it This is one of the best arts I have met with in this Pamphlet for unwary Readers will not remember the charge when they find no answer but if I. W. had attempted to answer it his shuffling and tricks might have made the deeper impression in the Readers minds Remember then this charge stands good against them without so much as their pretending to answer it To come now to the other part of Fanaticism viz. an Enthusiastick way of Religion and here to proceed clearly I shall lay down the method of his Defence and then examine it The strength of his Defence lyes in these Propositions 1. That Fanaticism does necessarily contain a resistance against authority 2. No particular ways of Religion countenanced by a competent authority are Fanaticism 3. Those things which concern religious Orders and Method of Devotion which I charge them with are countenanced by a competent authority viz. The Authority of that Church 4. That Church cannot countenance Fanatism which obligeth all persons to submit to her judgement So that here are two Principles by which I. W. thinks to vindicate their Church from Fanaticism viz. competent authority and submission of judgement to the Church To shew the invalidity of this answer I shall do these things 1. Shew the insufficiency of it 2. The monstrous absurdities consequent upon it 1. If this answer were sufficient he must make it appear that there have been none charged by me as Fanaticks in their Church but such as have submitted themselves and their judgement to the authority of their Church For let us consider the occasion of this charge and we shall presently discern the insufficiency of this way of answering it The occasion was that my Adversary made all the Sects and Fanaticisms among us to be the effect of the Reformation what answer could be more proper in this case than to shew that there were as wild and extravagant Fanaticisms before as have been since which is a plain evidence that cannot be the cause of them to which they imputed them To make this out I searched into the several sorts of Fanaticism and gave instances very clear of as great Fanaticks in the times before the reformation as have been since from the many pretenders to immediate Revelations among them who were persons allowed and approved by their Church and some of them Canonized for Saints but besides these I gave such other Instances of Fanaticism among the Friers and others of their Church as were never heard of in the world before as the broachers and maintainers of the Friers Gospel which was to put out of doors the Gospel of Christ the Spiritual Brethren of the order of S. Francis called by several names but especially that of Fratricelli who continued long spread far and more distrubed the Church than any since have done the Dulcinistae in Italy the Alumbrado's in Spain c. What doth he now say concerning all these were these countenanced by a competent authority among them did they submit their judgement to the Church if neither of these be pretended in reference to them then this answer must be very insufficient because it doth not reach to the matter in charge 2. For those who were as he saith countenanced by authority and did submit themselves to the Church yet this doth not clear them from Fanaticism but draws after it these monstrous absurdities 1. That prevailing Fanaticism ceases to be Fanaticism like Treason which when it prospers none dare call it Treason an excellent way this to vindicate the Fanaticism of the late times which because countenanced by an authority supposed competent enough by some who then writ of Obedience and Government it ceased to be Fanaticism and all the wild and extravagant heats of mens brains their Enthusiasms and Revelations were Regular and orderly things because countenanced by such Authority as was then over them 2. By this rule the Prophets and Apostles nay our Lord himself were unavoidably Fanaticks for what competent authority had they to countenance them The Iewish Church was not yet cast off while our Saviour lived but utterly opposed his doctrine and Revelation as coming from a private Spirit of his own according therefore to these excellent Principles our B. Saviour is made a meer Fanatick because he wanted a competent Authority of the present Church to countenance him the same was generally the case of the Prophets and of all the Apostles But what rocks and Precipices will a bad cause drive men upon If that which makes Fanaticism or not Fanaticism be the being countenanced or not countenanced by this competent Authority these horrible absurdities are unavoidable and all Religion must be resolved into the will and pleasure of this competent Authority But I need not take such pains to prove this for my brave Answerer I. W. sets it down in his own words Moreover otherwise all the particular manners of Preaching or Praying practised by the Prophets and all their extraordinary visions and revelations would be flat Fanaticism but because they were countenanced by a competent authority they could not deserve that character Excellent doctrine for a Popish Leviathan are you in earnest sir do you think the Prophets had been Fanaticks in case of no competent authority to countenance them What competent authority had the Prophet Elijah to countenance him when all the Authority that then was not only opposed him but sought his life What competent Authority had any of the Prophets who were sent to the ten Tribes what had Ieremiah Ezekiel and the rest of them It seems then all these excellent and inspired persons are cast into the common herd of Fanaticks for want of this competent Authority to countenance them And yet this is the Man meerly because I lay open the Fanaticism of some their pretended Saints such as Ignatius Loyola and S. Francis who ranks me with Lucian and Porphyrie hath he not himself a great zeal for Religion the mean while resolving all revelation into his competent authority and not only so but paralleling the expressions and practices of S. Brigitt and Mother Juliana than which scarce any thing was ever Printed more ridiculous in the way of Revelations with those of the holy Prophets and Apostles If a man designed to speak mischievously against the Scriptures and Divine Revelation he could not do it more to purpose than I. W. hath done in these words when he compares things whose folly is so manifest at the first view with that divine Wisdom which Inspired those holy persons whom God sent upon particular messages to his people and gave so great assurance that he sent them and who delivered matters of great weight and moment and not such tittle tattle as those two Womens Books are fraught withall But if this be the way they have to vindicate them from being Fanaticks it is absolutely the worst that could be thought of for it cannot discover so high an opinion of them as it doth a
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
sincerity of Councils so palpably influenced by the Court of Rome as that was But however is it not fit in these matters that particular persons should rather yield to the guidance of others than to the conduct of their own reason Which is N. O's farther Argument in this matter viz. That a Fallibility being supposed it is more fitting to follow prudent and experienced though fallible persons direction rather than our own To this I answer in these following particulars 1. That God hath entrusted every man with a faculty of discerning Truth and Falshood supposing that there were no persons in the World to direct or guide him For without this there were no capacity in mankind to be instructed in matters of Religion and it were to no purpose to offer any thing to men to be believed or to perswade them to embrace any Religion To make this plain I will suppose a Person come to years of understanding not yet professing any particular Religion to whom the several Religions in the world are proposed by men perswaded of the truth of them viz. the Christian the Jewish and the Mahumetan He hears the several arguments brought for each of them and hath no greater opinion of the teachers of one than of another I desire to know whether this person may not see so much of the truth and excellency of Christian Religion above the rest as to choose that and reject all the rest I hope no one will deny this now if a man does here upon his own judgment and reason choose the Christian Religion so as firmly to believe it then God hath given to men such a faculty of judging that upon the proposal of truth and falshood he may embrace the true Religion and reject the false and such a Faith is acceptable and pleasing to God Otherwise no man could embrace Christianity at first upon good grounds 2. This faculty is not taken away nor men forbidden the exercise of it in the choice of their Religion by any principle of the Christian Religion for our Saviour himself appealed to the Judgement of the persons he endeavored to convince he made use of many arguments to perswade them he directed them in the way of finding out of truth he reproved those who would not search into the things delivered to them All which were to no purpose at all if men were not to continue the exercise of their own Judgements about these matters Accordingly we find the Apostles appealing to the Judgements of private and fallible persons concerning what they said to them although themselves were infallible and had the greatest Authority over them we find them not bidding the Guides of the Church pâ—ove all things and the people held fast that which they delivered them but Commanding them indifferently to prove all things and hold fast that which is good i. e. what upon examination they found to be so we find those commended who searched the Scriptures daily whether the things proposed to them were so or no. So that we see the Christian Religion dâ—th not forbid men the exercise of that faculty of judging which God hath given to mankind 3. The exercise of this faculty was not to cease asâ—oon as men had embraced the Christian Doctrine For the precepts given by the Apostles do belong to those who are already Christians and that concerning the matters proposed by their Guides nay they are expressly commended to try and examin all pretences to Infallibility and Revelation upon this great reason because there should be many false pretenders to them Beloved believe not every Spirit but try the Spirits whether they be of God for many false Prophets are gone out into the world They are commanded not to believe any other Gospel though Apostles or an Angel from Heaven should preach it and how should they know whether it were another or the same if they were not to examin and compare them They are bid to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the Saints it might be a new Faith for any thing they could know if they were not competent Judges of what was once delivered They are frequently charged to beware of Seducers and false Guides that should come in the name of Christ and his Apostles they are told that there should come a falling away and departing from the Faith and that the time will come when men will not endure sound Doctrine and shall turn away their ears from 〈◊〉 truth and believe fables that such shall come with all deceivableness of unrighteousness with powers and signs and lying wonders To what end or purpose are all these things said if men being once Christians are no longer to exercise their own Judgements but deliver them up into the hands of their Guides What is this but to put them under a necessity of being deluded when their Guides please and as our Saviour saith When the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch 4. The Authority of Guides in the Church is not absolute and unlimited but confined within certain bounds Which if they transgress they are no longer to be followed So St. Paul saith if we or an Angel from Heaven teach any other Gospel let him be accursed so that the Apostles themselves though giving the greatest Evidence of Infallibility were no longer to be followed than they held to the Gospel of Christ. And they desired no more of their greatest Disciples whom they had Converted to the Christian Faith than to be followers of them as they were of Christ they told them they had no dominion over their faith although they were far more assisted with an infallible Spirit than any other Guides of the Church could pretend to be ever since Therefore no present Guides what ever names they go by ought to usurp such an Authority over the minds of men which the Apostles themselves did not challenge although there were greater reason for men to yield up their minds wholly to their guidance We are far from denying all reasonable and just authority to be given to the Guides of the Church but we say that their Authority not being absolute is conâ—ined to some known rule And where there is a rule for them to proceed by there is a rule for others to Judge of their proceedings and consequently men must exercise their Judgements about the matters they determin whether they be agreeable to that râ—le or nâ—t 5. Where the Rule by which the Guides of the Church are to proceed hath determined nothing there we say the Authority of the Guides is to be submitted unto For otherwise there would be nothing leâ—t wherein their Authority could be shewn and others pay obedience to them on the account of it Therefore we plead for the Churches Authority in all matters of meer order and decency in indifferent rites and ceremonies and think it an unreasonable thing to 〈◊〉 the
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
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
very mean one of the Books of Scripture and the Divine Revelations therein contained I could here earnestly intreat the wiser men of that Church for the honour of God and the Christian Religion not to suffer such inconsiderate persons to vindicate their cause who to defend the extravagant infirmities of some Enthusiastical women among them are so forward to cast dirt and reproach upon our common Religion and those Revelations from whence we derive it But I forbear only it is a shrewd sign if this way be allowed of a wretched cause that cannot be maintained without plunging those who rely upon their word into the depths of Atheism But these are not things to be so slightly passed over they deserve a fuller and severer chastisement For the present this is enough to shew what monstrous absurdities this way of vindicating their Church from Fanaticism hath brought I. W. to Yet in one respect he deserves some pardon for they are wont to write their answers upon the common Themes out of some staunch Authors who considered a little better what they writ But this was a new charge and neither Bellarmin Becanus nor any of their old beaten souldiers could give them any assistance they found not the Title of the Fanaticism of the Roman Church in any of their common-place-Books therefore plain Mother-wit must help them and so it hath bravely But before they again attempt this matter I desire them to consider these things least they should in a desperate humour utterly give up the cause of Religion finding themselves unable to defend that of their Church 1. Whether there can be any greater Fanaticism than a false pretence to immediate divine Revelation For what can more expose men to all the follies and delusions imaginable than this will do what actions can be so wild and extravagant but men may do under such a pretence of immediate Revelation from God what bounds of order and Government can be preserved some may pretend a Revelation to take up Arms against their Prince or to destroy all they meet which is no unheard of thing others may not go so far but may have revelations of the unlawfulness of Kingly Government others may pretend revelations of a new Gospel and a more spiritual dispensation than hath been yet in the World as the Mendicant Friers did 2. Whether we are bound to believe all such who say They have divine revelations or whether persons may not be deceived in thinking they have revelations when they are only delusions of their own Fancies or the Devil if not then every one is to be believed who pretends to these things and then all follies and contradictions must be fwallowed which men say they have by immediate revelation and every Fanatick must be believed to have divine revelation who believes himself though he be only deluded by his own Imagination or become Enthusiastical by the power of a disease in his head or some great heat in his blood 3. Whether there must not be some certain rules established whereby all persons and even competent authority it self must proceed in judging these pretences to revelation whether they be true or false for if they proceed without rule they must either be inspired too or else must receive all who pretend to divine revelations if there be any certain rules whereby the revelation is to be judged then if any persons receive any revelation against those rules whether are other persons bound to follow their judgement against those rules 4. Whether there can be any more certain rule of judging than that two things evidently contradictory to each other cannot both come from divine revelation For then God must contradict himself which is impossible to be supposed and would overthrow the faith of any divine revelation And this is the plain case of the revelations made to two famous Saints in the Roman Church S. Brigitt and S. Catharine to one it was revealed that the B. Virgin was conceived with Original sin to the other that she was not both these have competent Authority for they were both Canonized for Saints by the Roman Church and their Revelations approved and therefore according to I. W. neither of them were Fanaticks though it is certain that one of their Revelations was false For either God must contradict himself or one of these must be deceived or go about to deceive and what greater Fanaticism can there be than that is if one of these had only some Fanatick Enthusiasm and the other divine Revelation then competent authority and submission to the judgement of the Church is not a rule to judge Fanaticism by for those were equal in both of them 5. Whether there be an equal reason to look for revelations now as in the time of the Prophets and our Saviour and his Apostles or whether God communicates revelations to no other end but to please and gratifie some Enthusiastical tempers and what should be the reason he should do it more now than in the age wherein revelations were more necessary In those times God revealed his mind to men but it was for the benefit of others when he sent them upon particular messages as the Prophets or made known some future events to them of great importance to the Church as the coming of the Messias c. or Inspired them to deliver weighty doctrines to the world as he did both the Prophets and Apostles why should we think that God now when the revelations of these holy and inspired persons are upon record and all things necessary to his Church are contained therein should vary this method of his and entertain some melancholy and retired women or other Enthusiastical persons with visions and revelations of no use to his Church 6. Whether God doth ever Inspire persons with immediate revelations without giving sufficient evidence of such Inspiration For if he did it were to leave men under a temptation to Infidelity without means to withstand it if he doth not then we have reason to examine the evidence before we believe the revelation The evidence God gave of old was either the Prophecy of a succession of Prophets by one whose commission was attested by great miracles as Moses who told the Israelites they were to expect Prophets and laid down rules to judge of them by or else by miracles wrought by themselves as by the Apostles whom our Lord sent abroad to declare his will to the world And where these are not what reason is there to receive any new Revelations as from God especially when the main predictions of the New Testament are of false Prophets and false Miracles 7. Whether the Revelations of their pretended Saints being countenanced by the Authority of their Church be equally received among them with the Revelations contained in Scripture if they be then they ought to have equal reverence paid to them and they ought to read them as Scripture to cite their Authority as divine and to believe them as infallible
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
their own Church or else to what end is this mentioned where nothing is pretended to but laying down the Foundations on which Protestants do build their faith But although there be no way of escaping impertinent objections yet it is some satisfaction to ones self to have given no occasion for them 2. I would know what he understands by his effectual means of suppressing Sects or Heresies We are sure the meer Authority of their Church hath been no more effectual means than that of ours hath been but there is another means they use which is far more effectual viz. the Inquisition This in truth is all the effectual means they have above us but God keep us from so Barbarous and Diabolical a means of suppressing Schisms The Sanbenits have not more pictures of Devils upon them than the Inquisition it self hath of their Spirit in it however that Gracious Pope Paul 4. attributed the settling of it in Spain to the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost not that Holy Ghost certainly that came down from Heaven upon the Apostles but that which was conveyed in a Portmantue from Rome to the Council of Trent But if this be the effectual means he understands I hope he doth not think it any credit to the Authority of their Church that all who dispute it must endure a most miserable life or a most cruel death All the other means they have are but probable but this this is the most effectual How admirably do Fire and Faggots end Controversies No general Council signifies half so much as a Court of Inquisition and the Pope himself is not near so good a Judge of Controversies as the Executioner and Dic Ecclesiae is nothing to take him Gaoler These have been the kind the tender the primitive the Christian means of suppressing Sects and Heresies in the Roman Church O how compassionate a Mother is that Church that takes her froward Children in her hands to dash their brains against the stones O how pleasant a thing it is for Brethren to be destroyed for lack of Vnity How beautiful upon the 7. Mountains are the Feet of those who shed the Blood of Hereticks Never were there two men had a more Catholick Spirit than Dioclesian and Bishop Bonner Men may talk to the worlds end of Councils and Fathers and Authority of the Church and I know not what insignificant nothings come come there is but one effectual means which the good Cardinal Baronius suggested to his Holiness Arise Peter kill and eat Let the Hereticks talk of the kind and merciful Spirit of our Saviour who rebuked his Disciples so sharply for calling for fire from Heaven upon the Samaritans and told them they did not know what Spirit they are of let them dispute never so much against the cruelty and unreasonableness of such a way of confuting them let them muster up never so many sayings of Fathers against it yet when all is done what ever becomes of Christianity it was truly said of Paul 4. that the Authority of the Roman See depends only upon the office of the Inquisition And that we may think he was in good earnest when he said it Onuphrius tells us it was part of the speech he made to the Cardinals before his death Was not this think we a true Vicar of Christ a man of an Apostolical Spirit that knew the most effectual means of suppressing heresies and Schisms and advancing the Authority of the Roman See And that we may not think their opinion is altered in this matter one of the late Consulters of the Inquisition hath determined that the practice of the Roman Church in the office of the Inquisition is reasonable pious useful and necessary Which he proves by the Testimony of their greatest Doctors And by which we may easily judge what N. O. and his Brethren think to be the most effectual means of suppressing Sects and Heresies with the want of which we are contented to be upbraided But setting this aside we have as many reasonable means and I think many more of convicting dissenters than they can pretend to in the Roman Church 3. It is very well known that we do endeavour as much as lyes in us to reclaim all Dissenters but God never wrought Miracles to cure incorrigible persons and would not have us to go out of the way of our duty to suppress Sects and Heresies The greatest severities have not effected it which made one of the Inquisitors in Italy complain that after 40. years experience wherein they had destroyed above 100000. Persons for heresie as they call it it was so far from being suppressed or weakned that it was extremly strengthened and increased What wonder is it then if dissenters should yet continue among us who do not use such Barbarous ways of stopping the mouths of Hereticks with burning lead or silencing them by a rope and flames But we recommend as much as they can do to the people the vertues of Humility Obedience due submission to their Spiritual Pastors and Governours and that they ought not to usurp their office and become their own Guides which N. O. in his conclusion blames us for not doing Yet we do not exact of them a blind obedience we allow them to understand the nature and Doctrine of Christianity which the more they do we are sure they will be so much the better Christians and the more easily Governed So that we have no kind of Controversie about Church-Authority it self but what it is and in what manner and by whom to be exercised but surely N. O. had little to say when from laying down the Principles of Faith he charges me with this most absurd consequence of destroying all Church-Authority I have thus far considered the main Foundations upon which N. O. proceeds in opposition to my Principles there is now very little remaining which deserves any Notice and that which seems to do it as about Negative Articles of Faith and the marks of the True Church I shall have occasion to handle them at large in the following discourse FINIS Haâ—â—â—mull hist Iesuit ordin c. 8. S. C. p. 79. S. C. p. 46. Roman Doctrine of Repentance c. vindicated p. 19. P. 44. P. 47. P. â—9 Et quamvis sine Sacramento Poenitentiae per se ad justificationem perducere peccatorem nequeat attritio tamen cum ad Dei gratiam in Sacramento Poeâ—iteâ—tiae impetrandam disponit Concil Trident. sess 14. c. 4. * Si quis dixerit Sacramenta novae Legis non continere Gratiam quam significant aut gratiam ipsam non ponentibus obicem non confâ—rre Anathema sit Sess. 7. Can. 6. Si quis dixâ—rit non dari gratiam per hujus modi Sacramenta semper omnibus quaâ—tum est ex parte Dei etiamsi ritè ea suscipiant sed aliquando aliquibus Aâ—athemae sit Can. 7. Sess. 14. c. 4. P. 45. Melch. Cano Relect. de Poenit. part 6. p. 932. Morinus de Poenit. Sacramento
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
Infallibility which cannot belong to the truth proposed but to him that propounds or believes it For to be deceived or not to be deceived are proper only to persons and the impossibility of being deceived does in truth belong only to an infinitely perfect understanding for what ever understanding is imperfect is of it self liable to errour and mistake And yet an understanding liable to be deceived may not be deceived and be sure it is not The highest assurance of not being deceived is from Gods revealing any thing to men for we know it impossible that God should be deceived or go about to deceive mankind in what he obliges them to believe as true This then is granted that whatever any person speaks immediately from God he cannot be deceived in it but men may be deceived in thinking they speak from God when they do not There is then no difficulty in the first that what ever persons are inspired by God are infallible in what they speak but the main difficulty is about the assurance which God gives to men that they are inspired Two ways it may be conceived that men cannot be deceived in this matter 1. If God inspires every particular person with the belief of this and gives him such evidence thereof as cannot be false 2. Or if God shall inspire some persons in every Age to assure the World that those before them were inspired but notwithstanding this particular persons may be deceived in believing those inspired who are not and to prevent this nothing can be sufficient but divine revelation to every particular person that he hath appointed those infallible Guides in his Church to assure men that he had at first setled his Church by persons that were infallible but then why might not such a particular Revelation assure men as well immediately that Christ and his holy Apostles were infallible as that the Guides of the present Church are infallible For it is unconceivable that persons should be more infallible in judging the Inspiration of the present Guides than of the first Founders of the Church And supposing men not inspired they may be deceived in believing this infallibility of the present Church and if they may be deceived how can their Faith be infallible so that nothing can make the faith of particular persons infallible but private inspiration which must resolve all Faith into Enthusiasm and immediate revelation And nothing can be more absurd than to say That there are infallible Believers without infallible Inspiration or that an infallible Proponent can transfuse infallibility into faith unless the infallibility of that Proponent be first made known to the Believer in such a way as he cannot be deceived in For in matters of divine Revelation the main thing we are to enquire after is the infallibility of those who delivered this doctrine to the World And although the reason of believing what God saith be his own infallibility which is natural and essential to him yet the reason of my assenting to this or that doctrine as coming from God must be an assurance that God hath secured those persons from mistake whom he hath imployed to make known the doctrine to the World Those persons then whom God inspired are the Proponents of matters of faith to us and if they give us sufficient reason to believe that they were inspired we are bound to believe them otherwise not But to suppose that we cannot believe the first infallible Proponents unless there be such in every Age is to make more difficulties and to answer none For then all my belief of the infallibility of the first Proponents must depend on the evidence which the present Guides of the Church give of their infallibility who yet cannot pretend to the same evidence which they had and here is no difficulty answered for we are certainly bound as much to enquire into the reason of our believing the present Guides of the Church infallible as the Apostles and if men cannot be infallible in believing the Apostles unless there be other infallible Proponents in every Age to assure them that the Apostles were inspired why must not the infallibility of these present Proponents be likewise so attested as well as of the Apostles and what undoubted application can be made of the Churches infallibility unless there be some other infallible Proponent still to transfuse certainty into my belief of that by vertue of which I must believe all other matters of Faith which is the Churches Infallibility So that the last Proponent must either be believed for himself without any further evidence and then the shorter way would be to believe the first so or else there will be an endless infallibility or at last all must be resolved into the Enthusiasm of every particular person if we do not rest satisfied with the rational evidence which those persons who were inspired by God did give to the World that they were sent by him and then let the World judge whether Christ and his Apostles did not give stronger evidence that they were sent from God than the Pope or the Guides of the present Church do and if so whether iâ— be possible for men to do greater disseâ—vice to Christianity than to suspend our belief of the Inspiration of the Founders of the Christian Church on a thing at least far less evident than the thing to be believed by it is but in plain English on a thing notoriously false and only the arrogant pretence of an usurping Faction which thinks it easier boldly to say that it cannot be deceived than to defend it self against the just accusations both of deceiving and being deceived These things being premised I now come to consider how far N. O. hath shewed the invalidity of the Principles laid down by me for the end for which I intended them The design of them was to shew that we may have sufficient Certainty of our Faith without the Infallibility of the Roman Church the Answerer hath yielded some things and denied others I shall therefore first lay down his Concessions and see of what force they are to the issue of this Controversie and then come fairly to debate the matters in difference between us I. For his Concessions 1. He yields That there is no necessity at all of Infallibility under natural Religion which was implied in the second and third Propositions which are granted by him For in the second Proposition I assert That Man being framed a rational Creature capable of reflecting upon himself may antecedently to any external Revelation certainly know the being of God and his dependence upon him else there could be no such thing as a Law of Nature or any Principles of Natutural Religion which he saith may be granted All supernatural and external Revelation must suppose the truth of Natural Religion for unless we be antecedently certain that there is a God and that we are capable of knowing him it is impossible to be certain that God
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
and at the same time to prove that Commission from those Writings from which we are told nothing can be certainly deduced such an Assistance not being supposed or to pretend that Infallibility in a Body of men is not as liable to doubts and disputes as in those Books from whence only they derive their Infallibility He grants the former part of this if by it be intended to prove such Commission only or in the first place from these writings But he saith a Christians Faith may begin either at the Infallible authority of Scriptures or of the Church It seems then there may be sufficient ground for a Christians Faith as to the Scriptures without believing any thing of the Churches Infallibility and for this we have reason to thank him whatever they of his own Church think of it For by this concession we may believe the Scriptures Authority without ever believing a word of the Churches Infallibility and let them afterwards prove it from Scripture if they can Nay he goes yet farther and saith That the Infallibility of Scriptures as well as the Church may be proved from its own testimony but he first supposes that the Infallibility of one of these be first learnt from Tradition And therefore in the remainder of his discourse on this Subject he shews how the Infallibility of the Church may be proved from Tradition not shewing at all how the Infallibility of the Church can be proved from Scripture Scripture being thus deserted as to the proof of the Churches Infallibility I must pursue him to his other Hold of Tradition The method of his discourse is this That the Infallibility of the Guides of the Church was antecedent to the Scriptures That the Apostles did not lose their infallibility by committing what they preached to writing That their successors were to have this infallibility preserved in them if there had been no writings and cannot be imagined to have lost it because of them because these give testimony to it That this Infallibility is preserved by Tradition descending from Age to Age as we say the Canon of Scripture is delivered to us And lastly That the Governours of the Church always held and reputed themselves infallible appears by their Anathematizing dissenters In this Discourse there are some things supposed without reason and other things asserted without proof The Foundation of all this Discourse proceeds upon the supposition that the same Infallibility which was in the Apostles must be continued in their Successors through all Ages of the Church for which I see not the least shadow of reason produced Yes saith he supposing there had been no Writings and no Infallibility Christian Religion would have been no rational and well grounded no stable and certain Religion Two things in answer to this I desire to be informed of 1. What he thinks of the Religion of the Patriarchs who received their Religion by Tradition without any such Infallibility 2. What he thinks of those Christians who receive the Scriptures or Churches Infallibility by vertue of common and universal Tradition which is certainly the ground of the one and supposed by him to be of the other whether the Faith of such persons be rational and well-grounded stable and certain or not if it be then there is no such necessity of Infallibility for that purpose if it be not then he doth hereby declare that the Faith of Christians is irrational and ill-grounded For whatsoever is received on the account of Tradition antecedent to the belief of Infallibility cannot be received on the account of it but the belief of either Scriptures or Churches Infallibility must be first received by vertue of a principle antecedent to the Scriptures or Churches Infallibility viz. Tradition By this it appears that his very way of proving destroys the thing he would prove by it For if the Tradition may be a sufficient ground of Faith how comes Infallibility to be necessary But if this Infallibility be not necessary without the Scriptures much less certainly is it now since it is acknowledged on both sides that the Apostles were infallible in their Writings and that therein the Will of God is contained as to all things simply necessary to salvation But these successors of the Apostles were not deprived of their infallibility by the Apostles Writings No certainly for none can be deprived of what they never had but where are the reasons all this while to shew that there was the same necessity of Infallibility in the Apostles successors as was in them Two I find rather intimated than insisted upon 1. That the Church would otherwise have failed if there had been neither Writings nor Infallibility But if this Argument hold for any thing it is for the necessity of the Scriptures and not of Infallibility for we see God did furnish the Church with one and left no footsteps of the other We do not dispute how far the Church might have been preserved without the Scriptures we find it hath been hard enough to preserve it pure with them but we always acknowledge the Infinite Wisdom and Goodness of God that hath not left us in matters of Faith and Salvation to the determinations of men liable to be corrupted by Interest and Ambition but hath appointed men inspired by himself to set down whatever is necessary for us to believe and practise And upon these Writings we fix our Faith as on a firm and unmovable Rock and on the veracity of God therein contained and expressed we build all our hopes of a Blessed Eternity And one great benefit more we have by these divine Books that by them we can so easily discover the fraud and imposture of the confident Pretenders to Infallibility Which is the true reason why the Patrons of the Church of Romes Infallibility have so little kindness for the Scriptures and take all occasions to disparage them by insinuating that they are good for nothing but to breed Heresies in the Heads of the People upon pretence of which danger they hide this Candle under a Bushel lest it should give too much light to them that are in the House and discover some things which it is more convenient to keep in the dark 2. He saith The Infallibility of the Apostles successors receives a second evidence from the testimony thereof found also in these Writings I confess I have seen nothing like the first evidence yet to which this should be a second but if by the first be meant that which I mentioned before this is a proper second for it Neither of them I dare say intend any mischief to any body both first and second are forced into the Field where they stand only for dumb shews and wonder what they are brought for But whereabouts I pray doth this second Testimony stand what are its weapons I hope not Dic Ecclesiae nor Dabo tibi Claves nor any of the old rusty Armour which our modern Combatants begin to be ashamed to appear
who hold the contrary or which is the most common when they denounce Anatâ—ema and exclude from the Church those who hold otherwise all which agree to this as will appear by the last collation of that Council And Pope Vigilius in the Greek Epistle now published in the Tomes of the Councils wherein he approves the 5 th Council not only condemns the three Chapters as contrary to saith but Anathematizes all those who should defend them and like an Infallible Judge very solemnly recants his former Apostolical decree though delivered by him upon great deliberation anâ— with an intention to teach the whole Church I wonder who there could be in that Age that believed the Pope to be an infallible Guide not the Eastern Bishops who excommunicated him and decreed directly contrary to him not the Western for they likewise excommunicated him and not only forsook his Communion but that of the Roman Church but did he believe himself infallible when he so often changed his mind and contradicted himself in Cathedra If he did he was without doubt a brave man and did as much as man can do This Controversy was scarce at an end for the Bishops of Istria continued in their separation from the Roman Church for 70. years w ch was till the time of Honorius A. D. 626. when another was started which gives us yet a more ample discovery of the more than fallibility of the Guides of the Church in that Age when a Pope was condemned for a Heretick by a General Council in which case I would fain know whether of them was infallible and to which of the Guides of the Church a man owed his internal assent and external obedience This being an Instance of so high a nature that the truth of it being supposed the pretence of absolute Authority and Infallibility in the Guides of the Roman Church must fall to the ground no wonder that all imaginable arts have been used by those of the Church of Rome to take away the force of it among whom Pighius Baronius Bellarmin Petavius and Petrus de Marcâ have laboured hardest in acquitting Honorius but have proceeded in different ways and the two last are content the Pope should be condemned for simplilicity and negligence the better to excuse him from heresy but one would think these two were as contrary to the office of a trusty Guide as heresy to one that pretends to be infallible But the better to understand the force of this Instance I shall give a brief account of the matter of fact as it is agreed on all sides and the representing the divisions among the Guides of the Church at that time will plainly shew how unreasonable it had been to have required absolute submission to such who so vehemently contradicted each other We are therefore to understand that the late Council at Constantinople being found unsuccessful for bringing the Eutychians and their off-spring to a submission to the Council of Chalcedon another expedient was found out for that end viz. that acknowledging two natures in Christ they should agree in owning that there was but one will and operation in him after the Union of both natures because will and operation were supposed to flow from the Person and not barely from the nature and the asserting two wills would imply two contrary principles in Christ which were not to be supposed This Expedient was first proposed to Heraclius the Emperour by Athanasius the Patriarch of the Iacobites or Paulus the Sâ—verian and approved by Sergius Patriarch of Constantinople and by Cyrus of Alexandria and Theodorus Bishop of Pharan near Aegypt Cyrus proceeded so far in it as by that means to reconcile the Theodosiani a sort of Eutychians in Alexandria to the Church of which he gives an account to Sergius of Constantinople and sends him the Anathema's which he published among which the 7 th was against those who asserted more than one operation in Christ. Sergius approves what Cyrus had done but Sophronius a learned Monk coming to Alexandria vehemently opposed Cyrus in this business but Cyrus persisting he makes his address to Sergius at Constantantinople and tells him of the dangerous heresy that was broaching under the pretence of Union after some heats Sergius yielded that nothing should be farther said of either side But Sophronius being made Bishop of Ierusalem he publishes an Encyclical Epistle wherein he asserts two operations and Anathematizes those who held the contrary and were for the Union and writes to Honorius then Pope giving him an account of this new heresy of the Monothelites the same year Sergius writes to him likewise of all transactions that had hitherto been in this matter and desires to know his judgement in such an affair wherein the Peace of the Church was so much concerned Honorius writes a very solemn letter to Sergius wherein he condemns the contentious humour of Sophronius and makes as good a confession of his faith as he could in which he expresly asserts that there was but one Will in Christ and agrees with Sergius that there should be no more disputing about one or two operations in Christ. Accordingly Heraclius by the advice of Sergius publishes his Ecthesis or declaration to the same purpose which was approved by a Synod under Sergius but opposed by Iohn 4. Bishop of Rome yet still maintained at Constinople not only by Sergius but by Pyrrhus and Paulus his successours who were both excommunicated by Theodorus succeeding Iohn after him Pope Martin calls a Council wherein he condemns all the Eastern Bishops who favoured this new heresy and the two Edicts of silence published by Heraclius and Constans but was for his pains sent for to Constantinople and there dyed These contentions daily increasing after the death of Constans Constantinus Pogonatus resolves to try all ways for the peace of the Church and therefore calls a General Council at Constantinople A. D. 680. wherâ— the Heresy of the Monothelites was condemned and the Writings of Sergius Cyrus Theodorus and Honorius in this matter as repugnant to the doctrine of the Apostles and decrees of Councils and the judgement of the Fathers and agreeable to the false doctrine of Hereticks and destructive to souls and not content meerly to condemn their doctrine they further proceed to Anathamatize and expunge out of the Church the names of Sergius Cyrus Pyrrhus Petrus Paulus and Theodorus and after these Honorius as agreeing in all things with Sergius and confirming his wicked doctrines Here we are now come to the main point we see a Pope delivering his judgement in a matter of faith concerning the whâ—le Church condemned for a Heretick by a General Council for so doing either he was rightly condemned or not if rightly what becomes of the infallibility of the Pope when he pretends to teach the whole Church in a matter of faith If not rightly what becomes of the authority and sincerity of General Councils if a Council so solemnly proceeding shoâ—ld condemn one
here is a contest of Right in the case antecedent to any duty of submission which must be better proved than ever it hath yet been before we can allow any dispute how far we are to submit to the Guides of the Roman Church 2. Not to submit to those who are Lawful Guides in all things they may require For our dispute is now about Guides supposed to be fallible and they being owned to be such may be supposed to require things to which we are bound not to yield But the great difficulty now is so to state these things as to shew that we had reason not to submit to the Guides of the Roman Church and that those of the Separation have no reason not to submit to the Guides of our Church For that is the obvious objection in this case that the same pretence which was used by our Church against the Church of Rome will serve to justify all the Separations that have been or can be made from our Church So my Adversary N. O. in his preface saith that by the principles we hold we excuse and justify all Sects which have or shall separate from our Church In answer to which calumny I shall not fix upon the perswasion of conscience for that may equally serve for all parties but upon a great difference in the very nature of the case as will appear in these particulars 1. We appeal to the Doctrine and practice of the truly Catholick Church in the matters of difference between us and the Church of Rome we are as ready as they to stand to the unanimous consent of Fathers and to Vincentius Lerinensis his Rules of Antiquity universality and consent we declare let the things in dispute be proved to have been the practice of the Christian Church in all Ages we are ready to submit to them but those who separate from the Church of England make this their Fundamental principle as to worship wherein the difference lyes that nothing is Lawful in the worship of God but what he hath expresly commanded we say all things are Lawful which are not forbidden and upon this single point stands the whole Controversy of separation as to the Constitution of our Church We challenge those that separate from us to produce one person for 1500. years together that held Forms of prayer to be unlawful or the ceremonies which are used in our Church We defend the Government of the Church by Bishops to be the most ancient and Apostolical Government and that no persons can have sufficient reason to cast that off which hath been so universally received in all Ages since the Apostles times if there have been disputes among us about the nature of the difference between the two orders and the necessity of it in order to the Being of a Church such there have been in the Church of Rome too Here then lyes a very considerable difference we appeal and are ready to stand to the judgement of the Primitive Church for interpreting the letter of Scripture in any difference between us and the Church of Rome but those who separate from our Church will allow nothing to be lawful but what hath an express command in Scripture 2. The Guides of our Church never challenged any Infallibility to themselves which those of the Church of Rome do and have done ever since the Controversy began Which challenge of Infallibility makes the Breach irreconcileable while that pretence continues for there can be no other way but absolute submission where men still pretend to be infallible It is to no purpose to propose terms of Accommodation between those who contend for a Reformation and such who contend that they can never be deceived on the one side errours are supposed and on the other that it is impossible there should by any Until therefore this pretence be quitted to talk of Accomodation is folly and to design it madness If the Church of Rome will allow nothing to be amiss how can she Reform any thing and how can they allow any thing to be amiss who believe they can never be deceived So that while this Arrogant pretence of Infallibility in the Roman Church continues it is impossible there should be any Reconciliation But there is no such thing in the least pretended by our Church that declares in her Articles that General Councils may err and sometimes have erred even in things partaining to God and that all the proof of things to be believed is to be taken from Holy Scripture So that as to the Ground of Faith there is no difference between our Church and those who dissent from her and none of them charge our Church with any errour in doctrine nor plead that as the reason of their separation 3. The Church of Rome not only requires the belief of her errours but makes the belief of them necessary to Salvation which is plain by the often objected Creed of Pius 4. Wherein the same necessity is expressed of believing the additional Articles which are proper to the Roman Church as of the most Fundamental Articles of Christian Faith And no Man who reads that Bull can discern the least difference therein made between the necessity of believing one and the other but that all together make up that Faith without which no man can be saved which though only required of some persons to make profession of yet that profession is to be esteemed the Faith of their Church But nothing of this nature can be objected against our Church by dissenters that excludes none from a possibility of Salvation meerly because not in her Communion as the Church of Rome expresly doth for it was not only Boniface 8. who determined as solemnly as he could that it was necessary to Salvation to be in subjection to the Bishop of Rome but the Council of Lateran under Leo 10. decreed the same thing 4. The Guides of the Roman Church pretend to as immediate authority of obliging the Consciences of men as Christ or his Apostles had but ours challenge no more than teaching men to do what Christ had Commanded them and in other things not commanded or forbidden to give rules which on the account of the General Commands of Scripture they look on the members of our Church as obliged to observe So that the Authority challenged in the Roman Church encroaches on the Prerogative of Christ being of the same nature with his but that which our Governours plead for is only that which belongs to them as Governours over a Christian Society Hence in the Church of Rome it is accounted as much a mortal sin to disobey their Guides in the most indifferent things as to disobey God in the plain Commands of Scripture but that is not all they challenge to themselves but a power likewise to dispence with the Law 's of God as in matter of marriages and with the Institution of Christ as in Communion in one kind and promise the same spiritual effects to
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
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
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
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