Ancient Creeds we allow on both sides to have been universally received by the Catholick Church but now the Church of Rome adds new Articles to be believed we desire to put the whole matter upon this issue Let the Popes Supremacy the Roman Churches Infallibility the Doctrines of Transubstantiation Purgatory c. be proved by as Universal Consent of Antiquity as the Articles of the Creed are and then let them charge us with Heresie if we reject them But we say the measure of Heresie in the Ancient Church was the rejecting the Rule of Faith universally received among Christians this Rule of Faith we stand to and say no other can be made upon any pretence whatsoever as Vincentius at large proves but what ever things are obtruded on the belief of Christians which want that Vniversal consent of Antiquity which the Rule of Faith had we are bound by Vincentius from plain Scripture to shun them as prophane novelties and corruptions of the Christian Faith These Rules therefore are not barely allowed but pleaded for by us in the test of Articles of Faith as to which Vincentius tells us if not the only yet the chief use of them is 2. But suppose the Question be not concerning the express Articles of this Rule of Faith but concerning the sense and meaning of them how then are we to find out the consent of Antiquity For they might all agree in the words and yet have a different notion of the things As Petavius at large proves that there was an ancient Tradition for the substance of the Doctrine of the Trinity and yet he confesses that most of the Writers of the ancient Church did differ in their explication of it from that which was only allowed by the Council of Nice And he grants that Arius did follow the opinion of many of the Ancients in the main of his Doctrine who were guilty of the same error that he was before the matter was throughly discussed Here now arises the greatest difficulty to me in this point of Tradition the usefulness of it I am told is for explaining the sense of Scripture but there begins a great Controversie in the Church about the explication of the Doctrine of the Trinity I desire to know whether Vincentius his Rules will help us here It is pleaded by St. Hierome and others that the Writers of the Church might err in this matter or speak unwarily in it before the matter came to be throughly discussed if so how comes the Testimony of erroneous or unwary Writers to be the certain means of giving the sense of Scripture And in most of the Controversies of the Church this way hath been used to take off the Testimony of persons who writ before the Controversie began and spake differently of the matter in debate I do not deny the truth of the allegation in behalf of those persons but to my understanding it plainly shews the incompetency of Tradition for giving a certain sense of Scripture when that Tradition is to be taken from the Writers of the foregoing Ages and if this had been the only way of confuting Arius it is a great Question how he could ever have been condemned if Petavius or St. Hierome say true But since a General Council hath determined the contrary to the opinion of these Writers before which Council hath been received by the Universal Church I will not deny that they had better opportunities of knowing what the sense of the Ancient Church was when so many writings were extant which are now lost than we can have at this distance and therefore we yield all submission to a Council of that nature and proceeding in that manner which that of Nice did who did not meerly determine that Controversie by the number of Writers on their side before them but by comparing the opinions afterwards with the Rule of Scriptures and in this regard we acknowledge a great Reverence due to the decrees of such General Councils as that was Therefore next to the Rule of Faith we allow a great veneration to the determinations of lawful General Councils Universally received which Vincentius himself pleads for But supposing no general Councils or such which are not allowed or received for such we are yet to enquire into the ways of finding out Catholick tradition which may interpret Scripture For this end he proposes another means which is The gathering together the opinions of those Fathers alone who living holily wisely and constantly in the faith and communion of the Catholick Church have died in that faith or else for it But still with this reserve that what either all or many of them manifestly frequently and constantly as it were by a Council of them have confirmed by their receiving holding and delivering of it that ought to be held for undoubted certain and firm but whatsoever any one though holy and learned though a Bishop confessour or Martyr hath held against the opinion of others that ought not to be looked on as the judgement of the Church but as his own private opinion and therefore not to be followed Which words I shall not examine with all the severity that some have done for then the proving these conditions to have been observed by any one person would require more pains and be less capable of resolution than the matter it self is but I say that in most of the Controversies this day in the Christian world it may be much more satisfactory to examine the merits of the cause than the integrity of the witnesses these conditions being supposed And yet after all this we must not misunderstand him as though this way would serve to confute all heresies For he tells us yet farther 2. This course can only hold in some new and upstart heresies i.e. in case of the pretence of some new revelation when men pretend to some special grace without humane industry to discover some divine truth not known before but in case of ancient and inveterate heresies he saith we have no way to deal with them but either only by Scripture or else by plain decrees of General Councils for when heresies have been of long continuance then saith he we may have ground to suspect they have not dealt fairly with the Testimonies of ancient times And thus we see what Vincentius hath offered towards the resolution of this great Question how we may be sure of the certain sense of Scripture in controverted places wherein is nothing contained but what we are willing to stand to and very far from the least supposition of any infallibility in the present Guides of the Church for that end Thus far I have taken the pains to search into the opinion of the Primitive Church in this important Controversie which I might carry yet farther if it were at all needful The substance of what is delivered by them is this that if any Controversie arise in the Church concerning the sense of Scripture if the
of our Church But saith T. C. the subscribing the Book of Homilies as containing a godly and wholesome Doctrine doth not evince that every particular Doctrine contained in it is such Be it so but I hope it doth evince that the Subscribers did not think the main Doctrine of any one Homily to be false Surely there is a great deal of difference between some particular passages and expressions in these Homilies and that which is the main design and Foundation of any one of them But in this case we are to observe that they who deny the Church of Rome to be guilty of Idolatry do not only look on the Charge as false but as of dangerous Consequence and therefore although men may subscribe to a Book in general as containing wholesome and godly Doctrine though they be not so certain of the Truth of every passage in it yet they can never do it with a good conscience if they believe any great and considerable part of the Doctrine therein contained to be false and dangerous Such a subscription would be as apparently shuffling and dishonest as is the evasion of this Testimony which T. G. makes use of for want of a better I shall in the next place shew the current Doctrine of the Church ever since the Reformation to have been agreeable to this Homily of the Peril of Idolatry In the Injunctions published by K. Edward VI. A. D. 1547. the extirpation of Popery is called the suppression of Idolatry and Superstition In the second year of Edward VI. Arch-bishop Cranmer published his Articles of Visitation whereof the 6. and the last are about the taking away Images Pictures and all other Monuments of feigned miracles Pilgrimages Idolatry and Superstition In the second Liturgy by Edward VI. after the Communion was a Rubrick annexed in which the Adoration of the Host is expresly called Idolatry This is that very Rubrick of which T. G. according to his excellent skill in the offices of our Church saith it is not yet more then a dozen years since it was inserted into the Communion Book which he might have found above a 100. years before in the Book of Edward VI. In the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth A. D. 1559. Art 2. and 23. all Shrines Tables Pictures c. are commanded to be taken away and destroyed and all other Monuments of feigned miracles Idolatry and Superstition And that 〈◊〉 may not think it was only a sudden heaâ— at the first Reformation which made theâ— charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry long after in A form of Thanksgiving in the 37. of Queen Elizabeth A. D. 1594. Popery is called that Idolatrous Religion as it was in the Beginning of her Reign in the excellenâ— Apology for the Church of England And I desire him or any one else 〈◊〉 produce any one Bishop or Divine of notâ— in the Church of England who during all hâ—r Reign did deny the Church of Rome to be guilty of Idolatry But why then was it not inserted in the 39. Articles in which T. G. observes the Adoration of Images is not rejected as Idolatry but only as a fond thing vainly invented nor as repugnant to the plain words of Scripture but as being rather repugnant to the word of God which plainly gives us to understand that they had done their endeavours to find a command but could not A most ingenious Criticism when himself and all others of their Divines yield that adoration of images which our Church charges them with Art 22. viz. not barely worshipping but adoration of images to be Idolatry and plainly repugnant to Scripture Were the composers of our Articles so sensless as not to think Idolatry repugnant to Scripture or not to think adoration of images to be Idolatry or not to think the Church of Rome guilty of it when the Article saith The Romish Doctrine concerning worshipping and adoration as well of Images as of Reliques c It is not meerly the practice used in the Church of Rome but their very Doctrine concerning adoration of images which is here charged and can any Church teach adoration of images and not be guilty of Idolatry And for his Criticism about being rather repugnant it had been utterly lost if he had looked into the Latin Articles where the words are immo verbo Dei contradicit whereby it appears that rather is not used as a term of diminution but of a more vehement affirmation I now come to the exceptions he takes to the particular Testimonies I produced of the most eminent Bishops and Divines of our Church ever since the Reformation who have all concurred in this charge of Idolatry Two parts in three he excepts against as incompetent witnesses in the case how few of the Iury would any Malefactor allow if such frivolous exceptions might serve his turn The two first he excepts against are the two Arch-Bishops Whitgift and Abbot as Puritanically inclined But as it unhappily falls out one of them was never mentioned by me and the other never till now suspected for a Puritan The Abbot I mentioned was not George Abbot Arch-Bishop of Canterbury but Robert Abbot Bishop of Salisbury and it is the first time we ever heard that a Bishop of Salisbury was suspended from his Metropolitical jurisdiction But they of the Church of Rome have a faculty of doing greater wonders with five words than Changing a Bishop into an Arch-Bishop I hope he understands the Church he is of better than that he hath left or else we are like to have a sad account of History from him But why I beseech you after all his zeal and indefatigable pains for the Church of England must Arch-Bishop Whitgift be thrown away to the Puritans If he had proved T. C. at the same time Arch-Bishop of Canterbury there might have been some reason to suspect Whitgift to have been of the Puritan side for all the world know they were greaâ— adversaries on that very account of thâ— Puritan cause But was not Whitgiâ—â— for the Lambeth Articles And whâ— then Are the Dominicans Puritans and no Papists If your Church may havâ— liberty not to determin those nice points why may not ours and so both parties remain of our Church as long as they contradict no received Articles among us But the Lambeth-Articles were neveâ— intended for any more than as Responsâ— Prudentum to silence disputes in the university And I believe none of the Puritan party after that took Arch-Bishop Whitgift to be a Patron of theiâ— cause But if these will not serve his turn 〈◊〉 have others ready whom for meer shamâ— he will not say were Puritans or Puritanically inclined And the first of these is an Arch-Bishop too and that is Arch-Bishop Bancroft and if he be cast out for a Puritan surely there never was any Bishop of the Church of England In his Sermon preached at Pauls Cross on 1 John 4. 1. he hath these words speaking of the Papists The Popish false Prophets
Preface that he is not infallible Yet for all this we will not let go Jewel no nor Bilson Davenant White Usher Downam what ever T. G. saith against them Indeed K. Charles excepts against Bilson for his Principles of civil Government but not a word of his disaffection to the Church of England For Bishop Davenant the King saith he is none of those to whom he appealed or would submit unto and with very good reason for the King had appealed to the practice of the primitive Church and the Universal consent of Fathers therefore Bishop Davenant was a Puritan It seems they have been all Puritans since the Primitive times and I hope the Church of Rome then hath good store of them for that is far enough from the Fathers or the Primitive Church But how comes Bishop White in for a Puritan being so great a Friend of Arch-Bishop Laud why forsooth Heylin reports that for licensing Bishop Mountagu's Appello Caesarem it was said that White was turned Black And canst thou for thy heart good Reader expect a more pregnant proof It was a notable saying and it is great pity the Historian did not preserve the memory of the Author of it but by whom was it said that must be supposed by the Puritans and could none but they be the Authors of so witty a saying But suppose they were the Puritans that said it it is plain then they thought him no sound Puritan for they hold no falling from Grace All then that can be inferred from this witty saying is that White sunk in his esteem among them by this Act. And is it not possible for them to have an esteem for those who are not of their own Party Concerning Arch-Bishop Usher Dr. Heylin was known to be too much his enemy to be allowed to give a Character of him and his name will not want a due veneration as long as Learning and piety have any esteem among us But he is most troubled what to do with six that remain viz. King James Bishop Andrews Arch-Bishop Laud Isaac Casaubon Doct. Field and Doct. Jackson these he could not for shame fasten the name of Puritans upon as he doth with scorn on Bishop Downam Reynolds Whitaker and Fulk whose testimonies I said to prevent cavils I need not to produce although they are all capable of sufficient vindication For King James he saith that in the place cited by me he saith expresly that what he condemns is adoring of Images praying to them and imagining a kind of Sanctity in them all which are detested by Catholicks Was ever man put to such miserable shifts Are not these King James his words But for worshipping either them Reliques or Images I must account it damnable Idolatry And doth not King James a little after take off their distinctions and evasions in these words and they worship forsooth the Images of things in Being and the Image of the true God But Scripture forbiddeth to worship the Image of any thing that God created Yea the Image of God himself is not only expresly forbidden to be worshipped but even to be made Let them therefore that maintain this doctrine answer it to Christ at the latter day when he shall accuse them of Idolatry And then I doubt if he will be paid with such nice Sophistical distinctions Is all this nothing but to charge them with such practices which they detest Doth he not mention their Doctrine and their distinctions Did not King James understand what he said and what they did It is plain he charges them with Idolatry in what they did which was that I brought his Testimony for The like answer he gives to the rest of them viz. that they charged them with what they thought they did but the Papists deny that they do any such thing i. e. in plain Terms they charge them with Idolatry but the Papists deny they commit it And so they do when I charge them with it so that T. G. by the very same reason might have acquitted me from charging them with it and have spared his Book Is not this now an Admirable way of proving that they do not charge them with Idolatry because the Papists deny they commit it Who meddles with what they profess they do or do not I was to shew what these Persons charged them with And do any of these excuse them by saying any doctrine of theirs was contrary to these particulars do they not expresly set themselves to disprove their distinctions upon which their doctrine is founded and shew the vanity of them because their open and allowed practices do plainly contradict them and shew that they do give divine honour to Images however in words they deny it But this way of defending them is as if those whom St. Paul charges that they professed that they knew God but in works they denied him should reply to him how can we deny him in our Works since we profess him in our Words Iust so saith T. G. how can they be charged with Idolatry since they profess to do no such thing Aâ—though such persons as those I mentioned did not understand both what the Papists said for themselves and what they did notwithstanding And now I joyâ— with T. G. in desiring the Reader may be judge between us whether I have betrayed my trust in pretending to defend the Church of England and whether in charging the Church of Rome with Idolatry I have contradicted the sense of it since I have made it appear that her most true and Genuin sons the most remote from all suspicion of disaffection to her or inclination to Puritanism have concurred in the same charge which I undertook to make good But there is one blow yet remaining in his Preface which I must endeavour to ward off otherwise it will be a terrible one to the Church of England for by this charge of Idolatry he makes me to subvert the very foundation of Ecclesiastical Authority in it This it is to charge home For saith he it being a received Maxime and not being denyable by any man of common sense that no man can give to another that which he hath not himself it lies open to the Conscience of every man that if the Church of Rome be guilty of Heresie much more if guilty of Idolatry it falls under the Apostles excommunication Gal. 1. 8. and so remains deprived of the Lawful Authority to use and exercise the power of Orders and consequently the Authority of Governing preaching and Administring the Sacraments which those of the Church of England challenge to themselves as deriv'd from the Church of Rome can be no true and lawful Jurisdiction but usurped and Anti-Christian And so farewel to the Church of England if the Church of Rome were not more kind in this case than T. G. is Hitherto we have seen his skill in the affairs of our Church and now we shall see just as much in the Doctrine of his own For doth not the Council
be less but only our charity to be greater Suppose a man should exceed in his charity towards a person guilty of some grievous faults and say he believes he may be a pious man for all this but withall severely reproves him for his faults and tells him the danger he continually runs by such actions would it be fair for such a man to answer him that his reproofs were not to be regarded because he contradicted himself for he told him he believed him to be a pious man and yet upbraided him with those faults which were inconsistent with piety what would the consequence of this be to the thing it self would this make those faults ever the less because he judged so charitably of the person notwithstanding his committing them But when we allow the Church of Rome to be a true Church we are far from understanding by that a sound or a good Church free from corruptions which would be the most proper sense to found a contradiction upon in this matter of Idolatry but we mean no more by it than as a man is a true man though he hath the plague upon him those which we account the essentials of a Church we deny not to it but withall we contend that it is over-run with such corruptions in worship as do mightily endanger the salvation of those who live in the communion of it 2. Having thus discovered the disingenuity of making so bad a use of our charity against us I now come to shew how Sophistical this way of answering is by a closer examination of it First The starting of a new objection answers no argument and all that this amounts to is only raising a new difficulty whereas he ought in the first place to have answered all the arguments I had brought to prove them guilty of Idolatry and when he had done this fairly and plainly which for some good reasons he had no mind to do he might then have insisted on the inconsistency of it with principles owned by me but to do this without giving an answer so much as to any one argument is a clear evidence of a sophistical and cavilling humour rather than of any intention to satisfie an inquisitive mind 2. The force of this objection lyes in the different sense and meaning of several expressions made use of by him which being explained the objection will signifie nothing For if we rightly understand the notion of Idolatry the manner of teaching it the sense of Fundamental errours and a true Church as it is owned by me the very appearance of any contradiction vanisheth I agree in the general that the true notion of Idolatry is giving the honour due only to God to a meer creature and I desire no greater advantage against the Church of Rome than from such a concession but then we are to understand that this may be done several ways 1. When the worship proper to the true God is given to a false God 2. When the true God is acknowledged and worshipped but the unity of the God-head is denyed and many false Gods are joyned with him in the same worship In these two sorts of Idolatry I acknowledge that the true God is rejected either wholly in the first way or by consequence in the second But withall I say that the giving the Worship to a creature which is due only to God may be consistent with the acknowledgement of one Supream God and that these ways 1. When one Supream God is acknowledged but no difference is put between the external Worship of him and creatures This was the Idolatry of the wiser Heathen who did in their consciences acknowledge that there was but one true and supream God but yet gave the same worship to inferiour Deities that they did to him These men might have pleaded for themselves for all that I know as much to their advantage as those of the Church of Rome do against me 2. When the worship proper to the true God is given to an Image or the supposing of God to be truly honoured by us by prostrating our selves before any corporeal representation of him This likewise the Heathen were guilty of St. Paul hath long since told us of some who profess that they know God but in works they deny him so there may be some who may profess a worship due only to God but in their actions may contradict it As suppose a company of rebellious men should declare over and over that they acknowledge but one Soveraign Power of this Nation invested in the person of the King but yet should take upon themselves to raise forces to appoint great Officers of State and require that the very same outward reverence and honour be given to them which is given to the King himself would any man in his sense say that because these men still declared the supream Authority to be in the King that there was no Treason in such actions or that those persons contradicted themselves who allowed that their profession was such as became good subjects but their actions made them guilty of Treason The same we say of the Church of Rome we confess they own the supream Power of the world to be in one true God and we have no controversie with them about the essential Doctrines of Religion which is that we mean by their being a true Church but withal we say they overthrow what they say in their own practice they rob God of the honour due only to him by giving it to Angels and Saints and Images and other creatures And what contradiction now is there in all this and a Church agreeing with us in the object of worship in general should act contrary to its own profession by requiring those things to be done which take away from God that honour which is due only to him and giving it to creatures And this if I understand it is all that this first contradiction in the charge of Idolatry doth amount to To appply this now to his own propositions for the greater clearness and satisfaction of all indifferent persons His first Proposition I agree to viz. That 't is an article of faith and a Fundamental point of Religion that the honour which is due only to God is not to be given to a meer creature But I desire it may be taken notice of that this proposition is Sophistically expressed for although it be no dispute between us whether that honour which is due only to God may be given to a creature yet it is a very great one and the foundation of the charge of Idolatry what that honour is which is due only to God and in case we can prove that they do give to meer Creatures any part of that honour which is due to God it cannot at all excuse them to say that they acknowledge it to be Idolatry to give that honour which they suppose to be due only to God to a meer creature This proposition therefore though in
salvation so that the force of the argument comes to this whatsoever Church does embrace the ancient Creeds cannot be guilty of Idolatry but the Church of Rome doth embrace all the ancient Creeds by my own concession therefore it is a contradiction for me to grant that they hold the ancient Creeds and yet to charge them with Idolatry And these matters being thus made plain there is no great difficulty to answer by denying the major Proposition and asserting that a Church which does own all the articles of faith which are contained in them may yet teach and practise those things which take away from that worship which is proper only to God and give it to meer creatures as I have proved the Church of Rome doth in the worship of Images adoration of the Host and Invocation of Saints But to make this yet more plain there are two things we consider in a Church the essence and the soundness of it as in a man we consider his being a man and his health when we discourse of his meer Being we enquire into no more than those things which make him a man whether he be sound or not so in a Church when we enquire into the essentials of it we think it not necessary to go any farther than the doctrinal points of faith the reason is because Baptism admits men into the Church upon the profession of the true faith in the Father Son and Holy Ghost and whatever is sufficient to make a member of the Church that is in it self sufficient being embraced to make a Church but when we enquire farther into the moral integrity or soundness of a Church then we think our selves bound not barely to know what is acknowledged and received but how far it is so and whether that Church which owns the Fundamentals of Christian faith doth not by gross and damnable errours corrupt the Worship of God and debauch those very Principles which they profess to own And in this respect none of us ever said That the Church of Rome did not err nay we do say and have manifestly proved that she hath erred against the Christian faith by introducing palpable errours in doctrine and manifold Superstitions and Idolatries in practice From hence it plainly appears that the concession I. W. urges me with of the Church of Rome being a true Church signifies nothing in the sense by me intended which contradicts the charge of Idolatry unless they can prove that none who own the Apostles Creed or their Baptism can so long as they so do teach Idolatry or be guilty of giving the honour due only to God to meer creatures These things being thus explained I hope the Sophistry of this way of arguing is made so evident that no man of understanding that resolves not before hand what to believe is capable of being deceived by it Before I come to the next contradiction charged upon me I shall for the diversion of the Reader and the suitableness of the matter take notice of his Appendix wherein I. W. goes about so pleasantly to prove me an Idolater by a notable trick which it seems came into his head a little too late after he had finisht this worthy Treatise I should have suspected it had been intended only for a piece of Drollery but that the man so severely rebukes me for it and withall talks of nothing less than demonstration in the case What thought I is it come to this at last and am I become an Idolater too who was never apt to think my self enclined so much as to superstition but what can not the controverting Wit of man do upon second and serious thoughts All the comfort I found left was towards the conclusion wherein he confesses that the same argument proves the Prophets Evangelists and Holy Ghost himself to be Idolaters Nay then I hoped there was no great harm to be feared in so good company and by that consideration armed my self against this terrible assault But at last as he made nearer approaches to me I found no mischief was like to come but what I brought upon my self for he charged me with nothing but my own Artillery and the train that was laid to blow me up was fetched from my own stores only he had disposed it in a way fittest for this deep design But the best of it was his plot went no farther than my Idolatry and both lay only in Imagination For there he makes the seat of my Idolatry which he demonstratively proves must be so by my own argument I shall therefore consideâ— what that was and with what great art he imploys it against me Among other arguments to shew that the prohibition of worshipping Images was not peculiar to the Iews but of an unalterable nature I insisted upon Gods declaring the unsuitableness of it to his own infinite and incomprehensible nature which could not be represented to men but in a way which must be an infinite disparagement to it To whom will ye liken God or what likeness will ye compare to him It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth c. and the reason given of the Law it self was because they saw no sâ—militude of God from hence I shewed that the wisest Nations and Persons among the Heathen looked on the Worship of God by Images as unsuitable to a Divine and Infinite Being and that the Gospel still more discovered Gods Spiritual nature and the agreeableness of Spiritual Worship to him that the Apostles urged this Argument against the Heathen Idolatry and the Fathers of the Church thought the reason of this Law did equally oblige us with the Iews now by what art doth he from hence prove me necessarily to be an Idolater as well as they of the Church of Rome who Worship God by Images against the very words and reason of this Law The argument is briefly summed up by himself thus Whoever Worships God represented in a way far inferiour to his greatness is an Idolater but whosoever Worships God represented to him without the Beatifical vision either by words or by imaginations as well as Images he Worships God in a way far inferiour to his greatness ergo whoever worships God represented unto him without the Beatifical vision is an Idolater but Dr. St. Worships God without the Beatifical vision no doubt of it ergo Dr. St. is an Idolater there is no help for it Nay from hence he proves that I cannot so much as think of God without Idolatry my self nor Preach of him without provoking others to it O the insuperable force of reason and the dint of demonstration but the mischief is all this subtilty is used against the Law-maker and not against me Did I not cite the words of God himself who therefore did forbid the making any likeness of him because nothing could be like him Is there no difference between having imperfect conceptions of God in our minds and making unworthy
ought to have represented if he had designed any thing but Sophistry and trifling But his game had been then quite spoiled the fine sport of making contradictions had been lost and his cross purposes had come to nothing I now come to see what contradictions he wire-draws from hence by the help of his Propositions 1. Whoever is in a condition wherein he is certainly saved is in no danger or probability of being damned If by he is certainly saved he speaks of the event then he were a hard hearted man that would not grant that he that is actually saved is in no danger or probability of being damned if he means it of a certain way to salvation then it is yet capable of several meanings For to be in a certain way may imply one of these three things 1. That the way it self is so plain that a man cannot miss of it 2. Or that the way is in it self certain but there are so many by-paths and turnings lying hard by it that it is a very hard matter for any man to keep in it 3. To be in a certain way is when not only the way it self is certain but a man keeps constantly in that way According to these several senses this Proposition may be understood if by it be meant 1. He that is in a certain way to salvation is in no danger or probability of being damned i. e. he that keeps constantly in that way which will certainly lead him to Heaven the Proposition is true but impertinent but if by it be meant no more but this that he is in a way which in it self leads to Heaven but there are so many cross and by-paths near it that though it be possible for him to hit it yet it is extreamly hazardous no one can imagine that such a one is in no probability of miscarrying for we say he is in very great danger of it notwithstanding the tendency of the way it self 2. Prop. Whoever lives and dyes in a true way to salvation having conformed to its directions or whoever has done all that was necessary to attain unto salvation is in a condition wherein he is certainly saved The Sophistry of this is so palpable that the weakest eye may discern it for it supposes that true way to salvation wherein he lives to be a very safe and secure way i. e. that it be not only true in it self but free from such errours and corruptions which may endanger salvation and in that sense it is true but very far from the purpose For none of us did ever yield that the Roman Church is a safe way to salvation nay it is expresly denyed by my Lord of Canterbury as well as by me But here lyes still another piece of Sophistry to be taken notice of whoever hath done all that was necessary to attain salvation is in a condition wherein he is certainly saved no doubt of it but the doing all that is necessary to salvation is not bare believing the necessary articles of faith contained in the Creed but obeying the Will of God which cannot be done by those who wilfully adhere to gross and open violations of it as I have charged the Church of Rome to do in her solemn acts of Worship Their cause certainly is at a very low ebb when such pittiful Sophistry must pass for reasoning and demonstration among them Never men had more need of a self-evidencing cause as well as propositions than they so little help do they contribute to it by their Writings 3 Prop. The Roman Church is a true way to salvation and teaches all that is necessary to attain unto it This is granted he saith by me and other Protestants when we acknowledge the Roman Church to be a true Church but in what sense I have already explained so far as to leave no colour of arguing from hence to any contradiction in me For this true way to salvation in our sense is no more but that the Church of Rome doth acknowledge so much of Christian faith as is sufficient to save men on condition they live accordingly and do not by gross corruptions in doctrine or practice render that faith ineffectual to them but withall we assert and maintain that to these necessary articles of Christian faith the Church of Rome hath added such errours and corruptions as make the salvation of any person extreamly hazardous who lives in the communion of it And let them have all the comfort from hence which they can I am sure they have not this that they have brought me to contradict my self by such concessions as these By this his last Proposition comes to nothing whoever lives and dyes in the communion of the Roman Church having conformed to her doctrine lives and dyes in a true way to salvation having conformed to its directions and has done all that was necessary to attain to it Which evidently supposes that we yield that the doctrine of the Roman Church is a safe way to salvation which we utterly deny all that we assert is that so much of the common Principles of Christianity as is retained in the Roman Church is sufficient for the salvation of those who do not wilfully corrupt them by bad opinions and practices or if they have do repent sincerely But for those who conform themselvs to the doctrine and directions of the Roman Church as such we are far from ever saying that such live and dye in a true way to salvation for this were to make those doctrines and directions to be as holy and innocent as we believe them to be false and pernicious See now what a contradiction here is for me to assert the Church of Rome to be a true Church because it retains the Fundamentals of Christianity and yet to make the condition of those who live in it so hazardous in point of salvation by reason of the gross errours which men are bound to believe as necessary points of faith and horrible Superstitions which they must conform to if they follow her directions Surely he could not but know this to be our meaning and consequently to have no shadow of contradiction in it no more than is in this plain Proposition That a possible way to salvation may yet be very dangerous But though Iugglers know their own cheats they would lose their trade if they made them known to the people Something must be said to amuse them and this seemed the prettiest way to confound them by dazeling their eyes with such appearances of contradictions and thereby to perswade their own party that they need not fear the the attaque of such an enemy who falls foul upon himself But it is nothing but the mist he casts before their eyes can make any have such an imagination it is but making things clear and then nothing but order and agreement appears But yet he quarrels with me for making the case of living in willful sin and in the corruptions of the Roman Church
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
Government that those who adhered to the Religion of the Roman Church yet agreed to the rejecting that Authority which he challenged in England Which is sufficiently known to have been the beginning of the Breach between the two Churches Afterwards when it was thus agreed that the Bishop of Rome had no such Authority as he challenged what should hinder our Church from proceeding in the best way it could for the Reformation of it self For the Popes Supremacy being cast out as an usurpation our Church was thereby declared to be a Free Church having the Power of Government within it self And what method of proceeding could be more reasonable in this case than by the advice of the Governours of the Church and by the concurrence of civil Authority to publish such Rules and Articles according to which Religion was to be professed and the worship of God setled in England And this is that which N. O. calls refusing submission to all the Authority then extant in the world was all the Authority then extant shut up in the Popes Breast was there no due power of Governing left because his unjust power was cast off and that first by Bishops who in other things adhered to the Roman Church But they proceeded farther and altered many things in Religion against the Consent of the more Vniversal Church It is plain since our Church was declared to be Free they had a Liberty of enquiring and determining things fittest to be believed and practised this then could not be her fault But in those things they decreed they went contrary to the consent of the Vniversal Church Here we are now come to the merits of the cause and we have from the beginning of the Reformation defended that we rejected nothing but innovations and Reformed nothing but Abuses But the Church thought otherwise of them What Church I pray The Primitive and Apostolical that we have always appealed to and offered to be tryed by The truly Catholick Church of all Ages That we utterly deny to have agreed in any one thing against the Church of England But the plain English of all is the Church of Rome was against the Church of England and no wonder for the Church of England was against the Church of Rome but we know of no Fault we are guilty of therein nor any obligation of submission to the Commands of that Church And N. O. doth not say that we opposed the whole Church but the more Vniversal Church i. e. I suppose the greater number of Persons at that time But doth he undertake to make this good that the greater number of Christians then in the world did oppose the Church of England How doth he know that the Eastern Armenian Abyssin and Greek Churches did agree with the Church of Rome against us No that is not his meaning but by the more Vniversal Church he fairly understands no more but the Church of Rome And that we did oppose the Doctrine and practices of the Church of Rome we deny not but we utterly deny that to be the Catholick Church or that we opposed any lawful Authority in denying submission to it But according to the Canons of the Church we are to obey in any dissent or division of the Clergy the Superior and more comprehensive Body of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy What he means by this I do not well understand either it must be the Authority of the Pope and Councils of the Roman Church or a General Council of all the Catholick Church For the first we owe no obedience to them for the second there was no such thing then in the world and therefore could not be opposed And for the Canons of the Catholick Councils before the breaches of Christendom no Church hath been more guilty of a violation of them than the Church of Rome since the Rules of the Fathers have been turned into the Royalties of S. Peter We are no Enemies to the ancient Patriarchal Government of the Christian Church and are far more for preserving the Dignity of it than the Roman Church can be For we should think it a happy State of the Christian Church if all the Patriarchs did enjoy their ancient power and priviledges and all Christendom would consent to a truly Free and General Council which we look on as the best expedient on earth for composing the differences of the Christian World if it might be had But we cannot endure to be abused by meer names of titular Patriarchs but real Servants and Pensionaries of the Popes with combinations of interested parties instead of General Councils with the pleasure of Popes instead of ancient Canons Let them reduce the ancient Government of the Church within its due bounds let the Bishop of Rome content himself with the priviledges he then enâ—oyed let debates be free and Bishops assemble with an equal proportion out of all Churches of Christendom and if we then oppose so generâ—l a consent of the Christian Church let them charge us with not submitting to all the Authority extant of the world But since the State of Christendom hath been so much divided that a truly General Council is next to an impossible thing the Church must be Reformed by its parts and every Free Church enjoying the Rights of a Patriarchal See hath according to the Canons of the Church a sufficient power to Reform all abuses within it self when a more general consent cannot be obtained By this we may see how very feeble this charge is of destroying all Church-Authority by refusing submission to the Roman Hierarchy and how very pityful an advantage can from hence be made by the dissenting parties among us who decry that Patriarchal and ancient Government as Anti-christian which we allow as Prudent and Christian. But of the difference of these two case I have spoken already 4. But yet N. O. saith my principles afford no effectual way or means in this Church of suppressing or convicting any Schism Sect or Heresie or reducing them either to submission of judgement or silence Therefore my Principles are destâ—â—ctive to all Church-Authority To which I answer 1. That the design of my Principles was to lay down the Foundations of Faith and not the means of suppressing heresies If I had laid down the Foundations of Peace and left all Persons to their own judgements without any regard to Authority this might have been justly objected against me but according to this way it might have been objected to Aristotle that he was an Enemy to civil Government because he doth not lay down the Rules of it in his Logick or that Hippocrates favoured the Chymists and Mountebanks because he saith not a word of the Colledge of Physitians If I had said any thing about the Authority of particular Churches or the ways of suppressing Sects then how insultingly had I been asked What is all this to the Foundations of Faith Excellent Protestant principles of Faith They begin now to resolve faith into the Authority of
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
justly charge the Church of Rome even in the decrees of her Councils with laying such a foundation as doth overthrow the necessity of a good life The way he takes to vindicate those points from this consequence is this That the Sacramenta mortuorum viz. Baptism and Penance which confer justifying Grace do require a subject rightly disposed And the Sacramenta vivorum viz. Confirmation Eucharist and Extreme unction do require the receiver to be actually in a State of Grace the same he saith of Indulgences that the benefit of them doth suppose a man put into a State of Grace by the Sacrament of Penance so that the whole matter is put upon this issue whether their Doctrine concerning the conditions by which a man may be put into a State of Grace be not such as doth overthrow the necessity of a good life And it being acknowledged that the Sacrament of Penance doth confer the Grace of justification on all persons rightly disposed for it our only business is to enquire what necessary conditions their Church requires in order to it For which we appeal to the words of the Council of Trent for Session 14. c. 4. That plainly determins that imperfect contrition or attrition although it cannot bring men to justification without the Sacrament of Penance yet it doth dispose men for obtaining the Grace of God by the Sacrament of Penance If we joyn this now with another decree of the same Council viz. that the Sacraments do conferr Grace on all those who are disposed to receive it I leave it now to any one to judge whether from hence it doth not necessarily follow that all those that have but imperfect contrition or bare attrition for their sins are by the Sacrament of Penance put into a State of Grace according to the Doctrine of the Council of Trent And how far this overthrows the necessity of a good life will appear from the explication of contrition and attrition given by the same Council Contrition is defined to be a grief of mind and detestation of sin committed with a purpose of sinning no more therefore imperfect contrition or attrition must be such a grief and detestation of sin past as implies but an imperfect purpose of sinning no more From which it evidently follows that by the Doctrine of this Council a man may be put into a State of Grace without so much as a firm or perfect purpose of sinning no more And can there be a Doctrine invented by men that doth more effectually destroy the necessity of a good life than this doth For the State of Grace puts a man actually into the favour of God and supposing him to fall into mortal sin afterwards all he needs to do is only to repeat the same kind of attrition and receive the Sacrament of Penance and he is perfectly sound again and recovers the Favour of God I know the Council there saith That this attrition must exclude voluntatem peccandi as O. N. observes but that implies no more than a man 's not having at that time a purpose to sin again and the Council distinguishes it from the propositum non peccandi de caetero or the purpose not to sin again which the Council applies to contrition as the other to attrition And Cajetan himself quoted by O. N. calls it an imperfect purpose of not sinning So that after all the evasions which have been yet or can be produced the Roman Churches Doctrine of Repentance and Indulgences doth most dangerously obstruct devotion and a good life I desire therefore O. N. and his Brethren to be a little more sparing in their censures of us as unfaithfully representing the Doctrine of their Church for we understand it much better and represent it more truly than they desire But supposing the words of the Council were ambiguous in this matter what better help can we have to understand it than the sense of their most eminent and learned Instructours of Conscience and those not of the single Order of Jesuits as some would have it believed but of all sorts among them Melchior Canus who was far enough from being a Friend of the Jesuits saith expresly although a man knows he hath not contrition but bare attrition he may come to the Sacrament and receive grace by it for which he gives this reason because Baptism and Penance are Sacramenta mortuorum and therefore those who are under mortal sin if they have attrition whereby the impediment is removed may not only come to them but go away with the Grace conferred because the Sacraments always conferr Grace where the impediment is removed And he is followed herein saith Morinus not only by Lopez Pesantius Nicol. Isambertus Professor of Divinity at Paris but by the fargreatest number of their modern Divines I shall not so much as mention the Jesuitical Casuists whose Testimonies are produced in the Jesuits Morals or Provincial letters such as Filliutius Amicus Sa Escobar Bauny c. But I shall name some of far greater Authority among them O. N. frequently cites Paul Layman with expressions of esteem and he determins that true contrition is not necessary to the Sacrament of Penance after the commission of mortal sin but attrition is sufficient although a man know it to be only attrition If they had made attrition only necessary to the Sacrament of Baptism they might have pleaded that they had not destroyed the necessity of a good life afterwards to preserve the Grace conveyed in Baptism but we see in the case of mortal sin afterwards toties quoties no more is necessary but a new Act of Attrition and that not only when a man mistakes it to be contrition but though a man knows it to be bare attrition I confess Cardinal Tolet although he asserts the substance of the Doctrine yet he saith attrition only serves when it is mistaken for contrition but this Morinus tells us the later Divines laugh at and explode Cardinal Lugo not only contends for the Doctrine but asserts it to be the Doctrine of the Council of Trent viz. that attrition with the Sacrament of Penance is sufficient for the Grace of Justification and quotes Suarez Vasquez and Maeratius as sufficiently proving from the words of the Council that attrition is the next disposition to the Grace of justification conveyed by the Sacrament and this attrition he there shews against Sylvius doth not imply an imperfect love of God above all which is directly contrary to O. N. And in another place he proves that a man is not bound always to contrition for his sins although they be mortal for saith he if he were then a man having attrition cannot be excused but only by invincible Ignorance from a new mortal sin in coming to the Sacrament of Penance without contrition because some time is commonly supposed to intervene between a mans attrition and his justification by the Sacrament
in which time he would sin mortally by omitting contrition if he were obliged to it but this saith he is against the common opinion of Divines that a man contracts any new guilt by omitting contrition Nay he afterwards determins that a man that hath received the Sacrament of Penance with bare attrition is not bound under the guilt of mortal sin for omitting it to an act of contrition at the point of death which is he saith the commonly received opinion among them and he quotes Diana Coninch Becanus Layman Fagundez Faber Turrianus Salas and others for it The great argument he brings is because Confessors do not think themselves obliged to put men in mind of an act of contrition at that time as necessary as common experience shews And are not such Confessors excellent Guides to Heaven the mean while If they be they have found out a much broader way and wider gate than ever Christ intended What not one single act of contrition necessary No not at the point of death What pity it is for sinners you have not the keeping of Heaven-gates How do they want the Sacrament of Penance in Hell for no doubt there is attrition good store there But above all of them commend me to honest Gregor de Valentiâ who not only makes contrition unnecessary but saith it is rather a hindrance to the effect of the Sacraments From whence Morinus justly infers that a Confessor ought not to perswade the Penitent to Contrition nor the penitent to endeavour after it Nay Morinus shews that grave men and famous in their Church do assert that a Penitent having received the Sacrament of Penance is not bound to so much as one act of contrition or the Love of God in order to his reconciliation with God Yea although a man hath hated God to the last act of his life if he receives the Sacrament of Penance they deny that it is necessary for him to be contrite for his sins or to love God Nothing could go beyond this but what follows in him that the excellency of the Evangelical Sacraments above the legal consists in this that the Evangelical Sacraments have freed us from the most heavy yoke 〈◊〉 of contrition and the Love of God O admirable Guides of Conscience I do not at all question but Jews Turks and Heathens have a much better and truer notion of Repentance than these men the Pagan Philosophers were Christians to them And what injury have I done them now in charging such things upon them which obstruct devotion and overthrow the necessity of a good life For I hardly think it possible to contrive a Doctrine more effectual for that end than to tell men that the Sacraments of the Gospel do free men from that heavy yoke Contrition and the Love of God But supposing there were no such Foundation for this Doctrine in the Council of Trent as we see there is would there be no danger to mens Salvation if their Confessors generally told then these things and they knew it to be thâ— current opinion among them Is there 〈◊〉 danger of falling into the ditch wheâ— the Blind lead the Blind unless General Council expresly allow of it 〈◊〉 there no danger by Empericks aâ—â— Mountebanks unless the whole Coâ—ledge of Physicians approve them Anâ— of all sorts of Empericks the worst aâ—â— such Casuists and Confessors Is therâ— no way to magnify the Sacerdotal office unless they have a Power to Trepan Soul into eternal flames for want of true repentance by making them believe thâ— Priests absolution with bare attritioâ— will make all even with God Or 〈◊〉 this Doctrine only a Decoy to draw great sinners into your nets And all this while is your Church innocent which at least sees and will not reform these things In A. D. 1665. 24. of September and 18. May 1666. the Congregation of the Inquisition at Rome under Alexander 7. took upon them to censure 45. several Propositions of the late Casuists as scandalous and pernicious to the Souls of men but not one of them relates to this Doctrine of repentance although the Jansenists in France had complained of it Whence could this arise but from looking on it as the Doctrine of their Church Indeed I find that on May 5. 1667. The Pope caused a Decree to be published straitly forbidding all persons in their debates about Attrition to condemn each other but it is worth our while to understand what this controversie was viz. Whether bare attrition doth require an act of the love of God and although the Negative be there said to be the more common opinion yet the Pope would not have the others that affirmed it to be censured But not the least word against the sufficiency of bare attrition Are any of the Books censured which assert this Doctrine Nay they are published with great approbations Are any of the Defenders of it discountenanced Nay they are Persons in the highest esteem dignity and Authority among them Are any cautions given to Confessors to beware of these Doctrines Nay these very Books are purposely written and approved for their instruction and use And if their Church be innocent after all this so was the Iewish Church in our Saviours time for the corruptions that were then among them had no decree of the Sanhedrin that I find for them it was only their Schoolmen and Casuists the Scribes and Pharisees which introduced them And yet our Saviour thought mens Souls in danger when he bid them beware of the leaven of the Pharisees I confess when we debate the causes of Separation from their Communion we think it then reasonable to alledge no more than what they impose on all to believe and practice and we have enough of all Conscience in that kind without going farther but when we represent the hazard of Salvation to particular persons we may then justly charge them with the pernicious Doctrines and practices which are received and allowed among them although not decreed by the Church in Councils For otherwise it would be just as if one should say to a man that asked him whether he might safely travel through such a Country yes without doubt you may for although there be abundance of Thieves and High-waymen yet the Prince or the State never approved them or gave them licence to rob Travellers Do you think any man would venture his person or his purse on no better security Yet such security as this if it were true is all that such moderate men as O. N. or his Brethren can give as to the Roman Church for they dare not deny the bad consequence of the Doctrines and practices charged upon them but only say the Church hath not decreed them So much I thought necessary to say to this newest and most plausible pretence which is made use of by the best Advocates for the Roman Church And now farewel to Moderation for the two next which appeared on the Stage against me
power and that they were to be so looked on by all But the Pope did not think this sufficient but declares all those Articles that related to liberty of Religion Church-lands or any Ecclesiastical Rights or brought any the least prejudice to them or might be thought or pretended so to do to be null void invalid unjust damned reprobate vain and without any force or power and that they shall remain so for ever and that no person though never so much sworn to observe those articles shall be bound by such oath no right title plea prescription shall accrue to any by vertue of them and therefore out of the Plenitude of Apostolical power he doth absolutely damn reprobate null and cassate all those articles and protests before God of the nullity of them and restores all persons and places to their ancient possessions notwithstanding them with very much more to the same purpose This was dated at Rome apud Sanctam Mariam Majorem sub Annulo Piscatoris die 26 Novemb. and solemnly published there the third of Jan. 1651. in the eighth year of his Pontificat Call you this Sir the Popes confirming them Is it credible that he who in the beginning of his Answer had charged the late Protestant Books which he most ingeniously calls Libels to be crammed with nothing else but what we know to be false should within a few Pages have the confidence to affirm in the face of the world so notorious an untruth But I leave this ingenious Author to be Chastised for this and other his extravagancies by his worthy Adversary and return to my own After all these unsuccessful attempts at last the Knight himself resolves to encounter the Dragon and accordingly he buckles on his armour mounts his stead and according to all ancient and modern Pictures of the combat directs his lance into the very mouth of it wisely considering if the head were mortally wounded the whole Body would fall to the ground After him at a convenient distance follows his Squire I. S. who had a particular spight at the Dragons Tayl and without fear or wit falls unmercifully upon it and in his own opinion hath chopt it into a thousand pieces But such mischievous creatures whose strength lies scattered in all their parts do often rise up when they are triumphed over as dead and give their most deadly wounds when they are thought to lye gasping for breath It happened that when T. G's Answer to the first part of my Book came out I was before engaged in the Defence of the Protestant principles of faith against the Guide in Controversies and E. W. the Author of those two learned Treatises as T. G. calls them Protestancy without Principles and Religion and Reason part of which being then in the Press I was forced to go through with that before I could take his Book into consideration And thereupon I resolved to dispatch all those which relate to the Principles of Faith together and then to proceed to the Principles of Worship in answer to him which God willing I intend as soon as the former part is finished All that I shall take notice of him here is to represent the ingenuity of his dealing with me in his Preface wherein he charges me with dissenting from the Doctrine of the Church of England in accusing the Church of Rome of Idolatry And by this one Instance I desire the Reader to judge what Candour and sincerity he is to expect in his Book For the sense of the Church of England I appealed to the Book of Homilies not to any doubtful or general or single passage therein but to the design of one of the largest and most elaboratâ— Homilies in the whole Book consisting of three several parts the last of which iâ— said not to be meerly for the People but for the instruction of those who were tâ— teach them The design of that last part is thus set down 1. That Popish Images and the Idols of the Gentils are all one concerning themselves 2. That they have been and be worshipped in our time in like form and manner as were the Idols of the Gentils And for that Idolatry standeth chiefly in the mind it shall in this part first be proved that our Image-maintainers have had and have the same opinions and judgement of Saints whose Images they have made and worshipped as the Gentils Idolaters had of their Gods and afterwards shall be declared that our Image-maintainers and worshippers have used and use the same outward rites and manner of honouring and worshipping their Images as the Gentils did use before their Idols and that therefore they commit Idolatry as well inwardly as outwardly as did the wicked Gentils Idolaters and this that Homily is intended for the proof of which it doth very fully But saith T. G. why did I not appeal for the sense of our Church to the 39. Articles As though the approbation of the Book of Homilies were not one of them viz the 35. The second Book of Homilies the several Titles whereof we have joyned under this Article among which Titles the second is this of the Peril of Idolatry doth contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine and necessary for these times Which Articles were not only allowed and approved by the Queen but confirmed by the subscription of the hand of the Arch-bishop and Bishops of the upper House and by the subscription of the whole Clergy in the nether House of Convocation A. D. 1571. Now I desire T. G. to resolve me whether men of any common understanding would have subscribed to this Book of Homilies in this manner if they had believed the main Doctrine and design of one of them had been false and pernicious as they must have done if they had thought the practice of the Roman Church to be free from Idolatry I will put thâ— case that any of the Bishops then had thought the charge of Idolatry had been unjust and that it had subverted the foundation of Ecclesiastical Authority that there could have been no Church or right ordination if the Roman Church had been guilty of Idolatry would they have inserted this into the Articles when it was in their power to have left it out and that the Homilies contained a wholesome and Godly Doctrine which in their consciences they believed to be false and pernicious I might as well think that the Council of Trent would have allowed Calvins Institutions as containing a wholesome and Godly Doctrine as that men so perswaded would have allowed it the Homily against the Peril of Idolatry And how is it possible to understand the sense of our Church better than by such publick and authentick acts of it which all Persons who are in any place of trust in the Church must subscribe and dâ—clare their approbation of them This Homily hath still continued the same the Article the very same and if so they must acknowledge this hath been and is to this day the sense
will suffer the people to try nothing but do teach them wholly to depend on them and to that purpose they have indeed three notable sleights First they forbid them the reading of the Scriptures And the better to be obeyed therein they will not permit the Scriptures to be Translated into the Vulgar Tongue Whereof it came to pass that the people were so easily seduced and drawn from Christ to the Pope from his merits to the Saints and their own merits from his bloody sacrifice whereby only sins are remitted to their most dry and fruitless sacrifice from the spiritual food of his Body and Blood unto a carnal and Capernaitical Transubstantiation from the calling upon his name to an Invocation of Saints and from their sure trust and confidence in his death to a vain imagination of the vertue of their Masses Pilgrimages Pardons and I know not what intolerable Superstition and Idolatry I hope Arch-Bishop Bancroft may for once pass for no Puritan with T. G. But what will he say if the only persons he produces as most partial of his side do give in evidence against him Bishop Mountague is the first whose words are these in the Book cited by him Our predecessors and Fathers coming late out of Popery living near unto Papists and Popish times conversing with them having been nuzzled and brought up amongst them and knowing that Images used to be crept unto incensed worshipped and adored among them c. What thinks he is not this all one as to charge them with Idolatry And more plainly in his former Book But whatsoever you say however you qualify the thing with gentle words we say in your practice you far exceed and give them that honour which is Latria a part of Divine respect and worship And afterwards saith the people go to it with downright adoration and your new Schools defend that the same respect is due to the representer as must be given to the representee So that the Crucifix is to be reverenced with the the self-same honour that Christ Jesus is Ablasphemy not heard of till Thomas Aquinas set it on foot Clear these enormities and others like these then come and we may talk and soon agree concerning honour and respect unto Reliques or Images of Saints or Christ till then we cannot answer it unto our Maker to give his honour unto a Creature His next is Pet. Heylin And now I hope we have at last hit upon a man far enough from being a Puritan yet this very Person gives plain evidence against him For i◠his 4th Sermon on the Tares preached a◠White-Hall Ianuary 27. 1638. H◠hath these words So it is also in the point of Images first introduced into the Church for ornament History and imitation Had they staid there it had been well and no faul◠found with them But when the Schools began to State it that the same Veneration was to be afforded to the Type and Prototype then came the Doctrine to the growth When and by whom and where it was first so stated is not easie to determine and indeed not necessary It is enough that we behold it in the fruits And what fruits think you could it bear but most gross Idolatry greater than which was never known among the Gentils Witness their praying not before but to the Crucifix and calling on the very Cross the wooden and material Cross both to increase their righteousness and remit their sins And for the Images of the Saints they that observe with what laborious Pilgrimages magnificent processions solemn offerings and in a word with what affections prayers and humble bendings of the body they have been and are worshipped in the Church of Rome might very easily conceive that She was once again relapsed into her ancient Paganism With much more to the same purpose His only person remaining is Mr. Thorndike a man of excellent Learning and great piety but if we should grant that he held some thing singular in this matter what is that to the constant opinion of our Church and yet even Mr. Thorndike himself in a paper sent by him 〈◊〉 some whom T. G. know's not long before his death saith That to pray to Saints for those things which only God can give as all Papist do is by the proper sense of the word◠down-right Idolatry If they say their meaning is by a figure only to desire them to procure their requests of God How dare any Christian trust his soul with that Church which teaches that which must needs be Idolatry in all that understand not the figure So that upon the whole matter T. G. cannot produce any on◠Person of our Church that hath clearly an◠wholly acquitted the Church of Rome from the charge of Idolatry It seems then 〈◊〉 Church hath been made up of Puritans i◠T. G's sense of them But if these do no◠satisfy him what doth he think of the Arch-Bishop and Bishops and Clergy of the Convocation A. D. 1640. Were 〈◊〉 these Puritans too And yet in the sevent◠Canon they have these words And albeit at the time or Reforming this Church from that gross Superstition of Popery it was carefully provided that all means should be used to root out of the minds of the people both the inclination thereto and memory thereof especially of the Idolatry committed in the Mass for which cause all Popish Altars were demolished c. What can more express the sense of our Church than the concurrent opinion of Arch-Bishops Bishops and Clergy of both Provinces met in Convocation When we see they so lately charged the Church of Rome with Idolatry Let us now consider what exceptions he takes against the other witnesses produced by me Jewel Bilson Davenant all eminent Bishops of our Church and of great learning are cast away at once as incompetent Persons But why so Why saith T. G. they were all excepted against by our late Soveraign K. Charcles I. in his third paper to Henderson That is a shrewd prejudice indeed to their Authority to be rejected by a Prince of so excellent a judgement and so Cordial a friend to the Church of England But it is good to be sure whether it be so or no. All that he saith of Bishop Iewel is this and though I much reverence Bishop Iewel ' s memory I never thought him infallible So then he must he Puritanically inclined but whence does that follow not surely from the Kings reverencing his memory for that were to reflect upon the King himself not from his not thinking him Infallible For I dare say the King never thought the Pope infallible must be needs therefore think him a Puritan Surely never man was such a Friend to the Puritans as this T. G. who without any ground gives them away some of the greatest honours of our Church and if the Testimony last cited be of any force to prove one a Puritan all mankind and himself too for I plainly perceive by this
and to pray for them while they calumniate me I have so much the less reason to wonder that my Book should be charged by them with no less than Blasphemy since the Author of our Religion himself was so and suffered under that accusation But wherein I pray doth this blasphemy lye have I uttered any thing that tends to the reproach of God or true Religion have I the least word which malice it self can stretch to the dishonour of Iesus Christ the Prophets and Apostles or the Holy Scriptures written by divine Inspiration no I challenge the boldest of them and most malicious to produce any thing I ever said or writ that doth but seem to look that way Have I made the practice of true devotion ridiculous and the real expressions of piety the subject of scorn and derision No so far from it that it was only a just zeal for the Honour and practise of true Religion made me willing to lay open the ridiculous Fanaticisms of some pretended Saints in the Roman Church And must they be allowed to charge Fanaticism on us and think it far from Blasphemy to represent the Enthusiastick Follies of the Sectaries among us and when they are guilty of the very same or greater may not we shew their unjustice and partiality without being accused of Blasphemy But some of these are Canonized Saints as S. Brigitt S. Catharine S. Francis and S. Ignatius which is so far from making the Cause of their Church better that to my understanding it makes it much worse For although Fanaticism be disowned by our Church it seems it is not barely countenanced and allowed in the Church of Rome but Canonized and adored That which I insist upon is this either we have no Fanaticks or theirs are so for by the very same rule that ours are so theirs must be too for our Fanaticks do pretend as high to the Spirit and divine Revelation as any of theirs only there is this remarkable difference between their Fanaticks and ours that ours are among us but not of us but theirs are both Now if any one who pretends to Inspiration and Enthusiasm cannot be charged with Fanaticism without blasphemy we must be exposed to all follies and contradictions imaginable and to what purpose are we bid to try the Spirits whether they be of God or no i. e. whether their pretence to divine revelation be true or false If there may be false pretences to Inspiration we are to examine the grounds of them and to judge accordingly and all false pretenders to Inspiration let them be Canonized by whom they will are the highest sort of Fanaticks and the greater honour is given them the greater dishonour it is to the Christian Religion But these things shall be more largely discussed in their proper place I now only take notice of the injustice of their calumny with which they have made so much noise among injudicious people and I should not have been so much concerned about it had I not found suggestions to the same purpose in the Authors of the two Pamphlets The one of them very kindly makes no difference between Lucian Porphyrius and me but only some interest which doth byass me another way and verily believes good man that were it not for that I could flurt with as much piquancy and railery at Christian Religion as I do at the Roman In which base suggestion there is no colour of truth but only that he very honestly distinguisheth the Christian Religion and the Roman from each other as indeed they are in many things as different from each other as truth from falshood wisdom from folly and true piety from gross Superstition If he had called me an Atheist in plain terms the grossness of the calumny might have abated the force of it but there is no such way to do a man mischief as by fly insinuations and shrewd suggestions introduced with I verily believe and expressed with some gravity and zeal But you who are so good at resolving faith what is this verily believe of yours founded upon Have you the authority of your Church for it have you any evidence of reason or rather have you it by some vision or revelation made by some of those Saints whose Fanaticism is exposed or do you verily believe it as you verily believe many other things for no reason in the world If I should tell you I have made it my business to assert the truth of the Scriptures and Christian Religion therein contained in a large Discourse several years since published such is your charity that you would tell me so did Vaninus write for Providence when he denyed a Deity If I should make large Apologies for my innocency and publish a confession of my faith with protestations that no interest in the world could remove me from it you might tell me where there is no guilt what need so much ado In plain terms I know but one way to satisfie such as you are but I will keep from it as long as I can and that is to go to Rome and be burnt for my faith for that is the kindness there shewed to those who contend for the purity of the Christian Religion against the corruptions of the Roman But such calumnies as these as they are not fit to be passed by so are they too gross to need any further answer I shall however declare my mind freely to you if I had no other notion of the Christian doctrine than what I have from the Doctrines of your Church as contrary to ours no other measures of Christian piety than from your mystical Theology no better way to Worship God than what is practised among you no greater certainty of Inspiration from God than of the Visions and Revelations of your late Saints no other miracles to confirm the Christian doctrine than what are wrought by your Images and Saints I should sooner choose to be a Philosopher than a Christian upon those terms And I verily believe to answer yours with another that the frauds and impostures of the Roman Church have made more Atheists in Christendom than any one cause whatsoever besides for when men resolve all their faith into the testimony of a Church whose frauds are so manifest and confessed by your best Writers such as Melchior Canus and Ludov. Vives what can they who know no better but suspect the Inspirations and Miracles of former Ages who see such false pretences to them so much magnified and the Fanatick pretenders Canonized on that account And I am so far from thinking it any disservice to the Christian Religion to expose these Fanaticisms that I again verily believe that Christianity will never obtain as it ought to do among men till all those hypocritical cheats be yet more laid open to the view of the World which if any one have but the courage and patience to undertake it would be as great and a much more useful labour
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
representations of him to our senses with a design to worship them Why did not God as well forbid the one as he did the other Were the Israelites then in the Beatifical vision were their conceptions of God suitable to his incomprehensible nature if not why were they not forbidden as well to think of God as to make any Images of him Is God as much disparaged by the necessary weakness of our understandings as by voluntarily false and corporeal Images of him Nay doth not God design to prevent the errour of our Imaginations by such prohibitions as those are and thereby commands us to think worthily of him and when we pray to him to consider him only as an Infinite Being in his Nature and Attributes I do not know what Imaginations others have of God it may be those in the Church of Rome measure all by themselves and God by their Images of him and thence conclude that no men can think of God but as they picture him like an Old man sitting in Heaven but I assure them I never had such an Imagination of him and if I had should think it very unworthy of him I know no other conception of God but of a Being infinitely perfect and this is rather an intellectual apprehension than a material imagination of him I am assured that he is by mighty and convincing arguments but to bring him down to my Imagination is to contradict the evidence that I have of his Being for the same reasons which convince me that he is do likewise convince me that he is infinite in power and wisdom and goodness If I thought otherwise of him I should know no reason to give him the Worship of my mind and soul. Although my conceptions cannot reach his greatness yet they do not confine it nor willfully debase it they do not bring him down to the meanness of a Corporeal Image But because we cannot think highly enough of God must we therefore devise ways to expose him to contempt and scorn And we cannot but despise a Deity to whom any Image can be like But such absurd and silly arguments deserve no farther confutation They indeed may take more liberty who write to those who are bound not to judge of what is writ but only to cry it up As for us who think it not fit to have our People in such slavery we dare not venture such idle stuff among them I come therefore to the second contradiction he charges me with which is concerning the danger of salvation which they are lyable to who communicate with the Roman Church when yet I acknowledge that Church to be a true Church and therefore to be a true way to salvation and withall Arch B. Laud whom I defend doth grant a possibility of salvation to those in the Church of Rome The force of this contradiction depending on these concessions I shall 1. Shew in what sense they are granted by us 2. Examin the strength of the propositions he draws from hence towards the making this a contradiction 1. Concerning the Roman Church being a true Church The Arch-bishops Adversary having falsely charged him with granting the Roman Church to be a right Church he complains of his injustice in it and saith that it is a Church and a true Church he granted but not a right Church for Truth only imports the Being right perfection in conditions thus a Thief is a true man though not an upright man So a corrupt Church may be true as a Church is a company of men which profess the faith of Christ and are baptized into his name but it is not therefore a right Church either in Doctrine or Manners and again saith It is true in that sense as ens and verum being and true are convertible one with another and every thing that hath a Being is truly that Being which it is in truth of subtance The Replyer to him saith that the notion of a Church implyes Integrity and Perfection of conditions upon which I gave him this Answer That he did herein betray his weak or willful mistakes of a Church morally for Metaphysically true If he could prove it impossible for a Church to retain its Being that hath any errours in doctrine or corruptions in practice he would therein do something to the purpose but when he had done it all that he would get by it was that then we should not so much as acknowledge the Roman Church to be Metaphysically a true Church and therefore the Reader is left to judge whether his Lordships Charity for or his Testimony against their Church was built upon better grounds By this it is evident in what sense it was granted that the Roman Church was a true Church 2. Concerning possibility of salvation in that Church To the question that was asked my Lord of Canterbury whether a person might be saved in the Roman faith he gives this Answer that the Ignorant that could not discern the errours of that Church so they held the Foundation and conformed themselves to a Religious life might be saved and after explains himself more fully that might be saved grants but a possibility no sure or safe way of salvation the possibility I think saith he cannot be denyed to the Ignorants especially because they hold the Foundation and cannot survey the building And the Foundation can deceive no man that rests upon it But a secure way they cannot go that hold with such corruptions when they know them And again Many Protestants indeed confess there is salvation possible to be attained in the Roman Church but yet they say withall that the errours of that Church are so many and some so great as weaken the Foundation that it is very hard to go that way to Heaven especially to them that have had the truth manifested And in another place I do indeed for my part leaving other men free to their own judgement acknowledge a possibility of salvation in the Roman Church but so as that which I grant to Romanists is not as they are Romanists but as they are Christians that is as they believe the Creed and hold the Foundation Christ himself not as they associate themselves wittingly and knowingly to the gross Superstitions of the Roman Church And I am willing to hope there are many among them which keep within that Church and yet wish the Superstitions abolished which they know and which pray to God to forgive their errours in what they know not and which hold the Foundation firm and live accordingly and would have all things amended that are amiss were it in their power And to such I dare not deny a possibility of salvation for that which is Christs in them though they hazard themselves extreamly by keeping so close to that which is Superstition and in the case of Images comes too near Idolatry These are my Lord of Canterburies own words and laid together in my Defence of him which I. W.
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
very mean one of the Books of Scripture and the Divine Revelations therein contained I could here earnestly intreat the wiser men of that Church for the honour of God and the Christian Religion not to suffer such inconsiderate persons to vindicate their cause who to defend the extravagant infirmities of some Enthusiastical women among them are so forward to cast dirt and reproach upon our common Religion and those Revelations from whence we derive it But I forbear only it is a shrewd sign if this way be allowed of a wretched cause that cannot be maintained without plunging those who rely upon their word into the depths of Atheism But these are not things to be so slightly passed over they deserve a fuller and severer chastisement For the present this is enough to shew what monstrous absurdities this way of vindicating their Church from Fanaticism hath brought I. W. to Yet in one respect he deserves some pardon for they are wont to write their answers upon the common Themes out of some staunch Authors who considered a little better what they writ But this was a new charge and neither Bellarmin Becanus nor any of their old beaten souldiers could give them any assistance they found not the Title of the Fanaticism of the Roman Church in any of their common-place-Books therefore plain Mother-wit must help them and so it hath bravely But before they again attempt this matter I desire them to consider these things least they should in a desperate humour utterly give up the cause of Religion finding themselves unable to defend that of their Church 1. Whether there can be any greater Fanaticism than a false pretence to immediate divine Revelation For what can more expose men to all the follies and delusions imaginable than this will do what actions can be so wild and extravagant but men may do under such a pretence of immediate Revelation from God what bounds of order and Government can be preserved some may pretend a Revelation to take up Arms against their Prince or to destroy all they meet which is no unheard of thing others may not go so far but may have revelations of the unlawfulness of Kingly Government others may pretend revelations of a new Gospel and a more spiritual dispensation than hath been yet in the World as the Mendicant Friers did 2. Whether we are bound to believe all such who say They have divine revelations or whether persons may not be deceived in thinking they have revelations when they are only delusions of their own Fancies or the Devil if not then every one is to be believed who pretends to these things and then all follies and contradictions must be fwallowed which men say they have by immediate revelation and every Fanatick must be believed to have divine revelation who believes himself though he be only deluded by his own Imagination or become Enthusiastical by the power of a disease in his head or some great heat in his blood 3. Whether there must not be some certain rules established whereby all persons and even competent authority it self must proceed in judging these pretences to revelation whether they be true or false for if they proceed without rule they must either be inspired too or else must receive all who pretend to divine revelations if there be any certain rules whereby the revelation is to be judged then if any persons receive any revelation against those rules whether are other persons bound to follow their judgement against those rules 4. Whether there can be any more certain rule of judging than that two things evidently contradictory to each other cannot both come from divine revelation For then God must contradict himself which is impossible to be supposed and would overthrow the faith of any divine revelation And this is the plain case of the revelations made to two famous Saints in the Roman Church S. Brigitt and S. Catharine to one it was revealed that the B. Virgin was conceived with Original sin to the other that she was not both these have competent Authority for they were both Canonized for Saints by the Roman Church and their Revelations approved and therefore according to I. W. neither of them were Fanaticks though it is certain that one of their Revelations was false For either God must contradict himself or one of these must be deceived or go about to deceive and what greater Fanaticism can there be than that is if one of these had only some Fanatick Enthusiasm and the other divine Revelation then competent authority and submission to the judgement of the Church is not a rule to judge Fanaticism by for those were equal in both of them 5. Whether there be an equal reason to look for revelations now as in the time of the Prophets and our Saviour and his Apostles or whether God communicates revelations to no other end but to please and gratifie some Enthusiastical tempers and what should be the reason he should do it more now than in the age wherein revelations were more necessary In those times God revealed his mind to men but it was for the benefit of others when he sent them upon particular messages as the Prophets or made known some future events to them of great importance to the Church as the coming of the Messias c. or Inspired them to deliver weighty doctrines to the world as he did both the Prophets and Apostles why should we think that God now when the revelations of these holy and inspired persons are upon record and all things necessary to his Church are contained therein should vary this method of his and entertain some melancholy and retired women or other Enthusiastical persons with visions and revelations of no use to his Church 6. Whether God doth ever Inspire persons with immediate revelations without giving sufficient evidence of such Inspiration For if he did it were to leave men under a temptation to Infidelity without means to withstand it if he doth not then we have reason to examine the evidence before we believe the revelation The evidence God gave of old was either the Prophecy of a succession of Prophets by one whose commission was attested by great miracles as Moses who told the Israelites they were to expect Prophets and laid down rules to judge of them by or else by miracles wrought by themselves as by the Apostles whom our Lord sent abroad to declare his will to the world And where these are not what reason is there to receive any new Revelations as from God especially when the main predictions of the New Testament are of false Prophets and false Miracles 7. Whether the Revelations of their pretended Saints being countenanced by the Authority of their Church be equally received among them with the Revelations contained in Scripture if they be then they ought to have equal reverence paid to them and they ought to read them as Scripture to cite their Authority as divine and to believe them as infallible
Sophister one now comes forth in the habit of a grave Divine whom I shall treat with the respect due to his appearance of Modesty and Civility I pass by therefore all those unhandsome reflections in his Preface which I have not already answered in mine and come immediately to the main Controversie between us which I acknowledge to be of so great importance as to deserve a sober debate And the Controversie in short is this Whether Protestants who reject the Roman Churches Authority and Infallibility can have any sufficient Foundation to build their faith upon This we affirm and those of the Church of Rome confidently deny and on this account do charge us with the want of Principles i. e. sufficient grounds for our faith But this may be understood two ways 1. That we can have no certainty of our faith as Christians without their Infallibility 2. Or that we can have no certainty of our faith as Protestants i. e. in the matters in debate between their Church and ours These two ought carefully to be distinguished from each other and although the Principles I laid down do reach to both these yet that they were chiefly intended for the former will appear by the occasion of adding them to the end of the Answer there given The occasion was my Adversaries calling for Grounds and Principles upon which I there say that I would give an account of the faith of Protestants in the way of Principles and of the reason of our rejecting their impositions The first I undertook on two accounts 1. To shew that the Roman Churches Authority and Infallibility cannot be the Foundation of Christian faith and so we may be very good Christians without having any thing to do with the Church of Rome 2. That this might serve as a sufficient answer to a Book entituled Protestants without Principles Which being in some part of it directed against me I had reason not only to lay down those Principles bâ—t to do it in such a manner as did most directly overthrow the principles of that Book Which being only intimated there I must now to make my proceeding more clear and evident produce those assertions of E. W. for which mine were intended In the first Chapter he designs to prove That all men must be infallible in the assent they give to matters of faith For saith he If they disown such infallible believers they must joyntly deny all infallible faith and a little after an Infallible verity revealed to us forcibly requires an answerable and correspondent infallible faith in us and therefore he asserts a subjective Infallibility in true believers And from hence he proves the necessity of Infallible teachers for infallible believers and infallible teachers he saith seem neer correlatives In the second Chapter he saith he that hears an infallible teacher hath the Spirit of truth and he that hears not an infallible teacher wants this Spirit of truth by which he does not mean an infallible Revealer of the doctrine at first but the immediate teachers of the revealed doctrine for saith he no man can be a Heretick that denies the objective verities revealed in Gods word unless he be sure that his teacher reveals those verities infallibly He proposes the objection of a Simplician as he calls him that he builds his faith and Religion not on any Preachers talk but on the objective verities revealed in Scripture to which he answers that unless he first learn of some infallible Oracle the sense of Scripture in controverted places he can never arrive to the depth of Gods true meaning or derive infallible faith from those objective revealed Verities He yet farther asserts that every Catechist or Preacher that hath a lawful mission and is sent by the infallible Church to teach Christs Sacred Doctrine if he Preach that doctrine which Christ and his Church approves of is then under that notion of a member conjoyned with an Infallible Church infallible in his teaching and thence concludes that infallibility doth accompany both teachers and hearers and from denying this Infallibility he saith follows an utter ruine of Christian Religion yea and of Scripture too And afterwards he goes about to prove that no man can have any divine faith without infallibility in the proponent for faith he as long as the Infallibility of a Revelation stands remote from me for want of an undoubted application made by an infallible Proponent it can no more transfuse Certainty into Faith than Fire at a great distance warm This is the sum of the Principles of that Metaphysical wit but sure a man must have his brains well confounded by School Divinity and hard words before he can have common sense little enough to think he understands them But because I never loved to spend time in confuting a man who thinks himself the wiser for speaking things which neither he nor any one else can understand I rather chose in as short a way as I could to put together such Propositions as might give an account of Christian Faith without all this Iargon about Infallibility In order to this I first laid down the Principles wherein all parties are agreed and then such Propositions as I supposed would sufficiently give an account of our faith without any necessity of such an infallibility as he makes necessary for the foundation of it But for our clearer proceeding in an Argument of this importance it will be necessary to state and fix the notion of Infallibility before I come to particulars For as it is used it seems to be a rare word for Iugglers in Divinity to play tricks with for sometimes they apply it to the object that is believed and call that infallibly true sometimes to the subject capable of believing and say persons ought to be infallibly certain that what they believe is infallibly true and sometimes to the means of conveying that infallible truth to the faculties of men and these they say must be infallible or else there can be no infallible certainty of any thing as infallbly true But the subtilty of these things lies only in their obscurity and the School-man is spoiled when his talk is brought down out of the clouds to common sense I will therefore trie to bring these things out of their terms to a plain meaning and surely we may speak and understand each other in these matters without this doubtful term of Infallibility For if it signifies any thing we may make use of the thing it signifâ—es in stead of the word and by applying the thing signified by it to that which it is spoken of we shall soon discern how justly it is attributed to it Infallibile is that which cannot be deceived now if no one will say That a proposition cannot be deceived it is absurd to say that it is infallibly true therefore the matters revealed considered as objective verities as our schoolman speaks are not capable of
Divine Grace assisting him to find out in these Writings the things necessary to Salvation yet after all he cannot certainly understand the meaning of them Which to me appears so absurd and monstrous a Doctrine so contrary to the honour of the Scriptures and the design of Christianity that if I had a mind to disparage it I would begin with this and end with Transubstantiation For in earnest Sir did not our Saviour speak intelligibly in matteâ—s of so great importance to the Salvation of Mankind Did he not declare all that was necessary for that end in his many admirable discourses Did not the Evangelists record his words and actions in writing and that as one of them saith expresly That we might believe that Iesus is the Christ the Son of God and that believing we might have life through his name And after all this cannot we understand so much as the common necessaries to salvation by the greatest and most sincere endeavour for that end But it is time now to consider his exceptions against this Principle which are these 1. That God may reveal his mind so in Scripture as that in many things it may be clear only to some persons more versed in the Scriptures and in the Churches Traditional sense of them and more assisted from above according to their imployment which persons he hath appointed to instruct the rest But what is all this to our purpose our Question is not about may be 's and possibilities of things but it is taken for granted on both sides that God hath revealed his mind in writing therefore he need not make the supposition of no writings at all as he doth afterwards the Question is Whether these Writings being allowed for divine revelations of the Will of God he hath expressed the necessaries to salvation clearly therein or not That God may delivers his mind obscurely in many things is no question nor that he may inspire persons to unfold his mind where it is obscure but our question is whether or no these Writings being acknowledged to contain the Will of God it be agreeable with the nature of the design and the Wisdom and Goodness of God for such Writings not to be capable of being understood in all things necessary to salvation by those who sincerely endeavour to understand them But when I had expresly said things necessary for salvation why doth he avoid that which the dispute was about and only say many things in stead of it I do not doubt but there are many difficult places of Scripture as there must be in any ancient Writings penned in an Idiom so very different from ours But I never yet saw one difficulty removed by the pretended Infallible Guides of the Church all the help we have had hath been from meer fallible men of excellent skill in Languages History and Chronology and of a clear understanding and we should be very unthankful not to acknowledge the great helps we have had from them for understanding the difficult places of Scripture But for the Infallible Guides they have dealt by the obscurities of Scripture as the Priest and the Leviâ—e in our Saviours Parable did by the wounded man they have fairly passed them by and taken no care of them If these Guides did believe themselves infallible they have made the least use of their Talent that ever men did they have laid it up in a Napkin and buried it in the earth for nothing of it ever appeared above ground How could they have obliged the World more nay it had been necessary to have done it for the use of their Gift than to have given an Infallible sense of all controverted Places and then there had been but one dispute left whether they were infallible or not but now supposing we believe their Infallibility we are still as far to seek for the meaning of many difficult places And supposing God had once bestowed this Gift of Infallibility upon the Guides of the Church he might most justly deprive them of it because of the no use they have made of it and we might have great reason to believe so from our Saviours words To him that hath shall be given but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath So that not making use of this Talent of Infallibility gives us just reason to question whether God continues it supposing he had once given it to the Guides of the Church since the Apostles days which I see no reason to believe 2. His next exception is from a saying of Dr. Fields who he saith seems to advance a contrary Principle in his Preface to his Books of the Church But O the mischief of Common-place-Books which make men write what they find and not what is to their purpose For after all Dr. Field doth but seem to advance another Principle in his opinion and doth not so much as seem to do it in mine For that learned and judicious Writer sets himself purposely to disprove the Infallibility of the Church in the beginning of his fourth Book and is it probable that any man of common understanding would assert that in his Preface which he had disproved in his Book It is a known distinction in the Church of Rome of the Church Virtual representative and essential by the two first are meant Popes and Councils and of these two Dr. Field saith that they may erre in matters of greatest Consequence yet these are N. O's infallible Guides whose conduct he supposeth men obliged to follow and to yield their internal assent to Concerning the essential Church he saith That it either comprehends all the faithful that are and have been since Christ appeared in the flesh and then he saith it is absolutely free from all errour and ignorance of divine things that are to be known by Revelations or as it comprehends only all those Believers that are and have been since the Apostles times and in this sense he saith the whole Church may be ignorant in sundry things which are not necessary to salvation but he thinks it impossible for the whole Church to erre in anything of this nature But in things that cannot be clearly deduced from the Rule of Faith and word of divine and heavenly Truth we think it possible that all that have written of such things might erre and be deceived But if the Church be taken only as it comprehends the Believers that now are and presently live in the world he saith it is certain and agreed upon that in things necessary to be known and believed expresly and distinctly it never is ignorant much less doth erre Yea in things that are not absolutely necessary to be known and believed expresly and distinctly we constantly believe that this Church can never erre nor doubt pertinaciously but that there shall ever be some found ready to embrace the truth if it be manifested to them and such as shall not wholly neglect the
no such thing 3. A Law of such universal concernment to the Faith and Peace of the Christian Church being supposed the practice of the best and purestâ— Ages of the Church must be supposed agreeable thereto i. e. that in all matters of difference they did constantly own these infallible Judges by appealing to them for a final issue of all debates and resting satisfied with their decisions But if on the contrary when great differences have happened in and nearest the first times no such Authority was made use of but other ways put in practice to make an end of them if when it was pretended it was slighted and rejected nay if the persons pretending it were proceeded against and condemned and this not by a popular Faction but by just and legal Authority we may thence conclude that such Judges have arrogated that power to themselves which was not given them by the Supreme Legislator These things being premised I come to his particular Arguments which lie scatteredâ—up and down but to give them the greater strength I shall bring them nearer together And they are drawn either from Scripture or Tradition or parity of Reason 1. From Scripture And in truth the only satisfactory Argument in a matter of so great concernment to the Christian Church ought only to be drawn from thence unless we will suppose the Scripture defective in the most important things For this being pleaded as a thing necessary for the Peace of the Church by some and for the Faith of Christians by others so much greater the necessity of it is so much clearer ought the evidence of it to be in Scripture supposing that to be intended to reveal the Will of God to us in matters of the greatest necessity But it cannot be denied by our Adversaries that the places produced by them for a constant Infallibility in the Guides of the Church do not necessarily prove it because they are very capable of being understood as to the Infallibility only of the Apostles in the first Age and Foundation of the Christian Church is it then to be imagined that if Christ had intended such an Infallibility as the foundation of the Faith and Peace of his Church he would not have delivered his mind more plainly and clearly than he is pretended to do in this matter How easily might all the contentions of the Christian World have been prevented if Christ had caused it to be delivered in terms so clear as the nature of the thing doth require If he had said I do promise my Infallible Spirit to the Guides of the Church in all Ages to give the true sense of Scripture in all controversies which shall arise among Christians and I expect an obedience suitably to all their determinations or more particularly I appoint the Bishops of Rome in all Ages for my Successors in the Government of the Church who shall be the standing and infallible Iudges of all Controversies among Christians this dispute might never have happened among us For we assure them that we account the peace of the Church so valuable a thing and obedience to Christs Commands so necessary a duty that we are well enough inclined to embrace the doctrine of Infallibility if we could see any ground in Scripture for it But we cannot make persons infallible by believing them to be so but we may easily make our selves fools as others have done by believing it without reason The controversie then is not whether Infallibility in the Guides of the Church be a desirable thing or not for so we say impeccability is too but the question is whether there be any such thing promised by Christ to the Guides of his Church and whether all Christians on that account are bound to yield their internal assent as well as external obedience to all their decrees which we deny and desire to see it clearly proved from his words who alone could grant this Infallibility For if an infallible Judge be therefore necessary because the Scripture is not sufficiently clear for ending of Controversies and that God hath actually constituted such a Judge cannot be proved but by Scripture surely we have all the reason in the World to expect that the Scripture should be abundantly and beyond all contradiction clear in this point to make amends for its obscurity in the rest For if this Point be not clearly proved we are never the nearer an end of Controversies because the business stops at the very head and they may beg their hearts out before we shall ever be so good natured as to grant it them without proof And they who have been so bold shall I say or blasphemous as to charge our Lord with want of discretion in case he have not provided his Church with such an Infallible Judge do certainly render him much more obnoxious to this imputation in supposing him to have constituted such a Judge if he have no where plainly declared that he hath done so And let them if they can produce one clear Text of Scripture to this purpose which by the unanimous consent of the Fathers is so interpreted and which to the common sense of Mankind is more sufficiently clear for the ending this Controversie than the Scripture is said by them to be in other necessary Points of Faith And till they have done this according to their own way of arguing we have as much reason to deny their Infallibility as they have to demand our assent to it upon the presumed obscurity and insufficiency of Scripture When I came thus prepared to find what the Considerator would produce in a matter of such consequence I soon discerned how little mind he had to insist upon any proofs of that which is his only Engine to overthrow my Principles For after the most diligent search I could make the only Argument from Scripture I found produced was from the Old Testament where I confess I least looked for it but however this is thought so considerable as to be twice produced and yet is so unlucky that if I understand any thing of the force of it it pâ—oves the Judges in Westminster Hall to be infallible rather than the Pope or any Guide of the Christian Church For the force of the Argument lies in Gods appointing Iudges under the Law according to whose sentence matters were to be determined upon penalty of death in case of disobedience But what then doth this imply infallibility no that he dares not stand to but absolute obedience which we are ready to yield when we see the like absolute command for Ecclesiastical Judges of Controversies of Religion as there was among the Iews for their supreme Iudges in matters of Law But of this place I have already spoken at large and shewed how impertinently it is produced for Infallibility in the Book he often referrs to and might if he had thought fit have answered what is there said before he had urged it again without any new strength
is that it is a foolish thing to make use of a medium as uncertain as the thing which is to be proved by it and therefore if the Infallibility of the the Church be as liable to doubts and disputes as that of the Scriptures it is against all just Laws of reasoning to make use of the Churches Infallibility to prove the Scriptures by And to this no answer can be proper but either by saying that there is no absurdity in such a way of proving or else that the Infallibility of the Church is more certain and evident than that of the Scriptures Which I should be glad to see undertaken by any man who pretends to sense which N. O. doth too much to meddle with it and therefore fairly shuffles it off and turns my words quite to another meaning as though they had been spoken of the doubtful sense of the Decrees of Councils which although elsewhere I had sufficient reason to speak of yet that was not pertinent to this place But this was a way to escape by saying something though not at all to the purpose and yet he gives no sufficient answer to that sense he puts upon my words by bringing a Commentary upon them out of words used by me in another Discourse Wherein I did at large argue against the Infallibility of General Councils and after disproving it in general I undertook to prove that no man can have any certainty of Faith as to the Decrees of any Council because men can have no certainty of Faith that this was a General Council that it passed such Decrees that it proceeded lawfully in passing them and that this is the certain meaning of them all which are necessary in order to the believing those Decrees to be infallible with such a Faith as they call divine The words produced by him do speak of the doubtful sense and meaning of the Decrees of Councils by which I shew that men can have no more certainty of the meaning of them than of doubtful places of Scripture not as though I supposed it impossible for Councils to give a clear decision in matters of controversie so as that men might understand their meaning but I expresly mention such Decrees as are purposely framed in general terms and with ambiguous expressions pressions to give satisfaction to the several dissenting Parties for which I instanced in some of the Council of Trent whose ambiguity is most manifest by the disputes about their meaning raised by some who were present at the making of them I am far enough from denying that a Commentary may make a Text plainer or that a Iudges sentence can be clearer than the Law or that any Council can or hath decided any thing clearer than the thing that is in controversie which are his exceptions but I say if Councils pretend to do more than the Scriptures and to decide controversies for the satisfaction of the World and that men ought to have that certainty of Faith by them which they cannot have by the Scriptures they ought never to be liable to the same ambiguity and obscurity upon the account of which the Scripture is rejected from being a certain rule of Faith For as he saith well Infallibility alone ends not Controversies but clearness clearness in the point controverted which if Councils want they are as unfit to end Controversies as the Scriptures can be pretended to be But this is not the thing intended by me in this Proposition and therefore it needs no farther answer for the only subject of that Proposition is the Infallibility of the Church and not the clearness of the Decrees of Councils But I cannot admire the ingenuity of this way of answering me by putting another sense upon my words than they will bear and by drawing words out of another Discourse without shewing the purpose for which they are there used and leaving out the most material passages which tended to the clearing of them If N. O. thinks fit to oppose that whole Discourse against the Infallibility of General Councils and set down fairly the several Arguments I should be then too blame not to return a just answer but I am not bound to follow him in such strange excursions from the 17. Proposition of this Book to a single passage in a larger Book and from that back to another at a mighty distance in the same Book which being dismembred from the Body of the Discourse must needs lose much of their strength Yet with all the disadvantage he takes them which is such that the best Book in the World may be confuted in that manner he hath no great cause to glory in the execution he hath done upon them In answer to my Lord of Canterburies Adversary who boasted of the Unity of the Roman Church because whatever the private opinions of men are they are ready to submit their judgments to the censure and determination of the Church I had said that this will hold as well or better for our Unity as theirs because all men are willing to submit their judgments to Scripture which is agreed on all sides to be infallible Against these words thus taken alone N. O. spends two or three Pages which might have been spared if he had but fairly expressed what immediately follows them in these words If you say it cannot be known what Scripture determines but it may be easily what the Church defines it is easily answered that the event shews it to be far otherwise for how many disputes are there concerning the power of determining matters of Faith to whom it belongs in what way it must be managed whether Parties ought to be heard in matters of Doctrine what the meaning of the Decrees are when they are made which raise as many divisions as were before them as appears by the Decrees of the Council of Trent and the later of Pope Innocent relating to the five Propositions so that upon the whole it appears setting aside force and fraud which are excellent Principles of Christian Unity we are upon as fair terms of Union as they are among themselves I do not therefore say that the Church of Rome hath no advantage at all in point of Unity but that all the advantage it hath comes from force and fraud and setting these aside we are upon as good terms of Union as they and we do not envy them the effects of Tyranny and Deceit It is the Union of Christians we contend for and not of Slaves or Fools we leave the Turk and the Pope to vie with each other in this kind of Unity although I believe the Turk hath much the advantage in it and I freely yield to N. O. that they have a juster pretence to Vnity without Truth than we Which is agreeable to what he pleads for that they are more united in opinion than we united in opinion I say true or false saith he here matters not we speak here of Vnion not of Truth This and
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
their own 3. The Greek Church of which besides the Moscovites are to be reckoned the Melchites or Suriani and the Georgians for though their language be different they all agree in Doctrine 4. The Roman Church taking under it all in the Eastern parts who have submitted to the Bishop of Rome 5. The Protestant Churches who have cast off subjection to the Pope and Reformed the corruptions they charge the Church of Rome with Now of these 5. parts 4. of them are all agreed that there is no necessity of living in subjection to the Guides of the Roman Church but they are all under their own proper Guides W ch they do not Question will direct them in the right way to Heaven Only those of the Church of Rome take upon themselves against all sense and reason to be the Catholick Church and so exclude 4. parts of 5. out of a capacity of Salvation and challenge Infallibility as belonging to the Guides of it alone In this case the Arrogance of the pretence the uncharitableness of rejecting so mighty a number of Christians from the possibility of Salvation are sufficient to make any Man not yield up his Faith at the first demand but to consider a while whether there be no other Churches or Guides in those Churches when he finds so many and those not inferiour to the Roman Church in any thing save only in pomp pride and uncharitableness and all opposing those arrogant pretences of Authority and Infallibility in it what reason can he have supposing that he is to submit to any Guides that he must submit only to those of the Roman Church Why not as well to those of the Eastern Greek or Protestant Churches If any one goes about to assign a reason by charging them with heresy or Schism he unavoidably makes him Judge of some of the greatest difficulties in Religion before he can submit to his Infallible Guides He must know what Nestorianism Eutychianism Monothelism mean how they came to be heresies whether the Churches accused be justly charged with them He must understand all the subtilties of Personalitie subsistence Hypostatical Union whether the Union of two natures in Christ be substantial natural or accidental whether it be enough to say that the Divine and humane are one by inhabitation or one by consent or one by Communion of operation or one by Communion of dignity and honour all which the Nestorians acknowledged only denying the union of two natures to make one Person supposing a man be come to this he must then be satisfied that the present Eastern Christians do hold the Doctrine of the old Nesiorians for they acknowledge Christ to be perfect God and perfect Man and that the B. Virgin may be called the Mother of the Son of God or the Mother of the Word but they stick only at calling her the Mother of God Then for the other Churches which are charged with Eâ—tychianism he must understand the exact difference between nature and Person for if there cannot be two natures without two Persons then either the Nestorians were in the right who asserted two Persons or the Eytychians who denyed two natures but this being granted he must be satisfied that those called Iacobites are Eutychians although they disown Eutyches and follow Dioscorus asserting that there were two natures before the Union and but one after and that Dioscorus was rightly condemned in the Council of Chalceâ—on but supposing they are willing to leave the dispute of two natures on condition that the humane nature be only made the Instrument of the Divine in its operations whether they are justly charged with heresy in so doing All these things a Man must fully be satisfied in before he can pronounce those Churches guilty of heresy and so not to be followe But supposing those Churches be rejected why must the Greek which embraces all the Councils which determined those subtle controversies Here comes the mystery of the procession of the Holy Ghost to be examined whether from the Father alone or from the Father and the Son but supposing this to be yielded why may he not joyn with those Churches which agree with the Church of Rome in all those points as the Protestant Churches do Here a Man must examine the notes of the Church and enquire whether they be true notes whether they agree only to the Roman Church And one of the greatest of those notes being consent with the Primitive Church a Man that would be well satisfied must go through all the disputes between us and the Church of Rome and by that time he is well settled in them he will see little use and less necessity of an Infallible Guide So that a Man who would satisfy himself in this divided State of the Christian Church what particular Communion he ought to embrace and what Guides he must follow must do all that for the preventing of which an Infallible Guide is said to be necessary i.e. he must not only exercise his own judgment in particular controversies but must proceed according to it and joyn with that Church which upon Enquiry he judges to be the Best 10. A prudent submission is due to the Guides of that Church with which a person lives in Communion Having shewed that absolute submission is not due all that can be left is a submission within due bounds which is that I call a prudent submission And those bounds are these following 1. Not to submit to all those who challenge the Authority of Guides over us though pretending to never so much Power and Infallibility When N. O. would perswade me to submit my understanding to the Infallible Guides of the Church He must think me a very easy man to yield till I be satisfied first that God hath appointed such to be my Guides and in the next place that he hath promised Infallibility to them And that is the true State of the Controversy between us and those of the Church of Rome in this matter they tell us we are bound to submit to the Guides of the Church we desire to know whom they mean by these Guides and at last we understand them to be the Bishop of Rome and his Clergy Here we demur and own no Authority the Bishop of Rome hath over us we assert that we have all the Rights of a Patriachal Church within our selves that we owe no account to the Bishop of Rome of what we believe or practise it is no Article of our Creed that God hath made him Iudge either of the quick or the dead We have Guides of our Church among our selves who have as clear a succession and as good a title as the Bishops of any Church in the world To these who are our Lawful Guides we promise a due obedience and are blame worthy if we give it not but for the Bishop and Clergy of Rome we own none to them let them challenge it with never so much confidence and arrogant pretences to Infallibility So that
here is a contest of Right in the case antecedent to any duty of submission which must be better proved than ever it hath yet been before we can allow any dispute how far we are to submit to the Guides of the Roman Church 2. Not to submit to those who are Lawful Guides in all things they may require For our dispute is now about Guides supposed to be fallible and they being owned to be such may be supposed to require things to which we are bound not to yield But the great difficulty now is so to state these things as to shew that we had reason not to submit to the Guides of the Roman Church and that those of the Separation have no reason not to submit to the Guides of our Church For that is the obvious objection in this case that the same pretence which was used by our Church against the Church of Rome will serve to justify all the Separations that have been or can be made from our Church So my Adversary N. O. in his preface saith that by the principles we hold we excuse and justify all Sects which have or shall separate from our Church In answer to which calumny I shall not fix upon the perswasion of conscience for that may equally serve for all parties but upon a great difference in the very nature of the case as will appear in these particulars 1. We appeal to the Doctrine and practice of the truly Catholick Church in the matters of difference between us and the Church of Rome we are as ready as they to stand to the unanimous consent of Fathers and to Vincentius Lerinensis his Rules of Antiquity universality and consent we declare let the things in dispute be proved to have been the practice of the Christian Church in all Ages we are ready to submit to them but those who separate from the Church of England make this their Fundamental principle as to worship wherein the difference lyes that nothing is Lawful in the worship of God but what he hath expresly commanded we say all things are Lawful which are not forbidden and upon this single point stands the whole Controversy of separation as to the Constitution of our Church We challenge those that separate from us to produce one person for 1500. years together that held Forms of prayer to be unlawful or the ceremonies which are used in our Church We defend the Government of the Church by Bishops to be the most ancient and Apostolical Government and that no persons can have sufficient reason to cast that off which hath been so universally received in all Ages since the Apostles times if there have been disputes among us about the nature of the difference between the two orders and the necessity of it in order to the Being of a Church such there have been in the Church of Rome too Here then lyes a very considerable difference we appeal and are ready to stand to the judgement of the Primitive Church for interpreting the letter of Scripture in any difference between us and the Church of Rome but those who separate from our Church will allow nothing to be lawful but what hath an express command in Scripture 2. The Guides of our Church never challenged any Infallibility to themselves which those of the Church of Rome do and have done ever since the Controversy began Which challenge of Infallibility makes the Breach irreconcileable while that pretence continues for there can be no other way but absolute submission where men still pretend to be infallible It is to no purpose to propose terms of Accommodation between those who contend for a Reformation and such who contend that they can never be deceived on the one side errours are supposed and on the other that it is impossible there should by any Until therefore this pretence be quitted to talk of Accomodation is folly and to design it madness If the Church of Rome will allow nothing to be amiss how can she Reform any thing and how can they allow any thing to be amiss who believe they can never be deceived So that while this Arrogant pretence of Infallibility in the Roman Church continues it is impossible there should be any Reconciliation But there is no such thing in the least pretended by our Church that declares in her Articles that General Councils may err and sometimes have erred even in things partaining to God and that all the proof of things to be believed is to be taken from Holy Scripture So that as to the Ground of Faith there is no difference between our Church and those who dissent from her and none of them charge our Church with any errour in doctrine nor plead that as the reason of their separation 3. The Church of Rome not only requires the belief of her errours but makes the belief of them necessary to Salvation which is plain by the often objected Creed of Pius 4. Wherein the same necessity is expressed of believing the additional Articles which are proper to the Roman Church as of the most Fundamental Articles of Christian Faith And no Man who reads that Bull can discern the least difference therein made between the necessity of believing one and the other but that all together make up that Faith without which no man can be saved which though only required of some persons to make profession of yet that profession is to be esteemed the Faith of their Church But nothing of this nature can be objected against our Church by dissenters that excludes none from a possibility of Salvation meerly because not in her Communion as the Church of Rome expresly doth for it was not only Boniface 8. who determined as solemnly as he could that it was necessary to Salvation to be in subjection to the Bishop of Rome but the Council of Lateran under Leo 10. decreed the same thing 4. The Guides of the Roman Church pretend to as immediate authority of obliging the Consciences of men as Christ or his Apostles had but ours challenge no more than teaching men to do what Christ had Commanded them and in other things not commanded or forbidden to give rules which on the account of the General Commands of Scripture they look on the members of our Church as obliged to observe So that the Authority challenged in the Roman Church encroaches on the Prerogative of Christ being of the same nature with his but that which our Governours plead for is only that which belongs to them as Governours over a Christian Society Hence in the Church of Rome it is accounted as much a mortal sin to disobey their Guides in the most indifferent things as to disobey God in the plain Commands of Scripture but that is not all they challenge to themselves but a power likewise to dispence with the Law 's of God as in matter of marriages and with the Institution of Christ as in Communion in one kind and promise the same spiritual effects to
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
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
Church what security could any man have against Arianism since the Councils which favoured it were more numerous than those which opposed and condemned it Yea so mean was the opinion which some of the greatest persons of the Church at that time had of the Guides of the Church met together in Councils that St. Gregory Nazianzen declares he had not seen a good issue of any of them but they rather increased mischief than removed any because of the contention and ambition which ruled in them therefore he resolved to come no more at any of them What had St. Gregory so mean an esteem of the Guides of the Christian Church to think that ambition and contention should sway them in their Councils and not the spirit of God which certainly rules not where the other do Yet this de declares to be his mind upon consideration and experience in that time and if he had lived to those blessed days of the Councils of latter Ages with what zeal and Rhetorick would he have set them forth Never was any answer more jejune to this Testimony than that of Bellarmin viz. that forsooth there could be no lawful Councils called in his time and why so I pray was there not a good Authority to call them But if that had been the reason he did not so little understand the way of expressing himself to assign the cause of it to contention and ambition if he mean quite another thing which he doth not in the least intimate And what if he were afterwards present at the Council of Constantinople doth that shew that his mind was in the least changed but in this Epistle he declares how little good was to be exspected from a Council and yet afterwards by the Emperours command he might be present at one St. Augustin in dealing with Maximinus the Arian expresly sets aside all Authority of the Guides of the Church as to the sense of Scripture in the places controverted between them for he saith I will neither bring the Authority of the Council of Nice neither shall you that of Ariminum but we will proceed by Authorities of Scripture that are common to both of us and by the clearest Evidence of reason It seems then St. Augustin was far from thinking that there could be no certainty of the sense of Scripture if the Authority of the Guides of the Church be set aside But by what means doth he then think that men may come to any certainty about the true meaning of Scripture of that he is best able to give us an account himself having written purposely in this subject in his Books of Christian Doctrine the substance of what he there says may be comprehended in these Rules 1. That the main scope of the Scripture is to perswade men to the Love of God and our Neighbour without which he saith no man doth truly understand it but whosoever interprets Scripture to the advancing of that though he may be mistaken as to the sense of the words yet his errour is not dangerous 2. That in order to the right understanding of Scripture men must apply themselves to it with minds duly prepared for it by a fear of God humility prayer sincerity and purity of heart 3. That all those things which are necessary to Salvation are plainly laid down in Holy Scriptures This is in terms asserted by him as a fundamental principle that in those things which are plainly set down in Scripture all things are to be found which contain our faith and rule of life i.e. All things which are necessary to the Love of God and our Neighbour and consequently to the making us happy And these things men ought especially to read the Scriptures for and the more they find of them the larger their understanding of Scripture is 4. That the obscure places of Scripture are to be understood by the plain For which end he requires frequent reading and using ones self to the language of Scriptures and drawing examples from plain places to illustrate difficult and those which are certain to clear the doubtful For scarce any thing saith he is drawn out of the most difficult places but what is very plainly set down elsewhere 5. That in regard of the infinite variety of Latin Interpreters which it seems were in his time in matters of doubt it was necessary to have recourse to the Original Hebrew and Greek the knowledge of which tongues might therefore be necessary to the knowledge of Scripture because several words are preserved untranslated but those being few the necessity is not so great on their account as the diversity of Interpreters for although those who had translated the Hebrew into Greek might be reckoned up the Latin Interpreters could not Which diversity of translations doth rather help than hinder the understanding of Scripture if the Readers of it be not negligent for some doubtful places are cleared by the difference of readings 6. Where the ambiguity lyes in proper words the clearing of it depends on the circumstances of the place in so much that he determines that it is a very rare and difficult thing to find such an ambiguity in the words of Scripture which may not be cleared from the intention of the Writer or comparing places or searching the Original Language 7. Men must carefully distinguish between proper and figurative expressions for to understand figurative expressions literally is to subject our understanding to carnal conceptions of things and that is saith he a miserable slavery of mind to take signs for things such signs he tells us under the Gospel are the two Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords supper The great difficulty herein lyes in the finding out the difference between proper and figurative expressions for which he lays down this rule if the words of Scripture command what is good and forbid what is evil it is no figurative expression but if it forbids what is good or command any thing that is evil it must be figuratively understood For which he instances in those words of our Saviour unless ye eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man ye shall have no life in you Which seeming to command something evil must be figuratively understood of Communicating in the Passion of Christ and calling to mind that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us 8. There is no danger in different senses being given of the same place of Scripture if every one of those senses appear by other places to be agreeable to Truth This being supposed that the person do sincerely enquire after the sense of the Author For saith he that Divine Spirit might easily foresee how many several senses those words are capable of which being agreeable to other parts of Scripture though not the particular meaning of those words the mistake cannot be dangerous therein 9. Where such a sense is given which cannot be proved by other certain
Persons do not allow the Scripture then we are to proceed by the best means we can have without it viz. The tradition of Apostolical Churches from the beginning if they do allow the Scripture then we are to examine and compare places of Scripture with all the care and judgement that may be If after all this the dispute still continues then if it be against the ancient Rule of Faith universally received that is a sufficient prescription against any opinion if not against the Rule of Faith in express words but about the sense of it then if ancient General Councils have determined it which had greater opportunities of knowing the sense of the Apostolical Church than we it is reasonable we should yield to them but if there have been none such then the unanimous consent of Fathers is to be taken so it be in some late and upstart heresies which men pretend to have by Revelation or some special Grace of God Now either all these means were sufficient or not to find out the sense of Scripture if not then the ancient Church was wholly defective and wanted any certain way of finding out the sense of Scripture if these were sufficient then there is no necessity of infallibility in the Guides of the Church to give us a certain sense of Scripture which was the thing to be proved But N. O. towards the conclusion of his Book produces St. Augustin for the Churches Infallibility in delivering the sense of Scripture in obscure places which being contrary to what I have already said concerning him must be examined before I conclude this discourse about the sense of Scripture The place is out of his Answer to Cresconius concerning the obscure point of Rebaptization in these words since the holy Scripture cannot deceive let whosoever is in fear of being deceived by the obscurity of this Question consult the same Church about it which Church the holy Scripture doth without all ambiguity demonstrate And before the truth of the Holy Scriptures is held by us in this matter when we do that which hath pleased the Vniversal Church which the Authority of the Scripture does commend c. All which is false and said to no purpose saith N. O. if the Scripture be not clear in this that this Church can determine nothing in such important contests contrary to the verity of the Scriptures and that we ought to give credit to what she decides for then it would not be true what he says the truth of the same Scripture in this matter is held by us and he who is in fear of being deceived by the obscurity of this Question is no way relieved in following the sentence of the Churth To which I answer That St. Augustin doth not suppose that men cannot attain to any certainty of the the sense of Scripture in this matter without the Churches Infallibility for he saith in the Chapter preceding that in this matter we follow the most certain Authority of Canonical Scriptures but he puts the case that no certain example could be produced out of Scripture then he saith they had the truth of the Scriptures when they do that which pleased the Vniversal Church c. For the explaining St. Augustins meaning we are to consider that there were two Controversies then on foot in the Church with the Donatists the one concerning Rebaptization the other concerning the Church the former he looks upon as more intricate and obscure by reason not only of the doubtfulness of Scripture but the Authority of about seventy Bishops of Africa who had determined for it among whom St. Cyprian was chief which we see in all his disputes with the Donatisis on this subject he is very much perplexed with therefore St. Augustin finding that Controversie very troublesome was willing to bring it to that issue that what the Catholick Church after so much discussing the point had agreed upon should be received as the truth By this means the dispute would be brought to that other Question which he thought much more easie viz. Which was the true Church the Catholick or the Donatists but by no means doth St. Augustin hereby intend to make the Churches Authority to resolve all doubts concernig Scriptures but he thought it much easier to prove by Scripture which was the true Church than whether rebaptization were lawful or not And accordingly his very next words are but if you doubt whether the Vniversal Church be that which the Scripture commends I will load you with many and most manifest Testimonies of Scripture to that end Which is the design of his Book of the Vnity of the Church wherein he shews That those Testimonies of Scripture which speak of the Universality of the Church are very plain and clear and needed no interpretation at all that in this case we are not to regard what Donatus or Parmenianus or Pontius hath said for neither saith he are we to yield to Catholick Bishops themselves if they be at any time so much deceived as to hold what is contrary to Canonical Scriptures By which it is evident that he supposed no infallibility in the Guides of the Church And in terms he asserts that the Church is to be proved by nothing but plain Scriptures neither by the Authority of Optatus or St. Ambrose or innumerable Bishops nor Councils nor Miracles nor visions and Revelations whatever N. O. thinks of them now St. Augustin supposing there was much less ambiguity in Scripture in the Controversie of the Church than in that of Rebaptization he endeavours to bring them to a resolution in the other point for the clearing of this and so he only pursues the method laid down in the Books of Christian Doctrine to make use of plainer places of Scripture to give light to the darker And when they were convinced by Scripture that the Catholick Church was the true Church of Christ he doth not question but they would follow that which was the sentence of the Catholick Church But here lyes the main difficulty on what account the sentence of the Church was to be followed In order to the resolution of it we must take notice of these things 1. That all the proofs which St. Augustin brings for the Church do relate only to the extent and Vniversality of it and not to any Infallibility that is promised to it as will easily appear to any one that will read his discourses on that subject against the Donatists 2. That he asserts no infallibility in the highest Authority of the Church which in many places of his Books of Baptism against the Donatists he makes to be a Plenary or General Council whose Authority he saith was to be preferred before that of St. Cyprian or any particular Councils either in his time or before it which he calls the Authority and decrees of the Vniversal Church So that we see he resolves all the Authority of the Church in this matter into that of a General
Council whether that of Arles or Nice is not to my purpose to enquire and we shall then see what his opinion is of the Churches infallibility by that which he delivers of General Councils as well as any other Church Authority compared with the Scriptures in these remarkable words Who knows not that the sacred Canonical Scripture is contained within its certain bounds and is so far to be preferred before all latter writings of Bishops that there can be no doubt or dispute at all made whether that be true or right which is contained therein but all latter writings of Bishops which have been or are written since the Canon of Scripture hath been confirmed may be corrected if in any thing they err from the Truth either by the wiser discourse of any more skilful person or the weightier Authority of other Bishops or the prudence of more learned men or by Councils And even Councils themselves that are Provincial yield without dispute to those which are General and called out of all the Christian World and of these General Councils the former are often amended by the latter when by some farther tryal of things that which was shut is laid open and that which was hidden is made known without any swelling of sacrilegious pride or stifness of arrogancy or contentin of envy but with holy humility Catholick peace and Christian Charity Can any one that reads this excellent Testimony of St. Augustin delivered in this same matter ever imagine he could so plainly contradict himself as to assert the Churches infallibility in one place and destroy it in another Would he assert that all Councils how General soever may be amended by following Councils and yet bind men to believe that the decrees of the former Councils do contain the unalterable will of God A lesser person than St. Augustin would never thus directly contradict himself and that about the very same Controversie which words of his cannot be understood of unlawful Councils of matters of fact or practice but do refer to the great Question then in debate about rebaptizing Hereticks and hereby he takes off the great Plea the Donatists made from the Authority of St. Cyprian and his Council which they continually urged for themselves 3. He grants that the arguments drawn from the Churches Authority are but humane and that satisfaction is to be taken from the Scriptures in this Controversie For mentioning the obscurity of this Question and the great debates that had been about it before the Donatists time among great and good men and diverse resolutions of Councils and the settlement of it at last by a plenary Council of the whole World but lest saith he I should seem to make use only of humane arguments I produce certain Testimonies out of the Gospel by which God willing I demonstrate how true and agreeable to his Will the Doctrine and practice of the Catholick Church is And else where he appeals not to the Judgement of men but to the Lords ballance viz. To his Judgement delivered in Scripture and in this same case when he was urged by the Authority of Cyprian he saith There are no Writings they have not liberty to judge of but those of Scripture and by them they are to Judge of all others and what is agreeable to them they receive what is not they reject though written by persons of never so great Authority And after all this is it possible to believe that St. Augustin should make the Churches decree in a General Council infallible No the utmost by a careful consideration of his mind in this matter that I can find is that in a Question of so doubtful and obscure a nature as that was which had been so long bandied in the Churches of Africa and from thence spread over all the Churches of the Christian World it was a reasonable thing to presume that what the whole Christian World did consent in was the truth not upon the account of infallibility but the reasonable supposition that all the Churches of the Christian World would not consent in a thing repugnant to any Apostolical Doctrine or Tradition And so St. Augustins meaning is the same with Vincentius Lerinensis as to the Universal attestation of the Christian Church in a matter of Tradition being declared by the decree of a General Council and that decree Universally received but only by the litigant parties in Africa To which purpose it is observable that he so often appeals to the Vniversal consent of Christians in this matter after it had been so throughly discussed and considered by the most wise and disinteressed persons and that consent declared by a Plenary Council before himself was born So that if Authority were to be relyed upon in this obscure Controversie he saith the Authority of the Universal Church was to be preferred before that of several Councils in Africa of the Bishops and particularly St. Cyprian who met in them And whereas St. Cyprian had slighted Tradition in this matter Christ having called himself Truth and not custom St. Augustin replys to him That the custom of the Church having been always so and continuing after such opposition and confirmed by a General Council and after examination of the reasons and Testimonies of Scripture on both sides it may be now said that we follow what Truth hath declared Wherein we see with what modesty and upon what grounds he declares his mind which at last comes to no more than Vincentius his Rules of Antiquity Vniversality and Consent Especially in such a matter as this was which had nothing but Tradition to be pleaded for it the Apostles having determined nothing of either side in their Books as St Augustin himself at last confesses in this matter The most then that can be made of the Testimony alledged out of St. Augustin is this that in a matter of so doubtful and obscure a nature wherein the Apostles have determined nothing in their Writings we are to believe that to be the truth which the Universal Church of Christ agreed in those times when the consent of the Universal Church was so well known by frequent discussion of the case and coming at last to a resolution in a General Council In such a case as this I agree to what St. Augustin saith and think a man very much relieved by following so evident a consent of the Universal Church not by vertue of any infallibility but the unreasonableness of believing so many so wise so disinteressed persons should be deceived Let the same evidences be produced for the consent of the Vniversal Church from the Apostolical times in the matters in dispute between our Church and that of Rome and the Controversie of Infallibility may be laid aside For such an universal consent of the Christian Church I look upon as the most Authentick Interpreter of Holy Scripture in doubtful and obscure places But let them never think to
their Guides only upon the opinion of their skill and integrity and when they see reason to Question these they know of no obligation to follow their conduct over rocks and precipices if they are so careless of their own welfare others are not bound to follow them therein But we are not to presume persons so wholly Ignorant but they have some general Rules by which to Judge of the skill and fidelity of their Guides If a Person commits himself to the care of a Pilot to carry him to Constantinople because of his ignorance of the Sea should this man still rely upon his Authority if he carried him to find out the North West passage No though he may not know the particular Coasts so well yet he knows the East and West the North and South from each other If a stranger should take a Guide to conduct him from London to York although he may not think fit to dispute with him at every doubtful turning yet is he bound to follow him when he travels all day with the Sun in his face for although he doth not know the direct road yet he knows that he is to go Northward The meaning of all this is that the supposition of Guides in Religion doth depend upon some common principles of Religion that are or may be known to all and some precepts so plain that every Christian without any help may know them to be his duty within the compass of these plain and known duties lyes the capacity of persons judging of their Guides if they carry them out of this beaten way they have no reason to rely upon them in other things if they keep themselves carefully within those bounds and shew great integrity therein then in doubtful and obscure things they may with more safety rely upon them But if they tell them they must put out their eyes to follow them the better or if they kindly allow them to keep their eyes in their heads yet they must believe them against their eye-sight if they perswade them to break plain Commands of God and to alter the Institutions of Christ what reason can there be that any should commit themselves to the absolute Conduct of such unfaithful Guides And this is not to destroy all Authority of faithful Guides for they may be of great use for the direction of unskilful persons in matters that are doubtful and require skill to resolve them but it is only to suppose that their Authority is not absolute nor their direction infallible But if we take away this Infallible direction from the Guides of the Church what Authority is there left them As much as ever God gave them and if they will not be contented with that we cannot help it and that it may appear how vain and frivolous these exceptions are I shall now shew what real Authority is still left in the Governours of the Church though Infallibility be taken away And that lyes in three things 1. An Authority of inflicting censures upon offenders which is commonly called the Power of the keys or of receiving into and excluding out of the Communion of the Church This the Church was invested with by Christ himself and is the necessary consequence of the being and institution of a Christian Society which cannot be preserved in its purity and peace without it Which Authority belongs to the Governours of the Church and however the Church in some respects be incorporated with the Common-wealth in a Christian State yet its Fundamental Rights remain distinct from it of which this is one of the chief to receive into and exclude out of the Church such persons which according to the Laws of a Christian Society are fit to be taken in or shut out 2. An Authority of making Rules and Canons about matters of order and decency in the Church Not meerly in the necessary circumstances of time and place and such things the contrary to which imply a natural indecency but in continuing and establishing those ancient rites of the Christian Church which were practised in the early times of Christianity and are in themselves of an indifferent nature Which Authority of the Church hath been not only asserted in the Articles of our Church but strenuously defended against the trifling objections of her Enemies from Scripture Antiquity and Reason And I freely grant not only that such an Authority is in it self reasonable and just but that in such matters required by a Lawful Authority such as that of our Church is there is an advantage on the side of Authority against a scrupulous Conscience which ought to over-rule the practice of such who are the members of that Church 3. An Authority of proposing matters of faith and directing men in Religion Which is the proper Authority of Teachers and Guides and Instructers of others which may be done several ways as by particular instruction of doubtful persons who are bound to make use of the best helps they can among which that of their Guides is the most ready and useful and who are obliged to take care of their Souls and therefore to give the most faithful advice and Counsel to them Besides this there is a publick way of instructing by discourses grounded upon Scripture to particular congregations assembled together for the worship of God in places set apart for that end and therefore called Churches And those who are duly appointed for this work and ordained by those whose office is to ordain viz. the Bishops have an Authority to declare what the mind and Will of God is contained in Scripture in order to the Salvation and edification of the Souls of men But besides this we may consider the Bishops and representative Clergy of a Church as met together for reforming any abuses crept into the practice of Religion or errours in Doctrine and in this case we assert that such a Synod or Convocation hath the power and Authority within it self especially having all the ancient rights of a Patriarchal Church when a more general consent cannot be obtained to publish and declare what those errours abuses are to do as much as in them lyes to reform them viz. by requiring a consent to such propositions as are agreed upon for that end of those who are to enjoy the publick offices of teaching and instructing others Not to the end that all those propositions should be believed as Articles of Faith but because no Reformation can be effected if persons may be allowed to preach and officiate in the Church in a way contrary to the design of such a Reformation And this is now that Authority we attribute to the Governours of our Church although we allow no Infallibility to them And herein we proceed in a due mean between the extremes of robbing the Church of all Authority of one side and advancing it to Infallibility on the other But we cannot help the weakness of those mens understanding who cannot apprehend that any such thing as Authority
there must be orders and Constitutions whereby all must be kept within their due bounds and there must be persons appointed to instruct the Ignorant to satisfy the doubting to direct the unskilful and to help the weak It belongs to such a Society not barely to provide for necessity but safety and not meerly the safety of particular persons but of it self which cannot be done without prudent orders fixing the bounds of mens imployments and not suffering every pretender to visions and Revelations to set up for a new Sect or which is all one a new Order of Religious men How comes it now to pass that by saying that men considered barely as Christians may understand all that is necessary to their Salvation I do overthrow all Authority of a Church and make all men Prophets Do I in the least mention mens teaching others or being able themselves to put a difference between what is so necessary and what not or doth S. C. suppose that all that understand what is necessary to Salvation have no need to be ruled and governed If he thinks so I assure him I am quite of another opinion and do make no question but that Government ought to be preserved in a Church though the necessaries to Salvation be known to all in it and so I suppose doth any one else that in the least considers what he says By this we see that S. C ' s. recrimination of Fanaticism on our Church by vertue of this principle is as feeble as the Defence he hath made for his own of which he may hear in due time But if there be any Fanaticism in this principle we have the concurrence of the greatest and wisest persons of the Christian Church in it Two of them especially have in terms said as much as I have done St. Augustin in his Books of Christian Doctrine already mentioned and St. Chrysostome in as plain words as may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All things are plain and right in the holy Scriptures all necessary things are manifest Let S. C. now charge all the dreadful consequences of this principle on St. Chrysostome and tell him that he destroyed all Church-Authority and laid the Foundation for the height of Fanaticism Nay S. Chrysâ—stome goes much higher than I do for he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. If I had made the Guides of the Church so useless as St. Chrysostome seems to do in these words what passionate and hideous out-crys would S. C. have made And by this let the skill or ingenuity of S. C. be tryed who says that I cannot find out one single short sentence in Antiquity to support the main pillar of my Religion which he supposes this principle to be and for the finding out the sense of Scripture without the help of Infallibility I have produced more out of Antiquity in this discourse than either he or his whole partie will be able to Answer 3. Not the denying the Authority of the Church of Rome Which I must do till I see some better proofs for it than I have ever yet done But how doth this destroy all Authority in a Church can there be none but what is derived from Rome I do not think I do in the least diminish the Kings Authority by denying that he derives it from the Cham of Tartary or the Great Mogol although they may challenge the Lordship of the whole Earth to themselves and may pretend very plausible reasons that it would be much more for the quiet and conveniency of mankind to be all under one universal Monarch and that none have so fair a pretence to it as they that have challenged the Right of it to themselves and yet for all this I do verily believe the King hath an unquestionable right to his Kingdom and a just Authority over all his subjects The time was when the first of Genesis would serve to prove the Popes title and the Suns ruling by day was thought a clear argument for his supremacy but the world is now altered and all the wit and subtility that hath been since used hath not been able to make good that crackt title of Universal Pastorship which the Bishops of Rome have taken to themselves But although we disown the Popes Authority as an unjust usurpation we assert and plead for the Authority of the Church and the Bishops who are placed therein who derive their power to Govern the Church from Christ and not from the Pope And I dare appeal to any Person whether the asserting the Bishops deriving their Authority from Christ or from the Pope be the better way of defending their Power We are not now disputing what Authority were fit to be entrusted in the Popes hands supposing all other differences composed and that things were in the same State wherein they were in the times of the 4. General Councils in which case it ought to be considered how far it might be convenient to give way to such an Authority so apt to grow extravagant and which hath been stretched so very far beyond what the Canons allowed that it hath challenged Infallibility to it self but the thing at present under debate is whether the disallowing the Papal Hierarchy doth overthrow all Authority in the Episcopal which is in effect to ask whether there be any other power besides the Popes in the Church for if there be any other the denying the Popes Authority over us cannot in the least diminish the just Authority of Bishops The only considerable Question in this case is whether the rejecting that Hierarchy which was in being at the the time of the Reformation doth not make way for the peoples rejecting the Authority of our Bishops and consequently no Authority in the Church can be maintained unless we again yield to the Papal Authority This I suppose to be N. O. meaning when he tells us by Church-Authority he means that Superior and more comprehensive Body of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy which in any dissent and division of the Clergy according to the Church Canons ought to be obeyed And any particular Church divided from this more universal cannot with the least pretence of reason challenge submission from her subjects since she her self and particularly the Church of England refused the same to all the Authority extant in the world when she separated her self To this I answer That the Church of England in Reforming her self did not oppose any just Authority then extant in the World It is to no purpose to make sâ—ch loud clamours about our Churches refusing submission to all the Authority then extant in the World unless there be better Evidence produced for it than we have yet seen For it is very well known that the dispute was then concerning the Popes Supremacy over our Church which we have all along asserted to have been a notorious encroachment upon the liberties of our Church And the Popes usurpations were 〈◊〉 injurious both to the Ecclesiastical and Civil
their own Church or else to what end is this mentioned where nothing is pretended to but laying down the Foundations on which Protestants do build their faith But although there be no way of escaping impertinent objections yet it is some satisfaction to ones self to have given no occasion for them 2. I would know what he understands by his effectual means of suppressing Sects or Heresies We are sure the meer Authority of their Church hath been no more effectual means than that of ours hath been but there is another means they use which is far more effectual viz. the Inquisition This in truth is all the effectual means they have above us but God keep us from so Barbarous and Diabolical a means of suppressing Schisms The Sanbenits have not more pictures of Devils upon them than the Inquisition it self hath of their Spirit in it however that Gracious Pope Paul 4. attributed the settling of it in Spain to the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost not that Holy Ghost certainly that came down from Heaven upon the Apostles but that which was conveyed in a Portmantue from Rome to the Council of Trent But if this be the effectual means he understands I hope he doth not think it any credit to the Authority of their Church that all who dispute it must endure a most miserable life or a most cruel death All the other means they have are but probable but this this is the most effectual How admirably do Fire and Faggots end Controversies No general Council signifies half so much as a Court of Inquisition and the Pope himself is not near so good a Judge of Controversies as the Executioner and Dic Ecclesiae is nothing to take him Gaoler These have been the kind the tender the primitive the Christian means of suppressing Sects and Heresies in the Roman Church O how compassionate a Mother is that Church that takes her froward Children in her hands to dash their brains against the stones O how pleasant a thing it is for Brethren to be destroyed for lack of Vnity How beautiful upon the 7. Mountains are the Feet of those who shed the Blood of Hereticks Never were there two men had a more Catholick Spirit than Dioclesian and Bishop Bonner Men may talk to the worlds end of Councils and Fathers and Authority of the Church and I know not what insignificant nothings come come there is but one effectual means which the good Cardinal Baronius suggested to his Holiness Arise Peter kill and eat Let the Hereticks talk of the kind and merciful Spirit of our Saviour who rebuked his Disciples so sharply for calling for fire from Heaven upon the Samaritans and told them they did not know what Spirit they are of let them dispute never so much against the cruelty and unreasonableness of such a way of confuting them let them muster up never so many sayings of Fathers against it yet when all is done what ever becomes of Christianity it was truly said of Paul 4. that the Authority of the Roman See depends only upon the office of the Inquisition And that we may think he was in good earnest when he said it Onuphrius tells us it was part of the speech he made to the Cardinals before his death Was not this think we a true Vicar of Christ a man of an Apostolical Spirit that knew the most effectual means of suppressing heresies and Schisms and advancing the Authority of the Roman See And that we may not think their opinion is altered in this matter one of the late Consulters of the Inquisition hath determined that the practice of the Roman Church in the office of the Inquisition is reasonable pious useful and necessary Which he proves by the Testimony of their greatest Doctors And by which we may easily judge what N. O. and his Brethren think to be the most effectual means of suppressing Sects and Heresies with the want of which we are contented to be upbraided But setting this aside we have as many reasonable means and I think many more of convicting dissenters than they can pretend to in the Roman Church 3. It is very well known that we do endeavour as much as lyes in us to reclaim all Dissenters but God never wrought Miracles to cure incorrigible persons and would not have us to go out of the way of our duty to suppress Sects and Heresies The greatest severities have not effected it which made one of the Inquisitors in Italy complain that after 40. years experience wherein they had destroyed above 100000. Persons for heresie as they call it it was so far from being suppressed or weakned that it was extremly strengthened and increased What wonder is it then if dissenters should yet continue among us who do not use such Barbarous ways of stopping the mouths of Hereticks with burning lead or silencing them by a rope and flames But we recommend as much as they can do to the people the vertues of Humility Obedience due submission to their Spiritual Pastors and Governours and that they ought not to usurp their office and become their own Guides which N. O. in his conclusion blames us for not doing Yet we do not exact of them a blind obedience we allow them to understand the nature and Doctrine of Christianity which the more they do we are sure they will be so much the better Christians and the more easily Governed So that we have no kind of Controversie about Church-Authority it self but what it is and in what manner and by whom to be exercised but surely N. O. had little to say when from laying down the Principles of Faith he charges me with this most absurd consequence of destroying all Church-Authority I have thus far considered the main Foundations upon which N. O. proceeds in opposition to my Principles there is now very little remaining which deserves any Notice and that which seems to do it as about Negative Articles of Faith and the marks of the True Church I shall have occasion to handle them at large in the following discourse FINIS Haâ—â—â—mull hist Iesuit ordin c. 8. S. C. p. 79. S. C. p. 46. Roman Doctrine of Repentance c. vindicated p. 19. P. 44. P. 47. P. â—9 Et quamvis sine Sacramento Poenitentiae per se ad justificationem perducere peccatorem nequeat attritio tamen cum ad Dei gratiam in Sacramento Poeâ—iteâ—tiae impetrandam disponit Concil Trident. sess 14. c. 4. * Si quis dixerit Sacramenta novae Legis non continere Gratiam quam significant aut gratiam ipsam non ponentibus obicem non confâ—rre Anathema sit Sess. 7. Can. 6. Si quis dixâ—rit non dari gratiam per hujus modi Sacramenta semper omnibus quaâ—tum est ex parte Dei etiamsi ritè ea suscipiant sed aliquando aliquibus Aâ—athemae sit Can. 7. Sess. 14. c. 4. P. 45. Melch. Cano Relect. de Poenit. part 6. p. 932. Morinus de Poenit. Sacramento