The Grounds of Protestant Religion, Part 2 · Chapter 2
CHAP. II. Protestants no Schismaticks.
Schism a culpable separation; therefore the Question of Schism, must be determined by enquiring into the causes of it. The plea from the Church of Rome's being once a right Church, considered. No necessity of assigning the punctual time when errours crept into her. An account why the originals of errours seem obscure. By Stapleton's confession, the Roman and Catholick Church were not the same. The falsity of that assertion manifested, That there could be no pure Church since the Apostles times, if the Roman Church were corrupt. No one particular Church free from corruptions; yet no separation from the Catholick Church. How far the Catholick Church may be said to erre. Men may have distinct communion from any one particular Church, yet not separate from the Catholick Church. The Testimony of Petrus de Alliaco vindicated. Bellarmin not mis-cited. Almain full to his Lordships purpose. The Romanists guilty of the present Schism, and not Protestants. In what sense there can be no just cause of Schism; and how far that concerns our case. Protestants did not depart from the Church of Rome, but were thrust out of it. The Vindication of the Church of Rome from Schism, at last depends upon the two false Principles, Of her Infallibility, and being the Catholick Church. The Testimonies of S. Bernard and S. Austin not to the purpose. The Catalogue of Fundamentals, the Churches not erring, &c. referr'd back to their proper places.
§. 1.BEfore I come to examine the particulars of this Chapter, it will be necessary to see, what the state of the Controversie was, concerning Schism, between his Lordship and his Adversary. His Lordship delivers his sense clearly and fully in these words;P. 133. sect. 21. n. …. Tis too true indeed, that there is a miserable rent in the Church, and I make no question but the best men do most bemoan it; nor is he a Christian that would not have Vnity, might he have it with Truth. But, I never said, nor thought, that the Protestants made this rent. The cause of the Schism is yours; for you thrust us from you, because we call'd for truth, and redress of abuses. For a Schism must needs be theirs, whose the cause of it is. The woe runs full out of the mouth of Christ ever against him that gives the offence; not against him that takes it ever. And in the Margent, shewing that a separation may sometimes be necessary, he instanceth in the orthodox departing from the communion of the Arrians: upon which he sayes; It cannot be that a man should do well in making a Schism. There may be therefore a necessary separation, which yet incurrs not the guilt of Schism; and that is, when Doctrines are taught contrary to the Catholick Faith. And after saith, The Protestants did not depart: for, departure is voluntary, P. 135. n. 3.so was not theirs; I say not theirs, taking their whole body and cause together. For, that some among them were peevish, and some ignorantly zealous, is neither to be doubted, nor is there danger in confessing it. Your body is not so perfect (I wot well) but that many amongst you are as pettish and as ignorantly zealous as any of ours. You must not suffer for these, nor we for those, P. 136, n. 4.nor should the Church of Christ for either. And when A. C. saith, That though the Church of Rome did thrust the Protestants from her by excommunication, yet they had first divided themselves by obstinate holding and teaching Opinions contrary to the Roman Faith. His Lordship answers, So then in his Opinion, Excommunication on their part was not the prime cause of this division, but the holding and teaching of contrary Opinions. Why but then in my opinion (saith he) that holding and teaching was not the prime cause neither, but the corruptions and superstitions of Rome, which forced many men to hold and teach the contrary: So, the prime cause was theirs still. P. 142. n. 6.And A. C. telling him, That he said that it was ill done of those who first made the separation. He answers, That though he remembred not that he said those words; yet withall adds, If I did not say it then, I do say it now; and most true it is, That it was ill done of those, whoere they were, who first made the separation. But then A. C. must not understand me of Actual only, but of Causal separation. For (as I said before) the Schism is theirs, whose the cause of it is: and he makes the separation that gives the first just cause of it; not he that makes an actual separation upon a just cause preceding. And this is so evident a Truth, that A. C. cannot deny it, for he sayes it is most true. These passages I have laid together, that the Reader may clearly understand the full state of this great Controversie concerning Schism; the upshot of which, is, that it is agreed between both parties, that all separation from communion with a Church, doth not involve in it the guilt of Schism, but only such a separation as hath no sufficient cause or ground for it. So that the Question comes to this, Whether your Church were not guilty of such errours and corruptions, as gave sufficient cause for such a separation. The Question being thus stated, we now come to consider how you make good your part in it.
Your first pretence is (if reduced into argument,§. 2. for you seem to have a particular pique against a close way of disputing) That your Church is a right and orthodox Church, and therefore could never give any just cause of separation from it. For the Lady asked (as A. C. would have it) Whether the Roman Church was not the right Church; not, be not, but, was not; that is, relating to the times, before the breach was made.P. 131. n. 5. Now his Lordship tells him, That as to the terms he might take his choice; For the Church of Rome neither is, nor was the right Church, as the Lady desired to hear. A particular Church it is, and was, and in some times right, and in some times wrong: but the right Church, or the Holy Catholick Church, it never was, nor ever can be. And therefore was not such before Luther and others left it, or were thrust from it. A particular Church it was; but then A. C. is not distinct enough here neither. For the Church of Rome, both was, and was not a right or orthodox Church before Luther made a breach from it. For the word ante, before, may look upon Rome, and that Church a great way off, or long before; and then in the prime times of it, it was a most right and orthodox Church. But it may look also nearer home, and upon the immediate times before Luther, or some ages before that: and then in those times Rome was a corrupt and tainted Church, far from being Right. And yet both these times, before Luther made his breach. And so he concludes that Section with this clause, That the Roman Church which was once right, is now become wrong, by embracing superstition and errour. And what say you now to all this? Two things you have to return in answer to it, or at least to these two all that you say may be reduced. 1. That if the Roman Church was right once, it is so still. 2. That if the Roman Church were wrong before Luther, the Catholick Church was so too. These two containing all that is said in this case, must be more particularly discussed.
1. That if the Roman was the right Church, it still is so, P. 142.seeing no change can be shewn in her Doctrine. If there have been a change, let it appear when, and in what the change was made. Thus you say: but you know his Lordship never granted, that the Roman Church ever was the right Church (in the sense you take those words for the true Catholick Church;) that it was once a right particular Church he acknowledged, and as such was afterwards tainted with errours and corruptions. If so, you desire to know what these were, and when they came in; to the former I shall reserve an Answer till I come to the third part of my task, where you shall have an account of them; to the latter, the time when these came in, because this is so much insisted on by your party, I shall return you an Answer in this place. And that I shall do in these following Propositions.
1. Nothing can be more unreasonable, than to deny, that errours and corruptions have come into a Church, meerly because the punctual time of their coming in cannot be assigned. For, Will any one question the birth of an Infant, because he cannot know the time of his conception? Will any one deny there are tares in the field, because he did not see them sown? and our Saviour hath told us,Matth. 13.25. That the time of sowing tares by the enemy, was, when the men were asleep. So we say, The errours and corruptions of your Church came in, in a time of great Ignorance, when little notice was taken of them, and few records preserved of those times and all the passages of them. Since Learning and Religion commonly decay and flourish together, How is it possible there should be as exact an account given of the decay of Religion, as of the flourishing of it? Besides, Are there not many things you judge errours and corruptions your selves, which you can give no account when they first entred into the Church? As the necessity of communicating Infants; name us the person who first broached that Doctrine, and the time in which it was first received in the Church? That no souls of men departed, shall see God till the day of resurrection, is, I suppose, with you, an errour; yet it would puzzle you to find out the first Authour of it. So for the rebaptizing Hereticks, and many things of a like nature, it is easier to shew, when they appeared publickly, than when they first came into the Church. And as evident is it, in the decay of the primitive Discipline of the Church, the altering the orders of penitents, and the rites belonging to them, the leaving of the communicatory Letters between Churches, and many other customes of the Church grown into disuse; and yet I suppose you will not presume to name the persons who first altered the former orders of the Church; and methinks, this is as reasonable as the naming the punctual time when other corruptions came in. If you say, the primitive Discipline decayed gradually and insensibly; so say I, that the Churches corruptions came in as the other went out, in the same gradual and insensible manner; and if you cannot name the precise time of the one, it is not reasonable you should expect the other from us.
2. We may have sufficient reason to judge what are errours and corruptions in a Church, though we cannot fix on the time when they came in: Which is, by comparing them with that Rule of Faith which is delivered down by an interrupted tradition to us, and with the practice of the first Ages of the Christian Church. What is apparently contrary to either of these, we have reason to reject, though we cannot determine when it first came in. For as long as these are our certain standards, it matters not who first departed from them, as long as we see that they have departed. But when we own an absolute and infallible Rule of Faith and manners, to question, Whether any thing contrary to it, be an errour or no, because we cannot tell when it first began, would be, as if the Aegyptians, when they saw their Land overflowed by the Nile, should question, Whether it were so or no, because they could not find out the head of Nilus.
3. They who assert their Doctrines and Practices to be Apostolical, are bound to shew the continued succession of them from the Apostles times. And if they fail in this, upon their own principles, they must be errours and corruptions, though the punctual time of their first obtaining in the Church, cannot be set down. Since therefore you affirm, you are bound to prove. If you say, The judgement of your Church being infallible, you need prove no more than that. I answer, you must prove that this Infallibility then, hath been ever received in the Church; but if there be not the least footstep of it in the records of the ancient Church, we justly look on this as an errour of the first magnitude, though we cannot tell you the minute of its first rising.
4. We have sufficient evidence from your selves, that many Doctrines and Practices are owned by you, which are of no great antiquity in the Christian Church. Thus, by the confession of Scotus, Transubstantiation is no elder than the Council of Lateran, Purgatory not much heard of in the primitive Church by the acknowledgement of Bishop Fisher, Communion in one kind confessed by most to be contrary to the primitive practice and institution, Prayer in an unknown tongue can be no elder than the general disuse of the Latin tongue in the Roman Provinces. And so for many others, for which we have the confessions of your own party; but I need not insist upon that, since your very Doctrine of the Churches power to declare matters of Faith, may make things necessary in one Age, which were not in a foregoing, and, in that case, sure it is no great difficulty to tell you, when some things of School-points became necessary Doctrines; but then the Question goes off from the time to the matter, Whether any thing declared by your Church can be an errour: but of that, enough hath been said already.
5. There may be a sufficient account given, why the beginnings of errours and corruptions in your Church have been so obscure; because they came not in all of a sudden, but some at one time, some at another, because they rise gradually, as is apparent in Invocation of Saints, and Worship of Images, because many of those things which ended in great corruptions, were taken up at first out of good designs, to win more upon the Gentile world, because many things were at first practised freely, which afterwards were urged as necessary; because Barbarism came into the Church along with these corruptions; because many who gave occasion to them, were persons of great esteem in their age, and others strove to follow their example more than the Rule; because the state of the Church did very much alter from it self in several ages, which altered mens apprehensions and judgements of things, in regard of their suitableness and necessity; because those persons who brought in, and contended for these things, were the persons chiefly in power then in the Church, which hindered their being cast out of communion as others had been; because a long time most of these errours and corruptions, were but the private opinions and practices of a faction, though then the more prevalent in the Church, and therefore not so vehemently opposed in the first rise of them, as when this imposthumated matter was grown to a head, and then there was a necessity of lancing it. These, and several other reasons might be given, why the first originals of errours and corruptions in your Church, cannot with so much clearness be manifested, as that they were errours and corruptions: Although such, who would take the pains to travel in an argument of that nature, might with very great probability, trace the most both of your errours and corruptions to the time and age, when they were first publickly owned and received. But thus much may here suffice as to your demand, That if your Church be not the same she was, we should mention the time, when the change was made. As though Chronical distempers could not be known, unless we could set down the punctual time of their first on-set. The distempers of your Church are Hectical, I wish not in that respect, that they are seldome fully discovered, till they be incurable.
2. You answer, That if your Church hath erred, the Catholick Church hath done so too;§. 3. for which you say two things. 1. That in this dispute the Roman Church, and the Catholick Church, are all one. 2. That then there was no one visible Church untainted, P. 142. n. 1.uncorrupt, right, orthodox throughout the whole world. 1. You learnedly tell us, That the Roman and Catholick Church are all one in this dispute, and most discreetly tell his Lordship, That he beggs the Question in supposing the contrary; but you know whose arts those are to charge their neighbours with that, they were sure to be told of themselves, if the other had spoke first. But very worthily you prove this, from D. Stapleton, who offers to confirm his assertion by that which overthrows yours. He sayes, That amongst the Ancients, the Roman Church, and the Catholick Church were taken for the same, and his reason is, because the communion of the Roman Church was most certainly and evidently with the whole Catholick. And, Can any thing then be more plain, than that the Roman and Catholick Church were not the same? For, Can any thing be the measure of it self? If it were therefore Catholick, because agreeing with the Catholick Church, then it was not causally the Catholick Church, but only by way of communion and participation. If I should say, That a man and a living-creature, are the same, and should give this reason for it, Because man agrees in every thing with the nature of a living creature; doth this imply, that the formal notion of man, and a living-creature, are the same? or only that man partakes so much of the properties of a living creature, that he may well receive the denomination? So it is here with the Roman Church, that might well be called Catholick by the Ancients, because it did partake of the properties of the Catholick Church, but not as though the formal Reason of a Churches being Catholick, came from partaking of communion with the Roman Church; as you assert, wherein you are diametrically opposite to Stapleton, for he makes the reason, why the Roman Church was Catholick, to be, Because it had communion with the Catholick Church. By which it is evident, that the notion of the Catholick Church was much larger than that of the Roman Church. Besides, Stapleton only saith, That the Ancients thought so, and surely they thought so only of the Roman Church of their own time; which might then have certain communion with the Catholick Church, and yet not have so in the next age ensuing; therefore, though the Catholick Church continue ever the same, and incorrupt, it will by no means follow, that the Roman Church must do so too. Whatever A. C. or you understand by the Catholick Church, is not, as you elsewhere phrase it, a straws matter, unless you proved better than you have done, that the proper notion of the Holy Catholick Church, is the same with those who agree with the Church of Rome in Doctrine and Communion. Which is your fundamental mistake, and a thing you would fain have taken for granted, without the least shadow of a solid proof.
But there may be more force in your second Answer, That if the Roman Church were wrong and corrupted, it follows, that not only for some time, §. 4.P. 143.but for many ages before Luther, yea even up to the Apostles times, there was no one visible Church untainted, uncorrupt, right, orthodox throughout the whole world. It were worth our while to know what you mean by no one Visible Church; Do you think there are, or may be, more Visible Churches than one, taking the Visible Church in its proper sense for the Catholick Visible Church? If this be your meaning in general, how unhappily soever it be expressed, viz. that then it follows, there could be no Visible Church at all with whom we might have communion; I see not how it is proved by what you bring: But if this be all you aim at (for no further your arguments will carry you) that there was no one Visible Church untainted, i. e. no one Church of a distinct communion from other Churches altogether free from errour; I see no such dangerous consequence in the owning it. But if it were so, when Luther began to oppose the corruptions of the Church of Rome, How doth it follow that it must be so even up to the Apostles times? But we ought to see, how you prove your assertion. For if in all those Ages the Roman Church were wrong, corrupted, and tainted; and all those likewise that disagreed from her, viz. Hussites, Albigenses, Waldenses, Wicklevites, Greeks, Abyssins, Armenians, &c. had in them corrupt Doctrine during those ages (as 'tis certain they had, neither could the Relator deny it) I say, If the Roman Church was thus corrupt; it follows, that not only for some time, but for many ages before Luther, yea even up to the Apostles times, there was no one Visible Church untainted, incorrupt, right, and orthodox, throughout the whole world. And consequently, that during the said ages, every good Christian was in conscience obliged in some point of Christian belief or other, to contradict the Doctrine, and desert the communion of all Visible Churches in the world, &c. Whence it would further follow, that Schism or separation from the external communion of the whole Church might be not only lawful, but even necessary; which is impossible, as being contrary to the very essential predicates of Schism, which is defined to be, A voluntary or wilful departure (such as no just cause, or reason, can be given of it) from the communion of the whole Church. Three things this discourse of yours may be resolved into. 1. That if in Luthers time the Roman Church was corrupt, then there was no one Visible Church uncorrupt. 2. That if so, it follows that there was none uncorrupt even up to the Apostles times. 3. That if there were no one Visible Church uncorrupt, then it was necessary to separate from the external communion of the whole Church. To every one of these I shall return a peculiar and distinct Answer. To the first I say, That the utmost you can prove from hence, is, That there was no one Church of any distinct communion from others, which was free from all errours. And what great absurdity is there in saying so? Unless you could prove, that there must be some one Church in all ages of the world, which must be free from all kind or possibility of errour. And when you have done this, I shall acknowledge it absurd to say the contrary; but otherwise that very supposition seems to have the greater absurdity in it; because it restrains the utmost supposable priviledges of the truly Catholick Church, to a particular Church of some one denomination. What then if we grant that in Luthers time, there was no one Visible Church free from errours and corruptions? What if we should say, in our own times? What if, in elder times? For that which is possible to be, may be supposed actually in any time. If it be possible for one particular Church to fall into errours and corruptions, Why is it not for another? (unless some particular priviledge of Infallibility be pretended; but that is not our present Question) if it be possible for every particular Church to fall into errour, Why may not that possibility come into act in one Age, as well as several? Is there any promise that there shall be a succession and course of erring in Churches, that one Church must erre for one age, and another for the next? but that it shall never fall out, that by any means whatsoever they shall erre together? If there be no such promise to the contrary, the reason of the thing will hold, that they may all erre at the same time. No, say you, for then it would follow, that the Catholick Church might erre. To that I answer, 1. Either you mean by that, that all societies in the Christian world may concurr in the same errour, or else that several of them may have several errours: and this latter is it only which you prove, for you do not suppose that the Romanists, Hussites, Albigenses, &c. were all guilty of the same errours, but that these several societies were guilty of several errours; and therefore from hence it follows not, that they may all concurr in the same errour, which is the only way to prove that the Church as Catholick may erre, for otherwise you only prove, that the several particular Churches, which make up the Catholick, may fall into errour. 2. Supposing all these Churches should agree in one errour, (which is more than you have proved, or, it may be, can) have you proved that they concurr in such an errour, which destroies the Being of the Catholick Church? For you would do well to evince, that the Church is secured from any but such errours which destroy its Being; for the means of proving, That the Catholick Church cannot erre, are built on the promises of its perpetuity; now those can only prove that the Church is secured from Fundamental errours, for those are such only which destroy its Being. And so his Lordship tells you,P. 139. sect 18. n. 5. That the whole Church cannot universally erre in the Doctrine of Faith, is most true, and granted by divers Protestants (so you will but understand its not erring in absolute Fundamental Doctrines) and this he proves, from that promise of Christ, That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. So that the Catholick Churche's not erring, and the perpetuity of the Catholick Church do with us,P. 141. mean the same thing. For his Lordship grants, That she may erre in superstructures, and deductions, and other By, and Vnnecessary truths, if her curiosity, or other weakness, carry her beyond, or cause her to fall short of her Rule. There is then a great difference between saying, That the Catholick Church cannot erre, which is no more than to say, That there shall be alwaies a Catholick Church, and saying, That there must be alwaies some one Visible Church, which must be free from all errour and corruption. For this we deny, and you produce no reason at all to prove it. Granting, that all particular Churches, whether of Romanists, Greeks, or others, are subject to errours and corruptions, we assert no more of them, than you grant your selves, that any particular Church is subject to; for the only ground, why you would have your Church exempt from errour, is, the supposing her not to be a particular, but the Catholick Church, which implies, that if she were only a particular Church (as she is no more) she might be subject to errours as well as other Churches. And what incongruity then there is in asserting, that there may be no one Visible Church of any particular denomination free from all errour and corruption, I cannot understand.
But further, you say, If there were no one Visible Church then free from errour, §. 5.it follows, not only for some time, but for many ages before Luther, yea even up to the Apostles times, there was no one Visible Church untainted throughout the whole world. Not to meddle with the truth of the thing, Whether there were so or no, the consequence is that, we are now to examine; that if it were so in Luthers time, it must be so even up to the Apostles times. The proof of which depends upon the impossibility of a Churches degeneracy in Faith or Manners, and so supposeth the thing in question, that there must be some one Visible Church absolutely exempt from all impossibility of errour. For otherwise that might be true in one age, which might not in another. For although we say, that particular Churches may erre, and be corrupt, we do not say, that it is necessary they should alwaies be so. For, in some ages particular Churches may be free from errour and corruption, and yet in another age be overspread with them. And thus we assert it to have been with the Roman Church: for his Lordship saith, In the prime times it was a most right and orthodox Church, but in the immediate times before. Luther, or in some ages before, that it was a corrupt and tainted Church: And so in those times in which it was right, those might be heretical who did not communicate with it, not meerly because they did not communicate with it, but because in not communicating with a right and orthodox Church they shewed themselves guilty of some errour or corruption. We see then, there is no connexion in the world in the parts of your consequence, That if it were so at one time, it must be so alwaies; if in the time of Luther, it must be so even up to the Apostles times.
3. From hence you say it will follow, That it will be necessary to separate from the external communion of the whole Church. I answer, there can be no separation from the whole Church, but in such things wherein the Vnity of the whole Church lyes; for separation is a violation of some Vnion: now when men separate from the errours of all particular Churches, they do not separate from the whole, because those things which one separates from those particular Churches for, are not such, as make all them put together to be the whole, or Catholick Church. This must be somewhat further explained. There are two things considerable in all particular Churches; those things which belong to it as a Church, and those things which belong to it as a particular Church. Those things which belong to it as a Church, are the common ligaments or grounds of union between all particular Churches, which taken together, make up the Catholick Church: Those things which belong to it as a particular Church, are such as it may retain the essence of a Church without. Now, I say, Whosoever separates from any particular Church (much more from all) for such things without which that can be no Church, separates from the communion of the Catholick Church; but he that separates only from particular Churches as to such things which concern not their Being, is only separated from the communion of those Churches, and not the Catholick. And therefore, supposing that all particular Churches have some errours and corruptions in them, though I should separate from them all, I do not separate from the communion of the whole Church, unless it be for something, without which those could be no Churches. An evidence of which, is, that by my declaring the grounds of my separation to be such errours and corruptions, which are crept into the communion of such Churches, and imposed on me in order to it, I withall declare my readiness to joyn with them again, if those errours and corruptions be left out. And where there is this readiness of communion, there is no absolute separation from the Church as such, but only suspending communion till such abuses be reformed. Which is therefore more properly a separation from the errours, than the communion of such a Church. Wherefore if we suppose that there is no one Visible Church, whose communion is not tainted with some corruptions, though, if these corruptions be injoyned as conditions of communion, I cannot communicate with any of those Churches, yet it follows not that I am separated from the external communion of the Catholick Church, but that I only suspend communion with those particular Churches, till I may safely joyn with them. As, suppose all the particular men I can converse with, were infected with Leprosie, my not associating with them, doth not imply that I am separated from the communion of all mankind, but that I am loath to be infected as they are, and therefore withdraw my self till I can meet with such healthful persons with whom I may safely associate again. And if several other persons be of the same mind with me, and we therefore joyn together, Do we therefore divide our selves from the whole world by only taking care of our own safety? And especially if any company of such leprous persons should resolve that none should live among them, but such as would eat of those meats which brought that distemper upon them; our withdrawing our selves, and associating without them will still appear more reasonable and commendable. Therefore we say, We do not necessarily separate from all Churches that have errours or corruptions in them, supposing those errours and corruptions be not imposed on us, as conditions of communion; and thence though we should grant, No one visible Church free from taint or corruption, yet it is not necessary we should separate from them all: For we may lawfully joyn in Communion with Churches having errours and corruptions, if our joyning be not an approbation of them. Thus though the Greeks, Armenians, Albigenses, Abyssms may have some errours, or corruptions, yet if they be not Fundamental, and be not injoyned as necessary to be approved in order to their Communion, notwithstanding them, we may lawfully Communicate with them. It doth not then at all follow, that if there may be no one visible Church free from errour and corruption, it would be necessary to separate from the Communion of the Catholick Church: because 1. All those particular Churches may not make those errours conditions of Communion. 2. Though they did, we separate not from them as Catholick, but as corrupt and erroneous particular Churches. And therefore you might have spared your labour in telling us from the Holy Fathers, and the Reverend and learned Dr. Hammond, That it can never be lawful to separate from the Catholick Church, for we assert the same, but have made it appear that it follows not from the premises which were laid down.
§. 6.His Lordship having said, That the Roman Church before Luther was a corrupt and tainted Church, in his Margin produceth a Citation to that purpose of Cardinal de Alliaco, who acknowledgeth infinite abuses, Cùm infiniti abusus, Schism…ta quo que & haereses, per totum nunc Ch…istianum orbem invalescant; Ecclesiam Dei legitimâ indigere reformatione, nemini non apertum erit. Petrus de Alliaco lib. de Reform. Eccles.Schisms and Heresies to prevail over the Christian world; so that it is plain, The Church of God stands in need of due reformation. From which his Lordship saith, That it will hardly sink into any mans judgement that so great a man, as Pet. de Alliaco was in that Church, should speak thus if he did not see some errours in the Doctrine of that Church as well as the manners. To this you answer, That he speaks not of false Doctrines taught by the Roman Church, P. 143.but of Schisms and Heresies raised against the Church (not fostered by her) in all parts of Christendom. But I appeal to any indifferent Reader of this Testimony, whether he can conceive that the Cardinal intended to acquit or accuse the Roman Church in those words of his. For taking them in your sense, they must contain a high commendation of the Roman Church, that in the midst of so many Heresies and Schisms raised against her, she preserved her Faith entire; and think you that he that said, The Church of God needed reformation, thought there was nothing in the Church which stood in need of it? And therefore this Testimony doth sufficiently prove that the Roman Church was a tainted and corrupted Church.
If there be sufficient evidence, that there are tares sown in the Church of Rome, it is not to much purpose to enquire Whether they were sown while the Bishops slept, or whether they themselves did not help to sow them. But it seems in their private capacities they might sow them, as private Doctors, and then it is not likely that in their publick capacity they would pluck them up. If the Catholick Faith only, as you tell us, oblige us to maintain that the Pope is Infallible when he defines a General Council; then there will be opportunity enough for errours to be sown, and grow up in the interval of such definitions. But you further add, That though this be all which men are obliged to maintain (for no man can be bound to impossibilities) yet that it is a very pious opinion to hold, That no Popes have personally erred as private Doctors, i. e. you have a very good mind to maintain it, if you knew how; for that is the meaning of your pious opinion. For if you thought it had been defensible, no doubt it had been de fide long ago. But it was hard thwarting the Records of former ages wherein the errours of Popes, and their mutual contradictions are so visible to all that search after them, and therefore it was wisely concluded that this should not be held de fide, but, if any would venture upon a thing so acceptable at Rome as Personal Infallibility is, it should be accounted a very pious undertaking. And accordingly Bellarmin hath with the greatest care and industry endeavoured it in several Chapters; but, as his Lordship truly saith, All Bellarmin's labour though great and full of art, is not able to wash them clean. And this (if you had undertaken the defence of Bellarmin) should have been made good; but since you are so cautious as not to think your self obliged to do it, I commend your discretion in it, and proceed. I cannot see that his Lordship is guilty of a false quotation of Bellarmin for that saying, Et Papas quosdam graves errores seminâsse in Ecclesiâ Christi, luce clarius est, for he doth not seem at all to Cite Bellarmin for it; but having Cited the place just before, where he endeavours to vindicate the Popes from all errours; he adds this expression, as directly contrary to his design, that though he had endeavoured so much to clear them from errours, yet that they had sown some grievous errours in the Church was as clear as the day; and as it immediately follows is proved by Jac. Almain, &c. And therefore it was only your own oscitancy which made you set it in the Contents of your Chapter, that Cardinal Bellarmin was most falsly quoted by him. But that falseness which with so much confidence you charge his Lordship with, rebounds with greater force on your self, when you say, That Almain speaks not of errours in Faith at all, but only of errours, or rather abuses in point of manners; whereas he not only asserts but largely proves, That the Pope may err, not only personally but judicially, Papa potest errare, errore judiciali; de personali, omnibus notum est. Jac. Almain. de auctorit. Eccles. cap. 10. Quorum unus determinavit judicialiter, Christum & Apostolos nihil habuisse in communi nec in proprio; alter, oppositum. Id. ib.and in the same Chapter brings that remarkable Instance of the evident contradiction between the definitions of Pope Nicolaus 3. and John 22. And Platina tells us, that John 22. declared them to be Hereticks who held according to the former definition. And, Is this only concerning some abuses abuses in point of manners, and not concerning errours in Faith that Almain speaks? You might as well say so of Lyra, who said, That many Popes have Apostatized from the Faith; of Cusanus, who saith,Lyra in Matth. 16. Cusan. Concord. l. 1. c. 14. Alphons. c. haeres l 1 c 2. Carranz. Controv. 4. Canus loc Com. l. 6 c. ult. That both in a direct and collateral line, several Popes have fallen into Heresie; of Alphonsus à Castro, who saith, That the best friends of the Popes believe they may err in Faith; of Carranza, who sayes, No one questions but the Pope may be an Heretick; of Canus, who sayes, It is not to be denyed but that the chief Bishop may be an Heretick, and that there are examples of it: You might as well, I say, affirm that all these spake only of abuses in Manners, and not errours in Faith, as you do of Almain. Neither will your other subterfuge serve your turn, That they taught errours in Doctrine as private men; for, Alphonsus à Castro expresly affirms in the case of Pope Coelestine, about the dissolution of Marriage in case of Heresie,De haeres. l. 1. c. 4. That it cannot be said that he erred through negligence, and as a private person, and not as Pope; For (saith he) this definition is extant in the decretals, and he had seen it himself. Although the contrary to this were afterwards defined not only by Pope Innocent 3. but by the Council of Trent. And hence it appears whatever you pretend to the contrary, That there may be tares sown in the Church of Rome,P. 144. not only by private persons, but by the publick hands of the Popes too, if they themselves may be believed, who else do most Infallibly contradict each other. But whether these errours came in at first through negligence or publick definitions is not so material to our purpose; for which it is sufficient to prove that the Church of Rome may be tainted and corrupted, which may be done one way as well as the other. As Corn-fields may be over-run with tares though no one went purposely to sow them there.Cassand. Consult. act. 21. And so much is acknowledged by Cassander when he speaks of the superstitious practises used in your Church, That those who should have redressed those abuses, were, if not the Authours, yet the incouragers of them for their own advantage; by which means, errours and corruptions may soon grow to a great height in a Church though they were never sown by publick definitions. And when you disparage Cassanders Testimony, by telling us how little his credit is among Catholicks, you thereby let us see how much your Church is over-run with corruptions, when none among you can speak against them but they presently forfeit their reputation.
The case of the Schism at Rome between Cornelius and Novatianus, and the imployment of Caldonius and Fortunatus from St. Cyprian thither,N. 3. doth belong to the former Chapter, where it hath been fully discoursed of already, and must not be repeated here. Only thence we see that Rome is as capable of a Schism within her own bowels as any other Church is, which is abundantly attested by the multitudes of Schisms, which happened afterwards between the Bishops of that See. But this being insisted on by his Lordship in the former Controversie of the Catholick Church, doth not refer to this Chapter wherein the causes of our separation should be enquired into.
§. 7.Which at last you come to, and passing by the verbal dispute between A.C. and his Lordship about what was spoken at the Conference, N. 4. ibid.you tell us, It more concerns you to see what could or can be said in this point. You draw up therefore a large and formal charge of Schism against us in your following words. Our assertion, say you, is; but, good Sir, it is not what you assert, but what you prove. It were an easie matter for us to draw up a far larger Bill against your Church, and tell you our assertion is, that you are the greatest Schismaticks in the world. Would you look on it as sufficiently proved because we asserted it? I pray think the same of us, for we are not apt to think our selves guilty of Schism at all the more, because you tell us what your assertion is; if this be your way of dealing with us, your first assertion had need be, That you are Infallible; but still that had need be more then asserted, for unless it be Infallibly proved we should not believe it. But however, we must see what your assertion is, that we may at least understand from you the state of the present Controversie. Your assertion therefore is, that Protestants made this rent or Schism, P. 145.by their obstinate and pertinacious maintaining erroneous Doctrines, contrary to the Faith of the Roman or Catholick Church: by their rejecting the Authority of their lawful Ecclesiastical Superiours both immediate and mediate; by aggregating themselves into a separate body or company of pretended Christians, independent of any Pastours at all, that were in lawful and quiet possession of jurisdiction over them; by making themselves Pastours and Teachers of others, and administring Sacraments without Authority given them by any that were lawfully impower…d to give it; by instituting new rites and ceremonies of their own in matter of Religion, contrary to those anciently received throughout all Christendome; by violently excluding and dispossessing other Prelates and Pastours of and from their respective See's, Cures, and Benefices; and intruding themselves into their places in every Nation where they could get footing, the said Prelates and Pastours for the most part yet living. These are your assertions, and because you seek not to prove them it shall be sufficient to oppose ours to them. Our assertion therefore is, that the Church and Court of Rome are guilty of this Schism, by obtruding erroneous Doctrines and superstitious practises, as the conditions of her Communion; by adding such Articles of Faith which are contrary to the plain rule of Faith, and repugnant to the sense of the truly Catholick and not the Roman Church; by her intolerable incroachments and usurpations upon the liberties and priviledges of particular Churches, under a vain pretence of Vniversal Pastourship; by forcing men if they would not damn their souls by sinning against their consciences in approving the errours and corruptions of the Roman Church, to joyn together for the Solemn Worship of God according to the rule of Scripture and practise of the Primitive Church; and suspending Communion with that Church till those abuses and corruptions be redressed. In which they neither deny obedience to any Lawful Authority over them, nor take to themselves any other Power than the Law of God hath given them, receiving their Authority in a constant Succession from the Apostles: they institute no Rites and Ceremonies either contrary to, or different from the practise of the Primitive Church; they neither exclude or dispossess others of their Lawful Power, but in case others neglect their office, they may be notwithstanding obliged to perform theirs in order to the Churches Reformation. Leaving the Supreme Authority of the Kingdome or Nation to order and dispose of such things in the Church which of right appertain unto it. And this we assert to be the case of Schism, in reference to the Church of England, which we shall make good in opposition to your assertions, where we meet with any thing that seems to contradict the whole or any part of it. These and the like practises of yours (to use your own words) not any obstinate maintaining any erroneous Doctrines, as you vainly pretend, we averre to have been the true and real causes of that separation which is made between your Church and Ours. And you truly say, That Protestants were thrust out of your Church; which is an Argument they did not voluntarily forsake the Communion of it, and therefore are no Schismaticks; but your carriage and practises were such as forced them to joyn together in a distinct Communion from you. And it was not we who left your Church, but your Church that left her Primitive Faith and Purity in so high a manner, as to declare all such excommunicate who will not approve of and joyn in her greatest corruptions, though it be sufficiently manifest that they are great recessions from the Faith, Piety, and Purity of that Roman Church which was planted by the Apostles, and had so large a commendation from the Apostolical men of those first ages. Since then such errours and corruptions are enforced upon us as conditions of Communion with you, by the same reason that the Orthodox did very well in departing from the Arrians, because the Arrians were already departed from the Church by their false Doctrine; will our separation from you be justified who first departed from the Faith and Purity of the Primitive Church; and not only so, but thrust out of your Communion all such as would not depart from it as farr as you.
Having thus considered and retorted your Assertions, we come to your Answers.§. 8. Nor (say you) does the Bishop vindicate the Protestant party, by saying, P. 145.The cause of Schism was ours, and that we Catholicks thrust Protestants from us, because they call'd for truth and redress of abuses. For first, there can be no just cause of Schism; this hath been granted already even by Protestants. And so it is by us, and the reason is very evident for it, for if there be a just cause, there can be no Schism; and therefore what you intend by this, I cannot imagine, unless it be to free Protestants from the guilt of Schism, because they put the Main of their tryal upon the justice of the cause which moved them to forsake the Communion of your Church; or else you would have it taken for granted that ours was a Schism, and thence inferr there could be no just cause of it. As if a man being accused for taking away the life of one who violently set upon him in the High-way with an intent both to rob and destroy him, should plead for himself that this could be no murther in him, because there was a sufficient and justifiable cause for what he did; that he designed nothing but to go quietly on his road; that this person and several others violently set upon him; that he intreated them to desist, that he sought to avoid them as much as he could, but when he saw they were absolutely bent on his ruine, he was forced in his own necessary defence to take away the life of that person; Would not this with any intelligent Jury be looked on as a just and reasonable Vindication? But if so wise a person as your self had been among them, you would no doubt have better informed them; for you would very gravely have told them, All his plea went on a false supposition, that he had a just cause for what he did, but there could be no just cause for murther. Do you not see now how subtil and pertinent your Answer is here, by this parallel to it? For as in that case all men grant that there can be no just cause for murther, because all murther is committed without a just cause; and if there be one, it ceaseth to be murther: So it is here in Schism, which being a causeless separation from the Churches Vnity, I wonder who ever imagined there could be just cause for it. But to rectifie such gross mistakes as these are for the future, you would do well to understand that Schism formally taken alwayes imports something criminal in it, and there can be no just cause for a sin; but besides that, there is that which (if you understand it) you would call the materiality of it which is the separation of one part of the Church from another. Now this, according to the different grounds and reasons of it, becomes lawful or unlawful, that is, as the reasons do make it necessary or unnecessary, For separation is not lawful but when it is necessary: now this being capable of such a different nature that it may be good or evil according to its circumstances, there can be no absolute judgement passed upon it, till all those reasons and circumstances be duely examined; and if there be no sufficient grounds for it, then it is formally Schism, i. e. a culpable separation; if there be sufficient cause, then there may be a separation, but it can be no Schism. And because the Vnion of the Catholick Church lyes in Fundamental and necessary truths, therefore there can be no separation absolutely from the Catholick Church but what involves in it the formal guilt of Schism; it being impossible any person should have just cause to disown the Churches Communion for any thing whose belief is necessary to salvation. And whosoever doth so, thereby makes himself no member of the Church, because the Church subsists on the belief of Fundamental truths. But in all such cases wherein a division may be made, and yet the several persons divided retain the essentials of a Christian Church, the separation which may be among any such, must be determined according to the causes of it. For it being possible of one side, that men may out of capricious humours and fancies renounce the Communion of a Church which requires nothing but what is just and reasonable; and it being possible on the other side, that a Church calling her self Catholick may so far degenerate in Faith and practise, as not only to be guilty of great errours and corruptions, but to impose them as conditions of Communion with her, it is necessary where there is a manifest separation to enquire into the reasons and grounds of it; and to determine the nature of it according to the justice of the cause which is pleaded for it. And this I hope may help you a little better to understand, what is meant by such, who say, There can be no just cause of Schism; and how little this makes for your purpose.
But you go on and I must follow. And to his calling for truth, &c.§. 9. I Answer, What Hereticks ever yet forsook the Church of God, but pretended truth, and complain'd they were thrust out, and hardly dealt with, meerly because they call'd for truth and redress of abuses? And I pray, what Church was ever so guilty of errours and corruptions, but would call those Hereticks and Schismaticks who found fault with her Doctrine, or separated from her Communion? It is true, Hereticks pretend truth, and Schismaticks abuses, but is it possible there should be errours and corruptions in a Churches Communion, or is it not? if not, prove but that of your Church, and the cause is at an end; if it be, we are to examine whether the charge be true or no. For although Hereticks may pretend truth, and others be deceived in judging of it, yet doubtless there is a real difference between truth and errour. If you would never have men quarrel with any Doctrine of your Church because Hereticks have pretended truth: would not the same reason hold, why men should never enquire after Truth, Reason, or Religion, because men have pretended to them all which have not had them. It is therefore a most senseless cavil to say we have no reason to call for truth because Hereticks have done so; and on the same grounds you must not be call'd Catholicks because Hereticks have been call'd so. But those who have been Hereticks were first proved to be so, by making it appear that was a certain truth which they denyed; do you the same by us; prove those which we call errours in your Church to be part of the Catholick and Apostolick Faith; prove those we account corruptions, to be parts of Divine worship, and we will give you leave to call us Hereticks and Schismaticks, but not before. But, say you, He should have reflected that the Church of God is stiled a City of Truth by the Prophet, (and so it may be, and yet your Church be a fortress of Errour) And a pillar and foundation of Truth by the Apostle, (but what is this to the Church of Romes being so) And by the Fathers, a rich depository or Treasury of all Divine and Heavenly Doctrines (so it was in the sense the Fathers took the Church in, for the truly Catholick Christian Church). And we may use the same expressions still of the Church as the Prophets, Apostles, and Fathers did, and nevertheless charge your Church justly with the want of truth, and opposition to the preaching of it, and on that ground justly forsake her Communion, which is so far from being inexcusable impiety and presumption, that it was only the performance of a necessary Christian duty. And therefore that Woe of scandal, his Lordship mentioned, still returns upon your party who gave such just cause of offence to the Christian world, and making it necessary for all such as aimed at the purity of the Christian Church to leave your Communion, when it could not be enjoyed without making shipwrack both of Faith and a good Conscience. And this is so clear and undeniable (to follow you still in your own language) that we dare appeal for a tryal of our cause to any Assembly of learned Divines, or what Judge and Jury you please, provided they be not some of the parties accused; and because you are so willing to have Learned Divines, I hope you will believe the last Pope Innocent so far, as not to mention the Pope and Cardinals.
What follows in Vindication of A. C. from enterfeiring and shuffling in his words, P. 146.because timorous and tender consciences think they can never speak with caution enough, for fear of telling a lye, will have the force of a demonstration, (being spoken of and by a Jesuite) among all those who know what mortal haters they are of any thing that looks like a lye or aequivocation: And what reason there is that, of all persons in the world, they should be judged men of timorous and tender consciences.
But whatever the words were which passed, you justifie A. C. in saying, That the Protestants did depart from the Church of Rome,§. 10. and got the Name of Protestants by protesting against her. For this (say you) is so apparent that the whole world acknowledgeth it. If you mean that the Communion of Protestants is distinct from yours, Whoever made scruple of confessing it? But because in those terms of departing, leaving, forsaking your Communion, you would seem to imply that it was a voluntary act and done without any necessary cause enforcing it, therefore his Lordship denyes that Protestants did depart; for, saith he, departure is voluntary so was not theirs. But because it is so hard a matter to explain the nature of that separation between your Church and Ours, especially in the beginning of it, without using those terms or some like them, as when his Lordship saith, that Luther made a breach from it. It is sufficient, that we declare that by none of these expressions we mean any causeless separation, but only such acts as were necessarily consequential to the imposing your errours and corruptions as conditions of Communion with your Church. To the latter part his Lordship answers, That the Protestants did not get that name, by Protesting against the Church of Rome,P. 135. n. 3. but by Protesting (and that when nothing else would serve) against her errours and superstitions. Do you but remove them from the Church of Rome, & our Protestation is ended and our Separation too. This, you think, will be answered with our old put off, That it is the common pretext of all Hereticks, when they sever themselves from the Roman-Catholick Church. If your Church indeed were what she is not, the Catholick Church, we might be what we are not, Hereticks: but think it not enough to prove us Hereticks, that you call us so, unless you will likewise take it for granted, that the Pope is Antichrist, and your Church, the Whore of Babylon, because they are as often, and as confidently call'd so. And if your Church be truly so (as she is shrewdly suspected to be) Do you think she, and all her followers, would not as confidently call such as dissented from her, Hereticks, and the using those expressions of her virulent execrations against her, as you do now, supposing her not to be so. What therefore would belong to your Church, supposing her as bad as any Protestants imagine her to be, cannot certainly help to perswade us, that she is not so bad as she is. When you say still, That Protestants did really depart from the Roman Church, and in so doing, remained separate from the whole Church; you very fairly beg the thing in dispute, and think us uncivil for denying it. You know not what that passage means, That the Protestants did not voluntarily depart, taking their whole body and cause together, since there is no obscurity in the expression, but a defect elsewhere, I can only say, That his Lordship was not bound to find you an Vnderstanding as oft as you want it. But it were an easie matter to help you; for it is plain, that he speaks those words to distinguish the common cause of Protestants, from the heats and irregularities of some particular persons, whom he did not intend to justifie, such as he saith, Were either peevish, or ignorantly zealous. And if you distinguish the sense of your Church from the judgements of particular persons, I hope it may be as lawful for us to distinguish the body and cause of Protestants from the inconsiderate actings of any particular men. All that which follows about the name of Protestants, which his Lordship saith, Took its rise, not from protesting simply against the Roman Church, but against the Edict at Worms, which was for the restoring all things to their former state, without any reformation, is so plain and evident, that nothing but a mind to cavil, and to give us the same things over and over,P. 147. could have made you stay longer upon it. For what else means, your talk of Innovation in matters of Religion (which we say, was caused by you) and protesting against the Roman Church, and consequently against all particular Visible Churches in the world, and that which none but Hereticks and Schismaticks used to do? Do you think these passages are so hard, that we cannot know what they mean, unless we have them so often over? But they are not so hard to be understood, as to be believed, and that the rather, because we see you had rather say them often, than prove them once. If the Popes professed Reformation necessary as to many abuses, I hope they are not all Schismaticks who call for the redress of abuses in your Church. But, if all the Reformation we are to expect of them, be that, which you say, was effectually ordained by the Council of Trent, if there had not been an Edict at Worms, there were the Decrees of that Council which would have made a Protestation necessary. Although we think your Church needs Reformation in Manners and Discipline, as much as any in the world, yet those are not the abuses mainly insisted on by the Protestants, as the grounds of their Separation, and therefore his Lordship ought to be understood, of a Reformation as to the errours and corruptions of the Roman Church; and doubtless that Edict of Worms which was for the restoring all things to their former state, did cut off all hopes of any such Reformation as was necessary for the Protestants to return to the Roman Communion. And whatever you say, till you have proved the contrary better than as yet it is done, it will appear, that they are the Protestants who stand for the ancient and undefiled Doctrine of the Catholick Church, against the novel and corrupt Tenets of the Roman Church. And such kind of Protestation no true Christian, who measures his being Catholick, by better grounds than communion with the Church of Rome, will ever have cause to be ashamed of.
But A. C. (saith his Lordship) goes on, and will needs have it, that the Protestants were the cause of the Schism. §. 11.P. 136. n. 4.For, (saith he) though the Church of Rome did thrust them from her by excommunication, yet they had first divided themselves by obstinate holding and teaching Opinions contrary to the Roman Faith, and practice of the Church, which to do, S. Bernard thinks, is pride, S. Austin, madness. At this his Lordship takes many and just exceptions. 1. That holding and teaching was not the prime cause neither, but the corruptions and superstitions of Rome, which forced many men to hold and teach the contrary. So the prime cause was theirs still. Now to this your Answer is very considerable. That the Bishop of Rome being S. Peter's successor in the Government of the Church, Ibid.and Infallible (at least with a General Council) it is impossible, that Protestants, or other Sectaries, should ever find such errours or corruptions difinitively taught by him, or received by the Church, as should either warrant them to preach against her Doctrine, or lawfully to forsake her communion. We say, Your Church hath erred; you say, It is impossible she should; we offer you evident proofs of her errours; you say, She is Infallible; we say, It is impossible, that Church should be Infallible, which we can make appear hath been deceived; you tell us again, It is impossible she should be deceived; for, let Hereticks say what they will, she is Infallible. And if this be not a satisfactory way of answering, let the world judge. But having already pulled down that Babel of Infallibility, this Answer falls to the ground with it; and to use your phrase, The truth is, all that you have in effect to say for your Church, is, that she is Infallible, and the Catholick Church, and by this means you think to cast the Schism upon us; and these things are great enough indeed, if you could but make any shew of proof for them; but not being able to do that, you do in effect as much as if a man in a high feaver should go about to demonstrate it was impossible for him to be sick, which, the more he takes pains to do, the more evident his distemper is to all who hear him. And it is shrewdly to be suspected, if your errours had not been great and palpable, you would have contented your selves with some thing short of Infallibility. But as the case is with your Church, I must confess it is your greatest wisdom to talk most of Infallibility; for if you can but meet with any weak enough to swallow that, all other things go down without dispute; but if men are left at liberty to examine particulars, they would as soon believe it was impossible for that man to fall, whom they see upon the ground, as your Church to be infallible, which they find overspread with errour and corruptions.
Much such another Answer you return to his Lordship's second Exception, which is, at his calling the Christian Faith the Roman Faith: For, you say, It is no incongruity so to call it, for the Bishop of Rome being Head of the whole Christian or Catholick Church, Ibid.the Faith approved and taught by him as Head thereof, though it be de facto the general Faith and Profession of all Christians, may yet very well be called the Roman Faith; Why? because the root, origine, and chief Foundation under Christ, of its being practised and believed by Christians is at Rome. But if the Bishop of Rome be no such thing as Head of the Christian Church (and they must have a very wide Faith, which must swallow that Vniversal Headship, with all the appurtenances upon your bare affirmation) if it belongs no more to him to approve and teach the Faith then to any other Catholick Bishop, if the coming from Rome affords no credibility at all to the Christian Faith; then still there remains as great an incongruity as may be, in calling the Christian Faith, the Roman Faith. And as to all these my denial is as good as your affirmation; when you undertake to prove, I shall to answer.
If A. C. adds the practice of the Church to the Roman Faith, I see no advantage is gotten by it, for the first must limit the latter,P. 148. and the Faith being Roman, the Church must be so too, and therefore all your cavils on that subject come to nothing.
The third Exception is, against the place out of S. Bernard,§. 12. and S. Austin, which, his Lordship saith, are mis-applied; P. 137.for neither of them (saith he) spake of the Roman; and S. Bernard perhaps neither of the Catholick, nor the Roman, but of a particular Church or Congregation. His words are, What greater pride, than that one man should prefer his judgement before the whole Congregation. Which A. C. conveniently to his purpose rendred before the whole Congregation of all the Christian Churches in the world. Quae major superbia quam ut unus hamo toti Congregatione judicium suum praeserat, tanquam ipse solus Spiritum Dei habeat, S. Bern. Serm. 3. de Resurrect.Whereas no such thing is in him as all the Christian Churches in the world. And his Lordship saith, He thinks it is plain, that he speaks both of, and to the particular Congregation, to which he was then preaching. This you deny not, but say,Ibid. The argument holds â minori ad majus, to shew the more exorbitant pride of those, who prefer their private fanatick Opinions, before the judgement of the whole Catholick Church. The Roman Church you should have said▪ for you own no Catholick Church, but what is Roman, and therein the argument you mention will hold yet further, against those who prefer the Novel Opinions of the Roman Church, before the ancient Apostolical Faith of the truly Catholick Church. His Lordship adds, That it is one thing to prefer a mans private judgement before the whole Congregation; and another, for an intelligent man in something unsatisfied, modestly to propose his doubts even to the Catholick Church. And much more may a whole National Church, nay, the whole body of Protestants do it. Now you very wisely leave out this last clause, that you might take an opportunity to declaim against Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, &c. for want of modesty. But what pretext could there have been for such virulency, had they been guilty of what you charge them, if you would but have given us all that his Lordship said; And may not I now therefore more justly return you your own language in the same page upon a far less occasion. That here's a manifest robbery of part of his Lordships words, for which you are bound to restitution. For his Lordship, as it were, foreseeing this cavil, warily adds that concerning a whole National Church, and the whole body of Protestants; which you for reasons best known to your self, craftily leave out. But we must excuse our adversary for this slip, though it be an unhandsome one; For the truth is, he had no other way to hide the guiltiness of his own pen, &c. These are your own words only applied, and that much more justly to your self, for a more palpable fault in the very same page wherein you had accused his Lordship for one of that kind. But you go on further, and supposing the doubts had been modestly proposed, yet this could not at all help the Protestant cause, in regard their doubts were in points of Faith, already determined for such by authority of the Catholick Church; to question any of which with what seeming modesty soever is sinful, heretical, and damnable. Were it our present business, it were easie to make it appear, that the far greatest part of the matters in Controversie; were never determined as points of Faith, before the Council of Trent, and, I hope you will not say, that was before the Reformation, or any proposal of doubts? But, if they had been defined by your Church for matters of Faith, and our great doubt be, How your Church comes to have this power of determining points of Faith, to whom should this doubt be propounded? to your Church, no doubt then we should hear from her, as now we do from you, That to question it with what seeming modesty soever, is sinful, heretical, ond damnable. And, Is it not then likely that your Church should ever yield to the proposal of doubts? and you do well to tell us so; for it will save Protestants a great deal of labour, when they see your Church so incurable, that she makes it sinful, heretical, and damnable, to question any thing she hath determined. Although we do with much more reason assert it to be sinful, heretical, and damnable in your Church, to offer to obtrude erroneous Doctrines on the Faith of the Christian world, as points necessary to be believed, and to urge superstitious practices as the conditions of communion with her.
To the place of S. Austin, wherein he saith, That it is a part of most insolent madness, for any man to dispute, Whether that be to be done, which is usually done in and through the whole Catholick Church of Christ. His Lordship answer,P. 138. 1. Here's not a word of the Roman Church, but of that which is all over the world, Catholick, which Rome never yet was; and for all your boast of having often shewn,P. 149. That the Roman and the Catholick are all one; I dare leave it to the indifferent Reader, Whether you have not miserably failed in your attempts that way. 2. He answers, That A. C. applies this to the Roman Faith, whereas S. Austin speaks expresly of the rites and ceremonies of the Church, and particularly about the manner of offering upon Maundy-Thursday, whether it be in the morning, or after supper, or both. 3. Tis manifest by the words themselves, that S. Austin speaks of no matter of Faith there, Roman, nor Catholick, for he speaks of things done, and to be done, and not for things believed, or to be believed. 4. A right sober man may, without the least touch of insolency or madness, dispute a business of Religion with the Roman,Ibid. either Church or Prelate, as all men know Irenaeus did with Victor. Now to all this you reply, That the argument still holds à minori ad majus, and reaches to every person that in any matter whatsoever obstinately opposes himself against the Church of God. And is not this an excellent way of arguing from the less to the greater, to argue from a rite or ceremony observed by the Universal Church to a matter of Faith determined by the Roman Church? This is à minori ad majus, with a witness. But your Reason is as good as your Answer, which is, because there was alwaies some point or matter of Faith involved in every Vniversally practised rite or ceremony of the Church, I pray Sir then, Tell us what the matter of Faith was which lay in the offering on Maundy-Thursday in morning, or after supper? and by whom this point of Faith was determined? and and how far it is obligatory? and whether it be not sinful, heretical, and damnable, so much as modestly to doubt of it? For all this, you told us, belongs to all matters of Faith determined by the Catholick Church. What remains of this Chapter, need not hold us long, for A. C's. illation from the Catholick Churches not erring, that therefore it cannot be lawful to separate from the Roman Church, is absurd and illogical; and depends on that gross mistake that the Roman and Catholick Church are all one, which we have abundantly disproved in the precedent Chapter. What follows concerning the Catholick Churches not erring, and how far that extends, P. 150, 151.concerning the Catalogue of Fundamentals, and any errours admitted in the Church, being destructive to its Being, because derogatory to Gods Veracity, have been so amply discussed in their proper places, that I find no temptation from any new arguments here suggested, to resume the debate of them. There being then nothing material, which hath not been handled already; I here conclude this Chapter.