power and that they were to be so looked on by all But the Pope did not think this sufficient but declares all those Articles that related to liberty of Religion Church-lands or any Ecclesiastical Rights or brought any the least prejudice to them or might be thought or pretended so to do to be null void invalid unjust damned reprobate vain and without any force or power and that they shall remain so for ever and that no person though never so much sworn to observe those articles shall be bound by such oath no right title plea prescription shall accrue to any by vertue of them and therefore out of the Plenitude of Apostolical power he doth absolutely damn reprobate null and cassate all those articles and protests before God of the nullity of them and restores all persons and places to their ancient possessions notwithstanding them with very much more to the same purpose This was dated at Rome apud Sanctam Mariam Majorem sub Annulo Piscatoris die 26 Novemb. and solemnly published there the third of Jan. 1651. in the eighth year of his Pontificat Call you this Sir the Popes confirming them Is it credible that he who in the beginning of his Answer had charged the late Protestant Books which he most ingeniously calls Libels to be crammed with nothing else but what we know to be false should within a few Pages have the confidence to affirm in the face of the world so notorious an untruth But I leave this ingenious Author to be Chastised for this and other his extravagancies by his worthy Adversary and return to my own After all these unsuccessful attempts at last the Knight himself resolves to encounter the Dragon and accordingly he buckles on his armour mounts his stead and according to all ancient and modern Pictures of the combat directs his lance into the very mouth of it wisely considering if the head were mortally wounded the whole Body would fall to the ground After him at a convenient distance follows his Squire I. S. who had a particular spight at the Dragons Tayl and without fear or wit falls unmercifully upon it and in his own opinion hath chopt it into a thousand pieces But such mischievous creatures whose strength lies scattered in all their parts do often rise up when they are triumphed over as dead and give their most deadly wounds when they are thought to lye gasping for breath It happened that when T. G's Answer to the first part of my Book came out I was before engaged in the Defence of the Protestant principles of faith against the Guide in Controversies and E. W. the Author of those two learned Treatises as T. G. calls them Protestancy without Principles and Religion and Reason part of which being then in the Press I was forced to go through with that before I could take his Book into consideration And thereupon I resolved to dispatch all those which relate to the Principles of Faith together and then to proceed to the Principles of Worship in answer to him which God willing I intend as soon as the former part is finished All that I shall take notice of him here is to represent the ingenuity of his dealing with me in his Preface wherein he charges me with dissenting from the Doctrine of the Church of England in accusing the Church of Rome of Idolatry And by this one Instance I desire the Reader to judge what Candour and sincerity he is to expect in his Book For the sense of the Church of England I appealed to the Book of Homilies not to any doubtful or general or single passage therein but to the design of one of the largest and most elaboratâ— Homilies in the whole Book consisting of three several parts the last of which iâ— said not to be meerly for the People but for the instruction of those who were tâ— teach them The design of that last part is thus set down 1. That Popish Images and the Idols of the Gentils are all one concerning themselves 2. That they have been and be worshipped in our time in like form and manner as were the Idols of the Gentils And for that Idolatry standeth chiefly in the mind it shall in this part first be proved that our Image-maintainers have had and have the same opinions and judgement of Saints whose Images they have made and worshipped as the Gentils Idolaters had of their Gods and afterwards shall be declared that our Image-maintainers and worshippers have used and use the same outward rites and manner of honouring and worshipping their Images as the Gentils did use before their Idols and that therefore they commit Idolatry as well inwardly as outwardly as did the wicked Gentils Idolaters and this that Homily is intended for the proof of which it doth very fully But saith T. G. why did I not appeal for the sense of our Church to the 39. Articles As though the approbation of the Book of Homilies were not one of them viz the 35. The second Book of Homilies the several Titles whereof we have joyned under this Article among which Titles the second is this of the Peril of Idolatry doth contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine and necessary for these times Which Articles were not only allowed and approved by the Queen but confirmed by the subscription of the hand of the Arch-bishop and Bishops of the upper House and by the subscription of the whole Clergy in the nether House of Convocation A. D. 1571. Now I desire T. G. to resolve me whether men of any common understanding would have subscribed to this Book of Homilies in this manner if they had believed the main Doctrine and design of one of them had been false and pernicious as they must have done if they had thought the practice of the Roman Church to be free from Idolatry I will put thâ— case that any of the Bishops then had thought the charge of Idolatry had been unjust and that it had subverted the foundation of Ecclesiastical Authority that there could have been no Church or right ordination if the Roman Church had been guilty of Idolatry would they have inserted this into the Articles when it was in their power to have left it out and that the Homilies contained a wholesome and Godly Doctrine which in their consciences they believed to be false and pernicious I might as well think that the Council of Trent would have allowed Calvins Institutions as containing a wholesome and Godly Doctrine as that men so perswaded would have allowed it the Homily against the Peril of Idolatry And how is it possible to understand the sense of our Church better than by such publick and authentick acts of it which all Persons who are in any place of trust in the Church must subscribe and dâ—clare their approbation of them This Homily hath still continued the same the Article the very same and if so they must acknowledge this hath been and is to this day the sense
of our Church But saith T. C. the subscribing the Book of Homilies as containing a godly and wholesome Doctrine doth not evince that every particular Doctrine contained in it is such Be it so but I hope it doth evince that the Subscribers did not think the main Doctrine of any one Homily to be false Surely there is a great deal of difference between some particular passages and expressions in these Homilies and that which is the main design and Foundation of any one of them But in this case we are to observe that they who deny the Church of Rome to be guilty of Idolatry do not only look on the Charge as false but as of dangerous Consequence and therefore although men may subscribe to a Book in general as containing wholesome and godly Doctrine though they be not so certain of the Truth of every passage in it yet they can never do it with a good conscience if they believe any great and considerable part of the Doctrine therein contained to be false and dangerous Such a subscription would be as apparently shuffling and dishonest as is the evasion of this Testimony which T. G. makes use of for want of a better I shall in the next place shew the current Doctrine of the Church ever since the Reformation to have been agreeable to this Homily of the Peril of Idolatry In the Injunctions published by K. Edward VI. A. D. 1547. the extirpation of Popery is called the suppression of Idolatry and Superstition In the second year of Edward VI. Arch-bishop Cranmer published his Articles of Visitation whereof the 6. and the last are about the taking away Images Pictures and all other Monuments of feigned miracles Pilgrimages Idolatry and Superstition In the second Liturgy by Edward VI. after the Communion was a Rubrick annexed in which the Adoration of the Host is expresly called Idolatry This is that very Rubrick of which T. G. according to his excellent skill in the offices of our Church saith it is not yet more then a dozen years since it was inserted into the Communion Book which he might have found above a 100. years before in the Book of Edward VI. In the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth A. D. 1559. Art 2. and 23. all Shrines Tables Pictures c. are commanded to be taken away and destroyed and all other Monuments of feigned miracles Idolatry and Superstition And that 〈◊〉 may not think it was only a sudden heaâ— at the first Reformation which made theâ— charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry long after in A form of Thanksgiving in the 37. of Queen Elizabeth A. D. 1594. Popery is called that Idolatrous Religion as it was in the Beginning of her Reign in the excellenâ— Apology for the Church of England And I desire him or any one else 〈◊〉 produce any one Bishop or Divine of notâ— in the Church of England who during all hâ—r Reign did deny the Church of Rome to be guilty of Idolatry But why then was it not inserted in the 39. Articles in which T. G. observes the Adoration of Images is not rejected as Idolatry but only as a fond thing vainly invented nor as repugnant to the plain words of Scripture but as being rather repugnant to the word of God which plainly gives us to understand that they had done their endeavours to find a command but could not A most ingenious Criticism when himself and all others of their Divines yield that adoration of images which our Church charges them with Art 22. viz. not barely worshipping but adoration of images to be Idolatry and plainly repugnant to Scripture Were the composers of our Articles so sensless as not to think Idolatry repugnant to Scripture or not to think adoration of images to be Idolatry or not to think the Church of Rome guilty of it when the Article saith The Romish Doctrine concerning worshipping and adoration as well of Images as of Reliques c It is not meerly the practice used in the Church of Rome but their very Doctrine concerning adoration of images which is here charged and can any Church teach adoration of images and not be guilty of Idolatry And for his Criticism about being rather repugnant it had been utterly lost if he had looked into the Latin Articles where the words are immo verbo Dei contradicit whereby it appears that rather is not used as a term of diminution but of a more vehement affirmation I now come to the exceptions he takes to the particular Testimonies I produced of the most eminent Bishops and Divines of our Church ever since the Reformation who have all concurred in this charge of Idolatry Two parts in three he excepts against as incompetent witnesses in the case how few of the Iury would any Malefactor allow if such frivolous exceptions might serve his turn The two first he excepts against are the two Arch-Bishops Whitgift and Abbot as Puritanically inclined But as it unhappily falls out one of them was never mentioned by me and the other never till now suspected for a Puritan The Abbot I mentioned was not George Abbot Arch-Bishop of Canterbury but Robert Abbot Bishop of Salisbury and it is the first time we ever heard that a Bishop of Salisbury was suspended from his Metropolitical jurisdiction But they of the Church of Rome have a faculty of doing greater wonders with five words than Changing a Bishop into an Arch-Bishop I hope he understands the Church he is of better than that he hath left or else we are like to have a sad account of History from him But why I beseech you after all his zeal and indefatigable pains for the Church of England must Arch-Bishop Whitgift be thrown away to the Puritans If he had proved T. C. at the same time Arch-Bishop of Canterbury there might have been some reason to suspect Whitgift to have been of the Puritan side for all the world know they were greaâ— adversaries on that very account of thâ— Puritan cause But was not Whitgiâ—â— for the Lambeth Articles And whâ— then Are the Dominicans Puritans and no Papists If your Church may havâ— liberty not to determin those nice points why may not ours and so both parties remain of our Church as long as they contradict no received Articles among us But the Lambeth-Articles were neveâ— intended for any more than as Responsâ— Prudentum to silence disputes in the university And I believe none of the Puritan party after that took Arch-Bishop Whitgift to be a Patron of theiâ— cause But if these will not serve his turn 〈◊〉 have others ready whom for meer shamâ— he will not say were Puritans or Puritanically inclined And the first of these is an Arch-Bishop too and that is Arch-Bishop Bancroft and if he be cast out for a Puritan surely there never was any Bishop of the Church of England In his Sermon preached at Pauls Cross on 1 John 4. 1. he hath these words speaking of the Papists The Popish false Prophets
Baptism was only in the true Church For in the 19. Canon of the Council of Nice the Samosatenian Baptism is pronounced null and the persons who received it are to be new Baptized and the first Council of Arles decrees that in case of Heresy men are to receive new Baptism but not otherwise The second Council of Arles puts a distinction between Hereticks decreeing that the Photinians and Samosatenians should be Baptized again but not the Bonofiaci noâ— the Arians but they were to be received upon renouncing their Heresy without Baptism Which seems the harder to understand since the Bonosiaci were no other than Photinians The most probable way of solving it is that these two latter sorts did preserve the form of Baptism entire but the Photinians and Samosatenians altered it which St. Augustin saith is a thing to be believed So Gennadius reports it that those who were Baptized without invocation of the B. Trinity were to he Baptized upon their reception into the Church not rebaptized because the former was accounted null of these he reckons not only the Paulianists and Photinians but the Bonâ—sâ—â—ci too and many others But St. Basil determines the case of Baptism not from the form but from the faith which they professed a Schismatical Baptism he faith was allowed but not Heretical by which he means such as denyed the Trinity and therein he saith S. Cyprian and Firmilian were to blame because they would allow no Baptism among persons separated from the Communion of the Church The Council of Laodicea decreed that the Novatians Photinians and Quarto-decimans were to be received without new Baptism but not the Montanists or Cataphryges but Binius saith there was one Copy wherein the Photinians were left out and then these Canons may agree with the rest and Baronius asserts that the greater number of M. S. Copies leave out Photinians And withal he proves that the Church did never allow the Baptism of the Photinians though it did of the Arians by which we see that the Church afterwards did not follow that which Stephen pretended to be an Apostolical tradition viz. that no Hereticks should be rebaptized and from hence we may conclude that the Pope was far from being thought an infallible Guide or Interpreter of Scripture either by that or succeeding Ages when not only single persons that were eminent Guides of the Church such as the African and Eastern Bishops were opposed his Doctrine and slighted his excommunications but several Councils called both in the East and Africa and the most eminent Councils of the Church afterwards such as the first of Arles and Nice decreed contrary to what he declared to be an Apostolical Tradition In the same Age we meet with another great Controversy about the sense of Scripture for Paulus Samosatenus openly denyed the Divinity of Christ and asserted the Doctrine of it to be repugnant to Scripture and the ancient Apostolical tradition For this Paulus revived the heresie of Artemon whose followers as appears by the fragment of an ancient Writer against them in Eusebius supposed to be Caius pleaded that the Apostles were of their mind and that their Doctrine continued in the Church till the time of Victor and then it began to be corrupted Which saith that Writer would seem probable if the holy Scriptures did not first contradict them and the Books of several Christians before Victors time So that we see the main of the Controversie did depend upon the sense of Scripture which was pleaded on both sides But what course was taken in this important Controversie to find out the certain sense of Scripture Do they appeal to any infallible Guides Nothing like it But in the Councils of Antioch in the Writings of Dionysius of Alexandria and others since they who opposed the Samosatenian Doctrine endeavoured with all their strength to prove that to be the true sense of Scripture which asserted the Divinity of Christ. It is great pity the dispute of Malchion with Paulus is now lost which was extant in Eusebius his time but in the Questions and Answers between Paulus and Dionysius which Valesius without reason suspects since St. Hierome mentions his Epistle against Paulus the dispute was about the true sense of Scripture which both pleaded for themselves Paulus insists on those places which speak of the humane infirmities of Christ which he saith prove that he was meer Man and not God the other answers that these things were not inconsistent with the Being of the Divine nature since expressions implying humane passions are attributed to God in Scripture But he proves from multitude of Scriptures and reasons drawn from them that the divine nature is attributed to Christ and therefore the other places which seem repugnant to it are to be interpreted in a sense agreeable thereto The same course is likewise taken by Epiphanius against this heresie who saith the Christians way of answering difficulties was not from their own reasons but from the scope and consequence of Scripture and particularly adds that the Doctrine of the Trinity was carefully delivered in the Scriptures because God foresaw the many heresies which would arise about it But never any Controveâ—sie about the sense of Scripture disturbed the Church more than that which the Arians raised and if ever any had reason to think of some certain and infallible way of finding out the sense of Scripture the Catholick Christians of that Age had I shall therefore give an account of what way the best Writers of the Church in that time took to find out the sense of Scripture in the Controverted places Of all the Writers against them Athanasius hath justly the greatest esteem and Petavius saith that God inspired him with greater skill in this Controversie than any others before him The principle he goes upon in all his disputes against the Arians is this that our true faith is built upon the Scriptures so in several places of his conference with the Arian and in the beginning of his Epistle to Iovianus and elsewhere Therefore in the entrance of his Disputations against the Arians he adviseth all that would secure themselves from the impostures of Hereticks to study the Scriptures because those who are versed therein stand firm against all their assaults but they who look only at the words without understanding the meaning of them are easily seduced by them And this Counsel he gives after the Council of Nice had decreed the Arian Doctrine to be Heresie and although he saith other ways may be used to confute it yet because the Holy Scripture is more sufficient than all of them therefore those who would be better instructed in these things I would advise them to be conversant in the divine Oracles But did not the Arians plead Scripture as well as they how then could the Scripture end this Controversie which did arise about the sense of Scripture This objection which is now made so much
Imprimatur Sam. Parker R. in Christo Patri ac D no. D no. Gilberto Arch. Episc. Cantuar. à sac Dom. April 15. 1673. AN ANSWER To several late TREATISES Occasioned by a Book entituled a DISCOURSE Concerning the IDOLATRY Practised in the CHURCH of ROME AND The Hazard of Salvation in the Communion of it By Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty The First Part. LONDON Printed by R. W. for Henry Mortlock and are to be sold at his Shop at the Sign of the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1673. THE General Preface IT is not for any pleasure I take in Controversie nor out of a Resolution to maintain what I have once written that I expose my self again to the Censures of Some and the Rage of others in Defence of our Church against the Church of Rome But out of a just sense of the Weight and goodness of the Cause I have undertaken which if my affection to it hath not strangely blinded my judgement doth highly concern us as Men as English Men and as Christians For it is the Cause of Sense and Reason against the absurd Doctrines they impose on both it is the Cause of our Nation against the Usurpation and Tyranny of a Forrain Power it is the Cause of the true Faith and Christianity against the Errors and Corruptions of the Roman Church To abandon such a Cause as this were to betray the things which ought to be most dear to us for we cannot be reconciled to that Church on any easier terms than renouncing our Sense and Reason enslaving our Country and hazarding our Salvation And what can they give us in exchange for these It was the last of those three Heads which gave occasion to the late so much railed at and so little confuted Book which no sooner appeared but as if some dreadful Monster had risen out of the earth some crossed themselves and kept as far out of the sight of it as they could others made hideous out-crys and grievous complaints and the more fearful sort were forbidden either looking on it or entertaining any discourse about it Upon which I pleased my self that I had not added another Chapter to the Book for if that number had agreed with the ten particulars it had passed among them for the Beast with seven Heads and ten Horns and they would have been glad their City upon seven Hills could have been so excused But this unusual noise and clamour awakened the curiosity of many who love to see strange sights and that which otherwise might have been wholly neglected as a Book was enquired after and looked into being represented as a Monster But when they found that this evil Spirit as they accounted it which themselves had raised was not to be laid again by hard words and ill language they began to consider what other course was to be taken to suppress it And forthwith there starts up a Young Sophister among them and bids them be of good heart for by letting flie at him some Squibs and Crackers he did not question but he should put this Monster into such a Rage as to make him fall upon himself which design being highly approved in a short time came forth that dapper piece called Doct. Stillingfleet against Doct. Stillingfleet It was a notable plot and cunningly managed as the Reader may see by the following Answer to it After him a Graver Person undertakes the service but as Hasenmullerus tells us when Ignatius Loyola sent one of his Brethren at Rome to dispossess a Person he gave him this instruction that he should be sure to come behind the Devil if he would drive him out accordingly this N. O. steals quite behind my Book and began to confute it at the wrong end hoping by that means to drive out the evil Spirit which he supposed to lodge in the Body of it Which he hath performed with great dexterity and success as the Reader may be fully satisfied in the Reply here following These two I undertook before any other appeared and intended to have published these two Answers by themselves but finding others that had written against me on the same argument I was willing to bring as much as I could together to prevent confusion or repetition All which relating to the Principles of Faith and the Rosolution and Rule of it I made account to have dispatched at once but finding the Book begin to swell into too great a bulk I have respited some parts of it to another opportunity When those two men had done their Feats an ancient and experienced Exorcist and yet for all that no Conjurer saw plainly this Spirit must be conjured down and thefore knowing the great efficacy of Charms he gives his Book the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Stillingfleeton Which words put me almost in as great a fright as the Holy Chair would have done I began to consider whether Mengus or any other of their skilful men had ever used those Emphatical words before but I am willing to believe it was the sole invention of J. V. C. And I doubt not but they will do well hereafter in Exorcisms especially after the holy Potion when the person to be dispossessed is made sufficiently sick with Rue and Sallet-oyl and other excellent Physick for Devils I find by some of their Authors it is a great matter to get the right name of the Spirit this J. V. C. hath hit unluckily in calling this Monster the Leviathan sporting in the waters since they have thrown out so many empty vessels for him to play with And his three books of Charms have been no unpleasant entertainment But he is gone and I love not to tread hard on the graves of my enemies What there appears material in him if anything do so I shall consider it in its proper place chiefly for the sake of my Iudicious Adversary Dr. T. G. who was the first and I think the only person that hath discovered his Book to be a Learned Treatise But my generous Adversaries finding so little success in single attempts they next fall upon me with Chain-shot viz. A Collection of several Treatises against Doct. Stillingfleet To make up the number they bring in one before published to try an experiment what force that can have in conjunction which had none of it self The first undertaker therein is the very calm and according to his new Christian Name Serene Mr. Cressy the man that hath learnt to mortifie passions by Mystical Divinity but is so far from being sublimed and rectified by that Chymical way of devotion that he seems yet to remain in the very dregs of them the man that hath so accustomed him-self to Legends that he cannot write against an Adversary without making one of him And although there be many very pleasant ones in his Church-History yet I hardly think there are many more wonderful than if his insinuations had any colour of truth in them the first part of
consent of Doctors in this point that it ought to be instead of a Law which they ought not to violate By this we may judge of the learning and skill of T. G. in the Doctrine of his own Church But if he would not look into the Controversal Writers of their Church yet if he had but searched into the practice of the Church either in ancient or modern times he would have been ashamed to have made use of such an Argument to overthrow all Ecclesiastical Authority among us I grant that in some tumultuous Ages of the Church Ordinations have been adjudged null through the defaults of the Persons but then it was meerly for breaking the Canons of the Church so it was in the case of Formosus for breaking the Canons against the Translations of Bishops in the case of Ebbo Arch-Bishop of Rhemes whose ordinations were nulled by Hincmarus and the Council of Soissons for not being Canonically restored after deposition but upon appeal to the Pope they were pronounced valid in the Case of Pope Constantine for precepitating Orders to secure the Popedom in the famous case of Photius whose ordination was declared Null by the opposite faction on the same grounds but all these things were done in troublesome times when one party sought a pretence against the other But if we regard the more general practice of the Church we shall find when far greater objections than these were made yet Ordinations have been allowed although made by Hereticks I shall offer him the fairest terms he can desire and for the practice of the Church referr him to his own dear second Council of Nice and the modern practice of the Roman Church The Question of the validity of Ordination by Hereticks was at large debated in the first action of the second Council of Nice upon the submission of Basilius Theodorus and Theodosius Hypatius and others who had been Bishops of the opposite party which John the Vicar of the Orient there declared to be worse than any former heresie upon which the Question was proposed whether upon renouncing their heresie they might be received as Bishops and the orders be allowed of those who were ordained by them during their Heresie Hypatius appealed to the custom of the Church then the Canons of Councils and writings of the Fathers were brought into Council Tarasius produced the Canon of the Council of Nice allowing the Ordinations of the Cathari and the imposition of hands there mentioned he understands only for benediction and not for ordination and the Council of Ephesus making no distinction between those ordained by Nestorians and others for therein the force of that third Canon must lye which Tarasius thought so plain from St. Basil allowing those Bishops which communicated with Isoes or Zoius and Saturninus from the Council of Ephesus allowing the Orders of the Messaliani or Euchitae from the Council of Chalcedon allowing the Bishops upon their repentance which had joyned with Dioscorus and more particularly for those which had been ordained by Heretical Bishops it was there shewed that Anatolius the President of the fourth Council was ordained by Dioscorus in the presence of Eutyches that John Bishop of Hierusalem after he had renounced the Acephalists by whom he was ordained was received and submitted to as Bishop by the Orthodox that many of those who sat in the sixth Council were ordained by Sergius Pyrrhus Paulus and Petrus who were in that Council declared to be Hereticks and for 50. years together Tarasius saith they had no other ordinations upon these evidences of the practice of the Church this Council of Nice declared likewise that the ordination of Heretical Bishops was valid For the modern practice of the Church of Rome I appeal to the allowance therein given to the Ordinations of the Greek Church although the Greek Church be charged with Heresie and that ever since the notorious Schism in the time of Michael Cerularius A. D. 1053. In the time of Innocent the third some Greek Clergy-men living in the Dioceses of Latin Bishops yet received ordination from Greek Bishops which made the Latin Bishops suspend them from the execution of their Office the Pope hearing of it sends to his Legat wherein he consents to the suspension in case it were done without leave from the Latin Bishop but if leave were obtained he takes off the suspension because this custom is allowed in the Church I need not produce more particular instances in this kind which may be seen at large in Morinus because in all the attempts of reconciliation in the several Councils held to that purpose as at Lyons and Florence where all the matters in difference were most fully handed there was never any objection made to the Greek Ordinations But most remarkable to this purpose is the Bull of Clement the seventh containing in it a former Bull of Leo the tenth published by Leo Allatius by Isaacius Habertus and by Morinus wherein their Ordinations and other rites and customs are expresly allowed And to this day saith Morinus they are allowed in Rome not only to perform other parts of divine service according to their customs in the Church of St. Athanasius but to ordain Priests after their own manner for which they had a Bull of Urban the eighth And now I desire T. G. to consider a little his undeniable maxim that no man can give to another that which he hath not himself whether he doth in earnest think that his own Church is so bereft of all common sense as not to understand the force of this Maxim and if it thought it of any weight in this matter how it could ever approve the Ordinations of Hereticks or decree that the Sacraments retain their efficacy where the essentials of them are observed whatever the faith or manners of the Instruments be And this was all I intended in this Preface of the rest of his Book the Reader may expect an account as God gives health and opportunity The Contents PReface to the two first Answers p. 1. A particular examination of the Pamphlet entitled Doct. Stillingfleet against Doct. Stillingfleet Of the insufficiency of J. W.'s way of answering p. 13. No contradiction about the charge of Idolatry p. 18. A distinct answer to his propositions p. 26. In what sense the Church of Rome is owned by us as a true Church p. 29. His Appendix about Idolatry considered p. 34. The second contradiction examined p. 39. The charge of Fanaticism defended p. 50. No contradiction in the charge of divisions p. 65. The conclusion p. 71. An Answer to the Book entitled Doct. Stillingfleets Principles considered The occasion of annexing those principles p. 75. Of the notion of Infallibility p. 79. N. O's concessions p. 85. His principles laid down p. 95. His exceptions answered p. 98. His proofs of Infallibility examined p. 110. Of the Arguments from Scripture for Infallibility p. 116. Of the argument from Tradition for it p. 123. Of
than the cleansing of the Augean Stable This is not to make sport and recreation for the Atheist and debauched nor to give occasion to such persons to turn the Inspirations of Holy-Scripture into matter of Drollery and Buffonry as the author of the second Pamphlet tragically declaims any more than our Saviours unmasking the hypocrisie of the Scribes and Pharisees was the destroying the Law of Moses or the discovery of cheats and impostors doth give occasion to suspect the honesty of all mankind Nay so far is it from that that we think the separating of Fanaticism from true inspiration to be one of the best Services that can be done to the Christian Religion which otherwise is in danger of being despised or rejected by the considerate part of mankind But I would fain know of these men whether they do in earnest make no difference between the Writings of such as Mother Iuliana and the Books of Scripture between the Revelations of S. Brigitt S. Catharine c. and those of the Prophets between the actions of S. Francis and Ignatius Loyola and those of the Apostles if they do not I know who they are that expose our Religion to purpose if they do make a difference how can the representing their visions and practices reflect dishonour upon the other so infinitely above them so much more certainly conveyed down to us with the consent of the whole Christian World Thus much may here suffice to represent the arts our Adversaries are driven to to defend themselves I cannot blame them that they would engage Religion on their side but so have all Fanaticks in the World as well as they and I cannot for my heart see but this heavy charge of Blasphemy and undermining Religion does as justly lye on them who deride the Fanaticks among us as on those who have discovered the Fanaticism of the Church of Rome AN EXAMINATION OF THE PAMPHLET Entituled Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet HAving thus far laid open their present way of dealing with their Adversaries I now come to a particular consideration of these two Pamphlets and begin with that called Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet c. The Author of which is to be commended for so noble an enterprise which few of the Champions of former Ages could accomplish viz. to make his Adversary fall by his own sword But the mischief of it is these Romantick Knights do hurt no where but in Paper and their own imagination But I forget his grave admonition that I would treat these matters seriously and lay aside drollery To be then as grave as he can desire there are these two things which I design to provâ—â— against him 1. That on supposition I diâ—â— contradict my self in the way he insists upoâ—n it that were no sufficient answer to my Book 2. That I am far enough from contradicting my self in any one of the things which 〈◊〉 insists upon 1. Supposing what he contends for were true yet my Book remains unanswered the design of which was to shew that no man can joyn in the Communion of the Roman Church without great hazard of his salvation If I had any where said the contrary this indeed would have made it evident that I had contradicted my self But what then doth the force of all the arguments used by me in this last Discourse fall to the ground because I was formerly of another opinion Let me ask these revolters from the Church of England one question whether they do not now more plainly contradict themselves as to their former opinions than they can pretend that I have ever done I desire to know whether this makes all their present arguments for the Roman Church of no force If they think their present reasons ought to be answered whatever contrary opinion they had before why on supposition I had contradicted in a a former Book what I say in this must this render all that I have said or can hereafter say in this matter invalid Doth the strength of all lye upon my bare affirming or denying was it ever true because I said it if not how comes it to be untrue now because I deny it I do not remember I was ever so vain to make use of my own authority to prove a thing to be true because I believed it and if I had the world is not so vain to believe a man one jot the sooner for it If my authority in saying or denying be of no importance to the truth of the thing then he may prove that I contradict my self and yet all the arguments of my Book be as strong as ever I do not desire any one to follow my opinion because it is mine but I offer reason and authority for the proof of what I say if those be good in themselves they do not therefore cease to be so because they are or seem to he inconsistent with what I have said elsewhere So that self-contradiction being proved overthrows not the reason of the thing but the authority of the person and where things depend meerly upon authority it is a good argument and no where else If a witness in a Court contradicts himself his testimony signifies nothing because there is nothing else but his authority that makes his testimony valid but if a Lawyer at the Bar chance to speak inconsistently if afterwards he speaks plain and evident reason does that take off the force of it because he said something before which contradicted that plain reason If the Pope or those who pretend to be infallible contradict themselves that sufficiently overthrows their pretence of infallibility for he that changeth his mind must be deceived once but for us fallible mortals if we once hit upon reason and truth and manage the evidence of it clearly that reason doth not lose its former evidence because the same persons may afterwards oppose it Suppose I should be able to prove that Bellarmine in his Recognitions contradicts what he had said in his former Books doth this presently make all his arguments useless and him uncapable of ever appearing in controversie more Doth this make all his authorities false and his reasons unconcluding doth it hence follow that he spake no where consistently because once or twice or perhaps as often as his neighbours he contradicted himself But my grave Adversary I. W. imagines that we Writers of Controversies are like Witnesses in Chancery and are bound to make Affidavits before the Masters of this Court of Controversie and that whatever we say is to be taken as upon our oath this indeed would be an excellent way of bringing Controversies to an issue if we were to be sworn whether such a thing as Transubstantiation were true or false and I cannot tell whether this or laying wagers or the Popes infallibility be the best way to end such Controversies for any one of them would do it if people could but agree about it But now my Adversary says that if a
man once contradict himself he is to be looked on as a perjured person and whatever he saith his word is not to be taken This he not only begins with but very triumphantly concludes with it in these words and this alone may suffice to annul whatever he has hitherto or shall hereafter object against us for a witness who has been once palpably conuinced to have forsworn or contradicted himself in matters of moment besides the condign punishment he is lyable unto he does vacate all evidences produced by him against his Adversary and deserves never more to be heard against him in any Tribunal I see now what it is they would be at no less than perpetual silence and being set in the Pillory with that Pamphlet on my forehead Dr. Still against Dr. Still for being guilty of contradicting my self would satisfie I. W. and his Friends This I suppose was the meaning of stopping my mouth for ever when this Answer was to come out But now I perceive it is so dangerous a thing I had best stand upon my defence and utterly deny that I have contradicted my self in any thing in which I. W. hath charged me 2. To make it then out that this is a groundless charge I must go through the several particulars insisted on The first is in the charge of Idolatry but how do I contradict my self about this had I vindicated the Church of Rome from Idolatry in my Defence of Arch-bishop Laud this had been indeed to contradict my self but this is not so much as pretended and if it were nothing could be more easily confuted for in that very Book as it falls out very happily there is a discourse to the same purpose proving the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry in Invocation of Saints and the worship of Images and that the Heathen in the worship of inferiour Deities and Images might be excused on the same grounds that those of the Church of Rome do excuse themselves Here is then no appearance of a contradiction in terms and it is only pretended to be by consequence viz. from yielding that the Church of Rome and we do not differ in Fundamental points and that the Church of Rome is therefore a true Church from whence he inferrs that it cannot be guilty of Idolatry because to teach that would be a Fundamental errour and inconsistent with the Being of a true Church and therefore to charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry and to allow it to be a true Church is a contradiction This is the substance of what he saith upon this head to which I shall answer by shewing 1. That this way of answering is very disingenuous 2. That it is Sophistical and proves not the thing which he intends 1. That it is a disingenuous way because he barely opposes a judgement of charity concerning their Church to a judgement of reason concerning the nature of actions without at all examining the force of those reasons which are produced in the Book he pretends to answer Can I. W. imagine that any one who enquires into the safest way for his salvation and hears the Church of Rome charged with Idolatry in her worship by arguments drawn from the plain Law of God the common sense of mankind the repugnancy of their way of worship to the conceptions we ought to have of the divine nature the consent of the ancient Christian Church the parity of the case in many respects with the Heathen Idolaters should presently conclude that all these arguments are of no force meerly because the person who made use of them had upon another occasion judged so charitably of that Church as to suppose it still to retain the essentials of a true Church I will put a case paralled to this suppose one of the Church of Iudah should have call'd the Church of Israel in the time of Ieroboam a true Church because they acknowledged the true God and did believe an agreement in that common acknowledgement to be sufficient to preserve the essentials of a Church among them and afterwards the same person should go about to convince the ten Tribes of their Idolatry in worshipping God by the Calves of Dan and Bethel would this be thought a sufficient way of answering him to say that he contradicted himself by granting them a true Church and yet charging them with Idolatry whereas the only true consequence would be that he thought some kind of Idolatry consistent with the Being of a Church Might not such a person justly say that they made a very ill use of his charity when he supposed only that kind of Idolatry which implyes more Gods than one to unchurch a people but however those persons were more concerned to vindicate themselves from Idolatry of any kind than he was to defend his charitable opinion of them and if they could prove to him that this inferiour sort of Idolatry does unchurch them as well as the grosser the consequence of it would be that his charity must be so much the less but their danger would be the same This is just our case with the Church of Rome we acknowledge that they still retain the Fundamental articles of the Christian faith that there is no dispute between them and us about the true God and his Son Iesus Christ as to his death resurrection glory and being the proper object of divine worship we yield that they have true Baptism among them in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and we looking upon these as the essentials of a true Church do upon that account own that Church to be so but then we charge the Roman Church with gross corrupting that Worship which is proper to the divine nature by her worship of Images adoration of the Host and Invocation of Saints which being done not in express terms against the worship of the true God but by consequence we do not think this doth destroy the Being of a Church among them although it makes the salvation of persons in her communion extreamly hazardous and after we have gone about to prove this by many and weighty arguments is it reasonable for any one to tell us that we contradict our selves and therefore our arguments do signifie nothing whereas in truth here is no appearance of a contradiction to that which is our own sense in this matter For what shadow of a contradiction is it to say that the Roman Church is a true Church and yet is guilty of Idolatry supposing that we believe some sort of Idolatry which is very sinful not to be yet of so high a nature as to unchurch those who practise it And we choose the Instance of the ten Tribes for the ground of this charity If they can prove that all sorts of Idolatry do necessarily destroy the essentials of a Church the consequence is we must have less charity for them than we had before And such a concession from us doth not shew their guilt to
it self true is captiously set down and with an intention only to deceive unwary readers as will appear by the next proposition 2. To teach Idolatry is to err against the formentioned article of faith and Fundamental point of Religion i. e. to teach Idolatry is to teach that the honour which is due only to God is to be given to a meer creature That this is to teach Idolatry no one questions but our question is Whether they who do not teach this Proposition may not teach men to do those things whereby the worship due only to God will be given to a meer creature If he can prove that they who do not in terms declare that they do not dishonour God cannot dishonour him if he can demonstrate that those who do not teach that the honour which is due only to God is to be given to a creature cannot possibly by any actions of theirs rob him of that honour which is due to him this will be much more to his purpose than any thing he hath yet said And this proposition if he had proceeded as he ought to have done should not have been a particular affirmative but an Universal Negative For it is not enough to say that to teach Idolatry is to teach that the honour which is due only to God is to be given to a creature but that No Church which doth not teach this can be guilty of Idolatry for his design being to clear the Roman Church his Proposition ought to be so framed that all particulars may be comprehended under it But because he may say his immediate intention was not to clear their Church from Idolatry but to accuse me of a contradiction I proceed to the next Proposition 3. A Church that does not err against any article of faith nor against any Fundamental point of Religion does not teach Idolatry This proposition is likewise very Sophistical and captious for by article of faith and fundamental point of Religion is either understood the main fundamental points of doctrine contained in the Apostles Creed and then I affirm that a Church which doth own all the Fundamentals of doctrine may be guilty of Idolatry and teach those things wherein it lyes but if by not erring against any article of faith be meant that a Church which doth not err at all in matters of Religion cannot teach Idolatry the Proposition is true but impertinent 4. That the Church of Rome doth teach Veneration of Images adoration of the Host and Invocation of Saints is agreed on both sides 5. That the Roman Church does not err against any article of faith or Fundamental point of Religion This being that concession of ours from whence all the force of his argument is taken must be explained according to our own sense of it and not according to that which he puts upon it which that it may be better understood I shall both shew in what sense this concession is made by us as to the Church of Rome and of what force it is in this present debate For the clearer understanding in what sense it is made by us we are to consider the occasion of the Controversie about Fundamentals between us and the Church of Rome which ought to be taken from that Book to which he referrs There we find the occasion of it to be the Romanists contending that all points defined by the Church are Fundamental or necessary to salvation on the account of such a Definition upon this the controversie about Fundamentals was managed against them with a design to prove that all things defined by the Church of Rome are not Fundamental or necessary to be believed by all persons in order to their salvation because they were so defined To this purpose I enquired 1. What the grounds are on which any thing doth become necessary to salvation 2. Whether any thing whose matter is not necessary and is not required by an absolute command in Scripture can by any means whatsoever afterwards become necessary 3. Whether the Church hath power by any proposition or definition to make anything become necessary to salvation and to be believed as such which was not so before For the first I proposed two things 1. What things are necessary to the salvation of men as such or considered in their single or private capacities 2. What things are necessary to be owned in order to salvation by Christian Societies or as the bonds and conditions of Ecclesiastical communion For the resolving of this I laid down these three Propositions 1. That the very being of a Church doth suppose the necessity of what is required to be believed in order to salvation 2. Whatever Church owns those things which are antecedently necessary to the Being of a Church cannot so long cease to be a true Church And here I expresly distinguished between the essentials of a Church and those things which were required to the Integrity or soundness of it among which latter I reckoned the worship of God in the way prescribed by him 3. That the Union of the Catholick Church depended upon the agreement of it in things antecedently necessary to its being From hence I proceeded to shew that nothing ought to be owned as necessary to Salvation by Christian Societies but such things which by all those Societies are acknowledged antecedently necessary to the Being of the Catholick Church And here I distinguished between necessary articles of faith and particular agreements for the Churches peace I did not therefore deny but that it was in the power of particular Churches to require a Subscription to articles of Religion opposite to the errours and abuses which they reformed but I denyed it to be in the power of any Church to make those things necessary articles of faith which were not so before And here it was I shewed the moderation of the Church of England above that of Rome in that our Church makes no articles of faith but such as have the testimony and approbation of the whole Christian world of all Ages and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self but the Church of Rome imposeth new articles of faith to be believed as necessary to salvation as appears by the Bull of Pius 4. This is my plain meaning which half-witted men have stretched and abused to several ill purposes but not to wander from my present subject what is it that I. W. can hence infer to his purpose viz. that from hence it follows that the Church of Rome does not erre against any article of faith or any point necessary to salvation which if it be only meant of those essential points of faith which I suppose antecedently necessary to the Being of a Church I deny it not but do not see of what use this concession can be to them in the present debate since in the following Discourse I made the ancient Creeds of the Catholick Church the best measure of those things which were believed to be necessary to
very mean one of the Books of Scripture and the Divine Revelations therein contained I could here earnestly intreat the wiser men of that Church for the honour of God and the Christian Religion not to suffer such inconsiderate persons to vindicate their cause who to defend the extravagant infirmities of some Enthusiastical women among them are so forward to cast dirt and reproach upon our common Religion and those Revelations from whence we derive it But I forbear only it is a shrewd sign if this way be allowed of a wretched cause that cannot be maintained without plunging those who rely upon their word into the depths of Atheism But these are not things to be so slightly passed over they deserve a fuller and severer chastisement For the present this is enough to shew what monstrous absurdities this way of vindicating their Church from Fanaticism hath brought I. W. to Yet in one respect he deserves some pardon for they are wont to write their answers upon the common Themes out of some staunch Authors who considered a little better what they writ But this was a new charge and neither Bellarmin Becanus nor any of their old beaten souldiers could give them any assistance they found not the Title of the Fanaticism of the Roman Church in any of their common-place-common-place-Books therefore plain Mother-wit must help them and so it hath bravely But before they again attempt this matter I desire them to consider these things least they should in a desperate humour utterly give up the cause of Religion finding themselves unable to defend that of their Church 1. Whether there can be any greater Fanaticism than a false pretence to immediate divine Revelation For what can more expose men to all the follies and delusions imaginable than this will do what actions can be so wild and extravagant but men may do under such a pretence of immediate Revelation from God what bounds of order and Government can be preserved some may pretend a Revelation to take up Arms against their Prince or to destroy all they meet which is no unheard of thing others may not go so far but may have revelations of the unlawfulness of Kingly Government others may pretend revelations of a new Gospel and a more spiritual dispensation than hath been yet in the World as the Mendicant Friers did 2. Whether we are bound to believe all such who say They have divine revelations or whether persons may not be deceived in thinking they have revelations when they are only delusions of their own Fancies or the Devil if not then every one is to be believed who pretends to these things and then all follies and contradictions must be fwallowed which men say they have by immediate revelation and every Fanatick must be believed to have divine revelation who believes himself though he be only deluded by his own Imagination or become Enthusiastical by the power of a disease in his head or some great heat in his blood 3. Whether there must not be some certain rules established whereby all persons and even competent authority it self must proceed in judging these pretences to revelation whether they be true or false for if they proceed without rule they must either be inspired too or else must receive all who pretend to divine revelations if there be any certain rules whereby the revelation is to be judged then if any persons receive any revelation against those rules whether are other persons bound to follow their judgement against those rules 4. Whether there can be any more certain rule of judging than that two things evidently contradictory to each other cannot both come from divine revelation For then God must contradict himself which is impossible to be supposed and would overthrow the faith of any divine revelation And this is the plain case of the revelations made to two famous Saints in the Roman Church S. Brigitt and S. Catharine to one it was revealed that the B. Virgin was conceived with Original sin to the other that she was not both these have competent Authority for they were both Canonized for Saints by the Roman Church and their Revelations approved and therefore according to I. W. neither of them were Fanaticks though it is certain that one of their Revelations was false For either God must contradict himself or one of these must be deceived or go about to deceive and what greater Fanaticism can there be than that is if one of these had only some Fanatick Enthusiasm and the other divine Revelation then competent authority and submission to the judgement of the Church is not a rule to judge Fanaticism by for those were equal in both of them 5. Whether there be an equal reason to look for revelations now as in the time of the Prophets and our Saviour and his Apostles or whether God communicates revelations to no other end but to please and gratifie some Enthusiastical tempers and what should be the reason he should do it more now than in the age wherein revelations were more necessary In those times God revealed his mind to men but it was for the benefit of others when he sent them upon particular messages as the Prophets or made known some future events to them of great importance to the Church as the coming of the Messias c. or Inspired them to deliver weighty doctrines to the world as he did both the Prophets and Apostles why should we think that God now when the revelations of these holy and inspired persons are upon record and all things necessary to his Church are contained therein should vary this method of his and entertain some melancholy and retired women or other Enthusiastical persons with visions and revelations of no use to his Church 6. Whether God doth ever Inspire persons with immediate revelations without giving sufficient evidence of such Inspiration For if he did it were to leave men under a temptation to Infidelity without means to withstand it if he doth not then we have reason to examine the evidence before we believe the revelation The evidence God gave of old was either the Prophecy of a succession of Prophets by one whose commission was attested by great miracles as Moses who told the Israelites they were to expect Prophets and laid down rules to judge of them by or else by miracles wrought by themselves as by the Apostles whom our Lord sent abroad to declare his will to the world And where these are not what reason is there to receive any new Revelations as from God especially when the main predictions of the New Testament are of false Prophets and false Miracles 7. Whether the Revelations of their pretended Saints being countenanced by the Authority of their Church be equally received among them with the Revelations contained in Scripture if they be then they ought to have equal reverence paid to them and they ought to read them as Scripture to cite their Authority as divine and to believe them as infallible
Sophister one now comes forth in the habit of a grave Divine whom I shall treat with the respect due to his appearance of Modesty and Civility I pass by therefore all those unhandsome reflections in his Preface which I have not already answered in mine and come immediately to the main Controversie between us which I acknowledge to be of so great importance as to deserve a sober debate And the Controversie in short is this Whether Protestants who reject the Roman Churches Authority and Infallibility can have any sufficient Foundation to build their faith upon This we affirm and those of the Church of Rome confidently deny and on this account do charge us with the want of Principles i. e. sufficient grounds for our faith But this may be understood two ways 1. That we can have no certainty of our faith as Christians without their Infallibility 2. Or that we can have no certainty of our faith as Protestants i. e. in the matters in debate between their Church and ours These two ought carefully to be distinguished from each other and although the Principles I laid down do reach to both these yet that they were chiefly intended for the former will appear by the occasion of adding them to the end of the Answer there given The occasion was my Adversaries calling for Grounds and Principles upon which I there say that I would give an account of the faith of Protestants in the way of Principles and of the reason of our rejecting their impositions The first I undertook on two accounts 1. To shew that the Roman Churches Authority and Infallibility cannot be the Foundation of Christian faith and so we may be very good Christians without having any thing to do with the Church of Rome 2. That this might serve as a sufficient answer to a Book entituled Protestants without Principles Which being in some part of it directed against me I had reason not only to lay down those Principles bâ—t to do it in such a manner as did most directly overthrow the principles of that Book Which being only intimated there I must now to make my proceeding more clear and evident produce those assertions of E. W. for which mine were intended In the first Chapter he designs to prove That all men must be infallible in the assent they give to matters of faith For saith he If they disown such infallible believers they must joyntly deny all infallible faith and a little after an Infallible verity revealed to us forcibly requires an answerable and correspondent infallible faith in us and therefore he asserts a subjective Infallibility in true believers And from hence he proves the necessity of Infallible teachers for infallible believers and infallible teachers he saith seem neer correlatives In the second Chapter he saith he that hears an infallible teacher hath the Spirit of truth and he that hears not an infallible teacher wants this Spirit of truth by which he does not mean an infallible Revealer of the doctrine at first but the immediate teachers of the revealed doctrine for saith he no man can be a Heretick that denies the objective verities revealed in Gods word unless he be sure that his teacher reveals those verities infallibly He proposes the objection of a Simplician as he calls him that he builds his faith and Religion not on any Preachers talk but on the objective verities revealed in Scripture to which he answers that unless he first learn of some infallible Oracle the sense of Scripture in controverted places he can never arrive to the depth of Gods true meaning or derive infallible faith from those objective revealed Verities He yet farther asserts that every Catechist or Preacher that hath a lawful mission and is sent by the infallible Church to teach Christs Sacred Doctrine if he Preach that doctrine which Christ and his Church approves of is then under that notion of a member conjoyned with an Infallible Church infallible in his teaching and thence concludes that infallibility doth accompany both teachers and hearers and from denying this Infallibility he saith follows an utter ruine of Christian Religion yea and of Scripture too And afterwards he goes about to prove that no man can have any divine faith without infallibility in the proponent for faith he as long as the Infallibility of a Revelation stands remote from me for want of an undoubted application made by an infallible Proponent it can no more transfuse Certainty into Faith than Fire at a great distance warm This is the sum of the Principles of that Metaphysical wit but sure a man must have his brains well confounded by School Divinity and hard words before he can have common sense little enough to think he understands them But because I never loved to spend time in confuting a man who thinks himself the wiser for speaking things which neither he nor any one else can understand I rather chose in as short a way as I could to put together such Propositions as might give an account of Christian Faith without all this Iargon about Infallibility In order to this I first laid down the Principles wherein all parties are agreed and then such Propositions as I supposed would sufficiently give an account of our faith without any necessity of such an infallibility as he makes necessary for the foundation of it But for our clearer proceeding in an Argument of this importance it will be necessary to state and fix the notion of Infallibility before I come to particulars For as it is used it seems to be a rare word for Iugglers in Divinity to play tricks with for sometimes they apply it to the object that is believed and call that infallibly true sometimes to the subject capable of believing and say persons ought to be infallibly certain that what they believe is infallibly true and sometimes to the means of conveying that infallible truth to the faculties of men and these they say must be infallible or else there can be no infallible certainty of any thing as infallbly true But the subtilty of these things lies only in their obscurity and the School-man is spoiled when his talk is brought down out of the clouds to common sense I will therefore trie to bring these things out of their terms to a plain meaning and surely we may speak and understand each other in these matters without this doubtful term of Infallibility For if it signifies any thing we may make use of the thing it signifâ—es in stead of the word and by applying the thing signified by it to that which it is spoken of we shall soon discern how justly it is attributed to it Infallibile is that which cannot be deceived now if no one will say That a proposition cannot be deceived it is absurd to say that it is infallibly true therefore the matters revealed considered as objective verities as our schoolman speaks are not capable of
that the Church is infallible I would fain understand what this infallible assent is grounded upon and if the evidence be only sufficiently or morally infallible which are his own terms how the assent which is built upon it comes to be more than so It is very pleasant to observe how Mr. Cressey and some other late Writers of their Church are perplexed about this word Infallibility as if they had a Wolf by the ears they cannot tell how to hold it and they are afraid to let it go And very loth is is our N. O. to part with the sound of Infallibility although his own Concessions perfectly overthrow it as will yet further appear by this last viz. 8. That moral Certainty is a sufficient foundation for Faith This will appear by my 27. Proposition which is this The nature of certainty doth receive several names either according to the nature of the proof or the degrees of the Assent Thus Moral Certainty may be so called either as it is opposed to Mathematical evidence but implying a firm assent upon the highest evidence that Moral things can receive Or as it is opposed to a higher degree of Certainty in the same kind so Moral Certainty implies only greater Probabilities of one side than the other In the former sense we assert the certainty of Christian Faith to be Moral but not only in the latter To which he saith This Principle is granted if importing only that Christians have or may have a sufficiently certain and infallible evidence of the truth of their Christianity Whereby it is plain that though he useth the term infallible yet he means no more than I do or else he ought not to have brought that as an explication of my principle which is contrary to it as in this Controversie Moral Certainty is opposed to strict demonstration and Infallibility But if he by infallibility means only sufficient certainty I shall be content for quietness sake that he shall call it Infallibility if he pleases And that he can mean no more by it appears not only by what he hath said before but by what he saith afterwards in these words A Natural or Moral Certainty though not such a one as cannot possibly be false but which according to the Laws of Nature and the common manners and experience of Men is not false is sufficient on which to ground such a faith as God requires of us in respect of that Certainty which can be derived from humane sense or reason and which serves for an introductive to the reliance of this our faith upon such Revelation as is believed by us divine and which if divine we know is not possibly fallible In respect of its relying on which Revelation an infallible object and not for an Infallible Certainty as to the subject it is that this our Faith is denominated a Divine Faith Now this Natural or Moral Certainty is thought sufficient for the first rational Introductive and Security of our Faith not only by the Doctor in his 27. Principle but also by Catholick Divines in their Discourses of the Prudential Motives Very well said and I were a very disingenuous man if I should not heartily thank him for so free a Confession by which if I understand any thing he very fairly gives up the Cause of Infallibility as to the necessity of it in order to Faith As will easily appear by the managing of it so far as I have been concerned in it It is evident to any one that will cast an eye on the Controversie of Infallibility between the Arch-bishop and his Adversaries that it was raised on this account because those of the Church of Rome asserted that the Infallible Testimony of the Church was necessary in order to the believing the Scriptures to be the Word of God and so much is endeavoured to be defended by him who pretended to answer my Lord of Canterburies Book who goes upon this Principle That this is to be believed with a divine Faith and a divine Faith must be built upon an infallible Testimony the falsehood of which I at large shewed in the Discourse of the Resolution of Faith Since the publishing whereof the Metaphysical Gentleman before mentioned pretended to answer that part of it which concerns Infallibility and Moral Certainty Some of his assertions I have laid down already as contrary to this of N. O. as may be for he not only asserts the necessity of Infallibility for a foundation of Christian Faith but spends some Chapters in rambling talk against Moral Certainty The Title of one of which is Faith only Morally Certain is no Faith I desire N. O. and E. W. to agree better before they goe aboâ—â— to confute me and to what purpose shouldâ— trouble my self with answering a man whoâ— Principles the more ingenuous of their owâ— Party disown as well as we For not onâ—â— N. O. here makes Moral Certainty a sufficienâ— ground for Divine Faith but the Guide 1â— Controversies another of my Adversaries aâ—serts the same when he saith And indeeâ— from what is said formerly that a Divine Faith may be had by those who have had 〈◊〉 extrinsecal even morally infallible I see now from whom N. O. learnt these terms motive thereof it follows that Divine Faith doth not resolve into such motives either as the formal cause or always as the applicative introductive or condition of this divine faith And a little after That it is not necessary that such Faith always should have an external rationally infallible ground or motive thereto whether Church Authority or any other on his part that so believes By these concessions it appears that the cause of Infallibility as far as it concerns the necessity of it in order to Faith is clearly given up by these persons and if others be still of another mind among them I leave them to dispute it among themselves Thus far then we are agreed I now come to consider where the controversie still remains and why the rest of my Principles may not pass as well as these In order to this I must by taking a view of his several exceptions and answers draw together a Scheme of those Principles which he sets up in opposition to mine and if I do not very much mistake they may be reduced to these three 1. That God hath given an infallible assistance to the Guides of the Church in all Ages of it for the direction of those who live in it 2. That without this infallible assistance there can be no certainty of the sense of Scripture 3. That all the Arguments which overthrow the Churches Infallibility do destroy the Churches Authority These as far as I can perceive contain the whole force of his Considerations and in the examination of these the remaining discourse must be spent In which I shall have occasion to take notice of whatever is material in his Book 1. The main controversie is whether God hath given an
infallible assistance to the Guides of the Church in all Ages for the conduct of those who live in it For if he hath not my Adversary cannot deny but the Principles laid down by me must hold For in case there be no infallibility in the Guides of the Church every one must be left to the use of his own understanding proceeding in the best manner to find out what the Will of God is in order to salvation We do not now dispute concerning the best helps for a person to make use of in a matter of this nature but the Qâ—estion is whether a man ought to resign his own judgement to that of the Church which pretends to be infallible as to all necessaries for salvation or supposing no such infallibility whether a person using his Faculties in the best manner about the sense of Scriptures with the helps of divine Grace may not have sufficient certainty thereby what things are required of him in order to happiness Hereby I exclude nothing that may tend to the right use of a mans understanding in these things whether it be the direction of Pastors the decrees of Councils the sense of the Primitive Church or the care industry and sincerity of the Enquirer but supposing all these whether by not believing the Guides of the Church to be infallible the foundation of this persons faith can be nothing else but a trembling Quicks and as N. O. speaks in his Preface only from the supposing an errability in the Guides of Gods Church And a little after he lays down that as his fundamental Principle that the only certain way not to be misled will be the submitting our internal assent and belief to Church Authority or as he elsewhere speaks to the infallible Guideship of Church Goverâ—ors Here then two Questions necessarily arise 1. Whether there can be no certainty of Faith without this infallibility 2. What certainty there is of this infallibility 1. Whether there can be no certainty of Faith without Infallibility in the Guides of the Church and submitting our internal assent and belief to them For the clearing of this we must consider what things are agreed upon between us that by them we may proceed to the resolution of this Question 1. It is I suppose agreed That every man hath in him a faculty of discerning of truth and falshood 2. That this Faculty must be used at least in the choice of infallible Guide for otherwise a man must be abused with every pretence of Infallibility and George Fox may as well be followed as the Pope of Rome and to what purpose are all prudential motives and arguments for Infallibility if a man must not judge whether they be good or no i. e. sufficient to prove the thing 3. That God is not wanting in necessaries to the salvation of mankind 4. That the Books of Scripture received on both sides do contain in them the Will of God in order to salvation 5. That all things simply necessary to salvation are contained therein which is a concession mentioned before These things being supposed the Question now is Whether a person not relying on the infallibility of a Church may not be certain of those things which are contained in those Books in order to Salvation For of those ouâ— present enquiry is and not about the sense of the more difficult and controverted places and if we can make it appear that men may be certain as to matters of salvation without infallibility let them prove if they can the necessity of infallibility for things which are not necessary to salvation But of the sense of Scripture in those things afterwards I now enquire into the certainty men may attain to of the necessaries to salvation in Scripture and concerning this I laid down this Proposition Although we cannot argue against any particular way of Revelation from the necessary Attributes of God yet such a way as writing being made choice of by him we may justly say that it is repugnant to the nature of the design and the Wisdom and Goodness of God to give infallible assistance to persons in writing his Will for the benefit of Mankind if those Writings may not be understood by all persons who sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary for their salvation This Principle he saith is unsound which if he can prove I may have more reason to question it than I yet have And I assure him I expect no mean proofs to shake my belief of a principle of so great importance to the Christian Religion For it being granted by him that all things simply necessary to salvation are contained in the Books of Scripture I desire to know whether things simply necessary ought not to be delivered with greater plainness than things which are not so Whether God appointing the Evangelists and Apostles to write these things did not intend that they should be so expressed as they might most easily be understood Whether our Saviours own Sermons vere capable of being understood by those who heard them without some infallible Interpreter Whether the Evangelists did not faithfully deliver our Saviours Doctrine If they did how that comes to be obscure now which was plain then so that either Christ himself must be charged with not speaking the Will of God plainly or the Evangelists cannot be charged with not expressing it so There are no other Books in the World that I know of that need an infallible Interpreter and we can tell certainly enough what any other Religion requires supposing it to be written in the same way that the Christian is Is it not possible for a man to be certain what the Law of Moses required of the People of Israel by reading the Books of that Law without some infallible Guides Do the ten Commandments need an Infallible Comment Or can we have now no certainty of the meaning of the Levitical Law because there is no High-priest or Sanhedrin to explain it And if it be possible to understand the necessaries of that dark dispensation in comparison with the Gospel are oâ—r eyes now blinded with too much light Is not Christianity therefore highly recommended to us in the New Testament because of the clearness and perspicuity wherein the Doctrines and Precepts thereof are delivered And yet after all this cannot the most necessary parts of it he understood by those who sincerely endeavour to understand them By which sincere endeavour we are so far from excluding any useful helps that we always suppose them The sâ—m then of what he is to confute is this that although the Apostles and Evangelists did deliver the Mind of God to the World in their Writings in order to the salvation of Mankind although they were inspired by an infinite Wisdom for this end although all things simply necessary to Salvation are contained in their Writings although a Person useth his sincere endeavour by all Moral helps and the
Divine Grace assisting him to find out in these Writings the things necessary to Salvation yet after all he cannot certainly understand the meaning of them Which to me appears so absurd and monstrous a Doctrine so contrary to the honour of the Scriptures and the design of Christianity that if I had a mind to disparage it I would begin with this and end with Transubstantiation For in earnest Sir did not our Saviour speak intelligibly in matteâ—s of so great importance to the Salvation of Mankind Did he not declare all that was necessary for that end in his many admirable discourses Did not the Evangelists record his words and actions in writing and that as one of them saith expresly That we might believe that Iesus is the Christ the Son of God and that believing we might have life through his name And after all this cannot we understand so much as the common necessaries to salvation by the greatest and most sincere endeavour for that end But it is time now to consider his exceptions against this Principle which are these 1. That God may reveal his mind so in Scripture as that in many things it may be clear only to some persons more versed in the Scriptures and in the Churches Traditional sense of them and more assisted from above according to their imployment which persons he hath appointed to instruct the rest But what is all this to our purpose our Question is not about may be 's and possibilities of things but it is taken for granted on both sides that God hath revealed his mind in writing therefore he need not make the supposition of no writings at all as he doth afterwards the Question is Whether these Writings being allowed for divine revelations of the Will of God he hath expressed the necessaries to salvation clearly therein or not That God may delivers his mind obscurely in many things is no question nor that he may inspire persons to unfold his mind where it is obscure but our question is whether or no these Writings being acknowledged to contain the Will of God it be agreeable with the nature of the design and the Wisdom and Goodness of God for such Writings not to be capable of being understood in all things necessary to salvation by those who sincerely endeavour to understand them But when I had expresly said things necessary for salvation why doth he avoid that which the dispute was about and only say many things in stead of it I do not doubt but there are many difficult places of Scripture as there must be in any ancient Writings penned in an Idiom so very different from ours But I never yet saw one difficulty removed by the pretended Infallible Guides of the Church all the help we have had hath been from meer fallible men of excellent skill in Languages History and Chronology and of a clear understanding and we should be very unthankful not to acknowledge the great helps we have had from them for understanding the difficult places of Scripture But for the Infallible Guides they have dealt by the obscurities of Scripture as the Priest and the Leviâ—e in our Saviours Parable did by the wounded man they have fairly passed them by and taken no care of them If these Guides did believe themselves infallible they have made the least use of their Talent that ever men did they have laid it up in a Napkin and buried it in the earth for nothing of it ever appeared above ground How could they have obliged the World more nay it had been necessary to have done it for the use of their Gift than to have given an Infallible sense of all controverted Places and then there had been but one dispute left whether they were infallible or not but now supposing we believe their Infallibility we are still as far to seek for the meaning of many difficult places And supposing God had once bestowed this Gift of Infallibility upon the Guides of the Church he might most justly deprive them of it because of the no use they have made of it and we might have great reason to believe so from our Saviours words To him that hath shall be given but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath So that not making use of this Talent of Infallibility gives us just reason to question whether God continues it supposing he had once given it to the Guides of the Church since the Apostles days which I see no reason to believe 2. His next exception is from a saying of Dr. Fields who he saith seems to advance a contrary Principle in his Preface to his Books of the Church But O the mischief of common-place-Common-place-Books which make men write what they find and not what is to their purpose For after all Dr. Field doth but seem to advance another Principle in his opinion and doth not so much as seem to do it in mine For that learned and judicious Writer sets himself purposely to disprove the Infallibility of the Church in the beginning of his fourth Book and is it probable that any man of common understanding would assert that in his Preface which he had disproved in his Book It is a known distinction in the Church of Rome of the Church Virtual representative and essential by the two first are meant Popes and Councils and of these two Dr. Field saith that they may erre in matters of greatest Consequence yet these are N. O's infallible Guides whose conduct he supposeth men obliged to follow and to yield their internal assent to Concerning the essential Church he saith That it either comprehends all the faithful that are and have been since Christ appeared in the flesh and then he saith it is absolutely free from all errour and ignorance of divine things that are to be known by Revelations or as it comprehends only all those Believers that are and have been since the Apostles times and in this sense he saith the whole Church may be ignorant in sundry things which are not necessary to salvation but he thinks it impossible for the whole Church to erre in anything of this nature But in things that cannot be clearly deduced from the Rule of Faith and word of divine and heavenly Truth we think it possible that all that have written of such things might erre and be deceived But if the Church be taken only as it comprehends the Believers that now are and presently live in the world he saith it is certain and agreed upon that in things necessary to be known and believed expresly and distinctly it never is ignorant much less doth erre Yea in things that are not absolutely necessary to be known and believed expresly and distinctly we constantly believe that this Church can never erre nor doubt pertinaciously but that there shall ever be some found ready to embrace the truth if it be manifested to them and such as shall not wholly neglect the
search and enquiry after it as times and means give leave But if we mean by a Church any particular Church he determines That particular men and Churches may erre damnably because notwithstanding others may worship God aright but that the whole Church at one time cannot so erre for that then the Church should cease utterly for a time and so not be Catholick being not at all times and Christ should sometimes be without a Church yet that errors not prejudicing the salvation of them that erre may be found in the Church that is at one time in the world we make no doubt only the Symbolical and Catholick which is and was being wholly free from error Which several expressions amount to no more than this that there will be always some true Christians in the World but what is this to infallible Teachers and Guides in a Church that pretends to be Catholick against all the sense and reason in the World And is it now imaginable after all this that Dr. Field should make any particular Church infallible No all that he means in his Preface is this that among all the Societies of men persons who have not leisure or capacity to examine particular Controversies ought diligently to search which is the true Church and having done this to embrace her communion follow her directions and rest in her judgment i.e. Suppose a man by that very Book of Dr. Fields should be convinced that the Church of Rome is a very corrupt and tyrannical Church and the Church of England is a sound and good Church which was the design of his writing it he being thus far satisfied ought to embrace the communion of this Church and so follow her directions and rest in her judgment so as not to forsake her communion for any cavils that are raised about particular Controversies of which he is not a capable judge And doth this make the Church of England infallible If we say that a man being first satisfied of the skill and integrity of a Lawyer ought to follow his directions and rest in his judgment doth this make that Lawyer infallible so we say here the resting in the judgment of a Church of whose integrity we have assurance before-hand implies only the supposition of so much honesty and skill in a Church as may over-rule the Judgments of persons who either have not leisure or capacity to understand particular Controversies which require skill in Languages search into the Fathers and later Writers on both sides If we say that unlearned persons ought in such things to trust the learned whose integrity they have no ground to suspect this doth not certainly make the more learned infallible But we may rest in the judgment of those whom we have no reason to suspect though we believe them not to be infallible and it was the former Dr. Field meant and by no means any infallibility unless he plainly contradict himself 3. He excepts That this brings in an inerrability of every particular Christian in all points necessary if such Christians will that is â—f only they shall sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them The force of this Argument will be easily discerned if we put another parallel to it viz. That they who assert from Scripture the assistance of Divine Grace to the sincere endeavours of men do make all men impâ—ccable if they will as well as those who assert that God will not be wanting in necessaries to salvation to those who sincerely endeavour to know them make all such men so far infallible if they will If any one thing be plain in Scripture the goodness of God is and who can believe that and yet think that he will suffer those who sincerely endeavour to know what is necessary to their salvation not to understand it But besides how often doth the Scripture promise a greater degree of knowledge to the meek and humble to the diligent and industrious to those that ask and seek wisdom from him to those that do the will of God to whom our Saviour hath expresly promised that they shall know of his doctrine whether it be of God or no And if this be the inerrability he means he sees what grounds we have to assert it But we understand not by it that such persons cannot erre in their judgments about what things are necessary and what not nor that they cannot erre in other things which are not so necessary to salvation but that Gods goodness is so great and his promises so plain and his word so clear in necessary things that no one who sincerely endeavours to know them shall ever miss of salvation And if such an infallibility will satisfie them we do not deny it to Popes themselves or other Guides of the Church on condition they do not think themselves infallible beyond these bounds for they are only the meek and humble whom God hath promised to teach his way and not such who will be infallible whether God will or no. His other exceptions from this principle destroying Church-Authority from the parity of reason for Church Governors and the controverted places of Scripture shall be considered afterwards 2. I now come to examine what certainty there is for this Infallibility Here I shall lay down some principles of common reason by which we may better understand the force of his arguments 1. That the Proof ought always to be more evident than the thing that is to be proved by it For otherwise it is of no advantage to the proof of it if it have but the same degree of evidence but is a great prejudice to it if it have less so that if the proofs of Infallibility be equally obscure and difficult with those things which are to be believed by virtue of it this Infallibility is of no use but if they be less evident the pretence of it is both very ridiculous and prejudicial to the Christian Faith 2. The greater concernment any Law is of and the greater danger in mistaking the meaning of it the more plain and distinct ought the terms of that Law to be As a Law about the succession of the Crown ought to be framed with all the clearness and distinctness imaginable because the peace and security of a Nation depends upon it So in case Christ hath appointed any Successor in the Government of his Church or entailed Infallibility upon the Guides of it this being a matter of such infinite concernment to the whole Church it is most unreasonable to conceive that whatever other parts of his Will were obscure those which relate to the matter of Succession and Infallibility should be so but rather so plain that no one can miss of understanding them because the weight of all the rest depends upon these two and it is so horrible a presumption in any to pretend to them in case they have no right to them and the danger so great in relying upon them if there be
peace if Controversies were referred to an infallible Judge we must therefore allow every one that pretends to it to be such an infallible Guide And we must on the same ground allow every one if we must not first be satisfied of the grounds on which it is challenged by any one And withal since Christ is the best Judge of what is fittest for his Church we must see by his Laws whether he hath made it necessary for all Controversies to be ended by a standing Judge that should arise about the sense of Scripture If he hath not done it it is to no puâ—pose to say it is fit he should have done it for that is to upbraid Christ with weakness and not to end differences in his Church 2. Supposing it necessary that Controversies should be ended it may as well be done without an infallible Judge of the sense of Scripture as with one for all that is pretended to be done by an infallible Judge is to give a certain sense of controverted places so that men are either bound to look on that which they give as the certain sense on the account of the infallibility of the Interpreter or that such an infallible interpretation being set aside there is no way to know the certain sense of Scripture If the first then no man can be more certain of the sense of any doubtful place than he is of the infallibility of his Interpreter I desire therefore to be resolved in this case I am told I can arrive at no certainty of the sense of doubtful places of Scripture without an infallible Interpreter I say the places of Scripture which are alledged for such an infallible Judge are the most doubtful and controverted of any I would fain understand by what means I may come to be certain of the meaning of these places and to find out the sense of them Must I do it only by an infallible Guide but that is the thing I am now seeking for and I must not suppose that which I am to prove If I may be certain without supposing such an infallible Guide of the meaning of these very doubtful and controverted places than why may I not by the same way of proceeding arrive at the certainty of any other less doubtful and obscure places unless there be some private way to come at the sense of those places which will hold for none else besides them which is not so easy to understand 2. I come theâ—efore to the second enquiry which is about the means of attaining the certain sense of Scripture in doubtful places without the supposition of an infallible Guide It will not I hope be denyed that the Primitive Christian Church had a certain way of understanding the sense of doubtful places as far as it was necessary to be understood and that they wanted no means which Christ had appointed for the ending of Controversies But I shall now shew that they proceeded by no other means than what we use so that if they had any means to come to a certain sense of Scripture we have the same and it would be a veâ—y hard case if by the use of the same means we cannot attain the same end I shall therefore give an account of the proceeding of the Primitive Church in this weighty Controversy concerning the sense of Scripture in doubtful places and if no such thing was then heard off as an infallible Judge it is a plain demonstration they thought there was none appointed because the disputes that happened then required as much the Authority of such a Judge as any that are at this day in the Christian Church In the first Ages of Christianity there were two sorts of Controversies which disturbed the Church one was concerning the Authority of the Books of the new Testament and the other concerning the sense of them For there was no one Book of the New Testament whose Authority was not called in Question by some Hereticks in those first Ages The Gnosticks by whom I understand the followers of Simon Magus Menander Saturninus and Basilides haâ— framed a new Religion of their own under the name of Christian and had no regard to the Writings either of the old or new Testament but had a Book of their own which they called the Gospel of Perfection But as Epiphanius well observes no man that hath understanding needs Scripture to refute such a Religion as theirs was for right reason alone was sufficient to discover the folly and filthyness of it The followers of Cerinthus and Ebion acknowledged no other Gospel but that of St. Matthew and that not entire but with diverse corruptions and interpolations according to their several fancies Cerdon and Marcion allowed no Gospel but that of St. Luke which they altered according to their pleasure cutting off the Genealogy and other places and inserting many things as it served most to their purpose as may be seen at large in Epiphanius Some say the Valentinians received no other Gospel but that of St. Iohn as the Alogi in Epiphanius rejected that alone but I do not find that Valentinus did reject any but added more for Irenaeus chargeth the Valentinians only with adding another Gospel which they called the Gospel of Truth and Tertullian expresly saith that Valentinus therein differed from Marcion that Marcion cut off what he pleased with his sword but Valentinus corrupted it with his pen for although he allowed all the Books of the New Testament yet he perverted the meaning of them Eusebius tells us that the followers of Severus rejected the Epistles of S. Paul and the Acts of the Apostles and interpreted the Law and the Prophets and the Gospels after a peculiar sense of their own So that we see those who undertook to confute these Hereticks were not only to vindicate the true sense of Scripture but to dispute with such who did not own the same Books which they did and therefore were forced to use such ways of arguing as were proper to them as may be seen at large by the proceedings of Irenaeus and Tertullian against them But because the Valentinians and Marcionites did endeavour to suit their extravagant fancies to the Scriptures allowed by them it will be necessary for us to enquire by what means they went about to clear the true sense of Scripture from their false Glosses and Interpretations Irenaeus in the beginning of his Book relating at large the Doctrines of the Valâ—ntinians saith that by the perverse interpretations and corrupt expositions of the Scripture they drew away unstable minds from the true faith for they pretended to find out deeper and more mysterious things in the Scripture than others were acquainted with viz. That Christ intimated the 30. Aeöns by not appearing till the 30. year of his Age. That the parable of men called at the first the third the sixth the ninth the eleventh hour referred to the same thing for those hours make up
the number of 30. That St. Paul often mentions these Aeöns and the proâ—uctions of them that the duodecade of Aeöns was implyed in our Saviours â—isputing with the Doctors at 12. years of Age and in the choice of the 12. Apostles and the remaining 18. By his abiding 18. months as they said with his Disciples after his resurrection and where ever in Scripture they met with words suitable to the description of their Aeöns they pretended that they did refer to their notions but were obscurely expressed on purpose for which end they made use of Parables and the first of St. John and many passages in St. Pauls Epistles What course now doth Irenaeus take to clear the sense of Scripture in these controverted places Doth he till them that God had appointed Infallible Guides in his Church to whom appeal was to be made in all such cases Nothing like it through his whole Book but he argues with very good reason that no such thing as they imagined could be intended by the Scripture 1. From the scope and design of the Scripture which ought chiefly to be regarded whereas they only took some particular passages which served most to their purpose without looking to the series of the discourse wherein they were Therefore saith he they make only a rope of sand when they apply the Parables of our Saviour or the sayings of the Prophets or Apostles to their opinions for they pass over the order and connexion of the Scriptures and as much as in them lyes loose the members of truth from each other and then transform and change them from one thing to another thereby deceiving men As if saith he a man should take an excellent Image of a Prince done with a great deal of art in pretious stones and remove those stones out of their proper places and turn them into the shape of a Dog or a Fox ill put together and should then affirm that because the stones are the same that this Image of a Dog or a Fox was the Image of the Prince made by such an excellent Artist after the very same way saith he do they use the Scriptures Or as he afterwards expresseth it they take several words and names here and there and put them together much after the way of those who would apply the words of Homer to any argument proposed to them which some have done so artificially that unskilful men have been perswaded that Homer did mean that very thing when he wrote his Poem As one did the going of Hercules to Cerberus so exactly in the words of Homer put together in the Greek fragments of Irenaeus that those who did not consider upon what different occasions those words were used by him some being spoken of Vlisses some of Priamus some of Maenelaus and Agamemnon and some of Hercules might Imagine that the Poet intended to describe what the other expressed by him But he that will examine the several places will find that the words indeed are Homers but the sense his that so applyed them So it is in this case the words are the Scriptures but applyed quite in another way than they were intended the stones are the same but yet the Image of the Fox is not to be taken for that of the Prince and when he hath taken the pains to put every thing in its proper and due place he will then easily find out the deceit And by the help of this rule Irenaeus vindicates the places of Scripture which the Valentinians made use of and makes it evident that could not be the sense of them which they put upon them As he doth particularly prove that St. Iohn by the beginning of his Gospel could not mean the first Ogdoad of the Valentinians To the very same purpose doth Tertullian argue against their way of interpreting Scripture That although it seems to have wit and easiness in it yet it is no more than is often practised on Virgil and Homer as well as the Scriptures For we have seen Virgil saith he with the same words turned quite to another sense as Hosidius Get a made the Tragoedy of Medea out of Virgil some fragments whereof are still extant and one had explained Cebes his Table in Virgils words and many had applyed the words of Homer in their Cento's to different purposes and not only some of late but Isidore saith that Probâ— and Pomponius before his time had madâ— Virgil Evangelize Therefore it is nâ— wonder saith Tertullian that the Scripture should be so abused it being much more fruitful and applicable to several purposes than other Writings are Nay saith he I am not afraid to say that the Scriptures were so framed by the Will of God that they might afford matter for Hereticks to work upon since I read that there must be heresies which cannot be without the Scripture And surely then he did not Imagine that God had appointed an infallible Judge on purpose to prevent the being of Heresies by giving an infallible sense of Scripture 2. From the repugnancy of the sence they gave to other places of Scripture Irenaeus observes that the Hereticks delighted most in dark places and left the plain ones whereas we ought most to rely upon the plain places and by them interpret the obscure For such who loved God and the truth would study most those things which God put under our command and knowledge and those are things which are plain before our eyes and are open and without ambiguity laid down in Scriptures and to these Parables and dark places ought to be fitted and by this means they may be interpreted without danger and of all alike and the body of truth remains entire with a suitableness of all its parts But without this every man interprets as he pleases and there will be no certain rule of Truth but every interpretation will be according to the opinion of the Interpreter and mâ—n will contradict each other as the Philosophers did And by this means men will be always seeking and never finding because they cast away the means of finding Seeing therefore saith he that all the Scriptures both Prophetical and Evangelical are plain and clear and may be heard alike of all they must be very blind that will not see in so great light but darken themselves in Parables wherein every one of them thinks he hath found a God of his own And from hence he very much blames the Hereticks since they could not so much as pretend that any thing was plainly said for them in Scripture but only intimated in dark sayings and parables that they would leave that which is certain and undoubted and true for that which was uncertain and obscure Which he saith is not to build the house upon the firm and strong roâ—k but upon the uncertainty of the sand on which it may be easily overturned This excellent rule for interpreting Scripture Irenaeus makes great use of in his following discourse and in the
thought fit And what can the most skilful men in the Scripture do with such men who deny or affirm what they please therefore such kind of disputes tended to no good at all where either side charged the other with forging and perverting the Scriptures and so the Controversy with them was not to be managed by the Scriptures by which either none or an uncertain Victory was to be obtained 2. In this dispute about the sense of Scripture the true Ancient faith is first to be enquired after for among whom that was there would appear to be the true meaning of Scripture And for finding out the true faith we are to remember that Christ sent abroad his Apostles to plant Churches in every City from whence other Churches did derive the faith which are called Apostolical from their agreement in this common faith at first delivered by the Apostles that the way to understand this Apostolical faith is to have recourse to the Apostolical Churches for it is unreasonable to suppose that the Apostles should not know the Doctrine of Christ which he at large proves or that they did not deliver to the Churches planted by them the things which they knew or that the Churches misunderstood their Doctrine because all the Christian Churches were agreed in one Common faith and therefore there is all the reason to believe that so universal consent must arise from some common cause which can be supposed to be no other than the common delivery of it by all the Apostles But the Doctrines of the Hereticks were novel and upstart and we must say all the former Christians were baptized into a false faith as not knowing the true God or the true Christ if Marcion and Valentinus did deliver the true Doctrine but that which is first is true and from God that which comes after is foraign and false If Marcion and Valentinus Nigidius or Hermogenes broach new opinions and set up other expositions of Scripture than the Christian Church hath received from the Apostles times that without any farther proof discovers their imposture 3. Two senses directly contrary to each other cannot proceed from the same Apostolical persons This Tertullian likewise insists upon to shew that although they might pretend Antiquity and that as far as the Apostolical times yet the contrariety of their Doctrine to that of the Apostles would sufficiently manifest the falshood of it For saith he the Apostles would never contradict each other or themselves and if the Apostolical persons had contradicted them they had not been joyned together in the Communion of the same faith which all the Apostolical Churches were But the Doctrines broached by these men were in their seeds condemned by the Apostles themselves so Marcion Apelles and Valentinus were confuted in the Sadducees and first corrupters of Christianity But the true Christians could not be charged by their Adversaries with holding any thing contrary to what the Church received from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God For the succession of the Churches was so evident and the Chairs of the Apostles so well known that any one might satisfy his curiosity about their Doctrine especially since their authentick Epistles are still preserved therein But where a diversity of Doctrine was found from the Apostles that was sufficient evidence of a false sense that was put upon the Scriptures Thus Tertullian lays down the rules of finding out the sense of controverted places of Scripture without the least insinuation of any infallibility placed in the Guides of the Church for determining the certain sense of them But lest by this way of Prescribing against Hereticks he should seem to decline the merits of the cause out of distrust of being able to manage it against them he tells us therefore elsewhere he would set aside the ground of prescription or just exception against their pleading for so prescription signifies in him as against Marcion and Hermogenes and Praxeas and refute their opinions upon other grounds In his Books against Marcion he first lays down Marcions rule as he calls it i.e. the sum of his opinion which was making the Creator of the World and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ two distinct Gods the one nothing but goodness and the other the Author of evil which opinion he overthrows from principles of reason because there cannot be two infinitely great and on the same grounds he makes two he may make many more and because God must be known by his works and he could not be God that did not create the World and so continues arguing against Marcion to the end of the first Book In the second he vindicates God the Creator from all the objections which Marcion had mustered against his goodness In the third he proves that Christ was the Son of God the Creator first by reason and then by Scripture and lays down two rules for understanding the Prophetical predictions relating to the manner of expressing future things as past and the aenigmatical way of representing plain things afterwards he proves in the same manner from Scripture and Reason that Christ did truly assume our nature and not meerly in appearance which he demonstrates from the death and resurrection of Christ and from the evidence of sense and makes that sufficient evidence of the truth of a body that it is the object of three senses of sight and touch and hearing Which is the same way of arguing we make use of against Transubstantiation and if Marcion had been so subtle to have used the Evasions those do in the Roman Church he might have defended the putative body of Christ in the very same manner that they do the being of accidents without a substance In the fourth Book he asserts against Marcion the Authority of the Gospel received in the Christian Church above that which Marcion allowed by the greater Antiquity and the universal reception of the true Gospels and after refutes the supposition of a twofold Christ one for the Jews and another for the Gentiles from the comparing of Scriptures together which he doth with great diligence and answers all the arguments from thence brought by Marcion to prove that Christ was an enemy to the Law of Moses In his fifth and last Book he proves out of the Epistles of St. Paul allowed by Marcion that he preached no other God than the Creator and that Christ was the Son of God the Creator which he doth from the scope and circumstances of the places without apprehending the least necessity of calling in any Infallible Guides to give the certain sense and meaning of them Against Hermogenes he disputes about the eternity of matter the Controversy between them he tells us was concerning the sense of some places of Scripture which relate to the Creation of things Tertullian proves that all things were made of nothing
of against the Scriptures was never so much as thought of in those days or if it were was not thought worth answering for they diâ— not in the least desert the proofs of Scripture because their Adversaries made use of it too But they endeavouâ—ed to shew that their Adversaries Doctrine had no solid Foundation in Scripture but theirs had i.e. that the Arians perverted it because they did not examine and compare places as they ought to do but run away with a few words without considering the scope and design of them or comparing them with places plainer than those were which they brought Thus when the Arians objected that place My Father is greater than I Athanasius bids them compare that with other places such as My Father and I are one and who being in the form of God thought it no robbery to be equâ—â— with God and by him all things were made c. When Arius objected to us there is but one God of whom are all things he telâ—s him he ought to consider the following words and one Lord Iesus Christ by whom are all things from whence when Arius argued that Christ was only Gods instrument in creating things Athanasius then bids him compare this place with another where it is said of whom the whole body c. Not barely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When the Arians objected Christs saying all things are delivered to me from my Father Athanasius opposes that place of St. Iohn to it By him all things were made Thus when they objected several other places he constantly hath recourse to Iohn 1. 1 2 3. to Phil. 2. 7. 1 Iohn 5. 20. and others which he thought the plainest places for Christs eternal Divinity and by these he proves that the other were to be interpreted with a respect to his humane nature and the State he was in upon Earth So that the greatest Defender of the Doctrine of the Trinity against the Arians saw no necessity at all of calling in the Assistance of any infalâ—ible Guides to give the certain sense of Scripture in these doubtful places but he thought the Scripture plain enough to all those who would impartially examine it and for others who wilfully shut their eyes no light could be great enough for them Indeed when the Arians called in the help of any of the Ancient Writers to justify their Doctrine then Athanasius thought himself concerneâ— to vindâ—cate them as particularly Dionysius of Alexandria But as he saith if they can produce Scripture or Reason for what they say let them do it but if not let them hold their peace Thereby implying that these were the only considerable things to be regarded yet he shews at large that they abused the Testimony of Dionysius who although in his letters against Sabellius he spake too much the other way yet in other of his writings he sufficiently cleared himself from being a savouâ—er of the Arian Heresie And although Athanasius doth else where say that the Faith which the Catholick Church then held was the faith of their Fore-fathers and descended from the Apostles yet he no where saith that without the help of that Tradition it had been impossible to have known the certain sense of Scripture much less without the infallible interpretation of the Guides of the present Church S. Hilary in his disputes against the same Hereticks professes in the beginning that his intention was to confound their rage and ignorance out of writings of the Prophets and Apostles and to that end desires of his Readers that they would conceive of God not according to the Laws of their own beings but according to the greatness of what he had declared of himself For he is the best Reader of Scripture who doth not bring his sense to the Scripture but takes it from it and doth not resolve before hand to find that there which he concluded must be the sence before he reads In things therefore which concern God we must allow him to know himself best and give due Reverence to his word For he is the best witness to himself who cannot be known but by himself In which words he plainly asserts that the Foundation of our Faith must be in the Scriptures and that a free and impartial mind is necessary to find out the true sense of Scripture And after he had said in the second Book that Heresies arise from misunderstanding the Scripture and charged in his fourth Book the Arians particularly with it he proceeds to answer all the places produced by them out of the old and new Testament by comparing several places together and the antecedents and consequents and by these means proving that they mistook the meaning of Scripture So in the beginning of his ninth Book rehearsing the Common places which were made use of by the Arians he saith they repeated the words alone without enquiring into the meaning or Contexture of them whereas the true sense of Scripture is to be taken from the antecedents and consequents their fundamental mistake being the applying those things to his Divine nature which were spoken of his humane which he makes good by a particular examination of the several places in Controversie The same course is taken by Epiphanius Phaebadius and others of the ancient Writers of the Church who asserted the Eternal Divinity of Christ against the Arians Epiphanius therefore charges them which mangling and perverting the sense of Scripture understanding figurative expressions literâ—â—ly and those which are intended in a plain sense figuratively So that it is observable in that great Controversie which disturbed the Church so many years which exercised the wits of all men in that time to find out a way to put an end to it after the Guides of the Church had in the Council of Nice declared what was the Catholick faith yet still the Controversie was managed about the sense of Scripture and no other ways made use of for finding it than such as we plead for at this day It is a most incredible thing that in a time of so violent contention so horrible confusion so scandalous divisions in the Christian Church none of the Catholick Bishops should once suggest this admirable Expedient of Infallibility But this Palladium was not then fallen down from heaven or if it were it was kept so secret that not one of the Writers of the Christian Church in that busie and disputing Age discovered the least knowledge of it Unless it be said that of all times it was then least fit to talk of Infallibility in the Guides of the Church when they so frequently in Councils contrâ—dicted each other The Synodical Book in the new Tomes of the Councils reckons up 31. several Councils of Bishops in the time of the Arian Controversie whereof near 20. were for the Arians and the rest against them If the sense of Scripture were in this time to be taken from the Guides of the
Church what security could any man have against Arianism since the Councils which favoured it were more numerous than those which opposed and condemned it Yea so mean was the opinion which some of the greatest persons of the Church at that time had of the Guides of the Church met together in Councils that St. Gregory Nazianzen declares he had not seen a good issue of any of them but they rather increased mischief than removed any because of the contention and ambition which ruled in them therefore he resolved to come no more at any of them What had St. Gregory so mean an esteem of the Guides of the Christian Church to think that ambition and contention should sway them in their Councils and not the spirit of God which certainly rules not where the other do Yet this de declares to be his mind upon consideration and experience in that time and if he had lived to those blessed days of the Councils of latter Ages with what zeal and Rhetorick would he have set them forth Never was any answer more jejune to this Testimony than that of Bellarmin viz. that forsooth there could be no lawful Councils called in his time and why so I pray was there not a good Authority to call them But if that had been the reason he did not so little understand the way of expressing himself to assign the cause of it to contention and ambition if he mean quite another thing which he doth not in the least intimate And what if he were afterwards present at the Council of Constantinople doth that shew that his mind was in the least changed but in this Epistle he declares how little good was to be exspected from a Council and yet afterwards by the Emperours command he might be present at one St. Augustin in dealing with Maximinus the Arian expresly sets aside all Authority of the Guides of the Church as to the sense of Scripture in the places controverted between them for he saith I will neither bring the Authority of the Council of Nice neither shall you that of Ariminum but we will proceed by Authorities of Scripture that are common to both of us and by the clearest Evidence of reason It seems then St. Augustin was far from thinking that there could be no certainty of the sense of Scripture if the Authority of the Guides of the Church be set aside But by what means doth he then think that men may come to any certainty about the true meaning of Scripture of that he is best able to give us an account himself having written purposely in this subject in his Books of Christian Doctrine the substance of what he there says may be comprehended in these Rules 1. That the main scope of the Scripture is to perswade men to the Love of God and our Neighbour without which he saith no man doth truly understand it but whosoever interprets Scripture to the advancing of that though he may be mistaken as to the sense of the words yet his errour is not dangerous 2. That in order to the right understanding of Scripture men must apply themselves to it with minds duly prepared for it by a fear of God humility prayer sincerity and purity of heart 3. That all those things which are necessary to Salvation are plainly laid down in Holy Scriptures This is in terms asserted by him as a fundamental principle that in those things which are plainly set down in Scripture all things are to be found which contain our faith and rule of life i.e. All things which are necessary to the Love of God and our Neighbour and consequently to the making us happy And these things men ought especially to read the Scriptures for and the more they find of them the larger their understanding of Scripture is 4. That the obscure places of Scripture are to be understood by the plain For which end he requires frequent reading and using ones self to the language of Scriptures and drawing examples from plain places to illustrate difficult and those which are certain to clear the doubtful For scarce any thing saith he is drawn out of the most difficult places but what is very plainly set down elsewhere 5. That in regard of the infinite variety of Latin Interpreters which it seems were in his time in matters of doubt it was necessary to have recourse to the Original Hebrew and Greek the knowledge of which tongues might therefore be necessary to the knowledge of Scripture because several words are preserved untranslated but those being few the necessity is not so great on their account as the diversity of Interpreters for although those who had translated the Hebrew into Greek might be reckoned up the Latin Interpreters could not Which diversity of translations doth rather help than hinder the understanding of Scripture if the Readers of it be not negligent for some doubtful places are cleared by the difference of readings 6. Where the ambiguity lyes in proper words the clearing of it depends on the circumstances of the place in so much that he determines that it is a very rare and difficult thing to find such an ambiguity in the words of Scripture which may not be cleared from the intention of the Writer or comparing places or searching the Original Language 7. Men must carefully distinguish between proper and figurative expressions for to understand figurative expressions literally is to subject our understanding to carnal conceptions of things and that is saith he a miserable slavery of mind to take signs for things such signs he tells us under the Gospel are the two Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords supper The great difficulty herein lyes in the finding out the difference between proper and figurative expressions for which he lays down this rule if the words of Scripture command what is good and forbid what is evil it is no figurative expression but if it forbids what is good or command any thing that is evil it must be figuratively understood For which he instances in those words of our Saviour unless ye eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man ye shall have no life in you Which seeming to command something evil must be figuratively understood of Communicating in the Passion of Christ and calling to mind that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us 8. There is no danger in different senses being given of the same place of Scripture if every one of those senses appear by other places to be agreeable to Truth This being supposed that the person do sincerely enquire after the sense of the Author For saith he that Divine Spirit might easily foresee how many several senses those words are capable of which being agreeable to other parts of Scripture though not the particular meaning of those words the mistake cannot be dangerous therein 9. Where such a sense is given which cannot be proved by other certain
Persons do not allow the Scripture then we are to proceed by the best means we can have without it viz. The tradition of Apostolical Churches from the beginning if they do allow the Scripture then we are to examine and compare places of Scripture with all the care and judgement that may be If after all this the dispute still continues then if it be against the ancient Rule of Faith universally received that is a sufficient prescription against any opinion if not against the Rule of Faith in express words but about the sense of it then if ancient General Councils have determined it which had greater opportunities of knowing the sense of the Apostolical Church than we it is reasonable we should yield to them but if there have been none such then the unanimous consent of Fathers is to be taken so it be in some late and upstart heresies which men pretend to have by Revelation or some special Grace of God Now either all these means were sufficient or not to find out the sense of Scripture if not then the ancient Church was wholly defective and wanted any certain way of finding out the sense of Scripture if these were sufficient then there is no necessity of infallibility in the Guides of the Church to give us a certain sense of Scripture which was the thing to be proved But N. O. towards the conclusion of his Book produces St. Augustin for the Churches Infallibility in delivering the sense of Scripture in obscure places which being contrary to what I have already said concerning him must be examined before I conclude this discourse about the sense of Scripture The place is out of his Answer to Cresconius concerning the obscure point of Rebaptization in these words since the holy Scripture cannot deceive let whosoever is in fear of being deceived by the obscurity of this Question consult the same Church about it which Church the holy Scripture doth without all ambiguity demonstrate And before the truth of the Holy Scriptures is held by us in this matter when we do that which hath pleased the Vniversal Church which the Authority of the Scripture does commend c. All which is false and said to no purpose saith N. O. if the Scripture be not clear in this that this Church can determine nothing in such important contests contrary to the verity of the Scriptures and that we ought to give credit to what she decides for then it would not be true what he says the truth of the same Scripture in this matter is held by us and he who is in fear of being deceived by the obscurity of this Question is no way relieved in following the sentence of the Churth To which I answer That St. Augustin doth not suppose that men cannot attain to any certainty of the the sense of Scripture in this matter without the Churches Infallibility for he saith in the Chapter preceding that in this matter we follow the most certain Authority of Canonical Scriptures but he puts the case that no certain example could be produced out of Scripture then he saith they had the truth of the Scriptures when they do that which pleased the Vniversal Church c. For the explaining St. Augustins meaning we are to consider that there were two Controversies then on foot in the Church with the Donatists the one concerning Rebaptization the other concerning the Church the former he looks upon as more intricate and obscure by reason not only of the doubtfulness of Scripture but the Authority of about seventy Bishops of Africa who had determined for it among whom St. Cyprian was chief which we see in all his disputes with the Donatisis on this subject he is very much perplexed with therefore St. Augustin finding that Controversie very troublesome was willing to bring it to that issue that what the Catholick Church after so much discussing the point had agreed upon should be received as the truth By this means the dispute would be brought to that other Question which he thought much more easie viz. Which was the true Church the Catholick or the Donatists but by no means doth St. Augustin hereby intend to make the Churches Authority to resolve all doubts concernig Scriptures but he thought it much easier to prove by Scripture which was the true Church than whether rebaptization were lawful or not And accordingly his very next words are but if you doubt whether the Vniversal Church be that which the Scripture commends I will load you with many and most manifest Testimonies of Scripture to that end Which is the design of his Book of the Vnity of the Church wherein he shews That those Testimonies of Scripture which speak of the Universality of the Church are very plain and clear and needed no interpretation at all that in this case we are not to regard what Donatus or Parmenianus or Pontius hath said for neither saith he are we to yield to Catholick Bishops themselves if they be at any time so much deceived as to hold what is contrary to Canonical Scriptures By which it is evident that he supposed no infallibility in the Guides of the Church And in terms he asserts that the Church is to be proved by nothing but plain Scriptures neither by the Authority of Optatus or St. Ambrose or innumerable Bishops nor Councils nor Miracles nor visions and Revelations whatever N. O. thinks of them now St. Augustin supposing there was much less ambiguity in Scripture in the Controversie of the Church than in that of Rebaptization he endeavours to bring them to a resolution in the other point for the clearing of this and so he only pursues the method laid down in the Books of Christian Doctrine to make use of plainer places of Scripture to give light to the darker And when they were convinced by Scripture that the Catholick Church was the true Church of Christ he doth not question but they would follow that which was the sentence of the Catholick Church But here lyes the main difficulty on what account the sentence of the Church was to be followed In order to the resolution of it we must take notice of these things 1. That all the proofs which St. Augustin brings for the Church do relate only to the extent and Vniversality of it and not to any Infallibility that is promised to it as will easily appear to any one that will read his discourses on that subject against the Donatists 2. That he asserts no infallibility in the highest Authority of the Church which in many places of his Books of Baptism against the Donatists he makes to be a Plenary or General Council whose Authority he saith was to be preferred before that of St. Cyprian or any particular Councils either in his time or before it which he calls the Authority and decrees of the Vniversal Church So that we see he resolves all the Authority of the Church in this matter into that of a General
there must be orders and Constitutions whereby all must be kept within their due bounds and there must be persons appointed to instruct the Ignorant to satisfy the doubting to direct the unskilful and to help the weak It belongs to such a Society not barely to provide for necessity but safety and not meerly the safety of particular persons but of it self which cannot be done without prudent orders fixing the bounds of mens imployments and not suffering every pretender to visions and Revelations to set up for a new Sect or which is all one a new Order of Religious men How comes it now to pass that by saying that men considered barely as Christians may understand all that is necessary to their Salvation I do overthrow all Authority of a Church and make all men Prophets Do I in the least mention mens teaching others or being able themselves to put a difference between what is so necessary and what not or doth S. C. suppose that all that understand what is necessary to Salvation have no need to be ruled and governed If he thinks so I assure him I am quite of another opinion and do make no question but that Government ought to be preserved in a Church though the necessaries to Salvation be known to all in it and so I suppose doth any one else that in the least considers what he says By this we see that S. C ' s. recrimination of Fanaticism on our Church by vertue of this principle is as feeble as the Defence he hath made for his own of which he may hear in due time But if there be any Fanaticism in this principle we have the concurrence of the greatest and wisest persons of the Christian Church in it Two of them especially have in terms said as much as I have done St. Augustin in his Books of Christian Doctrine already mentioned and St. Chrysostome in as plain words as may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All things are plain and right in the holy Scriptures all necessary things are manifest Let S. C. now charge all the dreadful consequences of this principle on St. Chrysostome and tell him that he destroyed all Church-Authority and laid the Foundation for the height of Fanaticism Nay S. Chrysâ—stome goes much higher than I do for he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. If I had made the Guides of the Church so useless as St. Chrysostome seems to do in these words what passionate and hideous out-crys would S. C. have made And by this let the skill or ingenuity of S. C. be tryed who says that I cannot find out one single short sentence in Antiquity to support the main pillar of my Religion which he supposes this principle to be and for the finding out the sense of Scripture without the help of Infallibility I have produced more out of Antiquity in this discourse than either he or his whole partie will be able to Answer 3. Not the denying the Authority of the Church of Rome Which I must do till I see some better proofs for it than I have ever yet done But how doth this destroy all Authority in a Church can there be none but what is derived from Rome I do not think I do in the least diminish the Kings Authority by denying that he derives it from the Cham of Tartary or the Great Mogol although they may challenge the Lordship of the whole Earth to themselves and may pretend very plausible reasons that it would be much more for the quiet and conveniency of mankind to be all under one universal Monarch and that none have so fair a pretence to it as they that have challenged the Right of it to themselves and yet for all this I do verily believe the King hath an unquestionable right to his Kingdom and a just Authority over all his subjects The time was when the first of Genesis would serve to prove the Popes title and the Suns ruling by day was thought a clear argument for his supremacy but the world is now altered and all the wit and subtility that hath been since used hath not been able to make good that crackt title of Universal Pastorship which the Bishops of Rome have taken to themselves But although we disown the Popes Authority as an unjust usurpation we assert and plead for the Authority of the Church and the Bishops who are placed therein who derive their power to Govern the Church from Christ and not from the Pope And I dare appeal to any Person whether the asserting the Bishops deriving their Authority from Christ or from the Pope be the better way of defending their Power We are not now disputing what Authority were fit to be entrusted in the Popes hands supposing all other differences composed and that things were in the same State wherein they were in the times of the 4. General Councils in which case it ought to be considered how far it might be convenient to give way to such an Authority so apt to grow extravagant and which hath been stretched so very far beyond what the Canons allowed that it hath challenged Infallibility to it self but the thing at present under debate is whether the disallowing the Papal Hierarchy doth overthrow all Authority in the Episcopal which is in effect to ask whether there be any other power besides the Popes in the Church for if there be any other the denying the Popes Authority over us cannot in the least diminish the just Authority of Bishops The only considerable Question in this case is whether the rejecting that Hierarchy which was in being at the the time of the Reformation doth not make way for the peoples rejecting the Authority of our Bishops and consequently no Authority in the Church can be maintained unless we again yield to the Papal Authority This I suppose to be N. O. meaning when he tells us by Church-Authority he means that Superior and more comprehensive Body of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy which in any dissent and division of the Clergy according to the Church Canons ought to be obeyed And any particular Church divided from this more universal cannot with the least pretence of reason challenge submission from her subjects since she her self and particularly the Church of England refused the same to all the Authority extant in the world when she separated her self To this I answer That the Church of England in Reforming her self did not oppose any just Authority then extant in the World It is to no purpose to make sâ—ch loud clamours about our Churches refusing submission to all the Authority then extant in the World unless there be better Evidence produced for it than we have yet seen For it is very well known that the dispute was then concerning the Popes Supremacy over our Church which we have all along asserted to have been a notorious encroachment upon the liberties of our Church And the Popes usurpations were 〈◊〉 injurious both to the Ecclesiastical and Civil
in which time he would sin mortally by omitting contrition if he were obliged to it but this saith he is against the common opinion of Divines that a man contracts any new guilt by omitting contrition Nay he afterwards determins that a man that hath received the Sacrament of Penance with bare attrition is not bound under the guilt of mortal sin for omitting it to an act of contrition at the point of death which is he saith the commonly received opinion among them and he quotes Diana Coninch Becanus Layman Fagundez Faber Turrianus Salas and others for it The great argument he brings is because Confessors do not think themselves obliged to put men in mind of an act of contrition at that time as necessary as common experience shews And are not such Confessors excellent Guides to Heaven the mean while If they be they have found out a much broader way and wider gate than ever Christ intended What not one single act of contrition necessary No not at the point of death What pity it is for sinners you have not the keeping of Heaven-gates How do they want the Sacrament of Penance in Hell for no doubt there is attrition good store there But above all of them commend me to honest Gregor de Valentiâ who not only makes contrition unnecessary but saith it is rather a hindrance to the effect of the Sacraments From whence Morinus justly infers that a Confessor ought not to perswade the Penitent to Contrition nor the penitent to endeavour after it Nay Morinus shews that grave men and famous in their Church do assert that a Penitent having received the Sacrament of Penance is not bound to so much as one act of contrition or the Love of God in order to his reconciliation with God Yea although a man hath hated God to the last act of his life if he receives the Sacrament of Penance they deny that it is necessary for him to be contrite for his sins or to love God Nothing could go beyond this but what follows in him that the excellency of the Evangelical Sacraments above the legal consists in this that the Evangelical Sacraments have freed us from the most heavy yoke 〈◊〉 of contrition and the Love of God O admirable Guides of Conscience I do not at all question but Jews Turks and Heathens have a much better and truer notion of Repentance than these men the Pagan Philosophers were Christians to them And what injury have I done them now in charging such things upon them which obstruct devotion and overthrow the necessity of a good life For I hardly think it possible to contrive a Doctrine more effectual for that end than to tell men that the Sacraments of the Gospel do free men from that heavy yoke Contrition and the Love of God But supposing there were no such Foundation for this Doctrine in the Council of Trent as we see there is would there be no danger to mens Salvation if their Confessors generally told then these things and they knew it to be thâ— current opinion among them Is there 〈◊〉 danger of falling into the ditch wheâ— the Blind lead the Blind unless General Council expresly allow of it 〈◊〉 there no danger by Empericks aâ—â— Mountebanks unless the whole Coâ—ledge of Physicians approve them Anâ— of all sorts of Empericks the worst aâ—â— such Casuists and Confessors Is therâ— no way to magnify the Sacerdotal office unless they have a Power to Trepan Soul into eternal flames for want of true repentance by making them believe thâ— Priests absolution with bare attritioâ— will make all even with God Or 〈◊〉 this Doctrine only a Decoy to draw great sinners into your nets And all this while is your Church innocent which at least sees and will not reform these things In A. D. 1665. 24. of September and 18. May 1666. the Congregation of the Inquisition at Rome under Alexander 7. took upon them to censure 45. several Propositions of the late Casuists as scandalous and pernicious to the Souls of men but not one of them relates to this Doctrine of repentance although the Jansenists in France had complained of it Whence could this arise but from looking on it as the Doctrine of their Church Indeed I find that on May 5. 1667. The Pope caused a Decree to be published straitly forbidding all persons in their debates about Attrition to condemn each other but it is worth our while to understand what this controversie was viz. Whether bare attrition doth require an act of the love of God and although the Negative be there said to be the more common opinion yet the Pope would not have the others that affirmed it to be censured But not the least word against the sufficiency of bare attrition Are any of the Books censured which assert this Doctrine Nay they are published with great approbations Are any of the Defenders of it discountenanced Nay they are Persons in the highest esteem dignity and Authority among them Are any cautions given to Confessors to beware of these Doctrines Nay these very Books are purposely written and approved for their instruction and use And if their Church be innocent after all this so was the Iewish Church in our Saviours time for the corruptions that were then among them had no decree of the Sanhedrin that I find for them it was only their Schoolmen and Casuists the Scribes and Pharisees which introduced them And yet our Saviour thought mens Souls in danger when he bid them beware of the leaven of the Pharisees I confess when we debate the causes of Separation from their Communion we think it then reasonable to alledge no more than what they impose on all to believe and practice and we have enough of all Conscience in that kind without going farther but when we represent the hazard of Salvation to particular persons we may then justly charge them with the pernicious Doctrines and practices which are received and allowed among them although not decreed by the Church in Councils For otherwise it would be just as if one should say to a man that asked him whether he might safely travel through such a Country yes without doubt you may for although there be abundance of Thieves and High-waymen yet the Prince or the State never approved them or gave them licence to rob Travellers Do you think any man would venture his person or his purse on no better security Yet such security as this if it were true is all that such moderate men as O. N. or his Brethren can give as to the Roman Church for they dare not deny the bad consequence of the Doctrines and practices charged upon them but only say the Church hath not decreed them So much I thought necessary to say to this newest and most plausible pretence which is made use of by the best Advocates for the Roman Church And now farewel to Moderation for the two next which appeared on the Stage against me
were two Jesuits the one sent over a Book which if we look only at the bulk and thickness was a very substantial one called by an odd Antiphrasis Reason and Religion I have endeavoured to draw off all the Spirit I could find in it in the following discourses but I am forced to leave a vast quantity of Phlegm and Caput Mortuum behind I shall say no more of him here having occasion to speak so much of him in the Discourses about the Principles of faith which will in a little time be ready to appear The other is the stout Defender of lgnatius Loyola and the whole Order of Jesuits What one man undertake to defend the Jesuits as to their Principles and Practices and that in this Age which so well understands their Maxims and Conduct and in England too where those of other Orders and the Secular Priests love them so dearly But nothing is too brave or difficult for a Jesuit to attempt however he comes off in it As to Ignatius Loyola I will come to terms with him if what he confesses as to his ignorant zeal pious simplicity frequent visions and extasies extravagant preaching unmannerly contempt of Superiours do not prove him a Fanatick I am content to let him go But what if Ignatius himself being grown old did suspect such frequent extasies and visions for illusions I desire him to look Ribadineira in his larger life to that purpose But this matter of Fanaticism must be referred to another place I shall now only give a tast of the Jesuits excellent way of defending the principles destructive to Government which I charged his Order with The first was that Government was so originally in the People that they by their Representatives may call their Soveraign to an account and alter the form of Government Now mark this Answer This principle whatsoever truth it may have in speculation is by no means to be preached to the People who are apt enough of themselves to stretch cases and pick quarrels with their best Governours yet was it taught many Ages before the Jesuits were so much as thought of Welfare the man for his plain-dealing the Doctrine it seems is true enough but the people are not fit to be trusted with the management of it no not in their places and callings no no let the Jesuits alone with these things they know just the very nick of time when to be Iudges and Executioners too The next principle is the Popes power of deposing Princes to which he again answers roundly You are then to know Sir that the Doctrine was long ago taught by almost all Orders and Professions Seculars Regulars Divines Lawyers before the Jesuits were in Being A very Catholick Doctrine it seems it is What a stirr do other people make with mincing this matter I know not how give me a man that speaks out and lets Princes understand what their general Doctrine is in this matter lest they may possibly be deceived as though it were only the bold assertion of some few Persons among them What wonder then saith he if Bellarmin and 3. or 4. more Jesuits were carried away with such a Torrent of Doctors who went before them Nay in my opinion the only wonder is how any Persons among them dare think otherwise this Doctrin having as he tells us so Catholick a consent to the truth of it But in earnest Sir is the Doctrine true or false Nay Sir I beseech you to excuse me in that for as he saith afterwards about the Popes power 〈◊〉 absolving Subjects I beg leave to wave such curious controversieâ— What a Jesuit beg leave to wave curious controversies What is become 〈◊〉 all their vast Tomes of Scholastical anâ— Casuistical Divinity Are no curious controversies handled in them Anâ— were you bred up among them and yet haâ—â— controversies meerly because curious No no We understand you better than so That is only a curious controversies with you which endangers your safety if you speak out for it is a needless kind of curiosity for a man to betray himself Here in these practical Countries it is sometimes dangerous speaking Truth in their sense but at such a speculative place as Rome is there those may be wholesome and Catholick Truths which â—ere are but niceties and curiosities But doth he not say the Jesuits have solemnly renounced the Doctrine Yes but have a care how far you believe him we poor simple Islanders might understand by this that they had declared it to be false and pernicious There is no such matter I will assure you but upon the stirrs in France they renounced the publishing it they renounced it as they were in France but thought it good Doctrine at Rome they are forbidden to treat any more of it because of the odiousness of it to Princes and that is all the renouncing they ever meant The third Principle is the lawfulness of killing Kings as to which he saith he cannot name the person that ever taught it in those Terms a good reason for that because when they would have them killed they call them Tyrants And so grants Dominicus Soto and Marian have asserted it he might have namse more if he had pleased I could not desâ— a more pleasant task than to pursue 〈◊〉 through the remainder of his discourse wherein he undertakes to vindicate the Jesuits practices but these have been much exposed by men of their own Region that I may spare my pains in thâ— Preface and we may easily guess hâ— hard he was put to it when he makâ— the letter of the Bishop of Angelopol to be forged at Port-Royal by the Jaâ— senists And thus he hath shifted 〈◊〉 fault from the Indies to Europe 〈◊〉 to vindicate some Papists there freâ— Idolatry he charges others here with forgeâ— And â—et to this as a full Answer the 〈◊〉 Ansâ—erer of the Seasonable Discourâ— doth referr us And out of his admiral learning and skill in History desires 〈◊〉 Adversary for his satisfaction that the can be no danger of Resuming Abby Lanâ— of Popery should return to go into Germany where there are so many Papist and Protestant Princes Noble men and Gentlemen that have especially since the Treaty at Munster either Bishopricks Abbeys or the like confirmed to them by the Pope How confirmed to them by the Pope what will not these men dare to say I perceive Ignorance serves them for other purposes than meerly to be the Mother of Devotion If at least this worthy Author could be Ignorant of so notorious a thing as Pope Innocents Bull published on purpose to Null the Treaty at Munster as prejudicial to the Catholick Religion to the Apostolical See to Churches and other Holy Places and Persons and Ecclesiastical Rights In the body of the Bull he saith that his Nuncio there who was afterwards Pope Alexander the seveth did protest against these Articles as void null unjust and agreed upon by persons that had no