Governâ—uâ—s of a Christian society the Priviledge of Commanding in things which God hath nâ—t alâ— ready determined by his own Law We plead for the respect and reverence which is due to the Lawful constitutiâ—ns oâ— the Church whereof we are members and 〈◊〉 the just Authority of the Guides it in the exercise of that power which is committed to the Governours of it as the successours of the Apostles in their care of the Christian Church although not in their Infallibility 6. We allow a very great Authority to the Guides of the Catholick Church in the best times of Christianity and look upon the concurrent sense of Antiquity as an excellent means to understand the mind of Scripture in places otherwise doubtful and obscure We prosess a great Reverence to the Ancient Fathers of the Church but Especially when assembled in free and General Councils We reject the ancient heresies condemned in them which we the rather believe to be against the Scripture because so ancient so wise and so great persons did deliver the contrary doctrine not only to be the sense of the Church in their own time but ever since the Apostles Nay we reject nothing that can be proved by an universal Tradition from the Apostolical times downwards but we have so great an opinion of the Wisdom and Piety of those excellent Guides of the Church in the Primitive times that we see no reason to have those things forced upon us now which we offer to prove to be contrary to their doctrine and practice So that the controversy between us is not about the Authority of the Guides of the Church but whether the Guides of the Apostolical and Primitive times ought not to have greater Authority over us than those of the present Church in things wherein they contradict each other This is the true State of the Controversy between us and all the clamours of rejecting the Authority of Church Guides are vain and impertinent But we profess to yield greater reverence and submission of mind to Christ and his Apostles than to any Guides of the Church ever since we are sure they spake by an Infallible Spirit and where they have determined matters of Faith or practice we look upon it as arrogance and presumption in any others to alter what they have declared And for the Ages since we have a much gâ—eater esteem for those neaâ—est the Apostolical times and so downwards till Ignorance Ambition and private Interests sway'd too much among those who were called the Guides of the Church And that by the confession of those who were members of it at the same time which makes us not to wonder that such corruptions of doctrine and practice should then come in but we do justly wonder at the sincerity of those who would not have them reformed and taken away 7. In matters imposed upon us to believe or practise which are repugnant to plain commands of Scripture or the Evidence offense or the grounds of Christian Religion we assert that no Authority of the present Guides of a Church is to overrule our faith or practice For there are some things so plain that no Man will be guided by anothers opinion in them If any Philosopher did think his Authority ought to overrule an Ignorant Mans opinion in saying the snow which he saw to be white was not so I would fain know whether that Man did better to believe his eyes or the prudent experienc'd Philosopher I am certain if I destroy the Evidence of sense I must overthrow the grounds of Christian Religion and I am as certain if I believe that not to be bread which my senses tell me is so I must destroy the greatest Evidence of sense and which is fitter for me to reject that Evidence which assures my Christianity to me or that Authority which by its impositions on my faith overthrows the certainty of sense We do not say that we are to reject any doctrine delivered in Scripture which concerns a Being infinitely above our understanding because we cannot comprehend all things contained in it but in matters lyable to sense and the proper objects of it we must beg pardon if we prefer the grounds of our common Christianity before a novel and monstrous figment hatched in the times of Ignorance and Barbarism foster'd by faction and imposed by Tyranny We find no command so plain in Scripture that we must believe the Guides of the Church in all they deliver as there is that we must not worship Images that we must pray with understanding that we must keep to our Saviours Institution of the Lords supper but if any Guides of a Church pretend to an Authority to evacuate the force of these Laws we do not so much reject their Authority as prefer Gods above them Doth that Man destroy the authority of Parents that refuses to obey them when they Command him to commit Treason That is our case in this matter supposing such Guides of a Church which otherwise we are bound to obey if they require things contrary to a direct Command of God must we prefer their Guidance before Gods If they can prove us mistaken we yield but till then the Question is not whether the Guides of the Church must be submitted to rather than our own reason but whether Gods authority or theirs must be obeyed And I would gladly know whether there be not some Points of faith and some parts of our duty so plain that no Church-Authority determining the contrary ought to be obey'd 8. No absolute submission can be due to those Guides of a Church who have opposed and contradicted each other and condemned one anâ—ther for errour and hereâ—y For then in case of absolute submission a Man must yield his assent to contradictions and for the same reason that he is to be a Catholick at one time he must be a heretick at another I hope the Guides of the present Church pretend to no more infallibility and Authority than their predecessours in the same Capacity with themselves have had and we say they have contradicted the sense of those before them in the matters in dispute between us Yet that is not the thing I now insist upon but that these Guides of the Church have declared each other to be fallible by condemning their opinions and practices and by that means have made it necessary for men to believe those not to be infallible unless both parts of a contradiction may be infallibly true Suppose a Man living in the times of the prevalency of Arrianism when almost all the Guides of the Church declared in favour of it when several great Councils opposed and contradicted that of Nice when Pope Liberius did subscribe the Sirmian confession and Communicated with the Arrians what advice would N. O. give such a one if he must not exercise his own Judgement and compare both the doctrines by the rule of Scriptures must he follow the present Guides even the Pope himself Then he must
very next Chapter urges this as the Consequence of it that having truth for our Rule and so plain Testimony of God men ought not to perplex themselves with doubtful Questions concerning God but grow in the love of him who hath done and doth so great things for us and never fall off from that knowledge which is most clearly revealed And we ought to be content with what is clearly made known in the Scriptures because they are perfect as coming from the wâ—rd and Spirit of God And we need 〈◊〉 â—onder if there be many things in Religion above our understandings since there are so in natural things which are daily seen by us as in the nature of Birds Water Air Meteors c. of which we may talk much but only God knows what the truth is Therefore why should we think much if it be so in Religion too wherein are some things we may understand and others we must leave to God and if we do so we shall keep our faith without danger And all Scripture being agreeable to it self the dark places must be understood in a way most suitable to the sense of the plain 3. The sense they gave of Scripture was contrary to the Doctrine of faith received by all true Christians from the beginning which he calls the unmoveable rule of faith received in Baptism and which the Church dispersed over the Earth did equally receive in all places with a wonderful consent For although the places and languages be never so distant or different from each other yet the faith is the very same as there is one Sun which inlightens the whole World which faith none did enlarge or diminish And after having shewn the great absurdities of the Doctrines of the Enemies of this faith in his first and second Books in the beginning of the third he shews that the Apostles did fully understand the mind of Christ that they preached the same Doctrine which the Church received and which after their preaching it was committed to writing by the Will of God in the Scriptures to be the pillar and ground of Faith Which was the true reason why the Hereticks did go about to disparage the Scriptures because they were condemned by them therefore they would not allow them sufficient Authority and charged them with contradictions and so great obscurity that the truth could not be found in them without the help of Tradition which they accounted the key to unlock all the difficulties of Scripture And was not to be sought for in Writings but was delivered down from hand to hand for which cause St. Paul said we speak wisdom among them that are perfect Which wisdom they pretended to be among themselves On this account the matter of Tradition came first into dispute in the Christian Church And Irenaeus appeals to the most eminent Churches and Especially that of Rome because of the great resort of Christians thither whether any such tradition was ever received among them and all the Churches of Asia received the same faith from the Apostles and knew of no such Tradition as the Valentinians pretended to and there was no reason to think that so many Churches founded by the Apostles or Christ should be ignorant of such a tradition and supposing no Scriptures at all had been written by the Apostles we must then have followed the Tradition of the most ancient and Apostolical Churches and even the most Barbarous nations that had embraced Christianity without any Writings yet fully agreed with other Churches in the Doctrine of Faith for that is it he means by the rule of faith viz. a summary comprehension of the Doctrine received among Christians such as the Creed is mentioned by Irenaeus and afterwards he speaks of the Rule of the Valentinians in opposition to that of the sound Christians From hence Irenaeus proceeds to confute the Doctrine of the Valentinians by Scripture and Reason in the third fourth and fifth Books All which ways of finding out the sense of Scripture in doubtful places we allow of and approve and are always ready to appeal to them in any of the matters controverted between us and the Church of Rome But Irenaeus knew nothing of any Infallible Judge to determine the sense of Scripture for if he had it would have been very strange he should have gone so much the farthest way about when he might so easily have told the Valentinians that God had entrusted the Guides of his Church especially at Rome with the faculty of interpreting Scripture and that all men were bound to believe that to be the sense of it which they declared and no other But men must be pardoned if they do not write that which never entred into their Heads After Irenaeus Tertullian sets himself the most to dispute against those who opposed the Faith of the Church and the method he takes in his Boo of Praescription of Hereticks is this 1. That there must be a certain unalterable Rule of Faith For he that believes doth not only suppose sufficient grounds for his faith but bounds that are set to it and therefore there is no need of further search since the Gospel is revealed This he speaks to take away the pretence of the Seekers of those days who were always crying seek and ye shall find to which he replys that we are to consider not the bare words but the reason of them And in the first place we are to suppose this that there is one certain and fixed Doctrine delivered by Christ which all nations are bound to believe and therefore to seek that when they have found they may believe it Therefore all our enquiries are to be confined within that compass what that Doctrine was which Christ delivered for otherwise there will be no end of seeking 2. He shews what this Rule of Faith is by repeating the Articles of the Ancient Creed which he saith was universally received among true Christians and disputed by none but Hereticks Which Rule of Faith being embraced then he saith a liberty is allowed for other enquiries in doubtful or obscure matters For faith lyes in the Rule but other things were matters of skill and curiosity and it is faith which saves men and not their skill in expounding Scriptures and while men keep themselves within that Rule they are safe enough for to know nothing beyond it is to know all 3. But they pretend Scripture for what they deliver and by that means unsettle the minds of many To this he answers several ways 1. That such persons as those were ought not to be admitted to a dispute concerning the sense of Scripture because they rather deserved to be censured than disputed for bringing such new heresies into the Church but chiefly because it was to no purpose to dispute with them about the sense of Scripture who received what Scriptures they pleased themselves and added and took away as they
thought fit And what can the most skilful men in the Scripture do with such men who deny or affirm what they please therefore such kind of disputes tended to no good at all where either side charged the other with forging and perverting the Scriptures and so the Controversy with them was not to be managed by the Scriptures by which either none or an uncertain Victory was to be obtained 2. In this dispute about the sense of Scripture the true Ancient faith is first to be enquired after for among whom that was there would appear to be the true meaning of Scripture And for finding out the true faith we are to remember that Christ sent abroad his Apostles to plant Churches in every City from whence other Churches did derive the faith which are called Apostolical from their agreement in this common faith at first delivered by the Apostles that the way to understand this Apostolical faith is to have recourse to the Apostolical Churches for it is unreasonable to suppose that the Apostles should not know the Doctrine of Christ which he at large proves or that they did not deliver to the Churches planted by them the things which they knew or that the Churches misunderstood their Doctrine because all the Christian Churches were agreed in one Common faith and therefore there is all the reason to believe that so universal consent must arise from some common cause which can be supposed to be no other than the common delivery of it by all the Apostles But the Doctrines of the Hereticks were novel and upstart and we must say all the former Christians were baptized into a false faith as not knowing the true God or the true Christ if Marcion and Valentinus did deliver the true Doctrine but that which is first is true and from God that which comes after is foraign and false If Marcion and Valentinus Nigidius or Hermogenes broach new opinions and set up other expositions of Scripture than the Christian Church hath received from the Apostles times that without any farther proof discovers their imposture 3. Two senses directly contrary to each other cannot proceed from the same Apostolical persons This Tertullian likewise insists upon to shew that although they might pretend Antiquity and that as far as the Apostolical times yet the contrariety of their Doctrine to that of the Apostles would sufficiently manifest the falshood of it For saith he the Apostles would never contradict each other or themselves and if the Apostolical persons had contradicted them they had not been joyned together in the Communion of the same faith which all the Apostolical Churches were But the Doctrines broached by these men were in their seeds condemned by the Apostles themselves so Marcion Apelles and Valentinus were confuted in the Sadducees and first corrupters of Christianity But the true Christians could not be charged by their Adversaries with holding any thing contrary to what the Church received from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God For the succession of the Churches was so evident and the Chairs of the Apostles so well known that any one might satisfy his curiosity about their Doctrine especially since their authentick Epistles are still preserved therein But where a diversity of Doctrine was found from the Apostles that was sufficient evidence of a false sense that was put upon the Scriptures Thus Tertullian lays down the rules of finding out the sense of controverted places of Scripture without the least insinuation of any infallibility placed in the Guides of the Church for determining the certain sense of them But lest by this way of Prescribing against Hereticks he should seem to decline the merits of the cause out of distrust of being able to manage it against them he tells us therefore elsewhere he would set aside the ground of prescription or just exception against their pleading for so prescription signifies in him as against Marcion and Hermogenes and Praxeas and refute their opinions upon other grounds In his Books against Marcion he first lays down Marcions rule as he calls it i.e. the sum of his opinion which was making the Creator of the World and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ two distinct Gods the one nothing but goodness and the other the Author of evil which opinion he overthrows from principles of reason because there cannot be two infinitely great and on the same grounds he makes two he may make many more and because God must be known by his works and he could not be God that did not create the World and so continues arguing against Marcion to the end of the first Book In the second he vindicates God the Creator from all the objections which Marcion had mustered against his goodness In the third he proves that Christ was the Son of God the Creator first by reason and then by Scripture and lays down two rules for understanding the Prophetical predictions relating to the manner of expressing future things as past and the aenigmatical way of representing plain things afterwards he proves in the same manner from Scripture and Reason that Christ did truly assume our nature and not meerly in appearance which he demonstrates from the death and resurrection of Christ and from the evidence of sense and makes that sufficient evidence of the truth of a body that it is the object of three senses of sight and touch and hearing Which is the same way of arguing we make use of against Transubstantiation and if Marcion had been so subtle to have used the Evasions those do in the Roman Church he might have defended the putative body of Christ in the very same manner that they do the being of accidents without a substance In the fourth Book he asserts against Marcion the Authority of the Gospel received in the Christian Church above that which Marcion allowed by the greater Antiquity and the universal reception of the true Gospels and after refutes the supposition of a twofold Christ one for the Jews and another for the Gentiles from the comparing of Scriptures together which he doth with great diligence and answers all the arguments from thence brought by Marcion to prove that Christ was an enemy to the Law of Moses In his fifth and last Book he proves out of the Epistles of St. Paul allowed by Marcion that he preached no other God than the Creator and that Christ was the Son of God the Creator which he doth from the scope and circumstances of the places without apprehending the least necessity of calling in any Infallible Guides to give the certain sense and meaning of them Against Hermogenes he disputes about the eternity of matter the Controversy between them he tells us was concerning the sense of some places of Scripture which relate to the Creation of things Tertullian proves that all things were made of nothing
because it is not mentioned out of what they were made Hermogenes proves they were made out of matter because it is not said they were made of nothing To determine therefore the sense of these places Tertullian shews from reason the repugnancy of the eternity of matter to the attributes of God he compares several places of Scripture together he reasons from the manner of the expressions and the Idiom of Scripture I adore saith he the fulness of the Scripture which shews me both the maker and the thing made but the Gospel likewise discovers by whom all things were made But the Scripture no where saith that all things were made out of matter Let the shop of Hermogenes shew where it is written and if it be not written let him fear the wo denounced to those who add or take from what is written He examins the several places in dispute and by proving that sense which Hermogenes put upon them to be repugnant to reason as he shews to the end of that Book he concludes his sense of Scripture to be false and erroneous Against Praxeas he disputes whether God the Father took our nature upon him and the arguments on both sides are drawn from the Scriptures but Tertullian well observes that they insisted upon two or three places of Scripture and would make all the rest though far more to yield to them Whereas the fewer places ought to be understood according to the sense of the greater number But this saith he is the property of all Hereticks because they can find but few places for them they defend the smaller number against the greater which is against the nature of a rule wherein the first and the most ought to oversway the latter and the fewer And therefore he sets himself throughout that Book to produce the far greater number of places of Scripture which do assert the distinction between the Father and the Son and consequently that it could not be the Father who suffered for us Hitherto we find nothing said of an infallible Guide to give the certain sense of Scripture when the fairest occasion was offered by those who disputed the most concerning the sense of Scripture in the Age wherein they lived viz. by Irenaeus and Tertullian I now proceed to Clemens of Alexandria who in his learned Collections proposes that objection against Christianity that there were many Heresies among Christians and therefore men could believe nothing To which he answers That there were Heresies among the Jews and Philosophers and that objection was not thought sufficient against Iudaism or Philosophy and therefore ought not to be against Christianity Besides the coming of Heresies was foretold and what ever is foretold must come to pass The Physitians saith he differ in their opinions yet men do not neglect to make use of them when they are sick Heresies should only make men more careful what they choose Men ought thereby to endeavour the more to find out truth from falshood as if two sorts of fruit be offered to a man real and waxen will a man abstain from both because one is Counterfeit or rather find out the true from the apparent When several ways offer themselves for a man to go in he ought not therefore to sit down and not stir a step further but he uses the best means to find out the true way and then walks in it So that they are justly condemned who do not discern the true from the false for they who will saith he may find out the truth For either there is demonstration or not all grant demonstration or evidence who do not destroy our senses If there be demonstration there must be search and enquiry made and by the Scriptures we may demonstratively learn how Heresies fell of and that the exactest knowledge was to be found in the truth and the ancient Church Now the true searchers will not leave till they find Evidence from the Scriptures To this end he commends the exercise of mens reason and understanding impartiality or laying aside opinion a right disposition of Soul for when men are given over to their lusts they endeavour to wrest the Scriptures to them But he establishes the Scripture as the only principle of certainty to Christians and more credible than any demonstration which who so have tasted are called faithful but those who are versed in them are the truly knowing men The great objection now is that Hereticks make use of Scripture too I but they saith he reject what they please and do not follow the Body and Contexture of Prophecy but take ambiguous expressions and apply them to their own opinions and a few scattered phrases without regarding the sense and importance of them For in the Scriptures produced by them you may find them either making use of meer names and changing the significations of them never attending to the scope and intention of them But truth saith he doth not lye in the change of the signification of words for by that means all Truth may be overthrown but in considering what is proper and perfectly agreeable to our Lord and Almighty God and in confirming every thing which is demonstrated by the Scripture out of the same Scriptures Wherein Clemens Alexandrinus lays down such rules as he thought necessary to find out the certain sense of Scripture viz. by considering the scope and coherence of the words the proper sense and importance of them the comparing of Scripture with Scripture and the Doctrine drawn from it with the nature and properties of God all which are excellent Rules without the least intimation of the necessity of any Infallible Interpreter to give the certain sense of doubtful places After this time a great dispute arose in the Church about the rebaptizing Hereticks managed by the Eastern and African Bishops against Stephen Bishop of Rome Here the Question was about the sense of several places of Scripture and the practice of the Apostles as appears by the Epistles of Cyprian and Firmilian both parties pleading Scripture and Tradition for themselves But no such thing as an infallibility in judgement was pleaded by the Pope nor any thing like it in the least acknowledged by his Adversaries who charge him without any respect to his Infallible guideship with pride error rashness impertinency and contradicting himself Which makes Baronius very Tragically exclaim and although he makes use of this as a great argument of the prevalency of Tradition because the opinion of Stephen obtained in the Church yet there is no Evidence at all that any Churches did submit to the opinion of Stephen when he declared himself but as appears by Dionystus of Alexandria's Epistles the Controversy continued after his time and if we look into the judgement of the Church in following Ages we shall find that neither Stephens opinion nor his Adversaries were followed for Stephen was against rebaptizing any Hereticks and the others were for rebaptizing all because one
Baptism was only in the true Church For in the 19. Canon of the Council of Nice the Samosatenian Baptism is pronounced null and the persons who received it are to be new Baptized and the first Council of Arles decrees that in case of Heresy men are to receive new Baptism but not otherwise The second Council of Arles puts a distinction between Hereticks decreeing that the Photinians and Samosatenians should be Baptized again but not the Bonofiaci noâ— the Arians but they were to be received upon renouncing their Heresy without Baptism Which seems the harder to understand since the Bonosiaci were no other than Photinians The most probable way of solving it is that these two latter sorts did preserve the form of Baptism entire but the Photinians and Samosatenians altered it which St. Augustin saith is a thing to be believed So Gennadius reports it that those who were Baptized without invocation of the B. Trinity were to he Baptized upon their reception into the Church not rebaptized because the former was accounted null of these he reckons not only the Paulianists and Photinians but the Bonâ—sâ—â—ci too and many others But St. Basil determines the case of Baptism not from the form but from the faith which they professed a Schismatical Baptism he faith was allowed but not Heretical by which he means such as denyed the Trinity and therein he saith S. Cyprian and Firmilian were to blame because they would allow no Baptism among persons separated from the Communion of the Church The Council of Laodicea decreed that the Novatians Photinians and Quarto-decimans were to be received without new Baptism but not the Montanists or Cataphryges but Binius saith there was one Copy wherein the Photinians were left out and then these Canons may agree with the rest and Baronius asserts that the greater number of M. S. Copies leave out Photinians And withal he proves that the Church did never allow the Baptism of the Photinians though it did of the Arians by which we see that the Church afterwards did not follow that which Stephen pretended to be an Apostolical tradition viz. that no Hereticks should be rebaptized and from hence we may conclude that the Pope was far from being thought an infallible Guide or Interpreter of Scripture either by that or succeeding Ages when not only single persons that were eminent Guides of the Church such as the African and Eastern Bishops were opposed his Doctrine and slighted his excommunications but several Councils called both in the East and Africa and the most eminent Councils of the Church afterwards such as the first of Arles and Nice decreed contrary to what he declared to be an Apostolical Tradition In the same Age we meet with another great Controversy about the sense of Scripture for Paulus Samosatenus openly denyed the Divinity of Christ and asserted the Doctrine of it to be repugnant to Scripture and the ancient Apostolical tradition For this Paulus revived the heresie of Artemon whose followers as appears by the fragment of an ancient Writer against them in Eusebius supposed to be Caius pleaded that the Apostles were of their mind and that their Doctrine continued in the Church till the time of Victor and then it began to be corrupted Which saith that Writer would seem probable if the holy Scriptures did not first contradict them and the Books of several Christians before Victors time So that we see the main of the Controversie did depend upon the sense of Scripture which was pleaded on both sides But what course was taken in this important Controversie to find out the certain sense of Scripture Do they appeal to any infallible Guides Nothing like it But in the Councils of Antioch in the Writings of Dionysius of Alexandria and others since they who opposed the Samosatenian Doctrine endeavoured with all their strength to prove that to be the true sense of Scripture which asserted the Divinity of Christ. It is great pity the dispute of Malchion with Paulus is now lost which was extant in Eusebius his time but in the Questions and Answers between Paulus and Dionysius which Valesius without reason suspects since St. Hierome mentions his Epistle against Paulus the dispute was about the true sense of Scripture which both pleaded for themselves Paulus insists on those places which speak of the humane infirmities of Christ which he saith prove that he was meer Man and not God the other answers that these things were not inconsistent with the Being of the Divine nature since expressions implying humane passions are attributed to God in Scripture But he proves from multitude of Scriptures and reasons drawn from them that the divine nature is attributed to Christ and therefore the other places which seem repugnant to it are to be interpreted in a sense agreeable thereto The same course is likewise taken by Epiphanius against this heresie who saith the Christians way of answering difficulties was not from their own reasons but from the scope and consequence of Scripture and particularly adds that the Doctrine of the Trinity was carefully delivered in the Scriptures because God foresaw the many heresies which would arise about it But never any Controveâ—sie about the sense of Scripture disturbed the Church more than that which the Arians raised and if ever any had reason to think of some certain and infallible way of finding out the sense of Scripture the Catholick Christians of that Age had I shall therefore give an account of what way the best Writers of the Church in that time took to find out the sense of Scripture in the Controverted places Of all the Writers against them Athanasius hath justly the greatest esteem and Petavius saith that God inspired him with greater skill in this Controversie than any others before him The principle he goes upon in all his disputes against the Arians is this that our true faith is built upon the Scriptures so in several places of his conference with the Arian and in the beginning of his Epistle to Iovianus and elsewhere Therefore in the entrance of his Disputations against the Arians he adviseth all that would secure themselves from the impostures of Hereticks to study the Scriptures because those who are versed therein stand firm against all their assaults but they who look only at the words without understanding the meaning of them are easily seduced by them And this Counsel he gives after the Council of Nice had decreed the Arian Doctrine to be Heresie and although he saith other ways may be used to confute it yet because the Holy Scripture is more sufficient than all of them therefore those who would be better instructed in these things I would advise them to be conversant in the divine Oracles But did not the Arians plead Scripture as well as they how then could the Scripture end this Controversie which did arise about the sense of Scripture This objection which is now made so much
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
consent of Doctors in this point that it ought to be instead of a Law which they ought not to violate By this we may judge of the learning and skill of T. G. in the Doctrine of his own Church But if he would not look into the Controversal Writers of their Church yet if he had but searched into the practice of the Church either in ancient or modern times he would have been ashamed to have made use of such an Argument to overthrow all Ecclesiastical Authority among us I grant that in some tumultuous Ages of the Church Ordinations have been adjudged null through the defaults of the Persons but then it was meerly for breaking the Canons of the Church so it was in the case of Formosus for breaking the Canons against the Translations of Bishops in the case of Ebbo Arch-Bishop of Rhemes whose ordinations were nulled by Hincmarus and the Council of Soissons for not being Canonically restored after deposition but upon appeal to the Pope they were pronounced valid in the Case of Pope Constantine for precepitating Orders to secure the Popedom in the famous case of Photius whose ordination was declared Null by the opposite faction on the same grounds but all these things were done in troublesome times when one party sought a pretence against the other But if we regard the more general practice of the Church we shall find when far greater objections than these were made yet Ordinations have been allowed although made by Hereticks I shall offer him the fairest terms he can desire and for the practice of the Church referr him to his own dear second Council of Nice and the modern practice of the Roman Church The Question of the validity of Ordination by Hereticks was at large debated in the first action of the second Council of Nice upon the submission of Basilius Theodorus and Theodosius Hypatius and others who had been Bishops of the opposite party which John the Vicar of the Orient there declared to be worse than any former heresie upon which the Question was proposed whether upon renouncing their heresie they might be received as Bishops and the orders be allowed of those who were ordained by them during their Heresie Hypatius appealed to the custom of the Church then the Canons of Councils and writings of the Fathers were brought into Council Tarasius produced the Canon of the Council of Nice allowing the Ordinations of the Cathari and the imposition of hands there mentioned he understands only for benediction and not for ordination and the Council of Ephesus making no distinction between those ordained by Nestorians and others for therein the force of that third Canon must lye which Tarasius thought so plain from St. Basil allowing those Bishops which communicated with Isoes or Zoius and Saturninus from the Council of Ephesus allowing the Orders of the Messaliani or Euchitae from the Council of Chalcedon allowing the Bishops upon their repentance which had joyned with Dioscorus and more particularly for those which had been ordained by Heretical Bishops it was there shewed that Anatolius the President of the fourth Council was ordained by Dioscorus in the presence of Eutyches that John Bishop of Hierusalem after he had renounced the Acephalists by whom he was ordained was received and submitted to as Bishop by the Orthodox that many of those who sat in the sixth Council were ordained by Sergius Pyrrhus Paulus and Petrus who were in that Council declared to be Hereticks and for 50. years together Tarasius saith they had no other ordinations upon these evidences of the practice of the Church this Council of Nice declared likewise that the ordination of Heretical Bishops was valid For the modern practice of the Church of Rome I appeal to the allowance therein given to the Ordinations of the Greek Church although the Greek Church be charged with Heresie and that ever since the notorious Schism in the time of Michael Cerularius A. D. 1053. In the time of Innocent the third some Greek Clergy-men living in the Dioceses of Latin Bishops yet received ordination from Greek Bishops which made the Latin Bishops suspend them from the execution of their Office the Pope hearing of it sends to his Legat wherein he consents to the suspension in case it were done without leave from the Latin Bishop but if leave were obtained he takes off the suspension because this custom is allowed in the Church I need not produce more particular instances in this kind which may be seen at large in Morinus because in all the attempts of reconciliation in the several Councils held to that purpose as at Lyons and Florence where all the matters in difference were most fully handed there was never any objection made to the Greek Ordinations But most remarkable to this purpose is the Bull of Clement the seventh containing in it a former Bull of Leo the tenth published by Leo Allatius by Isaacius Habertus and by Morinus wherein their Ordinations and other rites and customs are expresly allowed And to this day saith Morinus they are allowed in Rome not only to perform other parts of divine service according to their customs in the Church of St. Athanasius but to ordain Priests after their own manner for which they had a Bull of Urban the eighth And now I desire T. G. to consider a little his undeniable maxim that no man can give to another that which he hath not himself whether he doth in earnest think that his own Church is so bereft of all common sense as not to understand the force of this Maxim and if it thought it of any weight in this matter how it could ever approve the Ordinations of Hereticks or decree that the Sacraments retain their efficacy where the essentials of them are observed whatever the faith or manners of the Instruments be And this was all I intended in this Preface of the rest of his Book the Reader may expect an account as God gives health and opportunity The Contents PReface to the two first Answers p. 1. A particular examination of the Pamphlet entitled Doct. Stillingfleet against Doct. Stillingfleet Of the insufficiency of J. W.'s way of answering p. 13. No contradiction about the charge of Idolatry p. 18. A distinct answer to his propositions p. 26. In what sense the Church of Rome is owned by us as a true Church p. 29. His Appendix about Idolatry considered p. 34. The second contradiction examined p. 39. The charge of Fanaticism defended p. 50. No contradiction in the charge of divisions p. 65. The conclusion p. 71. An Answer to the Book entitled Doct. Stillingfleets Principles considered The occasion of annexing those principles p. 75. Of the notion of Infallibility p. 79. N. O's concessions p. 85. His principles laid down p. 95. His exceptions answered p. 98. His proofs of Infallibility examined p. 110. Of the Arguments from Scripture for Infallibility p. 116. Of the argument from Tradition for it p. 123. Of
man once contradict himself he is to be looked on as a perjured person and whatever he saith his word is not to be taken This he not only begins with but very triumphantly concludes with it in these words and this alone may suffice to annul whatever he has hitherto or shall hereafter object against us for a witness who has been once palpably conuinced to have forsworn or contradicted himself in matters of moment besides the condign punishment he is lyable unto he does vacate all evidences produced by him against his Adversary and deserves never more to be heard against him in any Tribunal I see now what it is they would be at no less than perpetual silence and being set in the Pillory with that Pamphlet on my forehead Dr. Still against Dr. Still for being guilty of contradicting my self would satisfie I. W. and his Friends This I suppose was the meaning of stopping my mouth for ever when this Answer was to come out But now I perceive it is so dangerous a thing I had best stand upon my defence and utterly deny that I have contradicted my self in any thing in which I. W. hath charged me 2. To make it then out that this is a groundless charge I must go through the several particulars insisted on The first is in the charge of Idolatry but how do I contradict my self about this had I vindicated the Church of Rome from Idolatry in my Defence of Arch-bishop Laud this had been indeed to contradict my self but this is not so much as pretended and if it were nothing could be more easily confuted for in that very Book as it falls out very happily there is a discourse to the same purpose proving the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry in Invocation of Saints and the worship of Images and that the Heathen in the worship of inferiour Deities and Images might be excused on the same grounds that those of the Church of Rome do excuse themselves Here is then no appearance of a contradiction in terms and it is only pretended to be by consequence viz. from yielding that the Church of Rome and we do not differ in Fundamental points and that the Church of Rome is therefore a true Church from whence he inferrs that it cannot be guilty of Idolatry because to teach that would be a Fundamental errour and inconsistent with the Being of a true Church and therefore to charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry and to allow it to be a true Church is a contradiction This is the substance of what he saith upon this head to which I shall answer by shewing 1. That this way of answering is very disingenuous 2. That it is Sophistical and proves not the thing which he intends 1. That it is a disingenuous way because he barely opposes a judgement of charity concerning their Church to a judgement of reason concerning the nature of actions without at all examining the force of those reasons which are produced in the Book he pretends to answer Can I. W. imagine that any one who enquires into the safest way for his salvation and hears the Church of Rome charged with Idolatry in her worship by arguments drawn from the plain Law of God the common sense of mankind the repugnancy of their way of worship to the conceptions we ought to have of the divine nature the consent of the ancient Christian Church the parity of the case in many respects with the Heathen Idolaters should presently conclude that all these arguments are of no force meerly because the person who made use of them had upon another occasion judged so charitably of that Church as to suppose it still to retain the essentials of a true Church I will put a case paralled to this suppose one of the Church of Iudah should have call'd the Church of Israel in the time of Ieroboam a true Church because they acknowledged the true God and did believe an agreement in that common acknowledgement to be sufficient to preserve the essentials of a Church among them and afterwards the same person should go about to convince the ten Tribes of their Idolatry in worshipping God by the Calves of Dan and Bethel would this be thought a sufficient way of answering him to say that he contradicted himself by granting them a true Church and yet charging them with Idolatry whereas the only true consequence would be that he thought some kind of Idolatry consistent with the Being of a Church Might not such a person justly say that they made a very ill use of his charity when he supposed only that kind of Idolatry which implyes more Gods than one to unchurch a people but however those persons were more concerned to vindicate themselves from Idolatry of any kind than he was to defend his charitable opinion of them and if they could prove to him that this inferiour sort of Idolatry does unchurch them as well as the grosser the consequence of it would be that his charity must be so much the less but their danger would be the same This is just our case with the Church of Rome we acknowledge that they still retain the Fundamental articles of the Christian faith that there is no dispute between them and us about the true God and his Son Iesus Christ as to his death resurrection glory and being the proper object of divine worship we yield that they have true Baptism among them in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and we looking upon these as the essentials of a true Church do upon that account own that Church to be so but then we charge the Roman Church with gross corrupting that Worship which is proper to the divine nature by her worship of Images adoration of the Host and Invocation of Saints which being done not in express terms against the worship of the true God but by consequence we do not think this doth destroy the Being of a Church among them although it makes the salvation of persons in her communion extreamly hazardous and after we have gone about to prove this by many and weighty arguments is it reasonable for any one to tell us that we contradict our selves and therefore our arguments do signifie nothing whereas in truth here is no appearance of a contradiction to that which is our own sense in this matter For what shadow of a contradiction is it to say that the Roman Church is a true Church and yet is guilty of Idolatry supposing that we believe some sort of Idolatry which is very sinful not to be yet of so high a nature as to unchurch those who practise it And we choose the Instance of the ten Tribes for the ground of this charity If they can prove that all sorts of Idolatry do necessarily destroy the essentials of a Church the consequence is we must have less charity for them than we had before And such a concession from us doth not shew their guilt to
it self true is captiously set down and with an intention only to deceive unwary readers as will appear by the next proposition 2. To teach Idolatry is to err against the formentioned article of faith and Fundamental point of Religion i. e. to teach Idolatry is to teach that the honour which is due only to God is to be given to a meer creature That this is to teach Idolatry no one questions but our question is Whether they who do not teach this Proposition may not teach men to do those things whereby the worship due only to God will be given to a meer creature If he can prove that they who do not in terms declare that they do not dishonour God cannot dishonour him if he can demonstrate that those who do not teach that the honour which is due only to God is to be given to a creature cannot possibly by any actions of theirs rob him of that honour which is due to him this will be much more to his purpose than any thing he hath yet said And this proposition if he had proceeded as he ought to have done should not have been a particular affirmative but an Universal Negative For it is not enough to say that to teach Idolatry is to teach that the honour which is due only to God is to be given to a creature but that No Church which doth not teach this can be guilty of Idolatry for his design being to clear the Roman Church his Proposition ought to be so framed that all particulars may be comprehended under it But because he may say his immediate intention was not to clear their Church from Idolatry but to accuse me of a contradiction I proceed to the next Proposition 3. A Church that does not err against any article of faith nor against any Fundamental point of Religion does not teach Idolatry This proposition is likewise very Sophistical and captious for by article of faith and fundamental point of Religion is either understood the main fundamental points of doctrine contained in the Apostles Creed and then I affirm that a Church which doth own all the Fundamentals of doctrine may be guilty of Idolatry and teach those things wherein it lyes but if by not erring against any article of faith be meant that a Church which doth not err at all in matters of Religion cannot teach Idolatry the Proposition is true but impertinent 4. That the Church of Rome doth teach Veneration of Images adoration of the Host and Invocation of Saints is agreed on both sides 5. That the Roman Church does not err against any article of faith or Fundamental point of Religion This being that concession of ours from whence all the force of his argument is taken must be explained according to our own sense of it and not according to that which he puts upon it which that it may be better understood I shall both shew in what sense this concession is made by us as to the Church of Rome and of what force it is in this present debate For the clearer understanding in what sense it is made by us we are to consider the occasion of the Controversie about Fundamentals between us and the Church of Rome which ought to be taken from that Book to which he referrs There we find the occasion of it to be the Romanists contending that all points defined by the Church are Fundamental or necessary to salvation on the account of such a Definition upon this the controversie about Fundamentals was managed against them with a design to prove that all things defined by the Church of Rome are not Fundamental or necessary to be believed by all persons in order to their salvation because they were so defined To this purpose I enquired 1. What the grounds are on which any thing doth become necessary to salvation 2. Whether any thing whose matter is not necessary and is not required by an absolute command in Scripture can by any means whatsoever afterwards become necessary 3. Whether the Church hath power by any proposition or definition to make anything become necessary to salvation and to be believed as such which was not so before For the first I proposed two things 1. What things are necessary to the salvation of men as such or considered in their single or private capacities 2. What things are necessary to be owned in order to salvation by Christian Societies or as the bonds and conditions of Ecclesiastical communion For the resolving of this I laid down these three Propositions 1. That the very being of a Church doth suppose the necessity of what is required to be believed in order to salvation 2. Whatever Church owns those things which are antecedently necessary to the Being of a Church cannot so long cease to be a true Church And here I expresly distinguished between the essentials of a Church and those things which were required to the Integrity or soundness of it among which latter I reckoned the worship of God in the way prescribed by him 3. That the Union of the Catholick Church depended upon the agreement of it in things antecedently necessary to its being From hence I proceeded to shew that nothing ought to be owned as necessary to Salvation by Christian Societies but such things which by all those Societies are acknowledged antecedently necessary to the Being of the Catholick Church And here I distinguished between necessary articles of faith and particular agreements for the Churches peace I did not therefore deny but that it was in the power of particular Churches to require a Subscription to articles of Religion opposite to the errours and abuses which they reformed but I denyed it to be in the power of any Church to make those things necessary articles of faith which were not so before And here it was I shewed the moderation of the Church of England above that of Rome in that our Church makes no articles of faith but such as have the testimony and approbation of the whole Christian world of all Ages and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self but the Church of Rome imposeth new articles of faith to be believed as necessary to salvation as appears by the Bull of Pius 4. This is my plain meaning which half-witted men have stretched and abused to several ill purposes but not to wander from my present subject what is it that I. W. can hence infer to his purpose viz. that from hence it follows that the Church of Rome does not erre against any article of faith or any point necessary to salvation which if it be only meant of those essential points of faith which I suppose antecedently necessary to the Being of a Church I deny it not but do not see of what use this concession can be to them in the present debate since in the following Discourse I made the ancient Creeds of the Catholick Church the best measure of those things which were believed to be necessary to
salvation so that the force of the argument comes to this whatsoever Church does embrace the ancient Creeds cannot be guilty of Idolatry but the Church of Rome doth embrace all the ancient Creeds by my own concession therefore it is a contradiction for me to grant that they hold the ancient Creeds and yet to charge them with Idolatry And these matters being thus made plain there is no great difficulty to answer by denying the major Proposition and asserting that a Church which does own all the articles of faith which are contained in them may yet teach and practise those things which take away from that worship which is proper only to God and give it to meer creatures as I have proved the Church of Rome doth in the worship of Images adoration of the Host and Invocation of Saints But to make this yet more plain there are two things we consider in a Church the essence and the soundness of it as in a man we consider his being a man and his health when we discourse of his meer Being we enquire into no more than those things which make him a man whether he be sound or not so in a Church when we enquire into the essentials of it we think it not necessary to go any farther than the doctrinal points of faith the reason is because Baptism admits men into the Church upon the profession of the true faith in the Father Son and Holy Ghost and whatever is sufficient to make a member of the Church that is in it self sufficient being embraced to make a Church but when we enquire farther into the moral integrity or soundness of a Church then we think our selves bound not barely to know what is acknowledged and received but how far it is so and whether that Church which owns the Fundamentals of Christian faith doth not by gross and damnable errours corrupt the Worship of God and debauch those very Principles which they profess to own And in this respect none of us ever said That the Church of Rome did not err nay we do say and have manifestly proved that she hath erred against the Christian faith by introducing palpable errours in doctrine and manifold Superstitions and Idolatries in practice From hence it plainly appears that the concession I. W. urges me with of the Church of Rome being a true Church signifies nothing in the sense by me intended which contradicts the charge of Idolatry unless they can prove that none who own the Apostles Creed or their Baptism can so long as they so do teach Idolatry or be guilty of giving the honour due only to God to meer creatures These things being thus explained I hope the Sophistry of this way of arguing is made so evident that no man of understanding that resolves not before hand what to believe is capable of being deceived by it Before I come to the next contradiction charged upon me I shall for the diversion of the Reader and the suitableness of the matter take notice of his Appendix wherein I. W. goes about so pleasantly to prove me an Idolater by a notable trick which it seems came into his head a little too late after he had finisht this worthy Treatise I should have suspected it had been intended only for a piece of Drollery but that the man so severely rebukes me for it and withall talks of nothing less than demonstration in the case What thought I is it come to this at last and am I become an Idolater too who was never apt to think my self enclined so much as to superstition but what can not the controverting Wit of man do upon second and serious thoughts All the comfort I found left was towards the conclusion wherein he confesses that the same argument proves the Prophets Evangelists and Holy Ghost himself to be Idolaters Nay then I hoped there was no great harm to be feared in so good company and by that consideration armed my self against this terrible assault But at last as he made nearer approaches to me I found no mischief was like to come but what I brought upon my self for he charged me with nothing but my own Artillery and the train that was laid to blow me up was fetched from my own stores only he had disposed it in a way fittest for this deep design But the best of it was his plot went no farther than my Idolatry and both lay only in Imagination For there he makes the seat of my Idolatry which he demonstratively proves must be so by my own argument I shall therefore consideâ— what that was and with what great art he imploys it against me Among other arguments to shew that the prohibition of worshipping Images was not peculiar to the Iews but of an unalterable nature I insisted upon Gods declaring the unsuitableness of it to his own infinite and incomprehensible nature which could not be represented to men but in a way which must be an infinite disparagement to it To whom will ye liken God or what likeness will ye compare to him It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth c. and the reason given of the Law it self was because they saw no sâ—militude of God from hence I shewed that the wisest Nations and Persons among the Heathen looked on the Worship of God by Images as unsuitable to a Divine and Infinite Being and that the Gospel still more discovered Gods Spiritual nature and the agreeableness of Spiritual Worship to him that the Apostles urged this Argument against the Heathen Idolatry and the Fathers of the Church thought the reason of this Law did equally oblige us with the Iews now by what art doth he from hence prove me necessarily to be an Idolater as well as they of the Church of Rome who Worship God by Images against the very words and reason of this Law The argument is briefly summed up by himself thus Whoever Worships God represented in a way far inferiour to his greatness is an Idolater but whosoever Worships God represented to him without the Beatifical vision either by words or by imaginations as well as Images he Worships God in a way far inferiour to his greatness ergo whoever worships God represented unto him without the Beatifical vision is an Idolater but Dr. St. Worships God without the Beatifical vision no doubt of it ergo Dr. St. is an Idolater there is no help for it Nay from hence he proves that I cannot so much as think of God without Idolatry my self nor Preach of him without provoking others to it O the insuperable force of reason and the dint of demonstration but the mischief is all this subtilty is used against the Law-maker and not against me Did I not cite the words of God himself who therefore did forbid the making any likeness of him because nothing could be like him Is there no difference between having imperfect conceptions of God in our minds and making unworthy
makes things to become matters of faith Can this be understood any other way than of their own sense of matters of faith And is not this fair dealing to make me contradict my self because where I argue against them I take matters of faith in their sense and where I deliver my own opinion I take them in another sense And this being the sense of matters of faith the trifling of his arguing appears for do all these cease to be members of their Church who dispute any thing which others account matter of faith among them Are the Iesuits all out of the Church of Rome because they deny the efficacy of Grace which the Dominiâ—ans account a matter of faith Are the Iansenists and oral Traditionists divided from the Church of Rome because they deny the Popes Infallibility which the Iesuits account a matter of faith If not then all divisions in matters and articles of faith are not divisions from the true Church and from all her members and so his second Proposition comes to nothing and so likewise the third that all divisions in matters of faith so esteemed by them are divisions from the Roman Church But the fourth and fifth Propositions are the most healing Principles that have yet been thought on Fie for shame why should we and they of the Church of Rome quarrel thus long we are very well agreed in all matters of faith and I shall demonstratively prove it from the argument of I. W. drawn from his two last Propositions All who assent unto the ancient Creeds are undivided in matters of faith by Prop. 4. but both Papists and Protestants do assent unto the ancient Creeds ergo they are undivided in matters of faith And hath not I. W. now done his business and very substantially proved the thing he intended But I hope we may enjoy the benefit of it as well as those of the Church of Rome and that they will not hence forward charge us with dividing from their Church in any matters of faith since we are all agreed in owning the ancient Creeds and seeing we cannot be divided from the Church but by differing in matters of faith according to his Propos. it follows that we are still members of the true Church and therefore neither guilty of heresie nor Schism But if those who do own and assent to the ancient Creeds may yet be divided in matters of faith as they charge us by rejecting the definitions of the Roman Church then there is no shadow of a contradiction left in my charging them with differences in matters of faith among themselves though I say they own the ancient Creeds And now Reader thou seest what all these pitiful cavils are come to and what ground there hath been for them to glory in this Pusionello that with a sheet and a half hath compelled me as he saith to be my own Executioner But these great Heroes must be allowed to relate their famous adventures with some advantage to themselves it might have been enough to have rescued the Lady but not only to destroy the Giant as any man must be accounted whom such Knights encounter but to leave him grovelling in the ground and gasping for breath and that by wounds he forced him to give himself this is beyond measure glorious Go thy way then for the eighth Champion of Christendom enjoy the benefit of thy illustrious fame sit down at ease and relate to thy immortal honour thy mighty exploits only when thou hast done remember thou hast encountred nothing but the Wind-mills of thy own imagination and the man whom thou thought'st to have executed by his own hands stands by and laughs at thy ridiculous attempts But I forget that I am so near his Conclusion wherein he doth so gravely advise me that I would be pleased for once to write Controvesies not Play-Books his meaning I suppose is that I would return to the old beaten road where they know how to find a man and have something to say because others have said something before them and not represent the ridiculous passages of their Fanaticks for the defence of which they are furnisht with no Distinctions out of their usual Magazines their present Manuals of Controversie I shall be contented to wait their leisure if they have any thing material to say as I. W. gives me some hopes when he saith that other more learned pens I shall be glad to see them will give me a more particular and compleat answer I hope not in the way of cavilling if they do I shall hereafter only contemn them but I am afraid of their good intentions by the Books he mentions as such considerable things in answer to my Vindication of Arch-bishop Laud viz. the Guide in Controversies and Protestancy without Principles if others write as they have done I shall take as little notice of them as I have done of those Cannot a dull Book come out with my name in the Title but I must be obliged to answer it no I assure them I know better how to spend my time I say still let a just answer come forth that deals by me as I did by the Book I answered and then let them blame me if I neglect it But at last he gives one general reason why no great matter is to be expected to come abroad in Print not but that they have men of learning among them No doubt of it but alas for them they are so persecuted in the Printing Houses that nothing of theirs is suffered to come abroad only by great good fortune this complaint is in Print and comes abroad openly enough How long I pray have these days of persecution been For whatever you imagine I was so far from having any hand in it that the first time I ever heard of it was from your complaints Have you not formerly complained thus when Books too many have been Printed and published in England And what assurance can you give us that you do not still complain without cause But not to suffer you to deceive the people any longer in this kind by pretending that this is the reason why you do not answer our Books because you have no liberty of the Press I have at this time a Catalogue by me of above two hundred Popish Books Printed in our own language which I shall produce on a just occasion a considerable part whereof have been published within the compass of not many years And yet all possible efforts are used by us saith I. W. to hinder their Doctors from shewing their learning this of late we must needs say they have very sparingly done but all the arts we have cannot hinder some of them from shewing their weakness as this I. W. hath very prodigally done in this Pamphlet Finis AN ANSWER TO THE BOOK Entituled Dr. Stillingfleet's Principles Considered ALthough I write no Plays yet I hope I may have leave to say the scene is changed for instead of the former
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
no such thing 3. A Law of such universal concernment to the Faith and Peace of the Christian Church being supposed the practice of the best and purestâ— Ages of the Church must be supposed agreeable thereto i. e. that in all matters of difference they did constantly own these infallible Judges by appealing to them for a final issue of all debates and resting satisfied with their decisions But if on the contrary when great differences have happened in and nearest the first times no such Authority was made use of but other ways put in practice to make an end of them if when it was pretended it was slighted and rejected nay if the persons pretending it were proceeded against and condemned and this not by a popular Faction but by just and legal Authority we may thence conclude that such Judges have arrogated that power to themselves which was not given them by the Supreme Legislator These things being premised I come to his particular Arguments which lie scatteredâ—up and down but to give them the greater strength I shall bring them nearer together And they are drawn either from Scripture or Tradition or parity of Reason 1. From Scripture And in truth the only satisfactory Argument in a matter of so great concernment to the Christian Church ought only to be drawn from thence unless we will suppose the Scripture defective in the most important things For this being pleaded as a thing necessary for the Peace of the Church by some and for the Faith of Christians by others so much greater the necessity of it is so much clearer ought the evidence of it to be in Scripture supposing that to be intended to reveal the Will of God to us in matters of the greatest necessity But it cannot be denied by our Adversaries that the places produced by them for a constant Infallibility in the Guides of the Church do not necessarily prove it because they are very capable of being understood as to the Infallibility only of the Apostles in the first Age and Foundation of the Christian Church is it then to be imagined that if Christ had intended such an Infallibility as the foundation of the Faith and Peace of his Church he would not have delivered his mind more plainly and clearly than he is pretended to do in this matter How easily might all the contentions of the Christian World have been prevented if Christ had caused it to be delivered in terms so clear as the nature of the thing doth require If he had said I do promise my Infallible Spirit to the Guides of the Church in all Ages to give the true sense of Scripture in all controversies which shall arise among Christians and I expect an obedience suitably to all their determinations or more particularly I appoint the Bishops of Rome in all Ages for my Successors in the Government of the Church who shall be the standing and infallible Iudges of all Controversies among Christians this dispute might never have happened among us For we assure them that we account the peace of the Church so valuable a thing and obedience to Christs Commands so necessary a duty that we are well enough inclined to embrace the doctrine of Infallibility if we could see any ground in Scripture for it But we cannot make persons infallible by believing them to be so but we may easily make our selves fools as others have done by believing it without reason The controversie then is not whether Infallibility in the Guides of the Church be a desirable thing or not for so we say impeccability is too but the question is whether there be any such thing promised by Christ to the Guides of his Church and whether all Christians on that account are bound to yield their internal assent as well as external obedience to all their decrees which we deny and desire to see it clearly proved from his words who alone could grant this Infallibility For if an infallible Judge be therefore necessary because the Scripture is not sufficiently clear for ending of Controversies and that God hath actually constituted such a Judge cannot be proved but by Scripture surely we have all the reason in the World to expect that the Scripture should be abundantly and beyond all contradiction clear in this point to make amends for its obscurity in the rest For if this Point be not clearly proved we are never the nearer an end of Controversies because the business stops at the very head and they may beg their hearts out before we shall ever be so good natured as to grant it them without proof And they who have been so bold shall I say or blasphemous as to charge our Lord with want of discretion in case he have not provided his Church with such an Infallible Judge do certainly render him much more obnoxious to this imputation in supposing him to have constituted such a Judge if he have no where plainly declared that he hath done so And let them if they can produce one clear Text of Scripture to this purpose which by the unanimous consent of the Fathers is so interpreted and which to the common sense of Mankind is more sufficiently clear for the ending this Controversie than the Scripture is said by them to be in other necessary Points of Faith And till they have done this according to their own way of arguing we have as much reason to deny their Infallibility as they have to demand our assent to it upon the presumed obscurity and insufficiency of Scripture When I came thus prepared to find what the Considerator would produce in a matter of such consequence I soon discerned how little mind he had to insist upon any proofs of that which is his only Engine to overthrow my Principles For after the most diligent search I could make the only Argument from Scripture I found produced was from the Old Testament where I confess I least looked for it but however this is thought so considerable as to be twice produced and yet is so unlucky that if I understand any thing of the force of it it pâ—oves the Judges in Westminster Hall to be infallible rather than the Pope or any Guide of the Christian Church For the force of the Argument lies in Gods appointing Iudges under the Law according to whose sentence matters were to be determined upon penalty of death in case of disobedience But what then doth this imply infallibility no that he dares not stand to but absolute obedience which we are ready to yield when we see the like absolute command for Ecclesiastical Judges of Controversies of Religion as there was among the Iews for their supreme Iudges in matters of Law But of this place I have already spoken at large and shewed how impertinently it is produced for Infallibility in the Book he often referrs to and might if he had thought fit have answered what is there said before he had urged it again without any new strength
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
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
remain unshaken But saith N. O. the Scripture is obscure in some great and important points because S. Peter saith that men unlearned and unstable though it may be diligent enough wrested some places of Scriptures hard to be understood to their own destruction But doth S. Peter say that the Scriptures are so hard to be understood that sober and devout minds cannot learn therein what is necessary to their Salvation This had been indeed to their purpose but it is far enough from St. Peters He only saith that in St. Pauls Epistles there are some difficult passages which men that wanted judgement and constancy and it may be diligence too were ready to pervert to their own mischief But if there be such difficulties is there nothing plain and easy if bad men may pervert them may noâ— good men make a good use of them If some may destroy themselves by their own weakness and folly may not others be saved by their diligence and care If it were proved by N. O. that St. Peter charged all this upoâ— them for want of adhering to their Guides that would approach nearer his business but if St. Peter had intended any such thing as N. O. insinuates what fairer opportunity had there been of preventing this Instability in others by telling them that God had appointed infallible Guides in his Church to prevent such abuses of Scripture and that so long as they adhered to them they were safe but there is not the least word in St. Peter to this purpose when it had been most necessâ—ry to have given such advice but he only bids them have a care of imitating the inconstancy of such wicked men and grow in the grace and knowledge of Iesus Christ. If on so fair and just an occasion offered St. Peter himself whom they believe to have been Head of the Church at that time and at Rome at the writing of this Epistle doth wholly omit referring men in the sense of obscure places to Infallible Guides what can we else infer but that St. Peter knew of no such appointment of Christ or thought no such thing of necessity for his Church For if he had such was his care and faithfulness he would never have omitted so necessary a thing if the Salvation of mens souls had depended upon it If it be not then necessary to mens Salvation to have an infallible interpretation of doubtful places for what other end can it become necessary Is it that without this the Churches peace cannot be preserved because Controversies arising in the Church no issue can be put to them unless there be an infallible Iudge to determine which is the true sence of Scripture For it is impossible That Scripture it self should be judge because the Controversy is about the sense of Scripture So that either there is no way left to determine Controversies or there must be an infallible judge to deliver the sense of Scripture in â—oubtful places This is the force of all that I know can be said in this matter to which I answer 1. The strength of this argument depends upon the supposition of the necessity of determining Controversies in Religion by a living Judge who must pronounce sentence between the parties in 〈◊〉 Which supposition how plausible soever it seems is not built on any sufficient foâ—ndation of Scripture or Reason For the weakness of humane understanding the power of Interest and passion and the ambiâ—â—ity of words are as apt to beget disputes in Religion as in any other things so that we have 〈◊〉 caâ—se at all to wonder that there should happen to be Controversies among men about there 〈◊〉 when we see them daily happen about the Laws of every Country The only Question now is whether as the necessities of people have made it necessary that there should not only be Laws but Judges who should be as the most equal Arbitrators to put an end to such differences as may happen among men about matters of Right and Law it be thus in Religion too And this Question is plainly about a matter of Fact i.e. whether Christ hath appointed such Judges in all Ages who are to determine all emergent Controversies about the difficult places of his Law And in this case we think it is all the reason in the World that they who Affirm should Prove especially when they Affirm a matter of their own Right and challenge a submission from others on the Account of it We desire them who challenge to be our infallible Guides that they would shew their Commission and produce their Patent For as we are ready to yield obedience if they crave it so we think it Treason and Tyranny in them to usurp it if they have it not And it is to no purpose to talk of the Benefits that would come to the world by an infallible Judge of Controversies unless they first prove that there is one But we must not allow men to prove things to be meerly because they think it fitting they should be for that is to make themselves Wiser than Christ and rather to tell him what he should have done than prove what he hath done What if Christ having provided for the necessaries of Salvation by a clear Revelation should leave other things in the dark to exercise the Wits of some and the Charity of others What if he thought it sufficient to oblige men to the greatest honesty and Integrity in knowing and doing the Will of God and hath promised to pass by the errours and failings men are subject to barely as men What if he foresaw this matter of ending Controversies would be an occasion of raising one of the greatest in the Christian World and become a pretence of the most intolerable Tyranny over the minds of men And therefore what if he thought it reasonable to leave the failings of mens understandings and lives upon the same terms so as to give sufficient means to prevent either but not effectually to hinder men from falling into either of them What if the nature of Religion will not bear such a determination of Controversies as civil matters will because civil matters concern the right and wrong of particular persons in which it is not the sentence of the Judge so much as the Civil force whereby it is backed which puts an end to the dispute but in matters of Religion the ending Controversies can be no effect of force and power but of reason and conviction of Conscience and all the pretended infallibility in the World can never satisfy my mind unless I be first assured of that infallibility In all civil causes it is agreed on both sides that such Judges are appointed to determine cases of Law and on the supposition of this men proceed to tryal before them but in our case this is the main thing in dispute and he that pretends to be the Judge is the most accused partie and what reason can there be that only on the pretence of greater
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
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
my life had been For by making me so active in those times when I was uncapable of understanding what they were he seems to represent me as one that had so passionate a zeal for Presbytery in my cradle that I would suck of none but a Scottish Nurse that the first word I pronounced was Covenant that I would go to School to none but Lay-Elders and was cursing Meroz before the Parliament at eight years old Is not this a hopeful beginning for a good Legend Will he saith he or they damn the execrable Covenant as though I had ever any thing to do with it but when I renounced it If I should tell him that as great a Friend as he takes me to have been to Presbytery and the late times even then I was entred into Episcopal Orders by a most worthy and learned Prelate of our Church that I never subscribed any Address to the Usurpers as some in the World have done and those who would now be thought the Kings most loyal Subjects that I never drew off any one person from their Allegiance to the King to submit to to the Popes Nuncio let those who did it clear themselves even such an Apology would give too much countenance to so pitiful a Calumniator I thank him that he hath not charged me with laying the first platform of Presbytery at Geneva or having a hand in the first and second Admonitions in the days of Queen Elizabeth and I might as will charge him with the Gunpowder Treason as he doth me with any thing about the Covenant By this we may guess what Ecclesiastical History we are to expect from him who writes so at random about the matters of our own times But the man is to be pitied he was under one of Mother Juliana's fits he writ with a good mind but he knew not what Some vent must be given to a violent fermentation else the vessel might burst asunder and I hope the good man is somewhat more at ease since he purged away so much Choler I assure him I can with pleasure read what he wrote with rage and laugh at the violence of such passions which like a Gun ill charged may give fire and make a great noise but doth the greatest mischief to him that holds it If I would pursue him through all his heats I must undergo the Ordeal-tryal touch firebrands without hurting my self which although I might do yet I know my Adversaries are so implacable that even that would not convince them of my innocence I leave him therefore to grow cooler and wiser but I beseech him for his own sake that he would attempt no more the justifying the union of nothing with nothing and for the sake of Religion that he would not call God any more an incomprehensible Nothing a Description fit only for the Atheists Catechism If there were any thing in his railing Book which looked like reason or argument I might perhaps at my leisure be perswaded to answer it though I do not love to have to do with mad men no not in their lucid intervals The next that follows is one that goes about to vindicate the Roman Churches devotions and Doctrine of Repentance and Indulgencies he is a meer pattern of meekness compared with S. C. he writes pertinently and without the others bitterness and passion His great endeavour is to clear the honour of his Church from the absurd Doctrines and practices charged upon it And the force of all he saith lies in this that where the Church hath defined nothing in her Councils it is to no purpose to object that such Doctrines are taught by some in it for those who defend their separation from the Communion of a Church by reason of its erroneous or corrupt Doctrines must make it appear that those are taught by it and the belief of them also exacted from its subjects To this purpose S. C. likewise speaks in some of his lucid intervalls and I perceive this is become a common Topick among them to take off the odium of such opinions and practices as they are willing enough but ashamed to defend which I shall in this place briefly remove The thing I was to prove was that persons in the Communion of the Roman Church do run great hazard of their Salvation for which I instanced particularly in several opinions and practices which are very apt to hinder a good life which is necessary to Salvation Now a twofold Question here arises 1. Whether the Church may justly be charged with those Doctrines and practices 2. Whether although the Church may not directly be charged to have decreed them in her Councils yet so much countenance and encouragement be not commonly given to them in that Church that particular persons do run great hazard of their salvation by reason of them For which we are to consider that it hath been the method of the Roman Church to allow many more things in common belief and practice than it hath dared for very shame to decree in Councils especially when such things have been objected by her enemies In this case it hath been thought the most prudent course for the Councils to speak deceitfully and in general terms so as to give as little advantage as may be to their enemies and yet to retain ground enough to uphold their former opinions and practices Which still continuing in Vogue and reputation become so much the more dangerous to mens Souls because their Councils having had opportunity to have declared effectually against them were so far from it that by their doubtful expressions they have left ground enough for the continuance of them Now from hence the Directors of Conscience among them frame their opinions and the people think it their duty blindly to follow them and supposing any one among them should scruple any such Doctrine or practice to whom must he resort but to his Confessors and will any such dare to condemn what is generally received although not decreed by Councils or if he should dare any person rely on his private judgement when it is contrary to the most received Doctrine or practice Besides the promises of Infallibility are supposed by them to be primarily made to the Church and only by way of representation to the Council and therefore Doctrines or practices generally received and allowed by the Teachers of the Church and the Guides of conscience must be received by them as true and good for otherwise those promises would fail to the Church in its diffusive capacity and consequently supposing no General Council it were possible for the most erroneous and pernicious Doctrines and practices to prevail in the Church which must utterly overthrow all pretence to Infallibility But in our present case we need not run so far for I shall here prove that in the most material points insisted on by N. O. viz. the Doctrine of the efficacy of the Sacraments ex opere Operato and of Indulgences we do
will suffer the people to try nothing but do teach them wholly to depend on them and to that purpose they have indeed three notable sleights First they forbid them the reading of the Scriptures And the better to be obeyed therein they will not permit the Scriptures to be Translated into the Vulgar Tongue Whereof it came to pass that the people were so easily seduced and drawn from Christ to the Pope from his merits to the Saints and their own merits from his bloody sacrifice whereby only sins are remitted to their most dry and fruitless sacrifice from the spiritual food of his Body and Blood unto a carnal and Capernaitical Transubstantiation from the calling upon his name to an Invocation of Saints and from their sure trust and confidence in his death to a vain imagination of the vertue of their Masses Pilgrimages Pardons and I know not what intolerable Superstition and Idolatry I hope Arch-Bishop Bancroft may for once pass for no Puritan with T. G. But what will he say if the only persons he produces as most partial of his side do give in evidence against him Bishop Mountague is the first whose words are these in the Book cited by him Our predecessors and Fathers coming late out of Popery living near unto Papists and Popish times conversing with them having been nuzzled and brought up amongst them and knowing that Images used to be crept unto incensed worshipped and adored among them c. What thinks he is not this all one as to charge them with Idolatry And more plainly in his former Book But whatsoever you say however you qualify the thing with gentle words we say in your practice you far exceed and give them that honour which is Latria a part of Divine respect and worship And afterwards saith the people go to it with downright adoration and your new Schools defend that the same respect is due to the representer as must be given to the representee So that the Crucifix is to be reverenced with the the self-same honour that Christ Jesus is Ablasphemy not heard of till Thomas Aquinas set it on foot Clear these enormities and others like these then come and we may talk and soon agree concerning honour and respect unto Reliques or Images of Saints or Christ till then we cannot answer it unto our Maker to give his honour unto a Creature His next is Pet. Heylin And now I hope we have at last hit upon a man far enough from being a Puritan yet this very Person gives plain evidence against him For i◠his 4th Sermon on the Tares preached a◠White-Hall Ianuary 27. 1638. H◠hath these words So it is also in the point of Images first introduced into the Church for ornament History and imitation Had they staid there it had been well and no faul◠found with them But when the Schools began to State it that the same Veneration was to be afforded to the Type and Prototype then came the Doctrine to the growth When and by whom and where it was first so stated is not easie to determine and indeed not necessary It is enough that we behold it in the fruits And what fruits think you could it bear but most gross Idolatry greater than which was never known among the Gentils Witness their praying not before but to the Crucifix and calling on the very Cross the wooden and material Cross both to increase their righteousness and remit their sins And for the Images of the Saints they that observe with what laborious Pilgrimages magnificent processions solemn offerings and in a word with what affections prayers and humble bendings of the body they have been and are worshipped in the Church of Rome might very easily conceive that She was once again relapsed into her ancient Paganism With much more to the same purpose His only person remaining is Mr. Thorndike a man of excellent Learning and great piety but if we should grant that he held some thing singular in this matter what is that to the constant opinion of our Church and yet even Mr. Thorndike himself in a paper sent by him 〈◊〉 some whom T. G. know's not long before his death saith That to pray to Saints for those things which only God can give as all Papist do is by the proper sense of the word◠down-right Idolatry If they say their meaning is by a figure only to desire them to procure their requests of God How dare any Christian trust his soul with that Church which teaches that which must needs be Idolatry in all that understand not the figure So that upon the whole matter T. G. cannot produce any on◠Person of our Church that hath clearly an◠wholly acquitted the Church of Rome from the charge of Idolatry It seems then 〈◊〉 Church hath been made up of Puritans i◠T. G's sense of them But if these do no◠satisfy him what doth he think of the Arch-Bishop and Bishops and Clergy of the Convocation A. D. 1640. Were 〈◊〉 these Puritans too And yet in the sevent◠Canon they have these words And albeit at the time or Reforming this Church from that gross Superstition of Popery it was carefully provided that all means should be used to root out of the minds of the people both the inclination thereto and memory thereof especially of the Idolatry committed in the Mass for which cause all Popish Altars were demolished c. What can more express the sense of our Church than the concurrent opinion of Arch-Bishops Bishops and Clergy of both Provinces met in Convocation When we see they so lately charged the Church of Rome with Idolatry Let us now consider what exceptions he takes against the other witnesses produced by me Jewel Bilson Davenant all eminent Bishops of our Church and of great learning are cast away at once as incompetent Persons But why so Why saith T. G. they were all excepted against by our late Soveraign K. Charcles I. in his third paper to Henderson That is a shrewd prejudice indeed to their Authority to be rejected by a Prince of so excellent a judgement and so Cordial a friend to the Church of England But it is good to be sure whether it be so or no. All that he saith of Bishop Iewel is this and though I much reverence Bishop Iewel ' s memory I never thought him infallible So then he must he Puritanically inclined but whence does that follow not surely from the Kings reverencing his memory for that were to reflect upon the King himself not from his not thinking him Infallible For I dare say the King never thought the Pope infallible must be needs therefore think him a Puritan Surely never man was such a Friend to the Puritans as this T. G. who without any ground gives them away some of the greatest honours of our Church and if the Testimony last cited be of any force to prove one a Puritan all mankind and himself too for I plainly perceive by this
Preface that he is not infallible Yet for all this we will not let go Jewel no nor Bilson Davenant White Usher Downam what ever T. G. saith against them Indeed K. Charles excepts against Bilson for his Principles of civil Government but not a word of his disaffection to the Church of England For Bishop Davenant the King saith he is none of those to whom he appealed or would submit unto and with very good reason for the King had appealed to the practice of the primitive Church and the Universal consent of Fathers therefore Bishop Davenant was a Puritan It seems they have been all Puritans since the Primitive times and I hope the Church of Rome then hath good store of them for that is far enough from the Fathers or the Primitive Church But how comes Bishop White in for a Puritan being so great a Friend of Arch-Bishop Laud why forsooth Heylin reports that for licensing Bishop Mountagu's Appello Caesarem it was said that White was turned Black And canst thou for thy heart good Reader expect a more pregnant proof It was a notable saying and it is great pity the Historian did not preserve the memory of the Author of it but by whom was it said that must be supposed by the Puritans and could none but they be the Authors of so witty a saying But suppose they were the Puritans that said it it is plain then they thought him no sound Puritan for they hold no falling from Grace All then that can be inferred from this witty saying is that White sunk in his esteem among them by this Act. And is it not possible for them to have an esteem for those who are not of their own Party Concerning Arch-Bishop Usher Dr. Heylin was known to be too much his enemy to be allowed to give a Character of him and his name will not want a due veneration as long as Learning and piety have any esteem among us But he is most troubled what to do with six that remain viz. King James Bishop Andrews Arch-Bishop Laud Isaac Casaubon Doct. Field and Doct. Jackson these he could not for shame fasten the name of Puritans upon as he doth with scorn on Bishop Downam Reynolds Whitaker and Fulk whose testimonies I said to prevent cavils I need not to produce although they are all capable of sufficient vindication For King James he saith that in the place cited by me he saith expresly that what he condemns is adoring of Images praying to them and imagining a kind of Sanctity in them all which are detested by Catholicks Was ever man put to such miserable shifts Are not these King James his words But for worshipping either them Reliques or Images I must account it damnable Idolatry And doth not King James a little after take off their distinctions and evasions in these words and they worship forsooth the Images of things in Being and the Image of the true God But Scripture forbiddeth to worship the Image of any thing that God created Yea the Image of God himself is not only expresly forbidden to be worshipped but even to be made Let them therefore that maintain this doctrine answer it to Christ at the latter day when he shall accuse them of Idolatry And then I doubt if he will be paid with such nice Sophistical distinctions Is all this nothing but to charge them with such practices which they detest Doth he not mention their Doctrine and their distinctions Did not King James understand what he said and what they did It is plain he charges them with Idolatry in what they did which was that I brought his Testimony for The like answer he gives to the rest of them viz. that they charged them with what they thought they did but the Papists deny that they do any such thing i. e. in plain Terms they charge them with Idolatry but the Papists deny they commit it And so they do when I charge them with it so that T. G. by the very same reason might have acquitted me from charging them with it and have spared his Book Is not this now an Admirable way of proving that they do not charge them with Idolatry because the Papists deny they commit it Who meddles with what they profess they do or do not I was to shew what these Persons charged them with And do any of these excuse them by saying any doctrine of theirs was contrary to these particulars do they not expresly set themselves to disprove their distinctions upon which their doctrine is founded and shew the vanity of them because their open and allowed practices do plainly contradict them and shew that they do give divine honour to Images however in words they deny it But this way of defending them is as if those whom St. Paul charges that they professed that they knew God but in works they denied him should reply to him how can we deny him in our Works since we profess him in our Words Iust so saith T. G. how can they be charged with Idolatry since they profess to do no such thing Aâ—though such persons as those I mentioned did not understand both what the Papists said for themselves and what they did notwithstanding And now I joyâ— with T. G. in desiring the Reader may be judge between us whether I have betrayed my trust in pretending to defend the Church of England and whether in charging the Church of Rome with Idolatry I have contradicted the sense of it since I have made it appear that her most true and Genuin sons the most remote from all suspicion of disaffection to her or inclination to Puritanism have concurred in the same charge which I undertook to make good But there is one blow yet remaining in his Preface which I must endeavour to ward off otherwise it will be a terrible one to the Church of England for by this charge of Idolatry he makes me to subvert the very foundation of Ecclesiastical Authority in it This it is to charge home For saith he it being a received Maxime and not being denyable by any man of common sense that no man can give to another that which he hath not himself it lies open to the Conscience of every man that if the Church of Rome be guilty of Heresie much more if guilty of Idolatry it falls under the Apostles excommunication Gal. 1. 8. and so remains deprived of the Lawful Authority to use and exercise the power of Orders and consequently the Authority of Governing preaching and Administring the Sacraments which those of the Church of England challenge to themselves as deriv'd from the Church of Rome can be no true and lawful Jurisdiction but usurped and Anti-Christian And so farewel to the Church of England if the Church of Rome were not more kind in this case than T. G. is Hitherto we have seen his skill in the affairs of our Church and now we shall see just as much in the Doctrine of his own For doth not the Council
of Trent make Orders a Sacrament and one of those which doth imprint an indelible character and doth not that Council pronounce an Anathema against those that denyed the validity of the Sacrament administred by one in mortal sin in case he observes the essentials of it How then can T. G â—scape excommunication from his own Church that denies the validity of the Sacrament of Orders in case of the sin of the Givers of it If the validity of the Sacrament doth not dâ—pend on the worth or quality of the Ministers of it but upon the essentials and the institution of Christ how can the fault of the persons hinder the conveyance of that Authority which they are only the bare instruments to convey Doth T. G. think so in all other Sacraments as in case of Baptism that supposing the Ministers of it have been guilty of Heresie or Idolatry the Sacrament loses its effect Well fare then the Donatists whose opinion this was and in whom it hath been condemned by the Church If it be not so in other Sacraments how comes it to be thus in Orders which he must acknowledge to be as much a Sacrament as Baptism or else he must renounce the Council of Trent And it is observable that the very argument used by the Donatists and others was the same which T. G. here produces viz. his common maxim of Reason and not denyable by any man of common sense that no man can give to another that which he hath not himself to which this answer was given that the Instrument was not the giver but the first Institutor and in case the Minister keep to the Institution the Grace of the Sacrament may be conveyed by him though he hath it not himself But methinks if T. G. had forgotten the Doctrine of the Council of Trent he might have looked into some one or other of their own Authors to have informed himself better of their Doctrine in this matter Vasquez hath a Chapter on purpose to prove that an Heretical excommunicated suspended Bishop is a sufficient Minister of Ordination and saith that all the Schoolmen and Summists are agreed in it and that there can be no doubt at all made of it And did none of these men understand the principle that is undenyable by any man of common sense what a back-blow is this to those of his own Church for Vasquez saith this is determined as a matter of faith among them that the validity of a Sacrament doth not depend on the probity or faith of the Minister And he denies it to be in the power of the Church to hinder the effect of ordination in an excommunicated Bishop because it cannot blot out his Character or take away his power Estius saith that no Crime how great soever whether haeresie Schism or Apostasie no censure how heavy soever as excommunication can hinder the validity of ordination by a Bishop although it be of those who are not subject to his jurisdiction in case he observes the lawful rites of ordination as to the essence of the Sacrament for this reason because ordination belongs to the power of Order which being once received can never be lost but those things which belong to Jurisdiction as absolution and excommunication have no effect where that Jurisdiction is taken away And this Doctrine they all ground upon St Augustins discourse against the Donatists and upon the practice of the Church at that time which did receive those who were ordained among the Donatists without scrupling their Orders as not only appears by the testimony of St. Augustin but by the decree of an African Council to that purpose and that not only at first but when the Schism was Grown inveterate And yet Francis Hallier a late Doctor of the Sorbon tells us that the Donatists were not barely Schismaticks but they were adjudged hereticks for asserting that the efficacy of Sacraments did depend upon the quality of the persons and not upon the merits of Christ. The same Author vehemently disputes against those who assert that the power of Order can be lost by the sin of the person and shews that Doctrine hath been condemned by several Councils before that of Trent as of Arles of Orleans and Constance and undertakes to answer all the instances brought from Antiquity to the contrary as either understood of such hereticks which did not retain the essentials of the Sacrament or only implying the fault committed in giving or receiving them at the hands of such persons but not any invalidity in the Sacrament it self And afterwards he proves that Hereticks are capable of ordination But if these and many others of their later Writers will not satisfy him I desire him to consult their more ancient Authors Thom. Aquinas determins that Hereticks and those who are cut off from the Church may give orders as well as administer other Sacraments the reason he gives is that a power in Consecration is given to a Bishop which can never be taken from him although he will not allow it to be called a Character For several especially of the ancient Schoolmen would not have consecration to imprint a new Character but they were never able to give an intelligible account of what they meant by the Character as distinct from that Sacramental power which was conveyed by consecration and they granted to be indelible as the other was some making it an extension of the Character of Priesthood others a bare extrinsecal denomination added to it but however they held it such as could no more be taken away than the Character of Priesthood Cardinal Bonaventure saith that the validity of Sacraments among Hereticks was a Question much in dispute among the ancient Doctors but that it hath been determined by St. Augustin that they are valid if they preserve the essentials of them and in the matter of ordination he saith that the power of Orders although it be not a distinct Character yet because it is built upon it can no more be taken away than the Character it self but whatever is founded upon Jurisdiction as the power of excommunication and absolution may be taken away But I need not mention any more particular Writers since Morinus acknowledges that for 400. years the opinion of the validity of Orders conferred by Hereticks hath only obtained in the Roman Church Before that time he proves at large that it was more disputable as appears by the Master of the Sentences who accounts it a perplexed and almost insoluble difficulty because of the different opinions of Doctors about it but afterwards St. Augustins opinion was generally received both among the Schoolmen and Canonists and is now become a matter of faith in the Roman Church at least by consequence since the Decrees of Councils And although Morinus will not allow that any decree of their Church hath passed in this matter yet he saith there hath been so long and so universal a
be less but only our charity to be greater Suppose a man should exceed in his charity towards a person guilty of some grievous faults and say he believes he may be a pious man for all this but withall severely reproves him for his faults and tells him the danger he continually runs by such actions would it be fair for such a man to answer him that his reproofs were not to be regarded because he contradicted himself for he told him he believed him to be a pious man and yet upbraided him with those faults which were inconsistent with piety what would the consequence of this be to the thing it self would this make those faults ever the less because he judged so charitably of the person notwithstanding his committing them But when we allow the Church of Rome to be a true Church we are far from understanding by that a sound or a good Church free from corruptions which would be the most proper sense to found a contradiction upon in this matter of Idolatry but we mean no more by it than as a man is a true man though he hath the plague upon him those which we account the essentials of a Church we deny not to it but withall we contend that it is over-run with such corruptions in worship as do mightily endanger the salvation of those who live in the communion of it 2. Having thus discovered the disingenuity of making so bad a use of our charity against us I now come to shew how Sophistical this way of answering is by a closer examination of it First The starting of a new objection answers no argument and all that this amounts to is only raising a new difficulty whereas he ought in the first place to have answered all the arguments I had brought to prove them guilty of Idolatry and when he had done this fairly and plainly which for some good reasons he had no mind to do he might then have insisted on the inconsistency of it with principles owned by me but to do this without giving an answer so much as to any one argument is a clear evidence of a sophistical and cavilling humour rather than of any intention to satisfie an inquisitive mind 2. The force of this objection lyes in the different sense and meaning of several expressions made use of by him which being explained the objection will signifie nothing For if we rightly understand the notion of Idolatry the manner of teaching it the sense of Fundamental errours and a true Church as it is owned by me the very appearance of any contradiction vanisheth I agree in the general that the true notion of Idolatry is giving the honour due only to God to a meer creature and I desire no greater advantage against the Church of Rome than from such a concession but then we are to understand that this may be done several ways 1. When the worship proper to the true God is given to a false God 2. When the true God is acknowledged and worshipped but the unity of the God-head is denyed and many false Gods are joyned with him in the same worship In these two sorts of Idolatry I acknowledge that the true God is rejected either wholly in the first way or by consequence in the second But withall I say that the giving the Worship to a creature which is due only to God may be consistent with the acknowledgement of one Supream God and that these ways 1. When one Supream God is acknowledged but no difference is put between the external Worship of him and creatures This was the Idolatry of the wiser Heathen who did in their consciences acknowledge that there was but one true and supream God but yet gave the same worship to inferiour Deities that they did to him These men might have pleaded for themselves for all that I know as much to their advantage as those of the Church of Rome do against me 2. When the worship proper to the true God is given to an Image or the supposing of God to be truly honoured by us by prostrating our selves before any corporeal representation of him This likewise the Heathen were guilty of St. Paul hath long since told us of some who profess that they know God but in works they deny him so there may be some who may profess a worship due only to God but in their actions may contradict it As suppose a company of rebellious men should declare over and over that they acknowledge but one Soveraign Power of this Nation invested in the person of the King but yet should take upon themselves to raise forces to appoint great Officers of State and require that the very same outward reverence and honour be given to them which is given to the King himself would any man in his sense say that because these men still declared the supream Authority to be in the King that there was no Treason in such actions or that those persons contradicted themselves who allowed that their profession was such as became good subjects but their actions made them guilty of Treason The same we say of the Church of Rome we confess they own the supream Power of the world to be in one true God and we have no controversie with them about the essential Doctrines of Religion which is that we mean by their being a true Church but withal we say they overthrow what they say in their own practice they rob God of the honour due only to him by giving it to Angels and Saints and Images and other creatures And what contradiction now is there in all this and a Church agreeing with us in the object of worship in general should act contrary to its own profession by requiring those things to be done which take away from God that honour which is due only to him and giving it to creatures And this if I understand it is all that this first contradiction in the charge of Idolatry doth amount to To appply this now to his own propositions for the greater clearness and satisfaction of all indifferent persons His first Proposition I agree to viz. That 't is an article of faith and a Fundamental point of Religion that the honour which is due only to God is not to be given to a meer creature But I desire it may be taken notice of that this proposition is Sophistically expressed for although it be no dispute between us whether that honour which is due only to God may be given to a creature yet it is a very great one and the foundation of the charge of Idolatry what that honour is which is due only to God and in case we can prove that they do give to meer Creatures any part of that honour which is due to God it cannot at all excuse them to say that they acknowledge it to be Idolatry to give that honour which they suppose to be due only to God to a meer creature This proposition therefore though in
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.
ought to have represented if he had designed any thing but Sophistry and trifling But his game had been then quite spoiled the fine sport of making contradictions had been lost and his cross purposes had come to nothing I now come to see what contradictions he wire-draws from hence by the help of his Propositions 1. Whoever is in a condition wherein he is certainly saved is in no danger or probability of being damned If by he is certainly saved he speaks of the event then he were a hard hearted man that would not grant that he that is actually saved is in no danger or probability of being damned if he means it of a certain way to salvation then it is yet capable of several meanings For to be in a certain way may imply one of these three things 1. That the way it self is so plain that a man cannot miss of it 2. Or that the way is in it self certain but there are so many by-paths and turnings lying hard by it that it is a very hard matter for any man to keep in it 3. To be in a certain way is when not only the way it self is certain but a man keeps constantly in that way According to these several senses this Proposition may be understood if by it be meant 1. He that is in a certain way to salvation is in no danger or probability of being damned i. e. he that keeps constantly in that way which will certainly lead him to Heaven the Proposition is true but impertinent but if by it be meant no more but this that he is in a way which in it self leads to Heaven but there are so many cross and by-paths near it that though it be possible for him to hit it yet it is extreamly hazardous no one can imagine that such a one is in no probability of miscarrying for we say he is in very great danger of it notwithstanding the tendency of the way it self 2. Prop. Whoever lives and dyes in a true way to salvation having conformed to its directions or whoever has done all that was necessary to attain unto salvation is in a condition wherein he is certainly saved The Sophistry of this is so palpable that the weakest eye may discern it for it supposes that true way to salvation wherein he lives to be a very safe and secure way i. e. that it be not only true in it self but free from such errours and corruptions which may endanger salvation and in that sense it is true but very far from the purpose For none of us did ever yield that the Roman Church is a safe way to salvation nay it is expresly denyed by my Lord of Canterbury as well as by me But here lyes still another piece of Sophistry to be taken notice of whoever hath done all that was necessary to attain salvation is in a condition wherein he is certainly saved no doubt of it but the doing all that is necessary to salvation is not bare believing the necessary articles of faith contained in the Creed but obeying the Will of God which cannot be done by those who wilfully adhere to gross and open violations of it as I have charged the Church of Rome to do in her solemn acts of Worship Their cause certainly is at a very low ebb when such pittiful Sophistry must pass for reasoning and demonstration among them Never men had more need of a self-evidencing cause as well as propositions than they so little help do they contribute to it by their Writings 3 Prop. The Roman Church is a true way to salvation and teaches all that is necessary to attain unto it This is granted he saith by me and other Protestants when we acknowledge the Roman Church to be a true Church but in what sense I have already explained so far as to leave no colour of arguing from hence to any contradiction in me For this true way to salvation in our sense is no more but that the Church of Rome doth acknowledge so much of Christian faith as is sufficient to save men on condition they live accordingly and do not by gross corruptions in doctrine or practice render that faith ineffectual to them but withall we assert and maintain that to these necessary articles of Christian faith the Church of Rome hath added such errours and corruptions as make the salvation of any person extreamly hazardous who lives in the communion of it And let them have all the comfort from hence which they can I am sure they have not this that they have brought me to contradict my self by such concessions as these By this his last Proposition comes to nothing whoever lives and dyes in the communion of the Roman Church having conformed to her doctrine lives and dyes in a true way to salvation having conformed to its directions and has done all that was necessary to attain to it Which evidently supposes that we yield that the doctrine of the Roman Church is a safe way to salvation which we utterly deny all that we assert is that so much of the common Principles of Christianity as is retained in the Roman Church is sufficient for the salvation of those who do not wilfully corrupt them by bad opinions and practices or if they have do repent sincerely But for those who conform themselvs to the doctrine and directions of the Roman Church as such we are far from ever saying that such live and dye in a true way to salvation for this were to make those doctrines and directions to be as holy and innocent as we believe them to be false and pernicious See now what a contradiction here is for me to assert the Church of Rome to be a true Church because it retains the Fundamentals of Christianity and yet to make the condition of those who live in it so hazardous in point of salvation by reason of the gross errours which men are bound to believe as necessary points of faith and horrible Superstitions which they must conform to if they follow her directions Surely he could not but know this to be our meaning and consequently to have no shadow of contradiction in it no more than is in this plain Proposition That a possible way to salvation may yet be very dangerous But though Iugglers know their own cheats they would lose their trade if they made them known to the people Something must be said to amuse them and this seemed the prettiest way to confound them by dazeling their eyes with such appearances of contradictions and thereby to perswade their own party that they need not fear the the attaque of such an enemy who falls foul upon himself But it is nothing but the mist he casts before their eyes can make any have such an imagination it is but making things clear and then nothing but order and agreement appears But yet he quarrels with me for making the case of living in willful sin and in the corruptions of the Roman Church
parallel with each other 1. because I will not grant that a willful sin such as adultery to be a true way to Heaven and doth he think that I ever imagined Idolatry and gross superstition to be so If I grant that in the Church of Rome they have a true way to Heaven it is as other debauched Christians have who own faith enough to save them but their destruction comes from not living agreeably to it 2. Because I grant more to them than to Iews or Pagans yet they may be saved if they do repent True but they are not in so great likelyhood of repenting as those who own the Fundamental articles of the Christian faith and have a sincere desire in general to serve God according to his will the Grace of God being more plentiful where the Christian faith is owned than where it is rejected upon which account Iews and Heathens are in more danger of not repenting and consequently of salvation than those that live in the Roman Church 3. Because I grant a greater capacity of salvation to Roman Catholicks than they do to Protestants but they do not dâ—ny it to Protestants if they repent But the difference lyes in the nature and acts of the repâ—â—tance required We say a 〈◊〉 repentanced and a vertuous sincere mind which desires to know do the will of God may be sufficient together with a particular repentance of all known miscarriages but they say such a repentacne is necessary for us as does imply a disowning our Church as such wherein no salvation is to be had and a joyning with the Communion of the Church of Rome therefore the question about their charity and ours is about the possibility of the salvation of persons living and dying in the communion of either Church We say on the conditions before mentioned men may be saved though they do not in terms renounce their communion but they say that none who do not return to their communion can be saved and in this we justly charge them with horrible uncharitableness when many of their Writers allow a greater possibility of salvation to meer Heathens 4. Because Arch-bishop Laud grants a greater capacity of salvation than other Protestants but in what sense I have already shewed 5. That this is in effect to say that it is a true way to Heaven if they go out of it Not if they go out of it so far as it is true but so far only as it is false and dangerous If a man were going the right way from London to York as far as Stamford and there went quite out of his way into the Fens here his life is in danger if I should tell this man that the way from London to York was a certain way that the way he went in as far as Stamford was a true way and if he had kept in it would have brought him to York but the way he is now in is very dangerous and if he does not return his life is in perpetual hazard is this all one as if I should tell him while you were in the true way you must go out of it No such sense can be put upon such words by any man that hath sense and for others we give them leave to cry nonsense and contradiction All his other petty objections run upon the same palpable mistake and it would be but repeating the same thing to answer the other remaining cavils upon this Argument I come therefore to the sore place indeed the touching whereof hath made them to kick and wince so much at me and that is the Fanaticism of the Roman Church Which made them complain to Caesar that it was a new crime and never heard of before What they the sober the judicious the wise people of the Church of Rome turned Fanaticks it's false it 's impossible nay it is absolutely and utterly impossible to be true and none but Atheists can charge them with it This hath been their common way of answering to this new charge but not one wise word hath been said in a just Vindication of themselves by giving answer to those many plain and undenyable Instances I have produced I wished for no other tryal than to be bound to bring forth their own Authors and to make good the Authorities I had cited and my fidelity therein but they have fairly declined this way of tryal But how then can they free themselves from this imputation we have men of art to deal with and it is some pleasure to observe the skill they use in warding off a blow they did not look for But if they have nothing more to say then I. W. can help them to the charge will stick the faster for his attempt to clear them of it He begins with a description of Fanaticism which he saith doth necessarily contain a resistance of authority and for this very unhappily quotes my own words By Fanaticism we understand either an Enthusiastick way af Religion or resisting authority under pretence of Religion just as if one should say the true notion of Idolatry implyes the renouncing the true God and to prove it should quote words of mine to this purpose That Idolatry is either renouncing the true God or worshipping the true God by an Image for as in that case it is evident I make two sorts of Idolatry so it is as plain in this that I make two branches of Fanaticism whereof the one is an Enthusiastick way of Religion the other resistance of authority under the pretence of Religion But if this be the true notion of Fanaticism why doth he not speak one word in vindication of them from that very kind of Fanaticism which I had charged them to be so deeply guilty of Had I not proved by plain testimonies that the most Fanatick principles of Rebellion were owned by the Jesuitical party among them viz. the Kings deriving his power from the people and the peoples authority to call the King to an account and if they see good to take away his power and change the Government and not only so but to take away his life too Had I not proved by clear and late Instances that the party which owns these principles is to this day the most countenanced and encouraged at Rome and any honest men among them as to these principles are on that account hated and persecuted as P. W. and his Brethren But why no answer to this charge These are things they cannot deny and yet dare not confess them to be true If I. W. answer again let him speak out like a man and either confess and detest these Principles or we shall charge them farther with this worst and most dangerous sort of Fanaticism My duty and just zeal for his Majesties interest and security will not suffer me to let go this part of the charge against them although they would fain have it passed over in silence as though never a word had been said concerning
as Christ and his Apostles if they be not than whatever they pretend they are not looked on as divine revelations by them as manifestly appears because they are wholly rejected by some of the wisest of them doubted of and disputed by others as it were easie to prove were it not too large a subject for this discourse but by none received as writings of divine authority and equal with the Scriptures which they must be if they came from the same Spirit And since they are not it is evident that they are no otherwise esteemed among themselves than as the Fanatick heats of some devout persons of disturbed and deluded Fancies whom notwithstanding they are willing to cherish partly because they are loth to discountenance any pretence to an infallible Spirit in their Church and partly that there may never be wanting matter to make Saints of when the Pope thinks fit and good consideration is offered This may suffice to make good this charge of Fanaticism against the Roman Church and to shew that I am as far from the appearance of any contradiction therein although their Revelations are not from a real one as I. W's vain and Sophistical talk is from any appearance of reason The last contradiction charged upon me is about the Divisions of the Roman Church The occasion of which discourse was that divisions were objected to me as another consequent of the Reformation upon which I thought my self obliged to enquire into the Vnity of their Church and I have at large proved from undenyable Instances attested by their own Authors that they have no reason to insult over other Churches on account of their divisions nor to boast of their own Unity and Peace For I have there proved that there have never been greater disturbances in the Christian World than what they call the means of Unity viz. the Popes Authority hath procured no where greater or more lasting Schisms no where fiercer disputes about matters of order and doctrine than among them I considered all their salvo's and from them shew'd that if they have no divisions among themselves neither have we nay the same arguments which prove they do not differ in matters of faith from each other do likewise prove that they and we do not differ from each other in those things And what saith I. W. to all this Instead of healing their own divisions he only designs to prove me to be divided against my self that he might make up the full Tale of his contradictions But I. W. had so much forgot himself as to make good the very thing I designed and by that very argument he uses to prove that I contradict my self he manifestly proves that there are no more divisions in matters of faith between the Roman Church and us than there are among themselves This I shall make very evident but I must proceed as he doth with his Propositions 1. No divisions from the Roman Church are divisions of the Roman Church This is a very subtle principle of unity among them and by this rule there would be an admirable Unity in the Roman Church if the Pope himself were left alone in it For all others would only be divided from it and I would allow the Pope to be at a very good Agreement with himself which is more than I. W. will allow me In this case indeed there would be Vnity but where would be their Church Suppose a shepherd should boast of the excellent Government of a great Flock he had under his command and the Unity and peace they lived in and a by-stander should tell him that he saw others pretend to the same authority over that flock that he did and part followed one and part another he saw some of the chief of the Leaders set themselves against him disputing his authority he saw many of the sheep continually fighting with each other and some had wholly forsaken him would it not be a pleasant thing for this shepherd to say that notwithstanding all this they had great peace and Unity because as many as did not quarrel were very quiet and those that were divided from his Government were not under it But our question is whether such authority be the means to preserve the whole flock under Government when we see it prevents no divisions but causes many He might have spoken more to the purpose if he had framed his Proposition thus there can be no divisions in the Roman Church but such as divide men from it and in that case the Roman Church would have been reduced to a very small number But if there may be such divisions which are as contrary to Unity and peace as divisions in matters of faith are to what purpose is it to shew that they have none in one kind if they have very great in all others But although this be not sufficient to demonstrate their Vnity yet it is enough for his purpose if it doth shew that I contradict my self But where lyes the contradiction The force of it lyes here I charge them with divisions in matters of faith when divisions in matters of faith make them not to be members of the Roman Church therefore there can be no divisions in the Roman Church in matters of faith Again for in these two arguments the substance of his own propositions is couched by himself All those who assent unto the ancient Creeds are undivided in matters of faith but all Roman Catholicks assent unto the ancient Creeds ergo all Roman Catholicks are undivided in matters of faith and consequently it is a calumny in me to say they are divided in these matters Now what an easie matter is it to disposses me of this Spirit of contradiction which he imagines me possessed with I need no holy water or sacred charms and exorcisms to do it with There needs no more but understanding what is meant by matters of faith when matters of faith are spoken of by me in the place he refers to it is evident to every one that reads it and by his own words I speak only of the Fundamental and necessary articles of faith which are necessary to the salvation of all and to the very being of a Church of which kind I say none ought to be esteemed that were not admitted into the ancient Creeds But when I charge them with divisions in matters of faith I do not mean that they reject the ancient Creeds but I take matters of faith in their own sense for things defined by the Church and if I. W. had sought for any thing but words to raise cavils upon he might have found it so explained in the very place where I speak of this For that discourse is to answer an objection of theirs that they do not differ in those things which they esteem matters of faith and particularly I insisted upon that that they cannot be sure whether they differ in matters of faith or no because they are not agreed what
search and enquiry after it as times and means give leave But if we mean by a Church any particular Church he determines That particular men and Churches may erre damnably because notwithstanding others may worship God aright but that the whole Church at one time cannot so erre for that then the Church should cease utterly for a time and so not be Catholick being not at all times and Christ should sometimes be without a Church yet that errors not prejudicing the salvation of them that erre may be found in the Church that is at one time in the world we make no doubt only the Symbolical and Catholick which is and was being wholly free from error Which several expressions amount to no more than this that there will be always some true Christians in the World but what is this to infallible Teachers and Guides in a Church that pretends to be Catholick against all the sense and reason in the World And is it now imaginable after all this that Dr. Field should make any particular Church infallible No all that he means in his Preface is this that among all the Societies of men persons who have not leisure or capacity to examine particular Controversies ought diligently to search which is the true Church and having done this to embrace her communion follow her directions and rest in her judgment i.e. Suppose a man by that very Book of Dr. Fields should be convinced that the Church of Rome is a very corrupt and tyrannical Church and the Church of England is a sound and good Church which was the design of his writing it he being thus far satisfied ought to embrace the communion of this Church and so follow her directions and rest in her judgment so as not to forsake her communion for any cavils that are raised about particular Controversies of which he is not a capable judge And doth this make the Church of England infallible If we say that a man being first satisfied of the skill and integrity of a Lawyer ought to follow his directions and rest in his judgment doth this make that Lawyer infallible so we say here the resting in the judgment of a Church of whose integrity we have assurance before-hand implies only the supposition of so much honesty and skill in a Church as may over-rule the Judgments of persons who either have not leisure or capacity to understand particular Controversies which require skill in Languages search into the Fathers and later Writers on both sides If we say that unlearned persons ought in such things to trust the learned whose integrity they have no ground to suspect this doth not certainly make the more learned infallible But we may rest in the judgment of those whom we have no reason to suspect though we believe them not to be infallible and it was the former Dr. Field meant and by no means any infallibility unless he plainly contradict himself 3. He excepts That this brings in an inerrability of every particular Christian in all points necessary if such Christians will that is â—f only they shall sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them The force of this Argument will be easily discerned if we put another parallel to it viz. That they who assert from Scripture the assistance of Divine Grace to the sincere endeavours of men do make all men impâ—ccable if they will as well as those who assert that God will not be wanting in necessaries to salvation to those who sincerely endeavour to know them make all such men so far infallible if they will If any one thing be plain in Scripture the goodness of God is and who can believe that and yet think that he will suffer those who sincerely endeavour to know what is necessary to their salvation not to understand it But besides how often doth the Scripture promise a greater degree of knowledge to the meek and humble to the diligent and industrious to those that ask and seek wisdom from him to those that do the will of God to whom our Saviour hath expresly promised that they shall know of his doctrine whether it be of God or no And if this be the inerrability he means he sees what grounds we have to assert it But we understand not by it that such persons cannot erre in their judgments about what things are necessary and what not nor that they cannot erre in other things which are not so necessary to salvation but that Gods goodness is so great and his promises so plain and his word so clear in necessary things that no one who sincerely endeavours to know them shall ever miss of salvation And if such an infallibility will satisfie them we do not deny it to Popes themselves or other Guides of the Church on condition they do not think themselves infallible beyond these bounds for they are only the meek and humble whom God hath promised to teach his way and not such who will be infallible whether God will or no. His other exceptions from this principle destroying Church-Authority from the parity of reason for Church Governors and the controverted places of Scripture shall be considered afterwards 2. I now come to examine what certainty there is for this Infallibility Here I shall lay down some principles of common reason by which we may better understand the force of his arguments 1. That the Proof ought always to be more evident than the thing that is to be proved by it For otherwise it is of no advantage to the proof of it if it have but the same degree of evidence but is a great prejudice to it if it have less so that if the proofs of Infallibility be equally obscure and difficult with those things which are to be believed by virtue of it this Infallibility is of no use but if they be less evident the pretence of it is both very ridiculous and prejudicial to the Christian Faith 2. The greater concernment any Law is of and the greater danger in mistaking the meaning of it the more plain and distinct ought the terms of that Law to be As a Law about the succession of the Crown ought to be framed with all the clearness and distinctness imaginable because the peace and security of a Nation depends upon it So in case Christ hath appointed any Successor in the Government of his Church or entailed Infallibility upon the Guides of it this being a matter of such infinite concernment to the whole Church it is most unreasonable to conceive that whatever other parts of his Will were obscure those which relate to the matter of Succession and Infallibility should be so but rather so plain that no one can miss of understanding them because the weight of all the rest depends upon these two and it is so horrible a presumption in any to pretend to them in case they have no right to them and the danger so great in relying upon them if there be
added to it But since he produces no other proof for it I must consider how he goes about to weaken mine against it Two things I insisted upon against such a pretence of Infallibility viz. That such a pretence implying an Infallible Assistance of the Spirit of God there were but two ways of proving it either 1. By such miracles as the Apostles wrought to attest their infallibility or 2. By those Scriptures from whence this Infallibility is derived Concerning both these I laid down two Propositions 1. Concerning the Proof by miracles The Proposition was this There can be no more intollerable usurpation on the Faith of Christians than for any Person or Society of men to pretend to an Assistance as Infallible in what they propose as was in Christ or his Apostles without giving an equal degree of evidence that they are so assisted as Christ and his Apostles did viz. by miracles as great publick and convincing as theirs were by which I mean such as are wrought by those very persons who challenge this Infallibility and with a design for the conviction of those who do not believe it To this he answers 1. That I am equally obliged to produce miracles for the Churches Infallibility in Fundamentals which I had asserted in the defence of the Archbishop But this admits a very easie answer for when I speak of Infallibility in Fundamentals I there declare that I mean no more by it than that there shall be always a number of true Christians in the World And what necessity is there now of miracles for men to believe since they receive the doctrine of the Gospel upon those miracles by which it was at first attested Neither is there any need of miracles to shew that any number of men are not guilty of an actual errour in what they believe supposing they declare to believe only on the account of that divine Revelation which is owned by Christians for in this case the trial of doctrine is to be by Scripture But in case any persons challenge an Infallibility to themselves antecedently to the belief of Scriptures and by vertue of which they say men must believe the Scriptures then I say such persons are equally bound to prove their infallibility by miracles as the Apostles were 2. Not resting in this he proceeds to another answer the sum of which is That the Infallibility of the Church not being so large or so high as the Apostles but consisting only in the Infallible delivery of the same doctrine there is no necessity of miracles in the present Church To this I answer That the doctrine of the Gospel may be said to be new two ways 1. In respect of the matter contained in it and so it was new only when it was first revealed 2. In respect of the person who is to believe it so it is new in every age to those who are first brought to believe it Now the Apostles had their infallibility attested by miracles not barely with a respect to the revelation of new matter for then none would have needed miracles but Christ himself or the Apostles that made the first Sermons for afterwards the matter was not new but the necessity of miracles was to give a sufficient motive to believe to all those to whom the Gospel was proposed and therefore miracles are said to be a a sign to unbelievers For by these Unbelievers were convinced that there was sufficient ground for receiving the doctrine of the Gospel on the Authority of those who delivered it God himself bearing them witness with divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost Suppose then any of the Apostles after their first preaching continued only to inculcate the same doctrine for the conversion of more Unbelievers in this case the evidence of miracles was the reason of relying on the Authority of those persons for the truth of the Doctrine delivered by them From whence it follows that where the Christian Faith is to be received on the Authority of any persons in any Age those persons ought to confirm that Authority by miracles as the Apostles did For without this there can be no such Authority whereon to rely antecedently to the embracing the Christian Faith Now this is the case of the Church of Rome they pretend not to deliver any Doctrine wholly new but what was one way or another delivered by Christ and his Apostles although we therein charge them with fraud and falshood but yielding this yet they contend that no man can have sufficient ground for believing the Word of God but from their Churches Infallibility in this case it is plain that they make their Churches Infallibility to be as much the reason of persons believing as the Infallibility of the Apostles in their time was and therefore I say they ought to prove this Infallibility in the same way and by miracles as great publick and convincing as the Apostles did 3. Yet he is very loath to let go the miracles of their Church done in later times as well as formerly It would be too large a task in this place to examine the miracles of the Roman Church that may be better done on another occasion all that I have here to say is that all the miracles pretended among them signifie nothing to our present purpose unless those miracles give evidence of the Authority and Infallibility of those by whom they were done and they would do well to shew where ever in Scripture God did bestow a gift of miracles upon any but for this end and what reason there is that God should alter the method and course of his providence in a matter of so great concernment to the Faith of Mankind Such miracles as were wrought by Christ and his Apostles we defie all other Religions in the World to produce any like them to confirm their Doctrine but such as the Church of Rome pretends scarce any Religion in the World but hath pretended to the same And for his most credible Histories he vouches for them I hope he doth not mean the Church History written by S. C. nor any other such Legends among them if he doth I assure him they have a very easie Faith that think them credible And if all miracles that are so called by those among whom they are done be an Argument as he saith of the security of salvation in the Communion and Faith of that Church wherein they are done I hope he will be so just to allow the same to the Arrians Novatians Donatists and others who all pretend to miracles as well as the Church of Rome as any one that is versed in Church-History may easily see But of this more at large elsewhere 2. Concerning the proof of Infallibility from Scripture I said down this Proposition Nothing can be more absurd than to pretend the necessity of such an infallible commission and assistance to assure us of the truth of those Writings and to interpret them
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
sound and orthodox And this was the second way of defending Honorius viz. that he did not err in faith at all and this way is taken by Petavius and others and was the way intended by Petrus de Marcâ as appears by the account given of his design by Baluzius which was first to prove by most evident arguments that the Acts of the Council were never corrupted by the Greeks against the opinion before mentioned and next that he was truly condemned by the Council but not for heresy but only for negligence and remissness I think there needs nothing to shew the weakness of this but barely reading the Anathema of the Council against him which is not for bare negligence but for confirming the wicked doctrines of Sergius And I am apt to think that learned person saw the weakness of his design too much to go on with it and Baronius and Bellarmin saw well enough that whosoever was there Anathematized it was upon the account of heresy that he was so and therefore Baronius would make men believe the Anathema belonged to Theodorus and not to Honorius Petavius thinks that Honorius was deceived but it was only by his simplicity and weakness not understanding the Controversy aright So of old Iohn 4. and Maximus in his dispute with Pyrrhus defended Honorius that he spake indeed of one Will but that say they was to be understood only of one Will in his humane nature Which as Combesis saith is a more pious than solid defence of him and would as well serve for Sergius and Cyrus for Heraclius his Ecthesis and Constans his Type as Honorius his letter For who ever will peruse them will find they all proceed on the same argument that there could not be two wills in Christ but one must be contrary to the other But that which I insist on is this that it is certain the Council approved by the Pope did condemn him for heresy I desire therefore again to know whether he was rightly condemned or not if he was then the Pope must be guilty and so not infallible if not than the Council must be according to Bellarmin guilty of intolerable impudence and errour but in either case there was no infallibility in the Guides of the Church which could require our internal assent to what they declared But another defence is yet beâ—ind which is that though the Pope did erre yet it was in his private Capacity and not as Head of the Church But when doth he act as Head of the Church if not when he is consulted about important matters of faith as this was then supposed to be by two Patriarchs and when the Church was divided about them and there upon solemnly delivers his opinion This is then a meer subterfuge when men have nothing else to say I conclude therefore this Instance of Honorius with the ingenuous confession of Mr. White that things are so clear in the cause of Honorius that it is unworthy any grave Divine to pawn his own honour and that of Divinity too in sowing together Fig-leaves to palliate it Thus far I have shewn that those who pretend the most to be infallible Guides of the Church have opposed and condemned each other from whence it necessarily follows that no absolute submission is due to them unless we can be obliged to believe contradictions I might pursue this much further and draw down the History of these contradictions to each other through the following Ages of the Church wherein Bishops have been against Bishops Popes against Popes Councils against Councils Church against Church especially after the breach between the Eastern and Greek Churches the Greek and the Roman and the Roman and those of the Reformation But a man who is bound to rely only on the Authority of his Guides must suppose them to be agreed and in case of difference among them he must first choose his Religion and by that his Guide 9. In the present divided State of the Christian Church a man that would satisfy his own mind must make use of his judgement in the choice of his Church and those Guides he is to submit to Unless a man will say that every one is bound to yield himself absolutely to the Guidance of that Church which he lives in whether Eastern or Greek Roman or Protestant which I suppose N. O. will never yield to for a reason he knows because then no Revolter from us could be justified The true State then of the present case concerning the Guides of the Catholick Church is this that it hath been now for many Ages rent and torn into several distinct Communions every one of which Communions hath particular Guides over it who pretend it to be the duty of men to live in subjection to them because every Church doth suppose it self to be in the right now the Question proposed is whether it be not fitter for me to submit to the Guides of the Catholick Church than to trust my own judgement I should make no scruple in all doubtful matters to resolve the affirmative supposing that all the Guides of the Catholick Church were Agreed for I should think it arrogance and presumption in me to set up my own private opinion in opposition to the unanimous consent of all the Guides of the Catholick Church in such a case but that is far from ours for we find the Christian World divided into very different Communions The Eastern Churches are still as numerous though not so prosperous as the Roman the extent of the Greek Church alone is very great but besides that there are two other distinct Churches in those parts who break off Communion with the Greek on the Account of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon and the latter sort especially are very far spread in those parts from Armenia to the Abyssine Empire In the time of Iacobus de Vitriaco he saith these two Churches were said to be more numerous than the Greek and the Latin and Bellonius in these later times assures us that the rites of the Greek Church do yet extend farther than the Latin What then makes these Churches to be left out in our Enquiries after the Guides of the Catholick Church Are these such inconsiderable parts of the Body that no regard is to be had to them I believe upon a strict examination notwithstanding the reproach of heresy and Schism which those of the Church of Rome cast upon all but themselves they will be sound much more souâ—d parts of the Catholick Church than the Roman Church is Five great Bodies or Communions of Christians are at this day in the World 1. The most Eastern Christians commonly called Nestorians whether justly or no I shall not now examine these are spread over the most Eastern parts and all live in subjection to the Patriarch of Muzal 2. The Iacobites who are dispersed through Mesopotamia Armenia Aegypt and the Abyssine Empire and live under several Patriarchs of
their own 3. The Greek Church of which besides the Moscovites are to be reckoned the Melchites or Suriani and the Georgians for though their language be different they all agree in Doctrine 4. The Roman Church taking under it all in the Eastern parts who have submitted to the Bishop of Rome 5. The Protestant Churches who have cast off subjection to the Pope and Reformed the corruptions they charge the Church of Rome with Now of these 5. parts 4. of them are all agreed that there is no necessity of living in subjection to the Guides of the Roman Church but they are all under their own proper Guides W ch they do not Question will direct them in the right way to Heaven Only those of the Church of Rome take upon themselves against all sense and reason to be the Catholick Church and so exclude 4. parts of 5. out of a capacity of Salvation and challenge Infallibility as belonging to the Guides of it alone In this case the Arrogance of the pretence the uncharitableness of rejecting so mighty a number of Christians from the possibility of Salvation are sufficient to make any Man not yield up his Faith at the first demand but to consider a while whether there be no other Churches or Guides in those Churches when he finds so many and those not inferiour to the Roman Church in any thing save only in pomp pride and uncharitableness and all opposing those arrogant pretences of Authority and Infallibility in it what reason can he have supposing that he is to submit to any Guides that he must submit only to those of the Roman Church Why not as well to those of the Eastern Greek or Protestant Churches If any one goes about to assign a reason by charging them with heresy or Schism he unavoidably makes him Judge of some of the greatest difficulties in Religion before he can submit to his Infallible Guides He must know what Nestorianism Eutychianism Monothelism mean how they came to be heresies whether the Churches accused be justly charged with them He must understand all the subtilties of Personalitie subsistence Hypostatical Union whether the Union of two natures in Christ be substantial natural or accidental whether it be enough to say that the Divine and humane are one by inhabitation or one by consent or one by Communion of operation or one by Communion of dignity and honour all which the Nestorians acknowledged only denying the union of two natures to make one Person supposing a man be come to this he must then be satisfied that the present Eastern Christians do hold the Doctrine of the old Nesiorians for they acknowledge Christ to be perfect God and perfect Man and that the B. Virgin may be called the Mother of the Son of God or the Mother of the Word but they stick only at calling her the Mother of God Then for the other Churches which are charged with Eâ—tychianism he must understand the exact difference between nature and Person for if there cannot be two natures without two Persons then either the Nestorians were in the right who asserted two Persons or the Eytychians who denyed two natures but this being granted he must be satisfied that those called Iacobites are Eutychians although they disown Eutyches and follow Dioscorus asserting that there were two natures before the Union and but one after and that Dioscorus was rightly condemned in the Council of Chalceâ—on but supposing they are willing to leave the dispute of two natures on condition that the humane nature be only made the Instrument of the Divine in its operations whether they are justly charged with heresy in so doing All these things a Man must fully be satisfied in before he can pronounce those Churches guilty of heresy and so not to be followe But supposing those Churches be rejected why must the Greek which embraces all the Councils which determined those subtle controversies Here comes the mystery of the procession of the Holy Ghost to be examined whether from the Father alone or from the Father and the Son but supposing this to be yielded why may he not joyn with those Churches which agree with the Church of Rome in all those points as the Protestant Churches do Here a Man must examine the notes of the Church and enquire whether they be true notes whether they agree only to the Roman Church And one of the greatest of those notes being consent with the Primitive Church a Man that would be well satisfied must go through all the disputes between us and the Church of Rome and by that time he is well settled in them he will see little use and less necessity of an Infallible Guide So that a Man who would satisfy himself in this divided State of the Christian Church what particular Communion he ought to embrace and what Guides he must follow must do all that for the preventing of which an Infallible Guide is said to be necessary i.e. he must not only exercise his own judgment in particular controversies but must proceed according to it and joyn with that Church which upon Enquiry he judges to be the Best 10. A prudent submission is due to the Guides of that Church with which a person lives in Communion Having shewed that absolute submission is not due all that can be left is a submission within due bounds which is that I call a prudent submission And those bounds are these following 1. Not to submit to all those who challenge the Authority of Guides over us though pretending to never so much Power and Infallibility When N. O. would perswade me to submit my understanding to the Infallible Guides of the Church He must think me a very easy man to yield till I be satisfied first that God hath appointed such to be my Guides and in the next place that he hath promised Infallibility to them And that is the true State of the Controversy between us and those of the Church of Rome in this matter they tell us we are bound to submit to the Guides of the Church we desire to know whom they mean by these Guides and at last we understand them to be the Bishop of Rome and his Clergy Here we demur and own no Authority the Bishop of Rome hath over us we assert that we have all the Rights of a Patriachal Church within our selves that we owe no account to the Bishop of Rome of what we believe or practise it is no Article of our Creed that God hath made him Iudge either of the quick or the dead We have Guides of our Church among our selves who have as clear a succession and as good a title as the Bishops of any Church in the world To these who are our Lawful Guides we promise a due obedience and are blame worthy if we give it not but for the Bishop and Clergy of Rome we own none to them let them challenge it with never so much confidence and arrogant pretences to Infallibility So that
of against the Scriptures was never so much as thought of in those days or if it were was not thought worth answering for they diâ— not in the least desert the proofs of Scripture because their Adversaries made use of it too But they endeavouâ—ed to shew that their Adversaries Doctrine had no solid Foundation in Scripture but theirs had i.e. that the Arians perverted it because they did not examine and compare places as they ought to do but run away with a few words without considering the scope and design of them or comparing them with places plainer than those were which they brought Thus when the Arians objected that place My Father is greater than I Athanasius bids them compare that with other places such as My Father and I are one and who being in the form of God thought it no robbery to be equâ—â— with God and by him all things were made c. When Arius objected to us there is but one God of whom are all things he telâ—s him he ought to consider the following words and one Lord Iesus Christ by whom are all things from whence when Arius argued that Christ was only Gods instrument in creating things Athanasius then bids him compare this place with another where it is said of whom the whole body c. Not barely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When the Arians objected Christs saying all things are delivered to me from my Father Athanasius opposes that place of St. Iohn to it By him all things were made Thus when they objected several other places he constantly hath recourse to Iohn 1. 1 2 3. to Phil. 2. 7. 1 Iohn 5. 20. and others which he thought the plainest places for Christs eternal Divinity and by these he proves that the other were to be interpreted with a respect to his humane nature and the State he was in upon Earth So that the greatest Defender of the Doctrine of the Trinity against the Arians saw no necessity at all of calling in the Assistance of any infalâ—ible Guides to give the certain sense of Scripture in these doubtful places but he thought the Scripture plain enough to all those who would impartially examine it and for others who wilfully shut their eyes no light could be great enough for them Indeed when the Arians called in the help of any of the Ancient Writers to justify their Doctrine then Athanasius thought himself concerneâ— to vindâ—cate them as particularly Dionysius of Alexandria But as he saith if they can produce Scripture or Reason for what they say let them do it but if not let them hold their peace Thereby implying that these were the only considerable things to be regarded yet he shews at large that they abused the Testimony of Dionysius who although in his letters against Sabellius he spake too much the other way yet in other of his writings he sufficiently cleared himself from being a savouâ—er of the Arian Heresie And although Athanasius doth else where say that the Faith which the Catholick Church then held was the faith of their Fore-fathers and descended from the Apostles yet he no where saith that without the help of that Tradition it had been impossible to have known the certain sense of Scripture much less without the infallible interpretation of the Guides of the present Church S. Hilary in his disputes against the same Hereticks professes in the beginning that his intention was to confound their rage and ignorance out of writings of the Prophets and Apostles and to that end desires of his Readers that they would conceive of God not according to the Laws of their own beings but according to the greatness of what he had declared of himself For he is the best Reader of Scripture who doth not bring his sense to the Scripture but takes it from it and doth not resolve before hand to find that there which he concluded must be the sence before he reads In things therefore which concern God we must allow him to know himself best and give due Reverence to his word For he is the best witness to himself who cannot be known but by himself In which words he plainly asserts that the Foundation of our Faith must be in the Scriptures and that a free and impartial mind is necessary to find out the true sense of Scripture And after he had said in the second Book that Heresies arise from misunderstanding the Scripture and charged in his fourth Book the Arians particularly with it he proceeds to answer all the places produced by them out of the old and new Testament by comparing several places together and the antecedents and consequents and by these means proving that they mistook the meaning of Scripture So in the beginning of his ninth Book rehearsing the Common places which were made use of by the Arians he saith they repeated the words alone without enquiring into the meaning or Contexture of them whereas the true sense of Scripture is to be taken from the antecedents and consequents their fundamental mistake being the applying those things to his Divine nature which were spoken of his humane which he makes good by a particular examination of the several places in Controversie The same course is taken by Epiphanius Phaebadius and others of the ancient Writers of the Church who asserted the Eternal Divinity of Christ against the Arians Epiphanius therefore charges them which mangling and perverting the sense of Scripture understanding figurative expressions literâ—â—ly and those which are intended in a plain sense figuratively So that it is observable in that great Controversie which disturbed the Church so many years which exercised the wits of all men in that time to find out a way to put an end to it after the Guides of the Church had in the Council of Nice declared what was the Catholick faith yet still the Controversie was managed about the sense of Scripture and no other ways made use of for finding it than such as we plead for at this day It is a most incredible thing that in a time of so violent contention so horrible confusion so scandalous divisions in the Christian Church none of the Catholick Bishops should once suggest this admirable Expedient of Infallibility But this Palladium was not then fallen down from heaven or if it were it was kept so secret that not one of the Writers of the Christian Church in that busie and disputing Age discovered the least knowledge of it Unless it be said that of all times it was then least fit to talk of Infallibility in the Guides of the Church when they so frequently in Councils contrâ—dicted each other The Synodical Book in the new Tomes of the Councils reckons up 31. several Councils of Bishops in the time of the Arian Controversie whereof near 20. were for the Arians and the rest against them If the sense of Scripture were in this time to be taken from the Guides of the
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
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
their Guides only upon the opinion of their skill and integrity and when they see reason to Question these they know of no obligation to follow their conduct over rocks and precipices if they are so careless of their own welfare others are not bound to follow them therein But we are not to presume persons so wholly Ignorant but they have some general Rules by which to Judge of the skill and fidelity of their Guides If a Person commits himself to the care of a Pilot to carry him to Constantinople because of his ignorance of the Sea should this man still rely upon his Authority if he carried him to find out the North West passage No though he may not know the particular Coasts so well yet he knows the East and West the North and South from each other If a stranger should take a Guide to conduct him from London to York although he may not think fit to dispute with him at every doubtful turning yet is he bound to follow him when he travels all day with the Sun in his face for although he doth not know the direct road yet he knows that he is to go Northward The meaning of all this is that the supposition of Guides in Religion doth depend upon some common principles of Religion that are or may be known to all and some precepts so plain that every Christian without any help may know them to be his duty within the compass of these plain and known duties lyes the capacity of persons judging of their Guides if they carry them out of this beaten way they have no reason to rely upon them in other things if they keep themselves carefully within those bounds and shew great integrity therein then in doubtful and obscure things they may with more safety rely upon them But if they tell them they must put out their eyes to follow them the better or if they kindly allow them to keep their eyes in their heads yet they must believe them against their eye-sight if they perswade them to break plain Commands of God and to alter the Institutions of Christ what reason can there be that any should commit themselves to the absolute Conduct of such unfaithful Guides And this is not to destroy all Authority of faithful Guides for they may be of great use for the direction of unskilful persons in matters that are doubtful and require skill to resolve them but it is only to suppose that their Authority is not absolute nor their direction infallible But if we take away this Infallible direction from the Guides of the Church what Authority is there left them As much as ever God gave them and if they will not be contented with that we cannot help it and that it may appear how vain and frivolous these exceptions are I shall now shew what real Authority is still left in the Governours of the Church though Infallibility be taken away And that lyes in three things 1. An Authority of inflicting censures upon offenders which is commonly called the Power of the keys or of receiving into and excluding out of the Communion of the Church This the Church was invested with by Christ himself and is the necessary consequence of the being and institution of a Christian Society which cannot be preserved in its purity and peace without it Which Authority belongs to the Governours of the Church and however the Church in some respects be incorporated with the Common-wealth in a Christian State yet its Fundamental Rights remain distinct from it of which this is one of the chief to receive into and exclude out of the Church such persons which according to the Laws of a Christian Society are fit to be taken in or shut out 2. An Authority of making Rules and Canons about matters of order and decency in the Church Not meerly in the necessary circumstances of time and place and such things the contrary to which imply a natural indecency but in continuing and establishing those ancient rites of the Christian Church which were practised in the early times of Christianity and are in themselves of an indifferent nature Which Authority of the Church hath been not only asserted in the Articles of our Church but strenuously defended against the trifling objections of her Enemies from Scripture Antiquity and Reason And I freely grant not only that such an Authority is in it self reasonable and just but that in such matters required by a Lawful Authority such as that of our Church is there is an advantage on the side of Authority against a scrupulous Conscience which ought to over-rule the practice of such who are the members of that Church 3. An Authority of proposing matters of faith and directing men in Religion Which is the proper Authority of Teachers and Guides and Instructers of others which may be done several ways as by particular instruction of doubtful persons who are bound to make use of the best helps they can among which that of their Guides is the most ready and useful and who are obliged to take care of their Souls and therefore to give the most faithful advice and Counsel to them Besides this there is a publick way of instructing by discourses grounded upon Scripture to particular congregations assembled together for the worship of God in places set apart for that end and therefore called Churches And those who are duly appointed for this work and ordained by those whose office is to ordain viz. the Bishops have an Authority to declare what the mind and Will of God is contained in Scripture in order to the Salvation and edification of the Souls of men But besides this we may consider the Bishops and representative Clergy of a Church as met together for reforming any abuses crept into the practice of Religion or errours in Doctrine and in this case we assert that such a Synod or Convocation hath the power and Authority within it self especially having all the ancient rights of a Patriarchal Church when a more general consent cannot be obtained to publish and declare what those errours abuses are to do as much as in them lyes to reform them viz. by requiring a consent to such propositions as are agreed upon for that end of those who are to enjoy the publick offices of teaching and instructing others Not to the end that all those propositions should be believed as Articles of Faith but because no Reformation can be effected if persons may be allowed to preach and officiate in the Church in a way contrary to the design of such a Reformation And this is now that Authority we attribute to the Governours of our Church although we allow no Infallibility to them And herein we proceed in a due mean between the extremes of robbing the Church of all Authority of one side and advancing it to Infallibility on the other But we cannot help the weakness of those mens understanding who cannot apprehend that any such thing as Authority
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
Government that those who adhered to the Religion of the Roman Church yet agreed to the rejecting that Authority which he challenged in England Which is sufficiently known to have been the beginning of the Breach between the two Churches Afterwards when it was thus agreed that the Bishop of Rome had no such Authority as he challenged what should hinder our Church from proceeding in the best way it could for the Reformation of it self For the Popes Supremacy being cast out as an usurpation our Church was thereby declared to be a Free Church having the Power of Government within it self And what method of proceeding could be more reasonable in this case than by the advice of the Governours of the Church and by the concurrence of civil Authority to publish such Rules and Articles according to which Religion was to be professed and the worship of God setled in England And this is that which N. O. calls refusing submission to all the Authority then extant in the world was all the Authority then extant shut up in the Popes Breast was there no due power of Governing left because his unjust power was cast off and that first by Bishops who in other things adhered to the Roman Church But they proceeded farther and altered many things in Religion against the Consent of the more Vniversal Church It is plain since our Church was declared to be Free they had a Liberty of enquiring and determining things fittest to be believed and practised this then could not be her fault But in those things they decreed they went contrary to the consent of the Vniversal Church Here we are now come to the merits of the cause and we have from the beginning of the Reformation defended that we rejected nothing but innovations and Reformed nothing but Abuses But the Church thought otherwise of them What Church I pray The Primitive and Apostolical that we have always appealed to and offered to be tryed by The truly Catholick Church of all Ages That we utterly deny to have agreed in any one thing against the Church of England But the plain English of all is the Church of Rome was against the Church of England and no wonder for the Church of England was against the Church of Rome but we know of no Fault we are guilty of therein nor any obligation of submission to the Commands of that Church And N. O. doth not say that we opposed the whole Church but the more Vniversal Church i. e. I suppose the greater number of Persons at that time But doth he undertake to make this good that the greater number of Christians then in the world did oppose the Church of England How doth he know that the Eastern Armenian Abyssin and Greek Churches did agree with the Church of Rome against us No that is not his meaning but by the more Vniversal Church he fairly understands no more but the Church of Rome And that we did oppose the Doctrine and practices of the Church of Rome we deny not but we utterly deny that to be the Catholick Church or that we opposed any lawful Authority in denying submission to it But according to the Canons of the Church we are to obey in any dissent or division of the Clergy the Superior and more comprehensive Body of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy What he means by this I do not well understand either it must be the Authority of the Pope and Councils of the Roman Church or a General Council of all the Catholick Church For the first we owe no obedience to them for the second there was no such thing then in the world and therefore could not be opposed And for the Canons of the Catholick Councils before the breaches of Christendom no Church hath been more guilty of a violation of them than the Church of Rome since the Rules of the Fathers have been turned into the Royalties of S. Peter We are no Enemies to the ancient Patriarchal Government of the Christian Church and are far more for preserving the Dignity of it than the Roman Church can be For we should think it a happy State of the Christian Church if all the Patriarchs did enjoy their ancient power and priviledges and all Christendom would consent to a truly Free and General Council which we look on as the best expedient on earth for composing the differences of the Christian World if it might be had But we cannot endure to be abused by meer names of titular Patriarchs but real Servants and Pensionaries of the Popes with combinations of interested parties instead of General Councils with the pleasure of Popes instead of ancient Canons Let them reduce the ancient Government of the Church within its due bounds let the Bishop of Rome content himself with the priviledges he then enâ—oyed let debates be free and Bishops assemble with an equal proportion out of all Churches of Christendom and if we then oppose so generâ—l a consent of the Christian Church let them charge us with not submitting to all the Authority extant of the world But since the State of Christendom hath been so much divided that a truly General Council is next to an impossible thing the Church must be Reformed by its parts and every Free Church enjoying the Rights of a Patriarchal See hath according to the Canons of the Church a sufficient power to Reform all abuses within it self when a more general consent cannot be obtained By this we may see how very feeble this charge is of destroying all Church-Authority by refusing submission to the Roman Hierarchy and how very pityful an advantage can from hence be made by the dissenting parties among us who decry that Patriarchal and ancient Government as Anti-christian which we allow as Prudent and Christian. But of the difference of these two case I have spoken already 4. But yet N. O. saith my principles afford no effectual way or means in this Church of suppressing or convicting any Schism Sect or Heresie or reducing them either to submission of judgement or silence Therefore my Principles are destâ—â—ctive to all Church-Authority To which I answer 1. That the design of my Principles was to lay down the Foundations of Faith and not the means of suppressing heresies If I had laid down the Foundations of Peace and left all Persons to their own judgements without any regard to Authority this might have been justly objected against me but according to this way it might have been objected to Aristotle that he was an Enemy to civil Government because he doth not lay down the Rules of it in his Logick or that Hippocrates favoured the Chymists and Mountebanks because he saith not a word of the Colledge of Physitians If I had said any thing about the Authority of particular Churches or the ways of suppressing Sects then how insultingly had I been asked What is all this to the Foundations of Faith Excellent Protestant principles of Faith They begin now to resolve faith into the Authority of
l. 8. c. 4. n. 27. La Morale de Iesuits â—â—v 2. ch 2. â— 253. Layman Theol. Moral l. 5. tract 6. c. 2. sect 2. Tolet. Summ Cas. l. 3. c 4. Morinus de Poenit. l. 8. c. 4. n. 1. Lugo de Poenit. disp 5. sect 9. n. 130 135. O. N. p. 45. Lugo disp 7. sect 11. n. 201. Sect. 13. n. 263. Greg. de Valent. Tom. 4. disp 7. q. 8. puaâ— 4. sect Secundo potest Morin de poenit l. 8. c. 4. n. 15. Id. ib. n. 26. Sacramentorum Evangelicorum supra legaliaa praestantiam praerogativam in hoc potissimum fulgere quod Evangelica gravissimo Contritionis Dilectionis Dei jugo nos liberaverint Morin de Poenit. l. 8. c. 4. n. 26. Index Expâ—rg Alex. 7. n. 87. 88. Ribadin 〈…〉 l. 5. c. â— P. 38. P. 39. P. 50. P. 40. P. 21. P. 13. Sanctissiâ—â—â— Domini N. D. Innocentiâ— Divina Providentia Papâ— 10. Declaratio nullitatis Articulorum Nuperae Pacis Germaniae Religioni Catholicae Sedi Apostolicae Ecclesiis aliisque lâ—â—is piis ac Personis Iuribus Ecclesiasticis quomodo libet praejudicialium Romae ex Typographiâ Reverend Canâ—â—â— Apostolicae A. D. 1651. P. 312. Book of Hom. second Tome p. 46. P. 214. P. 19â— P. 30. Appeal p. 263. Answer to the Gagg p. 319. P. 110. Concil Trident sess 7. can 9. sess 23. can 4. V. Vasquez in 3. p. Thom. disp 137. c. 3. n. 20. Vasquez in 3. p Th. disp 243. c. 1. Est. in Senteâ—t l. 4. disti 25. sect 3. Aug. â—l 2. c. Epist. Paâ—â—ca c. 13. 17. c. Donat. l 1. c. 1. l. 3 c. 1â— Aug. Eâ—ist 50. Epist. 162. c. câ—ss l. 2. c. 11. 12. Coâ—ex Caâ— Eccles. Aâ—ic c. 63. Apud Baâ—samon Et Zonar â— 71. Hallier de ordiâ— sacris p. 2. Sect. 4. c. 5. ss 1. n. 4. P. 2. sect 3. c. 2. sect 5. 6 7. Sect. 4. c. 5. sâ—ct 1. To. Aquin. suppl q. 38. art 2. 〈…〉 l. 4. â—â—ist 25. q. 2. Moriâ— dâ— Sacris Ordiâ—at paâ— 3. Exercit 5. c. 1. n. 12 Exerâ—it 5. c. 8. n. 7. Extraâ— de temp 〈◊〉 C. quod Trasl Morin de sacris ordinat part 1. c. 3. 4. 5. Leo Allatius de aetat Et inteâ—st in collat Ordin p. 5. 14. Isaaac Habert Poâ—tifical Graec. in praef Morin de Sacris Ordin p. 1. c. 4. §. 1â— Of the Nature of these Answers §. 2. Of their common way of Answering our Books §. 3. Of their Caâ—â—mnies against me Mat. 26. 65. 1 Jâ—h 4. 1. §. 4. Expoâ—ing Fanaticism no disservice to Christianity Dr. 〈◊〉 against Dr. Stillingâ—â—â—t p. 11. Mâ—â—â—h Caâ— loc Tâ—col l. 11. p. 534. Lud. Viv. aâ—trad 〈◊〉 l. 5. Dr. 〈◊〉 Princip conâ—id 〈◊〉 §. 1. The insufficiency of his way of Answering P. 14. St. against St. p. 14. §. 2. No contratradiction about the charge of Idolatry Rational Account p. 596 606. §. 2. The Sophistical cavils in this argument Tit. 1. 16. §. 3. A distinct answer to his propositions §. 4. In what sense the Church of Rome is owned by us as a true Church Rational Account p. 47. §. 5. His Appendix considered Dr. St. against Dr. St. p. 21. Roman Idolatry p. 55. 2. ediâ— Isa. 40 19 22. Deut. 4. 15 16. 〈◊〉 20. § 6. The second contradiction Examined 〈…〉 p. 293. P. 295. Arch B. Laâ—ds Conference p. 280. P. 282. P. 285. P. 299. Rational Account p. 622. St. against St. p. 7. P. 8. §. 7. The charge of Fanaticism deâ—ended P. 8. Fanaticism of Rom. Church s. 16. p. 299. 2. â—d St. against St. p. 9. 1 King 19. 18. Rom. 11. 3. §. 8. No contradiction in the charge 〈◊〉 divisions Rational 〈◊〉 p. 56. Divis. of the Rom. Church s. 15. â— 397. 2. ed. §. 9. The Conclusion P. 14. P. 14. §. 1. The occasion of annexing the Principles P. 483. â— 2. ed. Protestants without Principles Chap. 1. P. 17. P. 18. P. 19. P. 20. P. 21. P. 22. P. 23. P. 24. P. 25. P. 42 43. §. 2 Or the notion of infallibility §. 3. N. Oâ— concessions Prop. 2. Prop. 3. Prop. 4. Prop. 10. P. 22. S. 15. P. 52. P. 54. P. 56. P. 55. Proâ— 27. P. 67. P. 94. â—rot without Princip Chap. 6. Guide in Controv. disc 5. chap. 10. S. 134. Sect. 135. § 4. N. O's Principles laid down P. 1◠§. 5. N. O's exceptions answered Prop. 13. P. 13. Ioh. 20 31. P. 13. P. 14. Luke 10. 31 32. Mat. 25. 29. P. 14. Field of the Church l 4. ch 5. p. 350. Ch. 2 Ch. 5. P. 15. Psal. 25. 9. James 1. 5. Luke 11. 13. John 7. 17. §. 6. N. O's Proofs of Infallibility examined § 7. Of the Arguments from Scripture for Infallibility 〈◊〉 25. 26. 〈◊〉 17. 10. 11 12. 〈…〉 Ration Account p. 1. ch 8. Sect. 2. p. 239. Prop. 16 P. 27. P. 28 29. 1 Cor. 14. 22. Heb. 2. 4. P. 29. P 30. Prop. 17. P. 37. §. 8. Of the Argument from Tradition for Infallibility P. 38 39. Bâ—ll de Concil l. 2. c. 10. Field of the Church l. 4 c 4. Rat. Account part 3. ch 1. Sect. 4. p. 510. Rat. Accâ—unt p. 1. ch 4. p. 101 P 43. P. 44. § 9. Of the Argument for Infallibility from Parity of Reason Prop. 13. § 10. Of the Authority of the Guides of the Church John 5. 36 9. 1 Cor. 10. 15 1 Thess. 5. 21. Acts 7 11. 1 John 4. â— Gal. 1. 8. Jude v. 4. Mat. 24. 4 5. 23 24. Acts. 20. 29 30. 1 Tâ—m 4. 1 2 Thess. 2. 3. 2 Tim. 4. 3 4. 2 Tâ—ess 2. 9 â—0 Matt. 15. 14. 〈◊〉 1. 8. â— Cor. 11. 1. 2 Cor. 1. 14. 〈…〉 Baâ—oâ— A. D. 546. 547 55â— Petav dogmat Theolog. Tom. 4. l 1. c. 18 Petr. de Marca disâ—rt de Vigilii decrâ—to Bell. de Rom. Ponâ—it l. 4. c. 3. Bâ—llaâ—m de Concil Auctor 2. c. 12. Concil Constat 3. Act. 13. Can. loâ— Theol. l. 6. c. 8. Francise Toaâ—â—ens de 6. 7. 8. Synod Flor. A. D. 1551. P. 11. 12. P. 14. P. 24. 〈◊〉 Allocutio 3. Hadriani 2. ad Coâ—c Ro. Tom 8. Conc. Gen. â—d Luâ— Par. 1671. P. 1â— 91. Baron A. D. 681. n. 29. Francis Combesis Historia hâ—res Monotheliâ—â—r c. 2. Alex 7. Index Expuâ—gâ—tor p. 277. Bellarm. de Rom. Pontifice l. 4. c. 11. Petav dogmat Theol. l. 1. c. 21. s. 11 Balâ—zius de vi â Petri Marcae p. 28. 29. Petav. ib. â—ect 13. Combesis c. 2. sect 3. Tabâ—lae suâ—â—rag p. 130. Iacob de Vitriaco hist. Orient Cap. 77. Bellonii Obser l. 1. c. 35. Article 21. Articl 3. Concil Lateran A. D. 15 16. sâ—ct 11. §. 11. Of the sâ—nse of Scripture P. 37. P. 6. 14. P. 47. Ephes. 4. 11 13 14. 2 Pet. 3. 16. P. 67. 2 Pet 3. 17 18. § 12. Of a Judge of Controverâ—â—es §13 The way used in the Primitive Church fâ—r finding the sense of Scripture 〈…〉 â—6 sect 2. 3. 〈…〉 〈…〉 C. 29. L. 3. c. 11.