Vindication of Answer About Unity and Authority of the Catholic Church, Treatise
A VINDICATION OF THE ANSWER TO SOME Late Papers Concerning the UNITY and AUTHORITY OF THE Catholick Church, AND THE REFORMATION OF THE CHURCH of ENGLAND.
LONDON, Printed for Richard Chismell, at the Rose and Crown in S. Paul's Church-Yard, MDCLXXXVII.
A VINDICATION of the ANSWER to Some late Papers, &c.
IT was so tempting a piece of Honour, to appear as the Champion of the Royal Papers, that I rather wonder that no Def. p. 1.more, than that these, have shewed themselves to the World, under so inviting a Character. Which seems to have betray'd them into more than usual security; presuming, I suppose, that they are to be looked on, as a sort of Heralds in Controversis, whose bearing the Royal Arms, will keep them from being touched themselves, though they bid defiance to others. But where Truth lies at stake, every one hath a Right to put in for it; and whose Game soever any Person plays, those ought to carry it who have the best Cards to shew: I mean, that in Debates of this Nature and Consequence, other considerations ought to be so far laid aside, that the strongest Reason should prevail. But lest I be again thought to have a mind to flourish before I offer to pass; Pag. 2.as the Champion speaks in his proper Language; I shall apply my self to the Matter before us. Only taking notice that I am now glad to enter the Lists upon even Ground. For although I thought I behaved my self with due Respect and Decency before, yet I perceive the Measure of those things is so nice and arbitrary, that it is very hard to escape Censures, where the Distance is so great. But those who live in the Country may mean and intend as well to their Prince, as those who live at Court, though they do not make so fine Legs, nor are of so pleasing an Address.
The plain truth is; Controversie is quite another thing from Courtship and Poetry. It is like a Trial at Law, which ought to depend on Evidence and Proof, though the King himself be concerned in it. And as we must give Honour to whom Honour, so Truth to whom Truth is due: and this without Respect of Persons; it being a Case long since decided, That Truth is greater than the King.
If I thought there were no such thing in the World as true Religion, and that the Priests of all Religions are alike, I might have been as nimble a Convert, and as early a Defender of the Royal Papers, as any one of these Champions. For why should not one who believes no Religion, declare for any? But since I do verily believe not only that there is such a thing as true Religion, but that it is only to be found in the Books of Holy Scripture, I have Reason to enquire after the best means of understanding the sense of those Books, and thereby, if it may be, to put an end to the Controversies of Christendom.
This was the noble design of the two Royal Papers; which are written with far greater strenght, and spirit, and closeness, than these which are published in Defence of them. But notwithstanding all their fair appearance, I could not be convinced by the Reason contained in them, (and much less by the Defence of them) Which I endeavour'd to represent as far as I could judge, with Modesty and Civility. But if I have offended in any thing against the strict Rules of good Manners, I hope I may be the more easily forgiven, since their Casuists allow involuntary faults to be in their own nature venial.
The Method proposed by the Paper for ending Controversies, was by finding out a Principle for doing it, as visible as that the Scripture is in Print. This I could no… but extreamly approve, as a very satisfactory method of proceeding; and the Consequence I said would be, that all Men of sense would soon give over disputing; for none who dare to believe what they see, can call that in Question.
The Author of the R…ply saith, I mistook the meaning of the words, which he saith was this, That what ever Motives render it visible that a Pag. ….Book in Print is Scripture, i. e. the Word of God, the same or other Motives are as powerful to render this other truth as visible, that none can be that Church, but that which is called the Roman-Catholick Church.
The Desender saith, The Church is more visible than Scripture, because the Scripture is seen by the Church; for which he brings S. Augustin's Des. p. 2, 3.Authority. And if by saying that the Scripture is in Print, be understood a tking out of Question; then he denies it to be visible that the Scripture, is in Print; because many Men do call Scripture in question at this day; and to question whether the Book in print be Scripture, is manifestly to question whether Scripture be in print.
The Words of the Royal Paper are plain, but these Interpretations of them so forced and unnatural, that there needs no other confutation of them, but to compare their confused Comment with the Text. It is as visible, as that the Scripture is in Print; that is, it is a thing evident to sense; for so it is that the Book called the Scripture or the Bible is in Print. Now what is it which is affirmed in the Paper to be thus evident? viz. this Proposition, That none can be that one Church which Christ has here on Earth, but that which is called the Roman Catholick Church. But if it be certain (as I doubt not to make it appear) that what is called the Roman-Catholick Church, is but a Part of that One Church which Christ has here on Earth, then the plain result of this Proposition must be, that it is a thing evident to sense that a Part is the Whole. Now this looked so oddly, that these Gentlemen were resolved that this should not be the sense of the plain words; and therefore have endeavoured to put another sense, (if it may be called so) upon them. And if their Church can but interpret Scripture at this rate, we are in a hopeful way to have a speedy and happy end of Controversies.
As to the Consequence I drew from hence, that if Controversies could be determined by a Principle as visible as that Scripture is in Print, all Men of sense would soon give over disputing, for none who dare believe what they see would call that in question; One saith, The sooner the hetter. So say I too, upon Des. p. 2.good grounds. But what would then become of the Noble Science of Controversie? The other saith, That Catholicks and Protestants Rep. p. 2.are both Men of sense, and yet they dispute about the Scripture which is in Print. And what then? This is to shew that the Scriptures being in Print is one thing, and the Authority of the Scripture is another. The one is a common object of sense in which all are agreed; the other is liable to many Disputes, and therefore could not be meant in the Papers.
But they have a notable Cavil against Mens believing what they see, because Faith is of things not seen. This Cavil had been as good Des. p. 3.against our Blessed Saviour, when he said to Thomas, because thou Rep. p. 3.hast seen, thou hast believed. I hope upon second thoughts, they will not tell him, that this was improperly spoken, and not like a Schoolman. Call it what you will, the single Question is, Whether your Church will allow us to Judge of things according to the plain Evidence of Sense? One saith, It is impossible that any Man should be commanded not to believe what he sees. Believing Rep. p. ….here is the Judgment of the Mind upon the Representation of Sense; and will he secure us that the Church can never require us to judge otherwise than according to the Evidence of Sense? I wish he would make his words good, for I assure him he would remove a terrible block out of our way. My Senses plainly tell me, what I see and feel and taste is as much Bread after Consecration as it was before; how then comes it to pass that my Judgment that it was Bread before, was very good; but although there be the very same Evidence afterwards, without the least alteration to Sense, yet then I am to judge just contrary, i. e. that it is not Bread, which I see and feel and taste just as I did before?
But he saith, what is seen is only the form, shape and sigure of Bread and Wine, and that they believe to be there. But alas! This doth not reach to the point. For the Question is not about external appearances, but about the Iudgment of the Mind upon the Evidence of Sense. I will make this matter plainer, that they may know where the Difficulty lies. When Christ's Body appeared to the Disciples after his Resurrection, there was no dispute among them concerning the form, shape and figure of his body, but the doubt was, whether from these they were to conclude that it was Christ's real Body or not? If not, they could not believe from the Evidence of Sense that Christ's Body was risen from the dead; if they were, let them tell us how Christ's Body comes to be so much changed and to lose those essential properties of a body which it once had and was judged by; and farther, what ground there is for us now not to allow that Judgment of Sense which Christ himself appealed to, after the Institution of the Sacrament? For if Christ had therein declared that our Senses are not to be our Rule of judging concerning his Body; he would certainly not have appealed so soon after to the Senses of his Disciples concerning that very Body; and neither he nor his Disciples have given the least intimation, that what we see and feel to be one body, we must believe to be quite another which we can neither see nor feel.
Did not two Angels appear to Lot in the figure and shapes of Men; and the Holy Ghost descend in the form of a Dove? And were they who saw them, to believe according to the Evidence of Sense? I answer, that there is a great deal of difference to be made between Invisible Powers appearing under bodily shapes, and a natural, visible, palpable extended body losing the Properties of a body abd becoming invisible, impalpable and indivisible; And withal there is a great difference, between Spiritual Powers uniting the real particles of Matter into a Body, and the making the Form, Figure, and Shape of a real Body to be where there is no substance of a body. We do not pretend to judge by our Senses of Invisible Substances under outward appearances; but of the Truth of a bodily Substance by all the Appearances of a body, under all the Circumstances necessary for the right judgment of Sense.
The other saith, he knows of no Church which allows not People to believe all they see. May we then believe that to be still Bread Def. p. 3, 4.which we see to be so? No, he saith, the What of a thing is not the Object of Sense. I perceive then our Senses are very impertinent things; and only give an account of the Circumstances and not of the Substances of things. But I pray did not the Disciples perceive the What of Christ's Body by their Senses? How do we know the What of any bodily Substance but by them? It is meer Collusion to say our Senses do not judge of Substances; for our bare Senses judge of nothing, but are the means of conveying the impressions or Representations inward, whereby our Minds do pa…s Judgment upon things. And either we cannot know the Substance of any thing sensible, or we must know the What of it (as he speaks,) by our Senses.
We now come to the main business; which for the clearer proceeding I shall put under three distinct Heads.
I. Concerning the Unity of the Catholick Church.
II. Concerning the Authority of it.
III. Concerning the Reformation of the Church of England.