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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Church what security could any man have against Arianism since the Councils which favoured it were more numerous than those which opposed and condemned it Yea so mean was the opinion which some of the greatest persons of the Church at that time had of the Guides of the Church met together in Councils that St. Gregory Nazianzen declares he had not seen a good issue of any of them but they rather increased mischief than removed any because of the contention and ambition which ruled in them therefore he resolved to come no more at any of them What had St. Gregory so mean an esteem of the Guides of the Christian Church to think that ambition and contention should sway them in their Councils and not the spirit of God which certainly rules not where the other do Yet this de declares to be his mind upon consideration and experience in that time and if he had lived to those blessed days of the Councils of latter Ages with what zeal and Rhetorick would he have set them forth Never was any answer more jejune to this Testimony than that of Bellarmin viz. that forsooth there could be no lawful Councils called in his time and why so I pray was there not a good Authority to call them But if that had been the reason he did not so little understand the way of expressing himself to assign the cause of it to contention and ambition if he mean quite another thing which he doth not in the least intimate And what if he were afterwards present at the Council of Constantinople doth that shew that his mind was in the least changed but in this Epistle he declares how little good was to be exspected from a Council and yet afterwards by the Emperours command he might be present at one St. Augustin in dealing with Maximinus the Arian expresly sets aside all Authority of the Guides of the Church as to the sense of Scripture in the places controverted between them for he saith I will neither bring the Authority of the Council of Nice neither shall you that of Ariminum but we will proceed by Authorities of Scripture that are common to both of us and by the clearest Evidence of reason It seems then St. Augustin was far from thinking that there could be no certainty of the sense of Scripture if the Authority of the Guides of the Church be set aside But by what means doth he then think that men may come to any certainty about the true meaning of Scripture of that he is best able to give us an account himself having written purposely in this subject in his Books of Christian Doctrine the substance of what he there says may be comprehended in these Rules 1. That the main scope of the Scripture is to perswade men to the Love of God and our Neighbour without which he saith no man doth truly understand it but whosoever interprets Scripture to the advancing of that though he may be mistaken as to the sense of the words yet his errour is not dangerous 2. That in order to the right understanding of Scripture men must apply themselves to it with minds duly prepared for it by a fear of God humility prayer sincerity and purity of heart 3. That all those things which are necessary to Salvation are plainly laid down in Holy Scriptures This is in terms asserted by him as a fundamental principle that in those things which are plainly set down in Scripture all things are to be found which contain our faith and rule of life i.e. All things which are necessary to the Love of God and our Neighbour and consequently to the making us happy And these things men ought especially to read the Scriptures for and the more they find of them the larger their understanding of Scripture is 4. That the obscure places of Scripture are to be understood by the plain For which end he requires frequent reading and using ones self to the language of Scriptures and drawing examples from plain places to illustrate difficult and those which are certain to clear the doubtful For scarce any thing saith he is drawn out of the most difficult places but what is very plainly set down elsewhere 5. That in regard of the infinite variety of Latin Interpreters which it seems were in his time in matters of doubt it was necessary to have recourse to the Original Hebrew and Greek the knowledge of which tongues might therefore be necessary to the knowledge of Scripture because several words are preserved untranslated but those being few the necessity is not so great on their account as the diversity of Interpreters for although those who had translated the Hebrew into Greek might be reckoned up the Latin Interpreters could not Which diversity of translations doth rather help than hinder the understanding of Scripture if the Readers of it be not negligent for some doubtful places are cleared by the difference of readings 6. Where the ambiguity lyes in proper words the clearing of it depends on the circumstances of the place in so much that he determines that it is a very rare and difficult thing to find such an ambiguity in the words of Scripture which may not be cleared from the intention of the Writer or comparing places or searching the Original Language 7. Men must carefully distinguish between proper and figurative expressions for to understand figurative expressions literally is to subject our understanding to carnal conceptions of things and that is saith he a miserable slavery of mind to take signs for things such signs he tells us under the Gospel are the two Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords supper The great difficulty herein lyes in the finding out the difference between proper and figurative expressions for which he lays down this rule if the words of Scripture command what is good and forbid what is evil it is no figurative expression but if it forbids what is good or command any thing that is evil it must be figuratively understood For which he instances in those words of our Saviour unless ye eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man ye shall have no life in you Which seeming to command something evil must be figuratively understood of Communicating in the Passion of Christ and calling to mind that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us 8. There is no danger in different senses being given of the same place of Scripture if every one of those senses appear by other places to be agreeable to Truth This being supposed that the person do sincerely enquire after the sense of the Author For saith he that Divine Spirit might easily foresee how many several senses those words are capable of which being agreeable to other parts of Scripture though not the particular meaning of those words the mistake cannot be dangerous therein 9. Where such a sense is given which cannot be proved by other certain
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