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
Infallibility which cannot belong to the truth proposed but to him that propounds or believes it For to be deceived or not to be deceived are proper only to persons and the impossibility of being deceived does in truth belong only to an infinitely perfect understanding for what ever understanding is imperfect is of it self liable to errour and mistake And yet an understanding liable to be deceived may not be deceived and be sure it is not The highest assurance of not being deceived is from Gods revealing any thing to men for we know it impossible that God should be deceived or go about to deceive mankind in what he obliges them to believe as true This then is granted that whatever any person speaks immediately from God he cannot be deceived in it but men may be deceived in thinking they speak from God when they do not There is then no difficulty in the first that what ever persons are inspired by God are infallible in what they speak but the main difficulty is about the assurance which God gives to men that they are inspired Two ways it may be conceived that men cannot be deceived in this matter 1. If God inspires every particular person with the belief of this and gives him such evidence thereof as cannot be false 2. Or if God shall inspire some persons in every Age to assure the World that those before them were inspired but notwithstanding this particular persons may be deceived in believing those inspired who are not and to prevent this nothing can be sufficient but divine revelation to every particular person that he hath appointed those infallible Guides in his Church to assure men that he had at first setled his Church by persons that were infallible but then why might not such a particular Revelation assure men as well immediately that Christ and his holy Apostles were infallible as that the Guides of the present Church are infallible For it is unconceivable that persons should be more infallible in judging the Inspiration of the present Guides than of the first Founders of the Church And supposing men not inspired they may be deceived in believing this infallibility of the present Church and if they may be deceived how can their Faith be infallible so that nothing can make the faith of particular persons infallible but private inspiration which must resolve all Faith into Enthusiasm and immediate revelation And nothing can be more absurd than to say That there are infallible Believers without infallible Inspiration or that an infallible Proponent can transfuse infallibility into faith unless the infallibility of that Proponent be first made known to the Believer in such a way as he cannot be deceived in For in matters of divine Revelation the main thing we are to enquire after is the infallibility of those who delivered this doctrine to the World And although the reason of believing what God saith be his own infallibility which is natural and essential to him yet the reason of my assenting to this or that doctrine as coming from God must be an assurance that God hath secured those persons from mistake whom he hath imployed to make known the doctrine to the World Those persons then whom God inspired are the Proponents of matters of faith to us and if they give us sufficient reason to believe that they were inspired we are bound to believe them otherwise not But to suppose that we cannot believe the first infallible Proponents unless there be such in every Age is to make more difficulties and to answer none For then all my belief of the infallibility of the first Proponents must depend on the evidence which the present Guides of the Church give of their infallibility who yet cannot pretend to the same evidence which they had and here is no difficulty answered for we are certainly bound as much to enquire into the reason of our believing the present Guides of the Church infallible as the Apostles and if men cannot be infallible in believing the Apostles unless there be other infallible Proponents in every Age to assure them that the Apostles were inspired why must not the infallibility of these present Proponents be likewise so attested as well as of the Apostles and what undoubted application can be made of the Churches infallibility unless there be some other infallible Proponent still to transfuse certainty into my belief of that by vertue of which I must believe all other matters of Faith which is the Churches Infallibility So that the last Proponent must either be believed for himself without any further evidence and then the shorter way would be to believe the first so or else there will be an endless infallibility or at last all must be resolved into the Enthusiasm of every particular person if we do not rest satisfied with the rational evidence which those persons who were inspired by God did give to the World that they were sent by him and then let the World judge whether Christ and his Apostles did not give stronger evidence that they were sent from God than the Pope or the Guides of the present Church do and if so whether iâ— be possible for men to do greater disseâ—vice to Christianity than to suspend our belief of the Inspiration of the Founders of the Christian Church on a thing at least far less evident than the thing to be believed by it is but in plain English on a thing notoriously false and only the arrogant pretence of an usurping Faction which thinks it easier boldly to say that it cannot be deceived than to defend it self against the just accusations both of deceiving and being deceived These things being premised I now come to consider how far N. O. hath shewed the invalidity of the Principles laid down by me for the end for which I intended them The design of them was to shew that we may have sufficient Certainty of our Faith without the Infallibility of the Roman Church the Answerer hath yielded some things and denied others I shall therefore first lay down his Concessions and see of what force they are to the issue of this Controversie and then come fairly to debate the matters in difference between us I. For his Concessions 1. He yields That there is no necessity at all of Infallibility under natural Religion which was implied in the second and third Propositions which are granted by him For in the second Proposition I assert That Man being framed a rational Creature capable of reflecting upon himself may antecedently to any external Revelation certainly know the being of God and his dependence upon him else there could be no such thing as a Law of Nature or any Principles of Natutural Religion which he saith may be granted All supernatural and external Revelation must suppose the truth of Natural Religion for unless we be antecedently certain that there is a God and that we are capable of knowing him it is impossible to be certain that God
hath revealed his Will to us by any supernatural means Let this be granted saith he From whence it follows that we have sufficient certainty of the Principles of Natural Religion without any such thing as Infallibility 2. He yields That Reason is to be judge concerning divine Revelation which appears by the next Proposition Nothing ought to be admitted for Divine Revelation which overthrows the certainty of those Principles which must be antecedently supposed to all Divine Revelation for that were to overthrow the means whereby we are to judge concerning the truth of any Divine Revelation Of which he saith Let this also be granted 3. He yields That the Will of God may be sufficiently declared to men by writing for he grants the tenth Proposition which is this If the Will of God cannot be sufficiently declared to men by writing it must either be because no writing can be intelligible enough for that end or that it can never be known to be written by men infallibly assisted the former is repugnant to common sense for words are equally capable of being understood spoken or written the latter overthrows the possibility of the Scriptures being known to be the Word of God This saith he is granted 4. He yields That the written will of God doth contain all things simply necessary to salvation For in his consideration of the 14. Proposition these are his words Mean while as touching the Perfection of holy Scriptures Catholicks now as the holy Fathers anciently do grant that they contain all points which are simply necessary to be of all persons believed for attaining salvation 5. He yields That no person is infallibly certain of or in his Faith because the Proponent thereof is infallible unless he also certainly know or have infallible evidence that he is infallible only he adds That for begetting an infallible assent to the thing proposed it is sufficient if we have an infallible evidence either of the thing proposed or of the Proponent only Which is all I desire as to this matter But he quarrels with me for saying Proposition 21. It is necessary therefore in order to an infallible assent that every particular person be infallibly assisted in judging of the matters proposed to be believed Because saith he it is not necessary to have an infallible evidence of the truth of the things proposed i. e. from the internal principles that prove or demonstrate them but it is enough that he have an infallible or sufficiently certain evidence only of the infallibility of the external Proponent Where there are two things to be taken notice of 1. That by the matters proposed to be believed he would seem to understand me only of the things that are to be believed by vertue of any Proponent supposed infallible whereas I meant it of all such things to which an infallible assent is required and chiefly of that by which we are to believe the things revealed as for instance that the Church is infallible is in the first place to be believed upon their principles and either an infallible assent is required to this or not if not then infallibility is not necessary to faith if it be then this infallible assent must be built on an infallibility antecedent to that of the Church and then my consequence necessarily follows that the ground on which a necessity of some external infallible Proponent is asserted must rather make every particular person infallible if no divine Faith can be without an infallible assent and so renders any other Infallibility useless 2. That he explains infallible evidence by that which is sufficiently certain which is meer shuffling for he knows well enough that we contend for sufficiently certain evidence as much as they our only Question is about infallibility whether that be necessary or no If sufficiently certain evidence will serve for the Churches Infallibility why may it not for the Scriptures or any matters of Faith contained therein If they mean no more by Infallibility but sufficient certainty why do they make so great a noise about it as though there could be no Faith and we no Christians without Infallibility when we all say that the matters of Faith have sufficient certainty nay the highest which such things are capable of Is infallible Faith come to be sufficiently certain only for all that I know an infallible Pope may by such another explication become like one of us 6. He yields That a right and saving faith may be without any infallible assurance concerning the Churches Infallibility Which he saith is abundantly declared by Catholick Writers I only desire to know why a like right and saving faith may not be had concerning the Scriptures without their Churches infallibility For from hence it follows that an infallible assent is not requisite to saving faith directly contrary to my former Adversary E. W. for one saith it is necessary to faith and the other that it is not But above all how will he ever answer this to Mr. I. S. who hath written a whole Book purposely against this Principle as impious and atheistical Methinks this way of defending the main foundation of their Faith by Principles so directly contradicting one another looks a little scandalously and brings an odd suspition upon their Cause as if it were very hard to be made good when our Adversaries cannot agree by which of two quite contrary Principles it was best be maintained 7. He yields That the utmost assurance a man can have of the Churches Infallibility is only moral but to make it up he calls it a moral infallibility which how strangely soever it sounds yet his meaning is good for it is such an infallibility as is not infallibility Hath the dispute been thus long among us whether infallibility be necessary or no to faith and now at last one comes and tells us Yes surely a moral infallibility is necessary I have heard of a hoâ— dispute between two Gentlemen about Transubstantiation very earnest they were on both sides at last another falls into their company and asked them what it was they were about they told him Transubstantiation very well said he but I pray tell me what you mean by it one said it was standing at the Eucharist and the other kneeling Much such another explication is this here of Infallibility only this is somewhat worse for it is joyning two words together which destroy each other for if it be only moral Certainty it is not infallible if it be infallible it cannot be barely moral I expect to hear shortly of an accidental Transubstantiation a co-ordinate Supremacy as well as a moral Infallibility But we are to suppose that by Infallibility he means no more than Certainty because he explains it by the Certainty of universal Tradition this were well enough if in the precedent Page he had not said That a particular person may be infallible in the assent he gives to some matter proposed viz. to this
that the Church is infallible I would fain understand what this infallible assent is grounded upon and if the evidence be only sufficiently or morally infallible which are his own terms how the assent which is built upon it comes to be more than so It is very pleasant to observe how Mr. Cressey and some other late Writers of their Church are perplexed about this word Infallibility as if they had a Wolf by the ears they cannot tell how to hold it and they are afraid to let it go And very loth is is our N. O. to part with the sound of Infallibility although his own Concessions perfectly overthrow it as will yet further appear by this last viz. 8. That moral Certainty is a sufficient foundation for Faith This will appear by my 27. Proposition which is this The nature of certainty doth receive several names either according to the nature of the proof or the degrees of the Assent Thus Moral Certainty may be so called either as it is opposed to Mathematical evidence but implying a firm assent upon the highest evidence that Moral things can receive Or as it is opposed to a higher degree of Certainty in the same kind so Moral Certainty implies only greater Probabilities of one side than the other In the former sense we assert the certainty of Christian Faith to be Moral but not only in the latter To which he saith This Principle is granted if importing only that Christians have or may have a sufficiently certain and infallible evidence of the truth of their Christianity Whereby it is plain that though he useth the term infallible yet he means no more than I do or else he ought not to have brought that as an explication of my principle which is contrary to it as in this Controversie Moral Certainty is opposed to strict demonstration and Infallibility But if he by infallibility means only sufficient certainty I shall be content for quietness sake that he shall call it Infallibility if he pleases And that he can mean no more by it appears not only by what he hath said before but by what he saith afterwards in these words A Natural or Moral Certainty though not such a one as cannot possibly be false but which according to the Laws of Nature and the common manners and experience of Men is not false is sufficient on which to ground such a faith as God requires of us in respect of that Certainty which can be derived from humane sense or reason and which serves for an introductive to the reliance of this our faith upon such Revelation as is believed by us divine and which if divine we know is not possibly fallible In respect of its relying on which Revelation an infallible object and not for an Infallible Certainty as to the subject it is that this our Faith is denominated a Divine Faith Now this Natural or Moral Certainty is thought sufficient for the first rational Introductive and Security of our Faith not only by the Doctor in his 27. Principle but also by Catholick Divines in their Discourses of the Prudential Motives Very well said and I were a very disingenuous man if I should not heartily thank him for so free a Confession by which if I understand any thing he very fairly gives up the Cause of Infallibility as to the necessity of it in order to Faith As will easily appear by the managing of it so far as I have been concerned in it It is evident to any one that will cast an eye on the Controversie of Infallibility between the Arch-bishop and his Adversaries that it was raised on this account because those of the Church of Rome asserted that the Infallible Testimony of the Church was necessary in order to the believing the Scriptures to be the Word of God and so much is endeavoured to be defended by him who pretended to answer my Lord of Canterburies Book who goes upon this Principle That this is to be believed with a divine Faith and a divine Faith must be built upon an infallible Testimony the falsehood of which I at large shewed in the Discourse of the Resolution of Faith Since the publishing whereof the Metaphysical Gentleman before mentioned pretended to answer that part of it which concerns Infallibility and Moral Certainty Some of his assertions I have laid down already as contrary to this of N. O. as may be for he not only asserts the necessity of Infallibility for a foundation of Christian Faith but spends some Chapters in rambling talk against Moral Certainty The Title of one of which is Faith only Morally Certain is no Faith I desire N. O. and E. W. to agree better before they goe aboâ—â— to confute me and to what purpose shouldâ— trouble my self with answering a man whoâ— Principles the more ingenuous of their owâ— Party disown as well as we For not onâ—â— N. O. here makes Moral Certainty a sufficienâ— ground for Divine Faith but the Guide 1â— Controversies another of my Adversaries aâ—serts the same when he saith And indeeâ— from what is said formerly that a Divine Faith may be had by those who have had 〈◊〉 extrinsecal even morally infallible I see now from whom N. O. learnt these terms motive thereof it follows that Divine Faith doth not resolve into such motives either as the formal cause or always as the applicative introductive or condition of this divine faith And a little after That it is not necessary that such Faith always should have an external rationally infallible ground or motive thereto whether Church Authority or any other on his part that so believes By these concessions it appears that the cause of Infallibility as far as it concerns the necessity of it in order to Faith is clearly given up by these persons and if others be still of another mind among them I leave them to dispute it among themselves Thus far then we are agreed I now come to consider where the controversie still remains and why the rest of my Principles may not pass as well as these In order to this I must by taking a view of his several exceptions and answers draw together a Scheme of those Principles which he sets up in opposition to mine and if I do not very much mistake they may be reduced to these three 1. That God hath given an infallible assistance to the Guides of the Church in all Ages of it for the direction of those who live in it 2. That without this infallible assistance there can be no certainty of the sense of Scripture 3. That all the Arguments which overthrow the Churches Infallibility do destroy the Churches Authority These as far as I can perceive contain the whole force of his Considerations and in the examination of these the remaining discourse must be spent In which I shall have occasion to take notice of whatever is material in his Book 1. The main controversie is whether God hath given an
infallible assistance to the Guides of the Church in all Ages for the conduct of those who live in it For if he hath not my Adversary cannot deny but the Principles laid down by me must hold For in case there be no infallibility in the Guides of the Church every one must be left to the use of his own understanding proceeding in the best manner to find out what the Will of God is in order to salvation We do not now dispute concerning the best helps for a person to make use of in a matter of this nature but the Qâ—estion is whether a man ought to resign his own judgement to that of the Church which pretends to be infallible as to all necessaries for salvation or supposing no such infallibility whether a person using his Faculties in the best manner about the sense of Scriptures with the helps of divine Grace may not have sufficient certainty thereby what things are required of him in order to happiness Hereby I exclude nothing that may tend to the right use of a mans understanding in these things whether it be the direction of Pastors the decrees of Councils the sense of the Primitive Church or the care industry and sincerity of the Enquirer but supposing all these whether by not believing the Guides of the Church to be infallible the foundation of this persons faith can be nothing else but a trembling Quicks and as N. O. speaks in his Preface only from the supposing an errability in the Guides of Gods Church And a little after he lays down that as his fundamental Principle that the only certain way not to be misled will be the submitting our internal assent and belief to Church Authority or as he elsewhere speaks to the infallible Guideship of Church Goverâ—ors Here then two Questions necessarily arise 1. Whether there can be no certainty of Faith without this infallibility 2. What certainty there is of this infallibility 1. Whether there can be no certainty of Faith without Infallibility in the Guides of the Church and submitting our internal assent and belief to them For the clearing of this we must consider what things are agreed upon between us that by them we may proceed to the resolution of this Question 1. It is I suppose agreed That every man hath in him a faculty of discerning of truth and falshood 2. That this Faculty must be used at least in the choice of infallible Guide for otherwise a man must be abused with every pretence of Infallibility and George Fox may as well be followed as the Pope of Rome and to what purpose are all prudential motives and arguments for Infallibility if a man must not judge whether they be good or no i. e. sufficient to prove the thing 3. That God is not wanting in necessaries to the salvation of mankind 4. That the Books of Scripture received on both sides do contain in them the Will of God in order to salvation 5. That all things simply necessary to salvation are contained therein which is a concession mentioned before These things being supposed the Question now is Whether a person not relying on the infallibility of a Church may not be certain of those things which are contained in those Books in order to Salvation For of those ouâ— present enquiry is and not about the sense of the more difficult and controverted places and if we can make it appear that men may be certain as to matters of salvation without infallibility let them prove if they can the necessity of infallibility for things which are not necessary to salvation But of the sense of Scripture in those things afterwards I now enquire into the certainty men may attain to of the necessaries to salvation in Scripture and concerning this I laid down this Proposition Although we cannot argue against any particular way of Revelation from the necessary Attributes of God yet such a way as writing being made choice of by him we may justly say that it is repugnant to the nature of the design and the Wisdom and Goodness of God to give infallible assistance to persons in writing his Will for the benefit of Mankind if those Writings may not be understood by all persons who sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary for their salvation This Principle he saith is unsound which if he can prove I may have more reason to question it than I yet have And I assure him I expect no mean proofs to shake my belief of a principle of so great importance to the Christian Religion For it being granted by him that all things simply necessary to salvation are contained in the Books of Scripture I desire to know whether things simply necessary ought not to be delivered with greater plainness than things which are not so Whether God appointing the Evangelists and Apostles to write these things did not intend that they should be so expressed as they might most easily be understood Whether our Saviours own Sermons vere capable of being understood by those who heard them without some infallible Interpreter Whether the Evangelists did not faithfully deliver our Saviours Doctrine If they did how that comes to be obscure now which was plain then so that either Christ himself must be charged with not speaking the Will of God plainly or the Evangelists cannot be charged with not expressing it so There are no other Books in the World that I know of that need an infallible Interpreter and we can tell certainly enough what any other Religion requires supposing it to be written in the same way that the Christian is Is it not possible for a man to be certain what the Law of Moses required of the People of Israel by reading the Books of that Law without some infallible Guides Do the ten Commandments need an Infallible Comment Or can we have now no certainty of the meaning of the Levitical Law because there is no High-priest or Sanhedrin to explain it And if it be possible to understand the necessaries of that dark dispensation in comparison with the Gospel are oâ—r eyes now blinded with too much light Is not Christianity therefore highly recommended to us in the New Testament because of the clearness and perspicuity wherein the Doctrines and Precepts thereof are delivered And yet after all this cannot the most necessary parts of it he understood by those who sincerely endeavour to understand them By which sincere endeavour we are so far from excluding any useful helps that we always suppose them The sâ—m then of what he is to confute is this that although the Apostles and Evangelists did deliver the Mind of God to the World in their Writings in order to the salvation of Mankind although they were inspired by an infinite Wisdom for this end although all things simply necessary to Salvation are contained in their Writings although a Person useth his sincere endeavour by all Moral helps and the
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
and at the same time to prove that Commission from those Writings from which we are told nothing can be certainly deduced such an Assistance not being supposed or to pretend that Infallibility in a Body of men is not as liable to doubts and disputes as in those Books from whence only they derive their Infallibility He grants the former part of this if by it be intended to prove such Commission only or in the first place from these writings But he saith a Christians Faith may begin either at the Infallible authority of Scriptures or of the Church It seems then there may be sufficient ground for a Christians Faith as to the Scriptures without believing any thing of the Churches Infallibility and for this we have reason to thank him whatever they of his own Church think of it For by this concession we may believe the Scriptures Authority without ever believing a word of the Churches Infallibility and let them afterwards prove it from Scripture if they can Nay he goes yet farther and saith That the Infallibility of Scriptures as well as the Church may be proved from its own testimony but he first supposes that the Infallibility of one of these be first learnt from Tradition And therefore in the remainder of his discourse on this Subject he shews how the Infallibility of the Church may be proved from Tradition not shewing at all how the Infallibility of the Church can be proved from Scripture Scripture being thus deserted as to the proof of the Churches Infallibility I must pursue him to his other Hold of Tradition The method of his discourse is this That the Infallibility of the Guides of the Church was antecedent to the Scriptures That the Apostles did not lose their infallibility by committing what they preached to writing That their successors were to have this infallibility preserved in them if there had been no writings and cannot be imagined to have lost it because of them because these give testimony to it That this Infallibility is preserved by Tradition descending from Age to Age as we say the Canon of Scripture is delivered to us And lastly That the Governours of the Church always held and reputed themselves infallible appears by their Anathematizing dissenters In this Discourse there are some things supposed without reason and other things asserted without proof The Foundation of all this Discourse proceeds upon the supposition that the same Infallibility which was in the Apostles must be continued in their Successors through all Ages of the Church for which I see not the least shadow of reason produced Yes saith he supposing there had been no Writings and no Infallibility Christian Religion would have been no rational and well grounded no stable and certain Religion Two things in answer to this I desire to be informed of 1. What he thinks of the Religion of the Patriarchs who received their Religion by Tradition without any such Infallibility 2. What he thinks of those Christians who receive the Scriptures or Churches Infallibility by vertue of common and universal Tradition which is certainly the ground of the one and supposed by him to be of the other whether the Faith of such persons be rational and well-grounded stable and certain or not if it be then there is no such necessity of Infallibility for that purpose if it be not then he doth hereby declare that the Faith of Christians is irrational and ill-grounded For whatsoever is received on the account of Tradition antecedent to the belief of Infallibility cannot be received on the account of it but the belief of either Scriptures or Churches Infallibility must be first received by vertue of a principle antecedent to the Scriptures or Churches Infallibility viz. Tradition By this it appears that his very way of proving destroys the thing he would prove by it For if the Tradition may be a sufficient ground of Faith how comes Infallibility to be necessary But if this Infallibility be not necessary without the Scriptures much less certainly is it now since it is acknowledged on both sides that the Apostles were infallible in their Writings and that therein the Will of God is contained as to all things simply necessary to salvation But these successors of the Apostles were not deprived of their infallibility by the Apostles Writings No certainly for none can be deprived of what they never had but where are the reasons all this while to shew that there was the same necessity of Infallibility in the Apostles successors as was in them Two I find rather intimated than insisted upon 1. That the Church would otherwise have failed if there had been neither Writings nor Infallibility But if this Argument hold for any thing it is for the necessity of the Scriptures and not of Infallibility for we see God did furnish the Church with one and left no footsteps of the other We do not dispute how far the Church might have been preserved without the Scriptures we find it hath been hard enough to preserve it pure with them but we always acknowledge the Infinite Wisdom and Goodness of God that hath not left us in matters of Faith and Salvation to the determinations of men liable to be corrupted by Interest and Ambition but hath appointed men inspired by himself to set down whatever is necessary for us to believe and practise And upon these Writings we fix our Faith as on a firm and unmovable Rock and on the veracity of God therein contained and expressed we build all our hopes of a Blessed Eternity And one great benefit more we have by these divine Books that by them we can so easily discover the fraud and imposture of the confident Pretenders to Infallibility Which is the true reason why the Patrons of the Church of Romes Infallibility have so little kindness for the Scriptures and take all occasions to disparage them by insinuating that they are good for nothing but to breed Heresies in the Heads of the People upon pretence of which danger they hide this Candle under a Bushel lest it should give too much light to them that are in the House and discover some things which it is more convenient to keep in the dark 2. He saith The Infallibility of the Apostles successors receives a second evidence from the testimony thereof found also in these Writings I confess I have seen nothing like the first evidence yet to which this should be a second but if by the first be meant that which I mentioned before this is a proper second for it Neither of them I dare say intend any mischief to any body both first and second are forced into the Field where they stand only for dumb shews and wonder what they are brought for But whereabouts I pray doth this second Testimony stand what are its weapons I hope not Dic Ecclesiae nor Dabo tibi Claves nor any of the old rusty Armour which our modern Combatants begin to be ashamed to appear
the following of Tyranny which we complain of are the two fairest Pleas for their Vnion I ever met with But this is not a place to examine the pretences to Unity on both sides that I have at large done in a whole Chapter in the late Book and if N. O. had intended any thing to purpose against me on this subject he ought much rather to have fallen on a just Discourse than two such lame Clauses as he makes these to be by his citation of them And when he doth that he may hear more of this Subject in the mean time Infallibility is our business And therefore I proceed to the third Argument made use of by N. O. for the proof of Infallibility in the Guides of the Church which is from parity of Reason Because I say that it is repugnant to the nature of the design and the wisdom and goodness of God to give infallible assurance to persons in writing his Will for the benefit of mankind if those Writings may not be understood by all persons who sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary to their salvation from hence he inferrs That if every Christian may become thus infallible in necessaries from 1. a clear rule 2. a due Industry used 3. and a certainty that it is so used may not the Church-Governours still much rather be allowed Infallible and so retain still their infallible Guideship and the people also the more clear the rule of Faith is proved to be the more securely be referred to their direction and have we not all reason to presume that the chief Guides of the Church even a General Council of them or if it be but a major part of this Council 't is sufficient in their consults concerning a point necessary to salvation delivered in Scripture use at least so much endeavour for more needs not as a plain Rustick doth to understand the meaning of it and also the like sincerity For what they define for others they define for themselves also and their salvation is as much concerned as any other mans is in their mistakes And next why may not these Governours upon such certainty of a sincere endeavour and clearness of the rule take upon them to define these points and enjoyn an assent to and belief of them to their subjects especially since it is affirmed that all those from whom they require such obedience if they please to use a sincere endeavour may be certain thereof as well as they And are we not here again arrived at Church-infallibility if not from extraordinary divine assistance only sincere endeavour being supposed And thus doe not his conditional Infallibility of particular persons in necessaries the condition being so easie necessarily inferr a moral impossibility of the Churches erring in them especially those necessaries being contracted to the Apostles Creed as it is by some To lay open the weakness of this Discourse which appears fair and plausible at first view I shall give an account of these two things 1. What Infallibility I attribute to private persons 2. How far the parity of reason will extend to the Infallibility of the Guides of the Church 1. As to the Infallibility by me attributed to private persons no such thing can be inferred from my words and I wish N. O. would have kept to my own expressions and not foisted in that term of Infallibility without which all his Discourse would have betrayed its own weakness For take the terms which I laid down and apply them to the Guides of the Church and see what a mighty Infallibility springs from them For if it be repugnant to the nature of the design and to the wisdom and goodness of God to give infallible assurance to persons in writing his Will for the benefit of mankind if those Writings may not be understood by all persons who sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary for their salvation how doth it hence follow that the Guides of the Church must be infallible in teaching matters of Faith If I had asserted that particular persons were infallible in determining what was true and what not then I grant the Argument would have much more held for those whose office it is to guide and direct others But what he means by mens being infallible in necessaries I do not well understand for it is capable of three several meanings 1. That either men are infallible in judging of necessaries to salvation 2. or That men are infallible in teaching others what art necessaries to salvation Or 3. That men are infallible in believing such things as are necessary to salvation i. e. that such is the goodness of God and the clearness of Scriptures that no man who sincerely desires to know what is necessary to salvation shall be deceived therein and what is this any more than to assert that God will not be wanting in necessaries to mankind and although I know no reason for using the term of Infallibility thus applied yet the thing it self I assert in that sense but in neither of the other and what now can be inferred from hence by a parity of reason but that the Guides of the Church supposing the same sincerity shall enjoy the same priviledge which I know none ever denied them but what is this to their infallibility in teaching all matters of Faith which is the only thing to be proved by him If he can prove this as necessary for the salvation of mankind as the other is then he would do something to his purpose but not otherwise So that all this discourse proceeds upon a very false way of reasoning from believing to teaching and from necessaries to salvation to all matters of Faith which the Guides of the Church shall propose to men 2. But may we not inferr that if God will not be wanting to particular persons in matters necessary to their salvation much less will he be wanting to the Guides of the Church in all matters of Faith No certainly unless it be proved that their Guidance is the only means whereby men can understand what is necessary to salvation which is utterly denied by us God having otherwise provided for that by giving so clear a Rule in matters necessary that no man who sincerely endeavours to know such things shall fail therein But will not the same sincerity in the Guides of the Church extend to their knowing and declaring all matters of Faith This is a thing possible and supposing God had entrusted them with the infallible delivery of all matters of Faith were not to be questioned but that is the thing still in dispute and is not to be supposed without proving it by plain evidence from those Books which are agreed on both sides to contain the Will of God Besides that no man that is acquainted with the proceedings of the Council of Trent will see reason to be over-confident of the
their own Institutions as to those of Christ as in the 5. Sacraments they have added to the two of Christ and to other ceremonies in use among them 5. Setting aside these considerations we dare appeal to the judgement of any person of what perswasion soever whether the reasons we plead for separation from the Church of Rome be not in themselves far more considerable than those which are pleaded by such who separate from our Church i.e. Whether our Churches imposing of three Ceremonies declared to be indifferent by those who require them can be thought by any men of common sense so great a burden to their Consciences as all the load of superstitious fopperies in the Roman Church whether praying by a prescribed form of words be as contrary to Scripture as praying in an unknown tongue Whether there be no difference between kneeling at the Sacrament upon Protestants Principles and the Papists adoration of the Hâ—st Whether Transubstantiation Image worship Invocation of Saints Indulgences Purgatory the Popes supremacy be not somewhat harder things to swallow than the Churches power to appoint matters of order and decency Which particulars make the difference so apparent between the separation of our Church from the Church of Rome and that of dissenters from our Church that it seems a very strange thing to me that this should be objected by our Enemies on either side And thus much may suffice to clear this point of submission to the Guides of a Church of which I have the more largely discoursed not for any difficulty objected by N. O. but because the thing it self did deserve to be more amply considered But some other things relating to Church-Authority I must handle afterwards and therefore now return to my Adversary The next thing to be debated is what assurance we can have of the sense of Scripture in doubtful places if we allow no Infallible Guides to interpret them For that is the second main principle of N. O. that without this Infallible Assistance of the Guides of the Church there can be no certainty of the sense of Scripture And it is chiefely oâ— this Account that N. O. doth assert the necessity of Infallible Guides of the Church For as appears by his concessions he yields that the Churches Infallibility is not necessary to the foundation of faith for men faith he saith may begin at the Infallible Authority of Scriptures but the main grounâ— on which he contends for the necessity of Infallible Guides is for the interpretation of controverted places and giving the true sense of Scripture for which he often pleads fâ—â— necessity of an external Infallible Guide Because God hath referred all in the dubioâ— sense of Scripture to the direction of his Ministers their spiritual Guides whom he 〈◊〉 over them to bring them in the Vnity of the Faith to a perfect man and that they may not be tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of Doctrine by the sleight of those who lye in wait to deceive And without which Guide St. Peter observes that in his time some persons for any thing we know diligent enough yet through want of learning and the instability of adhering to their Guides being unlearned saith he and unstable wrested some places of Scripture hard to be understood to their own destruction Therefore these Scriptures are also in some great and important points hard to be understood And afterwards he saith that Christians who have sufficient certainty of the truth of Christianity may be deficient in a right belief of several necessary Articles of this Christian Faith if destitute of that external infallible Guide therein without which he determines that men must fluctuate and totter and vary one from another whilst the Scriptures are ambiguous in their sense and drawn with much art to several Interests The force of all which comes to this that we can arrive at no certainty of the sense of Scripture in Controverted places without an external Infallible Guide and therefore we are bound to submit to him Here are two things to be discussed 1. What necessity there is for the Salvation of persons to have an infallible interpretation of controverted places of Scripture 2. Whether the denying such an Infallible Interpreter makes men uncapable of attaining any certain sense of doubtful places For if either it be not necessary that men should have an infallible interpretation or men may attain at a certain sense without it then there can be no colour of an argument drawn from hence to prove the necessity of an infallible Guide 1. We are to enquire into the necessity oâ— such an infallible interpretation of doubtfâ—â— places of Scripture There are but three grounds on which it can be thought necessary either that no man should mistake in the sense of Scripture or that the Peace of the Church cannot be preserved or that mens Souls cannot be saved without it If iâ— were necessary on the first account then every particular person must be infallible which being not pleaded for we must consider the other two grounds of it But here we are 〈◊〉 take notice that the matter of our preseâ—â— enquiry is concerning the clearness of Scripture in order to the Salvation of particulâ—â— persons of which the Proposition laid dowâ— by me expresly speaks If therefore N. O. do any thing to overthrow this he muâ—â— prove not that there are doubtful and controverted places which no one denies but that the sense of Scripture is so doubtful and obscure in the things which are necessary to mens Salvation that persons without an Infallible Guide cannot know the meaning of them If he prove not this he doth not come near that which he ought to prove We do not therefore deny that there are places of great difficulty in the Books of Scripture but we assert that the necessaries to Salvation do not lye therein but those being plain and clear men may be saved without knowing the other As a Seaman may safely direct his compass by the Stars although he cannot solve all the difficulties of Astronomy Can any man in his senses Imagine that Christs coming into the world to dye for sinners and the precepts of a holy life which he hath given and the motives thereto from his second coming to Judge the World are not more plain than the Apocalyphical visions or the proofs for the Church of Romes Infallibility If a person then by reading and considering those things which are plain may do what Christ requires for his Salvation what necessity hath such a one to trouble himself about an Infallible Guide For either he may go to heaven without him or not if he may let them shew the necessity he is of to that end which may be attained without him if not then the things necessary to Salvation cannot be known without him Let this be proved and I will immediately yield the whole cause and till it be proved my Principles
should be left in a Church if we deny Infallibility Other diseases may be cured but natural incapacity cannot 2. Not the making Scriptures plain to all sober enquirers in matters necessary to Salvation This is that principle which N. O. makes such horrible out-crys about as though it were the Foundation of all the heresies and Sects in the World This he saith makes all Ecclesiastical Authority useless for what need is there of Bishops Presbyters or any Ecclesiastical Pastors among Protestants as to the office of teaching or expounding these writings if these in all necessaries are clear to all persons who desire to know the meaning of them But not content with this modest charge in comparison in another Treatise he makes this the very heighth of Fanaticism in spight of Mother Iuliana and their Legendary Saints because forsooth this is to ground all our Religion upon our own fancies enquiring into the true sense of divine Revelation and therefore good man seems troubled at it that he can by no means in the world absolve me from being not only a Fanatick but a Teacher of Fanaticism In earnest it was happily found out to return this heavy charge back upon my self with so much rage and violence for although N. O. be a modest man yet S. C. is a meer fury for not meerly Fanaticism pure putid Fanaticism follows from this principle Fanaticism without vizard or disguise and all this demonstratively proved from this Principle But all our Church is immediately gone with it Men may talk of dangerous plots for undermining and blowing up of Towns and Forts and Parliaments but what are all those to the blowing up a whole Church at once For since that Train of my Principles hath been laid nothing like the old Church of Englâ—nd hath been seen It is true there are the same Bishops the same Authority the same Liturgy and Ceremonies the same â—â—â—achers and Officers that were but what are all these to the Church of England For from hence it follows if we believe S. C. that the â—overnours of our Church have no Authority to teach truth or to condemn erâ—â—urs and aâ—l the people are become Prophets and all their Articles Constitutions and Ordinances have been composed and enjoyned by an usurped Authority Very sad consequences truly but like deep plots they lye very far out of sight For to my understanding not one of these dismal things follows any more from my Principles than from proving that S. C. and N. O. both stand for the same Person Which will easily appear to any one â—â—e that will but consider 1. The intention of those Principles 2. The just consequence of them 1. The intention of those Principles which was plainly to lay down the Foundations of a Christians faith living in the Communion of our Church which is expressed in as perspicuous terms before them as may be and to shew that the Roman Churches Infallibility is no necessary Foundation of Faith Now this being the design of those Principles to what purpose should I have gone about therein to have stated the nature and bounds of the Authority of particular Churches I no where in the least exclude the use of all means and due helps of Guides and others for the understanding the sense of Scripture and I no where mention them because my business was only about the Foundation of Faith and whether Infallibility was necessary for that or no If I have proved it was not I have gained my design for then those who deny the Church of Romes Infallibility may never the less have a sure Foundation or solid Principles to build their Faith upon Now to what purpose in an account of the Principles of Faith should I mention those things which we do not build our faith upon I mean the Authority of our Guides for although we allow them all the usefulness of helps yet those are no more to be mentioned in the Principles of resolving Faith than Eulids Master was to be mentioned in his Demonstrations For although he might learn his skill from him yet the force of his Demonstrations did not depend upon his Authority I hope it now appears how far I am from making Church-Authority useless but I still say our Faith is not to be resolved into it and therefore is not to be reckoned as a Principle or Foundation of Faith To that end it is sufficient to prove that men in the due use of means whom I call sober enquirers may without any Infallible Church believe the Scriptures and understand what is necessary to their Salvation herein If this may be then I say it follows Princ. 15. that there can be no necessity supposed of any infallible Society of men either to attest or explain these Writings among Christians Not one word that takes away the use of Authority in the Church but only of Infallibility but it may be said that although it might not be my intention yet it may be the just consequence of the Principles themselves 2. Therefore I shall now prove that no consequence drawn from them can infer this For what if all those things which are necessary to Salvation are plain in Scripture to all that sincerely endeavour to understand them doth it hence follow that there can be no just Authority in a Church no use of Persons to instruct others must all the people become Prophets and no bounds be set to the liberty of Prophesying These are bad consequences but the comfort is they are not true If I should say that the necessary Rules for a mans health are so plainly laid down by Hippocrates that every one that will take the pains may understand them doth this make the whole profession of Physick useless or license every man to practise Physick that will or make it needless to have any Professours in that faculty When the Philosophers of old did so frequently inculcate that the necessaries for life were few and easie did this make all Political Government useless and give every man power to do what he pleased Men of any common understanding would distinguish between the necessaries of life and civil Society so would any one but S. C. or N. O. of the necessaries to Salvation and to the Government of the Church For men must be considered first as Christians and then as Christians united together as in civil Societies they are to be considered first as men and then as Cives to say that a man hath all that is necessary to preserve his life as a man doth not overthrow the Constitution of a Society although it implys that he might live without it so when men are considered barely as Christians no more ought to be thought necessary for them as such but what makes them capable of Salvation but if we consider them as joyning together in a Christian Society then many other things are necessary for that end For then there must be Authority in some and subjection in others
makes things to become matters of faith Can this be understood any other way than of their own sense of matters of faith And is not this fair dealing to make me contradict my self because where I argue against them I take matters of faith in their sense and where I deliver my own opinion I take them in another sense And this being the sense of matters of faith the trifling of his arguing appears for do all these cease to be members of their Church who dispute any thing which others account matter of faith among them Are the Iesuits all out of the Church of Rome because they deny the efficacy of Grace which the Dominiâ—ans account a matter of faith Are the Iansenists and oral Traditionists divided from the Church of Rome because they deny the Popes Infallibility which the Iesuits account a matter of faith If not then all divisions in matters and articles of faith are not divisions from the true Church and from all her members and so his second Proposition comes to nothing and so likewise the third that all divisions in matters of faith so esteemed by them are divisions from the Roman Church But the fourth and fifth Propositions are the most healing Principles that have yet been thought on Fie for shame why should we and they of the Church of Rome quarrel thus long we are very well agreed in all matters of faith and I shall demonstratively prove it from the argument of I. W. drawn from his two last Propositions All who assent unto the ancient Creeds are undivided in matters of faith by Prop. 4. but both Papists and Protestants do assent unto the ancient Creeds ergo they are undivided in matters of faith And hath not I. W. now done his business and very substantially proved the thing he intended But I hope we may enjoy the benefit of it as well as those of the Church of Rome and that they will not hence forward charge us with dividing from their Church in any matters of faith since we are all agreed in owning the ancient Creeds and seeing we cannot be divided from the Church but by differing in matters of faith according to his Propos. it follows that we are still members of the true Church and therefore neither guilty of heresie nor Schism But if those who do own and assent to the ancient Creeds may yet be divided in matters of faith as they charge us by rejecting the definitions of the Roman Church then there is no shadow of a contradiction left in my charging them with differences in matters of faith among themselves though I say they own the ancient Creeds And now Reader thou seest what all these pitiful cavils are come to and what ground there hath been for them to glory in this Pusionello that with a sheet and a half hath compelled me as he saith to be my own Executioner But these great Heroes must be allowed to relate their famous adventures with some advantage to themselves it might have been enough to have rescued the Lady but not only to destroy the Giant as any man must be accounted whom such Knights encounter but to leave him grovelling in the ground and gasping for breath and that by wounds he forced him to give himself this is beyond measure glorious Go thy way then for the eighth Champion of Christendom enjoy the benefit of thy illustrious fame sit down at ease and relate to thy immortal honour thy mighty exploits only when thou hast done remember thou hast encountred nothing but the Wind-mills of thy own imagination and the man whom thou thought'st to have executed by his own hands stands by and laughs at thy ridiculous attempts But I forget that I am so near his Conclusion wherein he doth so gravely advise me that I would be pleased for once to write Controvesies not Play-Books his meaning I suppose is that I would return to the old beaten road where they know how to find a man and have something to say because others have said something before them and not represent the ridiculous passages of their Fanaticks for the defence of which they are furnisht with no Distinctions out of their usual Magazines their present Manuals of Controversie I shall be contented to wait their leisure if they have any thing material to say as I. W. gives me some hopes when he saith that other more learned pens I shall be glad to see them will give me a more particular and compleat answer I hope not in the way of cavilling if they do I shall hereafter only contemn them but I am afraid of their good intentions by the Books he mentions as such considerable things in answer to my Vindication of Arch-bishop Laud viz. the Guide in Controversies and Protestancy without Principles if others write as they have done I shall take as little notice of them as I have done of those Cannot a dull Book come out with my name in the Title but I must be obliged to answer it no I assure them I know better how to spend my time I say still let a just answer come forth that deals by me as I did by the Book I answered and then let them blame me if I neglect it But at last he gives one general reason why no great matter is to be expected to come abroad in Print not but that they have men of learning among them No doubt of it but alas for them they are so persecuted in the Printing Houses that nothing of theirs is suffered to come abroad only by great good fortune this complaint is in Print and comes abroad openly enough How long I pray have these days of persecution been For whatever you imagine I was so far from having any hand in it that the first time I ever heard of it was from your complaints Have you not formerly complained thus when Books too many have been Printed and published in England And what assurance can you give us that you do not still complain without cause But not to suffer you to deceive the people any longer in this kind by pretending that this is the reason why you do not answer our Books because you have no liberty of the Press I have at this time a Catalogue by me of above two hundred Popish Books Printed in our own language which I shall produce on a just occasion a considerable part whereof have been published within the compass of not many years And yet all possible efforts are used by us saith I. W. to hinder their Doctors from shewing their learning this of late we must needs say they have very sparingly done but all the arts we have cannot hinder some of them from shewing their weakness as this I. W. hath very prodigally done in this Pamphlet Finis AN ANSWER TO THE BOOK Entituled Dr. Stillingfleet's Principles Considered ALthough I write no Plays yet I hope I may have leave to say the scene is changed for instead of the former
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
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
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
of against the Scriptures was never so much as thought of in those days or if it were was not thought worth answering for they diâ— not in the least desert the proofs of Scripture because their Adversaries made use of it too But they endeavouâ—ed to shew that their Adversaries Doctrine had no solid Foundation in Scripture but theirs had i.e. that the Arians perverted it because they did not examine and compare places as they ought to do but run away with a few words without considering the scope and design of them or comparing them with places plainer than those were which they brought Thus when the Arians objected that place My Father is greater than I Athanasius bids them compare that with other places such as My Father and I are one and who being in the form of God thought it no robbery to be equâ—â— with God and by him all things were made c. When Arius objected to us there is but one God of whom are all things he telâ—s him he ought to consider the following words and one Lord Iesus Christ by whom are all things from whence when Arius argued that Christ was only Gods instrument in creating things Athanasius then bids him compare this place with another where it is said of whom the whole body c. Not barely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When the Arians objected Christs saying all things are delivered to me from my Father Athanasius opposes that place of St. Iohn to it By him all things were made Thus when they objected several other places he constantly hath recourse to Iohn 1. 1 2 3. to Phil. 2. 7. 1 Iohn 5. 20. and others which he thought the plainest places for Christs eternal Divinity and by these he proves that the other were to be interpreted with a respect to his humane nature and the State he was in upon Earth So that the greatest Defender of the Doctrine of the Trinity against the Arians saw no necessity at all of calling in the Assistance of any infalâ—ible Guides to give the certain sense of Scripture in these doubtful places but he thought the Scripture plain enough to all those who would impartially examine it and for others who wilfully shut their eyes no light could be great enough for them Indeed when the Arians called in the help of any of the Ancient Writers to justify their Doctrine then Athanasius thought himself concerneâ— to vindâ—cate them as particularly Dionysius of Alexandria But as he saith if they can produce Scripture or Reason for what they say let them do it but if not let them hold their peace Thereby implying that these were the only considerable things to be regarded yet he shews at large that they abused the Testimony of Dionysius who although in his letters against Sabellius he spake too much the other way yet in other of his writings he sufficiently cleared himself from being a savouâ—er of the Arian Heresie And although Athanasius doth else where say that the Faith which the Catholick Church then held was the faith of their Fore-fathers and descended from the Apostles yet he no where saith that without the help of that Tradition it had been impossible to have known the certain sense of Scripture much less without the infallible interpretation of the Guides of the present Church S. Hilary in his disputes against the same Hereticks professes in the beginning that his intention was to confound their rage and ignorance out of writings of the Prophets and Apostles and to that end desires of his Readers that they would conceive of God not according to the Laws of their own beings but according to the greatness of what he had declared of himself For he is the best Reader of Scripture who doth not bring his sense to the Scripture but takes it from it and doth not resolve before hand to find that there which he concluded must be the sence before he reads In things therefore which concern God we must allow him to know himself best and give due Reverence to his word For he is the best witness to himself who cannot be known but by himself In which words he plainly asserts that the Foundation of our Faith must be in the Scriptures and that a free and impartial mind is necessary to find out the true sense of Scripture And after he had said in the second Book that Heresies arise from misunderstanding the Scripture and charged in his fourth Book the Arians particularly with it he proceeds to answer all the places produced by them out of the old and new Testament by comparing several places together and the antecedents and consequents and by these means proving that they mistook the meaning of Scripture So in the beginning of his ninth Book rehearsing the Common places which were made use of by the Arians he saith they repeated the words alone without enquiring into the meaning or Contexture of them whereas the true sense of Scripture is to be taken from the antecedents and consequents their fundamental mistake being the applying those things to his Divine nature which were spoken of his humane which he makes good by a particular examination of the several places in Controversie The same course is taken by Epiphanius Phaebadius and others of the ancient Writers of the Church who asserted the Eternal Divinity of Christ against the Arians Epiphanius therefore charges them which mangling and perverting the sense of Scripture understanding figurative expressions literâ—â—ly and those which are intended in a plain sense figuratively So that it is observable in that great Controversie which disturbed the Church so many years which exercised the wits of all men in that time to find out a way to put an end to it after the Guides of the Church had in the Council of Nice declared what was the Catholick faith yet still the Controversie was managed about the sense of Scripture and no other ways made use of for finding it than such as we plead for at this day It is a most incredible thing that in a time of so violent contention so horrible confusion so scandalous divisions in the Christian Church none of the Catholick Bishops should once suggest this admirable Expedient of Infallibility But this Palladium was not then fallen down from heaven or if it were it was kept so secret that not one of the Writers of the Christian Church in that busie and disputing Age discovered the least knowledge of it Unless it be said that of all times it was then least fit to talk of Infallibility in the Guides of the Church when they so frequently in Councils contrâ—dicted each other The Synodical Book in the new Tomes of the Councils reckons up 31. several Councils of Bishops in the time of the Arian Controversie whereof near 20. were for the Arians and the rest against them If the sense of Scripture were in this time to be taken from the Guides of the
Testimonies of Scripture it must be made manifest to be the sense by clear Evidence of Reason But he rather approves the way of proving the sense of Scripture by other places of Scripture where the interpretation is doubtful So that the way in doubtful places which he prescribes is this either to draw such a sense from them as hath no dispute concerning its being a true Proposition or if it have that it be confirmed by other places of Scripture Besides these he lays down the 7. rules of Ticonius the Donatist which are not of that consequence to be here repeated that which I take notice of is that St. Augustin thought the rules he gave sufficient for understanding the meaning of Scripture in doubtful places but he doth not in the least mention the Infallibility of the Guides of the Church as a necessary means for that end But he doth assert in as plain terms as I have done that Scripture is plain in all necessaries to Salvation to any sober enquirer and what ever consequences are charged upon me for making that a Fundamental principle must reflect as much upon St. Augustin as me and I do not fear all the objections can be made against a principle so evident to reason and so agreeable not only to St. Augustin but the Doctrine of the Catholick Church both before and after him The next after St. Augustin who hath purposely writ of this argument about the sense of Scripture is Vincentius Lerinensis about 4. years after St. Augustins death and 3. after the Council of Ephesus who seems to attribute more to the Guides of the Church than St. Augustin doth yet far enough short of Infallibility He saith that every man ought to strengthen his faith against Heresie by two things first by the Authoriry of the divine Law and then by the Tradition of the Catholick Church which tradition he makes necessary not by way of addition to the Scripture for he allows the perfection and sufficiency of that for all things but only to interpret Scripture by giving a certain sense of it there being such different opinions among men about it For all the Hereticks whom he there names had different senses of Scripture as Novatianus Sabellius Donatus Arius Macedonius Photinus c. But then he bounds this tradition within the compass of the universal consent of Antiquity as well as the present Church or as he expresseth it within those things which were believed every where always and by all persons That we may therefore consider how far these rules of Vincentius will serve for explaining the sense of Scripture we are to take notice of the restrictions he lays upon them 1. That they are to be taken together and not one of them separate from the rest As for instance that of Vniversality in any one Age of the Church being taken without the consent of Antiquity is no sufficient rule to interpret Scripture by For Vincentius doth suppose that any one Age of the Church may be so overrun with Heresie that there is no way to confute it but by recourse to Antiquity For in the case of the Arian heresie he grants that almost the whole Church was overspread with it and there was then no way left but to prefer the consent of Antiquity before a prevailing novelty In some cases the Universal consent of the present Church is to be relyed upon against the attempts of particular persons as in that of the Donatists but then we are to consider that Antiquity was still pleaded on the same side that Vniversality was and supposing that all the Ancient Church from the Apostles times had been of the same mind with the Donatists the greater number of the same Age opposing them would have been no more cogent against them than it was afterwards for the Arians It is unreasonable to believe that in a thing universally believed by all Christians from the Apostles times the Christian Church should be deceived but it is quite another thing to say that the Church in any one or more Ages since the Apostles times may be deceived especially if the Church be confined to one certain Communion excluding all others and the persons in that Church have not liberty to deliver their opinions for then it is impossible to know what the Judgement of the whole Church is And so universality is not thought by Vincentius himself to be alone sufficient to determine the sense of Scripture supposing that universality to be understood according to the honesty of the Primitive times for a free and general consent of the Christians of that Age in which a man lives but since the great divisions of the Christian world it is both a very hard matter to know the consent of Christendom in most of the Controverted places of Scripture and withal the notion of Vniversality is debauched and corrupted and made only to signifie the consent of one great Faction which is called by the name of the Catholick Church but truly known by the name of Roman 2. That great care and Judgement must be used in the applying those Rules for 1. The consent of Antiquity is not equally evident in all matters in dispute and therefore cannot be of equal use 1. There are some things wherein we may be certain of such a consent and that was in the Rule of Faith as Vincentius and most of the ancient Writers call it i.e. the summary comprehension of a Christians duty as to matters of faith which was not so often called the Symbol as the Rule of Faith that I mean which was delivered to persons who were to be baptized and received into the Church this the ancient Church Universally agreed in as to the substance of it And as to this Vincentius tells us his Rule is especially to be understood For saith he this consent of Antiquity is not to be sought for in all questions that may arise about the sense of Scripture but only or at least chiefly in the Rule of Faith or as he elsewhere explains himself alone or chiefly in those Questions which concern the Fundamentals of the Catholick Doctrine which were those contained in the Rule of Faith delivered to all that were to be baptized Suppose men now should stretch this Rule beyond the limits assigned it by Vincentius what security can there be from him that it shall be a certain rule who confined it within such narrow bounds Not that I think his Rules of no use at all now no I think them to be of admirable use and great importance to Christianity if truly understood and applyed i.e. When any Persons take upon them to impose any thing upon others as a necessary matter of faith to be believed by them we can have no better rules of Judgement in this case than those of Vincentius are viz. Antiquity Vniversality and Consent and whatsoever cannot be proved by these Rules ought to be rejected by all Christians To make this plain the
of Trent make Orders a Sacrament and one of those which doth imprint an indelible character and doth not that Council pronounce an Anathema against those that denyed the validity of the Sacrament administred by one in mortal sin in case he observes the essentials of it How then can T. G â—scape excommunication from his own Church that denies the validity of the Sacrament of Orders in case of the sin of the Givers of it If the validity of the Sacrament doth not dâ—pend on the worth or quality of the Ministers of it but upon the essentials and the institution of Christ how can the fault of the persons hinder the conveyance of that Authority which they are only the bare instruments to convey Doth T. G. think so in all other Sacraments as in case of Baptism that supposing the Ministers of it have been guilty of Heresie or Idolatry the Sacrament loses its effect Well fare then the Donatists whose opinion this was and in whom it hath been condemned by the Church If it be not so in other Sacraments how comes it to be thus in Orders which he must acknowledge to be as much a Sacrament as Baptism or else he must renounce the Council of Trent And it is observable that the very argument used by the Donatists and others was the same which T. G. here produces viz. his common maxim of Reason and not denyable by any man of common sense that no man can give to another that which he hath not himself to which this answer was given that the Instrument was not the giver but the first Institutor and in case the Minister keep to the Institution the Grace of the Sacrament may be conveyed by him though he hath it not himself But methinks if T. G. had forgotten the Doctrine of the Council of Trent he might have looked into some one or other of their own Authors to have informed himself better of their Doctrine in this matter Vasquez hath a Chapter on purpose to prove that an Heretical excommunicated suspended Bishop is a sufficient Minister of Ordination and saith that all the Schoolmen and Summists are agreed in it and that there can be no doubt at all made of it And did none of these men understand the principle that is undenyable by any man of common sense what a back-blow is this to those of his own Church for Vasquez saith this is determined as a matter of faith among them that the validity of a Sacrament doth not depend on the probity or faith of the Minister And he denies it to be in the power of the Church to hinder the effect of ordination in an excommunicated Bishop because it cannot blot out his Character or take away his power Estius saith that no Crime how great soever whether haeresie Schism or Apostasie no censure how heavy soever as excommunication can hinder the validity of ordination by a Bishop although it be of those who are not subject to his jurisdiction in case he observes the lawful rites of ordination as to the essence of the Sacrament for this reason because ordination belongs to the power of Order which being once received can never be lost but those things which belong to Jurisdiction as absolution and excommunication have no effect where that Jurisdiction is taken away And this Doctrine they all ground upon St Augustins discourse against the Donatists and upon the practice of the Church at that time which did receive those who were ordained among the Donatists without scrupling their Orders as not only appears by the testimony of St. Augustin but by the decree of an African Council to that purpose and that not only at first but when the Schism was Grown inveterate And yet Francis Hallier a late Doctor of the Sorbon tells us that the Donatists were not barely Schismaticks but they were adjudged hereticks for asserting that the efficacy of Sacraments did depend upon the quality of the persons and not upon the merits of Christ. The same Author vehemently disputes against those who assert that the power of Order can be lost by the sin of the person and shews that Doctrine hath been condemned by several Councils before that of Trent as of Arles of Orleans and Constance and undertakes to answer all the instances brought from Antiquity to the contrary as either understood of such hereticks which did not retain the essentials of the Sacrament or only implying the fault committed in giving or receiving them at the hands of such persons but not any invalidity in the Sacrament it self And afterwards he proves that Hereticks are capable of ordination But if these and many others of their later Writers will not satisfy him I desire him to consult their more ancient Authors Thom. Aquinas determins that Hereticks and those who are cut off from the Church may give orders as well as administer other Sacraments the reason he gives is that a power in Consecration is given to a Bishop which can never be taken from him although he will not allow it to be called a Character For several especially of the ancient Schoolmen would not have consecration to imprint a new Character but they were never able to give an intelligible account of what they meant by the Character as distinct from that Sacramental power which was conveyed by consecration and they granted to be indelible as the other was some making it an extension of the Character of Priesthood others a bare extrinsecal denomination added to it but however they held it such as could no more be taken away than the Character of Priesthood Cardinal Bonaventure saith that the validity of Sacraments among Hereticks was a Question much in dispute among the ancient Doctors but that it hath been determined by St. Augustin that they are valid if they preserve the essentials of them and in the matter of ordination he saith that the power of Orders although it be not a distinct Character yet because it is built upon it can no more be taken away than the Character it self but whatever is founded upon Jurisdiction as the power of excommunication and absolution may be taken away But I need not mention any more particular Writers since Morinus acknowledges that for 400. years the opinion of the validity of Orders conferred by Hereticks hath only obtained in the Roman Church Before that time he proves at large that it was more disputable as appears by the Master of the Sentences who accounts it a perplexed and almost insoluble difficulty because of the different opinions of Doctors about it but afterwards St. Augustins opinion was generally received both among the Schoolmen and Canonists and is now become a matter of faith in the Roman Church at least by consequence since the Decrees of Councils And although Morinus will not allow that any decree of their Church hath passed in this matter yet he saith there hath been so long and so universal a
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
man once contradict himself he is to be looked on as a perjured person and whatever he saith his word is not to be taken This he not only begins with but very triumphantly concludes with it in these words and this alone may suffice to annul whatever he has hitherto or shall hereafter object against us for a witness who has been once palpably conuinced to have forsworn or contradicted himself in matters of moment besides the condign punishment he is lyable unto he does vacate all evidences produced by him against his Adversary and deserves never more to be heard against him in any Tribunal I see now what it is they would be at no less than perpetual silence and being set in the Pillory with that Pamphlet on my forehead Dr. Still against Dr. Still for being guilty of contradicting my self would satisfie I. W. and his Friends This I suppose was the meaning of stopping my mouth for ever when this Answer was to come out But now I perceive it is so dangerous a thing I had best stand upon my defence and utterly deny that I have contradicted my self in any thing in which I. W. hath charged me 2. To make it then out that this is a groundless charge I must go through the several particulars insisted on The first is in the charge of Idolatry but how do I contradict my self about this had I vindicated the Church of Rome from Idolatry in my Defence of Arch-bishop Laud this had been indeed to contradict my self but this is not so much as pretended and if it were nothing could be more easily confuted for in that very Book as it falls out very happily there is a discourse to the same purpose proving the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry in Invocation of Saints and the worship of Images and that the Heathen in the worship of inferiour Deities and Images might be excused on the same grounds that those of the Church of Rome do excuse themselves Here is then no appearance of a contradiction in terms and it is only pretended to be by consequence viz. from yielding that the Church of Rome and we do not differ in Fundamental points and that the Church of Rome is therefore a true Church from whence he inferrs that it cannot be guilty of Idolatry because to teach that would be a Fundamental errour and inconsistent with the Being of a true Church and therefore to charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry and to allow it to be a true Church is a contradiction This is the substance of what he saith upon this head to which I shall answer by shewing 1. That this way of answering is very disingenuous 2. That it is Sophistical and proves not the thing which he intends 1. That it is a disingenuous way because he barely opposes a judgement of charity concerning their Church to a judgement of reason concerning the nature of actions without at all examining the force of those reasons which are produced in the Book he pretends to answer Can I. W. imagine that any one who enquires into the safest way for his salvation and hears the Church of Rome charged with Idolatry in her worship by arguments drawn from the plain Law of God the common sense of mankind the repugnancy of their way of worship to the conceptions we ought to have of the divine nature the consent of the ancient Christian Church the parity of the case in many respects with the Heathen Idolaters should presently conclude that all these arguments are of no force meerly because the person who made use of them had upon another occasion judged so charitably of that Church as to suppose it still to retain the essentials of a true Church I will put a case paralled to this suppose one of the Church of Iudah should have call'd the Church of Israel in the time of Ieroboam a true Church because they acknowledged the true God and did believe an agreement in that common acknowledgement to be sufficient to preserve the essentials of a Church among them and afterwards the same person should go about to convince the ten Tribes of their Idolatry in worshipping God by the Calves of Dan and Bethel would this be thought a sufficient way of answering him to say that he contradicted himself by granting them a true Church and yet charging them with Idolatry whereas the only true consequence would be that he thought some kind of Idolatry consistent with the Being of a Church Might not such a person justly say that they made a very ill use of his charity when he supposed only that kind of Idolatry which implyes more Gods than one to unchurch a people but however those persons were more concerned to vindicate themselves from Idolatry of any kind than he was to defend his charitable opinion of them and if they could prove to him that this inferiour sort of Idolatry does unchurch them as well as the grosser the consequence of it would be that his charity must be so much the less but their danger would be the same This is just our case with the Church of Rome we acknowledge that they still retain the Fundamental articles of the Christian faith that there is no dispute between them and us about the true God and his Son Iesus Christ as to his death resurrection glory and being the proper object of divine worship we yield that they have true Baptism among them in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and we looking upon these as the essentials of a true Church do upon that account own that Church to be so but then we charge the Roman Church with gross corrupting that Worship which is proper to the divine nature by her worship of Images adoration of the Host and Invocation of Saints which being done not in express terms against the worship of the true God but by consequence we do not think this doth destroy the Being of a Church among them although it makes the salvation of persons in her communion extreamly hazardous and after we have gone about to prove this by many and weighty arguments is it reasonable for any one to tell us that we contradict our selves and therefore our arguments do signifie nothing whereas in truth here is no appearance of a contradiction to that which is our own sense in this matter For what shadow of a contradiction is it to say that the Roman Church is a true Church and yet is guilty of Idolatry supposing that we believe some sort of Idolatry which is very sinful not to be yet of so high a nature as to unchurch those who practise it And we choose the Instance of the ten Tribes for the ground of this charity If they can prove that all sorts of Idolatry do necessarily destroy the essentials of a Church the consequence is we must have less charity for them than we had before And such a concession from us doth not shew their guilt to
it self true is captiously set down and with an intention only to deceive unwary readers as will appear by the next proposition 2. To teach Idolatry is to err against the formentioned article of faith and Fundamental point of Religion i. e. to teach Idolatry is to teach that the honour which is due only to God is to be given to a meer creature That this is to teach Idolatry no one questions but our question is Whether they who do not teach this Proposition may not teach men to do those things whereby the worship due only to God will be given to a meer creature If he can prove that they who do not in terms declare that they do not dishonour God cannot dishonour him if he can demonstrate that those who do not teach that the honour which is due only to God is to be given to a creature cannot possibly by any actions of theirs rob him of that honour which is due to him this will be much more to his purpose than any thing he hath yet said And this proposition if he had proceeded as he ought to have done should not have been a particular affirmative but an Universal Negative For it is not enough to say that to teach Idolatry is to teach that the honour which is due only to God is to be given to a creature but that No Church which doth not teach this can be guilty of Idolatry for his design being to clear the Roman Church his Proposition ought to be so framed that all particulars may be comprehended under it But because he may say his immediate intention was not to clear their Church from Idolatry but to accuse me of a contradiction I proceed to the next Proposition 3. A Church that does not err against any article of faith nor against any Fundamental point of Religion does not teach Idolatry This proposition is likewise very Sophistical and captious for by article of faith and fundamental point of Religion is either understood the main fundamental points of doctrine contained in the Apostles Creed and then I affirm that a Church which doth own all the Fundamentals of doctrine may be guilty of Idolatry and teach those things wherein it lyes but if by not erring against any article of faith be meant that a Church which doth not err at all in matters of Religion cannot teach Idolatry the Proposition is true but impertinent 4. That the Church of Rome doth teach Veneration of Images adoration of the Host and Invocation of Saints is agreed on both sides 5. That the Roman Church does not err against any article of faith or Fundamental point of Religion This being that concession of ours from whence all the force of his argument is taken must be explained according to our own sense of it and not according to that which he puts upon it which that it may be better understood I shall both shew in what sense this concession is made by us as to the Church of Rome and of what force it is in this present debate For the clearer understanding in what sense it is made by us we are to consider the occasion of the Controversie about Fundamentals between us and the Church of Rome which ought to be taken from that Book to which he referrs There we find the occasion of it to be the Romanists contending that all points defined by the Church are Fundamental or necessary to salvation on the account of such a Definition upon this the controversie about Fundamentals was managed against them with a design to prove that all things defined by the Church of Rome are not Fundamental or necessary to be believed by all persons in order to their salvation because they were so defined To this purpose I enquired 1. What the grounds are on which any thing doth become necessary to salvation 2. Whether any thing whose matter is not necessary and is not required by an absolute command in Scripture can by any means whatsoever afterwards become necessary 3. Whether the Church hath power by any proposition or definition to make anything become necessary to salvation and to be believed as such which was not so before For the first I proposed two things 1. What things are necessary to the salvation of men as such or considered in their single or private capacities 2. What things are necessary to be owned in order to salvation by Christian Societies or as the bonds and conditions of Ecclesiastical communion For the resolving of this I laid down these three Propositions 1. That the very being of a Church doth suppose the necessity of what is required to be believed in order to salvation 2. Whatever Church owns those things which are antecedently necessary to the Being of a Church cannot so long cease to be a true Church And here I expresly distinguished between the essentials of a Church and those things which were required to the Integrity or soundness of it among which latter I reckoned the worship of God in the way prescribed by him 3. That the Union of the Catholick Church depended upon the agreement of it in things antecedently necessary to its being From hence I proceeded to shew that nothing ought to be owned as necessary to Salvation by Christian Societies but such things which by all those Societies are acknowledged antecedently necessary to the Being of the Catholick Church And here I distinguished between necessary articles of faith and particular agreements for the Churches peace I did not therefore deny but that it was in the power of particular Churches to require a Subscription to articles of Religion opposite to the errours and abuses which they reformed but I denyed it to be in the power of any Church to make those things necessary articles of faith which were not so before And here it was I shewed the moderation of the Church of England above that of Rome in that our Church makes no articles of faith but such as have the testimony and approbation of the whole Christian world of all Ages and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self but the Church of Rome imposeth new articles of faith to be believed as necessary to salvation as appears by the Bull of Pius 4. This is my plain meaning which half-witted men have stretched and abused to several ill purposes but not to wander from my present subject what is it that I. W. can hence infer to his purpose viz. that from hence it follows that the Church of Rome does not erre against any article of faith or any point necessary to salvation which if it be only meant of those essential points of faith which I suppose antecedently necessary to the Being of a Church I deny it not but do not see of what use this concession can be to them in the present debate since in the following Discourse I made the ancient Creeds of the Catholick Church the best measure of those things which were believed to be necessary to
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
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.
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
parallel with each other 1. because I will not grant that a willful sin such as adultery to be a true way to Heaven and doth he think that I ever imagined Idolatry and gross superstition to be so If I grant that in the Church of Rome they have a true way to Heaven it is as other debauched Christians have who own faith enough to save them but their destruction comes from not living agreeably to it 2. Because I grant more to them than to Iews or Pagans yet they may be saved if they do repent True but they are not in so great likelyhood of repenting as those who own the Fundamental articles of the Christian faith and have a sincere desire in general to serve God according to his will the Grace of God being more plentiful where the Christian faith is owned than where it is rejected upon which account Iews and Heathens are in more danger of not repenting and consequently of salvation than those that live in the Roman Church 3. Because I grant a greater capacity of salvation to Roman Catholicks than they do to Protestants but they do not dâ—ny it to Protestants if they repent But the difference lyes in the nature and acts of the repâ—â—tance required We say a 〈◊〉 repentanced and a vertuous sincere mind which desires to know do the will of God may be sufficient together with a particular repentance of all known miscarriages but they say such a repentacne is necessary for us as does imply a disowning our Church as such wherein no salvation is to be had and a joyning with the Communion of the Church of Rome therefore the question about their charity and ours is about the possibility of the salvation of persons living and dying in the communion of either Church We say on the conditions before mentioned men may be saved though they do not in terms renounce their communion but they say that none who do not return to their communion can be saved and in this we justly charge them with horrible uncharitableness when many of their Writers allow a greater possibility of salvation to meer Heathens 4. Because Arch-bishop Laud grants a greater capacity of salvation than other Protestants but in what sense I have already shewed 5. That this is in effect to say that it is a true way to Heaven if they go out of it Not if they go out of it so far as it is true but so far only as it is false and dangerous If a man were going the right way from London to York as far as Stamford and there went quite out of his way into the Fens here his life is in danger if I should tell this man that the way from London to York was a certain way that the way he went in as far as Stamford was a true way and if he had kept in it would have brought him to York but the way he is now in is very dangerous and if he does not return his life is in perpetual hazard is this all one as if I should tell him while you were in the true way you must go out of it No such sense can be put upon such words by any man that hath sense and for others we give them leave to cry nonsense and contradiction All his other petty objections run upon the same palpable mistake and it would be but repeating the same thing to answer the other remaining cavils upon this Argument I come therefore to the sore place indeed the touching whereof hath made them to kick and wince so much at me and that is the Fanaticism of the Roman Church Which made them complain to Caesar that it was a new crime and never heard of before What they the sober the judicious the wise people of the Church of Rome turned Fanaticks it's false it 's impossible nay it is absolutely and utterly impossible to be true and none but Atheists can charge them with it This hath been their common way of answering to this new charge but not one wise word hath been said in a just Vindication of themselves by giving answer to those many plain and undenyable Instances I have produced I wished for no other tryal than to be bound to bring forth their own Authors and to make good the Authorities I had cited and my fidelity therein but they have fairly declined this way of tryal But how then can they free themselves from this imputation we have men of art to deal with and it is some pleasure to observe the skill they use in warding off a blow they did not look for But if they have nothing more to say then I. W. can help them to the charge will stick the faster for his attempt to clear them of it He begins with a description of Fanaticism which he saith doth necessarily contain a resistance of authority and for this very unhappily quotes my own words By Fanaticism we understand either an Enthusiastick way af Religion or resisting authority under pretence of Religion just as if one should say the true notion of Idolatry implyes the renouncing the true God and to prove it should quote words of mine to this purpose That Idolatry is either renouncing the true God or worshipping the true God by an Image for as in that case it is evident I make two sorts of Idolatry so it is as plain in this that I make two branches of Fanaticism whereof the one is an Enthusiastick way of Religion the other resistance of authority under the pretence of Religion But if this be the true notion of Fanaticism why doth he not speak one word in vindication of them from that very kind of Fanaticism which I had charged them to be so deeply guilty of Had I not proved by plain testimonies that the most Fanatick principles of Rebellion were owned by the Jesuitical party among them viz. the Kings deriving his power from the people and the peoples authority to call the King to an account and if they see good to take away his power and change the Government and not only so but to take away his life too Had I not proved by clear and late Instances that the party which owns these principles is to this day the most countenanced and encouraged at Rome and any honest men among them as to these principles are on that account hated and persecuted as P. W. and his Brethren But why no answer to this charge These are things they cannot deny and yet dare not confess them to be true If I. W. answer again let him speak out like a man and either confess and detest these Principles or we shall charge them farther with this worst and most dangerous sort of Fanaticism My duty and just zeal for his Majesties interest and security will not suffer me to let go this part of the charge against them although they would fain have it passed over in silence as though never a word had been said concerning
as Christ and his Apostles if they be not than whatever they pretend they are not looked on as divine revelations by them as manifestly appears because they are wholly rejected by some of the wisest of them doubted of and disputed by others as it were easie to prove were it not too large a subject for this discourse but by none received as writings of divine authority and equal with the Scriptures which they must be if they came from the same Spirit And since they are not it is evident that they are no otherwise esteemed among themselves than as the Fanatick heats of some devout persons of disturbed and deluded Fancies whom notwithstanding they are willing to cherish partly because they are loth to discountenance any pretence to an infallible Spirit in their Church and partly that there may never be wanting matter to make Saints of when the Pope thinks fit and good consideration is offered This may suffice to make good this charge of Fanaticism against the Roman Church and to shew that I am as far from the appearance of any contradiction therein although their Revelations are not from a real one as I. W's vain and Sophistical talk is from any appearance of reason The last contradiction charged upon me is about the Divisions of the Roman Church The occasion of which discourse was that divisions were objected to me as another consequent of the Reformation upon which I thought my self obliged to enquire into the Vnity of their Church and I have at large proved from undenyable Instances attested by their own Authors that they have no reason to insult over other Churches on account of their divisions nor to boast of their own Unity and Peace For I have there proved that there have never been greater disturbances in the Christian World than what they call the means of Unity viz. the Popes Authority hath procured no where greater or more lasting Schisms no where fiercer disputes about matters of order and doctrine than among them I considered all their salvo's and from them shew'd that if they have no divisions among themselves neither have we nay the same arguments which prove they do not differ in matters of faith from each other do likewise prove that they and we do not differ from each other in those things And what saith I. W. to all this Instead of healing their own divisions he only designs to prove me to be divided against my self that he might make up the full Tale of his contradictions But I. W. had so much forgot himself as to make good the very thing I designed and by that very argument he uses to prove that I contradict my self he manifestly proves that there are no more divisions in matters of faith between the Roman Church and us than there are among themselves This I shall make very evident but I must proceed as he doth with his Propositions 1. No divisions from the Roman Church are divisions of the Roman Church This is a very subtle principle of unity among them and by this rule there would be an admirable Unity in the Roman Church if the Pope himself were left alone in it For all others would only be divided from it and I would allow the Pope to be at a very good Agreement with himself which is more than I. W. will allow me In this case indeed there would be Vnity but where would be their Church Suppose a shepherd should boast of the excellent Government of a great Flock he had under his command and the Unity and peace they lived in and a by-stander should tell him that he saw others pretend to the same authority over that flock that he did and part followed one and part another he saw some of the chief of the Leaders set themselves against him disputing his authority he saw many of the sheep continually fighting with each other and some had wholly forsaken him would it not be a pleasant thing for this shepherd to say that notwithstanding all this they had great peace and Unity because as many as did not quarrel were very quiet and those that were divided from his Government were not under it But our question is whether such authority be the means to preserve the whole flock under Government when we see it prevents no divisions but causes many He might have spoken more to the purpose if he had framed his Proposition thus there can be no divisions in the Roman Church but such as divide men from it and in that case the Roman Church would have been reduced to a very small number But if there may be such divisions which are as contrary to Unity and peace as divisions in matters of faith are to what purpose is it to shew that they have none in one kind if they have very great in all others But although this be not sufficient to demonstrate their Vnity yet it is enough for his purpose if it doth shew that I contradict my self But where lyes the contradiction The force of it lyes here I charge them with divisions in matters of faith when divisions in matters of faith make them not to be members of the Roman Church therefore there can be no divisions in the Roman Church in matters of faith Again for in these two arguments the substance of his own propositions is couched by himself All those who assent unto the ancient Creeds are undivided in matters of faith but all Roman Catholicks assent unto the ancient Creeds ergo all Roman Catholicks are undivided in matters of faith and consequently it is a calumny in me to say they are divided in these matters Now what an easie matter is it to disposses me of this Spirit of contradiction which he imagines me possessed with I need no holy water or sacred charms and exorcisms to do it with There needs no more but understanding what is meant by matters of faith when matters of faith are spoken of by me in the place he refers to it is evident to every one that reads it and by his own words I speak only of the Fundamental and necessary articles of faith which are necessary to the salvation of all and to the very being of a Church of which kind I say none ought to be esteemed that were not admitted into the ancient Creeds But when I charge them with divisions in matters of faith I do not mean that they reject the ancient Creeds but I take matters of faith in their own sense for things defined by the Church and if I. W. had sought for any thing but words to raise cavils upon he might have found it so explained in the very place where I speak of this For that discourse is to answer an objection of theirs that they do not differ in those things which they esteem matters of faith and particularly I insisted upon that that they cannot be sure whether they differ in matters of faith or no because they are not agreed what
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
sincerity of Councils so palpably influenced by the Court of Rome as that was But however is it not fit in these matters that particular persons should rather yield to the guidance of others than to the conduct of their own reason Which is N. O's farther Argument in this matter viz. That a Fallibility being supposed it is more fitting to follow prudent and experienced though fallible persons direction rather than our own To this I answer in these following particulars 1. That God hath entrusted every man with a faculty of discerning Truth and Falshood supposing that there were no persons in the World to direct or guide him For without this there were no capacity in mankind to be instructed in matters of Religion and it were to no purpose to offer any thing to men to be believed or to perswade them to embrace any Religion To make this plain I will suppose a Person come to years of understanding not yet professing any particular Religion to whom the several Religions in the world are proposed by men perswaded of the truth of them viz. the Christian the Jewish and the Mahumetan He hears the several arguments brought for each of them and hath no greater opinion of the teachers of one than of another I desire to know whether this person may not see so much of the truth and excellency of Christian Religion above the rest as to choose that and reject all the rest I hope no one will deny this now if a man does here upon his own judgment and reason choose the Christian Religion so as firmly to believe it then God hath given to men such a faculty of judging that upon the proposal of truth and falshood he may embrace the true Religion and reject the false and such a Faith is acceptable and pleasing to God Otherwise no man could embrace Christianity at first upon good grounds 2. This faculty is not taken away nor men forbidden the exercise of it in the choice of their Religion by any principle of the Christian Religion for our Saviour himself appealed to the Judgement of the persons he endeavored to convince he made use of many arguments to perswade them he directed them in the way of finding out of truth he reproved those who would not search into the things delivered to them All which were to no purpose at all if men were not to continue the exercise of their own Judgements about these matters Accordingly we find the Apostles appealing to the Judgements of private and fallible persons concerning what they said to them although themselves were infallible and had the greatest Authority over them we find them not bidding the Guides of the Church pâ—ove all things and the people held fast that which they delivered them but Commanding them indifferently to prove all things and hold fast that which is good i. e. what upon examination they found to be so we find those commended who searched the Scriptures daily whether the things proposed to them were so or no. So that we see the Christian Religion dâ—th not forbid men the exercise of that faculty of judging which God hath given to mankind 3. The exercise of this faculty was not to cease asâ—oon as men had embraced the Christian Doctrine For the precepts given by the Apostles do belong to those who are already Christians and that concerning the matters proposed by their Guides nay they are expressly commended to try and examin all pretences to Infallibility and Revelation upon this great reason because there should be many false pretenders to them Beloved believe not every Spirit but try the Spirits whether they be of God for many false Prophets are gone out into the world They are commanded not to believe any other Gospel though Apostles or an Angel from Heaven should preach it and how should they know whether it were another or the same if they were not to examin and compare them They are bid to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the Saints it might be a new Faith for any thing they could know if they were not competent Judges of what was once delivered They are frequently charged to beware of Seducers and false Guides that should come in the name of Christ and his Apostles they are told that there should come a falling away and departing from the Faith and that the time will come when men will not endure sound Doctrine and shall turn away their ears from 〈◊〉 truth and believe fables that such shall come with all deceivableness of unrighteousness with powers and signs and lying wonders To what end or purpose are all these things said if men being once Christians are no longer to exercise their own Judgements but deliver them up into the hands of their Guides What is this but to put them under a necessity of being deluded when their Guides please and as our Saviour saith When the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch 4. The Authority of Guides in the Church is not absolute and unlimited but confined within certain bounds Which if they transgress they are no longer to be followed So St. Paul saith if we or an Angel from Heaven teach any other Gospel let him be accursed so that the Apostles themselves though giving the greatest Evidence of Infallibility were no longer to be followed than they held to the Gospel of Christ. And they desired no more of their greatest Disciples whom they had Converted to the Christian Faith than to be followers of them as they were of Christ they told them they had no dominion over their faith although they were far more assisted with an infallible Spirit than any other Guides of the Church could pretend to be ever since Therefore no present Guides what ever names they go by ought to usurp such an Authority over the minds of men which the Apostles themselves did not challenge although there were greater reason for men to yield up their minds wholly to their guidance We are far from denying all reasonable and just authority to be given to the Guides of the Church but we say that their Authority not being absolute is conâ—ined to some known rule And where there is a rule for them to proceed by there is a rule for others to Judge of their proceedings and consequently men must exercise their Judgements about the matters they determin whether they be agreeable to that râ—le or nâ—t 5. Where the Rule by which the Guides of the Church are to proceed hath determined nothing there we say the Authority of the Guides is to be submitted unto For otherwise there would be nothing leâ—t wherein their Authority could be shewn and others pay obedience to them on the account of it Therefore we plead for the Churches Authority in all matters of meer order and decency in indifferent rites and ceremonies and think it an unreasonable thing to 〈◊〉 the
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
joyn with the the Arrians Must he adhere to the Nicene Council but there were more numerous Councils which condemned it What remedy can be supposed in such a case but that every person must search and examine the several doctrines according to his best ability and judge what is best for him to believe and practise No answer can be more absurd in this case than that which some give that Liberius only erred in his External profession of faith and not in the belief of it for we are now speaking of such as are to be Guides to others and on whose direction they are to rely which must be something which may be known to them Supposing then that Liberius when he subscribed and joyned with the Arrians was a Catholick in his heart this takes as much off from the Authority of a Guide as Errour would do For who dare rely upon him who acts against his conscience and believes one way and does another Would any in the Church of Rome think it fit to submit themselves to the direction of such persons whom they were assured did not believe one word of what they professed but joyned in communion with that Church only for some temporal ends But in truth Liberius went so far that Hilary denounces an Anathema against him and all that joyned with him Neither was this the only case of this nature to be supposed for the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon proving ineffectual for the suppression of the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies and rather greater disturbances arising in the Church after the later of these because the writings of Theodorus of Mopsuestia and Theodoret against Cyril and of Ibas to Maris the Pâ—rsian not being therein condemned which were suppoâ—ed to favour the Nestoâ—ian heresy the Nestorians increasing their faction under the Authority of those writings and the Eutychians making that their plea for rejecting that Council because it seemed to favour Nestorianism the Emperour Justinian by the perswasion of Theodorus of Caesarea resolves to have those three Chapters as they were called condemned hoping by this means to perswade the Eutychian faction to accept the Council of Chalcedon and thereby to settle peace in the Church which was then miserably rent and divided To this end by the consent of the four Eastern Patriarchs he publishes an Edict wherein he condemns the three Chapters and Anathematizes those who should defend them to this Edict the Guides of the Eastern Church subscribed But Vigilius then Pope although Victor â—ununensis a Writer of that Age saith that he had given it under his hand to Theodora the Empress that if he might be made Pope he would condemn the three Chapters yet now being by violent hands thrust into the chair he changes his mind and declares against the Edict and threatens excommunication to those who approved it as being contrary to the Catholick faith established in the Council of Chalcedon and accordingly Stephanus his Legat withdrew from the communion of the Patriarch of Constantinople Upon this the Emperour sends for Vigilius to Constantinople who being come thither excommunicates the Patriarch of Constantinople and all who condemned the three Chapters or joyned with those who condemned them and the Patriarch of Constantinople again excommunicates him but after 4. or 5. months time these excommunications were taken off and Pope Vigilius after that publishes a decree wherein the three Chapters were condemned by him with a Salvo to the authority of the Council of Chalcedon Which made the Bishops of Africa Illyricum and Dalmatia to fall off from him and Rusticus and Sebâ—stianus tâ—o Deacons of his own Church whom the Pope excommunicated for so doing Yet the Emperouâ— himself was not satisfied with that Saâ—vo and the Pope not yielding without it a General Council was called at Constantinâ—pâ—e to put an end to this Controversy to which the Pope being solemnly invited refused to come the Council however proceeds in the examination of the three Chapters during their session Vigilius publishes his Apostolical decree or Constitution to the whole Catholick Church with the assistance of 16. Bishops of Italy Africa and Illyricum and three Roman Deacons wherein the Pope defends the three Chapters and defines in the conclusion of it That it should be lawful for none to write or teach any thing about these matters contrary to his present Definition or to move any farther question about them Notwithstanding which Definition of the Popes the Council proceeds to the condemning the three Chapters and to the Anathematizing those who did not condemn them That this is the true matter of fact I am content to appeal to the Acts of the Council the Edict of Iustinian the Popes own Decree or the Writers of that Age or the most learned persons of the Roman Church such as â—aronius Petavius and Petrus de Marca who have all given an account of this Controversy I now desire to know what a person in that time should do who was bound to yield an internal assent to the Guides of the Church must he believe the Pope He not only contradicts the Council but himself too for it now appears by a Greek Epistle first published by Petrus de Marcâ out of the King of Frances Library that Vigilius being banished by Iustinian did afterwards retract his own decree so solemnly made and confirmed the Council Would not a man now be in a pretty condition that were bound to believe one in all he said that so often contradicted himself Must he believe the Council what then becomes of the Popes infallibility when they were so far from receiving the Popes definition though done in such a manner in which Bellarmin saith the Pope cannot err viz. When he teaches the whole Church that they reject his decree and determin the quite contrary I know but one way of evading this which is that commonly insisted on by those of the Roman Church viz. that all this was not a Controversy about 〈◊〉 but persons So indeed some of the 〈◊〉 ours of Vigilius said when they endeavoâ—red to extenuate the matter as much as they could finding that the Bishops of Africa and many in Italy broke off from the Communion of the Roman Church on the account of this quarrel But I desire any one in this matter to look to their Judgement who were conâ—erned in this quarrel and if men are boâ—nd to believe their Guides they ought to believe them when they tell them what is a matter of faith And from the beginning of this controversy it was accounted a matter of faith not only by the Emperour but by the Pope by the Council and by the Bishops who opposed the Council and must we trust them in other things and not in this Besides the very proceedings of the Council manifest it according to Beâ—larmins own rules for saith he we then know a thing to be matter of faith when the Council declares it to be so or them to be hereticks
sound and orthodox And this was the second way of defending Honorius viz. that he did not err in faith at all and this way is taken by Petavius and others and was the way intended by Petrus de Marcâ as appears by the account given of his design by Baluzius which was first to prove by most evident arguments that the Acts of the Council were never corrupted by the Greeks against the opinion before mentioned and next that he was truly condemned by the Council but not for heresy but only for negligence and remissness I think there needs nothing to shew the weakness of this but barely reading the Anathema of the Council against him which is not for bare negligence but for confirming the wicked doctrines of Sergius And I am apt to think that learned person saw the weakness of his design too much to go on with it and Baronius and Bellarmin saw well enough that whosoever was there Anathematized it was upon the account of heresy that he was so and therefore Baronius would make men believe the Anathema belonged to Theodorus and not to Honorius Petavius thinks that Honorius was deceived but it was only by his simplicity and weakness not understanding the Controversy aright So of old Iohn 4. and Maximus in his dispute with Pyrrhus defended Honorius that he spake indeed of one Will but that say they was to be understood only of one Will in his humane nature Which as Combesis saith is a more pious than solid defence of him and would as well serve for Sergius and Cyrus for Heraclius his Ecthesis and Constans his Type as Honorius his letter For who ever will peruse them will find they all proceed on the same argument that there could not be two wills in Christ but one must be contrary to the other But that which I insist on is this that it is certain the Council approved by the Pope did condemn him for heresy I desire therefore again to know whether he was rightly condemned or not if he was then the Pope must be guilty and so not infallible if not than the Council must be according to Bellarmin guilty of intolerable impudence and errour but in either case there was no infallibility in the Guides of the Church which could require our internal assent to what they declared But another defence is yet beâ—ind which is that though the Pope did erre yet it was in his private Capacity and not as Head of the Church But when doth he act as Head of the Church if not when he is consulted about important matters of faith as this was then supposed to be by two Patriarchs and when the Church was divided about them and there upon solemnly delivers his opinion This is then a meer subterfuge when men have nothing else to say I conclude therefore this Instance of Honorius with the ingenuous confession of Mr. White that things are so clear in the cause of Honorius that it is unworthy any grave Divine to pawn his own honour and that of Divinity too in sowing together Fig-leaves to palliate it Thus far I have shewn that those who pretend the most to be infallible Guides of the Church have opposed and condemned each other from whence it necessarily follows that no absolute submission is due to them unless we can be obliged to believe contradictions I might pursue this much further and draw down the History of these contradictions to each other through the following Ages of the Church wherein Bishops have been against Bishops Popes against Popes Councils against Councils Church against Church especially after the breach between the Eastern and Greek Churches the Greek and the Roman and the Roman and those of the Reformation But a man who is bound to rely only on the Authority of his Guides must suppose them to be agreed and in case of difference among them he must first choose his Religion and by that his Guide 9. In the present divided State of the Christian Church a man that would satisfy his own mind must make use of his judgement in the choice of his Church and those Guides he is to submit to Unless a man will say that every one is bound to yield himself absolutely to the Guidance of that Church which he lives in whether Eastern or Greek Roman or Protestant which I suppose N. O. will never yield to for a reason he knows because then no Revolter from us could be justified The true State then of the present case concerning the Guides of the Catholick Church is this that it hath been now for many Ages rent and torn into several distinct Communions every one of which Communions hath particular Guides over it who pretend it to be the duty of men to live in subjection to them because every Church doth suppose it self to be in the right now the Question proposed is whether it be not fitter for me to submit to the Guides of the Catholick Church than to trust my own judgement I should make no scruple in all doubtful matters to resolve the affirmative supposing that all the Guides of the Catholick Church were Agreed for I should think it arrogance and presumption in me to set up my own private opinion in opposition to the unanimous consent of all the Guides of the Catholick Church in such a case but that is far from ours for we find the Christian World divided into very different Communions The Eastern Churches are still as numerous though not so prosperous as the Roman the extent of the Greek Church alone is very great but besides that there are two other distinct Churches in those parts who break off Communion with the Greek on the Account of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon and the latter sort especially are very far spread in those parts from Armenia to the Abyssine Empire In the time of Iacobus de Vitriaco he saith these two Churches were said to be more numerous than the Greek and the Latin and Bellonius in these later times assures us that the rites of the Greek Church do yet extend farther than the Latin What then makes these Churches to be left out in our Enquiries after the Guides of the Catholick Church Are these such inconsiderable parts of the Body that no regard is to be had to them I believe upon a strict examination notwithstanding the reproach of heresy and Schism which those of the Church of Rome cast upon all but themselves they will be sound much more souâ—d parts of the Catholick Church than the Roman Church is Five great Bodies or Communions of Christians are at this day in the World 1. The most Eastern Christians commonly called Nestorians whether justly or no I shall not now examine these are spread over the most Eastern parts and all live in subjection to the Patriarch of Muzal 2. The Iacobites who are dispersed through Mesopotamia Armenia Aegypt and the Abyssine Empire and live under several Patriarchs of
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
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
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
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
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
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
for Heresy that not only did not err but if some may be believed could not Surely the Council never thought of that when they make no scruple of condemning him with the rest What were Pope Agatho's Legats there present and could not inform the Council of their presumption in judging the Infallible See But no such thing was heard of in those times these latter Ages have been only blessed with the knowledge of this unerring priviledge and happy had it been if all the records of former times had been burnt that no Instances might have been brought to overthrow it Yet wit and industry have not been wanting to bring poor Honorius off if it had been possible the sum of all may be reduced to these 3. Answers 1. Either that the Acts of the Council are falsifyed Or. 2. That the Pope did not err in faith Or. 3. Supposing he did err it was only as a private person and not as Head of the Church 1. That the Acts of the Council are falsifyed This is a shrewed sign of a desperate cause when against the consent of all ancient Copies both Greek and Latin and the Testimonies of several Popes and Councils afterwards learned men are driven to so miserable a shift as this The first I find who made this answer was Albertus Pighius and after him Baronius and Bellarmin have embraced it but the more ingenuous men of their own Church have been ashamed of it Melchior Canus confesseth that not only this General Council but the seventh and eighth under Adrian and that several other Popes have confessed the truth of the thing and therefore he doth not see how Pighius can vindicate Honorius in this matter Franciscus Torrensis afterwards better known by the name of Turrianus a man highly applauded by Baronius Hosius Lindanus and others writ a Book of the 6. 7. and 8. Synod wherein he severely chastises Pighius for his ill usage of this sixth Council and saith that in this matter he shewed more prejudice than judgement For whereas he suspects that the letter of Honorius to Sergius was not sufficiently examined and compared with the Original this betray 's saith Turrianus his great negligence in reading the Acts of the Council for in the latter end of the 12. Session it is expresly said that the Authentick Latin Epistle of Honorius was produced and compared by the Bishop of Porto Besides how comes saith he the name of Honorius to be no less than 9. times in the Council and if all this had been by the Greeks corrupting the Copies surely they would never have left that passage remaining concerning the corrupting the letters of Mennas and Vigilius How comes Leo 2. in his Epistle to the Emperour wherein he confirms the Council to Anathematize Honorius by name as guilty of heresy some indeed saith he may say this is counterfeit too so do Baronius and Binius but they have nothing but their bare conjecture for it no argument or authority to confirm it Not only the Greek Writers but the Latin confess he was there condemned so doth Bede saith he so doth the Pontifical Book in the life of Leo 2. and in the Council under Martin at Rome the Epistle of Paulus to Theodorus was read wherein was mentioned the consent of Honorius and Sergius and no one there opposed it Humbertus Legat of Leo 9. in his Book against the Greeks reckons Honorius among the condemned Monothelites How came all the Copies to be corrupted at once as he farther urges that there are none left sound to correct others by But that which he insists upon as the strongest argument of all is from Hadrian 2. who calling a Council at Rome for the condemning of Photius for Anathematizing him hath these remarkable words that no Bishop of Rome was Anathematized before unless it were Honorius who after his death was condemned for heresy in which case alone it is lawful for inferiours to resist theâ—r Superiours and to reject their doctrine although even there they would never have done it if the Bishop of the first See had not consented to it A very considerable Testimony not only to prove that Honorius was comdemned for heresy but that a Pope may be guilty of it and be lawfully proceeded against for it and that Pope Agatho did himself consent to the condemnation of Honorius Notwithstanding these arguments of Torrensis Baronius seeing that no other defence could be made persists in the same accusation of Forgery and out of his own head frames an improbable story of the corrupting the Copies of the Council by Theodorus who being saith he Anathematized as a Monothelite expunged his own name and put in that of Honorius A fiction so groundless and unreasonable that nothing but meer despair could drive a man of common understanding to it For there is not the least countenance for it in any Author not the least colour of probability in the thing For that all the Copies of the Council should be corrupted by one man and neither the Popes Legats present at the Council nor any else should take notice of it That no succeeding Popes should discover it when they were concerned to vindicate Honorius but did own the thing to be true that Theodorus then living should be condemned before it was known whether he would submit to the Council or not that in the seventh and eighth Councils this should not be at all suspected but the condemning Honorius expresly mentioned in both that a man at that time deposed from his Patriarchat of Constantinople should be able to make such a razure and forgery in the Copies of the Councils that the Emperour Constantine who took so much care about the Council should suffer such a thing to be done do all make this figment of Baronius so remote from any likelyhood that Baronius had need to have prayed as once a man upon the rack did that he might tell probable lyes But all the miscarriages of Baronius in this matter are so fully laid open by one of their own Church that I need not Insist any longer upon it to whom no answer hath been given but that substantial one of an Index Expurgatorius Bellarmin likes this way of answering the difficulty about Honorius but the greatest strength he adds to Baronius is only saying without doubt it is so and he grants that the Seventh and Eighth Council did believe that Pope Honorius was condemned but he saith they were deceived by the false Acts of the Council But however they must believe that the Pope might fall into heresy and be condemned by a Council for it Yet Bellarmim hath a fetch in this case beyond Baronius viz. That either the Acts of the Council are falsified or the Council was guilty of intolerable impudence and errour in condemning Honorius without reason For all the evidence they produce against him is from his Epistles in which saith he nothing is contained but what is