Vindication of Answer About Unity and Authority of the Catholic Church, Treatise · Part 2

Vindication of Answer About Unity and Authority of the Catholic Church · Treatise · Part 2

p. 29II. Of the Authority of the Catholic Church.

THE whole and sole design of the First Paper, as the Replier tells me, was to evince this Point. That all Controversial Pag 1.P…ints of Faith, either about Holy Scripture, or other Subjects, do fall under the Iudgment and Decision of the Church. But, under Favour, that is not the whole Design of it; for this implies no more than that the Church may, if it pleases, decide them; but the Desi n is, to prove, That in all Matters of Faith the Churches Authority is without farther Examination to be submitted to; so that all that Christians have to do is but to enquire into Two things. 1. Where the Church is. 2. Whether the Church hath declared its Judgment or not.

And several things are objected in the Papers against the not submitting to the Churches Judgment, viz. That every one will be his own Iudge; which is not allowed in common matters, much less in matters of Faith; that no such Authority is given to every particular Man by Scripture; but the Churches Authority is there established; and was owned in the Primitive Church in the Creeds, and about the Canonical Books; and since the Church had once such a Power, there is no reas…n to suppose it lost; but upon differences happening, the Churches Iudgment is to be submitted to.

This is the whole strength and force of the First Paper; and it is about a Subject of the highest Importance, both as to the satisfaction of particular Persons, and the Peace of the Christian World. And the clearing thes. Two Points will go a very great way towards the putting an end to p. 30Controversies. 1. That in all Disputes we are to search no farther, but presently to yield to the Judgment of the Church. 2. That the Roman-Catholic Church is that Church. How far I am from being satisfied with the latter doth already appear; I now set my self to consider the other.

And here are these things necessary to be debated,

1. Whether Christ and his Apostles did establish such a standing Judicature in the Church, to which all Christians were bound to submit in matters of Faith?

2. Whether the Primitive Church did own such a Judicature; And did accordingly govern their Faith?

3. Whether it be an unreasonable thing to suppose the contrary, viz. That Christ should leave Men to judge for themselves in matters which concern their Salvation, according to the Scriptures?

(1.) Whether Christ and his Apostles did establish such a standing Judicature in the Church to put an end to all Controversies which should arise about matters of Faith? We do not Question but Christ might have done it if he had pleased; and there is no doubt he foresaw all those Inconveniences which are now objected against the want of it; But the point before us, is, Whether Christ, who alone could do it, hath declared this to be his Will and Pleasure? We are then to consider, that this being a Point of so great Consequence, the Commission for such a Court of Judicature in the Church ought to be delivered in the plainest and clearest Words that may be; for otherwise this were to beget Controversies instead of putting an end to them. When God under the Law, established a Supreme Court of Appeal as to the differences which might arise about the Law, he tells them where that Court should Deut. 17. 8, 9, 10, 11.Deut 17:8Deut 17:9Deut 17:10Deut 17:11fit, and commands the People to go up thither and hear their Sentence and submit to it. This was a plain and clear p. 31declaration of the Will of God; and they had no more to do but to go up to the Place which God did chuse, viz. Ierusalem. And there was never any dispute aft…rwards among the Israelites what they were to do when Differences happened; for an Appeal lay to the Court of Ierusalem, and the Sentence of that Court they were to stand to on pain of Death. Our blessed Saviour knew this Constitution among the Jews, when he founded his Church; and if he had intended any such thing therein, he would not have fallen short of the exactness of the Law in the things necessary in order to the Establishment of it; i. e. he would not have failed to have told us, who were to make up that Supreme Court, and where it was to Sit. For these things were necessary to the end of it. Shall we then say that Christ was not yet resolved where it should be? Or, that it was not fit to let it be known so soon? But why not, when he made Promises to the Apostles of being with them to the end of the World? There can be no pretence, why he should not then declare, where the Supreme and standing Court of his Church was to be; which was in all Ages to give Rules to the rest of the Church, and to Determine all Points of Faith which came before them.

But did the Apostles Determine this matter after Christ's Ascension? If they had done it, we must have yielded, because they had an Infallible Spirit: But we find nothing like it in all their Writings. They mention Heresies often, and damnable ones they saw creeping into the Church, they lamented the Schisms and Divisions in the Churches of their own Planting, and used frequent and vehement Exhortations to Peace and Unity. But why not a word of the Infallible Judge of Controversies all this while? S. Paul wrote to the Church of Rome it self, and even there mentions Dissensions that were among them, as well as Rom. 15. 17.Rom 15:17in any other Church. What, could not he tell them they were to make Rules and give Judgment for the whole Church? Did S. Paul envy this Privilege to S. Peter's See, and therefore took no notice of it? That I suppose will not be said of him, though he once withstood him to the face. But, how happen the rest of the Apostles p. 32not to do it? Nay, how came S. Peter himself, writing for the benefit of the whole Church, in a Catholic Epistle, never to give the least intimation concerning it? These things make it appear incredible to me, that Christ or his Apostles appointed any such thing; especially, when the Apostles in their infallible Writings give such Directions to particular Christians as they do; to prove all things, and to hold 1 Thess. 5. 21.1 Thess 5:21fast that which is good; to try the Spirits whether they be of God o… not. What had they to do to try the Spirits, or to prove any thing themselves, if the Judgment of the matters of Faith 1 S John. 4. 1.John 4:1were so given to the Church, that others without farther enquiry are bound to submit to its Sentence? And if Christ and his Apostles knew nothing of such an Infallible Judge; we have no Reason to hearken to any, who after their time should pretend to it. For the Promise of Infallibility must be made by him; and such a Commission can be derived only from the immediate Authority of Christ himself.

But the Defender saith, The Holy Scripture assures us that the Church is the Foundation and Pillar of Truth. I confess, I cannot be assured from hence, that the Church hath such an Authority as is here pleaded for, suppose it be understood of the whole Church. For how was it possible the Church at that time should be the Foundation and Pillar of Truth, when the Apostles had the Infallible Spirit, and were to guide and direct the whole Church? It seems therefore far more probable to me, that those words relate to Timothy, and not to the Church, by a very common Elleipsis, viz. how he ought to behave himself in the Church of God, which is the House of the living God, as a Pillar and Support of Truth: and to that purpose this whole Epistle was written to him; as appears by the beginning of it, wherein he is charged not to give heed to Fables, and to take care that no false Doctrine were taught at Ephesus. Now, saith the Apostle, If I come not shortly, yet I have written this Epistle that thou maist know how to behave 1 Tim 3. 15.1 Tim 3:15thy self in the Church, which is the House of God, as a Pillar and Support of Tru…h. What can be more natural and easie, than this Sense? And that there is no Novelty in it appears from hence, that Gregory Nyssen expresly delivers this to be Gr…g. Nyssen de …ita. Mos. p. 226the meaning; and many others of the Fathers apply the p. 33same Phrases to the great Men of the Church. S. Basil useth Basil. Epist. 62. Chrysost. Hom. 148. To. 5. Theod. de Prov. Orat. 10. p. 441. Greg. Nazian. Ep. 38. Orat. 19. Epist. 29. Heins. in loc.the very same Expressions concerning Musonius. S. Chrysosrom calls the Apostles the immovable Pillars of the true Faith. Theodoret saith concerning S. Peter and S. Iohn, That they were the Towers of Godliness, and the Pillars of Truth. …regory Nazianzen calls S. Basil, The Ground of Faith, and the Rule of Truth: And elsewhere, The Pillar and Ground of the Church; which Titles he gives to another Bishop at that time. And so it appears in the Greek Catena, mentioned by Heinsius, S. Basil read these words or understood them so; when he saith, The Apostles were the Pillars of the New Jerusalem, as it is said, The Pillar and Ground of the Church. I forbear more, since these are sufficient to shew that they understood this place as relating to Timothy, and not to the Church.

As to what he brings of Scriptures not being of private I… terpretation; Pag. 17.it is so remote from the Sense and Scope of the Place, which relates wholy to Divine Inspiration, that this is a great Instance of that private Interpretation which ought to be avoided, viz. of minding only the Words, without regard to the Sense of Scripture.

It was said in the Papers, Tha… Christ left his Power to his Church, even to forgive Sins in Heaven; and left his Spirit with them, which they exercised after the Resurrection.

It was farther answered, That all this makes nothing for the Roman-Catholic Church not then in being, unless she were Heir-General to the Apostles; that the ordinary Power of the Keys relates not to this matter; that the Promise of the Spirit made to the Apostles, implied many Gifts not pretended to by this Heir-General, as the Gift of Tongues, Spirit of Discerning, Prophecie, miraculous Cures and Punish ments. If no more be understood of Divine Assistance, that is promised as much to keep Men from Sin as Error; but the Church of Rome pretends only to the latter; and yet it is granted too, that it may err in matters of great Consequence to the Peace of the Christian World, as in the Deposing Doctrine This is the Substance of the Answer; let us now see what they Reply.

The force of what the Desender saith is this, That though the Roman Church were not then in being, yet as soon as it was, Dis. p. 33.it was a part of the Catholic Church, to which the Promises p. 34were made; and therefore the Roman-Catholic Church being the One Church of Christ, these Promises must have their effect in her.

This is all I can make of it; though it cost me more pains to lay their things together with an appe…ance of strength, than to give an Answer to them.

The Roman Church it seems had not the Promises made to it; but as soon as it was a Church, she was a Part of the Catholic Church. This is very intelligible. Let us then go on. But how come the Promises made to the Catholic Church to belong to the Roman-Catholic? How comes the Roman-Catholic to be the One Church of Christ on Ea…th? But this is running forwards and backwards. And … g…od is to be done, without supposing Roman and Catho… to be terms equivalent.

He tells me, I am over-hasty in removing the Power of working Pag. 33.Miracles out of the Church. For, he saith, God still works Miracles in the Roman Church; and if I would put the whole issue on Miracles, he would undertake the Proof.

There is nothing in this Case like working of Miracles among us, for our satisfaction. For Miracles are a sign to unbelievers. But it is a pleasant thing, that they should go about to convince us by those things, which they laugh at one another for pretending to. I will give them an Instance past contradiction. Did not the Iansenists pretend to a Miracle at Port-Royal by one of the Thorns of our Saviours Crown? And did not the Iesuits expose the very pretence as idle and ridiculous? as appears by F. Annat's Book on that Occasion. The late Author of the Prejudices against the Jansenists, upon occasion of that Miracle, lays down some good … legit. c. le Jansenists, c. 10.Rules for discerning true Miracles and false. (1.) That such Miracles are not sufficient to convince, which may be effected by a created Power, unless they be attested by such Miracles which can only be effected by a Divine Power; such as Resurrection from the dead. (2.) We must not only attend to the Nature, but to the End of Miracles; which, he P ag. 87.saith, is the true worship of God, and the love of Vertue. And by these Rules I shall be content to examine all his Miracles, when ever he produces them.

p. 35The Assistance which Christ promised, he tells us, was to all his. Pag. 34.Doctrine, and to all time.

But what a sad thing is it, that we have nothing but his bare saying for the Proof of it! Never Man more needed Infallibility than this Defender does, when he undertakes to prove it. What! Can Christ afford no Assistance to his Church without Infallibility? What thinks he of the Assistance of Divine Grace? Doth that make all Infallible that have it? And is not that Assistance by vertue of Divine Promises? Is this to ask which of the parts of his Promise he will not perform? We doubt not he will perform all he hath promised, but we desire to see where he hath made the Promise. We ask nothing unreasonable, and therefore out of pity to our weakness, shew these Promises of standing Infallibility to us; and do not take it still for granted without proving it.

But the Replier saith, The Promises of Christ imply whatever is necessary to the Church for the support and government of her self to Rep. p. 22.the Worlds end.

Is Infallibility then necessary for the Support and Government of the Catholic Church? If not, then the Promises of Support and Government …elate not to the matter. But no less a Man than S. Augustine, frequently affirms, That the Promises Aug. de Bapt. c. Donatis… l. 3. c. 17, 18. l. 4. c. 18, 20. l. 5. c. 21. l. 6. c. 1, 3, 4, 14, 24, 2, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 40. l. 7. c. 12, 32, 43, 44. L. 2. c. 1. L. 7. c. 51.made by Christ to the Church, are only made to good and not to bad Men in it; and that the case of wicked Men in the Church, and of Hereticks and Schismaticks out of it is alike; i. e. that both have true Sacraments, but neither any right to the Promises. And this he doth not assert by chance, but it is the very Foundation of his Answer to the Donatists, in the Answer which himself valued the most.

And he concludes with saying, That some are in the House of God, so as to be that House of God which was built upon a Rock, and had th Promises made to it; and these are the Saints dispersed over the World, and joyned together in the Communion of the same Sacraments; others are so in the House, as not to belong to the Frame of it; but are as the Chaff among the Wheat; and are rather of the House than any part of it. If this be good Doctrine in S. Augustin, what becomes of all the Promi…es made to the Church, with respect to the External Government and Support of it?

p. 36I might name multitudes of Places more, wherein he …Line….argues, That wicked …en do not belong to the One Church; and are not the Sp…se of Christ: for Christ saith to them, I know you n…t; and Her…ticks, he saith, are but one sort of bad Men. If therefore the Promises of the Catholic Church do not belong to one, neither can … other.

I had therefore Reason …o ask, where God hath ever promised to keep Men more from Error than Sin? And how it comes to pass that very bad Men are allow'd in the Church of Rome to have this Pr…ise of Infallibility?

The Defender slides off from this to a matter he was better prepared to Answer. But the Replier tells us of some of Rep. p. 23.the Proph…ts who were great Sinners; I suppose he means Balaam and Caiaphas. But however, this doth not reach to the matter of the New Testament, wherein doing the Will of God is John 7. 17.John 7:17laid down as the best means of knowing the Truth. But he offers at a Reason why impeccability is not so necessary as Infallibility, because without this the Church could not subsist; for if once she make shipwrack of her Faith, she is no more a Church, an effe… not so proper to Sin. There is a great difference between absolute impeccability and notorious Offenders; the question I put was not concerning perfect Saints, but great Sinners; why they should believe that Christ would give an infallible Assistance to keep such Men from erring, when notwithstanding the Assistance of Grace, they run on in a course of wickedness? He saith, One is necessary for the Church, and not the other. Then there may be a holy Catholic infallible Church made up of none but great Sinners. And was this such a Church as Christ purchased with his own Blood; and whom he re…med from all impiety to be a peculiar People, zealous of good Works? If they say, The Grace of God ill never fail to keep some from great Sins; why may not the same hold as to great Errors? And that be as much as the Promises extend to.

B…t if the Church once makes Shipwrack of Faith, she is no more a Church.

How comes Faith to be separated from a good Conscience? I am sure S. Paul joyns them together. Is no Error consistent with the Being of a Church? Not an Error about p. 37the Seat of Infallibility? Not an Error about the Immaculate Conception? Nor about the Vision of God before the day of Iudgment? Not about the Son's being of the same substance with the Father? Not about Christ's having a will proper to his humane Nature? Then there can be no such thing as the Roman-Catholic Church in the opinion of those who are for personal Infallibility of the Pope, since the Heads of their Church have erred about these things. The true Church can never make shipwrack of that Faith which makes her a true Church: But other kind of Errors cannot overthrow her being.

I urged farther, That notwithstanding the pretence to Infallibility, they allow the Church may err in matters of Practice of the highest importance, as about Deposing Princes and Absolving Subjects from their Allegiance; but not about the least matter of Faith; which made it very suspicious to be rather a politick device than a thing they really believed.

Here the Defender (I fear wilfully) mistakes my meaning; for he argues as if he thought I were proving, That Def. p. 34, 35.the Church of Rome hath defined the Deposing Doctrine as a matter of Faith; and great pains he takes to prove it hath not. And all to no purpose. For I insisted only, that in this point, they confessed their Church had grosly erred as to a matter of Practice, though it had not expresly declared it as an Article of Faith. I desire him to speak out; hath it not erred notoriously as to Practice in this matter? Whether they have made any such Declaration or not, as to oblige all others of their Communion to embrace the Doctrine; it is undeniably true, that their Popes and Councils have owned it and acted according to it, to the mighty disturbance of the Peace of the Christian World. Now the question I put was this, Since it is granted they have so notoriously erred in matters of Practice, why should any believe them Infallible in Points of Faith? i. e. that so many Popes, so many Councils, should act upon this principle, as believing it to be true, and yet preserve their Infallibility in not declaring it to be true. This I confess is an extraordinary thing; and the Defender seems in earnest p. 38to think they were kept from it by an over-ruling assistance of the Divine Spirit. Which is just as if a Man were set upon in the Road by some pretending to be his Friends, who should take from him all that he had, and afterwards he should admire the Providence of God, that these Men should not declare it lawful to do it. It is granted that so many Popes did great Mischief to the World, and especially to Christian Princes, by acting according to this Doctrine, and that they actually owned it in Councils, and made Canons on purpose for it, but yet an over-ruling Assistance kept them from making it a Point of Faith. They declared their own belief by their Practice and Canons; they required the observance of them under pain of being cut off from the Church if they did it not; and Gregory VII. Greg. 7. Epist. Reg. l. 4. Ep. 2.saith, They cut themselves off who question this Power; but they were deceived, notoriously deceived in this matter, yet they might be Infallible still. Did not these Popes declare that to be Christs Doctrine which is not? But not Authoritatively. What I pray doth this mean? Did they not declare this Power by vertue of the Authority given them by Christ over the Church? And declare those Excommunicate who did not obey their Sentence? Is not this proceeding Authoritatively? Suppose the Popes had in the same manner declared that Hereticks should be Re-baptized; i. e. made Canons for it, and required the observance of them; I desire to know whether this had not been Authoritative declaring it, though they affixed no Anathema to those who held the contrary? Is it possible for any Man to believe, that if there were such a thing as Infallibility in the Guides of the Church, that Christ would suffer them to run into such pernicious Errors, and in such an Authoritative manner, and yet make good his Promise of keeping them from Error by not suffering them to define this Doctrine as an Article of Faith? But this will appear to be a very slender Evasion, if Men will reflect on the nature of the matter it self; for it is about the exercise of the Pope's Power over Princes; and can it be supposed that since they challenged it, they would ever suffer it to be debated in Councils; but they would still p. 39have it pass as an inseparable Right of their Supremacy derived from S. Peter. And all that they would allow in this Case, is a bare Recognition; and that was made in the Councils of Lyons and Lateran.

And the Deposing Power in the Church, was sufficiently owned in the Councils of Constance and Trent.

But there are two sorts of Articles of Faith to be considered in the Church of Rome.

1. Some are defined with an Anathema against Dissenters; and so we do not say the Deposing Power is made an Article of Faith.

2. Some are received upon the common Grounds of Faith, though not expresly declared. And whatever Doctrine being denied would overthrow them, may be justly look'd on as a Presumptive Article of Faith. As the denying the Deposing Power must charge the Church of Rome Representative and Virtual with such acts, as are utterly inconsistent with the Promises of Divine Assistance supposed to be made to it. Therefore all those who sincerely believe those Promises to belong to the Church of Rome so taken, must in consequence believe so many Popes and Councils could not be so grosly mistaken in the Ground of their Actings. And I find those who do now most contend that this Doctrine was never defined, do yet yield, that both Popes and Councils believed it to be true, and acted accordingly.

But if nothing will be allowed to be points of Faith, but what passes under the Decision of Councils approved by the Pope as such, I pray tell me, which of the General Councils determined the Popes Supremacy as a Point of Faith? Where was the Roman Catholic Churches Infallibility defined? Are these Points of Faith with you, or not? If they be, then there may be Points of Faith among you which never passed any Conciliar Definitions; or such Authoritative Declaration as the Defender means.

p. 40(2.) I now come to consider the Sense of the Primitive Church about this matter of an Infallible Judge of Controversies. Which I am obliged to do, not only because it is said in the Papers, That the Church exercised this Pag. 18.Power after the Apostles; but because the Defender brings Tertullian as rejecting the Scripture from being a sufficient Rule for Controversies; and S. Augustine, as setting up the Authority of the Church above the Scripture in matters of Proof.

But I confess two lame sayings of Fathers make no great impression on me. I am for searching the sense of the Primitive Church in so weighty a Point as this, after another manner; (but as briefly as may be) i. e. by the general Sense of the Fathers of the first Ages about the Controversies then on foot, that I may not deceive my self or others in a matter of this Consequence.

The point is, Whether according to the sense of the Primitive Church, when any Controversie about Faith doth arise, a Person be bound to submit to the Churches Sentence as Infallible; or he be required to make use of the best means he can to judge concerning it, taking the Scriptures for his Infallible Rule?

Now to judge the Sense of the Primitive Church about this Point, there can be no method more proper or convincing than to consider what Course the Christian Church did take in the Controversies then started, which were great and considerable. And if it had been then believed that Christ had left such an infallible Authority in the Church to have put an end to them; it had been no more possible to have avoided the mention of it, than if a great Cause in Law were to be decided among us, that neither Party should ever take notice of the Iudges in Westminster-Hall.

There were two very great Controversies in the Primitive Church, which continued a long time under different Names; and we are now to observe what method the Catholic Writers of the Church took for establishing the true Faith.

p. 41And these were concerning the Humanity, and the Divinity of Christ.

That concerning the Humanity of Christ begun very early; for S. Iohn mentions those who denied that Iesus was come in the Flesh; i. e. that he really took our Nature upon him. 1 John 4. 3.1 John 4:3And this Heresie did spread very much after the Apostles times.

Ignatius made it a great part of the business of his Epistles to warn the Churches he wrote to, and to arm them against it. And what way doth he take to do it? Doth he ever tell them of the danger of using their own Judgment; or of not relying on the Authority of the Church in this matter? I cannot find one passage tending that way in all his Epistles. But instead thereof, he appeals to the Words of our Saviour in the Evangelist, Touch me, and see if I be a Body, or a Spirit: his words are A… …. p. 3.an incorporeal Daemon; but it was usual with the ancient Fathers to repeat the Sense of Places, and not the very Words. And a little after he saith, That these Hereticks Pag. 4.were not perswaded, neither by the Prophets, nor by the Law, nor by the Gospel. And he advises the Church of Smyrna to attend to the Prophets, but especially to the Pag. 6.Gospel; in which the Passion and Resurrection of Christ are declared.

Irenaeus disputes warmly and frequently against this Heresie; and he appeals to the Testimony of the Apostles I. …. l. …. c. 17, 18.in thei… Writings; especially to the Gospels of S. Iohn and S. …a…thew; but not omitting the other Gospels and the Epistles of S. Paul and S. Iohn. And he calls the Scriptures, The **L. 1. 1. 4. 69.immoveable Rule of Truth; the ††L. 3. c. 1.Foundation and Pillar of our Faith; and saith, That **L. …. …. 47. 4. 66.they contain the whole Will of God. It is t…ue, he makes use of Tradition in the Church, to those who rejected the Scriptures; and he finds fault with those who took words and pieces of Scripture to serve their turn; but he directs to the right use of it, and doth not seem to question the sufficiency thereof, for the satisfaction of humble and teac…able minds in all the points of Faith, which were then controverted.

p. 42Tertullian undertakes the same Cause in several Books and several ways. One is by shewing that the Opinion of the Hereticks was novel; not being consistent with the Doctrine delivered by the Apostles, as appeared by the unanimous consent of the Apostolical Churches; which did all believe Christ had a true and real Body. And this way he made use of, because those Hereticks either rejected, or interpolated, or perverted the Books of Scripture. But this way of Prescription look'd like Out-Lawing of Hereticks and never suffering them to come to a fair Trial. Therefore in his other Books he goes upon three substantial Grounds. (1.) That the Books of Scripture do De Carut Christi, &c. Marcion. &c. Valentin.certainly deliver the Doctrine of the Christian Church concerning Christs having a true Body. (2.) That these Books of Scripture were not counterfeit, nor corrupted and adulterated; but preserved genuine and sincere in the Apostolical Churches. (3.) That the sense which the Hereticks put upon the Words of Scripture was forced and unreasonable; but the sense of the Church was true and natural. So that Tertullian did conclude, that there was no way to end this Controversie but by finding out the true sense of Scripture.

But the Author of the Defence brings in Tertullian, as Def. p. 18. D… Praescript. c. 17.representing all trial of Doctrine by Scripture, as good for nothing but to turn the Brain or the Stomach; and that the issue is either uncertain or none.

I grant Tertullian hath those words; but for Truths sake I wish he had not left out others, viz. That those Hereticks do not receive some Scriptures; and those they do receive they add and alter as they please. And what, saith he, can the most skilful in Scriptures do with those who will defend or deny what they think fit? With such indeed, he saith, it is to little purpose to dispute out of Scriptures. And no doubt he was in the right; for the Rule must be allow'd on both sides; or else there can be nothing but a wrangling about it. The first thing then here, was to settle the Rule, and for this the Testimony of the Apostolical Churches was of great use. But to imagine that Tertullian rejected all trial of Doctrines by Scripture, is to make him to write to little purpose afterwards; when he combates with all sorts of Hereticks p. 43out of Scripture, as appears by his Books against Marcion, Praxeas, Hermogenes and others. And Tertullian himself saith, That if we bring Hereticks only to Scripture, they cannot stand. Not because Aufer denique Haereticis quae cum Ethnicis sapiunt, ut de Scripturis solis quaestiones suas sistant, & stare non poterunt. De Resur. Ca…nis, c. 3.they went only upon Reason; but in the end of the same Treatise he saith, They made use of Scriptures too, but such as were to be confuted by other Haereses autem sine aliquibus occasionibus Scripturarum audere non poterant; idcirco pristina instrumenta quasdam materias illis videntur subministrasse, & ipsas quidem iisdem literis revincibiles, c. 63.Scriptures. And therefore he makes the Hereticks to decline, as much as in them lay, the Light of the Scriptures; which he would never have charged on others, if he thought himself that Controversies could not be ended by Lucifugae isti Scripturarum, c. 47.them.

Clemens Alexandrinus speaking of the same Heresies, makes the Controversie to consist chiefly about the Scriptures, whether they were to be embraced and followed, or not. He Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 7. p. 755. foreign. ib. & 757.saith. None of the Heresies among Christians had so darken'd the Truth, but that those who would might find it; and the way he advises to, is a diligent search of the Scriptures; wherein the Demonstration of our Faith doth consist; and by which, as by a certain Criterion, we are to judge of the truth and falshood of opinions. Which he there insists upon at large. He speaks indeed of the Advantage of the Church above Heresies, both as to Antiquity and Unity; but he never makes the Iudgment of the Church to be the Rule of Faith, as he doth the Scriptures.

In the Dialogue against the Marcionists, supposed to be Origen's, this Controversie is briefly handled, the point is brought Orig. Dial. c. Marcionist. §. 4. p. 108. p. 101.to the Sense of Scripture; as in that place, the Word was made Flesh; from which, and other places the Catholic argues the Truth of Christ's humane Nature; especially from Christ's appealing to the sense of his Disciples about the Truth of his Body after the Resurrection. All his Demonstrations are out of Scripture, and by the meer force of them he overthrows this Heresie. And it was nothing but the clear Evidence of Scripture, without any Infallible Judgment or Assistance of the Guides of the Church, which did at last suppress this Heresie. For no Council was called about it, but as the Authority p. 44of the New Testament prevailed, so this Heresie declined, and by degrees vanished out of the Christian World. And it is observable, That the greatest and worst of Heresies were supprest, while no other Authority was made use of against them but that of the holy Scriptures. So Theodoret takes notice, Y…od. ad he…t. Fab. Pr…ef. & l. 2. p. 218.That before his time these Heresies by Divine Grace were extinct. So that the Scriptures were then found an effectual means for putting an end to some of the most dangerous Heresies which ever were in the Christian Church.

The other great Controversie of the first Age, was about the Divinity of Christ; which begun with the Ebionites and Cerinthians, and was continued down by succession, as appears by Theodoret's account of Heresies in his second Book. Those who first embraced this Heresie rejected the whole New Testament, and received only the Nazarene Gospel. But after a while Artemon had the boldness to assert that the Apostles deliver'd the same Doctrine in their Writings, and then the Controversie was reduced to the Sense of Scripture. Paulus Samosatenus follow'd Artemon, as Photinus afterwards follow'd him. But Theodoret again observes, That all those Heresies against the Divinity of Christ were in his time so extinct, that not so much as any remainders of them were left; but saith he, The true Doctrines of the Gospels prevail and spread themselves over the World. And we may find what course was taken for putting an end to this Controversie, by the management of it with Paulus Samosatenus. In the fragment of an Epistle of Dionysius of Alexandria, we read the Testimonies of Scripture which he produced against him; and more at large in the Epistle of the Six Bishops to him; who makes use of the very same Places of Scripture which are most applied to that purpose to this day. To which they only add, That this had been the Doctrine of the Christian Church from the beginning; and all Catholic Churches agreed in it. But here is no such thing thought of as I…sallibility in the Guides of the Church; for there is great difference between the consent of the Christian Church, as a means to find out the Sense of Scripture, and the Authority of Church Guides declaring the Sense by vertue of an Insallible Assistance; the one is but a Moral Argument, and the other is a Foundation of Faith.

p. 45Theodoret further observes, That there was another set of Heresies Haeret. Fab. l. 3. p. 226, 231.distinct from the two former in the Primitive Church, which related chiefly to matters of Discipline and Manners; and most of these, he saith, were so far destroyed, t…at there were none th…n left, who were Followers of Nicolas, Nepos, or Patroclus, and very few Novatians, or Montanists, or Quartodecemans; so that Truth had prevail…d over the World, and the Heresies were either quite rooted out, or only some dry and withered Branches remained of them in remote and obscure Places.

Which being affirmed by a Person of so much Judgment and Learning, as Theodoret was, gives us a plain and evident Proof, that the Sense of Scripture may be so fully clear'd, without an Infallible Church, as to be effectual for putting an end to Controversies.

And altho we own a great Esteem and Reverence for the Four General Councils; yet we cannot but observe, that Controversies were so far from being ended by them, that they broke out more violently after them. As the Arian Controversy after the Council of Nice; the Nestorian after that at Eph…sus; and these Gentlemen believe that Heresy continues still in the East: the Eutychian Controversy gave greater Disturbance after the Council of Chalced…n, than before, and continued so to do for many Ages: Which is an Argument that the Infallibility of Councils, or of the Guides of the Church, was not a Doctrine then received in the Church.

But I proceed to shew what means were used in the Primitive Church for putting an end to Controversies. Of which we have a remarkable Instance in the Dispute about Rebaptizing Hereticks. This was managed between St. Cyprian and other Bishops of Africa and Asia, on one side, and the Bishop of Rome on the other. He pleaded Custom and Tradition: the other, That Custom without Truth was but ancient Error; and that the matter St. Cyprian, Epist. 74, 75.ought to be examined by Scripture; and many Reasons they bring from thence; because Christ said in his Gospel, I am Truth; and the only way to prevent Errors, is to have recourse to the Head and Fountain of Divine Tradition, i. e. to the Holy Scriptures; which St. Cyprian calls the Evangelical and Apostolical Tradition. So that we have the clear Opinion of the African Bishops, that this Controversy ought to be decided by Scripture. But here the Replier saith, That Right stood for the Bishops of Rome, p. 46Reply, p. 13.and a General Council determined the Point, and the whole Church came to an Acquiescence. If the Council was in the Right, the Bishop of Rome was not; if St. Cyprian represent his Opinion truly, and he saith he did it in his own Words, which are, Si quis a quacunque Haeresi venerit ad nos, nihil innovetur nisi quod Traditum est. Now, no Council ever determin'd so, That whatsoever the Heresy was, none should …e Rebaptized. For the Councils of Arles and Nice both disallow'd the Baptism of some Hereticks; and therefore, if the Council put an end to the Controversy, it was by deciding against the Bishop of Rome, as well as St. Cyprian.

The Donatists afterwards made use of St. Cyprians Authority in this Controversy, which gave occasion to St. Augustin, to deliver that noted Sentence, concerning Scripture and Fathers, and Councils, viz That anonical Scripture is to be preferr'd before any Aug. de Bapt. c. Donatill. l. 2. c. 3.other Writings, for they are to be believed without Examination; but the Writings of Bishops are to be examined and corrected by other Bishops and Councils, if they see Cause; and lesser Councils by greater, and the greatest Councils, by such as come after them, when Truth comes to be more fully diservered. It is hardly possible for a Man to speak plainer against a stand…ng infallible Judg in Controversies, than St. Augustin doth in these Words, wherein he neither limits his Words to matters of Fact, nor to Manners; but he speaks generally, as to the Authority of the Guides of the Church compared with Scripture. Which are enter'd in the Authentick De…r. Dist 9. c 8.Body of the Canon Law, approved and corrected at Rome, only that part which relates to the correcting of Councils, is left out. But to make amends, G…atian in another place, hath with admirable Ingenuity, put the Popes Decretal Epistles among the Dist. 19. c. 6.Can…nical Scriptures, and quotes St. Augustin for it too. But the Roman Correctors were ashamed of so gross a Forgery, and confess St. Augustin never thought of the Decretal Epistles, but of the Canonical Scriptures; but yet they … itle stand for good Canon Law.

In the Controversy about the Church with the Donatists, St. Augustin's constant appeal is to the Scrip…; and he sets aside, not only particular Doctors, hut the prete… to Miracles, and the Definitions of Councils. He doth not therefore appeal to Scripture, De unit. Ecel. c. 3. 416.because …hey … about the Church: but because he looked on the Testimonies of Scripture, as clear enough to decide the p. 47point, as he often declares. And he calls the plain Testimonies of Scripture, the support and strength of their Cause. If he then thought that Scripture alone could put an end to such a Controversy as that, no doubt he thought so as to any other. But we need not mention his thoughts, for he declares as much: whether it be about Christ or his Church, or any matter of Faith, he makes Scripture so far the Rule, that he denouncess Anathema against those who deliver any other Doctrine than what is contained in them. Nor doth he c. Petil. Donar. l. 3. c. 6direct to any Church Authority to manifest the Sense of Scripture, but leaves all Mankind to judg of it, and even the Donatists themselves whom he opposed. The same way he takes with Maximinus the Arian, He desires all other Authorities may be laid c. Maxim. Arian. l. 3. c. 14.aside, and only those of Scripture and Reason used. To what purpose, unless he thought the Scripture sufficient to end the Controversy?

Against Faustus the Manichean, he saith, The Excellency of the c. Faust. l. 11. c. 5.Canonical Scripture is such, as to be placed in a Threne far above all other Writings, to which every faithful and pious Mind ought to submit. All other Writings are to be tried by them; but there is no doubt to be made of whatever we find in them.

The same method he uses with the P…lagians, an advises them De Peccator. Merit & remiss. l. 1. 22. De Nuptiis & Concupisc. l. 2. c. 33. De Grat. & lib. Arbitrio. c. 18.to yeild to the Authority of Scripture, which can neither deceive nor be deceived. This Controversy, saith he, requires a Judg; les Christ judg, let us hear him speak. Let the Apostle judg with him, for Christ speaks in his Apostle. And in another place, Let St. John sit judg between us.

And in general he saith, We ought to Acquiesce in the Authority of Scripture; and when any Controversy arises, it ought to be quietly ended In Psalm 67.Ps 67by Proofs brought from thence.

But St. Augustin is the Man, whom the Defender produces against Def. p. 18.me; because against the Manicheans, he saith, he believed the Scripture for the sake of the Church; and to bring any proof out of Scripture against the Church, does weaken that Authority, upon which he believed the Scripture, and so he could believe neither. The meaning wherof is this, St. Augustin was reduced from being a Manichean to the Catholick Church by many Arguments; and by the Authority of the Church delivering the Books of Scripture, he embraced the Gospel, which before he did not. Now, saith he, You would make use of this Gospel to prove Manichaeus an Apostle, I can by no means yield to this way. Why so? Do not you believe it to be Gospel? Yes, saith he; but the same reason which moved me to embrace this Gospel, moved me to reject p. 48Manichaeus, and therefore I have no reason to allow a Testimony out of it for Manichaeus. Not that St. Augustine seared any proof that could be brought from thence; but he begins with general Topicks, as Tertullian did against the Hereticks of his time, before he came to close with them. And such was this which he here produces. For in case Manichaeus his Name had been in the Gospel as an Apostle of Christs appointing, this Argument of St. Augustine had not been sufficient. For there might be sufficient reason from the Churches Authority to embrace the Gospel; and yet if the Scripture had been plain, he ought to have believed Manichaeus his Apostleship, though the Church disowned it. As I will prove by an undeniable Instance: Suppose a Jewish Proselyte to have argued just after the same manner against Jesus being the Messias; the Apostles go about to prove that he was so, by the Testimony of the Prophets: No, saith he, I can allow no such Argument: because the same Authority of the Jewish Church which perswaded me to believe the Prophets, doth likewise perswade me not to believe Jesus to be the Messias. If it be so far from holding in this case, neither can it in the other. For it proceeds upon a very feeble Supposition, that no Church can deliver a Book for Canonical, but it must judg aright concerning all things relating to it. Which unavoidably makes the Jewish Church infallible at the same time it condemned. Christ as a Deceiver. But this was only a witty velitation in St. Augustine, used by Rhetoricians, before he entered into the Merits of the Cause. And it is very hard when such sayings shall at every turn be quoted, against his more mature and well weighed judgment.

What noise is there made in the world with that one saying of his, I should not believe the Gospel, unless the Authority os the Cathelick Church moved me? And the Defender brings it to prove the Church more visible than Scripture. Whereas, he means no more by it, but that the authority of the Church was greater to him, than that De… p. 2.of Manichaeus. For he had been swayed by his authority to reject the Gospel; and now he rejects that authority, and believes the Catholick Church rather than him. And this doth not make the Churches authority greater than Scripture, but more visible than that of Manichaeus.

But if St. Augustin's Testimony here be allowed to extend farther, yet it implies no more than that the constant, universal Tradition of the Scripture by the Catholick Church, makes it appear p. 49credible to us. What can be deduced hence as to the Churches Infallibility in interpreting Scripture, or the Roman Churches authority in delivering it?

The Arrian Controversie gave a great disturbance to the Christian Church; and no less a man than the Emperour Constantine thought there was no such way to put an end to it, as to search the Scriptures about it; As he declared to the Council of Nice at their meeting, as Theodoret saith. It is true, he spake to the Guides of Theod. l. 1. c. 6.the Church assembled in Council, but his words are remarkable, viz. That the Books of Scripture do plainly instruct us what we are to believe concerning the Deity, if we search them with peaceable minds. Methinks Bellarmine bestows no great Complement on Constantine Bellar. de Ver. Dei, l 4. c. 11.for this saying, when he saith, He was a great Emperour, but no grea… Doctor. This had been indeed sawcy and scurrilous in others, but it was no doubt good manners in him.

St. Hilary commends his Son Constantius, because he would have Hilar. l. 2. ad Constant.this Controversie ended by the Scriptures; and he desires to be heard by him about the sense of the Scriptures concerning it; which he was ready to shew, not from new Writings, but from Gods Word.

Athanasius seems to question the usefulness of Councils in this matter, because the Scripture of it self was sufficient to put an end to Athanas. de Synodis Tom. 1. p. 873. Tom. 2. p. 197. Tom. 1. c. Grat.it. And elsewhere saith, that it is plain enough to those who search for Truth. And in general he asserts their sufficiency and clearness for the discovery of Truth.

When a Controversie was raised in St. Basil's time about the Trinity, the best Expedient that great man could think of for putting Basil. Epist. 80. Tom. 3. Epist. 1, & 284an end to it, was to refer it to the Scriptures. In another place he commends it as the best way to find out Truth, to be much in the study of the Scriptures; and saith that the Spirit of God did thereby lead to all things useful.

Epiphanius was well acquainted with all the Heresies of the Church, and the best means to suppress them; and certainly he would never have taken such pains to refute so many Heresies out of Scripture, if he had look'd on the Church as the Infallible Judg of Controversies. For he not only undertakes to give the sense of Scripture for the ending of Controversies, but he supposes all Persons capable of understanding it, that will apply themselves to it. Which he Haer. 75. p. 923 943, 989.several times affirms in the consutation of his last Heresie.

I shall conclude with St. Chrysostome, who speaks to this purpose, to a person so offended at the Sects and Heresies among Christians, p. 50that he did not know whom or what to believe: …he Scriptures, saith Chrysost. in Acta Apost. Hom. 33.he are pla… and true, and it is an easie matter to judg by them; if a man agrees with the S…iptures, he is a Christian; if not, he is out of that …oll. But men di…fer about the sense of Scripture. What, saith he, h…ve ye not a … and judgment? And after the answering several other Cav…ls, l… concludes, Let us submit to the Divine Law, and d… what is pleasing t… that and that will bring us to Heaven. And in another place, If …e s…udy the Scriptures, we shall understand both true In Joh. Hom: 53Doctrine and a good li…e. And again, the Scriptures are the Door which k…p out Hereticks, which establish our minds in the Truth, and suffer Ib Hom. 58us not to be sedu…ed.

Thus I have given somewhat a clearer view of the sense of the Primitive Church in this m…tter, than could be taken from two single passages of Tertullian and St. Augustin; and I have been so far from swelling or enlarging this as far as I could, that I have made choice only of these, out of many others which I could have produced. But if these be not sufficient, a Volume will not satisfie; which it were not hard to make on this Subject, out of the Fathers.

(3) It is time now to examine the Inconveniencies alledged against Persons judging of matters of Faith according to the Scriptures:

(1) That God Almighty would then leave us at Uncertainties, if he gave us a Rule, and …eft every one to be his own Iudg; for that were to leave every phantastical m…n to c…use as he pleases.

To this was answered, (1) That this Objection doth not reach those of the Church of Englan…, which receives the three Creeds, and embraces the four General Councils, and professes to hold nothing contrary to any U…iversal Tradition of the Church from the Apostles times. And that we have often offer'd to put the Controversies between us and the Church of Rome upon that issue.

To this Answer the Replier saith, That they do not charge our Church with not prof…ssing these things, but for erring against her own Reply, p. 18Prof…ssion, and deserting that Church to which all these Authorities bear Testimony, and of which her Progenitors and first Reformers had been Members, and from whose hands she received what soever she had, either of Scripture, Creeds, Councils or Tradition, and consequently whose judgment she was bound to follow.

p. 51Whether we act against our Profession or not, it is plain the Rule of our Church doth not by this Profession leave every one to follow his own fancy, and to believe as he pl…ses. But wherein is it that we thus Act against our Profession? Do we reject the …reeds, Councils, and Universal Tradition in our Deeds? Wherein? In deserting the Communion of the Church of Rome? And is the necessity of th…t contained in the Creeds here receiv'd? In the …our Councils? …y Universal Tradition? For this I refer to the foregoing D…scourse about the Unity of the Catholick Church. But we receiv'd these thi…gs from the Church of Rome. So we do the old T…stament from the Jews, must we therefore hold Communion still with them? Are we bound therefore to follow the Judgment of the Jewish Chur…? But I do not understand how we receiv'd these things from the Authority of the Church of Rome. We receiv'd the Scriptures from Universal Tradition derived from all the Apostolical …hurches; and so the Creeds and Councils; and such an Universal Tradition is the thing we desire; for the Trent-Creed, our forefathers never knew or receiv'd as part of that Faith without which there is no Salvation.

But here the Defender grows brisk, and saith, All Hereticks since the first …our General Councils, may say the very same which I say for Def: p: 21:the Church of England; and all before them the Equivalent. Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, and Entyches, might have said as much of the Cr…eds before them; and all complain of the Villainous Fact…ns in the Church against them. My Plea for the Church of England hath justified them all. [The same thing is said in sewer words by the Replier.] That this Plea justifies the Arrians, and condemns the Nicene Reply, p. 19Fathers, vindicates the Eutychians Nestorians, and Donatists, and confounds all General Councils.

Lest therefore I should seem to betray the Church of England, instead of defending it, I shall shew the Reasonableness and Equity of this Plea, and its great difference from that of the Ancient Hereticks condemned by General Councils, or the Ancient Church.

(1) The Ancient Hereticks were condemned by that Rule of Faith which the Church always receiv'd, v z. the Scriptures; but the Council of T…ent set up a new Rule of Faith on purpose that they might condemn us for Hereticks, viz. in making Tradition equal with Scripture, which is directly contrary to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church; as I have already shewed. The method of General Councils was to have the Books of Scripture placed in p. 52the middle of them on a Table, as the Rule they were to judg by. Act Synodi Eph. p. 175. Hist. Concil. To. 1. p. 498.And Richerius, a Doct… of the Scrbon, not only affirms the Custom, but sai…h it was for … Reason, That the Fathers of the Councils might be admonished, that all things were to be examined by the standard of the Gospel.

Bellarmin affirms the Council of Nice, To have drawn its Conclusion Bell. de Concil. l. 2. c. 12.out of Scriptures; and the same he affirms of the 6th General Council; and he might as well have done it of the rest; their main design, being only to establish the Doctrine of the Divinity and Incarnation of Christ. But the Case of Councils came to be very different, when they took upon them to define other matters for which they had no Colour in Scripture (as the 2d Council of Nice did, which was the first that went upon Tradition) and then the Christian Church did not shew such Respect to them; as was most apparent in the Case of this Council of Nice, which was universally rejected in these Western parts, (Rome excepted) as appears by the Council of Fran…ford, and the unexceptionable Testimonies of Eghinardus, Hincmarus, and others. Would this have been a sufficient Argument against Charlemaign and the Western Bishops, that they joyned in the Plea of the Ancient Hereticks, and none were ever condemned by the Church, but they made such complaints against the Proceedings of Councils, as they did? It is certain that Leo Armenus in the East, as well as Charles, Niceph. cum Leone Armeno Disput. ed. Combefis, p. 162.and the Western Church, rejected that Council, as contrary to Scripture; which shews that neither in the East or West, did they think themselves so tied up by Definitions of Councils, proceeding in such a manner; but that they were at full Liberty to examin, and if they saw Cause, to reject such Definitions. While Councils did declare, that they intended to make use of no other Rule but Scripture, and to deliver only the Sense of the Catholick Church from the beginning, a great regard was to be shew'd to them: but when they set up another Rule, the Christian Church had just Reason not to submit to their Decrees. And to say, This is the Plea of all Hereticks, is just as if an innocent Person might not be allowed to plead not Guilty, because the greatest Malefactors do the same. There must be some certain Rules whereby to proceed in this matter: and this is the first We fix upon, That they proceed as the Ancient Councils did according to Scriptures.

p. 53(2.) The Ancient Hereticks were condemned by such Councils, as did represent the Universal Church after another manner, than the Council of Trent did. I do not say, There was ever such a General Council, as did fully represent the Universal Church, which could not be done without Provincial Councils summon'd b…ore in all parts of Christendom, and the De…egation from them of such Persons as were to deliver their Sense …n the matter of Faith, to be debated in the General Council; and I have Reason to question whether this were ever done. But however, there is a very great difference in the Ancient Councils from the modern, as to this point of Representing, for in them there was the Consent of all the Patriarchs, and a general Summons for the Bishops from all parts to appear. But in the Modern Councils, four Patriarchs, and the Bishops under them, have been excluded; and the 5th hath Summon'd the Bishops under him to meet together, and then hath called this a General Council. Which is just as if in the time of the Heptarchy, the King of Mercia should assemble the States under him, and call the Convention of them, The Parliament of England. Thus in the Council of Trent, the Pope Summons the Bishops that owned his Supremacy, and had taken Oaths to him, to meet together, and would have this pass for a General Council. When the Council met, and Cardinal Hosius was appointed President in it; Stanistaus Orechovius, a warm and zealous Romanist, writes to Hosius, That it would very much conduce to their Reputation and Interest, if the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch, were Summon'd to the Council, because the Greeks and Armenians depended upon them: And he could not understand how the Catholick Church could be Represented without them, nor how the Council could be called Oecumenical. To which Hosivs Replied, That the Pope being Oecumenical Patriarch, a Council called by him, was an Oecumenical Council. Now this we say, is extreamly different Hos. Oper. p. 373. Quandoquidem solus ille verè dicitur & est Oecumenicus patriarcha, quod Concilium ipsius est Auctoritate Congregatum, id verè dicitur oecumenicum.from the Notion of an Oecumenical Council in the Ancient times, and overthrows the Rights of other Churches, as they were setled by the Four General Councils; and therefore the Case is very different as to being condemnd by General Councils, and by the late Conventions assembled by the Popes Authority.

(3.) Themselves allow that some Councils may be, and ought to be rejected; and therefore all our business is to enquire whether we may not with as much Reason reject some Councils, as they do others. They reject the Council of Ariminum, which together p. 54with that of S…leucia (which sat at the same time) make up the most General Council we read of in Church-History. For Bellarmin De Concil. l. 1. …. 6.owns that there were 600. Bishops in the Western part of it. So that there were many more Bishops assembled than were in the Council of Nice; there was no Exception against the Summons, or the Bishops present; and yet the Authority of this Council is rejected, because it was too much influenced by Constantius, and his Agents. The 2d Council of Ephesus wanted no just Summons, no presence of Patriarchs, or number of Bishops, yet this is rejected, because its Proceedings were too Violent. The Councils of Constantinople against Images are rejected; because, but one Patriarch was present in either of them. Now I desire to know, whether it be not as lawful to except against other Councils, as against these, supposing the Reasons to be the same; and greater Evidence to be given in these latter Times, of the Truth of the Allegations. Besides, we find they are divided in the Church of Rome, concerning their latter Councils: Some say, The Councils of Pisa, Constance and Basil, were true General Councils, and that the Council of Lateran under Leo X. was not so; others say, That the former have not the Authority of General Councils, but the latter hath. Some say, That there have been 18. General Councils; so the Roman Editors of the Councils, and others; but a great number of these are rejected by others, who allow but 8. of the number, viz. those wherein the Eastern and Western Bishops met. And so the Councils of Lateran and Trent, besides others, are cut off. What becomes then of the Articles of Faith, defined by those Councils? For they cannot be received on the account of their Authority. However, we find this Objection lies equally against them, as against us. For, do not both these differing Parties side with the Ancient Hereticks, as much as we do? For they except against the Supreme Judicature in the Church, and decline the Judgment of these Councils, as much as those Hereticks did the Councils of their own Times.

These are therefore but ordinary T…picks, which may be reasonble or not, as they are applied.

(2.) It was answer'd, That the way proposed, doth not hinder mens believing as they please, i. e. without sufficient Reason for their Faith; several Instances were given: As, believing the Roman Church to be the Catholick, without any colour of Scripture, Reason or Antiquity; (as is now fully shew'd in the foregoing Discourse) believing against the most convincing Evidence of their p. 55own Senses. Believing the lawfulness of the Worship of Images can be reconciled with Gods forbidding it; the Communion in one Kind with Christs Institution; and Praying in an unknow Tongue, with the 14 Chap…er of the first Epistle to the Corinthians.

To this the Replier saith only, that these are voluntary assumpti Repl. p. 8ons without proof: and his saying so, needs no Answer.

The Defender shelters himself under the Catholick Church, and Def. p. 23resolves not to put to Sea with the Answerer about these things. But he knows very well, we utterly deny any of these to have been the practice of the Universal Church according to Vincentius Lerinensis his Rules; by which we are content to be tried. And although he seems to wish for such a trial, yet I know a reason why they ought to decline it, because I am certain they can never make it good in any one of them.

(2) The second Inconvenience objected was, That this would make the wisdom of God fall beneath the discretion of prudent Lawgivers; who do not make Laws, and leave every man to be his own judg as to right or wrong.

It was answered three ways:

(1) That there are Inconveniencies on both sides, and one ought to be provided against, as well as the other; sor as the people are not to be their own Judges, so it may happen that an Usurper may pretend to the right of Interpreting the Laws, only to justifie his Usurpation.

(2) That the People are allowed in some sense to interpret the Laws, or else they could never understand the duty they owe to their lawful King, and to justifie his Rights against all the pretences of Usurpers.

To this the Replier saith nothing, and the Defender saith that which is next to nothing to the first, and takes no notice of the second Answer; and I think I therein tell him plainly enough, what I would be at. He saith, I mean receiving and holding the true faith by Def. p 24.Usurpation. Nothing was farther from my thoughts. But I had thought it were easie enough to know whom I meant, viz. such a one as pretends to an Infallible Chair, which they cannot deny themselves to be the highest Usurpation, if he cannot prove his Title by Scripture, as we are sure he cannot.

(3) That in this Case a Rule is given to direct persons in the way to Heaven, and therefore must be capable of being understood by those who are to make use of it for that end. Which being p. 56the greatest concernment to Mankind, they are therefore obliged to search into it for their own Salvation; but we exclude not the help of Spiritual Guides, and embrace the ancient Creeds of the Church.

To this the Replier answers two things:

(1) That an Infallible Guide is necessary to secure persons from wilful Errors, which he saith God hath provided. From wilful Error! this is new Doctrine indeed, that God hath provided a remedy for wilful Error. Had not our Saviour himself an Infallible Spirit, and yet we do not read that ever he secured men from wilful Error? or ever designed to do it. But suppose an Infallible Judg could do this, he doth not tell us where he is to be found, who he is, and in what manner he doth thus secure men, which are very necessary Enquiries; and without being satisfied in all these points, we are still left to be our own Judges, so far as concerns the way to Salvation; since at the day of Judgment we must answer for our selves, than which there can be no greater obligation to care and sincerity in judging. Suppose a mans life depends upon the benefit of his Clergy, and one comes to him and tells him, You are an ignorant man, and liable to great mistakes in reading, therefore I advise you by no means to trust to your own skill in Reading, for it is a horrible dark Letter, and many have been mistaken that were more Book learned than you; therefore take my counsel, there is Mr. Ordinary who understands Book-learning a thousand times better than you or I, trust him for the Reading, and no doubt you will escape. Ay, Sir, saith the man, all that is very true that you say, but my life lies at stake; and how if Mr. Ordinary's Reading will not be allow'd by the Judg for mine, then I am a lost man past recovery; therefore I am resolved to learn to read my self; and to that end I will make the best use of his skill to instruct me before-hand that I may be able to answer for my self. This needs no Application.

But I do not see how an Inf…lible … should be necessary to particular persons in order to … Salvation, upon the …rinciples owned and receiv'd by the greatest Divines in the Roman Church. Circa ea quae sunt de necessitate salutis, sufficienter instruuntur … Spiritu sancto, 2, 2 Qu. 8 ar. 4 ad: 1: Donum Intellectus nunquam se subtrahit sanctis circa ea quae sunt …e…saria ad salutem; ib; ad 3For Aquinas determines that every one that hath saving Grace, hath likewise a gift of understanding whereby h… is …ussiciently instructed in all things necessary to Salvation, and that it is never withdrawn p. 57from them as to those things. If this Doctrine hold good, I do not see any such necessity for persons to look after an Infallible Guide, as there is to look after saving Grace.

Gulielmus Parisiensis saith, That mens not looking after the way of Gul. Parisiens. de Legibus c: 21 p: 57, 58:Salvation themselves, is that which will d…mn them. And in case of difference among Guides, if a man sincerely makes application to God, to know the Truth he doth not question but such is the mercy of God to keep such a one from dangerous Error; or if he doth suffer him to fall into Error with a good mind, it shall not be imputed to him. It is a Doctrine generally receiv'd in the Schools, That where ever God doth Pag: 59 D. Col. 1.Col 1bestow his Grace, there goes along with it such a gift of understanding, as keeps them from being deceived in the matters they believe in order to Salvation. Henricus a Gandavo thus expresses it, That as Faith Henr. a Gand. Sum. Art. 13. q. 4. n. 3.makes the mind to rest on the Authority of the Scripture, so this gift of understanding makes them perceive the Truth of what they are to believe. And what need then such an Infallible Guide?

(2) He saith, That ancient Creeds will not serve, unless there be a power in the Church to make n…w decisions in matters of Faith.

This ought to have been a little proved. For in truth we are apt to think the Faith once delivered to the Saints as suffi…ient to carry us to Heaven, as it was in the Apostles times. A man is heir to a good Estate, which by many Generations is derived down from his Ancestors, and he hath the Original Deeds in his hands; one comes to him and tells him, …t is a very fine Estate you are heir to, and it is a thousand pities you should want a good Title to it; I will put you into a way to get it, if you will give up your musty old Deeds, and put your self into the hands of such persons as I shall name to you, they shall make you a new Settlement, and add several Parcels to your Estate which you had not before. I am content, saith the Heir, with my Ancestors Estate, and I will never part with my old Deeds for all your new Settlements; for I am sure my Ancestors would never deceive me; but I know not what designs you with your new Settlements may have upon me, and therefore I pray let me alone with my old Deeds.

The Defender here dances upon Ropes, he makes swift and quick Def. p. 26motions, but he stands on a slender bottom, and he knows not whereon to fix, but would seem …o say something, but not enough to afford scope for an Answer. That which he aims at, is, That unless a man by judging controversies by the Infallible Rule, be able to come to an Infallible Determination, then controversies will not be infallibly p. 58determined, if every man be left to be his own Judg. And I am clearly of his mind. But the point is, whether such an infallible determination of Controversies be the necessary way to Heaven? If a man can judg well enough to carry him thither, that is as much as I am concerned for at present.

But he goes on. Who can hope to he saved without pleasing God? P. 27.and every body knows that without Faith it is impossible to please him. There wants only one little thing to be added, and without an Infallible Judg of Controversies, there can be no Faith. But this was forgotten.

But after all he saith, I confess that Scripture is not the Rule of Controversies. I pray why? for I take it not only to be the Rule, but to be the only Rule. For, saith he, they are not ended till one side or other be certain. …hat then? is there no Rule that doth not put an end to Controversies? Nay their own Writers say a Rule, as a Rule cannot put an end to them, and therefore a Judg is necessary. But I must answer such things as they bring.

In matters of good and evil, I said every mans conscience is his immediate Judg, and why not in matters of truth and falshood; unless we suppose mens involuntary mistakes to be more dangerous than their wilful sins.

Here the Defender triumphs. How? saith he, are we before we are aware come to conscience at last? I heartily wish we were, t…t would tend more to the ending of controversies than an Infallible Judg.

But he wonders that in Disputes of Religion it should before we are aware come to conscienoe at last. Good man! he was not aware that there was any thing of conscience in the matter. Doth he think it is only matter of interest we contend about? so those who believe no Religion themselves, think all controversies about Religion, to have nothing of conscience in them.

But after a long harangue, he saith, Toat conscience can do no more P. 28.than secure a man from being judged for sinning against his conscience: But if it lead him to do ill things, or embrace a …r…ng Faith, what can he answer for the sin of having that conscience?

I grant where it is a sin to have such a conscience, the conscience doth not excuse the faults a man commits by it. But the Question we are upon is, whether it is not a sin for a man to have such a conscience; and we are not upon the point of an Erroneous conscience, but of an Infallible Judg of conscience in matters of good and evil. And it is strange the Defender should not see this. There is no question, p. 59but there are as disputable Points in Morality, as in matters of Faith; and we think Mens committing Sin, is at least as dangerous to their souls, as embracing what they call Heresy. Now I desire to know, why it is not as necessary to have an infallible Guide in Manners, as in Faith? But, if they think that Men may be let alone to judg as well as they can in such matters, as their Salvation certainly depends upon, what monstrous Inconvenience is it, if they use the same Liberty in matters of Speculation? I would he had given some better Answer, that I might have had an occasion to have inforced this matter. For in truth it seems to me, a very strange thing, when I read in the New Testament, such terrible Denunciations against the practice of Sin, and that mens happiness or misery depends so much on their doing Good or Evil; and so very little said as to mens errors or mistakes of Judgment (where there is a general Sincerity, as to a good Life, and a care to please God) that so much weight should be laid on an infallible Judg in matters of Controversy, and no care taken for an infallible Guide in matters of Practice.

But I am to consider, that it tends more to the interest of some People to swagger about an infallible Faith, than to secure the Practice of Virtue, and a good Life, which yet is certainly the great design and concernment of the Christian Religion, however it may seem to some, that an infallible Faith and Church are all in all.

To shew we do not allow every man to believe as he pleases, I said, We not only allow the Assistance of spiritual Guides, and embrace the ancient Creeds; but think no man ought to follow his own fancy, against Doctrines so universally received from the Apostles times.

But all this signifies nothing to him, unless our Guides be Infallible; and he saith, They are plainly no Guides of Christs appointing, who Def. p. 29.teach any other Doctrine than he taught. Very well! Let this then be the Rule, whereby we are to judg whether Guides are Infallible or not. But then have a care of telling us we must believe what. Doctrine it was that Christ taught, upon the word of these Infallible Guides, for by that Doctrine we are to judg whether they be Infallible or not. The different methods of his Proceeding and mine in this matter, will be best understood by this Comparison. A Man that goes to enquire the way to a Place (he had a great desire to be at, but was afraid of mistaking the way) of two Men, and how he should avoid the dangerous passages in it; the one like a p. 60plain ho…st Man, tells him there are diffi…ulties in it, but he will give him a Book of the Roads, which acqu…ints him with all the dangerous turnings he bids h…m look well to his Steps, and observe the way he goes, and when he is to seek to …e…rch his Book, and ask such as understand the wav better th…n he does… Alas! …aith the other Man, this is a very sad Direction to him, for his Book may be misunderstood, and the Guides may mistake themselves with all their Care; but I will put him into an infallible way, whereby he may avoid all the dangers. Ay Sir, saith the Traveller, you speak indeed to the purpose, I pray acquaint me with it. There is, saith he to him, at such a Hill, a Person, who by the help of Wings, not only flies over all that dangerous passage, but carries all those safe, who take hold of him: You have therefore no better way than to pinion your self to him, and you will be safe But saith the Traveller, how if he and I should tumble down together, what would become of us both? Never fear that, saith he: But how should I help fearing of it? Have any that he carried thither, come back and assured others of the safety of the passage? No. But how then? Why saith he, You are bound to believe what he saith, for he affirms that he can do it. But, saith the Traveller, this is very hard I must venture Body and Soul upon his skill and strength, and I must take his Word that he hath both. This seems very unreasonable to me, and therefore I am resolved to take the other course, which tho it do not make such big boasts of it self, is much more likely to be safe in the conclusion, having better Reason on its side, and requiring a more constant care of my self, to which God hath promis'd more of his Grace and Assistance to secure me from all fatal mistakes of my way.

Where I mention Doctrines so universally received in the Christian Church from the Apostles times, as those in the Creeds; The Defender makes a notable Exception, As if, saith he, any part of the universal Christian Doctrine were lost, and all had not be…n always as universally retained as the Creeds. Then I hope all the Points in Controversy between us and them▪ can be proved by as clear and evident a Succession, as the Articles of the Creeds. If he can do this, he will be a …ampion indeed. I desire him to take his choice, either Supremacy, Transubstantiation, Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church, or which he pleases. I grant all true Christian Doctrine was universally retained, as far as the Rule of it was so received; but if he means any of those distinguishing points between us and them, when he comes to make it out, he will be of another mind.

p. 61(3.) A third Inconvenience objected in the Papers, against the want of an infallible Judg, was, That Scripture would be interpreted by Fancy; which is the same thing as to follow Fancy.

To this it was answer'd.

(1.) That our Church owns the Creeds, Councils, Fathers, and Primitive Church, more frankly than any other Church, and therefore cannot be suspected to leave Scripture to be so interpreted.

The Replier saith, We only pretend it, and do it not. That is to be Reply, p. 21.proved, for bare saying it, will never convince us. But his proof is, because, if we had done it, we had never deserted the Church of Rome; and our Answer is, we therefore deserted the Communion of that Church, because She required owning things from us, for which She had no Authority, either from Scripture, Creeds, Councils or Fathers.

The Defender would have me answer directly, Whether it be not the same to follow Fancy, as to interpret Scripture by it? As tho I were Def. p. 30.examined at the Catechism, which requires all answers to be made by Yea or Nay. I said enough to shew the Question doth not concern us; for we do not allow Persons to interpret Scripture by Fancy. And withal. (2.) I asked some other Questions to shew, That those who pretend to Infallibity, may do things as unreasonable as leaving Scripture to be interpreted by Fancy. And I have our Saviours example for answering one question with another.

The Instances I gave, were these; The Church of Romes assuming to it self the Power of interpreting the Rule, which concerns its own Power of interpreting; which was to make it Judg in its own Cause, and to give it as great Power, as if it made the Rule; and I further added, that Interest is as mischievous an Interpreter of Scripture, as Fancy; and therefore, those who are so much concerned, are not to be relied on, either in Councils, or out.

The Power of declaring Tradition is as Arbitrary a thing in the Church of Rome, as interpreting Scripture by Fancy. There being no other Rule allowed by it, but the Sense of the present Church.

The Replier, like a fair Adversary, gives his answer plainly; Reply. p. 21.which consists in two things. (1.) That their Church gives no Sense of Scripture, but what She received from Tradition of the foregoing Church, and so he calls it Apostolical Tradition. But suppose there happen a Question, whether it be so or not, must not all be resolved into the Authority of the present Church, declaring what is Apostolical Tradition? And so it comes all to one.

p. 62(2.) He saith, Tradition is publick, and Fancy is private. But I say, according to their Rules, Tradition is but publick Fancy, and so Fancy in particular Persons is a private Tradition; but whether publick or private, if it be equally Arbitrary, the Case is alike.

The Defender saith, All this is besides the Business, and therefore slides off as well as he can, with some slight touches, which deserve Def. p. 31.no Answer.

(4.) If there be no infallible Judg, the Power of deciding matters of Faith will be given to every particular man, for which no place can be shewed.

The Answer was, That if by deciding matters of Faith, no more be meant, but every mans being satisfied of the Reasons, why he believes one thing to be true, and not another; that belongs to every man as he is bound to take care of his Soul, and must give an account both to God and Man, of the Reason of his Faith.

This, the Replier saith, is bringing every Article of Faith to the Test of Reply, p. 22.ones own Reason; whereas Authority is the Correlative of Believing, and Reason of Knowledg.

We do not pretend that every one that believes, should be able to judg from meer Principles of Reason of the Credibility of the Doctrine propos'd; it is sufficient, if he finds it to be of Divine Revelation, by being contained in Gods word. And it is not the Authority of the Church, but of Divine Revelation, which Faith bottoms upon; the former is no more than an inducement to believe those Books we call Scripture, to contain the word of God in them. But when we find any Doctrine therein, we account that sufficient Reason for believing it.

The Defender finds no fault with our saying, We ought to be satisfied Def. p 32.of the Reason why we believe; but the Question he puts, is, Whether there be indeed any Reasons why they should believe besides the Authority of the Church? He doth not deny that particular Men ought to judg; but the meaning of the Papers, he saith, is, that they ought not to judg unreasonably.

Then we have no difference, for I assure him I never pleaded for mens judging unreasonably. The Question then between us, is, Whether those who do not believe upon the Infallible Authority of the Roman Catholick Church, Do judg unreasonably? i. e. Whether there be equal Grounds to believe the Roman Catholick Church Infallible, as there are to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God? We utterly deny the Roman Churches Infallibility p. 63to be necessary to our believing the Scripture; for we receive that by an Universal Tradition from all the Apostolical Churches; which is as clear for this, as it is wanting for the other. And there…re we must judg more reasonably. What follows about the Infallibility promised to the Church, hath been answered already.

As to the Canonical Book, I shewed it was no Authoritative Decision by a Power in the Church to make Books Canonical which were not so, but a meer giving Testimony in a Matter of Fact, in which all parts of the Church are concerned; and it depends as other Matters of Fact do, on the Skill and Fidelity of the Reporters: And so far I own the truly Catholick Church to have Authority in any Testimony, delivering down the Books of Scripture; but this proves no more Infallibility in the Christian Church as to the Books of the New Testament, than it doth in the Jewish Church as to the Books of the Old Testament.

And thus much of the Authority of the Catholick Church in Matters of Faith.