Romanism Discussed, Treatise · Article 5 · Section 7
SECT. VII.
The Objections from Scripture and Reaſon againſt the infallibility which H. T. aſcribes to the Church are made good againſt his Anſwers.
H. T. ſaith thus, Objections from Scripture and Reaſon ſolved. Object. All the Iſraelites adored the golden …alf, therefore the whole Church erred. Anſw. Moſes and the Levites did not, who were many thouſands, Exod. 32. Numb 3. 39. therefore both thoſe Propoſitions are falſe.
TO which I reply, that whereas the Romaniſts do allege to prove an univerſal Biſhop over the whole Church, who by himſelf or with a Council is an infallible Judge of controverſies of faith, Gods ordinance of one high Prieſt in Iſrael, to whoſe judgement all muſt ſtand, Deut. 17. as Bellarmine lib. 3. de verbo Dei, cap. 4. &c. doeth, this Argument is retorted thus, If Aaron and the People of Iſrael were not infallible, then if there were ſuch an univerſal Biſhop over Chriſtians as there was over the Iſraelites, and ſuch a Council as the Jewiſh Synedrium, which were to be Judge of controverſies, as Romaniſts would have, yet they might be fallible, ſith the Jewiſh high Prieſt and Council who were to be Judge of controverſies were not infallible, though they were as much privileged by Papiſts own arguings, who infer their ſovereign infallible Judicature of controverſies, which they aſcribe to the Pope and his Council from the Jewiſh high Prieſt and his Council. But Aaron and the Jewiſh Council and Church were not infallible; for Aaron and the Council and Church of the Jews did erre, as is manifeſt by the making the golden Calf, and the peoples motion and concurrence thereto. Now though Moſes and the Levites did not erre, yet the high Prieſt and the People did, from whoſe privilege, and not from Moſes the civil Magiſtrate, the infallible judicature of the Pope as univerſal Biſhop, and the Roman Church Catholick is fetcht, and therefore the Anſwer avoids not the Objection.
H. T. adds, Object. The Jews Council …rred in condemning Chriſt. Anſw. No wonder it was not perfectly oecumenical; for Chriſt himſelf was then Head of the Church on earth, and the higheſt Authority was in him, not in the Jews Council; and if the Jews Church could erre, it doth not follow, that the Church of Chriſt can; for it was built (as St. Paul ſaith) on better Promiſes.
I reply, 1. This Anſwer which makes that Council not perfectly o…cumenical, and therefore no wonder it erred, plainly intimates, that if a Council be nor perfectly oecumenical, though it would be otherwiſe infallible, yet in that caſe it may erre. Whence it will follow, unleſs the Papiſts can prove their Councils, which they ſay are approved by the Pope to be perfectly oecumenical, that is, called out of the whole World, they are not infallible. Now certain it is, that neither the Trent, nor the Lateran Councils, nor thoſe of Conſtance, Baſil, Florence, nor any other Council for a thouſand years laſt paſt have been ſo called: yea, ſometimes one party hath kept a Council in oppoſition to another, and Pope againſt Pope. And from the Trent Council, to which they adhere, not onelyonly the Greek, and Aſiatick, and African Churches were wholly abſent, but alſo the French for a time, and the Council conſiſted in effect of none but Italians, and the Popes Hirelings, ſome of whom were onelyonly titular Biſhops, having never been at the places whereof they carried the Titles, and theſe by the plurality of Voices ſerved the Popes ends, but in nothing either ſeriouſly ſought the truth, or reformation of corruption, as the Hiſtory of the Council of Trent written by that intelligent man Frier Paul of V…nice hath cleared to the World. By which, were it not that Papiſts are a ſort of men that hood-wink themſelves, they might ſee how meer a cheat that Council was, and how juſtly it was refuſed by the French Papiſts themſelves unto this day. 2 Though Chriſt were then Head of the Church, yet he did not exerciſe Juriſdiction among the Jews, not act but as Prophet to his Diſciples, he did not deny ſubjection to the Prieſts, he was circumciſed the eighth day, as ſubject to the Law of Moſes, preſented at the Temple with an Offering, went up to the Feaſts, kept the Paſſover, denied not the Authority of the high Prieſt, yea, directed the Leper to offer to the Prieſt for his cleanſing, as Moſes bade him, and John notes that the high Prieſt in that he was high Prieſt that year propheſied of Chriſt's death, John 11. 51. which are ſufficient proofs, that if there were a Privilege of Infallibility in the high Prieſt and Council of the Jews it was not taken away by Chriſt's being on earth. But ſure then they did erre, and therefore were not at all infallible in their ordinary determinations. 3. It follows, if the Jews Church could erre notwithſtanding thoſe paſſages in the Old Teſtament which the Papiſts bring for the Popes and Roman Churches infallibility from their infallibility, then the Popes and Roman Churches infallibility is not well proved thence. 4. St. Paul doth not ſay, The Church of Chriſt was built on better Promiſes, than the Church of the Jews, but that the ſecond Covenant was made a Law on better Promiſes than the firſt, is ſaid, Heb. 8. 6. But thoſe Promiſes are ſet down, verſ. 10, 11, 12. of that Chapter, of which there is none concerning any, much leſs a greater degree of infallibility in any chief Biſhop on earth, oecumenical Council or Church of Chriſtians above the Jewiſh high Prieſt and Council, and therefore this allegation doth no whit infringe the Objection.
H. T. adds, Object. St. Peter erred in faith when St. Paul contradicted him to the face. Anſw. No, it was onelyonly in a matter of fact or converſation, according to Tertullian, lib. praeſcript. cap. 23. by withdrawing himſelf and refuſing to eat with the Gentiles for fear of the Jews, Gal. 2. 12.
I reply, 'Tis true, Tertullian ſaith, that Peter's fact was converſationis vitium non praedicationis, a vice of his converſation not of his Preaching, and he ſhews wherein, that he preached not another God, or Chriſt, or …ope. But this doth not ſhew that Peter erred not at all in any point of faith, nor that Tertullian thought ſo: yea the very words of Paul, Gal. 2. 15. that he did not walk uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel ſhew, that his practiſe did infer an opinion contrary to the truth of the Goſpel, and the words [Why compe… leſt thou the Gentiles to Judaize?] which could be no otherwiſe than by ſuggeſting to them that opinion that they muſt do ſo, ſhew, he taught the Gentiles an Errour in a point of Faith contrary to the Decree of the Council, Acts 15.
It follows, Object. Chriſt blamed the incredulity of his Diſciples in not believing his Reſurrection, St. Mark 16. 14. Anſw. He onelyonly blamed their ſlowneſs in believing, not any errour in faith, or loſs of faith in them, ſeeing they had it not before, for they underſtood not what Chriſt had ſaid to them of it as appears St. Luke 18. & 1 St. John 20. they did not know all points of faith at once, but by degrees.
I reply, the Queſtion now is of Infallibility not of Apoſtaſie, now it is certain they were not infallible, if they did actually erre, and it is certain they did erre, who did not believe Chriſt to have been riſen from the dead, which was ſure an errour in a point of faith, and ſo much the greater in that it was foretold by Chriſt himſelf that it ſhould be, and told by Women, that it was ſo, and of this number Peter was one after he was termed Peter, and according to the Romaniſt's Doctrine had been made Prince of the Apoſtles, and chief Paſtour of the univerſal Church. Now if Peter did erre then in faith, much more may the Popes of Rome, who pretend to be his Succeſſours, and to derive their Privileges from his grant, and conſequently cannot pretend to any more than he had.
Again, Object. Every man is a Liar. Anſw. In his own particular be it ſo, yet the holy Ghoſt can and will teach the Church all truth, he is no friend to truth that contradicts it: and albeit man of himſelf may erre, yet by the holy Ghoſt he may be guided ſo that …e erre not.
I reply, The words that make every man a Liar do ſpeak this of man in contradiſtinction to God's being true, and thereby ſhew that this is made God's Prerogative to be true without any errour, and that no meer man is ſuch, and therefore not infallible, and conſequently neither Roman Biſhop, nor Council, nor Church infallible: nor doth the Anſwer avoid it. For if they be every one a Liar in his own particular, they muſt be ſo in a community or Council, as if each perſon in his own particular be blinde the whole company muſt needs be ſo too. I grant, the holy Ghoſt can and will teach the Church of Chriſt (meaning the Church of the Elect) all truth neceſſary to their ſalvation, and he is no friend to truth that contradicts it: but that he will teach any or all the viſible Churches, or their Biſhops, and Teachers, or any one Biſhop, all truth in any point controverted, ſo as that they ſhall be infallible Judges in determining controverſies of faith, is more than yet is proved by H. T. or any other. And if man may of himſelf erre, though he may by the holy Ghoſt be guided ſo that he erre not, then unleſs it may be known that in this or that Definition of Faith he is ſo guided by the holy Ghoſt, no man can reſt upon his Definition as infallible. But it is not certain that either a Council or Pope, who are confeſſedly fallible of themſelves, and therefore do implore the holy Ghoſt's help, as knowing they may erre, are guided by the holy Ghoſt that they may not erre, but by examining their Definitions by the holy Scripture. For there is no other way to know they have not erred, and conſequently ſuch a not erring being uncertain their Definitions can at no time without proof from Scripture (which each perſon is to try for himſelf) be a ſufficient aſſurance to build a firm Faith upon, which is confirmed by the next Objection.
Object. Try all things, hold faſt that which is good, 1 Theſſ. 5. Believe not every ſpirit, but try the ſpirits if they be from God, 1 John 4. Anſw. Try them by the Churches authority and Apoſtolical tradition, that is the Touch-ſtone, not the dead Letter, humane reaſon, or the private ſpirit.
I reply, If Chriſtians are to try all things, then they are to try the Churches authority, and therefore the Churches authority can be no Rule of trial. And indeed the Precept had been ridiculous, if he had bid them try the Churches Definitions whether they were good or no, and the ſpirits whether of God by the Churches authority, unleſs the Churches authority were to be tried by ſomething elſe, which were of it ſelf credible. For when the Church defines, for examples ſake Tranſubſtantiation, to try this by the Churches authority is no more but to enquire whether the Church hath defined it, if we muſt reſt on its authority without examining its proof, which would be all one as to ſay, Try not at all what the church propounds, but believe it. But it is a vain Rule till we know who are the church, by whoſe authority, and what is their authority by which we muſt try: eſpecially conſidering it is not agreed among Papiſts whether a Pope or council jointly or ſeverally be the church: even H. T. pag. 70. ſpeaks as if he would fain take in all, but is doubtfull on which to faſten. Nor are they agreed whether the Pope or council be ſuperiour, nor which council is approved, which reprobate, nor how far that which is approved is ſo. The Rule is more uncertain when council is againſt council and Pope againſt Pope. The truth is, Papiſts contrary to the Apoſtles Precept are not allowed by their Doctrine to try what their church, that is, their Pope and Prelates teach them, but they are bound to believe them with an implicit aſſent without any trial or explicit knowledge. As for Apoſtolical tradition, we like it well to try by it, if it be in truth and not in pretence onelyonly Apoſtolical tradition: in which caſe we are to take heed that we be not deceived by ſuch ſayings as pretend to be from the Apoſtles, but are not. The Apoſtle Paul 2 Theſſ. 2. 2. tells us there were ſuch pretenſions in his days, of which he warns Chriſtians, and our Lord Chriſt commands Revel. 2. 2. the Angel of the Church of Epheſus in that he had tried ſome that ſaid they were Apoſtles and were not, and had found them Liars. As for ſome of thoſe things which Ancients have called Apoſtolical tradition the Papiſts themſelves do reject them, as the opinion of the Millenaries, the keeping of Eaſter, as the Quartodeciman held, the giving the communion to Infants, and many more; and therefore all Apoſtolical traditions ſo termed cannot be the Rule of trial; nor can they give us any ſure Notes by which we may diſtinguiſh genuine Apoſtolical tradition unwritten from them that are ſuppoſititious. It is true, the oral tradition of the Apoſtles, while they lived, and there was acceſs to them might be fit to be a means to try ſpirits by: but the relation of Irenaeus lib. 2. adv. haereſ. cap. 39. about Chriſt's age, and the cenſure given of Papias in Euſebius plainly ſhew how quickly ſuch traditions came to be miſtakes: and the very reaſon of John 1 Epiſt. 4. 1. doth take us off from trying by ſuch tradition, becauſe of the multitude of deceivers, and therefore requires that ſuch ſpirits as pretended tradition ſhould be tried by an unerring Rule, which is the holy Scripture.
But H. T. takes up the blaſphemous reproach which ſome impudent railing Papiſts have heretofore given to the holy Scripture, when it bids us not try by the dead letter, by which he means the Scripture in contradiſtinction to unwritten tradition. Which ſure is not the language of the holy Ghoſt, but of ſuch impure mouths, as in love to their Romiſh Idols endeavour to diſgrace the holy Scripture. 'Tis true the Law ingraven in ſtone is termed, 2 Cor. 3. 6. the killing letter, yet not of it ſelf, for elſewhere, Act. 7. 38. the law of Moſes is termed the living Oracles, but by accident, in that it could not give life, Gal, 3. 21. in that it was weak through the fleſh, Rom. 8. 3. it did kill, that is condemn men as guilty of ſin, and ſo accurſed by it, Gal. 3. 10. But on the contrary the Word of God is termed living, Heb. 4. 12. the word of life, Phil. 2. 16. And our Lord Chriſt bids the Jews ſearch the Scriptures, becauſe in them they did think they had eternal life, John 5. 39. and John 20. 31. Theſe things are written that ye may believe that Jeſus is the Chriſt the Son of God, and believing ye might have life through his name. So that juſtly may H. T. with ſuch other as before him have done the like, be charged with impiety in his diſparagingly terming the holy Scriptures, eſpecially of the New Teſtament, the dead letter, which Paul calls the word of life.
But it's likely he meant that the Scriptures cannot hear both parties, and ſo pronounce ſentence in a point of controverſie. If this be his meaning he might term the churches ſentence printed or written in parchment, and Apoſtolical tradition unwritten the dead letters, as well as the holy Scriptures. For ſurely the authority of the church in an Oecumenical council approved by the Pope, ſuppoſe the Trent council approved by Pope Pius the fourth, and the Apoſtolical tradition doth no more hear or ſpeak then the Scripture. And it ſure diſcovers an extream perverſneſs and malignity of ſpirit in Papiſts that refuſe to be tried by Scripture as being dead, and require a living Judge to end controverſies, when the council and Pope and Apoſtolical tradition they would try by are as much dead as the Scripture: which there is reaſon to conceive they do as foreſeeing that if their proſelytes would try their doctrines by the Scripture they could not ſtand.
As for humane reaſon no Proteſtant that I know makes that the rule by which he is to try the ſpirits, nor his own private ſpirit, if by it be meant his own councils. But we ſay that every man is to make uſe of his own reaſon or judgement of diſcretion, and the ability of his own intelligent ſpirit, as the inſtrument or means by which he is to try whether that doctrine which is propounded to him be according to holy Scripture, and in this he doth no more then Chriſt requires, Luke 12. 57. yea, and why even of your ſelves judge ye not what is right? without the uſe of which it is impoſſible for men to make trial as men. And this the Papiſts themſelves muſt allow men to do according to their own principles. For how elſe can they hear and believe the church, if they do not uſe their reaſon to know the church, and what it ſaith: they muſt make men blocks or brutes if they allow them not the uſe of reaſon to try by. When H. T. brings arguments from texts of Scripture, Councils, Fathers, common ſenſe and experience (as his title page pretends) would he not have men to uſe their reaſon to try whether he do it rightly? would he have us go to a council approved by the Pope to know whether his arguments be good? what a meer mockery is this of men to write books, to teach people; and yet not permit people to uſe humane reaſon to try their tenets whether they be according to Scripture, Council, Fathers, common ſenſe and experience, as if we muſt not only take an O…cumenical council approved by the Pope, but alſo H. T. and every Popiſh writer, whoſe book is licenſed to be infallible? If he write, is it not that we may read, and will he have us read and not judge, and can we judge without humane reaſon? But it is the faſhion of theſe men to write and ſpeak in points of controverſie, but not to permit their Diſciples, unleſs they judge them firm to them whatever they meet with to the contrary, to examine their adverſaries tenents, arguments and anſwers by reading the Scripture and ſuch impartial writers as would diſcover their deceit, but either by ſome device or plain prohibition to deter them from ſearching after the truth, that they may reſt on the Popes and prelates determinations without examining.
H. T. further adds. Obj. The Church may erre at leaſt in points not fundamental. Anſw. All that God hath revealed is fundamental, at leaſt for the formal motive of belief, to wit, the Divine authority revealing (though not always for the matter) and if it be once ſufficiently propoſed to us by the Church, as ſo revealed, we are then bound to believe it, ſo that their diſtinction of fundamentals and not fundamentals is idle: Beſides if the Church be infallible in fundamentals, then Proteſtants are Schiſmaticks at leaſt in revelting from her in points not fundamental, or neceſſary to ſalvation, and ſin againſt charity by accuſing us of Idolatry.
I reply 1. Sure this exception is idle to argue the diſtinction of fundamental and not fundamental points of faith, which the uſers of it take from the matter, according to which he confeſſeth all is not fundamental that God revealeth to be idle, becauſe all is fundamental which God revealeth at leaſt for the formal motive of belief; to wit, the divine authority revealing, in reſpect of which the Authors, who uſe the diſtinction, acknowledge all fundamental likewiſe, as Dr. Potter, Chillingworth and others, who make thoſe articles of faith fundamental, which in reſpect of the matter are neceſſary to ſalvation to be explicitly known and believed by all: nor is it by them denied, but if it be ſufficiently propoſed to us by the church as ſo revealed, all that is revealed by God we are then bound to believe, otherwiſe we ſhould deny Gods infallibility and veracity. But we deny the bare determination of the church, that is a Pope, O…cumenical council, or prelates to be a ſufficient propoſal without proof from Scripture or other demonſtration, that the revelation is divine. 2. It is an idle inference which he makes, that becauſe Proteſtants grant the church doth not erre in fundamentals; therefore the Roman church doth not erre or is infallible in fundamentals. For that which we grant of the church is meant of other churches beſides the Roman. 3. It is idle that he chargeth Proteſtants with ſchiſm at leaſt in revolting from the church for points not fundamental. For he cannot prove the Proteſtants did or do revolt from the church, but from the Roman court faſhion, nor that they revolted till they were driven out by excommunication and cruel perſecution, and could not enjoy communion without yeilding to ſin, nor that they revolted at all for thoſe errors, which are about points not fundamental; but for the errors about points fundamental, to wit, one Mediator, ſalvation by faith in him, not by our own works, &c. 4. It is idle that he imputes to the Proteſtants uncharitableneſs for accuſing Papiſts of Idolatry, when their profeſſion and worſhip is openly Idolatrous in their adoration of bread, Images, wooden croſſes, invocation of Saints deceaſed, of Angels with other innumerable practiſes uſed and maintained by them about croſſes, reliques, feaſts of Saints, Temples dedicated to them, vows, ſwearing, Prieſts of them, of which their own Liturgies, Canons, writers are undoubted witneſſes. 5. The framing of the Proteſtants objection by H. T. againſt the infallibility of the Pope or his council is idle, ſith it is urged by Proteſtants againſt them by ſhewing its errors even in fundamentals, that Popes and councils approved by them have been heretical. 6. His anſwer is much more idle, in that it is not at all to the argument by him brought, which in form is this. That church which may erre in non-…ndamentals is no infallible judge of controverſies. But the Roman church, whether Pope or council by him approved may erre in non-fundamentals, Ergo the Roman church is no infallible Judge of controverſies. Now in his anſwer, there is neither denial of Major, Minor, nor concluſion, but only a denial of the fit uſe of one term in the premiſes againſt which his own exception is but idle, as hath been ſhewed, yea and if there be no ſuch diſtinction of fundamentals and non-fundamentals in points of faith the objection is more ſtrong againſt them. For then if it be proved that the Roman church errs in points of faith, it errs in fundamentals, if all points of faith be fundamental, which will prove not only the fallibility, but alſo the nullity of the Roman church: and ſo H. T. will pull down what he endeavours to build up.
But H. T. goes on thus. Ob. Thoſe things only are fundamental which are abſolutely neceſſary to ſalvation, and every man is bound explici…ly to know and believe. Anſw. If this were true, the Bible or written Word (which you will have to be the onelyonly rule of faith and Judge of controverſies) were not a fundamental; for faith depends not eſſentially on writing, but on hearing: many were good Chriſtians and ſaved before any of the new Scripture was written or received among them, the firſt Goſpel being not written till ſeven or eight years after the death of Chriſt.
I reply, 1. This ſcribling is idle alſo, in which that is brought in as Proteſtants objection againſt the infallible and ſupreme judicature of the Roman church in controverſies of faith, which is only an explication of one term they uſe in their diſpute againſt the aſſertors of it. 2. It is idle that he ſaith they will have the Bible or written Word to be the only Judge of controverſies, when ſome of them, as Chillingworth whom he after names, Anſw. to Char. Maint. part. 1. ch. 2. p. 114. deny it properly to be the Judge of controverſies, but make it only the rule of faith, or the rule to judge by, yea p. 75. H. T. himſelf chargeth this on Chillingworth (as if he had forgotten what he ſaid, p. 73.) that right reaſon is the only Judge of controverſies, and others, who term the Bible the Judge of controverſies do not make it the only Judge, but the Spirit of God by it, and the teachers of the church and each believer for himſelf by it. 3▪ It is idle again that he makes that an abſurdity which they will not own, when Chillingworth Anſw. to Char. Maint. part. 1. ch. 2. p. 114. and ſome others do grant that the Bible or written Word is not a fundamental point of faith in their ſence, becauſe if the matter of the Bible ſhould be believed by one that never ſaw or heard of a Bible, yet he ſhould have a true faith to ſalvation: And yet they make it neceſſary to be believed by all to whom it is made known. 4. It is yet more idle, that he gives that for a reaſon why it ſhould be abſurd to ſay the written Word is not fundamental; to wit, for faith depends not eſſentially on writing, but on hearing, which concludes it is not abſurd. For if faith depend not eſſentially on writing, but on hearing, which concludes it is not abſurd. For if faith depend not eſſentially on writing, then is the written Word not fundamental, for that is not fundamental without which faith may be. 5. It is idle which he ſaith in oppoſing writing to hearing, whereas faith may be by both, and if he had ſpoken accurately, he ſhould have ſaid, not by ſeeing, but by hearing, or not by writing, but by ſpeaking. 6. It is idle alſo and falſe, that faith depends eſſentially on hearing. For then it could never be that deaf men ſhould believe for want of hearing. 7. That which he adds to confirm it is as idle. For though there were good Chriſtians afore the Goſpel was written, yet it being written upon ſuppoſition there were no other means but writing to beget faith, it would depend eſſentially on writing. 8. This diſcourſe of H. T. overthrows himſelf and his party, For if faith depend eſſentially on hearing, not on writing, then they have not faith who read, except they hear the infallible Judge, whether Pope or council approved by him, nor is the point of faith ſufficiently propoſed, unleſſe it be delivered viva voce, and if ſo, there is no Papiſt hath faith, but he onelyonly who hears the Pope ſpeak by word of mouth from his chair, or a council approved by him ſpeak with audible voyce, the reading of the Trent canons, or the Popes Bull is not ſufficient to beget faith, much leſs the hearing a Prieſt or Prelate tell us their determination. By which it may appear, that if H. T. his dictates hold, then there is neither church nor faith among the greateſt part of Papiſts. 9. All this diſcourſe is idle, becauſe Papiſts themſelves do grant in effect the diſtinction he excepts againſt; and his own words do in a manner confeſſe it is right, as the objectors explain it, and therefore in this is but a meer humour of quarrelling, as having a minde to ſay ſomewhat againſt Mr. Chillingworth and Dr. Potter, the Lord Falkland and Dr. Hammond, who have fully beaten them out of this their laſt hold of the infallibility of the Roman church, which they would fain have fortified, being unable to keep the field in the ſeveral points of controverſie between us and them.
H. T. goes on thus Ob. In Gregory the greats time the diſcipline and doctrine of the Church was altered and corrupted. Anſ. That cannot be, for from Gregory the greats time to this day even the leaſt ſubſtantial part of either hath not been loſt, or changed as is viſible in all the councils, liturgies, and conſtitutions of the Church.
I reply, this is ſo notoriouſlly falſe, and the contrary ſo fully demonſtrated even out of the confeſſions of Popiſh writers themſelves, and in the points of the Popes ſupremacy, out of Gregory himſelf, l. 4. Epiſt. 32, 34, 38, 39. in the point of worſhipping of Images in his Epiſtle to Serenus, and in other points by Biſhop Morton in his firſt book of the Proteſtants appeal againſt Brerely his Apology, that were not this Author reſolved to out-face the moſt manifeſt verities againſt the now Roman tenents, he would never have vented ſo groſſe a falſhood. The very confeſſions of Popes, the decrees of reformation even in the Trent council prove the contrary to what H. T. ſaith. Claudius Espentaeus com. in 2 Tim. c. 4. digreſ. 21. confeſſeth that toyes and lyes were in almoſt all their porteſſes. And if there were no more to prove this Author an egregious lyar; yet this is enough (which is apparent to all the world) that they have had councils oppoſing councils about the ſuperiority of a Pope above a council ſince the time of Gregory the great, and even in their Miffals and Bibles many things have been changed and purged, Clemens the eighth hath altered many things in Sixtus the fifth his Bible, and thereby ſhewed how corruptions have crept into their own authentick tranſlation.
H. T. adds. Object. That which may happen to any one particular man or Church may happen to all: but it may happen to any one particular man or Church to erre in faith, therefore to all. Anſw. I diſtinguiſh the firſt propoſition, that which may happen to one may happen to all in a diviſive ſenſe I grant, in a collective I deny, and granting the ſecond propoſition I deny the conſequence; for it proceeds from a divided to a compound ſenſe, and is as equivocal as this. That which may happen to any one egge in the Pariſh may happen to all. But it may happen to any one egge in the Pariſh to go into your mouth at once, therefore it may happen to all the eggs in the Pariſh to go into your mouth at once.
I reply, I know not whoſe argument this is: Dr. Rainold in his Theſis ſaith thus, but it may happen to every Church which may happen to any; certainly what happened to the Church of Jeruſalem, which had much more ample promiſes, then ever the Church of any City. As it is formed by this Author I think the Major is not univerſally true: but being formed thus, that error which may be in each man and church ſingly, and it's not aſſured ſhall be removed from them met together, may happen to them ſo met. But error in faith may be in each man and Church ſingly, and it's not aſſured to be removed from them met together, therefore error in faith may happen to them ſo met. The Major is I conceive without queſtion. The Minor conſiſts of two parts. 1. That all men and Churches ſingly or ſeverally may erre in faith, I think will not be denied. That the Popes as private Doctors may erre in faith it's not denyed, by the ſtiffeſt aſſertors of the Popes infallibility. That any particular Church alſo, even the Roman, may erre it's not denied, the infallibility, which H. T. would have to belong to it, is as Catholick, and this muſt be when the whole Church diffuſed over the world unanimouſly teach a point of faith, or it's repreſentative in a perfectly Oecumenical council called out of the whole world and approved by the Pope 2. That to none of theſe is ſuch infallibility aſſured, which is proved in that there is no promiſe of ſuch infallibility to any of them. The texts urged by H. T. in this article yeild not that promiſe: nor that text Mat. 18. 20. For, 1. Chriſt may be in the midſt of men, and yet they not infallible. He walks in the midſt of the Churches, Revel. 2. 1. yet they might and did erre in faith. So God hath promiſed inhabitation to every true believer, and walking with them, 2 Cor. 6. 16. and yet they were not infallible. 2. If infallibility were there promiſed, it was promiſed to two or three gathered in Chriſts name, and ſo to a Church neither collectively nor repreſentatively Catholick. 3. The promiſe is but conditional upon ſuppoſition of being gathered together in Chriſts name, which whether any council be, it is uncertain to us. As for H. T. his diſtinction and application they ſeem to me to ſavour of unskilfulneſſe in the meaning of Logick terms. A propoſition is true in a divided ſenſe which is not true in a compound, when the predicate agrees to the ſubject conſidered as at different times upon an alteration; as when it is ſaid, the blind ſee, the deaf hear, the dumb ſpeak, this is not true in a compound ſenſe, that at the ſame time that perſons are blind, deaf, dumb, they ſee, hear, ſpeak, but in a divided ſenſe. But the Major propoſition as ſet down in the objection, is underſtood of the ſame time without alteration. And ſo it is not true, that it proceeds from a divided to a compound ſenſe. Nor is there any conſequence in the propoſition, as he unskilfully ſpeaks, but the propoſition is a ſimple or categorical propoſition. As for his ſimilitude of eating eggs they may be kept for his breakfaſt as now being unſeaſonable.
But he proceeds. Object. The Apostles were not each of them to depend on the decrees of the Church. Anſw. True, the Church was to depend on them as on the firſt maſters and propoſers of faith, who had each of them a peculiar prerogative of divine aſſiſtance and infallibility in matters of faith, yet were they each conſonant to other in all their doctrines of faith, and whatever was taught by any of them was ſtedfaſtly believed by all.
I reply, H. T. ſaith in his Epiſtle to the reader, that it is agreed by all parties that Chriſt our Lord hath founded and built a Church in his own blood, which was the onelyonly M…stris of divine faith, and ſole repoſitory of all revealed truths at leaſt for an age or two; which if true, then the Apoſtles were in that age to depend on their decrees. But here he eats his words, in the Epiſtle the Church was the ſole Miſtris of divine faith, here the Church was to depend on the Apoſtles, as on the firſt maſters and propoſers of faith. How theſe hang together I underſtand not. That which he ſaith here of the Apoſtles is very true underſtanding by maſters, not Lords but teachers. The Church neither now nor in any age was Miſtris of faith, it is not the Church in right ſenſe, that is the teacher or propounder of divine truths, but the learner. It is the meer ſophiſtry of Papiſts to term the Pope and Prelates the Church, and to call a hundred or two of Biſhops, ſome of them meer titulars without any Dioceſſe, ſuch as never knew what the office of a Biſhop was, nor ever preached the Goſpel to any people, the Catholick Church. The conceſſion that the Apoſtles had each of them a peculiar prerogative of divine aſſiſtance and infallibility in matters of faith proves, that this was not Peters prerogative, and if it were a peculiar prerogative to each Apoſtle, then it deſcends not to any ſucceſſors, and ſo by this Authors own words the infallibility of the Pope or council is a meer figment. Nor is infallibility to be ſought from any, but Chriſt and his Apoſtles doctrin, who do ſtill propound matters of divine faith to us in the holy Scriptures. Nor hath the Church of Rome any more priviledge of keeping or conveying to us the truths revealed by the Apoſtles then that at Jeruſalem, Antioch, Epheſus, Alexandria or any other which the Apoſtles founded, and therefore Ireneus, Tertullian and ſuch of the Fathers as direct us to repair to the Apoſtolick Churches for eſtabliſhment againſt hereticks direct us to other Churches, where the Apoſtles preached, beſides the Roman.
It is further objected, the Church hath now no new revelations, nor can …he make now any new points of faith, therefore we are not bound to believe her definitions. H. T. Anſwers, I grant the antecedent, but deny the conſequence, for though ſhe can make no new points, yet ſhe can explicate the old, and render that clear, which was before obſcure, and can define againſt new herefies.
I reply, The grant of the antecedent is ſufficient to prove, that if the Church, as it is termed, teach any other points of faith then were revealed to the Apoſtles, we are not bound to believe her definitions, and conſequently ſhe muſt prove her definitions by Apoſtolical tradition, and not only ſay they are Apoſtolical, ere we are bound to believe them, it being ſtill to be heeded, which Paul ſaith, Gal. 1. 8. If he or an Angel from heaven, or any man preach (I may adde or believe) any other Goſpel then what was preached by Paul, and received by the Galatians he is accurſed, and conſequently each perſon is to examine and judge for himſelf whether that which is preached or defined for him to believe by Pope or council agree with the Apoſtles Goſpel or no, and if the Church can onelyonly explicate the old, then an hereſie cannot be made by a council, which was not before; and if Pope John the two and twenteth his tenet condemned in the council of Conſtance were hereſie after the council condemned it, it was ſo before, contrary to what Bellarmin ſaith, l. 4. de Rom▪ pontif. c. 14. and it follows he that can beſt explicate the old and render it clear which was before obſcure, hath the beſt title to infallibility, and if the Church or Pope have no new revelations, then he muſt explicate by ſtudy, and ſo not by prerogative of his chair, but by ability in languages, arts, and other knowledge, in which if he have leſſe knowledge (as certainly ſome if not all the Popes for a thouſand years have had, one of them, as Alp…onſus a Caſtro ſaith, not underſtanding Grammer, and one of them being neceſſitated to ſubſtitute another to do divine offices for him, by reaſon of his ignorance in literature) there is leſſe reaſon to adhere to their explications then to others who have more skill therein▪ Arias Montanus, Vatablus and ſuch other learned men are to be relied more upon for explications and definitions in points of faith then the Pope or Biſhops, if they be ſuch as were in the Trent council, of whom it is manifeſt by Frier Pauls hiſtory of that council, that there were ſcarce any of them learned in the Scriptures, eſpecially in the main point of the Goſpel concerning juſtification by faith, then it is unjuſt to tye men to follow the Fathers, who had leſſe skill then others in interpreting Scripture, as the learned of the Roman party do often ſhew in their writings, then did Innocent the third ill to make a new point of faith in defining tranſubſtantiation, which was but an opinion before, as Scotus and T…nſtal have aſſerted, then it is monſtrous tyranny beyond all that ever any tyrants before practiſed to burn to death men, women, children, old and young, Biſhops and Noblemen for not holding it, then are the Pop…s and Popiſh party guilty of ſhedding a ſea of blood in England, France, Belgia, Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland and elſewhere, for denying tranſubſtantiation, the Popes ſupremacy, and ſuch other new tenets as Popes have thruſt on the Chriſtian Churches, then hath Pope Pius the fourth done wickedly in impoſing on men a new Creed, and Popiſh Doctors do ill in juſtifying it, and not oppoſing it. But is not this a mockery to ſay the Church may not do it, and yet they do it, and H. T. avoucheth it? what elſe are their tenents of receiving the euchariſt under one kinde, of worſhipping images, of purgatory, invocation of Saints, indulgences, ſervice in an unknown tongue, monaſtick vows with many more but new points of faith? and is it not all one to make new points of faith, as by authority onelyonly without any agreeableneſſe to the meaning of the words, ſo to explicate the Scriptures, as that they ſhall be wreſted to maintain that which is not there taught, and that condemned as hereſie which is not contrary to them? Rightly ſaid Chillingworth Anſw. to Char. Maint. part. 1. ch. 2. num. 1. Tyranny may be eſtabliſhed as well by a power of interpreting laws as by making them: and ſo doth the power of Rome ſet up the greateſt tyranny that ever was in the world by uſurping this vaſt power of being an infallible interpreter of Gods laws (though in their Prefaces to their corrected editions of their miſſals, and the vulgar Latin tranſlations of the Bible they confeſſe they uſed the help of learned men, and one Pope alter what a former did) and Judge of controverſies from whom none may appeal, and all are bound in conſcience to ſtand to his definitions.
H. T. ſaith further. Object. The ſpiritual man judgeth all things, 1 Cor. 2. 15. Anſw. By the Rule of Apoſtolical tradition I grant, by humane reaſon or the private ſpirit I deny, and ſuch a ſpiritual man is in the Church as a part in the whole, not out of it, with Sectaries.
I reply, It is true, the ſpiritual man judgeth all things by the Rule of Apoſtolical tradition, I mean that which is truly and confeſſedly Apoſtolical in the holy Scriptures, not by that unwritten tradition which Papiſts falſly call Apoſtolical. And it is true alſo that the ſpiritual man judgeth all things by humane reaſon not as the rule of faith, but as the Organ or means of diſcerning, as the buyer judgeth whether he hath meaſure by the Ell as the rule, and by the eye as the Organ by which he compareth the thing bought and the Ell together. And if by private ſpirit be meant nothing but his own ability to diſcern, the ſpiritual man judgeth by his private ſpirit, and ſo doth a Papiſt, that judgeth by the rule of the Councils definition, and Popes approbation, judge what his Prieſt ſuggeſts to him to be ſuch by humane reaſon, and his private ſpirit. Nor can it be otherwiſe, if the judging be his act, but it ſhould be by humane reaſon, unleſs we imagine a man as a man to act without reaſon. However this is clear by his confeſſion, that a ſpiritual man is not onelyonly the Pope, or the Catholick Church, but a part in the whole, and that he not onelyonly receives all that the Church propounds, but judgeth, and therefore doth not reſt on the judgement of the Church with a blinde aſſent, and that he is in the Church nevertheleſs, and this ſuppoſeth that a ſpiritual man is not to preſuppoſe the Church, or Pope, or Prelate, or Prieſt, infallible, but to examine what they ſay, and to judge for himſelf whether they ſpeak right or not.
H. T. proceeds thus. Object. Right reaſon is the onelyonly Judge of controverſies, therefore every mans private reaſon muſt be Judge for himſelf. Anſw. The Antecedent I have ſufficiently refuted, and I alſo deny the Conſequence, as the moſt groſs and unreaſonable Aſſertion of all others, (though Mr. Chillingſworth's chief ground) which appears thus.
I reply, No Proteſtant that I know ſaith, Right reaſon is the onelyonly Judge of controverſies, and therefore there was no need of refuting it. Nevertheleſs in what he hath ſaid before about this point, he hath refuted nothing, except it be a ſufficient Refutation to ſay without any reaſon or proof for it, that we muſt not try all things by humane reaſon or the private ſpirit, which is a way of re…uting, fit enough for this Scribler, though unfit for a Diſputer. 2. Nor do I think any Proteſtant makes that conſequence, which is here ſet down; whereas he a…cribes it to Maſter Chillingworth he had dealt honeſtly if he had quoted the place, that we might without reading a whole Book have found it. If I miſtake not, Maſter Chillingworth, chap. 2. part. 1. Sect. 104. of his Anſwer to Charity maintained againſt Knot, aſſerting a neceſſity of a perſonal Judge in points of controverſie concerning the Chriſtian faith, that the Scripture was not, and therefore the church muſt be it, ſaith, Scripture is not a Judge of controverſies, but a Rule to judge them by, being underſtood of all thoſe that are poſſible to be judged by Scripture, and of thoſe that ariſe among ſuch as believe the Scripture, that it is not neceſſary that all controverſies ſhould be decided, that in doubtfull things there is no neceſſity they ſhould be determined, but that each ſhould bear with other, and he is ſafe that uſeth means to finde the truth though he miſs it, that fundamentals are plainly delivered in Scripture, that the m…st unlearned may underſtand theſe by the tranſlations of places on no ſide gainſaid, that each mans own reaſon is Judge for himſelf, that there is no ſuch perſonal Judge appointed by God, as Knot would have, that his Reaſons from the neceſſity of a perſonal Judge in civil controverſies hold not in this matter, that every mans particular reaſon is that by which he is to judge whether this or that Doctrine be agreeable to Scripture, that even according to the way of the Papiſts the giving of the Office of Judicature to the Church comes to confer it upon every particular man. For, 1. Before any man believes the Church infallible he muſt have reaſon to induce him to believe it ſo, elſe why do they ſet down Arguments to prove it. 2. Suppoſing they are to be guided by the Church they muſt uſe their own particular reaſon to finde out which is the Church, and to that end Popiſh Doctors give notes and marks whereby to diſcern it, which are to no end, if a Chriſtian muſt not uſe his reaſon to judge whether they be right or no. So that in effect this is Mr. Chillingworth's Argument, as I conceive it, There is neither a neceſſity of an infallible perſonal Judge among men to determine all controverſies in Religion among Chriſtians, nor is any ſuch appointed by God, but each is to try for himſelf what is taught, and even by Popiſh Writers own way he muſt uſe his particular reaſon to diſcern the validity of their proofs for the Churches infallibility, and which is the Church, which muſt be his guide by the marks of i… ▪ therefore it muſt of neceſſity be yielded, that every mans particular reaſon muſt be Judge for himſelf. Now this which H. T. unskilfully calls the conſequence, it being the conſequent onelyonly, is no unreaſonable much leſs groſs Aſſertion, and may very well be Mr. Chillingworth's ground in anſwering Knot, notwithſtanding that which here H. T. produceth to the contrary.
Firſt, ſaith H. T. As contradicting the Word of God, wherein we are taught, that the things which are of God, no man knows but the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2. 11. No man can ſay Our Lord Jeſus (with true faith) but in the holy Ghoſt, 1 Cor. 12. 3. By which grace we are ſaved through faith, and that not of our ſelves, for it is the gift of God, Epheſ. 2. 8. We are not ſufficient to think any good thing our ſelves as of ſelves, but our ſufficiency is from God, 2 Cor. 3. 5. We muſt captivate our underſtanding to the obedience of faith.
I reply, Mr. Chillingworth's tenet being rightly underſtood contradicts none of theſe Texts. For, 1. when he ſaith, Every mans private reaſon is to judge for himſelf, he means whether this or that be the meaning of the Scriptures, and whether that which ſome ſay is revealed in Scripture be ſo or not, ſo that the judging which he aſſerts is of things revealed by the words wherein it is revealed, not a finding out what is not revealed. But 1 Cor. 2 11. ſpeaks of a knowledge of invention by ſearch into the things without revelation, a knowledge of invention, not of diſcretion, as the words verſ. 10. ſhew, But God hath revealed them to us by his Spirit, for the Spirit ſearcheth all things, even the deep things of God. Now Mr. Chillingworth (ſo far as I diſcern) did never aſſert, that every mans private reaſon by its own ſearch could ever finde out the myſtery of the Goſpel, had not the Spirit revealed them to the Apoſtles, and they to us, but that each mans private reaſon ſince the Apoſtles have revealed them in their Writings may judge whether that which one Teacher ſaith is the Apoſtles meaning, be truer than what another ſaith, he makes Reaſon not the Judge of the Spirits revelation, but of mens interpretation and inference. 2 When Mr. Chillingworth makes each particular mans reaſon or his private ſpirit, the Judge for himſelf, he means right reaſon, not every fancy which hath no proof, and that reaſon which he calls right reaſon muſt be rectified by the Spirit of God and his influx upon the underſtanding, and ſo the Text 1 Cor. 12. 3. is not againſt Mr. Chillingworth. 3. When he means that every private mans reaſon or private ſpirit is a Judge to each man, he conceives (as the matter of his diſcourſe lead him to ſpeak) this judgement to be onelyonly of the meaning of the ſpeech, wherein the things revealed are made known, whence comes a a ſpeculative notional knowledge, upon which a bare dogmatical faith follows, but he aſſerted not right reaſon rectified by common influx of the ſpirit, which underſtands onelyonly the true meaning of ſuch a Text or the truth of ſuch a Propoſition, to be ſufficient without a ſpecial work of the Spirit of God enabling a man to ſee the beauty, worth, goodneſs of the things thus believed above any other thing propounded to be choſen, to beget an affective practical knowledge, which begets faith of adherence, of which 1 Cor. 12. 3. Epheſ 2. 8. 2 Cor. 3. 5. & 10. 5. are to be underſtood. So that Mr. Chillingworth's Aſſertion rightly underſtood doth well conſiſt with theſe Scriptures, it being no whit contradictory to theſe ſpeeches, that no man can know by his invention the myſtery hid in God but by the revelation of the Spirit, and yet when it is revealed each mans private reaſon may judge of the meaning of the Scriptures in which it is revealed, and whoſe Doctrine is moſt agreeable to thoſe Scriptures, and though no man can fiducially and electively ſay, Jeſus is the Lord but by the holy Ghoſt, yet without the ſanctifying and renewing or indwelling of God's Spirit a perſon may by his private reaſon underſtand the meaning of this ſpeech, Jeſus is the Lord, and aſſent to it upon credible motives with a bare dogmatical faith. And though ſaving faith be the ſpetial gift of God to his Elect, yet in working faith God uſeth mans reaſon to underſtand what he is to believe, and to judge it to be true, and as H. T. ſaith here, p. 77. The diſcourſe and approbation of reaſon is always a previous and neceſſary condition to our deliberate and rational acts of faith, and the very acts themſelves, are acts of reaſon. And though we are not of our ſelves ſufficient to think any good thing, yet our ſelves do think good things, and by reaſon rectified by God's Spirit do judge them to be good. And though we are to captivate our underſtanding to the obedience of faith, yet that obedience of faith to which our underſtanding is captivated is by the aſſent of the underſtanding upon the apprehenſions which our reaſon hath of the good of that we aſſent to, and that which we obey.
But ſaith H. T. Secondly, becauſe divine revelations are not to be admitted or rejected for their ſeeming conſonancy or repugnance to every mans private reaſon, but for the authority of the Church propoſing as the immediate motive, and the Authority of God revealing as the higheſt Motive of our Faith into which it is ultimately reſolved, nor can any thing be more rational than to captivate and even renounce private reaſon, where God the Authour of Reaſon commands it.
I reply, I doubt not but Mr. Chillingworth would have ſaid ſo too, and have counted it an injury done to him to ſuggeſt it (as H. T. ſeems to do) to any as if he meant otherwiſe, provided that by the authority of the Church propoſing be meant, not the pretended infallible authority of the Church or Prelates of it, but either the infallible authority of the Primitive Church comprehending the Apoſtles, or the probable and credible authority of the preſent Church or Teachers in it. But it is likely H. T. meant it of the infallible authority of the preſent Church or Prelates of it, which is not yet proved, and till it be Mr. Chillingworth's Aſſertion is not overthrown.
H. T. adds, Thirdly, becauſe if every mans private reaſon is to judge for himſelf in matters of Religion, then all the Hereſies that ever yet were in the World were good and ſound Doctrines; for there was never any Sect of Hereticks who did not pretend both to Reaſon and Scripture for their Tenets (how damnable ſoever) and ſome of them ſuch as were unaſwerable by humane reaſon, ſetting aſide the Churches authority and Apoſtolical tradition: for who can prove by private reaſon or by all the reaſon of man againſt the Arians, that a ſpiritual and indiviſible ſubſtance (ſuch as God is) could beget a natural Son of himſelf without a Mother? or againſt the Sabellians and Trinitarians that the ſame indiviſible eſſence or divine nature can be at once in three diſtinct perſons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoſt? or againſt Neſtor and Eutiches, that one perſon can ſubſiſt in two different natures, the Divine and Humane in Chriſt, which notwithſtanding are high Fundamentals in Chriſtianity. In all theſe and many others private reaſon muſt either bend the knee and be captivate to faith, or become Atheiſm.
I reply, I conceive Mr. Chillingworth would have ſaid ſo too, to wit, that private reaſon muſt bend the knee, and be captivate to faith in points revealed, though it cannot comprehend how thing revealed ſhould be ſo, and yet his Aſſertion hold, that each ones private reaſon is to judge theſe to be matters of faith; and it will judge them to be ſo by the evidence it hath, that theſe are divine revelations, which right reaſon knows to be ſo from the agreement with the Scriptures without the preſent or late Churches authority or unwritten traditions, though termed Apoſtolical. And thoſe Tenents which a private mans reaſon findes to be agreeable to holy Scripture, though the whole Church of this or former Ages ſince the Apoſtles days ſhould judge them Hereſie, and the Nicene or any other Council condemn them, yet is that perſon to hold them as truth, provided he do uſe his reaſon aright to diſcover the truth. And though it be that Councils may be and have been uſefull, when good choice hath been made of perſons and undue practiſes to miſ-lead and over-aw them have been removed, yet as Nazianzen in his five and fiftieth Epiſtle ad Procopium complained, that he knew no good iſſue of them, ſo he that ſhall examine the cariage of things in Councils, even the beſt of them ſince the Apoſtles days will finde reaſon not to take any thing from them on truſt meerly by reaſon of their authority, and for the Councils which have been above a thouſand years by reaſon of the activity and prevalency of Factions, and the unlearnedneſs of moſt of the Biſhops in them will find more reaſon to be jealous of what Councils have determined, them to acquieſce in them. Nor will it follow, that if this judgement be allowed to every private man, then all or any Hereſies whatſoever have been good and ſound Doctrine, but that thoſe who have pretended Reaſon and Scripture have abuſed both. Nor is H. T. his Reaſon of force, becauſe Hereticks pretend to reaſon and Scripture, therefore every one is not to judge for himſelf, and all Hereſies were ſound Doctrine, any more than than this, cavillers pretend Law and Reaſon, therefore Judges that uſe their knowledge in the Law, and their Reaſon in paſſing Sentence do juſtifie cavillers, or determin no better then cavillers. Were the Churches authority infallible, hereticks might and did pretend to it's authority, and Apoſtolick tradition, and therefore notwithſtanding theſe, yet hereſie may be taken for ſound doctrine as well as if private reaſon be made a Judge for each ones ſelf: yea many hereſies have alledged unwritten tradition, and have had ſome council or other perhaps more and more numerous to patronize them then the Orthodox: ſo that I may ſay, ſetting aſide the holy Scripture (which is now the rule by which to determine what is error, what not) neither the Churches authority, nor unwritten tradition can prove a point to be hereſie or extirpate it, but rather propagate and eſtabliſh error, as by experience is manifeſt, there being never more hereſies eſtabliſhed and propagated by any one, or more private mens following their reaſon, then have been by the Popes and Councils ſuppoſed to be Oecumenical and infallible, nor is there any greater cauſe of erring then the confidence of infallibility, nor any error ſo faſt rooted as that which is decreed by men that will confeſſe no error. As for thoſe hereſies which he reckons as unanſwerable by humane reaſon, if he mean they are unanſwerable by humane reaſon, how or in what manner the things oppoſed by them are, it is granted; but of this Mr. Chillingworth doth not make humane reaſon Judge: if any humane reaſon cannot comprehend how a thing ſhould be, nor can anſwer all objections, yet if it judge that God hath revealed it is ſo, it is to believe it, even as Mary was to believe her having a ſon though ſhe knew not how, Luk. 1. 34. That which each mans reaſon is to judge, is not how a thing can be which God hath revealed is or ſhall be, but whether it be ſo revealed, and this he is to do not by a blind aſſent to what the Church or his teachers ſay, but by ſearching (as the Beraeans did Act. 17. 11. with Gods approbation even when Paul preached to them) the Scriptures whether they ſay right. And if the Scripture ſay the contrary to what thoſe named hereticks ſay, then are their tenents to be rejected, of which each perſons reaſon is to judge for himſelf he being to be ſaved or damned according to his own faith: if not, the determination of councils againſt it is not to be received. And this manner of judging by reaſon, will neither promote herefie, nor Atheiſm, but on the contrary, if the Popes, Councils, Churches determination be counted infallible, it will perpetuate an error if once received, as too much woful experience ſhews in the Roman Papacy, wherein the error of tranſubſtantiation though it be ſuch as is ſo contrary to Scripture, reaſon, ſenſe, Fathers, that a man unprejudiced would think them meer mad men, or phrenetick perſons who hold it, yet it is by Papiſts maintained (I dare hardly ſay, by the learned believed) moſt obſtinately and furiouſly to this day.
Finally, ſaith H. T. becauſe if private reaſon were the onelyonly Judge of controverſies, it would evidently follow the general councils of all former ages (which have commanded all perſons under pain of damnation to obey their definitions and ſubmit to their decrees) were the moſt tyrannical and unjuſt aſſemblies that ever were, in uſurping ſuch a power over mens conſciences, and conſequently, that there neither is nor ever was any ſuch thing on earth as a Church (or obliging guide in matters of faith) and Church Government,
I reply, though Mr. Chillingworth ſay not private reaſon to be the onelyonly Judge of controverſies, nor denies the Church or Council to be Judge of controverſies, but only the infallibility of them; yet, if he did ſay either, neither of theſe things would follow which H. T. makes conſequent thereon. For notwithſtanding ſuch ſaying he might deem councils to have followed Scripture, and therefore not unjuſt in thoſe commands, and that there was a Church and Church government obliging men in matters of faith though not by vertue of their own authority, yet by vertue of Gods revelation in the holy Scriptures. Nevertheleſſe (if I may be allowed to ſpeak my judgement freely) I do think that if not all, yet moſt of the Councils termed general have been for more then one hundred years too unjuſt and tyrannical in their commands, uſurping the words of the Synod at Jeruſalem, Act. 15. 28. too arrogantly, as if their authority were equal to the Apoſtles, and impoſing on mens conſciences burdens too intolerable, and that this hath been a moſt pernicious engine of Satan to cauſe diviſions and miſchiefs in the Church of Chriſt. And certainly if any have followed humane reaſon and a private ſpirit in deciding controverſies of faith, and judging matters of religion they have been Popes, and the Councils approved by Popes, who do almoſt in every thing, in ſome things expreſſely, forſake the Scripture, and adhere to their own reaſon in their Canons and Decrees: and Papiſts who receive their determinations do forſake the guidance of Gods Spirit and follow humane reaſon and a private ſpirit.
H. T, ſaith further. Ob. Your therefore believe the Church to be infallible▪ and whatever elſe you believe, becauſe you judge it reaſonable to believe it, and your very act of faith it ſelf is an act of reaſon: therefore reaſon is the only Judge of controverſies. Anſw. The diſcourſe and approbation of reaſon is alwayes a previous and neceſſary condition to our deliberate and rational acts of faith, and the very acts themſelves are acts of reaſon, not diſcourſing but ſimply aſſenting: All this I grant, yes I deny your conſequence, becauſe our acts of faith are not ultimately reſolved into private reaſon (which faith often is inforced to captivate) but into the authority of God revealing, and the Church propoſing. I believe it (ſaith Tertullian) becauſe it is impoſſible (viz. to humane reaſon.)
I reply, 1. Chillingworth makes not reaſon the only Judge of controverſies, nor any Proteſtant, therefore the concluſion is ill fathered on them. 2. The reaſon of H. T. his denial of the conſequence is inſufficient. For it ſuppoſeth the conſequence to imply, that our acts of faith are ultimately reſolved into private reaſon, and this private reaſon judging that onelyonly to be true, of which it conceives how it is poſſible. But the truth is, they that make reaſon the Judge of controverſies neither reſolve ultimately their acts of faith into private reaſon, neither do they conceive they have reaſon to believe onelyonly what they conceive how it is poſſible to humane reaſon, but reſolve their faith into Gods authority as the formal and ultimate reaſon of their believing, and make their reaſon onelyonly the means or inſtrument by which they finde that God hath revealed that which they believe, not excluding their teachers credit, and Churches example as a fit motive to hearken to it as a thing credible. Which opinion is confirmed by this authors own words, making faith an act of reaſon, and diſcourſe and approbation of reaſon alwayes a previous and neceſſary condition to it, and therefore in all acts of faith, even when it reſts on the Churches Authority, yet eachmans private reaſon is the Judge for himſelf diſcerning in controverſies why he is to believe one and not another; all the difference is, the Papiſt thinks he hath reaſon to believe tranſubſtantiation, Popes ſupremacy, &c. becauſe he takes the Church of Rome or Pope to be infallible. The Proteſtant doth not believe them, becauſe the Scripture doth not ſay thus, which alone he takes for an infallible rule to judge by in ſuch controverſies. Whether Papiſts faith be ultimately reſolved into the Authority of God revealing hath been before conſidered a little and will more in that which follows. To Tertullians words I can return no anſwer till I know where to finde them. As they are here cited they ſeem nor right.
Yet again ſaith H. T. Ob. There is no Apoſtolical tradition for the Churches infallibility. Anſw. Yes a more univerſal one, then for the Canon of the Scripture it ſelf: (which notwithſtanding you believe on that ſcore if at all) For there is not any one book either of the old or new Teſtament, which hath not been rejected by ſome heretick or other: if therefore it be a ſufficient proof of an univerſal tradition for the whole Canon of Scripture, that ſome one or two general Councils have ſet down the number and names of all the books of Scripture, though not without ſome variety, and that the Fathers have given teſtimony to them, ſome to ſome books, ſome to others, but few to all; and that the Church in after ages hath accepted them for ſuch, how much more univerſal is the tradition for the Churches infallibility, which is virtually decided and atteſted by the Anathema's and definitions of all the general Councils that ever were, condemning all who did not humbly obey, and ſubſcribe to them, every deciſion being atteſted by all the Fathers (no one contradicting or condemning the ſtile) and moſt unanimouſly accepted by the whole Church of after ages.
I reply, the ſpeech of H. T. here, that there is a more univerſal Apoſtolical tradition for the Churches, that is not only the Church diffuſed over all the world unanimouſly teaching, but alſo the Church repreſented in a Council perfectly Oecumenical (that is to ſay, call'd out of the whole world and approved by the Pope) it's infallibility in definitions of faith then for the Canon of the Scriptures it ſelf, is ſo monſtrouſly falſe, and ſo pernicious, as tending to the undermining of the fabrick of Chriſtian Religion, that it ſhews an impudent face and an impious heart in the aſſertor. For, 1. The tradition of the Canon of the old Teſtament is by the whole Nation of the Jews from Moſes to Chriſt, and from Chriſt and his Apoſtles, who have teſtified that to them were committed the Oracles of God, Rom. 3. 1, 2. and this witneſſed by the Jews unto the death, and by the complement and events verifying it. And though it be, that ſome hereticks have been adverſaries to the Law and Prophets, yet ſcarce any but ſuch as have been little better then phrenetick, have denied it to be divine, however they have conceived them not binding. And for the Canon of the new Teſtament, though ſome parts have been a little while ſomewhat doubted of in the ſecond and third ages by ſome few, yet the reſt have had univerſal and undoubted tradition from the Apoſtles and Evangeliſts, and primitive teachers, who witneſſed the truth of the doctrine by many evident undeniable divine miracles, and by their martyrdome, by which alſo in after ages many of the Fathers and other Chriſtians gave teſtimony to it, and ſince the Churches Greek and Latin, Proteſtant and Popiſh Heretical and Orthodox in Aſia, Africa, Europe have atteſted it as divine. But for the Churches infalibility in that ſenſe, in which this Author means it, how little hath been brought appears by the anſwer here made, and that much may be ſaid againſt it will appear by that which follows. Yea I dare bodly ſay, that (as H. T. holds it) no one Council or Father of eſteeme held the Churches infallibility in the firſt thouſand years from Chriſts incarnation, and I think I may ſay for half a thouſand more, but many not onelyonly of thoſe who are reckoned for hereticks by Romaniſts, but alſo ſuch as have been judged Catholicks have oppoſed it in the ſecond and third ages, yea whole Nations, Emperors, Kings, and ſtates have oppoſed the definitions, which the ſo termed Generals Councils approved by the Pope have made, and many learned men have written againſt it, none died for it in that time, nor were any miracles wrought to confirme it. Nor hath the queſtioning of ſome few of the books of Scripture, either by ſome hereticks or a few Fathers for a while abated the credit of thoſe parcels queſtioned in the Churches of Chriſt throughout the world. So that if it were true, that we believed the Canon (as I know nothing but uncharitableneſſe can make this Author queſtion whether we do) onelyonly on that ſcore (as we do not) yet we have far more abundant tradition for it then is for the Churches imagined infallibility. 2. I ſay the Anathema's and definitions are neither formal nor virtual proofs of an univerſal tradition or atteſtation to the Churches infallibility. For, 1. p. 7. He confeſſeth in the ſecond and third ages were no councils, nor in the tenth, in which any controverſies of moment were decided, p. 25. and therefore here this univerſal tradition fails. 2. Thoſe that were not approved by the Popes, but rejected by them, and thoſe which were not Oecumenical have not uſed ſuch Anathema's, and yet H. T. thinks not his infallibility proved thereby. 3. That they did well in uſing ſuch Anathema's, or the Church in ſubmitting to them may be doubted. 4. But if that be yeilded that they did well, yet ſurely they did not ſet their Anathema's to their deciſions, becauſe they took themſelves to be infallible either by their own authority or the Popes approbation; yea it is certain the Councils did ſet to their Anathema's, when they oppoſed the Popes and depoſed them, and defined themſelves above him. And even the Council of Trent put their Anathema's to their definitions afore they were tendred to the Pope, or Pius the fourth had approved them: but they took it they might ſet their Anathema to their definitions, becauſe they thought them right, though not themſelves infallible in them. And thus may any particular perſon pronounce Anathema, as Paul did, Gal. 1. 8, 9. and yet not be thereby demonſtrated infallible. So vain is this no better then blaſphemous ſpeech of H. T. which will further appear by examining what follows.