infallible assistance to the Guides of the Church in all Ages for the conduct of those who live in it For if he hath not my Adversary cannot deny but the Principles laid down by me must hold For in case there be no infallibility in the Guides of the Church every one must be left to the use of his own understanding proceeding in the best manner to find out what the Will of God is in order to salvation We do not now dispute concerning the best helps for a person to make use of in a matter of this nature but the Qâ—estion is whether a man ought to resign his own judgement to that of the Church which pretends to be infallible as to all necessaries for salvation or supposing no such infallibility whether a person using his Faculties in the best manner about the sense of Scriptures with the helps of divine Grace may not have sufficient certainty thereby what things are required of him in order to happiness Hereby I exclude nothing that may tend to the right use of a mans understanding in these things whether it be the direction of Pastors the decrees of Councils the sense of the Primitive Church or the care industry and sincerity of the Enquirer but supposing all these whether by not believing the Guides of the Church to be infallible the foundation of this persons faith can be nothing else but a trembling Quicks and as N. O. speaks in his Preface only from the supposing an errability in the Guides of Gods Church And a little after he lays down that as his fundamental Principle that the only certain way not to be misled will be the submitting our internal assent and belief to Church Authority or as he elsewhere speaks to the infallible Guideship of Church Goverâ—ors Here then two Questions necessarily arise 1. Whether there can be no certainty of Faith without this infallibility 2. What certainty there is of this infallibility 1. Whether there can be no certainty of Faith without Infallibility in the Guides of the Church and submitting our internal assent and belief to them For the clearing of this we must consider what things are agreed upon between us that by them we may proceed to the resolution of this Question 1. It is I suppose agreed That every man hath in him a faculty of discerning of truth and falshood 2. That this Faculty must be used at least in the choice of infallible Guide for otherwise a man must be abused with every pretence of Infallibility and George Fox may as well be followed as the Pope of Rome and to what purpose are all prudential motives and arguments for Infallibility if a man must not judge whether they be good or no i. e. sufficient to prove the thing 3. That God is not wanting in necessaries to the salvation of mankind 4. That the Books of Scripture received on both sides do contain in them the Will of God in order to salvation 5. That all things simply necessary to salvation are contained therein which is a concession mentioned before These things being supposed the Question now is Whether a person not relying on the infallibility of a Church may not be certain of those things which are contained in those Books in order to Salvation For of those ouâ— present enquiry is and not about the sense of the more difficult and controverted places and if we can make it appear that men may be certain as to matters of salvation without infallibility let them prove if they can the necessity of infallibility for things which are not necessary to salvation But of the sense of Scripture in those things afterwards I now enquire into the certainty men may attain to of the necessaries to salvation in Scripture and concerning this I laid down this Proposition Although we cannot argue against any particular way of Revelation from the necessary Attributes of God yet such a way as writing being made choice of by him we may justly say that it is repugnant to the nature of the design and the Wisdom and Goodness of God to give infallible assistance to persons in writing his Will for the benefit of Mankind if those Writings may not be understood by all persons who sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary for their salvation This Principle he saith is unsound which if he can prove I may have more reason to question it than I yet have And I assure him I expect no mean proofs to shake my belief of a principle of so great importance to the Christian Religion For it being granted by him that all things simply necessary to salvation are contained in the Books of Scripture I desire to know whether things simply necessary ought not to be delivered with greater plainness than things which are not so Whether God appointing the Evangelists and Apostles to write these things did not intend that they should be so expressed as they might most easily be understood Whether our Saviours own Sermons vere capable of being understood by those who heard them without some infallible Interpreter Whether the Evangelists did not faithfully deliver our Saviours Doctrine If they did how that comes to be obscure now which was plain then so that either Christ himself must be charged with not speaking the Will of God plainly or the Evangelists cannot be charged with not expressing it so There are no other Books in the World that I know of that need an infallible Interpreter and we can tell certainly enough what any other Religion requires supposing it to be written in the same way that the Christian is Is it not possible for a man to be certain what the Law of Moses required of the People of Israel by reading the Books of that Law without some infallible Guides Do the ten Commandments need an Infallible Comment Or can we have now no certainty of the meaning of the Levitical Law because there is no High-priest or Sanhedrin to explain it And if it be possible to understand the necessaries of that dark dispensation in comparison with the Gospel are oâ—r eyes now blinded with too much light Is not Christianity therefore highly recommended to us in the New Testament because of the clearness and perspicuity wherein the Doctrines and Precepts thereof are delivered And yet after all this cannot the most necessary parts of it he understood by those who sincerely endeavour to understand them By which sincere endeavour we are so far from excluding any useful helps that we always suppose them The sâ—m then of what he is to confute is this that although the Apostles and Evangelists did deliver the Mind of God to the World in their Writings in order to the salvation of Mankind although they were inspired by an infinite Wisdom for this end although all things simply necessary to Salvation are contained in their Writings although a Person useth his sincere endeavour by all Moral helps and the
fob us off with the consent of the Roman Faction for the Vniversal Church nor of some latter ages for a Tradition from Apostolical times nor of a packed Company of Bishops for a truly General Council And thus much may now serve to clear that important Controversie about the sense of Scripture in doubtful places The last thing to be considered is whether the same arguments which overthrow infallibility do likewise destroy all Church-Authority For this is by N. O. frequently objected against me for he saith thus it happens more than once in these Principles laid down by me that in 100 forward a zeal in demolishing the one viz. Church Infallibility the other is also dangerously undermined viz. Church-Authority And therefore out of his singular regard to the good of our Church he saith it concerns my Superior to look to it whether their Churches and their own Authority suffers no detriment from my Principles and again he saith my Principles against Infallibility conclude the uselessness of any Ecclesiastical Authority to teach men as of an Infallible to assure men of the truth of those things which by using only their own sincere endeavour they may know without them And lastly he saith my Principles afford no effectual way or means of suppressing or convicting any Schism Sect or Heresie or reducing them either to submission of judgement or silence And therefore he desires the prudent to consider whether the Authority of the Church of England is not much debilitated and brought into contempt and daily like to wane more and more by this new taken up way of its Defence My Answer is that I have carefully examined and searched my Principles and find no such Gunpowder in them for blowing up Authority either of Church or State For all that I can discover they are very innocent and harmless and if all other mens had been so we had never heard so much talk of this way of undermining and blowing up But is it not a pleasant thing to see all of a sudden what zeal these men discover for the preservation of our Churches Authority Alas good men It grieves them at the very heart to see the Authority of our Church weakned and that by its own members What would not they do for the strengthening and upholding of it What pity it is such a Church should not stand whose very enemies take such care for its preservation And are so ready to discover the plâ—ts of its own children against it Bâ—t to be â—ure there is mischief intended when enemies discover it not by those whom they accuse but by the honest Informers who would be content to hold their peace if they thought they could not sow mischief by pretending to discover it It is a pretty plot to make those who design to defend our Church to be the underminers of it and the most professed Enemies its surest Friends But such plots are too fine to hold and too thin not to be seen through How is it I beseech N. O. that my principles undermine all Church Authority Have I any where made the Church a meer shadow and an insignificant Cypher a Society depending only on the pleasure of men for its subsistence and Authority This had been indeed to the purpose but not the least word tending that way can be drawn out of any Principles of mine For I verily believe that the Church is a Society instituted by Christ himself and invested with Authority necessary for its Government and preservation But though I cannot deny such an Authority I may render it wholly useless I cannot conceive any such malignant influence in any Principles of mine but if there be it must be from one of these things 1. Either because I deny Infallibility in the Guides of the Church Or 2. Because I say that the Scriptures are plain in things necessary to salvation Or 3. Because I deny the Authority of the Church of Rome Or 4. Because I am not for such an effectual way of suppressing Sects and Heresies as is in use in the Roman Church But I hope to make it appear that none of these do in the least tend to weaken or bring into contempt the Church of Englâ—nds authority nor the just Authority of any Church in the World 1. Not the denial of Infallibility This N. O. seems to suppose to be the very Faux in the Gunpowder Plot the instrument of setting all on Fire But is there any thing peculiar to my Principles herein Have not all who have written against the Church of Rome opposed the pretence of Infallibility how then come my principles to be of so mischievous a nature above others But I pray Sir are Authority and Infallibility all one in your account We suppose that Magistrates and Parents and Masters have all of them an unquestionable Authority but I never heard yet of any man that said they wre infallible or that there was no ground to obey them if they were not Why may we not then allow any Authority belonging to the Governours of the Church and yet think it possible for them to be deceived Is this a sufficient reason for any man to cast off his subjection to his Prince because it 's possible he may require something unlawful or to disobey his Parents because they do not sit in an infallible chair or to slight his Master because he is not Pope These are strange ways of arguing about matters of Religion which are ridiculous in any other case If the possibility of being deceived destroys no other Authority in the world why should it do that of the Church The Magistrate does not lose his Authority though we say we are to obey God rather than men and consequently to examine whether the Laws of men are not repugnant to the Laws of God which implys that he may require what it is our duty not to do The Authority of Parents is not destroyed because in some cases we are bound to disobey them when they command men to destroy or rise up in arms against their Soveraign How comes it then to pass that all Church-Authority is immediately gone if we do but suppose a possibility of errour in those which have it But it may be said it is their office to be Guides and if we do not follow them absolutely we renounce them from being our Guides To which I answer there are two sorts of persons that stand in need of Guides the blind and the Ignorant the blind must follow their Guides because of an incapacity of seeing their way the Ignorant for want of Instruction Yet neither of these are bound to believe their Guides Infallible and to follow them at all adventures For even the blind by their own sad experience of frequent falling into ditches or knocking their heads against Posts may have reason to question if not the skill yet the sincerity of their Guides and though they must have some may seek new ones The ignorant follow
hath revealed his Will to us by any supernatural means Let this be granted saith he From whence it follows that we have sufficient certainty of the Principles of Natural Religion without any such thing as Infallibility 2. He yields That Reason is to be judge concerning divine Revelation which appears by the next Proposition Nothing ought to be admitted for Divine Revelation which overthrows the certainty of those Principles which must be antecedently supposed to all Divine Revelation for that were to overthrow the means whereby we are to judge concerning the truth of any Divine Revelation Of which he saith Let this also be granted 3. He yields That the Will of God may be sufficiently declared to men by writing for he grants the tenth Proposition which is this If the Will of God cannot be sufficiently declared to men by writing it must either be because no writing can be intelligible enough for that end or that it can never be known to be written by men infallibly assisted the former is repugnant to common sense for words are equally capable of being understood spoken or written the latter overthrows the possibility of the Scriptures being known to be the Word of God This saith he is granted 4. He yields That the written will of God doth contain all things simply necessary to salvation For in his consideration of the 14. Proposition these are his words Mean while as touching the Perfection of holy Scriptures Catholicks now as the holy Fathers anciently do grant that they contain all points which are simply necessary to be of all persons believed for attaining salvation 5. He yields That no person is infallibly certain of or in his Faith because the Proponent thereof is infallible unless he also certainly know or have infallible evidence that he is infallible only he adds That for begetting an infallible assent to the thing proposed it is sufficient if we have an infallible evidence either of the thing proposed or of the Proponent only Which is all I desire as to this matter But he quarrels with me for saying Proposition 21. It is necessary therefore in order to an infallible assent that every particular person be infallibly assisted in judging of the matters proposed to be believed Because saith he it is not necessary to have an infallible evidence of the truth of the things proposed i. e. from the internal principles that prove or demonstrate them but it is enough that he have an infallible or sufficiently certain evidence only of the infallibility of the external Proponent Where there are two things to be taken notice of 1. That by the matters proposed to be believed he would seem to understand me only of the things that are to be believed by vertue of any Proponent supposed infallible whereas I meant it of all such things to which an infallible assent is required and chiefly of that by which we are to believe the things revealed as for instance that the Church is infallible is in the first place to be believed upon their principles and either an infallible assent is required to this or not if not then infallibility is not necessary to faith if it be then this infallible assent must be built on an infallibility antecedent to that of the Church and then my consequence necessarily follows that the ground on which a necessity of some external infallible Proponent is asserted must rather make every particular person infallible if no divine Faith can be without an infallible assent and so renders any other Infallibility useless 2. That he explains infallible evidence by that which is sufficiently certain which is meer shuffling for he knows well enough that we contend for sufficiently certain evidence as much as they our only Question is about infallibility whether that be necessary or no If sufficiently certain evidence will serve for the Churches Infallibility why may it not for the Scriptures or any matters of Faith contained therein If they mean no more by Infallibility but sufficient certainty why do they make so great a noise about it as though there could be no Faith and we no Christians without Infallibility when we all say that the matters of Faith have sufficient certainty nay the highest which such things are capable of Is infallible Faith come to be sufficiently certain only for all that I know an infallible Pope may by such another explication become like one of us 6. He yields That a right and saving faith may be without any infallible assurance concerning the Churches Infallibility Which he saith is abundantly declared by Catholick Writers I only desire to know why a like right and saving faith may not be had concerning the Scriptures without their Churches infallibility For from hence it follows that an infallible assent is not requisite to saving faith directly contrary to my former Adversary E. W. for one saith it is necessary to faith and the other that it is not But above all how will he ever answer this to Mr. I. S. who hath written a whole Book purposely against this Principle as impious and atheistical Methinks this way of defending the main foundation of their Faith by Principles so directly contradicting one another looks a little scandalously and brings an odd suspition upon their Cause as if it were very hard to be made good when our Adversaries cannot agree by which of two quite contrary Principles it was best be maintained 7. He yields That the utmost assurance a man can have of the Churches Infallibility is only moral but to make it up he calls it a moral infallibility which how strangely soever it sounds yet his meaning is good for it is such an infallibility as is not infallibility Hath the dispute been thus long among us whether infallibility be necessary or no to faith and now at last one comes and tells us Yes surely a moral infallibility is necessary I have heard of a hoâ— dispute between two Gentlemen about Transubstantiation very earnest they were on both sides at last another falls into their company and asked them what it was they were about they told him Transubstantiation very well said he but I pray tell me what you mean by it one said it was standing at the Eucharist and the other kneeling Much such another explication is this here of Infallibility only this is somewhat worse for it is joyning two words together which destroy each other for if it be only moral Certainty it is not infallible if it be infallible it cannot be barely moral I expect to hear shortly of an accidental Transubstantiation a co-ordinate Supremacy as well as a moral Infallibility But we are to suppose that by Infallibility he means no more than Certainty because he explains it by the Certainty of universal Tradition this were well enough if in the precedent Page he had not said That a particular person may be infallible in the assent he gives to some matter proposed viz. to this
added to it But since he produces no other proof for it I must consider how he goes about to weaken mine against it Two things I insisted upon against such a pretence of Infallibility viz. That such a pretence implying an Infallible Assistance of the Spirit of God there were but two ways of proving it either 1. By such miracles as the Apostles wrought to attest their infallibility or 2. By those Scriptures from whence this Infallibility is derived Concerning both these I laid down two Propositions 1. Concerning the Proof by miracles The Proposition was this There can be no more intollerable usurpation on the Faith of Christians than for any Person or Society of men to pretend to an Assistance as Infallible in what they propose as was in Christ or his Apostles without giving an equal degree of evidence that they are so assisted as Christ and his Apostles did viz. by miracles as great publick and convincing as theirs were by which I mean such as are wrought by those very persons who challenge this Infallibility and with a design for the conviction of those who do not believe it To this he answers 1. That I am equally obliged to produce miracles for the Churches Infallibility in Fundamentals which I had asserted in the defence of the Archbishop But this admits a very easie answer for when I speak of Infallibility in Fundamentals I there declare that I mean no more by it than that there shall be always a number of true Christians in the World And what necessity is there now of miracles for men to believe since they receive the doctrine of the Gospel upon those miracles by which it was at first attested Neither is there any need of miracles to shew that any number of men are not guilty of an actual errour in what they believe supposing they declare to believe only on the account of that divine Revelation which is owned by Christians for in this case the trial of doctrine is to be by Scripture But in case any persons challenge an Infallibility to themselves antecedently to the belief of Scriptures and by vertue of which they say men must believe the Scriptures then I say such persons are equally bound to prove their infallibility by miracles as the Apostles were 2. Not resting in this he proceeds to another answer the sum of which is That the Infallibility of the Church not being so large or so high as the Apostles but consisting only in the Infallible delivery of the same doctrine there is no necessity of miracles in the present Church To this I answer That the doctrine of the Gospel may be said to be new two ways 1. In respect of the matter contained in it and so it was new only when it was first revealed 2. In respect of the person who is to believe it so it is new in every age to those who are first brought to believe it Now the Apostles had their infallibility attested by miracles not barely with a respect to the revelation of new matter for then none would have needed miracles but Christ himself or the Apostles that made the first Sermons for afterwards the matter was not new but the necessity of miracles was to give a sufficient motive to believe to all those to whom the Gospel was proposed and therefore miracles are said to be a a sign to unbelievers For by these Unbelievers were convinced that there was sufficient ground for receiving the doctrine of the Gospel on the Authority of those who delivered it God himself bearing them witness with divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost Suppose then any of the Apostles after their first preaching continued only to inculcate the same doctrine for the conversion of more Unbelievers in this case the evidence of miracles was the reason of relying on the Authority of those persons for the truth of the Doctrine delivered by them From whence it follows that where the Christian Faith is to be received on the Authority of any persons in any Age those persons ought to confirm that Authority by miracles as the Apostles did For without this there can be no such Authority whereon to rely antecedently to the embracing the Christian Faith Now this is the case of the Church of Rome they pretend not to deliver any Doctrine wholly new but what was one way or another delivered by Christ and his Apostles although we therein charge them with fraud and falshood but yielding this yet they contend that no man can have sufficient ground for believing the Word of God but from their Churches Infallibility in this case it is plain that they make their Churches Infallibility to be as much the reason of persons believing as the Infallibility of the Apostles in their time was and therefore I say they ought to prove this Infallibility in the same way and by miracles as great publick and convincing as the Apostles did 3. Yet he is very loath to let go the miracles of their Church done in later times as well as formerly It would be too large a task in this place to examine the miracles of the Roman Church that may be better done on another occasion all that I have here to say is that all the miracles pretended among them signifie nothing to our present purpose unless those miracles give evidence of the Authority and Infallibility of those by whom they were done and they would do well to shew where ever in Scripture God did bestow a gift of miracles upon any but for this end and what reason there is that God should alter the method and course of his providence in a matter of so great concernment to the Faith of Mankind Such miracles as were wrought by Christ and his Apostles we defie all other Religions in the World to produce any like them to confirm their Doctrine but such as the Church of Rome pretends scarce any Religion in the World but hath pretended to the same And for his most credible Histories he vouches for them I hope he doth not mean the Church History written by S. C. nor any other such Legends among them if he doth I assure him they have a very easie Faith that think them credible And if all miracles that are so called by those among whom they are done be an Argument as he saith of the security of salvation in the Communion and Faith of that Church wherein they are done I hope he will be so just to allow the same to the Arrians Novatians Donatists and others who all pretend to miracles as well as the Church of Rome as any one that is versed in Church-History may easily see But of this more at large elsewhere 2. Concerning the proof of Infallibility from Scripture I said down this Proposition Nothing can be more absurd than to pretend the necessity of such an infallible commission and assistance to assure us of the truth of those Writings and to interpret them
Persons do not allow the Scripture then we are to proceed by the best means we can have without it viz. The tradition of Apostolical Churches from the beginning if they do allow the Scripture then we are to examine and compare places of Scripture with all the care and judgement that may be If after all this the dispute still continues then if it be against the ancient Rule of Faith universally received that is a sufficient prescription against any opinion if not against the Rule of Faith in express words but about the sense of it then if ancient General Councils have determined it which had greater opportunities of knowing the sense of the Apostolical Church than we it is reasonable we should yield to them but if there have been none such then the unanimous consent of Fathers is to be taken so it be in some late and upstart heresies which men pretend to have by Revelation or some special Grace of God Now either all these means were sufficient or not to find out the sense of Scripture if not then the ancient Church was wholly defective and wanted any certain way of finding out the sense of Scripture if these were sufficient then there is no necessity of infallibility in the Guides of the Church to give us a certain sense of Scripture which was the thing to be proved But N. O. towards the conclusion of his Book produces St. Augustin for the Churches Infallibility in delivering the sense of Scripture in obscure places which being contrary to what I have already said concerning him must be examined before I conclude this discourse about the sense of Scripture The place is out of his Answer to Cresconius concerning the obscure point of Rebaptization in these words since the holy Scripture cannot deceive let whosoever is in fear of being deceived by the obscurity of this Question consult the same Church about it which Church the holy Scripture doth without all ambiguity demonstrate And before the truth of the Holy Scriptures is held by us in this matter when we do that which hath pleased the Vniversal Church which the Authority of the Scripture does commend c. All which is false and said to no purpose saith N. O. if the Scripture be not clear in this that this Church can determine nothing in such important contests contrary to the verity of the Scriptures and that we ought to give credit to what she decides for then it would not be true what he says the truth of the same Scripture in this matter is held by us and he who is in fear of being deceived by the obscurity of this Question is no way relieved in following the sentence of the Churth To which I answer That St. Augustin doth not suppose that men cannot attain to any certainty of the the sense of Scripture in this matter without the Churches Infallibility for he saith in the Chapter preceding that in this matter we follow the most certain Authority of Canonical Scriptures but he puts the case that no certain example could be produced out of Scripture then he saith they had the truth of the Scriptures when they do that which pleased the Vniversal Church c. For the explaining St. Augustins meaning we are to consider that there were two Controversies then on foot in the Church with the Donatists the one concerning Rebaptization the other concerning the Church the former he looks upon as more intricate and obscure by reason not only of the doubtfulness of Scripture but the Authority of about seventy Bishops of Africa who had determined for it among whom St. Cyprian was chief which we see in all his disputes with the Donatisis on this subject he is very much perplexed with therefore St. Augustin finding that Controversie very troublesome was willing to bring it to that issue that what the Catholick Church after so much discussing the point had agreed upon should be received as the truth By this means the dispute would be brought to that other Question which he thought much more easie viz. Which was the true Church the Catholick or the Donatists but by no means doth St. Augustin hereby intend to make the Churches Authority to resolve all doubts concernig Scriptures but he thought it much easier to prove by Scripture which was the true Church than whether rebaptization were lawful or not And accordingly his very next words are but if you doubt whether the Vniversal Church be that which the Scripture commends I will load you with many and most manifest Testimonies of Scripture to that end Which is the design of his Book of the Vnity of the Church wherein he shews That those Testimonies of Scripture which speak of the Universality of the Church are very plain and clear and needed no interpretation at all that in this case we are not to regard what Donatus or Parmenianus or Pontius hath said for neither saith he are we to yield to Catholick Bishops themselves if they be at any time so much deceived as to hold what is contrary to Canonical Scriptures By which it is evident that he supposed no infallibility in the Guides of the Church And in terms he asserts that the Church is to be proved by nothing but plain Scriptures neither by the Authority of Optatus or St. Ambrose or innumerable Bishops nor Councils nor Miracles nor visions and Revelations whatever N. O. thinks of them now St. Augustin supposing there was much less ambiguity in Scripture in the Controversie of the Church than in that of Rebaptization he endeavours to bring them to a resolution in the other point for the clearing of this and so he only pursues the method laid down in the Books of Christian Doctrine to make use of plainer places of Scripture to give light to the darker And when they were convinced by Scripture that the Catholick Church was the true Church of Christ he doth not question but they would follow that which was the sentence of the Catholick Church But here lyes the main difficulty on what account the sentence of the Church was to be followed In order to the resolution of it we must take notice of these things 1. That all the proofs which St. Augustin brings for the Church do relate only to the extent and Vniversality of it and not to any Infallibility that is promised to it as will easily appear to any one that will read his discourses on that subject against the Donatists 2. That he asserts no infallibility in the highest Authority of the Church which in many places of his Books of Baptism against the Donatists he makes to be a Plenary or General Council whose Authority he saith was to be preferred before that of St. Cyprian or any particular Councils either in his time or before it which he calls the Authority and decrees of the Vniversal Church So that we see he resolves all the Authority of the Church in this matter into that of a General
of our Church But saith T. C. the subscribing the Book of Homilies as containing a godly and wholesome Doctrine doth not evince that every particular Doctrine contained in it is such Be it so but I hope it doth evince that the Subscribers did not think the main Doctrine of any one Homily to be false Surely there is a great deal of difference between some particular passages and expressions in these Homilies and that which is the main design and Foundation of any one of them But in this case we are to observe that they who deny the Church of Rome to be guilty of Idolatry do not only look on the Charge as false but as of dangerous Consequence and therefore although men may subscribe to a Book in general as containing wholesome and godly Doctrine though they be not so certain of the Truth of every passage in it yet they can never do it with a good conscience if they believe any great and considerable part of the Doctrine therein contained to be false and dangerous Such a subscription would be as apparently shuffling and dishonest as is the evasion of this Testimony which T. G. makes use of for want of a better I shall in the next place shew the current Doctrine of the Church ever since the Reformation to have been agreeable to this Homily of the Peril of Idolatry In the Injunctions published by K. Edward VI. A. D. 1547. the extirpation of Popery is called the suppression of Idolatry and Superstition In the second year of Edward VI. Arch-bishop Cranmer published his Articles of Visitation whereof the 6. and the last are about the taking away Images Pictures and all other Monuments of feigned miracles Pilgrimages Idolatry and Superstition In the second Liturgy by Edward VI. after the Communion was a Rubrick annexed in which the Adoration of the Host is expresly called Idolatry This is that very Rubrick of which T. G. according to his excellent skill in the offices of our Church saith it is not yet more then a dozen years since it was inserted into the Communion Book which he might have found above a 100. years before in the Book of Edward VI. In the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth A. D. 1559. Art 2. and 23. all Shrines Tables Pictures c. are commanded to be taken away and destroyed and all other Monuments of feigned miracles Idolatry and Superstition And that 〈◊〉 may not think it was only a sudden heaâ— at the first Reformation which made theâ— charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry long after in A form of Thanksgiving in the 37. of Queen Elizabeth A. D. 1594. Popery is called that Idolatrous Religion as it was in the Beginning of her Reign in the excellenâ— Apology for the Church of England And I desire him or any one else 〈◊〉 produce any one Bishop or Divine of notâ— in the Church of England who during all hâ—r Reign did deny the Church of Rome to be guilty of Idolatry But why then was it not inserted in the 39. Articles in which T. G. observes the Adoration of Images is not rejected as Idolatry but only as a fond thing vainly invented nor as repugnant to the plain words of Scripture but as being rather repugnant to the word of God which plainly gives us to understand that they had done their endeavours to find a command but could not A most ingenious Criticism when himself and all others of their Divines yield that adoration of images which our Church charges them with Art 22. viz. not barely worshipping but adoration of images to be Idolatry and plainly repugnant to Scripture Were the composers of our Articles so sensless as not to think Idolatry repugnant to Scripture or not to think adoration of images to be Idolatry or not to think the Church of Rome guilty of it when the Article saith The Romish Doctrine concerning worshipping and adoration as well of Images as of Reliques c It is not meerly the practice used in the Church of Rome but their very Doctrine concerning adoration of images which is here charged and can any Church teach adoration of images and not be guilty of Idolatry And for his Criticism about being rather repugnant it had been utterly lost if he had looked into the Latin Articles where the words are immo verbo Dei contradicit whereby it appears that rather is not used as a term of diminution but of a more vehement affirmation I now come to the exceptions he takes to the particular Testimonies I produced of the most eminent Bishops and Divines of our Church ever since the Reformation who have all concurred in this charge of Idolatry Two parts in three he excepts against as incompetent witnesses in the case how few of the Iury would any Malefactor allow if such frivolous exceptions might serve his turn The two first he excepts against are the two Arch-Bishops Whitgift and Abbot as Puritanically inclined But as it unhappily falls out one of them was never mentioned by me and the other never till now suspected for a Puritan The Abbot I mentioned was not George Abbot Arch-Bishop of Canterbury but Robert Abbot Bishop of Salisbury and it is the first time we ever heard that a Bishop of Salisbury was suspended from his Metropolitical jurisdiction But they of the Church of Rome have a faculty of doing greater wonders with five words than Changing a Bishop into an Arch-Bishop I hope he understands the Church he is of better than that he hath left or else we are like to have a sad account of History from him But why I beseech you after all his zeal and indefatigable pains for the Church of England must Arch-Bishop Whitgift be thrown away to the Puritans If he had proved T. C. at the same time Arch-Bishop of Canterbury there might have been some reason to suspect Whitgift to have been of the Puritan side for all the world know they were greaâ— adversaries on that very account of thâ— Puritan cause But was not Whitgiâ—â— for the Lambeth Articles And whâ— then Are the Dominicans Puritans and no Papists If your Church may havâ— liberty not to determin those nice points why may not ours and so both parties remain of our Church as long as they contradict no received Articles among us But the Lambeth-Articles were neveâ— intended for any more than as Responsâ— Prudentum to silence disputes in the university And I believe none of the Puritan party after that took Arch-Bishop Whitgift to be a Patron of theiâ— cause But if these will not serve his turn 〈◊〉 have others ready whom for meer shamâ— he will not say were Puritans or Puritanically inclined And the first of these is an Arch-Bishop too and that is Arch-Bishop Bancroft and if he be cast out for a Puritan surely there never was any Bishop of the Church of England In his Sermon preached at Pauls Cross on 1 John 4. 1. he hath these words speaking of the Papists The Popish false Prophets
man once contradict himself he is to be looked on as a perjured person and whatever he saith his word is not to be taken This he not only begins with but very triumphantly concludes with it in these words and this alone may suffice to annul whatever he has hitherto or shall hereafter object against us for a witness who has been once palpably conuinced to have forsworn or contradicted himself in matters of moment besides the condign punishment he is lyable unto he does vacate all evidences produced by him against his Adversary and deserves never more to be heard against him in any Tribunal I see now what it is they would be at no less than perpetual silence and being set in the Pillory with that Pamphlet on my forehead Dr. Still against Dr. Still for being guilty of contradicting my self would satisfie I. W. and his Friends This I suppose was the meaning of stopping my mouth for ever when this Answer was to come out But now I perceive it is so dangerous a thing I had best stand upon my defence and utterly deny that I have contradicted my self in any thing in which I. W. hath charged me 2. To make it then out that this is a groundless charge I must go through the several particulars insisted on The first is in the charge of Idolatry but how do I contradict my self about this had I vindicated the Church of Rome from Idolatry in my Defence of Arch-bishop Laud this had been indeed to contradict my self but this is not so much as pretended and if it were nothing could be more easily confuted for in that very Book as it falls out very happily there is a discourse to the same purpose proving the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry in Invocation of Saints and the worship of Images and that the Heathen in the worship of inferiour Deities and Images might be excused on the same grounds that those of the Church of Rome do excuse themselves Here is then no appearance of a contradiction in terms and it is only pretended to be by consequence viz. from yielding that the Church of Rome and we do not differ in Fundamental points and that the Church of Rome is therefore a true Church from whence he inferrs that it cannot be guilty of Idolatry because to teach that would be a Fundamental errour and inconsistent with the Being of a true Church and therefore to charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry and to allow it to be a true Church is a contradiction This is the substance of what he saith upon this head to which I shall answer by shewing 1. That this way of answering is very disingenuous 2. That it is Sophistical and proves not the thing which he intends 1. That it is a disingenuous way because he barely opposes a judgement of charity concerning their Church to a judgement of reason concerning the nature of actions without at all examining the force of those reasons which are produced in the Book he pretends to answer Can I. W. imagine that any one who enquires into the safest way for his salvation and hears the Church of Rome charged with Idolatry in her worship by arguments drawn from the plain Law of God the common sense of mankind the repugnancy of their way of worship to the conceptions we ought to have of the divine nature the consent of the ancient Christian Church the parity of the case in many respects with the Heathen Idolaters should presently conclude that all these arguments are of no force meerly because the person who made use of them had upon another occasion judged so charitably of that Church as to suppose it still to retain the essentials of a true Church I will put a case paralled to this suppose one of the Church of Iudah should have call'd the Church of Israel in the time of Ieroboam a true Church because they acknowledged the true God and did believe an agreement in that common acknowledgement to be sufficient to preserve the essentials of a Church among them and afterwards the same person should go about to convince the ten Tribes of their Idolatry in worshipping God by the Calves of Dan and Bethel would this be thought a sufficient way of answering him to say that he contradicted himself by granting them a true Church and yet charging them with Idolatry whereas the only true consequence would be that he thought some kind of Idolatry consistent with the Being of a Church Might not such a person justly say that they made a very ill use of his charity when he supposed only that kind of Idolatry which implyes more Gods than one to unchurch a people but however those persons were more concerned to vindicate themselves from Idolatry of any kind than he was to defend his charitable opinion of them and if they could prove to him that this inferiour sort of Idolatry does unchurch them as well as the grosser the consequence of it would be that his charity must be so much the less but their danger would be the same This is just our case with the Church of Rome we acknowledge that they still retain the Fundamental articles of the Christian faith that there is no dispute between them and us about the true God and his Son Iesus Christ as to his death resurrection glory and being the proper object of divine worship we yield that they have true Baptism among them in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and we looking upon these as the essentials of a true Church do upon that account own that Church to be so but then we charge the Roman Church with gross corrupting that Worship which is proper to the divine nature by her worship of Images adoration of the Host and Invocation of Saints which being done not in express terms against the worship of the true God but by consequence we do not think this doth destroy the Being of a Church among them although it makes the salvation of persons in her communion extreamly hazardous and after we have gone about to prove this by many and weighty arguments is it reasonable for any one to tell us that we contradict our selves and therefore our arguments do signifie nothing whereas in truth here is no appearance of a contradiction to that which is our own sense in this matter For what shadow of a contradiction is it to say that the Roman Church is a true Church and yet is guilty of Idolatry supposing that we believe some sort of Idolatry which is very sinful not to be yet of so high a nature as to unchurch those who practise it And we choose the Instance of the ten Tribes for the ground of this charity If they can prove that all sorts of Idolatry do necessarily destroy the essentials of a Church the consequence is we must have less charity for them than we had before And such a concession from us doth not shew their guilt to
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.
Sophister one now comes forth in the habit of a grave Divine whom I shall treat with the respect due to his appearance of Modesty and Civility I pass by therefore all those unhandsome reflections in his Preface which I have not already answered in mine and come immediately to the main Controversie between us which I acknowledge to be of so great importance as to deserve a sober debate And the Controversie in short is this Whether Protestants who reject the Roman Churches Authority and Infallibility can have any sufficient Foundation to build their faith upon This we affirm and those of the Church of Rome confidently deny and on this account do charge us with the want of Principles i. e. sufficient grounds for our faith But this may be understood two ways 1. That we can have no certainty of our faith as Christians without their Infallibility 2. Or that we can have no certainty of our faith as Protestants i. e. in the matters in debate between their Church and ours These two ought carefully to be distinguished from each other and although the Principles I laid down do reach to both these yet that they were chiefly intended for the former will appear by the occasion of adding them to the end of the Answer there given The occasion was my Adversaries calling for Grounds and Principles upon which I there say that I would give an account of the faith of Protestants in the way of Principles and of the reason of our rejecting their impositions The first I undertook on two accounts 1. To shew that the Roman Churches Authority and Infallibility cannot be the Foundation of Christian faith and so we may be very good Christians without having any thing to do with the Church of Rome 2. That this might serve as a sufficient answer to a Book entituled Protestants without Principles Which being in some part of it directed against me I had reason not only to lay down those Principles bâ—t to do it in such a manner as did most directly overthrow the principles of that Book Which being only intimated there I must now to make my proceeding more clear and evident produce those assertions of E. W. for which mine were intended In the first Chapter he designs to prove That all men must be infallible in the assent they give to matters of faith For saith he If they disown such infallible believers they must joyntly deny all infallible faith and a little after an Infallible verity revealed to us forcibly requires an answerable and correspondent infallible faith in us and therefore he asserts a subjective Infallibility in true believers And from hence he proves the necessity of Infallible teachers for infallible believers and infallible teachers he saith seem neer correlatives In the second Chapter he saith he that hears an infallible teacher hath the Spirit of truth and he that hears not an infallible teacher wants this Spirit of truth by which he does not mean an infallible Revealer of the doctrine at first but the immediate teachers of the revealed doctrine for saith he no man can be a Heretick that denies the objective verities revealed in Gods word unless he be sure that his teacher reveals those verities infallibly He proposes the objection of a Simplician as he calls him that he builds his faith and Religion not on any Preachers talk but on the objective verities revealed in Scripture to which he answers that unless he first learn of some infallible Oracle the sense of Scripture in controverted places he can never arrive to the depth of Gods true meaning or derive infallible faith from those objective revealed Verities He yet farther asserts that every Catechist or Preacher that hath a lawful mission and is sent by the infallible Church to teach Christs Sacred Doctrine if he Preach that doctrine which Christ and his Church approves of is then under that notion of a member conjoyned with an Infallible Church infallible in his teaching and thence concludes that infallibility doth accompany both teachers and hearers and from denying this Infallibility he saith follows an utter ruine of Christian Religion yea and of Scripture too And afterwards he goes about to prove that no man can have any divine faith without infallibility in the proponent for faith he as long as the Infallibility of a Revelation stands remote from me for want of an undoubted application made by an infallible Proponent it can no more transfuse Certainty into Faith than Fire at a great distance warm This is the sum of the Principles of that Metaphysical wit but sure a man must have his brains well confounded by School Divinity and hard words before he can have common sense little enough to think he understands them But because I never loved to spend time in confuting a man who thinks himself the wiser for speaking things which neither he nor any one else can understand I rather chose in as short a way as I could to put together such Propositions as might give an account of Christian Faith without all this Iargon about Infallibility In order to this I first laid down the Principles wherein all parties are agreed and then such Propositions as I supposed would sufficiently give an account of our faith without any necessity of such an infallibility as he makes necessary for the foundation of it But for our clearer proceeding in an Argument of this importance it will be necessary to state and fix the notion of Infallibility before I come to particulars For as it is used it seems to be a rare word for Iugglers in Divinity to play tricks with for sometimes they apply it to the object that is believed and call that infallibly true sometimes to the subject capable of believing and say persons ought to be infallibly certain that what they believe is infallibly true and sometimes to the means of conveying that infallible truth to the faculties of men and these they say must be infallible or else there can be no infallible certainty of any thing as infallbly true But the subtilty of these things lies only in their obscurity and the School-man is spoiled when his talk is brought down out of the clouds to common sense I will therefore trie to bring these things out of their terms to a plain meaning and surely we may speak and understand each other in these matters without this doubtful term of Infallibility For if it signifies any thing we may make use of the thing it signifâ—es in stead of the word and by applying the thing signified by it to that which it is spoken of we shall soon discern how justly it is attributed to it Infallibile is that which cannot be deceived now if no one will say That a proposition cannot be deceived it is absurd to say that it is infallibly true therefore the matters revealed considered as objective verities as our schoolman speaks are not capable of
that the Church is infallible I would fain understand what this infallible assent is grounded upon and if the evidence be only sufficiently or morally infallible which are his own terms how the assent which is built upon it comes to be more than so It is very pleasant to observe how Mr. Cressey and some other late Writers of their Church are perplexed about this word Infallibility as if they had a Wolf by the ears they cannot tell how to hold it and they are afraid to let it go And very loth is is our N. O. to part with the sound of Infallibility although his own Concessions perfectly overthrow it as will yet further appear by this last viz. 8. That moral Certainty is a sufficient foundation for Faith This will appear by my 27. Proposition which is this The nature of certainty doth receive several names either according to the nature of the proof or the degrees of the Assent Thus Moral Certainty may be so called either as it is opposed to Mathematical evidence but implying a firm assent upon the highest evidence that Moral things can receive Or as it is opposed to a higher degree of Certainty in the same kind so Moral Certainty implies only greater Probabilities of one side than the other In the former sense we assert the certainty of Christian Faith to be Moral but not only in the latter To which he saith This Principle is granted if importing only that Christians have or may have a sufficiently certain and infallible evidence of the truth of their Christianity Whereby it is plain that though he useth the term infallible yet he means no more than I do or else he ought not to have brought that as an explication of my principle which is contrary to it as in this Controversie Moral Certainty is opposed to strict demonstration and Infallibility But if he by infallibility means only sufficient certainty I shall be content for quietness sake that he shall call it Infallibility if he pleases And that he can mean no more by it appears not only by what he hath said before but by what he saith afterwards in these words A Natural or Moral Certainty though not such a one as cannot possibly be false but which according to the Laws of Nature and the common manners and experience of Men is not false is sufficient on which to ground such a faith as God requires of us in respect of that Certainty which can be derived from humane sense or reason and which serves for an introductive to the reliance of this our faith upon such Revelation as is believed by us divine and which if divine we know is not possibly fallible In respect of its relying on which Revelation an infallible object and not for an Infallible Certainty as to the subject it is that this our Faith is denominated a Divine Faith Now this Natural or Moral Certainty is thought sufficient for the first rational Introductive and Security of our Faith not only by the Doctor in his 27. Principle but also by Catholick Divines in their Discourses of the Prudential Motives Very well said and I were a very disingenuous man if I should not heartily thank him for so free a Confession by which if I understand any thing he very fairly gives up the Cause of Infallibility as to the necessity of it in order to Faith As will easily appear by the managing of it so far as I have been concerned in it It is evident to any one that will cast an eye on the Controversie of Infallibility between the Arch-bishop and his Adversaries that it was raised on this account because those of the Church of Rome asserted that the Infallible Testimony of the Church was necessary in order to the believing the Scriptures to be the Word of God and so much is endeavoured to be defended by him who pretended to answer my Lord of Canterburies Book who goes upon this Principle That this is to be believed with a divine Faith and a divine Faith must be built upon an infallible Testimony the falsehood of which I at large shewed in the Discourse of the Resolution of Faith Since the publishing whereof the Metaphysical Gentleman before mentioned pretended to answer that part of it which concerns Infallibility and Moral Certainty Some of his assertions I have laid down already as contrary to this of N. O. as may be for he not only asserts the necessity of Infallibility for a foundation of Christian Faith but spends some Chapters in rambling talk against Moral Certainty The Title of one of which is Faith only Morally Certain is no Faith I desire N. O. and E. W. to agree better before they goe aboâ—â— to confute me and to what purpose shouldâ— trouble my self with answering a man whoâ— Principles the more ingenuous of their owâ— Party disown as well as we For not onâ—â— N. O. here makes Moral Certainty a sufficienâ— ground for Divine Faith but the Guide 1â— Controversies another of my Adversaries aâ—serts the same when he saith And indeeâ— from what is said formerly that a Divine Faith may be had by those who have had 〈◊〉 extrinsecal even morally infallible I see now from whom N. O. learnt these terms motive thereof it follows that Divine Faith doth not resolve into such motives either as the formal cause or always as the applicative introductive or condition of this divine faith And a little after That it is not necessary that such Faith always should have an external rationally infallible ground or motive thereto whether Church Authority or any other on his part that so believes By these concessions it appears that the cause of Infallibility as far as it concerns the necessity of it in order to Faith is clearly given up by these persons and if others be still of another mind among them I leave them to dispute it among themselves Thus far then we are agreed I now come to consider where the controversie still remains and why the rest of my Principles may not pass as well as these In order to this I must by taking a view of his several exceptions and answers draw together a Scheme of those Principles which he sets up in opposition to mine and if I do not very much mistake they may be reduced to these three 1. That God hath given an infallible assistance to the Guides of the Church in all Ages of it for the direction of those who live in it 2. That without this infallible assistance there can be no certainty of the sense of Scripture 3. That all the Arguments which overthrow the Churches Infallibility do destroy the Churches Authority These as far as I can perceive contain the whole force of his Considerations and in the examination of these the remaining discourse must be spent In which I shall have occasion to take notice of whatever is material in his Book 1. The main controversie is whether God hath given an
Divine Grace assisting him to find out in these Writings the things necessary to Salvation yet after all he cannot certainly understand the meaning of them Which to me appears so absurd and monstrous a Doctrine so contrary to the honour of the Scriptures and the design of Christianity that if I had a mind to disparage it I would begin with this and end with Transubstantiation For in earnest Sir did not our Saviour speak intelligibly in matteâ—s of so great importance to the Salvation of Mankind Did he not declare all that was necessary for that end in his many admirable discourses Did not the Evangelists record his words and actions in writing and that as one of them saith expresly That we might believe that Iesus is the Christ the Son of God and that believing we might have life through his name And after all this cannot we understand so much as the common necessaries to salvation by the greatest and most sincere endeavour for that end But it is time now to consider his exceptions against this Principle which are these 1. That God may reveal his mind so in Scripture as that in many things it may be clear only to some persons more versed in the Scriptures and in the Churches Traditional sense of them and more assisted from above according to their imployment which persons he hath appointed to instruct the rest But what is all this to our purpose our Question is not about may be 's and possibilities of things but it is taken for granted on both sides that God hath revealed his mind in writing therefore he need not make the supposition of no writings at all as he doth afterwards the Question is Whether these Writings being allowed for divine revelations of the Will of God he hath expressed the necessaries to salvation clearly therein or not That God may delivers his mind obscurely in many things is no question nor that he may inspire persons to unfold his mind where it is obscure but our question is whether or no these Writings being acknowledged to contain the Will of God it be agreeable with the nature of the design and the Wisdom and Goodness of God for such Writings not to be capable of being understood in all things necessary to salvation by those who sincerely endeavour to understand them But when I had expresly said things necessary for salvation why doth he avoid that which the dispute was about and only say many things in stead of it I do not doubt but there are many difficult places of Scripture as there must be in any ancient Writings penned in an Idiom so very different from ours But I never yet saw one difficulty removed by the pretended Infallible Guides of the Church all the help we have had hath been from meer fallible men of excellent skill in Languages History and Chronology and of a clear understanding and we should be very unthankful not to acknowledge the great helps we have had from them for understanding the difficult places of Scripture But for the Infallible Guides they have dealt by the obscurities of Scripture as the Priest and the Leviâ—e in our Saviours Parable did by the wounded man they have fairly passed them by and taken no care of them If these Guides did believe themselves infallible they have made the least use of their Talent that ever men did they have laid it up in a Napkin and buried it in the earth for nothing of it ever appeared above ground How could they have obliged the World more nay it had been necessary to have done it for the use of their Gift than to have given an Infallible sense of all controverted Places and then there had been but one dispute left whether they were infallible or not but now supposing we believe their Infallibility we are still as far to seek for the meaning of many difficult places And supposing God had once bestowed this Gift of Infallibility upon the Guides of the Church he might most justly deprive them of it because of the no use they have made of it and we might have great reason to believe so from our Saviours words To him that hath shall be given but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath So that not making use of this Talent of Infallibility gives us just reason to question whether God continues it supposing he had once given it to the Guides of the Church since the Apostles days which I see no reason to believe 2. His next exception is from a saying of Dr. Fields who he saith seems to advance a contrary Principle in his Preface to his Books of the Church But O the mischief of Common-place-Books which make men write what they find and not what is to their purpose For after all Dr. Field doth but seem to advance another Principle in his opinion and doth not so much as seem to do it in mine For that learned and judicious Writer sets himself purposely to disprove the Infallibility of the Church in the beginning of his fourth Book and is it probable that any man of common understanding would assert that in his Preface which he had disproved in his Book It is a known distinction in the Church of Rome of the Church Virtual representative and essential by the two first are meant Popes and Councils and of these two Dr. Field saith that they may erre in matters of greatest Consequence yet these are N. O's infallible Guides whose conduct he supposeth men obliged to follow and to yield their internal assent to Concerning the essential Church he saith That it either comprehends all the faithful that are and have been since Christ appeared in the flesh and then he saith it is absolutely free from all errour and ignorance of divine things that are to be known by Revelations or as it comprehends only all those Believers that are and have been since the Apostles times and in this sense he saith the whole Church may be ignorant in sundry things which are not necessary to salvation but he thinks it impossible for the whole Church to erre in anything of this nature But in things that cannot be clearly deduced from the Rule of Faith and word of divine and heavenly Truth we think it possible that all that have written of such things might erre and be deceived But if the Church be taken only as it comprehends the Believers that now are and presently live in the world he saith it is certain and agreed upon that in things necessary to be known and believed expresly and distinctly it never is ignorant much less doth erre Yea in things that are not absolutely necessary to be known and believed expresly and distinctly we constantly believe that this Church can never erre nor doubt pertinaciously but that there shall ever be some found ready to embrace the truth if it be manifested to them and such as shall not wholly neglect the
with in the Field And to speak truth N. O. seems to understand his Art better than to meddle with such heavy and Antique Armour which every one hath been foiled with that hath undertaken to combat with them only it seems a little for the credit of their Cause to point to such a Magazine which in the days of Ignorance and Credulity the Romantick Age of the Church was in great request But we must now buckle our selves to a new manner of Combat which is from the Tradition of the Church and that of the very same nature with what we have for the Canon of Scripture This I confess is bright shining Armour and may do great service if it will hold but that must be judged upon trial which I now set my self to But we shall find that no weapons formed against Truth can prosper and it hath been long observed of Rome that it could never endure a close Siege The Question now is whether they of the Roman Church have the same universal Tradition for the Infallibility of the Guides of it w ch we have for the Canon of Scripture w ch he asserts It is I suppose agreed on both sides That the Tradition on w ch we receive and believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God was universal as to all Ages and Times of the Church that from the beginning all disputes in Religion among true Christians were built upon the supposition of it That in no Age any persons were allowed to be good Christians who made doubt of it That every Age doth afford plentiful testimonies of the belief of it This is that universal Tradition we receive the Scriptures upon and let any thing like this be produced for the Infallibility of the Guides of their Church and we yield up the Cause to them Can any fairer terms than these be desired But we expect proofs and so I perceive we may do to the Worlds end I commend the Ingenuity of N. O. for endeavouring to escape out of the circle any way but I believe they think themselves as wise who still dance within it knowing the impossibility of doing any good in this other way The only Argument he insists upon is so weak that I wonder he had not considered how often it had been answered by their own Writers For it is certain that Provincial Councils as well as General have Anathematized dissenters and pronounced them Hereticks which is his only Argument to prove this Tradition of the Churches Infallibility and they had no way to answer it but by saying this doth not imply their Infallibility And if it doth not in the case of Provincial Councils why should he think it doth in the case of General For the Anathema's of Provincial Councils did not relate to the acceptation of their Decrees either by the Pope or the whole Church as N. O. supposes but did proceed upon their own assurance of the truth of what they decreed otherwise their Anathema's would have been only conditional and not absolute and peremptory as we see they were But I need give no other answer to this Argument than in the words of Dr. Field whom N. O. appealed to before viz. That Councils denounce Anathema not because they think every one that disobeyeth the Decree of the Council to be accursed but because they are perswaded in particular that this is the eternal truth of God which they propose therefore they accurse them that obstinately shall resist as St. Paul willeth every Christian man to Anathematize an Angel coming from heaven if he shall teach him any other doctrine than he hath already learned yet is not every particular Christian free from possibility of erring If the Argument then were good from Anathematizing dissenters and calling them Hereticks every particular person must by it be proved Infallible who are bound to Anathematize even Angels from Heaven in case of delivering any other doctrine from the Gospel so that this which is his only Argument in stead of proving an universal Tradition would prove an universal Infallibility Let the Reader now judge in his Conscience whether here be any thing offered in the way of Tradition for the Churches Infallibility that may bear the least proportion with the Tradition on which we receive the Scriptures And yet if this had been true it had been almost impossible that any one Age should have passed without remarkable testimonies of it For no Age of the Church hath been so happy as not to have occasion for an Infallible Judge of Controversies if any such had been appointed by Christ and therefore it cannot be imagined but that Christians must in all Controversies arising have appealed to him and stood to his determinations which must have been as well known in the practice of the Church as Judges trying Causes in Westminster Hall But I challenge him to produce any one Age since the Apostles times to this day wherein the Infallibility of a standing Judge of Controversies appointed by Christ hath been received by as universal a consent as the Authority of Scripture hath been in that very Age. Nay I except not that Age which hath been since the Council of Trent for the Scriptures of the New Testament have been received of all sides but the Infallibility of a standing Judge is utterly denied by one side and vehemently disputed between several parties on the other Some making only the Essential Church infallible others the representative in Councils others again the virtual viz. the Pope And supposing any infallible Judge necessary it stands to reason it should be rather in one than in a multitude and rather in a constant succession of Bishops in one See than in an uncertain number who cannot be convened together as often as the necessities of the Church may require But this is so far from being received as an Universal Tradition in that very Age wherein we live that onely one busie Party in the Roman Church do maintain it Many others eagerly opposing it and all the Princes and States in Christendom do in their actions if not in words deny it And is not this now an Universal Tradition fit to be matched with that of the Scriptures I had once thought to have brought testimonies oâ—t of every Age of the Christian Church manifestly disproving any such Tradition of Infallibility and that not only of private persons when there were no Councils but from the most solemn Acts of Councils and the confession of their own Writers but that would swell this Answer to too great a Bulk and is not needful where so very little is offered for the proof of it And yet I shall be ready to do it when any thing more important requires it I now return to his exceptions against the latter part of the former proposition viz. That Infallibility in a Body of men is as liable to doubts and disputes as in those Books from whence only they derive their Infallibility The plain meaning of which
joyn with the the Arrians Must he adhere to the Nicene Council but there were more numerous Councils which condemned it What remedy can be supposed in such a case but that every person must search and examine the several doctrines according to his best ability and judge what is best for him to believe and practise No answer can be more absurd in this case than that which some give that Liberius only erred in his External profession of faith and not in the belief of it for we are now speaking of such as are to be Guides to others and on whose direction they are to rely which must be something which may be known to them Supposing then that Liberius when he subscribed and joyned with the Arrians was a Catholick in his heart this takes as much off from the Authority of a Guide as Errour would do For who dare rely upon him who acts against his conscience and believes one way and does another Would any in the Church of Rome think it fit to submit themselves to the direction of such persons whom they were assured did not believe one word of what they professed but joyned in communion with that Church only for some temporal ends But in truth Liberius went so far that Hilary denounces an Anathema against him and all that joyned with him Neither was this the only case of this nature to be supposed for the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon proving ineffectual for the suppression of the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies and rather greater disturbances arising in the Church after the later of these because the writings of Theodorus of Mopsuestia and Theodoret against Cyril and of Ibas to Maris the Pâ—rsian not being therein condemned which were suppoâ—ed to favour the Nestoâ—ian heresy the Nestorians increasing their faction under the Authority of those writings and the Eutychians making that their plea for rejecting that Council because it seemed to favour Nestorianism the Emperour Justinian by the perswasion of Theodorus of Caesarea resolves to have those three Chapters as they were called condemned hoping by this means to perswade the Eutychian faction to accept the Council of Chalcedon and thereby to settle peace in the Church which was then miserably rent and divided To this end by the consent of the four Eastern Patriarchs he publishes an Edict wherein he condemns the three Chapters and Anathematizes those who should defend them to this Edict the Guides of the Eastern Church subscribed But Vigilius then Pope although Victor â—ununensis a Writer of that Age saith that he had given it under his hand to Theodora the Empress that if he might be made Pope he would condemn the three Chapters yet now being by violent hands thrust into the chair he changes his mind and declares against the Edict and threatens excommunication to those who approved it as being contrary to the Catholick faith established in the Council of Chalcedon and accordingly Stephanus his Legat withdrew from the communion of the Patriarch of Constantinople Upon this the Emperour sends for Vigilius to Constantinople who being come thither excommunicates the Patriarch of Constantinople and all who condemned the three Chapters or joyned with those who condemned them and the Patriarch of Constantinople again excommunicates him but after 4. or 5. months time these excommunications were taken off and Pope Vigilius after that publishes a decree wherein the three Chapters were condemned by him with a Salvo to the authority of the Council of Chalcedon Which made the Bishops of Africa Illyricum and Dalmatia to fall off from him and Rusticus and Sebâ—stianus tâ—o Deacons of his own Church whom the Pope excommunicated for so doing Yet the Emperouâ— himself was not satisfied with that Saâ—vo and the Pope not yielding without it a General Council was called at Constantinâ—pâ—e to put an end to this Controversy to which the Pope being solemnly invited refused to come the Council however proceeds in the examination of the three Chapters during their session Vigilius publishes his Apostolical decree or Constitution to the whole Catholick Church with the assistance of 16. Bishops of Italy Africa and Illyricum and three Roman Deacons wherein the Pope defends the three Chapters and defines in the conclusion of it That it should be lawful for none to write or teach any thing about these matters contrary to his present Definition or to move any farther question about them Notwithstanding which Definition of the Popes the Council proceeds to the condemning the three Chapters and to the Anathematizing those who did not condemn them That this is the true matter of fact I am content to appeal to the Acts of the Council the Edict of Iustinian the Popes own Decree or the Writers of that Age or the most learned persons of the Roman Church such as â—aronius Petavius and Petrus de Marca who have all given an account of this Controversy I now desire to know what a person in that time should do who was bound to yield an internal assent to the Guides of the Church must he believe the Pope He not only contradicts the Council but himself too for it now appears by a Greek Epistle first published by Petrus de Marcâ out of the King of Frances Library that Vigilius being banished by Iustinian did afterwards retract his own decree so solemnly made and confirmed the Council Would not a man now be in a pretty condition that were bound to believe one in all he said that so often contradicted himself Must he believe the Council what then becomes of the Popes infallibility when they were so far from receiving the Popes definition though done in such a manner in which Bellarmin saith the Pope cannot err viz. When he teaches the whole Church that they reject his decree and determin the quite contrary I know but one way of evading this which is that commonly insisted on by those of the Roman Church viz. that all this was not a Controversy about 〈◊〉 but persons So indeed some of the 〈◊〉 ours of Vigilius said when they endeavoâ—red to extenuate the matter as much as they could finding that the Bishops of Africa and many in Italy broke off from the Communion of the Roman Church on the account of this quarrel But I desire any one in this matter to look to their Judgement who were conâ—erned in this quarrel and if men are boâ—nd to believe their Guides they ought to believe them when they tell them what is a matter of faith And from the beginning of this controversy it was accounted a matter of faith not only by the Emperour but by the Pope by the Council and by the Bishops who opposed the Council and must we trust them in other things and not in this Besides the very proceedings of the Council manifest it according to Beâ—larmins own rules for saith he we then know a thing to be matter of faith when the Council declares it to be so or them to be hereticks
who hold the contrary or which is the most common when they denounce Anatâ—ema and exclude from the Church those who hold otherwise all which agree to this as will appear by the last collation of that Council And Pope Vigilius in the Greek Epistle now published in the Tomes of the Councils wherein he approves the 5 th Council not only condemns the three Chapters as contrary to saith but Anathematizes all those who should defend them and like an Infallible Judge very solemnly recants his former Apostolical decree though delivered by him upon great deliberation anâ— with an intention to teach the whole Church I wonder who there could be in that Age that believed the Pope to be an infallible Guide not the Eastern Bishops who excommunicated him and decreed directly contrary to him not the Western for they likewise excommunicated him and not only forsook his Communion but that of the Roman Church but did he believe himself infallible when he so often changed his mind and contradicted himself in Cathedra If he did he was without doubt a brave man and did as much as man can do This Controversy was scarce at an end for the Bishops of Istria continued in their separation from the Roman Church for 70. years w ch was till the time of Honorius A. D. 626. when another was started which gives us yet a more ample discovery of the more than fallibility of the Guides of the Church in that Age when a Pope was condemned for a Heretick by a General Council in which case I would fain know whether of them was infallible and to which of the Guides of the Church a man owed his internal assent and external obedience This being an Instance of so high a nature that the truth of it being supposed the pretence of absolute Authority and Infallibility in the Guides of the Roman Church must fall to the ground no wonder that all imaginable arts have been used by those of the Church of Rome to take away the force of it among whom Pighius Baronius Bellarmin Petavius and Petrus de Marcâ have laboured hardest in acquitting Honorius but have proceeded in different ways and the two last are content the Pope should be condemned for simplilicity and negligence the better to excuse him from heresy but one would think these two were as contrary to the office of a trusty Guide as heresy to one that pretends to be infallible But the better to understand the force of this Instance I shall give a brief account of the matter of fact as it is agreed on all sides and the representing the divisions among the Guides of the Church at that time will plainly shew how unreasonable it had been to have required absolute submission to such who so vehemently contradicted each other We are therefore to understand that the late Council at Constantinople being found unsuccessful for bringing the Eutychians and their off-spring to a submission to the Council of Chalcedon another expedient was found out for that end viz. that acknowledging two natures in Christ they should agree in owning that there was but one will and operation in him after the Union of both natures because will and operation were supposed to flow from the Person and not barely from the nature and the asserting two wills would imply two contrary principles in Christ which were not to be supposed This Expedient was first proposed to Heraclius the Emperour by Athanasius the Patriarch of the Iacobites or Paulus the Sâ—verian and approved by Sergius Patriarch of Constantinople and by Cyrus of Alexandria and Theodorus Bishop of Pharan near Aegypt Cyrus proceeded so far in it as by that means to reconcile the Theodosiani a sort of Eutychians in Alexandria to the Church of which he gives an account to Sergius of Constantinople and sends him the Anathema's which he published among which the 7 th was against those who asserted more than one operation in Christ. Sergius approves what Cyrus had done but Sophronius a learned Monk coming to Alexandria vehemently opposed Cyrus in this business but Cyrus persisting he makes his address to Sergius at Constantantinople and tells him of the dangerous heresy that was broaching under the pretence of Union after some heats Sergius yielded that nothing should be farther said of either side But Sophronius being made Bishop of Ierusalem he publishes an Encyclical Epistle wherein he asserts two operations and Anathematizes those who held the contrary and were for the Union and writes to Honorius then Pope giving him an account of this new heresy of the Monothelites the same year Sergius writes to him likewise of all transactions that had hitherto been in this matter and desires to know his judgement in such an affair wherein the Peace of the Church was so much concerned Honorius writes a very solemn letter to Sergius wherein he condemns the contentious humour of Sophronius and makes as good a confession of his faith as he could in which he expresly asserts that there was but one Will in Christ and agrees with Sergius that there should be no more disputing about one or two operations in Christ. Accordingly Heraclius by the advice of Sergius publishes his Ecthesis or declaration to the same purpose which was approved by a Synod under Sergius but opposed by Iohn 4. Bishop of Rome yet still maintained at Constinople not only by Sergius but by Pyrrhus and Paulus his successours who were both excommunicated by Theodorus succeeding Iohn after him Pope Martin calls a Council wherein he condemns all the Eastern Bishops who favoured this new heresy and the two Edicts of silence published by Heraclius and Constans but was for his pains sent for to Constantinople and there dyed These contentions daily increasing after the death of Constans Constantinus Pogonatus resolves to try all ways for the peace of the Church and therefore calls a General Council at Constantinople A. D. 680. wherâ— the Heresy of the Monothelites was condemned and the Writings of Sergius Cyrus Theodorus and Honorius in this matter as repugnant to the doctrine of the Apostles and decrees of Councils and the judgement of the Fathers and agreeable to the false doctrine of Hereticks and destructive to souls and not content meerly to condemn their doctrine they further proceed to Anathamatize and expunge out of the Church the names of Sergius Cyrus Pyrrhus Petrus Paulus and Theodorus and after these Honorius as agreeing in all things with Sergius and confirming his wicked doctrines Here we are now come to the main point we see a Pope delivering his judgement in a matter of faith concerning the whâ—le Church condemned for a Heretick by a General Council for so doing either he was rightly condemned or not if rightly what becomes of the infallibility of the Pope when he pretends to teach the whole Church in a matter of faith If not rightly what becomes of the authority and sincerity of General Councils if a Council so solemnly proceeding shoâ—ld condemn one
for Heresy that not only did not err but if some may be believed could not Surely the Council never thought of that when they make no scruple of condemning him with the rest What were Pope Agatho's Legats there present and could not inform the Council of their presumption in judging the Infallible See But no such thing was heard of in those times these latter Ages have been only blessed with the knowledge of this unerring priviledge and happy had it been if all the records of former times had been burnt that no Instances might have been brought to overthrow it Yet wit and industry have not been wanting to bring poor Honorius off if it had been possible the sum of all may be reduced to these 3. Answers 1. Either that the Acts of the Council are falsifyed Or. 2. That the Pope did not err in faith Or. 3. Supposing he did err it was only as a private person and not as Head of the Church 1. That the Acts of the Council are falsifyed This is a shrewed sign of a desperate cause when against the consent of all ancient Copies both Greek and Latin and the Testimonies of several Popes and Councils afterwards learned men are driven to so miserable a shift as this The first I find who made this answer was Albertus Pighius and after him Baronius and Bellarmin have embraced it but the more ingenuous men of their own Church have been ashamed of it Melchior Canus confesseth that not only this General Council but the seventh and eighth under Adrian and that several other Popes have confessed the truth of the thing and therefore he doth not see how Pighius can vindicate Honorius in this matter Franciscus Torrensis afterwards better known by the name of Turrianus a man highly applauded by Baronius Hosius Lindanus and others writ a Book of the 6. 7. and 8. Synod wherein he severely chastises Pighius for his ill usage of this sixth Council and saith that in this matter he shewed more prejudice than judgement For whereas he suspects that the letter of Honorius to Sergius was not sufficiently examined and compared with the Original this betray 's saith Turrianus his great negligence in reading the Acts of the Council for in the latter end of the 12. Session it is expresly said that the Authentick Latin Epistle of Honorius was produced and compared by the Bishop of Porto Besides how comes saith he the name of Honorius to be no less than 9. times in the Council and if all this had been by the Greeks corrupting the Copies surely they would never have left that passage remaining concerning the corrupting the letters of Mennas and Vigilius How comes Leo 2. in his Epistle to the Emperour wherein he confirms the Council to Anathematize Honorius by name as guilty of heresy some indeed saith he may say this is counterfeit too so do Baronius and Binius but they have nothing but their bare conjecture for it no argument or authority to confirm it Not only the Greek Writers but the Latin confess he was there condemned so doth Bede saith he so doth the Pontifical Book in the life of Leo 2. and in the Council under Martin at Rome the Epistle of Paulus to Theodorus was read wherein was mentioned the consent of Honorius and Sergius and no one there opposed it Humbertus Legat of Leo 9. in his Book against the Greeks reckons Honorius among the condemned Monothelites How came all the Copies to be corrupted at once as he farther urges that there are none left sound to correct others by But that which he insists upon as the strongest argument of all is from Hadrian 2. who calling a Council at Rome for the condemning of Photius for Anathematizing him hath these remarkable words that no Bishop of Rome was Anathematized before unless it were Honorius who after his death was condemned for heresy in which case alone it is lawful for inferiours to resist theâ—r Superiours and to reject their doctrine although even there they would never have done it if the Bishop of the first See had not consented to it A very considerable Testimony not only to prove that Honorius was comdemned for heresy but that a Pope may be guilty of it and be lawfully proceeded against for it and that Pope Agatho did himself consent to the condemnation of Honorius Notwithstanding these arguments of Torrensis Baronius seeing that no other defence could be made persists in the same accusation of Forgery and out of his own head frames an improbable story of the corrupting the Copies of the Council by Theodorus who being saith he Anathematized as a Monothelite expunged his own name and put in that of Honorius A fiction so groundless and unreasonable that nothing but meer despair could drive a man of common understanding to it For there is not the least countenance for it in any Author not the least colour of probability in the thing For that all the Copies of the Council should be corrupted by one man and neither the Popes Legats present at the Council nor any else should take notice of it That no succeeding Popes should discover it when they were concerned to vindicate Honorius but did own the thing to be true that Theodorus then living should be condemned before it was known whether he would submit to the Council or not that in the seventh and eighth Councils this should not be at all suspected but the condemning Honorius expresly mentioned in both that a man at that time deposed from his Patriarchat of Constantinople should be able to make such a razure and forgery in the Copies of the Councils that the Emperour Constantine who took so much care about the Council should suffer such a thing to be done do all make this figment of Baronius so remote from any likelyhood that Baronius had need to have prayed as once a man upon the rack did that he might tell probable lyes But all the miscarriages of Baronius in this matter are so fully laid open by one of their own Church that I need not Insist any longer upon it to whom no answer hath been given but that substantial one of an Index Expurgatorius Bellarmin likes this way of answering the difficulty about Honorius but the greatest strength he adds to Baronius is only saying without doubt it is so and he grants that the Seventh and Eighth Council did believe that Pope Honorius was condemned but he saith they were deceived by the false Acts of the Council But however they must believe that the Pope might fall into heresy and be condemned by a Council for it Yet Bellarmim hath a fetch in this case beyond Baronius viz. That either the Acts of the Council are falsified or the Council was guilty of intolerable impudence and errour in condemning Honorius without reason For all the evidence they produce against him is from his Epistles in which saith he nothing is contained but what is
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
Ancient Creeds we allow on both sides to have been universally received by the Catholick Church but now the Church of Rome adds new Articles to be believed we desire to put the whole matter upon this issue Let the Popes Supremacy the Roman Churches Infallibility the Doctrines of Transubstantiation Purgatory c. be proved by as Universal Consent of Antiquity as the Articles of the Creed are and then let them charge us with Heresie if we reject them But we say the measure of Heresie in the Ancient Church was the rejecting the Rule of Faith universally received among Christians this Rule of Faith we stand to and say no other can be made upon any pretence whatsoever as Vincentius at large proves but what ever things are obtruded on the belief of Christians which want that Vniversal consent of Antiquity which the Rule of Faith had we are bound by Vincentius from plain Scripture to shun them as prophane novelties and corruptions of the Christian Faith These Rules therefore are not barely allowed but pleaded for by us in the test of Articles of Faith as to which Vincentius tells us if not the only yet the chief use of them is 2. But suppose the Question be not concerning the express Articles of this Rule of Faith but concerning the sense and meaning of them how then are we to find out the consent of Antiquity For they might all agree in the words and yet have a different notion of the things As Petavius at large proves that there was an ancient Tradition for the substance of the Doctrine of the Trinity and yet he confesses that most of the Writers of the ancient Church did differ in their explication of it from that which was only allowed by the Council of Nice And he grants that Arius did follow the opinion of many of the Ancients in the main of his Doctrine who were guilty of the same error that he was before the matter was throughly discussed Here now arises the greatest difficulty to me in this point of Tradition the usefulness of it I am told is for explaining the sense of Scripture but there begins a great Controversie in the Church about the explication of the Doctrine of the Trinity I desire to know whether Vincentius his Rules will help us here It is pleaded by St. Hierome and others that the Writers of the Church might err in this matter or speak unwarily in it before the matter came to be throughly discussed if so how comes the Testimony of erroneous or unwary Writers to be the certain means of giving the sense of Scripture And in most of the Controversies of the Church this way hath been used to take off the Testimony of persons who writ before the Controversie began and spake differently of the matter in debate I do not deny the truth of the allegation in behalf of those persons but to my understanding it plainly shews the incompetency of Tradition for giving a certain sense of Scripture when that Tradition is to be taken from the Writers of the foregoing Ages and if this had been the only way of confuting Arius it is a great Question how he could ever have been condemned if Petavius or St. Hierome say true But since a General Council hath determined the contrary to the opinion of these Writers before which Council hath been received by the Universal Church I will not deny that they had better opportunities of knowing what the sense of the Ancient Church was when so many writings were extant which are now lost than we can have at this distance and therefore we yield all submission to a Council of that nature and proceeding in that manner which that of Nice did who did not meerly determine that Controversie by the number of Writers on their side before them but by comparing the opinions afterwards with the Rule of Scriptures and in this regard we acknowledge a great Reverence due to the decrees of such General Councils as that was Therefore next to the Rule of Faith we allow a great veneration to the determinations of lawful General Councils Universally received which Vincentius himself pleads for But supposing no general Councils or such which are not allowed or received for such we are yet to enquire into the ways of finding out Catholick tradition which may interpret Scripture For this end he proposes another means which is The gathering together the opinions of those Fathers alone who living holily wisely and constantly in the faith and communion of the Catholick Church have died in that faith or else for it But still with this reserve that what either all or many of them manifestly frequently and constantly as it were by a Council of them have confirmed by their receiving holding and delivering of it that ought to be held for undoubted certain and firm but whatsoever any one though holy and learned though a Bishop confessour or Martyr hath held against the opinion of others that ought not to be looked on as the judgement of the Church but as his own private opinion and therefore not to be followed Which words I shall not examine with all the severity that some have done for then the proving these conditions to have been observed by any one person would require more pains and be less capable of resolution than the matter it self is but I say that in most of the Controversies this day in the Christian world it may be much more satisfactory to examine the merits of the cause than the integrity of the witnesses these conditions being supposed And yet after all this we must not misunderstand him as though this way would serve to confute all heresies For he tells us yet farther 2. This course can only hold in some new and upstart heresies i.e. in case of the pretence of some new revelation when men pretend to some special grace without humane industry to discover some divine truth not known before but in case of ancient and inveterate heresies he saith we have no way to deal with them but either only by Scripture or else by plain decrees of General Councils for when heresies have been of long continuance then saith he we may have ground to suspect they have not dealt fairly with the Testimonies of ancient times And thus we see what Vincentius hath offered towards the resolution of this great Question how we may be sure of the certain sense of Scripture in controverted places wherein is nothing contained but what we are willing to stand to and very far from the least supposition of any infallibility in the present Guides of the Church for that end Thus far I have taken the pains to search into the opinion of the Primitive Church in this important Controversie which I might carry yet farther if it were at all needful The substance of what is delivered by them is this that if any Controversie arise in the Church concerning the sense of Scripture if the
Council whether that of Arles or Nice is not to my purpose to enquire and we shall then see what his opinion is of the Churches infallibility by that which he delivers of General Councils as well as any other Church Authority compared with the Scriptures in these remarkable words Who knows not that the sacred Canonical Scripture is contained within its certain bounds and is so far to be preferred before all latter writings of Bishops that there can be no doubt or dispute at all made whether that be true or right which is contained therein but all latter writings of Bishops which have been or are written since the Canon of Scripture hath been confirmed may be corrected if in any thing they err from the Truth either by the wiser discourse of any more skilful person or the weightier Authority of other Bishops or the prudence of more learned men or by Councils And even Councils themselves that are Provincial yield without dispute to those which are General and called out of all the Christian World and of these General Councils the former are often amended by the latter when by some farther tryal of things that which was shut is laid open and that which was hidden is made known without any swelling of sacrilegious pride or stifness of arrogancy or contentin of envy but with holy humility Catholick peace and Christian Charity Can any one that reads this excellent Testimony of St. Augustin delivered in this same matter ever imagine he could so plainly contradict himself as to assert the Churches infallibility in one place and destroy it in another Would he assert that all Councils how General soever may be amended by following Councils and yet bind men to believe that the decrees of the former Councils do contain the unalterable will of God A lesser person than St. Augustin would never thus directly contradict himself and that about the very same Controversie which words of his cannot be understood of unlawful Councils of matters of fact or practice but do refer to the great Question then in debate about rebaptizing Hereticks and hereby he takes off the great Plea the Donatists made from the Authority of St. Cyprian and his Council which they continually urged for themselves 3. He grants that the arguments drawn from the Churches Authority are but humane and that satisfaction is to be taken from the Scriptures in this Controversie For mentioning the obscurity of this Question and the great debates that had been about it before the Donatists time among great and good men and diverse resolutions of Councils and the settlement of it at last by a plenary Council of the whole World but lest saith he I should seem to make use only of humane arguments I produce certain Testimonies out of the Gospel by which God willing I demonstrate how true and agreeable to his Will the Doctrine and practice of the Catholick Church is And else where he appeals not to the Judgement of men but to the Lords ballance viz. To his Judgement delivered in Scripture and in this same case when he was urged by the Authority of Cyprian he saith There are no Writings they have not liberty to judge of but those of Scripture and by them they are to Judge of all others and what is agreeable to them they receive what is not they reject though written by persons of never so great Authority And after all this is it possible to believe that St. Augustin should make the Churches decree in a General Council infallible No the utmost by a careful consideration of his mind in this matter that I can find is that in a Question of so doubtful and obscure a nature as that was which had been so long bandied in the Churches of Africa and from thence spread over all the Churches of the Christian World it was a reasonable thing to presume that what the whole Christian World did consent in was the truth not upon the account of infallibility but the reasonable supposition that all the Churches of the Christian World would not consent in a thing repugnant to any Apostolical Doctrine or Tradition And so St. Augustins meaning is the same with Vincentius Lerinensis as to the Universal attestation of the Christian Church in a matter of Tradition being declared by the decree of a General Council and that decree Universally received but only by the litigant parties in Africa To which purpose it is observable that he so often appeals to the Vniversal consent of Christians in this matter after it had been so throughly discussed and considered by the most wise and disinteressed persons and that consent declared by a Plenary Council before himself was born So that if Authority were to be relyed upon in this obscure Controversie he saith the Authority of the Universal Church was to be preferred before that of several Councils in Africa of the Bishops and particularly St. Cyprian who met in them And whereas St. Cyprian had slighted Tradition in this matter Christ having called himself Truth and not custom St. Augustin replys to him That the custom of the Church having been always so and continuing after such opposition and confirmed by a General Council and after examination of the reasons and Testimonies of Scripture on both sides it may be now said that we follow what Truth hath declared Wherein we see with what modesty and upon what grounds he declares his mind which at last comes to no more than Vincentius his Rules of Antiquity Vniversality and Consent Especially in such a matter as this was which had nothing but Tradition to be pleaded for it the Apostles having determined nothing of either side in their Books as St Augustin himself at last confesses in this matter The most then that can be made of the Testimony alledged out of St. Augustin is this that in a matter of so doubtful and obscure a nature wherein the Apostles have determined nothing in their Writings we are to believe that to be the truth which the Universal Church of Christ agreed in those times when the consent of the Universal Church was so well known by frequent discussion of the case and coming at last to a resolution in a General Council In such a case as this I agree to what St. Augustin saith and think a man very much relieved by following so evident a consent of the Universal Church not by vertue of any infallibility but the unreasonableness of believing so many so wise so disinteressed persons should be deceived Let the same evidences be produced for the consent of the Vniversal Church from the Apostolical times in the matters in dispute between our Church and that of Rome and the Controversie of Infallibility may be laid aside For such an universal consent of the Christian Church I look upon as the most Authentick Interpreter of Holy Scripture in doubtful and obscure places But let them never think to
should be left in a Church if we deny Infallibility Other diseases may be cured but natural incapacity cannot 2. Not the making Scriptures plain to all sober enquirers in matters necessary to Salvation This is that principle which N. O. makes such horrible out-crys about as though it were the Foundation of all the heresies and Sects in the World This he saith makes all Ecclesiastical Authority useless for what need is there of Bishops Presbyters or any Ecclesiastical Pastors among Protestants as to the office of teaching or expounding these writings if these in all necessaries are clear to all persons who desire to know the meaning of them But not content with this modest charge in comparison in another Treatise he makes this the very heighth of Fanaticism in spight of Mother Iuliana and their Legendary Saints because forsooth this is to ground all our Religion upon our own fancies enquiring into the true sense of divine Revelation and therefore good man seems troubled at it that he can by no means in the world absolve me from being not only a Fanatick but a Teacher of Fanaticism In earnest it was happily found out to return this heavy charge back upon my self with so much rage and violence for although N. O. be a modest man yet S. C. is a meer fury for not meerly Fanaticism pure putid Fanaticism follows from this principle Fanaticism without vizard or disguise and all this demonstratively proved from this Principle But all our Church is immediately gone with it Men may talk of dangerous plots for undermining and blowing up of Towns and Forts and Parliaments but what are all those to the blowing up a whole Church at once For since that Train of my Principles hath been laid nothing like the old Church of Englâ—nd hath been seen It is true there are the same Bishops the same Authority the same Liturgy and Ceremonies the same â—â—â—achers and Officers that were but what are all these to the Church of England For from hence it follows if we believe S. C. that the â—overnours of our Church have no Authority to teach truth or to condemn erâ—â—urs and aâ—l the people are become Prophets and all their Articles Constitutions and Ordinances have been composed and enjoyned by an usurped Authority Very sad consequences truly but like deep plots they lye very far out of sight For to my understanding not one of these dismal things follows any more from my Principles than from proving that S. C. and N. O. both stand for the same Person Which will easily appear to any one â—â—e that will but consider 1. The intention of those Principles 2. The just consequence of them 1. The intention of those Principles which was plainly to lay down the Foundations of a Christians faith living in the Communion of our Church which is expressed in as perspicuous terms before them as may be and to shew that the Roman Churches Infallibility is no necessary Foundation of Faith Now this being the design of those Principles to what purpose should I have gone about therein to have stated the nature and bounds of the Authority of particular Churches I no where in the least exclude the use of all means and due helps of Guides and others for the understanding the sense of Scripture and I no where mention them because my business was only about the Foundation of Faith and whether Infallibility was necessary for that or no If I have proved it was not I have gained my design for then those who deny the Church of Romes Infallibility may never the less have a sure Foundation or solid Principles to build their Faith upon Now to what purpose in an account of the Principles of Faith should I mention those things which we do not build our faith upon I mean the Authority of our Guides for although we allow them all the usefulness of helps yet those are no more to be mentioned in the Principles of resolving Faith than Eulids Master was to be mentioned in his Demonstrations For although he might learn his skill from him yet the force of his Demonstrations did not depend upon his Authority I hope it now appears how far I am from making Church-Authority useless but I still say our Faith is not to be resolved into it and therefore is not to be reckoned as a Principle or Foundation of Faith To that end it is sufficient to prove that men in the due use of means whom I call sober enquirers may without any Infallible Church believe the Scriptures and understand what is necessary to their Salvation herein If this may be then I say it follows Princ. 15. that there can be no necessity supposed of any infallible Society of men either to attest or explain these Writings among Christians Not one word that takes away the use of Authority in the Church but only of Infallibility but it may be said that although it might not be my intention yet it may be the just consequence of the Principles themselves 2. Therefore I shall now prove that no consequence drawn from them can infer this For what if all those things which are necessary to Salvation are plain in Scripture to all that sincerely endeavour to understand them doth it hence follow that there can be no just Authority in a Church no use of Persons to instruct others must all the people become Prophets and no bounds be set to the liberty of Prophesying These are bad consequences but the comfort is they are not true If I should say that the necessary Rules for a mans health are so plainly laid down by Hippocrates that every one that will take the pains may understand them doth this make the whole profession of Physick useless or license every man to practise Physick that will or make it needless to have any Professours in that faculty When the Philosophers of old did so frequently inculcate that the necessaries for life were few and easie did this make all Political Government useless and give every man power to do what he pleased Men of any common understanding would distinguish between the necessaries of life and civil Society so would any one but S. C. or N. O. of the necessaries to Salvation and to the Government of the Church For men must be considered first as Christians and then as Christians united together as in civil Societies they are to be considered first as men and then as Cives to say that a man hath all that is necessary to preserve his life as a man doth not overthrow the Constitution of a Society although it implys that he might live without it so when men are considered barely as Christians no more ought to be thought necessary for them as such but what makes them capable of Salvation but if we consider them as joyning together in a Christian Society then many other things are necessary for that end For then there must be Authority in some and subjection in others
their own Church or else to what end is this mentioned where nothing is pretended to but laying down the Foundations on which Protestants do build their faith But although there be no way of escaping impertinent objections yet it is some satisfaction to ones self to have given no occasion for them 2. I would know what he understands by his effectual means of suppressing Sects or Heresies We are sure the meer Authority of their Church hath been no more effectual means than that of ours hath been but there is another means they use which is far more effectual viz. the Inquisition This in truth is all the effectual means they have above us but God keep us from so Barbarous and Diabolical a means of suppressing Schisms The Sanbenits have not more pictures of Devils upon them than the Inquisition it self hath of their Spirit in it however that Gracious Pope Paul 4. attributed the settling of it in Spain to the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost not that Holy Ghost certainly that came down from Heaven upon the Apostles but that which was conveyed in a Portmantue from Rome to the Council of Trent But if this be the effectual means he understands I hope he doth not think it any credit to the Authority of their Church that all who dispute it must endure a most miserable life or a most cruel death All the other means they have are but probable but this this is the most effectual How admirably do Fire and Faggots end Controversies No general Council signifies half so much as a Court of Inquisition and the Pope himself is not near so good a Judge of Controversies as the Executioner and Dic Ecclesiae is nothing to take him Gaoler These have been the kind the tender the primitive the Christian means of suppressing Sects and Heresies in the Roman Church O how compassionate a Mother is that Church that takes her froward Children in her hands to dash their brains against the stones O how pleasant a thing it is for Brethren to be destroyed for lack of Vnity How beautiful upon the 7. Mountains are the Feet of those who shed the Blood of Hereticks Never were there two men had a more Catholick Spirit than Dioclesian and Bishop Bonner Men may talk to the worlds end of Councils and Fathers and Authority of the Church and I know not what insignificant nothings come come there is but one effectual means which the good Cardinal Baronius suggested to his Holiness Arise Peter kill and eat Let the Hereticks talk of the kind and merciful Spirit of our Saviour who rebuked his Disciples so sharply for calling for fire from Heaven upon the Samaritans and told them they did not know what Spirit they are of let them dispute never so much against the cruelty and unreasonableness of such a way of confuting them let them muster up never so many sayings of Fathers against it yet when all is done what ever becomes of Christianity it was truly said of Paul 4. that the Authority of the Roman See depends only upon the office of the Inquisition And that we may think he was in good earnest when he said it Onuphrius tells us it was part of the speech he made to the Cardinals before his death Was not this think we a true Vicar of Christ a man of an Apostolical Spirit that knew the most effectual means of suppressing heresies and Schisms and advancing the Authority of the Roman See And that we may not think their opinion is altered in this matter one of the late Consulters of the Inquisition hath determined that the practice of the Roman Church in the office of the Inquisition is reasonable pious useful and necessary Which he proves by the Testimony of their greatest Doctors And by which we may easily judge what N. O. and his Brethren think to be the most effectual means of suppressing Sects and Heresies with the want of which we are contented to be upbraided But setting this aside we have as many reasonable means and I think many more of convicting dissenters than they can pretend to in the Roman Church 3. It is very well known that we do endeavour as much as lyes in us to reclaim all Dissenters but God never wrought Miracles to cure incorrigible persons and would not have us to go out of the way of our duty to suppress Sects and Heresies The greatest severities have not effected it which made one of the Inquisitors in Italy complain that after 40. years experience wherein they had destroyed above 100000. Persons for heresie as they call it it was so far from being suppressed or weakned that it was extremly strengthened and increased What wonder is it then if dissenters should yet continue among us who do not use such Barbarous ways of stopping the mouths of Hereticks with burning lead or silencing them by a rope and flames But we recommend as much as they can do to the people the vertues of Humility Obedience due submission to their Spiritual Pastors and Governours and that they ought not to usurp their office and become their own Guides which N. O. in his conclusion blames us for not doing Yet we do not exact of them a blind obedience we allow them to understand the nature and Doctrine of Christianity which the more they do we are sure they will be so much the better Christians and the more easily Governed So that we have no kind of Controversie about Church-Authority it self but what it is and in what manner and by whom to be exercised but surely N. O. had little to say when from laying down the Principles of Faith he charges me with this most absurd consequence of destroying all Church-Authority I have thus far considered the main Foundations upon which N. O. proceeds in opposition to my Principles there is now very little remaining which deserves any Notice and that which seems to do it as about Negative Articles of Faith and the marks of the True Church I shall have occasion to handle them at large in the following discourse FINIS Haâ—â—â—mull hist Iesuit ordin c. 8. S. C. p. 79. S. C. p. 46. Roman Doctrine of Repentance c. vindicated p. 19. P. 44. P. 47. P. â—9 Et quamvis sine Sacramento Poenitentiae per se ad justificationem perducere peccatorem nequeat attritio tamen cum ad Dei gratiam in Sacramento Poeâ—iteâ—tiae impetrandam disponit Concil Trident. sess 14. c. 4. * Si quis dixerit Sacramenta novae Legis non continere Gratiam quam significant aut gratiam ipsam non ponentibus obicem non confâ—rre Anathema sit Sess. 7. Can. 6. Si quis dixâ—rit non dari gratiam per hujus modi Sacramenta semper omnibus quaâ—tum est ex parte Dei etiamsi ritè ea suscipiant sed aliquando aliquibus Aâ—athemae sit Can. 7. Sess. 14. c. 4. P. 45. Melch. Cano Relect. de Poenit. part 6. p. 932. Morinus de Poenit. Sacramento
and at the same time to prove that Commission from those Writings from which we are told nothing can be certainly deduced such an Assistance not being supposed or to pretend that Infallibility in a Body of men is not as liable to doubts and disputes as in those Books from whence only they derive their Infallibility He grants the former part of this if by it be intended to prove such Commission only or in the first place from these writings But he saith a Christians Faith may begin either at the Infallible authority of Scriptures or of the Church It seems then there may be sufficient ground for a Christians Faith as to the Scriptures without believing any thing of the Churches Infallibility and for this we have reason to thank him whatever they of his own Church think of it For by this concession we may believe the Scriptures Authority without ever believing a word of the Churches Infallibility and let them afterwards prove it from Scripture if they can Nay he goes yet farther and saith That the Infallibility of Scriptures as well as the Church may be proved from its own testimony but he first supposes that the Infallibility of one of these be first learnt from Tradition And therefore in the remainder of his discourse on this Subject he shews how the Infallibility of the Church may be proved from Tradition not shewing at all how the Infallibility of the Church can be proved from Scripture Scripture being thus deserted as to the proof of the Churches Infallibility I must pursue him to his other Hold of Tradition The method of his discourse is this That the Infallibility of the Guides of the Church was antecedent to the Scriptures That the Apostles did not lose their infallibility by committing what they preached to writing That their successors were to have this infallibility preserved in them if there had been no writings and cannot be imagined to have lost it because of them because these give testimony to it That this Infallibility is preserved by Tradition descending from Age to Age as we say the Canon of Scripture is delivered to us And lastly That the Governours of the Church always held and reputed themselves infallible appears by their Anathematizing dissenters In this Discourse there are some things supposed without reason and other things asserted without proof The Foundation of all this Discourse proceeds upon the supposition that the same Infallibility which was in the Apostles must be continued in their Successors through all Ages of the Church for which I see not the least shadow of reason produced Yes saith he supposing there had been no Writings and no Infallibility Christian Religion would have been no rational and well grounded no stable and certain Religion Two things in answer to this I desire to be informed of 1. What he thinks of the Religion of the Patriarchs who received their Religion by Tradition without any such Infallibility 2. What he thinks of those Christians who receive the Scriptures or Churches Infallibility by vertue of common and universal Tradition which is certainly the ground of the one and supposed by him to be of the other whether the Faith of such persons be rational and well-grounded stable and certain or not if it be then there is no such necessity of Infallibility for that purpose if it be not then he doth hereby declare that the Faith of Christians is irrational and ill-grounded For whatsoever is received on the account of Tradition antecedent to the belief of Infallibility cannot be received on the account of it but the belief of either Scriptures or Churches Infallibility must be first received by vertue of a principle antecedent to the Scriptures or Churches Infallibility viz. Tradition By this it appears that his very way of proving destroys the thing he would prove by it For if the Tradition may be a sufficient ground of Faith how comes Infallibility to be necessary But if this Infallibility be not necessary without the Scriptures much less certainly is it now since it is acknowledged on both sides that the Apostles were infallible in their Writings and that therein the Will of God is contained as to all things simply necessary to salvation But these successors of the Apostles were not deprived of their infallibility by the Apostles Writings No certainly for none can be deprived of what they never had but where are the reasons all this while to shew that there was the same necessity of Infallibility in the Apostles successors as was in them Two I find rather intimated than insisted upon 1. That the Church would otherwise have failed if there had been neither Writings nor Infallibility But if this Argument hold for any thing it is for the necessity of the Scriptures and not of Infallibility for we see God did furnish the Church with one and left no footsteps of the other We do not dispute how far the Church might have been preserved without the Scriptures we find it hath been hard enough to preserve it pure with them but we always acknowledge the Infinite Wisdom and Goodness of God that hath not left us in matters of Faith and Salvation to the determinations of men liable to be corrupted by Interest and Ambition but hath appointed men inspired by himself to set down whatever is necessary for us to believe and practise And upon these Writings we fix our Faith as on a firm and unmovable Rock and on the veracity of God therein contained and expressed we build all our hopes of a Blessed Eternity And one great benefit more we have by these divine Books that by them we can so easily discover the fraud and imposture of the confident Pretenders to Infallibility Which is the true reason why the Patrons of the Church of Romes Infallibility have so little kindness for the Scriptures and take all occasions to disparage them by insinuating that they are good for nothing but to breed Heresies in the Heads of the People upon pretence of which danger they hide this Candle under a Bushel lest it should give too much light to them that are in the House and discover some things which it is more convenient to keep in the dark 2. He saith The Infallibility of the Apostles successors receives a second evidence from the testimony thereof found also in these Writings I confess I have seen nothing like the first evidence yet to which this should be a second but if by the first be meant that which I mentioned before this is a proper second for it Neither of them I dare say intend any mischief to any body both first and second are forced into the Field where they stand only for dumb shews and wonder what they are brought for But whereabouts I pray doth this second Testimony stand what are its weapons I hope not Dic Ecclesiae nor Dabo tibi Claves nor any of the old rusty Armour which our modern Combatants begin to be ashamed to appear