my life had been For by making me so active in those times when I was uncapable of understanding what they were he seems to represent me as one that had so passionate a zeal for Presbytery in my cradle that I would suck of none but a Scottish Nurse that the first word I pronounced was Covenant that I would go to School to none but Lay-Elders and was cursing Meroz before the Parliament at eight years old Is not this a hopeful beginning for a good Legend Will he saith he or they damn the execrable Covenant as though I had ever any thing to do with it but when I renounced it If I should tell him that as great a Friend as he takes me to have been to Presbytery and the late times even then I was entred into Episcopal Orders by a most worthy and learned Prelate of our Church that I never subscribed any Address to the Usurpers as some in the World have done and those who would now be thought the Kings most loyal Subjects that I never drew off any one person from their Allegiance to the King to submit to to the Popes Nuncio let those who did it clear themselves even such an Apology would give too much countenance to so pitiful a Calumniator I thank him that he hath not charged me with laying the first platform of Presbytery at Geneva or having a hand in the first and second Admonitions in the days of Queen Elizabeth and I might as will charge him with the Gunpowder Treason as he doth me with any thing about the Covenant By this we may guess what Ecclesiastical History we are to expect from him who writes so at random about the matters of our own times But the man is to be pitied he was under one of Mother Juliana's fits he writ with a good mind but he knew not what Some vent must be given to a violent fermentation else the vessel might burst asunder and I hope the good man is somewhat more at ease since he purged away so much Choler I assure him I can with pleasure read what he wrote with rage and laugh at the violence of such passions which like a Gun ill charged may give fire and make a great noise but doth the greatest mischief to him that holds it If I would pursue him through all his heats I must undergo the Ordeal-tryal touch firebrands without hurting my self which although I might do yet I know my Adversaries are so implacable that even that would not convince them of my innocence I leave him therefore to grow cooler and wiser but I beseech him for his own sake that he would attempt no more the justifying the union of nothing with nothing and for the sake of Religion that he would not call God any more an incomprehensible Nothing a Description fit only for the Atheists Catechism If there were any thing in his railing Book which looked like reason or argument I might perhaps at my leisure be perswaded to answer it though I do not love to have to do with mad men no not in their lucid intervals The next that follows is one that goes about to vindicate the Roman Churches devotions and Doctrine of Repentance and Indulgencies he is a meer pattern of meekness compared with S. C. he writes pertinently and without the others bitterness and passion His great endeavour is to clear the honour of his Church from the absurd Doctrines and practices charged upon it And the force of all he saith lies in this that where the Church hath defined nothing in her Councils it is to no purpose to object that such Doctrines are taught by some in it for those who defend their separation from the Communion of a Church by reason of its erroneous or corrupt Doctrines must make it appear that those are taught by it and the belief of them also exacted from its subjects To this purpose S. C. likewise speaks in some of his lucid intervalls and I perceive this is become a common Topick among them to take off the odium of such opinions and practices as they are willing enough but ashamed to defend which I shall in this place briefly remove The thing I was to prove was that persons in the Communion of the Roman Church do run great hazard of their Salvation for which I instanced particularly in several opinions and practices which are very apt to hinder a good life which is necessary to Salvation Now a twofold Question here arises 1. Whether the Church may justly be charged with those Doctrines and practices 2. Whether although the Church may not directly be charged to have decreed them in her Councils yet so much countenance and encouragement be not commonly given to them in that Church that particular persons do run great hazard of their salvation by reason of them For which we are to consider that it hath been the method of the Roman Church to allow many more things in common belief and practice than it hath dared for very shame to decree in Councils especially when such things have been objected by her enemies In this case it hath been thought the most prudent course for the Councils to speak deceitfully and in general terms so as to give as little advantage as may be to their enemies and yet to retain ground enough to uphold their former opinions and practices Which still continuing in Vogue and reputation become so much the more dangerous to mens Souls because their Councils having had opportunity to have declared effectually against them were so far from it that by their doubtful expressions they have left ground enough for the continuance of them Now from hence the Directors of Conscience among them frame their opinions and the people think it their duty blindly to follow them and supposing any one among them should scruple any such Doctrine or practice to whom must he resort but to his Confessors and will any such dare to condemn what is generally received although not decreed by Councils or if he should dare any person rely on his private judgement when it is contrary to the most received Doctrine or practice Besides the promises of Infallibility are supposed by them to be primarily made to the Church and only by way of representation to the Council and therefore Doctrines or practices generally received and allowed by the Teachers of the Church and the Guides of conscience must be received by them as true and good for otherwise those promises would fail to the Church in its diffusive capacity and consequently supposing no General Council it were possible for the most erroneous and pernicious Doctrines and practices to prevail in the Church which must utterly overthrow all pretence to Infallibility But in our present case we need not run so far for I shall here prove that in the most material points insisted on by N. O. viz. the Doctrine of the efficacy of the Sacraments ex opere Operato and of Indulgences we do
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
it This is one of the best arts I have met with in this Pamphlet for unwary Readers will not remember the charge when they find no answer but if I. W. had attempted to answer it his shuffling and tricks might have made the deeper impression in the Readers minds Remember then this charge stands good against them without so much as their pretending to answer it To come now to the other part of Fanaticism viz. an Enthusiastick way of Religion and here to proceed clearly I shall lay down the method of his Defence and then examine it The strength of his Defence lyes in these Propositions 1. That Fanaticism does necessarily contain a resistance against authority 2. No particular ways of Religion countenanced by a competent authority are Fanaticism 3. Those things which concern religious Orders and Method of Devotion which I charge them with are countenanced by a competent authority viz. The Authority of that Church 4. That Church cannot countenance Fanatism which obligeth all persons to submit to her judgement So that here are two Principles by which I. W. thinks to vindicate their Church from Fanaticism viz. competent authority and submission of judgement to the Church To shew the invalidity of this answer I shall do these things 1. Shew the insufficiency of it 2. The monstrous absurdities consequent upon it 1. If this answer were sufficient he must make it appear that there have been none charged by me as Fanaticks in their Church but such as have submitted themselves and their judgement to the authority of their Church For let us consider the occasion of this charge and we shall presently discern the insufficiency of this way of answering it The occasion was that my Adversary made all the Sects and Fanaticisms among us to be the effect of the Reformation what answer could be more proper in this case than to shew that there were as wild and extravagant Fanaticisms before as have been since which is a plain evidence that cannot be the cause of them to which they imputed them To make this out I searched into the several sorts of Fanaticism and gave instances very clear of as great Fanaticks in the times before the reformation as have been since from the many pretenders to immediate Revelations among them who were persons allowed and approved by their Church and some of them Canonized for Saints but besides these I gave such other Instances of Fanaticism among the Friers and others of their Church as were never heard of in the world before as the broachers and maintainers of the Friers Gospel which was to put out of doors the Gospel of Christ the Spiritual Brethren of the order of S. Francis called by several names but especially that of Fratricelli who continued long spread far and more distrubed the Church than any since have done the Dulcinistae in Italy the Alumbrado's in Spain c. What doth he now say concerning all these were these countenanced by a competent authority among them did they submit their judgement to the Church if neither of these be pretended in reference to them then this answer must be very insufficient because it doth not reach to the matter in charge 2. For those who were as he saith countenanced by authority and did submit themselves to the Church yet this doth not clear them from Fanaticism but draws after it these monstrous absurdities 1. That prevailing Fanaticism ceases to be Fanaticism like Treason which when it prospers none dare call it Treason an excellent way this to vindicate the Fanaticism of the late times which because countenanced by an authority supposed competent enough by some who then writ of Obedience and Government it ceased to be Fanaticism and all the wild and extravagant heats of mens brains their Enthusiasms and Revelations were Regular and orderly things because countenanced by such Authority as was then over them 2. By this rule the Prophets and Apostles nay our Lord himself were unavoidably Fanaticks for what competent authority had they to countenance them The Iewish Church was not yet cast off while our Saviour lived but utterly opposed his doctrine and Revelation as coming from a private Spirit of his own according therefore to these excellent Principles our B. Saviour is made a meer Fanatick because he wanted a competent Authority of the present Church to countenance him the same was generally the case of the Prophets and of all the Apostles But what rocks and Precipices will a bad cause drive men upon If that which makes Fanaticism or not Fanaticism be the being countenanced or not countenanced by this competent Authority these horrible absurdities are unavoidable and all Religion must be resolved into the will and pleasure of this competent Authority But I need not take such pains to prove this for my brave Answerer I. W. sets it down in his own words Moreover otherwise all the particular manners of Preaching or Praying practised by the Prophets and all their extraordinary visions and revelations would be flat Fanaticism but because they were countenanced by a competent authority they could not deserve that character Excellent doctrine for a Popish Leviathan are you in earnest sir do you think the Prophets had been Fanaticks in case of no competent authority to countenance them What competent authority had the Prophet Elijah to countenance him when all the Authority that then was not only opposed him but sought his life What competent Authority had any of the Prophets who were sent to the ten Tribes what had Ieremiah Ezekiel and the rest of them It seems then all these excellent and inspired persons are cast into the common herd of Fanaticks for want of this competent Authority to countenance them And yet this is the Man meerly because I lay open the Fanaticism of some their pretended Saints such as Ignatius Loyola and S. Francis who ranks me with Lucian and Porphyrie hath he not himself a great zeal for Religion the mean while resolving all revelation into his competent authority and not only so but paralleling the expressions and practices of S. Brigitt and Mother Juliana than which scarce any thing was ever Printed more ridiculous in the way of Revelations with those of the holy Prophets and Apostles If a man designed to speak mischievously against the Scriptures and Divine Revelation he could not do it more to purpose than I. W. hath done in these words when he compares things whose folly is so manifest at the first view with that divine Wisdom which Inspired those holy persons whom God sent upon particular messages to his people and gave so great assurance that he sent them and who delivered matters of great weight and moment and not such tittle tattle as those two Womens Books are fraught withall But if this be the way they have to vindicate them from being Fanaticks it is absolutely the worst that could be thought of for it cannot discover so high an opinion of them as it doth a
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
added to it But since he produces no other proof for it I must consider how he goes about to weaken mine against it Two things I insisted upon against such a pretence of Infallibility viz. That such a pretence implying an Infallible Assistance of the Spirit of God there were but two ways of proving it either 1. By such miracles as the Apostles wrought to attest their infallibility or 2. By those Scriptures from whence this Infallibility is derived Concerning both these I laid down two Propositions 1. Concerning the Proof by miracles The Proposition was this There can be no more intollerable usurpation on the Faith of Christians than for any Person or Society of men to pretend to an Assistance as Infallible in what they propose as was in Christ or his Apostles without giving an equal degree of evidence that they are so assisted as Christ and his Apostles did viz. by miracles as great publick and convincing as theirs were by which I mean such as are wrought by those very persons who challenge this Infallibility and with a design for the conviction of those who do not believe it To this he answers 1. That I am equally obliged to produce miracles for the Churches Infallibility in Fundamentals which I had asserted in the defence of the Archbishop But this admits a very easie answer for when I speak of Infallibility in Fundamentals I there declare that I mean no more by it than that there shall be always a number of true Christians in the World And what necessity is there now of miracles for men to believe since they receive the doctrine of the Gospel upon those miracles by which it was at first attested Neither is there any need of miracles to shew that any number of men are not guilty of an actual errour in what they believe supposing they declare to believe only on the account of that divine Revelation which is owned by Christians for in this case the trial of doctrine is to be by Scripture But in case any persons challenge an Infallibility to themselves antecedently to the belief of Scriptures and by vertue of which they say men must believe the Scriptures then I say such persons are equally bound to prove their infallibility by miracles as the Apostles were 2. Not resting in this he proceeds to another answer the sum of which is That the Infallibility of the Church not being so large or so high as the Apostles but consisting only in the Infallible delivery of the same doctrine there is no necessity of miracles in the present Church To this I answer That the doctrine of the Gospel may be said to be new two ways 1. In respect of the matter contained in it and so it was new only when it was first revealed 2. In respect of the person who is to believe it so it is new in every age to those who are first brought to believe it Now the Apostles had their infallibility attested by miracles not barely with a respect to the revelation of new matter for then none would have needed miracles but Christ himself or the Apostles that made the first Sermons for afterwards the matter was not new but the necessity of miracles was to give a sufficient motive to believe to all those to whom the Gospel was proposed and therefore miracles are said to be a a sign to unbelievers For by these Unbelievers were convinced that there was sufficient ground for receiving the doctrine of the Gospel on the Authority of those who delivered it God himself bearing them witness with divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost Suppose then any of the Apostles after their first preaching continued only to inculcate the same doctrine for the conversion of more Unbelievers in this case the evidence of miracles was the reason of relying on the Authority of those persons for the truth of the Doctrine delivered by them From whence it follows that where the Christian Faith is to be received on the Authority of any persons in any Age those persons ought to confirm that Authority by miracles as the Apostles did For without this there can be no such Authority whereon to rely antecedently to the embracing the Christian Faith Now this is the case of the Church of Rome they pretend not to deliver any Doctrine wholly new but what was one way or another delivered by Christ and his Apostles although we therein charge them with fraud and falshood but yielding this yet they contend that no man can have sufficient ground for believing the Word of God but from their Churches Infallibility in this case it is plain that they make their Churches Infallibility to be as much the reason of persons believing as the Infallibility of the Apostles in their time was and therefore I say they ought to prove this Infallibility in the same way and by miracles as great publick and convincing as the Apostles did 3. Yet he is very loath to let go the miracles of their Church done in later times as well as formerly It would be too large a task in this place to examine the miracles of the Roman Church that may be better done on another occasion all that I have here to say is that all the miracles pretended among them signifie nothing to our present purpose unless those miracles give evidence of the Authority and Infallibility of those by whom they were done and they would do well to shew where ever in Scripture God did bestow a gift of miracles upon any but for this end and what reason there is that God should alter the method and course of his providence in a matter of so great concernment to the Faith of Mankind Such miracles as were wrought by Christ and his Apostles we defie all other Religions in the World to produce any like them to confirm their Doctrine but such as the Church of Rome pretends scarce any Religion in the World but hath pretended to the same And for his most credible Histories he vouches for them I hope he doth not mean the Church History written by S. C. nor any other such Legends among them if he doth I assure him they have a very easie Faith that think them credible And if all miracles that are so called by those among whom they are done be an Argument as he saith of the security of salvation in the Communion and Faith of that Church wherein they are done I hope he will be so just to allow the same to the Arrians Novatians Donatists and others who all pretend to miracles as well as the Church of Rome as any one that is versed in Church-History may easily see But of this more at large elsewhere 2. Concerning the proof of Infallibility from Scripture I said down this Proposition Nothing can be more absurd than to pretend the necessity of such an infallible commission and assistance to assure us of the truth of those Writings and to interpret them
Governâ—uâ—s of a Christian society the Priviledge of Commanding in things which God hath nâ—t alâ— ready determined by his own Law We plead for the respect and reverence which is due to the Lawful constitutiâ—ns oâ— the Church whereof we are members and 〈◊〉 the just Authority of the Guides it in the exercise of that power which is committed to the Governours of it as the successours of the Apostles in their care of the Christian Church although not in their Infallibility 6. We allow a very great Authority to the Guides of the Catholick Church in the best times of Christianity and look upon the concurrent sense of Antiquity as an excellent means to understand the mind of Scripture in places otherwise doubtful and obscure We prosess a great Reverence to the Ancient Fathers of the Church but Especially when assembled in free and General Councils We reject the ancient heresies condemned in them which we the rather believe to be against the Scripture because so ancient so wise and so great persons did deliver the contrary doctrine not only to be the sense of the Church in their own time but ever since the Apostles Nay we reject nothing that can be proved by an universal Tradition from the Apostolical times downwards but we have so great an opinion of the Wisdom and Piety of those excellent Guides of the Church in the Primitive times that we see no reason to have those things forced upon us now which we offer to prove to be contrary to their doctrine and practice So that the controversy between us is not about the Authority of the Guides of the Church but whether the Guides of the Apostolical and Primitive times ought not to have greater Authority over us than those of the present Church in things wherein they contradict each other This is the true State of the Controversy between us and all the clamours of rejecting the Authority of Church Guides are vain and impertinent But we profess to yield greater reverence and submission of mind to Christ and his Apostles than to any Guides of the Church ever since we are sure they spake by an Infallible Spirit and where they have determined matters of Faith or practice we look upon it as arrogance and presumption in any others to alter what they have declared And for the Ages since we have a much gâ—eater esteem for those neaâ—est the Apostolical times and so downwards till Ignorance Ambition and private Interests sway'd too much among those who were called the Guides of the Church And that by the confession of those who were members of it at the same time which makes us not to wonder that such corruptions of doctrine and practice should then come in but we do justly wonder at the sincerity of those who would not have them reformed and taken away 7. In matters imposed upon us to believe or practise which are repugnant to plain commands of Scripture or the Evidence offense or the grounds of Christian Religion we assert that no Authority of the present Guides of a Church is to overrule our faith or practice For there are some things so plain that no Man will be guided by anothers opinion in them If any Philosopher did think his Authority ought to overrule an Ignorant Mans opinion in saying the snow which he saw to be white was not so I would fain know whether that Man did better to believe his eyes or the prudent experienc'd Philosopher I am certain if I destroy the Evidence of sense I must overthrow the grounds of Christian Religion and I am as certain if I believe that not to be bread which my senses tell me is so I must destroy the greatest Evidence of sense and which is fitter for me to reject that Evidence which assures my Christianity to me or that Authority which by its impositions on my faith overthrows the certainty of sense We do not say that we are to reject any doctrine delivered in Scripture which concerns a Being infinitely above our understanding because we cannot comprehend all things contained in it but in matters lyable to sense and the proper objects of it we must beg pardon if we prefer the grounds of our common Christianity before a novel and monstrous figment hatched in the times of Ignorance and Barbarism foster'd by faction and imposed by Tyranny We find no command so plain in Scripture that we must believe the Guides of the Church in all they deliver as there is that we must not worship Images that we must pray with understanding that we must keep to our Saviours Institution of the Lords supper but if any Guides of a Church pretend to an Authority to evacuate the force of these Laws we do not so much reject their Authority as prefer Gods above them Doth that Man destroy the authority of Parents that refuses to obey them when they Command him to commit Treason That is our case in this matter supposing such Guides of a Church which otherwise we are bound to obey if they require things contrary to a direct Command of God must we prefer their Guidance before Gods If they can prove us mistaken we yield but till then the Question is not whether the Guides of the Church must be submitted to rather than our own reason but whether Gods authority or theirs must be obeyed And I would gladly know whether there be not some Points of faith and some parts of our duty so plain that no Church-Authority determining the contrary ought to be obey'd 8. No absolute submission can be due to those Guides of a Church who have opposed and contradicted each other and condemned one anâ—ther for errour and hereâ—y For then in case of absolute submission a Man must yield his assent to contradictions and for the same reason that he is to be a Catholick at one time he must be a heretick at another I hope the Guides of the present Church pretend to no more infallibility and Authority than their predecessours in the same Capacity with themselves have had and we say they have contradicted the sense of those before them in the matters in dispute between us Yet that is not the thing I now insist upon but that these Guides of the Church have declared each other to be fallible by condemning their opinions and practices and by that means have made it necessary for men to believe those not to be infallible unless both parts of a contradiction may be infallibly true Suppose a Man living in the times of the prevalency of Arrianism when almost all the Guides of the Church declared in favour of it when several great Councils opposed and contradicted that of Nice when Pope Liberius did subscribe the Sirmian confession and Communicated with the Arrians what advice would N. O. give such a one if he must not exercise his own Judgement and compare both the doctrines by the rule of Scriptures must he follow the present Guides even the Pope himself Then he must
who hold the contrary or which is the most common when they denounce Anatâ—ema and exclude from the Church those who hold otherwise all which agree to this as will appear by the last collation of that Council And Pope Vigilius in the Greek Epistle now published in the Tomes of the Councils wherein he approves the 5 th Council not only condemns the three Chapters as contrary to saith but Anathematizes all those who should defend them and like an Infallible Judge very solemnly recants his former Apostolical decree though delivered by him upon great deliberation anâ— with an intention to teach the whole Church I wonder who there could be in that Age that believed the Pope to be an infallible Guide not the Eastern Bishops who excommunicated him and decreed directly contrary to him not the Western for they likewise excommunicated him and not only forsook his Communion but that of the Roman Church but did he believe himself infallible when he so often changed his mind and contradicted himself in Cathedra If he did he was without doubt a brave man and did as much as man can do This Controversy was scarce at an end for the Bishops of Istria continued in their separation from the Roman Church for 70. years w ch was till the time of Honorius A. D. 626. when another was started which gives us yet a more ample discovery of the more than fallibility of the Guides of the Church in that Age when a Pope was condemned for a Heretick by a General Council in which case I would fain know whether of them was infallible and to which of the Guides of the Church a man owed his internal assent and external obedience This being an Instance of so high a nature that the truth of it being supposed the pretence of absolute Authority and Infallibility in the Guides of the Roman Church must fall to the ground no wonder that all imaginable arts have been used by those of the Church of Rome to take away the force of it among whom Pighius Baronius Bellarmin Petavius and Petrus de Marcâ have laboured hardest in acquitting Honorius but have proceeded in different ways and the two last are content the Pope should be condemned for simplilicity and negligence the better to excuse him from heresy but one would think these two were as contrary to the office of a trusty Guide as heresy to one that pretends to be infallible But the better to understand the force of this Instance I shall give a brief account of the matter of fact as it is agreed on all sides and the representing the divisions among the Guides of the Church at that time will plainly shew how unreasonable it had been to have required absolute submission to such who so vehemently contradicted each other We are therefore to understand that the late Council at Constantinople being found unsuccessful for bringing the Eutychians and their off-spring to a submission to the Council of Chalcedon another expedient was found out for that end viz. that acknowledging two natures in Christ they should agree in owning that there was but one will and operation in him after the Union of both natures because will and operation were supposed to flow from the Person and not barely from the nature and the asserting two wills would imply two contrary principles in Christ which were not to be supposed This Expedient was first proposed to Heraclius the Emperour by Athanasius the Patriarch of the Iacobites or Paulus the Sâ—verian and approved by Sergius Patriarch of Constantinople and by Cyrus of Alexandria and Theodorus Bishop of Pharan near Aegypt Cyrus proceeded so far in it as by that means to reconcile the Theodosiani a sort of Eutychians in Alexandria to the Church of which he gives an account to Sergius of Constantinople and sends him the Anathema's which he published among which the 7 th was against those who asserted more than one operation in Christ. Sergius approves what Cyrus had done but Sophronius a learned Monk coming to Alexandria vehemently opposed Cyrus in this business but Cyrus persisting he makes his address to Sergius at Constantantinople and tells him of the dangerous heresy that was broaching under the pretence of Union after some heats Sergius yielded that nothing should be farther said of either side But Sophronius being made Bishop of Ierusalem he publishes an Encyclical Epistle wherein he asserts two operations and Anathematizes those who held the contrary and were for the Union and writes to Honorius then Pope giving him an account of this new heresy of the Monothelites the same year Sergius writes to him likewise of all transactions that had hitherto been in this matter and desires to know his judgement in such an affair wherein the Peace of the Church was so much concerned Honorius writes a very solemn letter to Sergius wherein he condemns the contentious humour of Sophronius and makes as good a confession of his faith as he could in which he expresly asserts that there was but one Will in Christ and agrees with Sergius that there should be no more disputing about one or two operations in Christ. Accordingly Heraclius by the advice of Sergius publishes his Ecthesis or declaration to the same purpose which was approved by a Synod under Sergius but opposed by Iohn 4. Bishop of Rome yet still maintained at Constinople not only by Sergius but by Pyrrhus and Paulus his successours who were both excommunicated by Theodorus succeeding Iohn after him Pope Martin calls a Council wherein he condemns all the Eastern Bishops who favoured this new heresy and the two Edicts of silence published by Heraclius and Constans but was for his pains sent for to Constantinople and there dyed These contentions daily increasing after the death of Constans Constantinus Pogonatus resolves to try all ways for the peace of the Church and therefore calls a General Council at Constantinople A. D. 680. wherâ— the Heresy of the Monothelites was condemned and the Writings of Sergius Cyrus Theodorus and Honorius in this matter as repugnant to the doctrine of the Apostles and decrees of Councils and the judgement of the Fathers and agreeable to the false doctrine of Hereticks and destructive to souls and not content meerly to condemn their doctrine they further proceed to Anathamatize and expunge out of the Church the names of Sergius Cyrus Pyrrhus Petrus Paulus and Theodorus and after these Honorius as agreeing in all things with Sergius and confirming his wicked doctrines Here we are now come to the main point we see a Pope delivering his judgement in a matter of faith concerning the whâ—le Church condemned for a Heretick by a General Council for so doing either he was rightly condemned or not if rightly what becomes of the infallibility of the Pope when he pretends to teach the whole Church in a matter of faith If not rightly what becomes of the authority and sincerity of General Councils if a Council so solemnly proceeding shoâ—ld condemn one
very next Chapter urges this as the Consequence of it that having truth for our Rule and so plain Testimony of God men ought not to perplex themselves with doubtful Questions concerning God but grow in the love of him who hath done and doth so great things for us and never fall off from that knowledge which is most clearly revealed And we ought to be content with what is clearly made known in the Scriptures because they are perfect as coming from the wâ—rd and Spirit of God And we need 〈◊〉 â—onder if there be many things in Religion above our understandings since there are so in natural things which are daily seen by us as in the nature of Birds Water Air Meteors c. of which we may talk much but only God knows what the truth is Therefore why should we think much if it be so in Religion too wherein are some things we may understand and others we must leave to God and if we do so we shall keep our faith without danger And all Scripture being agreeable to it self the dark places must be understood in a way most suitable to the sense of the plain 3. The sense they gave of Scripture was contrary to the Doctrine of faith received by all true Christians from the beginning which he calls the unmoveable rule of faith received in Baptism and which the Church dispersed over the Earth did equally receive in all places with a wonderful consent For although the places and languages be never so distant or different from each other yet the faith is the very same as there is one Sun which inlightens the whole World which faith none did enlarge or diminish And after having shewn the great absurdities of the Doctrines of the Enemies of this faith in his first and second Books in the beginning of the third he shews that the Apostles did fully understand the mind of Christ that they preached the same Doctrine which the Church received and which after their preaching it was committed to writing by the Will of God in the Scriptures to be the pillar and ground of Faith Which was the true reason why the Hereticks did go about to disparage the Scriptures because they were condemned by them therefore they would not allow them sufficient Authority and charged them with contradictions and so great obscurity that the truth could not be found in them without the help of Tradition which they accounted the key to unlock all the difficulties of Scripture And was not to be sought for in Writings but was delivered down from hand to hand for which cause St. Paul said we speak wisdom among them that are perfect Which wisdom they pretended to be among themselves On this account the matter of Tradition came first into dispute in the Christian Church And Irenaeus appeals to the most eminent Churches and Especially that of Rome because of the great resort of Christians thither whether any such tradition was ever received among them and all the Churches of Asia received the same faith from the Apostles and knew of no such Tradition as the Valentinians pretended to and there was no reason to think that so many Churches founded by the Apostles or Christ should be ignorant of such a tradition and supposing no Scriptures at all had been written by the Apostles we must then have followed the Tradition of the most ancient and Apostolical Churches and even the most Barbarous nations that had embraced Christianity without any Writings yet fully agreed with other Churches in the Doctrine of Faith for that is it he means by the rule of faith viz. a summary comprehension of the Doctrine received among Christians such as the Creed is mentioned by Irenaeus and afterwards he speaks of the Rule of the Valentinians in opposition to that of the sound Christians From hence Irenaeus proceeds to confute the Doctrine of the Valentinians by Scripture and Reason in the third fourth and fifth Books All which ways of finding out the sense of Scripture in doubtful places we allow of and approve and are always ready to appeal to them in any of the matters controverted between us and the Church of Rome But Irenaeus knew nothing of any Infallible Judge to determine the sense of Scripture for if he had it would have been very strange he should have gone so much the farthest way about when he might so easily have told the Valentinians that God had entrusted the Guides of his Church especially at Rome with the faculty of interpreting Scripture and that all men were bound to believe that to be the sense of it which they declared and no other But men must be pardoned if they do not write that which never entred into their Heads After Irenaeus Tertullian sets himself the most to dispute against those who opposed the Faith of the Church and the method he takes in his Boo of Praescription of Hereticks is this 1. That there must be a certain unalterable Rule of Faith For he that believes doth not only suppose sufficient grounds for his faith but bounds that are set to it and therefore there is no need of further search since the Gospel is revealed This he speaks to take away the pretence of the Seekers of those days who were always crying seek and ye shall find to which he replys that we are to consider not the bare words but the reason of them And in the first place we are to suppose this that there is one certain and fixed Doctrine delivered by Christ which all nations are bound to believe and therefore to seek that when they have found they may believe it Therefore all our enquiries are to be confined within that compass what that Doctrine was which Christ delivered for otherwise there will be no end of seeking 2. He shews what this Rule of Faith is by repeating the Articles of the Ancient Creed which he saith was universally received among true Christians and disputed by none but Hereticks Which Rule of Faith being embraced then he saith a liberty is allowed for other enquiries in doubtful or obscure matters For faith lyes in the Rule but other things were matters of skill and curiosity and it is faith which saves men and not their skill in expounding Scriptures and while men keep themselves within that Rule they are safe enough for to know nothing beyond it is to know all 3. But they pretend Scripture for what they deliver and by that means unsettle the minds of many To this he answers several ways 1. That such persons as those were ought not to be admitted to a dispute concerning the sense of Scripture because they rather deserved to be censured than disputed for bringing such new heresies into the Church but chiefly because it was to no purpose to dispute with them about the sense of Scripture who received what Scriptures they pleased themselves and added and took away as they
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
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
sincerity of Councils so palpably influenced by the Court of Rome as that was But however is it not fit in these matters that particular persons should rather yield to the guidance of others than to the conduct of their own reason Which is N. O's farther Argument in this matter viz. That a Fallibility being supposed it is more fitting to follow prudent and experienced though fallible persons direction rather than our own To this I answer in these following particulars 1. That God hath entrusted every man with a faculty of discerning Truth and Falshood supposing that there were no persons in the World to direct or guide him For without this there were no capacity in mankind to be instructed in matters of Religion and it were to no purpose to offer any thing to men to be believed or to perswade them to embrace any Religion To make this plain I will suppose a Person come to years of understanding not yet professing any particular Religion to whom the several Religions in the world are proposed by men perswaded of the truth of them viz. the Christian the Jewish and the Mahumetan He hears the several arguments brought for each of them and hath no greater opinion of the teachers of one than of another I desire to know whether this person may not see so much of the truth and excellency of Christian Religion above the rest as to choose that and reject all the rest I hope no one will deny this now if a man does here upon his own judgment and reason choose the Christian Religion so as firmly to believe it then God hath given to men such a faculty of judging that upon the proposal of truth and falshood he may embrace the true Religion and reject the false and such a Faith is acceptable and pleasing to God Otherwise no man could embrace Christianity at first upon good grounds 2. This faculty is not taken away nor men forbidden the exercise of it in the choice of their Religion by any principle of the Christian Religion for our Saviour himself appealed to the Judgement of the persons he endeavored to convince he made use of many arguments to perswade them he directed them in the way of finding out of truth he reproved those who would not search into the things delivered to them All which were to no purpose at all if men were not to continue the exercise of their own Judgements about these matters Accordingly we find the Apostles appealing to the Judgements of private and fallible persons concerning what they said to them although themselves were infallible and had the greatest Authority over them we find them not bidding the Guides of the Church pâ—ove all things and the people held fast that which they delivered them but Commanding them indifferently to prove all things and hold fast that which is good i. e. what upon examination they found to be so we find those commended who searched the Scriptures daily whether the things proposed to them were so or no. So that we see the Christian Religion dâ—th not forbid men the exercise of that faculty of judging which God hath given to mankind 3. The exercise of this faculty was not to cease asâ—oon as men had embraced the Christian Doctrine For the precepts given by the Apostles do belong to those who are already Christians and that concerning the matters proposed by their Guides nay they are expressly commended to try and examin all pretences to Infallibility and Revelation upon this great reason because there should be many false pretenders to them Beloved believe not every Spirit but try the Spirits whether they be of God for many false Prophets are gone out into the world They are commanded not to believe any other Gospel though Apostles or an Angel from Heaven should preach it and how should they know whether it were another or the same if they were not to examin and compare them They are bid to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the Saints it might be a new Faith for any thing they could know if they were not competent Judges of what was once delivered They are frequently charged to beware of Seducers and false Guides that should come in the name of Christ and his Apostles they are told that there should come a falling away and departing from the Faith and that the time will come when men will not endure sound Doctrine and shall turn away their ears from 〈◊〉 truth and believe fables that such shall come with all deceivableness of unrighteousness with powers and signs and lying wonders To what end or purpose are all these things said if men being once Christians are no longer to exercise their own Judgements but deliver them up into the hands of their Guides What is this but to put them under a necessity of being deluded when their Guides please and as our Saviour saith When the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch 4. The Authority of Guides in the Church is not absolute and unlimited but confined within certain bounds Which if they transgress they are no longer to be followed So St. Paul saith if we or an Angel from Heaven teach any other Gospel let him be accursed so that the Apostles themselves though giving the greatest Evidence of Infallibility were no longer to be followed than they held to the Gospel of Christ. And they desired no more of their greatest Disciples whom they had Converted to the Christian Faith than to be followers of them as they were of Christ they told them they had no dominion over their faith although they were far more assisted with an infallible Spirit than any other Guides of the Church could pretend to be ever since Therefore no present Guides what ever names they go by ought to usurp such an Authority over the minds of men which the Apostles themselves did not challenge although there were greater reason for men to yield up their minds wholly to their guidance We are far from denying all reasonable and just authority to be given to the Guides of the Church but we say that their Authority not being absolute is conâ—ined to some known rule And where there is a rule for them to proceed by there is a rule for others to Judge of their proceedings and consequently men must exercise their Judgements about the matters they determin whether they be agreeable to that râ—le or nâ—t 5. Where the Rule by which the Guides of the Church are to proceed hath determined nothing there we say the Authority of the Guides is to be submitted unto For otherwise there would be nothing leâ—t wherein their Authority could be shewn and others pay obedience to them on the account of it Therefore we plead for the Churches Authority in all matters of meer order and decency in indifferent rites and ceremonies and think it an unreasonable thing to 〈◊〉 the
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