not by forcing of Assent destroy the Nature and Virtue of it and he hath declar'd that he will permit Heresies that those who are approved and excellent Christians may be distinguished from those who are not This Expedient of the Romanists is like that of the Atheist Spinoza who has left the following Maxim to the World as his Legacy for Peace viz. That the Object of Faith is not Truth but Obedience and the quiet of human Society And they say in effect Shut all your Eyes and agree in one who shall lead you all and you will all go one way But the difficulty lies in getting them to agree It is not difficult to say a great deal more upon this Subject but in stead of that which might be here offer'd from myself I will refer the Reader to a Book lately publish'd and call'd A Discourse concerning a Iudge in Controversies if he be not satisfi'd with that which Mr. Chillingworth hath said long ago and to which this Author has here said nothing You say again confidently That if this Infallibility be once impeach'd every Man is given over to his own Wit and Discourse By which if you mean Discourse not guiding itself by Scripture but only by Principles of Nature or perhaps by Prejudices and popular Errors and drawing Consequences not by Rule but by Chance is by no means true If you mean by Discourse Right Reason grounded on Divine Revelation and common Notions written by God in the Hearts of all Men and deducing according to the never-failing Rules of Logick consequent Deductions from them If this be it which you mean by Discourse it is very meet and reasonable and necessary that Men as in all their Actions so especially in that of greatest importance the choice of their way to Happiness should be left unto it And he that follows this in all Opinions and Actions and does not only seem to do so follows always God whereas he that followeth a Company of Men may oft-times follow a Company of Beasts And in saying this I say no more than S. Iohn to all Christians in these words Dearly Beloved believe not every Spirit but try the Spirits whether they be of God or no And the Rule he gives them to make this tryal by is to consider whether they Confess IESUS to be Christ that is the Guide of their Faith and Lord of their Action not Whether they acknowledge the Pope to be his Vicar I say no more than S. Paul in exhorting all Christians To try all things and hold fast that which is good Than S. Peter in commanding all Christians To be ready to give a reason of the hope that is in them Then our Saviour himself in forewarning all his Followers that if they blindly followed blind Guides both Leaders and Followers should fall into the Ditch And again in saying even to the People Yea and why of your selves judge ye not what is right And though by Passion or Precipitation or Prejudice by want of Reason or not using what they have Men may be and are oftentimes lead into Error and Mischief yet that they cannot be misguided by Discourse truly so called such as I have described you yourself have given them security For what is Discourse but drawing Conclusions out of Premises by good Consequence Now the Principles which we have setled to wit the Scriptures are on all sides agreed to be Infallibly true And you have told us in the Fourth Chapter of this Pamphlet That from Truth no Men can by good Consequence infer Falshood Therefore by Discourse no Man can possibly be led to error but if he erre in his Conclusions he must of Necessity either err in his Principles which here cannot have place or commit some error in his Discourse that is indeed not Discourse but seem to do so 13. You say Thirdly with sufficient confidence That if the true Church may err in defining what Scriptures be Canonical or in delivering the sense thereof then we must follow either the private Spirit or else natural Wit and Iudgment and by them examine what Scriptures contain true or false Doctrine and in that respect ought to be received or rejected All which is apparently untrue neither can any proof of it be pretended For though the present Church may possibly err in her Judgment touching this matter yet have we other directions in it besides the private Spirit and the Examination of the Contents which latter way may conclude the Negative very strongly to wit that such or such a Book cannot come from God because it contains irreconcileable Contradictions but the Affirmative it cannot conclude because the Contents of a Book may be all true and yet the Book not Written by Divine inspiration other direction therefore I say we have besides either of these three and that is the Testimony of the Primitive Christians 14. You say Fourthly with convenient boldness that this Infallible Authority of the Church being denied no Man can be assured that any parcel of the Scripture was Written by Divine Inspiration Which is an untruth for which no proof is pretended and besides void of Modesty and full of Iniquity The First because the Experience of Innumerable Christians is against it who are sufficiently assured that the Scripture is Divinely inspired and yet deny the Infallible Authority of your Church or any other The Second because if I have not ground to be assured of the Divine Authority of Scripture unless I first believe your Church Infallible then can I have no ground at all to believe it Because there is no ground nor can any be pretended why I should believe the Church Infallible unless I first believe the Scripture Divine 15. Fifthly and lastly You say with confidence in abundance that none can deny the Infallible Authority of your Church but he must abandon all infused Faith and True Religion if he do but understand himself Which is to say agreeable to what you had said before and what out of the abundance of the Heart you speak very often that all Christians besides you are open Fools or concealed Atheists All this you say with notable Confidence as the manner of Sophisters is to place their Confidence of Prevailing in their Confident manner of Speaking but then for the Evidence you promis'd to maintain this Confidence that is quite vanished and become invisible Hitherto I have been arguing against our Author but now in the close I cannot but joyn with him in his Protestants Exhortation to Humility It is an Admirable Virtue and may God grant to me and to all Men a greater Measure of it It is a Virtue proper even for Guides in Religion that they may humbly help the Faith of others and not exercise Dominion over it And because a late Writer has been pleas'd to suffer this severe censure to drop from his Pen it is the less to be admir'd that our Author is such a stranger to that Spirit of
to the last Conference where our Author reasons to this effect THE Protestants imagine they excuse themselves from Schism by alledging that they left a Corrupt part of the Church meaning the Roman and Reform'd themselves That the Schism is theirs who caus'd it that they are united to all Churches in Charity and in the unity of the Catholick Church being with them in all things in which they are obliged to be with them And in the rest they are hindred from external Communion by the sinful Conditions which a particular Church puts upon them The Socinians say the same thing for themselves with reference to other Communions besides the Roman therefore the Protestant justifies the Plea of the Socinian in Relation to Schism The same Answer serves for the same Objection Socinians say as Protestants do but the reason is on the side of the latter and not on the former And our Author himself with respect to his Instance of the Divinity of the Son of God will by no means say that the Sociâ—…ians who make that Article where impos'd a sinful condition of Communion can by saying so excuse themselves from Schism whilst they any where refuse external Communion upon the pretence of that Article as not Christian. A Romanist cannot say that it is not sufficiently propos'd to the Socinians and that it was never in their power to be convinc'd If they will turn this upon us with reference to our not separating from them but standing where we were after having in Christian and Legal manner also thrown off the Corruptions which were unagreeable to the Primitive Christianity we will try it over again with them by Scripture Antiquity and Reason and the Impartial World shall judge if it pleases Whether the Additional Articles in the Creed of Pope Pius are of God or Men. For this point of Schism as here manag'd the reasoning of this Fifth Conference was long ago confuted by Mr. Chillingworth But our Author did not condescend to take notice of it though he cites many other Words of Mr. Chillingworth not far from these But a Cunning Marks-Man will not put that into his Gun which may make it Recoil However I shall be bold to produce the Words which he in all probability did studiously omit Whereas D. Potter says there is a great difference between a Schism from them and a Reformation of ourselves This you say is a quaint Subtilty by which all Schism and Sin may be as well excused It seems then in your Judgment that Thieves and Adulterers and Murtherers and Traytors may say with as much probability as Protestants that they do no hurt to others but only Reform themselves But then methinks it is very strange that all Protestants should agree with one consent in this defence of themselves from the imputation of Schism And that to this day never any Thief or Murtherer should have been heard of to make use of this Apology And then for Schismatiques I would know whether Victor Bishop of Rome who Excommunicated the Churches of Asia for not conforming to his Church in keeping Easter whether Novatian that divided from Cornelius upon pretence that himself was elected Bishop of Rome when indeed he was not whether Felicissimus and his Crew that went out of the Church of Carthage and set up Altar against Altar because having fallen in persecution they might not be restored to the Peace of the Church presently upon the Intercession of the Confessors whether the Donatists who divided from and damned all the World because all the World would not Excommunicate them who were accused only and not convicted to have been Traditors of the Sacred Books whether they which for the slips and infirmities of others which they might and ought to Tolerate or upon some difference in matters of Order and Ceremony or for some Error in Doctrine neither pernicious nor hurtful to Faith or Piety separate themselves from others or others from themselves or lastly whether they that put themselves out of the Churches Unity and Obedience because their Opinions are not approved there but reprehended and confuted or because being of impious Conversation they are impatient of their Churches Censure I would know I say whether all or any of these may with any Face or without extream Impudency put in this Plea of Protestants and pretend with as much likelyhood as they that they did not separate from others but only reform themselves But suppose they were so impudent as to say so in their own Defence falsly doth it follow by any good Logick that therefore this Apology is not to employ'd by Protestants who may say so truly We make say they no Schism from you but only a Reformation of ourselves This you reply is no good justification because it may be pretended by any Schismatique Very true any Schismatique that can speak may say the same Words as any Rebel that makes Conscience the Cloak of his impious Disobedience may say with S. Peter and S. Iohn We must obey God rather than Men But then the Question is whether any Schismatique may say so truly And to this Question you say just nothing But conclude because this defence may be abused by some it must be used by none As if you should have said S. Peter and S. Iohn did ill to make such an Answer as they made because impious Hypocrites might make use of the same to palliate their Disobedience and Rebellion against the Lawful Commands of Lawful Authority The Conclusion AFter all this causeless finding fault with the Plea of the Protestant what is it that the Romanists aim at and after what manner would they mend this Plea They will tell you This seems to be the Consequence of the late way taken up by many Protestants viz. That in stead of the Roman Church her setting up some Men the Church-Governors as Infallible in Necessaries here is set up by them every Christian if he will both Infallible in all Necessaries and certain that he is so They will endeavour to persuade you that the Great Ends they aim at are Truth and Peace And that these Blessed Ends are never to be universally attain'd without an Infallible Church to which all may submit their Judgments in Religion and by such submission preserve Unity They will continue their discourse and say Without such a Judge every Mans Reason is Reason and every Mans Scripture is Scripture and he is left to run wild after his own Imaginations And though a Man is not in the right he will not yield he is so till it is given against him by an Infallible Judge But Men must first be satisfi'd that there is such a Judge and who he is and where and how to be found and how far Men will follow him When there was such a Judge on Earth the most Infallible High-Priest the Blessed IESUS prejudic'd and perverse Men would neither be of One Faith nor of One Heart The Wisdom of God will
was conceiv'd in the Body of the Virgin That the Question Whether Christ was before the World or after it is of no moment That his Blood is not a proper Sacrifice That the Holy Spirit is not any Person at all either Divine or Created That those who are not Ordained by others may step forth and preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments That although Officers are generally employ'd in those Functions yet other Christians are not under Obligation to forbear the performance of them That Baptism is none of Christ's perpetual Precepts in his Church That it may be used in admitting those of riper years into a Church but not as a necessary Christian Rite That to hold it to be such is to add to the Scriptures That it is an indifferent Ceremony and if to be us'd it is to be us'd in the admission of those who come from some other Religion to Christianity That in the words of Christ This Cup is the New Covenant in my Blood which is shed for you there is a Solaecism or false Grammar and that there are many such Incongruities in the New Testament That it is an abuse of the Lords Supper to believe that it confers any benefit upon us conveighs any Grace from God or give us any further assurance of his favour That it is Idolatry to kneel at the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and that it may be Celebrated with the Head cover'd If these Doctrines be the results of due Industry in searching the Scriptures Prejudâ—…ce and Negligence may likewise put in their Plea as Preparatives to true Interpretation But farther in the very manner of Socinian Exposition there is apparent failure For though the Holy Writers express the same thing very differently and without respect to nicety of Words as is evident from the several forms of Words us'd in representing Christs Institution of the Lords Supper yet the Socinians make Interpretations of places which relate to the great Articles of Christian Faith to turn upon subtleties of Grammatical construction For Example sake they perplex the most comfortable Doctrine of Christs satisfaction with curious observations about the Particle For Whereas our Churchmen make the Old Testament the Key of the New and finding plainly that the Sacrifices of Attonement under the Law were the Types of the Offering the Blood of Jesus upon the Cross they conclude that God with respect to Christs Death in the quality of the great Expiation did admit the guilty World into a reconcileable Estate I might add that by coming to particulars the Socinian Prejudice and insincere Artifice in expounding such places of Holy Writ as concern their Scheme will appear to all unbyassed Readers I will instance in the Interpretation of that place in S. Iohn No Man hath Ascended up to Heaven but he that came down from Heaven even the Son of Man which is in Heaven Socinus for the avoiding a twofold nature in Christ by which he might be both in Heaven and in Earth and exist before he was born of a Virgin sets down a twofold Evasion in the place of an Explication First he interprets Ascending into Heaven by seeking after Heavenly things and Descending from Heaven by having Learned such Celestial things And to make all sure he takes the hardiness to say in the Second Place that as S. Paul was snatch'd up into the third Heavens and let down again so the Man Christ Jesus was taken up into Heaven somewhile before his Death and made some stay there And by his coming down again he explaineth his going forth from the Father his Ascending into Heaven his being in Heaven If this be Interpreting what is Perverting Sixthly Whereas in the end of this first-Conference the Author himself speaks as a third Person and a Romanist and raises a doubt about the certainty any Man can arrive at in having rightly used his Industry I would only ask him Whether a Man cannot be as sure of his industry in consulting his Reason and the Scriptures as in attending on Councils Fathers Decrees of Popes and the Method of the Major part of Church-Governors in the Universal Church of all Ages For the Argument of the Second Conference this is the Substance of it THE Socinians Plead that they ought not to receive the Article of the Divinity of Christ from the Major part of Church-Governors That it was not originally in the Creed That no Article ought to be receiv'd from Church-Authority till Men are convinc'd that it is grounded on the Scripture which Conviction they want Now unless the Church were Infallible in all she determin'd or at least in distinguishing those necessaries in which she cannot err from Points which are not of such necessity she cannot justifie her self in putting her Definitions into a Creed Protestants not withstanding they own the Article of Christs Divinity and urge the whole Creed into which it is put do yet argue after the manner of the Socinians against Church-Authority and plead the Scripture as their Ground and a necessity of Conviction therefore whilst they continue this kind of Plea they cannot by Church-Authority either justifie themselves or confute their Adversaries All this reasoning may be confuted by these distinct Answers 1. We have no need of confuting Arians and Socinians by Church-Authority seeing we can do it more effectually out of the Scriptures and if they say that the Scriptures are on their side their saying so does not alter the Nature of Truth And the Romanists allow that they say not true and they may be confuted when they are not silenc'd Protestants decline not a disputation with Socinians by the Rule of Primitive Church-Authority But if they undervalue this rule it is discretion in Protestants to debate the matter with them in a way which they themselves best like of seeing that is also a more certain as well as a more speedy way to Victory 2. Protestants do not well understand what Romanists mean by Church-Authority for some of their Doctors can by a new figure of their own make a part and the whole of the Church to be the same They do not think that the present Major part of Church-Governors throughout the Church can be their Rule because the People cannot always know which is that Part or that it ought to be their Rule because in some Ages the Minor part is the wiser and better Let not the Roman Church be griev'd at this as said from me Vincentius Lirinensis said it long ago that in the Arian times there was a general darkness even over the face of the Latin Church In the mean time they are made to suppose by this Author what they do not suppose that the judgment of the Catholick Church is not Infallible in judging what points are necessary what are not For though this or that Church or party of Christians may fail yet all cannot at once for then the Church