Answer to Several Late Treatises, Part 2 (1 of 3)

Answer to Several Late Treatises · Part 2 (1 of 3)

p. 75AN ANSWER TO THE BOOK, Entituled, Dr. Stillingfleet's Principles Considered.

ALthough I write no Plays, §. 1.yet I hope I may have leave to say the scene is changed; The occasion of annexing the Principles.for instead of the former Sophister, one now comes forth in the habit of a grave Divine, whom I shall treat with the respect due to his appearance of Modesty and Civility. I pass by therefore all those unhandsome reflections in his Preface, which I have not already answered in mine, and come immediately to the main Controversie between us, which I acknowledge p. 76to be of so great importance as to deserve a sober debate. And the Controversie in short is this, Whether Protestants who reject the Roman Churches Authority and Infallibility, can have any sufficient Foundation to build their faith upon? This we affirm, and those of the Church of Rome confidently deny; and on this account do charge us with the want of Principles, i. e. sufficient grounds for our faith. But this may be understood two ways. 1. That we can have no certainty of our faith as Christians without their Infallibility. 2. Or that we can have no certainty of our faith as Protestants, i. e. in the matters in debate between their Church and ours. These two ought carefully to be distinguished from each other: and although the Principles I laid down, do reach to both these, yet that they were chiefly intended for the former, will appear by the occasion of adding them to the end of the Answer there given. The occasion was, my Adversaries calling for Grounds and Principles; upon which I there say, that I would give an account of the faith of Protestants in the way of Principles,P. 483. … 2. ed. and of the reason of our rejecting their impositions. The first I undertook on two accounts. 1. To shew that the Roman Churches Authority and Infallibility cannot be the Foundation of Christian faith, p. 77and so we may be very good Christians without having any thing to do with the Church of Rome. 2. That this might serve as a sufficient answer to a Book entituled Protestants without Principles. Which being in some part of it directed against me I had reason, not only to lay down those Principles, b…t to do it in such a manner as did most directly overthrow the principles of that Book.

Which being only intimated there, I must now to make my proceeding more clear and evident, produce those assertions of E. W. for which mine were intended.Protestants without Principles, Chap. 1. In the first Chapter he designs to prove, That all men must be infallible in the assent they give to matters of faith. For, saith he, If they disown such infallible believers, they must joyntly deny all infallible faith: P. 17.and a little after, an Infallible verity revealed to us forcibly requires an answerable and correspondent infallible faith in us: and therefore he asserts a subjective Infallibility in true believers. And from hence he proves the necessity of Infallible teachers; P. 18.for infallible believers and infallible teachers, P. 19.he saith, seem neer correlatives. In the second Chapter he saith, he that hears an infallible teacher hath the Spirit of truth, P. 20.and he that hears not an infallible teacher wants this Spirit of truth; by which he does not mean an infallible Revealer of the p. 79doctrine at first; but the immediate teachers of the revealed doctrine,P. 21. for, saith he, no man can be a Heretick that denies the objective verities revealed in Gods word, unless he be sure that his teacher reveals those verities infallibly. P. 22.He proposes the objection of a Simplician, as he calls him, that he builds his faith and Religion, not on any Preachers talk but on the objective verities revealed in Scripture: to which he answers, that unless he first learn of some infallible Oracle, the sense of Scripture in controverted places, he can never arrive to the depth of Gods true meaning, or derive infallible faith from those objective revealed Verities. He yet farther asserts,P. 23. that every Catechist, or Preacher that hath a lawful mission, and is sent by the infallible Church to teach Christs Sacred Doctrine, if he Preach that doctrine which Christ and his Church approves of, is then under that notion of a member conjoyned with an Infallible Church, infallible in his teaching▪ and thence concludes,P. 24. that infallibility doth accompany both teachers and hearers: and from denying this Infallibility, P. 25.he saith, follows an utter ruine of Christian Religion yea and of Scripture too. And afterwards he goes about to prove that no man can have any divine faith without infallibility in the proponent;P. 42, 43. for, faith he, as long as the Infallibility p. 79of a Revelation stands remote from me for want of an undoubted application made by an infallible Proponent, it can no more transfuse Certainty into Faith, than Fire at a great distance, warm. This is the sum of the Principles of that Metaphysical wit; but sure a man must have his brains well confounded by School Divinity and hard words, before he can have common sense little enough to think he understands them. But because I never loved to spend time in confuting a man, who thinks himself the wiser for speaking things, which neither he nor any one else can understand; I rather chose in as short a way as I could, to put together such Propositions, as might give an account of Christian Faith without all this Iargon about Infallibility. In order to this, I first laid down the Principles wherein all parties are agreed; and then such Propositions as I supposed would sufficiently give an account of our faith, without any necessity of such an infallibility as he makes necessary for the foundation of it.

But for our clearer proceeding in an Argument of this importance,§. 2▪ it will be necessary to state and fix the notion of Infallibility before I come to particulars.Or the notion of infallibility. For as it is used it seems to be a rare word for Iugglers in Divinity to play tricks with; for sometimes they apply it to the object that is believed, and call that p. 80infallibly true; sometimes to the subject capable of believing, and say persons ought to be infallibly certain that what they believe is infallibly true; and sometimes to the means of conveying that infallible truth to the faculties of men, and these they say must be infallible, or else there can be no infallible certainty of any thing as infallbly true. But the subtilty of these things lies only in their obscurity; and the School-man is spoiled when his talk is brought down out of the clouds to common sense: I will therefore trie to bring these things out of their terms to a plain meaning; and surely we may speak and understand each other in these matters without this doubtful term of Infallibility. For if it signifies any thing, we may make use of the thing it signif…es in stead of the word, and by applying the thing signified by it, to that which it is spoken of, we shall soon discern how justly it is attributed to it. Infallibile is that which cannot be deceived; now if no one will say, That a proposition cannot be deceived, it is absurd to say that it is infallibly true; therefore the matters revealed considered as objective verities, as our schoolman speaks, are not capable of Infallibility; which cannot belong to the truth proposed, but to him that propounds or believes it. For to be deceived or not to be deceived, are proper only to persons; and the p. 81impossibility of being deceived does in truth belong only to an infinitely perfect understanding; for what ever understanding is imperfect, is of it self liable to errour and mistake. And yet an understanding liable to be deceived may not be deceived, and be sure it is not. The highest assurance of not being deceived, is from Gods revealing any thing to men; for we know it impossible that God should be deceived, or go about to deceive mankind in what he obliges them to believe as true. This then is granted, that whatever any person speaks immediately from God, he cannot be deceived in it; but men may be deceived in thinking they speak from God when they do not. There is then no difficulty in the first, that what ever persons are inspired by God are infallible in what they speak; but the main difficulty is about the assurance which God gives to men that they are inspired. Two ways it may be conceived that men cannot be deceived in this matter. 1. If God inspires every particular person with the belief of this, and gives him such evidence thereof as cannot be false. 2. Or if God shall inspire some persons in every Age to assure the World, that those before them were inspired: but notwithstanding this, particular persons may be deceived, in believing those inspired who are not; and to prevent this, nothing can be sufficient but divine p. 82revelation to every particular person that he hath appointed those infallible Guides in his Church, to assure men that he had at first setled his Church by persons that were infallible; but then, why might not such a particular Revelation assure men as well immediately that Christ and his holy Apostles were infallible, as that the Guides of the present Church are infallible? For it is unconceivable that persons should be more infallible in judging the Inspiration of the present Guides, than of the first Founders of the Church. And supposing men not inspired, they may be deceived in believing this infallibility of the present Church, and if they may be deceived, how can their Faith be infallible? so that nothing can make the faith of particular persons infallible, but private inspiration which must resolve all Faith into Enthusiasm and immediate revelation. And nothing can be more absurd than to say, That there are infallible Believers without infallible Inspiration; or that an infallible Proponent can transfuse infallibility into faith, unless the infallibility of that Proponent be first made known to the Believer in such a way as he cannot be deceived in. For in matters of divine Revelation, the main thing we are to enquire after, is the infallibility of those who delivered this doctrine to the World. And although the reason of believing what God p. 83saith, be his own infallibility, which is natural and essential to him; yet the reason of my assenting to this or that doctrine, as coming from God, must be an assurance that God hath secured those persons from mistake whom he hath imployed to make known the doctrine to the World. Those persons then whom God inspired, are the Proponents of matters of faith to us: and if they give us sufficient reason to believe that they were inspired, we are bound to believe them, otherwise not. But to suppose that we cannot believe the first infallible Proponents, unless there be such in every Age, is to make more difficulties, and to answer none. For then all my belief of the infallibility of the first Proponents, must depend on the evidence which the present Guides of the Church give of their infallibility, who yet cannot pretend to the same evidence which they had: and here is no difficulty answered, for we are certainly bound as much to enquire into the reason of our believing the present Guides of the Church infallible, as the Apostles: and if men cannot be infallible in believing the Apostles, unless there be other infallible Proponents in every Age, to assure them that the Apostles were inspired, why must not the infallibility of these present Proponents be likewise so attested as well as of the Apostles? and what undoubted application p. 84can be made of the Churches infallibility, unless there be some other infallible Proponent still to transfuse certainty into my belief of that, by vertue of which, I must believe all other matters of Faith, which is the Churches Infallibility? So that the last Proponent must either be believed for himself without any further evidence, and then the shorter way would be to believe the first so, or else there will be an endless infallibility; or at last all must be resolved into the Enthusiasm of every particular person, if we do not rest satisfied with the rational evidence which those persons, who were inspired by God, did give to the World that they were sent by him: and then let the World judge whether Christ and his Apostles did not give stronger evidence that they were sent from God, than the Pope or the Guides of the present Church do? and if so, whether i… be possible for men to do greater disse…vice to Christianity, than to suspend our belief of the Inspiration of the Founders of the Christian Church, on a thing, at least, far less evident than the thing to be believed by it is? but in plain English, on a thing notoriously false; and only the arrogant pretence of an usurping Faction, which thinks it easier boldly to say that it cannot be deceived, than to defend it self against the just accusations both of deceiving, and being deceived.

p. 85These things being premised,§. 3. I now come to consider how far N. O. hath shewed the invalidity of the Principles laid down by me,N. O…. concessions. for the end for which I intended them. The design of them was to shew, that we may have sufficient Certainty of our Faith, without the Infallibility of the Roman Church; the Answerer hath yielded some things and denied others. I shall therefore first lay down his Concessions, and see of what force they are to the issue of this Controversie, and then come fairly to debate the matters in difference between us.

I. For his Concessions.

1. He yields, That there is no necessity at all of Infallibility under natural Religion: which was implied in the second and third Propositions which are granted by him.

For in the second Proposition I assert,Prop. 2. That Man being framed a rational Creature capable of reflecting upon himself, may antecedently to any external Revelation certainly know the being of God, and his dependence upon him; else there could be no such thing as a Law of Nature, or any Principles of Natutural Religion: which, he saith, may be granted.

All supernatural and external Revelation,Prop. 3. must suppose the truth of Natural Religion; for unless we be antecedently certain that there p. 86is a God, and that we are capable of knowing him, it is impossible to be certain, that God hath revealed his Will to us by any supernatural means. Let this be granted, saith he. From whence it follows that we have sufficient certainty of the Principles of Natural Religion, without any such thing as Infallibility.

2. He yields, That Reason is to be judge concerning divine Revelation; which appears by the next Proposition.

Nothing ought to be admitted for Divine Revelation,Prop. 4. which overthrows the certainty of those Principles which must be antecedently supposed to all Divine Revelation: for that were to overthrow the means whereby we are to judge concerning the truth of any Divine Revelation. Of which, he saith, Let this also be granted.

3. He yields, That the Will of God may be sufficiently declared to men by writing, for he grants the tenth Proposition, which is this.

If the Will of God cannot be sufficiently declared to men by writing,Prop. 10. it must either be, because no writing can be intelligible enough for that end, or that it can never be known to be written by men infallibly assisted; the former is repugnant to common sense, for words are equally capable of being understood, spoken or written; the latter overthrows the possibility p. 87of the Scriptures being known to be the Word of God. This, saith he, is granted.

4. He yields, That the written will of God doth contain all things simply necessary to salvation. For in his consideration of the 14. Proposition, P. 22. S. 15.these are his words: Mean while as touching the Perfection of holy Scriptures, Catholicks now, as the holy Fathers anciently, do grant that they contain all points, which are simply necessary to be of all persons believed for attaining salvation.

5. He yields,P. 52. That no person is infallibly certain of or in his Faith, because the Proponent thereof is infallible, unless he also certainly know, or have infallible evidence that he is infallible; only he adds, That for begetting an infallible assent to the thing proposed, it is sufficient if we have an infallible evidence either of the thing proposed, or of the Proponent only. Which is all I desire as to this matter. But he quarrels with me for saying, Proposition 21. It is necessary therefore in order to an infallible assent, that every particular person be infallibly assisted, in judging of the matters proposed to be believed: Because, saith he, it is not necessary to have an infallible evidence of the truth of the things proposed, i. e. from the internal principles that prove or demonstrate them; but it is enough that he have p. 88an infallible or sufficiently certain evidence only of the infallibility of the external Proponent▪ Where there are two things to be taken notice of. 1. That by the matters proposed to be believed, he would seem to understand me only of the things that are to be believed by vertue of any Proponent supposed infallible; whereas I meant it of all such things to which an infallible assent is required, and chiefly of that by which we are to believe the things revealed; as for instance, that the Church is infallible, is in the first place to be believed upon their principles, and either an infallible assent is required to this or not; if not, then infallibility is not necessary to faith; if it be, then this infallible assent must be built on an infallibility antecedent to that of the Church; and then my consequence necessarily follows, that the ground on which a necessity of some external infallible Proponent is asserted, must rather make every particular person infallible, if no divine Faith can be without an infallible assent, and so renders any other Infallibility useless.

2. That he explains infallible evidence by that which is sufficiently certain, which is meer shuffling: for he knows well enough that we contend for sufficiently certain evidence as much as they; our only Question is about infallibility, whether that be necessary or no? If sufficiently certain evidence will serve for p. 89the Churches Infallibility, why may it not for the Scriptures, or any matters of Faith contained therein? If they mean no more by Infallibility but sufficient certainty, why do they make so great a noise about it, as though there could be no Faith and we no Christians without Infallibility? when we all say that the matters of Faith have sufficient certainty, nay the highest which such things are capable of. Is infallible Faith come to be sufficiently certain only? for all that I know an infallible Pope may by such another explication become like one of us.

6. He yields, That a right and saving faith may be without any infallible assurance concerning the Churches Infallibility. Which, he saith,P. 54. is abundantly declared by Catholick Writers. I only desire to know, why a like right and saving faith may not be had concerning the Scriptures, without their Churches infallibility? For from hence it follows, that an infallible assent is not requisite to saving faith; directly contrary to my former Adversary E. W. for one saith, it is necessary to faith, and the other, that it is not. But above all, how will he ever answer this to Mr. I. S. who hath written a whole Book purposely against this Principle, as impious and atheistical? Methinks this way of defending the main foundation of their Faith by Principles so directly p. 90contradicting one another looks a little scandalously, and brings an odd suspition upon their Cause, as if it were very hard to be made good, when our Adversaries cannot agree by which of two quite contrary Principles it was best be maintained.

7. He yields,P. 56. That the utmost assurance a man can have of the Churches Infallibility, is only moral; but to make it up, he calls it a moral infallibility; which, how strangely soever it sounds, yet his meaning is good; for it is such an infallibility, as is not infallibility. Hath the dispute been thus long among us, whether infallibility be necessary or no to faith, and now at last one comes and tells us, Yes surely, a moral infallibility is necessary. I have heard of a ho… dispute between two Gentlemen about Transubstantiation, very earnest they were on both sides; at last another falls into their company and asked them what it was they were about; they told him Transubstantiation: very well, said he, but I pray tell me what you mean by it; one said it was standing at the Eucharist, and the other kneeling. Much such another explication is this here of Infallibility, only this is somewhat worse, for it is joyning two words together which destroy each other; for if it be only moral Certainty, it is not infallible; if it be infallible, it cannot be barely moral. I expect to hear shortly of an accidental p. 91Transubstantiation, a co-ordinate Supremacy, as well as a moral Infallibility. But we are to suppose that by Infallibility he means no more than Certainty, because he explains it by the Certainty of universal Tradition: this were well enough, if in the precedent Page he had not said,P. 55. That a particular person may be infallible in the assent he gives to some matter proposed, viz. to this, that the Church is infallible; I would fain understand what this infallible assent is grounded upon, and if the evidence be only sufficiently or morally infallible, which are his own terms, how the assent which is built upon it, comes to be more than so. It is very pleasant to observe how Mr. Cressey, and some other late Writers of their Church are perplexed about this word Infallibility, as if they had a Wolf by the ears, they cannot tell how to hold it, and they are afraid to let it go. And very loth is is our N. O. to part with the sound of Infallibility, although his own Concessions perfectly overthrow it, as will yet further appear by this last, viz.

8. That moral Certainty is a sufficient foundation for Faith. This will appear by my 27.Pro…. 27. Proposition, which is this: The nature of certainty doth receive several names either according to the nature of the proof, or the degrees of the Assent. Thus Moral Certainty p. 92may be so called, either as it is opposed to Mathematical evidence, but implying a firm assent upon the highest evidence that Moral things can receive: Or as it is opposed to a higher degree of Certainty in the same kind, so Moral Certainty implies only greater Probabilities of one side than the other. In the former sense we assert the certainty of Christian Faith to be Moral, but not only in the latter.P. 67. To which he saith, This Principle is granted, if importing only that Christians have or may have a sufficiently certain and infallible evidence of the truth of their Christianity. Whereby it is plain that though he useth the term infallible, yet he means no more than I do, or else he ought not to have brought that as an explication of my principle which is contrary to it, as in this Controversie, Moral Certainty is opposed to strict demonstration and Infallibility. But if he by infallibility means only sufficient certainty, I shall be content for quietness sake, that he shall call it Infallibility, if he pleases. And that he can mean no more by it, appears not only by what he hath said before, but by what he saith afterwards in these words.P. 94. A Natural or Moral Certainty (though not such a one as cannot possibly be false, but which according to the Laws of Nature and the common manners and experience of Men is not false) is sufficient on p. 93which to ground such a faith as God requires of us; in respect of that Certainty which can be derived from humane sense or reason, and which serves for an introductive to the reliance of this our faith upon such Revelation as is believed by us divine; and which if divine, we know is not possibly fallible; In respect of its relying on which Revelation, an infallible object, and not for an Infallible Certainty as to the subject, it is that this our Faith is denominated a Divine Faith. Now this Natural or Moral Certainty is thought sufficient for the first rational Introductive and Security of our Faith, not only by the Doctor in his 27. Principle, but also by Catholick Divines in their Discourses of the Prudential Motives. Very well said, and I were a very disingenuous man, if I should not heartily thank him for so free a Confession, by which, if I understand any thing, he very fairly gives up the Cause of Infallibility, as to the necessity of it in order to Faith: As will easily appear by the managing of it, so far as I have been concerned in it. It is evident to any one that will cast an eye on the Controversie of Infallibility, between the Arch-bishop and his Adversaries, that it was raised on this account, because those of the Church of Rome asserted, that the Infallible Testimony of the Church was necessary in order to the believing the Scriptures to be the p. 94Word of God: and so much is endeavoured to be defended by him who pretended to answer my Lord of Canterburies Book, who goes upon this Principle, That this is to be believed with a divine Faith, and a divine Faith must be built upon an infallible Testimony; the falsehood of which, I at large shewed in the Discourse of the Resolution of Faith. Since the publishing whereof, the Metaphysical Gentleman before mentioned, pretended to answer that part of it which concerns Infallibility and Moral Certainty. Some of his assertions I have laid down already, as contrary to this of N. O. as may be; for he not only asserts the necessity of Infallibility for a foundation of Christian Faith, but spends some Chapters in rambling talk against Moral Certainty. The Title of one of which is,…rot. without Princip. Chap. 6. Faith only Morally Certain is no Faith. I desire N. O. and E. W. to agree better before they goe abo… to confute me; and to what purpose should… trouble my self with answering a man who… Principles the more ingenuous of their ow… Party disown, as well as we? For not on… N. O. here makes Moral Certainty a sufficien… ground for Divine Faith, Guide in Controv. disc. 5. chap. 10. S. 134.but the Guide 1… Controversies, another of my Adversaries, a… serts the same, when he saith, And indee… from what is said formerly, that a Divine Faith may be had by those who have had … p. 95extrinsecal even morally infallible (I see now from whom N. O. learnt these terms) motive thereof, it follows that Divine Faith doth not resolve into such motives either as the formal cause, or always as the applicative introductive, or condition of this divine faith. And a little after,Sect. 135. That it is not necessary that such Faith always should have an external rationally infallible ground or motive thereto (whether Church Authority or any other) on his part that so believes. By these concessions it appears that the cause of Infallibility, as far as it concerns the necessity of it in order to Faith, is clearly given up by these persons; and if others be still of another mind among them, I leave them to dispute it among themselves.

Thus far then we are agreed;§ 4. I now come to consider where the controversie still remains,N. O's. Principles laid down. and why the rest of my Principles may not pass as well as these. In order to this, I must, by taking a view of his several exceptions and answers, draw together a Scheme of those Principles which he sets up in opposition to mine; and if I do not very much mistake, they may be reduced to these three.

1. That God hath given an infallible assistance to the Guides of the Church in all Ages of it, for the direction of those who live in it.

2. That without this infallible assistance p. 96there can be no certainty of the sense of Scripture.

3. That all the Arguments which overthrow the Churches Infallibility; do destroy the Churches Authority.

These, as far as I can perceive, contain the whole force of his Considerations; and in the examination of these the remaining discourse must be spent; In which I shall have occasion to take notice of whatever is material in his Book.

1. The main controversie is, whether God hath given an infallible assistance to the Guides of the Church in all Ages, for the conduct of those who live in it? For if he hath not, my Adversary cannot deny, but the Principles laid down by me must hold. For in case there be no infallibility in the Guides of the Church, every one must be left to the use of his own understanding, proceeding in the best manner, to find out what the Will of God is in order to salvation. We do not now dispute concerning the best helps for a person to make use of in a matter of this nature; but the Q…estion is, whether a man ought to resign his own judgement to that of the Church, which pretends to be infallible as to all necessaries for salvation? or supposing no such infallibility, whether a person using his Faculties in the best manner about the sense of Scriptures, with the helps of p. 97divine Grace, may not have sufficient certainty thereby what things are required of him in order to happiness? Hereby I exclude nothing that may tend to the right use of a mans understanding in these things, whether it be the direction of Pastors; the decrees of Councils, the sense of the Primitive Church, or the care, industry, and sincerity of the Enquirer; but supposing all these, whether by not believing the Guides of the Church to be infallible, the foundation of this persons faith can be nothing else but a trembling Quicks and, as N. O. speaks in his Preface; only from the supposing an errability in the Guides of Gods Church. And a little after he lays down that as his fundamental Principle, that the only certain way not to be misled, will be the submitting our internal assent and belief to Church Authority; or as he elsewhere speaks, to the infallible Guideship of Church Gover…ors. P. 1….Here then two Questions necessarily arise: 1. Whether there can be no certainty of Faith without this infallibility? 2. What certainty there is of this infallibility?

1. Whether there can be no certainty of Faith without Infallibility in the Guides of the Church, and submitting our internal assent and belief to them? For the clearing of this we must consider what things are agreed upon between us, that by them we may p. 98proceed to the resolution of this Question.

1. It is I suppose agreed, That every man hath in him a faculty of discerning of truth and falshood.

2. That this Faculty must be used at least in the choice of infallible Guide; for otherwise a man must be abused with every pretence of Infallibility, and George Fox may as well be followed as the Pope of Rome; and to what purpose are all prudential motives and arguments for Infallibility, if a man must not judge whether they be good or no, i. e. sufficient to prove the thing?

3. That God is not wanting in necessaries to the salvation of mankind.

4. That the Books of Scripture received on both sides do contain in them the Will of God in order to salvation.

5. That all things simply necessary to salvation are contained therein, which is a concession mentioned before.

These things being supposed,§. 5. the Question now is,N. O's. exceptions answered. Whether a person not relying on the infallibility of a Church, may not be certain of those things which are contained in those Books in order to Salvation? For of those ou… present enquiry is, and not about the sense of the more difficult and controverted places; and if we can make it appear that men may be certain p. 99as to matters of salvation without infallibility, let them prove (if they can) the necessity of infallibility for things which are not necessary to salvation. But of the sense of Scripture in those things afterwards; I now enquire into the certainty men may attain to, of the necessaries to salvation in Scripture: and concerning this, I laid down this Proposition.

Although we cannot argue against any particular way of Revelation from the necessary Attributes of God,Prop. 13. yet such a way as writing being made choice of by him, we may justly say, that it is repugnant to the nature of the design and the Wisdom and Goodness of God to give infallible assistance to persons in writing his Will for the benefit of Mankind, if those Writings may not be understood by all persons who sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary for their salvation.

This Principle, P. 13.he saith, is unsound; which, if he can prove, I may have more reason to question it than I yet have. And I assure him I expect no mean proofs to shake my belief of a principle of so great importance to the Christian Religion. For it being granted by him, that all things simply necessary to salvation, are contained in the Books of Scripture, I desire to know whether things simply necessary p. 100ought not to be delivered with greater plainness than things which are not so? Whether God appointing the Evangelists and Apostles to write these things, did not intend that they should be so expressed as they might most easily be understood? Whether our Saviours own Sermons vere capable of being understood by those who heard them, without some infallible Interpreter? Whether the Evangelists did not faithfully deliver our Saviours Doctrine? If they did, how that comes to be obscure now, which was plain then? so that either Christ himself must be charged with not speaking the Will of God plainly, or the Evangelists cannot be charged with not expressing it so. There are no other Books in the World that I know of, that need an infallible Interpreter: and we can tell certainly enough what any other Religion requires, supposing it to be written in the same way that the Christian is: Is it not possible for a man to be certain what the Law of Moses required of the People of Israel, by reading the Books of that Law, without some infallible Guides▪ Do the ten Commandments need an Infallible Comment? Or can we have now no certainty of the meaning of the Levitical Law, because there is no High-priest or Sanhedrin to explain it? And if it be possible to understand the necessaries of that dark dispensation in comparison p. 101with the Gospel, are o…r eyes now blinded with too much light? Is not Christianity therefore highly recommended to us in the New Testament, because of the clearness and perspicuity wherein the Doctrines and Precepts thereof are delivered? And yet after all this, cannot the most necessary parts of it, he understood by those who sincerely endeavour to understand them? By which sincere endeavour we are so far from excluding any useful helps, that we always suppose them. The s…m then of what he is to confute, is this▪ that although the Apostles and Evangelists did deliver the Mind of God to the World in their Writings, in order to the salvation of Mankind, although they were inspired by an infinite Wisdom for this end, although all things simply necessary to Salvation are contained in their Writings, although a Person useth his sincere endeavour by all Moral helps, and the Divine Grace assisting him to find out in these Writings the things necessary to Salvation, yet after all he cannot certainly understand the meaning of them. Which to me appears so absurd and monstrous a Doctrine, so contrary to the honour of the Scriptures and the design of Christianity, that if I had a mind to disparage it, I would begin with this and end with Transubstantiation. For in earnest Sir, did not our Saviour speak intelligibly in matte…s of p. 102so great importance to the Salvation of Mankind? Did he not declare all that was necessary for that end, in his many admirable discourses? Did not the Evangelists record his words and actions in writing, and that as one of them saith expresly, That we might believe that Iesus is the Christ, Ioh. 20, 31.John 20:31the Son of God, and that believing we might have life through his name? And after all this, cannot we understand so much as the common necessaries to salvation by the greatest and most sincere endeavour for that end? But it is time now to consider his exceptions against this Principle: which are these.

1. That God may reveal his mind so in Scripture as that in many things it may be clear only to some persons more versed in the Scriptures, P. 13.and in the Churches Traditional sense of them, and more assisted from above according to their imployment; which persons he hath appointed to instruct the rest. But what is all this to our purpose? our Question is not about may be's, and possibilities of things, but it is taken for granted on both sides, that God hath revealed his mind in writing; therefore he need not make the supposition of no writings at all, P. 14.as he doth afterwards: the Question is, Whether these Writings being allowed p. 103for divine revelations of the Will of God, he hath expressed the necessaries to salvation clearly therein or not? That God may delivers his mind obscurely in many things, is no question; nor that he may inspire persons to unfold his mind, where it is obscure; but our question is, whether or no these Writings being acknowledged to contain the Will of God, it be agreeable with the nature of the design and the Wisdom and Goodness of God for such Writings not to be capable of being understood in all things necessary to salvation, by those who sincerely endeavour to understand them? But when I had expresly said, things necessary for salvation, why doth he avoid that which the dispute was about, and only say many things in stead of it? I do not doubt but there are many difficult places of Scripture, as there must be in any ancient Writings penned in an Idiom so very different from ours. But I never yet saw one difficulty removed by the pretended Infallible Guides of the Church; all the help we have had, hath been from meer fallible men of excellent skill in Languages, History, and Chronology, and of a clear understanding; and we should be very unthankful not to acknowledge the great helps we have had from them, for understanding the difficult places of Scripture: But for the Infallible Guides, they have dealt by the obscurities p. 104of Scripture, as the Priest and the Levi…e in our Saviours Parable, did by the wounded man, Luke 10. 31, 32.Luke 10:31Luke 10:32they have fairly passed them by, and taken no care of them. If these Guides did believe themselves infallible, they have made the least use of their Talent that ever men did; they have laid it up in a Napkin, and buried it in the earth, for nothing of it ever appeared above ground. How could they have obliged the World more, (nay, it had been necessary to have done it for the use of their Gift) than to have given an Infallible sense of all controverted Places; and then there had been but one dispute left, whether they were infallible or not? but now, supposing we believe their Infallibility, we are still as far to seek, for the meaning of many difficult places. And supposing God had once bestowed this Gift of Infallibility upon the Guides of the Church, he might most justly deprive them of it, because of the no use they have made of it; and we might have great reason to believe so from our Saviours words,Mat. 25. 29.Matt 25:29 To him that hath shall be given, but from him that hath not, shall be taken away even that which he hath. So that not making use of this Talent of Infallibility, gives us just reason to question, whether God continues it, supposing he had once given it to the Guides of the Church, since the Apostles days: which I see no reason to believe.

p. 1052. His next exception is from a saying of Dr. Fields, P. 14.who, he saith, seems to advance a contrary Principle in his Preface to his Books of the Church. But O the mischief of Common-place-Books! which make men write what they find, and not what is to their purpose. For after all, Dr. Field doth but seem to advance another Principle in his opinion, and doth not so much as seem to do it in mine. For that learned and judicious Writer sets himself purposely to disprove the Infallibility of the Church in the beginning of his fourth Book; and is it probable that any man of common understanding would assert that in his Preface, which he had disproved in his Book? It is a known distinction in the Church of Rome of the Church Virtual, representative and essential; by the two first are meant Popes and Councils; and of these two, Dr. Field saith,Field of the Church l▪ 4. ch 5. p. 350. that they may erre in matters of greatest Consequence; yet these are N. O's. infallible Guides, whose conduct he supposeth men obliged to follow, and to yield their internal assent to. Concerning the essential Church, he saith,Ch. 2▪ That it either comprehends all the faithful that are and have been since Christ appeared in the flesh; and then, he saith, it is absolutely free from all errour and ignorance of divine things, that are to be known by Revelations; or as it comprehends p. 106only all those Believers that are and have been since the Apostles times; and in this sense, he saith, the whole Church may be ignorant in sundry things, which are not necessary to salvation; but he thinks it impossible for the whole Church to erre in anything of this nature. But in things that cannot be clearly deduced from the Rule of Faith, and word of divine and heavenly Truth, we think it possible, that all that have written of such things might erre and be deceived. But if the Church be taken only as it comprehends the Believers that now are, and presently live in the world, he saith, it is certain and agreed upon, that in things necessary to be known and believed expresly and distinctly, it never is ignorant, much less doth erre. Yea in things that are not absolutely necessary to be known and believed expresly and distinctly, we constantly believe that this Church can never erre, nor doubt pertinaciously, but that there shall ever be some found ready to embrace the truth, if it be manifested to them, and such as shall not wholly neglect the search and enquiry after it, as times and means give leave. But if we mean by a Church, any particular Church, Ch. 5.he determines, That particular men and Churches may erre damnably, because notwithstanding others may worship God aright; but that the whole Church at one time cannot so erre, for that p. 107then the Church should cease utterly for a time, and so not be Catholick being not at all times; and Christ should sometimes be without a Church; yet, that errors not prejudicing the salvation of them that erre may be found in the Church, that is at one time in the world, we make no doubt; only the Symbolical and Catholick which is and was being wholly free from error. Which several expressions amount to no more than this, that there will be always some true Christians in the World; but what is this to infallible Teachers and Guides, in a Church that pretends to be Catholick against all the sense and reason in the World? And is it now imaginable after all this, that Dr. Field should make any particular Church infallible? No, all that he means in his Preface, is this, that among all the Societies of men, persons who have not leisure or capacity to examine particular Controversies, ought diligently to search which is the true Church, and having done this, to embrace her communion, follow her directions, and rest in her judgment, i.e. Suppose a man by that very Book of Dr. Fields should be convinced that the Church of Rome is a very corrupt and tyrannical Church, and the Church of England is a sound and good Church (which was the design of his writing it,) he being thus far satisfied, ought to embrace the communion of p. 108this Church, and so follow her directions, and rest in her judgment, so, as not to forsake her communion for any cavils that are raised about particular Controversies of which he is not a capable judge. And doth this make the Church of England infallible? If we say that a man being first satisfied of the skill and integrity of a Lawyer, ought to follow his directions, and rest in his judgment; doth this make that Lawyer infallible? so we say here, the resting in the judgment of a Church, of whose integrity we have assurance beforehand, implies only the supposition of so much honesty and skill in a Church, as may overrule the Judgments of persons who either have not leisure or capacity to understand particular Controversies which require skill in Languages, search into the Fathers and later Writers on both sides. If we say, that unlearned persons ought in such things to trust the learned, whose integrity they have no ground to suspect, this doth not certainly make the more learned infallible? But we may rest in the judgment of those whom we have no reason to suspect, though we believe them not to be infallible: and it was the former Dr. Field meant, and by no means any infallibility, unless he plainly contradict himself.

3. He excepts,P. 15. That this brings in an inerrability of every particular Christian in all p. 109points necessary, if such Christians will, that is, …f only they shall sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them. The force of this Argument will be easily discerned if we put another parallel to it, viz. That they who assert from Scripture the assistance of Divine Grace to the sincere endeavours of men, do make all men imp…ccable if they will; as well as those who assert, that God will not be wanting in necessaries to salvation to those who sincerely endeavour to know them, make all such men so far infallible, if they will. If any one thing be plain in Scripture, the goodness of God is; and who can believe that, and yet think that he will suffer those who sincerely endeavour to know what is necessary to their salvation, not to understand it? But besides, how often doth the Scripture promise a greater degree of knowledge to the meek and humble, Psal. 25. 9.Ps 25:9to the diligent and industrious; James 1. 5.Jas 1:5to those that ask and seek wisdom from him, Luke 11. 13.Luke 11:13to those that do the will of God, to whom our Saviour hath expresly promised,John 7. 17.John 7:17 that they shall know of his doctrine, whether it be of God or no? And if this be the inerrability he means, he sees what grounds we have to assert it. But we understand not by it, that such persons cannot erre in their judgments about what things are necessary, and what not; nor that they cannot erre in other things which are not so necessary p. 110to salvation; but that Gods goodness is so great, and his promises so plain, and his word so clear in necessary things, that no one who sincerely endeavours to know them, shall ever miss of salvation. And if such an infallibility will satisfie them, we do not deny it to Popes themselves, or other Guides of the Church, on condition they do not think themselves infallible beyond these bounds; for they are only the meek and humble whom God hath promised to teach his way, and not such who will be infallible whether God will or no.

His other exceptions from this principle destroying Church-Authority, from the parity of reason for Church Governors, and the controverted places of Scripture shall be considered afterwards.

2. I now come to examine what certainty there is for this Infallibility?§. 6. Here I shall lay down some principles of common reason,N. O's. Proofs of Infallibility examined. by which we may better understand the force of his arguments.

1. That the Proof ought always to be more evident than the thing that is to be proved by it. For otherwise it is of no advantage to the proof of it, if it have but the same degree of evidence; but is a great prejudice to it, if it have less: so that if the proofs of Infallibility be equally obscure and difficult with p. 111those things which are to be believed by virtue of it, this Infallibility is of no use; but if they be less evident, the pretence of it is both very ridiculous and prejudicial to the Christian Faith.

2. The greater concernment any Law is of, and the greater danger in mistaking the meaning of it, the more plain and distinct ought the terms of that Law to be. As a Law about the succession of the Crown ought to be framed with all the clearness and distinctness imaginable, because the peace and security of a Nation depends upon it. So in case Christ hath appointed any Successor in the Government of his Church, or entailed Infallibility upon the Guides of it: this being a matter of such infinite concernment to the whole Church; it is most unreasonable to conceive that whatever other parts of his Will were obscure, those which relate to the matter of Succession and Infallibility, should be so; but rather so plain, that no one can miss of understanding them, because the weight of all the rest depends upon these two; and it is so horrible a presumption in any to pretend to them, in case they have no right to them, and the danger so great in relying upon them if there be no such thing.

3. A Law of such universal concernment to the Faith and Peace of the Christian Church p. 112being supposed, the practice of the best and purest… Ages of the Church must be supposed agreeable thereto, i. e. that in all matters of difference they did constantly own these infallible Judges, by appealing to them for a final issue of all debates, and resting satisfied with their decisions. But if on the contrary, when great differences have happened in and nearest the first times, no such Authority was made use of, but other ways put in practice to make an end of them; if when it was pretended, it was slighted and rejected; nay, if the persons pretending it, were proceeded against and condemned, and this not by a popular Faction, but by just and legal Authority; we may thence conclude that such Judges have arrogated that power to themselves, which was not given them by the Supreme Legislator. These things being premised, I come to his particular Arguments, which lie scattered…up and down; but to give them the greater strength, I shall bring them nearer together. And they are drawn either from Scripture, or Tradition, or parity of Reason.

1. From Scripture. And in truth the only satisfactory Argument in a matter of so great concernment to the Christian Church, ought only to be drawn from thence, unless we will suppose the Scripture defective in the most important things. For this being pleaded as a p. 113thing necessary for the Peace of the Church by some, and for the Faith of Christians by others; so much greater the necessity of it is, so much clearer ought the evidence of it to be in Scripture, supposing that to be intended to reveal the Will of God to us in matters of the greatest necessity. But it cannot be denied by our Adversaries, that the places produced by them for a constant Infallibility in the Guides of the Church, do not necessarily prove it; because they are very capable of being understood, as to the Infallibility only of the Apostles in the first Age and Foundation of the Christian Church: is it then to be imagined that if Christ had intended such an Infallibility as the foundation of the Faith and Peace of his Church, he would not have delivered his mind more plainly and clearly than he is pretended to do in this matter? How easily might all the contentions of the Christian World have been prevented, if Christ had caused it to be delivered in terms so clear, as the nature of the thing doth require? If he had said, I do promise my Infallible Spirit to the Guides of the Church in all Ages, to give the true sense of Scripture in all controversies which shall arise among Christians, and I expect an obedience suitably to all their determinations: or, more particularly, I appoint the Bishops of Rome in all Ages for my Successors in p. 114the Government of the Church, who shall be the standing and infallible Iudges of all Controversies among Christians; this dispute might never have happened among us. For we assure them that we account the peace of the Church so valuable a thing, and obedience to Christs Commands so necessary a duty, that we are well enough inclined to embrace the doctrine of Infallibility, if we could see any ground in Scripture for it. But we cannot make persons infallible by believing them to be so, but we may easily make our selves fools, as others have done, by believing it without reason. The controversie then is not, whether Infallibility in the Guides of the Church be a desirable thing or not, for so we say impeccability is too; but the question is, whether there be any such thing promised by Christ to the Guides of his Church, and whether all Christians on that account are bound to yield their internal assent, as well as external obedience to all their decrees? which we deny, and desire to see it clearly proved from his words who alone could grant this Infallibility.

For if an infallible Judge be therefore necessary, because the Scripture is not sufficiently clear for ending of Controversies, and that God hath actually constituted such a Judge, cannot be proved but by Scripture, surely we p. 115have all the reason in the World to expect that the Scripture should be abundantly, and beyond all contradiction clear in this point, to make amends for its obscurity in the rest: For if this Point be not clearly proved, we are never the nearer an end of Controversies: because the business stops at the very head, and they may beg their hearts out, before we shall ever be so good natured as to grant it them without proof. And they who have been so bold (shall I say? or blasphemous) as to charge our Lord with want of discretion, in case he have not provided his Church with such an Infallible Judge, do certainly render him much more obnoxious to this imputation, in supposing him to have constituted such a Judge, if he have no where plainly declared that he hath done so. And let them, if they can, produce one clear Text of Scripture to this purpose, which by the unanimous consent of the Fathers is so interpreted; and which, to the common sense of Mankind, is more sufficiently clear for the ending this Controversie, than the Scripture is said by them to be in other necessary Points of Faith. And till they have done this, according to their own way of arguing, we have as much reason to deny their Infallibility, as they have to demand our assent to it, upon the presumed obscurity and insufficiency of Scripture.

p. 116When I came thus prepared to find what the Considerator would produce in a matter of such consequence,§ 7. I soon discerned how little mind he had to insist upon any proofs of that,Of the Arguments from Scripture for Infallibility. which is his only Engine to overthrow my Principles. For after the most diligent search I could make, the only Argument from Scripture I found produced, was from the Old Testament, (where I confess I least looked for it) but however, this is thought so considerable as to be twice produced;…. 25. 26. and yet is so unlucky, that if I understand any thing of the force of it, it p…oves the Judges in Westminster Hall to be infallible, rather than the Pope, or any Guide of the Christian Church. For the force of the Argument lies in Gods appointing Iudges under the Law, … 17. 10. 11, 12. ….according to whose sentence matters were to be determined, upon penalty of death in case of disobedience. But what then? doth this imply infallibility? no, that he dares not stand to, but absolute obedience,; which we are ready to yield when we see the like absolute command for Ecclesiastical Judges of Controversies of Religion, as there was among the Iews for their supreme Iudges in matters of Law. But of this place I have already spoken at large,Ration. Account. p. 1. ch. 8. Sect. 2. p. 239. and shewed how impertinently it is produced for Infallibility in the Book, he often referrs to, and might, if he had thought fit, have answered what is there p. 117said before he had urged it again, without any new strength added to it.

But since he produces no other proof for it, I must consider how he goes about to weaken mine against it. Two things I insisted upon against such a pretence of Infallibility, viz. That such a pretence implying an Infallible Assistance of the Spirit of God, there were but two ways of proving it, either, 1. By such miracles as the Apostles wrought to attest their infallibility, or 2. By those Scriptures from whence this Infallibility is derived. Concerning both these I laid down two Propositions.

1. Concerning the Proof by miracles. The Proposition was this.

There can be no more intollerable usurpation on the Faith of Christians than for any Person or Society of men to pretend to an Assistance as Infallible in what they propose,Prop. 16, as was in Christ or his Apostles, without giving an equal degree of evidence that they are so assisted as Christ and his Apostles did, viz. by miracles as great, publick, and convincing as theirs were; by which I mean such as are wrought by those very persons who challenge this Infallibility, and with a design for the conviction of those who do not believe it.

To this he answers:P. 27. 1. That I am equally obliged to produce miracles for the Churches Infallibility in Fundamentals, which I had p. 118asserted in the defence of the Archbishop. But this admits a very easie answer; for when I speak of Infallibility in Fundamentals, I there declare that I mean no more by it, than that there shall be always a number of true Christians in the World. And what necessity is there now of miracles for men to believe, since they receive the doctrine of the Gospel upon those miracles by which it was at first attested. Neither is there any need of miracles to shew that any number of men are not guilty of an actual errour in what they believe, supposing they declare to believe only on the account of that divine Revelation which is owned by Christians; for in this case the trial of doctrine is to be by Scripture. But in case any persons challenge an Infallibility to themselves antecedently to the belief of Scriptures, and by vertue of which, they say, men must believe the Scriptures, then I say such persons are equally bound to prove their infallibility by miracles as the Apostles were.

2. Not resting in this, he proceeds to another answer,P. 28, 29. the sum of which is, That the Infallibility of the Church not being so large or so high as the Apostles, but consisting only in the Infallible delivery of the same doctrine, there is no necessity of miracles in the present Church. To this I answer, That the doctrine of the Gospel may be said to be new two ways; p. 1191. In respect of the matter contained in it, and so it was new only when it was first revealed. 2. In respect of the person who is to believe it: so it is new in every age to those who are first brought to believe it. Now the Apostles had their infallibility attested by miracles, not barely with a respect to the revelation of new matter, for then none would have needed miracles but Christ himself, or the Apostles that made the first Sermons; for afterwards the matter was not new, but the necessity of miracles was to give a sufficient motive to believe, to all those to whom the Gospel was proposed; and therefore miracles are said to be a a sign to unbelievers. 1 Cor. 14. 22.1 Cor 14:22For by these, Unbelievers were convinced that there was sufficient ground for receiving the doctrine of the Gospel on the Authority of those who delivered it;Heb. 2. 4.Heb 2:4 God himself bearing them witness with divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost. Suppose then, any of the Apostles after their first preaching continued only to inculcate the same doctrine for the conversion of more Unbelievers; in this case the evidence of miracles was the reason of relying on the Authority of those persons for the truth of the Doctrine delivered by them. From whence it follows, that where the Christian Faith is to be received on the Authority of any persons in any Age, those persons p. 120ought to confirm that Authority by miracles, as the Apostles did. For without this, there can be no such Authority whereon to rely, antecedently to the embracing the Christian Faith. Now, this is the case of the Church of Rome they pretend not to deliver any Doctrine wholly new, but what was one way or another delivered by Christ and his Apostles; (although we therein charge them with fraud and falshood) but yielding this, yet they contend that no man can have sufficient ground for believing the Word of God, but from their Churches Infallibility; in this case it is plain that they make their Churches Infallibility to be as much the reason of persons believing, as the Infallibility of the Apostles in their time was; and therefore I say, they ought to prove this Infallibility in the same way, and by miracles, as great, publick, and convincing, as the Apostles did. 3. Yet he is very loath to let go the miracles of their Church, done in later times as well as formerly.P. 29. It would be too large a task in this place to examine the miracles of the Roman Church, (that may be better done on another occasion,) all that I have here to say is, that all the miracles pretended among them, signifie nothing to our present purpose, unless those miracles give evidence of the Authority and Infallibility of those by whom they were p. 121done; and they would do well to shew, where ever in Scripture God did bestow a gift of miracles upon any but for this end: and what reason there is that God should alter the method and course of his providence, in a matter of so great concernment to the Faith of Mankind. Such miracles as were wrought by Christ and his Apostles we defie all other Religions in the World to produce any like them to confirm their Doctrine; but such as the Church of Rome pretends, scarce any Religion in the World but hath pretended to the same. And for his most credible Histories he vouches for them, I hope he doth not mean the Church History written by S. C. nor any other such Legends among them; if he doth, I assure him they have a very easie Faith that think them credible. And if all miracles that are so called, by those among whom they are done, be an Argument, P 30.as he saith, of the security of salvation in the Communion and Faith of that Church wherein they are done, I hope he will be so just, to allow the same to the Arrians, Novatians, Donatists, and others, who all pretend to miracles as well as the Church of Rome, as any one that is versed in Church-History may easily see. But of this more at large elsewhere.

2. Concerning the proof of Infallibility from Scripture, I said down this Proposition.

p. 122Nothing can be more absurd,Prop. 17. than to pretend the necessity of such an infallible commission and assistance to assure us of the truth of those Writings, and to interpret them; and at the same time to prove that Commission from those Writings from which we are told, nothing can be certainly deduced, such an Assistance not being supposed; or to pretend that Infallibility in a Body of men, is not as liable to doubts and disputes, as in those Books from whence only they derive their Infallibility.

He grants the former part of this,P. 37. if by it be intended to prove such Commission only, or in the first place from these writings. But, he saith, a Christians Faith may begin either at the Infallible authority of Scriptures, or of the Church: It seems then, there may be sufficient ground for a Christians Faith, as to the Scriptures, without believing any thing of the Churches Infallibility; and for this we have reason to thank him, whatever they of his own Church think of it. For, by this concession we may believe the Scriptures Authority, without ever believing a word of the Churches Infallibility; and let them afterwards prove it from Scripture if they can. Nay he goes yet farther, and saith, That the Infallibility of Scriptures as well as the Church may be proved from its own testimony: but he p. 123first supposes, that the Infallibility of one of these, be first learnt from Tradition. And therefore in the remainder of his discourse on this Subject, he shews how the Infallibility of the Church may be proved from Tradition not shewing at all how the Infallibility of the Church can be proved from Scripture.

Scripture being thus deserted,§. 8. as to the proof of the Churches Infallibility,Of the Argument from Tradition for Infallibility. I must pursue him to his other Hold of Tradition. The method of his discourse is this; That the Infallibility of the Guides of the Church was antecedent to the Scriptures; P. 38, 39.That the Apostles did not lose their infallibility by committing what they preached to writing; That their successors were to have this infallibility preserved in them, if there had been no writings; and cannot be imagined to have lost it because of them, because these give testimony to it; That this Infallibility is preserved by Tradition descending from Age to Age, as we say the Canon of Scripture is delivered to us; And lastly, That the Governours of the Church always held and reputed themselves infallible, appears by their Anathematizing dissenters. In this Discourse there are some things supposed without reason, and other things asserted without proof. The Foundation of all this Discourse proceeds upon the supposition that the same Infallibility which was in the Apostles, must p. 124be continued in their Successors through all Ages of the Church, for which I see not the least shadow of reason produced. Yes, saith he, supposing there had been no Writings, and no Infallibility, Christian Religion would have been no rational and well grounded, no stable and certain Religion. Two things in answer to this, I desire to be informed of: 1. What he thinks of the Religion of the Patriarchs, who received their Religion by Tradition, without any such Infallibility? 2. What he thinks of those Christians who receive the Scriptures or Churches Infallibility by vertue of common and universal Tradition (which is certainly the ground of the one, and supposed by him to be of the other) whether the Faith of such persons be rational and well-grounded, stable, and certain, or not; if it be, then there is no such necessity of Infallibility for that purpose; if it be not, then he doth hereby declare that the Faith of Christians is irrational and ill-grounded. For whatsoever is received on the account of Tradition antecedent to the belief of Infallibility, cannot be received on the account of it; but the belief of either Scriptures or Churches Infallibility, must be first received by vertue of a principle antecedent to the Scriptures or Churches Infallibility, viz. Tradition. By this it appears, that his very way of proving, destroys the thing he would p. 125prove by it: For if the Tradition may be a sufficient ground of Faith, how comes Infallibility to be necessary? But if this Infallibility be not necessary without the Scriptures, much less certainly is it now, since it is acknowledged on both sides, that the Apostles were infallible in their Writings, and that therein the Will of God is contained as to all things simply necessary to salvation. But these successors of the Apostles were not deprived of their infallibility by the Apostles Writings; No certainly, for none can be deprived of what they never had; but where are the reasons all this while, to shew that there was the same necessity of Infallibility in the Apostles successors, as was in them? Two I find rather intimated than insisted upon. 1. That the Church would otherwise have failed, if there had been neither Writings nor Infallibility; But if this Argument hold for any thing, it is for the necessity of the Scriptures, and not of Infallibility; for we see God did furnish the Church with one, and left no footsteps of the other. We do not dispute how far the Church might have been preserved without the Scriptures, we find it hath been hard enough to preserve it pure with them: but we always acknowledge the Infinite Wisdom and Goodness of God, that hath not left us in matters of Faith and Salvation to the determinations of p. 126men liable to be corrupted by Interest and Ambition, but hath appointed men inspired by himself to set down whatever is necessary for us to believe and practise. And upon these Writings we fix our Faith, as on a firm and unmovable Rock; and on the veracity of God therein contained and expressed, we build all our hopes of a Blessed Eternity. And one great benefit more we have by these divine Books, that by them we can so easily discover the fraud and imposture of the confident Pretenders to Infallibility. Which is the true reason why the Patrons of the Church of Romes Infallibility have so little kindness for the Scriptures, and take all occasions to disparage them, by insinuating that they are good for nothing but to breed Heresies in the Heads of the People; upon pretence of which danger, they hide this Candle under a Bushel, lest it should give too much light to them that are in the House, and discover some things which it is more convenient to keep in the dark.

2. He saith, The Infallibility of the Apostles successors, receives a second evidence from the testimony thereof found also in these Writings. I confess I have seen nothing like the first evidence yet, to which this should be a second; but if by the first be meant that which I mentioned before, this is a proper second for it. Neither of them, I dare say, intend any p. 127mischief to any body; both first and second are forced into the Field, where they stand only for dumb shews, and wonder what they are brought for. But whereabouts I pray doth this second Testimony stand? what are its weapons? I hope not Dic Ecclesiae, nor Dabo tibi Claves, nor any of the old rusty Armour which our modern Combatants begin to be ashamed to appear with in the Field. And to speak truth, N. O. seems to understand his Art better than to meddle with such heavy and Antique Armour, which every one hath been foiled with that hath undertaken to combat with them; only it seems a little for the credit of their Cause to point to such a Magazine, which in the days of Ignorance and Credulity, the Romantick Age of the Church, was in great request. But we must now buckle our selves to a new manner of Combat, which is from the Tradition of the Church, and that of the very same nature with what we have for the Canon of Scripture. This I confess is bright shining Armour, and may do great service if it will hold; but that must be judged upon trial, which I now set my self to. But we shall find that no weapons formed against Truth can prosper: and it hath been long observed of Rome that it could never endure a close Siege.

The Question now is, whether they of the Roman Church have the same universal Tradition p. 128for the Infallibility of the Guides of it, w^ch we have for the Canon of Scripture? w^ch he asserts. It is I suppose agreed on both sides, That the Tradition on w^ch we receive and believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God was universal as to all Ages and Times of the Church; that from the beginning all disputes in Religion among true Christians, were built upon the supposition of it; That in no Age any persons were allowed to be good Christians who made doubt of it; That every Age doth afford plentiful testimonies of the belief of it. This is that universal Tradition we receive the Scriptures upon; and let any thing like this be produced for the Infallibility of the Guides of their Church, and we yield up the Cause to them. Can any fairer terms than these be desired? But we expect proofs, and so I perceive we may do to the Worlds end. I commend the Ingenuity of N. O. for endeavouring to escape out of the circle any way; but I believe they think themselves as wise, who still dance within it, knowing the impossibility of doing any good in this other way. The only Argument he insists upon is so weak, that I wonder he had not considered how often it had been answered by their own Writers. For it is certain that Provincial Councils as well as General, have Anathematized dissenters, and pronounced them Hereticks, which is his only Argument p. 129to prove this Tradition of the Churches Infallibility;B…ll de Concil. l. 2. c. 10. and they had no way to answer it, but by saying, this doth not imply their Infallibility. And if it doth not in the case of Provincial Councils; why should he think it doth in the case of General? For the Anathema's of Provincial Councils did not relate to the acceptation of their Decrees, either by the Pope, or the whole Church, as N. O. supposes, but did proceed upon their own assurance of the truth of what they decreed; otherwise their Anathema's would have been only conditional, and not absolute and peremptory as we see they were. But I need give no other answer to this Argument than in the words of Dr. Field whom N. O. appealed to before,Field of the Church, l. 4 c 4. viz. That Councils denounce Anathema not because they think every one that disobeyeth the Decree of the Council to be accursed, but because they are perswaded in particular, that this is the eternal truth of God which they propose, therefore they accurse them that obstinately shall resist, as St. Paul willeth every Christian man to Anathematize an Angel coming from heaven, if he shall teach him any other doctrine than he hath already learned: yet is not every particular Christian free from possibility of erring. If the Argument then were good from Anathematizing dissenters, and calling them Hereticks, every particular person must by it p. 130be proved Infallible; who are bound to Anathematize even Angels from Heaven in case of delivering any other doctrine from the Gospel; so that this, which is his only Argument in stead of proving an universal Tradition would prove an universal Infallibility.

Let the Reader now judge in his Conscience, whether here be any thing offered in the way of Tradition for the Churches Infallibility, that may bear the least proportion with the Tradition on which we receive the Scriptures? And yet if this had been true, it had been almost impossible that any one Age should have passed without remarkable testimonies of it. For no Age of the Church hath been so happy as not to have occasion for an Infallible Judge of Controversies, if any such had been appointed by Christ: and therefore it cannot be imagined, but that Christians must in all Controversies arising have appealed to him, and stood to his determinations; which must have been as well known in the practice of the Church, as Judges trying Causes in Westminster Hall. But I challenge him to produce any one Age since the Apostles times to this day, wherein the Infallibility of a standing Judge of Controversies appointed by Christ, hath been received by as universal a consent as the Authority of Scripture hath been in that very Age. Nay, I except not p. 131that Age which hath been since the Council of Trent; for the Scriptures of the New Testament have been received of all sides, but the Infallibility of a standing Judge is utterly denied by one side, and vehemently disputed between several parties on the other. Some making only the Essential Church infallible, others the representative in Councils, others again the virtual, viz. the Pope. And supposing any infallible Judge necessary; it stands to reason it should be rather in one than in a multitude, and rather in a constant succession of Bishops in one See, than in an uncertain number who cannot be convened together as often as the necessities of the Church may require. But this is so far from being received as an Universal Tradition in that very Age wherein we live, that onelyonly one busie Party in the Roman Church do maintain it, Many others eagerly opposing it, and all the Princes and States in Christendom do in their actions, if not in words, deny it. And is not this now an Universal Tradition fit to be matched with that of the Scriptures? I had once thought to have brought testimonies o…t of every Age of the Christian Church manifestly disproving any such Tradition of Infallibility; and that not only of private persons when there were no Councils, but from the most solemn Acts of Councils, and the confession p. 132of their own Writers; but that would swell this Answer to too great a Bulk, and is not needful where so very little is offered for the proof of it. And yet I shall be ready to do it, when any thing more important requires it.

I now return to his exceptions against the latter part of the former proposition, viz. That Infallibility in a Body of men, is as liable to doubts and disputes, as in those Books from whence only they derive their Infallibility. The plain meaning of which is, that it is a foolish thing to make use of a medium as uncertain as the thing which is to be proved by it; and therefore if the Infallibility of the the Church be as liable to doubts and disputes as that of the Scriptures, it is against all just Laws of reasoning to make use of the Churches Infallibility to prove the Scriptures by. And to this no answer can be proper, but either by saying that there is no absurdity in such a way of proving; or else that the Infallibility of the Church is more certain and evident than that of the Scriptures. Which I should be glad to see undertaken by any man who pretends to sense; which N. O. doth too much to meddle with it; and therefore fairly shuffles it off, and turns my words quite to another meaning, as though they had been spoken of the doubtful sense of the Decrees of Councils, which although p. 133elsewhere I had sufficient reason to speak of, yet that was not pertinent to this place. But this was a way to escape by saying something, though not at all to the purpose; and yet he gives no sufficient answer to that sense he puts upon my words, by bringing a Commentary upon them out of words used by me in another Discourse. Wherein I did at large argue against the Infallibility of General Councils,Rat. Account. part▪ 3. ch. 1. Sect. 4. p. 510. and after disproving it in general, I undertook to prove, that no man can have any certainty of Faith as to the Decrees of any Council; because men can have no certainty of Faith that this was a General Council, that it passed such Decrees, that it proceeded lawfully in passing them, and that this is the certain meaning of them; all which are necessary in order to the believing those Decrees to be infallible with such a Faith as they call divine. The words produced by him do speak of the doubtful sense and meaning of the Decrees of Councils, by which I shew that men can have no more certainty of the meaning of them, than of doubtful places of Scripture, not as though I supposed it impossible for Councils to give a clear decision in matters of controversie, so as that men might understand their meaning; but I expresly mention such Decrees as are purposely framed in general terms, and with ambiguous expressions p. 134pressions to give satisfaction to the several dissenting Parties; for which I instanced in some of the Council of Trent, whose ambiguity is most manifest by the disputes about their meaning raised by some who were present at the making of them. I am far enough from denying that a Commentary may make a Text plainer, or that a Iudges sentence can be clearer than the Law; or that any Council can, or hath decided any thing clearer than the thing that is in controversie; which are his exceptions: but I say, if Councils pretend to do more than the Scriptures, and to decide controversies for the satisfaction of the World, and that men ought to have that certainty of Faith by them, which they cannot have by the Scriptures, they ought never to be liable to the same ambiguity and obscurity upon the account of which the Scripture is rejected from being a certain rule of Faith. For, as he saith well, Infallibility alone ends not Controversies, but clearness; clearness in the point controverted: which if Councils want, they are as unfit to end Controversies as the Scriptures can be pretended to be. But this is not the thing intended by me in this Proposition and therefore it needs no farther answer; for the only subject of that Proposition, is the Infallibility of the Church, and not the clearness of the Decrees of Councils.

p. 135But I cannot admire the ingenuity of this way of answering me, by putting another sense upon my words than they will bear; and by drawing words out of another Discourse, without shewing the purpose for which they are there used, and leaving out the most material passages which tended to the clearing of them. If N. O. thinks fit to oppose that whole Discourse against the Infallibility of General Councils, and set down fairly the several Arguments, I should be then too blame not to return a just answer: but I am not bound to follow him in such strange excursions, from the 17. Proposition of this Book to a single passage in a larger Book, and from that back to another at a mighty distance in the same Book; which being dismembred from the Body of the Discourse, must needs lose much of their strength. Yet with all the disadvantage he takes them (which is such, that the best Book in the World may be confuted in that manner) he hath no great cause to glory in the execution he hath done upon them. In answer to my Lord of Canterburies Adversary, who boasted of the Unity of the Roman Church:Rat. Acc…unt. p. 1. ch. 4. p. 101▪ because whatever the private opinions of men are, they are ready to submit their judgments to the censure and determination of the Church, I had said, that this will hold as well or better for our Unity as theirs, because p. 136all men are willing to submit their judgments to Scripture, which is agreed on all sides to be infallible. Against these words thus taken alone N. O. spends two or three Pages; which might have been spared, if he had but fairly expressed what immediately follows them in these words. If you say it cannot be known what Scripture determines, but it may be easily what the Church defines: it is easily answered, that the event shews it to be far otherwise, for how many disputes are there concerning the power of determining matters of Faith? to whom it belongs, in what way it must be managed, whether Parties ought to be heard in matters of Doctrine, what the meaning of the Decrees are when they are made, which raise as many divisions as were before them; as appears by the Decrees of the Council of Trent, and the later of Pope Innocent relating to the five Propositions; so that upon the whole it appears setting aside force and fraud, which are excellent Principles of Christian Unity, we are upon as fair terms of Union as they are among themselves. I do not therefore say, that the Church of Rome hath no advantage at all in point of Unity, but that all the advantage it hath, comes from force and fraud, and setting these aside, we are upon as good terms of Union as they; and p. 137we do not envy them the effects of Tyranny and Deceit. It is the Union of Christians we contend for, and not of Slaves or Fools; we leave the Turk and the Pope to vie with each other in this kind of Unity, (although I believe the Turk hath much the advantage in it) and I freely yield to N. O. that they have a juster pretence to Vnity without Truth than we. Which is agreeable to what he pleads for,P 43. that they are more united in opinion than we; united in opinion, I say, true or false, saith he, here matters not; we speak here of Vnion not of Truth. P. 44.This and the following of Tyranny, which we complain of, are the two fairest Pleas for their Vnion I ever met with. But this is not a place to examine the pretences to Unity on both sides, that I have at large done in a whole Chapter in the late Book, and if N. O. had intended any thing to purpose against me on this subject, he ought much rather to have fallen on a just Discourse than two such lame Clauses as he makes these to be by his citation of them. And when he doth that, he may hear more of this Subject; in the mean time Infallibility is our business.

And therefore I proceed to the third Argument made use of by N. O. for the proof of Infallibility in the Guides of the Church, § 9.which is from parity of Reason.Of the Argument for Infallibility from Parity of Reason. Because, I p. 138say, Prop. 13.that it is repugnant to the nature of the design, and the wisdom and goodness of God to give infallible assurance to persons, in writing his Will for the benefit of mankind, if those Writings may not be understood by all persons who sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary to their salvation; from hence he inferrs, That if every Christian may become thus infallible in necessaries, from 1. a clear rule. 2. a due Industry used; 3. and a certainty that it is so used; may not the Church-Governours still much rather be allowed Infallible, and so retain still their infallible Guideship; and the people also, the more clear the rule of Faith is proved to be, the more securely be referred to their direction? and have we not all reason to presume that the chief Guides of the Church (even a General Council of them, or if it be but a major part of this Council, 'tis sufficient) in their consults concerning a point necessary to salvation delivered in Scripture, use at least so much endeavour (for more needs not) as a plain Rustick doth, to understand the meaning of it, and also the like sincerity? For what they define for others, they define for themselves also, and their salvation is as much concerned as any other mans is, in their mistakes. And next, why may not these Governours upon such certainty of a sincere endeavour p. 139and clearness of the rule take upon them to define these points and enjoyn an assent to and belief of them to their subjects; especially since it is affirmed that all those from whom they require such obedience, if they please to use a sincere endeavour may be certain thereof as well as they? And are we not here again arrived at Church-infallibility, if not from extraordinary divine assistance, only sincere endeavour being supposed? And thus doe not his conditional Infallibility of particular persons in necessaries, the condition being so easie, necessarily inferr a moral impossibility of the Churches erring in them; especially those necessaries being contracted to the Apostles Creed, as it is by some.

To lay open the weakness of this Discourse, which appears fair and plausible at first view, I shall give an account of these two things.

1. What Infallibility I attribute to private persons.

2. How far the parity of reason will extend to the Infallibility of the Guides of the Church.

1. As to the Infallibility by me attributed to private persons; no such thing can be inferred from my words; and I wish N. O. would have kept to my own expressions, and not foisted in that term of Infallibility, without which all his Discourse would have betrayed its own p. 140weakness. For take the terms which I laid down, and apply them to the Guides of the Church, and see what a mighty Infallibility springs from them. For if it be repugnant to the nature of the design, and to the wisdom and goodness of God to give infallible assurance to persons in writing his Will for the benefit of mankind, if those Writings may not be understood by all persons who sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary for their salvation, how doth it hence follow that the Guides of the Church must be infallible in teaching matters of Faith? If I had asserted that particular persons were infallible in determining what was true, and what not; then I grant the Argument would have much more held for those whose office it is to guide and direct others. But what he means by mens being infallible in necessaries, I do not well understand; for it is capable of three several meanings: 1. That either men are infallible in judging of necessaries to salvation; 2. or, That men are infallible in teaching others what art necessaries to salvation. Or 3. That men are infallible in believing such things as are necessary to salvation, i. e. that such is the goodness of God, and the clearness of Scriptures, that no man who sincerely desires to know what is necessary to salvation shall be deceived p. 141therein; and what is this any more than to assert that God will not be wanting in necessaries to mankind; and although I know no reason for using the term of Infallibility thus applied, yet the thing it self I assert in that sense, but in neither of the other: and what now can be inferred from hence by a parity of reason, but that the Guides of the Church, supposing the same sincerity shall enjoy the same priviledge, which I know none ever denied them; but what is this to their infallibility in teaching all matters of Faith? which is the only thing to be proved by him. If he can prove this as necessary for the salvation of mankind as the other is, then he would do something to his purpose, but not otherwise. So that all this discourse proceeds upon a very false way of reasoning from believing to teaching, and from necessaries to salvation, to all matters of Faith, which the Guides of the Church shall propose to men.

2. But may we not inferr, that if God will not be wanting to particular persons in matters necessary to their salvation, much less will he be wanting to the Guides of the Church in all matters of Faith? No certainly, unless it be proved that their Guidance is the only means whereby men can understand what is necessary to salvation; which is utterly denied by us, God having otherwise provided for p. 142that, by giving so clear a Rule in matters necessary, that no man who sincerely endeavours to know such things shall fail therein. But will not the same sincerity in the Guides of the Church, extend to their knowing and declaring all matters of Faith? This is a thing possible, and supposing God had entrusted them with the infallible delivery of all matters of Faith, were not to be questioned; but that is the thing still in dispute, and is not to be supposed, without proving it by plain evidence from those Books which are agreed on both sides to contain the Will of God. Besides, that no man that is acquainted with the proceedings of the Council of Trent, will see reason to be over-confident of the sincerity of Councils so palpably influenced by the Court of Rome as that was. But however is it not fit in these matters that particular persons should rather yield to the guidance of others, than to the conduct of their own reason? Which is N. O's. farther Argument in this matter, viz. That a Fallibility being supposed, it is more fitting to follow prudent and experienced, though fallible persons direction rather than our own. To this I answer in these following particulars.

1. That God hath entrusted every man with a faculty of discerning Truth and Falshood;§ 10. supposing that there were no persons in the World to direct or guide him.Of the Authority of the Guides of the Church For p. 143without this there were no capacity in mankind to be instructed in matters of Religion; and it were to no purpose, to offer any thing to men to be believed, or to perswade them to embrace any Religion. To make this plain, I will suppose a Person come to years of understanding, not yet professing any particular Religion to whom the several Religions in the world are proposed by men perswaded of the truth of them, viz. the Christian, the Jewish, and the Mahumetan: He hears the several arguments brought for each of them, and hath no greater opinion of the teachers of one than of another, I desire to know whether this person may not see so much of the truth and excellency of Christian Religion, above the rest as to choose that and reject all the rest. I hope no one will deny this; now if a man does here upon his own judgment and reason choose the Christian Religion, so as firmly to believe it, then God hath given to men such a faculty of judging, that upon the proposal of truth and falshood, he may embrace the true Religion and reject the false, and such a Faith is acceptable and pleasing to God; Otherwise no man could embrace Christianity at first upon good grounds.

2. This faculty is not taken away, nor men forbidden the exercise of it in the choice of p. 144their Religion by any principle of the Christian Religion; for our Saviour himself appealed to the Judgement of the persons he endeavored to convince;John 5. 36, 9.John 5:36John 5:9 he made use of many arguments to perswade them, he directed them in the way of finding out of truth, he reproved those who would not search into the things delivered to them. All which were to no purpose at all, if men were not to continue the exercise of their own Judgements about these matters. Accordingly we find the Apostles appealing to the Judgements of private and fallible persons concerning what they said to them,1 Cor. 10. 151 Cor 10:15 although themselves were infallible, and had the greatest Authority over them; we find them, not bidding the Guides of the Church p…ove all things and the people held fast that which they delivered them; 1 Thess. 5. 21.1 Thess 5:21but Commanding them indifferently to prove all things and hold fast that which is good, i. e. what upon examination they found to be so; we find those commended, who searched the Scriptures daily whether the things proposed to them were so or no. Acts: 7▪ 11.So that we see the Christian Religion d…th not forbid men the exercise of that faculty of judging, which God hath given to mankind.

3. The exercise of this faculty was not to cease as…oon as men had embraced the Christian p. 145Doctrine. For the precepts given by the Apostles do belong to those who are already Christians, and that concerning the matters proposed by their Guides; nay they are expressly commended to try and examin all pretences to Infallibility and Revelation upon this great reason because there should be many false pretenders to them. Beloved believe not every Spirit, but try the Spirits whether they be of God, 1 John 4. …1 John 4for many false Prophets are gone out into the world. Gal. 1. 8.Gal 1:8They are commanded not to believe any other Gospel though Apostles or an Angel from Heaven should preach it; and how should they know whether it were another or the same if they were not to examin and compare them?Jude v. 4. They are bid to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the Saints; it might be a new Faith for any thing they could know, if they were not competent Judges of what was once delivered:Mat. 24. 4, 5. 23▪ 24.Matt 24:4Matt 24:5Matt 24:23Matt 24:24 They are frequently charged to beware of Seducers and false Guides, Acts. 20. 29▪ 30.Acts 20:29Acts 20:30that should come in the name of Christ and his Apostles; they are told,1 T…m. 4. 1 that there should come a falling away and departing from the Faith; 2 Thess. 2. 3.2 Thess 2:3and that the time will come when men will not endure sound Doctrine, 2 Tim. 4. 3, 4.2 Tim 4:32 Tim 4:4and shall turn away their ears from … truth and believe fables; 2 T…ess. 2. 9, …0.that such shall come with all deceivableness of unrighteousness; with powers and signs and p. 146lying wonders. To what end or purpose are all these things said, if men being once Christians are no longer to exercise their own Judgements, but deliver them up into the hands of their Guides? What is this, but to put them under a necessity of being deluded when their Guides please? and as our Saviour saith,Matt. 15. 14.Matt 15:14 When the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch.