THE Country-Parson's REFLECTIONS Upon the Missioners Answer.
A Parishioner of mine, an honest Plain-man, was prevailed upon by the Importunity of others, to hearken to the Whispers of a Romish Priest. Who suggested to him, that as without Faith there is no Salvation, so without Infallibility there is no Faith; and that this Infallibility is only to be found in the Church of Rome.
The Plain-man, with whom Saying and Doing are two things, very bluntly demands; How it appears that the Church of Rome is Infallible? And desires the Priest to give him in Writing one or two of his best Arguments, Country Parsons Admonition pag. 15. and then promiseth to consider them at his leasure.
[Page 2] The Missioner assures him, he can prove by undeniable Arguments; That the Church of Rome is infallible. Which he will undertake in this method. By shewing▪
- 1. What is meant by the Church of Rome.
- 2. What is meant by Infallible.
- 3. From whence the Church of Rome had this Infallibility.
- 4. How they prove it.
- 5. Where we may find this Church.
- 6. And lastly, How we may know when she speaks to us, and what she teacheth.
This Paper being sent to the Plain-man he gives it to his Parson, and desires his judgment of it: Intimating further, that the Missioner thinks these Arguments very convincing and therefore expects an Answer to them. [ p. 21.]
Now in order to the Plain-mans satisfaction (and the Missioners also if he please to accept it) I do thus examine that Paper in its own Method.
[Page 3] And First I am not satisfied with his Description of the Church of Rome, viz.
By the Church of Rome we do not mean the particular Diocess of Rome, or any particular Church or Assembly, but the Catholick Church spread over the face of the whole World, in Communion with the Bishop of Rome, the Supream Pastor of the Church of Christ.
In this Description here are three Things supposed.
1. That the Church of Rome is the Catholic Church.
2. That the Bishop of Rome is the Supream Pastor of the Church of Christ.
3. That the Catholick Church, spread over the face of the whole World, is in Communion with the Bishop of Rome.
The Two former are deny'd, therefore I expect their Proof. And the Third must not be granted without its due explication.
1. As to the first, the Plain-man [Page 4] hath told him; That though it is the noted ‘mistake of some writers, to call the Church of Rome the Church Catholic (and then to apply all the Promises of Protection and Preservation to her as such) yet this is only their own confident Supposal, without the least manner of Proof. [ Plain-mans Reply p. 10.]’
Being thus admonished, why did not the Priest confirm this Proposition wherein his Cause is so much concern'd? Nay! Why did he thus prevaricate in omitting to do it, when so fair an occasion was offer'd?
For; Several Texts of Scripture (of which more anon) being cited by the Missioner, To prove the Infallibility of the Church of Rome, The Plain-man thus Reply's.
I must confess these are great Privileges, but I have been told these belong to the Universal Church, composed of all Christians. So that if you can shew me
5. That these promises were [Page 5] made to the Roman Church, or That she is the only true Church of Christ, I shall most willingly hear you.
This Demand was rational and to the purpose. To which the Missioner makes this Answer.
‘This may be easily made clear to you, if you do but remember what I told you we mean by the Roman Catholic Church. [ p. 15.]’
And what was it that he had told him? Even this (but then you must take it upon his word) The Church of Rome is the Catholic Church. And further this Deponent saith not.
Now in kindness to this Missioner (that I may direct him in his Proof, which I'le assure him is expected from him) I shall a little more distinctly examine this matter.
Whoever shall pretend to prove that the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church, He must consider.
1. The nature of the Christian Church.
[Page 6] 2. He must examine, Why, and upon what account the Christian Church is stiled Catholic. And from thence he will be prepared to determine; Whether the Church of Rome is the Catholic Church.
As to the nature of the Christian Church, the Trent-Catechism, out of St. Augustine, doth thus instruct us.
Ecclesia est Populus fidelis per universum orbem dispersus. Cat. Rom. P. 1. c. 10. Sect. 2.
The Christian Church is, The Company of Believers [A Society of men professing the Faith of Christ] dispersed and scatter'd over all the world.
And this Church is stiled Catholick in these Two respects.
1. With respect to the Persons who make this Profession. Who are not now confined to one Nation, or limited to one People, as the Jewish Church was. But in every Nation, he that feareth God, and worketh Righteousness, is accepted with him. Hence St. Augustine. [Ep. 170.] tells us. The Church is [Page 7] called CATHOLIC, because it is spread throughout the whole World.
2. With respect to the Faith which is professed. And so Catholic is the same with sound and Orthod [...]x. In which sense Particular Churches, and the Bishops of those Churches, in antient Writings, are often stiled Catholic; in opposition to Hereticks and Schismaticks.
Now in whether of these Two respects will this Missioner pretend, that the Church of Rome is the Catholic Church?
1. Will he affirm that she is Catholic with respect to the Persons who make this Profession? Then, she is the whole Church. Then, there is no other Church but the Roman (taking in those other Churches which submit to her Authority,) In short; Then the Roman-Catholics alone do make Profession of Christianity, and there are no other Christians in the World but Papists.
If this be his meaning, for his [Page 8] conviction, let me then desire him to resolve me.
When any Member of the Church of England is reconciled, as they phrase it, to the Church of Rome; Was that Person, before his Reconciliation, a Member of the Church of Christ, or was he not? Was he a Christian, or was he not? If not Why then do they not admit him into the Church by Baptism?
But if this Missioner is forced to grant; That such a Convert was a Christian, and a Member of the Church of Christ even before he was a Roman-Catholic; Then, there are other Christians besides Papists; and there are other Churches besides the Roman. Then the Church of Rome is not the Whole Church; and consequently, in this first sense of the wo [...]d, is not the Catholic Church. But
2. Will this Missioner pretend, That the Church of Rome is the Catholic Church, in the other notion of the word, i. e. Sound and Orthodox?
[Page 9] If this be his Project 'tis then expected, that he prepare us an Answer to that larg Bill of Indictment, which the Reformed Writers have prefer'd against her. And when he shall have given us Satisfaction, as to all those Errors and Corruptions with which she is charged; As for instance The Sacrifice of the Mass; Transubstantiation, Half-Communion, Prayers in an unknown Tongue, Worship of Images, Invocation of Saints, Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead, &c. Then, and not till then, we may grant; That the Church of Rome is Catholic in this Second sense of the word: And that she is a Sound and Orthodox Church.
And so I leave him to his Defence (which he may prepare at his leasure) and proceed to consider his Second Supposition, viz:
2. That the Bishop of Rome is the Supream Pastor of the Church of Christ.
This is the Fundamental Article of the Romish Faith. And yet there is not one word of it in the [Page 10] Apostles Creed, which is the Sum of the Christian Faith. No nor yet in the Holy Scriptures, out of which that Creed was taken.
That de facto this Supremacy was not granted to the Bishops of Rome, in the first and purest Ages of the Church, but that their Encroachments were still opposed; is most evidently shewed by the Learnd Dr. Cave, in A Dissertation concerning the Government of the Ancient Church.
That the Britannick Churches were ever exempted from all forreign Jurisdiction for the first Six Hundred Years, and so ought to continue (if this Missioner will be so modest as to hearken to Instruction) the renowned Arch-Bishop Bramhal hath undeniably proved.
And therefore, if prosperous Usurpation may be called in Question, I would ask Quo jure? This Supremacy of the Pope whence was it? from Heaven or of Men? Who gave him this Authority, to Rule and Govern the whole Church of Christ? ch
[Page 11] Their usual pretence for such exorbitant Power, is known to be this, viz.
That our Blessed Saviour, before his Ascension, did constitute St. Peter his Vicar, Deputy and Vicegerent: and as such gave him a Monarchical Supremacy and Jurisdiction over the rest of the Apostles, and the whole Church. The which Supremacy was not Personal and Temporary, to cease with his Person (as the Apostleship did) but was to be transfer'd to his Successor. The which Successor ( say they) is the Bishop of Rome.
This is their Plea. In confirmation of which these following Propositions must be established.
1. That St. Peter had a Primacy over the Apostles.
2. That this Primacy did include a Supremacy of Power, and Dominion or Jurisdiction over the Apostles.
3. That St. Peters Primacy with its Rights and Prerogatives was not Personal, but derivable, to his Successors.
4. That St. Peter was Bishop [Page 12] of Rome, and continued till his Death in possession of that Office.
5. That the Bishops of Rome, as Successors of St. Peter (according to Gods institution and by original Right derived thence) should have an Universal Supremacy and Jurisdiction over the Christian Church.
6. That in fact the Roman Bishops continually from St. Peters time have enjoyed and excercised this Sovereign Power.
7. That this Power is indefectible and unalterable.
These are the Pillars of the Romish Cause. And therefore if this Missioner will be shewing his skill, let him practise upon these Points. But when he attempts it he shall find to his cost, that the Learned Dr. Barrow hath examined them before him: In his excellent Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy. To which I refer him.
So much for that. I am next to examined his Third Supposition viz.
[Page 13] 3. That the Catholic Church, spread over the face of the whole world, is in Communion with the Bishop of Rome.
To determine this matter, we must consider the nature of Church-Communion. Of which briefly thus.
Church-Communion, to speak properly, doth chiefly respect the Universal Church. For to be in Communion with the Church, it is to be a member of the Church Catholick; in plain terms it is to be a Christian; as we were made by Baptism, the Seal of the New Covenant. Into which Covenant being thus admitted, we are united to the whole Church. And by virtue of this union, as Church-Members, have a common Right to all Church-Priviledges and Blessings, and a common obligation to all Church-Offices and Duties.
The which Communion (or Communication) in Religious Duties, though it be limited and restrained, in the use and exercise [Page 14] of it, to particular Churches and Congregations (for all Christians in the world cannot meet together) yet all such Acts of Worship (as Prayers, Sacraments, Hearing the word, &c.) are performed by us, as Members of the Catholic Church. And therefore we are obliged to Communicate in these Duties, not only with our own National Church but also, if our occasions do call us abroad, with any other Church in the world: Provided that we may do it upon Catholic Terms and Conditions.
These things premised, we are now prepared to Determine, How far the Catholic Church, spread over the face of the whole world, is in Communion with the Bishop of Rome.
Which will easily be decided by observing. That there is a Twofold Communion.
1. Of Co-ordination or Friendship.
2. Subordination or Subjection.
As to the former we may safely affirm; All the Churches in [Page 15] the world are thus far in Communion with the Bishop of Rome; That they may own him for a Christian Bishop; as acknowledging the Church of Rome to be a true Church, though indeed a very corrupt Church. And if they do not Communicate further with him, it is his own fault.
But this it it seems will not satisfie this Missioner: Who most vainly fancy's that there is no Communion without Subjection. And that no Church can be in Communion with the Church of Rome, without submitting to her Authority.
When therefore it is affirmed; That the Catholic Church is thus Subject to the Bishop of Rome: If this Missioner pleads; That de facto all other Churches are actually thus Subject; we then deny it; for the greater part of Christendom doth protest against the Errors, and oppose the Usurpations of the Bishop of Rome. But if he contends that de jure [Page 16] they ought so to be, and that this Subjection is their Duty, then let him prove it.
What I have now said, is sufficient to convince this Missioner, of his mistaken Notion of the Church of Rome. Which if he thinks fit to Defend, he must then prove.
1. That the Church of Rome is the Catholic Church. i.e. He must convince us, Either (1.) That she is the whole Church, and that there is no other Church besides her; or else (2.) That she is the only true and Orthodox Church.
2. That the Bishop of Rome is the Supream Pastor of the Church of Christ. Which when he hath proved, I shall then grant him.
3. That the Catholic Church spread over the face of the whole world, is in Communion with i. e. is Subject to the Bishop of Rome.
And here should I now hold my Pen, and proceed no further in my Reflections, I have given this Missioner work enough.
But if he will be so modest as [Page 17] to confess his mistake, I'le help him to a better Definition of the Church of Rome, and less liable to exception.
‘By the Roman Church, we do not understand the particular Diocess of Rome; but we understand, that vastly extended Community of Christians which hold Communion with the Church of Rome, submitting themselves to the Bishop of Rome as to their Head; so that whatsoever he Decrees with a General Council they embrace as the Definition of the true Church, which they hold Infallible. [ Question of Questions, Sect. 17. p. 373.]’
Had this Missioner been so prudent as to have consulted this Author (whom he was pleased to recommend for the Plain-mans Satisfaction) we might then make short work on't: and without further diversion, might have proceeded to the Second Inquiry, viz.
2. What is meant by Infallible? Which he thus explains.
[Page 18] ‘By the word Infallibility we do not mean only Indefectibility and Duration, but an unerring Direction in necessary points of Faith. So that when we say the Church ( of Rome) is infallible, we mean; that Almighty God hath given an Authoritative Power to the Church (of Rome) to declare, in case of Differences, which is the Faith which was once delivered to the Saints, Jude 3. So that in case of Differences about the sense of Scripture, or any divinely revealed Truths, the Church (of Rome) is to decide the Difference, and end the Controversie. And to perform this, we say, she is assisted by the Spirit of Almighty God, who, as he hath ordained her for our Direction, so he secures her from erring whilst she Directs. Which assistance we call Infallibility. [ Missioners Answer. p. 10.]’
This he endeavours to confirm, by inquiring Thirdly,
‘3. From whence had she [ the [Page 19] Church of Rome] this Authority of unerring Guidance? (p. 11.)’
To which he gives us this Answer.
‘You must not think that the Church [of Rome] has this power from her self; for we know that all men may fail; All Communities and Assemblies are subject to error and mistakes ( where then is the Infallibility of Oral Tradition?) But she has it from God himself, who is faitful and true to his Promises. (Ibid.)’ But
‘4. How doth it appear that the Church of Rome is thus Infallible, and that God hath made her these Promises of unerring Guidance? ( Ibid.)’
‘This he tells us, is evident from the plain Testimonies of Holy Scripture, both Old and New Testament ( Ibid.)’
Thus far I do readily Subscribe; That if the Church of Rome is Infallible, She must have this Priviledg from God himself. And if there is such a Promise of [Page 20] unerring Guidance it must be found in the Holy Scriptures.
Let it therefore appear from those Sacred Writings, that God hath promised such an unerring Guidance to the Church of Rome, and I shall then Dispute no further, but submit to her Direction.
Now to prove this Infallibility, this Missioner hath cited Twenty Places of Scripture, which the Question of Questions tells him are in the Bible. But how little they are to his purpose, I do thus endeavour to convince him, by examining them in their order.
His First Text is that noted Place, Deut. 17. 8. &c. From whence the Argument is this. The Jewish Church was Infallible, Therefore The Church of Rome is Infallible.
To which I thus Answer.
Both Propositions, Antecedent and Consequent, are false.
And, First, it doth not appear from this Place of Scripture (nor indeed from any other) That the Jewish Church was Infallible.
[Page 21] From what Circumstance in this Text will the Missioner infer such a Conclusion?
Was it 1. Because in that Church there was a Supream Court of Judicature, from whence there was no Appeal? Or 2. Because the Priests, the Levites, and the Judg were to give Sentence? Or 3. Was it because the contemner of this Sentence was to be put to Death?
Now if these Passages do prove Infallibility, there was [...] Infallibility in the State as well as in the Church: in the Judg, the Civil Magistrate no less then the Priest: and [...]n every Inferior Priest as well as the High Priest.
But I need not insist on these Suggestions▪ since there is no arguing against matter of Fact. If therefore it doth appear▪ in any instance, That the Jewish Church [or the Roman] hath actually erred; 'tis too late to pretend that she is Infallible.
To convince him that she hath erred I Demand of this Missioner;
[Page 22] The Sentence of the Sanhedrim, whereby our Blessed Saviour was condemned as a Blasphemer, was it a just and Legal Sentence, or was it not? If not. Then the Jewish Church, which pronounced it, was not Infallible. And consequently this Argument, so triumphantly repeated, is utterly lost.
But if this Missioner dares pretend;
That the Sentence of the Sanhedrim was a Legal Sentence; and that the Holy Jesus was justly condemn'd as a Blasphemer; let him take heed; least contending for Infallibility; he forfeits his Christianity.
However, for Arguments sake, suppose it were granted; That the Jewish Church was Infallible; Must it thence be inferr'd; That the Christian Church hath the same Priviledg? Yes doubtless, think's this Missioner. For to her hath been given a Covenant with better Promises. True! But was Infallibility any of those Promises? [Page 23] This ought not be supposed but proved.
But now let it be further granted; That the Christian Church is Infallible? What's this to the Church of Rome? Is there no other Church besides the Roman? Or, Is she only the true Church of Christ? Let the Missioner prove this; And I shall most willingly hear him. [Missioners Answer. p. 15.]
Secondly, He fills up his Pages with several other Places out of the Old Testament. Which I shall only transcribe, and then it will sufficiently appear they are nothing to his purpose.
‘ He tells us, The Church shall be like a Mountain upon the top of Mountains, Isa. 22. Like a Tabernacle seated in the Sun, Ps. 18. 4. That all Nations shall flow unto her. That Kings shall be her Nursing Fathers, and Queens her Nursing Mothers, Isa. 49. 23. That all the ends of the Earth shall remember, and turn unto the Lord, and all [Page 24] the Kindred of the Nations shall worship before him, Psal. 22. 27.’
Besides these plain Prophecies which [speak not one word of the Infallibility of the Church of Rome but] only shew the Visibility, Universality and Durance of the Christian Church, which are not now the Dispute, and therefore shall be consider'd when occasion is offered;
‘I say, besides these, we are told that in this House of the God of Jacob, he himself will teach us his ways; and will judg amongst the Nations, Isa. 2. 3, 4. And then certainly we shall neither be taught an Error, nor have a wrong Sentence. [ Missioners Answer p. 12, 13.]’
Thats granted. God will certainly teach us Truth. And we shall never err. Provided, that we follow his Instructions.
Now all extraordinary ways being ceased, the Divine wisdom ordinarily doth instruct us only by the Scriptures. Which, as St. Peter hath admonished us, are [Page 25] a more sure word of Prophecy then a voice from Heaven. Whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place. 2 Pet. 1. 19.
These Holy Scriptures are the good old way. By walking in which the way-faring men, though fools, shall not err, Isa. 35. 8. [Missioners Answer. p. 12, 21, 22.] For the Testimony of the Lord is sure, and giveth wisdom unto the simple, Psal. 19 7.
But now if the Church of Rome, for instance, shall leave this good old way of Truth, to wander in By-paths of her own; If she shall neglect, vilify and forsake the Holy Scriptures, to follow her own blind Traditions; 'Tis not her confidence that she is in the Right, that can keep her out of the Ditch, or secure her from falling.
He tells us moreover, ‘That God will not be wroth with his Church, neither shall his kindness depart from her, nor the Covenant of his peace be removed. That [Page 26] all her Children shall be taught of the Lord, That she shall be established in righteousness. That whosoever shall gather together against her, shall fall for her sake. And that every Tongue that shall rise against her in judgment shall be condemned by her. This is the Heritage of the Servants of the Lord and their righteousness is of me saith the Lord Isa. 54.’
Furthermore he tells us, ‘that God hath made a Covenant with his Church. That his Spirit shall be upon her, and his words which he hath put into her mouth, shall not depart out of her mouth, nor out of the mouth of her seed, nor out of the mouth of her seeds seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever. Isa. 59. 20, 21. You see here a promise to the Church in all Ages, that she shall speak the very words which God shall put into her mouth, and therefore no Errors. [pag. 13.]’
To all this flourish I briefly [Page 27] Reply in the words of Mr. Chillingworth.
‘If the Church of Rome be Zion and they that turn from iniquity in Jacob, they may have Title to this Covenant. If not; They must forbear, and leave it to the Jews after their Conversion. To whom it is appropriated by a more Infallible Interpreter than the Pope; I mean St. Paul Rom. 11. 26. And it seems the Church of Rome also believes as much. For otherwise why does she in the Margent of her Bible, send us to that place of St. Paul for an Exposition? [Addit. Discourses. p. 36.]’
Out of the New Testament he hath cited several Texts, which I shall set down in their order, with short remarks upon them.
‘ Math. 16. 18. Ʋpon this Rock I will build my Church: and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. pag. 13.’
This Text hath been so often and so fully Answer'd, that I admire the confidence of this Missioner, [Page 28] who at this time can pretend to urge it.
In short. This Text is a Promise of the Perpetuity of the Catholick Church: But not of the Infallibility [no nor the Perpetuity] of the Roman Church.
‘ Matth: 28. 20. And I am with you alway even unto the end of the World. Amen.’
What You? only You of the Church of Rome? Are there no other Pastors and Teachers besides You in the Church of Christ?
But doth Presenc [...] signify Infallibility? Hath he not promised; Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them, Matth: 18. 20. And are all such Assemblies Infallible?
John 14. 16. I will pray the Father▪ and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever.
V. 17. even the Spirit of Truth, whom the World cannot receive.
V. 26. He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to [Page 29] your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
‘ Ch. 16. V. 13. When he the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall be speak; and he will shew you things to come.’
What hath the Church of Rome to do with these Scriptures? Did the Church of Rome ever hear the Sermons and Discourses of our Blessed Saviour? If not. How can they be brought to her Remembrance? Is it not therefore evident, from several Passages in both those Chapters, that these Promises do belong only to the Apostles, who personally conversed with our Saviour. As being made to those, To whom he had many more things to say, which they were not yet able to bear. To those who had been with Christ from the Beginning. To those from whom Christ was now going away. And whom he had before told of his Departure. Lastly, to whom the Holy [Page 30] Ghost was to shew Things to come. A Promise, which the present Church of Rome dares not pretend to.
If here it shall be urged that the Clause for ever must needs extend this Promise beyond their own Persons, and so to their Successors. To this I Answer.
1. This for ever signifies no more then to the end of their Lives. According to those known Forms of Speech. This is mine for ever. Or This shall be yours for ever.
2. Suppose these Promises had been made to them and their Successors? Had they no Successors but them of the Roman Church? This hath been confidently pretended, but was never yet proved.
‘ Math: 18. 17. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church: but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican. pag. 14.’
What Church is this that must be heard? The Church of Rome only? nothing less. 'Tis evident [Page 31] by the Church in this Text, can be meant no other than that particular Church, of which the offending Brother was a Member.
But suppose that by the Church were meant the Church of Rome, and that this Church of Rome were to be heard and obey'd. What then? Is she therefore Infallible? Are all those that are to be heard and obey'd Infallible? Are not Kings and Parents and Masters and Prelates and Abbots; are not all these to be heard and obey'd? And are all these Infallible?
‘Matth: 28. 19. compared with Mark. 16. 15, 16. Go ye therefore and Teach all Nations —and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned, p. 14.’
What then? Therefore The Church of Rome is Infallible. This is such a Demonstration as Euclid never dreamed on.
‘1 Tim: 3. 15.— That thou mayest know how thou oughtest to [Page 32] behave thy self in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God the pillar and ground of the truth. p. 14.’ The Church Catholick, without controversie, is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth. Nay! even Particular Churches, as sound parts and members of the Catholick▪ and the Bishops of those Churches, may be adorned with that Title.
But what [...]s this to the Church of Rome? Which is neither the Catholick Church, nor a sound Member of it.
Indeed had Timothy been Bishop of Rom [...], I should then have been obliged to examine, how and in what sense a Particular Church may be called, the Pillar and ground of the truth, without being Infallible. But since he was Bishop of Ephesus and not of Rome; and since the Infallibility of Rome and not of Ephesus is to be proved, there is no occasion for that Inquiry.
‘ Ephes: 4. 11, 12, 14. And he gave some, Apostles: and some [Page 33] Prophets: and some, Evangelists: and some, Pastors and Teachers; for the perfecting of the Saints— that we henceforth be no more Children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive: but speaking the truth in love, may grow up in him in all things, who is the head, even Christ. p. 14.’
Amongst all these Orders heres no mention of an Infallible Judge of Controversies, much less that this Judg is only to be found in the Church of Rome.
And thus I have briefly shewed, how impertinently these Scriptures have been urged by this Missioner. When I say Impertinently, I do not thereby blame the conduct of this Writer (who hath taken the true method to defend his Church) but by that word do only express the weakness of his Cause. Which hath been so often and so effectually exposed, that it may well puzzle, [Page 34] even the skill of a Missioner, to make a decent Defence. And indeed it is no little surprizing to observe, how perplexing and confused an Answer is here given, to the most plain and easy Question.
The Plain-man having often been admonished, to return (as they Phrase it) into the Bosom of the Church of Rome: and as a further inducement to hasten his Change, having been assur'd; That the Church of Rome is Infallible; and that Protestant Churches, for want of this Infallibility, are neither able to interpret Scripture, nor compose Differences in matters of Faith: I say being thus admonished, he makes this short Reply viz. That if the Church of Rome is infallible as they pretend, it would be a seasonable Charity to instruct him in this matter.
This is the Substance of that little Treatise. Which indeed is no other then a Paraphrase upon this Question.
‘ Who is this Infallible Judg; [Page 35] that so upon occasion I may consult him? Tell me distinctly▪ Who is this unerring Guid? Where may I find him? And I do faithfully promise to resign my self to his Conduct. [Plain-mans Reply. p. 18, 19, 22.]’
Observe now what Answer the Missioner hath given to this important Question. Pray mark it. 'Tis worth your notice.
‘Mistake me not I pray, I tell you distinctly, that the Church is my infallible Guide. And this Church is to be found spread over the face of the whole World, I may therefore securely rely upon what she teacheth, without troubling my self to search whether this or that particular Person in her be Infallible or no. [Missioners Answer. p. 16]’
A most learned Determination. And very much, no doubt, to the satisfaction of the Plain-man. For whose further Instruction, I do thus expostulate with this Missioner.
The Country Parson to the Missioner.
YOu say, Sir, the Church is my Infallible Guide. Pray, what do you mean by this Church? Is it, in your Language, the Teaching Church, or the Learning part of the Church? p. 14. Or, in more proper Terms, Is it the Church Representative, or the Church Diffusive? sure not the Church Diffusive. For that comprehends every private Christian, even the most ordinary Mechanick. And in case of Differences about the sense of Scripture, or any Divinely revealed Truths, I hope these are no fit Persons to decide the Difference, and end the Controversy.
It remains therefore, That the Church Representative is this Infallible Guide. And then our next thought is to inquire; who this infallible Representative is. And though you assured the Plain-man, That he ‘may securely rely upon what the Church teacheth, without troubling himself to search whether this or that particular Person in her be infallible [Page 37] or no; [ pag. 16.]’ yet in contradiction to your self you are forced to Declare;
‘That a General Council, the Supream Court of Judicature, is the Legal Infallible Representative of the Church. p. 18. So that whether the Controversie be about the sense of Scripture, or about the Canon of a Council, there must be a Living Judg to determine it; and this I say, is the Church in her General Councils, in which she is secured from Error. p. 19.’
And now why was not this acknowledgment made at the first? When the Plain-man desired you to tell him distinctly; who is this Infallible Guide, why did you not then roundly and boldly Answer; I tell you distinctly A General Council is my Infallible Guide? Why such shuffling and shifting in so plain a matter?
Doth not this evidently confirm the Plain-mans suspicion; That since your Discourses about this Infallibility are so various and uncertain, [Page 38] expressed with such diffidence and caution, he can scarce think you believe it your selves?
[Plain-mans Reply. p. 8.]
However at last you have taken the courage to Declare; That a General Council is this Living Infallible Judg, this unerring Guide.
The truth of which pretence I do thus briefly examine.
In St. Mathew's Gospel the Plain-man finds these words. And he took the Cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye ALL of it, Math. 26, 27.
This Text, he observes, is controverted betwixt the two Churches, and the sense of it Disputed.
The Church of England (in obedience to that last precept of her Lord, Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, (Math. 28. 20.) hath thus Determined.
The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: For both the parts of the Lords Sacrament, by Christs ordinance and [Page 39] commandment, ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike. ART. 30.
But the Church of Rome (in direct opposition to our Lords Command) hath thus Decreed, in her Councils of Constance and Trent.
Although our Redeemer hath instituted the Sacrament in his last Supper, and hath delivered unto the Apostles in both kinds. Yet, The Synod hath decreed, That it should be received for a Law, that the Sacrament be adminstred in one kind. And whosoever shall say, That by the command of God, all the Faithful ought to receive in both kinds; Let him be accursed. Concil. Const. Sess. 13. Concil. Trident. Sess. 21. Cap. 2. 3. Can. 1.
Now my Plain-man desires to be instructed, whether Church is in the right? The Church of England which gives the Cup to Lay-people; or the Church of Rome which denies it. If his Reason might be Judge, he is then convinced; that the Church of England is Orthodox, and holds the truth in this matter. For he [Page 40] thinks it very reasonable, in the Administration of a Sacrament, to observe the Institution of our Blessed Saviour.
But you Missioners do tell him, he must not judg by Reason, but must submit to the Authority of an infallible Judge. Well! 'tis now hoped at last we shall bring the matter to a short issue.
‘ You have declared; That whether the Controversie be about the sense of Scripture, or about the Canon of a Council, there must be a living Judg to determine it; and this you say is a General Council. [ Missioners Answer. p. 19.]’
I demand therefore, and answer me distinctly. Is there any General Council actually now sitting, which (by its infallible Authority) may explain this Text and determine these Controverted Canons, of the Councils of Constance and Trent? If there is such a Council, pray where is it to be found? in what part of the world are the Fathers assembled? But if there is no [Page 41] such Council. Then there is no Living infallible Judg, to Determine this Controversie about Half-Communion.
I am not able to conjecture, what you can possibly say to this, unless you will be so dull as to repeat your own words, viz. ‘ That as there is not any General Council actually now sitting, to end our Controversies, so neither needs there any, the Church having so fully expressed her self in the Canons and Definitions of her preceeding Councils, and in particular in that of Trent. p. 19.’
I say, to urge this would be dull and impertinent. For you your self have confessed; That ‘these Canons of preceeding Councils are but mere Writings, and a mere Writing can be no Judg though indeed it may be a Rule. So that these Decrees of former Councils being mere Writings they cannot, in case of a Controversie arising about their sense, determine themselves and explain their [Page 42] own meaning. So that in such a case as this, Where there is a Controversie about the Canon of a Council, there must be a Living Judg, which you say, is a General Council.’
Now, Sir, to make Application. Here is a Canon of the Council of Trent [ Sess. 21. Can. 1.] That is controverted, and the sense of it Disputed. I do again beg of you to resolve me; Where is this Living Judg, this General Council, to determine this Canon? If there is none; Then the evidence of Truth doth constrain me to pronounce; That there is no Living Infallible Judg in the present Church of Rome.
These Things are plain and convincing, and admit of no Reply. But some men, I observe, are not to be silenced. These Missioners are so trained up, even from their Childhood, in the habit of wrangling (which they call Disputing) that they will hold the Conclusion in spight of all Premisses. And you, Sir, for your part will be still saying something, though nothing to the purpose. For thus you go on.
You have granted; That when there is a Controversie about the Canon of a Council, there must then be a living Judg to determine it: another Council must be called. ‘But, say you, pray take notice, that we have no such Controversie at present. All persons are agreed as to what this Church hath defined, and the sense of her Canons is not Controverted. We see it in her Practice, we read it in her Catechisms, we hear it from her Pastors, &c. p. 20’—Hold Sir, What a hurry of words is here to no purpose? [Page 43] How? The sense of her Canons not co [...]roverted? Were I not come to the very end of my Paper, I would refresh your [...] on both sides.
I could convince you of your mistake, from the great Lateran Council; Can. 3. de Hareticis. Which hath been the subject of infinite Debate and Controversie. I forbear to repeat it at large, for a Reason that you know; and shall only demand; Whether the Deposing Power, is the establish'd Doctrine of the Church of Rome, or no? The Papist Represented P. 1. pag. 47, shall resolve you in these words. ‘ For the few Authors that are Abettors of this Doctrine, there are of his Communion three times the number, that publickly disown all such Authority.’
I am not, at present, concerned to examine, How many these few Authors may be. Bellarm. adv. Barcl. de Potest. Pap. produceth the Testimony of neer Fourscore for the Popes Temporal Power; and almost all of them do plainly own his Power of Deposing Kings. But be they more or less, 'tis sufficient for my purpose; That some do affirm what others deny, and consequently; That this 3d Canon of the Council of Lateran is controverted, and the sense of it Disputed.
I could descend to the Council of Trent. And there remind you of Soto, Vega, and Catharinus; Who had large Disputes about the sense of that Council.
From whence the Historian makes this remark. ‘This seemed to put all men out of hope to understand the meaning of the [Page 44] [...] the principal men that were [...] in it, did not agree, pag. 230.’
[...] I must confine my self to this in [...] now before us. Where indeed the Question is not de facto, whether you deny the Cup to Lay-people? For we see it in your Practice, we read it in your Catechisms, we hear it from your Pastors. But the Question is de jure. Whether the Church of Rome hath Authority, to null and contradict the Institution of our Blessed Saviour? And whether in so doing the Church of Rome is not mistaken, hath not actually erred, and so lost her Infallibility? For, if in this or any other instance, we can prove that she hath actually erred, 'tis too late to pretend that she is Infallible. This is the point wherein my Plain-man desires to be resolved.
And now, where is this living Judg, this General Council actually now sitting to determine this Controversie? I say, actually now sitting; for when the Council is dissolved, and the Prelates and Fathers are in another world, it doth then cease to be a Living Judge.
To conclude.
If, as you say, a General Council is this Infallible Judg, this unerring Guide; Then, since there is no General Council actually now sitting, it undeniably follows; That there is no living Infallible Judg in the present Church of Rome.
The Plain-man to the Missioner.
Sir, This Discourse of our Parson, against the Infallibility of the Church of Rome, seems to me very convincing; and therefore I desire your Answer to it.