Sophister one now comes forth in the habit of a grave Divine whom I shall treat with the respect due to his appearance of Modesty and Civility I pass by therefore all those unhandsome reflections in his Preface which I have not already answered in mine and come immediately to the main Controversie between us which I acknowledge to be of so great importance as to deserve a sober debate And the Controversie in short is this Whether Protestants who reject the Roman Churches Authority and Infallibility can have any sufficient Foundation to build their faith upon This we affirm and those of the Church of Rome confidently deny and on this account do charge us with the want of Principles i. e. sufficient grounds for our faith But this may be understood two ways 1. That we can have no certainty of our faith as Christians without their Infallibility 2. Or that we can have no certainty of our faith as Protestants i. e. in the matters in debate between their Church and ours These two ought carefully to be distinguished from each other and although the Principles I laid down do reach to both these yet that they were chiefly intended for the former will appear by the occasion of adding them to the end of the Answer there given The occasion was my Adversaries calling for Grounds and Principles upon which I there say that I would give an account of the faith of Protestants in the way of Principles and of the reason of our rejecting their impositions The first I undertook on two accounts 1. To shew that the Roman Churches Authority and Infallibility cannot be the Foundation of Christian faith and so we may be very good Christians without having any thing to do with the Church of Rome 2. That this might serve as a sufficient answer to a Book entituled Protestants without Principles Which being in some part of it directed against me I had reason not only to lay down those Principles bâ—t to do it in such a manner as did most directly overthrow the principles of that Book Which being only intimated there I must now to make my proceeding more clear and evident produce those assertions of E. W. for which mine were intended In the first Chapter he designs to prove That all men must be infallible in the assent they give to matters of faith For saith he If they disown such infallible believers they must joyntly deny all infallible faith and a little after an Infallible verity revealed to us forcibly requires an answerable and correspondent infallible faith in us and therefore he asserts a subjective Infallibility in true believers And from hence he proves the necessity of Infallible teachers for infallible believers and infallible teachers he saith seem neer correlatives In the second Chapter he saith he that hears an infallible teacher hath the Spirit of truth and he that hears not an infallible teacher wants this Spirit of truth by which he does not mean an infallible Revealer of the doctrine at first but the immediate teachers of the revealed doctrine for saith he no man can be a Heretick that denies the objective verities revealed in Gods word unless he be sure that his teacher reveals those verities infallibly He proposes the objection of a Simplician as he calls him that he builds his faith and Religion not on any Preachers talk but on the objective verities revealed in Scripture to which he answers that unless he first learn of some infallible Oracle the sense of Scripture in controverted places he can never arrive to the depth of Gods true meaning or derive infallible faith from those objective revealed Verities He yet farther asserts that every Catechist or Preacher that hath a lawful mission and is sent by the infallible Church to teach Christs Sacred Doctrine if he Preach that doctrine which Christ and his Church approves of is then under that notion of a member conjoyned with an Infallible Church infallible in his teaching and thence concludes that infallibility doth accompany both teachers and hearers and from denying this Infallibility he saith follows an utter ruine of Christian Religion yea and of Scripture too And afterwards he goes about to prove that no man can have any divine faith without infallibility in the proponent for faith he as long as the Infallibility of a Revelation stands remote from me for want of an undoubted application made by an infallible Proponent it can no more transfuse Certainty into Faith than Fire at a great distance warm This is the sum of the Principles of that Metaphysical wit but sure a man must have his brains well confounded by School Divinity and hard words before he can have common sense little enough to think he understands them But because I never loved to spend time in confuting a man who thinks himself the wiser for speaking things which neither he nor any one else can understand I rather chose in as short a way as I could to put together such Propositions as might give an account of Christian Faith without all this Iargon about Infallibility In order to this I first laid down the Principles wherein all parties are agreed and then such Propositions as I supposed would sufficiently give an account of our faith without any necessity of such an infallibility as he makes necessary for the foundation of it But for our clearer proceeding in an Argument of this importance it will be necessary to state and fix the notion of Infallibility before I come to particulars For as it is used it seems to be a rare word for Iugglers in Divinity to play tricks with for sometimes they apply it to the object that is believed and call that infallibly true sometimes to the subject capable of believing and say persons ought to be infallibly certain that what they believe is infallibly true and sometimes to the means of conveying that infallible truth to the faculties of men and these they say must be infallible or else there can be no infallible certainty of any thing as infallbly true But the subtilty of these things lies only in their obscurity and the School-man is spoiled when his talk is brought down out of the clouds to common sense I will therefore trie to bring these things out of their terms to a plain meaning and surely we may speak and understand each other in these matters without this doubtful term of Infallibility For if it signifies any thing we may make use of the thing it signifâ—es in stead of the word and by applying the thing signified by it to that which it is spoken of we shall soon discern how justly it is attributed to it Infallibile is that which cannot be deceived now if no one will say That a proposition cannot be deceived it is absurd to say that it is infallibly true therefore the matters revealed considered as objective verities as our schoolman speaks are not capable of
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
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
their Guides only upon the opinion of their skill and integrity and when they see reason to Question these they know of no obligation to follow their conduct over rocks and precipices if they are so careless of their own welfare others are not bound to follow them therein But we are not to presume persons so wholly Ignorant but they have some general Rules by which to Judge of the skill and fidelity of their Guides If a Person commits himself to the care of a Pilot to carry him to Constantinople because of his ignorance of the Sea should this man still rely upon his Authority if he carried him to find out the North West passage No though he may not know the particular Coasts so well yet he knows the East and West the North and South from each other If a stranger should take a Guide to conduct him from London to York although he may not think fit to dispute with him at every doubtful turning yet is he bound to follow him when he travels all day with the Sun in his face for although he doth not know the direct road yet he knows that he is to go Northward The meaning of all this is that the supposition of Guides in Religion doth depend upon some common principles of Religion that are or may be known to all and some precepts so plain that every Christian without any help may know them to be his duty within the compass of these plain and known duties lyes the capacity of persons judging of their Guides if they carry them out of this beaten way they have no reason to rely upon them in other things if they keep themselves carefully within those bounds and shew great integrity therein then in doubtful and obscure things they may with more safety rely upon them But if they tell them they must put out their eyes to follow them the better or if they kindly allow them to keep their eyes in their heads yet they must believe them against their eye-sight if they perswade them to break plain Commands of God and to alter the Institutions of Christ what reason can there be that any should commit themselves to the absolute Conduct of such unfaithful Guides And this is not to destroy all Authority of faithful Guides for they may be of great use for the direction of unskilful persons in matters that are doubtful and require skill to resolve them but it is only to suppose that their Authority is not absolute nor their direction infallible But if we take away this Infallible direction from the Guides of the Church what Authority is there left them As much as ever God gave them and if they will not be contented with that we cannot help it and that it may appear how vain and frivolous these exceptions are I shall now shew what real Authority is still left in the Governours of the Church though Infallibility be taken away And that lyes in three things 1. An Authority of inflicting censures upon offenders which is commonly called the Power of the keys or of receiving into and excluding out of the Communion of the Church This the Church was invested with by Christ himself and is the necessary consequence of the being and institution of a Christian Society which cannot be preserved in its purity and peace without it Which Authority belongs to the Governours of the Church and however the Church in some respects be incorporated with the Common-wealth in a Christian State yet its Fundamental Rights remain distinct from it of which this is one of the chief to receive into and exclude out of the Church such persons which according to the Laws of a Christian Society are fit to be taken in or shut out 2. An Authority of making Rules and Canons about matters of order and decency in the Church Not meerly in the necessary circumstances of time and place and such things the contrary to which imply a natural indecency but in continuing and establishing those ancient rites of the Christian Church which were practised in the early times of Christianity and are in themselves of an indifferent nature Which Authority of the Church hath been not only asserted in the Articles of our Church but strenuously defended against the trifling objections of her Enemies from Scripture Antiquity and Reason And I freely grant not only that such an Authority is in it self reasonable and just but that in such matters required by a Lawful Authority such as that of our Church is there is an advantage on the side of Authority against a scrupulous Conscience which ought to over-rule the practice of such who are the members of that Church 3. An Authority of proposing matters of faith and directing men in Religion Which is the proper Authority of Teachers and Guides and Instructers of others which may be done several ways as by particular instruction of doubtful persons who are bound to make use of the best helps they can among which that of their Guides is the most ready and useful and who are obliged to take care of their Souls and therefore to give the most faithful advice and Counsel to them Besides this there is a publick way of instructing by discourses grounded upon Scripture to particular congregations assembled together for the worship of God in places set apart for that end and therefore called Churches And those who are duly appointed for this work and ordained by those whose office is to ordain viz. the Bishops have an Authority to declare what the mind and Will of God is contained in Scripture in order to the Salvation and edification of the Souls of men But besides this we may consider the Bishops and representative Clergy of a Church as met together for reforming any abuses crept into the practice of Religion or errours in Doctrine and in this case we assert that such a Synod or Convocation hath the power and Authority within it self especially having all the ancient rights of a Patriarchal Church when a more general consent cannot be obtained to publish and declare what those errours abuses are to do as much as in them lyes to reform them viz. by requiring a consent to such propositions as are agreed upon for that end of those who are to enjoy the publick offices of teaching and instructing others Not to the end that all those propositions should be believed as Articles of Faith but because no Reformation can be effected if persons may be allowed to preach and officiate in the Church in a way contrary to the design of such a Reformation And this is now that Authority we attribute to the Governours of our Church although we allow no Infallibility to them And herein we proceed in a due mean between the extremes of robbing the Church of all Authority of one side and advancing it to Infallibility on the other But we cannot help the weakness of those mens understanding who cannot apprehend that any such thing as Authority
of our Church But saith T. C. the subscribing the Book of Homilies as containing a godly and wholesome Doctrine doth not evince that every particular Doctrine contained in it is such Be it so but I hope it doth evince that the Subscribers did not think the main Doctrine of any one Homily to be false Surely there is a great deal of difference between some particular passages and expressions in these Homilies and that which is the main design and Foundation of any one of them But in this case we are to observe that they who deny the Church of Rome to be guilty of Idolatry do not only look on the Charge as false but as of dangerous Consequence and therefore although men may subscribe to a Book in general as containing wholesome and godly Doctrine though they be not so certain of the Truth of every passage in it yet they can never do it with a good conscience if they believe any great and considerable part of the Doctrine therein contained to be false and dangerous Such a subscription would be as apparently shuffling and dishonest as is the evasion of this Testimony which T. G. makes use of for want of a better I shall in the next place shew the current Doctrine of the Church ever since the Reformation to have been agreeable to this Homily of the Peril of Idolatry In the Injunctions published by K. Edward VI. A. D. 1547. the extirpation of Popery is called the suppression of Idolatry and Superstition In the second year of Edward VI. Arch-bishop Cranmer published his Articles of Visitation whereof the 6. and the last are about the taking away Images Pictures and all other Monuments of feigned miracles Pilgrimages Idolatry and Superstition In the second Liturgy by Edward VI. after the Communion was a Rubrick annexed in which the Adoration of the Host is expresly called Idolatry This is that very Rubrick of which T. G. according to his excellent skill in the offices of our Church saith it is not yet more then a dozen years since it was inserted into the Communion Book which he might have found above a 100. years before in the Book of Edward VI. In the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth A. D. 1559. Art 2. and 23. all Shrines Tables Pictures c. are commanded to be taken away and destroyed and all other Monuments of feigned miracles Idolatry and Superstition And that 〈◊〉 may not think it was only a sudden heaâ— at the first Reformation which made theâ— charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry long after in A form of Thanksgiving in the 37. of Queen Elizabeth A. D. 1594. Popery is called that Idolatrous Religion as it was in the Beginning of her Reign in the excellenâ— Apology for the Church of England And I desire him or any one else 〈◊〉 produce any one Bishop or Divine of notâ— in the Church of England who during all hâ—r Reign did deny the Church of Rome to be guilty of Idolatry But why then was it not inserted in the 39. Articles in which T. G. observes the Adoration of Images is not rejected as Idolatry but only as a fond thing vainly invented nor as repugnant to the plain words of Scripture but as being rather repugnant to the word of God which plainly gives us to understand that they had done their endeavours to find a command but could not A most ingenious Criticism when himself and all others of their Divines yield that adoration of images which our Church charges them with Art 22. viz. not barely worshipping but adoration of images to be Idolatry and plainly repugnant to Scripture Were the composers of our Articles so sensless as not to think Idolatry repugnant to Scripture or not to think adoration of images to be Idolatry or not to think the Church of Rome guilty of it when the Article saith The Romish Doctrine concerning worshipping and adoration as well of Images as of Reliques c It is not meerly the practice used in the Church of Rome but their very Doctrine concerning adoration of images which is here charged and can any Church teach adoration of images and not be guilty of Idolatry And for his Criticism about being rather repugnant it had been utterly lost if he had looked into the Latin Articles where the words are immo verbo Dei contradicit whereby it appears that rather is not used as a term of diminution but of a more vehement affirmation I now come to the exceptions he takes to the particular Testimonies I produced of the most eminent Bishops and Divines of our Church ever since the Reformation who have all concurred in this charge of Idolatry Two parts in three he excepts against as incompetent witnesses in the case how few of the Iury would any Malefactor allow if such frivolous exceptions might serve his turn The two first he excepts against are the two Arch-Bishops Whitgift and Abbot as Puritanically inclined But as it unhappily falls out one of them was never mentioned by me and the other never till now suspected for a Puritan The Abbot I mentioned was not George Abbot Arch-Bishop of Canterbury but Robert Abbot Bishop of Salisbury and it is the first time we ever heard that a Bishop of Salisbury was suspended from his Metropolitical jurisdiction But they of the Church of Rome have a faculty of doing greater wonders with five words than Changing a Bishop into an Arch-Bishop I hope he understands the Church he is of better than that he hath left or else we are like to have a sad account of History from him But why I beseech you after all his zeal and indefatigable pains for the Church of England must Arch-Bishop Whitgift be thrown away to the Puritans If he had proved T. C. at the same time Arch-Bishop of Canterbury there might have been some reason to suspect Whitgift to have been of the Puritan side for all the world know they were greaâ— adversaries on that very account of thâ— Puritan cause But was not Whitgiâ—â— for the Lambeth Articles And whâ— then Are the Dominicans Puritans and no Papists If your Church may havâ— liberty not to determin those nice points why may not ours and so both parties remain of our Church as long as they contradict no received Articles among us But the Lambeth-Articles were neveâ— intended for any more than as Responsâ— Prudentum to silence disputes in the university And I believe none of the Puritan party after that took Arch-Bishop Whitgift to be a Patron of theiâ— cause But if these will not serve his turn 〈◊〉 have others ready whom for meer shamâ— he will not say were Puritans or Puritanically inclined And the first of these is an Arch-Bishop too and that is Arch-Bishop Bancroft and if he be cast out for a Puritan surely there never was any Bishop of the Church of England In his Sermon preached at Pauls Cross on 1 John 4. 1. he hath these words speaking of the Papists The Popish false Prophets
be less but only our charity to be greater Suppose a man should exceed in his charity towards a person guilty of some grievous faults and say he believes he may be a pious man for all this but withall severely reproves him for his faults and tells him the danger he continually runs by such actions would it be fair for such a man to answer him that his reproofs were not to be regarded because he contradicted himself for he told him he believed him to be a pious man and yet upbraided him with those faults which were inconsistent with piety what would the consequence of this be to the thing it self would this make those faults ever the less because he judged so charitably of the person notwithstanding his committing them But when we allow the Church of Rome to be a true Church we are far from understanding by that a sound or a good Church free from corruptions which would be the most proper sense to found a contradiction upon in this matter of Idolatry but we mean no more by it than as a man is a true man though he hath the plague upon him those which we account the essentials of a Church we deny not to it but withall we contend that it is over-run with such corruptions in worship as do mightily endanger the salvation of those who live in the communion of it 2. Having thus discovered the disingenuity of making so bad a use of our charity against us I now come to shew how Sophistical this way of answering is by a closer examination of it First The starting of a new objection answers no argument and all that this amounts to is only raising a new difficulty whereas he ought in the first place to have answered all the arguments I had brought to prove them guilty of Idolatry and when he had done this fairly and plainly which for some good reasons he had no mind to do he might then have insisted on the inconsistency of it with principles owned by me but to do this without giving an answer so much as to any one argument is a clear evidence of a sophistical and cavilling humour rather than of any intention to satisfie an inquisitive mind 2. The force of this objection lyes in the different sense and meaning of several expressions made use of by him which being explained the objection will signifie nothing For if we rightly understand the notion of Idolatry the manner of teaching it the sense of Fundamental errours and a true Church as it is owned by me the very appearance of any contradiction vanisheth I agree in the general that the true notion of Idolatry is giving the honour due only to God to a meer creature and I desire no greater advantage against the Church of Rome than from such a concession but then we are to understand that this may be done several ways 1. When the worship proper to the true God is given to a false God 2. When the true God is acknowledged and worshipped but the unity of the God-head is denyed and many false Gods are joyned with him in the same worship In these two sorts of Idolatry I acknowledge that the true God is rejected either wholly in the first way or by consequence in the second But withall I say that the giving the Worship to a creature which is due only to God may be consistent with the acknowledgement of one Supream God and that these ways 1. When one Supream God is acknowledged but no difference is put between the external Worship of him and creatures This was the Idolatry of the wiser Heathen who did in their consciences acknowledge that there was but one true and supream God but yet gave the same worship to inferiour Deities that they did to him These men might have pleaded for themselves for all that I know as much to their advantage as those of the Church of Rome do against me 2. When the worship proper to the true God is given to an Image or the supposing of God to be truly honoured by us by prostrating our selves before any corporeal representation of him This likewise the Heathen were guilty of St. Paul hath long since told us of some who profess that they know God but in works they deny him so there may be some who may profess a worship due only to God but in their actions may contradict it As suppose a company of rebellious men should declare over and over that they acknowledge but one Soveraign Power of this Nation invested in the person of the King but yet should take upon themselves to raise forces to appoint great Officers of State and require that the very same outward reverence and honour be given to them which is given to the King himself would any man in his sense say that because these men still declared the supream Authority to be in the King that there was no Treason in such actions or that those persons contradicted themselves who allowed that their profession was such as became good subjects but their actions made them guilty of Treason The same we say of the Church of Rome we confess they own the supream Power of the world to be in one true God and we have no controversie with them about the essential Doctrines of Religion which is that we mean by their being a true Church but withal we say they overthrow what they say in their own practice they rob God of the honour due only to him by giving it to Angels and Saints and Images and other creatures And what contradiction now is there in all this and a Church agreeing with us in the object of worship in general should act contrary to its own profession by requiring those things to be done which take away from God that honour which is due only to him and giving it to creatures And this if I understand it is all that this first contradiction in the charge of Idolatry doth amount to To appply this now to his own propositions for the greater clearness and satisfaction of all indifferent persons His first Proposition I agree to viz. That 't is an article of faith and a Fundamental point of Religion that the honour which is due only to God is not to be given to a meer creature But I desire it may be taken notice of that this proposition is Sophistically expressed for although it be no dispute between us whether that honour which is due only to God may be given to a creature yet it is a very great one and the foundation of the charge of Idolatry what that honour is which is due only to God and in case we can prove that they do give to meer Creatures any part of that honour which is due to God it cannot at all excuse them to say that they acknowledge it to be Idolatry to give that honour which they suppose to be due only to God to a meer creature This proposition therefore though in
parallel with each other 1. because I will not grant that a willful sin such as adultery to be a true way to Heaven and doth he think that I ever imagined Idolatry and gross superstition to be so If I grant that in the Church of Rome they have a true way to Heaven it is as other debauched Christians have who own faith enough to save them but their destruction comes from not living agreeably to it 2. Because I grant more to them than to Iews or Pagans yet they may be saved if they do repent True but they are not in so great likelyhood of repenting as those who own the Fundamental articles of the Christian faith and have a sincere desire in general to serve God according to his will the Grace of God being more plentiful where the Christian faith is owned than where it is rejected upon which account Iews and Heathens are in more danger of not repenting and consequently of salvation than those that live in the Roman Church 3. Because I grant a greater capacity of salvation to Roman Catholicks than they do to Protestants but they do not dâ—ny it to Protestants if they repent But the difference lyes in the nature and acts of the repâ—â—tance required We say a 〈◊〉 repentanced and a vertuous sincere mind which desires to know do the will of God may be sufficient together with a particular repentance of all known miscarriages but they say such a repentacne is necessary for us as does imply a disowning our Church as such wherein no salvation is to be had and a joyning with the Communion of the Church of Rome therefore the question about their charity and ours is about the possibility of the salvation of persons living and dying in the communion of either Church We say on the conditions before mentioned men may be saved though they do not in terms renounce their communion but they say that none who do not return to their communion can be saved and in this we justly charge them with horrible uncharitableness when many of their Writers allow a greater possibility of salvation to meer Heathens 4. Because Arch-bishop Laud grants a greater capacity of salvation than other Protestants but in what sense I have already shewed 5. That this is in effect to say that it is a true way to Heaven if they go out of it Not if they go out of it so far as it is true but so far only as it is false and dangerous If a man were going the right way from London to York as far as Stamford and there went quite out of his way into the Fens here his life is in danger if I should tell this man that the way from London to York was a certain way that the way he went in as far as Stamford was a true way and if he had kept in it would have brought him to York but the way he is now in is very dangerous and if he does not return his life is in perpetual hazard is this all one as if I should tell him while you were in the true way you must go out of it No such sense can be put upon such words by any man that hath sense and for others we give them leave to cry nonsense and contradiction All his other petty objections run upon the same palpable mistake and it would be but repeating the same thing to answer the other remaining cavils upon this Argument I come therefore to the sore place indeed the touching whereof hath made them to kick and wince so much at me and that is the Fanaticism of the Roman Church Which made them complain to Caesar that it was a new crime and never heard of before What they the sober the judicious the wise people of the Church of Rome turned Fanaticks it's false it 's impossible nay it is absolutely and utterly impossible to be true and none but Atheists can charge them with it This hath been their common way of answering to this new charge but not one wise word hath been said in a just Vindication of themselves by giving answer to those many plain and undenyable Instances I have produced I wished for no other tryal than to be bound to bring forth their own Authors and to make good the Authorities I had cited and my fidelity therein but they have fairly declined this way of tryal But how then can they free themselves from this imputation we have men of art to deal with and it is some pleasure to observe the skill they use in warding off a blow they did not look for But if they have nothing more to say then I. W. can help them to the charge will stick the faster for his attempt to clear them of it He begins with a description of Fanaticism which he saith doth necessarily contain a resistance of authority and for this very unhappily quotes my own words By Fanaticism we understand either an Enthusiastick way af Religion or resisting authority under pretence of Religion just as if one should say the true notion of Idolatry implyes the renouncing the true God and to prove it should quote words of mine to this purpose That Idolatry is either renouncing the true God or worshipping the true God by an Image for as in that case it is evident I make two sorts of Idolatry so it is as plain in this that I make two branches of Fanaticism whereof the one is an Enthusiastick way of Religion the other resistance of authority under the pretence of Religion But if this be the true notion of Fanaticism why doth he not speak one word in vindication of them from that very kind of Fanaticism which I had charged them to be so deeply guilty of Had I not proved by plain testimonies that the most Fanatick principles of Rebellion were owned by the Jesuitical party among them viz. the Kings deriving his power from the people and the peoples authority to call the King to an account and if they see good to take away his power and change the Government and not only so but to take away his life too Had I not proved by clear and late Instances that the party which owns these principles is to this day the most countenanced and encouraged at Rome and any honest men among them as to these principles are on that account hated and persecuted as P. W. and his Brethren But why no answer to this charge These are things they cannot deny and yet dare not confess them to be true If I. W. answer again let him speak out like a man and either confess and detest these Principles or we shall charge them farther with this worst and most dangerous sort of Fanaticism My duty and just zeal for his Majesties interest and security will not suffer me to let go this part of the charge against them although they would fain have it passed over in silence as though never a word had been said concerning
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
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
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
with in the Field And to speak truth N. O. seems to understand his Art better than to meddle with such heavy and Antique Armour which every one hath been foiled with that hath undertaken to combat with them only it seems a little for the credit of their Cause to point to such a Magazine which in the days of Ignorance and Credulity the Romantick Age of the Church was in great request But we must now buckle our selves to a new manner of Combat which is from the Tradition of the Church and that of the very same nature with what we have for the Canon of Scripture This I confess is bright shining Armour and may do great service if it will hold but that must be judged upon trial which I now set my self to But we shall find that no weapons formed against Truth can prosper and it hath been long observed of Rome that it could never endure a close Siege The Question now is whether they of the Roman Church have the same universal Tradition for the Infallibility of the Guides of it w ch we have for the Canon of Scripture w ch he asserts It is I suppose agreed on both sides That the Tradition on w ch we receive and believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God was universal as to all Ages and Times of the Church that from the beginning all disputes in Religion among true Christians were built upon the supposition of it That in no Age any persons were allowed to be good Christians who made doubt of it That every Age doth afford plentiful testimonies of the belief of it This is that universal Tradition we receive the Scriptures upon and let any thing like this be produced for the Infallibility of the Guides of their Church and we yield up the Cause to them Can any fairer terms than these be desired But we expect proofs and so I perceive we may do to the Worlds end I commend the Ingenuity of N. O. for endeavouring to escape out of the circle any way but I believe they think themselves as wise who still dance within it knowing the impossibility of doing any good in this other way The only Argument he insists upon is so weak that I wonder he had not considered how often it had been answered by their own Writers For it is certain that Provincial Councils as well as General have Anathematized dissenters and pronounced them Hereticks which is his only Argument to prove this Tradition of the Churches Infallibility and they had no way to answer it but by saying this doth not imply their Infallibility And if it doth not in the case of Provincial Councils why should he think it doth in the case of General For the Anathema's of Provincial Councils did not relate to the acceptation of their Decrees either by the Pope or the whole Church as N. O. supposes but did proceed upon their own assurance of the truth of what they decreed otherwise their Anathema's would have been only conditional and not absolute and peremptory as we see they were But I need give no other answer to this Argument than in the words of Dr. Field whom N. O. appealed to before viz. That Councils denounce Anathema not because they think every one that disobeyeth the Decree of the Council to be accursed but because they are perswaded in particular that this is the eternal truth of God which they propose therefore they accurse them that obstinately shall resist as St. Paul willeth every Christian man to Anathematize an Angel coming from heaven if he shall teach him any other doctrine than he hath already learned yet is not every particular Christian free from possibility of erring If the Argument then were good from Anathematizing dissenters and calling them Hereticks every particular person must by it be proved Infallible who are bound to Anathematize even Angels from Heaven in case of delivering any other doctrine from the Gospel so that this which is his only Argument in stead of proving an universal Tradition would prove an universal Infallibility Let the Reader now judge in his Conscience whether here be any thing offered in the way of Tradition for the Churches Infallibility that may bear the least proportion with the Tradition on which we receive the Scriptures And yet if this had been true it had been almost impossible that any one Age should have passed without remarkable testimonies of it For no Age of the Church hath been so happy as not to have occasion for an Infallible Judge of Controversies if any such had been appointed by Christ and therefore it cannot be imagined but that Christians must in all Controversies arising have appealed to him and stood to his determinations which must have been as well known in the practice of the Church as Judges trying Causes in Westminster Hall But I challenge him to produce any one Age since the Apostles times to this day wherein the Infallibility of a standing Judge of Controversies appointed by Christ hath been received by as universal a consent as the Authority of Scripture hath been in that very Age. Nay I except not that Age which hath been since the Council of Trent for the Scriptures of the New Testament have been received of all sides but the Infallibility of a standing Judge is utterly denied by one side and vehemently disputed between several parties on the other Some making only the Essential Church infallible others the representative in Councils others again the virtual viz. the Pope And supposing any infallible Judge necessary it stands to reason it should be rather in one than in a multitude and rather in a constant succession of Bishops in one See than in an uncertain number who cannot be convened together as often as the necessities of the Church may require But this is so far from being received as an Universal Tradition in that very Age wherein we live that onely one busie Party in the Roman Church do maintain it Many others eagerly opposing it and all the Princes and States in Christendom do in their actions if not in words deny it And is not this now an Universal Tradition fit to be matched with that of the Scriptures I had once thought to have brought testimonies oâ—t of every Age of the Christian Church manifestly disproving any such Tradition of Infallibility and that not only of private persons when there were no Councils but from the most solemn Acts of Councils and the confession of their own Writers but that would swell this Answer to too great a Bulk and is not needful where so very little is offered for the proof of it And yet I shall be ready to do it when any thing more important requires it I now return to his exceptions against the latter part of the former proposition viz. That Infallibility in a Body of men is as liable to doubts and disputes as in those Books from whence only they derive their Infallibility The plain meaning of which
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
sound and orthodox And this was the second way of defending Honorius viz. that he did not err in faith at all and this way is taken by Petavius and others and was the way intended by Petrus de Marcâ as appears by the account given of his design by Baluzius which was first to prove by most evident arguments that the Acts of the Council were never corrupted by the Greeks against the opinion before mentioned and next that he was truly condemned by the Council but not for heresy but only for negligence and remissness I think there needs nothing to shew the weakness of this but barely reading the Anathema of the Council against him which is not for bare negligence but for confirming the wicked doctrines of Sergius And I am apt to think that learned person saw the weakness of his design too much to go on with it and Baronius and Bellarmin saw well enough that whosoever was there Anathematized it was upon the account of heresy that he was so and therefore Baronius would make men believe the Anathema belonged to Theodorus and not to Honorius Petavius thinks that Honorius was deceived but it was only by his simplicity and weakness not understanding the Controversy aright So of old Iohn 4. and Maximus in his dispute with Pyrrhus defended Honorius that he spake indeed of one Will but that say they was to be understood only of one Will in his humane nature Which as Combesis saith is a more pious than solid defence of him and would as well serve for Sergius and Cyrus for Heraclius his Ecthesis and Constans his Type as Honorius his letter For who ever will peruse them will find they all proceed on the same argument that there could not be two wills in Christ but one must be contrary to the other But that which I insist on is this that it is certain the Council approved by the Pope did condemn him for heresy I desire therefore again to know whether he was rightly condemned or not if he was then the Pope must be guilty and so not infallible if not than the Council must be according to Bellarmin guilty of intolerable impudence and errour but in either case there was no infallibility in the Guides of the Church which could require our internal assent to what they declared But another defence is yet beâ—ind which is that though the Pope did erre yet it was in his private Capacity and not as Head of the Church But when doth he act as Head of the Church if not when he is consulted about important matters of faith as this was then supposed to be by two Patriarchs and when the Church was divided about them and there upon solemnly delivers his opinion This is then a meer subterfuge when men have nothing else to say I conclude therefore this Instance of Honorius with the ingenuous confession of Mr. White that things are so clear in the cause of Honorius that it is unworthy any grave Divine to pawn his own honour and that of Divinity too in sowing together Fig-leaves to palliate it Thus far I have shewn that those who pretend the most to be infallible Guides of the Church have opposed and condemned each other from whence it necessarily follows that no absolute submission is due to them unless we can be obliged to believe contradictions I might pursue this much further and draw down the History of these contradictions to each other through the following Ages of the Church wherein Bishops have been against Bishops Popes against Popes Councils against Councils Church against Church especially after the breach between the Eastern and Greek Churches the Greek and the Roman and the Roman and those of the Reformation But a man who is bound to rely only on the Authority of his Guides must suppose them to be agreed and in case of difference among them he must first choose his Religion and by that his Guide 9. In the present divided State of the Christian Church a man that would satisfy his own mind must make use of his judgement in the choice of his Church and those Guides he is to submit to Unless a man will say that every one is bound to yield himself absolutely to the Guidance of that Church which he lives in whether Eastern or Greek Roman or Protestant which I suppose N. O. will never yield to for a reason he knows because then no Revolter from us could be justified The true State then of the present case concerning the Guides of the Catholick Church is this that it hath been now for many Ages rent and torn into several distinct Communions every one of which Communions hath particular Guides over it who pretend it to be the duty of men to live in subjection to them because every Church doth suppose it self to be in the right now the Question proposed is whether it be not fitter for me to submit to the Guides of the Catholick Church than to trust my own judgement I should make no scruple in all doubtful matters to resolve the affirmative supposing that all the Guides of the Catholick Church were Agreed for I should think it arrogance and presumption in me to set up my own private opinion in opposition to the unanimous consent of all the Guides of the Catholick Church in such a case but that is far from ours for we find the Christian World divided into very different Communions The Eastern Churches are still as numerous though not so prosperous as the Roman the extent of the Greek Church alone is very great but besides that there are two other distinct Churches in those parts who break off Communion with the Greek on the Account of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon and the latter sort especially are very far spread in those parts from Armenia to the Abyssine Empire In the time of Iacobus de Vitriaco he saith these two Churches were said to be more numerous than the Greek and the Latin and Bellonius in these later times assures us that the rites of the Greek Church do yet extend farther than the Latin What then makes these Churches to be left out in our Enquiries after the Guides of the Catholick Church Are these such inconsiderable parts of the Body that no regard is to be had to them I believe upon a strict examination notwithstanding the reproach of heresy and Schism which those of the Church of Rome cast upon all but themselves they will be sound much more souâ—d parts of the Catholick Church than the Roman Church is Five great Bodies or Communions of Christians are at this day in the World 1. The most Eastern Christians commonly called Nestorians whether justly or no I shall not now examine these are spread over the most Eastern parts and all live in subjection to the Patriarch of Muzal 2. The Iacobites who are dispersed through Mesopotamia Armenia Aegypt and the Abyssine Empire and live under several Patriarchs of
their own 3. The Greek Church of which besides the Moscovites are to be reckoned the Melchites or Suriani and the Georgians for though their language be different they all agree in Doctrine 4. The Roman Church taking under it all in the Eastern parts who have submitted to the Bishop of Rome 5. The Protestant Churches who have cast off subjection to the Pope and Reformed the corruptions they charge the Church of Rome with Now of these 5. parts 4. of them are all agreed that there is no necessity of living in subjection to the Guides of the Roman Church but they are all under their own proper Guides W ch they do not Question will direct them in the right way to Heaven Only those of the Church of Rome take upon themselves against all sense and reason to be the Catholick Church and so exclude 4. parts of 5. out of a capacity of Salvation and challenge Infallibility as belonging to the Guides of it alone In this case the Arrogance of the pretence the uncharitableness of rejecting so mighty a number of Christians from the possibility of Salvation are sufficient to make any Man not yield up his Faith at the first demand but to consider a while whether there be no other Churches or Guides in those Churches when he finds so many and those not inferiour to the Roman Church in any thing save only in pomp pride and uncharitableness and all opposing those arrogant pretences of Authority and Infallibility in it what reason can he have supposing that he is to submit to any Guides that he must submit only to those of the Roman Church Why not as well to those of the Eastern Greek or Protestant Churches If any one goes about to assign a reason by charging them with heresy or Schism he unavoidably makes him Judge of some of the greatest difficulties in Religion before he can submit to his Infallible Guides He must know what Nestorianism Eutychianism Monothelism mean how they came to be heresies whether the Churches accused be justly charged with them He must understand all the subtilties of Personalitie subsistence Hypostatical Union whether the Union of two natures in Christ be substantial natural or accidental whether it be enough to say that the Divine and humane are one by inhabitation or one by consent or one by Communion of operation or one by Communion of dignity and honour all which the Nestorians acknowledged only denying the union of two natures to make one Person supposing a man be come to this he must then be satisfied that the present Eastern Christians do hold the Doctrine of the old Nesiorians for they acknowledge Christ to be perfect God and perfect Man and that the B. Virgin may be called the Mother of the Son of God or the Mother of the Word but they stick only at calling her the Mother of God Then for the other Churches which are charged with Eâ—tychianism he must understand the exact difference between nature and Person for if there cannot be two natures without two Persons then either the Nestorians were in the right who asserted two Persons or the Eytychians who denyed two natures but this being granted he must be satisfied that those called Iacobites are Eutychians although they disown Eutyches and follow Dioscorus asserting that there were two natures before the Union and but one after and that Dioscorus was rightly condemned in the Council of Chalceâ—on but supposing they are willing to leave the dispute of two natures on condition that the humane nature be only made the Instrument of the Divine in its operations whether they are justly charged with heresy in so doing All these things a Man must fully be satisfied in before he can pronounce those Churches guilty of heresy and so not to be followe But supposing those Churches be rejected why must the Greek which embraces all the Councils which determined those subtle controversies Here comes the mystery of the procession of the Holy Ghost to be examined whether from the Father alone or from the Father and the Son but supposing this to be yielded why may he not joyn with those Churches which agree with the Church of Rome in all those points as the Protestant Churches do Here a Man must examine the notes of the Church and enquire whether they be true notes whether they agree only to the Roman Church And one of the greatest of those notes being consent with the Primitive Church a Man that would be well satisfied must go through all the disputes between us and the Church of Rome and by that time he is well settled in them he will see little use and less necessity of an Infallible Guide So that a Man who would satisfy himself in this divided State of the Christian Church what particular Communion he ought to embrace and what Guides he must follow must do all that for the preventing of which an Infallible Guide is said to be necessary i.e. he must not only exercise his own judgment in particular controversies but must proceed according to it and joyn with that Church which upon Enquiry he judges to be the Best 10. A prudent submission is due to the Guides of that Church with which a person lives in Communion Having shewed that absolute submission is not due all that can be left is a submission within due bounds which is that I call a prudent submission And those bounds are these following 1. Not to submit to all those who challenge the Authority of Guides over us though pretending to never so much Power and Infallibility When N. O. would perswade me to submit my understanding to the Infallible Guides of the Church He must think me a very easy man to yield till I be satisfied first that God hath appointed such to be my Guides and in the next place that he hath promised Infallibility to them And that is the true State of the Controversy between us and those of the Church of Rome in this matter they tell us we are bound to submit to the Guides of the Church we desire to know whom they mean by these Guides and at last we understand them to be the Bishop of Rome and his Clergy Here we demur and own no Authority the Bishop of Rome hath over us we assert that we have all the Rights of a Patriachal Church within our selves that we owe no account to the Bishop of Rome of what we believe or practise it is no Article of our Creed that God hath made him Iudge either of the quick or the dead We have Guides of our Church among our selves who have as clear a succession and as good a title as the Bishops of any Church in the world To these who are our Lawful Guides we promise a due obedience and are blame worthy if we give it not but for the Bishop and Clergy of Rome we own none to them let them challenge it with never so much confidence and arrogant pretences to Infallibility So that
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
in which time he would sin mortally by omitting contrition if he were obliged to it but this saith he is against the common opinion of Divines that a man contracts any new guilt by omitting contrition Nay he afterwards determins that a man that hath received the Sacrament of Penance with bare attrition is not bound under the guilt of mortal sin for omitting it to an act of contrition at the point of death which is he saith the commonly received opinion among them and he quotes Diana Coninch Becanus Layman Fagundez Faber Turrianus Salas and others for it The great argument he brings is because Confessors do not think themselves obliged to put men in mind of an act of contrition at that time as necessary as common experience shews And are not such Confessors excellent Guides to Heaven the mean while If they be they have found out a much broader way and wider gate than ever Christ intended What not one single act of contrition necessary No not at the point of death What pity it is for sinners you have not the keeping of Heaven-gates How do they want the Sacrament of Penance in Hell for no doubt there is attrition good store there But above all of them commend me to honest Gregor de Valentiâ who not only makes contrition unnecessary but saith it is rather a hindrance to the effect of the Sacraments From whence Morinus justly infers that a Confessor ought not to perswade the Penitent to Contrition nor the penitent to endeavour after it Nay Morinus shews that grave men and famous in their Church do assert that a Penitent having received the Sacrament of Penance is not bound to so much as one act of contrition or the Love of God in order to his reconciliation with God Yea although a man hath hated God to the last act of his life if he receives the Sacrament of Penance they deny that it is necessary for him to be contrite for his sins or to love God Nothing could go beyond this but what follows in him that the excellency of the Evangelical Sacraments above the legal consists in this that the Evangelical Sacraments have freed us from the most heavy yoke 〈◊〉 of contrition and the Love of God O admirable Guides of Conscience I do not at all question but Jews Turks and Heathens have a much better and truer notion of Repentance than these men the Pagan Philosophers were Christians to them And what injury have I done them now in charging such things upon them which obstruct devotion and overthrow the necessity of a good life For I hardly think it possible to contrive a Doctrine more effectual for that end than to tell men that the Sacraments of the Gospel do free men from that heavy yoke Contrition and the Love of God But supposing there were no such Foundation for this Doctrine in the Council of Trent as we see there is would there be no danger to mens Salvation if their Confessors generally told then these things and they knew it to be thâ— current opinion among them Is there 〈◊〉 danger of falling into the ditch wheâ— the Blind lead the Blind unless General Council expresly allow of it 〈◊〉 there no danger by Empericks aâ—â— Mountebanks unless the whole Coâ—ledge of Physicians approve them Anâ— of all sorts of Empericks the worst aâ—â— such Casuists and Confessors Is therâ— no way to magnify the Sacerdotal office unless they have a Power to Trepan Soul into eternal flames for want of true repentance by making them believe thâ— Priests absolution with bare attritioâ— will make all even with God Or 〈◊〉 this Doctrine only a Decoy to draw great sinners into your nets And all this while is your Church innocent which at least sees and will not reform these things In A. D. 1665. 24. of September and 18. May 1666. the Congregation of the Inquisition at Rome under Alexander 7. took upon them to censure 45. several Propositions of the late Casuists as scandalous and pernicious to the Souls of men but not one of them relates to this Doctrine of repentance although the Jansenists in France had complained of it Whence could this arise but from looking on it as the Doctrine of their Church Indeed I find that on May 5. 1667. The Pope caused a Decree to be published straitly forbidding all persons in their debates about Attrition to condemn each other but it is worth our while to understand what this controversie was viz. Whether bare attrition doth require an act of the love of God and although the Negative be there said to be the more common opinion yet the Pope would not have the others that affirmed it to be censured But not the least word against the sufficiency of bare attrition Are any of the Books censured which assert this Doctrine Nay they are published with great approbations Are any of the Defenders of it discountenanced Nay they are Persons in the highest esteem dignity and Authority among them Are any cautions given to Confessors to beware of these Doctrines Nay these very Books are purposely written and approved for their instruction and use And if their Church be innocent after all this so was the Iewish Church in our Saviours time for the corruptions that were then among them had no decree of the Sanhedrin that I find for them it was only their Schoolmen and Casuists the Scribes and Pharisees which introduced them And yet our Saviour thought mens Souls in danger when he bid them beware of the leaven of the Pharisees I confess when we debate the causes of Separation from their Communion we think it then reasonable to alledge no more than what they impose on all to believe and practice and we have enough of all Conscience in that kind without going farther but when we represent the hazard of Salvation to particular persons we may then justly charge them with the pernicious Doctrines and practices which are received and allowed among them although not decreed by the Church in Councils For otherwise it would be just as if one should say to a man that asked him whether he might safely travel through such a Country yes without doubt you may for although there be abundance of Thieves and High-waymen yet the Prince or the State never approved them or gave them licence to rob Travellers Do you think any man would venture his person or his purse on no better security Yet such security as this if it were true is all that such moderate men as O. N. or his Brethren can give as to the Roman Church for they dare not deny the bad consequence of the Doctrines and practices charged upon them but only say the Church hath not decreed them So much I thought necessary to say to this newest and most plausible pretence which is made use of by the best Advocates for the Roman Church And now farewel to Moderation for the two next which appeared on the Stage against me
were two Jesuits the one sent over a Book which if we look only at the bulk and thickness was a very substantial one called by an odd Antiphrasis Reason and Religion I have endeavoured to draw off all the Spirit I could find in it in the following discourses but I am forced to leave a vast quantity of Phlegm and Caput Mortuum behind I shall say no more of him here having occasion to speak so much of him in the Discourses about the Principles of faith which will in a little time be ready to appear The other is the stout Defender of lgnatius Loyola and the whole Order of Jesuits What one man undertake to defend the Jesuits as to their Principles and Practices and that in this Age which so well understands their Maxims and Conduct and in England too where those of other Orders and the Secular Priests love them so dearly But nothing is too brave or difficult for a Jesuit to attempt however he comes off in it As to Ignatius Loyola I will come to terms with him if what he confesses as to his ignorant zeal pious simplicity frequent visions and extasies extravagant preaching unmannerly contempt of Superiours do not prove him a Fanatick I am content to let him go But what if Ignatius himself being grown old did suspect such frequent extasies and visions for illusions I desire him to look Ribadineira in his larger life to that purpose But this matter of Fanaticism must be referred to another place I shall now only give a tast of the Jesuits excellent way of defending the principles destructive to Government which I charged his Order with The first was that Government was so originally in the People that they by their Representatives may call their Soveraign to an account and alter the form of Government Now mark this Answer This principle whatsoever truth it may have in speculation is by no means to be preached to the People who are apt enough of themselves to stretch cases and pick quarrels with their best Governours yet was it taught many Ages before the Jesuits were so much as thought of Welfare the man for his plain-dealing the Doctrine it seems is true enough but the people are not fit to be trusted with the management of it no not in their places and callings no no let the Jesuits alone with these things they know just the very nick of time when to be Iudges and Executioners too The next principle is the Popes power of deposing Princes to which he again answers roundly You are then to know Sir that the Doctrine was long ago taught by almost all Orders and Professions Seculars Regulars Divines Lawyers before the Jesuits were in Being A very Catholick Doctrine it seems it is What a stirr do other people make with mincing this matter I know not how give me a man that speaks out and lets Princes understand what their general Doctrine is in this matter lest they may possibly be deceived as though it were only the bold assertion of some few Persons among them What wonder then saith he if Bellarmin and 3. or 4. more Jesuits were carried away with such a Torrent of Doctors who went before them Nay in my opinion the only wonder is how any Persons among them dare think otherwise this Doctrin having as he tells us so Catholick a consent to the truth of it But in earnest Sir is the Doctrine true or false Nay Sir I beseech you to excuse me in that for as he saith afterwards about the Popes power 〈◊〉 absolving Subjects I beg leave to wave such curious controversieâ— What a Jesuit beg leave to wave curious controversies What is become 〈◊〉 all their vast Tomes of Scholastical anâ— Casuistical Divinity Are no curious controversies handled in them Anâ— were you bred up among them and yet haâ—â— controversies meerly because curious No no We understand you better than so That is only a curious controversies with you which endangers your safety if you speak out for it is a needless kind of curiosity for a man to betray himself Here in these practical Countries it is sometimes dangerous speaking Truth in their sense but at such a speculative place as Rome is there those may be wholesome and Catholick Truths which â—ere are but niceties and curiosities But doth he not say the Jesuits have solemnly renounced the Doctrine Yes but have a care how far you believe him we poor simple Islanders might understand by this that they had declared it to be false and pernicious There is no such matter I will assure you but upon the stirrs in France they renounced the publishing it they renounced it as they were in France but thought it good Doctrine at Rome they are forbidden to treat any more of it because of the odiousness of it to Princes and that is all the renouncing they ever meant The third Principle is the lawfulness of killing Kings as to which he saith he cannot name the person that ever taught it in those Terms a good reason for that because when they would have them killed they call them Tyrants And so grants Dominicus Soto and Marian have asserted it he might have namse more if he had pleased I could not desâ— a more pleasant task than to pursue 〈◊〉 through the remainder of his discourse wherein he undertakes to vindicate the Jesuits practices but these have been much exposed by men of their own Region that I may spare my pains in thâ— Preface and we may easily guess hâ— hard he was put to it when he makâ— the letter of the Bishop of Angelopol to be forged at Port-Royal by the Jaâ— senists And thus he hath shifted 〈◊〉 fault from the Indies to Europe 〈◊〉 to vindicate some Papists there freâ— Idolatry he charges others here with forgeâ— And â—et to this as a full Answer the 〈◊〉 Ansâ—erer of the Seasonable Discourâ— doth referr us And out of his admiral learning and skill in History desires 〈◊〉 Adversary for his satisfaction that the can be no danger of Resuming Abby Lanâ— of Popery should return to go into Germany where there are so many Papist and Protestant Princes Noble men and Gentlemen that have especially since the Treaty at Munster either Bishopricks Abbeys or the like confirmed to them by the Pope How confirmed to them by the Pope what will not these men dare to say I perceive Ignorance serves them for other purposes than meerly to be the Mother of Devotion If at least this worthy Author could be Ignorant of so notorious a thing as Pope Innocents Bull published on purpose to Null the Treaty at Munster as prejudicial to the Catholick Religion to the Apostolical See to Churches and other Holy Places and Persons and Ecclesiastical Rights In the body of the Bull he saith that his Nuncio there who was afterwards Pope Alexander the seveth did protest against these Articles as void null unjust and agreed upon by persons that had no
there must be orders and Constitutions whereby all must be kept within their due bounds and there must be persons appointed to instruct the Ignorant to satisfy the doubting to direct the unskilful and to help the weak It belongs to such a Society not barely to provide for necessity but safety and not meerly the safety of particular persons but of it self which cannot be done without prudent orders fixing the bounds of mens imployments and not suffering every pretender to visions and Revelations to set up for a new Sect or which is all one a new Order of Religious men How comes it now to pass that by saying that men considered barely as Christians may understand all that is necessary to their Salvation I do overthrow all Authority of a Church and make all men Prophets Do I in the least mention mens teaching others or being able themselves to put a difference between what is so necessary and what not or doth S. C. suppose that all that understand what is necessary to Salvation have no need to be ruled and governed If he thinks so I assure him I am quite of another opinion and do make no question but that Government ought to be preserved in a Church though the necessaries to Salvation be known to all in it and so I suppose doth any one else that in the least considers what he says By this we see that S. C ' s. recrimination of Fanaticism on our Church by vertue of this principle is as feeble as the Defence he hath made for his own of which he may hear in due time But if there be any Fanaticism in this principle we have the concurrence of the greatest and wisest persons of the Christian Church in it Two of them especially have in terms said as much as I have done St. Augustin in his Books of Christian Doctrine already mentioned and St. Chrysostome in as plain words as may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All things are plain and right in the holy Scriptures all necessary things are manifest Let S. C. now charge all the dreadful consequences of this principle on St. Chrysostome and tell him that he destroyed all Church-Authority and laid the Foundation for the height of Fanaticism Nay S. Chrysâ—stome goes much higher than I do for he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. If I had made the Guides of the Church so useless as St. Chrysostome seems to do in these words what passionate and hideous out-crys would S. C. have made And by this let the skill or ingenuity of S. C. be tryed who says that I cannot find out one single short sentence in Antiquity to support the main pillar of my Religion which he supposes this principle to be and for the finding out the sense of Scripture without the help of Infallibility I have produced more out of Antiquity in this discourse than either he or his whole partie will be able to Answer 3. Not the denying the Authority of the Church of Rome Which I must do till I see some better proofs for it than I have ever yet done But how doth this destroy all Authority in a Church can there be none but what is derived from Rome I do not think I do in the least diminish the Kings Authority by denying that he derives it from the Cham of Tartary or the Great Mogol although they may challenge the Lordship of the whole Earth to themselves and may pretend very plausible reasons that it would be much more for the quiet and conveniency of mankind to be all under one universal Monarch and that none have so fair a pretence to it as they that have challenged the Right of it to themselves and yet for all this I do verily believe the King hath an unquestionable right to his Kingdom and a just Authority over all his subjects The time was when the first of Genesis would serve to prove the Popes title and the Suns ruling by day was thought a clear argument for his supremacy but the world is now altered and all the wit and subtility that hath been since used hath not been able to make good that crackt title of Universal Pastorship which the Bishops of Rome have taken to themselves But although we disown the Popes Authority as an unjust usurpation we assert and plead for the Authority of the Church and the Bishops who are placed therein who derive their power to Govern the Church from Christ and not from the Pope And I dare appeal to any Person whether the asserting the Bishops deriving their Authority from Christ or from the Pope be the better way of defending their Power We are not now disputing what Authority were fit to be entrusted in the Popes hands supposing all other differences composed and that things were in the same State wherein they were in the times of the 4. General Councils in which case it ought to be considered how far it might be convenient to give way to such an Authority so apt to grow extravagant and which hath been stretched so very far beyond what the Canons allowed that it hath challenged Infallibility to it self but the thing at present under debate is whether the disallowing the Papal Hierarchy doth overthrow all Authority in the Episcopal which is in effect to ask whether there be any other power besides the Popes in the Church for if there be any other the denying the Popes Authority over us cannot in the least diminish the just Authority of Bishops The only considerable Question in this case is whether the rejecting that Hierarchy which was in being at the the time of the Reformation doth not make way for the peoples rejecting the Authority of our Bishops and consequently no Authority in the Church can be maintained unless we again yield to the Papal Authority This I suppose to be N. O. meaning when he tells us by Church-Authority he means that Superior and more comprehensive Body of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy which in any dissent and division of the Clergy according to the Church Canons ought to be obeyed And any particular Church divided from this more universal cannot with the least pretence of reason challenge submission from her subjects since she her self and particularly the Church of England refused the same to all the Authority extant in the world when she separated her self To this I answer That the Church of England in Reforming her self did not oppose any just Authority then extant in the World It is to no purpose to make sâ—ch loud clamours about our Churches refusing submission to all the Authority then extant in the World unless there be better Evidence produced for it than we have yet seen For it is very well known that the dispute was then concerning the Popes Supremacy over our Church which we have all along asserted to have been a notorious encroachment upon the liberties of our Church And the Popes usurpations were 〈◊〉 injurious both to the Ecclesiastical and Civil