Answer to Several Late Treatises, Part 2 (3 of 3)

Answer to Several Late Treatises · Part 2 (3 of 3)

p. 218Hitherto we find nothing said of an infallible Guide to give the certain sense of Scripture, when the fairest occasion was offered, by those who disputed the most concerning the sense of Scripture in the Age wherein they lived viz. by Irenaeus and Tertullian.

p. 219I now proceed to Clemens of Alexandria who in his learned Collections, Clem. Ale… and. Stro…. ….proposes that objection, against Christianity, that there were many Heresies among Christians, and therefore men could believe nothing. To which he answers, That there were Heresies among the Jews and Philosophers; and that objection was not thought sufficient against Iudaism or Philosophy, and therefore ought not to be against Christianity. Besides the coming of Heresies was foretold, and what ever is foretold must come to pass. The Physitians saith he differ in their opinions, yet men do not neglect to make use of them, when they are sick. Heresies should only make men more careful what they choose. Men ought thereby to endeavour the more to find out truth from falshood; as if two sorts of fruit be offered to a man real, and waxen; will a man abstain from both, because one is Counterfeit, or rather find out the true from the apparent? When several ways offer themselves for a man to go in, he ought not therefore to sit down and not stir a step further; but he uses the best means to find out the true way and then walks in it. So that they are justly condemned who do not discern the true from the false; for they who will, saith he, may find out the p. 220truth. For either there is demonstration or not; all grant demonstration, or evidence, who do not destroy our senses; If there be demonstration there must be search and enquiry made; and by the Scriptures we may demonstratively learn how Heresies fell of, and that the exactest knowledge was to be found in the truth and the ancient Church. Now the true searchers will not leave till they find Evidence from the Scriptures. To this end, he commends the exercise of mens reason and understanding, impartiality or laying aside opinion, a right disposition of Soul, for when men are given over to their lusts they endeavour to wrest the Scriptures to them. But he establishes the Scripture as the only principle of certainty to Christians, and more credible than any demonstration: which who so have tasted are called faithful, but those who are versed in them are the truly knowing men. The great objection now is, that Hereticks make use of Scripture too: I but they, saith he, reject what they please, and do not follow the Body and Contexture of Prophecy; but take ambiguous expressions and apply them to their own opinions: and a few scattered phrases without regarding the sense and importance of them. For in the Scriptures p. 221produced by them, you may find them either making use of meer names, and changing the significations of them; never attending to the scope and intention of them. But truth, saith he, doth not lye in the change of the signification of words (for by that means all Truth may be overthrown) but in considering what is proper and perfectly agreeable to our Lord and Almighty God, and in confirming every thing which is demonstrated by the Scripture out of the same Scriptures. Wherein Clemens Alexandrinus lays down such rules as he thought necessary to find out the certain sense of Scripture, viz. by considering the scope and coherence of the words, the proper sense and importance of them, the comparing of Scripture with Scripture, and the Doctrine drawn from it with the nature and properties of God, all which are excellent Rules, without the least intimation of the necessity of any Infallible Interpreter to give the certain sense of doubtful places.

After this time a great dispute arose in the Church about the rebaptizing Hereticks, managed by the Eastern and African Bishops against Stephen Bishop of Rome. Here the Question was about the sense of several places of Scripture, and the practice of the Apostles; as appears by the Epistles of Cyprian p. 222and Firmilian; Cyprian. Epist. 74.both parties pleading Scripture and Tradition for themselves.Firmil. inter e…pas Cyprian 75. But no such thing as an infallibility in judgement was pleaded by the Pope, nor any thing like it in the least acknowledged by his Adversaries, who charge him, (without any respect to his Infallible guideship,) with pride, error, rashness, impertinency, and contradicting himself. Baron. Annal. ad A. D. 258. n. 36. n. 52.Which makes Baronius very Tragically exclaim: and although he makes use of this as a great argument of the prevalency of Tradition, because the opinion of Stephen obtained in the Church; yet there is no Evidence at all that any Churches did submit to the opinion of Stephen when he declared himself,Euseb. …. l. 7. c. 5. but as appears by Dionystus of Alexandria's Epistles, the Controversy continued after his time; and if we look into the judgement of the Church in following Ages, we shall find that neither Stephens opinion, nor his Adversaries were followed; (for Stephen was against rebaptizing any Hereticks, and the others were for rebaptizing all, because one Baptism was only in the true Church:) For in the 19. Canon of the Council of Nice the Samosatenian Baptism is pronounced null? and the persons who received it are to be new Baptized;Concil. Arelat. 1. c. 8. and the first Council of Arles decrees, that in case of Heresy men are to receive new Baptism but not otherwise: The p. 223second Council of Arles puts a distinction between Hereticks;… 2. c. 16. 17. decreeing that the Photinians and Samosatenians should be Baptized again; but not the Bonofiaci no… the Arians, but they were to be received upon renouncing their Heresy without Baptism. Which seems the harder to understand since the Bonosiaci were no other than Photinians. The most probable way of solving it is, that these two latter sorts did preserve the form of Baptism entire, but the Photinians and Samosatenians altered it: which St. Augustin saith,Aug. de haer…s. cap. 44. is a thing to be believed. So Gennadius reports it that those who were Baptized without invocation of the B. Trinity, were to he Baptized upon their reception into the Church (not rebaptized because the former was accounted null) of these he reckons not only the Paulianists and Photinians, G…ad. de E…cl…s d…gmat. c. 52.but the Bon…s…ci too and many others.Ba…il Epist. Ca…. 1. ad …loch. But St. Basil determines the case of Baptism, not from the form but from the faith which they professed; a Schismatical Baptism he faith, was allowed, but not Heretical, by which he means such as denyed the Trinity; and therein he saith, S. Cyprian and Firmilian were to blame, because they would allow no Baptism among persons separated from the Communion of the Church.Concil La… di…ea. c. 7▪ 8. The Council of Laodicea decreed that the Novatians, Photinians, and p. 224Quarto-decimans were to be received without new Baptism, but not the Montanists, or Cataphryges: but Binius saith there was one Copy, wherein the Photinians were left out; and then these Canons may agree with the rest; and Baronius asserts that the greater number of M. S. Copies leave out Photinians, And withal he proves,Baron. Annal. Tom. 4. in Append. that the Church did never allow the Baptism of the Photinians, though it did of the Arians; by which we see that the Church afterwards did not follow that which Stephen pretended to be an Apostolical tradition, viz. that no Hereticks should be rebaptized; and from hence we may conclude that the Pope was far from being thought an infallible Guide or Interpreter of Scripture, either by that, or succeeding Ages; when not only single persons that were eminent Guides of the Church (such as the African and Eastern Bishops were,) opposed his Doctrine, and slighted his excommunications, but several Councils called both in the East and Africa, and the most eminent Councils of the Church afterwards (such as the first of Arles and Nice) decreed contrary to what he declared to be an Apostolical Tradition.

In the same Age we meet with another great Controversy about the sense of Scripture, for Paulus Samosatenus openly denyed the Divinity of Christ and asserted the Doctrine p. 225of it to be repugnant to Scripture, and the ancient Apostolical tradition. For this Paulus revived the heresie of Artemon; …. 65. … Eccles…. …istor. l. 5. c. 28.whose followers, as appears by the fragment of an ancient Writer against them in Eusebius, (supposed to be Caius) pleaded that the Apostles were of their mind, and that their Doctrine continued in the Church till the time of Victor, and then it began to be corrupted. Which saith that Writer would seem probable, if the holy Scriptures did not first contradict them; and the Books of several Christians before Victors time. So that we see the main of the Controversie did depend upon the sense of Scripture which was pleaded on both sides. But what course was taken in this important Controversie to find out the certain sense of Scripture? Do they appeal to any infallible Guides? Nothing like it. But in the Councils of Antioch, in the Writings of Dionysius of Alexandria and others since, they who opposed the Samosatenian Doctrine endeavoured with all their strength to prove that to be the true sense of Scripture, which asserted the Divinity of Christ. It is great pity the dispute of Malchion with Paulus is now lost, which was extant in Eusebius his time; but in the Questions and Answers between Paulus and Dionysius; … b. l. 7. c. 30.(which Valesius without reason suspects p. 226since St. Hierome mentions his Epistle against Paulus) the dispute was about the true sense of Scripture which both pleaded for themselves. Paulus insists on those places, which speak of the humane infirmities of Christ, which he saith prove that he was meer Man and not God; the other answers that these things were not inconsistent with the Being of the Divine nature, since expressions implying humane passions are attributed to God in Scripture: But he proves from multitude of Scriptures, and reasons drawn from them that the divine nature is attributed to Christ, and therefore the other places which seem repugnant to it, are to be interpreted in a sense agreeable thereto. The same course is likewise taken by Epiphanius against this heresie:Epipha…. haeres. 64. Sect. 5. who saith the Christians way of answering difficulties was not from their own reasons, but from the scope and consequence of Scripture:Sect. 6. and particularly adds that the Doctrine of the Trinity was carefully delivered in the Scriptures, because God foresaw the many heresies which would arise about it.

But never any Controve…sie about the sense of Scripture disturbed the Church more, than that which the Arians raised; and if ever any had reason to think of some certain and infallible way of finding out the sense of Scripture p. 227the Catholick Christians of that Age had. I shall therefore give an account of what way the best Writers of the Church in that time took to find out the sense of Scripture in the Controverted places. Of all the Writers against them Athanasius hath justly the greatest esteem, and Petavius saith that God inspired him with greater skill in this Controversie, than any others before him. The principle he goes upon in all his disputes against the Arians, is this, that our true faith is built upon the Scriptures, so in several places of his conference with the Arian and in the beginning of his Epistle to Iovianus and elsewhere. Therefore in the entrance of his Disputations against the Arians, he adviseth all that would secure themselves from the impostures of Hereticks,Athans. Co…t. … Orat. 1. p. 287. to study the Scriptures; because those who are versed therein stand firm against all their assaults; but they who look only at the words, without understanding the meaning of them are easily seduced by them. And this Counsel he gives, after the Council of Nice, had decreed the Arian Doctrine to be Heresie; and although he saith, other ways may be used to confute it, yet because the Holy Scripture is more sufficient than all of them, therefore those who would be better instructed in these things, I would advise p. 228them to be conversant in the divine Oracles. But did not the Arians plead Scripture as well as they? how then could the Scripture end this Controversie, which did arise about the sense of Scripture? This objection, which is now made so much of against the Scriptures, was never so much as thought of in those days; or if it were, was not thought worth answering; for they di… not in the least desert the proofs of Scripture, because their Adversaries made use of it too. But they endeavou…ed to shew that their Adversaries Doctrine had no solid Foundation in Scripture, but theirs had i.e. that the Arians perverted it, because they did not examine and compare places as they ought to do, but run away with a few words without considering the scope and design of them; or comparing them with places plainer than those were which they brought. Thus when the Arians objected that place My Father is greater than I, Athanasius bids them compare that with other places, such as My Father and I are one, Atha. Co…. A…a…. …. p. 116. &c.and who being in the form of God thought it no robbery to be equ… with God; and by him all things were made &c. When Arius objected, to us there is but one God of whom are all things, he tel…s him, he ought to consider the following words, and one Lord Iesus Christ by whom p. 229are all things; from whence when Arius argued that Christ was only Gods instrument in creating things, Athanasius then bids him compare this place with another, where it is said of whom the whole body, Eph 4 16.Eph 4:16&c. Not barely foreign but foreign. When the Arians objected, Christs saying, all things are delivered to me from my Father, Athanasius opposes that place of St. Iohn to it, By him all things were made; Thus when they objected several other places, he constantly hath recourse to Iohn 1. 1, 2, 3. to Phil. 2. 7. 1 Iohn 5. 20. and others which he thought the plainest places for Christs eternal Divinity; and by these he proves that the other were to be interpreted, with a respect to his humane nature, and the State he was in upon Earth. So that the greatest Defender of the Doctrine of the Trinity against the Arians saw no necessity at all of calling in the Assistance of any infal…ible Guides, to give the certain sense of Scripture in these doubtful places; but he thought the Scripture plain enough to all those who would impartially examine it; and for others who wilfully shut their eyes, no light could be great enough for them. Indeed, when the Arians called in the help of any of the Ancient Writers to justify their Doctrine,… c. …. p. 549. then Athanasius thought himself concerne… to vind…cate them; as particularly p. 230Dionysius of Alexandria. But, as he saith, if they can produce Scripture or Reason for what they say let them do it, but if not, let them hold their peace: Thereby implying that these were the only considerable things to be regarded: yet he shews at large that they abused the Testimony of Dionysius, who although in his letters against Sabellius he spake too much the other way, yet in other of his writings he sufficiently cleared himself from being a savou…er of the Arian Heresie. And although Athanasius doth else where say, that the Faith which the Catholick Church then held was the faith of their Fore-fathers, Ath… O…at. 1. C. Arian. ad Ad …ph. C. Paul. Samosat. cp. ad S…rapi.and descended from the Apostles; yet, he no where saith, that without the help of that Tradition it had been impossible to have known the certain sense of Scripture, much less without the infallible interpretation of the Guides of the present Church.

S. Hilary in his disputes against the same Hereticks,H…ar. de T…ait. l. 1. professes in the beginning that his intention was to confound their rage and ignorance out of writings of the Prophets and Apostles: and to that end desires of his Readers that they would conceive of God not according to the Laws of their own beings, but according to the greatness of what he had declared of himself. For he is the best Reader of Scripture, who doth not bring his sense p. 231to the Scripture, but takes it from it, and doth not resolve before hand to find that there, which he concluded must be the sence before he reads. In things therefore which concern God, we must allow him to know himself best, and give due Reverence to his word. For he is the best witness to himself who cannot be known but by himself. In which words he plainly asserts that the Foundation of our Faith must be in the Scriptures, and that a free and impartial mind is necessary to find out the true sense of Scripture. And after he had said in the second Book, that Heresies arise from misunderstanding the Scripture, and charged in his fourth Book the Arians particularly with it, he proceeds to answer all the places produced by them out of the old and new Testament, by comparing several places together, and the antecedents and consequents, and by these means proving that they mistook the meaning of Scripture. So in the beginning of his ninth Book rehearsing the Common places, which were made use of by the Arians, he saith,Hilar. l. 9. they repeated the words alone, without enquiring into the meaning, or Contexture of them; whereas the true sense of Scripture is to be taken from the antecedents and consequents: their fundamental mistake being the applying those things to p. 232his Divine nature, which were spoken of his humane: which he makes good by a particular examination of the several places in Controversie.

The same course is taken by Epiphanius, Phaebadius and others of the ancient Writers of the Church, who asserted the Eternal Divinity of Christ against the Arians. Epiphanius therefore charges them which mangling and perverting the sense of Scripture;… 69. … 50. understanding figurative expressions liter…ly, and those which are intended in a plain sense figuratively.

So that it is observable in that great Controversie which disturbed the Church so many years, which exercised the wits of all men in that time to find out a way to put an end to it, after the Guides of the Church had in the Council of Nice declared what was the Catholick faith: yet still the Controversie was managed about the sense of Scripture, and no other ways made use of for finding it, than such as we plead for at this day. It is a most incredible thing, that in a time of so violent contention, so horrible confusion, so scandalous divisions in the Christian Church, none of the Catholick Bishops should once suggest this admirable Expedient of Infallibility. But this Palladium was not then fallen down from heaven, or if it were, p. 233it was kept so secret, that not one of the Writers of the Christian Church in that busie and disputing Age discovered the least knowledge of it. Unless it be said that of all times it was then least fit to talk of Infallibility in the Guides of the Church, when they so frequently in Councils contr…dicted each other. The Synodical Book in the new Tomes of the Councils,Co…cil. Gen…ral. Tom. 2. p. 84. reckons up 31. several Councils of Bishops in the time of the Arian Controversie, whereof near 20. were for the Arians, and the rest against them. If the sense of Scripture were in this time to be taken from the Guides of the Church, what security could any man have against Arianism? since the Councils which favoured it, were more numerous than those which opposed and condemned it. Yea so mean was the opinion which some of the greatest persons of the Church at that time had of the Guides of the Church met together in Councils, that St. Gregory Nazianzen declares he had not seen a good issue of any of them; Greg. Nazia… Ep. …5.but they rather increased mischief than removed any; because of the contention and ambition which ruled in them, therefore he resolved to come no more at any of them. What? had St. Gregory so mean an esteem of the Guides of the Christian Church to think that, ambition and contention should sway them in their p. 234Councils and not the spirit of God, which certainly rules not where the other do? Yet this de declares to be his mind upon consideration and experience in that time, and if he had lived to those blessed days of the Councils of latter Ages, with what zeal and Rhetorick would he have set them forth? Never was any answer more jejune to this Testimony than that of Bellarmin, Bellar. de Co…cil. Author. l. 2. c. 7.viz. that forsooth there could be no lawful Councils called in his time; and why so I pray? was there not a good Authority to call them? But if that had been the reason, he did not so little understand the way of expressing himself, to assign the cause of it to contention and ambition, if he mean quite another thing which he doth not in the least intimate. And what if he were afterwards present at the Council of Constantinople? doth that shew, that his mind was in the least changed? but in this Epistle he declares, how little good was to be exspected from a Council, and yet afterwards by the Emperours command he might be present at one.August. C. Maxim. l. 3. c. 14. St. Augustin in dealing with Maximinus the Arian expresly sets aside all Authority of the Guides of the Church, as to the sense of Scripture in the places controverted between them; for he saith, I will neither bring the Authority of the Council of Nice, neither shall you that of Ariminum; p. 235but we will proceed by Authorities of Scripture that are common to both of us, and by the clearest Evidence of reason. It seems then St. Augustin was far from thinking that there could be no certainty of the sense of Scripture if the Authority of the Guides of the Church be set aside. But by what means doth he then think, that men may come to any certainty about the true meaning of Scripture? of that he is best able to give us an account himself having written purposely in this subject in his Books of Christian Doctrine the substance of what he there says may be comprehended in these Rules.

1. That the main scope of the Scripture is to perswade men to the Love of God and our Neighbour,Aug. de Doctri. Christia… l. 1. c. 35, 36. without which, he saith, no man doth truly understand it; but whosoever interprets Scripture to the advancing of that, though he may be mistaken as to the sense of the words, yet his errour is not dangerous.

2. That in order to the right understanding of Scripture men must apply themselves to it with minds duly prepared for it;L. 2. …. 7. by a fear of God, humility, prayer, sincerity, and purity of heart.

3. That all those things which are necessary to Salvation are plainly laid down in Holy Scriptures; This is in terms asserted p. 236by him,L. 2. c 9. as a fundamental principle, that in those things which are plainly set down in Scripture, all things are to be found which contain our faith and rule of life. i.e. All things which are necessary to the Love of God and our Neighbour, and consequently to the making us happy. And these things men ought especially to read the Scriptures for; and the more they find of them, the larger their understanding of Scripture is.

4. That the obscure places of Scripture are to be understood by the plain. For which end he requires frequent reading, and using ones self to the language of Scriptures,Ib. and drawing examples from plain places to illustrate difficult, and those which are certain to clear the doubtful.L. 3. c. 26. For, scarce any thing, saith he, is drawn out of the most difficult places,L. 2. c. 6. but what is very plainly set down elsewhere.

5. That in regard of the infinite variety of Latin Interpreters (which it seems were in his time) in matters of doubt it was necessary to have recourse to the Original Hebrew and Greek:L 2. c. 10. the knowledge of which tongues might therefore be necessary to the knowledge of Scripture, because several words are preserved untranslated; but those being few the necessity is not so p. 237great on their account, as the diversity of Interpreters;C. 11. for although those who had translated the Hebrew into Greek might be reckoned up, the Latin Interpreters could not. Which diversity of translations doth rather help than hinder the understanding of Scripture, if the Readers of it be not negligent; for some doubtful places are cleared by the difference of readings.

6. Where the ambiguity lyes in proper words, the clearing of it depends on the circumstances of the place;L. 3. c. 4. in so much that he determines, that it is a very rare and difficult thing to find such an ambiguity in the words of Scripture, which may not be cleared from the intention of the Writer, or comparing places, or searching the Original Language.

7. Men must carefully distinguish between proper and figurative expressions; for to understand figurative expressions literally is to subject our understanding to carnal conceptions of things;L. 3. c. 5. and that is, saith he, a miserable slavery of mind, to take signs for things; such signs he tells us under the Gospel are the two Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords supper.C. 9. The great difficulty herein, lyes in the finding out the difference between proper and figurative expressions, for which he lays down p. 238this rule, if the words of Scripture command what is good and forbid what is evil,c. 15, 16. it is no figurative expression; but if it forbids what is good, or command any thing that is evil, it must be figuratively understood. For which he instances in those words of our Saviour unless ye eat the flesh, and drink the blood of the Son of man ye shall have no life in you. Which seeming to command something evil, must be figuratively understood of Communicating in the Passion of Christ, and calling to mind that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us.

8. There is no danger in different senses being given of the same place of Scripture, if every one of those senses appear by other places to be agreeable to Truth:L. 3. c. 26. This being supposed that the person do sincerely enquire after the sense of the Author; For, saith he, that Divine Spirit might easily foresee how many several senses those words are capable of, which being agreeable to other parts of Scripture, though not the particular meaning of those words, the mistake cannot be dangerous therein.

9. Where such a sense is given which cannot be proved by other certain Testimonies of Scripture, it must be made manifest to be the sense by clear Evidence of Reason.L. 3. c. 28. But p. 239he rather approves the way of proving the sense of Scripture by other places of Scripture, where the interpretation is doubtful. So that the way in doubtful places which he prescribes is this, either to draw such a sense from them as hath no dispute concerning its being a true Proposition, or if it have, that it be confirmed by other places of Scripture.

Besides these, he lays down the 7. rules of Ticonius the Donatist which are not of that consequence to be here repeated; that which I take notice of is, that St. Augustin thought the rules he gave sufficient for understanding the meaning of Scripture in doubtful places; but he doth not in the least mention the Infallibility of the Guides of the Church as a necessary means for that end. But he doth assert in as plain terms, as I have done, that Scripture is plain in all necessaries to Salvation to any sober enquirer, and what ever consequences are charged upon me for making that a Fundamental principle, must reflect as much upon St. Augustin as me; and I do not fear all the objections can be made against a principle so evident to reason, and so agreeable not only to St. Augustin, but the Doctrine of the Catholick Church both before and after him.

The next after St. Augustin who hath purposely p. 240writ of this argument about the sense of Scripture is Vincentius Lerinensis: Vincent. Lerin. Commonitor. p. 4.about 4. years after St. Augustins death and 3. after the Council of Ephesus, who seems to attribute more to the Guides of the Church than St. Augustin doth, yet far enough short of Infallibility. He saith, that every man ought to strengthen his faith against Heresie by two things, first by the Authoriry of the divine Law, and then by the Tradition of the Catholick Church: which tradition he makes necessary, not by way of addition to the Scripture, for he allows the perfection and sufficiency of that for all things; but only to interpret Scripture by giving a certain sense of it, there being such different opinions among men about it. For all the Hereticks whom he there names had different senses of Scripture, as Novatianus, Sabellius, Donatus, Arius, Macedonius, Photinus, &c. But then he bounds this tradition within the compass of the universal consent of Antiquity as well as the present Church; or as he expresseth it, within those things which were believed every where, always, and by all persons. That we may therefore consider how far these rules of Vincentius will serve for explaining the sense of Scripture, we are to take notice of the restrictions he lays upon them

p. 2411. That they are to be taken together, and not one of them separate from the rest. As for instance, that of Vniversality in any one Age of the Church, being taken without the consent of Antiquity, is no sufficient rule, to interpret Scripture by. For Vincentius doth suppose that any one Age of the Church may be so overrun with Heresie, that there is no way to confute it, but by recourse to Antiquity. For in the case of the Arian heresie, he grants that almost the whole Church was overspread with it, and there was then no way left but to prefer the consent of Antiquity before a prevailing novelty. In some cases the Universal consent of the present Church is to be relyed upon against the attempts of particular persons, as in that of the Donatists; but then we are to consider, that Antiquity was still pleaded on the same side that Vniversality was, and supposing that all the Ancient Church from the Apostles times had been of the same mind with the Donatists, the greater number of the same Age opposing them, would have been no more cogent against them, than it was afterwards for the Arians. It is unreasonable to believe that in a thing universally believed by all Christians from the Apostles times the Christian Church should be deceived; but it is quite another thing to say, p. 242that the Church in any one or more Ages since the Apostles times may be deceived; especially if the Church be confined to one certain Communion excluding all others, and the persons in that Church have not liberty to deliver their opinions, for then it is impossible to know what the Judgement of the whole Church is. And so universality is not thought by Vincentius himself to be alone sufficient to determine the sense of Scripture; supposing that universality to be understood according to the honesty of the Primitive times for a free and general consent of the Christians of that Age in which a man lives; but since the great divisions of the Christian world, it is both a very hard matter to know the consent of Christendom in most of the Controverted places of Scripture, and withal the notion of Vniversality is debauched and corrupted, and made only to signifie the consent of one great Faction, which is called by the name of the Catholick Church, but truly known by the name of Roman.

2. That great care and Judgement must be used in the applying those Rules; for

1. The consent of Antiquity is not equally evident in all matters in dispute, and therefore cannot be of equal use.

1. There are some things wherein we may be certain of such a consent, and that was in the p. 243Rule of Faith, as Vincentius and most of the ancient Writers call it i.e. the summary comprehension of a Christians duty as to matters of faith, which was not so often called the Symbol as the Rule of Faith, that I mean which was delivered to persons, who were to be baptized and received into the Church, this the ancient Church Universally agreed in as to the substance of it. And as to this Vincentius tells us his Rule is especially to be understood.Commonit. 1. c. 39. … For saith he, this consent of Antiquity is not to be sought for in all questions that may arise about the sense of Scripture, but only or at least chiefly in the Rule of Faith: or as he elsewhere explains himself,Commonit. 2. c. …. alone or chiefly in those Questions which concern the Fundamentals of the Catholick Doctrine: which were those contained in the Rule of Faith, delivered to all that were to be baptized. Suppose men now should stretch this Rule beyond the limits assigned it by Vincentius, what security can there be from him that it shall be a certain rule, who confined it within such narrow bounds? Not that I think, his Rules of no use at all now; no, I think them to be of admirable use and great importance to Christianity, if truly understood and applyed. i.e. When any Persons take upon them to impose any thing upon others as a necessary p. 244matter of faith to be believed by them, we can have no better rules of Judgement in this case than those of Vincentius are, viz. Antiquity, Vniversality and Consent; and whatsoever cannot be proved by these Rules ought to be rejected by all Christians. To make this plain, the Ancient Creeds we allow on both sides to have been universally received by the Catholick Church; but now the Church of Rome adds new Articles to be believed, we desire to put the whole matter upon this issue: Let the Popes Supremacy, the Roman Churches Infallibility, the Doctrines of Transubstantiation, Purgatory, &c. be proved by as Universal Consent of Antiquity as the Articles of the Creed are, and then let them charge us with Heresie if we reject them. But we say the measure of Heresie in the Ancient Church was the rejecting the Rule of Faith universally received among Christians, this Rule of Faith, we stand to, and say no other can be made upon any pretence whatsoever,Vincent. Commonit. 1. a…. 26. ad 35. as Vincentius at large proves; but what ever things are obtruded on the belief of Christians, which want that Vniversal consent of Antiquity, which the Rule of Faith had, we are bound by Vincentius, from plain Scripture, to shun them as prophane novelties and corruptions of the Christian Faith. These Rules therefore are p. 245not barely allowed, but pleaded for by us, in the test of Articles of Faith, as to which Vincentius tells us, if not the only, yet the chief use of them is.

2. But suppose the Question be not, concerning the express Articles of this Rule of Faith, but concerning the sense and meaning of them, how then are we to find out the consent of Antiquity? For they might all agree in the words and yet have a different notion of the things.Petav. Dogm. Theol Tom. 2. in praefat. As Petavius at large proves, that there was an ancient Tradition for the substance of the Doctrine of the Trinity, and yet he confesses that most of the Writers of the ancient Church did differ in their explication of it from that, which was only allowed by the Council of Nice: L. 1. c. 8. sect. 2.And he grants, that Arius did follow the opinion of many of the Ancients in the main of his Doctrine, who were guilty of the same error that he was before the matter was throughly discussed. Here now arises the greatest difficulty to me in this point of Tradition; the usefulness of it, I am told, is for explaining the sense of Scripture: but there begins a great Controversie in the Church about the explication of the Doctrine of the Trinity, I desire to know whether Vincentius his Rules will help us here?Hier. A o…. 2. c. Russi… 1. It is pleaded by St. Hierome and others, that the Writers of the Church p. 246might err in this matter, or speak unwarily in it before the matter came to be throughly discussed; if so, how comes the Testimony of erroneous or unwary Writers to be the certain means of giving the sense of Scripture? And in most of the Controversies of the Church this way hath been used to take off the Testimony of persons, who writ before the Controversie began, and spake differently of the matter in debate. I do not deny the truth of the allegation in behalf of those persons; but to my understanding it plainly shews the incompetency of Tradition for giving a certain sense of Scripture, when that Tradition is to be taken from the Writers of the foregoing Ages: and if this had been the only way of confuting Arius, it is a great Question how he could ever have been condemned, if Petavius or St. Hierome say true? But since a General Council hath determined the contrary to the opinion of these Writers before, which Council hath been received by the Universal Church, I will not deny that they had better opportunities of knowing what the sense of the Ancient Church was, when so many writings were extant which are now lost, than we can have at this distance; and therefore we yield all submission to a Council of that nature and proceeding in that manner p. 247which that of Nice did; who did not meerly determine that Controversie by the number of Writers on their side before them, but by comparing the opinions afterwards with the Rule of Scriptures; and in this regard we acknowledge a great Reverence due to the decrees of such General Councils as that was. Therefore next to the Rule of Faith we allow a great veneration to the determinations of lawful General Councils Universally received; which Vincentius himself pleads for: But supposing no general Councils or such which are not allowed, or received for such; we are yet to enquire into the ways of finding out Catholick tradition, which may interpret Scripture. For this end he proposes another means which is, The gathering together the opinions of those Fathers alone; C. 39.who living holily, wisely and constantly in the faith and communion of the Catholick Church have died in that faith, or else for it. But still with this reserve, that what either all or many of them manifestly, frequently and constantly, as it were by a Council of them, have confirmed by their receiving, holding, and delivering of it, that ought to be held for undoubted, certain and firm; but whatsoever any one though holy and learned, though a Bishop, confessour or Martyr, hath held against the opinion of others that ought not to be p. 248looked on as the judgement of the Church, but as his own private opinion, and therefore not to be followed. Which words I shall not examine with all the severity that some have done, for then the proving these conditions to have been observed by any one person would require more pains, and be less capable of resolution than the matter it self is; but I say, that in most of the Controversies this day in the Christian world, it may be much more satisfactory to examine the merits of the cause than the integrity of the witnesses, these conditions being supposed. And yet after all this, we must not misunderstand him, as though this way would serve to confute all heresies; For he tells us yet farther.

2. This course can only hold in some new and upstart heresies i.e. in case of the pretence of some new revelation when men pretend to some special grace without humane industry to discover some divine truth, not known before;C. 37. but in case of ancient and inveterate heresies;C. 39. he saith we have no way to deal with them, but either only by Scripture, or else by plain decrees of General Councils, for when heresies have been of long continuance, then, saith he, we may have ground to suspect they have not dealt fairly with the Testimonies p. 249of ancient times. And thus we see what Vincentius hath offered towards the resolution of this great Question, how we may be sure of the certain sense of Scripture in controverted places; wherein is nothing contained but what we are willing to stand to; and very far from the least supposition of any infallibility in the present Guides of the Church for that end.

Thus far I have taken the pains to search into the opinion of the Primitive Church in this important Controversie; which I might carry yet farther, if it were at all needful. The substance of what is delivered by them is this, that if any Controversie arise in the Church concerning the sense of Scripture, if the Persons do not allow the Scripture, then we are to proceed by the best means we can have without it, viz. The tradition of Apostolical Churches from the beginning; if they do allow the Scripture then we are to examine and compare places of Scripture with all the care and judgement that may be. If after all this, the dispute still continues, then if it be against the ancient Rule of Faith universally received, that is a sufficient prescription against any opinion; if not against the Rule of Faith in express words, but about the sense of it, then if ancient General Councils have determined it which had greater p. 250opportunities of knowing the sense of the Apostolical Church than we, it is reasonable we should yield to them; but if there have been none such, then the unanimous consent of Fathers is to be taken, so it be in some late and upstart heresies, which men pretend to have by Revelation or some special Grace of God. Now either all these means were sufficient or not to find out the sense of Scripture, if not, then the ancient Church was wholly defective and wanted any certain way of finding out the sense of Scripture; if these were sufficient, then there is no necessity of infallibility in the Guides of the Church to give us a certain sense of Scripture: which was the thing to be proved.

But N. O. towards the conclusion of his Book produces St. Augustin for the Churches Infallibility,§. 14. S. Augustins Testimo… examined p. 85. in delivering the sense of Scripture in obscure places; which being contrary to what I have already said concerning him, must be examined before I conclude this discourse about the sense of Scripture.

The place is out of his Answer to Cresconius concerning the obscure point of Rebaptization; in these words, since the holy Scripture cannot deceive,Aug. c. Cresco…. l. 1. c. 33. let whosoever is in fear of being deceived by the obscurity of this Question, consult the same Church about it, p. 251which Church the holy Scripture doth without all ambiguity demonstrate. And before, the truth of the Holy Scriptures is held by us in this matter, when we do that which hath pleased the Vniversal Church, which the Authority of the Scripture does commend, &c. All which is false and said to no purpose saith N. O. if the Scripture be not clear in this, that this Church can determine nothing in such important contests contrary to the verity of the Scriptures, and that we ought to give credit to what she decides; for then it would not be true, what he says the truth of the same Scripture in this matter is held by us: and he who is in fear of being deceived by the obscurity of this Question, is no way relieved in following the sentence of the Churth. To which I answer,

That St. Augustin doth not suppose, that men cannot attain to any certainty of the the sense of Scripture in this matter without the Churches Infallibility; for, he saith, in the Chapter preceding, that in this matter we follow the most certain Authority of Canonical Scriptures; but he puts the case that no certain example could be produced out of Scripture, then he saith, they had the truth of the Scriptures when they do that which pleased the Vniversal Church, &c. For the explaining St. Augustins meaning, p. 252we are to consider, that there were two Controversies then on foot in the Church with the Donatists, the one concerning Rebaptization, the other concerning the Church the former he looks upon as more intricate and obscure, by reason not only of the doubtfulness of Scripture, but the Authority of about seventy Bishops of Africa, who had determined for it, among whom St. Cyprian was chief, which we see in all his disputes with the Donatisis on this subject he is very much perplexed with; therefore St. Augustin finding that Controversie very troublesome, was willing to bring it to that issue, that what the Catholick Church after so much discussing the point had agreed upon should be received as the truth. By this means the dispute would be brought to that other Question, which he thought much more easie, viz. Which was the true Church, the Catholick or the Donatists: but by no means doth St. Augustin hereby intend to make the Churches Authority to resolve all doubts concernig Scriptures; but he thought it much easier to prove by Scripture which was the true Church, than whether rebaptization were lawful or not. And accordingly his very next words are, but if you doubt whether the Vniversal Church be that which the Scripture commends, I will load p. 253you with many and most manifest Testimonies of Scripture to that end. Which is the design of his Book of the Vnity of the Church: wherein he shews,Aug. de unit. Eccles. c. 4. 5, 19.Eccl 4:5Eccl 4:19 That those Testimonies of Scripture which speak of the Universality of the Church, are very plain and clear: and needed no interpretation at all, that in this case we are not to regard what Donatus, C. 10.or Parmenianus, or Pontius hath said; for neither, saith he, are we to yield to Catholick Bishops themselves, if they be at any time so much deceived as to hold what is contrary to Canonical Scriptures. By which it is evident that he supposed no infallibility in the Guides of the Church. And in terms he asserts,C. 16. that the Church is to be proved by nothing but plain Scriptures, neither by the Authority of Optatus, or St. Ambrose, or innumerable Bishops, nor Councils, nor Miracles, nor visions and Revelations, (whatever N. O. thinks of them) now St. Augustin supposing there was much less ambiguity in Scripture in the Controversie of the Church than in that of Rebaptization, he endeavours to bring them to a resolution in the other point for the clearing of this: and so he only pursues the method laid down in the Books of Christian Doctrine, to make use of plainer places of Scripture to give light to the darker. p. 254And when they were convinced by Scripture that the Catholick Church was the true Church of Christ, he doth not question but they would follow that which was the sentence of the Catholick Church. But here lyes the main difficulty, on what account the sentence of the Church was to be followed? In order to the resolution of it, we must take notice of these things.

1. That all the proofs which St. Augustin brings for the Church do relate only to the extent and Vniversality of it, and not to any Infallibility that is promised to it; as will easily appear to any one that will read his discourses on that subject against the Donatists.

2. That he asserts no infallibility in the highest Authority of the Church; which in many places of his Books of Baptism against the Donatists he makes to be a Plenary or General Council;Aug. de Baptis. c. Donat. l 2. c. 1. c. 9. l. 4. c. 6. l. 2. c. 4. l. 3. c. 10. l. 6. c. 2. whose Authority, he saith, was to be preferred before that of St. Cyprian, or any particular Councils either in his time, or before it; which he calls the Authority and decrees of the Vniversal Church. So that we see he resolves all the Authority of the Church in this matter into that of a General Council: (whether that of Arles, or Nice is not to my purpose to enquire) and we shall then see what his opinion is of the Churches infallibility by that which he delivers p. 255of General Councils; as well as any other Church Authority compared with the Scriptures, in these remarkable words. Who knows not that the sacred Canonical Scripture is contained within its certain bounds,De Bapt … Do…at. l. 2 c. 3: and is so far to be preferred before all latter writings of Bishops that there can be no doubt or dispute at all made, whether that be true or right which is contained therein; but all latter writings of Bishops which have been or are written, since the Canon of Scripture hath been confirmed, may be corrected if in any thing they err from the Truth, either by the wiser discourse of any more skilful person, or the weightier Authority of other Bishops, or the prudence of more learned men, or by Councils: And even Councils themselves that are Provincial yield without dispute to those which are General, and called out of all the Christian World; and of these General Councils the former are often amended by the latter, when by some farther tryal of things that which was shut is laid open, and that which was hidden is made known without any swelling of sacrilegious pride, or stifness of arrogancy, or contentin of envy; but with holy humility, Catholick peace and Christian Charity. Can any one that reads this excellent Testimony of St. Augustin delivered in this same matter, p. 256ever imagine he could so plainly contradict himself; as to assert the Churches infallibility in one place and destroy it in another? Would he assert that all Councils how General soever may be amended by following Councils, and yet bind men to believe that the decrees of the former Councils do contain the unalterable will of God? A lesser person than St. Augustin would never thus directly contradict himself, and that about the very same Controversie, which words of his cannot be understood of unlawful Councils, of matters of fact or practice, but do refer to the great Question then in debate about rebaptizing Hereticks; and hereby he takes off the great Plea, the Donatists made from the Authority of St. Cyprian and his Council, which they continually urged for themselves.

3. He grants, that the arguments drawn from the Churches Authority are but humane, and that satisfaction is to be taken from the Scriptures in this Controversie.De Bapt. l. 3. c. 4. For mentioning the obscurity of this Question, and the great debates that had been about it before the Donatists time among great and good men, and diverse resolutions of Councils and the settlement of it at last by a plenary Council of the whole World; but lest, saith he, I should seem to make p. 257use only of humane arguments, I produce certain Testimonies out of the Gospel, by which, God willing, I demonstrate how true and agreeable to his Will the Doctrine and practice of the Catholick Church is.De Baptis. l. 2. c. 14. And else where he appeals not to the Judgement of men, but to the Lords ballance, viz. To his Judgement delivered in Scripture, and in this same case when he was urged by the Authority of Cyprian, C. C…e…cor. l. 2. c. 31. 32.he saith, There are no Writings they have not liberty to judge of, but those of Scripture, and by them they are to Judge of all others, and what is agreeable to them they receive, what is not they reject, though written by persons of never so great Authority. And after all this is it possible to believe that St. Augustin should make the Churches decree in a General Council infallible? No: the utmost by a careful consideration of his mind in this matter that I can find, is; that in a Question of so doubtful and obscure a nature as that was, which had been so long bandied in the Churches of Africa, and from thence spread over all the Churches of the Christian World, it was a reasonable thing to presume that what the whole Christian World did consent in was the truth, not upon the account of infallibility, but the reasonable supposition that all the Churches of the Christian p. 258World, would not consent in a thing repugnant to any Apostolical Doctrine or Tradition. And so St. Augustins meaning is the same with Vincentius Lerinensis as to the Universal attestation of the Christian Church in a matter of Tradition; being declared by the decree of a General Council, and that decree Universally received but only by the litigant parties in Africa. To which purpose it is observable that he so often appeals to the Vniversal consent of Christians in this matter; after it had been so throughly discussed and considered, by the most wise and disinteressed persons, C. Cr…s…on. Io. de Bapt.and that consent declared by a Plenary Council before himself was born. C. Do…at.So that if Authority were to be relyed upon in this obscure Controversie,L. 1. c. 18. he saith,L. 2. c. 9. the Authority of the Universal Church was to be preferred,L. 3. c. 10. before that of several Councils in Africa, L. 4. c. 6, 7of the Bishops and particularly St. Cyprian who met in them.L. 5. c. 4 And whereas St. Cyprian had slighted Tradition in this matter,L. 6. c. 2. Christ having called himself Truth and not custom, L. 4. c. 7.St. Augustin replys to him; That the custom of the Church having been always so and continuing after such opposition and confirmed by a General Council, and after examination of the reasons and Testimonies of Scripture on both sides, it may be now said, that we follow p. 259what Truth hath declared. Wherein we see with what modesty and upon what grounds he declares his mind, which at last comes to no more than Vincentius his Rules of Antiquity, Vniversality and Consent. Especially in such a matter as this was, which had nothing but Tradition to be pleaded for it, the Apostles, De Bapt. …. Donat. l. 5. c. 23.having determined nothing of either side, in their Books as St Augustin himself at last confesses in this matter. The most then that can be made of the Testimony alledged out of St. Augustin is this, that in a matter of so doubtful and obscure a nature wherein the Apostles have determined nothing in their Writings, we are to believe that to be the truth, which the Universal Church of Christ agreed in those times, when the consent of the Universal Church was so well known by frequent discussion of the case and coming at last to a resolution in a General Council. In such a case as this, I agree to what St. Augustin saith, and think a man very much relieved by following so evident a consent of the Universal Church: not by vertue of any infallibility, but the unreasonableness of believing so many, so wise, so disinteressed persons should be deceived. Let the same evidences be produced for the consent of the Vniversal Church from the Apostolical times in the matters in dispute between p. 260our Church and that of Rome, and the Controversie of Infallibility may be laid aside; For such an universal consent of the Christian Church I look upon as the most Authentick Interpreter of Holy Scripture in doubtful and obscure places. But let them never think to fob us off, with the consent of the Roman Faction for the Vniversal Church, nor of some latter ages, for a Tradition from Apostolical times, nor of a packed Company of Bishops for a truly General Council. And thus much may now serve to clear that important Controversie about the sense of Scripture in doubtful places.

The last thing to be considered is, whether the same arguments which overthrow infallibility,§. 15. Of Church Authority. do likewise destroy all Church-Authority? For this is by N. O. frequently objected against me; for, he saith, thus it happens more than once in these Principles laid down by me, that in 100 forward a zeal in demolishing the one, viz. Church Infallibility, P. 50.the other is also dangerously undermined, viz. Church-Authority. And therefore out of his singular regard to the good of our Church, he saith, it concerns my Superior to look to it, whether their Churches and their own Authority suffers no detriment from my Principles, and, again, he saith, my Principles against Infallibility conclude, the p. 261uselessness of any Ecclesiastical Authority to teach men, as of an Infallible to assure men of the truth of those things, which by using only their own sincere endeavour they may know without them. P. 84.And lastly, he saith, my Principles afford no effectual way or means of suppressing or convicting any Schism, P. 98.Sect or Heresie, or reducing them either to submission of judgement or silence. And therefore he desires the prudent to consider; whether the Authority of the Church of England is not much debilitated and brought into contempt, P. 99.and daily like to wane more and more by this new taken up way of its Defence. My Answer is, that I have carefully examined and searched my Principles and find no such Gunpowder in them for blowing up Authority either of Church or State. For all that I can discover, they are very innocent and harmless; and if all other mens had been so, we had never heard so much talk of this way, of undermining and blowing up. But is it not a pleasant thing to see, all of a sudden, what zeal these men discover for the preservation of our Churches Authority? Alas good men! It grieves them at the very heart, to see the Authority of our Church weakned and that by its own members. What would not they do for the strengthening and upholding of it? What pity it is, such a Church p. 262should not stand, whose very enemies take such care for its preservation; And are so ready to discover the pl…ts of its own children against it? B…t to be …ure, there is mischief intended when enemies discover it; not by those whom they accuse, but by the honest Informers; who would be content to hold their peace, if they thought they could not sow mischief by pretending to discover it. It is a pretty plot to make those who design to defend our Church to be the underminers of it, and the most professed Enemies its surest Friends. But such plots are too fine to hold, and too thin not to be seen through. How is it I beseech N. O. that my principles undermine all Church Authority? Have I any where made the Church a meer shadow, and an insignificant Cypher, a Society depending only on the pleasure of men for its subsistence and Authority? This had been indeed to the purpose, but not the least word tending that way can be drawn out of any Principles of mine. For I verily believe that the Church is a Society instituted by Christ himself, and invested with Authority necessary for its Government and preservation. But though I cannot deny such an Authority I may render it wholly useless. I cannot conceive any such malignant influence in any Principles of mine, but if there be, it must be from one of these p. 263things. 1. Either because I deny Infallibility in the Guides of the Church. Or 2. Because I say that the Scriptures are plain in things necessary to salvation. Or 3. Because I deny the Authority of the Church of Rome. Or 4. Because I am not for such an effectual way of suppressing Sects and Heresies as is in use in the Roman Church. But I hope to make it appear that none of these do in the least tend to weaken, or bring into contempt the Church of Engl…nds authority, nor the just Authority of any Church in the World.

1. Not the denial of Infallibility. This N. O. seems to suppose to be the very Faux in the Gunpowder Plot, the instrument of setting all on Fire. But is there any thing peculiar to my Principles herein? Have not all who have written against the Church of Rome opposed the pretence of Infallibility? how then come my principles to be of so mischievous a nature above others? But I pray, Sir, are Authority and Infallibility all one in your account? We suppose that Magistrates and Parents, and Masters have all of them an unquestionable Authority but I never heard yet of any man that said they wre infallible: or that there was no ground to obey them, if they were not. Why may we not then allow any Authority belonging to the Governours of the Church, and yet think it possible for them p. 264to be deceived? Is this a sufficient reason for any man to cast off his subjection to his Prince, because it's possible he may require something unlawful? or to disobey his Parents, because they do not sit in an infallible chair? or to slight his Master, because he is not Pope? These are strange ways of arguing about matters of Religion, which are ridiculous in any other case. If the possibility of being deceived destroys no other Authority in the world, why should it do that of the Church? The Magistrate does not lose his Authority though we say we are to obey God rather than men, and consequently to examine whether the Laws of men are not repugnant to the Laws of God, which implys that he may require what it is our duty not to do. The Authority of Parents is not destroyed, because in some cases we are bound to disobey them, when they command men to destroy or rise up in arms against their Soveraign. How comes it then to pass, that all Church-Authority is immediately gone, if we do but suppose a possibility of errour in those which have it? But it may be said it is their office to be Guides, and if we do not follow them absolutely, we renounce them from being our Guides. To which I answer, there are two sorts of persons that stand in need of Guides, the blind and the Ignorant; the blind must follow their Guides because p. 265of an incapacity of seeing their way, the Ignorant for want of Instruction. Yet neither of these are bound to believe their Guides Infallible, and to follow them at all adventures. For even the blind by their own sad experience of frequent falling into ditches or knocking their heads against Posts may have reason to question, if not the skill, yet the sincerity of their Guides, and though they must have some, may seek new ones. The ignorant follow 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 p. 266think 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 p. 267of 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 p. 268exclude 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,Art. 20. 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 p. 269instruction 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 p. 270are agreed upon for that end, of those who are to enjoy the publick offices of teaching and instructing others. Not to the end that all those propositions should be believed as Articles of Faith; but because no Reformation can be effected, if persons may be allowed to preach and officiate in the Church in a way contrary to the design of such a Reformation.

And this is now that Authority we attribute to the Governours of our Church, although we allow no Infallibility to them. And herein we proceed in a due mean between the extremes of robbing the Church of all Authority of one side; and advancing it to Infallibility on the other. But we cannot help the weakness of those mens understanding, who cannot apprehend that any such thing as Authority should be left in a Church, if we deny Infallibility. Other diseases may be cured, but natural incapacity cannot.

2. Not, the making Scriptures plain to all sober enquirers in matters necessary to Salvation. This is that principle which N. O. makes such horrible out-crys about, as though it were the Foundation of all the heresies and Sects in the World. This, he saith, makes all Ecclesiastical Authority useless; for what need is there of Bishops, Presbyters, or any p. 271Ecclesiastical Pastors among Protestants, as to the office of teaching or expounding these writings, P. 15.if these in all necessaries are clear to all persons, who desire to know the meaning of them: But not content with this modest charge in comparison, in another Treatise; he makes this the very heighth of Fanaticism,Fanaticism Fanatically imputed to the Roman Church. p. 93. in spight of Mother Iuliana and their Legendary Saints: because, forsooth, this is to ground all our Religion upon our own fancies, enquiring into the true sense of divine Revelation; and therefore, good man, seems troubled at it,P. 96. that he can by no means in the world absolve me from being not only a Fanatick, but a Teacher of Fanaticism. In earnest, it was happily found out, to return this heavy charge back upon my self with so much rage and violence; (for although N. O. be a modest man, yet S. C. is a meer fury) for not meerly Fanaticism, P. 92.pure putid Fanaticism follows from this principle, Fanaticism without vizard or disguise, P. 89.and all this demonstratively proved from this Principle, But all our Church is immediately gone with it; Men may talk of dangerous plots for undermining and blowing up of Towns and Forts and Parliaments, but what are all those to the blowing up a whole Church at once? For since that Train of my Principles hath been laid, nothing like the old Church p. 272of Engl…nd hath been seen. It is true, there are the same Bishops, the same Authority, the same Liturgy and Ceremonies, the same …achers and Officers that were; but what are all these to the Church of England? For from hence it follows (if we believe S. C.) that the …overnours of our Church have no Authority to teach truth, P. 99.or to condemn er…urs; and a…l the people are become Prophets, and all their Articles, Constitutions and Ordinances have been composed and enjoyned by an usurped Authority. Very sad consequences truly! but like deep plots they lye very far out of sight. For to my understanding, not one of these dismal things follows any more from my Principles, than from proving that S. C. and N. O. both stand for the same Person. Which will easily appear to any one …e that will but consider. 1. The intention of those Principles. 2. The just consequence of them.

1. The intention of those Principles; which was plainly to lay down the Foundations of a Christians faith living in the Communion of our Church; (which is expressed in as perspicuous terms before them as may be;) and to shew that the Roman Churches Infallibility is no necessary Foundation of Faith. Now, this being the design of those Principles, to what purpose should I have p. 273gone about therein, to have stated the nature and bounds of the Authority of particular Churches. I no where in the least exclude the use of all means and due helps of Guides and others for the understanding the sense of Scripture; and I no where mention them; because my business was only about the Foundation of Faith, and whether Infallibility was necessary for that or no? If I have proved it was not, I have gained my design; for then those who deny the Church of Romes Infallibility may never the less have a sure Foundation, or solid Principles to build their Faith upon. Now to what purpose in an account of the Principles of Faith should I mention those things, which we do not build our faith upon, I mean the Authority of our Guides; for although we allow them all the usefulness of helps; yet those are no more to be mentioned in the Principles of resolving Faith, than Eulids Master was to be mentioned in his Demonstrations. For although he might learn his skill from him; yet the force of his Demonstrations did not depend upon his Authority. I hope it now appears, how far I am from making Church-Authority useless; but I still say our Faith is not to be resolved into it, and therefore is not to be reckoned as a Principle or Foundation of Faith. To that end it is sufficient to prove. p. 274that men in the due use of means, whom I call sober enquirers, may without any Infallible Church, believe the Scriptures, and understand what is necessary to their Salvation herein: If this may be, then I say it follows (Princ. 15.) that there can be no necessity supposed of any infallible Society of men, either to attest or explain these Writings, among Christians. Not one word that takes away the use of Authority in the Church, but only of Infallibility; but it may be said that although it might not be my intention, yet it may be the just consequence of the Principles themselves

2. Therefore I shall now prove that no consequence drawn from them can infer this. For what if all those things which are necessary to Salvation are plain in Scripture, to all that sincerely endeavour to understand them, doth it hence follow that there can be no just Authority in a Church, no use of Persons to instruct others, must all the people become Prophets and no bounds be set to the liberty of Prophesying? These are bad consequences; but the comfort is, they are not true. If I should say that the necessary Rules for a mans health are so plainly laid down by Hippocrates, that every one that will take the pains may understand them; doth this make the whole profession of Physick useless, or license p. 275every man to practise Physick that will, or make it needless to have any Professours in that faculty? When the Philosophers of old did so frequently inculcate that the necessaries for life were few and easie; did this make all Political Government useless, and give every man power to do what he pleased? Men of any common understanding would distinguish between the necessaries of life and civil Society; so would any one but S. C. or N. O. of the necessaries to Salvation, and to the Government of the Church; For men must be considered first as Christians, and then as Christians united together: as in civil Societies they are to be considered first as men, and then as Cives; to say, that a man hath all that is necessary to preserve his life as a man, doth not overthrow the Constitution of a Society, although it implys that he might live without it: so when men are considered barely as Christians no more ought to be thought necessary for them as such, but what makes them capable of Salvation; but if we consider them as joyning together in a Christian Society, then many other things are necessary for that end: For then there must be Authority in some and subjection in others, there must be orders and Constitutions, whereby all must be kept within their due bounds, and there must be persons appointed to instruct p. 276the 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 p. 277he 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. foreign.Chrysost. in 2. … Thess. Hom. 3. 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. Chrys…stome goes much higher than I do, for he saith foreign, &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,S. C. p. 117. 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, p. 278I 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 p. 279good 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 p. 280in 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, Praeface to Principles considered.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 s…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 p. 281that 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 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 p. 282extant, 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 p. 283the 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 p. 284Councils 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 en…oyed; let debates be free and Bishops assemble with an equal proportion out of all Churches of Christendom; and if we then oppose so gener…l a consent of the Christian Church, let them charge us with not submitting p. 285to 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,P. …98. Sect or Heresie, or reducing them either to submission of judgement or silence: Therefore my Principles are dest…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 p. 286not 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 their own Church: or else to what end is this mentioned, where nothing is pretended to but laying down the Foundations on which Protestants do build their faith? But although there be no way of escaping impertinent objections, yet it is some satisfaction to ones self to have given no occasion for them.

2. I would know what he understands by his effectual means of suppressing Sects or Heresies. We are sure the meer Authority of their Church hath been no more effectual p. 287means, than that of ours hath been; but there is another means they use which is far more effectual viz. the Inquisition. This in truth is all the effectual means they have above us; but God keep us from so Barbarous and Diabolical a means of suppressing Schisms; The Sanbenits have not more pictures of Devils upon them, than the Inquisition it self hath of their Spirit in it; however that Gracious Pope Paul 4. attributed the settling of it in Spain to the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost; Iacob Simanca Enchir. judic▪ viol. Relig. Tit. 68. n. 18.not that Holy Ghost certainly, that came down from Heaven upon the Apostles; but that which was conveyed in a Portmantue from Rome to the Council of Trent. But if this be the effectual means he understands, I hope he doth not think it any credit to the Authority of their Church, that all who dispute it must endure a most miserable life or a most cruel death. All the other means they have are but probable; but this, this is the most effectual. How admirably do Fire and Faggots end Controversies! No general Council signifies half so much as a Court of Inquisition; and the Pope himself is not near so good a Judge of Controversies as the Executioner, and Dic Ecclesiae is nothing to take him Gaoler. These have been the kind, the tender, the primitive, the Christian means of suppressing Sects and Heresies in p. 288the Roman Church! O how compassionate a Mother is that Church, that takes her froward Children in her hands to dash their brains against the stones! O how pleasant a thing it is for Brethren to be destroyed for lack of Vnity! How beautiful upon the 7. Mountains are the Feet of those who shed the Blood of Hereticks! Never were there two men had a more Catholick Spirit, than Dioclesian and Bishop Bonner. Men may talk to the worlds end of Councils and Fathers and Authority of the Church and I know not what insignificant nothings; come, come, there is but one effectual means, which the good Cardinal Baronius suggested to his Holiness, Arise Peter, kill and eat. Let the Hereticks talk of the kind and merciful Spirit of our Saviour who rebuked his Disciples so sharply for calling for fire from Heaven upon the Samaritans, Luke 9. 55.Luke 9:55and told them they did not know what Spirit they are of: let them dispute never so much against the cruelty and unreasonableness of such a way of confuting them; let them muster up never so many sayings of Fathers against it; yet when all is done, what ever becomes of Christianity, it was truly said of Paul 4. that the Authority of the Roman See depends only upon the office of the Inquisition. And that we may think, he was in good earnest when he said it, p. 289Onuphrius tells us it was part of the speech he made to the Cardinals before his death.Onuphr. vit. Pauli 4. Was not this think we, a true Vicar of Christ? a man of an Apostolical Spirit? that knew the most effectual means of suppressing heresies and Schisms and advancing the Authority of the Roman See. And that we may not think their opinion is altered in this matter, one of the late Consulters of the Inquisition hath determined that the practice of the Roman Church in the office of the Inquisition is reasonable, Del. bere de officio Inquisit. part. 1. dub. 162. Petit. 5. n. 8.pious, useful, and necessary; Which he proves by the Testimony of their greatest Doctors. And by which we may easily judge what N. O. and his Brethren think to be the most effectual means of suppressing Sects and Heresies, with the want of which we are contented to be upbraided. But setting this aside we have as many reasonable means, and I think many more of convicting dissenters, than they can pretend to, in the Roman Church.

3. It is very well known that we do endeavour, as much as lyes in us, to reclaim all Dissenters; but God never wrought Miracles to cure incorrigible persons, and would not have us to go out of the way of our duty to suppress Sects and Heresies. The greatest severities have not effected it, (which made one of the Inquisitors in Italy complain that p. 290after 40. years experience,Ger. …usdragi Epistol. ad Cardinal. Pisan. wherein they had destroyed above 100000. Persons for heresie, (as they call it) it was so far from being suppressed or weakned that it was extremly strengthened and increased. What wonder is it then, if dissenters should yet continue among us, who do not use such Barbarous ways of stopping the mouths of Hereticks with burning lead, or silencing them by a rope and flames. But we recommend as much as they can do to the people the vertues of Humility, Obedience, due submission to their Spiritual Pastors and Governours, and that they ought not to usurp their office, and become their own Guides: which N. O. in his conclusion blames us for not doing. Yet we do not exact of them a blind obedience, we allow them to understand the nature and Doctrine of Christianity, which the more they do, we are sure they will be so much the better Christians and the more easily Governed. So that we have no kind of Controversie about Church-Authority it self but what it is, and in what manner, and by whom to be exercised; but surely N. O. had little to say, when from laying down the Principles of Faith, he charges me with this most absurd consequence of destroying all Church-Authority.

I have thus far considered the main p. 291Foundations upon which N. O. proceeds in opposition to my Principles, there is now very little remaining which deserves any Notice: and that which seems to do it as about Negative Articles of Faith, and the marks of the True Church I shall have occasion to handle them at large in the following discourse.

FINIS.

End of the text · Edward Stillingfleet, Answer to Several Late Treatises (1673)