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
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
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
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
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
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
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
will suffer the people to try nothing but do teach them wholly to depend on them and to that purpose they have indeed three notable sleights First they forbid them the reading of the Scriptures And the better to be obeyed therein they will not permit the Scriptures to be Translated into the Vulgar Tongue Whereof it came to pass that the people were so easily seduced and drawn from Christ to the Pope from his merits to the Saints and their own merits from his bloody sacrifice whereby only sins are remitted to their most dry and fruitless sacrifice from the spiritual food of his Body and Blood unto a carnal and Capernaitical Transubstantiation from the calling upon his name to an Invocation of Saints and from their sure trust and confidence in his death to a vain imagination of the vertue of their Masses Pilgrimages Pardons and I know not what intolerable Superstition and Idolatry I hope Arch-Bishop Bancroft may for once pass for no Puritan with T. G. But what will he say if the only persons he produces as most partial of his side do give in evidence against him Bishop Mountague is the first whose words are these in the Book cited by him Our predecessors and Fathers coming late out of Popery living near unto Papists and Popish times conversing with them having been nuzzled and brought up amongst them and knowing that Images used to be crept unto incensed worshipped and adored among them c. What thinks he is not this all one as to charge them with Idolatry And more plainly in his former Book But whatsoever you say however you qualify the thing with gentle words we say in your practice you far exceed and give them that honour which is Latria a part of Divine respect and worship And afterwards saith the people go to it with downright adoration and your new Schools defend that the same respect is due to the representer as must be given to the representee So that the Crucifix is to be reverenced with the the self-same honour that Christ Jesus is Ablasphemy not heard of till Thomas Aquinas set it on foot Clear these enormities and others like these then come and we may talk and soon agree concerning honour and respect unto Reliques or Images of Saints or Christ till then we cannot answer it unto our Maker to give his honour unto a Creature His next is Pet. Heylin And now I hope we have at last hit upon a man far enough from being a Puritan yet this very Person gives plain evidence against him For i◠his 4th Sermon on the Tares preached a◠White-Hall Ianuary 27. 1638. H◠hath these words So it is also in the point of Images first introduced into the Church for ornament History and imitation Had they staid there it had been well and no faul◠found with them But when the Schools began to State it that the same Veneration was to be afforded to the Type and Prototype then came the Doctrine to the growth When and by whom and where it was first so stated is not easie to determine and indeed not necessary It is enough that we behold it in the fruits And what fruits think you could it bear but most gross Idolatry greater than which was never known among the Gentils Witness their praying not before but to the Crucifix and calling on the very Cross the wooden and material Cross both to increase their righteousness and remit their sins And for the Images of the Saints they that observe with what laborious Pilgrimages magnificent processions solemn offerings and in a word with what affections prayers and humble bendings of the body they have been and are worshipped in the Church of Rome might very easily conceive that She was once again relapsed into her ancient Paganism With much more to the same purpose His only person remaining is Mr. Thorndike a man of excellent Learning and great piety but if we should grant that he held some thing singular in this matter what is that to the constant opinion of our Church and yet even Mr. Thorndike himself in a paper sent by him 〈◊〉 some whom T. G. know's not long before his death saith That to pray to Saints for those things which only God can give as all Papist do is by the proper sense of the word◠down-right Idolatry If they say their meaning is by a figure only to desire them to procure their requests of God How dare any Christian trust his soul with that Church which teaches that which must needs be Idolatry in all that understand not the figure So that upon the whole matter T. G. cannot produce any on◠Person of our Church that hath clearly an◠wholly acquitted the Church of Rome from the charge of Idolatry It seems then 〈◊〉 Church hath been made up of Puritans i◠T. G's sense of them But if these do no◠satisfy him what doth he think of the Arch-Bishop and Bishops and Clergy of the Convocation A. D. 1640. Were 〈◊〉 these Puritans too And yet in the sevent◠Canon they have these words And albeit at the time or Reforming this Church from that gross Superstition of Popery it was carefully provided that all means should be used to root out of the minds of the people both the inclination thereto and memory thereof especially of the Idolatry committed in the Mass for which cause all Popish Altars were demolished c. What can more express the sense of our Church than the concurrent opinion of Arch-Bishops Bishops and Clergy of both Provinces met in Convocation When we see they so lately charged the Church of Rome with Idolatry Let us now consider what exceptions he takes against the other witnesses produced by me Jewel Bilson Davenant all eminent Bishops of our Church and of great learning are cast away at once as incompetent Persons But why so Why saith T. G. they were all excepted against by our late Soveraign K. Charcles I. in his third paper to Henderson That is a shrewd prejudice indeed to their Authority to be rejected by a Prince of so excellent a judgement and so Cordial a friend to the Church of England But it is good to be sure whether it be so or no. All that he saith of Bishop Iewel is this and though I much reverence Bishop Iewel ' s memory I never thought him infallible So then he must he Puritanically inclined but whence does that follow not surely from the Kings reverencing his memory for that were to reflect upon the King himself not from his not thinking him Infallible For I dare say the King never thought the Pope infallible must be needs therefore think him a Puritan Surely never man was such a Friend to the Puritans as this T. G. who without any ground gives them away some of the greatest honours of our Church and if the Testimony last cited be of any force to prove one a Puritan all mankind and himself too for I plainly perceive by this
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
search and enquiry after it as times and means give leave But if we mean by a Church any particular Church he determines That particular men and Churches may erre damnably because notwithstanding others may worship God aright but that the whole Church at one time cannot so erre for that then the Church should cease utterly for a time and so not be Catholick being not at all times and Christ should sometimes be without a Church yet that errors not prejudicing the salvation of them that erre may be found in the Church that is at one time in the world we make no doubt only the Symbolical and Catholick which is and was being wholly free from error Which several expressions amount to no more than this that there will be always some true Christians in the World but what is this to infallible Teachers and Guides in a Church that pretends to be Catholick against all the sense and reason in the World And is it now imaginable after all this that Dr. Field should make any particular Church infallible No all that he means in his Preface is this that among all the Societies of men persons who have not leisure or capacity to examine particular Controversies ought diligently to search which is the true Church and having done this to embrace her communion follow her directions and rest in her judgment i.e. Suppose a man by that very Book of Dr. Fields should be convinced that the Church of Rome is a very corrupt and tyrannical Church and the Church of England is a sound and good Church which was the design of his writing it he being thus far satisfied ought to embrace the communion of this Church and so follow her directions and rest in her judgment so as not to forsake her communion for any cavils that are raised about particular Controversies of which he is not a capable judge And doth this make the Church of England infallible If we say that a man being first satisfied of the skill and integrity of a Lawyer ought to follow his directions and rest in his judgment doth this make that Lawyer infallible so we say here the resting in the judgment of a Church of whose integrity we have assurance before-hand implies only the supposition of so much honesty and skill in a Church as may over-rule the Judgments of persons who either have not leisure or capacity to understand particular Controversies which require skill in Languages search into the Fathers and later Writers on both sides If we say that unlearned persons ought in such things to trust the learned whose integrity they have no ground to suspect this doth not certainly make the more learned infallible But we may rest in the judgment of those whom we have no reason to suspect though we believe them not to be infallible and it was the former Dr. Field meant and by no means any infallibility unless he plainly contradict himself 3. He excepts That this brings in an inerrability of every particular Christian in all points necessary if such Christians will that is â—f only they shall sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them The force of this Argument will be easily discerned if we put another parallel to it viz. That they who assert from Scripture the assistance of Divine Grace to the sincere endeavours of men do make all men impâ—ccable if they will as well as those who assert that God will not be wanting in necessaries to salvation to those who sincerely endeavour to know them make all such men so far infallible if they will If any one thing be plain in Scripture the goodness of God is and who can believe that and yet think that he will suffer those who sincerely endeavour to know what is necessary to their salvation not to understand it But besides how often doth the Scripture promise a greater degree of knowledge to the meek and humble to the diligent and industrious to those that ask and seek wisdom from him to those that do the will of God to whom our Saviour hath expresly promised that they shall know of his doctrine whether it be of God or no And if this be the inerrability he means he sees what grounds we have to assert it But we understand not by it that such persons cannot erre in their judgments about what things are necessary and what not nor that they cannot erre in other things which are not so necessary to salvation but that Gods goodness is so great and his promises so plain and his word so clear in necessary things that no one who sincerely endeavours to know them shall ever miss of salvation And if such an infallibility will satisfie them we do not deny it to Popes themselves or other Guides of the Church on condition they do not think themselves infallible beyond these bounds for they are only the meek and humble whom God hath promised to teach his way and not such who will be infallible whether God will or no. His other exceptions from this principle destroying Church-Authority from the parity of reason for Church Governors and the controverted places of Scripture shall be considered afterwards 2. I now come to examine what certainty there is for this Infallibility Here I shall lay down some principles of common reason by which we may better understand the force of his arguments 1. That the Proof ought always to be more evident than the thing that is to be proved by it For otherwise it is of no advantage to the proof of it if it have but the same degree of evidence but is a great prejudice to it if it have less so that if the proofs of Infallibility be equally obscure and difficult with those things which are to be believed by virtue of it this Infallibility is of no use but if they be less evident the pretence of it is both very ridiculous and prejudicial to the Christian Faith 2. The greater concernment any Law is of and the greater danger in mistaking the meaning of it the more plain and distinct ought the terms of that Law to be As a Law about the succession of the Crown ought to be framed with all the clearness and distinctness imaginable because the peace and security of a Nation depends upon it So in case Christ hath appointed any Successor in the Government of his Church or entailed Infallibility upon the Guides of it this being a matter of such infinite concernment to the whole Church it is most unreasonable to conceive that whatever other parts of his Will were obscure those which relate to the matter of Succession and Infallibility should be so but rather so plain that no one can miss of understanding them because the weight of all the rest depends upon these two and it is so horrible a presumption in any to pretend to them in case they have no right to them and the danger so great in relying upon them if there be
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
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
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
Preface that he is not infallible Yet for all this we will not let go Jewel no nor Bilson Davenant White Usher Downam what ever T. G. saith against them Indeed K. Charles excepts against Bilson for his Principles of civil Government but not a word of his disaffection to the Church of England For Bishop Davenant the King saith he is none of those to whom he appealed or would submit unto and with very good reason for the King had appealed to the practice of the primitive Church and the Universal consent of Fathers therefore Bishop Davenant was a Puritan It seems they have been all Puritans since the Primitive times and I hope the Church of Rome then hath good store of them for that is far enough from the Fathers or the Primitive Church But how comes Bishop White in for a Puritan being so great a Friend of Arch-Bishop Laud why forsooth Heylin reports that for licensing Bishop Mountagu's Appello Caesarem it was said that White was turned Black And canst thou for thy heart good Reader expect a more pregnant proof It was a notable saying and it is great pity the Historian did not preserve the memory of the Author of it but by whom was it said that must be supposed by the Puritans and could none but they be the Authors of so witty a saying But suppose they were the Puritans that said it it is plain then they thought him no sound Puritan for they hold no falling from Grace All then that can be inferred from this witty saying is that White sunk in his esteem among them by this Act. And is it not possible for them to have an esteem for those who are not of their own Party Concerning Arch-Bishop Usher Dr. Heylin was known to be too much his enemy to be allowed to give a Character of him and his name will not want a due veneration as long as Learning and piety have any esteem among us But he is most troubled what to do with six that remain viz. King James Bishop Andrews Arch-Bishop Laud Isaac Casaubon Doct. Field and Doct. Jackson these he could not for shame fasten the name of Puritans upon as he doth with scorn on Bishop Downam Reynolds Whitaker and Fulk whose testimonies I said to prevent cavils I need not to produce although they are all capable of sufficient vindication For King James he saith that in the place cited by me he saith expresly that what he condemns is adoring of Images praying to them and imagining a kind of Sanctity in them all which are detested by Catholicks Was ever man put to such miserable shifts Are not these King James his words But for worshipping either them Reliques or Images I must account it damnable Idolatry And doth not King James a little after take off their distinctions and evasions in these words and they worship forsooth the Images of things in Being and the Image of the true God But Scripture forbiddeth to worship the Image of any thing that God created Yea the Image of God himself is not only expresly forbidden to be worshipped but even to be made Let them therefore that maintain this doctrine answer it to Christ at the latter day when he shall accuse them of Idolatry And then I doubt if he will be paid with such nice Sophistical distinctions Is all this nothing but to charge them with such practices which they detest Doth he not mention their Doctrine and their distinctions Did not King James understand what he said and what they did It is plain he charges them with Idolatry in what they did which was that I brought his Testimony for The like answer he gives to the rest of them viz. that they charged them with what they thought they did but the Papists deny that they do any such thing i. e. in plain Terms they charge them with Idolatry but the Papists deny they commit it And so they do when I charge them with it so that T. G. by the very same reason might have acquitted me from charging them with it and have spared his Book Is not this now an Admirable way of proving that they do not charge them with Idolatry because the Papists deny they commit it Who meddles with what they profess they do or do not I was to shew what these Persons charged them with And do any of these excuse them by saying any doctrine of theirs was contrary to these particulars do they not expresly set themselves to disprove their distinctions upon which their doctrine is founded and shew the vanity of them because their open and allowed practices do plainly contradict them and shew that they do give divine honour to Images however in words they deny it But this way of defending them is as if those whom St. Paul charges that they professed that they knew God but in works they denied him should reply to him how can we deny him in our Works since we profess him in our Words Iust so saith T. G. how can they be charged with Idolatry since they profess to do no such thing Aâ—though such persons as those I mentioned did not understand both what the Papists said for themselves and what they did notwithstanding And now I joyâ— with T. G. in desiring the Reader may be judge between us whether I have betrayed my trust in pretending to defend the Church of England and whether in charging the Church of Rome with Idolatry I have contradicted the sense of it since I have made it appear that her most true and Genuin sons the most remote from all suspicion of disaffection to her or inclination to Puritanism have concurred in the same charge which I undertook to make good But there is one blow yet remaining in his Preface which I must endeavour to ward off otherwise it will be a terrible one to the Church of England for by this charge of Idolatry he makes me to subvert the very foundation of Ecclesiastical Authority in it This it is to charge home For saith he it being a received Maxime and not being denyable by any man of common sense that no man can give to another that which he hath not himself it lies open to the Conscience of every man that if the Church of Rome be guilty of Heresie much more if guilty of Idolatry it falls under the Apostles excommunication Gal. 1. 8. and so remains deprived of the Lawful Authority to use and exercise the power of Orders and consequently the Authority of Governing preaching and Administring the Sacraments which those of the Church of England challenge to themselves as deriv'd from the Church of Rome can be no true and lawful Jurisdiction but usurped and Anti-Christian And so farewel to the Church of England if the Church of Rome were not more kind in this case than T. G. is Hitherto we have seen his skill in the affairs of our Church and now we shall see just as much in the Doctrine of his own For doth not the Council