, or the Decrees of Councils, because, as they say, We cannot know by reading them, what their meaning was, but from the infallible Testimony of the present Roman Church teaching by Tradition. And this, he tells you, is, the cunning of this devise. To which you answer; By what hath been said, it appears, That there is no device or cunning at all, either in taking away any thing due to the Fathers, P. 60, 61.Councils, or Scripture; or in giving too much to the Tradition of the present Church. For we acknowledge all due respect to the Fathers, and as much (to speak modestly) as any of our adversaries party. But, they must pardon us, if we prefer the general interpretation of the present Church, before the result of any mans particular Phansie. As for Scripture, we ever extol it above the Definitions p. 146of the Church, yet affirm it to be in many places so obscure, that we cannot be certain of its true sense, without the help of a living, infallible Judge, to determine and declare it, which can be no other than the present Church. And what we say of Scripture, may, with proportion, be applied to Ancient General Councils. For, though we willingly submit to them all, yet where they happen to be obscure in matters requiring Determination, we seek the assistance and direction of the same living Infallible Rule, viz. the Tradition, or the Sentence of the present Church. The Question is, Supposing your Churches Testimony to be infallible, without which we can have no Assurance of what Fathers, Scriptures, and Councils say, What Authority remains among you, to any, or all of these? And it is not, what respect, you tell us, you give them; (for you may as easily speak, as believe contradictions) but what is really left to them, if your Opinion concerning the present Churches Infallibility be true. And he that cannot see the cunning of this Device of resolving all into the Authority of the present Roman Church, will never understand the interest of your Church; but, it seems, you apprehend it so much, as not to seem to do it, and have too much cunning to confess it. But, this must not be so easily passed over, this being one of the grand Artifices of your Church, to make a great noise with Fathers, Scriptures, and Councils among those most, who understand them least, when your selves resolve them all into the present Churches Testimony. Which is first to gagge them, and then bid them speak.

First, For the Fathers, you say, You acknowledge all due respect to them; but the Question is, What kind of respect that is which can be due to them, when, let them speak their minds never so plainly, and agree in what they please, and deliver what they will as the Judgement of the Church; yet all this can give us no Assurance at all on your Principles, unless your Church doth infallibly determine the same way. What then do the Fathers signifie with you? Doth the Infallibility of your Churches Definition depend on the consent of the Fathers? No, you tell us, She is supernaturally assisted by the Holy Ghost; and if so, I suppose the judgement of the Fathers is not that which she relyes on. But, it may be, you will say, This supernatural Assistance directs the Church to that which was the Judgement of the Fathers in all Ages. This were something indeed, if it could be proved: But then I would never read the Fathers, to know what their mind is, but aske your Church what they meant: And, though your Church delivers that as their sense, which is as opposite as may be, both to their words and judgements; yet this is part of the respect due to them, not to believe whatever they say themselves, but what your Church tells us they say. A most compendious way for interpreting Fathers, and making them sure not to speak any thing against your Church. Therefore I cannot but commend the ingenuity of Cornelius Mussus, the Bishop of Bitonto, who spake that out, which more wary men are contented onelyonly to think. Ego, ut ingenuè fatear, plus uni summo Pontitifici crediderim in his quae mysteria fidei tangunt, quàm mille Augustinis, Hieronymis, Gregoriis. That I may deal freely, saith he, I would sooner believe the Pope in matters of Faith, In cap. 14. ep. ad Rom.than a thousand Augustines, Hieromes, and Gregories. Bravely said, and like a man that did heartily believe the Pope's Infallibility! And yet no more than every one will be forced to do that understands the Consequence of his own Principles. And therefore Alphonsus à Castro was not to be blamed for preferring an Epistle of Anacletus (though counterfeit) p. 147because Pope, before Augustine, Hierome,Huic Anacleto soli magis crediderim, &c quàm Hieronymo, Augustino, aut cuiviis alii recentiori, quantumlibet docto & sancto. Advers. haeres. l. 6. verbo Episcopus. or any other however holy or learned. These men understood themselves, and the interest of their Church. And, although the rest of them make finer leggs to the Fathers, than these do; yet when they seem to cross their way, and entrench upon their Church, they find not much kinder entertainment for them. We may guess at the rest by two of them, men of great note in their several waies, the one for Controversies, the other for his Commentaries, viz. Bellarmine and Maldonate, and let us see, when occasion serves, how rudely they handle the Fathers. If S. Cyprian speaks against Tradition, it was, saith Bellarmine, In defence of his errour, Respondeo, Cyprianum hoc scripsisse cum errorem suum tueri vellet, & ideo non mirum si errantium more tunc ra…iocinaretur. De verbo Dei. l. 4. c. 11.and therefore no wonder if he argued after the manner of erroneous persons. If he opposeth Stephen the Bishop of Rome, in the business of Rebaptization; He seemeth, saith he, To have erred mortally in it. Videtur, mortalitèr peccâsse. De Pontif. R. l. 4. c. 7.If S. Ambrose pronounce Baptism in the name of Christ, to be valid, without the naming other Persons in the Trinity; Haec Opinio falsa est, meo judicio. De Pontif. l. 4. c. 12.Bellarmine is not afraid to say, That, in his judgement, his Opinion is false. If S. Chrysostome saith, That it is better not to be present at the Eucharist, than to be present, and not receive it; I say (saith Bellarmine) That Chrysostome,Dico, Chrysostomum ut quaedam alia per excessum ita locutum esse. De Missa. l. 2. c. 10. as at other times went beyond his bounds in saying so. If S. Augustine expound a place of Scripture not to his mind, he tells him roundly,Respondeo, Augustinum non expendisse l… cum …unc diligenter. De Euch. l. 1. c. 11. He did not throughly consider what he said. Do not these things argue that due respect they had for the Fathers; so long as they think they can make them serve their turns, then Who but the Fathers? If they appear refractory, and will not serve as hewers of wood, and drawers of water to them, then Who are the Fathers? it is the Churches judgement they rely on, and not the Fathers. And therefore they never want waies themselves of eluding all the Testimonies produced out of them: If they cannot say, those Testimonies are forged (as some of them say it, without any shew of reason, concerning that part of the Epistle of Epiphanius, about the tearing the vail, in which an Image was painted at Anablatha.) And as Bellarmine answers concerning the Author of the imperfect work on Matthew, because he saith, There is no way to the finding Truth, but reading the Scriptures; he therefore saith, This whole place was inserted by the Arrians;De verbo Dei. l. 4. c. 11. as though that had been any part of the Controversie between the Arrians and others. If Origen, or Cyril, on Leviticus, saith, It is necessary to follow the Scriptures, then an Answer is ready▪ Ibid.That these Homilies are of no great Authority: but if these will serve to defend the Apocrypha; if they speak of the Obscurity of Scripture;Dict. D. l. 1. c. 9. l. 3. c. 1. l. 4. c. 9. De Poenit▪ l. 3. c. 7. l. 4. c. 9▪ if they mention the observation of Lent; if they speak of any thing tending to Auricular Confession, or Pennance, then they are good and authentick enough. Thus the price of the Fathers rises and falls according to their Vse, like Slaves in the market. If yet the Fathers seem to deliver their judgements peremptorily in a matter contrary to the present sense of their Church, then either they speak it in the heat of disputation, or, if not, they were contradicted by others as good as they; if many of them concurr, yet it was but their private judgement, not the sense of the Catholick Church which they delivered. Still we see, the rate the Fathers stand at, is their agreement p. 148with the present Roman-Church, if they differ from this, they were Men like others, and might be deceived, only the Pope is infallible, or at least the present Roman-Church. For, if Hilary, Gregory Nyssen, Chrysostome, Cyril, Augustine, and others say, That Christ, when he said, VponUpon this Rock will I build my Church, understood Peter's Confession or himself, Nihil magis alienum à sensu Christi cogitari potuit, In Mat. 16.18.Matt 16:18saith Maldonate, Nothing could be more incongruous than what they say. And in the next words tell us, That all the Ancient Writers except Hilary, expounded, the gates of Hell one way, but he gives another sense of them. The same liberty he takes in very many other places.In Mat. 21.9. In Ma…. 19.11. In Joh. 6. n. 69. In Joh. 6. n. 116.Matt 21:9John 6 By which we have a tast of that due respect which you owe to the Fathers, which is, To value them, as far as they concurr with your Church, and no more; otherwise they are but the results of mens particular phancies, and not to be compared with the infallible Judgement of your Church.

But, though it may not be so evident, that you give so great respect to the Fathers, §. 20.yet it is notorious what reverence you shew to the sacred Scriptures. As for Scripture (say you) we ever extol it above the Definitions of the Church: What, ever! Do you think we have forgot the brave comparisons which have been made by your Writers, to shew the respect you bear to the Scriptures? Is it not much for the honour of the Scriptures, Hermannus ait, Scripturas valere quantum fabulas Aesopi, si deftituantur Ecclesiae autoritate: referente Brentio. V. Bailly tract. 1. q. 17. Sunt Scripturae, quidam velut nasus cereus, qui se horsum, illorsum, trahi retrahi, fingi que facilè permittit. Albert. Pighius. Hierarch. l. 3. c 3. Etiamsi scriptura dicat, libros Prophetarum & Apostolorum esse divinos, tamen non credam esse, n…si prius hoc credidero Scripturam esse divinam: nam in Alcorano Ma…umetis, passim legimus ipsum Alcoranum de coelo à Deo missum, & tamen ei non credimus. De verbo Dei. l. 4. c. 4. Scriptura debet ab Ecclesiâ regulari, & non contra. Caranza Controv. 1. Pigh. Controvers. l. 1 c. 2. Valent. l. 4. c. 2. de Analys. Fid. Bellarm. l. 4. c. 12. de verbo Dei.to be said to have no more Authority than Aesops Fables, without the Testimony of the Church? Did not those extoll it above the Church, who call'd it, A Nose of Wax? And were not these some of you? Doth not Bellarmine profess his high esteem of the Scriptures, when he saith, That the Scripture is no more to be believed, in saying, It is from God, than Mahomets Alcoran, because that saies so too? Did not Caranza preferr the Scripture before the Church, when he said, That the Scripture must be regulated by the Church, and not the Church by the Scripture? I need not mention Eckius his Evangelium nigrum and Theologia atramentaria, Pighius his plumbea Lesbiae regula, Valentia his Lapis Offensionis, Bellarmin's Commonitorium utile, which, and many others, are remaining Testimonies of that monstruous esteem, which those of your party have of the sacred Scriptures. But, if the esteem you have of the Scriptures be so great, Why lock you them up so carefully from the people in an unknown language? Is it, lest such Jewels should lose their lustre by too often using? Why are you so severe against your Proselytes reading them, Is it because you would not cast Pearls before Swine?

But still you extol the Scripture above the Definitions of the Church: How is that possible, when you tell us, The only Authority it hath, is from the Churches Testimony? For the Authority of it supposeth it to be acknowledged for a Divine Revelation, and that, you tell us, we can have no Assurance of, but from your Churches Definition: And we had thought, that which gave Credit and Authority, had been greater than that which received it. There can be then little reason to take your word in a case of this nature, when your very next words give so palpable a reason to the contrary. For you suppose the Scripture unable to express it self to any intent or purpose, unless your Church be the Interpreter. For the Scripture, say you, being in many places obscure, we cannot be certain of its true sense, without p. 149the help of a living and infallible Judge, to determine and declare it; which can be no other than the present Church. I answer. 1. Your meaning is not so plain, but that it wants the interpretation of your Church too. For what do you understand by the Scriptures being in many places obscure? Is it only, that there are some passages which have their difficulties in them? But what is this to the purpose, unless you could prove, that this obscurity is such as hinders it from being a Rule of Faith and Manners? If you prove that, you do something. The Scripture we acknowledge hath its difficulties in it, but not such as hinder the great design God intended it for; no more than the maculae which are in the Sun, hinder it from giving light to the world; or some crabbed pieces in our Laws hinder them from being owned as the Laws of the Land. 2. Are those places obscure or no, which speak of the Churches Infallibility? at least such as you produce for it afterwards? This is evident, that there are no places whose sense is more controverted than theirs: Can these then be understood without a living and infallible Judge, or no? If they may, so as we may be certain of their true sense, then why not all others which concern the Rule of Faith and manners, whose sense is far less disputed than of these? If not, then we must suppose a living and infallible Judge, before we know whether there is such a one or no: For that is the thing enquired after in the meaning of these places, and you say, We cannot be certain of their sense without him, so that we must first suppose the thing to be true, and then prove it; or else you run back again into your old Labyrinth. How know you that God hath promised, there shall be such an infallible Judge? By such places (say you) as you produce for it. Well, but the Scripture being in many places obscure, How shall I be certain this is the true sense of them? You say, because the present Church is the living and infallible Judge to determine and declare it. Do not you herein argue like a man, that can square Circles? 3. In those places whose sense, you say, is so obscure, Where hath God made it necessary for us to have the certain sense of them? You can have no pretence for all this for an infallible Judge, unless you could make it evident, that God hath left no mysteries in his Word, but he hath left your Church a Key to unlock them; and therefore, I hope, there is a Clavis Apocalyptica too hanging at your Churches Girdle. It is true indeed, your Church is happily instrumental in explaining a mystery spoken of in Scripture, but not much for your comfort, it is a mystery of Iniquity. But in good earnest, do you think That God hath promised a living and infallible Judge to make us certain of the sense of obscure places in Scripture? Then two things will necessarily follow from thence. 1. That it must be necessary, that all those that believe this infallible Judge must know the certain sense of these obscure places. 2. That this infallible Judge must give the certain sense of these places. But then, Why hath your present Church so neglected her Talent this way, that she hath not decided all the Controversies concerning the difficiliora loca. Such a Commentary as this were worth inquiring after. But yet, supposing your Church had done this, Could we be more certain of the sense of your Church, then we are now of the Scriptures? I will suppose your Church so charitable, as to put so useful a thing in writing, for the general good of the world: But all Writings (you tell us) are obscure, and want a living Judge to interpret them; and so consequently must that, and so in infinitum. But 4. All this while it is worth understanding, how you preferr the Scripture before the Church, when you make the Church the living and infallible Judge, to interpret the Scriptures. You make the Scripture p. 150a de…d Letter, but your Church is a living Judge, you make the sense of Scripture obscure, uncertain, and therefore giving occasion to all the errours in the world, but your Church is infallible, to determine all Controversies, and yet for all this, you preferr the Scripture before the Church. It is plain, you do not, in regard of evidence and certainty; and, one would have thought, these had been the greatest Excellencies of a Rule of Faith. Do you preferr it as such before your Church? If not, you deny it the peculiar property and design of it; and therefore whatever else you attribute to it, you are guilty of the highest disparagement of it. Just as if one should commend a Mathematicians Square for the materials of it, or the Excellency of the Figures engraven on it; but, in the mean time, tell him, It is oblique, crooked, uncertain, and he cannot draw a straight line by it: Do you think he would believe you commended his Square? Just so do you commend the Scriptures; and can you then imagine, that any rational man will believe, that you do preferr the Scriptures before the present Church?

It is next to be considered, what respect remains due to general Councils, if the present Church be supposed infallible.§. 21. For (say you) though you willingly submit to them all, P. 61.yet where they happen to be obscure in matters requiring Determination, we seek the assistance and direction of the same living infallible Rule, viz. the Tradition, or the Sentence of the present Church. But 1. You say, You submit to them all: but, Do you submit to them all as infallible, or no? which you must of necessity do, or else apparently contradict your self (which yet is no novelty for you to do) for you spend a great deal of pains to prove general Councils infallible; and therefore I hope you own them as infallible your self. If you own them to be infallible, what need of the sentence of the present Church, as to those Decrees which you already acknowledge infallible. Or, do you really own them no further to be infallible, than as they agree with the sentence of the present Church? and then, I pray, What doth the pretended Infallibility of general Councils signifie, if your Church give all the Authority to them? And what consents with your Church is infallible, and what doth not, is far from being so. 2. You say, General Councils may happen to be obscure in matters requiring Determination; Do you mean, in things decreed by them or not? If not, it is no wonder if they be obscure in matters they never meddle with; therefore, I suppose, you mean in things determined by them. Then I further ask, Whether these Decrees of general Councils, were the Sentence of the present Church, to those who lived in the time of those Councils? If they were, How could the Sentence of the present Church declare and determine the sense of what is obscure in Scripture, if, notwithstanding this Determination, the Sentence of the Church remains as obscure, as the sense of the Scripture? If it was not obscure then, but is so now, Whence comes that obscurity? the Sentence of the Council is supposed to be written then, that those who were not present at it might understand the Decree of it; and it is supposed we have the very same Authentical Decrees of Councils, which they had who lived in the several Ages of them. How come they then to be more obscure to us, than they were to them? 3. What do you mean by matters requiring Determination? Is it not enough that things be infallibly determined once, but they must be determined over again. If the former Determination were infallible, what need any more? or doth the Infallibility cease as soon as the Church ceaseth to be the present Church, and then that which comes to be the present p. 151Church, must convey an Infallibility into it; but how comes any thing which was once infallible, to lose its Infallibility? which is a thing really so obscure, that your present Church would do well to help us out in it. But if, notwithstanding all your pretence of the Infallibility of general Councils, nothing is truly to be owned as such, but what agrees with the Sentence of the present Church, then we plainly see, what reverence you shew to all general Councils, even as much as the present Church will let you, and no more, which, supposing it never so great, is not shewed to the Councils, but to your Church. For, the reason of that Reverence cannot be resolved into the Councils, but into that Church for whose sake you reverence them. And thus it evidently appears, That the cunning of this device is wholly your own, and notwithstanding these miserable shifts, you do finally resolve all Authorities of the Fathers, Councils, and Scriptures, into the Authority of the present Roman-Church; which was the thing to be proved.

The first Absurdity consequent from hence,§. 22. which the Arch-Bishop chargeth your party with, is, That by this means they ascribe as great Authority (if not greater) to a part of the Catholick Church, as to the whole, which we believe in our Creed; and which is the Societie of all Christians. And this is full of Absurdity in nature, in reason, in all things, that any part should be of equal worth, power, credit, or authority with the whole. Here you deny the Consequence, which, you say, depends upon his Lordships wilfully mistaken Notion of the Catholick Church; which he saith, Is the Church we believe in our Creed, and is the Society of all Christians; which (you call) a most desperate extension of the Church; because thereby (forsooth) it will appear, that a part is not so great as the whole, viz. that the Roman-Church, in her full latitude, is but a piece or parcel of the Catholick Church believed in our Creed. Is this all the desperate Absurdity, which follows from his Lordships Answer? I pray, shew it to have any thing tending to an Absurdity in it? And though you confidently tell us, That the Roman-Church, taken as comprizing all Christians that are in her Communion, is the sole and whole Catholick Church; yet I will contentedly put the whole issue of the cause upon the proof of this one Proposition, that the Roman-Church in its largest sense, is the sole and whole Catholick Church; or that the present Roman-Church is a sound member of the Catholick Church. Your evidence from Ecclesiastical History, is such as I fear not to follow you in; but, I beseech you, have a care of treading too near the Apostles heels: That any were accounted Catholicks meerly for their Communion with the Roman-Church; or that any were condemned for Heresie or Schism purely for their dissent from it; prove it when you please, I shall be ready (God willing) to attend your Motions. But it is alwaies your faculty, when a thing needs proving most, to tell us what you could have done: This, you say, You would have proved at large, if his Lordship had any more than supposed the contrary: But your Readers will think, that his Supposition, being grounded on such a Maxim of Reason, as that, mentioned by him, it had been your present business to have proved it: but I commend your prudence in adjourning it; and, I suppose, you will do it, as the Court of Areopagus used to do hard causes, in diem longissimum. It is apparent, the Bishop speaks not of a part of the Church by representation of the whole, which is an objection no body but your self would here have fancied; and therefore your Instance of a Parliament is nothing to the purpose, unless you will suppose, that Councils in the Church do represent in such a manner as Parliaments in p. 152England do; and that their decision is obligatory in the same way as Acts of Parliament are: if you believe this to be good Doctrine, I will be content to take the Objecters place, and make the Application.

The next Absurdity laid to your charge, is, as you summe it up, That in your Doctrine concerning the Infallibility of your Church, … 62.your proceeding is most unreasonable, in regard you will not have recourse to Texts of Scripture, exposition of Fathers, propriety of Language, Conference of Places, Antecedents and Consequents, &c. but argue, that the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome, is true and Catholick, because she professeth it to be such, which, saith he, is to prove idem per idem. To this you answer, That as to all those helps, you use them with much more candour than Protestants do: And, why so? Because of their manifold wrestings of Scriptures and Fathers. Let the handling the Controversies of this Book, be the evidence between us in this case, and any indifferent Reader be the Judge. You tell us, You use all these helps: but to what purpose do you use them? Do you by them prove the Infallibility of your Church? If not, the same Absurdity lyes at your door still, of proving idem per idem. No, that you do not, you say? But how doth it appear? Thanks to these mute persons, the good Motives of Credibility, which come in again at a dead lift, but do no more service than before. I pray, cure the wounds they have received already, before you rally them again, or else, I assure you, what strength they have left, they will employ it against your selves. You suppose, no doubt, your Coleworts good, you give them us so often over; but I neither like proving nor eating idem per idem.

§. 23.But yet we have two Auxiliaries more in the field, call'd Instances. The design of your first Instance, is, to shew, That if your Church be guilty of proving idem per idem, the Apostolical Church was so too. For you tell us, That a Sectary might, in the Apostles times, have argued against the Apostolical Church, by the very same method his Lordship here uses against the present Catholick Church. P. 62, 63 n. 5.For, if you ask the Christians then, Why they believe the whole Doctrine of the Apostles, to be the sole true Catholick Faith, their Answer is, Because it is agreeable to the Doctrine of Christ. If you ask them, How they know it to be so, they will produce the words, sentences, and works of Christ, who taught it. But, if you ask a third time, By what means they are assured, that those Testimonies do indeed make for them or their cause, or are really the Testimonies and Doctrine of Christ, they will not then have recourse to those Testimonies or Doctrine, but their Answer is, They know it to be so, because the present Apostolick Church doth witness it. And so by consequence prove idem per idem. Thus the Sectary. I know not whether your faculty be better at framing Questions or Answers to them; I am sure it is extraordinary at both. Is it not enough to be in a Circle your selves, but you must needs bring the Apostles into it too? at least, if you may have the management of their Doctrine, you would do it. The short Answer to all this, is, That the ground why the Christians did assent to the Apostles Doctrine, as true, was, because God gave sufficient evidence, that their Testimony was infallible; in such things where such Infallibility was requisite. For you had told us before, That the Apostles did confirm their words with signs that followed, P. 56.by which signs all their hearers were bound to submit themselves unto them, and to acknowledge their words for infallible Oracles of Truth. Was not here then sufficient ground for assent in the Primitive Christians, to the Apostles Doctrine? Not as you weakly imagine, because the Doctrine of the Apostles was suitable to the Doctrine of Christ; p. 153for the ground why they assented to the Doctrine of Christ, was, because of the Testimony of the Apostles. And therefore, to say, They believed the Doctrine of the Apostles, because it was agreeable to the Doctrine of Christ, and then that they believed the Doctrine of Christ, because it was suitable to the Testimony of the Apostles, is a Circle fit for none but your self, and that silly person of your own moulding, whom you call the Sectary. It were worth considering too, How the works of Christ could prove the Doctrine of the Apostles suitable to his own. I had thought Christs works had proved his own Testimony to be true, and not the Apostles Doctrine to be consonant to his: The works of Christ shew us the reason, why he was to be believed in what he delivered; and did not the works of the Apostles do so too? What need then any rational person enquire further, why the Apostles Doctrine was to be believed? Was it not on the same account that the Doctrine of Christ was to be believed? But, say you, How should you know their Doctrine was the same. What, do you want an infallible Testimony for this too? or, do you believe that God can contradict himself; or that Christ should send such to deliver his Doctrine to the world, and attest it with miracles who should falsifie and corrupt it? Now, you will say, I am come over to you, and answer as you do, that the Apostles Testimony was to be believed, because of the pregnant and convincing Motives of Credibility. This, I grant; but must be excused as to what follows, That these same Motives moved the Primitive Christians, and us, in our respective times, to believe the Church. Prove but that, and I yield the cause. But till then, I pray, give us leave to believe that still you prove idem per idem; and your Answers are like your Proofs; for this we have had often already, and have sufficiently examined before: as likewise your other Coccysm about the Formal Object of Faith, and certain inducements to accept the Churches Infallibility; which I shall not think worth repeating, till you think what I have said against it before, worth answering.

Your second Instance is, ad hominem; whereby you would prove, That if he acknowledge the Church infallible in Fundamentals, P. 63.he must prove idem per idem, as much as you do. For (say you) if he be demanded a reason why he believes such Points as he calls Fundamental, his Answer is, because they are agreeable to the Doctrine of Christ. If he be asked, How he knows them to be so, he will, no doubt, produce the words, sentences and works of Christ, who taught the said Fundamental Points. But, if he be asked a third time, By what means he is assured, that these Testimonies do make for him, then he will not have recourse to the words themselves, i. e. to the Bible, but his final Answer will be, He knows them to be so, and that they do make for him, because the present Church doth infallibly witness so much from Tradition, and according to Tradition, which is (say you) to prove idem per idem, as much as we. Things are not alwaies just as you would have them: If we allow you to make both Objections and Answers for us, no doubt you are guilty of no Absurdity so great, but we shall be equally guilty of it. But, it is the nature both of your Religion and Arguments not to be able to stand a Tryal: but however, they must undergo it. I say then, that granting the Church infallible in the belief of Fundamentals, it doth not follow that we must prove idem per idem, as you do. For, when we ask you, Why you believe your Doctrine to be the sole Catholick Faith, your final Answer is, because your Church is infallible; which is answering by the very thing in Question, for you have no other way to judge of the Catholick Faith, but by the Infallibility of your Church; but when you ask us, Why we believe such an Article to be Fundamental; as for Instance, That Christ will p. 154give Eternal Life to them that obey him, we answer, not because the Church, which is infallible in Fundamentals, delivers it to be so, which were answering idem per idem; but we appeal to that common reason which is in mankind, Whether, if the Doctrine of Christ be true, this can be other than a Fundamental Article of it; it being that, without which the whole design of Christian Religion comes to nothing. Therefore you much mistake, when you think we resolve our Faith of Fundamentals into the Church as the infallible Witness of them; for, though the Church may be infallible in the belief of all things Fundamental (for otherwise it were not a Church, if it did not believe them) it doth not thence necessarily follow, That the Church must infallibly witness what is Fundamental, and what not. It is sufficient that the Church doth deliver from the consent of universal Tradition, that infallible Rule of Faith (which, to be sure, contains all things Fundamental in it) though she never meddle with the deciding what Points are Fundamental, and what not. If you therefore ask me, Why I believe any Point supposed Fundamental, I answer, By all the evidence which assures me, that the Doctrine containing that Point, is of Divine Revelation; If you aske me, How I know that this Point is part of that Doctrine, I appeal to the common sense and reason of the world, as to things plainly Fundamental, and therefore by this means your third Question is prevented, How I know this to be the meaning of those words; for, I suppose, no one that can tell, that two and two make four, can question but if the Doctrine of Christ be true, the belief of it is necessary to Salvation, which is it we mean by Fundamental. Either therefore prove it necessary, that the Church must infallibly witness what is Fundamental, and what not; and that we must rely on such a Testimony in the belief of Fundamentals, or you prove nothing at all to your purpose, no more than your convincing Motives of Credibility, which, were they made into a grand Sallad, would know the way to the Table, they are served so often up: But, I have found them so dry, and insipid already, I have no encouragement to venture on them any more.

But, still you are deservedly afraid we should not think worthily enough of your Churches Infallibility.§. 24. You therefore tell us very wisely, that this Infallibility is not a thing,P. 63. l. 50. that is not infallible; For, say you, Which Infallibility must come from the Holy Ghost, and be more than humane or moral, and therefore must be truly supernatural, &c. It is well you tell us of such a rare distinction of Infallibility; for else, I assure you, we had never thought of it, viz. of an Infallibility that may be deceived, and an Infallibility that cannot be deceived, or, in your words, a humane and moral Infallibility, and a supernatural divine Infallibility. To ease you therefore of your fears, I solemnly promise you, that when I believe your Church infallible, I will not believe it to have a humane, moral Infallibility, but supernatural and divine. That is, when I believe her infallible, I believe her infallible. Your mind being eased of this grand fear, you think all the difficulty is over, and that you are out of any possibility of a Circle; but, I have endeavoured before to shew, you are not infallible in that: For the charge you exhibit against the Bishop, as though you had left him tumbling in the Circle you had so easily got out of; I shall consider it in its due time and place; but, if one may guess at being in a Circle by tumbling, you will not seem very free from it, who seem to be at very little ease by your impatience of being held to the subject in hand.

Well, but yet our Conceptions must once more be rectified as to the p. 155nature of this Infallibility; before our danger was least, we should have believed it to be only a humane, moral, and not supernatural Infallibility, P. 64. n. 6.and now we are bid have a care lest we think it to be any more, than in a sort, and in some manner divine. But, what kind of transcendental thing is this Infallibility? It is not humane, nor yet divine, and yet it is supernatural; which is scarce in some sort, or in a manner sense. How comes it to be supernatural, if it be not divine? Or, is it naturally supernatural, and humanely divine? It must not then be called divine, but, in a manner, and after a sort: But yet (say you) so far as concerns precise Infallibility, or certain Connexion with Truth, it is so truly supernatural and certain, that in this respect it yields nothing to the Scripture it self. These are your own words: And if you did not believe Transubstantiation, I should think this the greatest non-sense in the world. But, What doth that Infallibility which is more than in a sort divine, import beyond what you assert doth belong to the Church? Is that any more than precise Infallibility, and certain Connexion with Truth, and such as is in the Scripture, and all this your Church hath, and yet, when we say so, she drops a Court…sie, and cryes, No, forsooth, though she be infallible, yet she desires to be excused, she is not infallible, but only as if one should say in a manner, and after a sort, and so forth. Just as if one should ask a new married woman, Whether she were certainly married to such a man, and she should answer as to what concerns marrying, she was certainly married, but yet she was not absolutely married, but only in a manner, and after a sort. This is so great a mystery, you will oblige the world much to inform it a little more fully in these following Questions, What kind of Infallibility that is, which is supernatural, and by the assistance of the Holy Ghost, which is equal to the Scripture it self in point of Certainty and Infallibility (your own words) and yet is divine, but in a manner, P. 64. l. 46.and after a sort: And what way we should come to understand that manner and sort, and what degrees and sorts there are in Infallibility? Whether any thing, so far as it is infallible, be not absolutely, as well as precisely infallible; and whether that which is but in a sort divine, be not in a sort not divine; Whether that which is in a sort not divine, be not likewise in the same sort not infallible (since all this Infallibility, by your own Confession, is from the Holy Ghost) and whether this be not an excellent way in a manner, and after a sort, to reconcile Contradictions. For, if a man should ask you, Whether one might be, and not be, at the same time; you might easily tell him, That absolutely and precisely he cannot be, and not be; but in a manner, and after a sort, he may be, and not be, together. You have cause therefore to make much of this distinction, and you never need fear baffling, as long as you carry it about with you; it is a most excellent preservative against all the batteries of sense and reason. But lest yet, for all this, we should apprehend something by this in a manner, and after a sort, as though they were some odd diminishing terms: You tell us, No; Catholick Divines, by this manner of speaking, do not intend to deny the Church to be equal even to Scripture it self in point of Certainty and Infallibility. Ibid.What is now become of our manner and sort, when the Church dares justle with the Scripture for the upper hand, at least for an equal place as to Infallibility? What then is the intent of this distinction? It is to shew the prerogatives of Scripture above the Definitions of the Church. This doth well however to follow the rest, it comes so near to a contradiction, for if the Church be equal to Scripture in point of Certainty and Infallibility, What prerogative can be left to the Scripture above the Church? when that p. 156which makes it Scripture, and the Rule of Faith is only its Certainty and Infallibility? Yes, you tell us, The Scripture doth much exceed the Church in regard of its larger extent of Truth: because there not only every reason, but every word and tittle is matter of Faith; but in the Definitions of the Church, neither the arguments, reasons, nor words, are absolutely speaking matters of Faith, but only the thing declared to be such. Excellent good still, and all of a piece! I commend you, that you would not offer to mix any thing of sense in so good a discourse: For 1. How comes the Scripture to have a larger extent of Truth, than the Church, if we cannot know what Truth is in the Scripture, but from the Church? 2. How every word and tittle comes to be matter of Faith in Scripture, and not in the Church, when you say, The Church is equal to the Scripture in point of Certainty and Infallibility? 3. How any word and tittle can be any where a matter of Faith? I had thought, it had been the sense and thing understood by those words, had been matters of Faith; and then it is all one with the Scripture and Church, for you say, as to the Church, the thing declared is a matter of Faith? 4. What that thing is, which is declared by the Church, which is neither arguments, reasons nor words; and if it doth consist of these, how one can be believed, and not the other: Doth your Church declare things so nakedly as to do it without arguments, reasons or words? That she can do it without words, it is hard to believe, but very easie, that she can do it without arguments or reasons. 5. Are men bound to believe what she so declares, without arguments and reasons too? If they be, shew whence that Obligation comes; and when you attempt that, you endeavour to shew some argument and reason why they should believe it. 6. What do you mean, that these arguments, reasons and words, are not absolutely speaking matters of Faith, it should seem then, that conditionally they may be so, and then shew the difference between them, and those in Scripture. 7. How is it possible for us to assent to any thing as a matter of Faith, if we do not first assent to the arguments, reasons and words, by which you would perswade us to believe the thing to be declared by the Church, and what is declared by the Church is true. 8. Whether, when you say, That in the Scripture every word and tittle is matter of Faith, at least implicitely, and necessarily to be believed by all that knew it to be a part of Scripture; this will not equally hold as to the Church too, that every word and tittle, Ibid.is matter of Faith, at least implicitely to all that know it to be a part of the Churches Definition? And where then lyes the prerogative of Scripture above the Church? Besides, you tell us, The Church hath certain limits, and can define nothing, but what was either revealed before, or hath such connexion with it, as it may be rationally and logically deduced from it, as appertaining to the Declaration and Defence of that which was before revealed. That herein you consult much for the honour of the Scripture above the Church, will appear when you have answered these Queries. 1. When the belief and sense of Scripture depend according to you, upon the Churches Testimony, Whether hath more limits, the Church or Scripture? For, whatever is in Scripture, must as to us ha…e its Authority from the Church; and therefore your Church sets what bounds she please as to things revealed in Scripture. 2. Who shall be Judge, whether your Church define nothing but what was revealed before, when, according to you, we can have no assurance as to any Divine Revelation, but from the Judgement of your Church? 3. When your Church defines things to be matters of Faith, which we think are not only not logically and p. 157rationally deduced from Scripture, but plainly repugnant to it. How can we believe that she doth not pretend to reveal something which was not revealed before? 4. Is that rational and logical deduction from Scripture sufficient to perswade any rational man or no? If not, Why use you those terms? if it be, What need your Churches Definition, in a thing that is obvious to any ones reason? 5. Must we believe your Church absolutely, as to what is rationally and logically deduced from Scripture? If so, then, when she declares her own Infallibility, we must believe that to be rationally deduced, because she declares it. 6. Doth your Church make use of Logick and Reason in her deductions? then, Why may not every one else, unless she hath only the gift of Logick and Reason, which, I suppose, you will say, is but in a manner, and after a sort.

Moreover, say you, The Church hath the receiving and interpreting Scripture for its end; and consequently is in that respect inferiour to it. But, for whose end do you mean? the Churches, or the Scriptures end? If the latter; Shew us how any end of Scripture is attained by your Churches interpretation; if you mean the Churches end, I verily believe you; that your Church pretends to the receiving and interpreting Scripture for her own ends, and consequently, in that respect,P. 64▪ she makes the Scripture inferiour to her.

Here again we meet with another piece of your Errantry, in attempting to vindicate your Doctrine from the enchantment of another contradiction. You say, You hold it necessary, that we are to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God upon Divine Authority; and yet, you tell us▪ That the Churches Authority, on which we are to believe the Scriptures is but in some sort, and after a manner Divine. This seems to have a huge resemblance to a Contradiction; or else you must say, That it is not necessary that we believe the Scriptures on a simply Divine Authority, but only on such a one as is in some sort, and after a manner Divine: For, if you make the same Authoririty to be Divine absolutely in your pretence, and only after a sort in your Application you reach not the thing you promised. If there be not, as you say, any necessity of defending the Churches Authority to be simply Divine, in answering that Question, How we know Scripture to be Scripture, then there can be no necessity of asserting, that we are bound to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God upon Divine Authority? Which yet is your assertion before; but yet you would fain distinguish between▪ that which is absolutely infallible and divine, the Churches Authority (you say) must be the former, but cannot be the latter; when yet this Infallibility is, as you again tell us, By the promised assistance of the Holy Ghost. These are fit hedges to keep in Cuckows, but none else.§. 25.

But, as you are still off and on, sometimes seeming to go forward, and then stepping back again; sometimes answering, sometimes proving, which are great arguments of a disturbed mind, or a being in a Labyrinth, which you take many steps in, but can find no way out of, lest you should seem not sufficiently to contradict your self: You go about to prove, That the Authority, teaching Scripture to be the Word of God, must be absolutely infallible; If you prove that, I will undertake to prove it must be simply Divine: But, let us see however, how irrefragably you prove it.P. 65 l. 8. And the immediate Reason, Why the Authority teaching Scripture to be the Word of God, must be absolutely infallible, is, because it is an Article of Christian Faith, that all those Books which the Church hath defined for Canonical Scripture, are the Word of God; and seeing every Article of Faith must be revealed, or p. 158taught by Divine Authority, this also must be revealed, and consequently no Authority less than Divine, is sufficient to move us to believe it as an Article of Faith. But 1. Is it not possible for you to utter so many words without a contradiction? Were you not just before distinguishing that Authority which is Divine, from that which is absolutely infallible; and but in a manner, and after a sort Divine? And yet here, that Authority which you call absolutely infallible, in the former part of your Argument; in the last you explain it, No Authority less than Divine; Doth it not then follow, that an Authority absolutely infallible, is an Authority no less than Divine. But to let that pass among the rest of his Brethren. 2. Why take you this needless pains to prove that which you say before, You and your Adversary are agreed in. 3. Supposing you should meet with some who should question this, as it is probable you may do before we part; I think it no difficult thing to answer this Argument of yours, which, in short, is, Every Article of Faith must be believed upon Divine Authority, but that the Scriptures are the Word of God, is an Article of Faith. To which I answer, If by an Article of Faith, you mean, that we must give an undoubted assent to, then I grant, that this is an Article of Faith, but deny, that every such Article must be believed upon Divine Authority; if by an Article of Faith you mean something to be believed upon Divine Testimony, then I grant, that every such Article must be built on Divine Authority, but shall desire you to prove, that that Faith whereby I believe Scripture to be Scripture, must be built on a Divine Testimony. For, I cannot see, how any, who say so, can free themselves from a Circle: and of all persons, you have the least reason to say so; for you deny the Churches Testimony to be properly Divine, and withall the Argument is very easily retorted upon your self. For, say you, Whatsoever is an Article of Faith, must be believed on Divine Authority, but that the Church is infallible, I suppose, to you is an Article of Faith: Name therefore what Divine Authority the belief of that is built upon? But, Do not you say, the belief of that is built on the Motives of Credibility, and, I suppose, you distinguish them from Divine Authority, or else they can do you no service for avoiding the Circle: Either therefore deny that your Churches Infallibility is an Article of Faith, or else deny it to be necessary, that every Article of Faith, must be built on Divine Authority, and then farewell your old friends the Motives of Credibility; or else, you see, how necessary it is for you, if you will vindicate your self from contradiction, to answer this Argument, and when you have done so, you will believe I did not much dread the force of it. The rest of that Paragraph, is a bare Repetition, the fourth or fifth time of your distinction about the Formal Object of Faith, and the infallible Assurance of it, which is a thing in it self so incongruous, and unreasonable, that I had thoughts mean enough of you,P. 64 n. 6. when I met with it first; but have much meaner, now I meet with it so often, for I see, as pitiful a shift as it is, you have no other to make use of on all occasions.

His Lordship goes on to prove that, since it is confessed between him and his Adversary, That we must be able to prove the Scriptures to be the Word of God, by some Authority that is absolutely Divine; this Authority cannot be that of the Church. P. 65.For the Church consists of men subject to errour; and all the parts being all liable to mistaking, and fallible, the whole cannot possibly be infallible in and of it self, and priviledged from being deceived in some things or other. To this you answer, His Lordship's Argument (that the whole may erre, because every part may erre) is disproved by himself; because in Fundamentals p. 159he grants the whole Church cannot erre, and yet that any particular man may erre even in those points. But, is it not plain, that his Lordship's design is to prove, that if all the parts are fallible, the Authority of the whole cannot be simply Divine; and therefore he saith himself, that in Fundamentals, in which the Vniversal Church cannot erre, her Authority is not Divine, because the Church is tyed to the use of means. You must therefore prove, that when every part is acknowledged fallible, the Authority of the whole in propounding any thing to be believed, can be infallible in and of it self: I cannot therefore understand, how the perfection of Infallibility in the proposition of any Object to be believed, can be applied to the whole Church, when every particular member of it in such a Proposition is supposed to be fallible. The Arch-Bishop therefore tells you, P. 65.That there is special immediate Revelation requisite to the very least degree of Divine Authority; to avoid which, you would fain prove, that there may be absolute Infallibility, without Divine Authority, and immediate Assistance of the Holy Ghost, in delivering Objects of Faith, without immediate Revelation. You tell us therefore, Though the Church use means, yet she receives not her Infallibility from them, but from the Assistance of the Holy Ghost, which makes her Definitions truly infallible, though they be not new Revelations. But, How do you prove, that any thing but an immediate Divine Revelation, can make such a Divine Testimony which is supposed necessary for the belief of Scripture to be Scripture? How can you make it appear, that there can be Infallibility in the Conclusion, where there was not Infallibility in judging of the Truth of the Premises? You say, By the Assistance of the Holy Ghost. But why should you not believe such an Assiance in the one, as well as the other? If therefore you assert, that the Spirit of God doth not assist infallibly in the use of the means, but only in the conclusion, then it must be an immediate Revelation; for what else it should be, is not intelligible. For, I had thought the Revelation had been immediate, when somewhat more was discovered than all use of means could attain to: therefore the Churches Infallibility must be a meer Enthusiasm. No, say you, Because it only declares what was formerly revealed. Though that be a Question among some of your selves; yet, supposing it to be so, it clears not the business. For, suppose that God had supernaturally assisted the Vnderstanding of any Prophet in declaring a Prophecy which had been revealed before, Would not this have been as immediate a Revelation to that Prophet, as if it had been a New Prophecy: And the case is the same here; for, though you say, the Material Objects of Faith be revealed before, yet we cannot know the Formal Object of Faith, without your Churches declaration, so that on your Principles there cannot lye an Obligation to Faith on us, without your Churches Definition; and therefore that is as necessary to us, as immediate Revelation; and to the Church it self, when you say, The Infallibility proceeds so immediately from God, that if the Church should fall into errour, that would be ascribed to God as much as in case of Divine Revelation, What difference can you make between them? For, it is not, Whether the Object be new or old, which makes an immediate Revelation; but the immediate Impression of it on the understanding? For if the Spirit of God doth immediately discover to any one, a thing knowable by natural causes, is it any thing the less an immediate Divine Revelation? So it must be in things already revealed, if the same things be discovered in an immediate infallible manner to p. 160the mind of any, the Revelation is as immediate as if they had never been revealed before.

Your last Paragraph affords us still more evidence of your self-contradicting faculty; for which we need no more than lay your words together. Your words next before were, If the Church should fall into errour, it would be as much ascribed to God himself, as in case of immediate Divine Revelation; but here you add; Neither is it necessary for us to affirm, that the Definition of the Church, is God's immediate Revelation; as, if the Definition were false, God's Revelation must be also such: It is enough for us to averr, that God's Promise would be infringed, as truly it would in that Supposition. From which we may learn very useful instructions. 1. That God's Promise may he infringed, and yet God's Revelation not proved to be false: But whence came that Promise? Was it not a Divine Revelation? if it was undoubtedly such, Can such a Promise be false, and not God's Revelation? 2. That though if the Church erre, God must be fallible, yet for all this, all God's Revelations may remain infallible. 3. That though the only ground of Infallibility be the immediate Assistance of the Holy Ghost, which gives as great an Infallibility, as ever was in Prophets and Apostles; yet we must not say, That such an Infallibility doth suppose an immediate Revelation. 4. That though God's Veracity would be destroyed, if the Church should define any thing for a point of Catholick Faith, which were not revealed from God, which are your next words; yet we are not to think, if her Definition be false, God's Revelation must be also such, which are your words foregoing. Those are excellent Corollaries to conclude so profound a discourse with. And, if the Bishop (as you say) had little reason to accuse you for maintaining a party; I am sure, I have less to admire you, for your seeking Truth; and what ever animosity you are led by, I hope I have made it evident, you are led by very little reason.