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

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

p. 1464. The Authority of Guides in the Church is not absolute and unlimited but confined within certain bounds. Which if they transgress they are no longer to be followed.… 1. 8. So St. Paul saith, if we or an Angel from Heaven teach any other Gospel let him be accursed, so that the Apostles themselves though giving the greatest Evidence of Infallibility were no longer to be followed than they held to the Gospel of Christ. And they desired no more of their greatest Disciples whom they had Converted to the Christian Faith,… Cor. 11. 1. than to be followers of them as they were of Christ, 2 Cor. 1. 14.2 Cor 1:14they told them they had no dominion over their faith, although they were far more assisted with an infallible Spirit, than any other Guides of the Church could pretend to be ever since. Therefore no present Guides, what ever names they go by, ought to usurp such an Authority over the minds of men which the Apostles themselves did not challenge; p. 147although there were greater reason for men to yield up their minds wholly to their guidance. We are far from denying all reasonable and just authority to be given to the Guides of the Church; but we say that their Authority not being absolute is con…ined to some known rule; And where there is a rule for them to proceed by, there is a rule for others to Judge of their proceedings; and consequently men must exercise their Judgements about the matters they determin whether they be agreeable to that r…le or n…t.

5. Where the Rule by which the Guides of the Church are to proceed hath determined nothing, there we say the Authority of the Guides is to be submitted unto. For otherwise, there would be nothing le…t, wherein their Authority could be shewn, and others pay obedience to them, on the account of it. Therefore we plead for the Churches Authority in all matters of meer order and decency, in indifferent rites and ceremonies; and think it an unreasonable thing to … the Govern…u…s of a Christian society the Priviledge of Commanding in things which God hath n…t al… ready determined by his own Law. We plead for the respect and reverence which is due to the Lawful constituti…ns o… the Church whereof we are members; and … the just Authority of the Guides it, in the p. 148exercise of that power which is committed to the Governours of it; as the successours of the Apostles in their care of the Christian Church, although not in their Infallibility.

6. We allow a very great Authority to the Guides of the Catholick Church in the best times of Christianity; and look upon the concurrent sense of Antiquity as an excellent means to understand the mind of Scripture in places otherwise doubtful and obscure. We prosess a great Reverence to the Ancient Fathers of the Church: but Especially when assembled in free and General Councils; We reject the ancient heresies condemned in them; which we the rather believe to be against the Scripture, because so ancient, so wise and so great persons did deliver the contrary doctrine, not only to be the sense of the Church in their own time but ever since the Apostles. Nay we reject nothing that can be proved by an universal Tradition from the Apostolical times downwards; but we have so great an opinion of the Wisdom and Piety of those excellent Guides of the Church in the Primitive times, that we see no reason to have those things forced upon us now, which we offer to prove to be contrary to their doctrine and practice. So that the controversy between us is not about the Authority of the Guides of the Church, but whether p. 149the Guides of the Apostolical and Primitive times ought not to have greater Authority over us, than those of the present Church in things wherein they contradict each other? This is the true State of the Controversy between us; and all the clamours of rejecting the Authority of Church Guides are vain and impertinent. But we profess to yield greater reverence and submission of mind to Christ, and his Apostles, than to any Guides of the Church ever since: we are sure they spake by an Infallible Spirit, and where they have determined matters of Faith or practice, we look upon it as arrogance and presumption in any others to alter what they have declared. And for the Ages since, we have a much g…eater esteem for those nea…est the Apostolical times and so downwards, till Ignorance, Ambition, and private Interests sway'd too much among those who were called the Guides of the Church. And that by the confession of those who were members of it at the same time; which makes us not to wonder that such corruptions of doctrine and practice should then come in: but we do justly wonder at the sincerity of those who would not have them reformed and taken away.

7. In matters imposed upon us to believe or practise which are repugnant to plain commands of Scripture, or the Evidence offense, p. 150or the grounds of Christian Religion; we assert that no Authority of the present Guides of a Church, is to overrule our faith or practice. For there are some things so plain, that no Man will be guided by anothers opinion in them; If any Philosopher did think his Authority ought to overrule an Ignorant Mans opinion, in saying the snow which he saw to be white was not so; I would fain know whether that Man did better to believe his eyes or the prudent, experienc'd Philosopher? I am certain, if I destroy the Evidence of sense I must overthrow the grounds of Christian Religion; and I am as certain if I believe that not to be bread which my senses tell me is so, I must destroy the greatest Evidence of sense; and which is fitter for me, to reject that Evidence which assures my Christianity to me, or that Authority which by its impositions on my faith overthrows the certainty of sense? We do not say that we are to reject any doctrine delivered in Scripture which concerns a Being infinitely above our understanding, because we cannot comprehend all things contained in it; but in matters lyable to sense and the proper objects of it, we must beg pardon if we prefer the grounds of our common Christianity before a novel and monstrous figment, hatched in the times of Ignorance and Barbarism, foster'd by p. 151faction, and imposed by Tyranny. We find no command so plain in Scripture that we must believe the Guides of the Church in all they deliver, as there is that we must not worship Images, that we must pray with understanding, that we must keep to our Saviours Institution of the Lords supper; but if any Guides of a Church pretend to an Authority to evacuate the force of these Laws, we do not so much reject their Authority, as prefer Gods above them. Doth that Man destroy the authority of Parents, that refuses to obey them, when they Command him to commit Treason? That is our case in this matter, supposing such Guides of a Church which otherwise we are bound to obey, if they require things contrary to a direct Command of God, must we prefer their Guidance before Gods? If they can prove us mistaken we yield, but till then the Question is not, whether the Guides of the Church must be submitted to rather than our own reason? but whether Gods authority or theirs must be obeyed? And I would gladly know whether there be not some Points of faith, and some parts of our duty, so plain, that no Church-Authority determining the contrary ought to be obey'd?

8. No absolute submission can be due to those Guides of a Church who have opposed and contradicted each other, and condemned one an…ther for errour and here…y. For then p. 152in case of absolute submission a Man must yield his assent to contradictions; and for the same reason that he is to be a Catholick at one time, he must be a heretick at another. I hope the Guides of the present Church pretend to no more infallibility and Authority than their predecessours in the same Capacity with themselves have had; and we say they have contradicted the sense of those before them in the matters in dispute between us. Yet that is not the thing I now insist upon; but that these Guides of the Church have declared each other to be fallible by condemning their opinions and practices; and by that means have made it necessary for men to believe those not to be infallible, unless both parts of a contradiction may be infallibly true. Suppose a Man living in the times of the prevalency of Arrianism, when almost all the Guides of the Church declared in favour of it, when several great Councils opposed and contradicted that of Nice, when Pope Liberius did subscribe the Sirmian confession and Communicated with the Arrians, what advice would N. O. give such a one if he must not exercise his own Judgement, and compare both the doctrines by the rule of Scriptures? must he follow the present Guides even the Pope himself? Then he must joyn with the the Arrians. Must he adhere to the Nicene p. 153Council? but there were more numerous Councils which condemned it. What remedy can be supposed in such a case, but that every person must search and examine the several doctrines, according to his best ability, and judge what is best for him to believe and practise? No answer can be more absurd in this case than that which some give, that Liberius only erred in his External profession of faith and not in the belief of it; for we are now speaking of such as are to be Guides to others, and on whose direction they are to rely, which must be something which may be known to them. Supposing then, that Liberius when he subscribed and joyned with the Arrians, was a Catholick in his heart this takes as much off from the Authority of a Guide, as Errour would do. For who dare rely upon him who acts against his conscience and believes one way and does another? Would any in the Church of Rome think it fit to submit themselves to the direction of such persons, whom they were assured, did not believe one word of what they professed; but joyned in communion with that Church only for some temporal ends? But in truth Liberius went so far, that Hilary denounces an Anathema against him, and all that joyned with him. Neither was this the only case of this nature to be supposed; for p. 154the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon proving ineffectual for the suppression of the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies, and rather greater disturbances arising in the Church after the later of these, because the writings of Theodorus of Mopsuestia and Theodoret against Cyril, and of Ibas to Maris the P…rsian not being therein condemned which were suppo…ed to favour the Nesto…ian heresy, the Nestorians increasing their faction under the Authority of those writings, and the Eutychians making that their plea for rejecting that Council because it seemed to favour Nestorianism; the Emperour Justinian by the perswasion of Theodorus of Caesarea resolves to have those three Chapters (as they were called) condemned, hoping by this means to perswade the Eutychian faction to accept the Council of Chalcedon and thereby to settle peace in the Church, which was then miserably rent and divided. To this end by the consent of the four Eastern Patriarchs, he publishes an Edict wherein he condemns the three Chapters, and Anathematizes those who should defend them; to this Edict the Guides of the Eastern Church subscribed;…. But Vigilius then Pope, (although Victor …ununensis, a Writer of that Age saith, that he had given it under his hand to Theodora the Empress, that if he might be made Pope p. 155he would condemn the three Chapters) yet now being by violent hands thrust into the chair, he changes his mind, and declares against the Edict; and threatens excommunication to those who approved it as being contrary to the Catholick faith, established in the Council of Chalcedon; and accordingly Stephanus his Legat withdrew from the communion of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Upon this, the Emperour sends for Vigilius to Constantinople, who being come thither excommunicates the Patriarch of Constantinople and all who condemned the three Chapters, or joyned with those who condemned them; and the Patriarch of Constantinople again excommunicates him; but after 4. or 5. months time, these excommunications were taken off: and Pope Vigilius after that publishes a decree wherein the three Chapters were condemned by him, with a Salvo to the authority of the Council of Chalcedon. Which made the Bishops of Africa, Illyricum and Dalmatia to fall off from him, and Rusticus and Seb…stianus t…o Deacons of his own Church; whom the Pope excommunicated for so doing. Yet the Emperou… himself was not satisfied with that Sa…vo, and the Pope not yielding without it, a General Council was called at Constantin…p…e to put an end to this Controversy; to which the p. 156Pope being solemnly invited refused to come, the Council however proceeds in the examination of the three Chapters; during their session, Vigilius publishes his Apostolical decree or Constitution, to the whole Catholick Church, with the assistance of 16. Bishops of Italy, Africa, and Illyricum, and three Roman Deacons; wherein the Pope defends the three Chapters, and defines in the conclusion of it, That it should be lawful for none to write or teach any thing about these matters, contrary to his present Definition; or to move any farther question about them. Notwithstanding which Definition of the Popes, the Council proceeds to the condemning the three Chapters, and to the Anathematizing those who did not condemn them. That this is the true matter of fact, I am content to appeal to the Acts of the Council, the Edict of Iustinian, the Popes own Decree, or the Writers of that Age, or the most learned persons of the Roman Church,Ba…o… A. D. 546. 547 55…. Petav dogmat. Theolog. Tom. 4. l 1. c. 18 such as …aronius, Petavius and Petrus de Marca, who have all given an account of this Controversy. I now desire to know, what a person in that time should do who was bound to yield an internal assent to the Guides of the Church?Petr. de Marca, dis…rt. de Vigilii decr…to. must he believe the Pope? He not only contradicts the Council but himself too; for it now appears by a p. 157Greek Epistle first published by Petrus de Marcâ out of the King of Frances Library that Vigilius being banished by Iustinian did afterwards retract his own decree so solemnly made, and confirmed the Council. Would not a man now be in a pretty condition that were bound to believe one in all he said that so often contradicted himself? Must he believe the Council? what then becomes of the Popes infallibility? when they were so far from receiving the Popes definition (though done in such a manner, in which Bellarmin saith,Bell. de Rom. Pon…it. l. 4. c. 3. the Pope cannot err, viz. When he teaches the whole Church;) that they reject his decree and determin the quite contrary. I know but one way of evading this, (which is that commonly insisted on by those of the Roman Church,) viz. that all this was not a Controversy about … but persons. So indeed some of the … ours of Vigilius said, when they endeavo…red to extenuate the matter as much as they could finding that the Bishops of Africa, and many in Italy broke off from the Communion of the Roman Church on the account of this quarrel; But I desire any one in this matter to look to their Judgement who were con…erned in this quarrel; and if men are bo…nd to believe their Guides▪ they ought to believe them when they tell them what is a matter p. 158of faith. And from the beginning of this controversy it was accounted a matter of faith, not only by the Emperour, but by the Pope, by the Council, and by the Bishops who opposed the Council; and must we trust them in other things and not in this? Besides, the very proceedings of the Council manifest it according to Be…larmins own rules; for saith he,B…lla…m. de Concil. Auctor. 2. c. 12. we then know a thing to be matter of faith, when the Council declares it to be so, or them to be hereticks who hold the contrary; or, which is the most common, when they denounce Anat…ema, and exclude from the Church, those who hold otherwise; all which agree to this, as will appear by the last collation of that Council. And Pope Vigilius in the Greek Epistle now published in the Tomes of the Councils, wherein he approves the 5^th Council, not only condemns the three Chapters as contrary to saith, but Anathematizes all those who should defend them and like an Infallible Judge very solemnly recants his former Apostolical decree, though delivered by him upon great deliberation, an… with an intention to teach the whole Church. I wonder who there could be in that Age; that believed the Pope to be an infallible Guide? not the Eastern Bishops; who excommunicated him, and decreed directly contrary to him; not the Western, for they likewise p. 159excommunicated him, and not only forsook his Communion, but that of the Roman Church: but did he believe himself infallible, when he so often changed his mind, and contradicted himself in Cathedra? If he did, he was without doubt a brave man, and did as much as man can do.

This Controversy was scarce at an end, (for the Bishops of Istria continued in their separation from the Roman Church for 70. years, w^ch was till the time of Honorius A. D. 626.) when another was started, which gives us yet a more ample discovery of the more than fallibility of the Guides of the Church in that Age, when a Pope was condemned for a Heretick by a General Council; in which case, I would fain know whether of them was infallible? and to which of the Guides of the Church a man owed his internal assent, and external obedience? This being an Instance of so high a nature, that the truth of it being supposed, the pretence of absolute Authority and Infallibility in the Guides of the Roman Church must fall to the ground, no wonder, that all imaginable arts have been used by those of the Church of Rome to take away the force of it; among whom Pighius, Baronius, Bellarmin, Petavius, and Petrus de Marcâ have laboured hardest in acquitting Honorius, but have proceeded p. 160in different ways; and the two last are content the Pope should be condemned for simplilicity and negligence, the better to excuse him from heresy; but one would think these two were as contrary to the office of a trusty Guide, as heresy to one that pretends to be infallible. But the better to understand the force of this Instance, I shall give a brief account of the matter of fact, as it is agreed on all sides; and the representing the divisions among the Guides of the Church at that time, will plainly shew how unreasonable it had been, to have required absolute submission to such who so vehemently contradicted each other.

We are therefore to understand, that the late Council at Constantinople being found unsuccessful, for bringing the Eutychians and their off-spring, to a submission to the Council of Chalcedon, another expedient was found out for that end, viz. that acknowledging two natures in Christ they should agree in owning that there was but one will and operation in him after the Union of both natures: because will and operation were supposed to flow from the Person and not barely from the nature; and the asserting two wills would imply two contrary principles in Christ which were not to be supposed. This Expedient was first proposed to Heraclius p. 161the Emperour by Athanasius the Patriarch of the Iacobites, or Paulus the S… verian and approved by Sergius Patriarch of Constantinople, and by Cyrus of Alexandria, and Theodorus Bishop of Pharan near Aegypt. Cyrus proceeded so far in it as by that means to reconcile the Theodosiani, a sort of Eutychians in Alexandria, to the Church, of which he gives an account to Sergius of Constantinople and sends him the Anathema's which he published, among which the 7^th. was against those who asserted, more than one operation in Christ. Sergius approves what Cyrus had done; but Sophronius a learned Monk, coming to Alexandria vehemently opposed Cyrus in this business; but Cyrus persisting he makes his address to Sergius at Constantantinople, and tells him of the dangerous heresy that was broaching under the pretence of Union; after some heats Sergius yielded, that nothing should be farther said of either side. But Sophronius being made Bishop of Ierusalem, he publishes an Encyclical Epistle wherein he asserts two operations and Anathematizes those who held the contrary and were for the Union; and writes to Honorius then Pope, giving him an account of this new heresy of the Monothelites; the same year Sergius writes to him likewise of all transactions that had hitherto p. 162been in this matter, and desires to know his judgement in such an affair, wherein the Peace of the Church was so much concerned. Honorius writes a very solemn letter to Sergius, wherein he condemns the contentious humour of Sophronius, and makes as good a confession of his faith as he could, in which he expresly asserts that there was but one Will in Christ and agrees with Sergius that there should be no more disputing about one or two operations in Christ. Accordingly Heraclius by the advice of Sergius publishes his Ecthesis or declaration to the same purpose, which was approved by a Synod under Sergius; but opposed by Iohn 4. Bishop of Rome, yet still maintained at Constinople not only by Sergius, but by Pyrrhus, and Paulus his successours, who were both excommunicated by Theodorus succeeding Iohn; after him Pope Martin calls a Council, wherein he condemns all the Eastern Bishops who favoured this new heresy, and the two Edicts of silence published by Heraclius and Constans: but was for his pains sent for to Constantinople and there dyed. These contentions daily increasing, after the death of Constans, Constantinus Pogonatus resolves to try all ways for the peace of the Church; and therefore calls a General Council at Constantinople A. D. 680.Concil. Constat. 3. Act. 13.Acts 13 wher… the Heresy of the p. 163Monothelites was condemned; and the Writings of Sergius, Cyrus, Theodorus and Honorius in this matter, as repugnant to the doctrine of the Apostles, and decrees of Councils and the judgement of the Fathers; and agreeable to the false doctrine of Hereticks and destructive to souls: and not content meerly to condemn their doctrine, they further proceed to Anathamatize, and expunge out of the Church the names of Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Petrus, Paulus, and Theodorus: and after these, Honorius, as agreeing in all things with Sergius and confirming his wicked doctrines.

Here we are now come to the main point; we see a Pope delivering his judgement in a matter of faith concerning the wh…le Church condemned for a Heretick by a General Council for so doing: either he was rightly condemned or not; if rightly, what becomes of the infallibility of the Pope when he pretends to teach the whole Church in a matter of faith? If not rightly, what becomes of the authority and sincerity of General Councils, if a Council so solemnly proceeding sho…ld condemn one for Heresy, that not only did not err; but if some may be believed, could not? Surely the Council never thought of that, when they make no scruple of condemning him with the rest. What? were p. 164Pope Agatho's Legats there present, and could not inform the Council of their presumption in judging the Infallible See? But no such thing was heard of in those times; these latter Ages have been only blessed with the knowledge of this unerring priviledge; and happy had it been if all the records of former times had been burnt, that no Instances might have been brought to overthrow it. Yet wit and industry have not been wanting to bring poor Honorius off, if it had been possible: the sum of all may be reduced to these 3. Answers. 1. Either that the Acts of the Council are falsifyed. Or. 2. That the Pope did not err in faith. Or. 3. Supposing he did err, it was only as a private person and not as Head of the Church.

1. That the Acts of the Council are falsifyed. This is a shrewed sign of a desperate cause, when against the consent of all ancient Copies, both Greek and Latin, and the Testimonies of several Popes and Councils afterwards, learned men are driven to so miserable a shift as this. The first I find, who made this answer was Albertus Pighius, and after him Baronius and Bellarmin have embraced it: but the more ingenuous men of their own Church have been ashamed of it.Can. lo…. Theol. l. 6. c. 8. Melchior Canus confesseth that not only this p. 165General Council, but the seventh, and eighth under Adrian, and that several other Popes have confessed the truth of the thing; and therefore he doth not see how Pighius can vindicate Honorius in this matter.Francise. Toa…ens. de 6. 7. 8. Synod. Flor. A. D. 1551. Franciscus Torrensis (afterwards better known by the name of Turrianus) a man highly applauded by Baronius, Hosius, Lindanus, and others, writ a Book of the 6. 7. and 8. Synod, wherein he severely chastises Pighius for his ill usage of this sixth Council, and saith that in this matter he shewed more prejudice than judgement. For, whereas he suspects that the letter of Honorius to Sergius was not sufficiently examined and compared with the Original, this betray's saith Turrianus, his great negligence in reading the Acts of the Council; for in the latter end of the 12. Session, it is expresly said that the Authentick Latin Epistle of Honorius was produced and compared by the Bishop of Porto; Besides how comes, saith he, the name of Honorius to be no less than 9.P. 11. 12. times in the Council? and if all this had been by the Greeks corrupting the Copies, surely they would never have left that passage remaining concerning the corrupting the letters of Mennas and Vigilius: How comes Leo 2. in his Epistle to the Emperour wherein he confirms the Council,P. 14. to Anathematize Honorius by name as guilty of heresy; some indeed, p. 166saith he, may say this is counterfeit too, (so do Baronius and Binius) but they have nothing but their bare conjecture for it, no argument, or authority to confirm it. Not only the Greek Writers, but the Latin confess he was there condemned, so doth Bede, saith he, so doth the Pontifical Book in the life of Leo 2. and in the Council under Martin at Rome the Epistle of Paulus to Theodorus was read, wherein was mentioned the consent of Honorius and Sergius, and no one there opposed it. Humbertus Legat of Leo 9. in his Book against the Greeks reckons Honorius among the condemned Monothelites. P. 24.How came all the Copies to be corrupted at once, as he farther urges, that there are none left sound to correct others by? But that which he insists upon as the strongest argument of all is, from Hadrian 2. who calling a Council at Rome for the condemning of Photius, for Anathematizing him, hath these remarkable words; that no Bishop of Rome was Anathematized before unless it were Honorius who after his death was condemned for heresy, …. Allocutio 3. Hadriani 2. ad Co…c. Ro. Tom 8.in which case alone it is lawful for inferiours to resist the…r Superiours and to reject their doctrine; although even there, Conc. Gen. …d Lu…. Par. 1671. P. 1… 91.they would never have done it if the Bishop of the first See had not consented to it. A very considerable Testimony; not only to p. 167prove that Honorius was comdemned for heresy, but that a Pope may be guilty of it and be lawfully proceeded against for it, and that Pope Agatho did himself consent to the condemnation of Honorius. Notwithstanding these arguments of Torrensis, Baronius seeing that no other defence could be made, persists in the same accusation of Forgery: and out of his own head frames an improbable story of the corrupting the Copies of the Council by Theodorus, who being, saith he,Baron. A. D. 681. n. 29. Anathematized as a Monothelite, expunged his own name and put in that of Honorius. A fiction so groundless and unreasonable, that nothing but meer despair could drive a man of common understanding to it. For there is not the least countenance for it in any Author; not the least colour of probability in the thing. For, that, all the Copies of the Council should be corrupted by one man, and neither the Popes Legats present at the Council nor any else should take notice of it; That, no succeeding Popes should discover it, when they were concerned to vindicate Honorius, but did own the thing to be true; that Theodorus then living should be condemned, before it was known whether he would submit to the Council or not; that, in the seventh and eighth Councils this should not be at all suspected, but the condemning Honorius p. 168expresly mentioned in both; that, a man at that time deposed from his Patriarchat of Constantinople should be able to make such a razure and forgery in the Copies of the Councils; that the Emperour Constantine who took so much care about the Council should suffer such a thing to be done, do all make this figment of Baronius so remote from any likelyhood, that Baronius had need to have prayed as once a man upon the rack did, that he might tell probable lyes. But all the miscarriages of Baronius in this matter are so fully laid open by one of their own Church,Francis. Combesis Historia h…res. Monotheli…r. c. 2. that I need not Insist any longer upon it; to whom no answer hath been given but that substantial one of an Index Expurgatorius. Alex 7. Index Expu…g…tor. p. 277.Bellarmin likes this way of answering the difficulty about Honorius; but the greatest strength he adds to Baronius is only saying,Bellarm. de Rom. Pontifice l. 4. c. 11. without doubt it is so: and he grants that the Seventh and Eighth Council did believe that Pope Honorius was condemned, but he saith they were deceived by the false Acts of the Council. But however they must believe that the Pope might fall into heresy and be condemned by a Council for it. Yet Bellarmim hath a fetch in this case beyond Baronius viz. That either the Acts of the Council are falsified, or the Council was guilty of intolerable impudence and errour in condemning p. 169Honorius without reason; For all the evidence they produce against him is from his Epistles in which, saith he, nothing is contained, but what is sound and orthodox; And this was the second way of defending Honorius viz. that he did not err in faith at all;Petav dogmat. Theol. l. 1. c. 21. s. 11 and this way is taken by Petavius, and others; and was the way intended by Petrus de Marcâ, as appears by the account given of his design by Baluzius; Bal…zius de vi â Petri Marcae p. 28. 29.which was first to prove by most evident arguments, that the Acts of the Council were never corrupted by the Greeks, against the opinion before mentioned, and next that he was truly condemned by the Council; but not for heresy, but only for negligence and remissness. I think there needs nothing to shew the weakness of this, but barely reading the Anathema of the Council against him, which is not, for bare negligence but for confirming the wicked doctrines of Sergius. And I am apt to think, that learned person saw the weakness of his design too much to go on with it: and Baronius and Bellarmin saw well enough, that whosoever was there Anathematized it was upon the account of heresy that he was so; and therefore Baronius would make men believe the Anathema belonged to Theodorus and not to Honorius. Petavius thinks that Honorius was deceived,Petav. ib. …ect. 13. but it was only by p. 170his simplicity and weakness, not understanding the Controversy aright. So of old Iohn 4. and Maximus in his dispute with Pyrrhus defended Honorius, that he spake indeed of one Will, but that, say they, was to be understood only of one Will in his humane nature. Combesis. c. 2. sect. 3.Which as Combesis saith, is a more pious than solid defence of him; and would as well serve, for Sergius and Cyrus, for Heraclius his Ecthesis and Constans his Type, as Honorius his letter. For who ever will peruse them, will find they all proceed on the same argument, that there could not be two wills in Christ but one must be contrary to the other. But that which I insist on is this, that it is certain the Council approved by the Pope did condemn him for heresy; I desire therefore again to know whether he was rightly condemned or not; if he was, then the Pope must be guilty, and so not infallible; if not, than the Council must be, according to Bellarmin, guilty of intolerable impudence and errour; but in either case, there was no infallibility in the Guides of the Church which could require our internal assent to what they declared. But another defence is yet be…ind, which is, that though the Pope did erre, yet it was in his private Capacity, and not as Head of the Church. But when doth he act as Head of the Church p. 171if not, when he is consulted about important matters of faith, as this was then supposed to be, by two Patriarchs; and when the Church was divided about them; and there upon solemnly delivers his opinion? This is then a meer subterfuge when men have nothing else to say; I conclude therefore this Instance of Honorius with the ingenuous confession of Mr. White, that things are so clear in the cause of Honorius, Tab…lae su… …rag. p. 130.that it is unworthy any grave Divine to pawn his own honour and that of Divinity too, in sowing together Figleaves to palliate it.

Thus far I have shewn that those who pretend the most to be infallible Guides of the Church have opposed and condemned each other; from whence it necessarily follows that no absolute submission is due to them, unless we can be obliged to believe contradictions. I might pursue this much further, and draw down the History of these contradictions to each other, through the following Ages of the Church; wherein Bishops have been against Bishops, Popes against Popes, Councils against Councils, Church against Church; especially after the breach between the Eastern and Greek Churches, the Greek and the Roman, and the Roman and those of the Reformation; But a man who is bound to rely only on the Authority of his Guides, p. 172must suppose them to be agreed; and in case of difference among them, he must first choose his Religion and by that his Guide.

9. In the present divided State of the Christian Church, a man that would satisfy his own mind, must make use of his judgement in the choice of his Church, and those Guides he is to submit to. Unless a man will say, that every one is bound to yield himself absolutely to the Guidance of that Church which he lives in whether Eastern or Greek, Roman or Protestant: which I suppose N. O. will never yield to, for a reason he knows because then no Revolter from us could be justified. The true State then of the present case concerning the Guides of the Catholick Church is this; that it hath been now for many Ages rent and torn into several distinct Communions; every one of which Communions, hath particular Guides over it, who pretend it to be the duty of men to live in subjection to them, because every Church doth suppose it self to be in the right; now the Question proposed is, whether it be not fitter for me to submit to the Guides of the Catholick Church, than to trust my own judgement? I should make no scruple in all doubtful matters to resolve the affirmative, supposing that all the Guides of the Catholick Church were Agreed; for I should think it arrogance and p. 173presumption in me to set up my own private opinion in opposition to the unanimous consent of all the Guides of the Catholick Church, in such a case; but that is far from ours, for we find the Christian World divided into very different Communions. The Eastern Churches are still as numerous, though not so prosperous as the Roman; the extent of the Greek Church alone is very great, but besides that, there are two other distinct Churches in those parts who break off Communion with the Greek on the Account of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon; and the latter sort especially are very far spread in those parts, from Armenia to the Abyssine Empire. Iacob. de Vitriaco hist. Orient. Cap. 77.In the time of Iacobus de Vitriaco, he saith these two Churches were said to be more numerous than the Greek and the Latin; and Bellonius in these later times assures us,Bellonii Obser. l. 1. c. 35. that the rites of the Greek Church do yet extend farther than the Latin. What then makes these Churches to be left out in our Enquiries after the Guides of the Catholick Church? Are these such inconsiderable parts of the Body, that no regard is to be had to them? I believe upon a strict examination, notwithstanding the reproach of heresy and Schism, which those of the Church of Rome cast upon all but themselves, they will be sound much more sou…d parts of the Catholick p. 174Church, than the Roman Church is Five great Bodies or Communions of Christians are at this day in the World. 1. The most Eastern Christians, commonly called Nestorians whether justly or no I shall not now examine, these are spread over the most Eastern parts, and all live in subjection to the Patriarch of Muzal. 2. The Iacobites, who are dispersed through Mesopotamia, Armenia, Aegypt and the Abyssine Empire, and live under several Patriarchs of their own. 3. The Greek Church, of which, besides the Moscovites, are to be reckoned the Melchites or Suriani, and the Georgians; for though their language be different, they all agree in Doctrine. 4. The Roman Church, taking under it all in the Eastern parts who have submitted to the Bishop of Rome. 5. The Protestant Churches who have cast off subjection to the Pope, and Reformed the corruptions they charge the Church of Rome with. Now of these 5. parts, 4. of them are all agreed, that there is no necessity of living in subjection to the Guides of the Roman Church; but they are all under their own proper Guides, W^ch they do not Question will direct them in the right way to Heaven. Only those of the Church of Rome take upon themselves against all sense and reason to be the Catholick Church, and so exclude 4. parts p. 175of 5. out of a capacity of Salvation; and challenge Infallibility as belonging to the Guides of it alone. In this case, the Arrogance of the pretence, the uncharitableness of rejecting so mighty a number of Christians from the possibility of Salvation, are sufficient to make any Man not yield up his Faith at the first demand; but to consider a while, whether there be no other Churches, or Guides in those Churches? when he finds so many and those not inferiour to the Roman Church in any thing save only in pomp, pride, and uncharitableness; and all opposing those arrogant pretences of Authority and Infallibility in it, what reason can he have, supposing that he is to submit to any Guides, that he must submit only to those of the Roman Church? Why not as well to those of the Eastern, Greek, or Protestant Churches? If any one goes about to assign a reason, by charging them with heresy, or Schism, he unavoidably makes him Judge of some of the greatest difficulties in Religion, before he can submit to his Infallible Guides. He must know what Nestorianism, Eutychianism, Monothelism mean, how they came to be heresies, whether the Churches accused be justly charged with them? He must understand all the subtilties of Personalitie, subsistence, Hypostatical Union; whether p. 176the Union of two natures in Christ be substantial, natural, or accidental? whether it be enough to say that the Divine and humane are one by inhabitation, or one by consent, or one by Communion of operation, or one by Communion of dignity and honour, all which the Nestorians acknowledged, only denying the union of two natures to make one Person? supposing a man be come to this, he must then be satisfied that the present Eastern Christians do hold the Doctrine of the old Nesiorians, for they acknowledge Christ to be perfect God and perfect Man; and that the B. Virgin may be called the Mother of the Son of God, or the Mother of the Word, but they stick only at calling her the Mother of God. Then for the other Churches which are charged with E…tychianism, he must understand, the exact difference between nature and Person, for if there cannot be two natures without two Persons, then either the Nestorians were in the right who asserted two Persons, or the Eytychians who denyed two natures; but this being granted, he must be satisfied, that, those called Iacobites are Eutychians, although they disown Eutyches, and follow Dioscorus, asserting that there were two natures before the Union, and but one after; and that Dioscorus was rightly condemned in the Council of Chalce…on; but p. 177supposing they are willing to leave the dispute of two natures, on condition, that the humane nature be only made the Instrument of the Divine in its operations, whether they are justly charged with heresy in so doing? All these things a Man must fully be satisfied in, before he can pronounce those Churches guilty of heresy, and so not to be followe. But supposing those Churches be rejected, why must the Greek, which embraces all the Councils which determined those subtle controversies? Here comes the mystery of the procession of the Holy Ghost to be examined, whether from the Father alone or from the Father and the Son? but supposing this to be yielded, why may he not joyn with those Churches, which agree with the Church of Rome in all those points, as the Protestant Churches do? Here a Man must examine the notes of the Church, and enquire whether they be true notes, whether they agree only to the Roman Church? And one of the greatest of those notes being consent with the Primitive Church, a Man that would be well satisfied, must go through all the disputes between us and the Church of Rome, and by that time he is well settled in them, he will see little use, and less necessity of an Infallible Guide. So that a Man who would satisfy himself in this divided State of the Christian p. 178Church, what particular Communion he ought to embrace and what Guides he must follow, must do all that, for the preventing of which an Infallible Guide is said to be necessary. i.e. he must not only exercise his own judgment in particular controversies, but must proceed according to it, and joyn with that Church which upon Enquiry he judges to be the Best.

10. A prudent submission is due to the Guides of that Church, with which a person lives in Communion. Having shewed that absolute submission is not due, all that can be left is a submission within due bounds, which is that I call a prudent submission. And those bounds are these following.

1. Not to submit to all those who challenge the Authority of Guides over us, though pretending to never so much Power and Infallibility. When N. O. would perswade me to submit my understanding to the Infallible Guides of the Church; He must think me a very easy man to yield, till I be satisfied first that God hath appointed such to be my Guides, and in the next place that he hath promised Infallibility to them. And that is the true State of the Controversy between us and those of the Church of Rome in this matter; they tell us we are bound to submit to the Guides of the Church; we desire to know whom they mean by these Guides; and at last we understand p. 179them to be the Bishop of Rome and his Clergy. Here we demur, and own no Authority the Bishop of Rome hath over us; we assert that we have all the Rights of a Patriachal Church within our selves, that we owe no account to the Bishop of Rome of what we believe or practise; it is no Article of our Creed that God hath made him Iudge either of the quick or the dead; We have Guides of our Church among our selves, who have as clear a succession and as good a title as the Bishops of any Church in the world. To these, who are our Lawful Guides, we promise a due obedience, and are blame worthy if we give it not; but for the Bishop and Clergy of Rome, we own none to them, let them challenge it with never so much confidence, and arrogant pretences to Infallibility. So that here is a contest of Right in the case, antecedent to any duty of submission, which must be better proved than ever it hath yet been, before we can allow any dispute, how far we are to submit to the Guides of the Roman Church?

2. Not to submit to those who are Lawful Guides in all things they may require. For our dispute is now about Guides supposed to be fallible, and they being owned to be such may be supposed to require things to which we are bound not to yield. But the great difficulty now is, so to state these things, p. 180as to shew that we had reason not to submit to the Guides of the Roman Church, and that those of the Separation have no reason not to submit to the Guides of our Church. For that is the obvious objection in this case, that the same pretence which was used by our Church against the Church of Rome, will serve to justify all the Separations that have been or can be made from our Church. So my Adversary N. O. in his preface saith, that by the principles we hold, we excuse and justify all Sects which have or shall separate from our Church. In answer to which calumny I shall not fix upon the perswasion of conscience, for that may equally serve for all parties; but upon a great difference in the very nature of the case, as will appear in these particulars.

1. We appeal to the Doctrine and practice of the truly Catholick Church in the matters of difference between us and the Church of Rome: we are as ready as they to stand to the unanimous consent of Fathers, and to Vincentius Lerinensis his Rules, of Antiquity, universality and consent; we declare, let the things in dispute be proved to have been the practice of the Christian Church in all Ages, we are ready to submit to them: but those who separate from the Church of England make this their Fundamental p. 181principle as to worship, (wherein the difference lyes,) that nothing is Lawful in the worship of God, but what he hath expresly commanded; we say all things are Lawful which are not forbidden, and upon this single point stands the whole Controversy of separation as to the Constitution of our Church. We challenge those that separate from us to produce one person for 1500. years together, that held Forms of prayer to be unlawful; or the ceremonies which are used in our Church: We defend the Government of the Church by Bishops to be the most ancient and Apostolical Government, and that no persons can have sufficient reason to cast that off, which hath been so universally received in all Ages since the Apostles times: if there have been disputes among us about the nature of the difference between the two orders, and the necessity of it in order to the Being of a Church, such there have been in the Church of Rome too. Here then lyes a very considerable difference, we appeal and are ready to stand to the judgement of the Primitive Church for interpreting the letter of Scripture in any difference between us and the Church of Rome; but those who separate from our Church will allow nothing to be lawful but what hath an express command in Scripture.

p. 1822. The Guides of our Church never challenged any Infallibility to themselves; which those of the Church of Rome do, and have done ever since the Controversy began. Which challenge of Infallibility makes the Breach irreconcileable while that pretence continues; for there can be no other way but absolute submission where men still pretend to be infallible: It is to no purpose to propose terms of Accommodation between those who contend for a Reformation, and such who contend that they can never be deceived; on the one side, errours are supposed; and on the other, that it is impossible there should by any. Until therefore this pretence be quitted, to talk of Accomodation is folly, and to design it madness. If the Church of Rome will allow nothing to be amiss, how can she Reform any thing? and how can they allow any thing to be amiss, who believe they can never be deceived? So that while this Arrogant pretence of Infallibility in the Roman Church continues, it is impossible there should be any Reconciliation: But there is no such thing in the least pretended by our Church,Article 21. that declares in her Articles,Articl. 3. that General Councils may err, and sometimes have erred even in things partaining to God; and that all the proof of things to be believed is to be taken from Holy Scripture. So that as to the Ground of Faith p. 183there is no difference between our Church and those who dissent from her; and none of them charge our Church with any errour in doctrine; nor plead that as the reason of their separation.

3. The Church of Rome not only requires the belief of her errours but makes the belief of them necessary to Salvation: which is plain by the often objected Creed of Pius 4. Wherein the same necessity is expressed of believing the additional Articles, which are proper to the Roman Church, as of the most Fundamental Articles of Christian Faith. And no Man who reads that Bull can discern the least difference therein made between the necessity of believing one and the other; but that all together make up that Faith, without which no man can be saved; which though only required of some persons to make profession of, yet that profession is to be esteemed the Faith of their Church. But nothing of this nature can be objected against our Church by dissenters, that excludes none from a possibility of Salvation meerly because not in her Communion, as the Church of Rome expresly doth: for it was not only Boniface 8. who determined as solemnly as he could,Concil. Lateran. A. D. 15 16. s…ct. 11. that it was necessary to Salvation to be in subjection to the Bishop of Rome; but the Council of Lateran under Leo 10. decreed the same thing.

p. 1844. The Guides of the Roman Church pretend to as immediate authority of obliging the Consciences of men, as Christ or his Apostles had; but ours challenge no more than teaching men to do what Christ had Commanded them, and in other things, not commanded or forbidden, to give rules, which on the account of the General Commands of Scripture, they look on the members of our Church as obliged to observe. So that the Authority challenged in the Roman Church encroaches on the Prerogative of Christ, being of the same nature with his; but that which our Governours plead for, is only that which belongs to them as Governours over a Christian Society. Hence in the Church of Rome it is accounted as much a mortal sin to disobey their Guides in the most indifferent things, as to disobey God in the plain Commands of Scripture: but that is not all they challenge to themselves, but a power likewise to dispence with the Law's of God, as in matter of marriages, and with the Institution of Christ as in Communion in one kind; and promise the same spiritual effects to their own Institutions as to those of Christ, as in the 5. Sacraments they have added to the two of Christ, and to other ceremonies in use among them.

5. Setting aside these considerations, we dare appeal to the judgement of any person p. 185of what perswasion soever, whether the reasons we plead for separation from the Church of Rome be not in themselves far more considerable than those, which are pleaded by such, who separate from our Church? i.e. Whether our Churches imposing of three Ceremonies declared to be indifferent by those who require them, can be thought by any men of common sense so great a burden to their Consciences, as all the load of superstitious fopperies in the Roman Church? whether praying by a prescribed form of words be as contrary to Scripture, as praying in an unknown tongue? Whether there be no difference between kneeling at the Sacrament upon Protestants Principles and the Papists adoration of the H…st? Whether Transubstantiation, Image worship, Invocation of Saints, Indulgences, Purgatory, the Popes supremacy, be not somewhat harder things to swallow, than the Churches power to appoint matters of order and decency? Which particulars make the difference so apparent between the separation of our Church from the Church of Rome, and that of dissenters from our Church; that it seems a very strange thing to me that this should be objected by our Enemies on either side. And thus much may suffice to clear this point of submission to the Guides of a Church, of which I have the p. 186more largely discoursed, not for any difficulty objected by N. O. but because the thing it self did deserve to be more amply considered. But some other things relating to Church-Authority I must handle afterwards, and therefore now return to my Adversary.

The next thing to be debated is, §. 11. Of the s…nse of Scripture.what assurance we can have of the sense of Scripture in doubtful places, if we allow no Infallible Guides to interpret them? For that is the second main principle of N. O. that without this Infallible Assistance of the Guides of the Church, there can be no certainty of the sense of Scripture. And it is chiefely o… this Account that N. O. doth assert the necessity of Infallible Guides of the Church: For as appears by his concessions he yields that the Churches Infallibility is not necessary to the foundation of faith;P. 37. for men▪ faith, he saith, may begin at the Infallible Authority of Scriptures; but the main groun… on which he contends for the necessity of Infallible Guides is for the interpretation of controverted places and giving the true sense of Scripture: P. 6. 14.for which he often pleads f… necessity of an external Infallible Guide▪ Because God hath referred all in the dubio… sense of Scripture to the direction of his Ministers their spiritual Guides,P. 47. whom he … p. 187over them to bring them in the Vnity of the Faith to a perfect man;Ephes. 4. 11, 13, 14.Eph 4:11Eph 4:13Eph 4:14 and that they may not be tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of Doctrine, by the sleight of those who lye in wait to deceive. And without which Guide St. Peter observes, that in his time some persons (for any thing we know diligent enough) yet through want of learning, and the instability of adhering to their Guides, being unlearned, saith he, and unstable, wrested some places of Scripture, hard to be understood, to their own destruction.2 Pet. 3. 16.2 Pet 3:16 Therefore these Scriptures are also in some great and important points hard to be understood. And afterwards, he saith, that Christians who have sufficient certainty of the truth of Christianity,P. 67. may be deficient in a right belief of several necessary Articles of this Christian Faith, if destitute of that external infallible Guide therein: without which he determines that men must fluctuate and totter, and vary one from another, whilst the Scriptures are ambiguous in their sense and drawn with much art to several Interests. The force of all which, comes to this, that we can arrive at no certainty of the sense of Scripture in Controverted places, without an external Infallible Guide: and therefore we are bound to submit to him.

Here are two things to be discussed. p. 1881. What necessity there is for the Salvation of persons, to have an infallible interpretation of controverted places of Scripture? 2. Whether the denying such an Infallible Interpreter makes men uncapable of attaining any certain sense of doubtful places? For if either it be not necessary that men should have an infallible interpretation; or men may attain at a certain sense without it, then there can be no colour of an argument drawn from hence to prove the necessity of an infallible Guide.

1. We are to enquire into the necessity o… such an infallible interpretation of doubtf… places of Scripture. There are but three grounds on which it can be thought necessary either that no man should mistake in the sense of Scripture, or that the Peace of the Church cannot be preserved, or that mens Souls cannot be saved without it. If i… were necessary on the first account, then every particular person must be infallible; which being not pleaded for, we must consider the other two grounds of it. But here we are … take notice, that the matter of our prese… enquiry is concerning the clearness of Scripture in order to the Salvation of particul… persons; of which the Proposition laid dow… by me expresly speaks. If therefore N. O. do any thing to overthrow this, he mu… p. 189prove, not that there are doubtful and controverted places which no one denies, but that the sense of Scripture is so doubtful and obscure in the things which are necessary to mens Salvation, that persons without an Infallible Guide cannot know the meaning of them. If he prove not this, he doth not come near that which he ought to prove. We do not therefore deny, that there are places of great difficulty in the Books of Scripture; but we assert, that the necessaries to Salvation do not lye therein; but those being plain and clear, men may be saved without knowing the other. As a Seaman may safely direct his compass by the Stars, although he cannot solve all the difficulties of Astronomy. Can any man in his senses Imagine that Christs coming into the world to dye for sinners, and the precepts of a holy life which he hath given, and the motives thereto from his second coming to Judge the World, are not more plain than the Apocalyphical visions, or the proofs for the Church of Romes Infallibility? If a person then by reading and considering those things which are plain, may do what Christ requires for his Salvation; what necessity hath such a one to trouble himself about an Infallible Guide? For either he may go to heaven without him, or not? if he may, let them shew the necessity p. 190he is of to that end, which may be attained without him; if not, then the things necessary to Salvation cannot be known without him. Let this be proved, and I will immediately yield the whole cause: and till it be proved my Principles remain unshaken. But saith N. O. the Scripture is obscure in some great and important points, because S. Peter saith, that men unlearned and unstable, (though it may be diligent enough) wrested some places of Scriptures hard to be understood to their own destruction. But doth S. Peter say that the Scriptures are so hard to be understood that sober and devout minds cannot learn therein, what is necessary to their Salvation? This had been indeed to their purpose: but it is far enough from St. Peters. He only saith that in St. Pauls Epistles there are some difficult passages, which men that wanted judgement and constancy, and it may be diligence too, were ready to pervert to their own mischief. But if there be such difficulties, is there nothing plain and easy? if bad men may pervert them, may no… good men make a good use of them? If some may destroy themselves by their own weakness and folly, may not others be saved by their diligence and care? If it were proved by N. O. that St. Peter charged all this upo… them for want of adhering to their Guides, p. 191that would approach nearer his business; but if St. Peter had intended any such thing as N. O. insinuates, what fairer opportunity had there been of preventing this Instability in others by telling them, that God had appointed infallible Guides in his Church to prevent such abuses of Scripture, and that, so long as they adhered to them, they were safe; but there is not the least word in St. Peter to this purpose, when it had been most necess… ry to have given such advice; but he only bids them,2 Pet 3. 17, 18.2 Pet 3:172 Pet 3:18 have a care of imitating the inconstancy of such wicked men, and grow in the grace and knowledge of Iesus Christ. If on so fair and just an occasion offered, St. Peter himself whom they believe to have been Head of the Church at that time, and at Rome at the writing of this Epistle, doth wholly omit referring men in the sense of obscure places to Infallible Guides; what can we else infer but that St. Peter knew of no such appointment of Christ, or thought no such thing of necessity for his Church. For if he had, such was his care and faithfulness, he would never have omitted so necessary a thing; if the Salvation of mens souls had depended upon it.

If it be not then necessary to mens Salvation to have an infallible interpretation of p. 192doubtful places;§ 12. Of a Judge of Controver…es. for what other end can it become necessary? Is it, that without this, the Churches peace cannot be preserved, because Controversies arising in the Church, no issue can be put to them, unless there be an infallible Iudge to determine which is the true sence of Scripture? For it is impossible That Scripture it self should be judge, because the Controversy is about the sense of Scripture. So that either there is no way left to determine Controversies, or there must be an infallible judge to deliver the sense of Scripture in …oubtful places. This is the force of all that I know can be said in this matter; to which I answer.

1. The strength of this argument depends upon the supposition of the necessity of determining Controversies in Religion by a living Judge, who must pronounce sentence between the parties in …. Which supposition, how plausible soever it seems, is not built on any sufficient fo…ndation of Scripture or Reason. For the weakness of humane understanding, the power of Interest and passion, and the ambi…ity of words, are as apt to beget disputes in Religion as in any other things; so that we have … ca…se at all to wonder that there should happen to be Controversies among men about there …; when we see them daily happen about the Laws of p. 193every Country. The only Question now is, whether as the necessities of people have made it necessary that there should not only be Laws but Judges, who should be as the most equal Arbitrators to put an end to such differences as may happen among men about matters of Right and Law, it be thus in Religion too? And this Question is plainly about a matter of Fact i.e. whether Christ hath appointed such Judges in all Ages, who are to determine all emergent Controversies about the difficult places of his Law? And in this case we think it is all the reason in the World, that they who Affirm should Prove, especially, when they Affirm a matter of their own Right, and challenge a submission from others on the Account of it. We desire them who challenge to be our infallible Guides, that they would shew their Commission, and produce their Patent: For as we are ready to yield obedience, if they crave it, so we think it Treason and Tyranny in them to usurp it, if they have it not. And it is to no purpose to talk of the Benefits that would come to the world by an infallible Judge of Controversies, unless they first prove that there is one. But we must not allow men to prove things to be, meerly because they think it fitting they should be; for that is to make themselves Wiser than Christ and rather p. 194to tell him what he should have done, than prove what he hath done. What if▪ Christ having provided for the necessaries of Salvation by a clear Revelation should leave other things in the dark, to exercise the Wits of some and the Charity of others? What if, he thought it sufficient to oblige men to the greatest honesty and Integrity in knowing and doing the Will of God, and hath promised to pass by the errours and failings men are subject to barely as men? What if, he foresaw this matter of ending Controversies would be an occasion of raising one of the greatest in the Christian World, and become a pretence of the most intolerable Tyranny over the minds of men? And therefore what if, he thought it reasonable to leave the failings of mens understandings and lives upon the same terms, so as to give sufficient means to prevent either, but not effectually to hinder men from falling into either of them? What if, the nature of Religion will not bear such a determination of Controversies as civil matters will? because, civil matters concern the right and wrong of particular persons, in which it is not the sentence of the Judge so much as the Civil force whereby it is backed which puts an end to the dispute; but in matters of Religion, the ending Controversies can be no effect of force p. 195and power, but of reason and conviction of Conscience; and all the pretended infallibility in the World can never satisfy my mind, unless I be first assured of that infallibility. In all civil causes, it is agreed on both sides that such Judges are appointed to determine cases of Law; and on the supposition of this men proceed to tryal before them; but in our case this is the main thing in dispute, and he that pretends to be the Judge is the most accused partie, and what reason can there be, that only on the pretence of greater peace, if Controversies were referred to an infallible Judge, we must therefore allow every one that pretends to it to be such an infallible Guide? And we must on the same ground allow every one, if we must not first be satisfied of the grounds on which it is challenged by any one. And withal, since Christ is the best Judge of what is fittest for his Church, we must see by his Laws whether he hath made it necessary for all Controversies to be ended by a standing Judge, that should arise about the sense of Scripture? If he hath not done it, it is to no pu…pose to say, it is fit he should have done it; for that is to upbraid Christ with weakness and not to end differences in his Church.

2. Supposing it necessary that Controversies p. 196should be ended, it may as well be done without an infallible Judge of the sense of Scripture as with one; for all that is pretended to be done by an infallible Judge is to give a certain sense of controverted places; so that men are either bound to look on that which they give as the certain sense on the account of the infallibility of the Interpreter, or that such an infallible interpretation being set aside, there is no way to know the certain sense of Scripture. If the first, then no man can be more certain of the sense of any doubtful place, than he is of the infallibility of his Interpreter: I desire therefore to be resolved in this case. I am told I can arrive at no certainty of the sense of doubtful places of Scripture without an infallible Interpreter, I say the places of Scripture which are alledged for such an infallible Judge are the most doubtful and controverted of any; I would fain understand by what means I may come to be certain of the meaning of these places, and to find out the sense of them? Must I do it only by an infallible Guide? but that is the thing I am now seeking for, and I must not suppose that which I am to prove. If I may be certain without supposing such an infallible Guide of the meaning of these very doubtful and controverted places, than why may I not p. 197by the same way of proceeding arrive at the certainty of any other less doubtful and obscure places? unless there be some private way to come at the sense of those places which will hold for none else besides them, which is not so easy to understand.

2. I come the…efore to the second enquiry, which is about the means of attaining the certain sense of Scripture in doubtful places, without the supposition of an infallible Guide. It will not I hope be denyed, that the Primitive Christian Church had a certain way of understanding the sense of doubtful places, as far as it was necessary to be understood, and that they wanted no means which Christ had appointed for the ending of Controversies. But I shall now shew, that they proceeded by no other means than what we use, so that, if they had any means to come to a certain sense of Scripture, we have the same; and it would be a ve…y hard case if by the use of the same means we cannot attain the same end. I shall therefore give an account of the proceeding of the Primitive Church in this weighty Controversy concerning the sense of Scripture in doubtful places; and if no such thing was then heard off as an infallible Judge, it is a plain demonstration, they thought there was none appointed; because the disputes that happened p. 198then required as much the Authority of such a Judge as any that are at this day in the Christian Church.

In the first Ages of Christianity, there were two sorts of Controversies which disturbed the Church;§13. The way used in the Primitive Church f…r finding the sense of Scripture one was concerning the Authority of the Books of the new Testament, and the other concerning the sense of them. For, there was no one Book of the New Testament whose Authority was not called in Question, by some Hereticks in those first Ages. The Gnosticks, (by whom I understand the followers of Simon Magus Menander, Saturninus and Basilides), ha… framed a new Religion of their own under the name of Christian, and had no regard to the Writings either of the old or new Testament, but had a Book of their own, which they called the Gospel of Perfection. But as Epiphanius well observes,…. …6. sect. 2. 3. no man that hath understanding, needs Scripture to refute such a Religion as theirs was; for right reason alone was sufficient to discover the folly and filthyness of it. …The followers of Cerinthus and Ebion acknowledged no other Gospel but that of St. Matthew; …and that not entire, but with diverse corruptions and interpolations according to their several fancies. Cerdon and Marcion allowed no Gospel p. 199but that of St. Luke, C. 29. L. 3. c. 11.which they altered according to their pleasure, cutting off the Genealogy and other places, and inserting many things as it served most to their purpose, as may be seen at large in Epiphanius. Epipha…. hae…. 42.Some say, the Valentinians received no other Gospel but that of St. Iohn, (as the Alogi in Epiphanius rejected that alone,) but I do not find that Valentinus did reject any, but added more;Iren l. 3. c. 11. for Irenaeus chargeth the Valentinians only with adding another Gospel, which they called the Gospel of Truth; and Tertullian expresly saith, that Valentinus therein differed from Marcion,T…rtull. de praecip haeret. c. 38. that Marcion cut off what he pleased with his sword, but Valentinus corrupted it with his pen; for although he allowed all the Books of the New Testament, yet he perverted the meaning of them. Eusebius tells us that the followers of Severus rejected the Epistles of S. Paul and the Acts of the Apostles;Eus. b. hist. Eccl…s l. 4. c. 29. and interpreted the Law, and the Prophets and the Gospels after a peculiar sense of their own. So that we see those who undertook to confute these Hereticks were not only to vindicate the true sense of Scripture, but to dispute with such, who did not own the same Books which they did; and therefore were forced to use such ways of arguing as were proper to them: as may be seen at large by the proceedings of Irenaeus, p. 200and Tertullian against them. But because the Valentinians and Marcionites did endeavour to suit their extravagant fancies to the Scriptures allowed by them, it will be necessary for us, to enquire by what means they went about to clear the true sense of Scripture from their false Glosses and Interpretations. Irenaeus in the beginning of his Book, relating at large the Doctrines of the Val…ntinians, … l. 1. c. 1.saith, that by the perverse interpretations and corrupt expositions of the Scripture, they drew away unstable minds from the true faith; for they pretended to find out deeper and more mysterious things in the Scripture, than others were acquainted with, viz. That Christ intimated the 30. Aeöns by not appearing till the 30. year of his Age. That the parable of men called at the first, the third, the sixth, the ninth, the eleventh hour referred to the same thing, for those hours make up the number of 30. That St. Paul often mentions these Aeöns and the pro…uctions of them; that the duodecade of Aeöns was implyed in our Saviours …isputing with the Doctors at 12. years of Age, and in the choice of the 12. Apostles: and the remaining 18. By his abiding 18. months as they said with his Disciples after his resurrection: and where ever in Scripture they met with words suitable to the description of their Aeöns, they pretended p. 201that they did refer to their notions, but were obscurely expressed on purpose: for which end they made use of Parables, and the first of St. John and many passages in St. Pauls Epistles. What course now doth Irenaeus take to clear the sense of Scripture in these controverted places? Doth he till them that God had appointed Infallible Guides in his Church, to whom appeal was to be made in all such cases? Nothing like it, through his whole Book; but he argues with very good reason that no such thing as they imagined could be intended by the Scripture.

1. From the scope and design of the Scripture, which ought chiefly to be regarded; whereas they only took some particular passages which served most to their purpose, without looking to the series of the discourse wherein they were. Therefore saith he, they make only a rope of sand, when they apply the Parables of our Saviour, or the sayings of the Prophets or Apostles to their opinions;Iren. l. 1. c. 1. for they pass over the order and connexion of the Scriptures; and as much as in them lyes loose the members of truth from each other; and then transform and change them from one thing to another, thereby deceiving men. As if, saith he, a man should take an excellent Image of a Prince, done with a great deal of art in pretious p. 202stones; and remove those stones out of their proper places and turn them into the shape of a Dog or a Fox, ill put together, and should then affirm, that because the stones are the same, that this Image of a Dog or a Fox, was the Image of the Prince made by such an excellent Artist: after the very same way, saith he, do they use the Scriptures. Or as he afterwards expresseth it, they take several words and names here and there, and put them together, much after the way of those who would apply the words of Homer to any argument proposed to them; which some have done so artificially, that unskilful men have been perswaded that Homer did mean that very thing when he wrote his Poem. As one did the going of Hercules to Cerberus so exactly in the words of Homer, (put together in the Greek fragments of Irenaeus,) that those who did not consider upon what different occasions those words were used by him, some being spoken of Vlisses, some of Priamus, some of Maenelaus, and Agamemnon, and some of Hercules, might Imagine that the Poet intended to describe what the other expressed by him. But he that will examine the several places will find that the words indeed are Homers, but the p. 203sense his that so applyed them. So it is in this case, the words are the Scriptures, but applyed quite in another way, than they were intended; the stones are the same, but yet the Image of the Fox is not to be taken for that of the Prince: and when he hath taken the pains to put every thing in its proper and due place, he will then easily find out the deceit. And by the help of this rule Irenaeus vindicates the places of Scripture, which the Valentinians made use of; and makes it evident that could not be the sense of them which they put upon them. As he doth particularly prove that St. Iohn by the beginning of his Gospel could not mean the first Ogdoad of the Valentinians. To the very same purpose doth Tertullian argue against their way of interpreting Scripture; Tertull. de praescrip. haeret. c. 39.That although it seems to have wit and easiness in it, yet it is no more than is often practised on Virgil and Homer as well as the Scriptures. For we have seen Virgil, saith he, with the same words turned quite to another sense; as Hosidius Get a made the Tragoedy of Medea, Pet. Scrive i… fragmata … Tragicorum. p. 187.out of Virgil (some fragments whereof are still extant) and one had explained Cebes his Table in Virgils words; and many had applyed the words of Homer in their Cento's to different purposes, and not only p. 204some of late,Isidor: Or…gin. l. r. c. 38. but Isidore▪ saith, that Prob… and Pomponius before his time had mad… Virgil Evangelize. Therefore it is n… wonder, saith Tertullian, that the Scripture should be so abused, it being much more fruitful, and applicable to several purposes than other Writings are. Nay saith he, I am not afraid to say, that the Scriptures were so framed by the Will of God, that they might afford matter for Hereticks to work upon; since I read that there must be heresies, which cannot be without the Scripture. And surely then, he did not Imagine that God had appointed an infallible Judge on purpose to prevent the being of Heresies, by giving an infallible sense of Scripture.

2. From the repugnancy of the sence they gave to other places of Scripture. Irenaeus observes,Iren. l. 2. c. 46. that the Hereticks delighted most in dark places, and left the plain ones; whereas we ought most to rely upon the plain places and by them interpret the obscure. For such who loved God and the truth would study most those things which God put under our command and knowledge: and those are things which are plain before our eyes, and are open and without ambiguity laid down in Scriptures; and to these Parables and dark places ought to p. 205be fitted, and by this means they may be interpreted without danger, and of all alike and the body of truth remains entire with a suitableness of all its parts. But without this every man interprets as he pleases, and there will be no certain rule of Truth; but every interpretation will be according to the opinion of the Interpreter, and m…n will contradict each other as the Philosophers did. And by this means men will be always seeking and never finding because they cast away the means of finding. Seeing therefore, saith he, that all the Scriptures both Prophetical and Evangelical are plain and clear, and may be heard alike of all: they must be very blind that will not see in so great light, but darken themselves in Parables, wherein every one of them thinks he hath found a God of his own. And from hence he very much blames the Hereticks, since they could not so much as pretend that any thing was plainly said for them in Scripture, but only intimated in dark sayings and parables, that they would leave that which is certain and undoubted and true, for that which was uncertain and obscure. Which, he saith, is not to build the house upon the firm and strong ro…k; but upon the uncertainty of the sand; on which it may p. 206be easily overturned. This excellent rule for interpreting Scripture Irenaeus makes great use of in his following discourse, and in the very next Chapter urges this as the Consequence of it, that having truth for our Rule, and so plain Testimony of God, men ought not to perplex themselves with doubtful Questions concerning God, but grow in the love of him who hath done and doth so great things for us, and never fall off from that knowledge which is most clearly revealed. And we ought to be content with what is clearly made known in the Scriptures, because they are perfect, as coming from the w…rd and Spirit of God. And we need … …onder if there be many things in Religion above our understandings, since there are so in natural things which are daily seen by us: as in the nature of Birds, Water, Air, Meteors, &c. of which we may talk much, but only God knows what the truth is. Therefore why should we think much if it be so in Religion too? wherein are some things we may understand and others we must leave to God, and if we do so we shall keep our faith without danger. And all Scripture being agreeable to it self, the dark places must be understood in a way most suitable to the sense of the plain.

p. 2073. The sense they gave of Scripture was contrary to the Doctrine of faith received by all true Christians from the beginning: which he calls the unmoveable rule of faith received in Baptism;Iren. l. 1. c. 1. and▪ which the Church dispersed over the Earth did equally receive in all places;C. 2. with a wonderful consent. For although the places and languages be never so distant or different from each other,C. 3. yet the faith is the very same as there is one Sun which inlightens the whole World; which faith none did enlarge or diminish. And after having shewn the great absurdities of the Doctrines of the Enemies of this faith, in his first and second Books, in the beginning of the third he shews that the Apostles did fully understand the mind of Christ,L. 3. c. 1. that they preached the same Doctrine which the Church received, and which, after their preaching it, was committed to writing by the Will of God in the Scriptures, to be the pillar and ground of Faith. Which was the true reason why the Hereticks did go about to disparage the Scriptures because they were condemned by them:C. 2. therefore they would not allow them sufficient Authority, and charged them with contradictions, and so great obscurity that the truth could not be found in them without p. 208the help of Tradition, which they accounted the key to unlock all the difficulties of Scripture. And was not to be sought for in Writings, but was delivered down from hand to hand; for which cause St. Paul said we speak wisdom among them that are perfect. Which wisdom they pretended to be among themselves. On this account the matter of Tradition came first into dispute in the Christian Church: And Irenaeus appeals to the most eminent Churches and Especially that of Rome, C. 3.because of the great resort of Christians thither, whether any such tradition was ever received among them and all the Churches of Asia received the same faith from the Apostles, and knew of no such Tradition as the Valentinians pretended to.C. 4. and there was no reason to think, that so many Churches, founded by the Apostles or Christ, should be ignorant of such a tradition; and supposing no Scriptures at all had been written by the Apostles, we must then have followed the Tradition of the most ancient and Apostolical Churches, and even the most Barbarous nations that had embraced Christianity without any Writings: yet fully agreed with other Churches in the Doctrine of Faith, for that is it he means by the rule of p. 209faith, viz. a summary comprehension of the Doctrine received among Christians, such as the Creed is mentioned by Irenaeus; L. 1. 6. 2.and afterwards he speaks of the Rule of the Valentinians in opposition to that of the sound Christians.L. 4. Praebat. From hence Irenaeus proceeds to confute the Doctrine of the Valentinians by Scripture and Reason in the third,L. 5. Praehat. fourth and fifth Books: All which ways of finding out the sense of Scripture in doubtful places, we allow of and approve; and are always ready to appeal to them in any of the matters controverted between us and the Church of Rome. But Irenaeus knew nothing of any Infallible Judge to determine the sense of Scripture; for if he had, it would have been very strange he should have gone so much the farthest way about, when he might so easily have told the Valentinians that God had entrusted the Guides of his Church, especially at Rome with the faculty of interpreting Scripture, and that all men were bound to believe that to be the sense of it which they declared and no other. But men must be pardoned if they do not write that which never entred into their Heads. After Irenaeus, Tertullian sets himself the most to dispute against those who opposed the Faith of the Church; and the method he takes in his Boo of Praescription p. 210of Hereticks is this.

1. That there must be a certain unalterable Rule of Faith. Tertull. de praescript haeret. c. 8.For he that believes, doth not only suppose sufficient grounds for his faith, but bounds that are set to it; and therefore there is no need of further search since the Gospel is revealed. This he speaks to take away the pretence of the Seekers of those days,C. 9. who were always crying, seek and ye shall find: to which he replys, that we are to consider not the bare words, but the reason of them; And in the first place we are to suppose this, that there is one certain and fixed Doctrine delivered by Christ which all nations are bound to believe, and therefore to seek, that when they have found they may believe it.C. 10 Therefore all our enquiries are to be confined within that compass; what that Doctrine was, which Christ delivered: for otherwise there will be no end of seeking.

2. He shews what this Rule of Faith is, by repeating the Articles of the Ancient Creed, which he saith was universally, received among true Christians and disputed by none but Hereticks.C. 13. Which Rule of Faith being embraced, then he saith, a liberty is allowed for other enquiries in doubtful or obscure matters. For faith lyes in the Rule;C. 14 but other things were p. 211matters of skill and curiosity; and it is faith which saves men, and not their skill in expounding Scriptures: and while men keep themselves within that Rule, they are safe enough, for to know nothing beyond it, is to know all.

3. But they pretend Scripture for what they deliver, and by that means unsettle the minds of many. To this he answers several ways.

1. That such persons as those were, ought not to be admitted to a dispute concerning the sense of Scripture; because they rather deserved to be censured than disputed, for bringing such new heresies into the Church;C. 16. but chiefly because it was to no purpose to dispute with them about the sense of Scripture, who received what Scriptures they pleased themselves, and added and took away as they thought fit.C. 17. And what can the most skilful men in the Scripture, do with such men, who deny or affirm what they please? therefore such kind of disputes tended to no good at all, where either side charged the other with forging and perverting the Scriptures,C. 18. and so the Controversy with them, was not to be managed by the Scriptures, by which either none, or an uncertain Victory was to be obtained.

p. 2122. In this dispute about the sense of Scripture, the true Ancient faith is first to be enquired after, for among whom that was, there would appear to be the true meaning of Scripture.C. 19. And for finding out the true faith, we are to remember, that, Christ sent abroad his Apostles to plant Churches in every City, from whence other Churches did derive the faith,C. 20. which are called Apostolical from their agreement in this common faith at first delivered by the Apostles; that, the way to understand this Apostolical faith is to have recourse to the Apostolical Churches;C. 21. for it is unreasonable to suppose that the Apostles should not know the Doctrine of Christ,22. C. 23.C. 24.C. 25.C. 26.C. 27.(which he at large proves) or that they did not deliver to the Churches planted by them the things which they knew; or that the Churches misunderstood their Doctrine because all the Christian Churches were agreed in one Common faith:C. 28. and therefore there is all the reason to believe that so universal consent must arise from some common cause, which can be supposed to be no other than the common delivery of it by all the Apostles. But the Doctrines of the Hereticks were novel and upstart;C. 29. and we must say all the former Christians were baptized into a false p. 213faith, as not knowing the true God or the true Christ if Marcion and Valentinus did deliver the true Doctrine,C. 30. but that which is first is true and from God, that which comes after is foraign and false. If Marcion and Valentinus, Nigidius or Hermogenes broach new opinions and set up other expositions of Scripture than the Christian Church hath received from the Apostles times, that without any farther proof,discovers their imposture.

3. Two senses directly contrary to each other cannot proceed from the same Apostolical persons. This Tertullian likewise insists upon to shew that although they might pretend Antiquity, and that as far as the Apostolical times, yet the contrariety of their Doctrine to that of the Apostles would sufficiently manifest the falshood of it. For saith he, the Apostles would never contradict each other or themselves;C. 32. and if the Apostolical persons had contradicted them, they had not been joyned together in the Communion of the same faith; which all the Apostolical Churches were. But the Doctrines broached by these men, were in their seeds condemned by the Apostles themselves;C. 33. so Marcion, Apelles, and Valentinus were confuted in the Sadducees, and first corrupters of Christianity. But p. 214the true Christians could not be charged by their Adversaries with holding any thing contrary to what the Church received from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God. For the succession of the Churches was so evident,C. 36. and the Chairs of the Apostles so well known,C. 37. that any one might satisfy his curiosity about their Doctrine, especially since their authentick Epistles are still preserved therein. But where a diversity of Doctrine was found from the Apostles, that was sufficient evidence of a false sense that was put upon the Scriptures. Thus Tertullian lays down the rules of finding out the sense of controverted places of Scripture, without the least insinuation of any infallibility placed in the Guides of the Church for determining the certain sense of them.

But lest by this way of Prescribing against Hereticks, he should seem to decline the merits of the cause out of distrust of being able to manage it against them, he tells us therefore elsewhere he would set aside the ground of prescription, or just exception against their pleading, (for so prescription signifies in him) as against Marcion and Hermogenes and Praxeas and refute their opinions upon other grounds. In his Books against Marcion, p. 215he first lays down Marcions rule, as he calls it, i.e. the sum of his opinion, which was making the Creator of the World, and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ two distinct Gods, the one nothing but goodness, and the other, the Author of evil: which opinion he overthrows from principles of reason,T…rtull. c. Mar. l. 1. c. 2. because there cannot be two infinitely great, and on the same grounds he makes two he may make many more,C. 4. 5, 6. and because God must be known by his works,C. 11. 12. and he could not be God that did not create the World; and so continues arguing against Marcion to the end of the first Book. In the second he vindicates God the Creator from all the objections which Marcion had mustered against his goodness. In the third he proves that Christ was the Son of God the Creator;L. 3. c. 5. first by reason and then by Scripture, and lays down two rules for understanding the Prophetical predictions relating to the manner of expressing future things as past, and the aenigmatical way of representing plain things: afterwards he proves in the same manner from Scripture and Reason,C. 8. 9. that Christ did truly assume our nature and not meerly in appearance; which he demonstrates from the death and resurrection of Christ and from the evidence of sense; and makes that sufficient evidence p. 216of the truth of a body that it is the object of three senses, of sight, and touch and hearing. Which is the same way of arguing we make use of against Transubstantiation, and if Marcion had been so subtle to have used the Evasions those do in the Roman Church, he might have defended the putative body of Christ in the very same manner that they do the being of accidents without a substance▪ In the fourth Book he asserts against Marcion the Authority of the Gospel received in the Christian Church above that which Marcion allowed,L. 4▪ c. 4 by the greater Antiquity and the universal reception of the true Gospels;C. 5. and after refutes the supposition of a twofold Christ one for the Jews and another for the Gentiles from the comparing of Scriptures together,C. 7 &… which he doth with great diligence and answers all the arguments from thence brought by Marcion, to prove that Christ was an enemy to the Law of Moses. In his fifth and last Book he proves out of the Epistles of St. Paul, allowed by Marcion, that he preached no other God than the Creator, and that Christ was the Son of God the Creator; which he doth from the scope and circumstances of the places without apprehending the least necessity of calling in any Infallible Guides to give the certain sense and meaning of them.

p. 217Against Hermogenes, Tertull. adversus Hermog. c. 19.he disputes about the eternity of matter; the Controversy between them he tells us was concerning the sense of some places of Scripture, which relate to the Creation of things; Tertullian proves that all things were made of nothing, because it is not mentioned out of what they were made; Hermogenes proves they were made out of matter; because it is not said they were made of nothing. To determine therefore the sense of these places Tertullian shews from reason the repugnancy of the eternity of matter to the attributes of God:C. 20. 21. he compares several places of Scripture together,C. 22. he reasons from the manner of the expressions and the Idiom of Scripture. I adore, saith he, the fulness of the Scripture which shews me both the maker and the thing made; but the Gospel likewise discovers by whom all things were made. But the Scripture no where saith that all things were made out of matter. Let the shop of Hermogenes shew where it is written; and if it be not written let him fear the wo denounced to those who add or take from what is written. He examins the several places in dispute, and by proving that sense which Hermogenes put upon them to be repugnant to reason, (as he shews to the end of that Book) he concludes p. 218his sense of Scripture to be false and erroneous.

Against Praxeas, he disputes whether God the Father took our nature upon him,T…rtull. adversus Prax…am. c. 20. and the arguments on both sides are drawn from the Scriptures; but Tertullian well observes, that they insisted upon two or three places of Scripture, and would make all the rest though far more, to yield to them. Whereas the fewer places ought to be understood according to the sense of the greater number. But this saith he, is the property of all Hereticks because they can find but few places for them, they defend the smaller number against the greater: which is against the nature of a rule, wherein the first and the most, ought to oversway the latter and the fewer. And therefore he sets himself throughout that Book to produce the far greater number of places of Scripture, which do assert the distinction between the Father and the Son; and consequently that it could not be the Father who suffered for us.