Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

66

as others, must be agreed by a submissive acknowledgment of tLs church's infallibility; as if you should have said, "My brethren, I perceive this is a great contention among you, whether the Roman church be infallible? If you will follow my advice, I will show you ready means to end it; you must first agree that the Roman church is infallible, and then your contention, whether the Roman church be infallible, will quickly be at an end." Verily, a most excellent advice, and most compendious way of ending all controversies, even without troubling the church to determine them! For why may not you say in all other differences as you have done in this? Agree that the pope is supreme head of the church; that the substance of the bread and wine in the sacrament is turned into the body and blood of Christ; that the communion is to be given to laymen but in one kind; that pictures may be worshipped; that saints are to be invocated; and so in the rest and then your differences about the pope's supremacy, transubstantiation, and all the rest, will speedily be ended. If you say, the advice is good in this, but not in other cases, I must request you not to expect always to be believed upon your word, but to show us some reason why any one thing, namely the church's infallibility, is fit to prove itself; and any other thing, by name the pope's supremacy, or transubstantiation, is not as fit? Or if for shame you will at length confess, that the church's infallibility is not fit to decide this difference, whether the church be infallible, then you must confess it is not fit to decide all; unless you will say it may be fit to decide all, and yet not fit to decide this, or pretend that this is not comprehended under all. Besides, if you grant that your church's infallibility cannot possibly be well grounded upon, or decided by itself, then having professed before, that "there is no possible means besides this for us to agree hereupon," I hope you will give me leave to conclude, that it is impossible upon good ground for us to agree that the Roman church is infallible. For certainly light itself is not more clear than the evidence of this syllogism:

If there be no other means to make men agree upon your church's infallibility, but only this, and this be no means; then it is simply impossible for men upon good grounds to agree that your church is infallible:

But there is (as you have granted) no other possible means to make men agree hereupon, but only a submissive acknowledgment of her infallibility; and this is apparently no means: Therefore it is simply impossible for men upon good grounds to agree that your church is infallible.

90. Lastly, to the place of St. Austin "wherein we are advised to follow the way of catholic discipline, which from Christ himself by the apostles hath come down even to us, and from us shall descend

to all posterity;" I answer, that the way which St. Austin speaks

of, and the way which you commend, being diverse ways, and in many things clean contrary, we cannot possibly follow them both; and therefore, for you to apply the same words to them is a vain equivocation. Show us any way, and do not say, but prove it "t bove come from Christ and his apostles down to us," and we are ready to follow it. Neither do we expect demonstration hereof, bu

such reasons as may make this more probable than the contrary. But if you bring in things into your now catholic discipline, which Christians in St. Austin's time held abominable (as the picturing of God), and which *you must, and some of you do confess to have come unto the church seven hundred years after Christ; if you will bring in things, as you have done the half communion, with a non obstante, notwithstanding Christ's institution and the practice of the primitive church were to the contrary; if you will do such things as these, and yet would have us believe that your whole religion came from Christ and his apostles, this we conceive a request toc unreasonable for modest men to make, or for wise men to grant.

• you must confess. vc.-Oxf.

CHAPTER IV.

I say that the Creed contains all points necessarily to be believed, is neither pertinent to the question in hand, nor in itself true.

"I SAY, neither pertinent nor true. Not pertinent; because our question is not what points are necessary to be explicitly believed, but what points may be lawfully disbelieved or rejected after sufficient proposition that they are Divine truths. You say, the Creed contains all points necessary to be believed: be it so: but doth it likewise contain all points not to be disbelieved? Certainly it doth not. For how many truths are there in Holy Scripture not contained in the Creed, which we are not obliged distinctly and particularly to know and believe, but are bound, under pain of damnation, not to reject, as soon as we come to know that they are found in Holy Scripture! and we having already showed that whatsoever is proposed by God's church as a point of faith is infallibly a truth revealed by God, it followeth, that whosoever denieth any such point opposeth God's sacred testimony, whether that point be contained in the Creed or no. In vain then was your care employed to prove, that all points of faith necessary to be explicitly believed are contained in the Creed. Neither was that the catalogue which Charity mistaken demanded. His demand was, (and it was most reasonable, that you would once give us a list of all fundamentals, the denial whereof destroys salvation; whereas the denial of other points not fundamental may stand with salvation, although both these kinds of points be equally proposed as revealed by God. For if they be not equally proposed, the difference will arise from diversity of the proposal, and not of the matter fundamental or not fundamental. This catalogue only can show how far protestants may disagree without breach of unity in faith; and upon this many other matters depend according to the ground of protestants. But you will never adventure to publish such a catalogue. I say more; you cannot assign any one point so great or fundamental, that the denial thereof will make a man a heretic, if it be not sufficiently propounded as a Divine truth. Nor can you assign any one point so small, that it can without heresy be rejected, i once it be sufficiently represented as revealed by God.

2. "Nay, this your instance in the Creed is not only imper tinent, but directly against you. For all points in the Creed are not of their own nature fundamental, as I showed before; and yet it is damnable to deny any one point contained in the Creed. So that it is clear, that to make an error damnable it is not necessary that the matter be of itself fundamental.

3. "Moreover, you cannot ground any certainty upon the Creed itself, unless first you presuppose that the authority of the church is universally infallible, and consequently that it is damnable to oppose her declarations, whether they concern matters great or small, contained or not contained in the Creed. This is clear, because we must receive the Creed itself upon the credit of the church, without which we could not know that there was any such thing as that which we call the Apostles' Creed. And yet the arguments whereby you endeavour to prove that the Creed contains all fundamental points are grounded upon supposition, that the Creed was made either by the apostles themselves, or by the church of their times from them:' which thing we could not certainly know, if the succeeding and still continued church may err in her traditions; neither can we be assured, whether all fundamental articles which you say were, out of the Scriptures, summed and contracted into the Apostles' Creed,' were faithfully summed and contracted, and not one pretermitted, altered, or mistaken, unless we undoubtedly know that the apostles composed the Creed; and that they intended to contract all fundamental points of faith into it; or at least that 'the church of their times (for it seemeth you doubt whether indeed it were composed by the apostles themselves) did understand the apostles aright; and that the church of their times' did intend that the Creed should contain all fundamental points. For if the church may err in points not fundamental, may she not also err in the particulars which I have specified? Can you show it to be a fundamental point of faith, that the apostles intended to comprise all points of faith necessary to salvation in the Creed? Yourself say no more than that it is 'very probable;' which is far from reaching to a fundamental point of faith. Your probability is grounded upon the judgment of antiquity, and even of the Roman doctors,' as you say in the same place. But if the catholic church may err, what certainty can you expect from antiquity or doctors? Scripture is your total rule of faith. Cite therefore some text of Scripture to prove that the apostles, or 'the church of their times,' composed the Creed, and composed it with a purpose that it should contain all fundamental points of faith; which being impossible to be done, you must for the Creed itself rely upon the infallib"ry of the church.

4. "Moreover, the Creed consisteth not so much in the words, as in their sense and meaning. All such as pretend to the name of Christians recite the Creed, and yet many have erred fundamentally, as well against the articles of the Creed as other points of faith. It is then very frivolous to say, the Creed contains all fundamenta. points, without specifying both in what sense the

* Cap. ii. n. 3.

[ocr errors]

articles of the Creed be true, and also in what true sense they be fundamental. For both these tasks you are to perform, who teach that all truth is not fundamental: and you do but delude the ignorant when you say, that the Creed, 'taken in a catholic sense' comprehendeth all points fundamental, because with you all catholic sense' is not fundamental; for so it were necessary to salvation that all Christians should know the whole Scripture, wherein every least point hath a catholic sense. Or if by catholic sense' you understand that sense which is so universally to be known and believed by all, that whosoever fails therein cannot be saved, you trifle, and say no more than this; 'all points of the Creed, in a sense necessary to salvation;' are necessary to salvation; or, 'all points fundamental are fundamental.' After this manner it were an easy thing to make many true prognostications, by saying, it will certainly rain when it raineth. You say the Creed was opened and explained 'in some parts' in the Creeds of Nice, &c. But how shall we understand the other 'parts,' not explained in those Creeds ?

:

5. "For what article in the Creed is more fundamental, or may seem more clear, than that wherein we believe Jesus Christ to be the Mediator, Redeemer, and Saviour of mankind, and the founder and foundation of a catholic church, expressed in the Creed? And yet about this article how many different doctrines are there, not only of old heretics, as Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, &c., but also of protestants, partly against catholics, and partly against one another! For the said main article of Christ's being the only Saviour of the world, &c., according to different senses of disagreeing sects, doth involve these and many other such questions that faith in Jesus Christ doth justify alonethat sacraments have no efficiency in justification-that baptism doth not avail infants for salvation, unless they have an act of faith-that there is no sacerdotal absolution from sins-that good works proceeding from God's grace are not meritoriousthat there can be no satisfaction for the temporal punishment due to sin, after the guilt or offence is pardoned-no purgatoryno prayers for the dead-no sacrifice of the mass-no invocation -no mediation or intercession of saints—no inherent justice— no supreme pastor-yea, no bishop by divine ordinance-no real presence -no trasubstantiation; with divers others. And why? because, forsooth, these doctrines derogate from the titles of Mediator, Redeemer, Advocate, Foundation, &c.; yea, and are against the truth of our Saviour's human nature, if we believe divers protestants writing against transubstantiation. Let then any judicious man consider, whether Dr. Potter or others do really satisfy, when they send men to the Creed for a perfect catalogue, to distinguish points fundamental from those which they say are not fundamental. If he will speak indeed to some purpose, let him say, This article is understood in this sense, and in this sense it is fundamental; that other is to be understood in such a meaning; yet according to that meaning it is not so fundamental but that men may disagree, and deny it without damnation. But it were no policy for any protestant to deal so plainly.

« PreviousContinue »