Vindication of Answer About Unity and Authority of the Catholic Church, Treatise · Part 3

Vindication of Answer About Unity and Authority of the Catholic Church · Treatise · Part 3

p. 63III. Of the Reformation of the Church of England.

THere are so many Passages in the Papers relating to the Church of England, on the Account of her Reformation, that I thought it the best Method of proceeding to handle this Subject by itself. And there are these things charged upon it, either in Terms or by Consequence, in the Papers, which as I am a Member of this Church, I think my self bound to clear; for I could nor justifie continuing in her Communion, if she were justly liable to these Imputations.

1. That she hath made a causless Breach in the Communion of the Catholick Church.

2. That she hath been the occasion of a World of Heresies crept into this Nation.

3. That she hath not sufficient Authority within her self, and yet denies an Appeal to a higher Judicature.

4. That she contradicts her own Rule, viz. the Holy Scriptures.

p. 645. That she subsists only on the Pleasure of the Civil Magistrate.

All these I shall examine with Care, and consider what hath been said in Defence of the Papers upon these Heads.

As to the charge of causless Breach in the Communion of the Catholick Church, it lies in these Words, And by what Authority Men separate themselves from that Church?

Which being spoken with respect to the Members of the Church of England, do imply that they have made a Separation from the Communion of the Catholick Church, and that they had no sufficient Authority for so doing, and therefore are guily of Schism in it.

To the Question two Answers were given, 1. By distinguishing the truly Catholick Church from the Roman Catholick: And a Distinction between these being made out, (which is done in the first part of this Defence) It doth not follow that we have made a Breach in the Communion of the Catholick Church, because we do not join in Communion with the Roman Catholick: This was illustrated by the Example of a prosperous Usurper in a Kingdom, who challenges a Title to the whole, by gaining a considerable part of it, and requires from all the Kings Subjects within his Power, to own him to be rightful King; whereupon the Question was put, Whether refusing to do it, were an Act of Rebellion or of Loyalty? So in the Church, the Popes Authority over it, so as to restrain Catholick Communion only to those who own it, is not only looked on as an Usurpation by Us, but by all the Eastern Churches; and is in Truth altering the Terms of Christian Communion from what they were in the truly Catholick and Apostolick Church: Therefore since the Conditions required are unreasonable, because different from them, what Breach hath followed, is not to be imputed to those who refuse these Terms, but to those who impose them; and so the Guilt of it lies upon the Church of Rome, and not upon the Church of England. This is the Substance of the Answer.

To which the Replier saith, That the Eastern Churches cannot be Reply, p. 25.parts of the Catholick Church, because they hold not the Apostolick Doctrine contained in the Creeds and Councils owned by the Church of England. This hath been fully answered already. But he goes on, There were no other Churches then in being, but those which were in Communion with the Church of Rome; consequently the Church of p. 65England going out from them, separated her self from the Catholick Apostolick Church.

And the Defender saith, He expects I should shew That truely Catholick Def. p. 39.and Apostolick Church we held Communion with, when we separated from the Roman. He desires to know where the men live, that people may go to them, and learn of them, what their Faith is, &c.

In answer to this, I say, That there is no necessity for us to shew any Church distinct from others, which in all things we agreed with; because we hold all particular Churches liable to Errors and Corruptions; and that the notion of the Catholick Church may take in such Particulars from which we may see reason to dissent: But we do not thereby exclude them from being parts of the Catholick Church; but we say they are no Infallible Rule to us, and therefore we ought to proceed by what the Church hath receiv'd as an Infallible Rule, and not by the Communion of other Churches. And supposing there were no particular Church we did in all things joyn with, the Church of England might Reform it self without separating from the Catholick Apostolick Church. For it was then in the Case, particular Churches were in after the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia; for then the standard of Catholick Communion, set up by the Council of Nice▪ was taken down; and the setting of it up again, was to oppose the Consent of the Christian Church in the most General Council that ever Assembled. I do not say, this Council obliged men to profess Arrianism; but that it took away the Authority of the Nicene Creed in as valid a manner as the Council by its Acts could do it; I ask then, by what Authority any particular Church could set up the Nicene Faith; and if not, how it was possible to be restored? And I desire to know in what Country the people lived, who then owned the Nicene Faith against such a General Council? And where were the Churches in being, which at that time adhered to it? But if in this Case the British Church, tho alone, was bound notwithstanding such a general consent, to Reform it self, and to restore the Authority of the Nicene Creed; the same Case it is, when the Western Church was oppressed and hindered from Reforming Errors and Abuses by the Usurpation and Tyranny of the Papal Faction; the Church of England was then obliged to exercise its own Inherent Right, in bringing things to the state they were in, in the time of the first General Councils. In matters of Reformation, the main enquiries are, whether there be just Occasion, p. 66and due Authority for it, and a certain Rule to proceed by; the last and least important Question is, what Company we have to joyn with us in it? For there is a Natural Right i… every Church to preserve its own just Liberties, and consequently to throw off such an Usurpation as that of the Popes was. And the main Point in order to a Reformation, was casting off the Popes Power, as an encroachment upon the Ancient and Canonical Priviledges of the Western Churches, which was done here by a General consent even of those Bishops, who held in Communion with the Roman Church, as far as those could do who rejected the Head of it. And this is the Fundamental Point as to the matter of Schism: If the Pope, as Head of the Church, doth influ…ce Catholick Communion so far, that it is necessary to Salvation to live in subjection to him, it will be very hard to justify separation from that Body whereof he is the visible Head. But if there be no Scripture, no Councils, no Universal Tradition for this, as the Roman Catholick Bishops here declared in the time of H. 8. then there can be no Schism in acting without Authority from him, or against his Authority. And whether any other Church joyned with ours or not, is no more material to the justification of the Reformation, than the lawfulness of any one Counties Acting for the Royal Family in the late times of Usurpation, did depend upon the concurrence of others with it. What more commonly talked of, and magnified in the Church of Rome, than the Reformation of the M…nastick Orders? And some of the person… have been Canonized who have done it; But in this Case, the Governour of a Monastick Order, proceeding according to the Rules of his Order, doth a very justifiable thing, tho never another Monastry joyn with him in it; because he only doth his duty, and proceeds by the Rules which are receiv'd by the whole Order. This, I say, was the Case of the Church of England in Reforming according to Scripture, and the sense of the Primitive Church; and if others joyned, so much the better; if not, the Act justifies it self, and needs not the concurrence of others to make it good.

(2.) The 2d Answer was, That there is a difference between voluntary Separation, and that which is unavoidable, in case unreasonable conditions of Communion be required.

The Defender pretends He can by no means understand this unavoidable Def. p. 39.Separation; because tho Men be separated from the Communion of a Church, yet they may continue of the same Faith if they please: p. 67but if they have another Faith, they separate themselves, even supposing Usurpation, or whatever I would have.

Now this seems very strange to me from a person who knows the Terms of Communion with the Roman Church. Can any Man be a true Member thereof, who doth not own and profess to believe the Popes Supremacy, Transubstantiation, &c. Is he not by the constitution of that Church required to believe all that the Roman Church believes? But suppose men do not, and cannot for their hearts believe as that Church believes; can they notwithstanding be Members of it? No, he confesses a different Faith unavoidably casts them out. But then to believe otherwise than the Roman Church believes, casts them out unavoidably. The Question now is, who is the cause of this casting out, those who cannot believe those Doctrines, or those who require the belief of them in order to communion? If these Doctrines be evident in Scripture, or were defined by the four General Councils, or are contained in the ancient Creeds, or can be clearly proved by Universal Tradition, then we confess the blame falls on those who refuse; but if none of those can be made appear to the satisfaction of a mans mind who desires to search out Truth, then their separation is unavoidable, and there is no reason to make it their voluntary act. But, saith the Defender, a mans faith is his own voluntary act. I grant that; but not a voluntary Def: p: 40:cause of Separation: which two ought to be distinguished in this case. As in the case of Usurpation, the owning the lawful King is a voluntary act; but if an Usurper threatens to banish him if he doth not abj…re him; upon whom must the blame be laid, upon the mans voluntary act, or the Usurpers voluntary imposing such a penalty on those who do nothing but what is just? The Defender did not consider that the making such terms of communion was a voluntary act too, and being a thing unreasonable and unjust, it leaves the blame upon the imposers.

But he denies any such thing as Usurpation in the P…pe, because he hath shewed by his reiterated Approbation of the Bishop of Meaux's Book, that he is content with that submission and obedience, which the Holy Councils and Fathers have always ta…ght the Faithful.

These are very fine words to deceive the unwary. But I pray tell us, who is to declare what the Councils and Fathers have always taught the Faithful? Who is to be Judg? Is not the Pope himself? For no Council will be allowed without his Approbation and Confirmation. And is not this then a very pretty Artifice to p. 68draw weak persons into a snare? For my part, I do not wonder at the Popes Approbation of the Bishop of Meaux's Book, no more than I would at a Gentlemans approbation of a fine spun Net when he goes a fishing, which is not so easily discerned, and yet doth as effectually catch the Game: Some there are still who love to be deceived, and some have more arts of deceiving than others; and those who gain most by it, will be sure to give them the greatest approbation.

The Defender proceeds: Suppose there were Usurpation, must people therefore believe otherwise than they did before; as that there is no change of Substance, no Purgatory, no more than two Sacraments, Pag. 41.and the rest?

The Question about Faith is one thing, and about Separation is another. We are now upon the latter of these; and in this case we are most concerned about the Popes Authority, since he is look'd on by you as the Head of the Catholick Church, and the Center of Communion. If there were no such Usurpation, yet we should never decline giving an account of the Reasons of our Faith, as to Sacraments, Purgatory, or what you please of the Points in difference between us. Which I neither desire to make greater or lesser, than really they are. For there may be deceit both ways.

As to his renewing the Question, by what authority we separate? I answer, by the same authority which makes it unlawful for us Def. p. 42.to profess what we do not believe; and to practise what we believe God hath forbidden: This is just as if one should ask by what authority men are bound to be honest and sincere; and to prefer Gods Laws before mens? For the Church of Rome requires from the Members of her Communion, besides matters of Faith, such acts of Worship, which, whatever they be, to those who believe as they do, must be Idolatrous to those that believe as we do. For example, suppose in China where they believe God to be the same with the World, that honour of the Chineses (who on that account think they may lawfully give Divine Worship to any part of the World) to be converted by the Missionaries, who tell them the parts of the World cannot be God, for he is Infinite and Immutable, and Wise, and Powerful, which the Parts of the World are not, and cannot be, and therefore they cannot without Idolatry give Divine Worship to them; the Mandarins require their giving the same Adorations that others do; they refuse and say, Whatever you may do, who believe God and the World to be the same, certainly it p. 69would be gross Idolatry in us, who believe the thing you worship, to be nothing but dull insensible parts of the World. And if now it should be asked, By what authority they separate? Is there not a plain answer, By the authority of God himself, who requires Adoration to be given to himself alone?

But who shall be Judg, saith the Defender? God himself will be Pag. 43.Judg a… the great Day, whether we will or not. And I think that is more to be regarded, than putting an end to Controversies. If we be not sincere and faithful to him and his service, if we do not act and judg with a regard to the Judgment of that day, all the pretences in the world of a Judg in Controversies, then will stand in no stead. If we do use our careful endeavours to know the will of God, and to do it, we have great reason to hope God will shew mercy to us; and then the Question will not appear of such wonderful importance, Who shall be Judg here?

But we do not decline a reasonable Judgment in this world; we only desire our Judges may be fair and equal, and such as God hath appointed. And if those who would judg for us, pretend that they have a Divine Commission, we desire to know who shall be judg of this pretence? We have no reason to trust them; and they will not trust us. So that here we are stopt at first, unless the Commission be produced, which impowers those persons to judg, who challenge such authority over our judgments. A general indefinite obscure Commission, which may extend to all other Guides in the Church as well as to them, will by no means be sufficient. Let us see whom Christ hath appointed in his own words, and we will submit; for we look on him as Supreme Judg and Legislator to his Church; and if he hath thought fit to appoint an Infallible Judg, we have done. But we desire to know where he hath done it? Hath he granted any new Commission from Heaven? No. Is it to be found in Scripture? Yes. But then I pray observe, you tell us Scripture cannot be Judg in any Controversie, being ambiguous, uncertain, general, mute, flexible, and what not? and because it cannot hear Parties, nor give a decisive voice, it can by no means be a Judg of Controversies. How then can the Scripture put an end to this Controversie, when it can put an end to none? Are the Expressions in this matter so particular, so clear, so peremptory, that we cannot mistake about the sense of them? If so, then I perceive, notwithstanding all the hard words given it, Scripture may be Judg as well as a Rule, because it is fitted to put an end to such p. 70a Controversie, which is as doubtful as any; and why not as well to all the rest? We are not then afraid of this Question, Who shall be Judg? But we desire to be satisfied about it; and to know not only who hath appointed him, but who he is, whether the Pope in Cathedr…, or a General Council? For this is very material for us to know, since even at this day you are far from being agreed about it. The Assembly of the Clergy of France have solemnly declared within few years, That they do not believe the Popes Judgment Cler. Gallica. Declaratio Prop. 4. 1682. Censura Hungarica. 24 Oct. 1682.to be Infallible. The Clergy of Hungary have rejected and censured this Declaration as absurd and detestable, and have forbidden any to read, hold or teach the Doctrine, and own the Pope to be the only Infallible Judg of Controversies. A Sorbon Doctor in his Notes on the Hungarian Censure, calls this, the new Heresie of the Jesuits; on the other side, large Volumes have been Printed to prove, that the right of judging infallibly, belongs only to the Pope.

And now very lately comes out a Learned Book by another Doctor Tractat. de Libertat. Eccles. Gallican. Leodii, 1684. Regale Sacerdotium Romano Pontifici assertum. Auctore Eugenio Lombardo, 1684. De Antiqua Ecclesiae Dis…iplina Dissert. 5. Auct. Lud. Ellies Du Pin, 1686.of the Sorbon, to prove not only that the Popes Judgment is not Infallible, but that it is a dangerous thing to believe it; and that no man ought to do it, unless infallible proof be brought of it. But he proves at large, that not so much as probable evidence can be brought for it, either from Scripture or Tradition.

I pray now the Defender to tell me, Who is the Judg? Is the Pope Infallible or not? It is easily answer'd I, or no. And it is necessary to be answer'd, if we must know, Who is the Judg?

The common Evasion is, That you are agreed, that Popes and Councils together are; but this is but an Evasion. For the Infallibility is by virtue of Divine Promises, …d those must either relate to the Church as the subject of them or to the Successors of St. Peter in their capacity as such. If to the former, the Popes have nothing to do in it, but as included in the Church; if the latter, the Councils have no Infallibility, but the Pope. To say the Council is infallible, when confirmed by the Pope, is Nonsense. For, either it was Infallible in its Decree, or not. If not, it can borrow no Infallibility from the Popes subsequent Confirmation; but the Popes Judgment may be said to be Infallible, but by no means the Councils. And Du Pin hath proved, that there cannot be two Seats of Infallibility; for Dissert. 5 c. … ss. 2.whereever there is Infallibility, it can receive no addition or force from another Infallibility; and whatever is Infallible, must be believed for it self, and not depend on anothers Judgment. And therefore I again desire the Defender to make no harangues about p. 71this matter, but to answer directly, Who is the Judg? For we would sain be acquainted with this some body, as he speaks; but I am afraid Pag. 44.his some body of Infallibility, will prove a more pleasing dream than what he charges me with in what follows.

I had given a fair account of the proceedings in England upon the Reformation, how the search began, the Popes Authority to be discarded, and the Articles of Religion to be drawn up, which ought not to be looked on as particular Fancies, but the sense of our Church.

All this he calls a pleasing dream; I am sure the pretence of Infallibility is so; but I related matter of fact, which he hath no mind to meddle with, but he runs again to his, Who shall be Judg? And concludes, that I think between Churches there's none at all. I Pag 45.do think the Church of England in this divided state of the Catholick Church, is under no Superior Judicature, but that it hath sufficient power and authority to reform abuses, and to declare Articles of Religion so as to oblige its Members to Conformity; especially since it proceeds by such excellent Rules, as the Holy Scriptures, the ancient Councils and Universal Tradition. And I hope this may pass for a direct Answer.

The Replier takes another course besides this, for he makes use of these two Topicks against the Church of England: 1. That the Reply, p. 25 Pag. 27.Church of Rome was in poss…ssion of all those Truths we rejected 2. That we ought to bring positive Texts for our Negative Articles.

1. As to the Plea of Possession of all those Truths now question'd by us. This were a pleasant thing for us to question them, if we owned they were Truths; but he means only that he thinks them so. Well then, how is it their Church was in possession of those Truths? Do they become Truths by their possession, or only that they were Truths they were then possessed of? If so, he must first prove them to be Truths, or the Possession signifies nothing And that is the point I went upon, that no Possession gives a right to Truth; but the Church of England had just reason to examine whether these were Truths or not; and upon examination finding them to be otherwise, it had reason to reject them.

But to inforce this, he saith afterwards, That their Church had a thousand years prescription here, and that their Religion came into this Reply, p. 40.Nation with Christianity.

Although according to St. Cyprian's Rule, all this pr…ves no more than the Antiquity of Error, unless the proof be made from Scripture, p. 72yet because this goes a great way with some people, I do not only deny the truth of it, but shall give evident proof to the contrary.

For I suppose it will not be questioned, that the Religion brought in here by Augustin and his Companions, was the Religion of Gregory the Great; I shall therefore compare the Doctrine of the Council of Trent with that of Gregory, in some remarkable Paticulars, and shew the great Difference between them as to these things.

1. Scripture and Tradition.

p. 732. Apochryphal Books.

3. Merit of Good Works.

4. Auricular Confession.

5. Solitary Masses.

Transubstantiation.

7. Communion in one Kind.

p. 768. Purgatory.

9. Masses for the Dead.

10. Worship of Images.

11. Extreme Unction.

12. Pope's Supremacy.

p. 79These things may be sufficient at present, to shew how little ground there is to say, That the Religion now owned in the Church of Rome, was brought in hither with Christianity in the time of Gregory the Great.

(2.) The Replier saith, We ought to bring positive Texts for our negative Articles; as no Praying to Saints, no Purgatory, no Worship of Images, no Transubstantiation, and the like; with which, he saith, the 39 Articles are stuft. But why must we be obliged to bring Reply. p. 27.Texts for the Negative? Because he saith, we make these Articles of Faith.

To answer this, Let us suppose the Common Council of the City should agree to make men swear that the Monument near London Bridge, is a living creature, and should exclude all those from the City Priviledges who do not; and that others having examin'd the Monument, and found nothing but Stones and Iron, were resolved to follow their Senses, and declare their minds, That upon due consideration, they did judg the Monument to be no living creature; Would any say, these men ma…e it an Article of their Faith, when they only rejected a false proposition imposed upon the Faith of others? Why may not a Church declare what it doth not believe, as well as what it doth? And when it declares what it doth not believe, doth it make such declarations Articles of Faith? The plain case is, Those of the Church of Rome impose things we think as hard and unreasonable as the former Example: Our Church not only denies its belief of them; but signifies it to its Members by a body of Articles which they are to sign, to testifie their consent: How doth this come to make every one of these Declarations an Article of Faith? They are only Articles of Agreement, and not of Faith. And the difference between these may be easily understood. An Article of Faith supposes a Divine Revelation, as the Replier yields; but if men offer that for a Divine Revelation, which is not, the rejecting of that cannot be called an Article of Faith; because there is no need of Revelation to declare the other to be none, supposing there be a Rule to judg what is of Divine Revelation, and what not. That Rule we say is the Holy Scripture, not interpreted by Fancy, but by the Primitive Church; by this Rule so interpreted, we reject Invocation of Saints, Purgatory, Worship of Images, Transubstantiation, &c. And why then should our rejecting them, be called so many Articles of Faith? We own the Scripture for our Rule, and for our compleat and adequate Rule of Faith; and therefore it serves us both for what we p. 80are to believe, and what we are not to believe. In positive Articles, we resolve our Faith into Divine Revelation contained in Scripture; in Negative, the Article of Faith is, That Scripture is our Rule; but from thence it is a necessary Consequence of Reason. That we are not to believe any thing but what is contained in Scripture, or may be deduced from thence. Which deductions being within the force of the Rule, are not to be looked on as different from it; and what can neither be proved by Scripture, nor by deductions from it, if our Principle be allowed, we can never be blamed if we reject it. For otherwise we should not act reasonably, nor agreeable to our own Principles.

But as to the Particulars mentioned, we do not meerly reject them as not contained in Scripture, but as repugnant to such Principles concerning Divine Worship. Remission of Sins, the Nature of Christs Body, &c. which are evidently contained therein: But I go no further t…an the Replier leads me.

At the Conclusion of the first Paper, there was a suggestion, As tho the Schism were raised by particular men, for their own Advantage.

It was answered, That the Advantage of the Clergy lay plainly on the other side; which is yielded by the Replier; and yet he would have the Clergy byast: What, byast against their Interest? For that is the point, Whether they got ot lost by the Reformation? Reply, p. 28.and besides other considerations, if there were so much Sacriledg committed by it, as is said in one of the Papers, it is hard to suppose that they should raise the Schism for their own Advantage. I am of the Defenders mind. That matter of Interest ought not to be regarded in these things; but when that was said to lie at the bottom of the Reformation, we had reason to consider on which side lay the greater Advantage.Def. p. 46.

The 2d Charge is, That the Reformation hath been …he occasion of a World of Heresies creeping into this Nation. With this the 2d Paper begins.

In answer it was said, That either this respects the several Sects of Dissenters from the Religion established by Law, and then it seems hard, considering a… circumstances, to charge the Church of England with them; or it takes in all that dissent from the Church of Rome, and so it is a charge on the whole Church since the Reformation, as guilty of Heresie; which was a charge I said could never be made good.

The Defender avoids the charge as to the Church of England; but the Replier in plain terms owns it; saying, That establishment p. 81of a Religion by Law, cannot protect it from being a Heresie; which I Reply, p. 29.readily grant. And then he adds. Let him defend his own, and his work is done. The best way to do that, is to consider first what Heresie is, and that I said was an obstinate opposing some necessary Article of Faith; and then, how it comes to be in the Power of the Church of Rome to define Heretical Doctrines, so as that any Doctrine comes to be Heresie, by being contrary to its Definitions?

He answers, By the same way the Church had Power in her General Councils, to make Creeds, and to Anathematize Hereti…ks.

So that whatever Power the Catholick Church exercised in declaring Matters of Faith, he challenges as of Right belonging to the Church of Rome, which wholly depends on the first Point already discussed; viz. That the Roman and Catholick Church are the same

But I shall now wave that, and consider, Whether if that were allow'd, the Church could now have the same Reason to declare the Points in difference to be Heresies, as the Primitive Church had the Doctrines of the Trinity, and Incarnation of Christ.

I am of opinion it cannot; and yet if it could, that alone is not sufficient to charge Heresie upon us.

And in making out of both these, I shall argue from the Nature of Heresie, as it is stated among their best Writers, who agree that there are three Things necessary to make up the charge of Heresie. 1. The Nature of the Proposition. 2. The Authority of the Proponent. 3. The obstinacy of the Party.

1. The Nature of the Proposition; for it is allowed among them, that there is a difference between a Proposition Erroneous in Faith, and Heretical.Inititur enim Fides nostra Revelationi Apostolis & Prophetis factae qui Canonicos libros scripserunt, non autem revelation si qua fuit aliis Doctoribus facta. 1. q. 1. Ar… 8 ad 2. 2. 2. q. 1 Art. 5. ad 2.

But for our better understanding this matter, I shall set down something very pertinently observed by Aquinas and others.

1. Aquinas saith, That Faith in us depends upon Divine Revelation, not such as is made to any person, but that which was made to the Prophets and Apostles, which is preserved in the Canonical Books; and therefore he saith, the proofs from Scripture are necessary and convincing; those from other Authorities are but probable: Which is a Testimony of great Consequence in this matter; for from hence it appears, that whatsover Article of Faith is made necessary to be believed, must be proved from Scripture; and Heresie being an obstinate opposing a necessary Article of Faith, there can be no Heresie, where the Doctrine is not founded on Scripture: And elsewhere he makes the principles of Faith to be the Authorities of the Scripture.

p. 822. That all matters of Faith are not equally revealed in Scripture; For some, he saith, are principally designed, as the Trinity and 1. q. 32. art. 4Incarnation; and these are directly against Faith; and to hold the contrary to them, especially with obstinacy, is Heresie; but there are others which are indirectly against Faith; from whence something follows which overthrows Faith; as, for any one to deny that Samuel was the son of Helcanah, the consequence would be, that the Scripture was false.

3. He makes a distinction between those who discern the Repugnancy, and continue obstinate, and those who do not; not intending to maintain any thing contrary to Faith; and in this case there may be an erroneous opinion in Faith, without Heresie. So that an erroneous opinion lies in not attending to the Consequence of that Opinion, as against Faith, and not maintaining it obstinately. But he asserts it to be in the Churches Power to declare such an opinion to be against Faith, and then he makes it Heretical to deny it: His Instance is about the five Notions of the Trinity; and his Conclusion is, That it cannot be Heretical in it self to have different Opinions about them, but it is very hard to understand how the Church by its declaration can make the holding one or the other opinion to be more or less repugnant to Faith. But then the Reason of Heresie must be resolved into the Authority of the Church; of which afterwards; yet still Scripture is the Rule by which the Church is to judg.

(4) That there are some things revealed in Scripture which immediately tend to make mankind happy; and those are the Articles of Faith which all men are bound to believe explicitely; other things are revealed 2. 2. q. 2. art. 5by accident, or secondarily, as that Abraham had two Sons, that David was the Son of Jesse. Now as to these latter points he saith, That it is enough to have an inward preparation of mind to believe all that is contained in Scripture; and those things in particular as soon as they are known to be there. But we believe all persons bound to search the Scriptures, that they may know what is contained therein. However we gain this point hereby, that by their own Doctrine, besides the Articles of Faith receiv'd on both sides, no other points can become necessary, till they be made appear to us to be contained in Scripture, otherwise it is sufficient for us to be ready to believe whatever is contained therein. And consequently, we cannot be charged with Heresie for rejecting them.

Alphonsus a Castro makes this distinction between Heresie and a De Haeret: pu…it. l. 1. c. 3:Proposition erroneous in Faith; That the former is against such a point of Faith, as all men are bound to believe; but there are some Propositions, he saith, relating to Faith, wherein a man is under no obligation p. 83to believe either part of the contradiction. But if he asserts either of them to be an Article of Faith, and pronounces the other Heretical, he then errs in Faith, and is become a Heretick. From whence I observe, that supposing any points in Controversie, not to be so determined as to bring on men an obligation to believe them, those who make them to be Articles of Faith, and condemn the others for Hereticks, are in so doing Hereticks themselves.

Melchior Canus saith, That although a Proposition be thought by wise men to be a matter of Faith, yet if it be not plainly defined by the Church, Loc. Theolog. l. 12. c. 11.nor demonstrated by Reason, then the opposing of it is no Heresie, but Erroneous Doctrine. Nay he saith further, That if an Opinion do contradict a point of Catholick Faith in the most probable and almost necessary opinion of all wise men, yet if it do not manifestly contradict, it is barely Erroneous, and not Heretical.

Suarez saith, that Melchior Canus his Doctrine in this matter is Suarez de Fide Disp. 19. Sect. 2 n. 13.generally receiv'd. But he adds one thing more, viz. That in Heresie there must be the highest opposition to immediate Revelation; but if it implies only a repugnancy to a bare Catholick Truth, or Theological conclusion, it is erroneous in Faith, but no Heresie. The highest opposition lies in three things: 1. The Revelation must be immediate, and not deduced by consequence. 2. That it must be most certainly and undoubtedly of Faith. 3. That the Erroneous Proposition do most certainly and undoubtedly contradict it. For, saith he, if there be a defect in any one of these, it is not an Heretical Proposition.

These are the Principles laid down by their own Writers of greatest esteem. And therefore if the Replier think fit to make good his Charge of Heresie against the Church of England, he may from hence see what he hath to do.

(1) He must prove the Points in Controversie to be of immediate Divine Revelation; and not drawn from thence by Consequences and Suppositions.

2. That the Doctrine of our Church doth in the highest, plainest, and most certain manner contradict such Propositions of Faith.

And supposing it were possible for him to do the former; yet if their own Expositor of the Articles of our Church may be believed, he can never do the latter. For he endeavours to prove them capable of a Catholick sense. The five first he allows for Catholick as they stand. The sixth about Canonical Scripture, with St: Jerome's explication, is Catholick enough. The 7th, 8th, first part of the 9th, and the whole 10th, are very Catholick. The four next he examines. The 15th needs only a Gloss of St. Augustins. The 16th very good. p. 84The 17th Catholick, and so the 18th. The 19th only wants a Gloss, and so the 20th and 21. The 22th he examines. 23d is allow'd. The 24th being only against a custom of the Church, he proves from Canus, can imply no Heresie; and yet he thinks it capable of a good Gloss. The 25th he allows in the genuine sense of it. The 26th and 27th are confessed to be the Doctrines of the Church, and all the Fathers. Even the 28th against Transubstantiation he thinks may be glossed into a good sense. The 29th is explained from S. Augustin. The 30th from Canus, not to contain any Heresie. The 31th he saith only opposes the common opinion. The 32th capable of a … sense. 33, 34th agreeable to Scripture and Antiquity. 35th … H…milies, passable. 36th about Ordination valid. 37th agreeable to the French Opinion and practise. the Popes Jurisdiction may be understood of Temporal. The two last he allows to be Catholick.

So that of 39 Articles, but five are reserved for examination, and of these, the 11th he saith, is about words; the 12 and 13 capable of a good sense; the 14th goes upon a mistake of their sense; the 22th determines nothing against the true Faith. I do not go about to justifie his Exposition; but I say, that upon your own grounds, it sheweth that our Church cannot be justly charged with Heresie. For if it be required that such Propositions as are Heretical must in the highest and clearest manner contradict the Doctrines of Faith; and your own Expositor grants they do not; then however you may think them Erroneous, yet you cannot condemn them for Heretical.

(2) As to Heresie, a sufficient Proposition of the matters of Faith is required. For they grant that the matters of Faith must be proposed in such a manner as to induce an obligation to believe them, before any can be guilty of Heresie in rejecting them. Therefore it is necessary for us to know what they mean by a sufficient proposal.Suarez de Fide Disp. 19. Sect. 2. n. 8. …p. 4. Sect. 2. n. 3.

S…arez yields this to be a necessary condition; and elsewhere discourses about the nature of it. And there he shews, 1. That a sufficient Proposition of a matter of Faith is not barely to deliver it as a Divine Trath, but it must be done with such circumstances, that it may appear to be prudently credible, i. e. so as to see such reason for it, as to put him beyond doubt or fear of the contrary. 2. That it must appear evidently credible to be revealed by God, and therefore certain and infallible. 3. That it must appear not only so, but evidently more credible, than the Doctrine repugnant to it. 4. That according to natural reason, the assent to it is to be prefer'd before the contrary opinion. Now to make good the charge of Heresie against our Church, he must not bring the Motives of Credibility for the p. 85Christian Faith in general, which are owned on both sides; but as to those points which are asserted by them as matters of Faith, and rejected by us. As for instance, Transubstantiation is declared by them to be a matter of Faith; and it is denied by us; and they charge us with Heresie for it. We say, it hath never been proposed to us in such a manner, as to make it appear to be a prudent judgment in us to believe it, or that it was ever revealed by God or more credible than the contrary opinion, in the judgment of Reason. Not any one of these things doth appear to us, but the contrary; for we can see nothing of the Credibility, but a great deal for the evident Incredibility of it. How then can this matter of Faith be said to be sufficiently proposed to us?

It may be said, all this is done by the Authority of the Church proposing it; and if it be made evidently credible that you ought to believe the Church, then we are Hereticks for rejecting her Authority.

I answer, That if by the Churches Authority, be meant that of the Roman Catholick Churches Infallible proposing matters of Faith to us, we are as far to seek as ever and for our hearts we cannot find this made out with any degree of Credibility. We have searched all your Grounds, examined your Motives, weighed your Reasons, your miracles we have not seen) but we can meet with nothing that should make it a prudent judgment for us to take all matters of Faith upon trust from her. And if there be no Evidence of Credibility, there is no sufficient proposal; and if there be not, there can be no obligation to believe; and where that is not, there can be no Heresie in not believing, according to the judgment of your greatest Divines.

(3) As to the charge of Heresie, there must be obstinacy in the party; which they all make necessary to formal Heresie.

Aquinas quotes the noted passage of St. Aug…stin to this purpose, 2. 2. q. 11. Art. 2. ad 3. Aug Epist. 162That although men hold a false opinion, without pertinacious animosity, especially if they derive it from their Parents; and do with diligence and caution seek after the Truth; and are ready to lay it down when they have found it, they are not to be recko…'d for Hereticks.

And we do not think a better Plea can be made for us as to this charge, than what is contained in these words of St. August…n. But here we must observe the artifice of Aquinas. He saw this would never do their business against the enemies of the Church of Rome, and therefore he pretends to give the Reason for this, because they do not contradict the judgment of the Church; and so draws the power of declaring Heresie to the Pope, as having the chief Authority in the Church. Of whom St. Augustin saith not a word. But however p. 86Aquinas himself requires Obstinacy even in this case to make a Heretick. And the Obstinacy is not placed by him in the meer resisting the Authority of the Church, but in the manner of doing it.

Cajetan there affirms, that if there be no pertinacy in the Will, there is no Heresie. So that if a man holds an opinion contrary to Faith in it self, and he thinks he holds right, and doth not intend to dissent from the Church, he is not guilty of Heresie. And so Cajetan defines Pertinacy to be a consent to an error in Faith, knowing it so to be.

Melchior Canus saith, It is the general Opinion of Divines and Canonists, Non est ergo haereticus nisi qui videns prudens doctrinam eligit Fidei contrariam. Loc. 12. c. 9. Suarez de Fide Disc. 19. Sect. 3. n. 9.that there can be no Heresie without Obstinacy. And no man is a Heretick, he saith, who doth not, seeing and knowing, chuse a Doctrine contrary to Fa…h.

Suarez saith, that all the Doctors are agreed, that Obstinacy is required to Heresie; and that it is expressed in the Canon Law. So that I need to produce no more to that purpose.

But the difficulty is, to know what they mean by Obstinacy. It is not hard to understand what is meant by the word; for pertinax is one that is over-tenacious, i. e. that holds an opinion, when he sees no ground for it, or will yield to no Reasonable conviction; or that hath not a desire to find out Truth, and submit to it. And so it is plain St. Augustin understood it, in the place before mention'd. And in another place, he makes it to lye in a mans resisting the Catholick Doctrine made known to him, without which he did not judg him a Heretick, De Bapt. c. Donat l 4 c. 16 De Civit. Dei, l. 18. c. 51.though he held Heretical Doctrine. And again he declares those to be Hereticks that contumaciously resist those that correct and instruct them, and will not amend their wicked Doctrines, but go on to defend them These passages of St. Augustin are enter'd in the Body of the C. 24. q 3. c. 29, 31.Canon Law; and the Gloss there saith, If one bolds Doctrines against Faith, and be ready to be better instructed, he is no Heretick. The same Authorities Ockam insists upon, and from them he declares Obstinacy Ockam Dialog l. 3. c. 3. &c. c. 6. ad fin.to be so necessary, that without it no man can be a Heretick. And he concludes from St. Augustin, that if a man be ready to yield to Truth when he finds it, he is not guil…y of Obstinacy And he proves that such are no Hereticks from these Reasons: (1) Because Hereticks are to be Excommunicated; but such by the Canon Law are Cap. 8 C. 24. q 1. Schismae.not to be …xcommunicated. (2) Because they are ready to be better instructed (3) Because many have erred and were not accounted Hereticks on this account. O…kam distinguishes a twofold Obstinacy: …. 4. c. 2.1. Internal. 2. External. Internal may be known, he saith, by the…e Rules: 1. If a man be not convinced by Miracles. 2. If he will rather question the truth of the Christian Faith, than be convinced. p. 873. When he doth not use means for his own Conviction, but resolves to persist in his Errors, such a neglect argues an obstinate mind.

External, of which he gives many instances, of which I shall mention some, as (1.) If a man willingly saith, or doth something whereby C. 5, &c.he discovers his disbelief of the whole Christian Faith (2) If he demes any part of the old or new Testament (3.) If he holds the whole Christian Church to have erred; which he by no means understands of any part of it assuming the Titles of Catholick and Infallible to it self; for he saith, some say, that whatsoever Christ hath promised to his C. 9.Church, may be made good, if but one Person in it holds the true Faith; but he declares that the … Faith may be preserved in a very few. (4.) If the contrary Doctr… known to be universally received among Christians, as if one sh…uld deny that Christ was crucified; and on this account, he charges … 22. with Heresy, for denying C. 10.that the Souls of the Wicked are in Hell, and of the Saints in Heaven before the day of Judgment (5.) If he refuses to be informed, being reproved by the Learned. (6.) If he protests he will never alter his Opinion. (7.) If he forbids reading the Scriptures, or preaching C. 27. C. 28. C. 29. C. 30.Catholick Doctrine (8.) If a Pope commands an erroneous Opinion to be believed as matter of Faith. (9.) If a man consents to such a Definition of the Pope, and imposes it on others.

Joh. Gerson treats at large about the obstinacy which makes one a Heretick, in several Discourses before the Council of Constance; and he follows St. Augustins Doctrine in saying, That it consists in not seeking Gerson. To. 1. p. 408.after Truth, and not obeying it when he hath found it.

Melchior Canus, finds fault with the uncertain Marks of Obstinacy given by others, and he resolves it at last into this, That a Man holds an Can. Loc. Th. l. 12. c. 9.Opinion, which he knows to be contrary to the Catholick Faith; but then he requires, (1.) That he be certain that it belongs to it, and it is not enough that learned Men say so. (2.) That he must know it by an infallible Authority. For otherwise a mans persisting in his Opinion, may be great rashness and presumption, but it is not Heresy. But in case a persons ignorance be such as makes his Errors involuntary, it doth excuse him from Heresy, because that is not a voluntary Error.

Suarez, and others after him, in plain terms make the Obstinacy to lie in not submiting to the Judgment of the Church; because, while a Disp. 14. de fide Sect. 3. n. 10.Man doth yield to the Churches Authority, they account him no Heretick …his is indeed an Argument according to their way of declaring Hereticks; but we are now enquiring what that Obstinacy is, which doth really make a man such. St. Augustins opinion is reported by Aquinus, p. 88as the Reason of his Judgment, that is adopted into the Body of the Canon-law: and therefore, that ought to be the Standard, according to which they are to pronounce a Person obstinate. If Men do not wi…h Diligence and Caution seek after Truth, and are not willing to embrace it, when they find it, then they are to be accounted Hereticks for being obstinate. But St. Augustin goes no further; however Suarez would seem to agree with him: But it is worth the while to consider his Doctrine about it.

(1.) He affirms, That it is not enough for one to be ready to submit N. 11.to Gods Word, either written or unwritten; but the Submission must be with respect to the Church, as proposing both to us.

(2.) That those who believe any Doctrine, because their Judgment Ibid.tells them, it is the sense of Scripture; if they therein follow their own Judgment, and not the sense of the Church, they are guilty of such an O…stinacy, as makes Hereticks.

(3) That it doth not excuse, …f he be willing to believe the Church, if N. 13.he …es Reasons and Arguments to move him; for this, he saith, is not to believe the Churches Authority as Divine, but after a human manner, which may consist with Obstinacy against the Church, as a Rule of Faith.

(4) That it is not yet necessary in order to this Obstinacy, to believe the Church to have Infallible Authority, for then those must be excused from heretical Obstinacy who denied it: but it is sufficient that the Church is proposed as a true Church, whose Authority he is bound to submit to.

The short of all this matter is, If a Man resolve to believe as the Church believes, a very small thing will excuse him from Heresy: but if not, nothing according to Suarez will do it: unless it be Ignorance as to the Churches proposing. And this is the modern notion of Heresy, which appears to me, to be very unreasonable on these accounts.

(1.) Suppose a Person have a general Disposition of mind to believe whatever is sufficiently proposed to him, as revealed by God, and believes sincerely whatever he knows to be contained in Scripture. I would sain know whether this Disposition of mind do not really excuse him from heretical Obstinacy? And yet this is very consistent with doubting whether the Church be accounted as the Proponent of matters of Faith.

(2.) Is it necessary in order to heretical Obstinacy, that the Person believes the Proponent to be Infallible or not? If it be, then none can be convinced of heretical Obstinacy, but such as reject the Churches Authority, when they believe it Infallible; and then none of us can be p. 89charged with it; for we do not believe the Churches Infallibility. If it be not necessary, then the Churches Infallibility is not necessary to Faith; for i… order to Heretical Obstinacy, he must be convinced of resisting that which was necessary in order to Fa…h; from whence it will follow, that the Churches Infallibility is no… equired as the Ground of Faith.

(3) Suppose a Person thinks himself bound in Conscience to believe those Guides which God by his Providence hath set over him; and he believes to be sincere and honest: and these tell him, there is no ground to believe on the Churches Authority, as being sounded neither in Scripture, nor Antiquity, nor Reason, is not he excused hereby from Heretical Obstinacy?

(4.) Suppose he declares himself ready to believe the Churches Authority, if it be sufficiently proposed to him; i. e. with such Reasons and Arguments as are proper to convince him; but after all, he declares, that he cannot see any such. And yet Aquinas affirms, No man can believe, unless he sees Reason why he should …. 2. … q l. art. 3.How then can a man be liable to Heretical Obstinacy, because he only refuses to believe, when he sees no Reason to believe?

(5.) Suppose he doth believe that which the Church proposes, not meerly upon its Authority, but upon the Reasons which the Church offers; why must this man be liable to Heretical Obstinacy, for believing upon the Churches Reasons? What a wonderful nice thing is Heresie made? It seems by this rare Doctrine, it doth not excuse from Heresie to believe even Truth it self, if it be upon grounds of Reason which the Church it self gives. But it must be taken meerly from the Churches Authority; and yet that very Authority must be believed on the grounds of Reason, or the Motives of Gredibility.

(6.) Suppose a Person hath used the best means he could to find out his Obligation to believe on the Churches Authority, and after all, he cannot find any such thing, what Obligation is he under to enquire farther; and from whence doth it arise? And if he be not under any, how can he be guilty of Herecial Obstinacy, who is under no Obligation to search any farther? For Obstinacy must suppose resisting some Obligation.

(7.) Suppose he be willing to believe on the Churches Authority, if that Church be made appear to him to be the One Catholick Church of Christ, but when he comes to examine this, he finds that he must exclude very great and considerable Parts of the Catholick Church, to reduce the Authority of the Catholick Church to that of p. 90the Roman Communion; how can it then be Heretical Obstinacy not to suppose a Part to be the Whole?

(8.) Suppose he hath overcome this, yet if he should mistake about the Seat of Infallibility, is he not still as liable to the charge of Heretical Obstinacy, because the true Reason of it is, that such a Person rejects that which God hath chosen as the proper means to propound matters of Faith to us: But if he should be mistaken in the true Proponent, he is in as much danger of Heretical Obstinacy still. As suppose a man takes a General Council, as representing the Catholick Church, to be the only true Proponent of Faith; and therefore rejects the Authority of the Pope in this matter, I desire to know, whether this be Heretical Obstinacy, or not? If not, then rejecting the true Proponent, doth not make any liable to it: If it doth, then there is Heretical Obstinacy in the Church of Rome, as well as out of it. And so much in Answer to the Repliers Charge of Heresie on the Church of England.

(3.) The next Charge relates to the Insufficient Authority of the Church of England, and that on these Accounts:

(1.) In that it leaves every man to judge for himself.

(2.) Because she dares not use the true Arguments against Sects, for fear of their being turned upon her self.

(3.) Because she denies an Appeal to an higher Judicature.

(1.) It is urged in the Papers, That among us every man thinks himself as competent a Judg of Scripture, as the very Apostles.

It was answer'd, That every man among us doth not pretend to an Infallible Spirit, but all yield the Apostles had it. And by being a Judg of Scripture, if no more be meant, than that every man must use his Understanding about it, that was no more than was necessary in order to the believing the matters contained in it: But if by being a Judg of Scripture, was meant, giving such a Judgment as obliges others to submit to it, then it was denied, that every man among us is allow'd to judg of it. But yet we own the Authority of the Guides of the Church, and a due submission to them; but we do not allow them to be as competent Judges of Scriptures as the very Apostles.

This seems to me to be a full and clear Answer.

But the Replier offers some things against it.

(1.) That I suppose Men cannot be deceived in understanding the Repl. p. 31.Scriptures; and consequently their Spirit is infallible.

I never said, or thought, that they could not be deceived; but I …, they must use their Understandings, to prevent being deceived, p. 91and must judg of the sense of what they are to believe in the Scriptures, in order to their own Salvation.

But he saith, Whosoever uses his Understanding in opposition to the Churches Tradition, makes himself a Judg indeed, but not to his own Salvation.

To make this matter clear, we must consider, That Matters of Faith necessary to Salvation, are of another nature from Matters of Controversie concerning the Sense of Scripture in doubtful places.

As to the matters necessary to Salvation to particular persons, we assert the Scriptures to be so plain, and the Tradition of the Church as to the Creeds, so well known and attested, that no man without gross and culpable neglect, can mistake about them; but in case of invincible or unaffected ignorance, their Errors shall not be laid to their charge, and so their mistakes shall not hinder their Salvation: And herein we assert no more than we can justifie, not only from Scripture, Reason, and Antiquity, but from the best of their own Writers, who assert,

1. That there are some Points of Faith necessary to be explicitely believed by all in order to Salvation; for altho they say there may be such invincible ignorance of them, as may excuse from sin in not believing them; yet without believing them, they are not capable of Salvation. As to the prima credibilia, as Aquinas calls them, he determines, That every man is bound to believe them explicitely, as much as he is bound to have Faith; but as to other things, a 2. 2. q. 5.preparation of mind is sufficient to believe all contained in Scripture, and so much explicitely, as is made plain to him to he contained therein. From whence it follows, That by the Doctrine of the Schools, every man is to judg what he is to believe; for his Words are, Quando hoc ei constiterit, when it is made clear to him; and how can any thing be made clear to a man unless he be the Judg of it?

2. That particular persons may certainly know what is sufficient to their Salvation by the inward assistance of Divine Grace, without Loc. 2. c. 8. Concedimus enim liberaliter doctrinam cuique in sua vita & stat… necessariam illi fore perspectam & cognitam, qui fecerit voluntatem Dei.depending on the Churches Infallibility. This follows from what is mention'd before concerning the Divine Gifts which accompany Grace. And so much is owned by Melchior Canus, as to what is necessary for every man as to his own state and condition. So that the greatest Divines of the Roman Church do yield all we contend for, as to the Matters necessary to Salvation.

The only Question is about Matters of Controversie raised in the Church concerning the Sense of Scripture; and as to these they yield these material Points:

p. 92(1) That an Implicit Faith as to what is contained in Scripture, is sufficient; and that particular persons are bound to no more, till the Doctrine be made clear to them, which appears from the words of Aquinas lately mentioned.

2. That particular Persons may disbelieve many things determined by the Church, without sin. This Sancta Clara proves from Vega and others: and he saith himself, Their Ignorance in such cases, is either invincible, or at least such as excuses from sin. And Deu… Natura Gratia Probl. 15. p. 96he farther saith,

3. That it is the common opinion of the Schools, and of their Divines, That Laymen erring with their Teachers, are excused from any fault, and as long as it is out of obedience to their Teachers, it is rather P. 97.a meritorious Act.

Let us now lay these things to the present Case, and all the Difficulty will soon disappear.

As to the Matters of Salvation, they grant that God will not suffer those to be deceived about them, who do sincerely seek after the knowledg of them.

As to Matters of Controversie, they are in no danger, if they trust their Spiritual Guides.

And I asserted that we owned the Authority of Guides in the Church, and a due submission to them.

But the Replier is not satisfied with this, for he saith,

2. That no other submission is sufficient, but such as men lose I haven without it. This is somewhat hard to understand: Doth he in earnest think men cannot go to Heaven without a blind Obedience to the Church? Is there no allowance to be made for Ignorance, Education, reasonable Doubts? Is all other submission to Authority in the Church merely ad Pompam? But this Gentleman did not take time to consider the Doctrine of their own Schools about these matters, for I cannot imagine he could be ignorant of it.

But the Defender seems to be wholly unacquainted with it, otherwise he could not talk so crudely and unskilfully as he doth, about mens Judgment in matters that concern their Salvation. And Def. p. 49.he may now see how far their own Divines allow particular persons to be competent Judges about matters that relate to their own Salvation: and therefore I need give him no other Answer, till he hath better informed himself about these things: but we have been upon such a Point as may in some measure excuse him, but not those who ought to understand their own Doctrine better.

p. 81(2.) The next Argument to prove the Insufficient Authority of the Church of England, was, That she dares not bring the true Arguments against the other Sects, for fear they should be turned against themselves, and confuted by their own Arguments.

To this it was answered, That the Church of England did wisely disown the pretence of Infallibility, and made use of the best Arguments against Sectaries from a just Authority, and the Sinfulness and Folly of the Sectaries refusing to submit to it.

To take off the force of this Answer, two different Ways are taken.

(1.) The Replier saith, The Argument is as forcible without Infallibility Repl. p. 32.as with it.

(2.) The Defender saith, Authority signifies nothing in this Case Des. p. 51.without Infallibility.

I shall consider them both, tho both cannot stand together.

(1.) The Replier goes upon this Ground; That the Church of England can never justly charge Sectaries with Disobedience to Her, because they may as well cast it in her Teeth, that she disobeyed her Mother Church, whether she were Infallible or not.

But the Force of this depends upon a double Mistake.

(1.) That the Church of Rome hath as much Authority over our Church, as the Rulers of it have over the Members. Which ought not to have been supposed, but substantially proved, since the Weight of the Cause depends upon it. But I see nothing like a Proof produced.

(2.) That the Sectaries have as much reason to reject the Terms of Communion required by our Church, as our Church had to reject those of the Church of Rome. But this is as far from being proved as the other.

(2.) The Defender desires to be instructed, how such an Authority can be in a Church without Infallibility? I hope he believes there may be Authority without Infallibility; or else how shall Fathers govern their Children? But not in the Church. Why so? Have not Bishops, out of Councils, Authority to rule their Diocesses? Have they not a Provincial Synods Authority to make Canons, tho they be not Infallible? What then is the meaning of this? He tells us soon after; To say a Church is Fallible, is to say she may be deceived. There is no doubt of that. And if she may be deceived her self, they may be deceived who follow her. And if a Church pretends to be Infallible, which is not, she certainly deceives those that follow her, and that without Remedy. But all p. 82this sort of Reasoning, proceeds upon a false Suggestion, viz. That our Faith must be grounded on the Chuach's Authority as the formal Reason of it. Which he knows, is utterly denied by us, and ought to have been proved. We declare, the Ground of our Faith is the Word of God; not interpreted by Fancy, but by the Consent of the whole Christian Church from the Apostles Times. This is our Bottom, or if you will, the Rock, on which our Church is built. This is far more firm and durable, than a pretence to Infallibility; which is like a desperate Remedy, which Men never run to, but when they see nothing else will help them. Had the Church of Rome been able to defend her Innovations by Reason or Antiquity, she had never thought of Infallibility. It is a much better expedient to keep Men in Error, than to keep them from it; and tends more to save the Authority of a sinking. Church, than the Souls of Men.

But he will not let the Church's Infallibility go thus; For he pretends to prove, that if we take that away, we make Christianity the most unreasonable Thing in Nature; nay, absolutely impossible. What! whether God hath promised to make the Church Infallible or not! We understand those who offer to prove the Church Infallible by Scripture; but these Scientifical Men despise such beaten Roads, and when they offer to demonstrate, fall short of the others Probabilities. As will appear by examining his Argument: Faith requires an assent to a thing as absolutely true; but a fallible Authority cannot oblige me to a thing as absolutely true; Page 52.and therefore this would be an Effect without a Cause; a down-right Impossibility; a flat Contradiction. I will match his Argument with another; Faith is not an Assent to a thing as absolutely true, upon less than a Divine Testimony; but the Church's Testimony is not Divine; and therefore to believe upon the Church's Testimony, is an Effect without a Cause; a down-right Impossibility; a flat Contradiction.

Let him set one of these against the other, and see who makes Faith unreasonable or impossible. But I will clear this Matter in few words. I grant that Faith is an Assent to a thing as absolutely true; and that what is absolutely true, is impossible to be false: I grant, that a meer fallible Authority is not sufficient to produce an Act of Faith. But here I distinguish the Infallible Authority of God revealing (into which my Faith is resolved, as into the formal Reason of it) from the Authority of the Church conveying that Revelation, which is only the Means by p. 83which this Revelation comes to be known to us: As when a Man swears by the Bible, there is a difference between the Contents of that Book by which he swears, and the Officers putting the Book into his hands.

(3.) The Church of England is blamed, for allowing no Liberty of Appeals to a higher Judicature.

The Question is, Whether this makes her no true Church; or not to have any just Authority over her own Members?

The Replier saith, She makes her self the last Tribunal of Spiritual Repl. p. 33.Doctrine.

I know not where she hath done so, since we own the Authority of Free and truly General Councils, as the Supreme Tribunal of the Church upon Earth. And accordingly receive the four first; which even S. Gregory the Great distinguished from those that followed, as to their Authority and Veneration.

The Defender had a good mind to cut off the Church of England Def. p. 54.from being a Church, because she hath renounced Communion with the Church of Rome; but his heart failed him: And I hope he will think better of it, when he sees cause to prove a little more effectually, that the Church of Rome in its largest extent is the Catholick Church.

He argues, That there must be such an Authority in a Church, which Page 55.may give a final Sentence conclusive to the Parties, as the Judges do Temporal Differences. But is it necessary for all Churches to have such a Power? then there must be as many Supreme Courts as there are Churches. If not, we desire to know where the Supreme Court is, and who appointed it? And where Christ hath ever promised to his Church a Power to end Controversies when they arise, as effectually as Judges do Temporal Differences? For the freest and most General Councils yet assembled, have not been so happy; and those we look on as the most Venerable Authority to decide Differences in the Church.

But still our Church wants sufficient Authority, in his Opinion. Page 56.Doth it want Authority to govern its own Members? To Reform Abuses in a divided State of the Catholick Church? To cast off an usurped Power, as it was judged by the Clergy in Convocation, who yet concurred in other things with the Church of Rome? I pray what Authority had the Gallican Church so lately to declare against the Pope's Infallibility, and to reduce him in that respect to the Case of an ordinary Bishop? If Absolute Obedience be due to him as Head of the Church, what Authority have the duplicate page p. 82duplicate page p. 83p. 84Temporal Princes in other Countries, sometimes to forbid, sometimes to restrain and limit the Pope's Bulls. This at least shews, that there may be just Authority to examine and restrain the Pope's Power. And I see no Reason, why the several Churches of Christendom may not act as well against the Pretence of the Pope's Authority, as the Gallican Church hath done against his Infallibility; especially, since this Gentleman hath told us, that Authority without Infallibility, signifies nothing. And those who think they may examine and reject his Dictates, may do the same by his Authority, the one being as liable as the other.

It was said in the Papers, That no Country can subsist in Quiet, where there is not a Supreme Judg, from whom there can be no Appeal.

The Answer was, That the natural Consequence was then, that every National Church ought to have the Supreme Power within it self. But how comes Appeals to a Foreign Jurisdiction to tend to the Peace and Quiet of a Church?

The Defender saith; That a National to the whole Church, is but Page 57.as a Shire to a Kingdom; and a very natural and consistent Consequence it is, that every Shire should have a King.

One would think by such an Answer, this Defender is a mighty Stranger to the ancient Polity of the Church. Did he never hear of the Power of Metropolitans being setled by the Council of Nice for governing the Churches, and calling Provincial Synods? Did he never hear of many other Canons relating to the Power and Frequency of Provincial Synods? Did he never hear of the Decrees of the Council of Ephesus, forbidding all Incroachments on the ancient Rights of Churches? Did he never hear that Provincial Councils have declared Matters of Faith, without so much as advising with the Bishop of Rome? As the African Councils did in the Pelagian Controversy; and the Councils of Tolcdo, in the Case of Arianism; which reformed the Spanish Churches, and made Canons by their own Authority; which were confirmed by their Kings, Reccaredus and Sisenandus? Did he never hear that it was good Doctrine among Cathol…ck Divines, That particular Churches might take upon them to declare the true Catholick Faith? And if so, they must judg what is so. Did he never hear, that in a divided State of the Church, Errors and Abuses may be reformed by particular Churches? And that this was owned and defended by great Men in the Church of Rome? if he did not, he was very much unprovided for the handling such a Controversy; if he did know these things, he ought not to have spoken with so much p. 85contempt of the Power of Particular or National Churches.

And to assert their Authority, is very far from being like setting up a King in every Shire; for this were the highest Dilloyalty to the King, who hath a just and unquestionable Authority over all the Shires. Let him prove that the Pope hath such a Monarchy over all particular Churches, before he make such a Parallel again. But the way he takes is rather like making the Imperial Crown of this Realm to be in subjection to a Foreign Power, because the Roman Emperors once had Dominion here, and therefore this Kingdom could never recover its own Rights.

But he saith, A Foreign Jurisdiction is hardly sense with respect to Pag. 55.the Church, for …oris is out, and unless the ultimate Jurisdiction be out of the Church, it cannot be said to be foreign. This is a shameful begging of the Question, that what they call the Roman Catholick Church, is the Catholick Church; for if it be not (which I hope I have sufficiently shewn) then the pretended and usurped Jurisdiction of the Roman Church over the Church of England, is a Foreign Jurisdiction.

He adds, That it is impossible to re-settle the Church among us, without that which we call Foreign Jurisdiction; because Dissentions in Pag 58.matters of Religion cannot otherwise be removed.

But suppose this Foreign Jurisdiction be the occasion of these Dissentions? some maintaining … others asserting the Rights of our Church against it; Is not … …oreign Jurisdiction like to put an end to it? Yes certainly. For, if all Parties submit, there will be no longer disputing. But our Question, as yet, is, whether this be reasonable or not?

I complained of the Inconvenience of Appeals to a Foreign Jurisdiction. He gives us a smart Answer, and saith, That holds no comparison with the Inconvenience of Heresy. As tho it were so plain Pag. 59.a thing that we are guilty of Heresy, that it needed no manner of proof. Alas! what need a Man prove that it is day when the sun shines? We are just as much guilty of Heresy, as the good Bishop was, who, for denying the Antipodes, was condemned by Pope Zach…y. But it is a comfortable thing in a Charge of Heresy, to find it no better proved.

He saith, I mistook the matter of Appeals, and that it was not understood Pag. 59.with respect to Causes, but to matters of Doctrine and Worship.

An Appeal must re…ate to a Superiour Authority; and a constant Appeal to a standing Authority; and whatever the pretence be, the Court of Rome will challenge Supreme Jurisdiction, where-ever the p. 86Pope is owned as Head of the Church: And then all those Consequences will follow I mentioned before. If other kind of Appeals were meant in the Papers, yet they must relate to an Authority Superiour to our Church; which we could wish had been more fully expressed, that we might have known to whom the Appeal was to be made; whether to a free General Council, which we never disowned; or to the Popes Authority, which we yet see no cause to make our Appeals to, especially as to what concerns his own Jurisdiction.

He pleads, That Supream Power must be Judg in its own Cause; for no Authority ought to be set up against the King, supposing a Question Pag. 52.be started about his Prerogative.

I answer; This is a Case extreamly different: for in matters of Prerogative, the King's Supream Power is not the Question; for his Right to the Imperial Crown is, and ought to be out of dispute; but all the Question that can be started, must relate only to the Exercise of his Power, in some particular Cases, where former Laws made by the King's Consent, are supposed to limit it; which the Courts of Judicature take Cognizance of, and so are a kind of Legal Arbitrators between the King and his People.

But in the Case before us, the Jurisdiction it self, and the Right to exercise any such Authority, is the very thing in Question. And I desire this Gentleman to resolve me, whether in the late times of Usurpation this had … been good Doctrine, that those who enjoy, or pretend to Supream Power, are to be Judges in their own Case? If so, then it had been impossible for Men to have justified their Loyalty to the Royal Family, then very unjustly put out of possession. If not, then there may be a pretence to Supream Authority, where it is by no means allowable for the Pretender to Judg in his own Cause.

As to his Appeal to the Catholick Church; we by no means reject it, provided he mean the Church truly Catholick, as it comprehends Pag. 63.the Apostolical Church in the first place; and then all other Christian Churches, which from the Apostles times have delivered down the Catholick Doctrine and Worship, which they received from them. But if he means that which is called a Catholick Church, but is neither Catholick nor Apostolical; we beg his pardon, if we allow no Appeal to it, since its Errors and Corruptions are the great and just Cause of our Complaints.

He runs into a long Discourse about Church-Security, and his design is to shew there can be none without Infallibility.Pag. 64, 65.

p. 87Infallibility is no doubt a very good thing, but where is it to be had? Is it not possible for Men both to be deceived and to deceive, with a pretence of Infallibility? All that we desire is to see some Infallible Prooss of it; without which all the talk about it doth not end one Controversy, but beget many. And this kind of Talk is, as if a Man were to advise with two Lawyers about making a Purchase, but would fain be secure of a good Title; the one desires to see all the Evidences that belong to the Estate, and after the perusal of all, he tells him, that as far as he can possibly discern, the Title is very good, and he would venture all he had upon it. He goes to another, and tells him what the former had said to him. And was this all, saith he? Would he not say, it was impossible for you to be cheated? No. And will you venture your Money without such Security? Why, saith the Client, what would you have me to do? I will tell you, saith he, there is but one way in the World for you to be safe. What is that, Sir. I should be glad to know it with all my Heart? I will discover it to you, provided you follow my Counsel; and that is, to deal with a Man who hath such a Gift from Heaven bestowed upon him, that he never did, nor ever can deceive you, and then it is impossible you should be cheated: for, all these Deeds and Writings, and Lawyers, may deceive you; but if you deal with such a Man, you are safe enough. I thank you, Sir, saith the Client, for your good Advice; but I pray, where is there such a Man to be found? For, if I cannot find him out, I am just where I was before, and I must use the best means I can, and rather trust to good Deeds and real Honesty, than wait for a Chimerical Infallibliity.

It is alledged still, That without infallibility, we have not Judgment Pag. 65.but Fancy.

And the Replier saith, That in Competition with the Churches Authority Repl. p. 34.all is but Fancy.

The difference of these must depend upon the Reason we produce; and by that we are still content the World should judg, so we understand those, who are unprejudiced in it.

It was said in the Papers, That if the Fancies of those who are now for the Church of England vary, they are ready, or (as the Desender saith it ought to be read) really to embrace or joyn with the next Congregation of People, whose Discipline or Worship agrees with their Opinion at that time.

I will take his own Reading, which in my Opinion alters the matter very little; for still it implies, That those of the Church p. 88of England have nothing to hold them to it, but a present Fancy, and when that varies, they may as well be of another Perswasion; for Fancy, we all know, is a very mutable thing.

But, to shew that those of the Church of England are not so apt to vary their Fancies or Opinions in these matters, I alledged their adhering to the Crown in the times of Rebellion.

He answers, That my Zeal for the Church of England is wonderous Pag. 66.unlucky. I am sorry if it prove so, since I unfeignedly design to serve her, and therefore should be much more concerned, if I should do her Injury under a pretence of Service. But wherein is it? He confesses, The Doctrine of our Church is in this Point very Orthodox, and her Practice in the times of Rebellion conformable to it. And what was the Practice of the Church then, but the firmness of the Members of it? But many, he saith, deserted Her and her Doctrine in this Point at that time, so many that the Rebellion was peradventure indebted for its success to those Deserters. But they were Deserters still; and the Practice of the Church of England was agreeable to her Doctrine, by his own Confession. How then comes this to shew, that it is only a variable Fancy which keeps Men to it? He saith, If those who deserted her, had ever adhered to her with a Perswasion, that they were obliged to believe what sbe taught, they could not have deserted her in this Point, who always taught Loyalty; and till they do so, there is no security of adhering to her.

This seems to me to be a wonderous unlucky Answer. For doth Infallibility secure a Church against Deserters? Have no Men, no Provinces, no whole Nations deserted a Church which pretends to Infallibility? And since there may be such Multitudes of Deserters, where …fallibility is challenged, what greater Security can that give a…inst them, more than our Church doth? Nay, I think so much the less, because the very pretence to Infallibility is suspicious and hard to be made out, and every Error overthrows it. And I do not think the Church of Rome did her self greater Mi…hief, or …ade more total Deserters by any one thing, than by pretending to be Infallible. For, when such gross Errors and Corruption; were complained of, that one of the Popes at that time confessed them, and owned the necessity of a Reformation, when the Princes of the Roman Communion called for it, and pressed it very hard by their Ambassadors in the Council of Trent (as appears by the French Collection of Memoires relating to it) when … all, no one thing, as to Doctrine or Worship, could be redressed, it …onvinced the World, that let things be as p. 89they would, they would Reform nothing; this made the Breach irreconcileable. For, till the Council of Trent was ended and confirmed, there was still hopes of Reconciliation, upon a due Explication of some Points, Reforming Abuses, and leaving School-Doctrines at liberty; but when they saw every thing defended, and the Errors complained of, made Articles of Faith, and put into a New Creed, there was no hopes of any Accommodation left. And all this was the blessed Effect of pretending to Infallibility; for if one Error had been owned, there had been no farther pretending to that.

It is some comfort however, that our Church is confessed to teach the Orthodox Doctrine of Loyalty, and her Practice to be conformable in the worst of Times; and so I hope it will always be. But it hath been said by some Body, That we had our Government and Ceremonies from his Church, our Doctrine from Luther and Calvin; and that we had nothing peculiar to our Church, but our Doctrine of Non-Resistance; and much good may it do us. And we hope we shall never fare the worse for it. This might give occasion to enquire, Whether the Church which pretends to be Infallible, doth teach it so Orthodoxly or not? Or whether those who do think themselves obliged to believe what she teaches, are thereby obliged to the strictest Principles of Loyalty? But I forbear. It is sufficient to my Purpose to shew, that our Church doth not only teach them, as her own Doctrine; but which is far more effectual, as the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, and of the Primitive Church; which I think ought to have more force on the Consciences of Men, than the pretence to Infallibility in any Church in the World.

But all this while it is said, There is no firm Motive produced for adhering to the Doctrine of our Church. And this is repeated over P. 67, 68.and over: As though there could be any greater Motive in the World, than that our Doctrine is no other than that of Christ and his Apostles. And unless you prove this as to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, all your other Motives signify nothing to the real satisfaction of any Man's Conscience. For it is agreed on all hands, that our Religion is a revealed Religion; and that this Revelation was made by Christ and his Apostles: and that this Revelation, as to Matters necessary to Salvation, is contained in the Books of the New Testament. What satisfaction then can it be to any Man's Conscience, to be told, such a Church tells p. 90me this and that, and the other Point were the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles? As will appear by this short Representation. You pretend to no new Revelations of Matter of Doctrine? No. You have the Books of this Revelation? Yes. Are they not legible? Yes. But you cannot understand them. Let me try; It is for God's sake I must believe, and therefore I cannot be satisfied till I see his Word. What! will you not believe the Church which delivers you the Word? I pray excuse me. A Man brings me a Letter from my Father, about matter of great Consequence to me; he tells me, I need not look into the Letter it self, for he was authorized by my Father to tell me his Meaning: Altho I believe he dealt faithfully in bringing me the true Letter; Do you think I will trust him for the Meaning of it? No; I will open it, if it be only to see, whether he had such Authority from him or not. And I know, if my Father was pleased to write to me about Matters of such Importance, he would write in such a manner that I might understand him; and if any Difficulties arise in Point of Law, I will take the Advice of th…se who are most fit and able to direct me. But after all, I must know what my Father would have me to do from his own Words, and not from the Mouth of the Messenger. Or if he tells me he hath Authority to deliver other things by Word of Mouth, not contained in the Letter, which I am equally bound to believe with what I can find in i…; can any one think I will believe him, unless it appears by the Letter it self that my Father gave him such Authority? Let him tell me never so much, how long he hath been my Father's Servant, and how faithful he hath been to him, and how much he hath done and suffered for him, and what a number of Certificates he can produce, from time to time, of his good Behaviour; yet all this can give me no satisfaction, as long as the Letter he brings is confessed to be my Father's own Hand-writing; and that it was purposely sent to direct me what I was to do in a Matter that he knew to be of the greatest Concernment in the World to me. Can I imagine one so wise and careful, should omit setting down in his own Letter such important Things, and leave them to the dis…retion of one that may either mistake his Meaning, or have some Interest to carry on different from mine? And therefore all the fair Pretences or Motives in the World, shall never make me believe any thing to be his Mind for me to do, in a Matter which relates to my Welfare, but what I find under his own Hand.

p. 91It is to very little purpose to quote S. Augustin's Motives about Pag. 67.the Church▪ unless it be made appear that they belong only to the Church of Rome; and that they prove the Church Infallible in all she teaches. Our Faith depends on the Word of God, as it is contained in Scripture: thi… Scripture is conveyed down by the Church; but the Church still is but the Messenger which bring… the Letter, by which we are directed what to believe and practise in order to Salvation.

We do by no means think the Word of God is made by writing, as he suggests; but we are sure it is the Word of God which is Pag. 6….written, which we can never be of any Tradition. We do not look out for a fallible Judg, to be sure to have an end of our Differences: But we hate to be imposed on, by a pretence to an Infallible Judg, who instead of ending Differences, makes more. We do not think it Judgment to affirm, that giving Honour to God, is not giving Honour to God: But we have not such deep Understandings to comprehend how God should be honoured by the breaking his Commandments.

It is not Judgment in our Opinion to think, That because only one could redeem us, no Body besides can pray for us: But it is no great Wisdom and Judgment, if God hath appointed but one Advocate in Heaven, for us to appoint him more; or to make our Addresses to our Fellow-Creatures in Heaven, when he hath commanded us to do it to his Son. We do not believe that the Body and Blood of Christ can now be separated, or he die again: But when Christ instituted a Sacrament to set forth the shedding of his Blood, that it is meer Fancy to think his Blood being in his Body, doth answer the Ends of it. The Apostles no doubt understood Christ's meaning in what he said, and have so well instructed his Church therein, that we have no reason to believe he meant the substantial Change of his Body, in the Institution of a Sacrament. Now on which side Judgment and Reason lies, these very Instances discover. And we desire no greater Liberty in these Matters, than to have our Judgments sway'd by the strongest Reason; and that I hope is not building on Sand.Pag. 70.

The Replier saith; The Infallible Church is as visible as the Sun. We are then wondrous unlucky indeed that cannot see it: I have often Repl. p. 36.rubbed my Eyes, and looked over and over, where they tell me it is to be seen, and I can yet see nothing like it; although I should be as glad to see it as another. I have heard of a p. 92blind Man, who pretended to have such a sagacity with his Fingers, that he could feel Colours; and he proceeded so far in it, that some Vertuoso's believed him, and were ready to form a Theory of Colours from the subtilty of the blind Man's Fingers; but before they had accomplished it, the Trick was discovered. An Infallible Judg of all Controversies looks to me just like it; He is to determine Controversies, not by seeing, but by a kind of feeling. If he produces Reason, we may judg as well as he; if he doth not, he must feel them out; which is so different a way from the proceeding of the rest of Mankind, that for my part, I must be content rather to grope in the darkness of common Reason, than be directed by the Light of this invisible Sunshine.

The Defender here comes in with his Dish and his Stand; which are Metaphors somewhat too mean for such a Subject, and Pag. 71.are apt to turn one's Stomach more than Repetition. The Question is, Whether those who allow the use of our Judgments in the choice of a Church, have Reason to find fault with it in other thing…; because the Difficulties about an Infallible Church, are as great as about any other Point in Religion?

The Replier again saith; The Church is a Noon-day Light. Then, what Cimmerians are we? Tully questioned. Whether some God, or Nature, or the Situation of the Place, hindred a whole Nation that they could never see the Sun? But our Modern Geographers put an end to this Dispute, telling us, there are no People in the World who cannot see the Sun at some time or other. And we are apt to think, if there were such a Sun-shine of the Churches Infallibility, we should be able to discern it, unless the Light of it may be thought to dazle o… Eyes; for, we are as willing to find it as they; but the Dis… … it are such as we cannot conquer. And there need no Telescopes to find out the Sun.

But the Defender will not yield that there are any su… Difficulties about the Church's Infallibility; for he hath but o… thing to mind, and that no Difficulty neither, where, or which the Church is. I hope when Pag. 75.he hath considered the former Discourses, he will not think it so easy a matter to find out the Church he talketh of, viz. One Infallible Catholick Church.

But the Difficulties about Scripture are greater; as about the Canon, Translation, and Sense of it.

p. 93The Question proceeds upon a Person who in earnest desires to satisfy himself in this Matter; Whether in order to his Salvation, he must follow the Directions of Scripture, or the Church? And I doubt not to make it appear, that the Difficulties are greater about the Church than the Scripture. That which deceives Persons is, that they rather consider the Difficulties after the Choice, than before. It is very true, those who trust the Church, have no more to do afterward, but to believe and do as she directs; for they are to examine no farther, whether it be true or false, right or wrong, Vertue or Vice, which is commanded; the Church is to be obey'd. But those who follow the Scripture, must not only read, and weigh, and consider it well; but when Doubts arise, must make fresh Applications to their Rule, and use the best Means for understanding it, by Prayer, Meditation, and the Assistance of Spiritual Guides. And this is far more agreeable to the Design of the Christian Religion, as it was taught by Christ and his Apostles.

But the Difficulties of the Choice are now to be consider'd; and let us consider what those are about the Church, and then compare them with those about the Scripture.

If I choose a Church for my Infallible Guide in the Way to Heaven, to which the Promises of Christ do belong, then there are these Difficulties, both which I think impossible for my mind to get over.

(1.) I must exclude all other Churches in the Christian World from any share in these Promises. And either I must condemn them without hearing them, or examining the Grounds of their Exclusion, or I must be satisfied with the Reason of it; which I cannot be, till I am certain that Church hath justly shut out all other Churches, and challenged the Promises to her self alone.

(2.) I must be satisfied that Christ did intend one standing Visible Church to be my Director in the Way to Heaven. And for this purpose, I must examine all the places of Scripture produced to that end, and be Judg of the clearness and evidence of them, i. e. I must conquer the Difficulties about the Scripture, as to Canon, Translation, and Sense, before I can be satisfied that I am to make choice of a Church.

(3.) There is yet a harder Point to get over; Suppose a Church must be chosen: why the Church of Rome rather than any other? p. 94What is there in the Promises of Christ, which direct me to chuse that Church and no other? Suppose I were born in Greece, and there I was told, I must …huse a Church for my Guide to Heav…n. If it must be so, I will chuse our own Greek Church; No, it must be the Church of Rome. What Reason or Colour is there for it? Is it said so in Scripture? No, not expresly. But what Consequence from Scripture will make me do it? There are Promises made to the Church. What then? Were not our Churches planted by the Apostles? Have not we had a constant Succession of Bishop; in them? Have we not four Patriarchs in our Communion, and you but one? For what imaginable Reason then should you exclude our Chur…es from any share in the Promises of Christ?

But now as to the Scripture, we are to consider;

1. That no more is necessary as to particular Persons than knowing the things necessary to their Salvation; which are easy to be known, and are clearly revealed in Scripture, if S. Chrysostom and S. Augustine may be b…lieved.

2. That what Difficulties are objected about the Scripture, must be all of them resolved by him that believes the Church, (as is already observed) but the Difficulties about the Church's Infallibility, do not concern him that relies on Scripture.

3. That the general Consent of the Christian Church, is of far greater Advantage for the satisfaction of a Man's Mind, than the Authority of any one Church, as about the Integrity of the Copies, and the Canon of Scripture.

4. As to Translations, the Unlearned in all Churches must trust to those that are Learned for the particular examination of them; but in general, a private Person may be satisfied by these Con…derations.

(1.) That Men will not go about to deceive others in a Matter wherein so many are concerned; and in which it is so easy to discover any wilful Fraud.

(2.) That since the Divisions of Christendom, there are Parties still at watch to discover the Faults committed by each other in a Work of so publick a Nature.

(3.) That where a Translation hath been review'd with great care, after several Attempts, there is still greater Security as to the goodness of it. And this is the Case of the present Translation of our Church, which was with wonderful care review'd p. 95and compared with the Original Languages, by the particular Direction of K. James I. and therefore deserves to be esteemed above such a Translation, which was never made out of the Original (as to the Old Testament) nor ever review'd and corrected by it. Which is the Case of the Vulgar Latin, and of such Translations which are made from it.

I had said, that the Scrip…ure may be a Rule without the Church, but the Church cannot without the Scriptures.

The Replier, like a fair Adversary, mentions that which looks like an Objection, viz. That there was a Church before the Scriptures Repl. p. 37.were written; and some Ages were passed before the Canon of Scripture was made and owned by the Church.

To which I Answer; That when I said the Church cannot be a Rule without the Scripture, it was upon the supposition, that the Canon of Scripture had been long since owned by the Church, and that the Church derives its Infallibility from the Promises contai…ed in the Scripture.

But the Defender goes another way to work; for, saith he, The Scriptures, I say, may be a Rule without the Church; that is, Dis. p. 72.without Faithful; for a Congregation of them is a Church. What! in the Sense now before us, as it is taken for a Guide! Is every Congregation of the Faithful a Church in this Sense? Then, well-fare the Independents. And this, me-thinks, makes Infallibility sink very low.

I do not say, There could be no Church before Scripture; nor that they had then no Rule of Faith; nor that the Church depends on writing; these are but mean Objections; but I …ill say, That where a Church challenges her Authority by the Scripture, it can signify nothing without it. Which is so plain, that I need not multiply words about it.

As to his Church-Security, we have considered it enough already; but it would make one mistrust a Security which is so often offered.

I said, that suppose Infallibility be found in Scripture, there is yet a harder Point to get over, viz. how the Promises relating to the Church in general, came to be appropriated to the Church of Rome.

From hence he insers, That I have at last found the Promises of Pag. 73.Infallibility to the Church there. Is not this a rare Consequence? Suppose I should say, I know a Book of Controversy in the p. 96World, that hath very little of true Reasoning in it; but if it were to be found there, it doth not reach to the Point in hand. Doth this imply that I affirmed in the latter part, what I denied before? Is this finding out true Reasoning in the latter Period, which was not to be found in the former? There may be true Reasoning, when it is not to the purpose. So there might be Infallibility, and yet the Church of Rome not concerned in it. Suppose the Church of Jerusalem, as the Mother Church, might be Infallible by the Promises of Scripture; what would this be to the Church of Rome? But I never said, or thought, that there were any Promises of Infallibility made to any Church in Scripture: Pro…ises of Divine Assistance and Indefectibility, I grant, are made to the Church in general: but these are quite of another Nature from Promises of Infallibility, in delivering Matters of Faith in all Ages. Yet if this were granted, the Church of Rome, as it takes in all of her Communion, hath no more reason to challenge it to her self, than Europe hath to be called the Face of the whole Earth.

As to his Sandy Foundation, I tell him in short, He that builds Pag. 74.his Faith on the Word of God, builds on a Rock; and all other things will be found but Sandy Foundations.

(4.) The next thing laid to our Charge is, That we draw our Arguments from Implications, and far-fetch'd Interpretations, at the same time that we deny plain and positive words.

In Answer to this; (1.) It was shew'd, that in many of the Points in Difference, we have express words of Scripture for us. As, against the Worship of Images, and giving Divine Worship to any but God: and for giving the Eucharist in both kinds, and praying in a Language we understand.

The Defender would have me produce the very Words, to shew that the Scripture saith No, to what their Church saith I, or contrariwise.Pag. 75.

He talked much before, that we give the same Answer the old Hereticks did; and now I think he hath matched them. Shew us, say they, in Terms, the direct contrary to our Propositions; where the Son was said to be Consubstantial to the Father; or the Holy Ghost was a Divine Person; or the Blessed Virgin the Mother of God; or that there are two Natures in Christ after the Union. Will Reason and Consequences signify nothing, when founded on the Word of God?

p. 97But I need not this answer, for I assirm that the words of the first and second Commandment, of the Institution of the Sacrament, Drink ye all of this; of S. Paul 14. of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, against Publick Service in an unknown Tongue, are so plain and evident, that there is no Command of Scripture but may be avoided and turned another way as well as these. And herein we go not upon our own Fancies, but we have the concurrent Sense of the Christian Church in the best and most Primitive Ages, in every one of the Points here mentioned.

And whether we are right as to the sense of the second Commandment; Pag. 38, 30.and as to Divine Worship in general, as to Christ's Institution amounting to a Command, as to St. Paul's Discourse: Which the Replier insists upon, next to the Scripture it self, and the Force contained therein; we appeal to the Primitive Church, as the most indifferent Arbitrator between us.

(2.) I answered; That where words seem plain and positive, they may have a Metaphorical or Figurative Sense; as when God hath Eyes and Ears, &c. given him; and the Rock was Christ. And so in the Words, This is my Body; it was a Sacramental Expression, as the other was; and the other words are figurative, when the Cup is said to be the New Testament in his Blood: and St. Paul, notwithstanding those words, called it Bread after Consecration.

Here the Defender will not bite, the Light being too clear for him; but descants upon denying plain words, and so runs clear Des. p. 76.off from the Point, which seemed to be chiefly meant by the Paper.

But the Replier is a generous Adversary, and attacks what Rep…. p. 35.stands before him. He endeavours to shew a Difference between God's having Eyes and Ea…s, &c. and those words, This is my Body, as to the receding from the literal Sense; because, saith he, there is an implication of impossibility in the one, but not in the other. But withal he grants, that if by This be meant the Bread, it would have implied an equal impossibility.

I am very glad to see this Point brought to so fair an Issue: For, if I do not prove by the general Consent of the Fathers, both of the Greek and Latin Churches, that by This the Bread is meant, I dare promise to become hi… Proscly….

p. 98(5.) The last Thing objected is, That our Church s…bsists only on the Pleasure of the Civil Magistrate, who may turn the Church which way he pleases.

To this it was answered;

(1.) That the Rule of our Religion is unalterable, being the Word of God; tho the Exercise of it be under the Regulation of the Laws of the Land.

(2.) That altho we attribute the Supreme Jurisdiction to the King, yet we do not question but there are inviolable Rights of the Church which ought to be preserved against the Fancies of some, and the Usurpations of others.

The Replier Answers, That our Religion is built on private Interpretations Repl. p. 41.of Scripture established by Law; and therefore if the Law be mutable, the Religion is mutable.

The Defender desires I would make it appear, that the Holy Scripture Dis. p. 78.is such a Foundation, as makes the Protestant Church unalterable; for the Letter of Scripture is common to all who bear the Name of Christians. And all Alterations of Religion are made upon pretence of Scripture.

To give a clear and distinct Answer, I shall lay down these Propositions.

(1.) That altho Humane Laws be alterable, yet the Divine Law is unchangeable, and continues its Force on the Consciences of Men; so that no Humane Law can make that lawful which God hath sorbidden, nor that unlawful which he hath commanded. Whatever Change therefore may happen as to the Laws of Men, the Law of God is still the same, and its Obli…ation cannot be taken off by any Laws of Men. As suppose God hath forbidden the Worship of Images, or of Saints, or of any Creature, upon Supposition that it is not a Creature; no Law in the World can make this lawful; because God's Authority is Superior and Antecedent to Man's, and therefore cannot be superseded by an Act of Men. And this is one of the Fund mentals of the Christian Religion, without which it could never have been practised, when the Laws of the Empire were again… it. So, neither can Humane Laws make that true which is agains… the Word of God, nor that false which is agreeable to it. They can never make Transubstantiation a true Doctrine▪ if it were nor so before; nor a Purgatory necessary to be believed, unless it be proved from Scripture to be so. So that the Foundation of our p. 99Religion, being the Word of God, and the Obligation of that on the Consciences of Men, it must remain the same, tho Humane Laws be mutable. Howbeit, I do not deny the Magistrates Power in making Laws for regulating the Publick Exercise of Religion. But as we have cause to thank God for the establishment of the best Church in the Christian World by them among us; so we are unwilling to put such Cases as the Defender doth, when Pag. 80.we enjoy our Religion as established by Law: And it would be interpreted to be a mistrust of his Majesty's Gracious Promise to protect it.

(2.) Although the Letter of Scripture be liable to Misinterpretations and Abuses, yet the true and genuine Sense of it may be understood; and then there is a great disterence between false and mistaken Notions, and the proper Sense of Scripture. This is very strange Reasoning, if Men will infer that there can be no certainty as to the Sense of Scripture, because so many have misinterpreted it. Is it any Argument that the Constitution of our Government is not sirm; or that Loyal Subjects cannot be certain of their Duty, because Men of ill Principles have run away with false Notions of a Fundamental Contract, and Coordinate Power? Is there no Certainty in Law, because Judges have been of different Opinions, and determined the same Cause several ways? Is there no Principle of Certainty in the World, because Men have been imposed upon, both by their Senses and Reason? If notwithstanding this, we must allow that we may judg truly of some Things, (or else we must all turn Scepticks) then we desire no more than to observe the same Rules and Caution in judging the Sense of Scripture, which we do as to our judgment of other Matters. In them we take notice of the Causes of Errors, the Circumstances of Things, the Difference of Objects, the Nature of the Medium, and accordingly pass our Judgment. And in Things too small for our view, or too remote, we make use of Glasses to help us; but all this while Men do not reason so weakly in these Matters. Do they say that some have been deceived by their Glasses and Telescopes; therefore there is no certainty in any of them, and they must all be laid aside; and whatever they talk of Spots in the Sun, and the unequal Surface of the Moon, they are all Fancies and Chimera's of giddy Brains, and no Men of sense can believe them? If Mankind do not argue at this rate in other things, how come they to be so fatally unreasonable p. 100about the Scripture? The Letter of Scripture, say they, is used for this Fancy, and the other Mistake, and a third pleads it for down-right Heresy: I very one thinks he hath the Letter of Scripture for him; and upon that he grounds his Faith. And what then? The natural Consequence is, that every one would sain have Scripture of his side. Doth it really follow from hence that no Body hath it? Or that there can be no certainty who hath it, and who hath it not? But every one thinks he hath it. And what follows? Some or others must be deceived. I grant it; But who shall tell who is deceived, and who not? I pray let me ask one Question; Are you willing to be deceived, or not? Who is willing to be deceived? Every one that will not take the pains to be undeceived, or to prevent being deceived. What pains do you mean? Such honest Industry and Diligence which every one ought to take, who pretends he searches for Truth in order to his Salvation. And I dare affirm, such shall never want Means to attain certainty as to the Sense of Scripture in what concerns their Salvation.

But suppose the Question be about Churches, how can the Church of England assure Men that is the true Sense of Scripture which is delivered by it?

I Answer;

(3.) The Church of England hath ofsered all reasonable Satisfaction to Mankind, that it doth follow the true Sense of Scripture.

And that by these ways;

1. By not locking up the Scripture from the view of the People, but leaving it free and open for all Persons to judg concerning the Doctrines here taught. Which argues a great assurance, that our Church is not afraid of any Opposition to be found to the Word of God in the Articles of our Religion. And the contrary is vehemently to be suspected, where Reading the Scripture is forbidden the People, as it is in the Church of Rome, if the Popes Authority signify any thing; for Clement the 8th, did revoke the Power of granting Licenses, which was allowed by Pius the 4th. And I do not see how any Confessor can justify his acting against the Pope's Authority.

2. By not pretending to deliver the Sense of Scripture on her own Authority. If she did require her Members to depend wholly upon her Sense, without examining themselves, that very thing would render her Authority suspicious with all Inquisitive p. 101Men; who always mistrust where there is too much Caution.

3. By her constant appealing to the Primitive Church ever since the Reformation, as the best Voucher for her keeping to the true Sense of Scripture. And in truth, one of the greatest Controversies between our Church and the Church of Rome, is not about the bare Letter of Scripture, but the best Interpreter of it. Our Church still contending, that the sirst and purest Ages of the Church, next to the Apostles Times, did certainly best understand the Sense aad Meaning of Scripture; and the Church of Rome pretending, that the giving the true Sense of Scripture, belongs to the present Catholick Church, which they would be thought to be, against the plainest Evidence of Scripture and Reason. As appears by the foregoing Discourses.

The Defender's Cavil against the Prayer at the end of the Answer, would have held as well against Amen, if it had been added to it. But he was to answer all, and therefore the very Prayer could not escape his Confutation, or at least his putting an ill construction upon it; which was far from the Intention of him that made it. Who thinks it a part of a good Christian, to be always a Loyal Subject.

As to the summing up the Evidence in his Conclusion, I shall not follow him in it, since I think the Cause so clear in the opening of it, that I shall leave it as it is, to the Reader's Judgment.