of Trent make Orders a Sacrament and one of those which doth imprint an indelible character and doth not that Council pronounce an Anathema against those that denyed the validity of the Sacrament administred by one in mortal sin in case he observes the essentials of it How then can T. G â—scape excommunication from his own Church that denies the validity of the Sacrament of Orders in case of the sin of the Givers of it If the validity of the Sacrament doth not dâ—pend on the worth or quality of the Ministers of it but upon the essentials and the institution of Christ how can the fault of the persons hinder the conveyance of that Authority which they are only the bare instruments to convey Doth T. G. think so in all other Sacraments as in case of Baptism that supposing the Ministers of it have been guilty of Heresie or Idolatry the Sacrament loses its effect Well fare then the Donatists whose opinion this was and in whom it hath been condemned by the Church If it be not so in other Sacraments how comes it to be thus in Orders which he must acknowledge to be as much a Sacrament as Baptism or else he must renounce the Council of Trent And it is observable that the very argument used by the Donatists and others was the same which T. G. here produces viz. his common maxim of Reason and not denyable by any man of common sense that no man can give to another that which he hath not himself to which this answer was given that the Instrument was not the giver but the first Institutor and in case the Minister keep to the Institution the Grace of the Sacrament may be conveyed by him though he hath it not himself But methinks if T. G. had forgotten the Doctrine of the Council of Trent he might have looked into some one or other of their own Authors to have informed himself better of their Doctrine in this matter Vasquez hath a Chapter on purpose to prove that an Heretical excommunicated suspended Bishop is a sufficient Minister of Ordination and saith that all the Schoolmen and Summists are agreed in it and that there can be no doubt at all made of it And did none of these men understand the principle that is undenyable by any man of common sense what a back-blow is this to those of his own Church for Vasquez saith this is determined as a matter of faith among them that the validity of a Sacrament doth not depend on the probity or faith of the Minister And he denies it to be in the power of the Church to hinder the effect of ordination in an excommunicated Bishop because it cannot blot out his Character or take away his power Estius saith that no Crime how great soever whether haeresie Schism or Apostasie no censure how heavy soever as excommunication can hinder the validity of ordination by a Bishop although it be of those who are not subject to his jurisdiction in case he observes the lawful rites of ordination as to the essence of the Sacrament for this reason because ordination belongs to the power of Order which being once received can never be lost but those things which belong to Jurisdiction as absolution and excommunication have no effect where that Jurisdiction is taken away And this Doctrine they all ground upon St Augustins discourse against the Donatists and upon the practice of the Church at that time which did receive those who were ordained among the Donatists without scrupling their Orders as not only appears by the testimony of St. Augustin but by the decree of an African Council to that purpose and that not only at first but when the Schism was Grown inveterate And yet Francis Hallier a late Doctor of the Sorbon tells us that the Donatists were not barely Schismaticks but they were adjudged hereticks for asserting that the efficacy of Sacraments did depend upon the quality of the persons and not upon the merits of Christ. The same Author vehemently disputes against those who assert that the power of Order can be lost by the sin of the person and shews that Doctrine hath been condemned by several Councils before that of Trent as of Arles of Orleans and Constance and undertakes to answer all the instances brought from Antiquity to the contrary as either understood of such hereticks which did not retain the essentials of the Sacrament or only implying the fault committed in giving or receiving them at the hands of such persons but not any invalidity in the Sacrament it self And afterwards he proves that Hereticks are capable of ordination But if these and many others of their later Writers will not satisfy him I desire him to consult their more ancient Authors Thom. Aquinas determins that Hereticks and those who are cut off from the Church may give orders as well as administer other Sacraments the reason he gives is that a power in Consecration is given to a Bishop which can never be taken from him although he will not allow it to be called a Character For several especially of the ancient Schoolmen would not have consecration to imprint a new Character but they were never able to give an intelligible account of what they meant by the Character as distinct from that Sacramental power which was conveyed by consecration and they granted to be indelible as the other was some making it an extension of the Character of Priesthood others a bare extrinsecal denomination added to it but however they held it such as could no more be taken away than the Character of Priesthood Cardinal Bonaventure saith that the validity of Sacraments among Hereticks was a Question much in dispute among the ancient Doctors but that it hath been determined by St. Augustin that they are valid if they preserve the essentials of them and in the matter of ordination he saith that the power of Orders although it be not a distinct Character yet because it is built upon it can no more be taken away than the Character it self but whatever is founded upon Jurisdiction as the power of excommunication and absolution may be taken away But I need not mention any more particular Writers since Morinus acknowledges that for 400. years the opinion of the validity of Orders conferred by Hereticks hath only obtained in the Roman Church Before that time he proves at large that it was more disputable as appears by the Master of the Sentences who accounts it a perplexed and almost insoluble difficulty because of the different opinions of Doctors about it but afterwards St. Augustins opinion was generally received both among the Schoolmen and Canonists and is now become a matter of faith in the Roman Church at least by consequence since the Decrees of Councils And although Morinus will not allow that any decree of their Church hath passed in this matter yet he saith there hath been so long and so universal a
power and that they were to be so looked on by all But the Pope did not think this sufficient but declares all those Articles that related to liberty of Religion Church-lands or any Ecclesiastical Rights or brought any the least prejudice to them or might be thought or pretended so to do to be null void invalid unjust damned reprobate vain and without any force or power and that they shall remain so for ever and that no person though never so much sworn to observe those articles shall be bound by such oath no right title plea prescription shall accrue to any by vertue of them and therefore out of the Plenitude of Apostolical power he doth absolutely damn reprobate null and cassate all those articles and protests before God of the nullity of them and restores all persons and places to their ancient possessions notwithstanding them with very much more to the same purpose This was dated at Rome apud Sanctam Mariam Majorem sub Annulo Piscatoris die 26 Novemb. and solemnly published there the third of Jan. 1651. in the eighth year of his Pontificat Call you this Sir the Popes confirming them Is it credible that he who in the beginning of his Answer had charged the late Protestant Books which he most ingeniously calls Libels to be crammed with nothing else but what we know to be false should within a few Pages have the confidence to affirm in the face of the world so notorious an untruth But I leave this ingenious Author to be Chastised for this and other his extravagancies by his worthy Adversary and return to my own After all these unsuccessful attempts at last the Knight himself resolves to encounter the Dragon and accordingly he buckles on his armour mounts his stead and according to all ancient and modern Pictures of the combat directs his lance into the very mouth of it wisely considering if the head were mortally wounded the whole Body would fall to the ground After him at a convenient distance follows his Squire I. S. who had a particular spight at the Dragons Tayl and without fear or wit falls unmercifully upon it and in his own opinion hath chopt it into a thousand pieces But such mischievous creatures whose strength lies scattered in all their parts do often rise up when they are triumphed over as dead and give their most deadly wounds when they are thought to lye gasping for breath It happened that when T. G's Answer to the first part of my Book came out I was before engaged in the Defence of the Protestant principles of faith against the Guide in Controversies and E. W. the Author of those two learned Treatises as T. G. calls them Protestancy without Principles and Religion and Reason part of which being then in the Press I was forced to go through with that before I could take his Book into consideration And thereupon I resolved to dispatch all those which relate to the Principles of Faith together and then to proceed to the Principles of Worship in answer to him which God willing I intend as soon as the former part is finished All that I shall take notice of him here is to represent the ingenuity of his dealing with me in his Preface wherein he charges me with dissenting from the Doctrine of the Church of England in accusing the Church of Rome of Idolatry And by this one Instance I desire the Reader to judge what Candour and sincerity he is to expect in his Book For the sense of the Church of England I appealed to the Book of Homilies not to any doubtful or general or single passage therein but to the design of one of the largest and most elaboratâ— Homilies in the whole Book consisting of three several parts the last of which iâ— said not to be meerly for the People but for the instruction of those who were tâ— teach them The design of that last part is thus set down 1. That Popish Images and the Idols of the Gentils are all one concerning themselves 2. That they have been and be worshipped in our time in like form and manner as were the Idols of the Gentils And for that Idolatry standeth chiefly in the mind it shall in this part first be proved that our Image-maintainers have had and have the same opinions and judgement of Saints whose Images they have made and worshipped as the Gentils Idolaters had of their Gods and afterwards shall be declared that our Image-maintainers and worshippers have used and use the same outward rites and manner of honouring and worshipping their Images as the Gentils did use before their Idols and that therefore they commit Idolatry as well inwardly as outwardly as did the wicked Gentils Idolaters and this that Homily is intended for the proof of which it doth very fully But saith T. G. why did I not appeal for the sense of our Church to the 39. Articles As though the approbation of the Book of Homilies were not one of them viz the 35. The second Book of Homilies the several Titles whereof we have joyned under this Article among which Titles the second is this of the Peril of Idolatry doth contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine and necessary for these times Which Articles were not only allowed and approved by the Queen but confirmed by the subscription of the hand of the Arch-bishop and Bishops of the upper House and by the subscription of the whole Clergy in the nether House of Convocation A. D. 1571. Now I desire T. G. to resolve me whether men of any common understanding would have subscribed to this Book of Homilies in this manner if they had believed the main Doctrine and design of one of them had been false and pernicious as they must have done if they had thought the practice of the Roman Church to be free from Idolatry I will put thâ— case that any of the Bishops then had thought the charge of Idolatry had been unjust and that it had subverted the foundation of Ecclesiastical Authority that there could have been no Church or right ordination if the Roman Church had been guilty of Idolatry would they have inserted this into the Articles when it was in their power to have left it out and that the Homilies contained a wholesome and Godly Doctrine which in their consciences they believed to be false and pernicious I might as well think that the Council of Trent would have allowed Calvins Institutions as containing a wholesome and Godly Doctrine as that men so perswaded would have allowed it the Homily against the Peril of Idolatry And how is it possible to understand the sense of our Church better than by such publick and authentick acts of it which all Persons who are in any place of trust in the Church must subscribe and dâ—clare their approbation of them This Homily hath still continued the same the Article the very same and if so they must acknowledge this hath been and is to this day the sense
Preface that he is not infallible Yet for all this we will not let go Jewel no nor Bilson Davenant White Usher Downam what ever T. G. saith against them Indeed K. Charles excepts against Bilson for his Principles of civil Government but not a word of his disaffection to the Church of England For Bishop Davenant the King saith he is none of those to whom he appealed or would submit unto and with very good reason for the King had appealed to the practice of the primitive Church and the Universal consent of Fathers therefore Bishop Davenant was a Puritan It seems they have been all Puritans since the Primitive times and I hope the Church of Rome then hath good store of them for that is far enough from the Fathers or the Primitive Church But how comes Bishop White in for a Puritan being so great a Friend of Arch-Bishop Laud why forsooth Heylin reports that for licensing Bishop Mountagu's Appello Caesarem it was said that White was turned Black And canst thou for thy heart good Reader expect a more pregnant proof It was a notable saying and it is great pity the Historian did not preserve the memory of the Author of it but by whom was it said that must be supposed by the Puritans and could none but they be the Authors of so witty a saying But suppose they were the Puritans that said it it is plain then they thought him no sound Puritan for they hold no falling from Grace All then that can be inferred from this witty saying is that White sunk in his esteem among them by this Act. And is it not possible for them to have an esteem for those who are not of their own Party Concerning Arch-Bishop Usher Dr. Heylin was known to be too much his enemy to be allowed to give a Character of him and his name will not want a due veneration as long as Learning and piety have any esteem among us But he is most troubled what to do with six that remain viz. King James Bishop Andrews Arch-Bishop Laud Isaac Casaubon Doct. Field and Doct. Jackson these he could not for shame fasten the name of Puritans upon as he doth with scorn on Bishop Downam Reynolds Whitaker and Fulk whose testimonies I said to prevent cavils I need not to produce although they are all capable of sufficient vindication For King James he saith that in the place cited by me he saith expresly that what he condemns is adoring of Images praying to them and imagining a kind of Sanctity in them all which are detested by Catholicks Was ever man put to such miserable shifts Are not these King James his words But for worshipping either them Reliques or Images I must account it damnable Idolatry And doth not King James a little after take off their distinctions and evasions in these words and they worship forsooth the Images of things in Being and the Image of the true God But Scripture forbiddeth to worship the Image of any thing that God created Yea the Image of God himself is not only expresly forbidden to be worshipped but even to be made Let them therefore that maintain this doctrine answer it to Christ at the latter day when he shall accuse them of Idolatry And then I doubt if he will be paid with such nice Sophistical distinctions Is all this nothing but to charge them with such practices which they detest Doth he not mention their Doctrine and their distinctions Did not King James understand what he said and what they did It is plain he charges them with Idolatry in what they did which was that I brought his Testimony for The like answer he gives to the rest of them viz. that they charged them with what they thought they did but the Papists deny that they do any such thing i. e. in plain Terms they charge them with Idolatry but the Papists deny they commit it And so they do when I charge them with it so that T. G. by the very same reason might have acquitted me from charging them with it and have spared his Book Is not this now an Admirable way of proving that they do not charge them with Idolatry because the Papists deny they commit it Who meddles with what they profess they do or do not I was to shew what these Persons charged them with And do any of these excuse them by saying any doctrine of theirs was contrary to these particulars do they not expresly set themselves to disprove their distinctions upon which their doctrine is founded and shew the vanity of them because their open and allowed practices do plainly contradict them and shew that they do give divine honour to Images however in words they deny it But this way of defending them is as if those whom St. Paul charges that they professed that they knew God but in works they denied him should reply to him how can we deny him in our Works since we profess him in our Words Iust so saith T. G. how can they be charged with Idolatry since they profess to do no such thing Aâ—though such persons as those I mentioned did not understand both what the Papists said for themselves and what they did notwithstanding And now I joyâ— with T. G. in desiring the Reader may be judge between us whether I have betrayed my trust in pretending to defend the Church of England and whether in charging the Church of Rome with Idolatry I have contradicted the sense of it since I have made it appear that her most true and Genuin sons the most remote from all suspicion of disaffection to her or inclination to Puritanism have concurred in the same charge which I undertook to make good But there is one blow yet remaining in his Preface which I must endeavour to ward off otherwise it will be a terrible one to the Church of England for by this charge of Idolatry he makes me to subvert the very foundation of Ecclesiastical Authority in it This it is to charge home For saith he it being a received Maxime and not being denyable by any man of common sense that no man can give to another that which he hath not himself it lies open to the Conscience of every man that if the Church of Rome be guilty of Heresie much more if guilty of Idolatry it falls under the Apostles excommunication Gal. 1. 8. and so remains deprived of the Lawful Authority to use and exercise the power of Orders and consequently the Authority of Governing preaching and Administring the Sacraments which those of the Church of England challenge to themselves as deriv'd from the Church of Rome can be no true and lawful Jurisdiction but usurped and Anti-Christian And so farewel to the Church of England if the Church of Rome were not more kind in this case than T. G. is Hitherto we have seen his skill in the affairs of our Church and now we shall see just as much in the Doctrine of his own For doth not the Council
be less but only our charity to be greater Suppose a man should exceed in his charity towards a person guilty of some grievous faults and say he believes he may be a pious man for all this but withall severely reproves him for his faults and tells him the danger he continually runs by such actions would it be fair for such a man to answer him that his reproofs were not to be regarded because he contradicted himself for he told him he believed him to be a pious man and yet upbraided him with those faults which were inconsistent with piety what would the consequence of this be to the thing it self would this make those faults ever the less because he judged so charitably of the person notwithstanding his committing them But when we allow the Church of Rome to be a true Church we are far from understanding by that a sound or a good Church free from corruptions which would be the most proper sense to found a contradiction upon in this matter of Idolatry but we mean no more by it than as a man is a true man though he hath the plague upon him those which we account the essentials of a Church we deny not to it but withall we contend that it is over-run with such corruptions in worship as do mightily endanger the salvation of those who live in the communion of it 2. Having thus discovered the disingenuity of making so bad a use of our charity against us I now come to shew how Sophistical this way of answering is by a closer examination of it First The starting of a new objection answers no argument and all that this amounts to is only raising a new difficulty whereas he ought in the first place to have answered all the arguments I had brought to prove them guilty of Idolatry and when he had done this fairly and plainly which for some good reasons he had no mind to do he might then have insisted on the inconsistency of it with principles owned by me but to do this without giving an answer so much as to any one argument is a clear evidence of a sophistical and cavilling humour rather than of any intention to satisfie an inquisitive mind 2. The force of this objection lyes in the different sense and meaning of several expressions made use of by him which being explained the objection will signifie nothing For if we rightly understand the notion of Idolatry the manner of teaching it the sense of Fundamental errours and a true Church as it is owned by me the very appearance of any contradiction vanisheth I agree in the general that the true notion of Idolatry is giving the honour due only to God to a meer creature and I desire no greater advantage against the Church of Rome than from such a concession but then we are to understand that this may be done several ways 1. When the worship proper to the true God is given to a false God 2. When the true God is acknowledged and worshipped but the unity of the God-head is denyed and many false Gods are joyned with him in the same worship In these two sorts of Idolatry I acknowledge that the true God is rejected either wholly in the first way or by consequence in the second But withall I say that the giving the Worship to a creature which is due only to God may be consistent with the acknowledgement of one Supream God and that these ways 1. When one Supream God is acknowledged but no difference is put between the external Worship of him and creatures This was the Idolatry of the wiser Heathen who did in their consciences acknowledge that there was but one true and supream God but yet gave the same worship to inferiour Deities that they did to him These men might have pleaded for themselves for all that I know as much to their advantage as those of the Church of Rome do against me 2. When the worship proper to the true God is given to an Image or the supposing of God to be truly honoured by us by prostrating our selves before any corporeal representation of him This likewise the Heathen were guilty of St. Paul hath long since told us of some who profess that they know God but in works they deny him so there may be some who may profess a worship due only to God but in their actions may contradict it As suppose a company of rebellious men should declare over and over that they acknowledge but one Soveraign Power of this Nation invested in the person of the King but yet should take upon themselves to raise forces to appoint great Officers of State and require that the very same outward reverence and honour be given to them which is given to the King himself would any man in his sense say that because these men still declared the supream Authority to be in the King that there was no Treason in such actions or that those persons contradicted themselves who allowed that their profession was such as became good subjects but their actions made them guilty of Treason The same we say of the Church of Rome we confess they own the supream Power of the world to be in one true God and we have no controversie with them about the essential Doctrines of Religion which is that we mean by their being a true Church but withal we say they overthrow what they say in their own practice they rob God of the honour due only to him by giving it to Angels and Saints and Images and other creatures And what contradiction now is there in all this and a Church agreeing with us in the object of worship in general should act contrary to its own profession by requiring those things to be done which take away from God that honour which is due only to him and giving it to creatures And this if I understand it is all that this first contradiction in the charge of Idolatry doth amount to To appply this now to his own propositions for the greater clearness and satisfaction of all indifferent persons His first Proposition I agree to viz. That 't is an article of faith and a Fundamental point of Religion that the honour which is due only to God is not to be given to a meer creature But I desire it may be taken notice of that this proposition is Sophistically expressed for although it be no dispute between us whether that honour which is due only to God may be given to a creature yet it is a very great one and the foundation of the charge of Idolatry what that honour is which is due only to God and in case we can prove that they do give to meer Creatures any part of that honour which is due to God it cannot at all excuse them to say that they acknowledge it to be Idolatry to give that honour which they suppose to be due only to God to a meer creature This proposition therefore though in
it self true is captiously set down and with an intention only to deceive unwary readers as will appear by the next proposition 2. To teach Idolatry is to err against the formentioned article of faith and Fundamental point of Religion i. e. to teach Idolatry is to teach that the honour which is due only to God is to be given to a meer creature That this is to teach Idolatry no one questions but our question is Whether they who do not teach this Proposition may not teach men to do those things whereby the worship due only to God will be given to a meer creature If he can prove that they who do not in terms declare that they do not dishonour God cannot dishonour him if he can demonstrate that those who do not teach that the honour which is due only to God is to be given to a creature cannot possibly by any actions of theirs rob him of that honour which is due to him this will be much more to his purpose than any thing he hath yet said And this proposition if he had proceeded as he ought to have done should not have been a particular affirmative but an Universal Negative For it is not enough to say that to teach Idolatry is to teach that the honour which is due only to God is to be given to a creature but that No Church which doth not teach this can be guilty of Idolatry for his design being to clear the Roman Church his Proposition ought to be so framed that all particulars may be comprehended under it But because he may say his immediate intention was not to clear their Church from Idolatry but to accuse me of a contradiction I proceed to the next Proposition 3. A Church that does not err against any article of faith nor against any Fundamental point of Religion does not teach Idolatry This proposition is likewise very Sophistical and captious for by article of faith and fundamental point of Religion is either understood the main fundamental points of doctrine contained in the Apostles Creed and then I affirm that a Church which doth own all the Fundamentals of doctrine may be guilty of Idolatry and teach those things wherein it lyes but if by not erring against any article of faith be meant that a Church which doth not err at all in matters of Religion cannot teach Idolatry the Proposition is true but impertinent 4. That the Church of Rome doth teach Veneration of Images adoration of the Host and Invocation of Saints is agreed on both sides 5. That the Roman Church does not err against any article of faith or Fundamental point of Religion This being that concession of ours from whence all the force of his argument is taken must be explained according to our own sense of it and not according to that which he puts upon it which that it may be better understood I shall both shew in what sense this concession is made by us as to the Church of Rome and of what force it is in this present debate For the clearer understanding in what sense it is made by us we are to consider the occasion of the Controversie about Fundamentals between us and the Church of Rome which ought to be taken from that Book to which he referrs There we find the occasion of it to be the Romanists contending that all points defined by the Church are Fundamental or necessary to salvation on the account of such a Definition upon this the controversie about Fundamentals was managed against them with a design to prove that all things defined by the Church of Rome are not Fundamental or necessary to be believed by all persons in order to their salvation because they were so defined To this purpose I enquired 1. What the grounds are on which any thing doth become necessary to salvation 2. Whether any thing whose matter is not necessary and is not required by an absolute command in Scripture can by any means whatsoever afterwards become necessary 3. Whether the Church hath power by any proposition or definition to make anything become necessary to salvation and to be believed as such which was not so before For the first I proposed two things 1. What things are necessary to the salvation of men as such or considered in their single or private capacities 2. What things are necessary to be owned in order to salvation by Christian Societies or as the bonds and conditions of Ecclesiastical communion For the resolving of this I laid down these three Propositions 1. That the very being of a Church doth suppose the necessity of what is required to be believed in order to salvation 2. Whatever Church owns those things which are antecedently necessary to the Being of a Church cannot so long cease to be a true Church And here I expresly distinguished between the essentials of a Church and those things which were required to the Integrity or soundness of it among which latter I reckoned the worship of God in the way prescribed by him 3. That the Union of the Catholick Church depended upon the agreement of it in things antecedently necessary to its being From hence I proceeded to shew that nothing ought to be owned as necessary to Salvation by Christian Societies but such things which by all those Societies are acknowledged antecedently necessary to the Being of the Catholick Church And here I distinguished between necessary articles of faith and particular agreements for the Churches peace I did not therefore deny but that it was in the power of particular Churches to require a Subscription to articles of Religion opposite to the errours and abuses which they reformed but I denyed it to be in the power of any Church to make those things necessary articles of faith which were not so before And here it was I shewed the moderation of the Church of England above that of Rome in that our Church makes no articles of faith but such as have the testimony and approbation of the whole Christian world of all Ages and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self but the Church of Rome imposeth new articles of faith to be believed as necessary to salvation as appears by the Bull of Pius 4. This is my plain meaning which half-witted men have stretched and abused to several ill purposes but not to wander from my present subject what is it that I. W. can hence infer to his purpose viz. that from hence it follows that the Church of Rome does not erre against any article of faith or any point necessary to salvation which if it be only meant of those essential points of faith which I suppose antecedently necessary to the Being of a Church I deny it not but do not see of what use this concession can be to them in the present debate since in the following Discourse I made the ancient Creeds of the Catholick Church the best measure of those things which were believed to be necessary to
representations of him to our senses with a design to worship them Why did not God as well forbid the one as he did the other Were the Israelites then in the Beatifical vision were their conceptions of God suitable to his incomprehensible nature if not why were they not forbidden as well to think of God as to make any Images of him Is God as much disparaged by the necessary weakness of our understandings as by voluntarily false and corporeal Images of him Nay doth not God design to prevent the errour of our Imaginations by such prohibitions as those are and thereby commands us to think worthily of him and when we pray to him to consider him only as an Infinite Being in his Nature and Attributes I do not know what Imaginations others have of God it may be those in the Church of Rome measure all by themselves and God by their Images of him and thence conclude that no men can think of God but as they picture him like an Old man sitting in Heaven but I assure them I never had such an Imagination of him and if I had should think it very unworthy of him I know no other conception of God but of a Being infinitely perfect and this is rather an intellectual apprehension than a material imagination of him I am assured that he is by mighty and convincing arguments but to bring him down to my Imagination is to contradict the evidence that I have of his Being for the same reasons which convince me that he is do likewise convince me that he is infinite in power and wisdom and goodness If I thought otherwise of him I should know no reason to give him the Worship of my mind and soul. Although my conceptions cannot reach his greatness yet they do not confine it nor willfully debase it they do not bring him down to the meanness of a Corporeal Image But because we cannot think highly enough of God must we therefore devise ways to expose him to contempt and scorn And we cannot but despise a Deity to whom any Image can be like But such absurd and silly arguments deserve no farther confutation They indeed may take more liberty who write to those who are bound not to judge of what is writ but only to cry it up As for us who think it not fit to have our People in such slavery we dare not venture such idle stuff among them I come therefore to the second contradiction he charges me with which is concerning the danger of salvation which they are lyable to who communicate with the Roman Church when yet I acknowledge that Church to be a true Church and therefore to be a true way to salvation and withall Arch B. Laud whom I defend doth grant a possibility of salvation to those in the Church of Rome The force of this contradiction depending on these concessions I shall 1. Shew in what sense they are granted by us 2. Examin the strength of the propositions he draws from hence towards the making this a contradiction 1. Concerning the Roman Church being a true Church The Arch-bishops Adversary having falsely charged him with granting the Roman Church to be a right Church he complains of his injustice in it and saith that it is a Church and a true Church he granted but not a right Church for Truth only imports the Being right perfection in conditions thus a Thief is a true man though not an upright man So a corrupt Church may be true as a Church is a company of men which profess the faith of Christ and are baptized into his name but it is not therefore a right Church either in Doctrine or Manners and again saith It is true in that sense as ens and verum being and true are convertible one with another and every thing that hath a Being is truly that Being which it is in truth of subtance The Replyer to him saith that the notion of a Church implyes Integrity and Perfection of conditions upon which I gave him this Answer That he did herein betray his weak or willful mistakes of a Church morally for Metaphysically true If he could prove it impossible for a Church to retain its Being that hath any errours in doctrine or corruptions in practice he would therein do something to the purpose but when he had done it all that he would get by it was that then we should not so much as acknowledge the Roman Church to be Metaphysically a true Church and therefore the Reader is left to judge whether his Lordships Charity for or his Testimony against their Church was built upon better grounds By this it is evident in what sense it was granted that the Roman Church was a true Church 2. Concerning possibility of salvation in that Church To the question that was asked my Lord of Canterbury whether a person might be saved in the Roman faith he gives this Answer that the Ignorant that could not discern the errours of that Church so they held the Foundation and conformed themselves to a Religious life might be saved and after explains himself more fully that might be saved grants but a possibility no sure or safe way of salvation the possibility I think saith he cannot be denyed to the Ignorants especially because they hold the Foundation and cannot survey the building And the Foundation can deceive no man that rests upon it But a secure way they cannot go that hold with such corruptions when they know them And again Many Protestants indeed confess there is salvation possible to be attained in the Roman Church but yet they say withall that the errours of that Church are so many and some so great as weaken the Foundation that it is very hard to go that way to Heaven especially to them that have had the truth manifested And in another place I do indeed for my part leaving other men free to their own judgement acknowledge a possibility of salvation in the Roman Church but so as that which I grant to Romanists is not as they are Romanists but as they are Christians that is as they believe the Creed and hold the Foundation Christ himself not as they associate themselves wittingly and knowingly to the gross Superstitions of the Roman Church And I am willing to hope there are many among them which keep within that Church and yet wish the Superstitions abolished which they know and which pray to God to forgive their errours in what they know not and which hold the Foundation firm and live accordingly and would have all things amended that are amiss were it in their power And to such I dare not deny a possibility of salvation for that which is Christs in them though they hazard themselves extreamly by keeping so close to that which is Superstition and in the case of Images comes too near Idolatry These are my Lord of Canterburies own words and laid together in my Defence of him which I. W.
is that it is a foolish thing to make use of a medium as uncertain as the thing which is to be proved by it and therefore if the Infallibility of the the Church be as liable to doubts and disputes as that of the Scriptures it is against all just Laws of reasoning to make use of the Churches Infallibility to prove the Scriptures by And to this no answer can be proper but either by saying that there is no absurdity in such a way of proving or else that the Infallibility of the Church is more certain and evident than that of the Scriptures Which I should be glad to see undertaken by any man who pretends to sense which N. O. doth too much to meddle with it and therefore fairly shuffles it off and turns my words quite to another meaning as though they had been spoken of the doubtful sense of the Decrees of Councils which although elsewhere I had sufficient reason to speak of yet that was not pertinent to this place But this was a way to escape by saying something though not at all to the purpose and yet he gives no sufficient answer to that sense he puts upon my words by bringing a Commentary upon them out of words used by me in another Discourse Wherein I did at large argue against the Infallibility of General Councils and after disproving it in general I undertook to prove that no man can have any certainty of Faith as to the Decrees of any Council because men can have no certainty of Faith that this was a General Council that it passed such Decrees that it proceeded lawfully in passing them and that this is the certain meaning of them all which are necessary in order to the believing those Decrees to be infallible with such a Faith as they call divine The words produced by him do speak of the doubtful sense and meaning of the Decrees of Councils by which I shew that men can have no more certainty of the meaning of them than of doubtful places of Scripture not as though I supposed it impossible for Councils to give a clear decision in matters of controversie so as that men might understand their meaning but I expresly mention such Decrees as are purposely framed in general terms and with ambiguous expressions pressions to give satisfaction to the several dissenting Parties for which I instanced in some of the Council of Trent whose ambiguity is most manifest by the disputes about their meaning raised by some who were present at the making of them I am far enough from denying that a Commentary may make a Text plainer or that a Iudges sentence can be clearer than the Law or that any Council can or hath decided any thing clearer than the thing that is in controversie which are his exceptions but I say if Councils pretend to do more than the Scriptures and to decide controversies for the satisfaction of the World and that men ought to have that certainty of Faith by them which they cannot have by the Scriptures they ought never to be liable to the same ambiguity and obscurity upon the account of which the Scripture is rejected from being a certain rule of Faith For as he saith well Infallibility alone ends not Controversies but clearness clearness in the point controverted which if Councils want they are as unfit to end Controversies as the Scriptures can be pretended to be But this is not the thing intended by me in this Proposition and therefore it needs no farther answer for the only subject of that Proposition is the Infallibility of the Church and not the clearness of the Decrees of Councils But I cannot admire the ingenuity of this way of answering me by putting another sense upon my words than they will bear and by drawing words out of another Discourse without shewing the purpose for which they are there used and leaving out the most material passages which tended to the clearing of them If N. O. thinks fit to oppose that whole Discourse against the Infallibility of General Councils and set down fairly the several Arguments I should be then too blame not to return a just answer but I am not bound to follow him in such strange excursions from the 17. Proposition of this Book to a single passage in a larger Book and from that back to another at a mighty distance in the same Book which being dismembred from the Body of the Discourse must needs lose much of their strength Yet with all the disadvantage he takes them which is such that the best Book in the World may be confuted in that manner he hath no great cause to glory in the execution he hath done upon them In answer to my Lord of Canterburies Adversary who boasted of the Unity of the Roman Church because whatever the private opinions of men are they are ready to submit their judgments to the censure and determination of the Church I had said that this will hold as well or better for our Unity as theirs because all men are willing to submit their judgments to Scripture which is agreed on all sides to be infallible Against these words thus taken alone N. O. spends two or three Pages which might have been spared if he had but fairly expressed what immediately follows them in these words If you say it cannot be known what Scripture determines but it may be easily what the Church defines it is easily answered that the event shews it to be far otherwise for how many disputes are there concerning the power of determining matters of Faith to whom it belongs in what way it must be managed whether Parties ought to be heard in matters of Doctrine what the meaning of the Decrees are when they are made which raise as many divisions as were before them as appears by the Decrees of the Council of Trent and the later of Pope Innocent relating to the five Propositions so that upon the whole it appears setting aside force and fraud which are excellent Principles of Christian Unity we are upon as fair terms of Union as they are among themselves I do not therefore say that the Church of Rome hath no advantage at all in point of Unity but that all the advantage it hath comes from force and fraud and setting these aside we are upon as good terms of Union as they and we do not envy them the effects of Tyranny and Deceit It is the Union of Christians we contend for and not of Slaves or Fools we leave the Turk and the Pope to vie with each other in this kind of Unity although I believe the Turk hath much the advantage in it and I freely yield to N. O. that they have a juster pretence to Vnity without Truth than we Which is agreeable to what he pleads for that they are more united in opinion than we united in opinion I say true or false saith he here matters not we speak here of Vnion not of Truth This and
Governâ—uâ—s of a Christian society the Priviledge of Commanding in things which God hath nâ—t alâ— ready determined by his own Law We plead for the respect and reverence which is due to the Lawful constitutiâ—ns oâ— the Church whereof we are members and 〈◊〉 the just Authority of the Guides it in the exercise of that power which is committed to the Governours of it as the successours of the Apostles in their care of the Christian Church although not in their Infallibility 6. We allow a very great Authority to the Guides of the Catholick Church in the best times of Christianity and look upon the concurrent sense of Antiquity as an excellent means to understand the mind of Scripture in places otherwise doubtful and obscure We prosess a great Reverence to the Ancient Fathers of the Church but Especially when assembled in free and General Councils We reject the ancient heresies condemned in them which we the rather believe to be against the Scripture because so ancient so wise and so great persons did deliver the contrary doctrine not only to be the sense of the Church in their own time but ever since the Apostles Nay we reject nothing that can be proved by an universal Tradition from the Apostolical times downwards but we have so great an opinion of the Wisdom and Piety of those excellent Guides of the Church in the Primitive times that we see no reason to have those things forced upon us now which we offer to prove to be contrary to their doctrine and practice So that the controversy between us is not about the Authority of the Guides of the Church but whether the Guides of the Apostolical and Primitive times ought not to have greater Authority over us than those of the present Church in things wherein they contradict each other This is the true State of the Controversy between us and all the clamours of rejecting the Authority of Church Guides are vain and impertinent But we profess to yield greater reverence and submission of mind to Christ and his Apostles than to any Guides of the Church ever since we are sure they spake by an Infallible Spirit and where they have determined matters of Faith or practice we look upon it as arrogance and presumption in any others to alter what they have declared And for the Ages since we have a much gâ—eater esteem for those neaâ—est the Apostolical times and so downwards till Ignorance Ambition and private Interests sway'd too much among those who were called the Guides of the Church And that by the confession of those who were members of it at the same time which makes us not to wonder that such corruptions of doctrine and practice should then come in but we do justly wonder at the sincerity of those who would not have them reformed and taken away 7. In matters imposed upon us to believe or practise which are repugnant to plain commands of Scripture or the Evidence offense or the grounds of Christian Religion we assert that no Authority of the present Guides of a Church is to overrule our faith or practice For there are some things so plain that no Man will be guided by anothers opinion in them If any Philosopher did think his Authority ought to overrule an Ignorant Mans opinion in saying the snow which he saw to be white was not so I would fain know whether that Man did better to believe his eyes or the prudent experienc'd Philosopher I am certain if I destroy the Evidence of sense I must overthrow the grounds of Christian Religion and I am as certain if I believe that not to be bread which my senses tell me is so I must destroy the greatest Evidence of sense and which is fitter for me to reject that Evidence which assures my Christianity to me or that Authority which by its impositions on my faith overthrows the certainty of sense We do not say that we are to reject any doctrine delivered in Scripture which concerns a Being infinitely above our understanding because we cannot comprehend all things contained in it but in matters lyable to sense and the proper objects of it we must beg pardon if we prefer the grounds of our common Christianity before a novel and monstrous figment hatched in the times of Ignorance and Barbarism foster'd by faction and imposed by Tyranny We find no command so plain in Scripture that we must believe the Guides of the Church in all they deliver as there is that we must not worship Images that we must pray with understanding that we must keep to our Saviours Institution of the Lords supper but if any Guides of a Church pretend to an Authority to evacuate the force of these Laws we do not so much reject their Authority as prefer Gods above them Doth that Man destroy the authority of Parents that refuses to obey them when they Command him to commit Treason That is our case in this matter supposing such Guides of a Church which otherwise we are bound to obey if they require things contrary to a direct Command of God must we prefer their Guidance before Gods If they can prove us mistaken we yield but till then the Question is not whether the Guides of the Church must be submitted to rather than our own reason but whether Gods authority or theirs must be obeyed And I would gladly know whether there be not some Points of faith and some parts of our duty so plain that no Church-Authority determining the contrary ought to be obey'd 8. No absolute submission can be due to those Guides of a Church who have opposed and contradicted each other and condemned one anâ—ther for errour and hereâ—y For then in case of absolute submission a Man must yield his assent to contradictions and for the same reason that he is to be a Catholick at one time he must be a heretick at another I hope the Guides of the present Church pretend to no more infallibility and Authority than their predecessours in the same Capacity with themselves have had and we say they have contradicted the sense of those before them in the matters in dispute between us Yet that is not the thing I now insist upon but that these Guides of the Church have declared each other to be fallible by condemning their opinions and practices and by that means have made it necessary for men to believe those not to be infallible unless both parts of a contradiction may be infallibly true Suppose a Man living in the times of the prevalency of Arrianism when almost all the Guides of the Church declared in favour of it when several great Councils opposed and contradicted that of Nice when Pope Liberius did subscribe the Sirmian confession and Communicated with the Arrians what advice would N. O. give such a one if he must not exercise his own Judgement and compare both the doctrines by the rule of Scriptures must he follow the present Guides even the Pope himself Then he must
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
their Guides only upon the opinion of their skill and integrity and when they see reason to Question these they know of no obligation to follow their conduct over rocks and precipices if they are so careless of their own welfare others are not bound to follow them therein But we are not to presume persons so wholly Ignorant but they have some general Rules by which to Judge of the skill and fidelity of their Guides If a Person commits himself to the care of a Pilot to carry him to Constantinople because of his ignorance of the Sea should this man still rely upon his Authority if he carried him to find out the North West passage No though he may not know the particular Coasts so well yet he knows the East and West the North and South from each other If a stranger should take a Guide to conduct him from London to York although he may not think fit to dispute with him at every doubtful turning yet is he bound to follow him when he travels all day with the Sun in his face for although he doth not know the direct road yet he knows that he is to go Northward The meaning of all this is that the supposition of Guides in Religion doth depend upon some common principles of Religion that are or may be known to all and some precepts so plain that every Christian without any help may know them to be his duty within the compass of these plain and known duties lyes the capacity of persons judging of their Guides if they carry them out of this beaten way they have no reason to rely upon them in other things if they keep themselves carefully within those bounds and shew great integrity therein then in doubtful and obscure things they may with more safety rely upon them But if they tell them they must put out their eyes to follow them the better or if they kindly allow them to keep their eyes in their heads yet they must believe them against their eye-sight if they perswade them to break plain Commands of God and to alter the Institutions of Christ what reason can there be that any should commit themselves to the absolute Conduct of such unfaithful Guides And this is not to destroy all Authority of faithful Guides for they may be of great use for the direction of unskilful persons in matters that are doubtful and require skill to resolve them but it is only to suppose that their Authority is not absolute nor their direction infallible But if we take away this Infallible direction from the Guides of the Church what Authority is there left them As much as ever God gave them and if they will not be contented with that we cannot help it and that it may appear how vain and frivolous these exceptions are I shall now shew what real Authority is still left in the Governours of the Church though Infallibility be taken away And that lyes in three things 1. An Authority of inflicting censures upon offenders which is commonly called the Power of the keys or of receiving into and excluding out of the Communion of the Church This the Church was invested with by Christ himself and is the necessary consequence of the being and institution of a Christian Society which cannot be preserved in its purity and peace without it Which Authority belongs to the Governours of the Church and however the Church in some respects be incorporated with the Common-wealth in a Christian State yet its Fundamental Rights remain distinct from it of which this is one of the chief to receive into and exclude out of the Church such persons which according to the Laws of a Christian Society are fit to be taken in or shut out 2. An Authority of making Rules and Canons about matters of order and decency in the Church Not meerly in the necessary circumstances of time and place and such things the contrary to which imply a natural indecency but in continuing and establishing those ancient rites of the Christian Church which were practised in the early times of Christianity and are in themselves of an indifferent nature Which Authority of the Church hath been not only asserted in the Articles of our Church but strenuously defended against the trifling objections of her Enemies from Scripture Antiquity and Reason And I freely grant not only that such an Authority is in it self reasonable and just but that in such matters required by a Lawful Authority such as that of our Church is there is an advantage on the side of Authority against a scrupulous Conscience which ought to over-rule the practice of such who are the members of that Church 3. An Authority of proposing matters of faith and directing men in Religion Which is the proper Authority of Teachers and Guides and Instructers of others which may be done several ways as by particular instruction of doubtful persons who are bound to make use of the best helps they can among which that of their Guides is the most ready and useful and who are obliged to take care of their Souls and therefore to give the most faithful advice and Counsel to them Besides this there is a publick way of instructing by discourses grounded upon Scripture to particular congregations assembled together for the worship of God in places set apart for that end and therefore called Churches And those who are duly appointed for this work and ordained by those whose office is to ordain viz. the Bishops have an Authority to declare what the mind and Will of God is contained in Scripture in order to the Salvation and edification of the Souls of men But besides this we may consider the Bishops and representative Clergy of a Church as met together for reforming any abuses crept into the practice of Religion or errours in Doctrine and in this case we assert that such a Synod or Convocation hath the power and Authority within it self especially having all the ancient rights of a Patriarchal Church when a more general consent cannot be obtained to publish and declare what those errours abuses are to do as much as in them lyes to reform them viz. by requiring a consent to such propositions as are agreed upon for that end of those who are to enjoy the publick offices of teaching and instructing others Not to the end that all those propositions should be believed as Articles of Faith but because no Reformation can be effected if persons may be allowed to preach and officiate in the Church in a way contrary to the design of such a Reformation And this is now that Authority we attribute to the Governours of our Church although we allow no Infallibility to them And herein we proceed in a due mean between the extremes of robbing the Church of all Authority of one side and advancing it to Infallibility on the other But we cannot help the weakness of those mens understanding who cannot apprehend that any such thing as Authority
there must be orders and Constitutions whereby all must be kept within their due bounds and there must be persons appointed to instruct the Ignorant to satisfy the doubting to direct the unskilful and to help the weak It belongs to such a Society not barely to provide for necessity but safety and not meerly the safety of particular persons but of it self which cannot be done without prudent orders fixing the bounds of mens imployments and not suffering every pretender to visions and Revelations to set up for a new Sect or which is all one a new Order of Religious men How comes it now to pass that by saying that men considered barely as Christians may understand all that is necessary to their Salvation I do overthrow all Authority of a Church and make all men Prophets Do I in the least mention mens teaching others or being able themselves to put a difference between what is so necessary and what not or doth S. C. suppose that all that understand what is necessary to Salvation have no need to be ruled and governed If he thinks so I assure him I am quite of another opinion and do make no question but that Government ought to be preserved in a Church though the necessaries to Salvation be known to all in it and so I suppose doth any one else that in the least considers what he says By this we see that S. C ' s. recrimination of Fanaticism on our Church by vertue of this principle is as feeble as the Defence he hath made for his own of which he may hear in due time But if there be any Fanaticism in this principle we have the concurrence of the greatest and wisest persons of the Christian Church in it Two of them especially have in terms said as much as I have done St. Augustin in his Books of Christian Doctrine already mentioned and St. Chrysostome in as plain words as may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All things are plain and right in the holy Scriptures all necessary things are manifest Let S. C. now charge all the dreadful consequences of this principle on St. Chrysostome and tell him that he destroyed all Church-Authority and laid the Foundation for the height of Fanaticism Nay S. Chrysâ—stome goes much higher than I do for he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. If I had made the Guides of the Church so useless as St. Chrysostome seems to do in these words what passionate and hideous out-crys would S. C. have made And by this let the skill or ingenuity of S. C. be tryed who says that I cannot find out one single short sentence in Antiquity to support the main pillar of my Religion which he supposes this principle to be and for the finding out the sense of Scripture without the help of Infallibility I have produced more out of Antiquity in this discourse than either he or his whole partie will be able to Answer 3. Not the denying the Authority of the Church of Rome Which I must do till I see some better proofs for it than I have ever yet done But how doth this destroy all Authority in a Church can there be none but what is derived from Rome I do not think I do in the least diminish the Kings Authority by denying that he derives it from the Cham of Tartary or the Great Mogol although they may challenge the Lordship of the whole Earth to themselves and may pretend very plausible reasons that it would be much more for the quiet and conveniency of mankind to be all under one universal Monarch and that none have so fair a pretence to it as they that have challenged the Right of it to themselves and yet for all this I do verily believe the King hath an unquestionable right to his Kingdom and a just Authority over all his subjects The time was when the first of Genesis would serve to prove the Popes title and the Suns ruling by day was thought a clear argument for his supremacy but the world is now altered and all the wit and subtility that hath been since used hath not been able to make good that crackt title of Universal Pastorship which the Bishops of Rome have taken to themselves But although we disown the Popes Authority as an unjust usurpation we assert and plead for the Authority of the Church and the Bishops who are placed therein who derive their power to Govern the Church from Christ and not from the Pope And I dare appeal to any Person whether the asserting the Bishops deriving their Authority from Christ or from the Pope be the better way of defending their Power We are not now disputing what Authority were fit to be entrusted in the Popes hands supposing all other differences composed and that things were in the same State wherein they were in the times of the 4. General Councils in which case it ought to be considered how far it might be convenient to give way to such an Authority so apt to grow extravagant and which hath been stretched so very far beyond what the Canons allowed that it hath challenged Infallibility to it self but the thing at present under debate is whether the disallowing the Papal Hierarchy doth overthrow all Authority in the Episcopal which is in effect to ask whether there be any other power besides the Popes in the Church for if there be any other the denying the Popes Authority over us cannot in the least diminish the just Authority of Bishops The only considerable Question in this case is whether the rejecting that Hierarchy which was in being at the the time of the Reformation doth not make way for the peoples rejecting the Authority of our Bishops and consequently no Authority in the Church can be maintained unless we again yield to the Papal Authority This I suppose to be N. O. meaning when he tells us by Church-Authority he means that Superior and more comprehensive Body of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy which in any dissent and division of the Clergy according to the Church Canons ought to be obeyed And any particular Church divided from this more universal cannot with the least pretence of reason challenge submission from her subjects since she her self and particularly the Church of England refused the same to all the Authority extant in the world when she separated her self To this I answer That the Church of England in Reforming her self did not oppose any just Authority then extant in the World It is to no purpose to make sâ—ch loud clamours about our Churches refusing submission to all the Authority then extant in the World unless there be better Evidence produced for it than we have yet seen For it is very well known that the dispute was then concerning the Popes Supremacy over our Church which we have all along asserted to have been a notorious encroachment upon the liberties of our Church And the Popes usurpations were 〈◊〉 injurious both to the Ecclesiastical and Civil
Government that those who adhered to the Religion of the Roman Church yet agreed to the rejecting that Authority which he challenged in England Which is sufficiently known to have been the beginning of the Breach between the two Churches Afterwards when it was thus agreed that the Bishop of Rome had no such Authority as he challenged what should hinder our Church from proceeding in the best way it could for the Reformation of it self For the Popes Supremacy being cast out as an usurpation our Church was thereby declared to be a Free Church having the Power of Government within it self And what method of proceeding could be more reasonable in this case than by the advice of the Governours of the Church and by the concurrence of civil Authority to publish such Rules and Articles according to which Religion was to be professed and the worship of God setled in England And this is that which N. O. calls refusing submission to all the Authority then extant in the world was all the Authority then extant shut up in the Popes Breast was there no due power of Governing left because his unjust power was cast off and that first by Bishops who in other things adhered to the Roman Church But they proceeded farther and altered many things in Religion against the Consent of the more Vniversal Church It is plain since our Church was declared to be Free they had a Liberty of enquiring and determining things fittest to be believed and practised this then could not be her fault But in those things they decreed they went contrary to the consent of the Vniversal Church Here we are now come to the merits of the cause and we have from the beginning of the Reformation defended that we rejected nothing but innovations and Reformed nothing but Abuses But the Church thought otherwise of them What Church I pray The Primitive and Apostolical that we have always appealed to and offered to be tryed by The truly Catholick Church of all Ages That we utterly deny to have agreed in any one thing against the Church of England But the plain English of all is the Church of Rome was against the Church of England and no wonder for the Church of England was against the Church of Rome but we know of no Fault we are guilty of therein nor any obligation of submission to the Commands of that Church And N. O. doth not say that we opposed the whole Church but the more Vniversal Church i. e. I suppose the greater number of Persons at that time But doth he undertake to make this good that the greater number of Christians then in the world did oppose the Church of England How doth he know that the Eastern Armenian Abyssin and Greek Churches did agree with the Church of Rome against us No that is not his meaning but by the more Vniversal Church he fairly understands no more but the Church of Rome And that we did oppose the Doctrine and practices of the Church of Rome we deny not but we utterly deny that to be the Catholick Church or that we opposed any lawful Authority in denying submission to it But according to the Canons of the Church we are to obey in any dissent or division of the Clergy the Superior and more comprehensive Body of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy What he means by this I do not well understand either it must be the Authority of the Pope and Councils of the Roman Church or a General Council of all the Catholick Church For the first we owe no obedience to them for the second there was no such thing then in the world and therefore could not be opposed And for the Canons of the Catholick Councils before the breaches of Christendom no Church hath been more guilty of a violation of them than the Church of Rome since the Rules of the Fathers have been turned into the Royalties of S. Peter We are no Enemies to the ancient Patriarchal Government of the Christian Church and are far more for preserving the Dignity of it than the Roman Church can be For we should think it a happy State of the Christian Church if all the Patriarchs did enjoy their ancient power and priviledges and all Christendom would consent to a truly Free and General Council which we look on as the best expedient on earth for composing the differences of the Christian World if it might be had But we cannot endure to be abused by meer names of titular Patriarchs but real Servants and Pensionaries of the Popes with combinations of interested parties instead of General Councils with the pleasure of Popes instead of ancient Canons Let them reduce the ancient Government of the Church within its due bounds let the Bishop of Rome content himself with the priviledges he then enâ—oyed let debates be free and Bishops assemble with an equal proportion out of all Churches of Christendom and if we then oppose so generâ—l a consent of the Christian Church let them charge us with not submitting to all the Authority extant of the world But since the State of Christendom hath been so much divided that a truly General Council is next to an impossible thing the Church must be Reformed by its parts and every Free Church enjoying the Rights of a Patriarchal See hath according to the Canons of the Church a sufficient power to Reform all abuses within it self when a more general consent cannot be obtained By this we may see how very feeble this charge is of destroying all Church-Authority by refusing submission to the Roman Hierarchy and how very pityful an advantage can from hence be made by the dissenting parties among us who decry that Patriarchal and ancient Government as Anti-christian which we allow as Prudent and Christian. But of the difference of these two case I have spoken already 4. But yet N. O. saith my principles afford no effectual way or means in this Church of suppressing or convicting any Schism Sect or Heresie or reducing them either to submission of judgement or silence Therefore my Principles are destâ—â—ctive to all Church-Authority To which I answer 1. That the design of my Principles was to lay down the Foundations of Faith and not the means of suppressing heresies If I had laid down the Foundations of Peace and left all Persons to their own judgements without any regard to Authority this might have been justly objected against me but according to this way it might have been objected to Aristotle that he was an Enemy to civil Government because he doth not lay down the Rules of it in his Logick or that Hippocrates favoured the Chymists and Mountebanks because he saith not a word of the Colledge of Physitians If I had said any thing about the Authority of particular Churches or the ways of suppressing Sects then how insultingly had I been asked What is all this to the Foundations of Faith Excellent Protestant principles of Faith They begin now to resolve faith into the Authority of
were two Jesuits the one sent over a Book which if we look only at the bulk and thickness was a very substantial one called by an odd Antiphrasis Reason and Religion I have endeavoured to draw off all the Spirit I could find in it in the following discourses but I am forced to leave a vast quantity of Phlegm and Caput Mortuum behind I shall say no more of him here having occasion to speak so much of him in the Discourses about the Principles of faith which will in a little time be ready to appear The other is the stout Defender of lgnatius Loyola and the whole Order of Jesuits What one man undertake to defend the Jesuits as to their Principles and Practices and that in this Age which so well understands their Maxims and Conduct and in England too where those of other Orders and the Secular Priests love them so dearly But nothing is too brave or difficult for a Jesuit to attempt however he comes off in it As to Ignatius Loyola I will come to terms with him if what he confesses as to his ignorant zeal pious simplicity frequent visions and extasies extravagant preaching unmannerly contempt of Superiours do not prove him a Fanatick I am content to let him go But what if Ignatius himself being grown old did suspect such frequent extasies and visions for illusions I desire him to look Ribadineira in his larger life to that purpose But this matter of Fanaticism must be referred to another place I shall now only give a tast of the Jesuits excellent way of defending the principles destructive to Government which I charged his Order with The first was that Government was so originally in the People that they by their Representatives may call their Soveraign to an account and alter the form of Government Now mark this Answer This principle whatsoever truth it may have in speculation is by no means to be preached to the People who are apt enough of themselves to stretch cases and pick quarrels with their best Governours yet was it taught many Ages before the Jesuits were so much as thought of Welfare the man for his plain-dealing the Doctrine it seems is true enough but the people are not fit to be trusted with the management of it no not in their places and callings no no let the Jesuits alone with these things they know just the very nick of time when to be Iudges and Executioners too The next principle is the Popes power of deposing Princes to which he again answers roundly You are then to know Sir that the Doctrine was long ago taught by almost all Orders and Professions Seculars Regulars Divines Lawyers before the Jesuits were in Being A very Catholick Doctrine it seems it is What a stirr do other people make with mincing this matter I know not how give me a man that speaks out and lets Princes understand what their general Doctrine is in this matter lest they may possibly be deceived as though it were only the bold assertion of some few Persons among them What wonder then saith he if Bellarmin and 3. or 4. more Jesuits were carried away with such a Torrent of Doctors who went before them Nay in my opinion the only wonder is how any Persons among them dare think otherwise this Doctrin having as he tells us so Catholick a consent to the truth of it But in earnest Sir is the Doctrine true or false Nay Sir I beseech you to excuse me in that for as he saith afterwards about the Popes power 〈◊〉 absolving Subjects I beg leave to wave such curious controversieâ— What a Jesuit beg leave to wave curious controversies What is become 〈◊〉 all their vast Tomes of Scholastical anâ— Casuistical Divinity Are no curious controversies handled in them Anâ— were you bred up among them and yet haâ—â— controversies meerly because curious No no We understand you better than so That is only a curious controversies with you which endangers your safety if you speak out for it is a needless kind of curiosity for a man to betray himself Here in these practical Countries it is sometimes dangerous speaking Truth in their sense but at such a speculative place as Rome is there those may be wholesome and Catholick Truths which â—ere are but niceties and curiosities But doth he not say the Jesuits have solemnly renounced the Doctrine Yes but have a care how far you believe him we poor simple Islanders might understand by this that they had declared it to be false and pernicious There is no such matter I will assure you but upon the stirrs in France they renounced the publishing it they renounced it as they were in France but thought it good Doctrine at Rome they are forbidden to treat any more of it because of the odiousness of it to Princes and that is all the renouncing they ever meant The third Principle is the lawfulness of killing Kings as to which he saith he cannot name the person that ever taught it in those Terms a good reason for that because when they would have them killed they call them Tyrants And so grants Dominicus Soto and Marian have asserted it he might have namse more if he had pleased I could not desâ— a more pleasant task than to pursue 〈◊〉 through the remainder of his discourse wherein he undertakes to vindicate the Jesuits practices but these have been much exposed by men of their own Region that I may spare my pains in thâ— Preface and we may easily guess hâ— hard he was put to it when he makâ— the letter of the Bishop of Angelopol to be forged at Port-Royal by the Jaâ— senists And thus he hath shifted 〈◊〉 fault from the Indies to Europe 〈◊〉 to vindicate some Papists there freâ— Idolatry he charges others here with forgeâ— And â—et to this as a full Answer the 〈◊〉 Ansâ—erer of the Seasonable Discourâ— doth referr us And out of his admiral learning and skill in History desires 〈◊〉 Adversary for his satisfaction that the can be no danger of Resuming Abby Lanâ— of Popery should return to go into Germany where there are so many Papist and Protestant Princes Noble men and Gentlemen that have especially since the Treaty at Munster either Bishopricks Abbeys or the like confirmed to them by the Pope How confirmed to them by the Pope what will not these men dare to say I perceive Ignorance serves them for other purposes than meerly to be the Mother of Devotion If at least this worthy Author could be Ignorant of so notorious a thing as Pope Innocents Bull published on purpose to Null the Treaty at Munster as prejudicial to the Catholick Religion to the Apostolical See to Churches and other Holy Places and Persons and Ecclesiastical Rights In the body of the Bull he saith that his Nuncio there who was afterwards Pope Alexander the seveth did protest against these Articles as void null unjust and agreed upon by persons that had no