hath revealed his Will to us by any supernatural means Let this be granted saith he From whence it follows that we have sufficient certainty of the Principles of Natural Religion without any such thing as Infallibility 2. He yields That Reason is to be judge concerning divine Revelation which appears by the next Proposition Nothing ought to be admitted for Divine Revelation which overthrows the certainty of those Principles which must be antecedently supposed to all Divine Revelation for that were to overthrow the means whereby we are to judge concerning the truth of any Divine Revelation Of which he saith Let this also be granted 3. He yields That the Will of God may be sufficiently declared to men by writing for he grants the tenth Proposition which is this If the Will of God cannot be sufficiently declared to men by writing it must either be because no writing can be intelligible enough for that end or that it can never be known to be written by men infallibly assisted the former is repugnant to common sense for words are equally capable of being understood spoken or written the latter overthrows the possibility of the Scriptures being known to be the Word of God This saith he is granted 4. He yields That the written will of God doth contain all things simply necessary to salvation For in his consideration of the 14. Proposition these are his words Mean while as touching the Perfection of holy Scriptures Catholicks now as the holy Fathers anciently do grant that they contain all points which are simply necessary to be of all persons believed for attaining salvation 5. He yields That no person is infallibly certain of or in his Faith because the Proponent thereof is infallible unless he also certainly know or have infallible evidence that he is infallible only he adds That for begetting an infallible assent to the thing proposed it is sufficient if we have an infallible evidence either of the thing proposed or of the Proponent only Which is all I desire as to this matter But he quarrels with me for saying Proposition 21. It is necessary therefore in order to an infallible assent that every particular person be infallibly assisted in judging of the matters proposed to be believed Because saith he it is not necessary to have an infallible evidence of the truth of the things proposed i. e. from the internal principles that prove or demonstrate them but it is enough that he have an infallible or sufficiently certain evidence only of the infallibility of the external Proponent Where there are two things to be taken notice of 1. That by the matters proposed to be believed he would seem to understand me only of the things that are to be believed by vertue of any Proponent supposed infallible whereas I meant it of all such things to which an infallible assent is required and chiefly of that by which we are to believe the things revealed as for instance that the Church is infallible is in the first place to be believed upon their principles and either an infallible assent is required to this or not if not then infallibility is not necessary to faith if it be then this infallible assent must be built on an infallibility antecedent to that of the Church and then my consequence necessarily follows that the ground on which a necessity of some external infallible Proponent is asserted must rather make every particular person infallible if no divine Faith can be without an infallible assent and so renders any other Infallibility useless 2. That he explains infallible evidence by that which is sufficiently certain which is meer shuffling for he knows well enough that we contend for sufficiently certain evidence as much as they our only Question is about infallibility whether that be necessary or no If sufficiently certain evidence will serve for the Churches Infallibility why may it not for the Scriptures or any matters of Faith contained therein If they mean no more by Infallibility but sufficient certainty why do they make so great a noise about it as though there could be no Faith and we no Christians without Infallibility when we all say that the matters of Faith have sufficient certainty nay the highest which such things are capable of Is infallible Faith come to be sufficiently certain only for all that I know an infallible Pope may by such another explication become like one of us 6. He yields That a right and saving faith may be without any infallible assurance concerning the Churches Infallibility Which he saith is abundantly declared by Catholick Writers I only desire to know why a like right and saving faith may not be had concerning the Scriptures without their Churches infallibility For from hence it follows that an infallible assent is not requisite to saving faith directly contrary to my former Adversary E. W. for one saith it is necessary to faith and the other that it is not But above all how will he ever answer this to Mr. I. S. who hath written a whole Book purposely against this Principle as impious and atheistical Methinks this way of defending the main foundation of their Faith by Principles so directly contradicting one another looks a little scandalously and brings an odd suspition upon their Cause as if it were very hard to be made good when our Adversaries cannot agree by which of two quite contrary Principles it was best be maintained 7. He yields That the utmost assurance a man can have of the Churches Infallibility is only moral but to make it up he calls it a moral infallibility which how strangely soever it sounds yet his meaning is good for it is such an infallibility as is not infallibility Hath the dispute been thus long among us whether infallibility be necessary or no to faith and now at last one comes and tells us Yes surely a moral infallibility is necessary I have heard of a hoâ— dispute between two Gentlemen about Transubstantiation very earnest they were on both sides at last another falls into their company and asked them what it was they were about they told him Transubstantiation very well said he but I pray tell me what you mean by it one said it was standing at the Eucharist and the other kneeling Much such another explication is this here of Infallibility only this is somewhat worse for it is joyning two words together which destroy each other for if it be only moral Certainty it is not infallible if it be infallible it cannot be barely moral I expect to hear shortly of an accidental Transubstantiation a co-ordinate Supremacy as well as a moral Infallibility But we are to suppose that by Infallibility he means no more than Certainty because he explains it by the Certainty of universal Tradition this were well enough if in the precedent Page he had not said That a particular person may be infallible in the assent he gives to some matter proposed viz. to this
that the Church is infallible I would fain understand what this infallible assent is grounded upon and if the evidence be only sufficiently or morally infallible which are his own terms how the assent which is built upon it comes to be more than so It is very pleasant to observe how Mr. Cressey and some other late Writers of their Church are perplexed about this word Infallibility as if they had a Wolf by the ears they cannot tell how to hold it and they are afraid to let it go And very loth is is our N. O. to part with the sound of Infallibility although his own Concessions perfectly overthrow it as will yet further appear by this last viz. 8. That moral Certainty is a sufficient foundation for Faith This will appear by my 27. Proposition which is this The nature of certainty doth receive several names either according to the nature of the proof or the degrees of the Assent Thus Moral Certainty may be so called either as it is opposed to Mathematical evidence but implying a firm assent upon the highest evidence that Moral things can receive Or as it is opposed to a higher degree of Certainty in the same kind so Moral Certainty implies only greater Probabilities of one side than the other In the former sense we assert the certainty of Christian Faith to be Moral but not only in the latter To which he saith This Principle is granted if importing only that Christians have or may have a sufficiently certain and infallible evidence of the truth of their Christianity Whereby it is plain that though he useth the term infallible yet he means no more than I do or else he ought not to have brought that as an explication of my principle which is contrary to it as in this Controversie Moral Certainty is opposed to strict demonstration and Infallibility But if he by infallibility means only sufficient certainty I shall be content for quietness sake that he shall call it Infallibility if he pleases And that he can mean no more by it appears not only by what he hath said before but by what he saith afterwards in these words A Natural or Moral Certainty though not such a one as cannot possibly be false but which according to the Laws of Nature and the common manners and experience of Men is not false is sufficient on which to ground such a faith as God requires of us in respect of that Certainty which can be derived from humane sense or reason and which serves for an introductive to the reliance of this our faith upon such Revelation as is believed by us divine and which if divine we know is not possibly fallible In respect of its relying on which Revelation an infallible object and not for an Infallible Certainty as to the subject it is that this our Faith is denominated a Divine Faith Now this Natural or Moral Certainty is thought sufficient for the first rational Introductive and Security of our Faith not only by the Doctor in his 27. Principle but also by Catholick Divines in their Discourses of the Prudential Motives Very well said and I were a very disingenuous man if I should not heartily thank him for so free a Confession by which if I understand any thing he very fairly gives up the Cause of Infallibility as to the necessity of it in order to Faith As will easily appear by the managing of it so far as I have been concerned in it It is evident to any one that will cast an eye on the Controversie of Infallibility between the Arch-bishop and his Adversaries that it was raised on this account because those of the Church of Rome asserted that the Infallible Testimony of the Church was necessary in order to the believing the Scriptures to be the Word of God and so much is endeavoured to be defended by him who pretended to answer my Lord of Canterburies Book who goes upon this Principle That this is to be believed with a divine Faith and a divine Faith must be built upon an infallible Testimony the falsehood of which I at large shewed in the Discourse of the Resolution of Faith Since the publishing whereof the Metaphysical Gentleman before mentioned pretended to answer that part of it which concerns Infallibility and Moral Certainty Some of his assertions I have laid down already as contrary to this of N. O. as may be for he not only asserts the necessity of Infallibility for a foundation of Christian Faith but spends some Chapters in rambling talk against Moral Certainty The Title of one of which is Faith only Morally Certain is no Faith I desire N. O. and E. W. to agree better before they goe aboâ—â— to confute me and to what purpose shouldâ— trouble my self with answering a man whoâ— Principles the more ingenuous of their owâ— Party disown as well as we For not onâ—â— N. O. here makes Moral Certainty a sufficienâ— ground for Divine Faith but the Guide 1â— Controversies another of my Adversaries aâ—serts the same when he saith And indeeâ— from what is said formerly that a Divine Faith may be had by those who have had 〈◊〉 extrinsecal even morally infallible I see now from whom N. O. learnt these terms motive thereof it follows that Divine Faith doth not resolve into such motives either as the formal cause or always as the applicative introductive or condition of this divine faith And a little after That it is not necessary that such Faith always should have an external rationally infallible ground or motive thereto whether Church Authority or any other on his part that so believes By these concessions it appears that the cause of Infallibility as far as it concerns the necessity of it in order to Faith is clearly given up by these persons and if others be still of another mind among them I leave them to dispute it among themselves Thus far then we are agreed I now come to consider where the controversie still remains and why the rest of my Principles may not pass as well as these In order to this I must by taking a view of his several exceptions and answers draw together a Scheme of those Principles which he sets up in opposition to mine and if I do not very much mistake they may be reduced to these three 1. That God hath given an infallible assistance to the Guides of the Church in all Ages of it for the direction of those who live in it 2. That without this infallible assistance there can be no certainty of the sense of Scripture 3. That all the Arguments which overthrow the Churches Infallibility do destroy the Churches Authority These as far as I can perceive contain the whole force of his Considerations and in the examination of these the remaining discourse must be spent In which I shall have occasion to take notice of whatever is material in his Book 1. The main controversie is whether God hath given an
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
and to pray for them while they calumniate me I have so much the less reason to wonder that my Book should be charged by them with no less than Blasphemy since the Author of our Religion himself was so and suffered under that accusation But wherein I pray doth this blasphemy lye have I uttered any thing that tends to the reproach of God or true Religion have I the least word which malice it self can stretch to the dishonour of Iesus Christ the Prophets and Apostles or the Holy Scriptures written by divine Inspiration no I challenge the boldest of them and most malicious to produce any thing I ever said or writ that doth but seem to look that way Have I made the practice of true devotion ridiculous and the real expressions of piety the subject of scorn and derision No so far from it that it was only a just zeal for the Honour and practise of true Religion made me willing to lay open the ridiculous Fanaticisms of some pretended Saints in the Roman Church And must they be allowed to charge Fanaticism on us and think it far from Blasphemy to represent the Enthusiastick Follies of the Sectaries among us and when they are guilty of the very same or greater may not we shew their unjustice and partiality without being accused of Blasphemy But some of these are Canonized Saints as S. Brigitt S. Catharine S. Francis and S. Ignatius which is so far from making the Cause of their Church better that to my understanding it makes it much worse For although Fanaticism be disowned by our Church it seems it is not barely countenanced and allowed in the Church of Rome but Canonized and adored That which I insist upon is this either we have no Fanaticks or theirs are so for by the very same rule that ours are so theirs must be too for our Fanaticks do pretend as high to the Spirit and divine Revelation as any of theirs only there is this remarkable difference between their Fanaticks and ours that ours are among us but not of us but theirs are both Now if any one who pretends to Inspiration and Enthusiasm cannot be charged with Fanaticism without blasphemy we must be exposed to all follies and contradictions imaginable and to what purpose are we bid to try the Spirits whether they be of God or no i. e. whether their pretence to divine revelation be true or false If there may be false pretences to Inspiration we are to examine the grounds of them and to judge accordingly and all false pretenders to Inspiration let them be Canonized by whom they will are the highest sort of Fanaticks and the greater honour is given them the greater dishonour it is to the Christian Religion But these things shall be more largely discussed in their proper place I now only take notice of the injustice of their calumny with which they have made so much noise among injudicious people and I should not have been so much concerned about it had I not found suggestions to the same purpose in the Authors of the two Pamphlets The one of them very kindly makes no difference between Lucian Porphyrius and me but only some interest which doth byass me another way and verily believes good man that were it not for that I could flurt with as much piquancy and railery at Christian Religion as I do at the Roman In which base suggestion there is no colour of truth but only that he very honestly distinguisheth the Christian Religion and the Roman from each other as indeed they are in many things as different from each other as truth from falshood wisdom from folly and true piety from gross Superstition If he had called me an Atheist in plain terms the grossness of the calumny might have abated the force of it but there is no such way to do a man mischief as by fly insinuations and shrewd suggestions introduced with I verily believe and expressed with some gravity and zeal But you who are so good at resolving faith what is this verily believe of yours founded upon Have you the authority of your Church for it have you any evidence of reason or rather have you it by some vision or revelation made by some of those Saints whose Fanaticism is exposed or do you verily believe it as you verily believe many other things for no reason in the world If I should tell you I have made it my business to assert the truth of the Scriptures and Christian Religion therein contained in a large Discourse several years since published such is your charity that you would tell me so did Vaninus write for Providence when he denyed a Deity If I should make large Apologies for my innocency and publish a confession of my faith with protestations that no interest in the world could remove me from it you might tell me where there is no guilt what need so much ado In plain terms I know but one way to satisfie such as you are but I will keep from it as long as I can and that is to go to Rome and be burnt for my faith for that is the kindness there shewed to those who contend for the purity of the Christian Religion against the corruptions of the Roman But such calumnies as these as they are not fit to be passed by so are they too gross to need any further answer I shall however declare my mind freely to you if I had no other notion of the Christian doctrine than what I have from the Doctrines of your Church as contrary to ours no other measures of Christian piety than from your mystical Theology no better way to Worship God than what is practised among you no greater certainty of Inspiration from God than of the Visions and Revelations of your late Saints no other miracles to confirm the Christian doctrine than what are wrought by your Images and Saints I should sooner choose to be a Philosopher than a Christian upon those terms And I verily believe to answer yours with another that the frauds and impostures of the Roman Church have made more Atheists in Christendom than any one cause whatsoever besides for when men resolve all their faith into the testimony of a Church whose frauds are so manifest and confessed by your best Writers such as Melchior Canus and Ludov. Vives what can they who know no better but suspect the Inspirations and Miracles of former Ages who see such false pretences to them so much magnified and the Fanatick pretenders Canonized on that account And I am so far from thinking it any disservice to the Christian Religion to expose these Fanaticisms that I again verily believe that Christianity will never obtain as it ought to do among men till all those hypocritical cheats be yet more laid open to the view of the World which if any one have but the courage and patience to undertake it would be as great and a much more useful labour
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
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
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
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
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