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
search and enquiry after it as times and means give leave But if we mean by a Church any particular Church he determines That particular men and Churches may erre damnably because notwithstanding others may worship God aright but that the whole Church at one time cannot so erre for that then the Church should cease utterly for a time and so not be Catholick being not at all times and Christ should sometimes be without a Church yet that errors not prejudicing the salvation of them that erre may be found in the Church that is at one time in the world we make no doubt only the Symbolical and Catholick which is and was being wholly free from error Which several expressions amount to no more than this that there will be always some true Christians in the World but what is this to infallible Teachers and Guides in a Church that pretends to be Catholick against all the sense and reason in the World And is it now imaginable after all this that Dr. Field should make any particular Church infallible No all that he means in his Preface is this that among all the Societies of men persons who have not leisure or capacity to examine particular Controversies ought diligently to search which is the true Church and having done this to embrace her communion follow her directions and rest in her judgment i.e. Suppose a man by that very Book of Dr. Fields should be convinced that the Church of Rome is a very corrupt and tyrannical Church and the Church of England is a sound and good Church which was the design of his writing it he being thus far satisfied ought to embrace the communion of this Church and so follow her directions and rest in her judgment so as not to forsake her communion for any cavils that are raised about particular Controversies of which he is not a capable judge And doth this make the Church of England infallible If we say that a man being first satisfied of the skill and integrity of a Lawyer ought to follow his directions and rest in his judgment doth this make that Lawyer infallible so we say here the resting in the judgment of a Church of whose integrity we have assurance before-hand implies only the supposition of so much honesty and skill in a Church as may over-rule the Judgments of persons who either have not leisure or capacity to understand particular Controversies which require skill in Languages search into the Fathers and later Writers on both sides If we say that unlearned persons ought in such things to trust the learned whose integrity they have no ground to suspect this doth not certainly make the more learned infallible But we may rest in the judgment of those whom we have no reason to suspect though we believe them not to be infallible and it was the former Dr. Field meant and by no means any infallibility unless he plainly contradict himself 3. He excepts That this brings in an inerrability of every particular Christian in all points necessary if such Christians will that is â—f only they shall sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them The force of this Argument will be easily discerned if we put another parallel to it viz. That they who assert from Scripture the assistance of Divine Grace to the sincere endeavours of men do make all men impâ—ccable if they will as well as those who assert that God will not be wanting in necessaries to salvation to those who sincerely endeavour to know them make all such men so far infallible if they will If any one thing be plain in Scripture the goodness of God is and who can believe that and yet think that he will suffer those who sincerely endeavour to know what is necessary to their salvation not to understand it But besides how often doth the Scripture promise a greater degree of knowledge to the meek and humble to the diligent and industrious to those that ask and seek wisdom from him to those that do the will of God to whom our Saviour hath expresly promised that they shall know of his doctrine whether it be of God or no And if this be the inerrability he means he sees what grounds we have to assert it But we understand not by it that such persons cannot erre in their judgments about what things are necessary and what not nor that they cannot erre in other things which are not so necessary to salvation but that Gods goodness is so great and his promises so plain and his word so clear in necessary things that no one who sincerely endeavours to know them shall ever miss of salvation And if such an infallibility will satisfie them we do not deny it to Popes themselves or other Guides of the Church on condition they do not think themselves infallible beyond these bounds for they are only the meek and humble whom God hath promised to teach his way and not such who will be infallible whether God will or no. His other exceptions from this principle destroying Church-Authority from the parity of reason for Church Governors and the controverted places of Scripture shall be considered afterwards 2. I now come to examine what certainty there is for this Infallibility Here I shall lay down some principles of common reason by which we may better understand the force of his arguments 1. That the Proof ought always to be more evident than the thing that is to be proved by it For otherwise it is of no advantage to the proof of it if it have but the same degree of evidence but is a great prejudice to it if it have less so that if the proofs of Infallibility be equally obscure and difficult with those things which are to be believed by virtue of it this Infallibility is of no use but if they be less evident the pretence of it is both very ridiculous and prejudicial to the Christian Faith 2. The greater concernment any Law is of and the greater danger in mistaking the meaning of it the more plain and distinct ought the terms of that Law to be As a Law about the succession of the Crown ought to be framed with all the clearness and distinctness imaginable because the peace and security of a Nation depends upon it So in case Christ hath appointed any Successor in the Government of his Church or entailed Infallibility upon the Guides of it this being a matter of such infinite concernment to the whole Church it is most unreasonable to conceive that whatever other parts of his Will were obscure those which relate to the matter of Succession and Infallibility should be so but rather so plain that no one can miss of understanding them because the weight of all the rest depends upon these two and it is so horrible a presumption in any to pretend to them in case they have no right to them and the danger so great in relying upon them if there be
Government that those who adhered to the Religion of the Roman Church yet agreed to the rejecting that Authority which he challenged in England Which is sufficiently known to have been the beginning of the Breach between the two Churches Afterwards when it was thus agreed that the Bishop of Rome had no such Authority as he challenged what should hinder our Church from proceeding in the best way it could for the Reformation of it self For the Popes Supremacy being cast out as an usurpation our Church was thereby declared to be a Free Church having the Power of Government within it self And what method of proceeding could be more reasonable in this case than by the advice of the Governours of the Church and by the concurrence of civil Authority to publish such Rules and Articles according to which Religion was to be professed and the worship of God setled in England And this is that which N. O. calls refusing submission to all the Authority then extant in the world was all the Authority then extant shut up in the Popes Breast was there no due power of Governing left because his unjust power was cast off and that first by Bishops who in other things adhered to the Roman Church But they proceeded farther and altered many things in Religion against the Consent of the more Vniversal Church It is plain since our Church was declared to be Free they had a Liberty of enquiring and determining things fittest to be believed and practised this then could not be her fault But in those things they decreed they went contrary to the consent of the Vniversal Church Here we are now come to the merits of the cause and we have from the beginning of the Reformation defended that we rejected nothing but innovations and Reformed nothing but Abuses But the Church thought otherwise of them What Church I pray The Primitive and Apostolical that we have always appealed to and offered to be tryed by The truly Catholick Church of all Ages That we utterly deny to have agreed in any one thing against the Church of England But the plain English of all is the Church of Rome was against the Church of England and no wonder for the Church of England was against the Church of Rome but we know of no Fault we are guilty of therein nor any obligation of submission to the Commands of that Church And N. O. doth not say that we opposed the whole Church but the more Vniversal Church i. e. I suppose the greater number of Persons at that time But doth he undertake to make this good that the greater number of Christians then in the world did oppose the Church of England How doth he know that the Eastern Armenian Abyssin and Greek Churches did agree with the Church of Rome against us No that is not his meaning but by the more Vniversal Church he fairly understands no more but the Church of Rome And that we did oppose the Doctrine and practices of the Church of Rome we deny not but we utterly deny that to be the Catholick Church or that we opposed any lawful Authority in denying submission to it But according to the Canons of the Church we are to obey in any dissent or division of the Clergy the Superior and more comprehensive Body of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy What he means by this I do not well understand either it must be the Authority of the Pope and Councils of the Roman Church or a General Council of all the Catholick Church For the first we owe no obedience to them for the second there was no such thing then in the world and therefore could not be opposed And for the Canons of the Catholick Councils before the breaches of Christendom no Church hath been more guilty of a violation of them than the Church of Rome since the Rules of the Fathers have been turned into the Royalties of S. Peter We are no Enemies to the ancient Patriarchal Government of the Christian Church and are far more for preserving the Dignity of it than the Roman Church can be For we should think it a happy State of the Christian Church if all the Patriarchs did enjoy their ancient power and priviledges and all Christendom would consent to a truly Free and General Council which we look on as the best expedient on earth for composing the differences of the Christian World if it might be had But we cannot endure to be abused by meer names of titular Patriarchs but real Servants and Pensionaries of the Popes with combinations of interested parties instead of General Councils with the pleasure of Popes instead of ancient Canons Let them reduce the ancient Government of the Church within its due bounds let the Bishop of Rome content himself with the priviledges he then enâ—oyed let debates be free and Bishops assemble with an equal proportion out of all Churches of Christendom and if we then oppose so generâ—l a consent of the Christian Church let them charge us with not submitting to all the Authority extant of the world But since the State of Christendom hath been so much divided that a truly General Council is next to an impossible thing the Church must be Reformed by its parts and every Free Church enjoying the Rights of a Patriarchal See hath according to the Canons of the Church a sufficient power to Reform all abuses within it self when a more general consent cannot be obtained By this we may see how very feeble this charge is of destroying all Church-Authority by refusing submission to the Roman Hierarchy and how very pityful an advantage can from hence be made by the dissenting parties among us who decry that Patriarchal and ancient Government as Anti-christian which we allow as Prudent and Christian. But of the difference of these two case I have spoken already 4. But yet N. O. saith my principles afford no effectual way or means in this Church of suppressing or convicting any Schism Sect or Heresie or reducing them either to submission of judgement or silence Therefore my Principles are destâ—â—ctive to all Church-Authority To which I answer 1. That the design of my Principles was to lay down the Foundations of Faith and not the means of suppressing heresies If I had laid down the Foundations of Peace and left all Persons to their own judgements without any regard to Authority this might have been justly objected against me but according to this way it might have been objected to Aristotle that he was an Enemy to civil Government because he doth not lay down the Rules of it in his Logick or that Hippocrates favoured the Chymists and Mountebanks because he saith not a word of the Colledge of Physitians If I had said any thing about the Authority of particular Churches or the ways of suppressing Sects then how insultingly had I been asked What is all this to the Foundations of Faith Excellent Protestant principles of Faith They begin now to resolve faith into the Authority of