CHAP. XIV. They pretend, that in their way there is an End of Controversies, but in ours there is none
CHAP. XIV. They pretend, that in their way there is an End of Controversies, but in ours there is none.
D etect. 5. When you have proceeded on these grounds, the Papists will tell you, that in their way there is an End of Controversies, but in yours there is none: For if you will not stand to ones Judgment as infallible, you may dispute as long as you live before you come to an End.
To direct you in discussing this part of the Deceit also: 1. We confess that on earth there will be no End of all controversies among the best: nor of the great controversies which salvation lieth on, between the believers and the unbelievers: that is, there will be still Infidelity and Heresy in the world, and error in the godly themselves. 1. Hath it not been so in every age till now? And why should we expect that it should now be otherwise? 2. Doth not Paul tell us that here we know but in part, and prophesy in part? And when is it that that which is imperfect will be done away, but when that which is perfect is come? While we know but in part, we shall differ in part.
2. Hath your way put an End to controversies any more than ours? Are you not yet at controversy with Infidels, Whether Christ be the Redeemer: and with Heretics whether he be true eternal God? Are you not yet as full of
controversies among yourselves, as any Christians on the face of the earth?
I do not believe but in the many Volumes of your Schoolmen, Casuists, and Commentators, I can show more controversies yet depending, then you can find amongst any sort of Christians in the world; yea then you can find among all other Christians in the world set together.
3. And is there anything in your way that better tendeth to the deciding of controversies then in ours? Nothing at all; but contrarily, you have made more Controversies than you have ended. For, 1. We have a Certain infallible Rule to decide our controversies by, even such as you confess yourselves to be infallible; Even the Holy Scriptures: but you have an uncertain Rule, even the Decrees of your Popes and Councils, and the many
Volumes of the Fathers, which are at odds among themselves; your very Rule is self-contradicting, and your Judges are together by the ears (as hath been shown.) 2. Our Faith consisteth in those points which are granted by yourselves, and so are beyond Controversy between us and you. But yours lieth also in a mixture of men's corruptions, which will ever be controverted and condemned.
3. Our Faith consisteth in the few ancient Articles by which the Church was always known (as to its essentials.) But you confound the Essentials with the integrals: and the Number of your necessary Articles is so great, as must needs be matter of more controversy than ours.
4. We know our Religion, and where to find it: For it is perfect at the first, and receiveth no additions or diminutions. One generation cometh, and another goeth, but the word of the Lord endureth forever. But you never know when you have all, because you know not when your Pope will have
done defining: that is an article of faith to you one year that was none the year before nor ever before.
5. We need no Judge to decide any controversies among us in the points of Absolute necessity to salvation: both because the Scripture is so plain in those points, as to serve for decision without a Judge; and because we abhor to make a controversy of any of them; and where there is no controversy, there needs no Judge. We are all agreed, through the plainness of the Scripture, that there is but one, Eternal, most Wise, and Good, and Omnipotent God; and that there is one Mediator between God and man, who is himself both God and man, that was crucified, dead, buried, went to ᾅδης, rose again, ascended, intercedeth for us, and is King and Head of the Church: and will raise the dead, and judge the world, some to Heaven, and some to Hell: These and all the rest of the Essentials of our faith, and many more points that are not essentials, are so plain in Scripture that we are past making them matter of Controversy. If any man deny an Essential point of faith, he is none of us, no more than of you. But you are it seems so deep in infidelity, that you must have a judge to decide your Controversies in the necessary Articles of Faith. For whatever is de fide, you make to be of such equal necessity, that you deride our distinguishing the Fundamentals from the rest, (as may be seen in Knots Infidelity unmasked against Chillingworth) Seriously tell us, Do you think Christians need a Judge, or must put it to a Judge to decide, whether Christ be the Messias or not?
Whether he died and rose again or not? Whether he will judge the world or not? Or any such points. If he be a Judge, he must have power to oblige you to stand to his Determination on which side soever he determine. And what if John 22nd, determine that the soul is not immortal, or John 23rd, that
there is no resurrection or life to come, but a man dieth like a beast: would you stand to this decision?
6. If you say that your Judge hath power to oblige you only on one side, that is, when he judgeth right (and so make no Judge of him, but a Teacher) we have such Judges as well as you, even Teachers to show us the Evidence of truth.
7. If you say that you have a Judge to determine of heresies in order to the Punishing of them by the sword: So have we as well as you, and better than you. For your Pope is a Priest that hath nothing to do with the sword, (at least out of his own Principalities): but our Princes and other Rulers are lawful Magistrates, that are appointed to be a terror to evil doers, Rom.
13:4,6.
8. If you say that you have a Judge to determine of heresy in Order to Excommunication, so have we in every Church: even the Pastors of the Churches, who are bound to unite and assist each other in such works. What is to be accounted Heresy, the Law of God sufficiently determineth: And what particular persons are to be Judged heretics and excommunicated according to that Law, the particular Pastors that are on the place can better decide then a Pope that is a thousand, or five thousand miles off, and cannot hear the witnesses. And do you not yourselves decide almost all such cases through the world (that is of your subjection) by the present Pastors or Bishops, and not by the Pope? And why may not we do so then as well as you?
9. But if you lay all upon your Popes or Councils Infallibility, I desire you but to read my third Disputation in a Book against Popery, called the Safe
Religion; and then believe that Infallibility if you can. I should think myself a miserable man, if I were not myself more Infallible then many of your
Popes have been. Every Christian (while such) is infallible in his belief of the Christian faith; And the Scripture is an infallible ground of our belief.
10. Is it not a plain Judgment of God upon you, that while you make the Scripture so dark and not intelligible, and cry up the Necessity of a living
Judge, you should not only swarm with differences among yourselves, but should be utterly disagreed, and at a loss to know who is this Judge of Controversies, one saying it is the Pope, and another that its the Council; and what the better are you for saying, There must be a Judge, as long as you cannot tell Who it must be? Its not only uncertain among you Whether
Pope or Council be the Infallible Judge, but also which is a true Pope, and which is a lawful General Council? For forty years at least together, the Church could not know the true Pope, but the more learned and conscionable men were divided: Nor is it known to this day. Frequently the strongest hath carried it, and success been his best title. Nay General
Councils themselves knew not the right Pope. The Council at Constance and Basil knew not the right Pope. They of Basil thought Felix the fifth the true Pope, and Eugenius no Pope: But friends and strength confuted a General Council, and proved deposed Eugenius the Pope. And for Councils themselves, who knows which to take for currant and of Authority? What
Catalogues have you of reprobated Councils, and of doubtful Councils, and partly approved, partly reprobate, and who knows which and how far; but only that is approved, that pleaseth the Pope, and that reprobate that displeased him, and yet perhaps approved by a former Pope: So that you are all in a confusion and uncertain about your true Popes and General
Councils.
And if you knew them, yet what a loss are you at to know their Decrees and Canons? What a Fardel of false Decretal Epistles have you thrust upon
the world, as Blondell, Dalleus, Reynolds and others have fully proved.
Forsooth decretals that use a translation of the Scripture that was formed a long time after the death of the supposed Authors of those Epistles: And Decretals which make mention of persons and things that were many score or hundred years after the death of the said Authors. These are your new
Scriptures, and by these our faith must be regulated, and our controversies decided.
And your Canons are abundance of them as uncertain: some of your own will have but twenty Canons of the first General Council at Nice: some will have the new found rabble of additions. Much more uncertainty or certain forgery there is in the Canons called the Apostles: and the like we may say of abundance more.
And now I appeal to all the impartial Reason in the world, whether your voluminous, apocryphal, uncertain faith that needs a living Judge, and cannot find one, or agree upon him, and that leaves your controversies still undecided, be a liker way to peace and unity, then our short and plain
Articles and infallible Scripture faith, that hath less matter of contention, and better means to prevent it, even faithful Teachers and Judges in every
Church and Commonwealth, which shall so far determine as may preserve the peace of those societies, leaving the final full Decision of all to the Eternal Judge that is even at the door.
11. Yea and is not God's hand of Judgment yet more observable against you, that when your Popes and Councils have past their judgment, the several Sects are unable to understand them? Witness the late sentence against the Jansenists, of which the persons that seem to be condemned, say, that there is no such thing or words in all Jansen writings, as the Pope saith are in him, and condemneth as his: and the Controversy is as far from a
decision, as if the Pope had held his peace. Yea your great Disputer here in England, Thomas White the Novelist, is the same for all the Popes determination.
Take another instance in the forementioned Case, Whether the Pope or Council be supreme: The Councils of Constance and Basil determined it one way as de fide, and yet that made no end of the Controversy. The Council of Lateran and Pope Leo determined it the other way; and yet it is a Controversy after two contrary decisions: and some say one way, and some the oath: and some say, It is yet undecided (for fear of angering the French by casting them off as Heretics.) Another instance. The Council at Basil
Sess. 36. (p. 80, in Binius) hath fully determined the Controversy between the Franciscans and Dominicans about the Virgin Mary's immaculate conception: and yet it is undetermined still; and Thomas White presumes to affirm, that [Certainly there is no Tradition for it, nor any probability that ever the Negative will be defined. Apolog. for Tradit. p. 64,65,66, yea he carrieth it as boldly out, as if never Council had made or meddled with it. I will therefore recite the words of the Council, which are these [A hard question hath been in diverse parts, and before this holy Synod, about the Conception of the glorious Virgin Mary, and the beginning of her
Sanctification; some saying that the Virgin and her soul was for some time or instant of time actually under Original sin: others on the contrary, saying, that from the beginning of her Creation, God loving her, gave her grace by which preserving and freeing that blessed person from the Original spot— we, having diligently look into the authorities and reasons, which for many years past have in public relation on both sides been alleged before this holy
Synod, and having seen many other things about it, and weighed them by mature consideration, do Define and Declare, that the doctrine affirming
that the glorious Virgin Mary the Mother of God, by the singular preventing and operating grace of God, was never actually under Original sin, but was ever free from all Original and actual sin, and was holy and immaculate, is to be approved, held and embraced of all Catholics as godly and Consonant to Church-worship, Catholic faith, right reason, and sacred Scripture: and that henceforth it shall be lawful for no man to preach and teach the contrary] Is not this plain Defining?
Obj. But this was not an approved Council. Answ. 1. It was owned by Pope Eugenius himself. And here once for all I prove that the Council of Basil was approved by the Pope: for Pope Felix the fifth (one of the best
Popes that ever Rome had this thousand years) approved it in this point: not only by accepting their election, but in express terms [professing firmly to hold the faith of the Councils of Constance and Basil, and to keep it inviolate to a tittle, and confirm it with his soul and blood: promising faithfully to labor to defend the Catholic faith, and for the execution and observation of the Decrees of the Councils of Constance and Basil, swearing to prosecute the celebration of General Councils, and confirmation of Elections, according to the Decrees of the Holy Council of Basil] See Binius Ses. 40, p. 87. If they say that Felix was not a true Pope: I answer, then Martin the fifth chosen by the Council at Constance was no true Pope; and then where is your succession? These things are plain and cannot be denied, though unconscionable shifters, that argue according to their Wills, may find words to be guile the simple.
2. It seems then your Catholic Church representative is nothing if one man like it not.
One more instance: How largely hath the Council of Trent dealt about original sin: And yet the foresaid Thomas White ibid. saith thus [If the
People were taught Original sin is nothing but a Disposition to evil, or a natural weakness, which unless prevented brings infallibly sin and damnation: and that in itself it deserves neither reproach nor punishment, as long as it proceeds not to actual sin, the heat of vulgar devotion would be cooled, &c.] See here a mere Pelagian issue of all the Determinations about Original sin, which they should swear to believe.