Church what security could any man have against Arianism since the Councils which favoured it were more numerous than those which opposed and condemned it Yea so mean was the opinion which some of the greatest persons of the Church at that time had of the Guides of the Church met together in Councils that St. Gregory Nazianzen declares he had not seen a good issue of any of them but they rather increased mischief than removed any because of the contention and ambition which ruled in them therefore he resolved to come no more at any of them What had St. Gregory so mean an esteem of the Guides of the Christian Church to think that ambition and contention should sway them in their Councils and not the spirit of God which certainly rules not where the other do Yet this de declares to be his mind upon consideration and experience in that time and if he had lived to those blessed days of the Councils of latter Ages with what zeal and Rhetorick would he have set them forth Never was any answer more jejune to this Testimony than that of Bellarmin viz. that forsooth there could be no lawful Councils called in his time and why so I pray was there not a good Authority to call them But if that had been the reason he did not so little understand the way of expressing himself to assign the cause of it to contention and ambition if he mean quite another thing which he doth not in the least intimate And what if he were afterwards present at the Council of Constantinople doth that shew that his mind was in the least changed but in this Epistle he declares how little good was to be exspected from a Council and yet afterwards by the Emperours command he might be present at one St. Augustin in dealing with Maximinus the Arian expresly sets aside all Authority of the Guides of the Church as to the sense of Scripture in the places controverted between them for he saith I will neither bring the Authority of the Council of Nice neither shall you that of Ariminum but we will proceed by Authorities of Scripture that are common to both of us and by the clearest Evidence of reason It seems then St. Augustin was far from thinking that there could be no certainty of the sense of Scripture if the Authority of the Guides of the Church be set aside But by what means doth he then think that men may come to any certainty about the true meaning of Scripture of that he is best able to give us an account himself having written purposely in this subject in his Books of Christian Doctrine the substance of what he there says may be comprehended in these Rules 1. That the main scope of the Scripture is to perswade men to the Love of God and our Neighbour without which he saith no man doth truly understand it but whosoever interprets Scripture to the advancing of that though he may be mistaken as to the sense of the words yet his errour is not dangerous 2. That in order to the right understanding of Scripture men must apply themselves to it with minds duly prepared for it by a fear of God humility prayer sincerity and purity of heart 3. That all those things which are necessary to Salvation are plainly laid down in Holy Scriptures This is in terms asserted by him as a fundamental principle that in those things which are plainly set down in Scripture all things are to be found which contain our faith and rule of life i.e. All things which are necessary to the Love of God and our Neighbour and consequently to the making us happy And these things men ought especially to read the Scriptures for and the more they find of them the larger their understanding of Scripture is 4. That the obscure places of Scripture are to be understood by the plain For which end he requires frequent reading and using ones self to the language of Scriptures and drawing examples from plain places to illustrate difficult and those which are certain to clear the doubtful For scarce any thing saith he is drawn out of the most difficult places but what is very plainly set down elsewhere 5. That in regard of the infinite variety of Latin Interpreters which it seems were in his time in matters of doubt it was necessary to have recourse to the Original Hebrew and Greek the knowledge of which tongues might therefore be necessary to the knowledge of Scripture because several words are preserved untranslated but those being few the necessity is not so great on their account as the diversity of Interpreters for although those who had translated the Hebrew into Greek might be reckoned up the Latin Interpreters could not Which diversity of translations doth rather help than hinder the understanding of Scripture if the Readers of it be not negligent for some doubtful places are cleared by the difference of readings 6. Where the ambiguity lyes in proper words the clearing of it depends on the circumstances of the place in so much that he determines that it is a very rare and difficult thing to find such an ambiguity in the words of Scripture which may not be cleared from the intention of the Writer or comparing places or searching the Original Language 7. Men must carefully distinguish between proper and figurative expressions for to understand figurative expressions literally is to subject our understanding to carnal conceptions of things and that is saith he a miserable slavery of mind to take signs for things such signs he tells us under the Gospel are the two Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords supper The great difficulty herein lyes in the finding out the difference between proper and figurative expressions for which he lays down this rule if the words of Scripture command what is good and forbid what is evil it is no figurative expression but if it forbids what is good or command any thing that is evil it must be figuratively understood For which he instances in those words of our Saviour unless ye eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man ye shall have no life in you Which seeming to command something evil must be figuratively understood of Communicating in the Passion of Christ and calling to mind that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us 8. There is no danger in different senses being given of the same place of Scripture if every one of those senses appear by other places to be agreeable to Truth This being supposed that the person do sincerely enquire after the sense of the Author For saith he that Divine Spirit might easily foresee how many several senses those words are capable of which being agreeable to other parts of Scripture though not the particular meaning of those words the mistake cannot be dangerous therein 9. Where such a sense is given which cannot be proved by other certain
justly charge the Church of Rome even in the decrees of her Councils with laying such a foundation as doth overthrow the necessity of a good life The way he takes to vindicate those points from this consequence is this That the Sacramenta mortuorum viz. Baptism and Penance which confer justifying Grace do require a subject rightly disposed And the Sacramenta vivorum viz. Confirmation Eucharist and Extreme unction do require the receiver to be actually in a State of Grace the same he saith of Indulgences that the benefit of them doth suppose a man put into a State of Grace by the Sacrament of Penance so that the whole matter is put upon this issue whether their Doctrine concerning the conditions by which a man may be put into a State of Grace be not such as doth overthrow the necessity of a good life And it being acknowledged that the Sacrament of Penance doth confer the Grace of justification on all persons rightly disposed for it our only business is to enquire what necessary conditions their Church requires in order to it For which we appeal to the words of the Council of Trent for Session 14. c. 4. That plainly determins that imperfect contrition or attrition although it cannot bring men to justification without the Sacrament of Penance yet it doth dispose men for obtaining the Grace of God by the Sacrament of Penance If we joyn this now with another decree of the same Council viz. that the Sacraments do conferr Grace on all those who are disposed to receive it I leave it now to any one to judge whether from hence it doth not necessarily follow that all those that have but imperfect contrition or bare attrition for their sins are by the Sacrament of Penance put into a State of Grace according to the Doctrine of the Council of Trent And how far this overthrows the necessity of a good life will appear from the explication of contrition and attrition given by the same Council Contrition is defined to be a grief of mind and detestation of sin committed with a purpose of sinning no more therefore imperfect contrition or attrition must be such a grief and detestation of sin past as implies but an imperfect purpose of sinning no more From which it evidently follows that by the Doctrine of this Council a man may be put into a State of Grace without so much as a firm or perfect purpose of sinning no more And can there be a Doctrine invented by men that doth more effectually destroy the necessity of a good life than this doth For the State of Grace puts a man actually into the favour of God and supposing him to fall into mortal sin afterwards all he needs to do is only to repeat the same kind of attrition and receive the Sacrament of Penance and he is perfectly sound again and recovers the Favour of God I know the Council there saith That this attrition must exclude voluntatem peccandi as O. N. observes but that implies no more than a man 's not having at that time a purpose to sin again and the Council distinguishes it from the propositum non peccandi de caetero or the purpose not to sin again which the Council applies to contrition as the other to attrition And Cajetan himself quoted by O. N. calls it an imperfect purpose of not sinning So that after all the evasions which have been yet or can be produced the Roman Churches Doctrine of Repentance and Indulgences doth most dangerously obstruct devotion and a good life I desire therefore O. N. and his Brethren to be a little more sparing in their censures of us as unfaithfully representing the Doctrine of their Church for we understand it much better and represent it more truly than they desire But supposing the words of the Council were ambiguous in this matter what better help can we have to understand it than the sense of their most eminent and learned Instructours of Conscience and those not of the single Order of Jesuits as some would have it believed but of all sorts among them Melchior Canus who was far enough from being a Friend of the Jesuits saith expresly although a man knows he hath not contrition but bare attrition he may come to the Sacrament and receive grace by it for which he gives this reason because Baptism and Penance are Sacramenta mortuorum and therefore those who are under mortal sin if they have attrition whereby the impediment is removed may not only come to them but go away with the Grace conferred because the Sacraments always conferr Grace where the impediment is removed And he is followed herein saith Morinus not only by Lopez Pesantius Nicol. Isambertus Professor of Divinity at Paris but by the fargreatest number of their modern Divines I shall not so much as mention the Jesuitical Casuists whose Testimonies are produced in the Jesuits Morals or Provincial letters such as Filliutius Amicus Sa Escobar Bauny c. But I shall name some of far greater Authority among them O. N. frequently cites Paul Layman with expressions of esteem and he determins that true contrition is not necessary to the Sacrament of Penance after the commission of mortal sin but attrition is sufficient although a man know it to be only attrition If they had made attrition only necessary to the Sacrament of Baptism they might have pleaded that they had not destroyed the necessity of a good life afterwards to preserve the Grace conveyed in Baptism but we see in the case of mortal sin afterwards toties quoties no more is necessary but a new Act of Attrition and that not only when a man mistakes it to be contrition but though a man knows it to be bare attrition I confess Cardinal Tolet although he asserts the substance of the Doctrine yet he saith attrition only serves when it is mistaken for contrition but this Morinus tells us the later Divines laugh at and explode Cardinal Lugo not only contends for the Doctrine but asserts it to be the Doctrine of the Council of Trent viz. that attrition with the Sacrament of Penance is sufficient for the Grace of Justification and quotes Suarez Vasquez and Maeratius as sufficiently proving from the words of the Council that attrition is the next disposition to the Grace of justification conveyed by the Sacrament and this attrition he there shews against Sylvius doth not imply an imperfect love of God above all which is directly contrary to O. N. And in another place he proves that a man is not bound always to contrition for his sins although they be mortal for saith he if he were then a man having attrition cannot be excused but only by invincible Ignorance from a new mortal sin in coming to the Sacrament of Penance without contrition because some time is commonly supposed to intervene between a mans attrition and his justification by the Sacrament
will suffer the people to try nothing but do teach them wholly to depend on them and to that purpose they have indeed three notable sleights First they forbid them the reading of the Scriptures And the better to be obeyed therein they will not permit the Scriptures to be Translated into the Vulgar Tongue Whereof it came to pass that the people were so easily seduced and drawn from Christ to the Pope from his merits to the Saints and their own merits from his bloody sacrifice whereby only sins are remitted to their most dry and fruitless sacrifice from the spiritual food of his Body and Blood unto a carnal and Capernaitical Transubstantiation from the calling upon his name to an Invocation of Saints and from their sure trust and confidence in his death to a vain imagination of the vertue of their Masses Pilgrimages Pardons and I know not what intolerable Superstition and Idolatry I hope Arch-Bishop Bancroft may for once pass for no Puritan with T. G. But what will he say if the only persons he produces as most partial of his side do give in evidence against him Bishop Mountague is the first whose words are these in the Book cited by him Our predecessors and Fathers coming late out of Popery living near unto Papists and Popish times conversing with them having been nuzzled and brought up amongst them and knowing that Images used to be crept unto incensed worshipped and adored among them c. What thinks he is not this all one as to charge them with Idolatry And more plainly in his former Book But whatsoever you say however you qualify the thing with gentle words we say in your practice you far exceed and give them that honour which is Latria a part of Divine respect and worship And afterwards saith the people go to it with downright adoration and your new Schools defend that the same respect is due to the representer as must be given to the representee So that the Crucifix is to be reverenced with the the self-same honour that Christ Jesus is Ablasphemy not heard of till Thomas Aquinas set it on foot Clear these enormities and others like these then come and we may talk and soon agree concerning honour and respect unto Reliques or Images of Saints or Christ till then we cannot answer it unto our Maker to give his honour unto a Creature His next is Pet. Heylin And now I hope we have at last hit upon a man far enough from being a Puritan yet this very Person gives plain evidence against him For i◠his 4th Sermon on the Tares preached a◠White-Hall Ianuary 27. 1638. H◠hath these words So it is also in the point of Images first introduced into the Church for ornament History and imitation Had they staid there it had been well and no faul◠found with them But when the Schools began to State it that the same Veneration was to be afforded to the Type and Prototype then came the Doctrine to the growth When and by whom and where it was first so stated is not easie to determine and indeed not necessary It is enough that we behold it in the fruits And what fruits think you could it bear but most gross Idolatry greater than which was never known among the Gentils Witness their praying not before but to the Crucifix and calling on the very Cross the wooden and material Cross both to increase their righteousness and remit their sins And for the Images of the Saints they that observe with what laborious Pilgrimages magnificent processions solemn offerings and in a word with what affections prayers and humble bendings of the body they have been and are worshipped in the Church of Rome might very easily conceive that She was once again relapsed into her ancient Paganism With much more to the same purpose His only person remaining is Mr. Thorndike a man of excellent Learning and great piety but if we should grant that he held some thing singular in this matter what is that to the constant opinion of our Church and yet even Mr. Thorndike himself in a paper sent by him 〈◊〉 some whom T. G. know's not long before his death saith That to pray to Saints for those things which only God can give as all Papist do is by the proper sense of the word◠down-right Idolatry If they say their meaning is by a figure only to desire them to procure their requests of God How dare any Christian trust his soul with that Church which teaches that which must needs be Idolatry in all that understand not the figure So that upon the whole matter T. G. cannot produce any on◠Person of our Church that hath clearly an◠wholly acquitted the Church of Rome from the charge of Idolatry It seems then 〈◊〉 Church hath been made up of Puritans i◠T. G's sense of them But if these do no◠satisfy him what doth he think of the Arch-Bishop and Bishops and Clergy of the Convocation A. D. 1640. Were 〈◊〉 these Puritans too And yet in the sevent◠Canon they have these words And albeit at the time or Reforming this Church from that gross Superstition of Popery it was carefully provided that all means should be used to root out of the minds of the people both the inclination thereto and memory thereof especially of the Idolatry committed in the Mass for which cause all Popish Altars were demolished c. What can more express the sense of our Church than the concurrent opinion of Arch-Bishops Bishops and Clergy of both Provinces met in Convocation When we see they so lately charged the Church of Rome with Idolatry Let us now consider what exceptions he takes against the other witnesses produced by me Jewel Bilson Davenant all eminent Bishops of our Church and of great learning are cast away at once as incompetent Persons But why so Why saith T. G. they were all excepted against by our late Soveraign K. Charcles I. in his third paper to Henderson That is a shrewd prejudice indeed to their Authority to be rejected by a Prince of so excellent a judgement and so Cordial a friend to the Church of England But it is good to be sure whether it be so or no. All that he saith of Bishop Iewel is this and though I much reverence Bishop Iewel ' s memory I never thought him infallible So then he must he Puritanically inclined but whence does that follow not surely from the Kings reverencing his memory for that were to reflect upon the King himself not from his not thinking him Infallible For I dare say the King never thought the Pope infallible must be needs therefore think him a Puritan Surely never man was such a Friend to the Puritans as this T. G. who without any ground gives them away some of the greatest honours of our Church and if the Testimony last cited be of any force to prove one a Puritan all mankind and himself too for I plainly perceive by this
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
search and enquiry after it as times and means give leave But if we mean by a Church any particular Church he determines That particular men and Churches may erre damnably because notwithstanding others may worship God aright but that the whole Church at one time cannot so erre for that then the Church should cease utterly for a time and so not be Catholick being not at all times and Christ should sometimes be without a Church yet that errors not prejudicing the salvation of them that erre may be found in the Church that is at one time in the world we make no doubt only the Symbolical and Catholick which is and was being wholly free from error Which several expressions amount to no more than this that there will be always some true Christians in the World but what is this to infallible Teachers and Guides in a Church that pretends to be Catholick against all the sense and reason in the World And is it now imaginable after all this that Dr. Field should make any particular Church infallible No all that he means in his Preface is this that among all the Societies of men persons who have not leisure or capacity to examine particular Controversies ought diligently to search which is the true Church and having done this to embrace her communion follow her directions and rest in her judgment i.e. Suppose a man by that very Book of Dr. Fields should be convinced that the Church of Rome is a very corrupt and tyrannical Church and the Church of England is a sound and good Church which was the design of his writing it he being thus far satisfied ought to embrace the communion of this Church and so follow her directions and rest in her judgment so as not to forsake her communion for any cavils that are raised about particular Controversies of which he is not a capable judge And doth this make the Church of England infallible If we say that a man being first satisfied of the skill and integrity of a Lawyer ought to follow his directions and rest in his judgment doth this make that Lawyer infallible so we say here the resting in the judgment of a Church of whose integrity we have assurance before-hand implies only the supposition of so much honesty and skill in a Church as may over-rule the Judgments of persons who either have not leisure or capacity to understand particular Controversies which require skill in Languages search into the Fathers and later Writers on both sides If we say that unlearned persons ought in such things to trust the learned whose integrity they have no ground to suspect this doth not certainly make the more learned infallible But we may rest in the judgment of those whom we have no reason to suspect though we believe them not to be infallible and it was the former Dr. Field meant and by no means any infallibility unless he plainly contradict himself 3. He excepts That this brings in an inerrability of every particular Christian in all points necessary if such Christians will that is â—f only they shall sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them The force of this Argument will be easily discerned if we put another parallel to it viz. That they who assert from Scripture the assistance of Divine Grace to the sincere endeavours of men do make all men impâ—ccable if they will as well as those who assert that God will not be wanting in necessaries to salvation to those who sincerely endeavour to know them make all such men so far infallible if they will If any one thing be plain in Scripture the goodness of God is and who can believe that and yet think that he will suffer those who sincerely endeavour to know what is necessary to their salvation not to understand it But besides how often doth the Scripture promise a greater degree of knowledge to the meek and humble to the diligent and industrious to those that ask and seek wisdom from him to those that do the will of God to whom our Saviour hath expresly promised that they shall know of his doctrine whether it be of God or no And if this be the inerrability he means he sees what grounds we have to assert it But we understand not by it that such persons cannot erre in their judgments about what things are necessary and what not nor that they cannot erre in other things which are not so necessary to salvation but that Gods goodness is so great and his promises so plain and his word so clear in necessary things that no one who sincerely endeavours to know them shall ever miss of salvation And if such an infallibility will satisfie them we do not deny it to Popes themselves or other Guides of the Church on condition they do not think themselves infallible beyond these bounds for they are only the meek and humble whom God hath promised to teach his way and not such who will be infallible whether God will or no. His other exceptions from this principle destroying Church-Authority from the parity of reason for Church Governors and the controverted places of Scripture shall be considered afterwards 2. I now come to examine what certainty there is for this Infallibility Here I shall lay down some principles of common reason by which we may better understand the force of his arguments 1. That the Proof ought always to be more evident than the thing that is to be proved by it For otherwise it is of no advantage to the proof of it if it have but the same degree of evidence but is a great prejudice to it if it have less so that if the proofs of Infallibility be equally obscure and difficult with those things which are to be believed by virtue of it this Infallibility is of no use but if they be less evident the pretence of it is both very ridiculous and prejudicial to the Christian Faith 2. The greater concernment any Law is of and the greater danger in mistaking the meaning of it the more plain and distinct ought the terms of that Law to be As a Law about the succession of the Crown ought to be framed with all the clearness and distinctness imaginable because the peace and security of a Nation depends upon it So in case Christ hath appointed any Successor in the Government of his Church or entailed Infallibility upon the Guides of it this being a matter of such infinite concernment to the whole Church it is most unreasonable to conceive that whatever other parts of his Will were obscure those which relate to the matter of Succession and Infallibility should be so but rather so plain that no one can miss of understanding them because the weight of all the rest depends upon these two and it is so horrible a presumption in any to pretend to them in case they have no right to them and the danger so great in relying upon them if there be
the following of Tyranny which we complain of are the two fairest Pleas for their Vnion I ever met with But this is not a place to examine the pretences to Unity on both sides that I have at large done in a whole Chapter in the late Book and if N. O. had intended any thing to purpose against me on this subject he ought much rather to have fallen on a just Discourse than two such lame Clauses as he makes these to be by his citation of them And when he doth that he may hear more of this Subject in the mean time Infallibility is our business And therefore I proceed to the third Argument made use of by N. O. for the proof of Infallibility in the Guides of the Church which is from parity of Reason Because I say that it is repugnant to the nature of the design and the wisdom and goodness of God to give infallible assurance 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 to their salvation from hence he inferrs That if every Christian may become thus infallible in necessaries from 1. a clear rule 2. a due Industry used 3. and a certainty that it is so used may not the Church-Governours still much rather be allowed Infallible and so retain still their infallible Guideship and the people also the more clear the rule of Faith is proved to be the more securely be referred to their direction and have we not all reason to presume that the chief Guides of the Church even a General Council of them or if it be but a major part of this Council 't is sufficient in their consults concerning a point necessary to salvation delivered in Scripture use at least so much endeavour for more needs not as a plain Rustick doth to understand the meaning of it and also the like sincerity For what they define for others they define for themselves also and their salvation is as much concerned as any other mans is in their mistakes And next why may not these Governours upon such certainty of a sincere endeavour and clearness of the rule take upon them to define these points and enjoyn an assent to and belief of them to their subjects especially since it is affirmed that all those from whom they require such obedience if they please to use a sincere endeavour may be certain thereof as well as they And are we not here again arrived at Church-infallibility if not from extraordinary divine assistance only sincere endeavour being supposed And thus doe not his conditional Infallibility of particular persons in necessaries the condition being so easie necessarily inferr a moral impossibility of the Churches erring in them especially those necessaries being contracted to the Apostles Creed as it is by some To lay open the weakness of this Discourse which appears fair and plausible at first view I shall give an account of these two things 1. What Infallibility I attribute to private persons 2. How far the parity of reason will extend to the Infallibility of the Guides of the Church 1. As to the Infallibility by me attributed to private persons no such thing can be inferred from my words and I wish N. O. would have kept to my own expressions and not foisted in that term of Infallibility without which all his Discourse would have betrayed its own weakness For take the terms which I laid down and apply them to the Guides of the Church and see what a mighty Infallibility springs from them For if it be repugnant to the nature of the design and to the wisdom and goodness of God to give infallible assurance 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 how doth it hence follow that the Guides of the Church must be infallible in teaching matters of Faith If I had asserted that particular persons were infallible in determining what was true and what not then I grant the Argument would have much more held for those whose office it is to guide and direct others But what he means by mens being infallible in necessaries I do not well understand for it is capable of three several meanings 1. That either men are infallible in judging of necessaries to salvation 2. or That men are infallible in teaching others what art necessaries to salvation Or 3. That men are infallible in believing such things as are necessary to salvation i. e. that such is the goodness of God and the clearness of Scriptures that no man who sincerely desires to know what is necessary to salvation shall be deceived therein and what is this any more than to assert that God will not be wanting in necessaries to mankind and although I know no reason for using the term of Infallibility thus applied yet the thing it self I assert in that sense but in neither of the other and what now can be inferred from hence by a parity of reason but that the Guides of the Church supposing the same sincerity shall enjoy the same priviledge which I know none ever denied them but what is this to their infallibility in teaching all matters of Faith which is the only thing to be proved by him If he can prove this as necessary for the salvation of mankind as the other is then he would do something to his purpose but not otherwise So that all this discourse proceeds upon a very false way of reasoning from believing to teaching and from necessaries to salvation to all matters of Faith which the Guides of the Church shall propose to men 2. But may we not inferr that if God will not be wanting to particular persons in matters necessary to their salvation much less will he be wanting to the Guides of the Church in all matters of Faith No certainly unless it be proved that their Guidance is the only means whereby men can understand what is necessary to salvation which is utterly denied by us God having otherwise provided for that by giving so clear a Rule in matters necessary that no man who sincerely endeavours to know such things shall fail therein But will not the same sincerity in the Guides of the Church extend to their knowing and declaring all matters of Faith This is a thing possible and supposing God had entrusted them with the infallible delivery of all matters of Faith were not to be questioned but that is the thing still in dispute and is not to be supposed without proving it by plain evidence from those Books which are agreed on both sides to contain the Will of God Besides that no man that is acquainted with the proceedings of the Council of Trent will see reason to be over-confident of the
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
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
there must be orders and Constitutions whereby all must be kept within their due bounds and there must be persons appointed to instruct the Ignorant to satisfy the doubting to direct the unskilful and to help the weak It belongs to such a Society not barely to provide for necessity but safety and not meerly the safety of particular persons but of it self which cannot be done without prudent orders fixing the bounds of mens imployments and not suffering every pretender to visions and Revelations to set up for a new Sect or which is all one a new Order of Religious men How comes it now to pass that by saying that men considered barely as Christians may understand all that is necessary to their Salvation I do overthrow all Authority of a Church and make all men Prophets Do I in the least mention mens teaching others or being able themselves to put a difference between what is so necessary and what not or doth S. C. suppose that all that understand what is necessary to Salvation have no need to be ruled and governed If he thinks so I assure him I am quite of another opinion and do make no question but that Government ought to be preserved in a Church though the necessaries to Salvation be known to all in it and so I suppose doth any one else that in the least considers what he says By this we see that S. C ' s. recrimination of Fanaticism on our Church by vertue of this principle is as feeble as the Defence he hath made for his own of which he may hear in due time But if there be any Fanaticism in this principle we have the concurrence of the greatest and wisest persons of the Christian Church in it Two of them especially have in terms said as much as I have done St. Augustin in his Books of Christian Doctrine already mentioned and St. Chrysostome in as plain words as may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All things are plain and right in the holy Scriptures all necessary things are manifest Let S. C. now charge all the dreadful consequences of this principle on St. Chrysostome and tell him that he destroyed all Church-Authority and laid the Foundation for the height of Fanaticism Nay S. Chrysâ—stome goes much higher than I do for he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. If I had made the Guides of the Church so useless as St. Chrysostome seems to do in these words what passionate and hideous out-crys would S. C. have made And by this let the skill or ingenuity of S. C. be tryed who says that I cannot find out one single short sentence in Antiquity to support the main pillar of my Religion which he supposes this principle to be and for the finding out the sense of Scripture without the help of Infallibility I have produced more out of Antiquity in this discourse than either he or his whole partie will be able to Answer 3. Not the denying the Authority of the Church of Rome Which I must do till I see some better proofs for it than I have ever yet done But how doth this destroy all Authority in a Church can there be none but what is derived from Rome I do not think I do in the least diminish the Kings Authority by denying that he derives it from the Cham of Tartary or the Great Mogol although they may challenge the Lordship of the whole Earth to themselves and may pretend very plausible reasons that it would be much more for the quiet and conveniency of mankind to be all under one universal Monarch and that none have so fair a pretence to it as they that have challenged the Right of it to themselves and yet for all this I do verily believe the King hath an unquestionable right to his Kingdom and a just Authority over all his subjects The time was when the first of Genesis would serve to prove the Popes title and the Suns ruling by day was thought a clear argument for his supremacy but the world is now altered and all the wit and subtility that hath been since used hath not been able to make good that crackt title of Universal Pastorship which the Bishops of Rome have taken to themselves But although we disown the Popes Authority as an unjust usurpation we assert and plead for the Authority of the Church and the Bishops who are placed therein who derive their power to Govern the Church from Christ and not from the Pope And I dare appeal to any Person whether the asserting the Bishops deriving their Authority from Christ or from the Pope be the better way of defending their Power We are not now disputing what Authority were fit to be entrusted in the Popes hands supposing all other differences composed and that things were in the same State wherein they were in the times of the 4. General Councils in which case it ought to be considered how far it might be convenient to give way to such an Authority so apt to grow extravagant and which hath been stretched so very far beyond what the Canons allowed that it hath challenged Infallibility to it self but the thing at present under debate is whether the disallowing the Papal Hierarchy doth overthrow all Authority in the Episcopal which is in effect to ask whether there be any other power besides the Popes in the Church for if there be any other the denying the Popes Authority over us cannot in the least diminish the just Authority of Bishops The only considerable Question in this case is whether the rejecting that Hierarchy which was in being at the the time of the Reformation doth not make way for the peoples rejecting the Authority of our Bishops and consequently no Authority in the Church can be maintained unless we again yield to the Papal Authority This I suppose to be N. O. meaning when he tells us by Church-Authority he means that Superior and more comprehensive Body of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy which in any dissent and division of the Clergy according to the Church Canons ought to be obeyed And any particular Church divided from this more universal cannot with the least pretence of reason challenge submission from her subjects since she her self and particularly the Church of England refused the same to all the Authority extant in the world when she separated her self To this I answer That the Church of England in Reforming her self did not oppose any just Authority then extant in the World It is to no purpose to make sâ—ch loud clamours about our Churches refusing submission to all the Authority then extant in the World unless there be better Evidence produced for it than we have yet seen For it is very well known that the dispute was then concerning the Popes Supremacy over our Church which we have all along asserted to have been a notorious encroachment upon the liberties of our Church And the Popes usurpations were 〈◊〉 injurious both to the Ecclesiastical and Civil
Testimonies of Scripture it must be made manifest to be the sense by clear Evidence of Reason But he rather approves the way of proving the sense of Scripture by other places of Scripture where the interpretation is doubtful So that the way in doubtful places which he prescribes is this either to draw such a sense from them as hath no dispute concerning its being a true Proposition or if it have that it be confirmed by other places of Scripture Besides these he lays down the 7. rules of Ticonius the Donatist which are not of that consequence to be here repeated that which I take notice of is that St. Augustin thought the rules he gave sufficient for understanding the meaning of Scripture in doubtful places but he doth not in the least mention the Infallibility of the Guides of the Church as a necessary means for that end But he doth assert in as plain terms as I have done that Scripture is plain in all necessaries to Salvation to any sober enquirer and what ever consequences are charged upon me for making that a Fundamental principle must reflect as much upon St. Augustin as me and I do not fear all the objections can be made against a principle so evident to reason and so agreeable not only to St. Augustin but the Doctrine of the Catholick Church both before and after him The next after St. Augustin who hath purposely writ of this argument about the sense of Scripture is Vincentius Lerinensis about 4. years after St. Augustins death and 3. after the Council of Ephesus who seems to attribute more to the Guides of the Church than St. Augustin doth yet far enough short of Infallibility He saith that every man ought to strengthen his faith against Heresie by two things first by the Authoriry of the divine Law and then by the Tradition of the Catholick Church which tradition he makes necessary not by way of addition to the Scripture for he allows the perfection and sufficiency of that for all things but only to interpret Scripture by giving a certain sense of it there being such different opinions among men about it For all the Hereticks whom he there names had different senses of Scripture as Novatianus Sabellius Donatus Arius Macedonius Photinus c. But then he bounds this tradition within the compass of the universal consent of Antiquity as well as the present Church or as he expresseth it within those things which were believed every where always and by all persons That we may therefore consider how far these rules of Vincentius will serve for explaining the sense of Scripture we are to take notice of the restrictions he lays upon them 1. That they are to be taken together and not one of them separate from the rest As for instance that of Vniversality in any one Age of the Church being taken without the consent of Antiquity is no sufficient rule to interpret Scripture by For Vincentius doth suppose that any one Age of the Church may be so overrun with Heresie that there is no way to confute it but by recourse to Antiquity For in the case of the Arian heresie he grants that almost the whole Church was overspread with it and there was then no way left but to prefer the consent of Antiquity before a prevailing novelty In some cases the Universal consent of the present Church is to be relyed upon against the attempts of particular persons as in that of the Donatists but then we are to consider that Antiquity was still pleaded on the same side that Vniversality was and supposing that all the Ancient Church from the Apostles times had been of the same mind with the Donatists the greater number of the same Age opposing them would have been no more cogent against them than it was afterwards for the Arians It is unreasonable to believe that in a thing universally believed by all Christians from the Apostles times the Christian Church should be deceived but it is quite another thing to say that the Church in any one or more Ages since the Apostles times may be deceived especially if the Church be confined to one certain Communion excluding all others and the persons in that Church have not liberty to deliver their opinions for then it is impossible to know what the Judgement of the whole Church is And so universality is not thought by Vincentius himself to be alone sufficient to determine the sense of Scripture supposing that universality to be understood according to the honesty of the Primitive times for a free and general consent of the Christians of that Age in which a man lives but since the great divisions of the Christian world it is both a very hard matter to know the consent of Christendom in most of the Controverted places of Scripture and withal the notion of Vniversality is debauched and corrupted and made only to signifie the consent of one great Faction which is called by the name of the Catholick Church but truly known by the name of Roman 2. That great care and Judgement must be used in the applying those Rules for 1. The consent of Antiquity is not equally evident in all matters in dispute and therefore cannot be of equal use 1. There are some things wherein we may be certain of such a consent and that was in the Rule of Faith as Vincentius and most of the ancient Writers call it i.e. the summary comprehension of a Christians duty as to matters of faith which was not so often called the Symbol as the Rule of Faith that I mean which was delivered to persons who were to be baptized and received into the Church this the ancient Church Universally agreed in as to the substance of it And as to this Vincentius tells us his Rule is especially to be understood For saith he this consent of Antiquity is not to be sought for in all questions that may arise about the sense of Scripture but only or at least chiefly in the Rule of Faith or as he elsewhere explains himself alone or chiefly in those Questions which concern the Fundamentals of the Catholick Doctrine which were those contained in the Rule of Faith delivered to all that were to be baptized Suppose men now should stretch this Rule beyond the limits assigned it by Vincentius what security can there be from him that it shall be a certain rule who confined it within such narrow bounds Not that I think his Rules of no use at all now no I think them to be of admirable use and great importance to Christianity if truly understood and applyed i.e. When any Persons take upon them to impose any thing upon others as a necessary matter of faith to be believed by them we can have no better rules of Judgement in this case than those of Vincentius are viz. Antiquity Vniversality and Consent and whatsoever cannot be proved by these Rules ought to be rejected by all Christians To make this plain the